Some Remarks on Bronze Pendants from the Gilan Region, Iran

IranicaAntiqua, vol. LII, 2017 doi: 10.2143/IA.52.0.3269018

THROUGH THE MOUNTAINS UP TO THE CASPIAN SEA: SOME REMARKS ON BRONZE PENDANTS FROM THE GILAN REGION, IRAN

BY Roberto DAN1, Mohammad Keshavarz DIVKOLAEE2 & Arthur PETROSYAN3 (1 ISMEO; 2 University of Rome “Sapienza”; 3 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of NAS RA)

Abstract: The present paper reconsiders some unusual bronze pendants discovered over the years in the Gilan region of Iran. An increasing number of connections between Gilan and the Southern Caucasus have been highlighted and these objects should be seen in this context. They have rarely attracted the attention of scholars and have never been analysed as a set, but always in a more piecemeal way. It is interesting to note that similar pendants have been discovered in the South Caucasus, especially in modern day Armenia. The Gilan pendants possess some distinctive characteristics that make them different from the Caucasian pieces.

Keywords: pendants, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Iran, Gilan, Armenia, Southern Caucasus

The present paper reconsiders some unusual bronze pendants discovered over the years in the Gilan region of Iran1. Recently an increasing number of connections between Gilan and the South Caucasus have been highlighted (Piller 2012)2 and these objects should be seen in this context. These pendants have been discovered in a number of cemeteries located in present-day Ghalekuti, Tomājān, Vaske, Shaholag, Rūdbār and Tul-e Talesh (fig. 1). They have rarely attracted the attention of scholars and have never been analysed as a set, but always in a more piecemeal way. It is interesting to note that similar pendants have been discovered in the Southern Caucasus, especially in modern day Armenia, as well as in Nagorno Karabakh, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The Gilan pendants possess some distinctive characteristics that make them different from the Cauca- sian pieces.

1 The authors would like to thanks Dr Jebrael Nokandeh, Director of the National Museum of Tehran, for his help and suggestions, Prof. Ernie Haerinck and Dr Michael Herles for having given us suggestions regarding bibliography, and Dr Vali Jahani for his support. 2 For a history of archaeological work in the Gilan region, see Negahban 2001: 626-634. 198 R. DAN — M.K. DIVKOLAEE — A. PETROSYAN

Fig. 1. Distribution map of archaeological sites in the Gilan region referred to in the text.

The Gilan specimens

Two bronze pendants were discovered during investigations conducted at several sites in the Deilaman region between 1960 and 1964 by the Insti- tute of Oriental Culture of the University of Tokyo. They were found in the Ghalekuti/Qalʿa-ye Kūtī cemetery. The two bronze pendants came from Grave C-I, the burial of a male (Egami et al. 1965: 10). One appears almost complete, with two circles decorated externally with a sort of granulation. The smaller circle inscribed within the larger is fixed to it by a thin bronze lamina attached by welding (fig. 2A). The diameter is 7 cm and it lacks a suspension ring. The second one is in fragmentary condition, and consists of a single circle of bronze with external granulation. Originally there was a metal foil to which the inner circle and the suspension ring were attached (fig. 2B); the diameter is 7.2 cm (Egami et al. 1965: 71, pl. LXXIV.20-21). The finds from these graves have been dated to the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age (Negahban 1995: 337). Another specimen was discovered by the same expedition in the necropolis of Shaholag (fig. 2C). It shares features of the Ghalekuti pendants but has three concentric circles that are held together by a bronze foil, decorated with external granulation (Egami et al. 1965: 38, fig. 3). The suspension ring is missing. BRONZE PENDANTS FROM THE GILAN REGION 199

Fig. 2. The Gilan pendants: A-B) Ghalekuti (drawn by the authors after Egami et al. 1965: pls. LXXIV.20-21); C) Shaholag (drawn by the authors after Egami et al. 1965: 38, fig. 3); D) Tomājān (drawn by the authors after Samadi 1969: fig. 47d); E) Vaske (drawn by the authors after Khalatbari 2004c: fig. 6.3); F-H) Rūdbār (drawn by the authors after pictures courtesy of National Museum of Tehran); I) Tul-e Talesh (drawn the by authors after Khalatbari 2004a: fig. 58).

