sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anshan (Persia), Awan (ancient city), Chogha Mish, Enmebaragesi, Haft Tepe, Humban

The Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, c.3500 – 1000 BC

Volume I, Part I

K. J. Roach

Doctor of Philosophy, (Near Eastern) Archaeology 2008 The University of Sydney Table of Contents Volume I Part I Table of Contents page i Synopsis vi Acknowledgments vii List of figures ix List of tables xi List of graphs xxi 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Glyptic Studies 8 1.1.1. Seals and Sealings 8 1.1.2. The Function of Cylinder Seals 10 1.1.3. Materials of Seals 17 1.1.4. Seal Production 43 1.1.5. Nature of Study: Art History or Archaeology? 43 1.2. Parameters of the current study 45 1.2.1. ‘’ 45 1.2.2. Chronology 48 1.3. Summation 51 2. History, Chronology and Archaeology of Elam, c.3500 – 1000 BC 54 2.1. History and Chronology of Elam 55 2.1.1. II 56 2.1.2. Susa III 57 2.1.3. Susa IV 59 2.1.4. Akkadian and 61 2.1.5. III and Shimashki 66 2.1.6. Sukkalmah 71 2.1.7. Middle Elamite Period 78 2.2. Archaeology 100 2.2.1. Khuzistan 102 2.2.2. Luristan 170 2.2.3. 223 2.3. Summation 242

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I i

3. Construction of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Styles Paradigm, the Methodology 261 3.1. Provenance and Stratigraphy 264 3.2. Previous Analyses and Classifications, Literature Review 272 3.2.1. Amiet 276 3.2.2. Pittman 283 3.2.3. Porada 286 3.3. Mesopotamian Cross-Reference and Association 287 3.4. ‘Dated Seals’ 290 3.5. Seriation and Art Historical Progression 302 3.6. The ‘ Sealings’ 308 3.7. Summation 313 Part II 4. The Elamite Glyptic Styles 316 4.1. Susa II Style (STS) 322 4.2. Jemdet Related Style (JNRS) 339 4.3. Classic Proto-Elamite Style (CPE) 352 4.4. Glazed Steatite Style (GS) 364 4.5. Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 375 4.6. Susa III/IV Style (STF) 388 4.7. Susa IV Style (SF) 398 4.8. Late Susa IV Style (LSF) 410 4.9. Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 417 4.10. Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) Style (PEA) 428 4.11. Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 441 4.12. Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) Style (PEU) 456 4.13. Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 472 4.14. Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) Style (PEO) 483 4.15. Early Middle Elamite Style (EME) 492 4.16. Kassite Related Style (KRS) 509 4.17. Late Middle Elamite Style (LME) 519 4.18. Anshanite Style (AS) 533 4.19. Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 538

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ii 4.20. Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 549 4.21. No Image 555 4.22. Miscellaneous Styles 558 4.23. Unclassifiable Designs 560 4.24. Not Illustrated 561 4.25. Summation and Conclusion 562 Part III 5. Summary of Style Distribution across the Elamite Sites 577 5.1. Susa 577 5.2. Chogha Mish 585 5.3. Haft Tepe 590 5.4. Choga Zanbil 594 5.5. Tepe Sharafabad 599 5.6. Deh-i Now 601 5.7. Surkh Dum-i-Luri 602 5.8. Kamtarlan 606 5.9. Chigha Sabz 609 5.10. Bani Surmah 612 5.11. Kalleh Nisar 615 5.12. Godin Tepe 617 5.13. Tepe Djamshidi 621 5.14. Tepe Giyan 622 5.15. Chogha Gavaneh 624 5.16. Tal-i Malyan 625 6. Glyptic Function in Elam 630 6.1. Administrative 633 6.1.1. Non-writing administration 634 6.1.2. Writing administration 657 6.1.3. Summation of Administration Function 671 6.2. Symbolic 682 6.2.1. Votive 683 6.2.2. Funerary 695 6.2.3. Summation of Symbolic Function 697 6.3. Other Functions 698

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iii 6.3.1. ‘Palace’ Seals 698 6.3.2. Non-Votive Hoards 699 6.4. Unknown Function 700 6.5. Conclusion and Summation 706 7. Elamite and Mesopotamian Contact and Interaction 712 7.1. ‘Dated Seals’ 713 7.2. Location and Chronology of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Influence 736 7.2.1. Direction of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction 739 7.2.2. Location of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction and Influence 741 7.2.3. Chronology of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction and Influence 750 7.2.4. Summation 758 7.3. Conclusion – Ethnic Duality, ‘Elamite’ Cycles and Cylinder Seals 759 8. Conclusion 768 8.1. General Conclusion and Summation 768 8.2. Directions for Future Study 774 Bibliography 776 Appendix A 816 Volume II Part I Details of Catalogue page 1 Abbreviations of Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles 1 Abbreviations of Original Classification (Orig. Class.) Styles 2 1. Susa II Style 3 2 Jemdet Nasr Related Style 87 3 Classic Proto-Elamite Style 128 4 Glazed Steatite Style 175 5 Archaic Geometric Designs 216 6 Susa III/IV Style 261 7 Susa IV Style 305 Part II 8 Late Susa IV Style 327

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iv 9 Akkadian Related Style 330 10 Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) Style 355 11 Ur III Related Style 369 12 Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) Style 390 13 Old Babylonian Related Style 417 14 Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) Style 436 15 Early Middle Elamite Style 445 16 Kassite Related Style 485 17 Late Middle Elamite Style 494 18 Anshanite Style 520 19 Luristan Provincial Style 521 20 Late Geometric Designs 551 21 No Image 564 22 Miscellaneous Styles 568 23 Unclassified Designs 570 24 Not Illustrated 583 Concordance 588

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I v Synopsis The ancient region of Elam (southwestern ) has produced a significant assemblage of cylinder seals across a considerable chronological span. Unlike the glyptic material from the related and neighbouring region , the Elamite cylinder seals have not previously been studied in detailed reference to one another, nor has there been an established paradigm of stylistic development articulated. This study addresses this lacuna by compiling all the published cylinder seals from Elam (as defined here, thus incorporating the historical provinces of Khuzistan, Luristan and Fars), from their earliest appearance (c.3500 BC), throughout the era of their typological dominance (over stamp seals, thus this study departs c.1000 BC). This compilation is presented in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue (Volume II), and is annotated and described through the annunciation of eighteen chronologically defined developmental styles (with another two non-chronological type classifications and four miscellaneous groups). Through the further analysis of this data, including the newly formulated and articulated styles, several facets and problems of Elamite glyptic material have been addressed (and thus the reliance upon assumed similarity in type and function with the Mesopotamian glyptic material is abandoned). These problems particularly pertain to the function of cylinder seals in Elam and the type and form of the Elamite- Mesopotamian glyptic interaction. In regards to function, a standard administrative function can be discerned, though of varying types and forms across the region and the period of study. Other, non-standard, symbolic glyptic functions can also be demonstrated in the Corpus, including the apparent proliferation of a form known as the ‘votive’ seal, perhaps a specifically Elamite form. The analysis of the style type (whether ‘Elamite’, ‘Mesopotamian Related’ or ‘Shared Elamite-Mesopotamian’), in association with their relative geographical and chronological distribution, has also enabled the discussion of the nature of Elamite-Mesopotamian glyptic interaction, and thereby the constitution of Elamite civilisation (especially in regards to Mesopotamian cultural impact and influence, and thus the testing of several previously presented paradigms [Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Miroschedji 2003]).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vi Acknowledgments In form and structure, the study here presented was a generally solitary undertaking; however, this work would not have been achieved without the significant contribution and support from family, friends and colleagues, to whom I am entirely indebted. Firstly, thanks must be accorded to my family. To Mum, Dad, Tony, Lisa, Jodie and Kimberley, thank you for your love and support, for the numerous coffees, patience, assistance, coffees, understanding, interest, for generally being you and being there, and of course, for the coffees. Sorry for the absolute dominance and saturation of the Elamite cylinder seals in the past few years, culminating especially in the recent Elamite invasion; thanks again for your understanding and patience throughout. Thanks must also be given to my other family, my brothers and sisters at Gymea Anglican Church and Soul Revival. Thankyou for your love, prayers, support, friendship and fellowship, especially (but not solely) your understanding and support throughout my recent self-imposed exile. I look forward prayerfully to many more years of fellowship and friendship as we serve our Lord together. Thank you to my supervisor, Prof. Dan Potts, who indeed initially introduced me to the Elamites as an undergraduate. Thank you for your support, assistance and help, for being an extraordinary font of knowledge and information and for your encouragement. Much thanks, the appropriate words for which I cannot truly express, must be accorded to my unfailing and indefatigable reader, Iona Kat McRae. Thank you not only for your assistance in proofreading and editing (any limitations of which in the preceding study are, of course, my own), but also for your friendship, assistance, feedback, enthusiasm, errands and support. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks also to my comrade-in-arms, Bernadette McCall, and my other friends and colleagues in the Near Eastern Archaeology department at the University of Sydney. To Bernadette in particular (and Di, Negin and Abbas), thank you for being a support at the coalface, a sounding board and source of advice, a friendly face, and a welcome and happy diversion when required. Thank you to the staff and organisation at the Iran Archaeological Museum (Tehran), for granting me access to the material included here as the ‘Tehran Sealings’, and for welcoming me in my short, but happy, time at your facility. Special thanks to Shahrokh Razmjou for your help and guidance offered to a bewildered stranger, and to the staff at the ‘Seals and Coins Department’ for your help and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vii friendly assistance. Partial funding for the study trip to Tehran was provided by a grant from the Carlyle Greenwell Bequest Fund, for which I am grateful. Thanks and credit to Luis Siddall, formerly of the University of Sydney, now of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, for assistance in, and reading of, ancient texts, including the translation of several seal inscriptions not included in the Corpus, and the important information regarding the transliteration and identification of the term , for which I am most indebted to you and your linguistic skills. Thank you to Fiona and Stephen Francesconi for reconnaissance in the British Museum. Thanks to Prof. E Haerinck for allowing me access to the relevant chapters of the Kalleh Nisar volume (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008) prior to its publication. Thank you seems a word of little consequence, but all I have to offer. So thanks, and again I say thanks.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I viii Figures 1. 1.1. Glass cylinder seal page 29 1.2. Faience cylinder seal 29 1.3. General map of ‘Elam’ 48 2. 2.1. Map of sites yielding Elamite or Elamite-related glyptic material 101 2.2. General plan of Susa 103 2.3. General plan of Chogha Mish 122 2.4. Composite plan of the ‘High Mound’ of Chogha Mish 125 2.5. Proposed outline of the Sukkalmah ‘Fort’ of Chogha Mish 128 2.6. Plan of Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 135 2.7. General plan of the excavated (Negahban) remains of Haft Tepe 137 2.8. General plan of Choga Zanbil 151 2.9. Plan of the temenos area of Choga Zanbil 152 2.10. Plan of Tepe Sharafabad excavations 162 2.11. General plan of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri excavations 173 2.12. Sub- of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’ area demonstrating location of wall and floor hoards 174 2.13. General plan of the excavation of Kamtarlan (I and II) 189 2.14. General plan of the excavation of Chigha Sabz 194 2.15. General plan of the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’ 207 2.16. General plan of Tepe Djamshidi 210 2.17. South-North cross section of the Tepe Djamshidi excavations 211 2.18. Sketch map of Tepe Giyan 215 2.19. Plan of the ‘architectural complex’ of Chogha Gavaneh 220 2.20. General Plan of Tal-i Malyan () 224 2.21. Plan of TUV (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level II 227 2.22. Plan of TUV (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IIIA and IIIB 228 2.23. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IVB and IVA 229 2.24. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IIIB and IIIA 230 2.25. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level II 231 2.26. Plan of the ‘Middle Elamite Building’ of Operation EDD (Tal-i Malyan) 235

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ix 3. 3.1. Various seals illustrating possible re-cutting or remodelling 268 3.2. The PEU (7), so-called ‘Anshanite Style’ seals/sealings included in the current study, and an unprovenanced example 282

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I x Tables 1.1. Bibliographic table of Mesopotamian glyptic studies page 3 1.2. Bibliographic table of Iranian/Elamite glyptic studies 4 1.3. Various terms in the primary literature for bitumen-based materials 21 1.4. Bitumen-based seals reassessed as ‘bitumen aggregate’ 25 1.5. Summation of quartz-based materials 30 1.6. System of nomenclature of natural materials (rocks and minerals) 35 – 41 1.7. Minerals commonly contained in rock types typical of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 42 2. 2.1. The ‘Awanite’ Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian kings 63 – 64 2.2. The ‘Shimashki’ Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian kings and inscription and textural references 69 – 70 2.3. Proposed (tentative) order of succession of the ‘Sukkalmah’ Dynasty 72 – 74 2.4. Comparative table of previous proposed orders of succession of the Sukkalmah Dynasty 76 2.5. Comparative table of proposed Sukkalmah and Middle Elamite periodisation 82 2.6. The Middle Elamite I ‘Kidinuid’ Dynasty 86 2.7. Middle Elamite Dynasties proposed order of succession with Mesopotamian associations 91 – 92 2.8. The Middle Elamite II ‘Igihalkid’ Dynasty 93 – 94 2.9. The Middle Elamite III ‘Shutrukid’ Dynasty 96 – 97 2.10. The Middle Elamite IV Dynasty 99 2.11. General summary of the publications of the Susa glyptic material 115 2.12. Survey of glyptic material from Susa with known provenance 119 – 121 2.13. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Mish 132 – 133 2.14. Survey of the glyptic material from Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 147 – 149 2.15. Survey of the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil 158 – 160 2.16. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Sharafabad 167 2.17. Survey of the included glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri 182 – 186

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xi 2.18. Survey of the glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri not included in the Corpus due to their non-contemporary or non- Elamite styles 187 2.19. Survey of the glyptic material from Kamtarlan (I and II) 192 2.20. Survey of the glyptic material from Chigha Sabz 197 2.21. Chigha Sabz cylinder seals not included in the Corpus 197 2.22. Survey of the glyptic material from Bani Surmah 200 2.23. Survey of the glyptic material from Kalleh Nisar 204 2.24. Chronological periodisation of Godin Tepe in reference to the chronological scheme of this study 206 2.25. Survey of the glyptic material from Godin Tepe 209 2.26. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Djamshidi 212 2.27. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Giyan 216 2.28. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Gavaneh 223 2.29. Survey of the glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan (Anshan) 241 – 242 2.30. ‘Elamite’ and Mesopotamian dynastic interactions 244 – 255 2.31. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Khuzistan province according to the chronological scheme of this study 256 2.32. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Luristan province according to the chronological scheme here presented 257 2.33. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Luristan province (cont.) and Tal-i Malyan (Fars) according to the chronological scheme of this study 258 2.34. Survey and summary of the chronological scheme here adopted 259 – 260 3. 3.1. Survey of the previous publications of the glyptic material included in the Corpus 274 3.2. Amiet’s stylistic paradigms and the corresponding translations, additions and alterations here proposed 280 3.3. Survey of the classification system for the Choga Zanbil material by Porada, according to classification criteria and current style here proposed 287

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xii 3.4. Sources used for correlative/cross-referential Mesopotamian material 288 3.5. Elamite ‘Dated Seals’ 293 – 299 3.6. ‘Dated Seals’ from the Elamite Corpus naming Mesopotamian kings 300 3.7. Unprovenanced ‘Elamite Dated Seals’ 301 3.8. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous kings with dated seals 302 3.9. Survey of previously published ‘Tehran Sealings’ according to primary publication and current number (Catalogue allocation) 309 3.10. Survey of ‘Tehran Sealings’ previously unpublished and included in the Corpus, indicating current stylistic designation 313 4. 4.1. Survey of Susa II Style (STS) sub-group division 323 4.2. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa II Style (STS) 332 4.3. Glyptic materials of the Susa II Style (STS) 334 4.4. Site distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 335 4.5. Province distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 336 4.6. Survey of Jemdet Nasr Related (JNRS) sub-group division 340 4.7. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 345 4.8. Glyptic materials of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 346 4.9. Site distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347 4.10. Province distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347 4.11. Survey of Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style sub-group division 353 4.12. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 357 4.13. Glyptic materials of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 359 4.14. Site distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361 4.15. Province distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361 4.16. Survey of Glazed Steatite (GS) Style sub-group division 367 4.17. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Glazed Steatite(GS) Style 370 4.18. Glyptic materials of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 370 4.19. Site distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372 4.20. Province distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372 4.21. Survey of Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) sub-group division 378 4.22. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382 4.23. Glyptic materials of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382 4.24. Site distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 383

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiii 4.25. Province distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 384 4.26. Survey of Susa III/IV (STF) Style sub-group division 390 4.27. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 392 4.28. Glyptic materials of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 393 4.29. Site distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394 4.30. Province distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394 4.31. Survey of Susa IV (SF) Style sub-group division 400 4.32. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa IV (SF) Style 405 4.33. Glyptic materials of the Susa IV (SF) Style 406 4.34. Site distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407 4.35. Province distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407 4.36. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 412 4.37. Glyptic materials of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413 4.38. Site distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413 4.39. Province distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 414 4.40. Survey of Akkadian Related Style (ARS) sub-group division 418 4.41. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 423 4.42. Glyptic materials of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 424 4.43. Site distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425 4.44. Province distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425 4.45. Survey of Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 430 4.46. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 433 4.47. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 434 4.48. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436 4.49. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436 4.50. Survey of Ur III Related Style (UTRS) sub-group division 442 4.51. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 448 4.52. Glyptic materials of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 449 4.53. Site distribution of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 450 4.54. Survey of UTRS ‘dated seals’ 452

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiv 4.55. Survey of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style sub- groups 456 4.56. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 464 4.57. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 465 4.58. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 466 4.59. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 466 4.60. Survey of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) sub-group division 473 4.61. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477 4.62. Glyptic materials of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477 4.63. Site distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 479 4.64. Province distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 480 4.65. Survey of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style sub-group division 483 4.66. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/ Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 486 4.67. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 487 4.68. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 488 4.69. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/ Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 490 4.70. Survey of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style sub-group division 494 4.71. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 500 4.72. Glyptic materials of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501 4.73. Site distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 502 4.74. Province distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 503 4.75. Survey of EME ‘dated seals’ 506 4.76. Survey of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) sub-group division 509 4.77. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 513 4.78. Glyptic materials of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514 4.79. Site distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xv 4.80. Province distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515 4.81. Survey of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style sub-group division 520 4.82. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 528 4.83. Glyptic materials of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 529 4.84. Site distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530 4.85. Province distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530 4.86. Survey of the Anshanite Style (AS) sub-group division 534 4.87. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Anshanite Style (AS) 535 4.88. Glyptic materials of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536 4.89. Site distribution of the Anshanite Style (AS) 537 4.90. Survey of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) sub-group division 540 4.91. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 543 4.92. Glyptic materials of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 544 4.93. Site distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 545 4.94. Province distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 546 4.95. Survey of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) sub-group division 549 4.96. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551 4.97. Glyptic materials of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551 4.98. Site distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 552 4.99. Province distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553 4.100. Glyptic materials of the ‘No Image’ Classification 556 4.101. Site distribution of the ‘No Image’ Classification 557 4.102. Survey of the ‘Miscellaneous Styles’ classification 559 4.103. Glyptic materials of the ‘Unclassifiable Designs’ group 561 4.104. Survey of the Style Proportions of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 562 4.105. Graphical representation of the relative chronology of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles 563 4.106. Glyptic items according to chronological distribution 566 4.107. The glyptic materials of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 567 4.108. Survey of the seal/sealing types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 568 4.109. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 570 4.110. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 573 4.111. Summary and survey of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles according to chronological placement, style type and development 574

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvi 5. 5.1. Susa style distribution 578 5.2. Susa glyptic types 579 5.3. Susa glyptic materials 580 5.4. Susa glyptic function 583 5.5. Style distribution of the Susa ‘funerary’ seals 584 5.6. Style distribution of the Susa temple/votive seals 585 5.7. Chogha Mish style distribution 586 5.8. Chogha Mish glyptic types 587 5.9. Chogha Mish glyptic materials 588 5.10. Chogha Mish glyptic function 589 5.11. Haft Tepe style distribution 590 5.12. Haft Tepe glyptic types 591 5.13. Haft Tepe glyptic materials 592 5.14. Haft Tepe glyptic function 594 5.15. Choga Zanbil style distribution 595 5.16. Choga Zanbil glyptic materials 596 5.17. Choga Zanbil glyptic context 597 5.18. Choga Zanbil glyptic function 597 5.19. Tepe Sharafabad style distribution 599 5.20. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic types 600 5.21. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic materials 601 5.22. Surkh Dum-i-Luri style distribution 603 5.23. Surkh Dum-i-Luri glyptic materials 605 5.24. Kamtarlan style distribution 607 5.25. Kamtarlan glyptic types 608 5.26. Kamtarlan glyptic materials 608 5.27. Kamtarlan glyptic function 609 5.28. Chigha Sabz style distribution 610 5.29. Chigha Sabz glyptic materials 611 5.30. Bani Surmah style distribution 612 5.31. Bani Surmah glyptic materials 614 5.32. Bani Surmah glyptic context 615 5.33. Kalleh Nisar style distribution 616

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvii 5.34. Kalleh Nisar glyptic materials 616 5.35. Kalleh Nisar glyptic context 617 5.36. Godin Tepe style distribution 617 5.37. Godin Tepe glyptic types 619 5.38. Godin Tepe glyptic materials 620 5.39. Godin Tepe glyptic function 621 5.40. Tepe Giyan style distribution 623 5.41. Tepe Giyan glyptic materials 623 5.42. Tepe Giyan glyptic function 624 5.43. Tal-i Malyan style distribution 625 5.44. Tal-i Malyan style distribution by Operations (Malyan sectors) 626 5.45. Tal-i Malyan glyptic types 627 5.46. Tal-i Malyan glyptic materials 628 5.47. Tal-i Malyan glyptic function 629 6. 6.1. Functional classifications of the ‘Geometric Design’ (AGD and LGD) Items 633 6.2. Site distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding bullae) 637 6.3. Style distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding bullae) 639 6.4. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding bullae) 641 6.5. Site distribution of bullae/bulles 645 6.6. Style distribution of bullae/bulles 646 6.7. Chronological distribution of bullae/bulles 646 6.8. The multiple seal-impressed bullae from Susa and Chogha Mish 650 6.9. Type distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 652 6.10. Site distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 652 6.11. Style distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 655 6.12. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 655 6.13. Site distribution of sealed tablets 658 6.14. Style distribution of sealed tablets 660

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xviii 6.15. Chronological distribution of sealed tablets 661 6.16. Site distribution of sealed envelopes 665 6.17. Style distribution of sealed envelopes 666 6.18. Chronological distribution of sealed envelopes 666 6.19. Type distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667 6.20. Site distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667 6.21. Style distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667 6.22. Chronological distribution of the writing associated administrative items 670 6.23. Survey of the glyptic types of the administrative function items 671 6.24. Survey of the site distribution of the administrative function glyptic items 674 6.25. Survey of the style distribution of the administrative function glyptic items 676 6.26. Survey of the chronological distribution of the administrative function glyptic items 678 6.27. Site distribution of ‘votive seals’ 685 6.28. Style distribution of the ‘votive seals’ 688 6.29. Chronological distribution of the ‘votive seals’ 689 6.30. ‘Heirloom’ classification of ‘votive seals’ 692 6.31. Site distribution of the ‘funerary seal’ 696 6.32. Style distribution of ‘funerary seals’ 697 6.33. Chronological distribution of ‘funerary seals’ 697 6.34. Style distribution of ‘palace seals’ 699 6.35. Site distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 701 6.36. Style distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 701 6.37. Chronological distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 703 6.38. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 709 7. 7.1. Elamite ‘dated seals’ naming Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous Kings 713 – 714 7.2. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronised ‘dated’ seals 717 – 732 7.3. List of ‘Not Illustrated’ Mesopotamian ‘dated’ seals 732

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xix 7.4. Site distribution of the style classifications 742 7.5. Province (including Susa) distribution of the style classifications 742 7.6. Chronological distribution of the Elamite Corpus items according to style type classification 750 8. 8.1. Summary and survey of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles according to chronological placement, style classification and development 770

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xx Graphs 4.1. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa II Style (STS) page 332 4.2. Glyptic materials of the Susa II Style (STS) 335 4.3. Site distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 336 4.4. Province distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 337 4.5. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 345 4.6. Glyptic materials of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 346 4.7. Site distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347 4.8. Province distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 348 4.9. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 357 4.10. Glyptic materials of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 360 4.11. Site distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361 4.12. Province distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 362 4.13. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 370 4.14. Glyptic materials of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 371 4.15. Site distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372 4.16. Province distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 373 4.17. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382 4.18. Glyptic materials of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 383 4.19. Site distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 384 4.20. Province distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 385 4.21. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 392 4.22. Glyptic materials of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 393 4.23. Site distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 395 4.24. Province distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394 4.25. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa IV (SF) Style 405 4.26. Glyptic materials of the Susa IV (SF) Style 406 4.27. Site distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407 4.28. Province distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 408 4.29. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 412 4.30. Glyptic materials of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413 4.31. Site distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413 4.32. Province distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 414 4.33. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 423

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxi 4.34. Glyptic materials of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 424 4.35. Site distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425 4.36. Province distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 426 4.37. Seal/Sealing of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 434 4.38. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 435 4.39. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436 4.40. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 437 4.41. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 448 4.42. Glyptic Materials of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 449 4.43. Site distribution of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 450 4.44. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 464 4.45. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 465 4.46. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 467 4.47. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 466 4.48. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477 4.49. Glyptic materials of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 478 4.50. Site distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 479 4.51. Province distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 480 4.52. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/ Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 487 4.53. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 488 4.54. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 489 4.55. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/ Sukkalmah) (PE) Style 490 4.56. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501 4.57. Glyptic materials of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501 4.58. Site distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 502 4.59. Province distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 503 4.60. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxii 4.61. Glyptic materials of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514 4.62. Site distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515 4.63. Province distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 516 4.64. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 528 4.65. Glyptic materials of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 529 4.66. Site distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530 4.67. Province distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 531 4.68. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536 4.69. Glyptic materials of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536 4.70. Site distribution of the Anshanite Style (AS) 537 4.71. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 544 4.72. Glyptic materials of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 545 4.73. Site distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 546 4.74. Province distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 547 4.75. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551 4.76. Glyptic materials of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 552 4.77. Site distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553 4.78. Province distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553 4.79. Glyptic materials of the ‘No Image’ Classification 557 4.80. Site distribution of the ‘No Image’ Classification 557 4.81. Survey of the Style Proportions of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (miscellaneous classifications excepted) 564 4.82. Glyptic items according to chronological distribution 566 4.83. The glyptic materials of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (with five or more examples) 569 4.84. Survey of seal/sealing types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 570 4.85. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 571 4.86. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, minus the Susa corpus 572 4.87. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 573 4.88. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, minus the Susa corpus 573 5. 5.1. Susa style distribution 578

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiii 5.2. Susa glyptic types 579 5.3. Susa glyptic materials (with five or more examples) 581 5.4. Susa glyptic function 583 5.5. Chogha Mish style distribution 586 5.6. Chogha Mish glyptic types 587 5.7. Chogha Mish glyptic materials 588 5.8. Chogha Mish glyptic function 589 5.9. Haft Tepe style distribution 591 5.10. Haft Tepe glyptic types 592 5.11. Haft Tepe glyptic materials 593 5.12. Haft Tepe glyptic function 594 5.13. Choga Zanbil style distribution 595 5.14. Choga Zanbil glyptic materials 597 5.15. Choga Zanbil glyptic function 598 5.16. Tepe Sharafabad style distribution 600 5.17. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic types 600 5.18. Surkh Dum-i-Luri style distribution 604 5.19. Surkh Dum-i-Luri glyptic materials with three or more items 606 5.20. Kamtarlan style distribution 607 5.21. Kamtarlan glyptic types 608 5.22. Kamtarlan glyptic materials 608 5.23. Kamtarlan glyptic function 609 5.24. Chigha Sabz style distribution 610 5.25. Chigha Sabz glyptic materials 611 5.26. Bani Surmah style distribution 613 5.27. Bani Surmah glyptic materials 614 5.28. Kalleh Nisar style distribution 616 5.29. Kalleh Nisar glyptic materials 616 5.30. Godin Tepe style distribution 618 5.31. Godin Tepe glyptic types 619 5.32. Godin Tepe glyptic materials 620 5.33. Godin Tepe glyptic function 621 5.34. Tepe Giyan style distribution 623 5.35. Tepe Giyan glyptic materials 624

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiv 5.36. Tepe Giyan glyptic function 624 5.37. Tal-i Malyan style distribution 626 5.38. Tal-i Malyan glyptic types 627 5.39. Tal-i Malyan glyptic materials 628 5.40. Tal-i Malyan glyptic function 629 6. 6.1. Functional classifications of the ‘Geometric Design’ (AGD and LGD) Items 633 6.2. Division of non-writing associated sealings according to classification 636 6.3. Site distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding bullae) 638 6.4. Style distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding bullae) 640 6.5. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding bullae) 641 6.6. Site distribution of bullae/bulles 646 6.7. Style distribution of bullae/bulles 647 6.8. Chronological distribution of bullae/bulles 648 6.9. Type distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 653 6.10. Site distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 654 6.11. Style distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 656 6.12. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 657 6.13. Site distribution of sealed tablets 659 6.14. Style distribution of sealed tablets 661 6.15. Chronological distribution of sealed tablets 662 6.16. Site distribution of sealed envelopes 666 6.17. Style distribution of sealed envelopes 666 6.18. Chronological distribution of sealed envelopes 666 6.19. Type distribution of the writing associated administrative items 668 6.20. Site distribution of the writing associated administrative items 669 6.21. Style distribution of the writing associated administrative items 669 6.22. Chronological distribution of the writing associated administrative items 670 6.23. Survey of the glyptic types of the administrative function items 672

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxv 6.24. Survey of the site distribution of the administrative function glyptic items 675 6.25. Survey of the style distribution of the administrative function glyptic items 677 6.26. Survey of the chronological distribution of the administrative function glyptic items 680 6.27. Site distribution of ‘votive seals’ 686 6.28. Style distribution of ‘votive seals’ 689 6.29. Chronological distribution of ‘votive seals’ 690 6.30. ‘Heirloom’ classification of ‘votive seals’ 692 6.31. Site distribution of the ‘funerary seals’ 696 6.32. Style distribution of the ‘funerary seals’ 697 6.33. Chronological distribution of the ‘funerary seals’ 697 6.34. Style distribution of ‘palace seals’ 699 6.35. Site distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 702 6.36. Site distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals, excluding Susa 703 6.37. Style distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 704 6.38. Chronological distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 705 6.39. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 710 6.40. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, with division of the functional classes 711 7. 7.1. Site distribution of the style classifications, excluding Susa 743 7.2. Province (including Susa) distribution of the style classifications 744 7.3. Chronological distribution of the Elamite Corpus items according to style type classification 751

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxvi Chapter 1 – Introduction Cylinder seals are described by Moorey as “the most distinctive artefact created by the Sumerians” (Moorey 1994: 103). Indeed, cylinder seals are often found in the excavations of Mesopotamian sites, and other areas of the , for a period of close to three millennia, and form a group of diagnostic artefacts within the material culture of the region. Cylinder seals are generally useful artefacts, as trends, social movements and changes can be traced in their study (Collon 2005). Much of our understanding of Mesopotamian iconography, imagery of the gods and mythology comes from glyptic studies (Black & Green 1992; Collon 2005: 165 – 171, 178 – 186), and the images found on seals further provide an insight into common, quotidian life that is unparalleled elsewhere (Collon 2005: 145 – 149). Cylinder seals, through their depictions, provide insights into clothes and fashions, building techniques and decoration, weaponry and furnishings, agricultural methods and accoutrements, as well as ritual actions and ceremonies, such as royal hunts, banquets and worship/presentation scenes (Collon 2005: 145 – 197). Furthermore, cylinder seals, particularly those that are inscribed with the name of a king or known personage, can also provide useful dating mechanisms (though the use of seals and sealings for dating purposes is extremely precarious and should be approached with great caution [Matthews 1990: 10; Collon 1990: 24 – 25; contra Negahban 1996: 205], as will be further discussed below [Chapter 3.4]). Seals and sealings also provide information concerning the administration and control mechanisms of a society, and testify to trade and social contacts both within a single community and between communities (Collon 1990: 21 – 30; Gelb 1977; Rathje 1977; Renger 1977). Thus glyptic studies are an important aspect of Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, for much can not only be garnered from the study of these items, but their frequent (if not regular) nature makes such a study profitable. However, either by deliberate design or dearth of information, the majority of past glyptic studies have tended to focus primarily on Mesopotamian1 materials and

1As will become evident in this study, Mesopotamia is often a source of comparison with the neighbouring region of southwestern Iran under discussion here, in terms of history and chronology, as well as material culture. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus on Mesopotamia as an example and contrast in the realm of glyptic studies. It should be noted that there is also a multiplicity of glyptic studies that deal with Syrian-Levantine (for example: Amiet 1963; Collon 1975; 1982b; 1997: 20 – 21; 2005: 24, 52 – 55, 69 – 70; Matthews 1997; Mazzoni 1984; Schaeffer-Forrer 1983; Amiet 1992b; Otto 2000) and Anatolian (for example: Özgüç 1965; 1968; Teissier 1994; Boehmer & Güterbock 1987; Collon 1997: 20 – 21; 2005: 57) glyptic material, that for the sake of brevity, will not be detailed here. Their existence should, however, be noted. These corpora do not, however, diminish the current point

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 1 examples (Collon 1997; 2005; Gibson & Briggs 1977; Kelly-Buccelati 1986). Indeed, as demonstrated by Table 1.1, a plethora of studies have been devoted to the cylinder seals of Mesopotamia. A major theme of many of these publications is the construction and annunciation of stylistic paradigms. Further studies have also dealt with other aspects of Mesopotamian glyptic material, such as function, manufacture processes and material provenance (Part 5, Table 1.1). While it may not be correct to say that Mesopotamian cylinder seals are entirely understood, it can be said that much is known of these items and that their general chronological and stylistic development is well-established (Parts 1 – 4, Table 1.1), albeit with a reservation that some of this construction may be subject to change with ensuing new discoveries. In stark contrast, and despite the fact that cylinder seals are equally ubiquitous and characteristic of the ancient civilisations and societies of southwestern Iran (Elam), relatively few studies have been devoted to the related Iranian/Elamite glyptic material, as demonstrated by Table 1.2. Most commonly the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material has been published as part of the general excavation report of a particular site (see Section 1b of Table 1.2), though in some cases a volume in a series of excavation reports (thus Susa and Choga Zanbil), or an article study (Shahr-i Sokhta, Bani Surmah, Marlik and Kalleh Nisar) is devoted to the glyptic material exposed in the excavations (Section 1a of Table 1.2). Due to this practice, the glyptic material has generally only been subjected to a rather preliminary study, often not by a recognised glyptic expert (exceptions to this include Tal-i Malyan [Sumner 2003] and Tepe Yahya [Potts 2001], as Pittman prepared the glyptic studies for both of these volumes). The cursory nature of these glyptic material publications, as well as lending a preliminary quality to any conclusions, also means that most often the material is discussed in relative isolation from material of other related sites. For example, the glyptic material of the, at least partially, contemporaneous Middle Elamite sites of Susa, Choga Zanbil and Haft Tepe has been published with only a cursory indication of the existence of, and cross-reference to, the others. In other words, unlike the glyptic material from neighbouring Mesopotamia, a study devoted to the stylistic developments of the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material of this, or any other period, has

that there is a general dearth of Iranian glyptic studies, but in fact emphasises the point by demonstrating that other, ‘non-core’ areas of cylinder seal use, such as Syria-Levant and Anatolia have undergone significant glyptic material study, while the same cannot be said of Iranian glyptic material.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 2 not been attempted, and as such the stylistic development for this region is practically unknown, and in effect unpronounced. 1. Public Collections Bibliothèque Nationale Paris (Delaporte 1910) Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Munn-Rankin (Delaporte 1920; 1923) 1959) Berlin (Moortgat 1940) Brussels (Speleers 1917; 1943) Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Buchanan 1966; Geneva (Vollenweider 1967/1983) Moorey & Gurnet 1978) Danish National Museum (Ravn 1960, Møller British Museum (Wiseman 1962; Collon 1982a; 1992) 1986) Fribourg (Keel-Leu 2004) Vienna (Bleibtreu 1981) Gulbenkian Museum, Durham (Lambert 1979) Yale Babylonian Collection (Buchanan 1981) University Museum, Philadelphia (Legrain 1951) The Hague (Zadoks-Josephus 1952) Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (Gordon 1939) 2. Private Collections Pierpont Morgan Library (Porada 1948) von Aulock Collection (von der Osten 1957) Marcopoli Collection (Teissier1984) Frederick Lewis Collection (Owen 1975) Southesk Collection (Carnegie 1908) Cherkasky Collection (Pittman & Aruz 1987) de Clercq Collection (de Clercq & Ménant Sissa Collection (van Buren 1959) 1888/1903) Anavian Collection (Volk 1979) Moore Collection (Eisen 1940; Williams Forte Haskel Museum (Williams 1928) 1976) Guimet Museum (Delaporte 1909) Birmingham Collections (Lambert, W. 1966) Private New York Collections held at the Cugnin Collection (Legrain 1911) Metropolitan Museum of Art (von Bothmer 1961) Gorelick Collection (Noveck 1975) Baldwin Brett Collection (von der Osten 1936) Newell Collection (von der Osten 1934) 3. Excavated Sites (Tobler 1950) Tell Fara (Heinrich 1931; Martin 1988) (Brandes 1979; Boehmer 1999) (Martin & Matthews 1993) Ur (Woolley 1934; Legrain 1936; 1951; Matthews Babylon [and ] (Moortgat 1940) 1993) Diyala/Hamrin (Frankfort 1955; al-Gailani Werr Jemdet Nasr (Matthews, R. 1992) 1992) (Matthews, D. 1992) 4. Stylistic/Chronological Studies Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Mesopotamia (Rova 1994) Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (al-Gailani Werr Glazed Steatite Style (Pittman 1994) 1988a; Blocher 1988; Colbow 1995) Archaic Mesopotamia (Amiet 1980a) Kassite Mesopotamia (Beran 1957 – 1958; Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (Garrison 1989; Matthews 1992) Hansen 1971) Late 2nd millennium BC Near East (Matthews Akkadian and Post-Akkadian Mesopotamia 1990) (Bernbeck 1996; Boehmer 1965) General (Ward 1920; Frankfort 1939; Wiseman & Ur III Mesopotamia (Franke 1977) Forman 1959; Collon 2005) 5. Scientific Studies, Analyses and General Glyptic Studies Microscopic study, methods of manufacture and Sealings study (Zettler 1987) engraving (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; Function (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1990) 1981b; 1992; Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987; Glyptic Studies (Gibson & Biggs 1977; Kelley- Sax, McNabb & Meeks 1998; Sax & Meeks 1994; Buccellati [ed.] 1986; Hallo & Winter [eds.] Sax & Meeks 1995; Sax, Meeks & Collon 2000; 2001) Sax & Middleton 1992) Table 1.1. Bibliographic table of Mesopotamian glyptic studies. It should be noted that this bibliography is by no means extensive, but rather offers a sample of the available sources. Only volumes/excavation reports devoted solely to cylinder seals are included in section 2), with the addition of chapters and other partial reports, this section would be much inflated. Similarly, only styles within the chronological constraints of this study (c.3500 – 1000 BC, detailed below), have been included in section 4), it thus should be noted that more styles outside these parameters exist, and would further demonstrate the propensity for Mesopotamian-focused studies.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 3 1. Excavated Sites 1a. Devoted studies Susa (Amiet 1972) Choga Zanbil (Porada 1970) Shahr-i Sokhta (Amiet 1978) Kalleh Nisar (vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994) Bani Surmah (Tourovets 1996) Marlik (Negahban 1996) 1b. Partial studies Susa (Delaporte 1920; Börker-Klähn 1970) Shahdad (Hakemi 1997) Haft Tepe (Negahban 1991) Godin Tepe (Young 1969a; 1986; Young & (Amiet 1985) Levine 1974; Weiss & Young 1975) Tal-i Malyan (Nicholas 1990 [TUV]; Carter 1996 Tepe Yahya (Potts 2001) [EDD]; Sumner 2003 [ABC]) Tepe Sharafabad (Schacht 1975) Tepe Giyan (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935) Holmes Expedition to Luristan, including Surkh Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996) Dum-i-Luri, Kamtarlan, Chigha Sabz (Schmidt et Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006; vanden al. 1989) Berghe 1968) Kalleh Nisar (vanden Berghe 1973; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008) 2. Stylistic/Chronological Studies Proto-Elamite (Dittmann 1986a; Pittman 1997) Glazed Steatite Style (Pittman 1994)* Archaic styles (Amiet 1980a)* 3. Functional/Scientific Studies (Dyson & Harris 1986) Chemical analysis of clay sealings (Blackman Function of sealing (Ferioli & Fiandra 1979; 1985) 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979) Table 1.2 Bibliographic table of Iranian/Elamite glyptic studies, denoted by 1a) Excavated Sites, devoted studies (papers and monographs dedicated solely to glyptic material), 1b) Excavated sites, partial studies, 2) Stylistic/Chronological Studies and 3) Functional/Scientific Studies. Those studies in section 2 marked with an asterix(*) detail shared Mesopotamian/Elamite styles.

The single2 exception to this is Pittman’s analysis of the ‘Proto-Elamite’ glyptic material (1997), a study that collates all the cylinder seals and sealings of the ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III) period from various sites, and expands upon and annunciates the styles of these seals. This unique study will be discussed in further detail below (Chapter 3.2), but suffice it to say that the existence of this study does not preclude the need for the current work, as it is limited to a single period, whereas the current study aims to discuss the stylistic progression and development of Elamite cylinder seals across many periods. The other three studies listed in Table 1.2 section 2 (Stylistic/Chronological Studies), also cannot be said to be solely devoted to Iranian/Elamite styles. Amiet’s seminal work on the archaic (early) styles of Mesopotamia does deal with Iranian/Elamite material and styles (1980a: 38 – 44). However, the focus of this study is very much on Mesopotamian styles, with the Iranian/Elamite material an addendum to the main Mesopotamian focus, with little detail or analysis given (indeed the very title of the study, La glyptique

2Rashad’s study of the early stamp seals of Iran (1990) should be noted as an exception to this statement, though as it deals specifically with stamp seals, and those from an earlier period than that under discussion here, it is not relevant to this study.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 4 mésopotamienne archaïque, indicates its Mesopotamian focus). Pittman’s (1994) study of the Glazed Steatite Style also deals with Iranian/Elamite glyptic material, however the common Mesopotamian-Iranian nature of this style (indeed in this study, it is one of only two characterised as a ‘Shared Mesopotamian-Elamite Style’ [see Chapter 4.4]) means that it too is not devoted to Iranian/Elamite glyptic material. Thus, the studies of both Amiet and Pittman treat the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material as an adjunct or appendix of the major work, a smaller, minor part of the Mesopotamian-focused whole. Thus, despite the fact that the cylinder seal is as ubiquitous in Iranian/Elamite excavations, and as useful in the reconstruction of Iranian/Elamite society as those from neighbouring Mesopotamia, the cylinder seals of Elam have been neglected in the literature. Apart from the aspiration to fill this obvious gap in the literature, the definition of an Elamite glyptic style paradigm is also desirable and necessary so as to test, and in some cases correct, the use (or indeed misuse) that Elamite glyptic styles have been put, even in the absence of their articulation outlined above. Cylinder seals are often used as evidence for changing patterns of ethnic, social or cultural structure of a society, as the appearance of a particular glyptic style, image-type or depiction method can be shown to demonstrate the introduction of a people, or probably more correctly the introduction of contact or influence from another people (such assertions are numerous, and abound in the volumes detailed in both Tables 1.1 and 1.2). While needing to avoid facile equations of ‘pots with people’ (or seals as the case may be), the alteration of a style or depiction type may be seen as an indication of some change in the society that resulted in this amendment, be it the advent of external influences or changes in the internal constitution of that society. Of course for any such discussion to take place an actual understanding of the developmental pattern of the glyptic material must be available. Thus, Carter’s use of the apparent increased appearance of Mesopotamian glyptic material in the early third millennium BC at Susa as evidence for greater Mesopotamian cultural influence generally at Susa (Carter 1980: 31) is an example of employing glyptic material to demonstrate apparent social or cultural change of a particular society (in this case the Susa society). However, without a thorough study of the development of the glyptic styles from Susa, and indeed of Elam in general, a statement such as this must remain unproven and classified as speculative. Indeed, in order for Carter’s statement to be authenticated and eventually accepted (or rejected)

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 5 the stylistic developments of the preceding period, as well as the state of glyptic material in the actual period under discussion must be assessed, and the extent of Mesopotamian contacts understood. In the current state of research (that is, before this study) this information is not available. Similarly, Amiet’s landmark ethnic duality and alternance thesis (1979a; 1979b), discussed in greater detail below (Chapter 7), states that two separate ethnic populations existed at Susa; a native/indigenous, ‘highland’, Iranian/Elamite group, and an intrusive, ‘lowland’, Mesopotamian plains group that was related to, if not immigrant from neighbouring Mesopotamia. According to the thesis, in any one period one of these ethnic groups held sway or was dominant over the other. In the following period this dominance would alternate, and the other ethnic group would gain dominance. Thus this theory seeks to characterise an essential duality of Susian and, by extension, Elamite society. One of the main proofs of this thesis has been cylinder seals (Amiet 1979a: 198 – 202; Amiet 1979b). Again, in order to test this theory, an accurate stylistic paradigm must be established, so that the extent, if any, of Elamite or Mesopotamian influence on the Susian material, and any discernable change in the level of this influence can be detailed. However, in the current state of knowledge, without a thorough, unified, developmental, stylistic paradigm for the glyptic styles of Elam the use of glyptic material to reconstruct such elements of society and to discuss relative levels of Mesopotamian influence is flawed. There has also been a general assumption that what is true for Mesopotamian glyptic in terms of function and use is true of its Iranian equivalent (Collon 2005 for example, where examples from each region are variously used to reconstruct function without reference to any geographic distinction). Again, however, without a thorough study of Elamite glyptic across several sites, rather than focused on a single site, the accuracy or otherwise of this statement must be questioned. Indeed, as will be shown in greater detail below (Chapter 6), in at least some examples, the Elamite function of seals was quite different from that in Mesopotamia. Thus, the single primary aim of this work is to fill a void in the glyptic literature by integrating the disparate excavated Elamite cylinder seals and sealings into a single study, and through a study of these items, each with reference to the other, the creation of an inclusive stylistic paradigm for this material, from their earliest appearance (c.3500 BC) through to a break in Elamite society around 1000 BC (that is the end of Middle Elamite period). The meaning of and definition of the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 6 borders and parameters of ‘Elam’ will be outlined in detail below, as will the chronological justification of these limitations (Chapter 1.2). As a whole this collection is labelled the ‘Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus’, often abbreviated here simply to the ‘Corpus’. The major result of this undertaking is the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Catalogue (Volume II). This catalogue presents all 3597 published excavated Elamite cylinder seals and sealings from the Susa II period (that is the period of the earliest manifestation of cylinder seals) through to the end of the Middle Elamite period. As well as all the published Elamite glyptic material, also included in this study is a group of unpublished sealings from Susa held in the Tehran Museum, that will be further discussed below (Chapter 2.2.1.1). Each piece in the catalogue is listed with a detailed description of their vital statistics and an illustration (where applicable/available). The current introductory chapter will continue to provide a general introduction to glyptic studies (Chapter 1.1), followed by an outline of the geographic and chronological parameters (Chapter 1.2) of this study. The study will then continue by discussing in further detail the history and chronology relevant to this study and the specific details of the sites from which the pertinent glyptic material is sourced (Chapter 2). The methodology of the style creation (including a literature review of the previous publications of the material) (Chapter 3) and finally the articulation of the actual styles created for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (Chapter 4) and a discussion of their distribution across the ‘Elamite’ sites (Chapter 5) completes this data presentation. Following this, two discussions regarding issues that have arisen from the preceding study and are of chief pertinence to glyptic studies will be addressed. The first of these problems is the function of seals and sealings in Elam (Chapter 6), which, as will be shown, can vary greatly from the mostly administrative function in Mesopotamia. The second problem and discussion concerns the question of contact, and the extent to which this question can be addressed using glyptic material (Chapter 7). In reference to this study, the contact in question is specifically that between southern Mesopotamia (variously over time , and ) and Elam, and the existence and extent thereof, especially in regards to Amiet’s ethnic duality thesis (and indeed, other more recent studies that have proposed similar such patterns, for example that of de Miroschedji [2003]).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 7 1.1 Glyptic Studies This study is devoted to the cylinder seals of ‘Elam’ from their earliest occurrence through to the end of the Middle Elamite period, that is c.3500 – 1000 BC. This section will provide an introduction to the field of glyptic studies, especially pertaining to the current subject matter (that is Elamite glyptic studies). This introduction is not intended to be thorough nor exhaustive, as such a study would be beyond the introductory nature of this section. For further and more detailed expositions of current and historic glyptic studies and an extended bibliography, the interested reader is directed to the works of Collon (1997; 2005), as well as the bibliographies contained in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Furthermore, Moorey (1994: 75 – 77, 103 – 106) provides a useful introduction to the materials and manufacture of Mesopotamian seals, while various works of Porada (including 1982; 1995) are a solid basis to the more art historical approach to glyptic studies discussed below (Chapter 1.1.5). The works of Matthews (1990; 1992) provide a recent and reliable introduction to modern glyptic studies. Finally, the studies of Ferioli and Fiandra (1979; 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979) and Zettler (1987) provide an important introduction to the more recent use of glyptic material as a source of functional information rather than purely as pieces of art. Following a brief outline of the terms employed in glyptic studies (1.1.1), a discussion of the function of seals and sealings, as is currently generally accepted, will be given (1.1.2). The study will then focus on the problem of the material from which a seal was made (1.1.3) and a brief discussion of seal production (1.1.4). Finally, the discussion will turn to a more general philosophical and methodological problem of glyptic studies, the nature of this field of investigation and the justification of the approach adopted in this study (1.1.5).

1.1.1 Seals and Sealings A ‘seal’ is here defined as an object, generally made of a rock or mineral (popularly a ‘stone’), but also of ivory, shell, faience, glass, metal, wood, clay and bitumen compound, that is carved with a design (usually in intaglio) so that when the object is impressed upon a soft substance (primarily in the Ancient Near East, unfired or ‘wet’ clay) an impression in relief of the design is made (Roaf 1990: 72). Thus, for the purpose of this study, other items used in ancient times to make a distinctive impression on clay (such as the hem of a garment, and fingernails [Gelb 1977: 111])

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 8 are not defined as a ‘seal’, as these are more ad hoc seal replacements or substitutes rather than actual objects made for the purpose of sealing. The impression made by the seal is also, rather confusingly, popularly known as a ‘seal’. However, to avoid confusion, scholars generally use the term ‘sealing’ to describe the ancient impression made by a seal (Collon 1990: 11). In this study the term ‘sealing’ is used as a synonym for, and is interchangeable with, ‘impression’ or ‘seal impression’. Unless otherwise stated, all impressions referred to here are ancient impressions, that is, impressions made by a seal in antiquity and preserved in the archaeological record, as opposed to a modern impression made recently from an ancient cylinder seal for illustration purposes. To further complicate matters, the term ‘sealing’ has also been used in the Tal-i Malyan publications to refer to any piece of clay used to secure (that is seal) vessels, baskets, doors and so on (Nicholas 1990: 74). That is, at Malyan, “sealings may or may not have been impressed [sic]” (Nicholas 1990: 74), in almost direct opposition to the definition adopted here. While the logic of this definition following the popular meaning of ‘to seal’ is acknowledged, the specialist definition outlined above will be adhered to as cylinder seals and their impressions are the chief subject of this study. When a clay sealing that does not bear an impression is intended here, the term ‘unimpressed sealing’ is used. ‘Glyptic’ is used to refer to both seals and sealings (Collon 1990: 11) and the study thereof. Two types of seals were used in the Ancient Near East (including Iran), the cylinder seal and the stamp seal. The stamp seal was the earliest seal form found in the area, first appearing perhaps as early as c.7000 BC (Collon 1997: 11), and gradually becoming generally ubiquitous around 4500 BC (Collon 1997: 11). The cylinder seal first appeared in Mesopotamia (and southwestern Iran) around 3500 BC, and came to overwhelmingly dominate stamp seals from around 3000 BC, a primacy which continued until the beginning of the first millennium BC, when again the stamp seal replaced the cylinder as the most common type (Collon 1990: 11 – 14; 2005: 11 – 16). The present study will focus on cylinder seals only, as stamp seals show less variation across time, figural scenes and images are rarely represented (and so provide less insights into society) and because following the rise to primacy of the cylinder seal relatively few stamps seals were discovered in controlled excavations (Collon 1990: 11 – 13). Thus, cylinder seals alone are studied in this study, and stamp seals are not included as they would provide a tangent of limited use.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 9 A cylinder seal, as the name suggests, is a cylindrical shaped seal, with the design carved along the face of the object. When this seal is rolled over clay, a continuous, frieze-like impression is created (Roaf 1990: 72). Thus the cylinder seal can cover a larger area of the sealed object with greater speed than is possible for a stamp seal (Collon 1997: 13). A cylinder seal is usually perforated lengthways, or has a boss or link at one end so that the object can be hung (Collon 2005: 108 – 112). From the design element of the boss or cap and from the occasional illustration, it is believed that, at least some, cylinder seals were worn as pieces of jewellery, on a fibula, brooch or pin, or as a sort of pendant (Collon 2005: 108 – 112).

1.1.2 The Function of Cylinder Seals Cylinder seal function can be divided into four distinct, though interrelated, uses; administrative, amuletic, votive and funerary. These four types will be outlined briefly below, and as will be discovered, there is no absolute distinction between these types; any one seal may well have functioned in two or more manners simultaneously or across the period of its use. It should therefore be noted that the functions of seals outlined below are not mutually exclusive, nor can it be said that any one function was more important than another. Indeed, it seems that one function led to, or enabled another, as will be shown. As already discussed, and as will be further elucidated below, the nature of past glyptic studies means that the information contained in this outline of seal function is sourced primarily from Mesopotamian-based, and focused, sources. Thus the following is essentially an outline of the function of cylinder seals in Mesopotamia as our level of knowledge currently stands. However, such a reliance on Mesopotamian evidence and sources is inappropriate for an accurate study of Iranian/Elamite types. Thus the following outline is intended to provide an introduction to the current state of knowledge of seal function, as a basis from which a more complete analysis of the function of seals in Iran/Elam will be undertaken following the outline of the Elamite cylinder seals (Chapter 6). This function outline will thus provide both an introduction generally to the function of cylinder seals, and a basis from which the Mesopotamian function of seals can be compared and contrasted with the Iranian/Elamite function.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 10 1.1.2.1 Administrative Function Seals were used, most obviously, to seal clay tablets and envelopes and the clay that secured jars, bales, sacks, boxes, baskets and (store)room doors as a type of lock or marker (Collon 2005: 113; 1990: 11; Matthews 1990: 11; Potts 1997: 239). The function of seals beyond the previously generally accepted function as pieces of art, or as adjuncts or addenda to tablets studied for their apparently primary philological/historical importance, has more recently become apparent through the increased archaeological attention to sealings. Seals were used to mark, or seal an object (Collon 1990: 11; Gelb 1977: 11), though the precise significance of this in ancient times is not totally understood. It is generally assumed here that the presence of a seal impression functioned in a manner roughly synonymous to that of a modern signature or corporate logo/letterhead. In the case of a sealed tablet or envelope the presence of a seal impression, it is believed, signified the participation in, or witness to, the transaction by the owner of the seal (Reneger 1977: 79; Gelb 1977: 11; Rothman 2007: 237). In the other sealing instances, the presence of a sealing authorised, validated, identified or authenticated the objects, or the transaction or exchange, that they represented (Potts 1997: 239; Reneger 1977: 75 – 78; Collon 2005: 113; 1990: 11; Gelb 1977: 11). Seals could also be used to mark or signify ownership of an object or the contents of a room or vessel (Collon 2005: 113; 1990: 11). Finally, the presence of an individual’s sealing on a door lock most likely signified that the owner of this seal was the one who ‘locked’, or closed, the room (Collon 1990: 25). Two important preconditions and factors must be assumed in order for seals to have been a useful and functional part of society. Firstly, the individuals within the society must have respected seals and the action of sealing. That is, a seal must have been recognised as a powerful symbol, in much the same way that today a signature, while only letters in ink, is a powerful symbolic action that binds an individual. Thus the forging or misuse of a signature is a serious social (criminal) breach. A similar function, or power, must be attributed to ancient seals (Collon 2005: 5 – 7, 113 – 119). Secondly, an individual’s seal must have been recognisable and representative of, to at least some degree, the individual (Collon 2005: 113 – 119). In other words, the seal of person X must be distinguishable, and importantly, recognisably so, from that of person Y. In some periods and examples, the identity of the seal owner is

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 11 inscribed on the seal, and so identification is assured (at least to the literate) (Collon 2005: 105 – 107). For many seals though this is not the case, and instead the identity of the owner (or the institution) is presumably demonstrated by the variation in the depiction of the scene. Thus the images found on seals must belong to a visual lexicon whereby they are both recognisable (that is, could be ‘read’) and differentiable (that is, sufficiently dissimilar so as to indicate a distinction one from another). The use of cylinder seals to seal tablets and envelopes, and storage objects (be they portable objects such as vessels, bales and baskets or immovable storage areas such as storerooms) can be described as the main or standard administrative function of seals. The term ‘administration’ does not simply mean bookkeeping or finance documentation, but rather is an encompassing term that describes the means and methods of regulation of a society, and how this is discernable in the archaeological record. Thus as well as the more obvious areas of bookkeeping found in economic and legal texts, administration also covers other areas of the ancient economy and society and the way these areas were controlled (hence the Malyan defined and labelled ‘control category’ that includes seals and sealings [Nicholas 1996: 84 – 85; Sumner 2003: 80 – 82]). Thus a seal, in an administrative context, is used to, in some way, control or regulate the society’s economy, in all its ancient facets (including taxation, tribute and trade). This is the primary function and definition of a seal, indeed the eponymous function, though it is not the only, nor always the chief use to which a seal was put, as will be shown below.

1.1.2.2 Amuletic Function In a general sense, an amulet is an object, generally worn or carried on an individual’s person, thought to ward off evil or act as a protective charm (Black & Green 1992: 30). The role of a seal as an amulet is testified to by Mesopotamian texts where the use of a seal is proscribed for exorcistic spells, and by the seals themselves which often bear spells or prayers on their inscriptions (Gelb 1977: 112; Hallo 1977: 58; Black & Green 1992: 300; Matthews 1990: 11; Collon 2005: 62; 1997: 20; van Buren 1954: 33, 119, 131). This amuletic function of cylinder seals apparently originally derived from stamp seals, which, it has been suggested, may themselves have originally evolved from pure amulets or amuletic beads (Collon 1997: 19; Moorey 1994: 103; Gorelick & Gwinnett 1981a; 1990).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 12 The role of a seal as an amulet also derived from its role as an identifier of an individual, that is, its administrative function. This identifying role led a seal to be seen as an embodiment, or extension, of the owner’s identity and self (Collon 1990: 21; 1997: 19; Black & Green 1992: 300; Hallo 1987). This function is reminiscent of the importance of an individual’s name in the Ancient Near East, where knowledge of a name was important beyond simple recognition, and implied knowledge of the nature and characteristics of the individual (Bottéro 1998). Similarly, a cylinder seal’s identification with its owner’s identity, self and person came to lend the cylinder seals an amuletic, or talisman quality. Alternatively, it could be argued that the amuletic quality of beads and stamp seals, which themselves, may have evolved into cylinder seals (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1981a; 1990), gave the very identification quality to cylinder seals that allowed them the administrative function. Barring entering a philosophical causality dilemma, little more to this discussion of primacy can be added here; merely the possibility of each process can be put forth. The amuletic function of seals was further added by the material from which the seal was made. Indeed, it has long been recognised that certain stones in the Ancient Near East embodied, or represented, certain magical qualities or powers that could be passed on to the bearer of the stone object (Collon 2005: 62, 100; 1997: 19). Indeed it was this association of stone colour with magical power and qualities that gave beads and stamp seals their original amuletic function (Collon 2005: 62, 100), that was then inherited by cylinder seals. The most well known and commonly cited example of stone-type/colour association with magical power is lapis lazuli, though other precious and semi-precious stones also held great significance (Collon 2005: 62, 100; 1997: 19). This magical quality of the stones from which a seal was made thus also contributed to the amuletic function of a seal. Finally, the scenes depicted on the seal itself, such as worship, cultic and mythological scenes, including symbols, and in some instances, actual depictions of the gods, also served to add an amuletic function to many seals (Black & Green 1992: 82; Collon 2005: 119), as did the inclusion of prayers and dedications on some inscribed seals. Thus seals had an amuletic function based upon their administrative, identity- representing function, their material, and the scenes that they bore. It is probable that all seals had this amuletic function (Collon 2005: 199), to lesser and greater degrees depending on the material used (a valuable, significant stone or a common, familiar

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 13 example), the scene depicted, the period in which the seal was in use and its age (as the heirloom quality well known for many seals [Collon 2005: 120 – 122] may have decreased its amuletic value with time, as the seal may no longer have been identifiable with the ‘self’ of its owner, or, alternatively, its ancient quality may have increased its ‘specialness’ and such ties with the past may have given it its amuletic function). Also, the above defined administrative function of seals had a degree of amuletic, identity-associated character inherent in its use. As all seals can be assumed therefore to have at least some degree of an amuletic quality it is both redundant to attempt, and difficult if not impossible, to discern specific amulet seals in the archaeological record. The amuletic function and definition of cylinder seals should be noted however.

1.1.2.3 Votive Function Votive literally defines an object given or dedicated, generally to a god or deity, in accordance with a vow or promise. For the purpose of this study, any seal apparently dedicated in a temple or other religious structure, or area, is described as a votive seal. There are several instances where an inscription on a seal seems to indicate that the seal was dedicated to a god (Collon 2005: 131; 1990: 21), though these are quite rare, and are not represented in the Corpus. A votive seal is dedicated to a deity as a representative, or representation, of an individual (Collon 2005: 131; Gelb 1977: 112). This function is due to the nature of a seal as outlined above, where the seal embodied or represented part of the owner’s self (Collon 1990: 21; 1997: 19; Black & Green 1992: 300). The votive seal thus functioned in a manner analogous to the statues deposited in a temple by worshippers in the Ancient Near East (a well-known example is the Early Dynastic Diyala temples and statuary [Roaf 1990: 90 – 91; Frankfort et al. 1940]), as a symbol or reminder to the god of the owner’s constant prayer, devotion and piety, so that, in a sense, the worshipper can always be considered to be before his god (Roaf 1990: 90). The motivation for the deposition of a seal in a temple may not have always been based upon this conception of representation before the deity, but rather seals may have been deposited as a votive gift or devotion to the deity. The justification for such deposition presumably derived from the ‘value’ of a seal, both in simple monetary or economic terms due to the cost of labour and procurement involved in purchasing a seal (especially of an imported material), as well as the more

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 14 unqualifiable value of the seal to its owner as an important item enabling participation in the economic/administrative life of a society (Hallo 1977: 58; Collon 1990: 21). A seal acted as a status symbol (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1990) and, at least to some degree, the possession of a seal was an important prerequisite for participation in the administrative and (part of the) economic functioning of society (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1990; Collon 1997: 17 – 19; 2005: 113 – 122). Thus a seal was an important personal artefact, and was therefore deemed to be of sufficient value to be dedicated to a deity. Thus votive seals can form just one part of a temple’s rich treasury of other valuable items. Examples of votive seals in a temple repository in the current study primarily include those from Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Choga Zanbil, though examples from Susa can also possibly be discerned, all to be further discussed below. In some instances it seems that seals were deposited in temples simply because of the intrinsic value of the stones or materials from which they were made, regardless of their seal function. An example of this is the so-called ‘Thebes Hoard’, a set of lapis lazuli Kassite cylinder seals deposited in a temple in Thebes in Boeotia (Porada 1981). It has been suggested by Porada that these seals were deemed worthy of deposition due to the value of their material, rather than their seal function, as is testified to by the inclusion of lapis lazuli seal blanks or beads among their number and the fact that cylinder seals were not part of the cultural assemblage of such Greek sites (Porada 1981: 66, 68). Such an interpretation is difficult to differentiate from the more standard motivation for seal deposition, and surely must rely on the value of the stone from which the seal was cut, and our ability to appreciate this ancient value. Examples of such seals deposited for the value of their stones may include some of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri examples, though this possible interpretation of this material will be returned to below (Chapter 6). The major method for discerning a votive seal is through the seal’s provenance on a site, that is, its presence in a temple or other related religious structure or area. Thus the description of a seal as votive is entirely reliant on the place within a site where the seal was found, and the nature of that area. This means that the accurate description of a site and its nature, as well as thorough recording of the provenance of individual seals and items is essential before votive seals can be detected. Unfortunately, information on the nature of a site, and the provenance of the items there within, is not always known, a situation that indeed plagues many objects in this

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 15 particular study (especially, for example, those items from Susa and Haft Tepe, see below Chapter 2.2).

1.1.2.4 Funerary Function A third and final symbolic function of seals is their apparent funerary use. Examples of individual’s being buried with their seals are known throughout the history of the use of seals in the Ancient Near East, and include most noticeably the seals deposited in the Royal Tombs of Ur (Woolley 1934; Collon 2005: 62; 1990: 24; Matthews 1990: 10). There are also a number of examples of seals deposited in tombs from the time span and area under discussion here, such as at Susa (Amiet 1972), Kamtarlan, Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989), Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006) and Kalleh Nisar (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994). The precise significance of the inclusion of a seal amongst the grave goods of an individual is unclear. It may be that, as an important personal artefact, the seal was merely placed with the deceased as a part of his various paraphernalia and personal effects. Alternatively, a seal may have been placed in a grave out of some other, more spiritual, motivation regarding the seal’s and the deceased individual’s function or place in the ‘afterlife’, a process indeed related to the above discussed identification of the seal with its owner’s identity. There is no discernable technique whereby this interpretation can be proven on the basis of the current available evidence however. Like the votive seals the identification of a seal as funerary is, obviously, reliant on details of its provenance. Thus, any seal found in a tomb or grave is considered funerary. However it should be noted that, also like the votive seals, it is possible, indeed probable, that before their deposition in graves (or temples) these seals functioned in society as standard administrative seals. The accuracy or otherwise of this statement, especially as pertains to votive seals, will be returned to below, in particular in discussion of Choga Zanbil (Chapter 6).

1.1.2.5 Summation While, as Matthews states, “seals are made for sealing” (Matthews 1990: 11), the standard administrative role of seals is not their only function. Other seal functions include votive, amuletic and funerary functions. Votive, amuletic and funerary functions can all be described as symbolic, intangible uses of seals, as opposed to the more concrete, mundane, administrative function. However, even in the apparently

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 16 mundane administrative action, a certain element of symbolic power had to have been held by seals. Indeed, it has been argued that seals had at least some amuletic/symbolic function, or ‘power’, that enabled or permitted their administrative function. It should thus be noted that both administrative and ‘symbolic’ functions need not have, necessarily, been mutually exclusive. Thus most seals may well have had an administrative and amuletic function simultaneously, the one indeed enabling the other. Furthermore, it can generally be assumed that before deposition in a temple area or tomb, votive and funerary seals had a life as an administrative seal. Indeed, it is unclear whether the amuletic/symbolic function led to the administrative use of seals, or whether it was the administrative identification of the seal with the identity or self of its owner that led to the symbolic, amuletic, votive and funerary function of seals. Both seem equally possible, and moreover, the initial impetus and primacy is of little relevance here. Indeed, it is probable that each function influenced the other over time, supplementing and adding to their function and use. The relevance and correctness of the application of the preceding Mesopotamian focused cylinder seal function outline to the cylinder seals of Elam will be returned to following the outline of the styles and provenance of these seals (Chapter 6).

1.1.3 Material of Seals The material from which a seal is made is a significant factor in understanding both the function of a seal and the period in which the seal was made. As outlined above, the material of a seal, especially the particular stone from which it was made, can serve as an indicator to its symbolic amuletic or votive function. The material of a seal is also of importance in determining the ‘style’ of a seal (Matthews 1990: 14). Indeed, for most periods, a certain material or material-type can be said to be characteristic of that period and its styles (as will be demonstrated below, Chapter 4) (Collon 2005: 100), and as such the material of a seal can be used as a chronological marker (in tandem with the design it bears). Furthermore, as the stones from which the seal is made were often materials that were imported from other regions, an analysis of the varying patterns of the materials of seals across periods can provide an insight into changing patterns of trade and contact (Collon 2005: 100).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 17 The material of a seal is thus an important element in our understanding and classification of seals, yet this area of glyptic studies has been afflicted with many inconsistencies and problems. Firstly, the recording of material information in publications has been traditionally less than satisfactory. Several factors have led to these unsatisfactory recordings. The cause especially lies however in the general lack of expertise in the area of mineralogy possessed by the authors of most glyptic studies, leading to the material of a seal being incorrectly or arbitrarily labelled (Moorey 1994: 166; Matthews 1990: 14). Similarly, very few scientific or petrographic studies have been undertaken on excavated materials, ensuring that any material identification is generally based purely on macroscopic visual examination. Another primary cause of inconsistencies in material designation is the use of arbitrary language of little use (for example, grey stone, pink stone and so on). While this generic language may be preferable in terms of scientific accuracy, rather than the incorrect labelling of seals to a mineral/material group without an adequate study, from a comparative position it makes evaluation and comparison across publications subjective, complicated and generally unprofitable (Moorey 1994: 166; Matthews 1990: 14). Finally, the lack of consistency in the definition as to what terms actually mean, confounded by the various written and native languages of excavators (as the same word, or its translation, may refer to or connotate a different stone in different languages), has further complicated the issues of the identification of a seal’s material (Moorey 1994: 166; Matthews 1990: 14). While calling for a more rigid and scientific approach to the description of seal materials in publications, Matthews has advocated a remedy whereby the description of a seal’s material should be classified by two basic, easily discernable, categories; firstly between artificial and natural materials, and then within the natural materials, between hard and soft (Matthews 1990: 14). However, this position oversimplifies and underestimates the importance of a seal’s material. Such a distinction does not take into account the relative value within the ancient society nor the importance of certain stones (such as lapis lazuli and other semi-precious stones), nor does it provide an adequate enough distinction between materials as representative of different styles. For example, if such a position were to be adopted here, then the majority of the seals from some Old Elamite through to Middle Elamite styles would be considered and treated under the single rubric ‘artificial’, as ‘bitumen aggregate’, common in several Old Elamite styles, and glass and faience, common in Middle Elamite styles, are all

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 18 potentially ‘man-made’ (or at least ‘man-manipulated’) artificial materials (see below for further information regarding the artificial or natural nature of ‘bitumen aggregate’, and Chapter 4 for details of these styles). Thus, by subsuming all these seals under the one rubric an important and defining factor between these styles is removed. Furthermore, Matthews’ proposed division eliminates seals as a source for tracing and understanding the development of new and varying technologies that were involved in the production of artificial materials, a factor that is important to our understanding of the general cultural developments of the society that produced these objects, as well as the distinctions understood by these same societies. Also, the evidence for contact and trade that seal material imports provide is removed by Matthews’ proposal. Therefore, wherever possible, an attempt should be made to describe the material as accurately and meticulously as possible. In the absence of any petrographic or scientific analysis of the material, the descriptions should be taken as preliminary. In this study, the material designation of a seal was based upon the information given in their original (or in some instances, secondary) publications. The majority of the seals under discussion here have not been subjected to any petrographic or mineralogical study. This means that the material designations of most seals has been achieved by visual examinations undertaken by individuals with varying levels of expertise in the area, and as such all designations are preliminary and subject to future revision. Two groups of seals in this study, bitumen compounds and heulandite seals, both from Susa, have however undergone petrographic studies (Lahanier 1976; 1977; Connan & Deschesne 1996; 1998; Connan 1999; Deschesne 2003), and will be discussed further below. However, these studies are limited to two seal groups of very specific material types, and represent a relatively small proportion (see Chapters 4 and 5 for details) of the total seals in this study. All the studied items were also provenanced from Susa, further limiting the relative and qualitative value of these studies. Thus it must be noted that the majority of the seals in this study have not received any chemical, petrographic or mineralogical treatment. Due to the fact that mineralogical and non-mineralogical, or popular, terms have both been used in the Iranian/Elamite (and indeed all) glyptic literature – the mineralogical without justification, the popular with misleading inconsistencies across academic and modern social eras and languages – it can be said that the material classifications of the cylinder seals in this study are lacking in consistency and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 19 clarification. This lack of a material system, paradigm or nomenclature makes comparison across studies and within the Corpus difficult if not unattainable. Some attempt at rectifying this situation has therefore been undertaken here. Specifically, this has included an attempt to codify and equate the disparate and differing terms from the multiple sources into one justified and announced nomenclature system. Methodologically, this revision has involved the application of mineralogical and petrographic definitions, replacing popular, non-scientific terms, as well as the application of more recent studies and analyses of material types and names. Lacking the expertise in, and the application of, a thorough mineralogical or petrographic study, this revision has been based on secondary sources and is entirely preliminary. It is aimed only at allowing for some similarity and scope for comparison across the sites and styles discussed in this study. Thus, the material definitions and nomenclature system employed here must be treated as entirely preliminary, and the Elamite glyptic material in this study must await a more complete, scientific, study to further systemise and finalise any conclusions suggested here. In the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue (Volume II) any alteration to the material designation from the original publication inspired by the following revision is indicated by an asterix(*). Only those materials deemed to require some clarification, justification for alteration or (re)analysis will be discussed here, thus the rare metal and organic material (shell, bone, ivory) seal materials will not be discussed as they require no reassessment.

1.1.3.1 Bitumen-based materials The natural bitumen seeps of southwestern Iran, known for their modern geo-political ramifications, have long provided the inhabitants of the region with a source of raw material that was used to produce a variety of materials and fulfil many functions (Moorey 1994: 333; Potts 1997: 99; Connan 1999: 33; Rapp 2002: 235). As well as the more recognised uses of bitumen to water-proof, ‘seal’ or caulk vessels, boats and buildings (‘pitch’) and as an adhesive (Moorey 1994: 335; Potts 1997: 100; Connan & Deschesne 1996: 22 – 28; Connan 1999: 33 – 35; Rapp 2002: 235), a bitumen material was used, particularly at Susa, though items of this type in this study are also provenanced from Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Choga Zanbil and Tepe Sharafabad, that was carved or sculptured as a rock to produce statuary, vessels and, importantly for this study, seals (Moorey 1994: 334 – 335; Connan & Deschesne 1996: 22 – 28; Connan 1999: 34 – 35; Deschesne 2003: 25 – 26).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 20 However, the precise identification and classification of the raw materials used to produce these items has been subject to little agreement and is a cause of some debate; as reflected both by the variety of terms employed (see below and Table 1.3), and in the literature of Connan and Deschesne (1996; 1998; Connan 1999; Deschesne 2003). The primary causes of this problem are a lack of articulation, or accurate nomenclature for this material and somewhat contradictory results of a petrographic study. Indeed, over time there has been great confusion and no real scholarly agreement on what to call this particular material, or indeed if all the objects made of bitumen-based materials were composed of the same material. A brief survey of the variety of terms employed in the primary literature used to refer to objects composed of bitumen-based materials demonstrates the variability and lack of codification across a range of sources, as illustrated by Table 1.3. These original material identifications were made without the aid of any petrographic or scientific analysis, and as such they represent attempts to describe this material through macroscopic visual examination without the use of any codified language. bitume [bitumen] Susa: Delaporte 1920; Mecquenem 1928; Mecquenem 1937; Mecquenem et al. 1943; Amiet 1972; Amiet 1973; Choga Zanbil: Porada 1970 Surkh Dum-i-Luri: Schmidt, van Loon & Curvers 1989 Tepe Sharafabad: Schacht 1975 calcaire bitumineux [bitumous limestone] Susa: Delaporte 1920 pâte bitumineuse [bitumous paste] Susa: Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1972 pierre bitumineuse [bitumous stone] Susa: Amiet 1972 calcaire gris bitumineux [grey bitumous limestone] Susa: Delaporte 1920 calcaire bitumineux noir [black bitumous limestone] Susa: Delaporte 1920 matière bitumineuse [bitumous material] Susa: Delaporte 1920 brun bitumineux [brown bitumous (material)] Susa: Delaporte 1920 rock asphalt Susa: Carter 1980 schiste bitumineux [bitumous schist] Susa: Amiet 1972 terre cuite bitume [terra cotta bitumen] Susa: Amiet 1972 Table 1.3. Various terms in the primary literature for bitumen-based materials, according to provenance and source.

Connan and Deschesne attempted to resolve this problem by undertaking a petrographic study of the 507 bitumen-based objects (including some 195 cylinder seals) held in the Louvre Museum and provenanced from Susa (Connan & Deschesne 1996). In this study (henceforward referred to as Le bitume à Suse) three differing

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 21 bitumen based materials were identified (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 39). One type, with a particularly limited data set, was labelled asphaltite, and is described as a pure, naturally occurring, solidified bitumen that is somewhat similar to obsidian in macroscopic appearance (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 40). No cylinder seals in the Louvre collection, nor amongst the studied seals from Susa housed in the Tehran Museum, were made of this material (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 36 – 41), and thus it can be assumed that asphaltite was never, or at least rarely, used to make cylinder seals, and so is of no relevance here. The second bitumen-based material was labelled simply ‘bitumen’ (bitume) and is defined as a manipulated material, or artificial compound (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117). The production process for this material, as described by Connan and Deschesne, involves the acquisition of natural, as pure as possible bitumen-asphalt, that is then liquefied around 160°C, and mixed with a mineral powder (such as sand, powdered calcite, dry clay, gypsum or ash) and plant fibres (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117). Indeed, in many ways this production technique is reminiscent of the standard preparation for clay; the addition of mineral powder and plant fibres evocative of a temper. In this form ‘bitumen’ was then applied to vessels, walls or other objects as a pitch, mortar, plaster or adhesive, or was placed in moulds and allowed to set and form actual vessels (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 115). According to Le bitume à Suse, when placed in moulds and baked at a temperature approaching 250°C, ‘bitumen’ becomes the third, and most relevant to the current study, bitumen-based material, labelled ‘bitumen mastic’ (mastic de bitume) (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 116 – 117). Thus the material identified by Connan and Deschesne as ‘bitumen’ is simultaneously both a material used in its own right (to produce vessels, as a ‘pitch’ and as an adhesive), and a partially refined substance that is a basis of the further production of a related material-type (‘bitumen mastic’). Thus three separate bitumen-based materials were used at Susa to produce artefacts, petrographically identified and labelled by Connan and Deschesne in Le bitume à Suse as ‘asphaltite’, ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen mastic’ (1996: 115 – 117). The three materials are discernable through chemical analysis (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 115 – 116), though mineralogically ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen mastic’ are alike as they are both heterogenous and composed of similar materials (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 116). Visual macroscopic identification can also distinguish these three

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 22 materials. ‘Asphaltite’ has a glossy, shinny appearance reminiscent of obsidian, and thus can be distinguished from the matte-finish of both ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen mastic’ (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 40). The visual difference between ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen mastic’ is more subjective and arbitrary though none the less real. While ‘bitumen’ can be moulded and shaped, and is sufficiently durable so as to be used for vessels, ‘bitumen mastic’ is significantly harder and can therefore be carved, sculptured, abraded and cut (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 39, 117, 430). Thus, according to these classifications, only the third material type, labelled ‘bitumen mastic’, had the requisite hardness and durability to receive cutting and treatment sufficient to produce cylinder seals. From this it can be assumed, following Connan and Deschesne, that all bitumen-based material cylinder seals were composed of so- called ‘bitumen mastic’ (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117), as evidenced by the fact that all 195 cylinder seals analysed in the Le bitume à Suse belonged to the ‘bitumen mastic’ group (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 207 – 344; see Table 1.4). Connan and Deschesne originally characterised ‘bitumen mastic’ as a kind of artificial stone (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 429 – 430). The justification for the ‘artificial’ label of this object was based upon several elements of compelling evidence, namely that it was suitably reproduced in the laboratory, and that there were no identified examples of a naturally occurring rock that were sufficiently similar to the known examples (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 116 – 117). Indeed this artificial characterisation was confirmed by Connan and Deschesne who conferred upon it the appellation ‘bitumen mastic’, as mastic implies some human production or manipulation (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117). However, within mere months of the publication of Le bitume à Suse, a naturally occurring bitumen limestone seam was discovered just north of Susa, the properties and appearance of which were remarkably similar to the previously labelled ‘bitumen mastic’ material (Connan 1999: 38; Deschesne 2003: 26). Tests and analyses are still being undertaken on this rock and the artefacts in question (Connan 1999: 38), however, if these prove that the materials under discussion here are indeed carved from a natural, albeit rare, rock, the use of the term ‘bitumen mastic’ to describe this material would be inappropriate, as it implies a manipulated compound. The possible reassessment of the nature of ‘bitumen mastic’ further compounds a nomenclature problem for bitumen-based materials, beset as it is with similar terms referring to separate materials, arbitrary language, and a multiplicity of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 23 elucidations (Deschesne 2003: 27 – 37). Indeed, the use of the term ‘bitumen’ to describe the softer, artificial compound is problematic, as bitumen is understood both popularly and in Le bitume à Suse to refer to all materials and technologies associated with petroleum based products, thus confusing the issue. For this reason ‘bitumen’ the specific compound material is always referred to here thus (‘bitumen’), though it is advocated that a replacement, more suitable term is sought. While it was hoped that the petrographic analysis of Connan and Deschesne would resolve the nomenclature problems of bitumen-based materials this result has not been entirely achieved. While it can be concluded that all carved and sculptured objects were made of ‘bitumen mastic’ the (generally internal) debate regarding the natural or artificial nature of the material remains open and unsettled. It is important for the natural or artificial nature of the material labelled ‘bitumen mastic’ to be finally resolved, not only more to correctly understand this material, but also to resolve the question as what to call this material. The term ‘bitumen mastic’ originally suggested by Lahanier (1977) and adopted by Connan and Deschesne (1996) strongly implies human manipulation, and thus by extension indicates that the material is artificial. The, albeit unproven, suggestion that this material is not artificial but a naturally occurring rock therefore renders the term ‘bitumen mastic’ inappropriate (Connan 1999: 38; Deschesne 2003: 38). Alternate terms ‘bitumous rock’ [roche bitumineuse] and ‘kerogen’ [kérogène] (a specific petroleum-geological term) have thus been suggested by Deschesne to describe this material (Deschesne 2003: 38). However, while it is still uncertain if the material under discussion here is artificial or natural these terms seem to be as equally prejudiced in favour of a natural identification, as ‘bitumen mastic’ is to an artificial classification. Thus, until further scientific analyses can resolve the problem of the natural rock or artificial compound nature for this material, a more neutral proxy term is advocated. Therefore in this study the material formerly characterised as ‘bitumen mastic’ is here labelled ‘bitumen aggregate’. This term is suggested as it is a new term that has not previously been employed (as evidence by Table 1.3), and thus cannot be said to be tainted by use in previous studies, and because it could eventually be adopted to apply to either an artificial or a natural material, as aggregate has both a geological connotation, in reference to a rock composed of multiple minerals, and an artificial connotation of manufacture.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 24 Original Material Classification Cylinder Seals bitumen [bitume] 541, 628*, 647, 701, 708, 741, 916, 936*, 994, 1307*, 1357*, 1417, 1479*, 1521, 1560*, 1565, 1566*, 1568-1569, 1621*, 1746*, 1789, 1825, 1838, 1849*, 1852-1853, 1893*, 1894*, 1901*, 1939, 2018, 2025, 2083, 2103*, 2132, 2153, 2170, 2177, 2184, 2200*, 2261-2262, 2263*, 2264-2266, 2267*, 2268-2269, 2270*, 2272, 2274-2275, 2276*, 2279*, 2280, 2281*, 2284- 2285, 2286*, 2287*, 2289*, 2294-2298, 2305*, 2306*, 2307, 2308*, 2310-2311, 2312*, 2313, 2315-2316, 2327-2328, 2329*, 2330-2335, 2336*, 2339*, 2368, 2406, 2429, 2440, 2466*, 2478, 2481*, 2484-2486, 2493*, 2494*, 2497, 2498*, 2499-2502, 2503*, 2504-2507, 2508*, 2509, 2511*, 2512-2514, 2516, 2517*, 2518- 2520, 2522*, 2523*, 2524, 2525*, 2531*, 2534*, 2538, 2541-2544, 2546*, 2547-2549, 2550*, 2551, 2552*, 2557-2558, 2564-2567, 2568*, 2569*, 2572-2574, 2575*, 2576-2577, 2578*, 2580-2585, 2586*, 2587-2588, 2589*, 2590- 2592, 2593*, 2595, 2600, 2611*, 2615, 2617*, 2739, 2741*, 2742, 2758, 2768*, 2769-2770, 2858*, 2889, 2971, 3058*, 3095*, 3163*, 3214*, 3218, 3220-3221, 3230*, 3241*, 3242*, 3254, 3261, 3315, 3326*, 3352, 3381*, 3382*, 3501, 3504*, 3505, 3517*, 3522*, 3549* bitumous limestone [calcaire 556, 604, 1321, 1383, 1547, 1589*, 1708, 1780, bitumineux] 1906, 1977, 2060, 2320, 2326, 2556, 2560, 2609, 2716*, 3489 bitumous paste [pâte bitumineuse] 599, 1409, 1781, 1785, 1848*, 2260, 2292*, 2293, 2322-2323, 2324*, 2460, 2462, 2490-2492, 2528-2530, 2555, 2571, 2735 bitumous schist [schiste bitumineux] 1399*, 1850* bitumous stone [pierre bitumineuse] 1660*, 1811, 1851*, 2258*, 2861*, 3157 bitumous terra cotta [terre cuite bitumée] 1701*, 2664*, 3500* bitumous grey limestone [calcaire gris 1980 bitumineux] grey limestone [calcaire gris] 1472, 2052 black limestone [calcaire noir] 1717, 2325 limestone [calcite] 1819 glazed steatite [stéatite blanche] 1824 grey schist [schiste gris] 2204, 2441 brown serpentine [serpentine brune] 2435 basalt [basalte] 2563 unknown material 3251 bitumen mastic [mastic de bitume] 3529 rock asphalt 2377* Table 1.4. Bitumen-based seals reassessed as ‘bitumen aggregate’ following Connan & Deschesne 1996. Seals marked with an asterix(*) include those not analysed in Le bitume à Suse but assumed, following the conclusions of Connan and Deschesne to be composed of bitumen aggregate.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 25 Thus, following Connan and Deschesne, all bitumen-based materials, originally classified as various bitumous stones have been classified here as ‘bitumen aggregate’, as demonstrated by Table 1.4. The few items originally classified as various non-bitumous stones but reclassified in Le bitume à Suse as ‘bitumen mastic’ are accepted as such, though under the rubric ‘bitumen aggregate’. Finally, following Connan and Deschesne, it is assumed that all cylinders seals carved in a bitumen- based material are made of ‘bitumen aggregate’ and so are detailed in Table 1.4 as such, and are listed in the Catalogue (Volume II) under this term. These few items generally include those from sites other than Susa not studied by Connan and Deschesne, including seals from Tepe Sharafabad, and Surkh Dum-i- Luri (see the Catalogue for details). In the Catalogue these seals not classified by Connan and Deschesne but assumed to be composed of ‘bitumen aggregate’ are marked with a cross(+).

