The Arjan Tomb: Innovation and Acculturation in the Last Days of Elam

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XL, 2005

THE ARJAN TOMB: INNOVATION AND ACCULTURATION IN THE LAST DAYS OF ELAM

BY David STRONACH (University of California, Berkeley)

In the interval since the fortuitous discovery of the tomb at Arjan a little more than twenty years ago (Tohidi and Khalilian, 1982) quite varied dates for the tomb have been advanced. One early study postulates a date in the first half of the 8th century B.C. (Alizadeh, 1985, p. 68) while another advocates a date between 725 and 625 B.C. (Majidzadeh, 1992, p. 142). More recently, still lower estimates have begun to prevail. This is in accord with F. Vallat's fundamental observation that the Elamite cuneiform that was used to inscribe several of the main objects — always with the same unvarying legend, “Kidin-Hutran, son of Kurlush” — has to be attributed to the period between 646 B.C. and 525 B.C. (Vallat, 1984, p. 4). In line with this finding, and together with independent clues provided by a number of the principal grave goods, the tomb is now most often ascribed to either the end of the 7th century or to dates that fall early in the 6th century.1 Accordingly, in a situation where there is a dearth of Elamite documents of similar date which might throw light on the Elamite/Persian acculturation that was taking place at this still obscure moment in the history of southwestern Iran, the iconographically rich objects from Arjan take on unusual significance. At the same time it is only appropriate to acknowledge the possibility that certain of the objects from the Arjan corpus could prove to be of non- local manufacture (cf. Roaf, 2003, p. 16, n. 10) — a circumstance which, clearly, would make any such items less than representative of innovations that were occurring in southwestern Iran. Moreover, as John Curtis was the first to point out (Curtis, 1995, p. 22), close chronological arguments for any one date for the objects from the tomb as a whole would be invalid

1 See, for example, Boehmer, 1989, pp. 142-3; Curtis, 1995, pp. 21-2; Stronach, 1997, p. 41; Potts, 1999, p. 302; Curtis, 2000, p. 204; Stronach, 2003, p. 253 ff; and Alvarez- Mon, 2004, p. 232. 180 D. STRONACH if the tomb could be shown to have been reused. As far as I can detect, however, the critically important grave goods that are illustrated in the present paper — and which appear below in Figures 2, 4 and 5 — are each arguably local products. Also, the fact that no less than four of the more striking metal objects — the three illustrated in the above-mentioned illus- trations plus a silver jar that stood on the floor of the tomb beside the coffin — are each known to carry Kidin-Hutran's inscription does much to fortify the likelihood that all these major items can be associated with the burial of this single, hitherto unknown personage. With this necessary pre- amble we may take special note of several of the more outstanding objects.

Fig. 1. A cut-away drawing showing the interior of the tomb at Arjan. After Alizadeh, 1985, fig. 2.

Select examples of metalwork from the tomb at Arjan As the excavation report of 1982 originally indicated, construction work close to the left bank of the Marun River (at a location not far from the ruins of the medieval town of Arjan) chanced to reveal the grave of a single elite individual whose remains had been laid to rest in a bronze coffin (Fig. 1). This type of bronze coffin (with one end rounded and the other squared off) belongs to a form that originated in Assyria and is known to have quickly spread to southern Mesopotamia, where it persisted from the THE ARJAN TOMB 181

Fig. 2. The gold “ring” from the Arjan tomb. After Alizadeh, 1985, fig. 3.

