TAPPEH SIALK
THE GLORY OF ANCIENT KASHAN
Edited by Jebrael Nokandeh, John Curtis and Marielle Pic
Iran Heritage Foundation, 63 New Cavendish St, London W1G 7LP © contributing authors
First edition published in 2019
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the Iran Heritage Foundation, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Publications Department, Iran Heritage Foundation, 63 New Cavendish St, London W1G 7LP
You must not circulate this book in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available
Typeset by Mach 3 Solutions Ltd, Stroud Printed in Great Britain by CPI Anthony Rowe
ISBN 978-1-9162538-0-3
Dedicated
to
Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi Who founded
The Sialk Reconsideration Project
Iran Heritage Foundation Special Studies 1
Contents
Editors’ Foreword vii Preface (English) viii Preface (Persian) ix
1. An Introduction to Tappeh Sialk 1 JOHN CURTIS (IRAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION)
2. The Chronology of Tappeh Sialk: from Local Development to Globalisation 5 HASSAN FAZELI NASHLI (UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN) & JEBRAEL NOKANDEH (NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRAN)
ROGER MATTHEWS (UNIVERSITY OF READING)
4. Sialk North: Continuity and Change in Pottery Manufacture 16 ARMINEH KASPARI-MARGHUSSIAN (UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM)
5. Proto-Elamite Sites in Highland Iran: the State of Research at Tappeh Sialk and Arisman 21 BARBARA HELWING (UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY)
6. Notes on the Connections between Tappeh Sialk and Hasanlu 27 MICHAEL DANTI (AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH, BOSTON)
7. Decorative Bricks of the Late Iron Age in Eastern Media: Some Pieces from Sialk 32 REZA NASERI (ZABOL UNIVERSITY) & MEHRDAD MALEKZADEH (IRANIAN CENTRE FOR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH)
8. A Note on the Late Iron Age Double-Handled Tankards from Sialk 38 STEPHAN KROLL (LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY MUNICH)
9. Archaeobotanical Report about Tappeh Sialk, North Mound: First Impressions 40 HENGAMEH ILKHANI, ALEXANDRA LIVARDA & HASSAN FAZELI NASHLI
10. Tappeh Sialk Human and Animal Osteological Collections at the National Museum of Natural
History, Paris 45
MARJAN MASHKOUR & CÉLINE BON (CNRS & PARIS NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM)
11. Tappeh Sialk in the Louvre: Material and Archives from the Ghirshman Excavations 56 FRANÇOIS BRIDEY & JULIEN CUNY (LOUVRE MUSEUM)
12. The Challenges in Preserving Tappeh Sialk MOHSEN JAVERI (UNIVERSITY OF KASHAN)
13. The Restoration of Historic Buildings in Kashan HOSSEIN MAHLOUJI (KASHANICA FOUNDATION)
Appendix Bibliography
61 63
66 68
v
We are very pleased to be able to present in this volume a selection of the papers delivered at the two Tappeh Sialk conferences held at Asia House in London on 31 March 2017 and 2–3 July 2018 respectively. A full list of papers delivered at these conferences is given in an appendix at the end of the volume.
The publication of these papers is in line with the recommendations made in the closing ceremony of the second conference where it was agreed that (i) selected published as soon as possible; (ii) a digital record should Tappeh Sialk; (iii) there should be further Sialk confer- ences, initially one in Paris; and (iv) a Sialk international advisory committee should be established.
It should be noted that because of shortage of time there has been no attempt in this volume to standardise the spelling of place-names or common Iranian words which is no such thing as a ‘correct’ transliteration.
A number of people have helped with the arrangement of the conferences and the preparation of this volume. Astrid
Johansen of the Iran Heritage Foundation has played a major part in organising the conferences and has helped greatly with the editing of this volume. Elizabeth Stone has undertaken the UK visas for the Iranian participants in the conferences, and to HE Hamid Baedinejad, the Iranian Ambassador to the UK, who has supported the project throughout. In Tehran, Fereidoun Biglari has been a helpful point of contact.
We are grateful to the Trustees of the Iran Heritage Foundation who have generously and enthusiastically supported the Sialk project, in particular Alireza Rastegar, Ali Rashidian and Vahid Alaghband. We are also indebted to the British Institute of Persian Studies which provided a grant towards the cost of the second conference.
As a mark of his great contribution to furthering knowledge about Tappeh Sialk, this volume is dedicated to Professor Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi.
Jebrael Nokandeh John Curtis Marielle Pic
Editors’ Foreword
vii
Preface
Mohammad Hassan Talebian (Deputy Director of the Iranian Ministry for Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts)
Behrouz Omrani (Head of the Iranian Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism)
Tappeh Sialk near Kashan in Isfahan province is one of the most important archaeological sites not just in the Islamic Republic of Iran but in the whole of the Middle East. For this reason, on 22 May 1997 the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation submitted a request to UNESCO for Tappeh Sialk to be listed as a World Heritage Site. It remains on Iran’s tentative list and it is to be hoped that it will be inscribed as a World Heritage Site in the very near future. The site was occupied for about 5,500 years from ca. 6000 down to ca. 550 and shows the continuous development of human civilisation from early farming communities down to the threshold of the great Achaemenid Persian Empire. It provides an unparalleled cultural sequence against which other sites in the region can be measured. Amongst the many artefacts found at the site are clay tablets that show the beginning of writing in ca. 3200 . In addition, Tappeh Sialk is a treasure trove of information about diverse subjects such as palaeobotany, palaeozoology, palaeoanatomy, diet, climate change and ancient metallurgy. Excavations here were conducted by French archaeologists in the 1930s and by Iranian teams after 2000 led by Professor Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi and Professor Hassan Fazeli Nashli respectively.
To highlight the importance of this remarkable site, the UK-based Iran Heritage Foundation, in collabora- tion with the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation, the Musée du Louvre and the British Institute of Persian Studies, organised two international conferences at Asia House in London, on 31 March 2017 and on 2–3 July 2018 respectively. The events were attended by scholars France, Germany, the USA and Australia. A selection of the papers delivered at these conferences is presented in this volume.
This exciting project to promote Tappeh Sialk and introduce it to a wider range of people has been supported throughout by colleagues in Kashan, namely the Governor of Kashan Mr Hamid-Reza Momenian, Mr Hossein Mahlouji of the Kashan Cultural Heritage Foundation (Kashanica), Dr Mohsen Javeri of the University of Kashan and by HE Hamid Baedinejad, Iranian Ambassador to the UK. It is hoped that this initia- tive will lead to the formation of an international steering committee to protect Tappeh Sialk and this historic region of Iran.
viii
-
ix
Tappeh Sialk, in the outskirts of modern Kashan in central Iran, is arguably the most important archaeological site in Iran before the Achaemenid period. There was occupation at this site from around 6000 until at least 550 , and although it was not uninterrupted Sialk has an archae- ological sequence against which other sites in Iran can be measured. Sialk also provides important evidence for a possible change in material culture and burial traditions that occurred in the Early Iron Age, that is, in the second half of the 2nd millennium . Roman Ghirshman, the original excavator of Tappeh Sialk, associated this perceived cultural change with what he called ‘the coming Medes and Persians’, but this is a controversial matter that is still debated today. Some scholars (e.g. Fahimi 2013) believe that the grey ware allegedly associated with the newcomers is a development of local Bronze Age forms and that archaeological evidence does not support the case for an Indo-European invasion at this time. However that may be, Tappeh Sialk is of course central to this discussion.
The ancient site of Tappeh Sialk consists of two large mounds about 5 km to the south-west of the centre of Kashan. The site has now been swallowed up by the rapidly expanding modern city so that it is presently in the suburbs of Kashan. The two mounds of Sialk are about 600 m apart. The North Mound measures approximately 320 × 110 m, with a maximum height of 8.38 m (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, 9), while the South Mound is about 260 m × 190 m with a maximum height of 25.5 m (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, 34). In addition there are two cemeteries, Necropolis A to the south of the South Mound, and Necropolis B (B1-B2) to the west of the South Mound. The two mounds of Sialk were regis- tered as Iranian historical and cultural monuments on 15 September 1931 (Malek Shahmirzadi 2002: 1), and Sialk is currently no. 6 on Iran’s tentative list of sites for world heritage status. Nowadays the site is accessed through a small visitor centre, which also sells tickets, and visitors
can climb to the top of the South Mound via a well-con- structed wooden walkway.
Before going further, let us try to put Tappeh Sialk into context. A glance at the map immediately shows us that Sialk has an important strategic location. It is situated by an oasis on the edge of the Dasht-e Kavir, otherwise known as the Great Salt Desert, and lies on an important trade route going towards south-east Iran. It is on a branch of the so-called Great Khorassan Road, which splits into two after Hamadan, one branch heading towards Tehran and then eastwards to the south of the Caspian Sea, and another towards Kashan, Isfahan and Kerman. It is this location, and the abundance of water, that also accounts for the later importance of Kashan. The availability of water is clearly evidenced at the nearby Fin Garden, or Bagh-e Fin. In its present form the garden dates from the time of Shah Abbas (1571–1629), with an enlargement in the 19th century. With the streams of water running through the garden and dividing it into segments, and with its many cypress trees, it is a typical Persian garden. It was here, in the baths, that the Qajar chancellor Amir Kabir was murdered on the orders of Nasr ed Din Shah in 1852. Bagh-e Fin was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO on 18 July 2012.
were undertaken by the French archaeologist Roman Ghirshman. He tells us (1935: 229) that in the course of 1933 he was informed by André Godard, Director of the Iranian Antiquities Service, that painted pottery vases from Kashan were appearing on the market in Tehran, and this encouraged him to start working at Sialk. Only and he used them to dig a series of sondages. There were further seasons in 1934 and 1937. The results of the exca- vations were written up with commendable speed and were published in 1938–9. Roman Mikhailovich Ghirshman (1895–1979) was born in what is now Ukraine and after
1
Introduction to Tappeh Sialk JOHN CURTIS
1
studying archaeology and ancient languages in Paris he was appointed Director of the French Archaeological Mission in Persia in 1931 and began an association with Iran that was to last more than 40 years. Before the Second World War, apart from Sialk he also worked at Tappeh Giyan and Bishapur, and after the war at sites including Susa, Choga Zanbil, Masjid-e Suleiman and Bard-e Nechandeh. Throughout his career he was at pains to write up the results of his researches and for this he deserves much credit. He also wrote a number of semi-popular books and although some of his theories have been derided by revisionist historians there is no doubt that he made a major contribution to studies of Ancient Iran. At the time of the Ghirshman excavations foreign excavators still season, so half the objects that Ghirshman found are now in the Louvre while half remained in Tehran.
found at Sialk after 1972 has remained in Iran. Material from Sialk, both from Ghirshman’s and later excavations, is now on display in the National Museum of Iran, both upstairs, in the new prehistoric galleries arranged since Dr Nokandeh became Director, and downstairs. Some of the Sialk material in the National Museum also featured in the wonderful Iranian exhibition in Bonn in 2017 (Helwing 2017: passim). There were also some Sialk ceramics in the exhibition on the human–animal bond shown in the National Museum in 2014 (Biglari & Abdi 2014: passim).
After the end of Ghirshman’s excavations there was to be a hiatus of 65 years before further work was under- taken at the site. This was on the initiative of Professor Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi who in January 2001, with the support of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation, founded the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’. In the course December 2005 Professor Malek Shahmirzadi and his team worked on both the Sound Mound and the North Mound and contributed a great deal of valuable new infor- mation. This is presented in a series of reports which, like those of Ghirshman, appeared with commendable prompt- ness (Malek Shahmirzadi 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2012). Also under the umbrella of the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’, Michael Danti, then of Penn Museum, under- took an archaeological survey around Sialk in 2005 and found 16 sites, mostly of Islamic date. It is a matter of great regret that Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi was not able to attend either of the conferences in London. This volume is dedicated to him in recognition of the great contribution he has made to Sialk studies.
Excavations were resumed in 2008–9 by Professor Hassan Fazeli Nashli of the University of Tehran who worked in collaboration with Professor Robin Coningham
They investigated the Neolithic settlements in Sialk North Mound and the transition to Early Chalcolithic. They also techniques to analyse material found in the excavations.
Even more recently, in 2015, Dr Mohsen Javari of the University of Kashan, and the Director of the Kashan Cultural Heritage Organization, dug a series of sondages in the plain around the two mounds to determine the extent of ancient settlement. This was a very important exercise because in recent years there has been increasing encroachment on the site both by farmers and by devel- opers building new houses. A top priority is to establish and enforce an exclusion zone around the site, which will probably be a prerequisite for accepting it as a world heritage site.
Although human settlement in the Kashan region is known to go back to the Palaeolithic period, as described by Fereidoun Biglari in the second Sialk conference,1 at Sialk itself occupation begins in the Neolithic period, in around 6000 . This was in the North Mound and lasted until approximately 4900 early occupation on the North Mound as levels I and II, and it extended into the Transitional Chalcolithic period. In these early periods there was already painted pottery, bodies of children were found in urns. Artefacts were scarce. Roger Matthews has set the Neolithic period at Tappeh Sialk in a wider Iranian context, and Hassan Fazeli Nashli and Jebrael Nokandeh have reviewed the chro- nology of the Neolithic (and later) periods at Sialk. Fazeli Nashli, together with Hengameh Ilkhani and Alexandra - botanical samples from the Neolithic levels.
There is then a gap of around 800 years until 4100 when occupation resumes on the site of the South Mound and continues through the Bronze and into the Iron Age. Particularly characteristic of level III at Sialk, and dating from the 4th millennium , is pottery painted with a remarkable range of animal designs, including birds, ibexes, stags and goats.2 present, as is a wide range of geometric motifs. Common forms are beakers, footed goblets, bowls and jars. The highlight of the subsequent level IV occupation is a short- lived phase often known as Proto-Elamite, dating from the
1 F. Biglari, ‘Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers at the edge of the central desert: archaeological evidence from the Kashan region’, paper delivered 3 July 2018.
2 At the Sialk conference on 2 July 2018 Sima Yadollahi gave a talk entitled ‘Symbols and styles on Sialk III pottery and their roles in understanding cognitive systems’.
2
late 4th or early 3rd millennium . This is sometimes sophisticated economy at places such as Sialk is demon- strated by the discovery there by Ghirshman of 22 clay tablets written in Proto-Elamite script. Barbara Helwing reviews this Proto-Elamite period on the South Mound and shows that the material culture of this period comprises standard-size mudbricks, mass-produced ceramics such as bevelled-rim bowls, and cylinder seals in addition to the inscribed clay tablets. She demonstrates how Sialk IV is related to a widespread culture that is manifest in Mesopotamia and at other sites in Iran such as Arisman, Susa and Ozbaki.
The ensuing Bronze Age levels at Tappeh Sialk are not well documented, but the Early Iron Age, covering the end of the 2nd millennium and the early 1st millennium , called by Ghirshman Level V, is represented by an extensive cemetery known as Necropolis A. In this ceme- tery, 15 undisturbed graves were excavated by Ghirshman. grave-goods included some bronze items, stone beads and monochrome grey-to-black and red burnished wares.
Later in the Iron Age the dead were interred in another cemetery, known as Necropolis B. This second Iron Age period at Tappeh Sialk is referred to by Ghirshman as Period VI. In this very rich cemetery 218 graves were excavated by Ghirshman, but not all are described in the publication. The graves were sealed by six to eight slabs of stone or terracotta, the latter reserved for the very richest graves. amount of monochrome burnished ware, a larger number of iron artefacts and a large number of beautifully painted beak-spouted jugs.3 These are generally red paint on cream and show designs such as horned animals with arched necks. It was the discovery of pottery vessels of this type in illegal excavations that had drawn Ghirshman to Tappeh include bronze and iron horse-trappings, horse-bits and cheek-pieces, and there is even a terracotta board-game of the type known ‘the game of 58 holes’. Medvedskaya dates the horse harness from Sialk Necropolis B to the 8th century (Medvedskaya 2017: 178).
Some of the human skeletal remains from the two cemeteries collected by Ghirshman are now in Paris, in the Musée de l’Homme. Marjan Mashkour and Céline Bon review this material as well as animal bones from Sialk that are now in the Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.
3 Isolated examples of the distinctive Sialk pottery, generally without provenance, are to found in a number of museums around the world, including the British Museum (e.g.
Both institutions are part of the National Museum of Natural History of Paris (MNHN).
The Iron Age occupation at Tappeh Sialk has been the subject of a special study by Dr Hamid Fahimi (Fahimi 2013) based on the 2001–5 excavations, and it is a matter of regret that he was not able to attend either of the two Sialk conferences. He demonstrates that occupation on Sialk South continues after Period VI, the period represented in Necropolis B, and he divides this new period VII into two subphases, 1a and 1b. Stefan Kroll has compared three double-handled pottery tankards (Ghirshman 1938–9: II, pl. IV) found in a ‘sondage au sud de la colline sud’ with Median type pottery from Godin Tappeh, Bastam, Nush-i Jan and elsewhere, and concludes that ‘Median culture’
Contemporary with Necropolis B is a great mass of brickwork on the south side of the top of the Sialk South Mound that Ghirshman described as ‘la grande construction’. It measures some 56 m × 45 m (Malek Shahmirzadi 2002: 3) and was possibly associated with a fortress wall. This gigantic mudbrick structure was interpreted by Dr Malek Shahmirzadi as a Proto-Elamite ziggurat, but not all scholars agree with this dating and many would prefer to see it as an Iran Age structure. In this volume Reza Naseri and Mehrdad Malekzadeh review the stamped bricks found in association with ‘la grande construction’ and concur with Ghirshman that they date to the Iron Age. They also occur at three other sites, and in the view of Naseri and Malekzadeh they are a hallmark of the Median period. They describe the motifs, which are on the painted pottery and glyptic found in Cemetery B (Sialk VI period). It follows, therefore, that if the stamped bricks are of this period, so is the structure to which they belong. For this reason, Naseri and Malekzadeh date ‘la grande construction’ to the Iron II-III periods. So, if they are correct, what was this great mass of brickwork?
