باستان مردم‌شناسی قلمرو در قرارگاه‌های رفتاری نیمه یک‌جانشینی آغاز هلوسن؛ (ارائه مدل برپایه پژوهش کیفی و مطالعه موردی)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه باستان شناسی، دانشکدۀ حفاظت و مرمت، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

10.22084/nb.2021.23863.2311

چکیده

پدیدۀ «مرزبندی مکانی»، از پیش‌ازتاریخ تاکنون نقش مهمی در تکوین، تثبیت، حفاظت و هویت‌بخشی فضاهای انسان‌ساخت و قرارگاه‌های رفتاری داشته است. پدیدارها و فرهنگ مادی مبیّن آن به‌مثابه داده، و داده‌ها به‌لحاظ ماهیت در باستان‌شناسی دارای محدودیت و از جنبۀ شکلی-ریختی قابل شناسایی‌اند؛ اما مردم‌نگاری، روان‌شناسی محیطی و معماری بیان‌گر تنوع و عرصه‌های گوناگون پیدا و پنهان آن -به‌مثابه قلمرو- در قرارگاه‌های رفتاری سنتی‌اند؛ بنابراین پدیدۀ قلمرو ازنظر فضایی، رفتاری و مفهومی تشخیص‌پذیر است، اما بیشتر یک پدیدۀ ذهنی-ادراکی‌ست تا یک ویژگی شکلی-ریختی. با این‌حال، چگونگی مؤلفه‌ها و وجوه سه‌گانۀ قلمرو در قرارگاه‌های رفتاری پیش‌ازتاریخی -اگر نگوییم هیچ- بسیار کم موردتوجه بوده و مطالعات پیشین بیشتر بر مفاهیمی مانند دارایی و مرز تمرکز داشته‌اند. درک و بازشناسی مفهوم قلمرو و قلمروگرایی در قرارگاه‌های رفتاری پیش‌ازتاریخی در پرتو قیاس بین داده‌های باستان‌‌شناختی و یافته‌های قرارگاه‌های سنتی رفتاری و در چارچوب باستان‌مردم‌شناسی و استدلال‌های کاربرد‌اش امکان‌پذیر است. با این‌وجود، آیا قلمرو و قلمروگرایی، مؤلفه‌ها و عرصه‌های سه‌گانۀ آن در بافت‌های باستان‌شناختی و پویا از مفهوم یکسانی برخوردارند؟ و آیا می‌توان از آن‌ برای تفسیر بافت‌های باستان‌شناختی مشابه استفاده کرد؟ این پژوهش، با اتکا بر نمونه‌های باستان‌شناختی (نمریک 9 و معلفات-میان‌رودان) و مردم‌نگاری(ملّه تنگلیا-ایران)، از نوع کیفی و از دیدگاه روش‌شناسی بر توصیف، تحلیل، تفسیر، و ازمنظر روش، یک تحقیق باستان مردم‌شناختی مبتنی‌بر قیاس‌های‌ تطبیقی عام و ساختاری است؛ بنابراین برپایۀ مشاهده و مصاحبه (مردم‌نگاری) و بررسی و تحلیل اسنادی (باستان‌شناختی)، موارد مذکور در بافت‌های پویا و ایستا بررسی شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهد مؤلفه‌ها و وجوه قلمرو در هر دو بافت باستان‌شناختی و سیستمیک وجود داشته و به‌واسطۀ تئوری بُرد میانی قابل ادراک و تفسیر بوده و دست‌یابی به آن از دو منظر عینی و ذهنی، در قابلیت تبیین و تفسیر باستان‌شناختی نحوۀ دسترسی به فضاهای مختلف اجتماعی و مکانی انسان‌ساخت راه‌گشاست.   

