1 The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age Development of urbanisation, production and trade 9782356681775, 9782356680631

Citation preview

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age Development of urbanisation, production and trade

Jan-Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Marjan Mashkour, Michèle Casanova and Régis Vallet (dir.)

DOI: 10.4000/books.momeditions.7816 Publisher: MOM Éditions Place of publication: Lyon Year of publication: 2019 Published on OpenEdition Books: 19 March 2020 Serie: Archéologie(s) Electronic ISBN: 9782356681775

http://books.openedition.org Printed version ISBN: 9782356680631 Number of pages: 356   Electronic reference MEYER, Jan-Waalke (ed.) ; et al. The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age: Development of urbanisation, production and trade. New edition [online]. Lyon: MOM Éditions, 2019 (generated 23 mars 2020). Available on the Internet: . ISBN: 9782356681775. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.momeditions.7816.

© MOM Éditions, 2019 Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

THE IRANIAN PLATEAU DURING THE BRONZE AGE

MAISON DE L’ORIENT ET DE LA MÉDITERRANÉE – JEAN POUILLOUX Fédération de recherche sur les sociétés anciennes Responsables scientifiques des publications : Isabelle Boehm et Christophe Cusset Coordination éditoriale : Ingrid Berthelier Secrétariat d’édition de l’ouvrage : Nelly Clion ; composition : Clarisse Lachat Conception graphique : Catherine Cuvilly

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade edited by Jan-Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Marjan Mashkour, Michèle Casanova and Régis Vallet Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée – Jean Pouilloux, 2019 356 p., 193 ill., 30 cm (Archéologie(s) ; 1) Keywords : Near and Middle East, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Kura-Araxes, Elam, archaeology, geoarchaeology, bioarchaeology, iconography Mots-clés : Proche et Moyen-Orient, Mésopotamie, Asie centrale, âge du Bronze, âge du Fer, Kuro-Araxe, Élam, archéologie, géoarchéologie, bioarchéologie, iconographie ISBN 978-2-35668-063-1 © 2019 Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée – Jean Pouilloux 7 rue Raulin, F-69365 Lyon Cedex 07

Diffusion Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon – www.mom.fr/editions De Boccard-Diffusion, Paris – www.deboccard.com FMSH-Diffusion, Paris – www.lcdpu.fr

ARCHÉOLOGIE(S) // 1

THE IRANIAN PLATEAU DURING THE BRONZE AGE DEVELOPMENT OF URBANISATION, PRODUCTION AND TRADE edited by Jan-Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Marjan Mashkour, Michèle Casanova and Régis Vallet

Undertaken with the assistance of Archéorient (UMR 5133), Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique (UMR 7209), the ENKI association – Goethe University Frankfurt, and ArScan (UMR 7041).

The texts published in this volume are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Summary Emmanuelle Vila, Marjan Mashkour, Régis Vallet, Michèle Casanova, Jan-Waalke Meyer Preface .....................................................................................................................................................................................

9

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF THE BRONZE AGE ON THE IRANIAN PLATEAU Jan-Waalke Meyer Early urbanisation in Iran. A view from the west – some considerations about the theory of urbanisation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13

EXPANSION OF THE KURA-ARAXES CULTURE IN IRAN Giulio Palumbi The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk? .................................................... 29 Sepideh Maziar Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far ................................................................... 51 Alexia Decaix, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Sepideh Maziar, Marjan Mashkour, Margareta Tengberg Subsistence economy in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (eastern Azerbaijan, Iran) during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age based on the faunal and botanical remains ................... 75 Alexia Decaix, Rémi Berthon, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Margareta Tengberg Toward a definition of the Kura-Araxes agropastoral systems ............................................................................ 89

ELAMITE KINGDOM Alain Le Brun Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia ............................................................................................................ 101 Ali Zalaghi An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan. Archaeological survey in the western bank of the Karkheh river ....................................................................... 109 Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain ........ 123 Elnaz Rashidian In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction ....... 147

URBANISATION IN EASTERN IRAN Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment ................................................................................................... 165

8

SUMMARY

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, Marjan Mashkour, Margareta Tengberg, Homa Fathi, Azadeh Mohaseb Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow. New GKC (BMAC) finds in the plain of Jajarm, NE Iran .......................................................................................................................................... 179 Nasir Eskandari Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran. New discoveries on the western fringe of Dasht‑e Lut ............................................................................................................................ 201 David M.P. Meier A pyrotechnological installation from the “metallurgical workshop” at Shahdad and its next geographical and chronological comparisons .......................................................................................................... 217

PRODUCTION AND TRADE Mina Dabbagh The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society ............................................................... 235 Henri-Paul Francfort Iran and Central Asia. The Grand’Route of Khorasan (Great Khorasan Road) during the third millennium BC and the “dark stone” artefacts ........................................................................................ 247 Holly Pittman Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau. From Kerman to the Oxus through seals ........................ 267 Sedigheh Piran Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran ............. 289 Michèle Casanova Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran ............................................................................................... 301 Babak Rafiei-Alavi The biography of a dagger type. The diachronic transformation of the daggers with the crescent-shaped guard ..................................................................................................................................... 313

THE TRANSITION TO IRON AGE Hamid Fahimi The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau. Two successive cultures or the appearance of a new culture? ............................................................................................................................. 335

CONCLUSION Jan‑Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Régis Vallet, Marjan Mashkour The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the Bronze Age. Concluding thoughts ........................................................................................................................................................... 347

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2019

Preface Emmanuelle Vila Université de Lyon, CNRS, UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon Marjan Mashkour UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris Michèle Casanova Université Lumière Lyon 2, UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon Régis Vallet UMR 7041-ArScAn (CNRS, Sorbonne Universités), Maison René Ginouvès, 21 allée de l’université, 92023 Nanterre Jan-Waalke Meyer Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main

The concept for a symposium on the third millennium BCE of the Iranian Plateau was conceived of in 2013 as the result of discussions between members of four research units and institutions. These four groups, based in France and Germany, are all actively involved in research on the urbanisation and development of the first known towns in the Near and Middle East: UMR 5133 Archéorient in Lyon (French National Center for Scientific Research – CNRS/University of Lyon), UMR 7209 AASPE in Paris (CNRS/National Museum of Natural History), UMR 7041 ArScAn-VEPMO in Nanterre (CNRS Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University; Paris Nanterre University) and the Institute of Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Vorderen Orients in Frankfurt (Goethe University). These groups have each produced a considerable volume of work on Bronze Age societies and cultural interactions in southwest Asia, as well as demonstrating a commitment to the development of research in Iranian archaeology by training young Iranian researchers. Continuing a precedent set by previous collaborations, the symposium “Urbanisation, Trade, Subsistence and Production during the Third Millennium BC on the Iranian Plateau”, took place on April 29-30, 2014 at the Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée in Lyon. The location chosen for the symposium was in recognition of scientific collaborations based in Lyon with Iranian archaeologists, and the on-going development of an affiliation, subsequently signed in 2015, between the University Lyon 2, the Ministry for Iranian Heritage – Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, and Tourism-RICHT. In addition, as part of these collaborations, the Chiraz archaeological mission of the MAEDI was resumed under the direction of a member of the Archéorient UMR, Lyon. The aim of the symposium was to bring together contributions from French and international specialists, and in particular Iranian researchers, from across a wide range of disciplines (archaeology, art history, iconography; in metal, stone, and ceramic objects; archaeozoology, and archaeobotany), including work by postgraduates and young researchers. This was to establish an overview of all research on the third millennium BCE of the Iranian plateau, a topic fascinating to so many disciplines due in part to the key role of the urbanisation process during this period in the Near and Middle East. This was the first symposium in France of this scale on the research of this period and region, and it brought together specialists from France, Iran, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and the United States. During the course of the meeting, in addition to the presentation of new discoveries and research, a discussion session also provided a platform to compare data, and share and discuss results, in

10

Preface

order to explore the development of methodological approaches. The symposium also provided the opportunity to propose future perspectives, and lines of research and collaboration. The proceedings of the symposium presented here comprise of twenty contributions, including review papers and unpublished articles on studies of new archaeological sites from the Iranian plateau dating from the third millennium BC. Most of the articles are based on recent excavations, and on work carried out as a part of PhD dissertations at the Lumière Lyon 2 University, the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris 1 University and the Goethe University in Frankfurt. The articles are organized into the four main themes covered during the symposium: the overall context on the Iranian Plateau during the third millennium BC, the expansion of the Kuro-Araxes culture in Iran, the Elamite kingdom, and finally, the urbanisation, trade and subsistence economy in East Iran. These contributions shed new light on the urbanisation of this vast region by identifying the various influences exerted by cultures in Mesopotamia, southeast Iran and Central Asia. Questions on the features of the material culture are revisited, as are those on the various subsistence modes and chronological frameworks. This event could not have taken place without financial support from numerous French and German institutions and trustees, comprising the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development in France, the French Embassy in Teheran, the Rhone Alps Regional Council, the CNRS, the Lumière Lyon 2 University, the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle and the Goethe University in Frankfurt, to whom we extend our deepest thanks. We also wish to thank Labex IMU (Intelligence des Mondes Urbains), the Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jen Pouilloux, the Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie René Ginouvès, as well as the research units and institutions of the organizers: the Archéorient laboratory, the Archaeozoology, Archaeobotanical laboratory, the ArScAn-VEPMO laboratory, the Institute of Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Vorderen Orients and the ENKI association of the University of Frankfurt, which all contributed significantly to the funding of this event, enabling the hosting of both French and multi-national specialists. We would also like to express sincere thanks to the administrator of the Archéorient laboratory, Gwenaelle Pequay; to the members of Archéorient and the Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, and to the Masters students in Archéologie et Histoire des Mondes anciens; all of whom participated in the organization, the reception of participants and the smooth running of the symposium. Finally, we wish to thank our colleagues for the reviews and constructive comments that they provided: Reinhard Bernbeck, Jean-Paul Bravard, Corinne Castel, Barbara Helwing, Clarisse Herrenschmidt, Stephan Kroll, Pierre Lombard, Catherine Marro, Holly Pittman, Mitchell Rothman, Antonio Sagona (†) and Harvey Weiss.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF THE BRONZE AGE ON THE IRANIAN PLATEAU

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2019

Early urbanisation in Iran A view from the west – some considerations about the theory of urbanisation Jan-Waalke Meyer Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main For quite some time, controversy has surrounded discussions concerning the beginnings of urbanisation in Iran, for a number of reasons, for example: – the mountainous landscape differs considerably from the alluvial plain of Mesopotamia; – many publications are only in Farsi; – many results are not yet available, or have only appeared in preliminary publications; – there is a lack of systematic survey in certain part of Iran. Based on investigations in Syria and Iraq, this contribution aims to present largely accepted parameters for the term “urban”, which can then serve as a common basis for further discussions about urbanisation in Iran. Depuis un certain temps, les débuts de l’urbanisation en Iran ont fait l’objet de débats controversés, et cela pour de nombreuses raisons, comme par exemple : – le paysage est fortement modelé par les chaînes de montagnes et diffère donc considérablement de la plaine alluviale de la Mésopotamie ; – de nombreuses publications n’apparaissent qu’en farsi ; – de nombreux résultats ne sont pas encore disponibles, ou apparaissent uniquement dans des publications préliminaires ; – le manque de prospections systématiques dans certaines zones de l’Iran. Fondé sur des analyses respectivement en Syrie et en Iraq, cette contribution vise à présenter les paramètres généralement admis pour définir le terme “urbain”, qui pourraient ensuite servir de base commune pour un débat plus approfondi sur la question de l’urbanisation en Iran.

‫ مهمترین دالیل این‬،‫تقریبا مدت زمانی طوالنی است که آغاز شهرنشینی در ایران مورد بحث و چالش است‬ :‫بحث ها شامل موارد زیر است‬ .‫ متفاوت از دشت آبرفتی بین النهرین است‬،‫– چشم انداز فالت ایران به علت وجود رشته کوه های آن‬ .‫– بیشتر مطالعات انجام شده باستان شناسی این دوره زمانی در ایران به زبان فارسی است‬ ‫–نتایج پژوهش های میدانی انجام شده در این زمینه در ایران یا در دسترس همگان نیست یا فقط گزارش‬ .‫اولیه آنها چاپ شده است‬ .‫– بررسی های میدانی باستان شناسی انجام گرفته مربوط به این دوره غالبا روشمند نبوده است‬ ‫در نوشتار حاضر نگارنده بر اساس نتایج مطالعات و تحلیل های باستان شناسی در همسایگی غرب ایران که‬ ‫ پارامترهای عموما پذیرفته شده برای تعریف اصطالح شهرنشینی‬،‫به ترتیب در سوریه و عراق انجام گرفته‬ ‫ این پارامترها می توانند به عنوان چهارچوبی بنیادی برای ژرف اندیشی بیشتر راجع به‬.‫را ارائه داده است‬ .‫شهرنشینی در ایران نقش داشته باشند‬ For the past 40 years I have worked almost exclusively in Syria and most of my research has focused on the early historical development of Upper Mesopotamia. Therefore, I find it difficult to give a comprehensive answer to the question of the early urbanisation of Iran. Furthermore, I have to admit that my knowledge of the literature pertaining to Iran is rather limited and even the recent volume

14

Jan-Waalke Meyer

of C. Petrie notes that the shortcomings in Iranian archaeology still deter investigations  1. These shortcomings stem from several factors: ––

first of all, the enormous size of the country;

––

secondly, the Iranian landscape is completely different from Mesopotamia In contrast to the alluvial plain of Mesopotamia, Iran consists of an enormous plateau filled with many small valleys. Precipitation is insufficient to guarantee water supplies for the subsistence of urban settlements, and only regions with rivers, wadis or lakes, such as Khuzistan, Fars, the region around Jiroft and possibly around Tepe Sialk, for example, are propitious to urban development. Besides, there are many plains without any water (precipitation) – for example, most of the area between Jiroft and the Persian Gulf – or mountainous or desert‑like regions;

––

thirdly, the state of publication is problematic: many results are only available in Farsi, and many have not yet been published at all (for example, the archaeological maps of some archaeological centres);

––

fourthly, systematic surveys are lacking, and when they exist, at times the size of the settlements is not indicated (for instance, Deh Luran);

––

and finally – but most importantly – some regions have undergone intensive agriculture, which may have led to the complete destruction of many settlements through ploughing. Deep ploughing and irrigation seem to be more common in Iran than in the West.

The situation is somewhat different in Southern Mesopotamia. An intensive survey was carried out there as early as the 1960s  2, and slightly earlier in the Diyala  3. The results described the regional development of Southern Mesopotamian settlement systems and the emergence of urban centres. When, for political reasons, excavation activities were largely transferred to Syria, surveys there also intensified. Northeast Syria, in particular, was almost completely explored in this way (fig. 1). These

Fig. 1 – Early Bronze Age sites and survey in northeastern Syria (after Quenet 2011). 1.

Petrie Cameron 2013.

2.

Adams and Nissen 1972.

3.

Adams 1965.

Early urbanisation in Iran

intensive research activities in North Syria markedly changed the picture of the political landscape – along with the information gathered from cuneiform tablets, especially those found in Ebla. We are now able to reconstruct city‑states in that region, at least since the middle of the third millennium, and the centres of these city‑states can definitely be considered as urban  4: Tell Brak/Nagar, Tell Mozan/Urkeš, Tell Leilan/Šehna. In addition, we now know a lot about the distribution of settlements during those periods and about the origins of settlement patterns, according to the Central Place Theory  5. At this stage, I would like to draw attention to the results of the long‑term excavations in Tell Chuera (Northeast Syria) – presumably the urban centre of an ancient city‑state, possibly Abarsal – and in the nearby site of Kharab Sayyar. Furthermore, I will present an interpretation of the survey results in this region. All these activities are now part of a regional program which aims to investigate the birth, development and fall of urban settlements in North Syria and the respective settlement systems  6. Tell Chuera is situated close to the Turkish border, in a region with no more than 200 mm of precipitation per year. Based on calibrated C14‑dates  7, the foundations of the town can be dated to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age I (ca. 3100 BC). The urban centre initially extended over 50 ha, and the settled area subsequently expanded to about 80 ha, consisting of an upper and a lower town (fig. 2)  8. According to our geophysical survey, which covered almost the entire area of the settlement and beyond (fig. 3), there was a planned street network with a central square, a central axis and streets converging radially towards the centre. Most of the monumental public buildings, like temples and the palace, were situated along the central axis. In addition, there were large private quarters (in the upper and lower town) and production areas (mostly in the lower town and on the outskirts) – and a sophisticated defensive system for urban protection. Fig. 2 – Schematic plan of the development of the Kharab Sayyar, around 12 km south of Tell settlement during Early Bronze Age. Chuera, is a much smaller town, extending over 10 ha in the southeast corner of an Abbasid fortified town dating to the 3rd century after hijra (9th century AD). Besides the excavation of several Islamic buildings, we dug out a step trench through the Early Bronze Age settlement, exposing private houses and part of the city wall (fig. 4). From here, we took C14‑dates to determine the foundation date of the earliest Bronze Age levels (ca. 3100 BC; EB I), and then compared the pottery from these levels to the pottery from Tell Chuera  9. The settlement in Kharab Sayyar existed

4.

Cf. Roaf 1998.

5.

Christaller 1933.

6.

DFG/ANR-projekt, Runde Siedlungen des 3. Jts. v. Chr. in marginalen Gebieten Nordsyriens – Genese, Entwicklung, Untergang (Akronym: BADIYA) 2010‑2013. Direction: Corinne Castel (Lyon), Philippe Quenet (Strasbourg), Jan‑Waalke Meyer (Frankfurt).

7.

Hüls 2013, p. 157‑161; Weninger, Neef and Meyer 2010, p. 187‑197.

8.

Meyer 2011, p. 129‑136.

9.

Comp. Hempelmann 2013.

15

16

Jan-Waalke Meyer

Fig. 3 – Tell Chuera, geophysical map.

Fig. 4 – Kharab Sayyar, geophysical map.

Early urbanisation in Iran

– like in Tell Chuera – without a hiatus until the Early Bronze Age IVB (ca. 2200 BC). The excavation of the small village of Mgeddi, of about one hectare, further to the south, was planned but was not carried out (fig. 5) as no excavation could be conducted there because of the war. However, from a surface survey it seems to be clear that this settlement was only populated during the EB I. All of these settlements are circular‑shaped, which is typical for this region and period. In 1996, I established a new programme at Tell Chuera, including excavation activities in the settlement areas as such, but also in the settlement surroundings. My decision was influenced by general developments in archaeological field research, which was at that time moving away from “pure” settlement excavation to a more extensive consideration of the environment – for example land use as understood by economic archaeology, and settlement patterns with central places. Furthermore, in those days, I participated in the Research Training Group “Archaeological Analytics”, sponsored by the German Research Foundation (DFG). There, archaeologists worked together with scientists from various geographical disciplines, such as soil science, mineralogy, physical geography, aerial photogrammetry. This intensive and productive cooperation continued until 2011, when political conditions prevented further work. I worked out a regional project focusing on settlement patterns – mainly archaeologically orientated – and land use – mainly scientifically orientated. The survey was led by Alexander Pruß, and later by Veronika Kudlek, whose results I use here. The range of investigation was 15 km in diameter around Kharab Sayyar and we found more than 180 archaeological sites. These intensive research activities resulted in a comprehensive knowledge of the settlement history of Tell Chuera and the use and development of its natural environment (fig. 6). In order to locate individual settlements in the area under investigation, Veronika Kudlek chose to use the well‑tested Thiessen polygons. Sites defined as places of central importance, on account of their size, location and/or shape, form the basis of this method. The central places are the corner points of the triangles and the geometrical centre of the triangle is a so‑called Thiessen point. By connecting the Thiessen points, we obtain polygons, which represent the settlement clusters around the respective central places. These would be second order central places, whereas Tell Chuera is considered as

Fig. 5 – Mgeddi, geophysical map.

17

18

Jan-Waalke Meyer

Fig. 6 – Settlement pattern in the area of Tell Chuera (after Veronika Kudlek: Copyright Tell Chuera excavation).

a first order central place. All places, at least down to the third category, are round in shape – which is characteristic of this region. In the prospected area, six closed and 13 partially closed settlement clusters with, all in all, about 100 Early Bronze Age sites were geometrically reconstructed. Most of the pottery collected belongs to the EBA IV periods (2450‑2200 BC), but some older material was also collected  10. A settlement system with at least three layers seems to have existed since the beginning of site occupation, with Tell Chuera being the largest site (ca. 50 ha) and thus probably a first order central place, Kharab Sayyar (ca. 10 ha) a second order site, and Mgeddi (one hectare) a third order site. It remains uncertain, for the time being, whether hamlets and farmsteads already existed – fourth or fifth order places –, such as those recorded for the later Early Bronze Age EBA IVA, ca. 2450 BC. At Tell Chuera, a double fortification wall was recorded since the EBA II (ca. 2800‑2600 BC) – an inner and an outer one –, like at Dekhliz and Ragha Kebira to the west and Abu Shahad to the east, whereas a single fortification existed in Kharab Sayyar throughout its entire history, like at Tell Gle’a to the east. Mgeddi and the other small villages were probably unfortified. A reasonably secure dating of these sites still remains uncertain but most of them existed during EB II‑IV. With regard to the environment and land use, I shall start with the immediate surroundings of Tell Chuera and go on to describe further anthropogenic interferences in the landscape. The Tell Chuera settlement cluster (ca. 2,000 ha out of almost 5,400 ha) has been investigated in more detail. Here, the distribution of sites and their respective location resulted in the following interpretation of land use during the Early Bronze Age.

10.

The complete results will be presented in Veronika Kudlek’s PhD study.

Early urbanisation in Iran

The retention area in case of flooding, situated northwest of Tell Chuera, can be seen in the context of the adjoining production area; the same may apply to the perhaps artificial wadi (canal) in the east of the settlement. Here, a production area was excavated outside the settlement, including single rooms with production facilities like ovens, pits and traces of the above‑mentioned artificial canal. The area between the supposed fields was almost 1 km from the settlement and may have been used to grow vegetables, but especially to make mud bricks. Digging and boring carried out in the course of our geomorphological research  11 imply that the latter possibility was more probable: they show that the upper (that is the younger) layers of soil apparent elsewhere were lacking here. Finally, the surroundings were used as a quarry for the stone foundations of the monumental buildings, mostly the platform constructions of the temples (stone buildings I‑IV). At least during the ID period (ca. 2500 BC), and probably earlier, canals were built throughout the surroundings  12. They either made use of small tributary wadis or they were connected to larger wadis. Either way, water seems to have been sufficiently plentiful for most of the third millennium. The large wadis bordering the first and second order settlements, such as Wadi Chuera or Wadi Dehliz, probably carried water for much of the year. The water came mainly from the foothills of the Taurus. Obviously, we can expect sufficient rainfall during the first part of the third millennium BC and it was only at the end of that millennium that the climate became more arid, with periods of drought  13. Small farmsteads (under 0.5 ha) were dotted along the canals, at more or less regular distances, and a relatively large number of smaller settlements (villages) extended over 1 to 5 ha near the immediate vicinity of the central places, such as Tell Chuera (1st category) and Kharab Sayyar (2nd category, without extension). Additionally, there is evidence for the use of wells in the surroundings. They have been found in the wadi and also in the settlement itself. We may therefore presume that irrigation was used, at least to a limited degree. Close to Dekhliz, there was even a water reservoir  14. Furthermore, small stone structures are quite frequent in the area under investigation; they may have served as towers (burji) for the protection of the arable acreage  15. The existence of hollow paths – possibly created as a result of use as a pathway for people and animals – which in general led away from the settlement  16, implies that the settlement may also have contained gardens. Finally, in the area to the northeast and southwest of the settlement, graves have been found, so there were at least two different extra‑mural cemeteries with pit graves and stone cists  17. Sacred areas were also created in the immediate surroundings of the settlements. In Tell Chuera itself, that function was filled by the so‑called “Außenbauten” – a temple in antis and the road of the stelae. A comparable structure was also found during the survey near Tell Ragha, west of Chuera, a second order site. Stone stelae were erected there as well but unfortunately, I only saw them after they had been razed by a bulldozer, therefore I cannot be sure of their original location, which was at any rate outside the settlement. This finding is in keeping with a statement by van Liere  18, who maintains that he saw such stelae outside several settlements (Beydar, Bogha). The installation of temples and stelae outside settlements seems to be characteristic of the organisation of Round Cities in Northeast Syria in the late third millennium BC (ca. 2600‑2300 BC). We cannot rule out a connection with the stelae on the Djebel al Beida (Ras et‑Tell) in the Djebel Ab del Aziz; some of which bear figurative

11.

Krätschell, Wunderlich and Thiemeyer 2009, p. 77‑86; Krätschell 2010.

12.

Kudlek forthcoming.

13.

Ernst 2014.

14.

Kudlek forthcoming.

15.

Kudlek forthcoming.

16.

Krätschell 2010.

17.

Tamm 2016.

18.

Van Liere and Lauffray 1954-1955.

19

20

Jan-Waalke Meyer

decoration, while others are undecorated  19. Perhaps they were part of a form of ancestor worship, as I have argued elsewhere  20. I will conclude this section with a summary of our survey results. We have undertaken a lot more interdisciplinary work, for example, intensive borings and percussive drillings to learn about the development of soils, soil formation and surfaces in order to estimate anthropogenic influences. This has provided information about the appearance of the landscape behind the fields, mostly to the south – in a sebkha, a flat depression, temporarily filled with water, and without surface runoff   21. According to the botanical and archaeo-zoological analyses (traces of tamarisk, gazelle, onager), this must have been a kind of bush savanna. Strontium-isotope analyses from sheep teeth point to a pastoral way of life for part of the population, who moved further south to the Euphrates Valley and beyond to feed their animals during winter. Such comprehensive interdisciplinary research is very important for understanding complex societies. I will now come back to the question of urbanisation, which seems to be closely connected to the definition of the term “city”, or urbanised settlements. I consider internal structures as well as external features as parameters for the definition of a settlement as urban.

Settlement pattern Settlement size The size of the settlement refers first of all to the sheer extension of the settlement, as has recently been emphasised by Algaze  22. It is, of course, not possible to define a specific settlement size as urban, but the settlement should contain more inhabitants than could be fed by the agricultural produce available from the immediate surroundings. As a rule, it is assumed that in a dry‑farming area (at least 200 mm precipitation per year), up to a distance of 5 km, the cultivation of fields does not present any problem. That calculation would yield an arable area of 80‑100 square km or ca. 8,000‑10,000 ha. All further calculations remain speculative  23. If we assume that the yield from one hectare is sufficient for one person, that area could feed up to 10,000 people per year. With an estimated population density of 250 people per hectare, a settlement extending over more than ca. 40 ha would need to enlarge the arable land in order to feed its inhabitants. To that end, new dependent settlements would have to be founded, which would provide the necessary victuals (we shall come back to this point in connection with settlement systems). With regard to any number of imponderables – such as public buildings, open spaces, streets – I propose a minimum size of ca. 30 ha to meet the necessary preconditions for urbanisation in a region with the above‑stated conditions (dry‑farming).

Settlement organisation A further parameter consists in the internal organisation of the settlement, the “urban morphology”, as defined by Conzen in various articles  24. This includes the separation of public buildings – palace,

19.

Moortgat‑Correns 1972, p. 10‑24, pl. IX‑XXII.

20.

Meyer 1997.

21.

Krätschell 2010.

22.

Algaze 2008.

23.

Cf. Meyer 1996, with further literature.

24.

Conzen 1968; Conzen 1988.

Early urbanisation in Iran

temple, fortifications – and private ones, the installation of streets and lanes and squares. Such a network is bound to strengthen the internal communication of the inhabitants – but also hints at the marked distinction between social groups, which is a characteristic feature of urban settlements. Here, I am referring to defining social identities in terms of wealth, status, power, etc., as described by Rapaport  25. All of those aspects can be found in the results of our excavations in Tell Chuera, which confirm the use of the term “urban” for that settlement. None of these features can exist without organisation and planning. The same is true for the construction of monumental buildings  26, which are considered to symbolize power in either direction, inside and out. In this way, social dependencies and social groups are already recognizable in the layout of the city – which is an indispensable prerequisite for the urban character of a settlement.

Settlement system Another necessary prerequisite for the formation of urban settlements is the use of the natural environment. In this context, several publications by Rapaport should be mentioned  27, where he emphasises the reciprocal influence between Man and his environment: fields, pastures (subsistence), rivers and/or canals (higher yields), roads (communication). The intensive use of the landscape guarantees subsistence and improves the food supply of the population. The population then increases, and a time comes when the produce from the cultivable land within easy reach is no longer sufficient. One of the possible decisions taken in the ancient Near East from about the mid‑third millennium BC onwards is the foundation of “filial settlements” to supply the “mother settlement” with provisions. This kind of development occurred in Southern Mesopotamia  28 and can be reconstructed from the results of our survey for northeastern Syria, at least from the middle of the third millennium BC onwards. In this way, not only was subsistence guaranteed, but also further growth – resulting in more new foundations and finally in a multi‑layered settlement system. Geographically, these settlements tend to be arranged according to the central place theory, as proposed by Christaller  29. The sizes of the settlements differ – for instance city, town, village, hamlet – and the higher ranking (bigger) settlements comprise more functions than the lower ones: for example, administrative organization, erection of temples, societal structure, diversification of production. These types of settlement systems can only be detected by surveys specifically conducted with that aim in mind. I would like to mention our Wadi Hamar survey as an example. For the region around Tell Chuera (15 km in diameter), it was possible to demonstrate that the settlement system consisted of at least four, presumably even five layers. When it was founded towards the end of the fourth millennium BC, it already consisted of at least three layers  30. In the ancient Near East, such settlement systems associated with the urbanisation of the centre only developed for settlements based on agricultural or craft production. The situation is somewhat different for settlements relying primarily on trade. Furthermore, I do not think that pastoralism plays

25.

Rapaport 1988; Rapaport 1990a; Rapaport 1990b.

26.

See De Marrais, Castillo and Earle 1996, for the concept “materialization of ideology”; Trigger 1990, for “scale equals power”.

27.

Rapaport 1990a; Rapaport 2006.

28.

Adams 1965.

29.

Christaller 1933.

30.

For detailed data, see Kudlek forthcoming.

21

22

Jan-Waalke Meyer

a major role in urbanisation – but it does play a role in providing urban centres with provisions. In Mesopotamia, nomadism did not lead to urbanisation, nor did pastoralism  31. This leads to the question: is more than a two‑layered settlement system necessary to ascribe the status of “city” to a settlement? I think that this is the case, because only then is a settlement big enough for sufficient differentiation of the society. According to the available studies, which of these criteria are applicable to Iran? As far as I know, no studies of such complexity have yet been undertaken for Iran. Due to space restrictions, I wish to concentrate on two geographical districts: the Susiana Plain in Khuzistan and the Kur River Basin (Tell i‑Malyan) in the Fars. The carefully conducted Deh Luran survey in North Khuzistan has yielded indications of relatively small settlements (1‑2 ha)  32. The somewhat larger settlement at Tepe Musiyan (13 ha) appears to be much younger (Parthian?). All the settlements date to the Chalcolithic period, a time when urbanisation is hardly to be expected. For the Susiana Plain in the Early Susa 2 period (Early Uruk ca. 4000‑3800 BC), Johnson counted 49 settlements extending over 95 ha in total  33. He reconstructed a three‑layered settlement system with Susa (Susa 5‑12 ha) and Abu Fanduweh as regional centres  34. For the subsequent Middle Susa 2 period (Middle Uruk, ca. 3800‑3500 BC), 52 settlements extending over 127 ha have been identified, with Susa (25 ha) as the centre. Meanwhile, the existence of settlements in Choga Mish (10 ha) and Abu Fanduweh (8 ha), which Johnson also attributed to that time span, has now been called into question  35. In addition, four settlements of 3.5‑6.5 ha, 17 of 1.5‑3 ha and 30 of less than 1.5 ha have been documented. Susa can clearly be considered as the centre, but whether or not it was an urban centre remains uncertain, due to the lack of information, and appears to me rather doubtful. The following protoliterate period 1 (End of Susa 3; Late Uruk, end of the third millennium BC) saw a considerable decline in the number of settlements. Only 13 settlements remained, covering a total area of 100 ha. This period is also – sparsely – represented in other Iranian regions: in the Fars (Tepe Malyan, Mamasani) or Kerman (Tepe Yahya). In the Susiana, Susa obviously became less important (ca. 9 ha)  36, especially compared to Choga Mish (18 ha)  37. Thanks to Abbas Alizadeh’s excellent publication, we are now quite well informed about the architecture in that time span in Choga Mish. The remains of many private houses have been exposed beside a three‑aisled building with a similar ground plan to that of the buildings in Eanna. In addition, at Choga Mish, remains of other structures have to be considered as well, including the platform, canals, various house shapes. Furthermore, for that time, there is a relatively wide diffusion of Proto‑Elamite tablets (Susa 3‑tablets). These aspects undoubtedly point to a society with a hierarchy, the formation of elites, the need for an administration, the organisation of labour – only the platform may perhaps have had some religious function and the three‑aisled building does not qualify as a religious structure. This is of course not sufficient proof of an urban character. There is no doubt that Choga Mish was a regional centre, possibly with trans‑regional relations, as Abbas Alizadeh maintains  38, but it probably cannot be described as urban, at least not in the Mesopotamian sense of the term. I am also reluctant to describe Tell i‑Malyan as urban. The occupational history of the Fars is definitely comparable to that of the Susiana. For the Early Banesh period (3400‑3250 BC), no more than

31.

Contra Lyonnet 1998.

32.

Hole, Flannery and Neely 1969.

33.

Johnson 1973.

34.

Cf. Alizadeh 2008.

35.

Wright 2013, pers. comm. by A. Alizadeh.

36.

Johnson 1973.

37.

Alizadeh 2008, p. 23.

38.

Alizadeh 2008, p. 23‑27.

Early urbanisation in Iran

20 ha of settled ground have been documented altogether (including 6 ha for Tell i‑Malyan alone). During the Middle Banesh phase (2950 BC), Tell i‑Malyan grew to cover an area of 50 ha; besides there are only a few (8) smaller settlements with a collective size of 10 ha. In the Late Banesh phase (2700‑2600 BC), Tell i‑Malyan covered no more than 25 ha, but a city wall is said to have enclosed 200 ha. In this time span, the settled area in the vicinity of Malyan (in the Kur River Basin) decreased from 60 ha to 36 ha. To me, some of these statements appear problematic: ––

I do not see how the assumed settlement sizes in Tell i‑Malyan for the Middle and Late Banesh phases were calculated. According to Sumner  39, area ABC had a double fortification during the Middle Banesh phase, as had area TUV  40, and perhaps others as well  41. Were these individual areas settled at the same time? Another possibility – at least hinted at by Wright  42 – would consist in a more tribally organised settlement pattern with a fortified place allotted to each clan or lineage. In any case, I do not see a single concrete hint that would allow us to consider these settlements as urban centres  43. In principle, Wright confirms this view, when he implies that the population of Tell i‑Malyan was not organised according to a strict hierarchy  44.

–– In addition, in the surroundings of Tell i‑Malyan, there is no settlement that could have helped to supply a city  45, or at least no such settlement has been identified (maybe ploughed under?).

––

Wright assumes that at least part of the population – about half – was just seasonally residing in Tell i‑Malyan  46. From a Mesopotamian perspective, the urban character of the settlement would be rather questionable in this case. However, mural paintings, Proto‑Elamite tablets, seals, and clearly imported objects (obsidian, mother‑of‑pearl) imply that this was a settlement of regional importance – but to my mind, it was still a village, or several villages. I accept the view advanced by Wright  47 and Alizadeh  48, who maintain that the settlements in Tell i‑Malyan had close connections, maybe even family relations, to the pastoral nomads in the surroundings and that they all cooperated to secure the subsistence of the permanent residents and even accumulated riches. In the Late Banesh phase, the settlement pattern is comparatively reduced.

––

 

The foundation of a wall enclosing all the settled areas plus more than 100 ha of open space are quite striking. Again, I follow the reasoning of Wright  49 and others, who consider that the construction of this wall was a consequence of changed relationships between the residents and mobile groups. Occupation activities were generally on the decline, and I think it was rather improbable that conditions were auspicious to the foundation of a city in the Mesopotamian sense. I would interpret the erection of that wall as arising from the protective needs of a village community.

39.

Sumner 2003, p. 41.

40.

Alden 1979, p. 195‑196.

41.

Sumner 2003, p. 204.

42.

Wright 2013, p. 56.

43.

As does Wright 2013, p. 56.

44.

Wright 2013, p. 56.

45.

Alden 2013, p. 225.

46.

Wright 2013, p. 56.

47.

Wright 2013, p. 56‑57.

48.

Alizadeh 2006, p. 35‑36.

49.

Wright 2013, p. 56‑57.

23

24

Jan-Waalke Meyer

My proposal is that neither the Susiana nor the Fars underwent any urbanisation in the Mesopotamian sense before the end of the third millennium BC. I consider that settlement patterns developed out of village structures, as they are known from Susa 1 and Tell i‑Bakun A – a Chalcolithic tradition. Marked relationships between the country and the city, settlement size and settlement organisation – which are all fundamental for the origin of Mesopotamian cities, and cities in general – seem to be lacking. In addition, the differences in economy – dry‑farming in Iran, irrigation agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia – cannot be taken as a strong argument, as we have an economy based on dry‑farming in northern Mesopotamia as well  50. The new data from Tell Chuera mark the beginning of urban settlements and point to the overall development of this region, followed by the subsequent urbanisation under dry‑farming conditions at the end of the fourth millennium BC. If we want to use the term “urban” or urbanisation for Iranian settlements, I suggest that we have to look for other factors. One of those factors could be pastoralism, which is more distinctive in Iran than in Mesopotamia. I would like to cautiously propose that the settlements at the end‑points of migration routes might be called urban (e.g. Tell i‑Malyan), as well as settlements at the end‑points of caravan routes (e.g. Shadad, Shar i‑Sokhta). In Khuzistan, under dry‑farming conditions, this development might be comparable with northern Mesopotamia, although it occurred slightly later (second half of the third millennium BC). If we accept this proposal, we can use the term “urban” or “urbanisation”, but we should add “Iranian urbanisation”.

References Adams R.McC. 1965, Land behind Baghdad: A history of settlement in the Diyala Plains, Chicago. Adams R.McC. and Nissen H.J. 1972, The Uruk Countryside. The natural setting of urban societies, Chicago. Alden J.R. 1979, Regional Economic Organization in Banesh Period Iran, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Alden J.R. 2013, “The Kur River Basin in the Proto‑Elamite era – surface survey, settlement patterns, and the appearance of full‑time transhumant pastoral nomadism”, in C.A. Petrie (ed.), Ancient Iran and its Neighbours. Local developments and long‑range interactions in the fourth millennium BC, Oxford, p. 207‑232. Algaze G. 2008, Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. The Evolution of an Urban Landscape, Chicago. Alizadeh A. 2006, The Origins of State Organizations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran: Excavations at Tell‑e Bakun, OIP 128, Chicago. Alizadeh A. 2008, Choga Mish II. A Prehistoric Regional Center in lowland Susiana, southwestern Iran. Final report on the last six seasons 1972‑1978, OIP 130, Chicago. Christaller W. 1933, Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: Eine ökonomisch-geographische Untersuchungen über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen, Darmstadt. Conzen M.R.G. 1968, “The study of town plans in urban history”, in H.J. Dyos (ed.), The study of urban history, London, p. 113‑130. Conzen M.R.G. 1988, “Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow”, in D. Denecke and G. Shaw (ed.), Urban historical geography: Recent progress in Britain and Germany, Cambridge, p. 253‑272.

50.

Weiss 1986.

Early urbanisation in Iran

De Marrais E., Castillo L.J. and Earle T. 1996, “Ideology, materialization, and power strategies”, Current Anthropology 37, p. 15‑31. Ernst M. 2014, Untersuchungen stabiler Isotope an pedogeneen Carbondaten in Nordost‑Syrien, unpublizierte Magisterarbeit im Fachbereich 11, Geowissenschaften/Geographie der Johann-Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt. Hempelmann R. 2013, Tell Chuera, Kharab Sayyar und die Urbanisierung der westlichen Gazira, Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2/IV, Wiesbaden. Hole F., Flannery K.V. and Neely J.A. 1969, Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran, Memoirs of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology 1, Ann Arbor. Hüls M. 2013, “Die absolute Datierung der regionalen Periode TCH IA: Die Datierungsergebnisse der Proben KIA 36482‑36484 aus Kharab Sayyar A”, in R. Hempelmann, Tell Chuera, Kharab Sayyar und die Urbanisierung der westlichen Gazira, Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2/IV, Wiesbaden, p. 157‑161. Johnson G.A. 1973, Local exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology 51, Ann Arbor. Krätschell A.M. 2010, Untersuchungen zur holozänen Landschaftentwicklung im Umfeld der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung Tell Chuera, Nord‑Syrien, unpublizierte Dissertation im Fachbereich 11, Geowissenschaften/ Geographie der Johann-Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt. Krätschell A.M., Wunderlich J. and Thiemeyer H. 2009, “Landschaftsentwicklung im Bereich des Tell Chuera – Geomorphologisch-sedimentologische Untersuchungen in Nord‑Syrien”, in J.W. Meyer (ed.), Zwischen Euphrat und Rhein. “Archäologische Analytik”, Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 7, Wiesbaden, p. 77‑86. Kudlek V. (forthcoming), Die Ergebnisse des Wadi Hamar‑Surveys in der Umgebung von Tell Chuera und die Nutzung der natürlichen Umwelt (Arbeitstitel), Dissertation Goethe Universität Frankfurt. Lyonnet B. 1998, “Le peuplement de la Djéziré occidentale au début du IIIe millénaire, villes circulaire et pastoralisme : questions et hypothèses”, in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu. Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Subartu 4/1, Bruxelle, p. 179‑193. Meyer J.W. 1996, “Offene und geschlossene Siedlungen. Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungsgeschichte in Nordsyrien im 3. und 2. Jt. v. Chr.”, Altorientalische Forschungen 23/1, p. 132‑170. Meyer J.W. 1997, “Djebelet el‑Beda: Eine Stätte der Ahnenverehrung”, Altorientalische Forschungen 24/2, p. 294‑309. Meyer J.W. 2011, “City planning”, in M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah, ARCANE I, Turnhout, p. 129‑136. Moortgat‑Correns U. 1972, Die Bildwerke vom Djebelet el Bedaa in ihrer räumlichen und zeitlichen Umwelt, Berlin. Petrie Cameron A.  (ed.) 2013, Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours. Local developments and long‑range interactions in the fourth millennium BC, Oxford. Quenet Ph. 2011, “2. Stratigraphy”, in M. Lebeau (ed.), Jezirah, ARCANE I, Turnhout, p. 19‑47. Rapaport A. 1988, “Levels of meaning in the built environment”, in F. Poyatos (ed.), Cross‑cultural perspectives in non-verbal communication, Toronto, p. 317‑336. Rapaport A. 1990a, The meaning of the built environment. A non-verbal communication approach, Tucson. Rapaport A. 1990b, “Systems of activities and systems of settings”, in S. Kent (ed.), Domestic architecture and the use of space: An interdisciplinary cross‑cultural study, New York, p. 9‑20. Rapaport A. 2006, “Archaeology and environment behavior studies”, in W. Ashmore, M.A.  Dobres, S. Milledge Nelson and A. Rosen (ed.), Integrating the diversity of twenty‑first‑century anthropology: The life and intellectual legacies of Susan Kent, Washington DC, p. 59‑70. Roaf M. 1998, Bildatlas der Weltkulturen: Mesopotamien, Augsburg.

25

26

Jan-Waalke Meyer

Sumner W.M. 2003, Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal‑e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran, Malyan Excavations Report III, University Museum Monograph 113, Philadelphia. Tamm A. 2016, Untersuchungen zu den extra‑muralen Friedhöfen in der Umgebung von Tell Chuera, Dissertation Goethe Universität Frankfurt. Trigger B.G. 1990, “Monumental architecture: A thermodynamic explanation of behavior”, World Archaeology 22, p. 119‑132. Van Liere W.J. and Lauffray J. 1954-1955, “Nouvelle prospection archéologique dans la Haute Jézirah syrienne : compte‑rendu provisoire”, Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 4/5, p. 129‑148. Weninger B., Neef R. and Meyer J.W. 2010, “Zur Radiokarbondatierung der Frühbronzezeit in Tell Chuera (Nordsyrien)”, in J.W. Meyer (ed.), Tell Chuera: Vorberichte zu den Grabungskampagnen 1998 bis 2005, Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2/II, Wiesbaden, p. 187‑197. Weiss H. (ed.) 1986, The origins of cities in dry‑farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC, Guilford. Wright H.T. 2013, “A bridge between worlds: south‑western Iran during the fourth millennium BC”, in A.  Petrie  Cameron  (ed.), Ancient Iran and its Neighbours. Local developments and long‑range interactions in the fourth millennium BC, BIPS, Archaeological Monographs Serie III, Oxford, p. 51‑73.

EXPANSION OF THE KURA-ARAXES CULTURE IN IRAN

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk? Giulio Palumbi Université de Lyon, CNRS, UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon The interpretation of the expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture has been traditionally linked to a set of migratory mechanisms that were generated in the core of Kura‑Araxes cultural region. Little attention has been dedicated to the role of other processes that took place in the Kura‑Araxes “periphery”, and in particular to the development, in the fourth millennium, of centralised early‑state polities in Iran and Anatolia that were linked to similar developments taking place in the greater Uruk Mesopotamia. This paper will present two case‑studies to highlight the structural premises that may have favored the Kura‑Araxes “expansion” in Iran and Anatolia: Godin Tepe and Arslantepe. Between the late‑fourth and the early‑third millennium, these two sites recorded a strikingly similar cultural sequence consisting of the construction of large, possibly public, buildings characterized by a Uruk‑related material culture that were replaced by an occupation of flimsy wattle and daub huts featuring a Kura‑Araxes related material-culture. A thorough comparison of the developments illustrated by these two case‑studies can suggest a new explanatory model for the Kura‑Araxes expansion in the regions formerly involved in the Uruk “world”. According to this model, the specialized pastoral groups that were generated by the centralised economies of the early‑sate polities of the Uruk period in Iran and Anatolia may have played a key role in the following expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in these regions. L’interprétation de l’expansion de la culture Kuro‑Araxe a été traditionnellement associée à des mécanismes migratoires générés dans son périmètre géographique. Jusqu’à présent, très peu d’attention a été dédiée au rôle que d’autres processus, qui se sont déroulés aux marges de la région Kuro‑Araxe, pourraient avoir joué dans cette expansion, notamment, le développement en Iran et en Anatolie d’entités proto-étatiques centralisées datant de la seconde moitié du IVe millénaire en connexion directe avec les développements similaires de la Mésopotamie “Urukéenne”. L’objectif de cet article est de présenter deux cas d’étude (Godin Tepe et Arslantepe) pour mettre en évidence les conditions “structurelles” qui auraient pu favoriser l’expansion “Kuro‑Araxe” en Iran et en Anatolie. Entre la seconde moitié du IVe et le début du IIIe millénaire ces deux sites témoignent d’une séquence culturelle identique consistant en la construction de grands bâtiments de tradition urukéenne, qui furent remplacés par des occupations à architecture légère caractérisées par une culture matérielle de tradition Kuro‑Araxe. La comparaison entre les développements de ces deux sites pourrait suggérer un nouveau modèle explicatif de l’expansion Kuro‑Araxe dans les régions précédemment impliquées dans le “monde” Uruk. Selon ce modèle, les groupes de pasteurs spécialisés, générés en Iran et en Anatolie par les économies centralisées des entités proto-étatiques de la période Uruk, pourraient avoir joué un rôle clé dans l’expansion de la culture Kuro‑Araxe qui a succédé dans ces mêmes régions.

‫ارس به طور سنتی به مجموعه ای از فرایند های مهاجرتی(کوچ نشینی) ارتباط‬-‫تفسیر گسترش فرهنگ کورا‬ ‫ به نقش‬،‫ارس‬-‫ در مقایسه با مرکز فرهنگ کورا‬.‫ارس اتفاق افتاده است‬-‫دارد که در مرکز ناحیه فرهنگ کورا‬ ‫ تحوالت هزاره‬،‫دیگر فرایندهای رخ داده در محیط پیرامونی کورا –ارس کمتر توجه شده است؛ به طور خاص‬ ‫ سیاستهای تمرکز گرایی حکومت های اولیه در ایران و آناتولی در ارتباط با پیشرفت های مشابهی است‬،‫چهارم‬ ‫ برای روشن ساختن مقدمات ساختاری‬،‫ در این مقاله‬.‫که در بین النهرین در دوره اروک بزرگ اتفاق افتاده است‬ ‫ اشاره‬،‫ به مطالعه موردی دو محوطه گودین تپه و ارسالن تپه‬،‫ارس در ایران و آناتولی‬-‫گسترش فرهنگ کورا‬

30

Giulio Palumbi

‫ در این دو محوطه توالی فرهنگی مشابهی دیده می‬،‫ حدود اواخر هزار چهارم و اوایل هزار سوم‬.‫شده است‬ ‫ با ویژگیها و مواد فرهنگی منتسب به اروک‬،‫شود که شامل ساخت بناهای بزرگ احتماال با کاربری عمومی‬ ‫ با یک دوره استقراری متشکل از کلبه های گلی و چپر با مواد و مصالح‬،‫ این دوره‬.‫از آن گزارش شده است‬ .‫ارس جایگزین شده اند‬-‫ منتسب به مواد فرهنگی کورا‬،‫کم دوام‬ ‫ می تواند یک الگو تبیینی جدیدی را‬،‫مقایسه کامل از تحوالت اتفاق افتاده در مطالعه موردی این دو محوطه‬ ‫ طبق این‬.‫ارس در مناطقی که قبال تحت سیطره جهان اوروک بوده پیشنهاد دهد‬-‫برای گسترش فرهنگ کورا‬ ‫ گروهای تخصصی شبانی(کوچرو) که از طریق سیاست اقتصادهای متمرکز حکومت های اولیه دوره‬،‫الگو‬ ‫ارس در‬-‫اروک در ایران و اناتولی به وجود آمدند احتماال یک نقش کلیدی به پیروی از توسعه فرهنگ کورا‬ .‫این نواحی ایفا کرده اند‬ Historically, the Uruk and Kura‑Araxes are two different phenomena, characterized by radically different cultural traditions that were rooted in two very distant and disparate ecological regions of the Near East, that developed almost contemporaneously during the second half of the fourth millennium BC. The Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition, which owes its name from the main rivers of the southern Caucasus, developed from 3500 BC (ca.) and was the expression of small village communities living in the regions of mountains and highlands of southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia. The Uruk cultural tradition developed in southern Mesopotamia, owes its name to the largest centre of the Mesopotamian alluvium in this period, the city of Uruk‑Warka (fig. 1) and was the expression of the earliest urban and state societies of this region. During the second half of the fourth millennium BC, the Uruk culture and its model of political and economic centralisation spread well beyond the geographic boundaries of Mesopotamia reaching as far the highlands of Anatolia and Iran. This process, also known as the Uruk expansion  1, was the result of a complex process of interaction between expansive trade relations and territorial strategies triggered‑off by Mesopotamian centres and indigenous trajectories of local development where the emulation of the Mesopotamian models certainly played an important role  2. Yet, at the end of the fourth millennium BC, in the Anatolian and Iranian regions, the end of the Uruk “expansion” coincided with the progressive expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture, highlighting that these regions were the “theatre” of a diachronic intersection between these two phenomena.

Fig. 1 – Map of the Near East with the main sites mentioned in the text.

1.

Algaze 1989.

2.

Algaze 2001; Schwartz 2001; Stein 2001; Frangipane 2001.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

The traditional explanations put forward to explain this replacement of Uruk with Kura‑Araxes “systems” have resorted to movements or migrations of Kura‑Araxes people from their homeland to surrounding regions. However, the current evidence of the Kura‑Araxes phenomenon may provide an alternative explanation of what was most probably a complex process of circulation, transmission and adoption of the Kura‑Araxes model and its cultural traits (see next paragraph).  

This is because such processes did not take place in a cultural vacuum. As I have already pointed out elsewhere  3, in order to fully understand this process we need to adopt a larger historical point of view, one that considers the social, political and economic conditions that created the socio-economic context where this “expansion” took place.  

This paper will present two case‑studies to highlight the importance of the structural premises that may have favoured the Kura‑Araxes “expansion”: the sites of Arslantepe, in the Anatolian Upper Euphrates Valley and Godin Tepe, on the Iranian Zagros, in the Kangavar Valley. Despite their distance apart and different geographical location, these two sites display a strikingly similar history revealed in a twin sequence of occupation dating between the second half of the fourth and the first centuries of the third millennium BC. A thorough comparison of the developments illustrated by these two case‑studies can tell us some very important things about the dynamics at play during the Kura‑Araxes expansion in the Anatolian Upper Euphrates and in the Kangavar Valley and the vectors that could have played a key role in this process.

The Kura‑Araxes culture in the southern Caucasus From the middle of the fourth millennium BC, the material culture of the southern Caucasian communities show radical changes from those of the Chalcolithic period (4800‑3500 BC ca.). This new cultural tradition, in spite of a marked regional variability, features anyway a set of technological, some cultural and symbolic markers that were shared and reproduced through space and time  4.  

These markers are clearly visible in the architectural traditions, where monocellular or bicellular dwellings emphasise a spatial and symbolic centrality of the fire‑places often decorated with anthropomorphic or zoomorphic motifs, suggesting that ritual practices were part of the activities taking place in the domestic space  5. New metallurgical repertoires also help to define the Kura‑Araxes traditions, recognisable by very specific body ornaments (such as hair‑spirals and double‑spiral headed pins)  6. Finally, ceramics were probably the most common and widely diffused marker of these traditions  7. Grit or mixed-tempered and hand‑made, the Kura‑Araxes ceramics are distinguishable by the special attention given to surface treatments, such as consistent burnishing. Monochrome in the very early phases, towards the end of the fourth millennium BC the Kura‑Araxes ceramics often feature a contrasting red‑black effect between external and internal surfaces of the same vessel. It is worth noting that Kura‑Araxes Red‑Black Burnished Ware were always black on their external surfaces and red to light‑brown on their inner surfaces  8. The Kura‑Araxes vessels from the southern Caucasus were often embellished with different decorative techniques (relief, incision, impressing or

3.

Palumbi 2017.

4.

Greenberg and Palumbi 2014.

5.

Sagona 1998; Smogorzewska 2004; Simonyan and Rothman 2015.

6.

Courcier 2007.

7.

Rothman 2014.

8.

Palumbi 2008a, p. 205.

31

32

Giulio Palumbi

grooving) reproducing a large array of geometric (double spirals) and figurative motifs among which birds and caprids were certainly the most common. Finally, Kura‑Araxes ceramics morphological repertoires were also innovative, certainly more homogenous in earlier phases. Typically, we see bell shaped or truncated-conical necked jars, large S‑shaped bowls and circular lids invariably fitted with handles that have come to represent the most recognisable markers of the Kura‑Araxes potting traditions, called Nakhichevan lugs. Research suggests that the Kura‑Araxes communities were based on an agro-pastoral economy characterized by cereal agriculture and non‑specialized husbandry strategies which, as is argued later in this paper, strongly contrast with the specialized pastoral model of the Uruk communities  9. The absence of any markers of status, rank or vertical stratification in the funerary structures and related burials as well as the lack of any form of differentiation in the architectural evidence, seems to suggest that the Kura‑Araxes communities were structured on the socio-economic centrality of the household and probably on kinship-based social relations  10.

The Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran It is commonly believed that the Kura‑Araxes culture first originated in the southern Caucasus then spread to surrounding regions and thus is usually considered a tradition exogenous to Iran. However, the latest results of research at Kul Tepe Jolfa in northwestern Iran reveal that this region has probably been home to the Kura‑Araxes culture since the early stages of its formation  11.  

What is more, Iran has always been “home” to the Kura‑Araxes in terms of the history of research on this culture. Excavations at the sites of Geoy Tepe, Yanik Tepe and Haftavan Tepe and later at Gijlar Tepe in the region of the Urmia Lake were among the first to record a cultural package that was clearly reminiscent of the Kura‑Araxes traditions of the neighbouring regions of southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia.  

Among these sites, Yanik Tepe (fig.  1) is still the most extensively excavated in the region and its occupational sequence provides a fundamental reference for reconstructing Kura‑Araxes developments in northwestern Iran  12. In particular, phase II at Yanik Tepe has an uninterrupted sequence of occupational levels with circular buildings often equipped with fire installations and work areas, most probably domestic structures (fig. 2a). The fragment of a portable andiron  13 bearing anthropomorphic decorations (fig. 2b), which recalls analogous items from the southern Caucasus, stresses the impact that the Kura‑Araxes model also had on the domestic sphere of the Yanik Tepe community. In terms of its ceramic traditions, pottery from Yanik Tepe II is characterized by accurately burnished black surfaces, its morphological repertoires includes truncated conical or cylindrical necked jars with loop‑handles (fig. 2c‑g): clear parallels can be drawn with the contemporary Kura‑Araxes potting traditions from southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia. According to Summers, a development of these potting traditions is observable throughout the sequence at Yanik Tepe; ceramics from the earlier levels, corresponding to Yanik Tepe phase IIA, are characterized by incised or excised decorations filled with a white paste (fig. 2c‑g), while in the following phase IIB these ceramics are mainly undecorated  14.

   9.

Piro 2009; Sagona and Zimansky 2009, p. 191.

10.

Sagona 2004, p. 480‑481; Palumbi 2007.

11.

Abedi and Omrani 2015.

12.

Burney 1961; Burney 1962; Burney 1964; Summers 2013b.

13.

Burney 1961, pl. LXXIV: 60.

14.

Summers 2013a, p. 168.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Fig. 2 – Yaniktepe. a. Plan of level 4; b. Anthropomorphic andirion; c‑g. Kura‑Araxes related pottery (a‑f: Burney 1961; g: Summers 2004, fig. 9).

It is worth recalling that the decorative tradition of incisions/excisions filled with white paste is typical and apparently exclusive to the Iranian region with no comparisons in nearby areas. Decorative motifs usually comprise chevrons or geometric patterns and, more rarely, single or double spirals, birds and caprids  15, the latter clearly reminiscent of the motifs found on the Kura‑Araxes ceramics of southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia. As for the absolute chronology, the newly calibrated radiocarbon dates point to 3000‑2900 cal BC as a reasonable starting date for the earliest levels of phase IIA at Yanik Tepe. The only reliable date for phase IIB (characterized by plain non‑decorated ceramics) place its beginnings at around 2750 cal BC  16. As no Kura‑Araxes contexts that predate Yanik Tepe IIA have been discovered so‑far in the region of Urmia, it is generally assumed that an already developed Kura‑Araxes culture arrived here around 3000 BC  17. However, new data from Kul Tepe near Jolfa, some 90  km north of Yanik Tepe, reveals levels containing Kura‑Araxes ceramics dating as early as 3350 BC ca.  18. This data suggests that, in the northernmost stretches of the Iranian region, some communities were involved in the developments of this cultural tradition from its earliest stages, no later than the earliest evidence of this culture in the neighbouring southern Caucasus  19. Interestingly, the Kura‑Araxes ceramics from Kul Tepe near Jolfa – dating to the last quarter of the fourth millennium BC – do not have the incised and

15.

Rothman 2014, fig. 5a.

16.

Summers 2013b, p. 174‑182.

17.

Summers 2013a, p. 170.

18.

Abedi and Omrani 2015.

19.

Badalyan 2014; Sagona 2014.

33

34

Giulio Palumbi

excised decorations filled with white paste such as those recorded in phase IIA at Yanik Tepe, thus suggesting a diachronic evolution of the Kura‑Araxes ceramic traditions in northwestern Iran, with such decorated ceramics appearing in this region from the very beginning of the third millennium BC and disappearing around 2750 BC ca. If the chronology for these decorated ceramics in the Urmia region dates between 3000 and 2750 BC, it is possible that this same chronological framework can be hypothesized for analogous ceramics that were found in the remaining Iranian regions outside of Urmia stretching from northwestern Iran to the Caspian Sea as far as the mountains of the Central Zagros  20. East of Urmia, such incised decorated ceramics are found in the region of Gilan  21, in the mountainous region of the Alborz  22 and in the Qazvin Plain  23. To date, the easternmost site where this ceramic tradition has been found is in the southeastern area of the Qazvin Plain, on the Central Iranian Plateau, at Qoli Darvish  24. The same ceramics were found at Tepe Pissa in the Hamadan Plain  25 and further south on the Central Zagros, where there are several sites, such as the well‑known site of Godin Tepe  26. The southernmost evidence of this ceramic tradition known to date is found south of Godin Tepe, in the region of Marzaki, at Tapeh Qal’eh‑ye‑Sarsakht   27. Unfortunately, in spite of this wide geographic distribution, most of the evidence comes from surface collections or small test excavations that do not provide information on the contexts of these ceramics. In fact, the present evidence does not help us to understand either the types (permanent or temporary) of sites or the nature and function of the contexts (domestic, cultic, private, public or funerary) of the ceramics. In most cases, we do not know if these ceramics were associated with a larger material assemblage linked to the Kura‑Araxes traditions (architecture, anthropomorphic andirons, clay figurines, metals) or if they coexisted with other assemblages and ceramic traditions (as is, for instance, suggested at Tepe Shizar in the Qazvin Plain)  28. Finally, the lack of absolute dates for this period does not allow to define a clear picture of the chronological distribution of this ceramic tradition in such a large area of Iran. In fact, apart from Yanik Tepe, one of the northernmost examples of this tradition, Godin Tepe in the Kangavar Valley (fig. 1) is the only site that has a reliable set of absolute dates from a large horizontal excavation, allowing us to clarify the chronologies and contexts of provenance of these “Kura‑Araxes” ceramics.

Godin Tepe in the Kangavar Valley Excavations at Godin Tepe were directed by Cuyler Young and the Royal Ontario Museum from 1965 to 1973  29. The literature on the site has recently been enriched by new data  30 that allows us to build a larger and more organic picture of its developments during the fourth and third millennium BC.

20.

Piller 2012.

21.

Fahimi 2005.

22.

Piller 2012, p. 445‑446.

23.

Fazeli Nashli and Abbasnezhad Sereshti 2005, p. 22; Piller 2012, p. 449; Fazeli Nashli, Valipour and Azizi Kharanaghi, 2013, p. 123.

24.

Azarnoush and Helwing 2005, p. 207‑208.

25.

Mohammadifar, Motarjem and Torabzadeh Khorasani 2009.

26.

Young 2004; Rothman 2011.

27.

Abedi et al. 2014, p. 106.

28.

Fazeli Nashli, Valipour and Azizi Kharanaghi 2013, p. 121‑126.

29.

Gopnik 2011, p. 1.

30.

Gopnik and Rothman 2011.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

The importance of Godin Tepe as a key site in understanding the dynamics of expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran also lies in the fact that it has a long sequence of occupation stretching into the fourth millennium BC including an occupation of the Uruk period. As the title of this paper suggests, one of the possible keys in understanding the dynamics and the directions of expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture is to look at the role of the Uruk phenomenon and at the transformations that came with it.

Godintepe VI:1. The “Uruk” occupation The Uruk occupation at Godin Tepe (phase VI:1) consists of the construction of a large compound, later surrounded by an oval enclosure, comprising several adjoining rooms built around a central courtyard (fig. 3a). Among the different structures in the Oval Compound, the northernmost building, possibly a public reception hall  31, may have also hosted administrative functions, judging from the large number of numerical tablets found inside (fig. 3a). However, accountancy and administration were not the only activities carried out in the Oval Compound: the abundant material found in situ suggests that weaving, flint-knapping and metallurgical activities were also carried out, as were the storage and intensive consumption of food (as indicated by the large amounts of beveled rim bowls and wheel‑made mass‑produced bowls)  32. Evidence of Uruk traditions in the Oval Compound can be found in: several architectural features (such as the decorative niches that according to Forest mirror a process of adoption of the Uruk domestic architectural model re‑adapted to a public function)  33; the technologies applied to accountancy and administration (numerical tablets and cylinder seals)  34; the iconography of the seals and clay sealings (fig. 3b‑c); and, finally, the manufacturing techniques of the ceramics (fashioned with the fast‑wheel) and the repertoires of the wheel‑made pottery (fig. 3d‑h)  35. As for the latter, it has been pointed out that only a part of the most typical Uruk repertoire is present at Godin Tepe  36 and that in the ceramic production from phase VI:1 several elements linked to earlier local Chalcolithic traditions persisted  37. Nevertheless, ceramics from phase VI:1 include a handful of Kura‑Araxes decorated vessels found in the last phase of the Oval Compound (VI:1a), which could point to interaction with the northern communities of Iran since the final years of the fourth millennium BC  38. Finally, another important aspect linked to the primary economy are the husbandry strategies at Godin Tepe during phase VI:1. The faunal data from this period shows a marked predominance of caprines (82%) over the rest of the reared species, with kill‑off patterns indicating that while goats were mainly exploited for their meat, sheep may have been raised for the production of wool  39. Data from Godin Tepe follows the same trend – towards specialized pastoralism focused on caprines – recorded in all the regions that were part of the Uruk phenomenon during the second half of the fourth millennium BC  40. It is widely agreed that the process of specialization recorded in several

31.

Weiss and Young 1975, p. 4‑5; Forest 1999, p. 174‑175.

32.

Badler 2002, p. 84.

33.

Badler 2002, p. 83‑84; Forest 1999, p. 174‑175.

34.

Matthews 2013, p. 343‑348.

35.

Badler 2002, p. 84‑87.

36.

Badler 2002, p. 87.

37.

Badler 2002, p. 83; Matthews 2013, p. 341.

38.

Badler 2002, p. 83; Rothman and Badler 2011, p. 92.

39.

Crabtree 2011a, p. 109.

40.

Zeder 1988, p. 21; Vila 1998, p. 90‑91, p. 123‑129; Frangipane and Siracusano 1998, p. 242‑243; Porter 2012.

35

36

Giulio Palumbi

Fig. 3 – Godin Tepe phase VI:1. a. Plan of the Oval Compound; b. Seals in Uruk style (not to scale); c. Tablet with pictogram (not to scale); d‑h. Uruk related pottery (a, c: Matthews 2013; b‑d, f, h: Weiss and Young 1975; e, g: Rothman and Badler 2011).

sectors of primary and secondary production in the Uruk period was related to the emergence of a temple‑based tributary economy in the earliest cities of the Mesopotamian alluvium  41. In these early‑state societies, the specialized organisation of labour may have been encouraged by the political institutions and controlled through a bureaucratic apparatus to intensify production. In the context of this centrally administered economy, primary and secondary animal products, such as wool, hair, milk and cheese, may have been employed in exchange for labour, used to feed an increasing specialized textile production  42, and accumulated by groups in power as surplus to be reinvested into other activities or exchanged for other luxury goods. In such a scenario, a pastoral sector may have emerged as a fundamental economic component of the early fourth millennium BC city‑states’ centralised economies  43. It would follow, then, that the tablet bearing a pictographic sign which looks like a container for dairy produce from Godin Tepe (fig. 3c) may be evidence of the importance of secondary animal products in the economic activities that were administered inside the Oval Compound (nonetheless, according to Badler this pictographic sign represents a beer jar)   44.

41.

Pollock 1999, p. 93‑96.

42.

Breniquet 2008, p. 303‑313.

43.

Porter 2012, p. 6‑88.

44.

Matthews 2013, p. 346; Badler 2011.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Several authors have pointed out that forms of nomadic pastoralism existed in the Iranian region far earlier than the Uruk period  45. However, this in itself does not refute the importance that such a new economic role could have played in the Uruk period. Indeed, one could argue that specialized pastoralism may have found fertile ground in Iran, where the socio-economic environment was already structured and receptive to the adoption of strategies and practices of mobility connected to this type of production. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the nature and function of the Oval Compound and for the socio-cultural identity of its inhabitants: a trading post of merchants from Susa engaged in commercial transactions with their “homeland”  46; the enclave of southern Mesopotamian bureaucrats controlling local production  47; or, finally, the “secure” residence of an indigenous elite who was in contact with Mesopotamia through trade and who was in charge of the politic, economic and symbolic coordination of the local community  48. While at present the state of documentation does not allow to exclude any of these options, there is however little doubt that Godin Tepe in the second half of the fourth millennium was an important regional centre hosting a “bureaucratized” political and economic institution whose power was founded on several resources at the same time: control of local production, distribution of staple products, interregional trade and finally external political and/or ideological legitimization.

Godintepe IV. The “Kura‑Araxes” occupation The collapse of this institution of power, that took place around or slightly after 3100 BC  49, is materially marked by the abrupt abandonment of the Oval Compound. After the hiatus of close to a century  50, the site was re‑occupied. According to the reconstruction recently proposed by M. Rothman, phase IV at Godin Tepe was composed of at least two different main occupations, with the earliest one (phase IV:2) dating, on the basis of one single sample, between the very end and beginning of the third millennium BC, while the later phase dates between 2900 BC and 2750-2600 BC  51. Evidence from phase IV:2 at Godin Tepe contrasts strongly with that of earlier traditions of the Uruk period. The architectural evidence from phase IV:2 comprises flimsy remains of structures built in light materials such as pisé, wood or wattle and daub (fig. 4a)  52. Unfortunately, this evidence is insufficient for outlining any clear architectural plan, but according to Rothman this very sketchy architectural evidence is more probably the result of the speed of the last excavation season, than of the lack of clear architectural plans  53. However, the presence of a series of bins and of a fire‑place analogous to those found in the levels of phase II at Yanik Tepe, may suggest that these structures were domestic in function and further strengthen the connections Godin Tepe had with this northern site. The artefact distribution shows that both “domestic” and craft activities took place in the structures from phase IV:2, such as flint-knapping, metallurgical and textile production  54. As Rothman points out, the widespread use of light architecture suggest that these structures may not have been intended as permanent occupations, and certainly they were radically different in nature and function from the more substantial mud‑brick buildings of the Uruk compound.

45.

Alizadeh 2010.

46.

Weiss and Young 1975, p. 14.

47.

Matthews 2013, p. 349.

48.

Rothman and Badler 2011, p. 119.

49.

Rothman and Badler 2011, p. 85.

50.

Rothman 2005, p. 14; Rothman 2011, p. 162‑163.

51.

Rothman 2005, tab. 5.2.

52.

Rothman 2011, p. 160.

53.

Rothman 2011, p. 160.

54.

Rothman 2011, p. 182.

37

38

Giulio Palumbi

Fig. 4 – Godin Tepe phase IV. a. Plan of phase IV:2; b. Plan of phase IV:1; c‑o. Kura‑Araxes related pottery (a‑o: Rothman 2011).

The flimsy occupations of phase IV:2 were followed by more substantial mud‑brick architecture in phase IV:1. The latter has at least three different occupational levels including a large two‑roomed rectangular building (Building 3), interpreted as a public or ritual building, and a radial complex of rectangular rooms, equipped with bins and fireplaces (fig. 4b)  55. The radical changes in the architectural traditions between phases VI and IV are mirrored elsewhere. Starting with the ceramics; there is a radical shift towards the Kura‑Araxes traditions. Pottery from phase IV is often characterised by burnished surfaces in black or grey and in terms of morphology: jars and lids that recall some of the most typical Kura‑Araxes profiles (fig. 4g‑o), as do the single or double handles applied on both closed and open shapes  56. Finally, another distinctive aspect of the ceramics from phase IV at Godin Tepe are the incised and excised decorations filled with white paste (fig. 4c‑o)  57. These decorations feature both geometric and more rarely spirals and zoomorphic motifs and are strikingly similar to those from phase IIA at Yanik Tepe and from the other previously mentioned Iranian regions. As far as the remaining archaeological evidence is concerned, there are two further and possibly interrelated pieces of data that should be mentioned. The first is the presence, in proximity of the fireplaces, of clay animal figurines (cattle, sheep or rams); this animal-fireplace connection was

55.

Rothman 2011, p. 161‑162.

56.

Rothman 2011, p. 167‑172.

57.

Rothman 2011, p. 189‑193.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

a characteristic symbolic trait of the Kura‑Araxes culture  58. The second is the “real” animals: the faunal data which points to husbandry strategies that were as specialized as those of phase VI:1 with caprines as the main (85%) reared species, showing strong continuity with the animal strategies of the former Late Uruk period  59. But who was this community that began to “appear” at Godin Tepe at the very beginning of the third millennium BC, who occupied the site in light and possibly temporary forms, who carried out specialized pastoral strategies and whose material culture recalled the Kura‑Araxes traditions? The traditional explanation for phase IV at Godin Tepe is that this occupation is evidence of the arrival of new “Kura‑Araxes” populations from the north, peoples who were originally extraneous to the Kangavar Valley  60. However, if the appearance of a new culture in the Kangavar Valley was the result of a migratory flow from the north, the settlement patterns should have provided evidence of some changes in the region. Yet although there is a clear disruption in the settlement pattern of the third millennium BC when compared to the fourth millennium BC settlement patterns, there is no clear and sustained increase in the population residing in the region throughout the fourth and third millennium BC  61.

Uruk and Kura‑Araxes in Iran While data on the settlement patterns in the region cannot be considered as conclusive and need to be more deeply explored, those published so‑far do not confirm unquestionably the hypothesis that new people arrived in the Kangavar Valley at the beginning of the third millennium BC. While the “migratory” hypothesis cannot be ruled out, however this latter alone may not be sufficient to explain the radical cultural change taking place in this region of Iran at the very beginning of the third millennium BC. A possible key that may shed new light and possibly provide an answer to these questions may be found by looking at the dialectic between Uruk and Kura‑Araxes “expansions” in Iran from a different angle. This dialectic has been so‑far interpreted in the framework of two mutually exclusive, if not even directly competitive, phenomena. According to Young, it was the arrival of these Kura‑Araxes newcomers who established the control over the main routes of communication and compromised the trading function of the Oval Compound at Godin Tepe, leading to its abandonment  62. In contrast, according to Summers, the expansion from the north of the ETC/Kura-Araxes was linked to the collapse of the Uruk phenomenon in the south and should be seen as a consequence of the Uruk demise in Iran rather than as its cause  63. I think that both Young and Summers’ intepretations have merit in that they point out the existence of what has been defined a “convergence”  64 between these phenomena. However, the dynamics underlying the expansion of the Kura‑Araxes traditions in Iran may be different to those so‑far hypothesised. Recently, my attention has been drawn to certain aspects of the expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture, namely by the fact that two regions were simultaneously involved in the Kura‑Araxes expansion in Anatolia (the Upper Euphrates) and in Iran (the Kangavar Valley) at the very beginning of the third

58.

Sagona 1998; Rothman 2011, p. 179‑180, fig. 5.41, 5.44; Simonyan and Rothman 2015.

59.

Crabtree 2011b, p. 178.

60.

Young 2004, p. 657; Rothman 2011, p. 195‑197.

61.

Young 2004, p. 653‑659; Rothman 2005, p. 15; Rothman 2011, p. 195‑197.

62.

Young 2004, p. 659; Rothman 2005, p. 15.

63.

Summers 2013a, p. 170.

64.

Summers 2013a, p. 170.

39

40

Giulio Palumbi

millennium BC, which were also among the most northern sites with evidence of Uruk expansion. The analogies between the cultural processes that took place in the Kangavar Valley, as described at Godin Tepe, and in the Anatolian Upper Euphrates, as recorded at Arslantepe, draw two identical trajectories worthy of comparison as they can offer a different view of the dynamics underlying the expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in these regions.

The Upper Euphrates Valley in the fourth millennium. Arslantepe VIA During the second half of the fourth millennium BC, the Anatolian Upper Euphrates was the northernmost area affected by Uruk expansion and its impact is clearly recorded in phase VIA at Arslantepe, one of the most important regional centres during this period. During phase VIA at Arslantepe, a monumental architectural complex (fig. 5a), probably the residence of a local elite, was constructed. The influence of the Uruk culture is clearly visible in this building: in some repertoires of the wheel‑made ceramics (fig. 5d‑e); in the iconographic traits and narratives of the glyptic (fig. 5b); and, finally, in the motifs and paintings decorating the long corridor (fig. 5c), the main axis of communication in the monumental complex  65. The hundreds of clay sealings found in this complex testifies to the existence of a complex apparatus of functionaries in control of economic transactions consisting of the centralised storing of products, presumably food, that was later redistributed (as it witnessed by ubiquitous and abundant presence of ration bowls) [fig. 5f]  66. The development of a centrally controlled economy at Arslantepe was also coupled with an increasing specialization in craft and primary production. Both ceramics (wheel‑made and mass-produced) and metals (the hoard of weapons found in one of the rooms of the monumental building) provide clear evidence of these changes  67. However, wheel‑made pottery inspired by Uruk repertoires did not make up the majority of ceramic production at the site, as there was a significant component of Red‑Black Burnished Ware (RBBW). This production shows analogies with the repertoires from contemporary Central Anatolia (fig. 5g) and also shares an important technical-aesthetic feature with the latter region, namely the “alternate” red‑black pattern. In the “alternate” red‑black pattern (different from the Kura‑Araxes “fixed” red‑black pattern), the colour black “shifts” from the internal to the external surface of the vessel according to the function of the container: open shapes feature black interior surfaces and red exterior surfaces, while closed shapes feature black external and red internal surfaces (fig. 5h)  68. As for primary production, faunal data reveals a marked change towards specialization. The husbandry strategies at Arslantepe VIA see a steep increase in caprines (70%) when compared to the first half of the fourth millennium BC  69? As has been observed at Godin Tepe, these specialized husbandry strategies are fully consistent with the trend seen widely in regions affected by the Uruk phenomenon in the second half of the fourth millennium BC, where centralised economies were becoming prominent during this period. At the very end of the fourth millennium BC, the public complex at Arslantepe was destroyed by heavy fire and, like the Oval Compound at Godin Tepe, was never reconstructed.

65.

Frangipane 1997.

66.

Frangipane 2007.

67.

D’Anna and Guarino 2012; Hauptmann et al. 2002.

68.

Palumbi 2008b.

69.

Frangipane and Siracusano 1998; Bartosiewicz 2010; Palumbi 2010.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Fig. 5 – Arslantepe phase VIA. a. Plan of the Monumental complex; b. Clay sealing in Uruk style; c. Wall paintings of the corridor; d‑e. Uruk related pottery; f. Wheel‑made mass produced bowls and clay sealings; g‑h. Red‑black Central Anatolian related pottery (a‑h: Archivio Missione Italiana ad Arslantepe).

41

42

Giulio Palumbi

Arslantepe VIB1 The following phase – VIB1, dating to 3000‑2900 BC – marked a sharp break from the past. The phase consisted of several levels of occupation. Like at Godin Tepe, the earliest of these was characterised by “light” forms of occupation: wooden and wattle and daub architecture employed for the construction of huts and fences (fig. 6a)  70. Some of these huts were internally furnished with round fire‑places with a central hole analogous to former chalcolithic fire installations. Like at Godin Tepe, this first level – possibly connected with a temporary occupation of the site – was followed by more substantial architectural evidence, probably connected with more permanent forms of occupation. Probably the most substantial of these structures is a large mud brick building (Building 36) [fig. 6b‑d] composed of a long rectangular room with a large circular fireplace (A1000) and of a smaller adjoining room (A1369) that – as it contains large numbers of pithoi and jars – can be unequivocally interpreted as a storage room  71. It has been suggested that the functions of this building, where two metal spear‑heads were also found, were linked to ceremonial or ritual activities, thus further strengthening the analogies with Godin Tepe, where a large two‑roomed ceremonial ritual building was constructed in phase IV:1b. During phase VIB1 at Arslantepe there is also a radical break in the ceramic traditions compared to the wheel‑made Uruk-related ceramics of phase VIA. During phase VIB1, the ceramics were all hand‑made and Red‑Black Burnished Ware made up the majority of the assemblage  72. These changes went hand in hand with changes in the morphological repertoires, which, like at Godin Tepe IV, recall typical Kura‑Araxes traits (fig. 6c). Clearly recognizable are: the jars with cylindrical necks; the circular lids; and, finally the consistent presence of handles on both closed and open shapes. All of the above are a clear “signature” of Kura‑Araxes material culture. In spite of these changes, the RBBW of phase VIB1 maintains an element of continuity with the red‑black traditions of the earlier phase VIA, namely in its fundamental technique: the persistence of the red‑black alternate pattern in the open shapes (fig. 6e‑f ), already in use in the fourth millennium BC. Red‑black ceramics from phase VIB1 at Arslantepe seem to be a hybrid production mingling local traditional manufacturing techniques (red‑black alternate pattern) with the new Kura‑Araxes traditions  73. Finally, there is another extremely important element of “structural” continuity that links phase VIB1 to the earlier phase VIA: the husbandry strategies. Faunal data from phase VIB1 has been interpreted as evidence of specialized strategies focusing on caprines (70‑90%), as specialized as those of the Uruk period  74. This, coupled with “light” architecture possibly linked to temporary forms of occupation, may indicate that the community at Arslantepe was pastoral and possibly transhumant during phase VIB1. Owing to the clear Kura‑Araxes influence visible in the ceramic repertoire, this community has been traditionally interpreted, like phase IV at Godin Tepe, as a foreign Kura‑Araxes community that migrated into the region of the Upper Euphrates at the very beginning of the third millennium BC. However, data on the settlement patterns of the Malatya region and of the Upper Euphrates Valley in general at the very beginning of the third millennium, does not reveal significant changes that can be interpreted as evidence of the arrival of newcomers.

70.

Frangipane 2012; Frangipane 2014.

71.

Frangipane 2014.

72.

Palumbi 2008a.

73.

Palumbi 2012.

74.

Siracusano and Bartosiewicz 2012; Siracusano and Palumbi 2014.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Fig. 6 – Arslantepe phase VIB1. a. Plan of the earliest occupation (VIB1/1) with pits and post‑holes; b, d. The ceremonial building (Building 36); c. Kura‑Araxes related pottery from Building 36; e‑f. Bowls featuring the red‑black alternate pattern (black interior surface) [a‑f: Archivio Missione Italiana ad Arslantepe].

Comparing Godin Tepe and Arslantepe. Concluding remarks A set of striking analogies can be made between the occupational sequence and the cultural developments that took place between the second half of the fourth and the beginning of the third millennium BC at the Iranian site of Godin Tepe and at Arslantepe in the Anatolian Upper Euphrates Valley (tab. 1). Both sites are among the northernmost settlements of the so‑called “Uruk expansion”, both are substantial in size and both have large architectural complexes with evidence of administration connected to the management of the local economy. The emergence of a specialized pastoralism at both sites could be a measure of the capacity of the local administrators to control local economies. At Arslantepe there is sufficient data to prove that this control was exerted in the context of a centrally

43

44

Giulio Palumbi

administered economy, and from this point of view the available data at Godin Tepe, even if less substantial than at Arslantepe, does not undermine the hypothesis that a similar model could have been adopted at this site. At the end of the fourth millennium BC the destruction of these architectural complexes marks the disappearance of these Uruk‑related bureaucratic powers and of their economies. Not long after, at the very beginning of the third millennium BC, new and possibly temporary settlements, built with “light” materials, are found at both Arslantepe and Godin Tepe. At both sites, these “light” occupations are associated with specialized husbandry strategies focusing on caprines, a strong element of continuity with the same specialized pastoral trend of the Uruk period. Finally, during the early‑third millennium BC, in occupational layers interpreted as pastoral at both Godin Tepe and Arslantepe, we find the large scale introduction of a Kura‑Araxes style material culture, especially in ceramic repertoires. This evidence argues for the importance of the role of these early‑third millennium BC specialized pastoralists played as vectors of the Kura‑Araxes cultures at Godin Tepe and Arslantepe. But who were these pastoralists, what were their origins and from which regions did they come? Before answering these questions, it must be stressed that several archaeozoological works have pointed out that specialized pastoralism focused on caprines was not part of the mode of subsistence and economic strategies of the Kura‑Araxes communities of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia, where it is possible to record in each region diversified rearing strategies possibly aimed, as several authors have suggested, at minimizing risks and enhancing the stability of the local economies  75. So, specialized pastoralism in the fourth millennium BC is more likely to be linked with the centralised economic models that were part of the Uruk “model”. I have already pointed out in previous works that the characteristics of the material cultural assemblage of the pastoral community of phase VIB1 at Arslantepe – a mixture of local, central Anatolian and Kura‑Araxes traits – calls into question the interpretation that this was a foreign Kura‑Araxes community that migrated in the Euphrates Valley at the very beginning of the third millennium BC  76. Rather, the continuities linking these groups to the local cultural traditions of the fourth millennium (RBBW with the alternate pattern, circular fireplaces) and the fact that these groups carried out the same specialized pastoral strategies as those of the Uruk period substantiate the hypothesis that this could have been a local community, even possibly a direct descendant of the specialized pastoralists that populated the Upper Euphrates Valley during the Uruk period. Going back to phase IV at Godin Tepe, the striking analogies with the occupational and cultural dynamics that took place in phase VIB1 at Arslantepe has been stressed in several parts of this paper. Taking into account these analogies, is it legitimate to propose a similar conclusion to that proposed for Arslantepe VIB1? Were these people foreign Kura‑Araxes pastoralists that migrated to the Kangavar Valley from the “north”, or was it a local community descending from the same specialized pastoralists of the Uruk period who, during the early third millennium BC, started a process of radical re‑orientation towards the Kura‑Araxes cultural sphere? A conclusive answer to these questions probably does not exist, and without doubt more data is necessary to solve this “enigma”. Indeed, the presence of Kura‑Araxes ceramics in the later levels of occupation of the Oval Compound suggest that there was already some interaction with the northern regions by the late fourth millennium BC. It is possible, as Rothman suggested  77, that these interactions with the communities of skilled Kura‑Araxes metallurgists were encouraged by the opportunities offered by the Uruk networks of interregional trade, however it cannot be excluded, and this second hypothesis is not in contrast with the former, that the practices of specialized pastoralism that emerged at Godin Tepe in the Uruk period could have further strengthened the interactions with the northern regions of Iran.

75.

Sagona and Zimansky 2009, p. 191.

76.

Palumbi 2012.

77.

Rothman 2011, p. 158.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Table 1 – Comparison of the occupational and cultural developments between Godin Tepe and Arslantepe during the Uruk and Kura‑Araxes phases of occupation.

The strong continuity in specialized husbandry practices that began in the Uruk period and continued in the Kura‑Araxes phase IV support the assumption that the early‑third millennium pastoralists of Godin Tepe were the direct descendants of the specialized pastoralists of the Uruk period. Taking into consideration this element of “structural” continuity, the possibility that the Kura‑Araxes culture reached the Kangavar Valley not because it was brought by exogenous northerly Kura‑Araxes people who migrated into the region at the beginning of the third millennium BC, but because this culture was adopted in the region by local communities of pastoralists may represent another possible hypothesis. The arguments presented in this paper cannot and do not want to exclude the possibility that the settlements Kangavar Valley in the third millennium BC could have received flows of “Kura‑Araxes” people coming from the northern regions. As Rothman has pointed out, a single easy explanation cannot account for the variability of highly complex cultural changes connected to the expansion of the Early Transcaucasian Culture  78. The development, transmission and “expansion” of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran could have been the result of multiple dynamics played out by simultaneously by different actors. However, the paradigm of the northern migration for the expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in the Kangavar Valley may not be the only explanatory model and the present data suggest that local pastoralists played a fundamental role in this expansion. I suggest that it was the transformative impact of the centralised Uruk model over the societies and the economies of the Iranian highlands that activated a synergy between Uruk pastoralists and northern Kura‑Araxes communities in the fourth millennium BC, and it was this that was the structural prerequisite for the expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in the Kangavar Valley during the early‑third millennium BC.

78.

Rothman 2005, p. 10.

45

46

Giulio Palumbi

References Abedi A. and Omrani B. 2015, “Kura‑Araxes Culture and NW Iran after Yanik: new perspectives from Kul Tepe (Hadishahr) Excavations”, Paleorient 41/1, p. 55‑68. Abedi A., Eskandari N., Khatib Shahidi H., Sharahi I. and Shirzadeh G. 2014, “New evidence from Dalma and Kura‑Araxes Culture at Tapeh Qal‘e‑ye‑Sarsakhti”, Iran and the Caucasus 18, p. 101‑114. Algaze G. 1989, “The Uruk expansion: cross‑cultural exchange in the early Mesopotamian civilization”, Current Anthropology 30, p. 571‑608. Algaze G. 2001, “The prehistory of imperialism: the case of Uruk period Mesopotamia”, in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe, p. 27‑84. Alizadeh A. 2010, “The rise of the highland Elamite state in southwestern Iran. Enclosed or Enclosing Nomadism?”, Current Anthropology 51/3, p. 353‑383. Azarnoush M. and Helwing B. 2005, “Recent archaeological research in Iran – Prehistory to Iron Age”, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 189‑246. Badalyan R. 2014, “Kura‑Araxes complex – on the status of the cultural phenomenon (new data and former issues of periodization and chronology of Early Bronze Age materials in Armenia)”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 71‑92. Badler V. 2002, “A chronology of Uruk Artifacts from Godin Tepe in Central Western Iran and Implications for the Interrelationships between the Local and Foreign Cultures”, in N. Postgate (ed.), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Iraq Archaeological Reports 5, Warminster, England, p. 79‑110. Badler V. 2011, “Wine and beer residue analysis on Godin period IV pottery”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 106. Bartosiewicz L. 2010, “Herding in Period VIA. Development and Changes from Period VII”, in M. Frangipane (ed.), Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th millennium Arslantepe, Rome, p. 119‑148. Breniquet C. 2008, Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie, des premières communautés sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J.‑C., Paris. Burney C. 1961, “Excavations at Yanik Tepe, North‑West Iran”, Iraq 23/2, p. 138‑153. Burney C. 1962, “The excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1961: second preliminary report”, Iraq 24/2, p. 134‑152. Burney C. 1964, “The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962: third preliminary report”, Iraq 26/1, p. 54‑61. Courcier A. 2007, “La métallurgie dans les pays du Caucase au Chalcolithique et au début de l’Âge du Bronze : bilan des études et perspectives nouvelles”, in B. Lyonnet (ed.), Les Cultures du Caucase VIe‑IIIe millénaires avant notre ère. Leurs relations avec le Proche‑Orient, Paris, p. 199‑232. Crabtree P. 2011a, “The animal bone from Godin Period VI”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 109. Crabtree P. 2011b, “Animal remains at Godin Period IV”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 178. D’Anna M.B. and Guarino P. 2012, “Pottery Production and Use at Arslantepe between Periods VII and VIA. Evidence for social and economic change”, Origini 34, p. 59‑77. Fahimi H. 2005, “Kura‑Araxes type pottery from Gilan and the eastern extension of the Early Transcaucasian culture”, Archäeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 123‑132. Fazeli Nashli H. and Abbasnezhad Sereshti R. 2005, “Social transformation and interregional interaction in the Qazvin Plain during the 5th, 4th and 3rd millennia B.C.”, Archäeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 7‑26.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Fazeli Nashli H., Valipour H.R. and Azizi Kharanaghi M.H. 2013, “The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Qazvin and Tehran Plains: a chronological perspective”, in C. Petrie (ed.), Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours, Oxford, p. 104‑126. Forest J.D. 1999, “Les jeux de l’adoption et de l’adaptation : l’emprunt de modèles architecturaux à la Mésopotamie du IVe millénaire”, in F. Braemer, S. Cleuziou and A. Coudart (ed.), Habitat et Société. XIXe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, Antibes, p. 167‑180. Frangipane M. 1997, “A 4th  millennium temple/palace complex at Arslantepe-Malatya. North-South relations and the formation of early state societies in the northern regions of Greater Mesopotamia”, Paléorient 23/1, p. 45‑73. Frangipane M. 2001, “Centralization processes in Greater Mesopotamia. Uruk ‘expansion’ as the climax of systemic interactions among areas of the greater Mesopotamian region”, in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe, p. 307‑348. Frangipane M. 2007, “Thousand of cretaluae in the fourth millennium ‘palatial’ complex at Arslantepe (period VI A, LC5): the archaeological contetxs”, in M. Frangipane (ed.), Arslantepe Cretulae. An Early Centralised Administrative System Before Writing, Rome, p. 25‑60. Frangipane M. 2012, “The collapse of the 4th millennium centralised system at Arslantepe and the far‑reaching changes in 3rd millennium societies”, Origini 34, p. 237‑260. Frangipane M. 2014, “After collapse: continuity and disruption in the settlement by Kura‑Araxes-linked pastoral groups at Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey). New data”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 169‑182. Frangipane M. and Siracusano G. 1998, “Changes in Subsistence Strategies in East Anatolia during the 4th and 3rd Millennium BC”, in L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem and W. Meid (ed.), Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sandor Bököny, Budapest, p. 237‑246. Greenberg R. and Palumbi G. 2014, “Corridors and colonies: comparing fourth‑third millennia BC interactions in southeast Anatolia and the Levant”, in B. Knapp and P. Van Dommelen (ed.), The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, Cambridge, p. 111‑138. Gopnik H. 2011, “Introduction: Godin Tepe on the High Road”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 1‑3. Gopnik H. and Rothman M. (ed.) 2011, On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto. Hauptmann A., Schmitt-Strecker S., Begemann F. and Palmieri A.M. 2002, “Chemical Composition and Lead Isotopy of Metal Objects from the ‘Royal’ Tomb and other Related Finds at Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia”, Paléorient 28/2, p. 43‑69. Matthews R. 2013, “The power of writing: administrative activity at Godin Tepe, Central Zagros, in the later fourth millennium  BC”, in C.  Petrie  (ed.), Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours, Oxford, p. 337‑351. Mohammadifar Y., Motarjem A. and Torabzadeh Khorasani H. 2009, “Tepe Pissa: new investigations at a Kura‑Araxes site in central western Iran”, Antiquity 83/320, available at: http://antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/mohammadifar1/. Palumbi G. 2007, “From collective burials to symbols of power. The translation of role and meanings of the stone‑lined cist burial tradition from southern Caucasus to the Euphrates valley”, Scienze dell’Antichità 14, p. 17‑44. Palumbi G. 2008a, The Red and Black. Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC, Rome. Palumbi G. 2008b, “Mid‑Fourth Millennium Red‑Black Burnished Wares from Anatolia: a Cross-Comparison”, in K. Rubinson and A. Sagona (ed.), Ceramics in Transitions: Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands, Leuven, p. 39‑58. Palumbi G. 2010, “Pastoral Models and Centralised Animal Husbandry. The Case of Arslantepe”, in M. Frangipane (ed.), Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th millennium Arslantepe, Rome, p. 149‑163.

47

48

Giulio Palumbi

Palumbi G. 2012, “Bridging the frontiers. Pastoral groups in the Upper Euphrates region in the early third millennium BC”, Origini 34, p. 261‑278. Palumbi G. 2017, “Push or pull factors? The Kura‑Araxes ‘expansion’ from a different perspective: the Upper Euphrates Valley”, in E. Rova and M. Tonussi (ed.), At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology: Recent Research on Caucasia and Anatolia in the Bronze Age, Humboldt Kolleg Conference Proceedings Venice 8‑11 January 2013, Subartu XXXVIII, Turnhout, p. 113-132. Piller C. 2012, “Neue Erkenntnisse zur Verbreitung der Kura‑Araxes-Kultur in Nord- und Zentraliran”, in H. Baker, K. Kaniuth and A. Otto (ed.), Stories of long ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf, Munster, p. 441‑457. Piro J. 2009, Pastoralism in the Early Transcaucasian Culture: the Faunal Remains from Sos Höyük, Ph.D. thesis, New York University (unpublished). Pollock S. 1999, Ancient Mesopotamia, Cambridge. Porter A. 2012, Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations, Cambridge. Rothman M. 2005, “Issues of the Uruk and Transcaucasian cultures at Godin”, Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 40, p. 9‑18.  Rothman M. 2011, “Migration and resettlement: Godin Period IV”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 139‑206. Rothman M. 2014, “Kura‑Araxes culture areas and the late 4th and early 3rd millennia pottery from Veli Sevin’s surveys in Malatya and Elazığ (Turkey)”, Origini 36, p. 37‑91. Rothman M. and Badler V. 2011, “Contact and development in Godin Period VI”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road. The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 67‑120. Sagona A. 1998, “Social identity and religious ritual in the Kura‑Araxes cultural complex: some observations from Sos Höyük”, Mediterranean Archaeology 11, p. 13‑25. Sagona A. 2004, “Social boundaries and ritual landscapes in late prehistoric Trans‑Caucasus and highland Anatolia”, in A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Herent, p. 475‑538. Sagona A. 2014, “Rethinking the Kura‑Araxes genesis”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 23‑46. Sagona A. and Zimansky P. 2009, Ancient Turkey, London. Schwartz G. 2001, “Syria and the Uruk expansion”, in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe, p. 233‑264. Simonyan H. and Rothman M. 2015, “Regarding ritual behaviour at Shengavit”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 52, p. 1‑45. Siracusano G. and Bartosiewicz L. 2012, “Meat consumption and sheep/goat exploitation in centralised and non-centralised economies at Arslantepe, Anatolia”, Origini 34, p. 111‑124. Siracusano G. and Palumbi G. 2014, “Who who’d be happy, let him be so: nothing’s sure about tomorrow. Discarded bones in an Early Bronze I élite area at Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey): remains of banquets?”, in P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D. Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak and Z. Wygnańska (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 30 April-4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, vol. 3, Wiesbaden. Smogorzewska A. 2004, “Andirons and their Role in Early Transcaucasian Culture”, Anatolica 30, p. 151‑177. Stein J. 2001, “Indigenous social complexity at Hacınebi (Turkey) and the organization of Uruk colonial contact”, in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe, p. 265‑306. Summers G. 2004, “Yanik Tepe and the Early Trans-Caucasian Culture: Problems and perspectives”, in A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Herent, p. 617‑643. Summers G. 2013a, “The Early Bronze Age in Northwestern Iran”, in D. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford, p. 161‑178.

The expansion of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk

Summers G. 2013b, Yaniktepe Nortwestern Iran. The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Stratigraphy and Architecture, Leuven. Vila E. 1998, Exploitation des Animaux en Mésopotamie aux IVe et IIIe millénaires avant J.‑C., Paris. Weiss H. and Young T.C. 1975, “The merchants of Susa. Godin V and plateau-lowland relations in the late fourth-millennium B.C.”, Iran 13, p. 1‑18. Young T.C. 2004, “The Kangavar survey. Periods VI to IV”, in A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Herent, p. 645‑660. Zeder M. 1988, “Understanding urban process through the study of specialized subsistence economy in the Near East”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7, p. 1‑55.

