The Evidence from Susa

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXI, 1996

EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES AND METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN IRANIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: The Evidence from Susa

BY Ali MOUSAVI, Lyon

In memory of Walther Hinz

The beginning of Near Eastern archaeology stemmed from the early adven- turous explorations carried out by travelers and treasure-hunters. But it should not be forgotten that such non-scientific explorations paved the way for systematic investigations and provided the basis for a gradual development in scientific excavation methods and strategy. Iran also benefited from that development until 1979, when the work of the foreign archaeological missions in Iran was interrupted, marking the end of a long history in the field of Iranian archaeology. The interruption of the archaeological field works in Iran, however, ushered in a new period of reassessment of data and their publication. In addition to the appearance of a number of final reports since 1979 (Tepe Yahya, Haji Firuz, Haft Tepe, Surkh Dum, etc.), the recent exhibition of objects found at Susa in the Metropolitan Museum of Art which was accompanied by a useful catalogue, and the newly published article by Dr. John Curtis on William Kennet Loftus’ excavations are noteworthy. Curtis’ article is particularly important because it provides an informative review of the work done by the Scottish geologist at Susa1. Susa was the first site in Iran that was formally excavated over a long period. The long history of archaeological excavations at Susa by the French is especially important in providing a matrix in which the development of archaeological methods and techniques can be traced2.

1 The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, P.O. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon (eds), New York, 1992; J. Curtis, “William Kennet Loftus and his Excavations at Susa”, Iranica Antiqua, vol. 28, 1993, pp. 1-55. 2 Aside from de Morgan’s accounts (see infra), for the history of the excavations at Susa, there are several sources: Robert H. Dyson published a fine article, but very brief 2 ALI MOUSAVI

Loftus’ work: William Kennet Loftus was the first person who visited and excavated Susa in the middle of the nineteenth century. Here I should add some remarks to Curtis’ article. Loftus was apparently searching, in vain, for a stele, which had been already mentioned by Macdonnald Kinneir and Layard. The stele, called “the Black Stone”, presumably contained some Achaemenid reliefs and inscriptions, as is shown on a rough drawing by Colonel Monteith3. In spite of his efforts, however, Loftus could not see the stele which “was being protected from the foreigners in Daniel’s tomb4” no one knows what happened to it5. The short excavations carried out at Susa by Williams and Loftus did not produce many moveable and valuable objects, but resulted in the first actual plan of the site, the identification of Susa as the biblical Shushan, and Henry Churchill’s drawings represented the first pictures of the intact mounds. The method used by Loftus in his excavations, in Mesopotmia and Iran, was simple. Like his contemporaries, Layard, Botta, and Place, Loftus opened large areas in search for objects. In addition, Loftus, like his many successors, had to limit his aims to fit his budget, while at the same time he was aware of the need to carry the work further in order to see a more

and without any references, “Early Works on the Acropolis at Susa: The Beginning of Prehistory in Iraq and Iran”, Expedition, vol. 10, No. 4, 1968, pp. 21-33; several general essays have been published during the past years: R. de Mecquenem, “Les Fouilleurs de Suse”, Iranica Antiqua, vol. XV, 1980, pp. 1-48, with a preface by P. Amiet; P. Amiet, Suse. 6000 ans d’histoire, Paris, 1988, pp. 13-25; J. Perrot, “Un siècle de fouilles à Suse”, Dossiers Histoires et Archéologie, No. 138, 1989, pp. 12-15; N. Chevalier, “The French Scientific Delegation in Persia”, The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1992, pp. 16-19; E. Carter, “A History of Excavation at Susa: Personalities and Archaeological Methodologies”, The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1992, pp. 20-24. 3 For a detailed description see W.K. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana in 1849-52, London, 1857, pp. 418-422; Idem, “On the Excavations Undertaken at the Ruins of Susa in 1851-2”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Litterature, vol. 5, 1857, pp. 446-448. 4 A.H. Layard, Early Adventures in Persia, Susiana and Babylonia, vol. II, London, 1813, pp. 297-298. 5 Curtis did not mention this object in his article but reports on another stele called “sculptured trough at Daniel’s Tomb” which is drawn by H.A. Churchill (see Curtis, op. cit., Plate 12). EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 3 complete picture of the site6. In the end, Loftus was disappointed because he did not find at Susa the bas-reliefs comparable to those which had been discovered first by Botta at Khorsabad, and then by the British at Nimrud. The excavations were given up by the Trustees of the British Museum and Rawlinson who believed the mounds of Susa to be exhausted. Here, John Curtis, as a British, expresses his sorrow: “How wrong they were, as we know from the splendid treasures unearthed by the subsequent French excavators! … Had he stayed at Susa the whole pattern of archaeological research in the Near East may have been different, but such are the accidents of history”7.

