Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2): (1-12)
Reassessment of the Preliminary Report on Prehistory of
Southwestern Iran (Hole & Flannery 1967)
Hamed Vahdati Nasab1
Received: 13/12/2009
Accepted: 23/1/2010
Abstract
There has been more than four decades since Frank Hole and Kent Flannery
conducted a field expedition in central Zagros Mountains located in western Iran, in
1963. From then onward, numerous discoveries and field projects have been done in
this region. Some of these findings may contradict the report of the original survey.
Although the goal of this article by no means, is to criticize the 1967 report, it sounds
unavoidable to incorporate the new discoveries in it. For instance, the author of this
article believes that the twelve missing sites in the 1963 survey were found later,
hence; new discoveries in case of the presence of Levallois technique in the Zagros
Mountains could change our understanding regarding the Middle Paleolithic of
Zagros.
Keywords: Zagros Mountains, Middle Paleolithic, Levallois technique
1 . Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Email: [email protected]
1
Reassessment of the Preliminary Report …
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
Introduction
the Khorramabad valley revealed as one of the
As a part of Prehistoric Project of Oriental Institute,
most promising ones, with many large fresh
University
water channels and caves. In their report, Hole
of
Chicago,
two
of
the
Late
Braidwood's students (Frank Hole and Kent
and Flannery state:
Flannery) conducted some archaeological surveys
"Thus far we have located seventeen
and excavations in west and southwestern Iran in
Paleolithic
1961. The report of this field surveys was
Khorramabad valley, and it is likely that more
published in 1967 entitled "the Prehistory of
could be found by intensive survey" (Hole and
Southwestern Iran: Preliminary Report" (Hole and
Flannery 1967: 151)
sites
which
overlook
the
Flannery 1967). Considering the time elapsed from
Based on the survey report, although seventeen
the date of the original field work as well as
Paleolithic sites were marked, only five of them
numerous theoretical and technical innovations and
were mentioned in the text and subsequently
discoveries in the world, Paleolithic archaeology in
selected for further indepth examinations (Caves:
general and Paleolithic archaeology of Iran in
Ghamari, Kunji, Yafteh, rock shelters: Gar
particular, the need for reassessing the preliminary
Arjeneh, and Pasangar), and there is no
report seems unavoidable. Needless to say, the
indication of the other twelve sites. Considering
1967 field expedition was among the most
the strategic location of the Khorramabad valley
scientifically advanced expeditions (e.g., it took
and in order to complete the original survey, a
into account interdisciplinary sciences such as
field survey was conducted in the winter of 1999
Archaeobotany, Zooarchaeology, Paleoclimate,
by the author and his colleagues from the Iranian
Ethnoarchaeology, etc). As such, the current article
Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR).
tries to incorporate the new discoveries and
This field expedition re-emphasized on the great
progress in the Paleolithic archaeology of Iran into
potential of the Khorramabad valley and
the 1967 original report.
provided detail information on 21 sites (five
Further, this article would be focusing only
more sites were included) assuming that the
on Paleolithic studies of the original report and
twelve missing sites might be among them
integrate
(Roustaei et al. 2002, 2004).
new
data
derived
from
other
prehistoric periods in the proposed region.
Continuity of Industries
Missing Sites
One of the key questions highlighted in the
During the course of studies, Hole and Flannery
original report was the issue of continuity
surveyed 15 valleys in western Iran, in which
among different Paleolithic industries:
2
Vahdati Nasab H.
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
"A critical question in the prehistory of the
assemblages in order to apply some type of
Zagros Mountains is the extent which the
relative chronologies. As such, hard hammers
Mousterian,
Zarzain
and direct percussion technique could be one
industries constitute to a single living tradition.
of the indicatives of the Lower Paleolithic,
Are there discontinuities between the three
core preparation and Levallois technique could
industries, or does it grow out of the antecedent
have
stage?" (Hole and Flannery 1967: 151)
Paleolithic, and profusion of blades and use of
Baradostian
and
been
used
to
detect
the
Middle
To address this question, a comparative
pressure flaking is among the most important
analysis of lithics collected from the five
factors to assign an assemblage to the Upper
excavated sites was made. As can be seen in
Paleolithic period.
