Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age
Hassan Basafa1
Received: 2016/5/23
Accepted: 2017/5/6
Abstract
The burial process of the deceased is among the most tangible evidence for
reconstruction and understanding the culture of human societies, which
includes both material and spiritual dimensions. Study of material evidence
in archaeological excavations can contribute to partial interpretation of
ideological motifs. In this context, recognizing burial practices and
interpretation of objects within the grave is a manifestation of human
culture and philosophical ideas of the other world, customs, religious beliefs
as well as social structure and complexities. There are a few studies available
in this field with regard to Great Khorasan, with strategic importance and
proximity of several cultural zones around Great Khorasan Ancient Road,
although archeological excavations in recent years have resulted in specific
material evidence. The current paper includes a structural study of burials
in late Bronze Age with a comparative approach encompassing cenotaph,
primary, secondary and common human-animal tombs as well as the origin
of burial cultures. An assessment of evidences indicates similarity of burial
practices of Khorasan in late Bronze period with the advanced culture of
BMAC in Central Asia, which has been documented in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, South East Iran, Caucasus and south Persian Gulf littoral zone.
Keywords: Khorasan; Late Bronze Age; Burial Culture; Central Asia;
BMAC.
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Archeology, University of Neyshabour, Khorasan Razavi, Iran, Email:
hbasafa@gmail.com
30 Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
Introduction
functionalist
Sincethe beginning of the nineteenth
components have a function in the society.
century
contextshave
For example, shedding tears is a social
from
an
relationship with the dead (Radcliff-
archeological perspective (Fazeli, 2011).
Brown, 1964, 117; Metcalf & Huntington,
The
1991: 44), which, unlike many other burial
,funerary
beenextensivelystudied
initial
centuryalso
years
of
the
marksthe
nineteenth
firstinitiatives
ceremonies,
school,
is
not
death
and
its
archaeologically
thatwere made to understand the social
observable (Morris, 1987). The School of
organization of past societies (Kroeber,
Symbolism suggests that death is a symbol
1927).
then
of life, and building an ornamental tomb is
introduced as a combination of social
a symbol of high status of its constructor
identities, as well as a proper distinction to
(Morris, 1987). The new process-oriented
be
(Binford,
archaeology is based on a scientific
1971:17). On this basis, Tinter (1978)
approach to study burial practices, and
suggested thatburial practices may reflect
deal with the intercultural burial rites to
the complexity of a society. He noted that
extract a variety of burials and their
a greater amount of energy had been
function among the groups (Trigger, 1989,
devotedtoindividual
302; Saxe, 1970: 49). The burial practices
Social
considered
character
after
was
death
class
ranking
in
burial.This has also beensupported by
have
Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978) who
supporters of the process-oriented school
stated that grave gifts might be a sign of
(Carr, 1995; Pearson, 2000) as a direct
strength and ranking .Various studies have
cause and effect relationship between
been conducted on the spatial dimension in
social structure and life with spatial
burial
.Coles&Harding,
organization of the dead, which might not
1979)as well as onthe spatial distribution
have been practiced in several other
of artifacts and skeletons in graves(Pader,
societies (Larsson, 2003).Burials help
1980).
recognize part of prehistoric culture, and
practices
(e.g
been
recently
introduced
by
The evolutionary school of thought
reflect ideas as well as cultural and social
considers death and its attributes as
structures of communities. Identification
evolving cultural elements (Frazer, 1924;
of material evidence of burials and their
Bartel, 1982; Metcalf & Huntington,
practices leads to non-material component
1991). The sociological school regards
of culture and specifies the social and
death as a social process, not as an event
economic status of the deceased (Masson,
(Hertz,
1976: 57-156). An outlook of cognitive
1907).
According
to
the
31 Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
archaeological studies, with an approach to
which
burial, for the first time, formulates the
subgroups
two criteria of poverty and wealth to
bearing data with
analyze burials and make grounds for the
aspects associated with specialized activity
study of social classes in communities.
of the buried, personal ornaments and
Later, at a conference in Leningrad in
grave gifts.
sometimes
have
including
numerous
funerary objects,
practical
and ritual
1972, in addition to motives and adding
The majority of data concerns western
new approaches to this branch, the two
regions of Central Asia with respect to
factors of gender and age were also
identification of the Bronze Age burial
considered (Alekshin, 1983: 138). In this
culture in the east zone such as Great
respect, some archaeologists in their
Khorasan since from the beginning of
qualitative, sociological and philosophical
excavations
studies
three
archaeologists analyzed and interpreted
categories: men, women and children, a
cultural materials through researches using
classification with its own challenges.