In his lecture at the conference, Professor Fazeli suggested that ‘la grande construction’ was a building with a religious purpose that may have had some connection with an early form of Zoroastrianism. However, there is another possible explanation. It could perhaps have been a platform or ‘takht’ to serve as a substructure for a monu- mental building or buildings. The examples that we are familiar with date mostly from the Achaemenid period, but it is certainly conceivable that such platforms could have existed earlier in the pre-Achaemenid Median period. In the Achaemenid period, monumental buildings were sometimes constructed on an elevated platform, or takht, that might have been adapted from a natural feature (as at the Tall-e Takht), or created by levelling and remodelling
3
an existing mound (as at Susa). At Persepolis, a raised terrace measuring about 455 m × 300 m was cut from the mountainside, while at Pasargadae a raised platform was created with an outer face of massive stone blocks and a central core of limestone chips (Stronach 1978b: 11–23). This platform was apparently created by Cyrus as part of a building programme, probably for an elevated palace, that was aborted when attention switched to Persepolis and Susa. At Susa, the whole of the top of the Apadana Mound was levelled to create a takht on which to build possible that the terrace at Masjid-i Sulaiman (Ghirhman takht) created in the Achaemenid period. There is, then, good evidence that in the Achaemenid period, royal palaces and other build- ings were sometimes constructed on elevated platforms. Of course, if ‘la grande construction’ at Tappeh Sialk was indeed a platform or takht it would have been on a much smaller scale that the Achaemenid examples we have just looked at, but if it dates from the pre-Achaemenid period, as suggested by Naseri and Malekzadeh, this would not be particularly surprising. This brings us onto the ques- tion of the date. Naseri and Malekzadeh point to parallels between the stamped designs on the bricks and motifs on the pottery and glyptic art found in Necropolis B. As we have seen, Medvedskaya dates the horse harness found in Sialk Necropolis B to the 8th century . However, we know that some pottery found in the Sialk South Mound post-dates Necrolis B, and the pottery tankards described by Kroll are presumably 7th century in date. This raises the intriguing possibility that ‘la grande construction’ might date from the 7th century or even later, although in this case we would have to assume that Necropolis B was also occupied into the 7th century. Lastly, is there any possibility that ‘la grande construction’ might even be of Achaemenid date?
The absence of material of apparent Achaemenid date at Tappeh Sialk is perplexing. It is inconceivable that a site important Achaemenid centre. Either there is Achaemenid material at Sialk, and we have failed to recognise it, or the Achaemenid settlement is elsewhere. It is worth remarking in passing, however, that some of the painted designs on
the Necropolis B ceramics look comparatively late: for example, the warrior on a beak-spouted vessel of Sialk volume, Figs 7.5c, 7.6a) seems to be wearing an akinakes, the typically Achaemenid form of short sword in a distinc- tively shaped scabbard. However, the form could indeed be pre-Achaemenid, so this does not prove anything.
If traces of Achaemenid settlement really are missing at Sialk, the only possible explanation is that the Achaemenid city is buried under modern Kashan. Although the origins of the city are known to go back only to the early Islamic period, it is very likely that occupation levels dating from the pre-Islamic Achaemenid, Parthian and Sasanian periods (5th century –7th century ) are all beneath the modern city. These early levels at Kashan have not yet been properly investigated, but their existence is actually suspected through some clandestine operations.
The origins of the modern city of Kashan go back to the early Islamic period, if not before, and a substantial fortress in the middle of the city dates from the Seljuk period. As described in a lecture by Professor Oliver Watson,4 in the 12th–13th centuries Kashan was a centre of ceramic innovation, famous for its minai enamelled ware, lustre pottery and lustre tiles. This innovation was made possible through the introduction of fritware (or stone paste ware, consisting of ground quartz), which had been developed in Egypt. Kashan wares were widely exported, but the sites of the potters’ workshops in Kashan famous for its carpets. A disastrous earthquake in 1778 destroyed most of the city, and there were apparently 8,000 casualties. However, the city was rebuilt in the late houses dating from this period. Kashan has more exam- ples of traditional Persian architecture than any other city in Iran. Particularly famous buildings of this type are the Tabatabaei House, the Boroujerdi House and the Manouchehri House, which is now a boutique hotel, but there are many others. Many of the initiatives that have been undertaken to restore historic properties in Kasjan were encouraged by the Kashanica Foundation, whose work is described in this volume by Hossein Mahlouji.5
4 Professor Oliver Watson’s talk ‘The Early Islamic Period at Kashan’ was given at the second Sialk conference on 3 July 2018. The lecture is not published in this volume.
5 An IHF lecture in Asia House on 25 January 2017 by Seyyed Akbar Helli, a master builder, also focused on the restoration of historic houses in Kashan.
4
2
The Chronology of Tappeh Sialk: from Local Development to Globalisation
HASSAN FAZELI NASHLI & JEBRAEL NOKANDEH
Introduction
From the 1990s onwards, numerous chronological studies of the archaeological sites of the central plateau of Iran have provided us with a good understanding of social and cultural developments in this region across time and space. This chapter focuses on the chronology of Sialk as a regional example of the early development of human societies from the Neolithic to the Achaemenid period. Before the 1930s, Iranian archaeology was in its infancy, and most of the French teams had focused on Susa. But, with the gradual internationalisation of the discipline, archaeologists began to focus on other parts of Iran, such as Tappeh Sialk (Figs 2.1 and 2.2), in order to establish an independent chronology for the country. Sialk was initially targeted because of the appearance of Iron Age ceramics on the antiquity market in Paris but Roman Ghirshman was clever enough not to limit himself to these antiquities and did valuable work identi- Kavir desert. His division of the cultural sequences of Sialk South and North into various phases still provides a valuable model today.
However, Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi’s ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (2001–6) provided a more secure radiocarbon chronology for Sialk South. It is pleasing to mention that a new phase of investigation started in 2008–9 on Tappeh Sialk North, directed by Hassan Fazeli Nashli from the University of Tehran with the assistance of Robin Coningham from Durham University, UK. This provided secure information relating to the dating of the site during the Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic periods (Figs projects mentioned, the chronology of Tappeh Sialk can be divided into the following ten periods:
1. Late Neolithic I: the development of local societies
2. Late Neolithic II: the regionalisation of Sialk I
societies
3. Transitional Chalcolithic and the globalisation of
Sialk II culture
4. Early Chalcolithic period: Sialk III1-3
5. Middle Chalcolithic period: Sialk III4-5
6. Late Chalcolithic period: Sialk III6-7
7. Proto-Elamite/ Uruk period/ Early Literature period/
Early Bronze Age: Sialk IV
8. Middle and Late Bronze Age
9. Iron Age/ Sialk VI and VI
10. Achaemenid period
The Late Neolithic period/Sialk I
The north central plateau of Iran lies between the Zagros mountains to the west and the Alburz mountains to the north. and the interconnection of people over time and space. However, parts of the north central plateau are under the shadow of the great Kavir desert, which has concentrated the population in fertile lands from the Neolithic onwards. In terms of the origin of Neolithic culture in Iran, the central Zagros is the heartland of Neolithisation. While there are basic questions still unanswered related to the spread of Neolithic farmers across Iran, it seems that a fundamentally new lifestyle spread across the region from 8000 onwards from the central Zagros to the other regions of Iran. The oldest Pre-pottery Neolithic site in the southern Alburz is the site of Sang-e Chakhmaq dating to the late 8th millennium (Thornton 2013). It is also important to mention a recent paper by Feridoun Biglari close to Damavand, which signals pre-pottery stone assemblages, but this needs further investigation at the
5
Table 2.1
Cultural Period () Achaemenid Period
Iron Age
Bronze Age
Chalcolithic
Transitional Chalcolithic
Late Neolithic
Sialk North ()
Sialk South ()
Start 530
Start 800–end 530 Start 1200–end 800 Start 1500–end 1200 Start 2000–end 1500 Start 2900–end 2000 Start 3400–end 2900
Start 3790–end 3400 Start 3940–end 3790 Start 4100–end 3940
Iron Age III
Iron Age II
Iron Age I
Late Bronze Age
Middle Bronze Age
Early Bronze Age Proto-literate 3400–2900
Late (LC) 3700–3400 Middle (MC) 4000–3700 Early (EC) 4300–4000 Late (TC II) 4600–4300 Early (TC I) 5200–4600 Late (LN II) 5600–5200 Early (LN I) 6000–5600
800-year gap
Start 5145–end 4900 Start 5380–end 5250 Start 5715–end 3600
site of Qaleh Asgar (Biglari 2012). The 2017 excavations at Tappeh Komishani revealed a mid-9th millennium date, at least 1,000 years earlier than the Neolithic site of Sang-e Chakhmaq and indicates early management of food production and animal husbandry on the south shoreline of the Caspian Sea. Therefore, based on current informa- such as Kashan where the Neolithic period is not much older than 6000 , when the Pottery Neolithic starts. The origins of Neolithic pottery are also problematic in the north central plateau. While we know that Neolithic on sites such as Tappeh Ali-kosh (Darabi 2018), Rahmatabad (Azizi et al. 2013) and Gav Koshi (Soleimani & Fazeli Nashli 2019), Neolithic ceramics in the North Central region started much later, after ca. 6200 with a local pottery style.
Analysis of new information for the 7th millen- nium shows that the date of sites such as Sialk, Cheshmeh-Ali, Chahar Boneh, Ebrabim Abad and Tappeh Pardis goes back to the Late Neolithic period, with the two main phases of Late Neolithic 1 and 2. During the Late Neolithic 1 most farming villages had their own local ceramic traditions, while during the second phase of the Late Neolithic period there are traces of interconnections and regionalism. Within the Qazvin plain, sites such as Chahar Boneh date back to the Late Neolithic I (6000– 5600 ) and Late Neolithic II (5600–5200 ), whilst Ebrahim Abad dates to the Late Neolithic II (5600–5200 ). However, the style of pottery decoration and forms of the two Neolithic sites are quite dissimilar and reveal
south of the Qazvin plain.
So far, three important Late Neolithic sites in the Kashan plain, Tappeh Sialk North, Ghabristan of Noshabad and Shorabeh Tappeh, have revealed Late Neolithic material cultures. Tappeh Sialk North, with 14 m of Late Neolithic cultural layers, represents the best example of a farming society in Iran. The site also shows when the earliest of the 6th millennium became a regional society during the later periods of the 6th millennium . Chronologically, the Late Neolithic ceramics of Tappeh Sialk show stylistic change and technology through the period. It should also be proposed relative chronology for the Neolithic period. He recorded four main pottery types for the Neolithic period: 1) Black on Cream; 2) Black on Red; 3) Coarse Wares; and 4) Black Wares (Ghirshman 1938–9: 11; Fazeli et al. 2013). Neolithic sites in the Iranian central region such as the 4 ha Tappeh Sialk village were interconnected to each other in the second half of the 6th millennium, and the introduction - alisation for this period (Figs 2.5 and 2.6). With simple irri- gation systems, the economy was based on the growing of wheat and barley and the herding of cattle, goats, sheep and pigs, though wild resources continued to be exploited during the Late Neolithic period. Among the best evidence for religious thought in this period Roman Ghirshman which is a unique discovery for the Late Neolithic period (Fig. 2.7).
6
The transitional Chalcolithic period and the globalisation of the Sialk II culture
Globalisation is a useful term for understanding the spread of the Sialk II/Cheshmeh-Ali culture. During the Transitional Chalcolithic, the Sialk II ceramic style spread across the north central plateau, the north-east, the east, and the north of Iran, and Turkmenistan. Globalisation is a means of understanding how local societies were absorbed into much larger geographic areas. The Sialk II culture preserved social inequality during the Late Chalcolithic period. The occupation of Sialk North continued into the 5th millennium with the introduc- tion of major new technologies such as the production of smelt copper and innovations in ceramic manufacture, with delicate designs. The stratigraphic information from the two important sites of Cheshmeh-Ali and Tappeh - the Transitional Chalcolithic period. It is likely that most Early Transitional Chalcolithic ceramics were inde- pendently produced across the villages of north central Iran, rather than in one centre. Two regional Chalcolithic ceramics were recorded at Tappeh Sialk: one is a painted black on red ceramic, which is widely distributed across most parts of north central Iran and beyond; the second is standard ware, to date found in the Qazvin plain. Zagheh Shahmirzadi 1977) and was subsequently found in the Transitional Chalcolithic levels at Tappeh Sialk North, in the upper layers of Ebrahim Abad and in many settle- ments of the Qazvin plain (Fazeli et al. 2013), indicating the interaction of the two most important regions during the Transitional Chalcolithic period. The very pale brown of Zagheh standard ware pottery – externally covered was mainly used as cooking ware.
At Sialk the occupation of Sialk II culture is of much shorter duration than at other Transitional Chalcolithic II/Cheshmeh-Ali ceramics into the following forms: cup-bowls with narrow concave bases, spouted bowls, hemispherical and closed bowls, shallow and deep bowls on pedestal feet, basket-handled pots and concave-sided cups (Dyson 1991). Although most of the ceramics the ceramics (Fazeli et al - designs were applied on burnished orange-to-red slip wares (Figs 2.8 and 2.9).
The Early Chalcolithic period and the interconnection of the central plateau with the central Zagros and south-western Iran
Tappeh Sialk South became very important from the last quarter of the 5th millennium until the end of the Iron Age (Fig 2.10). The Chalcolithic phases at Sialk are known as Sialk III1-3. The sequence begins in Sialk South between 4288 and 3955 cal (4069–3970 cal at 68%, median 4033 cal ) (Pollard et al. 2013). The c14 dates from the neighbouring site of Arisman are also very helpful for revising and placing the chronology of Sialk III in a micro regional setting (Görsdorf 2011; Helwing 2011). However, this sequence is not attested at Sialk North and one of the mysteries of Sialk is that from 4900 to 4100 there is a gap until a new settlement was founded 1 km to the south known as Sialk South. Why such a gap occurred is still unknown, although we assume this interruption comes from environmental instability during the 5th millennium (Kourampas et al. 2013). However, slight evidence of Sialk II and Sialk III ceramics was found in Trench B in the area around the site of Tepe Sialk (Rostaei 2002; Nokandeh 2010) which indicates that further work is probably needed beyond the current mounds of Tepe Sialk to understand the context of occupa- tion during the Sialk II and Sialk III1-3 periods. Once Sialk South was founded, however, it continued to be occupied into the Iron Age. The Early Chalcolithic period at Tappeh Sialk South is represented by a very short occupation, less than 100 years, but from other sites such as Qara Tappeh of Qumroad, Tappeh Ghabristan and Cheshmeh-Ali we know that there was cultural interregional interaction of the Iranian central plateau with south-western Iran, Fars and north-western Iran. The excavation of Qara Tappeh on the Qomrud plain has changed our view of the nature of interactions in the north central plateau with the other societies of Iran during the 5th millennium (Kaboli 2005). Qara Tappeh (320X275, 8 has and 11 m high) is one of the largest sites on the ancient road connecting Qom with the ancient city of Rayy. In the whole sequence of the site, Bakun pottery from Fars province was found with the typical Sialk II and III1-3 (Transitional and Early Chalcolithic periods). Kaboli noted the increasing level of contact between Fars and south-western Iran with the Iranian central plateau during the last quarter of the 5th millennium while such connection had started in the early 5th millennium (Fig 12. No 5). In the other parts of the central plateau, Qazvin, Eshtehard and the Tehran plain, there was a strong relationship with the societies of the central Zagros (Godin VII), indicating the complex socio-economic transformation in the last quarter of the 5th millennium . Godin VII is an important period
7
in the central Zagros of Iran and chronologically covers the last quarter of the 5th millennium BC continuing into the early 4th millennium . Also, it is necessary to mention that traces of Godin ceramics (Plume Ware) are visible at sites such as Ghabristan, Ozbaki (Eshtehard) and Tepe Pardis, indicating strong relationships between the central Zagros and the central plateau of Iran (Fazeli 2011; Majidzadeh 2010).
- tant stylistic changes in Sialk III period pottery from Tappeh Sialk (Fig. 2.11) and shown how the Sialk III1-3 ceramic style became more important during the Middle Chalcolithic period. Figs 2.12 and 2.13 indicate the main ceramic forms and decorative style of Sialk III phases 1–3 pottery from Tappeh Sialk and other contemporary sites in the central plateau of Iran. The main innovation is ceramic beakers (Fig. 2.13 top right), and the emergence of leop- ards on the Sialk III1-3 ceramics from Tappeh Qara Tappeh (Fig. 2.12 no. 7), and a snake between streams of water with a goat (Fig. 2.12 nos 6 and 7). There are new ceramic forms with the use of a fast wheel.
The Middle Chalcolithic period and the parallel developments of Sialk communities
Sialk South has become one of the classic sites of the 4th millennium with a socio-cultural development paralleled in other parts of Iran including south-western Iran and Fars. The transition at the site from Early Chalcolithic to Middle Chalcolithic took place between 4002 and 3853 cal (3976–3911 cal at 68%, median 3942 cal ). The Middle Chalcolithic period (4000–3700 ) is characterised by increased interac- tion between the Iranian central plateau, south-western Iran, the central Zagros mountains and Mesopotamia. Whereas the Early Chalcolithic period occupation at Tappeh Sialk was short, the site was occupied for the whole of the Middle Chalcolithic period. Iran generally is rich in metal – unlike Mesopotamia – so here we can see a development of metallurgy not only in copper but silver ornament in the world. A major feature of the recent excavations has been the excavation of a metal worker’s shop, and early metal working hearths have been discov- ered at Sialk and also Arisman (Malek Shahmirzadi 2012; Nokandeh 2003, 2004, 2010; Nokandeh & Fahimi 2003; Nokandeh & Nezafati 2003; Helwing 2006a, 2011). Fig. 2.11 shows the characteristic geometric depictions of animals, plants, geometric designs and human shapes of the Middle Chalcolithic period of Tappeh Sialk, which
such painting from the Early Chalcolithic period devel- oped during the middle Chalcolithic period. Production of large storage jars became predominant during the Middle Chalcolithic period (Fazeli et al. 2013) and in Sialk two of snakes, rippling water and geometric designs (Figs 2.12, 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15). Groups of people dancing of the Middle Chalcolithic period at Tappeh Sialk (Fig. 2.16). Ghirshman reported a variety of stamp seals from the Sialk III period, most of which belong to the Middle Chalcolithic period (see Figs 2.17 and 2.18) and illustrate administrative practices.
The Late Chalcolithic Period and the End of Local Culture
The Late Chalcolithic period (3700–3400 ) is characterised by increased interaction between the communities of the Iranian central plateau, the Central Zagros, north-east Iran and Mesopotamia as attested string-cut bases, burnished grey ware (Fig. 2.22), Uruk trays and bevelled-rim bowls (Fig. 2.23), and seals and seal impressions (Nokandeh 2002, 2010; Nokandeh & to Late Chalcolithic occurred between 3916 and 3582 cal (3858–3711 cal at 68%, median 3786 cal ceramics from Tappeh Sialk have often been found in Late Chalcolithic period deposits at sites such as Tappeh Ghabristan, Tappeh Maymoonabad, Arisman and Godin, indicating that a degree of interaction and communica- tion had been established with the Central Western Zagros during the second half of the 4th millennium (Fazeli et al. 2013; Rothman & Badler 2011: 120).
Common forms include vertical and inverted-rim hemispherical bowls of shallow to medium depth, some with a pedestal base and usually a thin wash applied on both surfaces. Most motifs consist of geometric designs but stylised animals such as goats, leopards, cattle, and birds were found in abundance not only at Sialk but also at the many contemporary sites in the central plateau of Iran. At Sialk, as at other contemporary Late Chalcolithic sites, string-cut bases were recorded. Potter’s wheels were of time spent on ceramic production. Bevelled-rim bowls provide another example of supra-regional interconnec- tions between the Iranian central plateau with its neigh- bours, as found in Sialk, Ghabristan, Maymoonabad and Cheshmeh-Ali.
