Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-Iranica Vol I-II. Essays on the Earlier Cultural History of the Ancient Near- and Middle East

Textbook, 2022

426 Pages


Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-IranicA

00.General Introduction

In the years 2016─2017 I was writing a couple of articles, dealing with approaches to the older Early Dynastic period(s). It was a kind of continuity of a workshop Selz and I had held in Vienna in 2011. But, which, due to the problems with funding, could not be continued.1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 1 Chronological Framework used here (Dittmann 2013)

The bundle of articles turned out to be pieces of a mosaic, which uses glyptic sometimes in a different way than usual, but no coherent structure for this modus operandi was established yet.2

The following compilation of texts is an attempt to draw a somewhat coherent picture mainly of the period on the turn from the Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr to the beginning of the Early Dynastic complex in Babylonia/Mesopotamia3.

Of course, this presentation is deeply rooted in my more or less unconscious preconceptions. Or, in other words: my quite randomly gathered bits of knowledge about my recension and combination of data, believed to represent the Early Dynastic period, are compiled in a more or less naive thinking of having reconstructed a certain part in history. At best my humble trials could be classified as approximations to the Early Dynastic complex. In the worst case it is a reflection of my incapability to deal with historic processes. As a matter of fact, I oscillate somewhere around the middle of both poles, sometimes pending more or less on one side or the other.

In this compilation, I try two things: First, I guess it is important to recognize that I bothered not to give any too static view of one point in history, but trying to understand processes behind events, which we often miss. So, in my understanding I chose a dichotomy of situation ('static view') contra process ('dynamic view'). Of course, this attempt is somewhat wishful thinking, because I am not free of situation - determined thinking and my understanding of the possible affected processes is in any case insufficient.

Second, I favor a holistic approach in archaeology as a kind of permanent reconte- xtualisation of objects. I would hardly deal with an artifact alone and produce fabulous in-depth studies on "works of art" in "a l'art pour l'art" style. To formulate it in slightly exaggerated form: For me single artifacts are somehow boring and more the playground of antiquarians.

Therefore, in order not to hide my camouflage tactic of my bad intentions, I chose an essayistic style for this work, being far from believing in any "objective" formulation of past reality from my side. Hopefully these essays could nevertheless be used as agents provocateurs or stimulator for a deeper insight into the problem.

In the following pages I will give some comments on the articles of my early phase of production, mentioned above, to give some background information. Contributions marked with (…) have already be published elsewhere – see reference.

Glyptic studies of mine relevant to the topic are:

Earlier Phase

- Seals, Sealings and Tablets: Thoughts on the Changing Pattern of Administrative Control from the LateUruk to the ProtoElamite Period in Susa, in: U. FinkbeinerW. Röllig (Eds), Ğamdat Nașr, Period or Regional Style. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, Nr.62 (1986) 332366.
The first lecture was part of the famous Ğamdat Nasr workshop at Tübingen, held in 1983, published in 1986. Following the path opened by Fiandra,4 I was interested in how far forms of administrative control would give us an insight in the structure of parts of the administration in question.
- Glyptikgruppen am Übergang von der Akkadzur Ur IIIZeit, Baghdader Mitteilungen 25, 1994, 75117.
The lecture on Post─Akkad glyptic was given in Münster when I applied for becoming the successor of Ruth Mayer─Opificius. I wanted to show that a holistic approach in archaeology is sometimes fruitful to solve a complex problem.
- Nur Bilder oder mehr?Aspekte der Glyptikanalyse, in: Th. Richter ─ D. Prechel und J. Klinger (Eds.), Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag (2001) 85101.
'Nur Bilder oder mehr' was my inaugural lecture at Münster. The aim was to put a contra─position to my predecessor's work which was much oriented on a stylistic approach. As for me style is only a fragment when dealing with glyptic. The lecture was a kind of programmatic statement of my holistic view of the use of glyptic.
- Multiple Sealed Hollow Balls. A fresh look at the Uruk System almost Thirty Years later, in: Heather D. Baker K. Kaniuth and A. Otto (Eds.), Stories of long ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf, AOAT 397 (Münster 2012), 69─90.
My contribution in the 'Festschrift Roaf' was trying to approach the more secular and special/religious sectors of the ancient administration. Turning back to the material from 1986, now enlarged by finds from Chogha Mish.
- Glyptic and Patterns of Urbanization ─ A Humble Approach,
In: Th. Kämmerer S. Rogge (Eds.), Patterns of Urban Societies, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 390/2 (Münster 2013) 35 137.
Finally, with 'Glyptic and Urbanization' a kind of turning point in my studies was reached embedding glyptic in its old context and trying to discus motif changes in a broader strictly regional context.5

Later Phase

- The Lifetime of Institutions as Reflected in the Glyptic.6

The 'Lifetime of Institutions' follows Nissen's thesis concerning schematic vs. individualistic seals. Schematic ones are understood as to reflect institutions, even if they date rather late.

New contributions:

(1) The Dark Side of the Moon ─ Notes on the other (?) Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr ─ Complex at Uruk.7
Is discussing objects which most archaeologists would attribute to the Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr period others and I favor an Early Dynastic date.
(2) Notes on Pigtailed Women in the Glyptic of the Third Millennium B.C.8
'Notes on Pigtailed Women' tries to show that these figures, being female or male, are less attached to the religious sphere as some authors might believe. A contribution to the secular level, which gives a complementary view on the more non religious functions of these persons.
· 3. The “Big man” of the Uruk ―P eriod. Uniformity vs. Diversification ─ Some observations.
The 'Big man' of the Uruk―Period has been dealt with in quite a lot of lectures by different authors. The dating of the figure is controversial, especially when he wears the famous Net skirt; to me this cannot be dated before the Ğamdat Nasr period.
(4). The Hare has lost his Spectacles. Notes on: Contest Scenes, Early Occurrences (in the Diyala).9
Obviously Contest scenes start a little bit later in the Diyala rhan in Babylonia
· 5. Games People Play.
Is a somewhat heterogeneous composition dealing at the original with Habuba Kabira─S., and Jebel Aruda on one site, and Chogha Mish on the other. In view of the whole project I found it opportune to lump both parts together.
· 6. The Representation of architecture in glyptic from the Middle Uruk to the earlier part of the Early Dynastic period ― Reality or pure Guesswork?
Is directly connected to a problem that showed up in lecture 5
· 7. Alice in the Wonderland ― An impressive example of a self ― organized fundamental change of a socioeconomic system in Babylonia at the dawn of history
Is a first attempt to formulate some indicators for the change from Late Uruk to Early Dynastic.
· 8. A spotlight on the Early Dynastic IIIb ― Period in the Diyala,
Should have been published in: G.J. Selz ― Wagensonner, K. (Eds.), Orientalische Kunstgeschichte(n). Festschrift für Erika Bleibtreu, Wiener Offene Orientalistik 6 (Münster, forthcoming) 1 26. The paper
deals with the problem if there is a proper period, which can be isolated as Early Dynastic IIIB in the Diyala. My answer is not a period, but a process from late former Early Dynastic IIIA to the Akkad―Period. Since this article has not appeared yet, I publish it here for a 'second' time.
· 9, Babylonia at the turn from the Uruk ― to the older Part of the Early Dynastic Period (A Quick one)
Is a kind of summary of the former articles.
· 10. Materials for an alternative reading of the sequence of the FU-Berlin at Assur campaigns 1988-89.

Discusses stratigraphic problems of our excavation in Assur, CTS relevant to the problem.

· Appendices I ─ II:

I. Analyseansätze für mesopotamische Bildwerke des 3. vorchrist­lichen Jahrtausends

II. Neuere Ansätze zur Glyptikanalyse im Urbanen KontextShould provide some methodological insights

3. The “big man” of the Uruk─period. Uniformity vs. diversification ─ Some observation

3. 0 Introduction

On the occasion of the Uruk exhibition: “Uruk 5000 Jahre Megacity“ Helga Vogel wrote an important summary about the figure of the ”Große Mann von Uruk“. She gave a list of the different themes and roles (cf. the enlarged Tab. 1 and Fig. 1) in which this impressive person was presented.10 Of course her focus was Uruk and in any way her somewhat Uruk─centric view has to be accepted, since Uruk is indeed a special case. We do not only have at Uruk a fair number of representations on cylinderseals, as elsewhere, but figures in the round of different sizes. Also the specter of themes is larger than outside of Uruk.

Head, life─size 1 (Fig. 1, 1)

Statuette 1 (Fig. 1, 2)

“Big Man" in Cultic Action Wearing Net─skirt 1 (Fig. 1, 6)

In Cultic Cultic Threshing Sledge 0, 0, 0, 4 (Fig. 3, 21─22)

*”Cult─vase“ 1 (Fig. 1, 8)

*To rub someone with ointment” 0, 0, 0, 0, 5 (Fig. 3, 20)

In connection to Facade +/─Flag 1, 2, 3 (Fig. 3, passim)

Boat Procession to/with a Shrine 1 (Fig. 3, 3+12)

Victor in Boat 0, 0, 3 (Fig. 3, 29)

Defender of Storage Unit/Façade 0, 2, 3 (Fig. 3, 24+27)

Warrior 0, 2 (Fig. 3, 23+25)

*Lion Hunt Stela11 1

(Fig. 1, 3)

Cultic Hunt 1 (Fig. 1, 5)

Wild Boar Hunts 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6 (Fig. 3, 18)

Swineherd 1 (Fig. 3, 14)

Shepherd 1 (Fig. 1, 6)

Charioteer 1 (Fig. 3. 15)

Overseer of Punishment 1 (Fig. 3, 13)

*Statuettes of Prisoners 1 (Fig. 1, 10)

Prisoners 0, 2 (Fig. 3. 26)

Blau’sche Stones x

(Fig. 4,3)

1 Uruk; 2 Susa; 3 Chogha Mish; 4 Arslantepe + Kunsthandel; 5 Kish; 6 Habuba Kabira─Süd; * medium other than glyptic.

Tab. 1 Choice of Themes and roles in connection to the ”big man” at Uruk and other sites (cf. Fig. 1)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.2 Uruk

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.3 Uruk

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.4 Tell Majnuna (Brak) Late Chalc.2/3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.5 Antiquity market

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.6 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.7 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.8 Uruk12

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.9 Tell Uqair

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.10 Uruk

Fig. 1 The “Big Man” of Uruk

In short, in Uruk the prototype of this figure in all its rich facets is potentially present. This diversification is probably due to the complexity of a city that had not only a multifaceted administration and economy, but a sophisticated religious─cultic system as well, which all were, with some probability, organized well beyond the levels of medium sized centers. Moreover, the material from Uruk is somewhat late in respect to other sites, discussed here, if the Ğamdat Nasr─period is included.

3 .1. Entering the scene

Unfortunately, we don’t have a Babylonian equivalent to Uruk excavated yet. Changing the scene and turning to SW―Iran, Susa and Chogha Mish are important centers for the Susiana, but can in no way be compared to Uruk. This latter Megacity had to find effective and complex answers to until then unknown mechanisms and rules of administration in order to manage the large population. Therefore, the range of duties and hence possible representations of the local “Big Man” in the Susiana were of course of restricted diversity if compared to Uruk.13

Table 1 gave already important, information – the “Big Man” from Uruk is no single event, but part of representatives of the ruling class of the Uruk system as such. At least the middle sized centers seem to have had such a person at their top. From sealings we know that they were sometimes engaged in conflict (Fig. 3,44) and that they could also have been captured (more than one – cf. Fig. 3,45 and 1,10). In short, we deal with a hierarchically structured society in a milieu of inter─center competitions.14 This figurative information is unfortunately silent in regard to the relations and hierarchies among these different “Big Men“ and centers. Are these foreshadows of the rivaling city states to come in the nearer future?

The obvious long termed conflicts during the Uruk─period led in the Susiana to an almost complete abandonment of the Uruk settlement system as a whole.15 The following Protoelamite system used completely new settlements.16 This marks a severe break in the history of the until then more or less continuous settled sites of the Susiana.

What has also to be integrated into the history of the early part of the Early Dynastic period is the development at the eastern and southeastern flank of Babylonia,, even though the processes and their impact on the Babylonian world would need more studies.17 Following Forest for the moment, this region is characterized by a system of few settlements with necropolises of a special kind and round buildings, strongholds, which controlled the influx of goods by groups of traders, using these strongholds as relay stations.18 This system was relatively short living, not exceeding Early Dynastic C for unknown reasons.

The situation was completely different in the Hinterland of Uruk. Here the changes within the structure of the settlement system originated in transformations of the general hydraulic environment. Swampy areas had dried up since the river courses cut deeper into the ground and the inhabitants of these former moist areas settled in the remaining larger centers.19

As a consequence, at Uruk the inner─site transformations of the structure and urban layout of the city were of paradigmatic scale: with Archaic III, that means after the Uruk period, the Anu─ and Eanna district were united by an enormous platform and for the first time Eanna got a high temple on top of a terrace of old Ubaid─style, the nucleus of the later Ur III─Ziqqurrat. Also the tripartite large structures of the Uruk─period were given up and were replaced by a confusing, complex of rooms, rightly called the “Labyrinth“, which obviously had not found a formative shape at the time.20 The abandonment of the tripartite official houses, if also true for the more common dwellings at Uruk, would also reflect severe changes within the social organization of its inhabitants, since the fixed rules of movements of processes due to the layout of the rooms, with a central distributor (‘Mittelsaal’), were given up.21 The urban society was changing and this transformation must also have affected the administration.

But the changes had a further effect. At least during the later Uruk period the official part of Eanna was enclosed by a kind of circumference (in order to avoid the terminus temenos) with quite restricted access as is also clear from the massive wall southwest of the Big Court. The official part of Eanna was segregated from the rest and here were situated the monumental buildings which gave a maximum access to large quantities of people, unparalleled before and after the Uruk period.22 Obviously, this can be understood as a sign of controlled participation, at least at special festivals (?) of large parts of the population. Contrary to the Ubaid─tradition of the Anu─Ziqqurrat where only a limited group had access to the complex of the White Temple for instance.

This pattern changed completely with Archaic III. Structures for large assemblies of people were given up or, in other words, the possibility of the participation of an important part of the population at certain festivities diminished. This went hand in hand (or even was provoked) by an increasing influx of people from the Hinterland of Uruk into the city at the turn to the Early Dynastic period. At that time also the huge city wall of Uruk was erected and complementary workmen had to be recruited, settling obviously temporarily immediately to the NE of Eanna.23

That the conditions of the environment became more arid at that time might also be reflected by the temporary disappearance of the representation of the traditional reed huts in the surroundings of Uruk after the Ğamdat Nasr period, even though these huts are still attested today further to the south (Fig. 2).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.1 Jebel Aruda

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.2 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.3 Anu A

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.4 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.5 Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.6 Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.7 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.8 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.9 Ğamdet Nasr

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.10 Khafagah, Sin II

Fig. 2 Representation of Reed huts of Late Uruk and Ğamdat Nasr date

Although these transformations of urban organization of Uruk were quite dramatic, the conditions on the organizational level, as discussed by Nissen, developed in a more or less continuous way.24 Though some official buildings continued perhaps the old Archaic IV―style for a while, at least at Uruk, as the glyptic evidence suggests (Fig. 3, 4). With, or in Archaic III, the tripartite house of Ubaid─ and Uruk─tradition as a common type came to an end or was at least transformed or integrated into larger complexes like the Northern Palace at Tell Asmar as a very late example.

Concerning the glyptic, the change from Archaic IV to III was obviously smooth. At Uruk the Narrative―natural glyptic style continued in Archaic III, albeit with a somehow limited repertoire of themes,25 but an increase of original cylinder seals, especially of the Schematic─geometric group o.26 The figure of the “Big Man”, when involved in cultic context, wears now the famous “Net―skirt“, which might have started already in the Late Uruk period, but this is not sure (see below and Fig. 1, 5─6. 8─9 and 3, 1─3).27

Uruk ─ The “Big Man”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.3.1 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3..3.2 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.3 Uruk III

Monumental Architecture

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.4 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.5 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.66 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.7 Uruk

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.8 Uruk III

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.9 Uruk III

Uruk ─ The “Big Man”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.10 Uruk IV28

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.11 Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.12 Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.13 Uruk V─IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.14 Uruk IVA

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten1

3.15 Uruk IV

Monumental Architecture

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.16 Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.17 Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.18 Habuba Kabira

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.19 Jebel Aruda29

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.20 Kish30

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.21 Antiquity market

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.22 Arslantepe

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.23 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.24 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.25 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

26 Susa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3. 27 Chogha Mish

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.28 Chogha Mish (Female counterpart)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.29 Chogha Mish

Fig. 3 Examples of the “big man”

The classical buttress─recess façades with their decorative wall cones of Uruk─style31 were not represented in glyptic anymore. But leaving the wall cones aside, such façades continued to figure on seals up to Early Dynastic D (Fig. 3, 7 ─ 10). At least the terraces of Archaic III─I in Uruk were still decorated with these cones.32 Communal large storage units continued and even increased as is clear from clear─outs (‚Kehraus‘) of archives like the one at Ur in the SIS or in Fara I de or later the Ash Pit at Abu Salabikh.33

What is puzzling is the fact that the number of administrative devices in the form of clay tablets seems to have decreased at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period contrary to sealings of all kinds. But in view of the situation at Uruk, this truly can only be attributed to the hazards of excavation. In view of transformations like at Uruk, there must have been on the contrary an increase in order to manage the exploding population of the site not to speak of the massive logistical efforts needed to build the city wall. The costs to build and above all to maintain such a wall are enormous!34

At the same time administrative devices like tablets shifted also to simple dwellings as can be seen at Khafagah, Houses 435 and Fara. The administration became more diversified but not necessarily more private, since the households in question were dependent on the bigger entities.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 2 Chronological Framework used here (Dittmann 2013, 54─55 and here No. 8)

3.2 The slow death of a yesterday’s leader in an increasingly changing world

With the beginning of the Early Dynastic period also severe changes within the ruling personal must have occurred. The figure of the “Big Man”, so prominent in the Uruk and Ğamdat Nasr period, faded away. The figure wearing a ‚Net─skirt‘ is now only rarely attested (Fig. 4, 1 ─ 2. 4), even if we take the Blau’schen Stones (of about Early Dynastic I─date)36 also into account (Fig. 4, 3). Pigtailed women also left the shrines being now engaged in more domestic units.37 The last traditional Facades of Neighborhood shrines were represented in Early Dynastic D (Fig. 4, 7 ─ 10. Shara Temple, Main Level 2, 32,65 m and Oval I).38

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.1 Girsu,* Figure aux plumes39

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.2. Legrain 1936, Ur, Pit D, No. 387, SIS 4─5

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.3. Blau‘scher Stone

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.4. Fara

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.5.Uruk 4.6. Uruk

Tell Agrab

Shara Temple Main Level 2, 32, 65 m (Frankfort 1955)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.7. Shara T. 32,65 m

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.8.─9. Shara T. 32,65 m, bowl next to altar

Khafagah, Oval I

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


City seals

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.11. Ğamdat Nasr─ period

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4.12. Early Dynastic

Fig. 4 the ‘Net─skirt’ after the Uruk─period, the latest representations of façades of neighborhood shrines in the diyala and City seals.

In the Ğamdat Nasr─ and in the initial Early Dynastic─period a new type of cylinder seal occurred, the so─called City─seals (Fig. 4,11 ─ 12) and if Steinkeller40 is correct, they were part of a tributary system, where inter alia special dried fruits were collected for the Inanna temple at Uruk. May it be as it might be, but these seals seem to have been imbedded in the old Uruk tributary system, which was slowly dissolving

3.3 Summing up

The Early Dynastic A─B/C ─ phases,41 as I called it (see Tab. 2), was a period of transformation from the Uruk─system to new institutions and modes of socio─economic organization like the Temple Oval at Khafagah, a large Oikos─akin household, founded in Early Dynastic D.42 The change is also documented in the glyptic, where the representations of the Facades of Shrines + Goat seals, the old marker of local neighborhood shrines, were given up.43 At the same time Pigtailed women shiftet from the shrines to more ‘private’ households.44 Also ending was the Narrative glyptic style, and in regard to the tablets and cuneiform script, here also severe transformations occurred. Cuneiform script was now able to cover almost all facets of language.45

On the urban level this is a time when an enormous ‘rural exodus’ caused new neighborhoods in the few remaining centers, which had to be integrated at some basic level at least, but which initially were separated by partition walls in order to keep their old identities.

In other words: with Early Dynastic D─E a new phase within the Early Dynastic period started, but ─ at least in the Diyala ─ never really left an ‘experimental stage’, as is demonstrated by the short─lived transformations of an institution like the Temple Oval before paradigmatic changes in the Akkad─period occurred.46 In this regard it is a pity, that we know only next to nothing about South Babylonian centers like Early Dynastic Uruk,47 or even Ur,48rich in so─called treasures . 49

The “Big Man” had a long time disappeared since then and had been replaced by the charismatic leaders of the city states. Contrary to the former, they had no uniform appearance to be identified with, with the exception of the larger size when depicted.50 Our older “Big Man” could be identified by the long version of the Net─skirt in combination with a special Reed─flag ("Schilfringbündel"), the latter indicating its urukäen origin and on the same time creating a direct relation between the goddess Inanna and the “Big Man”. This combination duplicates the great Cult─Vase from Uruk, also, as to me, of Ğamdat Nasr─date. The short Net─skirt, on the other hand, starts already in the Late Uruk period as can be seen at Tell Uqair, mentioned above and does not necessarily refer to Uruk, nor to Inanna (?) and could well last also into the Ğamdat Nasr─period. So the normal long wrap around was the standard garment of the “Big Man” since the Middle Uruk─period, even when he was engaged in cultic actions (Fig. 3, 10 ─ 12). It is only within the Ğamdat Nasr─period that he would then wear the long Net─skirt. Therefore, it is not astonishing that the “Big Man” with long Net─skirt is not represented in the Uruk─glyptic of SW─Iran. He simply did not jet exist and he was than alien to the Protoelamite imagery of Ğamdat Nasr─date.

The “Big Man of Uruk” must have been of supra─regional importance and acceptance (?). The key to his position was obviously his relation to Inanna, who initially also had a pan─regional influence. All this became a victim of the transformation processes at the beginning of the Early Dynastic─period, leading then to discrete city─states with their own circles of city gods.


Fig. 1

1a─b Wrede 1995, Abb. 9

1,2 Vogel 2013, Abb. 20

I,3 Orthmann 1985, Abb. 68

1,4 MacMahon 2009, Fig. 1

I,5 Moortgat 1982, Abb. 21

1,6 Rova 603, Uruk III

1,7 Rova 292, Susa

1,8 Orthmann 1985, Abb. 33

1.9 Lloyd─Safar─Frankfort 1943, pl. XII.

1.10 Feller 2013, Abb. 24, 5.

Fig. 2

2, 1 Rova 41, Jebel Aruda

2, 2 Rova 504, Susa

2, 3 Rova 621, Anu A

2, 4 Rova 580, Susa

2, 5 Rova 724, Uruk IV

2, 6 Rova 725, Uruk IV

2, 7 Rova 658, Uruk III

2, 8 Rova 694, Uruk III

2, 9 Rova 867, JN

2,10 Rova 919, Kh Sin II

Fig. 3

3,1 Rova 703, Uruk III

3,2 Rova 603, Uruk III

3,3 Rova 602, Uruk III

3,4 Rova 350. 352

3,5 Rova 692, Uruk III

3,6 Rova 710, Uruk III

3,7 Rova 598, Uruk III

3,8 Rova 628, Uruk I///II

3,9 Rova 610, Uruk III

3,10 Rova 768, Uruk IV

3,11 Rova 648, Uruk IV

3,12 Rova 666, Uruk IV

3,13 Boehmer 17, Uruk IV

3,14 Boehmer 49, Uruk IVA

3,15 Rova 565, Uruk IV

3,16 Rova 768, Uruk IV

3,17 Rova 767, Uruk IV

3,18 Rova 53, Habuba Kabira─ South

3,19 Rova 36, Jebel Aruda

3, 20 Amiet 1961, 664, Kish

3, 21 ibid., 662, Kunsthandel

3, 22 Rova 70, Arslantepe

3, 23 Rova 392, Susa

3, 24 Rova 350, Susa

3, 25 Rova 387, Susa

3, 26 Rova 374, Susa

3, 27 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─

Alizadeh 1996,

ChM 7_386B

3, 28 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─

Alizadeh 1996,

ChM III─742q

3, 29 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─

Alizadeh 1996,

ChM III─371

Fig. 4

4.1 Orthmann 1985, Abb. 75

4.2 Legrain 1936, No. 387

4.3 Orthmann 1985, Abb. 74a

4.4 Rova 818, Fara

4.5 Rova 605, Uruk

4,6 Rova 606, Uruk

4,7 SCS 860, Tel Agrab

4,8 SCS 859, Tel Agrab

4,9 SCS 861, Tel Agrab

4.10 Matthews 1993, Fig. 10, 6

4.11 Matthews 1933, Fig. 24, 114

Games People Play

5. 0 . Introduction

Since the glyptic material of Habuba Kabira─S. is published, it should be possible to get a deeper insight into the administration of the so-called colonies'. Of course, we are dealing not with complete corpus per site, but only with bits and pieces. That is what we get and even though the evidence is somehow fragmented, it is better than nothing. On the other hand, it is frustrating how small is the amount of a settlement which can be excavated on a reasonable scale. But must the consequence be a self─restriction following a dogmatic approach?51 To be honest yes and no. But the archaeology of the Ancient Near East has the privilege to act double tracked. On one side the followers of the dogmatic way are in their full rights, and on the other side are the followers of Ockham's razor blade or the Holmes' approach: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.." This could be an interesting guide to archaeology. Moreover, since Holmes is fiction, what gives an interesting turn. Anyhow, somewhere in between, we act, turning more or less in one or the other direction.

5.1 On the Use of Glyptic in Habuba Kabira ─ S. And beyond

5.1.1. Still Raining, still Dreaming ─ The Figures of the game

Rescue excavations at Habuba Kabira─S. took place in the years 1965 to 1975, on behalf of the Deutsche Orient─Gesellschaft under the leadership of E. Strommenger.52 Thanks’ to Dessa Rittig, we have a high─quality publication of the glyptic of Habuba Kabira─S.53 Theoretically, this material should enable us to get a deeper understanding into the sealing praxis of such a ‘colonial’ site. On the other hand, only a few houses have been completely excavated. For large parts of the settlement only the plan of the structures was traced, therefore, we are dealing only with a sample, an approximation to the glyptic material.54

The official part of the settlement is formed by Tell Qannas, excavated by a Belgium team under A. Finet.55 The scanty glyptic remains from this site can be more or less neglected.56

Here is not the place for an exhaustive study of the Habuba Kabira─material, but just for some observations. Especially House 2 ("Anwesen"57 ) in the north of the settlement and House 40, further to the southwest in direction to Tell Qannas, have an interesting distribution of glyptic finds.

First of all some special cases should be mentioned: House 2 has a tablet with a Boar hunting motif (marked as 'special' by a lion58 ) with a man wrapped in a long skirt ("Wickelrock") sitting on a Facade,59 supposed to belong to the category of a Big Man, well known from other sites. Anyhow, with these clothes he belongs at least to the upper class.

A second, somewhat astonishing find is a sealing with a Punishment scene of Pigtailed Women (marked also as 'special' by a lion) as prisoners, what is quite unusual. But the fact that such a Punishment scene is presented as well as the presence of the Big Man, gives the house a certain special status.

Contrasting the sealed objects of both households, the following picture emerges:

In House 2 the large number of Bullae could point to extensive external relations.

The number of Door locks in House 40 is impressive, contrary to House 2. So storage was more concentrated or at least associated with House 40.

The motifs found in both houses are quite dissimilar. Special sealings, as defined in 2012, are rare in House 40, see table 1 (marked in italics). Most sealings of House 2 deal obviously with herding. House 40, on the other hand, has a much more differentiated repertoire of motifs than House 2. It might be of importance that one sealing from the official part of the settlement, i.e. Tell Qannas, belongs to the dynamic style, which is also found in House 40.60

abb. 1 Special inventories of Houses 2 and 40

No. House Object Motif Plate House Obj. Motif Plate

1 2 Stamp Geom 189,2

25 2 Stamp Geom 189,3

10 2 Seal Scorpio 190,4

20 2 Seal Hatched 192,3

22 2 Seal Hatched 192,4

23 40 Seal Eye─Motif 192,7

29 2 Tablet Boar hunt 193,1

63 2 Tablet Contest 195,9

91 2 Tablet Heraldic

Lions 197,12

94 2 Tablet Twisted 198,1

114 2 Tablet ? 199,13

88 40 Tablet Heraldic animals 197,9

65 2 Hollow B. Vase+

Tassel 195,11

31 2 Hollow B. Animal

file 193,3

98 2 Hollow B. Animal,

Heraldic 198,5

30 2 Bulla. Punishm:

Of PTW 193,2

51 2 Disc PTW 194,15

60 2 Plate Hut symbol:

PTW 195,6

61 2 PTW+Pot 195,7

62 2 Sealing PTW+Pot 195.8

45 40 Door

lock PTW+Tree care 194,6

49 40 Disc PTWIndustrial 194,11

56 40 Gefäßman. PTW+amphora 195,2

58 40 Peg PTW+Spouted vase 195,4

59 40 Peg PTW+Spouted vase

0 195,5

81 2 Bul. Heraldic

Lions 197,2

92 2 Bul. Guill. 197.13

96 2 Bul. Twisted 198,3

97 2 Bul. Twisted 198,4

99 2 Bul. Special

Herding 198,6

32 2 Bul. Anim.file 193,4

33 2 Bul. Herding 193,5

34 2 Bul. Herding 193,6

35 2 Bul. Herding 193,7

36 2 Bul. Herding 193,8

37 2 Bul. Anim.file 194,1

38 2 Bul. Anim.file 194,2

39 2 Bul. Herd. 194,3

52 2 Bul. ? 194,16

66 2 Bul. Contest ? 195.12

80 2 Bul. Crossing

goats 197,1

82 2 Bul. Anim.file 197,3

85 2 Bul. Anim.file 197,6

95 2 Bul. Twisted 198,4

111 2 Bul. Anim.file 199,10

106 40 Bulla Hut symbols


49 2 Plate. ? 194,13

145 40 Plate Dynamic Animals 194,9*

46 40 Plate? 194,10

48 40 Plate Industrial 194,12

73 40 Plate Geom.+Spider 196,5

77 40 Doorlock Contestscene 196,9

78 40 Door lock Contest scene 196,10

86 40 Door lock Crossedm Animals / 197,7

90 40 Door lock Guilloches. 197,11

93 40 Door lock Twisted necks 197,14

43 40 Door lock Transport 194,7

44 40 Door lock Process. with Staff? 194,8

68 40 Door lock Animal File 195,14

71 40 Door lock Herding 196,3

87 40 Door lock Heraldic Animals 197,8

89 40 Door lock Heraaldic Animals 197,10

100 40 Door lock Dynamic Animals 198,7*

101 40 Door lock Dynamic─Animals 198,8

86 40 Box peg Crossed Animals 197,7

84 40 Box peg HeraldicAnimals 197,5

74 2 Disc Spider 196,6

40 Disc Animal File 199,11

83 2 Tag Cross.birds 197,4

55+57 2 Peg Herding? 195,1

109 2 Spherical cap geom. 199,8

Hollow B. = Hollow Ball; Bull. = Bulla; PTW = Pigtailed Women

* Dynamic motifs start here, continue, perhaps in the SIS in Ur and are typical for Lagash ED IIIB──seals.61

5.2. The Clock has struck midnight ─ What kind of game? ─ The Burning of the Midnight lamp

If one compares the glyptic from Habuba Kabira─S. with the somewhat older Jebel Aruda material,62 clear differences can be recognized: The range of motifs is quite different at Habuba Kabira─S. and motifs with Twisted animal necks and the like are almost missing at Jebel Aruda. Similar to both sites are only trivial motifs like the Transportation of pots or Goats with a ladder motif over the back or Fish rows. Otherwise, only vague and general correspondences are given. This is also true in regard to Susa and Chogha Mish, not to speak of Uruk. Nevertheless, the Uruk glyptic “is the first depicting human beings in relation of each other.” 63 And futher: “pre─urban depictions almost never include unequal relations between people. The sudden change to an emphasis on the depiction of hierarchies must be seen as reflecting dramatic social change, even if the symbolic realm conceals rather than unveils real social relations. The representation of unequal relations was likely a way to uphold a political hierarchy, a precondition of which is a specific framing.”64

Considering Tab.1, the inventories of objects of administrative control of Houses 2 and 40 are completely different or complementary at best. If the latter would be true, both sectors would have been in firm cooperation. In view of the relative long distance between both houses, this becomes perhaps less probable. So each sector played probably its individual role in the administration of the Habuba Kabira─system.

At Jebel Aruda a clear segregation of functional units in the settlement can be observed: A residential quarter of the southwest and a less well structured more industrial (?) quarter to the north. The latter was completely devoid of seals. Both areas were separated from each other by the official part the so─called Temples or Assembly units of the 'Red and Gray Temple'.65

Turning to Habuba Kabira─S., it should be noted, that the northern quarter is not as clearly structured by tripartite houses as the southwestern part. So the flow of persons, goods and decisions was somewhat differently structured than around House 40. In other words, the behavioral pattern attached to the old ubaidian tradition continued in the southwestern and official sector, whereas the northern one was potentially more open for new ways and structures.

The large amount of Bullae in House 2 could point to a certain income of goods from outside, whereas the large amount of door locks in House 40 gives a hint as to local storage activities. Moreover, House 2 in the North had a complex system of administrative control contrary to the structures in the northern part at Jebel Aruda. Therefore, Habuba Kabira ─ North is situated at a higher level in the society and the complex House 2 (including the representation of a Big man as well as the Punishment of PTW), reminds somehow a Mukhtar's house in modern villages.

My interpretation is in light contrast to the analysis by Heinz66 of the general plan of the settlement. But at the time of her study, the small finds were not available. Looking only at the general plan, I would agree with most of her points, since it is obvious that the western sector at Habuba Kabira looks like a central distribution center embedded in an effective road system connecting the city wall and the Euphrates. The northern sector as to her is a kind of more private sector, a character she deduced mainly from the dead end streets. From the architectural analysis this makes sense, but how then to explain the much higher complexity of artifacts of administrative control in the North? If we consider the complexity of house 40 as a kind of through the station, House 2 would be the dead─end station.

With respect to its size, Habuba Kabira's internal segregation was with high probability much more sophisticated than the simple threefold division of Jebel Aruda.

5 .3. Les jeux sont faits─first impressions ─ It’s all too beautiful at Itchycoo Park

Habuba Kabira―S. is one of the larger sites of the Uruk system on the Euphrates. Somehow it is comparable to Chogha Mish and Susa in Khuzestan and somehow it is not, especially in architectural terms and of course Habuba Kabira―S. is a flat settlement, not a tell. Concerning the seals, the general themes of motifs are similar, but there are evident differences. What strikes the eye immediately is the lack of the Armed unit in the inventory of motifs at Habuba Kabira─S. and Jebel Aruda, but at Hacinebi it is present.67

For me, most of these 'colonial' sites in the North remain somehow alien in regard to their natural environment. According to the material culture excavated, there is no real convincing evidence for agricultural engagement or to agricultural surplus oriented activities.68 How and by whom (!) was a small city like Habuba Kabira─S. supported; where lived those people and what was their material culture, what was the profit? If maybe the question is wrong, but how was the system organized and how did it survive? One alternative could be a network of specialized settlements, which complementary were producing and exchanging what the whole local Uruk―system needed.

Plan of the northern and southern sector of Habuba Kabira─S. (Enlargement of Fig. 21b)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

If we take Chogha Mish as a comparison: the threefold subdivision remembers the situation at Jebel Aruda but on closer view, it is different: About the Central high mound, the supposed seat of the elite, nothing concrete can be said.69

In this regard, it would be interesting to test if the devices of administrative control at different Uruk―sites have similar sealings. Unfortunately, not all items were always published, but at least some positions can be discussed. Tab.2 shows that only a few themes occur on most Door locks: In other words, every site has comparable devices of economic control, but their concrete use was site─/system─specific.

All in all, as mentioned above, I prefer to see the larger Uruk sites to a lesser degree as being part of an integrated system, but as many systems sometimes struggling for local supremacy.

TAB. 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5.4 The constituent elements of the social sphere of regional centers in the late chalcolithic period as reflected in the glyptic

5.4.0. Introduction

The following sketch will focus on Chogha Mish, a middle sized center in the Susiana, Khuzestan (Khuzestan─Survey no, KS 1).70 The site was in some way partly exposed from 1961 to 1978 by a team from Chicago under the leadership of Helen J. Kantor and Pinhas P. Delougaz.71

Chogha Mish was a kind of neighborhood center to Susa, the familiar main site of the Susiana. But Susa, as a settlement is not as old as Chogha Mish. From its position on the western edge of the Susiana, Susa fulfilled the criteria to serve as a gateway, controlling the influx and distribution of all kinds of goods into the system. South of Susa existed a small settlement system around Abu Fandeweh (KS 56), which, with high probability, was also dependent of Susa. Half way between Susa and Chogha Mish lays Tepe Sharafabad, and the last site to be mentioned is KS 54. All sites have at least been tested by archaeologists.72 (Fig. A)

Even though Chogha Mish has a much longer history than Susa, it never could compete with the latter, becoming the Elamite Capital for the next thousands of years.73 Nevertheless, Chogha Mish had its own settlement system with its own history. According to Johnson,74 at the End of the Late Uruk─period when conflicts dominated more and more the scene, Susa took over and Chogha Mish fell into definite insignificance.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. A

A city can be understood as a grown organism. Its social sphere can be uncovered level by level in order to understand the urban tissue. When we deal with the glyptic of a medium regional center like Chogha Mish, as reflection also of a former reality, one gets the impression that the site was clearly structured. But it must be emphasized that the glyptic evidence and the excavated buildings do not fit together. The images offered by the glyptic material is much more differentiated than the real archaeological record. The architecture of Chogha Mish, especially on the East Terrace gives some unconnected fragmentary walls combined with a mass of pits ─ where most of the finds come from.75

A somewhat monumental structure (Fig. B),76 which could have served assemblies of different purposes, is the only coherent structure here. It was devoid of glyptic finds and dates to the end of the Late Chalcolithic settlement, being excavated in the late campaigns.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. B

As the archaeological record of the excavated areas does not fit the representation of architecture in the imaginary of the seals, we either deal with pure fantasy or, a further possibility, at least the administration of the depicted units took place on the East Terrace, but the structures as such were outside the excavated part of the East Terrace. On the other hand, that these institutions must have been located in proximity is clear by the fact, that the door locks were not much moved in antiquity and also hollow balls had a very small space being moved because otherwise the fragile surface risked being damaged.77

From the excavated evidence so far, it makes sense to treat most of the finds as coming from a time span of Susa I, 20/19―18/17B; in fact, the youngest level at Late Chalcolithic Chogha Mish might be contemporaneous to Jebel Aruda.78 Huh, in an unpublished analysis of the stratigraphy of the East Terrace, was able to distinguish three horizons: SE I─III of the same time range.79 Moreover, according to surveys, there is a gap after the Susa A phase. The latter is only present on the High Mound and it is only with the ‘Middle Uruk’ period that Chogha Mish regained importance.80 That the site covers only quite a short period (in the Uruk horizon) can also be shown by the absence of two glyptic styles. First to mention is the “Baggy Style”, which is typical for Late Chalcolithic 3, and second, the ”more linear Susa 17─Style” typical for the end of the Uruk sequence in the Susiana.81

Fig. C

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Idealized Model of Urban Ecological Structure

(After Knox ─ Pinch 2010, 72 Fig. 4.9)

CBD = Central Business District = Main Temple District

5.4.1 Crippled inside─Chogha Mish

Here we follow a modified scheme of Urban Geography developed by Murdie 1969, 8 ─ cf. Fig. C. Modified in so far, that the themes of the glyptic have been taken as representing certain levels within the system.

Before entering the Late Chalcolithic scene, one should emphasize that Chogha Mish had a long history, starting with Archaic Susiana I. But before Late Chalcolithic 3/4 there has been a long gap in the sequence,82 it is improbable that the material and architecture of the older levels would have had any influence in structuring the Late Chalcolithic settlement. A closer look at the social sphere of this period gives the following information:─b The top hierarchical levels

The hierarchical top level of Chogha Mish is represented by images of important members of the site’s elite, like the “Big Man” as victor in a boat (SE 1; Fig. 1, 5), or the same (?) person as “Defender of a Façade” (both Eastern Terrace, Fig. 1, 3).83

The female (?) counterpart to the “Big Man” figures on a sealing from the West Terrace, here in association with Façade──Flag and a Storage Unit can be further noted in this area (Fig. 1, 2). The scanty architectural remains of t/he Western Terrace are not helpful in this respect. The High Mound is devoid of representative architecture, but bits of a terrace in association with wall cones testify of the importance of this area. The excavators speculate that there was once a temple.84 Nevertheless, in association with the High Mound a kind of magician, the “Master of Snakes” can be mentioned, who is also attested on the East Terrace (Fig. 1, 4, standing on a lion; Fig. 1, 1 standing on a goat).

From the Eastern Terrace the motif of the Defense of a three─staged terrace is attested (Fig. 2, 7). Since the East Terrace has no such a structure, it might make sense to associate this sealing with the situation on the High Mound. But if the scene is to be associated with Chogha Mish might be a matter of debate, another center as Susa can perhaps not to be excluded.85 The same problem poses a famous conflict scene from Susa, which might come from anywhere (Jar sealing!).86

5 .4.1.1c The symbolic level

Beside the “Master of Snakes”, mentioned above, Griffons were attested several times at the East Terrace (Fig. 3, 2─3).87 Since this animal─type belongs to the supernatural realm, also parts of the East Terrace belonged to this special sphere, as defined in 2012. Griffins88 are supposed to stand for strength and attention.

Representations of Lions are of another quality. The lion is symbolizing power and representing Ishtar, if not the weather god. The domination of this animal is crucial to the power of the king.89

Dealing with Lions, special attention must now be paid to one sealing, coming from Tell Majnuna,90 representing a Lion in a cage. It can be directly associated to early Late Chalcolithic 3─material from Tell Brak, TW 19.91 This material is somewhat outstanding and rare. A sealing from Uruk IVa might also figure a cage, admittedly of slightly different type, but the motif otherwise seems to be quite unique.92 From Chogha Mish a cage comes from the late sealings (Fig. 3, 5). The cage is important, since it represents another aspect of the relationship between Lion and Kingship, i.e. control. By putting a lion in a cage with all his attributes of power, means not only to be in the position to overwhelm and to kill him as a temporary limited act, but putting him in a cage means a longer period of domination, as a strong metaphor for ones’ own leadership. Manufacturing, Storage and Administration Level

With some probability the Twisted Snake Motif belongs also in this sphere..93 Without any doubt the representation of a unique combination of a Symposium scene and the Divine boat motif has also to be mentioned for tchis level (Fig. 3,10)94

The administration, according to the sealings, seems to have been a direct result of the concrete work, which was immediately controlled by overseers, who didn’t bother to beat the laborers if ‘necessary’ (Fig. 4, 3). This rough behavior is also known from Susa.95 What is interesting is the fact, that at Chogha Mish, based on glyptic, manufactures as in Susa existed, but on a much reduced scale and number.96 Spindle whorls and Eye idols point to weaving.97

Storage Units are well attested in the imaginary of the East Terrace, lesser for the West Terrace (Level 1b). This is also true for Door─Locks which are an argument to localize these buildings in the West and East Terrace. Interesting is the presence of a Reed Façade (Fig. 2, 11) in the East Terrace and of Dome─shaped Storage Units (Fig. 2, 13), which occur also at Susa,98 where they continue into the imagery of the Protoelamite─period.99 Contrary to Susa the act of storing is almost unrepresented. Only two sealings show people busy with bags a process which was controlled by an overseer as a raised arm and a stick show (Fig. 4, 2).100

It might not to be an insignificant difference between North and South Mesopotamia, that there are no manufactory seals in the North, nor figures of the aggressive overseers on seals in the Late Chalcolithic 3─record. The break in the local sequence is given in the North with Tell Brak, TW 13 where a lot of southern seals are found, all of “late Late Chalcolithic 4”─date.101 This southern influence took over and continued also in the Late Chalcolithic 5─period with TW 12─11.102 So with some probability the northern type of political and economic organization prevailed up to late Late Chalcolithic 4. The change might have been even accompanied by violent acts, as is shown by Hamoukar. According to Johnson’s work, hostilities between the concurring centers of Southern Babylonia had a deep impact on the movement of the population, also in greater perspective.103 But what is also clear is the fact, that southern influence has been already traceable in the glyptic of Brak, TW. 16 as is shown by a Cylinder seal with an excellent parallel at Susa, Acopolis I, 20.104 All in all, Alizadeh’s feelings about the earlier part of the Uruk influence vs. local traditions should be kept in mind!

5 .4.1.1e The Armed Level

This unit is well known from Uruk. It was supported by an ad hoc recruitment of the young men and workers in the field and the channels. It seems, that the better weapons were stored centrally and distributed in case of need.105 Archers were mostly acting in small groups, but in one case (Fig. 5, 4) an archer obviously controlled a small group of prisoners, while another person is counting them or addresses himself to the dominating archer, the latter being of taller size than the other figures. Weapons were extremely rare at Chogha Mish, at least if the publication is not misleading.106 But in view of the scale of the conflicts in the Susiana plain, their absence could be caused by the hazards of excavation.

From a Babylonian perspective conflict is mostly seen in relation to water management and as struggle about land resources, like the famous Umma ─ Lagash border conflict.107

Great interest has recently been provoked by mass graves at Tell Majnuna/Brak at the beginning of Late Chalcolithic 3 and the so─called war at Tell Hamoukar in Late Chalcolithic 4.108 For the Susiana, conflicts between the local centers were the hallmark of the Late Chalcolithic 4─5 (Middle─Late Uruk)─ periods.109

5. 4.1.1f The Transportation Level

Transportation Units are extremely important (not only for early societies) in order to provide the larger settlements with goods.110 One has to differentiate sack─ and donkey traffic. On seals exclusively the sack variant is depicted. What is transported might vary from site to site. Common to almost all sites are objects like Fig. 6, 5─6; other objects are site specific like Fig. 6, 1. Transportation and Processions are sometimes hard to separate.111

5 .4.1.1g Animal husbandry Level

For Chogha Mish the elevation of animals was important, whereas weaving and spinning, very prominent at Susa,112 are unrepresented within the glyptic of Chogha Mish. As usual sheep and goat would head the list, followed by bovines.

Of course not all variations of animals pare are present at Chogha Mish figure on the illustrations here. As usual, it is only ‘a choice’. In this category pigs and turtles are included, as well as frogs. These animals are not of low rang, on the contrary, since as a seal ─ motif they were used as Counter stamps.

A motif of a pair of bulls from the Eastern Terrace (Fig. 7, 6), due to their fierce attitude, should perhaps best be separated and associated with the weather god in analogy to the later two bulls Sheri and Khurri in the ‘special sphere’ (see 1c).

The important fisheries were situated and concentrated on the East Terrace113.

5 .4.1. 2 Summing up

If we confront the presence of sealings from the surface and the excavation with the Organigram, developed earlier for Chogha Mish─ (Fig. F).114 and Fig. D ─ E; it is interesting to note, that Late Chalcolithic Chogha Mish is, if compared to Susa, very similar in structure as far as glyptic is concerned. Further, the relation of Sondage 2 to Acr, I is quite similar to the relation between Chogha Mish East Terrace to the West Terrace. But everything seems to be of smaller scale than at Susa. In other words: Chogha Mish offers somehow the same services than Susa, but the choice is much reduced.

Having said that Chogha Mish was the predecessor center of the Susiana, before Susa I/A, these centuries from around 6.800 B.C. up to the late 4. Millennium B.C. must have left traces of longue durée in the archaeological record waiting to be identified.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. D

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. E

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. F Organigram of Chogha Mish

5.4.2 Steel and Glass―Jebel aruda

Jebel Aruda is situated on a slope and has no defense or city wall whatsoever. Three building phases are attested. The site was the victim of a conflagration. According to the excavator, the settlement functioned as “a subsidiary center to a major sanctuary on the summit of Gebel Aruda115 (Fig. 8).

Taking the glyptic and the architecture of Jebel Aruda and Habuba Kabira―S., it should be possible to get an idea of the social web of both sites. The Social Sphere of Jebel Aruda.

From the excavation a threefold hierarchy is evident. At the top ranges the terrace with the two temples/assembly─houses; the middle level is represented by the relative rich dwellings in the south quarter of the settlement with seals, sealings and tablets and the bottom level is the north─quarter, devoid of any objects of administrative control.116 Since the site, according to the excavator served only as a “subsidiary service centre for a major sanctuary, which is on the summit of the Jebel,” So the Top level would be outside the excavated settlement.117

5 .4.2.1a─b The Top Hierarchical Levels 1a─b

The image of the Big Man (1a) is perhaps attested in the form of a fragment of a figure with a long wrap around, which I think is part of a standing Big Man (Fig. 9).118

Monumental architecture (1b) is found depicted just under the figure of level 1a: a Façade+flag. In the real life one has to mention the terrace with the two temples or assembly houses (Fig. 8+9).

5 .4.2.1c The Symbolic Level

Is represented in the glyptic by the Lion in relation to the ‘temple’ terrace (Fig. 10). Perhaps another seal (Fig. 11) is showing a shrine inventory and should also be associated with this level.119 The Griffin and “Master of Animals/Snakes” motifs are missing. A small shrine in S 103/S VIII belongs to this level, but it is devoid of glyptic finds.120

5 .4.2.1D MANUFACTURING, Storage and Administration Level

Manufacturing: Spinning is not directly depicted, but Spider seals might point in this direction as well as Eye symbols.121 A couple of further sealings could also belong to this general level.122

Large scale Storage is not represented, and also such Storage units are missing. On the other hand, one Façade of a sealing might well belong to a storage unit (Fig. 17).123 There might be smaller installations for medium sized pottery containers, to be connected with the transportation seals.124 Administration, doesn’t figure in the imagery of Jebel Aruda. On the other hand, we have more clay tablets from this site than from Habuba for instance. Anyhow, the signs for the administration were limited exclusively to the southern quarter.

5 .4.2.1e Armed Level

An Armed Level is not depicted, but might be similar to Habuba Kabira.

5 .4.2.1f Transportation Level

The Transportation Level is present (Fig. 18─19).125

5 .4. 2.1g Animal husbandry Level

Animal husbandry is the most important subject of the sealings. Fisheries are only attested by an original seal (Fig. 20).126 *

5. 4. 3. Out of the blue ─ Habuba Kabira─South and Tell Qannas

5. 4.3 .1. The Social Sphere of Habuba Kabira─South + Tell Qannas

Habuba Kabira─S. is situated in the plane and after an initial phase without defense wall, this site was also destroyed by fire but continued for two further phases, this time with massive defense walls.127 We do not know if both conflagrations at Jebel Aruda and Habuba Kabira─S. were contemporaneous or if both are the result of external and/or internal conflicts. As far as we can judge today, the internal conflicts of the Uruk settlements were prominent, and if Johnson is right, not only in contemporaneous settlements in the SW─Iran.

The Top Level of the settlement, the complex of official buildings on top of Tell Qannas is unfortunately almost devoid of glyptic artifacts (Fig. 21a─b). What is known is too fragmentary to be analyzed.128 Therefore, one deals with a kind of phantom level and one is forced to start the analysis of the social web one level deeper.

5 .4.3.1a─b The Top Hierarchical levels 1a─b:

A person sitting on a façade hunting boar seems to wear a long wrap around and might be the “Big Man”, who normally would take care of pigs (Fig. 22).129

A person with pig tails receives perhaps a libation (Fig. 23). An overseer punishing prisoners is first of all a special scene as defined in 2012, due to the presence of a lion (Fig. 24).130

5 .4. 3.1c The Symbolic Level

Griffins are missing, as well as “The Master of Animals or snakes” What remains are representations with heraldic lions and fantastic creatures.131 Manufacture, Storage and Administration Level

Signs for textile production like Eye symbols, Spider motifs (Fig. 25)132 are present as well as Spindle whorls;133 other scenes on sealings also belong to this level.134 Weights might have been used with weaving looms?135

Storage units are present,136 but as said before, obviously only for bags and medium sized jars (Fig. 26 ─ 28).137

The administration is not depicted, but few tablets, hollow balls and bullae indicate a certain degree of complex administrative control.

5 .4.3.1e Armed level

Weapons are rare, like at Chogha Mish. The excavator mentions bows, spears und sling stones.138 A depot of the latter was found in the Qannas gate.139 Finally, one can also refer to a couple of axes and a blade.140 All in all an astonishing small amount of weapons in relation to large area excavated.

5 .4.3.1f Transportation Level

Is only sparsely represented (Fig. 29).141

5 .4.3.1g Animal husbandry Level

Most themes on the sealings belong to the pastoral realm in general. Even though original Fish seals are almost absent at Habuba Kabira─S.,142 nevertheless fishing can be traced by the original fish hooks.143

5 .4 .4 Old dirty road ─ Some interim concluding remarks

Based on information by the glyptic and small finds, compared to Chogha Mish, Aruda and Habuba Kabira by their inventory and imagery are quite middle─rate sites. This is at first hand in sharp contrast to the size, layout and architectonical input of Habuba Kabira which has about the same size than Chogha Mish. As mentioned before, Habuba Kabira─S. and Jebel Aruda were perhaps no self─sustaining sites.144 But what had Habuba Kabira to offer? One possibility could be of course the famous invisible imports (and exports).145 Wine146 could be a candidate among others, like Metal, Cloth and most important perhaps Asphalt (Hacinebi Tepesi).147

Excursus: Whatever gets you thru the night ─ SIS 8 ─ 4 in Ur ─ an Uruk afterglow?

According to Otto the material from Ur, Sis 8─4 can be considered as the last puff of the Uruk culture (as I called it elsewhere).148 The convincing arguments were in the first hand related to the style and the themes of the SIS─material. In order to test this assumption, I will contrast the SIS─material with the one of Chogha Mish. But one should keep one important difference in mind: being a clear─out ("Kehraus"), the SIS─material comes from a functionally limited institution,149 which thanks’ to a recent study by Benati and Lecompte can be identified as part of the precinct of the god Nanna. 198 of the Archaic texts from Ur can now be connected with an “Ancient Room” which was part of this institution, the AB/eš3.

SIS ─ The Top Hierarchical levels 1a─b

The “Big Man” in its classical form is simply missing. A procession to a male person, who is perhaps wearing a kind of long Net skirt, might be a comparable person (Fig. 30).150

His female pendant (?) might be depicted twice in receiving a libation (Fig. 31 ─ 32).151

The motif of an important man (?) in a boat is present (Fig. 33 ─ 34), but the person is not to be unequally identified.152

This situation of unsecure hierarchy is also reflected in the titles in the Archaic texts. Benati and Lecompte will even not rule out that Ur by this time was dominated by Uruk.153

Representations of architecture are completely different from Late Chalcolithic times.154 When it figures on sealings in the SIS, architecture is often connected to Sexual Rites (Fig. 35 ─ 37)155 or in one case to Dance (Fig. 38).156 Nevertheless, shrines have not only flags, but often animals as a sign of the god on top of their facades, which by the hand are almost all of the same structural type.