1.1.3.2 Quartz-based artificial materials (faience, glass, frit) Due to patterns of discovery and research, most information regarding the nature and production of quartz-based materials (frit, faience and glass) are derived from the investigations and reconstructions undertaken by Egyptian specialists (Moorey 1994: 182). While it is apparent that distinctions and differences in techniques occurred between ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran, these sources can be used to provide a useful general outline of quartz-based material production (Moorey 1994: 182). All three materials, faience, frit and glass, are made of the same basic ingredients, silica (quartz sand), an alkali, lime and, usually, a copper colourant, in varying amounts and portions (Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 178; Rapp 2002: 193). However, the resulting materials are distinct, separate and do not belong on a continuum, as faience cannot be turned to glass, nor glass to frit and so on (Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 178). In other words, faience is not to glass what ice is to water or steam.

1.1.3.2.1 Frit Frit is an unglazed material with a polycrystalline body (Moorey 1994: 167). It is like faience in many respects, such as its heterogenous body with interstitial glass, however significantly, unlike faience, frit is unglazed (Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 178). Frit, as well as being used as a material for artefacts in its own right, can also be broken down, refined into a powder-like substance and used as one ingredient in glass

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 26 production (Moorey 1994: 167). Frit is often used as a synonym for faience, though the materials are quite different, and can generally be differentiated macroscopically, for only if the glaze has totally degraded can faience be mistaken for frit (Moorey 1994: 167). Relevant to this study, both Negahban and Ghirshman use the term ‘frit’ to describe seals found at their respective excavations (Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil) (Negahban 1991; Ghirshman 1966: 71). However, in both cases, it is held that ‘faience’, as defined here, is in fact meant. In the instance of Ghirshman and Choga Zanbil this is due to the fact that Porada later classifies these same items as faience (Porada 1970). While in the case of Haft Tepe, faience is understood rather than frit because Negahban’s definition of frit, albeit in another related publication (regarding the seals from Marlik), as a “primitive porcelain with a rather smooth glaze on the surface” (1996: 205) more aptly describes faience than frit. There are no known examples of a definitely frit seal in the current study, and so further discussion of this material is unnecessary.

1.1.3.2.2 Faience The term ‘faience’ is itself a misnomer (Moorey 1994: 167), derived from the apparent similarity of the ancient material to a tin-glazed ceramic, more correctly labelled majolica, made in Faenza, northern Italy, from Medieval times (Moorey 1994: 167; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 177; Rapp 2002: 192). The name is thus doubly misleading in this regard as ‘faience’, the material discussed here, is neither a ceramic based on clay, nor tin-glazed. The qualifier ‘Egyptian’ has previously been added to faience to describe this ancient material, as the first examples were discovered in Egypt (Moorey 1994: 167; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 177). However, it is advocated that this qualifier should be abandoned as too confusing, for the examples found in Mesopotamia and Iran were not imports from Egypt but locally produced objects (Moorey 1994: 167; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 177). Much time and effort has been devoted to arguing that the term faience is inappropriate and should be abandoned (Moorey 1994: 167; Matthews 1990: 14; Collon 2005: 10, 61 – 62), however ‘faience’ is so entrenched in the literature, and the current examples so removed from Italian majolica as to make any confusion of the two virtually impossible, that its retention seems simpler (Moorey 1994: 167). One must be aware however that several synonyms are also used in the literature for

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 27 faience, including ‘sintered quartz’, ‘glazed frit’, ‘composition’, ‘Egyptian faience’, ‘(blue) paste’, ‘quartz frit’, ‘quartz ceramics’, ‘Egyptian blue’ and ‘compost’ (Moorey 1994: 167; Matthews 1990: 14; Rapp 2002: 192 – 193; also detailed in Table 1.5). Further confusing the issue, faience is sometimes also referred to as ‘frit’ and ‘glass’, two related but distinct materials (Moorey 1994: 167). As will be shown, however, these three materials – faience, frit and glass – can be distinguished and are indeed quite separate. The finished product ‘faience’ is achieved through multiple production steps. Firstly, a slurry of lime, silica and soda is mixed, and placed in a mould to achieve the desired shape (though cutting and abrasion can also be used to shape the mixture when the slurry has dried somewhat) (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 190 – 191). The second and third steps for faience production include the application of the glaze and the firing, though in the self-glazing techniques these two steps are combined. Three techniques for the application of the glaze (the second production step) have been detected. The ‘Application Method’, where glaze is applied or painted on the object after firing, and the two self-glazing methods, where the action of glazing occurs in the firing process, ‘Efflorescence’ and ‘Cementation’ (also known as the ‘Qom technique’, after the modern Iranian city where the method can still be observed today) (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 190 – 191). After firing at 800 – 1000°C (and glaze application if necessary) faience has a chalky, at times friable body, that demonstrates the presence of interstitial glass and a smooth, usually blue-green, shiny, vitreous glaze (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 190 – 191; Rapp 2002: 193). This glaze is often somewhat worn, though this, and the friable quality of the body, is presumably due to age deterioration (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184). Importantly, both the glaze and the faience body can be highly variable and heterogeneous (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184). Faience can be cut, carved, abraded and generally treated as a stone after firing. Thus faience seals appear to have been treated similarly as stone seals (Moorey 1994: 167 – 169). The properties of faience can easily be detected under a microscope, though it is also usually possible to distinguish faience (from glass and frit) with the naked eye (Moorey 1994: 167).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 28 1.1.3.2.3 Glass Ancient glass is similar in appearance to its modern counterpart, though it is less translucent and at times quite opaque (Moorey 1994: 189, 203; Barag 1985: 30 – 32). This is probably due, at least in part, to the ageing process and preservation. The same materials as used in faience production, in different proportions, were also used in the production of glass (Moorey 1994: 189, 203; Barag 1985). The mixture is allowed to liquefy completely under high temperatures, and is then cast into the desired shape (glass blowing was not developed until much later in the Roman period [Stern 1995]), and allowed to solidify (Moorey 1994: 203). The resulting glass material is distinguishable from faience by the lack of a glaze and the absence of interstitial glass (as the whole object is glass) (Moorey 1994: 203; Barag 1985: 30 – 32). The body of glass is homogenous, while the body of faience is variable and heterogenous (Moorey 1994: 189, 204; Barag 1985: 30 – 32). Figure 1.1 is a glass cylinder seal, now in the British Museum, and Figure 1.2 a faience seal also in the British Museum. These figures demonstrate the general difference in appearance between ancient glass and faience. For this reason, coupled with the different techniques of manufacture involved in each, the retention of a differentiation between glass and faience is advocated. This visual and technological difference between faience and glass is further grounds for the rejection of Matthews’ above discussed proposal to divide seal materials simply into artificial and natural groups. For if this dichotomy was to be accepted faience and glass would by subsumed under the one rubric, despite their obvious differences, which it can be assumed were also realised by the ancient societies that produced them.

Figure 1.1. Glass cylinder seal of Middle Elamite type, now in the British Museum, photograph by S. Francesconi, January 2003.

Figure 1.2. Faience cylinder seal from the Neo-Assyrian period, now in the British Museum, after Curtis & Reade 1996.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 29 Table 1.5 summaries the types and details of the relevant quartz-based materials, including synonyms and subsumed varieties. Due to the lack of a visual examination, no materials previously classified as either faience or glass have been reassessed here, rather those listed as faience retain this categorization, and similarly those classified as glass. In some instances, however, seals classified as various synonyms of faience, are reassessed as faience, in line with more recent discussions of nomenclature and analysis.

Quartz-based materials (frit [not represented here], faience, glass) Faience Description Friable/chalky body with interstitial glass and smooth, blue-green glassy or dull glaze. Subsumed sintered quartz; glazed frit; composition; Egyptian faience; (blue) paste [pâte (bleu)]; synonyms Egyptian blue; compost; frit; light cream frit; green white frit; limestone paste (?) [pâte calcaire]; grey-blue paste [pâte gris-bleu]; grey paste (?) [pâte gris] Varieties faience [faïence]; blue faience [faïence bleue]; green faience [faïence verte]; greenish faience [faïence verdâtre]; grey faience [faïence grise]; grey-green faience [faïence gris-vert]; grey-pink faience [faïence gris-rose]; greyish faience [faïence grisâtre]; pink faience [faïence rose]; red coloured faience [faïence colorée rouge]; white faience [faïence blanche]; discoloured faience [faïence décolorée]; faience with traces of green colour [faïence avec des taches de couleur verte]; faience with traces of green enamel [faïence avec des traces d’émail vert]; white faience with traces of light green enamel [faïence blanche, traces d’un émail vert clair]; faience with traces of light green enamel [faïence avec des taches d’émail vert clair]; siliceous faience [faïence siliceuse]; green enamelled faience [faïence émaillée verte]; white enamel faience [faïence émail blanchâtre]; whitish enamel faience [faïence émail blanchâtre]; green enamel faience [faïence émail vert]; enamelled faience [faïence émaillée]; traces of a brown-yellow enamel faience [faïence avec traces d’un émail brun-jaune]; greenish white faience [faïence blanche verdâtre]; discoloured faience, with traces of brownish enamel [faïence décolorée, traces d’émail brunâtre]; faience with traces of green-grey enamel [faïence avec des traces d’émail vert-gris]; faience with yellow enamel [faïence avec émail jaune]; powdery discoloured faience [faïence poudreuse, décolorée]; faience with traces of blue-green enamel [faïence avec traces d’émail bleu-vert]; faience with traces of yellowish enamel [faïence traces d’émail jaunâtre]; faience covered with blue-green enamel [faïence couverte d’émail bleu- vert]; sky-blue powdery faience [faïence poudreuse bleu de ciel]; pale green faience [faïence vert pale]; white, yellowish faience [faïence blanche, jaunâtre]; grey-white faience [faïence grise-blanche]; yellowish faience [faïence jaunâtre]; faience with a pink-violet surface [faïence avec une surface rose-violette]; faience with traces of pale green enamel [faïence avec émail vert pâle]; blue paste [pâte bleue]; grey paste (?) [pâte gris]; grey-blue paste [pâte gris-bleu]; white paste (?) [pâte blanche]. Glass Description Often quite opaque; vitreous; not glazed; no interstitial glass; homogenous body. Varieties glass [verre]; blue glass [verre bleu]; light blue glass [verre bleu clair]; dark blue glass [verre bleu foncé]; blue-green glass [verre bleu-vert]; green glass [verre vert]; light green glass [verre vert clair]; light blue-green glass [verre clair bleu-vert]; discoloured, cream glass [verre décoloré, crème]; grey-beige glass [verre gris-beige]. Table 1.5. Summation of quartz-based materials, including description, synonyms and subsumed varieties, details from Moorey 1994; Nicholas & Peltenburg 2000; Rapp 2002; Matthews 1990; Barag 1985.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 30 1.1.3.3 Glazed Steatite Glazed steatite is the name given to a variation of the rock steatite (or in some circumstances, possibly the related chlorite [Pittman 1994: xv]), that has apparently been altered by human manipulation, and thus appears distinctively white in colour (Pittman 1994: 134). Unfortunately, the only distantly relevant scientific study regarding glazed steatite as a material is a more than 70 year-old article detailing an experimental reproduction of comparative material for an ancient Egyptian scarab- seal dating to the 18th Dynasty (Bannister & Plenderleith 1936). Despite this, glazed steatite as a material is generally discussed as a discrete, definable entity (Pittman 1994). Glazed steatite is described as a steatite rock that has been fired at a high temperature and thus hardened (Collon 2005: 20; Pittman 1994: xv; 134). Indeed, Bannister and Plenderleith achieved a material with similar characteristics to glazed steatite (such as a Mohs hardness of 7, and the white surface) by firing a piece of steatite at 900°C (Bannister & Plenderleith 1936: 4). Due to the lack of scientific analysis it is unclear if the characteristic white appearance of the glazed steatite material is caused by the heating process or by an applied glaze (Pittman 1994: 133 – 134). Indeed, before the problem of the presence or otherwise of a glaze is resolved it may be more appropriate to speak of ‘burnt steatite’ (thus [Amiet 1971: fig. 44.13]), as this title does not presuppose the presence of a glaze. However, the term ‘glazed steatite’ seems so entrenched in the literature, indeed it is even used to define a style (the Glazed Steatite Style [Pittman 1994]), discussed further below [Chapter 4.4]), that it seems more practical to retain the term ‘glazed steatite’, albeit with a definition, and understanding of the possible limitations of this term. Glazed steatite is also sometimes referred to as ‘enstatite’ (Collon 2005: 20; Pittman 1994: 133). While this may be more fitting if indeed it is discovered that the white appearance is not due to a glaze but heating, enstatite is more correctly defined as a naturally occurring metamorphosis of steatite (Read 1970: 382 – 383). As it seems more likely that the material under discussion here was deliberately heated by humans, for the natural occurring enstatite is quite rare as an individual form sufficient to create seals (Read 1970: 382 – 383), the term ‘glazed steatite’ with all its potential for inherent incorrectness is preferred. In earlier, particularly French literature, before the separated, specific nature of glazed steatite was recognised, this material was merely defined as “stéatite blanche” (or white steatite). As white is an unusual complete colour for steatite, and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 31 as its appearance is similar to our definition of glazed steatite, the stéatite blanche seals in the current study are here labelled as glazed steatite. Similarly, burnt steatite (stéatite brûlée) is also equated with glazed steatite in this study. Again, seals that have thus been reassessed have been marked in Volume II by an asterix(*). The analysis of glazed steatite materials and in particular the Glazed Steatite Style will be discussed in more detail in both the literature review and style sections (Chapter 4.4).

1.1.3.4 Ceramic cylinders It is assumed that clay is a well-known, easily recognisable material, and so no reclassification of the clay or ceramic (including the terra cotta variation) is undertaken here. For an introduction to the use of clay, including a brief discussion of clay cylinder seals, in the Ancient Near East, and Mesopotamia in particular, the reader is directed to the relevant chapters of Moorey’s Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries (1994: 141 – 166) and Rapp’s Archaeomineralogy (2002: 190 – 192). Nothing more of significance can be added here, as the production of clay and ceramic is relatively well-known and has undergone no essential reanalysis in recent years to warrant a discussion as undertaken for bitumen-based and quartz- based materials. For the purposes of this study however, two problems should be noted. The first is the simple reality of the presence of clay cylinder seals amongst the Elamite cylinder seal corpus, and indeed other glyptic corpora (Al-Gailani Werr 1988b). The nature of clay cylinder seals is unclear; it is possible that they were utilized as “cheap” alternate seals by the poor, as suggested by Moorey (1994: 163), or as ad hoc emergency seals created at the moment for the purpose of sealing in the unexpected absence of a stone/artificial material seal. Another possibility is that they were deliberately short-lived, temporary seals, intended to be used only once, or a limited number of times, and presumably disposed of; an analogy from modern society may be found in the shredding of a credit card slip when it is no longer of use. These suggestions are all possible, and indeed all three uses could well have been simultaneously employed, and regardless this cannot be resolved on the basis of the current evidence. The second point regarding the clay seals is the question as to whether they were composed of fired/baked clay (true ceramics) or sun-dried. This problem is itself related to the first, as it impinges on the question of their use. Deliberate firing of a

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 32 clay cylinder would seem to indicate both a higher degree of effort and endeavour expended on the seal and a desire to prolong its life, or enable the seal to be kept for some time. This effort to create a relatively long-lasting, functioning item may indicate that clay cylinders were not always intended as ‘stop-gap’, short-lived substitute seals, but rather as simply cheaper alternatives to more expensive stone and other seals. Those seals classified by the original publishers as baked or fired clay (including terra cotta, a ceramic variation) are retained in the current study. Some of the original classifications employed in this study do not expressly specify if the material was fired clay, or the possible alternative sun-dried clay. Moorey presumes that clay cylinder seals were all sun-dried (Moorey 1994: 163), however in opposition to this is the already mentioned fact that some seals in the current study are definitely listed as fired by their original publishers. Thus while it may be accurate to say that in some instances clay seals were sun-dried, by no means can it be said that this was an irrevocable fact. Furthermore, without a visual examination, the fired nature or otherwise of the clay seals whose nature was not specified cannot be resolved. If some clay cylinders were indeed sun-dried, this may indicate that, at least these particular examples, were intended for quick disposal (that is, they did not have to be durable, or long-lasting) or were ad hoc creations, unfired clay being the quickest, easiest sourced material. The accurate classification of the clay cylinders in this study (that is, whether they were fired or sun-dried) must await a further analysis, and thus the original classifications and distinctions are retained. The presence of the clay cylinders should be noted, as should the prospect that the cylinders may have been baked or sun-dried.

1.1.3.5 Rocks and Minerals A great source of the problems and inconsistencies in the literature regarding mineralogical designation is the lack of scientific or petrographic analysis (Sax & Middleton 1992: 11). Another problem is the fact that both mineralogical and non- mineralogical, or popular, terms have been used together, the mineralogical without scientific/chemical justification or definition, the popular with misleading inconsistencies and differences across languages (Sax & Middleton 1992: 11). One particular problem in this regard is the propensity of non-experts (the current author

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 33 should indeed be counted amongst the non-mineralogical-experts) to ignore the difference between the geologically defined terms mineral and rock. A mineral is a naturally occurring inorganic element or compound that has a discrete, definable crystal structure and chemical composition (Rapp & Hill 1998: 112; Rapp 2002: 13). A rock is a specific collective of one or more mineral(s) that occurs commonly enough to justify a definite classification/name (Rapp & Hill 1998: 112; Rapp 2002: 42). A rock group or type is by nature heterogenous, with varying degrees of minerals and inclusions combined in their generation (Rapp & Hill 1998: 112; Rapp 2002: 42). Thus rocks can occur along a spectrum of types, with a tendency to grade from one type to another, often meaning that classification along the margins may prove difficult. Indeed, this inherent spectrum quality of rocks is another major cause of the problems in mineralogical/petrological identification, especially for the untrained, compounded by the general lack of an articulated definition of rock type and characteristics. The differing native and written tongues of scholars has further deepened the problems of material designation, especially in regards to comparative classification, as specific terms and titles may connotate or imply a different stone or rock in different languages. As already detailed above, it is necessary for the current study to address these inconsistencies in order to create a workable nomenclature system for the purposes of comparison of material types across the relevant Elamite sites. Thus, Table 1.6 provides an outline of the nomenclature system of rocks and minerals adopted in this study. The information in this table is based on several mineralogical, geo-archaeological, and minero-archaeological studies (Hurlbut 1971; Read 1970; Rapp & Hill 1998; Sax & Middleton 1992; Rapp 2002). The specific, especially macroscopic visual, characteristics of each mineral and rock is detailed in Table 1.6, as is the justification and evidence for any required reassessment of material classification, the variations (including colour), subsumed varieties and their (particularly French) translation found in the Elamite Glyptic Corpus. The rock and mineral type group of cylinder seal material can be defined as ‘natural’ and divided into several groups as demonstrated by the Table 1.6. These groups include rocks, minerals and rock types or classifications. The characteristics of the mineral groups are defined by several specific criteria. These criteria include the chemical/mineralogical type of the mineral, its lustre, opacity, colour and hardness. Lustre refers to the state and quality of the surface shine of the material, with ranges

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 34 from vitreous to shiny, pearly, waxy or dull. Opacity technically refers to the ability of the crystals in the material to reflect, absorb or allow light to pass through the material, with the three chief classifications being opaque, translucent, and transparent. The hardness of the mineral is stated according to the Mohs system.

Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) Rocks 1. Limestone Description: coarse-grained sedimentary limestone [calcaire]; beige rock composed largely of the mineral calcite [beige]; dark beige [beige foncé]; (calcium carbonate). brown [brun]; brown-pink [brun- Colour: variety of colours, including white, rose]; cream [crème]; soft, cream grey, yellow and shades of blue, red, brown [tendre, crème]; grey [gris]; grey- and black due to impurities. brown [gris-brun]; grey-cream Comments: well-recognised so requires little [gris-crème]; grey-white [gris- reanalysis; calcite is sometimes listed as a blanc]; grey-yellow [gris-jaune]; material (for example Pittman 1994, grey-pink [gris-rose]; light grey catalogue entry ‘1217. SA05:01’), though [gris clair]; hard orange [dur more correctly this is the mineral that forms orange]; pink [rose]; red [rouge]; the basis for limestone (see Table 1.7); due dark red [rouge foncé]; white to the fact that “the rock dolomite resembles [blanc]; hard, white [dur, blanc]; limestone so closely in its appearance that it burnt white [blanc, brûlé]; white- is usually impossible to distinguish between cream [blanc-crème]; yellow them without a chemical test” (Hurlbut [jaune]; grey & yellow veined 1971: 497), and the lack of such a test on [veiné gris et crème]; white, the materials listed here, items listed as greenish [blanc, verdâtre]; grey are subsumed as limestone due dolomite [dolomite grise]; reddish to their macroscopic similarity. dolomite [dolomite rougeâtre] 2. Marble Description: fine-grained metamorphic rock marble [marbre]; black [noir]; of limestone, a smooth stone capable of black & white [noir et blanc]; taking a polish. black, with white veins [noir Colour: white when pure, colour variations veiné de blanc]; green [vert]; dark occur due to impurities. green [vert foncé]; light green Comments: distinguishable from limestone [vert clair]; grey [gris]; grey & (and other rocks) macroscopically; no white [gris et blanc]; grey & reanalysis necessary. yellow [gris et jaune]; pink [rose]; pink, violet & beige [couleur rose, violette et beige]; pink & yellow [rose et jaune]; red [rouge]; dark red [rouge foncé]; red & white [rouge et blanc]; red- violet [rouge-violet]; white [blanc]; pink veined, white [blanc, veiné de rose]; red veined [rouge veiné] 3. Chalk Description: fine-grained, porous limestone – variant. Colour: generally white or shades of white. Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis necessary

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 35 Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) 4. Sandstone Description: fine-grained sedimentary rock sandstone [grès]; grey-brown composed of small grains of quartz or more [gris-brun]; fine, grey-pink [fin rarely feldspar, cemented together by bonds gris-rose]; pink [rose]; dark pink of silica, hematite, calcium carbonate, etc. [rose foncé] Colour: generally light colour, usually pale yellows, buff, white or grey; hematite addition may give a red to reddish brown colour. Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis. 5. Lapis lazuli Description: semi-precious metamorphic lapis lazuli [lapis-lazuli]; lap la rock composed chiefly of the mineral assumed abbreviation of lapis lazurite (see Table 1.7), with small amounts lazuli of calcite, pyrozene and other silicates. Colour: distinct deep blue to azure blue, sometimes greenish blue to violet blue, with specks of silver or gold due to impurities. Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis required; lapis lazuli is a rare stone, the only Old World source is the Badakhshan Mountains, Afghanistan (Rapp 2002: 104); lazurite is also often listed as a synonym, though more correctly lazurite is the mineral basis of lapis lazuli. 6. Basalt Description: fine-grained igneous rock that basalt [basalte]; black [noir]; is feldspar dominant. Colour: dark coloured, often pearly/glassy. Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis. 7. Steatite Description: fine-grained, compact steatite [stéatite]; beige [beige]; metamorphic rock, composed chiefly of the black [noire]; cream [crème]; mineral talc (see Table 1.7). green [verte]; dark green [vert Colour: generally shades of white/grey, that foncé]; light green [vert clair]; trends greenish or reddish. grey [grise]; grey-blue [gris- Synonyms: and ; bleu]; grey-green [gris-vert]; is also used as a synonym (thus grey-white [gris-blanc]; white- Pittman 1994), though more correctly this is cream [blanc-crème]; white-green a related mineral variant similar to the [blanc-vert]; white-pink [blanc- steatite mineral base talc; also , rose]; yellow [jaune] though again, more correctly this is the mineral base of steatite and not a synonym. Comments: generally well recognised so little reassessment required; distinction between the rock steatite and the mineral talc should be noted; as already noted, the term white steatite () and other glazed steatite varieties are treated elsewhere; other pale steatite examples could also be discoloured ‘glazed steatite’ items, though without a visual confirmation such a proposal is uncertain and so not undertaken here.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 36 Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) Minerals 1. Quartz Type: silicon dioxide. Lustre: vitreous. Opacity: transparent to opaque. Colour: colourless when pure, colour variations due to impurities occur. Hardness: Mohs 7. There are multiple sub-varieties of quartzes; a system of nomenclature specifically for quartz cylinder seals has been developed by Sax and Middleton (1992); the following will detail, according to Sax and Middleton, the quartz varieties that appear in the Corpus, including their type and any necessary reassessments 1a. Rock Type: macroquartz. rock crystal [cristal de roche]; Crystal Lustre: vitreous. translucent quartz Opacity: transparent. Colour: colourless, can show iridescent colouring. Comments: according to the above definition, the item originally classified is classified under this rubric. 1b. Amethyst Type: macroquartz. – Lustre: vitreous. Opacity: transparent to translucent. Colour: shades of purple or violet to hues of blue-red. Comments: well-recognised variety, no reassessment required. 1c. Rose Type: macroquartz. rose quartz, translucent [quartz quartz Lustre: vitreous. rose, translucide] Opacity: transparent to translucent. Colour: shades of pale pink to deep rose- red. Comments: well-recognised variety, no reassessment required. 1d. Milky Type: macroquartz. white quartz [quartz blanc] quartz Lustre: vitreous to waxy. Opacity: translucent to opaque. Colour: milk-white, often uneven. Comments: is taken as a synonym of milky quartz, due to above definition.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 37 Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) 1e. Type: microquartz white chalcedony Chalcedony Lustre: waxy. Opacity: translucent, varying almost transparent to almost opaque. Colour: varying pale colours, tones of grey, blue, green, yellow, brown, white to almost colourless. Comments: Moorey uses as a synonym for chalcedony (Moorey 1994: 76), while Sax and Middleton (1992: 18) use this term to describe another quartz variety (not represented here), thus the synonym is rejected. 1f. Carnelian Type: microquartz. carnelian [cornaline] (cornelian) Lustre: waxy. Opacity: translucent. Colour: red to orange, red-brown. Comments: well-recognised variety, no reassessment required; can be artificially created by heating yellowish, greenish or brown chalcedony. 1g. Agate Type: microquartz. burnt agate; white agate Lustre: waxy. Opacity: translucent. Colour: distinctly banded in two or more microquartz colours. Comments: Sax and Middleton identified several sub-varieties of agate (such as and ) (1992), the identification of these varieties is dependent on the nature and patterning of the bands, of which we have no information here, so this secondary classification was not completed; agate can be dyed or etched to enhance its markings; the appearance of agate can also be achieved by similar alterations to chalcedonies or other quartzes; the appearance of agate is well-recognised, no reassessment required. 1h. Flint Type: microquartz. greenish flint Lustre: waxy to dull. Opacity: translucent. Colour: generally light to dark grey or black, also shades of blue, brown and black. Comments: well recognised variety, requires no reassessment.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 38 Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) 1i. Jasper Type: microquartz. jasper [jaspe]; green [vert]; light Lustre: waxy to dull. green [vert clair]; grey-violet Opacity: opaque. [gris-violacé]; violet [violacée]; Colour: shades of red, yellow, brown and garnet [grenat]; dark garnet less commonly, green, blue and brown to [grenat foncé] black. Comments: well recognised quartz, requires no reassessment. 2. Gypsum/ Type: hydrated calcium sulphate. alabaster [albâtre]; brown [brun]; alabaster Lustre: shiny and pearly, silky. alabaster gypsum [albâtre Opacity: transparent like glass, also grades gypseux] to translucent and opaque. Colour: colourless or white, sometimes grey, yellowish or red. Hardness: Mohs 1.5 – 2. Comments: gypsum is a mineral that also appears in massive form as a rock based upon the mineral; alabaster is a very fine- grained, compact, snow-white or light coloured variety of gypsum; while it is possible to macroscopically differentiate these two types, they have generally been confused and subsumed in the literature, thus due to this, and a lack of a visual examination, the dual term is adopted here to refer to this material. 3. Aragonite Type: a calcium carbonate similar to calcite. aragonite [aragonite]; green Lustre: vitreous. [verte]; translucent green [verte, Opacity: transparent to translucent. translucide]; light green [vert Colour: white, grey, yellowish, red, brown, clair]; pink [rose]; white sometimes green or violet. [blanche]; white, veined with Hardness: Mohs 3.5 – 4. brown [blanche, veinée de brun] Comments: no requirement for reassessment. 4. Heulandite Type: hydrous silicate of calcium and heulandite [heulandite]; green aluminium, zeolite family. [heulandite verte]; light green Lustre: pearly. [vert clair]; green & purple [verte Opacity: transparent to sub-translucent. et violacée]; grey [grise]; grey- Colour: white, brick-red, brown. green [gris-vert] Hardness: Mohs 3.5 – 4. Comments: a series of distinctive green- coloured heulandite (and the related material ), have been shown to be heulandite in studies by Lahanier (1976) and Sax and Middleton (1989), despite their uncommon green shade; this classification has thus been adopted here with no reassessment.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 39 Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) 5. Hematite Type: iron oxide. hematite [hématite] Lustre: metallic and highly splendent, silky or dull. Opacity: opaque. Colour: steel-grey to iron-black, when particles thin enough can reflect red. Hardness: Mohs 5.5 – 6.5. Comments: also rock of the same name composed of hematite mineral in the main; well-recognised, no reassessment required, unsure if mineral hematite or massive (rock) form. 6. Serpentine Type: hydrous magnesium silicate. serpentine [serpentine]; black Lustre: greasy, waxlike, silky. [noire]; brown [brune]; green Opacity: translucent to opaque. [verte]; green-black [vert-noir]; Colour: different shades of green to almost dark green [vert foncé]; light black, sometimes red, yellow, or brown; in green [vert clair]; grey-pink [gris- massive form (rock) often veined or spotted rose] with white, green, red etc. Hardness: Mohs 3 – 4. Comments: also rock of the same name, composed chiefly of the mineral serpentine; well-recognised, no reassessment required, though without visual examination unclear if examples are mineral or massive in form. 7. Chlorite Type: hydrous silicate of aluminium, iron – and magnesium. Lustre: pearly. Opacity: subtransparent to opaque. Colour: various shades of green. Hardness: Mohs 1.5 – 2.5. Comments: also rock of the name, composed chiefly of the mineral chlorite; often confused with and the talc- based rock , though are distinct; generally well-recognised, no reassessment required.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 40 Subsumed Examples and Material Varieties (including Colour) Rock Type/Classification 1. Porphyry Some igneous rocks show distinct crystal porphyry [porphyre] minerals embedded in a finer-grained matrix, such rocks are known as porphyries or as porphyritic rocks. Mineralogically, porphyry is neither a mineral nor a rock, but a classification or type of rock that can occur in a variety of rock and mineral compositions (thus ‘granite porphyry’, ‘diorite porphyry’). The use of porphyry on its own without base rock qualifier (as in the relevant literature here) is therefore mineralogically incorrect, however without a visual examination, this practice has been continued here, though with the stipulation that the true nature (that is, the base igneous rock) should be sort. 2. Schist As above, schist is not a rock or mineral but schist [schiste]; black [noir]; type or classification of a metamorphic rock green [vert]; grey [gris]; grey- that is characterised by “schistosity”, that is black [gris-noir]; grey-blue [gris- lamination of bands within the rock, along bleu]; grey-green [gris-vert]; which the rock may be easily broken. grey-brown [gris-brun]; Common types include ‘micaschist’ mica schist [micaschiste] (represented here), ‘chlorite schist’, ‘talc [steatite] schist’, and ‘hornblende schist’. Again, apart from micaschist, the schist in this study have been published without reference to the base mineral/rock, a situation that must, unfortunately, be perpetuated here. Table 1.6. System of Nomenclature of Natural Materials (Rocks and Minerals) for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, based upon Hulburt 1971; Read 1970; Rapp & Hill 1998; Roberts et al. 1990; Sax & Middleton 1992; Rapp 2002. . As mentioned above, rocks are naturally occurring phenomenon composed of minerals and other elements in reasonably standardised, classifiable form. Table 1.7 provides the details of several minerals, not represented in the cylinder seals of the Corpus, but that compose some of the main rock types within it. These mineral types are described here as they are relevant to an understanding of the nature of the rocks that they compose.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 41 Mineral Description 1. Calcite - type: calcium carbonate. - lustre: vitreous to earthy. - opacity: transparent to opaque. - colour: colourless or white, sometimes grey, yellow, blue, red, brown or black tints. - hardness: Mohs 3. 2. Lazurite - type: sodium aluminium silicate with sodium sulphide. - lustre: vitreous. - opacity: translucent. - colour: deep azure-blue, greenish blue, Berlin blue. - hardness: Mohs 5 – 5.5. 3. Talc - type: hydrous magnesium silicate. - lustre: pearly. - opacity: subtransparent to translucent. - colour: white, silvery-white, apple-green, greenish-grey, dark green. - hardness: Mohs 1. Table 1.7. Minerals commonly contained in rock types typical of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, based upon Hulburt 1971; Read 1970; Rapp & Hill 1998; Rapp 2002.

1.1.3.6 Summation of Seal Materials Due to the problems and limitations of previous seal material designations a system of nomenclature has been proposed here, in order to facilitate comparison of seal material proportions across sites and styles in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. This system is entirely preliminary, and is purely an attempt to standardise terms and implement more recent studies and classification techniques on material published under older or incomplete systems (thus the bitumen-based, quartz-based, glazed steatite and quartz materials). Also included in the Corpus is a variety of stones listed by their original publishers merely by colour qualifiers (for example, ‘brown stone’, ‘grey stone’ and ‘apricot coloured stone’). While one may be tempted to equate these stones with rocks and minerals listed in the nomenclature system (for example black stone with hematite), without a visual, mineralogical/petrographic study, such a classification would be imprudent. Indeed, it is equally likely that these stones represent some other rock or mineral not previously discerned in the Corpus. For this reason, the stones listed only according to colour and appearances by their original publishers are listed in the Catalogue with their original classification retained. The comparisons and conclusions resulting from the application of this nomenclature system will be returned to in the discussion of the seal styles (Chapter 4). Furthermore, a discussion regarding the relative value of seal materials, and the motivation behind the use of artificial materials will be undertaken in regards to the function of cylinder seals in Chapter 6.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 42 1.1.4 Seal Production The method of production of a cylinder seal is another area of investigation that has arisen from the more ‘archaeological’, as opposed to ‘art historical’, approach to glyptic studies (discussed further below, Chapter 1.1.5). Thus, since the late 1970s several scientific studies, based upon (scanning electron) microscopic studies of cylinder seals, have aided in the discussion and identification of several cutting techniques for Mesopotamian cylinder seal (Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987; Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; 1981b; 1992; Sax & Meeks 1994; 1995; Sax, McNabb & Meeks 1998; Sax, Meeks & Collon 2000). These techniques include micro-chipping, filing, wheel-cutting and drilling by both stone and metal tools (Sax & Meeks 1995: 28 – 35; Sax, McNabb & Meeks 1998: 4 – 8). The reader is directed to the above cited articles, as well as the relevant chapters of Moorey’s Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries (1994: 103 – 106) and Collon’s general glyptic studies (2005: 100 – 104) for a more thorough description of seal production. Little more can be added to these landmark studies here, as no comparable microscopic study has been undertaken. However, the conclusions of Sax and her colleagues regarding the later introduction of the cutting-wheel (and for that matter the ‘mechanical’ drill) around the middle of the second millennium BC (Sax, Meeks & Collon 2000: 386 – 387), rather than the much earlier second half of the 4th millennium BC invention earlier espoused (Pittman 1994; 1997) should be noted, as this is of importance to a seal style and definition discussed below (see Chapters 3.2.2 and 4.5). Again, it must be noted that all these sources discuss this production of cylinder seals from a decidedly Mesopotamian vantage point, an inherent limitation that cannot unfortunately be redressed through this current study.

1.1.5 Nature of Study: Art History or Archaeology? The nature of cylinder seals not only as artefacts, but also as a work of art in miniature (Pittman & Aruz 1987) means that the study of seals and sealings has often been approached from a more art historical rather than archaeological perspective. Many of the earliest, and indeed the most commonly referred to, works are primarily based upon museum and private collections (as demonstrated by Table 1.1), which are in the main made up of seals bought from the antiquities market, acquired by other ‘clandestine’ means or from earlier, less then scientific excavations. As such these seals lack any archaeological context in any meaningful sense and were of original

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 43 interest due to their intrinsic value and fascination as works of art (Collon 1990: 21 – 22; Rothman 2007: 237). The study of seals thus focused on their aesthetic value, concerning themselves with developments in artistic styles and manners of depiction (Rothman 2007: 236 – 237). This approach considers the seal not as an artefact but as a work of art, and as such makes value judgements concerning the visual appeal of the seal and its nature as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art. This method of study can be described as the ‘art historical approach’, and characterises many of the major early works of glyptic studies (Buchanan 1981; Eisen 1940; Frankfort 1939; Gordon 1939; Lambert 1966; 1979; Legrain 1925; von der Osten 1934; 1946; Ward 1910; Wiseman 1959). The discovery of seals in excavations led to their publication either as part of the final excavation reports or as a companion or volume in a series (see Table 1.1 and 1.2 for examples). Often, this task was entrusted to a ‘glyptic specialist’ who was themselves schooled in the art historical approach. Thus this approach was perpetuated, with excavated material being subjected to an art historical analysis by a scholar expert in the art historical discipline. The works of Porada and Amiet are amongst those that display, to varying degrees, the hallmarks of this phenomenon (Porada 1970; Amiet 1972; 1980). As already stated above, it has only been in more recent times with the study of sealings unearthed in excavations that glyptic studies have begun to assume a more archaeological perspective (beginning with Ferioli & Fiandra 1979; further continued Ferioli & Fiandra 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979; Zettler 1987; Collon 1990: 25; Rothman 1994a; 1994b). Sealings themselves lack the aesthetic appeal of the cylinder seal, and consequently are not generally of interest to the art historian. Sealings can be used to help in our understanding of a great deal of archaeological problems however, including as stated above, administration and control, trade contacts and social interactions. The study of the sealings found in excavations has led to the development of an archaeological approach to glyptic studies. This approach views seals and sealing as artefacts that should be studied not due to their intrinsic ‘beauty’ or attractiveness, but for what can be revealed about their creators and their societies. There is still a place for what has been traditionally labelled art history in this approach however, for in order to fully understand a seal, one must understand its ‘style’. Style places the seal in both time and place. From a seal’s style and classification its chronological and geographical position can be discerned. An extended study of a stylistic paradigm,

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 44 especially as here, in relation to other neighbouring regions and across time, can illustrate cultural, social and ethnic developments of the society which produced the seal. As such the classification of seals into stylistic and subject matter groups is an important first step in or understanding of that seal. Thus, much of the current study is dedicated to the development of such a system of classification for Elamite glyptic material, a task that, as was discussed above, has been neglected for Iranian/Elamite glyptic material, especially relative to the Mesopotamia example. However, where the art historical approach would stop at the description of such styles, the archaeological approach continues beyond this, for there is more that the seal, as an artefact, can tell us. Thus the function of the seal (beyond that simply of a device that seals) is addressed, as is the material from which the seal is made (thus providing information regarding a society’s contacts and technological skills), and the sealings are studied, for the important information they provide regarding the administration of a society. The current work will thus be a study of the Elamite glyptic material, approached from the perspective of archaeology, not art history. Indeed, this is another area where this study is archaeological, and not art historical. For the common theme in this study is not their presence in a museum collection, but rather the similar archaeological context (in space and time) of these seals and sealings. The more precise methodology employed for the construction of the stylistic paradigm will be further discussed below (Chapter 3).

1.2 Parameters of the Current Study, ‘Elam’ and Chronology As already alluded to above, the area under discussion here is that, that can generally be subsumed under the rubric ‘Elam’, from c.3500 BC to 1000 BC. Both these parameters, the geographic and the chronological, require some refinement and justification however. The geographical must be defined as to what is meant by the somewhat beleaguered term ‘Elam’, and the justification for its use here, and similarly, the reasons for the chronological beginnings and departure in this study must be described.

1.2.1 Elam This study is devoted to the cylinder seals of southwestern Iran, an area roughly defined by Figure 1.3. The ancient past of this area is generally described by the geographic term ‘Elam’, home to the people known as the ‘Elamites’ (Potts 1999;

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 45 Carter & Stolper 1984), a descriptor that is employed here. The term Elam must however be defined somewhat, specifically as to what Elam was, when it existed and where, with each of these questions impinging on the conclusions of the others. The precise history of the term Elam, the area it entailed and its changing definition through time will be outlined in greater detail below in reference to its history and chronology (Chapter 2.1), and so it is not necessary here to devote exorbitant time and space to this subject, however a brief introduction to this term is required for the current purposes of definition. The question of what Elam was is itself problematic, for its meaning, constitution and definition changed over time and throughout the period of its use. In its most basic of uses, and indeed most common, Elam is used to describe the area of southwestern Iran, neighbouring southern Mesopotamia (variously Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia), that produced an ancient civilisation that was distinct, though related, to that of neighbouring Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 1 – 9). The confusion arises however from the fact that to speak of Elam as a discreet, functioning, definable entity would be false, especially in some earlier periods. Over time the nature and definition of Elam changed, and indeed, in its original conception and use, the term was a construction, imposed upon the area by outsiders, in particular the scribes of southern Mesopotamia. Thus the Sumerian (and later the Akkadian equivalent ) was first used to unequivocally refer to Elam around 2600 – 2500 BC (Potts 1999: 1), some 900 years before a corresponding ‘Elamite’ term was in use. Indeed, the first recorded use of (or its alternatives or ) occurred during the reign of Siwe-palar-huppak (Potts 1999: 1), the contemporary of of Babylon (for further details on the reign of Siwe- palar-huppak, and his contemporaneity to Hammurabi, see Chapters 2 and 7). In its original use by Mesopotamian scribes it simply referred to the neighbouring, foreign, particularly highland, region to the east (Potts 1999: 1). Over time Elam, as used both by outsiders and ‘Elamites’ themselves variously referred to a general area, a kingdom, an empire, a province of a larger empire, and so on, until eventually it even came to refer to an ecclesiastical province (Potts 1999). In light of this, what is meant by Elam in this study, and perhaps more directly, why the term is retained here needs to be addressed. As well as the above noted fact that Elam was not originally an indigenous ‘Iranian’ term it can also be said that, in many ways, Elam is also a construct of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 46 modern scholars. Indeed, as will become apparent below (Chapter 2), the geographical and political/cultural constitution of Elam altered over time and cannot be said to be consistent from one period to the next. Similarly, Mesopotamia is an anachronistic term, created by outsiders. However, it is used as a non-prejudiced term to refer to the area between the two rivers without resorting to the specific, culturally determined/prejudiced terms of Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia. Lacking a coincident term for southwestern Iran, ‘Elam’ is here sometimes employed, despite the fact that it is less satisfactory as a non-prejudiced term than is ‘Mesopotamia’. The term ‘Iran/Elam’ (‘Iranian/Elamite’) is also sometimes used, especially to refer to the earlier, pre-Elamite periods of history, so as not to imply that an ‘Elamite’ identity is meant. Due to its imposed nature, in many regards ‘Elam’ can be considered an artificial construct. Indeed, over time this term subsumed, and was associated with, areas with either equally imposed names, or terms thought to be of a more indigenous nature, such as Awan, Anshan, Shimashki, and Marhashi (Potts 1999; further detailed below). Thus in its wider application the term ‘Elam’ is used to refer to this area without intending to imply strict cultural unity, or a monolithic entity across the entirety of this study. It could be argued that the less culturally specific term, ‘southwestern Iran’ is preferable, however its use here is rejected due to two factors. Firstly, the term ‘Iran’ as well as implying the modern national, political state, alludes to the presence of Indo-European or Indo-, and thus has a specific and pointed connotation to the era after the arrival of these peoples; a problem and debate that is best avoided here for the sake of clarity, as this study ends just before the advent of these peoples (; Potts 1999: 259ff.; thus the hesitant use of the term ‘Iran/Elam’ described above). Secondly, the term ‘Elam’ is preferred because, despite the previous outlined problems and limitations of this term, its rejection would be to deny the reality of the existence of ‘Elam’ as an actual cultural phenomenon. Thus the area under discussion here, and labelled in the most general sense ‘Elam’, includes roughly the areas of three historical , Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars (demonstrated by Figure 1.3). While this area appears to be a large slab of ancient Iran, in reality the whole area is generally little understood, with several large sites that dominate the region (such as Susa and Tal-i Malyan) combined with large areas of limited to no known occupation.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 47

Figure 1.3. General map of ‘Elam’, indicating the three historical provinces, Khuzistan, Luristan and Fars. Shaded area corresponds to a hypothetical extension of Elam. Red squares mark major ancient ‘Elamite’ and Mesopotamian sites, black modern towns/cities. Shaded area does not directly correspond with either a) modern political boundaries of Iran, or b) the actual known or anticipated extension of Elam. Map after Carter & Stolper 1984: fig. 1, with alterations.

1.2.2 Chronology This study focuses on the cylinder seals from Elam from c.3500 BC to c.1000 BC. Both the upper and lower limits of this chronological definition must, however, be discussed. Despite the above outlined fact that it cannot accurately be stated that ‘Elam’ was used by outsiders to describe the region of southwestern Iran until roughly 2500 BC, and that a complementary Elamite term was not in use for some 900 years, this study begins its amalgamation and analysis of the cylinder seals of Elam around 3500 BC, or in Susian archaeological terms the Susa II period (see Chapter 2). There are several reasons why the discussion of ‘Elamite’ cylinder seals begins a full millennium before the use of the term in Mesopotamia, and nearly two millennia before its indigenous use, none of which should in any way be construed to mean that

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 48 it is being proposed ‘Elam’ in any capacity was in existence c.3500 BC (when Elam came to exist will be discussed in further detail below, Chapter 2). Firstly, as already mentioned, it is sometime around the middle of the 4th millennium BC that the cylinder seal was first developed in southern Mesopotamia and southwestern Iran (Collon 2005: 11 – 16). This study is equally devoted to cylinder seals as to Elamite archaeology. Thus, for the sake of completeness, it seemed apposite to commence this study with the earliest manifestation of cylinder seals (in Iran and generally). Secondly, as the primary aim of this study is to establish a continuous stylistic paradigm for the cylinder seals of Elam it is appropriate to begin the construction of this paradigm with their earliest appearance, to facilitate a continuous development by definition. Also, as will be discovered below, several styles (particularly the Glazed Steatite Style, the Archaic Geometric Designs and the Susa III/IV Style; see Chapter 4 for details) straddle the period before and after the first recorded use of the term ‘Elam’, and so for the sake of comparison it is necessary to include all the partially contemporary styles of these from the earlier periods, for comparison and completeness. Another reason in favour of this earlier beginning date is that to begin the discussion of Elamite cylinder seals abruptly with the first foreign, or indeed local, evidence for the use of the term ‘Elam’ would create the false and facile impression that Elam was suddenly born with its first annunciation. Rather than develop suddenly from a vacuum it is much more likely that Elam existed before its first vocalisation, and so it is not entirely false to speak of Elamite cylinder seals prior to this earliest use. Most importantly and convincingly, and as will become more apparent below in the discussion of both the styles (Chapter 4) and the contact between Elam and Mesopotamia (Chapter 7), problems, questions and indeed illustrations of phenomena that arise in the early ‘pre-Elamite’ periods and styles echo, foretell and prefigure those of the true Elamite periods and so their annunciation here further illustrates these points and increases our understanding of them. For once again, it is important to study and describe these phenomena from their earliest manifestation for a more complete understanding of these processes and their development. The later chronological limit of this study must also be explained. The end of the Middle Elamite period is dated to c.1000 BC (see below Chapter 2.1.7 for details

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 49 of this slight readjustment of previous chronological assessments) and it is here that this study takes its leave. The study is concluded here due to wider historical/political considerations, glyptic dynamics and archaeological factors. Archaeologically, there is a break in occupation in Khuzistan and Fars following the end of the Middle Elamite period (Potts 1999: 260ff.), that provides a convenient point of departure. Glyptically, in the following Neo-Elamite period, stamp seals again begin to become common, eventually gaining pre-eminence (Amiet 1972: 273 – 297; Collon 1997: 15 – 16). As the focus of this study is specifically cylinders, only the periods during which they are in dominance are studied here. Thus this study finishes at the end of the Middle Elamite period, before the following period when the primacy of the cylinder seal diminishes (and indeed, is established in the period when the cylinder seal first gains ascendancy for the same reason). Finally, historically and politically, in the periods under discussion here (c.3500 – 1000 BC) the contacts and interactions between Elam and Mesopotamia were primarily focused on the western front towards southern Mesopotamia (variously Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia) as will be discovered in the contact chapter (Chapter 7). However, in the proceeding Neo-Elamite period (and following) this focus of interaction switches, at least for a time, to northern Mesopotamia, particularly the area of (Potts 1999: 260ff.). Also, the Neo-Elamite period announces the earliest appearances of the Persians and other related peoples (Potts 1999: 260ff.). Thus to continue this study into this period would open up this discussion to a whole new realm of regional contacts and interactions. This study is focused on the cylinder seals of Elam primarily, with a secondary purpose of analysing the nature of the contacts between Elam and Mesopotamia (and also, though not of relevance here, the function of cylinder seals in Elam). A cut off point at the end of the Middle Elamite period (c.1000 BC) is adopted here firstly because in the following periods stamp, rather than cylinder, seals again rise to prominence, thus failing the first test of this study, that of the cylinder seal. The end of the Middle Elamite period is also adopted here as a departure date, for in the preceding period Elam enters a phase of different interaction focus (at least for a time) from southern Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia) to northern Mesopotamia (Assyria) and northern Iran (while it is indeed true that some interaction between Elam and northern Mesopotamia occurred in these earlier periods, the overwhelming focus of the interaction pattern was to the south, as will be shown [Chapters 2 and 7]).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 50 Thus the c.3500 – c.1000 BC chronological span is adopted here because it enables the complete discussion of the exact parameters of this study, namely the study of cylinder seals from Elam, and through this to test the nature of the pertinent interaction between (southern) Mesopotamia and Elam.

1.3 Summation The primary aim of this work is to create a defined and functioning stylistic paradigm for the cylinder seals of Elam, from their earliest appearance (c.3500 BC) through to the end of the Middle Elamite period (c.1000 BC), to trace and articulate their development across this time span. This study is intended to fill a gap in the literature pertaining both to Elam and to glyptic studies. While the cylinder seals of neighbouring Mesopotamia are relatively well-studied and understood, and a stylistic/developmental construct is quite established, the same cannot be said of the seals of neighbouring Elam. Despite this fact Elamite cylinder seal styles are often, most unsatisfactorily given their lack of articulation, used to illustrate and define elements of international contacts and social constitution. The lack of an articulated, defined stylistic paradigm is not due to a lack of material however. Indeed, over 3500 seals and sealings provenanced from the region of Elam have been published in various manners by various authors (Susa [Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1972], Chogha Mish [Delougaz & Kantor 1996], Haft Tepe [Negahban 1991], Choga Zanbil [Porada 1970], Tepe Sharafabad [Schacht 1975], Deh-i No [Amiet 1972], Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Kamtarlan and Chigha Sabz [William Forte 1981; Schmidt et al. 1989], Bani Surmah [Tourovets 1996; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006], Kalleh Nisar [Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008], Godin Tepe [Young & Levine 1974; Weiss & Young 1975], Tepe Djamshidi and Tepe Giyan [Contenau & Ghirshman 1935], Chogha Gavaneh [Abdi & Beckman 2007] and Tal-i Malyan [Carter 1996; Nicholas 1990; Sumner 2003]). Furthermore, it is extremely probable, and indeed stated in some instances (for example, Sumner 2003: 107; Weiss & Young 1975: 8 – 10), that more relevant glyptic material has been unearthed in numerous excavations but not published. Thus the lack of articulation does not lie in a dearth of information. Rather, the insufficiency in the literature lies in the fact that either due to political realties (with scholars unable to view certain pieces of material, thus Haft Tepe), coincidences of publications (the works regarding the two major sites, Susa and Choga Zanbil, were prepared simultaneously, and thus without real availability of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 51 coincident material [Amiet 1980: 140]), or simple cursory treatment (with only limited detail and treatment rendered to material as part of a larger excavation reports or preliminary articles, thus Haft Tepe, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Tepe Sharafabad, etc.) the glyptic material of Elam has not been thoroughly nor adequately studied. Therefore, this study aims to fill the void in the literature by uniting the disparate and varyingly treated pieces of Elamite glyptic material and studying them each with reference to the other in order to create a single, definable, functioning stylistic paradigm. Through the creation of this paradigm several previous assertions and conclusions that have drawn heavily upon Elamite glyptic material as evidence can be tested. In particular these include problems regarding the nature and extent of Elamite/Mesopotamian contact and relations (Chapter 7). As well as testing these theories this study will also discuss the use and function of cylinder seals in Elam across time (Chapter 6). In order to facilitate the previous outlined discussions, the parameters of this study have been set, somewhat artificially. Thus the area of Elam is defined at its largest conceivable extent throughout the entire chronological span of this study, bounding the areas of Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars. This is not to suggest, and should in no way be used as evidence for, a conclusion that Elam, in any articulated capacity, extended to these borders over any period of time, but rather this greatest extension is employed to facilitate a complete and thorough study, across the entire chronological span defined here. Thus in some periods areas of Luristan fell within the Elamite realm, while in others not, however, in this study the rule of inclusion ordains that this area is included in the extent of ‘Greater Elam’ for the entirety of our attention, so as to provide completeness. The chronological parameters of c.3500 – 1000 BC have been set in order to fulfil the primary aim of this study, to construct a stylistic paradigm of the cylinder seals of Elam, and the secondary goal to examine the nature of the interaction between southern Mesopotamia and Elam. Thus the chronological span of this study details the period of the main use and pre-eminence of the cylinder seal, from its earliest use and beginnings of primacy over stamp seals, until the period where its ascendency began to wane. The earliest date, though certainly before one can speak with accuracy of ‘Elam’ is also set so as to fully appreciate the extent and limitations of Mesopotamian influence over a period or part of Elam. In order to accurately test

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 52 the extent of Mesopotamian-Elamite contact in any one period, the preceding and proceeding periods must also be studied in order to provide a comparable data set, a control to decide on an increase or decrease in Mesopotamian influence. The later date is also set, as the following period marks the beginning of the era when the nature of the contacts of Elam switches to other areas, and thus ushers in a change in the pattern of interactions, that would form another study entirely. As articulated above, this work aims to embrace the archaeological, rather than art-historical approach to glyptic studies. As such, rather than merely focusing on the visual style of a particular seal/sealing, the function of seals and sealings, the materials of the seals and the provenance of the particular item, both in a macro-site sense and micro(within)-site sense are studied. Already a preliminary base of seal function has been outlined in this chapter (Chapter 1.1.2). This will be expanded upon and re-stated from an Elamite, rather than Mesopotamian, perspective (following the articulation of the styles) in Chapter 6. Also, the preceding chapter has given an articulated nomenclature system of materials (Chapter 1.1.3), for use with the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, that will facilitate the discussion and comparison of the styles (Chapters 4 and 5). The following chapter (Chapter 2), will continue the archaeological approach of this study by providing an outline of the position of the Elamite glyptic material in time (chronology) and space (the specific archaeology of each site) that will enable the discussion of both the nature of interaction (Chapter 7) and the function of the seals (Chapter 6), that follows the actual articulation of the styles (Chapter 4; Chapter 5 will provide a summary of the specific glyptic material and styles from each ‘Elamite’ site).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 53 Chapter 2 – History, Chronology and Archaeology of Elam, c. 3500 – 1000 BC This chapter will outline the history, chronology and archaeology of southwestern Iran, according to the current state of our knowledge. The first section (Chapter 2.1) will provide a general outline of the historical, chronological and general archaeological developments of Elam (and, in the earlier phases, pre-Elamite southwestern Iran) during the chronological limits of this study (c.3500 – 1000 BC). The second section (Chapter 2.2) will provide a more detailed outline of the archaeology of the period here studied, specifically through a discussion of the relevant Elamite sites (that is, those sites that yielded glyptic material included in the Corpus). It should be noted that this chapter, and indeed the entire study, is devoted to these subjects from a decidedly glyptic perspective. Thus, only passing reference, where relevant, will be given to sites and phenomena not pertaining to the current subject (that is, glyptic studies). The primary aim of this chapter is to provide the context for the seals and the stylistic paradigm here created. As will be further discussed below, the chronological framework provided here is used in both the construction and definition of these styles, and in their designation (hence, the so-named ‘Susa II’ and ‘Susa IV’ Styles for example [Chapter 4]). This chapter will thus establish the context both in time and space for the material under discussion here, and as such will provide the foundations upon which the edifice of the discussion will be built. Not only the general discussion of the glyptic styles (Chapter 4), but also the preceding discussions relating to their function (Chapter 6) and Mesopotamian contact (Chapter 7) will be built upon the following historical, chronological and archaeological study. The following is not intended to be a thorough study of all things Elamite, for we have not the time nor space for such detail here. The reader is directed to the historical and archaeological surveys in Carter and Stolper (1984) and Potts (1999), and other sources cited in the course of this text, for more complete treatments of this subject. As will be detailed below (Chapter 3), both the historical/chronological evidence and the archaeological context of the glyptic material were methods, or pieces of evidence, used in the construction of the styles. While one method among others, this whole chapter is devoted to the discussion of this evidence as it also provides the context for the later discussions regarding contact and function.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 54 2.1 History and Chronology of Elam The following section will attempt to provide an outline of the historical, political and chronological developments of Elam during the relevant time constraints. As mentioned above, this chapter is not intended to be a detailed discussion nor reanalysis of the history of Elam, both because the required philological and historical skills and sources are lacking, and because this is not the aim of the study. Rather the preceding is intended as an outline and introduction to the history/chronology of Elam, to provide the context for the study and elucidation (and indeed in some cases, the appellation) of the seal styles, and to facilitate the later discussion regarding Elamite-Mesopotamian contact. Like the already discussed nature of the term ‘Elam’ itself, the history of the entity is largely gleaned not from indigenous, Elamite sources, but rather from Mesopotamian (Sumerian and Akkadian) texts that directly discuss, or merely allude to their eastern neighbour(s) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 3 – 5). This has the effect of both decidedly skewing and biasing the information, as it is viewed through foreign, at times enemy, glasses, and of creating gaps and lacunae in our sources that correspond to periods of limited Mesopotamian-Elamite contact and to areas, facets and phenomena of Elamite culture that were of no interest or relevance to the Mesopotamian observers. This Mesopotamian bias is due to the wealth of texts and details from that area and the relative dearth of similar information from Elam. Furthermore, the itself remains not entirely deciphered, further complicating and reducing the reliable reading of the few sources that are found in this language. Little can be done to rectify this situation here, however the nature and state of the Elamite historical sources, and the Mesopotamian sources, should be noted. Indeed, as if to compound the Mesopotamian bias of the historical/chronological sources, what little Elamite (that is indigenous material sourced from within the confines of Elam; and it should be noted that linguistically, these texts may be Akkadian [or indeed rarely Sumerian] rather than Elamite) sources that are available, are themselves predominantly sourced from Susa, and so further lend a lowland, Mesopotamian-orientated aspect to the information (see the below discussion for the Mesopotamian-like nature of the Susiana lowlands). Thus in the preceding survey many of the titles and discussions are decidedly Susa-centric. This is not to argue for or against the proposal that Susa was the centre of Elam for any or all

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 55 periods, but rather is a reflection of the reality of the currently available materials. Where possible other, non-Susian materials are also included in the preceding survey, though as will become apparent on reading, there is not often sufficient information to make such a study plausible. Similarly, the Mesopotamian bias of the material and sources, as well as their Susian Mesopotamian nature means that many of the periods and divisions are here outlined in relation, and opposition, to contemporary Mesopotamian periods. This paradoxical phenomenon simultaneously reflects the reality of an actual accord between Mesopotamian and Elamite history (especially as represented in our current state of knowledge) and the above outlined preponderance of Mesopotamian studies and information (that is the actual available materials). Again, thus is the current state of our knowledge, and is neither to be admonished nor lauded, but merely noted and accepted. In the following survey, sites analysed in this study that demonstrate evidence for a particular period occupation (for example, the Middle Elamite Choga Zanbil occupation), will merely be stated as such. Following the outline of the chronological paradigm of this study here included, a thorough treatment of each site, and the evidence for occupation of any period will be given (Chapter 2.2). The reader is thus directed to these sections (for example, following the above cited Choga Zanbil reference, one would see, Chapter 2.2.1.4) for evidence and discussion of this material, and bibliographical references.

2.1.1 Susa II As already discussed, the point of origin of this study is the invention or adoption of the cylinder seal in lowland Elam (Khuzistan) (Chapter 1). This event is conventionally dated c.3500 BC (Collon 2005: 11 – 16), which corresponds generally to the middle of the Susa II period. Thus the earliest phase of Elamite (or more correctly in this case, pre-Elamite southwestern Iranian) history included in this study is the Susa II period. This period is conventionally dated c.3800 – 3100 BC (Potts 1999: 52), and thus, strictly speaking it is only the later part of this period that correctly belongs in this study, according to the definition of cylinder seal dominance for a period’s inclusion previously outlined (Chapter 1). The entire phase is included however, for the sake of completeness, and as the c.3500 BC date for the origin of the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 56 cylinder seal is itself only theoretical, and thus to arbitrarily begin this study in the middle of a period on a hypothetical proposal seems imprudent. The Susa II period can generally be defined as an urban civilisation that is manifestly similar, in material culture forms and styles, to the contemporary period of neighbouring Mesopotamia, the (Potts 1999: 52 – 53). Susa and the other Khuzistan/Susiana plains towns (and Luristan sites) that demonstrate a Susa II material culture (in this study, Chogha Mish, Tepe Sharafabad, possibly at the unexcavated Deh-i Now, Chigha Sabz and Godin Tepe all demonstrate Susa II type or contemporary cultures, see below for details) are thus part of an horizon of shared material culture characteristics that stretches from Habuba Kabira in the west through Mesopotamia and Iran in the east (Algaze 1993; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112 – 114; Potts 1999: 52 – 69). This shared culture manifests itself particularly in ceramic and control/administrative artefacts (including cylinder seal styles, accounting/‘proto- ’ tablets, bullae, clay tokens), and is conventionally labelled, following Algaze, as the ‘Uruk World System’ (Algaze 1993; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112 – 114). There is some debate in the literature regarding the exact nature both of this system generally (Collins 2000; Rothman [ed.] 2001) and in the Iranian/Elamite realm specifically (Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Steinkeller 1993; Potts 1999: 52 – 69). This question will form part of the later discussion regarding Susian/Elamite ‘ethnic duality’ and Mesopotamian contacts (Chapter 7), and so need not overly occupy us here. For the purposes of this survey, suffice it to note for now that there is a marked similarity between the material cultures of (particularly) lowland southwestern Iran (particularly Susa, Chogha Mish and Tepe Sharafabad included in this study), and Mesopotamia, dating to the Susa II – Uruk period, so much so that while the preference of scholars working in an Iranian field may be to adhere to an indigenous, non-externally defined chronological term (Susa II), the foreign periodisation ‘Uruk’ would equally well apply and characterise this period (indeed further, the Early, Middle and Late Uruk subdivisions are equally meaningful and applicable here [Wright & Johnson 1985: 28]) (Potts 1999: 52 – 53).

2.1.2 Susa III Again, as will be discussed in greater detail below (Chapter 7), the following period in the chronological paradigm of this study, the Susa III period, demonstrates an apparent marked dissimilarity with both the preceding Susa II/Uruk culture, and with

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 57 the contemporary Mesopotamian Jemdet Nasr horizon (Potts 1999: 71 – 83; Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 – 132; the rights or wrongs of the term Jemdet Nasr, and its definition, are beyond the scope of this study, and not entirely of relevance, for more detailed discussion see [Finkbeiner & Röllig (eds.) 1986]). Conventionally dated c.3100 – 2900 BC (Potts 1999: 84), the Susa III period is represented in this study at Susa, possibly the later part of the early Tepe Sharafabad occupation (though more correctly, this fragmentary material belongs to the Uruk/Susa II cultural world, see below), (in its later stages) at Kamtarlan I, at Godin Tepe, in funerary evidence at Tepe Djamshidi, at Tepe Giyan and at Tal-i Malyan. The highland /Tal-i Malyan periodisation, the Banesh horizon, is considered generally contemporary with the Susa III culture (though Early Banesh, not represented at Tal-i Malyan or any site in this study, probably extends before the Susa III period into contemporaneity with the Later Susa II, and the Late Banesh possibly continues beyond the Susa III period of lowland Khuzistan, into the following Susa IV period). The Susa III period has previously been labelled the ‘Proto-Elamite’ period, after the distinctive (and different from the ‘proto-cuneiform’ Susa II/Uruk and Mesopotamian) texts known from Susa and elsewhere (including Tal-i Malyan in this study) so characteristic of this period (Potts 1999: 71; Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 – 132). The term ‘Proto-Elamite’ was coined by Scheil (1905), and demonstrates a conscious suggestion that the (still unknown and fully undeciphered) language of these texts was related to the later, truly historical Elamite cuneiform language (Potts 1999: 71). No evidence for nor against such a relational link is currently known (Potts 1999: 71 – 74), and to then in turn apply this term to the cultural manifestation as a whole, and thus enforce a ‘genetic’ link between the Proto- and true (historical) Elamites seems imprudent (Potts 1999: 71 – 74). Rather, the non-culturally specific ‘Susa III’ term is employed here to describe this period. It seems, however, perhaps equally inappropriate to refer to the texts from this period and type known from Tal-i Malyan (and elsewhere, interestingly, but not included here due to geographical considerations, at Tepe Sialk, Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta, among others [Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 – 132]) by a specifically lowland/Susian term as Susa III. For this reason, and because the term is so entrenched in the literature (including in the realms of glyptic styles, as detailed further below [Chapter 4]), ‘Proto-Elamite’ is retained here to refer specifically to the texts (and some of the associated glyptic paraphernalia). Whenever so used, the discontent and alleged, though unproven,

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 58 nature of this term is indicated by the use of inverted commas (thus ‘Proto-Elamite texts’). As already mentioned, the material cultural of this period is generally considered to starkly contrast that of the preceding period of Mesopotamia/Iran, and of contemporary Mesopotamia (Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 – 132; Amiet 1979a; 1979b). The Susa III culture manifests itself in shared styles of ceramics, texts (as already mentioned), and (at least partly) a distinctive glyptic style (the so-called ‘Classic Proto-Elamite Style’ [Pittman 1997], discussed in greater detail below [Chapter 4]), in a region from Susa in the west, to Malyan in the east, and beyond the realms of this study, to the Kerman site Tepe Yahya and the Sistan, at Shahr-i Sokhta, as well as north to the Plateau at Tepe Sialk (Potts 1999: 71 – 83; Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 – 132). This extension indeed has led to the hypothesis of a ‘Proto-Elamite Expansion’, similar to the Uruk Expansion of the previous period (Potts 1999: 70 – 79; Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Weiss & Young 1975). The accuracy or otherwise of the characterisation of this material as strikingly different to what came before it, and the nature of this ‘Expansion’, will be returned to through an examination of the glyptic material, following the annunciation and codification of these styles (Chapter 7).

2.1.3 Susa IV The following period in the current paradigm is, for the sake of simplicity, referred to here as ‘Susa IV’, though more correctly this period, as used here, refers to the earlier part of that phase as characterised at Susa (the Susa IVA period), with the latter part, Susa IVB, associated with the Akkadian ‘annexation’ of Susa (Potts 1999: 112), and thus the following period of our paradigm. This confusion of terms demonstrates several problems with the construction of such a paradigm, based upon archaeological and historical material over an extended and diverse area. The use of Susa IV to refer to the entire archaeological era, and so to correspond both to the current period and that of the Akkadian intrusion, is rejected here as this would deny the reality of, and remove the emphasis on, the difference in historical Mesopotamian interaction terms and material culture, wrought by the Akkadian advent (this is not to deny the accuracy of the Susa IV definition of the specific stratigraphy of Susa discussed below however). Another solution to the possible confusion here could be the abandonment of the Susa IV term altogether, except to refer to the internal periodisation of Susa, in favour of the Mesopotamian term ‘Early Dynastic’ to refer to this earlier period, and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 59 ‘(Old) Akkadian’ to refer to the time of their invasion. While this solution may serve for the sake of clarity in the use of Susa IV, the false impression that the Iranian/Elamite material culture of this period was essentially Mesopotamian would be created. Furthermore, on a purely theoretical/ideological level, the retention of Iranian/Elamite terms of reference over Mesopotamian-centric terms, unless entirely descriptive of a strong material culture (and probably generally cultural) similarity, is preferred. Thus, despite the apparent confusion of the term, Susa IV is used here to describe the period following the Susa III, but preceding the Akkadian annexation of Susa/Susiana (and beyond), with the understanding that in strictly Susian archaeological terms, the period intended is more correctly the Susa IVA period only. The use of the term Susa IV is also advocated (over a substituted Mesopotamian periodisation) because the Susa III period continues into the early part of the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic period (Early Dynastic I) (Potts 1999: 90), further making the Mesopotamian term confusing and inappropriate. The post-Susa III, pre-Akkadian Susa IV is conventionally dated c.2900 – 2330 BC (that is ending with the invasion of Sargon) (Potts 1999: 128), though the precise nature of the Susa III – IV transition is unknown, with several forms and styles apparently developing from one to another, with no sharp or definite break in tradition (as testified to by such glyptic styles as the Susa III/IV Style, detailed below [Chapter 4]). However, other Susa III material culture types, including the (‘Proto-Elamite’) texts, statuary and some of the glyptic styles (emphasis must be placed on some of the glyptic styles, contra Amiet [1992a: 82], and others, who implicitly or otherwise see a total break in glyptic tradition, as will be discussed further below [Chapter 4]) are seemingly abandoned in favour of Early Dynastic Mesopotamian influenced material, and material associated with northern, Luristan regions (Potts 1999: 90 – 92). In some respects, therefore, the material culture of this period corresponds to Early Dynastic forms (Potts 1999: 92 – 97), though specifically Iranian/Elamite styles and types also occur, such as the so-called ‘Trans-Elamite’ phenomenon and the carved-soft-stone vessels of the Intercultural Style (série ancienne) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 132 – 135; Potts 1999: 98 – 100). The Susa IV (pre-Akkadian) period is represented in this study by occupation at Susa, Kamtarlan I and II, Chigha Sabz, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan, and the terminal Banesh period occupation of Tal-i Malyan. It should be noted that much of this evidence, in the form of grave goods

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 60 from Luristan sites, displays a particularly Early Dynastic Mesopotamian, rather then lowland Susa IV type (see below, the relevant site descriptions for details). This is despite that fact that the significant occupation in the Luristan region of this period may be linked to the ‘Iranian’ cultural phenomenon ‘Awan’ in its earlier manifestation (Potts 1999: 97 – 98). Awan will be discussed further below. In an important historical event, the Susa IV period corresponds to that of the first definite, historical reference to ‘Elam’ (Potts 1999: 87). These references, found on the Early Dynastic III (c.2600 – 2350 BC) , include several references to bellicose relations between, in some cases (for example, of ) known historical, Mesopotamian figures and eastern regions, including Elam and Awan (Potts 1999: 87; Jacobsen 1939). If the proposed date of c.2675 BC for Enmebaragesi of Kish (Edzard 1967a: 54; Potts 1999: 87) is accepted, the first truly historical reference to Elam can thus be dated generally to this period (Potts 1999: 87). From this point on, one can speak of Elam as an actual entity, though the precise definition of what it is, and the boundaries of Elam, remain uncertain.

2.1.4 Akkadian and Awan Another historical event, the invasion of Susa by Sargon of Agade, defines both the end of the Susa IV period in this study, and the beginning of the following Akkadian/Awan period. From this point on, the history and chronological periodisation of Elam is inexorably linked to historical dates and phases of Mesopotamia, with many of the successive periods similarly defined by interactions (generally bellicose) with Mesopotamia. The task at hand is to reconcile both the, generally external, historical sources (and the scant, though in some instances important local historical sources) and the archaeological evidence, to define discreet chronological entities that are relevantly ‘Elamite’. Sargon’s long reign is conventionally dated c.2334 – 2279 BC1, with the conquest of Susa/Elam early in this reign (c.2330 BC), as testified to by several year names detailing eastern conquests (Potts 1999: 101; Gelb & Kienast 1990: 49 – 50). Old Babylonian copies of Sargon’s Royal Inscriptions also detail the long and continued interaction between Sargon and the east; to Elam and indeed other ‘Iranian’ regions such as URUxA, Barashum, Awan and others (Potts 1999: 102; Gelb &

1As is standard, all dates of Mesopotamian kings in this study (unless otherwise stated) follow Brinkman 1977.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 61 Kienast 1990). Sargon’s successors, , and Naram- all continued to dominate and aggressively interact with ‘Elam’ and the east (Potts 1999: 103 – 108). Indeed, in the cases of Rimush, Manishtusu and Naram-Sin textual and inscribed evidence indicates that governors (ensí) were appointed at Susa and in ‘Elam’ (Potts 1999: 103 – 111; demonstrated by Table 2.1), further indicating that Elam, or at least Susa, was incorporated into the . Furthermore, inscribed bricks attest to the construction of a building, possibly a temple, at Susa by Naram-Sin (Potts 1999: 107). Indeed, beyond Susa and lowland Khuzistan, Akkadian kings claim to have ‘conquered’ or visited such far flung eastern locations as Awan (Sargon, Rimush), Mahrashi/Barahsum (Sargon, Rimush, Naram-Sin), Anshan (Manishtushu), the lands of the (Naram-Sin), Meluhha (Rimush) and even across the Gulf to the Arabian Peninsular (Manishtushu, Naram-Sin) (Potts 1999: 103 – 108). The accuracy or otherwise of these ‘conquests’, whether they were achieved by the Akkadian kings themselves or by proxy, or whether they more correctly reflect mere kingly rhetoric and propaganda (Potts 1999: 103), is a moot point for the current discussion, for whatever the ancient reality, such a list indicates that such eastern regions, beyond Elam were, at least, part of the Akkadian world; “on the map” as it were. The fall of the Akkadian Empire is traditionally attributed to the incursion and intrusion of an eastern highland (from the southern Mesopotamian perspective) people, the Guti (Potts 1999: 121). Like Awan below (and indeed, in a certain regard, the precise borders of Elam), the exact location of the Guti homeland is unknown (Potts 1999: 121), though a northwestern Iranian region is generally hypothesised, perhaps as north as Iranian or as south as or Luristan (Potts 1999: 121 – 122). Whatever the case, it can certainly be shown that, beginning in the reign of the Akkadian Shar-kali-sharri, and culminating in that of his successor, Dudu, the power and authority of the Akkadian Empire was greatly diminished, and eventually collapsed, with the western Iranian regions Awan and Elam again (or for the first time truly) asserting their independence from Mesopotamian authority, as testified to by the inscriptions (in the so-called ‘’ language) of the “twelfth king of Awan”, Puzur- (Potts 1999: 108 – 111,125 – 127; see below). The precise structure of Akkadian sovereignty and Susiana vassalship and gubernatorial status, and that of individuals entitled ‘king’ () of Awan and other

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 62 eastern regions, is currently unclear (Potts 1999: 109 – 111), and the details of such a system will no doubt continue to allude us without further evidence. The existence of an apparently contemporary ‘Dynasty of Awan’ in the Akkadian period also further complicates and confuses the political structure of the Elamite/Iranian world in this period. The ‘Awan Dynasty’ is known from an Old Babylonian (therefore chronologically significantly removed) text that lists twelve kings of Awan (along with twelve from Shimashki discussed further below) (Scheil 1931: 2; Potts 1999: 144, 109 – 111), as illustrated in Table 2.1. The precise location of ‘Awan’ is currently unknown, though a locus in the area north of Khuzistan, incorporating the modern provinces of Luristan, Kermanshah, Kurdistan and Hamadan (and thus including part of the area here defined broadly as ‘Elam’ [Chapter 1]) has been suggested (Potts 1999: 97 – 98). The veracity of the Old Babylonian Dynastic List must also be questioned however, due to the chronological distance between the reigns of these ‘kings’ and their notation in the List (the possibility that this list is a copy of a more ancient, contemporary with Awan list is accepted, similar to the Old Babylonian copies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions already mentioned, though without any evidence to support such a suggestion, the chronological remove must currently be acknowledged however), and our awareness that such lists may often serve contemporary political purposes and rhetoric rather then ancient realities (Potts 1999: 144). However, several individuals named on the list (Sanam-shimut, Hishrep-ratep, Luh-ishan and Puzur-Inshushinak) are elsewhere accorded other political offices in the Elamite/Susiana realm, and associated with Akkadian (or in the case of Puzur-Inshushinak, Ur III Dynasty) kings, as demonstrated by Table 2.1.

Kings of Awan Other Mesopotamian King Association (according to the ‘Awan ‘Elamite’ Dynasty List’ Officials Pi-e-li Ta-a-ar Uk-ku-ta-hi-eš Hi-i-šu-ur Akkadian Dynasty Sanam-shimut ↔ Sargon – OB copies of Sargon’s royal inscriptions commemorate victories over “Sanam-shimut, governor (ensí) and viceroy (?) (GÌR.NITA) of Elam” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 11; Potts 1999: 102). Ulul Sidga’u

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 63 Kings of Awan Other Mesopotamian King Association (according to the ‘Awan ‘Elamite’ Dynasty List’ Officials Na-pi-il-hu-eš Ki-ik-ki-si-me-te-em-ti Hishep-ratep ↔ Sargon – OB copies of Sargon’s royal inscriptions commemorate victories over “Luh- ishan, son of the king (lugal) of Elam, Hishiprashini [Hishep-ratep]” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102). Luh-ishan ↔ Sargon – OB copies of Sargon’s royal inscriptions commemorate victories over “Luh- ishan, son of the king (lugal) of Elam, Hishiprashini” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102). Abalgamash Emashsini Shar-GA-PI Hi-e-lu Eshpum* ↔ Manishtushu – Inscription on a dedicated statue found at Susa names the donor as Eshpum, “servant of Manishtushi”; inscribed seal impressions entitle him “governor (ensí) of Elam” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 13; Potts 1999: 106). Ilshu-rabi Hi-ta-a Epirmupi* ↔ Naram-Sin – “Governor (ensí) of Susa”, “viceroy (GÌR.NITÁ) of the land of Elam”, under Naram- Sin (Carter & Stolper 1984: 14; Potts 1999: 107). Ili’ishmani Ur III Dynasty Puzur-Inshushinak* ↔ Ur- – OB copy of an inscription of Ur- Nammu from names Puzur-Inshushinak as an adversary (Potts 1999: 122; Wilcke 1987: 108 – 111); Gasche et al. 1998); “governor (ensí) of Susa, GÌR.NÍ[TA] of the land of Elam” (Potts 1999: 123); “king (lugal) of Awan” Table 2.1. The ‘Awanite’ Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian kings. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of one or more ‘Dated Seal(s)’ (see Chapters 4 and 7). Information sourced primarily from Potts 1999 and Carter & Stolper 1984.

