Archaeological Data

The high density of archaeological sites observed on the CORONA imagery and recovered by archaeological surveys would seem to suggest that, as in the Islamic through modern period, settlement was concentrated mainly in the southern part of the plain, with the density increasing nearer to the Alborz foothills. This density lessens somewhat north of the Gorgan River. Here more arid conditions prevail and less intensive historical and modern land use have created ideal conditions for the survival of archaeological sites; however, they are far less abundant in comparison to the southern part of the plain. Besides more recent land use, other factors have also contributed to the pattern of settlement location visible in the archaeological record. Figure 5-5 illustrates the distribution of archaeological sites recorded by multiple surveys, and the coverage of each survey (see Table 3-5 for specific details on survey coverage). In several cases, the intensity of the survey, and/or the types of features that were (or were not recorded) is difficult to determine and this will undoubtedly affect any interpretations that are made based on the available data. Most of the surveys, however, have focused intensively on the plain to the south of the Gorgan River representing a clear bias in site recovery; equally, in almost all cases tappeh sites were more likely to be recorded than low level sites or artefact scatters due to their prominence in the landscape. As such, it is likely that low level sites (e.g. seasonal encampments or artefact scatters) are underrepresented in the survey record, and it is likely even more so in the southern part of the plain than the north (though this of course cannot be confirmed without intensive pedestrian survey). These types of sites have been recorded on survey by the GWS in small numbers, but are difficult to spot on the

118

imagery for a number of reasons including the resolution of the imagery, and their lack of detectable signature. Exceptions exist, however, as shown by a number of ephemeral features that were located near the Caspian shoreline on a strip of GAMBIT imagery (Hopper and Omrani Rekavandi in press); in this case a combination of a well-preserved landscape, and very high resolution historical imagery created the perfect conditions for their identification (Fig. 5-6).

Based on the distribution of site types visible on the CORONA imagery, mounded sites are concentrated in the southern part (beginning to the north of the Elburz foothills) and gradually decrease in density as one moves toward, and especially north of the Gorgan River (Fig. 5-6). Equally, there are very limited examples of mounded sites within a few kilometres of the Caspian coastline, perhaps because of environmental conditions, but also because of the frequently changing coastline. On the other hand, possible camps and enclosures/animal pens appear to be more frequent in this sub-zone (Table 3-4, Fig. 3-14, and Fig. 5-6). This trend may be exaggerated by the fact that higher resolution imagery is available for the coastal zone (Chapter 3.1.3). However, analysis of the modern high- resolution imagery available on Google Earth that extends much further inland indicates that these features are concentrated in this area (Hopper & Omrani Rekavandi in press). If historical high-resolution imagery were available for other sub-zones of the plain, in particular the less agriculturally productive zones north of the Gorgan River, it is possible that similar features could be detected.

5.2.3.1 BROAD TRENDS IN SITE NUMBERS AND DISTRIBUTION

Trying to understand settlement distribution, and the area and density of occupation in different archaeological periods at individual sites based on the available data is problematic. As outlined in chapter 4, our current understanding of the long-term chronology of the plain is imperfect. As such it can be difficult to assign a site with confidence to particular archaeological periods. Furthermore, even the more well-defined periods are still of considerable length so that, along with other factors can result in the conflation of the number of sites assumed to be occupied at one time or mask short term rises and falls (see Hopper and Wilkinson 2013 p.39 for discussion of these issues). However, while the finer details may be obscured, several overarching trends can be identified.