Figure 2 of the original report (Hole and
The original report used the index of
Flannery 1967: 152), the comparative study
secondary retouched tools to the waste flakes
encompassed only the most typologically
(Hole and Flannery 1967: 155, Table II) to
distinguished pieces, and it seems that the role
propose some patterns to evaluate the degree of
of technology was a bit overshadowed by
knapping efficiency from Middle to the
overemphasizing
Epipaleolithic period at Khorramabad sites.
on
typology.
As
an
illustration, cores, which are considered by
Concerning
most workers as one of the most important
(Ghamari and Kunji) this index is 38, for the
artifacts to address issues related to technology
early upper Paleolithic of Yafteh is 35, for
(Eren et al. 2008; Wallace and Shea 2006),
middle and late upper Paleolithic of Yafteh are
were neglected:
10, and 7, and 4.5 for the upper Paleolithic of
"This analysis ignores tools which are
the
Mousterian
occupations
Pasangar and 9 for the Epipaleolithic of the
relatively undiagnostic; such as… cores, core
same site.
fragments, and waste flakes…" (Hole and
Undoubtedly, there has been a significant
Flannery 1967: 154-155)
improvement in knapping techniques, selection
Cores reconstructs the degree of access to
of raw materials, and forging strategies from
the raw material (Dibble 1995), plus study of
the lower Paleolithic to the Epipaleolithic
chaînes opératoires is crucial to establish the
period. However, the sites selected for this
technological frame work used by the knappers
comparison must provide homogeneity in
(Kuhn 1995: 31-33). As a matter of fact, in
geomorphology and land form in order to
most of the recent lithic analysis, workers
evaluate the degree of knapping efficiency in
conduct technotypological examinations on the
different periods. Among the selected sites,
3
Reassessment of the Preliminary Report …
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
only three (Ghamari, Kunji, and Yafteh) could
since it was first recognized in the nineteen
be considered geomorphologicly homogenous,
century (Mellars 1996: 61). One of the
and the rest have potentials to be considered as
appealing
base camps. The other one (Pasangar) is a
technique
small rock shelter with severely eroded
explanations for it, which some sound more or
entrance, which by no means (e.g., size, shape,
less contradictory.
points
is
the
concerning
abundance
Levallois
of
various
location, and function) could be considered
As an example Bordes -one of the pioneers
equivalent to the former three. Therefore, it
in the study of Middle Paleolithic lithic
seems that clustering all of the mentioned sites
industries-
and applying the index of secondary retouched
technique was originally invented to distinguish
tools to the waste flakes equally to them
flakes with the signs of scars on their dorsal
eventually misled the research and has
part, which these scares were fashioned during
produced some arguable results.
the process of core preparation (Bordes 1961).
Perhaps
has
Böeda's
suggested
description
that
of
Levallois
Levallois
Levallois Technique
technique may be considered as one of the most
One of the technical issues touched by the Hole
accepted ones. Based on this description, two
and Flannery is the diminutive presence of
main stages were identified for the core
Levallois technique in the Luristan Mousterian:
preparation process: first, preparing continuous
"The technique of the Luristan Mousterian is
platforms all around the core by striking around
non-Levallois, like that observed elsewhere in
it, second shaping the core by striking on the
the Zagros (e.g., Shanidar, Hazar Merd,
platforms that have already been prepared in the
Warwasi,
first stage (Böeda 1988). The result of this
Bisitun)"
(Hole
and
Flannery
1967:155)
process is to predict the flake shape before
Abundance of Levallois technique in an
detaching it from the core.
assemblage is one of the key factors to assign
such
industry
to
the
Middle
Lack of enough concentration on the
Paleolithic
preparation
technique
features
on
the
(Monnier 2006). The term Levallois was first
debitage's platforms, and underestimating the
used in the early 1860 to describe large flakes
importance of dorsal scars patterns on the
discovered at the suburb of Levallois-Perret in
Levallois flakes, as well as lack of substantial
Paris (Mortilet 1883: 240, 255). This technique
acceptance
has been considered by many authorities as an
Levallois technique in mid 50s, led Carlton
index fossil of Middle Paleolithic industries
Coon to conclude that the Levallois technique
4
concerning
the
concept
of
Vahdati Nasab H.