Another specimen was discovered in Grave 14 of the Tomājān cemetery (fig. 2D). This pendant is very similar to that from Ghalekuti, with two circles and the suspension ring broken (Samadi 1969: 56-58, figs. 47, 52). A pendant characterized by the presence of three concentric rings decorated only on with dots on their outer sides was discovered in Grave 3 of the Vaske necropolis (fig. 2E). It measures 6 cm in diameter and 0.3 cm in thickness (Khalatbari 2004c: 177, figs. 6.3, 41.3) and lacks a suspension ring. The Vaske graves have been dated to the Middle Iron Age (Azar- noush & Helwing 2005: 230). The largest group of bronze pendants was discovered in Rūdbār and is kept in the National Museum of Tehran. Three similar pendants are com- posed of three concentric circles, held together by a thin metal strip placed 200 R. DAN — M.K. DIVKOLAEE — A. PETROSYAN in axis with the suspension ring. All have dotted decoration, present only on the outer part of the circles. Only one still retains the suspension ring (fig. 2F), whereas the others are broken (figs. 2G-H). Another specimen was discovered during the excavation of Dolmen 1 of the necropolis (fig. 2I) of Tul-e Talesh (Khalatbari 2004b: 85, fig. 58). This piece has been dated to the Iron Age IV/early Achaemenid period (Haerinck 1988: 73; Piller 2010: 65), a date similar to that proposed by A. Vahdati for a bracelet discovered in the same grave that bears an Urartian inscription (Vahdati 2007: 136)3. However, it should be underlined that Dolmen 1 remained in use for a long time, although its construction dates to the Late Bronze Age (Piller 2010: 69). Therefore we can hypothesize that this pendant was an item of grave goods from a Late Bronze/Early Iron Age burial.

Other similar finds

The objects that resemble most closely the pendants of this group came from the northeastern part of the Armenian Highland (territory of modern- day Armenia), where many of them have been discovered over the years in a number of excavations, in rich burials of persons of high rank. The most famous specimen is that joined to a pin, known as the Lchashen Nor Bayazet (Gavar) “solar system”, and obtained by the combination of two different objects4. The largest number was discovered in the site of Shi- rakavan in north-western Armenia, in a collection of Iron Age graves (11- 12, 27, 29, 31-32, 50, 100) from Necropolis 1 (Torosyan et al. 1993: 15-19; Torosyan et al. 2002). Other specimens have been discovered in the Iron Age cemetery of Tolors (fig. 3) in Southern Armenia (Martirosyan

3 The bracelet is undoubtedly the most important find from the tomb and appears to have been reused and altered in antiquity. Inside is a dedicatory inscription of Sarduri II, recogniz- able thanks to the presence of the patronymic referring to his father Argišti I; the inscription is inside the bracelet while outside there is a decorative zig-zag. From the incompleteness of the inscription, it seems to be made of two metal sheets, perhaps due to the reuse of what originally had been a bronze cup. It has been speculated that it may have been brought here as a gift from a by an Urartian messenger; on this bracelet, see Azarnoush & Helwing 2005: 228-230, 234; Bashash Kanzaq 2004: 95-99; Dalalian & Grekyan 2004: 1-6; Khalat- bari 2004b: 57; Razmjou 2004: 103-106; Piller 2010: 61-62. But we must emphasize that apart from this valuable object, other material clearly attributable to Urartian culture has never been found in the excavations and surveys conducted, if not a bronze quiver discovered in Grave 24 of the same cemetery (Piller 2010: 67-68, tav. XIII/1-2). 4 On all the objects mentioned in this paragraph, see Avetisyan et al. forthcoming. BRONZE PENDANTS FROM THE GILAN REGION 201

Fig. 3. Bronze pendants from Tolors (after Martirosyan 1969: tab. 37.3-8 and Santrot 1996: 111, fig. 100).

