Once Again. the Goblets from the Bronze Age Settlement at Tepe Guran, Luristan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 mater- ial 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 lay- ers 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 dif- ferent 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 con- texts. 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 occu- pation. 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 gob- let 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 character- istic 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 gob- lets (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 pot- tery 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.