49

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far Sepideh Maziar Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main In the middle of the fourth and beginning of the third millennium BC, the southern part of Caucasus, eastern Anatolia, and northwestern Iran experienced a different cultural development characterized by special material culture identified as the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition. In this epoch of cultural prehistory, Iran has previously been considered as a peripheral area in comparison with its counterparts of the Mesopotamian heartland to the south, or even northern Mesopotamia. This concept either actuates fewer investigations in this area or studies with the focal point from lowland and its domination. The current chronological framework is also based on past archaeological data from more than four decades ago and surprisingly, since then, nothing has been added to evolve or develop our understanding of this period in Middle Eastern and Iranian history. In this article, reviewing the past studies, I address partly these shortcomings. Furthermore, investigating the new fresh data from the southern part of the Araxes Valley and comparing them with neighbour areas, I have tried to promote a better understanding of cultural dynamics and societal complexity of this timespan in this area. Au milieu du quatrième et troisième millénaire av. J.‑C., le sud du Caucase, l’Anatolie orientale et le nord‑ouest de l’Iran ont connu un développement culturel particulier caractérisé par une culture matérielle spécifique identifiée comme la tradition culturelle Kura‑Araxes. On a longtemps considéré que l’Iran était à cette période une zone périphérique en comparaison avec ses voisins du sud ou même du nord de la Mésopotamie. Ce concept de périphérie n’a guère suscité de recherches dans cette région ou bien il a engendré des études centrées sur la plaine et sa domination. Le cadre chronologique actuel s’appuie aussi sur des données archéologiques vieilles de plus de quatre décennies et, étonnamment, depuis, rien n’a été ajouté pour faire évoluer ou développer nos connaissances de cette période dans l’histoire du Moyen‑Orient et de l’Iran. Dans cet article, en examinant les études réalisées dans le passé, j’aborde en partie ces lacunes. En outre, à partir des nouvelles données du sud de la vallée de l’Araxe et en les comparant avec les régions voisines, j’ai tenté d’apporter ma contribution à une meilleure compréhension des dynamiques culturelles et de la complexité sociale dans cette région durant cette période.

‫ شرق آناتولی و شمال غرب ایران‬،‫در اواسط هزاره چهارم و اوایل هزاره سوم پیش از میالد در جنوب قفقاز‬ ‫ارس از مناطق جنوبی ماوراء قفقاز‬-‫ اقوام کورا‬،‫ در این بازه زمانی‬.‫شاهد ظهور پدیده فرهنگی پیچیده ای هستیم‬ ‫ مواد فرهنگی متعلق به آنان نیز در ابعادی‬،‫به سمت ایران مهاجرت می کنند و به همراه این حرکت جمعیتی‬ ‫ متاسفانه‬.‫ از شمال غرب ایران تا غرب و فالت مرکزی و حتی شمال ایران مشاهده می شود‬،‫بسیار گسترده‬ ‫ شمال غرب ایران در مقایسه با بین النهرین همیشه به عنوان‬،‫در مطالعات باستان شناختی مربوط به این دوره‬ ‫ در پژوهشهای اندک صورت گرفته‬.‫منطقه ای حاشیه ای در نظر گرفته شده و توجه کمتری به آن شده است‬ ‫ این حوضه همیشه از منظر بین النهرین و‬،‫ به خصوص در بازه زمانی هزاره پنجم و چهارم پیش از میالد‬،‫نیز‬ ‫در مقایسه ب‌ا آن مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته و جایگاه خود را در پژوهشهای مربوطه آنچنان که باید و شاید نیافته‬ ‫ چنانکه گاهنگاری موجود برای این منطقه در کمال تعجب همچنان متکی بر پژوهشهایی است که بیش از‬.‫است‬ .‫چهاردهه قبل انجام شده و متاسفانه از آن زمان تا کنون بازنگری و به روز نشده است‬ ،‫ عالوه براین‬.‫در این مقاله سعی شده است تا با بازبینی اطالعات موجود به بخشی از این مشکالت پرداخته شود‬ ‫ فهم‬،‫با بررسی یافته های اخیر از پژوهشهای صورت گرفته در جنوب دره ارس و مقایسه آن با مناطق مجاور‬ .‫بهتری از پویایی فرهنگی منطقه و ماهیت پیچیدگی های اجتماعی در این بازه زمانی خاص ارائه شده است‬

52

Sepideh Maziar

Introduction The period between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age, from ca. 4300 to ca. 2400 BC, is a crucial era, as it is known as the formative period of complex societies. During this period, human societies developed from simple villages to economically and politically integrated cities that specialized in a variety of occupations  1. Part of this era, from ca. 3400 to around 2400 BC, concurrent with the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic I‑III, Susa III or Proto-Elamite and Susa IV periods, saw huge changes in economics, politics, social life, and exchange systems. These changes initiated the first states with urbanization, economic specialization  2 and political hierarchy  3. This model is true for the lowlands and steppes of the Near East. However, it was not true for the highlands of the South Caucasus, northwestern Iran, and eastern Anatolia  4. In this timespan, the societies of the lowlands were struggling to find solutions for their problems of increasing agglomeration of population, a lack of raw materials, controlling social, political, economic organization through a complicated administrative system and hierarchical social categorie  5, productive specialization and standardization, or inter- and intra-regional trade networks with outposts in the neighboring resource extraction areas  6. However, in the highlands, during the time when the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition was in place, such a level of societal complexity did not evolve, even when encounters occurred with that other part of the world at sites such as Godin in Iran or Arslantepe in Central Anatolia.  

We know that Kura‑Araxes migrants expanded over a vast area from the southern and eastern parts of the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia, Northwest and western Iran as far as the southern Levant  7. What was the cultural and societal nature of Northwest Iran, before and after this startling expansion? And what were the characteristics of these disseminations in the lands of expansion? The dispersal area of Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition is so broad that one cannot address this issue thoroughly in such an article as this. I will rather focus on the Araxes Valley, especially the Iranian and immediately adjoining areas.

Fifth to the third millennia BC: Mesopotamianism phenomenon Around three decades ago, nobody had a comprehensive understanding of the fifth to the fourth millennium BC in the Near East. At that time, all roads led to Mesopotamia and the lowland scenario, whereas the mountainous regions to Mesopotamia’s north and east developed along a different trajectory. For many years only few sites of this area in the South Caucasus were excavated and published; however new data from excavations and surveys are filling in some gaps. They may indicate some kinds of connections with the Mesopotamian world. From several sites like Leyla Tepe and other related sites with the same materials such as Berikldeebi, Tekhut  8, Tsopi, Shida Kartli  9 a remnant

1.

Hole 1966, p. 605; Frangipane 2007; Frangipane 2010, p. 27‑35; Rothman 2001.

2.

For instance at Gawra XI. Algaze 1993; Rothman 2002a; Rothman 2002b; Frangipane 2000b, p. 228‑229; Nissen, Damerow and Englund 1990.

3.

Nissen 2001.

4.

With the possible exception of Arslantepe.

5.

Like at Gawra (Rothman 2002a; 2002b) and Arslantepe (Frangipane 1994; 2000a).

6.

Algaze 1993; Algaze 2012.

7.

For a general review of Kura‑Araxes settlements see Sagona 1984; for southern Caucasus, see Smith 2005; for eastern Anatolia, see Sagona and Zimansky 2010; for Iran, see Rothman 2011 and Summers 2013b; for the southern Levant, see Greenberg et al. 2012.

8.

See Narimanov 1985; Akhundov 2007.

9.

Nebieridze and Tskvitinidze 2010.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

of Uruk material has been reported  10 and some scholars propose that Uruk migrants appeared in the Caucasus  11. It is not clear, however, to what extent they were related to northern Mesopotamia  12; for example, for many years Chaff Faced Wares were considered a designator of Mesopotamian affiliation  13, which Marro later argues against  14.  

In Iran, as well, most of the known sites that were recognized or excavated in the 60s and 70s were labeled Ubaid or Uruk related cultures, or simply local cultures that form part of the periphery. “Mesopotamianism  15” was very pervasive and everybody, especially in Iran or even southern Caucasus, tried to relate everything to Mesopotamia, perhaps to equip the findings with an importance equal to their Mesopotamian counterparts  16. This concept leads to fewer investigations in this area or to studies with the focal point on the lowland and its domination. Rather, in the highlands we should have a completely different attitude, since nothing is the same: neither landscape nor policies, social and subsistence economy or cultural dynamics. All of these differences engender different basic requirements, which determine different strategies and mechanisms. On the other hand, in Iran only rarely have sites of this period been excavated or properly published  17 so that they would provide any comprehensive conceptualization of this period. In northwestern Iran, we have only rare signs of Uruk or any Mesopotamian contacts in terms of material objects of clearly Mesopotamian origin, and only some potsherds in the southern part of Urmia Lake, in the Zab River basin, have been reported  18. Nevertheless, some scholars speak about the impact of the Uruk expansion and also its collapse as a result of Kura‑Araxes dispersal  19 or the stimulation of their movements  20. Without clear proof of interaction of Mesopotamian and Kura‑Araxes populations, a proof which is lacking in Northwest Iran and South Caucasus, we should be cautious about such causation   21. Perhaps, a better starting point is an examination of the local social and cultural mechanisms in the different regions. Once we better understand these people, who were utilizing symbols of Kura‑Araxes identity, and their societal organization, we can begin to discuss cross-cultural interactions.

Kura-Araxes cultural tradition in northwestern Iran; a closer look In comparison to the other areas of Kura‑Araxes origin or dispersal, less attention has been paid to Iran. Our knowledge of this horizon in Iran is very ambiguous. That is in part because most of the excavations clustered around Urmia Lake and fieldwork and surveys were not equally distributed to cover the whole area (fig. 3). Besides, these surveys were mostly carried out in the past 50 years; that is, in the 1960s

10.

Many scholars also see this affiliation, for instance see Marro 2007; Akhundov 2007; Lyonnet 2007.

11.

Pitskhelauri 2012.

12.

Here only Late Chalcolithic settlements with Uruk related sherds are considered and a phenomenon such as the Maikop culture is not included, since it has different cultural mechanisms and dynamics in comparison to these settlements and should be discussed elsewhere.

13.

See Lyonnet 2007, for a general overview see Marro 2010.

14.

Marro 2010.

15.

In modern history this word has a different meaning, see for instance Davis 2005.

16.

See for instance Narimanov 1985; Henrickson 1985; Henrickson 1989. For the same discussion see Weeks, Petrie and Potts 2010, p. 247.

17.

Voigt and Dyson 1992; Petrie 2013.

18.

Binandeh 2011.

19.

Danti, Voigt and Dyson 2004; Summers 2013a; Wilkinson 2014, see also Palumbi this volume.

20.

Palumbi and Chataigner 2014.

21.

For a general overview of Northwest Iran and Mesopotamia in Early Bronze Age see Meyer 2001.

53

54

Sepideh Maziar

and 70s. Most of them covered a vast area  22, making the results less accurate, and most of them were geography-oriented. We are hence confronted with a serious dearth of information about other parts. For instance, as is shown in figure 3, no systematic surveys have yet been carried out in many parts of Northwest Iran. This unequal distribution of data should be taken into account, since it could be a source of potential bias in the interpretation of settlement pattern or material culture dispersal.  

This fact also lies at the bottom of more shortcomings in our understanding of the Kura‑Araxes tradition in Iran. For instance, in the map published by Roaf   23, the eastern boundary of the Kura‑Araxes extension zone is limited to just ca. 100 km east of Yanik Tepe; other parts are not included and the eastern parts even left blank. So far, due to sites such as Yanik or Haftavan Tepe, it has been assumed that the Kura‑Araxes emergence in Iran did not occur earlier than ca. 3000 BC, which means the second phase of the Kura‑Araxes horizon, however, the series of new excavations and consequently new radiocarbon dating from Kul Tepe near Jolfa  24, pushed this date back for 600 years, a fact which we shall address later (see tab. 1). It was with the excavation of Geoy Tepe in 1948 that, for the first time, the Kura‑Araxes material culture was revealed from a systematic archaeological context  25, although the excavator did not relate these materials to the Kura‑Araxes culture, which was not yet so familiar at the time; he just proposed some affinities with Khirbet Kerak and other findings from Georgia and eastern Anatolia  26. It was Charles Burney, who added the term “ETC culture” to the cultural literature of northwestern Iran with his excavations at Yanik Tepe and later at Haftavan Tepe. Afterwards, the Gijlar Tepe excavation in 1978 evolved our understanding of this culture  27. Furthermore, outstanding results of Wolfram Kleiss’ surveys  28 added more parts to the distribution area puzzle of this culture. Swiny was another archaeologist who recognized some Kura‑Araxes sites in the southern part of Urmia Lake  29, and then it was with the excavation of Godin Tepe that another village related to this culture was excavated to a considerable extent  30. Young’s surveys revealed more Kura‑Araxes settlements in the Kangavar Plain  31 and Howell elaborated this map by introducing some new sites in the Malayer Plain with Kura‑Araxes sherds  32. Recent work in this western part of Iran has acknowledged more data about the distribution of Kura‑Araxes and has demonstrated that the interlude of this cultural tradition was even more complicated than had already been assumed  33. Burton Brown had also excavated Kura‑Araxes layers in Kara Tape and Barlekin in Shahriyar in the Karaj province near Tehran, which presented for the first time the wider dispersal of this tradition as far as Central Iran  34. Later with the launch of new archaeological projects in the Qazvin and nearby plains, more sites with Kura‑Araxes potsherds in the Qazvin Plain, and one other at Shizar in the Abhar Plain were introduced (fig. 1)  35. Besides, revisiting the past materials from Kleiss’ survey

22.

For instance Swiny 1975.

23.

Roaf 1990, p. 80.

24.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014.

25.

Burton Brown 1951.

26.

Burton Brown 1951, p. 52.

27.

Pecorella and Salvini 1984.

28.

Kleiss and Kroll 1979; Kleiss and Kroll 1992; Kroll 1984; Kroll 2005.

29.

Swiny 1975.

30.

Rothman 2011.

31.

Young 2004.

32.

Howell 1979.

33.

Motarjem and Niknami 2011.

34.

Burton Brown 1981; Piller 2012, p. 445‑446.

35.

Fazeli and Abbasnegad 2005, p. 22‑23; Fazeli, Valipour and Azizi Kharanaghi 2013, p. 122.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

in Shahriyar near Tehran revealed some other sites with the same sherds  36. The new survey and excavation results in the Markazi province, in the southwestern part of Arak  37, demonstrate that the distribution area of this tradition is more widespread. The Kura‑Araxes diaspora expanded as far as northern Iran  38, where it had, presumably, a different social and cultural mechanism  39 (fig. 1: sites 31 and 32). Such a vast area of dispersal (fig. 2), which comprises different landscapes and cultural entities, requires us to refute the consideration of distribution of this phenomenon as a simple dispersal of some groups along the roads on their ways, rather we should conceptualize the distribution – as Rothman suggests  40 – as ripples in the stream, rather than a coherent single wave of migration. Generally, Burney and accordingly Summers divided this period into three phases namely ETC I, ETC II, and ETC III  41. Synchronization and the comparison of internal changes in the other Kura‑Araxes settlements is hampered by dearth of related evidence from other excavated sites, and actually the lack of sites excavated in the same scale as Yanik Tepe. Despite this deficiency, based on the excavated sites up until now, this tradition appeared on the Northwest and western Iran around 2900 BC (Kura‑Araxes II period). Kul Tepe near Jolfa as an exception includes the earlier phase which dated back to ca. 3500 BC (KA I). The end of the Kura‑Araxes tradition is still an enigma. There are different scenarios and dating site to site  42. However, due to recently published C14 dating  43, this final phase can be fitted to ca. 2400 cal BC. In this regard, unlike the proposed chronology for Armenia  44, the periodization of the Kura‑Araxes tradition in Iran includes three temporal phases. Phase I extends from 3600-3500 to 2900 BC, Phase II from 2900 to 2700-2600 BC, and Phase III ranges from 2700-2600 to 2400 BC (tab. 3).

Table 1 – Chronological table of northwestern Iran. 1. Khaksar, Hemati Azandaryanu and Nourozi 2015. 2. Not 2 sigma and calibrated, Voigt and Dyson 1992, p. 178.

36.

Piller 2012, p. 453.

37.

Abedi, Eskandari et al. 2014.

38.

Fahimi 2005.

39.

I have discussed this issue in my PhD dissertation that will be published later.

40.

Rothman 2003.

41.

Summers 1982, p. 128.

42.

For the review of these scenarios see Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018.

43.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014; Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018.

44.

Badalyan, Avetisyan and Smith 2009.

55

56

Sepideh Maziar

Fig. 1 – Map of Northwest Iran, showing the location of Kura‑Araxes settlements and other sites mentioned in the text. 1. Nadir Tepesi; 2. Kohne Pasgah Tepesi; 3. Kohne Tepesi; 4. Kul Tepe near Jolfa; 5. Kultepe I; 6. Kultepe II; 7. Maxta; 8. Ovcular Tepesi; 9. Sos hoyuk; 10. Leila Tepe; 11. Areni I; 12. NASP 16; 13. Surtepe; 14. Xalaç; 15. Arabyenigaah; 16. Ravaz; 17. Baruj; 18. Yanik Tape; 19. Haftvan Tape; 20. Gijlar; 21. Geoy Tape; 22. Hasanlu; 23. Pisa; 24. Godin; 25. Gurab; 26. Qoli Darvish; 27. Balekin; 28. Duranabad; 29. Shizar; 30. Ismailabad; 31. Kelar; 32. Diarjan; 33. Toragaytepe; 34. Baba Darvish; 35. Tsopi; 36. Berikldeebi; 37. Arslantepe.

Fig. 2 – Expansion area of Kura‑Araxes culture inside Iran.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Fig. 3 – Distribution of archaeological fieldwork in northwestern Iran (based on publications).

Based on Yanik Tepe and Haftavan material culture, the difference between ETC II and ETC III is more based on minor changes in pottery but major changes in the form of architecture from circular in Phase II to “agglomerative rectangular” in Phase III  45, which could even be a sign of hiatus between the two periods  46. This tripartite division is the case also in other excavated settlements such as Nadir Tepesi in the Moghan Steppe  47 or Kul Tepe near Jolfa  48. However, due to recently published C14 dating, there is a post-Kura-Araxes phase in the mentioned sites that can be fitted to ca. 2200‑1800 cal BC, which is later than the final phase of Kura-Araxes and is actually more comparable with Godin III: 6  49. Regardless of changes in the architecture, as Summers said  50, this set of chronology is not useful anymore, and based on new excavations and datings a new chronological framework should be drawn.  

Different reasons have been demonstrated as possible stimuli of Kura‑Araxes expansion into Iran. Some scholars regard the geographical position of the Urmia Basin as a pass between the Caspian Sea and Turkey, that people from the Caucasus could not avoid crossing  51. Rothman considers expanding of exchange networks and controlling parts of the trading networks of high roads as pull factors for the migration of

45.

Summers 1982, p. 7; Summers 2013b; Summers 2014.

46.

Summers 2014, p. 158.

47.

Alizadeh 2007; Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018, p. 469.

48.

See Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014.

49.

Thanks to Mitchell Rothman for pointing to this correlation.

50.

Summers 2013b, p. 180.

51.

Burney and Lang 1971, p. 7.

57

58

Sepideh Maziar

Kura‑Araxes groups into western Iran and especially Godin Tepe  52. Then this question comes to mind: if that was the main criterion for the migration, why have we not yet found some evidence of trade and administrative activities or exchange items at Kura‑Araxes settlements inside Iran? Perhaps this idea could be valid for Godin VI: 1, but would not apply to any other Kura‑Araxes settlement in Iran  53. Except obsidian, there is rarely any evidence of exchange, either in the form of idea and technology or in the form of objects  54. However, we still require more solid and amplified data in this part.

Geographical and cultural context of this study Tracking more precisely the characteristics and cultural changes of the fourth and third millennia BC, this study concentrates on a limited area (fig. 4). The boundaries of the studied area are to the north, the Araxes River, to the south, the Kiamaki and Qare Dagh Mountains, to the east, the Qare Su River and to the west, Jolfa. The definition of this area is based on our current information; unfortunately, there is no data from the eastern and western parts  55. Geographically and morphologically, the Araxes River flows through three different landscapes; the highlands of Turkey, a transitional region, and finally the lowland in its easternmost part. At first glance the varied landscape of the Araxes Valley is striking. It is more mountainous in the western and central parts, where the Araxes River flows in a narrow corridor, and just in some parts like Jolfa does it get wider; in its eastern parts it shapes wide fertile plains such as Khoda Afarin and the Moghan Steppe. We do not know the exact role of the Araxes River as a corridor of interaction in the dispersal of the Kura‑Araxes culture, and so far, there have been no attempts at synthetic investigations that would cover all parts of this corridor  56. In the western part, Sagona studied Sos Höyük, which is located on one of the Araxes River tributaries  57. Towards the east, Maxta I and Ovçular Tepesi are two other well‑stratified sites. The former is a small Early Bronze Age settlement of around 0.78 ha, situated 3 km away from the Araxes River at an elevation of 830 m above sea level  58. It was revisited in 2006 and yielded fresh carbon reading that dated the site to 3335‑2919 cal BC, considered the EB II period  59. Around 9 km away there lies Ovçular Tepesi, which changes some of the previous perceptions of the genesis of the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition  60. The main published information of this site is related to the Late Chalcolithic period, since most of the Early Bronze Age has been removed from the top of the site during Soviet times, and there is not yet considerable published evidence of this phase  61. Along the river, around 45 km away, Kültepe I and II are the other well‑known sites of this period. Kültepe I was excavated between 1955 and 1964  62 and later its excavation was resumed in 2011 by a French‑Azarbaijani team directed by

52.

Rothman 2011, p. 191‑192.

53.

See also Summers 2014.

54.

Although we should not forget the probable trade of perishable materials.

55.

Alizadeh and Ur carried out a survey in the Moghan Steppe but have not yet published thoroughly the results of their survey (see Alizadeh and Ur 2007). Kleiss and Kroll also visited parts of this area randomly (Kroll 1984; Kroll 2004).

56.

For instance see Sagona 2002. I address partly this issue somewhere else (see Maziar in press).

57.

Sagona and Sagona 2000.

58.

Ristvet, Baxseliyev and Aşurov 2011, p. 14.

59.

Ristvet, Baxseliyev and Aşurov 2011, p. 15.

60.

Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Berthon 2014.

61.

Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Ashurov 2009; Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Ashurov 2011.

62.

Abibullaev 1982.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Fig. 4 – Location of settlements along the Araxes Valley and the studied area (dashed line).

V. Bakhshaliyev and C. Marro. Kültepe II, however, at first excavated by Veli Aliyev in the 80’s and revisited and excavated again recently  63. Kültepe I has Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age levels and the nearby site of Kültepe II was occupied during the Early and Middle Bronze Age  64. They are situated at 965 m above sea level between the Nakhichevan Çay and the Cahri Çay. The archaeobotanical results demonstrate that the Kura‑Araxes settlements used more “specialized agricultural subsistence strategy” in comparison to Late Chalcolithic settlements  65. At Kültepe II, a potter’s kiln and a fragment of an ingot mold demonstrate a domestic production area  66. This craft production and specialization “did not appear under the aegis of an elite institution, rather ceramic and metal production occurred at the household level”  67. The earliest Kura‑Araxes levels dated to the mid‑late fourth millennium BC around 3360‑3013 2 sigma calibrated  68. Despite sites as Kültepe I and II and Maxta I, it seems that the confluence area of Arpaçay-Araxes was not settled intensely during the Early Bronze Age as only two kurgans, five settlements and one site near a stone quarry have been recognized (fig. 1: sites 12‑15  69). Veli Bakhshaliyev surveyed parts of Nakhichevan  70, and later a team from Pennsylvania University joined the group to survey

63.

Ristvet, Baxşaliev and Aşurov 2011.

64.

Ristvet, Baxseliyev and Aşurov 2011, p. 11.

65.

Ristvet, Baxseliyev and Aşurov 2011, p. 17.

66.

Courcier, Lyonnet and Guliyev 2012.

67.

Ristvet, Baxşaliev and Aşurov 2011, p. 19.

68.

Ristvet, Baxseliyev and Aşurov 2011, p. 13, table 1.

69.

Based on Parker et al. 2011, p. 192‑194.

70.

Bakhshaliyev 2006.

59

60

Sepideh Maziar

systematically the Şerur Rayon. During their survey, they recognized only three Chalcolithic sites  71 namely Ovçular, Xalaç, and Derelyez. This range of sites expanded during the Kura‑Araxes period to include a cemetery and seven settlements  72. From the rest of the northern part of the Araxes River, we have no reliable information. There are more Late Chalcolithic and Kura‑Araxes settlements; however, we do not yet have systematic thorough information about them but know them just through some regional surveys  73. Due to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict part of this area is inaccessible. The next spot, which yielded some scattered information, is in the eastern part of the Karabakh and Moghan regions  74. Unfortunately, most of the attested data of these regions are only basic and preliminary and there is no detailed evidence of their material culture. As becomes clear from this overview, there exists only a rough dataset from the northern part and there is still much to do. The situation in the southern part is not better. The only systematic survey was limited to the Moghan Plain, of which just a little is published  75. Furthermore, Nadir Tepesi is another Kura‑Araxes site, that was surveyed and excavated and stands as the only excavated Kura‑Araxes site in the Moghan Plain  76. Some parts of this area were also the subject of random visits  77. In this regard, after the rescue project of the Khoda Afarin Plain  78, as a second step a systematic survey was carried out under the “Archaeological Project of the Araxes Valley (APAV)” along the river, from the Khoda Afarin to the Jolfa Plain; a distance of 110 km, the results of which are still being processed  79. Thanks to infrastructure and dam projects and recent archaeological fieldwork in this area, we know four excavated settlements from this period (tab. 2), namely Nadir Tepesi, Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, Kohne Tepesi, and Kul Tepe near Jolfa. The following part will address these sites rigorously in order to add new evidence from this so far little known area. Site dimension No.

Name

Height (m. asl.)

Site type

Area ha

1

Nadir Tepesi

153

5?

2

Kohne Pasgah Tepesi

330

0.5

3

Kohne Tepesi

310

0.7

4

Kul Tepe

968

4

5

Kültepe I

965

6

Kültepe II

7

Maxta

8 9

Natural hill or fan

Mound (Tepe) X

Depth of deposite

Pottery traditions

6

KA II, III

X

4

LC (Sioni, CFW), KA I?, II

X

6

KA II, III

X

11.5

NE, EC (Dalma), LC (Pisdeli, Sioni, CFW), KA I, II, III

?

X

8*

NE, LC (CFW?)

965

10

X

7

KA II, III?

830

0.78

2

KA I?, II

Ovçular

896

3

6 m*

LC (Sioni, CFW, KA), EB (KA)

Sos Höyük

1800

1.2

?

LC (Sioni), KA I, II, III

X X

Table 2 – Settlement attributes of the studied sites along the Araxes Valley.

71.

In the mentioned article they were termed Eneolithic sites (Ristvet, Baxşaliev and Aşurov 2011, p. 7).

72.

Ristvet, Baxseliyev and Aşurov 2011, p. 7.

73.

Bakhshaliyev and Novruzov 2010; Narimanov 2007.

74.

Narimanov 2007; Akhundov 2011; Helwing 2012.

75.

Alizadeh and Ur 2007.

76.

On the Iranian side.

77.

Kroll 1984.

78.

Maziar 2010.

79.

Maziar 2015.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Site

KA I Ca. 3500-3000

KA II a Ca. 3000-2700/2600

KA III Ca. 2600-2450 b

End

Kul Tepe*

(V) Round mudbrick building with plain burnished grey-black and reddish-brown ware with excised and incised decoration

(IVA) Round mudbrick building with plain burnished black-grey and brown and several groove and dimple decorations and Nakhichevan handle

(IVB) Rectangular stone and mudbrick building with plain burnished black and grey‑brown ware

ca. 2300‑2200**/ Transition/ No gap, some Urmia ware evidence of coexistence

Kohne Tepe*

-

(I‑V) Rectilinear mudbrick building with (VI‑VII) Rectilinear mudbrick building plain burnished black‑grey and brown with plain burnished black‑grey and brown with groove and dimple‑incised decoration with incised decoration and Nakhichevan handle

ca. 2300‑2200**/ Gap abandonment

Kohne Pasgah

(II) No architecture with plain burnished orange/black brown ware (or KAII A?) with groove decoration

(III, IV) Round mudbrick building with plain burnished black‑grey and brown with groove and dimple decoration and Nakhichevan handle

?

-

Gap

Nadir Tepesi c

Round mudbrick building with plain black‑brown burnished with several groove and dimple decorations and Nakhichevan handle

Angular building with plain burnished black‑grey and brown with incised decoration and elbow‑shaped handle

ca. 2579‑2462/ abrupt end (violence?) followed by new tradition

Late Bronze Age?

Kohne Shahr*

-

(I‑III) Round stone building with plain (IV‑V) Round stone building with plain burburnished black‑grey and brown ware with nished black‑grey and brown ware with mini incised decoration Nakhichevan lug and elbow‑shaped handle, incised decoration and pieces of painted ware

Middle of the 3rd mil. BC

Gap

Yanik

-

(A) Round houses with plain burnished black‑grey and brown ware with Incised decoration, and with white filled excised and incised patterning

(B) Round 2500‑2400 BC houses and plain burnished Gap black‑grey and brown ware

Rectilinear building and plain burnished black‑grey and brown ware

ca. 2000?/abandonment

Gap

Haftavan*

-

?

? (VIII) Round houses and plain burnished black‑grey and brown with groove and dimple decoration

(VII) Rectilinear building with plain burnished black‑grey and brown ware

ca. 2000?/abandonment

POW/ Urmia Ware (HV VI)

Geoy

-

(K1, 2) Rectangular building and plain burnished black‑grey and brown with groove and dimple decoration

Middle of the 3rd mil. BC

POW?

Gijlar

-

(B) Round mudbrick houses and plain bur- (B) Rectangular building and plain ware nished black‑grey and brown with groove and dimple decoration

ca. 2200?

Gap

Godin

-

(IV) Rectangular building pottery with white filled excised and incised patterning

ca. 2500/Transition-cultural assimilation?

Transition/ Godin III

?

Godin III d

Post-KA

Table 3 – Simplified correlation among excavated Kura‑Araxes sites in Northwest and western Iran (After Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014; Summers 2013a-b; Summers 2014; Rothman 2011; Burton Brown 1951; Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018; Maziar 2010; Zalaghi et al. forthcoming). a) The conclusion of gathered scholars in Toronto was that there were only two Kura-Araxes periods, KA I (3500‑3000 BC) and KA II (2900‑2500 BC), and that after about 2500‑2450 BC the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition is no longer in existence. These scholars argued, that in the South Caucasus the black pottery tradition continued, but the other elements of the Kura‑Araxes had disappeared in favor of a mobile lifestyle (I am most grateful to M. Rothman for sharing this information, and for our long fruitful discussion about the phasing of the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition). However, multiple other sites, such as Yanik, Nadir Tepesi, Kul Tepe Hadishahr, or Kohne Shahr, demonstrate a transformation, which is considered by their excavators as KA III period. b) There is different dating for the end of the KA III period; most sites ended around 2500 and some other around 2200, based on C14 dating that should be verified with more samples. The proposed date should be considered as a date range of this period and for instance 2200 is not the terminus ante quem for all sites. c) I am grateful to K. Alizadeh for answering my questions regarding the chronology of Nadir Tepesi and Kohne Shahr, and A. Abedi for the dating of the Kura‑Araxes phases at Kul Tepe Hadishahr. d) At Godin Tepe III: 6 a small percentage of black and grey pottery continued, but it disappeared by 2500 BC (I am grateful to M. Rothman for this information). * It should be noted that the final reports of these excavations are not published yet, and considering the KA III phase in all of them is only based on the excavator’s statement. None of them have published the KA III material culture. Therefore, this table should be considered only as a current state of our knowledge regarding the Kura‑Araxes phasing in Iran based on current excavated sites, and should be verified based on more systematic excavations and the final reports of all these excavations. ** The available C14 dating of these sites propose a later date for the end of the Kura‑Araxes phase. More C14 is required to verify this date for the end of the phase at these sites.

61

62

Sepideh Maziar

Nadir Tepesi This site is located near the Qare Su River (fig. 5) a tributary of the Araxes River, and just ca. 500 m away from this river in the northwestern part of the Aslanduz (fig. 4: site 1). Rohollah Mohammadi did a Systematic Random Sampling on this site  80 and later in 2006 it was excavated by Karim Alizadeh  81. The site is located at 187 m above sea level and covers around 5 ha  82.

Fig. 5 – Nadir Tepesi.

The Tepe contains around 6 m of Kura‑Araxes culture deposits. Two main phases of Kura-Araxes were recognized (KA II, III) with the circular mudbrick building followed by rectangular building in the last phases  83. The end of the Kura‑Araxes period is demonstrated with a 2.5 m burned deposit and a sharp change of the material culture  84. The analysis of obsidian from this site shows that it does not originate from the Caucasus or Anatolia  85. The possible existence of an obsidian source inside Iran has already been suggested by the obsidian analyses of other areas in Northwest Iran  86.

Kohne Pasgah Tepesi 57 kilometers away from this site, two other Kura‑Araxes settlements were excavated in the Khoda Afarin Plain (fig. 6: sites 2 and 3). Both are located on the alluvial terraces, 300 m above sea level, and around one kilometer away from the Araxes River and Kaleibar Chay. Kohne Pasgah (fig. 7) and Kohne Tepesi are just 100 m away from each other, two small neighbors of around half a hectare each, in this period. However, at the end of Kura‑Araxes II Kohne Pasgah is abandoned while life continued at Kohne Tepesi.

80.

Mohammadi 2011.

81.

Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018.

82.

Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018, p. 467.

83.

Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018, p. 470.

84.

Alizadeh, Maziar and Mohammadi 2018, p. 470.

85.

Lame’ie et al. 2006.

86.

Ghorabi et al. 2008.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Fig. 6 – The location of Kohne Pasgah Tepesi and Kohne Tepesi and their distance to the Araxes River.

Fig. 7 – Kohne Pasgah Tepesi.

At Kohne Pasgah, around three meters of deposit of this period have been recognized. The Kura‑Araxes layers superimpose the Chalcolithic phase without any obvious gap. The earliest occupation in the Bronze Age (Phase II of Kohne Pasgah Tepesi) consists of 12 layers of green, grey and brown refuse including straw, reed, mud brick debris, ash, bones, obsidian debris and tools, and pottery sherds, which dated, very likely, to the first phases of Kura‑Araxes, although no carbon reading is available and the dating is only based on the comparative study of pottery sherds and their depositional

63

64

Sepideh Maziar

sequence. Of this phase, no structure was found and there is no other clue to help us to interpret this debris. Reed and clay with straws should have been related to architectural structures, none of which is recognizable in the excavated area, which probably suggests that either this part of the site was on the periphery of the residential area or that the site was just occupied temporarily or seasonally. Phase III has the thickest deposits (around 71 cm). Based on formation process and stratigraphy, four sub‑phases have been documented. These four sub‑phases are recognizable only on the basis of depositional stratigraphy, and there are no clear changes in pottery tradition that can be observed within the pottery of these sub‑phases. The prominent discovery of this phase is circular mud brick architecture. It was built directly on top of the Phase II remains without any foundation. Besides two Manqál, on top of each other, the remains of a thatch roof were recognized. The whole excavated architectural remains were composed of one circular space, half of which was excavated, and a wall of a related structure. The materials retrieved inside were not rich enough to help us interpret their function. In any case, they belonged to a household. It seems that the circular structure was subject to conflagration, which left a thick layer of charcoaled timber, burned wood and ashes inside the mentioned areas. The upper part of this phase is disturbed due to later activities in the Iron Age. After this phase, the site is abandoned and resettled in the Iron Age. Two samples of radiocarbon dating place this phase with the Kura‑Araxes II period, dating to 2800‑2600 BC.  

The study of faunal remains shows that hunting was not an important activity at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi  87. Most of the bones come from domestic animals and traces of human activities such as burning and cut marks can be observed on many of them, which could be representative of consumption activities in the site. Bone was also used as raw material for making tools or other artifacts. The subsistence economy of this site is mostly based on the exploitation of Caprines (64%), and especially Ovis. However, the important role of Bovines (25%), which constitutes more than 50% of the weight of faunal remains, should not be disregarded  88. The study of archaeobotanical remains shows no significant variation from the environment or agricultural practices during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. The trees belonging to riparian species were the best represented, a fact, which could demonstrate that this area in the Chalcolithic period was as good a pasture as today and that, during both periods, this area had a high density of trees. The results of charcoal and seed studies demonstrate that harvest related activities (threshing, sifting, riddling) and probably the cultivation took also place at the site. Besides, cereals (wheat and barley) and fruit form part of a Kohne Pasgah resident’s diet and it seems that they had diverse sources of food  89.

Kohne Tepesi Kohne Tepesi (fig. 8) is located just 100 m away from Kohne Pasgah Tepesi (fig. 7). Ali Zalaghi, Bayram Aghlari in the first season in 2006 and Ali Zalaghi and myself excavated it in 2007 as part of a dam rescue project  90. As has been mentioned above, this site was probably occupied in part simultaneously with Kohne Pasgah, but endured longer; six meters of deposit illustrate this longevity. The earliest phase is represented by dense, long‑lived occupation remains comprised of layers of refuse. No structure or architecture was found in the excavated area, but two meters of green and ash accumulation. The next phases are composed of different architectural phases with stone foundation and mud brick debris.

87.

Marjan Mashkour and Fatemeh Azedeh Mohaseb have studied this assemblage, to whom I am so grateful.

88.

See Decaix, Mohased et al. this volume.

89.

See Decaix, Mohased et al. this volume.

90.

For the rescue project, see Maziar 2010.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Fig. 8 – Kohne Tepesi.

Based on pottery and comparative chronology all these sub‑phases could be related to Kura‑Araxes II and III. Of interest are the remains of a kiln and also two chamber tombs accompanied by faunal burials and some ceramics as offerings. These remains demonstrate a kind of domestic production  91 in this site, and are also representative of burial customs with considerable burial offerings, which is demonstrated for the first time of this phase of the Kura‑Araxes culture in Northwest Iran. The results of floral remains are still pending. The faunal remains demonstrate that, like at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, Caprines are dominant (63%), however the contribution of Bovines is also considerable (21%), and it forms again 46.3% of the weight of faunal remains  92. The remains of hunted animals, birds, and fish demonstrate the biodiversity of this area in this period and the diversity of food diet among Kura‑Araxes societies.

Kul Tepe near Jolfa Kul Tepe is located near the city of Jolfa (in Alamdar - Gargar), covers about 4‑6 ha (fig. 9) and, in comparison to other sites, is with around 968 m above sea level situated at a higher elevation. It was excavated in 2010 by Hamid Khatib Shahidi and Akbar Abedi. At Kul Tepe, like at Kohne Pasgah, the Kura‑Araxes layers superimpose the Chalcolithic phase without any recognizable gap and, based on carbon readings, the site covers all phases of the Kura‑Araxes horizon from 3500  onwards  93. The Kura‑Araxes horizon is represented by 11.5 meters of deposit showing that this site was a key spot for around one millennium of its occupation. Unlike Nadir Tepesi, both the Kura‑Araxes I and II phases are represented by circular structures, and it seems likely that in Kura‑Araxes III, like at Nadir Tepesi  94, the rectangular architecture replaced the circular form  95. The end of the Kura‑Araxes period was not abruptly or with violence in this site and even some evidence of transition and coexistence is attested  96.

91.

However, remains of such activity, such as deformed pottery sherds or slags, have not been found around these structures, and it seems that they were cleaned before abandonment.

92.

See Decaix, Mohased et al. this volume.

93.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014.

94.

Alizadeh 2007.

95.

In the published article of Kul Tepe both Phases II and III come in one part and it is not clear which form of architecture belongs to which phase. It is just mentioned that in Trench 1 there are four building phases, of which the first one is circular and the other three phases were rectangular (Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014, p. 47‑49).

96.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014.

65

66

Sepideh Maziar

Fig. 9 – Kul Tepe near Jolfa.

 

Some evidence of metallurgy and craft production was found at the site. It is composed of a metal furnace from the Late Chalcolithic phase (Phase VI B), and remains of a mould from Kura‑Araxes II. Part of a pottery kiln was found from the Kura‑Araxes I phase  97. Obsidian analysis shows eight different sources  98, which demonstrate an expansive network between Kul Tepe and other sites.

Kura-Araxes cultural tradition in the Araxes Valley Unfortunately, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict prevented the scholars from doing systematic surveys or excavations in this part so that our information of the region north of the Araxes River is still vague. During the last decades and in recent years some projects in Nakhichevan have shed more light on the earlier periods in this area  99. However, the study of CORONA Satellite imagery dating to the 1960s, has shown, just in the Nakhichevan area, substantial damaging and levelling of the sites due to agricultural activities or infrastructure projects such as the Araxes River dam or the Arpaçay and Moghan dam  100 so that the chances to retrieve the genuine cultural landscape have diminished. The presented data demonstrate that in the southern parts of the Araxes River area, most of the settlements are located on the alluvial fans, while in the eastern part they were concentrated more on the lower terraces around 200-300 m above sea level, with the exception of Kul Tepe near Jolfa in the western part, which is located at around 936 m above sea level. Evidently, the settlers did not choose areas with the same characteristics but landscapes with different geomorphological and vegetational

97.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014, p. 45.

98.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014, p. 58.

99.

Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Ashurov 2009 ; Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Ashurov 2011; Ristvet, Baxşaliev and Aşurov 2011.

100.

Ristvet, Baxşaliev and Aşurov 2011, p. 6; Alizadeh and Ur 2007.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

criteria and ecosystems that require different habitus. Settling areas of such highly deviating elevations could either demonstrate the flexibility of economic, social, and cultural mechanisms or the “cultural and social variability” of Kura‑Araxes communities. We do not yet know much about the internal relations and interactions among these societies. Generally, all of the settlements are small and, due to faunal and floral remains studies, could have been sedentary villages ranging between 0.5 and 4 ha. They had a very simple form of architecture, mostly wattle and daub, no public building, no administration, no sign of downright metallurgy, or hint at elite or hierarchy is recognized. All these settlements, except Kohne Tepesi, are excavated in a limited area, and could not provide any evidence about household and social characteristics of these societies. Due to the preliminary studies of floral and faunal remains, it seems that we are confronted with agro‑pastoral groups, which is comparable to the results of faunal studies in other areas  101. Results of the provenance of obsidian samples from different settlements in northwestern Iran, from the Neolithic period to the Kura‑Araxes phase and later, demonstrate a vast system of obsidian exchange networks during different periods  102. The main source, though, seems to be Syunik-Gegham  103. The sources in Turkey, mostly around the Van, were another important spot in this expansive network  104. It seems that these groups were engaged in obsidian networks, although except obsidian, no traces of other exchange materials have been recognized. This could promote some hypotheses; either they were only engaged in a limited trade and exchange of obsidian with their neighbors, and obsidian was the only item that they demanded, or the exchanged materials were perishable goods. However, these inferences are based on present excavated data and other scenarios could still emerge with material from the new excavations. Studying the pottery, we could see that unlike in areas around the Urmia Lake, the pervasive pottery traditions in the Araxes Valley, and especially its southern parts, are Chaff‑faced and Sioni traditions in the first half of the fourth millennium BC. However, at Kul Tepe near Jolfa, Pisdeli painted potteries were also reported  105. It is not clear whether Sioni or Chaff‑Faced traditions are at home in the southern part of the Araxes Valley or whether they just form part of general Late Chalcolithic assemblages, since on the one hand we do not have all typical forms such as serrated rims or related architecture, and on the other hand the only attested assemblage in Late Chalcolithic of the southern part of the Araxes Valley consists of these Sioni with Chaff Faced Wares (except Pisdeli tradition at Kul Tepe near Jolfa), which would strengthen the hypothesis that these two traditions are at home there. The scanty number of related excavated sites of this period and the dearth of information still leave a conundrum. Afterwards, all of these sites became part of the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition territory. When we assemble the data from some of the excavated settlements along the Araxes River (see tab. 2), some preliminary inferences can be drawn. As has already been mentioned, in the middle of the fourth millennium, most of the previous Late Chalcolithic sites were abandoned, and only three of them; Kohne Pasgah, Kul Tepe near Jolfa and Ovçular Tepesi, were resettled in the middle or last part of the fourth millennium BC. No other local culture has been recognized in this area, and all we know is the remains of Kura‑Araxes settlements. Only three of the nine mentioned sites extend over both periods and show a degree of continuity (sites 2, 4 and 8). However, at Sos Höyük some Sioni potsherds were found in the Late Chalcolithic phase  106, which makes it as one of the latest occurrences of this tradition. As Sagona mentioned, at Sos Höyük the sherds belong to Phase V A,

101.

Piro 2009.

102.

For a general overview see Maziar and Glascock 2017.

103.

Ghorabi et al. 2010, p. 19; Blackman et al. 1998; Maziar and Glascock 2017.

104.

Blackman et al. 1998.

105.

Abedi, Khatib Shahidi et al. 2014, p. 39‑40.

106.

Kiguradze and Sagona 2003, p. 48.

67

68

Sepideh Maziar

which dates between 3500-3300 and 3000 BC  107, whereas in the Khoda Afarin Plain, for instance, they date to ca. 3900‑3700 cal BC. The six other sites are situated either on virgin soil or have been established after a gap (like site 5). The find of Kura‑Araxes potsherds in a sealed Late Chalcolithic context besides other groups in Areni I makes the analysis of this phenomenon and especially its genesis more complex. Based on recent data  108, it seems that this phenomenon is not, as already supposed  109, a development and an evolution of the Late Chalcolithic culture, but both of them were contemporary with each other, have their own trajectories, different technologies in pottery production and craft specialization, at least in the middle of the Araxes Basin  110. Putting the fourth millennium BC in a broader context, the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age has different trajectories in the Near East. Given sites such as Arslantepe, Norşuntepe, and other sites in the Upper Euphrates, there was a “cultural breakdown at the end of the fourth millennium”  111, whereas northeastern and eastern Anatolia experienced parallel developments in harmony with South Caucasus  112. In the southern Caucasus, we are confronted with a kind of multiculturality, characterized at least by the Maikop culture, which developed sooner in the beginning of the fourth millennium BCE  113, Kurgan traditions and Kura‑Araxes groups, who partly migrated to southern (northwestern Iran) or western (eastern Anatolia) and eastern areas (Daghestan   114). northwestern Iran is also made up of different cultural zones, which were partly settled or resettled by Kura‑Araxes groups, partly abandoned their settlements and some areas with their own local cultures namely the southern part of Urmia Lake that is well known by its Painted Orange ware around the end of KA II phase  115.

Final remark In the last phases of the Chalcolithic period, we are confronted with changes in the cultural atmosphere of northwestern Iran. Many Late Chalcolithic sites were abandoned, or some of them were superimposed by new traditions, either after a gap or with no clear sign of a gap. Whatever the case was, we see changes in settlement dynamics, such as refusing to resettle the past Chalcolithic sites and choosing, in most of the cases not all, the deserted areas, in material culture such as pottery, and in models of interaction of these societies. However, these changes were not homogeneous in all parts of northwestern Iran and each area has its own trajectories. At the end of the fourth and beginning of the third millennium BC, we observe an expansive presence of Kura‑Araxes culture not only around Urmia Lake but also as far as Mazandaran, the Qazvin Plain, Kermanshah, Nahavand, the Malayer plains and even the southern part of the Arak province. Along with this wide area of dissemination, every region has its own cultural entity, for instance in the Qazvin Plain or the Arak province. If we examine the general date of appearance of Kura‑Araxes tradition along its expansional area, we notice that this dispersal was neither systematically nor in the same time.

107.

Sagona 2000.

108.

Marro 2011; Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Berthon 2014.

109.

Kiguradze and Sagona 2003.

110.

Marro 2011, p. 295.

111.

Marro 2011, p. 300.

112.

Palumbi 2011.

113.

Lyonnet 2000.

114.

Kohl 2009, p. 246‑247.

115.

Danti, Voigt and Dyson 2004.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

However, we see that in some cases, they interlude to the area as far as they could, like eastern part of Urmia Lake, and in the other area, they just stop and did not go further, like western part of the Urmia Lake. If it was as an existence of local cultures in those areas or their resistance, then what would be our interpretation about sites as Godin or Kul Tepe near Jolfa, that were as well already settled. So it seems that Rothman models fit appropriately in this context. I do believe, as Kohl  116 and Rothman  117, that Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition is a long‑term process and not a simple event that happened once upon a time. It contains different phases of recognition, interaction, and then movement. The transition in pottery and architecture foreground a tripartite phase for many sites (see tab. 3). However, the dearth of C14 dating and lack of systematic excavated and well stratified Kura‑Araxes sites makes this argument still tentative and should be verified with more evidence. Given three C14 dating from Nadir Tepesi, Kohne Tepe and Kul Tepe near Jolfa, the end of the Kura‑Araxes horizon is confined to ca. 2400 BC. The attested data could be meaningfully interpreted only when we are able to put them in a broader context. In this regard, the future activities and investigations in this area, especially the Araxes River basin, and also the other parts of northwestern Iran will shed more light on the cultural dynamics, socio-economical character of this culture and perhaps the pull factors of Kura‑Araxes migration into Iran.

Acknowledgment I would like to thank the organizers of this symposium for providing the chance to discuss critical issues of the third millennium in Iran. My thanks go further to Prof. Meyer and the Enki group at Goethe University (Verein zur Förderung archäologischer Grabungen) for the support and funding of my survey project, respectively. Mitchell Rothman kindly read the first draft of this article and added useful comments, for which I am grateful to him. I would also like to thank an anonymous reviewer for useful comments. All errors are, of course, my own.

References Abedi A., Eskandari N., Khatib Shahidi H., Sharahi I. and Shirzadeh G. 2014, “New Evidence from Dalma and Kura‑Araxes Culture at Tapeh Qale‑ye‑Sarsakhti”, Iran and the Caucasus 18, p. 101‑114. A bedi   A., K hatib S hahidi   H., C hataigner  Chr., N iknami   K., E skandari   N., K azempour  M., Pirmohammadi A., Hosseinzadeh J. and Ebrahimi Gh. 2014, “Excavation at Kul Tepe (Hadishahr), North‑Western Iran, 2010: First Preliminary Report”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 51, p. 33‑165. Abibullaev O.A. 1982, Eneolit i Bronza na Territorii Nakhičevanskoj ASSR [Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the region of Nakhichevan in Soviet Azerbaijan], Baku. Akhundov T. 2007, “Sites de migrants venus du Proche‑Orient en Transcaucasie”, in B. Lyonnet (ed.), Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe‑IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche‑Orient, Paris, p. 95‑122. Akhundov T. 2011, “Памятники Муганской степи и предпосылки расселения ранних земледельцев на Южном Кавказе в эпоху неолита-энеолита” [Archaeological sites of the Mugan Steppe and prerequisites for agricultural settlement in the South Caucasus in the Neolithic-Eneolithic], Stratum plus 2, p. 1‑18.

116.

Kohl 2007, p. 25.

117.

Rothman 2003.

69

70

Sepideh Maziar

Algaze G. 1993, The Uruk World System, Chicago. Algaze G. 2012, “The End of Prehistory and the Uruk Period”, in H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World, London, p. 68‑94. Alizadeh K. 2007, “Excavations at Nadir Tepesi, Aslanduz, Dasht‑e Moghan”, Archaeological Reports 7/2, Gozareshhaye Bastanshenasi, Tehran, p. 263‑285 (in Persian). Alizadeh K. and Ur J.A. 2007, “Patterned Creation and Structured Destruction: Pastoral and Irrigation Landscapes on the Mughan Steppe, Northwestern Iran”, Antiquity 81/311, p. 148‑160. Alizadeh K., Maziar S. and Mohammadi M. 2018, “The End of the Kura‑Araxes ‘Culture’ as Seen from Nadir Tepesi in Iranian Azerbaijan”, American Journal of Archaeology 122/3, p. 463‑477. Badalyan R., Avetisyan P. and Smith A.T. 2009, “Periodization and chronology of southern Caucasia: from the Early Bronze Age through the Iron I period”, in A.T. Smith and R.S. Badalyan (ed.), The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies, vol. I. The foundations of Research and Regional Survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia, OIP 134, Chicago, p. 33‑93. Bakhshaliyev V. 2006, Azərbaycan arxeologiyası, Baku. Bakhshaliyev V. and Novruzov Z. 2010, Sirabda arxeoloji araşdirmalar, Baku. Binandeh A. 2011, “Prehistoric Settlements of Little Zab River Basin in North West of Iran”, SUBARTU 4‑5, p. 3‑9. Blackman J., Badalian R., Kikodze Z. and Kohl P. 1998, “Chemical characterization of Caucasian Obsidian: Geological sources”, in M.‑Cl. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.‑L. Poidevin and Chr. Chataigner (ed.), L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen-Orient : Du volcan à l’outil, BAR International Series 738, Oxford, p. 205‑234. Burney Ch. and Lang D. 1971, The Peoples of The Hills, Ancient Ararat and Caucasus, London. Burton Brown T. 1951, Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, London. Burton Brown T. 1981, Barlekin, Woodstock, Oxfordshire. Courcier A., Lyonnet B. and Guliyev F. 2012, “Metallurgy during the Middle Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Caucasus: Insight through Recent Discoveries at Mentesh-Tepe, Azerbaijan”, in P.  Jett, B. McCarthy and J.G. Douglas (ed.), Scientific Research on Ancient Asian Metallurgy: Proceedings of the Fifth Forbes Symposium at the Freer Gallery of Art, London, p. 205‑224. Danti M., Voigt D.M. and Dyson R.H. (JR) 2004, “The search for the late chalcolithic/Early Bronze age transition in the Ushnu-Solduz valley, Iran”, in A. Sagona (ed.), View from the highlands: Archaeological studies in honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 12, p. 583‑616. Davis E. 2005, Memories of State: Politics, History, and Collective Identity in Modern Iraq, Berkeley. Fahimi H. 2005, “Kura‑Araxes type pottery from Gilan and the eastern extension of Early Trancaucasian Culture”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 123‑132. Fazeli N.H. and Abbasnegad R.S. 2005, “Social Transformation and International interaction in the Qazvin Plain during the 5th, 4th and 3th millennia B.C.”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 7‑26. Fazeli N.H., Valipour H.R. and Azizi Kharanaghi M.H. 2013, “The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Qazvin and Tehran plains: a chronological perspective”, in C. Petrie (ed.), Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long‑range Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC, British Institute of Persian Studies, Archaeological Monographs Series III, Oxford, p. 107‑129. Frangipane M. 1994, “The record function of clay sealings in early administrative systems as seen from Arslamepe-Malatya”, in P. Ferioli, E. Fiandra, G. Fissore and M. Frangipane (ed.), Archives before Writing, Turin, p. 125‑136. Frangipane M. 2000a, “The Late Chalcolithic/EB I sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and Cultural Remarks from a Frontier Site”, in C. Marro and H. Hauptmann (ed.), Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe et IIIe millénaires, Varia Anatolica XI, Paris, p. 439‑471.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Frangipane M. 2000b, “The development of administrative systems from collective to centralized economies in the Mesopotamian world”, in G. Feinman and L. Manzanilla (ed.), Cultural Evolution: Contemporary Viewpoints, New York, p. 215‑234. Frangipane M. 2007, “Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in Early Mesopotamia”, World Archaeology 39/2, p. 151‑176. Frangipane M. 2010, “Rise and collapse of the Late Uruk Centres in Upper Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia”, Scienze dell’Antichità 15, Rome, p. 25‑41. Ghorabi S., Glascock M.D., Khademi F., Rezaie A. and Feizkhah M. 2008, “A Geochemical Investigation of Obsidian Artifacts from Sites in Northwestern Iran”, International Association for Obsidian Studies Bulletin (IAOS) 39, p. 7‑10. Ghorabi S., Khademi Nadooshan F., Glascock M.D., Hejabari Noubari A. and Ghorbani M. 2010, “Provenance of Obsidian from Northwest Iran using XRAY fluroscence analysis and Neutron activation analysis”, International Association for Obsidian Studies Bulletin (IAOS) 43, p. 14‑20. Greenberg R., Paz S., Wengrow D. and Iserlis M. 2012, “Tel Bet Yeraḥ: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant”, Near Eastern Archaeology 75/2, p. 88‑107. Helwing B. 2012, “Late Chalcolithic craft traditions at the North‑Eastern ‘periphery’ of Mesopotamia: potters vs. smiths in the Southern Caucasus”, Origini: Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche 34, p. 201‑220. Henrickson E. 1985, “An Updated Chronology of the Early and Middle Chalcolithic of the Central Zagros Highlands, Western Iran”, Iran 23, p. 63‑108. Henrickson E. 1989, “Ceramic Evidence for Cultural Interaction between the Ubaid Tradition and the Central Zagros Highlands, Western Iran”, in E.F. Henrickson and I. Thuesen (ed.), Upon this Foundation: The Ubaid Reconsidered: Proceedings from the Ubaid Symposium, Elsinore, May 30th-June 1st 1988 (III), Copenhagen, p. 369‑404. Hole F. 1966, “Investigating the Origins of Mesopotamian Civilization”, Science  153/3736, New Series, p. 605‑611. Howell R. 1979, “Survey of the Malayer Plain”, Iran 17, p. 156‑157. Khaksar A., Hemati Azandaryanu E. and Nourozi A. 2015, “The Analysis of Yaniq culture at Tappeh Gourab of Malayer, based on stratigeraghical excavation”, Archaeological researches of Iran (Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran) 3, p. 47-66. Kiguradze T. and Sagona A. 2003, “On the Origins of the Kura‑Araxes Cultural Complex”, in A.T. Smith and K.S. Rubinson (ed.), Archaeology in the Borderland. Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, Los Angeles, p. 38‑94. Kleiss W. and Kroll S. 1979, “Ravaz und Yakhvali, zwei befestigte Plätze des 3. Jahrtausends”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 12, p. 27‑48. K leiss   W. and K roll  S. 1992, “Survey in Iranish-Ost-Azerbaidjan 1991. Architektur. Befunde aus vorgeschichtlicher bis hochmittelalterlicher Zeit”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 25, p. 1‑46. Kohl P. 2007, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Cambridge. Kohl P. 2009, “Origins, Homelands, and Migrations: Situating the Kura‑Araxes Early Transcaucasian ‘Culture’ within the History of Bronze Age Eurasia”, Tel Aviv 36, p. 241‑265. Kroll S. 1984, “Archäologische Fundplätze in Iranish-Ost-Azarbaijan”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 17, p. 13‑134. Kroll S. 2004, “Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maku and Khoy: Regions of Iranian Western Azarbaijan”, in M. Azarnoush (ed.), Proceedings of the international Symposium on Iranian archaeology: Northwestern Region, Tehran, p. 45‑53. Kroll S. 2005, “Early Bronze Age settlement patterns in the Orumiye Basin”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 115‑121.

71

72

Sepideh Maziar

Lame’ie R.M., Jalali F.F., Agha Ali Gol D., Oliaie P., Bahrololumi F. and Shokohi F. 2006, “Ta’in mansha obsidianhaye be dast amadeh az Nadir Tepe Aslanduz ba estefade az raveshe analyze PIXI” [Provenance of Obsidian from Nader tepe Aslanduz using PIXI analysis], Pazhuhesh haye Bastanshenasi va Motalea’te miyan reshte’i [Specialized journal of archaeological research and interdisciplinary issues], Tehran, p. 25‑32 (in Persian). Lyonnet B. 2000, “La Mésopotamie et le Caucase du Nord au IVe et au début du IIIe millénaires av. n. è.: leurs rapports et les problèmes chronologiques de la culture de Majkop. État de la question et nouvelles propositions”, in C. Marro and H. Hauptmann (ed.), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IV‑IIIrd. Millennium B.C. / Vom Euphrat in den Kaukasus: Vergleichende Chronologie des 4. und 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, 16‑19 décembre 1998, Varia Anatolica XI, Istanbul, p. 299‑320. Lyonnet B. (ed.) 2007, Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe‑IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, Paris. Marro C. 2007, “Upper-Mesopotamia and Transcaucasia in the Late Chalcolithic Period (4000‑3500 BC)”, in B. Lyonnet (ed.), Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe‑IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, Paris, p. 77‑94. Marro C. 2010, “Where did Late Chalcolithic chaff‑faced ware originate? Cultural dynamics in Anatolia and Transcaucasia at the dawn of urban civilization (ca. 4500‑3500 BC)”, Paléorient 36/2, p. 35‑55. Marro C. 2011, “Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age”, in S. Steadman and G. MacMahon (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Anatolia 10,000‑323 BCE, Oxford, p. 290‑309. Marro C., Bakhshaliyev V. and Ashurov S. 2009, “Excavations at Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan). First Preliminary Report: the 2006‑2008 seasons”, Anatolia Antiqua 17, p. 31‑87. Marro C., Bakhshaliyev V. and Ashurov S. 2011, “Excavations at Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan). Second Preliminary Report: the 2009‑20010 seasons”, Anatolia Antiqua 19, p. 53‑100. Marro C., Bakhshaliyev V. and Berthon R. 2014, “On the genesis of the Kuro‑Araxes phenomenon: new evidence from Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan)”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 131‑154. Maziar S. 2010, “Excavations at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, the Araxes Valley, NW Iran: First Preliminary Report”, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47, p. 165‑193. Maziar S. 2015, “Settlement dynamics of the Kura Araxes culture: an overview of the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Khoda Afarin Plain, Northwest Iran”, Paléorient 41/1, p. 25‑36. Maziar S. in press, “Exploring beyond the river and inside the valleys; settlement development and cultural landscape of the Araxes River basin through time”, to appear in Iran. Maziar S. and Glascock M.D. 2017, “Communication Networks and Economical Interactions; Araxes Valley Obsidian Sourcing”, Journal of Archaeological science: Report 14. p. 31‑37. Meyer J.W. 2001, “Transkaukasus und Nordwest-Iran während der Frühen Bronzezeit”, in J.W. Meyer, M. Novak and A. Pruss (ed.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Winfried Orthman gewidmet, Frankfurt am Main, p. 310‑321. Mohammadi M.R. 2011, “Motale’ye farhang Kura Aras dar dasht e Moghan; bar asase barresiye bastanshenakhtiye Nadertepesi Aslanduz [The study of Kura Araxes culture in Moghan Plain; based on Archaeological survey of Nader Tapesi in Aslanduz]”, in Sh. Zare’ (ed.), Some Studies about Iranian history, culture and civilization; The articles of the Third Symposium of Iranian Young Archaeologists with an overview on perspective of Bam and Khorāsān Archaeology, Tehran, p. 81‑95 (in Persian). Motarjen A. and Niknami K. 2011, “Asr Mefragh ghadim dar shargh Zagros Markazi – Iran [Early Bronze Age in the eastern part of central Zagros]”, Motale’te Bastanshenasi 4, p. 35‑54 (in Persian). Narimanov I. 1985, “Obeidskiye Plemena Mesopotamii v Azerbaidzhane”, Abstracts of papers delivered at Vsesoyuznaya Arkheologicheskaya konferentsiya Dostizheniya Sovetskoi Arkheologii v XI Pyatiletke, Baku, p. 271‑272. Narimanov I. 2007, “Archaeological Sites of the Early Bronze Age in Northern Azerbaijan: A Gazetteer”, in A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 12, p. 467‑473.

Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far

Nebieridze L. and Tskvitinidze N. 2010, “The first traces of Uruk culture in the South Caucasus” [Первые следы Урукской культуры на Южном Кавказе], in International Scientific Conference The archeology ethnology folklore Caucasus, p. 178‑180. Nissen H.J. 2001, “Cultural and political networks in the ancient Near East during the fourth and third millennia BC”, in M. Rothman (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors, Santa Fe, p. 149‑180. Nissen H.J., Damerow P. and Englund R. 1990, Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient. Informationsspeicherung und verarbeitung vor 5000 Jahren, Berlin. Palumbi G. 2011, “The Chalcolithic of Eastern Anatolia”, in S. Steadman and G. McMahon (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, Oxford, p. 205‑226. Palumbi G. and Chataigner Chr. 2014, “The Kura-Araxes Culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity. A synthesis”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 247‑260. Parker B., Ristvet L., Bakhshaliyev V., Ashurov S. and Headman A. 2011, “In the Shadow of Ararat: Intensive Surveys in the Araxes River Region, Naxçıvan, Azerbaijan”, Anatolica 37, p. 187‑205. P ecorella  P.E. and S alvini  M. 1984, Tra lo Zagros e l’Urmia: ricerche storiche ed archeologiche nell’Azerbaigian iraniano 78, Rome. Petrie C.A. (ed.) 2013, Ancient Iran and Its Neighbors: Local Developments and Long‑range Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC, The British Institute of Persian Studies Archaeological Monographs Series III, Oxford. Piller C.K. 2012, “Neue Erkenntnisse zur Verbreitung der Kura‑Araxes-Kultur in Nord- und Zentraliran”, in H. Baker, K. Kaniuth and A. Otto (ed.), Stories of long ago, Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf, Münster, p. 441‑457. Piro  J. 2009, Pastoralism in the Early Transcaucasian Culture: The Faunal Remains from Sos Höyük. Ph.D. thesis, New York University (unpublished). Pitskhelauri K. 2012, “Uruk Migrants in the Caucasus”, Bulletin of the Georgian national academy of sciences 6/2, p. 153‑161. Ristvet L., Baxseliyev V. and Aşurov S. 2011, “Settlement and society in Naxçivan: 2006 excavations and survey of the Naxçivan archaeological project”, Iranica Antiqua XLVI, p. 1‑53. Roaf M. 1990, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, Oxford. Rothman M. (ed.) 2001, Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation, Santa Fe. Rothman M. 2002a, “Tepe Gawra: Chronology and socio-economic change in the foothills of northern Iraq in the era of state formation”, in N. Postgate (ed.), Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Wiltshire, p. 49‑77. Rothman M. 2002b, Tepe Gawra: The Evolution of a Small Prehistoric Center in Northern Iraq, Philadelphia. Rothman M. 2003, “Ripples in the Stream: Transcaucasia-Anatolian interaction in the Murat/Euphrates Basin at the Beginning of the Third Millennium BC”, in A.T. Smith and S. Rubinson (ed.), Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, Los Angeles, p. 95‑110. Rothman M.  2011, “Migration and resettlement: Godin Period IV”, in H. Gopnik and M. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Costa Mesa, p. 139‑208. Sagona A. 1984, The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 214, Oxford. Sagona A. 2000, “Sos Höyük and the Erzurum region in late prehistory: A provisional chronology for northeast Anatolia”, in C. Marro and H. Hauptmann (ed.), Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe‑IIIe millenaires: Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, 16‑19 décembre 1998, Paris, p. 329‑337. Sagona A. 2002, “Archaeology at the Headwaters of the Aras”, Ancient West and East 1/1, p. 46‑50. Sagona A. and Sagona C. 2000, “Excavations at Sos Höyük, 1998 to 2000: Fifth preliminary report”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 37, p. 56‑127.

73

74

Sepideh Maziar

Sagona A. and Zimansky P. 2010, Ancient Turkey, London. Smith A.T. 2005, “Prometheus Unbound: Southern Caucasia in Prehistory”, Journal of World Prehistory 19, p. 229‑279. Summers G.D. 1982, A study of the architecture, pottery and other material from Yanik Tepe, Haftavan VIII and related sites, PhD thesis, University of Manchester (unpublished). Summers G.D. 2013a, “The Early Bronze Age in northwestern Iran”, in D. Potts (ed.), The Oxford handbook of ancient Iran, p. 163‑180. Summers G.D. 2013b, Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran: The Early Trans-Caucasian Period, Stratigraphy and Architecture, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 41, Leuven. Summers G.D. 2014, “The Early Trans-Caucasian Culture in Iran: Perspectives and problems”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 155‑168. Swiny S. 1975, “Survey in North-West Iran, 1971”, East and West 25/1‑2, p. 77‑92. Voigt M.M. and Dyson R.H. 1992, “The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000‑2000 B.C.”, in R.W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in old world archaeology (3rd ed.), Chicago, p. 122‑178. Weeks L., Petrie C.A. and Potts D. 2010, “Ubaid-Related-Related? The Black-on-buff Ceramic Traditions of Highland Southwest Iran”, in R.A. Carter and G. Philip (ed.), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East, Chicago, p. 245‑276. Wilkinson T.C. 2014, “The Early Transcaucasian phenomenon in structural-systemic perspective: Cuisine, craft and economy”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 203‑229. Young C. 2004, “The Kangavar Survey-periods VI to IV”, in A. Sagona (ed.), A view from the highlands: Archaeological studies in honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 12, Leuven, p. 654‑660. Zalaghi A., Maziar S., Mashkour M., Sheikhi Sh. and Jayez M. forthcoming, “First preliminary report of the excavation of Kohne Tepesi (Eastern Azerbaijan), Northwest Iran”.

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Subsistence economy in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (eastern Azerbaijan, Iran) during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age based on the faunal and botanical remains Alexia Decaix UMR 7041-ArScAn (CNRS, Sorbonne Universités), Maison René Ginouvès, 21 allée de l’université, 92023 Nanterre; UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP 56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris Sepideh Maziar Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main Marjan Mashkour UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris Margareta Tengberg UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris This paper deals with the results obtained from the study of faunal and botanical remains from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (Iran). For archaeozoologists, the north-western part of Iran is one of the most important regions because of the abundance of bovines as well as ovicaprines. The traces of human activities are very well represented. Archaeobotanical studies are still rare in this area, but the first analysis of some recently excavated sites provide very interesting results and show the potential of this key area. This work present a multidisciplinary approach, which constitutes a first picture of interaction between human, animal and plants in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi during the Late Chalcolithic represented by Sioni and Chaff‑faced traditions and the Early Bronze Age by Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition. In this regards, the presented material in this article would enhance our understanding of the subsistence economy of these traditions inside Iran, of which rarely is published. Cet article présente les résultats des études menées sur les restes fauniques et botaniques provenant de Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (Iran). Pour les archéozoologues, le nord‑ouest de l’Iran est une région importante en raison de l’abondance de bovins et d’ovicaprins. Les indices d’activités humaines y sont très bien représentés. Si les études archéobotaniques sont encore rares dans cette région, les premières analyses de sites fouillés récemment donnent des résultats particulièrement intéressants et montrent le potentiel de cette région clé. Ce travail présente une approche multidisciplinaire, qui constitue une première image des interactions entre hommes, animaux et plantes à Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi durant le Chalcolithique récent, représenté par les traditions culturelles de type Sioni et Chaff‑Faced Ware, et l’âge du Bronze ancien, représenté par la tradition culturelle Kuro‑Araxe. Le matériel présenté dans cet article permettra d’améliorer notre compréhension des économies de subsistance de ces cultures en Iran, éléments jusqu’ici rarement publiés.

‫مقاله حاضر به نتایج بدست آمده از مطالعات باستان جانورشناختی و باستان گیاه شناختی محوطه باستانی‬ ‫ شمال غرب ایران به دلیل فراوانی گاو وهم چنین‬.‫کهنه پاسگاه تپه سی در شمال غرب ایران می پردازد‬ ‫ آثار فعالیت های‬.‫ یکی از مهمترین مناطق از دیدگاه باستان‌جانورشناختی به شمار می رود‬،‫گوسفند سانان‬

76

Alexia Decaix, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Sepideh Maziar, Marjan Mashkour, Margareta Tengberg

‫ با وجود اینکه مطالعات‬.‫انسانی بر روی بازمانده های حیوانی این محوطه به خوبی قابل مشاهده است‬ ‫ اما تجزیه و تحلیل اولیه در چند محوطه که به‬،‫باستان گیاه شناختی در این منطقه بسیار کم بوده است‬ ‫تازگی مورد کاوش قرار گرفته اند حاوی نتایج بسیار جالبی است که اهمیت این منطقه را بخوبی نشان می‬ ‫ جانور و گیاه در این محوطه در طی دوره‬،‫ مطالعه حاضر رویکردی چند جانبه شامل تقابل بین انسان‬.‫دهد‬ ‫ ارس شناخته می‬-‫مس و سنگی متاخر که با سفال سیونی و کاه رو و عصر مفرغ قدیم که با فرهنگ کورا‬ ‫ بنابراین با مطالعه مواد فرهنگی محوطه کهنه پاسگاه تپه سی به شناخت بهتری در مورد‬.‫ می باشد‬،‫شود‬ .‫اقتصاد معیشت در فرهنگ های این دو دوره در ایران دست خواهیم یافت‬

Introduction Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi is an archaeological site localized in the north‑western part of Iran, in the eastern Azerbaijan province on the south bank of the Araxes valley in Khoda-afarin plain. The main part of the excavation of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi was performed under the direction of J. Babapiri with the support of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR). Beside his excavation, three other trenches, TT6, TT6B, and S4 were excavated under the direction of S. Maziar. The studied material in this article just belongs to these three trenches and not the whole excavation  1. The excavations on top of the mound revealed remains from the Parthian period and beneath, layers dated from the Iron Age. After a gap, levels from the Early Bronze Age and Late Chalcolithic were excavated  2. Different sizes of bell‑shaped pits and part of the stone rows were excavated from Late Chalcolithic phase. Respectively, a circular mud‑brick architecture with different sub‑phases were uncovered from the Kura‑Araxes phase in the site  3. This paper represents a multidisciplinary approach in faunal and botanical studies of the site.

Material and methods Both botanical and faunal remains are coming from three trenches S4, TT6 and TT6B and are attributed to the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Faunal remains The faunal remains of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi consist of 1903 fragments from which 261 belong to the Late Chalcolithic and 1642 to the Early Bronze Age. Because of the low number of specifically identified specimens (n=347) during the Late Chalcolithic, we decided to pool together the faunal assemblages of the two periods. Bone preservation is not satisfactory in this site. As a result, almost 44% of the bones are identified neither anatomically nor specifically and the average weight of each unidentified bone is 1.5 g, which determines a high degree of fragmentation (tab. 1). Unfortunately, even among the identifiable bones, there is not enough measurable bone to provide statistical data on the morphology of the taxa, present at the site. Besides, the low number of herbivore cheek teeth in the faunal assemblage of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi, which provides valuable demographic information on herd management through tooth eruption and ware, is notable  4. The number of unfused bones, which is important for demographic analysis, is scarce. This may be related to the bad conditions of bone preservation, which affect more the younger animals.

1.

Maziar 2010.

2.

Maziar 2010.

3.

See Maziar in this volume.

4.

Payne 1973; Helmer and Vigne 2004.

SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY IN KOHNEH PASGAH TEPESI

Faunal assemblage

NF

NF%

Weight

Weight%

Specificaaly identified

347

18.2

3760

39.0

Small Ruminants

544

28.6

2086

21.6

Large Mammals

179

9.4

2552

26.5

Unidentified

833

43,8

1238

12.8

Total

1903

100.0

9636

100.0

Table 1 – Distribution of faunal remains in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of fragments (NF) and weight.

Botanical remains Sediment samples coming from ten stratigraphic units (SU) and containing charred macroremains were collected from various contexts. covering the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. preferentially with a high ash content. Indeed. pits and ashy layers are the main type of deposit sampled. Charred macrobotanical remains were extracted from the archaeological sediments using the flotation method. When we know the volume of soil sampled. the volume of samples varies from 6.5 to 65 liters (tab. 2). Following the study of 1172 seed and fruit remains and 231 charcoals, 49 taxa were identified. The density of seeds and fruits in the samples varies from 0.21 to 33.84 per liter of floated soil. The stratigraphic unit S4CatIV is the richest in terms of botanical macroremains (NR=626). Once brought to the laboratory, seeds and fruits remains were identified with the help of a binocular microscope allowing ×10 magnification. A reference collection of Near Eastern seeds and comparison atlases were used for the identification of archaeological samples  5. Charcoal fragments were fractioned manually along three wood sections for the anatomical observation  6. They were studied under an optical reflected-light microscope (x50‑x1000) and were identified by the use of reference collection of modern temperate, Mediterranean and Near Eastern woods, as well as descriptions in wood anatomy atlases  7. Taxa were identified as precisely as possible, that is most often to the genus level but in some cases it was difficult to distinguish between two different taxa, for example between poplar (Populus) and willow (Salix). Difficulties in botanical identification are most often due to similarities in the cellular structure between two closely related species but sometimes, the general preservation status can also affect the degree of precision of the identifications. In order to identify the largest spectrum of wood species as possible for each sample, each time we identified a new taxa, we observed 50 new charcoal pieces if the samples allows it  8. Period

6025 6026 6033 6052 6060 6068 6070 S4 Cat IV

6076

Cat VIII

Floated volume (L)

14.5

8.5

-

-

Total number of seeds and fruits remains (NR)

3

11

-

Minimum number of seeds and fruits

3

9

-

0.21

1.29

-

-

20

35

Number of charcoal fragments

Total

Early Bronze Age

Late Chalcolithic

Stratigraphic unit

24.5

6.5

-

220

30

-

137

21

7.5

10

7.6

65

18.5

152.6

27

4

251

626

1172

22

4

222

594

1012

33.84 -

7.68 231

8.98 4.62 3.60 0.53 3.86 52 74 50

Table 2 – List of samples studied in the framework of the archaeobotanical study.

5.

Berggren 1981; Jacomet 2006; Nesbitt and Goddard 2006; Cappers, Neef and Bekker 2009; Neef, Cappers and Bekker 2012; Cappers, Bekker and Jans 2012; Cappers and Bekker 2013.

6.

Chabal 1997; Schweingruber 1990.

7.

Schweingruber 1990; Parsah Pajouh, Schweingruber and Lenz 2001; Benkova and Schweingruber 2004; Schweingruber, Börner and Schulze 2011.

8.

Salavert et al. 2014.

77

78

Alexia Decaix, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Sepideh Maziar, Marjan Mashkour, Margareta Tengberg

Results The faunal spectra The faunal remains of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi consists of 1903 bone fragments weighed 9636 g. Besides the unidentified bones, 38% of the remains belong to two categories of Small ruminants (29%) comprising ovicaprines (sheep and goat) as well as gazelle and Large mammals (9%) comprising bovines and equids. Actually this part of the material can only be used for the general description of the faunal remains. The faunal spectra of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi assemblage is examined based on only a small part of the material (18%), which could be identified taxonomically (tab. 3 and fig. 1).

NISP% 50.0

Weight%

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

Fi sh

s ile Re pt

s Bi rd

us Le p

rs vo Ca rn i

ds Ce rv i

ids Su

s Ov i

Ca pr a

rin Ov i

ca p

Bo

s

es

0.0

Fig. 1 – Faunal spectra in two periods of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight.

 

The number of identified specimens (NISP) in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi is composed of 347 faunal remains. This assemblage is mainly composed of the small and large herbivores (especially ovicaprines and bovines). The most abundant group is the ovicaprines with a contribution of about 64% from which 11.5% are identified as sheep (Ovis) and 6.6% as goat (Capra)  9. The contribution of bovines is about 25%.  

Relative frequencies of the different taxa are also calculated on the basis of bone weight in gram. This method is used to estimate the relative meat contribution for each taxon and their relative economic value. The bone weights in table 3 and figure 1 indicate that bovines followed by ovicaprines, representing respectively 51% and 42% of the weight of the assemblage, play an equal role in the subsistence economy of the site. Among the other represented taxa two wild species of suids (3.5% of NISP) and cervids (1.4%) were represented in low quantities. The northern part of Iran is located in the natural distribution zone of both. This low representation confirms that hunting was not an important activity in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. Among the minor species, we could identify the remains of canids, felids,

9.

Boessneck 1969; Halstead and Collins 2002.

SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY IN KOHNEH PASGAH TEPESI

bear and also rabbit (Lepus europaeus). Among the felids, we observed a metatarsus, which could be allocated to a lion (Panthera leo). The presence of bear is confirmed with the presence of a calcaneus found in the Early Bronze Age levels (fig. 2). The main habitat of this animal is the forests and grasslands near forests. The province of Azerbaijan is one of the main distribution areas of this species in Iran  10. Taxa

NISP

NISP %

Weight

Weight %

Bos

87

25.1

1910

50.8

Ovicaprines

161

46.4

860

22.9

Capra

23

6.6

338

9.0

Ovis

40

11.5

376.4

10.0

Suids

12

3.5

128

3.4

Cervids

5

1.4

40

1.1

Canids

2

0.6

32

0.9

Felids

2

0.6

6

0.2

Panthera cf. Leo

1

0.3

21

0.6

Ursus arctos

1

0.3

22

0.6

Lepus europaeus

1

0.3

1

0.0

Birds

4

1.2

2.2

0.1

Galiformes cf. Gallus

1

0.3

1

0.0

Corvidae cf. Corvus

1

0.3

1

0.0

Fulica atra

1

0.3

1

0.0

Phasianus colchicus

1

0.3

2

0.1

Reptiles

1

0.3

0.2

0.0

Fish

3

0.9

18

0.5

Total

347

100.0

3759.8

100.0

Table 3 – Distribution of faunal remains in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight.

 

Birds although relatively little represented in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (2,3%), are more common than many sites inside the Plateau. The diversity of birds as reported in the archaeological record in this area is not relatively high  11. We identified five different species of birds: Galiformes cf. Gallus, Corvidae cf. Corvus, Fulica atra and Phasianus colchicus. Eurasian coot or Fulica atra is partial migrant and could be seen in a large number around the lakes, reservoirs and salt water during winter. The proximity of the site to the Araxes river and also to the Urmia lake could be a good evidence of the presence of this species in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is a resident bird and lives in the woodland borders and thickets. In the Middle East this species spread from the north west to the north east of Iran  12. We have also found three remains of fish from which a vertebra belong to a large Cyprinid (fig. 3). Surprisingly no remains of equids were found in the site.

10.

Ziaei 1996.

11.

Boessneck and Krauss 1973.

12.

Porter and Aspinall 2010; Mansoori 2001.

79

80

Alexia Decaix, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Sepideh Maziar, Marjan Mashkour, Margareta Tengberg

Fig. 2 – A: Metatarsus of lion, external view, Early Bronze Age. B: Calcaneus of bear, external view mesial‑distal, right side, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 3 – A: Humerus of pheasant, cranial view, right side, Early Bronze Age. B: Vertebra of fish, cranial view, Late Chalcolithic.

Bone modification Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi faunal assemblage is anthropogenic and traces of burning and cutmarks can be observed on many of them as a result of consumption activities. It should be noted that the amount of burnt bones in this site is important (about 81%). The trace of burning could be seen on different bones of bovines, ovicaprines, suids and even felids. The cutmarks represented on the animal bones of this site are very limited. A single one could be observed on a vertebra of a small ruminant (fig. 4).  

In this site, bones were also used as raw material for making tools or other artifacts. In the faunal assemblage, we isolated four worked bones, which belong to both periods of the site (fig. 5).  

Apart from traces generated by human activities, we observed some traces caused by other factors. The damage caused by carnivores, is observed on a first phalange and a talus of an ovicaprine, both belong to the Early Bronze Age. The traces of erosion could be seen on some of the bones such as a second phalange of sheep and a talus of goat (Late Chalcolithic), which could be a reason of the vicinity of the site to the river (fig. 6). Finally, we have also observed the traces of pathology on some of the bones of cattle, which may probably confirm the use of animal as draught (fig. 7).

Fig. 4 – A: Burning traces on a second phalanx (mesial view) of cattle, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of cutmark on a fragmented vertebra of a small ruminant, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 5 – Worked bones. A: Two bone awls made of the ulna of ovicaprines, Early Bronze Age. B: A jeton from a flat bone, Early Bronze Age. C: A worked antler of red deer, Late Chalcolithic.

SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY IN KOHNEH PASGAH TEPESI

Fig. 6 – A: Trace of digestion on a talus of ovicaprine, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of erosion on a talus of Capra, Late Chalcolithic.

Fig. 7 – Traces of pathology on two second phalanx of cattle. A: cranial view and B: caudal view, Early Bronze Age.

The botanical assemblage Seeds and fruits study Among the charred and mineralized remains, 1172 items representing a minimum of 1012 individuals were analyzed (tab. 4). Among 37 taxa recognized, 6 represent cultivated plants (cereals and pulses) whereas 31 taxa refer to wild plants (Poaceae, wild Fabaceae, fruit tree species, etc.). Cereals represent more than 15% of the remains. They are irregularly present in 6 of the 8 samples studied. Only two samples (S4CatIV and 6033) count more than 50 of them. The two cereals identified are barley (Hordeum vulgare) and naked wheat (Triticum aestivum/turgidum). Among barley, both hulled caryopsis and asymmetrical caryopsis were found. The last ones could belong to 6‑row barley. These cereals are both well adapted to climate and environmental conditions of the Araxes valley where rainfalls are sufficient for a dryland farming. But it is also possible that people used water from the Kaleybar Cay to irrigate their cultures. Among the pulses, two taxa are identified: lentil (Lens culinaris) and grasspea (Lathyrus). Five fruits were recognized among the botanical remains: hackberry (Celtis), hawthorn (Crataegus), fig (Ficus), pear (Pyrus) and grapevine (Vitis vinifera) [fig. 8]. Hackberry is frequently represented in the samples in each period with mineralized fruits but also with charcoal fragments. Four species are living in the Caucasus: C. australis, C. caucasica, C. tournefortii and C. glabrata. It seems that they all product comestible fruits, but because of its conservation mode, this species is probably over represented  13. Even if examples of culture of hackberry were reported (Celtis australis  14), here it is probably gathering remains. Hawthorn tree products small fruits which can be eaten fresh or used in different preparations such as cordial or herbal tea. Two other fruits from the Rosaceae family were identified. Fragments from the shell of a Prunoideae could belong to a fruit such as plum, sloe or almond. A seed is identified as belonging to a plant from the genus Pyrus (wild pear‑tree). Two other fruit species are present in the samples of Kohne Pasgah Tepesi: the fig tree (Ficus cf. carica) and the grapevine (Vitis vinifera). From morphology, we have not yet been able to specify if these remains come from a gathering of wild fruit or arboriculture. Grape is indigenous in the Caucasus were the wild subspecies (subsp. sylvestris) grows preferentially in the riparian formations or in the

13.

Messager et al. 2010.

14.

Zohary 1973, p. 366.

81

82

Alexia Decaix, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Sepideh Maziar, Marjan Mashkour, Margareta Tengberg

Period Number of stratigraphic unit CEREALS Hordeum vulgare cf subsp. vulgare , caryopsis Hordeum vulgare , hulled caryopsis Hordeum vulgare , caryopsis Hordeum vulgare , rachis segment Triticum aestivum/turgidum , caryopsis Triticum aestivum/turgidum , rachis segment Triticum sp., caryopsis Cerealia, caryopsis

LC EBA 2 6 Prop (%) Prop (%) ++ ++ ++ -

+ P + P + P + +

-

P P

+++ ++

++ P P P P +++

++ -

P P + P P P P P P ++ P P P + + P P P P P P P + ++ P P

P ++

P P P P +

PULSES Lathyrus sativus , seed Lens culinaris , seed FRUIT TREES Celtis sp., seed Crataegus sp., drupe fragment Ficus cf carica , achene Prunus sp., stone fragment Pyrus sp., seed Vitis vinifera , pip WILD PLANTS Aegilops sp., caryopsis Aegilops sp., rachis segment cf Alhagi sp., seed Amaranthaceae, seed Arnebia sp., drupe Asteraceae, seed Astragalus sp., seed Avena sp., caryopsis Boraginaceae, akène Buglossoides arvensis , akène Capparis sp., seed cf Centaurea sp., seed Cyperaceae/Polygonaceae, seed Fabaceae, seed Galium sp., mericarp Heliotropium sp., drupe Lithospermum officinale , akène Lithospermum tenuiflorum , akène Malva sp., seed Medicago sp., seed Panicoideae, caryopsis Poaceae, caryopsis Polygonaceae, seed Rumex sp., seed Scirpus sp. type, seed cf Setaria sp., caryopsis Others Thorn Stem fragment Siliceous scoria droplets Manure fragment ? Indeterminate

Table 4 – Proportions of the taxa identified in the samples of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. P + ++ +++

225

2767

5671

141

136

NR/L

4482

231,6

-

11,04

4,26

1,83

123,53

7,59

1

0,26

NR/100g

-

-

116

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Flotation

dry then wet sieved wet-sieved + flotation

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

flotation then wet-sieved

Cereals

+++++

+++++

+++++

++

*

*

++++

+++

++

++++

Pulses

-

-

-

P

*

*

-

P

-

-

Fruit trees

-

-

-

+++

-

-

-

+

-

-

Weeds

+

++

+

++++

*

*

+++

++++

+++++

+++

Table 2 – Summary of the archaeobotanical data of Early Bronze Age sites recently excavated. P + ++ +++ ++++ +++++ *

< 1%; < 5%; from 5 to 25 %; from 25 to 50 %; from 50 to 75 %; from 75 to 100 %; presence but no informations about the percentage it represents.

Toward a definition of the Kura-Araxes agropastoral systems

It is probably due to the type of context from which comes the sample: the filling of a pottery which might represent cereal storage  9.  

The eight faunal assemblages considered here were studied by different researchers. Moreover, the remains were mostly collected by hand and eye but sieving was occasionally performed in some of the settlements. Faunal assemblages are compared to each other using the Number of Identified Specimen (NISP) which is the most commonly used quantitative unit. Although the weight of the remains can be used for evaluating the economic importance of the different species  10, it was unfortunately not published for some of the assemblages considered here. In order to reduce several biases inherent to the sampling techniques and to the experience of the researchers, smaller mammals (i.e. rodents), birds, fish and molluscs were not taken into consideration.

Results Seeds and fruits remains Cultivated plants Cultivated plants are mainly represented by cereals. Barley (Hordeum vulgare), naked wheat (Triticum aestivum/turgidum), emmer (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccon) are the main cereals represented. Einkorn (Triticum monococcum subsp. monococcum) has also been identified in some sites but in very few numbers. They are identified through the caryopsis but also the rachis segments and glumes. Barley is largely dominating as it represents almost 50% of the cereals remains identified in the sites. It is followed by naked wheat (17%). Emmer and einkorn represent only 1% or less of the total of cereals remains. But those results have to be taken carefully. Indeed, barley in Gegharot represents more than 90% of the cereal remains identified and it is verging on the top the general proportion of barley. On the other sites, wheats are the main cereals identified and especially naked wheat. Only four sites have yielded pulses: Kültepe II, Maxta I, Ovçular Tepesi and Köhne Pasgah Tepesi. They are present in lower number than cereals. Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus), lentil (Lens culinaris subsp. culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum) and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) have been identified. Seeds of the Vicieae tribe were found in the samples from Sotk 2, but identified as weeds by the author.

Gathered fruits In addition to the consumption of crops, inhabitants of the sites during the Early Bronze Age have also probably gather fruits even if remains are not very frequent, but quite diversified. Indeed, fruits of several Rosaceae trees (Crataegus sp., Pyrus sp., Rubus sp.), dogwood (Cornus mas), hackberry (Celtis sp.) or grapevine (Vitis vinifera) for example were identified. Four sites have yielded fruits: Chobareti, Mentesh Tepe, Ovçular Tepesi and Kohne Pasgah Tepesi.

Wild plants Wild plants have been identified in all the sites, sometimes in large numbers. Among them wild grasses from the Poaceae family are common, such as ryegrass (Lolium  sp.), goatgrass (Aegilops sp.), brome grasses (Bromus sp.) but also bedstraw (Galium sp.), seeds from the borage

   9.

Hovsepyan 2010.

10.

Lyman 2008.

93

94

Alexia Decaix, Rémi Berthon, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Margareta Tengberg

family (Boraginaceae) such as heliotrops (Heliotropium  sp.), sorrel (Rumex  sp.) and cowherb (Vaccaria sp.). Some are common to all the sites and could be identified as arable weeds growing in the fields  11.

Faunal Remains Wild fauna Wild species play a very limited role in the Kura‑Araxes subsistence strategies. They don’t represent more than eight percent of the NISP  12. Although the wild species are quite diversified, the main game mammal is usually red deer. Despite the selection of prey by hunters, the wild species somehow reflect the different biotopes surrounding the settlements. Hunting did obviously not play a significant role in the subsistence strategies. This activity more probably bearded social and symbolic meanings which are currently not yet fully understood.

Domesticates Human groups belonging to the Kura‑Araxes cultural complex obtained most of the animal products they needed from domestic ungulates. Sheep, goat and cattle represent more than 98 percent of these domestic ungulates (in NISP) with the only exception of Natsargora were pigs where frequently consumed (fig. 2). The assemblage from Natsargora is also distinct from the others in its Caprinae to cattle ratio (0.9:1). In all other settlements Caprinae outnumber cattle. The range of the Caprinae to cattle ratio is however quite large (from 1.2:1 to 3.6:1) hence reflecting different strategies for the composition of the herds. At this stage of the research, it is not yet possible to determine which factors (e.g. environment, chronology, function of the site) are impacting the composition of the herds.

Fig. 2 – Relative representation of Caprinae (sheep and goat), cattle and pig in the faunal assemblages in percent of the NISP. See references in table 1.

11.

Willcox 2012.

12.

Chahoud et al. 2015 and here references listed in table 1.

Toward a definition of the Kura-Araxes agropastoral systems

Contribution of the sheep, goat and cattle to the diet When the NISP is used, sheep and goat are the most represented species in the Kuro‑Araxes assemblages, except at Natsargora. However, this quantitative method reflects more the composition of the herds than the contribution of each species to the diet. One cattle for instance produces from four to five times more meat and milk than a sheep. Meat indexes can be estimated in a variety of ways but all of them have drawbacks  13. An easy way to estimate the economic contribution of each species is to look at the weight of the skeletal remains. This data is available in three assemblages where Caprinae are outnumbering cattle by far (Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, Sos Höyük I and Haftavan) [fig. 3]. Cattle represent more than 50 percent of the weight of skeletal remains at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi and Sos Höyük I. In Haftavan, that is a smaller assemblage, Caprinae are still more important than cattle. One can then assume that cattle played the first role in the exploitation of animal products in most of the Kura‑Araxes assemblages.

Fig. 3 – Relative representation of Caprinae (sheep and goat) and cattle at Köhneh Pasgah Tepesi, Sos Höyük I and Haftavan in percent of the NISP and weight of remains.

Discussion The botanical remains recently published show that cultivation was based on cereals harvest, mainly barley and naked wheat, but also hulled wheats. Besides, wild edible fruits were collected to complete the vegetal diet of the inhabitants of the Kura‑Araxes sites. The faunal remains clearly indicate that Kura‑Araxes communities were involved in a pastoral system (i.e. exploiting herds of domestic ruminants). This system was focused on cattle, sheep and goat. Such a pastoral strategy could imply some mobility of the herds in order to provide optimal grazing conditions to the animals. It does however not necessarily imply that the entire community was moving with the herds. Thus, the faunal spectra alone are not a piece of evidence that Kura‑Araxes communities were deeply involved in pastoral nomadism. Actually, the fact that the studied sites are closer to large and stratified settlements than to seasonal camps could mainly explain why these faunal assemblages are not likely to reflect highly nomadic forms of pastoralism. Moreover, the botanical assemblage, mainly dominated by crops, seeds but also sub‑products of the harvests, tends to show

13.

Vigne 1991; Reitz and Wing 1999.

95

96

Alexia Decaix, Rémi Berthon, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Margareta Tengberg

that they were cultivated locally, probably autumn sown according to the wild plants identified such as Galium sp. or Vaccaria sp. for example, and suggest a permanent occupation of at least a small part of the inhabitants of the sites. Kura‑Araxes patterns of animal resources exploitation differ from the Chalcolithic ones in the fact that they are relatively homogeneous. In comparison patterns of animal exploitation in Chalcolithic groups were distinct in each region (e.g. Araxes Basin, Kura Basin, western Georgia)  14. This regional pattern is clearly not encountered in the Kura‑Araxes cultural complex. The Kura‑Araxes pastoral system is however not uniform due to the large range of the Caprinae to cattle ratio. There are not enough studied faunal and botanical assemblages yet from the different environmental zones of the South Caucasus in each EBA sub‑period for investigating any clear diachronic change or regional pattern (see contra regional differences in the agricultural practices). The point that should be noticed here is the farming of pulses, which seems to be concentrated in the Araxes Valley at this period. This point will need more investigations, as those pulses seem to represent always a very small proportion in comparison with other botanical remains. Indeed, according to R. Hovsepyan, who did not find any cultivated Fabaceae in Armenia for this period, Kura‑Araxes cultivation would be strictly based on cereals, as a result of a human choice  15.

Conclusion We are still far from understanding the Kura‑Araxes agropastoral systems. This review however provides some clues for future researches. The supposed nomadic mobility of the Kura‑Araxes groups is not supported by the zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical data. It rather seems that the settlements were inhabited all the year round by at least part of the community. The pastoral practices could have however implied some mobility of the herds. The patterns of this mobility are still under research, in particular through stable isotopes analyses. The Kura‑Araxes agropastoral system is less homogenous that it looks at first sight. Regional patterns are less clear than during the Chalcolithic period but the presence of pulses in the Araxes Valley for instance may indicate differentiated local agricultural strategies. The composition of the herd is not homogeneous in all Kura‑Araxes settlements. If cattle played a significant role, its importance greatly varies from one settlement to another. The Kura‑Araxes agropastoral systems were more diversified than previously thought. The understanding of the factors (chronological, regional, socio-cultural) behind this diversity should play a major role in the research agenda.

References Badalyan R.S. and Avetisyan P.S. 2007, Bronze and Early Iron Age archaeological sites in Armenia. I. Mt. Aragats and its surrounding region, BAR International Series 1697, Oxford. Badalyan R., Smith A.T., Lindsay I., Khatchadourian L., Avetisyan P., Monahan B. and Hovsepyan R. 2008, “Village, Fortress, and Town in Bronze and Iron Age Southern Caucasia: A Preliminary Report on the 2003‑2006 Investigations of Project ArAGATS on the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 40, p. 45‑105. Berthon R. 2014, “Past, Current and Future Contribution of Zooarchaeology to the Knowledge of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures in South Caucasus”, Studies in Caucasian Archaeology 2, p. 4‑30.

14.

Berthon 2014.

15.

Hovsepyan 2015.

