مجله مطالعات باستان شناسی پارسه
پیاپی 24 (تابستان 1402)

Iran holds great significance for the question of the eastward expansion of the Acheulean hominins, as it is situated between the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian subcontinent, both of which have long and rich records of the Acheulean techno complex. Despite its strategic location, Iran has produced little evidence of the Acheulean techno complex. The only notable examples have been found in the western and northwestern regions of the country. The absence of Acheulean sites in southern Iran cannot be justified. Because this region, located in the northern parts of the Persian Gulf, was one of the main dispersal routes for Acheulean hominins towards the east. Here, we present a report on the discovery of a Lower Paleolithic locality near Dehtal, located in the northern region of the Persian Gulf. Additionally, we discuss the techno-typological characteristics of the lithics found in the area. Dehtal yielded a small, but characteristic lithic assemblage, which included a handaxe, a massive scraper, a large flake, and a flake core. The raw materials used are sandstone and fossiliferous limestone rock, which can be found as cobbles and boulders in secondary contexts on the northern slopes of Par-e Lavar. In addition to these findings, two boulder cores with large removal scars were also documented in the area, indicating large flake production in this locality. The site offers a unique opportunity to study a lithic assemblage in a relatively unknown area within the distribution range of the Acheulean technocomplex.

The correct position and the determining role of the second and first millennium BC cultures in the Fars region (Marvdasht plain) which we know as the Shoqa/Timuran cultures and the importance of this culture in the transition from the prehistoric to the historical period (Achaemenid) are still not well known. Despite of extensive archaeological research that has been done in the Marvdasht plain and the presence of significant sites of this period, due to the limited and generally very old excavations in these sites, it is still difficult to understand these developments. During that time, huge developments were taking place in Khuzestan and Fars regions; Changes usually created many conflicts between native cultures and southwestern cultures origin (Elamite).Some archaological findings, such as weapons, are signs of the height of such conflicts in the past. This paper will study and introduce the collection of weapons of Toll-e Shoqa, which were obtained from the excavations of Mahmoud Rad in 1942 and Vandenberg in 1950 in that site, those are now kept in the National Museum of Iran. These collections have been studied recently in the inventory project in the National Museum of Iran archives. So far, few cultural materials from Toll-e Shoqa have been published and more emphasis has been placed on its pottery; the pottery is the basis of the relative chronology of this period in the Fars region. Unfortunately, the results of the archaeological excavations in Shoqa were never fully published and all its cultural materials were not introduced. In the organizing project of the National Museum of Iran which will be described and analyzed in this paper.

Ziwiye, as one of the key sites for Iran’s North West Iron Age (Median kingdom), has many masterpieces kept in different museums and a long list of publications. The main part of this list consists of monographs that are written based on one or more limited objects from an out of context collection. There are few articles that comprehensively include the findings “attributed Ziwiye” and “came from excavation”. However, many articles have been published about Zavieh’s findings, but parts of this collection still remain unknown and do not receive enough attention. The corpus of bone arrowheads is one of them, some of which were found during archaeological excavations while others came to museums from antiquities dealers. These include: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Musée du Louvre in Paris, the National Museum of Iran in Tehran, and the Sanandaj Archaeological Museum. This article aims to introduce and categorize 51 bone arrowheads. Some of these were registered as ivories, but our research concluded that all of these were made of bone. In few instances, the production manner prevented the proper identification of bone versus ivory. Another examined point in this research is whether such arrowheads were produced for actual warfare or for prestige and symbolic use in ceremonial events considering their bone material. The examined samples from other sites show that bone can be hard enough to penetrate game and human body even with light protection such as archery. Bone for making arrowheads was used for hunting big games and some tribes still use them.

This paper will compare the characteristics of four ancient Iranian, copper alloy weapons. These weapons are from private collections in the USA at the time of examination. The first two weapons fall into the category of dirks (or daggers). This characterization is based on the overall length of the weapons in question. For comparative purposes, a dagger reaches 30 cm, a dirk is a classification for weapons with overall lengths of 30-50 cm, while a sword would have an overall length of over 50 cm. Because precise archaeological data is absent for these pieces, we examined short-term provenance and microscopic analysis, together with stylistic components to verify the authenticity and general cultural origin of each specimen. The hilt of each weapon is bordered by a ridge, or flange, on both sides that would have allowed for an organic or stone inlay to make the grip more comfortable and functional, as well as adding to the aesthetics of the piece.  The pommels of these weapons all have a similar, crescent shape. Weapon 2, has not only a crescent-shaped pommel but also a more pronounced, crescent-shaped guard. Both of the dirks (weapons 1 and 2) have roughly triangular blades. However, the blade of weapon 1 becomes narrower near the guard while the blade of weapon 2 does the opposite and flares out near the guard. Microscopic examination of the patinas confirms the ancient origin of each piece, however, subtle differences in the patinas suggest that the alloys and/or the burial conditions of each were potentially different. This would be an area where further study would be warranted.