8
Nokandeh’s study of Tappeh Sialk south (Nokandeh 2010) indicates that from the last phase of Sialk III6-7 we have new forms of ceramics popularly known as Uruk pottery. Based on this discovery we believe there was a mixture of local of ceramics of the Sialk III period with newly found Uruk pottery in the latest Late Chalcolithic levels. This means that we have not only a transitional layer at Sialk but also evidence of an inter- action of the Sialk communities with south-western Iran western Mesopotamian side.
The production of grey ware ceramics in the north central plateau has a long history and goes back to the Sialk III4-5 period of the 4th millennium . Sites such as Tappeh Sialk, Tepe Ghabristan, and Tepe Ozbaki show that grey ware ceramics were made in the context of Sialk III local traditions. This tradition was continued at Sofalin during the Pro-Elamite period with wheel made burnished grey ware, and is the best example of how the grey ware ceramic tradition developed during the 4th millennium that in the late fourth and early 3rd millennium C the burnished grey ware of Sofalin can be compared with that of Hissar in north-eastern Iran and Narges Tepe in the Gorgan plain. This reveals the extent of the inter- action between the central plateau and north-eastern Iran during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (Nokandeh 2010; Fazeli et al. 2013, Majidzadeh 2010; et al. 2019, in press).
The Early Bronze Age / Sialk IV period (Proto-Elamite)
The transition from Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I took place between 3682 and 3324 cal (3632–3385 cal at 68%, median 3503 cal ) and according to current data there is a short gap between the end of the Late Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age at Tappeh Sialk. With the end of the Sialk III/7b ceramic tradition in most settlements of the north central plateau of Iran, the new ceramics of Sialk IV appeared, with a number of innovations (Figs 2.24, 2.25 and 2.26). Barbara Helwing believes this was a rapid and disruptive cultural change (Helwing 2013) but some archaeologists believe that some traditions of Sialk et al. 2015). As we mentioned above Tappeh Sialk south provides evidence for a transitional layer from Sialk III to Sialk IV without any interruption. The results of exca- vation at Tepe Maymoonabad show the same as Sialk, a mixing of old ceramic tradition with the new ceramic
wares, including bevelled-rim bowls (BRBs), Uruk trays and string-cut base (SCB) wares occur alongside the a standard architectural layout (a 5.37 m long wall - place was constructed) found at many late 4th millen- nium sites including Tappeh Yahya (Potts 1977), Godin Tappeh VI (Rothman & Badler 2011), Malyan and Sialk IV1 (Ghirshman 1938–9).
Between 3400 and 2900 horizons appear in north central Iran, the so-called Proto- Elamite/protoliterate and the Kura-Araxes cultures, mostly in the Qazvin plain (Fazeli et al. 2013). So far, there is no Kura-Araxes culture in the Kashan plain but there were strong connections between the commu- nity of Sialk and south-western Iran and Mesopotamia. - cant disruption across the length and breadth of Iran, characterised archaeologically by the abandonment of rural settlements and urban social and economic devel- opments (Helwing 2013). Houses of late Chalcolithic by a new architectural layout, which in 1934 Ghirshman saw as representing a ‘brutal conquest’ by incomers from were mainly painted with a dark colour, sometimes over pottery into various categories, from tall cylindrical jars to bowls on pedestal bases. The two types of shallow and deep bevelled-rim bowls from Sialk are comparable with Ghabristan IV, Godin Tappeh V-VI and Susa II.
According to Dahl (2009, 2012) Proto-Elamite was inspired by proto-cuneiform from neighbouring Mesopotamia, but François Desset (2016) disagrees that Proto-Elamite was a secondary script, suggesting it was not inspired by proto-cuneiform. It is certainly true that Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform are contem- porary as they were sister societies in the highlands of Iran and Mesopotamia. However, a writing system north-eastward direction from Susa to Sialk, to Ozbaki to Sofalin. However, the c14 dates show that the begin- ning of Proto-Elamite is 3200–3100 and that Sialk was abandoned at the end of the 4th millennium . As there is a gap between 3400 and 3200 on the Sialk South Mound, we can assume Tappeh Sialk was only occupied for 100 years during the Proto-Elamite period.
9
The Kashan plain during the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age
There is no history of occupation in the 3rd millennium and for most parts of the 2nd millennium at Tappeh Sialk but here we would like to point out that during the 2nd millennium the central plateau again became important and emerged as a crossroads of culture and the Kashan plain was populated from 2000 onwards. The settlement history of the 2nd millennium in the vast area of the Iranian central plateau, the north and north- east of Iran, is very diverse, demonstrating inconsistency of settlement patterns. One of the big issues is the rela- tionship between sites abandoned in north-eastern Iran and Khorasan from the early 2nd millennium onwards and the emergence of Bronze Age sites on the Iranian central plateau.
Sites such as Tepe Qoli Darvish and Tepe Sagzabad with a size of 12 ha were reoccupied from the early 2nd millennium BC and grey ware ceramics continued from Bronze Age to Iron Age levels without any interruption (Sarlak & Hessari 2018). Both Tepe Shizar and Sagzabad were occupied around 1882 cal . Qoli Darvish in Qum is another site where occupation started ca. 2088 cal and ended ca. 1857 cal (Pollard et al. 2013).
According to Ali Mousavi (2008: 110), in the Late Bronze Age in north-eastern Iran there was an urban crisis which forced the population to reorganise them- selves economically. He pointed out that, due to popu- lation pressure and environmental problems, most major centres were abandoned before 1550 (ibid.: 113 and 117). During the early 3rd millennium Gohar Tappeh was an urban centre extending over about 30 ha (Mahfroozi et al. 2010: 27) but the site shrank from the second half of the 3rd millennium and this of the 2nd millennium ca. 1600 ). Other sites such as Tureng Tappeh, Shah Tappeh, Yarim Tappeh, Narges Tappeh and Tappeh Hissar IIIC were abandoned suddenly during the Bronze Age (2nd millennium ). One of the main problems of north eastern Iran is that there is no precise data to show when these sites were abandoned so we cannot interconnect the cycle of collapse. Regardless of this collapse, we can see here successive phases of intercommunication within the central plateau based on the ceramic and non-ceramic data. The ceramics data consists of:
1. Polychrome pottery ware from sites such as Tepe Sagzabad and Tepe Shizar in the Qazvin plain and Qoli Darvish indicates the relationship between Haftvan VIb in north-western Iran and the central plateau.
2. The reappearance of burnished grey ware demon- strates a strong intercultural connection between north-eastern and northern Iran and the central plateau during the 2nd millennium and also reveals how the Early Bronze Age ceramic industry of the early 2nd millennium became more advanced techno- logically during the later phase of the 2nd millennium .
3. Techno-cultural similarities with Central Asia appeared in the central plateau with the introduction of ‘steppe coarse ware’. This light reddish pottery is hand made with punch or comb designs which are similar to Central Asian Andronovo ceramics (Luneau 2017; Hossainzadeh et al. 2019). We should also note that there is some new archaeological evidence, both from pottery decoration and style and from mortuary practices, that shows some similarity with those steppe cultures.
As we mentioned above, the central plateau was the core region for the production of grey ware ceramics during the 4th millennium but due to the lack of reliable data between the communities of the 4th and 2nd millennia in the central plateau of Iran. It is also interesting to point out that the burnished grey ware of the 2nd millennium was previously linked with ethnic identity and a group of people who migrated from the eastern part of Iran to central Iran. It is important to note here that before the new chronological studies and the use of c14 date dates, archae- - nium BC sites as Iron Age while most of the Iron Age sites date back to the second half of the 2nd millennium . At Estark-Joshaqan the shape and form of Middle Bronze Age grey ware ceramics is similar to Iron Age ceramics and indicates 800 years of stylistic continuity from Bronze to Iron Age. The decorative techniques especially the burnished grey and black pottery wares of Qoli Darvish are another example of such a cultural dynamic in the 2nd millennium in the north central plateau of Iran (Sarlak & Hessari 2018). This means that most Bronze Age ceramic tradition and technological innovation started in the early 2nd millennium with the production of dark grey ware and developed into light burnished grey ware in the Iron Age (late 2nd millennium ) (Hosseinzadeh et al. 2019 in press).
Another thing to bear in mind is the cycle of popu- lation movements and the interaction between Central Asia (Oxus civilisation and Andronovo culture) and Iran during the 2nd millennium (Luneau 2019). Ancient cattle genome studies imply population movements and migration from Central Asia to Iran from 4,000 years
10
ago onwards (the movement of cattle being dependent on human agency). Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that hybrid cattle appeared in the vast region from Central Asia to the Near East, indicating cultural contact between these communities during the 2nd millennium BC. This provides evidence for how and when the population of Central Asia met with the central plateau societies (Verdugo et al. 2019). The ceramic assemblage of Estark-Joshaqan consists of grey ware pottery and light reddish pottery which is hand made with punch or comb decoration similar to the Central Asian Andronovo group. Javad Hosseinzadeh’s prelim- inary studies indicate that traces of Andronovo ceramics are visible not only in Estark-Joshaqan but also in Saram and Qoli Darvish. Therefore, it is meaningful to assume movements of population and interaction of populations in all parts of the central plateau with those in Central Asia, north-east Iran, north Iran and north-west Iran during the 2nd millennium . However, we need more archeoge- netic studies to be able to link archaeological data with DNA results.
The emergence of cemetery sites is one of the charac- teristic features of the 2nd millennium in north central Iran at sites such as Estark-Joshaqan, Sialk cemetery A and Tepe Pardis. Khorvin and Qetariyeh had very rich grave semi-precious stone beads, shell and so on. The burial - mation. At Estark-Joshaqan 15 cremated skeletons were et al. 2017). In the cemetery at Tepe Pardis more than 36 individual Bronze Age graves were found and in two graves there were horse and cattle skeletons. Dates for the Iron Age cemetery at Tepe Pardis are ca. 1603 and ca. 1298 . Kambakhsh Fard excavated a total of 148 trenches (5 × 5 m) at Qeytariyeh and recorded 350 individual graves with more than 2,000 objects (Kambakhsh Fard 1991).
At the beginning of the Iron Age in the later 2nd millennium there is a marked cultural shift at Sialk as well as at other sites, with the introduction of new pottery types and burial of the dead in extramural ceme- teries. These changes are often associated with the arrival of new peoples speaking Indo-European (or, more accu- rately, Indo-Iranian) languages, of which modern Persian is a descendant. How many people were involved in these migrations, and their ethnic identity, are issues that are frequently debated by archaeologists and linguists.
Archaeological evidence for Iron Age Tappeh Sialk comes primarily from the excavation of the two important cemeteries A and B and residential areas around the monu- mental buildings of Sialk South. Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi’s Reconsideration Project has provided much valuable evidence for occupation in the Iron Age period (Fahimi 2003). There is no c14 date available for Iron Age Tappeh Sialk, but, based on comparative studies and c14 dates from Tappeh Qoli Darvish, Tappeh Pardis and Sagzabad, it seems that Sialk was reoccupied from 1500 until the dawn of the Achaemenid Empire (Pollard et al. 2013).
The major glories of Iron Age Sialk are the two ceme- teries that Ghirshman excavated and which have provided a of the very odd, but impressive, beak-shaped jugs with long spouts which presumably played an important role in some unknown ritual (Figs 2.27, 2.28, 2.29 and 2.30). Edith Porada’s (1993) comparative studies and Mehrdad Malekzadeh’s recent work (Malekzadeh & Naseri 2013) indicate the connections between Sialk B pottery, cylinder seals and bricks with impressions. The motifs include a lion, a serpent, a rider attacked by a feline, horned animals and a large bird. It should be mentioned that that Tappeh Sialk has no Assyrianising seals and it seems that an Iranian or local style appeared in the Iranian world in the 1st millennium ,
11
3
Key Issues in the Neolithic Period of Iran and the
Introduction: Iran in the Neolithic
The Neolithic transition, ca. 10,000–6000 , from mobile hunter-forager to settled farmer-herder is one of the great episodes of change in the human condition, underpinning the development of villages, towns, cities and empires, including those of our modern world. How and where did this episode begin? One of the core zones of earliest change is the Fertile Crescent, a broad swathe of upland territory across the Middle East comprising a rich mix of ecotones ideal for the development of mixed hunting and farming life-ways, as undertaken by small- scale human societies in the Early Holocene as the Younger Dryas climate ameliorated through increased temperatures and precipitation across the region from approximately 9600 onwards (Kehl 2009).
- sulated in Gordon Childe’s phrase ‘Neolithic Revolution’ is immense, and increasingly recognised as such by the community of scholars who research this critical episode of human history (Matthews and Fazeli Nashli 2013; Weeks 2013; Helwing 2014). Within the Neolithic tran- sition, Iran is a vital region in two major respects. Firstly, Iran hosts a well-established core region of early Neolithic development in the Central Zagros region of western Iran, where some of the earliest steps towards settled farming life were taken (Matthews et al. 2013). Secondly, farming spread eastwards along the great natural highways either side of Iran’s Central Desert, to the north-east into Central Asia and to the south-east into South Asia, as demonstrated by the distribution of Neolithic sites across Iran (Fig. 3.1).
• transitions from seasonal mobility to year-round sedentism;
• elaboration of social and ritual activity, including human burial practices;
• ways across the land of Iran and beyond; and
• networks of material engagement.
The excavated evidence from Iran is of relevance to all these issues, which require integrated interdisciplinary approaches such as we are conducting in our work in the Central Zagros region of western Iran and eastern Iraq (Matthews et al. 2013). The start of the Neolithic in the Middle East coincides with the end of the Younger Dryas at ca. 9600 . For the Iranian Neolithic, we can apply the term Early Neolithic to the span 9600–7000 and Later Neolithic to the span 7000–5200 . Early Neolithic roughly corresponds to Aceramic or Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Later Neolithic to Ceramic or Pottery Neolithic. We urgently need a programme of intensive, systematic dating of Neolithic sites across Iran, expanding on the work already undertaken (Zeder 2006).
Human–environment interactions
There is good evidence for variation in climate and environment through the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, with the easing of the Late Glacial Maximum (Kehl 2009). Lake core records from Hashilan, Zeribar, Mirabad and Urmia, loess soil sequences from northern Iran and alluvial fan deposits in eastern Iran agree in indicating a shift from ca. 15,000 to a warmer, wetter climate, facilitating the spread of grasses and trees into steppe and desert-steppe regions. This long-term warmer/ wetter trend was interrupted by the climatic episode known as the Younger Dryas, ca. 10,600–9600 ,
•
•
Major issues in the Neolithic transition include:
human interactions with climatic and environmental changes through the Early Holocene;
animal, leading in due course to full domestication;
ROGER MATTHEWS
12
which saw a return to cold and dry conditions across the region. The conditions of the Younger Dryas would have Zagros suitable for human habitation, even if it is now clear that the region was not deserted for the duration of the Younger Dryas. From ca. 10,000 lake sediment core evidence indicates the expansion of grasses across the Zagros, peaking at ca. 8500 , followed by a much slower spread of oak forest, not peaking until ca. 4000 (Roberts 2002).
Following the end of the Younger Dryas, the global meltwater pulses, the sudden and massive release of cold freshwater from glacial lakes into the North Atlantic. There appear to have been at least 14 of these events in the Early Holocene. One of these pulses is detectable in ca. 7200 , and lasting for 150–200 years, with the (Flohr et al. 2016). This event coincides at least approx- imately with a break in the Neolithic occupation of Iran, which is not to suggest direct causality. Very few sites show occupation spanning the Early to Later Neolithic, and many sites were abandoned in the later 8th millen- nium , including Sheikh-e Abad, Ganj Dareh, Abdul Hosein, East Chia Sabz and possibly Guran, all in the Iranian Zagros, and also Bestansur and Shimshara in the lower Iraqi Zagros. At about the same time, occu- pation started at a host of new sites on the lower plains, as well as Jarmo in the foothills of the Iraqi Zagros. One interpretation is that the 9.2 kya event was severe enough to lead to the collapse of agricultural and social systems in the high Zagros, while encouraging the spread of Neolithic communities into lowland zones where the cooler, drier conditions had less impact; but this inter- pretation needs more input from detailed local climate records to bear it out.
A further climatic change of potentially major impor- tance to the Neolithic of Iran is the so-called 8.2 kya event, which lasted from ca. 6400 to 6000 and, as with the Younger Dryas and the 9.2 kya event, was marked by abrupt cooling and aridity across much of the world (Flohr et al. 2016). The Neolithic in Iran was highly developed by the later 7th millennium , by which time human communities had been herding animals and cultivating crops for several millennia. From ca. 4000 the climate of the Zagros region, and indeed across Iran, has been temperature, rainfall and wind regimes.
Neolithic transition and dispersal, 11,000–6000
In the present state of our knowledge, the Zagros zone continues to stake a claim to primacy as a core region or ‘formative zone’ for the Early Neolithic, so that many scholars envisage practices such as the herding and penning in that zone and spreading outwards. A key point here is that sites such as Sheikh-e Abad and Asiab are located in the native habitat zones of the wild precursors of the plants and animals that became domesticated during the Neolithic (goats, sheep, barley, emmer, lentils), an essen- tial attribute for pristine domestication (Matthews et al. 2013; Darabi et al. 2018). But new evidence is continually being generated by ongoing surveys and excavations, and it may be that in due course we view the origins and early dispersal of a Neolithic way of life in the eastern Fertile Crescent as a multi-core process within and across Iran and adjacent regions.
Outside the Central Zagros region, explorations of cave sites in the Bolaghi valley and the Arsanjan region in the southern Zagros provide convincing evidence for occu- pation spanning much of the Epipalaeolithic–Neolithic transition (Tsuneki 2013). Excavations in Haji Bahrami Cave (also called TB75) revealed levels of Late Upper Palaeolithic and Proto-Neolithic date, spanning approxi- mately 15,000 to 7500 . Phases 3 and 4 are dated to ca. 10,000–7400 , thus including occupation during the late Younger Dryas. The nearby cave site of TB130 also contained levels dated to ca. 10,000–7400 . Large numbers of animal bones from Haji Bahrami Cave indi- ‘Proto-Neolithic’ in the proportions of sheep and goat from ca. 17% to ca. 46%. This evidence may suggest a trend towards herding of animals that were still morphologically wild but which were in fact under human management and well on the way to domestication. Beyond the intensi- fying exploitation of animals in this region, plant use in the Early Neolithic focused on wild legumes and nuts, with little evidence for cereals and no traces of sickle sheen on the chipped stone tools.
