وارسیِ زیستگاه‌های روستانشینی آغازینِ دشت شمالِ مرکزی خوزستان

باتوجه به فراوانی زیستگاه های پیش ازتاریخی شناخته شده طی هفتاد سال گذشته در دشت شمال مرکزی خوزستان، شمار زیستگاه های متعلق به مراحل آغازین استقرار در روستا، بسیار ناچیز است. تاریخچۀ مدارک شناسایی شدۀ مربوط به دورۀ روستانشینی آغازین، گواهی می دهد که تقریباً همگی شواهد مربوط به آن دوره به طور تصادفی به دست آمده است؛ بنابراین، اولین مسئلۀ ما این است که چه عواملی باعث شده است تا یافته های ما عمدتاً تصادفی به دست آیند؟ برای توضیح چنین مسئله ای، فرضیاتی مدنظر قرار گرفته است؛ احتمالاً به دلیل پهنه های زیست محیطی پویا که عمدتاً در دشت شمال مرکزی خوزستان به کار است، فرآیندهای نهشته گذاری باعث ناپیدا بودن زیستگاه های مربوط به این دوره شده است. برای این فرضیه، مقیاس کوچک چنین زیستگاه هایی که عمده مصالح به کار رفته در آن ها چینه و خشت های اولیه بوده نیز مدنظر قرار گرفته است. علاوه بر آن، توان زیست محیطی مساعد و روند رو به رشد زیستگاه های ادوار بعدی به سان پوششی گسترده بر بقایای برجای ماندۀ زیستگاه های اولیه قرار گرفته و آن ها را برای همیشه ناپیدا ساخته است. در آخر این که، حدس قوی می رود که روش های به کار گرفته شده در بررسی های باستان شناسی طی چند دهۀ گذشته نیز ازجمله مشکلاتی است که دانسته های اندک ما را درخصوص زیستگاه های آغازین خوزستان باعث شده است؛ بنابراین، برای توضیح مسئلۀ ایجاد شده و با توجه به فرضیات اشاره شده، ارزیابی ما ابتدا معطوف به پهنه های مرتفع و مناطق سیلابی کهن تر در سطح دشت شده است. منطقه ای حدفاصل رودهای شور و عجیروب در جنوب دزفول که بیشترین شواهد مربوط به روستانشینی آغازین دشت شمال مرکزی خوزستان از آنجا به دست آمده است. ارزیابی برخی شواهد منتشر شده در مجموعه های قدیمی، که کمتر به آن ها اعتنا شده و بازدید میدانی این نوید را به ما داده است که روستا های اولیۀ دشت شمال مرکزی خوزستان بسیار بیش از میزانی است که پیش تر دانسته شده بود. نتایج این ارزیابی نشان داده است که حداقل بیش از 11 زیستگاه در دشت شمال مرکزی خوزستان شواهدی از روستا های اولیه را در خود دارند؛ این درحالی است که پیش تر شش محوطه از این دوره شناسایی شده بود.