The artifact studied in this paper is a bimetallic sword made of bronze handle and an iron blade, which was excavated from the Tol ancient cemetery, located in Talash city, Gilan province, in 2001 by Mohammad Reza Khaltabari. This research aims to study the technology and pathology of the mentioned object by conducting comparative and archeological studies using the library method, conducting technological studies using the laboratory methods of radiography, metallography, and microstructural observations using a scanning electron microscope (SEM-EDS). The phase analysis of corrosion products was done by X-ray diffraction (XRD), as well as knowing the manufacturing method and identifying the types of damage and corrosion. The result shows that this work belongs to the Iron Age. Also, the tests performed on the two parts of the handle and the blade showed that the material of the iron blade is iron-carbon alloy. The amount of carbon in different parts of the body of blade is not the same and the handle is made of bronze alloy with casting and hammering techniques. It also has a galvanic corrosion effect.

The article reviews chivalry traditions, developed in ancient Iran, and their transition and transformation to the country’s post-Islamic history. The author analyses the cultural mechanisms, which provided this movement, and argues that its roots and prerequisites should have taken place in Great Khorāsān at the very turn of the ‘Abbāsid revolt in the middle of the century CE. This was a period when an external call activated forces and facilities, preserved in the stratum of Iranian knights, to become the basis for the later military evolution within the new circumstances. The cultural importance of Khorāsān for the Iranian state and rule at the turn of the Muslim era is reflected in written texts. The early muslim period in Great Khorāsān was a special time as Iranian predominance mingled with multicultural traditions in the boundary region. The topic is presented in a wide context including Irasnian literary, artistic, and artisanal sources, helping to visualize the historical backdround of Iran. This is based on philosophical doctrines for Iranian cultural developement proposed by contemporary scholars.

Sasanian Empire was one of the most powerful periods in ancient Iran. Archaeological evidence and traces, and Sasanian and Post-Sasanian texts show cultural and artistic relations of the Sasanian Empire from the East to the West. However, official Sasanian methods of warfare are one of the most important legacies of the period that have been less studied. These offensive and defensive arms and armor can be analyzed by looking at remaining evidence left by kings and officials within the national borders to the lands abroad. Sasanian swords are depicted on rock reliefs, silver dishes, and coins (drachmas and dinars). Although studies have been done on the classification of Sasanian swords shown on rock reliefs, no systematic study on the depiction of Sasanian swords on Sasanian drachms has been done so far. The following paper tries to restudy the subject by comparing the swords depicted on Sasanian coins and compare them to the swords shown on rock reliefs and dishes. Sasanian swords are depicted on different Sasanian royal arts such as Sasanian coins, Sasanian silver dishes, and Sasanian rock reliefs. Different elements will be taken into consideration such as the shape of swords in general and their method of hanging from the belt in particular. A closer look shows that Sasanian drachmas and dinars show two major types of hanging Sasanian swords via a scabbard slide system: A. hanging the sword in front of the body. B. hanging the sword on the left or the right hip. Additionally, the following paper will compare them to some extant examples of Sasanian swords that are kept in museums and private collections.

This article addresses and re-examines Marc-Anthony Karantabias’ analysis of factors that contributed to the defeat of the Sasanian Spāh by Heraclius by 627-628 CE. Karantabias’ analysis may be categorized into four (military) misconceptions with respect to the Spāh: (1) the notion that the late Sasanian Spāh lacked stirrups for the Savaran cavalry (2) the alleged refusal or lack of knowledge of the Mongolian draw which is proposed to have been of greater efficacy than the Sasanian (3-finger) bowshot (3) the notion of “Persian conservatism” leading to the Spāh’s refusal to adopt new military technologies and (4) the alleged supremacy of Steep/Central Asian and/or Hun-Turkic cavalry warfare over the Sasanians. These four misconceptions fail to be supported by a close examination of archaeological sites (e.g., Taghe Bostan) and artifacts (e.g., Sasanian stirrups, metal works, etc.), primary sources and pertinent research studies. A fifth misconception pertains to the lack of consideration of the shortcomings of the Sasanian four-Spadbed system which Heraclius was able to successfully exploit against the Sasanian empire. In conclusion, Heraclius’ successes are attributed to his exploitation of the weaknesses of the four-Spāhbed system as well as the Byzantine willingness to adopt Steppe/Central Asian technology (e.g., compound bow, iron stirrup).