1969: tab. 37.3-8); in the Iron Age sites of Vardakar (Martirosyan 1969: tab. 37.1-2) and in Kurgan 1 of Artschadzor, in Nagorno Karabak (Rösler 1894: 221-241, figs. 11-54); in the Middle Iron Age necropolis of Tandzaver in the Syunik region in Southern Armenia (Xnkikyan 2002: tab. LXXXVII.40); in the burial ground of Minghechaur in Azerbaijan (Aslanov et al. 1959: tab. XIX.31); in a grave in Nagorno Karabakh (Curtis & Kruszyński 2002: 64, fig. 38.159, pl. 12e) and in the Iron Age cemetery in Paradiesfestung in Kalakent (Nagel & Strommenger 1985: 95-96, figs. 61, tab. 30.2). Generally these objects have quite similar characteristics, with two or three open or closed circles. Some have an axe-shaped element in the cen- tre. These ornaments seem to have been in use primarily in the Iron Age. As discussed above, the only site that can provide comprehensive informa- tion about the context of these objects is Shirakavan. In general, it would 202 R. DAN — M.K. DIVKOLAEE — A. PETROSYAN seem that in this cemetery these objects occur in male burials, which also contain weapons and ceremonial objects in bronze (Avetisyan et al. forthcoming). It is also interesting to note the close resemblance with the Tolors specimens, in which the circles are completely closed; these are surely closest to the Gilan specimens.

Final remarks

Returning to a hypothesis of P.R.S. Moorey (Moorey 1971: 235-236), we can confirm that these specimens probably represent a local imitation of a typical pendant type that was widespread on the northeastern part of the Armenian highlands, especially during the Early and Middle Iron Age (Avetisyan et al. forthcoming). The exemplars from Ghalekuti, Rūdbār and Shaholag in particular look very similar to the pendants discovered in Tolors, Syunik region (Southern Armenia), with the exception of the lack of the central axe. One of the features that characterises these pendants with respect to the Armenian specimens is the presence of a dotted decoration on the outer part of the metal circles. This is a feature not seen on the Armenian exemplars. At the same time, the majority of the Gilan specimens look as though they were made by the merging of two parts, the main circle and the minor circles fixed on a bronze foil to which was attached the suspension ring, while the Southern Caucasus specimens were obtained from a single casting. As mentioned, this group of objects are definitely relevant to the question of cultural contacts between southern Caucasus and Northern Iran. As suggested by C.K. Piller, interesting comparisons can be made, and parallels found, between these two regions in the field of jewellery, personal ornaments and weaponry (Piller 2012: 311). Given the quantity of these pendants discovered in the north-eastern part of the Armenian Highlands, we can hypothesize that the specimens from Gilan were a local variant with unique characteristics due to the fact that this type of object was adopted in these areas only secondarily. In conclusion, we face a possible imitation, presumably a little later in date than the Arme- nian pendants. During transmission and reproduction some symbolic ele- ments that were important in Armenia have been lost in favour of other features, such as the dotted decoration, in accord with local style. The function of these objects was clearly the same — they must be considered objects of adornment, pendants — but the problem concerns their meaning. It is now clear that in Armenia these pendants had a number of features BRONZE PENDANTS FROM THE GILAN REGION 203 with a symbolic meaning probably relevant to the field of worship. The specimens from Gilan lack certain items, such as the “axe”. They are imi- tations, deprived of their symbolic meaning and adapted to the local style — or perhaps they still have a symbolic meaning, but probably different from that of the Armenian specimens. Anyhow, the spread of these pendants was the result of an extensive network of relationships that existed in the Late Bronze and Iron Age, of which only in recent years have we begun to glimpse the complexity.