Thus, through the haze of contradictory evidence and fragmentary (and greatly chronologically removed) inscriptions a general pattern, albeit vague and hypothetical, can be proposed. The area of ‘Awan’, though the exact location of which is currently unknown, is placed in a general west-north-west region of Iran, that is in the area immediately to the north of the Susiana/lowland/Khuzistan Elamite ‘heartland’, possibly in the historical Luristan region (and hence in the greater Elamite realm as used here). This polity (and the term is used most loosely here so as not to

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 64 suggest any concrete structured kingdom but a region with a general authority figure) was manifested by varying limits and extents of recognition, as detailed in the ‘Awan Dynastic List’ (Table 2.1). The ‘Awanite’ entity was generally contemporary with (and indeed preceded it as testified to by Sumerian King List entries that detail Early Dynastic Mesopotamian and Awanite [generally bellicose] interactions [Potts 1999: 127]), the Akkadian Empire. The sovereignty of the kings of Agade over Susa/Susiana is fairly assured, as testified to by numerous inscriptions both from Susa and the Mesopotamian realm, and manifested itself in some reigns by the appointment of governors or viceroys. Some of the individuals listed as Akkadian representatives or governors can also be identified as kings of Awan on the ‘Awan Dynasty List’. It can thus be hypothesised that the ‘kings of Awan’ listed in the earlier part of the list were petty kings or local officials whose territory was annexed by, and incorporated into, the Akkadian Empire. These kings bowed to the superior power of their Akkadian counterparts, and served as essentially vassal kings. Or alternatively, it may be conjectured that the Akkadians, upon conquering Susa, merely co-opted and used the existing political control figures by enlisting the petty Awanite kings as governors. This policy of co-option was not strictly adhered to however as individuals not detailed in the ‘Awan Dynasty List’ also served as officials and governors for the Akkadian Empire (as demonstrated by Table 2.1). With the collapse of the Akkadian Empire, whether at the hands of ‘Iranian’ Guti-tribes or not, local, that is Awanite, political figures again filled the subsequent vacuum, or seized for the first time control of Susa/Susiana. This is testified to by the twelfth and final Awanite king, Puzur- Inshushinak, whose reign at Susa is known from numerous inscriptions at Susa (Potts 1999: 122 – 127). Due to this apparent chronological coincidence of the Awanite ‘dynasty’ or entity, and the Akkadian incursion into Susiana/Elam, the period of the Akkadian Empire in this study is referred to as the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ period, and indeed continues beyond the Akkadian incursion, to the period of Awanite ‘sovereignty’, as testified by Puzur-Inshushinak, until his reign was brought to the end by Ur-Nammu of the Ur III Dynasty, who thus ushered in the following chronological/cultural period. The ‘Akkadian and Awan’ period of this study is thus bracketed by two similar historical events, the annexation of Susa/Susiana, and eventually other ‘Elamite’ areas, into the Akkadian Empire c.2330 BC as the upper limit, and the fall

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 65 of Susa (and before that, Puzur-Inshushinak) to the Ur III kings c.2100 BC as the upper limit. Two sub-phases of this period can thus be identified, the first is the period of the Akkadian domination of Susa and interaction with wider Elam, and the second, following the fall of Agade, is the brief period of Awanite ‘independence’, culminating (and then collapsing) in the reign of Puzur-Inshushinak. This period as a whole is represented in this study at Susa, the funerary remains of Bani Surmah and Kalleh Nisar, at Godin Tepe, Tepe Giyan, and early Early Kaftari period Tal-i Malyan.

2.1.5 Ur III and Shimashki The next chronological phase of this study is labelled the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ phase, and is generally dated from c.2100 – 1940 BC (Potts 1999: 158 – 159). Like the preceding period, this period can also be divided into two historical/political phases defined by ‘Elamite’ – Mesopotamian interactions. The first is defined as the era of Ur III control of Susa/Susian, and if not control, then heavy interaction with Anshan (Potts 1999: 158 – 159), the second is the period of the Shimashki ‘kingdom’ following the fall of Ur (Potts 1999: 158 – 159). Despite our knowledge that the westward expansion of Puzur-Inshushinak was halted by Ur-Nammu, the first king of the Ur III (or Neo-Sumerian) dynasty, it is not until the reign of his son, , that clear evidence for Ur’s control of Susa, and thus the actual conquest/annexation of this region, is apparent (Potts 1999: 130). Inscribed objects and bricks at Susa testify not only to Shulgi’s control of, and activities at Susa (including the construction of a temple to Inshushinak [Malbran-Labat 1995: 22]), but also, the absence of the divine determinative before the king’s name on these inscriptions indicates that these activities, and therefore the Ur III control of Susa, occurred before his apotheosis, in the 23rd year of his reign (Potts 1999: 130 – 132; Sigrist 1992: 8). Other Susian finds, including an inscribed foundation figurine from another temple at Susa, demonstrate that Shulgi continued operations and activities at Susa after assuming divinity, for in these examples dingir precedes his name (Potts 1999: 132; Carter 1990: 95). In the highly ordered and bureaucratic Ur III state, Susa was a high-status seat of a governor, in the peripheral, or second tier, region of the Empire (Potts 1999: 132 – 135; for the structure of the Ur III state, and Susa/Elam’s position within it see Jean 1922; Michalowski 1978; 2008 (ed.); 2008; Sigrist & Gomi 1991). In terms of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 66 taxation, Susa paid a ‘governor’s tax’, but was not obliged to pay the bala tax that defined the central, generally Mesopotamian, core of the Empire (Potts 1999: 132 – 135). Beyond Susa and its second tier region, lay the outer area, not directly governed by a true ensí (governor), but obliged to pay a kind of vassal tribute, obliged that is, under threat of war or raids (Potts 1999: 135). This third tier includes other eastern/Iranian areas, including Anshan and Shimashki (Potts 1999: 135). The other element of Iranian/Elamite – Mesopotamian interaction in this period, aside from direct/gubernatorial control or vassal tributary/raiding and looting, is in the form of inter-dynastic or ‘diplomatic’ marriages (Potts 1999: 136 – 139). Shulgi, -Sin and Ibbi-Sin of Ur all gave their daughters in marriage to princes or petty kings of ‘eastern’ regions, including Anshan, as testified to by the year names of the Ur III kings, and texts dealing with the associated dowry or wedding gifts (Potts 1999: 137). The alleged ‘diplomatic’ purpose of these marriages appear less than successful however, and did little to quell or pacify the pattern of raids and aggression between the Ur III kings and their eastern neighbours, as demonstrated by year names that cite such raids after those indicating such marriages (Potts 1999: 137). The pattern of continued operations and acts of aggression between the kings of the Ur III dynasty and their eastern neighbours continued throughout the period of the Ur III domination of Susa (Potts 1999: 158 – 159). Eventually, it was an apparent coalition of Elamite forces, led by (“the man of Elam [lú-elamki]”) and those of a former general of Ibbi-Sin’s, Ishbi-Erra (the future founder of the First ) that dealt the death blow to the Ur III Empire (Potts 1999: 142; van Dijk 1978: 197; Quintana 1998). Traditionally, it was the Elamites who were credited with this destruction, as in the Sumerian poem the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (Michalowski 1989), and following the settlement after the fall of Ur, Ishbi-Erra expelled Kindattu and his people in the 26th year of his reign (Potts 1999: 142 – 144). Thus the ‘liberation’ of Susa and the eastern lands (or perhaps more correctly, the removal of the Ur III yoke and threat of raids through the final destruction of the Ur III Empire) by Kindattu is conventionally dated c.2004 BC (Potts 1999: 158). This marks the beginning of the second phase of the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period, when Susa and the ‘Elamite’ realm was under the control of the kings of Shimashki (Potts 1999: 158 – 159). The same Susa tablet discussed above that names twelve ‘Kings of Awan’ also names twelve ‘Kings of Shimashki’ (Potts 1999: 144; Scheil 1931: 2). These twelve

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 67 kings are detailed in Table 2.2, along with the evidence for associated Mesopotamian interaction. As can be seen, as well as the just cited associations between the sixth king of Shimashki (Kindattu), the last of the Ur III kings (Ibbi-Sin), and the founder of the Isin Dynasty (Ishbi-Erra), other associations between kings of Shimashki and kings of Ur, before its fall, and subsequently, other kings of other Mesopotamian dynasties, occur. While we have no way of discerning between references and associations of synonymously named kings (for example, if the Amar-Sin and Shu- Sin associations occurred with either Tazitta I or II, or both, or one association with one, another with the other), it is still evident, even discounting any possible contradiction by synonymously named kings, that, at least the earliest part of this list of kings is not dynastic or linear in the true, successive, sense of the word (Potts 1999: 144). Thus, the ‘first’ king, Girnamme, is associated with Shulgi (c.2094 – 2047 BC) and Shu-Sin (c.2037 – 2029 BC) (Potts 1999: 147; Table 2.2). While these associations do not detail successive Ur III kings, the relatively short dividing reign of Amar-Sin (2046 – 2038 BC), makes associations between Girnamme, Shulgi and Shu-Sin not impossible. However, the fact that Shulgi is also associated with Ebarti (I or II), Shu-Sin with Tazitta (I or II) and Ebarti (I or II), and Amar-Sin also with a Tazitta and an Ebarti, indicates that it would be false to conclude that these ‘Awanite kings’ are indeed successive. No filiation is indeed included in the ‘Dynasty’ of Shimashki List, nor any indication of succession, and thus it has been suggested that the first portion of the list details the names of a group of more or less contemporary ‘leaders’ or perhaps petty kings, of highland (that is not Susian) Elamite entities (Stolper 1982: 50; Potts 1999: 144; Steinkeller 2007). The later part of the list, particularly from the reign of Kindattu, may be considered more correctly a ‘dynastic’ (though not necessarily in the absolute sense of genetic or familial relationship) or successive list (Steinkeller 2007: 222). In this regard, the associations with the Ur III kings with individual/s named Ebarti can be linked to the first of this name and rejected for the second (that is the Ur III association is with the ‘third’ Shimashkian king, not the ninth).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 68 Kings of Shimashki Mesopotamian King Association 1. Girnamme ↔ Shulgi of Ur – Guriname (Girnamme) mentioned in a text from Drehem, dated Shulgi 44 (Steinkeller 1988: 201 – 202; Gasche et al. 1998) ↔ Shu-Sin of Ur – Kirname (Girnamme) listed in parallel with governors of Marhashi and the SU in a text dated Shu-Sin 6 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al. 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no.7) 2. Tazzitta I ↔ Amar-Sin of Ur – Dazite (Tazzitta) “man of Anshan” in texts from year Amar-Sin 8 (– Shu-Sin 2) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al. 1998; Keiser 1971: 477) ↔ Shu-Sin of Ur – Dazite (Tazzitta) “man of Anshan” in text from year Shu-Sin 2 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al. 1998; Keiser 1971: 477) 3. Ebarti I* ↔ Shulgi of Ur – (Gasche et al. 1998) ↔ Amar-Sin of Ur – “Iabrat (Ebarti) the SU” in a text from year Amar-Sin 7 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gashe et al. 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no. 7) ↔ Shu-Sin of Ur – “Iabrat (Ebarti) the SU” in a text from year Shu-Sin 6 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al. 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no. 7) 4. Tazitta II see Tazzitta I above 5. Lu-[(x)-r]a-ak-lu-uh-ha-an 6. Kindattu* ↔ Ibbi-Sin of Ur; Ishbi-Erra of Isin – Sumerian Hymn in honour of Ishbi-Erra narrates the war between Ibbi-sin of Ur, Ishbi- Erra of Isin and Kindattu (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Potts 1999: 142); messengers from Ki-in-da-du (Kindattu) mentioned on a text dated Ishbi-Erra 19 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 22; Potts 1999: 145; Gasche et al. 1998; Van Dijk 1978) 6a. Imazu seal inscription: “Son of Kindadu (Kindattu), king [lugal] of Anshan” (MDP 43: 1679 [2456]; Potts 1999: 147) 7. Idaddu I* ↔ Ishbi-Erra of Isin – messengers from I-da-[x] (Idaddu) mentioned on a text dated Ishbi-Erra 19 (Potts 1999: 145) text: “Inta[ttu]-Inshushi[nak], ensí of Susa, GÌR.NÍTA of Elam, son of Pepi” (Potts 1999: 145) text: I-da-du “king of Shimashki and Elam” (Potts 1999: 145) 8. Tan-Ruhurater* ↔ building inscriptions, text: Tan-Ruhurater, ensí of Susa, mentioned as husband of Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama, governor of Eshnunna (Carter & Stolper 1984: 22 – 23; Potts 1999: 146; Gasche et al. 1998; Scheil 1900: 80, pl.15.6; Scheil 1902: 9, pl. 1.6) seal inscription: “Tan-Ruhurater, ensí of Susa … son of I-da- d[u?]” (MDP 43: 1675 [2346]) seal inscription: “Nur-Sin, scribe, son of Puzur-Ishtar, servant of Tan-Ruhurater” (MDP 43: 1674 [2418]).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 69 Kings of Shimashki Mesopotamian King Association 9. Ebarti II* text: “Ebarat, king of Anshan and Susa and Shilhaha sukkalmah and priest of Anshan and of Susa, Adda-hushu (Atta-hushu) regent and scribe of the people of Susa” (Potts 1999: 147) text: “E/Ia---at king” (Potts 1999: 147) text: “son of Kindattu” (Steinkeller 2007: 221 – 222) seal inscription: “Ebarat the king, Kuk-Kalla, son of Kuk- sharum, servant of Shilhaha” (MDP 43: 1685 [2420]). seal inscription: “Buzua, servant of Ebarat” (MDP 43: 1686 [2421]) seal inscription: “…-Inshushinak, scribe, [son of …]-Kalla [?], servant of Ebarat” (MDP 43: 1680 [2372]) 10. Idaddu II* text: “Indattu, ensí of Susa, son of Tan-Ruhurater” (Potts 1999: 148) seal inscription: “Idadu, ensí of Susa, beloved hero of Inshushinak, son of Tan-Ruhurater, to Kuk- the scribe, to his beloved servant, has given [this seal]” (MDP 43: 1677 [2454]) seal inscription: “Idadu, ensí of Susa, Kuk-Inshushinak, messenger, [is] his servant” (MDP 43: 1678 [2455] seal inscription: “Shurimku the doctor, [son of] Puzur-Ishtar, [servant of] Idadu” (MDP 43: 2325 [2442]). 11. Idaddu- ↔ Sumuabum of Babylon – a seal used on a tablet from Susa dated to the reign of Sumuabum was also used on another Susa text mentioning Idaddu-napir (Potts 1999: 146) 12. Idaddu-temti Table 2.2. The ‘Shimashki’ Dynasty with associations with Mesopotamian Kings and inscription and textual references. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of one or more ‘Dated Seal(s)’ (see Chapters 3 and 7). Note that for the seal impressions naming Ebarti and Idaddu, except in instances where filiation is made clear, it is uncertain whether the first or second of that name is intended. Identification (that is placement in the current table) is according to Potts 1999: 147 – 148, though may be subject to alteration in the subsequent ‘Dated Seal’ discussion (Chapter 7). Information sourced primarily from Potts 1999, André-Salvini 1992 and Carter & Stolper 1984.

As evidenced by Table 2.2, the later Shimashkian kings, from Kindattu on, are also known from other external (that is, not ‘Shimashki Dynasty List’) sources, allowing for their order of succession and in some cases filiation, to be hypothesised (Potts 1999: 144 – 149; Steinkeller 2007). The multiplicity of terms used, and areas of sovereignty claimed by these kings, as demonstrated by their inscriptions (king [lugal], governor [ensí], viceroy (?) [GÌR.NÍTA], of Elam, the SU-people, Anshan, and Susa), not to mention the inclusion of these ‘kings’ (excluding Imazu) on a Shimashki Dynasty List, demonstrates either (or perhaps both) a fragmented and ill- defined political structure, and a somewhat ad hoc approach to terms used for different purposes in different circumstances (Potts 1999: 146 – 149). Be that as it may, a general picture of an authority and control exerted by a succession of ‘kings’

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 70 (associated with the, as yet wholly unidentified [Potts 1999: 139 – 149] region, Shimashki) over a large area including, importantly for this study, Susa, Anshan and Elam during a period following the fall of the Ur III dynasty can be created. The end of the Shimashki period is associated with the beginning of the following, Sukkalmah period, and will be discussed in the following section. In conclusion, the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period can be divided into two phases, the first phase saw Susa governed by an installed governor or representative of the reigning Ur III kings, and wider Elam (through to Tal-i Malyan/Anshan) involved in a complex pattern of vassalage and tribute, raiding and hostility and ‘diplomatic’ marriages. The second phase follows the fall of the Ur III dynasty, an event directly precipitated by the ‘king’ of Shimashki (and Elam), Kindattu. A confederation, of unknown structure and strength, of various ‘eastern’ polities previously hostile or subject to the Ur III Empire, including the areas of Susa, Elam, Anshan and Shimashki was subsequently ruled by a succession of ‘kings’ who displayed various titular titles. The ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period is conventionally dated c.2100 – 1940 BC, and is represented in this study at Susa, Kamtarlan II, Chigha Sabz, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan, and later Early Kaftari Tal-i Malyan.

2.1.6 Sukkalmah Unlike the preceding two periods (the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ and ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ periods), the Sukkalmah period is not defined at its upper limit by the invasion and subjection to a foreign (Mesopotamian) ruler. Rather, the Sukkalmah period is characterised by a local, or indigenous ‘Iranian dynasty’, that would eventually raise the prestige and influence of Elam throughout the entire West Asian region (indeed, beyond the southern Mesopotamian field regularly cited here, to Assyria, the Syrian lands of Mari and beyond) to unprecedented levels (Potts 1999: 160). The Sukkalmah period is generally defined here c.1930 – 1500 BC (Potts 1999: 187), though, possibly due to the lack of Mesopotamian intervention, both the upper and lower extent of this span are shrouded in uncertainty and a certain fluidity between the preceding and proceeding periods exists. The term sukkalmah, from whence is derived the name of this period, is already a term of some antiquity in the cuneiform world by the early second millennium BC flourishing of the Sukkalmah

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 71 Dynasty (Potts 1999: 159 – 160). First encountered at pre-Akkadian (Early Dynastic) Girsu (Hallo 1957: 113), the term continued to be used throughout history, including in the Ur III period at (Potts 1999: 160), to refer to a ‘prime minister’/‘chief vizier’, governor or other authority figure (though never, before Elam, to the highest ranking official) (Potts 1999: 160). The precise mechanism whereby the term sukkalmah came to refer to the supreme ruler of the ‘Elamite’ state of the early second millennium, attended by several junior and lugals, is unknown (Potts 1999: 160). Though an analogy of this etymology may possibly be found in the evolution of Latin ‘Caesar’ (a family name, referring, perhaps ironically, to a ‘hairy’ individual, that eventually was synonymous with ‘emperor’) to German ‘Kaiser’. As demonstrated by Table 2.3, Kuk-Kirmash was the first ‘king’ to call himself sukkalmah (or more correctly, the first king for whom we have inscriptional evidence for doing so), while his predecessor, Shilhaha, was the first to be so called (Potts 1999: 162). Shilhaha himself is identified as the “chosen son of Ebart”, identified with Ebarti II, an individual already encountered on the above discussed ‘Shimashki Dynasty List’ (see Table 2.2) (Potts 1999: 162). Whether Ebarti (II) can be considered a sukkalmah (as later named, and testified to in the modern literature by the sometimes cited alternate name of this dynasty ‘Epartid’ [Vallat 1994; 1995]) or a king of Shimashki, or perhaps both, and thus the transitional figure between the two political structures, is unknown at this point (Potts 1999: 162), and indeed compounds and adds to the generally clouded and fragmented picture (as preserved for us in the available textual sources) of the final Shimashkian, initial Sukkalmah period.

Sukkalmah Other officers Mesopotamian King Association Ebarti II ↔ Shu-ilishu “king (lugal) of Anshan and Susa” Shilhaha ↔ of , textually doubtful, (Carter & Stolper 1984: 26) chosen son of Ebarat king (lugal) sukkalmah, adda-lugal of Anshan and Susa Pala-ishshan* Lankuku Kuku-sanit Kuk-Kirmash ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha son of Lankuku of Elam, Shimashki and Susa sukkalmah Tem-sunit Kuk-

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 72 Sukkalmah Other officers Mesopotamian King Association Kuk-Nashur I ↔ (Vallat 1994) son of Shilhaha sukkalmah Atta-hushu* ↔ Gungunum of Larsa – text from Susa dated Gungunum 16 (Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al. 1998; Vallat 1996a: 310 – 311) ↔ Sumuabum of Babylon – text from Susa dated Sumuabum 1 (Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al. 1998; Vallat 1996a: 310 – 311; Vallat 1994) ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha sukkal and ippir of Susa shepherd of the people of Susa shepherd of Inshushinak he who holds the … of Susa Tetep-mada* ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha Shiruk-tuh ↔ of Isin (Gasche et al. 1998; Vallat 1996a: 313 – 314) ↔ Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria- letter to Shamshi- Adad (Shamshi-Adad 28?) reporting on the activities of Shuruktuh (Shiruk-tuh), king of Elam (Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999: 168; Gasche et al. 1998; Læssøe 1965; Vallat 1994) ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha Simut-wartash I son (?) of Shiruk-tuh Siwe-palar-huppak ↔ Hammurabi of Babylon – texts from Mari name Sheplarpak (Siwe-palar-huppak) “king of Elam”, “sukkal of Elam” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 26, 29; Potts 1999: 169 – 171; Gasche et al. 1998; Durand 1986: 111 – 115; Vallat 2000) ‘sister’s son of’ Shiruk-tuh sukkal of Susa prince of Elam Kudu-zulush I ↔ Hammurabi of Babylon – texts from Mari name Kudusulush (Kudu-zulush) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 26, 29) ↔ Zimri-Lim of Mari (Gasche et al. 1998; Durand 1986: 121) ‘sister’s son of’ Shiruktuh sukkal of Susa sukkalmah Kutir-Nahhunte I son (?) of Kudu-zulush Atta-mett-halki Tata*(?) sukkal Lila-irtash Temti-Agun ‘sister’s son of’ Shiruktuh sukkal of Susa Kutir-Silhaha sukkal sukkalmah

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 73 Sukkalmah Other officers Mesopotamian King Association Kuk-Nashur II* ↔ Ammisaduqa of Babylon – text from recording a land grant made by Kuk-Nashur, dated Ammi-saduqa I (Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999: 171; Gasche et al. 1998; Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994) ‘sister’s son of’ Temti-Agun sukkal of Susa sukkal of Elam Temti-raptash Simut-wartash II Kudu-zulush II king of Susa Shirtuh ‘sister’s son of’ Kuk-Nashur king of Susa Kuk-Nashur III ‘sister’s son of Shilhaha sukkal of Elam sukkal of Elam, Shimashki and Susa sukkalmah Tan-Uli ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha sukkal sukkalmah Temti-halki ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha sukkal of Elam, Shimashki and Susa sukkalmah Kuk-Nashur IV ‘sister’s son of’ Tan-Uli sukkalmah Table 2.3. Proposed (tentative) order of succession of the ‘Sukkalmah’ Dynasty, with royal titles and Mesopotamian associations. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of one or more ‘Dated Seal(s)’ (see Chapters 4 and 7). Table after Potts 1999: Table 6.1, with additions and alterations.

In the absence of an indigenous (or indeed non-indigenous, or Mesopotamian) dynastic list or other such source (as flawed as the Awanite, Shimashki, and the following Middle Elamite sources may be, their evidence in this regard is helpful), the general order and succussion of the sukkalmahs is open for debate. A survey of proposed order of successions is thus presented in Table 2.4. The final, though tentative, order employed here is demonstrated in Table 2.3. As illustrated by this table (2.3), the variety of royal terms (lugal, ‘chosen son’, sukkalmah, sukkal, ‘sister’s son’, ippir) and areas of claimed sovereignty (Elam, Anshan, Susa, Shimashki) further confuses the discussion of the order of succession (Potts 1999:160 – 166). Two unique facets of the Sukkalmah ‘state’, as limited as the current evidence is, are owed further remarks. The first is the proposed political structure of the Sukkalmah realm, formed by a kind of governing triumvirate. The senior, or paramount, ruler of this structure appears to be the sukkalmah, with the second in command sukkal (‘minister’) of Elam (and Shimashki), and thirdly (and most lowly),

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 74 the sukkal of Susa (Potts 1999: 162; Cameron 1936: 71 – 85). Upon the death of the sukkalmah, the junior members of the triumvirate are supposedly elevated a rank in the structure, with the next most senior member of the royal family promoted to sukkal of Susa (Potts 1999: 162 – 163). The precise familial relationship (or lack thereof) between the sukkalmah and his sukkals, and the criteria for admittance to the ‘Triumvirate’ (whether the sons or nephews, uncles or fathers were considered ‘heirs’ to various offices), is currently unknown (Potts 1999: 160 – 166). This structure is assumed on the basis of the association of junior officials (sukkals), with a supreme ruler (sukkalmah) in numerous texts and inscriptions from the Sukkalmah period (Potts 1999: 162 – 163; Table 2.3). The second unique Sukkalmah phenomenon is related to the first as it impacts upon the question of succession, and is that of the ruhushak, conventionally translated ‘sister’s son’ (Potts 1999: 162). There is some debate as to whether this term refers to an actual offspring of an incestuous brother-sister relationship, or is a conventional term, perhaps ancestral of earlier incestuous practices, to imply legitimate, or ‘true’ son, or represents an adopted younger brother, or possibly an adopted nephew, or the son of a married couple (genetically related or otherwise), or to a descendant, either close or distant, or to refer to the chosen (through whatever means) heir to the throne (Potts 1999: 166; Cameron 1936: 61; Lambert 1971: 217; Vallat 1989a; 1994; 1995: 1028 – 1029; 1996b: 300 – 301; Yusifov 1974: 328). All such suggestions are indeed possible, and it seems probable that the term may have evolved over the time of its use, perhaps originally employed to refer to an actual genetic descent as with Kuk- Kirmash (whether from a married brother-sister, or a couple who where so named out of deference to a relationship not currently recognised), but eventually employed as a tool for claiming legitimacy and association with an established dynasty, as with the later sukkalmahs who similarly claimed to be the ‘sister’s son of Shilhaha’ (Kudu- zulush II, Kuk-Nashur III, Tan-Uli and Temti-halki), a sovereign who reigned many generations before (as demonstrated by Table 2.3). The existence of this term should be noted however, and the resultant added difficulty in discerning the order of succession of the sukkalmahs acknowledged.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 75 Vallat 1994 & 2000 Potts 1999 Carter & Stolper 1984 Glassner 1994 Ebarat (II) Ebarat II Ebarat Ebarat Silhaha Silhaha Shilhaha Shilhaha Pala-ishshan Pala-ishshan Addahushu Ebarat (II) Ebarat II Shiruktuh Siruk-duh Silhaha Silhaha Shimuktuh Siwepalarhuhpak Siwe-palar-huhpak Kuduzulush Kudu-zulush Pala-ishshan Pala-ishshan Kuk-Nashur Temti-agaun Lankuku Kuk-Nashur I Kuk-sanit Kuku-sanit Kutir-Nahhunte I Kuk-Kirmash Kuk-Kirmash Tem-sanit Kuk-Nahundi Tem-sunit Kuk-Nashur (I) Kuk-Nahundi Kuk-Nashur I Atta-hushu Tetep-mada Atta-hushu Siruk-tuh Simut-wartush (I) Siwe-palar-huppak Tetep-mada Kudu-zulush (I) Shirukt-tuh Simut-wartash I Siwe-palar-huppak Kutir-Nahhunte (I) Atta-merra-halki Tata Kudu-zulush I Lila-irtash Temti-Agun Kutir-Nahhunte I Atta-merra-halki Kutir-Silhaha Tata Kuk-Nashur (II) Lila-irtash Temti-raptash Simut-wartash (II) Kutir-Shilhaha Kudu-zulush (II) Sirtuh Kuk-Nashur II Tan-Uli Temti-halki Temti-raptash Simut-wartash II Kudu-zulush II Kuk-Nashur (III) Sirtuh Kuk-Nashur III [x]-matlat Tan-Uli Temti-halki Kuk-Nashur IV Table 2.4. Comparative table of previous proposed orders of succession of the Sukkalmah Dynasty.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 76 Like its beginning, the end of the Sukkalmah period appears not with a bang of Mesopotamian invasion or war, but rather with a transitional period resulting from (or resultant of) a kingly titular change (Potts 1999: 189). The change from the sukkalmah to ‘King of Susa and Anshan’ (and thus the Middle Elamite period), will be discussed below. As already alluded to above, and as demonstrated by Table 2.3, the interactions between Sukkalmah Elam and Mesopotamia continued throughout the Sukkalmah period (Potts 1999: 166 – 171). Of particular interest is the fact that these interactions followed somewhat of a different pattern to those of previous periods. Whereas previously (the Akkadian, Ur III and the Gungunum interregnum) we have seen ‘warfare’ within the Elamite realm and the conquest of Susa and destruction/raiding of Iranian regions, the Sukkalmah period Elamite – Mesopotamian interactions occurred not within Elam, but on Mesopotamian soil, and at times with the Elamite sukkalmah as chief power and king in several coalitions (Potts 1999: 168 – 169). Thus the coalitions of a sukkalmah (probably Shiruk-tuh) and Zambija of Isin against Sin-iqisham of Larsa, or that of Zimri-Lim of Mari, Hammurabi of Babylon and a sukkalmah (possibly Siwe-palar-huppak or Kudu-zulush I) against the Assyrians (Potts 1999: 168 – 169). While generally short-lived, and ending in ultimate betrayal and a return to patterns of war and raids, the evidence we have for these alliances demonstrate that the ruling sukkalmah was the senior partner whose allies called themselves his ‘sons’, while referring to one another only as ‘brothers’ (Potts 1999: 169 – 171). The status of the sukkalmah even allowed him to play the role of arbiter of disputes between Syrian kings (between the rulers of Qatna and Aleppo), and demand non-aggression towards his interests (thus Hammurabi) and association with possible rivals (thus Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim, Ishme-Dagan of Assyria) (Potts 1999: 168 – 169). The cause for the respect and strength of the sukkalmah of Elam was perhaps partly due to memory of the destruction of Ur by the Shimashkians, but also to the wealth and power of Elam associated with the control of the important tin (and to a lesser extent lapis lazuli) trade from beyond Elam (Afghanistan/Bactria) (Potts 1999: 178 – 182), and no doubt to the basic fact of Elamite/Iranian military power and the size of the army controlled by the sukkalmah (Potts 1999: 169). The different pattern of interaction is also testified to by the period following the breakdown of these alliances. For after the ultimate defeat of Sukkalmah Elam in battle at the hands of its former allies, Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim (who inturn

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 77 eventually turned upon each other), Susa, and Elam generally, was not conquered or occupied as in times past, but continued to assert its independence within the Iranian sphere, and have, albeit less frequent, interactions with Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 171). In summary, the Sukkalmah period begins with a change of kingly titulature, possibly associated with the foundation of a new dynasty (Potts 1999: 160), or the seizure of power by lowland Elamites/Susians, from the Shimashkian dominance of the preceding phase, and the establishment of a three-tiered political power-structure, with a supreme sukkalmah and two junior sukkals. The precise structure and functioning of this system is currently uncertain, as indeed is the pattern and ordering of succession. However, the Sukkalmah period was one of relative stability within Elam, with a long succession of kings claiming joint ancestry (whether ancient actualities or rhetorical devices of usurpers is moot) ruling the general Elamite realm. For a time the sukkalmahs of Elam were owed much respect from their western neighbours, and the general pattern of interaction between Elam and Mesopotamia switched from the Elamite theatre, to that of Mesopotamia. Apart from the brief interregnum of Gungunum of Larsa (c.1932 – 1906 BC) at, at least, Susa, Elam maintained its independence from Mesopotamia throughout the entire Sukkalmah period (here defined 1930 – 1500 BC; thus roughly contemporary to the Old Babylonian period of Mesopotamia, both the earlier Isin-Larsa and later First Dynasty of Babylon phases). In this study Sukkalmah period occupation is encountered at Susa, Chogha Mish, possibly (as argued here, see below for details) Haft Tepe, Tepe Sharafabad, Kamtarlan II, Chigha Sabz, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan, Chogha Gavaneh and Middle and Late Kaftari Tal-i Malyan.

2.1.7 Middle Elamite Period The final period under study is the Middle Elamite period, that follows directly on from the preceding Sukkalmah period. This period is here dated from c.1500 – 1000 BC (Potts 1999: 188), and thus spans the second half of the second millennium BC, broadly contemporary with Kassite (Dynasty) Babylonia. The Middle Elamite period is generally divided into three sub-phases, known as Middle Elamite I (ME I), Middle Elamite II (ME II) and Middle Elamite III (ME III) (Potts 1999: 188, 191; Vallat 1994; 1995: 1026), a fourth Middle Elamite sub-phase (Middle Elamite IV [ME IV]) is also proposed here, as will be discussed below. The ceramic and other

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 78 archaeological assemblages currently lack the refinement necessary to create these sub-divisions and as such the ME I – III paradigm is based upon broad lines of dynastic succession (Potts 1999: 191, 195), like the previously outlined chronological periods (Awanite, Shimashkian, Sukkalmah). Thus this division is primarily historical, and not archaeological. The general chronological outline for this period, including the I – III/IV division, is largely provisional, for as noted above, the divisions are articulated according to dynastic changes, which are themselves somewhat uncertain and fragmentary, and as such are subject to reassessment and alteration according to any subsequent discoveries (indeed, a circumstance which aptly describes all historical/archaeological reconstructions to greater and lesser degrees). A general lack of radiocarbon dating and ceramic periodisation for this period ensures this current reliance on historical divisions. This problem is further confounded by the fact that the Middle Elamite historical sources are intrinsically linked to correlations with the historical tradition from neighbouring Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 188ff.; Vallat 1994). While, as already seen, this is a similar situation to that of previous periods (the ‘Akkadian and Awan’, ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ and ‘Sukkalmah’ periods particularly), the chronology for this period in Babylonian history is itself, however, one of the most uncertain in Mesopotamian history and is still fluid and un-codified (Sommerfield 1995: 919; Brinkman 1970: 307). Indeed, much of the Babylonian chronology for this period is reliant upon calculated comparisons with Assyrian chronology (Brinkman 1976: 6). This has lead Brinkman to state that “Babylonian chronology, in its present state of uncertainty, is not a reliable standard against which to measure other chronologies of the late second millennium” (1970: 307). Despite this ominous warning, the absolute Middle Elamite chronology depends on synchronisms with this unreliable Babylonian chronology (Potts 1999: 206ff.; Steve & Vallat 1989). Meaning that uncertain Babylonian dates, themselves based upon Assyrian correlations, form the basis of Elamite chronology, the inherent faults and dangers of which are obvious. This reliance on Babylonian chronology is a symptom of necessity, not choice, and while the realities of what can and cannot be proven from this, its shortcomings and dangers must be acknowledged, the system must be used for what it can tell us. The general definition of the Middle Elamite period, and the one adhered to here, is that this term refers to the period of the Kingdom (Empire?) of the kings of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 79 ‘Anshan (Anzan) and Susa’ (in Elamite; in Akkadian the order is usually reversed to king of ‘Susa and Anshan’, possibly in an attempt to pander to different ethnic sections of the community) (Potts 1999: 188; Steve et al. 1980: 91; Amiet 1966: 335). Thus a king with a titulature ‘King of Anshan and Susa’ is generally placed in the Middle Elamite period (the exception being the remarkable Eparti (II), already detailed above, who, as well as being the ‘founder’ of the Sukkalmah dynasty, and a ‘king of Shimashki’, also bore the title ‘King of Susa and Anshan’ [Steve et al. 1980: 91 – 92; Amiet 1992a: 85; Potts 1999: 193]). Thus even the definition and cut-off point for the Middle Elamite period is an historically documented event (the change in titulature) and not an archaeologically recognisable occurrence (such as a stratigraphic break or significant change in material culture). The term ‘Middle Elamite’ is employed here as part of a (standard archaeological) tripartite system, Old Elamite, Middle Elamite and Neo-Elamite. For reasons already outlined, the Neo-Elamite period (generally contemporary with the, later, Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian periods) is not included in this study. The term ‘Old Elamite’ has not however, as yet, been encountered in this study, as one might expect, as its usage has been abandoned for the more defined, articulated and refined system adopted here. Broadly speaking, the Old Elamite period can be taken to include the ‘Akkadian and Awan’, ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ and ‘Sukkalmah’ periods of this study. Its use has thus been rejected because, as has been seen, there is significant historical and, perhaps less marked, though no less significant, archaeological differences between these periods to warrant their nomenclature division. While one could argue for the adoption of an Old Elamite I, II and III system to refer to these three periods, as with the system shortly outlined for the three (or four?) Middle Elamite dynasties, this has not been employed however, as it is judged to imply a greater continuity between the periods then is proposed (as opposed to the strong material culture, and titular, similarity across the Middle Elamite sub- divisions). Furthermore, in terms of Mesopotamian-Elamite interactions, an adoption of the Old Elamite system for these three periods would confuse the discussion of this interaction, for the Old Elamite period does not solely correlate with the Old Babylonian period, but also the (Old) Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian periods. Thus, the three divisions ‘Akkadian and Awan’, ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ and ‘Sukkalmah’ are retained in favour of Old Elamite, for the sake of clarity. The Middle Elamite period,

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 80 with its traditional I, II and III, with a Middle Elamite IV here proposed, is perpetuated here however.

2.1.7.1 Middle Elamite I The starting date for the Middle Elamite period, and the chronological parameters of the period generally is a subject of some confusion and disagreement in the literature, as demonstrated by Table 2.5. The beginning dates have ranged from as early as c.1600/1500 to as late as c.1300/1200 BC (Carter1979; Steve et al. 1980; Vallat 1994; 1995; Potts 1999; see Table 2.5). One cause of this confusion is a general lack of synchronisms between the later phases of the Sukkalmah period and Babylonia (Potts 1999: 189), which as discussed above, is our major means of dating in the Middle Elamite period. It is not until the ME II period that such correlations again begin (see below). However, another cause of these varying paradigms is a lack of sources and definition. Thus Carter’s proposal was produced before the publication of the material from Haft Tepe and the realisation that the kings mentioned at this site possessed the same titulature as the Igihalkids (Negahban 1991: 8; Carter & Stolper 1984: 33). Steve (1994), based upon his analysis of the epigraphic data from the Ville Royale level A XII at Susa, outlined the evidence for the basis of the date paradigm adhered to here. Simply put, there is a synchronism between the Babylonian king Ammisaduqa (1646 – 1626 BC) and one of the last sukkalmahs Kuk-Nashur II, providing a date of around 1620 BC for this Elamite king (Potts 1999: 189; Vallat 1993; Steve 1994: 28). Following the reign of Kuk-Nashur, four sukkalmahs (Kudu- zulush II, Tan-Uli, Temti-halki and Kuk-Nashur III, see Table 2.3) must be accounted for before the reign of the first ‘King of Anshan and Susa’, Kidinu (Potts 1999: 189; Steve 1994: 28; Amiet 1980b: 138). A time span from c.1620 to 1500 BC is adequate for these last sukkalmahs and thus provides a starting date of c.1500 BC for the Middle Elamite period (Potts 1999: 189; Steve 1994: 28), however it should be noted that this is only a rough estimate, based upon approximations of reign lengths and so on.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 81 Year Carter 1979 Steve et al. Vallat 1994 & Potts 1999 Current Study BC 1980 1995 2000

1950 1900 1850 Sukkalmah Sukkalmah Sukkalmah 1800 Phase Period or Sukkalmah Period 1750 (c.1900 – Epartide Dynasty Period (c.1900 – 1700 1600) (c.1970 – 1500) (c.1900 – 1600/1500) 1500) 1650 1600 1550 1500 Transitional Epoch méso- Middle Middle Elamite Phase élamite I (c.1500 Elamite I I (c.1600 – – 1400) (c.1500 – 1450 Moyen (c.1500 – 1400) 1300) Elamite I 1400) 1400 (c.1475 – 1350 1325) Epoch méso- Middle Middle Elamite 1300 élamite II (c.1400 Elamite II II – 1210) (c.1400 – (c.1400 – 1200) 1250 1200) Moyen dynastic break Middle 1200 Elamite II Middle Elamite Epoch méso- Middle Elamite (c.1325 – Elamite III 1150 Period élamite III (1200 III 1075) (c.1200 – (c. 1300 – – 1100) (c.1200 – 1100) 1100) 1000) 1100 Middle Elamite IV 1050 (c.1100 – 1000?) 1000 950 Table 2.5. Comparative table of proposed Middle Elamite and Sukkalmah periodisation.

Importantly, the sealed tablet with an impression naming Kidinu was found in the same stratigraphic level of Susa, A XII, as the texts naming the last five sukkalmahs (Amiet 1980b: 140), meaning that, in all likelihood, there was no time gap of any significance between the last sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period (Potts 1999: 189). This is further supported by Carter in her earlier studies of the Elamite ceramic materials of the second millennium BC (1971: 93; 113), where the era, including the last sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period down to the foundation of the Igihalkid dynasty (then estimated to be c.1300 BC), was deemed to be one ‘Transitional Phase’ (Carter 1971; 1979). Although, based upon the more recently discovered and published material from Haft Tepe and Susa (discussed below), this Transitional Phase is no longer recognised, and the foundation date for

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 82 the Middle Elamite kingdom is pushed back, the point still remains. The archaeological evidence from Susa points to a continuum of development (Carter 1971: 113), where a departure and beginning point is essentially an arbitrary cut-off point. Thus it is more apt to talk of an evolution to the Middle Elamite state rather than a revolution. The arbitrary cut off point adhered to here is the return to the ancient titulature of Eparti, ‘king of Susa and Anshan’, which is deemed significant enough a change to warrant a new periodisation (Potts 1999: 189). It should be noted that this return to the titulature of Eparti, ‘founder’ (?) of the Sukkalmah Dynasty, is itself an indication of the continuum, and the evolutionary manner of this transition. Whilst the use of the term ‘Transitional’ is rejected here, as this period is important enough to justify more than transitional status and as this is in opposition to our above stated definition of the Middle Elamite period, the term has some use as an indication of the evolutionary nature of this early period of the Middle Elamite kingdom. Table 2.6 demonstrates the kings of the Middle Elamite I dynasty, including the proposed order of their succession adhered to here, and some alternate paradigms suggested elsewhere. Although these kings are conventionally labelled the ‘Kidinuid’ Dynasty, both their filiation and order of succession remains extremely unclear (Potts 1999: 191; Vallat 1994: 5), with the order proposed here largely hypothetical and tentative. Four of these kings warrant special attention here due to their importance to the current study. These kings are Tepti-ahar, Inshushinak-shar-ilani, Shalla and Hurbatila. The first three are important in relation to Haft Tepe, and the last in regard to the possible Kassite contact during his reign. Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani are both known from seal impressions found at Haft Tepe (Amiet 1996: 139; 2912, 2934, 2982, 2984, 2985), meaning that it can be said that Haft Tepe was occupied, at least to some extent, during the reigns of these two kings. This point will be further outlined below in a more thorough discussion of Haft Tepe, but it should be noted here that this is an extension of the usually accepted duration of occupation at Haft Tepe, which is implicitly or explicitly stated as being occupied only during the reign of Tepti-ahar (Negahban 1990: 137; 1991: 8; 1994: 31; Carter & Stolper 1984: 33; Amiet 1996: 142; Potts 1999: 206; indeed, it is hypothesised here, that Haft Tepe was in fact occupied during some of the Sukkalmah period, detailed further below). If Carter and Stolper (1984), Steve and Vallat (1989) and Steve (et al. 1980) are correct in their placement of Inshushinak- shar-ilani as the second Kidinuid king following Kidinu himself, then this suggests

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 83 that Haft Tepe was occupied for a large portion of the Middle Elamite I period. There is however, no solid evidence for the order of succession of these kings, either at Susa or Haft Tepe. The lack of documents naming other Middle Elamite I kings (other, that is, from Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani) at Haft Tepe, mean that it is more probable that one of these two kings succeeded the other, though which had the primacy is uncertain. This is further evidenced by the assertion of Steve that the syllabary of the bricks of Inshushinak-shar-ilani from Susa is “practically identical” to that of the bricks of Tepti-ahar (Steve et al. 1980: 95) (despite this however, as demonstrated in Table 2.6, Steve [et al. 1980] place Tan-Ruhurater II and Shalla between Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani, why is uncertain). Thus in this study, Inshushinak-shar-ilani is placed immediately after Tepti-ahar in time (though there is no reason why this order cannot be reversed). A text from Haft Tepe provides evidence for a possible Mesopotamian- Elamite interaction during the reign of Tepti-ahar, and therefore a mechanism whereby a date for Tepti-ahar, and perhaps thereby the whole Kidinuid dynasty, may be hypothesised. A tablet from Haft Tepe (H. T. 38; Herrero 1976: 102 – 103, no.6) bears both the seal impression of Tepti-ahar and the date formula “Year in which the king repulsed/expelled Kadashman-dKUR.GAL” (Cole & De Meyer 1999; Potts 1999: 192 – 193). The identification of the deity , and thus the name and identification of the figure (presumably a king or individual of similar stature to warrant a year name formula creation [sic Cole & De Meyer 1999: 44]) has been the subject of some debate (Potts 1999: 192 – 193; Brinkman 1976: 144 – 145; Steve et al. 1980: 97; Seidl 1990: 130; Amiet 1996: 135; Glassner 1991: 119; Cole & De Meyer 1999). Originally identified as , thereby allowing for the identification of this individual as Kadashman-Enlil I (or the less chronologically likely due to later, more concrete Mesopotamian-Elamite synchronisms, Kadashman-Enlil II) (Herrero 1976: 102 – 103), the = Enlil association has been questioned by Brinkman however (1976: 114 – 145), who has shown that more consistently refers to the god in Kassite texts. Following this (and the “suspicious” absence of a kingly title for Kadashman-dKUR.GAL [sic Potts 1999: 193; contra Cole & De Meyer 1999]) the Kadashman-dKUR.GAL – Tepti-ahar correlation has generally been rejected (Potts 1999: 192 – 193; Brinkman 1976: 144 – 145; Steve et al. 1980: 97; Seidl 1990: 130), though neither universally nor completely (Amiet 1996: 135; Glassner 1991: 119; Cole & De Meyer 1999).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 84 However, it has more recently been noted by Cole and De Meyer that in Kassite period texts may in fact refer to the Kassite god (Cole & De Meyer 1999: 45; following Balkan 1954). If this association is accepted, the Kassite king (if we accept the kingly identification) whom Tepti-ahar “repulsed” may have been Kadashman-Harbe (again presumably the first of this name, as the latter is disallowed by the later, more concrete Kassite – Elamite associations) (Cole & De Meyer 1999: 45). The identification of Tepti-ahar’s foe with either of these two kings (Kadashman-Enlil I or Kadashman-Harbe I) is chronologically plausible, though the Kadashman-Harbe synchronism is perhaps more acceptable. The third option, that a Kassite king is not intended in the year formula, and so this identity should not be sort in the Kassite Dynasty, is also of course, a possibility. Which of these identifications is accepted is dependent on associations between other Middle Elamite I kings and , and the general interpretation of the structure of the period as a whole, and so will be returned to following the annunciation of these factors. An equally vexing problem is centred on the king Shalla. This man is sometimes labelled ‘a king without title’, as no extant text giving this individual a titulature is known (Steve et al. 1980: 96; Potts 1999: 192). Shalla is regarded as a king however due to texts that invoke him in a formulaic oath, typical of kingship (Glassner 1991: 117; Potts 1999: 192; Steve et al. 1980: 96). This places Shalla in a position akin to that of Tepti-ahar before the discoveries at Haft Tepe (Steve et al. 1980: 96), and so it is more than possible that it is an accident of discovery only that limits our knowledge of this king. Shalla is chiefly known from a series of texts known as the ‘Malamir Texts’ (Potts 1999: 192; Glassner 1991: 117; Steve et al. 1980: 96; Stolper 1987-90: 280). The exact provenance of these tablets is uncertain, though there is a suggestion that they originated from Haft Tepe (see below), as one of them mentions Tepti-ahar and they contain similar epigraphic details to texts from this site (Stolper 1987-90: 280; Reiner 1963: 169 – 174). If this is correct then it can be said that Haft Tepe was also occupied during the reign of Shalla. Glassner’s ‘Huhnur hypothesis’ states that the ‘Malamir Texts’ originated not from Malamir nor Haft Tepe, but another, as yet unidentified ‘Elamite’ region/town ‘Huhnur (Glassner 1991: 118). It has been suggested that Huhnur be placed near Arjan (Duchene 1986), though this is currently little more than a hypothetical reconstruction. If the ‘Malamir texts’ did in fact originate from the entity known as ‘Huhnur’, then Shalla may be identified as the petty king or authority (governor?) of this region/town, possibly

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 85 during the reign of Tepti-ahar, thus his association with this king in these texts. In light of the lack of any concrete information regarding the identity or location of the town (?) ‘Huhnur’ it seems most prudent to accept this reconstruction as mere conjecture at the moment, and rather see Shalla as a king who reigned at some point in the fragmented, less powerful Middle Elamite I period. If the ‘Huhnur hypothesis’ is thus rejected, there is no real evidence for where in the Middle Elamite I period Shalla’s reign should be placed, but, due to his apparent ties with Tepti-ahar, Shalla is placed immediately before him, if it is accepted that he reigned as a king. If not then the ‘governorship’ (or perhaps period of Shalla’s competition or rivalry with Tepti- ahar) should be placed concurrently with the reign of Tepti-ahar.

Carter & Vallat 2000 Steve et al. Potts 1999 Current Study Stolper 1984 1980 Kidinu Kidinu Kidinu Kidinu Kidinu – ancestry uncertain; seal impression on tablet from Susa (Acropole A12): “Kidinu, king of Susa and Anzan, son of Adad-šarru-rabu, servant of his god, Kirwašir” (2867) Inshushinak- Tan- Inshushinak- Tan- Tan-Ruhurater II – ancestry shar-ilani Ruhuratir II shar-ilani Ruhurater II uncertain; cylinder seal in private collection “King of Susa and Anzan” (Porada 1982) Tan- Shalla Tan-Ruhuratir Shalla ?Shalla? – ancestry uncertain; Ruhuratir II II fifteen ‘Malamir’ texts, name used in oath formula, no kingly title Tepti-ahar Inshushinak- Shall Inshushinak- Tepti-ahar – ancestry sunkir- shar-ilani uncertain; inscribed bricks from nappipir Susa; 55 tablets from Haft Tepe; seal impressions from Haft Tepe “King of Susa and Anzan, servant of Kirwasir and Inshushinak” (2912, 2982, 2984, 2985) Hurbatila Tepti-ahar Tepti-ahar Tepti-ahar Inshushinak-shar-ilani – ancestry uncertain; inscribed bricks from Susa; seal impressions from Haft Tepe “Adad-eris, chief of the horseman, servant of Inshushinak-shar-ilani, servant of Adad” (2934) – – Hurbatila – ?Hurbatila? – ancestry uncertain; Chronicle P defeated by Kassite or II? Table 2.6. The Middle Elamite I ‘Kidinuid’ Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here adopted, and a sample of previous proposals.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 86 Another king that warrants some discussion is an individual known as Hurbatila (or Hurpatila). This individual is only known from the Babylonian Chronicle P, where he is called the ‘king of Elammat’, taken by some to mean Elam (Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; Vallat 1995: 1027; Steve et al. 1980: 100). Hurbatila featured prominently in the earlier studies of Elamite history (Labat 1975b: 381; Cameron 1936: 96; Carter 1971: 45; Amiet 1966: 580; Brinkman 1976: 207), but has gradually been ignored in the scholarly literature, as our knowledge of the Middle Elamite period becomes better understood (Potts 1999; Vallat 1994; 1995). The justification for this appears to be a lack of native Elamite sources mentioning this king, and the absence of space in the later Middle Elamite order of succession for this king to reign, if the association is made between Hurbatila and Kurigalzu II (Gassan 1989; note however that this is not a problem if the association is made with Kurigalzu I). While this is significant, there is external and circumstantial evidence that Hurbatila was a king, and for these reasons he is mentioned here, albeit with a due amount of caution. In Chronicle P it is stated that Hurbatila fought the Kassite king of Babylonia, Kurigalzu (Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; Vallat 1995: 1027; Steve et al. 1980: 100; Harper et al. 1992: 153). Several inscribed objects naming Kurigalzu have been found at Susa, and have been interpreted as objects devoted in thanks by this conquering king (Harper et al. 1992: 153; Carter & Stolper 1984: 35). It is also possible however that these objects where brought to Susa along with the rest of the Mesopotamian booty following the conquests of the later Middle Elamite kings (see below) (Harper et al. 1992: 153; Potts 1999: 233-36). Thus the evidence for the existence of Hurbatila is scanty, but as Chronicle P is a generally reliable source (indeed one that is trusted and employed for other historical points of reference in the Middle Elamite period, such as the battles between later Middle Elamite kings and Kassite rulers), it is more than possible that Hurbatila existed. Another objection to the Hurbatila-Kurigalzu synchronism is not this king’s existence, but the association of ‘Elammat’ with Elam (Gassan 1989). Lacking the requisite philological expertise, and any further information on the location of Elammat (if not identified as Elam itself), little of substance may be added to this debate here, though this rejection should be noted. However, if Elammat may be considered a neighbouring or nearby (to Elam proper) region, then it may be possible to identify Hurbatila not as a king of Elam, but as a petty king, who, along with others in the confused ME I period (including Shalla at Huhnur, and perhaps Tepti-ahar at Haft Tepe) were rivals and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 87 competitors for wider political control of the region (returned to below). In this regard, the inclusion of Hurbatila amongst the ME I kings (who, it must be remembered, never formed a true dynasty, and probably never controlled a unified ‘Elam’ [or even Khuzistan]) is legitimate. If the Hurbatila – Kurigalzu incident did occur, it may provide the first Kassite – Middle Elamite correlation (this, and other correlations are listed in Table 2.7, a full list of the Middle Elamite kings and Mesopotamian correlations), and as such is useful for cross-dating purposes generally. There were two Kassite kings known as Kurigalzu, the first, Kurigalzu son of Kadashman-Harbe I, reigned around 1390 – 1375 BC and the second, Kurigalzu son of Burnaburiash II, reigned around 1332 – 1308 BC (Brinkman 1976: 205 – 207; Nijhowne 1999). Brinkman, and others, assign the events of Chronicle P to Kurigalzu II (1976: 205 – 207). However, this would mean that Hurbatila was king of Elam sometime around the reign of Untash- or his immediate successors, a period that is better documented than Middle Elamite I, and which leaves no room for the insertion of Hurbatila. However, a synchronism between Kurigalzu I and Hurbatila fits our current schema much better (Vallat 1995: 1027). It is known that the later Middle Elamite king, Pahir-ishshan married a sister or daughter of the first Kurigalzu (Steve & Vallat 1989: 226, 234; Steve 1991: 6; Potts 1991: 207; van Dijk 1986: 163), but this does not lesson the possibility of the Hurbatila/Kurigalzu I correlation. A possible sequence of events is that Kurigalzu I fought and defeated Hurbatila (the length of whose reign is uncertain). The first king of the ME II period, Igi-halki, rose to the throne in the ensuing power vacuum, a possibility given his rhetoric which justifies his kingship on the basis of divine favour (that is, he was a usurper) (Potts 1999: 206). This rise may not have been in the form of vassalage, but may have at least had the support of the Kassite king, a tie that was cemented by the giving of the sister (or daughter) of Kurigalzu in marriage to the crown prince, Pahir-ishshan, son of Igi-halki. This description both places Hurbatila in time, and also explains the origins of the close ties between Kassite Mesopotamia and Middle Elamite Elam in the Middle Elamite II and III periods (see below). However, this reconstruction requires that Brinkman’s assessment of Chronicle P be rejected; a position that the author is hesitant to accept, especially in light of the lack of expertise in the cuneiform sources. Thus the position of Hurbatila, and his role in ushering in the age of Kassite – Middle Elamite contact is an attractive, but extremely provisional, hypothesis that is yet to be proven in any way.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 88 Following this outline, we must now return to the question of the possible Kassite correlation with Tepti-ahar. If the most recent identification of this Kassite king with Kadashman-Harbe (I) is accepted, the order of succession here proposed may be taken as fairly secure. Thus in this rubric, Tepti-ahar engaged in battle (?) with Kadashman-Harbe (I), was succeeded to the throne of Elam by Inshushinak-shar- ilani, who in turn was succeeded Hurbatila, who was himself defeated by Kurigalzu (I, the son of Kadashman-Harbe I). In the ensuing power vacuum, Igi-halki, perhaps the client or ally of Kurigalzu, came to the Elamite throne and founded the Igihalkid dynasty, with the support of the Kassite vanquisher. The daughter of Kurigalzu was given to the son of Igi-halki, Pahir-ishshan (the future Elamite king) as a means of cementing this alliance. The Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-Enlil I association is more chronologically problematic (and possibly less acceptable philologically) however. If this association is correct, then Tepti-ahar must have been at least partially contemporaneous with Igi- halki. This follows from the fact that Kurigalzu I, with whom there is quite certain evidence for an association with Igi-halki (and his son, possibly as crown-prince, Pahir-ishshan), is the father of Kadashman-Enlil I, and therefore the reign (and thus the Igi-halki – Kurigalzu synchronism) of Kurigalzu must have preceded the reign (and therefore the Tepti-ahar synchronism) of Kadashman-Enlil I. This reconstruction is possible if it is accepted that Tepti-ahar was a (partial) contemporary of Igi-halki, and that the above stated concept that the Middle Elamite I period represented a period of political fragmentation and petty kingship, with such authorities vying for ultimate control before the consolidation of power with a supreme king in the Igihalkid era (ME II), is accepted. In this regard, Shalla (of Huhnur?), Tepti-ahar of Haft Tepe, Hurbatila of ‘Elammat’ (possibly identified as ‘Elam’ or some other unknown ‘Elamite’ region) and Igi-halki (perhaps from Susa), may all be considered partial contemporaries, all vying for ultimate control; a prize which eventually went to Igi-halki. In this reconstruction, the reign of Inshushinak-shar-ilani may be placed before that of Tepti-ahar, or perhaps his name should also be added to the list of competing authorities. The third option, that the Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-dKUR.GAL date formula be rejected as a Kassite synchronism on the grounds that the figure mentioned was not a Kassite king, but merely some other, unknown political figure (an hypothesis put forth due to the lack of direct kingly title given for this figure), could allow for a

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 89 reconstruction whereby the first Kassite – Elamite interaction is that between Hurbatila and Kurigalzu, that directly or indirectly precipitated the rise of Igi-halki and his dynasty, and the rough order of succession here proposed should be taken as an accurate general picture. The question as to which of these options is more likely is vexed, and one may vainly hope for the discovery of another piece of evidence (perhaps the identification of Huhnur, or textual references to Shalla or Hurbatila) that would clarify this situation. For the time being, if any Kassite – Tepti-ahar synchronism is accepted (and there is no absolute conviction that it should be) the Kadashman-Harbe I – Tepti-ahar synchronism is preferred, as this more comfortably fits with the current scheme. The titular of Tepti-ahar ‘King of Susa and Anshan’ would seem to imply more than just local, challenged power, and the, even partial, contemporaneity of this king with the equally powerful Igi-halki seems difficult to currently fathom. Thus the first option, whereby Tepti-ahar was succeeded (either directly or following the Inshushinak-shar-ilani interlude) by Hurbatila, who was defeated by Kurigalzu, following which Igi-halki was installed as king, is favoured here. Though the tentative nature of this reconstruction should be noted. Thus the picture of the Middle Elamite I period is extremely unclear and confused. For the most part, our knowledge of each king is limited to historical references, inscribed bricks and/or seal impressions. Archaeologically speaking, it is difficult to differentiate a Middle Elamite I assemblage from the preceding late Sukkalmah period, as these belong along a continuum, that did not suffer a major break nor disruption. Indeed, in many ways (including in the realm of glyptic art, as will be seen below, Chapter 4), the Middle Elamite I period belongs more to the Sukkalmah period than the Middle Elamite culture, and it can be argued that the true beginning of the Middle Elamite period began with the era of the Igihalkids. Thus the major break or disruption may have been the Hurbatila defeat and the Kassite involvement in this period. However, the Middle Elamite I period is so named because the kings of this period use the characteristic Middle Elamite titulature, one that is quite different from that of the sukkalmahs. It is possible therefore that the Middle Elamite I kings represent the phase of transition between the sukkalmahs and the ‘true’ Middle Elamite kings, being a series of unrelated rulers that ruled over a reduced Elamite Kingdom filling the power vacuum until the advent of the Igihalkids (Potts 1999: 191). Thus, while considered part of the Middle Elamite period, ME I is quite fragmentary, and many characteristic

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 90 elements of the Middle Elamite period are not yet apparent or are only beginning to emerge. The descriptor ‘transitional’ does aptly describe this period therefore, though it should not be labelled “Transitional” as previously proposed.

Middle Elamite Kings Mesopotamian King Association Kidinuids (ME I) Kidinu* Shalla Tan-Ruhurater II Tepti-ahar* ↔ Kadashman-Enlil I/Kadashman-Harbe I (?) – date formula of a Haft Tepe text dated “the year in which the king expelled Kadashman-dKUR.GAL”, linked with Kadashman-Enlil I (Carter & Stolper 1984: 34) or Kadashman-Harbe I (Cole & De Meyer 1999) “King of Susa and Anzan” Inshushinak-shar-ilani* Hurbatila ↔ Kurigalzu I – according to Chronicle P, Kurigalzu defeated Hurbatila “king of Elammat” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; see Gassan 1989 for rejections to this association) Igihalkids (ME II) Igi-halki ↔ Kurigalzu I (Vallat 2000) Pahir-ishshan ↔ Kurigalzu I – according to the ‘Berlin Letter’, married a daughter or sister of “the powerful king of Kurigalzu” (Potts 1999: 211; Gasche et al. 1998; van Dijk 1986; Steve & Vallat 1989; Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004) -kittah Unpahash-Napirisha Kidin-Hutran I -numena ↔ Kurigalzu I – married daughter of Kurigalzu I (Potts 1999: 207) son of Attar-Kittah Untash-Napirisha ↔ Burna-Buriash II – according to the ‘Berlin Letter’, married a daughter of Burna-Buriash II (Potts 1999: 212; Gasche et al. 1998; van Dijk 1986; Steve & Vallat 1989; Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004) Kidin-Hutran II ↔ unknown Kassite king – married daughter of ….-duniash (Potts 1999: 207) Napirisha-Untash Kidin-Hutran III ↔ Enlil-nadin-shumi – according to Chronicle P, attacked and overthrew Enlil-nadin-shumi (Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al. 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000; Carter & Stolper 1984) ↔ Adad-shuma-iddina – according to Chronicle P, attacked Adad- shuma-iddina (Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al. 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000; Carter & Stolper 1984)

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 91 Shutrukids (ME III/IV) Hallutush-Inshushinak Shutruk-Nahhunte ↔ Meli-Shipak – according to the ‘Berlin Letter’ married a daughter of Meli-Shihu (Meli-Shipak) (Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al. 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004) ↔ -shuma-iddina – invaded Babylonia and overthrew Zababa-shuma-iddina (Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al. 1998; Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989; Carter & Stolper 1984) Kutir-Nahhunte ↔ Enlil-nadin-ahi – invaded Babylonia and overthrew Enlil-nadin- ahi and ended the Kassite dynasty (Potts 1999: 237; Gasche et al. 1998; Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Carter & Stolper 1984) Shilhak-Inshushinak ↔ Ashur-dan I – (Cameron 1936: 119; Gasche et al. 1998) Hutelutush-Inshushinak ↔ Nebuchadnezzar – according to a poem, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Hutelutush-Inshushinak (Potts 1999: 252 – 253; Gasche et al. 1998; Frame 1995: 33 – 35; Carter & Stolper 1984) Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar Humban-numena (II) Table 2.7. Middle Elamite Dynasties proposed order of succession, with Mesopotamian associations. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of one or more ‘Dated Seal’ (see Chapters 4 and 7).

2.1.7.2 Middle Elamite II The Middle Elamite II period is less complicated than the Middle Elamite I, thanks to two major sources of information lacking for the preceding period. The ME II (‘Igihalkid’) Dynasty is a dynasty in the true sense of the word, and as such the recorded filiation of these kings enables us to more easily place them in an order of succession (Potts 1999: 205; Vallat 1994: 5). Secondly, as alluded to above (and demonstrated by Table 2.7), this is the period of political ties with Kassite Mesopotamia, mostly in the form of dynastic intermarriages, that provide us with synchronisms between the reigns of Elamite and Kassite kings. For the purpose of the present study it is not necessary to describe in detail the succession of these kings, the paradigm adhered to here is demonstrated in Table 2.8. However, it should be explained that the suggestion of Potts (1999), Carter & Stolper (1984) and Steve et al. (1980) has been followed regarding the succession of the sons of Pahir-ishshan and Humban-numena, as this follows the order given in the inscriptions of Shilhak- Inshushinak (Potts 1999: 205, 211), and as there appears to be no real justification (either stated or discernable) for the change in order proposed by Vallat (1994) and Steve & Vallat (1989).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 92 Carter & Steve et al. Goldberg Vallat 1994; Potts Current Study Stolper 1980 2004 Steve & 1999 1984 Vallat 1989 Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki – ancestry (c.1400 – uncertain; inscriptions 1380) from Deh-i Now; inscribed maceheads from Choga Zanbil (as father of Attar-kittah); Shilhak-Inshushinak’s inscription Pahir- Pahir- Pahir- Pahir- Pahir- Pahir-ishshan – son of ishshan ishshan ishshan ishshan ishshan Igi-halki; Shilhak- (c.1380 – Inshushinak’s 1370) inscriptions; according to the ‘Berlin Letter’ married sister or daughter of Kurigalzu I Attar- Attar- Attar- Attar-kittah Attar- Attar-kittah – son of kittah kittah kittah (c.1370 – kittah Igi-halki; Shilhak- 1360) Inshushinak’s inscription Humban- Humban- Humban- Unpahash- Humban- Humban-numena (I) - numena numena numena Napirisha numena son of Attar-kittah; (c.1360 – (I) inscribed bricks from 1355) Susa Untash- Untash- Untash- Kidin- Untash- Untash-Napirisha – son Napirisha Napirisha Napirisha Hutran I Napirisha of Humban-numena; (c.1355 – inscriptions from Tepe 1350) Bormi, Tepe Gotward, Chogha Pahn East, Susa and Choga Zanbil; according to the ‘Berlin Letter’ married daughter of Kassite Burnaburiash II; Shilhak-Inshushinak inscription Unpahash- Unpahash- – Humban- Unpahas Unpahash-Napirisha – Napirisha Napirisha numena h- son of Pahir-ishshan; (c.1350 – Napirisha Shilhak-Inshushinak’s 1340) inscription Kidin- Kiddin- Kidin- Untash- Kidin- Kidin-Hutran I – son of Hutran Hutran Hutran Napirisha Hutran I Pahir-ishshan; Shilhak- (c.1340 – Inshushinak’s 1300) inscriptions – – Napirisha- Kidin- Kidin- Kidin-Hutran II – son Untash Hutran II Hutran II of Untash-Napirisha; (c.1300 – Shilhak-Inshushinak’s 1270) inscriptions; according to the ‘Berlin Letter’ married daughter of …- d.duniash

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 93 Carter & Steve et al. Goldberg Vallat 1994; Potts Current Study Stolper 1980 2004 Steve & 1999 1984 Vallat 1989 – – – Napirisha- Napirisha Napirisha-Untash – son Untash -Untash of Kidin-Hutra II; (c.1270 – Shilhak-Inshushinak’s 1240) inscriptions – – – Kidin-Hutra Kidin- Kidin-Hutran III – son III Hutran of Napirisha-Untash(?); (c.1240 – III Chronicle P defeat of 1210) Kassite Enlil-nadin- shumi and Adad-shuma- iddina Table 2.8. The Middle Elamite II ‘Igihalkid’ Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here adopted, and a sample of previous proposals.

There are a number of important events in the ME II period that should be noted, and are of particular interest to the glyptic material of this period. The first is the already mentioned contact between Kassite Babylonia and the Middle Elamite kingdom in this period. As well as Pahir-ishshan’s marriage to a daughter (or sister) of Kurigalzu I (c.1390 – 1375 BC) (Potts 1999: 207; Vallat 1994: 14), Untash- Napirisha married a daughter of Burnaburiash II (c.1359 – 1333 BC) and Kidin- Hutran II married a daughter of an uncertain Kassite king, recorded in a fragmentary text as …- d.duniash (Potts 1999: 207, 230; Vallat 1994: 14). The Kassite contacts were not limited to these so-called diplomatic marriages however, and towards the end of the dynasty acquired a more bellicose nature. Thus Kidin-Hutran III, according again to the later Babylonian text, Chronicle P, defeated two successive Kassite rulers, reigning as puppet kings for the conquering Assyrian Tukulti- I, Enlil- nadin-shumi (c.1224 BC) and Adad-shuma-iddina (c.1222 - 1217 BC) (Vallat 1994: 14; Potts 1999: 231). These date correlations are important as they provide dating synchronisms and because they attest to the contact between Kassite Babylonia and the Middle Elamite state, a contact that will manifest itself in the glyptic material of the later (post ME I) Middle Elamite period, as will be discussed below (Chapters 4 and 7). The other major important event in this period was the foundation of Choga Zanbil (ancient Al Untash-Napirisha) by Untash-Napirisha, sometime around 1340 BC (Steve 1991: 6; Ghirshman 1966: 1ff.; Porada 1970: 3 – 4; Potts 1999: 220 – 223; Steve & Vallat 1989), discussed in greater detail below. Previously, the foundation of Choga Zanbil was placed around 1240/1260 BC (Steve 1991: 6; Ghirshman 1966: 7;

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 94 Carter 1979: 125), based primarily upon spurious Kassite synchronisms. However, with the publication of the so-called ‘Berlin Letter’ (discussed below), the correlation of Untash-Napirisha with Burnaburiash II seems more certain and so the foundation date of Choga Zanbil has been pushed back. There is no doubt that Untash-Napirisha was responsible for the foundation of Choga Zanbil, as demonstrated by the texts found at the site (Ghirshman 1966: 1ff.; Potts 1999: 220 – 223; Steve & Vallat 1989).

2.1.7.3 Middle Elamite III The events surrounding the end of the reign of Kidin-Hutran III and the reasons for a dynastic change are unclear, but what is clear is that the Igihalkid dynasty ended and the next documented (by inscribed bricks) king was Shutruk-Nahhunte, after whom the Middle Elamite III dynasty, the ‘Shutrukid’, is known (Vallat 1995: 46; Potts 1999: 188, 231 – 232). The father of Shutruk-Nahhunte is here proposed to have reigned before his son, as there is room in the chronology to insert his reign between Kidin-Hutran III and Shutruk-Nahhunte, and as he is named in the building inscriptions of Shilhak-Inshushinak (Vallat 1994: 2-5; Carer 1971: 50-51; Potts 1999: 231-32). Table 2.9 demonstrates the succession of Middle Elamite III kings. The dynastic intermarriages continued into the ME III period, with Shutruk- Nahhunte marrying a daughter of the Kassite Meli-Shipak (Potts 1999: 233; Vallat 1994: 2-5, 14). Shutruk-Nahhunte is believed to have been the author of the already mentioned ‘Berlin Letter’ (so-called due to its current location) (Potts 1999: 233 – 237; Steve 1991: 6 – 7; Steve & Vallat 1989: 226 – 267; Vallat 1995: 1029 – 1030). This is in fact a letter from an Elamite king to the Kassite court, bemoaning the injustice of his not receiving an invitation to sit on the Babylonian throne (presumably recently made vacant), despite being descended from royal Kassite matrilineal stock (Potts 1999: 233 – 237). As proof of this, the author lists the dynastic marriages between Kassite princesses and Elamite kings, and thus forms the basis for the above synchronisms and therefore much of the dating mechanisms for the Middle Elamite period (Potts 1999: 233 – 237; as demonstrated by Table 2.7). As a consequence of his Kassite rejection, the author (Shutruk-Nahhunte) promises a war of retribution and conquest (Potts 1999: 233 – 237). Good to his word, Shutruk-Nahhunte invaded Mesopotamia, leading a campaign into Babylonia, with his son Kutir-Nahhunte II, sacking many cities and overthrowing the Kassite king Zababa-shuma-iddina (c.1157 BC) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 40; Steve et al. 1980: 104; Potts 1999: 233 – 237). This

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 95 work was later completed by Kutir-Nahhunte, who again invaded Mesopotamia and overthrew the last Kassite monarch, Enlil-nadin-akhi (Carter & Stolper 1984: 40; Steve et al. 1980: 104; Potts 1999: 233 – 237). Thus Middle Elamite kings brought to an end the Kassite dynasty that had reigned, near continually, for around 450 years (Sommerfield 1995: 981) or 576 years according to the Babylonian Kinglist A (Brinkman 1976: 8).

Carter & Steve et al. Glassner Vallat Potts 1999 Current Study Stolper 1980 1994 1994; 1984 Steve & Vallat 1989 Hallutush- Hallutush- Halludush- Hallutush- – Hallutush- Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak – (c.1210 – ancestry uncertain; 1190) Shilhak- Inshushinak’s inscriptions (as father of Shutruk- Nahhunte) Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk-Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte – son of Hallutush- (c.1190 – Inshushinak; 1155) inscribed bricks at Susa, Deh-i Now, Chogha Pahn West and Liyan; author of the ‘Berlin Letter’, married to daughter of Kassite Meli- shihu; Babylonian sources defeat of Kassite Zababa- shuma-iddina; Shilhak- Inshushinak’s inscription; inscribed Mesopotamian booty in Susa Kutir- Kutir- Kutir- Kutir- Kutir- Kutir-Nahhunte – Nahhunte II Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte II Nahhunte II son of Shutruk- (c.1155 – Nahhunte; inscribed 1150) bricks at Susa, Bushire and Deh-i Now; Babylonian sources defeated Kassite Enlil-nadin- ahhi; ended Kassite dynasty

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 96 Carter & Steve et al. Glassner Vallat Potts 1999 Current Study Stolper 1980 1994 1994; 1984 Steve & Vallat 1989 Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak- Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak – son of Shutruk- Nahhunte; inscriptions from Susa, Bushire, Chogha Pahn West and Tul-e Spid; author of ‘genealogical inscriptions listing kings who resorted temples Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak – son of Shilhak- Inshushinak; inscriptions at Susa and Tal-i Malyan; “King of Elam and Susiana”; Babylonian sources defeated by of Babylonia; possibly escaped and continued to region in the highlands (Anshan) Table 2.9. The Middle Elamite III ‘Shutrukid’ Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here adopted, and a sample of previous proposals.

Kutir-Nahhunte II was succeeded by his brother, Shilhak-Inshushinak, whose long reign is often described as the apogée of (Middle) Elamite civilisation (Harper et al. 1992: 122; Carter 1971: 50; Labat 1975b: 399; Carter & Stolper 1984: 41). Shilhak-Inshushinak is of special importance here as the author of important building inscriptions (Carter 1971: 54; Potts 1999: 205). These building inscriptions attached to temples built or restored by Shilhak-Inshushinak at Susa pay homage to his predecessors who restored the temples before him, and thus provide us with a ‘genealogical’ list of sorts (Potts 1999: 205), a useful tool in our dating procedure. Shilhak-Inshushinak was succeeded by his son, Huteludush-Inshushinak, who was king during the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar I, fourth king of the Dynasty of the Sealand (Isin II) (Potts 1999: 188, 252; Vallat 1995: 1028; Brinkman 1972: 278).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 97 The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I took as motivation for these invasions a desire to avenge the Elamite destruction of Babylon and return the, presumably looted from a Babylonian sanctuary, statue/idol of (Potts 1999: 252). His first attempt resulted in failure, but his second (in 1104 BC) resulted in the defeat of Huteludush-Inshushinak, the return of the Marduk statue and the destruction of Elamite cites and towns, including Susa and Choga Zanbil (Potts 1999: 188, 252; Vallat 1995: 1028; Brinkman 1972: 278). Traditionally this defeat was taken as the end point of the Middle Elamite kingdom (Labat 1975b: 502; Potts 1999: 188, 252; Cameron 1936: 132; Carter & Stolper 1984: 42; Hinz 1973: 17; Vallat 1995: 1028; Carter 1971: 56 – 59), however the so-called ‘survival hypothesis’ has gained credence in recent years (Potts 1999: 253 – 254; Carter & Stolper 1984: 42 – 43; Pons 1994: 43; Steve 1991: 7; Vallat 1995: 1028; Steve et al. 1980: 105 – 106; Carter 1971: 59). Thus it is now possible to propose a fourth Middle Elamite sub-phase, Middle Elamite IV, outlined below.

2.1.7.4 Middle Elamite IV The ‘survival hypothesis’ states that Hutelutush-Inshushinak escaped the conquering Nebuchadnezzar and continued to reign over the (albeit reduced) Middle Elamite kingdom from Tal-i Malyan (ancient Anshan) (Potts 1999: 253 – 254). The Babylonian text that records the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar states that “Hutelutush- Inshushinak, king of Elam, hid himself in the mountains” (Hinz 1973: 17). Traditionally this was taken to be a euphemistic expression meaning that he died (Hinz 1973: 17). However, with the discoveries at Tal-i Malyan of texts dating to the reign of this king (discussed further below), it has been proposed that this statement, more literally, meant that he continued to reign from Anshan (Potts 1999: 252 – 255). This is possibly supported by the titulature of Hutelutush-Inshushinak, who is described as a king of Elam and Susiana (Potts 1999: 252 – 255), perhaps because he was unable to lay claim to the conquered Susa. The ‘survival hypothesis’ is further supported by the presence of two layers of occupation at Malyan that are of the Middle Elamite type although one apparently postdates the traditional end date for the Middle Elamite period (Carter 1996: 47), see below. As demonstrated by Table 2.10, two other kings, Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar and Humban-numena II are also placed in the Middle Elamite IV period, though the evidence for their reigns is less than certain. All three Middle Elamite IV kings are

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 98 listed in a text of a later king of the Neo-Elamite period, Shutruk-Nahhunte II (716 – 699 BC) as being ancient predecessors on the Elamite throne (Carter & Stolper 1984: 43; Potts 1999: 254 – 255; Steve et al. 1980: 106). Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar is known from the inscriptions of Shilhak-Inshushinak as being the next youngest brother of Hutelutush-Inshushinak (Carter & Stolper 1984: 43; Potts 1999: 254 – 255; Steve et al. 1980: 106), and so it is quite conceivable that he reigned after his brother. The filiation of Humban-numena II is uncertain (Potts 1999: 254 – 255), but it is more than possible that he reigned after Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar, and was perhaps his son, who was not yet born at the time of the Shilhak-Inshushinak inscriptions.

Carter & Steve et al. Vallat 1994; Potts 1999 Current Study Stolper 1980 Steve & 1984 Vallat 1989 Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush-Inshushinak – son Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak of Shilhak-Inshushinak; inscriptions at Susa and Tal-i Malyan; “King of Elam and Susiana”; Babylonian sources defeated by Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylonia; possibly escaped and continued to region in the highlands (Anshan) Shilhina- Shilhina- Shilhina- Shilhina- Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar – hamru- hamru- hamru- hamru- son of Shilhak-Inshushinak; Lagamar Lagamar Lagamar Lagamar mentioned as son in texts of Shilhak-Inshushinak; resigned as king according to later texts (Shutruk-Nahhunte II, Neo- Elamite) Humban- Humban- – – ?Humban-numena II? – numena II numena II ancestry uncertain; mentioned in later texts (Shutruk- Nahhunte II, Neo-Elamite) Table 2.10. The Middle Elamite IV Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here adopted, and a sample of previous proposals.

Thus it is proposed that a fourth and final Middle Elamite period be added to the paradigm of Middle Elamite I – III. This period should date from c.1100 to sometime around 1000 BC. In this period Elam descends into a ‘dark age’ with little evidence until the advent of the Neo-Elamite period (Potts 1999: 259 – 263), and as such, the history of the Middle Elamite period slowly dwindles, rather than abruptly stops. It should be noted that during the ME IV period the Elamite state no longer engaged in political contacts with neighbouring Mesopotamia.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 99 In summary, four Middle Elamite phases can be discerned in the historical record. Middle Elamite I, the period of the so-called ‘Kidinuid’ dynasty (c.1500 – 1400 BC), the Middle Elamite II (‘Igihalkid’ dynasty, c.1400 – 1200 BC), the Middle Elamite III (‘Shutrukid’ dynasty, c.1200 – 1100 BC) and the terminal Middle Elamite IV (the later ‘Shutrukid’ kings [?], c.1100 – 1000 BC). The Middle Elamite I period is discerned in this study at Susa, Haft Tepe, Tepe Sharafabad, Chogha Sabz, Godin Tepe and Tepe Giyan. The Middle Elamite II period at Susa, possibly still Haft Tepe (see below), Choga Zanbil, Deh-i Now, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Chigha Sabz, Tepe Giyan, and Qaleh Tal-i Malyan. The Middle Elamite III period is also represented at Susa, Choga Zanbil, Deh-i Now, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Chigha Sabz, Tepe Giyan and Tal-i Malyan (Qaleh). The final chronological period included in this study, the Middle Elamite IV period is known from Susa, Choga Zanbil, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Chigha Sabz, Tepe Giyan, and (Qaleh) Tal-i Malyan.

2.2 Archaeology The preceding survey has provided an outline of the historical and chronological developments of Elam from c.3500 (or more accurately c.3800 BC) to c.1000 BC, the era of the dominance of the cylinder seal as a glyptic device, and thus the period of reference of this study. The following section will now outline the specific archaeology of the period by surveying the relevant data from the sites included in this study, that is those that yielded glyptic material from the relevant time frame. As already outlined in the definition of ‘Elam’ above (Chapter 1), the Elamite realm can be divided into three board historical provinces, Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars (Carter & Stolper 1984: 103). These provinces not only provide convenient geographical realms to aid in discussion and treatment, but also demonstrate a certain degree of cultural uniformity (particular in the case of lowland Khuzistan), as will be demonstrated below. For this reason, the following survey is divided into three parts according to these geographic divisions. In a general sense, the province of Khuzistan can be described as a lowland area, that is a geological extension of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain (Carter & Stolper 1984: 105). Both Luristan and Fars can be considered ‘highland’ provinces (Carter & Stolper 1984: 106 – 107), though in the case of Luristan a description of transitional foothills and intermontane valleys reaching to higher peaks is perhaps more apt (Carter & Stolper 1984: 107).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 100 Figure 2.1 presents a general map of the region under discussion here, illustrating the sites included in this study (those that produced glyptic material) and several Mesopotamian sites mentioned in this text.

Figure 2.1. Map of sites yielding Elamite or Elamite-related glyptic material. Map after Carter & Stolper 1984, with alterations.