The Historical Background: After the middle of the nineteenth century, for nearly a quarter of a century, the archaeological activities in Mesopotamia and Iran slowed almost to a standstill. In 1853, Rassam left Mesopotamia and returned to England, giving up antiquity hunting for a while. Meanwhile, Layard had left the field, and Henry Rawlinson, as a military officer, became involved in the Crimean War, which put a stop to Near Eastern archaeological explorations. The excavations at the ruins of the Assyrian cities by Botta, Place, Layard, and Rassam had provided large quantities of objects for European museums. While the arrangement of an Assyrian Room in Crystal Palace in England were being made, Bouvet, the successor of Victor Place at Mosul, demanded credit for another campaign at Khorsabad, which was denied by the French government8. The former instance suggests the innumerable quantities of the objects which arrived in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century, while the latter shows the huge investment of a European government in search for antiquities. During the second half of the 19th century the conceptual framework of archaeology was changed, following two major developments of the century:

6 “With the small sum at my disposal for actual excavation, it was utterly impossible to make a thorough examination of the vast area covered by the ruins…If further excavations should be made, it will be necessary to carry trenches to a much greater depth than, with my limited funds, I was able to effect”. Cf. Loftus, “On the Excavations Undertaken at the Ruins of Susa in 1851-2”, op. cit., p. 453. 7 J. Curtis, “William Kennet Loftus and his Excavations at Susa”, op. cit., p. 15. 8 S. Lloyd, Foundations in the Dust, Harmondsworth, 1955, p. 175. I would like to cite Victor Place, giving an idea of archaeological excavation in that period: “Aussitôt qu’une excavation ne paraissait pas conduire à des bas-reliefs, elle était abandonnée.” (Ninive et l’Assyrie, X, p. 37). 4 ALI MOUSAVI

The deciphering in 1857 of the cuneiform script by Henry Creswick Rawlinson, and the triumph of evolutionary biology through the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin’s evolutionary theory soon became influencial in social sciences, addressing the questions of the origin of man and, by extension, the transformation of society and culture. Also contributing were numerous excavations in the Near East, which fostered more developments. Amongst the most influential were the discovery of Heinrich Schliemann of Troy and other Mycennean sites, and the discovery of the Sumerian civilization by Ernest de Sarzec at Telloh, which began in 1877. Major’s first accomplishments in field archaeology included the development of the method of controlled stratigraphy set forth in 1857 by the Germans at Olympia and then at Babylon (from 1899 onwards). Photography was also used to illustrate archaeological reports for the first time by the Austrians during their excavations at Samothrace. Toward the end of the century, the application by Sir Flinders Petrie of Sequence Dating in his work in Egypt influenced Near Eastern archaeology greatly in the methodology of comparative typology.

The First French Excavation at Susa: The works done at Susa by Marcel August Dieulafoy (1844-1920), an engineer, and his wife, Jeanne (1851-1916) were the subject of two adven- ture books by Mme Dieulafoy, written in the Victorian romantic style of the end of the past century9. But very little has been written about Marcel Dieulafoy’s excavation method, to which I will now turn. Dieulafoy found Susa as a site with four distinct mounds; the Apadana (the northern mound), the Acropole or citadel (the highest mound), the Ville Royale, where he supposed to be the ruins of the Achaemenid town, and the Ville des Artisans (the eastern part of the site). Dieulafoy’s work was carried out in four directions: A large trial trench (Trench C) was opened along the “façade” of the Achaemenid palace, probably in the north. Another trench (Trench B) was opened in the south where Dieulafoy imagined that he would find the staircase of the Apadana. A third (Trench A) overlapped the trenches that had been dug by Loftus in the central hall of the palace. Three additional long trenches were dug in