Toward a definition of the Kura-Araxes agropastoral systems

Berthon R., Decaix A., Kovacs Z.E., Van Neer W., Tengberg M., Willcox G. and Cucchi T. 2013, “A bioarchaeological investigation of three late Chalcolithic pits at Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan)”, Journal of Environmental Archaeology 18/3, p. 191‑200. Chahoud Jw., Vila E., Bălăşescu A. and Crassard R. 2015, “The diversity of Late Pleistocene and Holocene wild ungulates and kites structures in Armenia”, Quaternary International 395, p. 133‑153, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.024. D ecaix A. 2016, Origine et évolution des économies agricoles dans le sud du Caucase: recherches archéobotaniques dans le bassin Kuro-Araxe, PhD thesis, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris (unpublished). Decaix A., Messager E., Tengberg M., Neef R., Lyonnet B. and Guliyev F. 2015, “Vegetation and plant exploitation at Mentesh Tepe (Azerbaijan), 6th‑3rd millennium BC initial results of the archaeobotanical study”, Quaternary International 395, p. 19‑30, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.050. H ovsepyan   R. 2008, “Appendix  2: The palaeobotanical remains from Early Bronze Age Gegharot”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 40, p. 96‑105. Hovsepyan R. 2010, “New data on agriculture of Aparan‑III Early Bronze Age settlement (Armenia)”, Biological Journal of Armenia 62/4, p. 31‑37. Hovsepyan R. 2011, “Palaeoethnobotanical data from the high mountainous Early Bronze Age Settlement of Tsaghkasar‑1 (Mts Aragats, Armenia)”, Ethnobiology Letters 2, p. 58‑62. Hovsepyan R. 2013, “First archaebotanical data from basin of Lake Sevan”, Archäologie in Armenien II, Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt 67, Halle (Saale), p. 93‑105. Hovsepyan R. 2015, “On the agriculture and vegetal food economy of Kura‑Araxes culture in the South Caucasus”, Paléorient 41/1, p. 69‑82. Kakhiani K., Sagona A., Sagona Cl., Kvavadze E., Bedianashvili G., Messager E., Martin L., Herrscher E., Martkoplischvili I., Birkett‑Rees J. and Longford C. 2013, “Archaeological investigations at Chobareti in southern Georgia, the Caucasus”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies  50, p. 1‑138. Longford C., Drinnan A. and Sagona A. 2009, “Archaeobotany of Sos Höyük, Northeast Turkey”, in A. Fairbairn, S. O’Connor and B. Marwick (ed.), New Directions in Archaeological Science, Terra Australis 28, Canberra, p. 121‑136. Lyman R.L. 2008, Quantitative Paleozoology, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge. Lyonnet B. and Guliyev F. 2017, “Mentesh Tepe (Azerbaijan): a preliminary report on the 2012‑2014 excavations”, in B. Helwing, S. Hansen, B. Lyonnet, T. Aliyev, F. Guliyev and G. Mirtskhulava (ed.), The Kura Projects. New Research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 16, Berlin, p. 125‑140. Marro C., Bakhshaliyev V. and Berthon R. 2014, “On the Genesis of the Kura‑Araxes phenomenon: new evidence from Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan)”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 131‑154. Maziar S. 2010, “Excavations at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, in the Araxes valley, northwestern Iran: First preliminary report”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47, p. 165‑193. Messager E., Herrscher E., Martin L., Kvavadze E., Martkoplishvili I., Delhon C., Kakhiani K., Bedianashvili G., Sagona A., Bitadze L., Poulmarc’h M., Guy A. and Lordkipanidze D. 2015, “Archaeobotanical and isotopic evidence of Early Bronze Age farming activities and diet in the mountainous environment of the South Caucasus: a pilot study of Chobareti site (Samtskhe-Javakheti region)”, Journal of Archaeological Science 53, p. 214‑226. Mohaseb F.A. and Mashkour M. 2017, “Animal exploitation from the Bronze Age to the Early Islamic period in Haftavan Tepe (Western Azerbaijan-Iran)”, in M. Mashkour and M.J. Beech (ed.), Archaeozoology of the Near East 9, Proceedings of the 2008 Al Ain-Abu Dhabi conference, Oxford, p. 146-170. Mohaseb Karimlu F.A. 2012, Exploitation des animaux de l’Âge du Bronze au début de la période Islamique dans le Nord‑ouest de l’Iran : L’étude archéozoologique de Haftavan Tepe, PhD thesis, Paris 1 PantheonSorbonne University, Paris (unpublished).

97

98

Alexia Decaix, Rémi Berthon, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Margareta Tengberg

Palumbi G. and Chataigner C. 2014, “The Kura‑Araxes culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity. A synthesis”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 247‑260. Piro J.J. 2009, Pastoralism in the Early Transcaucasian Culture: The Faunal Remains from Sos Höyük, PhD thesis, New York University, New York (unpublished). Reitz E.J. and Wing E.S. 1999, Zooarchaeology, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge. Ristvet L., Bakhshaliyev V. and Ashurov S. 2011, “Settlement and society in Naxçivan: 2006 excavations and survey of the Naxçivan archaeological project”, Iranica Antiqua 46, p. 1‑53. Rova E. 2014, “The Kura‑Araxes Culture in the Shida Kartli region of Georgia: An overview”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 47‑69. Rova E., Puturidze M. and Makharadze Z. 2010, “The Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli Archaeological Project: A Report on the First Two Field Seasons 2009 and 2010”, Rivista di Archeologia 34, p. 5‑30. Sagona A. 2014, “Rethinking the Kura‑Araxes Genesis”, Paléorient 40/2, p. 23‑46. Samei S., Alizadeh K. and Eqbal H. 2013, “Zooarchaeological Analyses from the Kura‑Araxes Site of Köhneh Shahar (Ravaz) in Northwestern Iran: A Preliminary Assessment of Social Complexity”, Poster at the Annual ASOR Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland. Shimelmitz R. 2003, “A Glance at the Early Trans-Caucasian Culture through its Nomadic Component”, Tel Aviv 30, p. 204‑221. Smith A.T., Badalyan S. and Avetisyan P. (ed) 2009, The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies I, The Foundations of Research and Regional Survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia, Oriental Institute Publications 134, Chicago. Takhtajan A. 1986, Floristic regions of the world, Los Angeles. Vigne J.‑D. 1991, “The meat and offal weight (MOW) method and the relative proportion of ovicaprides in some ancient meat diets of the north‑western Mediterranean”, Rivista di Studi Liguri 57, p. 21‑47. Willcox G. 2012, “Searching for the origins of arable weeds in the Near East”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, p. 163‑167. Zohary M. 1973, Geobotanical foundations of the Middle‑East, vol. 1, Stuttgart.

ELAMITE KINGDOM

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia Alain Le Brun UMR 7041-ArScAn (CNRS, Sorbonne Universités), Maison René Ginouvès, 21 allée de l’université, 92023 Nanterre The two stratigraphic soundings opened by the Susa Mission (Délégation archéologique française en Iran) more than 40 years ago at Susa on the Acropole tepe (“Acropole I”) and on the Ville Royale tepe (“Ville Royale I”) aimed to establish a sound archaeological sequence spanning from the original settlement in the first half of the 4th millennium until the end of the 3rd millennium. The paper presents the results of these researches on a period of time, at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia during which Susa left the Mesopotamian cultural sphere to enter in the Proto‑Elamite cultural sphere. Les deux chantiers stratigraphiques entrepris par la Mission de Suse il y a plus de 40 ans, à Suse, sur les tépés de l’Acropole (“Acropole I”) et de la Ville Royale (“Ville Royale I”), avaient pour but l’établissement d’un cadre de référence allant des origines de l’agglomération dans la première moitié du IVe millénaire, jusqu’à la fin du IIIe millénaire. L’article reprend les principaux résultats de ces recherches touchant le moment où Suse, au tournant des IVe et IIIe millénaires a quitté la sphère d’influence mésopotamienne pour entrer dans la sphère d’influence proto‑élamite.

/1‫ بر روی بلندای آکروپلیس شوش (بخش بلند‬،‫ تیم کاوش باستان شناسی شوش‬،‫ سال پیش‬40 ‫بیش از‬ ‫ ایجاد‬،‫ نتیجه این پژوهش ها‬.‫ دو پژوهش الیه نگاری انجام دادند‬،)1‫) و شهرشاهی (شهر شاهی‬1‫آکروپلیس‬ ‫ از نیمه اول هزاره چهارم تا پایان‬،‫یک چهارچوب زمانی از نخستین استقرار (انباشت) در این محوطه‬ ‫ نگارنده به طور خالصه به نتایج اصلی الیه نگاری های انجام شده‬،‫ در مقاله حاضر‬.‫م بود‬.‫هزاره سوم ق‬ ‫ بخصوص به محدوده زمانی اشاره می کند که شوش با ورود به هزاره چهارم و سوم‬،‫در محوطه شوش‬ .‫ از محور بین النهرین خارج شده و تحت تاثیر محور آغاز ایالمی قرار می گیرد‬،‫پیش از میالد‬ The organizers of this colloquium asked me to present an overview of research on the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd millennium conducted at Susa, more than 40 years ago. This look back will not be the occasion to present a state of the question as it is today but more simply to present what was done then at Susa. This research was embedded in the stratigraphic research program undertaken by the Susa Mission at the initiative of its Director, Jean Perrot, under the umbrella of one of the programs of the CNRS team known as “Préhistoire et protohistoire du Proche-Orient asiatique” or RCP 50. The goal was to establish an archaeological sequence, as precise and complete as possible, from the founding of Susa until the Islamic period. Such a sequence was indispensable for any attempt to reconstruct the history of Susa and its region, southwestern Iran. Indeed, we had a rich documentation in the layers of ancient Susa laid down during the course of the 4th and 3rd millennia, from the research conducted on the tepe of Acropole and that of Ville Royale by par Jacques de Morgan, and then by Roland de Mecquenem. In fact, it was the analysis of this material that permitted Louis Le Breton  1 to build a sequence. However that sequence was essentially founded on ceramic typology in the absence of precise stratigraphy.

1.

Le Breton 1957.

102

Alain Le Brun

The goal was to remedy this absence of stratigraphic control and to establish a sound archaeological sequence spanning from the original settlement in the first half of the 4th millennium until the end of the 3rd millennium. That is to say, a period that saw the emergence of a settlement at Susa and the invention of writing, but also the swing of Susa between different cultural worlds; therefore, two operations of stratigraphic control had to be undertaken. Two soundings were opened, not far from one another, one on Tepe “Acropole” and the other on Tepe “Ville Royale” (fig. 1).

Fig. 1 – Susa. “Acropole 1” and ”Ville Royale I” excavations (archives of the Délégation archéologique française en Iran).

Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia

The sounding called “Acropole  I”  2 is located southeast of the tepe, on the northern edge at R. de Mecquenem’s “Sondage 2”. There remained a 100 m2 column of earth dominating the entire area, with vertical sides, called “Morgan’s Témoin” which is the only vestige of de Morgan’s Level II. The second sounding, called “Ville Royale I”  3, lies at the northwest edge of de Mecquenem’s “Chantier I”, at about 150 m east-southeast of “Acropole I”.  

At the Acropole sounding, cleaning of the western face of the “Temoin” and establishing a vertical section of the northern edge of de Mecquenem’s “Sondage 2”, allowed the reading of 27 geo-archaeological layers (fig. 2). The examination of the material from these layers permitted three separate periods to be distinguished.

Fig. 2 – Susa. “Acropole 1”: east‑west Section. A white line indicates the transition of levels 17‑16 (archives of the Délégation archéologique française en Iran).

Susa’s Period I corresponds to levels 27‑23 and represents the first occupation of Susa, during which a monumental stepped platform, “la Haute Terrasse”, was erected. The hallmark of this period is a well‑known painted buff ware. Susa’s Period II corresponds to levels 22‑17. At this time Susa enters into the Mesopotamian cultural and socio-political sphere. Mass-produced moulded bowls, the “Bevelled Rim Bowls” give this period its unity. This period is also marked by the appearance, in level 20, of the first cylinder seals, and then, in level 19, of a system of accounting with counters encased in clay envelopes, or bullae, sealed with cylinder seals and carrying occasional impressions of the encased counters on the outer surface. The ways in which these devices for the control of goods and information were used, were perfected in levels 18 and 17, especially with the invention of a new mode of recording: numerical tablets.

2.

Le Brun 1971; Le Brun 1978.

3.

Carter 1978; Carter 1980.

103

104

Alain Le Brun

At that time, Susa was one of the three great centers of the region with Abu Fanduweh in the South and Chogha Mish in the east of the Diz  4. Susa’s Period III corresponds to levels 16‑14 and sees the appearance of a system of writing with the Proto‑Elamite tablets. In the first quarter of the 3rd millennium Susa enters in a new cultural sphere encompassing the central and eastern part of Iran, the Proto‑Elamite sphere.

 

According to the surface surveys carried out by different expeditions, the population appears to have declined at the end of period II whereas the population of the Warka area increased. There are several possible causes  5 that might explain this decline and Susa’s swinging from the Mesopotamian sphere of influence toward the Proto‑Elamite. One possible cause might have been the inability of the economic structures to renew themselves; another possible cause might have been competition and hostility between the two rival administrative centers, Susa and Chogha Mish  6, or possibly the shifting of commercial relations  7, or finally the ruinous raids of mountain dwellers into the region. Whatever the reasons, the situation on the plain between the Kerkha and the Diz had changed. Most of the localities that had been active before were now abandoned. They were replaced by new creations: a few village‑sized settlements probably seasonally occupied. Susa appears to have been isolated  8. The work that was done earlier on the Acropole by J. de Morgan and R. de Mecquenem largely removed the deposits corresponding to the transition between the levels under Mesopotamian influence, that is Susa II, and the Proto‑Elamite levels, Susa III. The resulting image of this transition in Acropole I, still legible across 10 meters, is stark. The remains of the last architectural level of Period II, 17B, are covered by a thick ashy deposit, 17A, which contains nevertheless material in every way identical to that found in the habitation below. This assemblage is sealed by a layer of tamped earth surmounted by a mud‑brick paving which constitutes the sub‑basement of the level 16 habitation. Yet in level 16, many forms disappear – the jars with twisted handles and grooved shoulder, the jars with reserve slip and punctate shoulder, the high cylindrical jars and the nose‑lug jars with incised decoration, all made on grit‑tempered ware and all commune and distinctive ceramic features of the Period II. However new ceramic material appears, a new glyptic as well as the first written documents, those tablets bearing Proto‑Elamite signs. If, from the stratigraphic point of view, nothing indicates an abandonment between levels 17 and 16 of this sector of Acropole, an examination of the material culture, so different from that of the preceding period, leads us to envisage a hiatus between these two levels. This hiatus might reflect a temporary abandonment in this sector of Acropole, which might have profited another zone of the tepe. Circumstances caused the researchers to be unable to complete the program, which was to determine precisely the duration and nature of the transition between 17 and 16.

 

The Proto‑Elamite period at Susa corresponds to a remodelling of the location of the settlement and a diminution in its size. The entire Acropole was occupied (but the sector north of the Acropole was probably abandoned) whereas the occupation extends to the East in the southern portion of Ville Royale  9. The existence of economic tablets dealing with large quantities of items suggests that the settlement continued to be active.  

4.

Johnson 1987, fig. 30.

5.

Wright 1987, p. 149.

6.

Johnson 1973, p. 143‑147; Johnson 1987, p. 124‑125.

7.

Alden 1982.

8.

Cf. Alden 1987, fig. 41.

9.

Despite the two Proto-Elamite tablets found in one of the burials excavated in the “Donjon”, the Proto-Elamite occupation of that portion of the site is uncertain, Amiet 1986, p. 92.

Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia

If in the preceding levels we could follow the improvements in the economic documents, it is in level 16 that there is a decisive step. In effect, it is then that the first written documents appear. These are tablets of a different character, less heavy, less thick than those of the preceding levels. Apart from the numerical notations, these documents bear signs of writing: ideograms or pictograms representing a different language from that of contemporary Sumer, the Proto‑Elamite. This type of writing is widespread on the Plateau as evidenced by examples found in western Fars (Tell‑I Malyan), in Kerman (Tepe Yahya), in Seistan (Shar‑I Sokhta), on the western border of the Kevir desert (Tepe Sialk). In addition we now have Ozkaki  10 and Tepe Sofalin  11 in northern Iran. This type of writing, an original creation or an imitation inspired by the Mesopotamian example, is immediately well established at Susa. As to the architecture, less can be said as a result of the narrowness of the exposed surfaces. That portion of the habitation – 75 m2 were uncovered –, consists of long rectangular chambers built next to one another. This arrangement remains the same from level 16 to level 14b with some modifications and remodelling. One of these rooms is equipped with a new kind of hearth, an elaborate raised‑box hearth consisting of a lower plastered compartment, adjacent to an elevated box, both partially set into the wall. This type of hearth is also known at Godin Tepe V as well as in the Middle Banesh levels at Tell‑i Malyan. The glyptic, judging by its style and inspiration, is different from that of the preceding period as illustrated by the material uncovered at Acropole. Among the documents collected are cylinder seals carved in burnt steatite and engraved with geometric patterns common in the Diyala: hatched bands or lozenges and four-petalled rosettes. More characteristic of Susa is a cylinder seal combining a hatched cross and a coarsely cut quadruped. One of the familiar themes of the glyptic is the representation of animals acting as humans, vivid and fluidly rendered: rows of lion‑archers holding bows, or animals manipulating vases, such as small spouted jars. These jars belong to an earlier period and are no longer in use. As to ceramics, wares and shapes have changed. On the one hand, the use of chaff temper becomes general. On the other hand, although the bevelled rim bowls continue, they are a smaller percentage of the ceramic assemblage than they were in the preceding period, and they differ from the classic type. The best parallels of these forms are not often found in Mesopotamia. Rather they are found on the Iranian Plateau, in the Middle Banesh levels at Tell‑i Malyan. Apart from this, the spread of mass-produced wares ceases in Susiana in contrast to Babylonia where it intensifies. The ceramic types that mark the period are trays with rounded everted rims, solid‑footed goblets, ledge rim bowls, frequently with a brown‑red wash, low necked globular jars. These are sometimes, but rarely, decorated with horizontal or wavy painted bands applied on the surface or on slip. Rare sherds with fugitive red and black geometric painted patterns on buff ware were recovered in level 15. Because they were severely attacked by erosion, levels 14A‑13 are not well known. Nevertheless, it seems that the juncture between 14B‑14A corresponds to a cultural subdivision: the solid‑footed goblets, the coarse‑ware trays and the black and red bichrome wares are no longer seen. The presence of fugitive bichrome decorations diminishes. That a break exists between 14B and 14A is substantiated by the excavation at Ville Royale. The following sequence at Acropole is very poorly documented because the high part of the “Témoin” was difficult to access, and only superficial observation was possible of levels 1 to 13. Nevertheless, it may be noted, by way of a chronological landmark, that an Old Akkadian tablet from the Agada period was found in the partial collapse of one of the corners of the “Témoin”: that is to say from the higher levels, 1‑9.

 

10.

Madjizadeh 2001.

11.

Hessari 2011.

105

106

Alain Le Brun

The following history of Susa during the 3rd millennium may only be read in the Ville Royale sequence. This sector, which was uninhabited until this period, saw the creation of a new quarter of the settlement. The continuity of the archaeological sequence between Acropole and Ville Royale is established by the contemporaneity of Acropole I, levels 14‑13 with the bottom levels 18‑17 of the Ville Royale tepe which seems reasonably substantiated, based on a consideration of the ceramic and glyptic assemblages  12. The levels 18‑17 of Ville Royale I (level 18 being directly founded on virgin soil), were explored over an area of approximately 200 m2. The remains of two large habitations separated by a roughly rectangular open space containing several ovens and kilns were found there. However, the excavated area from level 16 onwards diminishes in size to about 20 m2. As is pointed out by E. Carter  13, the area excavated is small and the changes appear to be gradual rather than abrupt, the phase divisions are tentative.

 

Nevertheless, level 18 to 13 were attributed by E. Carter to period III. Levels 18‑17 might represent, according to P. Amiet  14, the classical Proto‑Elamite period whereas levels 16 to 13, where neither tablets nor seals nor seal impressions were found, might illustrate the extinction of the Proto‑Elamite cultural character at Susa. The juncture between levels 12 and 13 was marked by an erosion surface. Isolated in the middle of a nearly deserted plain, Susa, although reduced in size, continued to be an active center, as evidenced by numerous economic tablets. Doubtless this activity was due to its position as a small frontier town on the edge of the Proto‑Elamite cultural sphere with easy access to Mesopotamia. The Proto‑Elamite writing system is short‑lived and disappears around 2900 BC, and until the introduction of Mesopotamian cuneiform around 2300‑2200 BC, no examples of writing from Iran are known. And little by little, during the course of the millennia, Susa passes, according to the formulation of E. Carter  15, from the status of “the most Mesopotamian of Elamite towns to the most Elamite of Mesopotamian cities”.

References Alden J.R. 1982, “Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran”, Current Anthropology 23/6, p. 613‑640. Alden J.R. 1987, “The Susa  III Period”, in Fr.  Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, Washington D.C., p. 157‑170. Amiet P. 1986, L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens. 3500‑1700 avant J.‑C., Paris. Carter E. 1978, “Suse, ‘Ville Royale’ ”, Paléorient 4, p. 197‑211. Carter E. 1980, Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa: the Third Millenium B.C. Occupation, Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran (DAFI) 11. Hessari M. 2011, “New Evidence of the Emergence of Complex Societies Discovered on the Central Iranian Plateau”, Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, p. 35‑48. Jonhson Gr.A. 1973, Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers 51, Ann Arbor MI.

12.

See for example Le Brun 1971, fig. 59, no. 4, 9, 6 and Carter 1980, fig. 17, no. 6, 4, 7.

13.

Carter 1978, p. 211.

14.

Amiet 1986, p. 98.

15.

Carter 1980, p. 31.

Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia

Jonhson Gr.A. 1987, “The Changing Organization of Uruk Administration on the Susiana Plain”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, Washington D.C., p. 107‑139. Le Breton L. 1957, “The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations”, Iraq 19, p. 79‑124. Le Brun A. 1971, “Recherches stratigraphiques à l’Acropole de Suse, 1969‑1971”, Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran (DAFI) 1, p. 163‑216. Le Brun A. 1978, “Suse, chantier ‘Acropole 1’ ”, Paléorient 4, p. 177‑192. Madjizadeh Y. 2001, “Les fouilles d’Ozbaki (Iran). Campagnes de 1998‑2000”, Paléorient 27/1, p. 141‑145. Wright H.T. 1987, “The Susiana Hinterland during the Era of Primary State Formation”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, Washington D.C., p. 141‑155.

107

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan Archaeological survey in the western bank of the Karkheh river Ali Zalaghi Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main Many archaeological surveys have been conducted in the Susiana plain. However, our understanding about the settlement patterns of Susa III/Proto-Elamite period in the region is still tentative and incomplete. This article reviews and reevaluates results of the archeological surveys in the Susiana plain from the end of the fourth to the early third millennium BC, and gives a brief overview about the recent archeological survey in the west bank of the Karkheh river. The main purpose of this paper is to integrate the results of past and new surveys about the Susa III sites in order to draw a precise perspective of the Susa III settlement dynamics in different sectors of the Susiana plain. De nombreuses prospections archéologiques ont été menées dans la plaine de la Susiane. Pourtant, nos connaissances des modes d’occupation de cette région pendant la période Suse III/proto-élamite sont encore préliminaires et incomplètes. Cet article fait la recension et réévalue les résultats des prospections archéologiques de la plaine de Susiane depuis la fin du quatrième jusqu’au début du troisième millénaire av. J.‑C., et donne un aperçu succinct des prospections archéologiques récentes sur la rive ouest de la rivière Karkheh. L’objectif principal de cette contribution est d’intégrer les résultats des prospections anciennes et récentes des sites datés de la période Suse III pour avoir une approche plus précise de la dynamique d’occupation à cette période dans différents secteurs de la plaine de la Susiane.

‫ اما درک ما از‬،‫اگر چه تاکنون بررسی های باستان شناختی بی شماری در دشت شوشان صورت گرفته‬ ‫ در این مقاله از یک سو بررسی‬.‫ آغاز عیالمی همچنان مبهم و ناقص است‬/۳ ‫الگوهای استقراری دوره شوش‬ ‫ در این دشت ارزیابی و مطالعه‬.‫م‬.‫های باستان شناختی مربوط به اواخر هزاره چهارم و اوایل هزاره سوم ق‬ ‫ و از سوی دیگر گزارشی کوتاه از نتایج بررسی های باستان شناسی اخیر در غرب کرخه ارائه شده‬،‫شده‬ ‫ درک روشن تری‬،‫ این مقاله می کوشد تا با ترکیب نتایج بررسی های گذشته و اخیر در شمال خوزستان‬.‫است‬ .‫ در بخش های مختلف این دشت ارائه دهد‬۳ ‫از الگوهای استقراری مربوط به دوره شوش‬

Introduction One of the important factors for an accurate understanding of early urbanization and early state formation is knowledge about the system of settlements and population density; if their society was egalitarian, or hierarchal with progressive centralization. The study of settlement dynamics and their organizational mechanism will help us to grasp the economic and political relations between villages and different centers of power.

110

Ali Zalaghi

In this regard, this study focuses on the settlement patterns of the Upper Khuzestan, in southwest Iran, during the end of the fourth to the early third millennium BC (Susa III/Proto-Elamite period). The Susa III period had a low number of settlements and population in Upper Khuzestan, distributed in predominantly small sites with only one large center, Susa  1. However, Schacht presented a list of Susa III settlements composed of thirty‑two villages and two large towns  2. Nevertheless, in this phase we are confronted with the development of early state and the confrontation between regions in southwest Iran  3. In the recent decades, many archaeological excavations and surveys have shed considerable light on the change and continuity of the settlements and demographic trends in southwestern Iran. However, our understanding of Susa III settlement patterns in Upper Khuzestan is still limited to those once Schacht listed  4 and to Alden surveys  5. Both were carried out more than 35 years ago. Focusing on the central sector of the Upper Khuzestan, they were unable to cover all parts of this plain  6. The region on the west bank of the Karkheh River and the east bank of the Karun River had never been surveyed intensively, and no settlement of the third millennium BC was recognized. Recently, both regions were subjected to archaeological surveys  7. Accordingly, the present article gives first a general overview of the archaeological surveys in the west bank of the Karkheh River and the third millennium BC settlement patterns in this region. Furthermore I rather focus on the Schacht and Alden surveys as well as the Moghaddam survey in order to challenge the given patterns of Susa III settlements in the Upper Khuzestan.

Review of Studies about early Third Millennium BC Settlements in Upper Khuzestan For the first time, Adams recognized fifteen settlements that dated to the early third millennium BC  8, however eight of them are suspect. Later Schacht published a list of Susa III settlements based on Adams’s survey results and his fieldwork  9. This list was then used by Dittmann  10 to study the Susa III settlement patterns and regional and interregional development in the Upper Susiana. This list presented 36 Susa III settlements. Due to the list, Susa (30 ha) and Tappeh Senjar (12 ha) were two large towns. The settlements, KS 3 (8.7 ha) and KS 96 (8 ha) were small towns in the northern Susiana; another 32 settlements (0‑4 ha) were villages, although 16 of them were uncertain in terms of date. Schacht mentioned that the total area of 109.0 ha (85.7 ha of certain sites + 23.3 ha of uncertain sites) of north Susiana was occupied during the Susa III period  11.

   1.

Alden 1982; Alden 1987.

   2.

Schacht 1973.

   3.

Wright 1987.

   4.

Schacht 1973.

   5.

Alden 1982; Alden 1987.

   6.

The central part of Khuzestan, where was the subject of many past investigations, is ca. 80x60 km. Doing a systematic survey one needs a lot of time in order to collect systematically surface assemblage and to study the terms natural landscape, distribution of pottery, the actual situation of sites and water sources.

   7.

For archaeological survey in the eastern Karun river see Moghaddam 2012, Moghaddam and Miri 2007, Moghaddam and Miri 2003 and for the western bank of the Karkheh river see: Zalaghi 2014.

   8.

Schacht 1973, p. 39; Adams 1962.

   9.

Schacht 1973, App. A.3.

10.

Dittmann 1986, fig. 18‑20.

11.

Schacht 1973, App. A.3.

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan

Based on the list of Susa III settlements  12, John Alden carried out a survey  13. It should be noted that he did an intensive survey only on the sites which were mentioned in the list. He only visited 29 sites; on ten of them he did not find characteristic sherds of Susa III (tab. 2  14). Alden considers Susa as the only large center, KS 308 and KS 396 as two small sites in the Upper Susiana, and other settlements as minor sites. It should be noted that KS 308 and KS 396 were mentioned for the first time in Alden’s survey and there was no mention of them in Schacht’s list (tab. 2). Schacht considered a long period for Susa III separated in two phases  15: the first phase corresponded with “Susa Cb‑Da”, and the second phase with “Susa Db‑De” in Le Breton’s chronological table  16. However, it is not clear to which sub‑phases the listed settlements belong  17. He did not publish any Susa III sherds and the density of Susa III sherds is absolutely unclear, as are the criteria by which he estimated the occupied area of Susa III settlements. Alden, however, did an intensive survey and systematically collected the sherds on the settlements. He estimated the area of some important sites  18 in three sub‑phases of the Susa III period  19 namely; Early, Middle, and Late Susa III  20. Between 2001 and 2005 Moghaddam did intensive surveys in the Mianab Plain in the eastern sector of the Gargar River that he named as the eastern corridor  21. His Surveys shed a new light on the Susa III settlements in this part of Khuzestan. However, he did not publish any Susa III sherds, therefore the density of Susa III sherds, and the sub‑phase of the Susa III period in each settlement is unknown. The Susa III settlements that have been reported in past and new surveys are given in tables 1‑3. Ten of them have been completely destroyed by agricultural programs. Hence, the published and unpublished pottery assemblage of them settlements are the only archaeological evidence that we have today. Map No.

Field No.

Name

Coordination

1

WK 157

Ishan Al Aswad

39S 229080-3577984

2

WK 164

Mollhe

39S 229462-3573810

3

WK 115

39S 231246-3551993

Table 1 – Susa III settlements in the western bank of the Karkheh river (WK = west side of the Karkheh).

12.

Henry Wright had provided a list of Susa III settlements, including 35 sites, and gave it to John Alden, who took it as the base of his survey (personal communication).

13.

Alden 1982; Alden 1987.

14.

Alden 1982, p. 618; Alden 1987, p. 159.

15.

Schacht 1973, p. 50.

16.

Based on the stratigraphical excavations at several sites in Susiana and comparing pottery motives from Susiana with its neighbors Mesopotamia, Le Breton (1957) offered for the first time a chronological table for Susiana plain. Although this table were criticized by some scholars, still it is considered as the basic chronological table for the prehistoric time of Susiana plain. For the main discussion about the problem of the chronology of Susiana see Dittmann 1986, p. 1‑3 and Dittmann 1987, p. 31.

17.

Dittmann 1986, p. 236‑237.

18.

Susa, KS 308, KS 396, KS 5, KS 39, KS 49.

19.

Alden (1987) published only one figure, which presented some pottery sherds of the four settlements (KS 308, 5, 49 and 39).

20.

Alden 1987, tab. 28. This internal chronology by Alden is based on the Susa III data from Susa. However, he did not publish any catalog of the sherds of Susa III sub‑phases. Dittmann in his dissertation, based on the Susa III data from Acropolis I and Ville Royale I offered three sub phases for Proto-Elamite period namely: Proto-Elamite 1, Proto-Elamite 2 (a and b), Proto-Elamite 3 (Dittman 1986, p. 133‑147). For new discussion about the internal chronology of Susa III period see Mutin 2013, p. 7‑10.

21.

Moghaddam and Miri 2003; Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Moghaddam 2012.

111

112

Ali Zalaghi

Map No.

KS No.

4

Name

Coordination Schacht 1973

Alden 1987

Exist Not exist

Susa

39S 241622 3565012

30

11

X

5

KS 3

39S 263037 3563796

8.7

No PE seen X

6

KS 5

39S 263373 3560294

0.5

0.2

7

KS 7

Tappeh Senjar

39S 236501 3584397

12

No PE seen X

8

KS 8

Tappeh Saiyeh

39S 240207 3584794

0.4

9

KS 10

39S 240377 3582818

3.5

10

KS 11*

39S 239734 3580678

1.3

11

KS 12*

39S 243285 3582779

2

no visited

X

12

KS 15

39S 240540 3578564

0.5

1 BRB

X

13

KS 17

39S 241769 3577944

0.7

no visited

X

14

KS 18*

39S 235246 3578516

1

no visited

X

15

KS 24

39S 239551 3570311

0.8

no visited

X

16

KS 35 A

39S 246569 3561340

1

no visited

17

KS 39

39S 260351 3564531

3

0.2

X

18

KS 42*

39S 259326 3564265

0.6

no visited

X

19

KS 47

39S 257292 3561895

2.5

no PE

X

20

KS 48*

39S 258540 3558171

3.6

no visited

X

21

KS 49

Bugga Ishan

39S 258533 3557783

3

0.5

X

22

KS 50*

Tappeh Alvan

39S 260138 3555659

1.1

no visited

X

23

KS 54

39S 250876 3553779

2.5

no PE

24

KS 59

39S 246747 3554026

1.8

25

KS 61*

39S 249079 3557047

1.4

Tappeh Solyman

Tappeh Rahimeh

Tappeh Abufanduweh

X

X no visited

X X

X

X X

no visited

X

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan

Map No.

KS No.

26

Name

Coordination Schacht 1973

Alden 1987

Exist Not exist

KS 72*

39S 251223 3559500

1.6

no visited

X

27

KS 76**

39S 257878 3551341

1.4

no visited

X

28

KS 94

39S 245403 3550461

2.4

no visited

29

KS 96

39S 242804 3547932

8

no visited

X

30

KS 102

39S 275092 3568340

1.2

no visited

X

31

KS 113*

39S 266571 3559172

1.1

X

32

KS 120*

39S 270417 3550630

2

X

33

KS 153*

39S 288616 3573064

1.5

no visited

34

KS 171*

39S 293843 3562303

2.8

no visited

?

35

KS 172

39S 294402 3568386

1.2

no visited

X

36

KS 248*

39R 297252 3541525

0.8

no visited

?

37

KS 254*

39S 289682 3564864

1.6

no visited

?

38

KS 291*

39S 241555 3566760

1.0

no visited

39

KS 308

39S 259284 3564444

2.2

?

40

KS 396?

39S 269890 3569287

3.2

X

41

KS 512*

39S 263078 3557768

minor site

X

42

KS 566

39S 265351 3552277

possible PE X

43

KS 605

39S 266193 3551951

possible PE

X

44

KS 606

39S 266165 3552105

possible PE

X

Tappeh Keihf

Tappeh Dehno

Chogha Gotvand

0.4

X

X

X

Table 2 – The Susa III settlements attributes based on Schacht’s list and Alden’s survey (area is in hectare); the sites with star (*) are the uncertain sites mentioned in Schacht’s list. ** Van den Boorn, Houtkamp and Verhart in 1989 published an alabaster vase from KS 76 which collected by Westerhof in 1983 during his employment by the Dutch Sugar Company as a civil engineer (for more information see Van Den Boorn, Houtkamp and Verhart 1989).

113

114

Ali Zalaghi

Map No.

KS No.

Name

coordination

45

KS 1558

Aboo Amoud Nejat

39R 296009 3514246

46

KS 1567

47

KS 1580

Talle-e Hasan

39R 299907 3536691

48

KS 1616

Ishan Al Dovveh

39R 302360 3520633

49

KS 1643

Tappeh Samirat

39R 319693 3507871

50

KS 1665

39R 328010 3506271

51

KS 1681

39R 301059 3537042

52

KS 1682

39R 301319 3536087

53

KS 1615

39R 302729 3517855

54

KS 1670

39R 338865 3488919

39R 300422 3513860

Table 3 – Susa III settlements in the eastern Karun River (based on the Moghaddam 2012; Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Moghaddam and Miri 2003).

Archaeological Survey in the West bank of the Karkheh River: A General View As part of the archaeological research of the UNESCO project in Chogha Zanbil, some extensive surveys were carried out around Chogha Zanbil, especially along the Dez River, with the aim of recognizing the settlement patterns of the Middle Elamite period  22. As a part of this project, I conducted a four‑month intensive survey on the west bank of the Karkheh River in 2004 and 2005 that resulted in the discovery of 81 settlements ranging in date from prehistoric to Islamic periods  23. The surveyed area is located on the western side of the Karkheh River and extends to the border with Iraq. In the south, it is bounded by the sandy Mishdagh desert, to the north by the foothills of the Zagros Mountains, and to the northwest it extends to the border of Khuzestan and Ilam Provinces (fig. 1). Geomorphologically, the western sector of Karkheh is composed of three different landscapes: the Sorkheh zone in the north, Chenaneh zone in the center and Seyed Abbas zone in the south. Sorkheh is a fertile plain and most of the settlements are located in this zone. Chenaneh and Seyed Abbas are rather formed by sandy and dune hills and are not appropriate for agriculture. Only the Karkheh basin area in these two regions is capable for practicing sustainable agriculture. Even nowadays, the subsistence economy in these two regions (Chenaneh and Seyed Abbas) is based on nomadism. In contrast to them, most of the agricultural activities are concentrated in the Sorkheh region. It must be noticed that the war between Iraq and Iran (1980‑1988) had also an impact on the western side of the Karkheh River, which has made this area dangerous for doing any fieldwork and even after 25 years one can find landmines in some parts. Therefore, we could only do a survey in the safer areas. With the help of local people, especially farmers and herdsmen, most sites were visited and a random sampling method was carried out in the field.

22.

For the archaeological investigations along the Dez River see: Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2010.

23.

In my MA thesis, I have discussed the development of the prehistoric settlement patterns: Zalaghi 2014.

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan

Ceramic examination shows that nine settlements were settled in the prehistoric period (late Middle Susiana to Susa II period). Only three of them were discussed in the past surveys, but they have never been accurately investigated  24. The earliest settlement on the western side of the Karkheh River dated to the late Middle Susiana period. During this period, only the Sorkheh zone, northern area, was settled. Subsequently during the Late Susiana 1 and 2 (Susa I) periods the southern part (Seyed Abbas) began to be settled. In this time the density of settlements in southern part was almost similar to the northern area. This situation was modified in the Susa II period. The settlements in the southern part have been disappeared. Except a small village, WK 115  25 with 0.3 ha, most settle­ments were located in the Sorkheh zone  26. In the later periods, especially during the Parthian and Sasanian period, this zone was even more occupied. It must be mentioned that all the prehistoric settlements, except WK 102, are located in a distance of 2 up to 4  km to the Karkheh River. It seems that during the 5th and 4th millennia BC, although the Karkheh River itself did not play an important role, seasonal rivers and small channels in the immediate vicinity of the settlements were used to supply water for agricultural and daily activities. It is striking that all settlements were clustered along the Karkheh River at an utmost distance of ca. 4 km, and the region beyond this distance, at the modern border between Iran and Iraq, was never settled during the 5th and 4th millennia BC. The survey results show that the settlements increased in the Late Susiana 1 and 2 (Susa I). Towards the terminal Susa I and Susa II period, the number of settlements apparently reduced  27.

Fig. 1 – Susa III/Proto-Elamite settlements in the western bank of the Karkheh river.

24.

Johnson 1973.

25.

Adams (1962) and his successors have used KS (Khuzestan Survey), which is still usual; however, we use the acronym WK (West Karkheh) because the west bank of the Karkheh River is a large region, which also includes part of Ilam province. Furthermore, the full list of sites with a KS‑number was never published.

26.

Zalaghi 2014.

27.

For more information about settlements patterns development in prehistoric time see, Zalaghi 2014.

115

116

Ali Zalaghi

The distribution model of Susa III/Proto-Elamite settlements in north Susiana Our knowledge of the Proto-Elamite settlement systems in the northern Susiana is incomplete and ambiguous. In this paper, in order to examine the degree of change in the settlement patterns and their underlying mechanism I separated the northern Susiana into four geographical sectors: 1. West of the Karkheh River, 2. Karkheh to Dez River, 3. Dez to Karun River and 4. Eastern Karun River.

Western Karkheh River The evidence of occupation during the early third millennium BC in the west bank of the Karkheh River is not very clear. We did not find the characteristic Proto-Elamite pottery, which is known from Susa, Abu Fanduweh in the Susiana plain and Tall‑e Geser  28 in the Ramhormoz plain. Only five sherds in the three settlements WK 157 (2 sherds), WK 115 (one sherd) and 164 (two sherds) were probably dated to the Proto-Elamite period (fig. 3). Except WK 115 that is located in the southern part, the rest are situated in the Sorkheh zone (northern part). It seems that two of them, namely WK 157 and 164, were settled since the fifth millennium BC, and WK 115 was occupied since Susa II. However, without doing an excavation, it is not easy to draw up a more precise chronology, and we do not know if WK 115 was occupied for the first time during late Susa II or Susa III. Similar to the fifth and fourth millennia BC, all early third millennium sites were located along seasonal rivers and near natural channels. It should be noted that all settlements were located at a distance of about two to four km away from the Karkheh River. All the early third millennium BC settlements in this sector are minor sites (around half a hectare). Due to the low density of pottery sherds and the small size of the settlements, either only a few families have lived in this region, especially in the Sorkheh sector, or pastoral groups lived just for a short time in this area. It seems that this sector of the Susiana plain cannot have played any role in the political and economic landscape of the Proto-Elamite period.

Karkheh to Dez River According to Schacht’s list  29 and Dittmann’s study  30 19 settlements were located between the Karkheh and Dez rivers, whereas Alden pointed only to eight settlements  31. Numerous Proto-Elamite tablets were found in Susa, while no tablet is reported from the other Proto-Elamite settlements of the north Susiana, which makes it absolutely clear that Susa was not only an important site for economic and commercial exchanges but also the largest center during this period  32. Nevertheless, it is not clear what the exact size of Susa was during the Proto-Elamite period. Schacht estimated 30 ha for Susa during this time  33, whereas Alden suggested only 11 ha for each phase of the Susa III period. However,

28.

For more information about the Proto-Elamite layers at Tall‑e Geser see Alizadeh 2014.

29.

Schacht 1973, App. A‑3.

30.

Dittmann 1986, Kar. 19.

31.

Alden 1987. Alden in his article (1982) located seven Susa III settlements, although in another article (1987) presented eight settlements in this sector.

32.

No Proto-Elamite tablet was found from the new excavations at two Proto-Elamite settlements, Abu Fanduweh and Tappeh Senjar.

33.

Schacht 1973, p. 53.

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan

Fig. 2 – Susa III/Proto-Elamite settlements in Susiana plain, based on tables 1‑3.

Fig. 3 – 1: red ware (10YR 7/3), fine sand inclusion, Susa III, compared: Susa, Akropol I: 16, Le Brun 1971, fig. 62, 7; 2: buff ware (5Y 8/4), fine sand-and chaff inclusion, Susa III, compared: Susa, Akropol I: 15B, Le Brun 1971, fig. 62, 10; 3: buff ware (5Y 8/4) high chaff and low fine sand inclusion, Susa III, compared: Susa, Akropol I: 16, Le Brun 1971, fig. 61, 10.

117

118

Ali Zalaghi

Dittmann  34 after his intensive study on the Susa III material refuted Alden’s suggestion and confirmed Schacht’s estimate  35. Schacht believed Tappeh Senjar (KS 7), with an area of 12 ha, to be the other major site in this sector during Susa III, however, Alden did not see any Susa III sherds on this site. Moreover, Carter put a question mark for “Susa C‑D”/Susa III phase on Tappeh Senjar  36. New archaeological surveys and excavations at Tappeh Senjar demonstrate that it was a small site of around 1 ha in the Susa III period  37. Tappeh Kheif (KS 96) is the other site that Schacht considered as a small town with 8 ha, which was not visited by Alden  38. The other important site is Tappeh Abu Fanduweh, which Schacht suggested was 1.8  ha during Susa III. Although the name of this site is not mentioned in Alden’s study, it is likely that one of the minor sites in the map published by Alden is identical with this site  39. New archaeological survey and excavation in Abu Fanduweh by Alizadeh confirmed the Susa III deposit in the southern mound of Abu Fanduweh and extended ca. 2 ha during this period  40.

Dez to Karun river Schacht recognized 11 settlements in this sector, 10 of them were located between the Dez and Lureh Rivers. Due to Schacht’s list, KS 3 covered an area of around 8.7 ha and other settlements were between 0‑4 ha. Alden has recognized 24 Susa III settlements in this sector. Alden considered KS 308 (2.2 ha) and KS 396 (3.2 ha) as two small sites and the others as minor sites  41. Those two small sites are not mentioned in Schacht’s list. KS 5, 39 and 49 are the other settlements that appeared in Schacht’s list, but with different extents (tab. 2). Schacht has recognized seven Susa III settlements between the Lureh and Karun Rivers  42, whereas Alden recognized no site in this sector. In this regard, it is very important to resurvey the region between the Lureh and Karun Rivers in order to check Schacht’s list  43. Moreover, it seems that based on Schacht’s studies, due to the high amount of settlements, the region between Dez and Lureh could have played an important role in the interregional exchange during the Susa III period in Upper Khuzestan  44.

34.

Dittmann 1986; Dittmann 1987.

35.

Steve and Gasche (1990, p. 27) believed that the settlements of Susa extended on the Ville Royale I in the late Susa III period. Alden believed that in every phase of the Susa III period Susa extend to 11 ha, not Alden, not Schacht and nobody else did systematic survey at Susa. All estimation about Susa III occupation at Susa is just based on the excavation data of this site. Although estimates of the extent of Susa III occupation at Susa requires controlled and systematic surveys, it seems the area of Susa during Susa III should be more than Alden’s estimate.

36.

Carter 1971, tab. 3.

37.

Sardari Zarchi 2014, p. 175.

38.

Although the real size of this site is tentative, it could have been a major settlement in this period.

39.

Alden 1987, fig. 41.

40.

Alizadeh 2014, p. 237.

41.

Alden 1982, fig. 3; Alden 1987, tab. 28.

42.

Five of them were uncertain settlements.

43.

Tappeh Dehno (KS 120) was an important site in this sector at the end of the third and the beginning of the second millennium BC. Schacht estimated an area of 2 ha for Tappeh Dehno during the Susa III period. New survey and excavation at Tappeh Dehno show that the first occupation dates back to the middle of the third millennium BC (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013), however, only a small part is excavated and there is still the possibility of finding this phase in other parts of the site.

44.

Chogha Mish is one of the important sites in this sector. It is not clear whether it was occupied during the Susa III period. Delougaz and Kantor (1996) and later Alizadeh (2008, tab. 2) argued that it was settled during the Protoliterate period (Late Uruk). However, based on the ceramic parallels with Fars and Tappeh Yahya it is likely that it was settled during the Proto Elamite period as well (Mutin 2013, p. 22).

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan

Eastern Karun Eastern of the Karun River Moghaddam (2012) recognized nine settlements  45 that date back to Susa III, one of them is probably a cemetery (KS 1665)  46. He estimated that the total area of the settlements in the eastern Karun River was around 20.71 ha and with the exception of KS 1580, all other settlements were newly established during this time  47. However, in the past surveys the estimate of the total area was 17 ha in all of the Susiana plain  48. If we accept Moghaddam’s estimate, then it seems that we are confronted with a shift of movements from western to eastern Susiana.

Final remarks and Discussion The Proto-Elamite period lasted for several centuries. It covered the end of the fourth to the first half of the early third millennium BC  49 and is separated into the three sub‑phases: Early, Middle and Late Susa III  50. The intensive studies on the Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa and various other sites by Jacob Dahl show that it is possible to differentiate Early, Middle and Late Proto-Elamite texts  51. It is interesting that in Susa all of these three text types were found, but at Tall‑e Geser in the Ramhormoz plain only the Early and Middle Proto-Elamite texts were recognized  52. However, among the survey material, the pottery of the three mentioned phases cannot be identified in all cases definitely. Schacht’s list that was used later by Dittmann  53 did not give any information about the sub‑phases and size of occupation in each phase, whereas Alden estimated the size of some settlements during different phases of the Susa III period. In fact, the whole area of occupation in each phase of the Susa III settlements in northern Susiana is unclear. Hence the analysis of social and political development during different sub‑phases of Proto-Elamite period is not possible. The estimation of size and area of the Proto-Elamite sites in Upper Khuzestan are very relative and paradoxical (tab. 2 and fig. 2), which make the production of any map or interpretation of site size hierarchies very tentative. These issues hamper any interpretation of political organization of Proto-Elamite period. Moreover, without accurate information about the size of sites and the density of Susa III sherds in each site, we cannot be able to say much about the density of population and demography changes during the Susa III period in Susiana plain. Moreover, among 41 sites (tab. 2) that Alden and Schacht have surveyed, ten sites are completely leveled and three others are strongly eroded  54. The collected sherds of these sites are the only

45.

In his article of 2007 (Moghaddam and Miri 2007, tab. 2) KS 1670 had been introduced as a Proto-Elamite settlement with 0.8 ha, but in 2012 he provided a map of the Susa III settlements and does not mention it in his book (Moghaddam 2012, map. 4.2).

46.

As no Susa III pottery is published of eastern Karun, the density of Susa III pottery in each settlement is not clear.

47.

Moghaddam 2012, p. 47.

48.

Alden 1987, tab. 28.

49.

There are different opinions about the chronology of Susa III period. For discussion about the chronology of Susa III period see Mutin 2013, p. 7‑11 and C 14 dating see Dahl, Petrie and Potts 2013.

50.

Carter 1978; Carter 1980; Alden 1987; Dittmann 1986.

51.

Dahl, Petrie and Potts 2013, p. 375.

52.

Dahl, Petrie and Potts 2013, p. 375.

53.

Dittmann 1986, fig. 18‑20.

54.

To estimate the degree of destruction of the settlements during the last decades I have compared the corona photos with the new satellite images. By this method it is easy to find out whether the settlements still exist or not. In some cases, for instance KS 560, you can see the form of the settlement by different colors that are caused by agricultural activities.

119

120

Ali Zalaghi

archaeological evidence that we have today. There remains the question after a manner to recheck and study the settlements of the Susa III period that are mentioned in Schacht’s list, like KS 10, 35, 94, 153, 291 that Alden did not survey. How can we check out the date and size of KS 605 and 606 that were visited by Alden? A careful publication of the complete assemblages gathered on those destroyed sites – currently in the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, and probably the Iranian National Museum – is the only way to study them and come to an understanding of the role of these occupations during the Susa III period. Although Alden believes that a large part of the Susiana plain is abandoned during the Proto‑Elamite period and only very few sites were occupied   55. There is no evidence of hierarchical social organization and long‑term settlements in this time. The new evidence of Proto-Elamite settlements in the eastern Karun suggest that the living conditions could have been changed during this period (turn to nomadism)  56. In this sector, eight of the nine Susa III settlements were established during this time  57, which demonstrates a movement of population, probably from the western to the eastern sector of Susiana plain. It was the case also in other eastern plains of Susiana. In Rahmhormoz plain the number of sites increased from 5 sites in Late Susa II (Late Uruk) to 14 sites in Susa III, with the total area of occupation from 5.7 to 11.07 ha  58. In Izeh Plain the total area of occupation grew up from Middle Susa II (Middle Uruk) to 32 ha in Proto-Elamite period  59. More than 1557  Proto-Elamite tablets have been found in Susa  60, which represents a strong administrative system and economic power in the Susiana plain. As is mentioned above, Alden has estimated the size of Susa in this period as 11 ha, which seems to be underestimated. Generally speaking, the number of settlements declined, which Alden interpreted as low population density  61, although Alizadeh argued that the settlement decrease does not mean low population density, but low settled population  62. The results of the past and new surveys and excavations demonstrate that the number of Susa III settlements in northern Susiana was probably 54, among them many minor sites. More systematic surveys or excavations on some sites such as Tappeh Kheif (KS 96) and other minor sites are needed to provide further information about the political landscape of the Proto-Elamite period. Furthermore, the lack of systematic and intensive surveys and excavations of the Susa III settlements in the northern Susiana makes the discussion about the changes of the political landscape and density of population during each sub‑phase of this period a conundrum.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Prof. Meyer and the Enki group at the Goethe University of Frankfurt for their support. John Alden kindly gave me the list of settlements with the notes that he wrote during his survey, I am very grateful to him. I am grateful to Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, Abbas Alizadeh, and Abbas Moghaddam for their comments. I would also thank an anonymous reviewer for the great comments.

55.

Alden 1987, p. 160.

56.

Alden also believed that the locations of several small occupations during the Susa III period may reflect practices of animal husbandry (Alden 1987, p. 160; see also Alizadeh 2014, p. 237), although the small size of sites is not strong sufficient.

57.

Moghaddam 2012.

58.

Alizadeh 2014, p. 237.

59.

Wright 1987, tab. 26.

60.

Dahl, Petrie and Potts 2013, p. 354.

61.

Alden 1982; Alden 1987.

62.

Alizadeh 2014, p. 253.

An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan

References Adams R. McC. 1962, “Agriculture and urban life in early Southwestern Iran”, Science 136/35, 11, p. 109‑122. Alden J. 1982, “Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran”, Current Anthropology 23/6, p. 613‑640. Alden J. 1987, “Susa III Period”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry, Washington DC, p. 157‑170. Alizadeh A. 2008, Chogha Mish, Volume II. The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran: Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972‑1978, Oriental Institute Publications 130, Chicago. Alizadeh A. 2014, Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavation at Tall-e Geser and Regional Survey of the Ram Hormuz Plain, Oriental Institute Publications 140, Chicago. Carter E. 1971, Elam in the Second Millennium B.C.: The Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (unpublished). Carter E. 1978, “Susa, Ville Royale”, Paléorient 4, p. 197‑211. Carter E. 1980, “Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa: the third millennium BC occupation”, Cahiers de la DAFI 11, p. 11‑134. Dahl J., Petrie C.A. and Potts D.T. 2013, “Chronological parameters of the earliest writing system in Iran”, in C.A. Petrie (ed.), Ancient Iran and its neighbours, Local developments and long‑range interactions in the fourth millennium BC, Oxford, p. 353‑378. Delougaz P. and Kantor H. 1996, Chogha Mish Volume I: The first five seasons of excavations, Oriental Institution Publications 101, Chicago. Dittmann R. 1986, Betrachtungen zur Frühzeit des Südwest‑Iran, Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 4, Berlin. Dittmann R. 1987, “Bemerkungen zum protoelamischen Horizont”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 20, p. 31‑61. Johnson Gr.A. 1973, Locale exchange and early state development in Southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 51, Ann Arbor MI. Le Breton L. 1957, “The early periods at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations”, Iraq 19/2, p. 79‑124. Le Brun A. 1971, “Recherches stratigraphiques à l’Acropole de Suze, 1969-1971”, DAFI I, p 163‑216. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2010, “Archäologische Untersuchungen in Horriyeh und Dehno, Khuezestan (Iran)”, Iranica Antiqua 45, p. 259‑276. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2013, “Neue archäologische Untersuchungen in Dehno, Khuzestan”, Elamica 3, p. 89‑132. Moghaddam A. 2012, Later Village Period Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana, Iran, BAR International Series 2347, Oxford. Moghaddam A. and Miri N. 2003, “Archaeological Research in the Mianab Plain of Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran”, Iran 41, p. 99‑137. Moghaddam A. and Miri N. 2007, “Archaeological Surveys in the Eastern Corridor, Southwestern Iran”, Iran 44, p. 23‑55. Mutin B. 2013, The Proto-Elamite Settlement and Its Neighbors: Tepe Yahya Period IVC, American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series (ASPR), Oxford-Oakville. Sardari Zarchi A. 2014, “Tappeh Senjar, Chashm andazi az yek Esteghrare Toulani moddat dar dasht‑e Shushan”, Hamyeshe Beynolmelali Bastanshenasan‑e Javan, Teheran, p. 169‑186 (in Farsi). Schacht R. 1973, Population and economic organisation in early historic Southwest Iran, Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI (unpublished).

121

122

Ali Zalaghi

Schacht R. 1987, “Early Historic Cultures”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, Washington DC, p. 171‑203. Steve M.J. and Gasche H. 1990, “Le tell de l’Apadana avant les Achéménides: Contribution à la topographie de Suse”, in Fr. Vallat (ed.), Contributions à l’histoire de l’Iran, Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, p. 15‑60. Van Den Boorn G.P.F., Houtkamp J.M. and Verhart L.B.M. 1989, “Surface finds from KS-Sites east of Haft Tepe (Khuzistan)”, Iranica Antiqua 24, p. 13‑51. Wright H.T. 1987, “The Susiana Hinterlands During the Era of Primary State Formation”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, Washington DC, p. 157‑170. Zalaghi A. 2014, “Entwicklung der Siedlungsmuster im Westen des Karkheh-Flusses in der Region Khuzestan (Iran) in prähistorischer Zeit”, Elamica 4, p. 193‑291.

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain Alireza Sardari Iranian Center for Archaeological Researches (ICAR) Samira Attarpour M.A. student in Archaeology, University of Tehran The rise of the Elamite culture and its state formation in southwestern Iran is a difficult topic to address, as apart from historical sources, the evidence is restricted to scant archaeological discoveries from recent years, most of which come from Susa and a few other sites. However, stratigraphic excavations at Tappeh Senjar in northern Khuzestan from 2007‑2009 have revealed architecture, pottery assemblages, seals and samples for radiocarbon dating, showing that the site was related to the third millennium BC. Trenches A and E provided useful information about site formation processes, the chronological framework of Susiana Plain, cultural relations with ancient Susa and other centers in Mesopotamia and Zagros. Excavated finds show that Tappeh Senjar was occupied from the late fifth millennium BC to the Proto-Elamite (Susa III) period, subsequently reoccupied in Susa IV A, and settled again during Susa IV B, through to Shimashki, Sukkal Mah and the Middle Elamite. L’essor de la culture élamite et son développement en État dans le sud‑ouest de l’Iran, mis à part les sources historiques, est un problème archéologique en raison du faible nombre de vestiges découverts au cours de ces dernières années, limités seulement au matériel de Suse et de quelques autres sites. Mais les fouilles stratigraphiques de Tappeh Senjar dans le Khuzestan du Nord, menées de 2007 à 2009, ont fourni des vestiges se rapportant au IIIe millénaire av. J.‑C., comme de l’architecture, de la poterie, des sceaux et aussi des échantillons pour des datations radiocarbone. Les vestiges trouvés dans les tranchées A et E apportent des informations précieuses sur le processus de formation du site, le cadre chronologique de la plaine de Susiane ainsi que les relations culturelles entre Suse et les autres centres de la Mésopotamie et de Zagros. Les trouvailles archéologiques indiquent que le site de Tappeh Senjar a été occupé à partir de la fin du Ve millénaire av. J.‑C. et durant la période proto-élamite (Suse III). Il a été réoccupé au cours de la séquence Suse IV A, et à nouveau au cours de la séquence Suse IV B, puis pendant les époques Shimashki, Sukkal Mah et médio-élamite.

‫ فارغ از مدارک‬،‫ظهور فرهنگ ایالمی و شکل گیری حکومت دراین دوره در جنوب غرب ایران‬ ‫ مسئله ای است که از منظر مدارک باستان شناختی در سال های اخیر چندان مورد توجه قرا‬،‫تاریخی‬ ‫ کاوش های الیه‬.‫نگرفته و صرفا ً به یافته های حاصل از شوش و چند مکان دیگر محدوده مانده است‬ ‫ مدارکی از این دوران‬،‫ در محوطه باستانی تپه سنجر در شمال خوزستان‬1388 ‫ تا‬1386 ‫نگاری سال های‬ ‫ مهر و نمونه هایی جهت تاریخ گذاری‬،‫ سفال‬،‫م را آشکار ساخته است که شامل معماری‬.‫در هزاره سوم ق‬ ‫ به دست آمده که اطالعات مفیدی را در مورد گاهنگاری‬E ‫ و‬A ‫ این آثار در دو گمانه‬.‫رادیوکربن می شود‬ ‫ یافته های کاوش نشان می دهد که با‬.‫ چگونگی ارتباط با شوش را ارائه داده است‬،‫شمال دشت شوشان‬ ،‫ الف مدتی غیرمسکون شده‬4 ‫ این محوطه احتماالً در دوره شوش‬،‫تداوم سکونت در دوره آغازایالمی‬ ‫ سوکلمخ‬،‫ب دوباره شواهدی از استقرار در آن نمایان شده که تا دوره شیماشکی‬4 ‫سپس در دوره شوش‬ .‫و ایالم میانی ادامه می یابد‬

124

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Introduction The Susiana Plain on southwestern Iran is one of the most important problematic places during the third millennium BC studied by archaeologists and historians of Elamite kingdom. Issues pertaining to the invention of writing, formation of Proto-Elamite state and early process of emergence of Elam as a politico-cultural nation, its relations with western neighbor, i.e. Mesopotamia, interactions to highlands such as Zagros, Fars and long distant eastern territories of Kerman and also development of ancient nomadic pastoral societies raise some questions whose answers can contribute to comprehensive surveys, reconsideration of previous studies, precise stratigraphy and extensive excavations at various sites on lowland Susiana and its hinterlands. The beginning of the third millennium BC on southwestern Iran is contemporaneous with Proto-Elamite, which was characterized by the emergence of a homogeneously administrative system on based seals, sealing and tablets. The end of this millennium emerged Shimashki and Early Elamite dynasty was roughly well‑known by historical resources and archaeological evidences as well. However, there is no information, except for Susa, available on domestic organization between Proto-Elamite and Shimashki. Further, we have no palaces and no complete house plans let us reconstruct Susiana life‑styles or class distinctions in this period at Susa  1. Nevertheless, all centuries of the third millennium BC are critical phases to identify the Elamite formation process. Although, the archaeological surveys  2 and discovering the toponymy of ancient centers based on the historical geographic resources  3 suggested a trial framework for socio-political relations and the nature of some Elamite towns, only enduring excavations at Susa have relatively revealed cultural sequence of the third millennium BC phases  4. Therefore, we can apply this chronological framework for other settlements on the heartland of the Susiana Plain called Susa III a, III b, III c, IV b and V or Shimashki periods. Accordingly, the archaeological excavations at Tappeh Senjar on the northern Susiana Plain seems necessary to shed light on the Upper Susiana plain societies. In this context, firstly, the importance of the site is previously described by excavators in Susa and some archaeologists visited and studied Susiana. Secondly, the proximity of Tappeh Senjar to Susa could be helpful to reconsider the stratifications of both sites. Thirdly, Tappeh Senjar as one of the most key sites of Khuzistan includes several enigmatic periods such as Terminal Susa A, Proto-Elamite, Awan and Neo-Elamite.

Tappeh Senjar: KS-007 Senjar is an archaeological site including a large central mound, around 17 hectares in area, and five small surrounding tells ranging from one to two hectares in area  5. The site lies about 18 km north of Susa, close to the modern road of Khuzestan to Dehluran (fig. 1); and just on the eastern ford of Karkheh River. Traffic following Karkheh River to and from the mountains as well as traffic following the northwest-southwest foothill road would have crossed the river near Tappeh Senjar. Concerning the aerial photos of the past, it is indicated that the number and extent of the small tells were more than the present; the tells that were destroyed due to the development of agricultural activities  6.

1.

Carter 1985, p. 43.

2.

Alden 1987; Schacht 1987; Carter 1971.

3.

Vallat 1993; Potts 1999.

4.

Morgan 1900; Mecquenem 1980; Le Breton 1957; Dyson 1966; Le Brun 1971; Carter 1978; Carter 1980.

5.

Sardari 2014, p. 171.

6.

Carter 1971, p. 120.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

The main central mound rises about 13 m (fig. 2) above the ground. But recent stratigraphic excavations indicated that the site has about 20 m height, showing that 7 m of lower archaeological layers have been covered by alluvial sediments of Karkheh River. Tappeh Senjar is the uppermost site of linear settlement patterns on eastern Karkheh River bank which contains sites such as Jowi, Jaffarabad, Soleyman, and Susa.

Fig. 1 – Location of Tappeh Senjar on the Susiana Plain (© Wright 1998, p. 176).

Fig. 2 – Tappeh Senjar and some excavated trenches (© Bing Maps).

125

126

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

History of Early Researches De Morgan is one of the first visitors of Senjar  7, who put forward that this site was ancient Haltemash, on the basis of its position on a list of cities conquered by Assurbanipal. Tappeh Senjar was systematically surveyed by Adams with site‑code KS‑007 and a drawing of simple topographic plan, showing its size about 12 hectares in area  8. The previous archaeological studies and surveys were carried out by Hole  9, Dollfus  10, and Johnson  11. Moreover, the undertaken excavations at Senjar confirm that the site was established from the prehistoric era, namely, Late Susiana phase during the fifth millennium BC, which continued to the forth and third millennium BC  12. Carter also studied Tappeh Senjar through the archaeological surveys in 1968‑1969 to reconstruct the history of Elam and precise knowledge of the role of centers, towns and villages during the second millennium BC  13. She attributed the site continuously from Shimashki, Sukkal Mah, transited to Middle Elamite and Neo-Elamite around 1000 BC, on the basis of surface collections and comparison to Girshman’s stratigraphy at Ville Royale of Susa  14. Schacht supposed that Senjar was ancient Zahara  15 and finally Potts suggested that the site could be ancient Madaktu  16.

Recent Stratigraphic Excavations Archaeological excavations at Tappeh Senjar took place during two seasons from 2006 to 2009, on the central mound and its two surrounding small mounds. The main goal of this program was to study the site formation process, distribution of occupational phases and its extent through stratigraphic trenches. Trenches A, C, D, E, F and G on the central mound and Trenches H and J at two small mounds by 2×2 m and 2×3 m in size, including deposits of Late Susiana (Trenches A and F), Terminal Susa A (Trenches A and F), Susa II or Uruk (Trenches A, F and G), Proto-Elamite (Trench A), Old Elamite (Trenches A and E), Middle Elamite (Trenches A, C, D and E), Neo-Elamite (Trench H) and Parthian (Trenches H and J) periods (fig. 2). Therefore, according to the discovered evidences of Proto-Elamite and Old Elamite in Trenches A and E on the Central mound, we analyzed some material and deposits of the trenches to revise third millennium BC phases. The area excavated in the two stratigraphic soundings was extremely small; however, the ceramic sequence was studied via diagnostic sherds recovered from all well-stratified excavation units.

Occupational Phases of Trench A Trench A is located on the center of the main site and 6 m lower than the uppermost benchmark, including 22 occupational phases; the excavation was continued approximately 14 m into the archaeological deposits without access to virgin soil (fig. 3). As a result, we suppose that the archaeological deposits

   7.

Morgan 1896, p. 288.

   8.

Adams 1962.

   9.

Hole 1969.

10.

Dollfus 1985.

11.

Johnson 1973, p. 116.

12.

Sardari 2014.

13.

Carter 1971, p. 120.

14.

Carter 1971, p. 133, tab. 3.

15.

Schacht 1987, p. 176.

16.

Potts 2005, p. 171.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

possibly extended around 2 m downward. The earliest periods of this trench are Phases 22‑19 attributed to Terminal Susa A and Phases 18 and 17 to Susa II period (fig. 4). The Proto-Elamite phases contain 16 to 13 and continued later on to the Elamite on the upper levels which are described as follows. Phase 16: this is first Proto-Elamite phase, consisting of a domestic space with an oven which is orange, due to burning. Its size is 55 cm in diameter and 65 cm high. Its extent is over an area of 1×2 m formed by ashy deposits. Phase 15: this phase is an accumulation of pot sherds and cobble (ca. 20×15 cm) extending about 1.10×1 m, which made a mud‑brick wall and brick floor; some ground stones were found among the cobbles and periodically various sherds from Late Susiana to Proto-Elamite mixed with earlier sherds. Phase 14: the structural remains consist of mud‑brick wall with 35×70 in size and 20 cm thickness. A rubbish pit was attested close to the wall, which filled by a mixture of garbage materials. Phase 13: the last Proto-Elamite phase includes a large amount of mud‑brick and collapsed walls; mud‑bricks are different in size, light brown in color, and are set in a grey mud mortar. A great deal of charcoal and carbonized seeds were found inside the mortar along with some small lumps of bitumen. Phase 12: non-structural material form this phase and associated with gradually covered fills on Phase 13. Some features such as pits, hearths with orange color and ashy material with firm texture are made among the deposits. Phase 11: this is a non-structural phase consisting of burnt soils, ashes and loosely sponge soils comprising layers of gray sandy clay and overlying layers of brown, up to Phase 10. Phase 10: this phase is an alignment of mud‑brick wall on the northern corner of the trench with 130 cm long. The extent exposed over an area of 2×2 m; the mud‑bricks placed in two rows of wall with 25×25×15 cm dimensions. Although any floor associated with the wall could not be found, it was filled with a large quantity of silty compacted soils. Phase 9: this phase constituted by several deposits without structural/architectural elements, consisting of layers of grey and greenish brown sandy clay fill while its thickness was about 130 cm.

Fig. 3 – Trench A on the center of mound (© Sardari).

127

128

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Fig. 4 – Western Section of Trench A (© Sardari).

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

Occupational Phases of Trench E Trench E on northern part of the central mound is similar to the step trench, including 11 occupational phases excavated to 8.5 m in depth (fig. 5). Although several meters of earlier deposits have not yet been excavated, the discovered materials are attributed to the Early Elamite, which are going to be discussed below. The deposits include Phases 11‑8 which are attributed to the Old Elamite while the upper phases are traced back to Shimashki and Sukkal Mah periods. Phase 10: the lowest occupational phase known from Trench E, which includes dump of the collapsed mud‑bricks. This is an even surface varied in size and dimensions, extended over the trench 2×2 m. Over this dump of mud‑bricks, there is a wall with 55 cm continued to the middle of trench. The wall has 3 rows of mud‑brick, two of them have remained. Phase 9: It includes deposits and several pits filled with collapsed mud‑bricks although there can be seen some remains of small heavily damaged walls. Phase 8: it is considered as the most interesting features known from Tappeh Senjar; it is an area of 3×2 m, where appears like a kitchen area (fig. 6). Here, there are two mud‑brick walls joint together, an oven along with two hearths. The wall is 50 cm thick and has mud‑bricks with dimensions of 30×30/25×30  cm. The diameter of the oven is 80  cm made by stripes of clay with 6 cm thickness. One of the ovens is a square with 35×35 cm and another is circular with 32 cm in diameter. Making the wall had two steps such that it was, firstly, 35 cm in diameter, then another wall with 15 cm thickness in the internal part of the kitchen has joined aiming to make a new oven.

Fig. 5 – Sections of Trench E (© Sardari).

129

130

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Fig. 6 – Phase 8 of Trench E, kitchen space (© Sardari).

Pottery Assemblages of Trench A Phase 16: potteries from this phase are mostly jars with various rim forms (fig. 7). Necked mouth jars with everted rims, sand-tempered have brown and buff stains; many of these fugitive slips are the same as Susa III diagnostic potteries  17. There are examples of these sherds which are white watercolor painted on the exterior surface while they have irregular linear patterns inside; these, in some cases, are pink watercolor. The texture of these sherds is coarse and similar to the beveled rim bowls which continued from lower layers (Phases 18‑17). The base form of these sherds are mostly flatted, while some of them are very fine and small in diameter (fig. 7, no. 9); and these base types have continued to the later Elamite periods. However, the fine buff sand-tempered body sherds are the same with the so‑called Terminal Susa sherds that are average in the assemblage. Ledge rim jars with semi-undercut forms have been found (fig. 7, no. 10), which are similar to those discovered from the Susiana Plain  18; they were also found in Acropole 15  19, and in the 1965 excavations of Acropole  20; also, large jars with big ledge rims are attested (fig. 7, no. 16). There are some other jars from this phase, which are comparable to those found from Acropole 13  21.

17.

Alden 1987, fig. 42.

18.

Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 9.

19.

Le Brun 1971, fig. 63, no. 14; Le Brun 1978, fig. 36, no. 8.

20.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 32, no. 21.

21.

Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 16.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

Fig. 7 – Trench A – Phases 16 and 15 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

131

132

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Phase 15: potteries from this phase are buff interior everted rims that are mostly known via their cut rim forms (fig. 7, no. 1); these can be paralleled with the Acropole 14a potteries  22. However, there are some concave and club rim cases (fig. 7, no. 7‑8) similar to Acropole 13 as well  23. These forms, neckless in some cases, have concave rim and most of them are brown and sandtempered; their characteristics are almost identical to the Proto-Elamite potteries as known from Ram Hurmoz as a hinterland of the Susiana Plain  24. Hemispherical sand-tempered deep bowls with rounded upright rims (fig. 7, no. 3) have also occurred in this phase; there are some flatted sand-tempered bases with coarse surface as well (fig. 7, no. 4). There can be seen some other everted rim bowl samples that are bigger in diameter (fig. 7, no. 2), some from Acropole 13  25 and Late Jamdat Nasr phase. Another is a dark buff sand-tempered pottery with common fabric painted with horizontal band (fig. 7, no. 5) and incised decoration (fig. 7, no. 6). Red‑slip potteries diagnostic of Proto-Elamite have also occurred in this phase such that some have been given slip either on both sides/one side. Ring bases with black band decoration that are similar to the earlier periods (Middle and Late Susiana) have been also attested; some are brown and red sherds with crumbly exterior surface and simple stripe interior. Phase 14: there are some examples on the Proto-Elamite diagnostic potteries with concave rims, which have continued over this phase as well (fig. 8, no. 11). These everted rims are fine and red, including carinated bowls. Other forms of carinated ledge rim bowls are attested in this phase as some have occurred in Susa IV  26. However, these forms have not yet been found from the earlier period in Tappeh Senjar. A thick flat everted rim has been found from this phase in Tappeh Senjar, which has a tenon on shoulder (fig. 8, no. 17). These forms that have extremely extended over Elamite periods have started to use Tappeh Senjar; however, their fabric is brownish buff and sand-tempered, which is different from later samples. Although there is no such parallel from the earlier phases of Shimashki period of Susa, there are examples from the Proto-Elamite of Ram Hurmoz, which were discovered via archaeological surveys  27. These sherds, in some cases, have regular wet‑hand coating while they have gypsum slip on the interior side; some ledge rimmed goblets have also occurred (fig. 8, no. 13), which are common over Susa III period  28; there is a fine small buff pottery as well (fig. 8, no. 12), which is similar to Susa II period pottery  29. Neckless heavy rimmed and opened jars (fig. 8, no. 12) along with small deep cup are also attested (fig. 8, no. 16). Phase 13: potteries from this phase are the continuation of bowls and jars tradition of Proto-Elamite period, which are open-mouths. Some cases with incised decorations (fig. 8, no. 7) and appliqué stripe (fig. 8, no. 10) occurred as well. The rim forms are not too complicated as there is no special difference so as to distinguish this phase. A rounded club rimmed pottery is slanting everted with pinkish brown and coarse black sand-tempered (fig. 8, no. 6) while its fabric is similar to that of Proto-Elamite. The exterior surface of the sherds has parallel grooves. In Phase 13, there could be found interior white slipped potteries as well as a dark grey fabric with white particles with brown fabric and polished slip. Red body with thick grooves occurred, which is smoothed by sand temper though some bitumen plastered cases are attested. In one case, there is a wheel-made out‑flaring cut rim that seems to be a kind of more regular beveled with buff fabric (fig. 8, no. 9). Phase 12: the main characteristic of this phase is the appearance of potteries with forms and decorations other than those in the previous periods, which is more likely to be an Elamite pottery while having

22.

Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 8.

23.

Le Brun 1971, fig. 66, no. 14.

24.

Alizadeh 2014, pl. 153 E-G.

25.

Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 16.

26.

Carter 1978, fig. 43, no. 2.

27.

Alizadeh 2014.

28.

Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 13.

29.

Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 11.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

special difference with Shimashki in terms of fabric. Some vessels with appliqué bands and brown wash on the exterior side and plain stripe interior (fig. 8, no. 3) or mixed sand and vegetal-tempered red/pink pottery have also occurred. There is a sample with incised decoration (fig. 8, no. 5), which is coarse and uneven in the interior side.

Fig. 8 – Trench A – Phases 14, 13 and 12 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

133

134

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Most of the potteries have a pink fabric, however, in some cases covered by buff slip on the exterior and interior surfaces. In terms of fabric, pinched sherds have also occurred while there is an engraved decoration on their rims (fig. 8, no. 20) and their rim forms are ledged with pink fabric as mentioned above. Another type of the potteries of the phase is a pottery with light buff fabric, which was not known from the earlier phases. A case of such potteries with bowl form and out‑flaring sand-tempered rim, fine fabric and buff wash on the exterior side was found from this phase (fig. 8, no. 1) although this wash on the interior side seems to be a muddy material rather than wash and in some cases more likely to be greenish. In another case, an open-mouth collar rim jar with greenish buff and sand/grit-tempered has been found (fig. 8, no. 18). The bases are flat and string cut while they are sand/gypsum-tempered with dark brown fabric (fig. 8, no. 4). Phase 11: the main change in the assemblage of this phase is usually attested in big ledge rim jars (fig. 9, no. 14). Most of these jars, in terms of fabric/color, are different from the previous cases as

Fig. 9 – Trench A – Phases 11, 10, 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

they were more likely to be Old Elamite pottery simultaneously with the so‑called Early Akkad  30; they were homogeneously formed by sand-tempered fabric covered by buff wash on the exterior side. Another new type of this phase is a hole-mouth jar with given buff fabric with elongated ledge rim (fig. 9, no. 13). Various forms of this necked jars have been found from the Girshman’s operation B excavation at Susa, which came about to be common from Shimashki onward  31. Moreover, short‑neck examples have been found from Acropole which were dated back to Early Akkad by the excavators  32 and in Ville Royale in the Susa VA context, Layers 5‑6  33 to Susa VB, Layers 3‑4 have been found as well  34. The texture of such potteries with flatted string cut base is diagnostic of Elamite period. These potteries have incised decorations as well. Among the potteries of the period, there are some red/pink fabric vessels that are the continuation of the previous red vessels. However, their texture is finer tempered and some of them are ledge rim jars (fig. 9, no. 15). Some primary examples of such potteries with more distance in between the incised lines had been produced before Shimashki, which are by the Early Akkad  35 or Susa IV b reported from Susa  36. Their bodies have horizontal parallel incised lines, often cut by zigzag grooved lines on (fig. 9, no. 16) and their texture and color are the same as the previous one. Potteries with such texture, pink fabric, and buff slip decorated by an appliqué stripe also exist (fig. 9, no. 17); such sherds have been painted dark brown in some cases (fig. 9, no. 18). This sand-tempered pottery has a vertical form and decoration on the rim. There can be also seen a ledge rim bowl: its parallels have been produced by the Late Akkad period from Susa  37. Phase 10: by this phase, some heavy and horizontal ledge rimmed vessels had been appeared (fig. 9, no. 9); some vegetal-tempered vessels are everted rounded rims buff/greenish buff colored (fig. 9, no. 7, 10). The bodies of such vessels is incised as the exterior become concave. The Elamite diagnostic bases of this phase are vegetal-tempered ring and string cut; brown barrel bodies with smoothed exterior and convex shoulders and, in some cases, the gypsum plastered turning to white interior side is, could be identified as well. Phase 9: the assemblage found from this phase includes changes in texture and fabric; Elamite big jars are known from this phase, which in some cases have rounded ledge rim having a tenon below the rim, which is the diagnostic feature of the given period (fig. 9, no. 6). The texture of these potteries is vegetal-tempered greenish buff and some are brown (fig. 9, no. 3). Moreover, some rims with concave top have been attested as well (fig. 9, no. 4), which are backed to the earlier period of Shimashki and Early Akkad, like hole-mouth jars  38. Ring (fig. 9, no. 5) and string cut bases that are slightly convex belong to the given period in buff and greenish buff colors.

Pottery Assemblages of Trench E Phase 10: regarding Phase 11 that is includes the uppermost of a mud‑brick platform, we did not excavate the lower parts since we could only clean the brick materials of the given platform. Hence, some noticeable findings such as pottery were not found as it seems that Phase 11 was related to

30.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 27.

31.

Gasche 1973, pl. 36.

32.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 4, 19.

33.

Carter 1978, fig. 46, no. 5.

34.

Carter 1978, fig. 46, no. 7; Carter 1979; Carter 1981, fig. 50, no. 11.

35.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 5.

36.

Carter 1978.

37.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 5, no. 10.

38.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 2.

135

136

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Phase 10 continuingly because the material from Phase 10 could be the continuation of Phase 11. The most important vessel forms of the phase are jars, goblets, and bowls that are diagnostic of the Elamite periods and their texture was clearly distinguished from other periods. Open-mouth jars of this period are varied in size such that some have diagonal ledge (fig. 10, no. 9) flat (fig. 10, no. 13) rims with linear and wavy incised decorations. These rim types have been found from the Acropole excavations that are contemporaneous with Ur III of Mesopotamia  39. The most common diagnostic rim forms in this period are the complex incised rims whose bodies have the same decorations, either linear or wavy lines, while their texture is brownish red (fig. 10, no. 15). These forms are also the diagnostic features of Shimashki period known from different excavations in Susa which were identified by Ghirshman from the Layers VI, VII of the operation B  40, Steve and Gasche at Acropole and by Carter from VB of Ville Royale  41. There are some goblets with stripe or niched rims which in some cases are shallow in depth (fig. 10, no. 19). Two painted sherds have been found from this layer painted dark red on brown, which include parallel lines (fig. 10, no. 16) or are along with zigzags (fig. 10, no. 27); temper of such potteries is sand, which seems different from the Susiana potteries, as a buff slipped sherd with light brown fabric painted with dark brown painting similar to Late Susiana potteries. Similar cases to Shimashki painted potteries from Ville Royale VII of the operation B  42 or from earlier period (the Late Akkad) are exist as well  43. In addition to such decorations, the finger impressed decoration has been highly used (fig. 10, no. 26) whose fabric is dark brown; potteries with white interior plaster have also been attested. The flat (fig. 10, no. 12) ring (fig. 10, no. 4 and 18) base forms exist, too. Bowls in various diameters have different rims that are in club or ledge forms. One of the most interesting forms of such vessels is a bowl with everted rim and incised decorations on top (fig. 10, no. 22); it could be paralleled with a case backed to the Late Akkad from Acropole  44. There are some common and plain bowls (fig. 10, no. 6‑7, 11) paralleled with Susa VB  45. A small and shallow everted bowl (fig. 10, no. 23) could be a diagnostic of the given period. The texture of potteries from this period is more likely sand/ grit-tempered buff and brown from dark to light although in some cases they contain lime particles as well. Phase 9: the main difference between the potteries from this phase and those belonging to the last one is the emergence of vegetal-tempered potteries continued to Sukkal Mah. Moreover, some big changes in color of the fabric has been occurred as in some cases the Elamite standard greenish buff ware has been formed. An example of the standard hole-mouth jars in the given period, with club rim and brown fabric were attested (fig. 11, no. 9); although they were sand-tempered, they are formed with vegetal temper on both sides and, in some cases, they have finger-pressed decorations simultaneously. Ledge rim bowls with horizontal grooved decorations (fig. 11, no. 1) are similar to the cases from Susa  46, and in some cases, they became goblets with wavy grooved lines (fig. 11, no. 11). Their texture is brown covered by milky white slip, but the diagnostic example that became common over this period and its parallel have been found from Susa  47, Farukhabad  48 is a big goblet carinate just below the rim (fig. 11, no. 7), which was formed in various sizes by the Shimashki period.

39.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 3, no. 8.

40.

Gasche 1973, pl. 16, no. 11.

41.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 3, no. 8.

42.

Gasche 1973, pl. 17, no. 9.

43.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 7.

44.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 6, no. 16.

45.

Carter 1978, fig. 47, no. 4.

46.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 4, no. 6.

47.

Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 2, no. 2‑7; Gasche 1973, pl. 7; Carter 1978, fig. 47, no. 1.

48.

Carter 1981, fig. 84 b.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

Fig. 10 – Trench E – Phase 10 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

137

138

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Fig. 11 – Trench E – Phase 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Cultural Sequences The chronology and cultural sequence of the third millennium BC deposits of Tappeh Senjar (tab. 1) are based on the Carter’s Chronology for Susa. Though regarding the small scale of the excavations in Susa, she claimed that this chronology is a primary framework and cannot be the final one  49. The Proto-Elamite of Susa is contemporaneous with Susa III phase at Susa and the adjacent sites on the plain based on which the undertaken investigations at Acropole I  50 and Ville Royale I  51 in this period can be divided to three phases: Susa III a, b, and c. This period is roughly spanned from 3100‑2600 BC, that is the chronology system known via 16‑13 layers of Ville Royale Trench A; however, it is difficult to segregate these periods since, over all these phases, potteries related to the whole Susa III and its phases are mixed. A painted pottery slipped by semi‑red color is known from 18‑13 layers of Ville Royale while in some few cases, it is known from Layers 15‑16 of the operation A in Ville Royale. The characteristic of the Susa III occupation at Tappeh Senjar from Trench A is the large amount of mud‑brick architecture discovered from the depth 8‑9.5 m below the surface of the trench. There is no occupational evidence from Trench E and hence, it is supposed that the beginning of occupation in this trench was started directly on virgin soil. The first twelfth phases of Trench A show the appearance of a new pottery type known as buff‑colored differed from the last potteries, and it can be paralleled to those from Susa IV  52. Monochrome painted pottery with geometric decoration is rare and mostly comparable to those forms from Susa IVB. The lack of the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III pottery types implies that this period, Susa IVA, has not been identified in Tappeh Senjar, and there might be a long gap from the Mid‑Susa III (ProtoElamite) to Susa IVb (Early Elamite/Awan), which according to absolute dating is around 400 years. A radiocarbon sample (Wk‑26936) taken from this trench (fig. 12, no. 1) with 95% probability proved the date between 2600‑1900 BC, while another sample with 68% probability proved 2460‑2130 BC.

49.

Carter 1978, p. 211.

50.

Le Brun 1978.

51.

Carter 1978; Carter 1979; Carter 1980.

52.

Carter 1980.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

The domain of the former is as far as it is acceptable; however, its calibration with other findings such as potteries and according to the beginning of its date show that the deposits of this period could be attributed to about 2400‑2300 BC; the period is contemporary with Akkad in Mesopotamia and Awan in Iran. The lack of the Susa IVa occupational deposits or the Early Dynastic phase of Tappeh Senjar is the same as the gap in Farukhabad in Dehluran  53 and Tal‑e Malyan deposits in Fars  54.  

By the next phase, Tappeh Senjar had begun the new stabilized period related to Susa V or Shimashki dynasty. If the twelfth phase of Trench A has a long gap, it has, by the later phases, gradual changes in pottery and cultural sequence. Phase 11 can be paralleled to the Ville Royale 6‑7  55 and Layer 1 of Steve and Gasche’s operation at Acropole  56. The pottery of this period tends to the Elamite one that is excavated by Ghirshman in his excavation at Ville Royale B later on  57 although the Shimashki phase has not been included yet.

Table 1 – Relative Chronology for Tappeh Senjar and correlation with Susa (© Sardari).

53.

Wright 1981.

54.

Sumner 2003.

55.

Carter 1980, p. 26.

56.

Steve and Gasche 1971.

57.

Steve and Gasche 1971.

139

140

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Fig. 12 – Determinations of Radiocarbon Dates for Tappeh Senjar (© Sardari).

Pottery assemblage of Phase 11 at Trench A are highly comparable with Phase 10 of Trench E, as high homogeneity is well observed both in texture and form. Phase 10 of Trench E includes deposits and ashy materials located just on the earlier Phase 11; indeed, the lowest level of this phase is architecture in 8.5 m from the top of the trench. If we suppose that the pottery found from shallow deposits of Locus 119 is related to this phase, we can accept that the Phase 11 might be the first appearance of the occupation on the northern sides of the site by the Shimashki period. This can be proved by absolute dates showing some date between 2140‑1950 BC with 95% probability and 2140‑2080 BC by 68% probability (WK‑26939) [fig. 12, no. 4] from locus 123. According to this sample, the most acceptable date of this phase is between 2100 to 2000 BC; the time contemporary to Late Ur III and the rise of Shimashki  58.  

It is not unexpected that some evidence of the earlier than Shimashki (Susa V) can be found below Phase 11. Regarding the location of the Susa IV deposit of Tappeh Senjar, adjacent to the prehistoric slopes of Tappeh Senjar, it is not possible to find this material on the center of the main mound, but lower deposits of Phase 11 of Trench E contain noticeable portion of the given period, showing the development of Tappeh Senjar to the northern sides in size. Potteries from Phase 10 of Trench E are highly compared to those from Phase 10 of Trench A since there are large quantities of common vegetal-tempered greenish buff wares in both phases. Another radiocarbon sample (Wk‑26935) from Phase 10 of Trench A (locus 50) indicates the date between 2040‑1880 BC with 95% probability and 2020‑1925 BC with 68% probability (fig. 12, no. 2), which can shed light to the date of the given period. Hence, there is no doubt that this period in both trenches is the rising date of Shimashki and has continued from lower layers without any gap. Although Potts believes that it is impossible to discern a clear break between the Late Akkadian and Ur III periods when Susa

58.

Potts 1999, p. 158.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

was under Mesopotamian control  59, Susa was lost to Shimashkian forces under Kindattu or one of his predecessors, but architecture remains of the operation B in Ville Royale might be helpful on this issue. Phase 9 of Trenches A and E has regular sequence of Shimashki as pottery traditions are standards of their own period; phases contemporary of Ville Royale VB  60 and the operation B of Ville Royale  61 as well, being continued to several later phases too. Among the discovered objects from Phase 9 of Trench A, a cylinder seal was made of black Chlorite and was finely engraved (fig. 13). This type of seal attributed to the diagnostic glyptic style was previously called “Popular Elamite” by Amiet  62 and now is called “Anshanit”; according to the written documents, it can be attributed to Ebarti or Ebarat II. The term “Anshanit” is used because of the origins of such seals, which were identified from Tal‑e Malyan, the site of Ancient Anshan  63. A large quantity of the cylinder seals during the Early Elamite similar to Old Babylonian period by the presentation of worship scenes, which heir from third dynasty of Ur seal impressions. Most of the scenes show the presentation of a worshiper, presumably the seal owner, to a seated deity or an enthroned king  64. The seal design occurring Phase 9 show motley collections of Elamite and Mesopotamian motif elements include a crescent moon above two persons, two stars under the scene, a tree probably likes date palm behind standing the worshiper and also amazing thing look like a censer or candelabrum. The date palm on the corner of scene usually is one the Elamite seal patterns found greatly in the Susa, which present the “Tammuz” or god of agriculture and vegetation in the Mesopotamian myths.

Fig. 13 – Trench A – Phase 9 Cylinder Seal and its impression (© Sardari).

59.

Potts 1999, p. 150.

60.

Carter 1978, p. 202; Carter 1980, p. 26.

61.

Gasche 1973.

62.

Amiet 1992.

63.

Potts 1999, p. 151.

64.

Porada 1993, p. 571.

141

142

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Crescent moon is the Mesopotamian god “Sin” or Elamite god “Napir”. Stars identified the goddess “Ishtar” that continued to Middle Elamite period  65.

Cultural Interactions By the Proto-Elamite/Susa III, the population of the Susiana Plain had dramatically decreased as settled at a township named Susa  66; here, large areas of the region were completely abounded since it seems that there were few occupations remained permanent; and there was no evidence on the political pattern of the region and no hierarchy as well; all of these characteristics are indications on dramatic changes in regional political organizations and subsistence patterns. During the Proto-Elamite Susa was ca. 11 hectares in size including Acropole and 2 hectares of Ville Royale. Here, Susa was the only large site of the plain while most of other sites were about one or less hectares which were either occupied for brief periods or visited only sporadically  67. However, Susa took new role as became a port-of-trade in between political organization of Iranian Zagros and Mesopotamia  68. Although excavating the Proto-Elamite deposit of Tappeh Senjar was at a small scale and there is no evidence of the so‑called Proto-Elamite tablets similar to those from Susa, Tappeh Yahya, Shahr‑i Sukhteh, Sofalin and Godin, future great excavations can contribute to discover such objects showing trade with Susa. The 2015 studies on the eastern sides of Tappeh Senjar revealed evidence on the given period, showing Tappeh Senjar had probably been a village with 3 hectares area. Tappeh Senjar was one of the northern sites on the plain, which could play a key role in the exchanges with northern societies of Highland Zagros  69 and Dehluran in the west  70. Although Alden hypothesized that the settlements of the northern borders of the plain were abounded  71, it seems that Tappeh Senjar could be an effective and key site on importing goods from the Iranian Plateau. Another viewpoint on this issue is Alizadeh’s idea  72 who, unlike Alden  73, believes that the rarity of settlement and population in Upper Susiana during this period is not a result of the region’s depopulation but of what could be termed “de-settlement”, a process on which most of the population do not leave a region permanently but they revert to a life of pastoral nomadism without leaving much archaeological evidence behind. The amount of population of the Proto-Elamite and early third millennium of Susa that became nomads has not been cleared yet as more extensive investigations are needs on the seasonal site and related graveyards that had almost no evidence on the center of the plain yet or has not been interpreted. But identification of sites such as Bani Surmah and Kale Nissar in Pusht‑I Kuh  74 close to north and Dehdouman  75 in the west of Susiana as well as seasonal sites of Bakhtiari region  76 with Susa IV pottery could definitely lead us to infer that the population of such regions were increased by the time people occupied the Susiana Plain by the winter and returned to the mountains in Summer.

65.

Porada 1965, p. 48.

66.

Alden 1987, p. 157.

67.

Alden 1987, p. 160.

68.

Alden 1982.

69.

Weiss et al. 1975.

70.

Wright 1981; Wright and Neely 2010.

71.

Alden 1987, p. 159.

72.

Alizadeh 2010, p. 372.

73.

Alden 1987.

74.

Haerinck 1986.

75.

Naseri et al. 2013.

76.

Nowruzi 2010, p. 166.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

However, Alizadeh believes that the main center of the extensive activities of such societies must be at some plains such as Dehluran and Ramhurmoz plains and northern part of Susiana on which Tappeh Senjar is located, where was placed for agriculture and industrial purposes  77. By the Early Dynastic period or Susa IVA, it seems that Tappeh Senjar was not occupied since we do not have any evidence yet. Moreover, the lack of information on the texts and written documents, discerning the situation of Susa in terms of exchange and interactions with Sumerian cities is problematic  78; however, Tappeh Senjar was re‑occupied by the Susa IVB period playing an important role in the Susiana settlement pattern framework. By the Susa IVB period, playing an important role in of the Susiana Plain was influenced by Susa. This system was 46 hectares in size and Susa was the main center. In Schacht’s viewpoint, the second largest site of the given settlement model was Tappeh Senjar that was smaller than what was predicted by the model (fig. 14)  79. He believes that Tappeh Senjar was ancient Zahara as by the being discussed period, Senjar was a subordinate of Susa but Chogha Pahn and Deh‑No had more unpredictable relation with Susa and another 32 sites with extent in between 0.2‑0.7 hectare were exist as well  80. Zahara was a small highland county in the Zagros Mountain region, southwestern Iran, adjacent to or near the frontiers of Elam and Parahshum (Marhashi)  81. It is attested only in texts of the Akkadian king Rimush (2278‑2270 BC), and according to Potts, its Fig. 14 – Rank-size graph of Susa IV (© Schacht 1987, p. 195, fig. 46). location is vague  82. In the most parts of this period, Susa was in the dominance of foreign forces as the commercial and economic texts of Susa by this period are in Akkadian language; archives of Sumerian families have shown that they sent deputies and officials and were regularly in travel between Akkad, Sumer and Susiana  83, But potteries of this period are showing that by the Susa IVB period some changes happened more likely to the Akkadian style in Mesopotamia in terms of form and decorations  84. Settlement pattern indicates that the population and administrative organizations far more than been expected were centralized at Susa  85.

 

By the Shimashki period Susa is surprisingly huge in size about 80 hectares  86, and Tappeh Senjar as the northern parts were under the influence of settlements of Susa. Susa was the only center of

77.

Alizadeh 2010, p. 371.

78.

Carter 1985, p. 43.

79.

Schacht 1987, p. 175.

80.

Schacht 1987, p. 176.

81.

Bryce 2009, p. 784.

82.

Potts 1999, p. 103.

83.

Carter 1985, p. 45.

84.

Carter and Stolper 1984, p. 134.

85.

Carter 1985, p. 45.

86.

Schacht 1987, p. 177.

143

144

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

this period in the Susiana Plain; twelve cities (ca. 4‑10 hectares in size), 8 small villages (less than 4 hectares) were distributed along with the roads passing the region  87. The excavations at Tappeh Senjar revealed that large amount of deposits (about 8 m) in different occupational phases in an area with 7 hectares were highly populated. According to the similarities revealed from Tappeh Senjar it seems that the Ur III kings of Mesopotamia, whose controlled and observed the administrative organizations of the Susiana by the rise of Shimashki, chose some centers such as Tappeh Senjar as a pathway for transferring their precious commodities from Iranian Highlands.

Conclusion Stratigraphic excavations at Tappeh Senjar in northern Khuzestan shed light on the understanding of the formation process of the site and its cultural sequence. The investigations can help us to have more precise interpretations on the cultural sequence of the settlements of the region. Tappeh Senjar that was located in the north of Susa had an important role in reinvestigations of Susiana since Susa has a long cultural sequence of occupational deposits started in contemporaneous with Susa (if not earlier), which continued to the late historical times such as Parthian periods. Tappeh Senjar can be compared to Susa from another point of view as well, through which is the so‑called small scale Susa is the general formation process. As the prehistoric site (fifth and fourth millennium BC) proved by 18 m and on the Proto-Elamite layers beside this site had started to be important centers on the north of Susiana. Then, in contemporary with Early Dynastic period and mid‑third millennium BC in Mesopotamia (Susa IVA) the site was abandonned and its occupants migrated to the highlands of the Iranian Plateau  88, or in Alizadeh’s viewpoint  89, it was de‑settled and people chose pastoral nomadic way of life. There is evidence on the Tappeh Senjar showing the sequence of the Awan/the Early and Late Akkad, showing that the sequence was continued to Shimashki (Susa V); after on, the population growth in the site continued and its sequence to Sukkal Mah and the Middle Elamite made it as one of the most important cities of Susiana. Tappeh Senjar was located in the north of Susa on the communicative road to Dehluran and Mesopotamia. Moreover, it was on the road from Susa to Highland Zagros and Khorram Abad. The strategic location of the site in the north of Susa can be related to the most of the politico-military and socio-economic interactions of the Susiana Plain societies, especially Susa with Godin III on the Highland Zagros  90 and Mesopotamia in the west by the third millennium BC. Tappeh Senjar as a way station between Susa and the societies of the Bronze Age in Luristan and Zagros could be a good connector to exchange commodities and services. On the other hand, it is definite that by the invasions or migrations from Mesopotamia in the period of Sumerian City‑States, Akkadian and Ur III to the Awan and Elamite territory, they had to pass Dehluran and the road to Susiana which is passing from the area on which Tappeh Senjar is located. This parameter could be an important factor to have long sequence of Cultural period at Tappeh Senjar. Stratigraphic investigations carried out in several trenches revealed the situation of cultural deposits, proximate extend and absolute dates of the site, while the existence of several canals around the site, evidence on pottery production, monuments and fortifications in some periods can contribute to understand the modern irrigation agriculture systems, productive and industrial activities and military and commercial camps during the third millennium BC. The cultural deposits related to the abovementioned periods can be discovered from the main site from Trench A, but the deposits of Trench E

87.

Carter 1985, p. 46.

88.

Alden 1987.

89.

Alizadeh 2010.

90.

Henrickson 1984.

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

in the north of the site regarding the destructions caused by the modern war between Iran and Iraq are located in 2 m depth (fig. 6). Excavation at several big trenches possibly can reveal noticeable evidence of architecture, occupational spaces, religious and industrial spaces, written documents (we found one of Middle Elamite inscribe tablets on the other trenches) and some other useful documents on the various periods of the site to us.

