کاظم ملازاده

The subject of this review, is Danti’s revised chronology of Hasanlu V, The Late Bronze and Iron I Periods. In his reassessment of the stratigraphy of Hasanlu, Danti has divided the Hasanlu V or EWGW horizon into three periods: Middle Bronze III, Late Bronze Age, Iron I (Hasanlu VIc). The author argues that the main drawback of Danti’s subdivision and eventual revision of the late Bronze to early Iron Age is that he ignores the important factor of cultural changes. As archaeological evidence of Hasanlu and other sites of the Lake Urmia suggest, Danti’s LBA shows much more affinities with his Iron I than with the proposed preceding MBIII. Likewise, as it is indicated in Danti’s works, the architecture and burial practices of the LBA (Dyson’s Iron I) is closely affiliated with Iron I and IIwhich again suggest a continuity between the LBA and Iron Age I-II. Therefore, it is evident that LBA is marked by a series of cultural changes that begin in the mid-second millennium BC and continue down to the first millennium BC. I believe that in spite of Danti’s (and other scholars such as Medvedskaya) suggestion that Grey Ware of the region has gradually been developed out of the Terminal MB II-III, a clear continuity in form, manufacturing technique and color is visible between the pottery of LBA and Iron I-II. Therefore, replacing the old terminology of EWGW with Early MBW by Danti is quite useless and leads to more confusion in confrontation with the other grey-colored wares of the second millennium BC. I believe that Danti’s LBA is totally different from preceding periods at Hasanlu and produces remarkable changes in pottery traditions, architectural innovations (columned-halls), burial practices and in spite of the lack of iron finds, could well be considered as the beginning of a new period. Taking into account these widespread cultural changes in northwestern Iran, it is perhaps better either to revise the chronology of peripheral areas (east Anatolia, southern Caucasus