A study of the arrow guide or nāvak in Iran. It covers the technical aspects of arrow guides and how they may have entered Iran. In Persian, arrow guides are called nāvak and their projectiles are called tīr-e nāvak. However, sometimes nāvak is used for the arrow as well, and even the bow. It also covers how outside cultures viewed Iran as a source of innovation in the further development of these devices. In Arabic they are called majrā and this is the term most familiar in the west due to two important translations of Arabic archery manuals into English, Arab Archery and Saracen Archery, but they were mentioned earlier as nāvak in an English translation of part of the Hidāyat ar-Rāmī, where they were mistakenly described as crossbows. Essentially, an arrow guide is a partially closed tube used with a bow to shoot a short arrow drawn much farther than its length would normally allow. This produces a projectile that has increased velocity and less friction through the air than a regular arrow. The arrow guide has had a long history in Iran, probably entering in the last years of the Sasanian Dynasty, surviving the Arab conquest and persisting until the gradual takeover by firearms. It was fertile ground for invention with many variations being spread across the Islamic world. The persistent association with Iran in Arabic archery manuals reflects the perception that much of its development was tied to Persian users. Here, Persian and Arabic sources are examined. Reference is made to original artefacts and reconstructions.

This paper utilizes an approach that combines studies of Samanid period artifacts and textual accounts with modern genetic studies to explore the identity of the people who were involved in long distance trade from the far eastern regions of the Central Asia into Northern Europe. Although this study does not analyze the Samanid works, it reiterates and illustrates how important Iran/Persia was in the history of Europe as well as Central Asia. The information contained in the artifacts and texts gives us the evidence needed to understand the vast trade network and the people who were responsible for the movement of these goods, people and ideas.  This study reconfirmed recent genetic studies that the people, collectively termed Rus or Vikings, were a mixture primarily of Scandinavians, Slavs, and Turks, with additional admixing with local populations. The importance of the Persian and Arabic sources addressing contact between the Rus and Eastern people has been thoroughly discussed by Thorir Jonsson Hraundal. In these texts, the Rus were referred to by different names including Majus, Northmanni, Urduman, Warank as well as by other names. One of his many observations is the unmistakable influence of Turkic culture on that of the Rus. This complex ancestry is supported by recent genetic studies and will be discussed in more detail below in light of archaeological evidence. Thus, the term Rus refers to a way of life rather than a homogenous ethnic or cultural group. However, this study refined the identity of the people responsible by observing a correlation between the distribution of the genetic haplogroup R1a sub-clade and the long-distance trade routes across Central Asia to Northern Europe, with the central focus in Eastern Europe.  Despite the vast distance, the evidence indicates that there were cultural contacts between people with linked ancestry. The study is important because it begins to reveal the unexpected influence of Eastern cultures on those of Northern Europe.

In recent years there has been a growing interest among historians, historical martial artists, reenactors, and those who are interested in Eastern culture as well as in Persian offensive and defensive weapons to have a more detailed study of armor. The change in the paradigm of defensive weapons throughout Western Asia (the last quarter of the 15th to the first quarter of the 16th century) has not yet been fully investigated. Reconstruction of mail-and-plate armor from a period between 1540-1650 CE is quite challenging as most museums or major private collections do not have a complete set. Based on a detailed study of existing sets of joshan armor and several technical assumptions related to the design of this type of armor, the present study tries to reconstruct a fully protective complex of a joshan armor that was worn by a noble Persian warrior. The purpose of the following article is to reproduce a Persian mail-and-plate armor from a period between 1540-1650 CE in its original size and design with its inherent properties and qualities. Different existing sets of this type of armor from museums are studied and compared to different miniatures and literary sources. Based on the collected information gained from theoretical and practical research, the article presents a historical armor design and provides advice on the practical reconstruction and production of such a set of armor. Armor masters were looking for the best combinations and ratio of plates and mail armor in one set. They were experimenting with the shapes and sizes of plates, the number of holes, diameters, geometry, and method of ring interconnections. Characteristic of the armor of this period is rather large plates and a small number of their rows (3-5 rows on the chest/back), a small overlap of the plates in a row, basically only the same standard plates are used, large mail rings (inner diameter about 10 mm).

Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr Mubarākshāh al-Qurashī was born around 1150 CE, probably in Ghazna, and eventually joined the court of Quṭb al-Dīn Aybak, the first Turkish Mamlūk or “Slave King” of northern India. He died around 1224 CE. His Ādāb al Ḥarb wa’l Shujācah (“Rules of War and Bravery”) was a treatise on statecraft in the Persian tradition of “Mirrors for Princes”. A substantial, if idealised discussion of warfare, it includes sections on tactics, troop organisation, various weapons, sieges and many military-historical anecdotes. Nevertheless, these chapters also include more recent, more localised Indian and Turkish elements, plus otherwise lost aspects of military practice or theory. For example, the essentially traditional Islamic or ʿAbbāsid sections include Chapter 12 which describes “How to arrange an army firmly and to maintain that (arrangement)”. The first part of Chapter 13 describes “How to bring the army to a halt and the (best) place to do this”. Some specifically military chapters of theĀdāb al Ḥarb wa’l Shujācah are clearly based upon ʿAbbāsid military theory as developed during the 8th to 10th centuries CE; notably sections such as “How to arrange an army firmly and to maintain that (arrangement)”, and “How to bring the army to a halt and the place to do this”. Other sections reflect more recent Indo-Islamic, Indian and Turkish military ideas, as well as otherwise lost aspects of earlier military practice, plus plans of military arrays, idealised encampments and exercises in the tradition of Islamic furusīyah military training manuals. Chapter 11, which is interpreted here, concerned the characteristic features, advantage and usage of a wide array of weapons. Chapter 19, which is also interpreted here, focussed on various aspects and variations in the array and deployment of an army for battle.

The Turban helmet is a type of war helmet during the 14th to 16th centuries AD in Middle East countries. This type of helmet has become known by Western scholars by this name because of the special decorations that made it look like a turban as well as the visibility of the helmet from under the warriors’ turban. Based on the numerous documents remaining, one can say that the use of Turban helmets was popular in Middle East territories’ armies during the Middle Ages. Despite being widely used and in style for more than two centuries and among many west Asian countries, among all the remaining samples of this type of middle eastern helmet, only two distinct styles, the Turkoman and the Ottoman styles, have been examined and introduced. This can be due to a large number of remaining samples of these two being kept for years in the armouries of the Ottoman Empire. Apart from these two known styles, few studies have been done so far on investigating other possible types of turban helmets. The purpose of this research is to study the turban helmets that were popular among the armies of the Il-khanid, Jalayirid, Muzaffarid, Timurid, Turkoman, and Safavid that ruled respectively in the cultural Iran region, by relying on the remaining documents from the 14th to the 16th centuries, such as the collection of helmets and illustrated manuscripts. The results of this research reveal that the changes that occurred in the making of turban helmets during the 14th to the 16th centuries have led to the representation of four different types of helmets: Mongolian style, Timurid style, Turkoman style, and Qizilbash style.

Tappeh Bazgir is one of the most important archaeological sites of the Late Bronze Age in northeastern Iran. At this site, a hoard of 759 Bronze Age copper-alloy objects with an approximate weight of more than two tons was excavated. This find is unique in terms of volume and the extraordinary finds it contained. This archaeological hoard was discovered by chance in 2001, and in 2010 a rescue excavation was carried out at the findspot. This hoard had been buried in the virgin soil and deliberately concealed under a residential floor in the Late Bronze Age. The objects recovered served different purposes; they include agricultural and household implements, tools, ceremonial objects and a variety of weapons. The artifacts were all located next to each other in a pit and had been arranged in a regular manner. There were also three shields among these objects. They had been placed next to each other under basins with gutter-shaped pipes and on top of daggers, hatchets, axes, two-pronged forks, and stone rods. These weapons had evidently been positioned at close to the domestic objects. The shields are of strikingly similar shapes, but they differ slightly in the number of openings and bars. Up to now, no similar shields have been found at any other archaeological site. These shields seem to be the oldest shields excavated in Iran. XRD and XRF analyses revealed that one of the shields and other objects of the hoard were made of cast copper-alloy, and they were subjected to cold forging/hammering later.