References Adams R. McC. 1962, “Agriculture and Urban Life in Early south-western Iran”, Science 136/35, 11, p. 109‑122. Alden J. 1982, “Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran”, Current Anthropology 23/6, p. 613‑640. Alden J. 1987, “The Susa III Period”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry, Washington DC, p. 157‑170. Alizadeh A. 2010, “The Rise of the Highland Elamite State in Southwestern Iran: ‘Enclosed’ or Enclosing Nomadism?”, Current Anthropology 51/3, p. 353‑383. Alizadeh A. 2014, Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavation at Tall‑e Geser and Regional Survey of the Ram Hormuz Plain, Oriental Institute Publications 140, Chicago. Amiet P. 1994, “Quelques sceaux élamites”, in H. Gasche, M. Tanret, C. Janssen and A. Degraeve (ed.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien, offertes en hommage à Léon de Meyer, Mesopotamiam history and environnment, Occasional publications 2, Gent, p. 59‑66. Bryce Tr. 2009, The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia: the Near East from the Early Bronze Age to the fall of the Persian Empire, London‑New York. Carter E. 1971, Elam in the Second Millennium B.C.: The Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (unpublished). Carter E. 1978, “Suse ‘Ville Royale’ ”, Paléorient 4, p. 197‑211. Carter E. 1979, “Elamite Pottery, ca. 2000‑1000 BC”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38, p. 111‑128. Carter E. 1980, “Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa: the third millennium BC occupation”, Cahiers de la DAFI 11, p. 11‑134. Carter E. 1981, “Elamite ceramics”, in H.T. Wright (ed.), An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 13, Ann Arbor MI, p. 196‑223. Carter E. 1985, “Notes on archaeology and the social and economic history of Susiana”, Paléorient 11/2, p. 43‑48. Carter E. and Stolper M.W. 1984, Elam. Survey of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Los Angeles. Dollfus G. 1985, “L’occupation de la Susiane au Ve millénaire et au début du IVe millénaire avant J.‑C.”, Paléorient 11/2, p. 11‑20. Dyson R. 1966, Excavations on the Acropolis at Susa and Problems of Susa A, B and C, Ph.D thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge MA (unpublished). Gasche H. 1973, La Poterie élamite du deuxième millénaire a.C., Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 47, Leiden‑Paris. Ghirshman R. 1970, “The Elamite Levels at Susa and Their Chronological Significance”, American Journal of Archaeology 74, p. 223‑226. Haerinck E. 1986, “The Chronology of Luristan, Pusht-I Kuh in the late fourth and first half of the third millennium BC”, in J.‑L. Huot (ed.), Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie, colloque international du CNRS 17‑19 déc. 1984, Paris, p. 55‑72.

145

146

Alireza Sardari, Samira Attarpour

Henrickson R. 1984, Godin Tepe, Godin III and Central Western Iran: ca. 2600‑1500 BC, Ph.D. Diss., Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto. Hole Fr. 1969, “Report on the Survey of Upper Khuzistan”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Preliminary Reports of the Rice University Project in Iran, 1968‑1969, Houston. Johnson Gr.A. 1973, Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 51, Ann Arbor MI. Le Breton L. 1957, “The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamia Relations”, Iraq 19/2, p. 79‑124. Le Brun A. 1971, “Recherches stratigraphiques à l’Acropole de Suse (1969‑1971)”, Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran 1, Paris, p. 163‑216. Le Brun A. 1978, “Suse, chantier ‘Acropole 1’”, Paléorient 4, p. 177‑192. Mecquenem R. de 1980, “Les fouilleurs de Suse”, Iranica Antiqua 15, p 1‑48. Michalon J. 1953, Recherches à Tchoga Zenbil, Paris. Morgan J. de 1896, Mission scientifique en Perse IV/1, Ernest Leroux Éditeur, Paris. Morgan J. de 1900, Mémoires de la Délégation scientifique en Perse I, Ernest Leroux Éditeur, Paris. Naseri R., Malekzadeh M., Saàdian S., Khanipor M. and Ebrahimi M. 2013, “Rescue Excavation at Dehduman Cemetry, Khersan 3 Dam”, in M.H. Azizi Kharanaghi, M. Khanipour and R. Naseri (ed.), Papers of First International Young Archaeologists Symposium, Tehran, p. 423‑426 (in Persian). Nowruzi A.A. 2010, “Archaeological Studies on Northern Karun Basin (Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiyari Province)”, Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, p. 161‑176 (in Persian). Porada E. 1965, Ancient Iran: the Art of Pre-Islamic Times, New York. Porada E. 1993, “Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium BC”, The Art Bulletin 75/4, p. 563‑582. Potts D.T. 1999, The archaeology of Elam: Formation and transformation of an ancient Iranian state, Cambridge World Archaeology Series, Cambridge. Potts D.T. 2005, “Neo-Elamite Problems”, Iranica Antiqua 40, p. 165‑177. Sardari A. 2014, “Tappeh Senjar: a Landscape of Long-term Settlement on the Susiana plain”, in M.H. Azizi Kharanaghi, M. Khanipour and R. Naseri (ed.), Papers of First International Young Archaeologists Symposium, Tehran, p. 169‑186 (in Persian). Schacht R. 1987, “Early Historic Cultures”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry, Washington DC, p. 171‑203. Steve M. and Gasche H. 1971, L’Acropole de Suse, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 46, Paris‑Leiden. Sumner William M. 2003, Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal‑e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran, University Museum Monograph 117, Philadelphia. Vallat Fr. 1993, Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites, Wiesbaden. Weiss H., Young C., Cuyler H. and Harvey C. 1975, “The merchants of Susa. Gudin V and plateau-lowland relations in the late fourth millennium BC”, Iran 13, p. 1‑17. Wright H. 1981, An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 13, Ann Arbor MI. Wright H. 1998, “Uruk states in Southwestern Iran”, in G. Feinman and J. Marcus (ed.), Archaic States, School of American research advanced seminar studies, Santa Fe, New Mexico, p. 173‑192. Wright H. and Neely J.A. 2010, Elamite an Achaemenid Settlement on the Deh Luran Plain; Towns and Villages of Early Empires in the Southwestern Iran, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 47, Ann Arbor MI.

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction Elnaz Rashidian Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main After more than 150 years of both archaeological and philological research on ancient Elam, only too little has been found out and too much remains to be discovered regarding its landscape and settlement setting. One of the most exciting issues in this regard is the case of urban Elam from the 3rd millennium forwards. Yet, the paucity of geo‑data about the spatial distribution of Elam’s settlements makes it almost impossible to reconstruct an outline of urban Elam and its interaction with the natural setting. The archaeological investigations up until now are mostly sporadic and fitful. In addition, the written evidence is philologically contradictory and vague at best. Seeking a reliable comprehension of a given toponym there is obviously no alternative to a successive and long planned excavation supported by extensive surveying. However, due to individual cases of site formation process this way does not always yield assuring results either. It is suggested that using geoarchaeological methods one can take steps towards a better understanding of the toponym-hydronym interaction. Morphological analysis – as the by far most useful methodology in geoarchaeological research – is proposed here as an indispensable tool, albeit a complementary one, for current investigation in this field. Both macro- and micro-morphology provide invaluable insights of a settlement (i.e. toponym) and its environs (e.g. hydronym) while being at low cost and causing no damage to the archaeological context. Here, the definitions of “Elam” and “[pre‑] urban” are discussed foremost. Then, most impediments of the above-mentioned issues regarding philological and archaeological contradictions as well as site formation peculiarities in search for cities in Elam are summarized via examples. Finally, in both spectra morphological methods are suggested to address those issues, using examples of current research in geoarchaeology elsewhere. Malgré plus de 150 ans de recherche à la fois philologique et archéologique sur l’Élam antique, très peu de choses seulement sont connues et beaucoup restent à découvrir sur le milieu et sur le système d’occupation. L’une des questions les plus intéressantes à cet égard est celle de l’urbanisation de l’Élam à partir du IIIe millénaire av. J.‑C. Pourtant, la rareté des données géographiques sur la distribution spatiale des sites en Élam rend quasi impossible une reconstitution, même sous forme d’esquisse, de l’Élam urbanisé et de son interaction avec l’environnement naturel. Les fouilles archéologiques jusqu’à maintenant sont souvent pour la plupart sporadiques et incomplètes. En outre, les données écrites sont du point de vue philologique, au mieux, vagues et contradictoires. Lorsque l’on cherche à comprendre un toponyme donné d’une manière exacte, il n’y a évidemment pas d’autre alternative que de faire une série de fouilles programmées accompagnées de prospections extensives. Cependant, en raison des cas individuels dans le processus de formation des sites, cette approche n’est pas toujours garante de résultats. L’utilisation des méthodes géo-archéologiques est suggérée pour mieux comprendre l’interaction entre toponyme et hydronyme. L’analyse morphologique – de loin la méthode la plus utile dans la recherche géo-archéologique – est proposée ici comme un outil indispensable, quoique complémentaire, pour les recherches actuelles dans ce domaine. La macro- et la micro-morphologie fournissent chacune des indications précieuses sur un site (toponyme) et ses environs (p. ex. hydronyme) tout en étant de faible coût et sans dommage pour le contexte archéologique. Les définitions de “Élam” et de “[pré] urbain” sont discutées ici avant tout. Puis, la plupart des obstacles aux problèmes mentionnés ci‑dessus, dus aux incohérences archéologiques et philologiques, ainsi que la recherche des spécificités dans la formation des villes en Élam

148

Elnaz Rashidian

sont résumés à travers des exemples. Enfin, des méthodes morphologiques sont suggérées pour aborder ces questions, en prenant des exemples dans la recherche actuelle en géoarchéologie d’autres régions.

،‫ آگاهی ما از الگوهای استقراری عیالم‬،‫ش های باستان‌‌شناسی و زبان‌‌شناسی‬ ‌ ‫با وجود پیشینه طوالنی پژوه‬ ‫درباره چشم‬ ‫ همچنین کمبود اطالعات‬.‫ هنوز بسیار اندک است‬،‫به ویژه شهرنشینی هزارۀ سوم پیش از میالد‬ ؑ ‫داده های ناقص در‬ ‌‌ ‫ بازشناسی این الگو‌‌ها را با تکیۀ صرف بر‬،‫هزاره های پیشین‬ ‌‌ ‫‌‌اندازطبیعی این منطقه در‬ ‫) و‬Toponym( ‫ مهم‌‌ترین مانع بر سر بازیابی نام‌‌جای‌ها‬،‫ این نقص بزرگ‬.‫ نا‌‌ممکن کرده است‬،‫دسترس‬ .‫) بوده که در منابع نوشتاری عیالم و همسایگانش در این دوره از آن‌ها یاد می شود‬Hydronym( ‫نام‌‌آب‌‌ها‌‌یی‬ ‫زمین باستان‌‌شناختی‬ ‌‌ ‫پژوهش های‬ ‌‌ ،‫ پس از اشاره به ابعاد این نقص در باستان‌شناسی عیالم‬،‫در این نوشتار‬ ‫ به ویژه‬.‫ به عنوان راه حلی مناسب برای جبران این امر معرفی می شوند‬،‫با کمک چند مثال کاربردی‬ ‌‌‫ش های زمین‌‌باستان‌‌شناسی برای تکمیل داده‬ ‌ ‫‌‌ریخت‌‌شناسی (مورفولوژی) به عنوان کارآمد‌ترین روش در پژوه‬ ‫ش های نوین برای بازشناسی‬ ‌ ‫ همچنین به رو‬.‫ن شناسی به بحث گذاشته شده است‬ ‌ ‫های حاصل از کاوش باستا‬ .‫) اشاره می شود‬Sub SAR( ‫) و ساب سار‬LiDAR( ‫ن های آبی کهن در چشم‌‌انداز کنونی مانند لیدار‬ ‌ ‫جریا‬ ‫باستان شناسی عیالم‬ ‌‌ ‫زمین باستان‌‌شناسی یک ابزار اجتناب‌‌ناپذیر در پژوهش‌‌های‬ ‌‌ ‫نویسنده بر این باور است که‬ ‫بی نظیری در اختیار گروه قرار‌‌داده و امکان بازشناسی الگوهای استقراری در‬ ‌‌ ‫بوده که با هزینۀ کم داده‌های‬ ‫زمین باستان‬ ‌‌ ‫ این امر حضور و همکاری‬.‫) را فراهم می‌‌کند‬Paleo-Landscape( ‫چشم‌انداز کهن منطقه‬ .‫می سازد‬ ‌‌ ‫ن شناسی عیالم را ضروری‬ ‌ ‫‌‌‌شناسان در کاوش‌‌های میدانی باستا‬

Issues regarding urban Elam Where are the cities in Elam and the rivers which part them and shape their toponym-hydronym setting? The fact is that we know little of Elam’s geographical setting (see fig. 1 for an outline) despite 150 years of Elamite archaeology along with huge amounts of written evidence both from Elam and its neighbors. There were attempts to reconstruct this interaction  1. But none of them was compelling enough to take us further towards a better understanding in this regard. Our maps of Elam are therefore filled with question marks before the names and locations  2. One may blame the lack of extensive surveys and successive excavations as the main reason for our lack of information. However, it is known that excavation and survey data are deficient if they are not correlated to other methods. Maybe now is the time to look at the issue from another perspective, to approach the question of toponym-hydronym interaction geoarchaeologically. But some commonly used terms shall be defined and clarified foremost. Firstly, to be careful not to limit our understanding to the historical aspect of the archaeological evidence from Elam, the term “Kingdom” is better avoided here. In the following, it is substituted by “Elamite period”, as merely a term for a time span discarding the political issues of an entity of governance. This term is used to refer to the time from the mid-4th to the 1st millennium BCE  3, which includes Proto-, Old-, Middleand Neo-Elamite periods taken from the current chronology of Elam agreed among most scholars  4. In dealing with a topic as complex and broad as urbanization, one should first pause at definitions such as “city”, “town”, and “urban center” in order to clarify the extent of their range and to avoid confusion over their use and meaning. Some may even exclude the whole concept of “urban” places prior to classical times, denouncing any possible definition for the ancient times as vague and idealistic at best. In the latter case, one would avoid to call those centers cities in order to distinguish the fundamental differences from the actual meaning of the concept of the city as we know it from classical times onwards. Though, for the sake of the argument, let us assume that the urban centers in the Elamite period with their distinguished characteristics could be regarded as cities. Furthermore, let us take “urbanization” as a process both

1.

Carter and Stolper 1984; Potts 1999; Dittmann 1986; Amiet 1966.

2.

For example, Steinkeller 1982, p. 265, fig. 2.

3.

3400‑525 BCE.

4.

Carter 1985, p. 313.

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

Fig. 1 – An outline map of the discussed areas.

evolutionary and intentional. In addition, the term “urban place” is preferred here as referring to the combination of the urban and the natural setting of a toponym and its satellite settlements, while other terms bear social meanings that would go beyond the scope of this essay. The first issue is one of definition. As mentioned before, the definition of an urban place is still vague at best. There is yet no clarity in the use of terms such as city, town, and urban centers in ancient Elam. The current approach of a generalized concept of urbanization based on the rich urban heritage of ancient Mesopotamia does not fit the extremely different geographical setting of regions like the dynamic riverine landscape of Khuzestan, the mountainous Zagros, the arid wadi of Kerman, the flat central plateau of Ray, and the vast eroded region of Helmand. In other words, the Mesopotamian concept of urbanization does not seem to fit geographically in the lands under Elamite cultural influence. As Tosi warns us not to generalize the Mesopotamian concept of urbanization and to transfer the Mesopotamian idea of city to the Elamite setting  5, we have to bear in mind that in order to find the spatial distribution of urban places in Elam, we must know what we are looking for. Merely seeking to find ruins of cities of several hectares’ extension, with walls and palaces, might be a fruitless search, as some case studies have already shown  6. How do we identify a settlement as urban? There must be factors by which to categorize and sort the settlements. In this regard, there have been long discussions and numerous propositions by several scholars. Some  7 find the size of a settlement to be a primary index. This view is based on the law of “spatial dominance”, which states that the paramount center in an area has dominance over all

5.

Tosi 1978, p. 59.

6.

Wright 1979; Wright and Johnson 1975.

7.

Adams 1960; Johnson 1973; Wright 1979.

149

150

Elnaz Rashidian

others  8. Therefore, by sorting the settlements of an area based on their size, one shall find the center in the largest settlement. This point of view has probably direct roots in the geographical theory of the “central place”  9, which has been successfully used to explain the number, size and location of human settlements in an urban system since its introduction by the German geographer Walter Christaller in 1933  10; at the same time the theory is sharply criticized for its static nature in producing models of settlement pattern  11. Other scholars  12 discard the size as not primarily important or indicative, but take the long duration of a settlement occupation as a far more decisive criterion regarding the differentiation of sites as cities or non‑cities. They even go further and state that “… there were cities as well as villages in the Neolithic Near East, …  the urban communities of the third millennium  … were in all probability only later, larger and more elaborate versions of their Neolithic prototypes”  13. Such interpretations are regarded as controversial  14. Yet, their credibility is still not investigated via methods other than mere site surveys. However, a similar view at the development of first urban centers in the ancient Near East and their possible roots in the Neolithic period has been recently discussed anew by others  15. Another group of scholars  16 defines urbanization as an economic process embedded in a developing state as a polity and refuses the spatially based definition of urbanization. Such definitions are set in the framework of the “system theory”  17 which seems to be a favorite theoretical approach regarding urbanization especially in the American discipline of anthropology  18. Population is another important factor which is considered by some as an indicator for an urban place  19. Furthermore, population and size are reflected in a third criterion, density, which is directly related to the degree of urbanization, say others  20. They suggest the term “pre‑urban cities”, which distinguishes the overall concept of city from the process of urbanization, resulting in the state of urbanism  21. As one comes to recognize the vague understanding of those indicators and their definitions, the difficulty of identification of any given settlement as an urban place becomes clearer. But the problem is not even that. Our current archaeological record is unable to provide us with satisfying answers to such questions. In the case of the settlement size, as many have noted, the estimated size of surveyed sites in the Greater Susiana is mostly approximate and often disputable  22, especially since only a small portion of them has been subject to geo-prospection and extensive archaeological investigations  23.

   8.

Christaller 1933, p. 21, 48, 62, etc.

   9.

Known as the CPT model.

10.

Christaller 1933.

11.

Pacione 2009, p. 127‑130.

12.

Mellaart 1975.

13.

Mellaart 1975, p. 273.

14.

For example, M. Voigt 1976, in her comment on Mellaart’s book, in Science Magazine 192/4240, p. 682‑683.

15.

For example, Matney 2012, p. 556‑574.

16.

Zeder 1985.

17.

Von Bertalanffy 1968.

18.

For tracing that, it suffices to take a look at any fundamental archaeological publication concerned with the Ancient Near East in the 60s to 80s in the US.

19.

Mellaart 1975; Nissen 1995.

20.

Bairoch 1988, p. 9‑30.

21.

Bairoch 1988, p. 9.

22.

For further discussion see Alizadeh 2009, p. 135.

23.

Vallat counts hundreds of toponyms, which are listed in either Mesopotamian or Elamite writings from the 3rd millennium. Only a handful of them is identified based on solid archaeological evidence; see Vallat 1993.

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

To summarize, there are as many criteria for a definition of urban places as there are definitions! Every one of these definitions is the result of years of research based on case studies. Yet, the issue with such criteria is their need to be defined and limited as well; e.g. one cannot exclude a settlement as a city without arguing its size or estimated population. In addition, each of these criteria is indeed as complex as the urbanization itself. For example, the existence of an administrative body in one settlement is not easy to prove or disprove, obviously not with the help of some surface ceramic sherds and a test trench. While extensive archaeological excavations are not always an option, and even so, there is strong evidence of site formation process (see two examples for erosion in fig. 3) which makes it impossible to find such answers merely with the traditional tools of archaeology, one shall make use of other methods to gain more solid data on each and every site, in order to categorize them both for further investigations, and to make a priority list of sites with promising aspects regarding urbanization. In this regard, geoarchaeology is going to help. The second issue is related to our philological treasures accumulated over the years, as most of the toponyms and hydronyms are localized first by making use of the written evidence. At first glance, the written evidence might seem to be a formidable source of data on this matter  24. Unfortunately, there is little agreement among scholars regarding Elamite settlements and their toponyms, which shows its extent when it comes to localizing major Elamite urban centers. Anyone with a bit of experience in working with these sources would agree that the accuracy of their interpretation is unsatisfactory at best. As François Vallat mentions, many well-studied texts about the Elamite geography come from the Mesopotamian side, i.e. indirect sources. Scholars with a focus on Assur, Akkad, Sumer, and Babylon ignore the Elamite side of the events, so that the Elamite sources become victims of their ignorance  25. The most telling example is the issue of the terms “Susian” and “Elam” which can refer to the same territory at some point in time, while they are distinguished at another point  26. Furthermore, from the Mesopotamian point of view the term “Elam” referred to different Elamite territories at different times in history. From the 3rd to the 2nd millennia the whole Iranian Plateau was considered as Elam in Mesopotamian texts. This included the Susian (modern Khuzestan province) and Anšan (ancient Persis or modern Fars province). In the Sukkalmah period, Elam was solely the ensemble of Susian and Fars. By the 1st millennium Elam had already shrunk to the lands of Susiana  27. Obviously it is rather hard to locate toponyms from such accounts. Such inaccuracies cause huge differences in interpreting the written evidence, which leads to confusion regarding toponyms and their assumed location among scholars. Another good example is the toponym “Bessitme”, which was assumed to be located near Susa in Basinna in Khuzestan by Metzler in the late 50s, identified as the modern “Basht” by Hallock in 1979 and Arfa’i in 1999, localized somewhere in the modern city of “Dezful” by Koch in 1986, assuming to be the 34 ha large settlement of Bisetin (RH‑26) near Ramhormoz by Carter and Wright in 2003, suggested to be in Fahlyan by Potts in 2009, and so on; all based on the same pool of written evidence rendered with sporadic archaeological data available at the time  28. Yet another example delivers the toponym “Huhnur(i)” which was recently re‑localized to Tol‑e Bormi near Ramhormoz by Mofidi-Nasrabadi in 2005, based on an accidentally found stone inscription stating the campaign of Amar-Suena of Ur III and his conquest of the city of Huhnur  29. This suggestion has found wide acceptance, while others such as Alizadeh question this localization. Based on lack of

24.

König 1965.

25.

Vallat 1993, p. CIII.

26.

For a detailed discussion see Vallat 1993, p. CVII.

27.

Vallat 1993, p. CXLV.

28.

For the full discussion see Vallat 1993, p. CVIII, and the entire entry of “Bessitme” in his notes.

29.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2005.

151

152

Elnaz Rashidian

representative pottery in the entire region of Ramhormoz in his recent survey, he argues against this suggestion, even shedding doubt on the find location of the stone inscription in Bormi  30. Here we have two prominent archaeologists interpreting the same data with totally different results. Unfortunately, the lack of data from other sources regarding Tol‑e Bormi prevents the discussion from moving forward, in order to reach at least a general agreement. With other sources, I mean geo‑data. Even the hydronyms suffer from a similar problem. There are for example eleven known names of hydronyms in the environs of urban Susa from both Mesopotamian and Elamite sources  31. And there are nine hydronyms known to pass through the city of Susa at this time  32. Attempts to localize these hydronyms and identify them with current bodies of water in the region have failed excessively  33. The case of Choaspes  34 shows best how confusing the names of hydronyms and their identification with current and modern rivers may become, if one does not consider the numerous river shifts that have taken place in the meantime caused by the dynamic character of the Greater Susiana’s riverine landscape. In the toponym-hydronym interaction, the organic process of becoming an urban center must be considered thoughtfully. One of the problems in this regard is that lack of continued evidence on every single toponym makes it rather difficult to trace their development from small settlements into centers. Some philological evidence shows traces of a particular settlement type, which could be a key to our understanding of Elam’s urban setting. This special type is called “dimtu” in Akkadian  35, which presents an alternative type of settlement besides city and village. The term has developed quite diverse writings  36 during the millennia, being a commonly used term in Mesopotamian texts, but is yet to be identified in Elam. In his study of this term in the Mesopotamian Nuzi texts, Koliński makes notice of its vague meaning ranging from a building complex to a taxation unit  37. A Mesopotamian dimtu is in Koliński’s definition a fortified rather huge settlement standing alone in the outskirts of cities either in an urban or rural setting; it serves the purpose of both living and working as a semi-dependant center under one person’s control with ties throughout the region, in some cases even intra-regional trade relations. In his own words: “the dimtu structure of Mesopotamia was considerably larger than that of a typical house, and was most probably a free standing structure equipped with defensive features and located outside the larger settlements (towns or cities)”  38. He finds it logical to consider at least some of the known settlements with a size of less than 2 ha as dimtu, which would mean that they were semi-dependant city‑like settlements. He notices the absence of dimtu in a city, while there are several dimatu mentioned in the adjacent areas within the urban space and in the rural regions as well  39. Tracing the toponyms of these dimatu throughout the 2nd and 1st millennia, he discovers that some of these are mentioned as cities in later times with the exact same location, so that there is no doubt about the evolution of some dimatu to cities  40.

30.

Alizadeh 2013.

31.

Adāda – Agarin(n)u – Haju – Harum – Iškuzzu – Meranum – Mēzapmuri – Rakip – Kupla – Sidari – Ukkubati.

32.

Akul – Data – Hutti – Kimasū – Simalli – Šubarū – Šugurri – Zahaki – Zianai.

33.

For example, Henkelman 2008. As a counter example see Potts 2005.

34.

See for example Schmitt 1991; Ehlers 2011.

35.

For further information on dimtu see Koliński 2001.

36.

Black, George and Postgate 2000, p. 60.

37.

For the wide range of meanings and interpretations of dimtu see Koliński 2001, p. 3‑4; Wilkinson 2003, p. 120, table 6.2.

38.

Koliński 2001, p. 103‑104.

39.

Koliński 2001, p. 520.

40.

Koliński 2001, p. 33.

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

How is this relevant for Elam? There is valid written evidence regarding the existence of several dimatu in the Susiana region adjacent to Susa, with sheep herds, and some of them also include a palace of some sort  41. These dimatu seem at least in the 2nd millennium to have enough strength and resource management to conduct trade deals with their Mesopotamian neighbors, as is proved by Nuzi texts among other sources  42. Some of them are identified as cities in Elam by other philological sources  43. Koliński suggests extended surveys as a means to discover dimtu settlements. He mentions two paradigms of settlement pattern in the region, namely: settlements with a size of several hectares and others with less than two hectares. He considers several examples among the second group as potential dimatu. He also draws our attention to the fact that these “small” settlements seem to be located dominantly in regions with less spacious lands, where the existence of a settlement stretching over several hectares would be less possible  44. In summary, there are many known settlements in the Elamite influential areas with an estimated size of 2 ha. On the other hand, there seems to be a lack of dense urban setting in these very regions compared to Mesopotamia at the same time. The third important fact is that many of the Elamite regions are rather less vast and spacious compared to the Mesopotamian flood plains. The question is whether it can be concluded that there were numerous dimatu acting as city‑like settlements in Elam in a slightly different urban setting than in Mesopotamia. The answer is beyond the scope of this essay and shall be discussed elsewhere. The third issue is the assumed environmental change in the Greater Susiana both during the Elamite period and afterwards, which turns every attempt at a landscape reconstruction into a challenge with far too many variables. Ancient and recent river shifts, the successive transgression of the Persian Gulf coastlines, and modern agricultural and industrial developments of the region not only leave scars on the surface of these areas, but also cause sedimentations and geomorphologic turnarounds which are very difficult to trace with traditional means. One of the most important issues of geographical setting in the Elamite period is the reconstruction of the Persian Gulf’s palaeo-coastlines. As the current coastlines are obviously rather young in geological age, the ancient position of the palaeo-coastlines has been often questioned over the years  45. There is strong evidence for a drastic change of the northwestern coastlines of the Persian Gulf as well as ancient and recent river shifts  46. While a reconstruction of the ancient coastlines attracts many scholars, most of their suggestions do not share a common ground. As shown in fig. 2, there are different reconstructions of the ancient coastline putting it in a range of 750 to 8 km northwards of the current one. The cultural and political separation of Elamite and Mesopotamian entities is even explained as actually being a physical separation between the territories by the ancient Persian Gulf   47. It seems that this assumption has now been adopted as a fact, so that most recent maps of the region show this hypothetical coastline  48.

41.

Toponyms mentioned as dimtu in Nuzi texts in the 2nd millennium: Abu‑tab, Att‑husu, DUB.SAR, Gal(?)di, GIBIL, Ibni‑Adad, LUGAL, Rapasti, sa Halteri, Salak‑denim, Sasa; toponyms of the Neo‑Assyrian period in Elam: Dimtu sa Simame, Dimtu sa Tapap, Dimtu sa Dume‑ilu, Dimtu sa Mar‑biti‑etir, Dimtu sa Sulaia, Dimtu sa Nabu‑sarhili, Dimtu sa Sullume, Dimtu sa Belet‑biti, Dimtu Samas. For details of this list see Koliński 2001, p. 156‑157.

42.

Koliński 2001, p. 33‑34.

43.

For example Langdon 1904 which names the same dimatu of Nuzi texts as “city in Elam”, p. 60‑61.

44.

Koliński 2001, p. 88.

45.

For some of the most important references see Lees and Falcon 1952; Sarnthein 1972; Cooke 1987; Heyvaert and Baeteman 2007; Uchupi, Swift and Ross 1999.

46.

Gasche 2005; Pournelle 2003; Alizadeh et al. 2004.

47.

Cooke 1987, p. 25, fig. 8.

48.

For example Petrie 2013, p. 2. Fig. 1.1.a.

153

154

Elnaz Rashidian

Considering these divergences of ancient and current landscape in the Greater Susiana, it would obviously be a fatal mistake to interpret the archaeological and philological data based on the current landscape. Unfortunately, this happens in Elamite studies far too often. To avoid this misinterpretation, one should be provided with solid geo‑data. Let us review a recent investigation in Khuzestan. Results of the 2004 joint geoarchaeological campaign in lower Khuzestan shed light on a very dynamic riverine landscape, which has witnessed drastic changes in the course of environmental history. In this regard, the five perennial rivers and their courses were studied and several of their

Fig. 2 – Selected reconstructions of the Persian Gulf’s coastlines.

Fig. 3 – Sharafabad (left) is covered with vegetation, while Abu Fanduweh suffers from gulley erosion (for locations see fig. 1).

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

fossil beds were identified  49. Out of the at least three ancient courses of the Karun, the so‑called K3 (3rd fossil bed of Karun) is worth mentioning, itself with several shifts and meanders. The Karkheh has proved similarly dynamic with three identified ancient courses. Interesting is KH2 (2nd fossil bed of the Karkheh) which merged with K2 (2nd fossil bed of the Karun) at some point and flowed southwards as an ancient branch of the Karun  50. As Kirkby has assumed in 1977, this combined Karun-Karkheh flow might be the source of confusion between these two rivers in the historical record  51. So, what is the use of this information for further investigation, besides drawing an outline of the palaeo-landscape in general? The data has just recently been published, but one already sees a benefit in the first attempts to put it to use. An example are the survey data based on these ancient courses, which revealed that there are no Elamite sites associated with KH3 (3rd fossil bed of the Karkheh), and that most sites associated with KH2 (2nd fossil bed of the Karkheh) are Islamic in chronology. Also based on archaeological evidence in adjacent surroundings of K2 (2nd fossil bed of the Karun), the investigators assumed that this Karun bed was active in the 2nd millennium BCE  52. Of course much has yet to be done in order to benefit from such geoarchaeological output in a way that is both affordable and solid. But it needs both time and an open mind to take into account new approaches, which may challenge the traditional archaeological tools such as mere site surveys and test trenches.

Geoarchaeology as a tool In the process of mapping regional settlement systems, there is the traditional tool of surveying the area and documenting as many sites as time and experience allow. But not even the best surveyor can dare to claim having recognized all possible settlement areas of a region. In the case of Elam, the most valuable and much referenced survey data have been gathered during a single survey of a few short days  53. Often though, hypothetical settlement patterns are suggested and discussed for decades solely based upon such surveys. These methodological problems of survey hinder us to ever comprehend the actual pattern of the space occupied by settlements, especially in case of urban places, which are probably not to be fully perceived via this approach. In his much appreciated contribution to landscape archaeology, Wilkinson points out exactly the same: “In reality, there is no single formula for the maximum recovery of early landscape data. Rather, it is necessary to harness a combination of remote-sensing techniques, detailed field survey, and local information, together with a certain amount of luck”  54. As mentioned, one should aim to reconstruct the landscape foremost, in order to draw an outline in which to put toponyms. For every toponym has to fit the landscape, especially in interaction with other toponyms as well as relative hydronyms. But this way of proceeding seems to be almost impossible at the time. The paucity of the published geo‑data regarding the landscape of Khuzestan in the Elamite period makes it impossible to reconstruct an outline of the urban and rural settlement clusters and their localities along with the geographical entities of that region. In other words, the toponym-hydronym interaction is yet to be cleared in most cases.

49.

Heyvaert, Verkinderen and Walstra 2012, p. 495.

50.

Heyvaert, Verkinderen and Walstra 2012, p. 498.

51.

Kirkby 1977.

52.

Heyvaert, Verkinderen and Walstra 2012, p. 499.

53.

Adams 1966; Wright 1979; Johnson 1973; McCown 1949; Nissen 1971.

54.

Wilkinson 2003, p. 43.

155

156

Elnaz Rashidian

Fortunately, there are ways to find out more about this interaction which can greatly complement the hard won archaeological and philological data on Elam, namely a geoarchaeological approach with Morphology as its best tool. It is worth mentioning, that in no case such tools are to be considered as substitutes for common archaeological investigations. They are to be seen as complementary tools in order to fill the lack of data and take us one step forwards in our aim to solve the jigsaw of Elamite townscape. In the following some examples are given, in order to show the extent of geo‑data available via this method, which includes satellite imagery and different radars. One of the most valuable sources of geo‑data is declassified regional scale CORONA imagery, which provides the surveyor with an outline of the area before and during the survey. It helps to recognize possible areas of interest, which may be hidden in the current landscape or even be drastically changed now. CORONA’s most valuable benefit is its date, the 60s, which is prior to the intensive industrialization of the area. As this process changed the surface of the landscape remarkably, some settlements have vanished tracelessly and can now be found only on the CORONA images. A recent example from northern Mesopotamia has shown how the professional interpretation of a single CORONA image can change our assumption regarding regional settlement patterns, and so free us from the limitations of traditional survey data  55. Using CORONA to identify traces of long lost toponyms and hydronyms seems to be inevitable in order to revise the existing survey material on the Susiana and polish our archaeological data to a more accurate state. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a method that provides radar imagery of the ground by sending microwaves towards the ground and processing their echoes independent of the solar illumination. It means that such images are unaffected by clouds and even the thin sand cover of the ground in arid regions  56. One of the most valuable aspects of such radar images is their ability to show subsurface features, especially in dry conditions, which is most desirable in areas like Ahwaz in Khuzestan with its moving sand dunes and in the eroded Kerman region. But SAR can also provide a surface elevation model in vegetated areas  57, which is most needed in northern and eastern Khuzestan, where nearly every ancient settlement is covered by agricultural vegetation. For such delicate work, one needs multi-polarization SAR. The geo‑data provided by this method is to be corrected using other variables like topography. The best results are achieved by using corrected SAR, which is shown in an example from “Agkor Wat”, an urban center of the 19th century in Colombia. A digital elevation model (DEM) with high resolution and low cost was produced of this religious urban center using SAR radar imagery, which expedited the ongoing archaeological investigation and made possible the discovery of the temple traces  58. Another example shows the so called “radar river” in the Egyptian Sahara in a now dry and sandy landscape, which is only visible on SAR images  59. As mentioned before, SAR is most useful for areas with limited access to archaeological data. Interpreting an SAR image of the vegetated Sharafabad (fig. 1, no. 6; fig. 3) with its solid archaeological record from the 4th to the 2nd millennium can shed light on the spatial setting of different cultural horizons and their distribution on the mound. LiDAR (Light detection and ranging radar) is a useful imagery tool, which can collect so called “point‑clouds” and reconstruct every single scratch of an area, given thorough interpretation. Point‑clouds can be used both in micro- and macro‑scales, for they are great scanning tools. But the use of them in reconstructing an urban space in a natural setting by water is rather acknowledged by an example of Mesoamerican archaeology  60. In this case, the urban site and the ancient river

55.

Casana and Cothren 2013, p. 41, fig. 4.5.

56.

For more on SAR see Morrison 2013.

57.

Chapman and Blom 2013, p. 117.

58.

Comer, Blom and Megarry 2013, p. 165.

59.

Chapman and Blom 2013, p. 114‑115, fig. 10.1.

60.

Fisher and Leisz 2013.

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

bed in the urban center of “Angamuco” in modern Mexico were scanned via LiDAR. The results have been analyzed and so different Camplejos (complexes), Neighborhoods and Districts were discovered without even conducting a test trench first  61. The density of provided data is rather high, so that a single LiDAR scan of an area of 9 km2 has yielded over 20,000 architectural features of the city core  62. This information has served the team of archaeologists to plan the excavations in that city with much more confidence, assured of results, for they had now a better understanding of the spatial distribution of the urban place and its interaction with the nearby river  63. The good point is that this kind of imagery can even go down through vegetation and surface disturbance for a meter. This method of geo‑data production can obviously be of great use in the complex urban site of Susa. Foremost because huge parts of the ancient city are not accessible for archaeological investigations on the ground. Therefore, such records of sites like Susa, Dehno, Abu Fanduweh (fig. 3), and even Sanjar (for locations see fig. 1) could be of great value, regarding our desperate need of solid information from these sites and their special condition including their dispersed excavation data. Another use of this imagery tool is its ability to scan over bodies of water and provide an image of the water bed. This ability is much needed in sites like Chogha Mish and Gesser (Ghazir) with their rather puzzling water management (fig. 1, no. 7 and no. 3). One of the most confusing tasks of archaeology is to reconstruct an ancient landscape based on its current shape and reality. It is well known that for most settlements the site formation process and its interaction with the natural setting is an indispensable factor, which should be studied thoroughly before any attempt at a site reconstruction. Most field archaeologists are familiar with this process, as they have developed a great eye for detail and change during their field work over the years. Yet some formation processes are not to be discovered or understood during a site survey or by merely walking the area. Most of the micro-morphological research in archaeology these days is based on bulk samples and Kubienas taken from both cultural and natural horizons, providing geoarchaeologists with a pool of solid geo‑data which can be interpreted along with other sources to reconstruct the toponym-hydronym interaction with a high degree of confidence. As many field archaeologists have mentioned, such formation processes are common in areas such as Susiana and East Zagros  64. An example is shown here (fig. 4), from one hypothetical set of toponym and hydronym, only as a demonstration of what micro-morphology is capable of. In this hypothetical case the ancient settlement with two distinct cultural horizons has developed gradually into a natural relief and become a part of the current landscape. Like most such mounds in the Near East, this hypothetical site has also served later on as a graveyard for the nearby modern village. The rather small meandering river of the current landscape looks stable. However, there are indications of a river shift in ancient times. A surveyor simply cannot spot the ancient settlement and only finds scattered ceramics of a much older period than the graveyard in a very limited number on the slopes of this mound, but no trace of them on the zenith. A series of core samplings can bring the much different subsurface sedimentations into light. These five hypothetical cores show the ancient river bed and buried cultural horizons under the young fluvial sediments of the current river bed. As this kind of sedimentation is rather common, especially in the dynamic riverine landscape of the Greater Susiana, one may ask oneself how many of these settlements are buried and therefore invisible to the surveyor’s eye; how much of the complex and intense network of settlements in the Elamite period are we missing due to such site formation processes? Fortunately, geoarchaeological methods have developed to a great extent, so that such dark points can be removed from our archaeological maps very soon.

61.

Fisher and Leisz 2013, p. 206, fig. 16.4.

62.

Fisher and Leisz 2013, p. 199.

63.

Fisher and Leisz 2013, p. 207.

64.

Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Wilkinson 2003, p. 93‑94.

157

158

Elnaz Rashidian

Fig. 4 – Benefits of a micro-morphological approach shown in a hypothetical example (a multi horizon settlement and the riverbed in a. bird view and b. section view being studied by 5 core samples).

Concluding remarks Ninety years ago, Colonel Maunsell stated in his travel journal: “What is really desired to be known is the early connection between these cities of Elam and those of Mesopotamia, what relation they had with Ur of the Chaldees, with Erech and Lagash and the then seaports around the head of the Persian Gulf ”  65. Now we know rather much more to that question without yet actually being able to localize

65.

Maunsell 1925.

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

these very cities on either side. The term “city” stands almost always in front of Susa and Anšan, for the whole Elamite period and in every record. But where are the other cities of Elam? How many were there and with which one of the known mounds in this region can they be identified? These questions are often asked and seldom answered. As Carter mentions, Susa was not the only densely populated center in the Susiana during the Susa II period; Chogha Mish and Abu Fanduweh (fig. 3) were also huge centers  66. As discussed above, the geographical setting of lands under Elamite influence is rather unique and must be considered as a major cause regarding the development of different settlement types in this region, compared to the Mesopotamian floodplains. The oval valley of Izeh in Khuzestan (fig. 1, no. 1) is a good example of settlement development dependent on geographical setting and does not fit into the Mesopotamian concept of urbanization; it should therefore be defined apart from it. This region with its unique hydraulic setting and the small-scale drainage system, which just includes two lakes and no major perennial rivers, simply does not answer the concept of cities at the edge of rivers on floodplains. There are at least three settlements, west of the modern city of Izeh, of considerable size, which present distinguished Elamite pottery from the Sukkalmah era. Are they entitled to the term urban? As Wright states, one of them is “large enough to be a town”, but lacks “the depth of debris” and the typical baked bricks of an Elamite town  67. So what is it then and why is it larger than the others? Are any alternative settlement types imaginable, as discussed above? The urban issue is obviously very different in Elam and in Mesopotamia, although the problem of urban space is not exclusively on the Elamite side. There are also debates on the Mesopotamian side, especially in regard of disputable settlements such as Tell Brak  68. A greater problem for Elam is the sporadic written evidence and the fitful archaeological record. Here a third dimension has been suggested, which is the geo‑data. This shall bridge the two other bases of data and provide a solid ground to shape hypotheses regarding the toponym-hydronym interaction in Elam. How can one benefit from this information? In a first step geo‑data should be extracted as completely as possible from the written evidence as well as from the archaeological context in order to build a reasonable basis for further investigation. Obviously, the amount of collected data as well as their degree of certainty varies from one to another toponym or hydronym. Nevertheless, a first profile of each toponym and hydronym should be feasible. As there are always various places presented as possible candidates for a toponym, the second and most important step is to sort out those that do not fit the provided profile, based on original problem-oriented geo‑data, which should be collected via geoarchaeological methods. One of the first priorities of current archaeological research in Iran is to urge archaeological expeditions, surveys and excavations to collect geo‑data via geoarchaeological methods, so that these can be worked with in form of an accumulated data pool in the future, when the sites are gone or not to be accessed again. Unfortunately, lack of marine archaeological investigations and contradictory results of fitfully conducted geoarchaeological studies in the discussed area prevent us from completing the jigsaw of the hydraulic systems specially in the Greater Susiana plain. The question of coastline formations and settlement patterns at this point of time and place proves such interdisciplinary approaches all the more necessary. To that end, more joint investigations and exchange of thoughts and results among the archaeologists of different disciplines are necessary. Until then, the interaction of Persian Gulf coastlines and settlement patterns remains a highly complicated though fascinating question in the archaeology of the Elamite period. The necessity of engaging new methods for collecting information during excavations and surveys has in recent years been noted by many scholars  69. Yet, the dilemma regarding interpretation of geo‑data

66.

Carter and Stolper 1984, p. 116.

67.

Wright 1979, p. 99‑100.

68.

Ur 2007.

69.

For example Alizadeh et al. 2004; Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013, p. 89‑132.

159

160

Elnaz Rashidian

in geoarchaeological investigations in the course of the time remains unsettled as long as the results are not re‑evaluated every now and then in the light of new results achieved by other disciplines. The issue of the northwestern coastlines of the Persian Gulf is a perfect example of the sort (fig. 2). Geoarchaeological methods should be integrated into current research by both collecting and producing geo‑data during and besides excavations and surveys. Fortunately, the use of topographic maps and geographic modeling is now a well established routine in archaeological investigations. Nevertheless, there is even more to geoarchaeology than producing attractive maps for the publication, or showing the walls stretching under the surface. Off‑site intensive surveys, subsurface geo‑sample collecting, SAR, LiDAR or other remote sensing methods should become standard procedures in every investigation, given their multispectral usage and wide data range. Specialists with emphasis on geomorphology and sedimentology must be present at every site during excavation. The description and documentation of natural sediments and their interaction with the cultural deposit regarding post‑burial processes should be given priority and be done by specialists. Only in that case can one benefit from these methods in full extent. Is a search not more productive and less expensive if one knows where to search and what to search for? It is now safe to assume that a geoarchaeological approach can indeed provide us with hints that lead to the long sought answers to our questions in this regard. Let us begin to explore!

References Adams R.McC. 1960, “Factors influencing the rise of civilization in the alluvium: illustrated by Mesopotamia”, in C.H. Kraeling and R.McC. Adams (ed.), City Invincible, A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, December 4-7, 1958, Chicago, p. 24‑45. Adams R.McC. 1966, The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico, The Lewis Henry Morgan lectures 1965, Chicago. Alizadeh A. 2009, “Prehistoric mobile pastoralism in southeastern and southwestern Iran”, in J. Szuchman (ed.), Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, Oriental Institute Seminar 5, Chicago, p. 129‑146. Alizadeh A. 2013, “The Problem of Locating Ancient Huhnuri in the Ram Hormuz Region”, NABU 3 (Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires), p. 65. Alizadeh A., Kouchoukos N., Wilkinson T.J., Bauer A.M. and Mashkour M. 2004, “Human-Environment Interactions on the Upper Khuzestan Plains, Southwest Iran. Recent investigations”, Paléorient 30/1, p. 69‑88. Amiet P. 1966, Élam, Auvers-sur-Oise. Bairoch P. 1988, Cities and economic development. From the dawn of history to the present, Chicago. Black J., George A. and Postgate J.N. (ed.) 2000, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (2nd ed.), Wiesbaden. Carter E. 1985, “The archeology of Elam”, Encyclopedia Iranica VIII/3, p. 313‑325. Carter E. and Stolper M. 1984, Elam: Surveys of political history and archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Los Angeles. Casana J. and Cothren J. 2013, “The CORONA  Atlas Project: Orthorectification of CORONA Satellite Imagery and Regional-Scale Archaeological Exploration in the Near East”, in D.C. Comer and M. Horrower (ed.), Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer Briefs in Archaeology 5, New York, p. 33‑44. Chapman Br. and Blom R.G. 2013, “Synthetic Aperture Radar, Technology, Past and Future Applications to Archaeology”, in D.C. Comer and M. Horrower (ed.), Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer Briefs in Archaeology 5, New York, p. 113‑132.

In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction

Christaller W. 1933, Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: eine ökonomisch-geographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen, Jena. Comer D.C. and Horrower M. (ed.) 2013, Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer Briefs in Archaeology 5, Springer, New York. Comer D.C., Blom R.G. and Megarry W. 2013, “The Influence of Viewshed on Prehistoric Archaeological Site Patterning at San Clemente Island as Suggested by Analysis of Synthetic Aperture Radar Images”, in D.C. Comer and M. Horrower (ed.), Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer Briefs in Archaeology 5, New York, p. 159‑171. Cooke G. 1987, “Reconstruction of the Holocene Coastline of Mesopotamia”, Geoarchaeology 2/1, p. 15‑28. De Morgan J. 1900, “Ruines de Sus”, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse I, p. 50‑54. Dittmann R. 1986, Betrachtungen zur Frühzeit des Südwest-Iran, Berlin. Ehlers E. 2011, “Karkheh River”, Encyclopedia Iranica XV/6, p. 583‑585. Fisher C. and Leisz S. 2013, “New perspectives on Purépecha Urbanism through the use of LiDAR at the site of Angamuco, Mexico”, in D.C. Comer and M. Horrower (ed.), Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer Briefs in Archaeology 5, New York, p. 199‑210. Gasche H. (ed.) 2005, “The Persian Gulf shorelines and the Karkheh, Karun and Jarrahi rivers: a geoarchaeological approach”, Akkadica 126, p. 1‑43. Henkelman W. 2008, The other gods who are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian acculturation based on the Persepolis fortification texts, Achaemenid History 14, Leiden. Heyvaert V. and Baeteman C. 2007, “Holocene sedimentary evolution and palaeocoastlines of the Lower Khuzestan plain (southwest Iran)”, Marine Geology 242, p. 83‑108. Heyvaert V., Verkinderen P. and Walstra J. 2012, “Geoarchaeological research in Lower Khuzestan: state of the art”, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (ed.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Leiden, p. 493‑534. Johnson G. 1973, Local exchange and early state development in southwestern Iran, Anthropological papers 51, Ann Arbor MI. Kirkby M. 1977, “Appendix  1. Land and Water Resources of the Deh Luran and Khuzistan Plains”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Studies in the Archaeological History of the Deh Luran Plain. The Excavation of Chagha Sefid, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 9, Ann Arbor MI, p. 251‑288. Koliński R. 2001, Mesopotamian dimātu of the second millennium BC, BAR International Series 1004, Oxford. König F. 1965, Die elamischen Königsinschriften, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 16, Graz. Langdon S. 1904, “List of Proper Names in the Annals of Ašurbanipal”, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 20/4, p. 245‑255. Lees G. and Falcon N. 1952, “The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains”, The Geographical Journal 118/1, p. 24‑39. Matney T. 2012, “Northern Mesopotamia”, in D. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Oxford, p. 556‑574. Maunsell F. 1925, “The land of Elam”, The Geographical Journal 65/5, p. 432‑437. Mc Cown D.E. 1949, “The Iranian Project”, Americal Journal of Archaeology 53, p. 54. Mellaart J. 1975, Neolithic of the Near East, London. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2005, “Eine Steininschrift des Amar-Suena aus Tape Bormi (Iran)”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 95, p. 161‑171. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2013, “Neue archäologische Untersuchungen in Dehno, Khuzestan (April-Mai 2012)”, Elamica 3, p. 89‑132.

161

162

Elnaz Rashidian

Moghaddam A. and Miri N. 2007, “Archaeological surveys in the ‘eastern corridor’, south-western Iran”, Iran 45, p. 23‑55. Morrison K. 2013, “Mapping subsurface archaeology with SAR”, Archaeological prospection 20, p. 149‑160. Nissen H.J. 1971, “The Expedition to the Behbahan Region”, Annual Reports 1970‑1971, University of Chicago, Oriental Institute, Chicago, p. 9‑12. Nissen  H.J. 1995, Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzeit des Vorderen Orients, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 3, Darmstadt. Pacione M. 2009, Urban Geography: A Global Perspective (3rd ed.), London. Petrie C. (ed.) 2013, Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long‑range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BCE, Oxford. Potts D. 1999, Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge. Potts D. 2005, “Neo‑Elamite problems”, Iranica Antiqua 40, p. 165‑177. Pournelle  J. 2003, “The littoral foundations of the Uruk state: using satellite photography toward a new understanding of 5th‑4th  millennium  BCE landscapes in the Warka survey area, Iraq”, in Dr. Gheorghiu (ed.), Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1123, Oxford, p. 5‑23. Sarnthein M. 1972, “Sediments and history of the postglacial transgression in the Persian Gulf and northwest Gulf of Oman”, Marine Geology 12, p. 245‑266. Schmitt R. 1991, “Choaspes”, Encyclopedia Iranica V/5, p. 496. Steinkeller P. 1982, “The question of Marhaši: a contribution to the historical geography of Iran in the third millennium B.C.”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 72/2, p. 237‑265. Tosi M. 1978, “The development of urban societies in Turan and Mesopotamian trade with the East: The evidence from Shahr‑i Sokhta”, in H.J. Nissen and J. Renger (ed.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien vom 4. Bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr (XXV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin 3‑7 July 1978), Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient I, Berlin, p. 57‑77. Uchupi E., Swift S.A. and Ross D.A. 1999, “Late Quaternary stratigraphy, Paleoclimate and neotectonism of the Persian Arabian Gulf region”, Marine Geology 160, p. 1‑23. Ur J. 2007, “Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north”, Antiquity 81/313, p. 585‑600. Vallat Fr. 1993, Les noms géographiques des sources suso‑élamites, Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 11, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B 7, Wiesbaden. Voigt M. 1976, “Mellaart, J. 1975, Neolithic of the Near East” (book review), Science Magazine 192/4240, p. 682‑683. Von Bertalanffy L. 1968, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, New York. Wilkinson T. 2003, Archaeological landscapes of the Near East, Tucson. Wright H. (ed.) 1979, Archaeological investigations in northeastern Xuzastan 1976, Ann Arbor MI. Wright H. and Johnson G. 1975, “Population, exchange, and early state formation in southwestern Iran”, American Anthropologist, New Series 77/2, p. 267‑289. Zeder M. 1985, Urbanism and animal exploitation in SW highland Iran, 3400‑1500 B.C., unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.

URBANISATION IN EASTERN IRAN

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment Julie Bessenay-Prolonge PhD student, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, UMR 7041 ArScAn-VEPMO Régis Vallet CNRS, UMR  7041 ArScAn-VEPMO Tureng Tepe (northeast of Iran) was excavated from 1960 to 1979 by a French team directed by Professor Jean Deshayes (University of Paris 1). This work revealed a complex stratigraphical sequence reflecting nearly five millennia of human occupation. This was the most important archaeological project ever conducted in this region of Iran. Unfortunately, only the most recent levels of the site, attributed to the Sassanid and Islamic periods, were the subject of a full publication. The publication project was revived in 2012 by means of the constitution of a new team in charge of the protohistoric levels (Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). The French excavations have especially revealed an important urban centre dated from the 3rd millennium BC, and dominated by a high mud brick terrace. The artefacts recovered show close parallels with the site of Tepe Hissar. The aim of this paper is to present the preliminary results of the architectural study of the high terrace, to give a novel description of its internal structure, the building techniques implemented, the foundation system, and to propose a reconstruction of this unusual building. Les travaux réalisés à Tureng Tépé (nord‑est de l’Iran), par la Mission archéologique française dirigée par Jean Deshayes, de 1960 à 1979, ont permis la découverte d’une séquence stratigraphique de près de cinq millénaires. Malheureusement, seuls les niveaux les plus récents du site, c’est à dire les occupations sassanides et islamiques, ont fait l’objet d’une synthèse exhaustive. En 2012, la constitution d’une nouvelle équipe en charge des occupations protohistoriques (Chalcolithique, âge du Bronze et âge du Fer) a permis de relancer le programme de publication de ce site archéologique majeur. Les fouilles de Jean Deshayes à Tureng Tépé ont notamment révélé l’existence d’un centre urbain daté du IIIe millénaire, dominé par une haute terrasse de briques crues. Le mobilier archéologique, associé à ces niveaux, présente de fortes similarités avec celui mis au jour lors des fouilles de Tépé Hissar. Les résultats préliminaires de l’étude architecturale réalisée sur la haute terrasse nous permettent de donner ici une nouvelle description de la structure interne, des techniques de construction et du système de fondations, mais également de proposer une restitution d’ensemble de ce bâtiment insolite.

‫ توسط یک گروه فرانسوی به سرپرستی ژان دهه استاد‬1979 ‫ تا‬1960 ‫محوطه ترنگ تپه بین سال های‬ ‫ نمایان شدن پنج هزار سال توالی‬،‫ نتایج کاوش در این محوطه‬.‫ – سوربن کاوش شد‬1 ‫دانشگاه پاریس‬ ‫ این کاوش مهمترین مطالعه باستان شناختی انجام شده در ناحیه شمال ایران در زمان‬.‫سکونت انسان بود‬ ‫ تنها دوره های جدیدتر استقراری این محوطه که متعلق به ساسانی و اسالمی است به‬،‫ متاسفانه‬.‫خود بود‬ ‫ یک تیم جدید تخصصی با گرایش دوره های‬2012 ‫ در سال‬،‫ به همین منظور‬.‫طور کامل منتشر شده اند‬ ‫ مفرغ و آهن) جهت مطالعه و انتشار کامل دیگر یافته های بدست آمده از این‬،‫آغاز نگارش(مس و سنگ‬ ‫ یک مرکز مهم شهری مربوط به هزاره سوم‬،‫ در کاوش هیئت فرانسوی در این مکان‬.‫کاوش شکل گرفت‬ ،‫ مواد فرهنگی بدست آمده از این بخش‬.‫م نمایان شده بود که دربرگیرنده یک تراس خشتی بلند بود‬.‫ق‬ ‫ ارایه نتیجه مقدماتی از‬،‫ هدف نوشتار حاضر‬.‫شباهت زیادی به یافته های باستانشناسی تپه حصار دارد‬ ‫ روش های ساخت به کار‬،‫ توصیفی جدید از ساختار دورنی‬،‫مطالعه بقایای معماری تراس بلند خشتی‬ .‫گرفته شده در آن به ویژه پی سازی و بازسازی پیشنهادی از این بنای خاص است‬

166

Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet

Location and topography of the site Tureng Tepe (or “Hill of the Pheasants” in Persian) is an archaeological site located, in the Gorgan plain, northeast of Iran, close to the Turkmenistan border. It is more precisely located 18 km northeast of the modern city of Gorgan and 15 km south of the river Gorgan Rud. Tureng Tepe is one of the largest archaeological sites in this region, and the only one that provides a long, continuous occupation sequence from the Neolithic to the Islamic period. The site covers an area of nearly 35 hectares (fig. 1). It consists of a group of artificial mounds about 12 to 17 m high, dominated by the thirty meters high Main Mound. The topography is quite particular since a central depression (which turns into a winter seasonal pound) splits the site in two distinct sets. In the north, stands the Main Mound (or “Mound A”), the modern village, which covers the entire eastern part of the site, at its foot. North Tepe (or “Mound B”), further north, corresponds to the current cemetery. Tepe South, as its name suggests, is located in the southern part of the site. The

Fig. 1 – General plan of Tureng Tepe (J. Bessenay-Prolonge, after the archives of the Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tepe).

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment

excavations house of the French Archaeological Mission was built in 1961 in the eastern part. To the west is the Small Mound (or “Mound C” or “Naghar Tepe”). It is now part of an artificial dam. The Main Mound takes the form of a flattened cone, which measures nearly 110 m in diameter at its base, and 40 m in diameter at its top (fig. 2). It rises about 35 m above the level of the plain and the slopes are particularly steep. The western face is heavily eroded by the prevailing winds. The ruins of a former summer residence, dating from the 19th century, take place at the top of the tepe.

Fig. 2 – Tureng Tepe, Main Mound, southern slope, 1975 (photo: Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé).

History of the excavations and publication project Tureng Tepe was first mentioned in 1844, in an article relating the fortuitous discovery of the “Asterabad treasure”, which consisted of some bronze decorated dishes and weapons, and some stone figurines and vessels  1. The first true excavations took place in 1931, when the American Frederick Wulsin, curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia, began a series of surveys on Tureng Tepe  2. The first campaign takes place during the month of June 1931; a second one is organized in October of the same year. This work has enabled the discovery of many Bronze Age artefacts, some of which are currently exhibited in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. A deep pit of 17 m is carried out at the top of Main Mound, in order to provide information on the massive brick structure revealed by the erosion of the western face of the mound. It allows the discovery of a set of settlement levels on the top of a vast mud bricks platform. Two tunnels were also dug in the northern

1.

De Bode 1844, p. 248‑255.

2.

Wulsin 1932.

167

168

Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet

and eastern slopes. Some excavations squares have been carried out in the Northern Mound and in the Small Mound, where the excavators discovered about 75 burials linked with architectural remains. The site of Tureng Tepe was later excavated from 1960 to 1979 by a French team directed by Jean Deshayes (professor at University of Paris 1). The first campaign took place in January and February 1960, with a very small team. Two pits (A and B) are carried out in the northern part of the Small Mound. The primary purpose of J. Deshayes was to obtain a good idea of the stratigraphy of the site. He chose to postpone the excavation of the Main Mound considered to be “the most promising” for a later campaign. Three pits (C, D, E) are carried out on the Southern Mound from 1962. The 1964 campaign is devoted to the study of archaeological artefacts. Research on the High Mound started out in 1967, and continued until 1977. A total of 126 excavations squares have been carried out on the High Mound; it corresponds to an area of nearly 3150 m2.  

After Jean Deshayes’ death in 1979, the publication of the excavations was entrusted to others archaeologists who have worked on the site. R. Boucharlat and O. Lecomte were in charge of the volume dedicated to the Sassanid and Islamic remains, which was published in 1987  3. Because of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, S. Cleuziou (responsible for Iron Age levels) undertook new research works focused on Oman. J.‑D. Forest (responsible for Chalcolithic and Bronze Age remains) turned for his part to Iraq. The untimely deaths of both researchers in 2009 and 2011 puts an end to the research works of the first team. The only publications about the high terrace are two brief articles by Jean Deshayes published in 1975 and 1977  4. The publication project was revived by R. Vallet in 2012 by means of the constitution of a new team in charge of the publication of the protohistoric levels (Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age)  5.

Tureng Tepe and the Gorgan area during the Bronze Age During the second half of the 4th millennium BC, the Gorgan plain and its close surrounding areas are characterized by the appearance of a polished grey or black ceramic. S. Cleuziou, one of the Tureng Tepe excavators, talked about the “Burnished Grey Ware culture”  6. Tureng Tepe is one of the two main urban settlements of the cultural sphere of the Grey Burnished Ware, the site of Tepe Hissar constituting an outpost to the inside of the Iranian Plateau. This type of ceramics has been also found at Shah Tepe  7 and at Yarim Tepe  8, two others sites located in the Gorgan plain. The Burnished Grey Ware ceramics are generally high quality production; the pots are made without the potter’s wheel, and fired at high temperature (around 900° C) in a reducing atmosphere  9. At Tepe Hissar, the excavators have discovered many rich burials whose funeral artefacts include valuable materials from distant locations (alabaster, carnelian, lapis‑lazuli…). The

3.

Deshayes, Boucharlat and Lecomte 1987.

4.

Deshayes 1975; Deshayes 1977.

5.

The team directed by R. Vallet (CNRS) includes several researchers: J. Bendezu-Sarmiento (CNRS, director of the DAFA, Kaboul) and O. Munoz (post‑doctoral researcher, UMR 7041 ArScAn-VEPMO): funerary practices; J. Bessenay-Prolonge (doctoral student, University of Paris 1): stratigraphy and architecture; M. Casanova (professor, University of Lyon  2): prestige goods; G.  Gernez (assistant professor, University of Paris  1): metal artefacts; J. Lhuillier (post‑doctoral researcher, UMR 8546 AOROC): Iron Age ceramics; C. Pariselle (independent researcher): Bronze Age ceramics; L. Sève (professor, University of Lille 3): post-Achaemenid remains. All the archives of the site have been gathered and are kept at the “Service des Archives” of the “Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie” (MAE, Nanterre). We are very grateful to the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications for the funding of our publication program.

6.

Cleuziou 1986, p. 222; Cleuziou 1991.

7.

Arne 1945.

8.

Crawford 1963.

9.

Cleuziou 1991, p. 297.

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment

artefacts found in the “Burned Building” and the existence of a lapis‑lazuli workshop also illustrate both prosperity and social complexity of this Bronze Age settlement  10. At Tureng Tepe as at Tepe Hissar, several objects also demonstrate the existence of long‑distance trade with regions of Central Asia and with those of the south‑east of the Iranian Plateau. This “Burnished Grey Ware culture” seems to disappear around 1800-1700 BC with the abandonment of Tureng Tepe, Tepe Hissar and the others sites of the Gorgan plain.  

At Tureng Tepe, the excavations have revealed an important urban center dated from the Bronze Age, and dominated by a high mud brick terrace. The French archaeologists have excavated about 150 burials and several remains of houses in the excavations squares carried out on the Small Mound and on the Southern Mound. In much of these tombs, the body was buried with some artefacts: pottery, beads, and jewellery. Moreover, few pottery kilns have been discovered in the Southern Mound, which may correspond to a craft area.  

At the end of the 1975 campaign, J. Deshayes established a chronology of the site. This periodization of the stratigraphy is largely based on that of Tepe Hissar. Jean Deshayes defines nine main periods of occupation from the Neolithic (period I) to the modern age (period IX). Tureng III, which corresponds to the Bronze Age period, is subdivided into IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC, imitating the periodization of Tepe Hissar (Hissar IIIA, IIIB, IIIC). The period Tureng/Hissar IIIB‑IIIC is considered as the apogee of this “Burnished Grey Ware” culture and it is nearly dated from 2500 to 1750 BC.

The high terrace of Tureng Tepe The last four excavation campaigns focused on the Main Mound of the site. These excavations revealed a monumental building made of red brick. This terrace is the oldest remain that has been exposed on the Main Mound. If it is possible, indeed likely, that earliest levels exist, although they could not be reached by the excavators. The archaeologists have exposed only a small part of this high terrace, mainly on the southern slope of the mound, where the architectural remains were quite well preserved. The first remains of the high terrace were uncovered during the 1971 campaign, on the southern slope of the Main Mound. Therefore, during the following three campaigns, the excavations extended in the south‑eastern part of the Main Mound. These works exposed the southern side and the south‑western corner of the high terrace. It should be noted that the western face of the Main Mound was heavily eroded by the prevailing winds; therefore the mud bricks appeared directly below the surface of the site. This area was still too damaged to be studied. However, a small preserved part of the high terrace was also exposed in 1975 on the top of the western slope. Finally, a new square was excavated in 1977 in order to find the south‑eastern corner of the high terrace (fig. 3).

Datation The high terrace was first dated from the Iron Age, but in 1975, evidence pointing to a Bronze Age dating was discovered: in particular some small stone columns, which are typical Bronze Age artefacts. In addition, radiocarbon analyses conducted on wooden architectural elements, confirmed this dating (tab. 1). In particular, a radiocarbon dating have been done on a charred beam fallen down from the 2nd step of the high terrace  11.

10.

Schmidt 1937, p. 164

11.

Gif‑3339: 3880+/-110 BP; cal BC 1σ: 2550‑2185.

169

170

Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet

Fig. 3 – General plan of the remains of the high terrace of Tureng Tepe (J. Bessenay-Prolonge, after the archives of the Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé).

Laboratory Number

Calibrated dating (1 σ BC)

Stratigraphic context

Dating

Ly-2301

High Mound, southeastern area, sample TT 77‑1: charcoal or burnt reed, in a mortar layer between the bricks of the terrace.

3620+/-130 2205-1765

Ly-2302

High Mound, square XX‑14, destruction layer of the terrace sample TT 77‑2: charcoal, red collapse layer of the terrace.

3690+/-130 2335-1885

TUNC-42

High Mound, square XX‑11 charcoal, layer with BGW ceramics in the foundation trench of the terrace.

3520+/-70

1975-1750

Gif-3339

High Mound, square XVII‑16, charred beam fallen down from the upper step to the intermediate.

3880+/-110

2550-2185

Ly-1148

High Mound, square XX‑11 charcoal inside a Bronze Age pot, foundations level of the terrace.

3920+/-250 2675-2155

Tab. 1 – Radiocarbon dating for the high terrace of Tureng Tepe.

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment

Materials and building techniques The high terrace is made of mud bricks and semi‑baked bricks; there are four main modules of bricks so far: the most common size is represented by rectangular bricks 75 cm long, but thinner bricks and squared bricks (of 45 cm per side) are also used. It was also noted that thick layers of mortar (up to 10 cm thick), containing reeds aligned parallel, were regularly distributed within the masonry. Indeed, within these layers of mortar, the excavators have found several impressions of reeds (up to 5 cm in diameter) and wooden beams, but also the beams themselves. Those wooden beams were used without doubt to reinforce the solidity of the building. The high terrace had sides of at least 80 m long and the whole building was expected to be more than 14 m high. The building was composed of two steps at least. The first step was about 5 m high above the surrounding ground.  

The foundations of the building have been partially identified by the excavators, mainly in the western part of the southern side, at the foot of the hill (fig. 4). The foundation system about 2 m deep is quite complex. The foundations consist of a basement of semi‑baked bricks, which take place in a trench filled with a layer of small stones and pebbles recovered by sandy mortar. Above these bricks, a layer of big stones taken in a red mud mortar was found. Finally, these stones were surmounted by a few layers of mud bricks alternating with layers of reeds. These foundations with its big stones formed some kind of a belt, an outer coffer‑work wall, which probably surrounded the whole building. Forward this belt, and against the foundations, a huge mass of packed hard green clay took place extending over at least 3 m forward the facade, maybe up to 12 m. This structure formed some kind of a buttress according to excavators. It could also serve as to protect the foun­ dations from the runoff waters.  

The south‑western part of the high terrace is heavily eroded, which has allowed studying the internal masonry of the Fig. 4 – Foundations of the outer coffer‑work wall of the high building. The internal structure of each terrace, in the southwestern area, view from the SSW, 1971 (photo: Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé). step consists of an outer coffer‑work wall that surrounds a series of distinct blocks. These blocks have different dimensions and there seems to be an alternation between short and long blocks. At a time, the large joint between the blocks of the first step and the outer coffer‑work wall of the second step appears to have opened wide, which has tipped up a part of the first step forward. The building above the ground consists of layers of semi‑baked bricks alternating with layers of reeds. A red, regular clay plastering overlies the facade of the first step. The outer coffer‑work wall is about 2 m wide and it is made up of two rows of bricks laid widthwise and one row laid lengthwise, the latter alternatively disposed on the sides or in the middle of the wall.  

The south‑central area was the best‑preserved part since the excavators found the floor of the first step with its mud plaster. Curiously, in this section, the outer coffer‑work wall of the second step was provided with a shear wall turning inward the building.

171

172

Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet

The facade of the second step was partly preserved (fig. 5). It was covered with several layers of mud plaster, with a total thickness of 20 cm at most. Those successive repairs indicate the long time span of the use of building. Nonetheless, its state of preservation is irregular. This facade was recessed with “pilasters” of one row of mud bricks. Three of them have been discovered so far. The floors of the first step had been exposed on a length of 20 m, and were made of layers of packed clay. These layers were on average 30 cm thick on total, although they could reach 60 cm or 70 cm thick at the foot of the facade. It should be noted that the floor wasn’t a horizontal and flat surface, but showed an inclined slope towards the east, with a drop of 3,50 m per 25 m long. It is therefore clear that we are dealing with a ramp giving access to the second step of the high terrace.  

During the last campaign, a new square was opened in order to find the southeastern corner of the high terrace. The Fig. 5 – Facade of the second step and the floors of the first step of the high terrace, view from the WSW, 1975 (photo: remains of two facades (the upper one Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé). and the lower one) were found but the poor preservation of the remains, and the presence of unexpected repairs made the understanding of the whole more difficult than expected. The excavators have unearthed only a small part of the facade of the second step, in the north‑western corner of the excavation square. It seems that the first floor of the high terrace is wider along the eastern facade than along the southern one. We may today interpret these repairs as indicating a lateral expansion of the second step in a later phase of construction. The last two seasons have also revealed the existence of two successive buildings leaning against the southern facade and contemporary with the high terrace (fig. 6). The remains of the first building consisted of the foundation stones of three walls perpendicular to the facade of the terrace. These foundations were at the same height as those of the high terrace. The presence of jars set into the

Fig. 6 – Plan of the southern building at the foot of the high terrace of Tureng Tepe (J. Bessenay-Prolonge, after the archives of the Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé).

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment

ground might point to a storage function. The second building was better preserved (but maybe there are two constructions rather than one). It is to be noted that its foundations were made of smaller stones, as it was the case of the second phase of the high terrace.

Small stone columns Few small stone columns have been found apparently on the floors of the second step of the high terrace (fig. 7), while two others fragments were found in the destruction layers at the foot of the southern facade. These artefacts had a groove and they were made of sandstone or of limestone; they are from 25 cm to 30 cm high, and from 8 cm to 16 cm in diameter (fig. 8). This well‑known category of artefacts, typical of the Bronze Age, has been found both in the Iranian Plateau (at Tepe Hissar  12, Shahdad  13…) and in Central Asia (at Gonur Depe  14, Ulug Depe  15, Togolok Depe  16…).

Fig. 7 – Layer of the columns, square XI‑8, view from the South, 1975 (photo: Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé).

Fig. 8 – Small stone columns from Tureng Tepe (Mission archéologique française de Tureng Tépé).

12.

Schmidt 1937, p. 216‑219.

13.

Hakemi 1997, p. 625.

14.

Sarianidi 2007, p. 110.

15.

Lecomte 2013, p. 181.

16.

Sarianidi 1986, p. 15.

173

174

Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet

Comparisons with others monuments from the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia The high terrace of Tureng Tepe has already been compared to other monumental buildings uncovered on a few sites of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia  17. The three most convincing parallels are the high terraces of Altyn Depe (southern Turkmenistan)  18, Nad‑i Ali (Afghan Seistan) and the “Monument Massif” of Mundigak V  19 (southern Afghanistan). Unfortunately, those three cases are old excavations whose publications are far from being comprehensive.

Altyn Depe The terrace of Altyn Depe have been discovered in the excavation area no. 7, also called the “cult center” and located at the top of the slope of the Main Mound  20. The area no. 7 takes place on an oval mound approximately 40 m by 50 m, located in eastern part of the Main Mound. Only the eastern facade has been released, and it seems that the terrace has been actually built on three sides; the fourth side was based on the natural relief. The excavators, following the analysis of construction sequences of different buildings, have defined three main levels. Two successive phases of this terrace were differentiated. The first phase (level 3) is based directly on layers of the end of the period Namazga IV. The first terrace consists of yellow bricks, it is oriented north to south, and its facade is 21 m long. The monument is preserved over 6 m high. Four successive steps were identified; the first, very well preserved, is 2 m high. The facade of the second step is decorated with pilasters. The third and fourth steps are poorly preserved and it is not possible to determine whether they were decorated  21. The second phase (level 2) is characterized by significant changes. The bricks are greyish. If the lower step seems to be reused without significant modifications, the other three steps increase in height and width. The facade is now 26 m long, and a huge masonry block is attached to the north side of the terrace. The second step is about 3, 5 or 4 m high. The whole building would reach almost 12 m high near 45 m long. A second building, the “House with parapet”, is built against the southern side of the terrace. This building, divided into small parts, has also a facade decorated with pilasters similar to those of the second degree of the terrace. This “House with parapet” takes place on a 3 m high platform. The level 2 is therefore characterized by a “monumentalization” of the “cult center”  22. Note that, in the three levels, the terrace is integrated into a broader compound that includes a funerary complex. The two phases of the terrace are both dated from the Namazga V period (2500‑1800 BC). Thus, the building presents some similarities with that of Tureng Tepe: several steps, massive foundations, and recessed facades. In addition, small stone columns were found at both sites. In Altyn Depe, one was discovered near a structure interpreted as an altar in a room (room 7) dated from the first phase of the terrace  23. At Tureng Tepe, several similar columns were also found on the second step of the terrace.

17.

Deshayes 1977; Tosi 1986, p. 166.

18.

Masson 1988.

19.

Casal 1961, p. 85‑88.

20.

The excavation of area no. 7 was carried out in 1967‑1969, 1971 and 1973 and in 1976.

21.

Masson 1988, p. 57.

22.

Masson 1988, p. 59.

23.

Masson 1988, p. 68.

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment

Mundigak V As J. Deshayes had already noticed it  24, we can establish some parallels between the “Monument Massif” of Mundigak V and the high terrace of Tureng Tepe. The “Monument Massif” of Mundigak V is a monumental complex, erected on the Tepe A, above the ruins of the Mundigak IV “Palace” (Late Early Bronze Age). It should be noted that the dating of the Mundigak monument remains extremely uncertain. It is difficult to reconstruct the complete plan of the “Monument Massif” because of the erosion of the remains. In the northern part of Tepe A, a wall buttress reinforces the foundations of the old “colonnade” of Mundigak IV1. The northern area of the wall was demolished and filled in to provide support to a mud brick massif. The southern part of the ancient colonnade corresponds to the foundations of stepped terraces: series of caissons  25 as in the case of Tureng Tepe. Some fragments of white and red coated floors have been discovered in some places. Stone foundations are also attested in the south‑western part of Tepe A. A network of walls maintaining backfill layers characterizes this building. The limits of this complex were not found because of the high erosion of the slope of the tepe. For J.‑M. Casal, this building would therefore correspond to “une sorte de demi‑pyramide tronquée au sud, dominée au nord par un massif couronné d’une ou deux cellules”  26.

Nad‑i Ali Nad‑I Ali (Afghan Seistan) was first excavated by R. Ghirshman in 1936  27, and then in 1968 by G. Dales  28. In the Main Mound of the site, Ghirshman found the top of a massive mud brick platform, that he attributed to a Period II. G. Dales first considered this building as a median-Achaemenid construction  29, but in a paper published in 1994, Besenval and Francfort dated the two oldest phases of the platform from the Bronze Age  30. They also compared the building techniques implemented at Nad‑i Ali and at Tureng Tepe. In both cases, mud bricks and baked bricks were used together. Moreover, we can also note the use of blocks of masonry surrounded by walls, and the possible presence of wooden beams within the structure of the terrace.  

Nonetheless these three monuments were smaller than the high terrace of Tureng Tepe. At Altyn Tepe, the facade was 26 m long at its maximum expansion. At Mundigak and at Nad‑I Ali, it is difficult to estimate the dimensions of those monuments, but they should not be greater than 50 m side.

Conclusion To conclude and propose a preliminary conception of the monument, we can reconstruct at Tureng Tepe a two-stepped high terrace with an area of nearly 5500 m2 at the second step (fig. 9). A ramp, which takes place along the southern facade, gave access to this second step. Our theoretical reconstruction of the entire high terrace therefore corresponds to some kind of monumental base flanked by lateral

24.

Deshayes 1977, p. 110‑111.

25.

Casal 1961, p. 86.

26.

Casal 1961, p. 87.

27.

Ghirshman 1959.

28.

Dales 1977.

29.

Dales 1977, p. 104.

30.

Besenval and Francfort 1994.

175

176

Julie Bessenay-Prolonge, Régis Vallet

access (fig. 10). The main facade of the building would therefore certainly be the eastern one, from which the access to the top of the monument started. Furthermore, the importance of the available surfaces at the top, as well as the late enlargement of the building, raises the question of the function of the monument. It seems that we are definitively not dealing with a ziggurat-like building, topped by a small single shrine, as some of the excavators had imagined, but that the high terrace probably supported a large architectural complex, one that may have perfectly housed the regional political power, whatever the precise nature of this power. In any case, the continuation of our research program should give us new evidences and help us to get a better understanding of this impressive monument.

Fig. 9 – theorical reconstruction of the high terrace (J. Bessenay-Prolonge).

Fig. 10 – 3D reconstruction of the 1st phase of the high terrace (J. Bessenay-Prolonge and R. Vallet in collaboration with ArchéoTransfert/ ArchéoVision).

Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment

References Arne T. 1945, Excavations at Shah Tepe, Iran, Reports from the Scientific expedition to the north-western provinces of China under the leadership of Dr. Sven Hedin, Stockholm. Besenval R. and Francfort H.‑P. 1994, “The Nad‑I Ali ‘Surkh Dagh’: A Bronze Age monumental platform in Central Asia?”, in J.M. Kenoyer (ed.), From Sumer to Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales, Jr., Madison, p. 3‑14. Casal J.‑M. 1961, Fouilles de Mundigak, Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan 17, Paris. Cleuziou S. 1986, “Tureng Tepe and the burnished grey ware: a question of frontier?”, Oriens Antiquus 25/3‑4, p. 221‑256. Cleuziou S. 1991, “Ceramics IX. The Bronze Age in Northeastern Persia”, Encyclopaedia Iranica V/3, p. 297‑300. Crawford V.E. 1963, “Beside the Kara Su”, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series 21/8, p. 263‑273. Dales G.F. 1977, New excavations at Nad‑I Ali (Sorkh Dagh), Afghanistan, Berkeley. De Bode C.A. 1844, “On a recently opened tumulus in the neighbourhood of Asterabad, forming part of Ancient Hyrcania, and the country of the Parthians”, Archaeologia 30, p. 248‑255. Deshayes J. 1975, “Les fouilles récentes de Tureng Tépé: la terrasse haute de la fin du 3e millénaire”, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles‑Lettres 119/4, p. 522‑530. Deshayes J. 1977, “À propos des terrasses hautes de la fin du IIIe millénaire en Iran et Asie centrale”, in J. Deshayes (dir.), Le plateau iranien et l’Asie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique: leurs relations à la lumière des documents archéologiques, actes du colloque international 567, 22‑24 mars 1976, Paris, p. 95‑111. Deshayes J. (dir.), Boucharlat R. and Lecomte O. 1987, Fouilles de Tureng Tépé, les périodes sassanides et islamiques, Paris. Ghirshman R. 1959, “Recherches préhistoriques dans la partie afghane du Séistan”, in J.  Hackin, J. Carl and J. Meunié (ed.), Diverses recherches archéologiques en Afghanistan (1933‑1940), Mémoires de la DAFA 8, Paris, p. 39‑48. Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad, archaeological excavations of a Bronze Age center in Iran, IsMEO, Rome. Lecomte O. 2013, “Activités archéologiques françaises au Turkménistan”, Cahiers d’Asie centrale 21/22, p. 165‑190. Masson V. 1988, Altyn Depe, University Museum monograph 55, Philadelphia. Sarianidi V. 1986, “Le complexe cultuel de Togolok 21 en Margiane”, Arts asiatiques 41, p. 5‑21. Sarianidi V. 2007, Necropolis of Gonur, Athens. Schmidt E. 1937, Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Dāmghān, Philadelphia. Tosi M. 1986, “The archaeology of early states in Middle Asia”, Oriens Antiquus 25/3‑4, p. 153‑188. Wulsin F. 1932, “Excavations at Tureng Tepe near Asterabad”, Supplement of the Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 2/1 bis, New York.

177

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow New GKC (BMAC) finds in the plain of Jajarm, NE Iran Ali A. Vahdati Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts, and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO), North Khorasan Raffaele Biscione Istituto per Le Tecnologie Applicate ai Beni Culturali (ITABC), CNR, Rome Riccardo La Farina Università degli studi di Napoli “L’orientale” Marjan Mashkour UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris Margareta Tengberg UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris Homa Fathi Payam Noor University, Rural Geography Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris First season of archaeological excavation at the pre- and proto-historic site of Tepe Chalow in northern Khorasan Province, NE Iran, was carried out by a joint Irano-Italian expedition in autumn of 2011. The joint team opened 9 trenches in the core zone plus 28 small testing pits in the periphery of the site to evaluate accumulation and extension of archaeological layers. Archaeological analysis of the material and data gathered through excavation show influence of different cultural areas including Damghan (Hissar I‑II) and Gorgan plain (Shah Tepe III‑II) to the south and north of Alborz Mountain, respectively, as well as piedmont zone of the northern Kopet-dagh in southern Turkmenistan (NMZ III, VI). One of the most important results of the first campaign is the discovery of a large mid‑late Bronze Age necropolis with the material culture of Namazga VI, the so-called “BMAC”. A total of 6 graves with BMAC/GKC materials were excavated in the first season which yielded not only the luxury objects but also the ordinary, household objects and the pottery identical to the contemporary assemblages from Bactria and Margiana. The bio-archaeological studies during the first season of excavation at Chalow show that agriculture and herding were important components of the economic activities of the site all through the occupational sequence.  La première saison de la fouille archéologique du site pré- et protohistorique de Tepe Chalow dans le nord de la province du Khorasan au nord-est de l’Iran a été menée par une mission conjointe irano-italienne en automne 2011. Cette équipe conjointe a ouvert 9 tranchées dans la zone centrale et 28 petits sondages à la périphérie du site pour évaluer l’épaisseur et l’extension des niveaux archéologiques. L’analyse archéologique du matériel et des données de la fouille montre l’influence de différentes régions culturelles comprenant Damghan (Hissar I‑II) et la plaine de Gorgan (Shah Tepe III‑II) respectivement au sud et au

180

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

nord du massif de l’Elbourz, ainsi que la zone des piémonts du Kopet-dagh septentrionnal dans le sud du Turkmenistan (NMZ III, VI). Un des résultats les plus importants de la première campagne est la découverte d’une vaste nécropole du milieu et de la fin de l’âge du Bronze avec une culture matérielle de Namazga VI, nommée “BMAC”. Un total de 6 tombes avec du matériel BMAC/GKC ont été fouillées lors de la première saison. Elles contenaient non seulement des objets de luxe mais aussi des objets ordinaires, domestiques, et de la céramique identique aux assemblages contemporains de Bactriane et de Margiane. Les études bio-archéologiques de la première saison de fouille à Tepe Chalow révèlent que l’agriculture et l’élevage étaient des composantes importantes des activités économiques du site tout au cours de la séquence d’occupation.

‫ایتالیایی فصل نخست کاوش های باستان شناسی در محوطه پیش‬-‫ هیأت مشترک ایرانی‬1390 ‫در پاییز‬ 9 ‫ هیأت مشترک‬.‫ شمال شرق ایران را آغاز کرد‬،‫از تاریخ و آغاز تاریخی تپه چلو در خراسان شمالی‬ ‫ گمانه آزمایشی در اطراف تپه جهت شناسایی انباشت و گسترۀ نهشته‬28 ‫ترانشه در قسمت های میانی و‬ ‫ تحلیل داده ها و مواد حاصل از کاوش حاکی از نفوذ‬.‫های باستانی و تعیین عرصه و حریم اثر باز کرد‬ ‫) و دشت گرگان (شاه تپه‬2 ‫ و‬1 ‫حوزه های فرهنگی مختلف در این منطقه از جمله دشت دامغان (حصار‬ ‫) به ترتیب در جنوب و شمال رشته کوه البرز و نیز حوزۀ فرهنگی آسیای مرکزی در کوهپایه های‬2 ‫ و‬3 .‫) است‬6 ‫ و‬3 ‫شمال کپه داغ در جنوب ترکمنستان (نمازگاه‬ ‫جدید با‬-‫ کشف یک گورستان وسیع از عصر مفرغ میانی‬،‫یکی از مهمترین نتایج نخستین فصل کاوش‬ ‫ در این فصل روی‬.‫مروی است‬-‫ معروف به مجموعۀ باستان شناختی بلخی‬6 ‫مواد فرهنگی نوع نمازگاه‬ ‫تمدن خراسان بزرگ کاوش شد که در آنها نه تنها اشیای تجمالتی و‬/‫مروی‬-‫ گور از نوع بلخی‬6 ‫هم رفته‬ .‫ بلکه اشیای روزمره و عادی و سفال یکسان با مجموعه های همزمان از باختر و مارگیانا پیدا شد‬،‫شأن زا‬ ‫بررسی های زیست باستان شناسی بقایای حاصل از فصل نخست کاوش در تپه چلو نشان می دهد بخش های‬ .‫اصلی اقتصاد معیشتی مردمان این محل در تمام دورۀ سکونت را کشاورزی و دامداری تشکیل می داده است‬

Introduction “Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex” (BMAC) is a term coined by Viktor I. Sarianidi in the late 1970s to define the middle Bronze Age culture of Central Asia (ca. 2300-1700 BC). His excavations in the Dashly Oasis of Afghanistan allowed a preliminary understanding of this archaeological complex. Later on, more extensive excavations in Turkmenistan at Togolok and Gonur, together with the excavations of Akhmadali Askarov at Sapalli-depe and Jarkutan in Uzbekistan, gave a clearer definition to this highly developed and complex Bronze Age civilization. It was also called “Oxus Civilization” by certain scholars  1 and more recently “Greater Khorasan Civilization”  2 or GKC, because of its area of origin and distribution. This name will be used throughout the present article. Archaeological research indicates extensive contacts between the GKC and a fairly vast region going from the Indus valley on the east to Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf area to the west and south. In Iran the presence of GKC luxury objects in Susa  3, Kerman province at Shahdad, Khurab, Khinaman, Jiroft and other sites  4, Gorgan and Damghan plains  5, Tabas-Ferdows region and Sistanin the south  6 suggest a vast and complex trade network connecting the GKC zone with these distant regions. However, it is important to note that almost everywhere outside Central Asia GKC materials are scant in number, usually produced from valuable materials, and manufactured with fine craftsmanship  7.

1.

Francfort 1994; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994.

2.

Biscione and Vahdati in press.

3.

Amiet 1986.

4.

Thornton 2013, p. 194‑195.

5.

Thornton 2013, p. 194‑195.

6.

Biscione and Vahdati in press.

7.

Lamberg-Karlowsky and Potts 2001, p. XXXVII.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

They are luxury objects such as miniature columns, hand-bags, “scepters”, and other objects made of alabaster and chlorite, usually associated with local assemblages. Other sites in Khorasan province including Nishabur, Sabzevar, Bojnord, Jajarm in the north  8, Gavand and Razeh in the south  9 and in Sistan  10, include not only luxury objects but also a massive presence of pottery, suggest a very different model of expansion. Recent excavations of the joint Irano-Italian team at Tepe Chalow in the plain of Jajarm have brought to light a necropolis in which not only the luxury objects but also the ordinary, household objects and the pottery are identical to the GKC ones. This paper exposes the results of the first season of excavation at Chalow and briefly introduces the newly found GKC assemblage from the site.

The site The site of Tepe Chalow is situated in the easternmost part of the plain of Jajarm, 3 km east of Sankhast and approximately 60 km west of Esfarayen in North Khorasan Province, NE Iran (fig. 1). The agricultural plain of Jajarm and Esfarayen is separated from the Atrak valley to the north by the Ālādāgh Mountain range, an eastern extension of the Alborz mountain system, and it is limited to the south by the desert lands and saline grounds around the Kal-e Shur River that flows in a wide arc from Safiabad (ca. 100 km NW of Nishabur) in the east to Jajarm in the west. The geographical position of the plain between the mountains and the desert made it a natural corridor for east-west traffic.

Fig. 1 – Map showing location of Tepe Chalow in northeastern Iran.

   8.

Vahdati 2014.

   9.

Sorush and Yusefi 1393/2014.

10.

Biscione and Vahdati in press.

181

182

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

The site is located at the end of the ancient delta of Darband River at 56°53'7.01" E, 37° 6'12.78" N at an altitude of 980 m above sea level. It is consisted of a series of low mounds, maximum 2 meters above the surrounding plain, and it covers an area of more than 40 hectares (fig. 2). On the surface there is a dense pottery scatter, especially in the eastern side, where the site undergoes agricultural activities. This pottery shows a sequence from Late Chalcolithic to the Middle/Late Bronze Age characterized by GKC materials.

Fig. 2 – Location of excavated trenches on the contour map of Tepe Chalow.

Chalcolithic pottery can be grouped into several distinct types: Black-on-Red and Black-on-Buff painted pottery of Hissar I/IIA type (fig. 3a-d), Caspian Black-on-Red pottery of Shah Tepe III type (fig. 3e-f), Polished grey ware with distinctive incised, grooved, ribbed, and knobbed decorations (fig. 3g-h) very well known in the Gorgan plain (e.g. Shah Tepe III/IIb)  11. There are also a type of plain, coarse pottery with mineral temper and usually with blackened surface, commonly known as “kitchen ware” in the pottery assemblage of Chalow. There are also rare examples of black on red painted pottery similar to Namazga III pottery. These are the fragments presented in figure 3g, similar to a fragment from Kara Depe  12; figure 3i, similar to fragments from Geoksyur 1 and Chong-depe  13; perhaps the fragment in figure 7c, somehow similar to a fragment from Geoksyur 1  14. It should be remarked anyway that the most typical characters and motifs of the NMZ III pottery, like bichromy, stepped patterns – that were found also in places very far from southern Turkmenia at Shahr-i Sokhta  15 and the Quetta Valley  16 – and stylized animals (leopards, goats and eagles) are conspicuously absent.

11.

Arne 1945, p. 177.

12.

Masson 1961, pl. V, no. 11.

13.

Sarianidi 1965, tab. X, no. 31; tab. XI, no. 42.

14.

Sarianidi 1965, tab. VIII, no. 13.

15.

Biscione 1973, p. 113, fig. 8.9; p. 114, fig. 8.10 g-h, j-k, m.

16.

Fairservis 1956, p. 258 designs 195‑202; p. 259, designs 203‑209.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

Fig. 3 – Different types of Chalcolithic pottery at Tepe Chalow.

The grey ware is unquestionably dominant in the surface collection. Pottery forms include several types of beakers, footed bowls with everted sides or sharp carination, jars with round body and everted rims, spouted vessels, etc. (fig. 4). While the technical aspects and the usual decorations of the grey ware of Chalow is very similar to the late fourth millennium grey ware of Gorgan plain and the few incised grey ware from graves of Hissar II some of the pottery forms are very similar to the ones found in southern Turkmenistan: the sharply carinated beakers have parallels at Ak-depe  17, Kara-depe  18, and Parkhai II cemetery  19, the bowls on small conical foot were found at Kara-depe  20; and certain decoration like parallel or wavy lines very close the one to the other recall the pottery of late Ak-depe IV (NMZ IV/V) in southern Turkmenistan  21 and the grey ware of Kara-depe  22. Another group of pottery abundant on the surface is a plain, buff and red-orange ware, typical of GKC. Moreover, a number of distinctive, prestige GKC objects such as stone and bronze artifacts have also been found on the surface. Among them there are one stone rod/“scepter” (fig. 5a), several stone weights/hand-bags, one decorated with the relief image of an ibex on both sides (fig. 5b-d), grooved stone columns (fig. 5e-f), alabaster vases and mace-heads (fig. 6f-i), chlorite objects such as a kohl-container (fig. 6j), as well as typical bronze objects including a compartmented seal (fig. 6d), a miniature mattock (fig. 6b), a crescent-shaped ear-ring (fig. 6c), bracelets (fig. 6a), tanged daggers (fig. 6e), “tacks” with pyramidal or conical heads, etc. Similar objects have also been found in the excavation at the site. One of the peculiar aspects of the site of Chalow evidenced in the first campaign is its spatial organization. Chalow is not a mound with a vertical stratigraphy, like most of the sites of Iran, but it is characterized by a horizontal stratigraphy, with the settlement extending through the time in surface and not in height. Apparently, with the westwards shift of the Darband River course through

17.

Sarianidi 1976, fig. 8, no. 1‑2; fig. 11, no. 11‑12, 14.

18.

Kircho 1999, fig. 12, no. 9‑10, 13, 16, 19.

19.

Khlopin 1981, fig. 5.

20.

Sarianidi 1976, fig. 11, no. 4‑7, 10.

21.

Sarianidi 1976, fig. 9, no. 1‑5; Kircho 2014, fig. 4, no. 3‑4.

22.

Kircho 1999, fig. 11, no. 4, 22; fig. 12, no. 16, 19, 23.

183

184

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina

the time, the settlement also gradually moved westwards. Hence the earliest pottery of Chalow, including several types of Late Chalcolithic painted pottery, is abundant on the eastern side of the settlement, but moving to the west this Late Chalcolithic pottery gives way to GKC pottery which is the dominant ceramic class on the western part of the site. Here in the western half of the site a GKC necropolis was found and our excavation is focused on it.

Fig. 4 – Selected grey ware of Tepe Chalow.

Fig. 5 – A group of stone luxury objects from excavation (d) and surface (a-c, e-f) of Tepe Chalow.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

Fig. 6 – Bronze artifacts (a-e) and stone (alabaster: f-i and chlorite: j) objects from surface of Tepe Chalow.

The excavations The site of Chalow was first located by Ali A. Vahdati in 2006 during “general surveys” along the Kal-e Shur River basin, but remained unexcavated until the autumn of 2011. In this year a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization (ICHTO) and Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente (ICEVO) of the Italian National Research Council (CNR), that was aimed at field collaboration in several regions of Iran including the Kal-e Shur River Basin in northern Khorasan, NE Iran. Excavation at Tepe Chalow and survey of the surrounding area are part of the same joint programme with the general aim of studying the remains of the pre- and protohistoric communities from Chalcolithic period to the Iron Age. Particularly, we were interested in the study of interactions between this part of northeastern Iran and the central plateau and the Gorgan plain in the one hand, and with the piedmont zone of southern Turkmenistan on the other. To that end, the joint IranianItalian team carried out the first season of excavation at Tepe Chalow from 9th October to 18th November 2011. The joint team opened 9 trenches in various parts of the site that produced invaluable information about the archaeological sequence and spatial organization of the site. In addition 28 small testing pits (1×1 m) were dug systematically in the periphery of the site to establish the extension of the archaeological layers, an information instrumental for the protection and the safe-keeping of the archaeological complex to avoid further damage by agricultural and other economic activities.  

Trench 1 was a 5×5 m square opened in one of the highest point in the northern part of the site, where a good number of both grey ware and GKC potsherds were scattered on the surface. In addition, a handful of bronze/copper fragments including broken tacks with conical or pyramidal heads, fragments of bronze/copper sheet vessels, copper prills, and tiny slags pieces were found. According to local farmers in the recent past this location, like many other parts of the site, has been bulldozed, taking away a couple of meters of deposit, and ploughed for cultivation. The trench was excavated to a depth of 3.8 m below the surface and altogether 14 stratigraphic units (SU) were distinguished. The uppermost layers were totally disturbed and modern plough marks were found all over the trench on the surface of SU 2. The pottery associated with the first intact layers (SU 2‑5) is a fine polished grey ware with ribbed, knobbed and incised decoration and a few rather

185

186

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina

coarse red-orange sherds with large calcite temper, sometimes blackened by fire, which is usually called “cooking ware”. A few fragments of coarse perforated pottery with gravel admixture were also found in SU 2. Among the distinguishable forms of the grey ware we may refer to the hemispherical bowls with a plain rim, carinated jars of different shapes with splayed rims, and footed bowls of the type known as “fruit stands”. This type consist of a bowl supported on a cylindrical, usually hollowstem which in its turn rests upon a conical foot. Many fragmentary stems of this type come from the upper layers of Trench 1 (SU 1‑5) most of which are decorated with ribbing, grooves, and incisions. Both the shapes and the decorations of the grey ware found in the upper layers of Trench 1 find close parallels in the grey ware of Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age layers of such sites as Shah Tepe (III/IIb), Tureng Tepe (IIA), Yarim Tepe, Narges Tepe (IIIc) in the Gorgan plain dated to the late 4th millennium BC  23. This dating is corroborated by a C14 determination of a charcoal sample from SU 5 showing a date between 3337-3208 cal BC (tab. 1). UBA*No.

Sample ID

Sample Type

Radio Carbon Age BP

1 sigma (68.3%) cal BC

Relative area under probability distribution

2 sigma (95.4%) cal BC

Relative area under probability distribution

UBA-25590

Tr. 1-SU 5 Samp. 2

Charcoal

4468+/-29

3327-3218

71.20%

3337-3208

55.20%

UBA-25591

Tr. 4-SU 19 Samp. 1 Charred cereal 3853+/-30

2349-2279

59.50%

2458-2272

82.30%

UBA-25592

Tr. 4-SU 19 Samp. 3 Charcoal

2628-2565

66.30%

2676-2479

92.80%

4058+/-31

Tab. 1 – Radiocarbon dates for three samples from Trenches 1 and 4, analyzed at the C14 Chrono Center of the Queens University, Belfast. * Queen’s University of Belfast.

In the upper layers, besides potsherds, a number of small finds discovered including a small figurine of zebu and a spindle-whorl of terracotta, a fine, retouched flint blade from SU 3 and a pottery scoop with shallow, oval blade from SU 4. From SU 5 excavation area was reduced to a 2×2 m square to the NW corner of the Trench. In the lower layers (SU 6‑11) besides the grey ware, a number of black-on-buff and black-on-red potsherds were found which could also be dated to the Late Chalcolithic period. In SU 09 was found part of a structure of compacted yellowish clay, containing human bones, some of them still in anatomic connection. Trench 1 touched the virgin soil in a depth of 3.4 m below the surface. Chalow 2011 excavation

Number of Remains

Trench/Periods

SU 4

5

7

Weight of Remains (g)

10

11

20

29

16

SU 4

5

7

10

11

82

196

Total NR

Total Weight (g)

49

278

2

63

590

3587.9

25

20

25

25

661

3953.9

16

Late Chalcolithic 1 2

2

63

Early Bronze Age 1

508

11

71

2951.9

111

525

Mid-Late Bronze Age (BMAC) 4 Total

20 510

11

71

20

29

20

3014.9

111

525

82

196

Tab. 2 – Chronological distribution of faunal remains in the four trenches excavated in 2011 in Tepe Chalow.

