درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

A study of the arrow guide or nāvak in Iran. It covers the technical aspects of arrow guides and how they may have entered Iran. In Persian, arrow guides are called nāvak and their projectiles are called tīr-e nāvak. However, sometimes nāvak is used for the arrow as well, and even the bow. It also covers how outside cultures viewed Iran as a source of innovation in the further development of these devices. In Arabic they are called majrā and this is the term most familiar in the west due to two important translations of Arabic archery manuals into English, Arab Archery and Saracen Archery, but they were mentioned earlier as nāvak in an English translation of part of the Hidāyat ar-Rāmī, where they were mistakenly described as crossbows. Essentially, an arrow guide is a partially closed tube used with a bow to shoot a short arrow drawn much farther than its length would normally allow. This produces a projectile that has increased velocity and less friction through the air than a regular arrow. The arrow guide has had a long history in Iran, probably entering in the last years of the Sasanian Dynasty, surviving the Arab conquest and persisting until the gradual takeover by firearms. It was fertile ground for invention with many variations being spread across the Islamic world. The persistent association with Iran in Arabic archery manuals reflects the perception that much of its development was tied to Persian users. Here, Persian and Arabic sources are examined. Reference is made to original artefacts and reconstructions.

Ziwiye, as one of the key sites for Iran’s North West Iron Age (Median kingdom), has many masterpieces kept in different museums and a long list of publications. The main part of this list consists of monographs that are written based on one or more limited objects from an out of context collection. There are few articles that comprehensively include the findings “attributed Ziwiye” and “came from excavation”. However, many articles have been published about Zavieh’s findings, but parts of this collection still remain unknown and do not receive enough attention. The corpus of bone arrowheads is one of them, some of which were found during archaeological excavations while others came to museums from antiquities dealers. These include: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Musée du Louvre in Paris, the National Museum of Iran in Tehran, and the Sanandaj Archaeological Museum. This article aims to introduce and categorize 51 bone arrowheads. Some of these were registered as ivories, but our research concluded that all of these were made of bone. In few instances, the production manner prevented the proper identification of bone versus ivory. Another examined point in this research is whether such arrowheads were produced for actual warfare or for prestige and symbolic use in ceremonial events considering their bone material. The examined samples from other sites show that bone can be hard enough to penetrate game and human body even with light protection such as archery. Bone for making arrowheads was used for hunting big games and some tribes still use them.

The article reviews chivalry traditions, developed in ancient Iran, and their transition and transformation to the country’s post-Islamic history. The author analyses the cultural mechanisms, which provided this movement, and argues that its roots and prerequisites should have taken place in Great Khorāsān at the very turn of the ‘Abbāsid revolt in the middle of the century CE. This was a period when an external call activated forces and facilities, preserved in the stratum of Iranian knights, to become the basis for the later military evolution within the new circumstances. The cultural importance of Khorāsān for the Iranian state and rule at the turn of the Muslim era is reflected in written texts. The early muslim period in Great Khorāsān was a special time as Iranian predominance mingled with multicultural traditions in the boundary region. The topic is presented in a wide context including Irasnian literary, artistic, and artisanal sources, helping to visualize the historical backdround of Iran. This is based on philosophical doctrines for Iranian cultural developement proposed by contemporary scholars.

Iran holds great significance for the question of the eastward expansion of the Acheulean hominins, as it is situated between the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian subcontinent, both of which have long and rich records of the Acheulean techno complex. Despite its strategic location, Iran has produced little evidence of the Acheulean techno complex. The only notable examples have been found in the western and northwestern regions of the country. The absence of Acheulean sites in southern Iran cannot be justified. Because this region, located in the northern parts of the Persian Gulf, was one of the main dispersal routes for Acheulean hominins towards the east. Here, we present a report on the discovery of a Lower Paleolithic locality near Dehtal, located in the northern region of the Persian Gulf. Additionally, we discuss the techno-typological characteristics of the lithics found in the area. Dehtal yielded a small, but characteristic lithic assemblage, which included a handaxe, a massive scraper, a large flake, and a flake core. The raw materials used are sandstone and fossiliferous limestone rock, which can be found as cobbles and boulders in secondary contexts on the northern slopes of Par-e Lavar. In addition to these findings, two boulder cores with large removal scars were also documented in the area, indicating large flake production in this locality. The site offers a unique opportunity to study a lithic assemblage in a relatively unknown area within the distribution range of the Acheulean technocomplex.

In recent years there has been a growing interest among historians, historical martial artists, reenactors, and those who are interested in Eastern culture as well as in Persian offensive and defensive weapons to have a more detailed study of armor. The change in the paradigm of defensive weapons throughout Western Asia (the last quarter of the 15th to the first quarter of the 16th century) has not yet been fully investigated. Reconstruction of mail-and-plate armor from a period between 1540-1650 CE is quite challenging as most museums or major private collections do not have a complete set. Based on a detailed study of existing sets of joshan armor and several technical assumptions related to the design of this type of armor, the present study tries to reconstruct a fully protective complex of a joshan armor that was worn by a noble Persian warrior. The purpose of the following article is to reproduce a Persian mail-and-plate armor from a period between 1540-1650 CE in its original size and design with its inherent properties and qualities. Different existing sets of this type of armor from museums are studied and compared to different miniatures and literary sources. Based on the collected information gained from theoretical and practical research, the article presents a historical armor design and provides advice on the practical reconstruction and production of such a set of armor. Armor masters were looking for the best combinations and ratio of plates and mail armor in one set. They were experimenting with the shapes and sizes of plates, the number of holes, diameters, geometry, and method of ring interconnections. Characteristic of the armor of this period is rather large plates and a small number of their rows (3-5 rows on the chest/back), a small overlap of the plates in a row, basically only the same standard plates are used, large mail rings (inner diameter about 10 mm).

This article addresses and re-examines Marc-Anthony Karantabias’ analysis of factors that contributed to the defeat of the Sasanian Spāh by Heraclius by 627-628 CE. Karantabias’ analysis may be categorized into four (military) misconceptions with respect to the Spāh: (1) the notion that the late Sasanian Spāh lacked stirrups for the Savaran cavalry (2) the alleged refusal or lack of knowledge of the Mongolian draw which is proposed to have been of greater efficacy than the Sasanian (3-finger) bowshot (3) the notion of “Persian conservatism” leading to the Spāh’s refusal to adopt new military technologies and (4) the alleged supremacy of Steep/Central Asian and/or Hun-Turkic cavalry warfare over the Sasanians. These four misconceptions fail to be supported by a close examination of archaeological sites (e.g., Taghe Bostan) and artifacts (e.g., Sasanian stirrups, metal works, etc.), primary sources and pertinent research studies. A fifth misconception pertains to the lack of consideration of the shortcomings of the Sasanian four-Spadbed system which Heraclius was able to successfully exploit against the Sasanian empire. In conclusion, Heraclius’ successes are attributed to his exploitation of the weaknesses of the four-Spāhbed system as well as the Byzantine willingness to adopt Steppe/Central Asian technology (e.g., compound bow, iron stirrup).