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
was not among the major aspects of Zagros
mention that since the time of original
Mousterian. In his original report, although
excavations in the Khorramabad region (early
Coon clearly identified and mentioned various
60s), there have been numerous surveys and
Levallois techniques for excavation at Bisitun
excavations in this region and adjacent
rock shelter in Zagros (Coon 1951: 59, Table
geographical areas that some led to the report
10C), however; H. L. Movius who was in
of abundance of Levallois technique in the
charge of lithic analysis in the excavation
Zagros mountain sites. As an illustration,
claimed that the Levallois technique did not
Mortensen claimed the presence of Levallois
play significant rule in flint knapping activities
flakes at two of his sites (Huchi and Villa)
in the Zagros region (Coon 1951: 90-91). The
located in Hulilan Valley in south of Luristan
same scenario was repeated by Skinner who
(Mortensen 1974a, b). In 2000, some surveys
studied some portions of the Bisitun Middle
in the northern Zagros led to the discovery of
Paleolithic assemblages as part of his doctorate
some Paleolithic sites, among them Varjo-
dissertation and eventually he proposed that
Chai
lack of Levallois technique is among the major
(Biglari and Ghaffari 2004). One year later, a
features of the Zagros Middle Paleolithic
cave site near the city of Kermanshah
industries (Skinner 1965).
(Central Zagros) named Do-Eshkaft was
Consequently,
some
Levallois
elements
significant
recorded by Iranian archaeologists. The
improvements on recognition of various
further analysis of its lithic materials revealed
Levallois techniques (Baumler and Speth
its significance with regard to the high
1993; Dibble and Holdaway 1993), found that
frequency of using Levallois technique in this
Skinner's approach to identify Levallois
site (Biglari and Heydari 2002). And the most
pieces were too conservative (Dibble 1984).
recently, excavation at Martarik cave, located
Years later, H. L. Dibble reviewed the Bisitun
few hundred meters above the Bisitun rock
collection
identify
shelter in the same rock massif (Bisitun
noteworthy presence of Levallois elements in
Mountain) has clearly indicated abundance of
the collection (Figure 1). He calculated the
Levallois technique in the Middle Paleolithic
Levallois index for the entire assemblage in
of Zagros (Joubert et al 2009).
and
some
revealed
managed
to
Bisitun as 55.8 (Dibble 1984). It is crucial to
5
Reassessment of the Preliminary Report …
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
Figure 1 Levallois flakes and blades from Bisitun, Zagros, from Dibble 1984.
6
Vahdati Nasab H.
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
Pages 155 and 156 of the original report
located in the lowlands all across the country
indicate the significant presence of Levallois
(e.g., Berillon et al. 2007; Chevrier et al. 2006;
technique in the lowland Khuzistan:
Vahdati Nasab 2009; Vahdati Nasab et al.
"… in 1963 we discovered an open-air
2009).
Mousterian site in lowland Khuzistan which
Pertaining to the cultural explanation for
had typical Levallois tortoise cores. This site,
presence of Levallois technique in some sites,
which lies at an elevation of ca. 200 meters, not
and refereeing such technique to a culturally
far from the Deh Luran plain, has not yet been
distinct people, it seems that this idea at that
published. Two possibilities suggest themselves:
time was driven from Bordes’ works. Bordes
either the difference is temporal (i.e., Levallois
claimed that the Mousterian industry refers to a
technique is present in an earlier Mousterian,
complex of some cultural groups, which to
possibly more abundant in the lowlands) or
some degree could be related or far from each
cultural (i.e., Levallois technique was used on
other and some even with different origins
the lowland steppe but not in the mountains,
(Bordes 1961, 1969). Recent studies show that
presumably by contemporaneous but culturally
there are many reasons to abandon Bordes idea.
distinct
Binford suggested that the difference among
peoples)"
(Hole
and
Flannery
1967:155-156)
assemblages could have been functional and in
Some recent studies show that the presence
response to the different settlement patterns,
of Levallois technique had higher frequencies in
mobility, and seasonal activities (Binford
general among the early Middle Paleolithic
1973).
industries (Monnier 2006). Consequently, the
Other studies imply that there is no direct
first scenario proposed by the author concerning
consistency between human behaviors and
the temporal variation in the Middle Paleolithic
certain stylistic or functional objects, especially
of Zagros seems justifiable. On the other hand,
in case of lithics, which can be reshaped or
data regarding the Middle Paleolithic of Iran in
remodified during their use (Rolland and Dibble
general and that of Zagros in particular are too
1990). Raw material accessibility, quantity, and
sporadic, which prevents one to propose any
its other properties such as size and shape of
model for relationship between the elevation
cobbles can influence the final shape of tools
and Levallois technique. However, based on the
during the tool manufacturing. Also the quality
current Paleolithic knowledge in Iran, it sounds
of raw material can affect the use of different
that most of the Middle Paleolithic assemblages
flaking techniques. For example handaxes,
with high frequency of Levallois technique are
scrapers, points, and Levallois assemblages are
7
Reassessment of the Preliminary Report …
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
tend to be made on fine-grained materials like
to record some of the missing sites in the previous
flint, whereas other tools such as denticulate
report. However, due to inadequate Paleolithic
and notches were made on coarser materials.