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Ethnoarchaeology of Behavior Settings: Towards Understanding of Territory in Semi-Sedentary of the Early Holocene (A Model-Based Qualitative Research with Case Study)

نویسنده [English]

  • Hamid Reza Ghorbani
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Conservation and Restoration, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan. Iran.
چکیده [English]

The phenomenon of “spatial boundary”– among the main components of spatial property– has held an essential role in creating, consolidating, protecting, and identification of sustainable human-constructed environments and semi-sedentary behavior settings, from the early Holocene until now. Features and their determinant material culture are as the data, and the data are constrained in archaeology yet recognizable from the structural aspect. Ethnography, environmental psychology, and architecture suggest the diversity and various exposed and concealed arenas of this phenomenon in the traditional behavior settings. Theme of how the recognition, interpretation of the parameters, and the triple aspects of territory have been in prehistoric behavior settings is inadequately addressed. Due to the limited sources of archaeological literature according to different variables, the previous studies have only partially investigated the concept of assert. Recognition and understanding of the concept of territory is feasible in the light of analogy between the archaeological data and the findings of the behavior traditional settings in the framework of ethnoarchaeology and its practice-oriented reasoning. Middle East is among the pioneering regions in such investigations. Article is a qualitative research relying on archaeological and ethnography samples, it relies on description, analysis, and interpretation from the viewpoint of methodology, and it is an ethnoarchaeological study based on reasoning’s general comparative and structural analogies in terms of method. It is investigated based on observations, interviews, and documentary analysis in dynamic and static contexts. Study results indicate that the parameters and aspects of territory have been present in both archaeological and systemic contexts, and they are perceptible and interpretable through the middle range theory. It would be helpful in both objective and subjective viewpoints for the capability of archeological interpretation of how the different social and spatial human-constructed environments are accessible.
Keywords: Ethnoarchaeology, Territory and Territoriality, Behavior Setting, Semi-Sedentary, Archaeological Interpretation.
 
Introduction
The territory is among the pivotal components of presenting behavior patterns in the given spatial dimensions of the lifestyles. Evidences exist in the first early temporary or seasonal behavior settings of semi-sedentary and in the traditional lifestyles of the Middle East. Some of the similar features and components, such as territory and territoriality, are perceptible due to the permanence and continuity, and through the middle range theory and analogy reasoning in the light of ethnoarchaeology. Quantitative-qualitative flaw of the archeological data (subject) compared to the evident abundance and observation of the targeted exposed and concealed marking of territory in the architecture of the traditional setting of semi-sedentism necessitates the comprehensiveness (source) of the ethnographic sample in analogy-based investigations. Ethnoarchaeological studies of the Middle East are amenable in three categories the reflections on the behavior of traditional settings, handicrafts research, and experimental and laboratory investigations. Vast spectrum of concepts, including territory, are less addressed from different viewpoints. Answer the question of how the territory parameters have been in the prehistoric period, it is necessary to recognize them from the lens of behavior traditional settings to make analogies for archeological interpretations. Purpose of this paper is to utilize general comparative and structural analogies reasoning in the qualitative research of ethnoarchaeology to understand and interpret territory in the behavior settings of Nemrik 9 and Mʼlefaat compared with the behavior traditional settings of Malle-ye Tangelia. Necessity of this study lies under the perception of territory and its impact on creating space, the arrangement of evident or concealed and permanent or temporary phenomena, how to have access, and how are human-environmental interactions in the archaeological and systemic contexts of semi-sedentary. Territory and territoriality and their components and arenas” bear an identical meaning in the source and the subject. It be only used in the interpretation of similar archaeological contexts. To the special attention paid to the purpose of the research and a targeted selection of the example, the selection method is typical case sampling to achieve representativeness or comparability. They are investigated based on observation, interviews, and documentary analysis of dynamic and static contexts. Results of this research suggested that the components and aspects of the territory phenomenon have been present in both archaeological and systemic contexts, and they are perceptible with a middle-range theory.
 