119

During the GWS (2005-2009) we visited 53 sites both north and south of the Gorgan River (Fig 5-7). This is clearly only a small portion of the vast number of sites identified on the CORONA images or in other surveys. However, several broad trends were evident. One was that the landscapes to the north of the Gorgan Wall (and probably more relevantly, the Gorgan River) were dominated by sites likely dating to the Late Iron Age through to the Parthian periods; large canal systems in the west appeared to be linked to this pre-Gorgan Wall phase of settlement, and a great number of these sites in the east were linked by hollow way systems (Wilkinson et al. 2013 p.45–56) (Figs. 5-9 and 5-10). This significant increase in settlement and landscape investment to the north of the river suggested the possibility that an equivalent investment in the better-watered lands to the south may have also occurred; this implies that a considerable increase in population on the plain may have occurred between the Late Iron Age and the Parthian period. Because these sites to the north of the river were so easily identifiable on the CORONA imagery, and significantly fewer in number than those to the south, a considerable percentage were visited and assessed. This is in contrast to other surveys evaluated in this thesis; almost all concentrated on sites to the south of the river, or provided selective coverage of the northern areas (see Fig. 5-5). As such, the recovery of the archaeological settlement pattern to the north of the Gorgan River in the GWS is considered to be more complete than that to the south. That is, within these northern subzones of the plain, nearly all of the archaeological sites (predominantly mounded sites) visible on the CORONA imagery were visited providing more complete coverage for those particular geographical and environmental zones.

To the south of the Gorgan Wall, again, the survey focused on the sites in the vicinity of the wall, and on large (particularly rectilinear) sites that had been identified on the CORONA imagery (within 5 km of the wall or with specific geometric morphologies) or in the surveys of M.Y. Kiani, and attributed to the Parthian or Sasanian period. These investigations suggested that this zone had been densely occupied for a much longer period of time and contained many tappehs and mounded sites with occupation dating back to the Neolithic, Chalcolithic or Bronze Ages, and in some cases continuing through (with some gaps) to the Islamic period (Figs. 5-8 to 5-12). We also located numerous sites and landscape features dating to the Sasanian period (Fig. 5-11); although there appeared to be minimal evidence for Sasanian activity to the north of the wall (see chapter 7 for a full discussion). This suggested that, at least in the period contemporary with the wall, Sasanian activity was

120

focused in the area south of the wall (Wilkinson et al. 2013 p.58–81). While some evidence of Islamic activity was noted on sites in the vicinity of the wall, or north of it, it appeared that the core area of settlement in this period was also likely to the south of the wall (Wilkinson et al. 2013 p.99) (Fig. 5-12).

A more in-depth analysis of specific chronological periods will be presented in chapters 6 and 7 that will incorporate the data on site size, morphology, and associated landscape features that can be derived from the analysis of the CORONA imagery described in chapter 3. To set the stage for this, I will now present a brief overview of the overarching long-term settlement trends. This is based on a comparison of the field survey results of the GWS (as presented in Wilkinson et al. 2013 and summarised above) with the trends that can be drawn out of a comparative analysis of the other field surveys that have been utilised as data sources for this thesis. As our knowledge of the chronology of settlement on the plain is imperfect, and each survey used different methodologies, the following overview will only be used to suggest broad trends and highlight periods where further research is needed.

The Abbasi (2011 Maps 5-7) (Figs. 1-31 to1-33) dataset suggests significant growth in the number of sites from the Neolithic through to the Early Bronze Age. However, the magnitude of this growth is uncertain as Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites are likely underrepresented. At multiperiod sites these phases are often buried under subsequent occupation layers as observed in the excavations at Tureng Tappeh (KH_123). At that site, the excavators found that these earliest occupation layers sat below the modern water table and could only be identified by pottery found in later period bricks (Deshayes 1967 p.123). Data from other surveys may also support an increase in site numbers between the Neolithic/Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages, even factoring in burial of the earliest levels, or the underrecognition of low level sites in the survey record. The Arne (1945 p.30) dataset indicates that black on red painted pottery (Chalcolithic Caspian Black on red ware comparable to Shah Tappeh III c. end of the 5th – first half of the 4th millennium BC) was found on 23 sites, while grey ornamented and burnished wares (likely representative of the Bronze Age, or possibly Iron Age) were found on 80 sites. The pottery descriptions in the Hiroshima University dataset (Shiomi 1976; 1978) are basic, making it difficult to assess periods of occupation other than at a broad level. However, painted pottery is listed as having been found at c. 50 sites, suggesting occupation prior to the mid to late 4th millennium when burnished grey wares appear to become dominant on the plain.