8th to the 4th centuries B.C. (Curtis, 1983, p. 86). Obviously enough, the form also reached the eastern highlands of Elam by at least the beginning of the 6th century. Indeed, the presence of the coffin is in itself an indication that a new era of multiple competing influences was beginning to break down the rigid, austere conventions of traditional Elamite burial practice even in the relatively remote vicinity of the chaîne magistrale of the southern Zagros. The character of the more noticeable funerary goods only reinforces this impression. Thus, while a group of bronze vessels from among the objects that stood outside the coffin can be closely compared to a group of bronze vessels from Tomb 693 at Susa — all of which D.T. Potts ascribes to a Neo-Elamite IIIB phase beginning a few years before 600 B.C. (1999, p. 302) — relatively few other objects from Arjan are incontrovertibly “Elamite” in appearance. A gold “ring” with flaring disc-shaped finials (Fig. 2) is one object that calls for particular comment. This apparent insignium of high office, which was found resting on the chest of the deceased, shows the same repoussé and chased design on its two opposed circular plaques: namely, a small palmette-tree flanked by rampant winged monsters of principally leonine appearance. Each winged beast stands on the same scaled, i.e. mountainous, ground line and the design as a whole is framed by a prominent 182 D. STRONACH

Fig. 3. A detail of the griffins that adorn the shield-shaped top of the royal scabbard at Persepolis. Drawing by Jasmine Shahbandi.

Fig. 4. The bronze stand from Arjan. After Alizadeh, 1985, fig. 4. THE ARJAN TOMB 183 guilloche band. While the pose of the Arjan monsters has been under- standably compared to that of various rearing, sometimes distinctly mus- cular, creatures in late Neo-Elamite seal designs (Amiet, 1973, nos. 11 and 12), the question has to be raised as to whether such comparisons are com- pelling enough to justify a strictly Elamite cultural label. In raising the issue of the extent to which this singular object may or may not deserve to be viewed as an example of Elamite art, the parallels that can be drawn between the rampant monsters in the Arjan discs and the rampant, regardant griffins that adorn part of the royal scabbard (carried by the king's weapon-bearer) in one of the original Apadana reliefs from Persepolis (Schmidt, 1953, pl. 121) are perhaps especially relevant. Thus, while the paired griffins in the Persepolis image stand back to back in a design that served to fill the entire field of the shield-shaped scabbard top (Fig. 3), there is much in the stance of the two beasts that is otherwise familiar from the Arjan composition. Inter alia, the near foreleg of each Achaemenid griffin extends downwards to touch the top of a palmette while the other foreleg rises to touch (in the case of the Persepolis motif) a ribbed border pattern. In the carved scabbard each creature stands on an imaginary ground line that is close in its relative position to the “mountainous” ground line in the Arjan composition and each has a tripartite brush tail that is closely akin to the quadripartite brush tails of the Arjan monsters. In addition, the fact that the wings are each relatively straight in the Arjan emblem and decidedly curved in the similar design from Perse- polis is not likely to be more than a function of the passage of time. That is to say that it may very well be the difference between one emblem that was presumably composed somewhere in say, the first quarter of the 6th century and another that was no doubt formulated during the reign of Dar- ius I (522-486 B.C.). In short, it is tempting to suggest that the emblematic Arjan object deserves to be viewed — in terms of its design and character — as not only a manifestation of the last phase of Neo-Elamite art but also as an important harbinger of Achaemenid art.2 A second select object from Arjan that cannot be omitted from this summary review is a tall bronze stand (Fig. 4) which of course also carries

2 To put matters another way, it begins to be hard to decide whether certain objects of late 7th or early 6th century date found in or near Fars are truly “Elamite” or the product of an already existing amalgam of Elamite and Iranian traits. With reference to the similar, possibly hybrid background of not a few items of fully Achaemenid date, see in particular Boucharlat 1994, pp. 223-224 and Henkelman 2003, p. 190. 184 D. STRONACH

Fig. 5. Drawing of the interior of the Arjan bowl. After Majidzadeh, 1992, fig. 1. THE ARJAN TOMB 185 an inscription of Kidin-Hutran. It is an object that contains a curious mix- ture of chronological clues. On the one hand the lower part of the stand includes Atlas figures of a somewhat Assyrian appearance while, at the same time, the adjacent bull protomes and the various representations of lions with outwardly turned heads possess qualities that once again appear to anticipate the canons of later, fully formed Achaemenid art.

