Once Again. the Goblets from the Bronze Age Settlement at Tepe Guran, Luristan

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIV, 1999

POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN. THE GOBLETS FROM THE BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT AT TEPE GURAN, LURISTAN

BY Henrik THRANE

In Iranian archaeology the study of remarkable pottery traditions has for generations been coupled with attempts at their identification with ethnic and cultural entities. This trend has not been least prominent during the decades when David Stronach has been one of the leading figures of the archaeological exploration of that fascinating country. Considering the geography of the region it is hardly surprising that peoples have moved into or through it repeatedly and left material remains which now baffle us. This paper concentrates on a minor issue — compared to the overriding one of the coming of the Iranian tribes. The excavation providing the material was a minor one and lack of opportunity has prevented a follow up in a wider landscape. Tepe Guran (Fig. 1) is a small mound at the western edge of the wide Hulailan plain of the Pish-i Kuh in Luristan with an important sequence of Neolithic settlement deposits and a mixture of graves and settlement layers from the Bronze and early Iron Ages (Thrane 1999)1. The layer in question is layer P which distinguished itself from the pre- ceding and succeeding layers by its pottery. Two types were notably different from the other, earlier and later, pottery assemblages namely the tall goblets which I called chalices in the first reports — figs 2-3 — (others call them flasks), and some smaller bowls with string cut base.

1 The material was excavated by the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Iran 1963 and as this was the only occasion when DBS visited an excavation of mine — fig. 10 — (April the 9th with George Cameron) I wanted to present something from that excavation at this occasion. It is pleasant to think back not only on that visit but even more on my introduction to Iranian archaeology in 1960 at Yarim Tepe. I am sure that all of us present then will remember the suspense when we sat on the rugs in Mr. Assoudeh’s house lis- tening to the news of the election of John F. Kennedy. 22 H. THRANE

Fig. 1. Map of the Neolithic mound of Tepe Guran with the Bronze and Iron Age settlement excavation G II at the foot of the mound (After Meldgaard & al. 1964). POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 23

When their character was first recognized I suggested a relationship to similar goblets from Kassite contexts in Mesopotamia (Thrane 1968 & 1970a-b) and this parallel was accepted by Clare Goff (1971, 151) while P.R.S. Moorey (1971a, 117) preferred Neo-Elamite goblets from Susa for parallels and was followed by Elizabeth Carter (1984, 177). Obviously the situation was more complicated than first assumed. Here I present the first part of an attempt to solve this enigma. This involves a normal archaeological analysis of typological elements and contexts. The second part of the examination will lean heavily on scientific analyses of clay but will have to await a later opportunity as quite a lot of comparative material is needed to sustain the preliminary results obtained by Kaare Lund Rasmussen at the Danish National Museum. The pottery sample from layer P at Tepe Guran is quite small, unfortu- nately, but as the level seems to have been abandoned without any destruc- tion we may assume that the pottery represents that used during the occupation. The architecture seems quite normal, compared to the later levels, representing an average house with quite small rooms. From the 66 m2 exposed 395 sherds were registered, mostly coarse. Painted pottery is rare, 13 sherds only. Most of the plain ware sherds are wheelmade, well fired with fine grits, normally lime and quite com- monly with vegetable inclusions. Red grits (chamotte) occur but are by no means normal. The slip or self slip is creamy to light buff-reddish. Few complete shapes are available, bases and rims do not normally join.

Goblets and bowls The most striking type is constituted by the goblets. One version has a solid foot up to 3,8 cm high (Fig. 3). The second version has a hollow foot right down to the base (Figs. 3 & 8). There is no clear distinction between the two, but presumably the first version was taller, like the complete goblet fig. 3 top left, while the second version was lower and broader. A third version has a short solid foot and a bulging profile (Fig. 3 bottom & 8 top right). Another dominant type consists of disc bases which must come from rather small bowls or trays (Fig. 3). It is characteristic that the base has been separated from the potter’s wheel by a string cut leaving a characteristic trace (Fig. 7). One rimsherd of a conical bowl is made of a slightly different clay but would fit this type of base nicely (Fig. 5 upper right). 24 H. THRANE

Fig. 2. Pottery from layer P: goblets. ca. 1:2 POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 25

Fig. 3. Pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, goblets and bowls, 1:4.