121

Burnished dark grey wares, likely representative of the Bronze Age, were found at around the same number of sites, however, a larger number, c. 96 sites, were reported to have grey wares (burnished and plain), but the lack of detailed descriptions and illustrations makes it impossible to say if this is grey ware of the Bronze Age, Iron Age, or even later. As such, from the admittedly limited data, it appears that site numbers do increase between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. The suggested peak in the Early Bronze Age (Abbasi 2011 Map 7) appears to correlate to increased complexity identified in the material culture of sites in greater northeast Iran such as Tureng Tappeh (KH_123) and Tappeh Hissar (Thornton 2013b p.189–192). We lack data on site size by period making it difficult to comment on the size or morphology of the majority of sites attributed to the Bronze Age, and what this could imply about settlement density. A fuller analysis of this trend is an important topic for future research, but is beyond the scope of this thesis.

The evidence from the GWS suggested minimal occupation predating the Iron Age north of the Gorgan River; only a few sites with prehistoric pottery were located between the Gorgan River and the Gorgan Wall, and only one, GWS-14 (dated to the Bronze Age) appeared to sit north of the Gorgan Wall in the western steppe (Wilkinson et al. 2013 p.102–128). Equally, only one prehistoric site was indicated farther north than the location of the Gorgan Wall in the western steppe in the Abbasi (2011 Maps 5-9) maps; however, the coverage of that survey appears to be sparse in this subzone of the plain. The few sites indicated to the north of the Gorgan River in the prehistoric periods in the Abbasi (2011 Maps 5-9) maps are located in the eastern end of the plain. Here dry-farming is viable, and permanent streams running from the mountains and hills that jut into the plain from the east may be a significant factor in the northern limit of settlement in this period15. Sites with painted pottery (suggesting settlement in the Neolithic to likely no later than the Early Bronze Age) in other survey datasets (Arne 1945; Kiani 1982b; Shiomi 1976; 1978) also appear to be concentrated to the south of the Gorgan River. Overall, this suggests that settlement location was influenced by the availability of water resources (See Fig. 6-4).

15

This is reflected in the following comment by Yate (Yate 1900 p.226) who says “The Sarisu stream is the limit of the water supply on the north, and except for a few springs, there was said to be no water all the way to the Atrak”.

122

The decrease in the number of sites occupied from the Early to the Late Bronze Age, evident in the Abbasi (2011 Maps 7-9) maps is likely supported by the evidence from numerous excavations. Shah Tappeh (ARNE_142), Yarim Tappeh (KH_79), Narges Tappeh (HUS_19) and Tureng Tappeh (KH_123) were all abandoned between the second half of the 3rd millennium and the first half of the 2nd millennium BC (Abbasi 2011 p.4; Bovington et al. 1974 p.198; Cleuziou 1991; Crawford 1963 p.271, 273; Deshayes 1975 p.525–530; Orsaria 1995 p.488; Thornton 2013b p.195). However, without further intensive survey we have no data available on site size, and no way of knowing whether decreases in site number correlated to increases in site size. There is currently very little evidence for the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age on the Gorgan Plain. It is therefore not surprising that no settlement has been confidently attributed to the Early Iron Age. As discussed in chapter 4, many theories have been put forward as to the nature of this supposed sedentary depopulation of the plain but it is only with further excavation, refinement of the ceramic chronology, and more intensive survey can we hope to understand the scale and duration of it. At present, little can be said other than our complete lack of knowledge about the Iron I and II periods is in stark contrast to the number of sites that appear in the subsequent Iron III and IV periods. No further analysis of settlement patterns prior to the Iron Age will be undertaken in this thesis. The above sketch is provided purely for context for later developments.