Article text
From the point of view of archaeology, the early artificial environments were established within the framework of semi-sedentism behavior settings alongside creating a territory as a mechanism for targeted marking of ownership, identification, and security. Territory falls into various categories based on different variables. Primary territory is exclusively owned by a given person, group, or institution. Public territory is a public space accessible to all. Secondary territory is the space between the two primary and public territories, which has a private side for some, and public side for others. Different types of territory are conceivable and understandable in the early behavior settings and its traditional types are observed in the Middle East and Iran. Primary arena of the territory is divided into three types based on structural features: primary territory, including the house and it’s inside phenomena; the secondary area, which is the external-surrounding arena of the primary territory, and the public territory includes the public open space. The middle arena of the territory is explainable in three ways considering the behavioral-functional parameters that consist of practicable behaviors in the primary, secondary, and public arenas. Final arena of the territory can be identified based on the perceptive components in all three types of territory. That is, each of the behavioral patterns that could be provided in the appearance of the structural features hold semantic and yet different aspects. 
 
Conclusion
Results of this research show that the territory and territoriality phenomenon in the archeological context of semi-sedentism of late Pleistocene and early Holocene is recoverable in terms of the structural feature, and perceiving its apparent and concealed, permanent and temporary, private and social, and functional and conceptual dimensions and types is feasible in the systemic context as a result of the middle range theory through ethnoarchaeological in the behavior traditional setting. Perception of arenas and parameters of the territory in both dynamic and static contexts indicates its role in the manner of human-environment interactions, spatial centralization, and individual-social identification in the behavior settings of early and traditional semi-sedentism. Methodology of the present research is like an applied model and enjoys a high capability in ethnoarchaeology of Iran and other regions of the Middle. Other significant results of this research is the facilitation of a more accurate perception and interpretation of the territory and territoriality concept according to the figures and tables to perceive and interpret the behavioral and semantic patterns from different angles and dimensions in the early and traditional behavioral settings. Finding emphasizes approvability and transferability of the results in the range of comprehensives and objectives, in addition to their contribution to the systematic deduction from the source and the subject of the research to answer the research questions in the field of naturalistic generalizability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Ethnoarchaeology
  • Territory and Territoriality
  • Behavior Setting
  • Semi-Sedentary
  • Archaeological Interpretation.  
- آلتمن، ایروین، 1382، محیط و رفتار اجتماعی، خلوت، فضای شخصی، قلمرو و ازدحام. ترجمۀ علی نمازیان، تهران: انتشارت دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، چاپ اول.
- افشاری، محسن، 1398، «فواصل فضایی و زمانی حریم در سکونت‌گاه‌های عشایری». فصلنامۀ علمی مرمت و معماری ایران، 2 (17): 51-39.
- افشاری، محسن، 1400، «گونه‌شناسی معماری سیاه چادر ایل قشقایی». فصلنامۀ مرمت و معماری ایران، 11 (25): 72-55.
- انصاری، مجتبی؛ جمشیدی، سمانه؛ و الماسی‌فر، نینا، 1389، «بررسی حس قلمرو و رفتار قلمروپایی در پارک‌های شهری؛ مطالعۀ موردی: پارک ساعی». فصلنامۀ آرمانشهر، 3 (4): 33-48.
- حیدری، علی‌اکبر؛ مطلبی، قاسم؛ و انصاری‌راد، غزال، 1395، «بازشناسی مفهوم قلمرو در سه حوزه کالبدی، رفتاری و معناشناختی در معماری کوچ (مطالعۀ موردی: عشایر بویراحمد)». فصلنامۀ مسکن و محیط روستا، 37 (161): 107-124.
- دلاور، علی، 1389، «روش‌شناسی کیفی». فصلنامۀ علمی راهبرد، 19 (54): 329-307.
- رفیعی‌فندخت، ثریا، 1396، «تحلیل ساختارهای اقتصادی-اجتماعی جوامع نیمه کوچ‌رو منطقه زیرکوه براساس سازه‌های معماری استقرارگاه فصلی محلۀ تنگلیا بارویکرد باستان مردم‌شناسی». پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی‌ارشد، دانشگاه بیرجند (منتشر نشده).
- رنجبر، هادی؛ حق‌دوست، علی‌اکبر؛ صلصالی، مهوش؛ خوشدل، علیرضا؛ سلیمانی، محمد‌علی؛ و بهرامی، نسیم، 1391، «نمونه‌گیری در پژوهش‌های کیفی: راهنمایی برای شروع». مجلۀ دانشگاه علوم پزشکی، 10(3): 250-238.
- بهاردوست، رها، 1383، «روش‌شناسی پژوهش کیفی». فصلنامۀ زیباشناخت، 11: 260-249.
- صادقی فسایی، سهیلا؛ و ناصری‌راد، محسن، 1390، «عناصر بنیادین پژوهش کیفی در علوم اجتماعی؛ هستی‌شناسی، معرفت شناسی، روش‌شناسی و روش». مجلۀ مطالعات اجتماعی ایران، 5 (2): 98-78.
- عابدینی، یاسمین، 1383، «مروری بر مبانی فلسفی، ویژگی‌ها، و روش‌های پژوهش کیفی». مجلۀ روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، 35 (2): 185-159.
- عبدی، کامیار، 1392، «باستان‌شناسی، قیاس مردم‌شناختی، و باستان مردم‌شناسی». نشریه باستان‌پژوه، 15 (20): 13-1.
- عینی‌فر، علیرضا؛ و آقالطیفی، آزاده، 1390، «مفهوم قلمرو در مجموعه‌های مسکونی؛ مطالعۀ مقایسه‌ای دو مجموعه مسکونی در سطح و در ارتفاع در تهران». نشریه هنرهای زیبا، 3 (47): 28-17.
- لنگ، جان، 1398، آفرینش نظریه معماری؛ نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط. ترجمۀ علیرضا عینی‌فر، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، چاپ یازدهم.
 