23.

See for instance Arne 1945, p. 172‑185, fig. 301, 308a-b, 345a, 348‑349; Abbasi 1390/2011, p. 72, p. 125, fig. 16, 222‑229, 234.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

In addition to pottery and other artefacts, animal bones were also collected during the first season of excavation in Trench 1. In total 639 bone and tooth remains were collected which were distributed mainly in SU 4 (n=508) [tab. 2]. The other animal remains were found in SU 5, 7, 10 and 11. According to the chronological analysis of the stratigraphic units described above, the SU 4 belongs to the Early Bronze Age. The animal remains collected in other stratigraphic units of Trench 1 are very little. The distribution of identified specimens (NISP) in the EBA layer indicates that 78% of the remains belong to sheep and goat, 13% to cattle and almost 7% to equids (tab. 3). The remaining is represented by gazelle and boar. Metric analysis of the equid second phalanges indicates that they belong to hemione and to horse  24. Chalow 2011 excavation

NR

Weight (g)

Trench/Taxa

SU 4

5

7

Bos taurus

18

1

1

Capra hircus

12

1

5

10

11

16

SU 4

5

7

615.6

28

21

120.3

13

63

10

11

Total NR

Total Weight  (g)

20

664.6

21

235.3

16

Trench 1

Ovis aries

15

1

1

Caprini

80

1

5

Gazella subgutturosa

2

Sus scrofa

3

3

1

160.3

3

5

3

487.3

21

63

1 1

17

2

Equidae

9

Total NISP

136

Large Mammals

22

Medium  Mammals

26

Small  Ruminants

322

4

41

Unidentified

2

2

6

Total  Unidentified bones

372

6

54

2

5

17

254.4 3

4

9

0

1654.9

17

80

307

331

17

755

22

128

2

20

9

10

1297

31

218

20

0

1

18

169.3

19

92

620.3

3

19

5

163

11

309.4

170

2180.9

11

27

386

29

227

59

401

1016

17

12

56

469

1685

50

55 30

44

191 17

98

1

3

30

2 15

2

39

109

0

36 52

52

87

0

Trench 2 Bos taurus

1

10

1

10

Capra hircus

1

53

1

53

25

20

25

25

661

3953.9

Trench 4 Small  Ruminants

20

Total

510

11

71

20

29

20

3014.9

111

525

82

196

Tab. 3 – Distribution of faunal remains in the stratigraphic units of the four trenches of Tepe Chalow.

 

Trench 2 was also a 5×5 m square opened on a raised point to the east of the site. This area too was ploughed and leveled recently and a big scatter of Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age as well as GKC pottery was found on the surface. Below the surface layer traces of modern agricultural activities appeared at the depth of 20 cm. From this depth, excavation area was limited to a strip of 2×5 m in the southern half of the trench and 50 cm lower it was again reduced to a small, 2×2 m pit in the south eastern corner of the trench. This small pit was excavated to the depth of 1 m, but did not reach the virgin soil. Altogether 6 SU

24.

Mashkour, Mohaseb and Fathi unpublished report 2015.

187

188

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

were distinguished in this trench, all of which belong to one single occupational layer. A total of 9839 pottery fragments were recorded from this trench that could generally be classified in five distinct groups (fig. 7): ––

Fine polished grey ware sometimes decorated with ribbed and incised patterns;

––

Black on Buff pottery of Hissar II type;

––

Black-on-Red pottery of Shah Tepe III type (Caspian black-on-Red);

––

Red-orange pottery with large, white grit temper (cooking ware);

––

Buff painted pottery with brownish engobe and decorated with black geometric patterns.

This latter type of painted pottery has close parallels in the recently excavated site of Narges Tepe (period IV) and dated to the Late Chalcolithic period  25.

Fig. 7 – Pottery from Trench 2, Tepe Chalow.

25.

Abbasi 1390/2011, p. 64, fig. 13, no. 7.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

Among this pottery assemblage grey ware is unquestionably the dominant group being nearly 65% (6385 fragments) of the entire assemblage. Distinguishable ceramic forms (fig. 7) are jars with extroverted rims, cups on splayed, hollow foot, bowls on a cylindrical stem in some cases decorated with incised parallel lines, and beakers with a sharp carination on the body. It is interesting to note that in some of the footed cups the upper part of foot shows incised random lines, cross-hatchings or parallel, for a better grip with the upper part (fig. 8). This technique was also common almost a thousand years later in the GKC period of Chalow to attach the stem of the footed bowls to the upper part of the vase. Besides potsherds, Trench 2 produced a number of small finds in different stratigraphical units including a number of stone tools, copper/bronze slags, a bone awl (SU 1), and a terracotta spindle-whorl decorated with nail incisions (SU 2). Similar spindle-whorls of terracotta and stone of variable size and shape have abundantly been found in surface and excavated areas probably suggesting that the site was involved with the spinning and weaving activities.

Fig. 8 – Grey ware feet with strokes and incisions for a firm connection.

 

Trench 3 is a 5×2.5 m rectangle opened along the edge of a modern irrigation canal in the western part of the site. The canal is oriented NS, about 1 m deep and fragments of storage jars, ashes and burnt layers were observed in the section. The western side of Trench 3 opens into the canal. Surface ceramic is composed by typical GKC fragments and by few fine, polished grey sherds. Altogether 6 stratigraphic units were determined to the depth of 1 meter and excavation revealed a storage area in which at least 7 large storage jars were found on a beaten earth floor. The upper parts of the jars have been destroyed, but it is clear that the jars stood on the floor. Between the jars and on the floor a large amount of burnt mud-brick fragments and ash layers were found. However, no trace of mud-brick wall was found in the excavation and it is not clear whether these jars were kept in an enclosure larger than the excavated area or in an open space. The pottery found between the jars and the associated floor is a fine, polished and burnished grey and greyish-brown ware very similar to grey ware of Shah Tepe II and IIb (fig. 9). Several fragments of large, perforated greyish vessels with small gravel temper and burnt surface were found in this trench. This type of perforated vessels or braziers is known in periods III‑II of Shah Tepe  26, at Hissar III  27, and Tureng Tepe  28. Moreover, a number of very fine, egg-shell, polished grey ware fragments have been found almost through all the layers of this trench. Determinable forms are beakers, bottles, jars with spherical body, short neck

26.

Arne 1945, p. 212‑213.

27.

Schmidt 1937, p. 269, pl. XLIII.

28.

Wulsin 1932, pl. XIII.

189

190

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

and extroverted rims, and deep bowls sometimes with incised or ribbed decorations. A very fine deep bowl with flat base, wide mouth and slightly expanded belly from this trench (fig. 9e) is very similar to the examples from “stratum III” at Shah Tepe III  29. The contents of the storage-jars as well as the ashy layers between them were subjected to flotation and abundant charred macrobotanical remains (N=1979) could be retrieved and studied. The most striking feature is the numerical importance of seeds from grape (Vitis vinifera) that represent almost 84% of the total number of items. A smaller number of fruit stalks as well as fragments of the fleshy fruit wall (pericarp) of grape are also noted from these contexts that seem to have been involved in some activities related to the transformation and storage of grapes or grape products. Further, grains from barley (Hordeum vulgare) and free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum) as well as indeterminate cereals were found in both the fills of the jars and in the burnt layers on the floor.

Fig. 9 – Fine grey ware associated with the floor of the storage area in Trench 3.

 

Trench 4 is a 5×5 m square opened near the qanats in the western part of the site where, due to the locally respected buffer zone along the route of the qanats, agricultural activity has been very limited and archaeological deposits are almost intact. Immediately below the surface two groups of GKC pottery vases were exposed in SU 01, one in the center and the other near the eastern wall of the trench. Further excavation showed that these were the grave-goods of two distinct GKC burials, Graves 1 and 2 (fig. 10‑11). Due to the strong erosion, tombs were very close to the surface, almost 5 cm below it, and no trace of burial structures or grave‑pits was detected. The soil of the back-fill of the graves is identical to the layer in which grave-pits were dug, a very hard reddish-brown clay that breaks in small clods. A small 1.5×1.5 m test pit was opened in SW corner of the trench to examine the stratigraphy of the excavation area. This test pit was excavated to the depth of 1 m, reached the sterile soil, and a succession of layers (SU 4‑6), possibly cultivated soils, was revealed. These layers contained very few small fragments of grey ware, clearly washed, with round edges probably brought here by the ancient farmers with the domestic debris used as manure and then scattered on the fields.

29.

Arne 1945, p. 186, fig. 354‑355.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

Fig. 10 – Pottery from Grave 1, Trench 4.

Fig. 11 – Pottery from Grave 2, Trench 4.

The initial 5×5 m square was then enlarged to 10×10 m to cover a larger area and to fully expose Grave 2 which was partly under the eastern wall of the trench. For a better control of the materials the 10×10 square was divided into 4 areas 5×5 m, keeping the name “Trench 4” with the addition of a letters from A (initial square) to D counterclockwise. In the northeastern corner of the trench (square 4‑D) another GKC burial (Grave 3) was found some 20 cm under the surface (fig. 12). Contrary to Graves 1 and 2, the skeleton in this grave was exceptionally well-preserved so that it was eventually moved to Bojnord and now it is on exhibition in the museum. GKC graves in Trench 4 were individual burials, probably simple pit graves, with the bodies deposed in flexed position on the right side and oriented E-W, with the face looking south-eastwards. They produced a good amount of grave-goods including typical GKC pottery such as conical bowls, bowls on trumpet-stands, pedestal-based goblets, bowls with open spout, large jars with conical moulded

191

192

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

base (Khom), and short-necked squattish jars (fig. 10‑13). Beside the typical pottery, there was always one coarse cooking pot, blackened by fire, that contained remains of food (fig. 10i; fig. 11b; fig. 13c). For example, animal bones inside the cooking pot (vase 7) of Grave 2 (fig. 11b) indicate to the food offering for the dead. Moreover, a number of bronze/copper and stone objects were also found in these graves. Grave-goods were at the head, in front of the chest and at the feet of the deceased. Usually the last vase of the complex at the feet of the skeleton, is larger than the others and it often contains a particularly important object. In Graves 2 and 3, skeletons had a vase in the hands. Regardless of the sex and age, all the bodies wore a bronze bracelet at each wrist. In Grave 3, which is the burial of a young adult female, besides 7 pottery vessels, the skeleton had the usual pair of bronze bracelets at the wrists, a pair of hair-pins, a kohl-applicator (defined “wand” at Tepe Hissar) [fig. 18d, h] as well as a round stamp seal of white stone with a suspension lug on the back, with deep drilled patterns, found in the larger vase at the feet of the skeleton. Similar stamp seals have been found in several sites of Bactria and Margiana such as Sapalli-depe  30, dated to the GKC period. Almost at the floor level of Grave 3, part of a sub-rectangular pit (SU 19) was found in the NE corner of the trench, totally filled with reddened earth, loose dark ashes as well as a concentration of charred seed remains (N=505) [fig. 12]. Most of the latter (85%) consisted of seeds from free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum) associated with grape seeds (12%) and a small quantity of barley and wild

Fig. 12 – Position of skeleton and grave-goods in Grave 3, Trench 4.

Fig. 13 – Pottery from Grave 3, Trench 4.

30.

Askarov 1977, p. 208, pl. XLIV, no. 1.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

grass seeds. The concentration of cereals, retrieved by hand picking during excavation, suggests a deposit of cleaned grain in the pit, perhaps together with grapes. The sub-rectangular pit was simply dug into the ground, but had clay-plastered walls and a beaten floor, hence representing a type of (semi)-subterranean structure. Two pottery vessels were found on the floor, both broken, but with complete profile: a buff, hand-made, squatted biconical deep bowl with straight rim and flat base (H.  18.5  cm), rather coarse, grit tempered, (fig. 14a) as well as part of a fine, grey ware Fig. 14 –Pottery found on the floor of the sub-rectangular pit below small (H. 4.3 cm) multiple vase, Grave 3, Trench 4 (a-b). Grey ware biconical beakers (c‑d) were the only cylindrical in form with straight grave-goods respectively of Grave 4, Trench 4 and Grave 1, Trench 7. rim and flat base (fig. 14b). Stratigraphically, the (semi)-subterranean structure and its filling are under Grave 3, hence obviously earlier than this and the other GKC graves. Two radiocarbon dates from SU 19 show a date between 2676-2479 BC and 2458-2272 BC (tab. 1). This would put Grave 3 and other GKC graves in Trench 4 after 2272 BC which fits with the dates proposed for the beginning of GKC assemblages in Central Asia. In the southern half of the trench (4-B, C) a big scatter of large storage jar fragments were found in SU 2 (=SU 17) almost at the level of the GKC grave’s floor. It is not very clear whether the jars are crushed in situ or thrown away already in fragments, but a few mud-brick fragments among them suggest a context similar to the one observed in the storage area of Trench 3. Several fragments of pottery ladles and scoops with a round, bowl-shaped end were found in this area. Similar ladles have also been found on the surface. They are often made of coarse grey ware, usually with gravel temper. No example was found complete to give the exact shape, but from the various fragments it is clear that they usually have long, tapering handles round in cross-section and hemispherical bowl-shaped ends. Very similar ladles have been reported in large numbers from Shah Tepe  31, where are said to be characteristic of period II. Beside the ladles, the pottery associated with the jar fragments is a fine grey ware similar to the ones found in the storage area of Trench 3; both have parallels at Shah Tepe IIb period and could be dated to the early 3rd millennium BC. Immediately under the level of the fragments of large storage jars several rectangular ash pits were found, all of them emptied and sampled for flotation. The stratigraphical relationship between the jar fragments and the ash pits is clearly shown by the fact that on the surface of one of them there are some jar fragments, therefore the ash pits are earlier than the jar fragments. The analysis of charred plant remains (N=1441) from two pits (SU 18 and 20) revealed a rather diversified spectrum of cultivated and wild taxa. Remains from grape are most numerous (62%) consisting of both seeds, stalks and fragments of whole fruits. Cereals constitute the second most important category, represented by hulled and free-threshing barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. Vulgare var. nudum) and free-threshing wheat. A few diagnostic rachis segments from free-threshing wheat were also found and allow a more precise identification of the wheat as being of a hexaploid bread wheat type (aestivum). In the ash pits crop remains were associated with several wild plant seeds belonging to wild grasses and pulses, bedstraw (Galium), Adonis as well as the borage (Boraginaceae) and goosefoot (Chenopodiaceae) families. The presence of different types of wild plants in these contexts may be explained by the secondary deposit of the cleaning out of hearths/ovens in which the charring of seeds were caused on the one hand by the use of small shrubs for fuel and on the other hand by the discarding of weed seeds while cleaning the crops prior to consumption.

31.

Arne 1945, p. 231.

193

194

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

In the NE corner of the Trench (4‑D), while excavating a deep trench around Grave 3 to remove and bring it to the Bojnord Museum, the floor of the (semi)-subterranean structure next to the grave was cut, and a lens of gravel and small potsherds was revealed under its northwestern part. Below the gravel lens a human burial (Grave 4) was found in a hard, yellowish layer some 110 cm below the surface. Contrary to the GKC burial of Grave 3 the skeleton in Grave 4 is in very poor conditions. Only parts of skull, few ribs and part of the femur were preserved, the other bones went into dust at the smallest touch. However, it was possible to reconstruct that the skeleton was crouched on the left side, the head oriented NE and the face looking south-westwards, an orientation totally different from the one of the later GKC skeletons. The only grave-good was a fine, polished grey ware vase found near the pelvic area. It is a small biconical beaker, almost 9 cm height, with wide mouth, straight rim, higher upper cone, rounded carination in the lower part and a flat bottom (fig. 14c). This beaker has close parallels in burials of period IIIc at NargesTepe (e.g. burial no. 1405), where they usually are the only grave-good in the burials  32, and are attributed to the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3100-2900 BC). Only twenty animal bones were found in Trench 4 SU 16. The twenty bones are very fragmented and are unidentified upper and lower limb bone remains (including Femur and metapodials) as well as ribs and vertebra. The total weight of these remains is 25 g and indicates the high rate of fragmentation of these bones.

 

Trench 5, also 5×5 m, is located 6 m north of Trench 4 in the necropolis area. In the northern part of the trench, some 20 cm below the surface, a burial was found with a set of grave-goods similar to tombs 1‑3 in the nearby trench. The body in the grave is crouched, oriented East-West, but contrary to the other contemporary graves it is buried on the left side with the face looking northwards (fig. 15). The skeleton had a bronze/copper bracelet at the right hand and other grave-goods, including 9 pottery vases, all of GKC type, were grouped around the head and at the feet of the deceased. The pottery forms are bowls on trumpet-stands, conical bowls, deep hemispherical bowls, bowls with open spout and jars with spherical body (fig. 16). Later on, Trench 5 was extended north and eastwards covering an area 10×10 m. In the extension area, about 2 m to the northeast of Grave 1, disturbed remains of a human skeleton were found few centimeters below the surface. Modern plough marks near the bones (skull, a few vertebrae and ribs) suggests a disturbed grave, probably contemporary with Grave 1, but without grave-goods or perhaps robbed. Near the human remains, northeast of them, was found a rectangular paved floor composed by a layer of flat stones and large pottery jar fragments. The paved surface is about 180×170 cm and we do not know whether it is related to the nearby grave(s) or not.

 

Fig. 15 – Position of skeleton and grave-goods in Grave 1, Trench 5.

32.

Abbasi 1390/2011, p. 102, fig. 118‑119.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

Fig. 16 – Pottery from Grave 1, Trench 5.

Trench 6, a 5×5 square, was opened in a flat area on the western side of the qanats, near the modern irrigation canal along which Trench 3 was excavated. Like many other parts of the site, this area too was leveled and ploughed in the recent past. This area of the site is characterized by a large scatter of GKC pottery. Altogether, we have distinguished 8 stratigraphic units in Trench 6. The upper layer (SU 1‑4) which is totally disturbed by agricultural activities produced mixed materials including burnt mud-brick fragments, GKC pottery and few fine grey ware sherds. Some 30 cm below the surface, in SU 5 which is the first intact layer, a large storage jar was found. The upper part of the jar is missing, but the remaining lower part suggests that it was standing on a floor. The jar is very similar in shape and clay to the ones found in Trenches 3 and 4. Likewise, the pottery associated with the storage jar and the underlying layers is a fine, polished grey ware similar to pottery of Shah Tepe IIb and could be dated to the early 3rd millennium BC. Excavation stopped in a depth of 40‑45 cm below the surface and a small 1×1 m test pit in the northeastern corner of the trench continued to the virgin soil.

 

Trench 7 is located 5 m to the northeast of Trench 3, where remains of several storage jars similar to the ones found in Trench 3 were visible on the surface. The trench measured 4×2 m and it was opened with the aim of a better identification of the storage area already exposed in Trench 3. In the first stratigraphic unit, 4 storage jars were found one beside the other, probably imbedded into the ground. While the size, shape and clay of the jars is very similar to the storage jars in Trench 3, they do not rest on the same level. The base of the jars in Trench 7 is some 30 cm higher than in Trench 3, probably implying an open storage area with natural topography. It is interesting to note that groups of similar storage jars inside the ground with broken upper parts were observed in several other spots in the western part of the site. The discrepancies between the levels of these storage jars may suggest a large, open storage area probably located on the periphery of the settlement and/or near the agricultural lands. Presence of such an extramural, open-space storage system, however, brings forth the question of control over the personal property. In the current state of research, there is not enough evidence to give a firm answer to this question but, future excavations and more investigation in the storage areas will hopefully put the question in a clearer perspective. Some 40 cm below the surface, traces of a grave pit (Feature 5) were distinguished in the southwestern corner of the trench. In order to fully expose the burial, the trench was enlarged 1×1.5 m westwards.

195

196

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

Inside the pit a human skull unearthed some 70 cm below the surface, but no traces of other bones were observed. The only grave-good was a small beaker of fine, polished grey ware with biconical body and flat base discovered near the skull. This beaker (fig. 14d) is similar to the one found in Trench 4, Grave 4. Stratigraphically both of these graves were discovered under the layer with large storage jar and could be considered contemporary to Shah Tepe III/IIb. Trenches 8 and 9 were both 2×2 m squares opened in the southeastern part of the site. This area is heavily damaged by intensive agriculture and on the surface there is a large pottery and bone scatter.  

Trench 8 was opened in a spot with a good amount of GKC pottery scatter, where a miniature stone bowl with trough spout was also found in the surface. Immediately under the topsoil, a disturbed layer containing many human bone fragments, broken pottery vases and other materials were found. Obviously, this was a GKC grave totally disturbed by ploughing. Unfortunately, the skeleton was much damaged and the body position could not be reconstructed, but the grave-goods were at least 9 objects, including 5 pottery vases, 2 bronze/copper pins (fig. 18a-b), a miniature open-spout bowl of pinkish marble, and thin strips of bones with serrated edges (fig. 17a). These latter objects have an unknown function, but one may tentatively assume that the serrated bones could have been a musical instrument or a tool for measuring the volume of a liquid inside containers. Identical objects have already been reported from a contemporary grave at Gonur-depe  33 .  

Fig. 17 – A selection of grave-goods from the graves of Trench 8 (a) and 9 (b‑f).

33.

Sarianidi 2012, p. 52.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

Fig. 18 – Some bronze artefacts found in the BMAC burials of Chalow.

Trench 9 was opened 6 m east of Trench 8, where a number of bronze/copper objects including a broken tanged dagger or spearhead, a broken bracelet and a few stone beads were found on the surface. Having removed the topsoil, the remains of a much disturbed human skeleton and a large group of objects, all destroyed by ploughing were exposed. Again, the body position could not be reconstructed, but it is clear that the grave was rather rich. The surviving grave-goods were at least 21 items including 9 pottery vases of GKC type, a pair of bronze bracelets, a perfect reproduction in marble of a sheep/goat astragalus, a bit larger than the actual size and 3 marble small balls, possibly a kind of gaming pieces (fig. 17b), a 6-strands necklace composed of small, disc-shaped black and white stone beads and dark red spacers (fig. 17c), an object composed by decorated dark stone triangles originally joined by bronze wire, probably used as a diadem or a very complex necklace (fig. 17d), a very elaborate stone kohl-container consisting of alternating black and white stone disks with bronze applicator still inside and containing remains of black cosmetic material (fig. 17e), a tanged dagger or spearhead (fig. 17f ), a disc-shaped stone spindle-whorl and a bronze beaker with slightly concave body (fig. 18i) similar to beakers type C‑4, variant C‑4-2 of Kaniuth in north Bactria  34.

Conclusions The results of the first season of excavation at Tepe Chalow in the plain of Jajarm, NE Iran, show that the site was first settled in the late 4th millennium and continued to be occupied until the early 2nd millennium BC. One of the most important characteristics of the site is the presence of material culture of different cultural areas including Damghan area (Hissar I‑II painted pottery), Gorgan plain (Caspian Black-on-Red and the Gorgan grey ware), as well as southern Central Asia (NMZ III and GKC ceramics). The majority of the pottery found in the excavation of settlement shows great similarities with the ceramics of Shah Tepe and Tureng Tepe in Gorgan plain and of Ak-depe in southern Turkmenistan, but a smaller number of pottery fragments shows also connections with Tepe Hissar and the Damghan plain in the late 4th millennium BC. While the location of Tepe Chalow to the south of the Alborz chain and on the plain at the fringes of the Kavir would suggest strong connections with Tepe Hissar, the lack of oases with surface water between the two settlements explains why the contacts between these two sites were so tenuous. On the other hand the location of Chalow, exactly on an important caravan route that in the Middle Ages connected Nishapur and Gorgan, on the easiest road through

34.

Kaniuth 2006, p. 85‑86.

197

198

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

the mountains to the Atrak valley and eventually to the Caspian Sea plain, facilitated the contacts with the region of Gorgan in the 4th millennium BC. Another important result of the first campaign is the discovery of a large GKC necropolis. The importance of the graveyard of Chalow lies in the fact that, contrary to most contemporary group of GKC objects found on the Iranian Plateau or beyond its southern and western borders, it is not limited to a set of luxury objects, but it also includes a wide variety of ordinary, household objects, specifically diagnostic pottery of GKC type. For instance, while the contemporary GKC materials from sites of northeastern Iran such as Tepe Hissar, Tureng Tepe, Shah Tepe, as well as the recently found GKC‑related materials from the Bazgir Hoard in Gorgan plain are isolated luxury or “ritual” objects found within an extensive inventory of local materials, and the GKC materials from south‑eastern Iran (Khurab, Khinaman, Shahdad, and Yahya in Kerman area) are composed of occasional GKC pottery types and luxury objects intermixed with indigenous materials, indicating their intrusive nature within a local cultural context  35, the assemblage from Chalow necropolis show the whole GKC set, including both typical, everyday pottery types and luxury items, indicating a rather homogeneous cultural unit. This distinctive GKC assemblage is in a few cases associated with objects produced in the local, grey ware tradition. Accordingly, it appears that while the expansion of GKC into the territory of Kerman and Damghan-Gorgan plain is to be explained with the migration of elite groups of Bactria and Margiana  36, the abundant presence in Chalow of everyday GKC pottery and luxury items indicates that the local culture was significantly replaced by GKC, suggesting something more than the mere presence of an aristocracy, rather a significant influx of population bringing its own pottery tradition. Since the origin of GKC is to be sought in southern Turkmenistan and northeastern Khorasan  37 and typical assemblages have frequently been reported from northern Afghanistan, southern and eastern Turkmenistan, southern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan, the discovery of such a unique assemblage of GKC materials in northeastern Iran on the fringes of Dasht-e Kavir shows new aspects of the complex cultural interaction between the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC. Up to now, no trace of domestic or monumental architecture of GKC peoples has been found in the excavations at Chalow and at the current state of study it is too early to speak about the socio-economic organization of the Chalow society. The C14 samples from Trenches 1 and 4 from pre-GKC phase and from contexts correlated by grey ware ceramics and (semi)-subterranean architectural features, however limited, provide a more precise framework for constructing the cultural history of the site. More radiocarbon dates in the future will provide us with evidence about the arrival and expansion of the GKC in northern Khorasan and other areas of eastern Iran. The bioarchaoelogical studies during the first season of excavation in Chalow have shed light on the subsistence economy of the site. The first results of the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological studies show that agriculture and herding were important components of the economic activities of Chalow all through the occupational sequence. Cereals, free-threshing wheat and barley, constitute the main crop species while pulses are generally absent from the studied contexts, except for one single seed of lentil (Lens culinaris) identified from a Middle Bronze Age context. A conspicuous feature in the archaeobotanical record is the ubiquity of grape (seeds, stalks, fruits) that also corresponds to the most numerous botanical remains found in context dated both to the Late Chalcolithic and the Middle Bronze Age suggesting that the transformation of grapes might have corresponded to an important activity in the local economy and that wine was part of items traded through regional networks  38. While Botanical

35.

Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992, p. 6; Hiebert 1998, p. 154‑155.

36.

Thornton 2013, p. 195.

37.

Biscione and Vahdati in press.

38.

Tengberg 2013.

Preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow

remains bring information on the three represented periods, the faunal remains represent mostly the animal exploitation during the EBA period. The faunal spectrum highlights the importance of herding, while hunting is still practiced and part of the subsistence economy. This is a typical pattern found for this period in nearby sites of southern Central Asia and also many site of the Iranian Plateau  39. Further investigations in the field of bioarchaeology are in progress and a will allow a more in depth comparison of the evolution of agro-pastoralism with southern Central Asia. Further excavation at the site with a multi-disciplinary approach and complementary studies in this and the other sites in the region will be very instructive and help us to place GKC material culture into a clearer perspective.

Acknowledgments Excavation at Tepe Chalow was done under the auspices of Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (RICHT) and the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR). The authors would like to thank authorities of both Centers. M. Mashkour would like to thank Dr Haeedeh Laleh and Mr Ahmad Aliyari, Director and deputy director of the Archaeometry Laboratory of the University of Tehran where the analysis of the archaeozoological remains were performed. Also the authors are grateful to the UMR 7209 CNRS/MNHN for funding the radiocarbon dates.

References Abbasi G.A. 1390/2011, Gozāresh-e Pāyāni-ye kāvosh-hā-ye Bāstānshenākhti-ye Narges Tappeh, Dasht-e Gorgān (Final report of the archaeological excavations at Narges Tappeh, Gorgan plain, Iran), Tehran. Amiet P. 1986, L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens, 3500-1700 avant J.-C., Notes et documents des Musées de France 11, Paris. Askarov A. 1977, Drevnezemledel’cheskaya Kul’tura epokhi bronzi igua Uzbekistana, Tashkent (in Russian). Arne T.J. 1945, Excavations at Shah Tepe, Stockholm. Biscione R. 1973, “Dynamics of an early South Asian civilization First period of Shahr‑i Sokhta and its connections with Southern Turkmenia”, in N. Hammond (ed.), South Asian Archaeology, London, p. 105‑118. Biscione R. and Vahdati A.A. in press, “The Diffusion of BMAC in Eastern Iran and Neighboring Countries”, paper presented in the International Conference Farmers, Traders and Herders. The Bronze Age in Central Asia and Khorasan (3rd-2nd Millennium BCE), held in Berlin, 30th Nov.-1st Dec. 2015. Fairservis W.A. 1956, Excavations in the Quetta Valley, West Pakistan, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 45/2, New York. Francfort H.-P. 1994, “The Central Asian dimension of the symbolic system in Bactria and Margiana”, Antiquity 68, p. 406‑418. Hiebert F.T. and Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1992, “Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian borderlands”, Iran 30, p. 1‑15. Hiebert F.T. 1998, “Central Asians on the Iranian plateau: A model for Indo-Iranian Expansionism”, in V.H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze and Early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia, vol. 1, Journal of Indo‑European Studies, Monograph series 26, Washington DC, p. 148‑161. Kaniuth K. 2006, Metallobjekte der Bronzezeit aus Nordbaktrien, Archäologie in Iran und Turan 6, Mainz.

39.

E.g. Moore 1993; Mashkour 2002; Mashkour 2013.

199

200

Ali A. Vahdati, Raffaele Biscione, Riccardo La Farina, et al.

Khlopin I.N. 1981, “The Early Bronze Age cemetery of Parkhai II: the first two seasons of excavations: 1977-78”, in Ph.L. Kohl (ed.), The Bronze Age Civilization of Central Asia. Recent Soviet Discoveries, New York, p. 3‑34. Kircho L.B. 1999, K Izucheniyu Pozdnego Eneolita Yuzhnogo Turkmenistana, Saint-Petersburg. Kircho L.B. 2014, “Stratigrafiya i otnositel’naya khronologiya poseleniya epokhi Eneolita i Bronzy Ak-Depe v Ashkhabade (po materialam raskopok A.A. Marushchenko)”, Zapiski Istituta Istorii Material’noy Kul’tury RAN 10, p. 132‑146. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1994, “The Bronze Age khanates of Central Asia”, Antiquity 68, p. 395‑408. Lamberg-Karlowsky C.C. and Potts D. 2001, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975: The Third Millennium, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletins 45, Cambridge MA. Mashkour M. 2002, “Chasse et élevage au Nord du Plateau central iranien entre le Néolithique et l’Âge du Fer”, Paléorient 28/1, p. 27‑42. Mashkour M. 2013, “Sociétés pastorales et économies de subsistance au Nord Est de l’Iran et au Sud du Turkménistan”, in J. Bendezu-Sarmiento (dir.), Archéologie française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21/22, p. 533‑544. Mashkour M., Mohaseb A. and Fathi H. 2015, “Preliminary report of the archaeozoological study of 2011 and 2013 excavation campaigns of Chalow, Northern Khorasan”, Unpublished report. Masson V.M. 1961, “Kara-depe u Artyka (v svete raskopok 1955-1957 gg.)”, Trudy YuTAKE X, Moscow, p. 319‑405. Moore K. 1993, “Animal use at Bronze Age Gonur depe”, International Association of the Study of Central Asia, Information Bulletin 19, p. 164‑176. Sarianidi V.I. 1965, Pamyatniki Pozdneggo Eneolita Yugo-Vostochnoy Turkmenii, Svod Arkheologicheskoikh Istochnikov, B3‑8, Moscow. Sarianidi V.I. 1976, “Material’naya kul’tura Juzhnogo Turkmenistana v period Ranney Bronzy”, in V.M. Masson and E. Atagarryev (ed.), Pervobytnyy Turkmenistan, Ashkhabad, p. 82‑111. Sarianidi V.I.  2012, Issledovaniya Gonur-depe v  2008-2011, Trudy Margianskoy Arkheologicheskoy Ekspeditsii 4, Moscow. Schmidt E.F. 1937, Excavations at Tepe Hissar: Damghan, Philadelphia. Sorush M.R. and Yusefi S. 1393/2014, “Mohavate-ye Razeh: Shāhedi az esteghrārhā-ye hezāre-ye sevom tā dowrān-e tārikhi dar Khorāsān-e Jonoubi”, in K. Roustaei and M. Gholami (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium of the Iranian Archaeology, 19‑21 May 2014, ICAR, Tehran. Tengberg M. 2013, “Économies végétales et environnements en Asie Centrale du Néolithique à l’époque sassanide : la contribution des disciplines archéobotaniques”, in J. Bendezu-Sarmiento (dir.), Archéologie française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21/22, p. 545‑558. Thornton C. 2013, “The Bronze Age in Northeastern Iran”, in D. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, New York, p. 179‑202. Vahdati A.A. 2014, “A New BMAC Grave from Bojnord, North-Eastern Iran”, Iran 52, p. 19‑27. Wulsin F.R. 1932, Excavations at Tureng Tepe, near Asterabad, Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 2/1, New York.

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran New discoveries on the western fringe of Dasht‑e Lut Nasir Eskandari University of Jiroft, Iran and UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon The Early Bronze Age was a crucially important period in the cultural development of southeastern Iran, during which major socio-cultural changes occurred, leading to the early urbanization of this part of the Iranian Plateau. Previous investigations in the three wellknown large urban centers of Shahr‑i Sokhta, Shahdad and the valley of the Halil River in the region of the modern city of Jiroft demonstrated that urban florescence emerged in southeastern Iran and was well underway by the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, diminishing by the end of the millennium. Recent archaeological work on the western fringes of the Desert of Lut (Dasht‑e Lut) has produced new and valuable information about this first phase of urbanization in southeastern Iran. This work shed light on Bronze Age site distribution in Shahdad Plain, enabling us to contextualize the already documented urban site of Shahdad. Furthermore, during recent surveys, two additional large third millennium BC centers, Keshit and Mokhtarabad, were identified on the western fringes of Dasht‑e Lut. This article presents the discoveries of recent surveys in the Lut area and discusses the third millennium BC urban landscape of Dasht‑e Lut from a spatial perspective. It also presents some thoughts on the Early Bronze Age urbanization of southeastern Iran based on new views from Dasht‑e Lut. L’âge du Bronze ancien a été une période cruciale dans le développement culturel du sud‑est de l’Iran. Au cours de cette période, d’importants changements socio-culturels se sont produits et ils ont engendré une urbanisation précoce dans cette partie du plateau iranien. Les recherches antérieures sur de grands centres urbains, Shahr‑i Sokhta, Shahdad et la région de la ville moderne de Jiroft dans la vallée de la rivière Halil, ont montré qu’un essor urbain a émergé dans le sud-est de l’Iran. Il est bien amorcé au second quart du IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., et décroît ensuite. Les travaux archéologiques récents menés sur la bordure occidentale du Désert de Lut (Dasht‑e Lut) ont apporté de nouvelles et précieuses informations sur cette première phase d’urbanisation dans le sud-est de l’Iran. Grâce à ces travaux, la distribution des sites de la plaine de Shahdad datés de l’âge du Bonze a été déterminée, ce qui nous permet de contextualiser le site urbain de Shahdad qui a déjà fait l’objet d’études. De plus, lors des dernières prospections, deux autres grands centres du IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., Mokhtarabad et Keshit, ont été identifiés dans l’ouest du Dasht‑e Lut. Cet article présente les découvertes des prospections récentes de la région du Lut et aborde le paysage urbain du Dasht‑e Lut au IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. d’un point de vue spatial. Il présente également quelques réflexions sur l’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze ancien dans le sud-est de l’Iran, fondées sur les nouvelles données du Dasht‑e Lut.

‫ این دوره‬.‫عصر مفرغ قدیم یک دوره مهم در توسعه فرهنگی منطقه جنوب شرق ایران محسوب می شود‬ ‫ای است که در آن تغییرات اجتماعی فرهنگی مهمی رخ داده است که منجر به پیدایش شهرنشینی اولیه‬ ‫ پژوهش های پیشین در سه مرکز بزرگ شناخته شده شهری‬.‫در این بخش از فالت ایران گردیده است‬ ‫ شهداد و جیرفت نشان داد که یک دوره شهرنشینی شکوفا در این بخش از ایران‬،‫منطقه یعنی شهرسوخته‬

202

Nasir Eskandari

‫ پژوهش های اخیر در‬.‫م از بین رفت‬.‫م آغاز گردید و در پایان هزاره سوم پ‬.‫در ربع دوم هزاره سوم پ‬ ‫حاشیه غربی بیایان لوت اطالعات جدید و ارزشمندی از مرحله نخست شهرنشینی جنوب شرق ایران ارائه‬ ‫م دشت شهداد؛‬.‫ با مشخص شدن الگوی پراکنش استقرارهای هزاره سوم پ‬،‫ درپی این پژوهش‬.‫کرده است‬ ‫ طی بررسی های‬،‫ همچنین‬.‫محوطه شهری شهداد در بافتی که در آن شکل گرفته است بهتر شناخته شد‬ ‫ این‬.‫م کشیت و مختارآباد در غرب بیابان لوت شناسایی شد‬.‫ دو محوطه بزرگ از هزاره سوم پ‬،‫اخیر‬ ‫م‬.‫ دستاوردهای بررسی های اخیر دشت لوت را ارائه می کند و نیز منظرگاه شهری هزاره سوم پ‬،‫مقاله‬ ‫ بر اساس اطالعاتی که از دشت لوت بدست آمده است به شهرنشینی‬،‫ همچنین‬.‫این منطقه را تحلیل می کند‬ .‫م) جنوب شرق ایران پرداخته شده است‬.‫عصر مفرغ قدیم (هزاره سوم پ‬

Introduction The origins, development and the collapse of early urban societies have long been a favorite subject matter in Near Eastern archaeology. Today, the assumption that the idea of urbanism diffused from southern Mesopotamia is questioned because ample evidence increasingly illustrates that in addition to southern Mesopotamia, many urban centers in northern Mesopotamia, Indus and southern Iran Valley existed at the same time – Early Bronze Age. Each of these had their own cultural character and their own trajectory of development. However, there are some debatable considerations on the definition of early cities and urbanization in the mentioned areas. In other words, one can criticize the studies on early urbanization of Near Eastern Archaeology because most of research that has engaged with urbanization in this region has not adequately defined what they mean by “urban” or “city” and as a result a variety of types of ancient sites in this area have been called “cities”. This lack of definition has given rise to a vague and diverse understanding of urbanization in Near Eastern archaeology. Sometimes the term “city” is used instead of “urbanism”, even though a difference between them, was established long ago by Charles Redman  1 who noted that “Urbanism implies the characteristics that distinguish cities from simpler community form; it also refers to the organization of an entire urban society, which includes not only cities, but also towns and villages. A city, on the other hand, is the physical center manifesting many important characteristics of urban condition”. In attempting to move toward a definition, in light of our present knowledge, it is difficult to characterize in detail the process of Early Bronze Age (hereafter; EBA) urbanization in southeastern Iran because compared to other centers of the Near East, it is still very poorly known. General speaking, the EBA urbanization of southeastern Iran can be approached through our increasing knowledge of large and densely populated centers, an increased understanding of the patterns of occupation surrounding these centers   2, socio-economic stratification, long distance trade, craft specialization and an emergence of managerial agencies. However, in order for us to have an understanding of the character of SE Iran urbanization, more archaeological and survey investigations are urgently required. We first knew of southeastern Iran EBA cities from excavations at Shahr‑i Sokhta and Shahdad in 1970s. The third major urban center of SE Iran – Jiroft (Konar Sandal South) – has been identified in last decade. These centers are located, respectively, in Sistan plain, west fringe of Dasht‑e Lut and Jiroft plain in Halil River valley (fig. 1). In this article, I will present new information that comes from recent work in the Dasht‑e Lut.

1.

Redman 1978, p. 215.

2.

On the western edge of Lut Desert the Early Bronze Age spatial pattern is completely different from Helmand and Halil River basins. Contrary to the Halil and Helmand areas that urban centers are contributed to grassroots increase of satellite sites, on the western edge of Lut Desert large urban centers are characterized with the scanty of surrounding occupations. In the further below, these two different spatial patterns will be discussed.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

Fig. 1 – Map showing the location of the main Bronze Age excavated sites of southeastern Iran.

An overview of the known urban centers of SE Iran Helmand River basin: Shahr‑i Sokhta Shahr‑i Sokhta “Burnt City” is located in Sistan plain of the southeastern part of Iranian Plateau, close to the Afghanistan and Pakistan borders. At its greatest expanse the site was over 150 hectares making it the largest city at the dawn of the urban era in the Helmand Basin. The site was discovered by Stein in the early 1900s. Beginning in 1967, the site was excavated by an Italian mission under supervision of Maurizio Tosi  3 who continued his work until 1978. After a gap, work at the site was resumed in 1997 by an Iranian team under the direction of Mansour Sajjadi  4. The excavations have partly revealed the layout and organization of the urban center of Shahr‑i Sokhta. Like the Italian mission, the ongoing work of Sajjadi has been concentrated in three main parts of the site: cemetery in the southwestern part of the site, residential area in the eastern and northeastern parts and craftsmen’s area in the north. The cultural sequence of Shahr‑i Sokhta is a continuous development, subdivided in four periods, which begins in the late 4th millennium until the abandonment of the city at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Earliest occupation of the site, Period I, is contemporary with the Proto-Elamite culture of the late fourth millennium. In the two following periods – periods II and III are attributed to early to late 3rd millennium BC – when Shahr‑i Sokhta was a

3.

Tosi 1969; Tosi 1986; Tosi and Piperno 1975; Salvatori and Tosi 2005.

4.

Sajjadi 2006; Sajjadi 2003; Sajjadi, Costantini and Lorentz 2008.

203

204

Nasir Eskandari

well-organized large urban center comprised of administrative and public buildings; an artisan’s quarter for various specialized craft activities including copper, lapis lazuli, turquoise, alabaster and flint; residential areas; and a vast graveyard. Period IV, at the very end of the third millennium, Shahr‑i Sokhta shrunk to a small village of about 5 ha in response to a drastic climate change and shift in the course of the Helmand River before it be abandoned in the initial of 2nd millennium BC.

Halil River basin: Jiroft Following massive illegal looting of Bronze Age cemeteries of Halil River valley in 2000, a hitherto unknown archaeological culture came into light in the Near East. As a result of the vast looting at a dozen of cemeteries, thousands of burial goods, in particular distinctively carved chlorite vessels, were plundered  5. The main plundering seems to have occurred in a zone between 20 to 50 km south of the modern city of Jiroft. Various burial goods such as metal and elaborate semi-precious stone objects are also attested among the looted material indicating the existence during the Early Bronze Age of a sizable craft production in the Halil River basin. After looting was halted in 2001, archaeological research began led by Youssef Madjidzadeh  6 at Konar Sandal South, Konar Sandal North, Ghalleh Kouchak and the cemetery of Mahtoutabad. Excavations at Konar Sandal South have revealed the character of an EBA large mud-brick Citadel which was surrounded by a massive defensive wall in the center of a large lower town. Although there is still much to learn about this center, the results are clear testimony to the power, wealth and social stratification of this urban center. According to radiocarbon dates that come from well-controlled contexts at the site of Konar Sandal South, an absolute range between 2880 and 2140 BC is proposed for the Konar Sandal South  7. The relative dating offered by the glyptic evidence from KSS also confirms these radiocarbon dates  8. Another significant achievement of Jiroft excavations is the appearance of a new writing system  9. We can therefore hope that the eventual decipherment of the writing system of Jiroft will enable us to explore the ethnic and historical character of this urban center of southeastern Iran  10. According to Madjidzadeh, Jiroft was certainly a center of an urban character in the 3rd millennium BC of southeastern Iran that can be compared with previously known sites of the region such as Tepe Yahya, Bampur, Shahdad and Tal-I Iblis  11.

Dasht‑e Lut: Shahdad Another important urban center of southeastern Iran is the site of Shahdad, in Shahdad Plain of Kerman province. The Shahdad Plain is located between eastern flank of Kerman mountains and the western fringes of (Paleo-Lake) Lut Desert to the east. Due to proximity of the Shahdad Plain to the Lut Desert, its climate is hot and dry, experiencing extreme winds that are densely mixed with dust. The site of Shahdad is located at the base of an alluvial fan where it was in antiquity surrounded by the Shahdad River and a number of streams flowing east from their origin in the western mountains. From a geomorphological point of view, the site of Shahdad was founded on the base of the alluvial fan of Shahdad where thick alluvial layers are cut by wind and water erosions into yardangs (Kalut is the local name of yardang). It is worth mentioning that the Kaluts are scattered to the east of the modern

   5.

See Madjidzadeh 2003.

   6.

Madjidzadeh 2008.

   7.

Madjidzadeh 2008.

   8.

Pittman 2008; Pittman 2012.

   9.

Madjidzadeh 2012.

10.

A piece of an inscribed brick and 3 tablets were discovered in Jiroft. Tablets of Jiroft with Linear Elamite inscription similar to those of Puzur-Inshushinak from Susa. Jiroft writing system is regarded as the origins of Linear Elamite writing system by Madjidzadeh.

11.

Madjidzadeh 2008.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

city of Shahdad for about 5 km in a region which the prehistoric sites have been identified. In 1968, during a general geographical reconnaissance of the Lut depression, the Early Bronze Age site of Shahdad was identified. Excavations lead by Ali Hakemi of the Archaeological Service of Iran began in the following year and continued until 1978  12. The work concentered on a necropolis in which 383 graves were cleared including many with spectacular grave goods, including impressive human statuettes, elaborate metal objects such as a bronze standard, numerous stone and ceramic containers and ornamental finds. Hakemi also did some excavations in the east of the site, Operation D, which he identified as an industrial area of the urban center of Shahdad. Overall, excavations in necropolis and industrial area provided evidence for local craft activities and cross-regional contact. In 1977, a five-day survey across the site of Shahdad and its surroundings was undertaken with the collaboration of an Italian team which identified 37 points for sampling using aerial photographs  13. In 1978, archaeological research program of Shahdad was suspended for a decade and a half. Excavations at Shahdad site resumed under direction of Mr. Kaboli for four seasons in 1990s  14. The work of Kaboli was concentrated in the residential areas of the site. His work in the northern part of the site uncovered two architectural complexes. One of them located 800 m north of the cemetery A has been named the farmers’s area (fig. 2) and 300 m to the east, second complex named the jewelers’s area was identified. These two complexes of residential area and craft production greatly increase our understanding of the layout of the Bronze Age urban center of Shahdad that was previously only known through its necropolis. Despite several seasons of excavations at the site of Shahdad, no comprehensive survey has been undertaken on the western edge of Lut, or even on the Shahdad Plain. This lack of information concerning the catchment of the urban center of Shahdad along with the lack of stratified occupational sequence or secure chronology for the periods before the Bronze Age in Shahdad Plain has frustrated our understanding of the developmental origins of the urbanization of the Lut area. It was to address this lacunae that I undertook the current Shahdad project.

Fig. 2 – Third millennium BC Site of Shahdad, farmers’s area excavated area by Kaboli.

12.

Hakemi 1997.

13.

Salvatori and Vidale 1982; Hakemi 1997.

14.

Kaboli 1997.

205

206

Nasir Eskandari

Recent Dasht‑e Lut project: two newly identified large urban centers As mentioned above, a dozen seasons of fieldwork have already been carried out in Lut area, which brought to light valuable information on a significant early urban center of the Early Bronze Age Near East. After one decade and half, investigations in Lut area were undertaken by the author with the financial support of ICHTO of Kerman. The goal of this work was to investigate the prehistoric archaeology of the Lut area to sharpen our understanding of archaeological potential of this area. The project was structured around three main research agendas: an extensive archaeological survey along the western edge of Lut, and the stratigraphic excavations of two prehistoric multi-period sites. In late 2011 and early 2012, a reconnaissance survey was conducted along the western edge of the Lut Desert (Shahdad area) with the aim of mapping regional settlement patterns and change over time. Eighty-seven ancient sites were identified, the earliest one dates to the fifth millennium BC and the latest one dates to the late Islamic era  15. Among them twelve sites can be attributed to the 3rd millennium BC (fig. 3). The

Fig. 3 – The distribution pattern of Early Bronze Age sites on the west of Lut Desert.

15.

Eskandari 2012.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

survey area covers the area between the eastern foot of the Kerman Range Mountains on the west and the Desert of Lut to the east. The survey area, at its extremities, encompassed an approximate area of 100  km north-south and 40  km west-east. Our main objectives were to identify the settlement patterns of the region, and to investigate the human-environment interactions during prehistoric times in a region where previous excavations had documented the existence of a Bronze Age urban center. During the survey, two large Early Bronze Age sites – Keshit and Mokhtarabad – were identified for the first time. The ceramics collected during the surface survey at the sites of Keshit and Mokhtarabad showed that they can be regarded as 3rd millennium BC urban centers, however, much more fieldwork investigations are required to confirm this claim. In the below, they are introduced as following:

Keshit The site of Keshit is located 65 km to the south of modern city of Shahdad. The site named after the nearby village of Keshit which lies about 10 km to the south of site. Since Keshit is located only 3 km to the west of the Desert of Lut, it is covered with sand. Preliminary surface survey shows that it was a large site of around 1600 m×1300 m, or ca. 200 ha (fig. 4). Archaeological materials – predominantly pottery sherds – are scattered across the surface of the site at high densities (fig. 5). Based on the ceramic typologies, the site can be attributed to the fourth and third millennia BC; there is no evidence for subsequent occupation  16. Based on surface materials, the main occupation of the site belongs to 3rd millennium BC, only less than 5 ha can be attributed to 4th millennium BC. Based on the dense and contiguous scatter of surface materials, it seems that the site was occupied across the full extent of the scatter during the Early Bronze Age. Pottery is the most abundant find, but other surface materials at the site include fragments of marble vessels, bronze objects, lithic tools and semi-precious stones such as agate. In the north-western part of the site, slag and pottery wasters collected from the surface may indicate the location of the industrial quarter of the site (fig. 6). More generally, there are many mounds across the site standing several meters higher than their surroundings that probably

Fig. 4 – General view of the surface of the large site of Keshit.

16.

Eskandari et al. 2014.

207

208

Nasir Eskandari

preserve architectural remains. The collected ceramics are comparable to assemblages from Shahdad and Tal‑i Iblis (fig. 7). Morphologically, Keshit appears to be similar to Shahdad, the other Early Bronze Age site on the western fringes of the Lut Desert. Further fieldwork programs will investigate the overall city layout. Overall, it seems that the site of Keshit was a large 3rd millennium BC urban center in southwestern part of Lut Desert.

Fig. 5 – Density of cultural materials on the surface of Keshit site.

Fig. 6 – Some of the industrial kilns on the surface of Keshit.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

Fig. 7 – The drawings of the surface collected ceramics of Keshit.

Mokhtarabad The site of Mokhtarabad situated between the sites of Shahdad and Keshit on the western fringe of Dasht‑e Lut, 15 km to the south of Shahdad and 50 km to the north of Keshit. The site is located 1 km to the west of modern village of Mokhtarabad, on the northern bank of a river that originated from western mountains of Andohjerd. Like site of Keshit, it is also extensively covered with sand. Surface ceramics indicate that the site was occupied during the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. Dispersal of surface materials suggests that the site was approximately 70 hectares; 1000  m north-south and 700 m west-east (fig. 8). Scattered ceramics across the surface of the site, and are particularly dense in the western part of the site (fig. 9). The dense and contiguous scatter of surface materials shows that most probably the site was occupied across the full extent of the scatter. The collected ceramics indicate that the site can be assigned to the fourth and third millennia BC (fig. 10); there is no evidence for subsequent occupation. Except less than 3 ha in eastern part, the site was occupied in 3rd millennium BC. There are several mounds across the site, especially in western part, which stand several meters higher than their surroundings suggesting the presence of architectural remains. By doing an intensive surface walking survey, we could identify a cemetery in the southeastern part of the site. In fact, because of the wind erosion some of burials are visible on the surface (fig. 11). The exposure of the graves on the

209

210

Nasir Eskandari

surface, which would have originally been at least one or two meters below the level of the site, indicates that there has been extensive deflation of cultural deposits due to extreme wind erosion. Generally, we can say this urban center is a smaller version of two other large EBA sites of Shahdad and Keshit that is placed between them.

Fig. 8 – General view of the surface of Mokhtarabad site.

Fig. 9 – Density of cultural materials on the surface of the Mokhtarabad.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

Fig. 10 – The drawings of the Mokhtarabad’s surface collected ceramics.

Fig. 11 – The graves on the surface of Mokhtarabad attesting the extreme wind erosion in the Lut area.

211

212

Nasir Eskandari

Spatial perspectives on urban landscape of Dasht‑e Lut Recent reconnaissance survey along the western edge of Dasht‑e Lut indicated that in addition to the three large urban centers of Shahdad, Keshit and Mokhtarabad, nine other sites can be attributed to Early Bronze Age in this region. It must be mentioned that each of those large sites of Lut area includes many mounds which are collectively considered as one large site. In the middle portion of western edge of Lut, known as the Shahdad Plain, all of the Bronze Age sites including the urban center of Shahdad (over 200 ha) and its peripherial sites were distributed at the base of the alluvial fan of Shahdad. These peripherial sites are small and range in size from half a hectare to 3 hectares  17. What stands out in terms of site distribution is that all of these small sites are concentrated to the east of the urban site of Shahdad at a distance ranging from 300 m to 4 km to the east (fig. 12). It seems that these were satellite sites for the urban center of Shahdad. Overall, from point of view of spatial patterning, there are 12 Bronze Age site along the Dasht‑e Lut including three large urban centers of which two of them, Mokhtarabad and Keshit were respectively situated 15 and 65 km south of the site of Shahdad. Neither of these sites appear to have satellite sites. Dasht‑e Lut definitely has a very interesting and unexpected pattern of site distribution which is unusual by Near Eastern standards. To judge from these results, the Bronze Age settlement pattern of Dasht‑e Lut is completely different from two other contemporaneous urban landscape of southeastern Iran. In the Sistan plain there is only one large urban center – Shahr‑i Sokhta – with numerous smaller satellite sites  18. This same

Fig. 12 – Delimitation of the urban center of Shahdad and its contemporaneous small surrounding occupations at the end of the alluvial fan of Shahdad (CORONA Image).

17.

The prehistoric sites have been had a horizontal growth in Dasht‑e Lut. There is no Tell Site at Shahdad Plain. Without doubt environmental features caused to settlement didn’t build up to form tells because normally in past the places clearly have become meaningful so that it becomes important to rebuild exactly in the same place, not merely nearby. Previous excavations at site of Shahdad as well as recent excavations of the author at two sites in the region showed that prehistoric cultural deposits are less than 1m thick. I assume that extreme wind erosion must be one of the main reasons why there is such deflation of the cultural deposits. Although, here the sites have a horizontal growth but it may not be that there was no depositional build-up over time, but rather that there was constant deflation leaving deposits less than 1 m thick.

18.

This information comes from the unpublished results of 2006 and 2007 reconnaissance surveys of Mr. Mousavi Haji and Mr. Mehrafarin in Sistan plain which are prepared in 29 volumes for ICAR and ICHTO.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

pattern can be observed for Konar Sandal in Jiroft plain  19. These results suggest that both ecological factors and the natural landscape had a major influence in generating this distinctive spatial pattern of settlement in the western part of Dasht‑e Lut. It is important to observe, however, that the functional basis was also a main factor. In the western part of the Lut, the water sources did not pass the across the entire length of the plain, in fact there are some water sources that originated in the western mountains and after passing through the narrow width of the plain ended in the oasis that was the Lut Desert. Thus there was not enough available water to develop agricultural lands along the whole extent of the western edge of Lut Desert. Therefore it is obvious that the ecological factors seem to have been played a fundamental role in determining this unusual settlement pattern. Indeed, this spatial pattern – distribution of the large Bronze Age urban centers without satellite sites – seems to be an adaptive strategy responding to the natural landscape of Lut area. After considering the location of these three urban centers along the natural corridor of western edge of Dasht‑e Lut and the distances separating them, it seems reasonable to suggest that their strategic position permitted them to control the trade networks. In fact, they should belong to an unbroken chain of caravan trading stations that could control the movements of goods and raw materials in 3rd millennium BC. This north-south western corridor of Dasht‑e Lut even today is the main transit route for connecting southeastern of Iran (in particular Kerman and Hormozgan Provinces) to Great Khorasan. In addition, this route is known as opium route along which illegally imported opium is transported from southeastern Iran borderlands (Pakistan and Afghanistan borders) to Khorasan area. Hence, it seems that location along a transportation route was probably a very strong factor determining the spatial organization of the sites during the Bronze Age in the Dasht‑e Lut.

Southeastern Iran urbanization: new views from Dasht‑e Lut Alongside the previously discovered urban centers of southeastern Iran, the discovery of two additional large urban centers on the western edge of Lut Desert point to the scale and organization of urbanization during the third millennium BC. In fact, new views and information from Dasht‑e Lut provide an opportunity to take a step forward toward a better understanding of the early urbanization of this part of the Iranian Plateau. Broadly, two main factors seem to be associated with the development of urbanization in this region: first, the role of the natural environment and, specifically, the fertile alluvial plain and availability of permanent water in the Halil River valley and Helmand Basin; second, the strategic geopolitical location of southeastern Iran, connecting the west and east of South-West Asia, which allowed for the sites in the region to play a significant role in ancient trade and communication. We can say that the EBA urban centers on the SE of Iranian Plateau, including Shahr‑i Sokhta, Jiroft, Shahdad, Mokhtarabad and Keshit, were linked through a trade network that has been played an important role in the connecting Indus Valley, Central Asia, the Southern part of the Persian Gulf, SouthWest of Iran and Mesopotamia. Indeed, one can logically consider this area to have been at the heart of an extensive trade network across Southwestern Asia during the third millennium BC. Understanding the origins and nature of urbanization in southeastern Iran is difficult because the character and complexity of the preceding periods have not yet been fully investigated. What we know is that during mid to late fourth millennium BC there was an integrated culture named Aliabad culture  20 which prospered

19.

This information comes from a series of ICHTO’s reconnaissance surveys in Halil Valley that are remained still unpublished, it is important to note that although several regional surveys have been done in Halil River valley, but the area was not fully surveyed. Therefore there is still the possibility of the existence of more large EBA sites in the region.

20.

The Aliabad culture which is firstly documented in the excavations of Tal-I Iblis, Iblis IV period, probably started in the first half of the fourth millennium BC and continued to the late of that millennium, and is characterized by fine painted buff ware and metallurgically craft specialization (See Caldwell 1967) as well as the cemeteries which are separated from the occupational settlements (See Soleimani et al. 2016).

213

214

Nasir Eskandari

in southeastern Iran extending over a large area from west of Kerman to the most eastern lands of Iran, even Pakistan  21 to the east. The excavations at Tepe Dehno as the second part of recent Dasht‑e Lut project showed the context of 4th millennium BC within the region. This site is a 20 ha mid‑late 4th millennium (Aliabad culture) center. Its presence demonstrates that the major Dasht‑e Lut urban centres grew up in a region where population was already dense. Although the Aliabad culture is still poorly known, I assume that gradual local dynamic cultural changes began in this period and set the stage for establishment of the first cities in this region in the 3rd millennium BC. I postulate that the roots of southeastern Iran urbanization must be sought in the Aliabad culture. Meaningfully, all the EBA urban centers of Kerman including Konar Sandal South (Jiroft), Shahdad, and even two new found sites of Keshit and Mokhtarabad are located near important Aliabad sites. The work has demonstrated that the urban centers of the Dasht‑e Lut are different in term of site formation and settlement patterns from the two other urban landscapes Sistan and Jiroft of the SE Iran. Hence, the new information from Dasht‑e Lut shows the increasingly regional variations within SE Iran with regard to patterns of urbanization and they demonstrate that we must accommodate multiple models for the EBA cities of region. Finally, recent surveys revealed no pastoral sites from either the Chalcolithic or the Bronze Age in the mountainous part of the Dasht‑e Lut area. This allows us to think that that role of the pastoral societies was minimal in the rise and development of southeastern Iran urbanization.

Concluding remarks With the addition of two new 3rd millennium BC large urban centers on the western fringes of Dasht‑e Lut, we can now appreciate the rich potential of this part of Near East for the study of early urbanization. Broadly, it also demonstrates the potential importance of southeastern Iran for future studies on urbanization in the South-West Asia. On the basis of the results of my survey to the west of the Lut Desert, I suggest that it is highly probable that further extensive archaeological survey across southeastern Iran will lead to the discovery of further third millennium BC urban centers.

Future directions The southeastern Iran urbanization is the least well known of the early urban civilizations of Near East and further attention of scholars is urgently required. In this case the following directions can be helpful for further investigations: first of all we need a series of regional extensive and intensive surveys in southeastern Iran to determine accurately the pattern of urban settlement in the region. In addition, much more horizontal excavation at the known urban centers is needed to characterize the traits of the southeastern Iran civilizations. Furthermore, in order to seeking the roots and the nature of SE urbanization much more fieldwork investigations are required for the 4th millennium BC societies of the region to identify the main traits that set the stage for rise of urbanization in SE Iran during the Early Bronze Age.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the ICHTO of Kerman and ICAR. Without their support, the Shahdad archaeological project would not have been completed. I want to express my thanks to the Shahdad project field staff that helped me in the field. I am also thankful to the editors of this volume for their

21.

Mutin 2013.

Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanization in the southeastern Iran

kind invitation. I am grateful to Professor Holly Pittman for her thoughtful comments and editing work. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own.

References Caldwell J.R. 1967, Investigations at Tal‑i‑Iblis, Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9, Springfield, Illinois State. Eskandari N. 2012, Preliminary Report of Archaeological Survey in Shahdad District, Prepared for ICAR and ICHTO of Kerman, unpublished report (in Persian). Eskandari N., Aberdi A., Shafie M. and Javadi M. 2014, “Keshit: an early Bronze Age urban center on the western edge of the Lut Desert, south-eastern Iran”, Journal of Antiquity 341/88, available at: http:// journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/eskandari341. Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad: archaeological excavations of a Bronze Age center in Iran, Rome. Kaboli M.A. 1997, “Gozaresh‑e dahomin fasl kavosh goruh‑e bastan shenasi‑e Dasht‑e Lut dar mohavateh-ye bastani Shahdad (Report of the 10th season of excavation at the ancient Shahdad)”, Gozaresh-ha-ye Bastan Shenasi, AR, Bd. 1, Tehran, p. 87‑124 (in Persian). Madjidzadeh Y. 2003, Jiroft. The earliest oriental civilization, Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Printing and Publishing Organization, Cultural Heritage Organization (Research Center), Tehran. Madjidzadeh Y. 2008, “Excavations at Konar Sandal in the region of the Jiroft in Halil Basin: first preliminary report (2002‑2008)”, Iran 46, p. 69‑103. Madjidzadeh Y. 2012, “Jiroft tablets and the origin of the Linear Elamite writing system”, in T. Osada and M. Witzel (ed.), Cultural relations between the Indus and the Iranian plateau during the third millennium BCE: Indus project, Institute for humanities and nature, June 7‑8, 2008, Harvard Oriental Series, Opera Minora 7, Cambridge MA, p. 217‑243. Mutin B. 2013, “Ceramic Traditions and Interactions on the Southeastern Iranian Plateau during the 4th millennium BC”, in C. Petrie (ed.), Ancient Iran and Its Neighbors: Local Developments and Longrange Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC, The British Institute of Persian Studies Archaeological Monographs Series III, Tehran, p. 253‑275. Pittman H. 2008, “Contribution on glyptic art”, in Y. Madjidzadeh, Excavations at Konar Sandal in the region of the Jiroft in Halil Basin: first preliminary report (2002-2008), Iran 46, p. 95‑100. Pittman H. 2012, “Glyptic Art of Konar Sandal South, Observations on the Relative and absolute chronology in the third millennium BCE”, in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh (ed.), NAMVARNAMEH, Papers in honor of Massoud Azarnoush, Tehran, p. 81‑96. Redman C.L. 1978, The Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East, San Francisco. Salvatori S. and Tosi M. 2005, “Shahr‑i Sokhta Revised Sequence”, in C. Jarrige and V. Lefevre (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 2001, Paris, p. 281‑292. Salvatori S. and Vidale, M. 1982, “A Brief Surface Survey of the Proto-Historical Site of Shahdad (Kerman, Iran)”, Rivista di Archeologia 6, p. 5‑10. Sajjadi S.M.S. 2003, “Excavations at Shahr‑i Sokhta. First Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Graveyard 1997‑2000”, Iran 41, p. 21‑97. Sajjadi S.M.S. 2006, Excavations at Shahr‑i Sokhta, Center for archaeological research, Tehran (in Persian, English, French, Italian, German and Russian). Sajjadi S.M.S., Casanova M., Costantini L. and Lorenz K.O. 2008, “Sistan and Baluchistan Project: Short Reports on the Tenth Campaign of Excavations at Shahr‑i Sokhta”, Iran 46, p. 307‑337. Soleimani N., Shafie M., Eskandari N. and Molasalehi H. 2016, “Khaje Askar: A Fourth Millennium BC Cemetery in Bam, Southeastern Iran”, Journal of Iranica Antiqua 51, p. 57‑84.

215

216

Nasir Eskandari

Tosi M. 1969, “Excavations at Shahr‑i Sokhta. Preliminary report on the second campaign”, East and West 19, p. 109‑22. Tosi M. 1986, “The Archaeology of Early States in Middle Asia”, Oriens Antiquus 25, p. 153‑187. Tosi M. and Piperno M. 1975, “The Graveyard of Sahr‑e Suxteh (A Presentation of the 1972 and 1973 Campaigns)”, in F. Bagherzadeh (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran, p. 121‑140.

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

A pyrotechnological installation from the “metallurgical workshop” at Shahdad and its next geographical and chronological comparisons David M.P. Meier Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie (FU), Hüttenweg 7, 14195 Berlin On the following pages some new ideas about the design and the functional model of a specific pyrotechnological installation will be presented. This feature was discovered at Shahdad and due to its location inside of a building where abundant metallurgical residues were found it was initially supposed to have been involved in copper smelting activities. According to new observations and comparisons with archaeological features of an hitherto neglected feature from Shahdad and other sites from abroad another attempt is made to offer further possibilities of interpretation of its actual function. Ce papier expose quelques idées nouvelles concernant la structure et le modèle fonctionnel d’une installation pyrotechnique découverte à Shahdad, en Iran. Compte tenu de sa situation, à l’intérieur d’un bâtiment contenant d’abondants résidus métallurgiques, les travaux précédents avaient rattaché l’installation à des activités de fonte du cuivre. De nouvelles observations et recoupements avec des données archéologiques, jusqu’ici négligées, provenant de Shahdad et de sites plus ou moins éloignés, nous ont conduit à réinterpréter la fonction de l’installation en question.

‫ درباره ساختار و مدل کارکردی از یک سازه حرارتی کشف شده از‬،‫ ارایه دیدگاه های نو‬،‫هدف این مقاله‬ ‫ و قرارگیری آن‬،‫ موقعیت این سازه‬،‫ با توجه به پیشینه مطالعات انجام شده‬.‫محوطه شهداد در ایران است‬ ‫ بنابراین کارکرد این‬،‫در داخل ساختمانی که از آن بقایای فراوانی سرباره های ذوب فلز کشف شده است‬ ‫ مشاهدات جدید و وجه اشتراک این سازه با داده های چشم‬.‫سازه در ارتباط با فعالیتهای ذوب مس است‬ ‫ به ما اجازه می دهد که کارکرد‬،‫پوشی شده باستان شناسی از شهداد و کم و بیش از محوطه های دور دست‬ .‫این سازه را دوباره مورد بحث و تفسیر قرار دهیم‬

History of research at Shahdad The protohistoric remains at Shahdad are situated on the eastern outskirts of the eponymous modern town in Kerman Province. The town is located on top of an alluvial fan on the western fringes of the Dasht‑eh Lut in Southeast Iran and lies at a distance of approximately 80 km to the east of the city of Kerman  1 (fig. 1). The first archaeological discoveries were made by a joint French-Iranian team of geoscientists in 1967 by observing scatters of archaeological artefact on the surface  2. In continuation the first archaeological investigations at site were directed by Ali Hakemi between 1968 and 1977. During this period his research mainly focused on the excavation of three burial sites called “Cemeteries A,

1.

30° 25′ 3″ N, 57° 42′ 24″ E.

2.

Mostofi 1351/1973; Gentelle 2003, p. 46‑48.

218

David  M.P. Meier

B & C” where 382 graves were discovered. At the end of the project the archaeologists were joined by two Italian colleagues, Sandro Salvatori and Massimo Vidale, from the archaeological mission at Shahr‑eh sukhteh. In January 1977 they conducted for the first time terrestrial surveys in the vicinity of the archaeological excavation sites  3. Besides the identification of different activity areas, the “metallurgical workshop” was detected and excavated right after its discovery (fig. 2).

Fig. 1 – Geographical map of the area and the mentioned sites.

Fig. 2 – Photographical snapshot of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D right during excavation (with the courtesy of S. Salvatori).

3.

Salvatori 1977; Salvatori and Vidale 1982.

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

After the Iranian revolution in 1979 the investigations at site stopped for 13 years. Between 1992 and 1994 Mir Abedin Kaboli directed further archaeological excavations in another area at Shahdad where remains of another building, the so called “Private House”, were discovered  4. There, a few pyrotechnological installations were documented too which will be described at a later point in this paper. A new serie of archaeological research at Shahdad and its next vicinity was recently conducted in 2011 and 2013 under the supervision of Nasir Eskandari by terrestrial surveys and small scale excavations  5. Thereby the survey area was extended towards Keshit where numerous islamic and prehistoric remains were observed. The excavations were conducted at Tappeh Deh No and Tappeh Deh No East which are located to the east of the modern settlement on the outskirts of the Kalout  6.

The pyrotechnical installation Type I at the “metallurgical workshop” Site D at Shahdad  7 Examples of Type I were observed throughout in fragmentary state and have been documented inside of the Rooms 1, 6, 13, 27 and 26 (fig. 4). It seems plausible to propose that the building as well as the installation were built with clay and mud. Based on the find situation Type I was initially entitled as “first stage (smelting) furnace”  8 and “metal foundry kiln”  9 by Hakemi and as “fornace”  10 by Bayani. The best preserved example is located in Room 6 with a preserved height of 1.3×0.85×0.28 (fig. 3a). According to their reconstruction it was composed by a central mould on top of it where the copper ore and the fuel were heated. After the metal got liquefied it should have reached a shallow enclosed depression to the right hand side by a narrow channel. This reconstructed channel with a 45° angle led the molten copper towards the enclosed depression  11 (fig. 5). Bayani already recognized an inner, hollow structure but concentrates in his descriptions and discussions more on questions of ventilation  12. Another example of this type was documented in Room 26 and shows an elevated platform to the left on the inside of the installation. To the right of the platform there is a narrowed segment which is ending in a circular round depression in front of the installation  13 (fig. 3b). It seems also that just in front of the installation in Room 26 was a small step attached to it  14. The arched front wall of this installation as seen on figure 4 was not described in none of their reports. The actual height of the installation is reconstructed by circa 0.3 m which interestingly matches with the preserved height of the next adjacent eroded walls. It seems that the proposed height of the installation is caused by the low height due to the eroded state. It is rather likely to reconstruct the heavily weathered feature in a higher state similar to the examples which were found inside of the “Private House”  15.

   4.

Kaboli 1374/1995; Kaboli 1376/1997; Kaboli 1391/2012.

   5.

Eskandari et al. 2014.

   6.

Pers. comm. N. Eskandari.

   7.

The numeration of the different types is according to Ali Hakemi’s publications from 1992 and 1997.

   8.

Hakemi 1992, p. 122.

   9.

Hakemi 1997, p. 87, fig. 50.

10.

Bayani 1979, p. 45.

11.

Hakemi 1992, p. 122.

12.

Bayani 1979, p. 97‑100.

13.

Hakemi 1997, p. 109, fig. 77. While Hakemi labels this Room with no. 26, Bayani labeled it as Room 28.

14.

Hakemi 1992, p. 124, fig. 15.9. Although it is not well identifiable on the photography it seems that the other examples from R.1 were of a similar layout (see Hakemi 1992, fig. 15.10 and Hakemi 1997, p. 91, fig. 55) as well as the one from R.13 (Hakemi 1997, p. 101, fig. 67) and from R.27 (Hakemi 1997, p. 108, fig. 76).

15.

Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 124, pl. 43 (loc. 1035, 1092 and 1126).

219

220

David M.P. Meier

Fig. 3 – Overview map of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D at Shahdad and the distribution of the Type I pyrotechnological installations.

Fig. 4 – Examples of “Type I” pyrotechnological installations at Shahdad. a: Room 6; b: Room 26 (with the courtesy of H.A. Hakemi).

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

Fig. 5 – Reconstruction drawings of the “Type I” pyrotechnological installation of the “metallurgical workshop” according to Bayani and Hakemi (a, c‑h: Hakemi 1992; b: Bayani 1979).

The “Private House” at Shahdad Between 1372 and 1374 (1992‑1994) an archaeological research group under the directorship of Mir Abedin Kaboli excavated another architectural feature at Shahdad which is known as the “Private House”  16. The complete building is composed by 26 rooms of different size which are segmented in seven units named A to G  17. According to the published survey data from Sandro Salvatori this place was recorded as point 23 and already must have been known after the survey activities in January of

16.

According to the notes on pl. 41 the excavations were conducted between 1372 and 1374 after the Iranian calendar (Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 122).

17.

The units are actually named with the equivalent seven first letter of the Persian alphabet (Kaboli 1374/1995, p. 114).

221

222

David  M.P. Meier

1977  18. During the excavations pottery vessel of different size as well as stamp seals were discovered according to the published data. Besides these small finds there were also several architectural features unearthed. Of special interest for this research are the pyrotechnological installations. According to Kaboli two types of pyrotechnological installation can be distiguished inside of the “Private House”. The first one (Type I) is of round shape and low height and is identified as “ojāgh”  19. Several examples of this type were situated inside of the building and designated as loc. 1036, 1077, 1127 and 1128. It is also noteworthy that the majority of the ovens was situated in close vicinity to the second type of pyrotechnological installation  20. Unfortunately there are no further published descriptions about their composition and the archaeological background. The second type (Type II) appears also inside of the building and these examples has been throughout attached to the walls. These examples have in common an almost cubic shape by approximately 1×1×1 m with an arched opening in the front as well as a small bench and a small lower situated circular depression situated right next to the bench (fig. 7a‑b). On top of these features there were square surfaces with small cut‑outs. The whole installation is refered to as heater and was tagged as loc. 1035, 1076, 1092 and 1126  21 (fig. 6). Kaboli heterogenously describes them as “bokhāri”  22 or “tannur”  23. In accordance to the published schematic representations this type was hollow on the inside and subdivided into two parts: a raised platform and another lower section placed right next to it which was ending in a shallow round depression just in front of the installation. Both segments had not been separated from each other inside of the installation (fig. 7c‑d). In reference to other protohistoric architectural features from the Murghab-Delta in Turkmenistan, which will be presented and explained in the following paragraph, the segments can be described as a platform and a lower situated combustion chamber  24. The platform might have been used to heat meals or other goods, while the combustion chamber might have been suited to burn fuels to ensure a proper heating of the installation. The small cut‑out on top of the feature therefore can be seen as a flue to educe the annoying fumes from the room where the installation was situated. There are legitimate reasons that the installations from Shahdad’s “metallurgical workshop” Site D which are labelled here as “pyrotechnological installation Type I” can be seen as identical to these installations which were discovered during Kaboli’s work. Although the examples which were discovered during Hakemi’s mission are reconstructed in a lower state, there are several details of undoubtful similarities. For instance there is the open arched front, the shallow round-shaped depression in front of it as well as the small bench which was situated right next to the depression. These are all identical shared characteristics which can be observed at both features at Shahdad. Further to mention are that some of the installations inside of both buildings were situated at similar positions like inside of central rooms or at least one on every of the building units (fig. 4 and 6).

18.

Salvatori 1977; Salvatori and Vidale 1982, fig. 1.

19.

Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 105‑110. He describes this type with the Persian word “‫ ”اجاق‬which is synonymous with “oven” (Maleki 1382/2003, p. 50).

20.

Only the “oven” loc. 1060, which is of rectangular shape has been situated in central position in the main room of Unit B (Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 123, pl. 42‑43).

21.

Kaboli uses the Persian expression like “‫( ”بخاری‬Maleki 1382/2003, p. 192) and “‫( ” تنور‬Maleki 1382/2003, p. 444‑445) to name the installations. It needs to be stressed that actually the first term is used for installations to raise temperature inside of closed rooms. For this reason they can be also used to cook meals. The second term is of unknown origin and presumably deriving from a Sumerian term. Through all the times it was and still is in use to describe installations for cooking and baking (Tkáčová 2013, 4 sq., fig. 1, 2).

22.

Kaboli 1374/1995, p. 115; Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 105‑110.

23.

Kaboli 1391/2012, p. 102, fig. 3. This example is presumably identical to loc. 1076.

24.

Orazov 2007, p. 203‑204.

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

And finally not to forget the two building remains itself where the installations have been documented. Both show also similarities with their architectural layouts and extents. Due to the eroded state of the examples from the “metallurgical workshop” which were analyzed and published by Hakemi  25 and Bayani  26, the hollowness of the installations has not been able to witness in a way like Kaboli did (fig. 4a‑b and 7a‑b). For this reason it is difficult to review and evaluate their first observations. But according to their reconstructional drawings and photographies there was on top a lowered space in central position which can be seen as corresponding to the hollow inside. It seems also questionable/ doubtful if there has been any steep and narrow channel to segregate the molten metal from the slag by gravity like proposed before. Finally it needs to be emphasized that the reconstructions according to Kaboli seems more plausible because of the better state of the architecture’s preservation in comparison to the first reconstructions in 1977.

Fig. 6 – Overview map of the “Private House” at Shahdad and the positions of the Type II pyrotechnical installations.

25.

Hakemi 1997, p. 87, fig. 50.

26.

Bayani 1979, p. 103.

223

224

David  M.P. Meier

Fig. 7 – Photographical representations of two examples of Type II pyrotechnical installations at the “Private House” at Shahdad. a: loc. 1035 and 1036; b: loc. 1092 (a‑b with the courtesy of E. Cortesi; c‑d after Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 111, pl. 30).

Preliminary evaluation of the presented evidences from Shahdad Although traces of heavy firings like ashes, slags, charcoal and red burnt clay which are unquestionable indicators of pyrotechnological actions were observed all over the “metallurgical workshop” it is still unknown in which specific way metallurgical actions were conducted there. Strangely not a single tuyere or even a fragment which would be expected inside of a Bronze Age metal workshop was documented inside or around the building. Furthermore, the absence, or better the missing description, of highly molten and vitreous furnace linings does not support the interpretation that the workshop was used for the smelting of copper ores which would have been caused at 1084.62 °C, the melting point of pure copper, or at circa 950 °C, the melting point of copper alloys/bronze. But maybe this interpretation is caused by the heavy eroded state of the architectural remains. Further doubts also were mentioned by V.C. Pigott and D. Steiniger  27. But it needs to be gainsaid to Steiniger  28 that Type I was not build for smelting reasons. According to further archaeological data from the last 20 years e.g. the “Private House” at Shahdad which was discovered by M.A. Kaboli  29 and several examples from the Murghab Delta in modern Turkmenistan. It seems that these installations

27.

Pigott 2004, p. 31; Steiniger 2011, p. 90‑91.

28.

“... Some features of furnace construction in Arisman can be found at Shahdad as well, for example, the rectangular, raised mudbrick platforms with furnace remains that display a kind of extension at one side and an open front...” Steiniger 2011, p. 90‑91.

29.

Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 124, pl. 43 (loc. 1035, 1076, 1092, 1126).

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

with an average height of 1 m were of domestic use as hearth for preparing meals and as a heater to regulate the rooms temperature. The latter will be presented and described in the following.

Protohistoric examples of pyrotechnological installations from Turkmenistan During the last decades of research in Central Asia there also several pyrotechnological installations have been discovered in the Murghab delta in Turkmenistan. According to Victor Ivanovic Sarianidi, the most influential archaeologist of this area these installations are interpreted as hearth or heater  30, similar to Kaboli’s interpretation. They can be observed as attached at or installed into walls as well as in isolated positions. Sarianidi emphasizes according to his observations that some of these installations due to there position, enormous size and find material as of cultic use  31. The majority of the examples he is referring to is deriving from the site of Gonur Depe North. As visible on fig. 8 the numerously pyrotechnological installations which were observed at Gonur Depe North are of similar character. They are also composed by a bipartition with an elevated platform and a lower placed segment, the possible combustion chamber. Besides the evidences from Gonur Depe North there are further examples of similar pyrotechnological installations from the sites in the Adji Kui Oasis. The excavations there were conducted by the joint Italian-Turkmenian “Margiana Archaeological Mission” from 2003 until 2012 under the directorship of Gabriele Rossi-Osmida  32.

Fig. 8 – Pyrotechnological installations from Gonur Depe North (a‑b: with the courtesy of S. Winkelmann-Witkowski).

In course of the excavation at Adji Kui 9 (AK9) two types of pyrotechnological installations which are described as “oven-fireplaces”  33 were able to distinguish: The first type with two chambers and the second type with one chamber. The first type which is for this study of particular interest has been documented and studied intensively inside of the Rooms 38, 82 and 180 at AK9  34. Annamurad Orazov describes them as domestic features of cubic to rectangular shape which are consisting of a combustion chamber with a fire plane. This part was also a little extended to the front of the installation and was enclosed by a low clay lining, as already been attested for the examples from Shahdad and Gonur Depe.

30.

Besides this he also names a type of “double-furnaces” which he sees not as used for domestic activities (Sarianidi 2006, p. 120).

31.

Sarianidi 2006, p. 120, fig. 27; p. 143 sq., fig. 34; Sarianidi 2008, p. 66, fig. 11, p. 252‑261.

32.

Rossi-Osmida 2007; Rossi-Osmida 2011.

33.

Orazov 2006, p. 112, fig. 20‑29.

34.

Orazov 2007, p. 203.

225

226

David  M.P. Meier

On the inside of this part the fire was prepared and due to the good accessibility fuel and its remains could have been added or removed continuously. This part was separated from the adjacing platform by a low bench. The platform itself was slightly elevated and was extended to the outside as well. It was hypothesized that this elevated platform primarily was used for heating/preparing meals. On top of the whole feature there was also a small cut‑out to observe which might have been used as a flue to educe the fumes. Of particular interest are the different examples of the first type according to their positions. The one from Room 38 (fig. 9) seems to be completely set in the wall while the ones from Room 82 and Room 180 (fig. 10) were built into the wall in a way that the installation’s back reached into the next adjacing rooms. This observation shows the high degree of technical knowledge and energy efficiency to heat at least two adjacent rooms with the help of one installation. This is a technical improvement which so far had not been observed in other contemporary neighbouring cultures. It seems also that the installations were in use for long periods and were restored during periodical maintenance  35. In view of their size it is noteworthy to remark that the examples of the first type has a height of approximately 1 m which is identical to the examples from Kaboli’s site as well as from Gonur Depe. Reconvened excavations at Monjukli Depe in the northern piedmont region of the Kopet Dag mountains in Southwest Turkmenistan revealed further examples of two-chambered ovens from

Fig. 9 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 38 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).

Fig. 10 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 180 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).

35.

Orazov 2007, p. 207.

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

eneolithic contexts which are dated in the 5th millennium BCE  36 (fig. 11). Similar features also were found during the first investigation in the early 70s  37.

Fig. 11 – Monjukli Depe. a: Unit D, “Haus X”; b: Two-chambered oven (loc. 475), “Haus X” (with the courtesy of R. Bernbeck).

Pyrotechnological installations called “cheminées” from Susa At the end of R. Ghirshman’s work at Susa between 1965 and 1967 he conducted excavations in an area of particular interest concerning the domestic life in Susa during the reign of the Šimaškian Dynasty  38 to the Sukkalmah period  39. It provided us with an extraordinary opportunity to study the Susian town planning on base of a composition of discovered written sources, daily life objects as well as major crossroads and numerous examples of domestic, workshop and public architecture  40. At that time several examples of oven-hearthplaces called “cheminées” were also discovered at “Chantiers A and B”, belonging to the Periods Susa AXV‑XIII  41. Some of them were in good state of preservation that layout, design as well as decorations were able to investigate. All here presented examples are showing the bipartition of the installation in an elevated platform and a lower situated combustion chamber as in common. Furthermore there are significant and clear similarities in sense of positioning and decorations to the already presented examples from the Murghab-Delta and southeastern Iran to emphasize. It is also noteworthy that the features were observed inside of monuments of communal character like the “cella de la maison du culte” in loc. 124 AXV  42, as well as in room of domestic use like for example loc. 66 AXIV  43, loc. 34 BIV and loc. 96 AXV  44 (fig. 12). Another feature was described by L. Trümpelmann at AXIII loc. 35  45 in the so called “Kneipe” at Susa.

36.

Pers. comm. by Reinhard Bernbeck and Julia Schönicke (Schönicke 2012). The best preserved example (loc. 475) is located in Unit D, “Haus X”.

37.

Berdiyev 1972, p. 13, fig. 1, R.7.

38.

Potts 1999, p. 130 sq.

39.

Potts 1999, p. 160 sq.

40.

Carter and Stolper 1985, p. 146 sq.

41.

Gasche 1986.

42.

Ghirshman 1967, p. 7‑8., fig. 11‑13, 16‑19; Gasche 1986, p. 89.

43.

Ghirshman and Steve 1966, fig. 7; Gasche 1986, p. 91.

44.

Gasche 1986, p. 88 sq.

45.

Trümpelmann 1981.

227

228

David M.P. Meier

Fig. 12 – Divers “cheminées” from Susa (from Gasche 1986. a: p. 100; b: p. 101, fig. 7; c: p. 102; d: p. 103, fig. 8; e: p. 105, fig. 10b; f: p. 104, fig. 10a).

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

Conclusion All presented examples are deriving not just from different areas but also from different contexts and not to forget from different periods, dating from the second half of fifth millennium to the first half of the second millennium BCE. The earliest examples are from the late fifth millennium BCE eneolithic site at Monjukli Depe in the Kopet Dagh region and were found in rural, domestic environment. The late third millennium BCE examples were either found in contexts of palatial architecture like at Gonur Depe and Adji Kui but also in domestic contexts like at Shahdad. The examples from Susa are dating to the transitional phase from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE and were documented in areas of communal and privat character. The obvious similarities between the pyrotechnological installation are leading to the assumption that there might have been existing something more than regular exchange contacts. The emergence of aesthetic as well as technical characteristics observed in artefacts and architectural features are leading to the assumption that there was maybe a trading network with all of its cultural and political implications comparable to the already known examples like the Old Assyrian kārum-system as initially proposed by Sandro Salvatori  46. Also Philip Kohl emphasizes the importance of the sites in the Murghab delta and their role in the supra-regional trade to sites in Mesopotamia, East Iran and the Indus Valley at the transitional phase from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE  47. His statement bases upon finds from the Royal Cemetery at Gonur Depe North like e.g. an inscribed cylinder seal with an Akkadian animal scene  48 and a Harrapan stamp seal  49 which he sees as evidences for substantial relationships between the different regions. The wide distribution of further relevant objects like e.g. high cylindrical metal beakers with incised and embossed decorations  50, Bactrian axes and other groups of metal objects as well as pottery vessels of significant shape and decorations and stone objects like figurines of females in seated position, stone columns and ivory combs are other evidences for the great radius of the trading community which shared finished goods as well as raw materials between Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia and the Indian Subcontinent  51. In this context there is also an amulett-seal of distinctive shape and decoration to be called in mind which was discovered in northern Mesopotamia at Tall Mozan, the ancient center of Urkeš. According to Conrad Schmidt it shows clear parallels to the iconography of the MBAC and might therefore stand as an evidence for cultural contatcs between these two far distant regions during the Middle and Late Bronze Age period  52. But besides the economic trading contacts there is the possibility of stronger, fundamentally cultural ties that existed during the Bronze Age between Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau and the Mesopotamian alluvial  53. Frederik T. Hiebert and Carl C. Lamberg-Karlovsky are observing similarities in the material remains from closed burial complexes at sites like Shahdad, Khinaman, and Sibri with those found in Bactria and Margiana and interpreting it as evidence for the movements of Central Asians, presumably here Indo-Aryans, into eastern Iran en route to the Indian subcontinent  54.

46.

Ligabue and Salvatori 1979; Salvatori 2010.

47.

Kohl 2007, p. 199.

48.

Sarianidi 2002, p. 326 sq.; see also Potts 2008b, p. 183 sq., n. 40.

49.

Sarianidi 2006, p. 258, fig. 114.

50.

Potts 2008b, p. 165‑179, fig. 2‑8.

51.

During-Capsers 1992; Winkelmann 1993, 1998; Ratnagar 2006; Potts 2008a.

52.

Schmidt 2005, p. 104, fig. 4.

53.

Potts 2008b.

54.

Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992.

229

230

David  M.P. Meier

Daniel T. Potts also proposes a possible Central Asian political influence at Susa/Elam during the Dynasty of Šimaški  55. As proven by the dimensions of the monumental sites like Gonur Depe North and South, Adji Kui 1 and 9 and settlements of the Togolok Oasis, which are all located in the Murghab Delta in Turkmenistan, this region must have been of an influental political and economical power to subsist in this period during the Middle and Late Bronze Age (MBA: 2400‑1950 BCE; LBA: 1950‑1450 BCE). The distribution of characteristic artefacts at archaeological sites in East Iran like e.g. Tappeh Chalo  56, Shahdad  57, Tappeh Yahya and the Jiroft Region, which are labeled as “Marhašian trajectory” by Sandro Salvatori  58 or as “Šimaški outposts” by Elisabeth Carter  59, is indicating the strong cultural relationships between the already mentioned sites of the Murghab Delta and East Iran. In accordance to the above mentioned obvious similarities in the material culture there are also common shared parallels in architecture like the pyrotechnological installations which were documented at the sites of Gonur Depe, Adji Kui in the Murghab Delta as well as at the Iranian sites of Shahdad and Susa. These similarities, sometimes also appearing in combination with contemporaneity, might imply a deep traditional relationship, maybe comparable to shared origins.

References Bayani M.E. 1979, Primi risultati dello scavo nel quartiere artigiano di Shahdad (Kerman, Iran). Aspetti della produzione metallurgica alla fine del terzo millenio in Iran, Rome (unpublished work). Berdiyev O.K. 1972, “Monzhukli-depe: Mnogosloinoe po selenie neolita i rannego eneolita v juschnom Turkmenistane”, Karakumskie Drevnosti 4, Ashgabat, p. 11‑34. Biscione R. and Vahdati A. 2011, “Excavations at Tepe Chalow, Northern Khorasan, Iran”, Studi micenei e Egeo Anatolici 53, p. 236‑241. Carter E. and Stolper M. 1985, Elam – Surveys of political history and archaeology, London. During-Caspers E.C.L. 1992, “Intercultural/Merchantile contacts between the Arabian Gulf and South Asia at the close of the third millennium B.C.”, Proccedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 22, p. 3‑28. Eskandari N., Abedi A., Shafie M. and Javadi M. 2014, “Keshit: an early Bronze Age urban centre on the western edge of the Lut Desert, south-eastern Iran”, available at: http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ eskandari341. Gasche H. 1986, “Architecture d’intérieur susienne: les cheminées”, in L.  de  Meyer, H.  Gasche and F. Vallat (ed.), Fragmenta Historiae Aelamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.J. Steve, Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations, Paris, p. 83‑110. Gentelle P. 2003, “Shahdad-Khabis, au fond du désert du Lut”, in P. Gentelle, Traces d’eau. Un géographe chez les archéologues, Paris, p. 18‑53. Ghirshman R. 1967, “Suse. Campagne de l’hiver 1965‑1966. Rapport preliminaire”, Arts Asiatiques 15, Paris, p. 3‑27. Ghirshman R. and Steve M.J. 1966, “Suse. Campagne de l’hiver 1964‑1965. Rapport préliminaire”, Arts Asiatiques 13, Paris, p. 3‑32.

55.

Potts 2008b.

56.

Biscione and Vahdati 2011; pers. com. by A. Vahdati.

57.

Ghorbani emphasizes the outstanding trading position of Shahdad in the 3rd millennium BCE (Ghorbani 2014, p. 66).

58.

Salvatori 2010, p. 251.

59.

Carter and Stolper 1985, p. 196 sq.

A PYROTECHNOLOGICAL INSTALLATION FROM THE “METALLURGICAL WORKSHOP” AT SHAHDAD

Ghorbani M. 2014, The economic geology of Iran – Mineral deposits and natural resources, DordrechtHeidelberg-New York-Berlin. Hakemi A. 1992, “The copper smelting furnaces of the Bronze Age in Shahdad”, in C. Jarrige (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1989 – Papers from the Tenth International Conference of South Asia Archaeologists in Western Europe, Musée national des Arts asiatiques – Guimet, Paris, France, 3‑7 July 1989, Monographs in World Archaeology 14, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 119‑132. Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad. Archaeological excavations of a Bronze age centre in Iran, IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XXVII, Rome. Hiebert F.T. and Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1992, “Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian Boarderland”, Iran 30, p. 1‑15. Kaboli M.A. 1374/1995, “Masaken mardom‑eh Shahdad va moqayeseh‑yeh an ba sokunatgah-hayeh jonub‑eh shargh‑eh Iran dar chahar hezahreh” (The dwellings at Shahdad in comparison with other examples from Southeastern Iran during 4 millennia), in ICHTO (ed.), Tarikh‑eh memari va shahrsazi‑yeh Iran, vol. III, Tehran, p. 111‑120 (in Farsi). Kaboli M.A. 1376/1997, “Gozaresh‑eh dahomin fasl‑eh kavosh gruh‑eh bastan shenasi Dasht‑eh Lut dar mohavate bastani Shahdad” (Report of the tenth season of Excavation from the archaeological Dasht‑eh Lut mission at ancient Shahdad), in ICHTO (ed.), Gozaresh-hayeh Bastan Shenasi, vol. 1, p. 89‑124 (in Farsi). Kaboli M.A. 1391/2012, “Shahdad – Dirouz va Emrouz” (Shahdad – yesterday and today), in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh (ed.), Namvarnameh – Majale-hayeh dar pasdasht yad‑eh Masoud Azarnoush (Papers in honour of Massoud Azarnoush), Tehran, p. 99‑108 (in Farsi). Kohl P.L. 2007, The making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge. Ligabue G. and Salvatori S. 1979, “La Battriana e l’occidente dalla fine del III’ alla meta’ del II millennio a.Cr.”, Rivista di Archeologia 3, p. 5‑11. Maleki O. 1382/2003, Farhang farsi farhikhteh, Tehran. Mostofi A. 1351/1973, Shahdad va joghrafiya‑yeh tarikhi (Shahdad and it historical geography of Dasht‑Lüt), Geographical Reports Publication 8, Tehran (in Farsi). Orazov A.T. 2006, “Hearths and fireplaces of the Adji Kui Oasis”, Türkmenistan 2006 – Ancient Margiana is the new Centre of the World Civilization. Materials of the International Scientific Conference, 14‑16 November, Mary, 2006, Ashgabat, (abstract of a conference lecture) p. 112. Orazov A.T. 2007, “L’architettura die forni-caminetto di Adji Kui” (The architecture of the Adji Kui ovenfireplaces), in G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Adji Kui Oasis – La cittadella delle Statuette I, Trebaseleghe, p. 203‑212. Pigott V.C. 2004, “Zur Bedeutung Irans für die Erforschung prähistorischer Kupfermetallurgie”, in A. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (ed.), Persiens antike Pracht (Exhibition’s catalogue), Deutsches Bergbau Museum, Bochum, p. 28‑43. Potts D. 1999, The archaeology of Elam – Formation and transformation of an ancient Iranian state, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge. Potts D. 2008a, “An Umm an‑Nar‑type compartmented soft‑stone vessel from Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan”, Arabian Arts and Epigraphy 18, p. 167‑180. Potts D. 2008b, “Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus civilization (BMAC): Reflections on Šimaški and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 98, p. 165‑194. Ratnagar S. 2006, Trading encounters. From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age, New Delhi. Rossi-Osmida G. 2007, Adji Kui Oasis – La cittadella delle Statuette I, Trebaseleghe. Rossi-Osmida G. 2011, Adji Kui Oasis – La cittadella delle Statuette II, Trebaseleghe. Salvatori S. 1977, A brief surface survey at Šahdad, held at the VI. Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, November 1977 (unpublished manuscript).

231

232

David  M.P. Meier

Salvatori S. 2010, “Thinking around Grave 3245 in the ‘Royal Graveyard’ of Gonur (Murghab Delta, Turkmenistan)”, On the track of uncovering a civilization (A volume in honor of the 80th anniversary of Victor Sarianidi), Transactions of the Margiana archaeological expedition, St. Petersburg, p. 244‑257. Salvatori S. and Vidale M. 1982, “A brief surface survey of the protohistoric site of Shahdad (Kerman, Iran): preliminary report”, Rivista di Archeologia 6, p. 5‑10. Sarianidi V.I. 2002, Marguş – Murgap derýasynyň köne hanasynyň aýagyndaky gadymy gündogar şalygy (Margush – Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old delta of the Murghab river), Ashgabat. Sarianidi V.I. 2006, Gonurdepe: Şalaryň we hudaýlaryň şäheri (Gonurdepe, Türkmenistan – City of kings and gods), Ashgabat. Sarianidi V.I. 2008, Marguş – Beýik medeniýetiň syrlar dünýäsi we onuň hakyky keşbi (Margush – Mystery and truth of the great culture), Ashgabat. S chmidt C. 2005, “Überregionale Austauschsysteme und Fernhandel in der Ur  III‑Zeit”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 36, p. 7‑156. Schönicke J. 2012, Der Umgang mit dem Feuer im Äneolithikum Südturmenistans am Beispiel von Monjukli Depe, Bachelor of Arts thesis, Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin (unpublished). Steiniger D. 2011, “6. Excavations in the slag heaps of Arisman”, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (ed.), Early mining and metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian plateau, Report on the first five years of Research ot the Joint Iranian-German Research Project, Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9, Mainz, p. 69‑99. Stöllner A., Slotta R. and Vatandoust A. (ed.) 2004, Persiens antike Pracht (Exhibition’s catalogue), Deutsches Bergbau Museum, Bochum. Tkáčová E. 2013, Near‑Eastern tannurs now & then: A close‑up view of bread ovens with respect to the archaeological evidence and selected ethnographical examples, Bachelor of Arts, Brno university (unpublished work). Trümpelmann L. 1981, “Eine Kneipe in Susa”, Iranica Antiqua 16, p. 35‑44. Winkelmann S. 1993, “Elam – Belutschistan – Baktrien: Wo liegen die Vorläufer der Hockerplastiken der Indus Kultur? Erste Gedanken”, Iranica Antiqua 28, p. 57‑96. Winkelmann S. 1998, “Bemerkungen zum Grab 18 und den Silbernadeln von Gonur Depe”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30, p. 1‑16.