sociological approach (Artamanov, 1968,
They believed that not only wealth and
Alekshin, 1983: 137) and then with new
poverty indices should be considered to
archaeological approaches from 1960s
determine the social status of the deceased
onwards (Firouzmandi and LabafKhaniki,
but the age and sex of the buried should be
2006: 67). In contrast, these studies have
regarded since the burial objects are
never been conducted in the rich and vast
interconnected with both age and sex of
zone of Khorasan and there was no clear
the buried. Depending on sex, age and
framework for pre-Islamic cultures until
professional activities of the buried in their
the last decade. In this regard, the studies
life, related objects were buried along with
in
them (Binford, 1971: 13-15). It should be
conducted with respect to patterns of
noted that several models can be drawn up
neighboring cultures, especially Central
to classify graves, with each bearing
Asia. In recent years, excavations in
complementary information, in relation to
Shahrak-e Firoozeh from 2009 to 2014 and
social
non-material
the historic site of QaraCheshmeh in
dimensions of human societies. In funerary
2015 in Neyshabur Plain by the author, the
archaeology studies, elements such as the
Chalo site in Sankhast (Vahdati, 2011;
type and manner of burial, rituals and
Vahdatiand
ceremonies, shape and structure of tomb
2014; 2015),TepeDamghani in Sabzevar
and grave goods should be considered,
(Vahdati et al. 2010), TepeQal’eh Khan
divided
complexity
tombs
and
into
32 this
in
zone
early
have
1930s,
been
Russian
inevitably
Biscione,
Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
(Judi
et
al.,
2011)
and
TepeEshgh
pit graves with heated beds, tombs with
(Vahdati, 2014: 19-27) in Bojnourd and
architectural and barrel structure. In terms
Razeh-ye Ferdows site (Soroush and
of burial practice, each of these types has
Rezai, 2014: 271-273), led to a new
subgroups such as cenotaph, primary,
though insufficient definition of pre-
secondary
historic patterns and cultures has.
animal. Further,
Based on archaeological materials
acquired
during
the
and
common
there
has
humanalso
been
several branches including primary and
aforementioned
secondary pit graves, with some having
studies, several qualitative studies can
simple and heated beds.
be set in different fields, including burials
of this cultural zone in the late Bronze
Pit Graves
period. The late Bronze Age which begins
Pit graves have been used by societies and
from late third millennium BC to early
cultural zones for the time immemorial
first millenniumBC, a culture known as
and account for the largest population.
Bactria
Margiana
Archaeological
Their structure is composed of a pit
Complex,
has
designated
in
irregularly excavated by hand. This has
cultural
caused accelerated decomposition process
period (2300- 1700 BC) emerged in
due to contact of the buried with soil.
Central Asia and extended to a large part
There are a large number of pitgraves in
of
its
the New Bronze Age in the Khorasan
surroundings. Accordingly, in this paper
cultural zone, which are divided into
that is the first of its kind, the burial
simple pit graves and pit graves with
practices of thelate Bronze Age in
heated or burnt bed according to funerary
Khorasan
a
rituals. Examples of the graves with heated
comparative approach and the effort was
bed have been reported from Shahrak-e
made to investigate the origin of burial
Firoozeh (Basafa, 2014) and the simple pit
practices there.
graves from Shahrak-e Firoozeh site
archaeological
Iranian
have
been
literature. This
Plateau
been
and
typified
by
(Basafa,
2014),
Chalo
(Vahdati
and
Structural Study of Burials
Biscione, 2015), Razeh (Soroush and
In terms ofstructure, burials of the late
Rezai, 2014), Qal’eh Khan (Judi and
Bronze Age in Khorasan region are
Rezaei, 2011) and Damghani (Vahdati et
divided to three types: pit graves, tombs
al., 2010).
with architectural and barrel structure and
in a more specialized view include simple
33 Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
Grave with Architectural Structure
neighboring
It emerged and prevailed during Bronze
ShahrakeFiroozeh site (Basafa, 2014: 257-
Age, especially the final phase of the
266), GoharTepe (Moradi, 2013: 98-100
Bronze Age and has been reported form
and Tables, 4-27, 4-28 and 4-29) and
sites such as Qal’eh Khan (Judi et al 2011:
ShahreSukhteh, which are known as bowl
5, 6, 12 and 13, Figure 2 and 3) from
graves
Khorasan. Such tombs have also been
2015; Sajadi,
reported in numerous cultural zones,
138;SeyedSajjad, 2007).
including
Shahr-e
Soukhteh
regions,
(Keshavarz
and
including
Nezami,
2009:
in
southeastern Iran (Keshavarz and Nezami
Culture and Burial Practices
2015, SeyedSajjadi 2007: 481; Sajadi
According
2009), Pakistan (Danni and Duranni,
in Khorasan, different burial cultures of
1964),
the
GonurTepe
in
Central
Asia
late
to archaeological researches
Bronze
period
have
been
(Sarianidi 2007, 2008) GoharTepe in
detected with
close
similarity
Mazandaran (Moradi 2013: 101-103V
with neighboring
regions,
including
Tables
Central
4-30,
4-31
TepeHissar
and
4-32)
in
and
Damghan
Asia (Bactria
Margiana
Archaeological Complex), the Sistan and
(Schmidt: 1933 P.CXI,P.CXLIX).
Kerman zone in Southeastern Iran, South
and Southeast of Caspian Sea, Pakistan
Barrel Grave
and
even
Before the Bronze Age, this burial practice
Makran. Funerary cultures of Khorasan in
was used in the Middle East to bury
the late Bronze Age can be classified into
children and babies. In the early Bronze
four groups: 1) Primary; 2) Secondary; 3)
Age, with the emergence of complexity in
Common human-animal and 4) Cenotaph;
all aspects of human society, especially
which
religious beliefs, this burial practice was
structures.
have
the
been
cultural
zone
of
detected in different
used for all male and female adults as well
as children and after the emergence of pit
Elementary Burial with Simple Pit
graves, a significant percentage of burial
Grave Structure
practices still
It is among the most common practices
were
type (Ref. Alekshin,
of
barrel
1983:
grave
139-
reported
from numerous sites
151). Examples of this practice in the final
in Khorasan,
phase of Bronze Age have been reported
including ShahrakeFiroozeh (Basafa, 2014
from the cultural zone of Khorasan and
: 257-266), QaraCheshmeh (Basafa, 2015),
34 Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
Chalo (Vahdati and Bishuneh, 2015),
human
Damghani (Vahdati et al., 2010), Qal’eh
Turkmenistan, which are often irregular,
Khan (Judi et al., 2011), TepeEshgh
incomplete (secondary) and belong to
(Vahdati, 2014), Razeh (Soroush and
people
Yousefi, 2014) and neighboring areas such
disability (Sarianidi, 2007: 36-38).