9 J. Dieulafoy, La Perse, la Chaldée et la Susiane, Relation de voyage, Paris, 1887; Idem, A Suse: Journal des fouilles 1884-1886, Paris, 1888. EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 5 the Acropole, yielding traces of mudbrick walls. Dieulafoy believed that the walls belonged to a fortification system with crenelated and fortified towers which he imagined in L’Acropole de Suse10. During two seasons of excavation at Susa, Dieulafoy discovered an invaluable mass of glazed bricks, column bases, and capitals of the palace of the Achaemenian kings. As an architect, he was able to trace correctly the architectural remains of the Achaemenid palace, and to understand some technical problems related to its abandonment and destruction11. However, Dieulafoy, like his successor, de Morgan, was not able to identify mudbrick walls which were destroyed in the course of excavation. His method was less elaborate than that of Robert Koldewey, the German architect working at Babylon, as he himself confesses. He summarized his method of excavation in four steps: search, discovery, packing, and transporting of archaeological objects12. The last step is illustrated in the following sentence, where Dieulafoy complained: “Je n’aurais pas considéré ma mission comme bien remplie si je n’avais pu obtenir en faveur de la France l’abandon de la part que s’était attribuée le souverain de l’Iran”13. Dieulafoy’s first campaign was centred at the Apadana. The second campaign was carried out rapidly both on the Apadana and the Acropole, but the work was interrupted in 1886 because the Qajar government was unable to guarantee the mission’s safety in the region. As mentioned above, it seems that Dieulafoy was primarily concerned with the discovery

10 M. Dieulafoy, L’Acropole de Suse, d’après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886 sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1893. 11 Ibid., p. 387 and pp. 420-421; for a recent study see R. Boucharlat, “La fin des palais achéménides de Suse: Une mort naturelle”, Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, p. 227. 12 M. Dieulafoy, “Fouilles de Suse. Campagne de 1885-1886”, Revue archéologique, Tome VIII, 1878, p. 10. Moreover, he had the same problems that were confronted by de Sarzec at Telloh, where the workmen stole the objects and sold them back to him: “Pendant la campagne précédente les ouvriers avaient dérobé pour me les revendre ensuite très cher, la plupart des petits objets”, wrote M. Dieulafoy (Ibid., p. 5). Evidently, the willingness of the excavators to purchase objects encouraged the stealing. In a letter dated to March 17, 1881 to Léon Huzey, Ernest de Sarzec wrote about his difficulties with the excavation: “… En ce moment à Bassorah comme Baghdad, les Arabes volent, pillent, assassinent même en plein jour… La plupart des pièces ou fragments que je rap- porte m’ont été d’abord volés et il m’a fallu les racheter ensuite”. (A. Parrot, Tello. Vingt campagnes de fouilles, Paris, 1948, p. 19). 13 Ibid., p. 17. 6 ALI MOUSAVI of architectural remains and ornaments. Nevertheless, he realized the neces- sity for a more careful and systematic method of excavation, as we are told by his wife: “… il n’entre pas dans les vues de mon mari de faire des trous quelconques et de chercher à l’aveuglette des objets de musées; des fouilles exécutées avec méthode peuvent seul donner des résultats scientifiques”14.

De Morgan and the Creation of the “Délégation en Perse”: The French, now in the remarkably creative period of the Third Republic (1870-1914), resumed their activities in Iran (Marcel Dieulafoy’s excavations between 1884 and 1886), but this time with a long-term pro- gramme directed by Jean-Marie Jacques de Morgan (1857-1924), a mine engineer. On April 19, 1897, de Morgan was given complete authority as the “Délégué Général en Perse” to choose a site, to select his collabo- rators, and to obtain the necessary equipment, 50 rifles with 10,000 bul- lets, a cart, and wood for constructing a residence at the site. After the relevant negotiations and after the expedition’s budget (140,000 francs) was approved and the necessary equipment was provided, on September 15, 1897, de Morgan left Paris for Tehran, with Georges Lampre and a servant. In 1889, de Morgan carried out a survey in western Iran. At the end of this survey, he visited Susa and collected a number of painted sherds and flints which he thought to belong to the Elamite Prehistoric period. He chose Susa as a multi-period site since, in his opinion, it could reveal the prehistory and history of Elam: “Ce tell renfermait donc à lui des vestiges de tous les âges; c’est lui qu’on devrait attaquer pour retrouver l’histoire perdue de l’Elam…”15

