Journal of Archaeological Studies

Abstract The living environment of today is the outcome of the relationships between the people who have lived in it and nature, from the time of the emergence of the human species on Earth to the present day. Human activities and the changes resulting from them in the context of place have taken place under the influence of beliefs, needs, and natural restraining and reinforcing factors, and with the change of generations and climate change have taken on various forms, the remnants of which we are witnessing today. The current landscape, which bears the marks of the past, is called the archaeological landscape, which is the result of the combination of objective and subjective elements. The objective part is the archaeological remains, but the subjective part includes the relationships between societies, culture, and its changes, which are often overlooked; however, this often-overlooked part has been very dynamic and has played a significant role in shaping the existing objectivity. This paper attempts to present a method for reading the archaeological landscape in the perception of the contemporary human being through the archaeological landscape phenomenology. The phenomenology of the landscape requires a comprehensive approach in which we pay close attention to "nature" and "culture”, to places with and without evidence of change or human activity. By considering the hierarchy of historical-cultural events and the objectivity that remains from them, as well as the connection of the people who lived there with the surrounding natural environment, this method provides a reading that, in addition to emphasizing the protection of ancient objective structures, preserves the continuity of these landscapes with their context and transforms the archaeological landscape from mere protection to a dynamic and interactive landscape with contemporary humans. Therefore, understanding the evolution of archaeological landscapes and their values is of fundamental importance for conservation and planning strategies. These landscapes possess inherent natural and cultural values, which necessitate the integration of objective and subjective aspects into methods for their conservation and presentation

Abstract Qorveh plain is located in the southeast of Kurdistan province and it is considered as one of the highlands of Zagros. This plain is located in the Sanandaj-Sirjan Inclined zone. The most prominent feature of this plain is the difference in the geological structure and environment of its north and south. This factor has made the distribution of settlements in these two parts completely different. Qorveh plain was studied and archaeologically reviewed in 2018. The result of this survey is the identification of 243 sites that indicated the establishment and continuity of human habitation from the Middle Chalcolithic period Age to the present, in this survey, more than 100 sites were identified for the first time, of these, and the Islamic period has a larger share. The present study is based on the archaeological findings of the Islamic period resulting from this study and it is trying to reconstruct the settlements landscape of this period and land use by assessment of historical texts, Satellite imagery and Gis maps and geology. In this study, the identified sites of the Islamic period are divided into three periods: early, middle and late centuries. The aim of this study is to study human relation with the environment in the Islamic period of this region. Some of the questions in this study are: what factors caused the formation of settlements in the Islamic period? What is the settlement pattern of Islamic sites in Qorveh plain? Did Qorveh plain have an urban center in the Islamic period? Among the factors such as water resources and fertile land, roads and mines have played a significant role in the formation of settlement s in Qorveh plain. The north settlements at plain are mostly linear and formed on river terraces. On the other hand, in the south of the plain, factors such as agricultural lands, communication routes and water resources have been very important in the formation of these areas. It seems that role of larger sites in creating small, satellite habitats in the southern part - probably the Central place system - has not been ineffective