Cooking pots Cooking vessels appear at sites examined by the Holmes expedition shortly before the war (Schmidt & al. 1989) and at Baba Jan (Goff 1976 figs. 8,16-19, 10,20, pl. V d; 1978 fig. 3) and Nush-i-Jan (Stronach & al. 1978 fig. 9, 17-20) while Gasche (1973, 42f, pl. 28) noted them at Susa levels B VII-A XIV. 26 H. THRANE

Fig. 4. Pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, goblet sherds left, 1:4.

There are two main versions, one having simple bag shape and rounded rim and two knobs at the rim (Thrane 1999, ch. 9), the other with thickened rim and a pronounced hollow below the rim and a slightly more rotound body but also with the two knobs. Further, less frequent variants include more varied profiles (Fig. 5) or a club rim. POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 27

Fig. 5. Pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, cooking vessel bottom left, 1:4.

The double edged rim recurs on bagshaped storage jars characterizing Kassite pottery in Mesopotamia and further afield (Nippur I pl. 96,12; 99,7 developed from type 19A; Højlund 1987 type (55)-56 belonging to per. IIIB). It could be the inspiration for the odd rim (Fig. 5 bottom right) with its curiously strawtempered very porous ware unlike the normal Guran pottery. 28 H. THRANE

Fig. 6. Pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, interior of bases of goblets, cf. fig. 3, Odense University phot., ca. 1:2.

Proper handles are rare (Fig. 5) but do occur at Guran in all levels – con- trary to Elamite pottery (Sumner 1974; Schacht 1976; but Gasche 1974 pl. 28) and even Kassite pottery (Gibson 1975; Eichmann 1985; Højlund 1987). Handles may be a feature distinctive of the pottery tradition of the mountain region.

Context For the interpretation it is relevant that the pottery from layer P does not represent the full repertory of neither Kassite nor Elamite pottery, several types are missing, i.a. all the larger types of vessels as well as flasks, jugs, potstands and figurines. The absence of the heavier types leads to the conclusion that only the easily transportable foreign types reached the POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 29

Fig. 7. Pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, bases of bowls and, centre, a goblet, cf. fig. 3, Odense University phot., ca. 1:2.

Hulailan plain. Of course the exposure at Guran was quite small so we cannot be sure that it is representative of the occupation of that period. Some activities needing special pottery could easily have been located outside G II and may account for the absence of water jars and the like. Actually storage pots are represented, albeit in such fragmentary state, that their exact shape cannot be reconstructed (Fig. 3). Others conform to local types (Thrane 1999, pl. 23).

Interpretation For the interpretation of this intrusive pottery from a small mound in a remote valley in the Zagros mountains several options are open. Immedi- ately obvious are of course the Kassite and Elamite alternatives but a local 30 H. THRANE production after Kassite or Elamite fashion or even a mixture of local and imported pottery would also be quite feasible.

Local production Compared to the other settlement layers of Tepe Guran layer P had many misfired pots. There are sherds from large jars as well as from squat goblets (Fig. 9). If the misfiring took place at the site there must have been a pottery kiln there, otherwise why should useless pots or sherds have been brought there? An alternative may be that the firing was secondary, i.e. an on site accident for which there is no other evidence, however. Local pottery types such as the cooking vessels and the globular jar (pithos) and the vertical handles indicate a local element, perhaps mainly connected with the kitchen range.

