زرزی: صنعتی سهل و ممتنع ، ابهامات و تناقضات واپسین صنایع سنگی دوران پلئیستوسن در زاگرس

زَرْزی نام صنعتی شاخص مربوط به واپسین دوران پارینه‌سنگی در منطقه زاگرس است. مطالعات محوطه‌های منتسب به دوران فراپارینه‌سنگی در زاگرس مرکزی با چالش‌های فراوانی روبه‌رو است که مهم‌ترین آنها مسئله ویژگی‌های صنایعی است که می‌بایست به صنعت زرزی منتسب نمود. در این مقاله ضمن ارائه خلاصه‌ای از پیشینه مطالعات صورت گرفته درباره زرزی، تلاش شده است تا با نگاهی انتقادی ماهیت زرزی در مطالعات پارینه‌سنگی ایران بر اساس یافته‌های مادی حاصل از محوطه‌های منتسب به آن، که مهم‌ترین آنها غار زَرزی و پناهگاه صخره‌ای ورواسی هستند، مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. مهم‌ترین ویژگی‌های زرزی در صنایع سنگی آن منعکس شده است که صنایعی با تولید میکرولیت‌های هندسی و غیرهندسی و ابزارهای کنگره‌دار/دندانه‌دار همراه با فراوانی خراشنده‌ها به ویژه خراشنده‌های ناخنی و حضور سایر ابزارها همچون اسکنه‌ها در مقادیر بسیار کمتر از دوران پارینه‌سنگی جدید و سوراخ‌کننده‌ها و سرتیرهای شانه‌ای است. به لحاظ فن‌آوری تولید، زنجیره تولید و مصرف دست‌ساخته‌های سنگی و ترکیب‌بندی فن‌آوری در انواع مختلف محوطه‌ها ابهامات فراوانی درباره صنایع زرزی وجود دارد. بر اساس یافته‌های موجود می‌توان زرزی را نه »فرهنگ دوران فراپارینه‌سنگی زاگرس «، بلکه صنعتی مربوط به دوران فراپارینه‌سنگی در ناحیه زاگرس با سنت‌های خاص خود دانست که بخشی از فرهنگ گسترده‌تری محسوب می‌شود که یافته‌های موجود برای تبیین آن بسیار ناکارآمد و ناکافی است.

The Latest Lithic Industry of Zagros Pleistocene: Ambiguities and Contradictions in Zarzian Studies

Introduction The final phase of Late Paleolithic of Zagros Mountains has been introduced as the Zarzian of the Epipaleolithic (EP), which was defined based on the assemblage from type site of Zarzi Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan. This technocomplex has been much less investigated and introduced in comparison to the earlier groups of Upper Paleolithic. The Zarzian is a microlithic industry with small (thumbnail) scrapers, backed bladelets and geometric forms. Although the type site of the Zarzian, i.e. Zarzi Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan, was excavated 90 years ago, few other Zarzian sites have been excavated in Zagros and there are only two absolute dating available, both of which from sites outside political borders of Iran excavated in 1960s. In 2012 Deborah I. Olszewski provided a comprehensive review on the background of research on the Zarzian, although she did not have full access to information on newly found sites, probably because most of them have been published in Persian language or because there have been many Paleolithic surveys conducted in the last decade by local archaeologists making them difficult to follow comprehensively. In this article, a critical review of Zarzian research is presented with regard to the finds from the most important sites, with the goal of defining Zarzian nature and limiting it in a framework of its unique characteristics.Method material:Although the research on Zagros EP started in early 20th century, there is not enough information regarding even absolute chronology and few sites have been excavated with Zarzian cultural deposits. Nevertheless, the terminology is used extensively across Zagros Mountains for Late Paleolithic assemblages despite their heterogeneity. In many recent surveys, especially in Central Zagros, caves and rock shelters as well as open sites have been attributed to EP and/or Zarzian based on surface lithics (references in this regard are provided in Persian extended text), but the increase in the number of EP/Zarzian sites has not contributed much in clarifying the debates regarding technological aspects of the period (e.g. the explanation for the presence/absence of geometric/nongeometric elements as a chronological criterion or a functional pattern), let alone the more complicated notions such as transition from UP to EP in the region, or identifying cultural groups and their interrelations. It is clear that there are variations in lithic industries attributed to Zarzian, and even EP, in central and Southern Zagros. Either some of attributions should be reevaluated, or there exist variations in the technocomplexes of the period.Result:When the Zarzian was first introduced by Dorothy Garrod, it was described as an ldquo;industry of the final stage of Upper Paleolithic rdquo;. In fact, the detailed configuration of Zarzian Industry was established in 1990s based on chipped stone assemblage from Warwasi rock shelter by Deborah Olszewski. The lithic industry is characterized as having nongeometric microliths, mainly Dufour bladelets, and thumbnail scrapers in the earliest phases and introduction and increase in geometric microliths (i.e. scalene triangles and lunates) in the course of later phases. Despite limited number of excavated sites and lack of reliable chronological framework and ambiguities in sequential phases based on lithic industry, the terminology has been even applied in Southern Zagros sites.Discussion: Interpretive approach to Zarzian lithic industry has been developed only in a handful of sites, including Zarzi, Shanidar, Warwasi and a small assemblage form Ghare Khar and few of these sites have been radiocarbon dated and all of them were excavated more than 50 years ago (Zarzi in 1928; Shanidar in 1950s; Warwasi in 1960; Ghare Khar in 1965) with methods that were not only inaccurate in comparison to methods applied today, but also different from site to site; Statistical information is not available in publications on assemblages such as Pa Sangar in Khorramabad Valley and even Shanidar. As a result, when Warwasi assemblage was introduced in detail in 1990s, almost immediately it turned into the only reliable source of Zarzian research in the region, regardless of the fact that the function of the site has been introduced as a ldquo;game overlook/butchering station rdquo; and even if such a recognition would be accepted, its characteristics could not be exclusively generalized to other types of huntergatherers spatial locations. It should be also noticed that most lithic analysis of Zarzian assemblages are focused on tools typology and composition and few research take technological aspects into account (e.g. core morphology and technology are introduced in Zarzian assemblages from Pa Sangar and Warwasi).Another point is that the UPEP transition has only been briefly mentioned in few sites with cultural materials of both periods, the most important of which being still Warwasi rock shelter in Central Zagros. As mentioned previously lack of excavations in stratified EP sites and scarce absolute dating of these site, as well as lack of interest in the cultural period among Paleolithic archaeologists make any attempt to understand the longterm changes of the Zarzian group extremely difficult, if not inconclusive.Conclusion:The main goal of this review is to emphasise the difference of the nature of what we consider ldquo;Epipalaeolithic rdquo; and what is defined as ldquo;Zarzian rdquo; as an identity within the limits of Epipalaeolithic culture; hence, it is important to restrict the attribution of Epipalaeolithic finds to ldquo;Zarzian rdquo;and set up a limit for what we can consider as Zarzian. Considering various aspects of Zarzian other than lithic technology, makes it clear that Zarzi could not be defined as an Epipalaeolithi culture, first because we do not have enough finding regarding its chronology and different aspects of cultural charachteristics of huntergatherers to which Zarzi is attributed; and second because what is already understood regarding their subsistence, economic and social relations is not exclusively limited to Zarzian sites and could be defined in a wider framework as every EP culture. Accordingly, for the moment and until new evidence, we have to limit the attribution only to lithic industry with specific characteristics mentioned in the article.