KEY Elamite Sites 12 Godin Tepe Site with ‘Elamite’-type 1 Susa 13 Tepe Djamshidi glyptic material 2 Chogha Mish 14 Tepe Giyan 3 Haft Tepe 15 Chogha Gavaneh Mesopotamian site 4 Choga Zanbil 16 Tal-i Malyan 5 Tepe Sharafabad Mesopotamian Sites Modern town/city 6 Deh-i Now 17 Ur 7 Surkh Dum-i-Luri 18 Larsa 8 Kamtarlan 19 Uruk 9 Chigha Sabz 20 Nippur 10 Bani Surmah 21 Babylon 11 Kalleh Nisar 22 Nuzi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part 1 101 2.2.1 Khuzistan The modern and historical province of Khuzistan (see Figures 1.3 and 2.1) forms the primary source generally, and here, for the Elamite civilisation. This is both a reflection of the importance of this lowland region in ancient times, and of the accidents and circumstances of discovery that frame and colour any archaeological reconstruction (Potts 1999: 8 – 9). In terms of sites included here, Khuzistan is actually the second largest of the three provincial divisions in this study, with six sites (Susa, Chogha Mish, Haft Tepe, Choga Zanbil, Tepe Sharafabad and Deh-i Now) as opposed to the nine of Luristan (see below). However, with four of the five largest site corpora, and among them the extraordinarily large and dominant site Susa, Khuzistan has in fact produced over ninety percent of the items in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue. This dominance is a reflection of the extensive excavations (and indeed, the extensive occupation) of Susa, but the fact that excavations at Chogha Mish and Haft Tepe also produced generally large corpora in spite of the relatively limited excavations at these sites does indicate that the dominance of Khuzistan is not solely the responsibility of Susa, but is also evidence of a wider occupational phenomenon. The Khuzistan plain and the river systems that define it (of particular interest to this study are the Rivers Karkeh, Diz and ), is essentially an extension of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain (Potts 1999: 15). This geological similarity is, as will be discovered, reflected in many ways in the historical and archaeological (material culture) developments of the lowland Khuzistan region which are tied, concomitant with, and mirrored in those of southern Mesopotamia.

2.2.1.1 Susa 2.2.1.1.1 Location and Site Susa is the dominant site of the plain to which it lends its name (Susiana), in the Khuzistan province of southwestern Iran (Carter & Stolper 1984: 103; Harper et al. 1992: xiv ). The site is located upon the Karkeh River, which is itself an extension of the - River system, as it eventually converges with these Mesopotamian rivers at the Shatt al-Arab (Potts 1999: 16). Thus, geographically speaking, the Susiana area is an extension of the Mesopotamian plain (Harper et al. 1992: xiv; Potts 1999: 15 – 18), a factor that is important to our understanding of the cultural history of this region, as will be explored below.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 102 Susa was apparently continuously occupied from around 4000 BC until the end of the 13th century AD (Harper et al. 1992: xiv; Ghirshman 1970: 223; Carter & Stolper 1984: 104), albeit at varying degrees of importance and extent. The site is thus the only in the Corpus to have experienced continual occupation throughout the entirety of this study, yet another reason why the chronological paradigm adopted here, outlined above, is, in many regards, based upon this site. Susa is made up of several areas, or mounds, which are known by their Old Persian or French titles: the Apadana, the Acropole, the Donjon, the Ville Royale and the Ville des Artisans, see Figure 2.2 for details. Most of the glyptic material studied here comes from the French excavations in the Ville Royale and Acropole areas, however, as will be seen below, the nature of these excavations means that we do not possess concrete locus information (even in regard to general site area) for much of the material excavated in, especially, the earlier operations.

Figure 2.2. General plan of Susa, indicating the location of the various ‘mounds’ or areas of the site. Areas shaded green and labelled in italics represent excavated areas. Khaki areas indicate modern (post-ancient) structures. Figure after Carter & Stolper 1984: Figure 13, with alterations

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 103 2.2.1.1.2 Excavation and Publication The British geologist William Kennet Loftus undertook short excavations on the Susa mound in the middle of the nineteenth century (Mousavi 1996: 2 – 3). Little of note can be said of this work expect that it produced the first identification of Susa with biblical Shushan and probably confounded the later damage done to the site by the early French excavators (Mousavi 1996: 2). The first in the long series of French excavators of Susa were the Dieulafoys who worked between 1884 and 1886 (Mousavi 1996: 4 – 6). The age of the French monopoly of excavations at Susa (and indeed Iran) truly began however with the work of Jacques de Morgan with his large scale excavations in 1898 (Mousavi 1996: 6 – 7). A succession of excavators (Roland de Mecquenem, Roman Ghirshman, Jean Perrot, Alain Le Brun) continued the French excavations of Susa almost incessantly until the Islamic Revolution, with brief hiatuses for the World Wars (Mousavi 1996: 7-15). Unfortunately, the excavations prior to World War II were undertaken in a less than scientific manner (Carter 1979: 113; Miroschedji 1978: 215; Young 1978: 237; Amiet 1972: 1; Mousavi 1996: 7 – 16; Potts 1999: 188). As a result of these excavations, much of the excavated material from Susa lacks a secure provenance and there was also irreparable damage to, even loss of, unrecognised mudbrick architecture (Mousavi 1996: 15 – 16). As will become patently apparent in the preceding survey of the various sites that produced relevant glyptic material, and indeed as with any such reanalysis of material excavated during earlier eras of archaeological excavations, the current survey of the Susa material is prisoner to the vagaries and flaws in the techniques (or lack thereof) of past generations of archaeological explorers (Mousavi 1996). While applying this lesson from the past to our current efforts, knowing that we too may be judged by future generations of scholars for our ‘techniques’, little more then resigned acceptance of the reality of the material can be employed here. The site of Susa has suffered immeasurably from such earlier, more clumsy excavation techniques, a fact more than disheartening in light of the extraordinary level of occupation, and the apparently high status for much of its occupation, of the site of Susa. More recent excavations at Susa, in the form of smaller scale sondages and test trenches, generally undertaken in an attempt to rectify the current befuddled state of Susian archaeology, by Carter (1980), Le Brun (1978; 1985) and others (Steve 1994; Steve & Gasche 1971; 1990; Steve et al. 1980), has rectified this situation somewhat, enabling a general survey of the site to be outlined here. However, it

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 104 should be noted that such a survey is incomplete, and the fact remains that much of the material from Susa (including the great majority of the glyptic material under discussion here), was excavated without, or with little regard for, stratigraphic and provenance information, and thus the material presented here must be treated accordingly. The results of the century long French excavations at Susa have been published in a whole series of volumes in the Mémoires series (abbreviated MDP, variously Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique de Susiane, Mémoires de la Mission archéologique de Perse, and Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran). Only the specifically relevant and cited volumes will be included here (Scheil 1905; Pézard 1912; Legrain 1921; Scheil 1923; 1935; Mecquenem 1943; 1949; Rutten 1949; Amiet 1972; De Graef 2005; 2006), the existence of the, still growing, list of such volumes should be noted however. The more recent French excavations have also been published in a series of Cahiers (de la Délégation archéologique Française en Iran, abbreviated CDAFI), and again only the relevant works of this series will be discussed here (Amiet 1971; Le Brun & Vallat 1978; Carter 1980). Notes and articles on the excavations of Susa have also appeared in numerous periodicals, most noticeably Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie Orientale (RA), and again the same regime of selection for the MDP and CDAFI publications apply (Mecquenem 1922; 1925; 1927; 1928; 1937; Scheil 1927; 1931; Rutten 1950; Amiet 1957; 1959; 1960). Other relevant miscellaneous publications of Susa material, particularly of the glyptic material discussed below, include articles (Amiet 1973; 1980b) and earlier synthesis monographs (Dieulafoy 1893; Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1966; Herzfeld 1941; Amiet 1988).

2.2.1.1.3 Site Description, Chronology and Function It should be noted that, following the above outlined limitations and problems with the earlier Susa excavations, while the following survey of the occupation and stratigraphic levels of Susa may seem relatively limited in comparison to the detail of the other surveys to follow, the actual occupation of the site is extensive, and the amount of material (albeit from unstratified, unknown provenance) from the occupation of Susa legion. Thus the apparent cursory and fragmented survey of Susa that follows is a reflection of the usefulness and problems of the available information, rather than the ancient realities.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 105 2.2.1.1.3.1 Susa II period As already mentioned, Susa was originally founded c.4000 BC in the Susa I period (Potts 1999: 47). This occupation, including the massif funéraire and haute terrasse installations (Potts 1999: 47 – 50; see Figure 2.2), is thus beyond the realms of this study and so requires no further description here. The Susa II occupation, with the dates c.3800 – 3100 BC (Potts 1999: 52) marks the beginning of the current study generally and at Susa. Susa II occupation is found in Acropole I, levels 22 – 17, Acropole II, levels 6 – 1 and on the Apadana mound (Potts 1999: 52; Steve & Gasche 1990: 27; Amiet 1986: 12 – 13; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112; Canal 1978: 173). In broad material culture terms, the Susa II Susian assemblage is in definite opposition to that of the preceding Susa I assemblage, in terms of ceramics (bevelled-rim bowls and other forms), brick style and size and, of particular interest here, glyptic material and related administrative/accounting devices (such as bullae, tablets and clay tokens) (Potts 1999: 52 – 69; Carter & Stolper 1984: 113 – 114). As already discussed above, the, particularly later, Susa II period (that is the period of general interest here, following the invention/adoption of the cylinder seal c.3500 BC) is the time of the so-called ‘Uruk Expansion’ (Algaze 1993; Potts 1999: 56 – 59). Indeed, in many regards the, particularly ceramic and glyptic repertoires of Susa II Susa can be likened and conflated with that of Middle and Late Uruk Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 65 – 69; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112 – 114).

2.2.1.1.3.2 Susa III period The Susa III period is known from Acropole I, Levels 16 – 13 and Ville Royale I, Levels 18 – 13 (Potts 1999: 71; Amiet 1986: 12; Le Brun 1978: 189 – 190; Carter & Stolper 1984: 118; Carter 1980: 13, 20, 25 – 26). A break in occupation, or at least a levelling of previous occupation to make way for the Susa III installations can be discerned between Acropole Levels 17A/B (terminal Susa II) and the initial Level 16 Susa III occupation (Le Brun 1978: 189 – 190; Dyson 1987: 648; Carter & Stolper 1984: 118). This break, of unknown length and extension, is concomitant with an alteration of the Susian material cultural assemblage from the typical Uruk-type Susa II repertoire to the Susa III assemblage, previously characterised as ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Potts 1999: 71 – 79). This new assemblage, and its difference from the preceding Susa II occupation, is especially noted in the areas of ceramics, glyptic art (further outlined below), and tablets and writing (that is, the so-called ‘Proto-Elamite’ writing

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 106 system) (Potts 1999: 71 – 79; Carter & Stolper1984: 118 – 119). The occupation on the Apadana mound known from the Susa II period appears to have been abandoned in the Susa III period (Potts 1999: 93; Steve & Gasche 1990: 28).

2.2.1.1.3.3 Susa IV period The following period of occupation at Susa is defined as Susa IV (Potts 1999: 93). Specifically, the pre-Akkadian occupation at Susa is referred to as the Susa IVA period, and is generally correlated, both chronologically and in a general material culture sense, with the Early Dynastic period of southern Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 93 – 97; Carter & Stolper 1984: 133 – 135). The end of the period IVA occupation is the first change in nomenclature and cultural/chronological designation inspired by a dated (relatively or otherwise) historical event, in this instance, the conquest of Susa by Sargon and the Akkadians (see above). The Apadana mound of Susa appears to once again be occupied in the Susa IVA period, after a hiatus in the Susa III, as proposed through the discovery of numerous kilns and graves on the mound under the Achaemenid palace (Steve & Gasche 1990: 28). Other Susa IVA occupation levels have been uncovered in the Donjon area, including a ‘cache’ of sealings, and some tombs, originally excavated by de Mecquenem (Potts 1999: 95), and a possible temple with “Sumerian type” stone wall plaques on the Acropole (Carter 1985: 43). Stratified remains from Carter’s Ville Royale I (levels 12 – 9A) excavations include mudbrick architecture, and ceramics (Carter 1980; Potts 1999: 96 – 97).

2.2.1.1.3.4 ‘Akkadian and Awan’ The subsequent phase of Susa history can be defined by the conquest of Sargon of Agade, and the resulting Akkadian sovereignty over Susiana during the subsequent reigns of Rimush, Manishtusu and Naram-Sin (Potts 1999: 101 – 121). The extent or otherwise of the actual sovereignty exerted by Akkadian kings over Susa and other eastern regions, and the reality of these conquests can be debated (Potts 199:103, 111), however, archaeological evidence from Susa itself testifies to Akkadian construction of temples at the site, as evidenced by the presence of inscribed brick fragments naming Naram-Sin (Potts 1999: 107). Other written sources, including inscribed cylinder sealings, discussed in more detail below (Chapters 3.4 and 7.2), also name Naram-Sin and provide evidence for the presence of governors (ensís) at

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 107 Susa of this king and his predecessor Manishtusu and successor Shar-kali-sharri (Potts 1999: 107 – 109; Gelb & Kienast 1990: 318 – 319). The Akkadian period of Susa is labelled the Susa IVB period (Carter 1985: 43 – 45). Susian occupation evidence for this period includes possible graves under the Achaemenid palace on the Apadana (as judged by the grave goods) (Steve & Gasche 1990: 28), the evidence for a building with vaulted rooms, possibly a granary on the Acropole (levels 1 and 2; Steve & Gasche 1971: 77) and a domestic complex in Ville Royale I, evidenced by an oven and a fireplace (as well as a grave), in Levels 8 – 7 (Carter 1980; Potts 1999: 112). In terms of ceramics, glyptic items (including inscribed sealing items discussed later) and some of the human figurines found at Susa, clear Akkadian Mesopotamian types were employed (Potts 1999: 112 – 116), though in at least the realms of glyptic art and the figurines local, ‘Elamite’ (or non-Akkadian) types also occurred (Potts 1999: 116; see below and Chapter 5 for details of the glyptic material). The obvious presence of texts at Susa also testifies to the presence of influence and Akkadian types during period IVB Susa. The precise status of Susa following the fall of the Akkadian Empire, its incorporation into the entity known as ‘Awan’, and the reign of Puzur-Inshushinak, discussed above, are uncertain (Potts 1999: 129) and need not be entered into here. However, the presence of several texts of the so-called ‘Linear Elamite’, type heavily associated with Puzur-Inshushinak, and the testimony these provide to his control of Susa (Potts 1999: 125 – 127) should be noted.

2.2.1.1.3.5 ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ In terms of archaeological evidence, there is no clear break or distinction between the late Akkadian material at Susa and the material from the period of the Ur III annexation of the site, nor the subsequent era of the Shimashki Dynasty rule (Potts 1999: 150), as discussed above. The transition at Susa, and elsewhere, between the ‘Akkadian & Awan’ phase and the subsequent ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ phase is therefore essentially historical, and not archaeological, though within these periods archaeological/material culture differences can be identified. The so-called ‘House of Igubuni’ or ‘Archive Building’ discovered by Ghirshman in the Susa Ville Royale Chantier B, level 6, demonstrates two floor levels, both of which reportedly date to the late Ur III, pre-Shimashkian era of Susa (or roughly the middle of the ‘Ur III &

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 108 Shimashki’ period of this study), according to numerous tablets found in the building bearing Ur III dated texts, ranging from Ibbi-Sin 1 through to Shu-Sin 4 (or 2028/27 – 2034/34 BC in our system) (de Meyer 1986: 76; Potts 1999: 151 – 152). It is thus textual sources, as here, and other inscribed objects (such as those already outlined above in the initial survey of the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period), that forms the majority of our available evidence regarding the occupation of Susa in this period. Little else of any relevance regarding the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ occupation of Susa can be discerned from the available archaeological evidence. The presence of Mesopotamian (Ur III) texts and other elements of Mesopotamian-type material (such as ceramics) should be noted (Carter & Stolper 1984: 148 – 149). Similarly, as will be discerned below, the glyptic material from the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period at Susa may reflect in a microcosm the material culture of Susa of the time more generally, with both clear, standard Mesopotamian styles (the UTRS detailed below [Chapter 4]) and the contemporary, ‘local’, popular material (PEU, discussed below [Chapter 4], formerly the ‘Anshanite’ or ‘Popular Elamite’ styles [Potts 1999: 151; Amiet 1986; 1992a]). This dichotomy is also reflected in the textual ethnic/linguistic evidence from this period at Susa, where the evidence of the names and languages found in the texts, testify to both Mesopotamian and Elamite (and indeed other ‘eastern’) peoples at Susa (Potts 1999: 156 – 157), illustrating a kind of shared, or mixed culture society.

2.2.1.1.3.6 Sukkalmah As already discussed above, and like the preceding periods, there is no sharp stratigraphic break between the Sukkalmah and the preceding ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ periods at Susa (and indeed, the same applies to the Sukkalmah to Middle Elamite transition below) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 146 – 149), for again the change is more an historical, rather than an archaeological one. Levels 15 – 12 of Ghirshman’s ‘Chantier A’ Ville Royale excavations can be assigned to the Sukkalmah period according to material culture and architectural evidence (Potts 1999: 171). In this area a succession of buildings, including a ‘chapel’ (Level 15), a ‘large household’ (14), an industrial area equipped with kilns (13), and a “house of the temple prostitutes”, have been discerned by Carter (1985: 47; Potts 1999: 171 – 172). Among the graves of the Apadana, already discussed, a complex of rooms can be associated, ceramically, with material from Ville Royale A15 and B6 – 5 (Steve & Gasche 1990: 16, 18, 23; Potts 1999: 172). Houses in the Ville Royale (‘Complexe

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 109 Est’), levels A12 and A11 can also be associated with the Sukkalmah period on the evidence of tablets uncovered in the two building levels, naming six of the final sukkalmahs (and the first ‘King of Susa and Anshan’, Kidinu, returned to below) (Potts 1999: 172; Steve 1994: 25 – 27). Brick inscriptions from five sukkalmahs (Kuk-Kirmash, Atta-hushu, Temti-Agun, Temti-halki and Kuk-Nashur, see above for details) also testify to royal constructions at Sukkalmah Susa (including a ramp [the purpose of which is unclear], a Temple of Ishmekarab and a Temple of Inshushinak) (Potts 1999: 172 – 174), the remains of which cannot be certainly discerned. The ceramic materials from Sukkalmah Susa demonstrate a continuity from the largely Mesopotamian forms of the Shimashki period, with the addition of some new types, including ‘cylindrical goblets’, ‘Elamite flasks’ and an incised/punctate ‘greyware’ known also from the Diyala and Luristan regions (Potts 1999: 174 – 175; Carter & Stolper 1984: 148; Gasche 1973). Other elements of material culture, including ‘bitumen compound’ (or as in this study, ‘bitumen aggregate’, see Chapter 1 for the discussion of this material) vessels (and seals, see below) (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 228 – 337; Potts 1999: 175), male and female terra cotta figurines (Potts 1999: 175 – 176) and various metal items including weapons (axes, spears, lances, arrows, daggers), tools (adzes, sickles, hoes), vessels, personal ornaments, and figurines and statuary (Potts 1999: 177).

2.2.1.1.3.7 Middle Elamite As described above, in the articulation of the Middle Elamite period, the material culture of this period at Susa, or indeed elsewhere, cannot generally be sub-divided according to the four, generally historical/dynastic, sub-phases identified here (Potts 1999: 195) (an exception for some of the glyptic material, through a study of the distribution of styles at the chronologically mutually exclusive Middle Elamite sites, Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil to this lack of archaeological correlates for the sub- phases will be outlined below however [Chapter 4]). Thus the Middle Elamite period at Susa can be considered, generally, as a cultural and stratigraphic whole. As already mentioned, a tablet in the upper (Level 11), of the ‘tablet archive’ room in the Ville Royale ‘Complexe Est’ names Kidinu, the first king of the Middle Elamite period (see above), found in association with tablets naming several sukkalmahs of the preceding period (Potts 1999: 172; Steve & Gasche 1994: 25 – 27). This not only provides evidence for the non-stratigraphic or distinct break between the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 110 late Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite periods, but also for the designation of level A11 of the ‘East Complex’, at least in part, to the Middle Elamite period. As well as this occupation that can be dated to the early (Middle Elamite I) period, evidence for a hiatus in the Ville Royale A between the earlier (ME I) level 11 and later (ME III) levels 10 – 9 also demonstrates that some, limited, stratigraphic refinement at Susa can be discerned (based upon ceramic correlations with the more securely dated Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil Middle Elamite occupations, see below) (Steve et al. 1980: 67; Potts 1999: 205). De Miroschedji’s small exposure of mudbrick architecture in his Ville Royale II sounding (levels 12 and 13), can similarly be dated to the Middle Elamite I period (Potts 1999: 194 – 195). Other evidence for Susian Middle Elamite occupation, such as a large area of domestic architecture in the Ville Royale A, level 11 area (Steve et al. 1980; Potts 1999: 194; Spycket 1992: 157) and a ‘pit’ on the Acropole (Potts 1999: 205), can be dated to the Middle Elamite period more generally, and testify to the extent of Middle Elamite occupation of Susa. Numerous inscribed bricks from Susa, naming Middle Elamite kings from Tepti-ahar to Kutir-Nahhunte (Potts 1999: 195, 205 – 206, 232, see above for kingly details), testify to numerous constructions erected by various kings across the site of Susa, the remains of which cannot be generally discerned following years of subsequent occupation, Mesopotamian sacking, and less then scientific excavations, despite which, knowledge of their existence further demonstrates the occupation of Susa in this period. Carter has described the ceramic material of the second millennium as a single course of continuous development, and as such the ceramics of Middle Elamite Susa can be seen to generally continue trends and types from the Sukkalmah period (1971: 113), patterns that can also be discerned in the Middle Elamite ceramic assemblages from Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil. Of particular note is the so-called ‘Middle Elamite goblet’ (Carter 1971: 115). Similar in form to the ‘Kassite chalice’, though with the variations of a finer fabric and hollow stem (Carter 1971: 115), this type indicates again that the ceramic material from Susa demonstrates general similarities to Mesopotamian forms, though with local characteristics. Other characteristic artefacts of Middle Elamite Susa included naked female clay/terracotta figurines (Potts 1999: 194; Sypcket 1992: 145 – 147, 157) and clay wall plaques (Carter 1996: 31; Potts 1999: 232, 248). Both the figurines (Haft Tepe:

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 111 Negahban 1991: 39 – 41) and the wall plaques (Choga Zanbil, Tal-i Malyan: Potts 1999: 232, 248) are also known from other Middle Elamite sites. As well as these assemblages, more spectacular and impressive items found at Susa and dating to the Middle Elamite period deserve some attention. These include works of bronze such as the bronze relief depicting seven warrior found in the excavations of the (Acropole) Inshushinak Temple at Susa (Potts 1999: 217; Amiet 1966: 404 – 405), the cast bronze statue of Untash-Napirisha’s wife, Napir-Asu (Potts 1999: 218 – 219; Amiet 1966: 373), and the so-called sit shamsi (‘sunrise’) cast bronze model apparently depicting a religious ceremony (Potts 1999: 239; Amiet 1966: 392 – 393). Works of stone, such as the of Untash-Napirisha (Miroschedji 1981; Amiet 1966: 374 – 377), a limestone statue, possibly of Napirisha, commissioned by Untash-Napirisha (Potts 1999: 220 – 221) and the ‘Stele of Shutruk- Nahhunte’, re-cut from a Babylonian original (Potts 1999: 233 – 236; Amiet 1966: 410 – 411), also demonstrate the material culture of this period. In the realm of architectural decoration the moulded brick façade of the (northern, Apadana, see Figure 2.2) Temple of Inshushinak commissioned by Shilhak-Inshushinak is a fine example of the expertise in this area (Potts 1999: 240 – 242; Amiet 1966: 396 – 397). As well as providing an insight into the technical expertise and advances of the Middle Elamite civilisation, this list of objects also provides an introduction to the iconography, themes and manner of depictions of the Middle Elamite period that, as will be shown below, at times are reflected and similarly manifested in its glyptic art (Chapter 4). The later occupation of Susa, beyond the Middle Elamite period, need not be discussed here as it lies beyond the realms of this study. However, the existence of significant, continued occupation of the mound of Susa itself (Potts 1999: 259ff.), and indeed the surrounds to this day (the modern town of Shush), should be noted, particularly the damage, destruction and impact such occupation has had on the remains that concern us here.

2.2.1.1.4 Function For most of its existence Susa appears to have functioned as, at least, a regional centre, if not a fully-fledged capital (Harper et al. 1992: 1ff). The preceding survey has evidenced this, through the discussion of many royal inscribed bricks and public and monumental religious structures. The exact functioning of Susa in each period as

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 112 a capital in the sense of an administrative or residential seat of government or regime cannot really be discerned on the basis of the current evidence, as this requires both a more thorough understanding of the ‘Elamite’ political structure generally, and the interaction (and indeed location) of the various geographic locations associated with Elam throughout time (Awan, Shimashki, etc.). The role of Susa as, at least, a titular (co-)capital is assured by the titles and terms of the many kings and authorities through the Shimashki, Sukkalmah and Middle Elamite dynasties (see Tables 2.2, 2.3, and 2.7). The ancient reality of some of these claims as opposed to terms of rhetoric and royal propaganda similarly must remain shrouded in some obscurity based on the material currently at hand. The role of Susa as a cultural capital, an urban, cosmopolitan metropolis, can perhaps also be hypothesised on the basis of the material and evidence for occupation at Susa (Carter & Stolper 1984: 104). The kingly actions of urban beautification and construction of temples and other such installation at Susa, testified to by numerous brick inscriptional remains from these buildings detailed above, also testify to the importance of Susa throughout many (if not all) the periods under discussion here (and indeed, also testify to the desire of the kings to please, satisfy and propitiate both the divinities and the denizens of Susa). Finally, during the Middle Elamite period, it was to Susa that the triumphant Shutrukids brought and displayed their booty won in victories over Kassite Babylonia (including the well-known ‘Law Code of Hammurabi’ and ‘Victory Stele of Naram-Sin’ [Potts 1999: 233 – 236]), surely a function of a capital. The geographical position of Susa on the Khuzistan lowlands, that are themselves a geological extension of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, means that “at times Susa appears the most Elamite of the Mesopotamian city-states; less often it seems to be the most Mesopotamian of the Elamite towns” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 104). Whether Carter’s characterisation is absolutely accepted, for while in archaeological (material cultural) terms, many Mesopotamian forms are indeed found at Susa, the textual evidence, and at times equally evident material culture forms (including, as will be discovered, in terms of glyptic art [Chapters 4, 5 and 7]) previously surveyed does indicate that Susa was, often, if not always, considered ‘Elamite’ rather than ‘Mesopotamian’, the existence of a certain Mesopotamian ‘flavour’ to the occupation should be acknowledged.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 113 2.2.1.1.5 Glyptic Material Like the general Susa material outlined above, the glyptic material from the site has been published in many different studies, from monographs devoted solely to glyptic material (Amiet 1972; Delaporte 1920), to short note articles providing examples of excavated material (Pézard 1912), to large illustrative, almost pictorial, volumes (Amiet 1966; 1988; Herzfeld 1941), to simple asides in texts devoted to tablets and philological concerns (Scheil 1905; De Graef 2005). The material has also received a variety of treatments, from detailed, annotated study and stylistic classification (Amiet 1972) to cursory mention, perhaps limited to simple illustration with no associated details (Herzfeld 1941). Indeed, a desire to provide a more consistent and standard treatment of all the Susian glyptic material was an initial motivation for the present study. Table 2.11 provides a summary of the various publications from which material in this study was sourced, and evidences the variety and inconsistency of the treatment the Susa material has received over a century of study and publication. Several of these studies warrant further attention here, by way of explaining the numbers of items included, and the criteria for such inclusion. The first major work devoted to the glyptic material from Susa is a catalogue of variously composed collections housed in the Louvre, authored by Delaporte (1920; abbreviated CCO I). Thus the relevant Susa material is published alongside that excavated by Ernst de Sarzec at Tello and a number of art market based collections donated to the Louvre (Delaporte 1920). The items thus published in CCO I include the material excavated at Susa by de Morgan between 1897 and 1912, and curated in the Louvre (Delaporte 1920: 27). Therefore any similarly excavated material kept in Tehran has not thus been published here (or perhaps anywhere). In the same volume the Dieulafoy Collection, also donated to the Louvre, is published (Delaporte 1920). This collection includes cylinder seals collected by M. and Mme Dieulafoy from Baghdadi art markets and, of interest to us here, during their 1886 – 1888 excavations at Susa (Delaporte 1920: 66). Only four items from the Dieulafoy Susa excavations are thus published by Delaporte however, and no information regarding the relative proportions of these items within the Dieulafoy excavated material is given (that is, how many other, not published materials may have been so found, and the current location of these items).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 114 Publication Type Included 1. Scheil 1905 (MDP 6) catalogue of ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets 6 2. Pézard 1912 (MDP 12) general preliminary site report 10 3. Delaporte 1920 (CCO I) glyptic catalogue (Louvre Susa seals, 1897 – 457 1912; 1886 – 1888) 4. Legrain 1921 (MDP 16) catalogue of ‘Elamite’ seal impressions from 162 Susa 5. Mecquenem 1922 (RA 19) catalogue of glyptic material excavated 3 6. Scheil 1923 (MDP 17) catalogue of ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets 27 7. Mecquenem 1925 (RA 22) catalogue of seals excavated, 1923 – 1924 3 8. Mecquenem 1927 (RA 24) catalogue of seals excavated, 1925 – 1926 3 9. Scheil 1927 (RA 23) note on excavated materials 6 10. Mecquenem 1928 (RA 25) note on excavated materials 2 11. Scheil 1931 (RA 28) study/publication of ‘Awan and Shimashki 1 Dynasty List’ 12. Scheil 1935 (MDP 26) catalogue of ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets 41 13. Mecquenem 1937 (RA 34) note on excavated materials 1 14. Herzfeld 1941 (IAE) general study of Iranian archaeology 22 15. Mecquenem 1943 (MDP note on excavated materials, 1929 – 1933 11 29) 16. Rutten 1949 (MDP31) general preliminary site report 4 17. Rutten 1950 (RA 44) catalogue of glyptic material 2 18. Amiet 1971 (CDAFI 1) catalogue of glyptic material from Acropole, 19 1969 – 1971 19. Amiet 1972 (MDP 43) catalogue of glyptic material, 1913 – 1967 1757 20. Amiet 1973 (AA 26) catalogue of ‘Susa reserves’ and ‘recent’ 39 glyptic material 21. Le Brun & Vallat 1978 catalogue of glyptic material, Acropole 17B, 46 (CDAFI 8) 1972 22. Carter 1980 (CDAFI 11) general excavation report, Ville Royale I 5 23. Amiet 1980a (GMA) study of early Mesopotamian glyptic, 34 including some Susa material 24. Amiet 1980b (I. A. 15) catalogue of glyptic material from Ville 4 Royale Chantiers A & B, 2nd millennium 25. Amiet 1986 (I – I) general study of Iranian archaeology 1 26. Connan & Deschesne 1996 study of ‘bitumen compound’ (‘bitumen 1 (LBS) aggregate’) items held in Louvre 27. Tehran Sealings (T. S.) personal study of sealings held in Tehran 62 Archaeological Museum, 2004 28. De Graef 2005 (MDP 54) study of tablets from Ville Royale B 15 29. De Graef 2006 (MDP 55) study of tablets from Ville Royale B 12 Table 2.11. General summary of the publications from whence the Susa glyptic material was sourced, including volume type, and amount of items published included in this study. It should be noted that in most cases, all the items published in a given text, for example RA 22, were not included, but only those deemed not to have been published before, based upon detailed concordances and bibliographic information, and in the absence of such, visual comparison. In rare instances it is possible that a seal, published without a detailed list of previous publication or bibliographic information, is included here more than once, as it was deemed better to err on the side of caution and so include all, possibly, unpublished material.

The generally cited seminal text of Susian glyptic material by Amiet (1972; also MDP 43), published as part of the Mémoire series, does not, contrary to popular opinion, detail all the Susian excavated glyptic material. According to the ‘official’

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 115 parameters of that work, Amiet studied and published the glyptic material discovered by the French excavators at Susa only in the seasons during the period 1913 – 1967 (Amiet 1972: 3). Furthermore, some of the material from the so-called ‘Susa Reserves’ (material excavated before 1913 and curated in the ‘Chateau de Suse’ site museum) was published in an appendix to MDP 43 (Amiet 1972: appendix I) and in two later articles, along with some (though by no means all) material uncovered in more recent excavations (Amiet 1973 [AA 26]; 1980b [I.A. 15]). Thus, MDP 43 contains a small portion of the material uncovered prior to 1913, but reportedly only that curated at Susa itself, and presumably (at no point is this assured) all the material excavated at Susa between 1913 and 1967, that is, the material from the excavations of de Mecquenem and Ghirshman (Amiet 1972: 2). This structure is contradicted by the text itself however, as some of the material contained in MDP 43 is provided with the annotation “fouilles J. de Morgan” (for example MDP 43: 479, Amiet 1972: 85), presumably indicating that these items were excavated by Jacques de Morgan. As de Morgan ceased excavations at Susa in 1912 (Amiet 1972: 2), these materials belong beyond the stated 1913 – 1967 realm of this study. Furthermore, the catalogue number of these items (in the case of the above cited MDP 43: 479, Sb4854) suggest that they are currently kept in the Louvre, and so presumably do not belong to the ‘Susa Reserve’ group acknowledged as having been excavated prior to 1913 but included in MDP 43. While the inclusion of these seals in the work is not problematic per se the lack of an explanation for their inclusion causes confusion, and uncertainty as to how many such items were included in that study, and what proportion of those items excavated prior to 1913 have been included, and what proportion remain unpublished and unstudied. Thus, on face value, the Delaporte catalogue (CCO I, Delaporte 1920) combined with the Amiet volume (MDP 43, Amiet 1972), should detail the material excavated at Susa from the two periods 1897 – 1912 (with several from the 1886 – 1888 Dieulafoy excavations), and 1913 – 1967 respectively. However, there is some internal contradiction in the material so published, and thus there can be no confident belief that all items have been published (indeed, the non-Louvre or Susa curated pre- 1913 material, that is currently in Tehran, is known to have been unstudied). Furthermore, if the 1913 – 1967 Amiet data set was complete, one would expect that all the glyptic items published in numerous site reports and short catalogues (that is, volumes 4 – 7 in Table 2.11) reportedly detailing material excavated within the 1913

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 116 – 1967 window would have been studied, detailed and republished by Amiet. However, as the very presence of these volumes in Table 2.11 verifies (for only those items presenting material not sourced elsewhere, that is, the primary sources of a given item included in the Catalogue, have been included in the table), this is not the case, and several, admittedly isolated, seals from, for example RA 22 which details material excavated in the 1923 – 1924 Susa season (Mecquenem 1925), have not been included by Amiet. Thus, again this causes some doubt as to the exact extent and proportion of the material publication of the Susian glyptic material. The study abbreviated T. S. (number 27 in Table 2.11, short for ‘Tehran Sealings’), should also be noted. This abbreviation refers to a study of, allegedly, unpublished glyptic material held in the Tehran Museum, of a ‘Proto-Elamite’ (that is Susa III) type, reportedly sourced from ‘earlier French’ excavations at Susa (possibly the previously unaccounted for pre-1913 excavated material, corresponding to the Louvre Delaporte material) by the author in October 2004. The details of this study will be returned to below (Chapters 3, 5), but it should be noted that much of this material had in fact, as was revealed upon study, been published previously (as testified to by the Concordance associated with the Catalogue, where T. S. items appear as sub-sources of materials published by Amiet and others, for example seal 31; and incidentally, the material was not entirely of Susa III type [see below]). The publication of some of this material by Amiet would seem to discount the hypothesis that this material is, at least a portion of, the pre-1913 excavated material, however, the above cited contradiction of the inclusion of other items of pre-1913 material published by Amiet in MDP 43 would indicate that this hypothesis should not be rejected out of hand. The exact constitution of the Tehran Sealings thus remains somewhat of an enigma, though their provenance from Susa is assured (both by the field numbers recorded on the items themselves and by the simple fact that some of the material was published by Amiet) and thus the T. S. material that was judged to have been previously unpublished has been included here. In conclusion, a variety of sources were gleaned to produce the Susa corpus here included. All previous publications of Susian glyptic material were studied, and all items thus available have been included. The absolute possibility that other glyptic items, both from the earlier and the more recent (post-1967) excavations of Susa exist should be noted, but as they have not been published they, obviously, have not been

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 117 included here. From the available sources therefore, the Susa corpus included here numbers 2755 items. As already mentioned, the Susa corpus is overwhelmingly the largest of the site corpora included in the Catalogue (as demonstrated below, see Chapters 4 and 5 for this, and all cited relative proportions). It is hypothesised that this is emblematic both of the ancient reality of the extensive occupation of Susa and of the extraordinary extent of excavation at the site. Due to the great numbers of the Susa corpus, a summary table of the glyptic material will not be presented here as with the other site corpora, however, Table 2.12 does present a summary of the glyptic items from Susa with a known provenance. The (especially earlier) excavations of Susa, as discussed above provided little stratigraphic information and contained few locus refinements, and as such only 270 Susa items have any sort of provenance information (or less then 10%). For the most part, as demonstrated by Table 2.12, what information is available is limited to general areas of the site (such as ‘Acropole south’). It is therefore, on the basis of this information, difficult to ascertain a function for much of the glyptic material on the basis of provenance. The fourteen items reportedly found in ‘Tombs’ can however be assigned a funerary context/function, though the possibility that other items exist that were not recorded as such but similarly provenanced cannot be discounted. The thirty-six items said to be provenanced from the ‘Temple of Shushinak’ (sic Delaporte 1920, one can assume the ‘Temple of Inshushinak’, presumably that on the Acropole, and not the Apadana synonymously named temple, is meant, as this was the area excavated by de Morgan [see Figure 2.2]), can be assumed to have held a votive function of some type due to their temple association, though this reconstruction is only preliminary and essentially speculative. No other reconstruction of function on the basis of provenance can thus be made. On the basis of type, it can be assumed that much of the glyptic material from Susa had an administrative/control function. Fifteen hundred and seventy-two seals, and eleven hundred and eighty-three sealings (including two hundred and fifteen bulla(e) and three hundred and twenty-one tablets) can be discerned in the Susa corpus (as illustrated in the Catalogue). Thus a control/administrative function can be associated with the sealings, though while a similar function can be assumed for the seals, this cannot currently be assured.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 118 Seal Class. Provenance Seal Class. Provenance 1 STS (1) Acropole south 338 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 2 STS (1) Acropole south 339 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 3 STS (1) Acropole south 340 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 20 STS (2) Acropole 341 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 25 STS (2) Acropole south 342 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 34 STS (2) Acropole I, 18 343 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 40 STS (3) Acropole south 344 STS (15) Acropole, 17B2 46 STS (3) Acropole 345 STS (15) Acropole, 17B2 47 STS (3) Acropole 346 STS (15) Acropole, 17B 69 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 347 STS (15) Acropole, 17A 70 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 363 STS (16) Acropole 71 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 364 STS (16) Acropole 72 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 366 STS (16) Acropole south 87 STS (5) Acropole south 377 STS (16) Acropole south 88 STS (5) Acropole 379 STS (16) Acropole south 96 STS (5) Acropole, 17A 380 STS (16) southeast Acropole 97 STS (5) Acropole, 17B 382 STS (16) Acropole south 98 STS (5) Acropole I, 18 388 STS (16) Acropole I, 18 125 STS (7) Acropole south 389 STS (16) Acropole I, 18 135 STS (7) Acropole south 390 STS (16) Acropole I, 18 153 STS (7) Acropole, 17B 391 STS (16) Acropole, 17B2 154 STS (7) Acropole, 17B 392 STS (16) Acropole, 17B2 155 STS (7) Acropole I, 18 414 STS (17) Acropole south 156 STS (7) Acropole I, 17B 416 STS (17) Acropole south 157 STS (7) Acropole, 17B2 417 STS (17) Acropole I, 18 158 STS (7) Ville Royale, 3 418 STS (17) Acropole I, 18 176 STS (8) Acropole south 419 STS (17) Acropole I, 18 178 STS (8) Acropole south 430 STS (18) Acropole south 187 STS (8) Acropole south 436 STS (19) Acropole north 190 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 437 STS (19) southeast Acropole 191 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 443 STS (20) Acropole south 192 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 444 STS (20) Acropole north 193 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 447 STS (20) Acropole south 194 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 449 STS (20) Acropole south 206 STS (9) Acropole, 17B2 468 STS (21) Acropole south 214 STS (10) Acropole south 471 STS (21) Acropole south 227 STS (10) Acropole I, 18 492 STS (22) Acropole I, 18 243 STS (11) Acropole I, 18 591 JNRS (3) Acropole, 17B2 244 STS (11) Acropole I, 18 592 JNRS (3) Acropole, 17A 249 STS (12) Acropole, 17B 593 JNRS (3) Acropole, 15A 253 STS (12) Acropole, south 665 JNRS (5) east of the Apadana 255 STS (12) Acropole, south 681 JNRS (5) east of the Apadana 266 STS (13) Acropole south 691 JNRS (5) Acropole 275 STS (13) Acropole north 699 JNRS (5) Apadana 282 STS (13) Acropole, 17A 702 JNRS (5) Acropole south 283 STS (13) Acropole I, 18 714 JNRS (5) Acropole, 21 292 STS (14) Acropole south 715 JNRS (5) Acropole, 17 293 STS (14) Acropole north 716 JNRS (5) Acropole, 17A 301 STS (14) Acropole south 717 JNRS (5) Acropole, 17B2 302 STS (14) Acropole south 750 JNRS (6) east of the Apadana 306 STS (14) Acropole south 752 JNRS (7) Temple of Shushinak 310 STS (14) southeast Acropole 759 JNRS (7) Acropole south 320 STS (15) southeast Acropole 763 JNRS (7) Acropole south 322 STS (15) Acropole south 783 JNRS (7) Acropole I, 18 323 STS (15) Acropole south 817 CPE (1) Ville Royale 334 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 916 CPE (3) Acropole 335 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 920 CPE (3) Acropole south 336 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 926 CPE (3) Acropole south 337 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 942 CPE (3) Acropole, 16

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 119 Seal Class. Provenance Seal Class. Provenance 977 CPE (4) Acropole south 2208 ARS (10) Temple of Shushinak 983 CPE (4) Acropole 2231 ARS (10) Acropole 985 CPE (4) Acropole 2232 ARS (10) Acropole 989 CPE (4) Acropole north 2233 ARS (10) Acropole 991 CPE (4) Acropole south 2254 ARS (11) Tomb 995 CPE (4) Acropole south 2292 PEA (3) Temple of Shushinak 1053 CPE (8) Acropole south 2293 PEA (4) Temple of Shushinak 1072 CPE (8) Acropole, 15A 2302 PEA (6) Temple of Shushinak 1073 CPE (8) Acropole, 15A 2304 PEA (6) Temple of Shushinak 1146 GS (1) Acropole, 14B 2320 PEA (7) Temple of Shushinak 1149 GS (2) Acropole south 2322 PEA (7) Temple of Shushinak 1157 GS (3) Acropole south 2323 PEA (7) Temple of Shushinak 1161 GS (3) Ville Royale, 5 2346 UTRS (2) Ville Royale, 6B 1192 GS (4) Acropole 2348 UTRS (2) Ville Royale 1201 GS (4) Acropole, 16 2350 UTRS (2) Ville Royale B 1241 GS (5) Acropole 2355 UTRS (3) Tomb 1331 GS (6) Acropole, 17 2388 UTRS (4) Temple of Shushinak 1332 GS (6) Acropole, 14B 2401 UTRS (4) Tomb 1333 GS (6) Acropole, 15A 2402 UTRS (4) Tomb 1340 GS (6) north Ville Royale, 9 2423 UTRS (4) Ville Royale 1362 GS (6) Acropole, 9 2427 UTRS (4) Ville Royale 1373 GS (7) Acropole, 15A 2442 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, 14A 1389 AGD (1) Acropole, 14A 2447 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B 1474 AGD (7) Acropole, 17A 2448 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B 1489 AGD (8) Acropole south 2449 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B 1615 AGD (14) Acropole 2450 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B 1616 AGD (14) Acropole, 14A 2490 PEU (2) Temple of Shushinak 1624 AGD (14) Acropole 2491 PEU (2) Temple of Shushinak 1640 AGD (14) Acropole, 17A 2492 PEU (2) Temple of Shushinak 1641 AGD (14) Acropole, 14B 2528 PEU (3) Temple of Shushinak 1648 AGD (15) Acropole, 15A 2529 PEU (3) Temple of Shushinak 1706 STF (1) Ville Royale, 4 2530 PEU (3) Temple of Shushinak 1732 STF (2) south Donjon 2555 PEU (4) Temple of Shushinak 1737 STF (2) Donjon 2573 PEU (6) Donjon(?) 1738 STF (2) Donjon 2586 PEU (6) Donjon(?) 1751 STF (2) Acropole, 17A 2593 PEU (6) Donjon(?) 1819 STF (3) Acropole south 2596 PEU (6) Donjon(?) 1829 STF (3) Apadana 2599 PEU (7) Temple of Shushinak 1836 STF (3) Acropole 2626 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 1898 STF (3) Acropole, 17A 2627 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 1899 STF (3) Acropole, 17A 2628 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 2001 SF (3) Acropole south 2629 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 2002 SF (3) southwest Ville Royale 2630 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 2011 SF (3) Acropole 2631 OBRS (2) – 2027 SF (3) Ville Royale, 4 2632 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 2063 SF (6) Donjon south 2633 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 2064 SF (6) Acropole 2634 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak 2112 ARS (1) Ville Royale 2693 OBRS (2) Tomb 2132 ARS (2) Donjon 2696 OBRS (2) Donjon Tomb 2135 ARS (3) Donjon Tomb 2715 OBRS (3) Temple of Shushinak 2137 ARS (3) Donjon Tomb 2727 PEO (3) Temple of Shushinak 2144 ARS (3) Ville Royale 2728 PEO (3) Temple of Shushinak 2148 ARS (3) Acropole 2729 PEO (3) tomb 2149 ARS (3) Acropole 2735 PEO (4) Temple of Shushinak 2160 ARS (5) Ville Royale 2743 PEO (7) Temple of Shushinak 2166 ARS (6) southeast Ville Royale 2745 PEO (7) Temple of Shushinak 2178 ARS (7) Ville Royale 2759 PEO (7) Ville Royale 2186 ARS (8) southeast Ville Royale 2762 PEO (8) Temple of Shushinak 2190 ARS (9) Temple of Shushinak 2763 PEO (8) Temple of Shushinak

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 120 Seal Class. Provenance Seal Class. Provenance 2775 EME (1) Ville Royale, 12A 3458 No Image Ville Royale B 2867 EME (5) Acropole, 12A 3459 No Image Ville Royale B 3020 KRS (1) Ville Royale, 13A, tomb 3460 No Image Ville Royale B 3055 LME (1) Temple of Shushinak 3461 No Image Ville Royale B 3130 LME (6) Ville Royale, 13A, tomb 3462 No Image Ville Royale B 3131 LME (6) Ville Royale, 12A 3463 No Image Ville Royale B 3158 LME (7) Ville Royale, 13A, tomb 3464 No Image Ville Royale B 3175 LME (8) Ville Royale, 12A 3465 No Image Ville Royale B 3254 LPS (3) Ville Royale 3466 No Image Ville Royale B 3318 LPS (6) Ville Royale, 9A 3467 No Image Ville Royale B 3391 LGD (2) Ville Royale, 12A 3468 No Image Ville Royale B 3412 LGD (3) Ville Royale, 13A, a tomb 3469 No Image Ville Royale B 3414 LGD (3) Ville Royale, 9A 3470 No Image Ville Royale B 3440 LGD (4) Ville Royale, 9A 3471 No Image Ville Royale B 3455 No Image Ville Royale B 3472 No Image Ville Royale B 3456 No Image Ville Royale B 3473 No Image Ville Royale B 3457 No Image Ville Royale B 3506 Unclass. Ville Royale, 13A, a tomb Table 2.12. Survey of glyptic material from Susa with known provenance.

2.2.1.2 Chogha Mish 2.2.1.2.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Chogha Mish is a large 20 hectare site located some 28km from Susa, on the eastern flank of the Susiana plain of Khuzistan (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1; Carter 2001: 311), as demonstrated by Figure 2.3. The site is split into two parts, the so-called ‘High Mound’ to the north and the ‘Terrace’ areas to the south (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1; Carter 2001: 312; Figure 2.3). Before the major American excavations at the site, Chogha Mish had already been noticed and noted by Layard (1846) and Adams (1962; Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1). The site was excavated by a team from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, led by Delougaz and Kantor, from 1961 until Iranian political disturbances brought work to a close in 1978 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1; Carter 2001: 312). The single main publication of the Chogha Mish material (Delougaz & Kantor 1996) was originally intended to be a preliminary report of the earliest excavations, however this became the final report of the first five seasons, edited by Alizadeh, following the deaths of both the primary excavators and authors (Carter 2001: 312). Most recently Alizadeh has published a second volume, reporting on the Chogha Mish excavations from the final six seasons of excavations at Chogha Mish (Alizadeh 2008). This volume was published during the final production of this study, and thus the seals and sealings published in this monograph have not been included here (Alizadeh 2008: 78 – 79; figure 76). The existence of these items should be

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 121 acknowledged however. A preliminary report of the 1974 – 1975 season (Kantor 1976) has also been published and has been included in this study.

Figure 2.3. General plan of Chogha Mish, indicating trenches, sondages and cuts. Areas shaded blue contained the majority of glyptic items, areas shaded purple produced 1 – 5 glyptic items each. Figure after Delougaz & Kantor 1996: plate 260, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 122 The Delougaz and Kantor publication details the results of the excavations of some thirty-two trenches, seven soundings and the so-called ‘Gully Cut’ operation (illustrated in Figure 2.3; Delougaz & Kantor 1996), and has produced a significant amount of material, including a large glyptic assemblage.

2.2.1.2.2 Site Description, Date and Function The Chogha Mish ‘High Mound’ (illustrated in Figures 2.3 and 2.4), measures some 200 x 150m in area, and rises some 23m from the surrounding plain at its highest point (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1; Carter 2001: 312). The ‘Terrace’ areas, also illustrated on Figure 2.3, measure c.400 x 300m at their greatest extent and rises 8.5m at the highest point (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 2; Carter 2001: 312). As mentioned above and illustrated by the plan (Figure 2.3) many trenches and sondages were opened across the entirety of the mound (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1 – 6). The site of Chogha Mish was founded in the seventh millennium BC (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 155 – 168, 284 – 305; Carter 2001: 312), and was continually occupied for several millennia until it was evidently abandoned after the Middle Susiana Period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 284 – 305; Carter 2001: 312). During this period the site reached a size of about 13 – 15 hectares at its greatest extent, and included a “substantially built burnt structure” that was surrounded by a “fortification” wall (Carter 2001: 312; Kantor 1976; not included in the first major Chogha Mish publication as it was uncovered in a later, ninth season). The site was apparently reoccupied in the Late Susiana period, and then again abandoned in the Terminal Susa A/Early Uruk phase at the end of the fifth millennium (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 284 – 305; Carter 2001: 312). As this so-called ‘Archaic’ or ‘Prehistoric’ occupation dates to periods beyond the realms of this study, little more time need be spent here describing this material. The Chogha Mish mound was resettled in the so-called ‘Protoliterate’ period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27 – 36), corresponding to the Middle and Late Uruk periods of greater Mesopotamia, dated c.3700 – 3200 BC (Delougaz & Kantor 1996; Carter 2001: 312), or the Susa II period in this study, and it is this occupation that (along with the Old Elamite occupation discussed below) is of major interest here. The ‘Protoliterate Town’ was uncovered in the ‘High Mound’ area, and the ‘Terraces’ including the, east and west areas (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27 – 35), with discoveries also uncovered in numerous smaller areas in isolated trenches (Delougaz

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 123 & Kantor 1996: 34 – 35), demonstrated on Figure 2.3. Due to problems of preservation, as the majority of the Protoliterate remains were uncovered just below the modern surface, there is no real coherent plan for the ‘Protoliterate Town’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35; Carter 2001: 312). In the ‘Terrace’ area, however, drains, kilns and fireplaces were identified (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 28 – 35). Furthermore, in the east terrace areas houses were also discovered (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 30 – 32). In the west terrace area small-scale buildings (identified as houses) and other features were discerned (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 33 – 34), as was a ‘Polygonal Platform’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35). This ‘platform’ was uncovered in Squares J14 – K14 (see figure 2.3) and was constructed of “very hard” mudbricks (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 32). The presence of objects identified as ‘ritual’ (the precise details and description of which are however, unknown) in the area below the platform, as well as round hearths and a small feature identified as an altar (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35), have led the excavators to hypothesise that the platform was in fact a foundation of a no longer preserved temple, built above and over an already existing, earlier shrine (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35). The accuracy or otherwise of this statement cannot be further tested on the basis of the current presented evidence however. Architectural remains, including brickwork, of “rather imposing proportions” were uncovered in Squares M9 – N9, on the southwestern slope of the Chogha Mish ‘High Mound’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27), as indicated by Figure 2.4. It has been suggested that this material represents a temple platform, though this too can only be classified as an hypothesis on the basis of the current evidence (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35). The presence of many typical Uruk period clay cones across the surface of the Chogha Mish mound, and, reportedly “in the Protoliterate strata” (though details of where in this strata are not given) (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35), indicative of public/monumental architecture in the Uruk world generally, does offer evidence to the presence of some substantial architecture on the Protoliterate ‘High Mound’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 124

Figure 2.4. Composite plan of the ‘High Mound’ of Chogha Mish, indicating location of architectural remains, especially the ‘Protoliterate’ (that is, Susa II) and ‘Elamite’ (that is Sukkalmah) period remains. Figure after Delougaz & Kantor 1996: plate 261, with alterations.

Other ‘High Mound’ Protoliterate materials include the evidence for a wall in Square Q10 in association with the ubiquitous Uruk artefact, the bevelled-rim bowl (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27), as illustrated on Figure 2.4. Two baked-brick ‘cesspits’ in Square O9, also containing many bevelled-rim bowls, associated with a

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 125 terra cotta drain and paving, also provide evidence for the ‘Protoliterate’ occupation of Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27; illustrated on Figure 2.4). It has been suggested by the excavators that these cesspits served a public building in the Protoliterate period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35), however again, without the identification of this unknown public building, such a suggestion cannot by confirmed. As already mentioned, the architectural remains at Chogha Mish, particularly during the Protoliterate period, are quite fragmentary, and indeed, as illustrated by Figure 2.3, a relatively small proportion of the Chogha Mish mound as a whole has been excavated. However, on the basis of the preserved and uncovered evidence, a picture of the so-called ‘Protoliterate Town’ can be, however fragmentarily, discerned. Thus there is evidence for occupation on the ‘High Mound’, possibly in the form of monumental/public architecture, including a suggested temple. Other ‘Protoliterate’ remains include the possible temple platform (the ‘Polygonal Platform’) in the west ‘Terrace’ area, and evidence for houses, drains, kilns and fireplaces. These remains are labelled, in the chronology of the Chogha Mish excavators, ‘Protoliterate’. In wider chronological terms, the Protoliterate period corresponds, according to the excavators, with the Middle and Late Uruk periods (or the period of the Uruk expansion) (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27 – 36; Carter 2001: 312 – 313), a period that corresponds with the Susa II period in the chronology of this study. This date is assured through the correlative data of the material culture, including the (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 37 – 102), stone vessels and implements (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 103 – 105), metal tools (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 105 – 106), figurines (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 111 – 112), the clay cones already mentioned, and of particular interest here, the glyptic items (discussed below), and other accounting/administrative artefacts such as the so-called ‘clay counters’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 115 – 132). Following the Protoliterate occupation of Chogha Mish the site was again abandoned for a time (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7 – 24; Carter 2001: 312). The reason for this continual pattern of abandonment and resettlement at Chogha Mish is unclear, and remains uncommented on in the publication. It must be noted that, given the relatively large areas of Chogha Mish that remained unexcavated (as demonstrated by Figure 2.3), it is possible that this pattern is more a reflection of the excavated data

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 126 rather than an ancient reality. While this possibility is mere hypothesis, a more thorough and complete understanding of the pattern of occupation at Chogha Mish must therefore await both the complete publication of the later excavations and further excavations at the site. Be that as it may, on the basis of the current evidence, it is believed that following the abandonment of the ‘Protoliterate Town’, Chogha Mish was reoccupied in the early second millennium BC, in the Old Elamite or Sukkalmah period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18; Carter 2001: 312). The Sukkalmah period remains, on the basis of the current exposed evidence, appear to be isolated to the ‘High Mound’ region of Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18). Figure 2.4 demonstrates the areas of occupation and the location of the brickwork dated to the Sukkalmah period. The main Sukkalmah remains uncovered in the excavations include “very massive brickwork”, eight to eleven metres in width, uncovered in Squares N6 – N8, and O8 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18). The preserved wall runs 60m north to south, and is generally very straight (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18). Similar, less well preserved brickwork was also uncovered in Square R8 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 19). It has been suggested that these two installations are all that remains of a “massive circuit” or wall, that enclosed much of the ‘High Mound’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18 – 22; Carter 2001: 312). Indeed, the modern configuration of the contours of the ‘High Mound’ reflect, it is proposed, the general outline of this wall, which is interpreted as a ‘Fort’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18 – 22; Carter 2001: 312). The general proposed outline of this ‘Fort’ is demonstrated in Figure 2.5, and as is shown, only a relatively small proportion of the proposed projection of this installation is preserved, or corresponds to actual physical evidence. The accuracy or otherwise of the ‘Fort’ hypothesis cannot be further tested on the basis of the current evidence, though it should be noted that the excavators anticipated no further remains would be forthcoming in the area due to the general poor preservation and erosion on the ‘High Mound’ surface (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18 – 20). The Sukkalmah date for the installation, regardless if the ‘Fort’ designation is accepted or not, is assured courtesy of the ceramic correlations with the associated pottery and Old Elamite (Sukkalmah) material from Susa (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 22 – 23). Like the architectural remains themselves, small finds and other artefacts dating to the Sukkalmah period and levels are relatively scant (Delougaz & Kantor

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 127 1996: 24). Fragmentary terra cotta mould figurines found at Chogha Mish can also be correlated with similar material from Susa (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 23).

Figure 2.5. Proposed outline of the Sukkalmah ‘Fort’, the area shaded green indicates the location of the preserved, uncovered architecture, area shaded blue the proposed projection. Figure after Delougaz & Kantor 1996: figure 1, with alterations.

Following the already established pattern of abandonment and resettlement (which, as discussed above, may be a reflection of excavation and preservation rather then ancient reality), Chogha Mish again appears to have been abandoned following the Sukkalmah occupation (Carter 2001: 312; Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7). Again, there are no clues nor apparent explanations for this abandonment. The site was ‘reoccupied’ in the Neo-Elamite-Achaemenid period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7;

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 128 Carter 2001: 312), and as well as this material, evidence for Parthian, post Parthian, pre-Islamic and modern architecture and materials has been discerned at Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7 – 18; Carter 2001: 312). As this material and periods of occupation belong beyond the chronological realms of this study, no further discussion of this material is required here. In conclusion, bracketing the chronologically relevant material, Chogha Mish was initially occupied for several millennia from the seventh millennium BC until its abandonment (prefiguring the relevant Middle/Late Uruk occupation) in the fifth millennium BC. Evidence for occupation from the first millennium BC through to the modern period has also been found at Chogha Mish but is of no relevance here. The major, so-called ‘Protoliterate’ occupation occurs in several areas of Chogha Mish, and includes houses and domestic installations, as well as possible evidence for monumental/public architecture. The other relevant occupation at Chogha Mish is represented by a possible ‘Fort’ dating to the Sukkalmah period. The fragmentary nature of the preceding survey should be noted, and is a reflection of both the excavation technique, whereby scattered trenches across the mound prevented the recovery of any broadly exposed architecture, and the poor preservation and thorough erosion of the remains.

2.2.1.2.3 Glyptic Material The glyptic material from Chogha Mish was published in the major monograph in two devoted chapters, prepared by Kantor (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 115 – 154; Carter 2001: 312). While esteem must indeed be accorded to Kantor, as recognised by Carter (2001: 312), for the great effort taken in unravelling and presenting the multiple seal impressions found on the Chogha Mish bullae, the presentation and ordering of the Chogha Mish glyptic material was less than straight forward, and in some ways quite problematic. The first of these problems is simply one of terminology. The term ‘sealing’ is used throughout the initial administration and accounting chapter of the Chogha Mish monograph (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: Chapter 6) to refer both to any piece of clay used to close or ‘seal’ a device (jar, door, bale, bottle etc., that is a sealing in the popular, general, non-specialised sense), and to refer to a piece of clay that had been impressed by a seal and so marked (and thus similarly used to seal a jar door, bottle etc., that is, a sealing in the sense used here). This problem is a common one in glyptic literature, and has already been addressed above (Chapter 1), but the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 129 result for the purposes of this study is to cause confusion and uncertainty in regards to when a sealing, as of interest here, is referred to, or simply an unimpressed piece of clay. Thankfully, the term ‘clay stopper’ is used in a table in the Chogha Mish publication to, presumably, refer to the unimpressed clay pieces used to seal bottles and jars (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: Table 10, 116 – 117), as opposed to the seal impressed sealings. Thus, according to this table, some 2040, reported, ‘clay [bottle and jar] stoppers’, were uncovered at Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 117), six of which are listed as seal impressed (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 116 – 117). However, no similar information regarding the impressed and not impressed non- stopper sealings (such as door/wall sealings, door lock sealings, bale sealings) is presented. Thus the precise number of sealings, either impressed or otherwise, is not detailed in the Chogha Mish publication. According to Table 13 of the Chogha Mish monograph, three hundred and forty-seven impressed sealings were uncovered (or more correctly, registered with a precise locus) at Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 129). However, following the sum of the totals presented in Table 15 a number of three hundred and fifty-three seal impressed sealings is discerned (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 131). Thus, somewhere around three hundred and fifty sealed items were discovered at Chogha Mish, significantly less then eventually published, as will be discovered below. As will also be discovered below, the number of individual seal images represented on these c.350 sealings was possibly larger given the penchant for bullae sealed by more than one seal at Chogha Mish. The second major problem with the Chogha Mish glyptic publication is one of presentation. While, as already mentioned, great effort was taken in the unravelling and identification of the individual seal images, the results of this analysis were presented in a somewhat complicated manner. The designs were defined in terms of subject matter, and thus presented in Table 16 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 151 – 154). However, as is customary, rather then allocating a catalogue or presentation number, the individual items are detailed according to plate number (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 151 – 154, plates 131 – 158). As the line drawings and photographs of each sealing and bullae were presented on separate plates, this approach means that in most cases at least two plate numbers, and often more then two, are listed for each individual item/image. This not only makes general analysis and study more complicated and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 130 difficult, but also fails to emphasise and illustrate the bullae that bore more than one seal image. Furthermore, in several instances, typographical errors appear in regards to which photograph of a bullae corresponds to which line drawing, further complicating their presentation. Through a study of the published images, one hundred and forty-nine individual glyptic designs can be discerned, and are thus included in the Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 2.13. The emphasis needs be placed on the term ‘glyptic designs’, rather then items, for, as already alluded to, some of the bullae from Chogha Mish were in fact sealed more then once, by separate seals. Thus nine bullae in the Chogha Mish published corpus bear two or more (as many as six in one case) impressions made by separate seals. These nine bullae together bore twenty-six images. The images found on the nine bullae of multiple impressions are marked in Table 2.13 by an asterix(*) (and further detailed in their individual entries in the Catalogue). Thus, the 149 glyptic images included in the Corpus comprise less then half of the acknowledged glyptic items found at Chogha Mish in the Delougaz and Kantor excavations. This proportion is further diminished when one takes into account that the c.350 number refers to glyptic items while the 149 of the corpus includes glyptic images. Assuming, for the sake of discussion here, that each of the bullae bearing more then one image only actually contained one, 132 individual glyptic items can be identified as published from Chogha Mish, thus significantly less then half of the actual excavated corpus. If the full Chogha Mish corpus had been available for inclusion here, Chogha Mish would comprise the second largest of the site corpora, after Susa only. As it stands with the included published corpus, Chogha Mish is the fifth largest of the site corpora (see Chapters 4 and 5). This limited corpus must be taken into account when discussing relative distribution and proportions. One hundred and thirty-eight of the glyptic images are classified as sealings (bullae, jar sealings, door sealings and so on), with eleven cylinder seals, as demonstrated by Table 2.13. Figure 2.3 demonstrates the relative proportions of the glyptic item distribution, according to excavation squares. Four locations can be characterised as ‘major’ (Square R18 contained 31, R17 produced 46, and the two lesser squares Q18 and H14 with 12 and 8 items respectively), and the minor areas that each produced between one and five items. The sealings obviously held an administrative function, as testified to both by their very existence, and their apparent

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 131 provenance in refuse or dump areas (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 115 – 133). In turn it can be assumed that the cylinder seals found at Chogha Mish also held an administrative function. Certainly a funerary function can be discounted as no seals were reported from a tomb or grave locus. A votive function can also be denied, though somewhat more tentatively, as no items were found in a definite shrine or temple context, though this must be said with some caution as the definite temple designation of several areas of Chogha Mish remains unknown. It is striking, as demonstrated by Table 2.13, and further discussed in detail below (Chapter 5), that the styles and images of the sealings do not generally correspond with those of the cylinder seals themselves however, a dichotomy which may disavow the assumed similarity in function for the seals and sealings.

Seal Class. Prov. Type Seal Class. Prov. Type 12* STS (1) R18 bulla 117* STS (6) R18 bulla 13* STS (1) J14 – 15 bulla 118* STS (6) R18 bulla 14 STS (1) Q18 door 119 STS (6) Q17 door sealing sealing 15 STS (1) R17 jar 120 STS (6) R18 door sealing sealing 16 STS (1) P17 – S17 door 121 STS (6) R18 door sealing sealing 17 STS (1) H15 bulla 122* STS (6) R21 bullae 18 STS (1) P17 – S17 sealing 123 STS (6) R17 sealing 36* STS (2) J14 – J15 bulla 161* STS (7) R18 bulla 37 STS (2) R17 bulla 162* STS (7) N9 bulla 50 STS (3) S17 tablet 163 STS (7) R17 bulla 51 STS (3) R17 jar 164 STS (7) north of bulla sealing Q18 52* STS (3) J14 – J15 bulla 165 STS (7) R17 sealing 73 STS (4) north of jar 166 STS (7) R17 door R17 stopper sealing 74 STS (4) R17 flattish 167 STS (7) R17 sealing sealing 168 STS (7) Q18 bottle 75* STS (4) R18 bulla stopper 76 STS (4) P17 – S17 sealing 169 STS (7) H13 sealing 77 STS (4) Q18 bulla 170 STS (7) R17 sealing 78 STS (4) R17 sealing 196* STS (8) N9 bulla 79 STS (4) S17 jar 197* STS (8) H14 bulla sealing 198 STS (8) R18 sealing 80 STS (4) R17 sealing 199 STS (8) R19 bale 81 STS (4) P17 – S17 sealing sealing 82 STS (4) R17 sealing 200 STS (8) H14 tablet 83 STS (4) R17 door 207* STS (9) H14 bulla sealing 208 STS (9) near Q18 door 84 STS (4) P17 jar sealing sealing 209 STS (9) R17 door 100 STS (5) R18 tablet sealing 101* STS (5) R21 bullae 228 STS (10) R17 door 114 STS (6) K14 bulla sealing 115* STS (6) J14 – J15 bulla 229 STS (10) R17 door 116* STS (6) N9 bulla sealing

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 132 Seal Class. Prov. Type Seal Class. Prov. Type 230 STS (10) R17 door 429 STS (17) S17 sealing sealing & 452 STS (20) Q18 bulla sealings 453 STS (20) R21 bulla 231 STS (10) R17 sealing 454 STS (20) R17 bulla 232 STS (10) Q18 sealing 455 STS (20) R17 bulla 233 STS (10) R18 sealing 456 STS (20) R17 bulla 234 STS (10) R17 sealing 457 STS (20) north of jar 235 STS (10) P17 sealing R19 stopper 247 STS (11) Q18 sealing 458 STS (20) east of bulla 262 STS (12) P17 sealing R21 263 STS (12) Q18 sealing 459 STS (20) R18 bulla 284 STS (13) R17 bullae 460 STS (20) R18 bulla 285* STS (13) J14 – J15 bulla 473 STS (21) Q18 tablet 286 STS (13) R18 sealing 474* STS (21) H14 bulla 287 STS (13) R17 sealing 475 STS (21) R18 bulla 349 STS (15) S17 tablet 476* STS (21) R18 bulla 350 STS (15) R18 tablet 477* STS (21) R18 bulla 351 STS (15) R18 bulla 478 STS (21) R17 & door 352* STS (15) R18 bulla R17 sealings 353 STS (15) J14 bulla 479 STS (21) R17 sealing 354 STS (15) near Q18 sealing 480 STS (21) R17 jar 355 STS (15) R17 sealings sealing 356 STS (15) near Q18 door 481 STS (21) R17 sealing sealings 482 STS (21) P17 sealing 357 STS (15) R18 bulla 483 STS (21) north of bottle 358 STS (15) R17 sealing Q18 stopper 359 STS (15) Q18 sealing 484 STS (21) R18 sealing 360 STS (15) S22 sealing 485 STS (21) R17 sealing 394 STS (16) R18 tablet 486 STS (21) R18; Q18 bale 395* STS (16) R18 bulla sealings 396* STS (16) R18 bulla 511 STS (22) H15 tablet 397 STS (16) west of jar 512 STS (22) R18 tablet R21 sealing 513 STS (22) H14 bulla 398* STS (16) H14 bulla 514 STS (22) R17 sealing 399 STS (16) near Q18 sealing 515 STS (22) J13 sealing 400 STS (16) west of flat 516 STS (22) R17 sealing R18 sealing 596 JNRS (4) Q18 sealing 401 STS (16) J14 bulla 720 JNRS (5) wall cylinder 402 STS (16) R17 sealing between 403 STS (16) near Q18 sealings Q19 & 404 STS (16) Q17 sealings Q18 405 STS (16) R18 sealing 721 JNRS (5) R21 cylinder 406 STS (16) R17 sealing 722 JNRS (5) east of cylinder 407 STS (16) H14 bulla R18 408 STS (16) R18 bale 723 JNRS (5) R17 cylinder sealing 724 JNRS (5) Q19 cylinder 421 STS (17) R17 door 725 JNRS (5) R18 cylinder sealings 726 JNRS (5) R17 sealing 422* STS (17) H14 bulla 727 JNRS (5) R17 sealing 423* STS (17) R18 bulla 728 JNRS (5) R18 sealing 424 STS (17) R17 sealings 1431 AGD (3) west of P8 cylinder 425 STS (17) R17 sealing 1573 AGD (13) R17 cylinder 426 STS (17) R17 sealing 1678 AGD (15) Q19 cylinder 427 STS (17) R17 sealing 2606 PEU (7) surface cylinder 428 STS (17) P17 sealing 3300 LPS (5) – cylinder Table 2.13. Survey of glyptic material from Chogha Mish.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 133 2.2.1.3 Haft Tepe 2.2.1.3.1 Location, Excavation and Publication Haft Tepe2 lies some 15km southeast of Susa (Carter & Stolper 1984: 156), on the Susiana Plain in the modern province of Khuzistan, see Figure 2.1. There is, however, some disagreement in the literature regarding this distance; Potts states the distance as c.10km (1999: 196), while Amiet (1996: 135), Carter (Carter & Stolper 1984: 33; Carter 1999: 114) and Mofidi Nasrabadi (2003-04b: 225) place the distance at 20km. While an appeal to the excavator may help solve such a dilemma, Negahban only gives the distance of Haft Tepe from the modern Iranian town (50km to the south [Negahban 1990: 137]). Therefore the median of the listed distances has been given here. Haft Tepe comprises some fourteen variously proportioned mounds of an area of at least 30 hectares (Carter & Stolper 1984: 158; Potts 1999: 196; Negahban 1991: 120). More recently, Carter has listed the estimated area of Haft Tepe (including the area covered by a modern sugar plantation, see Figure 2.6) as 150 hectares (Carter 1999: 114). There is also some discrepancy in the reporting of the number of mounds at Haft Tepe, for, along with the above cited references to fourteen mounds, Negahban counts eleven mounds in the preliminary publication (1969: 175), and curiously, the name Haft Tepe itself means ‘Seven Mounds’ in the local Persian dialect, though of course, this could indicate ‘many’. The initial excavations of Haft Tepe were led by Negahban over fourteen seasons (eleven of which focused on excavations, the others formed short restoration and repair seasons) from 1965 to 1976 (Negahban 1991: 6 – 11). More recently a joint Iranian-German team has returned to Haft Tepe, undertaking geophysical (geomagnetic) analysis and small excavations over, to date, three excavation seasons (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04b). Apart from the single preliminary report (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04b), details of these excavations have yet to be published, and as such the presentation of Haft Tepe here is limited to information yielded in the Negahban excavations and contained in his major excavation report (1991). Two volumes, an excavation report and, of primary interest here, a volume detailing the glyptic material from the Iranian-German excavations, are currently being prepared by Mofidi Nasrabadi.

2Also Haft Tappeh

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 134 It is estimated that only one fiftieth of Haft Tepe was excavated in the Negahban excavations (1991: 137), as demonstrated by Figure 2.6, a factor which must be taken into account when discussing the nature of the site. Most of Negahban’s work was focused on the so-called ‘Tomb-Temple’ and ‘Terrace Complex’ areas (1991: 6 – 11), marked on Figures 2.6 and 2.7. Although work on the mound Haft Tepe B was undertaken by Negahban, there are no published results from this area (Negahban 1991: 6 – 11), apart from the reference to the provenance of glyptic material discussed below.

Figure 2.6. Plan of Haft Tepe (Kabnak), indicating the excavated area and surrounds (coloured black). Area shaded blue corresponds to Haft Tepe Mound B, apparently one of three major areas of glyptic provenance according to Negahban 1991:53 – 54; for the other two sections see Figure 2.7. After Carter 1999: fig. 2, with alterations.

2.2.1.3.2 Site Description The ‘Tomb-Temple’ building (see Figure 2.7) contained a vaulted tomb (Negahban 1991: 8), one chamber of which contained “possibly 21” skeletons (Negahban 1991: 8, 20 – 21). Negahban believes that two skeletons found at the northern end of this chamber are the remains of Tepti-ahar and his “favourite servant girl” (1991: 15, 21), though this is purely speculative. A second, smaller chamber to the west of this main room contained twenty-three articulated skeletons and is called the ‘mass burial tomb’ (Negahban 1991: 21 – 22). Thus the funerary nature of this building is without question. What seems less apparent, however, is the ‘temple’ designation. The evidence for this term seems to rest with the discovery of a broken stele that details offerings to be made to the building (Negahban 1991: 7 – 9, 14 – 15, 102 – 109).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 135 However, a mistranslation of the term É.DÙ.A used on this stele causes this interpretation (Reiner 1973b: 88; Malbran-Labat 1995: 185). This word is more correctly translated as ‘house, construction’ rather than ‘temple’ and thus makes no reference to the temple nature of the tomb (Potts 1999: 198). Therefore the area is here accepted as a ‘tomb’, that, based on current evidence, is most appropriately labelled a ‘Funerary Complex’. However, it should be noted that the fragmentary stele does assure the connection of the tomb area with Tepti-ahar (Reiner 1973b: 88; Potts 1999: 198). The function and designation of the two ‘Terrace Complexes’ is equally difficult to ascertain, and little discussion of their function is given in the excavation report. ‘Terrace Complex I’, located to the southeast of the ‘Funerary Complex’ (see Figure 2.7), is a large, almost square brick terrace with adjacent rooms (Negahban 1991: 12 – 15). ‘Terrace Complex II’, located to the south of the first (Figure 2.7), is apparently higher, though little of this complex was excavated (Negahban 1991: 19). The rooms, courtyards and corridors surrounding Complex I yielded the majority of the small finds from Haft Tepe (including the glyptic material; as demonstrated in Figure 2.7) (Negahban 1991: 15 – 19). Of particular note is Hall No. 6, the so-called ‘artist’s workshop’, which contained sculptured human heads of clay, worked and unworked ivory, bitumen roundels and mosaic fragments (Negahban 1994; Potts 1999: 199). In the same general vicinity was a kiln, which Negahban believes to have been used for ceramic and metal manufacture, along with bronze weaponry, the majority of the seal impressions found at Haft Tepe, and an unspecified amount of the “nearly four thousand complete and partial clay tablets” found at the site (Negahban 1991: 31, Negahban 1994: 361; Potts 1999: 199). It is possible that this area of the site had a temple function, as demonstrated by the apparent presence of scribal and craft activity here (Potts 1999: 200 – 201).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 136

Figure 2.7. General plan of the excavated (Negahban) remains of Haft Tepe. Area coloured blue indicates two of three sections identified as major sources of glyptic material (Negahban 1991: 49, 53 – 54), for the third area see Figure 2.6. Area coloured red indicates the kiln and ‘workshop’ area, alternatively cited as an area of major glyptic provenance (Negahban 1990: 138). Area coloured yellow indicates area where many tablets, including those that were sealed, were discovered (Negahban 1991: 9). After Carter 1999: fig. 3, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 137 2.2.1.3.3 Date It is almost universally accepted that Haft Tepe is associated with the Middle Elamite king Tepti-ahar (Negahban 1990: 137; 1991: 8; 1994: 31; Carter & Stolper 1984: 33; Amiet 1996: 142; Potts 1999: 206; Carter 1999: 116 – 119). Negahban believes that Tepti-ahar founded Haft Tepe (1990: 138; 1991: 108), a proposition that is implicitly or explicitly accepted by many. However, this assumption requires some refinement. As already discussed above (see Tables 2.6 and 2.7) the reign of Tepti-ahar is usually placed somewhere in the Middle Elamite I period (c.1500 – 1400 BC) (Potts 1999: 188). The order of the Middle Elamite kings is not definite, but it is generally held that Tepti-ahar’s reign was towards the middle of the Kidinuid ‘dynasty’, after the reign of Shalla (provided this individual reigned at all) and before the reign of Inshushinak-shar-ilani (Potts 1999: 191 – 193; Table 2.6). The sixteen tablets, originally thought to have originated from Malamir in the Bakhitiari Mountains and hence known as the ‘Malamir texts’, are dated to the early Middle Elamite period on epigraphical evidence, and comprise most of our evidence regarding Shalla (Glassner 1991: 117). Fifteen of these tablets mention this individual, and one Tepti-ahar (Steve et al. 1980: 96) (thus assuring the Middle Elamite date of these texts), and on this basis Shalla is usually placed immediately before Tepti-ahar in time (Glassner 1991: 17; Steve et al. 1980: 96). Stolper, following Reiner, has suggested, based on prosographic evidence, that the Malamir texts actually originated from Haft Tepe (1987-90: 280). Glassner however disputes this finding, concluding that, upon the basis of statistical analysis and probability, these texts did not originally come from Haft Tepe (1991: 117-18). Instead he believes the texts originated from Huhnur (Glassner 1991: 118). Lacking the necessary expertise in epigraphy, nothing more can be added to this debate here. Be that as it may, if Stolper’s assertion is correct, this calls for a reconsideration of the date of the foundation (occupation?) of Haft Tepe. The Malamir texts detail the reign of the king that preceded Tepti-ahar, and, if they do originate from Haft Tepe, then the date of the foundation/occupation of Haft Tepe must be pushed back at least to the reign of Shalla. This of course also relies upon the assumption that Shalla reigned as king, a proposition that is still unproven (see above), and his place in the order of succession. Thus, the foundation date of Haft Tepe currently rests upon two unproven hypotheses. Firstly, that the Malamir texts

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 138 should be sourced from Haft Tepe, and secondly, that Shalla was an actual Middle Elamite king who preceded Tepti-ahar. The exact duration of the occupation of Haft Tepe was not discussed in the final publication, but it is implied that the site was primarily occupied during the reign of Tepti-ahar. However, in a preliminarily publication, Negahban describes a 2m2 ‘deep test trench’ (1969: 177), not mentioned in the final publication. This trench yielded “two main constructional levels below the level which we have been excavating” (Negahban 1969: 177; Carter 1971: 73). Nothing more is said of these two levels, except that the “walls were very thick” (Negahban 1969: 177). This gives possibly three major construction levels at Haft Tepe, indicating that the site may well have been occupied for more than the reign of Tepti-ahar. It is stated by Negahban in the final publication, as an incidental comment, that the occupation levels of Haft Tepe appear to display “a single historical period lasting no more than 100 or 150 years” (1991: 12), further lending evidence to the extended occupation (extended, that is, beyond a single kingly reign) hypothesis proposed here. The possibility that Haft Tepe was occupied, in some capacity, before the reign of Tepti-ahar is thus suggested from both the epigraphic evidence (if Stolper is correct and the Malamir texts do originate from Haft Tepe, and Shalla was indeed a king), and the depth of occupation. Both pieces of evidence are unsubstantiated and difficult to prove, and as such the possibility that Haft Tepe extended before the reign of Tepti-ahar is only a speculative hypothesis, and must remain so until further evidence, especially in the form of excavated data from Haft Tepe is made known. The glyptic material itself provides evidence for dating the occupation of Haft Tepe beyond the reign of Tepti-ahar. As well as sealings belonging to servants of Tepti-ahar, there is a sealing that names a certain Adad-eris, servant of Inshushinak- shar-ilani, king of Susa (Amiet 1996: 140; 2934). The Elamite king Inshushinak-shar- ilani is thought to have been the immediate successor to Tepti-ahar (Potts 1999: 191 – 193) (see above for details, Table 2.6). As such, the presence of a seal belonging to a servant of Inshushinak-shar-ilani at Haft Tepe indicates that the site was occupied at least into the reign of this king. We can therefore state that Haft Tepe was occupied during the reigns of Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani (based on the presence of texts, in the case of Tepti-ahar, and dated seals for both kings [2934, 2982, 2984, 2985]; for further details on the ‘Dated Seals’ see below, Chapters 3.4 and 7.2) and perhaps also during the reign of Shalla.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 139 A cylinder seal from the nearby site of Tepe Sharafabad (2760), discussed in more detail below, dated on the basis of stylistic grounds to the Sukkalmah period, names an individual in its inscription called “Tatta son of Shukuku” (see Chapter 2.2.1.5 for details). Both Tatta and Shukuku can possibly be linked to synonymously named individuals on texts from Susa, also dated to the Sukkalmah period (Schacht 1975: 326). In one of these texts Tatta is associated with a place, originally transliterated as Gapnak. It is proposed that the previously unidentified place (town?) Gapnak be associated with ‘Kapnak’ (or its preferred usage here Kabnak) (L. Siddall pers. comm. 2008), the ancient name of Haft Tepe (see below for further details). Admittedly, this proposal is not entirely proven. However, if it is accepted that the Tatta on the Sharafabad seal can be associated with the Tatta on the Susa texts, and in turn if the place ‘Gapnak’ associated with Tatta in the Susa texts is identified as ‘Kapnak’, proposals that are all possible if not definite, then it can be concluded both that there were interactions between Susa, Tepe Sharafabad and Haft Tepe in this period (late Sukkalmah/early Middle Elamite), and, more importantly, that Haft Tepe was occupied during this period (that is, before Tepti-ahar). Furthermore, is it possible to connect “Tatta” of the Sharafabad seal, with “Tata” the sukkal (see Table 2.3) detailed on another Susa text? This association would further reinforce the Sukkalmah period date for Tatta/Tata, that may further indicate in turn an earlier date of Haft Tepe. While it would be imprudent to (re)date the foundation of a site on such hypothetical reconstructions alone, coupled with the above outlined evidence for earlier, unexplored occupation levels at Haft Tepe, and the proposal of the association with Shalla, the possible mention of Haft Tepe/Kabnak in a Sukkalmah period text from Susa adds further evidence to a proposal that Haft Tepe was occupied for a time before Tepti-ahar, back into the late Sukkalmah period. Little information is given in Negahban’s report regarding the end of the occupation at Haft Tepe, though, as reported above, there is a general implication that it was abandoned with, or shortly after, the demise of Tepti-ahar. As already mentioned, the presence of a sealing naming Inshushinak-shar-ilani provides evidence that Haft Tepe was occupied in the reign of this king. There is evidence that, at least, part of Haft Tepe suffered some destruction by fire, though any supporting data is generally reported as incidental remarks, rather than through any detailed

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 140 explanation3 (Negahban 1991: 19, 45). Carter reports that “evidence for sacking is limited”, but does accept that many of the halls surrounding the Terrace Complexes were cleared before they were destroyed by fire (Carter 1999: 114, 118). Though again, evidence for this is not particularly forthcoming, the ‘clearing out’ process seems to primarily have been concluded by the lack of certain finds in the excavations (Negahban 1991: 45). Thus, apart from the proposal that Haft Tepe was not immediately abandoned concurrently with the demise of Tepti-ahar, but continued in use at least into the reign of Inshushinak-shar-ilani (assuming, of course, that the current chronological placement of this king after Tepti-ahar is accepted), little more can be said regarding the final date of occupation at Haft Tepe. The proposal for the sacking and fire destruction of Haft Tepe, must remain precisely a proposal on the current basis of evidence4. In conclusion, direct textual evidence from Haft Tepe indicates that the site was occupied during the reigns of the early Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite I) period kings, Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani. Other textual references, of uncertain provenance, may also imply that Haft Tepe was occupied during the reign of Shalla. Limited published information regarding other, unexplored levels of occupation below the main detailed level, and the possible identification of Haft Tepe with Gapnak mentioned in Sukkalmah period texts (possibly in association with the Sukkalmah period sukkal Tata) from Susa indicate that Haft Tepe may have been occupied for some time before the reigns of these ‘Kidinuid’ kings, into the late Sukkalmah period. As no evidence or artefacts belonging to a significantly later period have been found, the occupation of Haft Tepe can reasonably be limited to the early part of the Middle Elamite period (Middle Elamite I, perhaps into Middle Elamite II). Thus, in this study, the estimated period of occupation of Haft Tepe includes, conservatively, the late Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite period, with the tentative dates c.1700 – 1400/1300 BC proposed for the primary occupation of the site. This gives Haft Tepe a larger chronological extension than is often assumed or implied. For the purpose of this study, this means that the glyptic material from Haft Tepe does not belong to a single reign, but a longer period, and as such more

3For example: “Metal objects were limited in number at Haft Tepe, possibly because the site had been sacked before its destruction by fire” (Negahban 1991: 45). 4Early internet reports from the most recent Iranian-German excavations at Haft Tepe, indicate that there is indeed more evidence for fire destruction at Haft Tepe (http://www.staff.uni- mainz.de/mofidi/Hafttape,english/projects.html; last modified 30/5/2007), that will, it is anticipated, be included in the forthcoming Mofidi Nasrabadi work.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 141 completely bridges the gap between the glyptic material from the Sukkalmah and Middle Elamite periods (outlined below, Chapters 3 and 4).