SISThe symbolic Level 1C

The symbolic domain is more or less limited to Lions attacking bovines and/or men. If the Cage for Lions is depicted, is not clear. At least something like the Uruk─cage is perhaps present (Fig. 39).157

Griffins are not attested anymore. “The Master of the Animals” still occurs (Fig. 40 ─ 42)158

SISManufacturing, Storage and Administration Level ID

Manufactures are almost not depicted. Only rare examples might point in this direction, especially to Pottery production in the earliest SIS (Fig. 43 ─ 46; Nos. 47 ─ 48 are perhaps related).159

What is completely missing in the SIS─material are representations of larger Storage Units and the depiction of activities connected to such units. At least from SIS 8 the rendering of a row of great storage pots is known, which ressemble the shape of the Uruk─vase (Fig. 43).

Administration, in the form of the representation of scribes is not attested, but the residues of the SIS─archives witness administration.

SIS1e Armed Level IE

Armed Level, is only presented by one, hopefully not intrusive sealing (Fig. 49).160

SISTransportation Level IF

Transportation Level is present (Figs. 50 ─ 51).161

SISAnimal Husbandry Level IG

Animal Husbandry and Animals – were important in the glyptic of the SIS.162 Fisheries,163 once combined with possible killed animals,164 occur (Figs. 52 ─ 55 and 56 ─ 58).

5 .5 . Mind Games─ Further interim remarks

Even if one gets an Uruk taste, the canonical form of representation of Uruk themes in SIS─times had already been given up and the remaining motifs had lost most of their narrative characters.

Nevertheless, few new themes, almost unknown to the older sites, mentioned above, were introduced and/or increased in number for example:

Level A ─ Banquet scenes (Figs. 59 ─ 60)165

Level B ─ Sexual Intercourse (Figs. 61 ─ 67)166

Level C ─ Birth Scenes (Figs. 68 ─ 72)167

Level D ─ Mythological Combat (Figs. 73 ─ 74)168

Level E ─ City Seals (Figs. 75 ─ 76)169

With some probability do these sealings either represent only special units with limited functions, or the origin of the clear─out was in close contact with the institution using City Seals.170

What is ‘missing’ might then be present elsewhere. The clear─out in Ur took place in a limited space, therefore, the material must not be absolutely representative, as noted before.

5 .6 Imagine─Le dernier mot─pour le moment

Contrary to Chogha Mish, which had a long history, sites like Habuba and Jebel Aruda were short living settlements for about maximal 150 years. Even though the so─called Uruk colonies are one of the main research objects of the archaeology of the Ancient Near East, up to now no real convincing model as to the raison d’être of these settlements has been formulated171. As to me the picture of already competitive local centers, which were in conflict with each other, foreshadowing the general situation of the following, Early Dynastic period, has its charms. Especially if the shift from Uruk to local Early Bronze Age I or Ninive V could be connected to the traditions of the ancient regime of the earlier Late Chalcolithic 3 and early 4 period. But, of course, this would need deeper studies.

May it as it is, the Uruk─horizon in the North, in general, was not much more than a relatively short living interlude. And one thing should be clear; it was the North who gave to the southern Uruk universe its imaginary. But it was the latter that enriched it and gave, even if only for a relative short time (Late Chalcolithic late 4 and 5), advanced forms of production and administration to the North. I guess the Uruk complex in northern Mesopotamia can be best understood as a temporary limited struggle of advanced against traditional concepts of political and economic organization.

Babylonia, on the other hand, found its way after quite a long period of adapting to a changing environment hand in hand with a slowly completely restructuring society in the earlier part of the Early Dynastic─period. It was now that the new imaginary developed further into one of the strong roots of Ancient Near Eastern art.

Nevertheless, the musty smell of a vanishing and transforming “Golden Époque” was omnipresent. The old icons were in the dust, the new ones yet to come.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1 Level 1a

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 2 Level 1b

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.3 Symbolic Level

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3,10 East Terrace

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 4 Level 1d, Manufacturing, Storage and Administration

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 5 Level 1e, Level of Armed Unit

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 6 Level 1f, Level of Transportation.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 7 Level 1g, Level of Animal Husbandry

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 8

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 9

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 10

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 11

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 12

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 13

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 14 Fig.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

15 Fig. 16

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 17

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 18

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 19

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 20

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 21a

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 21b

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 22

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 23

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 24

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 25

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 26

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 27

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 28

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 29

SIS ─ Level 1a

─ Big Person?

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 30172

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 31

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 32

─ Big Man? in Boat

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 33

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 34

SIS ─ Level 1b

─ Official buildings

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 35

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 36

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 37

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 38

SIS ─Level 1c

─ Lion’s cage?

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 39

Master of the Animals

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 40

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 42

SIS ─ Level 1d

Storage, Manufacturing and Administration

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 43

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 44

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 45

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 46

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 47

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 48

SIS ─ Level 1e

─ Armed Unit

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 49

SIS ─ Level 1f

Transportation Unit

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 50

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 51

S IS – Level 1g

Animal Husbandry

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 52

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 53

─ Animals

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 54

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 55

─ Fisheries and Hunting

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 56

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 57

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 58

Level A

─ Banquette

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 59

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 60

Level B

─ Sexual Intercourse─

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 61

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten.

Fig. 62─67

Level C

─ Birth Scenes

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 68

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 69

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 70 Fig. 71 Fig. 72

Level D

─ Mythological Combat

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 73

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 74

Level E

─ City Seals

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 75

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 76


A─Johnson 1973: Fig. 26; B─Alizadeh 2008: Fig. 16; C─by the Author; D─Legrain 1936, Nos. 297. 286; E─Legrain 1936, Nos. 415. 431; 1─7 ─ by the Author; 8─Strommenger 1980, Abb. 54; 9─Rova 1994, No. 36; 10─ibid., No. 27; 11─ibid., No. 40; 12─ibid., No. 24; 13─ibid., No. 32; 14─ibid., No. 21; 15─ibid., No. 22; 16─ibid., No. 23; 17─ibd., No. 37; 18─ibid., No. 19; 19─ibid., No. 20; 20─ibid,, No. 1; 21a─Strommenger 1980, Abb. 12; 21b ─ Akkermans ─ Schwartz 2003, Fig. 6.7; 22─Rova 1994, No. 53; 23 ─ Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 195, 5; 24─ibid., 193, 2; 25─ibid., 196.7; 26─ibid., 199, 1; 27─ibid., 199, 3; 28─ibid., 199, 4; 29─Rova 1994, No. 57; 30─Legrain 1936, No. 389; 31─ibid., No. 169; 32─ibid., No. 382; 33─ibid., No. 300; 34─ibid., No. 299; 35─ibid., No. 386; 36─ibid., No. 388; 37─ibid., No. 385; 38─ibid., No. 374; 39─ibid., No. 477; 40─bid., No. 294; 41─ibid., No. 296; 42─ibid., No. 293; 43─ibid., No. 3; 44─ibid., No. 5; 45─ibid., No. 6; 46─ibid., No. 4; 47─ibid., No. 330; 48─ibid., No. 331; 49─ibid., No. 298; 50─ibid., No. 328; 51─ibid., No. 329; 52─ibid., No. 359; 53─ibid., No. 344 Legrain 1936: No. 228; 55─ibid., No. 216; 56─ibid., No. 44; 57─ibid., No. 302; 58─ibid., No. 303; 59─ibid., No. 351; 60─ibid., No. 377; 61─ibid., No. 371; 62─ibid., No. 364; 63─ibid., No. 365; Legrain 1936, 64─ibid., No. 366; 65─ibid., No. 367; 66─ibid., No. 369; 67─ibid., No. 318; 68─ibid., No. 42; 69─ibid., No. 370; 70─ibid., No.268; 71─ibid., No. 269; 72─ibid., No. 270; 73─ibid., No. 297; 74─ibid., No. 286; 75─ibid., No, 415; 76─ibid., No. 43.

6. The Representation of architecture in glyptic From the Middle Uruk-to the earlier part of the Early Dynastic period-Reality or pure guesswork?

6. 0. Introduction ─ Curiosity let to the lifting of the water table

The goal of this contribution is not to discuss technical or constructive elements of representations of building Façades on glyptic in detail. 173 My intention is another one: in how far reflect images of public architecture on Uruk seals former reality?174 When working on the paper 'Games People play'175 the sneaking suspicion arose, that the architecture, especially from representations on the seals of the Uruk─period, do not really match the evidence excavated. My first reaction was that perhaps the Iranian sites used the standard Uruk icons on seals as legitimation of their position in the system, but the concrete buildings of the real world seemed to be of different type. In other words, the status of the Uruk seal imagery of Iran was questioned in regard of its reflection of reality. For me a fascinating perspective, moreover, since such icons do not continue into the Protoelamite universe; the Uruk system had not established a sustainable tradition. The possible mimicry of the living environment would offer to those who would play the game the possibility to behave as a member of the Uruk community, while deep inside a completely different association and affiliation remained. The dissolution of the Uruk system, could therefore reemerge 'out of nothing'.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 1 Chronological Framework used here (Dittmann 2013, 54─55 and here No. 8)

In order to handle the problem we will look at the different main streams of traditions that formed the Uruk culture. Credible forms of representation should be rooted in one or the other.

6 .1. Threads of Tradition -Discovery of the sleeping dog

Quite naturally the internationality of the Uruk complex is based on several different traditions. At first hand, they are not always recognizable in their totality and therefore, the false impression of a homogenous complex is hiding the heterogeneity.

6 .1.1 The first thread of tradition ─ the ruling paradigm

It is represented by the architecture (not the imagery!) of the Uruk world in Babylonia, which, coming all the long way from the Ubaid ─ period,176 reached its peak in Uruk IV. Concerning our study, from Uruk quite a large amount of public buildings is known. There are Façades without a Flag (F─F), which I consider to be of a more secular character and those with Flags (F+F), as to me representing shrines. The representatives of both are otherwise quite similar and match well the type they represent: mostly rectangular houses of tripartite type.177 Uruk is somehow special concerning the presence of motifs. Except, of PTW─seals, Manufacture scenes are almost absent.178 Scenes of concrete Storage are missing as well. This motif is clearly dominated by Susa. The ratio of the F─F type of Façade drops from Uruk (─) IV to Uruk III from 22 to 5 and considering the drop of F+F from 11 to 2 in the Ğamdat Nasr period. I think the radical changes from Archaic IV to III in Uruk are clearly reflected. Furthermore, the images on seals match also house models in the round.179 Therefore, for me a further hint that the depiction of the Uruk─façades on seals reflect somehow reality.

6 .1.2 The second thread of tradition

Representation of the architecture of the 'colonies' on the Euphrates is rare. In this group Habuba Kabira─S. offers four: one Shrine? at least one Storage Facility (sack), one normal and one unspecified180. Jebel Aruda has two, including a Shrine.181 The glyptic here is dominated by Herding scenes.

6 .1.3 The third thread of tradition are Uruk settlements in the SW─Iran.

Here the evidence is quite different from that of the Euphrates sites. But nevertheless, a few direct connections exist. For example ─ Hacinebi in the North has a depiction of a Storage Facility in the form of a shallow domed construction182 as it is already known from Susa.183 In view of a further strong parallelism between Susa ─ Chogha Mish and Hacinbi (Ear─motif)184 we can conclude, that these sites had a certain interaction.

Façades rendered on glyptic are quite common at Susa. In Susa 23 Façades are attested: 3 normal, 3 shrines and 17 belonging to Storage Units, which gives an impressive insight of the need for storage at Susa. But, even if more on Sack Storage oriented, Choga Mish had 10 Façades, 3 normal, 1 Shrine and 6 Storage Facilities. The supposed higher need for storage in SW─Iran could point to differences within the economy of the Uruk culture ─ if not due to the hazards of excavation..

6 .1.4 The fourth thread of tradition are the almost unknown settlements of the Protoliterate a─c Periods in the Diyala.

The motif of the marker of Shrines, i.e. the Façade and the Sacred Flock motif is attested since Sin II (Pl c).185

6. 2 Earlier Part of the Early Dynastic period Failing to lower the sea level again without awaking the dog

6 .2.1 The first thread of tradition

With some probability such glyptic material as from the SIS at Ur is also present at Uruk and Lagağ in the early Early Dynastic period.186 The presentations of shrines and other architectural units concentrate in Ur in Pit W. Even if the date of the material is not absolutely fixed now, I guess a time span from Early Dynastic A─to C with the event of the Fara Elegant style (as a minimum time span) is reasonable.187

The Architecture represented on the SIS─seals belong to the lightweight type of construction, not unlikely the Mudhifs in the swamp areas of South─Iraq today.188 This might be special to Ur and its geographical position. But coming to the excavated structures at Ur, they are made of solid brick. The same is true for Uruk. Reed architecture was found in Ubaid─levels. On the other hand, these representations could refer to the maritime borders of the Ur estate. In the SIS a clear distinction is made of structures headed by a Bird189 and buildings with integrated ear─like Flags190 both considered here as to point to the religious sphere. There are of course also unmarked objects,191 Theoretically Fara should be partly contemporaneous with SIS 6─4 but its imagery is much reduced here192 and with the rising of the Fara Elegant glyptic style the Motif of Façades faded also here away.

6 .2.2 The second thread of tradition

It is cut off with the collapse of the 'colonies' in the north. Uruk traditions continue only to a minable degree.193

6 .2.3 The third thread of tradition

The Protoelamite representation of architectural imagery can be neglected. Contrary to the other regions, the representation of architecture was almost no longer present in the Proto─Elamite 1─2b glyptic. But not represented doesn't mean that it did not exist. Iran had a long lasting storage tradition and with high probability a whole bundle of types of Storage Facilities at hand, also larger structures. Therefore, I guess, the Iranian representations are by large conform to reality194.

6 .2.4 The fourth thread of tradition

The Diyala region as the next neighbor of Babylonia went through its own distinct development, but in the literature the impression could emerge, that this development stands 1:1 for Babylonia. Since Protoliterate times, up to Early Dynastic D, Façades and Goats marked the presence of small neighborhood shrines. Drill and Cutting Wheel were almost exclusively used here. Obviously there was no need to be represented by natural modeled seals. The majority of them have Herding Scenes and Schematic Motifs. In this imaginary universe Storage Units or Manufactures were never rendered, with the exception of the potter's workshop. The Diyala was obviously more oriented towards animal husbandry. Nevertheless, at the eastern border highly complex Storage units existed for a short period.

As SW─Iran, the Diyala passed through its own development entering into a complex give and take relationship with Babylonia.

6 . 3. A short critical trip through time ─ The dog wakes up Run for your life little girl

The Ubaid─period in South─Babylonia was a universe without complex narrative images, a truly dull, uninspired mental environment. Perhaps was this iconophobia the reason for a certain rigor in South─Babylonia, ending with scenes of oppression from Middle Uruk─times onwards.

In the North the Naturalistic─narrative style started already in Late Chalcolithic 2 in Gawra on stamp seals with its roots in Late Chalcolithic 1. Similar seals are also known from the Susa Ba─group of LeBreton.195 From the Diyala such seals are unreported. This group continued in the North in the following Late Chalcolithic 3 phase and it was here that we find early representations of the Lion Hunt and the Lion's Gage. It is now that Babylonia enters the scene using the Baggy Style and the first Hollow Balls during the initial Middle Uruk─period. The latter can be taken as witness of economic differentiate transactions of larger scale which were at least of mid term range, since for ad hoc decisions no complicated recording systems would be needed. The Diyala is still terra incognita for this period. At that time the information storage system using Hollow Balls had reached Tell Sheikh Hassan on the Euphrates and to the south the Susiana. Surely a sign of similar administrative structures in the three regions. At that time the first manufactories must have been already of importance and of a certain scale. With some probability the austere controlling system of the successful Babylonian economic system, “powerfull” as it was, spread in the neighboring regions in question.

This happened in two steps (at least): In the older part of the Uruk sequence one encounters complexes like the Sargarab─complex in Deh Luran or even at Chogha Mish considering the thesis of Abbas Alizadeh, who rightly observed an infiltration of Uruk forms and traits in the local assemblages.196 In how far and to what degree the Diyala region was affected, due to the lack of excavated levels of this period, is impossible to judge.

At the end of Late Chalcolithic 4 the South took over the North as to judge by the sudden presence of material like Habuba Kabira─S. after the conflagration which put an end to Late Chalcolithic 4 in Hamoukar and the evidence of Brak TW 13 which as to the excavators marks a clear break ("new settlers"). Whatever caused the changes, but with a clear shift in the pottery to more than 79% of Beveled Rim Bowl ─ and Flower Pots in Brak TW 13, a massive break into the traditional social and economic system must have occurred.197 Was the submission to the new system peacefull?

The Diayla region was still wrapped in calmness. But silence might be an impatient partner, because how fits Nissen's nice thesis concerning abstract─geometrical seals as representatives of institutions in the scene?198 For the Diyala it is a tuff experience to defend this thesis. First of all, in the Cutting Wheel─ and Drill─universe of the Diyala, everything is per se schematic. Only a handful of seals belongs to the naturalistic type. Are these the only representatives of the functionaries? In view of the iconic function of the contemporaneous Façade and Flock seals, marking the neighborhood shrines, this would be impossible. Their quantity is too great as to be put in the simple schematic tray. I guess these seals reflect different hierarchical levels in the organization taking care of the animal husbandry. One last observation: The Abu shrine is devoid of Flock and Façade seals. Here dominates the Hatched Group (GT 3de ─ Tab. 4) the scene. So the Sin Temple and the Abu shrine fulfilled different functions in the system, and the famous Hatched Group is in this case detached from animal husbandry (an observation, that should be kept in mind).

Therefore, I propose to maintain Nissens grouping, but for the Diyala, we will have to introduce an intermediate hierarchical level for schematic Façade+Flok seals. Having such a seal might have simply given access to places one could not enter without.

The following Late Chalcolithic 5 period marked the peak of the Uruk─culture. The language unbounded script of Archaic IV was invented and the storage of mass information was the great theme of Late Chalcolithic 4─5.199

When the Uruk system collapsed or ─ less dramatic ─ dissolved, since it was incapable to establish a sustainable tradition, it was the local traditions which finally took over. They formed the main foundations of the new emerging city states which were regionally deeply ─ rooted without any great Uruk impact whatsoever. In most regions the Uruk complex was not more than a relatively short termed foreign body. But an important legacy of the Uruk culture developed further: writing as the medium for storage of all kinds of information as well as cylinder seals.

A dissolution of a complex system like the Uruk─one is almost never caused by only one factor. But one crucial problem, among others, was surely the process of transformation which effected Babylonia in the Gamdat Nasr─ and the beginning of the Early Dynastic─period, leading to an almost completely rural depopulation and concentration of the population and production units in the relatively few remaining centers, forced to establish a functioning neighborhood.

This brings us back to the initial question; does the Iranian Uruk Glyptik reflects reality? My answer is by large 'yes.’ Storage facilities have a long tradition in Iran. They were certainly bound to a specific architecture200 which is not necessarily paralleled at the other sites and regions.

Slow down little girl you are safe!

Tab. 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

7. Alice in the Wonderland ─ An Impressive Example of an Selforganized Fundamental Change of a Socioconomic System at the Dawn of History

In my understanding the time span from Late Chalcolithic 5/Late Uruk or whatsoever we call it, up to Early Dynastic should be understood as a process in which severe transformations took place in Babylonia. Up to now this timespan was subdivided into two fractions. One part of these has been labeled "Frühsumerisch" (Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr) and the other "older Early Dynastic" by Orthmann.201

"Frühsumerisch" is a designation which could be used for the Ğamdat Nasr texts at best, but truly not for Uruk, Archaic IV. We simply do not know how big was the percentage of Sumerians in the population at that time and above all the script 'Archaic IV' was not attached to any specific language. If on structural reasoning and following some traditional lines we would retain "Frühsumerisch", than at least Standard─ and Late Ubaid will to have been included. Once at that point Abada III would show up. That means, according to the criteria we use, "Frühsumerisch" can become a prehistoric category of almost endless duration. Therefore the choice of using Late Chalcolithic 1─5 instead of End─Ubaid, Gawra and Uruk etc. at Santa Fe202 was a good one, moreover, since it avoids any ethnic connotation! The critics for good and all will bring counterarguments, as "ahistoric" and "leveling"; this is perfectly right and merits a great respect, since we will go back to the case but with new spectacles. Our perspective will not be the smallest isolated historical unit possible, but a manageable process. Situation vs. process would be the final opposition in our concept. We will have to find a 'mad hatter' to defend it. But since time is ripe, I am optimistic.

It has to be emphasized that any tendency elaborated here is at first hand only of concern for the Diyala and the SIS and is a priori not necessarily relevant to material of other sites, which has to be studied on their own rights.

In this regard, the Pan─Mesopotamian view was given up. These spectacles are not lost, but deeply buried for the moment for practical reasons. The study offered here should not be disturbed by claims like “but on site x, we have evidence of y! How does this fit?” It doesn’t fit and it cannot fit, because it is out of the context used and discussed here, so we can humbly put it aside.

In order to approach the problem, we have to choose indicators which will give us signs of changes203:

7 .1 Architecture and urban level.

The integration of former villages and hamlets into the remaining bigger centers was a process, which surely was not free from violence. Institutions had to be established (possibly known already before) that had to guarantee civic order.

The Big man as a political and religious figure faded away and attached to that possibly also the former pan regional influence of Inanna.204 The remaining centers needed and created their own "Götterkreise", not without keeping strong relations to the older system(s).205

The F+/─F Shrines were given up, equally the F+flok husbandry. Possibly these former quite small institutions had to give way to/or were integrated in bigger institutions like the Oikos─like ones of Temple Oval─type (since Early Dynastic D). This shift to bigger units/solutions might be also somehow related to the development of the East Tigridian region, where the small round storage units and strongholds were given up206. The former villages (at least in the Diyala), based on husbandry with their system of neighborhood shrines (being possibly a kind of guarantor of the different relatively small flocks), went out of time and those remaining, were integrated into new structures like the village Šakeri Sughir next to Ur.207 The site was a small village, had about 15 families of social low rank and of one single class, and it was engaged in food production; evidence for more specialized work was meager. The inhabitants seemed to belong to small farmer groups as they are mentioned in the Ur Archaic texts. Since no glyptic material is known from the site, the people who used the seals, witnessed by sealings, must have been of external origin. Probably center based tax/tribute collectors from Ur, when taking off the products, sealed and transported them to the communal storage units. Charvát follows a slightly different view.208

The urge to create new walled centers and neighborhoods might be the very reason for the invention of the famous planoconvex bricks, if one considers Nissen's thoughts on efficiency and speedup of the building processes provoked by this building material.209 Also the big kitchens in Eanna210 fit this scenario better than the former opinion of a cultic cleaning of the terrace by fire.

7 .2 Pottery production.

This would normally be a good indicator of changing economies. But in one point one must be careful: BRB (Beveled─rim─bowls), with high probability, belong to the economic sphere. They reflect the still great influence of the Uruk way of economy. In the Diyala such sherds are said to be frequent,211 They have been found in Khagfagah in levels older than Sin I and then up to Sin III, which in my revised chronological scheme would correspond to late Proto─Literrate till the edge to Early Dynastic A.212 If we agree that BRB are in firm connection to the old socioeconomic system, the change in the initial Early Dynastic period must have been of high significance and indicates a complete transformation of what was the rule in the Diyala region in Uruk times. This transformation process was at his peak at the beginning of Early Dynastic A (Sin IV), but started surely earlier in the Late Chalcolithic 5 Period.

The SFG (Solid─footed─goblet), even being a mass type, cannot be compared to BRB (economic sphere) because they belong more to the religious sphere.213 The first SFG occurred late in Early Dynastic A (Sin V).

Another interrelation is of importance: According to Evans, SFG were used by the believers for libations in the cellae at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period. Since they could not stand by their own, they were brought into the cellae and after the act of libation, they were broken and deposited in a room next to the cella. So this is one interpretation based on the evidence at Tell Asmar, Archaic Shrine III, where more than 600 of broken SFG were found.214 At Khafagah such vessels were obviously burnt in the courtyard of Sin Temple V.215

As for Evans with the coming up of the so─called 'dedicatory statues' the number of SFG decreased. Since they could not stand on their own tiny conical bases, they were held by the statues in the cella. The former owners of the SFG were now in the courtyard where the libations were performed. The necessairy installations shifted from the cellae to the courtyard and the door from the cellae to the courtyard were closed.216 In this context the oldest preserved statue holding a big SFG, was found in Tell Agreb, Intermediate Building of Early Dynastic B date.217

Another mass─type are the so─called Conical Cups. Their internal development has recently been elucidated by a study of Gruber.218

The earlier part of the Early Dynastic period is also characterized by painted pottery like the Scarlett Ware, and some pots even show a close relation to the Aliabad─Ware from the Deh Luran region.219

In this context, it is astonishing that nobody has ever made an analysis of the differences of the morphologies of Uruk─ and early Early Dynastic pottery, in order to elucidate in how far the modes of consumption changed. At first glance, there must be massive differences.220

7 .3 Glyptic

Concerning the Uruk─ (and Ğamdat Nasr─) glyptic, contrary to the idea, that the missing original cylinder seals of the Uruk─period accompanied the dead in their graves, one has to accept that they are never found in the tombs ─ at least at Tello, where we have at least a reasonable number of graves of the Uruk period. Coming from the graves are Stamp seals of Late Chalcolithic 2/3 ─ tradition, of zoomorphic form. In most cases, these seals were no single finds, but occurred in groups of two to nine.221 But, regarding the cylinder seals anyhow, we have more questions than answers:

- Could these Stamp seals be the real ‘identity cards’ of the Uruk─period and not the cylinder seals?
- But why are more than one Stamp seal in some of the graves attested?222
- Could they be gender─specific; representing women?223
- But how to explain than the presence of 7 and 9 seals in graves XXIII and XXIX?
- The seals of the Naturalistic─narrative group, have they been deposed like the PTW─seals in Tello?224
- If the seals of the Naturalistic─narrative seal group don’t identify their users, are they only dependent on their function (like Brandes 1979 and 1986 assumed) and were they given back after the sealing process or after the person lost her function for what reason so ever?
- What was the character of the area of the necropolis and was there any relationship to the choice of the location of the much later structures like the “Constuction Inferieure” and “Maison des fruits,” or like the tombs next to the High terrace of Susa A?225
- Taking the Uruk─period: Where did they bury the dead of sites like Jebel Aruda, Habuba Kabira─S.226 Up to now nothing is known. Boehmer mentions a necropolis ca 4 km to the NE of Nufeği in Uruk. But is this really dated?227

In the Ğamdat Nasr─period things must be differentiated. On the one hand, we have a large site like Uruk, here the amount of original seals seems to increase (this might be a false impression since the Schematic seals were always counted sub 'Ğamdat Nasr' like the PTW!). On a small but hopefully representative site like Ğamdat Nasr itself, original seals of the Naturalistic─narrative group are also almost absent, but they are present – even in slightly bad quality, impressed on the back of Ğamdat Nasr tablets. Schematic seals do not occur on tablets in Babylonia, but rare examples from Susa are known.228

The early Early Dynastic A glyptic is dominated by the glazed steatite and Piedmont Ğamdat Nasr─seals which have an enormous geographical distribution, up to central Anatolia.229

Remarkable is the late occurrence of PTW─seals in the Diyala, where they occur only from Early Dynastic B onwards, whereas at Tello they occur already at the turning point from Middle─ to Late Uruk or late Late Chalcolithic 4.230

Fara Elegant─ and Cross Style─seals infiltrated into the Diyala region quite slowly and initially in small numbers. Supporting the impression of the Diyala as a kind of peripheral region, which had not yet attained the complexity and economic power of the contemporaneous Babylonian centers.231

Of the Brokat Style seals not a single sealing is known. True Brokat Style seals outside the Diyala region are hard to find. And after all, even in the Diyala region they are only attested in small numbers and it is not exaggerated to state that every neighborhood shrine had only one. Since they were not used as seals they must have been functioning as signs indicating status and perhaps some special rights.232







SIS 455 *Square Temple I ED C

SIS 469 *Square Temple I ED C



SIS 822 SHARA 30,30 m ED B

SIS 894 ?Top Layer ED ?

SIS 447 Arch. Shrine III ED B

SIS 874 SHARA,, Main L. 1 ED C

* Changed by Evans 2007 to Predecessor Building.; small letters indicate an uncertain origin.

Fara Elegant Style seals, on the other hand, were almost only used for door sealings.233 In this regard it is important to note, that Counter stamps obviously occur exclusively together with door sealings.234

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

(Dittmann 2013, 54─55 and here No. 8)

7. 4 Funerals

The evidence of graves of the Uruk period is very restricted, to say the best.235 So far, only the excavations by de Genouillac at Tell K at Tello give some substantial information, at least grave goods are listed for every ‘tomb’, but a more detailed description of the graves is missing.

These graves are quite unimpressive and can be in no way compared to those of the older Necropolis of Susa A, which was quite rich in finds, especially of metal. The dead of Susa were buried enwrapped in linen or laid in cist graves of bricks, like in the Cemetery of Eridu, which is roughly contemporaneous and obviously was, like Susa, of interregional importance.236

In regard to graves the situation from the beginning of the Early Dynastic─period is not much better;

First to mention is the so─called 'Ğamdat Nasr''─Cemetery at Ur, excavated by Woolley.237 370 dead were exhumed, mostly simple earth burials, only very few were wrapped in mattings. The cemetery was excavated in Pit X and W and on a smaller scale in Pit Y and Z.

Woolley dated his material on behalf of the painted pottery and distinguished three Phase A─C. A study by Korbel and Youzan seemed to support Wolley’s chronological proposals.238 Contrary to the majority of scholars, who didn’t follow Woolley’s approach. Today a kind of general consensus would accept that the material of Pit X starts earlier, already in the final Ğamdat Nasr─period up to Early Dynastic II and that Pit W would cover Early Dynastic I─II.239

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. Grave goods from the Houses in Khafagah

In Houses 6, Early Dynastic D, the big Temple Oval I was founded. Obviously reflecting not only a new socioeconomic structure, but also as a witness of the improvement of social conditions.

This step forward is also reflected by the number and quality of grave goods. What is important is also the change in architecture of the intra muros tombs of Khafagah, with the coming up of vaulted tombs (already one in Early Dynastic C ─ No.84) all the other vaults start in Early Dynastic D. In the early phases of the Early Dynastic D period the dead of Khafagah were mostly wrapped in mattings in simple earth graves. These changes in burial practices reflect also changes in the society. Obviously the private and familial relations became increasingly important, integrating the dead into the daily life.

The households of Khafagah became more prosperous in Early Dynastic D also according to their inventories.240 This change has also been observed by Sürenhagen,241 and this reflects only part of a more all-embracing change within the Fara period.242

Another type of necropolis for the earlier part of the Early Dynastic period is attested in the Hamrin region next to the tells of Akhmad al─Hattu243 and Keith Qasim.244 Here the dead were laid down in chamber ─ like constructions of mud brick walls, either sunken into the ground (Akhmad al─Hattu) or at ground level (Keith Qasim). The chambers had single or multiple burials, up to 12 people (Akhmad al Hattu). Even though there are minor difference in the constructions of both complexes, due to the presence of painted Scarlett Pottery their close contemporaneity is out of the question. Moreover, the pottery of Akhmad al─Hattu shows close relations to the Deh Luran region of SW─Iran, to graves with Aliabad─Ware of the local center Tepe Moussian.245

Of course, here only a selection of indicators of the change from the Uruk to the Early Dynastic period could be discussed. As can be recognized, even if there is a lot of continuity in the total development, some changes of the living conditions were profound in a long term process. But those who were affected by this, with high probability, were not immediately aware of the depth of the transformation. The external perspective and the sense of being part of a historical process were not developed yet, moreover, since the impact of the Uruk culture was not completely digested.

8. A spotlight on the Early Dynastic IIIb ─ Period in the Diyala

In the early eighties of the last century McGuire Gibson published two important articles concerning a re─evaluation of the sequence of Khafagah, Tell Asmar and Tell Agrab in the Diyala region which were excavated by Henri Frankfort and his colleagues in the thirties of the same century.246 The original periodization of the sequence of these sites was based primarily on the occurrence of a specific building material, i.e. plano─convex bricks, which – as to the excavators ─ would be typical of what was then called the Early Dynastic (= ED) period. The latter was subdivided into ED I, II, IIIa and IIIb. Between the last levels having such a building material and those having been attributed to the Akkad period, a so─called Proto─Imperial period was placed. The result of Gibson’s later studies was: There is only meager evidence for ED IIIb and the Proto─Imperial period is already part of the Akkad period.

In 1987, when analyzing the Protoelamite─horizon of Western Iran and looking for connections to the Diyala sequence, I followed Gibson’s approach247 as did Porada et al. later in 1992: “Such considerations argue for an elimination of the Proto─Imperial period (from Entemena to Sargon) of the Diyala excavators and for a very much shortened ED IIIb period, if indeed, the latter exists at all.”248 Matthews, in his controversy with Gibson about the Early Dynastic ─ Akkadian transition stated that the following strata in the Diyala sites were ED IIIa: Sin X, Houses 3 and Oval II and that “ED IIIb seals are placed in strata which date later than the beginning of the ED III period and they begin immediately below the earliest contexts in which Akkadian seals are found.”249

In my article from 1987 I also referred to important older studies by Strommenger on sculpture, Boehmer on glyptic and Boese on votive plaques. Strommenger noted already in 1960 that ED IIIb material was rare in the Diyala250 as did Boese, noting that only one plaque from Khafagah, Nintu VII (Fig. 1) and another one from Tell Asmar, Single Shrine III would fit such a date.251 The votive plaque from Nintu VII was dated by Boese to the time of Urnanše of Lagaš to Eannatum at best. The latter king of Lagaš is conventionally considered to mark the beginning of the ED IIIb period.252 The plaque from Single Shrine III was given a date from the end of Ur I to the Akkadian period.

Boehmer in his study of 1964 focused on glyptic. He tried to combine Frankfort’s and Moortgat’s systems of chronological subdivision of the Early Dynastic period, dividing ED IIIa into ED IIIa1 and IIIa2.253 Since as to my observation in 1987 no seals of the Mature Meskalamdug or ED IIIa2 phase, as defined by Boehmer, occurred in the Diyala in reliable context, I concluded that a gap in the sequence of the Diyala sites from the Mature Meskalamdug seal phase almost to the Akkad period could be present, since all younger seals from the Diyala had been found in Early Akkadian context, if considering Gibson’s re─analysis from 1982.254 Therefore I doubted the existence of an ED IIIb period in the Diyala or reduced it to a very short period of time as Porada et al. mentioned above.

However, at that time I was not aware of a remark by Martin who (as Boehmer) had noted that Early─ and Mature Meskalamdug seals occurred always together in the graves in Ur, concluding that the so─called Early Meskalamdu seals could also reflect another local school, contemporaneous to the one producing Mature Meskalamdug255 seals. Furthermore, Martin related the Early Meskalamdug seals to the late ED II ─ Cross Style at Fara and the Mature Meskalamdug ones to the Anzu─Sùd seals. As to Martin, the Diyala School in the definition of Boehmer (of supposed Ed IIIa1 date) was a development of certain seals with broad, flat bodies known from few seals from the Diyala (called by Martin “Early ED II not known at Fara”).256 Laird, on the other hand, saw the Diyala School as an immediate predecessor of the linear Akkadian Animal style, dating therefore at the end of the ED III period. According to the find spots of these seals, Laird’s thesis is not unlikely.257

Furthermore, Laird has dated a large amount of God─Boat scenes from the Diyala to the Late Early Dynastic period, later than ED IIIa, coming from Khafagah, Houses 2,258 Temple Oval II,259 Asmar, Houses Vc (?),260 Street outside of the Northern Palace, 35,00 m261 and Tell Agrab, Hill C, Sounding D.262

Crucial for any discussion of ED IIIb in the Diyala is the dating of Khafagah, Houses 1─2, Sin X, Nintu VII and Oval III and Tell Asmar, Single Shrine I, Earlier Northern Palace and Houses Vc.

Turning in this regard to sculpture, Braun─Holzinger,263 following a linear approach in the development of sculptures of the Early Dynastic period from more geometric/abstract to more realistic/naturalistic styles, concluded that Sin X,264 Nintu VII and parts of VI, Oval II and III in Khafagah, as well as Asmar, Single Shrine I would date to “Stilstufe III”, corresponding to the Ur I period of the Moortgat School and the late Early Dynastic kings from the time of Akurgal to the time of Sargon. As to her also some sculptures from the Shara Temple were late, but not attributable to her scheme. In correlating levels more or less exclusively on behalf of the occurrence of style─groups of sculpture without considering any further material and relying on Frankfort’s scheme, no real progress in the understanding of the sequence of the Diyala sites could be reached.265 The problems in dating levels on behalf of only one group of finds are serious. One must be sure that within the other finds in the levels considered, no younger items occur. Sculptures of stones are hardly a sensitive find group in regard to changes in style. Moreover, what do we know about the variables which led to a certain style: gender, social rank, religious diversity, the nature and scale of the shrines etc.? Two finds ─from Sin IV should have given an indication to a less rigid approach: First the famous female sculpture, which does not belong to the geometric/abstract style, but is carved in a smooth naturalistic way, continuing older traditions,266 and second an eyeball from the courtyard of Sin IV, testifying that greater sculptural work existed at the turning point from the Ğamdat Naṣr to the Early Dynastic period.267

A refinement, especially of the earlier part of the Early Dynastic period, was then given by Jean Evans in her dissertation in 2005, partly summarized in articles in 2007 and 2011. Her work is based, like Gibson’s studies, on the original files of the Diyala expedition.268 As to her reconstruction of the comparative stratigraphy of the Diyala sites, the origin of the abstract/geometrical style was convincingly pushed back to ED I, the co─occurrence of this and the naturalistic/realistic style continued in the later levels and the later presence of the first style─group was not considered as heirloom or as “Übernahme aus älteren Schichten”.269 Furthermore she was able to make convincing correlations between the sequences of the Sin─, Shara─ and Abu─Temples.270

In 2006 Nicolò Marchetti published his first attempt to re─analyze the “Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia” in Italian. The English version in cooperation with Gianni Marchesi appeared in 2011.271 Regarding the painstaking work of Evan's, known to the authors only by an article dealing only with a special aspect of Evan’s work, they note:

“A recent Study by Evans (2007), which was published after the Italian edition of the present work272 (which therefore, could be taken into account by the author), is interesting insofar as it uses unpublished records housed in Chicago (i.e. pottery materials from the Square Temple, Evans 2007: table 4 and fig. 10). However, the reconstruction offered by Evans is not based on a systematic evaluation of the data, not even in the case of the “Abu” temple sequence, which is the main focus of her work. Instead, we find there an array of assumptions that are not useful for providing a consistent archaeological framework for sequences that have been documented independently from our archaeological labels (needless to say, these labels are only working tools, and too often they become barriers to a deeper understanding..).”273

The authors give also a new date for ED IIIb, they consider – based on an study by Marchesi in 2004 and an unpublished MA.─Thesis by Zimmerman274 – that seals from the graves of the Royal Cemetery in Ur, traditionally dated to the ED IIIa/Fara period, should be related stylistically to those of the kings of Lagaš I, to Aya’ug͊êdug [= Akalamdug] and Mes’ug͊êdug [= Meskalamdug], as to them “roughly contemporaneous to Urnanšêk [= Urnanše] and Ayakurgal [= Akurgal]275.

As to the authors, “the royal tombs of Ur seem to fall either immediately before or during the dynasty that ran from Aya’ug͊êdug [= Akalamdug – paralleled with Urnanše/Akurgal]276 and Aya’anepadda [An’epadda – paralleled with Enmetena] and they therefore appear, contrary to common opinion, to date entirely within Early Dynastic IIIb.”277 And further: “Once we accept the conclusion that the royal tombs of Ur date to the beginning of the Early Dynastic IIIb, then we clearly have to shift the position of the sequence established by Boehmer (cf. p. 8 n. 39) for the Mes’ug͊êdug (= “Meskalamdug”) and Mes’anepadda styles and must relate the stylistic differences shown by a group of pieces produced over a limited period of time to the varying characteristics of different royal workshops”.278

That seals of the Mature Meskalamdug group are close to those of Mesanepada has also be discussed recently by Rohn, and already in 1959 Nagel included the seal of Meskalamdug in his first phase of the Ur I period of the Moortgat School.279 As stated above, there are no Mature Meskalamdug seals in the Diyala in Early Dynastic context and the seals of the Diyala School in the Definition of Boehmer are probably late, coming from Houses 3─2 and Houses 2, as mentioned above.

Regarding the Diyala sites, the authors propose the following dates: In regard to the Abu Temple, Single Shrine I in Tell Asmar, dated by Gibson from Early Akkadian to ED IIIb (?) in 1982,280 they note, that at least two floors (called Single Shrine I:1─2) separate Square Temple III from Single Shrine I (now called I:3). The same result was also reached by Evans and also already Tunca made substantial comments on these find spots.281 Single Shrine I (:3) was dated by Braun─Holzingers to “Stilstufe III”, followed by Marchesi – Marchetti, who also give an Early Dynastic IIIb date. The older “floor” I:2 is Locus E 17:11, an external paving at 33,75 m,282 which the authors consider to be:

“..one of the few cases in which the excavators admit that the find could have been from an earlier sanctuary that was ritually buried when the new structure was built. This conclusion is based on their finding, in Square Temple I:2, the feet belonging to a statue found in a later deposit (14), which is, in fact, the only example from Early Dynastic II in the group. Other statues (29, 67─68, and 99) according to Braun─Holzinger belong to her “Stilstufe III”283, (note 21) that is, Early Dynastic IIIb. In any case, if Square Temple III dates from Early Dynastic IIIa and Single Shrine I:3 from Early Dynastic IIIb, then the disposal of Single Shrine I:2 group must date well into Early Dynastic III. (note 22).”284

It should be noted, that sculptures that can be attributed to Single Shrine I are: Nos. 98. 177─178. 180. 257, which never have been dated by Braun─Holzinger.285 She was attributing sculptures from the interval between Square Temple III and Single Shrine I (:3) to “Stilstufe III”, i.e. Nos. 29. 67─68.286

In regard to the Sin Temple the authors note, that Sin VIII would date to Ed II─IIIa. The latter date is based on a seal287 from Sin VIII.288 This seal, of Martin’s Cross Style group, was dated to the ED II period by Frankfort in his first work on seals.289 For Rohn seals with the hair dress of the figure of the hero of these seals were all dated to the older Early Dynastic II (ED I─II) period.290 Martin gives a late ED II date for the Cross Style seals, extending to ED IIIa.291 Since they occur also in “Meskalamdug─Graves” at Ur,292 they would have now to be dated as late as Early Dynastic IIIb, if one would follow the reasoning of Marchesi – Marchetti.

Concerning Sin IX the authors also give an original date: “From R 42:2 come a plaque (185; Pl. 59:5) and four statues: the body of the famous priest Ur─KISAL (37), the statue of a probable ruler (17/Cat.14), a female head with turban (137), and the head of an earlier female statue (104). Apart from stylistic differences when compared to the pieces from Q42:7, what is striking is that the head of Ur─KISAL (No. 37) comes from phase IX:5 context and the hairstyle of cat. 14 is only attested from Early Dynastic IIIb onward (cf. §5.2), as is the female turban ([ No. 137 R.D. ] cf. p. 69 n.202) (note 35). I must therefore conclude that this group was stowed away in a pit dug in the floor of phase IX:5 and that the date for the group must be shifted to the beginning of Early Dynastic IIIb.”293

In their note 35, based on a personal communication of Marchesi, the inscription of Ur─Kisal “does not show characteristics of the Fara period” and the other finds from R 42:2 “may all date to a late phase of ED III.”

None of the finds has ever been dated late in ED III. What is striking is the fact, that Marchetti, using in general Braun─Holzinger stylistic groups, in case of this locus ─ and without any substantial reasoning ─ invents his own dates: the votive plaque 185 has been dated by Boese to the “2. Übergangszeit,”,294 the head of Ur─KISAL was attributed by Braun─Holzinger to “Stilstufe II”,295 the “ruler” No. 17/Cat.14 even to “Stilstufe I”,296 and the female head with turban No. 137 was also attributed to “Stilstufe IIa”.297 Nothing in Sin IX dates stylistically later than ED IIIa in common terms. Braun─Holzinger connected her “Stilstufe IIb” (second half) to Urnanše and the Royal Cemetery at Ur.298 Following Marchesi ─ Marchetti, at least “Stilstufe IIb“ should be pushed to ED IIIb but like in the case of Braun─Holzinger every argument is based on a stylistic development299 of only one group of finds.

For the Nintu Temple, called “Small Shrine” by the authors,300 they give the following stratigraphic correlations:

“Small Shrine (Nintu) VI”, “Šamuš301 (Sin) IX” and Oval I are followed by an ash layer with Houses 2, “Šamuš (Sin) X” and Oval II on top of it. They further observe, that an intermediate level between Houses 3 and 2 existed, “contemporaneous with the last phases of the “Small Shrine” (Nintu VII) and the Small Temple and later than the layer of ash.”302

The authors missed the fact, that only the extension/rebuilding of “Šamuš (Sin) X” belongs to Houses 2 and Oval II, as clearly stated by Gibson 1982.303 As to the authors the stratigraphic attribution of a hoard of statues, found in the cella of level “Small Shrine (Nintu) V” has also to be corrected:

“In the excavation report, it is claimed that the deposit was sealed by the floor of level V and that a circular depression clearly visible in the photographs was due to a partial subsiding of the deposit fill caused by the weight of the unusual thick substructures of level VI. In reality, if we compare this with other deposits found in Diyala sites, this appears highly unlikely, and a far simpler explanation would be that it was a pit….that this deposit…was not buried earlier than the construction of the level VI temple”.304

Based on a possible shadow behind the “c” on the photograph of the cella, which could represent the pit in question,305 this interpretation is not impossible. But even then the objects from the pit could well belong to the time of Nintu V, buried when temple VI was build.

The authors add: “Another fragment of this [ votive plaque from Q 45:4 ], however, was found in the level V cella (313+325). Boese hesitatingly assigns this to Early Dynastic IIIa, (note 65) which means that the fragment from the earlier level was left there by activities connected with level VI, to which the plaque belonged, and that it continued to be used until level VII.”306

In this context it is astonishing to note, that the authors did not really include the votive plaque No. 201, Kh. III 1207 in their argumentation, which Boese had dated to ED IIIb, as mentioned above. They only note: “Plaque 201 has been assigned to level VII in P 45:51307 because it was found under rooms of the houses 2─1 that where located above that cella. A well─known plaque showing a god on a throne, stylistically from Early Dynastic IIIb (Frankfort 1943, pl. 64:315), comes from an area outside the sanctuary complex and cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration here.”308 Boese, by the way, dated the latter votive plaque to the “2. Übergangszeit”.309

Summing up the authors state310 that ED IIIa is represented in the Diyala by “Šamuš (Sin) IX:1”, “Small Shrine (Nintu) VI”311 and perhaps also V and “Šamuš (Sin) VIII” and Abu, Square Temple III and perhaps Single Shrine I:1. To ED IIIb they attribute “Small Shrine (Nintu) VII”, “Šamuš (Sin) IX:5 and X” and Shara Temple, latest occupation.312

The Temple Oval is excluded from the analysis “insofar as its exceedingly shallow stratification does not, generally speaking, furnish reliable context. (Note 319). Temple Oval I, which the excavators maintain was founded in Early Dynastic II, actually dates, without doubt, to Early Dynastic IIIa (and, on the basis of stratigraphy, it is likely that it lived on until the early part of IIIb), while Level II reaches the threshold of the Akkadian period, to which level III dates entirely (note 320).”313 As to the authors Single Shrine I:2─3 would also be of ED IIIb date.314

In how far a shallow stratification, which, as to the authors does not give any reliable context, can give beyond all doubt secure dates for building levels of the Temple Oval remains opaque.

A temporarily final statement on the comparative stratigraphy of the Diyala sites was given by Gibson on a conference held at Heidelberg, January 22nd─24th 2009, published in 2011, were he gave more detailed information than in his article in 1982.315

Concerning Tell Asmar, one can note: The seals from Houses Vc can all be dated to ED IIIa (sometimes even cut in an “older style”)316 with two exceptions: One seal had been dated by Strommenger to the Lugalanda style of the Moortgat School, already mentioned, and by Boehmer to “Akkadisch Ia/Sumerische Gruppe”.317 Another one, a God─Boat seal, was dated by Laird to the Late Early Dynastic period, later than ED IIIa.318 Furthermore, according to Gibson,319 an unpublished sealing from Houses Vb can be compared to an Akkadian sealing from Houses IVb320, Another seal from Houses Vb, as to Laird, is “probably the earliest in the series of linear Akkadian seals”.321 The remaining seals all date to ED IIIa; one belongs to Boehmer’s Diyala school.322

Concerning the Earlier Northern Palace, Gibson published „one decidedly Akkadian seal impression”323 from this building as well as sealing fragments with a Hydra motive “from Houses contemporary with the Earlier Northern Palace”,324 which also can be attributed to the Early Akkadian period. According to Gibson the Earlier Northern Palace and adjacent Houses were probably established in ED IIIb and lasted to the Early Akkadian period.325 Moreover, Laird has dated a God─Boat seal from this building to the Early Akkadian period.326 The remaining seals are not later than ED IIIa.

Interesting is the chronological shift of Single Shrine I in Gibson’s contributions from 1982 and 2011. In the former work it was associated with a question mark to Houses Va and Vb and the Earlier Northern Palace, perhaps being founded in ED IIIb.327 In 2011 Gibson parallels the Single Shrine I to the Northern Palace, Main Level with a question mark for the Early Akkad period and the Earlier Northern Palace.328 The latter attribution makes sense in regard to the absolute height of the levels. Single Shrine I begins at an absolute level, where the Earlier Northern Palace was leveled and the Main Level of the Northern Palace erected. The traditional equation of Single Shrine II with the Main Level of the Northern palace, as proposed by Delougaz – Lloyd,329 is not without problems as Tunca has shown.330 As to him there is no convincing stratigraphic correlation between the Abu Temple and the two palaces.

On the other hand, if one would take only the absolute height from both sequences, as published by Frankfort,331 the Earlier Northern Palace would be on almost equal height as the Square Temples, which is an impossible correlation, due to the finds in both buildings. The correlation between Single Shrine II and the Northern Palace, Main Level was based on the occurrence of rectangular bricks. That there were severe differences in the absolute levels of both buildings had also been recognized by the excavators, noting:

“..but also we imagine that the temple [ Single Shrine II R.D. ] may originally have been built upon a small artificial hill, for its floor level is more than a meter higher than that of the contemporaneous palace [ i.e. the Northern Palace. R.D. ].332 The “hill” in question were the underlying substantial remains of Single Shrine I, which had not been excavated then.333

In regard to Khafagah, the Temple Oval I, founded in the Early Dynastic II period and coming to an end by the fire which destroyed Houses 3 and parts of Sin X,334 important finds come from the later levels:

Only one seal from Temple Oval II can possibly be dated later than ED IIIa.335 A small stela from Oval III has to be dated just before Eannatum of Lagaš.336

A mace head, associated by Jacobsen with Lumma, the second name of Eannatum, was found in M 44:5, in Oval III, but alternative readings, like Śar─ma─ì─lum are also possible (Fig. 23).337 Concerning stone vessel fragments with inscriptions of Rimuš, king of Agade, the excavator stated:338

“However, remains of flat bricks just above the remaining brickwork of the late gateway (cf. Fig. 97), the general stratigraphy of the site, and a few fragmentary inscriptions, especially that on the mace head, which may be dated to Eannatum (see pp. 148f.), helped to assign these remains to the latest part of the Early Dynastic period. Inscriptions of Rimuš on fragments of bowls (see pp. 149f.) give, perhaps, some ground to assume that this monumental building was finally destroyed during the period of conflict preceding the Akkadian conquest of the region” and further “these fragments were discovered in the layer of potsherds and flat baked bricks which extend through K 44─45 and L 45, overlying the gate. The latter is therefore pre─Sargonic”339

The excavators refer inter alia to the Rimuš inscription fragment Kh. II 94, from K 45: 2, top layer,340 according to Delougaz this refers to Oval III.341 Gibson, on the other hand, attributes the find to „the end of the life of Oval II, presumably right under Oval III“ and further “I would argue that the Rimuš inscription should have been seen as a terminus post quem for Oval III.”342

Gibson’s date is obviously based on the Locus number which he erroneously (?) connects with the end of Oval II. But one should note that in the final publication the Locus was associated on a plan with the „third occupation“ of Oval I, and, as stated above, Delougaz dated this locus in the find register to Oval III.343 Even if it is true, that Locus nos. were given only once in the excavations, a lot of exceptions to this rule exist.344

Another Rimuš inscription on a stone vase is Kh. II 104,345 said coming from the same find spot as Kh. II 94.346 But Delougaz and Jacobsen both quote J 45:2 as find spot.347 Another fragment of an inscription, Kh. I 381, comes from K 45 in Oval III,348 and an inscription, mentioning Naram Sin, Kh. II 79, comes also from K 45 in Oval III349 – as well as another Akkadian inscription, Kh. II 162.350

Concerning the Houses, a level with architecture between Houses 2 and the ash layer existed.351 The latter covered also the ruins of Temple Oval I, at least in part.352 Seals from this intermediate layer all date to ED IIIa; one belongs to Boehmer’s Diyala School, which following Laird might be Late ED III.353

More interesting are seals from Houses 2, which at least in three cases have parallels in the Ash Pit of Abu Salabikh, of ED IIIb─date.354 From Houses 1355 such seals are also reported, as well as one of “Lugalanda style” according to Strommenger,356 also present in Asmar, Houses Vc, as mentioned above.