The Arjan bowl It may be appropriate at this point to turn to a number of matters related to the very varied incised motifs that occur on the interior of the large, shal- low bronze bowl from Arjan. Its five concentric registers (Fig. 5) can be compared, at least in general terms, to the concentric registers that occur not only in the so-called Phoenician bowls of the Mediterranean and the Near East (Markoe, 1986) but also in a variety of other objects including bronze shields from Urartu (cf. Azarpay, 1968, pl. 56). Nonetheless the Arjan bowl is not the product of some distant workshop. As Yousef Majidzadeh originally observed (1992, pp. 136-138), a host of Elamite elements are visible in the vessel's multiple incised images. This implies that a skilled engraver, who was either of local origin or who was at least working at the behest of a local patron, was employed somewhere in the vicinity of the southern Zagros to draw up the complex designs in question. Indeed, in the case of this specific object (which carries Kidin- Hutran's inscription on its outer surface just below the rim), it is tempting to suppose that Kidin Hutran himself had a hand in selecting the motifs that were deployed. Thus the engraved scenes could well have been intended to reflect an ideal vision of a no doubt circumscribed kingdom: that is to say a vision of a local highland polity, located not far from the western border of Fars, that found it possible to flourish even at a time when a central Elamite authority at Susa had been restored.3 I will complete these remarks by examining three of the bowl's motifs which may be said to be of particular interest. These consist of a detailed representation of a fortified structure; a possible illustration of an innovative, local court protocol; and what appears to be the earliest known representation of a “yurt.”

3 The effects of the Assyrian attack on Susa in 646 B.C. may not have been long-lived. For both textual and artistic evidence that points towards a post-Assyrian Elamite revival, see now Henkelman 2003, pp. 181-183, with bibliography. 186 D. STRONACH

The depiction of a fortified building With reference to the depiction of a fort in the fourth register of the bowl (Fig. 5), the incised image appears to depict the strongly guarded entrance facade of a free-standing building. In order to stay within the limits of the available vertical space, however, the artist obviously had to reduce the vertical proportions of the structure to a notable extent. The illustrated side of the building (Fig. 6) is marked by a wide central tower that is flanked on each side by a single intermediate tower and a corner tower. On the basis of excavated evidence from Tepe Nush-i Jan, moreover, it is reasonable to suppose that this facade accords with one of the two shorter sides of a rectangular building.4

Fig. 6. An enlarged, justified view of the fort in the second register of the Arjan bowl. Drawing by Javier Alvarez-Mon.

Somewhat against expectation, the single large doorway of the fort can be seen to emerge from the middle of a wide protruding central tower (Fig. 6). But while this arrangement is at variance with say, the testimony of the Fort at Tepe Nush-i Jan, where two slim, straight-sided towers flank each side of a relatively narrow doorway, the essential accuracy of the Arjan image need not be doubted. That is to say that a Neo-Elamite stone statue