Close to the north-west, the small site of Rahmatabad Neolithic mound occupation in Fars, with 2.5 m of aceramic deposits directly underlying Later Neolithic levels (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2013). As with the Central Zagros sites, the earliest levels at Rahmatabad, radiocarbon dated to the mid-/late 8th millennium , consist of - tectural evidence. While the early dates for Rahmatabad, taken alongside the Tang-e Bolaghi dates, allow the possi- bility of indigenous neolithisation in Fars, the alternative
13
scenario of a dispersal of Early Neolithic practices to Fars from the Central Zagros is still not ruled out by the earlier dates and evidence for goat herding, in particular, from sites of the Central Zagros.
Looking south-east from Fars, the Neolithic arrives in the Kerman region of south-eastern Iran late and is poorly understood. The earliest traces, of early 6th millennium date, have been found at several sites in the Shah Maran- Daulatabad valleys (Meadow 1986). The Neolithic of north-west Iran begins at about 6200 (Voigt 1983), once more contemporary with the 8.2 kya event, but our knowledge of the region is limited. A major issue is a lack of and 6200 we have little or no convincing evidence for human presence across the regions of the north Zagros, the Lake Urmia basin and Iranian Azerbaijan.
In north-eastern Iran, cave sites close to the southern shores of the Caspian Sea provide evidence of occupa- tion through the Younger Dryas, including Komishan Cave in Mazandaran, and Hotu and Ali Tappeh Caves (Voigt and Dyson 1992). New work at Komishani Tappeh near Komishan Cave is revealing a deep sequence of Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic occupation, with radiocarbon dates from the late 10th and through the 9th millennia (Fazeli Nashli pers comm.). Aceramic Neolithic occupation is attested at a few locations in north-eastern Iran. Prime amongst these is the west mound of Sang-e Chakhmaq near Shahrud (Thornton 2013). Previously, dates of ca. 7000 were suggested by two radiocarbon determinations, and the most recently by ca. 7000 . The west mound was abandoned as Late Neolithic occupation moved to the east mound, which commenced at ca. 6100 . Sang-e Chakhmaq thus has a rich, long sequence of Neolithic occupation for this region of Iran.
The sophisticated nature of the architecture in the earliest levels of the west mound at Sang-e Chakhmaq does not suggest an experimental engagement with seden- tarisation by local hunter-forager communities, but rather the introduction from outside of an already well-devel- oped Neolithic lifestyle. But we so far lack information on the plant and animal remains that might enlighten us as to whether sheep and goat and cereals, for example, diet in the Early Neolithic. It is notable that occupation shifts from the west mound to the east mound at Sang-e Chakhmaq approximately at the time of the 8.2 kya event.
In addition to the ceramic parallels from Sang-e Chakhmaq east mound, there are many points of connec- tion with sites of the Jeitun culture of the Neolithic of southern Turkmenistan 200 km to the north-east, including
spindle whorls and hook-shaped bone sickles. Other arte- facts, such as alabaster vessels, biconical spindle whorls and straight-handled bone sickles, compare well to mate- rial from Neolithic Sialk to the west. This janiform attribute of Sang-e Chakhmaq material culture strongly suggests that the occupants of the site were indeed agents of trans- mission of Neolithic life-ways from west to east across northern Iran and into Turkmenistan. Petrographic anal- ysis of pottery (Thornton 2013) reveals manufacture from purely local clays, even though stylistically the sampled good awareness of a range of regional styles even if there was limited movement of the vessels themselves.
The transmission or development of Neolithic life- ways across northern Iran at sites such as Sang-e Chakhmaq and across southern Iran at sites such as Tell-e Atashi is poorly understood. Detailed study of bio-archaeological and cultural remains from both regions, and from yet to be discovered sites in intermediate regions, is necessary against imported factors in determining the trajectories of transition from hunter-forager to farmer-herder in these regions of Iran and beyond.
The Neolithic arrived late and fully formed on the central and northern plateaux of Iran, as far as present understanding goes. The earliest known Neolithic site on the Kashan plain, hard against the foothills of the Karkas mountains, may be the site of Tappeh Shurabeh which has sherds of primitive soft-ware possibly dating to the late 7th millennium , plus a few other sites located in the Arisman surveys (Malek Shahmirzadi 2006).
The north mound of Tappeh Sialk on the Kashan plain is especially important. Ghirshman’s (1938–9) excavations in level I at Sialk North recovered traces of light struc- tures of reeds and mud succeeded by structures of chineh. red pigment, with infants buried in pots. Domesticated goats along with cereals and agricultural tools suggest the full-scale practice of farming from the earliest occupa- tion of the site, alongside hunting of gazelle, wild sheep and cattle. Micromorphological analysis shows the pres- ence in the earliest levels of trampled and burnt dung deposits, from stabling of domesticated animals. There are some basic artefacts of cold-worked native copper, and North has established the chronology of occupation with multiple radiocarbon dates (Pollard et al. 2013). These dates suggest a duration of 800 years for the Neolithic at Sialk North, starting from ca. 6000 with abandonment at the end of the 6th millennium . Renewed occupa- tion at Sialk South then starts from ca. 4100 after a
14
tempered and through time show increasing connections with other Late Neolithic communities of the broad region.
Settlement on the plain south of Tehran does not appear to pre-date ca. 5600 . The mound of Cheshmeh-Ali has an unbroken sequence of occupation from Late Neolithic through Transitional Chalcolithic and Early Chalcolithic, with ceramics comparable to those from Sialk North level I (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013). Late Neolithic ceramics have been excavated at Tappeh Pardis, also on the Tehran plain, and again appear to date to the later 6th millennium . Neolithic settlement on the fertile Qazvin plain has been investigated at several sites, in particular Chahar Boneh and Tappeh Ebrahimabad. Occupation at Chahar Boneh commences with ashy layers containing bones, lithics and ceramics, inter-bedded with natural deposits, suggestive of seasonal, short-lived presence. Domesticated cereals and sheep/goat dominate the economic evidence at Chahar Boneh. These ashy layers are radiocarbon dated to ca. 6000 , suggesting Neolithic occupation of the Qazvin plain some 400 years before that of the Tehran plain to the east. Soundings at Tappeh Ebrahimabad recovered scant architecture and a single human burial, with further evidence for cereals and legumes along with domesticated sheep/goat. The Neolithic at Ebrahimabad is dated to ca. 5600–5200 .
In sum, across the plains of central and northern Iran there is as yet no convincing sign of local precursors to the well-adapted Neolithic farmers and herders who spread into the region from ca. 6000 , bringing their domes- ticated herds and grains with them. The likeliest hypoth- esis is that they moved into central and northern Iran from the west, steadily advancing across the Zagros ranges and foothills from areas where farming had already been prac- tised for up to 2,000 years. Why did they move? To what extent their movement was stimulated by climatic adver- sity attendant upon the 8.2 kya event remains unclear, but there is no doubting an at least approximate contempo- raneity. A concerted, country-wide programme of radio- carbon dating and statistical analysis of samples from all relevant sites across Iran, in concert with renewed investi- gation of palaeoclimatic proxy records would yield some exciting results.
Iran domesticated
By 5200 the vast majority of Iran’s human population, which in total is unlikely to have numbered more than a few tens of thousands, were farmers and herders living in small mudbrick villages, perhaps an average of 100–200 people per settlement. Their villages tended to cluster in areas favour- able to a mixed economy of farming, herding and hunting.
The Neolithic farmers of Iran sowed their seeds and goat and sheep, leading them on movements to pastures high and low according to season. They stored their food- felt a strong attachment to place, building their homes that dotted the landscape. They made their own pottery and were increasingly adept at a range of craft activities including the production of textiles, basketry and tools of chert, stone, bone, antler and wood. They were involved in long-distance networks of material movement, involving obsidian from Lake Van sources for example.
They liked to keep their dead close by, burying them covering them over and carrying on with daily life directly above them. Many of their children died young, doubtless as a result of the increased risks from zoonotic diseases newly virulent diseases on local hunter-forager communi- ties, as they encountered incoming farmer-herders, may have been devastating.
They appear to have treated each other as equals in from the hunter-forager ways that had persisted for thou- sands of years before, but what they had in common with their hunter ancestors was an intimate familiarity with the physical worlds around them – the worlds of plants, animals, sun, water, wind, rain and the spirits of nature. Their life, like that of the hunter-foragers, was shaped by the rhythms of day and night, and of winter and summer. But without knowing it, they were establishing the agricul- tural foundation upon which the achievements of all future generations of Iran would be constructed.
15
4
Sialk North: Continuity and Change in Pottery Manufacture ARMINEH KASPARI-MARGHUSSIAN
Introduction
Iran, bordering the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, is characterised by high mountain ranges that enclose several broad basins or plateaux, on which major agricultural and urban settlements are located. The centre of the country consists of several closed basins that are collectively referred to as the central plateau of Iran. In the last four decades, a number of scholars, such as Majidzadeh (1976), Voigt and Dyson (1992) and Malek Shahmirzadi (1995), have made the term ‘central plateau’ a popular description for this region as both a cultural zone and geographical area.
The central plateau of Iran has played a prominent role in Iranian cultural, technological and political develop- ment as well as functioning as an important trade route connecting Mesopotamia, northern Iran and Central Asia, with a number of settlements dating from the Neolithic to the historic period. Hence, the central plateau is one of the most important regions in Iran for studying the prehistory of the region and that of its neighbours more widely. The societies of this region have been at the centre of at least three millennia of sustained and continuous change from the 6th millennium onwards, playing an active role in cultural and technical-economic development through their intraregional and interregional interactions. The deep cultural deposits of archaeological remains, over 10 m deep at some sites, along with the sustained progress and advancement in technology and innovation, make this region very attractive for prehistoric studies.
Systematic archaeological research in the central plateau began in 1931 with Erich Schmidt’s excava- tion of Tappeh Hissar (Schmidt 1937). Since then, many archaeologists have also been engaged in the study of the historical, cultural, technological and sociopolitical development of the central plateau, for example, Dyson (1965), Fazeli (2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013), Fazeli
and Abbasnejad (2005), Majidzadeh (1976, 1981, 2008), Malek Shahmirzadi (1977, 1979, 1995), Mashkour et al. (1999), McCown (1954), Negahban (1977), Schmidt (1935, 1936, 1937), Voigt and Dyson (1992) and Wong (2008).
Tappeh Sialk
Tappeh Sialk is located in the Kashan plain in the middle of an extensive accumulation glacis sloping from the southern heights towards the salt lake. The spring of Fin is exposed in the upper part of this glacis and visible from Tappeh Sialk. The Tappeh itself consists of two mounds, North and South, Roman Ghirshman in 1933. Ghirshman opened three large trenches (I, II and III) on the North Mound (Ghirshman 1938–9) and divided it chronologically into two main phases, Sialk I and Sialk II. The lowest level of the North Mound, called Sialk I (ca. 6000–5200 , Late Neolithic body with black-painted decoration (Fig. 4.2a), while Sialk II (ca. 5200–4600 , Transitional Chalcolithic) represented the upper part of the Sialk North Mound and comprised red pottery, painted in black (Fig. 4.2b). He also demonstrated that there was a gradual development at the site from the Late Neolithic period, with cultural continuity demonstrated through ceramics and architecture (ibid.).
the prehistoric chronology of the central plateau of Iran, partially due to the 14 m deep Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic deposits along with mudbrick structures and objects of copper and marine shell. Furthermore, the two major types of Sialk pottery, Sialk I and II, excavated from the North Mound are regionally distributed over the whole central Iranian plateau, and the prehistoric chronology of the central plateau has been based almost entirely on these types of pottery.
16
Aims and objectives
Experimental procedure
Sample selection
In this study, 36 samples comprising 20 and 16 sherds of the Sialk I and II type respectively were selected from the collection of C14-dated pottery sherds which were recov- and Coningham at the North Mound of Sialk in 2008–9. The Sialk I and II samples were selected randomly from earlier to later sherds (according to their chronological information) among two separate pottery collections, each containing one type of the aforementioned pottery.
Chemical analysis
In this research the collection of 36 pottery sherds from Sialk (20 samples from Sialk I and 16 samples from Sialk
Mineralogical analysis
In this study 20 sherds from Sialk (10 samples each from Sialk I and II) were selected randomly and were analysed - ence cards were used to interpret the patterns.
Microstructural examinations
In this study some typical samples were subjected to SEM examination (Hitachi TM-3000) and phase compositions of certain zones in the microstructures were determined by an EDX (Swift ED) attached to the SEM. For this kind of SEM analysis no preparation of samples was needed.
Results and discussion
Chemical compositions
The chemical compositions of Sialk I and II pottery specimens showed the existence of relatively uniform compositions in each group. According to the results of chemical analysis, the Sialk I pottery showed a relatively high value for CaO (22.31± 3.22 wt%) but the chemical composition of the Sialk II type specimens indicated the
This paper aims to introduce new insights and approaches into the study of the socioeconomic transformation of the Late Neolithic and the Transitional Chalcolithic settle- ments within the central plateau of Iran. This will be done through the study of pottery development and associ- ated changes in ceramic production and craft specialisa- tion from the Late Neolithic through to the Transitional Chalcolithic (ca. 5700–4800 ) period in Sialk as one of the most prominent prehistoric sites of the central plateau. It is proposed that providing additional information will help to give us a better understanding of the chronology and cultural-technological development of this region as well as the economic and cultural connections and interac- tions between prehistoric communities living in the central plateau during that period.
In most of the previous excavations colour and deco- characterisation and comparison of the varied pottery of the region, which has never been studied in terms of tech- nology of production, as rightly stressed by Dyson (Dyson 1965: 221).
Thus pottery of similar colour and decoration has name (sometimes called tradition), for example, Sialk I or II. Hence, the exact cause of similarities between - action or technology transfer) could never be discovered. This approach could also result in some confusion and misunderstanding regarding the exact nature of socioec- onomic exchanges between various prehistoric societies, such as the assumption of the existence of an intrusive element from outside that brought about social changes, abandonment of settlements in some areas of the central plateau (Majidzadeh 1981, 2008), or migration of some people into the central plateau who imported ceramic manufacture to the region (Malek Shahmirzadi 1995). decoration in comparison with existing pottery.
In order to shed more light on the socioeconomic transformation of the Late Neolithic and the Transitional Chalcolithic periods in Sialk in this study the pottery sherds recovered from the North Mound of Sialk by Fazeli - cally utilising XRF, XRD and SEM/EDX techniques.
This study also introduces a more reliable criterion for comparison of the Sialk pottery with other pottery of the central Iranian plateau and for clarifying the nature of existing interactions between Sialk and other prehistoric communities of the region.
17
deduced that the Sialk I pottery studied was manufactured using a single resource of clay raw material or clays from very similar resources and the relatively high content of CaO in most specimens indicates the use of calcareous clays (possibly illite clays) as the source of raw material to make most of these pottery samples.
group of Sialk II specimens (calcium rich), which have almost similar compositions to the Sialk I specimens, apparently have been made using the same clay raw mate- rials as the Sialk I pottery, whereas the second group of Sialk II pottery sherds (low calcium) are the product of
Mineralogical analysis
The mineralogical analyses of Sialk I and II specimens showed that, besides signs of the presence of CaCO3 (calcite) in some specimens, especially the older spec- imens, quartz and esseneite (JCPDS card number, 25–0143) were the major crystalline phases of Sialk I and calcium-rich Sialk II specimens, whereas, the low-cal- cium Sialk II specimens were mainly composed of quartz, hematite (JCPDS number, 01–1053) and augite (JCPDS number, 24–0202) phases.
Microstructures
Fig. 4.3 shows the typical SEM micrographs of (a) Sialk I and (b) Sialk II pottery samples, respectively. The rela- tively uniform microstructures and the absence of large and angular particles indicate that the raw materials used were most probably sedimentary clays, and that no inorganic tempers have deliberately been added to the starting clays. However, traces of plant tempers, such as both pottery samples.
According to electron microscopy, while each group of the Sialk I and II types of pottery exhibited quite homogeneous microstructures within themselves, marked of pottery, for example an earlier Sialk I sample (Fig. 4.3a) and a latest Sialk II sample (Fig. 4.3b). The latter pottery sample, which is red both on the external surface and at microstructure (Fig. 4.3b) in comparison with the Sialk properties of the pottery, such as mechanical strength and permeability.
PXRD analysis and SEM microstructural studies indicated that apart from very few old specimens of Sialk I pottery revealing the presence of the faint trace of CaCO3 (calcite), there was no evidence for the presence of CaCO3 or CaO phases in the samples of Sialk sherds. On the other hand, calcium iron aluminium silicate minerals, namely esse- neite, was clearly detected in Sialk I pottery. Therefore, it can be deduced that the iron oxide liberated from the decomposition of the clay minerals, possibly illite, has mainly been incorporated into the esseneite crystal struc- ture, which could accommodate high amounts of iron (43.3 wt%), and no hematite crystals were detected in the sherd specimens. Meanwhile, esseneite, owing to its very low SiO2 content (23.2 wt %) and high Fe2O3 (43.3 wt %) and CaO (21.65 wt %) content, is a low-melting point mineral, which gives it the capability of formation at relatively lower temperatures. On the other hand, the hematite crys- tals are responsible for the generation of the red colour of the pottery, but calcareous lumps present in calcium-rich clay may have prevented the formation of hematite crys- calcareous silicate and aluminosilicate minerals and, consequently, inhibited the generation of red colour in of previous studies concerning the decomposition and distraction temperatures of calcium carbonate and clay formation temperatures of the silicate and aluminosilicate phases (Rice 1987: 92–8; El-Didamony et al. 1998; Tite & Maniatis 1975a, 1975b; Segnit & Anderson 1972), and temperature of the Sialk pottery could be estimated at the
Considering the higher refractoriness of the raw materials used in the production of the low calcium Sialk II pottery, owing to their higher content of SiO2 and Al2O3 and much lower content of CaO as discussed above, a much higher samples in comparison to the Sialk I pottery. Meanwhile, - tion of red colour in pottery, CaO-poor samples were of red colour both on surface and core (see the discussion
involved in construction and handling of high-temperature
18
kilns in prehistoric times and the absence of high-tempera- ture phases (such as mullite, anorthite and hedenbergite) in the sherds studied here, the use of temperatures in excess Therefore, on the basis of the above facts and observa- investigated. It should be noted that the other type of Sialk II type pottery, with a red coating, owing to its similarity in chemical and mineralogical composition to the Sialk I lower temperature ranges, perhaps the midway between the Sialk I and II pottery.
low-calcium Sialk II pottery as stated above, and the good deformation), indicate that the early potters of the region had remarkable skill and experience in the selection of raw
The origin of red colour in Sialk II type pottery
compositions. The group one specimens, calcium rich, are distinguished by the strong red colour of their surface and the second group were of red colour, both on the core and the surface. The SEM elemental map (Fig. 4.4) showed surfaces of the latter Sialk II sherds contained pigments rich in iron oxide. The aforementioned sherds, with the exception of the red coating, possessed similar phases as the sherds of Sialk I pottery, namely quartz and esseneite. It is interesting to note that there are also a few Sialk I sherds that were covered with a red coating. Hence, it can be concluded that the technique of applying red coatings on the Sialk pottery was an ancient technique that continued from Sialk I to Sialk II periods. Fig. 4.5 depicts the typical elemental spectra of some Sialk II samples. It can be seen that the sample having a red coating on its exterior and in iron content between its surface and core (Figs 4.5a and 4.5b), whereas, the other sample which is red both on the surface and core represents an almost similar iron content on surface and core (Figs 4.6a and 4.6b).