Elamite I begin the examination with the Elamite pottery. Good parallels for the Guran goblets are found at Tchoga Zanbil in “palais II” (Ghirshman 1968 pl. XLVII,4-5 & fig. 31) dated soon after the death of Untash Gal (Untash- Napirisha) whose reign is placed within 1275-45 using the widest limits proposed by Porada (1965; Hinz 1964; Labat 1963). They also occur in “palais hypogée” room 7 dated to Ist. Millennium, pre-7th cent. (Ghirsh- man 1968 pl. LXXXVIII, 891, 894, 896), at “palais III” (Ibid. fig. 33) and “complexe nord” (Ibid. fig. 37) both of which are thought to have been destroyed by the Assyrians c. 640 B.C. Goblets occur in the “tombes construites” I-III with lamps and conical trays dated to the time of Untash Gal (Ibid. 107, figs. 34-35). All that is really certain is that the graves post- date the temples constructed by Untash Gal. There seems to be little difference between goblets from early and late deposits (if it is correct to regard Ghirshman 1968 pl. LXXXXVIII as a contemporary assemblage). The date proposed for the earth graves “très tardive du I Mill.” would correspond to the proposed evolution towards more elongated narrow types (Ibid. fig. 14), but other goblets contradict this scheme (Ghirshman 1966 pl. LXXXXI,259). More parallels come from Susa itself (Gasche 1974 groups 19c pls. 19, 19 & 22 being the best) and group 20a pl. 21,10-11 from levels A XII-XI in the western-northwestern parts of sector A of the ”ville royale” (cf. Carter POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 31

1979,114ff). A type repertory for the two levels is given by Gasche (1974 tableaux 7-9). The shapes conform well enough to the Guran goblets but there is a difference in technique. The typical Elamite pressing up of the bottom into the body, leaving a raised interior (Gasche 1974; Carter 1979, 120) is not found at Guran, but on the other hand it was not obligatory at Malyan (Sumner 1974; cf. Ghirshman 1966 with the exception of pls. LXXXII,259 & XCVI,41; 1968 figs. 13, 31, 33, 37, 42-55 etc), perhaps indicating a more heterogeneous technique in the provinces? At Susa the goblets are associated with conical trays with string cut bases throughout levels B VII - A IX, i.e. 2040-1100 B.C. (Gasche 1974 groups pls. 1-2) or c. 2100-600 B.C. (Carter 1979). No wonder that the trays abund at Tchoga Zanbil too (Ghirshman 1966 pls. LXVII,323, XCV; 1968 pls. LXXXXIX, XCI & figs 14, 31, 33, 37, 45). The massive occurrence of broken trays at the temple of Histimikruhu- ratir at Tchoga Zanbil — with Middle Elamite goblets and amphorae indicates a special use of this type in ritual (Ghirshman 1968 fig. 14) — a relic of the bevelled rim bowl tradition? These trays must continue the tradition from yet earlier times as their occurrence in the Agade and Ur III levels at Susa indicate (Steve & Gasche 1971 pls. 2,2-9,20-21,27-34, 4,1,18-20, 11,1-2 all with string cut bases). Carinated variants could be the starting point for the more biconical trays, also with string cut bases, from Susa levels B V-VII (Gasche 1974, 25f & pls. 3-5,1-4) and levels A B VII-A XII (Ibid. 23, 25). Vegetable inclusions seem to be more frequent in the later levels (Gasche 1974, 23) but information on fabric or finish is insufficient. This has brought two of the characteristic types of Tepe Guran’s layer P into our comparative analysis as serious advocates for an Elamite provenance. They belong mainly to the period from 1500-1390 acc. to Gasche or 1300-1000 acc. to Carter. An Elamite interest in Luristan is evidenced i.a. by the occurrence at Susa of the occasional Luristan pot (Amiet 1968, 466 fig. 354) and there is one Luristan bronze dagger inscribed with the name of Adad-Suma-usur (Nagel 1964,153f; Dossin 1962,151). Elamite raids in Mesopotamia and the Northern Zagros region reached a peak in the mid 12th century B.C., putting an end to the Kassite dynasty 1155 (Stolper 1984,40f). Elisabeth Carter (1984, 178) supposes a Middle Elamite expansion up the Saimarreh based on Babylonian contacts contemporary with the formative phase of Luristan 32 H. THRANE art but how much evidence remains if Tepe Guran is interpreted as non- Elamite? The negative effects on Elam of the contacts with Mesopotamia are far better documented than Elamite expansion northwards before and after Shutruk Nahunte’s expansion (Hinz 1964, 58, 83,92 & 112f; Brinkman 1968, 104ff, 112).

