درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr Mubarākshāh al-Qurashī was born around 1150 CE, probably in Ghazna, and eventually joined the court of Quṭb al-Dīn Aybak, the first Turkish Mamlūk or “Slave King” of northern India. He died around 1224 CE. His Ādāb al Ḥarb wa’l Shujācah (“Rules of War and Bravery”) was a treatise on statecraft in the Persian tradition of “Mirrors for Princes”. A substantial, if idealised discussion of warfare, it includes sections on tactics, troop organisation, various weapons, sieges and many military-historical anecdotes. Nevertheless, these chapters also include more recent, more localised Indian and Turkish elements, plus otherwise lost aspects of military practice or theory. For example, the essentially traditional Islamic or ʿAbbāsid sections include Chapter 12 which describes “How to arrange an army firmly and to maintain that (arrangement)”. The first part of Chapter 13 describes “How to bring the army to a halt and the (best) place to do this”. Some specifically military chapters of theĀdāb al Ḥarb wa’l Shujācah are clearly based upon ʿAbbāsid military theory as developed during the 8th to 10th centuries CE; notably sections such as “How to arrange an army firmly and to maintain that (arrangement)”, and “How to bring the army to a halt and the place to do this”. Other sections reflect more recent Indo-Islamic, Indian and Turkish military ideas, as well as otherwise lost aspects of earlier military practice, plus plans of military arrays, idealised encampments and exercises in the tradition of Islamic furusīyah military training manuals. Chapter 11, which is interpreted here, concerned the characteristic features, advantage and usage of a wide array of weapons. Chapter 19, which is also interpreted here, focussed on various aspects and variations in the array and deployment of an army for battle.

Biological samples such as bones, tooth, and hair obtained from archaeological excavations are mainly used for dating measurements. However, these findings provide valuable information about the diet, lifestyle or migration, and genetic interaction of communities, and disease because the biochemical content of biological tissues such as bones, teeth, and hair changes under the influence of the lifestyle of the past population. Therefore, it seems that human remains' biochemical, microscopic, and histological studies could be advantageous for clarifying the dark events of the past societies. Bioarchaeology, as an interdisciplinary science, assesses the historical-cultural relationships in ancient samples and human remains like hair, bone, or tooth by biological tools and techniques. In this science, the biological data of specimens are combined with archeological information to obtain a more accurate sociology of past civilizations. The purpose of the present review article is to familiarize archeology researchers with the usual methods in bioarchaeological studies.

The lifeways of mobile human societies are a field investigated by anthropologists and archaeologists. Mobility is considered an effective way of foraging and resource production among human societies (for hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and farmers, respectively). Various classifications regarding the mobility patterns of human societies have been proposed so far. As of today, the majority of archaeologists use Murdock’s multi-purpose classification which divided mobile human societies into four groups: (1) Nomadic societies, (2) semi-nomadic societies, (3) semi-sedentary societies, and (4) sedentary societies. But some societies have characteristics that do not allow them to be placed in one of these groups. For identification of these unclearly defined societies, the authors will refer to 5 criteria of demographic dimensions: Mobility, number of movements, movement distance, residential criteria, and lifeway. For instance, it was not until 2003 that archaeologists began to recognize the intermediate trajectory of nomadic pastoralism from early village-based herding to the formation of full-fledged pastoralism in the western part of Central Zagros. Extensive study of pastoralist communities, however, can be used for the identification of several intermediate stages of the 5 criteria. Current archaeological evidence in most of the early Neolithic sites in Central Zagros such as Qazanchi, Sheikhi Abad, Sarab, Asiab, and Guran, unlike the Levant region which was settled in the Epipaleolithic (Natufian) period, indicates that these sites are seasonal. So how can we explain the mobility of human societies in the proto-Neolithic period of Zagros? As a result, the authors try to use these criteria to identify the intermediate stages of sedentarism in Zagros, from mobile societies in the Epipaleolithic period to sedentary societies in the late Neolithic period. For this purpose, the authors have studied the mobility patterns and residential criteria of human societies in the cultural landscape of Hawraman. The research was conducted in two seasons, in the summer of   2016 and the summer of 2018, respectively. At first glance, the patterns of mobility and lifeways of human societies seemed homogeneous and identical in the cultural landscape of Hawraman. But with a deeper analysis, Four main mobility patterns were identified. The patterns include (1) single-stage agriculturalist residential mobility in Koh-e-Takht, (2) multistage pastoralist residential mobility in Kosalan and Shahu Mountain, (3) logistical mobility (transhumance) in Javeh River, and (4) logistical mobility (based on cultural exchanges) all over the Hawraman. The patterns show that the Zagros societies did not become sedentary in a single stage. Therefore, semi-sedentary societies with residential mobility and semi-sedentary societies with logistical mobility can be placed in the intermediate stages.  

This paper utilizes an approach that combines studies of Samanid period artifacts and textual accounts with modern genetic studies to explore the identity of the people who were involved in long distance trade from the far eastern regions of the Central Asia into Northern Europe. Although this study does not analyze the Samanid works, it reiterates and illustrates how important Iran/Persia was in the history of Europe as well as Central Asia. The information contained in the artifacts and texts gives us the evidence needed to understand the vast trade network and the people who were responsible for the movement of these goods, people and ideas. This study reconfirmed recent genetic studies that the people, collectively termed Rus or Vikings, were a mixture primarily of Scandinavians, Slavs, and Turks, with additional admixing with local populations. The importance of the Persian and Arabic sources addressing contact between the Rus and Eastern people has been thoroughly discussed by Thorir Jonsson Hraundal. In these texts, the Rus were referred to by different names including Majus, Northmanni, Urduman, Warank as well as by other names. One of his many observations is the unmistakable influence of Turkic culture on that of the Rus. This complex ancestry is supported by recent genetic studies and will be discussed in more detail below in light of archaeological evidence. Thus, the term Rus refers to a way of life rather than a homogenous ethnic or cultural group. However, this study refined the identity of the people responsible by observing a correlation between the distribution of the genetic haplogroup R1a sub-clade and the long-distance trade routes across Central Asia to Northern Europe, with the central focus in Eastern Europe. Despite the vast distance, the evidence indicates that there were cultural contacts between people with linked ancestry. The study is important because it begins to reveal the unexpected influence of Eastern cultures on those of Northern Europe.