as
Tepe Hissar
skeletons
with
in
GonurTepe
physical
defects
in
and
(Schmidt, 1933),
BazgirTepe(Abbasi, 2015), NargesTepe
Secondary Burials
(Abbasi, 2012), TurengTepe (Deshayes,
This type of burial is considered a popular
1968, Boucharlat and Lecomte, 1987) and
tradition in Great Khorasan and Central
Shah Tepe (Arne, 1945) in the Gorgan
Asia and its examples have been reported
Plain, GoharTepe of Mazandaran (Moradi,
from
2013), Shahdad (Hakemi, 2006) and
(Sarianidi, 2007: 31,50), and the Shahrak-e
TepeYahya (Karlovsky, 2009) in Kerman,
Firoozeh
ShahreSukhteh (Keshavarz and Nezami,
2014: 258-260) with two structures of pit
2015;
grave and barrel.
Sajjadi,
2009),
GonurTepe
GonurTepe
site
in
in
Turkmenistan
Neyshabur (Basafa
(Sarianidi, 2008, 2007) and NamazgaTepe
(Alekshin,
1983)
DashliTepe
and
in
Turkmenistan,
SapalliTepe
Cenotaph
of
This is a tomb lacking corpse and erected
Afghanistan (Sarianidi, 1984), the Miri-
as a monument. This type of burial with
Qalat site in Makran (Besenval, 1997) and
thepit grave structure has been reported
Pakistan (Dani and Durrani, 1964).
from
Shahrak-e
(Basafa, 2014: 262-264;
Firoozeh
Fig.
4
Elementary Burial with Heated Grave
and 5), Chalo (Vahdati, 2014: 321 and
Pit Structure
2015: 520), Shahdad5 (Hakemi, 2006: 84-
Pit graves with burnt bed have been
120), Sibri, Quetta (Santoni, 1981: 52-
reported from the cultural zones of Central
60) and in the tomb with crypt architecture
Asia in GonurTepeh (Sarianidi, 2007: 54)
from
and Khorasan in Shahrak-e Firoozeh
(Sarianidi, 2007:
(Basafa, 2014:257-266) and are somewhat
leading
compatible with the tradition of cremation.
believes that burial practices of GonurTepe
Burial with the heated pit grave structure
in Turkmenistan in the New Bronze period
in the Khorasan zone in Shahrak-e
have been associated with Zoroastrian
Firoozeh
cenotaph
ideas (Sarianidi, 2007: 50). Based on the
type (Basafa, 2014: 256-262) but includes
description of funeral in the Zoroastrian
site
is
of
the
35 GonurTepe
Russian
in
31,
Turkmenistan
Table VI).
The
archaeologist,Sariandi
Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
belief, it has been mentioned that “after
1394: 520). Examples of common human-
death, Dorjnasu gallops over the dead
animal burials have so far been retrieved
body like a fly during which the corpse
from TepeEshgh (Vahdati, 2014), Chalo
turns foul and corrupt (Vandidad, 7/2; see
(Vahdati and Bishuneh, 2015: 520) and
Mehdizadeh,
outside Khorasan from Shahr-e Soukhteh
2000: 359); then, after prayer, the corpse is
(Sajjad, 2007: grave number 1003; Sajjadi
taken into silence
or
2009; Tosi 2006) and areas under the
tower and waited for vultures and buzzards
influence of the BMAC culture, including
to strip the corpse of skin and flesh, after
GonurTepe in Turkmenistan (Sarianidi,
which the bones are dumped into the well
2007: 147), SapalliTepe (Sarianidi, 2001:
in the middle of the Tower of Silence or
434), Jarkutan and one sample from
buried (Mehdizadeh, 2000: 361)”. With
Sarazam in Tajikistan.
crypt
this interpretation, the secondary burial,
In Vandidad, a special location known
cenotaphs as well as secondary graves can
as Kata has been mentioned that is the
be
house of dead and another place has been
equaled
mentioned
to
the
the
aforementioned
Zoroastrian
funerary
cited to be the most bitter grief house as a
traditions, since they are compatible with
burial place of cadavers of dead people
dumping the bones of the deceased into the
and dogs (Vandidad, 7/3-11). This section
well in the middle of the Tower of Silence
of Vandidad that refers to common burial
in Zoroastrian burial rites or burial of
place of human and animal cadavers
bones after the decomposition of flesh and
(including
skin in the secondary burial.
between Zoroastrian ideas and funerary
dogs) represents
the
link
traditions of common human and animal
Common Human-Animal Burial
burial. Typical examples include burial of
This is a burial practice of the late Bronze
human and dog from TepeEshgh in
Age in Khorasan as well as areas under the
Bojnord (Vahdati, 2014,) ShahreSukhteh
influence of the BMAC culture. Basically,
in Sistan (SeyedSajjad, 2007, 2009: grave
animals buried together with human
number 1003) as well as human and goat
corpses are domestic animals such as
burial from Chalo site (Vahdati and
goats, sheep, dogs and horses. In some
Bishuneh, 2015).