Kassite The alternative for the provenance of the strange types at Tepe Guran is Mesopotamia, since both goblets and conical cups with string cut bases occur there too. Actually the development of the Middle Elamite pottery seems to be strongly dependent upon the Kassite pottery in spite of the astonishing conservativism of the Kassite period. It seems hard to deny the Uruk bevelled rim bowls a parentage for the conical cups current in Mesopotamia ever since that period. They were associated with goblets in the Kassite levels of Nippur and other sites (Nippur I pl. 97,6-8; Gibson 1975 figs. 39-45, 70; Bibby 1969, 341; earlier cf. Fielden 1977 pl. XI,9-11; Eichmann 1985 group B; later Koldewey 1914 fig. 161; Strommenger 1967 pls. 2-3). Mesopotamian Kassite pottery has not lately been subjected to such intensive study as the Elamite pottery, Nippur and Uruk being the corner stones (Nippur I & Gibson 1975; Eichmann 1985) with Failaka as another well studied case (Højlund 1987) — add Bahrein (Højlund 1997). The pottery of the period from 1600 B.C. has been described as “not very characteristic” (Adams & Nissen 1972, 104) or practically the same as Old Babylonian pottery — apart from the goblets — (Mallowan 1950; Adams 1965,51ff). Nippur seems to represent the whole time range from Old Babylonian to the beginnings of Assyrian rule, while the range of other sites seems less certain, Aqar Quf covering perhaps no more than 200 years (Baqir 1945). One thing that comes clearly out, however, is the dominant role played by the solid-footed goblet as the diagnostic type of the Kassite period: The “Kassite flask” (e.g. Adams 1965 fig. 13,7; Eichmann 1985, 38ff). The goblets appear in several variants, some of which may be chronologically determined. A type with high shoulder and short concave neck is known from Nippur (Nippur I pl. 98,14-16; Gibson 1975 figs. 32 & 87; cf. Andrae 1977 fig. 19). One variant has a constricted hollow foot (Nippur I pl. 98,16), the other has a nearly straight profile with solid foot (Ibid. pl. 98,14-15; Gibson 1975 POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 33

Fig. 8. Pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, goblets, Odense University phot., 1:1,5. 34 H. THRANE figs. 32,3:87; Baqir 1945 pl. XXIII; Reuther 1926 fig. 9,f-g; Andrae 1977 fig. 163; Bibby 1969,137 pl. XVI; Clayden 1992,151ff, fig. 6). The other type has a relatively short and squat body with tall concave neck on a low shoulder, very constricted foot which is tubular over a shorter or longer part (Nippur I pl. 98,11-13; Gibson 1975 figs. 43-44, 47- 48, 70; Reuther 1926 fig. 9 h,m; Bibby 1969,137 pl. XVI; Adams & Nis- sen 1972,104). This type appears in versions with a short or long solid foot (Nippur I pl. 98,11-12; Gibson 1975 figs. 43-45). Sometimes the foot is so low that the body swings out immediately above the disc or button base Nippur I pl. 98,11; Gibson 1975 figs. 46 & 48) which makes them rather like some of the layer P pottery (Figs. 3 and 8-9). Gibson notes a tendency towards taller and slimmer shapes during the Nippur sequence (1975,16) which may parallel the Susa sequence? The Aqar Quf sequence shows surprisingly little change during its 200 years. Given the marked parallelisms between Kassite and Elamite pottery it is no wonder that it is not easy to distinguish one tradition from the other. In the end it boils down to small differences in the technique and finer details of morphology which decide which alternative should be preferred. My reason for preferring the Kassite connection is the absence of the Elamite goblet base technique (Cf. above) and the better parallels for the range of goblets from the Kassite complex. Clare Goff (1971,151) states that she found goblets “rather similar” to the ones from Guran on numerous sites in the Mahi Dasht plain. This is not very helpful in view of the ambiguity outlined above. The virtual absence from sites in the Hulailan plain, apart from Chasmeh Mahi (Maleki 1964, 19 stated to be a Giyan I type) and Tepe Khazabad where goblets of the squat variety represent a minute fraction of the pottery from the pillage holes visible on the surface, is remarkable. So far Tepe Guran layer P seems to be exceptional in this part of the Zagros range. This impression may be misleading, however, considering how little controlled excavation has been done in the Hulailan and neighbouring valleys. It is presumably significant, nonetheless, that the intensive survey of the Hulailan valley led to no further sites with goblets (Mortensen 1975). The restriction of the goblet complex to one settlement level without traces of extensive reconstruction or rebuilding leads me to regard the event as a short one, lasting may be just a few years. The mixture of local POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 35