- Abdi, K., 2015, “Towards an Archaeology of Pastoralism: The Near East and Beyond”, International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 1 (2): 1-27.
- Abdi, K., 2013, “Archaeology, Ethnographic Analogy, and Ethnoarchaeology”. Bastan Pazhouh, 3 (20): 73-84, (In Persian).
- Abedini, Y., 2005, “A Review of Philosophical Foundations, Characteristics, Methods of Qualitative Research”. Journal of Psychology and Education, 35 (2): 159-185, (In Persian).
- Afshari, M., 2021. “Architectural Typology of Qashqai Black Tent”. Maremat and Memari-e Iran: In Press. (In Persian). http://mmi.aui.ac.ir/article-1-763-en.html
- Afshari, M., 2019, “Privacy Spatial and Temporal Distances in Nomadic Settlements”. Maremat and Memari-e Iran, 2 (17): 39-52, (In Persian).
- Ansari, M.; Jamshidi, S. & Almasi Far, N., 2010, “To Investigate Feeling of Territiory and in Territory Traveling in Urban Parks, Case Study: Saee Park”. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development, 3 (4): 33-48, (In Persian).
- Altman, I., 1975, The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publication.
- Aurenche, O. & Kozlowski, S. K., 1999, La Naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient. Paris, France.
- Barker, R. G., 1968, Ecological Psychology Concepts and Methods for studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
- Beck, M., 2015, “Ethnoarchaeology”. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, 8: 162-165.
- Cashdan, E., 1983, “Territoriality among Human Foragers: Ecological Models and an Application to Four Bushman Groups”. Current Anthropology, 24 (1): 47-66.
- David, N. & Kramer, C., 2001, Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge, Cmbridge University Press.
- Delavar, A., 2010, “Qualitative Methodology”. The Scientific Journal of Strategy, 18 (1): 307-329, (In Persian).
- Dittemore, M., 1983, “The Soundings at Mʼlefaat”. in: Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks, edited by: Linda S. Braidwood; Robert J. Braidwood; Charles A. Reed; and Patty Jo Watson: 671-693. Chicago. Illinois. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
- Earle, T., 2000, “Archaeology, Property, and Prehistoric”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29: 39-60.
- Einifar, A. & Aghalatifi, A., 2011. “Concept of Territory in Residential Complexes: A Comparative study of two High-rise and Low-rise Complexes in Tehran”. Honar-Ha-Ye- Ziba Memari-Va- Shahrsazi, 3 (47): 17-28. (In Persian).
- Flannery, K. V., 1972, “The Origin of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study”. in: Man, Settlement and Urbanism. P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, Eds.: 23-53. London: Duckworth.
- Flannery, K. V., 2002, “The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to Extended Households”. American Antiquity, 67 (3): 417-433.
- Heidari, A. A.; Motalebi, Gh. & Ansari Rad, Gh., 2018, “Re-Conceptualizing Territory in Physical, Behavioral and Semantic Realms in Nomadic Architecture: A Case Study of Boyer Ahmad Nomads”. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 37 (161): 107-124, (In Persian).
- Hole, F., 2009, “Pastoral Mobility as an Adaptation”. in: Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient near East; Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Jeffery Szuchman, Ed.: 261-278, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Seminars, 5. Chicago. Illinois.
