This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Elamite World Javier Álvarez-Mon, Gian Pietro Basello, Yasmina Wicks France and Elam Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315658032-4 Nicole Chevalier Published online on: 29 Jan 2018 How to cite :- Nicole Chevalier. 29 Jan 2018, France and Elam from: The Elamite World Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315658032-4 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. CHAPTER THREE FRANCE AND ELAM Nicole Chevalier* “But Elam, ancient, true Elam, famous rival of Babylon and Nineveh, was still sleep- ing underground and had not yet spoken.” Father Vincent Scheil 1911 n March 8, 1911, in a lecture on “The excavations and the history of Babylo- Onia, Assyria and Elam”, Father Vincent Scheil, the epigraphist of the Délégation scientifique française en Perse, described the state of knowledge about Elam before the research initiated at Susa in 1897. In a tradition dating back to Paul-Emile Botta, Fulgence Fresnel and Ernest de Sarzec, Scheil stressed that after having “revealed the archives of the old world at Nineveh, at Babylon, at Telloh”, France again, through its excavations at Susa had “the ever growing and most envied honour of resurrecting the history of Elam, starting from its remotest origins”. With these patriotic remarks made to the Comité de l’Asie française – a group of political and economic influ- ence established ten years earlier – Scheil introduced his presentation on the recent progress in the field of Elamite studies since France had obtained the monopoly on excavations in Persia in 1895 (Scheil 1937: 46). When it began its research, the Délégation was not the first to have been inter- ested in the ancient Elamite city of Susa. During the 19th century, several travellers, mainly English, had visited the ruins, but the few remains they spotted could not yet be identified.1 Subsequently two missions – one supported by Britain and the other by France – undertook research which was mainly concerned with the Achaemenid period. Certainly some Elamite remains were discovered, but they were too modest to reveal much, as evidenced by the huge and thoroughly documented Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité by Georges Perrot and Charles Chipiez, whose volumes on oriental antiquities published between 1884 and 1890 ignore the civilization of Elam: Father Scheil’s “true Elam” remained to be discovered. For a long time, France did not appear to be in the best position to make Susa and Elam a privileged subject of study. Although the English were able to visit Susiana, Charles Texier in 1838, then architect Pascal Coste and painter Eugène Flandin in 1839–1840 – amongst the rare Frenchmen to visit Persia – were unable to enter this 41 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:29 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315658032, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315658032-4 — Nicole Chevalier — region, which was regularly subject to tribal revolts. The meagre data and poor draw- ings obtained by Coste and Flandin from Baron de Bode, counsellor at the Russian embassy, were not published and probably helped to soften their regrets. However, the two missions, the first from Britain and the second from France, opened the road to the latter for further research in Elam. Explorations between 1850 and 1852 at the location of the Elamite city of Susa by Colonel Williams and William Kennet Loftus did not give the results expected by H.C. Rawlinson, who supervised excavations in Mesopotamia for the Trustees of the British Museum. They were pre- maturely halted in April 1852 when Loftus transferred his efforts to more promising Mesopotamian sites (Loftus 1857: 317–433; Curtis 1993: 15; 1997: 45). However, the success of the mission of Marcel Dieulafoy (1885–1886), magnified by the display of the remains of Persian kings at the Louvre, prompted France to continue research, driven by the fear of seeing Britain, in spite of its earlier lack of interest, asserting a “right of priority” over the site. THE FIRST FRENCH AT SUSA: THE MISSION OF MARCEL DIEULAFOY AND THE JOURNEY OF JACQUES DE MORGAN It was only in the late 19th century during the journey undertaken by Marcel and Jane Dieulafoy through Persia and Mesopotamia (February 1881–April 1882) that France became truly interested in Persia, and Susa in particular. An engineer from the Ponts- et- Chaussées, passionate about the connections between Oriental and West- ern art, Dieulafoy was finally able to visit