Fig. 9. Misfired pottery from Tepe Guran layer P, (top centre and bottom right are from layer R, immediately on top of layer P), Odense University phot., 1:2,5. and foreign types presumably indicates a similar mixture of inhabitants or that some of the locals boasted of foreign types of drinking vessels. In the absence of contemporary graves or other material evidence than potsherds it is impossible to be sure which alternative is the more likely. The misfired sherds, including squat goblets (Fig. 9), must mean that not all goblets were imported. Some of the extant sherds could have been made at Tepe Guran. This observation does not solve the ambiguity, however, as the local potters could have been involved in many ways, including serving intruding overlords. Not enough is known of the potters’ role in either Mesopotamian, Elamite or Luristan societies to lead on to a better under- standing of the situation at Tepe Guran — who was the clientele, how was the choice of pottery decided and so forth. 36 H. THRANE

The close similarities to what I presume to be their prototypes mean that the goblets and trays were made in strict accordance to the original standards. We are not looking at second or third hand copies. I suggest that the significant types were imported and used along with local cooking vessels and other local household pottery. If we therefore interpret the goblets and trays as evidence of intrusive elements, either newcomers used to these vessels or locals who had adopted foreign manners, we should try to explain their presence in a wider context. Again several options are available. The most obvious would be to imagine a military outpost showing Kassite presence in the area. Tepe Guran may not be such a bad choice, although other sites such as Chasmeh Mahi which looks much more like a suitable military station or further up the Saimarreh river if the object was to control the route further inland towards Harsin and the Hamadan plain. From a defensive point of view the position at the foot of a mound would hardly be optimal, however. There may have been defensive earthworks or walls south of the G II excavation but none substantial enough to have been identified2. The absence of military equipment hardly needs bother us. It would be asking too much to expect arrowheads and their likes to lie about in a peacefully deserted level. The second option would involve a civilian presence probably of an administrative nature. In a rugged country like Luristan the uncontrollable element presumably always played a major role in the social set up. By this I mean that it is hardly feasible to imagine a Kassite official settling in the Hulailan valley without complete military control of the region. We have no indication of such a situation. We have found the easily portable types which people might think indispensable to their daily routine. The situation could have been similar to the way in which the drinking sets of the Greeks and Romans found their way into Barbarian Europe, or tea and coffee sets would accompany colonial officials or merchants from Europe in more recent times. Foreign officials sent to remote places would be expected to bring such requisites — and many others, but would hardly bring the crockery instead of using local types for the kitchen range. Speculations on Kassite presence in Luristan have been made. Maurits van Loon (1972) denied it while Julian Reade (1974) argued in favour of a

2 In the level below layer P there was a substantial mud brick wall towards the plain but that would have been covered by layer P and thus of no use during the goblet phase. POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 37

Fig. 10. David Stronach and George Cameron (Right of trench, visiting Tepe Guran in 1963; in the trench Jorgen Meldgaard and Peder Mortensen).