4 The presumably somewhat similar structure at Tepe Nush-i Jan, dubbed “the Fort,” measured 22 x 25.40 m in size. See Stronach and Roaf, forthcoming, fig. 4.1 THE ARJAN TOMB 187 base from Susa, which was carved in the shape of a freestanding Elamite fortress (Amiet, 1966, fig. 411), visibly demonstrates that heavily defended entrances in Elam could be situated within the fabric of a single, wide central tower. In addition, the rather improbable splayed appearance of the lower parts of the towers (Fig. 6) may be intended to depict a form of construction that is related to an innovative design that is known from Tepe Nush-i Jan. At this latter site the external face of the west wall of the Old Western Building was found to rise from the surface of the bedrock in a straight line — and the individual towers were then formed by the sim- ple device of increasing the batter between the towers. In this way each tower gradually assumed a protruding outline of standard size (Stronach and Roaf, forthcoming, pl. 25).5 The shape of the upper part of the doorway is also highly distinctive in that it exhibits a stepped-in lintel (Fig. 6). Significantly, this type of cor- belled lintel is only otherwise documented in Neo-Assyrian representations of Elamite architecture. It occurs, for example, in Assurbanipal's two separate depictions of the siege and destruction of the Elamite city of Hamanu (Gunter, 1982, pls. 5a and 5b) as well as in this same monarch's depiction of Susa (Russell, 1999, fig. 69). While the statue base from Susa provides a relatively restrained indication of the kind of battlements that capped the tall walls of a typical Elamite fortress, the draftsman who was given the task of depicting a somewhat similar fortified structure within Kidin-Hutran's realm undoubt- edly strove to create more spectacular effects. Conceivably he sought to exaggerate the role of the battlements in order to compensate for the degree to which he had been obliged to reduce the building's vertical spec- ifications. At all events each tower is shown to possess dramatically protruding, crenellated turrets and even the intervening walls can be under- stood to have been capped by similarly projecting, crenellated catwalks (Fig. 6). Some comment on the likely meaning of the long inverted triangles and the rows of small squares that occur, in various combinations, on the walls and towers of the building is perhaps also in order. It is more than likely,

5 I should stress, however, that the lower parts of the towers on the west side of the Old Western Building do not share the bulbous appearance of the equivalent parts of the towers shown in Fig. 6. This statement is made, in part, to correct a suggestion (in Stronach, 2004a, p. 714) to the effect that this could perhaps have been the case. 188 D. STRONACH it seems to me, that the inverted triangles were used to simulate high-level arrowslots such as were already a feature of the architecture of Tepe Nush- i Jan (Stronach, 1969, fig. 5). And while the square openings might conceivably represent windows (cf. Stronach, 2004a, p. 715), the sheer number of these latter openings would seem to point in the end to the depiction of protruding beam-ends.

A representation of an innovative court protocol The third register of the bowl is of obvious importance in that it is given over in its entirety to a lengthy review scene at the heart of which sits an enthroned figure (Fig. 5). In addition, this specific motif is one that appears, in closely related terms, in both Assyrian and Achaemenid times — and in which the images from Arjan may to some extent count as a con- necting link between the older and later instances.6 In the context of the Neo-Assyrian period the motif is known, not least, from two painted review scenes from Til Barsip in north Syria (for which see, recently, Stronach, 2002 and Roaf, 2003, pp. 13 ff). A monarch, who may be either Tiglath Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) or, more probably, Sargon II (721-705 B.C.)7 sits on a high-backed throne at the center of each composition with a staff in his right hand, a flower in his left hand, and with his feet resting on a footstool (Parrot, 1961, figs. 112 and 113). Behind the throne, which stands on a low dias, a pair of eunuch-servants are shown standing in front of a file of weapon-bearers. Raising his hand to greet the king — and hence standing at the head of a long, approaching procession — is an individual who was for long thought to be the grand vizier or tur- tanu. But since this same figure wears a tiara with two pendant strips of cloth, he is now more usually held to be the crown prince (Barnett and Faulkner, 1962, p. 10; Reade, 1967, pp. 45-47). In the imagery that appears in the Arjan bowl (Fig. 5) a number of parallels will be at once apparent while other matters call for at least some degree of notice. It is true that the seated king at the core of the composition sits on a high-backed throne with his feet on a footstool, but the