Susa on 14 January 1882. Immediately he was convinced of its interest and wished to start excavations. On his return to France, his friendship with Louis de Ronchaud, director of the Musées Nationaux, helped further his project. Thanks to the latter and to the Ministry of Education, he obtained funding, modest but sufficient, to be able to carry out the work. It remained for René de Balloy, representative of France in Tehran, to obtain a firman from Nasr ed- Din Shah authorizing research in this insecure region of Khuzestan. The firman was granted on December 7, 1884, not without difficulty. Thus was established the groundwork that enabled French scholars to settle in Susa for the long term.2 When on February 26, 1885, Marcel Dieulafoy (1844–1920), accompanied by Jane and two assistants – Charles Babin, engineer at the Ponts- et- Chaussées and Frédéric Houssaye, a naturalist – arrived at Susa, his main goal was to resurrect the “Achaemenid palaces, where Greece, Egypt and western Asia had brought their trib- ute and their treasures” [Figure 3.1] (J. Dieulafoy 1888: 2). During the first campaign (February 26, 1885–May 13, 1885), after conducting a topographic survey with Babin (M. Dieulafoy 1893, Pl. II)3 and recognising the apadana (audience hall), of which Loftus had made the first plan, Dieulafoy dug several trenches in the Apadana mound and at various points of the Acropole and Ville Royale mounds (M. Dieula- foy 1885a: 57; 1893: 424; 1913: 2–3).4 During the second campaign (December 15, 1885–1886), for reason of lack of funds and especially time, he focused his efforts on the Apadana mound and completed his work in haste. Indeed, the mission became for various reasons a cause of concern for the Persian government, which had requested the end of the excavations since June 1885, saying they could not guarantee the safety of the French archaeologists: the presence of Christians near the tomb of Daniel was 42 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:29 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315658032, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315658032-4 — France and Elam — Figure 3.1 Jane and Marcel Dieulafoy, Frédéric Houssaye and Charles Babin at Susa 1885 (after Dieulafoy J. A Suse. Journal de fouilles 1888: 239). provoking irritation in the population. Finally, the Shah reluctantly agreed to one last campaign which was not to exceed four months. Despite the shortened work, when the cruiser Le Sané loaded the latest discoveries, France could be proud of the results. The presentation of the finds, including the frieze of lions, the archers and the monumental bull capital, opened on June 6, 1888 by President Carnot at the Louvre, was the striking proof. However, even if the results were decisive for the Persian period, by digging trenches that did not exceed four metres in depth Dieulafoy did not succeed in bring- ing Elamite Susa to light; although he did discover some objects older than the Achae- menids. Like Loftus, he brought back terracotta figurines, some dating to the second half of the 2nd millennium (Curtis 1993: 44, Pl. 9; 1997: 43, Figure 26; M. Dieula- foy 1893: 435) and inscribed bricks from Susa and Bandar- Bushehr acquired from Joseph Malcolm, whom he had met during his first trip to Persia (J. Dieulafoy 1887: 515; M. Dieulafoy 1893: 308–309, 311, Figure 193; 1913: 26). Eugène Ledrain and Jules Oppert translated the inscriptions “despite the immense difficulties of decipher- ing the Susian texts” (M. Dieulafoy 1893: 308, n. 1). Despite this success, the future of the excavations at Susa was uncertain because the Shah opposed the resumption of work that would disturb the local population. Above all, he was offended by the attitude of Dieulafoy, who ignored the terms of the firman concerning the sharing of discoveries. The Direction des Beaux-Arts which 43 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:29 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315658032, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315658032-4 — Nicole Chevalier — supported the excavations, the French legation in Tehran and Dieulafoy all shared the same concern: that if France agreed to the suspension of work, it did not renounce the rights it believed it had according to the firman that had been obtained. So for almost ten years, the Shah denied not only any request for excavations at Susa but also for requests for excavations in the whole of Persia, as evidenced by the exploration car- ried out by Jacques de Morgan (Morgan 1997: 249–327).