The occurrence of this style group is interesting in regard to the thesis, that Sargon started his reign obviously earlier in the north than in the south as discussed by Bahrani, Huh and McMahon for example, and more recently convincingly demonstrated by Sallaberger and Schrahkamp.357

The Akkadian Foundations at the northern end of Mound A at Khafagah, northeast of sounding G, are also of interest, even though the record of finds is insufficient. Cut in underlying thinner walls of plano─convex type, foundations of a large structure, built of flat bricks was found. Floors, belonging to this building were not preserved anymore, but a least one grave (No. 162) gave an Akkadian I(c) seal according to Boehmer’s scheme. But it should kept in mind that the reign of Sargon is not attested by inscriptions at our sites so far.358 From E 29:3 five tablets are reported, which could be older than the Akkad period or overlap with its beginning.359 This layer of thin walls was most of the times cut by the thick foundation walls, but the thinner walls were obviously also somehow integrated into the Akkadian Foundations complex.360 The seals from these foundations and the underlying thinner walls date mostly to ED IIIa.361 One seal, from within the building (?), has been dated by Laird to Late Early Dynastic III (later than ED IIIa).362 Other seals date to the beginning of the Akkadian period.363

Summing up: The discussion clearly demonstrates that still a lot of work has to be done in order to elucidate the Early Dynastic period (and not only in respect to its internal chronology). The present spotlight, however, focuses only on the end of the Early Dynastic sequence on Early Dynastic IIIa to the Akkad period.364 Moreover, being convinced that the rigid chronological system of clearly separated “periods”, proposed by Frankfort and his colleagues does not really fit the cultural sequence of the finds within, I use a more slender system with phases,365 based on Evans work on what has been commonly called Early Dynastic I─IIIa, and extending to the later phases in respect to Gibson’s recent work, which I tried to complement. I will not follow here any linear understanding of the development of sculpture or other finds, since Evans has demonstrated that formerly separated styles, supposed to have developed from a more schematic/geometric style into a more realistic/naturalistic one, occurred for a long time side by side not only in the Diyala.366

To believe that a stylistic “development” or “evidence” or “traits” from objects from the Royal Cemetery at Ur can be transferred one to one to sculptures of the Diyala or to other parts of “Greater Mesopotamia”, ignoring all accompanying finds, neglects the strong regional character of the Early Dynastic city─states. Shifting the whole or parts of the Royal Cemetery at Ur to ED IIIb might be correct367 for Ur, but using “style” like a uni─linear typological system is daring. Furthermore, whatever seriation or approach is used to date these graves in Ur, it will give an internal development of these graves and the labels attached to them might sound original but in fact are only arbitrary and without any deeper cultural implication.

I favor a somewhat holistic approach, combining seals, sculpture, votive plaques and stratigraphy.368 The different find groups should be defined on their own rights, then combined according to their find spots. To date objects solely on biased assumptions and definitions is quite fruitless, the dynamics and variability of regional, cultural and historical developments are too complex. Moreover, the seals of the Early Dynastic period should be more classified according to precise and narrow defined style─ and theme─groups in the future. Perhaps even workshops could be identified. The contest scenes might be useful in this regard.

This spotlight has further no intention to deal with the ED─Akkadian Transition in an interregional perspective, but focuses strictly on the three Diyala sites, excavated by Frankfort’s team.

In my understanding of the Diyala sequence, what is called here Phase F combines finds of at least “ED IIIa, IIIb” and Early Akkadian date, covering the period from about or shortly after Urnanše of Lagaš to Sargon and probably Rimuš,369 who could also mark the beginning of the next phase G, which covers the later Akkadian Period.370

Archaeology is telling stories. The more protagonists act, the more complex is the story.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 5

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 6

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 7

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 8

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 9

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 11

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 12

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 13

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 14

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 15

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 16

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 18

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 19

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 20

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 21

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 22

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 23

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 45

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 25

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 26

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 27

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 28

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 29

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 30

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 31

9. from the Uruk─ to the older Part of the Early Dynastic Period (A Quick one)

The turn of the 4th to the 3rd millennium BC. was a troubled period and not easy to live. Conflicts became increasingly common.371 A radical transformation of the ecologic system further determined the whole scenario. At the same time the turn from the Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr tributary system to a web of Oikos─akin households in the first half of the Early Dynastic period laid the foundation for the whole socioeconomic structure of Babylonia for the next centuries to come.

In the following I will try to give a short overview of some basic trends:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The chronological system used here (Dittmann 2013 and Dittmann n.d. No 8).

This essay will try to cover the time span from the Early Dynastic A─ to the beginning of the D─Phase.

Any work on the early part of the Early Dynastic period is hampered by the lack of any real historical data. All we have are much later recensions of the so-called Sumerian King List, were one ruler follows another in relation to one city state, giving the impression that Mesopotamia was always ruled by only one dynasty. Up to now, the earliest version of this list was dated to the Isin─Larsa period.372 This date fitted perfectly to a political situation of two political entities struggling for supremacy. But, in recent years a fragment was found dating back to the Ur III period, which thwarted this nice hypothesis.373

By consequence from official sources no written, essential information about the earlier part of the period is given.374 Therefore, any insight in historical processes has to relay back on archeological sources, which are always open to the wildest speculations. For instance, initially the Uruk culture gave the wrong impression of a kind of pious, religious state. This assumption has today somehow changed (exaggerated ?) to the contrary: "From paradise to hell."

This drastically overthrow is the result of a continuing study and deeper analysis of the imagery of the glyptic motifs375 and the ongoing analysis of thousands of economic Archaic texts.376 The rendering of scenes of violence and brutality in the Uruk imagery is significant, if compared to images of the Early Dynastic period, where such scenes are very rare – possibly because the ruling elite wanted to consolidate their power.377

Fortunate for the Uruk period, we have other sources, complementary to the imagery, which give an insight in the Uruk system: The Archaic economic texts. They show that the Uruk society was extremely hierarchical structured. The majority of working procesess followed rigid rules and possible results were fixed and at the end of work compared with each other. We do not know what were the personal consequences, if the difference of what had been achieved and what has been expected was too big, but the system as such, which worked also in modern states, always had a bundle of negative sanctions at hand. That this happened in the Uruk period too, is plausible by the so-called "Musterungstexts" which list large numbers of personnel who took flight from the working conditions, and places378, what would be a plausible reaction of the workers in view of the imagery of the time.

Concerning the origin of the Archaic tablets, Nissen has always put an emphasis on the fact that they were not original to the precinct of Eanna or at least, tertiary trash. They do not belong where they have been found, they could come from everywhere!.379 If Eanna would not be at the origin of the tablets, this would have a profound influence of our understanding of early socioeconomic development in Babylonia.

"Therefore, also buildings cannot be identified on behalf of these tablets. Nevertheless certain tablets had an exclusive attachment to only one (unlocated) building or unit and therefore to one scribe per unit. Since the tablets didn't move, there would have been no need to note more than nouns and numerals and summations. To name the institution they belonged too, were needless and were expressed perhaps by the motifs of the sealings. The scribe responsible for this exclusive institutional unit, knew what he was talking about…

…after the Archaic period a mass of signs did not show up anymore and slowly grammatical elements occurred on the tablets as well as building names and the like. To me a clear sign of a changing pattern of the administration towards more complexity. A scribe had now more than one specific function and more than one scribe was involved in the administrative process of more than one institutional unit. That exactly is the moment for a further development of the script caused by a need for communication between the scribes. Since the system had also to be understood in external relations, it had to be simplified, ─ that is exactly what happened. If Nissen is correct (see above) then these tablets could reflect somehow more 'private' actions. But do the scales and numbers/quantities of items mentioned on the tablets really support this idea?"380

The notion of an opposition of private and public households is modern and problematic for this early period, because the so-called 'private' households depended and were embedded as economic units in larger institutions. Households can be understood as dendritic structured elements of an economic patchwork akin system. In this scheme household x would together with household y (or alone) take for example care of the husbandry of a centre. Other households would control other domains, as each group of households would be controlled by a superordinate institution/larger household.

Since there is no real historic framework given, all we have are only two archaeological systems for subdividing the Early Dynastic period. One, that of Henri Frankfort and his staff, is completely based on a succession of layers of three sites in the Diyala region: Tell Asmar, Tell Agrab and Khafadgah, excavated in the thirties of the last century on behalf of the Oriental Institute Chicago.

The second system, developed by Anton Moortgat, is even more problematic, since it deals exclusively with a highly subjective (linear) stylistic ordering of the material. This recourse on archaeological and art historian's methods is due to the very thin historical tradition of the region.381 I follow a kind of corrected sequence by J. Evans of the Diyala system.382

Already in the Ğamdat Nasr period former swampy areas in the alluvium started to desiccate.383 Former well-watered areas became now increasingly deserted. The remaining bigger streams or natural channels started to cut deeper into the ground, so that their use for irrigation of the neighboring fields became increasingly difficult if not impossible. During this period the Euphrates as well as the Tigris was meandering through the alluvium.384 Because of the effects of the changing hydraulic conditions, small villages had to be abandoned and their inhabitants were integrated into the centers.

In the alluvial plain between Euphrates and Tigris the remaining bigger sites were arranged like pearls on a chain, at reasonable distances, often partly in accordance with Christaller’s settlement system theory.385

Some political entities, like Elam, could integrate different settlement systems: A Central Place or K7 ─ akin System at Susa and a Dendritic one around ancient Anshan (modern Tall-e Malyan) coexisted. Nevertheless, these centers survived for centuries. Moreover, Susa had the advantage to have a second root, i.e. the necropolis of the ancestors of Elam. As far as we know is Susa the only place where a large and rich necropolis was at the origin of a monumental high terrace, the fundament of the later Ziqqurrat.386 A quite similar case could perhaps be found at Uruk/Kullaba, where a cenotaph? (“Steingebäude”), of earlier Uruk date, was placed next to ─ and was later partly covered by the Anu─Ziqqurrat. What are interesting with these structures, there are signs of a temporary removable coverage.387 Such a system existed also at the “Construction Inférieure” at Girsu and at Mound V of Bismaya/Adab (Earlier Temple) as well. With some probability, these structures were part of a cult, perhaps for a protagonist, thought to be absent months of the year. This could perhaps be part of a Dumuzi cult? That Girsu and Uruk/Inanna had good relations would fit.388

In Babylonia the centers were initially structured by inner partition walls. The idea is that every inner center walled zone reflects an old village community. This phenomenon is known from Uruk and Abu Salabikh.389

This neighborhood of conglomerates of former pristine villages had an enormous potential of conflict. Therefore, at certain points of increasingly struggle, and complex forms of institutionalized conflict, a management ("Schiedsinstanzen") was needed to keep the civil order.390 Recalling that the involved villages had specific traditions and modi operandi, this process surely took some time. Anyhow, the former village specific institutions (in the large sense of the word) must have been given up or integrated in order to satisfy the needs of all groups involved. A la longue these processes leaded to so-called codices like the much later Codex Urnamma or Hammurapi. Both are in fact not much more than a collection of traditional judgements and no real body of laws in our modern understanding. Nevertheless, they reflect the old traditional consciousness of what was considered as right or wrong. This consciousness manifested itself up to the Late Uruk period, but was in fact even older. Regarding the number of the inhabitants of Uruk some rules must have existed; more than 30.000─80.000 people391 can’t live together without rules. The existence of certain forms of juridical acts is traceable at least up to the Middle Uruk (Late Chalcolithic 4) period, in the archaeological record. Juridical guarantees existed, for example, in form of hollow balls, filled with calculi, and the whole then covered with sealings. Such guarantees were only possible by the contemporaneous emergence of cylinder seals serving as a kind of modern identity card. Later on protocols of judgement document a highly developed judiciary.392

On the socioeconomic level, longtime the concept of a 'Temple economy' (“Tempelwirtschaft) was en vogue. The idea was, that all the land of a city state should belong to the city god; the EN (the 'Priest Lord" = city ruler393 ) functioned as representative of the gods. All the income would go to the storage units of the central institutions and then be redistributed to the people. In the so-called 'Reformtexts' of UruKAgina (a very late Early Dynastic ruler of Girsu/Lagaš) this 'old order' should be reapplied (to the profit of the leader's family. In fact the return to such conditions would have been a big step backwards, because private property of land existed already in the Ğamdat Nasr period, when the god owned the highest percentage of the fields and the EN had at least a high percentage.394 (Needless to say, that UruKAgina was an ursupator); but, it should be clear, that my short remarks cover only a small part of the problem.395

The Early Dynastic period was also a time when the larger centers were fortified. Believing in the local tradition, the city wall of Uruk was erected not before the reign of Gilgamesh,396 a statement which must be modified since the excavation at Tell Sheikh Hassan showed that city walls were at least since the Middle period in use.397

We don’t know anything about the organization of such a titanic task: The city wall of Uruk measured about 9 km length to 5 m width.398 To build such a structure, a very high level of planning and logistics is needed as well as the supply of enough food and water for the workmen. In Eanna existed large scale cooking facilities in the Ğamdat Nasr period, in the early days of the excavation misunderstood as installations for sacrifices.399 With some probability, a great area of an initial Early Dynastic settlement to the Northeast of Uruk, defines a camp400 of workmen needed for the construction of the city wall.

Taking the information from the Gilgamesh epic serious, then a Sumerian city consisted of one part of Living quarters; one part of palm gardens, one part of pits for the clay for bricks and one part of temple land and of official structures.401

Traditionally the Tripartite houses (“Mittelsalhäuser”) of Eanna and the Building B (White Temple) on top of the so-called Anu─Ziqqurrat were considered as temples. In more recent works they are understood as assembly points402 for the two big assemblies (council of the old and young men) which were involved in the decision finding processes of the city ruler.403 If this was really their function, then this system could have been in use and connected to Tripartite buildings at least from the Standard Ubaid (Ubaid 3) period on. As far as we know, Eanna had never buildings on high terraces, contrary to Kullaba ( Anu─Ziqqurrat) where this pattern had a long tradition.

The arrangement of such temples/assembly houses around small courtyards, as it is known up to Eanna IVb,404 is almost identical to a complex in the North, i.e. Tepe Gawra XIII of End Ubaid─date,405 where three Tripartite buildings of northern type were also arranged around a small courtyard. If we would be willing to accept for the settlement of Kullaba an Ubaid tradition and for Eanna a northern one, than the ubaidian one vanished in the Ğamdat Nasr period from his traditional place in Kullaba and shifted to Eanna, where both traditions now were united and persisted till the end of the city. Kullaba regained its place again, only within the Seleucid period, when a new official Ziqqurrat was placed here on a terrace as an appendix of the monumental bit reš.406 But of course this supposed development is pure fiction so far.

As a normal dwelling the old traditional ubaidian house type, the Tripartite building, in its pure form was given up. It was replaced by the Courtyard house (“Hofhaus”) and/or mixed with different Houses, as the ‘Accadian Foundation’ or the ‘Northern Palace’ in Tell Asmar show.407 A third type, the Barrier house ("Hürdenhaus"), also existed since the Ubaid period (Redau Sherqi).408

At first hand the differences and traditions in the architecture might sound trivial, but one must be aware that houses in the Ancient Near East weren’t for the people only shelters against climatic adversities, they had after all mystic─magic connotations.

To build a house one needed highly complex rituals to guarantee a peaceful life later on.409 The plan of the houses showed clear limits of growth, but already in the later Ubaid period, such houses were enlarged by the addition of smaller ones like in Keth Qasim/Hamrin.410 Further, the plan of a house gives a certain range of possibilities to move within the structure, this is in direct connection to behavioral pattern.411

The increasing desertification led to an increase of small cattle (goats and sheep). pigs and cattle may be added. But not that much is known and what we know reflects the situation in and around Ur. Here the information about grain is extremely meager, but at least grains of hulled six row barley are attested. The data for subsistence have been collected by Charvát.412 Therefore, the organization of the Early Dynastic agriculture was not completely different compared to that of the earlier Uruk period. What existed already was a kind of three─field─crop─rotation, but the field units were smaller than in the Late Uruk period. In both periods wool was most important as a resource for clothes, which Babylonia was famous for.

Compared with the late Uruk period the written documentation seems to have decreased in Early Dynastic times, but this surely is due to the hazards of excavation. On behalf of the typical lists, there is a continuity from the Late Uruk period onwards. This is true especially for the list of functionaries. Here figures on top of the hierarchy, at a place where on later tablets the king is mentioned, in the Late Uruk period a certain NAMEŠDA. But unfortunately today it is clear that this term doesn’t mean ‘king’. As to Charvát, this official might be the EN of Uruk, wearing the Net skirt.413 Whatsoever, he is connected to the city of Nippur and might play a certain role in the City league. The latter occurs on several seals from the Seal Impression Strata 4─5 in Ur. Here the names of the most important municipalities figure on seals. The oldest of such a seal dates to the Ğamdat Nasr period.414

These seals are in close relationship to storage units, which, with some probability, were of larger scale than before. The most famous of such institutions are of course the SIS 8─4 in Ur. As we know now, they are associated to a special institution belonging to Nannar, the Moon─ and city god.415 The seals in question seem to be quite a typical group at least of the (South?) Babylonian centers. Unfortunately, only in a couple of sites did we reach levels of this period. But nevertheless, for the older part of the Early Dynastic period one can enumerate quite a lot of style groups for the Diyala:

-Seals with the Flock and Shrine motif, designating neighborhood shrines occur from the Protoliterate period onward.416
-The same is true for Pigtailed Women seals, which are elsewhere attested already in the Uruk period, but start in the Diyala region only in Early Dynastic B (─C─F).
-Piedmont Ğamdat Nasr seals and Glazed Steatite seals started already in the Protoliterate period, but had their peak in early Early Dynastic A and run via Early Dynastic B/C to E.417
-The Brokat style starts late in Early Dynastic A and continues to D.418
-Also in late Early Dynastic B emerge the first Contest Scenes.419
-A group with affinities to the SIS material from Ur, called in Fara "Early Dynastic II seals not present at Fara" overlap with the "Softly Carved style" seals, starting in Early Dynastic B.420 (─C)
-Fara Elegant seals also occur in small numbers in Early Dynastic B.421 (C─E)
-Cross Style seals are attested since Early Dynastic D.422

The Shara temple and the kind of "manorial farm" of the site of Ğamdat Nasr might be structurally similar, but of course the evidence in the Diyala is hard to compare to Babylonian sites. The structure from Ğamdat Nasr being “most likely a subsidiary production facility and a relay station, as evidenced by various administrative (tablets) and archaeological finds, for conveying goods from one surrounding site to a more central location, and vice―versa”.423 The number of original seals increased drastically, but the few tablets we have from the Diyala are not sealed with naturalistic seals like on the site of Ğamdat Nasr, were almost exclusively original schematic seals occur.

Otherwise, we have the SIS ―material from Ur, which might give an insight in the administration of such a vast storage unit:

If we look at storage facilities one has to note:424 According to Matthews “of the 125 seal impressions published here 29, or 23%, are accompanied by a stamp impression.” As to him, the counter stamps (which in most cases have Rosette motifs with different numbers of leaves) were made by the same seal as the sealing “… given that both stamp and cylinder design belonged to the same seal, simply to indicate an increasing need for variety in the iconographic language of the seal impressions. The rosette motif, for example, may have indicated a general office or level of responsibility, while the accompanying cylinder designs more specifically designated particular officials."425 Charvát quotes an unpublished study by Zettler on the Nippur sealings, and mentions two sealings with Counter stamps occurring at Inanna Temple IXB; one is a door sealing. According to Scott of 765 SIS sealings analyzed, 274 were door pegs.426 Counter stamps made by stamp seals with a Lion Head motif427 (and not from a cylinder seal base) are also known from Abu Salabikh, from the Ash Tip of Early Dynastic F date. Martin and Matthews note, that such counter stamps on door seals are most common, especially within Contest Scenes seals. Geometric sealings, on the other hand, occur mostly on container sealings in the Ash Tip. The latter is considered to have come from outside the city to Abu Salabikh.428 "

A completely different storage pattern is found along the eastern border of Babylonia and parts of Assyria. Here round, concentric structured buildings429 are found at the beginning from EarlyDynastic A, sometimes they have air dried pithoi half buried in the earth, with sealings of cylinder seals on the backs or lid of the vessels. The original seals are not found in these Gubba─type storage facilities. But one can note that the same patterns of more than 100 seals have been found in the cells of the Sin Tempel in Khafagah. But of course none of the original seals of the neighborhood shrines in the Diyala correspond to the seals on the containers of Tell Gubba in the Hamrin region. Even if the seals of Khafagah do not match the sealings of Tell Gubba, the pattern is interesting. I am convinced that the corresponding shrine will be in the next vicinity of Gubba. The idea is, that these combinations of strongholds and storage facilities, which are typical for the East─Mesopotamian border, storage the gods of seminomadic tribes which oscillate between the alluvium and the highlands. Leaving their seals to the local gods as a guarantee. This pattern is only short living and the structures were than more used as relais─stations or the like until "Early Dynastic II".430 A round tower like structure was also found much earlier in Tepe Gawra of Endubaid.431 If there is any genuine relationship is not clear so far.

Having just discussed certain groups living on the eastern periphery of the Babylonian alluvium, one should also mention those parts of the population, hard to detect, who lived as a result of large scale irrigation systems, at the edges of the irrigable land and who had to switch ─ depending on the hydrological situation from a settled to a more mobile way of live.432 These parts of the population are archaeologically not always easy to detect.

Having dealed initially with some aspects of architecture, one has of course to mention a new building material, which is, in some respect, the hallmark of the Early Dynastic period. Why this strange formed building material entered the scene at that time is unclear. But if Nissen is right,433 that these bricks are quicker to handle than "normal" ones, than the large scale work of fortifying the larger settlements might be the reason of inventing this form of bricks. It should be noted that these bricks were longer in use than the duration of the Early Dynastic period.

That is the moment to come back to some remarks about chronology. Some influential archaeologist considered the Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr period as the peak of civilization and art.434

One of the major problems was, since early Early Dynastic levels were rarely excavated in Babylonia, the material of a peripheral territory, like the Diyala region, northeast of Baghdad, was considered as typical for the whole of Babylonia. "Early Dynastic I" was considered as chaotic. Moreover, since the Brokat style, the hallmark of the "Early Dynastic I" glyptic, dissolved its patterns to a maximum. Sealings of this group are not known till today and what further was ignored is the fact, that real originals of these seals are almost exclusively restricted to the Diyala region. When in these levels of "Early Dynastic I date" objects in a naturalistic style were found, they were at once understood as being out of context, being heirlooms of the Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr period.435 Accompanying finds, of a higher topological sensibility, than statues of stone, were ignored. The levels of the Diayala sites were than chronological arranged according to the presence of style groups: geometric sculpture = Early Dynastic II and more naturalistic ones = Early Dynastic IIIa─b.

As mentioned above, Anton Moortgat developed in Berlin his own evolutionist sequence for the Diyala, based on stylistic considerations. Needless to say that his and Francfort's system, being based on building levels with associated finds, were incompatible. It is the merit of Jean Evans, turning back to the original excavation files, to put order in this chaos.436 As a first result, she could show, that what has been dated to Early Dynastic II was in fact Early Dynastic I.437 Further, the sculptures of both styles were sometimes mingled. The reason is: Once such an object had entered the temple, it could not leave it The sculptures were broken and the pieces recycled, which is clear from the evidence of the great Innana temple at Nippur. In the Diyala material this recombination of parts of different sculptures is not always visible, since the excavators restored the sculptures immediately, ignoring and rejecting parts which looked as if they would not fit perfectly.438 Further, as a result of the prejudice thinking, a whole bunch of decorated cups and stands has been pushed back to the Late Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr complex even though they are of initial Early Dynastic date.439 Evan's studies440 will and have already provoked bad commentaries, but as to me it sounds perfect.

The sculptures in the shrines represented the worshipper remaining in front of his god. In the early days of the Early Dynastic period the latter could still enter the cella and could libate in front of the deity. Later on, the sculptures where holding a beaker as a substitute. The believers had now to libate in the courtyard, where appropriate installations existed. The cella rested closed.441

Most of the gods had their special domain and they were organized infamily─like circles of divergent complexity.442 In the archaeological record Double Cellae seem to reflect such 'families'. They are attested in Sin VIII443 and NippurVIIB.444 In other words, at the time of the Fara texts, i.e. in Early Dynastic E in my terminology, this is the time when the first divine lists are attested.445 That means the theological order was now also reflected in the architecture, an important step towards an integrated theological system.

Coming to an end: Contrary to some people's belief, the initial Early Dynastic period was not a time of chaos and slow dissolving styles, but a period of intensive search for new forms in all sectors of life ─ and therefore one of the most fascinating phases of Near Eastern Culture

10 Materials for an Alternative Reading of the Sequence of the Excavations of the Fu-Berlin at Assur, Campaigns 1988-89

Part I: I’m fixing a Hole

10.1.0 Introduction

After the campaign 1989 our work at Assur ended, and after only two campaigns, the final publication was initiated, in the hope to publish the results as soon as possible. Two dissertations resulted from our work.446

As was to be expected, there are as many readings of the stratigraphy as there are readers; obviously we deal with several texts in one. Since Beuger has published recently more substantial data, I take the opportunity to present my personal readings of two problems, just as an alternative. Those who like such kind of Mind Games might follow me, the others can skip the text to the garbage.

10.1.1 Level "IIb4" and the Date of Pithos Grave B 1

Before discussing the Grave B 1 in detail, I will give a short overview of the stratigraphy, beginning with Level I to IIb3. In order to avoid any confusion with the original preliminary report, the old period designation will be used.

For those who assisted in the excavation, there was never a doubt that the sequence, we had exposed in what had been called "Andrae’s Schnitt (AS)", was not continuous, but that there was a gap. Contrary to Larsen, later working on the stratigraphy, who had the vision of an uninterrupted sequence. Beuger, working on the pottery, had a critical feeling447 about this reconstructed stratigraphy, but used it with only little systematic alterations or consequences.448

Especially, what in the original report was labelled Pithos-Grave B1, had been attributed by Larsen to a level IIb4,449 a designation, we originally did not use, and which, as to my understanding, provokes completely wrong associations.450

In the following I will come back essentially to the original report of the campaign 1988 as it is available in German at www. academia.edu but without commentary.451 Hopefully this short article will be helpful in this regard.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1a Excavation from the West, In the back the Sherqati-Cemetery.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1b Location of areas A-F and AS = 7I

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1c Plan of excavation trenches

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 2 Level I Our excavation integrated "Suchschnitt 7I" of Andrae (cf. Fig. 1a-c and 2). About 800 m[2] in total were excavated at different levels.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3a-b CTS complete Northern Section (a) and Eastern Segment (b),

The section, Fig. 3b, represents only the relevant part for the discussion here, of what has been called Andrae’s Schnitt-East (AS-O).452

- To Level Ia-b (Fig. 2 and 3b) belong the running horizons BGF 01-02
- To Level IIa, Floor FB 01 (Fig. 3b)
- To IIb1, Floor FB 02 (Fig. 4)
- Level IIb2 is the first new excavated layer in area AS, together with Floor FB 01. (Fig.5).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 4a Levels IIa to IIb1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 4bPart of Level IIa reconstructed

Levels I-IIb1 had already been excavated by Andrae. Parts of IIa and IIb1 could also be traced in the deep sounding, called CTS (cf. Fig.1b).453 In area AS-W454 (hatched zone over Floor FB 01) the destruction was visible by masses of ash leaning on wall M4 and the secondary burnt bricks.In area D, in the southern part of AS, level IIa (Fig. 4) Is separated from level I by a severe conflagration. With some probability this represented the deadliest attack of the Medes in 614 BC, also witnessed by two skeletons, lying on the floor in area F, Level IIa1.455 Moreover, in area D, the debris is camoufling a kind of intermediate level, which could not be properly excavated (and which might date to the Post-Assyrian period, (Level IIa0).456

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 5aLevel IIb2

Level IIb2 cf. Fig. 5a

Was also the victim of a massive conflagration. The walls were heavily secondary burned, also in Area D. This level is preceded by Level IIb3 with Floor, FB 02.

Level IIb3 cf. Figs. 5b-c

In this phase the complex in AS and area D was less monumental than in IIb2, because M 11. 13. 15 and a wall directly north and lying parallel to M 18, as well as M.M4/4' were not existing in this phase (Fig. 5a, for IIb2). East of M 1c and M 3b, in AS-O, part of a stone wall (niche?) was destroyed by a wadi running through AS FB 02 of IIb3 in Rl (in AS-O), a floor of bitumen. In CTS an entry marked by stones can be recognized, which makes a northern, unexcavated wall of Room 2 in Area A possible.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 5b-c Level IIb3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 6 Level IIb

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 7 Levels IIIa – IIb. Unit IIb3-IIIa (“IIb4”), Pithos Grave B1 and the material of Level IIb3

The next, deeper unit IIb3-IIIa is of crucial importance for the understanding of the sequence in AS. The complex in AS, D and AS-W/CTS, mentioned so far, was only built in Level IIb3. In AS-O the large walls M 2b and M 1b were built directly on the Floor FB 03. Walls M4/4’ were built later, on floor FB 02 of Level IIb3. The complex in area D was not built immediately on IIIa1, but as a test-trench (TS in Fig. 5b) in R4 along the wall of M 11 showed, it rested obviously on a large pit (s?), residues of feces (?) of the Middle - Assyrian date.457

As already mentioned, the Pithos-Burial B1458 (Fig. 3b and 8) was sandwiched between Floor FB 02 of IIb3 and Floor FB 04 of IIIa. Obviously, once belonging to this grave are the pottery finds illustrated in Fig. 9. The vessels (fragments) on Fig. 10 show the pottery of pit G5 surrounding burial B1.

Sometimes before Floor FB 02 was laid out, the grave was robbed. Sherds from the grave were found just under FB 02 - see Fig. 11-12. Especially two sherds (only one figures here, Fig. 12.A.12)459 point to B1, were a complete vessel of this kind was found (here: Fig. 9. A.4; 18.1;460 see also here note 22). Therefore, B1 must have included once with some probability two vessels of this kind. According to the size of the pithos, Pithos-Grave B1 can only be compared to "Topfgrab 32"of the old excavations at Assur, the only grave of this type with an adult.461

The pithos of grave B1 is bigger than the one of "Topfgrab 32" (= Height 60 cm; max. Diameter 45 cm; unfortunately for B1 exact data are not given in Beugers’ catalogue), and it was also surely used for an adult, as far as the few almost intact bones illustrate. Coming to the pottery from B1, one can note, that it has excellent comparanda in Tell Jessari (Sadam Damm), in Mari, Middle Bronze II,462 and in the old excavation at Assur, inter alia in "Grab 53" (former “Gruft 21”),463 of Old Assyrian-date. Good parallels for the painted Khabur-Ware of the grave are also found in Dinkha Tepe, Phases C-D, dating to the 17. century BC.464 Up to now Khabur-Ware of this kind starts with Šamaši-Adad I of Assyria, and the younger Karum-Phase in Central Anatolia).465 On the other hand, the pottery of Floor 02 of IIb3 has been dated by Beuger, to the time after Tiglatpilesar I/Assurbelkala, what is impossible.466 Pfälzner, on the other hand, dated IIb3 to the time after Tukulti-Ninurta I and just before Tiglatpilesar I, the latter who is undoubtedly connected to level IIb2! Pfälzner (who is followed here) places Assur IIb3 after Level 5 in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, area A and before the younger phase of the Temple in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta/Tell O, which is only a brief span. Level IIb2 he equated with his Middle Assyrian III-Phase (See Figs 13-23 for the pottery of IIb3 and Tab.1 for a Synopsis).467

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 8 Phitos from Burial B1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 15 Pottery of IIb3

A 1, 18.13, IT Taf. 60,26→- D2-C B 4, 36.14

2. 36.04 5, 36.33

3, 21.09

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 18 Pottery of IIb3

A. 1, 56.01 B 5, .62.18, IT -Taf.09.14 -G

2, 56.026,63.04b

3, 56.037,57.06

4, 57.098, 66.06

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 19 CTS Pottery of IIb3

1, 62.03, IT Taf. 21.24; 22.09 -D→ 2. 70.40 3. 63.11b 4, 71.02, IT Taf. -F+E 5, 70.02 6, 77.20 7, 70.23 8, 69.11, IT Taf. 27.08 D2-C, 9, 73.01, IT Taf. 26.05 D2-C, KTN 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 20 CTS Pottery of IIb3

A 1, 71.03b, IT Taf. 19.06; 21.01 G-F B 5, 77.11 IIa0

2, 71.28 – IIa0 6, 80.09, IT Taf. 37.07 D2-C

3, 77.03 7, 101.5a Iiba

4, 81.03- IIa0 8, 73.17b Mass

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 21 CTS Pottery of IIb3

1, 81.06 – IIa0? 2, 101.11 – IIa1/IIb1 3, 101.24 4, 103,04 5, 107.05 LB 6. 116.09

7, 102.05 – IIa0? 8, 109.03 – IIa0? 9, 116.12 10, 117.01, 11, 118.09 12, 118.01

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 22 CTS Pottery of IIb3

1, 103.03 2, 118.18 3, 118.26 4, 88.08

So what happened? Before erecting the complex of IIb3, parts of the building(s) of a late sub-phase of Level III, which is now not preserved any more, had been razed, and a Pithos Burial which was sunk into the area of former R1 in IIIa1 was found (stage IIb4a on Tab. 1).468 Before erecting the complex of IIb, this part was also razed469 and Grave B1 opened and robbed out (IIb4b). The pottery of the grave goods was thrown out of the burial, and finally, the whole was sealed by Floor FB 02 of IIb3. And that is also the reason, why no Grave pit was recognizable in Floor FB 02.470 I thought earlier, that the gap was not very long, since the brick sizes of M 22 and M 24 are very close to the later ones of M7.471 But, as discussed before, Grave B1 (of about 17. Century BC-date) cannot have been sunk from Level IIb3 (of late 12. Century BC.) or even IIb2! Therefore, as a perhaps shocking result, there must be a gap in our sequence between B1 and IIb3, covering almost 500 years, i.e the Mitanni period and the age of Tukulti-ninurta I!472

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Part II Would You Still Need Me, Would You Still Feed Me, When I'm 64? -- Or the Older, the Better?

10.2.0 Introduction

For a long time I wanted to make some comments on the "reconstructed" stratigraphy of our excavations at Assur in 1988 and 1989. A first critique was given in part 1. The discussion in the first part led to the following, corrected sequence, showing that there is a gap, covering the Mitanni- up to the Middle Assyrian period, including the era of Tukulti-Ninurta I at least (Tab. 1).473

The sequence as established in 1989, was truly somehow simple, but essentially correct. Nevertheless, it was the merit of Larsen and Beuger, who worked after the excavation on the material, to have made last important corrections and suggestions to the whole construct.

That I was not enthusiastic about the work at Assur, particularly in view of the little time available in relation to the complex stratigraphy, has already been mentioned elsewhere.474 In this small second part I would like to make a short comment on the extremely long time span, given to our sequence by Beuger. According to her construct, we would have excavated a succession of layers starting in Early-Akkadian times and ending with the destruction of Assur around 614 BC, not to speak of a possible post-Assyrian and the Arsakid/Parthian level.

First, one should recognize that we are dealing with a sequence of about 2.5 m with isolated levels of different nature. My intention is not to refer to the complete sequence in detail, but only to the earlier, pre-Neoassyrian periods.

10.2.2 The Date of Building 1 (Levels IIIolder c to IIIolder a), Buildings> 3-4 (Levels IIIyounger 2b-1) and Grave L 3168

The surface of the oldest level reached (not really excavated, only scraped) was called originally Level IIIc, than either IIIolder c (by Larsen), and finally IIIb5 (by Beuger).475 This is a surface (with the traces of an upper edge of a tenur (Fig. 24a-b) on which a possible domestic structure, called Building (Gebäude) No. 1, was erected (Figs. 25a-b), lasting, with alterations, at least for three phases.

It is followed by even more simpler remains, summarized under the label Building No. 3 (Fig. 7),476 which in turn has only two phases and was then levelled and razed as discussed in the 1. Part, as a foundation ground for a monumental structure, called Level II (Tab. 2 and section Fig. 3b, as well as Fig. 5a - level IIb2 and Figs. 4a-b - Level IIa). Larsen would date this later structure (Level IIb3) to the earlier level III, but Beuger and I agree on a much later, if not even Neo-Assyrian-date. According to

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 2. Sequence of CTS and AS according to Beuger

Pfälzner, at least a late Middle-Assyrian, post Tukulti Ninurta I-date, for the first phase of this building (IIb3), is plausible.477 Therefore, as discussed in the first part, a long gap, covering the Mitanni-Period, up to shortly after Tukulti Ninurta I, separates this monumental building from the above mentioned more domestic structures of Level III. So of the supposed long sequence, already about 5oo years can be cut off.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 23-24 CTS, Level IIIolder c/IIIb5, Building 1, according to Beuger of Early-Akkadian date

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten+Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 25a-b CTS, Level IIIolder b, Building 1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 26 CTS, Level IIIolder b, Building 1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 27 CTS, Level IIIolder a, Buildings 1+2, after

Turning to the date of the pottery of level III, - following the rule, that the youngest finds date the findspot, the following picture emerges:

Considering the pottery of Level IIIolder c (IIIb5), there is nothing, which would point to an exclusive Early-Akkadian date. Beuger refers to some sherds with good early parallels - but most of these are dated by the rest of the pottery of the findspots in question to the Post-Akkadian period(s). These sherds come mostly from later context, as in the case of Tell Brak and the other reference sites, used by Beuger (Tabs.3-6).478 Single sherds do not reflect an early date, but are heirlooms of deeper layers not excavated yet. Old sherds in younger layers are quite normal, but they do not date these layers where they have been found. As already mentioned, when excavating in CTS, we were convinced that our material would not date earlier than Late Ur III or the Isin Larsa Period. This impression is completely confirmed by the tabulations on Tabs. 3-6, I-X and Figs A-G (Levels IIIolder c and IIIolder b3/c and Figs. A-AU for the pottery of IIIolder c - IIIyounger 1).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Pottery from the contact zone of IIIolder b3/c is illustrated in Figs, E-G. The pottery of Building 1 with its subphases is rendered on Figs. H – P bis’’.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

With Level IIIolder b3 starts Building 1 which runs up to IIIolder a, when the partly decayed building was repaired and Building 2 (as to me nothing else than an extention of Building 1) was erected. The pottery of these phases is illustrated by Figs. H-R

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. H bis CTS IIIob3

1. 29.09, IIIob3; 2. 62.03, IIIob3; 3.34.06,IIIob3; 4. 62.15, IIIob3→ LAss.

5. 110.17,IIIob3-IIa; 6. 105.04,IIIob3-IIIoa/b1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.I Assur, CTS-Pottery IIIolder b2

1. 21.13, IIIo b2; 2. 49.1, IIIo b2; 3. 20.25 , IIIo b2→TSH I, Uruk, UrIII Spätbab; 4. 36.13, IIIo b2, Beuger 2013, Taf. 19, 9a. 10.14, IT F. D2-C; 5. 59.2, IIIob2, Beuger 2013, Taf. 28,06; IT D; 6. 31.5, IIIo b2, ; 7. 63.06, IIIo b2-IIIäa/IIIy2b, Beuger 2013, Taf. 22, 11. 9, IT E or D, D;

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.J Assur, CTS-Pottery IIIolder b2

1. 102.15, IIIo b2-IIa2; 2. 103.16, IIIo b2-IIIäa/IIIy2b; 3. 105.03, IIIo b2; Beuger 2013 Taf. 50,12, IT D2-C; 4. 73.10, IIIo b2, ca. Beuger 2013 Taf.29, 14, IT D2-C; 5. 100.11, IIIo b2-IIa0; 6. 100,35, IIIo b2-IIb1/ IIa2; 7. 101.23, IIIo b2-IIa1/IIb1; 8. 100.8, IIIo b2 – IIa0; 9. 106.2 IIIo b2-IIIy1; 10. 107.4, IIIo b2, Beuger 2013, Taf. 50,4-5, IT, D2-C.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1. 14.2a, IIIo b2; 2. 19.15, IIIo IIb -IIIäa/IIIy2b, Beuger 2013, Taf. 3, 4. 16,1, IT D2-C; 3. 15.4b, IIIo beuger 2013, Taf. 2. 5. 7, IT F. G→ Bi’a. Palace A; 4. 19.16, IIIo b2, Beuger 2013, Taf. 18, 1-2, IT D2-C ; 5. 18.20a, IIIo b2 -IIIäb1, Beuger 2013, Taf, 4, 3, IT D2-C; 6. 20.1, IIIo b2-IIa2/IIb1, → PA.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.K bis CTS Pottery of Level IIIo b2

1. 07.04; 2, 10.01 3. 20.07 4. 11.05 5. 11.11b 6. 13.02a 7. 25.06

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.K bis’ CTS IIIob2

1. 104.11 2. 107.26a 3. 107.11 4. 110.07 5. 113.02 6. 107.15 7. 116.18 8. 107.26a

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. L CTS-Pottery, IIIo b1

1. 4,9b, IIIo b1-IIa2; 2. 28.11, IIIo b1-IIa2/IIb1 →OB;479 3. 15.19d, IIIo b1-IIIoa/IIIyounger 2b; Beuger 2013, Taf. 3,13 IT D2-C? → TN I; 4. 15.2b ,III b1-IIIy2b → PA; 5. 18.2b, IIIo b1; Beuger 2013, Taf. 3,9-10 IT D2-C. D; 6. 20.2, IIIo b1; Beuger 2013, Taf. 5, 1-5. 7 IT D. D2-7!.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. M CTS-Pottery of IIIo b1

1. 32.5, IIIo b1; 2. 51.3, IIIo b1; 3. 51.4; IIIo b1-IIIoa; 4. 40.15, IIIo b1 - IIIoa/IIIy2; 5. 53.7, IIIo b1-IIIoä/IIIy2b → IL.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. N CTS-Pottery of IIIo b1

1. 60.11, IIIo b1; Pseudo handle Beuger 2013, Taf. 27, 2a-b. 63,13, IT E or F, F?; 2. 70.24a, IIIo b1; 3. 73.15, IIIo b1; 4. 63.7b, IIIo b1; 5. 70.30, IIIo b1 → IL-OB; 6. 72.15, IIIo b1+IIa1; Beuger 2013, Taf. 27, 10, IT D2-C; 7.75.1, IIIo b1 -IIIy2 (IIa).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. O Pottery of CTS IIIo b1

1. 75.1, III0 b1 -IIIy2a-b; 2. 100.9, IIIo b1-IIIy2a; 3. 100.39, IIIo b1; 4. 100.15, IIIo b2-IIa2/IIb1; 5. 100.21, IIIo b1-IIIy1; 6. 102.23, IIIo b1-IIa2; 7. 103.9, IIIo b1, Beuger 2013, Taf. 49,12, IT D2-C

Fig. P CTS-Pottery of IIIo b1

1. 105.25, IIIo b1-IIIo a/b; 2. 110.21, IIIo b1-IIb4; 3. 117.21,IIIo a/b, Beuger 2013, Taf. 58.6-9 IT D2-C, 3x D; 4. 112.9, IIIo b1; 5. 117.5, IIIo b1.

Fig. P bis CTS Pottery of IIIo b1

1. 15.02,IIIob3/c-IIIob1-IIa; Beuger 2013, Taf. 2, 2-3, IT G-F; 2. 20.26,IIIob1; 3, 18.21,IIIob1; 4. 16.07,IIIob1-IIIy2b; 5. 21.18,IIIob1; ca. Beuger 2013, Taf. 5, 19, IT D; 6. 70.30,IIIob1, Beuger 2013, Taf. 29, 8-9b, IT G-F.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.P bis’’ CTS Pottery of IIIo b1

1. 51.03,IIIob1; 2. 100.39,III0b1; 3. 73.15; Beuger 2013, Taf. 26, 2. 4-5, IT D2-C.4. 102.23,IIIob1; 5. 112.09,IIIob1.

The extension of Building 1, called Building 2, is represented by IIIolder a and the pottery is shown in Figs. Q – R.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten e

Fig.Q CTS-Pottery of IIIoa

1. 18.12, IIIoa, ca. Beuger 2013, Taf. 4,10; 5,19. 21 IT D2-C. D. D2-C; 2. 24.3, IIIoa, ca. Beuger 2013, Taf. 4,11, IT D2-C; 3. 24.06, IIIoa; 4. 36.23, IIIoa; 5. 41.16b, IIIoa-IIIy2a-b → IL; 6. 51.02, IIIoa.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. R CTS-Pottery of IIIoa

1. 55.18, IIIoa; 2.100.38, IIIoa -IIb3; 3. 68,3, IIIoa; 4. 101.12, IIIoa-IIa/IIb2; 5. 101.25, IIIoa; 6. 105.24, IIIoa-IIa2/IIb1; 7. 112.23, IIIoa-IIIy2b.

The pottery of levels IIIob3 to IIIolder a is quite homogeneous. This changes with the next stage.

With Levels IIIyounger 2b-1, Buildings 3-4 were erected, used, burnt down (IIIyouger 2a) and after a short afterlife at the beginning of IIIyounger 1, the area was levelled for the more monumental Architecture of Level IIb, being constructed directly on Floor 03. The pottery of Levels IIIyounger 2b to 1 is shown in Figs. S-AU:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. S CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2b

1. 0 2,05. IIIy2b →OB; 2,02,07, IIIy2b →OB;480 3. 03,16, IIIy2b; 4. 03,29, IIIy2-IIb2; Beuger 2,17 IT D2-C →OB-Mit; 5 . 04,26a, IIIy2b; Beuger 60,28 IT D2-C; 6. 05,06c, IIIy2b; 7. 10,18a, IIIy2b-IIb2/IIb3.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. T CTS IIIyounger 2b

1. 11,3b,IIIy2b-IIa2; 2. 11,6, IIIy2b; 3. 12.12a, IIIy2b-IIa2/IIb1 →MAss; 4. 14.4a-c, IIIy2b-IIa1; Beuger Taf. 4,11-15 IT E. 4x D2-C; 5. 15,2a, IIIy2b; 6. 22.10b, IIa2 →Mass.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. U CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2b

1. 16.01;IIIy2b; 2. 16.02;IIIy2b; 3. 30,5, IIIy2b; Beuger 4,15 IT D2-C; 4. 37.12, IIIy2b; 5, 39.01; 6, 19.03

. Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. V CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2b

1. 39.5, IIIy2b; 2. 39.13b, IIIy2b; 3. 39.14d, IIIy2b; 4. 40.5, IIIy2b-IIa2/IIb1; 5. 43.3b, IIIy2b-IIIy1 →OB-SBZ; 6. 45.6, IIIy2b

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. W CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2b

1. 55.23; 2. 54.21c, IIIy2b; Beuger 19,13-16. 61,21. 26-27. 31 IT F. 4xG. D → PA; 3. 73.19, IIIy2b; 4. 70.6; 5. 102.1, IIIy2 ; 6. 113.6, IIIy2b; 7. 61.25; 8. 58.24; 9. 59.11a

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. W bis CTS Pottery of IIIy2b

70.07;IIIy2b; 2, 70.33,IIIy2b; 3, 72.10,IIIy2b; 4, 117.14,IIIy2b; 5, 75.02,IIIy2b; 6, 111.21,IIIy2b.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. X CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2b

1. 113.10, IIIy2b ; 2. 118.17, IIIy2b.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten 7

Fig. Y CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2a

1. 11.10a,IIIy2a-b; 2. 15.15,IIIy2a; 3. 18.11,IIIy2a →aAss.; 4. 24.02,IIIy2b; 5. 22.06, IIIy2a; 6. 27.13,IIIy2a- IIa2/IIb1; 7. 29.04,IIIy2a→LOB-Mit.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. Z CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2a

1. 30,08, IIIy1 →BD III; 2. 31.11b; IIIy2a-IIa1; 3. 32.6; IIIy2a-IIa2; 4. 36.09, IIIy2a → LA; 5. 36.15, IIIya; 6. 36.18, IIIy2a →IL.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AA CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2a

1. 41.02, IIIy 2a; 2. 52.08, IIIy 2a-IIa1; 3. 54.15a, IIIy 2a; 4. 55.10b, IIIy 2a; Beuger 19,13-16; 61,21. 26-27. 31 IT F. G. 5. 55.14, IIIy 2a; 6. 55.10c, IIIy 2a; 7. 57.19, IIIy 2a-IIa2/IIb1; 8. 57.27, IIIy 2a-IIa2 →Ak.; 9. 64.04, IIIy 2a-IIa2/IIb1, Beuger 2012, Taf. 9,4 IT D2-C →MAss.; 10. 69.9a, IIIy 2a →IL-mAs; 11. 71.34, IIIy 2a-IIa0.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AB CTSPottery of IIIyounger 2a

1.05,04a, IIIy2a; 2. 74.06, IIIy2a; 3. 75,11, IIIy2a-IIa0; 4. 78.02,IIIy2a- IIa1/IIb1; 5. 06.08a,IIIy2a; 6. 06.09a,

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AC CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2a

1,01.02 2, 03.04a 3. 03.09 4. 04.01 5. 05.09a 6. 09.10a

7. 10.11c 8. 15.15

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AD CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 2a

1. 07.10a 2. 18.11 3. 22.06 4. 41.09 5. 08.02b

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AE CTS Pottery of Level IIIyounger 2a

1, 09.12 2, 41.12 3, 42.13 4. 43.03a 5. 43.10c 6. 57.22 7. 70.28 8. 103.19 9.104.17 10. 104.18 11, 105.09 12. 105.10 13. 112.07

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AF CTS Pottery of Level IIIy2a

1, 114.04b 2, 114.18 3. 114.22 4. 115.01,IIIy2a-IIa 5. 115.26

6. 116.04 7. 116.06 8. 116.07 9. 117.13 10. 119.09 11. 118.19

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AG TS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 1.18, IIIy1; 2. 3.06 IIIy1;. 3. 3.5, IIIy1; 4. 3.14, NAss.; 5. 3.17, IIIy1;

6. 4.26b, IIIy1; 7. 5.5a, IIIy1-IIa1→Lb; 8. 5.11, IIIy1; 9 . 6.01a;IIIy1; 10.

6.19: IIIy1; 11. 7.1b,IIIy1, cf. Tab.8; 12. 5.6a; IIIy1; 13. 7.12a,IIIy1; 14. 10.5, IIIy1→ MAss.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AH CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 10.10a, IIIy1; 2. 12.09, IIIy1; 3. 10.10a, IIIy1; 4. 12.01, IIIy1; 5. 10.18,

IIIy1; 6. 11.04, IIIy1-IIa2; 7. 11.07, IIIy1-IIa2/IIb1; 8. 8.12, IIIy1-IIa0 →LAss; 9. 18.02a, IIIy1 10. 19.05 IIIy1→MAss; 11. 19.09,IIIy1; 12. 10.03 IIIy1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AI CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 10.13, IIIy1 →MAss; 2. 10.05,IIIy1; 3. 18.19, IIIy1; 4. 19.17, IIIy1; 5. 23.2a, IIIy1; 6. 23.8a,IIIy1: 7, 08.12,IIIy2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AJ CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 23.13, IIIy1 →MAss; 2. 24.05, IIIy1; 3. 30.08,IIIy1; 4. 23.14b,IIIy2b-IIa0 ; 5. 29.07, IIIy1; 6. 30.08,IIIy1 →Bderi III.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AK CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

i. 33.01; Beuger 203, Taf. 5, 6-7 IT D. D2-C; 2. 36.01; 3. 38.03; 4. 33.09,IIIy1-IIa2/IIb1; 5. 39.14c,IIIy1; 6. 39,12a,IIIy1; Beuger 2013, Taf, 9, 14 IT G?; 7. 42.05,IIIy1,IIa2/IIb1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AL CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 54.19¸ Beuger 2013, Taf. 19.12 IT G; 2. 54.21a; Beuger 2013, Taf. 19,11a-b, IT D2-C; 3. 55.20; Beuger 2013, Taf. 19,19; 51, 28-29, IT D; 4. 57.05; 5. 57.22; 6. 58.08; 7. 60.07; 8. 62.08; 9. 70.15; 10; 70.19; Beuger 2013, Taf. 53, 1, IT D; 11. 71.07.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AM CTS-Pottey of IIIyounger 1

1. 71.13; 2. 73.12; 3. 74.07; 4. 76.17; 5. 75.03;

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AN CTS-Pottery IIIyounger 1

1. 73.16, IIIy1; 2. 79.10; 3. 85.05; 4. 97.04

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AO CTS Pottery of Level IIIy1

1,10.03,IIIy1→TSH IIb; 2, 10.13,IIIy1; 3, 10.18 (+23.09),IIIoa-IIIy1; 3bis, 23.08a,IIIy1-IIa2→TSH i-IIc; 4, 31.06,IIIy1; 5, 72,05,IIIy1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AP CTS Pottery of Level IIIy1

1, 71.23 2. 73.16 3. 51.07 4. 42.09 5. 92.06 6. 112.04 7. 112.11b 8. 118.20

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AQ CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 100.08; 2. 100,11; 3. 100.19; 4. 100.16; 5. 101.07; 6. 101.21; 7. 101. 23 ; 8. 102.07; 9. 102.15; 10. 106.21

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AR CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 106.21; 2. 106.23; 3. 107.06; 4. 107.28; 5 107.20; 6. 106.23; 7, 108,20 IIIy1-IIa2/IIb1 8; 108.24a.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AS CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1.108.27; 2. 109.12; 3. 109.18; 4. 109.29; 5. 110.7; 6. 110,25; 7. 112.04; 8. 112.10; 9. 112.11a-b.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AT CTS-Pottery of III younger 1

1. 112.20; 2. 112.22; 3. 114.04 4. 113.7.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. AU CTS-Pottery of IIIyounger 1

1. 116.17; 2. 118.20; 3. 117.19; 4. 118.24; 5. 118.25;

What strikes the eye immediately, is the radical change from larger to much smaller vessels in the IIIyounger-complex. Furthermore, the first plates occur in IIIyouger 2b and the running time of a lot of pottery types indicates a large amount of continuity to the first Millennium. Parallels to the older Ishtar Temple (IT) diminish to zero in IIIyounger 2b and IIIolder a.

The change in pottery types and dimensions of the vessels demonstrates that severe changes on behalf of food consumption, or at least its presentation occurred, a phenomenon which would need much more studies also in regard to Pfälzner’s functional analysis of Middle Assyrian pottery.481 It is always nice to remark changes, but what we need (good old functionalist) are explanations, not only descriptions.

In the following Tabs. 3-6 the material compares to other sites. Most references are from Beuger, but I tried to arrange them in a clearer way.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 3 Assur and Tell Brak

In ordering Beuger's references according to the stratigraphic scheme, provided by J. and D. Oates, it becomes clear that the mass of our material refers to Post-Akkadian and Isin Larsa-comparada.482

Tab. 4 Assur in relation to material of Uruk, Sinkashid Palace

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The material of the Sinkashid Palace covers our Levels IIIolder a to IIIyounger 2a(IIIyounger 1)

Tab. 5 Assur Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Only in regard to the Diyla the impression is not unequivocal, but this is due to the fact, that the "older" types have a long running time and comparanda are generally very few to Assur,

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 6 Assur in Relation to Tall Bia, Palace A483 Khabur Ware in CTS and AS

An important benchmark in the sequence could be the first occurrence of Khabur Ware.484

Tab.7 Khabur Ware in Assur 88-89

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 8 Occurrence of painted pottery in CTS485

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

This pottery, which was former believed to start only around the time of Samshi Adad,486 begins in our excavation in IIIolder b1/IIIolder a (Tab.5). Only a singular painted sherd comes from secure IIIolder b2-context,487 but is not necessarily Khabur Ware.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 28, Beuger 2005, Taf. 70,22 IIIolder c

This might be different with Fig. 28, coming from the lowest level IIIolder c. Typological it belongs to the Khabur I – Phase, as defined by Oguchi,488 dated from 1900 BC. Just to Shamshi Adad who marks the beginning of the Khabur Phase II. The proposed date for Period 1 as the earlier part of the 19th century would be in excellent harmony with most of our comparanda for CTS, Level IIIolder c and IIIolder b3/c.489

Concerning the Khabur-Phase 3, the “Bird”-Phase, we just have one sherd which belongs to this group (Fig. 33, 1). Unfortunately Larsen and Beugers opinion where this sherd has been found vary substantially.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 30 Building 8, IIb2-1 (Larsen) Fig. 29 Building 4, IIIyounger 1 (Beuger)

As to Larsen the grave L1368, where the painted sherd has been found, should be quite late. For Beuger the location is Building 4 and she dates the grave to IIIyounger 1, but gives no reasons for this provenience.