6 Cf. Stronach 2002: p. 380, n. 18 and for a more extended discussion, see now Alvarez-Mon 2004: pp. 221-226. 7 So, Reade, 1979, p. 76 and Curtis, 1996, p. 169. THE ARJAN TOMB 189 throne is now one that is neither Assyrian in character nor exactly like the type of throne that was used at Achaemenid Persepolis. Instead, in an already clear misunderstanding of the way the pine-cone motif was employed in the decoration of Assyrian thrones (where each foot was often given the appearance of an inverted pine-cone) an upright rather than an inverted cone emerges at the top of the back-rest! In keeping with later Achaemenid tradition, it is also noticeable that the throne has no armrests. At the heart of any analysis of the Arjan review scene has to be the issue of the rank of the participants. And in this context — in contrast to the figures depicted in the outer register, in which by far the greater number are shown wearing a version of a royal Elamite helmet (Majidzadeh, 1992, fig 3b; Sarraf, 1990, fig. 2) — it is evident that only two individu- als sport the same elite headgear. These consist of the central, enthroned figure and a second figure who is shown directly behind the throne, dressed in a full-length costume and holding a long staff (Fig. 5). Yet, as so often happens in the iconography of the Arjan bowl, the minor details manage to provide conflicting messages. Thus, while it is no doubt fair to suppose that the enthroned individual is meant to represent Kidin-Hutran in a setting that would enhance his kingly rank (and match his time-hon- ored Elamite throne-name), it is difficult to see why he had himself depicted holding a flower but no staff. And since the long staff of kingly office is never held by a “staff bearer” (or by the heir to the throne) in earlier or later review scenes, it is hard to fathom exactly who the second individual with a royal helmet represents. In one interpretation it is possible that the bowl bears witness to the introduction of new court protocol in southern highland Iran (in which the crown prince now stood beside his father); and, since two such major figures could not be allowed to overlap, the prince had to be shown (as in Achaemenid reliefs) in a position directly behind his father. In this sce- nario I suppose it is just possible, since the king's right hand lies inert on his lap, that the king's staff of office was meant to be seen in the possession of his heir, who was conceivably occupying a totally novel (and conceivably confusing) location. A less likely alternative to this reading would be the possibility that the second helmeted figure did indeed hold the anomalous position of “staff bearer”. In this interpretation the erect, bareheaded figure facing the king would represent the crown prince. There are perfectly good Assyrian 190 D. STRONACH precedents for the crown prince to not only stand in this latter position, but to be flanked by a figure making reverence to the king (Frankfort, 1954, pl. 88). In this interpretation, however, it would be jarring to find the erect figure of the prince extending an arm to steady (or restrain?) the almost prostrate figure (in an action that looks beneath the dignity of a royal personage). Of at least equal significance is the pose of the figure who appears to speak with deference; for, while the act of raising a hand in front of one's mouth in the presence of a god finds frequent illustration — for example, on the stele of Hammurabi (Frankfort, 1954, pl. 65) — the combination of a closely related form of this gesture, combined with a dramatic forward inclination of the body, all in the presence of a monarch, is very probably new (Fig. 5). And we find just this pose echoed, of course, in the deport- ment of the parade-marshal at Persepolis. From these various observations we can perhaps see how the artists and designers in the service of Darius I probably drew not only on conceivably still visible examples of Assyrian review scenes, but also, more especially, on contemporary court protocols in southern Iran (cf. also Roaf, 2003, p. 16) to produce the supremely elegant central motif that at one time adorned the north and east sides of the socle of the Apadana at Persepolis (Schmidt, 1953, pl. 121 and Tilia, 1972, fig. 3, respectively). In this Achaemenid motif the royal rank of the crown prince is also made unmis- takably clear: he shares a place on the now extended royal dias in addition to claiming all the king's distinctions in dress, headgear and coiffure. His only lack, in fact, is a staff of kingship — an accoutrement which, in the disciplined realm of Achaemenid court manners, he could only hold when he had succeeded to the throne.