excavations in Zagros, our knowledge concerning
In addition, Dibble's work (1984, 1987,
the reconstruction of settlement patterns and
1991, and 1995) has shown that in some cases
identifying any continuity or discontinuity among
the various scrapers in Bordes typology could
different Paleolithic industries in Zagros is still in
be interpreted as just different stages of
preliminary stages, and any firm judgment in this
continuous transformation through resharpening
regard must be waited for more data driven from
and reduction process. As a matter of fact so
future excavations in this region. Dependency of
many
Mousterian
Levallois technique to the elevation from the sea
assemblages could just be considered the
level in Zagros is an interesting subject; however,
discard and end worn out objects rather than
again due to the lack of Paleolithic surveys in the
intentional tools related to a distinct cultural
lowland Zagros not much could be said in this
group. Finally Kuhn believes that the shape of
regard at this moment. But, new Paleolithic
the tool blank has more powerful effect on
surveys and excavations in Zagros have revealed
scrapers final shape than reduction process
the fact that absence of Levallois technique could
(Kuhn 1992).
no longer be regarded as one of the features of the
of
retouched
tools
in
Zagros Middle Paleolithic industries.
Conclusion
More than four decades has been passed from
Acknowledgments
the time of original survey was conducted by
The special thanks go to Professor Frank Hole
Hole and Flannery in central Zagros. During the
from the Anthropology department of the Yale
last four decades and more importantly since
University for his wonderful comments on the
1990 there have been significant discoveries in
original drafts, and providing me with his
the Paleolithic of Zagros and numerous sites
unpublished materials from the 1961 field
have been recorded and some were selected for
mission.
excavations.
Therefore,
reassessment
of
the
the
original
need
for
report
by
References
incorporating some of the new data considered
[1]
Baumler, M. F & J. D. Speth. (1993). A
inevitable. Consequently, in the late 1999, the
Middle Paleolithic Assemblage from Kunji
author along with fellow researchers re-
Cave, Iran. In: The Paleolithic Prehistory of
surveyed the Khorramabad region with the aim
the Zagros-Taurus, edited by Deborah I.
8
Vahdati Nasab H.
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
Olszewski and Harold L. Dibble, pp. 1-73.
University
Museum
Monograph
[6]
83,
rupture et filiation avec le concept Levallois.
University Museum Symposium Series 5.
In Ĺ Homme de Néandertal, vol. 8: La
Philadelphia,
Mutation, ed. M. Otte.
PA:
University
of
Pennsylvania.
[2]
[7]
Berillon, G, A. Asgari Khaneghah, P.
[8]
F.
(1969).
Reflections
on
typology and techniques in the Paleolithic.
Ebadollahi Chanzangh & S. Nochadi.
Arctic Anthropology 6:1–29.
Discovery
open-air
[9] Chevrier, B, G. Berillon, A. Asgari
Paleolithic localities in Central Alborz,
Khaneghah, P. Antoine, J. J. Bahain, and V.
Northern Iran. Journal of Human Evolution,
Zeitoun. (2006). Moghanak, Otchounak,
52: 380-387.
Garm Roud 2 : nouveaux assemblages
of
new
Biglari, F and S. Heydari. (2001). Do-
paléolithiques dans le Nord de l'Iran.
Ashkaft: a Recently Discovered Mousterian
Caractérisations
Cave Site in the Kermanshah Plain, Iran.
attributions chrono-culturelles. Paléorient,
Antiquity 75, pp: 487-488.
32, 2: 59-79.
typo-technologiques
et
Biglari, F, and R. Ghafari. (2004). The
[10] Coon, C. S. 1951. Cave Explorations in
Preliminary Report on the Discovery of
Iran (1949). Museum Monographs, the
Middle Paleolithic Artifacts near Maragheh,
University
Southeast of the Lake Urmieh. In M.
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Azarnoush
(ed),
International
Proceedings
Symposium
on
of
the
Iranian
Industry
variability:
The
(1973).
and
from
Bisitun
Cave
(Iran).
Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology.
Interassemblage
Mousterian
of
[12] Dibble, H. L. (1987). The interpretation of
Research, ICHTO. Tehran. (In Persian)
L.
University
Paléorient 10: 323-334.
26, Iranian Center for Archaeological
Binford,
Museum,
[11] Dibble, H. L. (1984). The Mousterian
Archaeology; Northwestern Region, Pp. 17-
[5]
Bordes,
Zeitoun, N. Aminzadeh, M. Beheshti, H.
(2007).
[4]
Bordes, F. (1961). Mousterian cultures in
France. Science 134:803–10.
Antoine, J-J. Bahain, B. Chevrier, V.
[3]
Böeda, E. (1988). Le concept laminaire:
American Antiquity 52:109–17.
the
[13] Dibble, H. L. (1991). Local raw material
functional argument. In The explanation of
exploitation and its effects on Lower and
culture change, ed. C. Renfrew, 227–54.
Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In
London: Duckworth.
Raw material economies among prehistoric
hunter-gatherers, ed. A. Montet-White and
9
Reassessment of the Preliminary Report …
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
S. Holen, 33–48. University of Kansas
Proceedings of the XV World Congress
Publications in Anthropology 19.
(Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006), pp: 7-28.
[14] Dibble, H. L. (1995). Middle Paleolithic
[19] Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and
scraper reduction: Background, clarification,
reduction as determinants of Mousterian
and review of evidence to data. Journal of
scraper morphology. American Antiquity,
Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–
57: 115-128.
368.
[20] Kuhn, S. L. (1995). Mousterian Lithic
[15] Dibble, H. L. & S. J. Holdaway. (1993).
The
Middle
Paleolithic
Industries
Technology: An Ecological Perspective.
of
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Warwasi: in D.I. Olszewski and H.L. Dibble
[21] Mellars, P. (1996). The Neanderthal
(ed.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the
Legacy. Princeton: Princeton University
Zagros-Taurus,
Press.
pp.75-99.
Philadelphia:
University Museum Symposium Series,
[22] Monnier, G. F. (2006). The Lower/Middle
Volume 5, University of Pennsylvania.
Paleolithic Periodization in Western Europe.
[16] Eren, M. I, A. Greenspan, C. G. Sampson.
Current Anthropology, Volume 47, number
(2008). Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores
5, pages: 709-744.
more productive than Middle Paleolithic
[23] Mortensen,
P.(1974a).
discoidal cores? A replication experiment.
Prehistoric
Settelments
Journal of Human Evolution, 55: 952-961.
Lorestan. Acta Archaeologyica, 45:1-7.
[17] Hole, F, and K. V. Flannery. (1967). The
Prehistory
of
Southwestern
Iran:
[24] Mortensen,
P.(1974b).
A
in
A
survey
of
Northern
Survey
of
A
Prehistoric sites in the Holailan Valley in
Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the
Lorestan. In Proceedings of the Second
Prehistoric Society 33: 147-206.
Annual
[18] Jaubert, J, F. Biglari, V. Mourre, L.
Symposium
on
Archaeological
Research in Iran, Tehran 1973, edited by F.
Bagherzadeh, Tehran, Pp: 34-52
Bruxelles, J. G. Bordes, S. Shidrang, R.
Naderi, M. Mashkour, B. Maureille, J. B.
[25] Mortillet, G. (1883). Le pre´historique:
Mallye, Y. Quinif, W. Rendu, and V.
Antiquite´ de l’homme. Paris: C. Reinwald.
Laroulandie. (2009). The Middle Paleolithic
[26] Rolland, N, Dibble, H. (1990). A New
Occupation of Mar-Tarik, a New Zagros
Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Variability.
Mousterian Site. In Iran Paleolithic, edited
American Antiquity, Volume 55. Issue 3,
by M. Otte, F. Biglari, and J. Jaubert.
July. 480-499.
10
Vahdati Nasab H.
Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)
[27] Roustaei, K, Biglari, F, Heydari, S & H.
[31] Vahdati Nasab, H, H. Mollasalehi, M.
Vahdatinasab. (2002). New research on the
Saeedpour,
Paleolithic of Lurestan, West Central Iran.
Paleolithic Levalloisian Assemblages from
Antiquity, 76 Issue 291, page: 19.
Boeen Zahra in the Qazvin Plain (Iran).