14 J. Dieulafoy, A Suse: Journal des fouilles 1884-1886, op. cit., p. 116. 15 J. de Morgan, La Délégation en Perse du Ministère de l’Instruction Publique. 1897 à 1902, Paris, 1902, p. 8. In 1894, Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary, Réné de Balloy, who was a friend of the King, through his influence in the Persian court, obtained signature of a convention, reserving for France the monopoly of archaeological researches in the whole of Iran. The Convention was concluded in two copies and mutu- ally signed on May 12, 1895 in Tehran. These two conventions are briefly mentioned in de Morgan’s book (supra, pp. 10-11). The essential clauses of the Convention of 1900 have been noted in the catalogue of the Cernuschi museum, La Perse et la France: Relations Diplomatiques et Culturelles du XVIIème au XIXème Siècle, catalogue de l’exposition du EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 7

“L’Exploitation Systematique des Niveaux”: “Rien n’est plus simple que de faire des fouilles et en même temps rien n’est plus difficile”. With these words Jacques de Morgan begins his book, Les recherches archéologiques, published in 1906. His says were proved over the course of excavations at Susa, one of the most compli- cated sites in the Near East. Moreover, it should be noted that archaeological excavations by definition are, ironically, destructive and cannot be repeated; once it is finished, it is impossible to check the results in the absence of well recorded evidence. The first excavators of Susa, as we will see, were more or less in search of objects with little attention to stratigraphy, architectural and other non-commercial archaeological materials. At the beginning of the work, because the wagons had not arrived in time, de Morgan decided to dig in the Ville Royale, where the low height of the mound facilitated the transport of the debris. De Morgan was dis- content with the results, however, and reported that the work had little value as far as valuable object were concerned16. The first campaign had four principal aims: excavation of deep layers of the Acropole, a surface study of the Ville Royale, further research on the Apadana, and the investi- gation of the upper layers of the Acropole17. Evidently, of all the mounds, the Acropole was the most important one for the excavator18. In the winter of 1898, he began to open five tunnels in the Acropole. The excavations took the form of tunnels dug into the high vertical face of the mound, at a location chosen by de Morgan during his first visit in 1981. The tunnels were dug in the southern corner of the Acropole at different heights above the plain level in order to sample the contents of

Musée Cernuschi, Paris, 1972, No. 206; they are also cited in detail in A. Qaffâri, Târix- e ravâbet-e Iran va Farânseh (History of the Franco-Iranian Relation. From the Assassination of Naser-al din Shâh to the First World War, 1313-1333 h.), Tehran, 1368 s./1989, pp. 105-106 and 197, which is treated after the Archives du Ministère français des Affaires Etrangères (unpublished documents), and in F. Bagherzadeh, “Jean Perrot ami de l’Iran, témoignage et hommage”, Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, p. XV. The Conventions effectively closed Iran to other European nations, thus heightening the obvious limitations and shortcomings of the monopoly. 16 J. de Morgan, Histoire et Travaux de la Délégation en Perse du Ministère de l’Instruction Publique. 1897-1905, Paris, 1905, p. 47. 17 Ibid., p. 45. 18 “De tous ces travaux, le seul vraiment important était l’attaque de l’Acropole à ciel ouvert”. Cf. La Délégation en Perse, op. cit., p. 152. 8 ALI MOUSAVI the various strata. De Morgan had employed a well-digger for digging the tunnels, which were dug at five-metre intervals and converged at a single ventilator well, much the same as the qanat system (subterranian aqueducts). Since the strata in this area seem to lie more or less horizontally, the results gave a relatively accurate picture of the stratigraphy19. The results of the “travaux en galeries” have been summed up as follows: “Ils m’apportèrent la certitude que le tell est entièrement composé de débris des anciennes civilisations, qu’aucune butte naturelle n’existait en ce lieu avant les premiers établissements de l’homme, que les lits de débris sont rationnellement superposés, c’est-à-dire que les couches sont d’autant plus anciennes qu’on pénètre plus profondement dans le sol, et qu’enfin le quart environs de la hauteur du tumulus s’est déposé avant l’époque historique, c’est-à-dire celle où l’écriture fit son apparition dans le pays.”20 De Morgan’s view of excavating/removing the entire mound of the Acropole bespeaks of his method and goals. The Acropole is about 7 hectares; its average height was 35 metres, and its volume, he estimated, was 2,450,000 cubic metres. With the annual excavation of 50,000 cubic metres, he could remove 250,000 cubic metres of earth during five years of excavation. The rest, estimated at about 2,200,000 cubic metres, would require forty-four years to excavate. As for the Ville Royale, with an area of about 60 hectares and a volume estimated at about 12 million cubic metres, it would need about two centuries of work21. Since de Morgan knew the difficulties of such a task, he wrote: “… il ne sera pas nécessaire d’enlever la totalité des niveaux préhistoriques dont une exploitation partielle, d’un quart ou d’un cinquième par exemple, semble devoir être suffisante pour nous éclairer sur ces époques”22. De Morgan’s most important work at Susa was the excavation of the “Grande Tranchée” (Fig. 1 and Pl. Ib) in the south central part of the Acropole. The scheme adopted by de Morgan was geometric. The “Grande Tranchée” ran across the middle of the mound from the north/northwest to the south/southeast and served as the main axis for the layout of the excavation. Perpendicular to this, de Morgan laid out a five-metre wide trench