2.2.1.3.4 Ancient Name, Function and Status Texts, and a seal impression (2912) that refers to the ‘grand-governor of Kabnak’, have meant that Haft Tepe has long been associated with the ancient town Kabnak5 (Negahban 1990: 138; 1991: 109; Potts 1999: 201 – 205), a proposition that there is no just cause to question here (though the above outlined proposal that Kabnak be associated with Gapnak should be noted). However, the nature of the site of Haft Tepe must be discussed. Negahban believes that Tepti-ahar lived, reigned and was buried at Haft Tepe (1991: 12 – 15, 31, 36; Potts 1999: 204), which was an important political, administrative and religious centre during his reign (Negahban 1994: 36). This promotes Haft Tepe to a capital position, a concept that is at odds with the titulature of Tepti-ahar himself, who is a ‘king of Susa and Anshan’ (Carter & Stolper 1984: 160; Negahban 1991: 108). It is expediently argued that Susa was in a period of decline and partial abandonment at this time (Potts 1999: 204 – 205), allowing Haft Tepe to fill the principal site vacuum left by the Susa decline. This decline and abandonment is possibly more a symptom of the present state of our knowledge rather than an accurate description of the situation at Susa, and indeed, the survey of Susa in this period as detailed above is not exactly one of abandonment. However, as will be outlined below, the titular co-capital, Anshan (modern day Tal-i Malyan), was apparently not even occupied in this early Middle Elamite period, indicating that the kingly titulature can be deceptive, and should not be taken on its own as motive to reject such a proposal. It has also been suggested that Tepti-ahar was a regional or petty king, who ruled over a smaller kingdom, perhaps extending only to the area around Haft Tepe, and vied for control of Susa and greater Elam with an unnamed king of Huhnur (Carter & Stolper 1984: 34; Glassner 1991: 118). Similarly, Glassner has suggested, in an attempt to reconcile the now rejected Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-Enlil correlation with the chronology presented by the Berlin Letter for the later Middle Elamite period (discussed above), that Tepti-ahar was a rival and contemporary of Igi-halki (Glassner 1991: 118). It seems more appropriate to dismiss the Kadashman-Enlil correlation

5Perhaps more appropriately ‘Kapnak’ (L. Siddall, pers. com.), though the term Kabnak is retained here following convention.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 142 rather than accept this hypothesis (Potts 1999: 204ff), for this would also require a reassessment of the position of the kings that succeeded Tepti-ahar but preceded the Igi-halkids (see above). The ‘Huhnur hypothesis’ is rather more appealing however. If the location of Huhnur is placed near Arjan, as has been suggested (Duchene 1986), and the occupation of the two sites was contemporaneous, then it is probable that a power struggle of some sort occurred between the sovereigns of these two sites. The disjointed and disunited nature of Elam in this period could account for the very fragmentary and unclear picture presented by the current evidence. Further, the vague and uncertain reference of an early Kassite defeat of the otherwise unknown Hurbatila, king of Elammat (Elam?), mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle P (Vallat 1995: 1027; Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; Steve et al. 1980: 99 – 100), could be placed in this fragmented period (see above). However, this hypothesis is currently only extremely speculative as neither the king of Huhnur’s name, nor the exact location of this site is known, and as such any hypothesis regarding this is pure speculation. Indeed, as the Malamir texts, discussed above, are our only source of information regarding Shalla, if Glassner’s suggestion that these texts originated from Huhnur (1991: 118), and not Haft Tepe as outlined above, is correct, then it is possible that Shalla is the unknown king of Huhnur competing with Tepti-ahar. Again, such a proposal is extremely speculative and must remain purely hypothetical on the basis of current information. It seems that during the Middle Elamite I period, or at least the period of the Kidinuid kings Shalla, Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani, the site of Haft Tepe was a site of some importance. To a certain degree this was probably at the expense of Susa, though it is doubtful that Haft Tepe ever attained the extent of influence that was Susa’s. Indeed, for political or other unfathomable personal reasons, Haft Tepe may have become the actual residence of any or all of these monarchs, though this does not mean that Susa lost it’s, at least titular, capital status, or that it was abandoned. The above outlined proposal for the extension of the occupation of Haft Tepe back into the Sukkalmah period further provides evidence for the function of Haft Tepe in this period. In the text that forms the primary basis of this proposal, Tatta is referred to as the scribe and ‘canal-inspector’ of Gapnak (Kabnak), in a list of “important people” (Schacht 1975: 326). This text is compared by Stolper with a

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 143 similar list that details the issuing of garments and sheep to people that can possibly be identified as ‘officials’ (Schacht 1975: 326). If the (above described possible, but tenuous) association of Tatta of Gapnak with Kabnak is accepted, and Stolper and Schacht’s interpretations of these texts are also accepted, it can be inferred that during the early periods of occupation at Haft Tepe (the Sukkalmah period), the site was involved in a system of control that involved Susa as the primary partner and, to some degree, the governing or control of Haft Tepe (and if the identification of Tatta of Gapnak in the Susa texts with the Tatta on the Sharafabad seal, discussed below, is accepted, control of Tepe Sharafabad as well). Thus during the Sukkalmah period Haft Tepe can be seen as a satellite, or dependant site under the control of Susa, while in the following early Middle Elamite period (especially the reign of Tepti-ahar), it can be proposed that the importance and status of Haft Tepe rose in comparison to Susa, for at least a time. As stated above, only an extremely small portion of Haft Tepe has been excavated, and no residential, or indeed any form of domestic architecture, has been uncovered at the site, thus any conclusion as to its function is extremely provisional. It should also be noted that Ghirshman has estimated that only about one-fiftieth of the area of the Ville Royale of Susa, occupied in the second millennium, has also been excavated (Carter 1971: 74). This means that we are attempting to reconstruct the interactions between these two sites, and the history of a period as a whole through two equally limited excavated sites and obscure, often secondary, references in occasional historical documents. Thus little can be said with anything resembling certainty. All that is known is that Haft Tepe appeared to have gained a role of some importance in the early Middle Elamite period, the precise nature of which is currently unknown. One possible facet of this importance is Haft Tepe’s potential role as a craft centre. The small finds in the halls and rooms surrounding the ‘Terrace Complexes’ testify to this function. It is possible that the large amount of sealings found in the vicinity of Hall No. 6 and the kiln (in both the general and immediate vicinity, as evidenced by Figure 2.7) indicates that items that were sent from other areas of Haft Tepe, or indeed from other Elamite sites, to be worked in these craft workshops. This potential craft function, and especially the impact this has on the function of the sealings found here, will be further discussed below (Chapter 6).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 144 2.2.1.3.5 Glyptic Material As already mentioned, Negahban published the final excavation report of his Haft Tepe excavations in 1991, some twelve years after cessation of his excavations. This was completed in the U.S.A., and the author lacked access to many essential pieces of information that remained in Iran (Negahban 1991: xxv). In light of these difficulties, the publication is an important, and useful, addition to Elamite glyptic studies. The glyptic information from Haft Tepe has only been published in this report (except for a brief article by Amiet [1996], which limits itself primarily to commenting on the problems with the publication, an issue that will be addressed here also), and therefore has not received thorough treatment by a glyptic expert6. Without dwelling on the problems excessively, something must be said regarding the publication of the glyptic material of Haft Tepe, which, in some regards leaves a lot to be desired. One of the major problems is in the area of language. There is a general lack of quantitative terms throughout the publication. In a preliminary report it is stated that a “fairly large number of cylinder seals and seal impressions” were found at Haft Tepe (Negahban 1990: 138), however in the final publication we are told that “a few seals and a large number of seal impressions were found” (Negahban 1991: 49). Finally a reference to “nearly 300 impressions” is found elsewhere (Negahban 1991: 54). This arbitrary language, that uses terms such as ‘a few’, a ‘fairly large number’ and ‘nearly 300’, means that the reader has no clear idea of how many actual seals and impressions were found at Haft Tepe, a situation which obviously impacts upon the conclusions reached for this material (indeed, it can be argued that, without access to the material held in Iran, or records detailing such information, Negahban had no exact numbers on hand regarding the glyptic material, a situation that while understandable, does not alter the fact of the difficulties presented by a lack of absolute numerical terms). Amiet has already drawn attention to problems with the classifications and line drawing reproductions of the impressions, noting that very similar examples were classed by Negahban under different rubrics and that the line drawing draftsman made some erroneous representations (Amiet 1996: 136). Also, no indication of scale for the photographic reproductions is given, nor are any dimensions recorded in the

6The addition of the Mofidi Nasrabadi glyptic publication will, of course, change the publication status of the Haft Tepe glyptic material.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 145 written catalogue, hampering any study based upon such considerations or comparisons. The glyptic material was divided by Negahban according to cutting style, with the larger group (the so-called ‘Haft Tepe Common Style’) further sub-divided by subject matter (Negahban 1991: 100). We are assured that all styles and themes are presented in sample in the publication (Negahban 1991: 100), however no indication of how much these sub-divisions reflect actual proportions in the excavated material is given. The types of seal impressions found at Haft Tepe include jar stoppers, door locks, sealed tablets and clay envelopes. Apparently the sealings are “mostly jar stoppers” (Negahban 1991: 53). However, no indication of impression type is generally given in the catalogue. Furthermore, due to the above mentioned lack of scale or indication of size, any attempt to rectify this situation and discern the type of impression from the photograph, is difficult to say the least. Finally, the catalogue does not detail where, within the site, the seals and impressions were found. Certain locations are identified as being ‘major locations’ or sources of glyptic material (Negahban 1991: 49, 53 – 54). However, as indicated by Figures 2.6 and 2.7, there is some discrepancy in these designations. The second time Negahban lists these designations, the previously missed area “H. T. B” is included (Negahban 1991: 54). It is assumed that this refers to Mound B, as no other designation appears to correspond to this title. However, there is also little information given regarding Haft Tepe Mound B in the final excavation report, though Negahban does state that excavations were undertaken there (1991: 6 – 11). Also, in another article, Negahban cites the area around Hall No. 6 and the ‘kiln’, not mentioned in this regard in the final excavation report, as a source of a “fairly large number of cylinder seals and seal impressions” (Negahban 1990: 138). It can be accepted that all these areas were primary sources of sealings, though again there is no indication of what proportion of the excavated corpus is actually represented by the term “many”. Seven stamp seals (obviously of no relevance here) and seven cylinder seals were published in the final publication (Negahban 1991: 49ff), and this can be considered the total examples found (Negahban 1991: 49). Two hundred and ten seal impressions were also published, with fifteen of these confusingly catalogued twice, the second time as so-called ‘partial pieces’ (Negahban 1991: 49 – 101). This is

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 146 approximately one hundred less than the total found at the site, assuming that three hundred glyptic pieces can be understood from the ‘nearly 300’. It is alluded to by Negahban, and confirmed by Amiet, that the best-preserved and most attractive examples only were published (Negahban 1991: 49 – 53; Amiet 1996: 136). While this is an understandable and common situation, it still disadvantages this study, as the publication is the only resource available. Thus, the total Haft Tepe corpus included in this study numbers two hundred and ten pieces, including seven cylinder seals and two hundred and three sealings, as illustrated by Table 2.14, this is a relatively large group within the Corpus. Indeed, aside from the unusual site of Susa, this is the largest of all the site corpora. In light of the fact that, at least, another one hundred known items uncovered in the Haft Tepe excavations are not included in this group, and the fact that Haft Tepe is believed to have been occupied for a relatively short amount of time, the size of the Haft Tepe corpus is even more extraordinary. Overwhelmingly, the majority of the glyptic material from Haft Tepe is sealings, rather than seals (as demonstrated below, Chapters 4 and 5). The preponderance of the sealings at Haft Tepe can be seen as a reflection of the function of seals (and sealings) at the site. Reportedly, the majority of these sealings were discovered in trash deposits surrounding workshops and possible craft production areas (Negahban 1991: 49), as demonstrated by the Figure 2.7 areas specifically. The dichotomy between seals and sealings at Haft Tepe is even more pronounced in reflection of the corresponding dominance of cylinder seals at the partially contemporary site of Choga Zanbil (further outlined below). The exact functioning of seals at both these sites will be further outlined below (Chapter 6).

Current Current Type Current Current Type Number Classification Number Classification 2252 ARS (10) sealing 2786 EME (2) sealing 2702 OBRS (2) cylinder 2787 EME (2) sealed tablet 2776 EME (1) sealing 2788 EME (2) sealing 2777 EME (1) sealing 2789 EME (2) sealing 2778 EME (1) sealing 2790 EME (2) sealing 2779 EME (1) sealing 2791 EME (2) sealing 2780 EME (1) sealing 2792 EME (2) sealed tablet 2781 EME (1) sealing 2793 EME (2) sealed tablet 2782 EME (1) sealing 2794 EME (2) sealing 2783 EME (1) sealing 2795 EME (2) sealing 2796 EME (2) sealed tablet 2784 EME (2) sealing 2804 EME (3) cylinder 2785 EME (2) sealing 2805 EME (3) sealing

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 147 Current Current Type Current Current Type Number Classification Number Classification 2806 EME (3) sealing 2875 EME (5) sealing 2807 EME (3) sealing 2876 EME (5) sealing 2808 EME (3) sealing 2891 EME (6) sealing 2809 EME (3) sealing 2892 EME (6) sealing 2810 EME (3) sealing 2893 EME (6) sealing 2811 EME (3) sealing 2894 EME (6) sealings 2812 EME (3) sealing 2895 EME (6) sealing 2813 EME (3) sealing 2896 EME (6) sealing 2814 EME (3) sealing 2897 EME (6) sealing 2815 EME (3) sealing 2898 EME (6) sealing 2816 EME (3) sealing 2899 EME (6) sealing 2817 EME (3) sealed tablet 2900 EME (6) sealing 2818 EME (3) sealing 2901 EME (6) sealing 2819 EME (3) sealing 2902 EME (6) sealing 2820 EME (3) sealing 2903 EME (6) sealing 2821 EME (3) sealing 2904 EME (6) sealing 2822 EME (3) sealed envelope 2905 EME (6) sealing 2823 EME (3) sealed tablet 2906 EME (6) sealing 2824 EME (3) sealed tablet 2907 EME (6) sealing 2825 EME (3) sealing 2908 EME (6) sealing 2826 EME (3) sealed envelope 2909 EME (6) sealing 2827 EME (3) sealing 2910 EME (6) sealing 2828 EME (3) sealing 2911 EME (6) sealed envelope 2829 EME (3) sealed clay cone 2912 EME (6) sealed tablets 2830 EME (3) sealed clay cone 2913 EME (6) sealing 2831 EME (3) sealing 2914 EME (6) sealing 2832 EME (3) sealing 2915 EME (6) sealing 2833 EME (3) sealed tablet 2916 EME (6) sealing 2834 EME (3) sealing 2917 EME (6) sealing 2835 EME (3) sealing 2918 EME (6) sealing 2836 EME (3) sealing 2919 EME (6) sealing 2837 EME (3) sealed tablet 2920 EME (6) sealing 2838 EME (3) sealing 2921 EME (6) sealed tablet 2839 EME (3) sealing 2922 EME (6) sealing 2840 EME (3) sealing 2923 EME (6) sealing 2841 EME (3) sealing 2924 EME (6) sealing 2842 EME (3) sealed tablet 2925 EME (6) sealing 2843 EME (3) sealing 2926 EME (6) sealing 2844 EME (3) sealing 2927 EME (6) sealing 2845 EME (3) sealing 2928 EME (6) sealing 2846 EME (3) sealing 2929 EME (6) sealing 2847 EME (3) sealing 2930 EME (6) sealing 2848 EME (3) sealing 2931 EME (6) sealing 2849 EME (3) sealing 2932 EME (6) sealing 2850 EME (3) sealing 2933 EME (6) sealing 2851 EME (3) sealing 2934 EME (6) sealing 2852 EME (3) sealed envelope 2935 EME (6) sealing 2855 EME (4) sealing 2936 EME (6) sealing 2856 EME (4) sealing 2937 EME (6) sealing 2857 EME (4) sealing 2938 EME (6) sealing 2868 EME (5) sealing 2939 EME (6) sealing 2869 EME (5) sealing 2940 EME (6) sealing 2870 EME (5) sealing 2941 EME (6) sealing 2871 EME (5) sealing 2942 EME (6) sealing 2872 EME (5) sealing 2943 EME (6) sealing 2873 EME (5) sealing 2944 EME (6) sealed envelope 2874 EME (5) sealing 2945 EME (6) sealed tablet

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 148 Current Current Type Current Current Type Number Classification Number Classification 2946 EME (6) sealing 3003 EME (9) sealing 2947 EME (6) sealing 3004 EME (9) sealing 2948 EME (6) sealing 3005 EME (9) sealing 2949 EME (6) sealing 3006 EME (9) sealing 2950 EME (6) sealing 3007 EME (9) sealing 2951 EME (6) sealing 3008 EME (9) sealing 2952 EME (6) sealing 3009 EME (9) sealing 2953 EME (6) sealing 3010 EME (9) sealing 2954 EME (6) sealing 3011 EME (9) sealing 2955 EME (6) sealing 3012 EME (9) sealing 2956 EME (6) sealing 3013 EME (9) sealing 2957 EME (6) sealing 3014 EME (9) sealing 2958 EME (6) sealing 3015 EME (9) sealing 2959 EME (6) sealing 2016 EME (9) sealing 2960 EME (6) sealing 3017 EME (9) sealing 2961 EME (6) sealing 3018 EME (9) sealing 2962 EME (6) sealed envelope 3019 EME (9) sealing 2963 EME (6) sealed envelope 3028 KRS (1) cylinder 2982 EME (8) sealing 3043 KRS (2) sealing 2983 EME (8) sealing 3474 No Image sealed tablet 2984 EME (8) sealed tablet 3483 Mittanian cylinder 2985 EME (8) sealed tablet 3484 Mittanian cylinder 2986 EME (8) sealing 3561 Unclassifiable fired clay sealing 2987 EME (8) sealing 3562 Unclassifiable fired clay sealing 2988 EME (8) sealed tablet 3563 Unclassifiable cylinder 2989 EME (8) sealing 3564 Unclassifiable cylinder 2990 EME (8) sealing 3565 Unclassifiable sealing 2991 EME (8) sealed tablet 3566 Unclassifiable sealing 2992 EME (8) sealed tablet 3567 Unclassifiable sealing 2996 EME (9) sealing 3592 Not Illustrated sealing 2997 EME (9) sealing 3593 Not Illustrated sealing 2998 EME (9) sealing 3594 Not Illustrated sealing 2999 EME (9) sealing 3595 Not Illustrated sealing 3000 EME (9) sealing 3596 Not Illustrated sealing 3001 EME (9) sealing 3597 Not Illustrated sealing 3002 EME (9) sealing Table 2.14. Survey of glyptic material from Haft Tepe (Kabnak).

2.2.1.4 Choga Zanbil 2.2.1.4.1 Location, Excavation and Publication Choga Zanbil7 is located approximately 40km southeast of Susa, on a ridge above the Diz River, in the Susiana region of Khuzistan (Potts 1999: 222; Carter & Stolper 1984: 37; Carter 1999: 119, who lists the distance as 35km), see Figure 2.1. The site was brought to the attention of the French excavators of Susa by oil prospectors, leading Mecquenem to execute several sounding trenches in 1936 and 1939 (Mecquenem & Michalon 1953; Potts 1999: 222). However, it was Ghirshman, again under the auspices of the French Délégation, who carried out the major excavations at

7Also spelt Tchoga Zanbil, Choga Zambil, Chogha Zanbil and Tchoga Zambil. The name means ‘Basket Mound’ a reference to the shape of the ziggurat.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 149 Choga Zanbil over nine seasons in the 1950’s and early 1960’s (Ghirshman 1966: 2). The results of these excavations were published in four volumes in the French Mission series (MDP). One volume details the central ziggurat (Ghirshman 1966) another the other architectural remains (Ghirshman 1968), another is dedicated to the tablets and texts found at the site produced by Steve (1967), and, of primary importance here, a fourth volume is dedicated to the glyptic remains from Choga Zanbil, authored by Porada (1970). From 1997 to 2002, a joint Iranian-German team, led by Behzad Mofidi Nasrabadi returned to Choga Zanbil, and undertook surveys, geophysical operations and excavations (in three areas, labelled Areas A – C, see Figure 2.8). The results of this work has been detailed in an article (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04a) and a recently published monograph (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007). A single seal found in these excavations (3100; discussed below), was published by Mofidi in the main monograph (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007).

2.2.1.4.2 Site Description The main site of Choga Zanbil lies within a major enclosure wall that runs for approximately 4km, enclosing an area of roughly 100 hectares (Potts 1999: 222; Carter & Stolper 1984: 37, 160), as illustrated by Figure 2.8. Within this area is a large amount of open space that, according to Ghirshman, appeared never to have been built upon (Ghirshman 1968: 47), though there are several areas of excavated architecture within the outer wall, specifically in the far eastern and western regions, as demonstrated by Figure 2.8., Porada has suggested that the area within the first enclosure wall served as fields or gardens used to support the population of Choga Zanbil (Porada 1965: 55), while Ghirshman believes that this open area was used as camping grounds by visiting pilgrims (Ghirshman 1968: 47). However both these hypotheses lack any substantive evidence and are purely speculative. Indeed, in the more recent Mofidi excavations evidence for occupation/domestic architecture has been uncovered in three areas, two within the temenos area (that is, within the second enclosure wall; Areas B and C), and one just beyond this, but still within the first enclosure wall (Area A) (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: 45 – 46, 90 – 91), see figure 2.8. Furthermore, evidence in the form of ceramic sherd distribution, was also discovered beyond the first enclosure wall, in the vicinity of the site (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003- 04a), further indicating that there was both more extensive domestic, or mundane

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 150 occupation at Choga Zanbil, and providing additional dating material, further outlined below. These discoveries change the traditional interpretation of Choga Zanbil, as will be returned to below.

Figure 2.8. General plan of Choga Zanbil, indicating areas uncovered in the Ghirshman excavations. Areas notated include those mentioned in the text and those that were a source of glyptic material (see Table 2.13 for details of glyptic provenance). Area marked blue indicates areas excavated in the recent Mofidi Nasrabadi excavations (2007). Area shaded red indicates the Chapel region, detailed further on Figure 2.9, from whence many seals were found. Figure after Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: plan 2, with alterations.

Up to 20 hectares within this first enclosure wall was excavated by Ghirshman’s team, revealing, for the most part, structures that have been labelled ‘religious’ (Carter 1971: 188). In the eastern section of the first enclosure wall lies an area labelled the ‘Royal Quarter’, that contains several installations that have been

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 151 described by the excavator as palaces, including the so-called palais hypogée and a ‘Royal Gateway’ (Ghirshman 1968: 47ff.; Carter 1999: 119 – 120), as illustrated by Figure 2.8. A structure identified as a temple dedicated to the god Nusku also stands in this general eastern area (Ghirshman 1968; Carter 1999; Figure 2.8). A second enclosure wall defines an area referred to as a temenos by Ghirshman (1968), as illustrated in Figures 2.8 and 2.9. Some twenty-two temples dedicated to various deities (as identified by inscribed bricks) lie within the temenos area (Ghirshman 1968; Carter 1999; Potts 1999: 222 – 230). The most prominent and well known structure at Choga Zanbil, the Ziggurat, which still stands some twenty- five metres high, is itself enclosed within a third wall that also had other temple structures built into it (Ghirshman 1968: 1; Hinz 1973: 115 – 115; Potts 1999: 222 – 230), also demonstrated by Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9. Plan of the temenos area of Choga Zanbil, inclusive of the second and third enclosure walls. Areas notated include those that produced cylinder seals, including Area B excavated by Mofidi Nasrabadi (2008), and Chapels III and IV (the majority source areas for cylinder seals), coloured red. Figure after Amiet 1966: 253, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 152 Several of the installations at Choga Zanbil are of particular importance here. These include the Temples of Ishni-qarab and , as well as a series of Chapels lining the southwestern façade of the ziggurat (Porada 1970: 3), all illustrated on Figure 2.9. The Temple of Kiririsha is thought to have contained workshop installations in its annex area (Ghirshman 1966: 95 – 98; Carter & Stolper 1984: 161). It is possible that this workshop served as a production area for the many faience objects (called frit by Ghirshman [1966: 71], see the above discussion of faience for details, Chapter 1.1.3), including cylinder seals, found at Choga Zanbil (Ghirshman 1966: 95; Carter 1999: 120 – 121). This provides the only evidence for a possible production area of the large amounts of faience and glass objects found at Choga Zanbil, and indicates that the seals found at the site may have been manufactured on site (a possibility that will be returned to below, Chapter 6). Along the southwestern façade of the ziggurat, facing the third wall, stand four rooms, labelled chapels by the excavator (Ghirshman 1966: 71), see Figure 2.9. The central room is sometimes described as a niche (Ghirshman 1966: 71), but is also sometimes identified as Chapel I (Porada 1970: 39). To the south of Chapel I are two other chapels; each is 11.7m long, with the larger (called Chapel III), 3.4m wide and the smaller (Chapel II), 2.25m (Ghirshman 1966: 71). To the west of Chapel I stands another chapel (Chapel IV), 17m long and 3.4m wide (Ghirshman 1966: 71). These chapels appear to have served as votive depositories (Ghirshman 1966: 71 – 72; Porada 1965: 60; Collon 2005: 69; Porada 1970: 3 – 4; Potts 1999: 226; Amiet 1966: 340; Carter 1999: 121), an interpretation that, though widely accepted, has never really been questioned. Both the nature of Choga Zanbil, and the list of items found in these Chapels, point to the votive nature of their contents and so this interpretation is accepted here. Some of the items found in these Chapels include, in Chapel III, pomegranate and pearl replicas made of faience, and pendants and mace-heads of stone (Ghirshman 1966: 72). In Chapel IV, the list includes animal and human figurines of faience and bronze, and other items of gold and terracotta (Ghirshman 1966: 72). Perhaps most importantly (certainly for the purpose of this study), was the abundance of seals discovered in these Chapels (one hundred and twenty-four cylinders, and two stamps in the four Chapels, discussed further below; Ghirshman 1966: 71 – 72). Aerial photography of the Choga Zanbil surrounds has also identified what appears to be a “‘ceremonial way” leading to the east (‘Royal’) gate (Tourovets

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 153 1997). This, coupled with the more recent evidence of sherd scatter beyond the first, largest enclosure wall, discovered by Nasrabadi Mofidi (2003-04a), and the evidence for wider domestic habitation, within the enclosure (Nasrabadi Mofidi 2007: 45 – 46, 90 – 91) gives the impression that the occupation, and use (see below for further details) of Choga Zanbil may have been more extensive than previously believed, and indeed, in some cases (for example, Areas A – C uncovered in the Mofidi Nasrabadi exactions) more mundane (that is, domestic).

2.2.1.4.3 Date and Ancient Name The foundation of Choga Zanbil is securely dated to the reign of the Middle Elamite king Untash-Napirisha (Ghirshman 1966: 1ff; Porada 1970: 3 – 4; Potts 1999: 220 – 223; Carter 1999: 123). Thousands of inscribed bricks from the site testify to this and give the ancient name of the site, Al Untash-Napirisha8 (Potts 1999: 222). Thus the relative date for the foundation of Choga Zanbil is established, however the absolute date for the foundation of the site is more complex, and rests, naturally, on the date of the reign of Untash-Napirisha. Formerly, the reign of this king was given as c.1275/65 – 1245/40 BC (Ghirshman 1966: 7; Carter 1979: 125) based upon correlations with Kassite kings from Babylonia. More recently however, the date of Untash-Napirisha has been placed c.1340 – 1300 BC (Potts 1999: 207 – 230; Steve & Vallat 1989) based upon newly discovered, more concrete Kassite correlations (already outlined above, Table 2.8). Thus the foundation of Choga Zanbil is now thought to have occurred in the later part of the 14th century BC. This re-assessment of the dates of Choga Zanbil means that the entire dating system for the Middle Elamite glyptic, for which Choga Zanbil has been integral, must in turn be adjusted (discussed in Chapter 4). The history of Choga Zanbil following the reign of Untash-Napirisha down to its abandonment/destruction is more difficult to describe. While this impacts on the function of Choga Zanbil and will therefore be discussed below, it is generally thought that any focus on Choga Zanbil ceased with the death of Untash-Napirisha (Ghirshman 1966: 8; Potts 1999: 231). This is based on the absence of inscriptions naming the immediate successors of Untash-Napirisha at Choga Zanbil (Ghirshman

8The correct reading of the ancient name of Choga Zanbil is somewhat confused in the literature. The site is called Dur-Untash, Dur Untash Napirisha, Al-Untash and Al Untash-Napirisha. ‘Dur’ meaning citadel or fort and ‘Al’ meaning town. Thus these names are all essentially the same and mean ‘Town or Citadel of Untash-Napirisha.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 154 1966: 7; Potts 1999: 223, 231) (especially in light of the massive amounts of inscriptions naming Untash-Napirisha), and the belief that some of the buildings at Choga Zanbil were never completed (Hinz 1973: 115-16; Carter 1971: 188). However, this lack of official patronage does not equate with a complete nor absolute abandonment. Ceramic evidence, and other pieces of material culture (including seals), indicates that Al Untash-Napirisha continued to be occupied, for at least a time (Pons 1994: 43ff). The nature of this continued occupation is uncertain. Some scholars have claimed that the remaining population was essentially a small contingent of religious personnel who maintained the temples and other installations (Ghirshman 1966: 8; Carter 1971: 188 – 189), while others describe the inhabitants as an essentially squatter population (Young 1978: 237). Whatever the nature of Choga Zanbil’s occupation after Untash-Napirisha, it can be accepted that the site continued to be occupied for some time beyond his reign. The question remains as to how long after the death of Untash-Napirisha Choga Zanbil was occupied. Ghirshman proposed the standard view that Choga Zanbil was occupied until its destruction (or abandonment) during the campaigns of Assurbanipal of Assyria around 646 BC (Ghirshman 1966: 8; 1968: 83). This is based primarily on a reliance on the Babylonian traditional sources and an understanding of the ceramic parallels between the final remains in the Temple of Ishni-qarab (the only area of Choga Zanbil where any sort of stratigraphy was revealed in the Ghirshman excavations) and ceramic evidence from Susa (Pons 1994: 44ff; Ghirshman 1966: 8; 1968: 83). However, this relies on the use of Susa for cross-dating purposes, which, as discussed above, is extremely perilous. A reassessment of the ceramic evidence by Pons places the destruction of Choga Zanbil during the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar I, rather than Assurbanipal (Pons 1994). This study compares ceramics from the Temple of Ishni-qarab with those from Middle Elamite Tal-i Malyan, as well as ceramics from the more recently studied (and reliable) Middle Elamite levels of Susa to arrive at this conclusion (Pons 1994). Mofidi’s more recent work at Choga Zanbil has also provided evidence regarding the extent of occupation at the site. Evidence for building phases (1 – 3) in Areas A – C indicate not only possible domestic occupation within the temenos area, but also dating evidence (by way of ceramic parallels) for the use of these areas (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: 45 – 46, 90 – 91). Thus there is ceramic evidence allowing Mofidi to date Building Phase 3 (Bauschicht 3), represented in Areas C and A (see

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 155 Figure 2.8 for location of these areas), to the 12th – 11th Centuries BC (that is the late Middle Elamite period), Phase 2, represented in Areas A – C, to the 10th – 9th Centuries BC (the transitional Middle Elamite – Neo-Elamite period) and Phase 3, known primarily from Area C, to the 8th – 7th Centuries BC (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: 45 – 46, 90 – 91). Ceramic evidence from surface surveys in the areas surrounding Choga Zanbil, outside the main perimeter wall, can also be dated to the Middle Elamite II period, the Neo-Elamite I – II, Achaemenid, Parthian-Sassanid and even Islamic periods (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04a). This evidence, though preliminary and indistinct suggests that, to at least some extent, Choga Zanbil, and indeed the general surrounds of Choga Zanbil, were occupied for much longer than the originally implied Middle Elamite II occupation. The extent or otherwise of this occupation, and especially the effect this has on the dating of the main use of the Ziggurat (and even more pertinently, the Chapels) remains unclear. For the purposes of this study, the general flourishing of Choga Zanbil can be associated broadly with the reign of its founder Untash-Napirisha, which has now been redated from the traditionally held date to c.1350 BC. Based on the evidence from the Ishni-qarab Temple, compared by Pons to Middle Elamite material from Susa and Tal-i Malyan (Pons 1994), it can be argued that the main occupation (or use) of the Ziggurat area of Choga Zanbil ended with the bellicose advent of Nebuchadnezzar I, c.1105 BC (that, as outlined above, precipitated the end of the Middle Elamite III period and transition to Middle Elamite IV). Thus it can be argued that the majority of the materials found in the chapels and temples surrounding the Ziggurat (that is, within the temenos area of the site), including the cylinder seals, date to the later Middle Elamite period (c.1350 – 1105 BC). That the occupation of the wider area of Choga Zanbil, in some manner or another, continued much further into the first millennium (and indeed beyond), should be noted, though the impact of this occupation to the dating of the material found in the main area (and thus of primary interest here) currently seems negligible.

2.2.1.4.4 Function The function of Choga Zanbil has never really been questioned, but rather simply accepted. Choga Zanbil is thought to have been a religious centre (Ghirshman 1966: 7; Porada 1970: 1 – 5; Potts 1999: 230; Carter 1999). More than this, the site is thought to represent a unification of the different ethnic elements of the Middle

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 156 Elamite kingdom (lowland Susian and highland Anshanite) in a kind of federal sanctuary, where the highland and lowland gods were worshiped together (Harper et al. 1992: 121; Carter & Stolper 1984: 164). The political and ideological motivations for the foundation of Choga Zanbil cannot really be understood from our current state of understanding, and any attempt to explain these complex motivations are merely speculative thoughts undertaken with limited degrees of caution. The position of Choga Zanbil vis-à-vis Susa is an important one, as it impacts on the function of both sites, and in turn the function of the glyptic material discovered there. It is unlikely that Choga Zanbil was ever a city in the manner that Susa was a city (Carter 1971: 188 – 189). The apparent lack of any substantial residential or administrative areas and evidence at Choga Zanbil demonstrates this. However, the importance of Choga Zanbil, at least during the reign of Untash-Napirisha, was great, as testified to by the obvious display of wealth entailed in the foundation of a new city and construction of a Ziggurat. It seems certain that Choga Zanbil did indeed have a distinct, and apparently specifically religious, function. Whether this meant that the site was a place of pilgrimage or not is hypothesising that cannot be proved at this point. The impact of this unique function of the site on the function of the glyptic material will be further discussed below (and Chapter 6).

2.2.1.4.5 Glyptic Material One hundred and sixty-four cylinder seals (and four stamp seals, not included in the Corpus) excavated by Ghirshman at Choga Zanbil were published by Porada in the fourth MDP volume dedicated to Choga Zanbil (1970: 1; Ghirshman 1966: 71). A further eleven cylinder seals from Choga Zanbil, not included in Porada’s study, were published by Amiet along with some more seals from Susa not included in his main Susa publication (Amiet 1973). Finally, a single seal found in Area B in the recent Mofidi excavations was published in the monograph report of these excavations (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007). Thus the Choga Zanbil corpus included in the current study numbers 176 examples, demonstrated in Table 2.15, a not insignificant sized corpus (see Chapters 4 and 5). It should be emphasised that no sealings whatsoever were found at Choga Zanbil and that the entire corpus is composed of cylinder seals only (Porada 1970; see Chapter 4 and 5). This prevalence of cylinder seals at Choga Zanbil is even more

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 157 striking given the recent discovery of domestic/mundane occupation at the site, where it could be expected that sealings would be present. The preponderance of cylinder seals no doubt reflects the function of seals at Choga Zanbil, which in term seems to reflect the function of the site itself. Table 2.15 illustrates the provenance within Choga Zanbil of each seal. As is demonstrated in the Table, and illustrated by Figures 2.8 and 2.9, the great majority of the seals were found in temple or chapel structures. Indeed, over 70% of the Zanbil seals came from the Chapels that face the southwest façade of the ziggurat (Ghirshman 1966: 71; Carter 1999: 122; illustrated on Figure 2.9). The location of cylinder seals in temple and chapel structures allows these materials to be given a votive function designation, a proposal that will be returned to in greater detail below (Chapter 6).

Seal Provenance Current Material Seal Provenance Current Material Class. Class. 1508 – AGD (9) white 3050 Chapel IV KRS (2) brown stone limestone with white 2703 Ziggurat OBRS (2) black & beige steatite veins 2733 Tomb 1 PEO (3) grey stone 3051 Chapel IV KRS (2) dark blue 2771 Chapel IV PEO (8) white/green glass limestone 3052 Chapel IV KRS (2) glass 2772 Chapel III PEO (8) blue faience 3053 Chapel IV KRS (2) glass 2773 Chapel IV PEO (8) green 3058 – LME (1) bitumen faience aggregate* 2964 Chapel IV EME (6) green 3059 Chapel III LME (1) faience faience 3060 Chapel III LME (1) faience 2994 – EME (9) faience 3061 Chapel III LME (1) faience 2995 – EME (9) faience 3062 Palace, LME (1) unknown, 3029 Chapel III KRS (1) glass Chamber 19 cylinder 3030 Chapel III KRS (1) light blue 3063 Chapel IV LME (1) faience glass 3064 Chapel III LME (1) faience 3031 Chapel IV KRS (1) light green 3065 Chapel IV LME (1) faience glass 3066 Chapel IV LME (1) faience 3032 Chapel IV KRS (1) dark blue 3067 Chapel IV LME (1) faience glass 3068 Chapel IV LME (1) faience 3033 Chapel IV KRS (1) glass 3069 Chapel III LME (1) faience 3034 Chapel IV KRS (1) glass 3070 Chapel IV LME (1) faience 3035 Chapel IV KRS (1) glass 3071 Chapel IV LME (1) faience 3042 – KRS (2) yellow 3072 Chapel IV LME (1) faience faience 3073 Chapel III LME (1) faience 3044 Chapel III KRS (2) dark blue 3074 Palace, LME (1) blue-green glass Chamber 7 glass 3045 Chapel III KRS (2) dark blue 3075 Chapel IV LME (1) glass glass 3076 Chapel III LME (1) glass 3046 Chapel IV KRS (2) green glass 3077 Chapel III LME (1) light blue 3047 Chapel IV KRS (2) blue-green glass glass 3079 – LME (2) faience 3048 Chapel IV KRS (2) dark blue 3080 Chapel III LME (2) faience glass 3081 Chapel III LME (2) faience 3049 Chapel IV KRS (2) glass 3082 Chapel IV LME (2) faience 3083 Chapel IV LME (2) faience

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 158 Seal Provenance Current Material Seal Provenance Current Material Class. Class. 3084 Chapel IV LME (2) faience 3156 Chapel IV LME (6) pink, violet 3090 – LME (3) faience & beige marble 3091 – LME (3) faience 3160 Chamber M LME (7) glass 3092 Chapel III LME (3) faience 3161 Chapel IV LME (7) apricot 3093 Chapel III LME (3) green (coloured) faience stone 3094 Chapel III LME (3) faience 3162 Chapel IV LME (7) glass 3095 Chapel E LME (3) bitumen 3163 Chapel III LME (7) bitumen aggregate* aggregate* 3096 Chapel III LME (3) faience 3164 Chapel IV LME (7) faience 3097 Chapel IV LME (3) faience 3165 Chapel IV LME (7) faience 3098 Chapel IV LME (3) faience 3166 Chapel IV LME (7) faience 3099 outside LME (3) faience 3167 Chapel IV LME (7) faience corner of the 3168 Chapel IV LME (7) faience Royal Door 3169 Chapel IV LME (7) faience 3100 Area B LME (3) alabaster/ 3170 Chapel IV LME (7) faience gypsum* 3171 Chapel IV LME (7) faience 3103 Chapel I LME (4) faience 3172 Chapel IV LME (7) faience 3104 Temple of LME (4) faience 3179 Chapel IV LME (8) faience 3180 Chapel IV LME (8) faience 3105 Chapel III LME (4) faience 3181 Chapel IV LME (8) faience 3106 Chapel III LME (4) faience 3182 Chapel III LME (8) faience 3107 Chapel IV LME (4) faience 3183 Chamber 1 LME (8) faience 3108 Chamber M LME (4) blue glass 3184 near Temple LME (8) red veined 3118 – LME (5) faience Ishni-qarab marble 3119 Chapel IV LME (5) dark blue 3185 Chapel III LME (9) faience glass 3186 Chapel III LME (9) faience 3120 Chapel IV LME (5) faience 3187 Chapel IV LME (9) greenish 3121 Chapel IV LME (5) faience faience 3122 Chapel III LME (5) faience 3189 Chapel IV AS (1) faience 3123 Chapel III LME (5) faience 3224 Northwest LPS (2) faience 3124 Chapel III LME (5) faience Temple, 3125 Chapel III LME (5) faience Chamber 12 3126 Chapel III LME (5) white 3319 – LPS (6) faience faience 3320 Ziggurat, LPS (6) faience 3127 Chapel E LME (5) faience? southwest 3128 Southwest LME (5) white door square faience 3355 Royal LPS (7) faience 3139 Chapel IV LME (6) faience Entrance 3140 Chamber M LME (6) faience 3392 Chapel II LGD (2) faience 3141 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3393 Chapel IV LGD (2) bronze with 3142 Chapel IV LME (6) faience silver inlay 3143 Chamber M LME (6) faience 3394 Chapel IV LGD (2) faience 3144 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3395 Chapel IV LGD (2) faience 3145 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3421 – LGD (3) faience 3146 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3422 Chapel IV LGD (3) faience 3147 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3423 Southeast LGD (3) faience 3148 Chapel III LME (6) faience square 3149 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3424 Chapel IV LGD (3) faience 3150 Chapel II LME (6) faience 3425 Chapel IV LGD (3) faience 3151 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3426 Palace, LGD (3) faience 3152 Chapel IV LME (6) faience Court A 3153 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3427 Chapel III LGD (3) faience 3154 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3428 Palace, LGD (3) unknown, 3155 Chapel III LME (6) faience Chamber 20 cylinder 3429 Palace, LGD (3) terra cotta Chamber 19

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 159 Seal Provenance Current Material Seal Provenance Current Material Class. Class. 3446 Chapel II LGD (4) faience 3574 Chapel III Not faience 3447 Palace, LGD (4) faience Illustrated Chamber 19 3575 Chapel III Not grey-white 3544 West Unclass. faience Illustrated faience Complex 3576 Chapel III Not faience 3545 Palace, Unclass. grey & Illustrated Chamber 8 white 3577 Chapel III Not faience marble Illustrated 3546 Chapel III Unclass. bitumen 3578 Chapel III Not faience aggregate* Illustrated 3547 Palace, Unclass. rose quartz* 3579 Chapel IV Not faience Chamber 19 Illustrated 3548 Chapel III Unclass. faience 3580 Southeast Not faience 3549 Chapel IV Unclass. faience square Illustrated 3550 Court 1 Unclass. blue faience 3581 Palace, Not faience 3551 Temple of Unclass. faience Chamber 5 Illustrated Simut & 3582 Chapel II Not faience Nin-ali Illustrated 3552 Palace, Unclass. green 3583 Southeast Not yellow Chamber 8 faience square Illustrated faience 3553 Chapel IV Unclass. faience 3584 Ziggurat Not blue faience 3554 Chapel IV Unclass. apricot Illustrated (coloured) 3585 Chapel I Not faience stone Illustrated 3555 Chapel IV Unclass. pink & 3586 Palace, Not white, yellow Court B Illustrated yellowish marble faience 3558 Palace, Unclass. white- 3587 Chapel III Not faience Court B yellow Illustrated faience 3588 Palace, Not faience 3557 Northwest Unclass. glass Chamber 8 Illustrated Temple 3589 Palace, Not faience 3571 Chapel IV Not glass Court A Illustrated Illustrated 3590 Palace, Not grey stone 3572 Chapel III Not faience Chamber 6 Illustrated Illustrated 3591 Palace, Not dark blue 3573 Chapel IV Not faience Chamber 19 Illustrated glass Illustrated Table 2.15. Survey of the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil.

2.2.1.5 Tepe Sharafabad 2.2.1.5.1 Location, Excavation and Publication Tepe Sharafabad9 is a small site located in the north-central area of the Susiana plain, in the province of Khuzistan, some 15km northeast of Susa (Schacht 1975: 307), that is, roughly half-way between this major site and Chogha Mish (Wright et al. 1989: 107), see Figure 2.1. The modern course of the Diz River lies about one kilometre to the west of Tepe Sharafabad, and most likely was an ancient source of irrigation water (Schacht 1975: 307). The Sharafabad mound rises some 11m above the surrounding plain, is oval shaped, c.130m in length and covers an estimated 2 hectares (Schacht

9Also transliterated Tappeh Šarafabad (Wright et al 1980).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 160 1975: 307; Wright et al. 1980: 268; Wright et al. 1989: 106). The site was originally surveyed by Adams and Hole (and designated KS-36), and excavated in 1971 by a joint Iranian (the Archaeological Service of Iran)-American (University of Michigan) team lead by H. T. Wright (Schacht 1975: 307; Wright et al. 1980: 268 – 271; Wright et al. 1989: 107 – 109). Tepe Sharafabad was chosen for excavation with the expressed aim of uncovering remains of an Uruk period small, local centre, as indicated by the presence of clay cones recovered in the surface survey of the site (Schacht 1975: 307; Wright et al. 1980: 268; Wright 1989: 107 – 109). However, the test and deep trenches undertaken on the mound revealed later ‘Elamite’ remains overlaying and damaging the Uruk occupation (Schacht 1975: 307 – 309; Wright et al. 1980: 268; Wright et al. 1989: 107). The excavations at the site were relatively limited, as demonstrated in Figure 2.10, and thus it can be anticipated that more extensive excavations would reveal greater Uruk (and presumably other periods) occupation. The ‘Elamite’ levels uncovered in the Tepe Sharafabad excavations were published in a preliminary excavation report article by Schacht (1975). The Uruk period occupation (or more correctly, the ‘Uruk pit’ that produced the main body of the Uruk period information) has been detailed in two conference papers primarily authored by Wright (Wright et al. 1980; Wright et al. 1989).

2.2.1.5.2 Site Description and Date Sherds from surface survey and test excavations at Tepe Sharafabad provide evidence that the site was occupied from c.5500 BC until c.2800 BC, when the site was supposedly abandoned, until some time around 2000 BC, (re-)occupied for several centuries, and then permanently abandoned (Schacht 1975: 307). As reflected in the above cited articles, the majority of the excavated materials from Tepe Sharafabad belong to two major periods, the Uruk (Wright et al. 1980; Wright et al. 1989) and the so-called ‘Elamite’ (Schacht 1975), and thus the above outlined chronological extant is garnered primarily from surface sherd distribution, and so must remain generally speculative.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 161

Figure 2.10. Plan of Tepe Sharafabad Excavations, indicating the areas that Uruk (red) and ‘Elamite’ (blue) material was uncovered. The black striped areas indicate trenches that produced either limited materials, or that were abandoned due to a lack of Uruk material. Combined image after Schacht (1975: figure 1) and Wright et al. (1980: figure 3), with alterations.

The majority of the Uruk occupation had seemingly been destroyed by the later ‘Elamite’ occupation terracing at Tepe Sharafabad (Wright et al. 1980: 268). The only Uruk period architectural remains recovered at Sharafabad were portions of four small rooms on the south summit of the mound, that contained a series of Middle Uruk debris deposits, labelled the ‘Uruk Rooms’ by the excavators (demonstrated by Figure 2.10, red coloured area) (Wright et al. 1980: 268). Little information regarding artefacts discovered in the ‘Uruk Rooms’ has been forthcoming (Wright et al. 1989: 268; Wright et al. 1989: 107), and as such little more can be added here. In the trenches at the western foot of the mound a remnant wall and a dump, labelled the ‘Uruk Dump’ (Figure 2.10), was also uncovered (Wright et al. 1980: 268). Again, other than the indication of an early Middle Uruk date (Wright et al. 1980: 268), little information regarding the ‘Uruk Dump’ has been published.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 162 Finally at the eastern base of the Tepe Sharafabad mound (Wright et al. 1980: 268; located, presumably erroneously, on the northern flank in the second paper on the subject [Wright et al. 1989: 107]), another rubbish dump, labelled the ‘Uruk Pit’, was excavated (Wright et al. 1980: 268). This dump was meticulously and thoroughly excavated and analysed, and provides the great majority of the published Uruk period information regarding Tepe Sharafabad (Wright et al. 1980; Wright et al. 1989; Wright 2007). Artefacts uncovered in the ‘Uruk Pit’ include many whole and fragmentary ceramic vessels (Wright et al. 1980: 272 – 274; Wright et al. 1989: 110 – 111), grinding stones (Wright et al. 1980: 274), and possible chipped stone debitage (Wright et al. 1989: 111), clay spindle whorls (Wright et al. 1980: 274), faunal and floral remains, providing evidence of agriculture, animal husbandry and hunting (Wright et al. 1980: 275 – 277; Wright et al. 1989: 109 – 110), and accounting accoutrements, including clay tokens, unsealed bullae and seals and sealings (Wright et al. 1980: 277 – 281; Wright et al. 1989: 111 – 112). The “micro-stratigraphy” of the ‘Pit’, and the analysis of the artefacts found therein, enabled the excavators to reconstruct the activities and fluctuations in occupations at Sharafabad from season-to-season over a two-and-a-half year period (Wright et al. 1980: 270 – 271, 281; Wright et al. 1989; Wright 2007: 181 – 183). Apart from noting the remarkable testimony that Wright’s study provides for the advocates of excavating and researching in detail even the most mundane of deposits (Wright et al. 1989: 113), little more detail of the ‘Uruk Pit’ need be provided here. On the basis of the ceramic evidence, this ‘Uruk Pit’ has been dated to the late Middle Uruk period (Wright et al. 1989: 268). Due to the presence of evidence for cylinder seal use (several cylinder seal sealings, discussed below), a late Middle Uruk, or early Late Uruk date is advocated here. The majority of the later ‘Elamite’ occupation at Tepe Sharafabad was uncovered in eight excavated squares near the summit of the mound (see Figure 2.10, areas coloured blue) (Schacht 1975: 309). This occupation is divided into four Phases (I – IV, I being the oldest) (Schacht 1975: 309 – 314). These phases demonstrate alterations and changes to building patterns and structures, and can be considered as a whole in chronological and cultural terms (Schacht 1975: 328). Several buildings, both occupational and structures of other, undiscerned, use, constructed of both baked and sun-dried mudbrick were uncovered at the site, as was a pavement of baked bricks, ovens, kilns and a hearth (Schacht 1975: 309 – 314). As well as numerous

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 163 pieces of ceramics (Schacht 1975: 323 – 326), the other small finds from the ‘Elamite’ levels include clay female figurines, similar to those from Susa dating to the second millennium BC (Schacht 1975: 323 – 325), stone tools (Schacht 1975: 327 – 328), copper (and/or copper alloy) items including a bracelet and pins or needles (Schacht 1975: 327), an inscribed tablet fragment (Schacht 1975: 325 – 326), and of particular interest here, two cylinder seals (Schacht 1975: 317, 325). It should be noted that Phases IV, III and II of the ‘Elamite’ occupation were all “disturbed by many burials of much later date” (Schacht 1975: 309). No qualifiers to the terms ‘many burials’ or ‘much later’ have been given, and thus it must merely be assumed that these burials contained no material of any relevance to the periods under discussion here. Elements of the material culture, particularly the ceramics, but also the figurines, can be related to the ‘Sukkalmahhu’, the Transitional (that is transitional ‘Sukkalmahhu’ to Middle Elamite) and perhaps the early Middle Elamite phases of Carter’s Susiana chronology (Schacht 1975: 326, 328). A radiocarbon date of c.1434 BC corrected (Schacht 1975: 328) has also been given, and this along with the general material culture correlations and, perhaps somewhat spuriously, the stylistic evidence of the cylinder seals, has lead Schacht to propose a date of c.1700 – 1400 BC for the ‘Elamite’ occupation of Tepe Sharafabad (Schacht 1975: 328 – 329). In the chronological terms of this study this corresponds generally to the Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite I) periods. As mentioned elsewhere (Chapter 1), and further outlined below (Chapter 3.4), the use of cylinder seals as a dating mechanism can be extremely spurious, and it is generally not advisable to date (or re-date) an entire occupation level, and indeed often even a site, on the basis of the stylistic designation of a lone cylinder seal. If anything, the presence of a cylinder seal in a given strata can provide a terminus a quo, an indication that the site was occupied at some point after the earliest use of the specific style. The potential heirloom quality of cylinder seals means that items, that stylistically belong to much earlier periods (that is, stylistically, it can be said that they were originally created in a certain period) can be found in later stratigraphic layers. Therefore, to use a cylinder seal as a type fossil or chronological indicator can often provide misleading and false information. In the current case, the two cylinder seals are used to suggest a possible narrower chronological occupation for construction Phase III (c.1700 – 1600 BC)

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 164 (Schacht 1975: 328). This proposal is rejected here due to the above outlined reluctance to accept the stylistic designations of cylinder seals as a dating mechanism. Furthermore, the stylistic correlations and identifications suggested by Schacht for these cylinders (1975: 325, 327), is here rejected, especially for seal 2339. The actual designation of this seal will be further discussed below (Chapters 4 and 5), however, for our current purposes it should be noted that though this seal was originally dated to the Sukkalmah period (1700 – 1650 BC; thus Schacht 1975: 327, following the defunct and rejected stylistic chronology of Börker-Klähn [1970], discussed further below), it is here associated with a group of cylinder seals belonging to the Akkadian period (Chapter 4.10), and accordingly should be dated somewhat earlier than that proposed by Schacht. Again, due the above outlined function of the heirloom quality of cylinder seals, this earlier date should not be taken to indicate, on its own, that Tepe Sharafabad was occupied in this era, but rather merely that by some unknown mechanism or another, an Akkadian period cylinder seal was found in a later Sukkalmah/early Middle Elamite context (albeit in a reasonably insecure stratigraphic context, see below). However, while the use of cylinder seals, due to their inherent nature, and the stylistic considerations here, are rejected as dating evidence, there is sufficient ceramic and other material (especially the figurines) evidence to accept the c.1700 – 1400 BC date advocated by Schacht (1975: 329). In summary, the information on the occupation of Tepe Sharafabad is currently quite limited, due mostly to the relatively small-scale excavation coverage at the site. While surface sherd distribution indicates that Tepe Sharafabad underwent two main phases of occupation, the first c.5500 – 2800 BC, and the second c.1950 – c.1500 BC, only two shorter periods are known from actual excavated materials. The first period, known primarily from rubbish deposits, is dated to the late Middle Uruk and early Late Uruk period (the Susa II period in the language of this study). The second phase (labelled, somewhat confusingly in cursory correlation with the current study, as ‘Elamite’) is dated c.1700 – 1400 BC, or the Sukkalmah through to the early Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite I) period. It is advocated by Schacht, presumably due to the relatively small amount of occupation evidence, that the excavated areas of Tepe Sharafabad were not occupied for the entirety of this (the Sukkalmah/Middle Elamite) period, or indeed, the entirety of the Middle Uruk period (1975: 328). Thus, in the current state of our knowledge, it can be said that Tepe Sharafabad was occupied sometime in the Middle Uruk/early Late Uruk period, and sometime in the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 165 Sukkalmah/early Middle Elamite period. The extent of these occupations, and indeed, the occupation of Tepe Sharafabad in the periods between these two phases, cannot be commented on in light of our current knowledge.

2.2.1.5.3 Glyptic Material Three sealing images, including one image that is repeated on three separate bale sealings (361), were discovered in the ‘Uruk Pit’, and published by Wright (et al. 1980), along with nine stamp sealings of no real significance here (Wright et al. 1980: 279; two of these stamp sealings have been published again recently by Wright [2007: 182]). According to the first ‘Uruk pit’ paper (Wright et al. 1980), two stamp seals (one “perhaps of chlorite” and another of, as described above, the misnomer material “calcite” [Chapter 1.1.3]) were also found discarded in the pit (Wright et al. 1980: 278). One sealing (Wright et al. 1980: fig. 6.5) is described as “perhaps a cylinder seal” by the publishers, but is not included in the current Corpus as it is here deemed to have most probably been made by a stamp seal (by comparison with other stamp seals from Sharafabad, and the shape of the sealing). Another sealing, listed by Wright as “definitely [made by] a cylinder”, is not illustrated in the publication and so is not included here as it could not be studied (Wright et al. 1980: 279). Thus in the original ‘Uruk pit’ paper two actual stamp seals and twelve stamp and cylinder seal sealings were published, with at least one other not illustrated cylinder sealing mentioned, making a total of fifteen glyptic items (three of which, a cylinder sealing and two stamp seals were not illustrated) found in the ‘Uruk pit’ (Wright et al. 1980: 278 – 281). However, it is stated in the second ‘Uruk pit’ paper, that only one stamp seal was found in the dump (Wright et al. 1989: 112), though this is presumably a typographical error, and besides which, is of no real impact here as it regards stamp, and not cylinder, seals. Therefore, according to Wright four sealings found in the ‘Uruk pit’ were made by cylinder seals, the other nine sealings were clearly made by stamp seals (as evidence by their morphology and designs) (Wright et al. 1980: 280 – 279). However, only three of the four mentioned cylinder seal sealings have been published, and are therefore included in the Corpus. Two cylinder seals from the ‘Elamite’ levels at Tepe Sharafabad were published by Schacht (1975) (2339 and 2760 from Phases IV and IIIC deposits respectively). It is explicitly stated by Schacht that this is the sum total of the glyptic material found in the ‘Elamite’ levels at Sharafabad (1975: 317, 325 – 328).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 166 Thus, two cylinder seals and three sealing images (that is, a total of five pieces) complete the Tepe Sharafabad corpus in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue, as illustrated in Table 2.16, a relatively small corpus (see Chapters 4 and 5). Indeed, it is by far the smallest of the excavated Khuzistan corpora (Deh-i Now excepted, as this site, and its single seal, was not excavated, see below). This contrast in seal proportions may be indicative both of the limited excavations (especially relative to Susa and Choga Zanbil, but also to Haft Tepe and Chogha Mish, discussed elsewhere) at the site, and to a certain degree, of the relatively limited occupation here. Little can be said of the function of the two seals, as both came from relatively unarticulated, fill or debris deposits (Schacht 1975: 314, 325). The fact that the three sealing images were found in the rubbish dump of the ‘Uruk pit’ (Wright et al. 1980: 278 – 281), indicates that the objects that they sealed were at least opened (that is the seal broken) and discarded at Tepe Sharafabad, if not actually sealed there. This in situ sealing is, of course, assured for the door lock sealing (210), however, the bale (361) and jar (487) sealings could well have been used to mark objects that were originally sealed elsewhere, and then dispatched to Sharafabad, where they were ‘opened’ and the sealing remnants discarded (Wright et al. 1980: 279). An unpublished neutron activation analysis undertaken by Blackman demonstrates that some of the sealings, including door sealings, from Tepe Sharafabad were impressed in “local” clay, while at least one jar rim sealing was impressed in a non-local clay, indicating that some of the sealed objects were presumably sealed elsewhere, transported to Sharafabad and opened (and the sealings discarded) there (Wright et al. 1989: 110, 113). This is of interest as to what it can reveal regarding the interactions between Tepe Sharafabad and nearby sites, a phenomenon that, unfortunately, cannot be further commented on with any precision at the moment.

Current Current Provenance Material Inscription Stylistic Number Classification 210 ‘Uruk Pit’ door lock sealing – STS (9) 361 ‘Uruk Pit’ three bale sealings – STS (15) 487 ‘Uruk Pit’ jar sealing – STS (21) 2339 Phase IV bitumen aggregate* – PEA (7) 2760 Phase IIIC steatite Tatta, PEO (7) son of Shukuku, servant of (the god) Na… Table 2.16. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Sharafabad.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 167 The steatite cylinder seal 2760, found in a Phase III debris deposit at Tepe Sharafabad bears an inscription that mentions two individuals Tatta, and his father Shukuku (Schacht 1975: 325). This is particularly of interest for, as already mentioned above, both Tatta and Shukuku are mentioned on several texts from the nearby site of Susa (Shukuku on three known tablets, MDP 18: 120 and MDP 28: 441 and 470; and Tatta also on MDP 28: 441) (Schacht 1975: 325 – 326). These texts are dated (on linguistic grounds) to the Sukkalmah period of Susa (Schacht 1975: 326), and so can be said to be generally contemporary with the ‘Elamite’ occupation of Tepe Sharafabad. If these individuals named on the Susa texts prove to be the same individuals mentioned on the Sharafabad seal, this would indicate close contacts, at least by some individuals, between Susa and Tepe Sharafabad. The text that mentions both Tatta [Ta-at-ta] and Shukuku (MDP 28: 441) is apparently a list of officials within the ‘Elamite Empire’, thus Tatta is called the canal inspector [KÙ.GÁL] and scribe of ‘Gapnak’, and Shukuku the scribe of Pishanne (Schacht 1975: 326). According to Schacht, the locations of both Gapnak and Pishanne are unknown (Schacht 1975: 326), though Gapnak has been associated with Gapnak (-KI) mentioned in another Susa text in association with an individual called Addabuni, also dated on linguistic evidence to the Sukkalmah period (Schacht 1975: 326; MDP 28: 423). It is possible that Tatta the ‘canal inspector’ and scribe of Gapnak can be associated with the junior triumvir known from another Susa text the sukkal Tata, discussed above (see Table 2.3), perhaps in an earlier, pre-sukkal point in his career. This is merely a proposal based on simple phonographic similarity however, and as such is tentative. It is proposed here however, that the site originally identified as Gapnak, mentioned in texts from Susa, and associated with an individual whose seal was found at Tepe Sharafabad, can in fact be transliterated .3-AP-NA-AK, and thus translated Kapnak (L. Siddall, pers. comm. 2008), and therefore identified as the ancient site Kabnak/Kapnak, that is ancient Haft Tepe (discussed above). While the initial signs used in Susa text MDP 28: 441 and a standard Haft Tepe example of Kapnak (found on a seal inscription 2912) are different, both can be rendered in English ‘KA’ (as demonstrated in the Elamite Sign List, Steve 1992), and thus, considering other similar alterations in signs used to refer to sites, it can be proposed that both texts refer to the same site Kapnak/Kabnak (L. Siddall, pers. comm. 2008).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 168 Thus, if the associations of the individual named Tatta detailed on the Sharafabad seal (2760) with a synonymously named individual on a Susa text linked to a site named Kapnak, which is in turn identified as ancient Haft Tepe, are accepted, then an axis of interaction in the Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite periods between the Susiana sites of Susa, Tepe Sharafabad and Haft Tepe can be proposed. For the possible evidence and implications this provides to the proposed reassessment of the foundation date of Haft Tepe, see Chapter 2.2.1.3.

2.2.1.6 Deh-i Now 2.2.1.6.1 General Details The site of Deh-i Now10 lies some 20 km east of Haft Tepe in Khuzistan province, southwestern Iran (Potts 1999: 206), see Figure 2.1. The site was identified in Johnson’s main Susiana survey, and given the designation KS-120 (Johnson 1973: 77). Deh-i Now has not been excavated as yet, and it is only known from such surveys (Johnson 1973) and from brick fragments discovered on the surface of the mound (Potts 1999: 206 – 207, 209, 231 – 233, 237; Steve 1968; 1987). On the basis of sherds found on the surface of the Deh-i Now mound, Johnson has suggested that the site was originally settled in the Early Uruk period (Johnson 1973: 77 81). It is estimated that the Uruk foundation is covered by perhaps 15m of “Elamite deposits” (Johnson 1973: 81), though in its current unexcavated state this is only an hypothetical reconstruction. Due to this lack of excavations, obviously no meaningful comment can be made regarding the extent or nature of the occupation of the site. It is estimated that during the Middle Elamite period the site covered the, not inconsiderable, area of 9.5ha (Potts 1999: 206 – 207). Of particular interest, mostly because they provide actual evidence for occupation in the absence of any excavated data, are several inscribed bricks and fragments found on the surface of the Deh-i Now mound that provide evidence for (temple) buildings and general occupation at Deh-i Now, that, due to the inclusion of the names of various kings, can be dated with some confidence (Potts 1999: 231 – 233, 237). The kingly names on these bricks include Igi-halki (founder of the Middle Elamite II, Igihalkid dynasty, see Table 2.8) (Steve 1987: 11 – 13; Potts 1999: 209) and Halltutush-Inshushinak (Steve 1987: 20 – 26; Potts 1999: 231 – 232), Shutruk-Nahhunte (Steve 1968: 300 – 303; 1987: 20, 27;

10Also Deh-e Now (Potts 1999) and Tell Deh-i-Now (Amiet 1972).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 169 Potts 1999: 231 – 232) and Kutir-Nahhunte (Steve 1987: 31; Potts 1999: 237) of the Middle Elamite III, Shutrukid dynasty (Table 2.9; see above for further details of these periods). Thus it can be confidently asserted that Deh-i Now was, at least, patronised by Middle Elamite II and III kings. These Middle Elamite kingly associations are the only concrete information regarding Deh-i Now currently available in the absence of any excavations.

2.2.1.6.2 Glyptic Material A single seal from the site of Deh-i Now (2890) was included in the major Amiet publication of the Susa corpus (MDP 43; Amiet 1972: 262, no. 2040), and it is this solitary cylinder seal that forms the, obviously, extremely limited Deh-i Now corpus. Thus, the Deh-i Now corpus is the smallest within the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. The precise circumstances of the discovery of this seal, and how it came to be included in Amiet’s publication of the Susa material is unknown, as no details other than “trouvé à Tell Deh-i-Now” are given in its publication (Amiet 1972: 262). It could possibly be assumed that it was found by members of the French Delegation coincident with the discovery of the inscribed bricks discussed above, such as by de Morgan early last century (Steve 1987: 300, note 1), or in the 1962 visit to the mound of Deh-i Now prompted by Dr. Gremliza’s (of the “Khuzestan Water and Power Authority”, during his quaintly entitled promenades archéologique) reports of inscribed bricks (Steve 1987: 299 – 300). However, such origins are not specified in the seal’s publication, and so these suggestions are merely speculative. There is no reason to doubt the Deh-i Now origin for this seal however, and as such, despite the lack of any stratigraphic context, or indeed any excavated material, this seal is included in the corpus as Deh-i Now most certainly fits within the geographic bounds of Elam and indeed, as shown above, it is believed that it played an important part in (Middle) Elamite history. As will be detailed below (Chapters 4 and 5) this seal belongs to a Middle Elamite style (EME), thus conforming to the only certain period of occupation at Deh-i Now.

2.2.2 Luristan The historical (and modern political Iranian province of Luristan), forms the northern region of the greater Elamite realm under analysis here, see Figures 1.3 and 2.1. For the sake of completeness and clarity, the glyptic material from all Luristan sites that

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 170 have occupation within the chronological strictures of this study have been included here. Thus the Luristan corpus includes nine sites: Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Kamtarlan, Chigha Sabz, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan and Chogha Gavaneh. As will be demonstrated below (Chapters 4 and 5) Luristan is the most abundant, in terms of individual sites, of the three province divisions in this study. However, it should be noted that the Khuzistan province has produced more actual glyptic pieces (even without the inclusion of the extraordinary site of Susa [extraordinary both in terms of actual size and occupation, and in extent and duration of excavation, see above]). This can be seen both as a reflection of modern scholarship, as many of the Luristan sites only received very cursory, and at times, ineffective and unscientific exploration (Tepe Giyan, Tepe Djamshidi, the Holmes Expedition sites, the early [that is, those that produced glyptic material] Chogha Gavaneh excavations), and possibly as an indication of the realties of Luristan Elamite occupation, that was perhaps much more limited and of a rural/regional nature than the urban Elamite manifestation of Khuzistan and Tal-i Malyan.

2.2.2.1 Surkh Dum-i-Luri 2.2.2.2.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Surkh Dum-i-Luri is located in the Kuhdasht valley of eastern Luristan, on the slope of a mountain also called Surkh Dum-i-Luri, see Figure 2.1 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). The name Surkh Dum-i-Luri translates as “Red Slope of the Lurs”, and refers to the modern occupation in the area (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). Surkh Dum-i- Luri will often be referred to here simply as Surkh Dum, and as such should not be confused with Surkh Dum-i-Lakki, situated on the opposite side of the Kuddasht Valley (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), as the latter is of no relevance here. Like many Luristan sites, commercial diggers in search of metal for profit were the first to expose the remains of Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). The illicit digging was stopped by authorities, and Schmidt then excavated the site for less than three weeks in 1938 under the auspices of the Holmes Expedition to Luristan (the same project that undertook excavations at Chigha Sabz and Kamtarlan, amongst others [not relevant here], discussed below) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). The results of these excavations were later published by van Loon and Curvers in the Holmes Expedition monograph, a publication that included a re-publication of Schmidt’s original excavation reports (Schmidt et al. 1989).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 171 The limited time constraints combined with the prevailing archaeological techniques of the day meant that little care was taken with the Holmes excavations. Nine 10 x 10m plots were specifically chosen for excavation in locations where there was evidence of architectural remains (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). As well as the architectural remains thus uncovered (discussed below), many artefacts, including the so-called ‘wall hoards’ were discovered (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), demonstrated on Figure 2.12. Indeed, the limitations of the technique of the excavations can be illustrated by the fact that upon discovery of these rich finds, the final days of the excavations were spent indiscriminately destroying the walls in order to recover any other similar deposits (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49)11. Further symptomatic of the Holmes expedition approach to excavation is the abandonment of the tenth plot (GK) shortly after work had begun, as this sounding produced only architecture and ceramic sherds, and no spectacular finds (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). Thus, due to both the limited excavations at the site, and the manner in which they were carried out, the conclusions formed by the excavator, and the publishers, regarding the nature of the site (discussed below) must be viewed with a degree of scepticism.

2.2.2.2.2 Site Description and Function A multi-roomed building with several occupation phases (3B the lowest, oldest construction, through to 1A) was revealed at the summit of Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49-50), Figure 2.11. The architecture of the main building is of stone construction with a mud-brick superstructure, with strong walls and evidence for buttressing and a stone paved floor (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49 – 51). The building was altered several times over its use, though only with slight variations that did not change the overall structure or plan of the building (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49 – 56), as demonstrated by Figure 2.11. The main room of the main building was “exceptionally abundant in artefacts” (Room 1 in the main complex in Figure 2.11), including whole and partial ceramics, a “ram-headed pestle of stone, encircled by a bracelet of bronze”, bronze, and other metal, pins, mirrors and other “cosmetic” objects, necklaces, stamp seals and, of interest here, more than two hundred cylinder seals

11“After the first wall hoard had begun to appear, the two final days were spent razing the walls in order to recover other, similar deposits” (Schmidt et al 1989: 49). While, those that did this would no doubt argue that these actions were taken to prevent the further commercial/clandestine operations at the site following the departure of the Holmes team, little real difference in the motivation for the two groups can be discerned, with the same result of unearthed material with no real archaeological context.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 172 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34, 59 – 56). Many of these objects were found in clusters or hoards, others were scattered around the room, and many more were found in the actual walls of the main room (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34), as demonstrated by Figure 2.12. Indeed, pins and other objects were found stuck in the intervals between the stones of the wall, with one wall yielding more than eighty-seven such objects (Muscraella 1981: 328; Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). In some cases, groups of objects deposited as such amounted to hoards (demonstrated in Figure 212; Schmidt et al. 1989: 34, 49) and it was the search for these treasure troves that lead to the destruction of the walls in the excavation’s last days in an attempt to find more of these objects (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49).

Figure 2.11. General plan of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri excavations, indicating changing pattern of occupation by Levels according to Schmidt et al. Room 1 indicates the main room of the so-called ‘Sanctuary’. Level 2C is described as the ‘Original Sanctuary’, with 2B and following levels of preceding alterations to the construction. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989: plates 51 and 53, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 173

Figure 2.12. Sub-set of Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’ area demonstrating location of wall and floor hoards assigned to Levels 3A, 2C and 2B. Precise periodisation of hoards unknown. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989: plate 52, with alterations.

The main Surkh Dum building was labeled a ‘sanctuary’ or temple by the excavator (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34), a conclusion that was accepted and continued by the publishers (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50). Schmidt’s original cult designation was based upon the quality, quantity, nature and depositional positioning of the small finds found in the building, the ground plan, its stone construction and the appearance of an installation described as an ‘altar’ (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34, 50, 487), see Figure 2.11. Indeed, the positioning of objects in the walls does seem to indicate a certain degree of deliberate, non-standard domestic function, and the building’s construction can be shown to be reminiscent of other contemporary shrines (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). Further, inscribed objects dedicated to the goddess were also found among the hoards (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50). However, the ‘altar’ installation described by Schmidt (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34), noted on Figure 2.11, is more convincingly described, through parallels to the northwestern Iranian site Hasanlu, as a column base (Schmidt et al. 1989: 52). Indeed, the ‘sanctuary’ interpretation is accepted by the publishers, not upon the basis of the ‘altar’, but on the floor plan that includes buttresses, a recessed outer doorway and a triple-recessed cella doorway that was faced by a one-columned entrance hall (and thus the column base, and not altar still figures as evidence for the ‘sanctuary’ designation) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487), see

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 174 Figure 2.11. The presence of the inscribed objects dedicated to Ninlil is also used by the publishers to support the sanctuary appellation (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50), though this evidence must also be questioned. Elsewhere these same inscribed beads are discounted as chronological or cultural indicators due to their highly portable nature (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). Rather, they are interpreted as items valued “as semiprecious stones, not as inscribed objects” (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). Thus, it follows logically that, if it is accepted that these objects were not valued for their inscriptions by the people of Surkh Dum-i-Luri, and so cannot be used as evidence for contact with Kassite kings, these same inscriptions cannot elsewhere be used for their information regarding deities and the religious nature of an installation. The ‘sanctuary’ is further interpreted as dedicated to the “mistress of the mountains” by the publishers, a claim supported by the presence of many cast ibex horns and hammered mouflon horn-shaped ornaments (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). The identification of the deity as female is apparently indicated by the “scarcity of weapons and the profusion of pins and other ornaments deposited in the sanctuary” (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487), though the identification of pins and ornaments as female accoutrements seems more based upon modern engendering rather than any evidence of an ancient reality. Rather, the identification of the deity honoured by the sanctuary (if indeed, the sanctuary identification is accepted) seems fanciful in the extreme, and based, at least in part, on the presence of the Ninlil inscribed beads previously rejected. The presence of horns is a well known cult motif in the ancient Near East, one known from Susa and other areas of the Elamite world (Potts 1990a), and so the presence of horns in this building may indeed be evidence for the sanctuary interpretation of this site, though to limit this to a “mistress of the mountains” seems unnecessary and unproven. Thus, there is evidence for the identification of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri building as a sanctuary, namely the patterned floor plan reminiscent of other known shrines and the curious and apparent hoard deposition of the objects in the room. However, some of the evidence used by others to form this conclusion, the ‘altar’ and the inscribed objects must be rejected here. The limited exposure at Surkh Dum in general and indeed this building in particular, coupled with the above mentioned limitations in the excavations, must further call into question any interpretation of the Surkh Dum building, as the evidence is limited and corrupted. On this basis, the sanctuary

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 175 identification cannot currently be fully accepted or rejected. The floor plan along with the depositional character of the hoards and objects does lend itself however to a sanctuary or cult interpretation. As a result, the sanctuary identification is tentatively accepted here, albeit with a heavy degree of caution. The sanctuary designation means that the objects placed within the building may have carried a votive function, an important factor in the discussion of the function of cylinder seals to follow (Chapter 6). Another area further down the western slope of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri hill, some 200m from the main excavations, was also explored by the Holmes Expedition (Schmidt et al. 1989: 35, 49, 56). This area yielded several stone-walled graves with garbled roofs (Schmidt et al. 1989: 35, 49, 56). Little information regarding this area is known, and besides which no glyptic material appears to have been discovered in these tombs, and so little more need be said of this area here. Any information on the identity of the ancient inhabitants or ‘worshippers’ at this site is completely lacking, and indeed, it is not known, if the sanctuary designation is accepted, if the site was an isolated shrine, or if the ‘sanctuary’ was a temple of a large occupied site. This obscurity is due to the lack of inscriptions (apart from the incidental inscribed beads discussed above) or comparative data at the site coupled with the very limited exposure at Surkh Dum-i-Luri generally, limited as it is to the ‘sanctuary’ only. There is, however, some evidence of another building facing the ‘sanctuary’ (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), as well as the above mentioned abandoned sounding (KG) that produced architectural remains (shown on Figure 2.11; Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), both of which may be interpreted, tentatively, as evidence for more extensive, possibly domestic, occupation at the site. Any conclusions on the ancient identity of the people of Surkh Dum, and the nature of the site, must await any further work, that would hopefully include a broader exposure of the site.