cases, individual animal burials have been
found in cemeteries of the late Bronze
Discussion
Age, including Chalo site in Khorasan
The growing culture of early urbanization
region
in western Central Asia continued during
(Vahdati
and
Biscione,
36 Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
the Middle Bronze Age (2500-1800 BC)
Merv and turned into finished goods on a
and
cultural
large scale (Ibid: 192). Before excavations
developments and economic relations with
of the past decade in Khorasan, typical
neighboring countries was expanded as
cultural materials of BMAC were reported
early as the third millennium BC (Vahdati,
from
2015: 41). Expanding urban population in
including Hissar, TurengTepe and Shah
the foothills of the KopetDaghMountains
Tepe (TahmasebiZaveh,
during the Namazga V period resulted in
3). Exploration of locations associated
the formation of a significant cultural
with the BMAC culture in Khorasan has
phenomenon during the Late Bronze
addressed new data and assumptions on
period, referred to as Bactria Margiana
the indigenous nature of this culture in
Archaeological Complex (Namazga VI).
Khorasan and its expansion to surrounding
The materials of the BMAC culture were
areas and the result of this research also
soon found their way out of the Oxus basin
reinforces some aspects of this hypothesis.
and northern foothills of KopetDagh and
The most important cultural materials
expanded to vast areas of the Iranian
indicating the expansion of the BMAC
plateau and surrounding regions, which is
culture to neighboring areas have been
considered the dominant culture of the
obtained from funerary contexts. Burial
Bronze Age in Central Asia and indicates
and its requirements, including cultural
an extensive exchange area the Oxus
materials and structure, are effective data
civilization has been associated with
to
(Hiebert, 1988: 7-151).
of communities. For
the
rising
trend
of
sites
of
reconstruct
northeastern
Iran,
2015:
the
social
the
fabric
first
time,
There are two important points in the
Alekshin dealt with the study of burial
advanced BMAC culture. The first is the
cultures of Central Asia with a new
origin and formation of this culture and the
approach. He believes that during late
second is its influence zone. Sarianidi, the
Bronze
Russian archaeologist who has explored
corresponding with cultural phase of
many aspects of this culture, believes that
Namazga VI, a
the Iranian plateau is the origin of the
emerges and funerary objects also take a
BMAC
more
culture
(Sarianidi, 1998: 140). Other
rely
on
endogenous
(Hiebert, 1995: 199) while
in
new
Turkmenistan
burial
modern nature, so
tradition
that
new
researchers
ornaments like bronze bracelets, rings,
transformation
earrings and hairpins replace bronze blades
some
and
others
believe that raw materials entered into
other
accessories
of
previous
periods, and he attributes this innovation to
37 Age
Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
new cultural influence from western
The
regions
GonurTepe are limited (3 types) and not a
of
secondary
burial
practices
in
Turkmenistan (Alekshin, 1983: 138). This
common funerary tradition of this culture
is while bronze bracelets that are the most
(Sarianidi, 2007: 31) and the explorer of
important funerary objects of the BMAC
this culture believes that the importation of
culture
from the
this practice in GonurTepe and Togolok
Middle Bronze Age culture in North East
site can be justified (Sarianidi, 1990: 160,
of Iran (Hissar) as well as South and South
N.2).The barrel graves with a different
East of the Caspian Sea (GoharTepe and
structure as bowl burials in Shahr-e
NargesTepe) (Moradi, 2013: 38 and Table
Soukhteh first appeared in the new Bronze
4.3;
Age and barrel burials of South and South
Abbasi, 2011: 122; Schmidt, 1933: P.IV),
East
and such objects probably continued and
first emerged in late Bronze Age (Moradi,
spread as a traditional symbol in burials of
2013: 43). This is despite the fact that the
the late Bronze Age in Khorasan and the
secondary burials
region
region (ShahrakeFiroozeh) is
have
under
been
the
BMAC culture. In
reported
influence
the
Caspian
Sea
also
in Khorasan
of
barrel
secondary
grave type and reflects continued burial
burials have been found in GonurTepe,
practices before the new Bronze Age,
and
which is considered an innovation in
their
addition,
of
of
explorer
Sariandi
believes
that these burial cultures are associated
funerary traditions of Central Asia.
with customs and traditions of the
Zoroastrian
On the other hand, the human-animal
burial (Sarianidi, 2007: 50).
burial is among the most common funerary
This hypothesis is somewhat reliable
practices of the BMAC culture. With
according
Age
regard to the proposed date of common
iconography of East Iran and Central
human-animal burial in the Sarzam region
Asian works (Sarianidi, 1998 and 1987).
of Tajikistan, which dates back to the end
Secondary
in
of the fourth millennium and the early
Turkmenistan and Shahr-e Soukhteh in
third millennium BC according to explorer
Sistan (SeyedSajjad,
2007, 2009,
of this culture, highlighting the history of
Grave 609) have the structure of pit graves
this burial culture in Tajikistan, it could be
and some have architecture. Barrel burials
inferred that the origin of this burial
were prevalent before the
tradition was cultural regions of southern
Age in
to
the
late
burials
different
of
places
Bronze
GonurTepe
newBronze
and
regions,
Tajikistan. It is most likely that this burial
especially in the foothills of KopetDagh.
tradition continued and spread in the late
38 Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
Bronze
Age
to
cenotaphs, which have emerged with
Great
different structures in burial cultures of the
Khorasan, the region influenced by the
GonurTepe community in more recent
BMAC culture and Central Asia.
periods. In addition, in the Chalo site, a
neighboring regions, especially
Cenotaphs with a variety of structures
cenotaph with local objects of Gorgan
have been found in GonurTepe in Central
Plain
Asia but show only the pit grave structure
type (Vahdati, 2014: 321) has been found,
in
which implies the indigenous nature of this
Khorasan
Firoozeh
region
site
and
in
Shahrak-e
Neyshabur. Some
gray
clay and
Hissar IIIC
burial tradition in the Khorasan region.