19 R.H. Dyson, “Early Works on the Acropolis at Susa”, op. cit., p. 28. Ibid., p. 45. 20 J. de Morgan, Histoire et Travaux, op. cit., pp. 46-47. 21 Idem, La Délégation en Perse, op. cit., p. 152. 22 Ibid. EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 9

Fig. 1. (After de Morgan). running from one edge of the mound to the other, which was thus divided into two sections by the main axis line. De Morgan then arbitrarily divided the mound’s average height of 35 metres into seven 5-metre units. For this division he wrote: “…l’expérience prouve qu’en jetant de 5 mètres de hauteur les déblais dans les wagons les ouvriers ne dégradent pas le matériel”23. The method involved large numbers of men and the Décauville railroad with dump wagons. De Morgan first opened a trial tranch 4 metres wide and 2.5 metres deep. The wagons were used along one edge of the trench (Fig. 2: 1-2). Then, the railway and wagons were transferred to the floor of the trench (Fig. 2: 3); they were placed along the opposite wall of the trench, allowing for the removal of that section of earth which had been beneath the first position of

23 J. de Morgan, Les recherches archéologiques: Leur but et leurs procédés, Paris, 1906, p. 35. 10 ALI MOUSAVI

Fig. 2. the railway. Thus the excavator arrived at a 5-metre wide by 2.5-metre deep trench (Fig. 2: 3). The same procedure was then repeated so that the trench reached 5 metres in depth (Fig. 2: 4-5). Then two adjoining trenches of the same width were opened on the either side of the first trench (Fig. 2: 6). The middle 5-metre section of this 15-metre space was then deepened to 10 metres (Fig. 2: 7). Two more trenches were then added to the original ones, so that the entire excavation now spanned a width of 25 metres. Then those two trenches adjoining the original trench were deepened to 10 metres, so that the three middle trenches were now 10 metres deep and the two outermost trenches were 5 metres deep (Fig. 2: 8). Thus the second “level”, 10 metres deep, would be accessible in a 15-metre wide space, and the middle section would be deepened to 15 metres. The excavation then continued in the same “pyramidal” system down to virgin soil24. The excavations of the southern part of the Acropole yielded several invaluable objects: the stele of Naramsin, a collection of Kudurrus, an ornamented bronze table of snakes, the Law Code of Hammurabi, the bronze statue of Queen Napirasu, and numerous inscribed bricks25.

24 Ibid., pp. 35-36; see also A. Parrot, Archéologie mésopotamienne, Technique et problèmes, vol. 2, Paris, 1953, fig. 25 These objects, as it was understood later, had been taken mostly from Babylon as war spoils, and had been placed in a corridor which connected the temples of Inshushinak and that of Ninhursag. Marie-Joseph Steve and Herman Gasche have rightly shown that EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 11

Unfortunately, the first excavators of Susa paid little attention to the architecture, and as a result, the religious complex in this area was completely destroyed and removed. De Morgan’s successor, Roland de Mecquenem, however, did subsequently publish a sketch map with some observations on the Elamite structures of the Acropole26. According to Gustave Jéquier27, the excavators, with their little field experience, encountered many difficulties. This was also noted by de Morgan: “Je pensais rencontrer quelque grand monument en assez bon état pour qu’il fut possible d’en étudier tout au moins le plan, ce qui m’eut obligé à une méthode spéciale d’attaquer…; mais je reconnus bientôt que les documents, même les plus importants, étaient épars au milieu des décombres. Cette considération me fit adopter une méthode d’exploitation, je puis dire industrielle, de l’Acropole”28. The consequence of this was the demolition of the archaeological remains. As explained by the excavator: “Il est nécessaire pour cela d’avoir préparé à l’avance la methode d’attaque ou d’exploitation d’une manière précise pour plusieurs mois, plusieurs années souvent et, si la chose est possible, pour l’épuisement du site… Dans la plupart des cas, il n’y a pas le moindre intérêt à conserver les ruines qu’on rencontre dans les telles de l’Orient… C’est en démolissant ces vieilles murailles sans intérêt qu’on trouve les textes de fondation, les bar- illets et aussi des objets très importants…”29