The significant number of sites that appear to be occupied between the Iron III and Parthian periods to the north of the Gorgan River in the GWS dataset suggests that there may have been a general increase in site numbers in the south of the plain as well. This appears to be the case in the Abbasi (2011 Map 10) dataset, which suggest that the entire plain was densely occupied in the late Iron Age. Information on site numbers derived from this source, however, may be misleading because of the lumping together of the Iron III and IV periods exaggerating the magnitude of the increase (Fig. 5-13). However, even if the number of sites was attenuated by distribution between these phases, there would still be a significant increase in site numbers (not just from the zero in the early Iron Age, but from the numbers given in the Late Bronze Age, compare 75 in the LBA to 332 in the Iron Age III/IV). The subsequent decrease in the number of sites identified as Achaemenid, followed by an increase in site numbers in the Parthian period should be treated with caution, however, because of the potential for significant overlap between the Iron III/IV period and the Achaemenid (and possibly the Early Parthian period) discussed in chapter 4 (Fig. 5-13).

123

As such, the smaller peaks and troughs indicated between the Iron III/IV sites and the Parthian period need further investigation to verify them.

The GWP clearly demonstrated that a significant amount of investment in large military sites and features related to defence occurred in the Sasanian period. This included the construction of the Gorgan Wall, numerous forts and campaign bases, and canal systems (e.g. Wilkinson et al. 2013 p.72–81). A massive urban site, Dasht Qal’eh (GWS_54), is also likely founded in this period. Little however, can be said about the rural landscape based on the GWS data. However, there appears to be an abandonment of many sites in the steppe (abrupt or gradual) prior to the building of the Gorgan Wall in the 5th or 6th century AD (Wilkinson et al. 2013 p.99). A considerable decrease in the number of sites between the Parthian and the Sasanian periods is evident in the Abbasi maps (from 223 to 72 sites) (Fig. 5-13). The majority of the Sasanian sites known in the GWS are located to the south of the wall, a trend generally mirrored in the Abbasi maps, with the exception of a few sites attributed to the dry farming region, north of the Gorgan River in the east. This will be discussed in detail in chapter 7.

The GWS noted that there appeared to be little use or reuse of sites in the vicinity of the wall or north of it in the Islamic period based on the sample of the sites surveyed. However, a few of the Iron III – Parthian sites in the dry farming zone north of the Gorgan River in the east had evidence for Islamic period reuse. The Abbasi (2011 Maps 13-14) dataset suggests a dramatic rise in site numbers in the Islamic period from the preceding Sasanian period, particularly in the southern half of the plain. Furthermore, Islamic sites noted to the north of the Gorgan River, appear to be concentrated in the eastern dry farming zone; this is also replicated in the Kiani (1982b) dataset. Given the apparent decrease in site numbers in the Sasanian period the magnitude of the rise in the Islamic period may be a real trend, but is likely also a factor of the confidence of the identification of Islamic pottery (mainly glazed wares) in this and all other surveys (for example in both Arne (1945), and Shiomi (1976; 1978) datasets the only confident period assessments made based on pottery are for the Islamic period), and the agglomeration of multiple phases of the Islamic era.

5.2.4 SUMMARY

The evidence suggests that the highest density of settlement has been concentrated to the south of the Gorgan River from the Neolithic through to modern times, and as such this

124

landscape can be considered one of destruction in which only the most robust landscape features survive being erased by more recent settlement and land use practices. By contrast, the landscapes to the north of the Gorgan River have only seen sedentary settlement and agricultural investment episodically, and signature landscapes are comparatively well-preserved. Finally, along the Caspian coastline, the flat saline plains, inundated numerous times by high stands of the Caspian over thousands of years, has been a landscape of destruction, but currently exists as a landscape of survival in which traces of seasonal land use are still visible (Hopper and Omrani Rekavandi in press).

The following chapters will explore landscapes associated with these different environmental sub-zones of the plain. Chapter 6 investigates the patterns in the steppe margins north of the Gorgan River that appear to relate to Late Iron Age through to Parthian activity, while chapter 7 looks at the landscapes associated with the Sasanian period in the southern part of the Gorgan Plain. These case studies are used to discuss wider settlement patterns across the plain, and the specific social, cultural, economic and political adaptations that resulted in these signature landscapes (Wilkinson 2003 p.11, 214– 15).

125

6 LANDSCAPES OF THE LATE IRON AGE THROUGH PARTHIAN