- Kozlowski, S. K., 2002, Nemrik, an Aceramic Village in Northern Iraq. ŚWIATOWIT Supplement Series P: Prehistory and middle Ages,VIII. Institute of Archaeology Wasaw University.
- Kozlowski, S. K. & Kempisty, A., 1990. “Architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq”. World Archaeology, 21: 348-362.
- Kozlowski, S. K.; Kuzma, K. & Szymczak, K., 2008, “La Peprise des Fouilles a Mʼleffat (Saison 1989/1990)”. in: Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranea II, Reports 1989-1990, Wasaw: 112-118.
- Lang, J., 1987, Creating Architectural Theory: the Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environment, VNB. UK. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
- Lawson, B., 2001, The Language of Space. Butterworth-Heineman, London.
- Politis, G. G., 2015, “Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology”. Pyrenae, 46(1): 41-83.
- Rafiee Fandokht, S., 2018, “Analysis of the Socio-Economic Structures of Semi-Nomadic Communities Zirkouh Region Based on Architectural Features Seasonal Settement Tanglia. Approach Ethnoarchaeology”. M.A Dissertation. Birjand University. (Unpublished).
- Rahadoost, B., 2005, “Qualitative Research Methodology”. Ziba Shenakht, 11: 249-260, (In Persian). 
- Ranjbar, H.; Haghdoost, A. A.; Salsali, M.; Khoshdel, A.; Soleimani, M. & Bahrami, N., 2012. “Sampling in Qualitative Research: A Giude for Beginning”. Journal of Army University Medical Sciences, 10(3): 238-250. (In Persian).
- Sadeghi-Fasaei, S. & Naseri Rad, M., 2011, “Fundamental Elements to of Qualitative Research in Social Sciences (Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods)”. Journal Iranian Social Studies, 5 (2): 78-98. (In Persian).
- Savard, M.; Nesbitt, M. & Jons, M. K., 2006. “The Role of Wild Grasses in Subsistence and Sedentism: New Evidence from the Northern Fertile Crescent”. World Archaeology, 38(2): 179-196.
- Schiffer, M. B., 2013, “Contributions of Ethnoarchaegy”. in: The Archaeology of Science, Manuals in Archaeological Method: 53-63, Sprinder International Publishing Switzerland.
- Schiffer, M. B., 2008, “Expanding Ethnoarcharology: Historical Evidence and Model-building in the study of technological Change”. in: Oxfrod handbook of engineering and technology in the classical world, ed. John Peter Olson: 821-835, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Shelley, C., 1999. “Multiple Analogies in Archaeology”. Philosophy of Science, 66: 579-605.
- Schmidt Dias, A., 2020, “Anology in Archaeological Theory”. in: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, eds, Claire Smith, Spinger, Cham.
- Skibo, J. M; Schiffer, M. B., 2008, People and Things: A Bahavioral Approach to Material Culture. Springer, New York.
- Verhoeven, M., 2005, “Ethnoarchaeology, Analogy, and Ancient Society”. in: Archaeologies of the Middle East, edited by Susan Pollock & Reinhard Bernbeck, Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology: 251-270.
- Walker, W. H. & Schiffer, M. B., 2020, “Behavioral Archaeology”. in: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, eds, Claire Smith, Spinger, Cham: 1376-1385.
- Watson, P. J., 1980, “The Theory and Practice of Ethnoarchaeology with Special Reference to the Near East”. Paléorient, 6: 55-64.
- Wylie, A., 1985, “The Reaction against Analogy”. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8: 63-111, Springer.