Suppr超能文献

伊朗中西部史前史研究。

Research in the prehistory of central Western iran.

作者信息

Young T C, Smith P E

出版信息

Science. 1966 Jul 22;153(3734):386-91. doi: 10.1126/science.153.3734.386.

Abstract

The archeological sequence in the Bisitun and Kangovar valleys promises to fill a number of gaps in the prehistory of this part of southwestern Asia. Ghar-i Khar should yield data concerning the degree of cultural continuity or discontinuity in the Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene ranges of prehistory. This cave site should also be helpful in gaining further insight into the climatic conditions during these times, and in particular on the prevalent fauna and flor (and the human use of them) at the close of the Pleistocene, when some groups may already have been leading ways of life foreshadowing the Neolithic. Ganj-i Dareh offers the opportunity of examining in detail what seems to be an early farming community at or very near the beginning of an important shift in methods of subsistence. The geographical position of this latter site may also be of unusual significance in studying the spread of the Neolithic; located as it is near the traditional route across the Zagros Mountains into Iraq, this site, as well as others in the region, may have played an important role in the diffusion of the new elements and methods to other parts of the mountainous zone. That is, within the broad "natural habitat zone" it may be useful to distinguish optimum areas of development and diffusion during the early phases of the Neolithic. Comparison with small sites like Tepe Asiab in the Kermanshah Valley (considered to have been a temporary encampment of clam collectors) (7) may place such sites in their proper perspective as seasonally occupied satellites of more permanent villages such as Ganj-i Dareh; the same possibility is open for the later ceramic Neolithic phase now that the oldest level of Godin Tepe shows a community to which nearby sites on this time horizon can probably be related. However, it will require an intimate study of the two valleys as microenvironments, and comparison of them with each other and with the Kermanshah and Hulailan valleys, in order to reach a fuller understanding of the interrelationships of the various aceramic and ceramic Neolithic sites from the 9th to the 6th millennium. Again, only further exploration in the region will reveal whether the absence of recognizable farming-community sites in the Zagros region during the 8th millennium reflects a genuine hiatus or simply insufficient investigation (21). A broader clearance of Period VII at Godin Tepe itself will enable us better to define the period during which material from Period VII is found stratigraphically associated with later material. Through the horizontal clearance of one of the six small sites in the Kangovar-Bisitun area where similar materials in the pottery Neolithic period are found on or near the surface, by sounding perhaps one other such site, and by plotting all the sites in the region that date to this period, we should be able to reconstruct a reasonably complete picture of this valley at the time of Godin VII. One of these small sites in the neighborhood may yet yield evidence on the relationship between the aceramic and pottery phases of the Neolithic. Godin, of course, provides us an excellent opportunity to examine the relationship between the pottery of the Neolithic and subsequent cultural periods in western Iran, since there appears to be no major break in the developmental sequence between Godin VII and VI. For the periods after the pottery Neolithic in western Iran we have had only the more or less stratified sequence of tombs excavated at Tepe Giyan on which to base our understanding of the developmental sequence from the 6th to the 1st millennium B. C. Even the evidence from our preliminary testing of Godin Tepe indicates how sketchy that understanding has been, since previously we had only suspected the presence of the Uruk culture in the area and had no evidence at all that the culture defined at Yanik Tepe near Tabriz, which has strong links with eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus, ever spread as far south as the central Zagros. Continued research at Godin will shed light on these new problems as well as on many of the long-standing issues that have puzzled archeologists concerned with the Bronze and Iron ages in western Iran.

摘要

比西顿和坎戈瓦尔山谷的考古序列有望填补西南亚这一地区史前史的诸多空白。加尔-伊哈尔洞穴应该能提供有关旧石器时代晚期和全新世早期史前史中文化连续性或间断性程度的数据。这个洞穴遗址对于进一步深入了解这些时期的气候条件也会有所帮助,尤其是在更新世末期盛行的动植物群(以及人类对它们的利用情况),当时一些群体可能已经开始过上预示着新石器时代的生活方式。甘吉-达雷洞穴为详细研究一个似乎处于生存方式发生重要转变之初或非常接近这一时期的早期农耕社区提供了契机。后一个遗址的地理位置在研究新石器时代的传播方面可能也具有特殊意义;由于它位于穿越扎格罗斯山脉进入伊拉克的传统路线附近,这个遗址以及该地区的其他遗址可能在新元素和方法向山区其他地区的传播中发挥了重要作用。也就是说,在广阔的“自然栖息地带”内,区分新石器时代早期发展和传播的最佳区域可能会很有用。与克尔曼沙阿山谷的泰佩阿西亚布等小遗址(被认为是蛤蚌采集者的临时营地)进行比较,可能会让我们正确认识到这些遗址作为季节性占据的卫星点,是像甘吉-达雷这样更永久性村庄的一部分;鉴于戈丁·泰佩最古老的地层显示出一个社区,与这个时期的附近遗址可能存在关联,对于后来的新石器时代陶瓷阶段也存在同样的可能性。然而,需要对这两个山谷作为微观环境进行深入研究,并将它们相互比较,同时与克尔曼沙阿山谷和胡莱兰山谷进行比较,以便更全面地了解公元前9000年至6000年各种无陶和有陶新石器时代遗址之间的相互关系。同样,只有在该地区进行进一步勘探,才能揭示扎格罗斯地区在公元前8000年没有可识别的农耕社区遗址是反映了真正的间断,还是仅仅是调查不足。对戈丁·泰佩本身的第七阶段进行更广泛的清理,将使我们能够更好地确定在第七阶段发现的物质与后来物质在地层上相关联的时期。通过清理坎戈瓦尔-比西顿地区六个小遗址之一(在该遗址或其附近发现了陶器新石器时代的类似材料)的水平地层,可能再探测一个这样的遗址,并绘制该地区所有属于这个时期的遗址,我们应该能够重建戈丁第七阶段时这个山谷相当完整的图景。附近的这些小遗址之一可能还会提供有关新石器时代无陶和有陶阶段之间关系的证据。当然,戈丁为我们提供了一个绝佳的机会来研究伊朗西部新石器时代陶器与后续文化时期之间的关系,因为在戈丁第七阶段和第六阶段之间的发展序列似乎没有重大间断。对于伊朗西部陶器新石器时代之后的时期,我们只有在泰佩吉扬发掘的或多或少有地层顺序的墓葬序列,以此为基础来理解公元前6000年至1000年的发展序列。即使我们对戈丁·泰佩的初步测试证据也表明这种理解是多么粗略,因为此前我们只是怀疑该地区存在乌鲁克文化,而且完全没有证据表明在大不里士附近的亚尼克·泰佩所定义的文化(与东安纳托利亚和高加索地区有紧密联系)曾传播到扎格罗斯中部以南地区。对戈丁的持续研究将阐明这些新问题以及许多长期困扰关注伊朗西部青铜和铁器时代的考古学家的问题。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验