PRODUCTION AND TRADE

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society Mina Dabbagh Université Lumière Lyon 2, UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon This paper investigates the economic and social position of women in the Elamite society. The goal of this paper is the evaluation of the role of women in the scale of domestic and urban economy in the Elamite kingdom. The principal subject of this research is the study of women’s activities in term of productive power and in economic activities on the basis of legal and administrative Elamite texts. The research is divided in 3 parts. The first part is dedicated to the study of Elamite archives and epigraphic sources. Secondly, we will consider the role of women in agricultural activities. The last part, questions the role of the women in trade and exchanges. Finally, I present here the epigraphic sources of the old publications of the Elamite archives collected by Scheil with proposed correction in transcription and translation of cuneiform texts. Cet article vise à interroger la situation économique et sociale des femmes dans la société élamite. J’évalue le rôle des femmes dans le contexte de l’économie domestique et urbaine dans le royaume élamite. Le sujet principal de cette recherche est l’étude des activités des femmes dans la production sur la base des textes juridiques et administratifs élamites. Cette recherche se divise en trois parties. La première partie est consacrée à une étude d’archives et de sources épigraphiques. La deuxième partie traite de la place des femmes dans les activités agricoles. La dernière partie interroge le rôle des femmes dans les échanges commerciaux et économiques. Dans cette recherche, je présente des sources épigraphiques d’anciennes publications d’archives élamites fournies par Scheil et publiées dans les “Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse”. J’ai également apporté des corrections dans la transcription et la traduction de ces textes cunéiformes.

‫ نگارنده در اینجا به‬.‫این مقاله در پی بررسی موقعیت اقتصادی و اجتماعی زنان در جامعه ایالمی است‬ ‫ موضوع‬.‫ارزیابی نقش زنان درچهارچوب اقتصاد خرد و اقتصاد شهری در پادشاهی ایالم پرداخته است‬ ‫اصلی طرح شده در این پژوهش مطالعه فعالیت های زنان در تولید و امرار معاش بر اساس متن های‬ .‫ نوشتار حاضربه سه بخش تقسیم شده است‬.‫حقوقی و اداری ایالم است‬ ‫ اختصاص‬،‫بخش اول به بررسی آرشیو منابع خطی ایالم و منابعی که در این مطالعه به کار گرفته شده‬ ‫ بخش نهایی به‬.‫ در گام دوم جایگاه زنان در فعالیت های کشاورزی مورد بحث قرار گرفته است‬.‫دارد‬ ‫ منابع خطی‬،‫ در این پژوهش‬.‫بررسی و تحلیل نقش زنان در مبادله های تجاری و اقتصادی می پردازد‬ ‫ونسان شایل درمجموعه ی گزارش های ماموریت های باستان شناسی‬-‫ایالمی منتشر شده توسط ژان‬ ‫ همراه با اصالحاتی که نگارنده در بازخوانی متن های میخی و ترجمه ی آنها‬- ‫فرانسوی ها در ایران‬ .‫ معرفی شده اند‬- ‫آورده‬

Introduction Private archives of the Elamite kingdom provide us with crucial information regarding the roles that women played in Elamite society. The study of the status of women in the local economy can be evaluated according to criteria on the rights of women and their contributions to the domestic economy.

236

Mina Dabbagh

The whole of Elamite documentation (economic contracts, accounting documents, etc.) is extremely informative on such issues as: women’s right to conduct transactions (loan, purchase contract, sale of property, etc.) and the maintenance of the female staff in producing various commodities.

The Elamite archives The Elamite archives have been recorded into several writing system and had passed different phases in its evolution. The history of this evolution makes clear the contribution of writing by applying it into the registration of economic and social affairs in Elamite civilization. The first step of this evolution corresponds to the Proto-Elamite writing system which had been developed at Susa around 3200 BC  1. In a second step, linear Elamite – a new pictographically system of writing – appeared at Susa on the inscription of Puzur(Kutik)-Inšušinak  2 (contemporary with the last king of Akkad and possibly with the first king of IIIrd Ur dynasty).The third phase of this evolution includes the Mesopotamian and Elamite cuneiform graphic tradition which began from the Akkadian conquest of Elam (2600 BC) and continued its evolution throughout the Achemenid period  3.

Source study The Elamite archives provide us with information concerning the daily life and economic structure of Elamite society based on agricultural and pastoral origins. Our main knowledge surrounding the daily life of different social classes and gender in this society comes from the juridical and administrative texts and also the archaeological evidences. They supply us with a wide range of information in various spheres: ––

family law (inheritance, adoption, sharing, marriage);

––

trade and transactions law (purchase contracts, sale of goods, rental of fields, loans…);

––

the maintenance of the female staff and the production of goods.

In this research, the documents studied date from the second half of the third millennium until the first millennium BC. They were discovered at Susa, Kabnak (current Haft‑tape) and Anšan (current Tell-i-Maliyan) [fig.1]. The inscriptions are mostly engraved on tablets, seals, votive offerings and bricks. These materials were derived from different sources such as: literary, juridical, administrative, royal, scholarly writings and funerary inscriptions.

Women and trade In order to elucidate the role of women in Elamite society from an economic perspective, it is useful to reconstruct the social and economic structure of the Elamite kingdom. Through the analysis of Elamite juridical sources, we understand the legal processes according to which the acts of transfers

1.

The first evidence of this graphic invention was exhumed during the excavation of Acropolis site (Acropolis I) in Susa and revealed the steps in its invention. In Iran, the second phase of pictography corresponds to cultural changes dating back to 3000‑2700 BC. We also find the traces of these changes within archaeological evidence: habitat modification, construction and orientation of houses, pottery,  etc. (Steve  1992, p.  3; Vallat  1971, p. 235‑245; Vallat 1973, p. 93‑107).

2.

Vallat suggests that it was imposed by Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa and it had certainly originated from Iranian Plateau (Vallat 1986, p. 339‑347). The excavation by Ali Hakemi at Shahdad, in Kerman has unearthed inscriptions engraved on the pottery in which the Proto-Elamite signs coexist with the linear Elamite writing (Hakemi 1976; Scheil 1911, no. 88).

3.

As Steve explains during this phase a divergence between the Elamite and Mesopotamian cuneiform continues through the development of graphic tradition in Elam (Steve 1992, p. 4‑6).

The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society

Fig. 1 – Map showing the location of the Elamite sites.

of property during the marriage, the inheritance, and the donation were organized. Therefore, it is possible to identify the activities specific to women and certainly in the context of domestic economy. This series of sources is critical to attaining a better understanding of the daily life of the ancient Elamites. Among these documents, the contracts are the most informative in highlighting the part played by women in the context of commercial activities. These economical sources provide us with crucial information about the activities carried out by women in the cycle of domestic and local economy, within which they have a sort of autonomy in resource management. This autonomy was usually exercised in relation to the husband, but also in relation to the family, and then relative to the local society. In the latter case, the women generally had the opportunity to lead their local properties.

Juridical text This series of documents consist of a wide variety of economic contracts from various juridical texts that have been excavated at Susa including: sales and purchases, loan, rent, leases, crop-sharing, partnership, renting, contribution, adoption, sharing, and inheritance. In these sources, the women can be involved as seller, purchaser or borrower. They could participate in several types of commercial activities as the owner of the land, orchard, house, field, etc. According to these sources, it can be deduced that women, in civil law, had unrestricted opportunities to take part in legal contracts. They had the right to lend money, foods and livestock.

Sales and purchasing Within the juridical texts, one large series of Susiana archives concern the sale and purchasing contracts. There are many examples of these agreements in which the women participate as the major

237

238

Mina Dabbagh

agent. As an example, the following text is a contract of sale from the first millennium BC that has been found at current Mâlamîr/Izeh. In this document, the woman, Šutbuni, sells an orchard with a house, to Ḫuner for the price of 4 Shekel (1 shekel [GÍN; šiqlu] is equal 8.33 g) of silver. Šutbuni had received this house as an inheritance  4 (fig. 2).

Fig. 2 – Tablet with a juridical text (Scheil 1902, no. 6, p. 179‑180, pl. XXIl).

An orchard of Kisim  5 […] 2) in which Kar-inri […] 3) in which Kullili are gardeners, 4) part of the inheritance of [Šutbuni]  6 5) next to (field of) Kuli-meten […] 6) the woman Šutbuni willingly, 7) in her free will  7, 8) the orchard with the house 9) to Huner has sold 10) for its total price, 11) 4 shekel of silver, he weighed and has bought. 12) There is neither ransom nor guarantee (for orchard). 13) The complete price is paid. If the orchard is claimed.14) Šutbuni, 15) with her sons and her daughters 16) stands for  8. 17)  Who will contest, by the name of Šalla and dInšušinak, has sworn! 18) In front of dŠamaš, in front of dRuhuratir 19) in front of Šaḫruru, son of Teptianwar 20) in front of Rišbaratu, of his household 21) in front of Kidinḫutaš, son of Putiti 22) in front of fŠukkutuk, daughter of Amma[…], 23) in front of fPirupi, daughter of At[…] 24) in front of Šammama, scribe 25) their nail  9 mark  10. 1) 

   4.

Scheil 1902, no. 6, p. 179‑180.

   5.

Certainly Kisim is the name of a place but its localization isn’t known. Scheil reconstructed the damaged part of the name: ki-si-im-[ma-ra-tu].

   6.

According to the indications in the text, it is possible to restore the name of the woman [Šutbuni] and it is understood that the share of orchard heritage belongs to her.

   7.

CAD. N/1, p. 345‑346; in the texts of juridical acts of Susa, the expression i-na na-ar-a-ma-ti-šu(-ši) is often observed instead of i-na a-ma-ti-šu(-ši).

   8.

According to Elamite juridical documents, the contexts suggest that tahhubu is a legal technical term. The reading taḫūmu was based on using the value me4 for the BE in this word. The single instance written ta-aḫ-mu is most likely a mistake for ta-ḫu-be. CAD. T, p. 50.

   9.

In Elam, the nail-mark (ṣú-pur), of PN (written on the edge of the tablet) is used to identify the contract and it indicates the presence of the witnesses, CAD. Ṣ, p. 251.

10.

Transcription: 1) GIŠ.KIRI6 šà Ki-si-im […] 2) šà Ka-ar-in-ri[…] 3) šà Ku-ul-li-li NU.[KIRI6] 4) zi-it-tu šà f[Šuut-bu-ni] 5) DA Ku-li-me-te-en-[…] 6)  fŠu-ut-bu-ni i-na ṭu-[ba-ti-šu] 7) i-na na-ar-a-ma-ti-šà 8) GIŠ.KIRI6 DA É-DÙ.A a-na ší-mi 9) a-na Ḫu-ne-ir id-di-in 10) a-na ší-mi-šu ga-am-ru-ti 11) 4 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR iš-qu-ul-ma i-šà-am 12) ù-ul ip-ṭì-ru ù-ul ma-an-za-za-nu 13) ší-mu ga-am-ru GIŠ.KIRI6 ib-ba-aq-qar 14)  fŠu-ut-bu-ni qa-du 15)  DUMU.MEŠ-šà ù DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-šà 16) a-na ta-aḫ-ḫu-me4 šà-ki-in 17) šà BAL MU Šal-la ù dMÚŠ. EREN it-mu 18) IGI dUTU IGI dRu-ḫu-ra-te-i 19) IGI Ša-aḫ-ru-ru DUMU Te-ip-ti-un-wa-ar 20) IGI Ri-iš-ba-ra-tu šà ne-še-šu 21) IGI Ki-di-ḫu-ut-ta-aš DUMU Pu-ut-ti-ti 22) IGI fPi-ru-pi DUMU.MUNUS At […] 23) IGI Šu-umma-ma DUB.SAR 24‑25) ṣú-pur-šu-nu.

The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society

We observe that in commercial transactions related to the transfer of real estate (sale and purchase); women could be owners, as it is the case in this example. Here, Šutbuni has a property coming from an inheritance. On the other hand she has children but her husband is not mentioned in the text, so presumably she might be a widow who assumes the position of head of the family. In cases in which the sale contract is established for the benefit of an owner woman, most witnesses of these acts are women. In this document, Šukkutuk, daughter of Amma[…] and Pirupi, daughter of At[…] participate as a witnesses with other 3 men.

Lease Another tablet from a series known as Mâlāmir/Izeh texts dated to the period of the Sukkalmah dynasty (1970‑1600 BC), demonstrates a lease contract  11. It reveals that the women Tettê, has leased a field. Damiq-Šušinak had taken this field and paid her its rental in sesame and lentil and one half shekel (1 shekel is equal 8.33 g) of silver. In this sale contract, the woman Apindulti, who is neighbor of f Tettê, participate in this legal act as a witness. A Field  12 of 150 sown area, [section …]; 2) the irrigation canal Ḫunnunnu  13; 3) next to fApin-dulti 4) and next to Lišlimuni 5) (with her) favor fTettê, from Damiq-Šušinak has leased, 6) (in accordance with the condition of contract) “collect and takeaway!” pure sesame and lentil, 7) 2 shekel ½ of silver he paid her. 8) In the month of Lanlube  14, in period of GAL, 9) he paid the money and hired the field. 10) (If) the field is claimed (by who has right); 11) in her domain and in the third section, 12) the stake is stuck. In front of Šamaš, In front of Inšušinak.13) in front of Inzumena14) in front of Yadu-dIšmekarab-Išmeani 15)  son of Ali-dIrak, in front of fApindulti 16) in front of Abwaqar, scribe 17) in front of 9 witnesses (!); 18)  they swore by the name of Šušinak and dIšme-karab; 19)  that whoever will trans[gress], he [will measure] 20) 10 GUR of barley  15. 1) 

Inheritance It is understood from a series of documents date back to the period of Sukkalmah dynasty (1970‑1600 BC), that women became owners through donations and inheritance in the context of family connections  16. One example is the text published by Scheil, in which the woman, Šamaš-nûri, became the owner of the real estate by way of its donation by her father-in-law  17. He gave her the part ownership of a buildings and the field.

11.

Scheil 1930, no. 90, p. 104.

12.

The Akkadian equivalent for NUMUN is “zēru” that means “acreage” (measured on the basis of the amount of seed required), arable land, CAD‑Z, p. 92.

13.

Ḫu-un-nu-un should be a name of a canal for irrigation.

14.

The month of La-an-lu-bi-e or La-lu-bi-e in Elam is equal to Tašrîtu; see Herrero and Glassner 1991, p. 79‑80.

15.

Transcription: 1) A.ŠÀ 150 NUMUN-šu [PAL …] úr? ta […] 2) [ma]-aš-qi-it PA6 Ḫu-un-nu-u[n?-nu] 3) DA fApi-in-du-ul-ti 4) ù DA Li-iš-li-mu-ni 5) SILIM fTe-it-te-e mDa-mi-iq dMÚŠ.EREN [ú]-še-ṣi 6) a-na e-sí-ip ta-ba-al a-na še-im ŠE.GIŠ.Ì ù GÚ.TUR? 7) 2 ½ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR iš-qú-ul 8) [ITU La-an-lu]-bi-e šà PAL GAL 9) [KÙ. BABBAR iš-qú-ul] A.ŠÀ ú-še-ṣi 10) A.ŠÀ ib-ba-qar-ma 11) [i-na] É.DÙ.A-ti-šà ù PAL 3 [KAM?] 12) GAG maḫṣa-at IGI dUTU IGI dMÚŠ.[EREN] 13) IGI In-zu-um-me-en-na 14) IGI Ya-a-du IGI dIš-me-ka-ra-ab-[Iš-me-an-ni] 15)  DUMU A-di-Ir-ra-ak IGI fA-pi-[in du-ul-ti] 16) IGI A-bu wa-qar DUB.SAR 17) IGI 9 AB.BA.MEŠ an-nu-ti 18)  MU dMÚŠ.EREN ù dIš-me ka-ra-ab 19) šà ib-ba-la-ak-[ka-tu] 20) 10 GUR še-[am i-ma-da-ad].

16.

As it’s the same case in the first example in which, the women Šutbuni sells an orchard with a house that she had received this house as an inheritance (see here “Sales and purchasing” § 1 and 2).

17.

Scheil 1930, no. 130, p. 141‑142.

239

240

Mina Dabbagh

Half SAR  18 of built property, of Bâb-kinu  19, Tauiu, to fŠamaš-nûri, her daughter-in-law (?), 5) gave; the field of “barber”, he gave to her; 2 SAR of built property (of) […] 10) he gave (them) to her. In front of dŠamaš, in front of Šušinak (…)  20. 1) 

Loan According to a group of Elamite sources concerning the loan, we find out that women have taken the loans to undertake some activities like as agriculture as will be seen from the two following examples, published by Scheil. In the first document, f Waqartu-ummašu with Libluṭa has taken 10 shekel of silver from Warad-Martu, for two years. They will return the loan with eventual benefits to the investor  21. Face: 1) X mines 10 shekel of silver for two years, fWaqartu-ummašu has taken. X silver (shekel) of Warad-Martu (in loan), Waqartu et Libluṭa have tak[en. 5) In the month of Š]abaṭu, they have taken the silver. Whether they put it on deposit or they make loan of it, the creditor isn’t liable for payment to the city quarter or for attack during the overland transportation. They will return the money to the investor  22, 10) and if there are benefits, they shall share equally. Back: 1) They will not appeal to the privilege and regulations (with regard to his debts) 2) In front of Šamaš and Inšušinak, they swore (…)  23. The second text investigates an exchange between a woman Šuriya and Warad-martu. fŠuriya take the loan from Šamaš and Warad-martu. She will return the loan and they will share eventual benefits. She confides a field of 1 GUR seeding to him. Thus he can do agriculture there and he will compensate. Both of them can harvest its respective share. As seen, this document shows two acts, one concern the loan and another is related to share farming  24. Face: 1) One half mine silver, according to the stone weight of the city of Ḫu[ḫnur], 2) the hands of the god Šamaš and Warad-(martu), 3) fŠuriya has taken. 4) She will return the money to her owner, 5) and if there are benefits, equally (they shall share). 6) A field of 1 GUR of seeding, section IGI URU.KI, 7) in which she enjoys in common with Temmimi, she surrenders it 8‑9) to Warad-martu: their exploitation […] he will provide (...). Back: 1) In front of Kiri-(?) […] 2) in front of Kulu […] 3) in front of Ḫabilki […] 4) in front of Usitutu in front of […] 5)  in front of Ṭabṣilili 6) in front of Belikua scribe in front of […] 7)  the name of Ruḥuratir and Ik (?) […] 8‑9) who transgress, their hands and his/her tongue will be cut, 10‑11) the shrine of Ruḥuratir, he/she profaned, and 6 mines of silver he/she will pay. Margin: nail f Šuriya  25.

18.

1 SAR is equal to 35.3 m2.

19.

Bâb-kinu, possibly here refers to one sector of the city. Scheil consider it as a personal name but I think that it might be a zone in the city.

20.

L. 1‑11: 1) ½ SAR É.DÙ.A 2) šà Ba-ab ki-nu 3) Ta-ù-ú 4) a-na f-d UTU-nu-[ri kal(?)]-la-ti-šu 5) [i]-di-iš-zi 6) A.ŠÀ šà ga-la-bi 7) i-di-iš-zi 8) 2 SAR É.DÙ.A […] 9) ta […] an ti […] 10) i-[di-iš]-zi 11) IGI d[UTU] IGI dMÚŠ.EREN (…).

21.

Scheil 1932, no. 272, p. 137‑138.

22.

CAD A/1, p. 182a.

23.

L. 1‑10, Face: 1) …[ma-na] 10 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR šà 2 MU 2) … f  W]a-qar-tu-ùm-ma-šu li-qa-at-[ma] 3) … KÙ.BABBAR SILIM ÌR dMar-tu 4) Wa-q]ar-tu ù Li-ib-lu-ṭa il-[qu-ú 5) … Š]a-ba-ṭi KÙ.BABBAR il-qu-u 6) i-qi]ip-pu-ni i-zi-bu-ni-im-ma 7) a-na] ba-ab-ti ù ši-ḫi-iṭ [KASKAL] 8) um-m]a-nu ú-ul šu-ḫu-uz 9) KÙ.BABBAR umm]a-ni i-pa-lu-ma 10) ni-me-lam ib]-ba-aš-šu ma-al-la aḫ-ma-mi; Back: 1) i-zu-zu ki]-di-nam ù ku-bu-uz-za-[nam] 2)  ú-ul ú]-ma-aḫ-ḫa-ru IGI dUTU IGI dMÚŠ.EREN (...).

24.

Scheil 1932, no. 273, p. 138‑139.

25.

Face: 1) ½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR NA4 URU kiḪu-[…] 2) SILIM dUTUùmÌR.d[MAR …] 3) […] fŠu-ri-ya il-[qi …] 4) KÙ. BABBAR be-el-šu i-ip-pa-al-[ma? ...] 5) ne-me-lamib-ba-aš-šu ma-al-la aḫ-ma-[mi-iš i-zu-uz-zu] 6) A.ŠÀ 1 GUR NUMUN-šu BAL IGI URU.KI 7) šàit-ti mTe-im-mi-mi i-ka-lu-[ma …] 8) a-na mÌR.dMARta-ap-qí-is-su 9) du-ul-la-[šu-nu u-ba-al …], Back: 1) IGI Ki-ri […] 2) IGI Ku-lu […] 3) IGI Ḫa-bil-ki-[…] 4) IGI U-si-Tu-tu IGI […] 5) IGI Ṭà-ab-Ṣíl-lí-li

The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society

At Susa, most of the engagements have been contracted under the auspices of the gods. In these contracts, the oath is generally taken by Šušinak, the great national god, and by Išme-karab, one of the favorite goddess in this region. On the other hand, the Elamite juridical transactions have been carried out in front of witnesses, sometimes several. Among them, women are often present  26. In such cases the legal contracts demonstrate a sort of domestic autonomy belonging to the women, which are linked certainly to the economic autonomy based on the civil law within the Elamite juridical system.

Women in the production and service activities The administrative texts, including accounting documents, describe details about the maintenance staff and the production of consumer goods. These sources are also relevant to ration distribution to workers. In this series of documents, the majority of women appear as workers who receive remuneration. They show us those women workers employed in various fields; for example: textile production (women weavers), agriculture and distribution (of water, etc.)  27. Other administrative texts document the transfer of female staff between services managed by men. These administrative records regarding accounting are the only sources that reflect these elements of social history of the Elamites. The Elamite administrative documents indicate the income of persons for various professions: doctor, cook, cupbearer, fountain-maker, barber, carpenter, messenger, musician, and reaper, etc. The sign in the head of the name, in case of workers’ wages, indicate a degree of the salary rates. The salary is calculated monthly on the basis of 30 days. The first group of labors worked 30 days (GURUŠ SAG. DUB  28). The other group of workers completed 15 work days and they were paid the half rate salary (Á 1/2). A third category of labors provided only 10 days, per month. This is one way to reduce the labor force at the day unit. Based on the expression Á = kiṣru, we are able to distinguish between the work done and the salary. They are different types of rations: barley and wool (ŠE.BA, SÌG.BA); barley, wool and garment (ŠE.BI, SÌG.BI, TÚG.BI). The determinative used for women worker is GÉME and for male workers the term applied is GURUŠ. In accordance with the above, we observe the various professional terms for the female personnel, for example: miller (GÉME.ARÁ); weaver (GÉME UŠ.BAR); water carrier (GÉME DUG.A.GUB.BA); pastry (GÉME.ŠIM), etc.

Women and agriculture In the sphere of agriculture, women can own property and work on their own farm or the farm of someone else, as in following examples. These two fragments belong to the series of tablets founded at various levels in different parts of Susa acropolis, during the excavations between 1898 and 1910. This series dates back to the period of the Akkadian dynasty at Susa. According to Legrain, the form of the writing are reminiscent of both the style of the obelisk of Maništusu, and also of the previouslyknown tablets of Naràm-Sin and Šar-kali-šarri  29. In the first text, the woman, Qišti, cultivates and operates the field for a man, Temmimi, but unfortunately, her salary is not mentioned. Taribatu, in her free will, and freedom of her soul, in front of Sin-Idina, Kišti, Šu[…], 5) took the waters and he rented irrigation. It will raise the waters, and 150 SÌLA  30 of seeding, in the third sector,

1) m

 IGI Be-li-ku-u-a DUB.SAR IGI […] 7) MU dRu-ḥu-ra-ti-ir ù I[k? …] 8) šàib-ba-la-ak-ka-tu ri-[it-ta-šu] 9) ù li-šà-aš-šu i-na-[ki-su] 10) ki-di-en dRu-ḥu-ra-[te-ir il-pu-ut?] 11) ù 6 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR [GÍN] Edge: ṣú-pur fŠu-ri-ya.

6)

26.

See here “Sales and purchasing” § 2 and “Lease” § 2.

27.

Scheil 1913, p. 102.

28.

SAG.DUB signifies high-quality laborer the Akkadian equivalent is qaqqadu “self”, CAD Q, p. 106.

29.

Scheil 1932, p. 87.

30.

The term of SÌLA was the basic small capacity measure of Babylonian, but it seems have been exported via the cuneiform system to the other area and societies; see Powell, p. 457‑517. For area measured in qû, see CAD Q, p. 290.

241

242

Mina Dabbagh

which the woman Kišti cultivate for Temmimi, 10[… of ba]rley, related to operating the field, 10) he will receive 10 (shekel?) of silver for his expenses (…)  31. In another fragment of a juridical text, the woman, Waqrutu, cultivates and harvests barley of the field, according to the contract with mŠušinak-ṣilli. It is not known how much fWaqrutu is paid as wage: Face: 1) The field of mŠušinak-šar-mati, mŠušinak-ṣilli will cultivate it; fWaqrutu will collect the barley of the field, 4‑5) in relation with the exploitation of field, mŠušinak-šar-mati will measure to mŠušinakṣilli 16 GUR of barley, and he will pay him one and half shekel and a fifth shekel of silver  32 8) In front of dŠamaš, in front of dŠušinak 9) in front of dEa-mali, in front of Niq-ili. Back: 1) in front of Ikišunu, in front of Ambilu 2) in front of Ibni-dEa-šarru 3) in front of Kuiaû, in front of Atkalû 4) in front of Damkia, the scribe 14) the name of Šušinak et Išme-karab  33.

Various professions of women An administrative text  34 gives us information concerning the monthly expense of barley (ŠE), salary and nourishment of artisans (the men, women and child workers are organized per group under the orders of UGULA), the animals and slaves. This extensive staff consists of 471 men, 482 women (children included), 14 teams, 30 sheep, 12 dogs, excluding the slaves (ARAD.É). They worked in the house of the governor “ÉNSI”. This document provides us the different activities and professions that women occupied such as: weaver, pastry, water carrier, miller and GAB (old woman)  35 (fig. 3). “… 41girls (years), ration of barley: 12 GUR 220 SÌLA, weaver women, responsible …, Da-beli, 5 young persons with 20 SÌLA, 49 women with 30, (and) 18 supplements (?) of 10, 12 girls with 20, ration of barley: 6 GUR 190 SÌLA, water carrier women, responsible Izubu. … 34 women with 30 SÌLA, (and) 10 supplements (?) of 10, 16 girls with 20 SÌLA, 4 old women with 20 SÌLA, ration of barley: 8 GUR 150 SÌLA, miller women, responsible Sida, …, 9 women with 30 SÌLA, 1 girl with 20 SÌLA, ration of barley: 2 GUR less than 10 SÌLA, miller women, responsible Išma-kar, …, 19 women with 30 SÌLA, 10 supplements (?) of 10, 10 girls with 20 SÌLA, 1 old women with 20 SÌLA, ration of barley: 3 GUR 100 SÌLA, miller women, responsible Lula, …, 5 women with 30 SÌLA, ration of barley: 270 SÌLA, responsible Ukîn-ilu, …, 3 women with 30 SÌLA, ration of barley: 110 SÌLA, responsible Mamatum, 1 woman with 30 SÌLA, ration of barley: 270 SÌLA, responsible Aḫu … tum, pastry chef, 6 women with 30 SÌLA, 2 girls with 20 SÌLA, ration of barley: 220 SÌLA, doorkeeper of women 3, …” (tab. 1).

31.

L. 1‑11: 1) mTa-ri-ba-tu […] 2) i-na ṭu-[ba-ti-šu] 3) i-na na-ar a-ma-[ti-šu] 4) IGI Sin-i-di-na Ki-[iš-ti] Šu[…] 5) mê-e [il]-qi 6) mê-e ú-še-el-li-ma 7) 150 [T]A.A.AN NUMUN PAL 3 tu[…] 8) šà fKi-iš-tiip-šu 9) …še]-a-am pi-il-[ki] A.ŠÀ-li 10) i-[li-iq-qi] 11) ù 10 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ma-na-ḫa-[ti] (…), Scheil 1932, no. 242, p. 103‑104.

32.

LÚ (Sumerian); immeru (Akkadian) signify sheep, see CAD I, p. 133. According to Scheil, one shekel and ¾ silver in this period, was indeed the equivalent of the price of one sheep, see Scheil 1932, no. 243, p. 105, cf. Schwenzner 1914, p. 3.

33.

 A.ŠÀ šà dMÚŠ.EREN-[šar]-ma-ti 2) m‑dMÙŠ.EREN-ṣíl-lí i-[ri]-iš-ma 3) še-a-am šà A.ŠÀ Wa-aq-ru-tu i-te-zi-ib  16 GUR še-a-am pi-il-ki-e A.ŠÀ 5) dMÚŠ.EREN-šar-ma-ti 6) a-na dMÚŠ.EREN-ṣí-[lí] i-mà-da-ad 7) ù 1 ½ IGI 5 GAL GÍN KÙ.BABBAR šà LÚ i-na-di-in 8) IGI dUTU IGI dMÚŠ.EREN 9) IGI dE.Ami-li IGI Ni-[…] ḫa-an 10)  IGI I-ki-šu-ni IGI Am-[bi]-lu 11) IGI Ib-ni dE.Ašar-[ru] 12) IGI Ku-ia-ù-ù IGI At-ka-lu-lu 13) IGI Dam-ki-ia DUB. SAR 14) MU dMÚŠ.EREN ù dIš-me-ka-ra-ab, Scheil 1932, no. 243, p. 105.

34.

This example also, belongs to the same group of tablets, coming from the various levels in different parts of Susa acropolis. They were founded during the excavations between 1898 and 1910. Scheil 1913, no. 71, p. 102‑107.

35.

In this fragment indicating the list of salary of workers (monthly rations), the sign GAB, means here the old woman who is responsible to crush barley (ḫašâlu ša šêim), to prepare food (GAB.GAB = epȗ, cuire,) for team of 6 workers. Her own salary was 10 SÌLA per month. Here, it seems that GAB is an abbreviated form of Á.GAB-A. ME which means “those who distribute salary”, Scheil 1913, p. 73‑74.

1)

4)

The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society

Fig. 3 – Tablet with an administrative text (Scheil 1913, no. 71, p. 102‑107, pl. I).

243

244

Mina Dabbagh

Groups with women responsible (UGULA)

Quantities of women

Profession

Fonctions and Profession in Sumerian langage

Salaries

(title not conserved)

41 young girls

weaver women

DUMU.MUNUS

GEMÉ UŠ-BAR

20 SÌLA Barley ration: 12 GUR 220 SÌLA (barely per month)

Da.Beli

49 women workers

water carrier women

GEMÉ

DUG.A GUB.BA

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 6 GUR 190 SÌLA

12 young girls Inzubu

Sida

34 women workers

DUMU.MUNUS miller women

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 8 GUR 150 SÌLA

DUMU.MUNUS

20 SÌLA

4 old women

GAB

20 SÌLA

9 women workers

miller women

2 women workers 19 women workers

GEMÉ

GEMÉ-ARÁ

DUMU.MUNUS miller women

1 young girl Ḫi…ka

GEMÉ-ARÁ

16 young girls

1 young girl Išma.Kar

GEMÉ

20 SÌLA

GEMÉ

20 SÌLA GEMÉ-ARÁ

DUMU.MUNUS miller women

GEMÉ

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 2 GUR less than 10 SÌLA 30 SÌLA Barley ration: 100 SÌLA 20 SÌLA

GEMÉ-ARÁ

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 3 GUR 100 SÌLA

10 young girls

DUMU.MUNUS

20 SÌLA

1 old woman

GAB

20 SÌLA

Lula

? young girls

Not recorded

DUMU.MUNUS

Not recorded

20 SÌLA Barley ration: ?

Išme.Ilu

4 women workers

Not recorded

GEMÉ

Not recorded

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 120 […] SÌLA

Ukin.Ilu

? young girls

DUMU.MUNUS

20 SÌLA

5 women workers

GEMÉ

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 270 SÌLA

6 women workers

Not recorded

? young girls

GEMÉ

Not recorded

DUMU.MUNUS

30 SÌLA Barley ration: […] 20 SÌLA

Nanni

3 women workers

Not recorded

GEMÉ

Not recorded

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 110 SÌLA

Mamatum

1 woman worker

Not recorded

GEMÉ

Not recorded

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 150 SÌLA

A.ḫa…tum

6 women workers

pastry women

GEMÉ

GEMÉ.ŠIM

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 220 SÌLA

2 young girls

doorkeeper women DUMU.MUNUS

NI.DU8 MUNUS 20 SÌLA

? women worker

Not recorded

Not recorded

GEMÉ

30 SÌLA Barley ration: […]

1 young girl

DUMU.MUNUS

20 SÌLA

10 women workers

GEMÉ

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 3 GUR 50 SÌLA

3 young girls

DUMU.MUNUS

20 SÌLA

46 women workers

GEMÉ

30 SÌLA Barley ration: 43 GUR 40 SÌLA

26 young girls

DUMU.MUNUS

30 SÌLA

Table 1 – Women functions (professional context).

The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society

Conclusion The present analysis leads us to the following conclusions: ––

a division of labor between men and women based on their skills is (more or less) assumed. Furthermore, the women did not only take part in the domestic activities (food, clothing); on the contrary, they participated in many other socio-economic activities;

––

the wealth levels of women are high, and their degree of autonomy is broad. In this condition a woman can manage the organization of her property by herself or with members of her family;

––

Susa was a city having a population of mixed origin and language, in giving insight into many different aspects or society. As Scheil proposes, Susa was an urban society very inserted into the exchange economy and production, as well as in the domestic and family context and social sphere. This economic system requires an important monetization of exchange, even if the metal currency (coin) does not exist itself.

The texts examined here provide a unique insight into the many roles that women played within the framework of society in Elam from the 3rd to the 1st millennia BC. Women clearly were considered as an important part of the socio-economic framework of the society and there is a substantial body of documentation that reveals the details of their daily life and their part within society as a whole. Further work will be done to analyze a series of specific case studies in order to elaborate on the lives of Elamite women.

References Hakemi A. 1976, “Écriture pictographique découverte dans la fouille de Shahdad”, Permanent Bureau of the international congress of Iranian art and archaeology, Tehran. Herrero P. and Glassner J.J. 1991, “Haft-tépé: choix de textes II”, Iranica Antiqua 26, p. 39‑80. Malbran-Labat F. 1995, Les inscriptions royales de Suse. Briques de l'époque paléo-élamite à l’empire néoélamite, Paris. Powell M.A. 1990, “Masse und Gewichte”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987‑1990), p. 457‑517. Scheil V. 1902, Texte élamite-sémitiques, IIe série, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse IV, Paris. Scheil V. 1911, Textes élamites-Anzanites, IVe série, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse XI, Paris. Scheil V. 1913, Textes élamites-sémitiques, Ve série, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse XIV, Paris. Scheil V. 1930, Actes Juridiques Susiens (de n° 1 à n° 165), Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse XXII, Paris. Scheil V. 1932, Actes Juridiques Susiens (suite: n° 166 à n° 327), Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse XXIII, Paris. Schwenzner W. 1914, Altbabylonisches Wirtschaftsleben: Studien über Wirtschaftsbetrieb, Preise, Darlehen und Agrarverhältnisse, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft XIX, p. 3. Stève M.‑J. 1992, Syllabaire élamite, histoire et paléographie, Civilisation du Proche-Orient II, Philologie 1, Neuchâtel-Paris. Vallat F. 1971, “Les documents épigraphiques de l’Acropole (1969‑1971)”, DAFI 1, Paris, p. 235‑245. Vallat F. 1973, “Les tablettes proto-élamites de l’Acropole (campagne 1972)”, DAFI 3, Paris, p. 93‑107. Vallat F. 1986, “The most ancient script of Iran: current situation”, World Archaeology 17/3, p. 335‑347.

245

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Iran and Central Asia The Grand’Route of Khorasan (Great Khorasan Road) during the third millennium BC and the “dark stone” artefacts Henri-Paul Francfort UMR 7041-ArScAn (CNRS, Sorbonne Universités), Maison René Ginouvès, 21 allée de l'université, 92023 Nanterre The present paper aims at evidencing the functioning of a road connecting Central Asia, Iran and Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age, via Khorasan, between ca. 2300‑1700 BC. It is based on the chronological classification of ornamented chlorite artefacts from Susa by Pierre de Miroschedji in a seminal article. During the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, artefacts of “style ancien” are widespread, many of them carved in Kerman. However we have no evidence of the use of the Khorasan Road. But after ca. 2300, the “style récent” replaces the old carvings and these artefacts appear in Central Asia, the region of the Oxus Civilization. In this region, chlorite and similar dark stones are easily avaible, in Badakhshan or in Khorasan. A Great Khorasan Road seems to have been in use, connecting Central Asia, Iran and Mesopotamia. Cet article vise à mettre en évidence l’existence d’une route de communication entre l’Asie centrale, l’Iran et la Mésopotamie au cours de l’âge du Bronze, par le Khorasan, entre 2300 et 1700 environ av. J.‑C. Il s’appuie sur une répartition chronologique des trouvailles d’objets en chlorite gravés de Suse, suivant un article fondateur de Pierre de Miroschedji. Au cours de la première moitié du IIIe millénaire des objets du “style ancien” dominent, pour une part manufacturés dans le Kerman. Cependant rien n’indique que la route du Khorasan fonctionnait. En revanche, après 2300 environ le “style récent” remplace l’ancien et ses productions se rencontrent notamment en Asie centrale, sur le territoire de la Civilisation de l’Oxus, région où la chlorite et des pierres sombres analogues se trouvent sans difficultés, au Badakhshan ou dans le Khorasan. Une Grand’Route du Khorasan semble avoir alors fonctionné, de l’Asie centrale à l’Iran et la Mésopotamie.

‫ آسیای مرکزی و بین النهرین از طریق‬،‫هدف این نوشتار روشن ساختن وجود یک راه ارتباطی بین ایران‬ ‫ طبقه بندی زمانی اشیاء کنده کاری‬،‫ اساس این مقاله‬.‫م است‬.‫ ق‬1700 ‫ تا‬2300 ‫ حدود‬،‫خراسان در دوره مفرغ‬ ‫شده از سنگ سیاه است که از شوش بدست آمده و توسط پیردو میروسشجی در یک مقاله مقدماتی معرفی شده‬ ‫ در طول نیمه اول‬.‫ هیچ شواهد و نشانه ای از دایر بودن راه خراسان بزرگ وجود ندارد‬،‫ به طور کلی‬.‫است‬ ‫م اشیایی به سبک‬.‫ ق‬2300 ‫ در حدود‬.‫ تا حدودی اشیاء به سبک قدیم در کرمان تولید و رایج شد‬،‫م‬.‫هزاره سوم ق‬ ‫ ناحیه‬،‫جدید جایگزین اشیاء به سبک قدیم شدند که بیشتر آنها از آسیای میانه و حوزه تمدنی جیحون بدست آمده اند‬ ‫ بر اساس‬.‫ای که سنگ کلریت و سنگهای سیاه مشابه دیگر به فراوانی از بدخشان یا خراسان یافت می شوند‬ .‫ به نظر می رسد راه خراسان بزرگ از آسیای مرکزی تا ایران و بین النهرین فعال بوده است‬،‫شواهد موجود‬

Introduction  1 The Great Khorasan Road may be called “Northern Route”. It links Iran and Central Asia in the North of Hindu Kuch. It has been used during centuries, at least since the Achaemenid period, when it was an

1.

I would like to thank warmly Professors Michèle Casanova, Emmanuelle Vila, and all the organizers of this colloquium for the organization of this conference and for giving me the opportunity to present a paper. I extend my thanks to an “anonymous reviewer” for her helpful remarks. This paper is a revised and augmented version of an unpublished lecture presented at the Jiroft Symposium organized by Academy of Arts and Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization in Tehran, May 8, 2008.

248

Henri-Paul Francfort

oriental segment of the Royal Road. Its staging posts are known by various antique sources, such as the itinerary of the “Roman” merchant Maes Titianos or the Parthikoi Stathmoi of Isidor of Charax in the first century  2. For the 3rd and early 2nd millennium the archaeological data prevails. However, in spite of the variously called roads: “lapis lazuli road”  3, “turquoise road”  4, or “tin road”  5, used for transportation of these stones and minerals, but not exclusively, from Central Asia (Bactria) to Mesopotamia, the available data are fuzzy. And recently, the beautiful finds from the Kerman province in Iran (see below) have attracted the interest of the scholarly world towards the Southern itineraries (completing ancient analyses which were taking into account the old data from Shahr‑i Sukhte/Malyan/Susa/Shahdad to the fringes of the Lut). Nevertheless, the discoveries made in Sogdiana, in Bactriana, in Margiana and in NE Iran demonstrate, as is well known, that the Southern Road is not all the story and that the “Northern road” has been intensely used during all the 3rd millennium, and that various stuffs, materials, artefacts and shapes were travelling both ways not only from the Near East to Iran, but also deep into to Central Asia  6. The present paper will focus on dark stones. It is nothing more than a sketchy archaeological and historical overview, and aiming at a preliminary understanding of the functioning and the evolution of this Northern “Khorasan” road. But, in order not to say again things that are well known about lapis lazuli, notably by the researches and recent publications of M. Casanova  7, I propose to take as vital lead the dark stone variously designated in archaeological literature as chlorite, serpentine or steatite.  

Since a quarter of a century, the common terminology in Middle Eastern archaeology for green dark stones found in Iran and Central Asia is “chlorite”  8. This new terminology replaces the older common denominations of “steatite” or “serpentine”  9. However, in most of the cases, the real mineralogical characterization and therefore the scientific (mineralogical or geochemical) name of the stone are unknown. And this is why we shall use here the general covering term of “dark stone”. They may be rather blackish or greyish or greenish, more or less crystalline and from various geological origins (some possible names usable or used in literature are: schist, gabbro, chlorite, serpentine, diorite, ophiolite, etc.)  10. In doing that (by using a general designation out of vernacular names) we presume also that the 3rd millennium inhabitants or Mesopotamia, Iran and Central Asia were too using terms related mostly to colour/provenience for these stones (or at least used taxonomies not based on scientific mineralogical studies!)  11: what we today discriminate by using scientific tools is not relevant in general, if not for provenience and origin studies (see below). Comparing the region of Kerman with Central Asia in regard of “dark stones” makes sense since these two regions have been in contact during the third millennium BC  12. If we consider the types of artefacts, the

   2.

Bernard 2005.

   3.

The most ancient publications, following the model of the Silk Road, draw long straight arrows on maps of the Middle East: Tosi 1974; Dales 1977; Deshayes 1977; Casanova 2013 makes an update of this lapis roads questions.

   4.

Tosi 1975 made an attempt for qualifying a “turquoise road” from Chorasmia on the model of the “lapis road”. Other attempts deal with other minerals such as carnelian or alabaster.

   5.

Muhly 1973, the tin question has enormously progressed since Muhly’s book, we shall not expose it here, but in details many questions are still to be solved. Some authors have considered other metals such as lead or gold.

   6.

For exchanges see: Potts 1994; Potts 1999; Francfort and Tremblay 2010; Kaniuth 2010.

   7.

Casanova 2013.

   8.

Hakemi 1997; Kohl 2001; Kohl 1974; Kohl 1978.

   9.

Amiet 1980.

10.

For these uncertainties in our period, and precisions in the terminology in Assyriology, see Potts 1994, p. 183‑191; the book of A. Schuster-Brandis concerns a later period.

11.

Magan and Markhashi seem to indicate the source of two kinds of dark stones, diorite for the first and “chlorite” for the second (after Kohl and the Kerman and Tepe Yahya studies), but possibly also including in the corpus of artefacts other minerals manufactured in the same shape.

12.

Amiet 1986; Amiet 2007.

Iran and Central Asia

artistic themes  13 and the style of decoration, as well as the chronological frame  14, the two regions are different and we shall see below how and why it is a question of origin and chronology of the raw material and of the manufacture of the artefacts. In spite or because of these differences, a question arises regarding not only the use of “dark stones” in Iran and in Central Asia, but also the sources of theses minerals in relation with the other countries that used them, mainly Syria and Mesopotamia. Like lapis lazuli, turquoise or alabaster, the “dark stones”, whether called “steatite” or “chlorite”, have been also used for tracing interregional relations and exchanges during the 3rd and 2nd millennia  15. The question is then to try to explain this apparent absence of morphological or typological relationships between artefacts originating in the Kerman and the Central Asian set of artefacts, their use, and to approach the question of the sources: one unique origin or multiple proveniences for the identical-looking stone raw material and produced artefacts?  

We begin with Kerman. Thanks to the recent discoveries, excavations and publications of the Kerman stone artefacts by Pr. Madjidzadeh and others  16, we may briefly outline the main typological categories and characteristics of this production, according to their shapes and the images carved on them. We can list here some examples: ––

the cylindrical bowls with architectural ornament  17;

––

the cylindrical bowls with vegetal, animal, human and composite motives  18;

––

the scorpion, composite beings or bird of prey plaques  19;

––

the conical vases with snake, leopard, zebu, bird of prey, human, mountain, water flow and other motives  20;

––

the cups on stand with vegetal, herbivorous animals (wild sheep, wild goat), human, leopard and other motives  21.

Two or three possible engraving techniques may be identified, and inlays of white or red, blue coloured stones are frequent.  

If we look now at the composition of the artistic schemes engraved on the vases, we may easily recognize the following main categories of patterns of motives, which indicate a high sense of artistic regular compositions: ––

the frieze of repeated identical motives: palm trees, animals (bulls, lions)  22;

––

the twist plait pattern (= water flow)  23;

––

the simple binary symmetry including just two figures: for example snake and leopard  24;

13.

Central Asia has generally no figurative or narrative themes on dark stone while many appear on gold and silver vases and bronze artifacts.

14.

BMAC or Oxus Civilization mature period extends from ca. 2300 to ca. 1750 BC.

15.

See above Ph. Kohl’s studies for example.

16.

Madjidzadeh  2003a; Madjidzadeh  2003b; Madjidzadeh  2007; Perrot and Madjidzadeh  2003; Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005; Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2006; Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008; Piran and Hesari 2005.

17.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 67‑68, p. 71‑74 for example.

18.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 7, p. 34‑35, p. 51‑52, p. 58‑59, p. 62‑64, p. 83‑85, p. 95‑96, p. 101‑102 for example.

19.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 130‑133, p. 135‑136 for example.

20.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 36‑41, p. 44, p. 65‑66, p. 75‑77, p. 86‑89, p. 89‑94, p. 99‑100, p. 110 for example.

21.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 12‑18, p. 23‑33, p. 105 for example; Amigues 2009.

22.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 4b for example.

23.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 4b for example.

24.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 8, b‑c, e for example.

249

250

Henri-Paul Francfort

––

the triple axial symmetry: one central axial motif and two flanking figures: –– ungulates (bovids, caprids) flanking trees  25; –– lions flanking trees  26; –– snakes flanking a bird of prey  27; –– animals flanking a human or a composite being (human-animal)  28.

––

the “one against three” rhythm: –– one human and three zebus  29; –– one lion and three dogs  30.

 

If we now look at the themes we face for example: ––

the so‑called “master of animals”, i.e. a human, principally en face, holding an animal in each hand  31: the axial, main, figure is human (or nearly) and the secondary figures are animals;

––

the vegetation-centred herbivorous, ungulates and zebus  32: that is the axial image is vegetal (tree or bush) and the flanking, i.e. secondary figures in some sense, are animals;

––

the flows of water graphically linked with mountains pattern in the shape of scales  33;

––

the dead animal (turned upside down) pictorially connected with felines, snakes or birds of prey seeming to kill it (if the animal is already dead, the post mortem birds of prey are vultures)  34;

––

deities-looking composite beings (according to Mesopotamian standards) that we can identify by their horned heads  35.

 

In short, two symbolic antithetic groups appear, in an elementary structural approach: ––

the water-mountain/plant/herbivorous/deities group = we may simply call it the group of life  36; that is because in this group we see together the mountain from where the water flows out of springs, the water that makes the plants grow, the plants that feed the herbivorous and the deities, possibly ruling by their invisible power these life connections and cycles;

––

the feline/scorpion/snake/vulture/dead ungulate group = we may briefly call it the group of death  37; that is because this cluster contains animals that are either lethal predators, or already dead, or feed on dead animal bodies;

However, the snakes seem to have a special status since they look also as if they are linked to water, and not figuring only as deadly beings  38.  

25.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 4e‑f; fig. 5 for example.

26.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 4d for example.

27.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 9a for example.

28.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 11a, f for example.

29.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 6b for example.

30.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 7e for example.

31.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 6a; fig. 11b, f; fig. 12, e‑j for example.

32.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 4e, f; fig. 5 for example.

33.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 11a; Piran and Hesari 2005, p. 34‑35 for example.

34.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 7d‑f; fig. 8h; fig. 9d for example.

35.

Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2005, fig. 11‑12; Piran and Hesari 2005, p. 34‑35 for example.

36.

This structural approach should include also the astral symbols present with the mountains and deities. The flow of water has close iconographic relations with bovid also.

37.

It is certain that the so called theme of the “fight between snakes and bearded eagle” is wrong since the bird of prey is definitely a Gypaetus barbatus, the largest of vultures, never attacking a living being.

38.

As is well known, the relation between snake and waters is widely represented in many symbolism and mythologies of the past societies.

Iran and Central Asia

Consequently, if the central motif of the compositions is the main motif, as it is always in such ancient artistic milieu  39, we may risk the following basic structural interpretative reading, by using the concept of hierarchical composition on the model of the “master” or “mistress” of animals: ––

the deities, the composite beings and the humans master dangerous beasts, or favourable animals, or waters, according to context of the composition;

––

the vulture masters the snake, the tree master the ungulates, etc.

 

In short, these ornamental simple compositions can be seen as depicting the related common cycles of life and death, the importance of water (flowing from mountain, from sky) and of the plants, animals and all beings mastering the exchange cycles, or from which originate the transformation cycles  40. This group of representations from Kerman reflects an imaginary world, only partly real and natural, really logically structured, in spite of the fact that we are not in a position to interpret all the elements neither the meaning of all the compositions. However it is possible to point out that this natural cycle, which is carved on “dark stone” artefacts in Kerman, appears structurally very similar to a natural-mythical cycle represented in Central Asia, in the Oxus Civilisation (“BMAC”). But there, these images appear rather on metal vases, seals and axes (bronze, silver, gold) than on stone  41.  

These themes, compositions and shapes of artefacts are very different to the Oxus Civilisation (“BMAC”) decorative patterns on “dark stone” artefacts that are much simpler: size, shape, ornaments of vessels or artefacts. If we look at of the artefacts published in the Jiroft catalogues and publications, some of them (few) appear different from the main typological Kerman series. Actually they look very similar to the Oxus Civilization standards: plain white handled stone  42, miniature column  43, flacon with circular neck and square base with dotted circle  44, bowls and cups with simple or no decoration  45. Is it a problem of chronology (a later Kerman production looking more similar to Central Asia)? Or a question of origin (artefacts coming from an area closer to Central Asia)? Or of both time and space? It is difficult to tell without more detailed information. Let us take a brief look to more comparative material.  

The Tepe Yahya corpus of chlorite artefacts, well excavated and published in detail  46, illustrates the problems of time and interregional relations we are dealing with: according to the publications and various commentaries, a key moment in the chronology of the interactions between Kerman and Central Asia is the Early to Middle Akkadian period. Either the “intercultural style” artefacts are still produced there during the Akkadian period, or not any more. But if such artefacts are not any more produced at Tepe Yahya, does it mean that the production was stopped also in all the Kerman  or South East Iran? The answer is not simple.

39.

This is practically a rule in the symmetric compositions in ancient arts: the central motive is the more important and the flanking motives are inferior or subordinate to the central one.

40.

We shall not comment here at length here on these topics. The most unusual for us is the relation between predators or raptors themselves. Snake and leopard look very equal to each other in basic compositions. We have also to take into consideration, beside such themes, the decorative value of the motives, notably the snake shaping twists.

41.

Francfort 1992; Francfort 1994; Francfort 2005a; Francfort 2010.

42.

Piran and Hesari 2005, no. 68.

43.

Piran and Hesari 2005, no. 71.

44.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 120 lower left.

45.

Madjidzadeh 2007, p. 144‑146; Piran and Hesari 2005, p. 53‑63, p. 68, p. 72. In Central Asia in general such shapes of alabaster vases are not earlier than the Namazga IV period.

46.

Lamberg-Karlovsky and Potts 2001 with all relevant bibliography.

251

252

Henri-Paul Francfort

However, before proceeding any further, let us take a short look to some relevant Mesopotamian “dark stones” artefacts. It seems clear, when looking at the examples presented here, that there is a difference between the Khafajeh vase, probably imported from Kerman, and the others, considered to be manufactures in Mesopotamia, of Mesopotamian origin  47. The Khafajeh vase depicts exactly the elementary life and death cycles described above for Kerman, and in the same style (fig. 1). We can recognize easily the same three moments of the Jiroft cycle of life and death: ––

lion, scorpion and vulture attack or eat a dead zebu (turned upside down, legs up): death;

––

a human looking being in skirt, with star or sun, masters symmetrically two lions and two snakes by holding them: a fight against lethal animals;

––

a (or the same) human-looking being, with sun and moon crescent, kneels or seats upon two mastered zebus, holding two flows of water that are in contact with trees and a palm tree flanked by two bear‑like animals: life.

This cycle, as said before, may be well identified also in the Oxus Civilization. It involves predatory lethal animals (snakes, scorpions, lions, and dragons); a fight between them and a “Hero genius/spirit” either with goat – or eagle – head is also represented. The main difference from the Kerman imagery is that in Central Asia this world is dominated by a feminine spirit or goddess or water/fertility/ fecundity who peacefully masters the dragon (references above, note 39). It would be very easy to refer here to some elements of the Vedic or Zoroastrian religion; the late V.I. Sarianidi followed this way of interpretation for a number of Central Asian structures, artefacts and images, by using the covering and questionable concept of “proto-Zoroastrianism”  48.

Fig. 1 – Khafajeh vase (Aruz 2003, fig. 85).

On the other hand, two other examples of “chlorite” vases, notwithstanding the difference of style, depict more narrative scenes, festivals or cult scenes, in a totally different stylistic manner (fig. 2a‑b). Those were probably manufactured in Mesopotamia during ED period, according to our view, since no narrative compositions appear on the Jiroft production  49. During the Akkadian period, on the other hand, as is known, “diorite” from Makkan, another “dark stone” was probably imported to Mesopotamia by the sea route. This stone was used for manufacturing Akkadian royal bas‑relief with war and tribute scenes. One of them depicts a typical Harappan bulbous dish on stand, attesting of long range relations  50. Large blocks were also used for the   sculpture of statues of kings or gods  51.

47.

Frankfort 1963, fig. 9, p. 19.

48.

Among other writings, see: Sarianidi 1989, 1998a, 2010. For a discussion of some elements, see Francfort 2005b. More discussion in Francfort 2006.

49.

Bismaya vase: Frankfort 1963, pl. 11A; Frankfort 1935, cultic scene.

50.

Amiet 1976, fig. 20.

51.

Large body of references from texts and archaeological evidence.

Iran and Central Asia

But the Susa corpus of “dark stone” artefacts provides another important set of information regarding the problem, with the well noticed difference between the “série ancienne” (fig. 3a‑b) and the “série récente” defined by Pierre de Miroschedji in a seminal article  52 (fig.  4a‑b). The first series of artefacts is made of “dark stone” objects decorated with Kermantype patterns, and it is dated from the ED, ending somewhere between 2400 and early Akkadian period. The second series is made of artefacts just plain, or engraved with line designs of bearing the dot and circle motif. The date of the second series begins around 2300 and last until the beginning of the 2nd millennium. Some artefacts of the “série récente” are considered by Pierre Amiet as imported from Central Asia, by comparison with the Bactrian and Margian “dark stone” material that we shall consider soon  53. Another group has been considered as an intermediary series between the “série ancienne” and the “série récente”: bowls with undulating “zig‑zag” incised lines  54.  

Thus, in spite of the fact that the Kerman vases and the similar Susa “série ancienne” material can last until around 2300‑2250, Fig. 2 – a: Bismaya vase (Aruz 2003, no. 230); b: Mesopotamian as perhaps seen in Tarut  55, in Shahdad vase (Frankfort 1935, fig. 53‑56). possibly   56 and in Mesopotamia with some very rare vases of this style bearing Akkadian inscriptions (two of Rimush: but possibly inscribed later than their manufacture)  57. It seems clear that the Susa “série récente” is in relation with the similar objects of the Oxus Civilization in Central Asia and begins at some moment during the Akkadian period. This, as we shall see, has consequences for the interpretation of historical questions.  

But before we come to the historical interpretations, we must point at an interesting phenomenon in Syria and in Akkadian Mesopotamia: composite statuettes, from pre‑Akkadian and Akkadian

52.

De Miroschedji 1973.

53.

Amiet 1986.

54.

Potts 2003.

55.

Cleuziou 2003.

56.

In Shahdad the “série ancienne” is rare and most of the dark stone artefacts belong to the “série récente”.

57.

For an overview and chronological discussion of the two series “ancienne” and “récente” Potts 1994, p. 252‑269; Francfort and Tremblay 2010.

253

254

Henri-Paul Francfort

Fig. 3 – Susa “série ancienne” (a: De Miroschedji 1974, pl. I; b: De Miroschedji 1974, pl. II).

Fig. 4 – Susa “série récente” (a: De Miroschedji 1974, pl. VI; b: De Miroschedji 1974, pl. VIII).

Iran and Central Asia

date, discovered at Ebla  58 (fig. 5a‑b) and Mari  59 (fig. 6) are probably the models and prototypes of the Bactrian composite statuettes  60 and not the contrary for obvious reasons: the Oxus material is only late Akkadian or post‑Akkadian, not earlier, and the artistic and iconographic principles of these statuettes belong to a definite Mesopotamian tradition, absent in Central Asia. All details are consistent: the way to combine body, eyes and arms, the wigs, the inlays for eyes and eyebrows, sometime the kaunakes skirt. These composite sculptures are earlier than the presently best dated Bactrian statuettes. We must notice, for example, that the relations between Syria and Central Asia were attested until the time of Zimri‑Lim of Mari (1774‑1762) and the Elamite Siwepalarhuppak: tin and lapis lazuli were imported to Mari  61.  

Fig. 5 – a‑b: Ebla composite statuettes (Aruz 2003, no. 108, 110).

Fig. 6 – Mari head of composite statuette (Aruz 2003, no. 105).

In Central Asia, the corpus of “dark stones” artefacts dates from the period of flourishing of the Oxus Civilization, that is between ca. 2300 and ca. 1700 BC, or, in Mesopotamian dynastic chronology, between Sargon (ca. 2300) and Hammurabi (1761) or, in Elamite royal chronology, from the mid Awwan to Sukkalmah period  62.  

The corpus of Oxus Civilization dark stone artefacts is made of the following categories of rather small or mobile artefacts (we give here only examples with general references mainly to V. Sarianidi’s regular excavations – many more are known without known provenience):

58.

Merola 2008; Matthiae 1980; Aruz 2003, no. 108‑110.

59.

Aruz 2003, no. 105 and the Mesopotamian type of ornamented “chlorite vase” Aruz 2003, no. 231.

60.

Benoit 2004; Khaniki 2003; Meadow 2002; Sarianidi 2007 for example.

61.

For syntheses and overviews, see Francfort et al. 1989; Francfort 2005b; Francfort 2009; Guichard 1996; Joannes 1991; Michel 1999; Potts 1994; Kozhin, Kosarev and Dubova 2010; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2012; Salvatori 2008a; Salvatori 2008b; Sarianidi et al. 2008.

62.

Francfort 2009; Francfort and Tremblay 2010; Francfort et al. 2014.

255

256

Henri-Paul Francfort

––

anthropomorphic monster or dragon statuettes (however, yet no one still found in any regular Central Asian excavation)  63 (fig. 7);

––

composite statuettes of women, princesses or goddesses, sitting or standing, with white stone head and arms, but body and wig carved out of “dark stone”; interestingly, one has been found in Neyshabur some years ago  64 (fig. 8a‑c);

––

long staffs (ca. 1 m) sometimes ornamented, carved or with metal ornaments, symbols of power  65 (fig. 9);

––

miniature columns sometimes decorated with colour stones inlays (here in a burial in Togolok 1 in Margiana)  66 (fig. 10a‑b);

––

goblets with simple geometric engraved decoration, small boxes, trays and flacons, some of them decorated with incised patterns are not uncommon  67 (fig. 11a‑e);

––

small dish on stand decorated with an incised pattern and derived from Middle Eastern art, and the typical Bactrian picture of a tulip (from Gonur Depe)  68 (fig. 12);

––

special figurines with female head and horizontal plaque representing a flowing patterns, possibly a variant of the composite statuettes  69;

––

jewellery, collars, pendants made out of – or inlaid with – “dark stone” (fig. 13a‑c):

 

–– lapis associated with carnelian for example; –– turquoise associated with carnelian for example; –– and: very important: steatite, carnelian, lapis associated with a “dark stone” used as medallion  70.

Like most of this material (and, again, we gave here just a small sample), the long staffs in “slate” are found in looted tombs or in regularly excavated burials  71. “Dark stone” is also widely used in Central Asia for biconical engraved beads and for the engraving of stamp seals, from the time of Mundigak IV (before 2500)  72 (fig. 14). Engravings may, beside geometric designs, represent vegetal such as the very popular tulip, or, like here, a winged human being, a goddess, flanked by two tulips  73 (fig. 15).  

63.

Francfort 1992; Francfort 1994.

64.

Benoit 2010, see also note 49. P. Amiet and A. Benoit take them for princesses, I would prefer to recognize them as deities because, beside the fact that some are winged or sitting on lions or dragons, there are no female represented in the prestige silver narrative vases where only male rulers are present (except on a pyxis in the Louvre, but here again a female deity is partially visible); on the other hand, the female statuettes are found in burials whereas no male statuettes are known in the Oxus Civilization. My conclusion is that one (or several?) female goddess seems dominates the whole “universe”, when the terrestrial society is ruled by male rulers (on gender and function in burials, see: Luneau 2008; Sarianidi 2007, fig. 54‑60, p. 73‑75; fig. 38‑39, p. 153.

65.

Sarianidi 2007, fig. 7, p. 33; fig. 188, p. 109.

66.

Sarianidi 2002.

67.

Sarianidi 2007, fig. 115, 117, p. 92‑93; fig. 198‑200, p. 112‑113; fig. 228, p. 120.

68.

Sarianidi 2007, fig. 198, p. 112.

69.

Pottier 1984, p. 303, pl. XLI.

70.

Ligabue and Salvatori 1989.

71.

Sarianidi 2007 gives an account of his excavations of the Gonur Depe necropolis, p. 73‑75 composite stone statuettes; p. 108‑109 mace heads; p. 110 stone disk with engraved groove; p. 112 ornamented vessels; p. 118‑120 the burial of the stone carver (or lapidary); p. 153 a composite stone female statuette in situ.

72.

Casal 1961, pl. XLV, A; Sarianidi 2007, p. 176; numerous examples in Sarianidi 1998b.

73.

Pottier 1984, fig. 20, no. 150.

Iran and Central Asia

Fig. 7 – Louvre composite monster (photo author, courtesy A. Benoit).

Fig. 9 – Gonur Depe staff (photo author, courtesy V. Sarianidi).

Fig. 8 – a‑b: Gonur Depe composite statuettes (Sarianidi 2002, p. 142, 283); c: Miho Museum (Catalogue 2002, fig. 5, p. 17).

257

258

Henri-Paul Francfort

Fig. 10 – a: Margiana small columns (Sarianidi 2002, p. 132); b: Togolok 1 inlaid miniature column (Sarianidi 2002, p. 166).

Fig. 11 – a‑b: Bactria vases (Ligabue and Salvatori 1989); c‑d: Gonur (Sarianidi 2002, p. 25, 126).

Iran and Central Asia

Fig. 13 – a‑b‑c: Bactria collars and pendants (Ligabue and Salvatori 1989, fig. 65‑67, p. 206‑207).

Fig. 12 – Gonur Depe small dish on stand (Sarianidi 2002, p. 131).

Fig. 14 – Bactria stamp seal (Ligabue and Salvatori 1989, fig. 46, p. 196).

Fig. 15 – Bactria (Louvre Museum) small container with engraved winged goddess and tulips (photo author, courtesy A. Benoit).

259

260

Henri-Paul Francfort

It is obvious that all these objects are not similar to the Kerman corpus, their shape, function and decoration are different. They are smaller (except the staffs and the miniature columns that are the largest); they are totally different in shape (except perhaps some boxes); they display a repertoire of ornaments very specific, devoid of any compositional scheme or narration; and when we look for instance to deities, the Mesopotamian convention of horns on the head is absent. Undoubtedly, however, the relations with Iran and the Middle East are there: composite statuettes, ornamental patterns and the stylistic and artistic conventions, etc. and much more outside the world of the “dark stones”  74.  

Were these objects manufactured in Central Asia? We can argue that the answer, once more, is “yes”. For example, the burial no. 1200 at the necropolis of Gonur Depe where the skeleton of a man of about 30 years old was discovered is called the “lapidary tomb”. Professor V. Sarianidi found in this tomb a very interesting set of material: many rough chunks of various stones, some finished white stone arms for composite statuettes and one duck weight indicating links, exchanges, with the Elamite and Mesopotamian worlds  75 (fig. 16).  

Were the “dark stones” discovered in “BMAC” contexts imported in Central Asia from Kerman or elsewhere, or were they extracted in Central Asia itself, from the territory or vicinity of the Oxus Civilization? The answer, we think, here again is “yes”. A map recently published by Dr Bushmakin indicates the location of various minerals: the turquoise, of course the lapis lazuli, but also serpentine in the Nuratau range  76. This is fine but we may also add that in Badakhshan and Hindu Kuch, slate, gabbro, serpentine, ophio­ lite and other “dark stones” were available  77. Interestingly, in the Khorasan province, serpentine is available near Mashad Tûs, and gabbro (ophiolite) appears in the Sabzevar area. Moreover, “dark stone” artefacts of the two series, but more from belonging to the “série récente” were found at Sahdad and Tepe Hissar  78. These finds give more importance to NE Iran and Central Asia and to the Northern Road for the late third and early second millennium.

Fig. 16 – Gonur Depe necropolis weights and alabaster hands of composite statuettes (Sarianidi 2007, fig. 223, 225‑226, p. 118‑119).

 

In conclusion, we may insist on the differences between the two corpuses, on their succession in time, but admitting a possible overlap during the Akkadian period, around 2300, when the BMAC (Oxus

74.

Francfort 2005a; Sarianidi 2007.

75.

Sarianidi 2007, p. 118‑120.

76.

Bushmakin 2007; Bushmakin 2008.

77.

See: mineral geological map of Aghanistan and Bubnova 2012.

78.

Casanova and Piran 2012.

Iran and Central Asia

Civilization) emerges as a regional power in relation with Elam and Mesopotamia, and before its partial collapse around 1700 and a total disappearing around 1500 BC. Another question therefore arises: this 2300‑1700 period, when the “BMAC” flourishes and exhibits, in many fields, strong links with Elam and Mesopotamia, is also exactly the period where the Mesopotamian sources (Akkad, Ur III and until Hammurabi) mention not only a “dark greenish stone” (called duhshia or duhshum) from the land of Markhashi, but also military expeditions in the East as well as diplomatic, matrimonial exchanges with Eastern powers  79. Thus we have now to consider the chronological and cultural question of Akkadian, Ur III and Isin‑Larsa texts mentioning realia acquired from the East and events occurring in the East, in relation with what we know of the archaeology of Kerman and Central Asia. The date of the flourishing of the chlorite industry in Kerman, “intercultural” or “série ancienne”, is definitely massively earlier than the mentioned texts. Something happened during the reigns of Sargon (2334‑2279) and Rimush (2278‑2270) in Iran and in Central Asia, but what? The switch of the polarity for the “dark stone” road from South to North gives the possibility to propose again the hypothesis that the Oxus Civilization was indeed the country (kingdom) of Markhashi. After and in complement to a seminal paper of P. Steinkeller who located Markhashi beyond Elam, in Kerman, mainly on the basis of “dark stone” (chlorite). We may offer an alternative hypothesis  80.

 

We can list shortly here the artefacts from the Oxus Civilization matching the items which are mentioned in the texts quoting Markhashi, dated from the Late Akkadian Period, Ur III and Isin Larsa Periods. Again, schematically, this is exactly the period of the flourishing of the Oxus Civilization, and “série récente”, occurring logically later than the ED texts corresponding to the earlier flourishing of the Jiroft/Halil Rud Kerman international Mesopotamia-oriented trade and “série ancienne”: ––

relations with India (Meluhha), the artefacts are: imported or copied ivories, jars, Indus seals, etched and long tubular carnelian beads, sculpture;

––

relations with Mesopotamia and the Levant: –– jewellery (various types of beads), harpès; –– composition of art scenes and typical iconographical motifs and artistic conventions; –– composite statues (as seen before) and imported cylinder seals.

––

incrustations and inlays made out of semi-precious stones including lapis lazuli, carnelian, turquoise AND “dark stone”, indicate that it had a great value too;

––

presence of monkeys (Hindu Kuch species) and of their images;

––

presence of tulips and of their images (possibly the sum sikil Markhashi);

––

the “harp of Markhashi” probably the unique shape of angular harp, present also on a Shahr‑i Sokhta artefact and an Oxus silver vase, but different from all other Near and Middle Eastern Harps  81.

79.

Steinkeller 1982; Steinkeller 2006; Steinkeller 2007; Steinkeller 2014; in his last paper Prof. Steinkeller proposes that the Oxus Civilization (BMAC), he dates only to the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, should be identified with the land of Tukrish. However, many discoveries and recent excavations point strongly for earlier beginnings for the Oxus Civilization, around 2300 if not 2400: new datations from Gonur Depe in Turkmenistan, the finds of the Farkhor cemetery in Tajikistan. New sites and cemeteries near Sabzevar, Jajarm, Bojnurd in Iranian Khorasan attest of the large extension of this Civilization: See for instance all material from excavations at Tepe Chalow in North Khorasan (Vahdati et al. 2018), and a striking example, a rectangular dark stone tray on squat feet, engraved with scorpions on the small sides and snakes on large sides (Vahdati and Biscione 2014, “stone vessel”), an exact replica of a Bactrian item (Pottier 1984, no. 312, fig. 42 and pl. XLII). Therefore, the Markhashi hypothesis for the Oxus is still valid, for many reasons, and perhaps stronger than before.

80.

Francfort and Tremblay 2010.

81.

Steinkeller 2012 puts in one and the same category the curved harps and angular harps, when we take only the second, Central Asian, as “the harp of Markhashi” (his fig. 8 and 10 only).

261

262

Henri-Paul Francfort

The recent discovery and excavations by the Archaeological Museum of the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan of a remarkable and large Bronze Age cemetery in Farkhor, dated from all the periods of the Oxus Civilization from the earliest, and not only of its last phase (as previously generally thought for Tajikistan), is of great importance  82. It changes completely the old picture of the origin and evolution of the Oxus Civilization considered as coming to the East out of the Kopet Dagh piedmonts, if not from Iran, during centuries. Moreover, since this site is located on right bank of the Panj River, exactly opposite of Shortughaï, don’t we have here a place of contact, at some point, between Markhashi and Meluhha  83? Further researches will undoubtedly bring more evidence, data, and material.

References Amiet P. 1976, L’art d’Agadé au musée du Louvre, Paris. Amiet P. 1980, “Antiquités de serpentine”, Iranica Antiqua XV, p. 155‑166. Amiet P. 1986, L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens. 3500‑1700 avant J.-C., Paris. Amiet P. 2007, “L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500‑1700 avant J.-C.”, in G. Ligabue and G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Sulla Via delle Oasi. Tesori dell’Oriente Antico, Padova, p. 64‑87. Amigues S. 2009, “Représentations végétales sur les vases en chlorite de Jiroft”, Studia Iranica 38, p. 105‑125. Aruz J. (ed.) 2003, Art of the First cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, New York. Benoit A. 2004, “À propos d’un don récent de la Société des Amis du Louvre. Les ‘princesses’ de Bactriane”, La Revue du Louvre (4 octobre), p. 35‑43. Benoit A. 2010, Princesses de Bactriane, Paris. Bernard P. 2005, “De l’Euphrate à la Chine avec la caravane de Maès Titianos (c. 100 ap. n. é.)”, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 149 (juillet-octobre), p. 929‑969. Bobomullaev S., Vinogradova N.M. and Bobomullaev B. 2015, “Resul’taty issledovanij mogil’nika Farkhor – Pamjatnika epokhi srednej bronzy na juge Tadzhikistana, vesnoj 2014 goda”, Izvestija Akademii Nauk Respubliki Tadzhikistan Otdelenie Obshchestvennykh Nauk 4, p. 73‑98. Bubnova M. 2012, “Mestorozhdenie birjuzy v Srednej Azii (istorija dobychi)”, Merosi Niëgon 15, p. 97‑107. Bushmakin A.G. 2007, “Minerals and Metals of Bactria and Margiana”, in G. Ligabue and G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Sulla Via delle Oasi. Tesori dell’Oriente Antico, Padova, p. 179‑189. Bushmakin A.G. 2008, “Ekspertnoe zakljuchenie na arkheologicheskuju nakhodku iz kamnja”, in I. Sarianidi, P.‑M.  Kozhin, M.‑F.  Kosarev and N.‑A.  Dubova  (ed.), Trudy Margianskoj arkheologicheskoj ekspedicii 2/V, Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N.N. Miklukho-Maklaja RAN, Moscow, p. 165. Casal J.-M. 1961, Fouilles de Mundigak, Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan XVII, Paris. Casanova M. 2013, Le lapis-lazuli dans l’Orient ancien. Production et circulation du Néolithique au IIe millénaire av. J.-C., Paris. Casanova M. and Piran S. 2012, “Stone Vessels from Tepe Hesar: Manufacture, Typology, Distribution, 4th-2nd Millennia B.C.”, in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh (ed.), Nâmvarnâmeh. Papers in Honour of Massoud Azarnoush, Tehran, p. 95‑106.

82.

Bobomullaev, Vinogradova and Bobomullaev 2015.

83.

See Francfort 2016.

Iran and Central Asia

Catalogue 2002, Treasures of Ancient Bactria, Miho Museum, Kōka (Shiga, Japon). Cleuziou S. 2003, “Jiroft et Tarut. Plateau iranien et péninsule arabique”, Dossiers d’archéologie  287, p. 114‑125. D ales G.F. 1977, “Shifting trade patterns between the Iranian Plateau and the Indus Valley in the Third Millenium B.C.”, in J. Deshayes (ed.), Le plateau iranien et l’Asie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique. Leurs relations à la lumière des documents archéologiques, Actes du Colloque international 567 du CNRS, Paris, 22‑24 mars 1976, Paris, p. 67‑78. De Miroschedji P. 1973, “Vases et objets en stéatite susiens du musée du Louvre”, Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 3, p. 9‑80. Deshayes J. 1977, “À propos des terrasses hautes de la fin du IIIe millénaire en Iran et en Asie centrale”, in J. Deshayes (ed.), Le plateau iranien et l’Asie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique. Leurs relations à la lumière des documents archéologiques. Actes du Colloque international 567 du CNRS, Paris, 22‑24 mars 1976, Paris, p. 95‑111. Francfort H.-P. 1992, “Dungeons and Dragons: Reflections on the System of Iconography in Protohistoric Bactria and Margiana”, in G.L. Possehl (ed.), South Asian Archaeology Studies, New Delhi-Bombay-Calcutta, p. 179‑208. Francfort H.-P. 1994, “The Central Asian dimension of the symbolic system in Bactria and Margiana”, Antiquity 68/259, p. 406‑418. Francfort H.-P. 2005a, “L’art de l’Âge du Bronze”, in CEREDAF (ed.), L’art d’Afghanistan de la préhistoire à nos jours, Paris, p. 17‑30. Francfort H.-P. 2005b, “La civilisation de l’Oxus et les Indo-Iraniens et Indo-Aryens”, in G. Fussman, J. Kellens, H.-P. Francfort and X. Tremblay (ed.), Aryas, Aryens et Iraniens en Asie Centrale, Collège de France. Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne 72, Paris, p. 253‑328. Francfort H.-P. 2006, “Images du combat contre le sanglier en Asie centrale (3e au 1er millénaire av. J.-C.)”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 16 (2002), p. 117‑142. Francfort H.-P. 2009, “L’âge du bronze en Asie centrale. La civilisation de l’Oxus”, Anthropology of the Middle East 4/1, p. 91‑111. Francfort H.-P. 2010, “Birds, snakes, men and deities in the Oxus Civilization: an essay dedicated to Professor V.I. Sarianidi on a cylinder seal from Gonur Depe”, in P.M. Kozhin, M.‑F. Kosarev and N.‑A. Dubova (ed.), On the Track of Uncovering a Civilization. A Volume in Honor of the 80th-Anniversary of Victor Sarianidi, Transactions of the Margiana Archaeological Expedition, St. Petersburg, p. 67‑85. Francfort H.-P. 2016, “How the twins met: Indus and Oxus Bronze Age Civilizations in Eastern Bactria. Shortughaï revisited forty years later”, in N.A. Dubova, E.V. Antonova et al. (dir.), Transactions of Margiana Archaeological Expedition, vol.  6, To the memory of Professor Victor Sarianidi, N.N. Miklukho-Maklay Institute of Ethnology And Anthropology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Margiana Archaeological Expedition, Altay State University, Moscow, p. 461‑475. Francfort H.-P. with contributions of Boisset  Ch., Buchet L., Desse J., Echallier J.‑C., Kermorvant A. and G. 1989, Fouilles de Shortughaï: recherches sur l’Asie centrale protohistorique, Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française en Asie centrale II, Paris. Francfort H.-P. and Tremblay X. 2010, “Marhaši et la Civilisation de l’Oxus”, Iranica Antiqua XLV, p. 51‑224. Francfort H.-P., Vahdati A., Bendezu-Sarmiento J., Lhuillier J., Fouache E., Tengberg M., Mashkour M. and Shirazi Z. 2014, “Preliminary report on the soundings at Tepe Damghani Sabzevar, Spring 2008”, Iranica Antiqua 49, p. 111‑158. Frankfort H. 1935, Oriental Discoveries in Iraq, 1933/34. Fourth Preliminary report of the Iraq Expedition, Chicago. Frankfort H. 1963, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (3rd revised impression), London. Guichard M. 1996, “A la recherche de la pierre bleue”, NABU 36, p. 30‑32.

263

264

Henri-Paul Francfort

Hakemi A. 1997, “Kerman: The Original Place of Production of Chlorite Stone Objects in the 3rd Millennium B.C.”, East and West 47/1‑4, p. 11‑40. Joannes F. 1991, “L’étain, de l’Élam à Mari”, in Actes de la XXXVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, p. 67‑76. Kaniuth K. 2010, “Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia: Recent finds and their implications fro chronology and trade”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42, p. 3‑22. Khaniki R.L. 2003, “Nishâpur”, Nâme‑ye Pazhuheshgah‑e Mirâs‑e Farhangi, Quarterly 1/1, p. 36‑46. Kohl Ph.L. 2001, “Reflections on the Production of Chlorite at Tepe Yahya: 25 Years Later”, in C.‑C. LambergKarlovsky and D.‑T. Potts (ed.), Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967‑1975. The Third Millenium (with contributions by Holly Pittman and Philip L. Kohl), American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45, Cambridge Mass., p. 209‑230. Kohl Ph.L. 1974, Seeds of Upheaval: The production of Chlorite at Tepe Yahya and an Analysis of Commodity Production and Trade in Southwest Asia in the third Millenium, Ann Arbor MI. Kohl Ph.L. 1978, “The balance of Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Mid-Third Millenium B.C.”, Current Anthropology 19/3, p. 463‑492. Kozhin P.M., Kosarev M.F. and Dubova N.A. (ed.) 2010, On the Track of Uncovering a Civilization. A Volume in Honor of the 80th-Anniversary of Victor Sarianidi, Transactions of the Margiana Archaeological Expedition, St. Petersburg. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 2012, “The Oxus Civilization (aka: the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex)”, The Review of Archaeology 30, p. 59‑75. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. and Potts D.T. 2001, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975. The Third Millenium (with contributions by Holly Pittman and Philip L. Kohl), American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45, Cambridge Mass. Ligabue G. and Salvatori S. (ed.) 1989, Bactria an ancient civilization from the sands of Afghanistan, Venise. Luneau E. 2008, “Tombes féminines et pratiques funéraires en Asie centrale protohistorique. Réflexions sur le ‘statut social’ des femmes dans la civilisation de l’Oxus”, Paléorient 34/1, p. 131‑157. Madjidzadeh Y. 2003a, Jiroft. the Earliest Oriental Civilization, Printing and Publishing Organization of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Tehran. Madjidzadeh Y. 2003b, “La première campagne de fouilles à Jiroft dans le bassin du Halil Roud (janvier et février 2003)”, Dossiers d’archéologie 287, p. 65‑75. Madjidzadeh Y. 2007, Presentation of the Archaeological Excavations at Jiroft: Halil Roud Basin, Kerman (2003-2007), ICAR/ICHTO, Tehran. Madjidzadeh Y. and Pittman H. 2008, “Excavations at Konar Sandal in the region of Jiroft in the Halil basin: first preliminary report (2002-2008)”, Iran 46, p. 70‑103. Matthiae P. 1980, “Some Fragments of Early Syrian Sculpture from Royal Palace G of Tell Mardikh-Ebla”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39/4, p. 249‑273. Meadow R.H. 2002, “The Chronological and Cultural Significance of a Steatite Wig from Harappa”, Iranica Antiqua 37, p. 191‑202. Merola M. 2008, “Royal Goddesses of a Bronze Age State”, Archaeology 61/1, p. 9 Michel C. 1999, “Les joyaux des rois de Mari”, in A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris, p. 401‑432. Muhly J.D. 1973, “Copper and Tin. The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age”, Transactions of The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 43, New Haven (Connecticut), p. 155‑535. Perrot J. and Madjidzadeh Y. 2003, “Découvertes récentes à Jiroft (Sud du Plateau Iranien)”, Compte Rendu de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (juillet-octobre), p. 1087‑1102.

Iran and Central Asia

Perrot J. and Madjidzadeh Y. 2005, “L’iconographie des vases et objets en chlorite de Jiroft (Iran)”, Paléorient 31/2, p. 123‑152. Perrot J. and Madjidzadeh Y. 2006, “À travers l’ornementation des vases et objets en chlorite de Jiroft”, Paléorient 32/1, p. 99‑112. Piran S. and Hesari M. 2005, Cultural Around Halil Roud and Jiroft. The Catalogue of Exhibition of Select Restituted Objects, Tehran. Pottier M.-H. 1984, Matériel funéraire de la Bactriane méridionale de l’âge du bronze, Paris. Potts T.F. 1994, Mesopotamia and the East. An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400-2000 BC, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 37, Cambridge. Potts D.T. 1999, The Archaeology of Elam, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge. Potts D.T 2003, “A soft-stone genre from southeastern Iran: ‘zig-zag’ bowls from Magan to Margiana”, in T. Potts, M. Roaf and D. Stein (ed), Culture through Objects. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey, Oxford, p. 77‑89. Salvatori S. 2008a, “Cultural Variability in the Bronze Age Oxus Civilisation and its Relations with the Surrounding Regions of Central Asia and Iran”, in S. Salvatori and M. Tosi (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. Facts and methodological proposals for a redefinition of the research strategies (The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta II), BAR International Series 1806, Oxford, p. 75‑98. Salvatori S. 2008b, “A New Cylinder Seal from Ancient Margiana: Cultural Exchange and Syncretism in a ‘World Wide Trade System’ at the End of the 3rd Millennium BC”, in S. Salvatori and M. Tosi (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. Facts and methodological proposals for a redefinition of the research strategies (The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta II), BAR International Series 1806, Oxford, p. 111‑118. Sarianidi V.I. 1989, “Protozoroastrijskij khram v Margiane i problema voznikovenija Zoroastrizma”, VDI (Vestnik Drevnei istorii) 1, p. 152‑169. Sarianidi V.I. 1998a, Margiana and protozoroastrism, Athens. Sarianidi V.I. 1998b, Myths of Ancient Bactria and Margiana on its Seals and Amulets, Moscow. Sarianidi V.I. 2002, Margush. Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old Delta of Murghab River, Ashgabat. Sarianidi V.I. 2007, Necropolis of Gonur, Athens. Sarianidi V.I. 2010, Zadolgo do Zaratushtry (Arkheologicheskie dokazatel’ctva protozoroastrizma v Baktrii i Margiane). Pod obshchej redakciej H.A. Dubovoj, Staryj sad, Moscow. Sarianidi V.I., Kozhin P.M., Kosarev M.F. and Dubova N.A. (dir.) 2008, Trudy Margianskoj arkheologicheskoj ekspedicii 2, Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N.N. Miklukho-Maklaja RAN, Moscow. Steinkeller P. 1982, “The question of Marḫaši: a contribution to the historical geography of Iran in Third Millenium B.C.”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 72/2, p. 237‑265. Steinkeller P. 2006, “New Lights on Marḫaši and its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia”, Journal of Magan Studies 1, p. 1‑17. Steinkeller P. 2007, “New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 97, p. 215‑232. Steinkeller P. 2012, “New Light on Marḫaši and its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia”, in J. Giraud and G. Gernez (ed.), Aux marges de l’archéologie. Hommage à Serge Cleuziou, Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès 16, Paris, p. 261‑274. Steinkeller 2014, “Marḫaši and Beyond: the Jiroft Civilization in a Historical Perspective”, in C.C. LambergKarlovsky, B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (ed.), My Life is like the Summer Rose’. Maurozio Tosi a l’Archeologia come modo di vivere. Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th birthday, BAR International Series 2690, Oxford, p. 691‑707.

265

266

Henri-Paul Francfort

Tosi M. 1974, “The lapis lazuli trade across the Iranian Plateau in the 3rd millennium B.C.”, in Miscellanea in Onore di Giuseppe Tucci, Naples, p. 3‑22. Tosi M. 1975, “The problem of Turquoise in Protohistoric Trade on the Iranian Plateau”, Memorie dell’Istituto di Paleontologia der Assyriology 2, p. 147‑162. Vahdati A.A., Biscione R. 2014, “Kavosh‑e Moshtarak‑e (Iran-Italiya) Fasl‑e Dovom‑e Tappeh Chalow, Jajarm, Ostan‑e Khorasan‑e Shomali” [Second Season of Iran-Italy Joint Excavations at Tepe Chalow, Jajarm, North Khorasan Province], in Exhibition of Archaeological Finds 2013, 13th Annual Symposium on the Iranian Archaeology, Tehran, p. 16‑21. Vahdati A.A., Biscione R., Tengberg M. and Mashkour M. 2018, “Excavation at Tepe Chalow: some evidence of ‘Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex’ (BMAC) in the plain of Jajarm, Northeastern Iran”, Archaeology. Journal of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research 1/1, p. 1‑12 (in Persian).

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau From Kerman to the Oxus through seals Holly Pittman Department of the History of Art. 301 Jaffe Building. 3405 Woodland Walk. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia Focusing on the glyptic art of southeastern Iran and western Central Asia during the Bronze Age of Exchange in the third millennium BC, it establishes through exhaustive iconographic and stylistic analysis the Iranian origin for five cylinder seals found at the site of Gonur and more broadly in the region. These cylinder seals and others were certainly a vector along which imagery central to the Oxus Civilization was borrowed from earlier complex cultures in the region of Kerman. Along with other artifacts, these seals and the imagery they transmitted are proxies for the intense interregional interaction of the second half of the third millennium which criss-crossed the Plateau. En se fondant sur l’art glyptique du sud-ouest et de l’ouest de l’Asie centrale au cours de l’âge du Bronze des échanges durant le troisième millénaire BC ainsi que sur une analyse approfondie iconographique et stylistique, l’origine iranienne de cinq sceaux cylindres trouvés sur le site de Gonur et aux alentours a pu être établie. Ces sceaux cylindres et d’autres étaient certainement un vecteur par lequel l’imagerie, centrale à la civilisation de l’Oxus, était empruntée à des cultures complexes plus anciennes de la région de Kerman. Ces sceaux et l’imagerie qu’ils transmettaient témoignent bien avec d’autres artefacts de l’interaction interrégionale intense qui existait sur le plateau iranien dans la seconde moitié du troisième millénaire.

‫در این مقاله هنر حکاکی جنوب شرقی ایران و غرب آسیای میانه در دوران تبادل برنز در هزاره سوم‬ ‫ از طریق تجزیه و تحلیل های شمایل شناسی و سبکی استدالل‬.‫پیش از میالد مورد بحث قرار گرفته است‬ ‫ نمونه های وارداتی از‬،‫می شود که پنج مهر استوانه ای که از محوطه گونور یا نزدیکی آن یافت شده‬ .‫منطقه کرمان هستند‬ ‫ این مهرها و تصویری که منتقل می کنند در واقع شواهدی از یک تعامل‬،‫همراه با دیگر دست ساخته ها‬ ‫قوی بین ناحیه ای در نیمه دوم هزاره سوم را به نمایش می گذارند که در فالت (ایران) به همدیگر ارتباط‬ .‫پیدا می کردند‬ The title of the Lyon conference: “Urbanization, Trade, Commerce, and Subsistence in Bronze Age Iran”, was a broad and ambitious one. Behind these diverse and important themes is first and fundamentally the land. In order for urban, complex communities to come into being and to flourish certain conditions must exist: most basically readily available water and fertile soil for agriculture and adequate pasture for animal husbandry. Access to routes is also central, overland and by water, either on rivers or by open sea, which allow both communication and movement of goods and people. Further, proximity of natural resources is desirable. Resources for subsistence are fundamental, but also resources that can be extracted and developed either for local consumption or to be passed on in a long distance trade network. These are the ecological niches in which we expect to find remains of the Bronze Age in Iran. The particular combination of features contributes to the timing, the structure and the success of each community.

268

Holly Pittman

Iran is a huge and diverse land mass (fig. 1). Its ancient, pre- and protohistoric past is known to us only in the few pockets that have been explored by archaeologists and historians leaving the zones in between as blank but certainly not empty. Several attempts have been made to equate Bronze Age cultural zones on the Iranian Plateau with names recorded in the Mesopotamian texts  1. This is a debate that I will not enter into here, choosing rather to identify cultural zones by other established nomenclature. We are especially knowledgeable about alluvial Khuzistan from the early Neolithic to the modern day. But for the rest, our understanding is spotty, some areas are well known or at least have been characterized, while others are almost entirely unknown.

Fig. 1 – Map.

Despite lacunae, we can be confident that from around 3200 to 1800 BC, from the end of the Late Chalcolithic and through the Early Bronze Age, the fertile zones of the Iranian Plateau were teeming with smaller and larger communities situated around abundant available water sources, primarily artesian waters supplemented with rainfall and snow melt that dispensed water in the river systems which descended from the mountains that ring the entire circumference of the great land mass. In Khuzistan, the Karun and Karkheh rivers are the eastern extensions of the Tigris and Euphrates drainage emptying into the open waters of the Persian Gulf. Most of the other major river systems of the Plateau, however, are part of the great oases systems with their abundant water disappearing into sands or swamps before reaching open water: in the northeast are the Amu and Syr rivers, plus the smaller oases with their deltaic fans in Margiana and further to the east in Bactria; in the southeast is the Helmand river system which is linked on the west to the double oasis system in the modern

1.

Stopler 1982; Steinkeller 1982; Steinkeller 2012; Potts 2008; Francfort and Tremblay 2010.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

province of Kerman. During the Early Bronze Age each of these oases riverine systems was home to a sedentary, complex urban community. Although much remains to be known, through their material culture we can detect that these regions were closely linked with each other through river and land routes and to the outside world to the west which they accessed primarily through open water. This era has been aptly named the Bronze Age of Exchange by Pierre Amiet  2, the first scholar to articulate it through a review of its material culture. More recently a systematic and comprehensive treatment of this interaction was undertaken by Salvatori  3. The first of these oases systems to be known archaeologically is the drainage basin of the Helmand River which supported the Bronze Age Helmand civilization with its two major cities of Mundigak in the north and the much larger Shahr-i Sokhta in the south. Both of these sites have been investigated and Shahr-i Sokhta has produced vast quantities of data that will continue to shape our understanding of Early Bronze Age eastern Iran  4. We know that by the third quarter of the third millennium the Helmand civilization was in decline, apparently due to the diminishing water resources. To the east of this internal drainage are the great rivers of the Indus system, which like the Tigris and Euphrates, flow directly into the open water of the Arabian Sea. To the south and west of the Helmand are two separate oases systems in the modern day province of Kerman which is divided north south by the eastern extension of the Zagros. To the north of the Jebalbarez and the Sarduiyeh mountain ranges and on the southern rim of the Lut Desert is the Bronze Age complex of Shahdad  5, which was watered in the third millennium BC by streams and rivers flowing north  6. To the south of the mountain range is the complex drainage of the Halil and the Bampur rivers which converge from the north and the east respectively to empty into the Jazmourian oasis situated only about 150 km northeast of the Persian Gulf. Until the massive looting of graves associated with large settlements prompted excavations in the Halil River valley in the early years of this century  7, the Halil/Bampur oasis systems was poorly known. Sir Aurel Stein reported the existence of large and small mounds of Bronze Age date  8. He put soundings into some of these, among them Khinaman, Khurab and Damin. To this evidence was added the excavations of small highland site of Tepe Yahya  9 as well as the Bronze Age component of the large mound of Bampur in the 1960’s and 70s  10. We now know, through the efforts of Youssef Madjidzadeh and people working under his direction during six seasons of excavation, that there was an indigenous major civilization centered on the Halil River  11 to which Tepe Yahya and Shahdad belonged, while Bampur looked to the east to the cultural complex of Makran and the Helmand. While showing regional differences, Shahdad, Tepe Yahya and Konar Sandal are closely related. When combined these three archaeological complexes can be described as the Kerman culture, a term that I use in this discussion. Similar to the discovery of the Halil River culture, the Oxus civilization was also first revealed through a massive spasm of looting that took place in the 1970’s, this time in response to a period of political

   2.

Amiet 1986.

   3.

Salvatori 2008a.

   4.

Tosi 1983.

   5.

Hakemi 1997.

   6.

Eskandari this volume.

   7.

Madjidzadeh 2003a; Madjidzadeh 2003b.

   8.

Stein 1937.

   9.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1974; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1986; Potts and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2001; Mutin 2013.

10.

De Cardi 1970.

11.

Madjidzadeh 2008.

269

270

Holly Pittman

disturbance in western Central Asia, especially in Afghanistan  12. While decontextualized, the objects that filled the bazaar in Kabul and that flooded onto the antiquities markets  13 gave us the first hints of what would become evidence for an indigenous, complex, rich, urban civilization that flourished during the second half of the third millennium BC. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, international archaeological work began in earnest, especially in Turkmenistan  14. Several names have been given to this new civilization: at first it was called the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, (aka the BMAC) to describe its geographic extent following ancient Greek names for the regions; later it was called the Oxus civilization to highlight its riverine character along Amu Darya, known to the Greeks as the Oxus River  15. This is the name that I will use in this discussion. Most recently, an Iranian-Italian team exploring on the Iranian side of the border has found evidence to warrant them proposing a third name: the Greater Khorasan Bronze Age Civilization to reflect the fact that this culture extended south considerably beyond the Oxus to encompass the same geographic zone that was held as a coherent province by Sasanian and subsequent hegemonic ruling entity  16. With the recent investigations of the Halil River Valley, the suite of Bronze Age oases communities (Oxus, Helmand and Kerman) ringing the central deserts of the Plateau is complete. Although more work is needed to flesh out the character and to grasp the complexity of their interactions over time, it is now possible to consider the oases communities as a system, independent and yet interacting throughout the third millennium. With our current evidence one of the most fruitful ways to articulate such a system of interaction is through a study of their symbolic worlds, available through the iconography and style of imagery carried on seals and other works of art. What has become clear is that there was a close and continuing interaction between Kerman and the Oxus. This is especially illuminated through two distinct data sets: imagery and material culture. What can be detected seems to be a two stage process: the first sees the infiltration of ideas (and certainly people) from the Iranian Plateau into the symbolic world of the Oxus, the second sees the movement of people from the Oxus onto the Iranian Plateau. This is a subject that has been of interest to a number of scholars, in particular to Salvatori  17, S. Winkelmann  18 and H.‑P. Francfort  19. My goal in the discussion that follows is to scrutinize the glyptic evidence for the first stage of this interaction, examining assumptions and conclusions and attempting to articulate the nature of the interaction in a more systematic, evidencebased manner. It is my belief that it is necessary to carefully tease apart the distinctions between these two civilizations, and to anchor our understanding in a careful assessment of the existing evidence.

Seals Imported to the Oxus Civilization from Southeastern Iran The one major center of the Oxus civilization that has been extensively explored is the site of Gonur, excavated by the late archaeologist Victor Sarianidi and now led by N. Dubova. In addition to monumental architecture, a cemetery was uncovered that contained some dozen or more “royal/ elite” tombs with animal burials, chariots, as well as gold and silver vessels  20. In addition to these

12.

Pottier 1984.

13.

Pittman 1984; Sarianidi 1998.

14.

Sarianidi 2002; Sarianidi 2005; Sarianidi 2007; Salvatori and Tosi 2008.

15.

Salvatori 2008a.

16.

Vahdati and Biscione 2015.

17.

Salvatori 2008a; Salvatori 2008b.

18.

Winkelmann 2000; Winkelmann 2014.

19.

Francfort 2010.

20.