these temples were close to the platform of a ziggurat now destroyed; see M.-J. Steve et H. Gasche, L’Acropole de Suse, Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran, Mission de Susiane, vol. XLVI, Paris, 1971, p. 45, plan 1. It is probable that the middle Elamite conquerors of the 13th and 12th centuries B.C. would have placed the war booty at a little museum or exhibition, similar to the one in the north of the “Hauptburg” of Babylon built by Nabuchodonasar II. Cf. P. Amiet, “Contribution à l’histoire de la sculpture archaïque de Suse”, Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran, vol. 6, 1976, p. 48. 26 See R. de Mecquenem, “Constructions élamites du Tell de l’Acropole de Suse”, Mémoires de la délégation en Perse, vol. XII, Paris, 1911, pp. 65-78; R. de Mecquenem, “Vestiges de Constructions Elamites”, Recueils de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptienne et assyrienne, vol. XXXIII, 1911, pp. 1-19. 27 G. Jéquier, 1905, “Fouilles de Suse de 1899-1902”, Mémoires de la délégation en Perse, vol. VIII, Paris, pp. 14-15. 28 J. de Morgan, Les recherches archéologiques. Leur but et leurs procédés, op. cit., p. 35. 29 Ibid., p. 26. 12 ALI MOUSAVI

In the field each of the Morgan’s work crews consisted of 10 pickmen, 20 shovel-men, and 20 basket-men. He employed one crew for each section; each crew attacked a slice of one level at the edge of the mound, repeating the procedure for the next level down and so on to the base of the structure. Then, those faces left revealed were attacked, beginning again at the upper level, and working again down to the base of the structure. In the beginning of the work, de Morgan employed 1200 workmen, and reported that in the direction of the large crew no disorders or problems occured: “Conduire mille hommes n’est pas plus difficile que d’en mener deux cents; il suffit de les encadrer par escouades et de faire, dans ses travaux, autant de groupes d’escouades qu’il y a de chantiers principaux d’attaque… Aucune hésitation n’est pérmise lorsqu’on commande à des milliers de bras.”30 Despite this disclaimer, de Morgan did encounter difficulties in the field, as he had already mentioned: “J’ai employé un hiver jusqu’à 1200 hommes, mais ai du y renoncer à cause des difficultés qu’on rencontre pour la surveillance étant donné le personnel dont je puis disposer”.31

The Results of the “Exploitation Systématique des Niveaux”: In the heart of the Acropole, the “Grande Tranchée” gradually came into existence, 25 metres deep and 100 metres long. In 1902 it reached “a mass of earth”, archaeologically sterile, which was interpreted as “the base of an ancient rampart”, and which was illustrated by the excavator in his “coupe théorique des ruines de l’Acropole”32. This was the High Terrace of the Acropole whose upper and western parts were unfortunately destroyed over the course of excavation. It was de Mecquenem, however, who first understood the existence of a massive mudbrick structure at the heart of the mound, and showed that the “rampart” was a “massif funéraire” about 3 metres heigh and a dozen metres in diametre at the base33. Earlier at the