If one considers the East-Section of AS, Larsen would be right – see Fig. 31.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 31. E.-Section of AS.

But considering the pottery of the grave, it does not fit with the section, because it is exclusively of Level III-date. However, Beuger’s date of IIIyounger 1 would date this grave close to the pavement of IIb4 or just a bit earlier to IIIyounger 1. Anyhow, it is quite close in date to the Pithos-Grave B1, discussed above. Grave B1 is late in the Khabur II-Phase, i.e. close to the Beginning of Phase 3:

L 3167 - Larsen n.d. 79: " 3167 Füllmaterial von G13, AS/O-D/O, -Gebäude 8, II/b2-1, unterhalb von 3227, 3184, 3252, 226, 3201, 3200, 3181, gleichzeitig mit 3204, gleicher Status: oberhalb von 3168"

- Beuger 2005, 64: " IIIjünger1, AS, Geb4, R11, Doppeltopfgrab (L3167) IIIjünger1, AS, Geb.4, Verfüllung der Grube des Doppeltopfgrabes (L3168)"

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 32 – L3167

1 Beuger 2005, Taf. 55.22 (Verfüllung in Grube des Doppeltopfgrabes = somehow identical with L3167); IIIyounger 1→ Asmar: Late Larsa; Emar LB 15.-14. cent. BC; Bi'a IL-OB; 2. Taf. 55.19 (IIb1-2?), 55.21a-c (IIIyounger 2a-1), 55.16 (IIIyounger 1); 3. Taf. 40.06b (IIb1-2?)-14a-c.e (IIIyounger 1-IIb4); 4.Taf. 77.06 (IIb1-2?) - Taf.43.03b ( IIIyounger 2b); →Emar SBZ 15.-14 Jh BC; Bia, Palace A).

L 3168 -- Larsen n.d. 79:

“3168 Doppeltopfbestattung in G13,AS/O-D/O,Gebäude 8,II/b2-1,

unterhalb von 3167, gleichzeitig mit, gleicher Status: oberhalb von 3166, gleicher Status:..“

-- Beuger 2005, 64:

IIIjünger1, AS, Geb4, Doppeltopfgrab (L3168)“

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 33 - L3168

1. Beuger 2005, Taf. 118.24 - IIIyounger 1 (Khabur Phase 3, Ochuro) )→Uruk; Sinkashid Palace; 2. Taf. 70.41b-c (IIIyounger 1) - Taf.26.7.12-16. 19(?) - IT, D2-C; Taf. 66.22 - IT, D2-C; 3. Taf. 70.15 (IIIyounger 1) - Taf. 63, 15-17 - IT, H-D2-C ; 4. Taf. 71.23 (IIIyounger 1); 5. Taf. 71.07 (IIIyounger 1); 6. Taf. 70.42b--c (IIIyounger 1); 7. Taf. 70.19 (IIIyounger 1)→Emar earlier MB-phase); 9. Taf. 85.05 (IIIyounger 1).

10.2.3 Summing up

Summing up, the grave L3168 and the fill L 3167 should be dated, with Beuger, to IIIyounger 1. Grave B1 would be by the pottery a tick older or overlapping with Initial Khabur 3.

If one accepts this date, then our sequence, dating pre-Shamsi Adad would only cover the three building phases of our Building 1 (Tab.2), what in no case will cover the range from Early Akkadian to the earlier Old Babylonian period, i.e. roughly about 500 years.490

In order to enforce the argument, the material from Level III, which Beuger has been used as reference, has been tabulated here not only in relation to local sequences, as Tell Brak, Uruk, Sinkashid Palace, Tall Bi'a, Palace A and Tell Asmar in the Diyala region, but the mass of pottery finds also counterparts in the Ishtar Temple D2-C (Tab. 3-6).

Finally, what Hockmann491 has called type Be-3 "Halsloser Schulter­becher" is a common type in Assur in our excavation.492 The peak of the type is levels IIIolder a/b1 and IIIyounger 2b, as discussed by Hockmann.493 In our excavation this type starts with level IIIolder c (Fig. D, 1).494 In the Ishtar Temple - sequence this type concentrates in D-C, starting in E.495 The example from E fits our vessels from IIIolder c and those from the peak in (D) D-C are in good harmony with our material from IIIolder a/IIIolder b1-IIIyounger 2b and therefore overlapping with the Khabur-horizon.

As a result of my reading of our sequence follows:

1. We have no closed sequence because there is a gap of almost 500 years in the levels of the second millennium BC.
2. We have no Early Akkadian structural levels, but old residue sherds of still unexcavated levels in an essential late Ur III-early Old Babylonian milieu.
3. Therefore, our sequence is also quite short, covering (late) Ur III/Isin Larsa-to Old Babylonian and after a gap during the Mitanni Period and two thirds of the Middle Assyrian era, the sequence follows, then unbroken (quod erit demonstrandum!) the history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire until the fall 614 BC, followed by a possible Postassyrian Period of unknown length and with Level I the Period of the Arsakids to the beginning of the Sasanid Dynasty (Shapur I.) is present.

6.3 Appendix: First Occurrence and Running time of Types discussed here for Cts

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten-

Fig. CTS-4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-5

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-6

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-7

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-8

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-10

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-11

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-12

10.18 = IIIoa-IIIy1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-13

23.08a IIIy1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. CTS-14

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix I

Analyseansätze für mesopotamische Bildwerke des 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends

Im Folgenden sollen kurz Analyseansätze für Bildwerke der frühdynastischen Zeit Mesopotamiens (Abb. 1) diskutiert werden. Das Frühdynastikum umfasst die Zeitspanne zwischen ca. 2900─2350/2300 v. Chr., also den Zeitraum teils miteinander kooperierender, teils konkurrierender Stadtstaaten. Diese Periode ist zeitlich zwischen das interregionale ältere Netzwerk der Uruk­kultur (4. Jt. v. Chr.) und den ersten Territorialstaat Altvorderasiens, dem Reich von Akkade, platziert (ab ca. 2300 v. Chr.).496

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.1 Mesopotamien und West─Iran. Orthmann 1985, 139.

Zwei prominente Denkmälergruppen dieser Zeit seien hier kurz vorgestellt. Zum einen sind Bildwerke zu nennen (Abb. 2), die in der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie als Rundbilder bezeichnet werden,497 denn anders als die Skulpturen der Klassischen Antike, greifen sie nicht in den Raum.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.2 Rundbilder der Uruk─, Ğemdat Nasr─/Frühdynastisch I und Frühdynastisch II─III – zeitlich. Orthmann 1985, Abb. 10. 12. 17a.27 (Uruk, Hafagah, Tell Chuera und Assur).

Zweite Gruppe sind Rollsiegel (Abb. 3), walzenförmige Objekte, deren Mantelfläche bildliche Darstellungen tragen, die ab Mitte des Frühdvnastikums häufig von einer einer Inschrift begleitet werden.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 3 Rollsiegel aus dem Diyala, Frankfort 1955, Taf. 2.

In den 30er und 40er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts legten Henri Frankfort (Oriental Institute Chicago) und Anton Moortgat (Berlin) ihre Gliederungs­systeme für die genannten Bildwerke vor. Orientierte sich H. Frankfort vornehmlich an der stratigrafischen Fundlage dieser Objekte aus den von ihm geleiteten Ausgrabungen im Diyala─Gebiet (Abb. 1), so bildeten v. a. die Museumsbestände des Vorderasiatischen Museums zu Berlin die Grundlage für A. Moortgats System.498

Moortgat konstruierte eine lineare stilistische Entwicklung auch gestützt auf seine Vorstellung der PaläografieEntwicklung. Er bewertete diese Abfolge in Kategorien, wie Blütezeit (Spät─Uruk─ und v. a. Ğamdat Nasr Zeit, um 3000 v. Chr.); gefolgt von einer Auflösungsphase oder 1. Übergangsphase; gefolgt vom sogenannten "Mesilim Stil" als neuer Blütephase. Für die Definition des Letzteren diente ihm eine Keule mit Inschrift eines Königs Mesilim von Kish mit den darauf abgebildeten stilisierten Löwenmähnen und dem löwenköpfigen Anzù─Vogel als konstituierenden Elementen des Stils (Abb. 4).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 4 Keulenkopf des Mesilim. Orthmann 1985, Abb. 78a. b.

König Mesilim datiert aber in die folgende Farazeit bzw. Moorgats 2. Übergangszeit, also in eine weitere vermeintlich künstlerische Umbruchphase nach seinem Schema. Schließlich folgten nach Moortgat die Befunde der 1. Dynastie von Ur mit ihren prächtig ausgestatteten Gräbern und den zeitgleichen Siegelabrollungen (Abb. 5):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 5 Siegelabrollungen der Frühdynastischen Zeit nach Moortgat. a: Frankfort 1939a, Textabb.15; b. c: Boehmer 1985, Abb. 42a. e; d: Amiet 1960, Taf. 77, 1018; e: Boehmer 1985, Abb. 43f; f: Boehmer 1987─1990, 113 Abb. 4.

Die dann folgende Akkade─Zeit markiert schließlich den vorläufigen Höhepunkt der älteren altvorderasiatischen Kunst (Abb. 6).499

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 6 Bronzekopf eines akkadischen Herrschers (Naramsin oder Sharkalisharri). Orthmann 1985, Abb. 48.

Für H. Frankfort hingegen bildete zunächst ein Baumaterial – der sogenannte ‚Plankonvexe─ Ziegel‘ (Abb. 7) – den Ausgangspunkt für die Definition der sogenannten Early Dynastic─Period oder Frühdynastischen Periode, da dieses neue Baumaterial mit dem Beginn des Frühdynastikums erstmals auftrat.500

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 7 Plankonvexe Ziegel. Nissen 1990, Abb. 22.

Daneben diente ihm v. a. das Vorkommen von sogenannten Beterstatuetten, einer häufig belegten Rundbildgattung, als Hauptkriterium für die chronologische Einordnung der im Diyala Gebiet ergrabenen Abfolgen. Diese Gattung fand sich fast ausschließlich in Tempeln. Sie repräsentieren meist Privatpersonen und Beamte; königliche Rundbilder dieses Typs sind eher rar. H. Frankfort sah eine Entwicklung vom Einfachen/Abstrakten zum Natürlichen.501

Wo immer Fragmente des abstrakten Stils (Abb. 8) angetroffen wurden, war dies für Frankfort ein sicherer Hinweis dafür, dass die entsprechende Bauschicht in die "Frühdynastisch II"─Zeit datieren müsste, ohne begleitende Funde nennenswert zu berücksichtigen.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 8 Weibliches und männliches Rundbild aus Tell Asmar – abstrakter Stil. Orthmann 1985, Abb. 18.19 (FD I, Tell Asmar).

In der Folge wurde verschiedentlich versucht, die unterschiedlichen Ordnungssysteme Moortgats und Frankforts aufeinander zu beziehen,502 jedoch war dies zunächst nicht erfolgreich. Der Durchbruch gelang erst durch eine Neubewertung der Stratigrafien der Diyala─Orte durch Jean M. Evans. Sie konnte jüngst zeigen, dass der abstrakte Stil nicht schon zur "Früh Dynastisch I" Zeit voll entwickelt war, sondern dass dieser Stil parallel zu dem natürlicheren Stil im Flachbild, wie auch im Rundbild lief.503

Heute werden die Rundbilder des Frühdynastikums verstärkt auch rekontextualisiert und gendermäßig analysiert . Evans bietet mit ihrer Studie “The Lives of Sumerian Sculpture “ völlig neue Einsichten.504 Um nur wenige Beispiele zu nennen:

In den Tempeln der Diyala Region und im Inanna─Tempel von Nippur gibt es eine Fülle von Rundbildfragmenten, die laut Evans quasi als Ersatzteillager für Neuzusammenstellungen von Rundbildern des abstrakten Stils fungierten. Diese neu komponierten, recycelten Bildnisse wurden einem neuen Stifter zugewiesen, indem oftmals nur ein neuer Kopf auf einen alten Rundbildtorso gesetzt wurde. Im Lichte der Tatsache, dass Rundbilder, einmal in die Tempel und Schreine eingebracht, diese nie mehr verlassen konnten, macht dies bestens Sinn. Dadurch dass immer wieder neue Bildnisse zusammengestellt wurden, also das Leben eines Rundbildes erheblich länger als das des ursprünglichen Stifters dauerte, erklärt dies auch das Fortbestehen des abstrakten Stils.505

Beterstatuetten wurden z.T. nach Nutzung in einer Grube im Schrein vergraben oder so stark erhitzt, dass der Gipsstein zerbröselte. Letzteres ist bisher nur im Nintu Tempel VIa belegt. Der zerbröselte Gipsstein mit Wasser vermengt, wurde dann als Gipsputz in der Cella wiederverwendet, sodass bei dieser Form der Entsorgung die materia magica in den Schreinen blieb.506

Evans macht ferner auf einen Zusammenhang zwischen einem bestimmten Gefäßtyp, den sogenannten Solid─Footed─Goblets (SFG), und dem Aufkommen der sogenannten Beterstatuetten aufmerksam (Abb. 9): Am Beginn des älteren Frühdynastikums wurden diese Gefäße, die nicht von alleine stehen können, von den Gläubigen in die Tempel gebracht, dort eine Libation vollzogen und anschließend die Gefäße willentlich zerbrochen. So nach ihrer Interpretation des Befundes in Tell Asmar, Archaic Shrine III, wo über 600 solcher Gefäße gefunden wurden.507 In Sin Tempel V in Khafagah wurden solche Gefäße im Hof der Anlage gebrannt.508

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 9 SFGs (Khafagah und Tell Asmar). Delougaz 1952, Taf. 46.

Als die sogenannten Beterstatuetten auftraten, ging der Anteil der SFG stark zurück. Die Rundbilder standen mit ihren SFG─affinen Gefäßen in den gefalteten Händen im Heiligtum; die vormaligen Kultaktanten draußen, bestenfalls im Hofbereich. Die Cella des Sin Tempels war zum Hof hin verschlossen und Einrichtungen zur Aufnahme von Libationen fanden sich nunmehr nur im Hof, nicht mehr in der Cella.509

2. Besonderheiten der Glyptikanalyse

Die genannten Vorstellungen zur Kunstentwicklung waren, wie erwähnt, auch auf die Fundgattung der Rollsiegel übertragen worden.510 Unterschieden werden Individualsiegel und Institutionssiegel. Die Spannbreite der Individualsiegel reicht vom normalen Siegeleigner, über Beamte verschiedener Grade bis hin zu Königs─ und sogar Göttersiegel.511

Die Motivik wandelte sich im Laufe der Jahrhunderte, ebenso der Stil. Letzterer war bis zur Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts eines der primären Beschäftigungsfelder Vorderasiatischer Archäologen. Sie datierten die Siegel anhand von Inschriften oder der ‘gesicherten Fundlage‘ und schlossen weitere Fundstücke stilistisch an, in der Hoffnung somit festdatierte Stilgruppen bilden zu können. Letztere wurden immer feiner untergliedert, um engere chronologische Einheiten zu erhalten. Dieses Vorgehen, so nützlich es auch ist, bewertete jedoch die Entwicklung der Glyptik und der „Kunst“ quasi unilinear, mit der Annahme, dass die solchermaßen definierten Stilgruppen sich chronologisch „ablösen“ würden. Die jüngere Forschung zeigt jedoch, dass dies kaum je gegeben ist; zeitliche Überlappungen von Stilgruppen sind die Regel.512 Es müssten lokale Unterschiede und Werkstattdifferenzen noch viel stärker herausgearbeitet werden.513

Beschäftigten sich Moortgat und Frankfort zunächst mit Fragen der chronologischen Einordnung ihres Materials, so versuchten sie ebenfalls die Bildinhalte zu entschlüsseln. Hierfür war die reichhaltige schriftliche Überlieferung der literarischen und religiösen Keilschriftquellen hilfreich. Jüngst hat Franz Wiggermann Bahnbrechendes geleistet, indem er überzeugend nach­weisen konnte, dass die Rollsiegelmotive, v. a. mit dem Einsetzen des sogenannten Figuren­bandes, eine Art apotropäischer Schutzwall für den Siegeleigner darstellen, der im Zentrum des Siegels zu verorten wäre.514

Soziale Unterschiede wurden im Frühdynastikum vornehmlich durch das Material der Siegel aus­gedrückt und/oder durch bestimmte Motive, wie z. B. die sogenannte Bankettszene (Abb. 10),515 und zunehmend durch Beischriften. Das Siegelmaterial bettet die Siegel darüber hinaus in sich verändernde Rohstoffbeschaffungssysteme und Austauschsysteme ein. Die verwendeten Materialien sind auch Spiegel der sich entwickelnden angewandten Technik des Siegelschneidens.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 10 Boehmer 1985, Abb. 132b (Ur, Lapislazuli)

Am Ende des Frühdynastikums und v.a. verstärkt in der folgenden Akkade─Zeit kam es zu einer Wiederbelebung des seit der Uruk─Zeit vernachlässigten plastisch─naturalistischen Stiles; allerdings wechselte der Sinngehalt: Zur Uruk─Zeit überwiegen die Darstellungen von rituellen und ‘profanen‘ Handlungen, in der Akkade─Zeit dagegen erfolgte eine verstärkte Hinwendung zu mythologischen Szenen (Abb. 11) .

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 11 Siegelabrollungen von der Späturuk ─ Akkade─Zeit. Boehmer 1985, Abb. 126a (Kunsthandel); Frankfort 1955, Taf. 23,236 (Sin VII). 24, 245 (Sin VIII). 31, 318 (Khafagah, Houses 3); Boehmer 1985, Abb. 135c (Kunsthandel, Zeit des Sharkalisharri).

Diese Rückkehr zur plastisch─naturalistischen Darstellungsweise, die sich auch im Rundbild nachweisen lässt, wurde möglicherweise dadurch bedingt, dass das Uruk─ und das Akkade─System von überregionaler Erfahr─ und Wirkkraft waren, im Gegensatz zu den weitgehend eher lokal ausgerichteten Stadtstaaten des Frühdynastikums.516

In der Akkade─Zeit kam schließlich ein neuer Siegeltyp auf, der ob der Inschrift, als arad─zu –Typ bezeichnet wird (Abb. 12). Die Inschriften sind von der Art: Königsname, Personenname + arad─zu = ‘ sein Diener‘.517 Hierbei handelt es sich um Siegel, die vom König selbst oder in seinem Auftrag hohen Beamten verliehen wurden. Die Darstellung wird von den seit der frühdynastischen Zeit auftretenden Figuren­bändern/Tierkampfszenen dominiert, neben anderen Motiven.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 12 Boehmer 1985, Abb. 135b (Kunsthandel).

Dass diese Siegelmotive im Altertum von eher untergeordneter Bedeutung waren, zeigt die Siegelpraxis, denn abgerollt wurde meist nur die Siegelkartusche.518

Die Komplexität der Legenden akkadischer Siegel erlaubt die Rekonstruktion sozialer Bindungen von Funktionsträgern und Individuen (Abb. 13) . 519

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 13 Soziale Verflechtungen gemäß akkadischer Siegellegenden.

Dieser arad─zu –Legendentyp läuft in der folgenden Ur III─Zeit, am Ende des 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends weiter, jedoch nun auf Siegeln, bei denen der Siegelinhaber durch eine vorangestellte weibliche Gottheit vor den König und nicht vor einen Gott geführt wird (Abb. 14). Die Ur III─Herrscher waren allerdings zumeist vergöttlicht, wurden so aber nicht dargestellt. Hier bestand also eine gewisse Distanz zu demjenigen, der das Siegel vom König empfing. Solche Siegeleigner gehören ebenfalls zu den hohen Beamten im Staat. Das Siegel und seine Inschrift legitimierten also beide, den Siegeleigner durch die Verleihung und den König durch den Verleihungsakt.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 14 Siegelabrollung nach Bonatz 2002, Abb. 20 (Die rechte Hälfte wurde links neu angefügt um das Motiv zu verdeutlichen).

Es gibt aber noch eine andere Gruppe von Siegeln in der Ur III─Zeit, diese tragen eine Inschrift, die besagt, dass der König „ seinem Diener hat gegeben “ (Abb. 15). Bei diesen Siegeln fehlt die weib­liche, einführende Gottheit. Die Distanz zum König ist also geringer und dies war auch real so, denn diese Siegel wurden nur an allerhöchste Staatsträger, wie Provinzgouverneure, Kanzler u. Ä. verliehen.520

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 15 Bonatz 2002, Abb. 21.

Wurden innerhalb des archäologischen Diskurses Rollsiegel zunächst im Rahmen kunstgeschichtlich ̶chronologischer Betrachtungen abgehandelt, so wurde es doch zunehmend klar, dass diese Fundgattung in einem komplexeren Zusammenhang gesehen werden muss.521

Vorliegende Grafik (Abb. 16) verdeutlicht, dass eine Betrachtungsweise, die sich nur mit den ikonografischen Elementen, deren vermeintlichen Bedeutungsinhalt und Stil auf der Bildebene beschäftigt, der Komplexität des Gegenstandes Rollsiegel nicht ganz gerecht wird.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 16 Kommunikationsschema – Glyptik.

Denn vom Befund her sind Rollsiegel in dem hier zu betrachtenden Zeitraum eingebettet in administrative oder – allgemeiner – kommunikative Vorgänge, die ihrerseits wieder Teil von übergeordneten politischen Organisationsformen mit ihren spezifischen Symbolkomplexen sind. Jede politische Entität entwickelte ihr spezifisches System als Identifikationsmerkmal und die Verwendung desselben diente gleichzeitig auch als Legitimation und Abgrenzung gegenüber anderen.

Rollsiegel wurden also in einem letztlich kommunikativen Akt verwendet. Es gibt einen Absender oder Garanten, der mittels eines Rollsiegels irgendetwas versiegelt und somit dafür eine Garantie gegenüber einem Empfänger übernimmt. Das versiegelte Objekt hatte einen Empfänger, der anhand des Bildes und/oder der Inschrift den Absender identifizieren können musste.

Die für diesen kommunikativen Akt verwendeten Rollsiegel können in verschiedene analytische Betrachtungsebenen unterteilt werden: zum einen die Objektebene, also das Material und die Technologie ihrer Herstellung, und zum anderen die Bildebene mit ihrer Komposition. Eine dritte Ebene bildet die konkrete Verwendung der Siegel. Rollsiegel wurden auf Tonobjekten abgerollt, die v. a. in die Kategorien Tontafel(hüllen), Plomben aller Art und diverse Verschlüsse unterteilt werden können. Gerade die Beschäftigung mit diesen gesiegelten Objekten und ihrer räumlichen Einbettung und Interaktion hat in den letzten Jahren stark im Vordergrund des Interesses gestanden und zu wichtigen Ergebnissen geführt. Daneben gab es aber auch Abdrücke von Rocksäumen, Fingernägeln oder Muscheln.522 Früher fasste man diese als Siegelersatz auf, heute glaubt man, dass z. B. Fingernägeleindrücke eine bestimmte Funktion v. a. bei Kaufurkunden von privatem Interesse haben, wo das persönliche Siegel nicht genutzt werden musste; es gibt sie auch auf Schuldscheinen.

Da die Siegel und deren Abrollungen auf konkrete Personen verweisen, fungierten sie also als eine Art Personalausweis, dessen Beschädigung oder gar Verlust durch entsprechende Rituale sublimiert werden musste.523

Der potenzielle Bearbeiter von Rollsiegeln ist also mit einem variablenreichen Komplex konfrontiert, der zwar eine ausschließliche Beschäftigung mit den zuvor genannten Aspekten der Bildebene aus pragmatischen Gründen im Einzelnen rechtfertigt, jedoch müssen die Analyseergebnisse, die von der Bildebene abgeleitet werden, auch in den aufgezeigten komplexeren Rahmen eingebettet werden.


Die Bedeutung der Glyptik für die Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde ― Neuere Ansätze zur Glyptik ─ Analyse im urbanen Kontext

C. Beckmann/R. Dittmann/D. Kischko/Münster 2016524

1. Formale Aspekte

In Altvorderasien525 gibt es eine Fülle von glyptischen Artefakten, wie Stempel─ und Rollsiegel, Siegelringe und eher exotische Typen .526 Am Anfang der Entwicklung standen Stempelsiegel, die im Neolithikum aufkamen527. Ab ca. dem 1. Drittel des 4 JT v. Chr.. traten dann zylinderförmige Rollsiegel hinzu (Siehe Appendix 1, Abb.3). Diese dominierten dann bis zum 1. JT die Szene, um dann wieder von Stempeln langsam abgelöst zu werden. Bedingt wurde dieser spätere Rückgriff durch neue Schreibmaterialien, wie Papyrus, Wachs oder Leder. Es gab aber auch Regionen in Altvorderasien, wo Rollsiegel kaum je genutzt wurden und über alle Perioden hindurch die Stempelglyptik dominierte, wie z.B. Anatolien oder die Induskultur.528

Da Siegel in Grabungen Altvorderasiens recht häufig vorkommen, begann man schon früh diese Objekte in Katalogen zu erfassen. Eine systematische Vorlage und chronologische Ordnung des Materials erfolgte vor allem durch Henri Frankfort/Chicago mit „ Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East “, gefolgt von „ Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region529 ; Anton Moortgat zog mit der Bearbeitung der Rollsiegel des Vorderasiatischen Museums betitelt: „ Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst “ nach.530 Damit waren im Wesentlichen die Grundlagen für die Ordning der Glyptik Altvorderasiens aus damaliger Sicht erarbeitet.

Die folgenden Jahrzehnte standen vor allem im Zeichen der Verfeinerung und dem Versuch beide Systeme einander anzugleichen.531 Letzteres ist zwangsläufig wenig erfolgreich, denn Frankfort nutzte stratifizierte Siegel, die in den Bauschichten seiner Grabungen im Diyala-Gebiet und seinen Ansichten zur Datierung derselben folgten. Moortgat dagegen ging rein kunst­wissen­schaftlich-stilistisch vor, denn sein Material war nur vereinzelt stratifiziert, bzw. stammte selten aus einem datierenden Kontext oder wies eine datierende Inschrift auf. Beide Ansätze bedürfen heute der Revision, vor allem auch bedingt durch die Aufarbeitung weiteren Fundmaterials das nicht nur aus den Diyala-Grabungen stammt und neuerer Datierungsansätze für das Diyala­-Material, wie z.B. durch J. Evans532.

Die Motive der Siegel wandelten sich im Laufe der Jahrtausende, ebenso natürlich der Stil. Letzterer war bis zur Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts das primäre Beschäftigungsfeld vorderasiatischer Archäologen, die die Siegel anhand der Inschriften (oder der vermeintlich ‚gesicherten‘ Fundlage) datierten und deren Stilmerkmale sie auf weitere Fundstücke übertrugen, um somit festdatierte Stilgruppen zu erhalten. Letztere wurden im weiteren Verlauf immer feiner untergliedert, sodass man glaubte, enge chronologische Einheiten zu erhalten, die auch bei der Datierung stilverwandter weiterer Fundgattungen behilflich waren.533 Dieses Vorgehen, so nützlich es auch ist, lief jedoch Gefahr die Entwicklung der Glyptik in einer quasi unilinearen evolutionären Form zu bewerten, in dem Glauben, dass die solchermaßen definierten Stilgruppen sich chronologisch „ablösen“ würden. Die jüngere Forschung zeigt, dass dies nicht gegeben sein muss, denn wie auch bei der Keramik, sind zeitliche Überlappungen von Stilgruppen die Regel und auch lokale Unterschiede und Werkstattdifferenzen müssten in Zukunft noch viel stärker erarbeitet und berücksichtigt werden.534

2. Funktionale Aspekte

Daneben wurden die Inhalte der Bildebene der Siegel analysiert, vor allem in der Hoffnung auf ein sich immer stetig verdichtendes Wissen über die altmesopotamische Mythologie, denn besonders den frühen Siegeln wurde ja, bedingt durch das augenscheinliche (grabungstechnisch bedingte) Fehlen von Abdrücken, zunächst vornehmlich eine apotropäische Funktion zugeordnet. Neuere Grabungen erbrachten dann erstmals auch Siegelabdrücke, so dass es deutlich wurde, dass Siegel schon ab der frühesten Zeit auch in administrative Vorgänge – im weitesten Sinne – eingebunden waren. Gleichwohl hat Frans Wiggerman jüngst zu Recht auch auf den apotropäischen Aspekt von Rollsiegeln erneut hingewiesen, dergestalt, dass das abgerollte Figurenband auf dem Zylindermantel quasi als "Firewall" gegen das Übel an sich fungieren würde, wobei der Siegeleigner im Zentrum des Siegelzylinders zu verorten wäre.535

Gesiegelt wurden u.A. Briefe, Rechtsurkunden etc. Im Bedarfsfall wurden Ersatzsiegel genutzt. Es wurde deutlich, dass Siegel quasi als Ausweise, sei es von Individuen, sei es von Institutionen dienten. Damit wurde aber auch eine gewisse Form der Verbindlichkeit durch die Siegelungen dokumentiert, denn der Siegeleigner, identifiziert durch Inschrift oder/und abstrakter, durch das Siegelmotiv, garantierte mit dem Akt des Siegelns für irgendetwas. Sei es innerhalb der persönlichen Vorratshaltung o.Ä. oder in komplexerer Form auf Dokumenten. Das Siegel garantierte nicht nur die Identität des Siegelnden, sondern sein Verlust oder Zerbrechen konnte bösen Folgen haben, wogegen unter Umständen Rituale eingesetzt werden mussten.536

Abb. 1a Naturalistisch-narrativ Abb. 1b schematisch

Zwei große Gruppen charakterisierten die Glyptik des 4. und 3. Jt. v. Chr.: weitgehend naturalistisch geschnittene Siegelmotive, narrativer Art, gegenüber schematischen, abstrakteren. Einer Grundidee, Hans Nissen folgend,537 ging man davon aus, dass abstrakte, schematische Siegel eher Institutionen reflektierten und naturalistische Siegel, die das Potenzial der höheren Differenzierung in sich trugen, wahrscheinlich eher auf Individuen verweisen dürften. (Abb.1a─b)

Im 4. Jt v.Chr., vor der Etablierung eines funktionierenden Schriftsystems, dominierte eine thematisch enorm breite, narrative Bilderwelt, die Siegelmotive. Inhalte wurden also über eine Art Bildersprache vermittelt. Gleichwohl war das System gegen Ende der Urukzeit schon in der Lage auch Sinninhalte, wie Namen/Götternamen und sogar Wirtschaftsvorgänge u.Ä. bildlich und sprachungebunden auszudrücken, wie ein archaisches Rollsiegel zeigt, das auf einen bestimmten Aspekt der Stadtgöttin von Uruk, Inanna requiriert oder eine Uruk IV zeitliche Wirtschaftsurkunde.538

Bernbeck ist der Ansicht, dass die Uruk─ Glyptic "is the first depicting human beings in relation of each other.” 539 und weiter: “pre─urban depictions almost never include unequal relations between people. The sudden change to an emphasis on the depiction of hierarchies must be seen as reflecting dramatic social change, even if the symbolic realm conceals rather than unveils real social relations. The representation of unequal relations was likely a way to uphold a political hierarchy, a precondition of which is a specific framing.”540

Ab Mitte des dritten vorchristlichen JT, in der jüngeren Frühdynastischen Zeit, kamen vereinzelt Kartuschen mit Personennamen auf, bei gleichzeitiger Reduzierung des Motiv und Themenschatzes insgesamt (Abb. 2) 541

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 2 Namenskartousche desAnzu-súd

Der soziale Rang des Siegeleigners reflektiert sich auch im Wert des Siegelmaterials.542 Die Eingebundenheit in hierarchisch-administrative Strukturen manifestiert sich in den Siegellegenden. So vor allem bei den Beamtensiegeln der Akkadzeit.543

Siegel wurden aber nicht nur innerörtlich verwendet, sondern konnten auch Beziehungen zwischen verschiedenen Siedlungen spiegeln. Beispiele sind z.B. Siegel mit einem ‚Öhrchen- oder Nierenmotiv‘ zur Urukzeit aus Hacinebi aus der SO-Türkei und Susa und Chogha Mish in SW-Iran544. Ein seltenes jüngeres Beispiel ist eine Abrollung aus Kish, die einem Händler aus Girsu zugeordnet werden kann, der dort durch eine gleiche Abrollung ebenfalls bezeugt ist.545

Eine methodisch, einschneidende Wende innerhalb der Glyptikstudien wurde von E. Fiandra 1975 mit ihrer nunmehr klassischen Analyse zu den Siegelungen aus Festòs eingeleitet, die sich erstmals in größerem Rahmen mit der Verwendung der Siegel beschäftigte.

Sie analysierte die Rückseiten der Siegelungen und ermittelte somit alle möglichen Arten von gesiegelten Verschlussstypen.546

Daraus abgeleitet wurde schließlich die Frage nach einem Zusammenhang zwischen Siegelungstyp und der Bildebene der Siegel gestellt. Siegel wurden nunmehr zusehends nicht nur unter nur einem Gesichtspunkt, wie Zeitstellung und Stilgruppenzugehörigkeit analysiert, sondern ihre Funktion wurde im Gefüge des Gesamtbefundes diskutiert. Grundlegend für diese Analyseform ist eine Rekontextualisierung nicht nur des glyptischen Materials und einer Abwendung vom Einzelobjekt. Dieser eher holistische Ansatz wird in jüngerer Zeit vor allem z.B. durch Evans, Dittmann, Jans, Matthews und Zettler vertreten. Besonders Greta Jans hat mit ihrer Arbeit zu Tell Beydar Maßstäbe gesetzt und die Prozesse des Siegelns in ihrem Zusammenspiel in und zwischen den verschiedenen Palastteilen in Tell Beydar verdeutlicht.547

Siegel können aber nicht nur auf der Mikroebene der Sieglungsprozesse innerhalb eines Gebäudekomplexes, sondern auch auf der Makroebene ganzer Siedlungen untersucht werden. Dies bietet sich vor allem bei alten Grabungen an, denen eine feinchorologische Zuordnung der Funde fehlt. Ausgehend von einem Workshop im Jahre 2008, von Th. Kämmerer/Tartu und S. Rogge/Münster initiiert, welches sich mit “Pattern of Urban Societies“548 auseinandersetzte, wurde hier Neuland beschritten und Siegelungen in ihrem ehemaligen urbanen Kontext diskutiert. Ermöglicht wurde dies zum einen durch den naturalistisch-narrativen Charakter der Sieglungsmotive vor der ‚Schrifterfindung‘ im 4. und frühen 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend in Mesopotamien549 und einer Fülle von Siegelungsmotiven auf vergleichsweise immobilen Fundgattungen, wie zum Beispiel sphärische, mit Calculi gefüllten Kugeln/"Hollow Balls" und Türverschlüssen. Als Beispielorte für diesen Ansatz sollen Chogha Mish und vor allem Susa lm SW-Iran fungieren. Der betrachtete Zeitraum umfasst die ältere Urukzeit (Late Chalcolithic 3─4) und die späte Urukzeit (Late Chalcolithic 5).550

In Chogha Mish sind drei größere Grabungsareale, eins auf dem Haupttell und je eins im Westen und Osten vergleichsweise großflächig ergraben. (Abb. 3a ─ b)

Betrachtet man in einem ersten Schritt die Art der Siegelungen aus diesen Arealen, so ist es auffällig, dass Türverschlüsse im Ostareal konzentriert sind (Abb. 3a), hier also im größeren Umfang Vorratshaltung betrieben wurde. In diesen Zusammenhang passt auch das umfangreiche Vorkommen von Calculi auf der Ost─Terrasse (65) verglichen mit der West-Terrasse (3) und auch das Verhältnis der Tontafeln ist ähnlich (Ost-Terrasse 11, West-Terrasse 3). Die Ost-Terrasse zeigt, den dort gefundenen Siegelfunden nach, auch die weltliche Macht, z.B. in Form einer Waffenkammer.551 Die ‚High Status Person‘ tritt hier, wie auch anderenorts, auch als Verteidiger einer genischten Fassade (= öffentlicher Bau) auf (Abb. 6a-b). Zwar würde man eigentlich die hierarchische Spitze mit dem Haupttell assoziieren. Jedoch fehlen hierfür die Bauwerke. Immerhin bezeugen die Funde von Tonstiften, die ehemalige Existenz eines öffentlichen Gebäudes. Es gibt auch eine thematische Klammer zwischen der Hoch- und Ost-Terrasse: die Darstellung des ‚Master of Snakes‘ (Abb.6c-d), einer sicher hoch gestellten Persönlichkeit im sozialen Gefüge. Dass auch die West-Terrasse nicht ganz unbedeutend war, zeigt der Fund von mehreren Gegenstempeln (Abb. 6e), die sicher in einer wie auch immer gearteten Kontrolle der Siegelpraxis eine wichtige Rolle spielten.

In Chogha Mish sind jedoch der Rekontextualisierung der Funde enge Grenzen gesetzt, da die veröffentlichten Pläne mehrere Phasen zusammenkartieren. Spätere Grabungen haben im Bereich der Ost-Terrasse ein öffentliches Gebäude, aber kaum glyptische Funde erbracht .552

Betrachtet man die Verhältnisse in Susa (Abb.4a─b), so sind die Umstände grabungsbedingt noch verheerender. Gleichwohl sind die erkennbaren administrativen Kontrollmittel die gleichen, wie in Chogha Mish. Dies gilt vor allem für die mit Calculi gefüllten sphärischen Kugeln (Abb.7).553 Darüber hinaus scheint die innerörtliche Entwicklung kontinuierlich zu verlaufen und die bestehenden Institutionen ihren Platz innerhalb der Siedlung nicht groß verändert zu haben. Ähnlich der Hoch-Terrasse in Chogh Mish entzieht sich zur Late Chalcolithic 3-4 Zeit die funktionale Analyse von Sondage 1 mangels aussagekräftiger Funde. Immerhin sind hier, wie für Sondage 2 ‚Special Prisonners‘ erwähnt. Diese sind in der folgenden Late Chalcolithic 5 Periode nur noch für den Bereich Acr. I von Sondage 2 belegt.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthaltenAbbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.3a gesiegelte Objekte Abb.3b Siegelthemen

Chogha Mish

Der südliche Bereich der Akropolis von Susa scheint zur Late Chalcolithic 3 4 Zeit mit dem Wirkungsbereich des ‚Masters of Snakes/Animals‘ verbunden zu sein. Diese Funktion scheint in der Late Chalcolithic 5 Periode wegzufallen, zumindest dem glyptischen Befund nach. Die ‚High Status Person‘ und ‚Defender der Facade‘ bleibt dagegen im Bereich von Sondage 2 bestehen. (Abb. 4a-b; 6b)

In Uruk gibt es zur Late Chalcolithic 3-4 Phase zwei Großbereiche, zum einen Eanna mit ausschließlich Abrollungen aus tertiärem Schutt. Das Repertoire fügt sich nahtlos in bisher Diskutiertes ein. Ach hier steht die ‚High Status Person‘ und ‚Defender der Facade‘ an der sozialen Spitze, gefolgt vom ‚Master of Snakes /Animals‘. (Abb.6a─d)

Der zweite Bereich, der der so genannten Anu-Ziqqurrat, hat kaum administrative Kontrollmittel erbracht, geschweige denn solche aus hierarchisch höheren Ebenen. Was ebenfalls fast beiden Bereichen fehlt, sind Originalsiegel. Das berühmte Argument, dass diese den Verstorbenen ins Grab mitgegeben wurden, hat sich nicht bestätigt. In den Gräbern finden sich nur zoomorphe Stempelsiegel in Tradition der Late Chalcolithic 2-3 Periode der schematischen Gruppe, so zumindest den Befunden in Girsu nach554.

Die hierarchisch schwache Belegung setzt sich in der Anu-Ziqqurrat in der folgenden Late Chalcolithic 5 Phase fort. Die ‚High Status Person‘ ist dagegen jetzt sowohl im tertiären Schutt in Eanna als auch dem des Roten Tempels belegt. Daraus lässt sich natürlich keine Aufspaltung der Macht ableiten.

In der folgenden Ğamdat Nasr/Archaisch III-Zeit kommt es in Uruk nicht nur zu den bekannten drastischen Veränderungen im Baubefund, sondern auch innerhalb der Siegel (Abb.5c). Zwar laufen viele Themen und Motive weiter und nur Wenig findet sich ausschließlich in Archaisch III, jedoch nimmt der Anteil von Originalsiegeln deutlich zu, was, wenn korrekt, einen eindeutigen Bruch gegenüber der Vorzeit darstellen würde.555

Ähnlich verhält es sich mit dem Befund im zeitgleichen Fundort Ğamdet Nasr. Hier gibt es ebenfalls eine große Anzahl von Originalsiegeln, die im Gegensatz zu Uruk, ausnahmslos der schematischen Gruppe angehören, wogegen die Abrollungen auf den Tontafeln ausschließlich zur naturalistischen Gruppe gehören.556 Letztere ist aber am Ort nicht durch Originalsiegel belegt.

Offenbar konnten in der Ğamdet Nasr-Zeit jetzt mehr Personen Siegel nutzen, bzw. wurden diese ‚öffentlicher‘? Wurden die Rollsiegel zur Urukzeit nur sehr restriktiv, räumlich genutzt? Von einer ‚Zuteilung‘ wird man wohl nicht ausgehen können, wie z.B. die Hämmer der Steinmetze im Mittelalter? Auf der anderen Seite hat Brandes die Beobachtung gemacht, dass die Individual-/‘Beamtensiegel‘ sich oftmals nur in Details unterscheiden.557 Reflektiert dies gar eine saisonal beschränkte Nutzung durch die gleichen Beamten? Dieser und ähnlichen Fragen wird man verstärkt nachgehen müssen, um den Verbleib der Originalsiegel der Uruk ─Z eit zu erhellen.

Chogha Mish und Susa waren recht ähnlich strukturiert, wie die entsprechenden Organigramme (Abb. 8a─b) zeigen und dies gilt auch für die beiden unterschiedlichen säkularen und religiösen Sphären.558

Die Ausführungen haben hoffentlich verdeutlicht, dass Glyptik eine der spannendsten Spielwiesen der Vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde ist; Grenzen für methodische Ansätze und Fragestellungen werden nur durch die Fantasie des Bearbeiters gesetzt. In einer Zeit, da Feldforschung im Orient immer schwieriger wird, ist es beruhigend eine Fundgattung, wie die Siegel zu haben, die es ermöglicht auch ohne Ausgrabung ein sich weiter vertiefendes Verständnis vom Alten Orient zu entwickeln.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.4a Susa, Late Chalcolithic 3-4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.3b Susa Late Chalcolithic 5

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.5a Uruk VI/V

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 5b Uruk IV

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 5c Uruk, Ğamdat Nasr-Zeit (Archaisch III)

Abb. 6a-b (Defense of Façade (Chogha Mish und Susa);

Abb. 6c-d 'Master of Snakes' (Chogha Mish);

Abb. 6e Sealings with Counter stamp Chogha Mish)

Abb. 7 Hollow balls (Chogha Mish)

Abb.8a Organigram, Susa, Late Chalcolithic 3-4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.8b Organigramm, Chogha Mish Late Chalcolthic 3-4

Northern Section (a) and Eastern Segment (b)

Fig. 4a Level IIa- IIb1

Fig. 4b Level IIa reconstructed

Fig. 5a Level IIb2

Fig. 5b-c Level IIb3

Fig. 6 Level IIb

Fig. 7 Level IIIa – IIb

Fig. 8 Phitos from Burial B1

Fig. 9-23 Complex B1 und IIB4

Fig. 24 a-b CTS, Level IIIolder c/IIIb5, Building 1, according to Beuger of Early-Akkadian date

Fig. 25a-b CTS, Level IIIolder b, Building 1

Fig. 26 CTS, Level IIIolder b, Building 1

Fig. 27 CTS, Level IIIolder a, Buildings 1+2, after

Figs. A-R IIIoc-IIIba

Figs. S-AS IIIy2b-IIIy1

Fig. 28 Beuger 2005, Taf. 70,22 IIIolder c!

Fig. 29 Building 4, IIIyounger 1 (Beuger)

Fig. 30 Building 8, IIb2-1 (Larsen)

Fig. 31 N.-Section of AS.

Fig. 32 L3167

Fig. 33 L3168

Tab. 1 Alternative Sequence I

Tab. 2 Sequence of CTS and AS according to Beuger

Tab. 3 Assur and Tell Brak

Tab. 4 Assur in relation to material of Uruk, Sinkashid Palace

Tab. 5 Assur and the Dyala

Tab. 6 Assur in Relation to Tall Bia, Palace A

Tab. 7 Khabur Ware in Assur 88-89

Tab. 8 Occurrence of painted pottery in 1 CTS

Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-IranicA Vol II

Essays on the earlier cultural history of the ancient near- and middle east

Reinhard Dittmann/Münster

VOL II: Varia Indo-IranicA

11. The man who opened the-road Joining Sir Marc Aurel Stein on his Journey across South-Iran

11.0 Introduction

When writing my Ph.D in the Late seventies of the last century I had a kind of a secret hero: Sir Marc Aurel Stein, journeying through the Ancient Near East and Asia in order to explore the countries he visited also in regard to their military potentials and, en passant, making soundings at most of the sites on his road. The information he provided was short, completed with photographs and full of enthusiasm. In short, a typical sympathetic Englishman in the Near East.

His work was almost lost over time, but the actual situation in the Near East has stimulated a kind of Renaissance of South Iranian Archaeology. Therefore, it might be useful to get an updated version of my analysis of Stein 's work. A

In short: I follow the sequence and the names of sites and arrange them in the form of a commented catalogue. No big ambition, just some pieces to help to complete the Iranian puzzle.



A.1 Tal-i-Regi/Kamalabad/Firuzabad559


The site is situated about 6.4 km W/NW of Firuzabad. Map 1

Dimensions: 10 m high, NW─SO about 274,2, to NO─SW 182,8 m, about 3,9 ha surface area.560

Features and findings

A trench was laid on the SW-slope, where villagers had found two complete vessels. The trench started at about 3 m over plain-level, leading up the Tepe. It was subdivided by Stein in 13 sections of 1,8 m x 1.8 m, giving a total length of 70.7 m. The average depth was about 1,8 m deep. B

Sections IV─IX

In about 1,2 m depth, the remains of an open channel, lined with bricks, was found (Size of the burnt bricks 22.9 x 22.9 x 5 and 25.4 x 25.4 x 5.l cm (horizontal bricks) and 43.2 x 27.9 x 7.6 cm (for the vertical ones).561

Section X

At -60 cm the remains of a grave were found, including a big painted sherd, a broken unpainted vessel and obviously a fragment of a Bakun-cone. A Bakun-date for the grave is uncertain, it could also be a recent intrusion.562

Section XV563

This section was located 7.6 m W. of sections I─XIII. Here the remains of a rectangular building and a stone wall up to 45 cm high could be excavated. The section was chosen, because Stein had found a stamp on its surface.


The fragments published by Stein belong to the Bakun period: C

Stein 1936, Pl.

XX: 9 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 36:14 Bakun AIII

XX:12 Egami-Sono 1962, design IId Gap-Ia-IIb, concentration Gap IIa

XXI: 2 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 72: 4 Bakun AI

XXI: 4 Egami-Sono 1962, design XVIII Gap Ia-IIb

XXI:18 Langsdorf-McCown1942, Pl. 31: 4 Bakun AAI

XXI:19 ibid., Pl. 62:6─7 Bakun AI-IV

XXI:20 ibid., Pl. 71─72:passim Bakun AIII-IV

XXI:25 Egami-Sono1962, Fig. 23: 8 Gap Ia

XXI:27 Tepe Sohz, Sohz─Phase (n.d.) (Gap II) D

XXI:35 Bakun-Cone ab Bakun AI-IV

XXI:36 Langsdorf-McCown1942, Pl. 71:12 Bakun AIII

XXI:37 ibid., ca Pl. 77: 9 Bakun AIII

In the British Museum (BRM in the following) two fragments of a Red-Ware (Mineral tempered, smoothed inside; exterior, polished and fired hard) and a sherd with a typical painted Bakun A- motif and a somehow extreme elongated Bakun A - Cone were found (Findno. T. R. Kam (2) 2).

Small Finds

Stein1936, Pl.

XXX: 31 (Section VIII.63) similar copper hoes, but a little bit more elongated are known from the necropolis of Susa A: de Morgan,1927, Fig.79─80.

Stamp Seal

Stein1936, Pl.

XXX:27 (Section XII.62) Langsdorf-McCown 1942,

ca Pl.8: 8 Bakun AIII

XXX:28 (Section X.123) ibid., Pl. 82, 3 Bakun AIII

XXX:30 (Section X.122) ibid., Pl. 81,17 Bakun AIV

A.2 Tal-i-Sabz/Kamalaba d1564


Situated next to a channel, about 3, 2 km NW. of small Tells of Islamic age, which are located 2, 4 km W. of Kamalabad. Map 1


About 4 m above plain-level, 182, 8 m diameter, surface area about 2,6 ha.

Features and findings

Stein found sickle blades on the surface of the Tell, but no painted chalcolithic pottery, only glazed one.

Date: Late.

B. QIR-KARZIN - Plain 565

B.l Qal'a-i-Parian 566


Situated about 0. 8 km E. of the village Qir. Map 1


No information, but obviously a large Tell.

Features and findings

The Tell was overbuild by a recent fort. At the base, chalcolithic pottery was encountered, from layers under the alluvial plain. Stein was of the opinion that more settlements were covered by the alluvial deposits in the region.567


In the BRM a red Vakilabad-sherd can be attributed to this site. The rest of the material can be connected as follows:

Here Fig. 1A, 1 Blossoms are known from the Bakun Aa-Phase

in form of tendrils and rows, but then in opposite

Leaf-pattern. Single blossoms occurred already in

Tall-i Gap, see:

Egami-Sono 1962, Pl. XXIX: 7 Gap Ia

lA, 2 Dittmann 1984, Fig. I: 4; 28:6, Sohz-Phase (Gap II)

lA, 3 Hatched frames of metopes are more typical for

the Bakun BII(McCown)­Phase. But, what is left

of the pattern is too fragmentary to be dated.

l:A:4 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 13: l, Do Tulune-Phase Bakun BIIa

l:A:5 ibid., Fig.19:6, Do Tulune-Phase Bakun BIIa

Date: According to the sherds, drawn in the BRM, the material dates from the Bakun BII (McCown)-Period up to Gap II. The site was also used in the Vakilabad-Period. None of the sherds are of Bakun A-date.

B.2 Anonymous/Aliabad 568


Directly on the way to Jahrom, after Aliabad. Map 1


Small Tepe, 4 m height over the plain level.

Features and findings

Stone-/Flint-tools were found on the surface, but no painted chalcolithic pottery.

Date ?

C. Kafr - Plain

C.1 Anonymous/Asmangird 569


0, 8 km E. of Asmangird, Map 1


Several small Tells.

Features and Findings

Stein opened a trial trench on one of the small Tells, starting at a height of 1,5 m over plain-level. A lot of unpainted pottery occurred, accompanied by Flint-tools and Flint-cores. The whole thing was contaminated by glazed pottery, like it occurred on the other small Tells. According to Stein, older finds like the Flint-tools had been accidentally dug up in the Middle Ages.570

Date: I will not exclude that this site with its combination of plain pottery and rich stone-industry could belong to the Bakun BI (McCown)-horizon. Older material could be also present like a Jari B-akin sherd in the BRM indicates:

Here Fig. 1C,1 Vanden Berghe 1951─52,

Fig. 29 First row from above, 3.

sherd from the left Jari B

Date: The site will possibly have a running-time from Jari B to Bakun BI (McCown).

D FASA - Region

D.l Tal-i-Zohak/Fasa 571


About 2 km S. of Fasa. F Map 1


(Only Tell) 22.2 m height above the plain - level. NE. -SW. = 119 m, NW.-S.= 73.1 m. Surface area: 0.7 ha.

Features and findings

Stein tested the site with two trial trenches. Besides finds of the Middle Ages, Hellenistic and Achaemenid period, also pottery of the Kheyrabad-Type572 was found, compared by de Miroschedji with the Red-Ware of Tall-i Nokhodi II─I.573 and the Kaftari A-Ware, as defined by Vanden Berghe.574 So-called Zohak-Ware, younger by stratigraphy, also occurred at the site and was dated by de Miroschedji to the period of Kaftari C-Ware, as defined by Vanden Berghe.575 Of Achaemenid-date is a monumental mud brick massif as well as a defense with a moat.576

Date: Kheyrabad-, Zohak-, Achaemenid, Hellenistic-period, as well as Middle Ages.

D.2 Kanakan (Seh-tali) 577


Five Tells (A-E), about 0.4 km off a riverbed, water-bearing only in winter, about 2.8 km N.-NE. of Kanakan.The site figures under No. F 93 on de Miroschedji's map.578 The No. includes obviously only Tells A-C.E. This complex belongs to de Miroschedji's category "larger Tells." Tepe D seems to correspond to No. F.103 on his map, also classified as important by him.579 Map 1

Kanakan A

Tepe A: 2 m height, about 27 m diameter, surface area = about 0. 2 ha

Features and findings

On the surface a large amount of painted chalcolithic sherds occurred. The tepe was excavated on behalf a trial trench, 36, 6 m long, and excavated to an average depth of 1,5 m. Virgin soil was reached.


Stein 1936,

Pl.XXI:43 ibid., Pl. 68: 9, 77: 7 Bakun AI + AIII

Goff 1963, Fig. 8:42 Nokhodi AIVa

Pl. XXX:15.580 see Note 22. Bakun Ab

Pl. XXI:45 Langsdorf-McCown 1942,

Pl. 31: 4, 42:15 Bakun AI + AIV

Fig. 2, 5 Kan.A.II-III, -1"' -3" /1 Jalyan A-Ware

Fig. 2, 2 Kan.A.V-VI, -l'-3' /2 Jalyan A-Ware

Fig. 2, 9 Kan.A./61 Jalyan A-Ware

Kan.A.VI-I-VIII ,-1" -4" /1 Jalyan A-Ware

Fig. 2, 3 Kan.A.VII-VIII,-l"-4' /3 Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 2, 7 Kan.A.V-VI, -l"-3" /1 Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 2, 8 Kan.A.V-VI, -l"'-3' /4 Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 2, 1 Kan.A.VII-VIII,-l'-4' /4 Jalyan C-Ware

Fig. 2, 4 Kan.A.II-III,-1' -3" /2 Jalyan C-Ware

Fig. 2, 6 Kan.A./40 Jalyan C-Ware


Kan.A.= Kanakan A; Roman nos.= section-nos. Arabic nos. = Depth in feed; /no. = Find no. in the given section.