The depiction of a “yurt” The outer (or fifth) register of the Arjan bowl includes, in a very prominent position (Fig. 5), a representation of the basic wooden elements of a circular, domed structure of the kind that is known in the West as a “yurt” (Stronach, 2004a, 2004b).8 This prefabricated, portable form of tent is

8 The term is apparently something of a misnomer. None of the nomadic groups which use structures of this kind refer to them by this name. In Turkic languages the term can mean country, family or dwelling place (Andrews, 1973, p. 93). Indeed, the signification THE ARJAN TOMB 191

Fig. 7. An enlarged detail of the “yurt” that appears in the first register of the bowl. The lower parts of certain of the curved struts have been deleted so that more can be made out of the interior appointments. Whether or not the twin standing objects should be viewed as incense-burners is not clear. shown without its customary felt covering in a view which reveals both the wall frame, composed of curved struts, and the roof-wheel (Fig. 7): one of the almost invariable marks of such dwellings. It is true that the image lacks the low trellis-wall (composed of crossed slats) which is nearly ubiquitous in modern yurts (see especially Andrews, 1997), but it is more than possible that this refinement (which serves in part to give the side-walls greater vertical height) was introduced at a later period.9 The doorway in the incised design is of special interest. While modern yurts frequently have double doors that are side-hinged, the Arjan image would seem to indicate that top-hinged doors of substantial thickness were not unknown at an earlier date. In the case in question, moreover, the door was propped open by a tall pole with what appears to have been a wolf- headed or a lion-headed finial.8 that is current in most western publications is thought to stem from a prior error in Russ- ian usage (Andrews, 1997, p. 5). 9 See now Stronach 2004b, p. 15. 10 This prestigious finial was very conceivably an indication of the rank of the owner of the tent. A remote but arresting comparison may be said to come from recently excavated 192 D. STRONACH

In a raised position the door could have been used, of course, to create a kind of shaded porch: a no doubt desirable asset on any up-country “royal progress.” In addition, the presence of two attendants inside the tent, plus two more in the vicinity of the shaded doorway, may be used, among other factors, to suggest that this moveable dwelling was suffi- ciently grand to serve, when necessary, as a place of audience. As for the rectangular cross-hatched object, it could represent a choice textile that was displayed behind the place of honor directly opposite the entrance.

