خلاصة:
تطبیق دیداری نقش بُز سنگنگارههای لم‌گردو و کیارس خوزستان با سنگنگارههای تیمره، مزاین و خوراوند استان اصفهان و مرکزی نقش بُز یکی از نقوش پرکاربرد حیوانی است که در میان سنگ‌نگاره‌ها و دیگر آثار هنری در ترکیب با سایر نقوش یا به‌تنهایی به شکل‌های مختلف نمایش آن در آثار ایرانی تداوم یافته است. با توجه به دیرینگی، تنوع و پراکندگی این نقش در سنگنگارههای مناطق مختلف ایران، در این پژوهش ساختار این نقش در دو منطقۀ جغرافیایی ایران مقایسه شد؛ ازاین‌رو هدف پژوهش حاضر شناخت وجوه تشابه و تمایز ساختاری نقش بز در سنگنگارههای دو منطقۀ جنوب‌غرب و مرکز ایران به‌منظور آشنایی بیشتر با فرهنگ بصری ایرانی است. اینکه نمایش تجسمی و مضمونی‌ای که نقش بز در بستر آن خلق شده و همچنین شیوۀ اجرا و ارائۀ این نقش در مناطق یادشده چگونه بوده، سؤالی است که در این پژوهش به آن پاسخ داده می‌شود. پژوهش حاضر کیفی و از نظر هدف بنیادی است. روش این پژوهش تحلیلی‌تطبیقی است و جمع‌آوری اطلاعات از منابع کتابخانه‌ای، میدانی و نیز پایگاه‌های علمی و پژوهشی معتبر است. بررسی کلی نقش بزهای منطقۀ خوزستان به‌ویژه در محدودۀ اشکفت لم‌گردو این گمان را تقویت می‌کند که این بزها غیرکوهی یا اهلی است و ترسیم‌کنندگان آنها شاید چوپانانی بوده‌اند که در هنگام چرای دام خود به تصویرگری روی آورده‌اند. همچنین تکنیک اجرایی حرفه‌ای‌تر نگاره‌ها در منطقۀ گلپایگان و خمین و ترسیم انتزاعی و خلاقانۀ شاخ‌ها این باور را القا می‌کند که نگارندگان این نقش‌ها احتمالاً شکارچی یا افرادی خبره به‌لحاظ توانایی ترسیمی بوده و بز رسامی‌شدۀ آنها نیز بز کوهی است. فارغ از مقطع زمانی و نیز تقدم و تأخر خلق این سنگ‌نگاره‌ها که تاکنون مشخص نشده، به گمان نگارندگان میان نقش بز هر دو منطقه گونه‌ای پیوست و تداوم فرهنگی وجود دارد. دلیل این مدعا تداوم حالت دورانی شاخ بز تا انتهای دم یا نزدیک به سر در هر دو منطقه و همچنین تشابه شاخ بز اغلب نواحیِ دو منطقۀ بررسی‌شدۀ این پژوهش با شاخ بز سفال معروف و شناخته‌شدۀ شوش است که تاریخ آن از سوی باستان‌شناسان، هزارۀ چهارم قبل از میلاد برآورد شده است.
All textual and pictorial motifs on boulders, rocks within caves, stone inscriptions, etc. are carved or engraved and are referred to as petroglyphs. The petroglyphs are the oldest and most durable substrate for the recording of human images, and the most common petroglyphs are generally goat's pattern, particularly male goats.The goat's motid has been a vivid presence in Iranian visual culture for a long time, with its oldest sample discovered on petroglyphs. This pattern may also be seen on a variety of containers, woven handcrafts, fabrics, coins and other pictorial products. Rocky paintings are frequently a realistic combination of patterns of animals, humans, plants and symbolic or textual components like inscriptions.Petroglyphs are often classified into two types: mountainous/desert petroglyphs and urban/rural petroglyphs. The first example is mountainous and desert rocks that have been painted or engraved in the location of the stone, namely the mountain or desert. Another example is the transmission of boulders from the mountainside to urban and rural regions, where they are painted after being transferred to the city or hamlet. The most well-known examples in Iran are the Izeh rocks in Khuzestan, Ganjnameh in Hamedan and the tombstones in numerous Iranian graveyards.Typically, mountainous rocks depict images of human and carnivorous animal goat hunting, meadows, ceremonies, written inscriptions, or levees. Poems, religious themes, virtues, orisons, prayers and coded and symbolic numbers are also inscribed on the rocks on the graves and in the city.This research aims to provide a better image of goat painting in Persian civilization and understanding of Persian petroglyphs, with special attention on the desert and rocky stones painted with pattern of the goat.As a result, we examined the assessment of two rocky and desert Petroglyphs in Iran, Shoushtar and Gotvand region in Khuzestan province and the Golpayegan and Khomein area on the common boundary of Isfahan and Markazi provinces.Petroglyphs in Khuzestan province include "Eshkaft lam Gerdoo" in the Shoushtar region and "Dare Kiars" inside Gotvand. Petroglyphs of Isfahan and Markazi Provinces also include Teimare and Mazayen in the region of Golpayegan city in Isfahan and Khoravand in the north of Khomein city in Markazi province.This research answers the topic of how visually and thematically the goat's pattern was produced, as well as the form and style of implementation and display of this pattern in these areas. The pattern of the goat in these petroglyphs is explicitly investigated in this research, and other images and the symbolic purpose were not considered.Aesthetics, theme analysis, symbolism, semiotics and other studies have been undertaken on the petroglyphs from various sections of Iran. Previous