Small finds

Two stamp seals were found on the surface:

Stein 1936, Pl.

XXX:29 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, ca Pl. 82:16 Top AIV/Surface

Small cosmetic-mortars (Find nos.):

Here Fig. 2, 12 Kan.A.XIV-XV,-1" -4"

Kan.A.IX-X, -2"-4"

Fig. 2, 11 Kan.A.VII-VIII,-1" -4"


Fig. 2, 13 Kan.A.X, 10

Kan. A. III, 6 (diameter 4,2 cm)

Kan. A. I, -1"-5"/30 (diameter 4,2 cm)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Kosm.Mörs.= Cosmetic Mortar: Ohr.Schm.S.= Labret; Abschnitte = Section

Tab. 1 Relation of Jalyan A-C Wares to the small finds

Labrets occur together with Jalyan A+C - Ware. "Cosmetic-mortars" are associated to all three wares. But of course, the sample is too small for substantial insights. Nevertheless, the separation of Labrets and small cosmetic mortars might be significant.

Furthermore, Jalyan A+C - Wares are closer to the Mushki B-Phase in Fars. Mushki B is also the time of "mass production" of Labrets and Cosmetic mortars at the site of Tall-I Mushki. Since both small find groups have no connection to Jalyan B-Ware, does this give a hint as to a synchronism between Jalyan B and the Mushki A-Phase?

Tepe B


Small Tepe, situated about 228.6 m S. of Tepe A.

Features and Findings

Mortars and Stone-tools on the surface.The site was also excavated on behalf of a test trench, as in Tepe B, also of 36, 6 m length, but the average depth was only 1,2 m.581

· Level 1

Surface down to -0,60 m, Red Ware, Painted in Black with geometric patterns (Stein 1936, Pl. XXII:7. 13).

· Level 2

From -0.6 to 1.2 m depth. Lot of painted chalcolithic pottery and Stone-tools.582 Stein refers also to a production site for Stone-tools but without depth and section-no.583


Stein 1936 Pl. XXI:47 Egami─Sono 1962, Pl. XXXI.A Gap Ib

Here Fig. 3, 1-7 Jalyan A-Ware

Fig. 3, 1 Seht.B/ 3 Jalyan A-Ware

Fig. 3, 2 Seht.B Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 3, 3 Seht.B/ 7 Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 3, 4 Seht.B/ 5 Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 3, 5 Seht.B/ 6 Jalyan B-Ware

Fig. 3, 6 Seht.B/12 Jalyan C-Ware

Fig. 3, 7 Seht.B/ 2 Jalyan C-Ware

Small Cosmetic mortars

Here Fig. 3, 9 Seht.B/15

Fig. 3, 8 Seht.B/16


Not illustrated Seht.B/14

Little clay-cone

Fig. 3, 10 Seht.B./17

Since no depth notations are given to Tepe B, the above hypothesis cannot be tested here. On the other hand, it might be significant that in Tepe B Jalyan A+C - Wares are rare. Nevertheless, Kanakan A-B give information about the occurrence and the dispersion of the three Jalyan-Wares H and of Labrets in relation to the small Cosmetic mortars (Fig. 2:12).

Tepe C


Small Tepe, about 92 m S. from Tepe A.

Features and findings

A lot of painted chalcolithic pottery, Stone-tools and Flint-cores on the surface; the pottery resembles the one from Tepe A.584

Tepe D


Situated about 1,6 km NW. of Kanakan, S. of a dry river bed

Features and Findings

Due to Qanat-digging activities, early sherds were brought to the surface. Stein initiated a trial trench here.

· Level 1 surface rubbish

· Level 2, from -0.6 to ─ 0.9 m depth, debris and river-pebbles..

· Level 3 from -0.9 and below, painted pottery like in Kanakan A+C-Ware and Flint-tools.

Pottery, level 3:

Stein 1936,

Pl. XXI:41 Egami─Sono 1962, Fig. 20:12 Gap Ia

XXI:49 ibid., Pl.XXX. A:8, XXXIV.A:9 Gap Ib-IIb

XXI:51 Vanden Berghe 1951─1952,

Fig.30, 2. Row from below,

2. sherd from the left. Tall-i Gap

· Level 4, In the lowest level coarse handmade pottery, with lugs inside occurred. In Section IV, in 1.4 m depth, a disturbed grave was encountered. Besides a human skull a blue Frit-pearl585 and a Carving in bone, representing a squatting animal,586 dated by. Stein to the Sassanian period, was found.587

Tepe E

Small Tepe, about 549 m N. of Tepe A. Glazed pottery on the surface..

Date of Tepe B to E:

Kanakan B, level l, cannot be dated on behalf of the photos.

Level 2 can be attributed from Gap lb (late Bakun BII(McCown))-Phase. In the lowest strata the finds belong to the Jalyan-Period.

Tepe C . In view oft he high percentage of flint tools, this site might be more of Bakun BII(McCown)-date. The few sherds in the BRM would not contradict. Bakun A is definitely not present. Tepe D. Level 3 is of Gap Ia─IIb(?)-date. Level 4 is older, perhaps of Bakun BI(McCown)­date, what is suggested by sherds in the BRM.

Tepe E: Islamic Ware.

D.3 Tepe Vakilabad (= Tal-i-Siah/South) 588


Situated about 0.7 km S. of Tall-i-Siah/Nord (D.4., see below.). No. F77 on the map of de Miroschedji.589 Map 1


Height: 8.2 m; N-S =about 301.8 m, W─E = about 181.9 m. Surface area about 4.3 ha.

Features and findings

Stein examined the site with several Test-Trenches:

Trenches A+B

The trenches were 22.9 m, and 19.2 m long, 2.4 m wide, and were situated in the northern part of the tepe. Virgin Soil was reached in the western part of trench A, in 1.2 m depth. Otherwise, it was reached by 1.2 to 1.8 m depth.

Red and Gray Ware, painted with geometric patterns in black, occurred in all layers. The quality of this pottery increased in the upper strata,590 as did the amount of plain ware.

In the middle of Trench A a disturbed grave was encountered, with one vessel decorated with vertical dark wavy-lines alternating with dark bands,591 as well as a vessel of alabaster, To add a small pendant of gold-foil with a core of bitumen and a Lapis-Lazuli.592 It should be noted that the vessels originate from Section VII but the pendant from IX.593 The association of the latter with the grave is therefore not unequivocal. At the northern end of Trench B, Stein encountered another grave in 0,6 m depth. Grave goods were: directly next to the bones, a small plain jar,594 together with a black vessel with a vertical grooved ridge on the shoulder and a handle,595 closed by a turned-up little vessel.596 Stein published more vessels from this Trench,597 but without further details.

Trenches C-F

Situated between +3 and+ 6.1 m. Pottery is the same as before, starting at - 0.3 m.

Trenches C+D

Close under the surface of Trench C unbaked mud bricks occurred (38.1 x 38.1 x 7,6 cm) on an ash-layer.598 Up to -3.35 m sloping layers and ash continued. In - 4.6 m to -5.2 m several doors-sockets occurred and at - 5.5 m depth, Virgin Soil was not reached yet.599

Traces of a grave were found at - 2.7 m. The black painted Red-Ware continued, accompanied by a small amount of Gray-Black-Polished Ware.600

Trench F

Not much is known about this trench, except that here copper fragments were found.601

Trenches G+H

Both trenches were situated at a lower level than Trench C,602 at about the middle height of Tepe C. Stein published a vessel of Red-Ware, painted black on a creme to gray slipped core.603 Furthermore, for these trenches Flint-tools are mentioned,604 Black-Polished-Ware and a pithos from XI-XIII with a fourfold curvy-line painted on the shoulder occurred.605 In Trench H remains of another grave were found, including a stone pearl (a Cylinder seal?606 ) - and a small vessel607 next to bone fragments. In the BRM a Bakun-akin pottery could be identified, what will be called below Vakilabad-Ware 5, published here on Fig. 4 (cf. Stein 1936, Pl. XX:3). Stein noted also a Black-Polished-Ware (here Fig.5).

De Miroschedji had already emphasized the long running-time of Vakilabad-Ware.608 According to his observation pottery of the Zohak-Type was also found in the upper layers of Tepe Vakilabad.609 He was of the opinion, that painted Bakun-pottery would be the oldest horizon in Tepe Vakilabad.610 In the BRM no real Bakun-pottery was found, only Vakilabad-Ware 5. As for me the existence of a Bakun-horizon cannot be excluded. To the youngest layers a sherd in the BRM can be attributed, of "metallic" character (without any relation to Near Eastern "Metallic-Ware"!) of a Red-Ware with imitations of rivets around a spout, perhaps of the Middle Ages.

The analysis of the complete pottery of Tepe Vakilabad was published by S. Kerner. I

Date: Bakun-Period?. Vakilabad- to Zohak- Periods (and later?).

D.4. Tal-i-Siah/North 611


0.7 km N. of Vakilabad-Tepe (Tal-i-Sìah/South). De Miroschedji612 No. F 80. Map 1


The 4.8 m high settlement is situated on a natural elevation. NW.-SE. = 182.9 m, NE.-SW.= about 73. 2 m; surface area = about 1.1 ha.

Features and findings

A lot of Stone-tools as well as a Gray-crème Ware, but also Red Vakilabad-Ware was found. According to Stein the first ware is similar to the (Bakun-) pottery of Kanakan and Kamalabad.


Stein 1936, Pl.

XXII:10 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 69:16 Bakun AIII

XXII:14 ibid., Pl.30:14 Bakun AIV

Date: Bakun Ab- to Vakilabad-Period

D.5 Tal-i-Regi/Vakilabad 613


About 0.8 km E. of Tepe Vakilabad. De Miroschedji No. F.71─73.614 Map 1


Two Tepes (according to de Miroschedji = 3 Tepes) without more information.

Features and findings

On the surface, only few sherds of the Kanakan-/Bakun-type.


Here Fig.

8:A:1 Egami-Masuda 1962, Fig. 15: 3 (Stilistic Gr.Bb) Bakun BII (McCown)

Egami-Sono 1962, Fig.21: 6 Gap Ib

Tepe Sohz, Sondages A-C (Sohz-Phase (n.d.)) (Gap II)

Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 21:ll, 20: l

8 :A: 2 Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 21:11 and 20:1 Gap Ia-IIb

Date: Since Bakun A-Ware is missing in the BRM, the running time is restricted from Bakun BII(Mc:Cown) to Gap II.

D.6 Tal-i-Sabzi/Kharanjan 615


Situated at 1.6 km E. of the village of Kharanjan De Miroschedji site F.63.616 Map 1


Height: 3.1 m, 137 m diameter, surface area = 1.5 ha.

Features and findings

On the surface, only a small amount of pottery of the Kanakan-type and Stone-tools occurred.


Here Fig.

8:B:1 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 1: 4, 28: 6, Sohz-Phase (Gap II)

8:B.2 - without good parallels. The spike pattern in the

interior can perhaps be compared with:

Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 22:9 Gap Ia

8:B:3 ibid., ca Fig.19: 5. 8 Gap Ia-IIb

8:B:4 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 26: 5, Sohz-Phase (Gap II)

According to de Miroschedji, Vakilabad-pottery was present at the site.617

Date: Bakun BII(McCown)─to Gap II- and Vakilabad-Period. Bakun A-material seems to be absent.

D.7 Tal-i-Nalaki/Gilian 618


3.2 km E. of Gilian; de Miroschedji, No. F.130. Map 1


Two large settlements near to a riverbed.

Features and findings

On the surface occurred painted pottery oft he Kanakan- Vakilabad-Types. Bakun pottery was not really identified in the BRM. Such an attribution of here Fig.9:A: 1 is questionable, possible would also be a Vakilabad Ware 5 attribution. Fig.9:A: 2-3 belong to the Vakilabad-group.

Date: Bakun ? to Vakilabad-Period.

D.8 Tepe Jalyan A+B 619


See Dittmann 1986, Karte I, f. 131 A+B. Map 1


Two Tepes, North-Tepe without specifications; Tepe B - at a distance of 250 m from Tepe A.

Features and findings

De Miroschedji noted a succession of layers of about 2.5 m for each tepe.

Date: Tepe A Tepe B

Pottery of the necropolis of Jalyan 0

Vakilabad-Ware (529a)620 Vakilabad-Ware

Bakun-Pottery (including Bakun BI) Bakun-pottery (including Bakun BI)

Jalyan-Ware Jalyan-Ware


E.l Shah-Nishin/Shash-Deh 621


0.7 km off the water-mouth of the break through the Tang-i-Majj, next to Shar-i-Majj, 6.4 km W. of Shash-Deh. Map 1


Several ruins next to an Abris combined with a cave.

Features and findings

In a trial trench, at 0.6─0.9 m depth, Stein reached the natural rock. Islamic ware and a pottery, said to resemble the Chalcolithic one.

Date: Bakun ? and Islamic-period.

E.2 Tal-î-Tallari/Shash-Deh 622

Features and findings

Qanat-work brought up chalcolithic pottery, indicating a certain thickness of alluvial deposits in this region, possibly covering further settlements. The pottery found on the surface reminded Stein of his Kanakan/Bakun-type.

Date: Bakun-Period.

E.3 Site next to Daulatabad/Shash-Deh 623


3.2 km S. of Shash-Deh. Map I.


Flat settlement?

Features and Findings

On the surface of the plain Stein found pottery of the Kanakan-/Bakun-type next to the almost deserted village Daulatabad. Pottery of the Kanakan-/Bakun-type was possibly grubbed to the surface from antealluvial layers.


Hier Fig.9:B: 1 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 9:18, Do Tulune-Phase (Bakun BIIa)

9:B:2 The motif -not Motif+Type ?- has a long running time:

Egami-Sono 1962, Pl.XXXVII B:6, Pl.XXX.A:1,

Fig.13:4 Gap Ia-IIb

Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 85:4, Bendebal 12/11 (Gap IIb)

Date: Bakun BII(McCown) - maximal Gap II - Phase. In the BRM no Bakun A-pottery was identified.

E.4 Tal-i-Kandaki/Shash-Deh


NW. of Shash-Deh. Map I


No information.

Features and Findings

Bakun-akin sherds were brought to the surface obviously by qanat-work.


Two body-sherds in the BRM could be of Bakun BII (McCown)-Gap II-date, but are without good parallels:

Here Text Fig. 1a without good parallel

Text Fig. 1b Dittmann 1984, 36, Tab. 10, Abb.3f:54b,

Sohz 2─ to late Sohz 1 = (Gap IIb─c)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text Fig. 1

Date: Gap II to Bakun Aa-phase as maximum,


F.l Site next to Tejabad/Runiz 624


Situated 4 km E. of Runiz-bala,vis-à-vis the ruin of the village Tejabad. Map 1


No information.

Features and Findings

Stone-tools and painted pottery of Vakilabad-type on the surface.

Date: Vakilabad-Period.

F.2 Tal-Hassani/Runiz 625


1.2 km S. of Runiz-bala, situated next to a small river. Map 1


The settlement was founded on a natural terrace.

Features and Findings

Stone-tools and painted pottery oft he Kanakan-/Bakun-type from robbery trenches.


Here Fig.

l:B: 1 the motif has a long running time,

Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl.27:15─16 Bakun A,Top 'IV/


Egami-Sono 1962, Pl.XXXI.A: 9 Gap II

l:B: 2 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 1: 4, 28: 6, Sohz-Phase (Gap Ib─II)

Date: Concentration obviously Gap II, perhaps already settled in the Bakun BII/McCown - phase.

F.3 Gaudebal/Kachu 626


Next to Kachu. Map 1


SW-NE. = 1006 m, SE-NW.= 457 m, Size = 36.1 ha.

Features and Findings

Late rough and glazed pottery as well as Stone-tools.

Date: Middle Ages and late 1. Millennium B.C. If older material would be present is unclear.


G.l Tal-Darvazeh/Sarvistan 627


2.4 km N. of the Sarvistan-Mansion. Map 1


Size = ca 1.4 ha.

Features and findings

On the surface a lot of Stone-tools and painted chalcolithic pottery. A trial trench showed that the settlement was not a tell, since Virgin Soil was already reached at -0, 7 m. In lower layers, painted, contrary to a plain handmade ware. To Stein erosion would be responsible for the fact, that Stone-tools and pottery, even though quite numerous on the surface, were quite scarce in the excavation. As for him, a nearby channel could have intensified this process.

Date: The published pottery is without good parallels628. According to its description the site could date from Bakun BI to BII (McCown). The few published sherds would not contradict such a date.

G.2 Tal-i-sang-i-Siah/Sarvistan 629


3.2 km N./NW. of the Sarvistan-mansion, next to the village Deh-i Nau. Map 1


3.4 m Height, SE─NW = 329.2 m, SW─NE = 164.6 m, size = 4.3 ha.

Features and Findings

On the surface a lot of painted and plain pottery, up to 0, 8 km S. of the settlement. Stein excavated630 several trial trenches, to an average depth of 1,2 m:

· Level 1 - up to 1,2 m depth, thin ash layers with painted and unpainted coarse pottery and Stone-Tools. According to Stein some of the unpainted vessels would have been formed by a potter's wheel. At -1,2 m an oven, 1,5 m in diameter was found. Inside fragments of the coarse ware and brick fragments (a pottery kiln?)

· Level 2 between -1.2 to -2.4 m depth. Painted pottery was absent, only the unpainted coarse ware and a lot of Stone-tools occurred. At 2.4 m depth Virgin soil was reached.

In Section XI at the same depth, a grave of Clay-box - type was found. Grave goods: three assemblages of handmade, unpainted coarse pottery, vessels with out-turned rim and concave bottom. These were partly used to cover the dead:

In the BRM a Jari B-akin sherd was found, what is in agreement to Vanden Berghe's identification of such a ware at the site.631

Date: level 2 is of Bakun BI(McCown)-date. The deepest layer ("Level 3") dates to the Jari B-horizon. Level 1 runs from Bakun BII (McCown) to maximum Bakun A, minimum to Gap II.

G.3 Tal-i-Gaud-i-Rahim/Sarvistan 632


1.2 km W. of Sarvistan. Map 1


3.4 m Height, SE─NW = 281.6 m, SW─NE.=- 223.1. m, Size = 4.9 ha.####

Features and Findings

Stein laid two Test Trenches in the Tepe, of 24.4 m Length and an average depth of 1.5 m. In all layers Stone-tools and painted chalcolithic pottery occurred. Besides the common painted buff Ware, some oft he sherds had a reddish color and were nearer to Vakilabad-pottery.633 Some of these sherds had a red slip on the exterior and interior. Among the buff Ware sherds, some had an orange-colored slip634 Stein emphasized a Red-Slipped-Pottery decorated with simple multilinear patterns. This ware Stein connected to pottery from the bottom of Tal-i-Zohak.635



Fig. 10: 1 Red Vakilabad-Ware Vakilabad


Pl.XXIII:45 Nagel 1961, Pattern 18,

stylist.Group Bb BakunBII


XXIII:59 Zoning motif:

Egami─Sono,1962, Pl.XXXVII.B: 7 Gap b

XXIII:64 Gap-bird-type ?

XXIII:71 Nagel 1961, Pattern 2 ,

stylist.Group Bb Bakun BII


XXIII:73 Egami-Sono,1962, Fig.12: 8 Gap IIa

XXIII:75 ibid., Pl. XXXV.A:4 Gap IIb

XXIII:84 ibid., XXXIII.B: 7 Gap IIb

XXIII:88 corrugated Horn Bakun Aa?

As witnessed by sherds in the BRM, Mushki- and Jalyan-Wares were present in the deepest layers, as already indicated by the excavators of Tall-I Mushki and Vanden Berghe.636 Therefore, Labrets fit the picture.637 According to our definition of Jalyan A+B-Ware, the sherds will be listed:

Jalyan A-Ware


G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -1' /22 here Fig. 11: 1

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2' /29 11: 4

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -1' -2'/34 10:4

G.Rahim. XVIII-XXI, -2' /35

G.Rahim. XVII -XV, -2' -4' /28

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2' /37

G.Rahim. XVII -XV, /27

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2 /43 G.Rahim. XVII-XV/26

G.Rahirn. XVIII-XX -1, 1/2' /42

G .Rahim, XVIII-XX, -1' /40

G. Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2' /41

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -1' /33

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2' /30 11: 3

G.Rahim. XVII-XV, -1/2' /29 11: 2

G.Rahim. XVII-XV, -3 /25 10: 2

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2' /39 10: 3

Jalyan B-Ware

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -11/2' /36 10: 5

G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -2' /31 11: 5

Jalyan A-Ware occurs in Sections XVIII-XX and XVII-XV in a depth between -1' to -4', maximum. Jalyan B-Ware was only encountered in Sections XVIII-XX between -1 1/2' to -2 depth. Jalyan C-ware is absent. Bakun BI McCown) is missing also in the BRM; also not found are Jari B- and Bizdan-Ware.

Date: The oldest horizon is the Jalyan-/Mushki-Period. It follows a gap until the Vakilabad- and Zohak-period.

G.4 Anonymous next to Robat/Sarvistan 638


Situated some km N. of Sarvistan. The correct position is unknown.


No information given.

Features and Findings

Stein heard only of the site, but didn't visit it.

Date: ?

G.5 Anonymous next to the Maharlu-Lake 639


Somewhere at the Maharlu-lake. Map 1 - position is pure guess-work!

Dimension ?

Features and Findings

The site was indicated to Stein in a letter. Painted Chalcolithic Pottery is present.

Date: Bakun ?


H.l Site near Ab-i-Narak/Ij 640


About 8 km SE. of Ij, situated on the same riverside, next to Ab-i-Narak. Map 1.


Small flat settlement.

Features and Findings

On the surface Flint Blades and painted chalcolithic pottery.


Here Fig.12:A:l-3 Egami-Sono,1962,Fig.12:l, design I Gap Ila-c,

Date: Around Gap IIb.

I DARAB - Region

I.1 Tal-i-Siah/Madavan 641


1.6 km NW. of Madavan. De Miroschedji D.90.642 Map 1


9.1 m height, N-S = 91.4 m, W-E = 82.3 m, size = 0.6 ha,

Features and Findings:

Mas'ud Khan had already visited the site and had made some soundings earlier than Stein.643 Stein excavated the site with 3 Test-trenches: A─C across the whole site, in average 2, 4 m wide.

Trench A

Trench A, running across the whole site, joined the one by Khan. Trench A was subdivided by Stein in 25 Sections: I─XXV. The whole sequence was dominated by a coarse, plain pottery and a lot of Stone-tools (also Flint-drills). Painted chalcolithic pottery occurred only in sections I─II and XXII─XV, on the periphery of the settlement down to -0, 6 m, Below, in all sections, a coarse, handmade pottery was found. Above the painted wares of Kanakan-/Bakun-type, Vakilabad- and Zohak-Pottery occurred.644 From these younger layers come a Shell-disc,645 a fragment of a Chlorite-vessel646 and a mortar with red pigment, obviously in connection with the production of red Vakilabad-Ware.647 Stein emphasized especially the ashy and soft layers of the level with painted chalcolithic ware. Since walls were missing, he interpreted these features as the remains of a nomadic camp.648

Trench B

Virgin Soil was reached in both trenches at -1, 5 m. The sequence in B was identical with the one of Trench A: Painted chalcolihitc pottery occurred down to -0, 6 m. Stein noted a Stone-vessel from this layer.649 Stratigraphic earlier also here was a plain, coarse ware, as well as a lot of bones and Bone-tools.650 From the upper layers Animal-figurines are reported impressed with fingernails.651


Stein 1936, pl .

XXII:16 Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 22: 1 Gap Ia

XXII:17 ibid., Fig. 20:12 Gap Ib

XXII:19 Stein 1936, Pl. XXV:38 Tal-i-Regi/Khusu

XXII:23 Egami─Sono 1962, Fig. 25: 3, 12: 6 Gap Ib-IIb

XXII:24 Langsdorf─McCown 1942, Pl. 61: 7 Bakun AII

XXII:25 Egami─Masuda 1962, Fig. 17:9,

stylist.Group Ba-b Bakun BII (McCown)

XXII:27 ibid., Fig.15:12, stylist.Group Bb Bakun BII (McCown)

XXII:3 1 Egami─Sono 1962, Pl. XXXVI.B: 3-4 Gap Ia-IIa

XXII:43 ibid., Fig.31: 1.5 Gap Ia

XXII:44-46 Langsdorf─McCown 1942, Pl. 74:6-7 Goff 1963,Fig.13: 3 Nokhodi BIVc

XXII: 52 Egami─Sono 1962, Pl. XXXIV.A:13 Gap IIb

XXII:53 T. Sohz, Sondage B (n.d.), Sohz-Phase (Gap II)

XXII:58 Egami─Sono 1962, Fig. 22: 8 Gap Ia

XXII:59 ibid., Fig. 28: 3. 29: 4 Gap Ib-b

XXII:6 Nagel, Pattern 4 (cf.Anm.III.99),

stylist.Group Bb Bakun BI I (McCown)

XXII:61 Egami─Masuda 1962, Fig. 14:17,

stylist.Group Bb Bakun BII (McCown)

XXII:67 Egami─Masuda 1962, Fig. 114:6-7,

stylist.Group Bab Bakun BII (McCown)

XXIII: 1 stylist.Group Bb Bakun BII (McCown)

XXIII: 5 Nagel 1961, Pattern 5 stylist.Group Ba Bakun BII (Mc;Cown)

XXIII: 8 Egami─Masuda 1962, Fig.16:16, stylist.Group Bb Bakun BII (Mc'Cown) Langsdorf─McCown 1942, Pl.67: 4 Bakun AI

XXIII:11 Egami─Sono 1962, Pl. XXXIII.A: 1 Gap Ia Langsdorf─McCowm 1942, Pl. 172: 4 Bakun AI

XXVIII: 1 Egami─Sono,1962,Pl.XXXVIII.B: 7 Gap Ib

XXVIII:14 ibid., ca Fig.20:12 Gap lb

Vanden Berghe had identified also Jari B- and Mushki-pottery.652 This impression can be modified as follows:

Here Fig. 12:B:3 Jalyan-Ware

12:B:l-2 Bizdan-Ware

Zohak und Vakilabad-Ware, enumerated by Stein for the site, could not be identified at the BRM, but were surely once present.

Date: schematic:

Zohak-Period Zohak-Period

Vakilabad-Period Vakilabad-Period

Bakun Ab? Bakun Ab?

Bakun Aa Bakun Aa

Gap II Gap II

Bakun BII(McCown) Bakun BII(McCown)

Bakun BI (McCown)



I.2 Tal-i-Regi/Madavan 653


1.6 km NW of Tal-i-Siah/Madavan. De Miroschedji D.88-89.654 Map 1


3.7 m height, surface area 1.9 ha.

Features and findings

Mas'ud Khan had also tested this site and found Painted Chalcolithic-Ware and two copper objects, according to Stein probably belonging to a grave.655

Trenches A+B

Two Test Trenches were installed: A-B, starting at +1.8, and +2.. 4 m above the plain level. About additional Trenches C-E the information is meager.

Trench A

- Level 1, down to 0,3 m from the surface, only debris.
- Level 2, -0.3 to -0.6 m depth. Painted Chalcolithic-Ware like in Tal-i­Siah/Madavan.
- Level 3, -0.6 to -2.7 m depth, Coarse plain pottery a lot of Stone-tools.

Trench B

In the uppermost layer only a small amount of painted pottery occurred, as well as copper- and bronzefinds, an animal terracotta and a bottle of glass.656 In Sector XIX a fragmented grave was found at -45.7 cm with bones and skulls of two children. More than a 1000 Glass-pearls, Stone-pearls, mussel-pearls, a small bronze clock and bronze ornament, partly bearing fragments of textile, were found, as well as some iron-rests.657 As pottery a wheel-thrown Ripped-Ware occurred.658 An Islamic grave was obviously found in Section XVIII, at - 0.9 m depth. In Trenches C─E a mixture of a few painted sherds, glass- and bronze-bracelets, a coarse ware. A Frit-pearl, Stone-tools and a drill of obsidian was found.


De Miroschedji has listed Vakilabad-Ware for this site.659 The Painted chalcolithic pottery dates as follows:

Stein 1936, Pl.

XXII:39 Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 25: 3 Gap Ib

XXIII: 3 ibid., Fig. 28: 6 Gap IIb

XXIII:21 ibid., Fig. 13:2 Gap IIb

XXIII:24 Tepe Sohz, Sohz-Phase (n.d.) (Gap II)

Vanden Berghe has identified Jari B-sherds in the BRM,660 but these could not be found. De Miroschedji listed Jalyan/Bizdan-Ware (Site No. D.89).661

Date: If Jalyan/Bizdan-pottery would be present, this would mark the oldest horizon, followed by Bakun BI─BII(McCown) and Gap IIb-material. Bakun A-sherds do not occur? It follows the Vakilabad-horizon and younger material.

I.3 Tal-i-Skau/Madavan 662


2.4 km SW. of Madavan; de Miroschedji supra D 4.663 Map 1


Composit-Tepe, SW.-Tepe = 6.7 m height, N.-Tepe = 3 m height, N─S.= 365.8 m, W─O = 274.3 m, surface area = 7.9 ha.

Features and findings

All three (!) Tepes A─C were located on a natural elevation. In Tepe A a trench (I) in shape of an angle was 54.9 m long and was subdivided into 21 Sections: I─XXI. In Tepe B, two Trenches were excavated (II+III) at a length of 91, 4 m. Tepe C got also a Trench, but information is lacking.

Tepe A

- Level 1, from the surface down to -1, 5 m; only a small amount of painted pottery, but Stone Tools, Flint-cores and a coarse handmade Ware.
- The Trench was excavated down to 2,7 m without further results.

Tepe B

- Level 1 (upper layers). Only few painted chalcolithic pottery, no coarse ware.
- Level la went down to 2,1 m depth. Percentage of painted pottery had increased and one vessel with a fragmentary spout was found.664 In Level 1, 4 fragments of an alabaster vessel, copper- and bronze-fragments und a fragmented Frit-pearl were foun.665
- Level lb down to -2. 4 m depth. Few painted pottery, but a lot of Stone-tools.
- Level 2, down to -3 m depth, a lot of Stone-tools occurred (mostly cores) a few sherds of a handmade, coarse reddish Ware.

Tepe C

- Down to -0,6 m, painted chalcolithic ware.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Vanden Berghe will have identified sherds of Jari B-Ware in the BRM.667

Here Fig.

12:C: 2─3 Jalyan-Ware

12:C: l Bizdan-Ware

Date: The site was continuously settled from Jalyan-, Bizdan-, Bakun BI(McCown) to the Bakun Aa-Phase. Bakun Ab-material could not be identified in the BRM.

I.4 Anonymous a/Darab 668


Next to the riverside at Bizdan. Map 1


Flat settlement

Features and findings

On the surface Stone-tools and painted chalcolithic sherds.

Date: Bakun-Period ?

I.5 Anonymous b/Darab 669


Above the river more to the S. next to Bizdan. Map 1


Flat settlement, stretching for about 0,8 m length in direction to Darabgird. Map 1

Features and findings

The ruin had been cut by the river. Chalcolithic pottery on the surface.

Date: Bakun-Period.

I.6 Site next to Darabgird 670


Next to Darabgird. De Miroschedji supra D.80, Map 1


No detailed information.

Features and findings

The site lies in the midst of a Sassanian settlement. Stein found here three painted chalcolithic sherds. One high above the ramp next to the northern gate, one on the slope and one near the water tank of his camp.


Here Fig.13:A: 1 Egami-Sono,1962,Fig.22:7 Gap Ia/ Bakun BII (McCown).

Date: Bakun BII(McCown)

I.7 Site next to Bizdan/Darab 671


3.2 km SW of Bizdan in direction to Khusu. Map 1


Obvious traces of a down-washed settlement.

Features and Findings

On the surface painted chalkolithic sherds, but only very few Stone-tools.


Here Fig.

13:C: 1 Egami─Sono,1962,design I, Gap IIa-c·,

13 :C: 2 Dittmann,1984. Fig.52: 9,

Do Tulune-Phase Bakun Ba

13 :C: 5 Bizdan-Ware Bizdan-Periode

Date: In the washed-down material Bizdan and Bakun BII(McCown)­to Gap IIb - Phase sherds are present. If at the origin also a Bakun BI (McCown) -settlement existed, is unclear..

I.8 Tal-i-Regi/Khusu 672


1.6 km NW of Khusu next to an old riverbed. De Miroschedji supra D.17. Map 1


Two Tepes: Tepe A: 5.5 m height and size = 17.7 ha,

Tepe B: 5.5 m height, size = 4.5 ha.

Features and Findings

Tepe A

Four Test Trenches: I─IV. Trench I, 22.1 m length, Trench II 36.6 m and Trench III 42.7 m. For Trench IV no information is given, but here only "late Wares" were discovered. Virgin soil was reached at -0,6 m.

Trenches I─II

- Level 1, down to -1,5 m, a lot of Stone-tools and painted chalcolithic pottery. At a depth of -1.2 to -1,5 m a copper/bronze pin occurred in Level 1.673 Wasters were interpreted in regard to a local pottery production.674
- Level 2 down to -2,7 m depth. Fewer painted sherds, contrary to the large amount of Stone-tools in ashy layers. According to Stein's impression the unpainted pottery of this level should be wheel thrown.675 On the other side, he noted the absence of a ring-bottoms. Cone-akin vessels like at Tal-I-Skau occurred, and were emphasized by Stein.

Tepe B:brought up similar material as Tepe A.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Stein noted a coarser Ware, painted with multilinear pattern, different from the normal painted chalcolithics Ware.676 Since neither Vanden Berghe, nor de Miroschedji mention Jalyan-Ware, this type can be excluded. De Miroschedji noted Vakilabad pottery for this site.677 Furthermore, it is not clear if the Bakun BI horizon is present. At the BRM 90% of the pottery belong to the Bakun BII(McCown) - Gap - types. But. Bakun A- cones are present, the exterior vertically scraped,678 One Black- Polished Vakilabad-sherd should be mentioned.

Date: Wether Jalyan- or Bakun BI(McCown)-Periods are present at the site is unclear. A continuous settlement from Bakun BII(McCown) - Gap II- Bakun Aa and Ab phases as well as the Vakilabad period is attested.

I.9 Nakhs-i-Rustam/Darab


Unclear, obviously next to the Sassanian relief? Map 1


No information given

Features and Findings

In the BRM one sherd is associated to this site:

Here: Fig.13: B: 1, Find no.: Nakh. l. For this abbreviation no context is known, nor any document, where it would be listed. Since the labeling is doubtless from Stein, only Nakhs-i-Rustam fits..

Date: Jalyan-Period.


J.1. Tump-i-Podu 679


0.8 km E. of Galehdar. Map 1


10 m height, surface area = 1.3 ha.

Features and findings

Pottery oft he Midde-Ages and Chalcolithic pottery. Examples, published by Stein, are without good parallels, but the Ware corresponds to the Bakun-horizon.680

Date: Bakun Aa - Phase (?).

J.2. Tal-i-Pir/Haraj 681


S. of Haraj, about 2 km E. of Asir, next to the left riverside. Map 1


5.8 m height, NW─SE = 182.9 m, NE─SW = 118.9 m; surface area = 1.7 ha.

Features and findings

Islamic pottery, painted chalcolithic pottery and Stone-tools. In Islamic times used as a graveyard. Stein examined the site with the help oft two Test-trenches:

Trench I,

Was subdivided in 8 Sections: I─VIII, à 1,8 x 1,8 m. The Trench started at +4,3 m over plain level.

This Trench was excavated down to 1,2 m, virgin soil was not reached, but in the deepest part of the Trench, Section VIII, the plain-level was reached. Since the layers continued further down, also this region must have a certain alluvial deposit.

On the surface two Stamp seals were found


XXX. Har. I.6 Lanqsdorf-McCown 1942,

Pl. 8: 7 Bakun AIII

XXX. Hair. I. 8 ibid., Pl. 82:1 Bakun AIV

The upper excavated layers had a lot of ash and animal bones The lower layers, which could be summarized as Level 2, had painted chalcolithic pottery and Stone-tools.

Pottery, Trench I

Stein 1937,

Pl. XXVIII. II: 1 Such a pattern with opposite motifs

and simple rows of points, up to

now is not known from Gap II.

Egami-Masuda,1962,Fig. 7: 6 Bakun A

XXVIII. III:13 Goff 1963, Fig. 8:39 Nokhodi


XXVIII. III:15 Langsdorf-McCown1942, pl .72: 6 Bakun


XXVIII. III: 6 Bakun A-cone Bakun A

XXIX. IV: 22 Langsdorf-McCown1942, Pl. 78: l Bakun A

XXIX. IV: 16

21─22. 25 Egami-Sono,1962,design XIVa2 Gap IIa─b

- Langsdorf-McCown 1942,

Pl. 67:l.3. 38:14

(but in another combination) Bakun AIII

XXVIII.V:29 Langsdorf-McCown 1942,

Pl.57:13─14 Bakun AIII

XXIX. VI:46 see Stein Pl.XXIX.IV:16

XXVIII.VI:21 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl.71: 9 Bakun AII-IV

XXIX. VI:43 ibid., Pl. 78: 3. 8, row of blossoms Bakun A

XXVIII. VII: 6 ibid., Pl. 72: 4 Bakun AI

XXIX.VII:37 Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 22:3 Gap Ia

XXIX.VII:35. 36 Langsdorf-Mc:Cown 1942,

Pl.77: 6─8 Bakun AIII

XXIX.VII:14 - Big curved horns: ibid. ,Pl. 71─72 Bakun A

Trench II,

Runs parallel to Trench I at a distance of 3,6 m W. of No. I, and subdivided in 4 Sections: IX─XII. Two graves were encountered:

One at, -0,9 m, Skull , bones and pottery fragments.682 In Section XII, -1,2 m depth, a contracted burial without grave goods.

Pottery Trench II

Stein,1937, Pl. XXVIII.X:11 Animal not before Bakun Aa

Filling motif since Bakun Ab

ibid., Pl. 69:16. 70: 3─4 Bakun AII─IV

Pl. XXVIII.X: 1 Nagel, pattern 18,

stylist. Group18 Bakun BII


Pl. XXVIII.XI:17 Egami-Sono 1962,

design Xb2 Gap Ib-IIb

Pl. XXVIII.XI:26 Egami-Masuda 1962,

Fig. 16:1. Stylist. Group

Ba Bakum BII


Pl. XXVIII.XII:18 Bakun-cone Bakun A

Date: Gap II - Bakun Ab; the few older sherds could have a long running time.

J.3 Anonymous/Haraj 683


In the fields 2.4 km SE. of Haraj. Map 1


Some small Tepes of 0.8─1.5 ha.

Features and findings

On the surface Stein found a well done red pottery, Stone-tools, Stone-vessel fragments and painted chalcolithic sherds.

Date: Since the Red-Ware is not illustrated, no date can be given. At least one site dates to the Bakun-horizon.


K.l Anonymous a/Chir 684


The settlement is situated on top of a natural elevation of 24,5 m height above a junction of two rivers,

0.8 km S. of Chir. Map 1



Features and findings

Robbery activities brought up chalcolithic remains. Stein initiated three Test Trenches (from the robbery-hole to the center of the site, long 61 m.Virgin soil was reached at -1,2 to -1,5 m.

Southern Trench

-Level 1 only few pottery, next to the robbery hole.
-Level 2, coarse, handmade pottery, lots of Stone-tools with drill and cores.

The other two trenches gave a lot of painted chalcolithic pottery, from 0,3 m down. Stein emphasized a Red-Ware with thick walls.685 Besides the common Stone-tools, Stein found a fragment of an incised Chlorit-vessel with inlays.686 In the BRM the Name of the site is Chah-hak. Pottery has the abbreviation Sev. Chir.


Here Fig.13:D: l Egami-Masuda 1962, Fig. 16: l, Bakun BII

stylist.Group Ba (McCown)

13:D:2.4 Goff 1963, Fig. 8:46 Nokhodi


In the BRM two concave bottoms of Bakun BI (McCcwn) -Ware were found.

XXVI:21 Egami-Masuda 1962, Fig. 17: 3 Bakun BII

Stylist. Group Ba (McCown)

XXVI:23 Nagel, Pattern 18, Bakun BII

stylist.Group Bb (McCown)

XXVI:30 ibid.,No.4, Stylist.Group Bb Bakun BII

XXVI:34 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 38:12 Bakun AIV

XXVI:35 Nagel 1961, Pattern 7, Bakun BII

Stylist.Group Bb (McCown)

Tepe Sohz, Sohz-Phase (n.d.) (Gap II)

Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 31: 1.5 Gap Ia

XXVI:36 Egami-Sono,1962, ca Pl.XXXVI.A: 6.10 Gap Ib-IIb

Date: The fragment of Chlorite, together with the Red-Ware point to the Kaftari-horizon, like at Nokhodi II-I. The upper levels date from Bakun BII up to Bakun Ab, the lower ones, with some probability, are of Bakun BI (McCown)-date.

K.2 Anonymous b/Chir 687


Neighboring field to K1, perhaps part of this settlement? Map 1



Features and findings

Stone-tools and painted chalcolithic pottery on the surface.

Date: Possibly like K1.

K.3. Site next to Mung-i-Payin/Chir 688


4.8 km S. Mung-i-Payin on the left riverside, on the slope of the Duzd-i Gabri. Map 1


No details known. The is on top of a natural elevation,

Features and findings

Stein got several complete vessels of robbery activities at the site. The robbery-trench was then cleaned down to Virgin soil. Fragmented bones were interpreted by Stein as being part of a former grave. 36.6 m NE oft he robbery-hole Stein placed a trial trench. Which gave a lot of sherds of a plain ware in association with human bones. Sherds of pottery were still found up to 73.1 m on the bordering terrace. Stein emphasized especially the absence of Stone-tools. Copper and Bronze was also rare. Two stone pendants were found, one in the shape of a Double-ax.689

Date: Stein compared the pottery with material of his work at Shahi Tump.690 He noted only that the handmade Ware consisted of insufficient levigated clay. In view of the material at the BRM one can add:

- Stein,1936, Pl. XX:21 - Find.no. Mung 13/1937/10.11/19: Spouted jug, coarse mineral temper, plain (light-crème-yellowish), fired hard, wheel thrown.
- Pl. XX:23 - MUNG.14/1937/10.11/20: Gray-beige colored clay, vegetal temper, middle-gray slip, hard fired, wheel thrown. Paint: filling of triangles is also middle-gray. In between a light-gray to crème band with dark-red wavy lines.

Especially the painted vessel reminds Banesh D-Pottery. For the region Stein was working, it will be called Mung-Phase, since it is not absolutely identical to Banesh D-material. I consider this ware, with some reservations as a contemporary to Banesh D.691

K.4 Anonymous c/Chir 692


Without detailed information, but obviously the same riverbed as K3 a little more upstream, right riverside. Map 1



Features and findings

Coarse pottery and Stone tools on the surface.

Date: Bakun BI(Mc:Cown)-Periode (?).

K.5 Sarvistan/Chir 693


NW of K3. Map 1



Features and findings

Stein got a pot of a Coarse Ware, similar to those of Mung-i-Payin, and as to him, originating from a grave. An inspection of the site didn’t give any insights.

Date: Mung-Period?

K.6. Kurreh-Baz/Surian 694


On the way from Chir to Surian, on the right riverside. Situated on the slope. Map 1



Features and findings

Plain pottery on the surface, called by Stein "Early".

Date: ?.

K.7. Chatu/Surian 695


Next to water sources above the village of Surian. Map 1


Small Tepe.

Features and findings

Painted chalcolithic and later material.The site was almost completely dug for fertilizer.

Date: Bakun-Periode.


L.l. Tal-i Bahram (= Qasr-i Bahram)/Deh Bid 696


274.3 m S. of Deh-Bid, W. road to Pasargadae. Map 1


Higher than 15 m, lying on a natural elevation of sandstone.

N─S = 82.3 m, W─E.= 64 m, Surface area = 0.4 ha.

Features and findings

Late pottery on the surface, but also painted chalcolithic ware Stein excavated on the N- NW-terrace Trial-Trenches, hoping to find prehistoric layers. 23 Sections were established, each measuring 2,4 x 2,4 m. Virgin soil was reached in each section. Between 0.3 and 1.2 m depth painted chalcolithic pottery was excavated. In the NE part, Sections I─X, this level was up to 1.8 m. The lowest level in Trench A, at + 6 m above the plain a thin layer covered directly the sandstone. Here painted chalcolithic pottery occurred and later wares, understood by Stein as intrusions.697 In addition, Stein refers to a thin walled pottery already found at Tall-i Bakun A before, by Herzfeld,698 and to another thin-walled ware, with patterns in broad stripes, like it occurred already at Firuzabad and in the Region of Fasa - Darab

Small finds

Stamp seals were found (Stein 1936, Pl. XXX:24-25), as well as Copper-/Bronze-pins of Bakun A-date (ibid., Pl. XXIX:53-54).


The pottery is almost the same than at Tall-i Nokhodi/ Pasargadae and also here at Tal-i Bahram carinated vessel-forms are missing.

Here Fig. 14:A: 1 Reminds the Snake motif of Susa A-pottery

See Langsdorf-McCown 1942,

Pl. 77: 9; Bakun AIII

Stein, ibid.,Pl. XXI:37 Tall-i-Regi/ Kamalabad

XXVI:47 Goff 1963, Fig. 12:24 Nokhodi AIVa

XXVI:51 Langsdorf-McCown,1942,

Pl.75:10 Bakun A

XXVI:61 ibid., Pl. 23:25. 45:13 BakunAIV, A

XXVI:62 ibid., Pl. 33:16 Bakun AIV

XXVI:64 Stève-Gasche,

1971, Pl.35:25, 40: 7. 9 End-Susa A/Susa A

Goff,1963, Fig. 8:45 Nokhodi AIIIa

Dittmann,1984, Fig.37:7-9,

43:22-24 (Früh-Spät - Chogha Sofla- Phase)

XXVI:44 Langsdorf-McCown,1942,

ca Pl.75:10 Bakun A

Date: The site was mainly occupied in the Bakun Aa-Ab - Phases. If Gap II-material is present, is questionable. The "Late Wares" cannot be identified.

L.2. Do Tulan/Pasargadae 699


S. of the Cyros-Grave. Map 1


Two Tepes: Tepe A/E.= 23.8 m height; N─S = 155.5 m, W─E. = 365.8 m; surface area = 4.5 ha. Tepe B/W, larger than Tepe A, but chronological too young

Features and findings

Tepee A was examined by a Trial Trench W-E., of 85.3 m Length, leading up the slope to a height of 30,5 m. On the surface a lot of painted chalcolithic ware, Stone-tools and a macehead were found.700

-Tepe, A, - 0.6 to -1.2 m, depth, walls of sun-dried mud bricks (Size: 38.l x 30.5 x 7.6/l0.2 cm). These walls had different orientations, for Stein a sign that they represent more than one phase. Among the walls a large amount of painted chalcolithics sherds occurred.
-In the lower situated Sections VI─VII, equally between - 0.6 to - 0.9 m, another mud brick wall, but with bricks of different size was encountered (50.8 x 30.5 x 10/12 cm). Above this wall traces of two, intrusive graves were found.


Stein considered the pottery as stylistic "weaker" as the same one oft he Deh-Bid-region. Besides Bakun-pottery Stein noted a burnished Red Ware from different depth, but especially close to the surface.701 Sherds of a Red Ware in the BRM, have a gray core, are mineral tempered, plain in the interior and have a red slip on the exterior. The surfaces re smoothed to burnishing. The ware is fired hard and sometimes paint with dark red bands. It is very close to the Red Ware of Tall-i Nokhodi II─I.

Stein 1936, Pl.

XXVIII:39 the sherd must be rotated.

Langsdorf-McCown,1942,Pl.67: 5Bakun AI

XXVIII:47 ibid.,Pl.30:14 XXVIII:46

Red Ware ,below the carination

plain, gray. Above the carination

a powdery red slip (reminding

somehow Nal-pottery) Bakun AIV

Here Fig.14:B: l Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 12:5-6.8Gap IIa-b

14:B: 2 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 1: 4, 28: 6,

Sohz-Phase(Gap II)

14:B: 3In the combination of the pattern of

the interior and exterior without parallel.

14:B: 4the same. Like 14:B: 2?

14:B: 5Horn-type Bakun A

Date: Lower layers Gap II-material. Middle layers Bakun Aa-b -pottery and uppermost one pottery of Nokhodi II─I - type.

L.3. Tal-i-Seh-Asiab/Pasargadae 702


2─4 km N. of L2, on the right riverside.


1.2 m height. Map 1

Features, findings and date

Painted chalcolithic pottery on the surface. In the BRM only unspectular sherds have been recorded, but without doubt of pre-Bakun A-date. Gap II?

L.4. Anonymous/Pasargadae 703


8 km S. of Pasargadae, where the valley opens to the Maidan-i Qunquri plain (cf. Dittmann 1986, Map I).


Small tepe.

Features and findings

On the surface painted chalcolithic ware and "later" material.


Here Fig. 14:D :1 Goff 1963, Fig. 8:46 Nokhodi AIIÌa

Date: Bakun A - Phase minimum.

L.4a. Tall-i Nokhodi/Pasargadae 704

Not examined by Stein, but by Goff as mentioned several times.

L.4b. Tall-i Khari/Pasargadae 705

Only mentioned by Goff.

Date: Bakun A.

L.5. Anonymous/Karsu-Dasht 706


6. 4 km from L4 on the way to Shiraz, behind the river bed next to the opening of the valley, next to Karsu-Dasht.


Cone-shaped Tepe.

Features and findings

Painted chalcolithic pottery and Stone-tools on the surface.


Here Fig.

14:C: 1 - 14:B:1 Goff 1963, Fig. 8:49 Gap IIb─c, Nokhodi IVa

14:C: 2 without good parallel. Gap II?

14:C: 3 same Gap II?

Date: Gap II to Bakun A?

L.6. Site next to Sivand 707


1.6 km S. of Sivand on the road to Deh-Bid─Shiraz (cf. Map I).


The site is located on a small natural elevation.

Features and findings

Painted chalcolithic pottery and Stone-tools on the surface.


Here Fig. 14:E: 1 too small, but no Bakun A Ware. Gap II or

Bakun BII


4:E: 2 Egami-Masuda,1962,Fig. 7: 1,

Dittmann 1984, Fig. 5: 9,

Do Tulune ─Sohz– Phase (Gap II)

Stronach 1961, Pl. XLIV:3─4

Ras al'Amiya II

Date: Bakun BII(McCown\ to Gap II - Phase, maximum

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 2 Running time of the sites surveyed by Stein

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

11.2 Interpretation

11.2. 1 The Neolithic: Mushki/Jari B/Jalyan and Bizdan - The relative-Chronological Position of Mushki- and Jari B – Pottery (Updated version of 1986 with Additions of 2017) Tall-i Mushki Fig.1a─d

Originally Vanden Berghe postulated that the Jari B complex would antedate the Mushki material and mark the oldest Pottery-Neolithic phase in the Kur River Basin, Later excavations by a Japanese team seemed to reverse this sequence with the Mushki-complex as the oldest phase, followed by Jari B.708 New excavations by Abbas Alizadeh reversed the sequence even more radical, as will be discussed below.

[In the following I will first present the discussion of 1986 and in a second step I will try to update the picture in the light of the work of the Oriental Institute/Chicago under Abbas Alizadeh. Then I will try to integrate the Mamasani-project, the site Rahmatabad, and give a short note on Tol-e Bashi].

In Tall-I Mushki five levels were excavated by the Japanese with three structural levels with architecture in Level V. II and I. Virgin soil was reached under Level V.709 Three neighboring trenches à 9 x 9 m, 4 x 3 m and 9 x 8 m were excavated and the analysis of the pottery was based on a quantitative approach. Excluded was Trench J-I/11─12 due to "statistical reasons."710 Unfortunately the excavations were only of small scale: Level V = 1,36 % of the total, II = 2,26% and level I = 3,98 %. Looking at the Pottery, Mushki-Phase A - material was quite scarce: V = 69 Sherds, IV = 361 sherds and III = 551 sherds.711 (Fig. 1a-b)

· Mushki A - Level V712 and Mushki B- Level II

Coarse cooking pot-ware was missing in level 5. Pottery is mentioned only for area J/11, but not for K─L/11. Therefore pottery would be restricted to the northern part of Rooms 14─15 and the open space West of R 14. Either pottery was not in common use in Level 5, and/or one has to deal with two different functional areas: On one hand area J/11, and a part where pottery was not used: K─L/11 and K12.

In H/12, I/11 and K/11 mullers have been found. In Room 13 pottery was almost not used, but the room was associated with food-processing. A fireplace in R 13 would be in agreement with this interpretation, but would also be in accordance with the function of area J─K/11 as living-area. Here also the shell-jewelry, found here would fit. The situation east of R 13 is different: The high quantity of Labrets and Cosmetic-mortars, together with large quantities of Stone- and Bone-tools in ares K-L/11─12, point to a production-area with a surplus-production of these items, outside of the 'living rooms'. In considering the data of Tabs 3-5 bis for Mushki II, Mushki 2a-Ware was relatively common in H/11 and I/12. Mushki 2b-Ware, on the contrary, was rare, but more common in I/11─12, and K/11.

Level H/11 I/11 J/11 K/11 L/11

2a 6 1 0 0 1 .

2b 0 0 0 3 3

Schicht H12 I/12 J/12 K/12 L/12

2a 1 5 0 2 2

2b 2 1 0 1 3

Tab. 3 Distribution Mushki 2a-Ware

Level H11 I/11 J/11 K/11 L/11

2a 1 3 0 1 1

2b 1 1 0 5 0

Schicht H/12 I/12 J/12 K/12 L/12

2a 0 3 0 0 1

2b 0 1 0 0 0

Tab. 4 Distribution Mushki 2b-Ware

Schicht H/11 I/11 J/11 K/11 L/11

2 5 2 5 60 89

Schicht H/12 I/12 J/12 K/12 L/12

2 2 1 0 11 93

Tab. 5 Distribution of Labrets Mushki B-Phase

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 5 bis Distribution of Mushki 2a─b-ware and Labrets only (Mushki B)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 6 Stone-tools Mushki B-Phase, Level I

Without finds (except one sherd) are R. 3 and 11A─B. Looking at this distribution, R. 2. 4. 6 and 11A have one group of three artifacts each. R 3 and 8A have identical types, R 5+7, on the contrary, are almost devote of finds. Looking at the size of the units, only R 5 with 5 m[2] can be considered as a 'room,' if it is not an open space. R 3 had almost no finds and no entry at floor level, and with only 2.8 m[2] size, it should be considered as a storage unit. R 8a+b have also only 1.1 and 1.2 m[2] size. Here a lot of Stone-tools have been found, a working area? R 6 has also only 1.2 m[2], perhaps a kind of niche. R 2 with 4.8 m[2], is open to the exterior, and perhaps also a working space.