archaeologists believe that the tombs
without skeleton have been dedicated to
Results
people with a special social status;
The late Bronze Age burials in the
however,
an
Khorasan region indicate a close cultural
exception since no dignity goods have
homogeneity of burial traditions of this
been found, which can contribute to proper
zone with areas under the influence of the
understanding of the social status of that
BMAC culture as well as cultural zones of
type of burial. It should be noted that
South and South East of the Caspian Sea.
burials
from
Some of these cultural traditions have been
GonurTepe in graves with a pit structure
common in Great Khorasan from the Early
were probably related to lower classes of
Bronze Age and have influenced the
the society. Given the number and pit
surrounding regions, including Central
structure of cenotaphs of the Shahrak-e
Asia and southeast of Caspian Sea in a
Firoozeh site relative to archaeological
later period (late Bronze Age) during
sites in Central Asia, it is clear that the
communication processes, cultural ties,
basic structure of this burial tradition (pit
spread of communities, individuals, ideas
graves) has been used in Shahrak-e
and beliefs. Among burial cultures which
Firoozeh,
universally
can be currently mentioned to have been
Shahrak-e
disseminated into surrounding areas from
Shahrak-e
of
this
Firoozeh
type
indicating
in
is
retrieved
a
prevalent
tradition
the
Firoozeh
community. Accordingly,
this
Great Khorasan based on the bulk of
burial tradition cannot be limited to the
recent studies a) is barrel graves appearing
people with a high social status, but burials
in the late Bronze Age in sites such as
of this type with a variety of structures
EshghTepe
(including chest and crypt) in GonurTepe
NargesTepe in Gorgan Plain for the first
can be considered an innovation to
time as a new tradition b) according to
39 in
Mazandaran
and
Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
results
of
absolute
chronology
and
has
always
been
assumed
to
be
funerary findings of Shahrak-e Firoozeh
unidirectional; the current qualitative and
site in Neyshabur Plain indicating older
quantitative
age of some phases of this site relative to
cultural sphere of Great Khorasan have
GonurTepe in Turkmenistan. Moreover,
paved the way to revise the assumption
by comparing the size of explorations in
that interactions of the late Bronze Age
Shahrak-e Firoozeh and GonurTepe, it can
have originated from Central Asia. Up to
be
burial
now, studies on dissemination, interaction
traditions as well as cenotaphs in the burial
and cultural ties of Central Asia during the
context of Shahrak-e Firoozeh with overall
late Bronze Age (BMAC culture) with
initial structure of burial pits represented
neighboring
by tombs containing local objects of
on iconography
Gorgan Plain gray clay and Hissar IIIC in
dignity and luxury objects while a majority
the Chalo site penetrated in late Bronze
of these objects have been retrieved from
Age
funerary contexts and are considered the
said
that
secondary
during communication
and
archaeological
regions
have
and
studies
in
been based
homogeneity
of
dissemination process in areas under the
most
influence of the BMAC culture- especially
bearing cultural, social and even economic
GonurTepe in Turkmensitan and merged
and political data. What can be concluded
with indigenous-local burial structures of
from this research is the indigenous source
these areas and eventually led to burial
of some burial cultures of Khorasan in the
innovations such as cenotaph with chest
late Bronze Age that penetrated into
and
neighboring
crypt
secondary
(catacomb)
areas,
typical
especially
findings
Central
Asia and West Khorasan cultural zones
structures. This is while the interaction
such as Gorgan Plain and southern regions
between BMAC cultures with neighboring
of the Caspian Sea through dissemination
areas
and communication processes in material
always
with
and
and
diverse
has
burials
structure
important
been
deemed
unidirectional from Central Asia to other
(funerary
cultural points while absolute chronology
spiritual (funerary customs and ideologies)
and
dimensions.
cultural
materials
of
Shahrak-e
structures)
and
Firoozeh indicate older age of some phases
relative to GonurTepe and BMAC sites of
References
Central Asia.
[1] Abbasi G., (2015). Archaeological
Given that the interaction between the
achievements
BMAC culture and neighboring regions
Great
Gorgan
(Varkan). Tehran:Iranian Negah Press.
40 of
Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
[2] Abbasi, G., (2011). Final Report of
Archaeological Analysis of Mortuary
Archaeological
Practices.Journal of Anthropological
Excavations
NargesTeppe
in
in
Archaeology, 1, 32-58.
Gorgan
Plain. GanjinehNghshejahanPublications,
[8] Besenval, R., (1997). New Data for
Cultural
and
the Chronology of the Protohistory of
and
Kech-Makran (Pakistan) from Miri Qalat
GolestanInstitution of Higher Learning,
1996 and ShahiTump 1997 Field-Seasons.
Gorgan.
South Asian Archaeology, 1, 161-187.
[3] Alekshin, V.A., Bartel, B., Dolitsky,
[9] Boucharlat, R. and Lecomte, O.,
A.B., Gilman, A., Kohl, P.L., Liversage,
(1987). Fouilles de TurengTepe sous la
D. and Masset, C., (1983). Burial Customs
direction
as
periodessassanidesetislamiques, Paris.
Heritage,
Tourism
an
Handicrafts
Organization
Archaeological
Source
[and
de
Jean
Deshayes
1.Les
Comments].Current Anthropology, 137-
[10]Binford,
149.