Bibliography ASLANOV, G.M., VAIDOV, R.M. & IONE, G.I., 1959. DrevnijMingečaur(èpoxaèneo- litaibronzy)(Ancient Mingechaur of the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages), Baku. AVETISYAN, P., DAN, R. & PETROSYAN, A., forthcoming. Axes, Labyrinths and Astral Symbols: Bronze Pendants and Pins from the Armenian Highlands. AZARNOUSH, M. & HELWING, B., 2005. Recent archaeological research in Iran - Prehistory to Iron Age, AMIT 37: 189-246. BASHASH KANZAQ, R., 2004. Reading the inscription on the bronze bracelet at Toul-e Gilan, in: Khalatbari M.R. (ed.), ExcavationsatToul-eGilan,Archae- ologicalinvestigationsinTalesh,Gilan1, Tehran: 95-100. CURTIS, J. (ed.), 1988. Bronze-workingCentresofWesternAsiac.1000-539B.C., London. CURTIS, J. & KRUSZYŃSKI, M., 2002. AncientCaucasianandrelatedMaterialin TheBritishMuseum, The British Museum Occasional Paper 121, London. DALALIAN, T. & GREKYAN, Y., 2004. An Urartian Bracelet from Gilan, Iran&the Caucasus 8/1: 1-6. EGAMI, N., FUKAI, S. & MASUDA, S., 1965. DailamanI.TheExcavationsatGha- lekutiandLasulkan1960, Tokyo. HAERINCK, E., 1988. The Iron Age in Guilan – Proposal for a Chronology, in: Curtis J. (ed.), Bronze-workingCentresofWesternAsiac.1000-539B.C.: 63-78. KHALATBARI, M.R. (ed.), 2004a. ExcavationsatToul-eGilan,Archaeologicalinves- tigationsinTalesh,Gilan1, Tehran. —, 2004b. Archaeological Excavations at Toul-e Gilan, in: Khalatbari M.R. (ed.), ExcavationsatToul-eGilan,ArchaeologicalinvestigationsinTalesh,Gilan1, Tehran: 21-70. —, 2004c. ArchaeologicalInvestigationsinTalesh,Gilan2.ExcavationsatVaske andMianroud, General Office of Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization of Gilan, Tehran. MARTIROSYAN, A.A., 1969. Ushbronzedaryanhushardzannerevdambaranadashter, Hayastani hnagitakan hushardzannere, vol. 2, Yerevan. MEHNERT, A., MEHNERT, G. & REINHOLD, S. (eds.), 2012. AustauschundKulturkon- taktimSüdkaukasusundseinenangrenzendenRegioneninderSpätbronze-/ 204 R. DAN — M.K. DIVKOLAEE — A. PETROSYAN

Früheisenzeit (Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 22), Langenweißbach. NAGEL, W. & STROMMENGER, E., 1985. Kalakent.FrüheisenzeitlicheGrabfunde aus dem transkaukasischen Gebiet von Kirovabad/Jelisavetopol (Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Neue Folge Band 4), Berlin. NEGAHBAN, E.O., 1995. Daylamān, EncyclopaediaIranica VII.4: 337. —, 2001. Gīlān III. Archaeology, EncyclopaediaIranica X.6: 626-634. PILLER, C.K., 2010. Northern Iran in the Iron Age II and III: a Neighbour of Urartu?, AJNES5/2,FestschriftinHonorofNicolayHarutyunyaninoccasion ofhis90thbirthday: 53-75. —, 2012. The Caucasian connection – Reflections on the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age in Northern Iran and its connections to the Southern Caucasus, in Mehnert, A., Mehnert, G. & Reinhold, S. (eds.), Austauschund KulturkontaktimSüdkaukasusundseinenangrenzendenRegioneninderSpät- bronze-/Früheisenzeit, Langenweißbach: 305-317. RAZMJOU, S., 2004. A bronze bracelet with Urartian inscription at Toul-e Gilan, in: Khalatbari M.R. (ed.), ExcavationsatToul-eGilan,Archaeologicalinvesti- gationsinTalesh,Gilan1, Tehran: 101-107. RÖSLER, E., 1894. Archäologische Thätigkeit im Jahre 1893 in Transkaukasien, ZeitschriftfürEthnologie26: 213-241. SAMADI, H., 1969. Lesdécouvertesfortuitesetl’étatdelacivilisationchezl’homme pré-médique, Teheran. SANTROT, J., 1996. Trésorsdel’ArménieAnciennedesoriginesauIVesiècle, Paris. TOROSYAN, R., KHNKIKYAN O. & PETROSYAN, L.A., 1993. Hin Shirakavan (hnaguyn bnakavayrn u dambaranadashte), HnagitakanashxatanqnereHayastaninora- karuytcnerum 1. Yerevan: 15-19. —, 2002. HnagitakanpeghunmereHayastanumn.23,HinShirakavan,1978–1981 peghumneriardyunqnere, Gitutjun, Yerevan. VAHDATI, A.A., 2007. Marlik and Toul-e Talish: a Dating Problem, IranicaAnti- qua 42: 125-138. XNKIKYAN, O., 2002. SyunikDuringtheBronzeandIronAge, Barrington.