For Labrets and small cosmetic mortars, no room-specific data are present, here only the designation of the trenches is given:

H/11 I/11 J/11 K/11 L/11

4 4 2 4 39

H/12 I/12 J/12 K/12 L/12

1 1 0 12 19

Tab. 7 Distribution of Labrets and Cosmetic mortars in Mushki B, Level 1

In projecting these trenches on the excavated structure, the following trend can be formulated:The highest concentration of these products (unfinished objects exist) is found in area L/11 roughly to be equated with R 5─6, but also in L/12, equal to R 7─8a─b. The general areas of production were the same as before, but the form of the architectural context had changed.

In Level II this production area was under open sky, and in an open space. This changed with the level I to a walled and roofed(?) complex, a kind of small family based (?) production-site. Perhaps of more permanent use than in level II.

Unfortunately the settlement-systemic context for Tall-I Mushki is unclear. This is different for the Jalyan period in Tepe Vakilabad, where at least settlement sizes of two different sizes occur. The same is true for Kanakan A and B.713 Perhaps some regions had at least one site producing such items of personal ornament.

The TMB-trench, which gave exclusively Jari B-pottery, is situated to the South of trenches K─L/11-12 (Fig. 1a).714 Either the Jari B layers slope down in the direction to the Southwest in this part, covering Mushki-levels, as proposed by the excavators,715 or Jari B and Mushki 2b-material have a functional area-specific distribution. A third possibility would be that the settlement with Mushki 2b pottery ends next to TMB which would reflect a later settlement leaning on one side of the older Mushki settlement. Matsutani considers sloping Mushki-layers in the direction to the Southwest. Perhaps the problem was only recognized after the end of the excavation. The crucial question if Mushki 2b overlaps with TMB is unanswered by the excavation. If both pottery-complexes would be chronologically distinct, than the Mushki B-settlement would be of much smaller size if compared to Mushki A. Therefore, it might be probable that Mushki A is older than Jari B, but for Mushki B this is not proven. Here I accept a short overlap of Mushki B and TMB/Jarri B.716

Coming to the pottery of these excavations, it can be divided into three wares:

- Mushki Ware 1

A Coarse-Ware, handmade, straw tempered, low fired Ware with a dark core. The surface was smoothed with leaves or the like.717

- Mushki Ware 2

Medium to middle-fine Ware, handmade and vegetal tempered. This Ware occurs also in a finer Variant, with partly polished Slip in red─brown or buff. Both slips can occur on one and the same vessel in this case the red part is polished and the buff one is not. The latter is only exceptionally polished.718

Vessel-forms are dominated by prominent, carinated dishes and bowls, but also simple hemispherical forms occur,719 Beakers with slightly protruding walls also,720 but the majority of the beakers has vertical walls. Beside these forms, also triangle or rectangular vessel-forms are attested.721 The bottoms are flat or concave.The decoration of the vessels is in almost all cases restricted to the part between the carination and the lip on the exterior, Only flat dishes and bowls have a decoration inside. The patterns are in close relation to the color of the slip: Those, decorated with a red slip are painted

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 1a-b Tal-e Mushki

(Nishiaki 2010, Fig. 2─3)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 1a Tal-e Mushki

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 1c­­─d

(Nishiaki 2010, Fig. 2+4)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 1e─f Tal-i Jari B

(Nishiaki-Mashkour 2006, Fig. 1-2)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 1g─h Tal-i Jari A

(Egami-Masuda-Gotoh1977, Pl. 1-2)

with basket-like patterns in dark or dark-red color. Matsutani has classified these patterns according to sign forms of the Latin alphabet as H-. S-. E-. Y-. N- and "Varia."722 Vessels of Ware 2 with a buff slip have a complete different repertoire of patterns, dominated by crosshatched bands, rows of rhombs or hourglass-patterns. These fine-lined, criss-cross hatched zigzag-bands are also of dark color.723 Only pattern No. 31 occurs on vessels with red or buff slip.724 The buff-slipped ware is, according to the excavators, more prominent in the upper layers, even though the red variant continues.725 1959 two additional test-trenches were opened726: Sondage TM with five layers exclusively with Red-slipped Ware, called in the following Mushki Ware 2a. The Buff-slipped Ware, called from now on Mushki 2b.Ware, was not present here.727

Sondage TMB, situated next to Quadrat L/12728 has layers with a completely different pottery from the rest, as well as in respect to the form as also to the motifs of the patterns. This pottery from Trench TMB will be called Mushki-Ware 3.

- Mushki Ware 3

A Coarse Ware, heavily straw tempered, only weak fired. Buff slip, dark painted. Only one piece had a partially red slip.729 The motifs are completely different from Wares 2a─b, but can be related without difficulties to the Jari B ware of Vanden Berghe730 The following can be remarked: In the Main Sondage of Tall-i Mushki, the percentage of the Buff-slipped Ware 2b increased in the upper levels. Jari B pottery was not found here, but it occurred in Trench TMB south of the main sounding.731 Matsutani argued that in direction to the sounding of Vanden Berghe, situated south of the main trench, the layers would slope down with the result that Mushki 2a─b Wares would occur here at a higher level. Assuming that Vanden Berghe's impression was based on the southern sounding, Matsutami's interpretation could be correct (see Fig.1h). Moreover, the buff-slipped ware increased in proportion in the upper layers of the Japanese sounding, and the Mushki 2b-Ware is closer to Jari B than Ware 2a. In accepting Matsutamis interpretation, a Jari B-akin area would then lean on an older Tepe of Mushki-date.

This view is also interesting if one has a look at Labrets and small Cosmetic-mortars since they also increase in number from Level 4 on in K─L/11─12 in those levels, where also the buff-slipped 2b ware also increased in quantity.732 One should be aware that these two kinds of small finds are also numerous in Jari B context. Therefore, also on behalf of these small finds, Ware 2a could be older than Jari B.733 If Ware 2b and Jari B would overlap in time is hard to judge. But since the Mushki 2a-b Wares are separated from Jari B material in the Japanese main sounding, a substantial overlap will be excluded here. In the following the layers where Red-slipped Mushki 2a Ware dominated will be called Mushki A-Phase and the Buff-slipped ware in the upper layers Mushki B. If there is a short overlap between Jari B and Mushki B could perhaps be seen in Tall-I Jari A+B, which are unfortunately only known by small preliminary reports.734 Tall-i Jari B. Abb. 1e-f

This site is about at 150 m distance to Tall-I Jari A. Tall-I Jari B has 8 layers exclusivey with Jari B-pottery.735 As in Tall-i Jari AIII also in Jari B small cosmetic mortars of clay are found.736 Egami didn't publish any pottery from Jari B,737 but examples of this Ware are known from the soundings of Vanden Berghe, activities about which nothing else is known738 This pottery should be identical to the material from Tall-I Mushki TMB, Mushki Ware 3. But vessels of Jari B do not have the prominent carination, so characteristic of Mushki 2a─b Ware. Comparing the pottery from Tall-i Jari AIII, Mushki A+B, Mushki TMB and Tall-i Jari B, the following picture emerges:

The pottery of Tall-i Jari AIII can easily be related to the one of Tall-i Mushki TMB, but has only weakconnections to the pottery of Jari B, published by Vanden Berghe. The latter, on the other hand, can also be related to the material of the TMB sounding. Nevertheless, all sherds seem to belong to one horizon. Since Jari B has exclusively Jari B material and since Jari AIII is followed by period AII; Jari AIII could belong to the late Jari B horizon and Tall-i Mushki, Sounding TMB and Tall-i Jari B to the older part. Of course, this impression might be wrong, since Vanden Berghe didn't publish any substantial data nor concrete levels for his soundings.

It is possible that Jari AIII might be a little bit younger in date than Jari B, especially since both sites lie very close to each other. On the other hand, the material from TMB might date just at the end of Mushki. Tall-I Jari AIII would then have replaced the old Jari B settlement.739

In how far Jari B-pottery develops locally from Mushki 2b~Ware cannot be answered. A close continuity of both complexes is also given turning to the small finds like the small Cosmetic-mortars and also in regard to the Mushki 1-Ware which is also present in Tall-i Mushki and Tall-i Jari AIII, being perhaps at the origin of Bakun BI (McCown) -Ware.740 Tall-I Jari A III Abb. 1g─h

In discussing the chronological position of the pottery of the deepest layers in Tall-i Jari A, Egami provoqued a certain confusion, since in a first preliminary report he dated it to the Mushki phase (Level A,7741 ) But in the second preliminary report, the pottery published for phase AIII (Level A7 of the first report742 is beyond doubt Jari B-Ware.743 The succeeding layers of Jari AII (level 6─5 of the first preliminary Report) are characterized by Bakun BI(McCown) pottery,744 which was already found together with Jari B in Period AIII745 and which marks in Jari AII a proper horizon746. Bakun BI pottery is a handmade, sometimes basket molded coarse ware, with marks of the baskets on the surface. It can have knots and appliké.747 Typical are thick-walled bowls with rounded sides and also rectangular forms are known.748 Above the Bakun BI-level are layers with painted Bakun BII(McCown) ware.

749 750 751 752 753

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 8 Pottery comparisons for Jari B- and Jari AIII

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 9 Attempt to correlate Tall-i Mushki and Tall-i Jari A+B

11.2.2 Notes on the relative-chronological sequence of the sites Examined by M.A. Stein THE Neolithic

According to the material stored at the BRM/London, the Jalyan-pottery can be subdivided in three wares: Jalyan A-C

- Jalyan-Ware A

Middle-coarse clay, mostly mineral tempered, reddish core, at the interior and exterior a thick reddish-red slip. The interior of the vessels is smoothed-polished, the exterior is always polished. The vessels are well (middle) fired, handmade, and decorated in dark colors.


D2A, Kanakan A here Fig. 2: 2. 5. 9

D2B, Kanakan B Fig. 3: 1 (= Stein l.936, Pl.


G3, Tal-i-Gaud-i-Rahim Fig.11:1-4

I1, Tal-i-Siah/Madavan Fig.12: B: 3

I9, Site next to Nakhs-i Rustam Fig. 13:B: 1

- Jalyan-Ware B

Middle-coarse clay, mineral and/or vegetal temper, core often gray, and fired middle hard, interior thin reddish wash, exterior a more substantial red-reddish slip. The interior is smoothed and polished the exterior is paint with a dark decoration. Walls are often thinner as Jalyan A-Ware.


D2A Kanakan A Fig. 2: 3. 7─8

D2B Kanakan B Fig. 3: 2─5

G3 Tal-i-Gaud-i-Rahim Fig.10: 2─5; 11: 5

I3 Tal-i-Skau/Madavan Fig.12: C:2─3

- Jalyan-Ware C

Middle-coarse clay, mineral tempered, reddish core, fired middle-hard. The vessels are generally plain or the interior and exterior are smoothed, but never fine polished as Jalyan A─B Ware. Generally the paintings are in dark colors, but in the interior often a Jalyan A+B-pattern and the exterior has patterns in fine painted hatching, as Bizdan-Ware, or here also a Jalyan A+B - pattern occurs.


D2A Kanakan A Fig. 2: 1. 4. 6.

D2B Kanakan B Fig. 3: 6─7.

- Bizdan-Ware

According to Stein's results, it occurs only in one variant. Middle-coarse clay. Vegetal and sometimes also mineral temper, core plain, interior and exterior plain, sometimes smoothed, reaching a light polish, fired middle hard. Dark paint with geometric patterns in fine hatching.


I1 Tal-i-Siah/Madavan Fig.12:B: l─2

I3 Tal-i-Skau/Madavan Fig.12:C: 1

I7 Site next to Bizdan Fig.13:C: 5

- Mushki-Ware


G3 Tal-I Gaud-i-Rahim

I1 Tal-i-Siah/Madavan

- Jari B-Ware

G3 Tal-I Gaud-i-Rahim

I1 Tal-i-Siah/Madavan

Could also be identified in the BRM in two additional sites:

Cl Anonymus/Asmangird Fig. 1: C: 1

G2 Tal-i-Sang-i-Siah without illustration due to the bad

state of the sherd. Problems of the Neolithic of Fars

Looking at the geographical distribution of the different wares the following picture emerges:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 10 Geographical distribution of Jalyan A─C-, Bizdan- and Jari B - Wares

Since Bizdan-Ware is up to now only attested in the Darab-region, as seen in Tab 10, it could have replaced the Jalyan C-Ware which would be in agreement, with the exterior paint of Jalyan C-Ware, which shows a close resemblance to Bizdan pottery. But due to the small sample this is pure guesswork. Jari B-material is also known from Sarvistan and from an area south of the Kafr plain; Jalyan A+B-Ware resembles in its Motifs. Mushki 2a-Ware, which nevertheless is also found in the Mushki B-Phase. In Kanakan A (D2A) Jalyan A+C-Wares show a strong relation to Labrets.754 In the Kur-River Plain Labrets are typical for the Mushki B-Phase. Here also clay cosmetic mortars continue in Jari B, starting in the Mushki period. In the Darab-region such a connection of these finds with Bizdan-Ware is restricted to sites having Jalyan A+B-Ware. Jalyan C -Ware is missing here. A real understanding of the grouping of small finds and wares could give excavations at Tal-i-Siah/Madavan (Il) and Tal-i-Skau/Madavan (I3).The chronological correct placement of the three Jalyan-Wares could be attained by excavating Kanakan, For the moment the following impressions can be plotted.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 11 Distribution of Phases and Wares of the Kur River Basin in relation to the Fasa- and Darab-Region.

Jalyan A+B-Pottery would be placed parallel to Mushki B-A. Jalyan C ­ Ware seems to be younger and with some probability is contemporaneous to Jari B and Bizdan-Ware, replacing both in the Fasa-region. That Jalyan A-Ware connects Jalyan B+C is clear by the distribution of Wares in Kanakan A:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 12 Distribution of Jalyan A-C - Wares in Kanakan A

But one should also keep in mind, that the three wares might reflect different activity areas in Kanakan A.

If part of the Jalyan-complex would not replace the missing Bizdan-/Jari B-Aspect, the Fasa-region would have a chronological hole, which would need an intelligent explanation. Information on the Neolithic according to the more

recent work by Sumner and de Miroschedji

Information by Sumner755 on unpublished surveys,756 a survey by de Miroschdji757 in combination with Stein's work758 give important hints as to the local chronology.

Sumner759 was able to define additional Wares for the region:


Has been defined after a site of the same name, next to Shiraz.760 The ware resembles Jari B-Ware. The linear, geometric patterns are executed in red or black color.761 Peculiar are negative patterns, in the form of scratchings in zig-zags and steps­pattern.762 At Kuthai also Mushki-Ware occurs on the surface.763


Tall-i Morge is situated next to Kazerun.764 The pottery resembles Kuthai-Ware, has a buff to red slip, sometimes producing bichrome effects. The paint is orange or black.765 Also on this site Mushki-Ware is attested on the surface.766


This pottery from the Sarvistan-area,767 resembles Jari B­Ware. It is straw-tempered, smoothed, buff with a dark paint. The geographic distribution of the wares

Bizdan-Ware was found only around Darab; contrary to Jalyan-Ware, which occurs around Darab and Fasa768.It is important to note an observation by de Miroschdji,

that both wares can occur separated on neighboring sites in the Darab-area.769 De Miroschedhji compared the Bizdan-Ware with Jari B and Jalyan with Mushki-Ware.

Since de Miroschedji places the Bizdan/Jari B complex before Jalyan and Mushki, he follows Vanden Berghe's view of the chronological positions of the Wares.770 Sumner, in dealing with all these neolithic wares,771 was not sure if these should be arranged in a chronological order or if they wouldn't be more or less contemporaneous or/and would be dispersed in different geographical areas. The last impression he seems to favor, since real Jari B motifs are rare at Sarvistan, Shiraz and Kazerun.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

772 773 774 775 776 777 778

415 416 417 418 419 420 421

Tab. 13 Neolithic wares in Fars. Geographical distribution.

Sumner followed de Miroschedji's cautious equation of Bizdan with Jari B-Ware as well as Jalyan with Mushki Ware.779

Furthermore, he attributed the dark painted buff wares found around Sarvistan, Shiraz and Kazerun more to the Jari B-complex than to Mushki. Sumners suspicion could prove true, since the wares have a distinct geographical distribution. It is believed, that the homeland of the Mushki-Ware seems to be the Kur-River-Bassin, stretching to the south up to the Shiraz-area and Mushki influence can also be traced in the Bakhtiyari hills [But see below].Vanden Berghe believed, that Mushki could even have reached Sarvistan. This impression is perhaps due to an equation of Jalyan- with Mushki-Ware.780 De Miroschedji hold the term Jalyan for the material at the BRM.781 But one should keep in mind, that the excavator of Tall-I Mushki782 will have identified Mushki pottery at Tall-i Gaud-I Rahim/Sarvistan. Indeed, this site can be understood as a contact - zone of both wares, because here real Mushki-motifs occur (here Fig. 10:2─5) as well as typical Jalyan patterns (Fig. 11). In the lowest levels (?) of Tall-I Gaud-I Rahim, Mushki and Jalyan patterns are present on Jalyan-Ware.

Vanden Berghe will have identified Jari B-Ware in; Tall-I Siah/Madavan, Tall-I Regi/Madavan. Tall-I Skau/Madavan and Tall-I Sang-I Siah/Sarvistan. On behalf of the sherds in the BRM, this impression cannot be supported:

For Tall-I Siah/Madavan Jalyan- and Bizdan-Ware are attested: Fig. 12B:3 and 12B:1─2. Concerning Tall-I Regi/Madavan no early sherds at all could be identified in the BRM. For Tall-I Skau a Bakun BI(McCown) - vessel with basket mold impression is known, as well as Jalyan- and Bizdan-Ware: Here Fig. 12C:2-3 and 12C: 1. From Tall-I Sang -I Siah/Sarvistan a worn Jari B-sherd can be mentioned, and finally, a Jari B sherd was also collected by Stein in Anonymous/Asmangird in the Kafr plain Fig.1: C: 1 Attempt to establish a framework for the Wares of the Jalyan-Bizdan -horizon

For the Mushki-horizon two painted Wares have been defined:

Mushki 2a-Ware, dark painted, Red ware with prominent carinated vessel forms.

Mushki 2b-Ware, dark painted buff ware, partly with a red slip on the lower part of the vessel. Patterns differ from Mushki-Red-Ware.

Mushki 2a-Ware occurs in all levels at Tall-I Mushki, contrary to Mushki 2b-Ware, which is restricted to the upper levels of the site (Mushki B-phase).783

Jari B-Ware is coarser then Mushki, of buff color, and dark paint. The patterns are quite different to the ones of Mushki.784 Also the vessel forms are different, carinations are not prominent, if one compares sherds published by Sumner,785 Tall-I Mushki TMB,786 Tall-I Jari B787 or Tall-I Jari AIII.788

Kuthai-Ware, as defined by Sumner,789 has carinations similar to Mushki-Ware, dark paint on buff ware, contrary to Mushki 2a-Ware. Heavy carinated forms can also be found in Bizdan pottery and at Jalyan-Ware.790 Schematic the Ware-attributes can be plotted as follows:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

433791 434792 435793 436(435)794 437(436)795

Tab. 14

According to this tabulation the following wares would be part of closer groups:

Mushki 2a- and Jalyan-Ware

Mushki 2b- and Kuthai-, Bizdan- and Morge-Ware

Jari B - and Sarvistan- and Kuthai-Ware

One incised pattern of Kuthai-Ware reminds a pattern of Jari B.796 There are more connections between Kuthai and Jari B-Ware,797 especially among the survey-material of Sumner,798 from the TMB-sounding at Tall-I Mushki,799 and examples published by Vanden Berghe from his sounding in Jari B.800 Also the up to now single published sherd of the Sarvistan-Ware has a pattern which reminds Jari801 as has a worn sherd of the Sarvistan Ware from Tall-I Sang-I Siah/ Sarvistan belonging to Jari B.802 Sumner was inclined to associate the Kuthai-Ware, the Sarvistan-, Morge- and the Bizdan-wares more with Jari B than with the Mushki-complex.803 Bizdan-pottery with is very fine diagonal drawn lines is quite close to Mushki 2b-Ware,804 where cross hatching dominates. According to de Miroschedji, Bizdan-Ware has a buff to reddish slip,805 called Black on Buff by Sumner.806 Combining painting style and forms of Bizdan Ware, this ware is closer to the Mushki 2b- complex, as is Kuthai-Ware with its carination to Mushki 2b than to Jari B. But more stratigraphic evidence would be needed to come to more precise solutions

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 15 Regional Distribution of Neolithic Wares

Immediately south oft he Kur-River-Basin, in Sarvistan, is a zone of overlap of Mushki-,Jalyan and Jari B Wares. More to the West, near Kazerun, Mushki-Ware is rare. Here Morge- and Jari B-Ware are found contrary to Jalyan-Ware. In the Shahr-e Kord region sherds are found in a cave, S.4, which resemble Jalyan- and Bizdan-Pottery, what has been related by Zagarrell (1982, 132, Fig. 134─7) to Qaleh Rostam I.807 The southernmost region with Jari B-Ware is the Kafr Plain with the site of Anonymous/Asmangird. Around Fasa and Darab, Jalyan-Ware occurs. Bizdan-Ware, on the other hand, seems to be limited more to the Darab-area. If Bizdan Ware is slightly younger than Jalyan-pottery, as proposed here, then the Jalyan C-aspect could have continued in the Fasa-region, replacing the Bizdan complex (cf. above Tab. 11).

The Morge-Ware is up to now808 without real comparanda. It is also questionable, if the bichrome effect of this ware was really intended or, more probably, it is the result of an insufficient firing controlling process.809 Some pattern remind Mushki 2b-Ware, but the resemblance is quite vague. Kuthai-Ware, on the other hand, is a local variant of the Mushki 2b- and Jari B-Ware . The final neolithic stage: Bakun BI(McCown) /BII(Egami)

The documentation of the excavations of this site were lost during World War II. Short notes are known from McCown810 and Schmidt.811 The pottery of the older Bakun BI - Period was characterized by McCown as a handmade, very coarse light red ware. As accompanying small finds he mentions lots of Bone- and Stone-tools. Architecture was not encountered. This is also true for the Japanse soundings in 1962. The only feature excavated was a pit with vertical sides.812 This impression of missing architecture was only changed by the later Japanese excavations at Tall-I Jari A and B.813 But the excavated surface in Tall-i Bakun B was extremely small, only 12 square meters. The upper layers of this small sounding were summarized under Bakun B1, and the deeper older levels as Bakun B2; in fact just the other way than the American designation. Only the upper period BI(Egami) has painted pottery, contrary to the deeper levels of period B2, which have only a handmade coarse pottery already known from the American excavations.

Egami and Masuda814 defined two wares:

Gr. B1

Is identical to the Bakun BII (McCown)-Ware. It is handmade - coiling method, temper is almost invisible, sometimes also quite coarse. The vessels have sometimes a light slip; most of the time the vessels are plain and smoothed, rarely polished. Firing is hard, dark paint (Dark-greenish,-reddish brown) in mostly geometrical patterns. Anthropomorphic or zoologic motifs are rare.

Gr. B2

Is identical to Bakun BI(McCcown)-Ware: handmade, coarse clay, gray-brown color, middle coarse vegetal temper, and low fired. The surfaces are brushlike smoothed; polish is rare.815 In the upper layers of BI/Egami, the sherds were thinner. Such vessels are rare in the lower levels.816 Bases of Group B2 are flat or mostly somehow concave,817 possibly the first ring shaped bottoms occur818, A small stand is also attested.819

Stratigraphic conditions might be more complicated as it seems: According to the excavation report between B1 and B2 a thick layer of blue clay was found, separating both periods. This layer, here called BI/BII, was almost devoid of finds. At least one datable sherd occurred, a sherd with a painted Bukraniun-motif, found together with pottery of group B2, to which the sherd also belongs. The color of the paint is red and tends to peel off. That more than one sherd was found in this layer, seems to be in accordance with the text,820 because Egami and Masuda mention more motifs of this Ware from B1/B2 as hatched triangles and rectangles not unlike the motifs of the younger B1-pottery. The layers of BII/Egami are rich in small finds, especially of bone, besides Stone-tools.821 Typical are also large central perforated sherds.822 According to these facts, it cannot be excluded that a level BI/II with red painted pottery separates levels BII and BI. Tall-I Jari AII

Japanese excavations seemed to correct th e wrong impression of the BI(McCown)-period being devoid of architecture. Excavations seemed to establish for the first time a sequence of Jari B, followed by Bakun BI(McCown), followed by Bakun BII(McCown) , reflected in the succession of Jari AIII─AII and AI.823 Moreover, Levels 6─5 (Jari AII) was separated by a layer of clay from the older AIII (Level 7) of about 40 cm thickness. If this would mark a gap in the sequence was not clear,824 the younger level 5 of Jari AII had a bu ilding, T-shaped, which Egami interpreted as a temple in analogy to the finds from Eridu XVI.825

This equation is also found in the second preliminary report, where, by the hand, this same (?) building shifted from area F to area G. From the structure only objects of daily use and a big phitos from outside the building was found close to the south-wall,826 and according to the second report, a small bench, leaning on one oft he walls was interpreted as 'altar'.827 This installation is not mentioned in the first report.

As to Egami, levels 6-2 gave a thick walled, coarse pottery, together with very few painted sherds, The latter decreased more and more and under level 4 it is almost non existing. Since levels 4-2 had painted Bakun BII(Mcown)-pottery, levels 6-5 (Jari AII) were attributed to Bakun BI (McCown).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.16 Level and period-designations for Tall-i Jari A, according to the preliminary reports.

Stein got quite a couple of sites with Bakun BI (McCown)-material. (See Tab. 2). Further hints as to the stratigraphic position of Bakun BI (McCown) could give sites such as:

Il = Jalyan A- and Bizdan-Ware, -Bakun BI-, and later Wares

I3 = Jalyan B- and Bizdan-Ware, -Bakun BI-, and later Wares.

But one should note that a real succession of Bakun BI (McCown) - following Jalyan and/or Bizdan-Pottery is not proven and had been only constructed in analogy to Jari A. One cannot exclude, that Jalyan and Bizdan-pottery belong to the Bakun BI(McCown)-horizon, because it is quite strange that Stein never quotes a succession like:

Uppermost level: painted Bakun-like pottery.

Middle level: plain, unpainted coarse ware of Bakun


Lowest level: painted neolithic pottery of Jalyan-Bizdan-type.

One site, Tal-i-Gaud-i-Rahim (G3) has obviously no Bakun BI(McCown)-pottery, neither according to Steins report, nor on behalf of the pottery in the BRM. After the Jalyan period a gap could have occurred here or the trench by Stein did not cover this part of the Bakun BI-settlement. But, since the Bakun Ba-stylistic group is missing, which supposedly reflects the beginning of the Bakun BII(McCown)-horizon, one cannot exclude that the site was only resettled in the late Bakun BII(McCown)/Gap Ib period.

Even though Tall-I Bakun B and Tall-I Jari A are almost neighboring sites, trying to connect both sites on behalf the published pottery is quite difficult. The differences in the pottery could be due to chronological differences or different modes of production. Older material than Bakun BI (McCown) is not present as at Tall-I Jari A. Therefore, at least in theory, the pottery of Bakun BI (McCown) could date late in the period. On the other side, on both sites the Bakun BI (McCown) horizon is superposed by painted pottery of Bakun BII (McCown) -type. It is unclear if at Tall-I Jari A also a level like Bakun BI/II exists between Jari A II and AI; from the stratigraphy AI, level 4 could be such a candidate.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.17 Tall-i Mushki, Tall-i Jari A+B und Tall-i Bakun B: Synopsis 1986

To be explicit: at Jari AII Basket-molded-pottery is quite common, contrary to Bakun BI (McCown) and also bottle-forms are not known from Bakun BI(McCown). Common to both sites are the plain ware in general and simple vessel-types,828 as well as concave bottoms,829 In order to come to a closer relation of both sites, the youngest material of both will be compared.

Unfortunately, such a comparison is hampered by the fact, that no level-specific material is published from either site. Considering the material published by McCown830 of Bakun BII and the one published by Egami and Masuda, two stylistic groups of patterns can be recognized:

Ba Patterns, composed of simple thin lines of simple geometric character, like hängende triangles, diagonal criss-cross simple vertical strokes, separated by horizontal lines. These motifs are stylistically related to Mushki and Jari B-patterns:831 see Nagel, 1961, Abb. 19: 5. 6. 11─13. 15─17 .

Bb Patterns are executed in broader lines. Metopes and figurative

patterns occur: Nagel, 1961, Abb.19: 1─4. 7─10. 18─24 .

Group Bb is also quite common at Tall-i Gap Ia, a site which has no older levels of Bakun BI(McCown)-date and where Group Ba-patterns are rare. It is clear that both groups overlap and do not exclude each other, but Group Ba could reflect a more local tradition as Group Bb, which seems to have a more interregional distribution.832

As a trend Tall-i Jari AI is more stylistic group Ba oriented, and Bakun B (perhaps in upper layers ?) more to Group Bb or Ba-b.

[The result of Tab.18 contradicts the statement of the excavators, that Jari AI would be of Gap-type (Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 1)]. Alizadeh, who surveyed the site, found only Bakun BII(McCown)-pottery and only a very small amount of sherds, which could be of Gap-type (Alizadeh 2006. 41). The subdivision of the younger phases of the Bakun-horizon, as presented in my dissertation 1983, published in 1984 and 1986, is more or less identical to the system of Voigt-Dyson 1992, and needs not to be repeated here. An extensive study of Fars in German is found in Dittmann 1986: I, 311─373 = Chronology; I., 374─410 = Regional developments and I, 411─446 = Settlement and Household Level.]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 18 Distribution of the stylistic Bakun BII/(McCown) groups

Notes to Tab. 18: 1 Egami-Masuda 1962;

2 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977.

3 Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, Pl. L:40 and Nagel 1961, Abb. 19:14;

4 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977; Egami 1967, 2938. Annotations on the End of the chalcolithic- and the

beginning of the Early Bronze Age Period in South-Fars The VAKILABAD - HORIZON

Stein was able to gather material of this period from the following sites:

Qir-Karzin plain Bl Oal"a-i-Parian PostBakun BII/

Gap II

Fasa-Area D3 Tepe Vakilabad Post Bakun-?

D4 Tal-i-Siah(Nord) Post Bakun Ab

D6 Tal-i-Sabzi Post Gap IIb

D7 Tal-i-Nalaki Post Bakun A-?

D8 Tepe Jalyan Post Bakun

Sharistan/Runiz-Area Fl Site next to Tejabad

Sarvistan G3 Tal-i-Gaud-i-Rahim Post Bakun Aa

Darab-Area Il Tal-i-Siah Post Bakun Aa/Ab?

12 Tal-i-Regi/Madavan Post Gap II

18 Tal-i-Regi/Khusu Post Bakun Ab

Vakilabad-pottery can be bracketed between Bakun A and Kheyrabad and Zohak pottery833. For Tepe Vakilabad (D3) de Miroschedji distinguished 4 wares, but in the Stein-Collection in the BRM a fifth ware can be defined:

Ware 5 Middle fine clay, very fine mineral temper, good and regular hard fired. The vessels (Fig. 4) are plain or have a self slip of light color, they are smoothed in- and outside, mostly wheel thrown. The painting shows geometric patterns in dark paint.The pottery reminds Bakun A, but it is not identical.

Forms: A main type is a neckless dish Fig. 4: 1─4

Ringbases Fig. 4: 9

Low Pedestals Fig. 4:10

Thin-walled dish Fig. 4: 8

Motifs: Also remind Bakun A-patterns, but are different:

Fine hatched folding shell pattern Fig. 4: 3

Fine parallel wavy lines and

Broad contours Fig. 4: 4

Filled hanging triangles Fig.4:10

In Tal 1-i Bakun A the Vakilabad main type of Ware 5 (Fig. 41─4) corresponds to McCown's type VII= "Inverted Rim Bowl", which is common, especially in Bakun AIII─IV.834 This type and the folding shell pattern remind also the Asupas-Ware of Sumer and Alden.835 De Miroschedji mentioned also Bakun-pottery for Tepe Vakilabad. In Stein's collection only Ware 5 is attested, published here Fig. 4, and further examples by Stein.836 If ever, only Figs. 4:7-9 could be of Bakun-type. In the following, the origin of Ware 5 sherds was plotted, in order to understand its chronological position:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.19 Distribution of Vakilabad Ware 5 (only pieces from Fig.4)

(C-D) = is attributed to sherds, without Trench designation. Since they were found at a depth, which was reached by Stein only in Trenches C-D, their supposed origin might be correct. Comparing this occurrence with the distribution of other Wares (Ware 1─-2a), the following picture emerges:837

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.20 Distribution of Vakilabad Ware 1 (only pieces from Fig.5).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.21 Distribution of Vakilabad Ware 2 (only pieces from Fig. 7)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.22 Distribution of Vakilabad Ware 2a (only pieces from Fig.6)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.23 Distribution of Wares l.2.2a and 5 in Tepe Vakilabad

It should be noted that the com1pilation of the running-time oft he different wares is based on quite a small sample. A broader material base was used by Kerner in her M.A. Thesis Especially Trenches C─D and A+G, should be able to furnish information for the relative-chronological position of Wares l.2.2a und 5:

The compilation on Tab. 23 suggests a threefold division oft he Vakilabad horizon.

Vakilabad A = Ware 1+5, Schnitt C─D, Abschnitte I─VI,


Vakilabad B = Ware l.2a.5, Schnitt A, -2'-4' Abschnitte I─VI,


Vakilabad C = Ware 2.5, Schnitt C─D, Abschnitte


Schnitt G, Abschnitte XIV─XVII,-2'-3 1/2' -l'-5' (-61),

As a trend the Dark-painted-light-Ware 2a, seems to be older than the Black- painted-red-ware (Ware 2), which at first hand would be in agreement with Stein's observation of increasing light wares in the upper layers of Vakilabad Tepe.838

Ware 5 occurs at Vakilabad in phases A and B. Parts of Ware 5 have been associated to Asupas-Ware, of Initial Banesh-date in the Kur-River-Basin,839 called here Banesh A, and paralleled with Susa Akr.I,19/18.840 Dark-painted-light-Vakilabad 2a-Ware occurs also in the Bakhtiyari-region in S.10,841 a site dated to "Late-Chalcolithic 2a-b",842 what can be associated to Susa, Akr.l,17Ax, and/or the beginning of the Protoelamite period. Vakilabad Ware 2a could therefore start early in Banesh C.843 Possibly it runs up to Banesh D, like Ware 2a-akin sherds from Banesh D-context in Tall-i Malyan "City Wall, Operation By8"show.844 As a consequence, Vakilabad B would run from early Banesh C to Banesh D = Susa, Akr .I, 17Ax/16 ─ 13─? Vakilabad - Phase C would then date later. Vakilabad A- Phase on the other hand, dates earlier than the end of Late-Uruk B. But when did it start?

In this perspective, it is reasonable to discuss the relation between Vakilabad A and the Bakun-horizon:845

Only Tal-i-Siah(Nord)/Fasa, Tal-i-Siah/Madavan and Tal-i-Regi/Khusu have both Bakun Ab-material and Vakilabad-pottery. In Tal-i-Gaud-i-Rahim Bakun Aa-pottery and Vakilabad Ware 2 (here Fig.10: 1) of Vakilabad - Phase C-date. The other sites have either no older material or Bakun A(b) pottery is not attested846 the latest sherds being of Gap IIb-date. To understand the relation between Bakun A and Vakilabad one has to face two problems:

Ware 5 from Vakilabad up to now is only known from Tepe Vakilabad. The reason could be that it was confounded with Bakun A-pottery.

The presence of Vakilabad-pottery could be depended on the size of a settlement, but large Tepes up to 5 ha, like Bl. D7 and G3. 18 have Vakilabad pottery following Gap II- or Bakun Aa-b. But also small Tepes can have Bakun Aa─b pottery, especially sites like D4. Il and I5. De Miroschedji wanted also to include Tepe Vakilabad to the Bakun-horizon.847 In short, there is no unequivocal correlation between site size and the presence of Bakun A and/or Vakilabad pottery.

In the regions of Qir-Karzin, Fasa, Sarvistan and Darab the Bakun Ab-Aspect is almost not existing, contrary to Gap II and Bakun Aa. Therefore, it could be that Vakilabad A functioned as a regional substitute for the Bakun Ab - Phase of the Kur River Basin.

The other possibility would be that Bakun Ab-pottery is potentially present, but is underrepresented in the collections. Vakilabad would then date later than Bakun Ab and Ware 5 could be understood as a further developed Bakun A pottery. Another argument could be that Ware 5 is a pure local phenomenon and is restricted to Tepe Vakilabad.

Unfortunately the area explored by Stein seems to be devoid of Lapui- and Banesh-material, with the exception of the Mung-period and therefore no association with that material is given. Nevertheless, Bakun A-ware is well attested at the following sites:848

Firuzabad-area Al Tal-i-Regi/Kamalabad, 3.9 ha, no Vakilabad-


Fasa-area D2A Kanakan A, 0.2 ha, no Vakilabad-


Gulfcoast-hinterland, Jl Tump-i-Podu ? 1.2 ha, no Vakilabad-


J2 Tal-i-Pir/Haraj, 1.7 ha, no Vakilabad-


Deh-Bid/Pasargadae, Ll Tal-I Bahram, 0.4 ha, no Vakilabad-


L2 Do Tulan, 4.5 ha, no Vakilabad-


A further hint to the chronological position of the Vakilabad A-horizon could be the presence of Gray/Black-Polished-Ware 1,849 because this ware occurs also at Tall-i Bakun A. In one case (without illustration, Find no.: Vak. A. VI─VII/-2'-4') a sherd of this ware has a basket impression in the core of the sherd. This technique has a long tradition in Fars reaching back as far as the Neolithic and Basket-molded-sherds are also found within the Red-Ware on the surface of Tall-I Bakun A (Lapui-period ?)850 This technique of Basket-molded-pottery documents a ‘long durée’ on behalf of pottery tradition in the Fasa-region and the Kur-River-Basin.

Vakilabad Wares 1+5 seem to develop at the end of Bakun Ab or within that period. Both continue until the early Banesh C-Phase, when Vakilabad C started, which continued up to Banesh D. In documenting completely the sherds of Ware 5 it is perhaps possible to distinguish between older and younger forms and patterns. Types like here Fig.4: 1. 3─4 + Stein,1936, Pl.XX:3, seem to date relatively late and might be connected with Asupas-Ware of the Kur-River-Basin: -cf. Sumner, 1972, Pl.XVII:A─f,O─R, dating to Banesh A, even though a sherd is known from Vakilabad Tepe, in the context of Vakilabad Ware 2 (See here Fig.4: l, Trench G, Section XIV─XVII, 3 1/2'/6).

In Tepe Vakilabad, Vakilabad C is overlaid by Kheyrabad and then by Zohak-pottery.

Considering the regional level, it is evident, that Vakilabad-pottery occurs almost always on sites having Bakun-material,851 witnessing of a high continuity between both horizons. Since the compilation of Tab. 23 is based only on a small selection of sherds, the results must not be overemphasized. The final fraction oft he Vakilabad horizon will be due to Kerner's analysis.852. It seems if the Bakun BII-and Gap II- horizon reflect the maximum extension of the Bakun-culture.

A similar development can be observed in the Behbehan-Zuhreh- and the Bakhtiyari-region, which saw a dramatic decrease in the number of settlements in or after Bakun A. (Dittmann 1984, 71 Fig. 14 and 1986, 467 Fig. 162 ). Only the Kur-River-Basin and the region of Fasa and Darab saw a continuation of settlements.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten


Tab. 24a-b Fars, Chronological Synopsis 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 2 Schematic distribution of Mushki- and Jalyan--Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 3 Schematic distribution of Jari B-, Bizdan and Jalyan C-Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 04 Schematic distribution of Bakun BI(McCown)-Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 5 Distribution of Bakun BII(McCown-Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 6 Schematic distribution of Gap-Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 7 Schematic distribution of Bakun Aa.Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 8 Schematic distribution of Bakun Ab-Ware

as analyzed in 1986

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Text-Fig. 9 Schematic distributions of Lapui- and Early Vakilabad-Ware

as analyzed in 1986

11.3 New Projects for old problems

Since the work of Stein, Vanden Berghe and de Miroschedji, some new important excavation programs were initiated: The Mamasani-project, which is providing archaeological data for the whole history of the Mamasani-district and a new excavation-Programm at Bakun A and B, Jari A and B and Tall-e Mushki under Abbas Alizadeh from the Oriental Institute/Chicago and finally the excavations at Rahmatabad. All three projects are of paradigmatic importance for the study of the Pre-History of the province Fars

The sequence for Fars was originally developed by Vanden Berghe in the early fifties of the last century, combining the results of his Soundings with art historical considerations. For him Jari B would be the oldest horizon, followed by Mushki and after a period with coarse handmade and unpainted plain Ware of Bakun BI-Type (Terminology of McCown), eventually the Dark painted buff- ware of Bakun B- and A-type would emerge.853

The sequence of Jari B and Mushki was then reversed in the 60ties of the last centuries by Japanese archaeologists, who established a succession of Mushki - Jari B - Bakun BI and Bakun BII up to Bakun A. Between Bakun B and A, a middle Bakun phase, called Gap-horizon was placed, following the results of their excavations at Tall-I Gap. The next generation of archaeologists, especial de Miroschedji and Sumner, adopted the Japanese paradigm.854

11.3.1 The Mamasani-Project

With the recent Mamasani Project, and the excavations at Tol-e Nurabad,855 the sequence of the Neolithic in Fars, established since the 1960ties, seemed to be secured: Tall-I Mushki was considered as the oldest horizon in Fars, followed by Jari B, and by a horizon with handmade coarse ware, called Bakun B I, in the terminology of McCown. Succeeded were these three wares by a Dark painted buff-Ware of the initial Bakun horizon, Bakun BII(McCown). The sequence Jari B-, Bakun BI and Bakun BII seemed to be verified by the Japanese Excavations in Tall-I Jari A, where the following sequence was said to have been excavated: Jari B = Jari AIII; Bakun BI = Jari AII and Bakun BII = Jari AI.856

The sequence of Tol-e Nurabad seems to fit: Nurabad A27 = Mushki, and A26- was roughly equated with Jari B, followed by a transitional phase up to A20. Between 20 and A19 a gap of several centuries can be deduced from [14]C-dates.857 Further gaps in the sequence are attested between Bakun BI: II and Jari AIII: II.

Finally, a new site, Tol-e Bashi gave material, which was thought to be placed between Mushki and Jari B, according to Bernbeck. But, If we look at Bernbeck's comparanda of the Bashi material, it is clear that it belongs exclusively to the Jari B-horizon. According to Bernbeck it starts with Mushki, TMB, what I would count to Jari B, and ending with the Initial Morge-phase (a late Jari B variant).858

However, coming back to the Mamasani-project, one should keep in mind that the excavation at Tol-e Nurabad is only a limited sounding which has only 2 x 1 m excavated surface for each of the phases encountered for the periods discussed here, giving only a small number of sherds.859 But even then, as a trend, Mushki-pottery seemed to precede Jari B at Tol-e Nurabad.

But how representative is the sample, if pottery of Jari B is quite rare in the excavation (see Tab. 25). From A27-25 only 12 Mushki and 10 Jari B sherds are attested.860 If we take A27─A24a, the ratio would be 13 Mushki to 14 Jari B. In my opinion, these small quantities do not prove, pace Potts, that the sounding at Tol-e Nurabad would have established or proven the chronological priority of Mushki towards Jari B.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 25 Running time of different wares according to the excavations at Tol-e Nurabad.

11.3.2 The excavations of the Oriental Institute/Chicago under Abbas Alizadeh in the Kur-River-Bassin

In the Annual report 2003-04 of the Oriental Institute/Chicago, Abbas Alizadeh published the results of his soundings at Bakun A+B, Tal-i Jari A+B and Tal-i Mushki (Spelling according to Alizadeh).861 The results were earthshaking, since the supposed well established sequence of the cultural development from the earliest Neolithic to the horizon of painted Bakun wares has to be radically altered. The results can be summarized as follows:

The oldest horizon is defined by Bakun BI (McCown)-Ware, modeled on baskets, like in the early Chalcolithic of the Kachi plain for example (Mehrgarh III).862 This period would be followed by the Jari B-horizon and this one would be succeeded by the Painted Mushki-Ware.

But the details of the results of Alizadeh's important work need some more comments:

Tall-I Bakun A863

The recent excavations have not given a new sequence. The hope to clear the transition from the Painted Bakun- to Lapui-Pottery could not be achieved, since the first meter or 1. 5 m was completely disturbed by Late Sasanian/Early Islamic graves.

Tal-i Jari A864

According to Alizadeh's work there is no Bakun BII or Gap - level at the site, so Level AI is missing, as is AIII, thought to be of Jari B - date, It was not found by Alizadeh, but it might have been the victim of bulldozer activities in order to get a natural fertilizer.865 No real explanation can be given to these discrepancies in regard to the work of the Japanese. The only material found, was Bakun BI Coarse-Ware (formerly AII), besides very few sherds of Bakun BII-type in the disturbed surface, but no traces of architecture, whatsoever.The lower levels of Jari A(II) are characterized by Jari A/Bakun B Coarse-Ware molded over baskets. In the upper levels a Medium-Ware occurs, rarely formed on baskets, and this ware is also present at Jari B and Tall-I Mushki.

Tall-i Bakun B.866

Contrary to McCowns impression and the results of the Japanese excavations, there is no real Bakun BII(McCown)-level, but only a few sherds of Bakun BII- and Gap-style on the surface. The dominant ware is the coarse, handmade Bakun BI-Ware molded on baskets. A thick layer is separating BI from BII, called Bakun BI/II here, indicating obviously a hiatus in the sequence of the site.

A similar gap is attested at Tol-e Nurabad between A20─ to A19 with the first painted Bakun-Ware.867 I have called this layer, separating Bakun BI from Bakun BII ─ Bakun BI/II.868 Only very few sherds have been found by the Japanese excavators in this layer. One red painted sherd with a Bukranion- motif resembles Mehmeh or Middle Susiana (1)2-material in the Deh Luran- and Susiana-region. The gap would then cover the Early Susiana- till the end of Middle Susiana 1-period.

Tal-i Jari B869

At this site only Jari B-period material was found, no painted Bakun BI or Bakun BII, nor Gap pottery. But nevertheless the plain wares correspond to Jari A and Bakun BI(McCown). Concerning vessel forms, carinated types à la Mushki are extremely rare. The surfaces range from buff to pink, to white. In the lower levels as in Jari A and Tall-i Mushki, the paint is somehow fugitive.870

Unfortunately, in a recent summary, Alizadeh seems to ignore his preliminary report, which gave a completely reverse picture:

- Alizadeh et al. 2004, 43: “But the most important finding was the presence of a class of pottery in the lowest levels of the site (Tall-e Mushki) that combined the typical Jari ware with typical Mushki designs, mixed with some genuine Jari B potsherds. This and Jari B types are completely absent from the upper levels at the site."

- Page 44: “… but in our main 3x6 m trench the painted buff ware appeared in the basal levels and continued up to Layer 15, where it disappeared.” And later on the same page: “The painted buff ware (at Tall-e Mushki, R.D.) is very similar in ware, surface treatment, and decoration to the buff ware of Jari B. While the Japanese final report considers this type as a late development, we found this ware primarily associated with the lower levels at Mushki. The upper ten layers (about 1 m below surface) in our main square yielded only painted red-ware.”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 26a Possible stratigraphic correlation according to Alizadeh et al. 2004.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 26b Possible stratigraphic correlation according to Alizadeh 2006

Notes to Tab. 26a-b:

1.Alizadeh 2006, 4142.

2.Ibid., 41.43.

3. Ibid., and Alizadeh et al. 2004, 39-40; no architecture found (Former AI)

4.Alizadeh 2006, 41 (Hiatus Bakun BI:BII(McCown) and 42 (Hiatus between AI and AII)).

5.In Jari A and Bakun BII almost only Bakun BI ware and in Jari AI no Gap-Ware was found in 2003-4. Basket-molded ware occurs in Jari AII and Bakun BI(McCown) (Alizadeh et al 2004, 3942).

6. Ibid., 43: "This level (Jari AIII) was separated from the following Level II by a 40 cm thick clayish soil (Egami-Masuda-Gotoh. 1977: 3), indicating a hiatus between the two phases of occupation." - But it should be noted, that no remains, nor sherds of Jari A III have been found in the recent excavations (Alizadeh et al. 2004, 3940).

7.See Note 10.

8. No Jari AIII pottery, nor the architecture excavated by the Japanese team, could be traced by Alizadeh and his team (Alizadeh et al. 2004, 3940; Alizadeh 2006, 4142).

9. Alizadeh et al. 2004, 43: "But the most important finding was the presence of a pottery (Here in the Tabs. called Ware X, R..D.) in the lowest levels at the site (Tall-e Mushki), that combined the typical Jari-Ware with typical Mushki designs mixed with some genuine Jari B potsherds.This and Jari B types are completely absent from the upper levels of the site." Alizadeh 2006, 42: "But the most interesting finding was the presence of a class of pottery in the lowest levels of our small trenches that combined the Jari and Mushki designs on both red and buff wares; this type of pottery was absent from our main 3x5 m stratigraphc trench.The facile interpretation, which is supported by the carbon dates …, is that the two cultures overlapped for some time and people who used only Jari painted pottery lived along side those who used Mushki pottery at the same settlement. This observation and the absence of similar overlap at Tall-e Jari B indicate the settlement sequence of the three sites beginning with Mushki, then short and limited occupation at Jari A, and ending with the occupation of Jari B)."

10. Alizadeh et al. 2004, 44: "The plain coarse ware appears in all the levles with the painted wares; but in our main 3 x 6 m trench the painted buff ware appeared in the basal levels and continued up to layer 15,where it disappears. Alizadeh 2006, 42: " In our main trench the fabric of the painted wares is predominantly buff down to level 15, where the typical Mushki red burnished ware dominates.

11.See Alizadeh 2006, 121, Tab. 10.

12.Alizadeh 2006, 45 sees the origin of Jari B and Mushki pottery in the Bakhtiyari region.

13. Alizadeh 2006, 42.

Alizadeh 2006: 46: "Our 2004 excavation at Tall-e Mushki showed that Jari painted pottery appears (my emphasis) in mid sequence (level 15) and persists alongside with the typical Mushki pottery until the site is abandoned."

Since no explanation about this contradiction is given, I guess the "normative force of the discipline" has provoqued this neglect of his results published in the preliminary report. I will follow this source and see what could be an alternative to the existing paradigm, which -being honest- is also in any case founded on very weak ground.

Jari B, even when missing in Tol-e Nurabad A 27, according to the evidence of Rahmatabad starts well before, and runs than parallel to Mushki. Jari B developed eventually into the Morge- and Kuthai-aspects. By the way, Alizadeh sees also a parallel development of both, Mushki and Jari B wares in his publication of 2006 , 871 whereas in his report from 2004 he speculated if Jari B could not have developed from Bakun BI(McCown).872

To solve this Problem, one has first to accept that Tall-I Mushki does not cover the whole Mushki-period but only part of it. The older part was only quite recently excavated at Rahmatabad in the second campaign.

For Sumner a linear evolution according to the Japanese sequence was probable: He saw the increasing quantity of sites (8 Mushki to 52 Jari B and 108 Samsabad-sites) and the site location of Jari B-sites as proof for the succession of Jari B after Mushki, since Jari B-sites used also locations without springs and rivers, some early irrigation systems must have been in use, as to Sumner a clear sign of a more advanced complex.873

Since earlier material than Mushki seemed not to exist, Sumner has seen the income of the Neolithic as a colonization in the Mushki period, originating possibly in the Bakhtiyari Highlands.874

However, first it should be noted that Tall-i Mushki has only a height of about 2 m, and a size of 0,42 ha. The architecture points more to a seasonally used campsite875 and since Mushki occurs only in a couple of sites, and contrary to Jari B and contemporary aspects, is of quite a limited geographic extension, one should ask the question if Mushki is not something complementary to Jari B, reflecting more the mobile groups, whereas Jari B would reflect the more sedentary parts of the Neolithic society in Fars.

Taking only the regions surveyed y Stein,the following picture emerges:

Stein876 C D F G I K

Mushki X X X

Jari B X X ? X

Samsabad* ? X ? X X X

Tab. 27

Concerning the question of colonization, recent research has brought aceramic Neolithic and Epipaleolithic finds for Fars,877 therefore the question is, in how far are the pottery Neolithic complexes Mushki and Jari the result of endogenous processes? The Soft-Ware at Rahmatabad could give a hint, it dates earlier, than the Mushki-sherds from the site, which in the first campaign unfortunately were out of context. The [14]C-date of the Soft-Ware horizon in Qal’e Rostam III is about 7000 cal. BC., what is in agreement with Soft-Ware from Rahmatabad.878 This pottery seems to correspond to the Formative Mushki-horizon, which has recently been identified at Rahmatabad. The pottery is said to be ‘simple’ and older than Mushki.879

Regarding the lithics from Rahmatabad, Abe and Karanaghi see a progressive development from Formative Mushki to Jari B, and as to them the Jari B period is a time of massive changes: Hunting decreases, elevation of goats increases, simple forms of irrigation must have existed, Microlithes and bullet-cores disappeared with Jari B.880 Most interesting are the connections of the aceramic lithics from Rahmatabad to the M’lefaatien in the Zagros. The lithic material of Qal’e Rostam I, on the other hand, has already good connections to the Post-M’lefaatien assemblages in the Zagros as Jari B has.881

The second campaign at Rahmatabad changed the whole paradigm for Fars, developed so far: In Trench G at Rahmatabad pottery of Mushki- and Bashi-type and a Local ware were found. Trench C: context 3035 marks the earliest occurrence of pottery in Rahmatabad, a simple Red pottery, weak fired, unpainted and chaff-tempered.882 This level has a [14]C-date of 7094─6697 cal. BC. (Trench C:3035). The Pottery Neolithic in Rahmatabad with Mushki/TMB+Bashi-pottery ends around 6200 BC., i.e 6218─6028 cal. BC. (Trench G:7029). Therefore, Bashi-pottery from Rahmatabad is older than from Tol-e Bashi! (6020─5730 cal. BC883 ) and the sequence at Tall-I Mushki does not cover the whole Mushki period.884 The same is true for Tol-e Bashi. The end of the pottery Neolithic at Rahmatabad is followed in Trench G by a hiatus of about 1500 years until the Gap II period. This final Pottery Neolithic-date at Rahmatabad corresponds quite well to the deepest Layer in Tall-I Mushki in Alizadeh’s sounding Level 22 on virgin soil (6235─6063). Therefore, the Bashi-related TMB-material cannot be late in Mushki, but is more or less contemporary with the Mushki-material and therefore this early aspect of Jari B runs also parallel to the Mushki-aspect.885

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.28a Compilation of [14]C-Dates after Potts et al, 2009, 68 Tab. Kharanaghi -Fazeli Nashli-

Nishiaki 2013, 114─17.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.28b Compilation of [14]C-Dates after Potts et al, 2009, 68 Tab. 3.2; Nishiaki 2010; Kharanaghi-Fazeli Nashli-Nishiaki 2013, 114─117 and Alizadeh 2006, 119─121, Tabs. 9─11.