Practices: Their Study and their Potential,
[4] Arne, T.J., (1945). Excavation at Shah
Memoirs of the Society for American
Tepe, Iran.
Archaeology, No. 25, Approaches to the
Artamanow,
JK.
1968.
E.,
(1971).
Mortuary
Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices,
Proieohokdienijeekifekogoiakuatua,
6-29.
"SowietskajaArchieołogia". Nr 4: 32.
[11]
[5] Basafa, H., (2015). Exploration report
Practices, their Social, Philosophical-
of QaraCheshmeh site (KalateShoori) in
religious, Circumstantial, and Physical
Neyshabur Plain. Archive of Cultural
Ddeterminants.Journal
Heritage,
Archaeological Method and Theory, 2:
Handicrafts
and
Tourism
Carr,
C.,(1995).
Mortuary
of
Organization. Unpublished.
2, 105-200.
[6] Basafa, H., (2014). Late Bronze Age
[12] Coles, J. & Harding, A.,(1979).
burial practices in Neyshabur Plain (North
The Bronze Age in Europe. Methuen,
East of Iran). Proceedings of the Fourth
London. Dajani, R. 1964. Iron Age
International
Tombs
Conference
of
Young
from Irbid.Annual
of
the
Archaeologists (Mohammad
Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 8,
HosseinAziziKhranq, Reza Nasseri and
99-101.
MortezaKhanipour). Tehran: University of
[13] Dani, A.H. and Durrani, F.A., (1964).
Tehran. 257-266.
A
[7] Bartel, B.,(1982). A Historical
Pakistan.Asian Perspectives, 8(1), 164-
Review
165.
of
Ethnological
and
41 New
Grave
Complex
in
West
Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
[14] Deshayes, J., (1968). TurengTepe
Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity,
and the plain of Gorgan in the Bronze
1, P.190.
Age.Archaeologia Viva, 1, 35-38.
[22] Hiebert, F.T., (1998). Central Asians
[15] Fazeli, H.,(2011). An Investigation of
on the Iranian Plateau: a model for Indo-
Craft
Cultural
Iranian expansionism. The Bronze and
Complexity of the Late Neolithic and
early Iron Age peoples of eastern central
Chalcolithic Periods in the Tehran Plain,
Asia, 1, 148-161.Lamberg Karlovsky,
PhD Dissertation, University of Bradford
C.C., 1994. Central Asian Bronze Age –
(UK).
Special Section, Antiquity, Vol. 68, 353-
Specialization
[16]
and
FirouzmandiShirejini,
B
and
354.
LabafKhaniki M., (2006). Social Structure
[23] Judi K, Garazhyan O, and Rezaei
of Scythian Communities regarding Burial
M., (2011). Prehistoric Burial Practices in
Practices. Journal of Tehran University
Ghale Khan Settlement (North Khorasan)
Faculty of Letters and Science. 5 (57), 67-
with an Emphasis on Bronze Age. Journal
92.
of Archaeologist Message (15), 57-72.
[17] Frankenstein, S. & Rowlands, M.,
[24] Karlovsky, Lemberg CC., (2009).
(1978). The Internal Structure and
The Beginning and Flourishing of Culture
Regional Context of Early Iron Age
and Civilization in South East of Iran
Society
(Soghan
in
South-Western
Valley
Area-Kerman,
Germany.Bulletin of the Institute of
YahyaCulture: Early Historic Period). Vol
Archaeology, University of London.,
1.Translated by [24] GholamaliShamloo
Pp.15, 73-112.
(edited
[18] Frazer, J.,(1924). The Belief in
Miri). Tehran:
Immortality and the Worship of the
Department
Dead.London: Macmillan
Organization.
[19]
Gilmour,
Burials
in
G.,(2002).
Late
by
Mohammad
Reza
Publication
Planning
Cultural
Heritage
of
Foreign
[25] Keshavarz, G and SanadgolNezami
Age
M., (2015). The Structure and Location of
Bronze
Palestine.Near Eastern Archaeology,
Crypt
65: 2, 112-119.
Ceremonies
[20] Hertz, R.,(1907). Death and the Right
Sukhteh. Proceedings
Hand.London: Cohen and West.
Conference of Archaeology in Birjand
[21] Hiebert, F.T., (1995). South Asia
(Edited
from a Central Asian Perspective.The
HashemiZarjabadi). University of Birjand,
Indo-Aryans
Code 81.
of
Ancient
South
Asia:
42 Burials
and
their
in
by
of
Interment
Shahre
the
National
Hassan
Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
[26]
Moradi,
E., (2013). Comparative
[34]
Pearson,
M.,(2000).
The
studies of Bronze Age burial patterns in
Archaeology
of
outskirts of South and South East of
Burial.United
States:Texas
Caspian Sea with a focus on Gohar
University Press.
Tepe. Master's thesis. University of Sistan
[35] Radcliff-Brown, A.,(1964). The
and Baluchistan.
Adaman Islanders. Free Press, New
[27] Larsson, A.,(2003). Secondary
York. Rast, W. 1999.Society and
burial practices in the Neolithic: causes
mortuary
and
Dhra.Archaeology,
consequences.Current
Swedish
customs
Death
at
Bab
and
A&M
edh-
History
and
Archaeology, 11, 153-170.
Culture in Palestine and the Near
[28]Leningrad.J.,(1967).Catal H A za
East.Essays in Memory of Albert E.
Neolithic
Glock. Ed. T. Kapitan. (ASOR Books,
Town
in
Anatolia.London:
Thames and Hudson.
3.)