2.2.2.1.3 Date Surkh Dum is usually dated to the Iron Age, specifically to the first half of the first millennium BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50, 487 – 488), and so seems out of place here according to the above outlined chronological limitations of this study. However, the below discussed presence of cylinder seals that belong stylistically within the chronological bounds of this study (Chapter 5) have caused the inclusion of Surkh Dum-i-Luri here.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 176 Furthermore, although ceramic links between Surkh Dum’s earliest occupation level (3B) and other Late sites are described as extant though “tenuous” by the publishers (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486), the correlation with Iron Age ceramic traditions are even less tenable (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486). Thus, it is concluded through these isolated ceramic correlations and through “considering the stratigraphy” (that is, the belief that this lower, older level must pre-date, to some degree, the later, upper levels that are more securely dated), that the earliest manifestation of the ‘sanctuary’ was erected around 1350 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487), and continued in use until the new level 2C, or ‘main sanctuary’, was built around 800 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). The 800 BC date for the 2C level is, at least partly, derived from the appearance of a cylinder seal in the level below this (3356 in the current study) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). According to the Holmes Expedition publishers, this seal is of a Neo-Elamite date, and its presence in a 3B context gives a late date for the erection of the 2C sanctuary; that is, the 3B occupation must be dated until the end of the Neo-Elamite period, and hence the 800 BC, Iron Age II date for the 2C sanctuary (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487 – 488). In the current study, however, this seal is classified as belonging to the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS, see Chapters 4 and 5 for details). If this LPS designation is correct, this may alter somewhat the chronological classification of the ‘sanctuary’. The LPS group has been dated to the later Middle Elamite period, though, as will be discussed below, the use of this style very probably continued down into the Neo-Elamite period (see Chapter 4). This thus gives an earlier possible date for this seal, and therefore an earlier possible date for the 3B occupation, and thus in turn an earlier possible date for the 2C sanctuary. Indeed, in support of this, 1350 – 800 BC seems an exorbitantly long occupation phase for the earliest occupation of the site, especially in light of the more limited finds from this level (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486). Thus it is possible that the 2C erection of the “main sanctuary” more accurately occurred at some point in the Iron Age I period, though an Iron Age II classification for at least part of the occupation cannot be completely rejected as other iron artefacts can be dated to this period (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). It is therefore suggested, that, possibly, the original foundation of the 2C ‘main sanctuary’, believed to be its apogée, occurred somewhat earlier than the date proposed by the publishers, possibly at some point in the early Neo-Elamite or Iron Age I periods. That is, at some point in the first two centuries of the first millennium BC. These ruminations are only

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 177 speculative however, as indeed the original Holmes Expedition classification of 800 BC is itself based upon the presence of a particularly fragmentary, unremarkable cylinder seal, a proof that seems highly spurious to base an argument on, and thus any alternate argument made here must be considered equally speculative. Be that as it may, there is little doubt that the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ can, in the main, be dated to the Iron Age period (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486 – 490), notwithstanding the above arguments regarding internal chronology. The Iron Age designation can be made on the bases of ceramic and metal (including the very obvious presence of iron) material correlations, as well as the presence of some cylinder seals that securely belong to these later periods (including Neo-Elamite and Neo-Assyrian, as discussed below, see Table 2.18) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487 – 490). Later alterations, during the Iron Age II and III periods, further occurred at Surkh Dum (Schmidt et al. 1989: 53 – 556, 490), and it is unnecessary for the purposes of the study to dwell on these in any detail, though they are illustrated by Figure 2.11. The fact that cylinder seals dated to earlier, that is Middle Elamite and early post-Middle Elamite, periods were found in these later Iron Age II/III contexts should be noted (see below and Table 2.17 for details). Though this is no preclusion to the later date for the ‘sanctuary’, for, as discussed elsewhere (Chapter 1), the heirloom and curiosity quality of cylinder seals makes them prime candidates for appearance in contexts later then the apparent period of their manufacture, a point that will be returned to (Chapter 6). The Surkh Dum sanctuary was described as being in use well into the Iron Age III period, with its abandonment proposed to coincide with the activities and campaigns of ’s Assyrians in the Iranian theatre, including the destruction of Susa (646 BC), around 650 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 490). It should also be noted that the grave goods from the western graveyard at Surkh Dum-i-Luri, not of primary interest here due to the absence of glyptic material, indicate a Middle Bronze Age (c.2000 – 1600 BC) date for these burials (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486). In conclusion, the Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’, a designation that is tentatively adhered to here, was founded at some point in the Late Bronze Age period of Luristan, possibly around 1350 BC (sometime in the Middle Elamite II period according to the governing chronological system of this study). The ‘sanctuary’ building underwent several phases of rebuilding and alteration, with the major alteration previously dated, on the spurious basis of a single cylinder seal classified as

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 178 stylistically Neo-Elamite, to c.800 BC. This major rebuilding, it is argued here, may have in fact been slightly earlier, perhaps during the early Neo-Elamite period, regardless though, in an era beyond the scope of this study, so further details are unnecessary here. The Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ continued in use through the first millennium, until its possible destruction by the Assyrians c.650 BC. The seals found at Surkh Dum are therefore included in this study as at least part of the site’s use can be dated within its chronological bounds (that is, its earliest period of use, c.1350 BC). Furthermore, many of the Surkh Dum seals are included because, although they may have originated from a more recent stratigraphic context, their stylistic date, that is the date of their origin, belongs within this study’s periodisation (they are ‘heirloom’ seals, as will be further discussed below and in Chapter 5).

2.2.2.2.4 Glyptic Material More than 200 cylinder seals and “quite a number” of stamp seals were reportedly found in the Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’ (Muscraella 1981: 327 – 328; Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). Two hundred and eight cylinder seals, and a number of not included stamp (Schmidt et al. 1989: 221 – 223, 381, 383, 471, 473 – 474), seals were published in the Holmes Expedition Report with the notation that they were found at Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989: 209 – 227), as demonstrated by Tables 2.17 and 2.18. There is no indication in the report as to whether this represents the total excavated number or just a sample. Some of the seals found in the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ cannot be included in the Corpus as they belong to styles that are both geographically (such as the Middle Assyrian style) and chronologically (such as the Neo-Elamite and Neo-Assyrian styles) beyond the parameters of this study (Schmidt et al. 1989: 209 – 227). As outlined above, much of the occupation of Surkh Dum-i-Luri dates to these later, first millennium BC (the Neo-Elamite) periods, and so such a pattern of distribution across these styles is to be expected. As well as the seals that can be associated with the ‘foreign’ (that is, Mesopotamian) and later styles, a great deal of the cylinders found in the ‘sanctuary’ can be considered to belong to a style, or type, indigenous to Surkh Dum-i-Luri and its surrounds (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). These ‘local’ seals can be characterised as ‘provincial’ versions of contemporary seal styles (the Luristan Provincial Style will be

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 179 further discussed below, Chapter 4). This ‘local’ seal style appears to span the entire period of use of the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ (that is from c.1350 BC through to the c.650 BC abandonment), as the styles that these seals are related to can be correlated with Middle Elamite (and Middle Assyrian and Kassite Babylonian) styles through to Neo-Elamite (and Neo-Assyrian) styles. Thus in the Surkh Dum-i-Luri corpus numerous styles, both of pure foreign origin, and of local, provincial type, that belong within the chronological parameters of this study and beyond it occur. Therefore, some of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri material belongs within the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, while some does not. The task at hand is therefore to distinguish which seals should be included. The character of the site of Surkh Dum-i-Luri makes the division of the glyptic material less than straightforward however. The nature of the Surkh Dum stratigraphy (or lack thereof) discussed above means that such considerations are of no real use in the chronological division of the Surkh Dum material. Furthermore, if the ‘sanctuary’ designation of the main building is accepted (and it is so, tentatively, here) then the cylinder seals found at Surkh Dum-i-Luri can be considered to be ‘votive’ seals (for a definition of votive seals see Chapter 1). A votive designation may further increase the possible heirloom quality of a seal, as the antiquity of a seal may be seen to increase its value and therefore make it a suitable gift to a divinity, that thus enables it to be placed in a temple. This means that stylistically ancient seals could be found in more recent contexts, in association with contemporary, earlier and later seals, making the task of classification more difficult and the use of stratigraphy negligible, even if it were available. The long, perhaps multi-generational practice of depositing objects in a temple also means that earlier and later items could be found in association together in the one group of a ‘temple depository’, by very definition. The Surkh Dum-i-Luri cylinder seals have only been subjected to a relatively limited analysis in the Holmes Expedition Report (Schmidt et al. 1989). The task of separating the Surkh Dum cylinder seals into separate chronological periods and styles was not, obviously, a priority for the Holmes Expedition publishers, nor should it be expected to be. Rather the Surkh Dum glyptic material was classified according to general subject matter considerations, meaning that, for example, Middle Elamite, Middle Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seals were classified under the same rubric as local ‘provincial’ seals (Schmidt et al. 1989: 413, 416), thus deferring a more thorough treatment of the material to others.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 180 Thus the first process in the classification of the Surkh Dum material was to make a more accurate, stylistic division of seals, as documented in Table 2.17. The stylistic classifications in Table 2.17 further demonstrate the above mentioned fact that non-occupationally contemporaneous (that is, ‘heirloom’) seals were included in the votive inventory of the Surkh Dum sanctuary (729, 945, 1163, 1534, 1901, 2028 – 2031, 2072 – 2073, 2087, 2110, 2155, 2340, 2451 – 2452, 2704 – 2709, 2734, 2761). However, as illustrated by Graph 2.17 many of the seals from Surkh Dum-i- Luri do not belong to any of the Elamite styles, nor do they belong to definable ‘foreign’ styles (that is, non-Elamite, generally Mesopotamian styles, such as Kassite, Middle Assyrian, etc.). Rather the majority of these seals in fact belong to a ‘provincial’, non-standard, indigenous style, labelled here the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS). This style will be discussed in greater detail below (Chapters 4 and 5). The basic criteria adopted throughout this study for inclusion into the Elamite Corpus is discernable manufacture in an ‘Elamite’/Iranian style within the chronological timeframe defined above. Thus, except for the shared Mesopotamian styles (the Glazed Steatite and Kassite Related styles, discussed below [Chapters 4 and 5]) where it is difficult to ascertain a Mesopotamian or Elamite origin by very nature, Mesopotamian (or indeed any other non-Elamite location) styles discerned in the Surkh Dum-i-Luri corpus have not been included in the Corpus, despite their provenance from an ‘Elamite’ site. Thus the Middle Assyrian and Kassite seals from Surkh Dum (demonstrated in Table 2.18 with the other non-Elamite Surkh Dum seals), despite chronologically belonging to our timeframe, have not been included in the Corpus of Elamite cylinders, though their presence at Surkh Dum should be noted12. Thus, through a study of the entire corpus of published Surkh Dum-i-Luri seals, according to a similar methodology employed for the classification of the entire Corpus (see Chapter 3), one hundred and eighty-one of the two hundred and eight cylinder seals originally published in the Holmes Expedition Report were classified as

12A different classification criteria for the Mittanian seals provenanced from Susa, Haft Tepe and Tepe Giyan included in the ‘Miscellaneous Styles’ group of the Corpus has been applied (see Chapters 4 and 5 for details of this group). The Surkh Dum seals have not been included in the Corpus proper due to the application of the here discussed distinction classification, where only some of the Surkh Dum seals are included. For Susa, Haft Tepe and Tepe Giyan, all chronologically relevant cylinder seals have been included, and so these foreign styles are listed here. Furthermore, the inclusion of Table 2.18 allows for the existence of these non-Elamite but contemporary to the current study cylinder seals from Surkh Dum-i-Luri to be noted and commented upon, further allowing their exclusion from the main Corpus.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 181 belonging within the Corpus of Elamite Cylinder Seals. The selected seals are listed in Table 2.17, along with details of their original classification in the Holmes Report (Schmidt et al. 1989). Table 2.18 illustrates the remaining twenty-four cylinder seals not included in the Corpus as they are deemed to have been either chronologically beyond the limits of this study, or to have originated beyond our geographical bounds (that is, from Mesopotamia). It should be noted, and as demonstrated by Table 2.17, that the majority of the seals from Surkh Dum are deemed to belong to the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS), and therefore, as will be outlined below (Chapters 4 and 5), many of these may also, strictly speaking, have originated from a date later then that which bounds our study, as it is argued that this style continues beyond the Middle Elamite period, well into the first millennium.

Seal Holmes Prov. Style Seal Holmes Prov. Style Exp. Exp. Class. Class. 729 PL13 Area 1; JNRS (5) 2110 ILME Area 1-2; LSF Level 3A Level 2C 945 PL Area 9E; CPE (3) 2155 BAD Area ARS (4) Level 3A 13(?);Le 1163 BPE14 Area GS (3) vel 1 1/3; 2340 ILME Area 13; PEA (7) Level 3A Level 1 1534 PL Area 2; AGD (11) 2451 BAD Area 19, UTRS (4) Level 1 21; Level 1901 BED15 Area 7S; STF (3) 1 Level 2B 2452 BOB Area 1N; UTRS (4) 2027 BAD16 Area 1; SF (3) Level 1 Level 1 2704 BOB Area 3-4; OBRS (2) 2028 BAD Area 7N; SF (3) Level Level 2B 2B-A 2029 BAD Area 4; SF (3) 2705 BOB Area OBRS (2) Level 9/11; 2B-A Level 3A 2030 BAD Area 1; SF (3) 2706 BOB Area 3; OBRS (2) Level Level 2A(?) 3A-2A 2071 BAD Area 7N; SF (6) 2707 BOB Area OBRS (2) Level 1 9/11; 2072 BAD (?);Level SF (6) Level 3A 3A-1 2708 BOB Area 1; OBRS (2) 2087 ILME17 Area 1; SF (7) Level 2B Level 3A

13Protoliterate, Late Chalcolithic (Susa B – C) 14Bronze Age – Proto-Elamite 15Bronze Age – Early Dynastic 17Iron Age – Late Middle Elamite, Neo- 16Bronze Age – Akkadian Elamite and Contemporary Styles

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 182 Seal Holmes Prov. Style Seal Holmes Prov. Style Exp. Exp. Class. Class. 2709 BLOA18 Area 1- OBRS (2) 3210 ILME Area 20; LPS (1) 11; Level Level 2A 1 3211 ILME Area 1N; LPS (1) 2734 BOB Area 4; PEO (3) Level 2B Level 2B 3212 ILME Area 1, LPS (1) 2761 BOB Area 4; PEO (7) 7; Level Level 2B 1 2853 BEME19 Area 1; EME (3) 3213 ILME Area 1N; LPS (1) Level Level 2B 3A-2A 3214 ILME Area 1; LPS (1) 2877 BEME Area EME (5) Level 1 2/12; 3215 ILME Area 1N; LPS (1) Level 2C Level 1 2878 BEME Area 1-2; EME (5) 3216 ILME (?);Level LPS (1) Level 2C 3A-1 2965 ILME Area 1; EME (6) 3225 ILME Area 13; LPS (2) Level 1 Level 2973 BEME Area 9W; EME (7) 2B-A Level 1 3226 ILME Area 1; LPS (2) 3036 ILME Area 1/3; KRS (1) Level 3A Level 2B 3227 ILME Area LPS (2) 3054 ILME Area 7S; KRS (2) 1(?);Leve Level 2B l 3A-2B 3078 ILME Area 19; LME (1) 3228 ILME Area 2; LPS (2) Level 1 Level 1 3109 ILME Area 1; LME (4) 3229 ILME Area 1-2; LPS (2) Level Level 2C 2B-A 3230 ILME Area LPS (2) 3173 ILME Area 1; LME (7) 11N; Level 1 Level 1 3174 ILME Area 3; LME (7) 3231 ILME Area 9; LPS (2) Level 2B Level 1 3204 BM20 Area 1-2; LPS (1) 3232 ILME Area 1-3; LPS (2) Level 2C Level 2B 3205 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (1) 3223 ILME Area 3; LPS (2) Level 2B Level 3A 3206 ILME Area 2; LPS (1) 3234 ILME Area 1; LPS (2) Level Level 1 2B-A 3235 ILME Area 1; LPS (2) 3207 ILME Area LPS (1) Level 3(?);Leve 2B(?) l 2B-A 3236 ILME Area LPS (2) 3208 ILME Area 1; LPS (1) 1/7/9; Level 2B Level 2B 3209 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (1) 3237 ILME Area 7; LPS (2) Level 3A Level 2B-2A 3238 ILME Area 1N; LPS (2) Level 18Bronze Age – Late Old Assyrian 2B-2A 19Bronze Age – Early Middle Elamite 20Bronze Age – Mittanian

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 183 Seal Holmes Prov. Style Seal Holmes Prov. Style Exp. Exp. Class. Class. 3239 ILME Area 5; LPS (2) 3281 ILME Area 1N; LPS (4) Level 1 Level 2B 3240 ILME Area 3; LPS (2) 3282 ILME Area 22; LPS (4) Level 1 Level 1 3241 ILME Area 3; LPS (2) 3283 ILME Area 3; LPS (4) Level 2B Level 3A 3242 ILME Area 3; LPS (2) 3284 ILME Area 1; LPS (4) Level Level 2B 2A(?) 3285 ILME Area 7S; LPS (4) 3243 ILME Area 13; LPS (2) Level 2B Level 1 3286 ILME Area 1/9; LPS (4) 3244 ILME Area 3; LPS (2) Level 3A Level 2B 3287 ILME Area 1; LPS (4) 3245 ILME Area 13; LPS (2) Level 2A Level 1 3288 ILME Area 2; LPS (4) 3246 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (2) Level 2C Level 3A 3289 ILME Area 4; LPS (4) 3247 ILME Area 1/9; LPS (2) Level 2A Level 3A 3290 ILME Area 2/3; LPS (4) 3248 ILME Area 4; LPS (2) Level 3A Level 2A 3291 ILME Area 7N; LPS (4) 3263 BOB Area LPS (3) Level 1 1/9/11(?) 3292 ILME Area 3-4; LPS (4) ;Level Level 2B 3(?) 3293 ILME Area 3; LPS (4) 3264 BM Area 3; LPS (3) Level Level 2B-A 3A-2A 3294 ILME Area 3; LPS (4) 3265 BM Area 1; LPS (3) Level 3A Level 3295 ILME Area 1; LPS (4) 2A(?) Level 1 3266 ILME Area 5; LPS (3) 3296 ILME Area 4; LPS (4) Level 2A Level 3267 ILME Area 3; LPS (3) 2A(?) Level 2B 3301 BMA21 Area 1/3; LPS (5) 3268 ILME Area 19, LPS (3) Level 2B 21; Level 3302 IN22 Area LPS (5) 1 9/11; 3269 ILME Area 2; LPS (3) Level 3A Level 1 3303 IN Area 1/3; LPS (5) 3270 ILME Area 3; LPS (3) Level 2B Level 2B 3304 IN Area 3; LPS (5) 3271 ILME Area 1-2; LPS (3) Level Level 2C 3A-2A 3272 ILME Area 1; LPS (3) 3305 ILME Area 1/2; LPS (5) Level 2B Level 2C 3273 ILME Area 6; LPS (3) Level 2B 3274 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (3) Level 2B 21Bronze Age – Middle Assyrian 22Iron Age – Neo-Assyrian, Provincial Neo- Assyrian, and Assyrianized Neo-Elamite

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 184 Seal Holmes Prov. Style Seal Holmes Prov. Style Exp. Exp. Class. Class. 3306 ILME Area 12; LPS (5) 3335 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (6) Level 2A Level 2B 3307 ILME Area 1N; LPS (5) 3336 ILME Area LPS (6) Level 2B 3/13 (?); 3308 ILME Area LPS (5) Level 11N; 2B(?) Level 3337 ILME Area LPS (6) 2A(?) 3/13; 3309 ILME Area 3; LPS (5) Level 2B Level 2B 3338 ILME Area 3, LPS (6) 3310 ILME Area 9W; LPS (5) 4; Level Level 2A 2B-1 3321 IN Area LPS (6) 3339 ILME Area 1; LPS (6) 2/23; Level 3A Level 2C 3340 ILME Area 1; LPS (6) 3322 IN Area 3; LPS (6) Level 1 Level 3341 ILME Area 1; LPS (6) 3A-2A Level 3323 ILME Area 4; LPS (6) 3A-2A Level 3342 ILME Area LPS (6) 2A-1 9/10; 3324 ILME Area LPS (6) Level 3A 11N; 3356 IN Area 1/3; LPS (7) Level 1 Level 3A 3325 ILME Area 1- LPS (6) 3357 ILME Area 9; LPS (7) 11; Level Level 1 2B 3358 ILME Area 1; LPS (7) 3326 ILME Area 19, LPS (6) Level 21; Level 2B-A 1 3359 ILME Area 1; LPS (7) 3327 ILME Area 7; LPS (6) Level Level 3A-2A 2B-2A 3360 ILME Area LPS (7) 3328 ILME Area LPS (6) 11N; 2/23; Level Level 2C 3A(?) 3329 ILME Area 4; LPS (6) 3361 ILME Area 3; LPS (7) Level 2A Level 3330 ILME Area 1; LPS (6) 3A-2A Level 1 3362 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (7) 3331 ILME Area 19; LPS (6) Level 2B Level 1 3363 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (7) 3332 ILME Area 1; LPS (6) Level 2B Level 1 3364 ILME Area 13; LPS (7) 3333 ILME Area 4; LPS (6) Level 1 Level 3365 ILME Area 4; LPS (7) 2B-1 Level 1 3334 ILME Area LPS (6) 3366 ILME Area 1; LPS (7) 9/11; Level 1 Level 3A

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 185 Seal Holmes Prov. Style Seal Holmes Prov. Style Exp. Exp. Class. Class. 3367 ILME Area 1; LPS (7) 3402 ILME Area 23; LGD (2) Level Level 2B-A 2A-1 3368 ILME Area KG; LPS (7) 3430 ILME Area LGD (3) Level 1 9/11; 3369 ILME Area 1-3; LPS (7) Level 3A Level 1 3431 ILME Area 1-2; LGD (3) 3370 ILME Area 4; LPS (7) Level 2C Level 1 3432 ILME Area 1; LGD (3) 3371 ILME Area 3; LPS (7) Level 1 Level 2B 3433 ILME Area LGD (3) 3372 ILME Area 3; LPS (7) 3/13; Level 2A Level 2C 3373 ILME Area 2/3; LPS (7) 3434 ILME Area 23; LGD (3) Level 3A Level 3374 ILME Area LPS (7) 2A-1 1(?);Leve 3435 ILME Area LGD (3) l 3A-2B 2/23; 3375 ILME Area 7S; LPS (7) Level 2C Level 2B 3436 ILME Area 3; LGD (3) 3376 ILME Area 1; LPS (7) Level 2A Level 2A 3437 ILME Area 7S; LGD (3) 3380 ILME Area 4; LGD (1) Level 2A Level 3438 ILME Area 1N; LGD (3) 2B-1 Level 2B 3381 ILME Area 1-2; LGD (1) 3448 ILME Area LGD (4) Level 2C 2/12; 3382 ILME Area LGD (1) Level 2C 9/11; 3449 ILME Area 25; LGD (4) Level 3A Level 3396 ILME Area LGD (2) 1(?) 4(?);Leve 3450 ILME Area 3; LGD (4) l 1 Level 2B 3397 ILME Area 4; LGD (2) 3451 ILME Area 4; LGD (4) Level 2A Level 2B 3398 ILME Area 3; LGD (2) 3452 ILME Area 3; LGD (4) Level 3A-2A 2A(?) 3558 ILME Area 1; Unclass. 3399 ILME Area 1, LGD (2) Level 1 3, 4; 3559 ILME Area 1; Unclass. Level 1 Level 3400 ILME Area 1; LGD (2) 2A(?) Level 3560 ILME Area 1; Unclass. 3A-2A Level 3401 ILME Area 23; LGD (2) 2B-A Level 2A-1 Table 2.17. Survey of the included glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri.

The 181 seals of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri included corpus thus creates the third largest of the site corpora, following Susa and Haft Tepe, and the largest of the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 186 Luristan (or non-Khuzistan) corpora (see Chapters 4 and 5). This is a reasonably large corpus, especially in light of the relatively limited excavation at Surkh Dum-i-Luri, where practically only one building was excavated, as demonstrated by Figure 2.11. The deliberate deposition of cylinder seals in the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ no doubt added to the relatively large corpus discovered here.

Holmes Expedition Holmes Expedition Current Classification Seal Classification 34 Kassite Kassite 38 BMA Middle Assyrian or Neo-Assyrian 39 BMA Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 43 IN Neo-Assyrian 44 IN Neo-Assyrian 71 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 82 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 86 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 98 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 139 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 147 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 148 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 152 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 164 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian 191 ILME Not Classified 192 ILME Not Classified 193 ILME Not Classified 194 ILME Not Classified 195 ILME Not Classified 196 ILME Not Classified 200 ILME Not Classified 209 ILME Not Classified 221 ILME Not Classified 222 ILME Not Classified Table 2.18. Survey of the glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri not included in the Corpus due to their non-contemporary or non-Elamite styles.

Another probable result of this ‘sanctuary’ designation is the fact that all the glyptic items found at Surkh Dum-i-Luri are cylinder seals. This lack of impressions is no doubt caused by the nature of the site/building, where cylinder seals, or other objects of some worth, were deposited as votive gifts in the ‘sanctuary’. Thus, assuming that the ‘sanctuary’ identification of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri building is correct (and on the basis of the current evidence, such an assumption is not unreasonable), the votive function of all the glyptic material from Surkh Dum is assured. This is not to say that seals did not also have a more traditional, administrative function at Surkh Dum-i-Luri, or indeed, that these particular seals did not originally hold such a function before their votive deposition, but while there is no

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 187 evidence for any other seal use, or indeed site function at Surkh Dum (be it commercial, domestic or any other type), the only discernable function for the seal is that of votive offerings, a point that will be further discussed below (Chapter 6).

2.2.2.2 Kamtarlan 2.2.2.2.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Chigha (or Tepe) Kamtarlan (consequently referred to here simply as Kamtarlan) is located in the Rimishgan valley of Luristan province, western Iran (Schmidt et al. 1989: 3 – 4), see Figure 2.1. Two occupation areas occur at Kamtarlan, the main mound that measures c.150 x 125m and rises some 7m above the plain, referred to as Kamtarlan I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), and a seemingly flat area that measures c.65 x 45m and rises just 1m above the plain about 170m southwest of the main area, referred to as Kamtarlan II (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19), as demonstrated by Figure 2.13. Like Surkh Dum-i-Luri, discussed above, and Chigha Sabz, below, the site of Kamtarlan was excavated by Schmidt as part of the Holmes Expedition to Luristan (Schmidt et al. 1989: 4), with 3 weeks spent at Kamtarlan I, and less than 2 weeks, partially concurrently, at Kamtarlan II, in October/November 1935 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15, 19). As such, the same limitations and criticisms as for the Surkh Dum-i-Luri excavation technique (discussed above), can be applied to the Kamtarlan excavations. Several test trenches were opened on the northeastern slope of Kamtarlan I where stone slabs may have indicated the presence of burials, but yielded nothing and so were abandoned (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15). The main Kamtarlan I trench, 5m wide and divided into 16 plots each 10m long (Plots A – P) was located across the mound, along its north-south axis (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), as illustrated by Figure 2.13. The excavations at Kamtarlan II included four 10 x 5m plots (A-D) along the east-west axis, three plots (E-G) perpendicular to the first and two plots (E and F), that doubled the width of plots H and I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19), see Figure 2.13.

2.2.2.2.2 Site Description, Function and Date The description of the site of Kamtarlan can conveniently be divided into two, based upon the mounds of Kamtarlan I and Kamtarlan II. The degree or nature of the relationship between these two areas is unclear. While there is no information regarding the extent of occupation/use in the area between the Kamtarlan I and II

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 188 mounds, and indeed, throughout much of the site, any resolution of this question seems unattainable on the basis of current evidence.

2.2.2.2.2.1 Kamtarlan I Two building levels were encountered at Kamtarlan I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), building level 2 (the lower) and building level 1 (the upper level) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15 – 17). While a chronological progression from level 2 to 1 may be assumed, it appears that some architecture from level 2 in fact postdates that from level 1 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), indicating that the building levels may not be considered an accurate stratigraphic progression. Some 7 whole and fragmentary rooms were discovered in building levels 1 and 2 at Kamtarlan I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15 – 17).

Figure 2.13. General plan of the Excavation of Kamtarlan, indicating Kamtarlan I and Kamtarlan II. Areas shaded red each produced three glyptic items, area shaded blue produced two glyptic items. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989: plate 14, with alterations.

The two building levels of Kamtarlan I have, in turn, been divided into three chronological periods (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15 – 17). The first, delineated by pisé walls, contains red-slipped ware, bevelled-rim bowls and cylinder seals reportedly of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 189 Uruk/Jemdet Nasr style (certainly, as outlined below, some of these seals are accordingly dated here; 732 – 734), dated to c.3000 – 2750 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 – 17). The second period is characterised by narrow mudbrick and stone architecture, that tended wider during the period, and stone pavements (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 – 17). Adult inhumations and child jar burials also occurred in this phase, dated c.2600 – 2300 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 – 17). The final phase is characterised by very wide stone walls, possibly indicating a fortified building, on comparisons with other buttressed buildings from Iron Age fortresses at Baba Jan and Godin Tepe (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16). An iron smelter has also been hypothesised in this area due to the presence of iron slag and an apparent installation (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 – 17). Inhumation burials are also present in this phase, which is dated on the basis of architecture and finds to c.1000/750 – 550 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 – 17). The nature of the Kamtarlan I occupation can be characterised as containing possible domestic or non-monumental architecture in earlier phases, with a possible fortress or monumental building and evidence for industry or metallurgy in the latest phase. Some seventeen burials were also discovered at Kamtarlan I, across all phases (Schmidt et al. 1989: 18, 486). These findings are preliminary, as the remains are fragmentary and limited in scope, not to mention the above detailed problems with the stratigraphy (that is, the apparent misnomer of building levels 1 and 2). In conclusion, two building levels (1 and 2) were encountered at Kamtarlan I, however three periods of occupation can be identified through the artefacts discovered (Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). The first period, producing pisé walls and Uruk/ ceramics and other artefacts, represented in Plots O – P, is dated by the publishers to c.3000 – 2750 BC (that is the Susa III and partial Susa IV periods of the current chronology) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). The second phase contained mudbrick and stone walls, and burials, discovered in Plots A – I, is dated by artefact comparisons to c.2600 – 2300 BC (the later part of the Susa IV period in this study) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). Finally, the third phase is represented by wide stone walls, possibly forming a fortified building, and an iron smelter, found in Plots K – P, and burials in Plots J and N, dated c.1000/750 – 550 BC (that is the Iron Age, beyond the limits of this study) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). On the basis of the current evidence (as limited and fragmentary as it is) there is no reason to challenge this chronological scheme. Indeed, as will be discovered below, the evidence of the glyptic material concords with this phasing (below, and Chapter 5).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 190 2.2.2.2.2.2 Kamtarlan II At Kamtarlan II both occupational architecture and burials were found, generally not in association with one another (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20, 486). Like Kamtarlan I, two building levels were distinguished at Kamtarlan II, the upper again labelled level 1, the lower level 2 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19). Again however, the stratigraphical and chronological accuracy of this dichotomy is unclear, as it seems more a reflection of excavation technique rather than ancient reality. Some six partial or complete rooms (labelled Rooms 6 – 12) were discovered at Kamtarlan II, characterised by pisé, stone and mudbrick walls (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20). Installations include stone pavements (Level 1 Plots C – D), a stone-walled storage pit (Level 2 Plot C), door sockets (Level 1 Plots B – C), stone wall cubicles (Level 1 Plot G) and a possible kiln (Level 2 Plots F, I) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20). Little detail of the architecture type is given, though it is assumed by the publishers that these remains represent domestic architecture of some form (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20, 485). Many burials were discovered at Kamtarlan II, mostly in the form of stone cist tombs (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20 – 22). Adults, possibly both male and female, juveniles, children and infants were all found in these tombs (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20 – 22), some of which were apparently partially collective in nature (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20 – 22). Grave goods included pottery and copper/bronze objects including ‘weapons’ and jewellery (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20 – 22). Little detail of these tombs, or indeed of the associated architecture is given. Based upon correlations with material from the second occupational phase at Kamtarlan I, Susa and Giyan IV, a similar c.2600 – 2300 BC (Susa IV) date for the Level 2 occupation of Kamtarlan II has been proposed (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20). A cylinder seal (2111) is also used as evidence for this date, as it is deemed to belong to the Piedmont Early Dynastic style (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20). In the current study, this seal is classified to the Late Susa IV Style (LSF, see Chapter 4 for details), and thus, despite this stylistic reclassification, still concurs with this date. The majority of the evidence from Level I of Kamtarlan II, indeed the only dateable material, consists of grave goods from the many tombs found in the area (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20). Through comparisons with material from (particularly) Larsa in southern Mesopotamia, these grave goods have been given an Old Babylonian (Sukkalmah in the current study) date (c.2000 – 1600BC; Schmidt et al.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 191 1989: 20). Some of these burials “seem to be associated with level 1 architecture”, and thus by extension Level 1 at Kamtarlan II is similarly dated c.2000 – 1600 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20). The accuracy or otherwise of this statement cannot currently be discerned.

2.2.2.2.3 Glyptic Material Seven cylinder seals and one sealing were uncovered in the Holmes Expedition excavations at Kamtarlan (I and II), giving a total corpus of eight glyptic items, as illustrated in Table 2.19. As will be indicated below (Chapters 4 and 5), this is a reasonably small corpus, though apart from the extraordinary Luristan site, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, it is about the average size of a Luristan corpus. Figure 2.13, and Table 2.19 indicates where, within the Kamtarlan site, the individual glyptic items were uncovered, according to the Holmes Expedition Report (Schmidt et al. 1989). Thus, five seals and a sealing were found in two areas of Kamtarlan I, with three items each found in Plots P and M. Two cylinder seals were also uncovered at Kamtarlan II, both in Plot F. The coincidence of the Holmes Expedition dating of these Plots and the chronological designation of the glyptic items found within them will be further discussed below, following the annunciation of the styles (Chapter 5).

Current Provenance Original Material Current Number Classification Style 732 Kamtarlan I, PL marble JNRS (5) Plot P 733 Kamtarlan I, PL alabaster/gypsum* JNRS (5) Plot P 734 Kamtarlan I, PL limestone JNRS (5) Plot P 2111 Kamtarlan II, BED faience LSF Plot F 3343 Kamtarlan I, ILME faience LPS (6) Plot M 3344 Kamtarlan I, ILME faience LPS (6) Plot M 3377 Kamtarlan II, BED clay cylinder LPS (7) Plot F 3378 Kamtarlan I, ILME baked clay sealing LPS (7) M, fill Table 2.19. Survey of the glyptic material from Kamtarlan (I and II), see Tables 2.17 and 2.18 for details of the ‘original classification’ abbreviations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 192 As there is no certain information available regarding the exact provenance of the individual items, and the function of the areas thus associated with this distribution, little information regarding the function of the items can be put forth here. The presence of the sealing (3378) at Kamtarlan I indicates at least some employment of an administrative function for seals at Kamtarlan (in opposition, especially, to other Luristan sites such Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Chigha Sabz), though the association in a domestic or commercial/industry context is unknown. Furthermore, despite the large numbers of tombs reportedly found at Kamtarlan, none of the discovered cylinder seals were (reportedly) found in a funerary context. This is again in opposition to the strong funerary function of cylinder seals in other Luristan contexts, such as Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar and Tepe Djamshidi. A more complete discussion of the function of the glyptic material at Kamtarlan, and the comparative function with Luristan and the wider Elamite sites will be further discussed below (Chapter 6).

2.2.2.3 Chigha Sabz 2.2.2.3.1 Location, Excavation and Publication Chigha Sabz (“Green Mound”) is located in the Rumishgan valley of Luristan (Schmidt et al. 1989: 5 – 6), see Figure 2.1. It measures c.120 x 100m and rises some 9m above the surrounding plain (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23). Like the preceding two Luristan sites, Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Kamtarlan, Chigha Sabz (hereafter often referred to simply as Sabz) was excavated by Schmidt during the Holmes Expedition to Luristan, with final publication in the Holmes Expedition Report (Schmidt et al. 1989). Schmidt excavated Sabz for two and a half weeks in November, 1935, during which time he opened a single plot (Plot F7) on the northern slope of the mound, five concomitant plots (Plots H3 – 7) on the western slope, two disjointed plots (Plots H10 – 11) on the eastern foot of the mound, and finally six adjoining plots (Plots I – N7) on the mound’s southern slope (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23), see Figure 2.14. Again, the same limitations and problems of the excavation technique of the other Holmes Expedition sites already discussed (Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Kamtarlan) apply to Chigha Sabz.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 193

Figure 2.14. General plan of the Excavation of Chigha Sabz. Area shaded red (Plot H6) produced five seals, area shaded blue (Plot I7) produced three seals. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989: Plate 21, with alterations.

2.2.2.3.2 Site Description, Function and Date In the excavated areas of Chigha Sabz, no levels or superimposed architecture was uncovered (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23), thus there was no identification of building phases. However, due to the (stepped trench) technique of the excavations no architectural features were followed from one plot to the next (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23), meaning that the remains are fragmentary and disjointed, and any attempt at formulating a plan of the site (and thus an hypothesis of site function) is difficult. The little architectural remains discovered at Chigha Sabz include stone wall fragments and several areas of rectangular paving, of unknown function (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23 – 25). Several intrusive burials were also discovered at Chigha Sabz (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23 – 25). Artefact remains include various whole and partial pieces of pottery, “many” iron fragments (indicating obviously at least a partial Iron

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 194 Age date), animal and human-shaped vessels and of particular interest her, twelve cylinder seals (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23 – 25). A reconstruction of the chronological occupation of Chigha Sabz has been proposed by the Holmes Expedition publishers on the basis of the limited architectural finds and material culture correlations (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). In this way, six phases of occupation at Chigha Sabz have been proposed. The first phase, labelled Giyan V or Chalcolithic, dated 5000 – 3250 BC (thus, before the advent of this study through to the Susa II period) was not encountered in any architectural remains, but is proposed on the basis of ceramic evidence (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). The second phase, dated 2600 – 2300 BC (that is, the latter Susa IV period), is only represented at Sabz by a burial in Plot J7 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). The third phase, is the only identified period at Chigha Sabz that produced any real architectural remains, specifically in Plot N7 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). This period is associated with Giyan IVC – III, dated 2000 – 1600 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25), and thus accords with the Sukkalmah period of the current study. Many burials were also found associated with this building level and are thus dated to this period (a date also achieved through comparative analysis of the grave goods) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). The fourth phase is represented by a burial (in Plot F7), a well (in Plot H3), a pit (in Plot L7), and “scattered remains elsewhere”, and is dated to Giyan II, or 1600 – 1200 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25), the late Sukkalmah and early (ME I and II) Middle Elamite periods of this study. The fifth phase at Chigha Sabz is represented by two burials in Plot L7 and is dated to the Giyan I4 – 3 period, 1200 – 1000 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25), or the late Middle Elamite (ME III and IV) period in this study. Finally, the sixth phase is dated to the Iron Age III period (700? – 550 BC), and is identified as a possible camp site, represented in Plots H6 – 11 and I – J7 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 26). Several hoards containing Iron Age ceramics and seals found buried in apparent earlier contexts are attributed to this period and are interpreted as hoards buried under threat of danger (Schmidt et al. 1989: 24, 26). Thus, the fragmentary remains from Chigha Sabz are dated by artefact correlations to several periods throughout (and before and beyond) the bounds of this study. Discounting the evidence of burials only, four phases of occupation at Chigha Sabz can be identified. The first is the Chalcolithic Giyan V (5000 – 3250 BC) occupation, the later part of which is contemporary with the Susa II period in the current study. The second occupation phase is associated with the Giyan IVC – III

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 195 (2000 – 1600 BC) period, equated with the Sukkalmah period. The third phase continues directly in terms of chronology from the second, though the actual functioning and operation of this transition is unknown on the current evidence. This third phase is equated with the Giyan II period (1600 – 1200 BC), or the late Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite period in the current study. The fourth and final phase is identified as a “camp” occupation, and is dated to the Iron Age III period (700 – 550 BC), and so belongs beyond the realms of this study. Incidental burials can also be assigned, on the basis of correlations, to other periods within this chronological scheme. This reconstruction is extremely fragmentary and disjointed, a result of the equally fragmentary and disjointed excavated remains at Chigha Sabz. Again, there is no basis on the current evidence to dispute this scheme, though the entirely tentative and fragmentary nature of this information should be acknowledged. Following a discussion of the styles of the cylinder seals (Chapter 4), a reassessment of the date of some of these items may be necessary, and will be outlined below (Chapter 5).

2.2.2.3.3 Glyptic Material Twelve cylinder seals were discovered in various Plots on the Chigha Sabz mounds, as demonstrated by Tables 2.20 and 2.21, and partially illustrated by Figure 2.14. Three of these cylinder seals, detailed in Table 2.21 are not included in the Corpus as they belong to styles chronologically beyond the bounds of this study. These seals are amongst those discovered in the Iron Age hoards supposedly dug by the occupiers of the ‘camp site’ of Chigha Sabz discussed above (Schmidt et al. 1989: 24 – 25), and thus also belong in ‘stratigraphic’ terms to periods beyond the realms of this study. Thus a corpus of nine seals from Chigha Sabz is incorporated in the Corpus. Like with Kamtarlan discussed immediately above, the nine seals of this corpus is a relatively small group, though reasonably sized in the context of Luristan aside from Surkh Dum-i-Luri. Figure 2.14 illustrates the areas of provenance of the Sabz seals (also demonstrated in Table 2.20). It is striking that all the cylinders (apart from 1363 for which there is no listed provenance) were located in two plots (H6 and I7). Due to the fragmentary nature of the remains from Chigha Sabz, nothing can be said on the function of cylinder seals at Chigha Sabz, though it should be noted that there are no

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 196 sealings amongst the glyptic items, and that no cylinders were found in the many tombs uncovered at Sabz.

Current Number Provenance Original Classification Material Current Style 1363 – BPE chlorite GS (6) 1407 H6 ILME faience AGD (1) 3217 H6 ILME faience LPS (1) 3249 I7 ILME steatite LPS (2) 3275 H6 ILME faience LPS (3) 3297 H6 ILME faience LPS (4) 3311 I7 IN porphyry LPS (5) 3312 I7 IN porphyry LPS (5) 3439 H6 ILME faience LGD (3) Table 2.20. Survey of the glyptic material from Chigha Sabz. See Tables 2.17 and 2.18 for details of the ‘Original Classification’ abbreviations.

Holmes Provenance Holmes Expedition Current Expedition Seal Classification Classification 52 H11 IN Neo-Assyrian 69 J7 ILME Neo-Elamite 153 I7 ILME Neo-Assyrian Table 2.21. Chigha Sabz cylinder seals not included in the Corpus.

2.2.2.4 Bani Surmah 2.2.2.4.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The graveyard site of Bani Surmah is located along the river Rudkhaneh Lashkan in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan, lying around 3.5km north-east of the village of Chavar (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3), see Figure 2.1. Some thirty-seven stone built tombs were excavated by a Belgian team (the Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran, or BAMI), lead by L. Vanden Berghe, over two seasons in 1966 and 1967 (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3). A preliminary report of the graves of Bani Surmah was published by the excavator (Vanden Berghe 1968), with a final excavation report published by Haerinck and Overlaet (2006) as part of the Luristan Excavation Documents (LED VI). Finally, of particular importance to this study, an article discussing the glyptic material from Bani Surmah was published by Tourovets (1996).

2.2.2.4.2 Site Description, Date and Function The perennial tributaries of the river bisect the plateau on which Bani Surmah stands into three sectors, labelled A, B and C (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3). Fourteen tombs were found and documented in Area A (labelled A1-14), eighteen in Area B (B1-18) and five in Area C (C1-5) (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 7 – 14), though it should be

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 197 noted that tombs C1 – 4 were, seemingly, not explored but only received a numerical designation (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 14). Thus a total of thirty-seven intact tombs were documented at the Bani Surmah graveyard (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 63). Generally, the stone built tombs of Bani Surmah were large and seemingly collective (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 5), though three smaller tombs from Area B (12, 14 and 17) may have been individual tombs (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 5). In general the tombs adhere to three orientation patterns (described as two only by Haerinck & Overlaet [2006: 5]), a NW-SE pattern (Tombs A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A11, B1, B2, B3, B16, C4), a NE-SW pattern (Tombs A9, A10, A12, A13, A14, B8, B11, B13, B14, B15), and a N-S pattern (Tombs A8, B4, B5, B5, B7, B9, B10, B12, B18) (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 5 – 14). There appears to be no other classifiable difference between these groups, such as type, construction or grave good distribution, thus these orientation patterns cannot currently be associated with any discernable meaning or difference in status, or type, for those buried within. Many of the tombs at Bani Surmah had been looted and depleted of some or all grave goods by clandestine digging (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3, 5). However, some 314 items were recovered from the complete and partially looted tombs excavated by the BAMI team. The inventory of the material discovered in the tombs includes various monochrome and polychrome ceramics, metal objects including copper/bronze tools and weaponry (dagger blades, axes, adzes or chisels, saws, awls, pins and needles) and copper/bronze (and in some cases, silver) items of personal adornment (bracelets, rings, earrings, buttons), chipped stone tools, whetstones, beads and, of most interest here, cylinder seals (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 15 – 62). The analysis of this material has provided sufficient correlative evidence to date the Bani Surmah tombs generally to the periods defined as Early Dynastic I through to the early Akkadian period (Haerinck 1986: 56 – 68; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3 – 4). Most of these correlations are with various Mesopotamian types (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 66 – 68), thus the Mesopotamian periodisation in this chronological description. In ‘Elamite’ terms, these chronological periods correspond to the later part of the Susa III period through to the Akkadian and Awan period, with the Susa IV period inclusive. The northwestern region of the Pusht-i Kuh, that contains both Bani Surmah and the below discussed Kalleh Nisar, has been labelled ‘Zone 1’ (of three) by Haerinck (1986: 61 – 67; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 66 – 70). This Zone is defined

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 198 as the ‘Mesopotamian related group’, as it displays general material culture correlations with Mesopotamia (Haerinck 1986: 61; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 66), as demonstrated in the nature of the items used to date the assemblage and the resultant Mesopotamian chronological periodization. The apparent Mesopotamian, rather than Elamite (or more correctly southwestern Iranian-Khuzistan cultural area), nature of the Bani Surmah material will be returned to below both in the discussion of the styles represented here (Chapters 4 and 5) and in the discussion of Elamite- Mesopotamian contacts (Chapter 7). The depositional placement of the goods within the tomb, as well as their size, indicates that these tombs were collective graves that were re-used over a long period of time, perhaps generations (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 63). Whether the collections in these graves represent families, clans, tribes, or any other social distinction not known to us cannot at this point be discerned (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 63). Similarly, the identity of the people who buried their dead in the tombs of Bani Surmah, and whether these people were sedentary, semi-nomadic or nomadic, cannot currently be ascertained, however a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle seems likely as there is no known contemporary settlement in the region (Haerinck 1986: 56; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 68), though this could of course be a reflection of the state of our knowledge rather than an ancient reality. Suggestions that identify the people responsible for the Bani Surmah graves (and those at Kalleh Nisar), with the ‘Guti’ or the ‘Lullubi’, or that associate Luristan with the little understood cultural phenomena of ‘Awan’ or ‘Shimashki’ (Vanden Berghe 1968: 62; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 70; Potts 1999: 97 – 98; discussed above), while intriguing, cannot be proven with any certainty beyond speculation on the current basis of our knowledge. However, Haerinck and Overlaet advocate a location of the ‘Guti’ within the Pusht-i Kuh during (at the least) the Early Bronze Age IV period (that is the latter part of the Akkadian, post-Akkadian [a period indeed often labelled the ‘Guti’ period] and the Ur III periods), based upon evidence from two cuneiform letters and associated historical geography (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 70). However, even if this identification is accepted, there is no evidence to suggest with any certainty that the graves of Bani Surmah (and Kalleh Nisar) can be associated with the Guti (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 70). Certainly, if the Guti identification was accepted it should be noted that the chronological designation of the Bani Surmah material (including the cylinder seals), discussed above as Early

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 199 Dynastic (as evidenced by the glyptic material also [see Table 2.22 and Chapter 5]) to early Akkadian does not generally coincide with the ‘Guti’-Pusht-i Kuh association, but in fact precedes it. The question of the identification of Awan, Shimashki and the Guti will be further discussed below (Chapter 7). The site of Bani Surmah, and the glyptic material it produced, is included in this study due to the above outlined wide definition of the area of ‘Elam’ (see Chapter 1). There should be no suggestion that Bani Surmah, nor its general area, be equated with Elam in the strictest sense in the period of use discussed here. However, as will be shown below (in the outline of the glyptic material, Chapters 4 and 5), at least, the cylinder seal materials of Bani Surmah conform to styles found in the more recognised ‘Elamite’ regions of Khuzistan, so as to make its inclusion here not unreasonable, and a placement of Bani Surmah within the ‘Elamite realm’ or sphere of influence.

2.2.2.4.3 Glyptic Material Nine cylinder seals were found in the graves of Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 51), as illustrated by Table 2.22. This is a relatively small distribution of cylinder seals within the corpus, though within Luristan the size of the Bani Surmah corpus is only bettered by Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Godin Tepe. Also, relative to the limited available exposure at the site this is not an insignificantly sized glyptic corpus. Due to the nature of Bani Surmah, the funerary designation of these seals is thus well established. The exact functioning of the funerary seals from Bani Surmah, and indeed in Elam more generally, and the related question of function that is raised by the presence of cylinder seals in a context of no discernable occupation and written sources will be discussed in further detail below (Chapter 6).

Current Tomb Original Classification Current Stylistic Number Classification 730 B6 Jemdet Nasr or Early Dynastic I/Proto-Elamite JNRS (5) 1481 A14 Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic I (Piedmont style) AGD (7) 1679 B13 Jemdet Nasr AGD (15) 2032 A14 Early Dynastic II/III SF (3) 2033 A2 Early Dynastic III/Akkadian SF (3) 2034 A14 Early Dynastic III SF (3) 2044 A2 Early Dynastic III/Akkadian SF (4) 2088 B6 Early Dynastic SF (7) 2089 A14 Early Dynastic II/III SF (7) Table 2.22. Survey of the glyptic material from Bani Surmah.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 200 2.2.2.5 Kalleh Nisar 2.2.2.5.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Kalleh Nisar was excavated during two seasons in 1967 – 1968 as part of the BAMI expedition lead by Louis Vanden Berghe that also explored the site of Bani Surmah discussed above (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 9; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). Indeed, the aim of the Kalleh Nisar excavations was to further explore and understand the Bronze Age Civilisation that came to light in the Bani Surmah excavations (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25). Kalleh Nisar is a wide plateau site on the left bank of the Kalah Rud river in the Pusht-i Kuh region of Luristan, 50km north-west of Ilam (thus situated politically in the Ilam district) and about 25km north-west of Bani Surmah (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 9 – 10; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3), as illustrated by Figure 2.1. Preliminary results from these excavations were published by Vanden Berghe (1973), and, importantly for this study, a paper on the glyptic material from Kalleh Nisar has more recently been published (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994). The final excavation report (LED VII, Haerinck & Overlaet 2008) appeared towards the end of the period of preparation of the current study, however the cylinder seal section of this publication was kindly supplied ahead of publication to help facilitate their complete study and inclusion by E. Haerinck.

2.2.2.5.2 Site Description, Date and Function The plateau on which the site of Kalleh Nisar rests is intersected by a series of depressions, which divide the plateau into four zones, labelled by the excavators Zones A, B, C and D (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). Kalleh Nisar is described by Vanden Berghe as a necropolis (1973: 25) and indeed, like Bani Surmah, many graves were found at the site. The remains of two stone ‘buildings’ were also found in Areas C and D (Vanden Berghe 1973: 28; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3), however as no glyptic material of any type were discovered in these areas (Vanden Berghe 1973: 28), and there appears to be no chronological or cultural correlation between this scanty evidence for Chalcolithic occupation here contained and the later graves (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 64), these occupation areas do not warrant discussion here.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 201 Like the graves of Bani Surmah, many of the Kalleh Nisar graves were the subject of clandestine commercial diggings that emptied and destroyed many of them (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10 – 12; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 10), severely limiting the amount of material available for excavation, as well as the completeness of this survey. Twenty-one cist tombs containing multiple burials were excavated in Area AI (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3), two large, already plundered, tombs were discovered in Area B (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3, 5), eighteen collective tombs, of which fourteen had been looted, were noted in Area C (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3, 6), and six large tombs, five of which were already looted, were discovered in Area D (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3, 8). As well as these forty-seven collective tombs, some fifty-two single inhumation tombs, of which only eighteen were left untouched by clandestine looters to be excavated by Vanden Berghe’s team, were also discovered in Area AII (Vanden Berghe 1973: 27; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 11; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). As the AII graves apparently date to a later period, they have been reserved for final publication in a forthcoming Luristan Excavation Volume and were not detailed in LED VII (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). However, as the material (including the cylinder seals) uncovered in these tombs does comply with the chronological limits of the current study they are included here. Thus, while some ninety-nine tombs were identified at Kalleh Nisar, only forty-four were left untouched by looters and thus yielded any information to the excavators. The graves of Kalleh Nisar fall into two broad groups (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3 – 10). Type I describes the group of relatively small, individual tombs of Area AII (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10), which though numbering more than Type II in identified examples, contains significantly fewer (eighteen, while Type II includes forty-seven) actual excavated examples. The larger, collective inhumations of the ‘Bani Surmah Type’ are labelled Type II (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10). A similar material culture inventory to that of Bani Surmah was uncovered in the tombs of Kalleh Nisar, including various mono- and polychrome ceramic wares, copper/bronze objects, including weaponry and tools (daggers, spearheads, axes, pins and needles), personal ornaments (bracelets, rings, earrings) and vessels, chipped stone tools, whetstones, beads, and of most interest to the current study, glyptic material in the form of cylinder and stamp seals (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 11 – 59).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 202 The material culture correlations made for these materials allows the construction and primary use of the collective tombs to be dated to the Jemdet Nasr through to the early Akkadian periods (Haerinck 1986: 59 – 68; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 64 – 67). There is some evidence that several of the collective tombs (specifically AI. 1, 2 and 4) were re-used in the Old Babylonian period (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 67). The single inhumation tombs of Area AII can be dated to the Early Bronze Age IV (the later Akkadian, the ‘Guti’ period and the Ur III periods in the Mesopotamian periodisation) (Haerinck 1986: 68; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 67). Thus through the combined use of the collective and single inhumation tombs at Kalleh Nisar the use of the graveyard can be dated in total to the Jemdet Nasr through to the Old Babylonian period. In the Elamite chronological periodisation this corresponds to the Susa III/Proto-Elamite through to the Sukkalmah periods. Like the nearby site of Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar is located by Haerinck and Overlaet in Zone 1 (the ‘Mesopotamian related group’) of the Pusht-i Kuh (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 63 – 68). Similar conclusions and discussions regarding the ethnic and cultural associations of Kalleh Nisar (such as the possible link with the ‘Guti’ and the Mesopotamian, rather than ‘Elamite’ nature of the material) as those of Bani Surmah, discussed above, can be applied, and will be returned to following an exposition of the styles. It should be noted that the incidental chronological objection to an association with the ‘Guti’ for the Bani Surmah material discussed above does not apply to the Kalleh Nisar graves as some of these graves do chronologically coincide with the ‘Guti’ period.

2.2.2.5.3 Glyptic Material A total of seven cylinder seals (and a single stamp seal of no relevance here [Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 47]) were found in the tombs of Kalleh Nisar (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994), as illustrated by Table 2.23. The Kalleh Nisar corpus is therefore one of the smallest in the general Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. Five of the Kalleh Nisar cylinders seals were found in the earlier, collective tombs of areas AI, C and D (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 47), while a further two cylinder seals were found in the single inhumations of area AII (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994). As is the case for the Bani Surmah material, the funerary nature of the Kalleh Nisar graveyard, and therefore by extension the funerary function of the cylinder seals found in these graves is assured. Though again, like in the Bani Surmah case, the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 203 precise function of cylinder seals (funerary or otherwise) in a presumably illiterate society (at least on the current evidence there are no known written sources to indicate Kalleh Nisar literacy) is currently still unclear and will be returned to below (Chapter 6).

Current Number Tomb Original Classification Current Stylistic Classification 731 AII.7 Guti/Ur III JNRS (5) 1966 AII.34 Guti (?) STF (4) 2035 C12 Early Dynastic SF (3) 2253 C12 Early Akkadian ARS (10) 2710 D2 Old Babylonian OBRS (2) 2711 AI.1 Old Babylonian OBRS (2) 2774 C13 Old Babylonian PEO (8) Table 2.23. Survey of the glyptic material from Kalleh Nisar.

2.2.2.6 Godin Tepe 2.2.2.6.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Godin Tepe is a large mound on the south bank of the modern course of the seasonal Khorramrud branch of the Gamas Ab river, in the Kangavar Valley of central western Iran (Young 1969a: 1; Young 1986: 212), in the cultural province of Luristan, see Figure 2.1. This places the site of Godin Tepe along the Baghdad to Kermanshah/Hamadan stage of the east-west ‘Silk Road’ (Young 1969a: 1; 1986: 212). Godin Tepe was excavated by a team lead by T. C. Young Jr. for the Royal Ontario Museum over several seasons in the 1960’s and early 1970’s (1969a: 1; Young & Levine 1974: 16; Weiss & Young 1975: 1). Following a preliminary identification survey in 1961, the first two excavations seasons (in 1965 and 1967) were published by Young in a preliminary excavation report (1969a). The following two seasons (1969 and 1971) were published by Young and Levine in the second Godin Tepe progress report, along with details of the excavation of the nearby site Seh Gabi (not of relevance here) (1974). A final excavation season in 1973 has not been treated in an excavation report, but details of the results of this important season have been partially detailed in an article (Weiss & Young 1975) and a conference paper (Young 1986).

2.2.2.6.2 Site Description, Date and Function The site of Godin Tepe rises some 30m at its highest point above the surrounding plain, and has been divided into three sections, labelled the ‘Outer Town’, the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 204 ‘Citadel’ and the ‘Upper Citadel’ by the excavators (Young 1969a: 1). The modern site of Godin Tepe covers an area of some 14 – 15 hectares (Young 1969a: 1), however, as the whole site bears evidence of cultivation and erosion damage (Young 1969a: 1), it is possible that its original extent was somewhat greater. Eleven cultural/chronological phases, dating from the mid-5th millennium through to the 6th century BC (labelled periods I – XI, I indicating the most recent, XI the earliest phase), have been identified at the site (Young 1986: 212). Not all the Godin Tepe phases are of pertinence to the current study, but only those that fit within our chronological confines will be examined here. Thus phases XI – VIII are of no interest here as they belong to a period before this study begins (and indeed, before the introduction of the cylinder seal) (Young 1986: 222). Similarly, phases II and I are dated to the first millennium BC (Young 1986: 212; Young & Levine 1974: 29 – 36) and so fall outside of the realms of this study. Thus phases Godin VII to Godin III are those that are of particular interest here. Table 2.24 summaries the Godin Tepe periodisation suggested by Young and Henrickson (Young & Levine 1984: 15; Young 1986: 212; Young & Weiss 1975: 1; Henrickson 1985), with reference to the Susa chronological scheme, as this is the chronological paradigm that governs this study. It is unnecessary to provide a detailed description of the individual phases and material culture of Godin Tepe here, both because this has been adequately undertaken elsewhere (Young 1969a; 1969b; Young & Levine 1974; Young 1986; Weiss & Young 1975) and because, as will be shown, the majority of the Godin Tepe occupation is of no significance to the glyptic theme of this study. However, the Godin V occupation does warrant a brief discussion here, as it is the area from whence the majority of the Godin Tepe material was sourced, and because it demonstrates strong contacts with Mesopotamia and (or) southwestern Iran (Khuzistan) that are of importance to the nature of Godin Tepe itself and to the question of contact and influence between ‘Elam’ and Mesopotamia that is a recurring theme of this study. The Godin V remains were chiefly excavated in the (final) 1973 season (Weiss & Young 1975: 1). The main Godin V occupation is found on the uppermost summit of the Godin mound (the so-called ‘Upper Citadel’), and is characterised by “monumental” architectural remains that have been designated the ‘Oval Enclosure’ due to its distinctive circular/ellipsoid shape (Weiss & Young 1975: 13; Young 1986: 213, fig. 1), see Figure 2.15. Godin V material was also found in the ‘Brick Kiln Cut’

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 205 at the western base of the Citadel Mound (Weiss & Young 1975: 2). As well as the unusual nature of the oval architecture of this area (Figure 2.15), the Godin V remains are notable for their similarity with the Late Uruk (Susa II period in the chronological scheme of this study) culture known from southern Mesopotamia and Khuzistan (Young 1986: 213; that is, the so-called ‘Uruk Expansion’, already mentioned above and discussed further below). As well as the basic ceramic tradition that demonstrates the inclusion of Godin V in the Uruk cultural realm, the ubiquitously characteristic Uruk artefact, the bevel-rimmed bowl, and, of most interest here, administrative and accounting objects such as tablets and seals were also found in the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’ (Weiss & Young 1975: 3 – 13; Young 1986: 213 – 218).

Godin Tepe Chronological Scheme Susa (Elamite Corpus) Chronological Scheme

Godin VII Susa II (3700 – 3400) (3800 – 3100) Godin VI (3400 – 3100) Godin V

(3200 – 3100; Susa III 3200 – 3000) (3100 – 2900) Godin IV (3000 – 2600) III: 6 (2600 – 2400) Susa IV (2900 – 2300) III: 5 (2400 – 2250)

Godin III Akkadian/Awan

(2600 – 1500) (2300 – 2100) III: 4 Ur III/ Shimashki (2100 – 1950) (2100 -1940) III: 2 (1950 – 1600) Sukkalmah III: 1 (1930 – 1500) (1600 – 1500) Middle Elamite I

(1500 – 1400) Table 2.24. Chronological periodisation of Godin Tepe in reference to the chronological scheme of this study. Godin Tepe dates following Young & Levine 1974, Young 1986, Young & Weiss 1975 and Henrickson 1985. The two proposed Godin V dates of Young 1986 and Young & Weiss 1975 respectively have both been listed. It should be noted that there are several gaps between the various Godin III phases. All dates are approximate and BC.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 206 This Godin V material, including the ‘Oval Enclosure’ architecture, is distinctive from the ‘local’ Godin VI material (Young 1986: 212; Weiss & Young 1975: 2; Henrickson 1988: 13), however there is apparently no occupation gap between the Godin VI occupation and the Godin V intrusion (Young 1986: 212 – 213; Weiss & Young 1975: 2 – 3). Indeed it appears that the Godin VI occupation continued concurrently with the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’ occupation elsewhere on the mound (Henrickson 1988: 13; Young 1986: 212, 222; Weiss & Young 1975: 13), as depicted by Table 2.24. There is, however, evidence for a break in occupation following the period V horizon (Young 1986: 213, 222).

Figure 2.15. General plan of the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’, from whence the majority of the Godin Tepe glyptic remains were sourced. Figure after Young 1986: figure 1, with alterations.

There is therefore little doubt that Godin V demonstrates a relationship with southern Mesopotamian and Susian cultures, as characterised by the so-called Uruk Expansion (Young 1986: 220). However, the mechanisms and functioning of this intrusion and the relationship between Godin V and the lowland (be they lowland Khuzistan or lowland Mesopotamian) cultures is unclear. Young and Weiss

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 207 specifically see this phenomenon as the intrusion by Susian individuals (or locals heavily influenced by Susians) bearing the Late Uruk culture, who established an outpost, most probably for the purposes of trade (a genuine entrepôt), on the top of the Godin mound (Young & Weiss 1975: 14 – 16; Young 1986; Henrickson 1988: 13). The precise mechanisms whereby an apparent foreign group were able to establish such an outpost on the highest point of an already occupied mound are unclear. Thus, there is little doubt that the Godin V phenomenon demonstrates a relationship with a lowland, intrusive, culture (Weiss & Young 1975; Henrickson 1988: 13). According to Young, the Godin V intrusion is totally of a Late Uruk character, as opposed to the later, Iranian ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III) expansion (Young 1986: 221). This is in spite of the fact that, according to the earlier chronological designation of this phenomenon by Weiss and Young, part of the Godin V period appears to coincide with the earlier part of the ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III) expansion (Weiss & Young 1975: 1; as demonstrated by Table 2.24). Similarly, as will be demonstrated later (Chapter 5), some of the glyptic material appears to be of a Proto-Elamite/Susa III, rather than Uruk/Susa II, character, as indeed acknowledged by Young (1986: 221). The resolution of the Uruk or ‘Proto-Elamite’ nature of the Godin V intrusion relies not only on the nature of the Godin material, the glyptic element of which will be discussed further below (Chapter 5), but also on a discussion of the Uruk and Susa III/‘Proto-Elamite’ Expansions, phenomena that will be returned to in the contact discussion following the annunciation of the styles (Chapter 7). The long Godin III occupation (see Table 2.24), while of great importance to a study of Godin Tepe generally, need not be discussed here, for, apart from a solitary sealing (1362, discussed in greater detail elsewhere [below, and Chapters 4 and 5], which itself belongs stylistically to a very early period of Godin III) no glyptic material dating to this long period has been found.

2.2.2.6.3 Glyptic Material According to Weiss and Young thirteen sealed tablets, four sealed jar stoppers and two cylinder seals were found in the ‘Oval Enclosure’ of Godin Tepe V (Weiss & Young 1975: 8). Five of the thirteen tablets, two of the four sealings and the two cylinder seals have been published by Weiss and Young (1975: 8 – 10) and thus are included in the Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 2.25. According to Young, “no

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 208 bullae, jar sealings, cylinder seals or tablets were found anywhere at Godin outside of the Oval Enclosure” (1986: 217). However, in at least one instance this statement is incorrect, for a sealing was published in the second Godin Tepe progress report purportedly from a Godin III context (the current 1365) (Young and Levine 1985: 111). Also, as somewhat of a contradiction to this statement is the fact that Weiss and Young had previously stated that the provenance of seal 999 was in fact inside a Godin IV mudbrick, with the Godin V designation made on stylistic grounds (Weiss & Young 1975: 11). Thus a total of ten glyptic items form Godin Tepe are included in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 2.25, though as detailed above, it should be noted that this is not the total number of the glyptic material from Godin, but rather the entirety of the published corpus. This is a relatively small corpus, though it is the second largest of the Luristan corpora, after the large Surkh Dum-i- Luri group. Such size comparisons between the seventeen sites represented in the Corpus should of course be viewed with considerable scepticism, as the number of glyptic items from each site is reliant on modern factors of scholarship, such as extent of excavation and publication, as well as realties of preservation, use and distribution within the ancient site.

Current Number Provenance Type Current Style 102 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet STS (5) 442 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet STS (19) 571 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ jar sealing JNRS (2) 946 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet CPE (3) 947 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ cylinder seal CPE (3) 997 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet CPE (4) 998 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ jar stopper CPE (4) 999 Godin IV, within a mudbrick cylinder seal CPE (4) 1107 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet CPE (9) 1365 Godin III, AO1, Lot 19 sealing GS (6) Table 2.25. Survey of the glyptic material from Godin Tepe.

It should also be noted that the Godin Tepe material has not previously been subjected to a thorough glyptic study, but rather the majority of the material was published by Weiss and Young as examples of Godin V material culture, with the direct purpose of demonstrating the Late Uruk nature of the Godin V material (Weiss & Young 1975: 6 – 13), which as will be demonstrated, may not have been entirely appropriate or successful (Chapter 5).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 209 2.2.2.7 Tepe Djamshidi 2.2.2.7.1 Location, Excavation and Publication Tepe Djamshidi23 is a site in northern Luristan, situated on the plain of Havé, some 25km northwest of Alishtar (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 91), see Figure 2.1. The site was originally identified by Contenau and Ghirshman in their first season to Nehavend (including the excavation of Tepe Giyan, discussed below), and subsequently excavated in 1933 (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 91). Two trenches were dropped on or near the summit of the mound (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935), as demonstrated by Figures 2.16 and 2.17. The results of the ‘sondages’ at Tepe Djamshidi were published in the excavation report that included the excavations at Tepe Giyan (and the not relevant site Tepe Bad-Hora) (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935), and thus has only received cursory, and somewhat dated treatment.

Figure 2.16. General plan of Tepe Djamshidi, indicating location of Trenches 1 and 2. Figure after Contenau and Ghirshman 1935:70, with alterations.

2.2.2.7.2 Site Description and Date The Tepe Djamshidi mound rises some 23m above the surrounding plain (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 92). On or near the summit of the mound, Islamic installations, obviously of no relevance here, were discovered (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93). Below this, three levels (Couche II – IV, Couche I being the Islamic period occupation) were uncovered (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93 – 104), though it is

23Also Tepe Jamshidi.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 210 unclear if these layers are true stratigraphic realties, or rather the result of the excavation technique. The latter seems more likely in light of the fact that no evident architecture was discerned in the excavations. In light of the realities of early 1930’s excavations, it is possible that mudbrick architecture present at Tepe Djamshidi was missed in the excavations. Rather, nineteen stone built (or stone-lined), single inhumation tombs were discovered at Tepe Djamshidi (Tombs 1 – 2 in Couche II, Tombs 3 – 10 in Couche III, Tombs 11 – 10 in Couche IV) (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93 – 111), as demonstrated by Figure 2.17. The grave goods found in these tombs include ceramics, of Giyan III and Giyan IV type (as classified in the original Giyan report, see below), bronze jewellery and weaponry, and two cylinder seals (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93 – 111).

Figure 2.17. South-North cross section of the Tepe Djamshidi excavations, indicating relative levels of Tombs discovered in Trenches 1 and 2. Tomb 3 (T3) is marked red and corresponds to the provenance of the two Djamshidi cylinder seals. Figure after Contenau and Ghirshman 1935: 72, with alterations.

Through correlative analysis of this material the tombs of Tepe Djamshidi can be dated from the end of the third millennium through to the first three quarters of the second millennium BC (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 94), that is the later part of the Susa II/early Susa III period through to the first part of the Sukkalmah periods, inclusive of the Susa IV, Akkadian/Awan and Ur III/Shimashki periods, in the current chronological paradigm. This is obviously a long period of time, and merely represents the longest possible extent of use according to the correlative data.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 211 There is no information regarding the possible identity of the individuals who buried their dead in the Djamshidi tombs, nor the possible location of their habitation, nor even the possible presence of domestic architecture, or occupation, at Tepe Djamshidi. The size, and indeed inclination of the Djamshidi mound (as illustrated by Figure 2.16), would seem to indicate that there was some occupation at the site, as opposed to the site being a graveyard, in the literal sense. However, on the basis of the available evidence, no conclusions can be made in this regard, in the current absence of any domestic (or indeed any) architecture.

2.2.2.7.3 Glyptic Material The glyptic corpus of Tepe Djamshidi is formed by two cylinder seals, both provenanced from Tomb 3, as demonstrated by Table 2.26 and Figure 2.17. Comprising just two cylinders, the Tepe Djamshidi corpus is thus the smallest (along with Chogha Gavaneh) of the excavated sites corpora (Deh-i Now, the unexcavated site discussed above, excluded).

Current Number Provenance Original Classification Current Style 1408 Tomb 3 terra cotta AGD (1) 2712 Tomb 3 hematite OBRS (2) Table 2.26. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Djamshidi.

The styles, and the chronological implications of these styles, of the Djamshidi seals will be further discussed below (Chapters 4 and 5). It is striking that the only two seals found at Tepe Djamshidi were discovered in the same tomb. Thus while the funerary function of these seals is assured, the implications of two cylinder seals found in the one tomb must be considered, and will be returned to below (Chapter 6). It may be suggested that seal 1408, classified as belonging to the Archaic Geometric Designs group (AGD), is in fact not a seal but a bead. This proposal will be returned to below (Chapter 4), but the possibility that such items, thus decorated, can be classified as beads rather than seals has been raised elsewhere (Collon 2005: 69; Schmidt et al. 1989: 381), and is entirely possible. This would explain the apparent incongruous appearance of two seals in a single inhumation burial, and the evident discrepancy in the dating of the seal styles of these two items, as the AGD style is dated significantly earlier then the Old Babylonian style (OBRS) of the other Djamshidi seal (2712). If it is not concluded that seal 1408 is in fact a bead, this dating incongruity can be explained either by the difficulty in dating geometric design

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 212 seals (discussed below, Chapter 4), meaning that this seal should be dated to a period closer to the Old Babylonian period, or by the possible heirloom quality of the seal.

2.2.2.8 Tepe Giyan 2.2.2.8.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Tepe Giyan is located about 10km southeast of the town of Nehavend (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 2), see Figure 2.1. The site, like so many, was brought to the attention of the archaeological community due to the appearance of materials on the illicit art markets reportedly from the area of Nehavend (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: v). Tepe Giyan was subsequently excavated by Contenau and Ghirshman over two seasons in 1931 and 1932, during which three major Trenches (A – C) and a Sondage Trench were opened (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: vi, 4 – 7), see Figure 2.18. The results of these excavations were promptly published, along with the excavations of the nearby sites of Tepe Djamshidi (discussed above) and Tepe Bad- Hora (the last not included in the Corpus; Contenau & Ghirshman 1935). Due to the long term occupation at Tepe Giyan the site has previously been used as a type site for its region of Luristan, and as such, the (generally ceramic) material from the site has been reassessed and incorporated into several studies attempting to order the chronology of Luristan (Henrickson 1985; Henrickson 1988). This is despite the fact that the material from Tepe Giyan (like other contemporary excavations) “was excavated with little concern for stratigraphic, architectural, or cultural context, so that even its gross periodization remains problematic” (Henrickson 1988: 1). More recently, the more securely dated and carefully excavated site of Godin Tepe (discussed elsewhere), has replaced the disjointed evidence from Tepe Giyan as a type site for this region of Luristan (Voigt & Dyson 1992: 159 – 164).

2.2.2.8.2 Site Description and Date The above cited Henrickson quote regarding the quality of the Tepe Giyan material and excavations must be taken into account when discussing the chronology, and indeed, the material uncovered at the site. A caveat of sorts thus must be placed on any conclusions or materials discussed here. Five cultural levels were discerned by the excavators at Tepe Giyan (labelled I – V, V being the oldest, I the most recent) (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 62 – 80). The mound of Tepe Giyan rises some 19m above the plain, with the first (from the top down) 9.5m containing some 119 tombs,

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 213 occupying Levels I and II of the mound (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 7). The lower three levels (Levels III – V) contain evidence for architectural remains, though of varying quality and preservation (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 7 – 11). Level V produced painted ceramics, and has been associated by the excavators with Susa I and Ubaid materials from southern Iran and Mesopotamia (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 79). Voigt and Dyson also identify Chalcolithic Dalma type pottery at Giyan (Voigt & Dyson 1992: 160), thus placing the earliest phase of Tepe Giyan beyond the scope of this study. Level IV of Tepe Giyan produced Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr related pottery (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 79; Voigt & Dyson 1992: 163), including bevelled-rim bowls (Voigt & Dyson 1992: 162), and was accordingly dated c.3000 – 2500 BC by the excavators (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 79). This is a longer chronological extension into the Susa IV period (from the Susa II contemporary Uruk, and Susa III contemporary Jemdet Nasr) then would normally be allowed by the presence of Uruk period material, however. Furthermore, according to Voigt and Dyson, “Classic Giyan IV” material should be considered contemporary with Godin III: 4 material (1992: 164), thus further extending the Giyan IV material into the second millennium. Level III of Tepe Giyan is dated through ceramic parallels c.2500 – 1800 BC by the excavators (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 80). If the above cited Voigt and Dyson Giyan IV – Godin III: 4 correlation is accepted (and lacking any evidence to the contrary, the current study must defer to the greater expertise of the authors and assume that it should be), then the Giyan III material would be contemporary with this Giyan IV-Godin III parallel. This apparent incongruous chronological progression may be explained by the false phasing between Giyan IV and III, a result of the less then meticulous excavations cited above, and therefore Giyan IV and III can be considered at least partially contemporaneous, or indeed, as a single period from c.3000 – 1800 BC. It seems more likely that two phases are represented in the Giyan IV and III levels, with an earlier Uruk/Jemdet Nasr phase testified to by bevelled-rim bowls and other characteristically Uruk materials, and a later phase, represented both by the material that led Contenau and Ghirshman to suggest a terminal c.2500 BC date for Giyan IV, the ‘Classic Giyan IV’ material of Voigt and Dyson, and the Giyan III material. As mentioned above, Giyan Levels II and I are characterised primarily be burials (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 7), and, like elsewhere, the realities of these levels as stratigraphic actualities must be questioned. However, on the basis of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 214 correlations with grave goods, the Level II tombs are dated c.1800 – 1400 BC, while the Level I examples are similarly dated c.1400 – 1100 BC (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 80). In summary, Giyan V is considered roughly contemporary with the Luristan Chalcolithic, or Susa I/Ubaid periods of southern Iran/Mesopotamia and thus falls outside the realms of this study. The early Giyan IV period is considered to represent Uruk/Jemdet Nasr period occupation (that is, the Susa II and Susa III periods in the current study), while later Giyan IV and Giyan III can be considered to be contemporary with Godin IV and III, and thus corresponds to the Susa IV through to the early Sukkalmah periods in the current study (inclusive of the Akkadian/Awan and Ur III/Shimashki periods). The Giyan II graves are dated c.1800 – 1400 BC, that is the Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite periods, while the Giyan I tombs are dated c.1400 – 1100 by the excavators. Thus the Giyan I tombs can be considered contemporary with the Middle Elamite period generally.

Figure 2.18. Sketch map of Tepe Giyan, indicating the location of the major trenches A – C, and the sondage trench, listed as Aa here. The existence of trench (mound?) D should be noted, however despite its appearance in this figure, no information regarding this operation is included in the publication. Figure after Contenau and Ghirshman 1935: plate 2, with alterations.

It should be emphasised, as already mentioned and testified to by the disjointed nature of the preceding survey, that the excavation technique (or lack there of) executed at Tepe Giyan means that the chronological and periodisation information regarding Giyan remains fragmentary, cursory and open to possible

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 215 reinterpretation. No significant information regarding the function or nature of the fragmentary ‘Constructions’ (labelled I – IV, corresponding roughly with the phases discussed above) (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 8 – 11) has been forthcoming, nor can be added here.

2.2.2.8.3 Glyptic Material Ten cylinder seals were discovered at Tepe Giyan and are included in the Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 2.27. A further forty-five stamp seals (not included for obvious reasons in the Corpus) were also uncovered at Tepe Giyan (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 41 – 42, 47 – 49, plates 35 & 36). It is striking that such a great number of stamp seals, relative to cylinders, were uncovered across the whole site, when one would expect the stamp seals to date primarily only to the earliest level of Tepe Giyan (Giyan V); the distribution of stamp seals to cylinders thus seems disproportionate to the extent of the levels dating to the periods of cylinder seal dominance (Giyan IV – I). The reasons for this division cannot be discerned on the basis of the current evidence, though one could easily see merely a reflection of the fragmentary and uneven excavations at Tepe Giyan as a cause (that is, accident of discovery in its purest form). The ten cylinder seals that comprise the included Tepe Giyan corpus is the equal largest of the Luristan corpora (along with Godin Tepe), not including the extraordinarily large Surkh Dum-i-Luri group. In overall terms, the Tepe Giyan corpus is thus significantly smaller then the ‘large’ corpus sites such as Susa, Chogha Mish, Haft Tepe and Chogha Zanbil (and again, Surkh Dum-i-Luri), though it is not insignificant amongst the lesser sites.

Current Number Provenance Material Current Style 550 depth of 10m dark grey stone JNRS (1) 735 – grey stone JNRS (5) 1025 Tomb 52 serpentine CPE (7) 1364 depth of 7.4 – 9.5m grey stone GS (6) 1469 depth of 9m grey stone AGD (6) 1642 depth of 6m terra cotta AGD (14) 3485 depth of 3.5m faience* Mittanian 3486 Tomb 68 soft stone Mittanian 3568 depth of 4.5m soft yellow stone Unclassifiable 3569 Tomb 102 grey stone Unclassifiable Table 2.27. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Giyan.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 216 Three of the Tepe Giyan cylinder seals were reportedly uncovered in tombs amongst the grave goods, as demonstrated by Table 2.27. The funerary function of these three seals (1025, 3486, 3569) is thus assured. As there is no information regarding the function of the buildings and materials at Tepe Giyan (apart, of course, from the funerary designation of the graves), no information regarding the function of the other seals can be proposed. It is striking that no sealings were uncovered at Tepe Giyan, a phenomenon that would, in normal circumstances, be suggestive of the function of seals in the society. However, it seems highly likely that any sealings preserved at Tepe Giyan would have been missed, according to the excavation regime of the 1930’s, and so no conclusions can be drawn on the absence of sealings here.

2.2.2.9 Chogha Gavaneh 2.2.2.9.1 Location, Excavation and Publication The site of Chogha Gavaneh is located actually within the modern town of Islamabad- e Gharb (formerly Shahabad-e Gharab, and earlier, Harunabad, the name listed here is the post-Revolution, and therefore current, name), which lies some 60km southwest of Kermanshah (Abdi 1999: 34; Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39; listed as a distance of 70km by Amiet [1986: 154]), and therefore within the bounds of the historic province of Luristan in the current study, see Figure 2.1. Chogha Gavaneh is a mound site that rises above, from within, the town (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39). This location within a place of modern occupation has, of course, effected greatly the preservation and situation of the Chogha Gavaneh remains (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39). Aerial photographs of Chogha Gavaneh taken by Schmidt during his aerial reconnaissance of western Iran in 1936 (Schmidt 1940) provides evidence that in the 1930’s the ancient remains of the site covered perhaps 40 hectares (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39). However, more recent constructions of dwellings within the ‘Lower Town’, and cutting into the mound slopes to prepare for such construction, has severely impinged upon the integrity of Chogha Gavaneh, leaving a current area of only about 4 hectares, or perhaps as little as 10% of the original extent of occupation at the site (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39 – 40). Thus, while it may be expected that evidence of ancient occupation lies below the modern ‘Lower Town’, this modern occupation means that no excavations in this area have been undertaken and so such a reconstruction is hypothetical (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39 – 40). The only archaeological remains from Chogha Gavaneh (apart from a small, not detailed test

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 217 trench in the east town [Abdi 2000: 163]) thus come from the ‘High Mound’ of the site proper, that rises some 25m above the surrounding plain (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40). Indeed, the height of the mound itself may have also suffered some deterioration, as testified to by reports that the conical-shaped top of the mound was cleared to make way for a tea house immediately preceding the 1970 excavations (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41) and the construction of an anti-aircraft battery on the mound summit during the Iran- War (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 43). The site of Chogha Gavaneh was first brought to the attention of the academic community in the 1930’s when it was noted by Aurel Stein in his travels, and viewed in Schmidt’s aerial reconnaissance already mentioned (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40). Chogha Gavaneh, and the surrounding plain, has been surveyed by Braidwood in 1959 – 1960 and Goff in the early 1960’s (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40). A team from the, then entitled, ‘Archaeological Service of Iran’ completed a short season on the ‘High Mound’ in 1967 (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40 – 41). Presumably, there is no published material from this excavation, as none is cited by Abdi and Beckman (2007). Mahmoud Kordevani led an Archaeological Service of Iran salvage excavation to the site in 1970, prompted by the erection of the already cited tea house (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41; results of this excavation season was originally published in Persian by the excavator [Kordevani 1971]). Despite the anticipation for such by the excavator (and indeed the discovery of remains that would warrant such), further Kordevani excavation season(s) where not forthcoming (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41, 43), but rather only the single three month season at the site was undertaken, in which about 0.8 of a hectare was excavated (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). More recently Kamyar Abdi has returned to Chogha Gavaneh, as part of a research project of the entire Islamabad plain, beginning in 1997 (Abdi 1999; 2000, 2001; Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). As well as a general regional survey and work at other sites of no interest here (that is, sites that did not produce any appropriately dated glyptic material), the work of Abdi has included the execution of several test and step trenches at Chogha Gavaneh, the re-excavation of Room B15 (detailed further below) originally excavated by Kordevani, and the re-analysis of the material uncovered in the Kordevani excavations, over three, reported, seasons (Abdi 1999; 2000; 2001; Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41 – 46). These excavations (and the not relevant surveys) have been detailed in a series of report articles (Abdi 1999; 2000; 2001),

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 218 while the re-excavation of Room B15 has been discussed in an article that also includes the publication and translation of a group of tablets originally discovered by Kordevani (Abdi & Beckman 2007). The final reanalysis of Kordevani material, with an assumed incorporation of the results from the Abdi excavations, is currently under construction (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41).