On the other hand, although a faint trace of hematite was observed in some red-coated pottery, a relatively of the second group of Sialk II specimens, which were red both on surface and core. This can be explained by the fact that calcareous lumps in calcium-rich clay prevented the
formation of hematite crystals (and the appearance of red colour) by incorporation of iron in the crystal structure of the newly forming calcareous silicate and aluminosilicate minerals, as mentioned above.
However, in calcium poor Sialk II pottery, which is red both on the surface and at the core, the major calcium aluminium iron magnesium silicate mineral (augite) accommodates far lower amounts of iron oxide (7.54 wt %). Moreover, owing to the low content of calcium in the clay raw materials, the volume of the augite mineral would be lower in comparison to the esseneite mineral in Sialk I and calcium rich Sialk II pottery. Hence, a greater proportion of iron oxide present in the raw materials of this group appeared as the iron oxide mineral (hematite) in careful control of the atmosphere is also essential for the formation of hematite crystals, which require an oxidising order to produce the dense and strong pottery.
Development of pottery-making at Sialk
On the basis of the archaeological data obtained from the excavations at Sialk and the experimental results discussed above, it can be deduced that a gradual development at the site took place from the Late Neolithic, with cultural and technological continuity demonstrated through the gradual evolution of the pottery-making industry. This is who showed that ‘there was a gradual development at the Sialk site from the Late Neolithic, with cultural continuity demonstrated through ceramics and architecture’. The very sluggish. In fact it seems that there is no substantial proved by the mineralogical composition and microstruc- tural study) from the beginning of the Sialk I period to the end of red-coated Sialk II pottery. During this period, in fact, no distinct change occurred in the process of making
However, the pottery industry witnessed a very distinct shift between the Sialk I and Sialk II periods in the produc- tion of bulk red pottery. This change did not necessarily coincide with a fundamental alteration in pottery decora- tion, since the use of new decoration, known as the Sialk II (black painted motifs, consisting of simple or composite geometric designs), began in the early Transitional Chalcolithic period with the production of some appar- ently red pottery, which was actually the previous Sialk in decoration did not involve substantial alteration in
19
technology, other than requiring more control of the atmos- phere of kilns (which of course was an advancement in changes in technology concerning the selection of raw essential for the production of bulk red pottery, which were realised in the later stages of the Sialk II period.
The production of the latter pottery can be heralded as a breakthrough in the evolution of pottery-making in Sialk. It is suggested that the commencement of the production of such high-quality pottery should be considered as a marker for the beginning of the Transitional Chalcolithic era.
- vation (1938–9) of a gradual development at the site of Sialk from the Late Neolithic period is also in accord- ance with Malek Shahmirzadi’s (1995) suggestion that Periods I and II should be considered as one, since many of the features of Period I continue into Period II, as well as Wong’s (2008) proposal that the ceramic industry of Period II is essentially a continuation of Period I (which However, it should be noted that none of the previous researchers recognised the prominence of the aforemen- - mentally in technology and quality of the ware.
- - pottery. While the change of decoration is quite common amongst prehistoric pottery-makers and can usually be attributed to the cultural connections and interactions of the prehistoric communities, the change in raw material resistance, and hence were less common. However, it has
been discovered that many features of the pottery-making tradition in Sialk, such as the form and decoration of the pottery, continued unchanged during the gradual evolution of process and techniques, commencing from the coarse, quite strong, bulk red pottery.
Conclusions
Chemical and mineralogical analyses and microstruc- tural studies of Sialk pottery demonstrated the relatively homogeneous nature of the sherds, both chemically and mineralogically, and revealed the occurrence of a gradual evolution and development in pottery-making at the site, to stronger bodies covered with a red slip and eventually pottery in the later stage of the Sialk II period. The later development of Sialk II can be seen as a breakthrough in the evolution of pottery-making at Sialk, and should be considered as the critical point of entry into the Transitional Chalcolithic era.
It has also been shown that the chemical compounds present in the sherds were the products of reactions occur- Sialk I and II, respectively. These results revealed the existence of a high degree of skill and experience amongst the Sialk potters in the later phase of the Sialk II period, with regard both to techniques in the selection of raw existence of this high degree of specialisation in Sialk II pottery-making, developed over several centuries in this red pottery could not have been achieved in this period.
20
5
Proto-Elamite Sites in Highland Iran:
The State of Research in Tappeh Sialk and Arisman
BARBARA HELWING
The appearance of urban-style sites in highland Iran during the last third of the 4th millennium is understood as an Mesopotamia during the so-called Uruk period, as exem- of secondary state formation or as outposts and trading the neighbouring regions, the sites in highland Iran (Fig. - tions through their innovative organisation of settlement space and layout as well as in material culture.
In the academic debate on the proper understanding of - vated site in the highlands, has played a pre-eminent role. Roman Ghirshman pointed out the similarities between on the South Mound of Tappeh Sialk, with the ‘couche intermédiare’ in Susa and in particular with Uruk, the type site of the emerging lowland states (Ghirshman 1938–9: 82–6). Sialk level IV was characterised by regular archi- tecture made from standardised mudbricks, by mass-pro- duced ceramics, cylinder seals and inscribed clay tablets. Ghirshman called the script ‘Anzanite’, using the name originally given to the early script discovered in Susa that was subsequently considered a potential predecessor of Elamite and hence renamed Proto-Elamite (Scheil 1905). on a life of its own when archaeologists began to use it to denominate archaeological sites and material culture assemblages (McCown 1949) and remains today the major denominator for the archaeological culture of Iran from the last centuries of the 4th and into the early 3rd millen- nium .
This contribution reviews the evidence currently available for Tappeh Sialk in the Proto-Elamite period, augmented by additional materials from Arisman, a major metal-producing site about 60 km from Sialk, and
western plateau of central Iran. To provide a framework for the interpretation of these Proto-Elamite sites, the most current theoretical models on lowland–highland relations will be inspected before introducing the relevant archaeo- logical evidence from the highland sites, including chron- ometric dating and settlement patterns. I will then return to the theoretical models and discuss if and how they account for the archaeological evidence found in highland Iran.
Early states in south Mesopotamia – the Uruk model and beyond
In the 4th millennium , a major transformation in the lowlands of southern Mesopotamia led to the rise of the spelled out in the famous Uruk vase (van Ess et al. 2013: - ture and herding and culminates in the service to higher beings that is the responsibility of the so-called ‘priest- king’ (variously EN and/or Nameshda; see Selz 1998, 292, 295: fn. 53, 325–6). Archaeological excavations in Uruk targeted two areas of public buildings and revealed a focus on monumental architecture of tripartite layout, possibly temples. Cylinder seals and script were introduced as tools of authority and administration, and among the admin- istered things are goods, animals and humans. Mass- produced and standardised pottery served to cater for large workforces, and the hallmark of the period are the moulded bevelled-rim bowls (BRB), interpreted as ration bowls for the dependent labour force. BRBs had an extremely wide geographical distribution from Afghanistan to eastern model (Potts 2009; Helwing 2014).
The recognition of the wide dissemination of Uruk- related ceramics over Greater Mesopotamia and Iran led
21
and the north (Perkins 1949). Three decades later, Uruk- projects over a wide geographical range, resulting in the construction of various theoretical models to explain the apparent success of the Uruk model by the 1980s. Thereafter, perspectives on the sites in Iran and other are rooted in divergent histories of research and the fact provide fresh input after an intellectually stimulating and sound beginning.
From the late 1960s, rescue work on the Syrian Middle Euphrates brought large settlements to light that fully embraced the Uruk model, architecture, temples, seals and numerical tablets: these were interpreted straightaway as Uruk colonies (Heinrich et al. 1969; van Driel 1977). Such discoveries sparked the development Uruk expansion, later Uruk World System approach by Guillermo Algaze (Algaze 1989, 1993). The Uruk World System model was inspired by the much later Mesopotamia that recognised a ‘prehistory of impe- rialism’ in the Uruk colonies (Algaze 2001). A major premise of the Uruk World System was the quest for raw materials not available to the lowland cultures that required trade stations and outposts in the wider neigh- bourhood. The only Iranian sites considered in Algaze’s model were Godin Tappeh and Tappeh Sialk as outposts of Uruk culture in the Iranian highlands: the Iranian high- lands had by then fallen into the obscurity that prevailed since 1979. Subsequent scholarship emphasised the logistical problems in such an endeavour of large- scale territorial expansion and called for more balanced views in a distance–parity model (Stein 1999) but did not substantially challenge the notion of a pre-eminent Uruk state in the lowlands. Algaze, in the meantime, adjusted and updated his model, which initially had been compromised by a lack of chronological control (Algaze 2013), but maintained the notion that it was southern Mesopotamia that had taken the lead in the develop- ment of complex administration and used this to subdue neighbouring areas. The notion that the Uruk state, often have functioned through coercion and violence – to despotic character of the Uruk ruler, see van Selz 1998: 293–4; Liverani 2006: 45–6; Englund 2009; Pollock 2013) with regard to Uruk and Susiana but excluding the highlands. Images of authority sanctioning violence
Uruk and Susa, paint a rather bleak picture of the socio- political reality of that time, as they show prisoners with their hands bound behind their bodies. These prisoners of war or slaves taken from their homelands might be the source of the workforce behind the ambitious construc- tion programmes for which Uruk is famous. A similar was most recently evident in the more radical economic theory by James Scott (Scott 2017), who models Uruk as a predatory state and sees the mountainous highlands east of Susiana as a refuge, not as a cultural backwater.
In Iran, excavations on the acropolis in Susa had - bled observations from Uruk, although on a smaller scale (Pittman 1992; for a summary, Pittman 2013). Early attempts to stylistically order the materials unearthed in Susa had overlooked the rather nondescript and non-dec- orative materials that are characteristic of the Uruk period. These were subsequently amalgamated, together with the following Proto-Elamite period, in what was couche intermédiare, intercalated between styles Susa II and III and recognised only belatedly as a distinct and important development. Systematic new data available from Susa since the late 1960s when Jean Perrot took over the directorship of the Délégation Française provided a stratigraphical sequence from the Ubaid and Uruk levels to the subsequent Proto-Elamite (for a summary, see Le Brun 1978). The chronological succession could be illustrated in ceramic shapes, clearly derived from the Uruk repertoire but also visibly distinct. It also comprised one of script, as the Proto-Elamite from the Uruk tablets (Dahl 2009). Based on these obser- vations and chronological succession, the interpretation of Proto-Elamite highland sites was from the beginning Uruk impact in Susiana and the spread of Proto-Elamite sites in the highlands.
Levels comparable with Sialk IV and with Uruk and Proto-Elamite Susa were excavated from the late 1960s in Godin Tappeh in the Kangavar valley (Cuyler Young 1969; Cuyler Young Jr. & Levine 1974), in the Kur River Basin around Tal-e Malyan (Sumner 1974a, 1974b), in Tappeh Yahya south of Kerman (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1969, 1971) and in the lowermost level at Shahr-e Sokhte (Tosi 1968; Lamberg-Karlovsky & Tosi 1973).
Most early interpretations of this Iranian evidence noted that the sites were apparently established from scratch in places previously unoccupied or occupied emphasised the role of trade relations in the formation of
22
a wide Proto-Elamite network. The Godin VI/V materials were linked to the potential impact and possible installa- tion of Uruk merchants, possibly out of Susa (Weiss and Cuyler Young 1975). The Kur River sequence proved to be a drawn-out local development of the so-called Banesh period (summarised in Sumner 1986) but also had ample evidence for long-distance contact and enough written records to prove a central place function for Malyan (Sumner 2003). Further east, both Tappeh Yahya IVC and the lowermost level 10 in Shahr-e Sokhte were consid- ered colonies of settlers from Mesopotamia (Lamberg- Karlovsky & Tosi 1973), triggered by the necessity to ensure trade into the lowlands (Alden 1982). Pierre Amiet, based on unpublished documentation from Ghirshman’s Sialk excavations, recognised that cultural relations between Sialk and the lowland Uruk culture preceded the Proto-Elamite Sialk IV level (Amiet 1985).
foreign researchers shifted their attention to other regions of south-west Asia, the state of research into the Proto- Elamite period in Iran remained frozen for the next two evidence from Yahya (Potts 2001) and Godin (Rothman and Badler 2011). New perspectives, however, begin to - tion of new methodology on materials from the pre-1979
The ceramics from Godin Tappeh, famous for its oval compound whose Uruk-akin pottery led Harvey Weiss to formulate his merchants of Susa hypothesis, were recently investigated by neutron activation analysis (NAA) to understand if this pottery was indeed imported material (Gopnik et al. 2016). Interestingly, most of it was not: both the local shapes and also most of the Uruk shapes were made from local clays. Looking at Tal-e Malyan, a comparable result for NAA on ceramics made John Alden and team propose an alternative explanation for the high degree of standardisation evident in the ceramic produc- tion (Alden and Minc 2016): could itinerant potters have contributed to the spreading of standardised ceramic shapes? And in Yahya, shapes of the Proto-Elamite spec- trum were also largely produced from local clays (Mutin et al. 2016), although imported materials are attested as well.
The currently available combined evidence can thus be read as follows: the Proto-Elamite sites in the highlands of Iran existed over a longer time span; they used material culture inspired by Uruk models but adapted and devel- oped this further, as is most evident from the adoption of a unique writing system. And they ceased existence during , without signs of continuity in most areas.
Archaeological evidence from highland Iran: Tappeh Sialk and Arisman at the end of the 4th millennium
occupation in highland Iran but one of the least under- stood. Ghirshman’s excavations on the South Mound of Sialk (Fig. 5.2) had uncovered one major architectural layer (Sialk IV1) built with standardised bricks and with walls standing more than 1.5 m high (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. LIX for the section showing the standing walls; pl. of rubble and ashy debris, and no continuity from the preceding occupation can be established. The next layer, VI2, is badly disturbed by the foundations of level VI. A few rich burials in jars were found in this layer (Ghirshman of jar burial) but they cannot be connected to the layer above from which they were sunk since that was razed.
The ceramic material associated with Sialk IV1 comprised plain and painted Proto-Elamite types, including high conical bevelled rim bowls (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XC, S.557). Inscribed tablets consisted of numerical nota- tions in IV1 (Ghirshman 1938–9: pls XCII–XCIII), and of one Proto-Elamite tablet in IV2 (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCII, S.28). Fragments of sealed containers and jar stoppers bore seal impressions and a few cylinder seals were among the excavated materials as well (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCIV).
Pierre Amiet’s re-examination of level IV (Amiet 1985) allowed us to more clearly distinguish the materials from the that may have contributed to the cultural remodelling of the Proto-Elamite period ought to be traced to the last subphases of level III, thus predating Sialk IV. He also observed a few elements of continuity in ceramic shapes and seal use.
From 2001 to 2005, new investigations were instigated by the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation under the umbrella of the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (Malek Shahmirzadi 2006). Under the direction of Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi, the sections of the old Ghirshman trenches were cleaned and re-documented, allowing Jebrael Nokandeh to obtain a series of radiocarbon samples from layers of Sialk III and IV (Nokandeh 2002, 2010: 75–7 for radiocarbon dates). This investigation also showed the appearance of bevelled rim bowls in the last phases of Sialk III and yielded a cylinder seal from a level III context, another good indicator of Uruk contact. In the following years, excavations in the so-called Industrial Area (Nokandeh 2003) and at the foot of the Iron Age mudbrick construction yielded interesting observations on the scale of industrial metal production at the site.
23
In 2003, Dr Malek invited me to join the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ to open a new excavation area immediately adjacent to Ghirshman’s old trench with the aim of uncovering Sialk IV material on a larger scale evident that there should be a continuity of the Sialk IV1 architecture extending northwards. We began by cleaning away the backdirt from Ghirshman’s excavations until the original contour of the mound became visible. This immediately raised one major problem of site preserva- tion in Sialk: dating from before Ghirshman’s work, deep apparently used by the local population to store materials and animals. We proceeded subsequently by cleaning the upper layers and there encountered massive Iron Age architecture that apparently had collapsed rapidly, possibly during an earthquake, and was later covered by a second Iron Age building layer (Fig. 5.5) (Helwing 2006a). The we only reached the very surface of the Sialk IV level, where in situ ceramics consisted of a band-painted jar and a set of conical bevelled rim bowls (Fig. 5.6).
The new work thus contributed only minimally to our knowledge of the Sialk IV/Proto-Elamite occupation in Tappeh Sialk; however, the new radiocarbon dates and the approaching other sites in the vicinity such as Arisman.
The site of Arisman (Fig. 5.7) is only 60 km south- east of Sialk and located in the same fertile corridor that lines the interface of the Karkas mountains with the Great Desert. It was excavated by a joint Iranian-German research team in the years 2000 to 2004 as it was an impor- tant location of large-scale copper- and silver-working in the 4th millennium , equivalent to Sialk III and IV. Most primary data from Arisman has been published (Vatandoust et al. 2011), but as thinking and interpretation continues, I will next present a brief overview of the site, together with some new thoughts on interpretation.
Arisman was occupied from the mid-4th to the early 3rd millennium . The site extends over more than 1 km2 on a gravel fan at the foot of the Karkas mountains, the result of a horizontal shifting of the settlement prob- ably in relation to a northward move of the main water outlets. The excavated horizontal sequence mirrors Sialk III6-7 to Sialk IV1-2, spread over a wide area, comparable to an exploded assembly drawing. The earlier occupation is documented in area B with a rectangular one-room house with a cooking installation built from pisé; this area was later used as a workshop with ceramic kilns dug into the lower layers. The Proto-Elamite settlement in area C, 500 m north of area B, consisted of a planned area of rectangular multi-room houses arranged along a lane and
constructed from standardised mudbrick (Fig. 5.8). These houses were abandoned after a while and the ruins reused dug into the ground at the beginning of the 3rd millen- nium . The workshop phase yielded interesting instal- lations: pit furnaces were dug into the ground, and large hearth platforms with residues of copper casting blocked the doors inside the former rooms. Three large slag heaps (areas A, D, E) extended over the site. Slagheap D yielded an uninterrupted sequence of slag deposition beginning in the mid-4th millennium and extending into the Proto- Elamite period, but no metallurgical installation was preserved intact. However, a furnace was uncovered in slagheap A, dating to the beginning of the 3rd millennium (Fig. 5.9), and area E yielded a pit furnace, similar to installations observed also in the area C workshops.