Reassessing Initial Village Period Settlements in the Upper Khuzestan Plain

AbstractArchaeological surveys have a long history, nearly seventy years, in the Upper Khuzestan plain. Despite the abundance of prehistoric sites, the number of identified Initial Village period settlements is very limited yet. Looking at the encountering history of Initial Village period settlements shows almost all of them were discovered accidentally. Besides the problem of alluvial accumulation, which is a considerable factor, there are several other reasons that affect the visibility of low and early settlements. First of all, villages in this period were obviously small and structures were built mainly using pisé and mud bricks; so buildings were less durable compared to later periods (Early, Middle, and Late Susiana). Secondly, later occupations almost covered up the whole area of early settlements. Hundreds of later sites established in the places that was favorable for earlier settlements. Consequently, at least two main reasons we infer affecting early sites in the Upper Khuzestan Plain not to be found easily are: little attention to the dynamic character of natural alluviation and deposition in the landscape of the region and incompetent field methods. These factors have prevented us to gain a full understanding of the quantity and quality of early settlements in this region. Here, by considering two factors of topography and older flood plains, an early assessment of the concentration of such early settlements in the area between the Shur and Ojirub Rivers is achieved. Boneh Rahimeh is a site that was previously merely recognized as a prehistoric site but not an Initial Village period settlement. In the present study the site is introduced as a potential pair for the Formative and Archaic Susiana site of Chogha Bonut. Keywords: Initial Village Period, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Dynamic natural landscape, Boneh Rahimeh.IntroductionArchaeological surveys by the late R. Adams in the area between the Karkheh and Karun Rivers in the Upper Khuzestan Plain revealed patterns of prehistoric settlements for the first time (Adams 1962). Almost eight years later, Frank Hole conducted a survey in the same area to reevaluate prehistoric settlements (Hole 1968). These two surveys were conducted when the existence of early phases of prehistory in the Upper Khuzestan plain was still unrecognized. In the meantime, however, in the small plain of Deh Luran, F. Hole and his collogues had introduced Ali Kosh as an early settlement in that area (Hole et.al. 1969). In the third season of excavations in Chogha Mish (KS0001), Archaic Susiana pottery was discovered for the first time in trenches 21 and 25 in the deepest gully of the eastern mound of the site. In addition to Archaic Susiana pottery, Trench 25 contained a new type of architecture in which long mud bricks were used (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 45), then Boneh Fazel Ali (KS0002) was identified as another Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period settlement. Discovery of these remains at the latter site was a total chance; rodents’ activities had caused Archaic Susiana/Initial Village potteries to become visible (Kantor 1976). During leveling activities of low mounds to the south of Andimeshk, H. Wright found prehistoric pottery in the debris removed by bulldozers. Subsequently, F. Hole started excavations in this leveled area, where became known as Tulai/Tuleii (KS0372) (Hole 1974).Again, similar developmental activities to the south of Dezful led to the identification of the already damaged and rather small site of Chogha Bonut (KS0109) by Chogha Mish excavation team. On the basis of evidence similar to those revealed in Chogha Mish and Boneh Fazel Ali, Kantor conducted some excavations in the site. Hence, Chogha Bonut was the fourth Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period settlement in the Upper Khuzestan Plain (Alizadeh 2003: XXXi).During his epidemiological studies in the Dez irrigation Pilot area, F. G. L. Gremliza (19591960/1) (Gremliza 1962) collected a large number of prehistoric painted potteries from archaeological sites. Thirty years later A. Alizadeh studied and published Gremliza’s collection (Alizadeh 1992). Alizadeh’s expertise in typology of Khuzestan prehistoric pottery and in particular Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period caused Gremliza’s collection to become a reliable source for comparative studies. There is some sporadic evidence among Gremliza’s survey material that points to early settlements in the area near the Shur and Ojirub Rivers (Alizadeh 1992: 9395; 100105, fig.36. V; fig.37. K; fig.38.I).It is well known that a considerable amount of later cultural remains as well as sediments cover earlier prehistoric settlements in the alluvial plains such as Khuzestan. Hence naturally early small and low occupations are buried and invisible, which makes their recognition a challenging task for archaeologists. Based on geomorphic studies conducted in the Khuzestan plain, it is clear that the sedimentation regimes were not uniform in all areas at the Upper Khuzestan plain. The Ojirub River basin area in particular, where the density of prehistoric sites is higher, bears recorded traces of old alluvium while younger sediments are recorded in the surrounding areas (Map 3). Like Boneh Fazel Ali, rodents’ activities led the evidence of early occupations to become visible in Boneh Rahimeh (KS0040). To the southwest of the site and around rodents’ holes, a considerable number of Archaic Susiana/Initial Village period pottery was discovered (Fig. 4), while only Late Middle Susiana and Susa II pottery was visible on the surface. A bullet core – characteristic of Aceramic Neolithic in Khuzestan was also found in the southwestern slope of the site (currently under cultivation) (Fig. 5).ConclusionAs stated, almost all Initial Village period settlements in the Upper Khuzestan plain were discovered by chance. In addition to Chogha Mish, Boneh Fazel Ali, Chogha Bonut and Tepe Tulai/Tuleii, where archaeological excavations led to identification of Initial Village period in these sites, evidence from previous surveys and recent investigations have increased the number of Initial Village period settlements of the Upper Khuzestan plain from 5 to 11 sites.The dynamic nature of geographical features is considered as one of the main factors in the invisibility of earlier occupations in the alluvial plain of Khuzestan. Shifts in the course of major rivers as well as their effluents have caused fluctuations in the nature and rate of sedimentation. This, in turn, has led to form different topographic features in the region. On the other hand, the environmental potential of the region has caused the growth of later occupations, which have hidden earlier phases of settlement. Hence, almost all Initial Village period occupations are buried beneath layers of sequential occupations of later periods. To sum up, it seems evaluating the number and character in regards early occupations in the Upper Khuzestan plain requires updated and practical field methods. If our present knowledge about the earliest phases of occupation in Khuzestan plain was so far based on accidental revealing of lower layers of settlements by bulldozers or rodents’ activities, it is now time for applying new methods such as remote sensing techniques, studying geographical landscapes and factors affecting geographical dynamics of the region as well as archaeological intensive surface surveys in order to yield impressive results about Initial Village period in the Upper Khuzestan plain.