Now, how would fit Jalyan- and Bizdan-pottery in such a scheme? Both wares seem to be absent in the Mamasani-region886 and the Kur River Basin. As said before, there was and is no proof that my reconstruction from 1986 of the sequences of sites examined by Stein, in analogy to Tall-e Jari A, quoted above, was correct. In view of the today available evidence, the equations between the wares, as proposed 1986, remains the same, only the sequence has to be altered, if one prefers the alternative.

11.4 Quo Vadis Fars? An impossible status

But how to proof this radical consequence of Alizadeh's work? The clue will be what is summarized under the label of Bakun BI. There must be a certain development, not traced up to now. As for me, this "Initial Bakun BI-Ware"/Early Soft-Ware is basket molded, what is also known from cultures in the East, starting a little bit later the East, in the fifth millennium BC. in the pottery Neolithic at Kile Ghul Mohammad and chalcolithic Mehrgarh III, continuing to the End of the third Millennium BC.887 In Tol-e Nurabad Bakun BI-Ware continues after the new, Initial-Bakun BI-period, but in only very small quantities (See Tab. 18)888 – are these values representative? I guess the answer can only be the result of a detailed study of the unpainted Plain- and Coarse wares, the Soft-Wares of the Neolithic, running into the Chalcolithic, which is for a long time overdue! This work, combined with a fresh look at the Painted wares à la Alizadeh, will give some deeper insight.

With some probability, in order to cover Alizadeh’s results with the evidence of Tol-e Nurabad, one will have to accept, that the Mushki-aspect could be framed by Jari B. That means: Jari B would be older and would be contemporaneous to the Mushki-complex and younger. A second consequence of Alizadeh’s work is long periods of abandonment, and waste land in Fars. A compilation of the [14]C-data (Tab. 29 shows impressive lacunae in the sequence of Fars (Tab. 28─29) between Archaic Fars 2 /Jari AIII and Bakun BI respectively Jari AII/Early Fars, as well as between Bakun BI and BII(McCown) of about 300 years.889 Concerning Tol-e Nurabad, the data from A20 and A19 point to a hiatus of about almost a millennium (maximum) emphasized by Potts.890 The hiatus at Rahmatabad is even about 1500 years long.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 29 Comparative stratigraphy and Ware distribution – an alternative Approach

It is also clear, that the Mushki-material of Tol-e Nurabad has to be dated late in the sequence, about at least 200 years younger than the Material of Mushki level 12 of Alizadeh’ sounding. What is also clear is that according to the data available, there is no reason to believe, that Mushki started earlier than Jari B.

My favorite idea has been formulated by Alizadeh, and - as to me, it needs only a little modification: -to quote it once again - Alizadeh 2006, 46: "The co-existence of Jari and Mushki pottery at both sites suggests thatalthough Muski may be somewhat earlier, at some point both cultures developed side by side and Jari eventually replaced Mushki." As discussed by Alizadeh both cultures have a lot in common,891 and one should look for a site, having both aspects and then start large scale excavations which would analyse how and in which way both aspects perform. Kushk-e Hezar would be a good candidate.892 In this perspective also the question of the origin might be interesting, but, I favor another question: do we deal with a parallel development of two separate traditions, or do we deal with the development of a kind of complementary system, arbitrarily butchered on our altar of typological biases and therefore invisible to us. So, what is common, and what is different (?), and/or could the 'difference' be functionally justified? I guess a research design more in this direction would be more fruitful than the focus on the question of the chronological priority of one of the aspects.

Who said chronology is boring? – It’s the beginning, not the end of archaeological reasoning. As for me Alizadeh's work is of paradigmatic importance for Early Iran and one should not close the eyes and perpetuate traditional views.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

A1, Q.Par., Fdno. Q.Par.1, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-; A2, Q.Par., Fdno. Q.Par.4, Bakun-Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-Gap II; A3, Q. Par., Fdno. Q.Par.2, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII?; A4, Q.Par., Fdno. Q.Par.3, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII; A5, Q.Par. Fdno. Q.Par.5, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-;

B1, Hass., Fdno. Hass.1, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Gap II; B2, Hass., Fdno. Hass.2, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-Gap II;

C1, Asm., Fdno. Asm.3, Jari B-Ware, Phase: Jari B.

Q.Par. = Qal'a-I Parian (B19; Hass. = Tal Hassani (F1); Asm. = Anonymus/Asmangird (C

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, Kan.A, Fdno. Kan.A VII-VIII, -1' -4'/4, Jalyan C-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 2, Kan.A., Fdno. Kan.A., V-VI, -1' -3'/2, Jalyan A-Ware, Phase: Jalya; 3, Kan.A., Fdno. Kan.A.VII-VIII, -1' -4'/3, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 4, Kan.A, Fdno. Kan.A. II-III, -1' -3'/2, Jalyan C-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 5, Kan.A., Fdno. Kan.A. II-III, -2' -3'/1, Jalyan A-Ware, Phase Jalyan; 6, Kan., Fdno. Kan. 40, Jalyan C-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 7, Kan.A., Fdno. Kan.A. V-VI, -1' -3'/3, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 8, Kan.A, Fdno. Kan.A. V-VI-1' -3'/4, Bizdan-Ware, Phase: Bizdan; 9, Kan., Kan.61, Jalyan A-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 10, Kan., Fdno. Kan.7, Phase: Jalyan; 11, Kan. A., Kan.A. VII-VIII, -1' -4'/8, Jalyan; 12, Kan.A., Fdno. Kan.A. XIV-XV, -1' -4'/29, Phase: Jalyan; 13, Kan.A., Kan.A. X/10, Phase: Jalyan.

Kan.A. = Kanakan A.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, Seh tali, Fundno. Seh tali B.3, Jalyan A-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 2, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh tali B, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 3, Seh tali, Fundno. Seh tali B 7, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 4, Seh tali, Fdno. She tali B 5, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 5, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh tali B 6, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 6, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh tali B 12, Jalyan C-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 7, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh tali B.2, Jalyan C-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 8, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh Tali B.16, Phase: Jalyan; 9, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh tali B.15, Phase: Jalyan, 10, Seh tali, Fdno. Seh tali B.17, Phase: Jalyan.

Seh tali = Kanakan B (Seh tali B).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.G.XIV-XVII, -3' 1/2'/6, Ware 5, Phase:Vak.-Bakun Ab, 2, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak,Süd.C. -1' -6'/7, Ware 5, Phase: Vak-Bakun Ab; 3, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.F.XVI, -4'/15, Ware 5, Phase: Vak.-Bakun Ab; 4, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.? X-XII, -4', Ware 5, Phase: Vak.-Bakun Ab; 5, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.F.XVI, -1'/33, Ware 5, Phase: Vak.-Bakun Ab; 6, Vak.Süd, Vak.Süd.C-.D, I-VI, -15' -18'/29, Ware 5, Phase: Vak.-Bakun Ab; 7, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.C-D,III-VI, -8' -11'/, Bakun Black-on-Buff?, Phase: Gap II-Vak.; 8, Vak.Süd., Fdno. Vak.Süd.,C, IV, -5'/22, Ware 5, Phase: Bakun Ab-Vak; 9, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.10, Ware 5?, Phase: Bakun BII-Vak.; 10, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.A.-2' -3'/15, Ware 5, Phase: Bakun Ab-Vak.

Vak.Süd = Vakilabad Tepe

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.C-D, I-VI, -15' -18'/14, Vak. Ware 1, Phase: Bakun Ab-Vak.; 2, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.C-D, I-VI, 11' -13'/7, Vak.Ware 1, Phase: Bakun Ab-Vak.; 3, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd. A.7. -2' -3'/13, Vak.Ware 1. Phase: BakunAb-Vak.; 4, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.A 7, -2' -3'/11, Vak.Ware 1, Phase: Bakun Ab-Vak.

Vak. = Vakilabad

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.C-D., I-II, -8' -11'/7, Vak.-Ware 2a. Phase: Vakilabad; 2, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.B.XVI, -2'

5'/3, Vak.-Ware 2a. Phase: Vakilabad; 3, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.A.VI-VII, -2' -4'/1, Vak.-Ware 2a. Phase: Vakilabad; 4, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak,Süd.C-D, III-VI, -8' -11'/2, Vak.-Ware 2a. Phase: Vakilabad.

Vak. = Vakilabad

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.G.XIV-XVII.-2', Vak.-Ware 2. Phase: Vakilabad; 2, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.H.XI-XVI, -2'/10, Vak.-Ware 2. Phase: Vakilabad; 3, Vak.Süd Fdno. Vak.Süd.G.7, -2', Vak.-Ware 2. Phase: Vakilabad; 4, Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd,C, I-II, -1' -5'/14, Vak.-Ware 2. Phase: Vakilabad; 5,Vak.Süd, Fdno. Vak.Süd.C-D,XIII-XVI, -1' -5', Vak.-Ware 2. Phase: Vakilabad.

Vak.Süd = Vakilabad Tepe

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

A1, Khar. T. regi, Fdno. /, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-; A2, Khar T. regi, Fdno. /, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Gap II;

B1, Khar. T. sabzi, Fdno. Khar.T-sabzi 7, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-Gap II; B2, Khar.T.sabzi, Fdno. Khar.T.sabzi 4, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII; B3, Khar.T Sabzi, Fdno. Khar.T.sabzi 9, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun; B4, Khar.T.sabzi, Fdno. Khar.T.sabzi 2, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-; B5, Khar.T.sabzi, Fdno. Khar.T.sabzi 8, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Gap II?; B6, Khar.T.sabzi, Fdno. Khar,T.sabzi 10, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-.

Khar.T.sabzi = Tal-I Sabzi/Kharanjan (D6)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

A1, Tal-i Nalaki, Fdno. Tal-I Nalaki 15, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun?; A2, Tal-I Nalaki, Fdno. Tal-I Nalaki 9, Vakilabad 2a-Ware, Phase: Vakilabad: A3, Tal-I Nalaki, Fdno. Tal-I Nalaki 4, Vakilabad 2-Ware, Phase: Vakilabad;

B1, Daulat, Fdno. Daulat. 1, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-; B2, Daulat., Fdno. Daulat. 8, Bakun Black-on-Buff- Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-.

Tal-I Nalaki = Tal-I Nalaki/Gilian (D7); Daulat. = Site next to Daulabad/Shash Deh (E3)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, G. Rahim, Fdno.G. Rahim 25, Vakilabad-Ware, Phase: Vakilabad; 2, G. Rahim, Fdno. G.Rahim.XV-XVII, -3'/25, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Mushki/Jalyan; 3, G.Rahim, Fdno. G.Rahim.XVIII-XX,-2'/39, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Mushki/Jalyan; 4, G.Rahim, Fdno. G.Rahim. XVIII-XX, -1' -2'/34, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Mushki/Jalyan; 5, G.Rahim, Fdno. G.Rahim.XVIII-XX.-1' -2'/36, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Mushki/Jalyan.

G.Rahim = Tal-i Gaud-I Rahim (G3)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1, G. Rahim, Fdno.: G. Rahim XVIII-XX, -1'/32, Jalyan A-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 2, G. Rahim, Fdno. G. Rahim XV-XVII, -1'-2'/25, Jalyan A-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 3, G. Rahim Fdno. XVIII-XX, -2'/30, Jayan A-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 4, G. Rahim, Fdno. G. Rahim XVIII-XX, -2'/29; Jalyan A-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; 5, G. Rahim, Fdbno. G.. Rahim XVIII-XX, -/31, Jalyan B -Ware, Phase: Jalyan.

G. Rahim = Tal-i Gaud-i Rahim (G3).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

A1 Abnar., Fdno. Abnar 1, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Gap II?; A2 Abnar, FdnO. Abnar 2; Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II; A3 Abnar.4, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II.

B1 Mad.Mas; Fdno. NXII, Bizdan-Ware, Phase: Bizdan; B2 Mad.Mas., Fdno. N.IX.100, Bizdan-Ware, Phase: Bizdan; B3 Mad.Mas., Fdno. N.XI.99, Jalyan A-Ware; Phase: Jalyan;

C1 Tal-I Skau Mad., XXII-XXIII.-3'/17, Bizdan-Ware, Phase: Bizdan; C2 Tal-I Skau Mad., Fdno. Tal-I Skau Mad. 10, Jalyan B-Ware, Phase: Jalyan; C3 Tal-I Skau Mad.,Fdno. 0, Jalyan B-Ware; Phase: Jalyan.

Abnar. = Ab-I Narak/Ij (H1); Mad.Mas. = Tal-I Siah/Madavan (I1); Tal-I Skau Mad. = Tal-I Skau Madavan (I3).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

A1 Found at camp, site next to Darabgird (I6), Fdno. 25/3/34, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII;

B1 Nakh., Fdno. Nakh. 1, Jalyan A-Ware x, Phase: Jalyan;

C1 Bizh.= site next to Bizdan, Darab, Fdno. Bizh 8, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II; C2 Bizh., Fdno. Bizh. 3, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII; C3 Bizh. = Bizdan, Fdno. Bizh 2, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII-; C4, Bizh, Fdno. Bizh.1, Bakun Black-on-Buff-Ware, Phase: Bakun BII-; C5, Bizh., Fdno. Bizh.4, Bizdan-Ware, Phase: Bizdan.

D1 Sev.Chir., Fdno.Sev.Chir. 5, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Bakun BII; D2 Sev.Chir.; Fdno. Siv.Chir. 4, Bakun Black-on-Buff; Phase: Gap II-Bakun Aa?; D3 Sev.Chir, Fdno. Sev.Cir. 1, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII-; D4 Sev.Chir., Fdno. Sev.Chir. 3; Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II-Bakun Aa?

Nakh. = Nakshi Rustam Darab? (I6); Bizh. = site next to Bizdan/Darab (I7); Sev.Chir. = Chah- hak/Chir (K1).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

A1 Deh.bid. Fdno. X-XXI.56, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun Bab;

B1 Do Tulan, Fdno. A. VIII, -1'/18, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II; B2 Do Tulan, Fdno. A.Vic, -2'/7, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII-; B3 Do Tulan, Fdno. A.V-VI, -2', Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun; B4 Do Tulan, Fdno. AVIc, -2'/9, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II?; B5 Do Tulan, Fdno. A.V-VI, -1'/15, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun Ba-b;

C1 T. Qun, Fdno. T.Qun 2, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II-; C2 T. Qun, Fdno. T. Qun 3, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II?; C3 T. Qun, Fdno. T. Qun 6, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Gap II?

D1 M Qun, Fdno. M. Qun 1, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun Aa?

E1 Siv., Fdno. Siv 2, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII-; E2 Siv., Fdno. Siv. 1, Bakun Black-on-Buff, Phase: Bakun BII-Bakun Aa-b;

Deh.Bid. = Tal-I Bahram/Deh Bid (L1); Do Tulan = Do Tulan/Pasargadae (L2); T. Qun = Anonymous Karsu-Dasht; M. Qun = Anonymus Pasargadae (L4); Siv. = Site next to Sivand (L6).

12. A Voice from another Time and Universe − Annotations on the Chalcolithic Period in the Bakhtiyari Highlands

12.0 Introduction

In quite a recent study from Spring/Summer 2015, Alireza Khosrowzadeh dealt with newly found sites in the Bakhtiyari–Highlands in the Farsan–County, stressing the closest affinity to material of Fars. It might be useful to complement his results with my comments from 1983 (published in German in1986) on Nissen’s and Zagarell’s Surveys from 1974–78, published by Zagarell in 1977 and 1982. I will skip my remarks on the Neolithic, since a more refined study on this subject was published by Bernbeck in 1989.893 – Cf. Maps 1–2.

In 1977 Zagarell gave a first attempt to build up a regional chronology. Of course, this was hampered by the fact, that no serious stratigraphic excavations had taken place in the region. Therefore, the sequence could only be established on behalf of external comparanda, as in the Behbehan–Zuhreh- region. (Tab. 1)

Going deeper in the text from 1982, a more refined presentation of the sequence, as proposed by Zagarell, is possible.(Tab.2─3)

Even if the oldest horizon with the Soft-Ware is well defined, the connection of Qal’e Rostam I to the next Early Chalcolithic/Eskandari–horizon is not established yet.

Tab. 1 Bakhtiyari, Sequence according to Zagarell 1977

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 2a Bakhtiyari, Sequence according to Zagarell 1982

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 2b Bakhtiyari, a more refined sequence after Zagarell 1982894

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

12. 9.1 The Early Chalcolithic or Eskandari–Phase

The following sites were attributed by Zagarell to this phase:

Khana Mirza–region: K.68 – Zagarell 1982, Fig. 14, 6 – 8

Rig–valley: R. 1 – ibid., Fig. 21, 17. 37

R. 3 – ibid., Fig. 17, 1

Shahr–e Kord–region: S. 2 – ibid., Fig. 16, 5

S.10 – ibid., Fig. 16, 1– 27; 3

S.12 – ibid., Fig. 15: 1. 3–6; 16, 10–12. 13?

S.13 – ibid., Fig. 16, 9

One has to note, that none of the sherds, mentioned by Zagarell, date to Early Susiana A, and only a few to Early Susiana B.895

Concerning the material from K.68, the date of Early Susiana B can be accepted. In regard to the other sites one can note:

- R.1 the two published sherds (at least Zagarell 1982, Fig. 21, 1) are of Bakun II (McCown) –date.896
- R.3 Zagarell 1977, Fig. 17, 1. (+2) are without parallels outside the Bakhtiyari Highlands. Their date is therefore uncertain.
- S.2 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 5; its date was questioned by Zagarell himself. An Early Chalcolithic date was suggested by the crude painting style,897 what is hard to accept, Another sherd: ibid,. Fig, 19,10, dated by Zagarell to the Middle Chalcolithic–phase, seems to be of Early Susiana B–date, and might be possibly connected to a motif from K.68: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 14, 8. Parallels are known from Eridu XIX─XV and Djaffarabad 4:
- Safar et al. 1981, Fig. 100, 8; 94, 12 and 92, 14.
- Dollfus 1975,Fig. 20, 7.
- S.10 Zagarell 1982, Fig.16, 2 was associated by Zagarell on behalf of the big, dark dot–motifs to Hajji Mohammad–pottery.898 However, Hajji Mohammad–pottery has a long running time.899 Such big dots are very typical for Ubaid 4–pottery in the terminology of Porada 1965:
- Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18, Bn. Du = Uruk/Eanna XVIIIXVII
- Boehmer 1972,Taf. 51, 217

53, 309= Uruk/Steingebäude in K

XVII, level I, 2 and II,


This motif is without any value for dating. The same is true for Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 1+3. According to the ware, I would date it to the Do Tulune phase of the Behbehan–Zuhreh– region.

- S.12 The material from this site is without doubt of Early Susiana B–date. Zagarell favors an Early Susiana A–date and saw parallels with Djaffarabad 6─4 and the Close-Line ware from Chogha Mish, of Archaic Susiana 3-date.900 As shown elsewhere, the sherds Zagarell 1982, Fig. 15, 5─6 are of Early Susiana B–date.901 Only Zagarell 1982, Fig. 15, 4 begins with Djaffarabad 6 up to level 5, i. e. Early Susiana A+B: Dollfus 1975, Fig. 20, 8 and 29,13.

In 1977 Zagarell included K.57 in the Early Chalcolithic-horizon: ibid., 119f., Pl. 5, 1. The sherd is too fragmentary, to be dated. In his publication from 1982 he counted it to the Middle Chalcolithic–phase.902

12.1.1 Summing up

Only K.68, S. 2 and S.12 date to Early Susiana B; the rest is later. Early Susiana A – material might be absent, as well as a Middle Chalcolithic A– horizon. The sherd mentioned for S.10 is not enough for dating.903

12.2 Soft–Warephase

In 1982 Zagarell proposed for his earliest Middle Chalcolithic/Chellegah 1–phase a date of Middle Susiana B in Khuzestan, i.e. Bendebal 22–17 and Djaffarabad 3m–n of Dollfus’(1978) excavations in the Susiana and the Mehmeh– to Bayat–phases in the Deh Luran region.904 As for him, either a gap separated this from the older Eskandari–phase, or the latter would continue in the Bakhtiyari– Highlands and ran parallel to the Middle Susiana A–/Ubaid 2–phase of the Lowlands.905 In 1977 Zagarell, on the other hand, believed in a Soft–Ware–phase parallel to the Bakun BI(McCown) horizon in Fars.906 The following sites were attributed to the Soft–Ware–phase:907

K.59. 68, 85, 96. R. 1 and R. 3

The question of a possible relation to the older Soft–Ware–horizon of Qal’e Rostam III was left open, speculating that the Soft-Ware-horizon could have more than one phase.908

12.2.1 Sondage at Gerde Chellegah/R. 1

The site is situated ca. 2 km Southwest of Chellegah and 25 km to the Southeast of Lordegan. Originally this site was dated by Zagarell to the Aceramic–period. However, a sounding at the site gave different information.909 The site measures 120 x 65 m and a height of 13 m over the plain–level. The site is topped by an Islamic Qal’a. According to the excavator, a stepped Sounding at the edge of the site did hardly avoid the trash of the slope. Nevertheless, Zagarell sees three phases in the different steps:

The deepest layer encountered a natural terrace of gravel topped by layers with a handmade, straw–tempered pottery, similar to Bakun BI(McCown)–pottery in Fars, running also in later Bakun levels. In the deepest layer only one painted sherd was found. This unpublished sherd is said to have a very fine drawn motif,910 somewhat similar to sherds, published by Stein from Anonymus Malamir and from the Do Tulune–Period in the Behbehan–Zuhreh–region.911

Pottery of middle layers is said to be a brown–reddish, burnished ware, with mineral temper, and some sherds had a crème–colored slip, dated by Zagarell to Middle Susiana–material in Chogha Mish.912

Sherds of the upper layers were dated by Zagarell to Bakun AI–IV.913

12. 2.2 Summing up

In Fars, Bakun BI(McCown)–material is said to follow Djarri B and to precede Bakun BII(McCown) as it is shown by excavatios in Tall–i Djarri A+B and Tall–i Bakun B, as well as on sites, explored by Stein.914 In the Behbehan–region the Bakun BI(McCown)–horizon was believed to be represented by Tall Mohammad Taki, dated from Middle Susiana A to early Ba, so somewhat later than the Early Susiana B–related horizon in the Susiana, called in the Zuhreh–valley Derwish Akhmad–phase, which in turn preceded915 the Middle Susiana Ba/b–related Do Tulune–horizon of the Behbehan-Zuhreh–region. The latter can be paralleled with the early Bakun BII(McCown)–phase in Fars. A hint as to the position of Bakun BI(McCown) is given by the Soundings in Do Tulune in the Behbehan- region, in the Ardakan-region by soundings of Stein in Tul–i Gird and in the Rig-valley by a sounding of Nissen and Zagarell in Gerd–e Chellegah/R.1. At all three sites the situation is analogous to Fars. This hypothetical Bakun BI(McCown)–horizon should then fill the gap in Zagarell’s sequence of 1982 – cf. Tab. 2b.

12.3 The Middle Chalcolithic period.

Zagarell subdivided 1982 this period into two phases

Bakhtiyari: Afghan–phase = Susiana: no reference given = Fars: Bakun


Chellegah–phase = Susiana: Bendebal 22–17 = Bakun




On behalf of the findings of the Shahr–e Khor–region, the Chellegah–phase could be further subdivided as follows:

Chellegah 2 = Bendebal 16–11

Chellegah 1 = Bendebal 22–17

The Chellegah 1–2 – horizon could not be defined by Zagarell in the Chogha Yurd–, Gandoman–, Emam Quais– and the Helusat–region, nor in Qal’e Dolab, For these regions Zagarell identified only Afghan–material, as well as in the Khana Mirza–region.916 In regard to his parallels, Chellegah 1 would be connected with the Do Tulune–phase and Chellegah 2 with the Sohz–phase of the Behbehan–Zuhreh–region:

Tab. 3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

12.3.1 Khana Mirza-, Lordegan-and Rig-Valley

This compilation would imply that the Afghan–phase would be the period of the densest settlement. However, this would be in sharp contrast to the Behbehan–Zuhreh–region and Fars, and is therefore less plausible. Without doubt a check of the evidence is needed:

- K. 2 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 17, 4 has a running time from Do Tulune –Sohz–phase.917
- K.15 Ibid., 121 and Zagarell 1982, Fig. 29:11. In Fars such motifs start with the Gap – phase: Egami – Sono 1962, design 1e, since Gap IIa–c, climax Gap IIb. The pattern continues in Tall–i Bakun A, but the Ware of Bakun A is different: Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 34, 7; 53, 8 Bakun A3.
- K.21 Zagarell 1977, 122 refers to a “Bakun–ring base”. The running time of this object cannot be defined.
- K.22 Ibid., 122 refers to an unpublished sherd.
- K.25 Ibid., 122 and Pl. 4, 1, 6–8; Pl. 4, 2–3, were dated to the Sialk III–horizon, but convincing comparanda are missing. Since a Beveled–Rim–Bowl was found at this site,918 the presence of Sialk III–pottery is possible. Pl. 4, 3 can be dated to Sohz 2 and Late Sohz 1 on behalf of the single arrow–motif.919 Pl. 4, 1 is of the same date. The remaining sherds have a running time from the Do Tolune– to the Sohz–phases. Pl. 4, 6 is of Iron Age–date.
- K.36 Reference to one unpublished sherd.
- K.57 Ibid., Pl. 5, 4–5. Ringbases. The ware seems to be older than Bakun A. Ibid., Pl. 5, 5 is too small to be datable. Bid., Pl. 5, 3 can be dated from Middle Susiana Bb—Bc1: Dollfus 1975, Fig. 49, 1 = Djaffarabad 3n; Dollfus 1983, Fig. 56, 9 and 72,13 = Bendebal 14 and 16; Weiss 1976, Fig. 14, 23 and 17, 70 = Qabr Sheykhan. Unpublished sherds of this type are also known from Tepe Sohz. In Fars, this motif begins in Gap IIb up to Bakun A: Egami – Sono 1962, Pl. XXXI, A, 9 and Langsdorf–McCown 1942, Pl. 27, 15–16. Zagarell 1977, Pl. 5, 2 reminds one of Gap IIb: Egami–Sono 1962, Fig. 29, 3 and Bendebal 12 – Middle Susiana Bc2–phase: Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 84, 1. K.57 runs from Middle Susiana Bb or the Do Tulune- phase in the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region up to Middle Susiana Bc2- or Sohz 2-phase.
- K.60 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 6, 1 is present at Tepe Sohz, Sondage B, lower levels: Dittmann 1984, 59, Abb. 3d, 34a (for the type). In the Deh Luran–region such vessels occur from the Bayat- to the Farukh-phase: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 16a–c. In Fars such a type is known from Gap Ia: Egami–Sono 1962, Pl. XXXI, A, 1. Zagarell 1977, Pl. 6,2 has a running time from Middle Susiana Ba–Bb: Dollfus 1983a, Fig. 30, 3–4 = Djowi 11–10; in Fars it runs from Gap Ia–Ib: Egami–Sono 1962, design XIc.
- K. 63 Zagarell 1977, Pl, 17: 3, dated by Zagarell in 1982 to the Afghan/Bakun A-phase. Unfortunately, this type doesn’t occur in Tall-i Bakun A and the ware is also much cruder than Bakun A-pottery. The motif reminds of Middle Susiana Bc-patterns, even though exact parallels are missing: LeBreton 1947, Fig.37; Weiss 1976, Fig. 17,70 (Qabr Sheykhan) and Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 62, 4 = Bendebal 18.
- K. 68 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 7,4–5 are too small to be datable. Possibly Do Tolune- or Sohz-phase.
- K.73 See Bakht–type 11, starting in Middle Susiana Bc1.
- K.74 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 9, 1–2 has a too long running time, but is possibly older than Bakun A. Similar motifs are known from Tepe Sohz: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 25, 5.
- K.75 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 10, 1 has a too long running time; probably older than Bakun A.
- K.78 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 12,1–4 are too small; a Sohz–date seems probable.
- K.85 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 3, 5–6.this type of Bird–motif has a running time from Middle Susiana Bb- to Susa A: Dollfus 1978, Fig. 16, 9. According to the ware the sherd is older than Susa A.
- K.87 As noted before, this site was dated by Zagarell from the Chellegah– to the Afghan– phase. I agree. Especially Zagarell 1977, Pl. 13,6, could be already of Middle Susiana Bb-date, because from the old excavation such a motif is known from Tepe Djowi, a site which is given up in Middle Susiana Bc1: LeBreton 1957, Fig. 27,16. The exterior of the vessel from K.87 Is vertically scratched, a technique known from Farukhabad and less often in Bakun A.920
- K.94 Zagarell921 gives a date of Bakun BII(McCown)/Do Tulune to Bakun A (and later) which I agree too.
- K. 96 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 16, 5. 7–9. Especially No. 9 is of Do Tulune – date: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 18, 3. Also the other sherds are of Do Tulune–date or Sohz 1 at best.
- K.100 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 19, 19 –18. Sherds are too small for giving a date. No. 18 could belong to the Sohz–phase. Nevertheless, no settlement, younger than Qal’e Rostam I, seems to exist at the site.922
- L. 1 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 20, 1–10. No sherd dates unequivocally to Bakun A. No. 10 dates to Middle Susiana Bb–c1: Dollfus 1983a, Fig. 33, 8 = Djowi 10 and ibid., 1983b, Fig. 64, 13 = Bendebal 17. The remaining sherds are of Sohz–date.
- R. 1 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 23–24; 25, 1–8. Running time as proposed by Zagarell.

Even though I would disagree with most of Zagarell’s dates, I remain the terminus Middle Chalcolithic, subdivided in three subphases

Tab. 4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 5

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Contrary to Zagarell’s opinion, the Middle Chalcolithic 2/Sohz–phase is the period of densest settlement.

12.3. 2 Gandoman–, Chogha Khor– and Emam Qais–Region

For those parts of the Bakhtiyari–Highlands only a brief preliminary report exists.923 This region is situated immediately to the North and Northwest of the Khana Mirza– and Rig–plains. The Chogha Khor–plain has a surface of 4 km[2], the Gandoman–plain measures 3,25 km[2] and for the Emam Qais–plain, no information is given.924 Five sites of this region have material of Middle Chalcolithic–date:

- G.15 Chogha Khor, Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 10, 1 can be related to a sherd of Tepe Giyan Va?: Contenau–Ghirshman 1935, Pl. 41, 1. Row, 4. Sherd from the left. According to Zagarell, this sherd should be vegetal tempered, what is untypical for a Bakun A–date.925 Ibid., Fig. 10, 2 reminds Gap II–pottery: Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 15, 12; 19, 18 and sherds of Middle Susiana Bc2-date: Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 83, 8 and 86, 9 = Bendebal 13–11. Nissen-Zagarell 1976, Fig. 10, 3, if correctly identified as a One–registered arrow–motif, can be dated from Gap II/Sohz 2 up to Late Sohz 1. Also Fig. 10, 4 can be dated to this time span. Ibid., Fig. 10, 5–7 are unknown from Bakun A.
- G.1.6 Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 1 – is without parallel in Bakun A–context and might date even much later. Ibid., Fig. 11, 2 can be connected with Djowi 11: Dollfus 1983a, Fig. 31, 11. Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 3 is up to now not attested from Bakun BII (McCown)–context, but could start with Gap II; ibid., Fig. 11, 4 could belong to a local Bakun A–Linear–Style.926 Ibid., Fig. 11, 5 is of Do Tulune–date: Dittmann 1984, 59, Abb. 3d, 31. Nissen–Zagarell 1976, 6–7 are too small for a secure dating. No. 6 might be attributed on behalf of the Dot––motifs to Middle Susiana Bc2.
- G.20 Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 15–17. No. 15 has a too long running time. No. 16 can be dated from Sohz 1 up to Late Sohz 1: Dittmann 1984, 61, Fig. 3s., 51; No.17 is too fragmentary.
- G.21 Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 18, starts with Gap IIb: Egami–Sono 1962, Fig. 12, 3.
- G.22 Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 11–14 are too small and are without good parallels.

Ibid., Fig. 11, 8 could be of Sohz–date: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 26, 3. 5. Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 9 starts with Gap II: Egami–Sono 1962, design Ic3. Nissen–Zagarell 1976, Fig. 11, 10, is older than Bakun A.

As is shown by Tab. 6, the largest number of settlements occurs also in these regions in the Middle Chalcolithic 2–phase.

Tab. 6

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

12.3. 3 Shahr–e Kord–region

In his publication from 1982 the following sites were attributed to the Middle Chalcolithic–period:927

Chellegah 1–phase: S. 13; Chellegah 2–phase: S. 13 and S. 10 and S. 12 for the Afghan–phase. In the Fig.–captions S. 2 and S. 10 are also mentioned for the Chellegah Phases.

- S. 2 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 5–6, were attributed, as already mentioned, to the Early Chalcolithic–period by Zagarell. But, according to the motifs, they date probably to the Middle Chalcolithic 1/Do Tulune phase. At least Fig. 19, 9 starts with the Do Tulune–phase and runs up to Middle Susiana Bc1: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 5, 9 (Do Tulune) and Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 71, 12 = Bendebal 16. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 10 was already dated to the Early Chalcolithic–period. Since Early Susiana and Middle Chalcolithic 1–material is present at the site, the occurrence of a Soft-Ware–horizon might be possible.
- S.10 Zagarell 1982, 16, 1 is possibly of Do Tulune–date, as does ibid., Fig. 16, 3: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 9, 19. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 4 cannot be identified on behalf of the drawing.
- S.12 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 13 could belong to the Sohz–period: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 22,8. Zagarell 1982, 16, 10 starts in Bakun BII(McCown): Egami–Masuda 1962, Fig. 16, 12. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 17, 4 has a parallel in the Mehmeh–phase of the Deh Luran region: Hole et al. 1969, Fig. 58e. Rims like Zagarell 1982, Fig. 18, 4, are not known from Fars before Bakun A, but they are already present at Tepe Sohz.928 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 18, 5 starts with the Middle Susiana Ba–phase and ibid., Fig. 18, 7 is present in Bakun BII (McCown) in Fars: Egami–Masuda 1962, Fig. 13,1.5. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 19, 6, dated by Zagarell to the Afghan–phase.929 In the Behbehan–Zuhreh region, it runs from the Sohz– until the Chogha Sofla–phase and from the Middle Susiana Bc2–phase in the Susiana.930 Ibid., Fig. 20, 4 could be of Bakun A–date. Since Middle Chalcolithic and Early Chalcolithic/Eskandari–material is present at the site a Soft-Ware–horizon might be probable.
- S.13 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 7 has a running time from Middle Susiana Bb–Bc1: Dollfus 1975, Fig. 49, 14–16 = Djaffarabad 3n–m and Dollfus 1983b, 69, 1; 70, 5 = Bendebal 16. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 17,12 is also of Middle Susiana Bb–date: Dollfus 1975, Fig. 49,13 = Djaffarabad 3n, and Dollfus 1983a, Fig. 36, 10 = Djowi (4?). Zagarell 1982, Fig. 16, 9 is of

Do Tulune–date: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 12, 23; 16, 12. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 18, 6; the motif could be of Susa A–date: Dollfus 1971, Fig. 18, 2 = Djaffarabad 2, In Fars the type has a long running time, from Gap Ia to IIb up to Bakun A: Egami–Sono 1962, design Xic and Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 31, 4 = Bakun AI. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 18, 10 can be attributed to Bakun BII(McCown): Egami–Masuda 1962, Fig. 13, 7. In finer Ware it is also known from Bakun A: Langsdorf–McCown 1942, Pl.19, 1 and in Gap IIb: Egami–Sono 1962, Fig. 28, 2. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 19, 2 can be paralleled at Bakun BII(McCown): Egami–Masuda 1962, Fig. 28, 2. In the Susiana such motifs with dots start with Middle Susiana Bc2. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 29, 2, dated by him to the Afghan–phase, but belongs to the Do Tulune phase:931 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 9, 5–16. Zagarell 1982, 20, 5, the shape/type is attested in Gap IIb: Egami–Sono 1962, Fig. 14, 7.Zagarell 1982, Fig. 20,13 has in Fars a running time from Gap Ia to IIb (concentration in IIa): Egami–Sono 1962, design Ic5. Zagarell 1982, Fig. 20,15 could also belong to the Gap–pottery and ibid., Fig. 20;11 is attested in the Sohz–period and also in the Middle Susiana Bc2–phase:932 Weiss 1976, Fig.16, 60 Qabr Sheykhan und Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 72, 2Bendebal 16.

12.3.4 Helusat and Qal’e Dholab

- Ğaldan/Helusat Zagarell 1982, Fig. 17, 9 starts in Middle Susiana Bb: Dollfus 1975b, Fig. 49,13 = Djaffarabad 3n, and Dollfus 1983a, Fig. 36,10 Djowi 4 (?), but is typical for the Middle Susiana Bc1–phase: Dollfus 1983b, Fig. 71, 2; 75, 19 and 76,10 = Bendebal 16. In the Behbehan–Zuhreh–region, the type starts with the Sohz–period: Dittmann 1984, 62, Abb. 3g, 61. Zagarell 1982, Fig.17,10 is of Do Tulune– date in the Behbehan–Zuhreh-region: Dittmann 1984, 9, 19 and 16,12.
- Qal’e Dolab, no material is published.933

Tab. 7

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

12.3.5 summing up

As the analysis has shown, the Middle Chalcolithic 3/Afghan–phase marks not the most densely settled period, but the Middle Chalcolithic 2/Chellegah 2–phase; in the Shahr–e Kord region, dominates Middle Chalcolithic 1/Chellegah 1.

12.4. The Late Chalcolithic–period

This period encompasses the time from the End–Susa A–to the Protoelamite–period in the Susiana and the Lapui– to Late Banesh period in Fars.

12.4.1 Subphases according to Zagarell

The Identifikation and subdivision of the Late Chalcolithic–material in the Bakhtiyari–Highlands is problematic. Even though the shapes often remind comparanda from Khuzestan and Fars the ware may differ seriously, and since excavations are missing, any differentiation in the presence and absence of wares is impossible. What can be compared are only the shapes of vessels. Zagarell has subdivided the Late Chalcolithic material in three subphases and four different wares.934 As to Zagarell, these wares do not succeed each other, but they sometimes overlap. In 1977 Zagarell isolated a Lapui–horizon for the Khana Mirza–region, supported by Sumner.935

The following sites were attributed to the Lapui–horizon:936 K.15.94; L. 1 and R. 1, as well as “some hillsites”.

This period got the label “Late Chalcolithic 1”, In 1982 he considered the pottery of the upper layers and of the surface of R. 1 as representative for an early phase of the Late Chalcolithic–period.937 and related this also to K.15, to the slightly younger Barğui–aspect.938 The Late Chalcolithic 2 period of 1977 he subdivided in 1982 in three subphases: The “real” Barğui–phase, followed by the Sharak– and S.17–phases.939 these phases were dated by Zagarell from the Late Uruk– to the Protoelamite–period. To his impression the Barğui– and Sharak–aspect had a strong relation, paralleled by Zagarell with Tall–i Ghazir,940 Step Trench 36–38 and Sialk III, 6–7, as well as with Susa, Acr. I, 17b–14.941 According to the Susa–dates these two subphases of the Late Chalcolithic–period in the Bakhtiyari highlands should be contemporaneous with the End of the Late Uruk–period up to the Protoelamite 2a–phase. The S.17–phase, which should be somewhat younger, was related to Susa, Acr. I,16–13, i.e. to Preotoelamite 1–2b.942

In regard to his comparanda, all three subphases would be more or less contemporaneous. For Zagarell the Barğui–aspect was more or less restricted to the Khana Mirza–plain. Whereas the Shahrak– and S.17–aspect occurred as well in Khana Mirza as in the Shahr–e Kord–plain. The Barğui–aspect was believed to start earlier than the two others and was therefore dated by Zagarell to an “Early Late–Chalcolithic”-subphase.943

A closer look at the material, published in 1982, reveals the complex problem of its dating. Not only the wares are not easy to fix, but also the shapes cannot be dated to short time spans. Therefore an attempt has been made to define the running time for each shape:

12.4.2 Late Chalcolithic Types of the Bakhtiyari-highlands

So–called “Bakhtiyari-Types” (Bakht.-types, here Fig 1) are listed here, based on their external comparanda.

Bakht–type 1 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 27, 5 S. 17

Khuzestan: Vesselform since? Susa,

Dyson 1966,944 Pl.LXXIV,

S, 15a, 86

Deh Luran: Dark painted red ware starts

with Tepe Farukhabad B35.945

Running time: Middle – to Late Uruk (– Protoelamite)

Bakht–type 2 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 26, 9 R. 1

Khuzestan: De Miroschedji 1976, Fig. 5, 4,

Susa, Apadana, Fosse A.4.946

LeBrun 1978a, Fig. 24, 11,

Susa, Acr. I, 17B1

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18, Dq,

Uruk, Eanna VII

Running time: Middle – to Late Uruk

Bakht–type 3 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 1, 6; 2, 2; K. 15

Pl. 8, 7 K. 73

Pl. 11,5 K. 75

Pl. 21, 4 L. 1

Pl. 26, 4 R. 1

Zagarell, 1982, Fig. 26, 7 S. 10

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 43j;

Farukhabad B 34

Fars: Sumner 1972, Pl. XXXIII, T, Lapui

Running time: Lapui – to early Late Uruk.947

Bakht–type 4 Bakhtiyari: Zagarrell 1977, Pll. 2, 4. K. 15

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 48, I;

Farukhabad B 29

Zagros: Young 1969, Fig. 8, 9; Godin VII

Running time: End–Susa A948 Middle – to Late Uruk

Bakht–type 5 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 5 K. 15

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 48j;

Farukhabad A 21

Fars: Sumner 1972, Pl. XXXIII,

L. N. P. Lapui

Running time: Lapui– to early Late Uruk

Bakht–type 6 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. I, 4 K. 15

Zagarell 1982, Fig. 28, 1–2 S. 17

Running time: Horizontal perforated lugs have

a too long running time

Bakht–type 7 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 15, 12 K. 94

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 19Ad;

18Ar. Bu, Uruk, Eanna XII–VII

Running time: End–Susa A/Early– to early Late Uruk

Bakht–type 8 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 17, 13 K. 96 Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXVI,


Running time: End–Susa A

Bakht–type 9 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 12, 8 K. 78

Khuzestan: ca. Susa, Dyson 1966,

Pl. LXXVI, S.24, 110

Babylonia: Nissen 1970, 36, 39/81, Uruk

KL XII 39949

Running time: End–Susa A and Late Uruk

Bakht–type 10 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 6, 5. K. 60

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18Ab‘,

Uruk Eanna XII

Running time: End–Susa A

Bakht–type 11 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, pl. 8, 8 K.73

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966,

Pl. LXXV, S.16, 92

Pl. LXXVI, S.23, 91

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 51k;

52d; Farukhabad A 13; B 30

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18v.

19Ap“, Uruk, Eanna XII–VI

Running time: Middle Susiana Bc1–Protoelamite 2b950

Bakht–type 12 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 9, 5 K.74

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 42,f–g;

51b,Farukhabad A 20; B 36–33

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 29, Ai.

Aq“, Uruk, Eanna VII–VI.

Running time: Middle Susiana Bb–Late Uruk

Bakht–type 13 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 10 K. 15

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 17, Df,

Uruk, Eanna XIII

Running time: End–Susa A–?

Bakht–type 14 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 1, 5 K. 15

Running time: ?

Bakht–type 15 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 25, 10 S. 10

Fig.22, 1 S.17

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966,

Pl. LXXIV, S 15, 93

Pl.LXXVI, S 21, 95

LeBrun 1971, Fig. 48, 13;

Susa, Acr. I 17

Running time: Middle–early Late Uruk. .

Bakht–type 16 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 15, 8 R. 1

Fars: Sumner 1972, Pl. XIII, 8; Lapui

Running time: Lapui–period

Bakht–type 17 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2. 6 K. 15 Pl. 16, 12 K. 96

Pl. 21, 3 L. 1

Khuzestan: Carter 1980, Fig. 12, 14;

Susa, VR I, 17 (ware differs)

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 6j;

Kunji Cave

Fars: Langsdorf–McCown 1942,

Pl. 20, 7; Bakun AV(?)

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui951

Bakht–type 18 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 12 K. 15 Pl. 8. 4. 9 K. 73 Pl. 14, 8 K. 87 Similar types occur in Berlin for G. 1.5

G. 1.6

G. 2 Behbehan: Dittmann 1984, Fig. 17, 16;

Do Tulune (Ware differs)

Khuzestan: Wright 1978 n.d., Fig. 5, 1133;

Susa, Acr. III, 7952

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 8e. 6j;

Kunji and Sargarab953

Zagros: Young 1969, Fig.6, 8; Godin VII

Fars: Langsdorf–McCown 1942,

Pl. 20, 8; Bakun AV?

Sumner 1972, Pl. XII, L; Lapui

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui

Bakht–type 19a Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2.11 K. 15 Pl. 6. 6 K. 60 Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 7d;

Tepe Sargarab

Luristan : Goff 1971, Fig. 7, 19 ; Baba Jan V

Running time: End–Susa A – Early Uruk

Bakht–type 19b Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 3, 13 K. 15

Running time: Similar to type 19a?

Bakht–type 20 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 16, 2 K. 94

Drops on rims occur normally

not before the Banesh–Period

in Fars: Alden 1979, Fig. 37, 2. 9

but on completely different

vessel–shapes. An almost identical

vessel (without drops) occurs

in Uruk, Eanna XII–VI: Von

Haller 1932, Taf. 18, Au. W and

Taf. 18u.

Running time: End–Susa A – early Late Uruk

Bakht–type 21 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 8, 5 K. 73 Pl. 9. 6 K. 74 Pl. 10, 8–9; 11, 1 K. 75 Khuzestan: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 9p ,

KS. 269

Stève–Gasche 1971, Pl. 26,27;

Susa, Stratigraphic Complex A/IIa954

Zagros: Young 1969, Fig. 8, 8; Godin VI, B 33

Running time: End–Susa A to Middle Uruk–period

Bakht–type 22 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 26, 8 S.10

Khuzestan: LeBrun 1978a, Fig. 31, 1;

Susa, Acr. I 17B2

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 46i–j;

Farukhabad A 9–10; B 25

Running time: Late Uruk–Protoelamite 2b

Bakht–type 23 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 24, 7 S.10

Khuzestan: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 9, 3;

KS. 269

Deh Luran: Ibid., Fig. 8b; Tepe Sargarab

Fig. 6c; Kunji cave

Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 43a;

Farukhabad B 26

Zagros: Goff 1971, Fig. 7, 14; Baba Jan V

Fars: Sumner 1972, Pl XIIIj; Lapui

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui–Early Uruk

Bakht–type 24 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 26, 10 R.1

1982, Fig. 26, 2–3 S.10

Fars: ca. Sumner 1972, Pl. , XVI, G;


Running time: Lapui–period

Bakht–type 25 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 1, 7 K.15

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXVI,

S 23, 182

Fars: Sumner 1972, PL. XVI, H; Lapui

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui–period

Bakht–type 26 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl, 1, 6 K.15

Pl. 21,2 L. 1

1982, Fig. 26. 1 S.10

Fig. 30. 7 K.75

Khuzestan; Susa–Uruk–Type 19;

Susa, Acr. I, 22–17

Babylonia: Uruk, Eanna XII–VI

Running time: Early Uruk–Late Uruk

Bakht–type 27 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 26, 7 R. 1

1982, Fig. 26, 9 S. 10

Zagros: Young 1969, Fig. 8, 15;

Godin VI B 26

Luristan: Goff 1971, Fig. 7 3; Baba Jan V

Running time: End–Susa A–Late Uruk

Bakht–type 28 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl, 26, 2 R. 1

Fars: Langsdorf–McCown 1942,

Pl. 20, 17; Bakun AV

Sumner 1972, Pl, XII, D; Lapui

Running time: Lapui–period

Bakht–type 29 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 16, 1 K. 94

Running time: ?

Bakht–type 30 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 17, 15 K. 96

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXVII,

S 27, 69

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18Am;

Uruk, Eanna XII

Running time: End–Susa A

Bakht–type 31 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 26, 9 S. 10

Khuzestan: De Miroschedji 1976, Fig. 5, 13;

Susa, Apadana, Fosse A 6

Running time: Middle Uruk (– Late Uruk)

Bakht–type 32 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 9 K.15

Pl. 21, 7 L. 1

Zagros: Young 1969, Fig. 8, 2 (for 1);

Godin VI B 32–39

Running time: End–Susa A – Early Uruk?

Bakht–type 33 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 12, 6 K.15

Deh Luran: Wright et al, 1981, Fig. 41h;

Farukhabad B 36

Luristan: Goff 1971, Fig. 7, 12; Baba Jan V

Running time: End–Susa A–Early Uruk

Bakht–type 34 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 1 K.15

Babylonia: Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18Aa;

Uruk, Eanna XII

Running time: End–Susa A–period

Bakht–type 35 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 26, 6; S.10

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXII,

S 4

Running time: Late Uruk

Bakht–type 36 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 8 K.15

12, 5 K. 78

. 25, 11 R. 1

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXVI,

S 23, 193

Running time: End Susa A

Bakht–type 37 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 21, 1 L. 1

25, 10 R. 1

1982, Fig. 25, 2 S.10

Khuzestan: Wright et al, 1975, Fig. 9b;

KS 269

Deh Luran: Ibid., Fig. 7a; Tepe Sargarab

Fars: Langsdorf–McCown 1942,

Pl. 20, 3; Bakun AV?

Sumner 1972, Pl. XIV, C; Lapui

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui

Bakht–type 38 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 3,14 K. 15

Pl. 6, 4 K. 60

Pl. 8,3 K. 73

Pl. 9, 7–8 K.74

Pl.11, 4 K.75

Pl. 21, 6 L. 1

Pl. 26, 6 R. 1

1982, Fig.25, 1 S.10

Behbehan: Dittmann 1984, 32, Abb. 2


Khuzestan: Wright 1978 (n.d.) Fig. 5, 1114;

Susa, Acr. III, 7

Susa, Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXVII,

S 27, 74

Fars: Langsdorf–McCown 1942,

Pl. 20, 5–6; Bakun AV?

Sumner 1972, Pl. XII, P;

XIV, A–B. J; XV, B; Lapui

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui–period

Bakht–type 39 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 26, 1 R. 1

Deh Luran: ca. Wright et al. 1975,

Fig. 7c; Tepe Sargarab

Running time: End–Susa A–Early Uruk

Bakht–type 40a Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 8, 6 K.73

14, 7 K. 87

26, 3 R. 1 Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966,

Pl. LXXVII, S 35, 120

Pl. LXXVI, S 24, 196

Fars: Sumner 1972, Pl. XIV, B; Lapui

Running time: End–Susa A/Lapui–period

Bakht–type 40b Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 25, 9 R. 1

Khuzestan: Susa, Dyson 1966,

Pl. LXXVI, S 24, 196

Pl. LXXIV, S 14, 190

Wright 1979, Fig. 29, 00201;

Tepe Sabz ‘Ali Zabarjad

Deh Luran: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 6b,

Kunji Cave

Fars: Langsdorf–McCown 1942,

Pl. 21–11; Bakun AV?

Running time: End–Susa A–Lapui–early Late


Bakht–type 42 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 26, 5 S.10 Khuzestan: Stève–Gasche 1971, Pl. 32, 13;

Susa, Sondage 1965, 20.5–

21.0 m ca. Wright 1978 (n.d.)

Fig. 5111, 4; Susa, Acr. III, 7

Running time: Early–Middle Uruk

Bakht–type 43 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 25, 11 S,10

Khuzestan: De Miroschedji 1976,

Fig. 11, 13; Susa, Apadana

Fosse A 6

Running time: Middle Uruk (?)

Bakht–type 44 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 25, 12 S.10

Running time: ?

Bakht–type 45 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 25, 15 S.10

Khuzestan: Dyson 1966, Pl. LXXVI,

S 21, 112

De Mroschedji 1976, Fig. 4, 2–3,

Susa, Apadana, Fosse A 4–2

Babylonia : Von Haller 1932, Taf. 18Bk‘;

Uruk, Eanna XI/X

Running time: Early–Late Uruk

Bakht–type 46 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 28, 9 S.17

Khuzestan: Susa–Uruk–Type 39a

Running time: Middle Uruk – Protoelamite

Bakht–type 47 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 10, 5 K 75

Running time: ?

Bakht–type 48 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 24:10 S.10

Fig. 29, 15 K.15

Fig. 30, 3 K.75

Fars: Alden 1979, Fig. 38, 8–9;


Running time: Banesh (Late Uruk–Protoelamite)

Bakht–type 49 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 28, 10 S.17

Fars: Alden 1979, Fig. 37, 7; Banesh

Running time: Banesh.–period (Late Uruk


Bakht–type 50 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 27, 4 S.10 Khuzestan: White bands with dark

contours start in Susa,

Acr. I, 19 up to 17.

Running time: Early– to (late) Late Uruk

Bakht–type 51 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, 2, 3 K.15

6,3 K.60

10, 7 K.75

16,11 K.94

1982, Fig. 28, 7 S.17

Ram Hormuz: Whitcomb 1971, Pl. VI, A;

Ghazir, J6

Syrien: Sürenhagen 1978, Tab. 34. J, 22;

Habuba Kabira-S.

Running time: Late Uruk–Early–Protoelamite

Bakht–type 52 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 2, 7 K.15

Deh Luran: Whright et al. 1975, Fig. 6, T;

Kunji Cave

Syrien: Sürenhagen 1978, Tab. 3, 32.

H, 7–8; Habuba Kabira S.

Running time: End–Susa A – Late Uruk

Bakht–type 53 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 1, 8 K.15

Pl. 10, 2 K.75

1982, Fig. 28, 6 S.17

Ram Hormuz: Whitcomb 1971, Fig. 34;

Ghazir, Step Trench 36–38

Running time: Late–early Protoelamite

Bakht–type 54 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 15, 13 K.94

Khuzestan: Susa–PE.–type A 2;

Acr. I, 16–14b

Fars: Alden 1979, Fig. 12, 13–14;

Banesh C

Running time: Protoelamite–period

Bakht–type 55 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl. 4,11 K.25

1982, Fig. 25, 3, 10–18, S.10

27, 9 S.17

Running time: Beveled–Rim–Bowls: Early Uruk–Protoelamite

Bakht–type 56 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, 128 K.25

1982, Fig. 25, 19 S.17

Running time: as type 55.