The material culture of Arisman closely resembles the Sialk III6-7 and IV1-2 assemblages, in particular with - lurgical processing. A comparison of radiocarbon dates also for the Proto-Elamite occupation in Arisman are conical BRBs, band-painted ceramics with pitchers and beakers, tear-shaped trays and a few painted nose-lugged jars (Fig. 5.10). Some of the more sophisticated metal implements and the three Proto-Elamite seals from Arisman were discovered close to the surface and probably derive from destroyed burials of the late Proto-Elamite occupation phase. Metallurgical remnants comprise mostly cruci- change from Sialk III to the Proto-Elamite period. The earlier copper production was carried out in crucibles with a massive pierced foot and used single-valve moulds for casting shaft hole axes and multiple ingots; the Proto- double ingot mould (Fig. 5.11).
The Arisman excavations paid close attention to metal- lurgical production, as the three large slag heaps identi- Early Bronze Age. Sialk probably equalled Arisman as a production site, but this only became evident when instal- lations and slag heaps were recognised during the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (Nokandeh 2003; Nezafati and Pernicka 2006). This comes as no surprise as Sialk and Arisman are both located in the immediate vicinity of copper-bearing deposits in highland inner Iran.
Both sites can also be compared with regard to the regional settlement pattern in which they are located. Tappeh Sialk was probably a local central place and a massive settlement during the Chalcolithic period or Sialk III with an accumulation of 8 x m of occupation levels. It was probably not the only site but the initial survey of
24
the Sialk hinterland remained inconclusive with regard to early periods (Danti 2006). The Arisman survey data indi- cates a strong centralisation, with eight recorded sites in the Sialk III period but not a single Proto-Elamite occupation in the area besides Arisman (Chegini & Helwing 2011). The radical shift from a landscape with a scaled settle- ment system with one central place and surrounding sites during the Late Chalcolithic towards one with a unique central place without hinterland sites seems to be charac- teristic for the Proto-Elamite period in the highlands and, to a lesser degree, for the lowlands. In lowland Susiana, a drop in settlement activity during the Proto-Elamite period is interpreted by Abbas Alizadeh as representing a shift towards a more mobile pastoralist lifestyle (Alizadeh 2018: 76–7). In the Kur River Basin around Tal-e Malyan, the shift towards centralisation is less radical than in the highlands but the number of sites also decreased signif- icantly during the Banesh period (Sumner 2003), and a comparable development was observed in the neigh- bouring Mamasani region (McCall 2009: 222–6). The complete abandonment of all sites prior to a Proto-Elamite settlement constructed on the old mound is recorded for Tappeh Yahya (Prickett 1986: 237).
Iran over the last two decades has yielded more impor- tant new evidence for Late Chalcolithic and Proto-Elamite occupation from places such as Tappeh Qoli Darvish (summarised in Alizadeh et al. 2013), the neighbouring mounds of Sofalin and Shogali (Dahl et al. 2012; Hessari Zoshk et al. 2015), in addition to earlier work in Qabrestan (Majidzadeh 1996) and Ozbaki (Majidzadeh, 1389a, 1389b; Vallat 2003), altogether considerably enlarging the data for interpretation of highland–lowland relations during the period of emerging states in the lowlands. chronological framework for highland–lowland relations and provide robust evidence for complex architecture and administration during the Proto-Elamite period.
Architectural remains of considerable scale are recorded in Maimanatabad and Qoli Darvish. Excavations at Maimanatabad proceeded on a small scale but yielded a clear stratigraphic superposition of a building with major walls more than 1 m wide over a more diverse architectural layer of the mid-4th millennium et al. 2015). In Qoli Darvish, four layers of architecture cover the subphases 5-2 of the Proto-Elamite occupation in level II, capped by a level of Kura-Araxes related round build- ings II1 (Alizadeh et al. 2013). Qoli Darvish subphases II5-2 seem to cover the development from the mid-4th to the early 3rd millennium . While the ceramic record is not yet available in detail, administrative devices found
in Qoli Darvish II5 include a stone stamp seal and some numerical and one numero-ideographical tablets, all indi- - rials comprise geometric sealings on doors and box lids, as well as one cylinder seal of the Piedmont Jemdet Nasr style also attested in Arisman (Fig. 5.12). A most inter- esting small square building with massive walls and internal semi-columns (Alizadeh et al recognised in the highlands. Proto-Elamite clay tablets were also found in Tappeh Sofalin (Dahl et al. 2012), and a single tablet is known from Tappeh Ozbaki (Vallat 2003); however, the wider archaeological context remains poorly known.
Interpreting the highland sites
to contextualise the Proto-Elamite occupation in the high- lands more comprehensively. Now based on much broader during the mid-4th millennium , contemporary with Sialk III6-7 in the highlands. As discussed above, these record, mainly in administrative devices and in some ceramic shapes. Subsequently, sites situated in strategic locations transformed into local centres, probably also absorbing some population from the smaller surrounding sites. Examples for such early central places are the sites of Sialk in level III6-7, Qoli Darvish II5 and Maimanatabad. Following a stratigraphic gap or a spatial shift in some sites, attested in Sialk with the shift to level IV1 and in Arisman with the settlement area C, a new organisation of built space can be recognised. In Qoli Darvish, level II2 marks this stage and includes a major non-domestic building. The new use of settlement space correlates with mudbrick was introduced as a building material, ceramic production shifted from painted to plain wares, built copper smelting furnaces replaced the former crucible smelting and new forms of copper artefacts were introduced. Proto- Elamite script was then brought in during the later phase in Sialk IV2, Ozbaki and Sofalin.
With the chronological resolution now available it is obvious that the contacts with the lowlands preceded the cultural transformation just described. These early contacts occurred during a time when highland metallurgists had started a major production of copper artefacts, including heavy copper axes used in funerary rituals in Susa. Axe
25
moulds from Sialk, Arisman and Ghabrestan match well with the types used in Susa, and material analyses support a highland origin of the copper (summarised in Helwing 2011). This said, it is plausible to see the quest for raw materials in general and for copper in particular as a major driving force behind the contacts, as Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli posited in their ‘Copper and complexity’ (Matthews & Fazeli 2004). Opinions are more divided regarding the question of what followed, and the establishment of the Proto-Elamite highland sites is variably understood to be the result of colonisation, secondary state formation, local development or a local emulation of the lowland model. As the recent ceramic analyses discussed earlier have shown, the bulk of mate- rial is of local production, including shapes that originate from an Uruk repertoire, whereas some select vessels may also represent imports. The ingenious invention of a new Proto-Elamite script also points to the local adoption of cultural models learned from lowland prototypes. And the Proto-Elamite highland copper production, which rose to industrial scale towards the end of the 4th millennium catered for a wide area throughout the Zagros foothills.
Taking all this evidence together, the network of Proto- Elamite sites in western Central Iran most probably repre- sents the local adoption and emulation of a new model of social organisation and control developed previously in the early lowland states of the Uruk period. Flourishing for possibly two or three centuries only, the transposi- tion of the lowland model to the more sparsely inhabited
highlands was not sustainable in the long run and ended in the beginning of the 3rd millennium . In Godin and Qoli Darvish, external factors may have contributed to the end of the Proto-Elamite occupation, as intrusive elements of South Caucasian origin show. Sites such as Sialk and Arisman were abandoned without visible external interfer- ence and remained deserted for more than a millennium, south-eastern Iran.
Acknowledgements
I warmly thank the organisers of the Sialk Conferences in London for this opportunity to present my thoughts and to catch up with colleagues. Work in Arisman from 2000 to 2004 was conducted by a joint Iranian-German research team under the umbrella of the interdisciplinary project ‘Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau’, supported jointly by the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research and the Research Centre for the Restoration of Cultural Relics, both under the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation, the German Archaeological Institute, the Geological Survey of Iran, the German Mining Museum Bochum and the TU Mining Academy Freiberg. I also wish to express my gratitude to Dr Malek Shahmirzadi who invited me to participate for Project’.
26
6
Notes on the Connections between Tappeh Sialk and Hasanlu MICHAEL DANTI
Introduction
I was fortunate enough to conduct a short archaeological survey in the Sialk area in January 2005 as part of the third season of the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ directed by Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadeh (Malek Shahmirzadeh 2004; Danti 2005a, 2005b). The principal investigators had Sialk within Esfahan Province (Fig. 6.1). The research area contained portions of the Karkas mountains, the eastern piedmont zone of the Karkas range and the inter- montane valleys of the Qamsar, Barzok, Azvar, Naber, Maragh, Nuyasar and Nashalji areas. In the north-east, the survey area included an expanse of the arid clay and salt survey was discontinued in 2006, this research experience - nitions of the early Iron Age and how such constructs have been applied by researchers in northern and western Iran over the last 60 years (see especially Dyson 1964, 1965, 1977; Young 1965, 1967, 1985; Muscarella 1974, 1994 and more recently Danti 2013a, 2013b).
our work at Sialk and the environmental zones surrounding modern Kashan. I then examine how excavations at Sialk archaeological endeavour, the Hasanlu Project conducted at Hasanlu Tepe in Iran’s western Azerbaijan Province, just south of Lake Urmia. Both Sialk and Hasanlu have played major roles in setting the course of Iranian archaeology for decades as it pertains to investigating and interpreting the so-called Early Iron Age.
- ological palimpsest for manifold reasons, including the area’s prehistoric archaeological sequence, its prominence
during the Islamic era as a centre of secular power and artistic talent, and the region’s remarkable environmental diversity. In addition, for many of us, the name Sialk evokes the site’s contributions to our understanding of the origins of the Early Iron Age and theories on Indo-European, or rooted in the pioneering excavations and seminal writ- ings of Roman Ghirshman (Ghirshman 1935, 1938–9). Ghirshman’s work at Sialk in 1933–4 and 1937 followed close on his and Contenau’s earlier excavations at Giyan Tappeh in Luristan Province in 1931–2 (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935). After the Sialk excavations, Ghirshman sought to synthesise archaeological knowledge of eastern and western Iranian cultural developments in his popular writings, paving the way for decades of theorising on ancient migrations (see esp. Ghirshman 1954, 1964, 1977). I have spent the last several years following in Ghirshman’s tracks, re-analysing some of the evidence drawn upon by later scholars to explore these theories, mainly from the perspective of north-western Iran and north-eastern Iraqi Kurdistan.
Just as the Sialk excavations were a watershed moment Age, so too were the later excavations at Hasanlu Tepe by a joint expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, the Iranian Antiquities Service and the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1956 to 1977 (Dyson & Voigt 1989; Muscarella this line of research along with Negahban’s discoveries at Marlik (Negahban 1964, 1996). The explorations and interpretations of Hasanlu and neighbouring sites such as Dinkha Tepe and Agrab Tepe (Muscarella 1968, 1973, - tations of the late 2nd- and early 1st-millennia cemeteries of Sialk known as Necropolis A and Necropolis B or Sialk V and VI. More recently, this contribution has been reas-
27
across northern and western Iran (see esp. Tourovetz 1989; Piller 2003–4; Medvedskaya 1977, 1982).
The Sialk region
As with Hasanlu, ancient Sialk stands as a testament to the dynamics of highland–lowland interactions. The site’s location, controlling multiple ecological zones within a tightly bound site catchment, provides a rich dataset on cultural responses to verticality and aridity. Our surveys in 2005 included the Karkas mountains just west of the Kashan plain (Fig. 6.2) to investigate the role of pasto- ralism in the regional subsistence economy over time. Our short survey revealed abundant evidence of pastoral production in the narrow valleys west of Sialk over many millennia (Fig. 6.3). Here narrow, well-watered tracts of arable land are used to produce fruit crops as well as timber. Mining is also conducted in this area today, as was also the the contribution this region makes to the arid Kashan plain in the form of irrigation water. Intricate water-harvesting systems composed of surface and subterranean channels direct rainfall and snowmelt eastward towards vast subter- ranean qanat systems that water the arid Kashan plain and the famous Baq-e Fin gardens (Fig. 6.4). These qanats have traditionally provided a reliable water supply to the city of Kashan and its precursors. The Sialk Survey 2005 followed these irrigation networks down from the moun- tains into the neighbouring piedmont zone (Fig. 6.5) and into the subterranean channels here in some locations (Fig. 6.6). Ceramic sherds from the lower channels generally provided dates from the 12–13th centuries and later. Local tradition suggested at least Sasanian dates for the early or upper-most use-phase of these qanat systems.
We documented abundant evidence of settlement in the piedmont zone east of the Karkas dating from the 12–13th centuries to the early modern era, as well as prehistoric Early Iron Age sites in this area. In this regard, the Sialk Basin, which exhibits relatively dense permanent settle- ment in the later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Danti of Kashan, where new urban development had damaged or destroyed some archaeological sites (Fig. 6.8).
In a single day’s survey, we could start our morning in the Karkas mountains, working our way down through the hilly piedmont to the plain of Kashan, and end up in
Dasht-e Kavir, an area known locally as the Rig Boland or High Sands (Fig. 6.9). Here we found evidence for prehis- toric hunter-gatherer exploitation of steppe resources as well as caravanserais and watchtowers of the medieval and early modern periods.
In 2005 we were frustrated in our attempts to identify new Bronze and Early Iron Age sites in the Sialk region. Conditions during our short survey season were not always ideal given the frequent rain and snowfall during the Islamic era, mirroring the occupational sequence of Kashan rather than the mounds of Sialk.
From the perspective of cultural heritage protection and preservation, the survey results revealed widespread threats, damage and destruction to cultural assets. Many vandalism and neglect. As previously mentioned, urban development on the outskirts of Kashan had already destroyed some small sites and threatened to engulf others. The extensive historic landscape of Old Kashan—with its outlying settlements, gardens, rural hinterland and qanat system—coupled with the large area covered by the mounds of Sialk and their surrounding lower settlements and cemeteries, presents the greatest challenges to future heritage safeguarding. Under the UNESCO system, I would envision the need for an archaeological park akin to those encompassing the ancient villages of northern Syria (i.e. the Dead Cities) to adequately safeguard the Sialk/ Kashan area.
Sialk and Hasanlu
Following the Sialk Survey, I resumed my duties on the ‘Hasanlu Publication Project’ at the University of Pennsylvania, working with Robert H. Dyson, Jr and eventually taking on the task of producing the Hasanlu Excavation Reports series covering the University Museum’s ten seasons of excavation at Hasanlu Tepe, directed by Dyson between 1956 and 1977. In many ways, this repeatedly brought me back to Tappeh Sialk, particu- to reassess the period known as ‘Hasanlu V’ of the mid-to- late 2nd millennium (Danti 2013a: 2013b). This period was initially dubbed the ‘Iron I’ of the late 2nd millen- nium , but the relevant data remained largely unpub- lished. Hasanlu V was known to be roughly contemporary to Sialk V and closely connected to it in terms of the predominant archaeological cultures as well as the history of research. Like other pioneering scholars of ancient Iran in the 1950s and early 1960s, Dyson drew heavily on the work of Ghirshman at Tepe Sialk (Ghirshman 1938–9).
28
Dyson also relied on Giyan Tepe (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935), Tureng Tepe 1931 (Wulsin 1932), Hissar IIIc 1931 (Schmidt 1933, 1937), Shah Tepe 1933 (Arne 1935, 1945), Ghirshman’s renewal of work at Susa begun in 1946 (Ghirshman 1954), Geoy Tepe B–A (Burton-Brown 1951), and later Khurvin-Chandar (Vanden Berghe 1964), but especially the mortuary assemblages of Sialk A–B and Giyan Tepe I.
Our comprehensive analysis of the entire Hasanlu V dataset recovered by the Hasanlu Project (Danti 2013a, 2013b) demonstrates that the cross-sequence compari- of ‘Iron I’, which drew heavily on Sialk V, were tenuous at best. As work progressed at Hasanlu and related sites, this problematic interpretive foundation ultimately resulted in - ical gap dividing the so-called terminal Bronze Age from the earliest Iron Age of western Iran. This archaeological gap, conceptualised as a punctuated break in settlement patterns, mortuary practices, urban form and architectural styles, and styles of material culture (especially ceramic wares) was interpreted as the result of a mass migration(s) of newcomers to northern and western Iran in the mid-to- late 2nd millennium Indo-Iranian and Iranian populations. Nonetheless, I assert - lematic methodology, the paucity of published and scien- Ghirshman and other pioneering scholars on the develop- ment of Iranian archaeology in the 20th century.
For Dyson and other Hasanlu Project researchers in the 1950s and 1960s investigating the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition of western Iran, Sialk and Giyan Tepe provided rare published grave groups of the later 2nd and early 1st millennia, but, taken in isolation, these assem- - Iron Age were the graves of Sialk A (Sialk Period V). Ghirshman had excavated 15 intact tombs in Necropolis A containing monochrome grey-to-black and red burnished wares (Necropolis A Tombs I–XV; Ghirshman 1938–9: 3–22, 209–11, 222–8, pls I–V, XXXVI–XLVII). Sialk A Tomb IV is perhaps the most important, or more aptly archaeological chronology of Iran (Fig. 6.10). This grave contained an iron dagger and an iron ‘punch’ (respectively Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. V, 1 right, pls XXXIX S. 458, V, 1 and XXXIX S. 459) associated with a distinctive ‘mug’ in yellowish undecorated fabric and a burnished grey-black ‘carafe’ or jar with loop handle and thickened band at the
rim (Ghirshman 1938–9: 223, pl. XXXIX). These iron objects stood out from the ubiquitous bronze implements in the graves of Necropolis A. With regard to dating, in the bases (cf. Danti 2013a: 215, Cup Type 4) exhibit a great deal of variation, but are well attested in the later LBA– Iron I (i.e. the late 2nd millennium) at Geoy Tepe (Burton-
Graves 1–63) had already yielded burnished grey and dark red ceramics like those recovered from Sialk A and Hasanlu. The Giyan I graves contained copper/bronze artefacts and three iron daggers from Tombs 3, 5 and 23 (Fig. 6.11). Ghirshman reasoned that the scarcity of Monochrome Burnished Ware, dated to the end of the Bronze Age (Ghirshman 1935: 245), and that this archaeo- below). Sialk Cemetery B (Sialk Period VI), located some distance from Cemetery A and possibly separated tempo- rally by a hiatus of unknown duration, provided evidence painted ceramics, little Monochrome Burnished Ware, and a higher incidence of iron artefacts. To Ghirshman, this indicated a new culture and another wave of migration.
Ghirshman originally dated Sialk A to 1400–1200 and Sialk B to no earlier than 1200–1100 (Ghirshman 1935: 245). This was certainly not inaccurate given the available evidence, but he later revised his dating of Sialk A to 1200–1000 , linking the phase to the graves of Giyan I (I4 and I3, superscript subperiod designations sensu Young 1965), which in turn were compared to graves at Babylon dated to the 12th–11th centuries (Ghirshman 1938–9: 20–1; 1964, 277–8). Ghirshman also noted simi- larities between Sialk A grey-black burnished vessels wares from the Caucasus, where such material was at that time erroneously dated to around 1000 (Ghirshman 1938–9: 222–3, pl. XXXVIII s. 431, s. 432; 1964, 277–8), reinforcing his inaccurate dating. Based on the occurrence of similar ceramic wares and forms (Incised and Impressed Ware) at Dinkha Tepe in the Southern Lake Urmia Basin and at sites in the Caucasus, I would date the Sialk grave to the early Late Bronze Age of the mid 2nd millennium provide links to the Mitanni occupations of Tell el-Rimah, Tell Brak and Nuzi (ibid.).