[29] Mehdizadeh, A.,(2000). Death and
[36] Santoni, M., (1981).Sibri and the
Funeral in MazdeanReligion. Faculty of
South Cemetery of Mehrgarh: Third
Literature
millennium
and
Humanities,
Tehran
Connections
between
the
University. Spring and Summer, 354-369.
Northern Kutch Plain (Pakistan) and
[30] Masson. V., (1976).The econonzics
Central Asia, South Asian Archaeology,
and social sfrztctzlre of ancient societies
52-61.
(in Russian).
[37] Sarianidi, V.I., (2008). The Palace-
[31]
Metcalf,
B.
&
Huntington,
Temple
Complex
of
North
R.,(1991). Celebrations of Death.The
Gonur.Anthropology & Archeology of
Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual.New
Eurasia, 47(1), 8-35.
York: Cambridge University Press.
[38] Sarianidi, V.I., (2007). Necropolis of
[32] Morris, I.,(1987). Burial and
Gonur.Kapon.
Ancient Society.New York:Cambridge
[39] Sarianidi, V.I., (2001). Necropolis of
University Press.
Gonur and Iranian Paganism.Moscow.
[33]
Pader,
E.,(1980).
Material
[40] Sarianidi, V.I., (1998). Myths of
Symbolism and Social Relations in
ancient Bactria and Margiana on its seals
Mortuary
and amulets.Pantographic Limited.
Studies.Anglo-Saxon
Cemeteries 1979.Eds P. Rahtz& L.
[41] Sarianidi, V.I., (1998). Margiana and
Watts.(British Archaeological Reports,
Protozoroastrism.Athènes.
82.) Oxford, 143-160.
43 Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46)
[42]
Sarianidi,
V.I.,
DrevnostiStranyMargush.
(1990):
[49]
Seyedsajadi,
al., (2007). Reports
Ashkhabad,
SM
of
et
ShahreSukhteh
Ylym.
1.Vol 1. Department of Cultural Affairs of
[43] Sarianidi, V., (1987). South-west
Tehran.
Asia:
and
[50] TahmasebiZaveh, H., (2015). Bactria
Zoroastrians. International Association for
Margiana Archaeological Complex in
the Study of the Cultures of Central Asia,
North East of Iran: native culture or
Information Bulletin, 13, 44-56.
cultural
migrations,
[44]
the
Sarianidi,
Aryans
V.I.,
(1984).
influence. Proceedings
of
the
National Conference of Archaeology in
Raskopkimonumental’nÿkhzdaniina
Birjand (Edited
Dashlÿ-3.
HashemiZarjAbadi). University of Birjand,
DrevnyayaBaktriya.
by
Hassan
MaterialÿSovetsko-
Code 56.
AfganskoiArkheologicheskoiÉkspeditsii, 5-
[51]
32.
inferences and mortuary practice. An
[45]
Saxe,
A.,(1970).
Dimensions
of
Tainter,
J.,(1978).
experiment
Social
in
Social
numerical
classification.World Archaeology, 7:
Mortuary
Practice.University Microfilms, Ann
105-141.
Arbor.
[52] Trigger, B.,(1989). A History of
[46]
Soroush
MR
and
Yousefi
Archaeological
H., (2014).Razeh site, a Witness to Third
Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge
Millennium to Historic Time Settlements
University Press.
in South Khorasan. Proceedings of the
[53]
Twelfth
of Sistan.Vol
Annual
Meeting
of
Tuzi, M., (2006). Prehistory
5.Translated
by
Reza
Archaeology. Tehran: Research Institute of
Mehrafarin.Mashhad:Paj Publications.
Cultural Heritage.
[54] Vahdati, A.A., (2011). A Preliminary
[47] Schmidt, E.F., (1933). TepeHissar
Report on a Newly Discovered Petro
Excavations
glyphic Complex near Jorbat, the Plain of
1931.University
Museum,
University of Pennsylvania.
Jajarm, Northeastern Iran. Paléorient, 177-
[48] Seyedsajadi, S.M.,(2009). Collection
187.
of Articles on ShahreSukhteh 1.Vol. 1,
[55] Vahdati. A. A., (2014). A BAMC
Central
Grave
Office
of Cultural
Heritage,
from
Bojnord,
Handicraft and Tourism Organization of
Iran.Iran LII.19-27.
Sistan and Baluchistan, Zahedan.
[56]
Vahdati,
A.
North-Eastern
and
Bishuneh
R.,(2014). Brief Report on the Second
44 Burial Cultures of Khorasan in Late Bronze Age __________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4)
Season of Exploration in ChaloTepe in
BC). Review of archeology of Khorasan,
Jajarm Plain, Northeastern Iran. Reports of
excerpts from archaeological finds and
Thirteenth
of
cultural-historical treasures of Khorasan
Archaeologists. Tehran: Research Institute
(edited by MeysamLabafKhaniki). Public
of Cultural Heritage. 320-324.
Relations
[57] Vahdati, A and Bishuneh R.,(2015).
Cultural Affairs in collaboration with the
The Third Chapter of Exploration in
Department of Cultural Heritage, 37-47.
TepeChalo, Jajarm Plain, northeastern
[59]
Iran. Reports
Annual
Frankfurt. (2010). Preliminary Report on
Archaeologists. Tehran:
speculation in DamghaniTepe in Sabzevar,
Meeting
Research
Annual
of
of
Meeting
Fourteenth
Institute
of
Cultural
in
Khorasan
(3000-500
45 A,
Magazine. 24 (P 48), 17-36.