studies have mostly concentrated on reporting mostly on the state of the two locations and have not taken into account the iconic analysis of these motifs. This issue is distinguished by its conformity with four details: structure, content, and material, drawing style, technical methodology with a visual appearance, and research method with a specific view of prior study are conducted.The current comparison study has a core objective and a qualitative approach. This study's information comes from textual library sources, specialist articles in credible scientific and information databases, as well as some field resources. The goat pattern in Petroglyph of two locations surveyed was analyzed and established utilizing visual evidence in this approach. This survey's statistical population comprises five Persian rocky zones with multiple stone carvings and an abundance of goat patterns. There are a total of 26 petroglyphs in the region of Shoushtar's lam Gerdoo, 10 of which are goats and 16 are carnivorous and pack animals.In the area's petroglyphs, there is also a realistic human-like pattern carrying something like a bow. The Kiars region also has 11 paintings, 9 of which show goats, while 2 others depict a pack animal and a human with a sling instrument. On the other hand, because of the availability of goat patterns in this region, and in order to avoid repetition and resemblance, a total of 16 goats in a variety of settings of this area were chosen, of which five patterns were chosen from the Timar region, seven from the area of the dare Mazayen, and four from the Khoravand Mountains.The study's findings revealed that the main visual difference between goat patterns in the two places analyzed is primarily in the horn element, which ranges from abstract to realism as an indicator element of goats, particularly male goat, in the rock items under consideration. The horn has always played a symbolic, enigmatic, and magical role as a sign of the goat's battle and power, and the actors of these roles have always paid special attention to this aspect and portrayed part of the symbolic role of the goat's pattern.The abstract pattern of goat horns in central Iran's three districts of Golpayegan and Khomein is one sample. The linear performance of the goat and the stretch of the goat's body, notably in the pattern of the goats in the Kiars Gotvand area, and the dominating pattern of goat with the surface element in the triple areas of central Iran, are two more differences in the visual play of this pattern. Another part of the visual portrayal is painting the element of masculinity in the Kiars region.Another feature of the study was a goat without a muzzle, a long neck, and circular horns in the Mazayen area of Golpayegan. In the two locations, the motifs were identical in other parts of the goat's body, such as the tail, muzzle, and legs, and there was no major variation in their themes.The expertise and methods of engravers in the central area of Iran in the abstract and symbolic construction of goat horn show a distinction between goats, which might be attributable to the artists' abstract thinking or the presence of such animals in this location.In both analyzed areas, the goat pattern is frequently a blending of realism and abstraction in the meadow and hunting style, and the execution method of this pattern is frequently carving and percussion.The whole pattern of goats in the Khuzestan region, particularly in the Lam Gerdoo area, confirms that these goats were neither antelopes nor domestic, and that their creators were likely shepherds who turned to drawing during their grazing. Furthermore, the more professional perspective of the Golpayegan and Khomein painters, as well as the abstract and inventive drawing of the horns, leads to the conclusion that the creators of these patterns are most likely hunters or drawing experts, and their painted goat is an antelope.Regardless of the time and precedent of the Petroglyphs in the two regions that have yet to be specified, there is conjecture between the goats and the cultural continuity, the continuation of the arc of the goat horn to the end of the tail or its circular form within the goat's head and the resemblance of the horn of many of the two goats analyzed by the circular goat horn on the glass in the fourth millennium BC, Shoush district of Khuzestan, are the reasons for this statement.Hence, the authors express their gratitude and appreciation to Shooshtar's Cultural Department, Mr. Chaharmahali and Ms. Elham Alizadeh, and also Dr. Alireza Zarasvadni, for their honest collaboration..
(
, 
, 
)