Ghirshman accordingly revised the start of Sialk B to 1000 (1964: 280) in view of (1) the dating of the earlier Sialk A, (2) a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal found in one Sialk B grave and (3) his belief that the Sialk B
29
archaeological culture represented the Medes, who are . Ghirshman therefore asserted that the start of Sialk B must in his monumental Comparée et Chronologie, had ques- 469–70, 477), preferring a range from 1400–1200 for Sialk A and 1250–1100 for Sialk B. This early date for Sialk B, however, was rejected by Dyson, Young and Medvedskaya (see Young 1963; Dyson 1965: 200–1; Medvedskaya 1983). The association of grey-to-black monochrome burnished pottery with early iron objects as well as Ghirshman’s grouping of the Sialk A graves into would his theories of culture change driven by multiple 1964: 3, 277–8).
Ghirshman, building on the work of Arne, issued a Iranian archaeology for decades to come:
What are the reasons that caused the displacement of the civilization represented by necropolis A and its appear- ance at Sialk, at Rey and at Giyan? Arne believes it is the Indo-European invasion, which ended the age of grey- which is possible, but with the condition of lowering the date that he gives to the layer of Shah Tepe. At Tureng Tepe, the most recent level (III) shows a radical change in burial practices: on Mound C, at the end of its occupation, the dead were no longer buried under the dwellings but, as at Sialk (Necropolis A), in a necropolis apart from the houses. Two of these tombs contained small iron objects, which makes it possible to believe they are contemporary to necropolis A. At Damghan [Hissar], one does not note similar changes, but level IIIB there underwent a violent destruction, and the most recent installation, IIIC, presents several characteristics that link it to the civilization of the Ciscaucasus and southern Russia. (Ghirshman 1938–9: 103–4)
Ghirshman also noted strong similarities between Sialk A and commercially excavated material from the so-called Solduz Necropolis – aka. Hasanlu Low Mound – discov- ered between 1933 and 1935 (Fig. 6.12; Ghirshman 1938–9: 78–9, 253–4, pl. C). This put a spotlight on Hasanlu for further testing migrationist theories and set the stage for the future investigations by Stein, Hakemi and Rad, and Dyson (Stein 1940; Hakemi and Rad 1950).
In summary, Ghirshman highlighted certain archaeo- logical correlates of putative Early Iron Age migrations, whether directly or indirectly linked: ‘Grey Ware’, small amounts of iron and extramural cemeteries. He drew atten- tion to the presence of similar Monochrome Burnished Ware in north-western Iran at sites such as Hasanlu, and also drew links to 2nd-millennium sites in the Caucasus
as well as northern migration routes to the western Zagros - nated by theories attempting to ‘connect the dots’ of Iranian migrations—the primary data often consisted of material salvaged from looted or commercially excavated ceme- Rad 1950; Vanden Berghe 1964). The area of the Elburz and southern Caspian littoral proved sparse territory for archaeologists in search of Grey Ware Horizon, resulting in a stubborn spatiotemporal gap for those attempting to link eastern Grey Ware to its supposed western cousin.
In ‘The Hasanlu Project’, published in Science in 1962, Dyson explicitly laid out his criteria for the rela- tive and absolute dating of the earliest Iron Age or, as he called it, the ‘Button Base Phase’ or ‘Hasanlu Period V’ (Dyson 1962: 639). He chose a Hasanlu ‘Period V’ Grey Ware button-base goblet or tankard as a primary example to illustrate the technique of cross-sequence dating (Fig. 6.13), which he compared to similar button-base tankards from Sialk A, Giyan I and Geoy Tepe B (Dyson 1962: Grave SK29, which I have redated to Hasanlu Period VIa or the Middle Bronze III of the 16th–early 15th century SK29 mortuary assemblage to illustrate Hasanlu V/Iron I 8 nos. 7, 9–10). However, this MBIII grave was disturbed by an immediately overlying burial (SK15) of the Iron II period (1050–800 ), which resulted in the mixing of Iron II material with the Middle Bronze III grave assem- blage (ibid.), including a pedestal-based carinated cup (HAS57-188) typical of the Iron I (1250–1050 ) and early Iron II (1050–800 ) and, most crucially, an iron iron in Hasanlu Period V. Dyson’s Iron I/Hasanlu V dating the similarity of the Monochrome Burnished Ware button- base tankard to Sialk A and Giyan I, where a few iron objects were found in graves with Monochrome Burnished Ware. Nevertheless, Ghirshman apparently and under- belong to the mid-2nd millennium , with iron objects in Sialk A graves. The Sialk tankard chosen by Dyson for the chart is almost certainly a drawing of S656 (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. IV no. 4), which does not come from a docu- mented, intact Sialk grave, but rather was probably found in one of the looted graves mentioned by Ghirshman (1939: 3–4). The Giyan button-base tankard illustrated by Dyson appears to be from Grave 27 (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 22, pl. 13) and has no other associated ceramics and is not associated with iron objects. The three
30
graves of Giyan I with iron daggers (see Fig. 6.11) do not contain button-base drinking vessels.
At this juncture, Dyson was gradually shifting to an Iranian focus for comparanda, as opposed to Mesopotamia, foreshadowing Young’s more detailed cross-sequence comparisons published in 1963 and 1965 (Young 1963, 1965) and the eventual addition of a range of ceramic forms in Monochrome Burnished Ware thought to be typical of the earliest Iron Age as well as columned hall architecture. Dyson writes:
Such similarities relate the ceramics of this phase [Hasanlu V or the Button-base Phase] to the general tradition of central and western Iran in the late 2nd millennium B.C. This correlation is supported by the presence of a few These forms belong to a tradition found in Mesopotamia during the latter part of the second millennium B.C. at the sites of Nuzi, Assur, and elsewhere. The pottery of this phase thus relates the local culture to cultures in the two being 1200–1000 B.C. (Dyson 1962: 641)
This dating neatly aligned with Ghirshman’s estimate for Sialk A. Dyson continued to develop this idea further, even- tually designating an archaeological Grey Ware Horizon in western Iran that arrived suddenly in the later 2nd millen- nium , rapidly replacing the Bronze Age cultures there.
Early Western Grey Ware (EWGW) Horizon, which was supported by an exhaustive review of the available archaeological evidence and included Hasanlu V, Giyan I (4-3), Sialk V, Geoy Tepe B–A and Khurvin-Chandar (Young 1963: 133). Young wrote that ‘all of these sites share three general features: they have essentially a painted ware occurs only very rarely; they display a similar burial tradition in regard to extramural burials ... and they only rarely yield objects of iron’ (ibid.: 133). He later added columned-hall architecture to this assessment of culture traits for the earliest Iron Age in I clearly originated from and expanded on Ghirshman’s description of Sialk A (1939: 103–4). As Ghirshman before him, Young rather precariously linked this horizon to Hissar III in north-eastern Iran, where a type of ‘grey ware’ was well known. This became the basis for Young’s theory of Iron Age origins centred on an
east–west migration of Iranian populations in the 2nd millennium , although chronological and spatial gaps between Hissar III and the EWGW Horizon would prove the archaeological periodisation and embedded migra- tionist theories developed by the Hasanlu Project for the later 2nd and early 1st millennia would become the prevailing viewpoint for decades.
After an exhaustive review of the evidence from Hasanlu (Danti 2013a; 2013b), I contend that the prolonged and dogged adherence to EWGW migration theories, or the slightly watered-down notion of punctu- sciences in his critique of historicism (Popper 1957, predicted. I would trace this back to Ghirshman’s early grappling with Sialk A in which he popularised a list of putative culture traits and a multi-wave migration model that promised to explicate the arrival of Iranian populations onto Ware’ (Sialk A) culture westward and their eventual arrival in the west was heralded by Sialk B. As western Iran was data collection and interpretation. Herein rests the reasoning, to my mind, for the origin of, and adherence to, the uncon- ventional use of the term ‘Iron Age’, which in its earliest applications using Dyson and Young’s concepts of ‘Hasanlu V’ or ‘Iron I’ – heavily based on Sialk A – lumped together Middle Bronze III, the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I period or, minimally, the period from 1600 to 1050 .
The so-called Western Grey Ware Horizon or culture earliest Iron Age, which was in turn linked (directly and indirectly) to Indo-Iranian migrations à la Young and Ghirshman, and for a time it seemed that Persians, Medes and Scythians might have had an earlier and much more easily discernible presence in Iran. Sites such as Sialk and Hasanlu are key to our understanding of Iran’s past, and new exploration and re-analysis of older archaeological contributions of trailblazing scholars such as Ghirshman and Dyson. The outstanding universal value of these archaeological sites and their surrounding areas are mani- fest, and we must do all we can to preserve this cultural legacy for future generations.
31
7
Decorative Bricks of the Late Iron Age in Eastern Media: Some Pieces from Sialk
REZA NASERI & MEHRDAD MALEKZADEH
The men who adorned the wall [of the Susa palace], those were Medes and Egyptians (Darius I, DSf)
Introduction
The Iron Age culture of the central Iranian plateau is rela- tively well known. Among the important sites are Tappeh Sialk (Malek Shahmirzadi 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2017; Ghirshman 1938–9), Shamshirgah (Fahimi 2003; Malekzadeh & Naseri 2005; Fahimi 2010; Malekzadeh & Naseri 2013), Qoli Darvish (Sarlak 2020, 2011; Kleiss 1983), Sarm (Sarlak 2003), Zar Bolagh (Malekzadeh 2003; Malekzadeh et al. 2014), Vasun (Malekzadeh 2004; Malekzadeh et al. 2014), Sagz Abad (Malek Shahmirzadi 1977), Uzbaki (Majidzadeh 2010a, 2010b) and others. But it should be mentioned that our knowledge of this period, especially the second half (the Median period), across the entire central part of the Iranian plateau is on the whole restricted to pottery types and cultural horizons.
The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse 80 examples of a little-known type of decoration associ- ated with the architecture of the Late Iron Age, namely the stamped bricks found at Sialk. These bricks can be described as the most prominent artistic feature of the centre of the Iranian plateau before the advent of the universal art of the Achaemenid period. Limited examples (18 specimens) of such stamped bricks were found during the excavations at Tappeh Sialk in the 1930s (Ghirshman 1938–9: pls XXI, XCVIII, XCIX). But for many years, because of the lack of similar examples, any comparative discussion and compar- ative chronological research was practically impossible. Now, however, the discovery of such bricks at three other sites, namely Qoli Darvish (7 examples) (Sarlak 2011: 500 and 557, [Sarlak], n.d.: 2), Shamshirgah (74 exam- ples) (Malekzadeh & Naseri 2005) and Qolam Tappe-ye Ja’farabad (19 examples) (Golmohammadi et al. 2014), as
well as new examples from Sialk (62 examples) (Naseri 2011), shows that such architectural decorations were a common tradition for ornamenting brick monuments (and sometimes stone monuments) in the centre of the Iranian plateau in the Iron Age II and Iron Age III periods (Fig. 7.1).
Decorative bricks from Sialk
‘Decorative bricks of the Late Iron Age’ is the suggested description for these brick decorations of the Late Iron Age in eastern Media, which were already known through 18 examples found associated with large structures in the Ghirshman excavations at Sialk. Ghirshman called them ‘briques de revêtement’ and related them to the Iron Age (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XXI, nos 5–6, pls XCVIII– XCIX). In the recent excavations and surveys at Sialk, 62 more examples were recovered. Of these, 16 examples Project’, of which 6 examples were published in a paper by Nowruzzadeh Chegini (2002: 171–5), 6 examples were found in the third season of the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (Fahimi 2004: 87), 9 examples in the fourth season (Fahimi 2005: 137), 2 examples from Mr Moradi’s sounding and 29 pieces in the 2006 survey by the authors (Naseri 2011). Apart from the wide disagreement about the dating of these decorative bricks,1 their function and artistic aspects have not been much discussed.
1 Nowruzzadeh Chegini astutely refused to date the bricks (Nowruzzadeh Chegini 2002), but his brief article gave Malek Shahmirzadi the latitude to date them to the Proto-Elamite period (Malek Shahmirzadi 2002: 25); Malekzadeh (2004b: 18–21) showed that the bricks must belong to the Iron Age III period and cannot be earlier.
32
The various motifs on the bricks are human, animal These motifs are combined together to create separate scenes. The size and nature of the designs, the constituent elements and the production methods are similar in all respects. In total 10 scenes can be distinguished, and we will describe them in turn.
Scene 1
Scene 1 shows a man among beasts. His torso is trapezoidal in shape and shown frontally, while his head is shown in upraised. He has a peak of hair or a hat at the front of his the design include, in the upper row, a roaring lion with open mouth, with one paw raised, the mane indicated by a jagged line and with a tail touching the mane. In front of pattern. In the upper left-hand corner of the scene is a horned animal (deer, ram, goat?), apparently with a wing. In the lower row, opposite the sitting man, are two hoofed animals, one with a ridged horn and the other resembling a horse. The whole decoration is contained within a frame, which in parts has closely spaced horizontal grooves (Fig. 7.2a: N. 1-6).
This scene is stamped on six pieces of brick, one piece from the Ghirshman excavations (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVIII, S. 98), four pieces from the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (Nowruzzadeh Chegini 2002: pl. piece from surface surveys by the authors (Naseri 2011,
Scene 2
This scene features a man in the company of three small designs on it. The man is sitting or standing on the back of one of the animals. He has a trapezoidal-shaped upper body, shown frontally. Vertical grooves on the chest may be a design of clothing. His face is not clear due to the largest of the three animals, which is facing right. All the pieces of brick that have this design are broken on the right side, but it is clear that the animal has a long body, a long tail, an elongated head and is probably a horse. It has a wing with a lattice pattern. The other two animals are both horses, one apparently winged, but the decoration is very eroded. On some pieces, the scene has a frame at the top, on the left, and at the bottom (Fig. 7.2a: N. 7-10).
This scene is stamped on four pieces of brick, one piece from the Ghirshman excavations (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVIII, S. 304b) and three pieces from the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (Nowruzzadeh Chegini
Scene 3
upside down in the upper part. The motifs in this scene hand side. This creature is shown with a human body and the head and wings of a bird. The head is shown in pendants are attached to his waist. This creature faces a design which is probably the sacred tree. He stretches out one hand to the tree, which has spherical fruits. moon and the sun. In the upper part of the scene is a lion with a raised tail and dentate mane and three hoofed of animal species. In the lower row, in addition to the but judging from the dentate mane, the raised tail and the position of the two hind legs is probably a roaring squares and diamonds are visible (Fig. 7.2a: N. 11-15). The whole scene is decorated above and below with the edges of hanging triangles (Fig. 7.2a: N. 12, 13 and 15) and horizontal ridges (Fig. 7.2a: N. 11). The important thing about this scene is that the motifs in some pieces are drawn facing right (Fig. 7.2a: N. 11, 14 and 15) and in some pieces are drawn facing left (Fig. 7.2a: N. 12 and 13), so that they are mirror images. On some larger pieces of brick there is an arch-shaped hollow that is perhaps a place for a peg or stud (Fig. 7.2a: N. 11).
The motif of the sacred tree is well known from Mesopotamian monumental art, particularly Neo-Assyrian the raw material and artistic style. In Neo-Assyrian art the design was carved in stone to the highest artistic stand- iconography. Nevertheless, this scene demonstrates the familiarity of the artists of the central Iranian plateau (East Media) with the common themes of contemporary the region with Mesopotamia in the Late Iron Age (the Median period).
four pieces from the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’
33
Scene 4
patterns inside two vertical lines on the left side of the image. There is a deep groove on the far left-hand side of the scene (Fig. 7.2b: N. 23).
This scene is preserved on one fragment of brick found
Scene 7
In the lower part of this scene two horned animals confront between them. The animal on the right is represented only by its head, eye, muzzle and ridged horn. The animal on the left (a winged bull) is shown by two legs, wings, large diamond-shaped eyes, a rectangular-shaped muzzle and incurving horns that are depicted as seen from the front. In the upper part of this scene, which is much eroded, only geometric patterns with chequerboard decoration are visible (Fig 7.2c: N. 25).
This scene is preserved on one fragment of brick found
Scene 8
In this can be seen an animal with incurving horns (a bull) and to the right of it a geometric design with chequered squares. The scene is bordered at the top by a narrow rib (Fig. 7.2d: N. 26).
This scene is preserved on one fragment of brick found in the Ghirshman excavations (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVIII, S. 1299).
Scene 9
entire design is framed at top and bottom. At the bottom there are ribs and deep grooves. This scene is preserved on two pieces of brick (Fig. 7.2e: N. 27). One piece was found in the Ghirshman excavations (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVIII, S. 304a) and the other comes from the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’ (Nowruzzadeh Chegini 2002:
Scene 10
The nine scenes above were recognisably human, animal, or individually, but with the case of geometric decoration or brick frames, incised or stamped on bricks, the issue is we will call Scene 10 (Fig. 7.3).
This scene shows a hoofed animal with horns and wings (a winged bull?) amidst geometric designs such as chequered winged bull are curved inwards, with an ear behind them. The eye is formed of concentric circles and the animal’s tail hangs down and ends in a lump. The whole scene is surrounded by a thin frame with a triangular appendage attached to it. The remarkable thing about the scene is that in one piece (Fig. 7.2a, N. 16-22), the scene on the left completed (Fig. 7.2a: N. 20).
This scene is stamped on seven bricks, one piece from the Ghirshman excavations (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVIII, S. 134), four pieces from the ‘Sialk 4-12 and 4-14) and two pieces from the Sialk surface
Scene 5
The main motif in this scene is a horned animal with long neck (the head of the animal is not clear because of erosion), open wings and bent front legs that are hoofed. Although the brick is not broken on the right-hand side, continued and completed on the adjacent brick. Other motifs in this scene include a curved line with dentate decoration that is probably part of another animal’s horn. All the motifs in this scene are contained within a simple frame (Fig. 7.2a: N. 23 and Fig. 7.7a).