[58] Vahdati, A.,(2015). Bronze Age and
Age
Vahdati,
Publishing
Center
Henri
of
Paul
spring 2008. Archaeology and History
Heritage. 529- 534.
Iron
and
‫)‪Basafa, H __________________________________ Intl. J. Humanities (2016) Vol. 23 (4): (30-46‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﻓﺮهﻨﮓهﺎی ﺗﺪﻓﯿﻨﯽ ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن در ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻧﯽ دوره ﻣﻔﺮغ‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫ﺣﺴﻦ ﺑﺎﺻﻔﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ﭘﺬﯾﺮش‪١٣٩۶/٢/١۶ :‬‬
‫ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ درﯾﺎﻓﺖ‪١٣٩۵/٣/٣ :‬‬
‫ﭼﮑﯿﺪه‬
‫ﻧﺤﻮۀ ﺧﺎﮐﺴﭙﺎری ﻣﺮدﮔﺎن از ﻣﻠﻤﻮسﺗﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﺪارک ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺎزﺳﺎزی و ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﻓﺮهﻨﮓ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﺤﺴﻮب ﺷﺪه ﮐﻪ‬
‫دارای اﺑﻌﺎد ﻣﺎدی و ﻏﯿﺮﻣﺎدی اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﮥ ﻣﺪارک ﻣﺎدی ﮐﺎوشهﺎی ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎنﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎن ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪودی ﻣﯽﺗﻮان ﺑﻦﻣﺎﯾﻪهﺎی‬
‫اﯾﺪﺋﻮﻟﻮژﯾﮏ را ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﮐﺮد‪ .‬در اﯾﻦ زﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﯿﻮههﺎی ﺗﺪﻓﯿﻦ و ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ اﺷﯿﺎء درون ﮔﻮر ﺗﺒﻠﻮر ﻓﺮهﻨﮓ و ﺗﺼﻮرات ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺸﺮی ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺎن دﯾﮕﺮ‪ ،‬آداب و رﺳﻮم‪ ،‬ﺑﺎورهﺎی ﻣﺬهﺒﯽ و هﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎرهﺎ و ﭘﯿﭽﯿﺪﮔﯽهﺎی اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺣﻮزۀ‬
‫ﻓﺮهﻨﮕﯽ ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن ﺑﺰرگ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﯾﮏ هﺴﺘﻪ و ﻣﻨﻄﻘﮥ ﻓﺮهﻨﮕﯽ وﯾﮋه ﺑﺎ داﺷﺘﻦ اهﻤﯿﺖ اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﮋﯾﮏ )هﻤﺴﺎﯾﮕﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﻓﺮهﻨﮕﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪد ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻮرﯾﺖ ﺟﺎده ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻧﻲ ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن ﺑﺰرگ( ﺑﺎ ﮐﻤﺒﻮد ﭘﮋوهﺶهﺎ در اﯾﻦ زﻣﯿﻨﻪ روﺑﻪرو اﺳﺖ هﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ در ﺳﺎلهﺎی اﺧﯿﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﮐﺎوشهﺎی ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎنﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ اﻧﺠﺎمﺷﺪه ﻣﺪارک ﻣﺎدی وﯾﮋهای ﮐﺸﻒ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎر ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ دو ﺑﺨﺶ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﮥ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎری ﺗﺪﻓﯿﻦهﺎ در ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻧﯽ دورۀ ﻣﻔﺮغ ﺑﺎ روﯾﮑﺮد ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ در ﻧﮕﺎه ﮐﻠﯽ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﻬﯽ ﮔﻮر‪ ،‬اوﻟﯿﻪ‪ ،‬ﺛﺎﻧﻮﯾﻪ و‬
‫ﻣﺸﺘﺮک اﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ‪-‬ﺣﯿﻮاﻧﯽ ﻣﯽﺷﻮﻧﺪ و رﯾﺸﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ و ﻣﻨﺸﺎ ﻓﺮهﻨﮓهﺎی ﺗﺪﻓﯿﻨﯽ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ارزﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻣﺪارک ﻧﺸﺎن از هﻤﮕﻮﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺷﯿﻮههﺎی ﺗﺪﻓﯿﻦ ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن در دورۀ ﻣﻔﺮغ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮهﻨﮓ ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺘﮥ ﺑﻠﺨﯽ‪-‬ﻣﺮوی در آﺳﯿﺎی ﻣﯿﺎﻧﻪ دارد ﮐﻪ ﺣﻮزۀ ﭘﺮاﮐﻨﺶ آن ﻋﻼوه‬
‫ﺑﺮ ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن در اﻓﻐﺎﻧﺴﺘﺎن‪ ،‬ﭘﺎﮐﺴﺘﺎن‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﻮب ﺷﺮق اﯾﺮان‪ ،‬ﻗﻔﻘﺎز و ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺟﻨﻮب ﺧﻠﯿﺞ ﻓﺎرس ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫واژههﺎی ﮐﻠﯿﺪی‪ :‬ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن‪ ،‬دورۀ ﻣﻔﺮغ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻧﯽ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮهﻨﮓهﺎی ﺗﺪﻓﯿﻨﯽ‪ ،‬آﺳﯿﺎی ﻣﯿﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮهﻨﮓ ﺑﻠﺨﯽ‪-‬ﻣﺮوی‪.‬‬
‫‪.١‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎدﯾﺎر ﮔﺮوه ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎنﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻧﯿﺸﺎﺑﻮر‬
‫‪46 ‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