2.2.2.9.2 Site Description and Date The original 1967 excavation at Chogha Gavaneh was limited to a step trench on the northeastern side of the ‘High Mound’ that reportedly produced levels dating from the Chalcolithic through to the Iron Age (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40 – 41), of which little more is known. The more extensive Kordevani excavations revealed an ‘architectural complex’ on the summit of the mound (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41), illustrated in Figure 2.19. This complex as described by Abdi, is characterised by a range of public and private buildings (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42). In the absence of any detailed information regarding provenance within the complex, any functional interpretation of the rooms is fraught (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42). However, several such labels for the complex have been proposed by Abdi, on the basis of “general observation” (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42). These include a “domestic activities” section to the north, a “series of residential spaces” to the east and an “administrative part” to the west, including a ‘reception hall’, and Room B15, an apparent tablet archive (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42), as demonstrated by Figure 2.19. The architectural complex was dated by Kordevani to the Iron Age II period (c.800 BC), with the evidence for conflagration revealed in the excavations associated with the destruction of the ancient site by an unknown Neo-Assyrian king (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). This date is based, according to Abdi, upon evidence of the materials found within the architectural complex (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). These materials are currently under reanalysis by Abdi (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41), and so any possible reassessment of this original chronology cannot be confidently preposed here, with any confirmation awaiting the publication of this work. However, something can be said regarding the chronology of Chogha Gavaneh on the basis of the available published material. Firstly, according to Abdi, the tablet archive was one of the groups of artefacts used by Kordevani to date Chogha Gavaneh to the first millennium BC (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). However, paleographically, the cuneiform of the tablets is typical Old Babylonian (that is, contemporaneous with the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 219 Sukkalmah period in the current periodisation) Akkadian (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41, 46), and thus dates to the early second millennium BC, and therefore to use this archive to date the occupation of Chogha Gavaneh to the first millennium BC is false. Furthermore, the glyptic material (2713, 2714; discussed further below) and examples of a fine grey, punctate and incised, pottery type, known from sites both in the Diyala area (Tell Asmar [ancient Eshnunna] and Tell Hasan in particular) and Elam proper (specifically Susa and Tal-i Malyan) found in the Kordevani excavations can be dated to the Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah period (Amiet 1986: 154; Potts 1999: 174 – 175).

Figure 2.19. Plan of the ‘architectural complex’ of Chogha Gavaneh, excavated by Kordevani in 1970, with function areas as proposed by Abdi (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42). Area shaded blue (Room B15) is the location of the tablet archive, the red star indicates the “alleged” (sic Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47) location of the tablets within the room. Figure after Abdi & Beckman 2007: fig. 5, with alterations.

A stratigraphic cut on the western edge of the Chogha Gavaneh mound executed by Abdi in 1998 (labelled ID 1 by the excavators) produced ceramic evidence that provided a late through to Middle Chalcolithic date (Abdi 1999: 39). Other material, of an earlier date than is of interest here (specifically ceramics), have also been uncovered by Abdi at Chogha Gavaneh (Abdi 2000: 163; 2001: 299). It is also reported, in the second Islamabad progress report, that a stratigraphic cut (exact details of the location, or if indeed this is the same cut just

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 220 mentioned), produced variant Godin III wares (for the Godin III chronology above Chapter 2.2.2.6; Godin III corresponds to Susa IV through to the middle of the Middle Elamite period in the chronology of this study, that is, roughly the Luristan Bronze Age) (Abdi 2000: 162). Furthermore, Uruk material (bevelled-rim bowls, and other Uruk period ceramics and a fragmentary clay nail) have been found by Abdi in the surface pickup at Chogha Gavaneh and in Step Trench 1 on the northern slopes of the mound (Abdi 2000: 163). ‘Bronze Age’ evidence, of an apparently domestic nature, was also uncovered in this trench (Abdi 2000: 163). Finally, in a sounding cut into an open area east of the ‘High Mound’, between modern residential properties, a mixed layer of Iron Age III – Parthian ceramic materials were found, overlying apparently ‘Bronze Age’ material (Abdi 2001: 163). Currently, the known material from the Abdi excavations are limited generally to short notes or excavation reports, and thus without a detailed, fully synthesised, tested and illustrated publication of this material, such evidence must remain fragmentary and disjointed. However, the recent Abdi excavations do provide evidence that Chogha Gavaneh was occupied for an extended period of time, with evidence for -Chalcolithic material (that is, material beyond the lowest chronological limit of this study), through the Uruk and Godin III periods (Bronze Age), and beyond the upper limits of this study through to the first millennium/Iron Age. However, as the nature of the material and our knowledge is quite fragmentary at present, and this survey is based primarily on suggestions of occupation, the extent of occupation at Chogha Gavaneh throughout the entirety of these periods is currently unclear. The proposed occupation periods suggested by these finds are, however, significantly longer, and earlier than the original Kordevani proposals. The evidence for earlier, more extensive occupation at Chogha Gavaneh then suggested by Kordevani, does not necessarily alter the date of the ‘architectural complex’ (though the above cited textual and ceramic evidence does indicate this), but rather should merely be taken here as indicative of the fact that Chogha Gavaneh appears to be a site that had a long history of occupation over many chronological periods. The extent, duration and transition between and within these suggested periods of occupation cannot be commented on currently. Regardless, for the purposes of the current study, the precise details of the chronological and occupational extent of Chogha Gavaneh is not important (even if, on the basis of the current available information such a synthesis could be presented). Thus, other than the possibility of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 221 extended occupation, beyond, through and after the period of this study, as suggested by the more recent excavations of Abdi, nothing more need be noted (nor currently can be proposed). However, the period of occupation of Room B15 (and its surrounds, the ‘architectural complex’) is of some interest, as this is where the glyptic material from Chogha Gavaneh was provenanced (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47). There is thus strong evidence, in the manner of ceramics, texts and glyptic material to date at least some of the occupation within the ‘architectural complex’ to the Sukkalmah (Old Babylonian) period, though the extent of this reanalysis, if the entire final occupation can be associated with this period (rather than the previously held first millennium BC date) or if this merely reflects evidence for a Sukkalmah occupation at the site, proceeded by later manifestations (including first millennium), must await both the results of the Abdi reanalysis, and further excavations, with more complete exposure, at the site.

2.2.2.9.3 Glyptic Material The Chogha Gavaneh corpus comprises two glyptic items (as demonstrated by Table 2.28), and as such forms the smallest of the excavated site corpora (the single seal of the Deh-i Now corpus excepted, as this seal was not excavated but collected in a survey, as discussed above). Both these items (the cylinder seal 2713 and the five tablets that bore the impression of the same seal 2714), were reportedly found in the so-called cuneiform/tablet archive of Room B15 of the ‘architectural complex’ (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47). The published archive consists of fifty-six whole tablets and twenty-eight fragment tablets, all found along the southern wall of Room B15 (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47), as demonstrated by Figure 2.19. The twenty-eight fragmentary tablets are qualified as those “deemed worth copying” (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47), and so it can be assumed that other, less useful fragments were also discovered at the site. In assuming that the original Kordevani first millennium date for the building is correct, Beckman explains that the fragmentary nature of many of the tablets in the ‘archive’ as evidence for their fill depositional nature (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47). Regardless of the final date concluded for the terminal occupation at the site, the presence of these Old Babylonian Akkadian texts at Chogha Gavaneh, together with the other identified evidence outlined above, and indeed, the style of the seal and the sealings themselves (as outlined in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5), indicates that Chogha Gavaneh was occupied during the Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah period.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 222

Current Number Provenance Type Inscription Current Style 2713 Room B15 cylinder Shemitum, OBRS (2) daughter of Nuriri, servant of Adad 2714 Room B15 5 sealed tablets Belšunu, OBRS (2) son of Daqatum, servant of Inib-šarri Table 2.28. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Gavaneh.

2.2.3 Fars The modern political and historical province of Fars (see Figures 1.3 and 2.1) contains just one site that has produced glyptic material of a date relevant to the current study, Tal-i Malyan. This is in fact surprising for a work devoted to a study of Elamite cylinder seals, especially given the fact that some scholars consider Fars generally, and the area around Tal-i Malyan/Anshan specifically, to be a, if not the, centre of Elamite civilisation (for example Young 1986: 226; Steve 1991: 3). This pattern of discovery can be considered to be reflective both of the extent of research and excavation in the Fars area, particularly in the pre-Persian Elamite periods of history, and of the occupational realities of Fars in this period (Carter & Stolper 1984). That is, the dominance of Tal-i Malyan and absence of other excavated data is considered symptomatic of both phenomena, and it is anticipated that further excavation in the area would reveal relevant glyptic material (for example at sites discerned in survey and dated to chronologically relevant periods [Sumner 1989]), but perhaps not to the extent as in Khuzistan. Indeed, the singularity of Tal-i Malyan in the further emphasises the point made in the initial definition of the boundaries of Elam (Chapter 1). For, despite the wide expanse proposed as possible Elamite territory, incorporating the whole of Fars, the reality of archaeological evidence is that just one area around the site of Malyan can be considered Elamite, on the basis of material.

2.2.3.1 Tal-i Malyan 2.2.3.1.1 Location, Excavation, Ancient Name and Publication Tal-i Malyan24 (hereafter the shorthand Malyan may be used) is located some 46km north of the modern city of in Fars Province, Iran (Nicholas 1990: 4; Sumner 2003: 2). The site also lies a similar distance to the west of the major ancient Fars site, (Sumner 1974: 158). The site dominants the Kur River Basin, and lies

24Also Tal-e Malyan.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 223 approximately 500km southeast of Susa (Potts 1999: 8; Carter 1996: 1), see Figure 2.1. A survey of the Kur River Basin in 1968/69, led by William Sumner, showed that Malyan was the occupational centre of the Basin (Carter 1996: 1). This survey also recovered a number of brick fragments that led to the, originally, tentative identification of the site as ancient Anshan (Carter 1996: 1). Although described as ‘tentative’ by Carter, the philologist Reiner, is more definite in her description (Reiner 1973b: 62), and Sumner states that the Malyan/Anshan association is “beyond dispute” (Sumner 1974: 155), and thus this identification is universally accepted (Potts 1999: 247; Sumner 1997; 2003), and so will be used here. It should be noted, however, that in some instances, ancient references to Anshan may have inferred a region, rather than a specific city, a problem which shall be returned to (Chapter 7).

Figure 2.20. General Plan of Tal-i Malyan (Anshan), demonstrating the location of various ‘Operations’. Figure after Sumner 2003: figure 4, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 224 Malyan was excavated by a team from the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, under the direction of Sumner, for five seasons, from 1971 until 1978, when, like so many Iranian sites, political disturbances put an end to such work (Carter 1996: 1; Sumner 2003: i). A series of monographs dealing with discreet sectors of excavation, or ‘Operations’ (detailed below) have been published (TUV: Nicholas 1990; EDD: Carter 1996; ABC Sumner 2003; see Figure 2.20), as have several progress reports and articles (Sumner 1974; 1976; 1985; 1986; 1988; 1989). The operations entitled GHI, BY8, GGX98 and FX106 (see Figure 2.20 for locations), are still awaiting publication of devoted volumes, and thus are only known from articles and short reports (Sumner 1974; 1989; 1997). Importantly for this study, a monograph regarding the seals and sealings of Tal-i Malyan, by Pittman, is seemingly forthcoming (Sumner 2003: i), though not yet available. Some of the results of this study have been incorporated into Sumner’s ABC report however (Sumner 2003: 80 – 82).

2.2.3.1.2 Site Description, Date and Function The site of Malyan is enclosed by a c.5km long ancient city wall or ‘embankment’ that delineates an area of more than 200 hectares, some 130 hectares of which was apparently occupied by the Malyan mound (Nicholas 1996: 4; Sumner 1985: 153; 2003: 2), see Figure 2.20. The general outline and contour of the remains of this mound can be viewed from the air (Sumner 1985: 153). Sherd scatter and soundings indicate that Malyan was first occupied in the Jari Period (c.5500 BC) of highland Iran, if not earlier (Sumner 2003: 2). From this point on Malyan was continuously occupied into the Islamic period (Sumner 1997: 406), though Sumner describes four “great eras” of Malyan occupation (Sumner 2003: 2), three of which are relevant here; the Banesh Period (or ‘Proto-Elamite’ period, c.3500 – 2800 BC), the Kaftari Period (or ‘Old Elamite’ period, c.2200 – 1600 BC), and the Qaleh Period (or Middle Elamite period, c.1300 – 1000 BC) (the fourth, Sasanian period flourishing is beyond the realms of this study) (Sumner 2003: 2). As these three periods are discreet, and lack any real coherency between them, and are represented in separate excavation areas on the Malyan mound, it is appropriate here to discuss these three periods separately.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 225 2.2.3.1.2.1 Banesh/Proto-Elamite period occupation The Banesh period occupation of Tal-i Malyan is represented in four ‘operations’ (ABC, TUV, BY8 and GHI, see Figure 2.20) (Sumner 1997: 406). Primarily the information discussed here will be based upon the two main published areas, Operations ABC and TUV (Sumner 2003; Nicholas 1990), however the presence of evidence for Banesh period occupation in Operation BY8, including the indication of the existence of a city wall, with a stone foundation and mudbrick glacis should be noted (Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 1985). Operation TUV at the southern end of the Tal-i Malyan mound was only occupied (or produced evidence only for occupation) in the Banesh period (Sumner 1997: 406; Nicholas 1990: 5, 12; Sumner 1976: 106). Three building levels were uncovered in the TUV operation (Nicholas 1990: 21). The highest level (that is the most recent), was poorly preserved and significantly eroded, but remains of two buildings were discerned in the excavations (Nicholas 1990: 34 – 36; Sumner 1997: 406). No glyptic material was uncovered in Building Level I (Nicholas 1990: 84), and so further detail of this fragmentary occupation need not be outlined here. The successive Building Level II was more extensively preserved and produced the largest TUV exposure (Nicholas 1990: 29). A “mazelike” architectural complex characterizes TUV Building Level II, with “substantial weight-bearing walls” dividing the complex into three “units” (the east, north and south-west units) (Nicholas 1990: 29). The ‘North Unit’ apparently comprised the general living quarters of the complex, including a kitchen area, as illustrated by Figure 2.21, so discerned by the presence of many pyrotechnical installations in the area (Nicholas 1990: 116). The ‘East Unit’ is described as an area of “short-term storage”, as apparently testified to by the presence of broken sealings in the area (see Figure. 2.21) (Nicholas 1990: 116). The ‘South-west Unit’ is interpreted as an area of long-term storage, as indicated by the presence of magazines or storerooms (Nicholas 1990: 116), see Figure 2.21. The accuracy of the differentiation between the storage types in the ‘East’ and ‘South-west Units’, on the basis of sealing location must be questioned, however, the general pattern of storage/administration as testified to by the sealings and floor plan can be acknowledged. The earliest TUV occupation level, Building Level III, was the best preserved of the three (Nicholas 1990: 22). The constructions had a general (though not cardinal), north-south, east-west orientation that was continued in the subsequent

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 226 Building Level II occupation (Nicholas 1990: 22). Two sub-phases of Building Level III were identified (B.L IIIA and IIIB), with the original IIIB plan slightly remodelled and added to in the following IIIA phase (Nicholas 1990: 28). The Building Level III occupation continued right up until the construction of Building Level II (Nicholas 1990: 28). Building Level III has also been divided into ‘West’ and ‘East Units’ (see Figure 2.22) (Nicholas 1990: 107), though on the basis of excavated evidence these two construction areas can be interpreted as discreet (though probably related) entities. The ‘West Unit’ is described as a storage area, due to the presence of storage devices and containers, and sealing artefacts (as demonstrated by Figure 2.22) in the area (Nicholas 1990: 107). The ‘East Unit’ is described as a “relatively ‘fancy’ area” (Nicholas 1990: 107), with the evidence for elaborate plaster wall decorations, ‘unusual’ hearths, and an activity annex that contained evidence for storage and craft production (Nicholas 1990: 107). The IIIB phase circular structure in the southern TUV occupation may have been a grain silo or oven (Nicholas 1990: 107), though the hypothetical nature of this proposal should be noted.

Figure 2.21. Plan of TUV Building Level II, indicating the provenance of glyptic material and location of hearths. Figure after Nicholas 1990: figures 17 and 32, with alterations.

The Banesh period identification of all three levels of the TUV occupation is assured by several artefact groups found in the area, specifically ceramics (Nicholas 1990: 53 – 63), metallurgy (Nicholas 1990: 68 – 69), and the glyptic and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 227 administrative material (including tablets) (Nicholas 1990: 85), discussed in further detail below. Other artefacts of interest found in TUV include chipped stone tools, stone beads and shell inlay, and evidence for their production, personal ornaments (pins and rings) and evidence for basketry (Nicholas 1990: 67 – 80).

Figure 2.22. Plan of TUV Building Level IIIA and IIIB, indicating the provenance of glyptic material and location of hearths. Installations shaded grey indicate the Phase IIIB additions to Building Level IIIA. Figure after Nicholas 1990: figures 17 and 32, with alterations.

The other major Banesh occupation of Tal-i Malyan is found in Operation ABC (see Figure 2.20.). Five Building Levels (I being the most recent uppermost Level, V the lowest, oldest) were uncovered in Operation ABC, the lower four of which (Building Levels II – V) date to the Banesh period (Level I belongs to the Kaftari period, discussed below) (Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 2003: 3 – 4). Below the Banesh remains of Building Level V virgin soil was reached (Sumner 1976: 103), indicating that this installation was the first occupation in this area of Tal-i Malyan. The mudbrick architecture of Building Level V is quite fragmentary, and few finds were discovered (Sumner 1976: 103; Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 2004: 76). Evidence for red and white coloured wall paint and a hearth were uncovered in this Level however (Sumner 1976: 103), and a domestic and craft production function has been hypothesised by the excavator (Sumner 2003: 4). No glyptic items were uncovered in

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 228 Building Level V. This Level was razed in the construction of Building Level IV (Sumner 2003: 23). Building Level IV demonstrates a ground plan similar to that of later buildings, including a number of irregular rooms, corridors and hearths (Sumner 1976: 103), as demonstrated by Figure 2.23. Building Level IV includes two phases of construction, Building Level IVB is the first phase of construction, Building Level IVA demonstrates later additions and remodelling, as illustrated on Figure 2.23. Glyptic items uncovered in Building Level IV are the earliest found in the ABC operation (Sumner 2003: 76, 82; 1997: 406). The installations (such as storage areas, painted walls and hearths), and artefacts found within Building Level IV (such as ceramics, bones, and glyptic artefacts) indicate a domestic and craft production function for the area (Sumner 1976: 103; 2003: 4).

Figure 2.23. Plan of ABC Building Level IVB and IVA, indicating the provenance of the glyptic material and the location of hearths. Areas shaded brown were discovered in Phase IVB only, areas shaded green IVA only, and area shaded purple represents both IVB and IVA remains. Grey shaded walls indicate proposed reconstructions. Figure after Sumner 1976: figure 1, with alterations.

Building Level IV was also subsequently razed to make way for the construction of Building Level III (Sumner 2003: 27). The more regular ground plan

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 229 of Building Level III extended beyond the limits of Operation ABC in all directions (Sumner 2003: 3, 27). Seventeen rooms, many with painted walls, and several hearths comprise the so-called “sumptuous” Building Level III structure (Sumner 1976: 103; Sumner 2003: 3). Again, two construction phases, Phase IIIB (the oldest), and the subsequent Phase IIIA (Sumner 2003: 27), illustrated by Figure 2.24, have been discerned. A significant amount of glyptic material was found in the Building Level III construction, and in Stratum 9, between Building Levels III and II, but assigned to Building Level III (Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 2003: 76, 107). The artefacts and structure of the Building Level III construction (including the glyptic material, storage devices, ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets) has led to a warehouse or storage area function, or perhaps more correctly, association with a storage area, proposal for Building Level III (Sumner 1976: 103; Sumner 2003: 3, 76; Potts 1999: 81). The relative dearth of finds from Building Level III (Sumner 1976: 103) makes the precise designation of the function of the construction uncertain however.

Figure 2.24. Plan of ABC Building Level IIIB and IIIA, indicating the provenance of the glyptic material and the location of hearths. Areas shaded purple indicate Phase IIIB remains only, area shaded green represents both IIIB and IIIA remains. Grey shading indicates proposed reconstructed walls. Figure after Sumner 1976: figure 2, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 230 The final Building Level in Operation ABC with Banesh remains (thus excluding the Kaftari phase Building Level I) is labelled Building Level II, and is illustrated by Figure 2.25. Building Level II was built, like the earlier levels, upon the razed foundation of the previous Building Level (III); Sumner 2003: 34). Only one construction phase has been identified for Building Level II (Sumner 2003: 34). Building Level II is described as a ‘warehouse’ (Potts 1999: 81; Sumner 2003: 3, 76), a designation assured by the thirteen (incorrectly cited as twelve in one instance [Sumner 2003: 3]) large ‘Jemdet Nasr’ type polychrome storage jars or pithoi uncovered in the remains, and the relatively large amounts of sealings (both impressed with a seal and unimpressed) found in the area (Sumner 2003: 76; Figure 2.25). The walls of Building Level II were painted (Sumner 1997: 406; 2003: 3), and other artefacts found in the area included ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets, pieces of unworked hematite, a mother-of-pearl inlay and unworked shell pieces (Sumner 1997; 406; 2003: 76).

Figure 2.25. Plan of ABC Building Level II, indicating the provenance of the glyptic material and the location of burnt areas. ‘Platform 27’ produced many glyptic items (Sumner 2003: 107). Items coloured orange indicate thirteen large storage pithoi (Sumner 2003: 76). Figure after Sumner 1976: figure 3, with alterations.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 231 Like the material from Operation TUV, the Banesh period designation of Building Levels V – II of the ABC Operation is provided by the numerous pieces of material culture, including the glyptic material (Sumner 2003: 107 – 108), discussed further below, the ceramic assemblage (Sumner 2003: 44 – 50), and ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets (Sumner 2003: 3). There have been several different proposed periodisations for the Banesh period (Potts 1999: 69), however the system adopted here is the tripartite Early, Middle and Late Banesh system of the excavator (Sumner 1986). Early Banesh corresponds to Susa II, Acropole I: 18 – 17 (or Terminal Susa II), and is not currently known from any material at Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 2003: 53; Potts 1999: 69). Middle Banesh corresponds to Susa III, Acropole I: 16 – 14a/13, or the earlier ‘Proto-Elamite’ period, and Late Banesh to Susa III/IV, Ville Royale I: 18 – 13, Acropole 14/13 – 15 (Potts 1999: 79 – 81; Sumner 2003: 53). During the Middle Banesh period Malyan reached a size of at least 45ha (Potts 1999: 81), and during the Middle and Late Banesh period some 200 hectares of the Tal-i Malyan mound was enclosed in a c.5km wall (Potts 1999: 81; Sumner 1985: 153), as illustrated by the general contours of the mound and Operation BY8 (Sumner 1985: 153; 1997: 406). Building Level V – IVB of Operation ABC and Level IIIB of TUV dates to the early Middle Banesh period (c.3300 BC) (Sumner 2003: 52 – 53). Building Levels IVA – II of Operation ABC and IIIA – II of TUV dates to the late Middle Banesh period (c.2900 BC) (Sumner 2003: 52 – 53). The Late Banesh (c.2600 BC) occupation of Tal-i Malyan is found in TUV Building Level I, the unpublished material from Operations BY8 and the lower strata of Operation GHI (Sumner 2003: 52 – 53). The occupation of Banesh Tal-i Malyan thus corresponds generally to the Susa III period, into the Susa III/IV transition, or the period previously described as ‘Proto-Elamite’.

2.2.3.1.2.2 Kaftari/Old Elamite period occupation It is unfortunate that the period of occupation that, presumably, according to the number of Kaftari sherds discovered and the number of squares in which these sherds were recognized in the 1971 surface survey of the Tal-i Malyan mound (60 squares and 1582 sherds, as opposed to 26/69 Banesh squares/sherds and 9/18 representing Qaleh; Sumner 1974: 158 – 160), is the period that has been less detailed in published material. The Kaftari period survey is thus significantly more fragmentary then the preceding and subsequent periods, and is based primarily on several preliminary

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 232 excavation report articles (Sumner 1974; 1976) and analysis papers (Sumner 1989; 1997). As well as the surface survey remains just cited, Kaftari remains were found in the uppermost level of the ABC operation (Level I; Sumner 1974: 164), four reported levels from Operation GHI (Building Levels I – IV (Sumner 1989: 138; Sumner 1997: 406; Level V of this operation contains Banesh period remains [Sumner 1997: 406]), five levels from Operation FX106 (Sumner 1997: 408), four levels from Operation BY8 (Sumner 1985: 155) and two levels in the GGX98 Operation (Sumner 1997: 408), see Figure 2.20 for locations of these operations. The limited available information regarding these levels include the description of a courtyard building in Level II of Operation GHI and an extensive trash deposit (Sumner 1997: 408), that yielded administrative and school texts, seals and sealings and a bronze buckle or torque (Sumner 1997: 408). Of the five Kaftari levels of Operation FX106, it is known that the remains in Building Level II demonstrate a domestic structure with an exterior wall, drainage ditch and paved walkway (Sumner 1997: 408). The artefacts found in this Building Level include figurines, cylinder seal blanks, stone tools and apparent by-products of metallurgical production (Sumner 1997: 408). The two Kaftari building levels of GGX98, including an intrusive Kaftari pit, produced black-on-red (that is typical Kaftari type) ceramics, “inscribed sealings”, and evidence for a production area for (sun-dried) mudbricks (Sumner 1997: 408). The Kaftari material in Operation BY8 indicates that an enclosure wall surrounded the Kaftari period settlement of Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 1985: 153). An inscribed brick found at Tal-i Malyan also testifies that the sukkalmah Siwe-palar-huppak (see above and Table 2.3 for details) constructed a temple during the Sukkalmah period somewhere on the Malyan/Anshan mound (Stolper 1982: 60; Potts 1999: 173). Above the final Banesh period Building Level of the ABC Operation (Building Level II), a 2 – 3m deep trash deposit was uncovered (Sumner 1974: 164). This deposit has been labelled Building Level I (Sumner 1974: 164), despite the apparent misnomer of a garbage deposit being labelled a ‘Building’ level. The ceramics (and glyptic materials) from this deposit enable a Kaftari period date to be proposed (Sumner 1974: 164 – 167, 170). Other Kaftari artefacts found in the ABC I trash deposit include female and animal figurines (Sumner 1974: 170 – 172), copper/bronze tools, including pins, blades and points (Sumner 1974: 172), small stone tools of obsidian and chert (Sumner 1974: 172), and heavy stone tools such as

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 233 querns and door sockets (Sumner 1974: 173), alabaster and steatite (or chlorite) vessels (Sumner 1974: 172), typical Kaftari ‘hut pots’ (Sumner 1974: 172), other pieces of clay, such as a model chariot, spindle whorls and clay billets (Sumner 1974: 173), and evidence for bead and ornament production, including worked and unworked pieces of carnelian, lapis lazuli, turquoise, quartz, Persian Gulf shells, bone and ivory (Sumner 1974: 173). The trash deposit of ABC Level I has been interpreted by the excavator as evidence for accumulation of rubbish in an area that was used for cooking and other hearth activities as well as craft production (Sumner 1974: 173). As with the Banesh period materials discussed above, the Kaftari date of the preceding material can be associated with lowland (Khuzistan) chronology, through ceramic and other material culture correlations (including cylinder seals), and the inscribed Sukkalmah period brick discussed above (Sumner 1974; 1989; Potts 1999: 151 – 156). The Kaftari period has been subdivided into three phases by the excavator (Sumner 1989: 138), though it should be noted that there is a general uniformity of material culture across the entire Kaftari span (Potts 1999: 151). The Early stage of the Kaftari period is dated c.2200 – 1900 BC (Sumner 1989; Potts 1999:151), and is thus roughly concomitant with the later Akkadian/Awan and Ur III/Shimashki periods of this study. The Middle Kaftari stage (c.1900 – 1800 BC) (Sumner 1989; Potts 1999: 152) coincides generally with the early Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah period and the Late Kaftari period (c.1800 – 1600 BC) (Sumner 1989; Potts 1999: 152) with the later part of the same. Lacking any detailed available information regarding the Kaftari material and represented operations, any further clarification of the phases represented at Tal-i Malyan is unattainable here.

2.2.3.1.2.3 Qaleh/Middle Elamite period occupation The Qaleh period (or Middle Elamite in the chronology of this study) occupation was generally concentrated in the northwestern section of the Malyan mound (Sumner 1988: 308). Primarily, this occupation was excavated in the sector labelled EDD (Potts 1999: 247 – 252; Carter 1996: 1, 5 – 16, 37 – 44; Carter & Stolper 1984: 173), see Figure 2.20. The ten 10 x 10m squares excavated in EDD revealed part of a large scale, multi-sectioned building, labelled the ‘Middle Elamite building’ (Potts 1999: 247 – 252; Carter 1996, 5 – 16, 37 – 44; Carter & Stolper 1984: 173). The proposed full reconstruction of the ‘Middle Elamite building’ is illustrated in Figure 2.26, which also indicates the actual excavated remains. It is estimated the entire building

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 234 covered an area of more then 1000m2 (Carter 1996: 49). Levels IV and III of the ‘Middle Elamite building’ are dated to the Qaleh period occupation (Carter 1996: 49). Level IVB, the earliest Qaleh building phase encountered, comprises the classic multi-roomed floor plan demonstrated in Figure 2.26 (Carter 1996: 49). This building is similar in basic layout and details of architectural decoration (such as faience or glazed wall tiles/plaques and decorative knobs) to buildings from the ‘Royal Quarter’ of Choga Zanbil (see Figure 2.8), specifically the so-called palais hypogée, albeit on a significantly reduced scale (Carter 1996: 6, 49; Potts 1999: 247 – 248).

Figure 2.26. Plan of the ‘Middle Elamite Building’ of Operation EDD, area shaded green indicates preserved excavated remains, area shaded grey indicates proposed projection of the building. Dark line indicates the limits of Operation EDD. Figure after Potts 1999: figure 7.12, with alterations.

In the subsequent Level IVA phase the building was remodelled somewhat, though without any major alteration to the ground plan (Carter 1996: 50 – 51; Carter & Stolper 1984: 173). The Level IVA building appears to have been destroyed by fire, with the subsequent Level III occupation of the building functioning as a ceramic production workshop, including four functioning kilns (Carter 1996: 50 – 51; Potts 248). The Middle Elamite date of this construction is assured by both the archaeological evidence, in the form of ceramics and other small finds which parallel those from lowland Khuzistan in the Middle Elamite period (specifically from Susa and Choga Zanbil), and C14 dates which concur with this evidence (Carter & Stolper 1984: 164, 173; Carter 1996: 15 – 16; Potts 1999: 248). The period of time in which

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 235 the EDD area was occupied appears to be quite short, as there appears to be no evidence to indicate that the site was occupied in the Middle Elamite I period (Potts 1999: 193). It is suggested that the earlier IVB level was built by Humban-numena (c. 1350 BC) or Untash-Napirisha (c. 1340 BC) (Carter 1996: 49; Potts 1999: 248). A foundation date of c.1250 – 1150 BC for Level IVA (the ‘burnt building’) is established on the basis of C14 dates, with a destruction just before c. 1100 BC (Carter 1996: 2, 16; Potts 1999: 248). Four texts found in the Level IVA building provide, somewhat fragile, evidence, in the form of oath formulae known from elsewhere, and possible reconstructions of kingly names, for association with three Middle Elamite royal personages; the Middle Elamite III king Shilhak-Inshushinak, his son, the Middle Elamite III/IV king Hutelutush-Inshushinak, and another son of Shilhak- Inshushinak, Kutir-Huban (for whom there is no concrete evidence for an actual reign) (Potts 1999: 248), discussed above (Table 2.9). This evidence would concur with the later Middle Elamite date preposed for the installation on the basis of material culture and C14 dates discussed above however. Thus, the entire Level IV occupation of the ‘Middle Elamite building’ can be given the possible maximum time span of c.1350 – 1100/1000 BC. Little chronological information regarding the subsequent Level III building phase has been given, except for the proposal that it was abandoned at some point “early in the first millennium” (Carter 1996: 47). With the above cited textual associations for the Level IV building phase with the royal personages from the time of the political disturbances at the end of the Middle Elamite III to the Middle Elamite IV period (coincident with the Nebuchadnezzar invasion detailed above), it may be hypothesised that the destruction of Level IV was a result of these disturbances, and the Level III occupation represents the terminal Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite IV; the era of the so-called Malyan/Anshan ‘survival hypothesis’) occupation at Tal-i Malyan, that like the Middle Elamite period itself, disappears into the shroud of obscurity of the early first millennium BC. The ‘Middle Elamite building’ was apparently surrounded by a complex of buildings that stood on the highest point of the Malyan mound (Carter & Stolper 1984: 173), beyond the excavations of sector EDD. However, as we currently lack any information regarding the rest of the site in this period, few conclusions in this regard can be drawn, and such a reconstruction remains hypothetical. The plan of the excavated building suggests that the area had many functions (Carter 1996: 14). One

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 236 of these functions appears to have been religious, as attested to by the presence of faience knobs and tiles associated in the lowlands (that is Choga Zanbil) with religious buildings, and a large room with a niche in the back wall (Carter 1996: 15). There is some dispute as to whether this area was a temple (perhaps the temple constructed by Hutelutush-Inshushinak known from texts) or a palace (Carter 1996: 15), however the clear monumentality, or at least high status, of the area cannot be disputed (Potts 1999: 248). In the Level IV building some two hundred and forty-six fragmentary and whole administrative tablets (four of which have already been cited) were found (Carter & Stolper 1984: 42; Potts 1999: 248). These detail the transfer of gold, silver, copper, tin and, to a lesser degree, hides and foodstuffs (Carter & Stoper 1984: 42; Potts 1999: 248), and are thought to date to the reign of Hutelutush-Inshushinak (Carter & Stolper 1984: 42). This suggests that the area may have functioned as an entrepot or workshop (Potts 1999: 248 – 252). Such installations, however, are known to be associated with public or monumental institutions (religious and royal), and thus a workshop function could provide further evidence for such an identification for the Level IV ‘Middle Elamite building’. Until the entirety of the architectural complex partially represented by the ‘Middle Elamite building’ is uncovered (see Figure 2.26), and indeed, further evidence for the period as a whole is unearthed at Tal-i Malyan, the precise function of this installation must remain unknown. Another important facet to the function of Tal-i Malyan in the Middle Elamite period is its role as titulary co-capital (Carter 1996: 1; Potts 1999: 191, 247 – 252). This function rests on the identification of Malyan with ancient Anshan, which is fairly certain. However, archaeologically speaking, the site is a less than impressive capital and appears more aptly described as an outpost on the edge of an Empire (Carter 1996: 1, 5 – 16, 49 – 51; Carter & Stolper 1984: 180). Indeed, for at least the first century of the Middle Elamite period, the site of Malyan appears not to have been occupied at all (Potts 1999: 247 – 248). Several hypotheses can be forwarded to reconcile the archaeological reality of Malyan with the expectations of a co-capital of an empire. The first is that the identification of Malyan with Anshan is false. This however is not likely as the epigraphic evidence is fairly conclusive, and generally universally accepted. The second possibility is that the more impressive installations of this highland capital have yet to be uncovered on the Malyan mound. This is possible, and only further

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 237 excavation and increased knowledge of Malyan will vindicate or disprove this theory. A third theory is that ‘Anshan’ referred to both a city and an area, and the kings of the Middle Elamite period claimed sovereignty over this area in their titulature, and did not intended to imply that Malyan was a capital city. A final explanation is that the title ‘king of Susa and Anshan’ was merely a rhetorical device, a title synonymous with ‘king of Elam’, that merely proved and justified the current kingship by linking it with the glories of past Empires and cities. A Mesopotamian parallel can be found in the title ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’. In this option the Middle Elamite ‘push’ into the highlands represented by the foundation of the Middle Elamite building may be seen as a conscious effort by the Middle Elamite monarchs to rectify this situation and make their titularly co-capital at least a local centre. As an aside, this discussion should be a warning, showing that archaeological reality should not be based upon the rhetoric of kings. In this regard we should perhaps not always look to make Susa a capital also, if the archaeological evidence is lacking, for example in the early Middle Elamite period when Haft Tepe/Kabnak appeared to flourish, possibly at Susa’s expanse (see above for details). In summary, Tal-i Malyan demonstrates three periods of occupation, the Banesh period occupation, generally coincident with the Susa III and earliest Susa IV periods of this study, the Kaftari period, contemporaneous with the late Akkadian/Awan, Ur III/Shimashki and Sukkalmah periods in the current scheme, and the Qaleh period occupation, generally associated, in terms of the Tal-i Malyan occupation, to the Middle Elamite II – IV periods of this study. The Banesh occupation is represented primarily in Operations TUV and ABC, and to a lesser extent BY8 and GHI. The Kaftari period at Tal-i Malyan is known from the upper levels of Operations ABC and BY8, and in several levels of the GHI, FX106 and GGX98 Operations, though little published material from this period has presently been forthcoming. Finally, the Qaleh period occupation is known primarily from the EDD Operation. As demonstrated by Figure 2.20, these operations represent a relatively small portion of the Tal-i Malyan mound, with further investigation, it is anticipated that our knowledge of Tal-i Malyan would substantially increase. The function of Tal-i Malyan/Anshan appears to have fluctuated and changed across the period of its occupation, though due to the fragmentary evidence from Tal-i Malyan just evidenced, such a reconstruction is essentially hypothetical and limited. Evidence for craft production and mechanisms of control can be seen in the TUV and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 238 ABC Banesh (Susa III) occupations of Tal-i Malyan. A certain degree of monumentality, particularly in ABC, can perhaps indicate centralisation and structure hierarchy in this period (Carter & Stolper 1984: 123 – 124). The presence of inscribed bricks and tablets that name several Elamite monarchs, particularly the sukkalmah Siwe-palar-huppak from the Kaftari period occupation and the Shutrukids Shilhak- Inshushinak and Hutelutush-Inshushinak in the ‘Middle Elamite Building’ of EDD IV, and indeed the standard titulature of the Middle Elamite kings, indicates that Malyan had a royal or capital function to some degree, or perhaps in the case of Siwe- palar-huppak, only evidence for royal patronage. The precise function of this royal/capital status is unknown, though the evidence from Tal-i Malyan, albeit in the current fragmentary and unarticulated manner presently available, does not seem to imply or concur with the expected remains of a capital city of an Empire. Again, until further, more extensive, operations at Tal-i Malyan are undertaken, and indeed presented/published, the inconsistency between the royal title and archaeological remains of Anshan will remain unclear.

2.2.3.1.3 Glyptic Material Like all the material excavated at Tal-i Malyan, as testified to by the preceding survey, the glyptic material from the site has been published in a somewhat disjointed, or at least inconsistent manner. Eight separate publications (Nicholas 1990; Sumner 1974; 1976; 2003; Carter 1996; Pittman 1997; Amiet 1980a; Carter & Stolper 1984) have included glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan, some repeated several times (see the Concordance associated with the Catalogue for exact details). As demonstrated by Table 2.29, sixty-three separate glyptic items provenanced from Tal-i Malyan have been included in the Corpus. It should be noted that the published Tal-i Malyan glyptic corpus as included here, is by no means the sum of the excavated glyptic items from the site. All three of the Tal-i Malyan monographs, those that detail the ABC, TUV and EDD Operations, provide direct statements for the existence of glyptic items (both seals and sealings), beyond that which has been published (Nicholas 1990: 84 – 85; Carter 1996: 11, 35 – 36; Sumner 2003: 107, Appendix A). Similarly, no glyptic material, directly cited as provenanced from Operations GHI, FX106 and GGX98 has been published (the three glyptic items included in the Corpus from unknown sources are assumed to have been sourced from one or other of these operations, though this is purely hypothetical), despite the fact that it is stated by the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 239 excavator that glyptic material was discovered in these three operations (Sumner 1997: 408). A precise count of the glyptic items uncovered from Tal-i Malyan, including the unpublished material, is never explicitly stated however. An attempt to discern such information from the published catalogues and registers of finds (as included in Sumner 2003 and Carter 1996) is difficult and problematic as the material contained in these surveys are inconsistent and confusing. An example of the difficulty of such a study can be provided by the Find Register of the ABC material included in the Sumner publication (2003: Appendix A). The main problem with this material is the same, common problem of glyptic literature encountered before, the conflation of the two classification items, simple non-sealed clay ‘sealings’ and the seal-impressed sealings as defined here, under the one, undefined term ‘sealing’ (Sumner 2003: 80 – 82). Thus in the Appendix Register, the seal impressed and non-seal impressed sealings are classified under the same ‘Find/Type Code’ (Sumner 2003: 120). While in some instances these items are noted as ‘impressed’ (for example item mf1973 in Sumner 2003: Appendix A), and others as ‘not impressed’ (e.g. mf1639.2), for the majority of the materials classified as ‘sealings’ no such designation is provided, meaning that it is unclear if these items were impressed or not, in turn meaning that their inclusion or exclusion in a count of ‘sealed’ (with an actual seal) materials uncertain. Thus, on the basis of the current, available material, the actual number of glyptic materials found at Tal-i Malyan cannot be discerned. As a primary criteria for inclusion in the current study is availability in a publication, due to the structure of this study (as discussed further below, Chapter 3), only the published Tal-i Malyan material has been included in the Corpus. The presence of a significantly larger set of glyptic items from Tal-i Malyan should be taken into account however in any discussion of the relative size and distribution of the Tal-i Malyan corpus. On the basis of the current available (published) material, the sixty-three glyptic items of the Tal-i Malyan corpus is the sixth largest of the site corpora. The corpus includes eighteen cylinder seals, and forty-five sealed items. The Tal-i Malyan corpus includes seventeen glyptic items uncovered in Operation EDD, seventeen from Operation TUV, twenty-six from the ABC Operation (including both Banesh and Kaftari materials), and three items from an unknown (that is, not detailed) area, as demonstrated by Table 2.29. It can be hypothesised, however, on the basis of the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 240 stylistic classifications of the unknown origin seals (especially 2489, 2608, both classified as Popular Elamite Ur III/Shimashki Style, see Chapters 4 and 5 for details) that these items were provenanced from one of the Kaftari deposits discussed above that have not been published in detail. The general administrative/control function of the sealings from Tal-i Malyan is, as with most, if not all, sealings, generally assured. The cylinder seals of the Malyan corpus were generally found in fill or trash deposits (Sumner 1974), and so little direct evidence for cylinder seal function is found, though on the basis of their disposal and the significant amount of sealing from the site, a general administrative/control function can be assumed. A single seal from Operation EDD (3277), was found in a late Middle Elamite IV to first millennium (but pre-Achaemenid) grave (Carter 1996: 47), thus assigning a funerary function to this item.

Seal Provenance Current Type Seal Provenance Current Type Class. Class. 171 EDD; STS (7) clay tag 1108 ABC; CPE (9) sealings BL IVA sealing BL IIIA 362 EDD; STS (15) jar sealing 1109 ABC; CPE (9) sealing BL IIA Stratum 9 551 TUV; JNRS (1) cylinder 1110 ABC; CPE (9) sealing BL II Stratum 9 834 ABC; CPE (1) jar sealing 1111 ABC CPE (9) sealing Stratum 9 1112 ABC; CPE (9) sealing 948 EDD; CPE (3) clay tag Stratum 9 BL IIA sealing 1113 TUV; CPE (9) sealing 949 ABC; CPE (3) cylinder BL III BL IVA 1114 TUV; CPE (9) sealing 950 ABC; CPE (3) white plaster BL III BL IVA sealing 1115 TUV; CPE (9) sealing 951 ABC; CPE (3) sealed tablet BL III BL IIIB 1309 TUV; GS (5) sealing 952 ABC; CPE (3) sealing BL IIIB BL IIIA 1310 TUV; GS (5) sealing 953 ABC CPE (3) sealing IIIB 954 ABC; CPE (3) sealing 1311 TUV; GS (5) sealing Stratum 9 BL III 955 ABC; CPE (3) sealing 1312 TUV; GS (5) sealing BL II BL II 956 TUV; CPE (3) cylinder 1366 TUV; GS (6) sealing BL II BL III 1000 ABC; CPE (4) sealing 1367 TUV; GS (6) sealing BL II BL III 1009 EDD; CPE (6) jar sealing 1368 TUV; GS (6) sealing BL IIA BL III 1026 TUV; CPE (7) sealing 1470 TUV; AGD (6) sealing BL II BL II 1074 ABC; CPE (8) jar sealings 1535 TUV; AGD (11) sealing Stratum 9 BL IIIA 1075 ABC; CPE (8) sealing 1536 TUV AGD (11) cylinder BL II 1537 TUV AGD (11) cylinder

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 241 Seal Provenance Current Type Seal Provenance Current Type Class. Class. 1680 ABC; AGD (15) jar sealings 3191 EDD; AS (1) clay tag BL IIIA BL IIA sealing 2282 ABC; PEA (1) cylinder 3192 EDD; AS (1) clay tag BL I BL IIA sealing 2283 ABC; PEA (1) cylinder 3193 EDD; AS (2) jar sealing BL I BL IVA 2318 ABC; PEA (6) cylinder 3194 EDD; AS (2) door lock BL I BL IVA sealing 2319 ABC; PEA (6) cylinder 3195 EDD; AS (2) door lock BL I BL IVA sealing 2489 – PEU (1) sealing? 3196 EDD; AS (2) door lock 2559 ABC; PEU (4) cylinder BL IVA sealing BL I 3197 EDD; AS (2) sealed tablet 2570 ABC; PEU (5) cylinder BL IVA BL I 3198 EDD; AS (2) sealed tablet 2597 ABC; PEU (6) cylinder BL IVA BL I 3199 EDD; AS (2) door lock 2607 ABC; PEU (7) cylinder BL IIIB sealing BL I 3276 EDD; LPS (3) cylinder 2608 – PEU (7) sealing BL IVA 2622 ABC; PEU (8) cylinder 3277 EDD; LPS (3) cylinder BL I BL II; burial 3188 EDD; LME (9) cylinder 47 BL IIA 3570 – Unclass. cylinder 3190 EDD; AS (1) clay tag BL IVA sealing Table 2.29. Survey of the glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan (Anshan).

2.3 Summation The preceding surveys of both the historical/chronological and specific site archaeological developments of the relevant ‘Elamite’ sites that produced glyptic material is intended to act as an introduction to the history and archaeology of the period and region under discussion here, and to provide a background for the articulation of the glyptic styles from these sites (Chapters 4 and 5) and for future discussions regarding the function of glyptic material in Elam (Chapter 6) and Mesopotamian-Elamite interactions, as characterised and revealed in the glyptic material (Chapter 7). The, at times unwieldy, reconstruction thus produced, can be summarised in several tables here presented, for ease of reference and clarity of intention. Table 2.30 provides a graphical representation of the Elamite Dynasties and the associated, contemporary Mesopotamian Dynasties, with special indication of historical ties or evidences of interactions between Elam and Mesopotamia. This table therefore summarises the many interactions between these two neighbouring regions as presented in Chapter 2.1, and thus provides a foundation for the later discussion of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 242 this pattern of interaction, and the evidence of the so-called ‘Dated Seals’ (that is, seals that bear the name of a king or other known, historical personage that can, through this, be ‘dated’). Tables 2.31 – 2.33 provide summaries of the archaeological and chronological information just presented. The relevant periods of occupation at each site are thus contained with reference to others in this study, according to the chronological paradigm here adopted. Finally, Table 2.34 summaries the data here presented, in reference to Mesopotamian chronological periods, sites represented (that is, containing relevant glyptic material) and an included description of important facets of each period.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 243 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Akkadian Dynasty Kings of Awan Other ‘Elamite’ Officials Pi-e-li Ta-a-ar Uk-ku-ta-hi-eš Hi-i-šu-ur Sargon Sanam-shimut1 2334 – 2279 Nap-pi-il-hu-eš Ulul Ki-ik-ki-si-me-te-em-ti Hishep-ratep2 Sidga’u

Luh-ishan3 Abalgamash Rimush Hi-e-lu 2278 – 2270 Emashisin Manishtushu Shar-GA-PI 2269 – 2255 Eshpum4 Naram-Sin Hi-ta-a 2254 – 2218 Shar-kali-sharri Epirmupi5 2217 – 2193

Igigi Ilish-mani 2192 – 2190 Nanijum

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 244 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Akkadian Dynasty Kings of Awan Dudu 2189 – 2169

Shu-Turul

Ur III Dynasty Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Kings of Isin Shimashki

Ur-Nammu 2112 – 2095 Puzur-Inshushinak6

Shulgi 2094 – 2047

Girnamme7 8 Amar-Sin 2046 – 2038

Tazitta9 10 Shu-Sin 2037 – 2029

Ebarti I11 12 13

Tazitta II

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 245 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Ur III Dynasty Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Kings of Shimashkian Contemporaries Isin Shimashki Ibbi-Sin 2028 – 2004 Naplanum Lu-[(x)-r]a-ak-lu-uh-ha-an 2025 – 2005 Kindattu14 15 Ishbi-Erra 2017 – 1985 Imazu Emisum 2004 – 1977 Idaddu I Sukkalmah Dynasty Shu-ilishu 1984 – 1975

Tan-Ruhurater I16 1976 – 1942 Iddin-Dagan 1974 – 1954

Ebarti II

Ishme-Dagan 1953 – 1935 Zabaja Idaddu II 1941 – 1933

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 246 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam First Dynasty of Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Kings of Sukkalmah Dynasty Babylon Isin Shimashki Lipit-Ishtar 1934 – 1924 Gungunum 1932 – 1906 Ur-Ninurta 1923 – 1896 Idaddu-napir17 Abisare 1905 – 1895 Bur-Sin Idaddu-temti 1895 – 1874 Sumuabum Sumuel Shilhaha18 1894 – 1881 1894 – 1866 Sumulael Pal-ishshan Lankuku 1880 – 1845 Lipit-Enlil 1873 – 1869 Erra-imitti Kuk-Kirmash 1868 – 1861 Nur-Adad Tem-sunit 1865 – 1850 Enlil-bani Kuk-Nahundi 1860 – 1837 Sin-iddinam Kuk-Nashur I19 1849 – 1843 Atta-hushu20 21 1844 – 1831

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 247 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam First Dynasty of Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Sukkalmah Dynasty Babylon Isin Sin-eribam 1842 – 1841

Sin-iqisham 1840 – 1836 Zambiya Tetep-mada 1836 – 1834 Silli-Adad 1835 Warad-Sin Shiruk-tuh22 23 1834 – 1823 Iter-pisha 1833 – 1831 Apil-Sin Urdukuga 1830 – 1813 1830 – 1828 Sin-magir 1827 – 1817 Rim-Sin I 1822 – 1763 Rim-Sin II Damiq-ilishu Simut-wartash I 1816 – 1794 Shamshi-Adad 1813 – 1781 Sin-muballit 1812 – 1793

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 248 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam First Dynasty of Mari First Dynasty of Sukkalmah Dynasty Babylon the Sealand Hammurabi 1792 – 1750 Zimri-Lim Siwe-palar-huppak24 1776 – 1761 Ishme-Dagan I

Ashur-dugul Kudu-zulush25 26 I

5 kings Kutir-Nahhunte

Belu-bani Kassite

Libbaya Gandash Atta-merra-halki

Tata Lila-irtash Samsuiluna Iluma-AN 1749 – 1712 Shamshi-Adad I Agum I Temti-Agun

3 kings

Abi-eshuh Kashtiliashu I Kutir-Silhaha 1711 – 1684 3 kings

Ammiditana Damiq-ilishu 1683 – 1647

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 249 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam First Dynasty of Kassite First Dynasty of Sukkalmah Dynasty Babylon the Sealand Shamshi-Adad II Kuk-Nashur27 II

Ishme-Dagan II Temti-raptash

Ammisaduqa 6 kings 1646 – 1626 Shamshi-Adad III

Samsuditana 7 kings Kudu-zulush II 1625 – 1595 Ashur-nirari I Burna-Buriash I Shirtuh

Puzur-Ashur III Kashtiliashu III? Ea-gamil Tan-Uli

Ulam-Buriash Agum(-kakrime?) Temti-halki Enlil-nasir I (Hurduzum)

Nur-ili (Shiptaulzi) Kuk-Nashur III

Kidinuids Ashur-shaduni

Ashur-shaduni

Ashur-rabi I Kidinu Ashur-nadin-ahhe I Kara-indash

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 250 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Kassite First Dynasty of Kidinuids the Sealand Ashur-nadin-ahhe I Kara-indash Enlil-nasir II Tan-Ruhuratir II Ashur-nirari II

Ashur--nisheshu Shalla Ashur-re’im- nisheshu Ashur-nadin-ahhe Kadashman-Harbe I II

Tepti-ahar28 29 Inshushinak-shar-ilani Kurigalzu I Hurbatila30 Igihalkids Igi-halki31 Eriba-Adad I Pahir-ishshan32 Attar-kittah Kadashman-Enlil I Unpahash-Napirisha ? – 1360 Ashur-uballit I Kidin-Hutran I Burna-Buriash II 1359 – 1333 Humban-numena

Untash-Napirisha33

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 251 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Kassite Igihalkids Kara-hardash 1333

Nazi-Bugash 1333 Kurigalzu II 1332 – 1308 Enlil-nirari

Arik--ili Nazi-Maruttash 1307 – 1282 Adad-nirari I Kidin-Hutran II

Kadashman-Turgu 1281 – 1264

Napirisha-Untash Shalmaneser I Kadashman-Enlil II 1263 – 1255

Kudur-Enlil 1254 – 1246

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 252 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Kassite Igihalkids Tukulti-Ninurta I Shagarakti-Shuriash Kidin-Hutran34 35 III 1245 – 1233 Kashtiliashu IV 1232 – 1225 Enlil-nadin-shumi Shutrukids 1224 Kadashman-Harbe II Hallutush-Inshushinak 1223 Adad-shuma-iddina 1222 – 1217 Ashur-nadin-apli Adad-shuma-usur 1216 – 1187 Ashur-nirari III Enlil-kudurri-usur Shutruk-Nahhunte36 37 Ninurta-apil- Meli-Shipak 1186 – 1172 Marduk-apla-iddina I 1171 – 1159 Marduk-kabit- ahheshu

Zababa-shuma-iddina 1158

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 253 Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings Assyria Babylonia Elam Kassite Second Dynasty of Shutrukids Isin Kutir-Nahhunte38

Ashur-dan I Shilhak-Inshushinak39

Enlil-nadin-ahi 1157 – 1155 Iter-Marduk-balatu

Ninurta-tukulti- Ashur

Mutakkil-Nusku

Ashur-resha-ishi I

Ninurta-nadin- shumi

Nebuchadnezzar I

Hutelutush-Inshushinak40 Tiglath-pileser I

Table 2.30. ‘Elamite’ and Mesopotamian dynastic interactions. The blue broken line indicates a generally accepted Mesopotamian-Elamite synchronism, that coloured yellow an uncertain, doubtful or unproven synchronism and red indicates a synchronism that is now rejected as longer fitting. The green broken line indicates the secondary synchronism of Tan-Ruhurater and Shu-ilishu, that is proposed on the basis that both kings are associated with Bilalama of Eshnunna.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 254 Key 21 Secure or generally Carter & Stolper 1984: 26 │ Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 1996b: 310 – 311; Vallat 1994 accepted synchronism 22Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 1996b: 313 – 314 Uncertain, doubtful or 23Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999: 168; Gasche et al 1998; Læssøe 1965; unproven synchronism Vallat 1994 Unlikely, false or not 24Carter & Stolper 1984: 26, 29; Potts 1999: 169 – 171; Gasche et al 1998; accepted synchronism Durand 1986: 111 – 115; Vallat 2000 25Carter & Stolper 1984: 26, 29 Secondary synchronism 26Gasche et al 1998; Durand 1986: 121 27Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999: 171; Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994 28 1Carter & Stolper 1984: 11; Potts 1999: 102 Cole & De Meyer 1999; Gassan 1989 29 2Carter & Stolper 1984: 11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102 Carter & Stolper 1984: 34; Potts 1999: 192 – 193. 30 3Carter & Stolper 1984:11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102 Carter & Stolper 1984: 35 31 4Carter & Stolper 1984: 13; Potts 1999: 106 Vallat 2000 32 5Carter & Stolper 1984: 14; Potts 1999: 107 Potts 1999: 211; Gasche et al 1998; Van Dijk 1986; Steve and Vallat 1989; 6Potts 1999: 122; Wilcke 1987: 108 – 111; Gasche et al 1998 Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004 33 7Steinkeller 1988, 201 – 202; Gasche et al 1998 Potts 1999: 212; Gasche et al 1998; Van Dijk 1986; Steve & Vallat 1989; Vallat 8Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no. 7 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004 34 9Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Keiser 1971: 477 Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000; 10Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no.7 Carter & Stolper 1984 35 11Gasche et al 1998 Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000; 12Carter & Stolper 1984: 20 Carter & Stolper 1984 36 13Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no.7 Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 1994; 14Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Potts 1999: 142 Goldberg 2004 37 15Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Potts 1999: 142 │ Carter & Stolper 1984: 22; Potts Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al 1998; Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989; 1999: 145; Gasche et al 1998; Van Dijk 1978 Carter & Stolper 1984 38 16Carter & Stolper 1984: 22 – 23; Potts 1999: 146; Gasche et al 1998; Scheil Potts 1999: 237; Gasche et al 1998: Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989: 1900: 80, pl.15: 6; Scheil 1902: 9, pl.1: 6 228; Carter & Stolper 1984 39 17Potts 1999: 146 Cameron 1936, 119; Gasche et al 1998 40 18Carter & Stolper 1984: 26 Cameron 1936, 119; Gasche et al 1998 19Vallat 1994 20Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 1996b: 310 – 311

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 255 Khuzistan Susa Chogha Mish HaftChoga Tepe Deh-i Tepe Zanbil Sharafabad Now Susa II II – Acropole I: 22 – 17 Acropole II: 6 – 1 ‘Protoliterate’ Middle and Late Apadana (3700 – 3200) Late Uruk Uruk? break (?) Susa III III – Acropole 1: 16 – 13 Ville Royale I: 18 – 13 Susa IV break (?) IVA – (c.2600 – 2400) Apadana Acropole Donjon Ville Royale I: 12 – 9A IVB – Akkadian & (c.2400 – 2100) Awan Apadana? Acropole: 1 – 2 Ville Royale I: 8 – 7 Ur III & Ville Royale: Chantier B, ? Shimashki 7 – 6 Sukkalmah Ville Royale: Chantier A, 15 – 12 Chantier B, 5 Apadana ‘3rd phase’ ‘Old Elamite’ Ville Royale: Complexe Est, A 12 – A 11 Middle Ville Elamite I Royale: East ‘Elamite’ Comp. A11 ? (c.1700 – Ville Royale 1400) A: 11 Ville Royale Ville II: 12 – 13 Middle Royale I: Major A11 Elamite II period of Acropole patronage Surface pit finds

Middle Ville Royale Elamite III A: 10 – 9 Middle Elamite IV ?

Table 2.31. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Khuzistan province according to the chronological scheme of this study.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 256 Luristan

Surkh Dum-i-Luri Kamtarlan Chigha Sabz Bani Surmah Kalleh Nisar Susa II I (c.5000 – 3250)

Susa III

Kamtarlan I; Susa IV Level I (c.3000 – 2750)

funerary Kamtarlan I; II – funerary evidence Level II funerary evidence Kamtarlan II; evidence (c.2600 – Level I 2300) (c.2600 – 2300) Akkadian & Awan

Area AII Ur III & only Shimashki III – Sukkalmah funerary and Kamtarlan II; architectural Level I evidence Area AI (c.2000 – 1600) (c.2000 – only, re-use 1600) IV – primarily Middle Elamite I funerary (well also) Middle Elamite II evidence (c.1600 – 1200) Middle Elamite III Level 3B V – funerary (c.1350 – c.900) evidence (c.1200 – Middle Elamite 1000) IV Table 2.32. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Luristan province according to the chronological scheme of this study.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 257 Luristan Fars Godin Tepe Tepe Tepe Giyan Chogha Tal-i Malyan Djamshidi Gavaneh Susa II Godin VII (c.3700 – 3400) Godin VI (c.3400 – 3100)

[Godin V (c.3200 – 31/3000BC)] Susa III Godin VI Middle Banesh Godin IV (c.2900) (c.3000 – 2600) TUV – BL III – II Giyan IV ABC – BL V – II (c.3000 – Susa IV 2700) Late Banesh (c.2600) TUV – BL I Funerary BY8 evidence GHI – lower Godin III: 6 (c.2600 – 2400) Godin III: 5 Akkadian & Awan (c.2400 – 2250) Later Giyan Early Kaftari break IV/Giyan III (c.2200 – 1900) Ur III & Godin III: 4 (c.2700 – ABC – BL I* Shimashki (c.2100 – 1950) 1800) GHI* Sukkalmah Middle Kaftari (c.1900 – 1800) BY8* Godin III: 2 B15 Archive (c.1950 – 1600) Late Kaftari Giyan II – (c.1800 – 1600) funerary FX106* evidence GGX98* Godin III: 1 (c.1800 – (c.1600 – 1500) 1400) Middle Elamite I Middle Elamite II Giyan I – funerary Qaleh evidence Middle Elamite III EDD – BL IV (c.1400 – (c.1350 – 1100) 1100) Middle Elamite IV Qaleh EDD – BL III Table 2.33. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Luristan province (cont.) and Tal-i Malyan (Fars) according to the chronological scheme of this study. *It should be noted that the specific, intra-site divisions of the Kaftari material are not accurate. That is there is currently no available evidence to discern whether the ABC, GHI, etc, Kaftari remains accord to either one or all of the Early, Middle and Late Kaftari phases. There position here is just according to restraints of data presentation.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 258 Period Date (BC) Mesopotamia Description Sites Susa II c.3800 – 3100 Uruk Uruk World System/ Susa Uruk Expansion; Mish early Early Banesh phase Sharafabad (Malyan); Deh-i Now (?) ‘proto-cuneiform’ texts Sabz Godin Djamshidi Susa III c. 3100 – 2900 Jemdet Nasr – ‘Proto-Elamite texts’; Susa Early Dynastic ‘Susa III Expansion’; Kamtarlan I I later Early and Middle Kalleh Banesh (Malyan) Godin Djamshidi Giyan Malyan Susa IV c. 2900 – 2330 Early Dynastic Early Dynastic Susa Mesopotamia interactions Kamtarlan with Susa, Elam, Awan Sabz and other ‘Iranian’ Bani entities; Kalleh first certain historical Godin reference to ‘Elam’; Late Djamshidi Banesh (Malyan) Giyan Akkadian c.2330 – 2100 Akkadian and Akkadian Empire; Susa and Awan Post-Akkadian Akkadian annexation of Bani (‘Guti’) Susa and surrounds, Kalleh interaction with other Godin ‘Elamite’ areas (Malyan); Malyan Awanite ‘Dynasty’ associated with Puzur- Inshushinak; Linear Elamite texts; Early Kaftari (Malyan) Ur III and c.2100 – 1940 Neo-Sumerian Ur III Empire, control of Susa Shimashki Susa, vassalage of Kamtarlan II Anshan (?), Sabz Mesopotamian raids; Kalleh effected fall of Ur III Godin Empire; Shimashkian Djamshidi ‘Dynasty’ and Giyan ‘Kingdom’; Early and Malyan Middle Kaftari (Malyan) Sukkalmah c.1930 – 1600 Old Babylonian Gungunnum of Larsa Susa (including Isin- interregnum at Susa (?); Mish Larsa) impendence of Haft (?) Sukkalmah state Sharafabad (Empire?); interactions Kamtarlan II with Babylon, Mari, Sabz Assyrian, Larsa, Isin; Kalleh powerful Elamite entity Godin Middle and Late Kaftari Djamshidi (Malyan) Giyan Gavaneh Malyan

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 259 Period Date (BC) Mesopotamia Description Sites Middle c.1500 – 1400 late Old ‘Kidinuid’ dynasty; Susa Elamite I Babylonian – fragmented, rival Haft Kassite kingdoms (?) Sharafabad Sabz Godin Giyan Middle c.1400 – 1200 Kassite ‘Igihalkid’ dynasty; Susa Elamite II Kassite intermarriage; Haft (?) foundation of Choga Zanbil Zanbil; Elamite apogée; Deh-i Now Qaleh period (Malyan) Surkh Dum Sabz Giyan Malyan Middle c.1200 – 1100 Kassite ‘Shutrukid’ dynasty; Susa Elamite III Kassite intermarriage and Zanbil ultimate destruction of Deh-i Now Kassite dynasty Surkh Dum precipitated by Elamites; Sabz Elamite apogee; Qaleh Giyan period (Malyan) Malyan Middle c.1100 – 1000 Kassite – later ‘Shutrukid’ dynasty; Susa Elamite IV Sealand defeat (conquest?) of Zanbil (?) Dynasty (early Elam by Nebuchadnezzar Surkh Dum Neo- I; ‘survival hypothesis’ at Sabz Babylonian) Malyan; Qaleh period Giyan (Malyan) Malyan Table 2.34. Survey and summary of the chronological scheme here adopted.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 260 Chapter 3 – Construction of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Styles Paradigm – the Methodology As already outlined above (Chapter 1.1.5), the current study was undertaken within an archaeological, rather than, as is traditional in past glyptic studies, an art historical frame of reference. In this regard, the general regional, and specific intra-site provenance of a glyptic item, its material (and what this can reveal regarding ancient techniques of production, technology, and trade routes and patterns) and its function (and thus evidence for the reconstruction of the control/administrative structures of a given society and, in the current case, the less concrete, more ethereal, though no less significant symbolic function of glyptic material [that is, the funerary and the votive aspects]) is of paramount importance. In order to achieve an accurate and functional data set from which to discuss and analyse these problems and questions, a complete, thorough and articulated stylistic paradigm must be in place. This is not to again place the emphasis on the image as a piece of art to be admired and treasured as such, but rather the style (and the stylistic development) is discussed as to what it can tell us regarding the chronological and geographical positioning of the items. In other words, the style and stylistic development is employed to create a functioning typology of, in this case, Elamite cylinder seals. Through this typology important archaeological questions, such as glyptic function (and thus the structure and control mechanisms of a society), and patterns of cultural and political interactions with a neighbouring power (in this case specifically southern Mesopotamia; and thus the ethnic/cultural constitution of Elamite society, and the degree to which archaeological evidence supports or contradicts contemporaneous textual sources) can be addressed. The focus of the current work, as already outlined, are the Elamite cylinder seals, from c.3500 – 1000 BC. Despite the fact that there is as yet no such functioning stylistic paradigm or typology for Elamite cylinder seals, these objects have been used in the past to provide evidence for glyptic function and patterns of interactions (see Chapter 1). The use of such material without a qualifying and articulated stylistic/typological framework is imprudent to say the least, and may provide proofs and evidences for phenomena that, upon closer, more rigorous, inspection may indeed be false. In short, to use these unarticulated, intuitive stylistic developments is to employ circumstantial, rather than substantive, articulated, tested evidence as a basis for such reconstructions. The current study’s primary aim has therefore been to produce such an articulated, tested stylistic (and therefore chronological) paradigm or

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 261 typology, from whence such theories and patterns may be analysed, and further such hypotheses formulated. The result of this formulated stylistic development is presented in Chapter 4 (and with reference to specific site distribution in Chapter 5), and further such problems tested in Chapters 6 (function) and 7 (cultural interaction). The current chapter will provide an outline of the methodology used to create this paradigm, as a further indication of the desire of the current work to provide a useable, working, but tested and examined cylinder seal typology. Except for the so-called ‘Tehran Sealings’ already mentioned and detailed further below (Chapter 3.6), all the material in the Corpus was sourced from published works. This reliance on published material was both by design and circumstance. As just outlined, a primary motivation for the commencement of this study was a desire to rectify the situation whereby the previously published, but inadequately studied and analysed material had been used to reconstruct various cultural phenomena, by thoroughly studying and detailing this material. It therefore seemed appropriate to limit this study to the previously published material, so as to provide corrections to this, already available, material. In this way it is anticipated that the current study (and particularly the stylistic paradigm section) could act as a kind of supplement, expanded primer, a correction, to the already available published material. Thus it is hoped that, for instance, both the Haft Tepe site report (Negahban 1991) and the proposed stylistic classification (placed within the wider Elamite framework) here detailed for the Haft Tepe glyptic material could be used in unison to further academic scholarship and proposed reconstructions. Furthermore, the excavated items under discussion here are currently housed in numerous museums around the world (including the Tehran Archaeological Museum, the Louvre, and various American university museums, such as the University Museum [the University of Pennsylvania] and the Oriental Institute [Chicago]), as well as site museums and collection storage areas within Iran (for example the Susa Museum/Chateau and the Haft Tepe site museum), where varying degrees of access and availability to the current author reigned. Some of this material is currently awaiting ultimate publication and study by those who (rightly) claim precedence to such analysis (the excavators and possessors; for example the Tal-i Malyan material [Sumner 2003: i]). Thus, with such considerations of intellectual property, and institutional politics, it is doubtful that full and equal access to the thus curated pieces would have been available across the Corpus. Thus, rather than create

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 262 an unequal level of study, with some material sourced only from published reports, others subjected to a new physical study, and thus perpetuate the already uneven levels of analysis and information available for the various pieces (as outlined above and below; for there was no guarantee that the material most in need of such reanalysis would be that to which access would be achieved), it was deemed appropriate to study all the items from the same starting point (that is the published reports), and thus have a unified, albeit in some ways less agreeable, data set. Certainly, in some instances, where important information (such as dimensions or seal material) is lacking from the primary publications, access to the actual items in question would have been useful. However, for the most part the problems with the available data are those that any amount of physical/visual study could rectify, and that arose long before the publication, namely the lack of adequate intra-site provenance or site-area functioning, problems that were caused by poor techniques of excavation and recording, rather than glyptic publication. Other, certainly less academic, but none the less real, considerations (monetary/funding, time, logistics, geography) also contributed to the decision to base the current study on published material as a primary source. Thus, considerations of unity across the Corpus in terms of the level of information available, and questions of potential access (the circumstantial reasons), and a desire to produce an analysis that appropriately corresponds with and facilitates use (that is, is a usable and functioning work) with the already published material (the design reasons) has lead to this study being one that is based, apart from the exceptional ‘Tehran Sealings’ (that, in level of information and usefulness, are anything but exceptional), upon published material as the primary source. As testified to by the nearly 3600 items included in the Corpus however, this has by no means produced a limited data set. As will have already been noticed in the preceding survey of the Elamite archaeological sites from whence the glyptic material contained in the Corpus was sourced (Chapter 2.2), the past treatment, and thus the form of the material as preserved for study, has varied from site to site and between the modern eras of scholarship under which the materials have been excavated and published. Due to this varying level of information, the following study has employed a somewhat fluid and supple, at time almost ad hoc, approach and range of techniques. Thus, alternating methods for the study of the material and the construction of the stylistic paradigm

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 263 have here been applied, at varying levels and degrees of primacy dependent on the available material and information for a given item. In order to minimise the impact on the accuracy of the paradigm thus presented caused by such varying levels of information and possible techniques, a variety of different methods have been used concurrently to produce this paradigm. Thus, for example, the intra-site provenance of a particular item, evidence for stylistic cross-references with available contemporary Mesopotamian (or if any, other contemporary non-Elamite) styles and other Elamite material culture (and thus iconographic) pictorial representations (for example statuary, stone carving, etc.), historical evidence (the ‘Dated Seals’) and general principles of seriation and development for a given item are all combined to produce the paradigm here proposed. This multiple level, multiple test method is employed in order to minimise and lessen the effect of the varying degrees of information available for the items, and to allow the stylistic development to be in effect, internally tested and justified through the coherency of these different methods. The various methods thus employed will be presented in the following chapter.

3.1 Provenance and Stratigraphy As already mentioned (Chapter 1), the simple criterion for a seal’s (or sealing’s) inclusion in the Corpus was provenance from the area defined above as Elam (roughly the modern Iranian provenances of Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars). Thus, in its simplest form, provenance (within the Elamite region) was the criteria by which seals were included in the Corpus, and thus a method in its construction. In this regard, glyptic material found beyond the borders of Elam, unprovenanced or art-market seals that can be considered stylistically ‘Elamite’, have not been included here as they fail on this most basic of tests. The ‘peripheral’ seals, and indeed some of the unprovenanced art-market seals, themselves pose some interesting questions in relation to the distribution and reach of Elamite styles, while also contributing to some problems of chronology (for example the ‘Dated or Royal Seals’, below), and so are by no means unimportant. Thus, where necessary these non-Elamite Elamite items are mentioned in this study, but as they fail the basic inclusion test, that of the geographic parameters, these items are not included in the Corpus. Beyond this, the findspot of a glyptic item within the site (its intra-site provenance; where known) and its associated stratigraphy has been used (in combination with the other techniques described below) as a method in the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 264 construction of the stylistic paradigms here proposed. The relative stratigraphic distribution of a particular stylistic type (where discernable) was thus employed in the definition of a style, particularly in the discerning of the relative date, and the chronological development of such. However, the use of provenance and stratigraphy as a tool for dating and chronological placement must be tempered somewhat, especially in regards to facile assumptions of chronology (and indeed for provenance more generally, those of origin). Firstly on origin; while it has been stated above that provenance within the Elamite realm from a time frame coincident with that set here (c.3500 – 1000 BC), was the primary criterion by which a seal or sealing was included in the Corpus (except in the special case of Surkh Dum-i-Luri, where attributed chronological style took precedent over provenance in ‘Elam’, as outlined above 2.2.2.1), this does not mean that all seals and sealings (and indeed the styles they represent), should be considered ‘Elamite’ in style or type. The ‘portable/transportable’ nature of cylinder seals means that individual glyptic items, of any given style or type, could have been brought to Elam with travellers or through trade, and thus ultimately found in Elam (Collon 2005: 138). Patterns of interaction, particularly in the current case between Elam and Mesopotamia, already outlined above and further discussed below (Chapter 7), also meant that the indigenous Elamite seal carvers were influenced, to greater and lesser degrees, by styles and depiction techniques from these other regions, resulting in locally carved cylinder seals that may have had Mesopotamian (or other ‘foreign’) elements. Similarly, the possibility that traded items were sealed at their point of origin, to perhaps verify the integrity of the ‘shipment’, and then broken at their destination and discarded also means that sealings in a ‘foreign’ style may be found in an Elamite context (evidence for the presence of sealed clay found some distance from its point of origin, as testified to by the source of clay, can be found in the current study, from Tepe Sharafabad, discussed above [Chapter 2.2.1.5]). In this regard, the items found within ‘Elam’ may be considered ‘Elamite’, or Mesopotamian-influenced Elamite, or ‘Mesopotamian’ styles, or possibly Elamite copies of Mesopotamian originals, and thus simple provenance in Elam should not be taken, simply, to equate with an ‘Elamite’ designation. The Elamite, or otherwise, classification of the styles will be further detailed below (Chapters 4 and 7), and for now it should only be noted that the simple equation, Elamite provenance equals Elamite style should be rejected as facile in the extreme.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 265 A more important caveat need be placed on the use of glyptic material for dating purposes. As already mentioned, the presence of a seal or sealing in a given area or strata of a site has previously been used as a method of dating either the seal, or, more alarmingly, the strata in which it was found (Chapter 1; Negahban 1996: 205). While in some instances it may indeed be possible to use seals for such purposes, the accuracy and usefulness of such use is tempered somewhat by the strong ‘heirloom quality’ of seals (Collon 2005: 135 – 137). The compact, easily portable (by very design) nature of cylinder seals, the often attractive, and in certain cases ‘expensive’ (such as lapis lazuli) material from which a seal may have been made, the very human attraction to ‘nice things’ (the aesthetic appeal of the seal) and the equally human affection for keeping items associated with a known individual (a deceased loved one) all provide indications that cylinder seals, regardless and separate to their functioning as actual items in administrative/control systems, may have been kept as heirlooms long after the period of their creation and initial use (Collon 2005: 135 – 137). In this manner, the ‘heirloom’ or ‘antique’ (in the modern sense of the collection of curiosities) factor of cylinder seals has led to some seals being uncovered in contexts far removed from their original point of origin (both in time and space) (Collon 2005: 138 – 139). This therefore hampers the legitimacy of using cylinder seals, thus deposited, as type fossils for strata or site dating, or conversely, using such contexts to date a cylinder seal. As well as the quirks of human behaviour responsible for creating ‘heirlooms’ out of seals, there is strong evidence for the, if not common than certainly not rare, practice of seal re-use, including (partial) re-carving and re-cutting (Collon 2005: 120 – 122; Steinkeller 1977; Rathje 1977). There is textual references (albeit from less than satisfactory Mesopotamian rather than Elamite sources [see above and below]) for individuals using seals that were not their own (Steinkeller 1977: 46 – 48), including kings who used the seal of a (deceased) predecessor on treaty tablets (Collon 2005: 120; figure 511), indicating that it was not unheard of to use a seal originally belonging to another, and indeed, that there may have been a legitimate, political or ‘constitutional’ (in the most loosest and uncodified of senses) justification for so doing. The practice of re-use of a seal originally belonging to another individual is only currently discernable if a seal, known to belong to one individual (namely, it is inscribed with the name and title of said individual), is used by another on a dated tablet, and annotated as such (a practice not unheard of in, particularly,

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 266 Mesopotamia, where a line of text would indicate the name and date of the individuals ‘undersealed’ as it were) (Collon 2005: 113 – 119). In this way, the simple re-use of a seal may have been exceedingly more common than can currently be discerned (or alternatively, rarer than we may anticipate); for the large portion of seals with no inscription, impressed upon unannotated, non-tablet devices (see below, for indications for the proportions of the inscribed seals [Chapter 4] and of sealed tablets [Chapter 6] in the current study, both, as will be seen, sub-sets of the whole), there is no way for us to discern who made the particular seal impression, and for how long (over how many generations, or so few days) the seal was in use. As well as the re-use, without alteration, of another’s seal, there is also evidence that seals were re-cut by ‘new’ owners (Collon 2005: 120 – 122). Such re- cutting can include the simple addition of new design element(s) (whether inexpertly placed with little regard for the original integrity of the design [Figure 3.1.1, 3.1.2], or through subtle remodelling [3.1.3]) or inscriptions (3.1.4), so the identity and use of the ‘new’ owner could be distinguished from that of the old, original owner, to the erasure of the inscription (3.1.5), or possibly the whole design and cutting of a new image entirely (the possible intermediate stage of abrasion/erasure may be represented by seal 3506, Figure 3.1.6, from the current study; the motivation for this may be to ‘recycle’ the expensive or hard to source material of the stone, rather than any association with the [perceived] intrinsic worth of another’s seals) (Collon 2005: 120 – 122). Most of the examples here presented are Mesopotamian, though the presence of at least two seals from the current (Elamite) Corpus suggests that in some instances the phenomenon of re-cut, or altered re-used, seals was known. Furthermore, it is only when a re-cutting/remodelling was inexpertly finished (3.1) that such re-cutting or additions can be discerned, and so it may be hypothesised that other seals in the present Corpus were similarly treated, but remained unidentified.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 267

Figure 3.1.1. Susa seal (992 in the current 3.1.2. Ur seal (F. I: 514). A standard Ur III study). A CPE animal file design can be seen to Presentation Scene with the addition of an one side, with the addition of a, presumably unrelated, and truncated, bird and scorpion later, scene containing human figures. over the original (erased) inscription.

3.1.3. British Museum seal (F. I: 515). 3.1.4. Vienna seal (F. I: 518). Early Dynastic Standard Ur III Presentation Scene, it can be contest scene, over which a significantly later seen that the original horned crown of the Old Persian inscription was carved. seated figure was remodelled to depict a standard Ur III ‘kingly cap’

3.1.5. Ur seal (F. I: 517). Akkadian contest 3.1.6. Susa seal (3506 in the current study). scene, the seal inscription has been erased to Evidence of surface abrasion, possibly allow for re-use by another. indicative of a preparatory stage of re-cutting Figure 3.1. Various seals illustrating possible re-cutting or remodelling. Figure 3.1.2 – 3.1.5 after Collon 2005: 120 – 122.

Thus, knowledge that at least some seals were re-cut or re-used further limits the appropriateness of using cylinder seals as dating mechanisms. Indeed, through this evidence, a seal made perhaps years (indeed generations) before may have continued to have been used, and then eventually disposed of, and ultimately discovered in a much later context than that from whence it was originally created. Thus an Early Dynastic period seal of lapis lazuli may have been in continual use over generations, either as a seal or simply as an item appreciated for the intrinsic worth, value and appeal of the stone (Collon 2005: 120). In this manner this Early Dynastic seal may

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 268 have eventually been disposed of or lost by its last owner in say, an Old Babylonian context, where it was ultimately discovered by archaeologists. It would thus be problematic to use the Early Dynastic stylistic identification for the design of this seal to thus date the actual Old Babylonian context in which it was found to an Early Dynastic period. Further, to use the material of this seal (lapis lazuli) to reconstruct a pattern of long-distance trade and contact (Mesopotamia – Afghanistan) in the period from which it was found, would be equally inappropriate. This is an extreme (and hypothetical example) but it illustrates the point that, as we are aware that it was not uncommon for seals to be re-used (or simply kept as ‘heirlooms’ or ‘curiosities’ without an apparent sealing function) and re-cut, it can be extremely inaccurate to use cylinder (or indeed any) seals as a dating mechanism or type fossil. While it can be argued that the possibility of seal re-cutting and re-use should merely be noted by scholars, and thus when discerned, the use of seals as dating mechanism put on hold, the simple fact that in both instances (re-cutting and re-use) it is most probable that, from the current sources of information, only the exceptions, and not the majority, are actually known. That is, the fact that only in rare cases (where seal re-use is textually supported or seal re-cutting is inexpertly achieved and thus testified to by the physical remnants of an earlier design) can actual re-use or re- cutting be discerned. This means that to simply impose a dating embargo on those seals known to have been so treated, but to carry on regardless for the majority of other pieces with no discernable evidence for re-use or re-cutting, would be to, most probably, perpetuate the use of such re-cut/re-used items incorrectly for dating purposes, for it could be anticipated that many such treated items remain unidentified. Thus, the use of a cylinder seal, alone, to date particular strata is false, as it is probable, if not likely, that this item may have originally been carved in a period earlier than that in which it was found, and so the stylistic date of the item would be significantly earlier than its actual context. At best, seals can provide a terminus a quo, an indication of the earliest possible date of the strata, at sometime generally concurrent with, or after the production of the seal. If seals are often (the frequency of which cannot really be quantified following the above arguments for difficult discernment of such) known to have been re-used or re-cut, and thus are unsuitable as pieces of evidence for dating strata, then the reverse is also true. Namely, that generally speaking, the use of the date of a stratum (obtained through other dating mechanisms) cannot, except in the most general of senses, be

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 269 used to date a particular seal or the design (style) that it bears. For if, as we have discovered, it is known that seals were re-used over an extended period of time, the presence of a seal in a given style in say, an Old Babylonian context, does not, automatically mean that the style of the seal should similarly be considered Old Babylonian. By the same principle of re-use, the seal in question may have originated in an Early Dynastic context, and its style accordingly correctly dated to this period, but re-used over time and ultimately deposited in an Old Babylonian context. In the current study, the apparent function of cylinder seals as votive items (see above [Chapter 2] and below [Chapter 6]) also further adds to the problem of dating both seal styles through context, and the converse, context by seal styles. A seal deposited as a votive gift in a temple or shrine, may have remained a part of that temple depository over time, as other items (both seals and others) were similarly placed, resulting in an assemblage of items from numerous, original, periods when such depositories are ultimately discovered. This is exemplified by both of the votive deposits in the current study, Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Choga Zanbil (further detailed below, Chapter 5, but already demonstrated for Surkh Dum above [Chapter 2.2.2.1]), where items of several separate styles, across a relatively large chronological span are found in association with one another, in the same direct archaeological unit or strata. To thus hypothesise that all the seal styles represented at, Surkh Dum for example, are directly contemporary would be to ignore the function (in this case, votive) of the context in which they were found, and result in a false impression. Similarly, using stratigraphy to construct a proposed chronological extension for a given style cannot be done so lightly, though this was one of the techniques here employed. This is again due to the ‘heirloom’ quality of seals, and the tendency for their re-use (and to a lesser extent, re-cutting). For again, to return to our above example, to use our Early Dynastic seal in an Old Babylonian context to propose a chronological extension of the Early Dynastic style so contained into the Old Babylonian period, for the major time of its use or articulation, would be false. It may be interesting to note through the existence of a seal in a later context that, at least to some degree, this style was known in the later period, and thus may have contributed to the lexicon of the contemporary seal carvers; though this does not mean that these carvers were still producing items in an Early Dynastic style, and thus this style cannot be dated accordingly.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 270 The earliest known context for a seal of a particular style can be used to propose the earliest date for a given style however, and was so used here (see Chapter 4). Thus, the earliest known example (earliest in terms of appearance in an otherwise dated context or strata) of, for example, the Uruk/Jemdet Nasr ‘Eye/’ motif allows for the proposal that this motif was known, and in use, from this period, as its earliest point, for an unspecified following time span. That is, the earliest possible date for the use of the style. Of course, when there is a strong tendency of a particular group of seals to be found in a given stratigraphy, or all-the-better across several levels of stratigraphy in externally dated contemporary sites, provenance can be used to date a particular style. Thus, in the current study and as will be further expounded below, the known Middle Elamite date of the sites of Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil, coupled with the strong internal coherency of the glyptic material from these sites respectively, was one factor in the construction of the Early Middle Elamite and Late Middle Elamite styles and the determination of their chronology (Chapter 4). The provenance of glyptic material can and was used to define the styles (as detailed below, Chapter 4), but only with some caution and in association with other methods. In summary, due to the nature of cylinder seals as ‘heirlooms’ or curiosities, the likelihood that they moved with travellers or traders across regions, and the propensity for such items to be re-used or re-cut and thus remain in use across lesser or greater spans of time, all makes the use of these items both to date a given strata or context (as already encountered above, Chapter 2) and conversely, to use the date of its context to date a given seal, both suspect and flawed. The difficulty in discerning seals that have either undergone some re-cutting, or re-use further makes such use for glyptic material difficult, as there is no way of knowing in the majority of instances if a seal was re-cut or re-used and thus to be unused for dating purposes. Strict limitations should be placed therefore on the use of cylinder seals as dating tools. The earliest known date for the presence of a seal or sealing in a particular style can be used to describe the period of the earliest possible use of a glyptic style (that is, its lowest limit), though the latest known presence should not (for the heirloom quality and other reasons just outlined) be taken, in isolation, to be an indication of the upper extent of the style use. A strong, tested and repeated (preferably across more then one site) trend or phenomenon of a particular style within a certain time frame (as proposed through stratigraphic considerations) can be used, albeit with caution, to

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 271 propose a general span of most common usage for a style. This is the manner in which provenance and stratigraphy has here been used, and only in association with other pieces of evidence, and never, except in the most extreme of cases, in contradiction of other pieces of evidence, to aid in the formulation of the styles here proposed.

