Neo-Elamite Geography, Chronology, History, and the Textual and Iconographic Evidence Used in This Book
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chapter 1 Neo-Elamite Geography, Chronology, History, and the Textual and Iconographic Evidence Used in this Book To sketch a background against which the burials can be investigated through- out the rest of this book, the present chapter reviews Neo-Elamite geography and chronology, and introduces the available textual and iconographic sources for the period. A historical outline then illuminates the contemporary socio- political circumstances, which, as will become increasingly clear towards the conclusion of this work, both reflect and are reflected in funerary practices. 1.1 Geography During the first half of the first millennium, the cultural area of Elam is thought to have roughly encompassed today’s provinces of Khuzestan and Fars [Pl. 1]. To commence on the Deh Loran plain in the north-westernmost zone of Elamite habitation in Khuzestan, surveys have brought to light a series of settlements along the border of the alluvial slopes that were established shortly after the outset of the first millennium (Wright and Neely 2010: 114). Neo-Elamite sherds were collected particularly around the mound of Tepe Patak and at ‘Ain Kosh and Garan, although the typical lowland (Susiana) ceramic types were recog- nised only for the later part of the period (ca. seventh-sixth centuries) (Miros- chedji 1981c: 170, 174; Carter and Wright 2010: 15). The regular distribution of these three sites from east to west approximately 16–17 km apart points to a transport route along the northeastern slopes of the plain (Wright 2010: 91).1 Just to the south, the Susiana plain, which is still dotted today with ancient tells, extends out from the alluvial plains of lower Mesopotamia. Surveys here in the 1970s detected twenty sites with indications of early Neo-Elamite habita- tion, but this number was reduced to just six in the later centuries of the period (Miroschedji 1981c: 170, figs. 55–58). This apparent dwindling of settlements 1 In the Achaemenid Empire, perhaps under the rule of Darius or Xerxes, the Neo-Elamite settlements on the Deh Loran Plain were re-established—evenly spaced at 17 km as Herodo- tus reported for this part of the Royal Road—and were clearly intended as service points for travellers (Wright and Neely 2010: 114). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:�0.��63/978900439�77�_00� <UN> 4 Chapter 1 towards the end of the Elamite era should not be allocated too much weight, as an extensive list of Elamite towns ravaged by the Assyrians in the annals of the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal hints at what must actually have been a rather densely populated Khuzestan right up into the mid-seventh century, even if, except for Susa and Chogha Zanbil (Dur-Untaš), the names are yet be linked with sites on the ground (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013a; Potts 2016: 263, 278).2 The large tell of Susa where the French delegation conducted decades of large-scale excavations is by far the most substantial site in Susiana. At nearby Chogha Zanbil, a religious centre founded in ca. 1340–1300 bce by king Untaš- Napiriša (reign dates following Potts 2016: 200), a Neo-Elamite presence was recognised during excavations by Ghirshman (e.g. 1954: 66) and confirmed re- cently by Mofidi-Nasrabadi (2007: 45–46, 90–91; see also Álvarez-Mon 2013a: 460). In Areal B and C the latter archaeologist identified two building layers, Bauschicht 1 and 2, dating to the eighth-seventh and tenth-ninth century, re- spectively. These finds discredit the theory that Chogha Zanbil was abandoned by the end of the second millennium (e.g. Pons 1994: 48).3 The Zagros foothills flanking the east side of the Susiana plain, which were increasingly favoured as settlement zones and locations for Elamite power bas- es in the face of Assyrian aggression (see Chapter 1.5), have also produced con- siderable evidence of Neo-Elamite habitation (for the rise of eastern Khuzestan see Carter 1984: 189). Almost directly east of Susa, investigations of the Upper Gotvand dam catchment area prior to its flooding detected a settlement zone, designated Kalantar 4, that has been assigned a Neo-Elamite date. Progress- ing further south, the Ramhormoz plain was a significant Elamite population centre from ca. 1350–520 bce and home to two major Neo-Elamite occupa- tions at Tepe Bormi and Tall-e Gazir, the first of which has yet to be excavated and the second investigated only in a few soundings by Donald McCown in 1948–49.4 About 7 km northeast of Tepe Bormi near the village of Jubaji an extensive archaeological area comprising several hills scattered with Middle 2 Throughout this work I have used the accepted spellings for the Neo-Assyrian monarch Ashurbanipal (Aššur-bāni-apli), Esarhaddon (Aššur-aḫḫe-iddina) and Ashurnasirpal (Aššur-nāṣir-apli). 3 Mofidi-Nasrabadi (2013a: 34) has criticised Pons’ (1994) circular dating of Chogha Zanbil’s ceramics based on Susa’s late second millennium ceramics, which were dated in the first place by comparison with material from Chogha Zanbil (a settlement thought to have been abandoned by the end of the second millennium). 4 Tepe Bormi was for some time identified with ancient Huhnur based on a text thought to have been found there (e.g. Henkelman 2008: 17, fn. 29 and Álvarez-Mon 2010a: 204; both following Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2005), but Alizadeh (2014: fn. 84) has recently raised doubt over the tablet’s cited provenance. Potts (2016: 116, with refs) advises that the text was nevertheless found somewhere around Ramhormoz. <UN>.