Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran 9781407312149, 9781407341828

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgments
Preface
Table of Contents
General Introduction
PART ONE Approaches and Backgrounds
Chapter 1. Structural landscapes and hunter-gatherers models and theories
Chapter 2. An overview of the Iranian physiographic regions
PART TWO Developing of Hypotheses
Chapter 3. Palaeolithic sites on the landscapes
PART THREE Testing Hypotheses
Chapter 4. The Paleolithic settlement pattern and land use in Dasht-e Rostam-Basht habitat area; Southern Zagros Mountains
Chapter 5. Paleolithic occupational areas on the Northwest Central Plateau: oases settlement systems
Chapter 6. Lessons from the Paleolithic landscapes of Iran
PART FOUR Appendices
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR S2586 2014

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran Saman Heydari-Guran

HEYDARI-GURAN PALEOLITHIC LANDSCAPES OF IRAN

B A R Heydari 2586 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2586 2014

18/12/2013 12:08:26

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran Saman Heydari-Guran

BAR International Series 2586 2014

ISBN 9781407312149 paperback ISBN 9781407341828 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407312149 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Dedicated to Ghanbar, Ehteram and Elham

 

 

Acknowledgments In 2004, I was working at National Museum of Iran in Tehran when B. Helwing (former Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Tehran) made the great suggestion that I attend the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, in Berlin in January 2004. I presented a poster entitled “The impact of geology and geomorphology on cave and rockshelter Paleolithic site formations for The Zagros Mountains” with the primary focus on geological and geomorphological approaches to the study of Paleolithic site setting in a regional scale in Iran. After my poster presentation at the conference, I met K. Deckers from the University of Tübingen. She invited me to the “Eastern Mediterranean/Near Eastern Geoarchaeology Meeting” in Tübingen, where I gave a talk entitled: “Geomorphological Perspectives for Paleolithic Cave and Rockshelter Sites Formations in the Zagros Mountains”. This meeting established my first contact with University of Tübingen where, three months later, I became a PhD candidate under the supervision of Prof. Nicholas J. Conard, the head of Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology. Therefore, my first great thanks goes to B. Helwing and K. Deckers. I am grateful to my supervisor Nicholas J. Conard who shared his valuable knowledge, experience and time to teach me many lessons through helpful and constructive discussion, reviews and comments on my work. He always encouraged me to think critically. He supported me in many ways including financing my attendance of international meetings where I have had the chance to present my work. The author wishes to thank the members of his committee, Nicholas J. Conard, for his guidance on methodological and conceptual issues encountered on the way to completion of this study. His assistance in keeping me on track and his patience with this research project are greatly appreciated. I would like to acknowledge my second advisor, Prof. Paul Goldberg for their comments on this research project and for providing assistance with methodological issues. While writing this dissertation, I also profited from the many ideas and valuable knowledge I gained from Prof. Dr. Hans Peter Uerpmann, especially concerning animal behavior in the landscape. I am thankful of Hannes Napierala for his primarily study of the animal remains from the Ghare-e Boof Cave. I would also like to thank the following people: Andrew Kandel, Miriam Noel Haidle and Solveig Schiegl. I would also like to thank Michael Märker, a member of Heidelberg Academy, for his support in obtaining funding in order for me to be able to provide me with a copy of the archaeological GIS dataset. I would like to express my appreciation to all those whose cooperation and support allowed the completion of this study: Kamyar Abdi, late Masood Azarnoosh (former Iranian center for archaeological research), Jabraiil Nokandeh, Shahrokh Razmjoo, Mohammad Reza Karegar (former Iranian national museum), Sadegh Malek Shamirzadi, Yosef Moradi, Susan Pollack, Reinhardt Bernbek, Mohsen Zidee, Syros Barfi, Rahmat Naderi, Hamid Fahimi, Daniel Adler, Arian Burke, Jerraldin Queneherve, Nasser Heydari, Reza Zakernejad and Shirin Namazi. Many thanks also to Alireza Dashti Zadeh who provided me with the information from his survey results in the Southern Zagros before publishing, and Morteza Adibzadeh who sent me very useful information about Lurestan Paleolithic archaeology. I was lucky that I have shared my working room with Christopher Miller who, during last three years, taught me much about elaborate English writing and I thank him for reading parts my book and giving me valuable feedbacks and suggestions. I would also like to thank Deva Jebb, Jonathan Baines and Sanam Vakil who have generously given their times to grammar editing and spell checking of my book. I especially thank to my friends Andi and Ina for their emotional supports and encouragements and of course making life for me more beautiful in Tübingen. Finally, I am particularly thankful to my wife, Elham. I am grateful to her for sharing her time to help me write and especially for her illustrations of the stone artifacts that portray them very carefully. Also for sharing in fieldworks and the dissertation enterprises, she made them bearable, possible and a source of unmitigated pleasure.

iii

 

Preface This book draws on my fascination with aspects of the natural world. I remember when I was a child; I was interested in animals, rocks, rivers, and mountains. I spent many hours with my father, brothers and friends in the hills and mountains close to our houses in Tüshami and Kermanshah. I learned how to look at rocks, slopes, valleys and plains. Particularly, my father taught me how to look at the nature surrounding us and, like a child; he still loves the animals and their wild life. Later, I learnt to use maps at the university where I became student of geography. Meanwhile, I met Fereidoun Biglari, who introduced me Paleolithic archaeology which it changed my direction in life. We spent many hours as hunters of caves and rockshelters in the Bisetun-Shahoo Mountains in the Kermanshah region. These forays into the landscape were the first steps that led me to participate and associate with different archaeological investigative teams who studied Iran from the lower Paleolithic to the Historic period, thereby providing marvelous opportunities for me to become acquainted with different natural landscapes and environments in Iran. This knowledge of the different environments made me understand how important the natural setting is for human life style, behavior and the distribution patterns of activities. My background in physical geography helps in doing this as well. The University of Tübingen offered me the great opportunity to study the world of Paleolithic archaeology. The need for research based on this approach became apparent to me during my studies in Tübingen. When I read manuscripts such as ‘Hunter and gatherer landscape of south Germany’ by Jochim or ‘Neanderthals and Modern Humans: an ecological and evolutionary perspective’ by Clive Finlayson, I thought why don’t we have something like this for Iran. It is true Iran has not been investigated as thoroughly as Germany or Europe so far but there are enough sites in the landscape of Iran to write a dissertation on the “Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran”. That is how this book came to be.

iv

 

Table of Contents General Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Structural landscape model.............................. .................................................................................................................. 4 Fieldwork............................. .............................................................................................................................................. .5 Organization of the book.............................. ...................................................................................................................... 5

PART ONE Approaches and Backgrounds Chapter 1. Structural landscapes and hunter-gatherers models and theories 1.1. Introduction.............................. .................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Landscape and landscape ecology.............................. ................................................................................................. 8 1.3. Important physical factors in landscape ecology.............................. ........................................................................... 8 1.4. Patch-corridor-matrix model.............................. .......................................................................................................... 9 1.5. Connectivity and fragmentation in the landscape structure.............................. ......................................................... 11 1.6. Herbivore movements and structural landscape......................................................................................................... 11 1.7. Landscape structures and hunter-gatherers models and theories.............................. ................................................. 12 1.7.1. Optimal foraging theories.............................. ......................................................................................................... 12 1.7.2. Site catchment analysis.............................. ............................................................................................................. 12 1.7.3. Elevation model.............................. ........................................................................................................................ 14 1.8. Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies............................................................................................................................ 14 1.8.1. Effective temperature: a strong factor on early human mobility and home range size.............................. ............. 15 1.8.2. Landscape learning model.............................. ........................................................................................................ 16 1.9. Hunting effort strategies and structural landscape.............................. ....................................................................... 16 Stalking.............................. ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Posting.............................. ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Hunting blind.............................. ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Trap................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Persistence hunting.............................. ............................................................................................................................. 18 1.10. Conclusion.............................. ................................................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 2. An overview of the Iranian physiographic regions 2.1. Introduction.............................. .................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2. Geological zones.............................. .......................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1. West and southwestern region (The Zagros Mountains)........................................................................................ .19 Zagros folded zone.............................. .............................................................................................................................. 22 Zagros highland zone........................................................................................................................................................ 22 2.2.2. North (Alborz Mountains) .............................. ....................................................................................................... 22 2.2.3. Northwest.............................. .................................................................................................................................. 22 2.2.4. Northeast (Kope Dagh).............................. ............................................................................................................. 23 2.2.5. East.......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.6. Southeast............................. ................................................................................................................................... .23 2.2.7. Central Plateau.............................. .......................................................................................................................... 23 Sahand-Bazman belt............................. ........................................................................................................................... .23 Sanandadj-Sirjan belt............................. ......................................................................................................................... .23 2.2.8. Quaternary deposits on the Iranian Plateau......................... ............................................................................... .....23 Playas...................... ................................................................................................................................................. ........24 Travertine and tufa formations..... ........................................................................................................... .........................24 Sand dune.................................................................................................................................................................. ........24 2.3. Climatic zones.......... ............................................................................................................................. ....................24 2.4. Soil zones.................... ..................................................................................................................................... ..........25 Humid (brown forest soil) .. .................................................................................................................. ............................25 Semi-humid and arid soils.. ...............................................................................................................................................25 Interregional soils.......... ............................................................................................................................... ....................25 2.5. Paleoclimatic reconstruction of the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Pleistocene............................. .......................26 2.6. Conclusion..................... ................................................................................................................................... .........26

v

 

PART TWO Developing of Hypotheses Chapter 3. Paleolithic sites on the landscapes 3.1. Introduction..... ................................................................................................................................. .........................30 3.2. Previous works concerning environmental settings of the Paleolithic habitat areas in Iran.... ........ ..........................30 3.3. Towards a physiographical model for the Paleolithic archeology in Iran....... .................................... .......................31 Macrozone..... .......................................................................................................................................... .........................31 Ecozone...................................................................................................................................................... .......................31 Home-range zone (annual territory) ....................................................................................................... .........................31 Intermediate zone............................................................................................................................................... ...............31 Habitat area (site exploitation territory) ....... ........................................................................................... .......................31 Microhabitat area............... ............................................................................................................................... ...............33 Site...................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ........33 3.4. The macroznes of the Iranian Plateau.......... .......................................................................................... ....................33 3.4.1. The macrozone of the Zagros Mountains......... ................................................................................ ..................... 34 1a. The ecozone of the Northern Zagros Mountains... ........................................................................... ...........................36 A. Home-range zone of Rawanduz....... .................................................................................................... ....................... 36 Shanidar Cave........... ................................................................................................................................... ................... 36 Ishkaft Hajiyah.... .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 36 Ishkaft Barak............................................................................................................................................. ....................... 36 Ishkaft Babkhal... ................................................................................................................................... ...........................36 B. Home-range zone of Chemchemal......... ................................................................................................. .....................36 Barda Balka...................... ........................................................................................................................................ ........36 Zarzi Cave.................... ........................................................................................................................................... ..........38 Dark Cave in Hazar Merd area.......... .......................................................................................................... ....................38 Palegawra..................... ........................................................................................................................................... .........39 1.b. The ecozone of the West Central Zagros Mountains................... ................................................................... ...........39 A. The home-range zone of Kermanshah........... ........................................................................................... ...................40 The habitat area of Kermanshah....... ......................................................................................................... .......................43 Warwasi Rockshelter......... .......................................................................................................................... .....................43 Kobeh Cave................... ......................................................................................................................................... ...........46 Do-Ashkaft Cave............. ................................................................................................................................. .................47 The habitat areas of Bisetun and Harsin.......... ............................................................................................. ....................48 Bisetun Cave (Hunter’s cave)………… ................................................................................................... ………………50 Ghar-e Khar Cave ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 Mar Tarik Cave ............................................................................................................................................ ……………54 The habitat area of Islamabad-e Gharb ............................................................................................................................. 54 The habitat area of Sarpol-e Zohab and Gilan-e Gharb .................................................................................................... 54 The habitat area of Ilam .................................................................................................................................................... 54 B. The home-range zone of Lurestan................................................................................................................................ 54 The habitat area of Khorramabad ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Kunji Cave ........................................................................................................................................................................ 55 Yafteh Cave ....................................................................................................................................................................... 57 The habitat area of Kuhdasht ............................................................................................................................................ 59 Houmian Rockshelter........................................................................................................................................................ 59 Barde Spid Rockshelter..................................................................................................................................................... 59 The habitat area of Hulailan.............................................................................................................................................. 60 1c. The ecozone of Central Zagros Mountains ................................................................................................................. 62 1d. The ecozone of Southern Zagros Mountains ............................................................................................................. 63 A. The home range-zone of Fars ...................................................................................................................................... 63 The habitat area Dasht-e Rostam ...................................................................................................................................... 63 The habitat area of Kazerun .............................................................................................................................................. 63 The habitat area of Marvdasht .......................................................................................................................................... 66 Eshkaft-e Gavi .................................................................................................................................................................. 66 The habitat area of Arsanjan ............................................................................................................................................. 69 Terrain analysis in the habitat area of Arsanjan ................................................................................................................ 69 The habitat area of Tang-e Bolaghi .................................................................................................................................. 73 The other Paleolithic sites in the ecozone southern Zagros Mountain .............................................................................. 74 Jahrom… .......................................................................................................................................………………………74 vi

 

Eshkaft-e Ghadi Barmi Shur Cave.........................................................................................................…………………74 Jam-o-Riz Area ............................................................................................................................................. ……………74 3.4.2. The macrozone of the Central Plateau .................................................................................................................... 74 3.4.3. The macrozone of Northwest .................................................................................................................................. 75 3.4.4. The macrozone of the Alborz Mountains ............................................................................................................... 75 The ecozone of western Alborz Mountains ...................................................................................................................... 75 Ganj Par ........................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Darband Cave................................................................................................................................................................... 75 The ecozone of eastern Alborz Mountains ....................................................................................................................... 77 Ke´Aram I Cave ................................................................................................................................................................ 77 Ali Tappeh I Cave ............................................................................................................................................................. 77 Hotu Cave ......................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Komishan Cave ................................................................................................................................................................. 77 3.4.5. The macrozone of Khorasan .................................................................................................................................. .77 3.4.6. The macrozone of Sistan and Baluchestan ............................................................................................................. 78 3.5. Conclusion: structures Landscape and late Pleistocene hunter- gatherer adaptation .................... …………………78 General land use pattern .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Middle Paleolithic period ................................................................................................................................................. 78 Upper and later Paleolithic periods ................................................................................................................................. 79

PART THREE Testing Hypotheses Chapter 4. The Paleolithic settlement pattern and land use in Dasht-e Rostam-Basht habitat area; Southern Zagros Mountains 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 82 4.2. Definition of the study region .................................................................................................................................... 82 4.3. History of archaeological research in the study area ................................................................................................. 84 4.4. Geological and geomorphological setting ................................................................................................................. 85 Gurpi Formation............................................................................................................................................................... 85 Asmari Formation............................................................................................................................................................. 85 Pabdeh Formation ............................................................................................................................................................ 85 Sarvak Formation ............................................................................................................................................................. 85 4.5. Climate and hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 86 4.6. Soils ........................................................................................................................................................................... 87 4.7. Field survey and data collecting ................................................................................................................................ 88 4.8. Analyzing structural landscape and archaeological remains...................................................................................... 90 4.8.1. Dasht-Rostam-Basht microhabitat areas ................................................................................................................. 90 1. The microhabitat area of Yagheh Sangar ..................................................................................................................... 90 2. The Narenjuon microhabitat area ................................................................................................................................ 96 3. The Fahliyan microhabitat area ................................................................................................................................. 101 4. The Dasht-e Rostam II microhabitat area .................................................................................................................. 103 5. The Sarab Siah microhabitat area .............................................................................................................................. 105 6. The microhabitat of area Shiv .................................................................................................................................... 107 7. The microhabitat area of Zir Du................................................................................................................................. 108 8. The microhabitat area of Masiri ................................................................................................................................. 111 9. The microhabitat area of Eshkaftu ............................................................................................................................. 113 10. The microhabitat area of Khunj Pir Sabz ................................................................................................................. 114 11. The microhabitat area of Khunj................................................................................................................................ 114 12. The microhabitat area of Khanahmad ...................................................................................................................... 117 13. The microhabitat area of Sukhteh ............................................................................................................................. 118 4.6. Temporal patterning................................................................................................................................................. 121 5.7. Stone raw materials.................................................................................................................................................. 122 Fahliyani Chert............................................................................................................................................................... 122 The Khanahmadi Chert................................................................................................................................................... 122 4.8. A physical taxonomy for caves and rockshelters in the study region ...................................................................... 125 4.9. Quantitative environmental analysis ........................................................................................................................ 125 Water sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 126 Sites’ position in the landscapes, talus slopes, height above valley bottom and chamber sizes ..................................... 126 4.10. The faunal data ...................................................................................................................................................... 127 vii

 

4.11. Comparison of the lithic artifacts ........................................................................................................................... 127 4.12. Subsistence procurement reconstruction in the Dasht-e Rostam-Basht region: ‘bottleneck hunting strategy’ ...... 130 a) Spatial patterning of Paleolithic localities .................................................................................................................. 131 b) Lithic technological provisioning ............................................................................................................................... 133 High lithic technological homogeneity ........................................................................................................................... 133 Low tools diversity .......................................................................................................................................................... 133 c) Raw material procurement strategy ............................................................................................................................ 133 d) Faunal evidences ........................................................................................................................................................ 134 Persian Gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) and Gazelle Gazella species ........................................................................... 134 Wild Goat (Capra aegagrus) .......................................................................................................................................... 135 Wild Sheep (Ovis orientalis) ........................................................................................................................................... 135 Aueroch (Bos primigenius) ............................................................................................................................................. 135 Boars (Sus scrofa) .......................................................................................................................................................... 135 Onager (Equus hemionus) ............................................................................................................................................. 136 Partridge (Alectoris chukar) .......................................................................................................................................... 136 f) Theoretical approaches to understanding the benefits of corridors by foragers .......................................................... 137 4.13. The Dasht-e Rostam-Basht habitat area within the Sothern Zagros Mountains ecozone: a nomadic movement model .............................................................................................................................................................................. 140 a) Ecological significances ............................................................................................................................................. 140 Least cost path analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 140 b) Cultural evidences ...................................................................................................................................................... 141 c) Land-use similarities................................................................................................................................................... 141 d) Regional comparative considerations ......................................................................................................................... 141

Chapter 5. Paleolithic Occupational areas on the Northwest Central Plateau: oases settlement systems 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 145 5.2. Physiographic background of the study region ........................................................................................................ 145 5.3. Paleolithic environment settings .............................................................................................................................. 145 a. Fluvial- lacustrine deposits ......................................................................................................................................... 145 b. Sand dune areas .......................................................................................................................................................... 145 c. Spring-fed travertine formations ................................................................................................................................. 146 5.3.1. The Zavyeh Area: a fluvial- lacustrine deposit as a Paleolithic occupational system........................................... 147 Survey strategy ............................................................................................................................................................... 147 The distribution of the Paleolithic localities ................................................................................................................... 147 Lithic artifacts of Zavyeh ................................................................................................................................................ 147 5.3.2. Kashan Area: the spring-fed travertine formations and the Paleolithic occupations ........................................... 154 5.3.3. Arisman area: Paleolithic settings on the dunes filed and travertine formations .................................................. 156 Arisman Paleolithic localities ......................................................................................................................................... 156 Lithic artifacts of the Sand dune fields of the Qaléh Gusheh Area ................................................................................. 156 Holabad .......................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Holabad lithic artifacts ................................................................................................................................................... 162 5.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................ 164

Chapter 6. Lessons from the Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 168 6.2. Principal findings of the study ................................................................................................................................. 168 a) Large-scale component: geology and landscape structures identify Paleolithic home-range zone size and mobility strategies ......................................................................................................................................................................... 168 Intermountain plains....................................................................................................................................................... 168 Stream courses as a network system ............................................................................................................................... 168 Natural shelter formation ............................................................................................................................................... 169 Seasonal diversity ........................................................................................................................................................... 169 b) Small-scale component............................................................................................................................................... 169 Patch-corridor-matrix model explains the land use utilization in the habitat and microhabitat.................................... 169 Sharp contrast topography ............................................................................................................................................. 169 Oasis Paleolithic settlement system in the Central Plateau ............................................................................................. 170 Cultural landscapes ......................................................................................................................................................... 170 viii

 

Future prospects .............................................................................................................................................................. 170 Appendix I ...................................................................................................................................................................... 171 Appendix II ..................................................................................................................................................................... 262 References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 266

ix

 

x

 

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran

  Later, other researchers focused on the Southern Zagros Mountains, including H.T. Wright 11 in Northern Khuzestan, M. Piperno 12 in Jahrom and Shiraz, M. Rosenberg13 in Marvdasht, and T. Ikeda14 in the Arsanjan region in the Southern Zagros Mountains. The results revealed that Iran offers a great potential for Paleolithic research based on the large amount of archaeological evidences, which shows it was occupied by huntergatherer societies since at least the end of the Middle Pleistocene15.

General Introduction The Iranian Plateau is a large geological feature in the Southwestern Asia characterized by marked topographical and ecological diversity. Iran is situated between two bodies of water, the Caspian Sea to the north and the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea to the south, and lies along the easiest overland route from Western to Eastern Asia. This geographical position has led to the idea, put forth by many authors 1 that the Plateau of Iran was a probable route used by early humans from Africa to Eastern and Northern Asia (Fig.1). Despite such a strategic location of the Iranian Plateau, this region has remained relatively unknown in comparison to adjacent regions, such as the Levant, Central Asia, and the Anatolian Plateau2 .

In addition to the aforementioned regions, there were several other scattered works done in Iran during this second phase by such researchers as: A. Ariai and C. Tibult in Kashafrud of the Khorasan Region in the northeast16; H. Sadek-Kooros17 and Singer and Wymer18 in the Azarbaijan Region of the Northwest; and D. Hume19 in Bluchestan in the Southeast.

The development of Paleolithic researches in Iran can be divided into several fallowing broad phases:

3) The third phase of Paleolithic investigations started after two decades of hiatus that followed the Islamic revolution in 1970. In this period, numerous Paleolithic sites were revealed by survey, and some excavated by Iranian and joint Iranian-foreign missions. During this time, Paleolithic research also became increasingly popular among students of archaeology in Iran.

1) The opening phase includes several investigations done at the end of the 19th century up through the 1930s. J. de Morgan reported stone tools in a Pleistocene geological context around the Caspian Sea coast. He claimed the rest of Iran was covered with glaciers and lakes during this period and was therefore uninhabitable3. In 1930, H. Field reported surface Paleolithic stone implements in the Fars Province4.

Despite such a long history of the Paleolithic researches in the vast region of Iran, the most significant aspect is the paucity of excavated sites that provide local or regional chrono-cultural stratigraphic sequences. A good part of the problem appears to be the lack of long lasting focused Paleolithic research 20 , as well as scattered records of Paleolithic occupation throughout the country21

World War II put a halt to these minor Paleolithic investigations for nearly two decades. The late 1940s marked the starting point for the second phase of Paleolithic research with preliminary Paleolithic explorations in the Iranian Zagros Mountains, an area that rapidly become a major region for Paleolithic archaeological research. One such researcher who was interested in this region was C.S. Coon, who conducted a series of Paleolithic excavations within the Zagros, Azarbaijan, Alborz, and Khorasan regions from 1948 until 19515 .

Although our information from the previous researches of the Iranian Plateau is too meager to construct appropriate models on early human life styles, such as land use, settlement dynamics and interactions between early human and environments, but, there are several presented ideas and hypotheses concerning early hunters-gatherers’ settlement pattern and land use over the Zagros Mountains of Iran.

2) Following the discovery in the early 1950s of remarkable Neanderthal remains in Shanidar Cave in the Iraqi Kurdistan 6 , the focus on the Iranian Plateau increased with systematic Paleolithic surveys and excavations amongst the Zagros and Alborz Mountains in the main regions of Kermanshah7, Khorramabad8 and the Hulailan valleys 9 of the western central Zagros Mountains; and several sites10 in the northeastern Alborz Mountains.

An example is the model of ‘site location’ by Hole and Flannery 22 based on the Paleolithic researches in the Khorramabad Valley in the West Central Zagros Mountains.

                                                             11

Wright, 1979. Piperno 1972 and 1974. 13 Rosenberg, 1988. 14 Ikeda, 1979. 15 For example see: Coon, 1951 and 1957; Braidwood, 1960; Hole and Flannery, 1967; Smith, 1986 and Rosenberg, 1988. 16 Ariai and Tibult,,1975-77. 17 Sadek-Kooros, 1974. 18 Singer and Wymer, 1978. 19 Hume,1976. 20 Smith, 1986:7. 21 See: Coon, 1951; 1952; 1957; Braidwood, 1960; Hole and Flannery, 1967 and Rosenberg, 1980. 22 Hole and Flannery, 1967.

                                                            

12

1

For example see: Bar-Yosef, 1994; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2001; Flemming et al., 2003; Petraglia, 2005; Dennell and Roebroeks, 2005; Bailey et al., 2007. 2 For example see Lieberman, 1993; Shea, 2003; Wallace and Shea, 2006; Neeley, 2006; Kuhn, 2002 and references therein). 3 de Morgan, 1907. 4 Field, 1939. 5 Coon, 1957. 6 Solecki, 1955. 7 Braidwood, 1960. 8 Hole and Flannery, 1967. 9 Mortensen, 1993. 10 McBurney, 1968.

1

2

 

Fig.1. Figure illustrates the topographical and hydrological map of the Iranian Plateau and potential migration routes mentioned by many researches for early humans out of Africa into this region.

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran

General Introduction

  The model of Hole and Flannery, analyses human adaptations during the Mousterian (Middle Paleolithic) and early Upper Paleolithic by categorizing Paleolithic sites into several functional types stand on the sites' characteristics including archaeological finds, their position in the natural landscape and the related subsistence strategies utilized therein. As the result of this analysis, Hole and Flannery suggest three types of sites for Zagros Region, which are well summarized by Wright23 as follow:

sheep/goat focus… would identify the site as a highland oriented hunting camp. Here, the inhabitants would specialize in stalking vertical migrates, species that also occupy much smaller home ranges than horizontally migrating, plains dwelling herbivores such as onagers and gazelles. Concerning the high abundance of sheep and goat species at Paleolithic sites of the Zagros Mountains, Hesse 26 points to the existence of a ‘social system’ among huntergatherers because:

Seasonal base camps (generally caves) are located at the junction of two distinct hunting or plant-gathering ecological zones. They are situated offering a good view of game trails, near water and fuel, and are large enough to shelter two to five families. They are occupied by an economically self-sufficient and politically autonomous hunting band. Excavations at the base camp produce dense concentrations of chipping debris, identifiable bone fragments (up to ca. 500 per cu. M.), female-related tools (such as grinding stones ornaments, tools to make tools (such as burins), and a wide range of tool types.

Successful long term exploitation of horizontal migrators is tied to scheduling, the tactics of making sure the hunters arrive at a strategic stand just in advance of the faster traveling herbivores. Since herds of these species may, on an annual basis, graze grasslands over a range far larger than any single base camp catchment, the link between hunter and hunting territory is both seasonal and geographically diffuse. There is little point in defending a hunting range from which the game has fed. On the other hand, successful long term exploitation of vertical migrators puts a premium on game management.

Butchering stations are sporadically occupied by hunters who make a kill, butcher the animal, and return to the base camp. Tools at such sites include only killing and butchering implements. Whereas a living floor in the base camp may exhibit several species of fauna, a similar living floor at a butchering site may show often only one individual. Further, the pattern of bones may be entirely different. For example, in the Khorramabad Valley, Iran, Hole and Flannery (1967:163) found that wild goats and sheep are represented by every bone in the body in base camps, but that wild cattle, red deer, and onager are not. Primary dismemberment of the latter group of animals takes place at the butchering station, and only selected parts are carried to the base camps. For one butchering station (Gar Arjeneh), Hole and Flannery were able to reconstruct a sequence of “events.” First, a red deer was butchered. After its burial by a sterile layer, an aurochs was dismembered. A second sterile layer was formed and a second aurochs was butchered.

The Paleolithic surveys and ecological studies by Rosenberg in the Marvdasht Area in the Southern part of the Zagros Mountains resulted into distinguishing the land utilization between Middle and Upper Paleolithic groups 27 . Rosenberg has argued that Middle Paleolithic people were selected in or near the forest/steppe ecotones at the higher elevation areas; during the Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic the settlements were formed closer to the various “major hydrographic features” (e.g., rivers, marshes, springs, and even seasonal streams) in the “lower elevation parts” of the study area 28 . Since the Paleolithic researches by Hole and Flannery, Hesse and Rosenberg in the decades 1960 and 1970, many new surveys and excavations of the Paleolithic sites are done, not only in the other parts of the Zagros Mountains, but also in the previously unknown regions of the Central Plateau of Iran as well. Now we know that the Paleolithic occupational areas in the Iranian Plateau are not limited only to the Zagros or Alborz Mountains and that areas such as the arid and semi-arid regions within the Central Plateau of Iran also reveal many Paleolithic localities29. In addition, in the last decade many surveys and a number of excavations were carried out in the different parts of Zagros and Alborz Mountains 30 . As a result, our knowledge of Paleolithic archaeology of Iran during recent years has dramatically increased and the new data have provided a better view of site characteristics and patterning.

Transitory stations are represented by a thin scatter of chipping debris left by a few hunters on the lookout for game. The ‘game management’ is another model presented by Hesse 24 . This model is based on the archaeozoological studies at the Ghar-e Khar Cave in the Bisetun which similar to the Khorramabad Valley locates in the West Central Zagros Mountains. Hesse 25 argues: …the pattern of exploitation implied by the relative frequency of the various species. The pattern of similarity to other middle and Upper Paleolithic sites fits nicely into the model of game specialization based on the site location hypothesized by Hole and Flannery…The

                                                             26

Ibid: 43 Rosenberg, 1988. 28 Ibid: 708. 29 See Biglari et al., 2009; Shidrang et al., 2009; Heydari-Guran et al., 2009; Conard et al., 2009; Rezvani and Vahdati Nasab, 2010. 30 For instance see: Biglari and Heydari, 2001; Rostaei et al., 2004; Biglari et al., 2004; Jaubert et al., 2006; Ghasidian et al., 2009; Conard et al., 2006 and 2009, Heydari-Guran et al., 2009; Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian, 2010. 27

                                                             23

Wright, 1971:466. Hesse, 1989. 25 Ibid: 43. 24

3

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran One issue that can be extracted from these three models and theories of “site location”, “game management” and “Middle and Upper Paleolithic groups’ land use” is the role of environmental settings on the early human adaptations and behaviors. Understanding of this scheme still remains an important topic among prehistoric archaeologists and is considered as a key aspect in early human settlement patterns and land use in many other parts of the world as well. This is a particularly essential question in the Paleolithic archaeology of Iran for this book, where at present more fine-grained data are becoming available.

While this book is presenting a detail picture of the Upper Pleistocene early human settlement patterns on the Iranian Plateau, the principal aim of it is test of the previous mentioned models of “site location”, “game management”, and “Middle and Upper Paleolithic groups’ land use” by an ecological model of structural landscape. Structural landscape model Evidence of prehistoric subsistence activities is primarily recovered through excavation of hunter-gatherer sites in the form of fauna, features, and artifacts. However, alongside these valuable data, other variables can help us reconstruct early human behavior. One of those variables is the natural landscape wherein archaeological sites are situated 35 . A great amount of human behavioral complexity can be observed as a result of the interface between humans and their environment, and the theory of natural selection is the most accessible way to explain these processes36 . Results of studies of landscape ecology and human evolution suggest that environmental circumstances, including lithology, topography, and hydrology influence biological and socio-cultural adaptations37 and consequently the pattern of early human occupations across a landscape provides information about land use and subsistence strategies38 .

In turn, the increased attention to environmental studies for human behavior requires new methods that can investigate the relationship between natural landscapes and early human settlement patterns, dynamics and land use. In this regard Conard31 noted that: One problem with which researchers struggle is how to move between analyses at the scale of the find horizon or site and that of the landscape and region… Ecological approaches for linking people and sites within a landscape remain under developed. Here qualitative and quantitative predictions for potential carry capacities and relative population densities could provide insight for explaining large scale patterns of artifacts and site distributions in synchronic and diachronic studies. Such work could try to address why the distribution of Middle Paleolithic and MSA sites varies greatly within and between regions. This research needs to incorporate all available environmental data on large and small scales to explain the patterned spatial and temporal evidence for mobility, seasonal behavior, subsistence, technological organization, and population density. With the ever more detailed records for Pleistocene environmental conditions becoming available at the global and regional scale, more strongly directed attempts should be made to use this information for building testable models for Paleolithic settlement.

The mechanics of human movement through an ecological landscape can provide a record of how a group searches for, interacts with, and uses heterogeneous resources. In turn, the different patterns of human movement, activities, and procurement strategies should be considered as a response to different types of landscapes. Concerning the organisms behavioral movement strategies in the landscape, the studies39 have shown that if resources are aggregated in a landscape, the best strategy would be to remain in the area and continue searching for recourses, but if recourses are distributed in the landscape, the optimal strategy is movements immediately after exploiting the recourses40.

At the other side the ethnographic and ecological studies around the world indicate that the density and distribution of the food resources have great influence on huntergatherer’ diet and even social constructs which are seen as settlement pattern and mobility 32 . As Frison 33 stated “successful prehistoric communal hunting depended largely upon the ability of the hunting group to predict the reactions of animals of a given species to the natural environment”, understanding how natural landscape affected the abundance and distribution of early human settlements requires an understanding of the structural landscapes of each area associated with Paleolithic occupations. For instance “landform, vegetation cover, and time of year of the procurement events are variables that must be known and understood: otherwise, accurate interpretations cannot be realized”34 .

Concerning the importance of understanding of early human settlement systems and specifically testing the suggestion of “game management” by Hesse for Iran, this book uses the structural landscape analyze, including geology, topography, hydrology, landform, and climate. By this way it defines the Paleolithic occupational spaces with using a hierarchical categories based on the nature of the environmental settlements into several spaces. These spaces are macrozone, ecozone, home-range zone, intermediate zone, habitat area, microhabitat area, and finally, site. This classification is based on the degree of similarity of structural landscapes in the larger scales

                                                             35

Williams, 2004:1. Germillion, 2002:142. 37 for instance see Huggett, 1995 and references therein. 38 Jochim, 1998. 39 For example: Romero, 2007. 40 Ibid: 7.

                                                            

36

31

Conard, 2001: viii. Blades, 1999. 33 Frison, 1987:178. 34 ibid: 178. 32

4

General Introduction

  occupational areas and type of site such as open-air or shelter site, site location in the landscape and microclimate conditions for the small-scale areas. In this study, other characteristics of sites are considered as well such as cultural periods and faunal remains. The lithic artifacts and faunal remains are compared and analyzed in these different habitats and microhabitats areas to test the idea of the direct impact of various types of landscape on early human settlement systems and land use.

3) Evaluating and testing the linkage by structural landscape analysis between the natural landscapes and settlement systems and subsistence strategies in the course of fieldwork researches at several different Paleolithic settlements. Fieldwork The archaeological fieldworks for this study took place in two phases. The first phase consisted of studies and surveys from 1993-2004. During this time, I worked with the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization and later at the Paleolithic Center of the National Museum of Tehran. I conducted several fruitful Paleolithic surveys and participated in some non-Paleolithic archaeological projects that resulted in the discovery of Paleolithic sites and localities. Some of the fieldworks that prepared the way for this dissertation consisted of archaeological surveys of Islama-bad-e Gharb 44 , Kermanshah 45 , Khorramabad 46 , the Kashan Region 47 , the Niyasar Region 48 , Fars 49 , the Arisman Region 50 , the Dasht-e Rostam Region 51 , and the Takht-e Soleyman Region 52 . Much information, such as observations of landscape and site settings, was collected from these surveys 53 . The second phase of fieldwork, from which most of the data for this dissertation were collected, was conducted from 2004-2007 within the Tübingen- Iranian Stone Age Research Project (TISARP), based at the University of Tübingen. The TISARP team has conducted fieldwork in different parts of the country including Tehran, Esfahan, Fars, and the Kohgiluyeh - Boyerahmad provinces54.

One approach of the structural landscape analysis is based on a powerful ecological model of patch-corridormatrix 41 , which, has been used widely for behavioral mobility of the different organic species in the complex topographic landscapes. This model is used here for the mountainous ecosystem of the Zagros Mountains Zone for explanation of the modern and early hunter-gatherer groups’ settlement patterns and dynamics42. As classical analyses of settlement systems have relied on archaeological finds for the site function such as base camps or kill sites 43 , the structural landscape analyses (patch-corridor-matrix model) in this research will interpret the function of the each area for early human economic activities based on the site(s) location within the specific landscape. Meanwhile other part of the Iranian Plateau that contains of different environmental settings such as the open land and desert areas, the complex topographic condition had no main role for settlement systems. The distribution of the sites has shown that the other ecological factors like water and raw material availabilities have identified human land use during Upper Pleistocene.

Organization of the book In this book, the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Digital Elevation Models (DEM) were employed to build framework for combining various environmental and Paleolithic archaeological data and the quantitative dataset obtained from office-based and field-based surveys was complied into a Microsoft Access database that allowed for quantitative analyses. In sum, the validation of the structural landscape model for the relationship of Paleolithic settlement systems and dynamic in the different environmental settings for the Iranian Plateau is achieved through the following steps:

This book is organized into four complementary parts; the first part (Chapters 1 and 2) presents the approaches and backgrounds of the study. The principal concepts of landscape structures that are relevant to human adaptability are described in chapter 1. In this chapter, the literature on models and theories concerning huntergatherers is reviewed as well, particularly those that are related to my approach in Southwestern Asia. Chapter 2 includes a description of the natural landscapes of the Iranian Plateau, specifically its geology, landform, climate, and hydrological systems.

1) Classifying the landscapes of Iran based on geology, landform, climate, and hydrological setting, in order to clarify the landscape structures;

The second part of the work begins in chapter 3 in which I review the Paleolithic occupations and sites of the Iranian Plateau. It summarizes the faunal remains and lithic artifacts from the excavated sites as a means to correlate

                                                            

2) Reviewing all Paleolithic sites with their lithic and faunal remains within their environmental contexts on the Iranian Plateau;

44

Heydari, 2001. Heydari 1999a; Biglari and Heydari 2001. 46 Rostaei et al., 2004; Heydari 1999b. 47 Heydari, 2002 and 2003. 48 Heydari-Guran et al., 2009. 49 Heydari, 2010. 50 Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian, 2010. 51 Heydari et al., 2004. 52 Heydari and Ghasidian 2004 and Heydari-Guran et al., 2009. 53 Heydari, 2007. 54 Conard et al., 2006; Conard et al., 2007; Ghasidian et al., 2009. 45

                                                             41

Forman, 1996. For detail description of the patch-corridor-matrix model see chapter one of this book. 43 For example see: Binford, 1982; Isaac, 1989; Conard, 1996. 42

5

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran landscape structure with subsistence strategies. Furthermore, the principles of the structural landscape model are developed in this chapter by using previous archaeological research that is based on settlement patterns in the occupied areas. The third part of this research in chapters 4 and 5 involves analyzing the structures of the landscapes in the different environments of Iran as case studies. Chapter 4 covers a study on settlement pattern, system, and land use in the Dasht-Rostam and Basht Region in the Southern Zagros Mountains. Chapter 5 is an investigation of the Paleolithic occupations on the Western Central Plateau alongside the Sahand- Bazman volcanic belt. Chapter 6, as the conclusion, seeks to group and synthesize the results of this work. The fourth part of this book includes two appendices and a geographical index. The appendix I is a catalogue of Paleolithic sites of the Dasht-Rostam Region and serves to present the detail nature of the data used in the book and appendix II illustrates the numbers which are extracted from the landform analysis of the Arsanjan Area in relation to Arsanjan section in chapter 3.

 

6

   

PART ONE Approaches and Backgrounds

Chapter 1. Structural landscapes and hunter-gatherers models and theories Chapter 2. An overview of the Iranian physiographic regions

7

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran examples, optimal foraging and site catchment analysis are strongly recognized and related to structural landscapes and environmental settings.

Chapter 1. Structural landscapes and huntergatherers models and theories

1.2. Landscape and landscape ecology

1.1. Introduction

A “landscape can be observed from many points of view, and ecological processes in a landscape can be studied at different spatial and temporal scales 8 . In general, landscape is defined as shape of a geographical area and its associated habitats in different scales from hectares or several square kilometers. Related to the definition of landscape Neef 9 “ characterized landscape as part of the earth’ surface with its uniform structure and functional pattern” or according to Naveh and Lieberman 10 “landscapes deal with their totality as physical, ecological and geographical entities, integrating all natural and human (caused) patterns and processes...” .

For the purpose of this study, it is essential to have basic information on the topics of structural landscape in relation to animal and human behavior and latest theories and models concerning early human settlement systems and land use as well. The “theory, models and empirical observations indicate that the movements of organisms are influenced by the structure of the landscapes they occupy”1. Furthermore, the movement patterns can also affect the structure and dynamics of populations and communities 2 , therefore understanding how and why individuals move through a heterogeneous landscape are required component for the study of early human settlement systems and dynamics3 as well. The use of environmental variables for explaining differences in race, behavior and culture has a long history in anthropology 4 but only in a few cases has structural landscape analysis been used for the study of Paleolithic settlement patterns and subsistence strategies. For instance, Straus 5 briefly points to the effect of topographical features on hunting strategies among the Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers of Southern France and Northern Spain.

Landscape ecology also deals with the analysis of relationships between life and its environment, Leser 11 argues that landscape “is a spatial pattern of abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic components that form a functional entity and serve as a human’s environment”. At the other side “landscape ecology may be defined as any landscape unit in which the biosphere, troposphere, atmosphere, pedosphere, and hydrosphere, together with the biological, geomorphological, climatological, pedological, and hydrological processes that create them, are seen as a unitary whole”12 .

1. 3. Important physical factors in landscape ecology

However, during the past few decades the studies of anthropologists and ethnographers have indicated that the ecological settings have a great influence on the modern hunter and gatherers all around the world 6 . Therefore, there are many theories used to explain hunter-gatherer foraging strategies and land use which are established by Paleoanthropologists and have attained from ethnographic observations7 .

Climate, water, altitude, and topography are considered as the most important physical factors in the biosphere. The external temperature is the most influential climatic pressure for the majority of organisms 13 . Changes in altitude have effects on the local climate and as a result have a great influence other ecological variables 14 and flora and fauna as well. The temperature decreases at about 0.6 C for every 100 meters increase in elevation15 therefore in even a small region with high contrast topography, different temperature can be observed.

In sum, this chapter consists of two parts; the first is a survey of the principal landscape ecology, particularly it focuses on the structural landscape models of ‘patchcorridor-matrix’, ‘connectivity’ and ‘fragmentation’. In the second parts, it reviews models and theories used to explain hunter-gatherer settlement systems and land use and the factors influence early human home range size. Nonetheless, rather than providing a general survey of the available literature, the second part of this chapter instead focuses specifically on works that address the relationship and influence of structural landscapes on the subsistence strategies of hunters for hunting. Among these ideas and

In addition, changes in temperature can affect a variety of ecological factors such as relative humidity and growing season. The increase in elevation caused rapid changes in vegetation and animal life, which are commonly distributed in characteristic life zones. For instance, in the mountains region, it is possible to have numerous ecotones, or transitional zones. Another important physical factor is topography. Topography refers to the

                                                            

                                                             8

Risser, 1987 in Turner, 1989:173. Neef, 1967 in Bastain, 2001: 758 10 Naveh and Lieberman, 1984 in Bastain, 2001: 758. 11 Leser, 1997 in Bastain, 2001: 758. 12 Huggett, 1995:14. 13 Harrison, 1998 in Taylor-Weale and Vinicius, 2008. 14 McCombs, 1997:12. 15 Olgyay, 1973, Cox and Moore, 1980.

1

Mcintyre and Wiens, 1999:437. 2 For example, see: Turner, 1989. 3 Merriam 1988; Ims, 1995; Wiens, 1995. 4 Harris, 1968. 5 Straus,1993. 6 For example, see: Lee, 1968, Binford,1977; 1978a and 1980. 7 For example, see: Bettinger, 1991 and references therein.

9

8

Chapter 1 shape and coonfiguration off the  land surrface and “inclludes the relief of the t land and loocation of its features, bothh natural and human h made” 16.

In su um, Tüxen21 has recognizzed a “compleex interactionn of natural n factors that influuence one an nother, thesee inclu ude: rocks, water, climaate, relief, soils, s plants,, anim mals, and hum mans” (Fig. 11.1). These feeatures in thee 22 ecossystem are connsidered as thee main basis factors f .

There are maany examples,, which confirrm that topogrraphy on a regionaal scale affectts climate andd life as well. For instance, thee regional oriientation of “large “ topograaphic features deteermines expoosure to prevaailing winds”” 17 or “leeward slopes, especiallly on large hillls and mounttains, normally lie within the rainn shadow”18.

1.4.. Patch-corrridor-matrixx model ong all the approaches for landscap pe ecologicall Amo stud dies the modell of patch-corrridor-matrix perhaps p is onee of th he most pow werful model. During last decades, thiss mod del has been used u for study of organism movements m inn a wide range of sciences, froom wild life to urban andd onal planning23. regio

markable exam mple of the rainn shadow’s efffects There is rem on vegetationn is pronouncced in the Albborz Mountains in the north of Iran. Since thhe Alborz Reggion forms a huge range of higgh mountains in the southeern of the Casspian Sea, the nortthern slopes tooward to the sea s get much more humid thann the southhern and windward w sloopes. Consequentlyy, the vegetattion radically changes from m the southern sloopes to the northern slopees. There are also many exampples of uniquue mountain orientation 199 and varying vegeetation coverr on the Zaggros Mountainns as well.

g the naatural landscappes are comp posed of threee In general typees of patch, corridor and maatrix where: 1) ‘Patch’, is “a widde relatively homogeneous h s areaa that differs foor its surround dings”24, o land whichh 2) ‘Corrridor’ is “naarrow strips of diffeer from the maatrix on eitherr side”25, e andd 3) Finaally, ‘matrix’ is the most extensive mosst connected laandscape elem ment type andd thereefore plays a dominant role in thee funcctioning of thee landscape”266. w andd concrete exaample of a paatch would bee A widespread a flaat plain that is surrounded bby steep moun ntains (matrix)) and streams, vallleys, ridges, aand animal trrails 27 are thee t corridors iin the landscap pes. clearr example of the mples that sh how the size,, Therre are large number exam conffiguration andd arrangemennt of these eleements in thee land dscape effect the t movementts of the organ nism form thee micrro-scale to large-scale areass. For example, largge patches haave normally more speciess n small patchhes, or the shape and orientation o off than patches determinne movement of terrestriaal animals ass welll. The latter example cann be elaboraated upon ass follo ows:

Fig. 1. 1. R. R Tüxen’s scheeme showing innterdependence of various biotic and aboitic ennvironmental faactors (after Tüxxen, 1931:32 inn Huggett, 19955).

p orienteed parallel tto an animall's route mayy “A patch enha ance movemennt rate. The animal may en nter the patch, be channeled to thhe far end, and exit. Or it may m make a sligh ht detour andd be channelled along onee side or thee otheer of the elongated e patch, without crossing a boun ndary.”28

In general, the vegetatioon cover off the eastern and northeastern slopes of thee Zagros Mouuntains are deenser than the weestern and sooutheastern sllopes becausee the western and southwestern parts receivee more sun annd are mals also “rrespond to some s consequentlyy drier. Anim regional topoographic propeerties”. 20

                                                           

21

Tüx xen, 1931:32 in Huggett, H 1995. Hu uggett, 1995. 23 Forrman, 1995. 24 Forrman and Godronn, 1986:123. 25 Ibid d:123. 26 San ntra, 1994: 73. 27 Forrman, 1995:145. 28 ibid d: 127. 22

                                                             16

Huggett and Cheesman, C 2002:33. Huggett, 20100:171. 18 Huggett and Cheesman, C 2002:185. 19 Forman, 19955. 20 Huggett, 20100:171. 17

9

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran

 

Patch 1 Patch 2 Patch 3 Matrix  Matrix  A 

B 

C

D

Fig. 1.2. The contrast between a patch and a matrix can be low (A) or strong (B). In addition, the contrast between neighboring patches may be qualitatively different (C, D), (redesigned after figure 2.3-2 in Beierkuhnlein, 2002).

This is very important to keep in mind that in the landscapes, the patches have internal structure and they may themselves consist of a number of patches as well. For example, a small concavity in a mountain that is

The uni-directional functions are those corridors which, they connect a source to sink in only one direction such as a “river ecosystems and drift of the matter and diasporas they carry” 30 . In level, that the landscape is

Fig. 1.3. Different types of corridors, including: A. bidirectional corridor; B. unidirectional corridor; C. broad corridor with high capacity; D. corridor surrounded by similar matrix; E. corridor with similar but not identical conditions of source and sink; F. unclosed corridor; G. corridor network; H. corridor leading to a similar but not identical sink (redesigned after figure 2.3-2 in Beierkuhnlein, 2002:72).

  connected to a larger plain can be considered as a small patch in a bigger patch (Fig. 1.2.). In addition, the contrast in between the landscape elements of patchcorridor-matrix are important for their functions, since when the contrast is high between two elements, as a result, their presentation are better seen and play their role more clear in a particular environment (Fig. 1.2).

more complex, we consider a “network of patches and corridors, the interactions will be multidirectional” 31 … and “in these systems, movement and transport can be affected in any direction”32 . As a consequence of their “form and context, structural corridors may function as habitats, conduits, filters, sources, and sinks” 33 . These functions are elaborated upon below, in Fig 1.4.

Among the three elements patch-corridor-matrix, corridor has a variety of functions since it always considered as a connective space in between two other landscape elements of patch and matrix (Fig.1.3). The functions of the corridors can be “bi-directional or uni-directional”29 (Fig.1.4). For instance in the bi-directional corridors, the terrestrial vertebrates come and go from one plain to another in the bases on their daily movement by using a valley (corridor).

As matrix is the most extensive and most connected landscape element type it plays therefore the dominant role in how the landscape functions34. For example, with a large mountain that is embedded with numerous small disturbance patches 35 , the

                                                             30

Ibid :76. Ibid :76. 32 Ibid :76 33 Forman, 1995:149. 34 Forman and Godron, 1986. 31

                                                             29

 Beierkuhnlein, 2002. 

10

Chapter 1 mountains coonstitutes the matrix elemeent type becauuse it is greatest inn its actual physical p extennt, and is moostly connected, and a apply a dominant influence i on the ecosystems. The character of matriix is compleetely i depends on the phenomeenon under investigation. For t study of early e human settlement paattern instance, in the within dune deflations may m are consiidered as pattches d moundss are within deserrt environmennts and the dunes 36 seen as the matrixes m . In addition, what constituutes the matrixx is dependennt on l the scale of investigationn. For instance, at a very large Z Mounntains which, are mainly the scale the Zagros environmental settings of this research,, an intermounntain plain may bee consider as a matrix for number n of sm maller particular pattches like lakees, marshland and so on.

1. 5. Connnectivity and a fragmeentation in the landscape structure In general, “connectivitty” and “fraagmentation” are milar defined as thhe degree of connection inn between sim landscapes ellements (Fig. 1.3). They caan be quantifieed by means of thhe number off corridors 37 . In the landsscape ecological stuudies, the connnectivity and fragmentationn are considered as a a key conccept for the movement off the organisms am mong the habbitat areas andd resources, there t are many exaamples show that t the habitaat areas the raate of movements and a communiccations are higgher with stroonger connectivity by number off the corridorss.

Fig.1 1.4. Corridor funnctions. Conduuit: organisms pass from one placce to another, but b not reside w within the corridor. Habitat: organisms can survvive and reprodduce in the corridor. Filter: som me organisms orr materials can pass through th he corridor; otherr cannot. Barrieer: organisms orr materials cann not cross the co orridor. Source: organisms or m material emanate from the corrid dor. Sink: organnisms or materiial enter the corrridor and are destroyed (after ( Hess and Ficher, 2001:201).

In this regardd, Bennet38 arggues that: “….Predictivve models based on the patternn of occurrence of animal sppecies in patcchy environm ments m indicate thatt habitats witth high connectivity are more likely to be occupied o thann those that are a isolated. Thus, T species able to use linkagges have a greater g capaciity to fr haabitats. The use of compputer persist in fragmented simulation models m coupleed with field data for seleected species provvides evidencee that landscaape connectivity is an influentiaal factor in deetermining thee risk of extinction for small annd otherwise--isolated poppulations. Oveerall, these studiess consistently infer that higgh levels of haabitat connectivity are associatted with a grreater occurrrence and persistennce of populattions in isolateed habitats.”

1. 6. Herbivvore movem ments and structurall dscape land dies on animall spatial activiities can be ussed to explainn Stud mod dern and earrly human hhunter and gatherers. Forr instaance, the studyy of Wilmsenn40 has confirm med that theree is a strong relatioonship betweeen the spatiall organizationn of the game within the landscapes and spatiall ngements in hunter-gathere h er settlements based on thee arran mod dern human huunters in the ddifferent part of the world.. In addition, a the ecologists have long kno own that thee anim mal and espeecially herbivvores are typ pically usingg fragm mented and heterogeneouus landscapee rather thann conttinuous homoogenous habiitats 41 for their t specificc need ds.

The term off “fragmentattion” can be used for all the landscape sttructural elem ments of pattch, corridor and matrix. How wever this term more ofteen is used foor the patches wheere they are become b surroounded and as the result isolatted by exteend matrix. The degreee of fragmentation influences specifically on o the mobility of species39.

m profitablee For example, theyy “should forrage at the most d patches and rest at the moost suitable pllaces in termss food of safety, tempperature, or other factorss” 42 .Severall ortant types of herbivores movem ment in thee impo heterogeneous landscape are recogn nized. Mostt

                                                                                                 35

A remarkable example for this type of patches are a the intermounntain M valleys and plainns of the Zagros Mountains. 36 Heydari-Guraan et al., 2011. 37 Tischendorf and a Fahrig, 2000 in i Beierkuhnlein,, 2002. 38 Bennet, 2003::95. 39 Beierkuhnlein n, 2002. 

                                                           

40

Wilmsen, 1973. Forr example, see: Bowers B and Stephan, 1997. 42 Barrraquand and Bennhamou, 2008:33336. 41

11

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran sources 49 . Aswani 50 explains that the optimal foraging theory is able to “formulate testable predictions that can account for foragers’ decisions (choices) with regards to the types and abundances of food they consume (diet breadth), the areas utilized (patch choice), and the time spent foraging in these areas (patch use)”. In the patch choice model the resources encountered in patches are not homogeneously distributed in the environment in kind and quantity therefore foragers use the patch which produces the best energy return for time spent traveling, searching, gathering, and processing the resources found there51. This model tries to determine when it is efficient to quit searching a patch and move to another one. The ‘central place foraging model’ is another component of the optimal foraging theory, which analyzes foraging “as a trip with a given point of departure and return” 52 . Furthermore, this model predicts that, if the need sources are not available around the home base, with increasing distance from the home base, hunters should obtain larger prey or more prey. Under this strategy “foragers will range out from and back to their home base in a radial pattern in search of resources”53.

vertebrates have a home range, the area covered in dayto-day movements for food, shelter, etc. 43 . Table1.2 summarizes the movement types of mammalian herbivores in a heterogeneous landscape. Vertebrates, including mammal species that normally were the main food recourses of the early human, are using the landscape in different ways. In most mountains regions such as Zagros Mountains, Ibex (Capra aegagruns) use steep rugged terrain, while wild ass (Equus heminus) are nearly entirely restricted to flat or gently rolling terrain44. This contrast in using different habitats amongst herbivores may result from the probability of finding food, cover from predators and hunters, physical body abilities, or a suitable microclimate during severe conditions. However, it may also reflect the availability of a series of spatially separated ecosystems, which are required diurnally, seasonally or through the lifecycle. 45 Type of movement ( mammalian herbivores) Dispersal movement

Migration movement Home range movement

Description Animal dispersal refers to, essentially, permanent movement away from the area of birth or residence. Migration usually refers to the cyclic movement of animals from their birth area to another area, and then back again.

1.7.2. Site catchment analysis “Site catchment analysis” for the first time was invented and applied in archaeology by Vita-Finzi and Higgs 54 . This analysis is based on the relationship between ‘technology’ and the ‘natural resources’ that are placing in an economic range around a archaeological site55. In fact this model has its origins in fluvial geomorphology where a catchment refers to a stream’s drainage network, or that area which provides water and sediment to a fluvial system. As in geomorphology, it is necessary to investigate the drainage pattern in a hydrological basin for instance to make definitive observations regarding fluvial system, in archaeology, site catchment analysis will explain the patterns of human economy or site exploitation territory with studies of the environment around the archaeological site at about 5 or 10 km in radius shape. There are many studies around the world that support the site catchment analysis such as the ethnographical observation of Lee56 that “the !Kung do not normally go more than 6 miles (10 km) from their camps to procure resources”. One example related to Paleolithic landscape of Iran is the site catchment analysis of the Warwasi Rockshelter carried out by Uerpmann57.

The area covered in day-to-day movements for food, shelter, etc.

Table1.2. Three types of movement for mammalian herbivores on the heterogeneous landscape.

1.7. Landscape structures and hunter-gatherers models and theories 1.7.1. Optimal foraging theories Although the in its original form, ‘optimal foraging theory’ was developed by ecologists and zoologists to explain nonhuman resource use and dietary patterns46 but during last decades, this theory became one of the most successful one in archaeology for study the subsistence practices of the early humans 47 . In a general point of view the optimal foraging theory is defined that “foraging behavior has been ‘designed’ by natural selection to respond to changing conditions in a way that yields the greatest possible benefit for the individual forager’s survival and reproductive success”48. Concerning huntergatherer behavior, optimal foraging theory investigations have shown that the hunting of large terrestrial game is more cost efficient than pursuing other kinds of food

                                                             49

For example see: Hawkes et al., 1982. Aswani, 1998:208. 51 MacArthur and Pianka, 1966. 52 Bettinger, 1991:93. 53 Winterhalder and Kennett, 2006:16. 54 Vita-Finzi and Higgs, 1975. 55 Vita-Finzi and Higgs, 1975:5. 56 Lee, 1969:61. 57 Uerpmann, 1996. 50

                                                             43

Forman, 1995:365. Personal communication with H.P. Uerpmann in 2006. 45 Forman, 1995: 304. 46 MacArthur and Pianka, 1966. 47 For example see: Bettinger, 1991 and references therein. 48 Smith, 1983:626. 44

12

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.5. The topographical map of the Kermanshah region and location of the Warwasi Rockshlter with 5 and 10 km radius line around the site (after Uerpmann, 1996: 743-744).

13

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran The middle to Epipaleolithic site of Warwasi (see the details information of the Warwasi Rockshlter in chapter 3 of this book) locates in the Kermanshah Valley in West Central Zagros Mountains in a heterogeneous environment in term of topography. The excavation of this site has yielded a large fauna assemblage in the entire layers of Middle to late Paleolithic including onager, deer, and wild gout. These species are locally available in a wide range of environment such as flat plain and ragged mountains, while these two types of environment exist around the Warwasi Rockshelter under 10(2 hours by walk) or even 5 km in radius .58

1.8. Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies Based on his own ethnographic studies, L. Binford 61 made the simple but elegant argument that seasonal or short-term hunter-gatherer mobility should be pattered in predictable ways, with respect to spatial and temporal variation in resource availability. In Binford’ model, the adaptive strategies of hunter-gatherers are expressed as either ‘foraging’ or ‘collecting’ patterns depending on the environmental conditions. Additionally, he distinguished ‘residential mobility’ as the movement of all members of a residential base from one locality to another and ‘logistical mobility’ as the movement of specially organized task groups on brief excursions from a residential base62.

1.7.3. Elevation model As was discussed at the beginning of this chapter, climate is the primary determinant of altitudinal changes in geoecosystems, and especially for vegetation and soil ecological zones59. The ‘elevation model’, like site

Building upon these two different mobility types, Binford further presents two basic subsistence settlement systems The first is the ‘forager system’, which is characterized

Fig.. 1.6. Schematic view of the differences between the circulating and radiating mobility strategies used by hunter-gatherers in the southern Levant (after Lieberman and Shea, 1994:608).

catchment analysis, is an idea that also comes from the study of Paleolithic land-use from an environmental perspective. This hypothesis was first supported through macro-scale studies in the Dordogne Valley in Southwestern France. Here, research showed that Pleistocene-Holocene transition foragers began moving to high-elevation sites in the mountainous regions of the Massif Central and the Pyrenees in southern France because of climatic change and, consequently, changing subsistence strategies. 60

by ‘low logistical mobility’ and ‘high residential mobility’. Second, there is the ‘collector system’, which represents high logistical mobility and low residential mobility63. Researchers note that “according to Binford, the former systems are a response to environments where the distribution of important resources is spatially and/or  temporally (seasonally) homogeneous, and latter systems are adapted to environments where the distribution of critical resources are spatially or temporally uneven”64.  Many scholars admit that Binford’s division between residentially mobile foragers and logistically mobile collectors has contributed the understanding of huntergatherer settlement systems for archaeologists.

                                                            

                                                            

 Binford, 1977; 1978a and 1980.   Binford, 1980.  63 Fitzhugh and Habu, 2002. 64 Ibid:2. 61

58

Ibid: 743-744. 59 Huggett, 1995. 60 Jones, 2007.

62

14

Chapter 1 Above all “hunter-gatherer mobility strategies vary widely but they can be classified as well in terms of the distribution and availability of resources and the social relations of production, as ‘circulating’ (residential) or ‘radiating’ (logistical)” 65 . Circulating mobility is inferred from the occurrence of contemporary sites in different habitats that were used on a consistent seasonal basis and contain evidence for a full range of extractive and maintenance activities 66 . Here it needs to be emphasized again that these the mobility strategies are depend on the structure of landscape and the distribution of food resources.

1.8.1. Effective temperature: a strong factor on early human mobility and home range size

“Most hunter-gatherers probably used circulating mobility strategies, moving frequently from habitat to habitat on a seasonal basis because it avoided the problem of resource depletion around the sites” 67 . Lieberman 68 listed some of the main benefits of the circulating strategy among hunter-gatherers such as:

1) “Adequate variety, number, and density of food plants available year round,

a)

Early human “range size is defined as the total area of land over which a group moves and procures resources”77. Regarding to the subject of predicting home rang size of the Paleolithic people, the ethnographical studies around the world indicate that, there are several basic natural factors, which, affect greatly hunter-gatherer home range size. Silberbauer lists several of these factors here 78:

2) Sufficient grazing to attract herbivores, trees to provide shade, shelter, and firewood, 3) Proximity to permanent water,

It allows hunter-gatherers to “avoid the resource depletion associated with long-term habitation of a single site or region”69.

b)

Foraging and hunting in the radiating strategy in the same region will inevitably reduce the “density of exploitable resources”, resulting in the “inadequate levels of food intake”70.

c)

It permits hunter-gatherers to “exploit a greater variety of high-quality resources that would otherwise not be available in one habitat”71 and finally,

4) Sufficient spaces to contain these resources in an adequate quantity”. But in addition to these environmental factors, there is other variable that are important in a larger geographical scale’s view which has been used in ethnographical research for measuring the home range size among the modern hunter- gathers called ‘effective temperature’. Effective temperature (ET) is a useful means of measuring resource productivity in an environment. This equation calculates the annual distribution of solar radiation available over a given region of the earth’s surface, thus providing a fair indicator of the seasonality of an environment. The formula for ET is expressed as79:

d) This strategy provides for “flexibility of group size and location” 72 and “reduction of social stress and conflict” 73.

8

On the other hand, “radiating mobility is recognized by the occurrence of focal sites (base camps) that are repeatedly or continuously occupied and connected to smaller special activity sites” (Fig. 2.1)74. There are also examples in the Middle East region which indicate that the base camps in a radiating strategy, “are organized logistically and may be highly visible due to extended occupations and the accumulation of midden deposits”75. Nevertheless, in the heterogeneous environments, the organization of hunter- gatherer subsistence and settlement are complex 76 and influences greatly the mobility strategies.

14 8

18

10 8

“T is mean annual temperature in degrees Centigrade AR is the annual range in temperature between the average temperatures in degrees Centigrade of the coldest and warmest months, WM is the average temperature in degrees centigrade for the warmest month, CM is the average temperature in degrees centigrade for the coldest month”.

                                                             65

Chang, 1962; Binford, 1980 in Lieberman,1993. Binford, 1980 in Lieberman, 1993. 67 Lieberman, 1993:599.  68 Ibid. 69 Halstead and O’Shea, 1989 in Lieberman, 1993:600. 70 Hames and Vickers, 1982 in Lieberman, 1993 :600. 71 Lieberman, 1993:600. 72 Smith, 1981 in Lieberman, 1993:600. 73 Lee, 1979 in Lieberman, 1993:600. 74 Lieberman, 1993:608. 75 Neeley and Clark, 1993:298. 76 Bettinger, 1991.

Studies using this equation show that environments with an ET range of 15 to 26 degrees have far less seasonality than colder environments. This factor affects the average distance traveled per residential move and home range size among the hunter gatherer groups. In cold environments, larger fauna need large territories to

66

                                                             77

MacDonell, 1995:31. Silberbauer, 1981 in MacDonell, 1995:42. 79 Bettinger, 1991: 65. 78

15

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran valley between the parallel Solutré and Pouilly Ridges”87. Straus88 emphasis that the archaeological evidences show this tactic was so “successful that it was apparently used for over 20 millennia”, during most of the Upper Paleolithic - resulting in a massive deposit of bones known as the ‘Horse Magma’. In the Swabian Alb of southwestern Germany, numerous Upper Paleolithic sites are located along the cliff-lined Achtal valley (a paleoDanube channel). The sites include Geißenklösterle, Brillenhöhle, Sirgensteinhöhle, and Höhlefels 89 and “herd hunting would have been facilitated” by use of circumstantial exists in the nearby Lonetal (the location of Vogelherd Cave), as well as in other valleys of this hilly region90.

support themselves, therefore it would also be expected that there would be a dramatic difference in the average distance of a residential move between warm and cold climatic conditions for hunter-gatherers. Kelly 80 carries out one remarkable example concerning applying ET for mobility strategies and home range size where he wanted to measure the average distance moved between residential locations for a number of modern huntergatherer groups around the world.

1.8.2. Landscape learning model Several landscape ecologists and archaeologists have highlighted landscape learning as “how human groups gather and share environmental information from the perspective of colonization”81. In more detail, Rockman82 explains that the landscape-learning model uses two scheme of environmental knowledge: ‘Locational’ geographic coordinates and ‘physical characteristics’ of natural resources and ‘limitational’ cycles and constraints of local environment. The locational knowledge points to the fixed recourses in the landscape such as placement of a lithic outcrop, spring, or meadow with rich soils, pathway of a game migration, or distribution of sheltered caves or campsites with good visibility. The limitational cycles knowledge, refers to the cyclical environmental characteristics. One example for the limitations of the environment for human uses is when the game migrate from one habitat area to another based on the seasonal movements?

Above all the evidences available from ethnographic studies on hunter-gatherer societies, and my personal observations of modern hunters in the Zagros Mountains as well indicate that there are at least four hunting effort strategies: stalking, posting, hunting blinds, and traps. As is discussed in the following descriptions of these four strategies, each of these hunting efforts is strongly affected by type of prey and landscape structure and landform significance. Stalking Stalking is very common hunting strategy and it more often in the open areas. Laughlin 91 has a detail observation of the stalking method. With the stalking strategy, hunters try to walk very silently into the field while following certain signs, which could point out the location of the game or a group of animals. Once the animal is spotted, the hunter then positions himself at a considerable distance and aims his (or her) gun towards the unalarmed prey. Following the description, this method may appear easy; it requires the hunter to possess certain skills in order to kill the prey successfully. First, in stalking, the number of hunters has to be less than the number of animals being stalked. This activity can be done either by a hunter alone or in groups of pairs. This model of hunting is applicable in different landscapes, like deserts, forests and mountains, while the level of effort required is directly based on the weapon and experience of the hunter. Moreover, the closer the hunter is able to approach the game, the greater the chances of success in the hunt.

1.9. Hunting effort strategies and structural landscape Hunting is generally described by paleoanthropologists as a central behavior in hominid evolution 83 . “Hunting strategies depend on the hunting ability of each individual, knowledge acquired through experience with wildlife, skill with hunting weapons, and knowledge of the hunting sites” 84 .So far the greatest evidence of subsistence strategies for the Paleolithic people are realized from faunal remains analyses. Straus85 points to the pattern of Upper Paleolithic site distributions on the broadest geographical scale and this demonstrates that the people occupied places close to the specific landforms that would have been useful in mass killing of herd ungulates.

Posting

For instance, at Solutré in West-Central France, Olsen86 “has convincingly demonstrated that the use of a small valley at the base of the sides (not the end)” of “the rock” was used to trap small bands of migrating horses. They were repeatedly “driven up against the cliff from the

Posting is a system of hunting where the hunter installs himself into a position adjacent to a path of high animal traffic. For example, the hunting location can be a narrow path between trees or rocks (personal observation in the Iranian Zagros Mountains). This model depends strongly on the landform properties. For instance, this strategy is

                                                             80

Kelly, 1983. Rockman, 2009:51. 82 Rockman, 2009. 83 Hill, 1982; Isaac, 1978; Isaac and Crader, 1981; Leakey, 1981; Washburn, et al., 1968, Laughlin, 1968. 84 Puertas, 1999:42. 85 Straus,1993:84. 86 Olsen, 1989 in Straus 1993. 81

                                                             87

ibid: 84. ibid: 84. 89 see Hahn 1977; 1988 in Straus, 1993:84. 90 Straus, 1993:84. 91 Laughlin, 1968:308. 88

16

Chapter 1 not applicable in open areas with homogeneous landscapes, like deserts, because prey will easily recognize any new or unusual anomaly in the landscape. On the other hand, for heterogeneous landscapes such as rocky habitats associated with gorges and cliffs, a hunter can successfully use the boulders on the mountain slope for posting.

a strategic location, like near a water source, the game passageway or where the food resources for game are abundant. They can be specially designed according to prey type, such as gazelles, wild goats, sheep, or birds92.

Figure 1.7. A hunting blind, which in the northern Zagros Mountains is called a Kolga. This rockshelter is located in the Dalahoo Region in the Kermanshah Province. The rocks and cut bushes are the place where hunters would hide themselves. At the time of the site visit, many cartridge-shells were found around the area, indicating that it is still used for hunting (partridge) today (photo: Heydari-Guran, 2009).

Hunting blind

Trap

A hunting blind is similar to the posting strategy but in the case the hunters hide themselves from view of the game in a temporarily construction or a natural shelter. This method is designed to reduce their chances of detection. The setting for hunting blinds can be as simple as using a tree, rockshelter or erratically-shaped boulder and the natural vegetation. In some extended areas in the west central and northern Zagros Mountains, in the Kurds’ homeland, employing hunting blinds is quite a common hunting technique. The place where the hunting blind is built is called a Kolgah (or an ambush) in the Kurdish language.

Trapping of the games depends on the size of the target prey animal and the environmental conditions but net hunting is one of the most common among these system by the modern hunters around the world. Nevertheless there are other types for trapping strategy as well such as bison jump and natural arroyo. Bison jump is the most well-known of all New World. There are many variations in this strategy, but the general idea is described by Frison93: …maneuver bison herds into a proper position so they could then be stampeded over bluffs, steep slopes or into

                                                            

The Kolgah (Fig. 1.7) is a temporary space that is small and made of branches and small rocks and usually built in

92 93

17

Personal observations in the Zagros Mountains. Frison, 1987: 196.

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran deep depressions. Many of these bison jumps required that the animals be brought for long distances (up to several kilometers) and then the final stampede had to be controlled so that the animals piled over a segment of the jump-off that was high enough or steep enough to kill, crippler, or restrain the required number of animals”.

There are of course many other ways that can use for analyzing the Paleolithic settlement patterns and systems. However based on the specific environmental setting of the Iranian Plateau and more specifically the Zagros Mountains, I think the model of patch-corridor-matrix and the theory of optimal foraging can draw a reasonable picture for the Upper Pleistocene human land use for this region. Meanwhile the using the results of the Paleolithic settlement studies from the neighbor environments of the Iranian Plateau qualify the understanding the early human settlement system issues in the Middle East.

Persistence hunting Persistence hunting is a hunting technique in which hunters use a combination of running and tracking to pursue prey to the point of exhaustion. Persistence hunting strategy has been reported in details in ethnographical and archeological investigation in the Central Kalahari94 (and specifically hunting gazelle in the Southwest Asia 95 . Carrie 96 argued that among cursorial mammals, man is one of the best distance runners and while game animals are faster over short distances, they generally have less endurance than man does. Based on the observations of the persistence hunting’ areas, apparently this strategy is practical in the homogenize environments such is large open areas97.

           

1. 10. Conclusion

  Landscape ecology is the study of complex networks of interaction between the living communities and their environmental conditions. Meanwhile the roles of structural landscape as part of the landscape ecology and physical factors on biotic elements have been briefly shown in this chapter.

 

In addition, this chapter explained the interactions among landforms and ecosystems. The patch-corridor-matrix model, as an element of structural landscape, has been examined for the organic movement within heterogeneous landscapes. With this information, in the next chapters, this methodology will be applied in a new way to the early human land use and settlement systems identified within the Iranian landscape. In this chapter, also I reviewed some models and theories about the hunter-gatherer settlement systems and subsistence strategies that are part of the spatiotemporal structure of resources in landscapes. A combination of studies by Binford 98 and various types of hunting techniques used today and in the past led me to conclude that there is a strong relationship between subsistence strategies adopted by hunter-gatherers and the structure of landscapes. In addition, several current methodologies for hunting efforts were introduced based on my own personal observations in the Zagros Mountains and on ethnographic studies conducted in other parts of the world.

                                                             94

For example, see: Carrier, 1984. Legge and Rowley-Conwy, 1987, Bar-Oz et al., 2011. 96 Carrie, 1984:483. 97 Liebenberg, 2006. 98 Binford, 1980. 95

18

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran

  “Discontinuities in geological phenomena cause discontinuities in the distribution of organisms.” (Kruckeberg, 2002:18)

The Zagros Mountains, are a part of an alpine orogenic system and extend into northwestern Iran, towards the Turkish border and towards the Persian Gulf, south of Iran. The southwestern part of Iran is comprised of the portion of the Zagros Mountains that diverge southeast from Kurdistan to as far as the Strait of Hormuz. The mountains consist of parallel ranges that are high and rugged. The highest peak, Zard Kuh (4,547 m), is in the central part of the range, west of Esfahan.

Chapter 2. An overview of the Iranian physiographic regions 2.1. Introduction

The Makran Mountains occupy southeastern Iran, to the north of the Oman Sea. The eastern section includes the parallel ranges of Aladagh and Kapet Dag, both of which define the Iran-Turkmenistan boundary and simultaneously provide a link in the Iranian Plateau between the northern and southern arcs of the alpine orogenic system. The highest point within the Makran Mountains is Kuh-e-Taftan (4,042 m), which lies south of the Iran-Afghan-Pakistan trisect. The central mountains of Iran are characterized by “volcanic systems which have been referred to as the Volcanic Belt”2.

Chapter 2 indicates a general overview to the general geological formations, landform structures, climatic zones, and soil characteristics across a wide range of the Iranian Plateau. The physiographic description for this part of Iran allows for the creation of a framework that will help in structurally classifying the Paleolithic spaces within the Iranian landscape, which will be presented in next chapters. This chapter will conclude with a brief review of the Paleoclimatic results for the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Pleistocene through the early Holocene as well.

Another unique feature of the geology of Iran is that carbonate rocks cover approximately 11% of the territory 3 . Most of the hard limestone outcrops in Iran show evidence of karstic dissolution resulting in the development of caves and rockshelters. Many of these caves and rockshelters are known to contain archaeological deposits.4

2.2. Geological zones The Iranian Plateau is a geological formation that runs through Southwest Asia and the Caucasus, between the Tigris River in the west and the Send River in the east. It is a part of the Eurasian Plate that is wedged between the Arabian and Indian Plates. The Iranian Plateau is comprised of the Zagros Mountains to the west, the Caspian Sea and the Kopeh Dag Mountains in the northnortheast, the Hormuz Strait and the Arabian Sea in the south, and the Hindu Kush to the east.

Based on the classifications mentioned in this section, I divide the plateau of Iran into eight zones5 including: 1) West and southwestern (including north, west central, Central and southern Zagros Mountains), 2) Alborz (including the western and eastern Alborz Mountains), 3) Azarbaijan, 4) North east, 5) East, 6) Sistan and Blachestan, 7) Southeastern zone (Makran), 8) Central Iran.

The entire Iranian Plateau is fully encircled by a series of mountain ranges. High mountains extend along its southwestern and northwestern margins. The eastern slopes, running almost athwart to the Iranian Border, are made up of parallel but broken ranges. These lower, but nevertheless rugged, mountains along the border divide the Plateau into “two major basins - an Eastern one in Afghanistan and a Western basin in Iran. Within the western basin there are several lesser mountain chains and isolated rock masses, among which are extensive desert plains. The lowest depressions in these deserts are occupied by the playas”. 1

2.2.1. West and southwestern region (The Zagros Mountains)

In the central section of the Iranian Plateau lies the Alborz Range, rising sharply from the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. Its main peak, Damavend (5,604 m), is the highest summit in West Asia. It is a volcanic cone that towers just northeast of Teheran. The Alborz Mountains extend across the entire north of Iran, separating the Caspian lowlands from the central plateau, from the south and Kopet Dagh ranges toward the east. The northwestern section, the Talish Range, turns northwest towards Azerbaijan and its highest peak is the Sabalan (4,814 m).

Almost all of West and southwestern Iran consist of the Zagros Mountains, which form a continuous range made up of numerous peaks over 3,000 and 4,000 m above sea level; the highest points are Zard Kuh (4,548 m) and Mt. Dena (4,359 m). Geological structures, such as these peaks, were shaped by uplift and the formation of extensive mountain systems in the area that included the Alp-Himalayan orogenic mountain belt. As part of this larger system that extends from the Alps to the

                                                             2

Afrasiabi, 1988:26. Ibid. Coon, 1951 and Heydari, 2007. 5 See also Fig. 2.1. and Fig. 3.2 in chapter 3. 3

                                                             1

4

Zamani and Hashemi, 2000:26.

19

Fig. 2.1. Map shows the topography, hydrology and geographical zones of the Iranian Plateau, mentioned in the text.

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran

20

Chapter 2

  Himalayas, the Zagros Mountains are structurally young mountains (nearly the same age as the Alps).

active and the resulting deformation is distributed nonuniformly in the country. A relatively dense GPS network, which covered the Iranian portion of the Zagros, also proved a high rate of active deformation within the Zagros 9 . The results from this study showed that thecurrent rate of shortening in the southeastern Zagros is ~10 mm/yr and ~5 mm/yr in the northwestern Zagros. The North-South strike-slip Kazerun fault divides the Zagros into two distinct zones of deformation. The GPS results also revealed different shortening directions along the belt, i.e. normal shortening in the South-East and oblique shortening in the North-West Zagros. 10 In addition, Berberian 11 has subdivided the “Zagros Mountains into morphotectonic units with different degrees of thrusting, folding, uplift, erosion, and sedimentation”. 12 Over time, shallow seas repeatedly advanced and retreated over most of the Zagros depositing a number of different layers of Cretaceous sediments.

The topographic expression of the geological formations in the Zagros Mountains originated from tectonic activity, erosion, and variable depositional processes. Elevation in the Zagros Mountains generally increases from the west to east. The uplifted resistant bedrock creates a hilly variable landscape with very steep slopes to the western and eastern sides of the mountains. The elevation reflects this variability ranging from 4,000 m in the central Zagros to 300 meters in the hilly western areas. At the broadest hierarchical level, the Zagros Mountains are divided into three major topographical units: mountain, piedmont slope, and basin floor. The mountains are the major source of runoff and the primary source of sediments within the catchment. The piedmont slopes are a graded surface of alluvial deposits, composed of sediment eroded from the mountains. Normally, in the Zagros Mountains, there is a sharp break in the slopes marking the transition from the mountain to the adjacent piedmont slope.

Today, many of the limestone rocks in the region exhibit abundant traces of fossilized marine life. Nevertheless, as a result of these depositional processes and the subsequent erosion, surface rocks in the Zagros Mountain are predominantly Cretaceous in origin. Numerous layers of limestone, marl, shale, and sandstone were deposited over the area as well. Finally, the depositional environment and tectonic history of the Zagros rocks were found to be conducive to the formation and trapping of petroleum. Since this discovery, the Zagros region has become an important part of Persian Gulf oil production, with Iran's main oilfields located in the western central foothills of the Zagros mountain range.

Geoarchaeological researches in the macrozone of Zagros has also shown that caves and rockshelters, containing archaeological material, mainly occur in this transitional part. 6 The landforms and geomorphic surfaces on the piedmont slope have developed in distinct bands that increase in age with distance from the Mount Pabdeh Formation. The Pabdeh Formation is part of a thick carbonate-siliciclastic succession in the Zagros Basin of Southwestern Iran, which includes carbonate reservoirs of Cretaceous and Cenozoic ages. Many caves and rockshelter within the Zagros Mountains are associated to these carbonate sedimentary formation as well (Fig. 2.1). The Zagros Mountains divide into many parallel subranges (up to 10 or 250 km wide) of spectacular relief. The southern ranges of the Fars Provence for example, those have somewhat lower summits, reaching 4,000 meters. Additionally, the Hazaran Massif in the Kerman Province forms an eastern outlier of the Jebel Barez range reaching into Sistan.

Regarding to eastern and western parts of the Zagros Mountains, Gilbert 13 points to two “parallel geological structural units as well which are called outer and inner zones”. The western outer zones, designated as the Zagros Folded Mountains, are separated from the inner zones by a line created by the Zagros fault. This divide is associated with many graben valleys and fault scarps. Furthermore, the lower fold belt in the west is It is possible to further explore the composition of the Zagros Mountains in examining their two parallel geological zones: the folded and the highland zones.

Like so many of the world's great mountain chains, limestone is the main lithology in the Zagros Mountains, and the crust is essentially made up of non-volcanic sedimentary rocks and well-exposed outcrops.

rippled and craggy, with narrow valleys that are sharply defined and difficult to access. The east has a more curved open topography that was caused by progressive erosion of successively higher and older folds. Beginning at about 1,600 m, rupture and over-thrusting of the deformed strata produced zones of isolated peaks and broad interconnected valley bottoms clogged with alluvial fill.

This composition was created through the collision of two tectonic plates- the Eurasian and Arabian Platescreating a fold-thrust belt, or what we now refer to as the Zagros Mountains. “The sedimentary column of the Zagros fold–thrust belt is composed of a 12 km-thick section of lower Cambrian through Pliocene strata that contains no significant angular unconformities”.7 Recent GPS measurements in Iran by Nilforoushan and his colleagues 8 have shown that this collision is still

                                                            

                                                            

9

Ibid. Ibid. 11 Berberian, 1995. 12 Rezaei Moghdam et al,. 2007:3343. 13 Gilbert, 1983:110.

6

10

Heydari, 2007. 7 Stöckline, 1968; Falcon, 1969; Colman-Sadd, 1978 in McQuqrrie, 2004:521. 8 Nilforoushan et al., 2003.

21

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran Zagros folded zone

2.2.2. North (Alborz Mountains)

Along the southwestern section of the Zagros Mountains is a generally low, but spectacularly dissected, belt of soft, well-bedded sedimentary rocks. These rocks have formed a series of relatively gentle folds and comprise of Mesozoic and Cenozoic in age. They were derived from the Neotethys during the evolution of the Zagros orogeny that took place throughout the Triassic 14 . This zone occupies most of the Zagros Mountains and the surrounding foothills 15 which is comprised of synclinal and anticlinal structures and in general, the folds are incised by tributary rivers 16 . These plains are typical landforms in these geological structures and composed of a flat area with the rocky mountains acting like a wall to limit the extent of their planform. The wall-shape structures development within the folded zone of the Zagros Mountains are characterized by longitudinal ridges and valleys in parallel arrangements, both of which trend northeast-southeast. The ridges here are generally high and rugged and contain many plains of conspicuous sizes17. These variations in shape and form are important to this study and the highest concentration of Paleolithic shelter sites in the Zagros Mountains can be found in the intermountain plains.

The northern part of the Iranian Plateau covers the Alborz and Talesh Mountains. These massive ranges cover at least 900 km, forming an arc south of the Caspian Sea. This arc begins at the border with Armenia in the west and ends at the border with Turkmenistan in the east. The mountains are mainly made from limestone, with beds of lava and volcanic tuff. The Alborz and Talesh Mountains are huge geosynclinals that form several high arch-like landforms, such as the Azerbaijan region in the west and Khorasan in the east. These mountains act as a huge wall, dividing the northern parts from the rest of the Iranian Plateau20. There are only a few valleys that connect the lowlands of the north to the interior sections of the Plateau; these are Heyran 21 , Asalem 22 , Amam Zadeh Hashem 23 , Khos Yelagh24, and Shamshir Bor25. Many sections of both the northern and southern slopes of the Alborz are heavily populated. One example is Tehran, at 1,200 m.a.s.l., which is both the capital and largest city of Iran with 10 million inhabitants26. The Alborz Mountains divide the region into two climatic zones. The northern, along the Caspian Sea, benefits from moisture from the sea as well as rainfall, with 1,000 mm precipitation in the lowlands and more in the mountains. The region is humid and forested and the main vegetation consists of beech, oak and wild cypress. The southern region has a more arid climate, with precipitation between 280 and 500 mm and vegetation is extremely poor.

Zagros highland zone The highland zone of the Zagros Mountains consists of contorted and overthrusted sheets of massive limestone. These form the highest parts of the Zagros, including the Zard Kuh with its summit at an altitude of 4.545 a.s.l.m. The highland zone of the Zagros Mountains is an extremely complex system that has been folded, crushed, overthrusted, faulted, and, in part, metamorphosed.

2.2.3. Northwest

The karsts are well-developed within the massive limestone of this zone. A very common morphology here are the numerous escarpments that exist at the head of the thrust sheets. Steep, stream-cut ravines and gullies are present on nearly all the steeper mountain slopes. An illustration of these geomorphic landscapes is described in Oberlander's The Zagros Streams 18 . This part of the Zagros Mountains is the most interesting zone for karstic speleologists. A final noteworthy feature of this zone, is the Ghar-e Paraw Cave in the Kermanshah Region, which is the deepest cave in the Middle East at 751 a.s.l.m.19. Within the natural landscapes of the Zagros Mountains, it is clear to see the patches, corridors and matrices from a geological and geomorphological perspective. In this part of the Iranian Plateau, this model is very remarkable, but is also clearly visible in other parts of Iran, such as in the Alborz Mountains, and the Central plateau.

The northwestern zone counts Azerbaijan and northern Kurdestan, and is the most complex geological zone in the Iranian Plateau. It is part of the trachytic volcanic complex of the Central Plateau, is limited to the valley of the Caucasus in the north and, from the east, is attached to the Talesh Mountains. This zone can be divided into the following three subzones: 1) Azerbaijan and northern Kurdestantopographically, a high plateau that lies in the middle of the Lake Urmieh graben. The main geomorphological phenomena in this subzone are the volcanic mountains of Sabaln (4,811a.s.l. m.) and Sahand (3,710 a.s.l.m.). The existence of many volcanic terrains here has introduced volcanic plateaus to the region27. Also, in some areas many sedimentary folded structures were formed.

                                                            

                                                            

14

Personal communication with Dr. Karimi Bavandpur, Geology department, Tübingen University, 2005. 15 Harrison, 1968. 16 Oberlander, 1965. 17 For example see: Marvdasht and Dasht-e Rostam in the Southern Zagros, and Islam Abad-e Garb and Gilan-e Gharb in the West Central Zagros Mountains. For more details, see chapter 3 and 4 in this book. 18 Oberlander, 1965. 19 Dumas, 1998.

20

Alaee Taleghani, 2005. linking the cities of Astara and Ardabil. 22 linking the cities of Talesh and Khalkhal. 23 linking the cities of Tehran and Amol. 24 linking the cities of Shahrood and Azad Sahr. 25 linking the cities of Shahrood and Gorgan. 26 Alaee Taleghani, 2005. 27 Khayyam, 1992. 21

22

Chapter 2

  mélange of thick, molasses-like flysch sediments31. Less deformed younger sediments of early Miocene to Pleistocene age dominate the southern area, near the coast.

2) Eastern Kurdestan , Northwest Iran, contains the cities of Qorveh, Bijar and Sanandaj. The main geomorphological characteristic of this unit is a large and high plain (between 1900-2200 m.a.s.l.), surrounded by mountains and drained by the river Ghezel Ozen and its tributaries. Ghezel Ozan flows from south to north and after joining the Sharud River through the Alborz Mountains, forms the Sepidrud River, which then enters into the Caspian Sea. Many young volcanic mountains in addition are formed in this area, which are easily noted in the landscape due to their varying morphology. An abundance of travertine formations are connected to these volcanic mountains.

2.2.7. Central Plateau The Central Plateau geological zone is around 500 km long and 350 km wide situated between Helmand block to the east and Zagros Mountains to the west. There are two large blocks of Lut and central Iranian. The mountains ranges in the Central Plateau of Iran comprise two parallel geological belts of Sahand-Bazman, and Sanandadj-Sirjan. Sahand-Bazman belt

3) Zanjan- more or less an isolated area surrounded by the Ghezel Ozen River to the north, east and west. Several alluvial valleys, such as Abhar and Zanjan-Mianeh, are located in this region. Most geological formations in the Zanjan subzone consist of green Eocene tuff and granite28.

The Urumieh-Dokhtar Magmatic Arc, extends along the northeastern side of the Sahand-Basman belt and represents a calc-alkaline arc that was mostly active from the Eocene to Late Miocene. It formed in response to the northeastward subduction of the Neotethys Ocean beneath the Iranian Plate 32 . Many travertine and tufa formations have formed along this magmatic arc, with some Paleolithic sites also found to be present on these formations33.

2.2.4. Northeast (Kope Dagh) The northeastern zone of the Iranian Plateau is composed of the Kope Dagh folded belt. Ramazani Oomali and his colleagues 29. have described this geological zone as:

Sanandadj-Sirjan belt The Sanandaj-Sirjan belt is around 150-200 km wide and bounded to the southwest by the Urumieh-Dokhtar Magmatic Arc. It is mainly composed of metamorphic rock from the Paleozoic to Late Cretaceous, which is infused with calc-alkaline plutons that date to the Jurassic through to the Early Eocene 34 . Towards the southwest, the main Zagros thrust separates the Sanandaj-Sirjan and imbricated zones35, and constitutes the suture between the Arabian and Iranian plates. Although Berberian36 argues that the suture between the Arabian and Iranian plates is located between the Urumieh-Dokhtar Magmatic Arc and the Sanandaj-Sirjan Zone, it is more generally accepted that the main Zagros thrust represents the Zagros suture37.

Kope Dagh folded belt is a part of Alp-Himalaya orogeny belt in west Asia, Which forms the Northeastern boundary of Iran plate. This belt is located on Southwestern margin of Turan (Turkmenistan) continental crust and forms its epi-Hercynian deposits. This region is drained by two main rivers of Atrak and Kashafrud.

2.2.5. East Eastern Iran covers a vast region between the central block and the Lut zones in the east, and along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east. This geological zone is composed of oceanic rocks such as flysch facies, which consist of sandstone, shale and siltstone in a continental-collision setting. The eastern zone is composed of two subzones of central and southern Khorasan, and of Sistan-Baluchistan30.

2.2.8. Quaternary deposits on the Iranian Plateau Besides the geological structures mentioned in the previous sections, there are several others deposits, which, are important to the Paleolithic landscapes of Iran since many Paleolithic occupations occurred in these areas. These depositional areas are including playas, travertines, and sand dunes. I will not describe them in great detail here because they are case study subjects, as

2.2.6. Southeast The Makran region lies between the Strait of Hormuz in the west and the Pakistan Border to the east. This zone is nearly 650 km long in the north and 450 km in the south, with an average breadth of about 160 km and nearly all the sediments at the surface are comprised of a colored

                                                             31

Fisher and Boyle, 1968:804. Berberian and Berberian, 1981; Berberian et al., 1982. 33 See chapter 5 in this book. 34 Masoudi, 1997. 35 Berberian and King, 1981; Berberian, 1995. 36 Berberian, 1995. 37 For example see: Berberian and King, 1981; Berberian, 1995; Agard et al., 2005. 32

                                                             28

Alaee Taleghani, 2005. Ramazani Oomali et al., 2008:312. 30 Alaee Taleghani, 2005. 29

23

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran environmental settings for Paleolithic occupations, in chapters 6, 7 and 8 and will there be elaborated upon.

2.3. Climatic zones At about 75% of the Iranian Plateau is dominated by arid or semiarid climate. The Iranian Plateau receive less

Playas

than a third of the world's average precipitation (350 mm to less than 50 mm per year) 46. This climatic condition is the result of the Iranian regional location on the earth and the particular topographical landscapes of Iran as well. Two major mountain ranges of Iran affect the climate: the Zagros chain in the west and the Alborz in the north. Most humid clouds enter the country from the west but the mountains prevent them from reaching the center, east, and south. Therefore, the central and southern lowlands and the east of the country receive very little precipitation. Due to precipitation shortages and/or its uneven distribution in these areas, most rivers are seasonal and their flows depend heavily on the amount of rainfall 47 . Domroes 48 suggest five climatic subdivisions for Iran on the basis of seasonal rainfall regimes. These subdivisions include the following rainfall regimes:

Playas are low flat areas in arid basins of Iran and have been studied in detail by Krinsley 38 . Krinsley suggests that they may underlain by lacustrine sediments deposited during periods of higher precipitation/evaporation ratios than those prevailing today. Some playas are still occasionally covered by water, at least in some years. Based on the Krinsley studies The Iranian Plateau has about 60 playas within the interior of Iran ranging from 25 to 52,825 km2, the Great Kavir is the largest, the next largest measures 4,685 km2 and another 33 playas are smaller than 300 km2. 39 Travertine and tufa formations Travertines are made up of calcium carbonate precipitation developed from organic and inorganic processes in karstic environments, hydrothermal springs, small rivers, and swamps. They are spongy, compact and contain crystal structures in different colors40. Travertines can be classified as calcitic tufa, calc tufa, and sinter crust and plant tufa. There are several characteristic features used to distinguish between tufa and travertine41. Pedley42 defined tufas as highly porous, spongy, paper-leaved and woody-textured, cool freshwater, carbonate deposits. In contrast, he defined travertines as extremely welllithified, calcite-textured, diagenetically old, calcerous tufa deposits 43 . Travertine and tufa formations are particularly common in the late Quaternary and in recent formations. Today, they form under a wide range of climate regimes, from cool temperature to semi-arid 44 . They may also cover wide areas, sometimes kilometers in length, where a great variety of lithofacies are developed, from well-cemented and massive transverse fluvial barriers to loose and thinly laminated lime mud 45 . The term tufa is normally used as a synonym for travertine, but it usually has a more restricted meaning and is reserved for designating those travertines that have high a porosity and a low density.

Zone 1. Northwest and northern slopes of the eastern Alborz Mountains: •

Rain during all seasons and rain is evenly distributed. Areas Area experiences a mean annual precipitation total of 379 mm with a relatively high standard deviation of 163 mm.

Zone 2. Gilan region: • • • •

Sand dune Iran has considerable areas covered with sand and dunes. The largest of these is the Dasht-e-Lut, on the southern fringe of the Dasht-e-Kavir. Some smaller sand dune areas are scattered in the Central Plateau and the coastal plains as well.

Caucasian and mid-European affinities, slightly Mediterranean on the coast. Region experiences the highest mean annual precipitation at 1,331 mm. Precipitation totals are very high and show a relatively homogeneous distribution throughout the year. Mean temperature in January is below 8ºC. Mean temperature in July is below 26º C. Annual temperature range (continental) is between 16 and 19ºC.

Zone 3. Central and west central Zagros, eastern Kurdestan and Zanjan Regions: • • •

                                                             38

Krinsley, 1970. Ibid. 40 Heydari-Guran et al., 2009. 41 Ibid. 42 Pedley, 1990. 43 Atabey, 2002. 44 Heydari-Guran et al., 2009. 45 Ford and Pedley, 1992 and 1996. 39

Sub-steppe zone. Mean annual precipitation total accounts for 388 mm. Region characterized by most precipitation occurring in winter and originating from the Mediterranean depressions that reach Iran from the west.

                                                             46

Kehl, 2009:2; and Domroes et al., 1998:151. Shabanali Fami et al., 2009. 48 Domroes et al., 1998. 47

24

Chapter 2

  Iran, brown soils are common in more humid parts of the Zagros Mountains and in Khorasan.

Zone 4. Central Plateau, eastern and southeastern regions: • • • • •

3) Loess and loess-like soils. A type of soil reminiscent of loess has been observed in several localities south of the Alborz Mountains and in adjacent valleys. This aeolic soil has a yellowish-brown color and is deposited mainly as desert dust in valleys on the outer fringe of the desert.

Sub-desert zone. Region covers Central Iran, including the southern part of the Alborz and a part of the Zagros Mountains. Mean annual precipitation is very low at 130 mm. Like the other areas, this region receives precipitation mostly in winter and spring. Average temperature in January is between 4ºC (north) and 10ºC (south), and the average temperature in July is between 29 and 34ºC.

4) Hammadas. Hammadas are typically desert or steppe soils. Most of the hammadas are confined to the intermountain valleys and drier parts of the Central Plateau. They are greyish-brown, calcareous soils mixed with a fairly high content of silt and clay, and covered by pebbles of various minerals (desert pavement). Hammadas are generally poorly vegetated because of low rainfall. The soil's moisture levels therefore decrease intensely with increasing depths. Density of vegetation varies with moisture. Vegetation, where extant, is made up of dwarf shrubs, mainly from the class Artemisia. In extreme cases, such as in Dasht-e-Lut, there are immense stretches of entirely bare hammadas.

Zone 5. Southern Zagros Mountains, Persian Gulf lowland and Makran regions: • •

Warm steppic zone. Mean annual precipitation is 249 mm with peak precipitation in winter.

2.4. Soil zones Due to its topographic, climatic and, particularly, its lithologic diversity, Iran displays a rich mosaic of soils49. In general the soils of the Iranian Plateau are classified into humid, semi-humid and arid soils. The following is a brief geobotanical account of these three soil types as classified by Dewan , Famouri and Zohary50:

Interregional soils 1) Hydromorphic soils. These soils include soils from freshwater swamps and riverbanks. In Iran, they also comprise riverbank and swamp soils, as well as inundated alluvial soils or under irrigation. Hydromorphic soils are also rich in moisture, which makes them popular in areas with lacustrine vegetation of reed and rush communities, in freshwater environments and also wherever crops are irrigated.

Humid (brown forest soil) This is soil of deciduous forests of the most mesic type, both in the Caspian and, reportedly, also in the Zagros Mountains. It is sometimes mixed with podzolic soils. Finally, humid soils are confined to areas with high precipitation, part of which falls in summer.

2) Halomorphic soils. This type of interregional soil is made up of saline soils. Iran has the largest concentration of salines in the Central Plateau. The Iranian saline soils belong to the northern continental ones of Middle and Central Asia, notably of Turan. There are also "hot" salines fringing the coasts of the Persian and Oman Gulf .

Semi-humid and arid soils The bulk of Iran is occupied by steppe and desert. These zones are characterized by dwarf shrubs or herbaceous formations, the density of which is largely dependent upon the amount of rainfall. The soils classified under this heading include sierozems, brown soils, loess and loess-like soils, as well as hammadas, and are described as follows:

3) Dunes and sandy soils. Iran has considerable areas covered with sand and dunes. The largest of these is the Dasht-e-Lut on the southern fringe of the Dasht-e-Kavir; some other smaller areas are scattered in the Central Plateau and the coastal plains. There are accordingly, only a small number of plant communities specific to sandy ground. Generally, sandy soils are less saline than others, but in the Central Plateau, sand covers overly salty sub-soils.

1) Sierozems. These are typical steppe soils that develop under arid conditions where rainfall does not exceed 250 mm, winters are cool to cold and the summers are hot and dry. 2) Brown soils. Brown soils are formed under more favorable climatic conditions than sierozems , but are still marginal for arboreal vegetation. In

                                                            

4) Alluvial soils. Alluvial soils are formed in the intermountain valleys and plains. This type of soil normally formed in situ , has often however

49

Badripour, 2006:8. Dewan and Famouri, 1964 and Zohary, 1963 cited in Badripour, 2006: 9-11. 50

25

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran analyses from Zribar and Mirabad52, playas53, Pleistocene glaciations in the northern Zagros Mountains 54 and Central Plateau55 and finally the alluvial sediments56. In addition to these information recent studies on sediments and pollen in Lake Urmia and loess formations, have revolutionized our understanding of the climatic variations of the Iranian Plateau 57 . Although the Pleistocene glaciations activities in a region such as the Iranian Plateau cannot be a generalized to whole region of Iran but these phenomenon have been reported in several places such as the Northern Zagros, central Zagros 58 , Alborz Mountains 59 , and the eastern Zagros plateau 60. 61 The Takht-e Sulaiman massif of the central Alborz has the largest glacier in Iran at about 7 km2. Two other glaciers, one 13 km and the other 11 km long, were formed in this region as well . Several other Pleistocene glaciations moreover, have been reported in the subtropical-semi-arid regions of the southeastern central Plateau of Iran 62 . Based on geomorphological observations from the glaciations activities in Iran,

been found transported from the mountains and re-deposited. Examples of alluvial soils can be found in the intermountain valleys of the Zagros and Alborz Mountains, which support the same forest type that grows at similar altitudes of adjacent mountains. At present, no natural vegetation has been left in most of these alluvial plains.

2.5. Paleoclimatic reconstruction of the Iranian Plateau during the Upper Pleistocene The Quaternary period from the global perspective is known “climate changes from interglacial to glacial, and interstadial to stadial times, for instance, documented in oxygen isotope values of deep sea sediments and ice cores”51. The main question in relation to the topic of this book is whether during the Upper Pleistocene, which covers the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods, Iran

Climatic zones (based on Domroes et al., 1998)

Hydrological basin

Dominant soil types (based on Dewan and Famouri (1964) and Zohary (1963))

3 and 5

Persian Gulf

Brown forest soil/ steppe soil series

3 and 5

Persian Gulf

Steppe soil series

1, 2, 3, and 4

Caspian Sea and Namak lake

Brown forest soil/steppe soil series

1, 2 and 3

Caspian Sea

Brown forest soil/steppe soil series

1 and 3

Caspian Sea

Steppe soil series

1 and 3

Caspian Sea

Steppe soil series

3 and 4

Caspian Sea

Steppe soil series

3 and 4

Qarah Quorum basin

Steppe soil series

Volcanic and sedimentary formations; lacustrine and sand dune fields

4

Eastern Hamoon basin

Steppe soil series

Volcanic and sedimentary formations; lacustrine and sand dune fields

4

Oman Sea

Steppe soil series

-

Lacustrine and sand dunes

5

Oman Sea

Steppe soil series and dunes

Central mountains

Volcanic and sedimentary formations; high and blocky mountains

4

Central depression

Lacustrine and sand dunes

4

Zone

Subzone

West and southWestern

Folded unit Highland unit Alborz

North

Talesh East Kurdistan

Northwest

Zanjan Kopeh Dagh

Northeast

East

AldaghBinalood Central and southern Khorasan Sistan and Baluchestan

Geology and dominant landform (s) Folded mountains; karstic and semi-karstic; deep canyons and intermountain valleys connected by river systems High mountains; semi-karstic; deep canyons; flat intermountain valleys connected by river systems Volcanic and sedimentary formations; very high blocky mountains and deep canyons Volcanic and sedimentary formations; very high blocky mountains and deep canyons Volcanic and sedimentary formations; high blocky mountains; rolling hills Volcanic and sedimentary formations; rocky and hilly terrain with intermountain valleys High mountains; semi-karstic; deep canyons; flat intermountain valleys Volcanic and sedimentary formations; lacustrine and sand dune fields

Southeast

Central

Namak lake, Ardestan, Kerman and Yazd basins Dasht-e Kavir basin

Steppe soil series Steppe soil series and dunes

Folded mountains; karstic and semi-karstic; deep Brown forest soil/ canyons and intermountain valleys connected by 3 and 5 Persian Gulf                                                              steppe soil series river systems 52 e.g., Van Zeist and Bottema 1977; Kelts and Shahrabi 1986; Van Zeist ,1967. Table 2.1. Characteristics of the major physiographic zones and subzones of Iran. 53 Krinsly, 1970. 54 e.g., Wright, 1961. experienced cold and dry or moist and warm climatic 55 e.g., Kuhle, 1976. conditions? 56 Vita Finzi, 1969; Brookes, 1989. 57 For example see: Djamali et al., 2008a; Djamali et al., 2008b; Reconstructions of the ancient climate for the Iranian Djamali et al., 2008c; Kehl, 2009. 58 Zard Kuh massif. Plateau are carried out by the records of lake sediment 59 Takht-e Sulaiman Massif. 60 Kuh-i-Hezar massifs. 61                                                              Bobek, 1963; Ferrigno, 1988. 51 62 Kehl, 2009:1. Ferrigno, 1988. Folded unit

26

Chapter 2

  Age Ca. 83 ka to11 ka Ca. 90 ka to 83 ka Ca. 103 ka to 90 ka Ca. 115 ka to 102 ka Ca. 118 ka to 115 ka Ca. 124 ka to 118 ka Ca. 190 ka to 135 ka

MIS 4-2 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e 6

Stages Last Glacial Kaboudan Interstadial II Espir Stadial II Kaboudan Interstadial I Espir Stadial I Sahand Interglacial Last Interglacial Bonab Glacial

Climate Very cold and dry Cold Cold and dry Warm Cold Warmer and moister than Holocene Dry and cold

Table 2.2. Larger glacial and interglacial periods and their vegetation and climate conditions during the Late Pleistocene (adapted from Djamali et al., 2008 and Kehl, 2009).

 

Fig. 2.2. Correlation of the AP/NAP curves from the BH3 pollen diagram, with the Indian Ocean isotopic records and long pollen record from northwest Greece. Local chronostratigraphical names are proposed here for the distinct glacial/interglacial and stadial/interstadial stages, instead of the commonly used European glacial terminology (Low and Walker 1997; after Djamali et al., 2008).

Bobe63 maintains that during the Pleistocene the climatic snowline throughout the country was 600 to 800 m lower than the present day level. Furthermore, the “temperature structure was similar to current patterns except for the fact that the mean temperature was 4 to 5°C lower”64. The detailed geomorphological analyses by Kuhle 65 in Ku-iJupar, located in the Kuh-i-Hezar massifs, have led to the conclusion that two extended Late Pleistocene glaciations occurred; the pre-LGP and the LGP. Kuhle has summarized his observations on glaciations in the study region as follows66:

During the older glaciation (pre-LGP) the regional climatic snowline (ELA) of the Kuh-i-Jupar, determined by evaluating the orographic (local) snowlines of the individual slopes, ran at c. 2950 m.a.s.l. This corresponds to a snowline depression of c. 1600 m as compared to the current snowline at c. 4550 m. During the younger glaciation (LGP) the ELA was c. 100 m higher, at c. 3050 m.a.s.l. i.e. 1500 m below the current snowline. Under the assumption of a semi-arid temperature gradient of 0.7 °C/100 m difference in height, a depression of the average annual temperature of 11.2 °C, as compared to the present, can be inferred for the pre-LGP and of 10.5 °C for the LGP. In this case the average temperature at the ELA level was -2.8 °C, which is a value typical of temperate glaciers. However, if cold glaciers of about 8 °C at the ELA level should have occurred, the

                                                             63

Bobek, 1963. Ferrigno, 1988:41. 65  Kuhle,1982; 2004 and 2007.  66 Kuhle, 2007:87. 64

27

Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran temperature depressions might have even amounted to c. 15 or 16 °C during the glacial periods under discussion. Based on the playas’ studies on the Central Plateau of Iran Krinsley 67 mentioned that during the Würm maximum the outward-facing slopes of the northern Zagros and Alborz Mountains had mean annual temperatures 5 to 8°C colder than felt today and snowline was depressed by as much as 1,800 m. Krinsley68 also added that the Pleistocene climate of Iran was more compartmentalized than in other countries of similar latitudes. Another study, conducted by Djamali and his colleagues69, analyzed 100 m long sediments from Lake Urmia, located in northwestern Iran. It identified clear changes in the pollen spectra. Additionally, the high percentages of arboreal pollen in Lake Urmia were correlated with OIS 7a. 5e, 5c, and 5a. This study70 shows that those samples with very low percentages of arboreal pollen and high percentages of ‘Artemisia’ and ‘Chenopodiaceae’ were however; correlated with stadial phases (see Fig. 2.2).The Paleoclimatic studies from Lake Urmia and loess records from northern Iran71 indicate that the last interglacial (OIS 52 or ‘Sahand Interglacial’) was slightly warmer and moister than the Holocene72. Nevertheless, these conditions did not occur during interstadials 5c and 5a (‘Kaboudan Interstadials’ I and II), which were separated from one another by at least two stadials (Espir Stadials I and II, see Fig. 2.2).

2.6. Conclusion This chapter presented a broad picture of the geology, landforms, climates, and soil zones of the Iranian Plateau. Topographically the land of the Iranian Plateau comprises both high mountains and deserts and form the climatic point of view it is located in an arid to semi-arid region with most of the annual precipitation falling from October through April. Additionally, an abundance of different types of soils occurs in Iran and consists from the brown forest to dune soils. The variety of geological and climatological settings places this region in extremely heterogeneous ecological environments.

                                                             67

Krinsley, 1970. Krinsley, 1968. 69 Djamali et al., 2008. 70  Ibid.  71 Kehl et al., 2005; Frechen et al., 2009. 72 Kehl, 2009. 68

28

PART TWO Developing of Hypotheses

Chapter 3. Paleolithic sites on the landscapes

29 

 

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran presented by Rosenberg 8 where the Paleolithic settlement pattern is interpreted with the three major physiographic units consisting of ‘alluvial area’, ‘intermediate zone’ and ‘mountainous area’.

…One approach to understanding Near East prehistory, therefore, is to view it in terms of zonal adaptations and interzonal networks of interaction (Hole and Flannery, 1967:148).

3. 3. Towards a physiographical model for the Paleolithic archeology in Iran

Chapter 3. Palaeolithic sites on the landscapes

Many archaeologists, especially those working on a regional scale, use landscape classification and terrain analysis for assessing land use and subsistence strategies in hunter-gatherer societies9. The most fundamental question facing the evaluation of Paleolithic space at a regional scale is: how are the different sized boundaries of the Paleolithic settlement systems going to be determined?

3. 1. Introduction This chapter reveals the settlement systems and land uses of late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers for the Iranian Plateau, based on the previous researches. Through analyzing the natural landscapes of the Paleolithic habitat areas and comparing the lithic artifacts and faunal remains, it becomes possible to acquire a greater understanding of subsistence behavior and settlement systems within the different physiographical settings. The results of this part of the book exhibit that the structural landscape characteristics1 have influenced the early man land use, home range size and subsistence strategy during Middle to late Paleolithic periods in several better studied regions in Iran. Since Lower Paleolithic sites on the Iranian Plateau are rarer compared to later periods, this chapter focuses on the habitat areas and sites consist of the Middle to Late Paleolithic occupations.

One approach can solve this problem is analyze of the important factors which control the ecosystem size at varying scales in a hierarchical system10. In this regard, Bailey 11 argues that subdivision of land into system of different sizes is needed because: 1) Small systems are linked to form larger systems, 2) The larger is the environment of smellers within, 3) Understanding links between ecosystems at various scales is important for analyzing cumulative effects of action at one scale and its effects at another.

3. 2. Previous works concerning environmental settings for the Paleolithic habitat areas in Iran Several scholars, such as Coon 2 and Smith3, have already attempted to make ecological classifications for Paleolithic habitat areas in Iran. Coon 4 created a preliminary geological description of Iran, which supplied a classification of the country into regions with a high probability of containing caves sites. These regions consist of the Zagros Mountains in the west, the Uremia Basin in the northwest, the Alborz Mountains in the north, and in the east, the Khorasan Region.

A typical example of using landscape classification for Paleolithic space on a regional scale is seen in Gamble’s research12, where he divided the continent of Europe into three zonal provinces and further subdivided these into nine regions. Gamble´s classification is based on the effects of latitudes increasing northwards on the length of the growing seasons, which is mainly responsible for zonal partitioning. In his work, the regional boundaries are determined by factors of continentality, relief and the pattern of drainage basins within the continent13.

Several decades later, Smith 5 adapted his land classification for Iran from the subdivisions used by Fisher6, resulting in five physiographic units. These units consist of the Zagros Highland, Khuzestan lowland, Northern Highland, Eastern Highland, and Central Plateau. Although this classification was very useful as an introduction to Paleolithic settlement patterns in Iran, Smith emphasized that his categorization was only a general approximation and there was a need to make a more detailed physiographic classification in Iran7 for Paleolithic researches. A topographic classification for Paleolithic land use studies in the Marvdasht region within the southern Zagros Mountains is another effort

Another important case is a study in the southwest of Germany by Jochim14. Jochim classified the study region as an area of 46,000 km2 and divided it into eight subregions. His divisions were created based on what the geology, relief and climatic variations would have been like for late Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers15. The last work that I would like to point out is the recent classification of landscapes for Paleolithic land use by

                                                             8

Rosenberg, 1988. For example see: Jochim 1998; Svoboda, 1995; Gamble, 1986 and Korisettar, 2007.  10 Bailey, 1987. 11 Bailey, 1996. 12 Gamble, 1986. 13 Fig. 3.1 in Gamble, 1986. 14 Jochim, 1998. 15 Ibid: 32-34.

                                                            

9

1

Chapter 1 in this book. Coon, 1951. Smith, 1986. 4 Coon, 1951. 5 Smith, 1986. 6 Fisher, 1968. 7 Smith, 1986:8. 2 3

30

Chapter 3

  Finlayson16. Finlayson employs a biogeographical classification for studying the distributions of Neanderthals and modern humans in Eurasia and specifically Iberian Peninsula. From the ecological point of view, the Iranian Plateau is comparable to the Eurasian continents because of its various environments17. In line with this complex array of structural landscapes, the construction of a hierarchical system to evaluate these landscape structures within Paleolithic spaces is necessary. As in the previous chapters, I have emphasized that the indication of Paleolithic spaces in this study, are based on four environmental factors of geology, structural landscape (see chapter 1), hydrology, and climate. As a result, the Paleolithic geographical spaces for the Iranian Plateau are arranged from large-scale zones to small areas as follows: macrozone, ecozone, home-range zone, habitat area, intermediate zone, microhabitat area, and site. As the tables 3.1 and 3.2 show, the two space units of habitat area and intermediate zone are sub-division of the home-range zone. These geographical spaces are interpreted in the following paragraphs:

Ecozone An ecozone as a unique ecological structure is made-up by combination of hydrological networks, local climate, and the landform significances. Normally, a natural barrier, such as a desert or high and concrete mountain range, can separate two neighboring ecozones. Ecozone can be a very a large region composed of several physical connection-able home-range region and intermediate zones. Although an ecozone is a part of a macrozone, it consists of specific local geological and topographic situations that separate each ecozone from the other neighboring ones (Fig. 3.1 and tables 3.1 and 3.2). Home-range zone (annual territory) In this book home-range zones are a combination of two or more habitat areas used by people throughout a year. This area is approximately equivalent to the concept of ‘annual territory’ in site catchment analysis18. As I have used landscape structure and ecological framework 19 for annual territory, I have adapted home-range zone from the behavioral study of ungulate mammals20. The sizes of home-range areas for hunter-gatherers depends on the distances that large and medium-sized game move within a large region. The home-range of these types of animals are also related to the structural landscape, such as slope, landscape connectivity, shelter accessibilities, water sources and seasonal variability in the region (Fig. 3.2 ,Tables 3.1 and 3.2).

Macrozone In this research, macrozone is the largest unit in the seven tiered landscape classification system (following the geological and geographical descriptions in chapter 2) for the Iranian Plateau. This zone applies to a region with a relatively consistent ecosystem. Determination of each macrozone is also based on its geology, landform and climate conditions. For instance, the Zagros Mountains form a single macrozone because almost the entire range shares the same type of sedimentary rocks, intensive drainage patterns and exhibits the same relative Mediterranean-like climate. The Central Plateau of Iran is another macrozone and consists of abundant volcanic rocks and a dry climatic regime. Consequently, based on the physiographic regions of the Iranian Plateau which, have presented in chapter 2 (table 2.1 and Fig. 2.1), it can be classified into the following eight macrozones: Zagros Mountains, Northwest, Alborz Mountains, Northeast, East, Southeastern, Makran Central Plateau(Fig. 3.1).

Intermediate zone Intermediate zone refers to the transition zone between two habitat areas that are frequently uninhabitable or were only used for short periods of time. Usually, intermediate zones are characterized by steep, very rocky and strongly eroded slopes, making them unstable regions for soil formation, vegetation and large animals (Fig. 3.2, Tables 3.1 and 3.2). Habitat area (site exploitation territory) A ‘habitat area’ is an ecological or environmental region that provides appropriate conditions for different plants and animal species, as well as human beings. Habitats can be identified at different spatial scales. Furthermore, the habitat types used throughout this book are those areas that normally are made up of several, or even groups of microhabitat areas.

As is pictured in Fig. 3.2, some of these macrozones are also divided into two or more ecozones. For instance, the Zagros Mountains as a macrozone can be approximately divided into three ecozones: the west central, central, and southern. Although all of these ecozones belong to the Mediterranean climate system, the central ecozone receives more precipitation than the Southern and West Central ecozones. Additionally from the topographical point of view the southern ecozone of Zagros, mountains are much more open and have allowed forming of more and larger intermountain plains. These plains have extensive drainage connectivity, which is not seen in the central ecozone, where mountains are more solid and therefore mostly inhibit the formation of vast intermountain valleys (Fig. 3. 1).

                                                             18

Vita-Finzi and Higgs, 1970. In this regard Ordoño and Arrizabalaga (2006:239) note that: “The archaeological analysis of the territory has become nowadays one of the most interesting approaches to know the way of life of ancient societies…specially from the decade of the 70’s, when researchers begin to talk about “territories”, and the first territorial models are advocated. The subsequent development has made concrete new different ways to accede to the knowledge of territory, as palaeoeconomy, palaeoecology, spatial analyses, technology, symbolic behaviour, etc. The proper integration of all of them from an eclectic and plural view will allow extending this knowledge in the future”. 20 Forman, 1995:365. 19

                                                             16 17

Finlayson, 2004. See chapter 2 in this book.

31 

 

Fig. 3.1. Macrozones of the Iranian Plateau: 1. Zagros Mountain (1a. Northern Zagros, 1b) West Central Zagros, 1c) Central Zagros, 1d. Southern Zagros); 2. Northwest; 3. North (3a. West Alborz, 3b. East Alborz); 4. Northeast; 5. East; 6. Southeast; 7. Makran and 8. Central Plateau.

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran

32

Chapter 3

  Habitat areas are usually used during seasons when game are abundant in the area; therefore, providing humans with immediate food resources. When game is not present, the area becomes inhabitable for huntergatherers; this occurs for at least a season. Finally, habitat areas can be equivalent to a ‘site exploitation territory’ in site catchment analysis21. In site catchment analysis, a site exploitation territory refers to the area around a site that is exploited by the inhabitants (Fig. 3.2 and Tables 3.1 and 3.2).

Paleolithic space

Descriptions

Macrozone

A large geological and physiographical region (e.g., Zagros Mountains or Central Plateau).

Ecozone

Highly heterogeneous in composition, with habitats varying widely in type and suitability (e.g., southern Zagros Mountains).

Microhabitat area A geographical space with a clear landform boundary that normally contains one or more Paleolithic sites is considered a ‘microhabitat area’. The term microhabitat is often used to describe the small-scale physical requirements of a particular organism or population and has been widely used in zoo-ecological studies22. A microhabitat is often a smaller habitat within a larger one. Assessment of the area around hunter-gatherer sites in a microhabitat area reveals their easy proximity to water and raw material sources. Unique geoecological characteristics of microhabitat areas could provide special functions for them. For instance, a narrow valley as a microhabitat area might connect two plains and be used frequently by game; therefore, this feature could have played a strategic role in hunting game23 .

Home -range zone

The Yagheh Sangar Pass in the Dasht-e Rostam habitat areas (Chapter 4), Tang-e Kenesht in the Kermanshah habitat area (this chapter) and Qaleh Gusheh in Arisman habitat area (Chapter 5) are all fine representations of microhabitat areas. They are categorized in this study based on the type of landscape structure and environmental position (Fig. 3.2 and Tables 3.1 and 3.2).

Habitat area

Intermediate area

Microhabitat area

A physical location that is home to one or more living or activity places, where various species/inhabitants interact.

Site

The smallest geographical space used by humans for daily living activities.

Table 3.1. The physiographical classifications for Paleolithic spaces of the Iranian Plateau used for this study.

are recognized through the accumulation of archaeological material on the surface. Information such as size, compass bearing of the shelter entrance(s), absolute elevation in meter above sea level (m.a.s.l.), accessibility, relative altitude (in meters above valley bottom), inclination of the slope, and access to the highland and the water sources are used here to recognize the physical characteristics of Paleolithic sites. The sites can also be classified based on their cultural material for identifying their functions (as discussed in chapter 1).

Site The smallest Paleolithic space is a ‘site’. In archaeology, a site is where a cluster of cultural materials were abandoned and accumulated. A Paleolithic archaeological site, based on the geological setting, is divided into two site types- either open air or a shelter site. The shelter site is formed by natural chambers under a rock and can be a cave or a rockshelter. A cave provides an example of a site where there is a natural underground cavity or passage large enough to be entered by person or animals. The rockshelter is a shallow cave-like cavity with a broad entrance, characterized by an overhanging roof and poorly defined side walls24. The easiest way to distinguish caves from rockshelters is based on the depth of the shelter from the drip line to the back wall of the shelter; so if the depth is larger than the mouth (width) of the shelter, it is considered a cave. The circumstances of an open air site

3.4. The macrozones of the Iranian Plateau In terms of geological, topographical, hydrological and climatological characteristics that would have been significant to early humans, I divide the Iranian Plateau into seven major macrozones of: 1. Zagros Mountains including the ecozones of: 1a.Nothern Zagros 1b. West Central Zagros, 1c. Central Zagros, 1d. Southern Zagros; 2. Northwest; 3. North including the ecozones of:

                                                             21

See Vita-Finzi and Higgs, 1970. For example see: Martorello and Pelton, 2003. For example see: Straus, 1993. 24 Straus, 1990. 22 23

33 

 

A region composed of several habitat areas and intermediate areas that early humans move through during different seasons in the year as an annual home zone

Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran 3a. West Alborz, 3b. East Alborz; 4. Northeast; 5. East; 6. Southeast; 7. Makran; 8. Central Plateau (Fig. 3.1.).

Approximate scale Km2

Large scale

The following sections will interpret those macrozones on the Iranian Plateau which are associated with Middle to Late Paleolithic occupations.

>100,000

Macrozone

10,000100,000

Ecozone

100010,000

Home range zone

Medium scale 10-1000

3.4.1. The macrozone of the Zagros Mountains The last chapter has showed that the Zagros Mountains are the largest mountain range on the Iranian Plateau. They have a length of 1,500 km from the northeast of Iraq, roughly running down along the western border of the Iran. The Zagros Mountains extend along the western and southwestern edge of the Iranian Plateau and end at the Straits of Hormuz. Based on geology, landforms, and hydrological conditions which are mentioned in the last chapter, the macrozone of Zagros is classified into four ecozones of Northern (in Iraq), West Central, Central and Southern (Fig. 3.1).

Paleolithic space

Geology, microclimate, shape, connectivity, and fragmentation

Habitat area

1-10

Microhabitat area