[28] Roustaei, K, Vahdatinasab, H, Biglari, F
Jamshidi.
(2009).
gallery.
surveys in Luristan. Current Anthropology.
[32] Wallace, I. J & J. J. Shea. (2006). Mobility
45, pages: 692-707.
patterns and core technologies in the Middle
[29] Skinner, J- (1965). The Flake Industry of
Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of
Southwest Asia: A Typological Study.
Archaeological Science, 33: 1293-1309
Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia
University, New York.
[30] Vahdati Nasab, H. (2009). Paleolithic
Survey of Mirak. Report to the Iranian Centre
Archaeological
N.
Antiquity. Volume 83, issue 320, project
& S. Heydari. (2004). Recent Paleolithic
for
and
Research,
ICHTO.
Tehran. (In Persian)
11
‫ﺑﺎزﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﮔﺰارش ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺗﻲ ﭘﻴﺶ از ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺟﻨﻮب ﻏﺮب اﻳﺮان‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻓﺮﻧﻚ‬
‫ﻫﻮل و ﻛﻨﺖ ﻓﻠﻨﺮي‪1967-‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﻣﺪ وﺣﺪﺗﻲ ﻧﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪1388/9/22 :‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﭘﺬﻳﺮش‪1388/11/3 :‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﺶ از ﭼﻬﺎر دﻫﻪ از زﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮﻧﻚ ﻫﻮل و ﻛﻨﺖ ﻓﻠﻨﺮي ﮔﺰارش ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺗﻲ ﺧـﻮد در ﺧـﺼﻮص‬
‫ﭘﻴﺪا ﻧﻤﻮدن ﻣﺤﻮﻃﻪ ﻫﺎي ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ در زاﮔﺮس ﻣﺮﻛﺰي را ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎپ رﺳﺎﻧﺪه اﻧﺪ ﻣـﻲ ﮔـﺬرد‪ .‬از‬
‫آن زﻣﺎن ﺗﺎ ﻛﻨﻮن ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻫﺎ و ﻛﺎوﺷﻬﺎي ﻣﺘﻌﺪدي در ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪ ﻣﺬﻛﻮر اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪه ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺮﺧـﻲ از‬
‫آﻧﺎن ﺑﺮﺧﻲ داده ﻫﺎي ﮔﺰارش ﺳﺎل ‪ 1967‬را ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻛﺸﻴﺪه اﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺪف ﻋﻤﺪه اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫـﻴﭻ‬
‫روي اﻧﺘﻘﺎد از ﮔﺰارش ﻣﺬﻛﻮر ﻧﺒﻮده و ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻌﻲ ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ داده ﻫﺎ و ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺟﺪﻳـﺪ‬
‫در آن ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻧﻴﺪه ﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﮕﺎرﻧﺪه ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﻣﺤﻮﻃﻪ ﻫـﺎﻳﻲ ﻛـﻪ در ﺳـﺎل‬
‫‪ 1963‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻫﻮل و ﻓﻠﻨﺮي ﺛﺒﺖ وﻟﻲ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻧﮕﺸﺘﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧـﺪ را ﺗﻮاﻧـﺴﺘﻪ در ﺑﺮرﺳـﻲ ﻫـﺎي‬
‫ﻣﺠﺪد ﺧﻮد و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران ﭘﻴﺪا ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻛﺸﻔﻴﺎت اﺧﻴﺮ در ﺧﺼﻮص ﺣﻀﻮر ﺗﻜﻨﻴـﻚ ﻟﻮآﻟـﻮآ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻼف ادﻋﺎي ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎن ﮔﺰارش ﺳﺎل ‪ ،1967‬ﺣﻀﻮر اﻳـﻦ ﺗﻜﻨﻴـﻚ در‬
‫ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻲ زاﮔﺮس ﭼﺸﻤﮕﻴﺮ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫واژﮔﺎن ﻛﻠﻴﺪي‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺳﺘﺮي زاﮔﺮس‪ ،‬ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﻨﻴﻚ ﻟﻮآﻟﻮآ‬
‫‪ .1‬اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﮔﺮوه ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺗﺮﺑﻴﺖ ﻣﺪرس‪ ،‬دﺑﻴﺮ ﻛﻤﻴﺘﻪ ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻜﺪه ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﭘﺴﺖ اﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﻜﻲ‪[email protected] :‬‬
‫‪12‬‬