Kassite dominance over Pusht-i Kuh and a major part of the Pish-i Kuh. Kassite place names seem to have survived (Hinz 1964; Brinkman 1968, 248ff & 258ff). The Zagros mountains play a significant part in the speculations on the origin of the Kassites but the evidence for a Kassite presence is equally meagre before, during and after the Kassite period in Mesopotamia and there seems to be no way of identifying a Kassite element with the nearly equally meagre archaeological evidence from the second Millennium in Luristan cf. the speculations on Kassites as producers of the Luristan bronzes (Ghirshman 1964 quoted by Moorey 1971b,10). The material culture of the Kassites does not seem to have differed from that of any other ethnic group in Mesopotamia during the Kassite period. This means that even if the goblets at Tepe Guran represent a movement of Kassite elements into this region there will be no way of identifying it as Kassite, sensu ethnico, except by datable inscriptions using Kassite names made locally in Luristan. No such evidence is at present known from Luristan. Weapons or other bronzes with Kassite inscriptions said 38 H. THRANE to come from Luristan are even less substantial than the material dated to the old Babylonian — Isin-Larsa period and the 11th-10th centuries B.C. (Moorey 1971b, 28-34; Calmeyer 1969; Brinkman 1968,9ff; Læssøe 1966). A bead dedicated by Ipiq Adad II is said to come from the Kashgan Rud area and an Old Babylonian type cylinder seal is said to come from Chasmeh Mahi inscribed li-pi-ti-es (tar), dumu ma-an-anu-um-ba-ly-ilim Warad dGir (type Ur X pl. 32, 498, kindly read by dr. J. van Dijk). The stratigraphical position of layer P precludes a date other than during the Kassite period in Mesopotamia. There is no absolute chronological fixture available, however (Thrane 1999). The Mesopotamian sources indicate Kassite expansion during the reign of Kurigalzu II (1345-1324) and by Nebuchadnezzar I (1124-1103) who was no Kassite but was the material culture of his time different from the Kassite? Thus there are two periods where a Kassite presence, interest or influence in the Pish-i Kuh would agree with the little written evidence that we have (Hinz 1964,58ff, 83; Brinkman 1968, 104-112). So, archaeology and history may support each other in this minor episode in Bronze Age Luristan but the case is not closed yet.

Epilogue This paper has not presented a final solution to the problem of a cultural, rather than ethnic attribution of the particular pottery which was the starting point. You have rather read an exercise in multiple hypotheses. You may now combine the elements and produce new versions, hopefully being able to add new perspectives based on new material or fresh insight. I hope to have been able to demonstrate that archaeological material without support from concise historical information has its limits. Protohistorical archaeology offers many similar problems and Iranian archaeology has had its share of them and will, no doubt, see fresh ones as well as revival of old hypotheses. As long as we realize how far we are from final solutions and truths that is fine. I am sure that this is no novelty to the recipant of this Festschrift.

References

ADAMS, R.McC. 1965. Land behind Bagdad, Chicago. ADAMS, R.McC. & NISSEN, H. 1972. The Uruk Countryside, Chicago. AMIET, P. 1968. Elam, Auver-sur-Oise. POTS AND PEOPLES – ONCE AGAIN 39

