Obsidian artifacts is frequently used materials in prehistory and found widely in archaeological sites. Provenance studies of obsidian has been an issue of intense research and debate between archaeologists and geologists. Since different provenance studies has been carried out from 1960s up to 2015 in Anatolia and Caucasus but obsidian studies in Iran is in very early stage and consider as terra incognita. Recent research on obsidian mines in Iran accompanying by prehistoric obsidian provenance studies give this opportunity to establish of a database, as well as outlining a horizon and perspective for obsidian studies in Iran. This paper will try to discuss about old and new researches on obsidian studies in Iran. After a brief introduction of obsidian studies in Anatolia and Caucasus by Renfrew, Cann and Dixon, the paper addresses some recent researches that took place concerning obsidian provenance studies in Iran. Additionally this study also look for have a review and survey on obsidian sources in Iran as well as obsidian artifacts from sites like Kul Tepe Hadishah, Dava Goz Khoy, East Chia Sabz, Choga Gholan, Tepe Boinou, surveyed sites of East of the Lake Urmia, Typical sites like Yanik, Hasanlu, Pisdeli, and relationship and comparison of ancient obsidian artifacts with known sources in order to studying obsidian sources and provenance of obsidian artifacts in Iran. This research proved that most of the analyzed obsidian artifacts of Iranian archaeological sites originated and imported from Caucasus and Anatolia in line with long-term inter-regional trade, although a handful of obsidian mines and sources have been brought to light in NW Iran that could be considered as second part of the raw material to supply the demands of local and indigenous communities of the prehistory of Iran. The implications of the findings will discuss along with limitations and future research directions.
The settlement of Dava Göz situated about 15km SW of Khoy and 1.5km north of the Dizaj Diz town in NW Iran. Dava Göz is a small site at north of the Lake Urmia, measuring about 100×100m (ca. 1ha). The first season of archaeological excavation primarily aimed to clarifying the chronology, settlement organization, and respond to some of the fundamental questions such as the transition process from Late Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic (Hajji Firuz to Dalma) and identifying different cultural horizon including Middle and Late Chalcolithic (LC1 and LC2) periods and also outlining cultural condition of the region during prehistoric periods. The present paper is intended to expose six absolute radiocarbon data from the site and preparing new data for revising prehistoric chronology of NW Iran. According to fresh absolute C14 radiocarbon date the stratigraphy and chronology of the settlement is now well understood and covers Transitional Chalcolithic (Dava Göz I: 5400-5000 BC), Early Chalcolithic or (Dalma Dava Göz II: 5000-4500 BC) and Middle and Late Chalcolithic 1 (Pisdeli, LC1: Dava Göz III: 4500-4200 BC) and Late Chalcolithic 2 (Chaff-Faced Ware horizon, LC2: Dava Göz IV: 4200-3900/3800 BC) phases of the regional culture of north of the Lake Urmia Basin. Actually, Dava Göz is one of the scant well excavated settlements that give new and fresh information on the developments of the Lake Urmia Basin communities between the sixth to fourth millennium BC (5400-3700/3600 BC), and on their relationships with the contemporary Caucasian cultures as well as with those located further west and south, in Eastern Anatolia and in the Syro-Mesopotamian region. The first preliminary result of excavation, suggest special function for Dava Göz. It seems clear that this site could be consider as winter land for some agro-pastoral groups of Lake Urmia Basin who trying to find some pasturelands and preparing same raw materials like obsidian for the settlements of Urmia region The implications of the findings will discuss along with limitations and future research directions.
Since two decades ago with the increase in dam construction projects in Iran, a major part of the ancient and historic sites of the country went under water. As mostly, do not exist desirable and sufficient relationship between Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO) and other organizations like Ministry of Energy, the budget allocated to the study of archaeological sites behind dams (that will go under water) has been delayed and postponed. The consequences of this situation reveal as fast and emergency rescue excavations that in some cases certainly this haste greatly will reduce the quality of archaeological studies.
From scientific and technical perspective and according to directors of dam excavation projects experience, generally believe that fast and emergency excavation it is not only and surest way to preserve and protect of ancient sites; why, given the little time and lack of adequate funding for dam archaeological projects, of course, excavations excavate only a small parts of the archaeological sites. Archaeological excavation experience carried out in several dams like, Seimareh, Sivand, Gotvand, etc, shows that more than one hundred archaeological sites have been surveyed and introduced behind the dams and only a handful of them were excavated in one or two seasons, which is only includes less than 10% of the sites and this method cannot be a good strategy for carrying out research projects. Using the boat for going to the sites for excavation, as well as other serious problems in this regard should be add to emergency excavation projects problems...
| Page 1 from 1 |
© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research on Archaeometry
Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb
