بررسی سفال اواخر عصر آهن در منطقه‌ی شمال‌غرب ایران با تکیه بر گونه‌ی سفالیِ موسوم به سبک مثلثی

مسالۀ «سفال مثلثی» اواخر عصر آهن و تاریخ‌گذاری آن با وجود تجدیدنظرهای متعدد، هنوز هم با ابهامات و تناقضاتی همراه است که موجب ناهم‌خوانی در گاهنگاری محوطه‌‌های دورۀ مذکور در منطقۀ شمال‌‌غرب ایران شده است. در این نوشتار با هدف از بین‌‌بردن ناهم‌خوانی‌های موجود، اقدام به بازبینی همه‌‌جانبۀ مسالۀ سفال مثلثی شده  و این پرسش مطرح است؛ در منطقۀ شمال‌‌غرب ایران کدام‌یک از گونه‌‌‌های سفالی مرتبط با سبک سفال مثلثی اواخر عصر آهن رواج داشته و هر یک از این گونه‌‌ها قابل انتساب به چه مقطعی از تاریخ منطقه است؟ برای این کار ابتدا تاریخچۀ کوتاهی از چگونگی شکل‌‌گیری نظرات مرتبط، ارائه شده و سپس بافت باستان‌‌شناختی سفال مثلثی در محوطۀ حسنلو مورد بازبینی قرار گرفته است. در ادامه به‌صورت مستقل و بدون توجه به بافت‌‌های لایه‌‌نگاشتی یافته‌‌های سفالی، یک گونه‌‌شناسی تطبیقی و گاهنگاری جدید از سفال‌های مثلثی ارائه شده است. نهایتاً طبقه‌بندیِ حاصل از دو بخشِ قبل که مربوط به شمال‌‌غرب ایران است برای تطبیق با یافته‌‌های هم‌‌زمانِ خود در نواحی جنوبی‌‌تر در ایرانِ غربی استفاده شده و به‌نتایجی در رابطه با سبک‌‌های سفال مثلثی و دوره‌‌های رواج این نوع سفال منجر شده است. در نتیجۀ این پژوهش، سبک‌‌های سفالیِ موردبحث به‌شکل جدیدی تفکیک شده و گونۀ سفالی «مثلثیدالبری کلاسیک» که پیش‌تر با گونۀ مثلثیِ کلاسیک در ظروف کلاسیک و هم‌چنین با سفال‌های منقوش دالبُری درهم آمیخته و موجب سردرگمی شده بود، معرفی شده است؛ بدین‌ترتیب درک ما از دوره‌‌های استقراری حاوی این سفال‌ها نسبت به قبل واضح‌‌تر خواهد شد و تمایز مواد فرهنگی دوره‌های متفاوت آن قابل فهم شده و در نتیجه می‌‌توان توالی استقراری محوطه‌‌های حاوی این سفال‌ها، به‌ویژه در منطقۀ شمال‌‌غربی ایران را به‌صورت دقیق‌تر به‌دست آورد. به‌عنوان مثال، می‌توان گفت یافته‌‌های لایۀ فرسایشی و غیراستقراریِ 3الف در محوطۀ حسنلو نشانه‌‌هایی از تمام دورۀ تاریخیِ پس از اورارتو تا دورۀ سلوکی را در خود دارد. هم‌چنین در محوطۀ زیویه در اواخر عصر آهن، علاوه‌بر مواد فرهنگی اصلی دورۀ مانّا نشانه‌های اندکی از سفال‌های دورۀ بعد را می‌توان مشاهده کرد؛ هرچند که وجود این سفال‌ها لزوماً نمی‌تواند به معنی وجود استقرارهای گستردۀ هم‌زمان با آن‌ها در محوطه باشد.

A Study on the Late Iron Age Pottery in Northwestern Iran, Based on a Typical Pottery Called “Triangle Ware”

The matter of the pottery tradition socalled “Triangular Ware” of the late Iron Age and its dating, despite numerous reexaminations and revision by the scholars, still has some ambiguities and inconsistencies. This causes an incongruity of dating the Iron Age sites of this region. This paper presents a new insight into the Iron Age Triangle Ware of the region and reviews all aspects of this pottery tradition. The main question is in which periods and how long this pottery tradition was common in Northwestern Iran and what is the position of this special ware among the pottery assemblages of the late Iron Age in this region? Based on the typology of the Triangle Ware found at the sites of Hasanlu, Ziwiyeh and Bukan area, we found out that these potteries belong to some diagnostic types of wares in consecutive historical periods from the late 7th to the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. The beginning and the end of this date corresponds to the time span attributed to 350 years erosion deposits of Hasanlu IIIa, indicating the presence of three pottery styles in this layer. The final results of the study are proposed as follows: First, the Classic Triangle pottery (Mannaean pottery) which was common in the southern part of the Lake Urmia basin dates back to the late 7th and early 6th century BC. Second, YellowBrownOrange Pottery in MedianEarlyAchaemenid period, and at the same time, the monochrome and bichrome “TriangleFestoon Ware” that is introduced as a latest kind of the Triangle Ware, are traced back to Late Median and Early to MiddleAchaemenid period in Western Iran. Third, Western Triangle Ware (nonClassic Triangle Ware), is prevailing in the midlate Achaemenid period, and lasts until 275 BC. Identifying this pottery with the Classic TriangleFestoon Ware in the Western Iran shows an overlap between them in the early 5th century B.C.Keywords: Late Iron Age, Painted Ware,  North Western Iran, Hasanlu, Ziwiyeh.IntroductionThe matter of the dating and style of the Triangle Ware, found at Late Iron Age settlements in Northwest of Iran is very ambiguous and causes an incongruity of dating the Iron Age sites of this region. Ziwiyeh and Hasanlu III are among the few settlements containing this type of pottery, but unfortunately the associated stratigraphic contexts and strata of these two sites are confused and unreliable. One of the major consequences of the disruption of these strata and intermingling of their potteries in Hasanlu and Ziwiyeh sites is to remain abstruse the diversity of the pottery of these layers that finally has led to an inaccurate understanding of their settlement subsequences. Hasanlu’s painted Triangular Ware has so far been attributed to different contexts and phases, including “IIIb”, “lower and upper IIIb”, “IIIa” and “IIIa/ II” and consequently, has taken different chronologies including the Urartian, Mannaean, Median or Achaemenid periods. Although Dyson’s two articles in 1999 and his thorough review of Hasanlu’s Triangular Ware and the layer III with the aim of putting an end to the controversy over Triangular Ware have led to a consensus on the chronology of the pottery, some incongruities remained unexplained. In such a situation the current paper tries to present a new research on the Iron Age Triangle Ware of the Northwestern Iran and aims to review all aspects of this pottery tradition. Regarding this, the main question is how long and in which periods the Triangle Ware was common in Northwestern Iran and how many subspecies of this kind of pottery have emerged at this time span in the region? The other question is what is the position of this special ware among the pottery assemblages of the late Iron Age in this region? The relevant hypotheses for this questions are: There are at least three types of Triangular Ware including Classic Triangular Ware, a newlyintroduced Classic Triangular Ware that is similar to the Festoon Ware in the term of its painted decorations, and finally the wellknown Western Triangular Ware. These three types of Triangular Ware encompass about 350 years in late Mannaean, late Median and entire Achaemenid periods. To evaluate the abovementioned hypotheses this study starts with the short introduction of the formations of the previous theories and views, and tries to revise the context of the Triangle Ware in Hasanlu. Afterwards it suggests a comparative typology and new choronology for the Triangle Ware style. Identified TracesAlthough, Dyson (1999b: 134137) acknowledged that the deposits containing the triangular pottery in Hasanlu is not a distinct archaeological layer, still seeks to assign this potteries to an established certain settlement layer. As Kroll shows in his detailed discussions (In Press: 9; 2010: 24) the lack of architecture for Hasanlu IIIA, clearly points in one direction: Hasanlu IIIA is a waste layer, a rubbish heap and a “Midden”. By embracing Kroll’s stratigraphic information and dating views, and by taking into account all the heterogeneous information and opinions of Dyson it can be concluded that Hasanlu IIIa is not a cultural layer belonging a certain historical point, but rather it is “almost a meter of erosion deposits produced by the filling in of the standing ruins” (In Press: 2010: 24) which is composed of multiple stratum of a period of about 350 years. This period begins after layer IIIb and continues until layer II and contains some heterogeneous secondary cultural material. On the other hand, based on the typology of Triangular Ware of Hasanlu III, Ziwiyeh and Bukan, these potteries are distinguished into three distinct types, including “Classic Triangle Ware” (have two subspecies with different Triangular and Festoon motifs), “Western Triangle Ware” and “Festoon Ware”. These potteries belong to three successive historical periods, the beginning and the end of which correspond to the time span attributed to Hasanlu IIIa. Some of Classic Wares that have all the features of Classic Ware in one hand, and applies similar motifs as the Festoon Ware on the other hand, can be classified as a distinct subtype that is called “Classic TriangleFestoon Ware” here. This pottery has a restricted distribution in the western part of Azerbaijan in the 6th century BC and its shapes include a number of Classis Ware’s shapes, fine monochrome or bichrome carinated bowls with high quality and polished surfaces from Bukan Aand Ziwiyeh that have a close resemblance with the late Iron Age pottery assemblages specially with the Mannaean one. ConclusionThe final results of the study in the format of consequences of pottery types and horizons of Triangle Ware and other kind of potteries of Northwestern Iran in the late Iron Age are as the follows: (1) Classic Triangular Ware dating to (late?) 7th and early 6th century BC that is prevalent in the southern part of Lake Urmia Basin matching with Mannaean region, and its examples come from Ziwiyeh and Hasanlu IIIa.  Second: Classic monochrome and bichrome TriangularFestoon Ware that was prevalent about 600 to 450 BC in the late Median and early to MidAchaemenian periods in northwestern Iran and some of them reached western and southwestern Iran. (3) Western Triangular Ware that was prevailing in the midlate Achaemenid period and probably lasts to the Seleucid period around 275 BC. This pottery occurs with the Classic TriangularFestoon Ware in the central and western Iran and the identification of some of their motifs indicates an overlap between them in the early 5th century BC. In general, now we understand that Hasanlu IIIa’s potteries have indications of the periods after Urartu to Seleucid and in addition to the known potteries of the Mannaean culture, there are also some pottery examples of late Iron Age III at Ziwiyeh.