Concluding remarks At a time when highland southwestern Iran was in the process of aban- doning its ancient lifeways of a largely Elamite character in favor of new traditions of an essentially Persian nature, it was for long supposed that the only material reflection of this phenomenon consisted of a “refined style of seal carving” (see, for example, Amiet, 1992, p. 13). With the discovery of the Arjan tomb, however, the vivid objects — of metal especially — that came to be interred with Kidin-Hutran (at a date somewhere in or near the first quarter of the 6th century B.C.) have given us a totally different picture of the range of objects that may be said to reflect this moment of epochal transition. Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that no personal seal belonging to the occupant of the Arjan tomb was ever recovered. Such an object might have helped to clarify the ways in which any new style of seal carving was or was not directly associated with other innovations. In considerable compensation, however, the multiple images engraved on the inner surface of the large Arjan bowl offer an intriguing, indirect commentary on historical, political and social conditions in one corner of the southwest highlands of Iran at this specific juncture. It is only appropriate, moreover, to acknowledge at this point our very real debt to slightly older Near Eastern and Mediterranean value systems that had long stressed the prestige and desirability of eclectic, richly decorated, largely one-register or two-register metal bowls. “Phoenician bowls” of this general tombs of the 6th century A.D. in the northern Chinese province of Ningxia. There stone funerary couches with painted screens depict the exploits of rich Sogdian merchants whose distant trading ventures led them to become integrated into Chinese society. In one screen in particular one of these powerful merchants is shown in a yurt negotiating opposite a long-haired Turkish dignitary (Vaissière, 2003, illustration on p. 24) — and it is evident that tiger skins were used to cover the Khagan's well-appointed yurt! THE ARJAN TOMB 193 description are thought to have been in circulation down to c. 625 B.C. (Majidzadeh, 1992, p. 141); and it could have been these circumstances, coupled, it would seem fair to surmise, with a certain vanity in Kidin- Hutran's character, that persuaded him — at a time when bowls of this nature were definitely no longer the height of fashion — to commission this personal, bucolic portrait of his game-rich, mountainous mini-kingdom. With reference to those images on the bowl that were singled out for special notice in this short contribution, a number of matters possibly deserve recapitulation. Thus the opportunity arose to review various sig- nificant details of pre-Achaemenid military architecture in the Zagros, even if it is essential to recall that we still lack parallel excavated evidence for this or any other kind of monumental construction in highland southern Iran in this time-range. With reference to the extent that new court procedures or, at the very least innovations in court furnishings, may be said to be documented in the third register of the Arjan bowl, it is more than likely that any new proce- dure at one local court was quickly matched by the adoption of a like cus- tom elsewhere. Within southern Iran, in other words, the means to distin- guish political and personal identities — whether Elamite, Anshanite or Persian — may have become more and more blurred from c. 600 B.C. onwards (cf. also Potts, 1999, p. 307). This may account, too, for something of the almost hybrid character of both the Arjan “ring” and the tall bronze stand. Finally, the presence of Kidin-Hutran's yurt in the outer register of the bowl is surely the most unexpected adjunct to an Assyrian-inspired ban- quet scene that could be imagined! So many questions necessarily arise. Was the yurt representative of a wide use of such portable dwellings in Iran at this time? Or was it a prized possession of Kidin-Hutran (received, conceivably, in the course of the circulation, possession and exchange of exotic goods, such as served to cement relations between competing poli- ties both large and small)? While there are not likely to be immediate, absolute answers to questions such as these, certain more general points may be made. In the first place it used to be thought that the yurt was an exclusively Turkish inven- tion. In an article written more than thirty years ago Dr. Peter Andrews suggested, for example, that tents of this type only reached Iran and other contiguous parts of the Near East “as the homes of Türkmen nomads all 194 D. STRONACH descended from the Oguz tribes which crossed the Amu Darya (the Oxus) in the eleventh century” (Andrews, 1973, p. 94). With reference to various considerations, including the testimony of the Arjan bowl, the moment of the introduction of the yurt in areas to the west of the Oxus now has to be seen to be far from a relatively recent event. Indeed, the erstwhile presence of what may well have been a yurt in a no longer extant wall painting from a Sarmatian tomb of the first century A.D., which was recorded near Kerch, in South Russia, many years ago (Rostovtzeff, 1922, p. 160 and pl. 28,1), is to my mind one further indication that versions of this highly practical, portable type of dwelling were at one time known and used, not least, by nomadic peoples of Iranian origin.

Bibliography

ALIZADEH, A., 1985, A Tomb of the Neo-Elamite Period at Arjân, near Behbahan, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 18, pp. 49-73. ALVAREZ-MON, J., 2004, Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Arjan Bowl, Iranica Antiqua 39, pp. 203-237. AMIET, P., 1966, Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise. AMIET, P., 1973, La glyptique de la fin de l'Elam, Arts Asiatiques 28, pp. 3-32. AMIET, P., 1992, An Introduction to the History of Art in Iran, in P.O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon, eds., The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Art Treasures in the Louvre, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 2- 15. ANDREWS, P.A., 1973, The White House of Khurasan: The Felt Tents of the Iran- ian Yomut and Göklen, Iran 11, pp. 93-110. ANDREWS, P.A., 1997, Nomad Tent Types in the Middle East, Part 1, vol. 1, Wies- baden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert. AZARPAY, G., 1968, Urartian Art and Artifacts: A Chronological Study, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press. BARNETT, R.D. and FAULKNER, M., 1962, The Sculpture of Assurnasirpal II, Tiglath Pileser III and Essarhaddon from the Central and S.W. Palaces at Nimrud, London, The British Museum. BOEHMER, M.R., 1989, Review of Archaeologische Mitteilungen 18 (1985), in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 79, pp. 142-145. CURTIS, J., 1983, Late Assyrian Bronze Coffins, Anatolian Studies 33, pp. 85-95. CURTIS, J., 1995, Introduction, in J. Curtis, ed., Later Mesopotamia and Iran: Tribes and Empires 1600-539 B.C.. London, British Museum Press, pp. 15-24. CURTIS, J., 2000, Animal-headed Drinking Cups in the Late Assyrian Period, in R. Dittman, B. Hrouda, B. Löw, P. Matthiae, R. Mayer-Opificius, and S. Thürwachter, eds., Variatio Delectat: Iran und der Westen; Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 193-213. THE ARJAN TOMB 195