30 Ibid., pp. 26 and 37. 31 J. de Morgan, Histoire et Travaux, op. cit., p. 51 (supra n. 40). 32 J. de Morgan, “Observations sur les couches profondes de l’Acropole de Suse”, Mémoires de la délégation en Pèrse, vol. XIII, Paris, 1912, p. 12, Fig. 113. 33 R. de Mecquenem, “Fouilles de Suse 1933-1938”, Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran, vol. XXIX, Paris, 1943, p. 5. EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 13 base of the trench and beyond the mass of earth, de Morgan had found the necropolis of the “first Susian agglomeration” which “was situated out- side the rampart”34. In fact, the necropolis was a natural rise about three metres high, covering an area of about 120 square metres. According to de Morgan, the bodies were interred as secondary burials one above the other to a depth of up to five bodies: “… les sépultures sont très voisines les unes des autres…les corps avaient été placés dans une position quelconque, les plus souvent allongés, sans orientation spéciale. Près de la tête se trouvent tous les mobiliers consistant en vase, armes, instruments et objets de parure”35. De Morgan estimated a surface of 750 square metres for the area of the necropolis. Based on some four thousand vessels, he estimated some two thousand graves in the necropolis. The bodies had no consistent orientation and were accompanied by gifts. The burials were classified as male or female on the basis of associated objects: male burials included copper axes, celts, awls, knives or needles, and stone maceheads; female burials included vases and cosmetic painted jars, stone and clay beads (also pre- sent with the males), and copper mirrors. But except for a very schematic drawing36, no detail illustrations of the burials were given. De Morgan reported that the burial gifts were at the head and that the body was often extended, but the statement was corrected later by de Mecquenem, who reported that the bones were buried secondarily37.

34 J. de Morgan, 1900, “Travaux au Tell de la Citadelle. Travaux souterrains”, Mémoires de la délégation en Perse, Paris, p. 7. 35 Ibid., p. 8. 36 J. de Morgan, La Préhistoire orientale, vol. 3, Paris, 1927, p. 52, Fig. 65; the drawing is reproduced by P. Amiet in Suse 6000 ans d’histoire, op. cit., p. 27, Fig. 7. 37 R. de Mecquenem, “Notes sur la céramique peinte archaïque en Perse”, Mémoire de la Délégation archéologique en Perse, vol. XX, Paris, 1928, p. 100. In 1965, M.-J. Steve and H. Gasche resumed the excavations of the Acropole and found various structures which may have been parts of a ceremonial centre on the top of this 11-metre Terrace (see M.-J. Steve et H. Gasche, L’Acropole de Suse, op. cit., pp. 187-188). In 1971, J. Perrot’s meticulous stratigraphic observations on the northern side of de Morgan’s trenches led him to recognize the socle of the Terrace, overlapping with de Morgan’s trenches (see J. Perrot, “Fouilles stratigraphique à l’acropole de Suse”, Bastan Chenassi va Honar-e Iran, n. 2, 1969, pp. 3-4; J. Perrot, “Fouilles stratigraphique de l’Acropole de Suse”, Bastan Chenassi va Honar-e Iran, No. 9-10, 1972, p. 32; J. Perrot et D. Ladiray, “La Haute-Terrasse et la nécropole du IVe millénaire”, Dossiers Histoire et Archéologie, No. 138, 1989, p. 38). Later studies by Denis Canal from 1975 to 1977 provided more 14 ALI MOUSAVI

The lack of the stratigraphic observation at Susa also affected the interpretation of the ceramic styles. One of the most important finds was the famous painted pottery of the late fifth and the early fourth millenium B.C. or the period called Susa I. The publication of the painted pottery included a summary of the archaeological context, a descriptive catalogue, and a stylis- tic study, entrusted to Edmond Pottier, who was a specialist of Greek ceram- ics. Pottier had never seen the site, and assumed the continuity between the two archaic painted pottery styles. Needless to say, Pottier’s erronous assumption was made regardless of the archaeological contexts of the two styles38. Reports of the Délégation en Perse are devoid of any description of the archaeological contexts of objects and almost never is the stratigraphy of the site discussed. Such problems are mentioned by André Parrot who came two generations later, giving an idea of what was the method: “…on trouvera sans doute que de Morgan voyait lui trop large et trop grand, confondant chantier archéologique et entreprise de travaux publics… Il est bien évident qu’avec cette méthode où tout est envisagé sous l’angle du cubage et du rendement (le mètre cube de terre évacuée revient à 1 fr. 75 or) et où la démolition systématique et forcée des “vielles murailles sans intérêt” est instaurée en principe, rien ne compte plus que l’objet. L’exa- men des rapports de la Délégation en Perse indique assez la déficience du système, sans qu’il soit nécessaire d’y insister davantage.”39