Sarianidi 2002; Sarianidi 2005; Sarianidi 2007.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

spectacular finds, an important group of seals were found that augmented the looted seals that had been collected over the years  21. My interest is to consider a small subset of those seals in order to establish them as proxies for a pattern of interaction that connected the Oxus civilization with the oases cultures of Kerman. As a group, these five seals help us to understand the Iranian roots of the symbolic world of the Oxus civilization and to hypothesize about the nature of the interaction which led to this interaction. In order to fully appreciate these particular seals it is useful to begin with an over view of the rich universe of glyptic art found at Gonur. Three basic types of seals are known from the Oxus civilization: compartmented metal stamp seals, stone stamp cylinders and stone cylinder seals  22. Unlike comparable glyptic art on the Iranian Plateau or in Mesopotamia, seals in the Oxus context seemed to have played a minor role in any economic administration that required the making impressions on clay masses. At Gonur, among the hundreds of seals found, only one stamp seal impression on a fragment of baked clay is reported from the north mound of Gonur  23, while ten are reported from the later south mound at Gonur  24. The range of function includes small mouth jar stoppers, fusiform tags, and flat tabs, as well as impressions of compartmented stamp seals on the body of ceramics  25 a practice common at Shahr-i Sokhta, Shahdad, Yahya and Konar Sandal North. At Gonur, compartmented stamp seals were the most common type, often carrying figural imagery that depicted winged females associated with animals, male figures associated with snakes or other animals, and a bird headed figure also associated with snakes, dragons and other creatures. This imagery has been analyzed extensively by S. Winkelmann  26 and H.‑P. Francfort  27 who have sought to define an indigenous, coherent, iconographic system that visualized significant cultural and religious norms. As they have recognized, many of the design elements, had their origins on the Iranian Plateau. Beyond the stamp seals, there is another seal type which seems to have been invented in the Oxus. This type combines the form of the cylinder and stamp into a multi-media format with a pendant loop. As with other distinct types, when found at sites on the Iranian Plateau, these stamp-cylinders are understood as imports from their Oxus origin. For example, two such stamp-cylinders were found to the south east in Quetta together with other artefacts that certainly originated in the Oxus  28. Another was reportedly found in southwestern Fars  29. In both instances we can be confident that these were exported outside of the Central Asia home carried no doubt by the people from the region who migrated southeast and southwest bringing with them their distinctive pottery and ritual artifacts. Salvator provides a comprehensive summary of the exports from Central Asia found at sites on the Iranian Plateau  30. In addition to the stone and bronze compartmented stamps and the stamp-cylinders, the third seal type found at Gonur is the cylinder seal, having a longitudinal hole that would have received a cord for suspension. Although originating in the west, in the alluvium of Mesopotamia and Khuzistan during the Middle Uruk period, the cylinder seal format was adopted on the Iranian Plateau as early as the proto-Elamite period. Following the proto-Elamite period, there is strong evidence from Tepe

21.

Sarianidi 1998.

22.

Sarianidi 1998; Sarianidi 2007.

23.

Sarianidi 1998, p. 317.

24.

Sarianidi 1998, p. 317, 319.

25.

Sarianidi 1998; Sarianidi 2007.

26.

Winkelmann 2000; Winkelmann 2014.

27.

Francfort 1992; Francfort 1994; Francfort 1998; Francfort 2010.

28.

Jarrige et al. 1995, p. 360, 412.

29.

Ascalone 2008.

30.

Salvatori 2008a.

271

272

Holly Pittman

Yahya  31, Shahdad  32 and Konar Sandal South  33 of a robust indigenous tradition of glyptic art in the form of cylinder seals. It is with close reference to that glyptic tradition that the Gonur examples must be considered in order to fully appreciate their value for illuminating the relations between Kerman and the Oxus. Unlike the other two glyptic formats, there can be no question that the cylinder seal as a type was foreign to the Oxus civilization, and indeed, as I will argue below all of the cylinder seals found to date at North Gonur are imports. While others have assumed that some of the cylinders were imported, no one has systematically demonstrated this through close iconographic and stylistic comparisons. It is useful to do this in order to understand more carefully what distinguishes the Iranian symbolic universe from that of the Oxus and to establish them as evidence for interaction. One cylinder was found in survey not far from Gonur on site 1220  34, while the four additional cylinders seals were found through the regular excavations at the Gonur. Three were found in graves, and one was retrieved from a structure which has been interpreted as a temple. In a separate article, I have argued  35 that the seal found in survey (fig. 2), must be understood not as a locally manufactured seal but rather as an import from Kerman, and possibly manufactured in the region of the Halil River Valley  36. This identification is based on a close analysis of the imagery and style of the seal in comparison with the large corpus of glyptic art from Tepe Yahya, Shahdad and Konar Sandal South. The same conclusion will be reached in the consideration of the other four cylinder seals, all of which were found in controlled context at Gonur.

Fig. 2 – Drawing of the modern impression of a cylinder from site no. 1220 Turkmenistan. Combat scene with hero and human headed bulls. Height 2.8 cm. White Stone. Adapted from Salvatori 2008a, fig. 8.3.

Three of the four cylinders from Gonur have been discussed as imports from outside of the Oxus Civilization  37. Most easily recognizable is a seal, of Old Akkadian date (fig. 3), carved in the reign of Naram Sin, after he had made his administrative reforms  38. There is nothing out of the ordinary in this seal, which is worn but in no way defaced or recarved. Owning and using this seal within the domain of Old Akkadian administration would have been an official act authorized by the state  39. How this seal travelled to Gonur, some 1500 km to the east, is hard to know. While it could have come directly from Mesopotamia, it also could have come indirectly through any of several probable

31.

Pittman 2001.

32.

Hakemi 1997.

33.

Pittman 2008; Pittman 2018; Pittman in press.

34.

Salvatori 2008b.

35.

Contra Salvatori 2008b.

36.

Pittman 2014.

37.

Sarianidi 2007; Salvatori 2008a; Francfort 2010.

38.

Contra Steinkeller 2014.

39.

Rakic 2003; Rakic 2018.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

routes carried by traders, merchants or wives. There is nothing to suggest that it retained its original significance by the time it reach Gonur. It is important that it gives us a relative terminus post quem of the reign of Naram Sin for the grave in which it was found. Indirect evidence for the importation of another Old Akkadian seal can be seen in the silver cup found together with other gold and silver vessels in a cache beneath the floor of Grave 3235 at Gonur  40. The cup, having a typical Central Asian shape with flaring sides, is embossed with a scene of animals in a mountain scape. This scene could only have originated on a cylinder seal of Old Akkadian date, which must have served as the model for the gifted toreutic craftsman who rendered it on the flaring side of the vessel (fig. 4). Equally important for us is that the seal as well as the design on the silver vessel establishes the western extent of interregional interaction from the perspective of Gonur. Along with the Old Akkadian seal an equally foreign and equally identifiable stamp seal originating in the Indus Valley was also found in a grave at Gonur  41. Each of these seals is a unique and indisputable import from the western and eastern peripheries of the Central Asian center of Gonur. Both serve as proxies for interaction as well as sources for imagery that was adopted and adapted by the inhabitants of Gonur.

Fig. 3 – Cylinder seal and modern impression. Combat scene. Mesopotamian, Late Old Akkadian period. Shell. Gonur, Burial #2550. Adapted from Sarianidi 2007, p. 107, fig. 182.

Fig. 4 – Drawing of wild animals in a mountainous landscape setting rendered in repousée and engraving on a silver vase. Gonur, Grave 3235. Adapted from Sarianidi 2005, p. 256.

40.

Sarianidi 2005, p. 255‑256.

41.

Sarianidi 2005, p. 258, fig. 114.

273

274

Holly Pittman

When we turn to the remaining three cylinder seals from Gonur, consensus has formed around two that they are clearly imports from the region of Kerman  42. One from Grave 23 at Gonur shows a vegetation goddess with grain coming out of her body squatting on the back of a snake with a horned quadruped to the side (fig. 5)  43. The excavations at Konar Sandal South produced impressions of several examples of this theme (fig. 6). Additionally actual seals carrying this iconography are known among the cylinders found at Tepe Yahya (fig. 7) and Shahdad (fig. 8). The other seal deemed to be imported shows an enthroned goddess encircled by a rayed nimbus and flanked on one side by a vegetation goddess and on the other by a goddess of horned animals (fig. 9). This seal was found in the Temple of the Sacrifices and can also be closely compared to examples from Tepe Yahya (fig. 10), and Konar Sandal South (fig. 11) as well as unprovenanced seals belonging to the Kerman culture (fig. 12‑13).

Fig. 5 – Cylinder seal and modern impression. Grain goddess seated on snake and kneeling horned quadruped. White Stone. Gonur, Grave 23. Adapted from Sarianidi 2007, p. 105, no. 180.

Fig. 6 – Drawing of an ancient impression of a cylinder seal. Grain deity. Height 1.3 cm. Konar Sandal South Trench 5 008V302. Drawing by author.

Fig. 7 – Drawing of modern impression of a cylinder seal. Grain goddess and winged and horned goddess. Steatite. Height 2.3 cm. Tepe Yahya IVB. Drawing after Pittman 2001, fig. 10.49. TY 32.

42.

Sarianidi 2007; Francfort 2010.

43.

Sarianidi 2007, p. 105, no. 180.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

Fig. 8 – Cylinder seal and modern impression. Seated grain goddess and standing horned goddess. In the field four horned quadrupeds with head turned back. White Stone. Height 3.8 cm. Shahdad Grave 163. Obj. no. 1792. Photo courtesy Massoud Azarnoush.

Fig. 9 – Cylinder seal and modern impression. Goddess surrounded by a rayed circle and flanked by grain and horned goddesses. Black Stone. Temple of Sacrifices. Adapted from Sarianidi 2005, p. 283, fig. 137.

Fig. 10 – Drawing of a modern impression of a cylinder seal.

Fig. 11 – Drawing of a fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal impression.

Seated winged goddess with horned surrounded by kneeling adorants and a grain goddess, snakes in the field. Height 3 cm. Chlorite. Tepe Yahya IVB, TY 38. Drawing after Pittman 2001, p. 262, cat 48.

Goddess stands on the back of addorsed bulls, over her is a twist of copulating snakes, to the right side of bird of prey seen from below; to the left side is a female figure. Height 3.3 cm. Konar Sandal South Trench 5, 028V402. Drawing by author.

Fig. 12 – Drawing of a modern impression of a cylinder seal. Two registers showing a ritual scene below and a supernatural divine community above. Height 4.33 cm. Collection of Jonathan and Jeanette Rosen, New York. Adapted from Amiet 1997, p. 127, fig. 5.

275

276

Holly Pittman

Fig. 13 – Modern impression of cylinder seal. Two kneeling divine heroes salute the sun deity with raised arms. To the side a goddess seated on the back of a dragon. White Stone. Height 4.0 cm. Collection of Jonathan and Jeanette Rosen. Photo courtesy the Rosen Collection.

Discussion of the cylinder seal from Grave 1393 at Gonur Tepe The final seal to be considered in this discussion carries an extremely complex iconography arranged in a two registered composition (fig. 14). It was found in a modest grave no. 1393 in which a female around 60 years old was interred. The seal was found at her waist  44. Everyone who discusses this seal acknowledges that it is associated somehow with the southeastern Iran  45. The question is how. The only in depth consideration has been undertaken by H.‑P. Francfort in a celebratory volume for V. Sarianidi  46. While acknowledging that this seal belongs stylistically to the Kerman group, Francfort argues that features of its iconography, in particular the human headed birds and the bird-headed demon emerging from snakes in the upper register require that the seal be understood as manufactured by an itinerant seal cutter originating in the Kerman region but residing in in Central Asia. From Francfort’s perspective, the itinerant craftsman was commissioned to render elements of a uniquely Central Asian iconography embedding them in a Kerman iconographic matrix and rendering them in a purely Kerman style. Based on close comparisons found on imagery that can be confidently associated with the Kerman region, I will argue below that, contrary to Francfort’s analysis, the iconography as well as the style of this seal belongs entirely and squarely within the cultural domain of Kerman. It was produced in the cultural province of Kerman, it carries iconography typical of the region rendered using stylistic conventions that are uniquely associated with the glyptic art of Bronze Age Kerman and more particularly with the art of the Halil River Valley. With that established it becomes necessary to understand this object as imported into Central Asia just was were the other seals we have discussed here. From there we have a firmer basis on which to consider the nature of the interaction between Kerman and Central Asia in the Early Bronze age of exchange. Further we can consider further the degree to which the iconography of the Oxus has its origins in the earlier glyptic of the Iranian Plateau. Beginning with its composition, the arrangement of imagery in two registers is familiar from the seals in the Kerman group. Each register carries a distinct iconography: on the bottom is the terrestrial world of humans and animals; while the imagery of the upper register depicts the supernatural world of mixed, certainly mythological beings. This division of domains is precisely the same as a seal, now in the Rosen Collection, belonging to the Kerman Narrative group (fig. 12). Composition

44.

Sarianidi 2007, p. 245.

45.

Sarianidi 2007; Francfort 2010.

46.

Francfort 2010.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

then is consistent with the other features of the seal’s distinctive style demonstrating, as Francfort also concludes, that its maker was working entirely within the stylistic conventions of the Kerman style. As a type within the Kerman style, the composition belongs to a group of seals coming from the excavations at Konar Sandal South which I have labeled as “Narrative” based on the apparent depiction of a story or a ritual event. This type was first identified as coming from southeastern Iran by Edith Porada on the basis of a seal in the Foroughi collection  47. Although there was at that time no comparanda from excavated context, Porada proved prescient in her identification of the cultural identity of the seal. Following Porada, Pierre Amiet identified (as trans-elamite) and published a closely related seal (fig. 15) which is now in the collection of the Louvre  48. By the time Amiet published the seal it could be more securely located through comparisons to excavated material that had come to light at Yahya and Shahdad. From Konar Sandal South Trench III impressions of two other Narrative type seals are preserved which help us extend even further the identity of this group and to anchor it securely through archaeologically secure parallels (fig. 16‑17).

Fig. 14 – Cylinder seal and modern impression. Two register scene with ritual below and supernatural creature above. Red Stone. Gonur, Grave 1391. Adapted from Sarianidi 2007, p. 106, fig. 181.

Fig. 15 – Modern impression of cylinder seal. Divine figure with snakes emerging from shoulders sits enthroned on top of a niched platform. To the side is a two register depiction of celebrants: standing women above and kneeling figures with instruments below. White Stone. Previously in the Virginia Bailey collection, Louvre Museum. Sb 6707. Height 3.5 cm. Photo courtesy of Virginia Bailey.

Fig. 16 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal impression. Female kneels to the side of a platform on which a figure stands. Behind her are palm trees, head of a horned quadruped and a vessel. Height 2.75 cm. Konar Sandal South Trench 3. 2005III102. Drawing by author.

47.

Porada 1964.

48.

Amiet 1986, p. 137; Amiet 1997, p. 123, fig. 6.

277

278

Holly Pittman

Turning next to features of the formal stylistic aspects of the carving, as Francfort asserts, the distinctive stylis­ tic features of the Gonur seal, such as the drillings used to define shoulders, the narrow waist of the male actors, the manner in which the leg is tucked under the body of the kneeling figures, the two lines that define the undulating body of the snake all require us to acknowledge that the seal carver was not copying, emulating or imitating the Kerman style, but, in fact was an expert craftsman working in the Kerman style and rendering a seal belonging to the Kerman Narrative type.

Fig. 17 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal impression. Celebrants in a ritual next to a platform. Snake, bird, geometric

When we turn next to iconography of forms in the field. Height 2 cm. Konar Sandal South Trench 3. KSBtrIII103006. Drawing by author. the lower register, the same conclusion can be reached. The scene of men kneeling and gesturing to a distincti­ vely shaped structure finds close comparisons in Rosen cylinder seal (fig. 12). The distinctive shape of the structure with the sagging roof line can only refer to the so-called hut motif which is ubiquitous on the soft stone objects from Konar Sandal South  49 which come from the looted graves at Mahtoutabad and from the workshops of Tepe Yahya. Effigy models of such a structure were found in the burials at Shahdad  50. It is a quintessentially architectural form typical of and meaningful for the communities of Kerman during the Bronze Age. Indeed one of the burials excavated by Madjidzadeh  51 has such a sagging lintel cut into the soft limestone matrix of the structure. The bird and the bull pair, situated to the right side of the hut structure, both face left with their heads turned back. Such images are also frequently carried on seals and small decorated objects from Kerman. Among the excavated comparanda is the stamp seal from Tepe Yahya carrying the image of a human headed feline with its head turned back  52, while from among the looted materials from the graves now held in the Kerman museum are the double sided disks with comparable iconography, including a lapis disk showing similar bird looking back (fig. 18). It is the upper register which Francfort believes carries imagery unique to Central Asia. As noted above, in the upper register we enter the domain of the supernatural, captured on this seal in two complex motifs: a double bird-headed man in an undulating snake frame and a snake-headed bird to the left of a pair of human-headed horned birds flanking a spread winged bird of prey. An examination of comparable motifs carried on objects originating in Kerman establishes their southeastern Iranian identity. A double bird-headed male holding his fists clenched at his waist emerges from a U-shaped support formed by two undulating snakes whose bodies are delineated by two strong outlines defining a central ridge. The immediately striking detail of this figure is its doubled bird head. This is certainly the image which first drew Francfort’s attention because it occurs frequently in both seals and other objects from the Oxus civilization. He remarks that the bird heads have a closed beak and a beard.

49.

Madjidzadeh 2003b, p. 67.

50.

Hakemi 1997, p. 62.

51.

Madjidzadeh 2008.

52.

Pittman 2001, p. 266, fig. 10.57.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

Fig. 18 – Drawing of a double sided disk in lapis lazuli. Both sides carved with a bird with its head turned back surrounded by lions. Diameter 3.9 cm. Confiscated from Looters. Kerman Museum. Adapted from Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 173 bottom.

It is on that basis that he identifies the bird as a lammergeyer, a carrion eating bird rather than the eagle. He observes that there are two birds of prey in the Oxus system of iconography: the short-toed snake eagle (Circaetus gallicus) that combats with snakes and the carrion eating bearded vulture, lammergeyer (Gypaetus bartus) who is associated with snakes  53. In fact to my eye it seems that the double headed bird-man on the seal under consideration has both types of heads. The one looking left has no beard, while the smaller one looking right clearly has a beard. Perhaps this double headed creature combines the avian characteristics of both into the one demon. There is no doubt that the overwhelming number of comparisons for this figure come from the Oxus. The demon itself finds its most famous parallel on a silver axe in the Metropolitan museum (fig. 19), which I identified in 1984 as coming from Bronze Age Central Asia  54. This double headed bird man is not bearded, while a similar bird-headed demon on the axe in the Ortiz collection has the beard. Both of these masterpieces were made in the Oxus civilization suggesting that either Francfort is right and they had two different types of raptor headed deities, or that the distinction was in fact not relevant to their system of meaning. Importantly for this discussion, however, is that it can also be established is that the image of the bird-headed human did not originate in Central Asia, but that it was borrowed, like most of the other divine images seen in the Oxus repertory from Iran. Indeed, it was probably introduced into the Oxus civilization through iconography carried on cylinder seals such as the one under consideration here. The earliest bird-headed figure currently known is depicted on the so-called Jeweler’s seal, found at Susa (fig. 20). This seal image, which is completely unique at Susa, shares many features with the glyptic art of Kerman. Before the material from Konar Sandal was discovered, I argued that because this image, both stylistically and iconographically, is unique at Susa, the Jeweler’s seal must be understood as coming from outside of Susa  55. Now that we have

53.

Francfort 2010, p. 77.

54.

Pittman 1984.

55.

Pittman 2002 contra Amiet 2005.

Fig. 19 – Silver and electrum shaft hole axe with double bird headed man grappling with a boar and a dragon. Height 15 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art MMA 1982.5. Photo courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

279

280

Holly Pittman

the glyptic and iconographic evidence from Konar Sandal South, it is clear to me that the Jeweler’s seal should be under­ stood as belonging to an indi­ vidual, probably a merchant, originating in the region of the Halil River Valley and more broadly Kerman. Because the image is carried on a door seaFig. 20 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a two registered ling, we can know that he or his cylinder on a door sealing. agents were physically present Above divine figures including a bird headed human, bull headed human, at Susa controlling some kind a goddess on opposed lions and a hero. Below a crossed animal combat scene and two goddesses on backs of lions. Height 3.9 cm. Louvre inventory of immobile storage. He must number AS 10081, 10082. Adapted from Delaporte 1920, p. 56‑55, S462. certainly have been acting as an intermediary in the robust trade in stones, metal, woods and other preciosities that made their way west by the sea route. Among the finds from Konar Sandal South, there is a fragmentary impression preserves the lower half of a figure having talons for feet similar to the figure in the Jeweler’s seal (fig. 21). While the head is missing, there is no reason to believe that this figure did not have the head of a bird. While not associated with snakes in this fragment, the use of the double snake as a framing device for an emerging central motif is preserved on two seal impressions from Konar Sandal South (fig. 22‑23).

Fig. 21 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal impression. Bottom half of male figure wearing a kilt and a covering over his leg, and legs of a bird man, two squatting females with arms bent and a scorpion. Height 1.8 cm. Konar Sandal South Trench 5, 039V402. Drawing by author.

Fig. 22 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal. Two snakes emerge from a circle from which a camel head emerges, to the side a winged vegetation goddess. Konar Sandal South Trench 5, 029V402. Height 3.3 cm. Drawing by author.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

Additional comparable evidence for the double headed figure surrounded by snakes is the image on one side of a lapis lazuli disk showing a double headed winged human which emerges from a U shaped double scorpion tail from the confiscated materials now held in the Kerman museum (Kerman museum no. 7114). Another lapis disk shows the upper body of a bird headed human, and finally among the confiscated material is a soft stone plaque in the shape of a double-headed frontal eagle  56. Standing next to the bird man is a standing bird facing left with its head turned back. Francfort interprets this bird as a long necked fowl similar to those rendered on stamp seals from the Oxus. However, a closer look at the image shows that this bird is identical to the one in the lower register except that the one in the upper register has the head of a snake. While unique in the Oxus, the image of a snake headed bird is known on a small lapis pendant from the looted materials held in the Kerman Museum and has been published by Madjidzadeh (fig. 24)  57. The combination of animal parts is a frequent feature of Bronze Age art of Kerman. It can be seen in a similar pendant having the body of a bird and the head of a lion  58.

Fig. 23 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal. Horned head emerging between undulating snakes. Height 1.7 cm. Konar Sandal South Trench 5, 097V402. Drawing by author.

To the left of the birdman and snake-headed bird pair is another important motif. What we see are Fig. 24 – Snake-headed bird pendant. two different species of horned human-headed Lapis Lazuli. Confiscated material from birds flanking a spread winged bird of prey seen looters. Kerman museum. Adapted from Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 164 lower left. from below. Above the back of the left most horned human-headed bird is an undulating snake. On his head he has a pair of horns that splay outwards in a spiral form. We agree with Francfort that these should be considered the horns of a markhor goat. The figure is bearded and the base of the beard turns up in a prominent and distinctive curl. Emerging from his chest is a single curling form and from his back two similarly curling forms emerge above the curled tail feathers. Francfort interprets these elements as additional horns, but they find close parallels in Konar Sandal South that suggest another interpretation. It is unclear if the drilling at the back of the creature’s neck is meant to suggest a hump. Facing him is a different and equally distinctive horned human-headed bird creature. This creature either has a short beard or a clean shaven elongated chin. He also has horns but in this instance the horns curve inward and are certainly those of a bovid. Additionally, above his back a wing rises in a gracefully curving line. Finally in a manner similar to his companion, his tail feathers curve out in opposite directions. Francfort takes this last feature to argue that both of these creatures are depictions of a Northern black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) which he posits might have lived in the Oxus zone during the Bronze Age. Both of these human headed bird creatures find close comparisons among the imagery from Kerman as well as from Mesopotamia, while I am unaware of any examples of human headed birds from Central Asia. Among the double sided lapis disks typical of Kerman, the one found in the Tod treasure

56.

Madjidzadeh 2003a, p. 133.

57.

Madjidzadeh 2003a, p. 164.

58.

Madjidzadeh 2003a, p. 167 top.

281

282

Holly Pittman

in Egypt (fig. 25)  59, shows the head of a man with a long curl on the body of a bird. On the other side of the disk, a lion headed bird with similarly curving tail features is rendered. A virtually identical image is carried on a lapis disk in a private collection. Francfort asserts that the tail features on Gonur seal are different than those on the disk. The only way that they are different is that on the disk they are seen in profile and on the seal they are seen from above. Probably the closest parallel for this pair of human headed birds is seen on a gold cylinder seal in the Al Sabah collection in Kuwait  60. The imagery on this seal is rendered in the distinctive Linear style known through seal impressions from Konar Sandal South  61. This remarkable seal shows two horned human headed birds flank an emerging human-headed bull (fig. 26). Notably each of the human-headed birds on this extraordinary seal has a beard which curls prominently upward toward the chin, identical to the treatment of the beard on the right facing bird-creature on the Gonur seal. Finally a comparison which is more formal than iconographic can be found for the curled forms emerging from the chest and the back of the bearded human headed bird. In a Linear style seal from Trench III from Konar Sandal South a female whose hair falls down her back in identical curls (fig. 27) sits facing an interlocutor. While a second fragmentary example (fig. 28) shows the same set of curls on a missing figure.

Fig. 25 – Lapis lazuli disk carved on both sides. Lion headed bird with curled up wings and tail feathers. From Tôd, Montu temple, Egypt. Cairo JE 66485. Adapted from Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008, p. 68, fig. 26.

Fig. 26 – Drawing of cylinder seal. Grain goddess on top of addorsed horned quadrupeds and a bull man emerging from between two human headed bird demons. Gold, hollow. Height 2.21 cm. Al Sabah Collection. LNS 4517.1. Drawing by author after photos in Goldstein 2013, p. 47, no. 12.

59.

Porada 1982.

60.

Goldstein 2013, p. 47, no. 12.

61.

Pittman 2008; Pittman 2012.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

Fig. 27 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal. Female with large curls sits facing right toward a tree (?) and star. In front of her is a male figure with long hair and a male with a large cap. Linear Style. Height 2.3 cm. Konar Sandal South, Trench 3. Drawing by author.

Fig. 28 – Drawing of fragmentary ancient impression of a cylinder seal. Small figures in between the horns of a cervid and the back of a seated female with huge curls. Height 2.3 cm. Konar Sandal South, Trench 5. 154V402. Drawing by author.

Discussion The detailed analysis presented above is intended to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the extraordinary seal found in a grave in Gonur was manufactured in the region of Kerman, and was subsequently exported to Gonur. It can be combined then with three other cylinder seals found in Gonur that were imported from Kerman, along with the Old Akkadian cylinder seal from Mesopotamia and the stamp seal from the Indus Valley. Together these examples of glyptic art serve as tangible proof for the interaction between the Oxus and Kerman as well as with actors on the peripheries to the west and the east during the last quarter of the third millennium BC. I conclude this discussion with an exploration of the implications for the relationship between Kerman and the Oxus that can follow from this fact. Let me begin by considering again Francfort’s conclusion and reflecting on what it would mean if Francfort were correct and the seal was actually produced in Gonur. The first thing that we must query is why would a citizen of Gonur commission a seal that was entirely Kermani in iconography and style but was meant to be used as a token of identity in the Oxus civilization? As mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, there is very little evidence for the use of seals in an administration context at Gonur or even more broadly in Central Asia. Apart from the ten seal impressed container sealings and tags found in a somewhat later context in North Gonur  62, whatever administration existed at Gonur did not require the impressing of seals on clay closing devices or documents. Francfort concurs and agrees

62.

Sarianidi 1998.

283

284

Holly Pittman

with Sarianidi that seals in the Oxus had an amuletic rather than administrative function. Another possibility of course is that the denizen of Gonur who commissioned the seal intended to use it outside of the Oxus perhaps in the interregional trading network which certainly included interaction with Kerman. If this were the case, why identify with strictly Kermani iconography and style? When thinking about the place of seals in Early Bronze Age Iran, it is necessary to consider the relationship of seal type (i.e. morphology, style and iconography) to its owner, the actor who used the seal to denote membership in a particular administrative community. Unlike bodies of impressions of comparable size found anywhere else in either Bronze Age Iran or Mesopotamia, what is remarkable about the corpus from Konar Sandal South is its variety. There is nothing coherent or continuous about the range of seals found and used administratively together at Konar Sandal South. Within a single archaeological context, highly distinctive seal types were found. In previous publications, I have presented the different seal types found at Konar Sandal South. Following my model  63, each distinct seal type can be associated with a different community, some of which can be located while others await discovery on the Iranian Plateau. The actors in each of these communities came together at Konar Sandal South (and certainly other central sites), to engage in activities that required them to use their seals to mark the clay closing devices of small bags, boxes, baskets and the like. Because the sealings at Konar Sandal South were found together with detritus of the working of semiprecious stones in Trench V and with other administrative debris in Trench III, a good guess is that the sealings are residue of the buying, selling, exchanging of these luxury raw materials, that is some kind of merchant-like, commercial, behavior. Among the seal types that can be distinguished at Konar Sandal South are examples from Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, and from Susa. Seals with hatched borders carry a distinctive iconography loosely based on Mesopotamian or western Iranian subject matter. A Linear style which I identify as belonging to an official or elite group that was located in the Halil River Valley is known through many examples at Konar Sandal and in one example at Shahdad  64. Stamp seals, some of which are familiar from other regions, and some of which are until now entirely unique stylistically are also used to administrate transactions. Finally, the Kerman Group, which includes all of the seals found at Yahya and Shahdad, as well as many from Konar Sandal South were found in large numbers and with a wide range of iconography. Following my model, these are the seals that traders from Kerman would have used to participate in the exchanges. Returning to Francfort’s discussion of the seal from Gonur, one must conclude that the actor who commissioned the two registered seal found in the Grave of a 60 year old woman wanted to be associated at a level of semiotic relevance with the Southeastern Iran community through style, while at the same time affiliating with the community of the Oxus through iconography which has now been shown to also originate in Southeastern Iran. While not logically impossible, such a scenario is inherently inconsistent with the highly developed semiotic of glyptic art shared across the entire Middle Asian Interaction sphere. Further, as I have shown, it is not necessary to appeal to such a construct because as more evidence has become available, each of the elements that Francfort identified as uniquely Central Asian, indeed finds earlier and multiple manifestations on the Iranian Plateau, in the seals and other small finds found in or associated with the Halil River valley. Certainly as the rich corpus of Kerman continues to expand, these elements of comparison will become more numerous. Finally it is left to consider briefly the mechanism whereby this seal, and all of the other cylinders found at Gonur, were imported from outside, came to the Oxus civilization. Although small in number, they are significant because they are the only objects that can be identified with certainty as imported into this very rich and highly creative civilization. Sylvia Winkelmann has long argued for the

63.

Pittman 2018; Pittman in press.

64.

Hakemi 1997.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

Iranian origins of much of the imagery found on seals and other objects in the Oxus civilization  65. Most recently she has argued that this shared imagery reflects a shared religious ideology that was introduced by traders into Central Asia from the Iranian Plateau  66. While in general I am happy to accept this hypothesis, for me it is important to be as precise as possible when making such an argument. The danger is to fall into the construct of the “trans-elamite culture” which subsumes Kerman and the Oxus into one large cultural entity  67. Indeed when one examines the symbolic world of each region, there are considerable differences as well as similarities  68. With the evidence from Konar Sandal South it is now possible to more carefully articulate what belongs in Kerman, what was borrowed by the Oxus, and what was uniquely Oxian within the iconography. In that way we can better understand both cultures and give nuance to their complex interaction. It is clear that some of the imagery of divine figures rendered on the seals and other object from the Oxus originates on the Iranian Plateau, but much that the Plateau had to offer was not adopted and what was adopted was changed to meet the needs of a another distinct culture. What I am confident we can know is that the world of the Oxus civilization drew heavily on the imagery that originated on the Iranian Plateau, and more specifically in the region of Kerman and the Halil River Valley. We know through the work at Konar Sandal South together with the masses of looted objects that were confiscated that a local imagery began to develop in the region of Kerman at the beginning of the third millennium. By the height of the interregional exchange system, as exemplified by the Royal Cemetery of Ur, Kerman was a center of the movement of preciosities off of the Iranian Plateau delivering them to a port near the modern port of Bandar Abbas to load on to boats headed up the Persian Gulf to Susa and to Mesopotamia. This interregional trade moved commodities, but also people and ideas, including religious ideas. It was at this time that actors from Kerman would have also gone north, to centers like Gonur which is located very close to the source of gold and lapis lazuli and tin. The lack of administrative residue in the form of clay sealings at Gonur suggests, however, that such seals would not have been used as administrative tools in their new setting. That they served as amulets is certainly possible. But is it also possible that they served to identify their owner, not as a trader per se, but perhaps as an object of trade, indeed as a commodity. If that were the case, we could easily hypothesize that the woman with whom the seal under consideration was buried, was a woman of Kerman who came to the Oxus as a bride, meant to solidify relations anchored in exchange that crisscrossed the routes between Kerman and the Oxus.

References Amiet P. 1986, L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500-1700 avant J.‑C., Paris. Amiet P. 1997, “La glyptique transélamite”, in A. Caubet (ed.), De Chypre á la Bactriane, les sceaux du Proche Orient ancient, Paris, p. 119‑129. Amiet P. 2005, “Les sceaux de l’administration princière de Suse à l’époque d’Agade”, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 66, p. 1‑12. Aruz J., Benzel K. and Evans J. 2008, Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the second millennium B.C., New York-New Haven (Conn.).

65.

Winkelmann 2000.

66.

Winkelmann 2014.

67.

Amiet 1986.

68.

Francfort 1994; Francfort 1998.

285

286

Holly Pittman

Ascalone E. 2008, “Cultural Interactions among Mesopotamia, Elam, Transelam and the Indus civilization. The evidence of a cylinder-stamp seal from Jalabad (Fars) and its significance in the historical dynamics of south Eastern Iran”, in H.  Kühne, R.M.  Czichon and F.J.  Kreppner (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 1. p. 255‑275. De Cardi B. 1970, Excavations at Bampur, a third millennium settlement in Persian Baluchistan, 1966, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 51/3, New York, p. 232‑355. Delaporte H. 1920, Catalogue des cylindres, cachets, et pierres gravées de style oriental du Musée du Louvre, vol. I, Fouilles de Missions, Paris. Francfort H.‑P. 1992, “Dungeons and dragons: reflections on the system of iconography in protohistoric Bactria and Margiana”, in G.I. Possehl (ed.), South Asian Archaeology Studies, New Delhi-BombayCalcutta-Oxford, p. 179‑208. Francfort H.‑P. 1994, “The Central Asian dimension of the symbolic system in Bactria and Margiana”, Antiquity 68, p. 406‑418. Francfort H.‑P. 1998, “Les sceaux de l’Oxus, diversité de formes et variabilité de fonctions”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 5/1, p. 59‑71. Francfort H.‑P. 2010, “Birds, Snakes, Men and Deities in the Oxus Civilization. An Essay dedicated to Professor Viktor I. Sarianidi on a cylinder seal from Gonur Tepe”, in P.M. Kozhin, M.F. Kosarev, N.A. Dubova (ed.), On the track of uncovering a civilization. A volume in honor of the 80th anniversary of Victor Sarianidi, Transactions of the Margiana archaeological expedition, Saint Petersburg, p. 67‑85. Francfort H.‑P. and Tremblay X. 2010, “Marhashi et la civilization de l’Oxus”, Iranica Antiqua 45, p. 51‑224. Goldstein S. 2013, “The Bronze Age in the Ancient Near East, Art of the 4th through 2nd Millennium B.C.”, in D. Freeman (ed.), Splendors of the Ancient East, the al‑Sabah Collection, London, p. 15‑69. Hakemi A. 1997 with the collaboration of S.M.S. Sajjadi, Shahdad. Archaeological Excavation of a Bronze Age Center in Iran, Reports and Memoirs 27, Rome. Jarrige C., Jarrige J.F., Meadow R.H. and Quivon G. 1995, Mehrgarh. Field Reports 1974-1985. From Neolithic Times to the Indus Civilization. The reports of eleven seasons of excavations in Kachi district, Balochistan by the French Archaeological Mission to Pakistan, Department of Culture and Tourism Sindh, Karachi. Joshi. J.P. and Parpola A. 1987, Corpus of Indus Seals and inscriptions, vol. 1, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 86, Helsinki. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1974, “Urban Interaction on the Iranian Plateau: Excavations at Tepe Yahya 1967-1973”, Proceedings of the British Academy 59, London, p. 1‑43. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1975, “Third Millennium Modes of Exchange and Modes of Production”, in C.C.  Lamberg-Karlovsky and J.A.  Sabloff  (ed.), Ancient Civilizations and Trade, Albuquerque, p. 341‑368. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1986, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967-1975, Cambridge Mass. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 2001, “Excavations at Tepe Yahya: Reconstructing the Past”, in D. Potts and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975. The Third Millennium, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45, Cambridge, p. 269‑280. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. and Tosi M. 1973, “Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the earliest history of the Iranian Plateau”, East and West 23, p. 21‑58. Laursen S.T. 2010, “The westward transmission of Indus Valley sealing technology: origin and development of the ‘Gulf Type’ seal and other administrative technologies in Early Dilmun, c. 2100-2000 BC”, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 21, p. 1‑39. Madjidzadeh Y. 2003a, Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization, Tehran. Madjidzadeh Y. 2003b, “La première campagne de fouilles à Jiroft dans le bassin du Halil Roud”, Dossiers d’Archéologie 287, p. 64‑75.

Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau

Madjidzadeh Y. 2008, “Excavations at Konar Sandal in the Region of Jiroft in the Halil Basin: First Preliminary Report (2002-2008)”, Iran 46, p. 69‑104. Mutin B. 2013, The Proto-Elamite Settlement and its Neighbors. Tepe Yahya IVC, American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph series, Oxford (UK). Pittman H. 1984, Art of the Bronze Age. Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia and the Indus Valley, New York. Pittman H. 2001, “Glyptic Art of Period IV”, in D. Potts and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975. The Third Millennium, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45, Cambridge, p. 231‑268. Pittman H. 2002, “The ‘Jeweler’s’ Seal from Susa and the Art of Awan”, in E. Ehrenberg (ed.), Leaving no stones unturned, Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen, Winona Lake (Indiana), p. 211‑236. Pittman H. 2008, “Contribution on Glyptic Art”, in Y. Madjidzadeh (ed.), Excavations at Konar Sandal in the Region of Jiroft in the Halil Basin: First Preliminary Report (2002-2008), Iran 46, p. 95‑103. Pittman H. 2012, “Glyptic Art of Konar Sandal South, Observations on the relative and absolute chronology in the third millennium BCE”, in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh (ed.), NĀMVARNĀMEH: Papers in Honour Massoud Azarnoush, Tehran, p. 81‑96. Pittman H. 2014, “Hybrid Imagery and Cultural Identity in the Bronze Age of Exchange: Halil River Basin and Sumer meet in Margiana”, in C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (ed.), “My Life is like the Summer Rose” Maurizio tosi e l’Archeologia come modo di vivrer, Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday, BAR International Series 2690, Oxford, p. 625‑636. Pittman H. 2018, “Administrative role of Seal Imagery in the Early Bronze Age: Mesopotamian and Iranian Traders on the Plateau”, in M. Ameri, S.K. Costello, G. Jamison and S.J. Scott (ed.), Seals and sealing in the Ancient World. Case Studies from the Near East, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia, CambridgeNew York, p. 13-34. Pittman H. (in press), “Glyptic and other Arts”, in B. Helwing (ed.), Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies of the Ancient Near East. Porada E. 1964, “Problems of interpretation in a cylinder seal of the Akkad period from Iran”, Compte rendu de la 11e Rencontre asssyriologique internationale, Leiden, p. 88‑93. Porada E. 1982, “Remarks on the Tôd Treasure from Egypt”, in M.A.  Dandamayev, M.T.  Larsen and N.J. Postgate (ed.), Societies and Languages of the ancient Near East, Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster (UK), p. 285‑303. Porada E. 1993, “Seals and related objects from Early Mesopotamia and Iran”, in J.J. Curtis (ed.), Early Mesopotamia and Iran contact and conflict c. 3500-1600 BC, Proceedings of a seminar in memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin, London, p. 44‑53. Pottier M.H. 1984, Matériel Funéraire de la Bactriane Méridionale de l’âge du Bronze, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mémoire 36, Paris. Potts D.T. 2008, “Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): Reflections on Šimaški and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 98, p. 165‑194. Potts D.T. and Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 2001, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975. The Third Millennium, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45, Cambridge. Rakic Y. 2003, The contest scene in Akkadian glyptic: a study of its imagery and function within the Akkadian empire, doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (unpublished). Rakic Y. 2018, “Sealing practices in the Akkadian Period”, in M. Ameri, S.K. Costello, G. Jamison and S.J. Scott (ed.), Seals and sealing in the Ancient World. Case Studies from the Near East, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia, Cambridge-New York, p. 81-94. Reade J. 2008, “The Indus-Mesopotamia Relationship Reconsidered”, in E. Olijdam and R.H. Spoor (ed.), Intercultural Relations Between South and Soutwest Asia, Studies in Commeration of E.C.L. DuringCaspers (1943-1996), BAR International Series 1826, p. 12‑18.

287

288

Holly Pittman

Salvatori S. 2008a, “Cultural variability in the Bronze Age Oxus Civilisation and its Relations with the Surrounding regions of Central Asia and Iran”, in S. Salvatori, M. Tosi and B. Cerasetti (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies, BAR International Series 1806, Oxford, p. 75‑98. Salvatori S. 2008b, “A New Cylinder Seal from Ancient Margiana: cultural Exchange and Syncrestis”, in S. Salvatori, M. Tosi and B. Cerasetti (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies, BAR International Series 1806, Oxford, p. 111‑118. Salvatori S., Tosi M. and Cerasetti B. (ed.) 2008, The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methological proposals for a redefinition of the research strategies, BAR International Series 1806, Oxford. Sarianidi V.I. 1998, Myths of Ancient Bactria and Margiana on its seals and Amulets, Moscow. Sarianidi V.I. 2002, Margush. Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the old Delta of Murghab River, Ashgabat. Sarianidi V.I. 2005, Gonurdepe, Türkmenistan: City of Kings and Gods, Ashgabat. Sarianidi V.I. 2007, The Necropolis of Gonur, Athens. Stein M.A. 1937, Archaeological Reconnaissances in North-western India and South-eastern Iran, London. Steinkeller P. 1982, “The Question of Marhaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 72, p. 237‑265. Steinkeller P. 2012, “New Light on Marhashi and its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia”, in J. Giraud and G. Gernez (ed.), Aux marges de l’Archéologie orientale, hommage à Serge Cleuziou, Collection les Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès, Paris, p. 261‑274. S teinkeller P. 2014, “Marhashi and Beyond: the Jiroft Civilization in a Historical Perspective”, in C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (ed.), “My life is like the Summer Rose” Maurizio Tosi e l’Archeologia come modo di vivere, Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday, BAR International Series 2690, Oxford, p. 691‑708. Stolper M.W. 1982, “On the Dynasty of Shimashki and the Early Sukkalmahs”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 72, p. 42‑67. Tosi M. 1983, “Development, Continuity and Cultural Change”, in M. Tosi (ed.), Prehistoric Seistan, Reports and Memoirs 19, Rome, p. 127‑180. Vahdati A. and Biscione R. 2015, “Report from the Field”, 13th annual International Conference of Iranian Archaeology, March 7, Tehran. Winkelmann S. 2000, “Intercultural Relations between Iran, the Murghabo-Bactrian Archaeological complex (BMAC), Northwest India and Failaka in the Field of Seals”, East and West 50, p. 43‑95. Winkelmann S. 2014, “Trading Religions’ from Bronze Age Iran to Bactria”, in P. Wick and V. Rabens (ed.), Religions and Trade. Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West, Leiden, p. 199‑229.

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2020

Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran Sedigheh Piran The National Museum of Iran, 30th Tir St, Tehran The accidental discovery and unauthorized collections of a large number of soft stone and alabaster objects from archaeological graves in the Halil Rud region over the past fifteen years have been discussed in many scientific circles and papers. Determining the authenticity of these objects is challenging as we have no evidence of their provenance. Scientific investigations in the early years of this decade in this region, as well as the identification of objects of this type have spurred further studies of these objects. The multiplicity and diversity of functions and designs provide evidence of the different workshops and construction methods. Apart from the cultural and metaphysical beliefs behind these motifs, an enhanced understanding of the diversity of manufacturing techniques and craft traditions provides insights into the social classes who used these objects in funerary rituals. A number of these seized objects are now housed in the National Museum of Iran. In order to introduce these works to the public, the National Museum of Iran has published two catalogues, and a third is in preparation (Piran in press; Piran 2013; Piran and Hesari 2005). Three other groups of seized objects have been transferred to the museum. In this paper, I introduce these collections, compare them and consider their importance. Some shapes and motifs of these containers are familiar whereas others are new. However, despite the repeated occurrence of some of the most popular or attractive motifs and container types, most of them appear to have been introduced for the first time. Un grand nombre d’objets en pierre tendre et en albâtre des tombes archéologiques de la région d’Halil Rud de collections non autorisées ou découverts accidentellement les quinze dernières années ont été présentés dans de nombreuses manifestations scientifiques et articles. La détermination de l’authenticité de ces objets est difficile parce il n’y a pas de documentation sur leur provenance. Les recherches scientifiques de cette dernière décennie dans cette région ainsi que l’identification de vestiges de même type ont stimulé de nouvelles études sur ces objets. La multiplicité et la diversité des modèles et des utilisations de ces objets représentent la diversité des ateliers et des méthodes de fabrication. Mis à part les croyances culturelles et religieuses derrière les motifs décoratifs, une meilleure compréhension de la diversité des techniques de fabrication et des traditions artisanales nous permet de restituer les caractéristiques des classes sociales qui ont utilisé ces objets dans leurs rituels funéraires. Le musée national d’Iran rassemble un certain nombre de ces objets confisqués. Afin de présenter ces œuvres au public, le musée national d’Iran a publié deux catalogues, et un troisième est en préparation (Piran sous presse ; Piran 2013 ; Piran et Hesari 2005). Trois groupes d’objets confisqués et transférés au musée sont présentés, comparés et analysés dans cet article. Certaines formes et certains décors de ces contenants sont connus tandis que d’autres sont inédits. Cependant, malgré l’occurrence répétée de quelques types, un grand nombre des répertoires décoratifs et des types de contenants les plus prisés ou les plus recherchés, la plupart étant présentés pour la première fois, peut‑être déduits.

‫کشف ناگهانی و خروج غیر مجاز تعداد زیادی اشیاء سنگ صابونی از گورهای باستانی حاشیه هلیل‬ ‫ پیش از هر چیز به دلیل‬.‫رود در دهه گذشته موضوع بحث بسیاری از محافل و مقاالت علمی بوده است‬ ‫ اما پس از کاوش های علمی‬.‫ موضوع اصل یا تقلبی بودن آنها به چالش کشیده شد‬،‫نوع کشف این اشیاء‬ ‫ انگیزه‬،‫انجام شده در اوایل دهه اخیر در این منطقه و یافتن قطعات و یا نمونه های کامل ازاین نوع اشیاء‬ ‫ تعدد و تنوع در‬.‫کافی برای ادامه مطالعات بر روی این اشیاء و حفاری در این حوزه فرهنگی ایجاد شد‬

290

Sedigheh Piran

‫ گذشته از باورهای‬.‫شکل و نقشمایه در این اشیاء نشان دهنده تنوع در کارگاه ها و شیوه های ساخت است‬ ،‫ شناخت هر چه بیشتر از تنوع در شیوه های ساخت‬،‫فرهنگی و ماورایی نهفته در پس این نقشمایه ها‬ .‫امکان بازسازی الگوی طبقات اجتماعی سفارش دهنده این آثار را میسر می سازد‬ ‫موزه ملی ایران یکی از مکان های مرجعی است که تعداد بیشماری از این آثار به آنجا استرداد‬ ‫ موزه ملی ایران تاکنون‬،‫ در راستای معرفی این آثار‬.‫یا به صورت توقیفی منتقل شده است‬ ‫دو کاتالوگ از اشیاء استردادی منتشر کرده و یک مقاله از یک شی توقیفی در حال انتشار‬ ‫ از مجموعه اشیاء توقیفی هم که‬.)Piran in press, Piran 2013, Piran and Hesari 2005(‫است‬ ‫ برخی‬.‫ در این مقاله به معرفی و مقایسه آنها خواهم پرداخت‬،‫تاکنون در سه گروه به موزه راه یافته است‬ ‫ مشابه نمونه های است که پیش از این نیز در مجموعه های معرفی شده‬،‫از نقوش و شکل این ظروف‬ ‫ به هر روی با‬.‫مشاهده شده بود اما برخی جدید یا می توان گفت تلفیقی از آنچه تاکنون دیده شده اند است‬ ‫وجود تکرار هر یک از آن ها می توان به آماری از پرطرفدار یا مورد توجه ترین نقشمایه ها یا حتی‬ .‫شکل ظروف که تا کنون کشف و معرفی شده اند نیز دست یافت‬

Introduction The catalog of Jiroft objects compiled by Yousef Madjidzadeh has been an important reference for the contained confiscation and the evaluation of Jiroft style soft‑stone objects in Iran because it presented comparenda through which newly appearing objects could be evaluated for authenticity. In the past few years, a number of vessels and other objects have been brought to the National Museum of Iran. Some of these vessels are similar to those presented in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue and subsequent catalogue of the National Museum of Iran in terms of manufacturing technique, decorative motifs and shapes. However, some other vessels show differences in terms of material, manufacturing techniques and artistic decoration. These require close security to establish their authenticity. Since scientific exploration in the Halil Rud region has been limited, the unique nature of the restituted objects must be considered until more extensive excavations are conducted in the region. For this reason, several such unique objects are not considered in this study. The three sets of soft stone objects in the National Museum of Iran are referred to as “the Collection” in this article  1. This paper discusses soft stone (chlorite or steatite) and a few alabaster works. A fairly comprehensive classification in terms of subject and shape of objects of this stone type including the existing vessels from Jiroft has been done by Madjidzadeh  2. “Dohašia” stone originating from Marhaši, which is now called chlorite  3, has been cited as steatite, serpentine or soft‑stone in some studies  4. Philip Kohl in his comprehensive study of this type based on the excavations from Tepe Yahya collectively referred to this type as the intercultural style. He considered these to have been manufactured in southeastern Iran for a Mesopotamian market in prestige objects  5.  

The soft‑stone vessels found in the Iranian Plateau, Persian Gulf zone (South Arabia, Tarut) and Mesopotamian sites as well as Soch in Central Asia and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley are well known (fig. 1). By citing the documents and according to many researchers, there were many workshops in Kerman Province in ancient times  6. Considering the numerous Cultural-Historical

1.

I would like to acknowledge a great deal of appreciation on my own behalf to Dr Mahnaz Gorji, director, Mr Javad Nasiri, keeper, Mrs Mahboobeh Ghelichkhani head of photography section of the National Museum of Iran and Mrs Sima Kahnamooii and specially thanks to Professor Holly Pittman for editing the text in English.

2.

Madjidzadeh 2003.

3.

Steinkeller 2013, p. 10.

4.

Moorey 1994.

5.

Kohl 2004, p. 287.

6.

Kohl 2004.

Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran

sites detected from archeological survey in Halil Rud region  7 study of the similar motifs carried on numerous soft stone objects retrieved from both scientific and non-scientific excavations indicates that a number of different production techniques, artistic styles and probably different production periods are represented. According to Madjidzadeh: “Those stone vases 1. Were not fabricated in series; 2. In all probabilities they had been produced neither in one single workshop nor by one single craftsman; 3. There was not fixed rules for the workshops of the region to co‑ordinate the size or the shape of the vase with the subject of the decoration”  8. Pittman also pointed to a range of different styles in soft stone objects from Tepe Yahya, and noted that the “the workshops were not very far from each other, rather the artisans were close to each other and worked together. Considering the fact that the grave of every citizen contained one or more of such objects as burial gifts, there should have been considerable local demand for these objects of soft stone”  9. The shape of containers in the collection includes: cylindrical canister, basin, bowl, cup, jar, pyramidal container possibly for cosmetics. In addition hand bag/lock shaped weight stone is presented in alabaster. The motifs described by Madjidzadeh include, a man with his humped bulls, Palm Groves, Whorl, Matting, Braiding, Pannier, Simple wavy line, Alternative horizontal row of brick work, Scorpion and Geometric.

Fig. 1 – Map of sites that have yield “intercultural style” objects, the Jiroft site added to the map. After Aruz (ed.) 2003, p. 325, fig. 84 and Parpola 2011, p. 272, fig. 1.

7.

Madjidzadeh 2004, p. 6.

8.

Madjidzadeh 2013, p. 22.

9.

Pittman 2013, p. 36.

291

292

Sedigheh Piran

A description selected motifs A man with his humped bulls The subject of a man with his humped bulls is rendered on a cylindrical vessel previously published by Madjidzadeh  10. In the collection, the same motif is carried on a cylindrical vessel which is nearly similar to one of the samples presented in Madjidzadeh’s catalog as regards implementation style and production technique  11. The collection motif is more extended and includes two men each flanked by two humped bulls and one scorpion (fig. 2). The Madjidzadeh example carries a single human, engaging with three bulls and a scorpion. The Madjidzadeh example has a wider mouth and there are, slight differences in the implementation details of hump decorative motifs as well as woven knotted bands tied around the legs. These differences indicate that there is no standardized mass production of this motif. These two objects may have been produced in workshops following a similar artistic technique and style in the same era. The collection cylindrical bowl: H. 8.7 cm, diameter 12.4 cm. Madjidzadeh’s catalog vase with concave body shaped: H. 9 cm, diameter 19 cm.

Fig. 2 – Cylindrical vase. A Man with his humped bulls subject: H. 8.7 cm, diameter 12.4 cm.

Palm Groves The frequency of Palm groves motif among plant motifs in Madjidzadeh’s catalog was very high, consisting of 75% of the plant motifs in that collection  12. In the collection, the palm tree subject is carried on a small cylindrical container (fig. 3). It is similar to three examples of Madjidzadeh’s catalogue in terms of shape, motif and implementation but the

10.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 45‑48.

11.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 45‑46.

12.

Basafa 2007, p. 90.

Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran

containers are of different sizes  13. In the catalog of the museum, this motif is carved on two containers, one having a conical shape and the other a basin shape  14. The production technique of these containers is identical concerning the engraving technique of motifs. This group of objects may have been produced in the same workshop or in various workshops but following the same style and technique. This motif shows a wide geographic distribution, and has been found in sites within Tepe Yahya, Susa (Louvre Museum), on the Iranian Plateau, Persian Gulf island of Tarut and in Mesopotamia  15. The collection cylindrical vase: H. 8.6 cm, diameter 10.7 cm. Madjidzadeh’s catalogue cylindrical vases  16: 1. H. 5.8 cm, diameter 5.2 cm; 2. H. 11.1 cm, diameter 17 cm; 3. H. 5.5 cm, diameter 8.5 cm. The catalog of museum basin vase  17: H. 11.5 cm, diameter 24 cm.

Whorl The Whorl motif is not widespread and has been found just in a few sites, but it has been abundantly found in Halil Rud basin. In this collection, a cylindrical container carries the whorl motif (fig. 4). Four samples of this motif are found on conical, and globular jars in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  18, as well as on three comparable shaped jars in the museum’s catalog  19. This motif has been documented at several sites including Shahdad (the National Museum of Iran), Susa (Louvre Museum), Tepe Yahya and in Mesopotamia  20. Production technique of these containers and engraving technique of the designs are similar. This group of objects may have been produced in workshops with the same technique and style.

Fig. 3 – Cylindrical vase. Palm groves motif: H. 8.6 cm, diameter 10.7 cm.

Fig. 4 – Cylindrical vase. Whorl motif: H. 5.8 cm, diameter 9.3 cm.

Matting The Matting motif is carried out on two types of vessels (small basin and global jar) in the collection (fig. 5‑6). The Matting motif has been found on containers with conical (Jiroft Museum), cylindrical

13.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 110‑111.

14.

Piran 2013, p. 78‑79.

15.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, p. 55‑68.

16.

Madjidzadeh 2003 p. 111.

17.

Piran 2013, p. 78.

18.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 75, p. 117‑118.

19.

Piran 2013, p. 75; Piran and Hesari 2005, p. 43.

20.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, p. 55‑68.

293

294

Sedigheh Piran

and bowl shape and on basins and axes in the Kerman Province, and in different sites in Iran (Susa, Louvre Museum) and in Mesopotamia as well  21. An example of the matting motif is documented in Madjidzadeh’s catalog on one side of a hand bag/lock shaped weight  22. In the museum’s catalogue, small basins and small jar shaped containers carry the matting motif  23 as well as two fragments of containers from Tepe Yahya  24. The technique of manufacture of these containers and the engraving technique of the designs are quite similar. These groups of objects may have been produced in the same workshop or in different workshops following the same style and technique. Nevertheless, a conical-shaped container from Shahdad  25 carries this same design but using a different technique. Obviously, this design had been highly in demand, and could have been produced in different workshops by various masters.

Fig. 5 – Small global jar. Matting motif: H. 6.4 cm, diameter 3.4 cm.

Fig. 6 – Small basin with concave body. Matting motif: H. 4.1 cm, diameter 6.5 cm.

Braiding The Braiding motif is not as common as the other motifs. It is rendered conical vase in the collection (fig. 7). The braiding motif has been depicted on a small globular jar in combination with a cable motif in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  26, It is also seen on a small globular jar from Shahdad, excavated by M.A. Kaboli in 1977 (the National Museum of Iran). Madjidzadeh’s catalogue small globular jar: H. 8 cm, diameter 5 cm. Shahdad small globular jar (the National Museum of Iran: Museum no. 10016, field no. 1003‑4): H. 8 cm, diameter 6.1 cm.

21.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, p. 55‑68.

22.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 128.

23.

Piran 2013, p. 73.

24.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, p. 74, fig. 1E, K.

25.

Hakemi 1972, pl. XV. C.

26.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 120.

Fig. 7 – Braiding motif: H. 10.8 cm, diameter 9 cm.

Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran

Pannier There is an example of the Pannier motif on a small bowl with a wide mouth. The design extends to the bottom of the bowl (fig. 8). There is an example of similar shape and design with this container but in a larger size in Madjidzadeh’s Catalogue  27. Due to similarities, these two bowls have been probably made in the same workshop. The collection small bowl: H. 4.3 cm, diameter 8.1 cm. Madjidzadeh’s catalogue small bowl: H. 5.5 cm, diameter 9.6 cm.

Fig. 8 – Small bowl. Pannier motif: H. 4.3 cm, diameter 8.1 cm.

Simple wavy line In the collection there are two examples of open bowl scarrying a simple wavy line motif, one with two and the other with one simple wavy lines engraved under the rim (fig. 9‑10). One example of this type of bowl has been published in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  28. Pieces of rims with two or three wavy lines motif have been found in Tepe Yahya  29, an intact bowl with three simple wavy lines has been recovered from Susa (Louvre Museum) and a bowl with one simple wavy line was recovered at Shahdad (the National Museum of Iran). Production technique of these objects is quite similar due to the simplicity of the motif. The collection bowls: 1: H. 4.7 cm, diameter 7.5 cm; 2: H. 5.4 cm, diameter 6.2 cm. Madjidzadeh’s catalogue bowl: H. 5.1 cm, diameter 7.6 cm. Shahdad (the National Museum of Iran: no. 8645) bowl: H. 3.6 cm, diameter 5.5 cm.

Fig. 9 – Bowl. Simple wavy line motif: H. 4.7 cm, diameter 7.5 cm.

27.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 117.

28.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 121.

29.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988.

Fig. 10 – Bowl. Simple wavy line motif: H. 5.4 cm, diameter 6.2 cm.

295

296

Sedigheh Piran

Alternative horizontal row of brick work The motif depicting alternating horizontal rows of brick work motifs with beveled rim is one of the most popular motifs, and has been used alone or in combination with other geometric designs on various types of containers. “The frequency of this design among geometric designs in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue is approximately 20%”  30. This motif has been engraved on two containers, one a basin shaped and on a small cup shaped container among the examples in the collection (fig. 11‑12). Diversity of container shapes and their abundance indicates a high demand for this motif. There are cylindrical, conical shaped jars and pots that carry this motif in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  31 and in the museum catalogue  32. This motif shows a wide geographic distribution, and has been found in sites within Iranian Plateau like Tepe Yahya, Susa, Shahdad, Tarut in the Persian Gulf basin and in Mesopotamia  33.

Fig. 11 – Basin. Alternative horizontal row of brick work motif: H. 12.5 cm, diameter 25.4 cm.

Fig. 12 – Small cup. Alternative horizontal row of brick work motif: H. 6.4 cm, diameter 6 cm.

Scorpion The scorpion is a motif that appears on many objects either alone in the filler form or in combination with other themes. In Madjidzadeh’s catalogue, the scorpion alone has been documentated 35 times, comprising approximately 35% of that collection  34. This design has also been seen as a pervasive motif in other regions, but its use is far more prevalent in decoration of containers in the regions of Halil Rud than from other regions. It is observed as a filler on 4 occasions, on a jar and on cylindrical shaped containers alone 5 times and once in combination with another theme. There is a small vase in the collection, the body of which is covered in two horizontal registers that are separated by two horizontal strips in the form of lacy parallel lines in the middle of the body (fig. 13). We have already seen the scorpion motif as a filler on the cylindrical vessel showing the man and humped bulls (fig. 2). The manufacturing

30.

Basafa 2007, p. 88.

31.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 116.

32.

Piran 2013, p. 71‑72.

33.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, p. 55‑68.

34.

Basafa 2007, p. 95.

Fig. 13 – Small vase. Scorpion motif: H. 12.4 cm, diameter 4.5 cm.

Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran

technique and the style of the motif on this container is different to that of the bottle shaped container. Due to diversity and abundance of scorpion subject rendered using multiplicity of production techniques, artistic styles, production time and workshops is likely of this important motif.

Pyramidal container possibly for cosmetics, with geometric motif Two examples of small pyramidal containers possibly for cosmetic s carrying a geometric motif is presented in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  35. Some samples have also been recovered from Susa (Louvre Museum) and Shahdad  36. In the collection, there are 4 containers that are similar to these vessels (fig. 14a‑d). Given the similarities between the products from different regions such as Shahdad, Jiroft and Susa, the same methods seem to have been used in the production of the vessels in these workshops. The collection: 1. H. 4.3 cm, diameter 2.3 cm; 2. H. 4.5 cm, diameter 2.5 cm; 3. H. 5.3 cm, diameter 2.4 cm; 4. H. 5.1 cm, diameter 3.4 cm. Madjidzadeh’s catalogue: H. 5.6 cm, diameter 2.3 cm.

a

b

c

d

Fig. 14 – Pyramidal container possibly for cosmetic with geometric motif. a: H. 4.3 cm, diameter 2.3 cm; b: H. 4.5 cm, diameter 2.5 cm; c: H. 5.3 cm, diameter 2.4 cm; d: H. 5.1 cm, diameter 3.4 cm.

Bell-shaped bowls Undecorated small bell shaped bowl in the collection (fig. 15) is a type that is also found at Tepe Yahya  37, Shahdad  38, the Persian Gulf area and Mesopotamia  39. A few examples with raised circular base have been presented by in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  40. The Collection bowl: H.  4.4  cm, diameter 10.1 cm. Madjidzadeh bowl: 1. H. 4.2 cm, diameter 10.8 cm; 2. H. 5.8 cm, diameter 14.2 cm.

35.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 120.

36.

Hakemi 1972, pl. IX. D.

37.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988.

38.

Hakemi 1972, pl. IX. E; Hakemi 1997, p. 605.

39.

Kohl 2004, p. 285.

40.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 121.

Fig. 15 – Bell‑shaped bowl: H. 4.4 cm, diameter 10.1 cm.

297

298

Sedigheh Piran

Alabaster vessels There are three undecorated objects of alabaster in the collection. One of them is an alabaster hand bag/lock shaped weight (fig. 16), an example of which is presented in the catalogue of the museum  41. Their size is similar but not exactly the same. The collection hand bag/lock shaped weight: H. 27 cm, W. 24.6 cm. Museum hand bag/lock shaped weight: H. 24.2 cm, W. 26 cm. Another alabaster object in the collection is a cylindrical vase (fig. 17); two similar examples were published in Madjidzadeh’s catalogue  42 and one comes from Shahdad (the National Museum of Iran). The cylindrical vases have a flat rim. The collection cylindrical vase: H. 6.9 cm, diameter 6.7 cm. Madjidzadeh’s catalogue cylindrical vase: H. 12.1 cm, diameter 9.1 cm. Shahdad cylindrical vase (the National Museum of Iran, Museum no. 8865): H. 5.4 cm, diameter 6.1 cm. The third object in alabaster has the same shape and dimensions as the chlorite/steatite soft stone pyramidal container that was probably used for cosmetics (fig. 18). The object’s neck and edge are broken. A similar example of this kind of container from soft stone has been reported to come from Bacteria  43.

Fig. 16 – Alabaster hand bag/Lock shaped weight: H. 27 cm, base: 24.6 cm.

Fig. 17 – Alabaster cylindrical vase: H. 6.9 cm, diameter 6.7 cm.

Fig. 18 – Alabaster vase: H. 4.8 cm, diameter 1.6 cm.

41.

Piran 2013, p. 111.

42.

Madjidzadeh 2003, p. 144.

43.

Francfort 2013, p. 171, fig. 11.

Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran

Conclusion Studies of the works, obtained from unscientific excavations in Jiroft and the classification of their styles and production methods can be useful in the research on this topic for two reasons. First, detection of authenticity of these works will be facilitated. Second, the introduction, dissemination and exposition of all the works as Jiroft culture will be effective in study of future scientific excavations. Due to the fact that these works have been discovered by illegal excavators before extensive scientific excavations were undertaken, and the maintenance of them in museum archives is necessary. As scientific excavations proceed, these objects can be associated with close comparanda that has secure provenance data. The three collections in the National Museum of Iran also provide a variety of samples for researchers. The shape of these works represents a continuation of all the common forms in the Madjidzadeh’s catalog and the National Museum of Iran. However, the manufacture techniques and artistic styles of the motifs are sometimes different or novel while maintaining the common supernatural theme.

References Aruz J. (ed.) 2003, Art of the first cities: the third millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, New York. Basafa H. 2007, Comprehensive study of chlorite vessels of Halil Rud in the second half of the III millennium BC and compare with Neighboring region, M.S., Tarbiat Modares University (unpublished). Francfort H.P. 2013, “Black Stone and Art in Kerman and Central Asia”, in Y. Madjidzadeh and M.‑R. Miri (ed.), Archaeology of Halil Rud Basin: South East Iran, Proceedings of the second international conference of the Halil Rud Basin civilization, Jiroft 1387/2008, Tehran, p. 161‑174 (in Persian). Hakemi A. 1972, Catalogue de L’exposition LUT Shahdad “Xabis”, festival de la Culture et des Arts, Premier Symposium annuel de la recherche archéologique en Iran. Hakemi A. 1997, Archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age Center in Iran, IsMEO Reports and Memoirs 27, Rome. Kohl P.L. 2004, “Chlorite and other Stone Vessels and their Exchange on the Iranian Plateau and Beyond”, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (ed.), Persiens Antike Pracht, vol. 1, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, p. 282‑288. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1988, “The ‘Intercultural Style’ carved vessels”, Iranica Antiqua XXIII, p. 45‑95. Madjidzadeh Y. 2003, Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization, Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Tehran. Madjidzadeh Y. 2004, Excavations at Konar Sandal, Jiroft‑Halil river basin project, ICHTO, Tehran (in Persian). Madjidzadeh Y. 2013, “The recovery of a portion of the Halil basin (Jiroft) civilization cultural heritage from London”, in S. Piran (ed.), Objects from the Jiroft Treasury, Soft‑stone and Alabaster Objects (Recovered Collection) from the Halil River Basin in the National Museum of Iran, Pazineh and National Museum of Iran, Theran, p. 11‑27. Madjidzadeh Y. and Miri M.‑R. (ed.) 2013, Archaeology of Halil Rud Basin: South East Iran, Proceedings of the second international conference of the Halil Rud Basin civilization, Jiroft 1387/2008, Pishin Pajooh, Tehran. Moorey P.R.S. 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford. Parpola A. 2011, “Motifs early Iranian, Mesopotamian and Harappan art (and script) reflecting contacts and ideology”, in T. Osada and M. Witzel (ed.), Cultural Relations between the Indus and the Iranian Plateau during the Third Millennium BCE: Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanities and Nature, June 7‑8 2008, Harvard Oriental Series Opera Minora 7, Cambridge MA, p. 271‑357.

299

300

Sedigheh Piran

Piran S. (ed.) 2013, Objects from the Jiroft Treasury, Soft‑stone and Alabaster Objects (Recovered Collection) from the Halil River Basin in the National Museum of Iran, with a report by Dr Yousef Madjidzadeh, Pazineh and National Museum of Iran, Tehran. Piran S. (in press), “Steatite/Chlorite Axe from Bronze Age Civilization in Halil River Basin-Jiroft”, in S. Alibaigi, M. Miri and H. Pittman (ed.), Sepehr Majd: Essays on the Archaeology of Iranian World and Beyond in Honor of Dr. Youssef Madjidzadeh, Tehran. Piran S. and Hesari M. 2005, Cultural Around Halil Roud & Jiroft, The Catalogue of Exhibition of Selected Objects, Tehran. Pittman H. 2013, “Bronze Age Art in Iran: New Season from Konar Sandal”, in Y. Madjidzadeh and M.‑R. Miri (ed.), Archaeology of Halil Rud Basin: South East Iran, Proceedings of the second international conference of the Halil Rud Basin civilization, Jiroft 1387/2008, Tehran, p. 35‑64 (in Persian). Steinkeller P. 2013, “Marhaŝi and beyond: historical prospect of Jiroft civilization”, in Y. Madjidzadeh and M.‑R. Miri (ed.), Archaeology of Halil Rud Basin: South East Iran, Proceedings of the second international conference of the Halil Rud Basin civilization, Jiroft 1387/2008, Tehran, p. 9‑34 (in Persian).

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2019

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran Michèle Casanova Université Lumière Lyon 2, UMR 5133-Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon Precious materials are good index fossils of long and medium-distance exchange. Typologies and iconographies attest to intercultural relations between Iran, Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia and Syria and the organization of exchange and trade is widely debated. Some scholars assume that long-distance trade was managed directly by intermediaries (high officials, merchants) dispatched by the “Core” civilizations (Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia) into the territories of the “Periphery” (eastern Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Arabia) throughout the history of the Ancient Orient. Recent research on the Iranian Plateau flatly contradicts this hypothesis of relations between the so‑called “Core” and “Periphery”. The Iranian Plateau was at the crossroads of exchanges and was an incredibly active spot. The inhabitants of the Iranian Plateau participated in the first age of middle and long-distance trade. Les matériaux précieux sont d’excellents fossiles-directeurs des échanges à moyenne et longue distance. Typologies et iconographies témoignent des relations interculturelles entre l’Iran, le Pakistan, l’Inde, la Mésopotamie et la Syrie. Il y a un débat fondamental sur l’organisation des échanges et du commerce. Certains chercheurs proposent une hypothèse selon laquelle le commerce à longue distance était géré directement par des intermédiaires (hauts fonctionnaires, marchands) envoyés par les civilisations dites du “Cœur” (Égypte, Syrie, Mésopotamie) dans les territoires dits de la “Périphérie” (Iran de l’est, Afghanistan, Arabie orientale), et que cela a continué de cette façon tout au long de l’histoire de l’Orient ancien. Les recherches récentes menées sur le plateau iranien contredisent complètement ce schéma des relations entre les zones appelées “Centre” et “Périphérie”. Le plateau iranien était au carrefour des échanges et était un pôle extrêmement actif. Les peuples du plateau iranien participèrent au premier âge du commerce à moyenne et à longue distance.

‫ مطالعات گونهشناختی‬.‫سنگهای قیمتی از مواد با ارزش در تجارت با مناطق پیرامونی و دوردست بودهاند‬ ‫ میانرودان و سوریه و سازمانهای‬،‫ هند‬،‫ پاکستان‬،‫و تصویرنگاری نشان از ارتباطات میانفرهنگی میان ایران‬ ‫ برخی از صاحبنظران بر این باورند که تجارت راه دور به صورت‬.‫مبادالتی و تجارت میان آنها دارند‬ ‫ این کاالها در طول تاریخ شرق‬.‫مستقیم توسط واسطهها (صاحبمنصبان بلندپایه و تاجران) اداره میشده است‬ ،‫ افغانستان‬،‫ سوریه و میانرودان) به مناطق پیرامونی (شرق ایران‬،‫باستان توسط تمدنهای مرکزی (مصر‬ ‫ نتایج پژوهشهای اخیر در فالت ایران کامالً مغایر با فرضیۀ ارتباط میان‬.‫شرق عربستان) توزیع میشده است‬ ‫ فالت ایران نقطۀ تالقی مسیرهای تبادالتی و یک نقطۀ بسیار فعال در‬.‫"مراکز هسته" و "پیرامونی" است‬ .‫تبادل کاالها بوده که ساکنان فالت آن از آغاز در تجارت با مناطق پیرامونی و دور دست فعالیت داشتهاند‬

Introduction Precious materials are good index-fossils of long and medium distance exchange. The circulation of the materials used to manufacture objects of prestige plays an essential role in the networks of medium and long distance trade in the societies of the Near East during the Bronze Age. We can see that these objects are made in precious materials of which all are foreign to Mesopotamia. Typologies and iconographies

302

Michèle Casanova

are testifying to intercultural relations between Iran, Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia and Syria  1. We can cite the presence of the so‑called classic Harappan and etched carnelian beads characteristic from Harappan Civilization (Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, Chanhu-daro) on few necklaces associated with lapis lazuli beads carved in the typically Mesopotamian melon form which were discovered at sites like Susa (Iran), Ur (Iraq) and Mari (Syria)  2. There was an old exchange network which linked precious materials: stones like agate, carnelian, chlorite, alabaster, minerals like copper, silver and tin.  

There is a crucial debate on the organization of the trade. The trade relations included the states such as kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Syria and Elam all of whom had mastered systems of writing and thus left archives. The difficulty is compounded by the lack of textual sources in the regions from which these goods were sent, or even in the lands they transited: eastern Iran, Central Asia, the Indus Valley, and the Persian Gulf. Susa has been closely intertwined with eastern Iran and Mesopotamia. The Iranian Plateau was at the crossroads of exchanges.

The details of Exchanges and Trade: Core and Periphery? Direct control or intermediary markets? There is no question that during the third and second millennia BCE, Mesopotamia imported gold, lapis lazuli, carnelian, silver, copper, and vessels of chlorite. Lapis lazuli came from Afghanistan, silver from Anatolia and the Aegean, carnelian from Indus Valley in Pakistan and from Gujarat in India, chlorite from eastern Iran (fig. 1). These societies have bequeathed to us the absolute oldest and thus most important written sources relevant to the understanding of the emergence of historical human civilizations. The authorities in Mesopotamia were also conscious that such products reached their palaces and temples from Iran and the Persian Gulf. The trade relations included the states such as kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Syria and Elam all of whom had mastered systems of writing and thus left archives. The difficulty is compounded by the lack of textual sources in the regions from which these goods were sent, or even in the lands they transited: eastern Iran, Central Asia, the Indus Valley, and the Persian Gulf. Thus the debate is on the organization of the trade  3. We would gladly learn more about the details of how trade linked ancient civilizations of the Near East, and particularly about long distance trade in the Bronze Age. Texts have been preserved in a number of languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Ugaritic, Hittite, Egyptian) and the surviving archives of the include references to items traded over long distances where they are related to the state institutions, the temples, large landowners, merchants and craftsmen. Although some of the texts from Ebla and southern Mesopotamia mention commerce or at least commercial transactions, or items which were acquired through trade, such texts are quite rare in the third millennium. Yet we are far better off in the second, when such texts have been found from Mari, Ugarit (Syria), Ur, Larsa, and Sippar (Iraq), Kanesh (Turkey). Obviously, the materials imported from other areas testify to their arrival but it is only the texts which can provide further details, and more specifically their origin and value.  

Scholars exploring means of grasping the details of the trade do not agree on the moment at which the market gained a more important role, nor on the origins. Many scholars have sought recourse to theoretical schemes in order to better understand these economies at the dawn of Antiquity. Most of

1.

Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008; Casanova and Feldman 2014; Potts 1994.

2.

Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008; Caubet 1994.

3.

Warburton 2003b; Casanova 2006.

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran

Fig. 1 – Lapis lazuli in the ancient Near East, map: M. Casanova, DAO: H. David.

these models are the result of contemporary studies, but they do not so much attempt to draw on the ancient materials which we have just discussed, so much as to apply these theoretical models to the ancient data  4. Warburton is among those who attempt to write economic history from the sources of Egypt and the Ancient Near East, remarking that “theoretical interpretations do not exactly correspond to the image of the market known from our sources”  5. Some scholars suggested that long distance trade was managed in the 3rd millennium BCE directly by intermediaries (high officials, merchants) dispatched by the civilizations of the “Core” (Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia) into the territories of the “Periphery” (eastern Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Arabia), and that it continued in this fashion throughout the history of the Ancient Orient  6.  

Such scholars suggested that the high value goods (lapis lazuli, chlorite, calcite, metals) coming from eastern Iran and Central Asia were directly exchanged against the products of Mesopotamia and Syria (grain, meat, dried fish, textiles, wood, leather, etc.)  7. That hypothesis was founded on some allusions in mythological texts like Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta  8. The tombs found in the Royal Cemetery

4.

Warburton 2003a, p. 49, 64, 118‑120; Warburton 2014, p. 125‑127.

5.

Warburton 2005, p. 641.

6.

Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1975; Rowlands, Mogens and Kristiansen 1987; Norel 2009, p. 87‑88; Warburton 2003a, p. 118‑120.

7.

Kohl 1975; Kohl 1978; Crawford 2004, chapter 7; Gunder Frank 1993; Margueron and Pfirsch 1996, p. 95‑96.

8.

Jacobsen 1987, p. 275.

303

304

Michèle Casanova

Number Calcite

392

Limestone

176

Steatite

174

Lapis lazuli

141

Shell

130

Copper

125

Silver

82

Gold

39

Marble

19

Diorite

12

Electrum

5

Table 1 – Ur (Iraq), the Royal Cemetery, the most common materials of prestige objects (except jewelry).

at Ur include artifacts made of gold, silver, copper, lapis, carnelian, and chlorite originating from as far away as the Indus  9 (tab. 1). However, the evidence suggests that although such a pattern may have prevailed in the fourth and third millennia, but that there were real changes. The value of these materials was also doubtless at least partially influenced by the labor involved in their long route from the geological deposits to the final use in the tombs. Thus, the various markets were integrated, as silver became a medium of exchange, which allowed transactions in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia to finance acquisitions in southern Mesopotamia – of objects which ultimately came from Iran, India and Afghanistan.

 

The texts include occasional references to the places from which these exotic products were acquired (such as Elam for the tin and lapis lazuli), but virtually none about the means by which these products made their way from their places of origin far to the east. From the third millennium BCE, the texts record these various precious materials (and objects made of them) in terms of their quality, their craftsmanship, their uses, and the symbols with which they are associated were linked to their color and their magical potency  10. The archaeological material indicates that earlier the most important routes were overland across Iran, and thus the appearance of the sea‑borne route represents a radical change, one which can be linked to a vast increase in the quantities of materials traded. The texts from Mesopotamia reveal that means of supply were booty, tribute, gifts exchange, taxation and commercial transactions. The “Curse of Agade” describes the splendors of this city before its ruin, attributed to the god Enlil: Gold, silver, copper, tin, blocks of lapis lazuli, logs of cedar, etc. are among the items of plunder brought to Agade by Naram‑Sin, from the “stores of Sumer”  11. Sovereigns used gift exchange in the context of their familial and diplomatic negotiations. At the time of Zimri‑Lim of Mari, the use of the treasury to make gifts to other kings are well documented  12.  

The texts show that the rulers personally organized the supply of such goods for the palace. Thus, Zimri‑Lim, king of Mari (1775‑1760 BCE), sent his agent Yassi‑Dagan abroad with political and economic assignments, among which the sale of semi-precious stones such as rock crystal, and the purchase of lapis lazuli (or tin) in the region of Eshnunna played a primary role. He wrote back to the palace: “Concerning the rock crystal which my lord had me to take: he fixed its value in silver saying, “The value of this rock crystal could be significantly higher than that I fix, but certainly not less.”…. Now,

   9.

Casanova 2013; Casanova 2014.

10.

Joannès 1991; Michel 1996.

11.

Jacobsen 1987, p. 362.

12.

Durand 2000, p. 15.

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran

I will sell this rock crystal, as instructed in my lord’s letter, and purchase tin or lapis lazuli for my lord, depending upon what I see.”  13.

Zimri‑Lim also orders a general, Zimri‑Addu campaigning in the region of Larsa, to acquire lapis lazuli: “Look around, and buy lapis lazuli – whether a necklace of lapis lazuli, or even just raw pieces – using money from a money-lender, and I will have the money of its price sent from here.” (…) “The entire land of Larsa is deprived of sleep; fear has struck them all, and they neglect all their obligations… It is not just that there is no one who can be found to lend money to (purchase) lapis lazuli, (but) who would sell lapis lazuli? As my lord wrote that I should ask Išar‑Lim for lapis lazuli, I asked Išar‑Lim, but he answered, ‘No one is coming from Susa, and [there is no] lapis lazuli […]’ ”  14.

However, the general found none, because – the links with Susa being cut – lapis lazuli was not reaching Larsa, then occupied by the Babylonians. This demonstrates that Susa was a key place at the crossroads of the networks of exchanges. Does this mean that Mesopotamia had a direct control over Trade? We could assume that the institutions of the palaces and temples did not exercise control over long distance trade. Rather than assuming any kind of direct contacts between emissaries of Mesopotamian cities and the foreign lands of eastern Iran and Central Asia far to the east, the trade networks (and the markets with which they were linked) would thus appear to have formed a series of stations and thus intermediary markets between the different civilizations.  

In fact, third millennium sites such as Shahr‑i Sokhta, Shahdad (Iran), Sarazm (Tajikistan), Mundigak (Afghanistan) are themselves at once major centers where lapis lazuli was imported from the deposits in Afghanistan, but they were also stations where the blue stone was transformed into prestige objects and exported to Susa in western Iran. The preeminence of lapis lazuli makes it an ideal material to track the Middle and Long distance trade in the Ancient Near East (tab. 2‑3). Originating in northeast Afghanistan, it travelled in Iran before reaching Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. Cities such as Ur, Uruk (both in Iraq), Mari, Ebla (both in Syria) were also centers playing a central role in the circulation of lapis lazuli in Mesopotamia and Syria, sending it on to the Levant and Egypt, where local craftsmen would transform the exotic stone into objects suited to local tastes  15. The written sources found at Mari (Syria) reveal a commercial value with prices regulated by the rules of the markets. This value is reflected in an account dating to the reign of Zimri‑Lim (18th century) where 23 shekels of lapis lazuli were worth twice that in silver. Lapis lazuli and tin could be traded together, either directly in Elam (at Susa) or by intermediaries at Eshnunna, Larsa or Ur  16. Number of objects

Neolithic

Chalcolithic

Bronze Age

Total

Beads

4

903

31489

32396

Inlays

 

17

5007

5024

Glyptic

 

3

208

211

Objects

1

2

78

81

Fabrication

 

903

1483

2386

Total

5

1828

38309

40142

Table 2 – Lapis lazuli in the Near East by category and by period.

13.

Michel 1999, p. 416, n. 93, ARMT XXV 154 & ARMT XXV 118. English translation by David Warburton.

14.

Michel 1999, p. 413‑414, 423. English translation by David Warburton.

15.

Casanova 2013; Warburton 2014, p. 129‑130.

16.

Michel 1999, p. 416; Joannès 1991.

305

306

Michèle Casanova

Number of objects

Mesopotamia, Syria

Iran

Central Asia, Pakistan

Eastern Arabia

Total

Beads

30002

1382

1004

8

32396

Inlays

4840

183

 

1

5024

Glyptic

197

10

4

 

211

Objects

72

5

2

2

81

Fabrication

76

1582

728

 

2386

Total

35187

3206

1738

11

40142

Table 3 – Lapis lazuli in the Near East by category and by area.

 

The building blocks for ordinary markets were gradually put in place in the course of the third millennium in cities such as Susa (Iran), Dilmun (Bahrain), Mari and Ebla (Syria), Ur (Iraq).

The Iranian Plateau was at the crossroads of exchanges Recent researches in the Iranian Plateau flatly contradict that picture of the relations between so‑called “Core” and “Periphery”  17. We would gladly learn more about the details of how trade linked these ancient civilizations, and particularly about long distance trade in the Bronze Age. Archaeological findings indicate that materials and objects originally coming from eastern Iran or Central and southern Asia reached southern Mesopotamia via land routes crossing Iran or by the maritime route passing via the Persian Gulf and thus Bahrain. Both precious materials remain quite scarce before end of the Neolithic, only becoming more common in the mid‑3rd millennium. Their appearance on archaeological sites does not really begin until the end of the Neolithic and remains limited even as late as the fifth millennium. Their distribution cannot in fact be separated from the appearance and development of states and hierarchically stratified societies at the end of the fourth millennium. They become far more abundant in the course of the Bronze Age, beginning a gradual increase in the early 3rd millennium and continue through the Iron Age  18.  

The Iranian Plateau was an incredible active spot in particular during the 3rd millennium  19. Archaeologists discovered in south Iran, Tepe Yahya and Konar Sandal, and far in southeastern the important centers of Shahr‑i Sokhta and Shahdad located on the desert margins  20. Recent surveys, soundings and excavations give the evidence that all of eastern Iran, from the neighboring of the Persian Gulf to the northern edge of the Iranian Plateau was dotted with few hundreds of small to large settlements. Almost ninety hundred Bronze Age sites have been identified during surveys in the Sistan Plain. Though located in inhospitable land, these eastern Iranian cities were close to tin, copper, chlorite and turquoise mines, and lay on the road bringing lapis lazuli to Mesopotamia and Egypt. Tappeh Hissar, Shahr‑i Sokhta and Shahdad had stone and metal workshops  21. Craftsmen created also such remarkable artifacts as metal axes. Metalworking was also very developed in the Fars and sites

17.

Sajjadi 2003; Majidzadeh 2003; Pittman 2013; Pittman 2014.

18.

Aruz 2003; Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008.

19.

Amiet 1986; Pittman 2013; Pittman 2014.

20.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1976; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973.

21.

Tosi 1974a; Tosi 1974b; Tosi and Piperno 1973; Hakemi 1997; Majidzadeh 1982; Majidzadeh 2003; Casanova 1991; Casanova 2013; Casanova and Piran 2012.

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran

such Arisman supplied other areas of the Iranian Plateau  22. The stone vessels in calcite, alabaster and chlorite manufactured at sites like Konar Sandal and Tappeh Yahya have been exported in the rich graves at Ur and Bahrain and in treasures in Mesopotamian temples and palaces. The exchanges of goods were not only oriented from east to west. There is also the evidence of intercultural relations and influences in the iconographies between the west and the east. The Oman during the Bronze Age was connected to the shore economy of Iran and, in turn, to Jiroft and the Iranian Plateau. The scatter of prestige goods (stone vessel, seals, pottery) has given the evidence of exchange networks linking southeastern Iranian and eastern Arabian settlements with those from the Indus civilization and with Mesopotamian urban centers  23. Susa was deeply involved in this process in peculiar for lapis lazuli, carnelian, alabaster, calcite and chlorite vessels and tin. In 1936, Fernand Bisson de la Roque, who was excavating the temple of the god Montu in Tôd, about thirty kilometers south of Louxor, discovered four copper caskets inscribed with the name of Amenemhet II  24. These had been buried in a sand foundation layer, under the paved ground of his father’s temple, Sesostris I (1934‑1898 BCE). The two smaller chests included silver ingots, in the form of small plates and chains, plus 153 silver cups, most of them flattened and folded, obviously not Egyptian. Some golden items complement the inventory. The two bigger chests contained fragments of raw lapis lazuli and thousands of carved pieces of the same material, namely beads, inlays, and cylinder seals, mainly coming from the Near East  25. Since the thirties, not a great deal of scholars has been investigating this fabulous gathering of artifacts since the original publications by its discoverer. The raw and unfinished pieces from the Tôd Treasure in the Louvre resembles those from the workshops in the Near East, in particular the major one from Shahr‑i Sokhta, Iran  26. The striking fact about the Tod Treasure is that its lapis lazuli assemblage (including manufacture remains, beads and inlays) displays typical features of objects from the Royal Cemetery at Ur and from Susa. For example, there is a way of shaping faceted date beads which is particular to Ur. Other beads such as faceted bicones and melon‑shaped beads were also found in the Ur Treasure at Mari. Zoomorphic amulets and pendants (frogs, eagles, flies, seated bulls) were unearthed at Mari, Tell Brak, Ur and Susa. These beads date to the second half of the third millennium BCE. The cylinder seals approximately amount to 130 pieces. There are few seals of Iranian style now in the Cairo Museum (6). They all find their typological or stylistic counterparts in southeast Iran or museum collections reputed to originate from that region, in particular with those coming from Jiroft graves. Indeed, may now assume a maximum time range of 700 years for the lapis lazuli collection, comprised between the ED III and the Isin‑Larsa Periods in Mesopotamian terms (from Dynasty IV to early Dynasty XII in Egypt, the reign of Amemhemet II being posed as a terminus ad quem)  27. This diagnosis inevitably raises the question as to when the objects reached Egypt. Were they acquired over time or were they part of a single shipping to be placed not long before they were buried?  

There are not many texts dealing with the commerce of the third millennium. But the archives of the palace at Ebla testify to the importance of fairs and markets in the 24th century BCE. During the Ur III period (at the end of the third millennium), in the absence of evidence from private archives, the Mesopotamian end of international trade would appear to have been administered by the palaces and temples. However, the roles of the Mesopotamian agents and merchants were restricted to trade in the Persian Gulf and the immediately adjacent parts of Iran until the late ED III or very early Old

22.

Helwing 2014.

23.

Cleuziou 2003, p. 114‑125; Ligabue and Salvatori 1989; Casanova 2008b; Pittman 1984.

24.

Bisson de la Roque 1937; Bisson de la Roque, Contenau and Chapouthier 1953.

25.

Pierrat‑Bonnefois 1999; Porada 1982.

26.

Casanova 2008a; Casanova 2013.

27.

Casanova 2008a; Casanova et al. 2015.

307

308

Michèle Casanova

Akkadian period. They did not as a rule reach the more distant parts of the trading network in eastern Iran and Central Asia. The archaeological evidence confirms that some of their counterparts from the Indus Civilization were likewise also active in the Persian Gulf, and the texts confirm that some were actually also active in Mesopotamia itself. Given the lack of written sources decipherable from the Indus, we cannot, however, establish the affiliations of these Indian merchants.  

From the latter part of the 3rd millennium onwards precious materials appear in texts like “The Descent of Inanna to the Netherworld”  28. The materials and the colours they represent are thus not mere illustrations or symbols, but themselves part of the foundations of social power and intellectual expression. Lapis lazuli was not only the attribute of the essential vital supernatural forces, but also the actual source of the power of the gods. The Mari texts describe the preciosities destined for the gods. Zimri‑Lim honours the gods and his hosts when he travels. The god Addu of Aleppo thus receives a dagger from Marhashi, its hilt inlaid with lapis lazuli  29. In the Near East, lapis lazuli was really the key which lay at the center of the system of ideological values, with carnelian a close second. In texts like “Descent of Inanna”  30 and “Descent of Ishtar into the Nether World”  31, lapis lazuli was incontrovertibly linked to divinity, life, royalty, power, beauty and perfection  32. It is since the second half of the third millennium and the first centuries of the second millennium, that materials such as lapis lazuli, gold, carnelian and turquoise have values specified in silver. With clearly set prices, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and gold had a value which also corresponded to their distinctive ideological and aesthetic values. What emerged was the ideological value as the instrument affirming the power of the legitimacy of the royal power. One thus sees another value appear: a commercial value with prices regulated by the rules of the markets. This type of value thus forms the kernel of the other meaning: a “precious” stone that is a rare and desired material whose value is fixed in terms of silver  33. This value is reflected in an account dating to the reign of Zimri‑Lim where 23 shekels of lapis lazuli were worth twice that in silver, or half the price of gold. Lapis lazuli and tin could be traded together, either directly in Elam (at Susa) or by intermediaries at Eshnunna, Larsa or Ur  34. Lapis lazuli is thus a remarkable testimony of a historic reality: that of the mutually reinforcing coexistence of a symbolic value which was becoming a “precious” stone in the sense of a material with a high market value.

Conclusion This set of data will be of importance to explore the trade routes and the exchange modes of goods like the lapis lazuli across the Iranian Plateau and Susa down to the Nile Valley during the Bronze Age. The people of the Iranian Plateau participated in the first age of middle and long distance trade. The sites were at the crossroads between the Indus Valley, Central Asia and Elam. Sites such as Shahr‑i Sokhta, Shahdad, Tappeh Hisar (Iran) would appear to have been at once importers of lapis lazuli (where they adapted their work to match the local demand) and the exporters of the blue stone to Elam. Sites such as Susa (Iran) would appear to have been among those market places where one went to buy goods, along with Dilmun (Bahrain), Ur, Eshnunna and Assur (Iraq), Mari, and Emar (Syria). These sites would must have formed a series of intermediary markets between the different

28.

Jacobsen 1987, p. 205; Speiser 1969, p. 106.

29.

Michel 1999, p. 416, n. 93, ARMT XXV 154 & ARMT XXV 118.

30.

Kramer 1969, p. 53.

31.

Speiser 1969, p. 106.

32.

André-Salvini 1999.

33.

Michel 1999, p. 407, 413‑414, 421, 423; Birot 1960, p. 209, 310‑311; Warburton 2014, p. 128‑129.

34.

Michel 1996; Michel 1999; Joannès 1991; Casanova 2006.

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran

centers of civilization. These goods travelled along routes, and their arrival in the centers is to be accounted for in this fashion rather than assuming that their arrival will have been a result of direct contacts between emissaries from Syria or Mesopotamia and those places from eastern Iran and Central Asia which were the masters of the zones whence originated the highly prized treasures. The Iranian Plateau was a major trade zone.

References Amiet P. 1986, L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500‑1700 avant J.‑C., Notes et Documents des Musées de France 11, Paris. André-Salvini B. 1999, “L’idéologie des pierres en Mésopotamie”, in A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris, p. 373‑400. Aruz J. (ed.) 2003, Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, New York. Aruz J., Benzel K. and Evans J.M. (ed.) 2008, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in The Second Millennium B.C., New York. Birot M. 1960, Textes administratifs de la salle 5 du palais, Archives Royales de Mari IX, Paris. Bisson de la Roque F. 1937, Tôd, Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 17, Cairo. Bisson de la Roque F., Contenau G. and Chapouthier F. 1953, Le Trésor de Tôd, Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire XI, Cairo. Casanova M. 1991, La vaisselle d’albâtre de Mésopotamie, d’Iran et d’Asie centrale aux IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.‑C., Paris. Casanova M. 2006, “L’émergence du marché au Proche Orient ancien (IVe‑IIe millénaires av. J.‑C.)”, La Pensée 347, p. 19‑31. Casanova M. 2008a, “Lapis lazuli from Tod Treasure, Egypt”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans (ed.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in The Second Millenium B.C., New York, p. 102‑103. Casanova M. 2008b, “Prestige objects in soft and fine stone in the Ancient Near East: manufacture, function, distribution, value”, in Y. Madjidzadeh (ed.), First International Conference of Archaeological Research in Jiroft: The Halil Basin Civilization, Jiroft, Kerman (in Persian). Casanova M. 2013, Le lapis‑lazuli dans l’Orient ancien. Production et circulation, du Néolithique au IIe millénaire av. J.‑C., CTHS, Documents Préhistoriques 27, Paris. Casanova M. 2014, “Luxuries of Precious Materials, The Royal Cemetery of Ur (Iraq) and the Lapis Lazuli, Witnesses of Intercultural Relations in the Near East”, in M. Casanova and M. Feldman (ed.), Les produits de luxe au Proche‑Orient ancien aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Collection Travaux de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 19, Paris, p. 31‑44. Casanova M. and Feldman M. (ed.) 2014, Les produits de luxe au Proche‑Orient ancien, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Travaux de la Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 19, Paris. Casanova M., Pierrat-Bonnefois G., Quenet P., Danrey V. and Lacambre D. 2015, “Lapis lazuli in the Tod Treasure: a new investigation”, in P. Kousoulis and N. Lazaridis (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22‑29 May 2008, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 241/II, Leuven-Paris-Bristol, p. 1620‑1640. Casanova M. and Piran S. 2012, “Stone Vessels from Tepe Hissar: Manufacture, Typology, Distribution, 4th‑2nd Millennia B.C.”, in H. Fahimi and M. Mashkour (ed.), Volume dedicated to Dr Massoud Azarnoush, Tehran, p. 95‑106. Caubet A. (ed.) 1994, La cité royale de Suse. Trésors du Proche‑Orient ancien au Louvre, Paris. Cleuziou S. 2003, “Jiroft et Tarut sur la côte orientale de la péninsule arabique”, Les dossiers d’Archéologie 287 (décembre), p. 114‑125.