FRANKFORT, H., 1954, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Har- mondsworth, Penguin Books. GUNTER, A., 1982, Representations of Urartian and Western Iranian Fortress Architecture in the Assyrian Reliefs, Iran 20, pp. 103-112. HENKELMAN, W., 2003, Persians, Medes and Elamites: acculturation in the Neo- Elamite period, in G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger, eds., Continu- ity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia, Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libraria, pp. 181-231. MAJIDZADEH, Y., 1992, The Arjan Bowl, Iran 30, pp. 131-144. MARKOE, G., Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediter- ranean, Berkeley, University of California Press. PARROT, A., 1961, Nineveh and Babylon, London, Thames and Hudson. POTTS, D.T., 1999, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. READE, J., 1967, Two Slabs from Sennacherib's Palace, Iraq 29, pp. 42-48. READE, J., 1979, Narrative Composition in Assyrian Sculpture, Baghdader Mit- teilungen 10, pp. 52-110. ROAF, M., 2003, The Median Dark Age, in G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger, eds., Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia, Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libreria, pp. 13-22. ROSTOVTZEFF, M., 1922, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia, Oxford: Claren- don Press. RUSSELL, J.M., 1999, The Writing on the Wall. Studies in the Architectural Con- text of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions, Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns. SARRAF, M.R., 1990, Kidin-hutran's Bronze Bowl from Arjan, Behbahan, Athar 17, pp. 4-61 (in Persian). SCHMIDT, E.F., 1953, Persepolis I. Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. STRONACH, D., 1969, Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan, 1967, Iran 7, pp. 1-20. STRONACH, D., 1997, Anshan and Parsa: Early Achaemenid History, Art and Architecture on the Iranian Plateau, in J. Curtis, ed., Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period. Conquest and Imperialism 539-331 B.C., London, British Museum Press, pp. 35-53. STRONACH, D., 2002, Icons of Dominion: Review Scenes at Til Barsip and Perse- polis, Iranica Antiqua 37, pp. 373-402. STRONACH, D., 2003, The Tomb at Arjan and the History of Southwestern Iran in the Early Sixth Century B.C. in N. Miller and K. Abdi, eds., Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner, Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, pp. 249-259. STRONACH, D., 2004a, Notes on a Fortified Building and a “Yurt” in Adjacent Registers of the Arjan Bowl, in A, Sagona, ed., A View from the Highlands: Essays in Honour of Charles Burney, Leuven, Peeters Press, pp. 711-728. STRONACH, D., 2004b, On the Antiquity of the Yurt: Evidence from Arjan and Elsewhere, in D.C. Waugh, ed., The Silk Road 2, no.1, pp. 9-18. STRONACH, D. and ROAF, M., forthcoming, Nush-i Jan I. The Main Buildings of the Median Settlement, London, The British Institute of Persian Studies. 196 D. STRONACH

TILIA, A.B., 1972, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites in Fars, Rome, IsMEO. TOHIDI, F. and KHALILIAN, A., 1982, Report on the Investigations of the Objects from the Tomb at Arjan, Behbahan, Athar 7-9, pp. 232-286 (in Persian). VAISSIÈRE, É. DE LA, 2003, Sogdians in China: A Short History and Some New Discoveries, in D.C. Waugh, ed., The Silk Road 1, no. 2, pp. 23-27. VALLAT, F., 1984, Kidin-Hutran et l'epoque néo-Elamite, Akkadica 37, pp. 1-17.