Later Work: In 1908, Roland de Mecquenem succeeded de Morgan. He continued to open large trenches at the Acropole and the Apadana, where he found the remains of an Elamite temple of the 1st millennium. But his reports are rather incomplete and incomprehensible. De Mecquenem’s method was almost the same as his predecessor, which also caused irreparable damage details on the different historic steps of the Terrace and its relation with the “massif funéraire” (see D. Canal, “Travaux à la terrasse haute de l’Acropole de Suse”, Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran, vol. 9, 1978, pp. 11-55); for an interpretation see F. Hole, “Cemetry or Mass Grave? Reflections on Susa I”, Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, edited by F. Vallat, Paris, 1990, pp. 1-14. 38 E. Pottier, “Etude historique et chronologique sur les vases peints de l’acropole de Suse”, Mémoires de la délégation en Perse, vol. XIII, Paris, pp. 27-103. It should be noted that the only stratigraphy then established was that of the Morgan’s deep trench. For more details see H.W. Eliot, Excavations in Mesopotamia and Western Iran. Sites of 4000-500 B.C., Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950, p. 28. 39 A. Parrot, Archéologie mésopotamienne, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 39. EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 15 to the cultural layers at Susa. Nevertheless, Louis Le Breton’s important synthesis of accumulated archaeological materials provided a valuable framework for the prehistory of Susa and Susiana. De Mecquenem’s successor at Susa was Roman Ghirshman. During his 21-years tenure at Susa, Ghirshman excavated 36 areas on the site. He was primarily interested in 2nd millennium Susa, which he reached through large trenches at the northern and southern sectors of the Ville Royale. We are indebted to him for our knowledge of Susa’s architecture, town- planning, material culture, and history of the site during this period. Unfortunately, the results have not yet been completely published. Since 1970 increasing scientific awareness has oriented archaeological excavations and improvements towards research strategies involving the employment of better field methods, and the use of more advanced tech- nology. During this decade, a new era in the history of Iranian archaeology was ushered in40. From 1968 to 1978, a new French team, led by Jean Perrot, worked at the site to produce an overall assessment of the development of Susa and Susiana from the prehistoric to the early Islamic period. Perrot’s primary goal was the establishement of a stratigraphic sequence for the region. Careful examination of the strata in two soundings at the Acropole have provided an accurate picture of the stratigraphy of the deep layers of the mound. Moreover, with special studies carried out on different historic periods of the site, we now have a better understanding of the historical development of Susa from the beginning of the first millennium B.C. to the early Islamic period.

Epilogue: As we have seen, the early excavators at Susa were primarily interested in discovering valuable antiquities. Nevertheless, they did attempt to develop some proper methods of excavation. To be fair, one would

40 In 1927, an agreement was concluded between Iran and France that put an end to the Franco-Persian convention of 1900. On 3 November, 1930, the Act of Conservation of the antiquities in Persia was promulgated; according to this Act, archaeological objects were to be divided between Iran and the excavators (see F. Bagherzadeh, “Jean Perrot ami de l’Iran”, Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran, op.cit., p. XVI). After forty-two years, during which the Act was always respected, Firouz Bagherzadeh, director of Iranian Centre for Archaeological Researches, did take the initiative and announced to the foreign missions the abolition of the division of objects. 16 ALI MOUSAVI hardly expect that Marcel Dieulafoy or Jacques de Morgan, as pionneers, could have conducted their investigations following the modern methods and techniques which gradually developed much later on the assumption that some future generation of archaeologists would be better equipped to excavate the site. They would certainly not have abandoned the excavation at the site, especially after having made such invaluable discoveries as the Frise des Archers, the Naramsin stele, Queen Napirasu’s statue, the Law Code of Hammurabi, etc. And they were not willing to leave the objects to the local peoples, whom they called “outlaws”, especially in the absence of any antiquity laws in place in Iran. But, was it a good rea- son not to consider the discoveries as Iranian national treasures and leave them in Iran? At any rate, it is true that the crude methods and techniques of archaeological investigations were, in retrospect, regrettable. We must, however, realize that this was the traditional manner of excavation of the pioneer age. Leaving aside such apologetics, even compared to their contemporaries, the early excavators of Susa failed to perform their best possible work. However, like any field, there has been a gradual development in outlook and technique in excavating the site over the course of time. It is a changing world, and by the 1970’s the French Archaeological Delegation in Iran had reached a high level of precision and excellence in scientific expeditions. Pl. I. EARLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVENTURES 17

A. The site of Susa: the “Acropole".

B. The “Grande Tranchée" of J. de Morgan.