This scene is preserved on one brick found during the
Scene 6
This shows an elegant horned animal with a long, curved neck, narrow waist and muscular limbs. The head is long and slender with prominent circular eyes. The horns are incurving with the ears of the animal beside them. A circular object, probably a decorative tassel, is suspended beneath the neck. A remarkable feature about this motif body have been created as separate features and they are not actually joined together. Other motifs in this scene are petals are missing because of the fracture), an enigmatic motif in the top right-hand corner and geometric zigzag
34
Iconography
Animal motifs were previously recognised amongst the decorative bricks of ‘la grande construction’ (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVII, S.98, S.134, S.304b, S.1299), but two ibid.: S.98, S.304b). We now know that these bricks have the same familiar designs as the hoofed animals of the Sialk 6 culture (S.98 is a piece of Scene 1 and S.304b is a piece of Scene 2). motifs, namely an animal like a deer or goat with two crescent horns (Scene 8: ibid.: S.1299), and on another an animal like a winged horse with two horns (Scene 4: ibid.: S.134). In recent excavations, decorative bricks have been obtained with similar animal motifs, hoofed animals (for example Scene 1), winged horses or similar (for example Scene 2) and horned animals (for example Scene 6) (Fig. 7.2).
Motifs of this kind are commonly found in the decora- tive schemes on the ceramics of Sialk Cemetery B, from animals like winged horses (ibid.: pls LXXX, XC: 1) and horned bulls (ibid.: XC: 7) to deer and goats with cres- centic horns (ibid.: LXXXII, LXXXIV) (Fig 7.4).
There was no human motif amongst the decorative bricks that Ghirshman found around ‘la grande construction’ (ibid.: pl. XCVII, XCVIII); but in recent excavations and surveys a number of bricks with human motifs (for example, Scenes 1 and 2) (Fig 7.2) have been found. The main features of this human motif are the trapezoidal upper wide shoulders, the wide chest, the position of the arms, the appearance of head and face (long beard and chin, with curved nose, although some details of the eyes are not very clear), the stature, and most important of all, the peak of hair at the front of the head. We are familiar with all these details from the illustrative culture of Sialk 6 (Fig. 7.4).
animal motifs on the decorative pottery of Sialk 6, a few human motifs are also observable, including on two incomplete pottery fragments from Ghirshman’s exca- vations (Ghirshman 1938–9: col. pl. 1, pl. 90: 2-1). The photographs and drawings of these two pieces of pottery have been repeatedly published in Ghirshman’s writings 7.5b).
with a rider on its back. Unfortunately, most of the rider
Can the stamped designs on these bricks be matched by the known designs from the Iron Age culture in terms of iconography? The stamped designs on the bricks of ‘la grande construction’ show exactly the same motifs as are traditionally found in Cemetery B (Sialk 6 Culture). presented in this paper with traditional motifs on the ceramics and seals of Cemetery B, and following that we will compare them with the common motifs of the Iron Age of Iran and neighbouring regions. As previously mentioned, the motifs on these bricks are human, animal,
Amongst the most important geometric decorations on the decorative bricks of ‘la grande construction’ are triangles and squares. The triangle motif is one of the most common motifs in the Late Iron Age, and such motifs (whether festoon or triangle) on the ceramics are often considered as part of a cultural tradition, ‘Festoon Ware’ and ‘Triangle Ware’ (see Dyson 1965: 200–1, pl XLI; Dyson 1999). Earlier, this kind of motif was known from the ceramics of Cemetery B at Sialk (for example: Ghirshman 1938–9: pls LIV, LXIV, XC) and also from the cylinder seals of the festoon and triangle motifs have been noted on the decora- tive bricks from Sialk (Fig. 7.4).
The square motif is also a very popular one in the Iron Age, and motifs similar to the squares on the decorative bricks of the ‘la grande construction’ (Ghirshman 1938–9: pls XCVIII, S.134, S.1299) can be seen on the decorative bricks of Baba Jan (Henrickson 1983). Uniquely similar squares are also commonly found on Sialk 6 pottery from Cemetery B (for example Ghirshman 1938–9: pls
The most prominent decorative motif of the Sialk 6 - rative pottery of Cemetery B at Sialk (Ghirshman 1938–9; pl. LIV, S.814, pl. LXXXVII, S.1548, pl. XCI, A.18). This motif is also observed on the decorative bricks of ‘la grande construction’ (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XCVIII, S.304a), and they are clearly related in terms of artistic style (Fig. 7.8.4).
35
and a long beard and chin. The shape of the head and face, the hairstyle with a lock of hair at the front decorated with sitting on the horse are all very important for our compar- isons (Fig. 5a).
The second motif, the ‘danseur’, shows a man who has a sword at his waist. In front of him there is another standing; he is holding something in his raised right hand (or it is the left hand of the other man) and he puts his left hand on his sword. His upper body is trapezoidal in a curved nose, long beard and chin. The long neck, the wide shoulders and chest, the sturdy arms, the posture with the gentle curvature of the knee, the composition of the head and face and the hairstyle with long hair swept back decorated with hatched lines (maybe it is a headband or turban?) are again all very important for our comparisons (Fig. 7.5b).
There is also a warrior motif on a pottery vessel of Sialk 6 type in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (Ghirshman body is shown frontally, but his head and his legs are in curved nose, long chin (with beard), extended neck, wide shoulders and chest, sturdy arms, the posture with gentle curvature of the knee, the composition of head and face, the hairstyle with long braided hair behind him (maybe it is a headband?) are all familiar (Malekzadeh 2002). The most important thing is a short sword with a round hilt in the sheath at his waist. This is the type of short sword millennium and known as an akinakes (Fig. 7.6).
In addition to the ceramics, human bodies are also depicted on a few Sialk 6 cylinder seals from Cemetery B (Ghirshman 1938–9: pls XXX, XCIV). Among them, a seal artistic tradition. It shows a rider with a trapezoidal-shaped an extended neck, wide shoulders, wide chest and sturdy arms, and the hairstyle with long hair at the back of the decorated with hatched lines, are all similar to the two ibid.: 63, pls XXX: 5, LVI, XCIV, S.810). It should also be noted that another seal from Sialk has a motif of a man sitting on a throne (ibid.: 62–3, pls XXX: 7, LVI, XCIV, S.1327). The trapezoidal-shaped upper body, shown frontally, and
This way of showing the human body can also be seen in other seals from Cemetery B (ibid.: 62–5, pls XXX, LVI, XCIV; cf. Malekzadeh 2002: 21 (Fig. 7.4).
As we have seen, the motifs on these decorative bricks are exactly the same as the motifs of the Cemetery B deco- rative tradition (Sialk 6 culture), and the similarity of the iconography is such that both can be considered to belong to the same tradition (Fig. 7.4). It should be said that the decoration on the stamped bricks and the ceramics of Sialk 6 is exactly the same. In one case the artist painted the motifs onto the clay vessels found in Cemetery B before placing them in the kiln, and in the other the potter stamped for ‘la grande construction’. If we accept the comparisons we have discussed, then the stamped bricks should be of the same date as Cemetery B at Sialk. Therefore, the decorative bricks from the ‘la grande construction’ and the architecture with which they are associated should be dated to the end of the Iron Age. Such stamped bricks are deco- rations for mudbrick platforms and large structures, and if these bricks, according to the motifs, are related to the Late Iron Age, the structures can be dated to the same era.
Brick manufacture and function
ware. The surface was coated with a thin layer of clay in was tempered with various mineral inclusions including grains of sand and sometimes pottery sherds (Fig. 7.7). In our opinion, judging from the size of the motifs and the lack of repetition of motifs in individual scenes, they were impressed on each brick with a stamp. The motifs on the bricks were part of larger scenes like a seven colour (haft rang) tile (Fig. 7.8). The central scenes were probably - rical (Figs 7.8a, 7.8b), while around them were simple geometric frames (Fig. 7.8c). In some bricks of Sialk, holes are seen in the middle, which may indicate they were
of Sialk, correctly believed that the decorative bricks were related to the mudbrick ‘grande construction’. He believed that they were decorations for the exterior of the mudbrick walls of the ‘grande construction’ (Ghirshman 1938–9: pl. XXI, nos. 5-6, pls XCVIII–XCIX).
It should be noted that the bricks belong to a long tradi- tion of architectural decoration in Western Asia. Let us review this, starting with later decorative bricks from the Achaemenid era, and then considering older examples. The Achaemenid examples include glazed bricks from Susa
36
(Vanden Berghe 1959: pl. CIV), Persepolis (Schmidt 1953: 191) and Achaemenid Babylon (Seidl 1976). Such bricks are probably rooted in the tradition of the bricks of the Ishtar Gate at Babylon (Koldewey 1918), and the Mannaean bricks of Ziwiye (Mo’tamedi 1997) and Qalaychi (Mousavi Baba Jan bricks belong to an older and more independent tradition (Henrickson 1983), such as the Hasanlu bricks (Winter 1977). The Neo-Elamite bricks of Susa (Porada 1965: pl. XIV) show another tradition. The oldest bricks of this kind are those of the Middle Elamite period at Chogha Zanbil, dating from the middle of the 2nd millennium (Ghirshman 1966). Examples comparable to the Sialk bricks belong to monuments of the Iron Age. They have been found in the central Iranian plateau such as at Qoli Darvish (in connection with a monumental mudbrick platform of Iron Age 2), at the Khorabad stone fortress of Shamshirgah (probably related to a monumental gate) and at Ghulam Tape of Jafar-Abad (related to a palace near Sialk). According to clear that the stamped bricks were a decorative architectural element used to adorn the exterior of mudbrick monuments at the end of the Iron Age. Although the decorative bricks of the in terms of manufacturing technology from the examples before and after them, and particularly from the later glazed and painted bricks of the Achaemenid period, it is clear that this culture of decorating monuments existed in the centre of the Iranian plateau and evolved to produce the more familiar examples of Western Iran.
- ings in Cemetery B at Sialk, has a very rich iconography. Until the new research took place at Sarm, Qoli Darvish, Shamshirgah and Qolam Tappe-ye Ja’farabad, this culture was known exclusively from Sialk, but today we know that in the middle of the Late Iron Age, in the centre of the Iranian plateau, this culture was dominant and stamped bricks also belong to this artistic culture.
Moreover, from a technological point of view we can
and therefore in terms of colour they are similar.
Conclusions
(1) The tradition of stamped brick decoration is evidenced on the central Iranian plateau as early as the Iron Age II–III periods and must be a hallmark of Median art
- rative bricks can be explained by the distance between contemporary Mesopotamian sites such as Babylon and Assur, where there are glazed bricks (also at Qalaichi) and sites such as Shamshirgah, Qolam Tappe-ye Ja’farabad, Tappeh Sialk and Gholi Darvish Tappeh where there are unglazed bricks.
(3) Examples of bricks from Tappeh Sialk, especially expeditions to distant Median areas (made ruqute) located next to the Salt Lake (Bit Tabti/Daryache Qom) like Shikrakki (Tappeh Sialk?). The lack of Median art in the Zagros region is due to the heavy impact of Assyrian military expeditions and subse- quent destruction. The eastern area of the Median land probably saw less destruction due to relatively minor Assyrian activities in this region. However, we should remember that the central Iranian plateau is still not well known from an archaeological point of view.
(4) The decorated Median bricks from the central Median plateau that are presented here are probably the best examples of pre-Achaemenid art in Iran. These motifs are also apparent in the subsequent Achaemenid bricks and their stamped decoration are perhaps testi- who adorned the wall (of the Susa palace), those were Medes and Egyptians’.
37
8
A Note on the Late Iron Age Double-Handled Tankards from Sialk
STEPHAN KROLL
The results of the excavations by Roman Ghirshman at Tappeh Sialk in 1934 and 1937 were overwhelming. Hardly anyone could handle the abundance of material Ghirshman published in the two volumes Sialk I and II. Subsequently some 80 years passed by, and while numerous studies on Sialk appeared, three small ceramic vessels published in volume II were never referred to.
The tankards are to be found in plate IV in Sialk II (Fig. 8.1). Possibly by mistake the whole plate is labelled Nécropole A. This may be the reason that nobody took any notice of them. Looking up the description on page 210 of plate IV it is clear they do not belong to Nécropole A. All three vessels were found in a ‘Sondage au Sud de la Colline Sud’, which is to my knowledge not mentioned elsewhere in the text.
?) ware. At least one of these tankards is on display in the Louvre. It has taken many years of research to put these vessels from Sialk into their archaeological context. And the journey did not start at Sialk itself.
In the late 1960s David Stronach started excavating the Late Iron Age site of Nush-i Jan Tappeh near Hamadan (Stronach 1978a). Nearby, Cuyler Young began excava- tions at the multi-period mound of Godin Tappeh, where he also encountered a Late Iron Age level (Gopnik 2011). Both sites yielded rather similar architecture: a columned hall and several rows of oblong storerooms. Moreover, bowls with single-handled and double-handled tankards (Fig. 8.2). From the very beginning of the excavations of Median culture (Curtis 2005).
But the story did not develop as smoothly as hind- Jan or Godin were limited to the greater Hamadan area.
Double-handled tankards were not abundant. The sample shown here from Godin was the only piece ever found (Fig. 8.3).
Between 1969 and 1978 a German expedition under the direction of Wolfram Kleiss excavated the Urartian fortress of Bastam in Western Azerbaijan province. The fortress had been heavily burnt and destroyed around 650 (Kleiss 1989).
In 1974 we made a surprise discovery: outside the fortress we found on an area of about 20 m2 post-Urartian level, situated above a destroyed storage (Fig. 8.5) were no longer Urartian but in the Median from Nush-i Jan.
At that time David Stronach was not convinced, though we only could show him the drawings and a photo, while in Munich working on the Nush-i Jan publication with Michael Roaf, David was shown by the curator of the Munich Archaeological State Collection some orig- inal sherds from the Bastam post-Urartian level (Fig. 8.6). Without prior knowledge of where the sherds came from, David said that these were typical Median sherds, specially - inal Median homeland.
In the same way Hilary Gopnik commented on the photo (Fig. 8.6). After I had republished the bowl some years later:
On that subject by the way, the color photo of the bowl with horizontal handle that you included in your article on the post-Urartian levels at Bastam was startlingly like the Godin bowls. Complete with the streaked burnishing. If you had showed it to me without telling me where it came from I would have sworn it was from Godin.
(personal communication to the author, 2 April 2012)
38
or recorded but limited to Eastern Anatolia and Armenia (Herles & Piller 2013). Some new sites were disccovered and excavated in the Median heartland itself (Naseri & Malekzadeh 2016), including sites such as Ozbaki, Moush
But historians continued to cast doubt on the exist- ence of ancient Media. In 1988 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, and later in 2001 at a conference in Padua, had contested the existence of a larger Median empire: ‘Medes were nothing more than bands of nomads roaming freely over an extensive area’ (Roaf 2008: 9). Michael Roaf did not agree with this view. So, in 2008, he published an overview and a map of possible Median sites inside and outside Iran (Fig. 8.8; Roaf 2008). Surprisingly, a rather distant site in Turkmenistan, Ulug Depe, was on the map too, as the main building was built in a tradition close Median sites covered an area now much larger than ever considered before.
As this paper was published in an Iranian journal it remained almost unknown to interested experts, including myself. However, my interest in the ‘Media’ topic arose again, when in 2009 David Stronach and I attended a conference on Urartu in Yerevan. One afternoon a paper was given by Nvard Tiratsyan on a recently excavated ‘Urartian’ jar burial near Nor Armavir. When the data were presented, both David and I got excited. This was no Urartian burial at all, we claimed (Fig. 8.9). The pottery
shown was typically of Median culture (Curtis 2005). This was another newly found Median site. Of course, the speaker denied this attribution and later published it as Urartian (Tiratsyan 2010).
At a conference in Paris late in 2015 Joanna Lhuillier read a paper about Bronze and Iron Age sites known Median assemblages in Iran, like the tankard from Godin. But she compared it to three tankards Ghirshman had excavated at Tappeh Sialk. I must concede, nobody they had never been mentioned in any discussion on the Medes. So we are deeply grateful to Joanna Lhuillier for introducing us to the Sialk tankards. Given their similarity to the tankard from Nor Armavir, I am sure David Stronach would claim them as Median.
These three vessels from Sialk do not prove much in the current climate. But I think we can say at least that Median culture was present at Sialk at some time in the Late Iron Age. An exact date for the Sialk tankards is still a matter of debate. Stylistically the tankards are close to those from Nush-i Jan. The Ulug Depe tankard is closer to Godin and the tankards depicted on the Persepolis reliefs Roaf can extend his map of Median sites to include Sialk. And it is our hope that new research at Sialk will in due course add more information.
39
9
Archaeobotanical Report about Tappeh Sialk, North Mound: First Impressions
HENGAMEH ILKHANI, ALEXANDRA LIVARDA & HASSAN FAZELI NASHLI
Introduction
north part of the central plateau of Iran are attested only after 6300 and to date no pre-ceramic Early Neolithic sites have been recorded in the three plains of Kashan, Tehran and Qazvin (Coningham et al. 2004, 2006; Fazeli et al. 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013; Malek Shahmirzadi 2002–6). Availability and management of permanent water resources are regarded as important factors in the appear- ance of early farming settlements in the region and perma- nent occupation sites are situated near local water sources (Fazeli et al. 2004; Simpson & Nejad 2008; Gillmore et al. 2009, 2011; Kourampas et al. 2013; Schmidt et al. 2011). Tappeh Sialk is located on the edge of alluvial stands near a riverbank that could have been used in a simple irrigation system. Traces of human tracks and indirect evidence of in the oldest occupational deposits of Sialk (Kourampas et al. 2013). Tappeh Sialk is one of the earliest recorded settlements of the region, containing a long cultural sequence that can play an important role in our under- standing of the fundamental sociocultural developments in the prehistory of this region. The site consists of two mounds, the North (Neolithic) and the South (Bronze and Iron Age) and has a long history of archaeological - cantly contributed to our understanding of the chronolog- ical, cultural and technological developments of the Sialk inhabitants from the late Neolithic period to the Iron Age (Ghirshman 1938–9; Malek Shahmirzadi 2002–5; Fazeli et al. 2009a). Due to the importance of the north mound of Sialk containing more than 14 m of Neolithic occu- pational deposits it was re-excavated in 2008–9 by the universities of Tehran, Durham and Stirling, ICHHTO and ICAR. Overall, our knowledge of the prehistoric society
and economy, land use patterns, subsistence practices and food production of this region based on primary evidence is very limited. Therefore, as part of the recent archaeo- logical excavations at the Sialk North Mound (Fazeli et al extensive archaeobotanical assemblage of the region. The results of this study provide a valuable contribution to our understanding of early use of plant resources and vegeta- in the archaeobotanical evidence for this region.
Materials and methods
Soil samples for archaeobotanical analysis were collected by the excavators of the site based on a judgment sampling strategy. A variety of archaeological deposits and features, were sampled. Due to time constraints it was not possible to analyse the entire charred plant assemblage and this report is based on the study of macrobotanical mate- rial (excluding wood charcoal) of 24 samples from the Transitional Chalcolithic deposits and 9 samples from the Late Neolithic deposits of the North Mound. Five samples collected from the disturbed upper layers were excluded from the analysis. Processing of samples was carried out processed soil samples ranged between 10 and 245 litres, samples were measured by weight (g) and volume (ml) and were fully sorted under a stereoscope. Sorting of have not been fully sorted yet and have been retained for future study. Heavy residues have not been sorted
40
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search