3.2 Previous Analyses and Classifications By virtue of the fact that this study was based on previously published material (apart from the ‘Tehran Sealings’), all of the seals included in the Corpus have previously been classified and analysed, albeit by varying degrees of application and thoroughness. While the aim of this study was to reanalyse and create a new, previously unarticulated stylistic paradigm, independent of and beyond the, generally fragmentary and specialised to a specific site, styles and classifications previously announced in these publications, to ignore and dismiss out of hand the conclusions drawn in these previous works would be imprudent and unnecessarily arrogant. In the construction of the stylistic paradigm here proposed therefore, the previous classifications of the individual items, proposed by the primary (and in some cases, such as Pittman’s work, secondary) publishers were taken into account, and the justifications for these designations were studied and considered. These earlier styles were therefore, where applicable, taken as a general outline, or foundation, in the initial formulations of the styles here proposed. This is not to imply that all (or indeed in some cases, any) of the conclusions and classifications articulated in these works were accepted. For indeed, as illustrated in the Catalogue where (when known or applicable) the ‘Original Classification’ is listed for each seal, an investigation as to the correspondence between this ‘Original Classification’ and the current ‘Style’ designation as presented in the Catalogue indicates that in many, if not most examples, an updated (in terminological or chronological terms at least) or new style is here proposed. Rather, the reasons and justifications (where detailed and given, such is not always the case) originally proposed by the authors of these original classifications were merely judged and weighed as to the appropriateness of the application of these styles to those here proposed. Some of these previously articulated styles were therefore taken as rough guidelines or parameters for the styles articulated here, though any such guidelines that were taken to be contradictory to other pieces of evidence here employed, or to have been subsequently disproved by the incorporation of further, or more recent work, were dismissed. This is to say that

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 272 these previous works were taken as mere guidelines, and not strict rules or conventions. As already mentioned, and detailed for each site (Chapter 2.2), the glyptic material under discussion here has been subjected to a variety of treatments at varying levels of thoroughness and success. Indeed, for the majority of the site publications no, or extremely limited (that is, only the most general, cross-reference type, such as a Bani Surmah seal [2088], listed as “Early Dynastic” [see Chapters 2, 4 and 5]), stylistic information has been forthcoming, nor any stylistic paradigm proposed. Indeed, much of the material that has thus been cursorily classified, particularly in the earlier publications, has been so classified according to flawed, or subsequently rejected, paradigms. An example of this is the use by Schacht for the Tepe Sharafabad material of the paradigm constructed by Börker-Klähn (1970), that has both internal consistency problems and has since been superseded by the later, extended publication of Amiet’s Susa material (1972), making the Schacht Sharafabad classification similarly rejectable. For the most part, as would be expected, the publications that did not include an attempt to articulate or describe the seals are those that are both not devoted to cylinder seals only (but are general site reports), and/or have not been prepared by a ‘glyptic specialist’ (Table 3.1). The works that have either been devoted to cylinder seals (or more generally glyptic material), such as that of Amiet concerning Susa (1972) or Porada for Choga Zanbil (1970), or that have been prepared by a ‘glyptic expert’ (thus Pittman for the ABC Tal-i Malyan material [Sumner 2003]) are the only examples here where an attempt to articulate styles and development is included. Thus only these volumes have provided any aid in the current formulation of the styles, and so will be discussed here. Table 3.1 demonstrates this, by summarising the publication(s) of the glyptic material from each site, denoting the type of study undertaken. As can be seen, in most instances the seals were published only with cursory or limited stylistic analysis or designation, and so the information there pertained did not play a role in the articulation of the styles in this study (of course the raw glyptic data, that is the seals and sealings that these volumes contained, did play a role in the formulation of the paradigm), and so will not be addressed here.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 273 Susa see Table 2.11 for full details Amiet 1972 devoted glyptic volume Chogha Mish Delougaz & Kantor 1996 general site report Haft Tepe Negahban 1991 general site report; included proposed glyptic styles Amiet 1996 glyptic material, review see 2.2.1.3 Choga Zanbil Porada 1970 devoted glyptic volume Tepe Sharafabad Wright et al. 1980 short excavation report/analysis Wright 2007 short excavation report/analysis Schacht 1975 short excavation report Surkh Dum-i-Luri Schmidt et al. 1989 general site report Kamtarlan Schmidt et al. 1989 general site report Chigha Sabz Schmidt et al. 1989 general site report Bani Surmah Vanden Berghe 1968 short excavation report Haernick & Overlaet 2006 general site report Tourovets 1996 short glyptic study Kalleh Nisar Vanden Berghe 1973 short excavation report Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994 short glyptic study Haernick & Overlaet 2008 general site report Godin Tepe Young & Levine 1974 general short site report Weiss & Young 1975 short excavation report/analysis Young 1986 short excavation report/analysis Tepe Djamshidi Contenau & Ghirshman 1935 general site report Tepe Giyan Contenau & Ghirshman 1935 general site report Chogha Gavaneh Abdi 1999 short site report Abdi 2000 short site report Abdi 2001 short site report Abdi & Beckman 2007 short site report & philological study Tal-i Malyan Nicholas 1990 TUV site report Carter 1996 EDD site report Sumner 2003 ABC site report; including devoted glyptic section Sumner 1974 short site report Sumner 1985 short site report Sumner 1989 short site report Sumner 1997 short site report Table 3.1. Survey of the previous publications for the glyptic material included in the Corpus. Entries in bold indicate those devoted, at least partially, to seals and/or prepared by a recognised glyptic specialist.

The exception to this dichotomy is Negahban’s publication of the Haft Tepe material (1991). Neither the work of a recognised glyptic expert, nor a volume devoted solely to glyptic material but part of the site excavation report, Negahban did however propose an, albeit limited, stylistic paradigm for this material (Negahban 1991: 49 – 101). The limitations of Negahban’s publication of the Haft Tepe material has already been addressed (Chapter 2.2.1.3), and it is unnecessary to make further comment on this material here. However, brief comments on the proposed style(s), and the reason’s for its rejection need be noted. The vast majority of the Haft Tepe

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 274 material was classified by Negahban to the ‘Haft Tepe Common Style’ (HTCS; Negahban 1991: 49 – 101). A smaller subset was classified as belonging to the ‘Drill Hole’ Style and another to the ‘Natural Style’. The ‘Drill Hole’ bears general internal similarities with, and is only differentiated from the ‘Haft Tepe Common Style’ by the apparent use of the (mechanical) drill in it production (Negahban 1991: 91 – 93). For reasons outlined below (see the discussing regarding Pittman’s ‘Wheelcut’ Style), this designation is rejected here, besides which it is held that these seals are sufficiently similar to the HTCS material to warrant their association with this material. Furthermore, in a similar rejection of the majority of the ‘subject matter’ based classifications of Porada detailed below, the ‘Natural Style’ is also rejected, as the main difference between this and the HTCS appears to be one of subject matter (primarily floral and animalian elements in the ‘Natural Style’, as opposed to the human figure scenes of the HTCS). The Haft Tepe Common Style is defined by Negahban primarily in reference to, and drawing upon, the correlative data provided in Amiet’s main Susian classification system (Amiet 1972; discussed in detail below). Despite the clear reference to and associations made between this material and that from Amiet, Negahban has proposed a separate style for the Haft Tepe material (Negahban 1991: 100 – 101). While there is indeed a degree of difference between the Haft Tepe and Susian material, this is no more than one would normally expect between two sites, and may indeed merely be the result of something as simple as differing seal artists (further detailed below). There is enough internal consistency between the Haft Tepe and Susian material to warrant their inclusion in one style therefore (the Early Middle Elamite [EME] style, detailed below [Chapter 4]). Thus the Haft Tepe style is rejected here as it is limited to one site only, and is not applicable to a wider Elamite setting. The Haft Tepe material is subsumed into a greater style, along with the contemporary material from Susa (and to a lesser degree elsewhere). This style is also rejected (or more correctly up-dated and conflated with the Susian material) because, despite the fact that Negahban correctly identifies the similarities between the Haft Tepe material and the Sukkalmah and ‘middle of the second millennium’ material identified by Amiet (Negahban 1991: 100 – 101), the Haft Tepe material is ultimately associated with Amiet’s Middle Elamite material (the material here classified as Late Middle Elamite, and so not contemporary with the EME Haft Tepe material). The reason for

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 275 this appears to be the overriding opinion that the Haft Tepe material belongs to the Middle Elamite period, as then defined when this material was published. Thus, as demonstrated by Table 3.1 only three sources from whence the cylinder seals included in this study were sourced, were prepared by glyptic excerpts (marked in bold, those of Amiet [1972] for Susa, Porada [1970] for Chogha Zanbil, and Pittmann [Sumner 2003] for Tal-i Malyan [Operation ABC only]), and so were used here as ‘rough guidelines’ and need be articulated further. A fourth volume, the excavation report of Haft Tepe prepared by Negahban also included stylistic proposals, though has been rejected as a guideline as outlined above. Both Amiet (1980a; 1980c; 1986) and Pittman (1994; 1997) have also produced other works, not devoted solely to excavated material from a site but concerned with the specific articulation of a style or styles. As such these works, where relevant to the Elamite material, were also employed as ‘guidelines’ and so require some discussion here.

3.2.1 Amiet Three major works of Amiet are of interest to the current study, for the ‘guidelines’ they provide for the articulation of the styles here proposed. The numerous shorter articles and papers also prepared by Amiet, generally devoted to material from Susa (see Table 2.11 for details) are also of note, though the conclusions drawn in these papers are generally replicated in the main Susa volume (MDP 43; Amiet 1972; or for those that proceeded it, replicate the conclusions there contained) and so need not be individually discussed here (the exception to this is of course, the ‘Anshanite’ style reassessment detailed below).

3.2.1.1 ‘Archaic Mesopotamian’ Styles The volume La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque (Amiet 1980a [rev. ed.], abbreviated GMA), is, as already mentioned above (Chapter 1), primarily devoted to the early (or ‘archaic’, that is the material up to and including the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic period, though it should be noted that in some cases Akkadian period material is also included in this study [Amiet 1980a: 480 – 484]) glyptic material from Mesopotamia (as indicated by its name) and so more correctly belongs in the discussion in the following section devoted to Mesopotamian cross-referential material. However, the position of Susa as a ‘Mesopotamian-looking’ Elamite city, and thus the idea that the material from this site belonged to a Mesopotamian type

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 276 (the accuracy or otherwise of this Susian assessment will be addressed below) meant that Susian material was included by Amiet in this Mesopotamian study (Amiet 1980a: 19). A chapter of the study was therefore devoted to the glyptic material from Susa, divided according to the (rather confusingly entitled given the same of the whole study) archaic (archaïque; generally the Susa I and Susa II material, including stamp seals) and the ‘Proto-Elamite’ material (or the material from the terminal Susian ‘Predynastic’ [Early Dynastic] period, according to the scheme then employed by Amiet) (Amiet 1980a: 38 – 43). Another analysis or, in the terms of Amiet, iconographic interpretation, chapter is also devoted to the ‘Proto-Elamite’ material, specifically to the so-called ‘animals acting as humans’ motif (les animaux en attitudes humaines), characteristic of this style (Amiet 1980: 107 – 110), that would indeed, later be articulated as the ‘Classic Proto-Elamite’ style. Furthermore, in the revised 1980 edition of the work, more ‘Proto-Elamite’ seals are illustrated, including those from the non-Elamite sites of Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta (Amiet 1980a: 510 – 511). While the 1980 edition of GMA was revised and altered, apart from the addition of this further supporting evidence (the Yahya etc. seals just noted), this edition adds nothing of substance to the discussion than was published in the 1961 original. Therefore, the analysis and definition of the Susa material can be considered to be superseded by the subsequent MDP 43 publication of the Susa material, with more articulated Susian styles.

3.2.1.2 Susa As already outlined, the main publication of the Susa material by Amiet (1972; MDP 43), did not contain all the material excavated at Susa up till the date of its preparation, but only that excavated between 1913 and 1967 (with the inclusion of presumably only, miscellaneous earlier materials; see above for details). This volume is however, the only Susian work in which uniquely Susian styles are proposed and articulated. The published materials from earlier (pre-1913) excavations generally classified the material according to prevailing (but generally by now superseded) Mesopotamian classification systems (thus for example, Delaporte 1920), while the materials subsequently excavated from Susa and published, were (with varying levels of effectiveness and ease), integrated into the paradigm system proposed by Amiet.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 277 Before an analysis of the styles proposed by Amiet is even begun, some theoretical and practical limits to the application of this stylistic paradigm to the material here studied must be raised. Firstly, Amiet’s paradigm, by very design and through no fault to the author, is one devoted solely to the material excavated from Susa. The current work is devoted to the development of a stylistic paradigm for Elam, for which Susa is a major, though not sole part. To thus translate or transcribe the Amiet Susian styles wholesale to describe the Elamite material would be methodologically flawed. Secondly, Amiet’s Susian volume was produced over thirty-five years ago. This means that both general terminological and periodisation alterations have occurred in this time (for example, the adoption of the Susa II and Susa III terminology rather than Amiet’s ‘Proto-Urban’ and ‘Proto-Elamite’), and new material has been uncovered and published, both from Susa and elsewhere in the Elamite realm (Choga Zanbil: Porada 1970; Tal-i Malyan: Nicholas 1990; Carter 1996; Sumner 2003; Surkh Dum-i-Luri: Schmidt et al. 1989) that has impacted upon, and caused appropriate alterations or reassessments to Amiet’s creation. Both the geographical limits (to Susa) and the period of time elapsed since its original articulation, and the subsequent recovery of relevant material, limits the degree to which Amiet’s work may be applied to the material here contained, and makes the current study a valid and necessary addition to Elamite glyptic studies. Amiet was, according to the art-historical/archaeological type dichotomy proposed above for glyptic study classification, part of the older, and therefore, art historical school. The styles thus proposed for the Susa material were framed in an art historical (that is applying general principles of art historical progression and development) system, with little reference to archaeological frames of reference such stratigraphy, seal/sealing type and so on (though such considerations are not entirely absent from Amiet’s work). Such an approach is not inappropriate for the Susian material however, for, as already mentioned above but warrants reiteration, the, especially earlier, excavations at Susa were undertaken with little concern for or recognition of stratigraphy and archaeological provenance. In this regard, Amiet’s largely art historical, image developmental approach to, and division of, the Susian material is both appropriate and useful to the current study (indeed, the principle of art historical progression is one that was also employed here, albeit in association with other techniques). In this regard, Amiet’s Susian style progression orders the material

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 278 in a general chronological/progressional framework, which this study has borrowed and employed where appropriate. The present study has therefore taken as a starting point, or guideline, Amiet’s Susian styles, which were then tested against other more recently excavated and published material with more secure (and independent of the glyptic material) chronological designations (for example those from Tal-i Malyan, Choga Zanbil, Haft Tepe, Chogha Mish) in order to produce the styles here proposed. The addition and construction of other styles for the Elamite Corpus, not represented (or generally recognised) in the Susian corpus (such as the AS and LPS styles discussed below [Chapter 4]) was also necessary. In some instances the alterations to Amiet’s styles were required merely through the application of more current scholarly accepted terminology, such as Susa II rather than ‘Proto-Urban’. In other instances the material uncovered in more recent excavations has allowed for a virtual reassessment, or entirely new articulation of Amiet’s styles. For example the tripartite division of the Popular Elamite style (PEA, PEU and PEO) spanning the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ through to the Sukkalmah periods, rather than Amiet’s Sukkalmah period only designation of his élamite populaire, proposed here due to finds from Tal-i Malyan and a reassessment of the Susa material (see below), or the reassessment of Amiet’s MSM and ME styles to the various Middle Elamite styles proposed here (EME, LME, KRS, LGD) stemming from the additional evidence from Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil. Table 3.2 demonstrates the styles proposed by Amiet and the extent, or otherwise to which they were employed here. Lines between Amiet’s and the current proposed styles marked blue indicate basic acceptance or perpetuation of the style, perhaps with minor alterations or additions, and nomenclature change for purposes of up-dating or clarification. Translations marked red indicate where total reclassification has been required. Such reclassifications are due to information gleaned from more recently excavated or published material, or in the case of the Glazed Steatite Style, more recently articulated styles. The translation marked green indicates the division and chronological extension here proposed (see below) across the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ to Sukkalmah periods rather than Amiet’s Sukkalmah period classification for the élamite populaire style. The dashed line from the AS style indicates that this style was not represented at Susa, and therefore obviously does not correspond to a style classified by Amiet, further demonstrating the need to create

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 279 new styles applicable to the wider Elamite Corpus. The LPS style is only represented rarely at Susa, as indicated by the table (dashed purple line).

Current Styles Amiet’s Classification STS – Susa II Style PUR – Recent Proto-Urban (proto-urbain Récent) JNRS– Jemdet Nasr Related Style MS – Mesopotamian (de style mésopotamien) CPE – Classic Proto-Elamite Style APE – Ancient Proto-Elamite (proto-élamite ancienne) CPE – Classic Proto-Elamite (proto-élamite classique) GS – Glazed Steatite Style DPE – Diverse Proto-Elamite (diverses, contemporaines des tablettes proto-élamites) AGD – Archaic Geometric Designs STF – Susa III/IV Style AP – Ancient Pre-Sargonic (présargonique ancienne) SF – Susa IV Style RP – Recent Pre-Sargonic (présargonic récente) LSF – Late Susa IV Style ARS – Akkadian Related Style APA – Akkadian and Post-Akkadian (d’Agadé et post-agadéene) PEA – Popular Elamite (Awan/Akkadian Related) Style UTRS – Ur III Related Style NSS – Neo-Sumerian, Simashki (neo-sumérienne … dynastie de Simashki) PEU – Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki Related) Style OBRS – Old Babylonian Related OBR – Old Babylonian and Related Style (paléo-babylonienne et apparentée) PEO – Popular Elamite (Old PE* – Popular Elamite Babylonian/Sukkalmah Related) (élamite populaire) Style EME – Early Middle Elamite Style MSM – Middle of the 2nd Millennium (au milieu de IIe millénaire) KRS – Kassite Related Style ME – Middle Elamite (médio-élamite) LME – Late Middle Elamite Style LGD – Late Geometric Designs AS – Anshanite Style not represented at Susa (rarely) CCD – Diverse Cylinders and Stamps (cylindres et cachets divers) LPS – Luristan Provincial Style Table 3.2. Amiet’s stylistic paradigms and the corresponding translations, additions and alterations here proposed. *Later partially (?) renamed the ‘Anshanite’ Style

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 280 3.2.1.3 The ‘Anshanite’ Style As already mentioned, following the publication of the main Susian volume (MDP 43; Amiet 1972), the subsequent Amiet publications generally adhered to the paradigm there constructed. The exception to this tendency is the style originally labelled ‘popular Elamite’ (élamite populaire). Following its original classification (Amiet 1972: 239 – 257), Amiet later advocated a change in nomenclature to ‘Anshanite Style’ (Amiet 1980c: 165 – 166; 1986: 150 – 154; 1992; 1994; Potts 1999: 150). It is not expressively stated whether such a nomenclature change is advocated for the entire Susian corpus originally classified as ‘popular Elamite’ (MDP 43, seals 1825 – 2014; see the Concordance attached to the Catalogue for information regarding the numerical designation for each item here adopted, and information regarding their classification, generally to the Popular Elamite Style divisions, PEA, PEU and PEO, see below for details), or for the sub-set of this group around which this discussion generally centres (thus Amiet 1980c: 165 – 166; 1986: 150 – 154; Potts 1999: 150 – 153). An example of this group of seals is illustrated in Figure 3.2 and is here designated PEU group 7 (the explanation of this designation will be returned to below). The motivation for this nomenclature change is the fact that the seals previously classified as ‘popular Elamite’ by Amiet, and specifically those of the type represented in Figure 3.2 (Amiet 1980c: 165 – 166; Potts 1999: 150 – 153), were uncovered at Tal-i Malyan (ancient Anshan). While seals of this ‘popular Elamite’ group do occur at Malyan (as indicated by Figure 3.2), these are in significantly lower numbers than those from Susa, in both the wider Popular Elamite style here defined, and the smaller PEU (7) group in particular (only two seals from Tal-i Malyan of the PEU[7] are known, with eight from Susa, and indeed, at least six unprovenanced or art market/collection seals, one of which is illustrated below; for the general Popular Elamite group site distribution see Chapter 4 below). The nomenclature alteration seems disproportionate to the actual provenanced material therefore, and thus the term ‘Popular Elamite’ is retained here to refer both to the wider group so originally classified by Amiet (albeit with the new chronological divisions here proposed, see Chapter 4) and to the smaller PEU(7) sub-set. Indeed, even if the Malyan/Anshan provenance was accepted as an appropriate description of the distribution of this style, a change from Popular Elamite to Anshanite due to Malyan dominance seems ill-

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 281 placed, as a term referring to a specifically Elamite, common seal expression would seem to aptly describe a group dominant at the Elamite centre, Malyan/Anshan.

2598 – Susa 2599 – Susa

2600 – Susa 2601 – Susa

2602 – Susa 2603 – Susa

2604 – Susa 2605 – Susa (seal of Pala-ishshan – sukkalmah)

2606 – Chogha Mish 2607 – Tal-i Malyan

2608 – Tal-i Malyan unprovenanced seal of Ebarti (I – King of Shimashki; or II – sukkalmah [?]) (Lambert 1979: 42) Figure 3.2. The PEU (7), so-called ‘Anshanite Style’ seals/sealings included in the current study, and an unprovenanced example.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 282 3.2.2 Pittman As well as authoring the glyptic section for the site report of Operation ABC of Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 2003: 107 – 108; and preparing a seemingly forthcoming volume devoted to the glyptic material of Tal-i Malyan generally), Pittman’s revised published dissertation on the so-called ‘Glazed Steatite’ style of Mesopotamia and Iran (Pittman 1994) and an article devoted to the ‘Proto-Elamite’ (that is, Susa III in the current terminology) glyptic material from Iran (Pittman 1997) are also of interest here, and have been used as sources in the construction and articulation of the stylistic paradigm presented in the ECS Corpus.

3.2.2.1 The ‘Glazed Steatite’ Style Pittman’s The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style (1994) is the seminal work regarding this style, and has adequately presented and defined this glyptic phenomenon of the ‘Elamite’ (more correctly, pre-Elamite Iranian) and north-western or ‘piedmont’ region of Mesopotamia (specifically the Diyala/Hamrin region). Generally speaking the style has been adopted as defined by Pittman, and so will be further addressed in the section detailing the specific styles (Chapter 4), and no further comment need be added here. It should be noted that, before the definition of the style by Pittman, the ‘Glazed Steatite’ seals from Susa were classified by Amiet under the ‘Diverse Proto- Elamite’ rubric, that is the category of diverse and varying cylinder seals and sealings deemed to have been contemporary with the ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets (that is the Susa III period in the current study) (Amiet 1972: 143 – 144; Pittman 1994: 131). The details of this style, and its application as may differ from Pittman’s here, will be addressed in detail below (Chapter 4).

3.2.2.2 The ‘Proto-Elamite’ Styles The classification/articulation material contained in the report of the ABC Operation at Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 2003: 107 – 108) is essentially the same as that contained in Pittman’s paper regarding the glyptic styles of the entire ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III) period of Iran (Pittman 1997), and so the definitions from each can be considered as one whole. Five distinct ‘Proto-Elamite’ Iranian styles are defined by Pittman; the ‘Classic Style’, the ‘Glazed Steatite Style’, the ‘Wheelcut Style’, the ‘Incised Style’ and the ‘Stamp Seal Style’ (1997: 139 – 140). The ‘Classic Proto-Elamite’ Style as

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 283 defined by Pittman is essentially the same as that proposed by Amiet (originally in the 1961 version of GMA, and subsequently in MDP 43 [Amiet 1972] and the revised version of GMA also [Amiet 1980a]), and is generally adopted here, with few, limited alterations (detailed in Chapter 4). Similarly, the ‘Glazed Steatite’ style concurs, with no alterations, to that originally defined by Pittman (1994), and is thus adopted here accordingly. For obvious reasons of type, Pittman’s ‘Proto-Elamite Stamp Seal Style’ does not concern us here, though the continued presence of stamp seals in the Iranian seal corpus in the Susa III period (continued from the previous dominance of the form in the Susa I and, to a lesser degree Susa II periods) should be noted. The ‘Wheelcut’ and ‘Incised’ seals are not accepted nor perpetuated however, with m ost of the designs so classified by Pittman here enjoined under the ‘Archaic Geometric Designs’ rubric. The ‘Wheelcut Style’ is rejected firstly on the basis of the simple misnomer of the term. This style, as defined by Pittman, is essentially a geometric style (though animalian and floral designs also occur, albeit rarely), that is characterised by a distinctive cutting style, identified by Pittman, as the name would suggest, as being achieved through the use of a cutting wheel (Pittman 1997: 140). While the internal integrity of the group of seals classified by Pittman as ‘Wheelcut’ is evident (and indeed, as noted by Pittman, related to the so-called ‘Brocade Style’ known from contemporary Diyala/Hamrin sites [Pittman 1997: 140; Frankfort 1955: nos. 291, 303, 455]), the term used to define and describe them (‘Wheelcut’) is not accurately applicable. As already outlined above (Chapter 1), more recent scanning electron microscopy analysis of cylinder seals undertaken in the British Museum indicates, on the evidence available, that the cutting-wheel was in fact not introduced/invented until around the middle of the second millennium BC (Sax et al. 2000: 386 – 387). Such a date obviously post-dates the period to which the current style is dated (the Susa III period, c.3100 – 2900 BC). Thus, if the Sax study is accepted (and there is currently no reason to reject it), then the ‘Wheelcut’ designation is inappropriate and therefore is here rejected. There is no similar evidence to reject the notion that the ‘Incised Style’ seals were so created through incision. However, on the basis of the rejection of the ‘Wheelcut’ designation, and the already discussed (and later returned to) problems with chronological/stylistic designations for geometric designs, it is here proposed that the items in this group, and all other geometric design seals, be classified under the rubric ‘Archaic Geometric Designs’ (or ‘Late Geometric Designs’ for the later material) further outlined below (Chapter 4).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 284 A general reluctance to classify styles according to cutting style alone (without substantial evidence for this identification, such as the detailed scientific study achieved through microscopy) is also adopted here, and thus results in the conflation (along with other geometric design seals) of Pittman’s ‘Wheelcut’ and ‘Incised’ styles. This policy is due to the general difficulty in (and apparent easily mistaken) identification of seal cutting style through macroscopic analysis. Such a system of classification (according to cutting style) is also rejected as this method is, generally, not easily nor accurately applicable to sealings, as problems of preservation and the accuracy and technique of the actual initial ‘rolling’ action can impact on the visual state of the design. Cutting style may indeed be considered a particular element of a style or ‘school’ of ancient production, and this rejection outlined here is not intended to advocate a total dismissal of such considerations in style articulation and definition. Rather, a policy of noting particular, apparent, visual manifestations of a cutting/carving style is advocated, without the allocation of a particular interpretation or description of this method without a thorough macroscopic and experimental/reproduction testing regime. In conclusion, as with the Susa material classified by Amiet, some of the stylistic proposals put forth by Pittman have been accepted here, with slight additions or alter ations (outlined below; namely Pittman’s ‘Classic Proto-Elamite’ and ‘Glazed Steatite’ Styles), while others are rejected (the ‘Wheelcut’ and ‘Incised’ Styles) and an alternate (and indeed expanded) style advocated in their place (the Archaic Geometric Designs’). It should also be noted that the style labelled here the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS), which is essentially (with slight variations and nomenclature change) an adoption of Amiet’s style mésopotamien (Mesopotamian Style) and is considered, at least partially contemporaneous with the other Susa III styles, is not articulated, and therefore presumably not accepted, by Pittman. Some of the items classified as JNRS here were included in the ‘animalian’ division (that is not geometric) of Pittman’s rejected ‘Wheelcut’ style (1997: 140), though this only applies to a small sub-set of both Pittman’s ‘Wheelcut’ and the current JNRS styles. Thus, in this apparent missed style, as well as in the geometric designs, does the articulation here proposed differ from that of Pittman.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 285 3.2.3 Porada The third volume used as a primary source for glyptic classification in the current Corpus authored by a glyptic expert and containing proposed stylistic development is Porada’s volume devoted to the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil (1970). As Choga Zanbil was founded in the Middle Elamite period (see above), and thus only dates to this last period under discussion here, Porada’s classifications only apply, or were of any use, in regard to the definition of the Middle Elamite styles. Porada divided the seals from Choga Zanbil into fifteen groups, based upon both stylistic and subject matter considerations (Porada 1970). Table 3.3 summarises Porada’s classification of the Choga Zanbil material, and indicates both the primary (as discerned, not stated by Porada) criteria by which these classifications were made, and the equivalents adopted here. As is demonstrated, the initial two groups of Porada’s classification only (‘Pseudo-Kassite’ and ‘Elaborate Elamite’) were made on the basis of stylistic considerations (that is unified approach in regard to subject matter, method of depiction, material, cutting style and general internal coherency); the other classifications were made on the basis of subject matter alone. It may be assumed (sic Matthews 1990: 66 – 70) that the subject matter classifications all refer to an, albeit unarticulated, ‘Elamite’ or ‘Choga Zanbil’ style. Indeed, as evidence by Table 3.3, in many respects these groups have been subsumed under the style here defined as the Late Middle Elamite (LME) style, further outlined below (Chapter 4). The fact that such a designation is not explicitly defined or articulated by Porada makes this proposal mere assumption however. The internal construction of this classification system (partly stylistic, partly subject matter based), severely limits the extent to which Porada’s Choga Zanbil definitions can be applied to the wider (Middle) Elamite corpus. It is noted and accepted that this was not the intention of this study, and Porada was only proposing a classification system for the Choga Zanbil material (the fact that this work was prepared simultaneously with Amiet’s Susian study [Porada 1970: 3 – 5], and that the other contemporary material, that from Haft Tepe, was not yet available, assured this Choga Zanbil only limit). However, the subject matter only classification makes the wider application of the proposals defined by Porada untenable. Porada’s initial two, stylistic based, classifications do facilitate application to material from other sites, and as such have been adopted here. The ‘Pseudo-Kassite’ (pseudo-kassite) and ‘Elaborate Elamite’ (élamite élaboré) styles have both been

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 286 adopted here, albeit not as two separate styles but as two sub-sets of a single ‘Kassite Related Style’ (KRS). The justification and reasons behind this conflation into one style will be further outlined below (Chapter 4). For now it should be noted that both these (sub)styles, apart from their internal coherency that has led to their conflation here, are generally adopted following the definitions originally proposed by Porada (1970: 7 – 25), and altered by Matthews (1990).

Porada’s Classification C. Z. Seal Criteria Current Style I Glass cylinders: pseudo-Kassite style (cylindres 1 – 14 stylistic KRS de verre de style pseudo-kassite) (2) II Glass cylinders: Elaborate Elamite style 15 – 21 stylistic KRS (cylindres de verre de style élamite élaboré) (1) III Faience and glass cylinders: ‘gods’ (cylindres de 23 – 32 subject LME faïence et de verre: dieux) matter IV Faience and glass cylinders: archers and heroes 33 – 39 subject LME (cylindres de faïence et de verre: archers, héros) matter V Faience and bitumen cylinders: lion-headed 40 – 41 subject LME demons (cylindres de faïence et de bitume: matter demons léontocéphales) VI Faience cylinders: horned animals and trees 42 – 53 subject LME (cylindres de faïence: bêtes à cornes et arbre) matter VII Faience cylinders: banquet scenes (cylindres de 54 – 87 subject LME faïence: banquets) matter VIII Faience cylinders: facing sphinxes and rows of 88 – 101a subject LME animals (cylindres de faïence: sphinx affrontés matter et rangées d’animaux) IX Glass cylinders: animal and bird files (cylindres 102 – 105 subject LME de verre: rangées d’animaux et d’oiseaux) matter X Diverse materials, ancient or foreign (cylindres 106 – 113 stylistic various anciens et étrangers à Choga Zanbil de matières diverses) XI Diverse materials, 13th century and ‘recent’ 114 – 125 stylistic various periods (cylindres de styles individuals de matières) diverses, du XIIIe siècle et d’époque plus récentes) XII Diverse materials: illegible (cylindres illisibles 126 – 127 appearance – de matières diverses) XIII Faience cylinders: geometric designs (cylindres 128 – 157 subject – de faïence à dessins géométriques) matter XIV Unengraved cylinders (cylindres non graves) 158 – 160 appearance – XV Stamps (cachets) 161 – 164 type – Table 3.3. Survey of the classification system for the Choga Zanbil material by Porada, according to classification criteria and current style here proposed.

3.3 Mesopotamian Cross-Reference and Association The historical/political correlations between Mesopotamia and Elam discussed above, and those in the archaeological assemblages (that is the assemblages other than cylinder seals), demonstrate that throughout much of its history Elam was involved in

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 287 an, albeit varying, pattern of interactions and influence with neighbouring Mesopotamia (and indeed, to lesser and greater degrees across time, other neighbouring regions, such as Bactria, Dilmun and the Gulf Region [Potts 1999: 178 – 181], not of primary importance here). This pattern of interaction, as evidenced in some circumstances by datable historical synchronisms (see above and below), allows for the use of contemporary Mesopotamian material to be used as correlative and cross-referential material. The use of Mesopotamian glyptic material in this regard is especially constructive, for, as already mentioned above (Chapter 1; Table 1.1) there is a generally accepted, albeit not entirely concrete, stylistic development paradigm for Mesopotamian cylinder seals. Thus, in this study the established (and tested) Mesopotamian stylistic paradigm was used, as one tool among others, in the creation of the stylistic paradigm here proposed. Table 3.4 illustrates the main published works used as sources for the Mesopotamian material, according to period divisions.

Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Ur III (Neo-Sumerian) General Developments Rova 1994 General Developments Franke 1977 Wiseman 1962 Ur Woolley 1934 Basmachi 1994 Legrain 1936 Uruk Amiet 1960 Legrain 1951 Brandes 1979 Old Babylonian (incl. Isin-Larsa) Jemdet Nasr Matthews 1993 General Developments al-Gailani Werr 1988 Early Dynastic Blocher 1988 General Developments Garrison 1989 Colbow 1995 Hansen 1971 Collon 1986 Wiseman 1962 Babylon and Ashur Moortgat 1940 Tell Fara Heinrich 1931 Hamrin al-Gailani Werr 1992 Martin 1988 Kassite Babylonia Diyala/Hamrin Frankfort 1955 General Developments Beran 1957 – 1958 City Seals Matthews 1993 Matthews 1990 Glazed Steatite Style Pittman 1994 Nijhowne 1999 Akkadian and Post-Akkadian (Guti) Nippur Matthews 1992 General Developments Bernbeck 1996 General Developments Boehmer 1964 Ward 1920; Frankfort 1939; Amiet 1980; Wiseman 1959; Collon 1987 Boehmer 1965 General Studies (Private /Public Collections) Collon 1982 Buchanan 1996 (Ashmolean); Buchanan 1981 (Yale) Table 3.4. Sources used for correlative/cross-referential Mesopotamian material. It should be noted that this table differs from the presentation of Mesopotamian glyptic studies in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 was intended as a survey or example of Mesopotamian focused glyptic literature, especially in light of the relative dearth of such sources regarding specifically Elamite glyptic studies. The current table however o nly includes those sources primarily used for cross-referential purposes here.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 288 It is unnecessary to here repeat or outline the Mesopotamian stylistic developments as contained in these volumes, as no reassessment was undertaken here, nor alteration suggested, and so it would be redundant to unnecessarily repeat unchanged conclusions. Furthermore, it is unneeded to here summarise these stylistic developments, for as will be detailed (where relevant) in the articulation of the Elamite styles below (Chapter 4), some of the Mesopotamian stylistic developments are of no interest here (that is, they are not reflected in the Elamite material), and so such a presentation would be unnecessarily time consuming. To therefore only present the material used in the articulation of the Elamite styles would be to present an unsatisfactory, partial and fragmented survey of Mesopotamian styles that would serve no real useful purpose. Indeed, the aim of this study was not to study or articulate the Mesopotamian material, but rather to do so for the contemporary Elamite styles, and thus this is the only paradigm here presented. The reader is directed to the relevant sources contained in Table 3.4 for detailed information and outlines of the Mesopotamian styles. Where particular similarities (or indeed striking differences) between the Mesopotamian and Elamite materials occur, that were of paramount proof in the articulation of the styles, these will be outlined in the detailed description of the Elamite styles below (Chapter 4). In summary, the well-tested and previously articulated Mesopotamian stylistic paradigm (particularly that of southern Mesopotamian; variously Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia) has been used here as correlative/cross-referential material in the articulation of the Elamite styles. The Mesopotamian material may be justifiably so used because there is evidence, both in the form of textual historical/political synchronisms, and in other areas of material culture (such as ceramics, statuary, etc.), that Mesopotamian and Elamite correlations existed, to varying degrees, throughout the period under study here. It should be noted that there is somewhat of a contradiction in using cross- referential and correlative data from the Mesopotamian stylistic paradigm as an aid in the articulation of the Elamite styles, and then to use these styles so created to test the theory of the extent and pattern of Mesopotamian-Elamite interaction. For this reason, the Mesopotamian material used here was only so used in the most general of senses to provide a broad pattern of development and not as a strict set of parameters that were strongly adhered to. Furthermore, the Mesopotamian cross-referential material was only used as one tool among others (outlined here), as a means of testing the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 289 conclusions so drawn from this material. Finally, in any instance where the Mesopotamian correlative data strongly contradicted evidence gleaned from other methods, the value and worth of the Mesopotamian data was accordingly judged and weighed as to its application. Through the use of the Mesopotamian correlative material to construct Elamite styles, and thereby testing the pattern of such correlations, the Elamite-Mesopotamian interactions may be addressed.

3.4 ‘Dated Seals’ The term ‘dated seals’ is used in this study to refer to a particular type of seal (or sealing) that bears the name of an historically identifiable (and therefore ‘dated’) individual. Previously, such seals have been described as ‘Royal’ or ‘Dynastic’ seals (Collon 2005: 123), as generally it is the name of kingly personages on such seals that enable a date to be proposed (due to the basic fact that for most, if not all the Elamite and Mesopotamian history under discussion here, it is only royal personages, or officials and office bearers associated with such kings, that are historically known). However, in their most common form these seals are not, strictly speaking ‘royal’ in the sense that they are the actual (personal or political) seal of the king, but rather they are generally the seal of an official or other personage who describes himself as the ‘servant of the king’ (the standard from being “X, scribe, servant of King Y”) (Collon 2005: 123). Thus the term ‘dated seal’ rather than ‘Royal Seal’ is here adopted, to emphasise this slight, though definite, definitional difference. ‘Dated seals’ and sealings can act as a dating mechanism; an anchor point for the date of use of the style which is borne on the seal. It can be generally assumed that the seal that bears the name of an individual, who can themselves be placed in a real historical context, was created at some point during the lifetime of the so-named individual. Through this it can be concluded that the style borne on the so dated seal was in use during the lifetime of that individual, and thus a date for the use of a particular style may be proposed (though importantly, not the end nor necessarily the initial date of the style’s use). The usefulness of this dating mechanism, like the above cited use of provenance and stratigraphy must be tempered by the real possibility that even a ‘royal’ or dated seal could be re-cut or re-used, and any addition or alteration to the inscription would thus effect the accuracy of the date proposed. Indeed Steinkeller details, an admittedly Mesopotamian example, where the inscription on an official’s seal was changed, so that the reference to Amar-Sin became Shu-Sin when

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 290 the latter ascended the throne of Ur (Steinkeller 1977: 46 – 48). Similarly, a ‘dated seal’ in the Corpus (item 2723) bears an inscription that names Shu-Sin (or Ur), that was later (partly) erased and a new design cut in a later style, the date given this style by Shu-Sin’s inscription is therefore false (see Chapter 4 for details). Thus again, like the previous example, one must by generally aware of this possible limitation to the use of ‘dated seals’ in regard to re-cutting, and thus treat any outlandish or extraordinary evidence so gleaned with an appropriate amount of scepticism. Be that as it may, the ‘dated seals’ do provide a useful tool whereby the period of use of a seal style can be anchored to a known historical event (the reign of a king), and thereby move, albeit ever so slightly, away from the traditional scheme of relative dating for seal styles into the realms of absolute chronology. It should be emphasised that a ‘dated seal’ only provides evidence for the period of use for a particular style. Neither the start nor finish date can be accurately hypothesised by such a seal. The appearance of a seal in a given style with a royal, dated name may allow for the assumption only that that particular style was in use at least by that date in the initial sense, or at least up to and including that date in the final sense. To what extent and for how long either side of the anchor point provided by the ‘dated seal’ a given style was in use/production cannot be assessed through this mechanism; such conclusions can only be hypothesised on the basis of the other dating/articulation tools described here. There are several other limitations to the use of ‘dated seals’ as dating mechanisms. As well as the above outlined limited chronological application and possibility of seal re-cutting, it should be noted that the very nature of these seals as official, political devices (that is, by naming the king of the day the seal owner presum ably indicated some degree of loyalty to, and participation in, the political structure headed by that king) means that these items can be considered part of the official, sanctioned, public, visual arts, and not therefore necessarily indications of popular or non-sanctioned movements. This is neither preferred nor bemoaned, but the reality of this fact must be acknowledged, and the reconstruction of the style there contained similarly defined. The final limitation to the use of ‘dated seals’, and one that is especially applicable to the current study, is the extent to which such items are useful in the absence of a certain or concrete date for the named king (or other historical figure). As has already been seen (Chapter 2.1), the accuracy of the order of succession and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 291 absolute (indeed more often than not, also the relative) date of many Elamite kings and dynasties is far from certain. The naming of a king in the absence of a certain chronological timeframe for his reign can still provide a relative date however; that is, such a seal can be said to have been in use during the mentioned king’s reign. However, without an accurate understanding of when in time that king reigned, no further, absolute dating for the style can be proposed. It should be noted that the presence of a seal impression on a dated tablet presents a related, though distinct piece of chronological information. A seal impression in a given style impressed upon a dated text provides an indication of the period of use of that seal, and not necessarily an indication of the period of its manufa cture. That is, according to the above outlined discussion regarding re-cut and re-used seals, a seal created in a style current in one period, but no longer employed by seal cutters in another, may still be in use as an actual seal in this second period, and so impressed upon a tablet. The presence of such a seal on a dated tablet should not therefore be taken as evidence that that style was still in production at the time of impression, but only that the particular seal (and possibly, but not necessarily, others like it) was still in use in that period. Such impressed seals are therefore a useful dating mechanism, though the fact that this phenomenon provides a date for seal use, and not seal manufacture should be noted. Besides which such dated tablets, bearing seal impressions are relatively rare in the current Corpus and so this particular mechanism was rarely used in the construction of the stylistic paradigms (any relevant usage will be noted in the articulation of the styles however [Chapter 4]). In the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, forty-six seals and sealings can be classified as ‘dated’, that is, as stated above, seals that bear the name of a king or other known historical figure. These ‘dated seals’ are presented in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. It is striking, and no doubt reflective of both the large Susian corpus, and the status of this site, that the majority of the dated seals in the Corpus were provenanced from Susa. Of the forty-six seals, five (four of Tepti-ahar and one of Inshushinak-shar-ilani) were provenanced from Haft Tepe, and one (the possible ‘dated seal’ 2760, that may be identified with the sukkal Tata, and then possibly only from an earlier stage in this individual’s career) from Tepe Sharafabad. The presence of ‘dated seals’ at these sites, in particular Haft Tepe, may also be reflective of their function and status during the era indicated by the seals (that is the reigns of Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar- ilani, as discussed above).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 292 Of the forty-six seals, two (2354 and 2431; the possible ‘dated seal’ of Tata should also probably be considered with these potential items) are not strictly speaking ‘dated seals’, but only potentially so. The first mentions a princess or daughter of a king, the latter a governor of ‘Der’. The king associated with both of these figures is unknown, though further identification of their kingly association would allow these seals to be classified ‘dated’ senso stricto.

Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2151 ARS Eshpum – Manishtushu (4) Akkadian period official/ governor

2213 ARS Eshpum – Manishtushu (10) Akkadian period official/ governor

2248 ARS Epirmupi – Naram-Sin (10) Akkadian period official/ governor

2346 UTRS Tan-Ruhurater Shu-ilishu of (2) – 8th King of Isin Shimashki

2353 UTRS Attahushu – Gungunum of (3) sukkal Larsa Sumuabum of Babylon

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 293 Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2354* UTRS princess – (3) Mamanisha (strictly not a ‘dated seal’)

2359 UTRS Puzur- Ur-Nammu of (3) Inshushinak – Ur 12th King of Awan

2371 UTRS Queen Shu-ilishu of (3) Mekubi – Isin Tan-Ruhuratir (8th King of Shimashki)

2372 UTRS Ebarti I – 3rd Shulgi of Ur (3) king of Amar-Sin of Ur Shimashki Shu-Sin of Ur

Ebarti II – 9th – king of Shimashki, first sukkalmah (?) 2374 UTRS Attahushu – Gungunum of (3) sukkal Larsa

2375 UTRS Kuk-Kirmash – (3) – sukkalmah

2389 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of (4) King of Isin Shimashki

Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 294 Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2390 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of (4) King of Isin Shimashki Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

2397 UTRS Kuk-Kirmash – (4) – sukkalmah

2398 UTRS Pala-ishshan – – (4) sukkalmah

2405 UTRS Tan-Uli – – (4) sukkalmah

2418 UTRS Tan-Ruhurater Shu-ilishu of (4) – 8th King of Isin Shimashki

2419 UTRS Attahushu – Gungunum of (4) sukkal Larsa

2420 UTRS Ebarti II – 9th – (4) king of Shimashki, first sukkalmah (?)

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 295 Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2421 UTRS Ebarti I – 3rd Shulgi of Ur (4) king of Amar-Sin of Ur Shimashki Shu-Sin of Ur

Ebarti II – 9th – king of Shimashki, first sukkalmah (?) 2431* UTRS Iram-x – – (4) governor of Der (strictly not a ‘dated seal’)

2437 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of (4) King of Isin Shimashki

Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

2442 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of (4) King of Isin Shimashki Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

2446 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of (4) King of Isin Shimashki Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

2454 UTRS Idaddu II – – (5) 10th King of Shimashi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 296 Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2455 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of (5) King of Isin Shimashki Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

2456 UTRS Imazu – son Ibbi-Sin of Ur; (5) of Kindattu Ishbi-Erra of (7th of Isin Shimashki)

2461 PEU Epirmupi – Naram-Sin (1) Akkadian period official/ governor

2605 PEU Pala-ishshan – – (7) sukkalmah

2760# PEO Tata(?) – – (7) sukkal

2867 EME Kidinu – 1st – (5) Kidinuid

2912 EME Tepti-ahar – Kadashman- (6) 4th Kidinuid Enlil I/Kadashman- Harbe I

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 297 Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2934 EME Inshushinak- – (6) shar-ilani – 5th Kidinuid

2974 EME Kuk-Nashur II Ammisaduqa (8) – sukkalmah of Babylon Gungunum – of Larsa

2975 EME Tetep-mada – – (8) sister’s son of Shilhaha

2977 EME Attahushu – Gungunum of (8) sukkal Larsa

2978 EME Tan-Uli – – (8) sukkalmah

2980 EME Kuk-Nashur I I – Gungunum (8) of Larsa

Kuk-Nashur II Ammisaduqa of Babylon Kuk-Nashur – III 2981 EME Kuk-Nashur I I – Gungunum (8) of Larsa Kuk-Nashur II Ammisaduqa of Babylon Kuk-Nashur – III

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 298 Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation 2982 EME Tepti-ahar – Kadashman- (8) 4th Kidinuid Enlil I/Kadashman- Harbe I

2984 EME Tepti-ahar – Kadashman- (8) 4th Kidinuid Enlil I/Kadashman- Harbe I

2985 EME Tepti-ahar – Kadashman- (8) 4th Kidinuid Enlil I/Kadashman- Harbe I

3454 No Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of Im. King of Isin Shimashki Idaddu II – – 10th King of Shimashi

Table 3.5. Elamite ‘Dated Seals’. See the Concordance and Catalogue for further details of each seal/sealing, including a translation of the inscription. Seals marked with an asterix(*) indicate ‘potential’ dated seals. Seal marked with an hash(#) is the possible ‘dated seal’ of Tata.

The three seals/sealings in Table 3.6 should also be noted as these ‘dated seals’ are ass ociated not with Elamite but Mesopotamian kings (Rim-Sin and two of Shu-Sin). Th e presence of seals that can be associated with Mesopotamian kings at Susa provide evidence that, in at least isolated instances, Mesopotamian seals/sealings were present in Elam. T his further justifies the use of the Mesopotamian styles as correlative data outlined above, for their presence indicates that at least some Mesopotamian seals were known at Susa, and presumably therefore known by the seal carvers themselves. The fact that material inscribed with the names of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 299 Mesopotamian kings was found at Susa also provides further evidence for the general (not necessarily glyptic) Mesopotamian-Elamite patterns of interaction.

Seal Class. King/Official Image 2701 OBRS Rim-Sin of Larsa (2)

2723 OBRS Shu-Sin of Ur (3)

3465 No Image Shu-Sin of Ur

Table 3.6. ‘Dated Seals’ from the Elamite Corpus naming Mesopotamian kings.

A further two ‘dated seals’ are presented in Table 3.7. These seals are unprovenanced, art market items, and thus have not been included in the Corpus proper (according to the above outlined provenance criteria). They both, however, bear inscriptions n aming known Elamite kings, and so have been treated as a stylistic dating mechanism along with the other ‘dated seals’ here included. Both these items will be discussed in greater detail below in the relevant sections of Chapter 4. As already mentioned, the absolute effectiveness of ‘dated seals’ is somewhat reliant on the extent to which the individuals named on the seal can be said to be themselves dated. In the current study, this generally means that it is only the kings (and officials) for whom there is a known Mesopotamian synchronism, or one that can be justifiably extended so that another king may be placed in time (thus through a Mesopotamian-Elamite synchronism with a particular king, a son known to have immediately succeeded his father can be so dated by extension of the Mesopotamian synchronism), who are sufficiently well-dated so as to make their ‘dated seal’ useful. The evidence for Mesopotamian synchronisms for the kings named in the Elamite

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 300 ‘dated seals’ are presented in Table 3.5 (and Table 3.8), and as can be seen, fortuitously many of these kings can be so dated.

Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image Correlation Lambert PEU Ebarti I – 3rd king Shulgi of Ur 1979: 42 (7) of Shimashki Amar-Sin of Ur Shu-Sin of Ur Ebarti II – 9th – king of Shimashki, first sukkalmah (?) Amiet EME Tan-Ruhuratir II – 1980b: 4.2 (6) – Kidinuid

Table 3.7. Unproven anced ‘Elamite Dated Seals’.

It is also interesting to note that many of the Mesopotamian kings that provide synchronisms for Elamite ‘dated seals’ kings, themselves possess ‘dated seals’, as detailed in Table 3.8. This phenomenon provides evidence for classifying the absolute contemporaneity of Elamite and Mesopotamian styles, and thus gives further support for the use of Mes opotamian cor relations in the construction of the Elamite styles, and allows for a detailed discussion of the direction, extent and chronology of Elamite- Mesopotamian glyptic influence and interaction, a point that will be returned to in detail below (Chapter 7). In conclusion, ‘dated seals’ provide a mechanism whereby the style of a seal, inscribed with the name of a known historical figure may be dated. The name of a king on a seal allows for the assumption (albeit with a degree of caution in regard to the possibility of seal re-use/re-cutting) that seal carvers were producing items in the style represented on the seal at least during the lifetime of the named individual. For the purposes of this study, the ‘dated seals’ thus provide an anchor point (the particular king’s reign), in which the date, and therefore the general development, of the seal style can be tied. ‘Dated seals’ were thus employed as a mechanism to confirm and ascribe dates to a particular style, and thus was one of the tools here applied in the construction of the Elamite styles.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 301 Mesopotamian Kings Elamite Kings Akkadian Dynasty ‘Awan Dynasty’ and Contemporaries Sargon* (3) Sanam-shimut Hishep-ratep Luh-ishan Manishtushu* (1) Eshpum* (2) Naram-Sin* (18) Epirmupi* (2) Ur III Dynasty Ur-Nammu* (2) Puzur-Inshushinak* (1) ‘Shimashki Dynasty’ Shulgi* (51) Girnamme Ebarti (I)* (3+) Amar-Sin* (9) Tazitta (I) Ebarti (I)* (3+) Shu-Sin* (27) Girnamme Tazitta (I) Ebarti (I)* (3+) Ibbi-Sin* (24) Kindattu* (1) Old Babylonian Dynasties Ishbi-Erra* (Isin) (13) Kindattu* (1) Idaddu (I)* (7+) Shu-ilishu* (Isin) (6) Tan-Ruhurater* (2) Shu-ilishu* (Isin) (6) Ebarti II* (3+) Sukkalmah Gungunum* (Larsa) (3) Kuk-Nashur I*(2+) Atta-hushu*(4) Sumu abum* (Babylon) (1) Idaddu-napir (Shimashki) Atta-hushu* (4) Shamsh i-Adad* (Assyria) (7) Shituk-tuh Hammurabi* (Babylon) (18) Siwe-pala-huppak Kudu-zulush (I) Zimri-Lim* (Mari) (3) Kudu-zulush (I) Ammisaduqa* (Babylon) (15) Kuk-Nashur II*(1, 2+) Kassite Dynasty Kidinuid Dynasty Kadashman-Harbe I/Kadashman-Enlil I Tepti-ahar* (4) Kurigalzu I* (14) Hurbatila Igihalkid Dynasty Igi-halki Pahir-ishshan* (2) Humban-numena Burnaburiash II* (5) Untash-Napirisha Table 3.8. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous kings with dated seals. Only those synchronisms where either one (or both) king is associated with a dated seal are included in this table (see Tables 2.30 for details of all the kingly synchronisms). Figures possessing a dated seal are indicated by an asterix(*), and the number of known seals indicated in parentheses.

3.5 Seriation and Art Historical Progression The basic archaeological principles of typology assemblage (that a particular set or type of artefacts created by a single society in a give n period will adhere to general principles of style and likeness) and seriation (that a serialised order or succession of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 302 alteration in the appearance of the aforementioned artefacts occurs over time, and can be traced through visual examination of these alterations) were employed in the construction of the Elamite cylinder seal styles. Indeed, the very belief that such a typology or style development can be created for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus has incited and motivated this very study. It is unnecessary to detail here the known principles of seriation and typology, however, some aspects of their application as pertains to glyptic studies need be mentioned. Firstly, a pertinent question in the construction of any sequence of change or typology is of course, at what rate of change does the particular set of artefacts ‘evolve’. That is, for seriation and typology to be meaningful it must be known at what point along the continuum of change any said design or type can be placed. Generally, such rates can be discerned through external dating mechanisms. That is, a particular type may be given a date through association with another dated artefact, a subsequent type similarly dated, and through an assessment of the intervening period between these two dates, a general outline of rate of change may be hypothesised. It should be stressed that such hypotheses are only that, and are indeed generally speculative, unless tied to an absolute date. In the current study, the use of the above discussed ‘dated seals’ can tie a rate of change, and indeed a typology/seriation to such absolute dates. It should be noted however, and as will become apparent below (Chapter 4), these (‘dated’) seals present information for a particular sub-set of the Corpus only, and as such, any information they provide (regarding rate of change etc.) cannot be applied to the vast majority of the material under discussion here. Stratigraphy can also provide an anchor for the relative rate of change and indeed the period of use for a particular type/style. As we have already encountered above however, in many cases the material in this study was excavated without reference to, or provided understanding/details of, the relevant stratigraphic information, so in many cases the use of this phenomenon as a source of information is practically negligible. However, where present and functioning, stratigraphy has been used in the present study in association with typology in the definition of style type (for example in the construction and alteration of styles represented at the well stratified Tal-i Malyan excavations, such as the CPE, PEA – PEU, and AS styles [see below for details]). The above noted limitations of stratigraphic information for dating seal styles due to re-cutting and re-use also should be noted as a hindrance to the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 303 application of stratigraphic considerations in the construction of glyptic typologies and seriation schemes generally. The type of information presented by a seal for typological analysis must also be addressed. The basic form (shape) of the cylinder seal changed little over the millennia of its use (Collon 1997: 16 – 15; 2005: 100 – 104; contrasted with stamp seals, where general shape [square, circular, figural] can be taken as a chronological indicator [Collon 1997: 16 – 16; Kawami 2001]), and so this morphological part of typological change and seriation was not generally of use in the construction of the styles (as it may be, for example, in ceramic or tool assemblages). Alteration in cylinder seal size (dimensions) does occur through time however (as will be evidenced below [Chapter 4]), and so this information was used. However it should be noted that for some of the seals here studied no dimensional information was supplied by the original publishers and so such information could not be included here, nor employed in the construction of the styles (this is, testified to be the absence of some dimensional information in the Catalogue). Similarly, dimensional information was often not provided for sealings (witness the entire Haft Tepe sealing corpus, for which there is no supplied information on dimensions, already noted above [Chapter 2]). Indeed, due to factors of fragmentary rolling, or sealings that are not wholly preserved (that is, the original image of the seal has not been completely reproduced or preserved on the sealing), assuming original seal size on the basis of sealing dimensions (the dimensions, that is of the sealed area, not the whole artefact referred to as a ‘sealing’) is fraught. Thus the change in seal dimension was an aspect of typological alteration used as evidence for change, and definition, of styles, though this data set was incomplete and at times fragmented, and so such information was treated as a secondary criterion only. Alteration in material type over time also provides a typological/seriation criterion by which seal style can be identified and such styles constructed. While there is often a strong tendency for seals of a particular type or style to have been cut in a certain material (for example the Mesopotamian Old Babylonian style preponderance for hematite seals [Collon 1986: 5], other examples will be provided for the current Corpus below [Chapter 4]), the above outlined problems in the definition, identification and recording of material type in glyptic literature places somewhat of a caveat on the usefulness of this seal element in typological construction. Where seal material type can be adequately discerned, and the accuracy of this designation

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 304 reasonably trusted, seal material is however a changing facet of seals that can be used in style/type definition, and was so here. Similarly, seal cutting style or method can be used in the identification and definition of seal style/typology, though also as above, there is a limitation as to the effectiveness of this element of seal morphology. As already outlined, without adequate scientific microscopic and experimental reproduction studies (studies that identify cutting techniques through microscopic examination and then attempt to demonstrate the evidenced cutting method through reproduction experiments) as has been demonstrated by Sax and her colleagues (Sax et al. 1998; Sax & Meeks 1994; 1995; Sax et al. 2000; as well as others, Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; 1981b; 1992; Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987), the macroscopic identification of cutting style can be difficult, and at time faulty (as evidenced in the above ‘Wheelcut’ style discussion). In the absence of such microscopic/reproductive studies here (none of the glyptic material in the Corpus has been subjected to such analysis, the scientific studies performed on the Louvre heulandite and ‘bitumen aggregate’ seals from Susa detailed above were for material identification purposes only, not cutting methods), the application of cutting style as a typological identification tool must therefore be limited somewhat. A particular method may be macroscopically identified, and indeed a trend discerned when a particular cutting style is so evidenced in numerous seals of a particular type, and so used as criteria for typological and chronological likeness. However, such identification need refrain from identifying the actual method used in producing the visual results, unless when supported by scientific analysis. Thus in the current study cutting style/type was used as a typological/seriation tool in the construction of the Elamite cylinder seal styles (evidenced below), though nothing bar the most general of identifications of these cutting methods were here proposed (unless fully, scientifically, supported). The final, but by no means lesser, method of typological analysis for cylinder seals is that regarding the image the seal itself bears. The use of the image borne on a cylinder seal as a typological tool is no less valid than the similar use of decorative elements, glaze application and ware-type in a similar study of a ceramic assemblage. However, due to the past abuse of such analyses (the limitations of the above outlined ‘art historical’ school of glyptic studies), there is some reluctance in modern scholarship to accept and use such methods (for example Rothman 2007: 236 – 237; where stylistic development studies are dismissed as “description of subject and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 305 analysis of renderings … merely one more trait on the list of the requirements necessary to be included on the honor role of “civilizations””). Due to the fact that the elemen ts produced on cylinder seals are images, and therefore visual art, the technique of studying and analysing the designs on seals and their development may be labelled ‘art history’, further alienating those who would call themselves ‘archaeologists’ or ‘anthropologists’. Essentially however, the debate is one of semantics. Where the study of painted pottery decoration and ware-type, of the frequency, shape, patterns, interactions and visual spacing of these patterns and shapes there borne, to establish a functioning typological sequence for a ceramic assemblage may be considered archaeological analysis and seriation; a similarly formed and undertaken study of the material, cutting-technique, image type and its internal coherency and alteration (even decline) through time of a seal assemblage may be labelled ‘art history’. The techniques of both studies are however, essentially motivated by the same desire to create a functioning development sequence and thereby an understanding of the society that produced them (or a particular sub-set or aspect of that society), and essentially carried out through similar methods, any differences stemming from pure artefact type differences, just as a typological study of stone tools from the Neolithic Levant will differ from that of a study of post- contact Australian glass bottles. This is not to advocate a return to the above outlined ‘art historical’ school, for one indeed concurs with Rothman that discussions regarding the “Achievements of the Uruk period” and the “Decline of the Jemdet Nasr” (thus Frankfort entitles his chapters in Cylinder Seals (1939), cited by Rothman [2007: 236 – 237] as examples of past glyptic study wrongs), or judgement of the seal subject matter as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art, based upon current aesthetics, is of little value. What is indeed of more pertinence is “how and why those images were used by particular individuals or the organizations they represented” (Rothman 2007: 237), that is, the real archaeological questions of use, function and the structure of the society that produced the items. However, as has already been detailed, in order for such questions and problems to be addressed, the material under discussion must be placed in time and space, or else such discussions cannot be tested, proven or indeed supported. For the artefact type reasons already outlined (such as the limitations of stratigraphic considerations both in glyptic studies generally, and in the poorly excavated material under discussion here specifically), image design type (and all is attendant factors, such as rendering

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 306 technique, internal spacing and patterning, subject matter, etc.) and its alteration through time are important, useful, elements for the placement of these artefacts in space and time (that is, the creation of functioning stylistic/typological paradigms, as attempted here). Unlike in the Mesopotamian example cited above, where such a paradigm has already been established and tested (incidentally, often through the methods and techniques of ‘art historians’, among them no greater contributor than Frankfort, albeit perhaps in language and degrees of judgment that may not adhere to our modern scholarly sensibilities), the luxury of a previously developed typological system is lacking for Elamite glyptic studies. Therefore, a return to the use of image type analysis has been undertaken here (Chapters 4 and 5), so that eventually the important problems and issues may be addressed (Chapter 6 and 7). Thus, as long as one does not enter the realms of unnecessary, speculative interpretation and labelling of figures depicted or subject matter identifications, nor judgements on the ‘achievements’ or greatness (or otherwise) of the manner of depiction as did indeed characterise the ‘art historical’ school, and is justly rejected (Rothman 2007: 236 – 237), the use of the images depicted on seals as a tool in the study, and articulation, of the development in a glyptic assemblage is a justifiable method of analysis, and is employed here. Thus, the method of depiction and rendering of an image, its internal coherency, placement of design and actual subject matter and images depicted have all been studied here as a means by which the typological progression of the Elamite cylinder seal Corpus was identified, and thus articulated. A final proof as to the adequacy of this study may be provided by the example of Rova’s analysis of the Uruk/Jemdet Nasr (primarily Mesopotamian, but also inclusive of the relevant Susian, though not the then unavailable Chogha Mish) material (Rova 1994). In an attempt to distance herself from the judgment based ‘art historical’ approach, Rova’s study of the material entailed a statistical analysis, where a particular design element or subject matter was assigned a numerical value, as were other important elements of classificatory information, such as province and type (that is, seal or sealing) and thus subjected to computational investigation (Rova 1994). The results of this somewhat artificial and mathematically complex analysis provided essentially the same pattern of distribution of subject matter groups across glyptic type (seal or sealing) and location, with no new information or evidence for any new phenomenon, than that already known through more traditional, visual judgement based studies (as

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 307 undertaken here) (specifically that of Amiet, in the original 1961 version of GMA; Rova 1994; Collon 1998: 733). This result thus confirms the efficacy of a visual, stylistic based analysis, so completed here.

3.6 The ‘Tehran Sealings’ The relatively small group of sealings here entitled the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were the only items in the current study to have received a new, physical examination by the present author. As such, the technique of study for this material differed somewhat from that undertaken for the majority of the pieces. For this reason it is necessary to outline this group, and the methodology undertaken in their study. The ‘Tehran Sealings’ study was undertaken by the author in October 20041. The ‘Tehran Sealings’ are a corpus of one hundred and fifty-two sealings curated in the ‘Coins and Seals Department’ of the Iran National (Archaeological) Museum, Tehran. The sealings were reportedly excavated during the ‘earliest’ French excavations at Susa, generally believed to have been those led by de Morgan. The group had been associated by the Tehran Museum staff in several trays with the serial also marked on many of the sealings themselves). The significance ;٧٥٩) number 759 of this number is unknown, and though it is plainly assumed to be a serial number of some sort, whether initially applied by the excavators at Susa or by the Museum curators at some undetermined subsequent point is unclear. As well as the number 759, the sealings were kept in plastic bags marked in Persian (Arabic script) numerals While it may be tempting to assume that this number .(١٨٩٦) with the number 1896 refers to the year in which the sealings were excavated, no excavations were actually undertaken at Susa in this year, with the Dieulafoy excavations ceasing in 1888, and those of de Morgan not begun until 1897 (Mousavi 1996: 7; Harper et al. 1992: 16), making such an assumption false. Thus again, the significance of the number 1896 is unclear, and whether it was (originally) applied by the excavators or the curators is also unknown. As well as these, other individual serial numbers were associated with each sealing (generally so marked on the actual sealing). It was originally reported that the one hundred and fifty-two ‘Tehran Sealings’ were previously unpublished. However, following the initial study in Tehran (outlined below), and the following further study, investigation and consultation of previous

1Partial funding for this study was provided by a grant from the Carlyle Greenwell Bequest Fund, for which the author is grateful.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 308 publications (especially MDP 43; Amiet 1972), it became apparent that many of these items had in fact been previously published amongst the glyptic material so treated by Amiet (1972), and in one isolated example, Delaporte (1920; the significance of this will be shortly returned to). While the fact of this previous publication had the effect of ensuring the, until then only reported, Susa provenance of this material, it also severely limited the usefulness of the ‘Tehran Sealing’ study. Thus sixty-five of the one hundred and fifty-two ‘Tehran Sealings’ had previously been published, as demons trated by Table 3.9 (as also demonstrated, several separate ‘Tehran Sealings’ had been made by the same original seal, and so are only allocated a single entry in the current Catalogue, hence the less then sixty-two [fifty-four] items listed in the table).

Current Original Current Original Current Original Number Publication Number Publication Number Publication 31 MDP 43: 615 586 MDP 43: 750 1813 MDP 43: 1020 44 MDP 43: 696 595 MDP 43: 714 1865 MDP 43: 1388 95 MDP 43: 679 639 MDP 43: 767 1869 MDP 43: 1392 141 MDP 43: 512 820 MDP 43: 978 1870 MDP 43: 1394 218 MDP 43: 526 828 MDP 43: 987 1883 MDP 43: 1414 221 MDP 43: 531 977* MDP 43: 922 (6) 1885 MDP 43: 1418 222 MDP 43: 532 984 MDP 43: 965 1890 MDP 43: 1427 236 MDP 43: 627 1010* CCO I: S.366 1951 MDP 43: 1368bis 242 MDP 43: 633 1102 MDP 43: 961 2676 MDP 43: 1788 278 MDP 43: 643 1103 MDP 43: 962 3025 MDP 43: 2085 279 MDP 43: 648 1122 MDP 43: 1049 3037 MDP 43: 2068 296 MDP 43: 634 1144 MDP 43: 1076 3088 MDP 43: 2089 297 MDP 43: 635 1145 MDP 43: 1313 3110 MDP 43: 2076 304 MDP 43: 644 (2) 1176 MDP 43: 1098 3113 MDP 43: 2079 326 MDP 43: 627 1697 MDP 43: 1446 3114 MDP 43: 2080 365 MDP 43: 624 1721 MDP 43: 1021 3482 MDP 43: 2049 368 MDP 43: 626bis 1732 MDP 43: 1411 414 MDP 43: 614 1737* MDP 43: 1429 (8) Table 3.9. Survey of previously pu blished ‘Tehran Sealings’ acco rding to primary publica tion and current number (Cata logue allocation). The figure in pa rentheses indicates actual sealing items (as opposed to i mages) in the event where more than one ‘Tehran Sealing’ bore an image created by a sing le seal.

Among the previously publish ed ‘Tehran Sealings’, the item s marked with an asterix in Table 3.9 warrant special attention. Sealings 977 and 1737 were both previously published by Amiet in MDP 43 (Amiet 1972). Amiet provides the proven ance indication Acropole sud (the southern part of the Acropole, see Figure 2.2 for det ails) for sealing 977 (Amiet 1972: 128) and Donjon for 1737 (Amiet 1972: 181). O f even more interest, Amiet also indicates that sealing 1737 was excavated in

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 309 1939 ( Amiet 1972: 181). The prov enance information of both sealings, and the excavation evidence for 1737 would seem to indicate therefore that these pieces were excavated during the de Mecquenem excavations at Susa, and by extension it may be assumed that the entire ‘Tehran Sealings’ group was similarly excavated (and therefore not excavated by de Morgan as previously believed). Several factors may discount this assumption however. Firstly, the ‘Tehran Sealing’ here allocated the number 1010 appears to have been previously published by Delaporte (CCO I; Delaporte 1920: 49). This would seem to indicate that, like all the material published in CCO I, this sealing was excavated by de Morgan prior to 1912 (see above for details). However, all the material so published by Delaporte are curated in the Louvre, and as the ‘Tehran Sealing’ here under discussion is obviously kept in Tehran, one can conclude that S.366 (the CCO I sealing) is not the same actual sealing as that studied in Tehran. It is therefore assumed that the Louvre sealing S.366 is a separate actual artefact to that curated and studied in Tehran, both of which were impressed with the same original seal (that is, they are duplicate sealings; all such duplicate sealings were subsumed under one entry in the Catalogue, that is, the Catalogue includes separate image types, as opposed to single sealings, thus the Tehran and Louvre sealings discussed here are both allocated the number 1010). It is therefore possible that the Tehran sealing impressed with the 1010 original seal may have been excavated in the post-1913 excavations at Susa (that is, in the same excavations as those Amiet notated for the sealings discussed above), and not those of de Morgan. Admittedly, it seems incongruously coincident that two items impressed by the same seal would be excavated by two quite separate excavations (as the excavations of de Morgan were executed in quite separate areas of Susa than the proceeding undertakings, see Figure 2.2 for details), though as it is not impossible, and so cannot be discounted. A more likely scenario would be that both sealings (that in Tehran and the Louvre) were excavated by de Morgan, and one sent to France as per the Irano-French agreement of the time, and the other kept in Iran. If this assumption were accepted, it would seem to confirm the original hypothesis that the ‘Tehran Sealings’, or a part thereof, were some of the non-Louvre curated material excavated by de Morgan. However, the pendulum must now swing back to the originally cited material published by Amiet, for the information here provided places a caveat on this conclusion. As is demonstrated by Table 3.9, others amongst the previously published

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 310 Tehran Sealings are duplicate sealings. This is also evidenced by the serial numbers seen in the Tehran study when compared to those noted by Amiet, that accord in every detail. This means that one can therefore assume that the exact same sealings published by Amiet were studied by the author in Tehran, and not duplicate sealings, as 1010. Some of the sealings with replicated serial numbers include 977 and 1737. This would indicate therefore that the exact same sealings published by Amiet were amongst those studied in the Tehran study, and that the provenance information provided by Amiet for 977 and 1737 can be shown to apply to at least some of the Tehran sealings, and thus these two images types (it should be noted that six duplicate sealings in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ study bore the image 977 and eight sealings bore 1737, as evidenced by Table 3.9; this actually means that the provenance/excavation information provided by Amiet can in fact be known for fourteen of the one hundred and fifty-two actual ‘Tehran Sealings’). Courtesy of this reconstruction, we are no closer to knowing the actual constitution of the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group, when and by what means this group came to be associated together (whether excavated concurrently or later associated for some unknown motivation by museum staff). On the basis of the current evidence, it can be said that at least one Tehran Sealing is duplicated in another sealing excavated by de Morgan but curated in the Louvre, indicating that in all likelihood this sealing was also excavated by de Morgan (though the possibility, however remote, that the sealings were excavated in two different contexts, the Louvre example by de Morgan, the Tehran example by another Susian excavator, cannot be absolutely discounted). It is also known that a group of sealings previously published by Amiet were amongst the ‘Tehran Sealing’ group (all others entries in Table 3.9 apart from 1010). This would indicate that these items were excavated between 1913 – 1967, according to the parameters of Amiet’s study, not withstanding the evidence cited above that other items excavated before 1913 were included by Amiet, and the possibility that at least some of these previously published items may also be considered ‘duplicate’ sealings. On the basis of this evidence, it may be hypothesised that some of the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group were excavated before 1913, and others during the 1913 – 1967 excavation period. Both suggestions are essentially speculative however, and cannot be proven on the current evidence. Indeed, the only element that seems to approach fact in this reconstruction is the suggestion that the ‘Tehran Sealing’ group does not in fact represent a coherent, single, group, excavated from Susa as a whole, but rather it

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 311 seems more likely that they were assembled at some other undetermined point by the curators at the Tehran Museum, for what purpose or by what reasoning is unknown. Further complicating this picture is the fact that a further eighty-seven sealings studied in Tehran were not previously published by Amiet or in any other discerned work. If it is accepted that all the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were excavated in the 1913 – 1967 era, as evidenced by the ‘Tehran Sealings’ previously published by Amiet (particularly 977 and 1737), then one need question why these sealings were not published by Amiet also. This non-publication would rather support the hypothesis that the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were excavated by de Morgan. For if they were excavated in the 1913 – 1967 era one would expect that Amiet would have published this material. A pre-1913 (that is de Morgan) era designation would fit this non- publication better however, as it is believed that the material excavated by de Morgan and housed in Tehran had not previously been subjected to a systematic study (these are the Tehran counterparts of the Louvre items published by Delaporte [1920]). This would indicate that two distinct groups are in fact present in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ whole. One group is comprised of the sealings previously published by Amiet, and generally excavated in the 1913 – 1967 excavations at Susa. The second group includes the unpublished ‘Tehran Sealings’ and the Tehran duplicate of the sealing published by Delaporte (1010); it is hypothesised this group was excavated by de Morgan at Susa (and therefore before 1913). This reconstruction confirms the above assertion that the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group does not form a single coherent group excavated together, but rather the group was enjoined at some later point by Tehran Museum staff, for an unknown reason. Of the eighty-seven remaining, previously unpublished, ‘Tehran Sealings’, twenty-four sealings were made by stamp seals and so have not been included here but are reserved for a latter study. This leaves sixty-three sealings in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group that have not been published before but are included in the Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 3.10. The study of these sealings (and indeed all the ‘Tehran Sealings’, including the previously published material) included standard physical examination, measuring, drawing, notation, comment collection and photography. From this point the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were essentially at the same level in terms of available information as the majority of the material sourced from previous publications and included in this study (indeed, in some instances more information, such as dimensions, were now known), and thus were treated accordingly. Due to the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 312 above outlined problems of ‘Tehran Sealing’ constitution however, any information regarding the provenance and excavation of the ‘Tehran Sealings’ is, unknown (though admittedly, this is a similar situation to much of the Susa material, detailed above). The photography undertaken in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ study also provided photographs for several items for which previously only a line drawing has been available. Such items are indicated in the Catalogue concordance.

Current Number Style Current Number Style Current Number Style 35 STS (2) 505 STS (22) 1677 AGD (15) 48 STS (3) 506 STS (22) 1900 STF (3) 49 STS (3) 507 STS (22) 2086 SF (7) 160 STS (7) 508 STS (22) 2382 UTRS (3) 245 STS (11) 509 STS (22) 2383 UTRS (3) 246 STS (11) 510 STS (22) 3117 LME (5) 316 STS (14) 547 JNRS (1) 3530 unclass. 348 STS (15) 548 JNRS (1) 3531 unclass. 393 STS (16) 549 JNRS (1) 3532 unclass. 493 STS (22) 719 JNRS (5) 3533 unclass. 494 STS (22) 943 CPE (3) 3534 unclass. 495 STS (22) 944 CPE (3) 3535 unclass. 496 STS (22) 1007 CPR (6) 3536 unclass. 497 STS (22) 1008 CPR (6) 3537 unclass. 498 STS (22) 1308 GS (5) 3538 unclass. 499 STS (22) 1406 AGD (1) 3539 unclass. 500 STS (22) 1443 AGD (5) 3540 unclass. 501 STS (22) 1506 AGD (9) 3541 unclass. 502 STS (22) 1507 AGD (9) 3542 unclass. 503 STS (22) 1572# AGD (13) 3543 unclass. 504 STS (22) 1676 AGD (15) Table 3.10. Surv ey of ‘Te hran Sealings’ pre viously unpublished and included in the Corpus, indicatin g current stylistic designatio n. Sealing 1572 marked by a hash(#) was represented on two (duplicate) sealings in the ‘Te hran Sealin gs’ group.

3.7 Summation Two major char acteristics of the material under discussion here have led to the adoption of a va riety of di fferent methods and techniques in the articulation of the styles here presented, as has just been outlined. The first such character istic is th e nature of glypti c material generally. Thus, due to inherent limitations of glyptic material outlined above (such as the risk of using seals as dating tools due to their ‘heirloom’ quali ty, and th e re-use and re-cutting p henomena), provenance and stratigraphic inf ormation, and indeed seriation analys is, that would normally be applied in the co nstruction of archaeological typologies, must be tempered somewhat. It therefore seemed prudent to apply several different methods and techniques of

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 313 analysis simultaneously, so that each method could act as an internal test one for another. The other characteristic that led to a variety of methods being adopted is specific to the Elamite Corpus. The variety of the material here included in the Corpus, and particularly the variation in the quality of both the excavation and presentation of this material has required that changing/interchanging methods of study were required for different items of information. Similarly, the effectiveness, or extent to which a particular technique could be applied and trusted also varied across the Corpus. For example, the modern, thorough, detailed excavation and publication of the (available) Tal-i Malyan material and the thorough excavation of the Sharafabad material (if not the somewhat non-glyptic oriented, non-analytical presentation of this material) meant that provenance and stratigraphic information could be used in seriation studies and in the articulation of the styles here presented (with the appropriate limitations in regards to stratigraphic use in glyptic studies). In contrast, the general lack of even the most basic provenance, let alone any relevant stratigraphic, information for the majority of the Susa material meant that such considerations for the Susa corpus were negligible. However, the fact that ‘dated seals’ are not unheard of in the Susa corpus, with the addition of the guidelines provided by Amiet’s previous analysis, useable pieces of information were available for the Susa corpus. In contrast, the well dated material from Choga Zanbil contained no ‘dated seals’ by which one could anchor particular styles to absolute dates, nor was (except in the exceptional circumstance of the KRS styles) Porada’s original classifications as effective a guideline as Amiet’s. This picture of variation in the published sources was therefore reflected in the approach adopted in this study. The technique was altered, with different methods assuming different levels of importance and use for different items. This is simply due to the fact that to place, for instance, provenance and stratigraphy as the primary method for all items would be absolute folly in the instances where no such information is available. Similarly the use of ‘dated seals’, or Mesopotamian-cross referential material (in the absence of any correlations this technique is obviously of no use), in corpora where no such items or information is available would be useless. Thus one may speak of primary, secondary, tertiary and so on down the line, techniques employed here for the construction of the Elamite styles. However, which

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 314 technique was primary, which secondary, was dependent on the individual item and the information available. The aim of this study was to produce a workable, functioning, tested stylistic developmental paradigm for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. Essentially, the tested part of this aim was achieved with the internal coherency test applied by the variation of techniques. Thus, through the application of the different methods of analysis, any obvious contradictions between the conclusions so achieved were analysed and judged, with the most internally coherent option favoured. Thus, it is hoped, the limitations of each method were lessened and compensated by the application of several different levels of analysis, providing a thorough, tested, examination.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 315