309

310

Michèle Casanova

Crawford H. 2004, Sumer and the Sumerians (2e ed.), Cambridge. Durand J.‑M. 2000, Les documents épistolaires du Palais de Mari, vol. III, LAPO, Paris. Gunder Frank A. 1993, “Bronze Age World System Cycles”, Current Anthropology 34/4, p. 383‑405. Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Centro Scavi i Ricerche archeologiche, Reports and Memoirs XXVII, IsMEO, Rome‑Oxford (translated and edited by S.M.S. Sajjadi). Helwing B. 2014, “Trade in Metals in Iran and the neighboring areas, A reflection based on results of the excavations at Arisman (Iran)”, in M.  Casanova and M.  Feldman  (ed.), Les produits de luxe au Proche‑Orient ancien, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Travaux de la Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 19, p. 73‑84. Jacobsen T. 1987, THE HARPS THAT ONCE…Sumerian Poetry in Translation, New Haven-London. Joannès F. 1991, “L’étain, de l’Élam à Mari”, Compte-Rendu de la 36e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, p. 67‑76. Kohl P.‑L. 1975, “Carved Chlorite Vessels, a Trade in Finished Commodities in the mid‑Third Millenium”, Expedition 18/1, p. 18‑31. Kohl P.‑L. 1978, “The Balance Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Third Millenium”, Current Anthropology 19/3, p. 463‑492. Kramer S.N. 1969, “Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World”, in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, p. 53‑54. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1976, “Foreign relations in the third millennium at Tepe Yahya”, in J. Deshaye (ed.), Le plateau iranien des origines à la conquête islamique, Paris, p. 33‑43. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. and Sabloff J.A. (ed.) 1975, Ancient Civilization and Trade, Albuquerque. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. and Tosi M. 1973, “Shahr‑i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau”, East and West 23/1‑2, p. 21‑57. Ligabue G. and Salvatori S. (ed.) 1989, Bactria. An ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan, Studies and documents III, Venezia. Majidzadeh Y. 1982, “Lapis lazuli and the Great Khorasan Road”, Paléorient 8/1, p. 59‑69. Majidzadeh Y. 2003, Jiroft. The Earliest Oriental Civilization, ICHTO, Tehran. Margueron J. and Pfirsch L. 1996, Le Proche‑Orient et l’Égypte antiques, Paris. Michel C. 1996, “Le commerce dans les textes de Mari”, in J.‑M. Durand (ed.), Amurru 1, Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites, dix ans de travaux, Paris, p. 385‑426. Michel C. 1999, “Les joyaux des rois de Mari”, in A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris, p. 401‑432. Norel P. 2009, L’histoire économique globale, Paris. Pierrat-Bonnefois G. 1999, “La part du lapis‑lazuli dans l’étude du trésor de Tôd”, Actes du colloque Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, Paris. Pittman H. 1984, Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley, New York. Pittman H. 2013, “Eastern Iran in the Early Bronze Age”, in D. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford, p. 304‑324. Pittman H. 2014, “Hybrid Imagery and Cultural Identity in the Bronze Age of Exchange: Halil River Basin and Sumer meet”, in C.C. Lamberg Karlovsky, B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (ed.), Margiana, My Life is like the Summer Rose. Papers in honor for Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday, BAR International Series 2690, Oxford, p. 625‑636. Porada E. 1982, “Remarks on the Tôd Treasure in Egypt”, Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster.

Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran

Potts T.F. 1994, Mesopotamia and the East. An Archeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400‑2000 B.C., Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 37, Oxford. Rowlands M., Mogens L. and Kristiansen K. 1987, Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge. Sajjadi S.M.S. 2003, “Excavations at Shahr i Sokhta”, Iran 41, p. 21‑97. Speiser E.A. 1969, “Descent of Ishtar to the Nether World”, in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, p. 106‑109. Tosi M. 1974a, “The lapis‑lazuli trade accross the Iranian Plateau in the 3rd Millenium BC”, in Gururajamanjarika. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci, vol. 1, Naples, p. 3‑22. Tosi M. 1974b, “The problem of Turquoise in Protohistoric Trade on the Iranian Plateau”, Memoire dell’Institute di Paleontologia Umana II, p. 147‑162. Tosi M. and Piperno M. 1973, “Lithic Technology behind the Ancient Lapis Lazuli Trade”, Expedition 16/1, p. 1523. Warburton D.A. 2003a, Macroeconomics from the Beginning: The General Theory, Ancient Markets, and the Rate of Interest, Civilisations du Proche‑Orient, Série IV, Histoire – Essais 2, Neuchâtel-Paris. Warburton D.A. 2003b, “Les valeurs commerciales et idéologiques au Proche‑Orient ancien”, La Pensée 336 (décembre), p. 101‑112. Warburton D.A. 2005, “Le marché en Égypte ancienne à l’âge du Bronze (2500‑1200 av.  J.‑C.)”, in G. Bensimon (ed.), Histoire des représentations du marché, Paris, p. 631‑651. Warburton D.A. 2014, “Theoretical Aspects of Bronze Age Exchange: Values and Prices”, in M. Casanova and M. Feldman (ed.), Les produits de luxe au Proche-Orient, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer, Paris, p. 125‑134.

311

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2019

The biography of a dagger type The diachronic transformation of the daggers with the crescent-shaped guard Babak Rafiei-Alavi Department of Archaeology, Art University of Isfahan

The dagger itself is after something else. It is more than a thing of metal. Men dreamed it up and fashioned it for a very precise purpose. J.L. Borges, “The Dagger”, Selected Poems, Penguin Books

The crescent-shaped guard daggers are known in Iran from the middle of the 2nd millennium to the first centuries of the 1st millennium BC. They first appeared in the mid-2nd millennium and were mostly discovered from the Elamite sites in the Khuzestan Plain. Their presence continued through the last quarter of the 2nd millennium and expanded over a wide geographical area, from North and Northwest of Iranian Plateau to the south of Persian Gulf. By the first centuries of the 1st millennium, the geographical extent of the daggers was again limited, this time mostly to the Northwest Iran. The guard in these daggers alternate between a functional and non-functional attribute through the time. In the first phase, it had a functional role that changed to a decorative one in the second phase, and with the gradual development of iron blade in the third phase, the guard transformed back to its functional trait. Regarding the crescent-shaped guard as a technological style that reflects both the technological changes and cultural traditions, this article not only attempts to understand the temporal and spatial distribution of the daggers and what it may convey, but also to examine social aspects of the style such as imitation, communication and social boundaries. Les poignards à manche en forme de croissant sont connus en Iran à partir du milieu du IIe millénaire jusqu’aux premiers siècles du Ier millénaire av. J.-C. Ils apparaissent tout d’abord dans des sites élamites de la plaine du Khuzestan. Ils sont présents pendant tout le dernier quart du IIe millénaire et connaissent une expansion à travers une vaste aire géographique, du nord et nord-ouest du Plateau iranien jusqu’au sud du golfe Persique. Au début du Ier millénaire, leur extension géographique diminue et se limite, cette fois-ci, au nord-ouest de l’Iran. Le manche de ces poignards est au cours du temps un attribut alternativement fonctionnel et non fonctionnel. Son rôle fonctionnel dans la première phase se transforme en rôle décoratif dans la seconde phase, et, avec le développement graduel d’une lame en fer dans la troisième phase, le manche retrouve une fonction utilitaire. En considérant le manche en forme de croissant comme un style technologique qui reflète à la fois les changements technologiques et les traditions culturelles, cet article tente non seulement de comprendre la distribution temporelle et spatiale de ces poignards et ce qu’elle peut révéler, mais également d’examiner les aspects sociaux du style comme imitation, communication et démarcation sociale.

،‫حفاظ هاللی‌شکل گونه‌ای از خنجر و تغییر کارکردی آن در طول زمان‬ ‫ی کوشد تا با تمرکز بر‬ ‌ ‫این نوشتار م‬ ِ ‫ قدیمی‌ترین نمون ‌ه های این گونه اغلب‬.‫تصویری جامع از حضور این گونه خنجرها و تغییرات آنها ارائه دهد‬ ‫ با ورود به نیمه پایانی‬.‫متعلق به نیمۀ اول دورۀ عیالم میانه هستند که بیشتر از دشت خوزستان یافت شده‌اند‬ ‫ بر تعداد این خنجرها افزوده شده و‬،‫حفاظ هاللی‌شکل‬ ‫ با ظهور تغییراتی در شکل و کاربرد‬،‫م‬.‫هزارۀ دوم پ‬ ِ

314

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

‫ در آخرین دورۀ حضور خود در سد‌ه های نخستین‬،‫ این گونه‬.‫درغرب و شمال فالت ایران گسترش می‌یابند‬ ‌‫حفاظ هاللی‬ ‫ دوباره تغییراتی را در کاربری‬،‫ و همزمان با استفاده از فلز آهن در ساخت تیغه‬.‫م‬.‫هزارۀ اول پ‬ ِ ‫‌شکل این خنجرها پرداخته‬ ‫ این نوشتار به بررسی دالیل تغییر در کاربری بخش هاللی‬.‫شکل خود پیدا می‌کند‬ ِ ‫ همچنین گسترش‬.‫و کوشیده است تا این تغییرات را با تکیه بر مفهوم َسبک و رابطۀ آن با کارکرد توضیح دهد‬ .‫زمانی و مکانی این گونه مورد بحث قرار گرفته و تالش شده تا الگویی معنا‌دار از پراکنش آنها ترسیم شود‬

Short introduction There is a type of dagger and in some cases sword which is named after its guard, known as the dagger with a crescent-shaped or penannular guard. The focus of this article is on the biography of this dagger through time and the transformation of its shape and specially its guard as a stylistic attribute. In the Late Bronze Age (hereafter LBA: 1600-1300 BC), the guard has a functional role, it is part of the hilt and holds the blade. In the Iron Age I (hereafter IA: 1300-1000 BC) the functional guard was in several cases changed to a non-functional and ornamental unit. With the gradual development of iron blades in the Iron Age II (hereafter IA II: 1000-800 BC), this non-functional attribute was mostly transformed back to its functional trait. Up to now, these daggers have been found mainly in the western and northern part of the Iranian Plateau, together they form a sloping horizon as they have a meaningful relationship with each other in both, synchronic and diachronic ways. This article attempts to investigate these changes from the LBA to the IA II by examining new archaeological finds and applying a new theoretical framework.

Opening Daggers and swords are good candidates in material culture studies for investigating concepts such as technological transformation, social boundaries and long-distance contacts over time and space. They have a complex technology; they are composed of different parts which should be joined efficiently, and like cars, they should be both applicable and attractive. As an extension of our hand, they develop our abilities and may have different levels of function from household utensils to tools and weapons, and different levels of meaning from prestige goods to symbols of wealth and power. The main focus in this paper is on daggers with a particular form of guard. In a dagger, the guard performs a pivotal role; it attaches the two main components of a dagger, namely hilt and blade, and serves as a connector for two separate parts with different functions. Daggers to some extent resemble the tripartite form of our bodies and represent a kind of anthropomorphism; pommel and grip as the head and neck, the guard as the upper body sometimes with two outspread hands, and the blade as feet. We use this tripartite form in the creation of many tools and objects, because this structure, head-body‑feet, seems to be deeply rooted in our minds. Regardless of the functional role of the guard, a dagger or sword without a guard seems aesthetically imperfect. A sword, in its purely abstract form, consists of a simple vertical line with a short horizontal crossed line as a guard. It is the guard that transforms this simple line to a sword. The guard distinguishes the hilt from the blade and gives the line an iconic meaning as a sword. Given its vital role in the construction of daggers, the guard is a suitable unit in the classification of group of metal objects, and it is an appropriate attribute to convey a stylistic message, as is the case of the daggers with crescent-shaped guards which will be discussed in this paper.

Evidences In the following sections I will investigate the daggers with crescent-shaped guard and the transformation of the guards within their archaeological context from the LBA to the IA I and II in the western and northern part of the Iranian Plateau. After that, the reason and meaning of this transformation will be discussed. It should be noted that there are many daggers with this kind of

The biography of a dagger type

guard in museums and collections, but in this paper I am going to consider only those daggers which have a definite archaeological context.

Late Bronze Age: The first examples with functional guard The earliest examples of this kind of dagger appeared in the south-western and western part of the Iranian Plateau in the last centuries of the LBA (fig. 4). There are nine of these early examples from the Middle Elamite city of Haft Tappeh (1500-1300 BC), the biggest collection during this period, and in contrast to other examples, they have been found in residential layers, mostly belong to 14th century BC (Bauschicht III)  1, and not in graves. The blade and hilt of all nine examples have been moulded separately and then joined together (fig. 1‑3). These daggers can be classified in three subtypes (fig. 3): The first subtype consists of four daggers with flanged hilt: two of them are inlaid  2, one with rivet holes  3 and one with a simple hilt  4. The second subtype is made up of daggers with a tubular hilt encompassing the tang of the blade. Four daggers belong to this subtype: the first one has a complete blade with grid-shaped tubular hilt  5; the blade of the second one has been re-sharpened  6; the third example was found without blade  7; of the last one which was found in the seventies we only have a photo  8. The third subtype is a dagger with a rod-shaped hilt of which only one example has been found in Haft Tappeh  9.  

The hilt in the daggers with tubular hilt (subtype 2) is composed of different component parts. Different pieces of the hilt have been found that show how these parts were each moulded as a separate unit before they were connected. Obviously the guard has a functional role (fig. 2)  10. And obviously, at least, this subtype of daggers was manufactured in Haft Tappeh. The guard of the other two subtypes are also functional with the crescent-shaped guard holding the blade. An X-ray photo from the dagger of subtype 3 clearly confirms this assumption (fig. 1).  

Apart from the Haft Tappeh examples, we know of only five more daggers that could be dated in the LBA (fig. 3). One of them with crescent guard and tubular hilt was found in Susa in the Khuzestan plain  11. Based on the published photo which shows a heavier corrosion in the blade, it seems that the blade and the hilt were made from different copper alloy. We may conclude that hilt and blade were manufactured separately. The second dagger comes from a grave in Bad Hora in the Asadabad plain  12 that, based on the painted pottery in the grave, was dated around 1600 BC. Contenau and Ghirshman excavated Bad Hora in 1934 for just one or two weeks without sufficient documentation. The form and manufacturing

   1.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2014, tab. 5.

   2.

Negahban 1991, pl. 31, no. 214; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2012, pl. 33, no. 10.

   3.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2010, pl. 6, no. 5; pl. 52, no. 3.

   4.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2012, pl. 33, no. 12.

   5.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2012, pl. 33, no. 13.

   6.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2010, pl. 35, no. 7; pl. 50, no. 5.

   7.

Rafiei-Alavi 2012, fig. 1.

   8.

Negahban 1991, pl. 31, no. 215.

   9.

Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2010, pl. 6, no. 1; pl. 52, no. 1.

10.

Rafiei-Alavi 2012.

11.

De Mecquenem 1922, pl. IV, no. 16.

12.

Contenau and Ghirshman 1935, pl. XXIV, no. 2‑3; pl. 82, tomb 1, no. 7.

315

316

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

method of this dagger are similar to the examples from Haft Tappeh; its parts were cast separately and its crescent-shaped guard has a functional role. I am therefore quite sure that this dagger cannot date earlier than 1500 BC at the very most it may be as old as Haft Tappeh examples. The third dagger was found in a grave at Godin Tepe in the Kangavar valley in the west of the Iranian Plateau  13. The Godin grave was first dated by Young to the IA I, but recently and based on the ceramics it has been dated to the LBA layers of the Godin III period. Considering the drawing and the photo, it seems that the guard had a functional role. The fourth dagger with a functional guard was discovered in a grave in Ghalekuti on the Dailaman plain in north Iran  14. The dagger has a simple hilt, and the X‑ray photo clearly shows that both the

Fig. 1 – The daggers with functional crescent guard from Haft Tappeh (©Rafiei-Alavi).

13.

Young 1969, fig. 25, no. 11; Henrickson 2011, fig. 6, no. 15.

14.

Fukai and Ikeda 1971, p. 97, pl. XXVIII, no. 3; pl. XLV, no. 35.

The biography of a dagger type

hilt and the blade were manufactured separately  15. The graves of Ghalekuti I are mostly dated to the end of the LBA, from the 15th to the 13th century BC  16. Many daggers with crescent-shaped guard from different cemeteries were retrieved in the old excavation of de Morgan in the Talesh region  17 and dated from the LBA to the IA. At least one of these daggers from the Agha Evlar cemetery can be dated in LBA. It is very similar to the Ghalekuti dagger and to the subtype 1 dagger from Haft Tappeh; its hilt and blade were made separately and the guard has a functional role; it was dated by Schaeffer from 1450 to 1350 BC  18. In the next two sections we will discuss other daggers from the Talesh region which belong to the IA I and II.

Fig. 2 – Different component parts of the tubular hilt with crescent guard from Haft Tappeh (©Rafiei-Alavi).

Fig. 3 – The daggers with crescent guard belonging to the LBA (schematic drawing by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

15.

Fukai and Ikeda 1971.

16.

Piller 2008, fig. 33.

17.

De Morgan 1905, fig. 638.

18.

Schaeffer 1948, fig. 217, no. 3.

317

318

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

Fig. 4 – The distribution of sites with crescent guard daggers in the LBA (based on “NASA visible earth” satellite picture, processed by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

As we have seen above, in all of the daggers from the LBA the blade and hilt were moulded separately. At this stage, the crescent-shaped guard has an effective functional role and holds the blade firmly to the hilt. By this method, the junction point between the blade and the hilt becomes wider and makes an ideal fulcrum point at the end of the hilt.

Iron Age I: Increase in Number and the Appearance of the Non‑Functional Guard The crescent-shaped guard daggers were widely used in the IA. Up to now, fifty-seven daggers with this kind of guard have been reported from different archaeological sites; forty-four of them can be dated to the IA I, the rest to the IA II. Thus, a tangible increase has occurred in the number of daggers in the IA I. The IA I daggers differ to some extent from the daggers in the LBA. Most of the daggers in the IA I were manufactured in one or maybe two pieces; the shape of the guard became penannular and, what is more important, in several cases the guards do not perform any functional role. Most IA I daggers come from graves in the north and northwest Iran. Marlik with eighteen has

The biography of a dagger type

the largest collection in the North, next is the Talesh region in the Northwest with thirteen daggers from six different cemeteries (fig. 9‑10). An extensive collection of crescent-shaped guard daggers in different forms has been found in seven graves at Marlik  19. The graves containing this type of dagger have recently been dated by Piller to IIb and III levels, namely from the late 12th century to 1000 BC  20; ergo, the daggers can also confidently be attributed to the IA I. In most of these daggers the guard has no functional role, and Negahban mentioned that the penannular part was cast separately on top of the blade  21. In addition, there are two unique daggers in Marlik which have the non-functional penannular attribute but in a totally different shape  22. It should be noted that there are also a few daggers in Marlik, probably with iron blades, in which the guard has a functional role and hilt and blade were cast separately (e.g. tomb 1  23). I was able to personally inspect five of the Marlik daggers in the National Museum of Iran (fig. 5). Looked at with the naked eye, it seems that the penannular guard is not part of the hilt and was separately cast on the blade, because a slit is visible between the end of the hilt and the beginning of the blade (fig. 6). The slit can only be seen in this part of the hilt where the craftsman did not try

Fig. 5 – Five daggers with penannular guard from Marlik in the National Museum of Iran (no. 14645-7645, 25217-8217, 14635-7635, 14618-7618, 25219-8219) [©Rafiei-Alavi].

19.

Six daggers in tomb 1, four in tomb 2, two in tomb 3, one in tomb 5, two in tomb 13, two in tomb 44, one in tomb 45 (Negahban 1996, fig. 31, no. 667; fig. 32, no. 718, 722‑723, 726; fig. 33, no. 729; pl. 119, no. 667, 669, 671; pl. 121, no. 712, 716, 720; Löw 1995‑1996).

20.

Piller 2008, fig. 17, 33.

21.

Negahban 1996, vol. 1, p. 262.

22.

Negahban 1996, fig. 33, no. 729 (tomb 2); fig. 31, no. 667 (tomb 45).

23.

Negahban 1996, pl. 119, no. 669, 671.

319

320

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

to cover it because it would eventually be hidden under an organic inlay which has not survived. Therefore we can safely assume that these daggers were cast in one piece consisting of blade and hilt, and that the penannular part was later cast on the dagger. It is also possible that the hilt was made first and then the blade was cast on the tang of the hilt. This manufacturing method is not common; normally it is the hilt that was cast on the tang of the blade. However, this technique is clearly visible in the golden dagger of Klardasht, which I was able to closely examine in the National Museum of Iran (fig. 7). Due to its material, the dagger has no corrosion in comparison with the Marlik daggers, and it is easy to see the junction where the hilt goes into the blade; certainly, more analyses are needed to verify such assumptions. In any case, these examples indicate that the penannular unit in these daggers is rather ornamental and not part of a hilt that would joins hilt and blade, like its prototype in the LBA.  

It seems that in some of the daggers of the six cemeteries in Talesh region  24 the penannular guard has a non-functional role as well. In most cases, these daggers Fig. 6 – Three examples of daggers with separately cast are similar in shape to the examples from penannular guard from Marlik (no. 25217-8217, 14618-7618 Marlik. Maxwell-Hyslop and Hodges and 25219-8219) [©Rafiei-Alavi]. say about a dagger from Veri in this region and about another one out of archaeological context: “we find that blade, flanged handle and pommel are a single casting, while the closed crescent has been cast on afterwards as a completely non-functional embellishment”  25. Based on their observation there is another dagger from Veri in “which the solid handle and crescent are cast-on as a single piece”  26, thus this dagger has a functional guard. The cemeteries of the Talesh region are generally dated between 1450 and 1000 BC. In my opinion and based on the new dating of the Marlik graves, except one dagger which has been mentioned before, almost none of these daggers belongs to the LBA. They must be younger than 1200 or at the very most 1300 BC meaning that they date to the IA I. Further detailed researches are necessary to determine the validity of this dating.

24.

Four daggers from Veri (De Morgan 1896, fig. 63, no. 4‑7), one from Tülü (De Morgan 1896, fig. 56, no. 10), one from Djüodjik (De Morgan 1896, fig. 62, no. 2); Two or four from Tchila Khane (De Morgan 1905, fig. 416‑417), two from Chagoula Derre (De Morgan 1905, fig. 460, 463) and one from Hassan Zamini (De Morgan 1905, fig. 541).

25.

Maxwell-Hyslop and Hodges 1964, p. 52, fig. 1, no. 5.

26.

Maxwell-Hyslop and Hodges 1964, p. 52, fig. 1, no. 4.

The biography of a dagger type

In addition to Marlik and the Talesh cemeteries, this type of dagger has been reported from other sites in the Iranian Plateau: Two daggers, one of them made of gold (fig. 7), were found in Klardasht in the North  27, and one was found in the Khurvin cemetery south of the Alborz  Mountains  28. This type of dagger is also depicted between two other daggers without crescent guard on the famous golden bowl of Hasanlu (fig. 8). Even though the bowl was discovered in IA II layers, it is most probably older and should be dated to the IA I  29.  

Interestingly, there are five more examples with maybe non-functional guard which have been reported from three different sites in the south of the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea (fig. 9): three daggers from ʼIbrī/Selme  30, one from Gebel Hafit  31 and one from Rumeilah  32. These daggers seem to be cast in one piece, and all are dated to the IA, or, as the term is in this region, “Early Iron Age”  33. Although they are slightly different with regard to shape, I think they could be included in the same category as the Iranian examples, but some of them may have been manufactured locally.

Fig. 7 – The golden dagger of Klardasht with non-functional penannular guard in the National Museum of Iran (no. 5687) [©Rafiei‑Alavi].

27.

Samadi 1959, fig. 11, 16.

28.

Vanden Berghe 1964, pl. XXXIV, no. 227.

29.

Winter 1989.

30.

Yule and Weisgerber 2001, pl. 2, no. 20‑22.

31.

Lombard 1984, fig. 2, no. 1.

32.

Lombard 1984, fig. 2, no. 2.

33.

Yule 2014, fig. 17, no. 2, 4.

321

322

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

Fig. 8 – Depiction of a dagger with crescent guard on the golden bowl of Hasanlu (schematic drawing by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

Fig. 9 – The daggers with crescent/penannular guard belonging to the IA I (schematic drawing by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

The biography of a dagger type

Fig. 10 – The distribution of sites with crescent/penannular guard daggers in the IA I (based on “NASA visible earth” satellite picture, processed by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

Iron Age II: Decrease in Number and Transformation back to the Functional Guard With the appearance of iron as a solid and strong material for weapons in the IA II, the dagger blades began to be made of iron. The daggers with crescent or penannular guard were still in use in the IA II, however their number had decreased since the IA I, and their geographic expansion is limited mostly to the northwest and west of the Iranian Plateau (fig. 11‑12). Interestingly, most of the crescent-shaped guards regained their functional role in the IA II, and like the early examples in the LBA, they hold the blade, but now mostly an iron blade. In the IA II, a new type of dagger, some with crescent-shaped guard, emerged; they are called daggers with cotton-reel pommels. Daggers with iron blade have been found at few sites in the northwest of Iran: one dagger with cotton-reel pommel and crescent-shaped guard from Chagoula Derre  34 and at

34.

De Morgan 1905, fig. 468.

323

324

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

Fig. 11 – The daggers with crescent/penannular guard belonging to the IA II (schematic drawing by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

Fig. 12 – The distribution of sites with crescent/penannular guard daggers in the IA II (based on “NASA visible earth” satellite picture, processed by B. Rafiei-Alavi).

The biography of a dagger type

least five examples with this kind of guard and some with cotton-reel pommels from Toul-e Talesh  35 in Talesh region. There are also three daggers with tubular hilt and iron blade from Hasanlu IVb with the functional guard in a slightly different shape  36. From north of the Iranian Plateau, we only know one dagger with cotton-reel pommel and iron blade, found at Ghalekuti II in the Dailaman region. In this example, both ends of the functional guard are rather blunt and not pointed  37. Three bronze daggers with tubular hilt were found in Sangtarashan in the Pish-Kuh region, dated by the excavator to the IA II  38. Even though their blades are not made of iron, it seems that the guard, like the counterparts with iron blade, has a functional role and holds the blade. It should be noted that this picture is not uniform for all IA II examples. There is a number of daggers which are dated to the IA II but still seem to have the non-functional guard, such as the two examples from Shahriyari in Northwest Iran  39.

Discussion After this introduction to the archaeological evidence, we can move on to address some of the questions relating to this type of dagger: Why was the functional role of the crescent-shaped guard in the LBA changed in some cases to a non-functional and decorative unit in the IA I, so much that the crescent-shaped part was cast separately on top of the blade as a kind of “false affordance”? And why did the guard in some of the daggers again take on the functional role in the IA II? More than half a century ago, Rachel Maxwell-Hyslop explained this phenomenon as a kind of skeuomorphism: “Influence from Crete is certainly possible and the Aegean might provide the prototypes for the skeuomorphic rendering of the penannular guards of the Talish daggers”  40. As has been shown, we can declare the Elamite daggers from the Khuzestan plain to be much more plausible candidates as prototypes for the examples from Talesh in the IA I than a possible influence from the Aegean. However, her idea about skeuomorphism has some merit and should be given consideration. Skeuomorphism has different aspects  41, but by a general definition “it is an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artefact, fashioned from the new material, but was essential to the object made from the original material”  42. The classic examples for skeuomorphism are potteries with imitated rivets that are reminiscent of similar pots made of metal. In such a case, an object from cheaper material imitates a more precious one. This kind of skeuomorphism does not seem to apply to our daggers. At least in the case of the Klardasht dagger, the object with the skeuomorphic attribute was made of gold, while the daggers with functional guard were made of bronze or copper. Another aspect of skeuomorphism is imitation of an old-fashioned ornament or technique in order to make the new object look comfortably old and familiar. Nowadays, the most familiar examples can be seen in computer software such as digital calendars that emulate the appearance of a paper desk calendar. Accordingly, it might be assumed that the non-functional penannular guard was reproduced in the IA I, because people used to manufacture daggers with the same but – at the time – functional attribute in the LBA. In other words, they continued to make them in that way because the style was too deeply ingrained to be washed away and the form acted as a storage of memory.

35.

Vahdati 2007, fig. 1, no.  1, 3‑4, 7‑8.

36.

Thornton and Pigott 2011, fig. 6, no. 22.

37.

Fukai and Ikeda 1971, pl. XLIV, no. 1.

38.

Malekzadeh 2012, ST84 E.049, ST84 E.028 and ST84 E.140.

39.

Azarnoush and Helwing 2005, fig. 40.

40.

Maxwell-Hyslop 1962, p. 127.

41.

Vickers 1998.

42.

Basalla 1988, p. 107.

325

326

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

Much as this aspect of skeuomorphism is applicable to our case, it does not yet explain the phenomenon adequately. I believe the crescent-shaped guard and its transformation should be regarded under the multidimensional concept of “style” and its relation to other concepts such as “function” and “technology”  43. I prefer to open my discussion by emphasizing the relation between culture and technology. The study of the role of style as a cultural unit in technology goes back to the pioneer work of Lechtman in 1977. She used the term “Technological Style” and concentrated on the cultural dimension of technique. What is important here is that Lechtman sees the “Technological Style” as an emic behaviour which is chosen by people, but which is also limited by the natural and technological etic  44. In our case that would mean that the use of the crescent-shaped guard for connecting the blade and hilt can be seen as an emic behaviour that chosen by artisans in the LBA, who were well aware of the technological limitations. In a series of articles, Sackett has looked at the relation between chosen style and technological limitation from another angle introducing the term “Isochrestic style”  45. Isochrestic style is a chosen way to manufacture an artefact which depends not only on the technological limitations but also on the cultural tradition  46. Sackett subsumed the Isochrestic style under the “passive style” in which the iconic information is latent and hidden in contrast to the “active style”  47. This isochrestic perspective on style was actually a response to the iconological approach which, as Sackett believed, overemphasised the intentional iconic and symbolic role of style  48. Within this framework and using the same terminology, we can consider the functional crescent-shaped guard in the LBA daggers as a sample of the “passive style” with a still hidden cultural meaning. The change to “active style” came about during the IA I when the guard lost its functionality and gained an iconic meaning. During the IA II, the “active style” seems to have shed its iconic role and the guard became again a functional part of the dagger. In order to get at the reason behind this switch between active and passive style, we need to consider the role of style in the information exchange. Style “as a strategy of information exchange” was first discussed in archaeology by Wobst  49. In this approach, style conveys a kind of non-verbal messages or signals among the members of a system who communicate with each other through the style  50. In this context, the guard of the IA I daggers, as an “active style” and with an iconic meaning, had also a specific social referent and established a kind of communication between users of the daggers. This leads us to another issue, namely, the relation between style and social boundaries  51, meanings that the communicative role of stylistic attributes can also be an indicator of group boundaries between the people who use this style and those who do not. We may see a meaningful relation between the spatial distribution of the daggers and social boundaries in Marlik with its biggest collection of crescent-shaped guard daggers in the IA I. In the Marlik cemeteries, the graves with crescent-shaped guard daggers do mostly not contain any other form of dagger (e.g. tombs 1, 2, 3 and 44). In Marlik there are also few some cylinder seals, imported from Mesopotamia and probably Elam  52, which were mostly found in these graves (e.g. tombs 1, 2 and 3). The graves with crescent guard daggers are mostly (13 out of 18 daggers) clustered on the north‑western

43.

Sackett 1973; Sackett 1977; Dunnell 1978; Dunnell 1996; Hegmon 1992; Roe 1995; Wobst 1999; Conkey 2006; Gosselain 2011.

44.

Lechtman 1977, p. 7.

45.

Sackett 1982; Sackett 1986; Sackett 1990.

46.

Sackett 1990, p. 33; Hegmon 1998, p. 267.

47.

Sackett 1990, p. 36‑37.

48.

Sackett 1990, p. 36.

49.

Wobst 1977.

50.

Wiessner 1990.

51.

Stark 1998.

52.

Piller 2008, p. 210‑211.

The biography of a dagger type

part of the hill  53. Other forms of daggers without crescent guard, on the other hand, were mostly found along with artefacts that, stylistically, could be designated as typical of Marlik and North Iran (e.g. tombs 18, 26, 27, 32, 33, 47, 52). Piller regards these differences as a sign of chronological variance between the Marlik daggers. However, based on his dating there is still considerable chronological overlap between the graves with and without crescent-shaped guard daggers  54. I think the presence of this feature on some of the daggers and its absence on others could also be seen as an example of an “emblemic style”  55, which would indicate an emic classification and group boundaries for the users  56. Furthermore, as has been mentioned before, there are special forms of crescent-shaped guard daggers  57 in Marlik, samples of “assertive style”  58, which could imply a kind of assertion of an individual identity and self-image within the group boundaries. Further researches on the distribution of this kind of daggers in the graves of the Talesh region may increase our knowledge about the issue. So far the issues discussed above have contained a hidden question: Is it possible to imagine a relation between these kinds of daggers and the Elamites as a cultural and linguistic social group? Searching for an answer to this question we need once again to view our evidence from both the spatial and the chronological perspective. Spatially, these daggers were mostly found in the western and northern parts of the Iranian Plateau where, metal artefacts show the influence of the Middle Elamite urban centres in the Khuzestan plain. Looking at our evidences through the lens of this settlement pattern we see that some of the metal artefacts like this type of dagger come mostly from the large Middle Elamite urban centres in the Khuzestan plain, whereas similar objects from the final century of the LBA and IA I, in the west and north of Iran, were mostly discovered in rich cemeteries. It could be claimed that some of these metal artefacts were manufactured in the Elamite urban centres, then the products or at least the technological knowledge and style were transported to the highlands, where they were finally buried as grave goods  59. Chronologically, except for the IA II, this type of dagger appeared during the Middle Elamite period, which is contemporaneous with the second part of the LBA and most of the IA I in the Iranian Plateau. The first examples of daggers in the LBA are mostly from Middle Elamite cities such as Haft Tappeh and Susa. At this time the functional guard takes on an “isochrestic”, “passive style” on daggers which were mainly found in their homeland in the Khuzestan plain, and when discovered out of Khuzestan they were only found in graves. In the IA I, they left their homeland in the Elamite cities, lost, in several cases, their functional guard and expanded over a wide geographical area. They were found from the north and northwest of the Iranian Plateau to south of the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea but mostly in graves and not in settlement contexts. The main part of this period covers the heyday of the Middle Elamite kingdom in Khuzestan, when the Elamites introduced their stylistic idea and material culture, including this type of dagger, to the western and northern part of the Iranian Plateau. The non-functional guard of the daggers in the IA I can be seen as having an “active” and “iconic style” through which people exchange information, communicate and set their group boundaries. Besides the iconic style, technological progress has an important role in the transformation of the crescent-shaped guard. The multistage manufacturing process of the daggers in the LBA changed widely to a single process in the IA I. A one-piece dagger was more resistant to blows and needed less energy during manufacturing, but it also required a more sophisticated technology. The smith

53.

Negahban 1996, map 5, tombs 1, 2‑3, 5.

54.

Piller 2008, fig. 17, 27‑28.

55.

Wiessner 1983, p. 257‑258.

56.

On the basis of the different dagger types in the grave site of North Iran, Haerinck also believes that “Specific dagger types do belong to specific population groups” (Haerinck 1988, p. 69).

57.

Negahban 1996, fig. 33, no. 729; fig. 31, no. 667.

58.

Wiessner 1983, p. 258.

59.

For a discussion concerning other metal artefacts, see: Rafiei-Alavi 2014.

327

328

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

should be able to create a large and complex mould to make a dagger in one casting. In this way the crescent-shaped attribute had no functional role anymore. However, it remained on the blade and in some cases was separately cast on top of the blade showing the stylistic connection to the Elamite prototypes and probably the cultural boundaries of its users. During the IA II and after the Middle Elamite period, the use of the crescent-shaped guard daggers went back and they were mostly limited to the northwest and west of Iran. In the last centuries of its existence, the guard once again performed a functional role. One of the main reasons behind this reversion is again technological progress, since using the iron blade forced the artisan to use a functional crescent guard for connecting the blade to the hilt. Moreover, it seems that after the decline of the Middle Elamite kingdom the crescent-shaped guard lost its iconic meaning and transformed back to the “passive” style. Like all cultural phenomena, this picture is not completely homogeneous, and as mentioned above there are always some exceptions. If we regard artefacts as a means of cultural performance through which information was exchanged, communication took place and visible cultural codes were manifested, then we may agree that our dagger with its guard as a stylistic unit displayed a kind of meaningful behaviour in a restricted time and space. Furthermore, the transformation of this dagger shows how concepts such as style and function are mutable through time and that the functional trait of a unit could be transformed to a non-functional one by technological changes.

Concluding remark At the end I would like to address the question of the probable meaning of the crescent-shaped guard per se. Why had this form of guard continued in use as a stylistic attribute over several centuries? Is there any symbolic meaning behind this attribute? The crescent shape is seen in various artefacts as a possible symbol of the moon god  60. However, assuming a relation between the moon god and this type of Elamite dagger is no conceivable answer. First of all, the crescent icon as the representation of the moon god has rarely been seen in the Iranian Plateau in general and in Elam in particular. Moreover, in many cases the crescent-shaped guard changed to a penannular one which cannot be regarded as representative of the moon. A look at another type of weapon may shed more light on the subject. In some axes contemporary with this type of dagger and mostly found in the same regions, the blade is springing out of a predator’s jaw, probably a lion. The crescent-shaped guard during the IA I might base on the same stylistic idea of the blade coming out through the conical teeth of a fierce animal, an idea that in our dagger was reduced and abstracted to the crescent form. The ends of the crescent or penannular guard call to mind the open mouth and the conical teeth of the lion, a possible metaphor for the sharpness and ferocity of the blade (fig. 13).

60.

Ilan 2014.

Fig. 13 – The dagger and axe from Haft Tappeh with a possible similarity in their stylistic idea.

The biography of a dagger type

Acknowledgments This paper is made possible through the support of Enki (Verein zur Förderung Archäologischer Grabungen im Vorderen Orient, Frankfurt am Main). I gratefully acknowledge the following for providing access to the metal artifacts in the National Museum of Iran: Ms. Dr Gorji the then director of Museum, Ms. Gezvani, Ms. Zehtab, Ms. Akbari and Ms. Prian.

References Azarnoush M. and Helwing B. 2005, “Recent archaeological research in Iran – Prehistory to Iron Age”, Archäeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, p. 189‑246. Basalla G. 1988, The evolution of technology, Cambridge. Conkey M.W. 2006, “Style, Design, and Function”, in C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer (ed.), Handbook of material culture, Los Angeles, p. 355‑372. Contenau G. and Ghirshman R. 1935, Fouilles du Tépé-Giyan, Près de Néhavand (1931 et 1932), Série Archéologique, tome III, Paris. De Mecquenem R. 1922, “Fouilles de Suse: Campagnes des années 1914‑1921-1922”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 19/3, p. 109‑140. De Morgan J. 1896, Mission scientifique en Perse, Recherches archéologiques, tome IV, Paris. De Morgan M. 1905, Recherches archéologiques, MDP VIII, Paris. Dunnell R.C. 1978, “Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy”, American Antiquity 43/2, p. 192‑202. Dunnell R.C. 1996, “Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy”, in M.J. O’Brien (ed.), Evolutionary archaeology, theory and application, Foundation of Archaeological Inquiry, Salt Lake City (Utah), p. 112‑122. Fukai S. and Ikeda J. 1971, Dailaman IV, The excavations at Ghalekuti II & I, 1964, The Tokyo University IraqIran Archaeology Expedition Report 12, The Institute of Oriental Culture, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo. Gosselain O.P. 2011, “Technology”, in T. Insoll (ed.), Oxford handbook of the archaeology of ritual and religion, p. 243‑260. Haerinck E. 1988, “The Iron Age in Guilan: Proposal for a chronology”, in J. Curtis (ed.), Bronzeworking centers of Western Asia c. 1000-539 B.C., London-New York, p. 63‑78. Hegmon M. 1992, “Archaeological research on style”, Annual Review of Anthropology 21, p. 517‑536. Hegmon M. 1998, “Technology, style, and social practices: Archaeological approaches”, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington-London, p. 264‑279. Henrickson R.C. 2011, “The Godin Period III Town”, in H. Gopnik and M.S. Rothman (ed.), On the High Road, The history of Godin Tepe, Iran, Toronto, p. 209‑285. Ilan D. 2014, “Iconographic representations of the Crescent in the Near East”, Paper presented at the 9th ICAANE, Basel. Lechtman H. 1977, “Style in technology – some early thoughts”, in H. Lechtman and R.S. Merrill (ed.), Material culture, styles, organization, and dynamics of technology, Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1975, St. Paul, MN, p. 3‑86. Lombard P. 1984, “Quelques éléments sur la métallurgie de lʼÂge du Fer aux Émirats Arabes Unis”, Arabie Orientale, Mésopotamie et Iran méridional de lʼÂge du Fer au début de la période islamique, ERC Mémoire 37, Paris, p. 225‑235. Löw U. 1995-1996, “Der Friedhof von Marlik – Ein Datierungsvorschlag (I)”, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 28, p. 119‑161.

329

330

Babak Rafiei-Alavi

Malekzadeh M. 2012, Semiology and iconography of Luristan bronzes based on the finds from archaeological excavations at Sangtarashan, Khorramabad, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tarbiat Modares (unpublished). Maxwell-Hyslop K.R. 1962, “Bronzes from Iran in the Collections of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London”, Iraq 24/2, p. 126‑133. Maxwell-Hyslop K.R. and Hodges W.M. 1964, “A Note on the significance of the technique of ‘Casting on’ as applied to a group of daggers from North-West Persia”, Iraq 26/1, p. 50‑53. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2010, Vorbericht der archäologischen Ausgrabungen der Kampagnen 2005-2007 in Haft Tappeh (Iran), Münster. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2012, “Vorbericht der archäologischen Ausgrabungen der Kampagnen 2008-2010 in Haft Tappeh (Iran)”, Elamica 2, p. 55‑159. Mofidi-Nasrabadi B. 2014, “Vorbericht der archäologischen Ausgrabungen der Kampagnen 2012-2013 in Haft Tappeh (Iran)”, Elamica 4, p. 67‑167. Negahban E. 1991, Excavations at Haft Tepe, Iran, University Museum Monograph 70, Philadelphia. Negahban E. 1996, Marlik the complete excavation report, vol. 1 and 2, University Museum Monograph 87, Philadelphia. Piller Ch.K. 2008, Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie der Nekropole von Marlik, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Munich. Rafiei-Alavi B. 2012, “Ein Hinweis auf die Herstellungsmethode eines Dolchtypes aus Haft Tappeh”, Elamica 2, p. 169‑175. Rafiei-Alavi B. 2014, “The relation of Khuzestan with Zagros and North/Northwest Iran during the Middle Elamite Period: The case of metal artifacts of Haft Tappeh”, Paper Presented at the 9th ICAANE, Basel (forthcoming). Roe P.G. 1995, “Style, society, myth, and structure”, in Ch. Carr and J.E. Neitzel (ed.), Style, society, and person, archaeological and ethnological perspectives, New York-London, p. 27‑76. Sackett J.R. 1973, “Style, function and artifact variability in Palaeolithic assemblages”, in C. Renfrew (ed.), The explanation of culture change: Models in Prehistory, Duckworth, p. 317‑325. Sackett J.R. 1977, “The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model”, American Antiquity  42/3, p. 369‑380. Sackett J.R. 1982, “Approaches to style in lithic archaeology”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, p. 59‑112. Sackett J.R. 1986, “Isochrestism and style: A clarification”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, p. 266‑277. Sackett J.R. 1990, “Style and ethnicity in archaeology: The case for isochrestism”, in M.W. Conkey and Ch.A. Hastorf (ed.), The use of style in archaeology, Cambridge, p. 32‑43. Samadi H. 1959, “Les découvertes fortuites”, Arts Asiatiques VI/3, p. 175‑194. Schaeffer C.F.A. 1948, Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de lʼAsie occidentale (IIIe et IIe millénaires), London. Stark M.T. 1998, “Technical choices and social boundaries in material culture patterning: An introduction”, in M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington-London, p. 1‑11. Thornton Ch. and Pigott V. 2011, “Blade-type weaponry of Hasanlu Period IVB”, in M. de Schauensee (ed.), Peoples and crafts in Period IVB at Hasanlu, Iran, University Museum Monograph 132, Philadelphia, p. 135‑182. Vahdati A. 2007, “Marlik and Toul-e Talish: A dating problem”, Iranica Antiqua 42, p. 125‑138. Vanden Berghe L. 1964, La Nécropole de Khūrvīn, Istanbul. Vickers M. 1998, Skeuomorphismus oder die Kunst, aus wenig viel zu machen, Mainz.

The biography of a dagger type

Wiessner P. 1983, “Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points”, American Antiquity 48/2, p. 253‑276. Wiessner P. 1990, “Is there a unity to style?”, in M.W. Conkey and Ch.A. Hastorf (ed.), The use of style in archaeology, Cambridge, p. 105‑121. Winter I.J. 1989, “The Hasanlu gold bowl: Thirty years later”, Expedition 31/2‑3, p. 87‑106. Wobst H.M. 1977, “Stylistic behavior and information exchange”, in Ch.E. Cleland (ed.), For the director: Research essays in honor of James B. Griffin, Ann Arbor (Michigan), p. 317‑342. Wobst H.M. 1999, “Style in archaeology or archaeologists in style”, in E.S. Chilton (ed.), Material meanings: Critical approaches to the interpretation of material culture, Salt Lake City (Utah), p. 118‑132. Young T.C. 1969, Excavations at Godin Tepe: First progress report, Toronto. Yule P. 2014, Cross-roads, Early and Late Iron Age, South-Eastern Arabia, Wiesbaden. Yule P. and Weisgerber G. 2001, The metal hoard from ʼIbrī/Selme, Sultan of Oman, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung XX, Band 7, Stuttgart.

331

THE TRANSITION TO IRON AGE

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2019

The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau Two successive cultures or the appearance of a new culture? Hamid Fahimi ADILO GmbH: Archäologische Dienstleistungen, Burgstr. 8, 92331 Parsberg In memory of the late Professor Dr Masoud Azarnoush (1945‑2008)

The transitional period between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in Iran and the conditions at the beginning of the Iron Age is one of the most widely discussed subjects in Iranian archaeology and there is still no real consensus between archaeologists and historians. In fact, the main reason underlying many archaeological activities at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century on the Iranian Plateau, especially at sites with remains from the 2nd millennium BC as well as the 1st millennium BC, was to prove and verify ethnological and philological theories concerning the appearance of a new tribe on the Iranian Plateau in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. The analysis of these theories, their foundation and the motivations of their visibility are not the aim of this paper. La période de transition entre l’âge du Bronze et l’âge du Fer en Iran et la situation au début de l’âge du Fer reste un des sujets les plus discutés en archéologie iranienne sans qu’il n’y ait de véritable consensus entre les archéologues et les historiens. En fait, les raisons et motifs principaux de nombreuses opérations archéologiques sur le Plateau iranien à la fin du xixe et au début du xxe siècle, notamment sur des sites avec des vestiges du IIe et du Ier millénaire av. J.‑C., étaient de prouver et de vérifier les théories des ethnologues et des philologues sur l’apparition d’une nouvelle tribu sur le Plateau iranien au milieu du IIe millénaire av. J.‑C. L’objectif de cet article est de présenter et d’analyser de manière objective le matériel archéologique de ces sites et de documenter leur évolution entre les deux périodes.

‫ یکی از مباحث بحث‌برانگیز‬،‫ و وضعیت آغاز دوره آهن در ایران‬،‫دوره انتقالی بین عصر مفرغ و آهن‬ ‫در باستان‌شناسی ایران محسوب می‌شوند و دراین‌باره تفاهم چندانی میان باستان‌شناسان و مورخان وجود‬ ‫ دلیل و انگیزه بسیاری از فعالیت‌های میدانی باستان‌شناختی در محوطه‌های عصرمفرغ‬،‫ در حقیقت‬.‫ندارد‬ ‫ ثابت کردن تئوری‌هایی بود‬،‫ در فاصله پایان قرن نوزدهم و آغاز قرن بیستم میالدی‬،‫و آهن فالت ایران‬ ‫که توسط نژادشناسان و زبان‌شناسان درخصوص ظهور قومی جدید در میانه هزاره دوم پیش‌ازمیالد در‬ ‫ دالیل و انگیزه‌های شکل‌گیری این نوع از فرضیه‌ها مورد نظر این‬،‫ چگونگی‬.‫فالت ایران مطرح شده بود‬ ‫ بحث و بررسی و تجزیه و تحلیل شواهد و مدارک باستان‌شناسانه‌ای‬،‫ هدف اصلی این مقاله‬.‫مقاله نیست‬ ‫است که می‌توانند در معرفی وضعیت فرهنگی و تغییر و تحوالت احتمالی فرهنگی در نیمه تا پایان هزاره‬ ‫ نتایج کاوش‌ها‬.‫دوم پیش‌ازمیالد و ارائه تصویری از دوره انتقالی مفرغ به آهن در فالت ایران موثر باشند‬ ‫و بررسی‌های باستان‌شناسی جدید و نیز بازنگری در تاریخ‌گذاری‌های قدیمی نشان می‌دهند که تئوری‌های‬ ‫ فرضیه‌های قدیمی تنها مبتنی بر تئوری مهاجرت بوده‌اند‬.‫ نیازمند بازنگری جدی هستند‬،‫گذشته و موجود‬ ‫ مقاله پیش‌رو با استناد‬.‫که امروزه با وجود فعالیت‌های میدانی باستان‌شناختی جدید چنان قابل استناد نیستند‬ ‫ در عین حال تاریخگذاری متفاوتی را برای دوره یاددشده در‬،‫به برآیند نتایج کاوش و بررسی‌های جدید‬  .‫مرکز فالت ایران ارائه می کند‬

336

Hamid Fahimi

The main issue: the Late Bronze Age The main aim of this paper is, instead, to discuss the archaeological evidence, which is invaluable for a new understanding of cultural change at the end of the 2nd millennium BC and the transitional period between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. New archaeological activities, as well as reassessment projects, could show how ethnological and philological theories can be reviewed. Older theories based only on the migration theory and its consequences need to be discussed again on the basis of archaeological evidence. This paper presents new archaeological and chronological research on this period on the Central Iranian Plateau. According to most archaeologists, the end of the Bronze Age on the Iranian Plateau, including the Central Iranian Plateau, cannot be later than the middle of the 2nd millennium BC  1. This chronology is based on dating from some important archaeological sites like Hesar  2, Giyan  3, Godin  4, Sialk  5, or Hasanlu  6, most of which were excavated during the early decades of the 20th century (fig. 1). This paper aims to discuss these two major themes: Chronology and the archaeological evidence, which can be used for comparative studies but which are always cited to differentiate between the so‑called Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures on the central Iranian Plateau. Of course, the description of the Bronze Age and its onset at the end of the 4th millennium BC is not the primary argument in this paper but for the analysis of the connection between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, it is essential break down this period, which is called the late Bronze Age. The beginning of the Late Bronze Age on the Central Iranian Plateau, corresponds to a period of the internal transformation of cultures, which were dynamic during the 3rd millennium BC on the Iranian Plateau. The cultural changes during this period are also one of the most important evolutions in the Bronze Age on the Iranian Plateau. These cultural changes do not follow the same chronology or modalities in the different regions of the Iranian Plateau. Also, from a chronological viewpoint, in some geographical regions, for example, southeast or southwest Iran, Bronze Age cultures ended at most Bronze Age sites at the end of the 3rd millennium BC or at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC  7, but the main focus of this paper will be the Central Iranian Plateau. Most chronological Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age studies of the Central Iranian Plateau are based on old excavations or comparative studies. Tepe Sialk, the most important archaeological site in this region, with a long prehistoric sequence from the Neolithic period to the late Iron Age  8, is always used as a key‑site to establish the chronology and dating of other sites, not only on the Central Iranian Plateau, but also in other regions in Iran. But the upper layers of this site have never been dated with C14 analysis. According to the Ghirshman expedition, the Sialk south mound was abandoned at the end of the 3rd millennium BC and there is thus a gap of about 900 years at this site  9. This means that there is no basis for discussing the Bronze Age culture during the so‑called “late Bronze age” at Sialk. Of course, many other scholars who excavated other sites after the Sialk

1.

For example, Hakemi 1950; Vanden Berghe 1972; Negahban 1964, p. 44; Talai 1995, p. 5; Talai 2006, p. 39.

2.

Schmidt 1937.

3.

Contenau and Ghirshman 1935, p. 80.

4.

Young and Levine 1974.

5.

Ghirshman 1939.

6.

Dyson1965; Dyson 1989a, p. 6.

7.

Caldwell 1967; Hakemi 1997; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970; Carter 1980.

8.

Ghirshman 1938; Ghirshman 1939; Malek Shahmirzadi 2002; Malek Shahmirzadi 2003; Malek Shahmirzadi 2004; Malek Shahmirzadi 2006.

9.

Ghirshman 1938.

The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau

Fig. 1 – Location of the mentioned sites (map by Hamid Fahimi).

results had been published, tried to explain and analyse their materials and the chronology of their sites based solely on Ghirshman’s theories at the Sialk south mound. But Sialk was not the only key‑site for comparative studies of the Bronze Age and Iron Age in Iran. There were also other sites, such as Hasanlu in northwest Iran, excavated by Dyson. He conducted carbon dating to establish a chronology in Hasanlu for the first time in the history of Iranian archaeology  10. According to Dyson, the Bronze Age in Hasanlu continued during the 2nd millennium BC without any gap. He believed that the Late Bronze Age ended during the 15th century BC  11. Hasanlu and its chronological table has been the sole reference for dating many other sites in the northwest and also in other regions in Iran for a long time.

10.

Dyson 1965; Dyson 1989a.

11.

Dyson 1989a, p. 6.

337

338

Hamid Fahimi

New studies and research One of the recent chronological studies is Christian Piller’s research on “Central Grey Way, as the possible pottery type for connection between Eastern and Western Grey Ware”  12. Piller omitted some new publications of archaeological activities, published almost exclusively in Persian over the past two decades, but his work is nonetheless important because he studied a large quantity of pottery sherds found by W. Kleiss from several Bronze Age and Iron Age sites in the central Plateau, especially in Qazvin plain, Tehran Plain and Qom plain, which were not studied or published by Kleiss. According to his comparative analysis, the CGW, which is mostly recognizable in the Sialk A graveyard and Sagzabad, does not date to the EIA and is not comparable to the WGW, but dates back to the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age and plays an influential role between LBA pottery types from NW‑Iran (like in Hesar and Shah Tepe) and the WGW pottery type from the Zagros area (like Godin and Giyan)  13. He also compared LBA painted ware from Sagzabad with CGW from Sialk A, especially from the point of view of forms. Later he published an article and called the CGW Local Early Grey Ware, which he used for introducing the Qeytariyeh pottery type in the northern part of the Central Iranian Plateau. He mentioned that the end of the CGW is contemporaneous with Sialk A (around 1500 BC) and can be dated to the end of the LBA, but his dating of the LBA and EIA is also based on the old studies in Sialk and also in NW‑Iran  14. One of the most important results of Piller’s study is that the CGW is older than Grey ware in North‑Central Iran, which is comparable to the NW and NE of the Plateau. This calls for further reflection on the theory, which is based on migration in the middle of the second millennium BC with a direction of movement from the north-northwest or northeast to the south and centre of the Plateau  15. A few years ago, Michael Danti began to re‑study Hasanlu materials and to re‑analyse BA and IA carbon samples from this site and also from Dinkhah Tepe  16. The earlier radiocarbon dates from Hasanlu V derive from insecure contexts. On the other hand, this period was defined on the basis of ceramics from graves at Hasanlu and Dinkhah Tepe, but was dated using radiocarbon determinations from loosely associated and unassociated occupations at both sites. According to Danti’s new table of Hasanlu’s chronology  17, Hasanlu V dates back to 1450 to 1250 BC, as the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I started uninterrupted after this period (fig. 2). Based on this new dating, the Grey Ware introduced by Dyson as a new type of pottery in the IVC period, already appeared during the Late Bronze Age. The pottery sequence table from period V and IV‑C also showed the continuity of some typical forms, for example the bowls, carinated bowls or spout jars. This type of ware is also comparable to ware from the early period V to the end of period IV‑b  18. The architectural remains of Hasanlu V and IVC also showed continuity between the so‑called “Late Bronze Age” and “Early Iron Age”  19. This revised system in Hasanlu corresponds more to the conclusion of Overlaet in Lorestan based on ceramics  20 and also to the chronological terminology in northeast Mesopotamia. On the other hand, new archaeological activities during the past 20 years have shown a new transitional period between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age during the last decades of the 2nd millennium BC.

12.

Piller 2003-2004; Piller 2004.

13.

Piller 2003-2004, p. 170.

14.

Piller 2004, p. 310.

15.

Fahimi 2013, p. 159.

16.

Danti 2008, p. 23; Danti 2013, p. 30.

17.

Danti 2013, C‑4, fig. 2, no. 4; Danti 2013, p. 30, fig. 2, no. 2.

18.

Danti 2013, p. 313, fig. 5.

19.

Dyson 1989b, p. 107.

20.

Overlaet 2003.

The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau

Fig. 2 – Radiocarbon date ranges for Hasanlū and Diīnkhāh (after Danti 2013, C‑4, fig. 2.4).

One of the examples of the new excavations on the Central Iranian Plateau has been carried out in Qoli Darvish. This site is located about 2  km southwest of the modern city of Qom, excavated by Siamak Sarlak, and the chronological analysis shows a cultural sequence spanning the 7th millennium to the 1st millennium BC. Unfortunately, a lot of this site was destroyed by agriculture, as well as a construction project, but it is clear that this site originally extended over an area of about 50 hectares (fig. 3). Findings from a rich area of settlement-architecture  21 (fig. 4), with a pottery kiln and metallurgical activities  22 showed that Qoli Darvish was an important settlement centre during the 2nd millennium BC in the Central Iranian Plateau. In this site, a ritual space or room has also been found. According to

21.

Sarlak 2011, p. 430, fig. 1.

22.

Sarlak 2010, p. 60, fig. 7.

339

340

Hamid Fahimi

Sarlak, these remains belong to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, but it was used until the end of the 2nd millennium BC (i.e., during the LBA and Iron Age 1 and 2), without any change in its plan or function  23. According to chronological studies and carbon dating, there is no gap between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age cultural phases in Qoli Darvish. The transitional period between the Bronze Age and Iron Age in this site also shows the continuity of grey ware pottery production with some changes in patterns and the development process for the type of forms and decorations. The architectural pattern of Qoli Darvish VII (Early Iron Age) also presents similar flooring, plaster for walls and brick‑sorting techniques. Even the size of mud‑bricks during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age is almost the same. The stratigraphic analysis of this site showed that the settlement pattern continued uninterrupted, although with some changes and development during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. In Iranian archaeology, the grey ware pottery is still one of the most widely used attributes for demonstrating the appearance of a new tribe on the Iranian Plateau, based on the theory of a great migration in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. In fact, the first appearance and prevalence of grey and grey‑black pottery from the beginning to the end of the third millennium BC (for example in Qabrestan II), and the production of grey and grey‑black pottery is one of the main common characteristics between the internal cultures on the Iranian Plateau during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. During the LBA on the Central Iranian Plateau, most of the known sites have grey ware, which also continues during the Iron Age. Of course, some of the forms and decorations and techniques of pottery production or slips were multifarious during the 2nd millennium BC but the grey ware culture was not a specific characteristic of the so‑called Iron Age  24. The decrease in painted pottery, which is also considered as a sign of a new tribe at the beginning of the Iron Age, is actually one of the events of the LBA on the Central Iranian Plateau. The use of iron to produce metal tools, especially arrowheads, knives or swords, is commonly referred to as the 13th century BC “Iron Age”, but we must still bear in mind that iron never replaced bronze for the production of metal artifacts, even during the so‑called Iron Age  25.

Fig. 3 – Stratigraphical Test Trench in Qolī Darvīš (after Sarlak 2010, p. 62, fig. 1).

23.

Sarlak 2010, p. 62.

24.

Fahimi 2013, p. 156, fig. 6, no. 2‑1.

25.

Fahimi 2013, p. 158.

Fig. 4 – Architectural remains in Qolī Darvīš (after Sarlak 2010, p. 159, fig. 1).

The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau

Conclusion During the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, permanent cultural patterns were increasingly kept out of the established existing cultures and they appeared in new forms of evolved cultures. This is the same as the cultural evolution, which occurred at the end of the 4th millennium BC and has been referred to as the appearance of Bronze Age on the Iranian Plateau. According to geomorphological studies and revised studies, despite the present‑day climatic situation, there were many water resources in the Central Iranian Plateau during the 2nd millennium BC and several permanent rivers, which no longer exist today or have become seasonal rivers. Based on this, and also the geographic role of this region as a connection area between the Zagros area in the West, Alborz area in the North and Northeast area, local cultures during the 2nd  millennium  BC (LBA and EIA) with influence from their neighboring cultures were dynamic and continuous. Tepe Sialk (before new excavations and Iron Age studies in Sialk south mound  26: Sialk Reconsideration Project) has been the most important archaeological site for comparative Bronze Age and Iron Age studies for a long time, but now with new excavations and studies, such as Qoli Darvish  27, Sarm  28, Shamshirgah  29, Pishva  30, Milajerd  31, Ma’murin  32, it is clear that it is necessary to review the chronological terminology for the LBA and the EIA on the Central Iranian Plateau, but also the ethnological theories based on the appearance of a new tribe at the beginning of the Iron Age (fig. 5). To conclude: migration and emigration are common demographic forces and a prevalent part of human life in most populations and widespread evidence of migration in prehistoric and historic periods is recognizable in historical and archaeological studies  33. There are several reasons migration events, such as climate change, natural disasters or outbreaks of war. But on the basis of archaeological results, especially new studies and revised studies, there is no conclusive evidence for the wave migration of newcomers ending the “Late Bronze Age” and starting the Iron Age, not only on the Central Iranian Plateau, but also in the southern Lake Urmia Basin. … Cultures do not migrate. Migration is a selective, carefully planned, and goal-oriented process. Migration cannot simply be eschewed as a cultural mechanism operating in antiquity  34…

Recent research, as well as the reanalysis of C14 data from Hasanlu and Dinkhah Tepe (Hasanlu V and IV‑C) have shown that it does not operate in the manner that the Iranian migrationist paradigm envisioned, that is, as a sporadic, high magnitude, inexorable force causing sudden population/ culture replacement. For a long time, we thought that the Iron Age lifestyle on the Iranian Plateau was nomadic and we always referred to the high number of graveyards mentioned in relation to settlement. Now, because of the discovery of many Iron Age settlement sites on the Central Iranian Plateau, we have to be more cautious with this invalid opinion. Finally, it is important to mention that the historical evidence, like the textural record from Assyria or facts cited by

26.

Fahimi 2003a; Fahimi 2004; Fahimi 2006.

27.

Sarlak 2010; Sarlak 2011.

28.

Purbakhshandeh 2003; Sarlak 2004.

29.

Fahimi 2003b; Fahimi 2010.

30.

Tehrani Moghadam 1997.

31.

Fahimi 2011.

32.

Mehrkyan 1996.

33.

Mallory 1973; Mallory 1989; Musavi 2001; Anthony 2007.

34.

Anthony 1990, p. 908.

341

342

Hamid Fahimi

large‑migration‑theory followers are still interesting to discuss, but our current knowledge and recent results of archaeological activities cannot validate these ideas. On the other hand, they mostly show that gradual cultural change occurred with increased cultural and trade relations between the Iranian Plateau and other regions (especially its northern neighbours and Mesopotamia) during the 2nd millennium BC  35.

Fig. 5 – Chronological Table (after Fahimi 2013, p. 161, fig. 6.7‑2).

References Anthony D.W. 1990, “Migration in archaeology: The baby and the bathwater”, American Anthropologist 92, p. 895‑914. Anthony D.W. 2007, The Horse, The Wheel and Language, Princeton-Oxford. Caldwell J.R. 1967, Investigations at Tal‑i‑Iblis, Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9, Princeton. Carter E. 1980, “Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa. The third millennium B.C. occupation”, Cahiers de la Délégation française en Iran 11, p. 11‑134. Contenau G. and Ghirshman R. 1935, Fouilles du Tépé‑Giyan, Près de Néhavend 1931 et 1932, Paris. Danti M. 2008, “The Bronze Age‑Iron Age transition in Northwestern Iran: Evidence from the reanalysis of Hasanlu Tepe Periods V and VI”, in Papers, 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Sapienza, University di Roma, May 7, Rome, p. 23. Danti M. 2013, Hasanlu V. The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I Periods, Hasanlu Excavation Reports  III, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania).

35.

Danti 2013.

The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau

Dyson R.H. Jr. 1965, “Problems in the relative chronology of Iran, 6000‑2000 B.C.”, in R. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago-London, p. 215‑256. Dyson R.H. Jr. 1989a, “Rediscovering Hasanlu”, Expedition 31/2‑3, p. 3‑11. Dyson R.H. Jr. 1989b, “The Iron Age Architecture at Hasanlu: An Essay”, Expedition 31/2‑3, p. 107‑127. Fahimi H. 2003a, “Asre āhan dar Sīalk, gozāreš‑e moqaddamātī‑je barresī‑ye sofālhāye asre āhan dar Sīalk”, in S.‑M. Shahmirzadi (ed.), The Silversmiths of Sialk, Report of the Sialk Reconsideration Project 2, Tehran, p. 79‑128. Fahimi H. 2003b, “Sokunatgāh‑e gurkhoftegān‑e Sarm: Gozārešī darbāreye mohavate‑ye Šamšīrgāh dar ğonub‑e Qom, Ordībehešt 1382”, Mağale‑ye Bāstānšenāsī va Tārīkh 18, p. 61‑68. Fahimi H. 2004, “Baqāyāye memārī‑ye Sīalk 6 (asre āhan 3) dar tappe‑ye ğonubīye Sīalk; Gozāreš‑e kāwoš dar terānšeye R19”, in S.‑M. Shahmirzadi (ed.), The Potters of Sialk, Report of the Sialk Reconsideration Project 3, Tehran, p. 55‑90. Fahimi H. 2006, “Tavālī‑ye farhangī‑ye Sīalk‑e 5 va 6 dar tappe‑ye ğonubī‑ye Sīalk: gozāreš‑e kāvoš dar tarānšehā‑ye R18, R20, J21”, in S.‑M. Shahmirzadi (ed.), The Fishermen of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report 4, Tehran, p. 107‑144. Fahimi H. 2010, “An Iron Age fortress in Central Iran: Archaeological investigations in Shamshirgah, Qom, 2005. Preliminary Report”, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1, Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity. Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives, Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status, Wiesbaden, p. 165‑183. Fahimi H. 2011, “Distribution of Iron Age pottery in the southern part of the Central Plateau of Iran. Report on the archaeological site of Milājerd, Natanz”, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (ed.), Early mining and metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau, The first five years of work, Archäologie in Iran und Turan, Band 9, Eurasien-Abteilung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Außenstelle Teheran, Mainz, p. 499‑522. Fahimi H. 2013, Studien zur Eisenzeit im Zentraliranischen Hochland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der neuen Ausgrabung von Tepe Sialk (2001‑2005), BAR International Series 2537, Oxford. Ghirshman R. 1938, Fouilles de Sialk, près de Kashan I (1933, 1934, 1937), Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Orientales, Série archéologique, Paris. Ghirshman R. 1939, Fouilles de Sialk, près de Kashan II (1933, 1934, 1937), Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Orientales, Série archéologique, Paris. Hakemi A. 1950, “Čegunegī‑ye Kāvošhāye Mokhtasar‑e Ganğ Tappeh va Tappehāye Atrāf‑e Khorvīn va Āğīn Doği”, Gozārešhāye Bāstānšenāsi 1, Edāre‑je Kol‑e Bāstānšenāsi, Tehran, p. 1‑16. Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age center in Iran, Rome. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1970, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967‑1969, Progress Report I, Bulletin of American School of Prehistoric Research 27, Cambridge (Mass.). Malek Shahmirzadi S. (dir.) 2002, The Ziggurat of Sialk, Report of the Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report 1, Tehran. Malek Shahmirzadi S. (dir.) 2003, The Silversmiths of Sialk, Report of the Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report 2, Tehran. Malek Shahmirzadi S. (dir.) 2004, The Potters of Sialk, Report of the Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report 3, Tehran. Malek Shahmirzadi S. (dir.) 2006, The Fishermen of Sialk, Report of the Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report 4, Tehran. Mallory J.P. 1973, “A Short History of the Indo‑European Problem”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, p. 22‑65. Mallory J.P. 1989, In Search of the Indo-Europeans; Language, Archaeology and Myth, London.

343

344

Hamid Fahimi

Mehrkyan J. 1996, “Pažuheš dar me’mārī‑ye nošenākhte‑ye farhang‑e sofāl‑e khākestarī dar tappe‑ye Ma’murīn”, in B. Ayatolah Zadeh Shirazi (ed.), Mağmue‑ye maqālāt‑e kongere‑ye tārīkh‑e me’mārī va šahrsāzī‑ye Irān 3, Tehran, p. 345‑356. Musavi A. 2001, “Hend va orupāīyān dar Irān: moqaddamehī bar pīšīneh va bāstānšenasī‑ye masale‑ye hend va orupāī”, Mağaleye Bāstānšenāsi va Tārīkh 1, p. 12‑21. Negahban E.O. 1964, Gozāreš‑e moqadamātī‑ye hafrīyāt‑e Mārlīk (Čerāqalī Tappeh); Heyat‑e haffārī‑ye Rudbār 1340‑1341, Entešārāt‑e Dānešgāh‑e Tehrān, Tehran. Overlaet B. 2003, Luristan Excavation Documents, vol. IV. The Early Iron Age in the Pusht‑i Kuh, Luristan, Acta Iranica 40, Leuven. Piller C.K. 2003-2004, “Zur Mittelbronzezeit im nördlichen Zentraliran  –  Die zentraliranische Graue Ware (Central Grey Ware) and mögliche Verbindung zwischen Eastern und Western Grey Ware”, Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35‑36, p. 144‑173. Piller C.K. 2004, “Das iranische Hochland im 2. und 1. Jt. v. Chr.: die frühgeschichtliche Periode”, in Th. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (ed.), Persiens Antike Pracht; Bergbau-Handwerk-Archäologie, Katalog der Ausstellung das Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28, Band 1, Bochum, p. 310‑327. Purbakhshandeh Kh. 2003, Gozāreš‑e kāwošhāje bāstānšenāsi dar gurestān‑e Sarm, ICAR (unpublished report). Sarlak S. 2004, “Avāmel‑e moaser dar šeklgīrī‑ye anvā‑e memārī‑ye qobur va šīvehāye tadfīn dar gurestān‑e asr‑e ēhan‑e tappe‑ye Sarm‑Kahak, Qom”, Gozārešhāye Bāstānšenāsī 2, Tehran, p. 129‑163. Sarlak S. 2010, Farhange haft hezār sāle‑ye šahr‑e Qom, ICHHTO‑Qom Branch. Sarlak S. 2011, Bastānšenāsī va tārikh‑e Qom, ICHHTO‑Qom Branch. Schmidt E.F. 1937, Excavation at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, Philadelphia. Tehrani Moghadam A. 1997, “Gurestān‑e hezāre‑ye avval‑e qabl az mīlād‑e pīšvā”, Yādnāme‑ye Gerdehamāī‑ye Bāstānšenāsī‑ye Šuš 1, p. 53‑62. Talai H. 1995, Bāstānšenāsī va honar‑e Irān dar hezāre‑ye avval‑e qabl az mīlād, Samt, Tehran. Talai H. 2006, Asr‑e mefraq‑e Irān, Samt, Tehran. Vanden Berghe L. 1972, “La chronologie de la Civilisation des Bronzes du Pusht‑i Kuh, Luristan”, in Proceedings of the 1st Annual Symposium of Archaeological Research in Iran, Iran Bastan Museum, Tehran. Young T.C. Jr. and Levine L.D. 1974, Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report, Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 26, Toronto.

CONCLUSION

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age. Development of urbanisation, production and trade Archéologie(s) 1, MOM Éditions, Lyon, 2019

The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the Bronze Age Concluding thoughts Jan‑Waalke Meyer Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main Emmanuelle Vila UMR 5133-Archéorient (CNRS, Université de Lyon), Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon Régis Vallet CNRS, UMR 7041 ArScAn-VEPMO, Maison Archéologie & Ethnologie, 21 vallée de l’université, 92023 Nanterre Marjan Mashkour UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris

The papers gathered in this volume aimed to address various questions highlighting problems related to the material culture in Iran, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The environmental conditions in this part of the Asian continent, dominated by contrasting highlands and lowlands, general aridity and marked continentality, are very different to those in the Near East. These physical and climatic features, added to deep‑rooted ethnic diversity, led to a different cultural development from that of the Near East. The domestication of plants and animals is the most important fundamental development in human societies and numerous studies over the past decade have shown the existence of more than one core region  1. A second fundamental development is undoubtedly the emergence of urbanisation, which initially occurred in the Near East. The aim of the conference organised in Lyon was to shift further to the East and to examine the development of urbanism outside Mesopotamia more closely, with a focus on the Iranian Plateau, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Based on our understanding of Near Eastern urbanisation, the contribution of this conference was to highlight the need to find another definition of the term “urbanisation”, or rather to talk about “Iranian urbanisation”. It also became clear that systematic surveys using methods provided by archaeology and the natural sciences, conducted with the aim of revealing dependencies between settlements and their environment, cannot possibly come up with as pertinent results for Iran as they can for Mesopotamia. One reason for this is certainly due to the substantial changes that the natural environment has undergone in Iran due to human influence. This topic is particularly well demonstrated in Elnaz Rashidian’s contribution, who proposes different parameters for a definition of “urban” and highlights the need for large‑scale excavations, based on geomagnetic investigations when possible, for example for the urbanisation of Tal i-Malyan.  

In fact, one of the widely-debated questions regarding the development of Iranian Bronze Age societies concerns exterior influences on north-western Iran and the Iranian Plateau, especially from the Kura-Araxes culture in the fourth to third millennium BC. Several papers in the first section

1.

Conolly et al. 2011; Zeder and Hesse 2000; Reihl, Zeidi and Conard 2013; Brousahki et al. 2016.

348

Jan‑Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Régis Vallet, Marjan Mashkour

focus on the development of this culture in Iran. G. Palumbi assesses the whole distribution area of the Kura-Araxes culture and its relation with the settlement of the Uruk period by comparing the cultural developments between the two most distant sites, characterized successively by Uruk and Kura-Araxes occupation phases – Godin Tepe in the Kangavar Valley and Arslantepe in the Upper Euphrates Valley (Turkey). In this way, he highlights the differences between both cultures and discusses the impact of the Uruk model on the societies and economies of the Iranian highlands, based on the hypothesis of a synergy between Uruk and northern Kura-Araxes communities in the fourth millennium BC. Palumbi assumes that features such as specialized animal breeding and sophisticated administration found their way into the Kura-Araxes culture through the influence of local groups. Sepideh Maziar debates the question of the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition in Iran, especially in the Araxes valley, based on the results of her excavations in Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, with the presence of interesting elements such as circular mud brick architecture in Phase III and the remains of a kiln and two chamber tombs with faunal and ceramic offerings in Kohne Tepesi. In another recent excavation in the Khoda-Afarin plain along the Araxes, she describes the change from the local Late Chalcolithic to the Kura-Araxes culture. It appears that several Late Chalcolithic sites were abandoned and only some of them were reoccupied. S. Maziar underlines the heterogeneity of the changes in all parts of north-western Iran and the fact that each area has its own trajectory. It seems as if the often-proposed nomadic mobility of the Kura-Araxes groups cannot be verified, as shown by the results of faunal and botanical analyses from the local context of Kohne Pasgah Tepesi and Kohne Tepesi (cf. the contribution of Decaix/Mohaseb Karimlu/Maziar/Mashkour/Tengberg),

Fig. 1 – Location of archaeological sites and principal regions in Iran and adjacent areas quoted in the text; Archaeological site in plain black, modern cities in italic, modern provinces in black italic capital letters, ancient civilisations in green, mountains in capital red, plains and deserts in plain red.

The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the Bronze Age

as well as from a more comprehensive study of material from Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Iran (cf. the contribution of Decaix/Berthon/Tengberg/Mohaseb Karimlu). These studies show that settlements were occupied all year round. According to the available faunal and botanical data, the agro-pastoral system of the settled Kura-Araxes groups is less homogenous than it appears at first sight. Further studies of the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological remains from the Azerbaijan province of Iran and the Kura-Araxes settlements would be helpful for getting a clearer image of the Early Bronze Age subsistence economy, agro-pastoral practices and environment. Some particular aspects require more detailed investigation, such as evidence of ploughing, the development of tree cultivation and the wild or cultivated, indigenous or introduced status of some fruit, such as the grape and the fig. The understanding of the Kura-Araxes pastoral system based on cattle, sheep and goat farming is also a challenge, in particular for the understanding of pastoral practices that could have involved some herd mobility. Recent ongoing research on mobility patterns using stable isotopes should provide new insights in the coming years.  

Another section of the book deals with the development of Elam. Three articles treat the Proto‑Elamite period (end of the fourth to the end of the third millennium BC) on the Susiana plain in the present-day province of Khuzestan in south-western Iran. These papers incorporate many data and highlight some of the problems related to the stratigraphic designations and chronological framework of Khuzestan. With regard to the pertinent levels at Susa Acropolis I (Le Brun) and at Tappeh Senjar, (Sardari/Attarpour), respectively, different designations were used for the levels (e.g. Le Brun, level 16, Sardari, level 16A‑C) and periods (Le Brun, Susa III, Sardari Susa IIIA‑C). Le Brun sees a cultural break – at least in the development of the pottery – between levels 14B and 14A, whereas Sardari includes both levels under Susa IIIB and assumes that the break occurs in Susa IIIA, and only affects level 13. A look at the chronological proposals of other authors renders the situation even more complicated: for the time span of Susa III (A‑C), Le Breton uses “Susa Cb to Db”  2, Steve and Gasche “Jamdat Nasr and Early Dynastic”  3, Dittmann “Proto-Elamite 1, Proto-Elamite 2 (a and b), Proto‑Elamite 3”  4, Carter, then Alden “Early, Middle, and Late Susa III”  5. It would make sense to use a single system for the chronology. A. Zalaghi, in his contribution about the results of a survey to the west of the Karkheh River, does not encounter these difficulties since his material is not stratified and is only attributable to the Susa III period. Although many archaeological surveys have been conducted in the Susiana plain, most of them were carried out a long time ago. As the sherds have not been systematically published and some of the sites have now been completely destroyed by agricultural activities, there is little archaeological evidence left today from early third millennium BC settlements in Upper Khuzestan. A. Zalaghi observes that it is difficult to analyse the settlement systems in northern Susiana but notes that there is no evidence of hierarchical organization and long‑term settlements during the Proto-Elamite period in the Susiana plain. Recent research in eastern Karun  6 points to population movements during this period, possibly from the western to the eastern sector of the Susiana plain, raising the question of a shift to nomadism. The key point here is that all three contributions agree that the Proto-Elamite settlements in Khuzestan, including Susa, were not urban. E. Rashidian has a somewhat different outlook regarding the development of urban centres in Iran. In keeping with the opinion of some scholars, she considers the Proto-Elamite settlements of Susa, Choga Mish and Abu Fanduweh to be urban – a development that we take to begin from the Old Elamite period, only. She notes that only two sites, Susa and Anshan (Tal i-Malyan), are called “cities” for the whole Elamite period and wonders where the other cities of Elam are and how many of them there

2.

Le Breton 1957.

3.

Steve and Gasche 1971.

4.

Dittmann 1986.

5.

Carter 1980; Alden 1987.

6.

Moghaddam 2012.

349

350

Jan‑Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Régis Vallet, Marjan Mashkour

were, emphasizing the fact that these questions remain unanswered. It is, however, as she underlines, important to grasp how dependent settlements were on the hydraulic system. In Iran, the situation is very different from that of Mesopotamia, as there are more small rivers and thus greater variability in the water supply. E. Rashidian stresses the difficulty of landscape reconstruction, especially in the Susiana plain, due to greater environmental changes linked to river shifts, successive transgressions of the Persian Gulf coastline and, more recently, agricultural and industrial developments. Moreover, the lack of marine archaeological investigations severely limits our understanding of the hydraulic systems. Her recommendation is the systematic use of geoarchaeological methods in archaeological research for a better understanding of the interaction between natural sediments and cultural deposits (toponym-hydronym interaction). The third section deals with various aspects of urbanisation in eastern Iran. Tureng Tepe in the Gorgan plain in north-eastern Iran (Bessenay-Prolonge/Vallet) is of great interest as, along with Tepe Hissar, it is one of the two main excavated settlements from the Burnished Grey Ware culture (Bronze Age about 3800‑1600 BC) and is considered to be proto‑urban and then urban. For the High Terrace – remains of monumental architecture, considered to be an important urban feature  – of Tureng Tepe, the authors point out some parallels with sites in Bactria (Mundigak, Nad‑i‑Ali, Altyn Depe). So far, only one publication concerning the later levels – Sassanian and Islamic – of this site exists, and the Early and Middle Bronze Age constructional relations behind the abovementioned comparisons, are under study. The High Terrace was probably composed of at least two platforms and it should not be interpreted as a ziggurat, but rather as a large monument with regional power, such as in the case of a palace. The same is probably true of the structures at comparable sites, although they do not reach the large size of the High Terrace of Tureng Tepe. New carbon dating evidence validates the Bronze Age dating of the Terrace to the second part of the third millennium BC. In addition to a very detailed report of the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow in the North Khorasan province, and the occupation sequence from the Late Chalcolithic to the Middle/Late Bronze Age on the site, the article by A. Vahdati/Biscone/La Farina/Mashkour/Tengberg/Fathi/ Mohaseb discusses the origins of the GKC culture (Greater Khorasan Civilization). For a long time, this specific cultural complex was called the BMAC culture (Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex), then the Oxus Civilisation. It was recently named the GKC culture after its probable area of origin and distribution thought to be in southern Turkmenistan and north-eastern Khorasan, according to recent research. The site contains abundant objects (ceramics, luxury goods) belonging to the GKC culture from the third and second millennia BC (2300‑1700 BC). On the basis of the discovery of such a unique assemblage of GKC materials, this part of Khorasan appears to be the first permanent settlement area of the GKC culture in Iran. Further evidence comes from a large necropolis. No traces of GKC architecture have yet been found on the site. Archaeobotanical and archaeozoological analyses demonstrate intensive agricultural activities. There are also numerous indications of trade relations with the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. Unlike the GKC expansion in the Kerman and Gorgan plain areas, considered to be the migration of elite groups from Bactria and Margiana, the occupation of Tepe Chalow seems to be due to a GKC population influx that replaces the local culture. Further investigations on other sites in the area of Tepe Chalow and radiocarbon dating will enhance our understanding of the spread of the GKC culture complex. In his contribution on the development of southeast Iran, N.  Eskandari tackles the topic of urbanisation directly. He proposes the following parameters: socio-economical stratification of society, work specialization, participation in long‑distance trade, administrative activities. Against this background, he recognizes the settlements of Shahr‑i‑Sokhta, Jiroft and Shahdad as urban centres in the third millennium BC – although they differ with regard to a further parameter, namely the spatial organisation and exploitation of the natural environment. While satellite settlements spread around Shahr‑i‑Sokhta and Jiroft, there are only a few smaller settlements in the surroundings of Shahdad. In recent surveys, two other large, probably urban, settlements have been discovered; Keshit and Mokhtarabad. They are also located at the edge of the Lut desert and presumably controlled long‑distance trade. Since these surveys did not reveal Chalcolithic or Bronze Age pastoral sites in

The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the Bronze Age

the mountainous part of the Dasht‑e Lut area, N. Eskandari considers the role of pastoral societies to be minimal in the rise and development of the urbanisation of south-eastern Iran. D. Meier focuses on a feature of technological development in Shahdad by examining a certain kind of oven used for melting copper ore, discovered in the house at site D. Comparable installations are known in Turkmenistan (Monjukli Tepe – the earliest examples –, Gonur, Adji Kui 9) and Susa; they are dated between the second half of the fifth and the second half of the second millennium BC. For some time now, there has been further evidence of far‑reaching relationships between the Murghab delta, East Iran, Mesopotamia and the Indus valley from the third to the second millennia BC, namely for finished goods (metal objects, such as decorated cylindrical beakers and Bactrian axes; pottery vessels; stone objects, such as seated female figurines or “chlorite” artefacts, cf. H.P. Francfort’s article; seals, etc.), as well as raw materials. It is still unclear as to whether the distribution of this pyro-technological installation for melting copper means more than that the users were in contact with each other, namely that they share common roots. The fourth section centres on questions of trade and subsistence production. These questions are best approached via archaeological and philological sources – Proto-Elamite, Elamite and Mesopotamian –, but also via archaeozoological and archaeobotanical investigations. The domestication of the donkey and the horse undoubtedly opened up new opportunities for long-distance trade, and the physical and chemical analyses of materials do not only inform us about the production of the respective objects but also about their provenance. This is a way of bringing to light regional, supra-regional and long-distance trade relations, which provide insights into relations between individual settlements and thereby also into the degree of urbanisation. Relations of this kind became obvious between the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia, the Caucasus and Central Asia. A clear distinction should be made between the movement of material objects, of ideas and notions, and of the migration of people.  

M. Dabbagh addresses the social role of women in the domestic as well as in the urban sphere during the Elamite Kingdom on the basis of legal and administrative texts. She discusses the place of women in agricultural activities, in trade and in economic exchanges. According to various kinds of activities, such as weaving, baking, water carrying, milling, etc., women were obviously an essential part of the economic framework of society. H.‑P. Francfort considers trade relations in his contribution about objects made of “black stone” (chlorite, steatite, serpentine, etc.). Besides a plausible iconographic analysis that ends with a stylistic differentiation of the production centres, he relates the items of the so‑called “série récente” to the BMAC (Oxus Civilisation)/GKC culture and proposes a convincing trade route from Bactria (Oxus) through Khorasan via Central Iran to Mesopotamia. Against this background, his identification of the Marhashi in cuneiform texts from Bactria is also convincing (in contrast to Steinkeller)  7 and is in agreement with the new findings in north Khorasan mentioned above. The so‑called “série ancienne” (e.g. Jiroft) is presumed to be a production from the province of Kerman – although the same motifs are known in Bactria (in other materials). The motifs are impressively reduced to a “group of life”, a “group of death” and to the “lord of the animals”. Four other contributions in this section are less concerned with questions of urbanism but rather with aspects of the material culture and the social conditions of the Elamite period. H.  Pittman considers the dynamics of trade and exchange between Iran and Central Asia; she presents five seals from Gonur Tepe, all with motifs that are said to come from the province of Kerman. A reciprocal influence between Bactria (Oxus) and the province of Kerman (Halil Rud/Bampur Oases) during the last quarter of the third millennium BC is evident, and, as the author plausibly argues, not just between these two oases, but also with the Helmand Oasis (Shahr‑i‑Sokhta), the Indus Valley, as well as with Elam and Mesopotamia. The suggestion that the woman with the extensively described seal from tomb 1393 in Gonur Tepe was originally from Kerman and came to the Oxus region as a bride, is less well ascertained but is nonetheless plausible. The very impressive assemblages of objects from

7.

Steinkeller 2014.

351

352

Jan‑Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Régis Vallet, Marjan Mashkour

archaeological and looted sites recently identified in the Kerman province reveal the originality and specificity of local imagery in this region at the beginning of the third millennium. S. Piran provides a general overview of the motifs on the respective items from the province of Kerman and the National Museum in Teheran in order to assemble a catalogue that would help to attribute the objects from illegal excavations. M. Casanova discusses the exchange sphere of lapis lazuli and the question of intermediate markets on trade routes between the different civilizations (Indus Valley, Central Asia, Mesopotamia and Egypt).  

B. Rafiei Alavi looks at the origin and distribution of a certain type of dagger (crescent-shaped guard) existing in Middle and Late Elamite times – from the middle of the second millennium to the first millennium BC – in north-western Iran to the south of the Gulf. This dagger type first appears in the Khuzestan plain sites and expands during the Middle Elamite before becoming confined to northwest Iran. B. Rafiei Alavi discusses the possible function of the crescent guard, in relation to the manufacturing method and the change of function throughout time (functional role in the LBA, decorative unit in the IA I, back to a functional role in the IA II). He argues against a symbolic meaning (moon god), but favours a metaphorical sense (sharpness, ferocity). A last section focuses on the transition to the Iron Age. Based on new archaeological analyses in Central Iran (provinces of Tehran, Qazvin, Qom, Esfahan…) and natural science investigations in north-western Iran (Hasanlu, Dinkha Tepe), H. Fahimi demonstrates that the distribution of Grey Ware from Central Iran towards the north must not be regarded as a marker of the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Grey Ware is already present in the north during the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, we should not interpret this as a rupture between these two periods, but rather as a cultural shift from a sedentary way of life (LBA) towards a more nomadic one (IA).

Epilogue: experimenting urbanisation phenomenon. The patchwork of the Iranian Plateau and its neighbours To conclude, the overall picture of Iran’s cultural landscapes – the northwest (Kura-Araxes), Khuzestan (Susa, Tepe Senjar, Haft Tepe), and Central Iran, as well as the oasis regions of Bactria (Tepe Chalow), Helmand (Shahr‑i‑Sokhta) and Halil Rud Basin (Jiroft/Konar Sandal) – as outlined in all the contributions, is coherent in that every region underwent individual development (subsistence, production, cultural and social practices), but also had connections with other regions (trade, intercultural exchanges). There is no doubt that one of the main challenges facing Iranian archaeology would be to redefine the different cultural assemblages, and their chronology, on a regional basis. These connections emerged very early on, at least since the sixth millennium, but gained new momentum during the fourth millennium when fast‑expanding cultures (Uruk, Kura) spread extensively into Iran  8, and from the third millennium onwards, when they were influenced by trade.  

For northwest Iran, part of the difficulty in understanding the obvious complexity of the Kura‑Araxes culture may be related to the scarcity of excavated and published sites from the fourth millennium BC in the Southern Caucasus as well as in north-western Iran. Furthermore, until recently, little attention was paid to the transition processes between the Chalcolithic period and the Bronze Age in Iran. New excavations and surveys in the Southern Caucasus as well in north-western Iran provide brand‑new supplementary data  9. Over the past decade, archaeological investigations have clearly shown that

8.

Vallet et al. 2017, with references, for new data on the beginning of the (early) Uruk expansion.

9.

Chataigner and Palumbi 2014; Marro, Bakhshaliyev and Berthon 2015.

The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the Bronze Age

the transition between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age and the development of the Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition is still very badly known. It seems that there is no general explanatory model. The Kura-Araxes culture is now not only evidenced in north-western Iran (Urmia Lake, Kermanshah, Nahavand), but also in northern (Qazvin plain, Mazandaran) and central (Malayer plains, Arak province) Iran. New evidence from the northern part of Iran (Kul Tepe Jolfa) reveals KuraAraxes ceramics dated to the mid‑fourth millennium BC, which is as early as Kura-Araxes evidence in the Southern Caucasus. The Kura-Araxes culture should probably no longer be considered to strictly come from the Southern Caucasus and be strictly exogenous to Iran and the model of migration of foreign Kura-Araxes pastoralists from the North to Iran should be carefully cross‑examined. The debate on the “dialectic”/“convergence” between the Uruk and Kura-Araxes “expansions” should be further pursued. Thus, all the new archaeological evidence must be taken into account in future discussions of the transition between the Chalcolithic period and the Bronze Age and the development of proto-urban/urban societies in the western part of Iran.  

For northeast Iran, monumental architecture that could be considered as urban with connections to the central power (palatial and/or religious), such as the High Terrace in Tureng Tepe, appears in southern Turkmenistan and southern Afghanistan during the Bronze Age. However, the chronology of this architecture remains uncertain, except for Tureng Tepe, where new absolute dates clearly allocate the monument to the second part of the third millennium/beginning of the second millennium BC. Recent archaeological work in North Khorasan (Tepe Chalow) provides significant perspectives for the discussion on the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age in this region and the BMAC/Oxus Civilisation/GKC culture origin and expansion during the Middle-Late Bronze Age. Further work in North Khorasan should clarify the chronological and geographical framework of the GKC culture, as well as the specific spatial occupation of the GKC cultural sphere and the shift from rural communities toward urban development in this area. The nature of relations between North Khorasan and the Oxus area and the cultural and regional characteristics should also be investigated in more depth.  

For the Khuzestan, Central Iran and Kerman province, three contributions directly address the subtopic of urbanisation (Meyer/Rashidian/Eskandari). While E. Rashidian focuses in particular on the dependence of settlements on water, N. Eskandari introduces parameters that he takes to be preconditions for urbanisation: stratification of the society, work specialization, administrative activities – parameters which, in addition to the extension of the settlement system (cf. Meyer this volume), are also valid for Mesopotamian towns and may even be regarded as global. The participation in long‑distance trade and, possibly, the contribution of pastoral and nomadic groups to the construction process of complex urban societies may be regarded as specifically Iranian characteristics. Indeed, the nomadic component of societies could have been an important parameter for urbanisation. It seems to have had more influence on various aspects of the way of life in Iran than in Mesopotamia, as reflected by the seasonality of residency and the presence of unsettled areas or open spaces inside the settlements. Mobile groups could have played a role in the diffusion of objects (lapis, daggers, vessels) and raw materials (metal, semi-precious stones), as they are the actors of long‑distance mobility. Not only northeast Iran (Khorasan), but also the southwest (Kerman) and the Central Plateau (Fars), have connections to Central Asia (BMAC) and the Indus. However, questions surrounding the terms and actors of these connections are still unresolved. In any case, during the third millennium BC, only Shahr‑i‑Sokhta, Konar Sandal and Shahdad can be considered to be urban centres, and possibly Tall‑i‑Malyan in Central Iran, while no clear evidence of urbanisation in Khuzestan emerges during this period, despite the continuity of occupation at Susa. Presumably, clearly visible urbanisation in the Iranian Plateau only sets in during the Old Elamite period (Shimashki in Khuzestan and Fars; ca. 2000 BC). The early towns lack the coherent townscape prevailing in Mesopotamia; instead, in accordance with the local way of life, the urban

353

354

Jan‑Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Régis Vallet, Marjan Mashkour

space is characterized by extensive open spaces that allow for specific activities (trade, seasonal animal breeding). In fact, even in Mesopotamia, very diverse urban forms have always coexisted  10. The generic or universal model of the disordered Oriental city, in contrast with the planned Greek or Roman city, is a myth created by travellers and classical scholars  11, although there are some common features throughout the Near and Middle East, as is the case in European urbanism. It is not only the layout and urban forms that can differ greatly from one region to another, but also the pace and the time‑scale of the stages of urbanisation, as is clearly the case between southern Mesopotamia and Susiana. In northern Mesopotamia, Tell Brak reached a proto‑urban stage at the beginning of the LC3 period, around 3800-3700 BC, covering perhaps 130 ha around its main tell (40 ha), but remained a hapax in the north for centuries  12. The same can be observed in eastern Anatolia with Arslan Tepe  13. Except in southern Mesopotamia, the appearance of very few proto‑urban centres in the fourth millennium did not indicate the formation of true urban regional networks before the third millennium. The idea that the formation of major centres is automatically linked to wide territorial urbanisation is wrong; the latter phenomenon generally appeared much later. There are at least two main reasons for this: firstly, the proto‑urban system was not a simple stage in the urbanisation process, but a lasting system per se, and secondly, we must abandon linear evolutionist models in favour of discontinuous regional scenarios  14. All in all, Khuzistan appears much closer to northern than to southern Mesopotamia. In this respect, Iran is probably an ideal laboratory to study non‑linear evolution processes, and there is no doubt that with the help of the much‑needed extensive excavations and pluri-disciplinary projects to come, archaeology still has a lot to learn from this unique country.

References Alden J.R. 1987, “The Susa III Period”, in F. Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, Washington (DC), p. 157‑170. Broushaki F., Thomas M.G., Link V., López S., Van Dorp L., Kirsanow K., Hofmanová Z., Diekmann Y., Cassidy L.M., Díez‑del‑Molino D., Kousathanas A., Sell C., Robson H., Martiniano R., Blöcher J., Scheu A., Kreutzer S., Bollongino R., Bobo D., Davudi H., Munoz O., Currat M., Abdi K., Biglari F., Craig O.E., Bradley D.G., Shennan S., Veeramah K.R., Mashkour M., Wegmann D., Hellenthal G. and Burger J. 2016, Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent, Science 353/6298, p. 499‑503. Carter E. 1980, Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa: the Third Millenium B.C. Occupation, Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran (DAFI) 11. Castel C., Meyer J.‑W. and Quenet P. (ed.), in press, Circular Cities of Early Bronze Age Syria, SUBARTU XLII, Turnhout. Chataigner C. and Palumbi G. (coord.) 2014, The Kura‑Araxes culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between unity and diversity, Paléorient 40/2.

10.

For a recent overview of the question in Syria, see Castel, Meyer and Quenet (in press) with extensive references; Iraq is less documented due to the lasting political unrest but the situation could change in the coming years; for a general discussion and some case studies see Vallet in press, with references.

11.

On this topos, Van de Mieroop 1999, p. 4‑5.

12.

See Ur, Karsgaard and Oates 2011; Recent synthesis in Stein 2012, with references.

13.

Frangipane 2009; Frangipane 2010.

14.

Lovell and Rowan 2010 (for the Chalcolithic in the Near East).

The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the Bronze Age

Conolly J., Colledge S., Dobney K., Vigne J.‑D., Peters J., Stopp B., Manning K. and Shennan S. 2011, “Meta‑analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry”, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, p. 538‑545. Dittman R. 1986, Betrachtungen zur Frühzeit des Südwest‑Iran, Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 4, Berlin. Frangipane M. 2009, “Non‑Urban Hierarchical Patterns of Territorial and Political Organization in Northern Regions of Greater Mesopotamia: Tepe Gawra and Arslantepe”, in P. Butterlin (ed.), À propos de Tepe Gawra, le monde proto‑urbain de Mésopotamie. About Tepe Gawra: a Proto‑Urban World in Mesopotamia, Subartu XXIII, Turnhout, p. 135‑148. Frangipane M. 2010, “Different Models of Power Structuring at the Rise of Hierarchical Societies in the Near East: Primary Economy versus Luxury and Defense Management”, in D. Bolger and L.C. Maguire (ed.), The Development of Pre‑State Communities in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Edgar Peltenburg, BANEA Publication Series 2, Oxford-Oakville, p. 79‑86. Le Breton L. 1957, “The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamian relations”, Iraq 19, p. 79‑124. Lovell J.L. and Rowan Y. (ed.) 2010, Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition, Council for British Research in the Levant, London. Marro C., Bakhshaliyev V. and Berthon R. 2015, “On the genesis of the Kuro-Araxes phenomenon: a Reply to G. Palumbi et C. Chataigner”, Paléorient 41/2, p. 157‑162. Moghaddam A. 2012, Later Village Period Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana, Iran, BAR International Series 2347, Oxford. Riehl S., Zeidi M. and Conard N.J. 2013, Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran, Science 341/6141, p. 65‑67. Stein G.J. 2012, “The Development of the Indigenous complexity in the Late Chalcolithic Upper Mesopotamia in the 5th and 4th millennia B.C., An initial assessment”, Origini XXIV, p. 125‑152. S teinkeller   P. 2014, “Marhashi and Beyond: the Jiroft Civilization in a Historical Perspective”, in C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (ed.), “My Life is like the Summer Rose”, Maurozio Tosi a l’Archeologia come modo di vivere, Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th birthday, BAR International Series 2690, Oxford, p. 691‑707. Steve M.J. and Gasche H. 1971, L’Acropole de Suse, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran, Mission de Susiane, vol. XLVI, Paris. Vallet R., Baldi J.S., Naccaro H., Rasheed K., Saber S.A. and Hamarasheed S.J. 2017, “New Evidence on the Uruk Expansion in Central Mesopotamia”, Paléorient 43/1, p. 61‑87. Van de Mieroop M. 1999, The Ancient Mesopotamian City, Oxford. Ur J., Karsgaard P. and Oates J. 2011, “The spatial dimensions of Early Mesopotamian urbanism: The Tell Brak suburban survey, 2003‑2006”, IRAQ 73, p. 1-19. Vallet R. in press, “Town-planning in third millennium Mesopotamia: a view from the alluvial plain”, in C. Castel, J.‑W. Meyer and P. Quenet (ed.), Circular Cities of Early Bronze Age Syria, SUBARTU XLII, Turnhout. Zeder M. and Hesse B. 2000, “The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros mountains 10,000 years ago”, Science 287/5461, p. 2254‑2257.

355