ANDRAE,W. 1977. Das wiedererstandene Assur, (2. ed.) München. BAQIR, T. 1945. Excavations at Agar Quf, Iraq Supplement 1945. BIBBY, G. 1969. Looking for Dilmun, New York. BRINKMAN, J.A. 1968. A Political History of Post Kassite Babylonia 1158-722, Analecta Orientalia 43, Roma. CALMEYER, P. 1969. Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kermanshah, Berlin. CARTER, E. 1979. Elamite Pottery ca 2000-1000 B.C., JNES 38, 111-128. —, 1984. In E. Carter & M.W. Stolper, Elam. Survey of Political history and archaeology, 103-133, Berkeley. CLAYDEN, T. 1992. Kish in the Kassite Period, Iraq 54, 141-153. DOSSIN, G. 1962. Bronzes inscrits du Luristan de la collection Foroughi, Iranica Antiqua II, 149-164. EICHMANN, R. 1985. Keramik, in R.M. Boehmer, Uruk Kampagne 38, 16-48, Ber- lin. FIELDEN, K. 1977. Tell Brak 1976: The Pottery, Iraq 39, 245-256. GASCHE, H. 1974. La poterie élamite du deuxième millénaire a C. MDPAI XLVII, Ville Royale de Suse I, Paris. GHIRSHMAN, R. 1964. Invasions des nomades, M.J. Mellink ed. Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 B.C., Istanbul —, 1966. Tchogha Zanbil (Dur-Untash) MDAI XXXIX-XL, Paris. —, 1968. Tchoga Zanbil II: Temenos, temples, palais, tombes, MDAI 40, Paris. GIBSON, McGuire 1975. Excavations at Nippur OIC 22, Chicago. GOFF, C. 1971. Luristan before the Iron Age, Iran IX, 131-151. —, 1976. Excavations at Baba Jan: The Bronze Age Occupation, Iran XIV, 19- 39. HINZ, W. 1964. Das Reich Elam, Stuttgart. HØJLUND. F. 1987. The Bronze Age Pottery. Failaka/Dilmun the Second Millen- nium Settlements 2, Viborg. —, 1997. Qal’aat al-Bahrein 2, The Central Monumental Buildings, Aarhus. LABAT, R. 1963. Elam c. 1600-1200 B.C., CAH II ch. 6, Cambridge. KOLDEWEY, 1914. Das wiedererstandene Babylon, Leipzig. LOON,M. VAN, 1972. Bibl Or. XXIX, 66-69. LÆSSØE, J. 1966. Ipiq-Adad II of Esnuma Lugal Kisi, Acta Orientalia XXIX, 243- 245. MALEKI, Y. 1964. Une fouille au Luristan, Iranica Antiqua IV,1-35. MELDGAARD, J., MORTENSEN, P. & THRANE, H. 1964, Excavations at Tepe Guran, Luristan, Acta Archaeologica XXXIV, 97-133. MOOREY. P.R.S. 1971a. Towards a Chronology for the “Luristan Bronzes”, Iran IX, 113-129. —, 1971b, Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes from the Collection of Mrs. B. Bomford, Oxford. MORTENSEN, P. 1975. A Survey of Prehistoric Settlement in Northern Luristan, Acta Archaeologica 45, 1-47. NAGEL, W. 1964. Zur ältesten Inschrift auf Randgriffdolchen, Berliner Jahrbuch für Vorgeschichte 4, 153-244, Berlin. 40 H. THRANE

NIPPUR I., MC.GOVERN, P.E. & HAINES, R.C. 1967, Nippur I, OIP 78. PORADA, E. 1965. The Art of Ancient Iran, New York. REUTHER, O. 1926. Die Innenstadt von Babylon, (2. Ed.) Osnabrück. SCHACHT, R. 1976. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tepe Sharafabad, Journal of Field Archaeology 2, 307-329. SCHMIDT, E.F., M.N. VAN LOON & H.H. CURVERS, 1989. The Holmes Expedition to Luristan, OIP 108, Chicago. STEVE, M.J. & GASCHE, H. 1971. L’acropole de Suse nouvelles fouilles MDAI 46, Paris. STOLPER, M.W. 1984, in Stolper & E. Carter, Elam, Survey of Political History and archaeology, 1-102, Berkeley. STROMMENGER, E. 1967. Gefässe aus Uruk von der neubabylonischen Zeit bis zu den Sasaniden, Ausgrab. Deutsch. Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk/Warka 7, Berlin.u SUMNER, W. 1974. Excavations at Tall-i Malyan, Iran 14, 103-115, London. STRONACH. D., STRONACH. R. & BÖKÖNYI, S. 1978. Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan, Iran XVI, 1-28. THRANE, H. 1968. Bronzerne fra Luristan, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1968, 5- 26. —, 1970. Recent Archaeological Investigations of Protohistoric Luristan, Actes VII congrès UISPP, 124-127, Praha. —, 1999. Excavations at Tepe Guran. Publications of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Iran vol. 2. The Bronze and Iron Age Periods, Århus. WOOLLEY, L. 1965, Ur Excavations VIII, The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian kings, London.