Bakht–type 57 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 27, 6 S.17

Khuzestan: LeBrun 1971, Fig. 47, 7;

Susa, Acr. I, 17.

Fars: Alden 1979, Fig.32, 1–9;

Banesh B–C

Running time: Late Uruk–Protoelamite

Bakht–type 58 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1982, Fig. 28, 5 S.17

Khuzestan: Susa–Uruk–Type 26;

Akr. I, 19–17

Running time: Early–late Late Uruk

Bakht–type 59 Bakhtiyari: Zagarell 1977, Pl.1, 2? K.15

Pl. 4,2? K.25

Pl. 15, 4–5 K.94

1982, Fig. 13,2 S. 4

Fig. 24, 24, 1–6.

9 S.10

Fig. 24, 4

(Vakilabad ware) S. 10

Running time: Sialk III + Vakilabad955

Before compiling the running times of the Bakht–types, some further remarks are needed: Types, having in Fars a running time of Lapui–Period, compared to the Susiana, Lapui corresponds to a span from End–Susa A to the very beginning of early Late Uruk.956 Since not much is known about its internal development, the Lapui–complex will be subdivided as follows: those Bakht–types having in the Susiana, the Deh Luran region and Fars a Lapui–date, will be summarized under Late Chalcolithic 1a. Those, having parallels in the Susiana with Early and Middle Uruk, were summarized under Late Chalcolithic Ib. For the other dates and termini see Tab. 8.


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. A Sialk III-pottery in the Bakhtiyari-highlands

Some of the Bakht–types have been related to Baba Jan V, dated elsewhere to the End–Susa A–horizon and to Tepe Sargarab.957 However, at Baba Jan V occurs a painted vessel: Goff 1971, Fig. 7, 16, which reminds Sialk III–material. In the contemporaneous Kunji Cave three such painted vessels exist: Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 6f–h. Zagarell dated these vessels to Sialk III (Bakht.-Type 59), as to him of Ğamdat Nasr–date.958 One sherd from the Kunji Cave has a parallel at Gabristan II,959 dated by Madjizadeh to the Seh Gabi/Godin IX–phase, according to Madzijadeh of Middle Susiana–date.960 Both relations must be modified. Compare Tab. 9 with Tab. 10961

Kunji Cave:

Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 6f = Ghirshman 1938, Pl. LxiV, S.228 = Sialk III.5–4

Majidzadeh 1976, Figs. 21, 5–4 = Ghabristan II

Fig. 6g = Ghirshman 1938, Pl, LXXX, B15 = Sialk III.5–4

Fig. 6h = Majidzadeh 1976, Fig. 30, 1, 27, 1 = Ghabristan II

Ghirshman, 1938, l. XVIII, S.1397 = Sialk III,5

Baba Jan V:

Goff 1971, Fig. 7, 16 = Ghirshman 1938,Pl. LXXIX,A.14–13 = Sialk III.5–4

= Majidzadeh 1976, Fig. 23, 1 = Ghabristan II

Contrary to Zagarell’s opinion, Sialk III-sherds from Kunji and Baba Jan V date in no way to the Ğamdat Nasr period.962 Concerning the date of Sialk III–pottery in the Bakhtiyari–Highlands, the following remarks can be made:

- K.15 Zagarell 1977, pl. 1,2 = Ghirshman 1938, Pl.LXVIII,S.1397 = Sialk III5

Date: Late Chalcolithic 1a

- K.25 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 4,2 = too small, but a Beveled-Rim-Bowl is present (ibid., Pl. 4,11)

Date: Late Chalcolithic 2a?

- K.94 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 15,4─5 = problematic. No 4 could start with

Ghabristan II, No. 5 can be related to Sialk III.67.963

Date: since no Late Chalcolithic 1a or 1b-sherds are present, both sherds date Late Chalcolithic 2a-b?

- S.4 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 23,1-2 = ca. Young 1968, ig. 7, 5─6 = Godin VIB, B, 32─26

Fig. 23,7 = like Kunji = Ghabristan II

Fig. 22,8 = like K.94, No. 5 = Sialk III6─7

Fig. 23, 11 = Young 1969, Fig. 7,17. Godin VIB B, 23

Date: Late Chalcolithic 1a-2a/2b

The Sialk III-pottery can be subdivided into two broad horizons in the Bakhtiyari-highlands. Since at Godin Tepe the pottery is not finally published, more subtle differentiation cannot be made for the moment.964

Tab. 9 Comparative stratigraphy of Sialk, Godin, Ghabristan und Susiana after


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab10 According to the author965

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

According to this compilation Godin VII would be older than the End-Susa A-horizon (Susa, Acr I, 23─24), and Sialk III (III.7─6) is younger. Therefore, the changes from painted to more unpainted wares must regionally be differentiated.

This was the state of research in 1986. New Research by Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015 shows, that, what I and others have termed Susa I, 17ax has in fact to be counted already to the Protoelamite-world. The famous “Uruk-Filtre,” despite the warning of the presence of a typical arrangement of ovens in Protoelamite-manner966 (and at the time unpublished pottery of Sialk III.6─7-type) at Godin VI:I/V, was too dominant. But especially the re-analysis of the Godin-material, as well as excavations at Tepe Qoli Darvish (ca. 6 km NE of Qom) made it clear, that the Godin VI/Sialk III-aspect must be re-evaluated.967

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.11a-b Running time of the Bakhtiyari sites

12.4.3 summing up

Fixing the running times for the settlements is quite problematic, especially in regard to the relation of Middle Chalcolithic 3 to Late Chalcolithic 1a.– On Tab. 11, most sites have a question mark at the entry Middle Chalcolithic 3, because fine Bakun A–ware is almost missing in the Bakhtiyari highlands, but also outside the Kur–River–Basin it is very rare. This is also true for fine Susa A–ware. Both are somewhat intrusive. Since we are dealing only with sherds, mostely of extremely fragmentary conditions, the Bakun A–horizon is difficult to identify, because without the definition of a shape, there is no real distinction between Gap and coarser Bakun A–ware. Three explanations come to mind:

- The notion of an almost complete absence of Middle Chalcolithic 3–pottery in the Bakhtiyari Highlands is wrong, because fine Bakun A-ware was by chance not found on the sites, especially if pottery is rare on the surface of some sites. As a consequence, all sites with Middle Chalcolithic 2 and Late Chalcolithic 1a will be considered as being settled also in the Bakun A-period.
- After the Middle Chalcolithic 2 phase the number of settlements in the region decreased drastically.
- In the Bakhtiyari-highlands a Bakun A-fine-ware horizon is missing. The Gap-aspect continues, a real Bakun A-fine-ware is intrusive or marks a special status of the settlements where it is attested.

These questions can only find an initial approximation on an inter-regional level.

Zagarell had subdivided the Late Chalcolithic-phase in four subphases. To his oldest, the Early Late Chalcolithic/R. 1-phase, he assigned only two sites:968 L.1 and R.1.

To the following Barğui-aspect, dated by him to the middle of the “Early Uruk–” up to the Late Uruk-period, he assigned 7 sites:969 K. 15. 25. 73–75. 94 and L.1. For his Late Uruk to the Protoelamite Shahrak-aspect he mentioned 5 sites:970 K.15. 25. 75 and S.10. of his Protoelamite S.17-aspect should belong 2 sites:971 K.75 and S.17. Compared with the dates given here, the differences are considerable. (Tab 12)

Tab. 12

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The differences are the result of two factors

- Consideration of all sites, which were already published by Zagarell in 1977, but, which unfortunately were almost not included in his study of 1982.
- The re-dating of the Material.

12.5 Aspects of a comparative relativ-chronological sequence for the Behbehan-Zuhreh-Ardakan- and Bakhtiyari-region,

12.5.1 The archaic-/Qal’e Rostam-Period

As discussed somewhere else,972 this period can be paralleled with Archaic Susiana A and B- and the Early Susiana A-phases. In the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region only 2 sherds can be connected with the Archaic- and Early Susiana A-complex. Anyhow, concerning Qale Rostam, one should refer to Bernbecks’study of 1989.

12.5.2 the Derwish Akhmad-/Early Chalcolithic-/Eskandari– Period

During this period a first inter-regional contact becomes evident, in form of Early Susiana B-material.

In almost all regions considered here, this material is missing, equally absent are settlements between the Behbehan-Zuhreh- and Ardakan-regions. Anyhow settlements of this horizon seem to be scarce.

12.5.3 Cheshme Murad-/Mohammad Taki- and Soft Ware-Period

In this period two different pottery-horizons exist: in the Zuhreh valley the Ubaid 2-Middle Susiana A/Beginning Ba-pottery is found, as well as at a site near Bushire,973 on the one side, and in the Behbehan–plain, the Ardakan–region, as well as in the Bakhtiyari-highlands a Soft-Ware-horizon, comparable to Bakun BI(McCown), on the other.974 Hints as to the date of this horizon, just before what correspond to the Do Tulune-phase, have been found in soundings in Do Tulune, in Tul–e Gird/Ardakan and in R.1/Rig valley. This Soft-Ware dates before the late Middle Susiana Ba-Bb- and the Middle Chalcolithic 1-phases in the Bakhtiyari-highlands. This connection is also visible on behalf of the occurrence of Bukrania motifs in this horizon:

Chogha Mish, Middle Susiana 2 = Kantor 1976, Fig. 8

Tepe Sabz, Mehmeh–Phase = Hole et al. 1969, Fig. 63, k─l

Djaffarabad 3m-n = Dollfus 1975, Fig. 30, 16

Tepe Djowi 7 = Dollfus 1983a, Fig 36, 8

(LeBreton1957, Fig. 28, 27─25)

Tall–i Bakun, Layer between BI and II = Egami–Masuda 1962, 5, Fig. 19, 31

12.5.4 Do Tulune–/Middle Chalcolithic 1–Phase

Materiel of this phase, which can grosso modo be related to the Chellegah 1 phase of Zagarell, was found in all sub-regions discussed so far. This might be different in the case of R.3 in the Rig-valley. Here, in a Soft-Ware-milieu, one painted sherd occurred,975 which does not belong to the Do Tulune complex, but recalls the few painted sherds belonging to the Soft-Ware-horizon in Bakun BI(McCown) upper layer and Tall-i Djarri A II.976

12.5.5 The Sohz-/Middle Chalcolithic 2-phase

This phase corresponds by large to Zagarell’s Chellegah 2-phase and Middle Susiana Bc–phase in the Susiana, and to the Gap IIb-phase in Fars. This material is, contrary to the opinion of Zagarell, present in all sub-regions. Due to the small amount of p12ttery from the Bakhtiyari-highlands, no subtle subdivison as in the Behbehan-Zuhreh region is possible.

12.5.6 Late -Sohz 1–2-/Middle Chalcolithic (2) 3 -Phases

In the Behbehan plain the Late-Sohz 1-phase was defined by the presence of a few Susa A-sherds in an ongoing Gap IIb-milieu, which can be related to the Early Chogha Sofla–material in the Lower Zuhreh–valley, where also sherds of an Early Bakun A-aspect were found, missing in the Behbehan plain.977 In the Behbehan area follows than the Late-Sohz 2 (Millak)-phase contemporaneous to the Late Chogha Sofla-phase in the Zuhreh valley, where the amount of Susa A-akin sherds might have been more prominent, than in the Behbehan-plain, where Susa A-material is missing so far. Schippmann mentioned Susa A-sherds for K.1, which he never published.978 On the other side K.1 is situated much more to the North, than those regions, examined by Zagarell, and is therefore closer to the Susiana. Schippmann mentions also Susa B-material (In the definition of LeBreton 1957) for the site, possibly to be equated with the Late Chalolithic 1a–b phases in the Bakhtiyari-highlands, as defined here.

Concerning the Middle Chalcolithic 2-phase, it dates obviously up to the beginning of the Late Sohz 1-phase in the Behbehan-area. In the Bakhtiyari region, Susa A-pottery is missing (like in Behbehan), but the End-Gap II-aspect continues. Only a few sites in the Bakhtiyari show this Gap IIc-/Late Sohz 1-material: K.15. K.17 (Zagarell 1982, Fig. 29, 11 and 1977, Pl. 5,3) and K.25. G15. G.20 (Zagarell 1977, pl.4, 3; Nissen-Zagarell 1976, Fig. 10,3. 11.16 and Dittmann 1984, 61, Abb. 3f,). In fact, also those sites, dating to the Middle–Chalcolithic 3–phase in the Bakhtiyari Highlands, should have a material, typically for Late Sohz 1 in the Behbehan–area: K.87. 94. 96? R.1. S.127. S.13. Also L.1, since the settlement sequence is otherwise continuous, should be also counted to this period. The same could be is true for: K. 60. 74 and K.87?

The Late Sohz 2 (Millak)- and Late Chogha Sofla-phases of the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region can be related to the Middle Chalcolithic 3-phase in the Baktiyari-Highlands, what is called Afghan-aspect, even though my dates for some sites differ from Zagarell 1982; at least a few sites have evidence of fine Bakun A-ware in the Bakhtiyari-highlands: K.87. 94. 96? R.1, G.1.6, S.12 and S.13. But the number might be higher in view of the question marks for this phase o Tab. 11, for sites, which have otherwise Middle Chalcolithic 2 and Late Chalcolithic 1.

In regard to the three hypotheses formulated above, due to the extreme scarcity of sherds, it cannot be excluded, that the survey simply by chance missed Middle Chalcolithic 3-sites. On the other hand – a region like the Behbehan-area, which traditionally had good relations to Fars, especially to the Kur-River-Basin, followed the trend of Fars, i.e. a prominent decrease of settlements in the Late Bakun A-phase.979 Three of the possible Middle Chalcolithic 3 candidates, belong to a category of settlements, called “Slope sites”: K.60. 7. 75 (and in fact, R.1 should also be included),980 which Zagarell connected with an increasing animal husbandry in the following Late Chalcolithic phase. The presence of Middle Chalcolithic 3–pottery on some of these sites could indicate, that this settlement type started before the Late Chalcolithic period.

One has to keep in mind, that the quantity of sherds from the possible Middle Chalcolithic sites is extremely small:

K.15 = 2 sherds K.25 = 8 K.60 = 2 K.74 = 2

K.78 = 4 L.1 = 10 S.10 = 4

Therefore the nonexistence of Middle Chalcolithic pottery might due to the hazards of the survey. In the following it is assumed, that the following sites potentially have a Middle Chalcolithic 3-horizon:

K.15. 60. 74, 75. 78? 87 94. 96? L.1. R.1 G.1,6. S,12? and S.13

12.5.7 Post-Sohz-/Post Chogha Sofla and Late Chalcolithic 1a -phases

This phase is represented in the Behbehan area by only one sherd from BZ.5 and one from BZ.13. The latter belongs to the Lapui–aspect in Fars with Bakht–Type 38 (cf. Dittmann 1984, Abb. 2 and here Fig.A, Bakht.–Type 38).981 In the lower Zuhreh valley also only one sherd can be compared with End–Susa A–material from the Susiana (Dittmann 1984, Fig. 48,1). In the Ardakan region Tul-e Zarin could belong to this period. That Stein didn’t find such material, doesn’t mean anything, since he was addicted to painted pottery. The period in question is represented in the Bakhtiyari highlands by Late Chalcolithic 1a-pottery. Attested is a mixture of vessel forms which either remind Lapui-pottery from the Kur-River-Basin, as well as End-Susa A-shapes, known from the Susiana, even though the Ware has sometimes a local touch. Moreover, on few Bakhtiyari-sites Godin VIb pottery has been found. With some probability two sites mentioned by Gropp and Nadjmabadi date to this and the following period: Shamsabad (5 km East of Shahr-e Kord and Kommehr 1,64 km South of Semiron on the road from Shahreza to Shiraz), since the authors mention Bakun AV/Lapui-akin ware from this site.982 In Shamsabad also Godin VIb pottery occurs. But, it is unclear if Samsabad is not identical with S.10 (Shahrak, Zagarell). The pottery and the situation of the site seem to be almost identical.983

12.5.8 Uruk-/Late Chalcolithic 1b–2a-Phases

In the Lower Zuhreh-valley only one site = BZ 86/1 dates to an obviously early phase of the Uruk horizon (Early– to Middle–Uruk). In the Bakhtiyari Highlands types labeled Late Chalcolithic 1a–1b–2a belong to this period. Here, besides, ongoing Lapui–types, a reasonable quantity of vessel shapes ressemble those of the Susiana, but are made of local wares, not unlike the situation in the Deh Luran region, with the Sargarab ware, producing Uruk types.984 With Late Chalcolithic 2a, Late Uruk vessel–types occur in the Bakhtiyari-highlands, as well as Godin VIa pottery on some sites. Obviously, neither the Behbehan-basin, with the exception of Arjan,985 nor the Ardakan region were settled during this phase.986 If Chogha Sheyk, a site mentioned b Schippmann, continues up to this period is unclear.

12.5,9 Late Chalcolithic 2a–b + 2b phases

A separation of Late Chalcolithic 2a + b is difficult, since some of the types can be dated as well to the Late Uruk B– as to the Protoelamite–period or they can be correlated with Banesh-pottery in Fars, which for the moment can not be securely dated within the period. The impression of Zagarell, that S.10 and S.17 followed each other in time in the Shahr–e Kord–region, can hardly be proven on behalf of the published survey–material.987 Up to now only K.94 is securely dated to Late Chalcolithic 2b, See Bakht.–Type 54, which cannot be dated Earlier than Protoelamite 1. Also a candidate for Late Chalcolithic 2b would be a painted sherd from K.75 (Zagarell 1977, Pl. 10,4) and after all, according to new information, S.17 must also be counted to the Protoelamite horizon.988

All the rest of settlements with a supposed Late Chalcolithic 2b–date seem to date more to Susa, to a phase I named Acr. I, 17Ax,989 moreover, if these sites have Late Chalcolithic 2a–b-types like K.25? K.94 and S.10, which could belong to the Sialk IV.1-phase. Between Behbehan and Ardakan this horizon is missing with the exception of a site next to Bushire, which has Banesh–material.990

Tab.13 The sequence of the Behbehan Zuhreh-region and the Bakhtiyari-highlands

in relation to the Susiana and Fars (1986)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Legend: PE = Protoelamite; SUA/B = Late Uruk A/B; MU.= Middle Uruk; “FU”= “Early Uruk”; ESA = End-Susa A: S.A = Susa A; MSBc2–A Middle Susiana c2–A; FS A/B Early Susiana A/B; AS. Archaic Susiana; FrS. = Formative Susiana; S.I = Susa, Acr. I; B.= Bendebal; D.=Djowi; Dj.= Djaffarabad; ChM.= Chogha Mish; CHB.= Chogha Bonut; Ch.S.= Chogha Sofla; Sz.= Sohz ; Ch.Murad = Cheshme Murad ; Mohm.Taki (MT.) = Mohammad Taki ; T-i. G = Tul-i Gird; LC. = Late Chalcolithic; M./E.C.= Middle–/Early Chalcolithic; QR.= Qal’e Rostam; Bk.= Bakun A; BB. = Bakun B; DT. = Do Tulune; TS.= Tepe Sohz; CS.= Chogha Sofla; R.1 = Gerd–e Chellegah; X = from Excavation; (X) = from Surface; Gp.= Tall–I Gap

12.6 Regional–Aspects

Changes in the sizes of the settlements from phase to phase are almost impossible to formulate (cf. Tab. 12), since the sites normally have less than one hectare, eventual changes in site–sizes are not very important. Therefore, it is pragmatic to take the sum of all settlements to get a total value of settled space pro period/phase. In the Bakhtiyari Highlands, all settlements, classified by Zagarell as “small” were defined as having about 0,5 ha, some might be smaller, others larger, Nevertheless, in the Bakhtiyari–Highlands fluctuations of settlement sites, if noted by Zagarell, were accepted. Anyhow, as an important variable remains the quantity of sites, which vary from phase to phase. In any case, any notion of absolute dates is futile, view the fact that no survey will ever be able to trace all settlements in a given region and period.

Since only the Khana Mirza-plain and the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region has developed settlement systems, only in these regions phase-specific maps were compiled. For the Gandoman- and attached regions, as well as the Shahr-e Kord-region, one has to refer to Zagarell’s maps, since these parts of the Bakhtiyaris more or less only single sites exist.991 As a supplement, short remarks on the development in the Deh Luran-, Iveh- and Dasht-e Gol-, Izeh-Malamir and Ram Hormuz-region will be added, to complete the picture. Fars has been dealt with here in essays 7et al. and 9.

2.6.1 The Archaic–/Qal’e Rostam – Horizon sketch maps 1-2

Only a few sites belong to this horizon, which in the Bakhtiyari-highlands can be subdivided in three subphases, contrary to the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region.992 The settlements of this horizon are dispersed on the landscape, without any recognizable site hierarchy. The settlement lay next to rivers, springs or recent swamps. A cave-campsite S.4 in the Shahr-e Kord–plain was possibly only seasonally used.993 Characteristic for sites of this period is the use of a much differentiated hinterland, in the form of naturally irrigated plains and higher regions used for hunting and pasture.994 The oldest, Qal’e Rostam III-horizon is found in K.100, S.2 and Ğaldan; Qal’e Rostam II has been found in a couple of sites: K.100. S.2. S.4. S.10. S.13. S.14 and Ğaldan. Qal’e Rostam I-pottery is not so common: K.100. S.4 and in S.10 and Ğaldan the material cannot be clearly separated from Qal’e Rostam II.995

Coming to the other small plains SW of/in the Zagros, for the Deh Luran-plain evidence for this horizon is scarce. For the Mohammad Jaffar- to Surkh-phases no settlement distribution maps have been published yet. According to Hole and Flannery, one inhabitant/1 km[2] is realistic.996 Some kind of exchange took place, as is witnessed by Obsidian from Turkey and shells from the Persian Gulf. Hole sees the subsistence characterized by animal husbandry and pasture economy, but also agriculture and hunter-gatherering.997 In the Iveh– and Dasht-e Gol-region three large camps, two smaller ones and an abris are mentioned by Wright for the Archaic-phases, but most of the time these sites are dated only by lithics. Pottery, comparable to Archaic Susiana was found only in DG.15 and IV.10.998 In the Izeh- and Malamir-region one aceramic site (No. 43 = Chogha Pirchestan), a site in the NE of the plain, was probably only seasonally used. Pottery of the Archaic Susiana-period was found at 10 sites.999 Site sizes vary between 0.5-3.0 ha. The sites lie quite isolated in the plains and grouped around a lake and perennial rivers. All in all, the authors count about 650 inhabitants in total (200/ha). The subsistence is based, as to Wright, on animal husbandry and rain fed agriculture.1000 In the Ram Hormuz region no settlements or camps of this period were found.1001

12.6.2 Derwish Akhmad-/Early Chalcolithic- horizon

sketch maps 1-2

For this period the same can be said as before. The three sites in the Lower Zuhreh–valley mark obviously the old river course of the Karun.

In the Deh Luran-region in the first phase of this horizon (Early Susiana A, locally known as “Chogha Mami Transtional”-period), Hole sees a change of the inter-reginal relations.1002 This change affected also the econnomy, in form of a change from rain fed agriculture to irrigation and an increase of crops.1003 To Hole also a change concerning the inhabitants occurred in form of a increased influx of population coming from the Samarra-complex, as is shown by the Samarra-related Chogha Mami Transitional-ware (CMT) and the Sialk Black-on-Red-ware.1004 Against this thesis stands the evidence of the absolute continuity of the common ware. The change in the painted pottery is perhaps due to increasing inter-regional contacts than caused by pulations’ movement. Obviously irrigation started in the CMT, a real proof is only given for the Sabz-phase (= Frühsusiana B).1005 Settlements of the Sabz-phase used small rivers, and the seasonal run off for their fields.1006 About 6 settlements belong to this phase, according to the authors equal to 6oo peoples or 2 inhabitants/km[2].

In the Iveh –and Dasht-e Gol-region this phase is not traceable and in the Izeh- and Malamir-region no Early Susiana material was found as well. Perhaps the Archaic-aspect continued.1007 An exception could be Chogha Pirchesan, with 8.4 ha, a site which seems to have controlled the routes passing by. In the Ram Hormuz-area at least two sites belong to this period. According to Alizadeh only one site, RH-003 controls an ancient route from the Susiana to the Highlands.1008 Since it is not located near a river or spring, Wright suggested it might be a nomad winter camp.1009

12.6.3 The Mohammad Taki-/Soft-Ware- and Cheshme Murat-horizon sketch maps 3-4

In the Bakhtiyari-highlands and the Behbehan-Basin follows in time a Bakun BI(McCown)-akin Soft-Ware-horizon, contrary to the Lower Zuhreh-valley, where Middle-Susiana A(Ba) painted pottery occurs. In the Behbehan-basin and the Bakhtiyari-highlands a strong settlement increase can be traced. In the Behbehan-plain a two-level hierarchy is present, with Do Tulune/BZ.6 as most important settlement of this period.

If Mohammad Taki/BZ.102 belongs to this phase might be plausible, but one cannot exclude that it belongs to the older Qal’e Rostam III-Soft-Ware .

In the Lower Zuhreh-valley and the Bakhtiyari-highlands a hierarchy of settlements didn’t exist. If all sites are contemporaneous and therefore an increase of settlements is real, is hard to prove, since the phase concerned is of a certain duration.1010 Moreover the distance between BZ.6 and 102 are only 6 km. The system around BZ.6 might be late in this period, since the sites have also material of the next, Do Tulune-phase, which is missing for the rest and Mohammad Taki was given up in this Soft-Ware-horizon. Whether Chogha Sofla/BZ.71 in the Lower Zuhreh-valley has already been the major site in this area, cannot be decided, but in respect to its later importance, it might be possible. In the Ardakan Region at least one site, Tul-i Gird, a site of the Mohammad Taki-complex is given.1011 The increase of settlements in the Behbehan plain might be the result of increasing settledness. In the Shahr-e Kord and Khana Mirza-region also settlement hierarchies are not traceable. In Shahr-e Kord, S.2 and S.12 could belong to this Soft-Ware-phase. But as long as excavations are missing in these regions, much remains pure guesswork.

In the Deh Luran-region, changes were evident, the population increased in the Khazineh-phase, 12 settlements can be traced, somehow equal to 4 Persons/km[2].1012 New is a form of transhumance between the Deh Luran-region and Luristan. Next to Patak is DK.14 as a relative larger site, besides two smaller ones.1013

In the Iveh– and Dasht-e Gol- region no site dates with certainty to this phase. Contrary to the Izeh- and Malamir-region, where 6 sites can be mentioned, with sizes between 0.6-5.0 ha. But a settlement pattern is not recognizable.1014 The Ram Hormuz-region was obviously abandoned during the Early Middle Susiana-phase.1015 At least a site next to Bushire gave Middle Susiana A–Ba pottery.1016

12.6.4 Do Tulune/Middle Chalcolithic 1-Horizon

sketch maps 5-6

With the exception of the Behbehan-Basin, where the sum of the size of all settlements is more or less the same, than before. In the other regions under consideration here, one can recognize a clear increase of sites.1017 The Gandoman-, Emam Qais and Chogha Khor-regions were perhaps settled for the first time. or an older Soft-Ware horizon could not be defined. Based on pottery the Middle Chalcolithic unifies more or less all regions.

In the Behbehan-Basin a three-tier settlement system was established, but, since from the middle level sites BZ.5/Tall-I Hasnach and BZ.11/Tepe Sohz no smaller sites seem to depend, the system as such was obviously only a two-tier–structured system.1018 In this phase Tepe Sohz was perhaps already controlling a channel, what could have been one of several possible factors to its supremacy in the following Sohz-Phases. In the Lower Zuhreh-valley the trend towards a two-tier system with Chogha Sofla continued. The sites lay along the Lower Zuhreh, whereas in the Khana Mirza plain they surround a recent swamp.1019 Also the position of sites like BZ.93-7.and BZ.88 in the Lower Zuhreh-valley could mark the periphery of an ancient swamp, especially if one considers the position of additional sites of the following phase.1020

In the Deh Luran-region not much data exist for the regional level. The Mehmeh-phase population increased to at least 5 Inhabitants/km[2].1021 Site sizes are between 1 to 2 ha, only Tepe Moussian was much larger, obviously the center of the plain. The only difference to the previous Khazineh-phase could be an increase in hunting.1022

For the Iveh-Dasht-e Gol-region material of this phase has not be defined. In the Izeh-Malamir-area at least 6 sites are known with 0.6-5.0 ha size. A settlement system pattern is not recognizable.1023 In the Ram Hormuz-region no site fits this time period. Next to Bushire one site continued to be inhabited (see here Note 123).

12.6.5 Sohz 1+2- and Late Sohz 1-/Early Chogha Sofla- and Middle Chalcolithic 2-horizon in the Bakhtiyari-highlands Sketch Maps 7-9 and 10

Contrary to the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region, where this period can be subdivided in 3 subphases, for the Bakhtiyari-highlands this is up to now impossible. Middle Chalcolithic 2 in the Bakhtiyaris encompass the Sohz 1-2-phases of the Behbehan-Zuhreh-valley, but in the Highlands this aspect continues up to the Early Chogha Sofla-phase. Since Susa A-pottery is absent in the Bakhtiyari-highlands, a phase corresponding to Late Sohz 1/Early Chogha Sofla/Early Bakun A, is hard to define. Sites having Gap IIb to IIc/Early Bakun A, should be contemporaneous.

During the Sohz 1-phase the number of sites increased significantly in the Behbehan-basin1024 and Tepe Sohz became the regional center. If the site got already in this period a monumental terrace, is not clear jet.1025 The site was controlling a channel head from which two further channels split. The former center Do Tulune/BZ 6 was given up within the Middle Chalcolithic 2-phase. The three-tiered settlement system of the Behbehan plain was dominated by the centre Tepe Sohz/BZ.11 The surface is 13,5 ha large. Directly dependent of Sohz were: BZ. 10. 12. 6. 29. 35. The Middle Level in the site hierarchy is defined by BZ.5/Tall-i Hasnach. The following sites were more dependent on this site: BZ. 9. 49 and BZ.17. This system could reflect a K-7/Solar-relationship, even though the small system around Tall-i Hasnach is somewhat troubling the structure, because there is no neutral’, uninhabited zone between the System around BZ. 11 and BZ, 5.1026 BZ.57 marks the connection to the Ram Hormuz-region and BZ.18 gave access to the regions East of the Behbehan–Basin, explored by Stein and via the Khairabad-valley to the Lower Zuhreh–valley. The latter continued its linear structure, with BZ, 71/Chogha Sofla as a center. The area West of Chogha Sofla/BZ.71, saw a couple of new sites and especially the line BZ.95. 94. 98 and BZ.88 could indicate an ancient channel.

In the following Sohz 2-Phase both settlements of the Behbehan-Zuhreh–region decreased in number of sites, but the basic structure remained. Only in the Lower Zuhreh–Valley, the channel just mentioned, was given up, but the sites surrounding the possible swamp remained.

The excavations at Tepe Sohz gave hints as to an earthquake.1027 As for the date, the End of the Sohz 2-phase might be a good candidate, because the irrigation system around Tepe Sohz was given up. Only with the 1. Millennium B.C. a new irrigation system will be established in the Behbehan basin (cf. Sketch map 1).1028 Since traces of an external aggression were not found at Tepe Sohz, the collaps of this settlement system will have probably ‘natural.’ causes.

In the Late Sohz 1-phase the settlement system around Tepe Sohz reduces drastically. The canal system of the earlier phases was given up and two sites, West of Tepe Sohz remain at a distance of about 2,5 km from the recent Marun. In the Lower Zuhreh–Valley the sites remain the same, only to the East of Chogha Sofla/BZ.71 a new site BZ.65 was founded, in the Early Chogha Sofla–phase.

In the Bakhtiyari–highlands the long Middle Chalcolithic 2-phase marks the period of the densest settlement. However, of course all sites need not to be contemporaneous, moreover, when any differentiation in subphases is impossible. Another factor is of importance, compared to the Behbehan-Zuhreh sites, the sizes of those of the Bakhtiyari–highlands are much smaller in size. None of them is much larger than 2 ha. With some probability none of the highland settlement-system is beyond a two-tier hierarchy. Slope sites are present but cannot be dated with more precision within the period. Since in the following Late Chalcolithic 1a-phase, Slope sites were common, they might start more towards the end of the Middle Chalcolithic 2-Phase.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.14 Settlement sizes in the Bakhtiyari Highlands

In the Deh Luran-region this Period is characterized by the Bayat-phase. The settlements lie next to several rivers, running through the Mehmeh-valley.13 sites belong to this phase with a total ha value of 17.5-19.5 ha.Wright correlates these data with about 3000 Inhabitants. Hole and Flannery attributed only 9 sites to the Bayat-phase, with 6 persona/km[2], But Wright’s data are more recent. 3 sites have a size of 3.0-5.0 ha; three settlement clusters are associated with 3 rivers: DL.31= Tepe Sabz is the center of the cluster of the Mehmeh-river, DL.20=Tepe Moussian belongs to the Dawariji-alluvium and Tepe Farukhabad = ? The clusters were only two tiers organized.1029 Next to Patak the peak of settlements is reached in the Bayat-phase. DK.11 = Tepe Murabad is the local center surrounded by DK.26-28. 30. Further to the SE more small sites exist.1030

Part of this complex1031 is also Middle Susiana Bc = Faruk- and the earlier part of the Susa A-period. In the Farukh-phase some settlements in the W.- part of the Deh Luran-plain were given up. Tepe Moussian functioned as a small center with depended smaller sites and also Tepe Farukhabad increased in size. The Iveh –and Dasht-e Gol-region had no sherds of these phases. Contrary to the Izeh- and Malamir-areas, where at least 6 sites have been found.1032 It must be noted, that sizes vary between 1.0-2.1 ha, the category large village of the previous period is absent here. In the Ram Hormuz-region, a late phase of Late Middle Susiana (corresponding roughly to the end of the Do Tulune-phase, beginning of Sohz 1), as in the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region (here in the Sohz 1-phase), the Late Middle Susiana Phase saw a maximum of sites.1033 In Ram Hormuz from formerly 24sites, the number drops to 13 sites in Late Susiana 1 (ca. Late Sohz 1). 11 sites were abandoned and 4 were new.1034 Next to Bushire the situation remains as before (see Note 123).

Further to the South, in the Hinterland of the Persian Gulf, West of Siraf, Stein found 3 sites, J1-3, dating from the Sohz to the Late Sohz 2-phase, i.e Gap II to Bakun A (here map 1).1035

12.6.6 Late Sohz 2-/Late Chogha Sofla- and Middle Chalcolithic 3-Horizon Scetch maps 11─12

In this phase the number of sites in the whole region considered here, decreases further, especially in the Behbehan basin, were Tepe Sohz had been given up, and only one small site remained, BZ.34, a site that started at least in the Do Tulune-, if not already in the preceding Mohammad Taki phase, situated about 1.5 km South of the recent Marun. In the Lower Zuhreh–valley four sites were given up, and the supposed former swamp area is not traceable anymore. In the Behbehan–Zuhreh–region this development continues the trend observed since the Sohz 2-phase.

In the Bakhtiyari–highlands, the number of settlements decreased also in the Middle Chalcolithic 3-phase. (cf. Tab.11) Only sites next to springs and on slopes survived. Possibly the annual rainfall rates decreased and following Zagarell, the Slope sites should reflect an important shift to animal husbandry.1036

Susa A-material is almost missing in the Deh Luran-region. Only a few sherds were found on Tepe Moussian and two other smaller sites. It might be possible that Susa A-sherds were intrusive in an ongoing Farukh-milieu as a luxury product. For the Iveh– and Dasht-e Gol-region no data are present, and in the Izeh- and Malamir-region, this period is called Late Susiana 2.1037 Two sites N. of a seasonally filled small lake have been found, the sites are of 1 and 1.9 ha in size. In the Ram Hormuz-region, one has now 5 sites with a total area of 6.7 ha.1038 Wright and Johnson mentioned 3.2 ha for Late Susanna 2.1039

12.6.7 Post-Sohz-, Post Chogha Sofla- and Late Chalcolithic Ia-b -horizon Sketch Maps 13─16

In the Behbehan Zuhreh-region only 2─3 sites were occupied during this period. In the Behbehan-basin BZ.5/Tall-i Hasnach and BZ.13 are located far from the Marun,1040 and in the Lower Zuhreh-valley only BZ.71/Chogha Sofla survived with a minimal occupation. Also in the Bakhtiyari–Highlands the number of settlement sites decreased drastically. Similar to Late Bakun in the Mamasani-region, the number of sites increases once more to 14 Lapui-sites. At the end of the period at least 5 Terminal Lapui-sites of the Tal-e Kureh-type are left.1041

In the Deh Luran-plain the older Sargarab-phase defines this horizon. Especially the site of Sargarab (DL.169) itself of 0.7 ha,1042 lying on the Sargarab river, on a weak elevation, surrounded by a stone-defense wall. Another small site DL.19, also next to the river, can practice small scale irrigation according to Wright.1043 The reason of the drop of settelment numbers might be due to ecological reasons and/or conflicts between the settled and more mobile groups, according to Wright.1044 For the Iveh –and Dasht-e Gol-region no sites could be ascribed to this period and also for the Izeh- and Malamir-region, Wright and Johnson mention only two sites: A large village (8276/5957 – 3.1 ha) and a village (8252/5920 – 1.5 ha).1045 Such a significant ongoing decrease of settlements can also be observed in the Ram Hormuz-region, were a drop from 8.27 ha to 5.77 occurred; of the 8 sites which suvived, only two were also settled in the Late Susiana-period.1046 Wright and Johnson, in an older study, noted a decrease of the total of the ha-value of the sites from 3.2 ha to 1.2 ha.1047 But one should be aware the fact that the pottery of Terminal Susa/Early Susa II is hard to define and therefore, a date given to a site is not without problems.1048

12.6.8 Uruk-/LATE CHALCOLITHIC 1b-2a- and LATE CHALCOLITHIC 2a-b-Horizon Sketch Map 13 and 16─17

In the Lower Zuhreh valley only one site dates to this period, and probably to an early phase. Uruk Pottery in the form of Beveled-Rim-Bowls have been found in Arjan/Behbehan by Potts.1049

In the Bakhtiyari–Highlands, in the Khana Mirza–area a slight decrease of settlement number occurred, but in the Shahr-e Kord–region the Late Chalcolithic 1b-value remained quasi unchanged. Besides the Lapui-akin complex, with strong connections to Fars, also Uruk-types are present, but in local ware, The number of settlements continues to decrease in the Late Chalcolithic 1b-2a – phase. In the Gandoman and neighboring regions settlements cannot be defined for this phase and in Shahr-e Kord the number dropped. In Late Chalcolithic 2a a slight increase could be traced, similar to the Shahr-e Kord–region. In the Khana Mirza–plain K.25 seemed to have been resettled, because here a single Bevel-Rim-Bowl was found, together with sherds of Sialk III/Godin VI-pottery. In the Shahr-e Kord–region, these bowls were quite common. During the Late Chalcolithic 2a/2a-2b–phase the settlement number in the Khana Mirza– and Shahr-e Kord–area decreased once more slightly, and K.94 seems to have been resettled in this phase only. About 6 sites can be attributed to this phase. Between Ardakan and the Behbehan-Zuhreh–region no settlements are attested for this period. The old route connecting Behbehan via Ardakan with Shiraz, was given up, perhaps already after the Sohz 2-phase, The Susiana and Fars where now probably connected via the Bakhtiyari–Highlands. In the Mamasani-Region also a decrease to only 8 Banesh-sites occurred.1050

For the Deh Luran-region I can give no information, since my chronological frame for Tepe Farukhabad is different and since no site-specific data are published any alternative approach is impossible.(Tab.15). For the Iveh –and Dasht-e Gol-region no settlement of Middle- or Late Uruk-date is known. The the Izeh- and Malamir-region, offers a similar picture, only one site, ‘Ali Zabarjad is known besides a further one on a hillside, 20 km to the south.1051 The Ram Hormuz-region saw also a drop of settlements in the Late Susa II-phase from 8 to five from a total of 6.57 ha to 5.47 ha. Of these, 5 sites continued from the preceding period, a strong sign of continuity.1052

12.6.9 The LATE CHALCOLITHIC 2b-horizon sketch map 18

Only two sites in the Bakhtiyari Highlands can be dated with certainty to the Protoelamite period: K.75 and K.94. Settlements like S.17 (+10) can be dated, if ever, up to the very end of the Late Uruk period (end of SU B-phase) or at the very beginning of PE 1 at best. These sites are not part of settlement systems, but single sites. It should be noted, that the Sialk III-aspect had reached its southernmost extension in the region of Zagarell’s surveys, but did not go beyond this, further to the south.1053 Obviously only one PE-site is known from Bushire.1054

For the Deh Luran-region– cf. Remarks for the preceding period.1055 In the Iveh-Dasht-e Gol-region perhaps one site, DG.10 is to be mentioned.1056 Contrary for the Izeh-Malamir region, where 9 sites date to “Early Proto-Elamite” (Susa, Acr. I,16-14b = PE 1-2a in my scheme)1057 ‘Ali Zabarjad was the local center with 12 ha, followed by five sites with 4-6 ha, 2 villages and 4 possible campsites. Also the Ram Hormuz-region saw an increase to14 sites and all previous sites were also settled in the PE-period, so the development was continuous here. Contrary to the Susiana, where a complete break in the settlement system äääcan be recognized. The 14 PE-settlements in the Ram Hormuz-region have 11,07 ha total in size.1058

After the Protoelamite period the whole regions mentioned here, with the exception of Luristan, were devoid of settlements. Only for the late third millennium settlements are known again.1059 For the developments and changes of such so-called Buffer-zones vis à vis the Lowland and Highlands see a recent contribution by Alizadeh.1060

The pioneering work by Nissen and Zagarell were a first step to understand the development of the connected and interacting regions of the Lowlands and Highlands of SW-Iran, one of the key problems of Iranian history. Might this work be completed in the years to come.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab.15 Alternative reading of the stratigraphy of Tepe Farukhabad 1986a

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map 1

Map 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

13 A Day in the Life – Reflections on earlier Annotations on the Protoelamite Horizon

13.0 Introduction

My somehow “classical” study from 1987 dealing with the Protoelamite horizon, is of course a “child of its time.” In view of a growing corpus of new data, I decided to make an update, to avoid being ‘out of time’. So some lazy day in my life was chosen to handle the task. In retrospect, doing so, was more time consuming as thought before, reminding the famous (non) ending closing of “A Day in the Life.”

In order to give more background information about several topics discussed here, I added appendices, in fact the essentials of an earlier work (Dittmann 1986b) completed with recent comments.

The starting points of the 1987 study were the results of the then recent excavations at Susa, as well as a more detailed presentation of the data of Sialk III6─IV2, provided by Amiet and first interpretations.1061

13.1. LeBreton’s sequence of susa and Susa, periods III─IV/V of the new excavations

13.1.1 Prélude – Notes on Susa C-D (App. A+C)

The chronological correlation of these periods with the chronological sequence of Babylonia, is somewhat tricky (Cf. Tab.1).

In 1957 LeBreton offered a synthesis of the old excavations around and in Susa, which had an enormous impact on the field for the next decades. The (reconstructed) sequence of Susa started with Susa A, as the oldest unit, running up to Susa De.1062

The Material of his phases Da to De was more oriented on a pure stylistic ordering than the finds of the older phases, because the findings of these younger phases had almost no reliable context. This problem was explicitly stated by LeBreton.1063 In no case do we deal with stratified material. The analysis of the finds of Susa A, Ba─d, Ca─c, were based on Sondage 1/North and 2/South of de Mecquenem and for the older phases on the Susa-A cemetery excavated by de Morgan. Material LeBreton attributed to Da─De, originated from a couple of soundings, like the Acropolis, Apadana, Ville Royale and the Donjon.1064 The older thesis by Pottier, that the painted pottery of Susa should be divided in two directly successive styles: Susa I and II, was completely rejected by LeBreton, showing that at least his phases B─C would separate both styles and that Susa II-pottery was not a homogenous group.1065

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map 1 Susa, after Steve - Gasche - De Meyer - Amiet 1980, Fig, 1

As a reference, LeBreton used the published results from the Diyala. He correlated Susa Da (which he considered to originate in the previous Cc-phase) with Early Dynastic I (in the following ED) in the Diyala; Susa Db was considered to overlap with ED I─II. Susa Dc would overlap with ED II─III; Susa Dd would be of ED III-date and Susa De would cover the and of ED III and the Proto-Imperial period.1066

In 1964 Nagel published his legendary study of the Early Dynastic painted potteries, He has not only refined the sequence of LeBreton, but identified also local styles.1067 Since the new excavations at Susa had not started yet, Nagel’s study was using LeBreton as reference, but unfortunately, he misunderstood LeBretons phase designations as archaeological levels.

“Classical Susa II”-pottery started in Susa Dc, what according to Nagel should be correlated with the “Mesilim- to Fara Style”-phases of Moortgat’s system. As to him in Susa Dd this classical ware would have been replaced by the so-called “Susa II-Verfalls (Decay-)”- pottery wh Nagel correlated with LeBreton’s group De. Susa Dd–De, he dated to the “Ur I-period”, equal to ED IIIB and the “Proto-Imperial-period” in the Diyala.1068

13.1.2 The more recent excavations(App. B)

A late date for Susa II-pottery was also shown by the excavations from Stève and Gasche in the terrace-section of the acropolis of Susa, published in 1971.1069 For them “Couche 4b”1070 would correlate with Susa Dc, parallel to the older section of ED III. For Susa Db, paralleled with ED II, they assumed a gap in their sequence between “Couche 4” and those findings, they dated to their “Proto-Dynastique I”- period, paralleled with Susa Da.1071

In 1980 Carter published the results of her excavations in the Ville Royale I (VR I).1072 VR I, 18─16 (Susa III-older) was somehow paralleled by her with Susa Da, dated slightly younger than “Proto-Dynastique I” of Stève and Gasche, what is improbable, as an analysis of the findings has shown.1073 VR I, 15─13 was correlated with Susa Db and dated to the supposed gap between “Proto-Dynastic I” and “Couche 4b”. VR I, 13 and 12 are separated by an erosion level, perhaps an Indication of a gap in the sequence, VR I, 12─9A (Susa IVA) was correlated with “Couches 4─3” and VR I, 8─7 (Susa IVB) with “Couches 2─1”.1074

“Couche 2” can be dated to the Akkad-period, due to an Akkadian tablet found here and “Couche 1” has a cone of Puzur/Kutik-Inšušinak, being partly contempora­neous with Urnamma,1075 the founder of the Ur III-dynasty. Since in VR I, 4 an inscription of Šu-Sin was found, the levels VR I, 8─7 (“Couche 2─1”) to VR I, 4 must date from Late-Akkad to Ur III,1076 therefore, VR I, 9 and “Couche 3” probably continued into the early Akkad-period.1077

A review article of Carter’s work was published by Meyer in 1980. He tried to refine Carter’s sequence in regard to Mesopotamia. According to Meyer the Akkad-period would start in VR I, 8 but would then run up to VR I, 5 and not only to I, 7 as proposed by Carter. This construct was closely depending on the problematic dates of Stève and Gasche,1078 and he argued that the gap in the sequence between VR I, 13 and VR I, 12, would cover the ED II─IIIA period in Mesopotamia. “Couche 4b” would just be Part of ED IIIA at best, and “Couche 3” was dated, against Carter, to VR I, 12─11/10. This connection is somewhat problematic1079 and also Meyer’s correlation of VR I, 16─13 with ED I and VR I, 18─17 with the Uruk/Ğamdat Nasr-period cannot be followed here.1080

At a symposium, dealing with problems concerning the Ğamdat Nasr-period, held in Tübingen in 1983, I tried to handle the sequence of VR I.1081 ─ VR I, 18─17 was then correlated with early ED I and VR I, 16/15─13 with ED II.1082 VR I, 12─9 was dated from ED IIIA up to the early Akkad-period, and the running time of the several Susa II-styles, as proposed by Nagel 1964b, were analyzed critically.1083 It became evident, that all Susa II-groups where more less contemporaneous and did not follow abruptly each other. For that reason the sequence of Da to De as phases were given up.1084

One of the crucial questions was, if there is a gap in the sequence between ED I and

ED III. The following points are of concern for this problem:

- The material attributed by LeBreton to Da─De has no stratigraphic background. The excavations by Stève and Gasche on the Terrace area of the Acropolis failed to establish a stratigraphic link between “Couche 4b” and “Proto- Dynastic I“. Due to this conceptional failure, no gap concerning the whole Acropolis should be deduced.1085
- The glyptic material of Acr. I, 14B and VR I, 18─17 can be correlated with Khafajeh, Sin Temple IV/V, what I called Protoelamite 2a (PE 2a), and dated it to the beginning of the ED I-period (Fig. 1).1086
- The pottery of Susa Db and VR I, 15─13 shows affinities with the Late Banesh-phase at Tall-I Malyan, especially to finds from TUV I and By8, which can be paralleled with the pottery of PE 2b (Acr. I, 14A─13 and VR I, 16) and PE 3 (VR I, 15─13; Fig. 2).1087

The first two points can be accepted; critical are the last two: One cannot exclude the possibility that the PE 2a-horizon runs into to ED II (cf. Tab. II). Than, PE 2b would be essentially of ED II-date. In this perspective, one has to deal with glyptics, dated by Nagel and Karg relatively late.1088

As already discussed somewhere else, VR I, 18 has a vessel─type which can be dated to Nippur, Inanna Temple XI, the beginning of ED I at Nippur (Cf. Fig. 3,1─2).1089 Nippur, Inanna Temple XIB was correlated with the early ED II-period. In Inanna Temple VIIB Fara-type tablets have been found dated to the “Fara-phase” of Nagel and Strommenger.1090

13.1.3 Glyptic in the pe-horizon of Susa [29]a

As already mentioned the glyptic of Acr. I, 14B and VR I, 18─17 (PE 2a) can be correlated with Khafagah, Sin Temple IV─V and similar finds are also known from Nippur, Inanna Temple XI, i.e. the beginning of ED I.1091 Therefore, the Protoliterate d-period in the Diyala reached already the ED I-period. Nagel preferred in his older work of 1964b, a pre-ED I-date for Sin Temple IV to V (Tab. 1).

“Classical Brocade─Style”- seals were not found in the recent excavations at Susa. In Khafagah, in the Sin Temple, they occur from Sin (IV)V─to VII(VIII).1092 Similar material was found only in Susa, Acr. I, 14B and VR I, 18A. and in Acr. I, 14A─13, in PE 2a─2b (Cf. Fig. 1, 1─5).1093 Karg correlated some of the Sin VIII-seals with the

younger ED I-period, and assumed that the Brocade style locally could run into early ED II.1094

In Acr. I,14A─13 (PE 2b) only seals and sealings with schematic cut motifs were found in the more recent excavations. Figurative motifs seem not to be present anymore after PE 2a, which in regard to the only small exposure of these levels, does not mean too much. Unfortunately, the glyptic material of this time is rare in the more recent excavations.1095 The older sealings running from Uruk to PE 1 were discussed somewhere else.1096

For the younger material follows: Nagel, partly followed by Karg, correlated some seals and sealings (one on a tablet) with Nagel’s so-called “End-Protoelamite” – period (See Tab. 1 and Fig. 4, 1─3), what would end as a maximum in the beginning of the “Ur I-Style”-phase, equal to LeBreton’s Dc to Dd-phases.1097

A Lion-demon motif known by a figurine from the antiquities market, was dated by Nagel to his “Late Protoelamite” period, similar motives are known from sealings from Tall-i Malyan ABC II and SIS 7, Pit Z in Ur, corresponding to Susa (Cc)Da─Db (Tab. 1 for the running time of this phase, and Fig. 4, 5).1098

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. I Different proposals for the sequence of Susa

Boehmer: Lugalanda-Mesanepada, Mature Meskalamdug, Early Meskalamdug, 1. Übergangszeit

Nagel: Spät-Proto-Elamisch, Hoch-Proto Elamisch, Oval III, Small Temple

Frankfort/Delougaz: Proto-Imperial, Proto-Literate

Stève/Gasche: Proto-Dynastique I, Ğamdat Nasr-Récent/Ancien

younger ED I-period, and assumed that the Brocade style locally could run into early ED II.1099

In Acr. I,14A─13 (PE 2b) only seals and sealings with schematic cut motifs were found in the more recent excavations. Figurative motifs seem not to be present anymore after PE 2a, which in regard to the only small exposure of these levels, does not mean too much. Unfortunately the glyptic material of this time is rare in the more recent excavations.1100 The older sealings running from Uruk to PE 1 were discussed somewhere else.1101

For the younger material follows: Nagel, partly followed by Karg, correlated some seals and sealings (one on a tablet) with Nagel’s so-called “End-Protoelamite” – period (See Tab. 1 and Fig. 4, 1─3), what would end as a maximum in the beginning of the “Ur I-Style”-phase, equal to LeBreton’s Dc to Dd-phases.

A Lion-demon motif known by a figurine from the antiquities market, was dated by Nagel to his “Late Protoelamite” period, similar motives are known from sealings from Tall-i Malyan ABC II and SIS 7, Pit Z in Ur, corresponding to Susa (Cc)Da─Db (Tab. 1 for the running time of this phase, and Fig. 4, 5).1102

Nagel and LeBreton thought that the PE A-script would have disappeared in Susa Dd.1103 According to the more recent excavations, there is no indication of the use of PE A-script after PE 2a,1104 the script would come to an end at latest in PE 2b. Also Tall-I Malyan, the second, highland center of PE Iran, has no PE-texts after PE 2a. Therefore, the supposedly “End-Proto-Elamite”(Nagel) Lion-griffin motif1105 on a sealing of a PE-tablet from Susa (Fig. 4,3),1106 cannot be dated later than PE 2a.

Somehow problematic is the date of Nagel’s “End-Proto-Elamite”- glyptic material. Seals attributed to this group are characterized by the rendering of animals in a kind of “Baroque-Style” with highly dissected interior details and animals in Human-postures. The last criterion is already valid for the early PE-glyptic (Fig. 1, 14). The other criterion is not found in the more recent excavations of Susa, but quite similar presentations are found in Tall─I Malyan (Fig. 4, 6─7, ABC II─III), where they occur together with PE 2a sealings. Amiet subsumed this group as “Proto-Élamite-Classique”, dated to Susa Cc─Da, what would fit the evidence at Malyan.1107 In Susa the “Baroque-group” occurs not together with Karg’s early ED II-group, as one could suppose,1108 nor is this group present in PE 2b,1109 which unfortunately has been excavated on a very restricted surface.1110 What we get from the old excavations are only hints as to the date of the “Baroque”-group.

A seal of this group was found by de Mecquenem1111 in Acropolis North/Sondage 1.1112 Further seals come from graves of Sondage-South/Sondage 2 from 0 m under the surface of the sounding up to – 3,8 m. (Fig. 5, 12─14).1113 Assuming that these graves are not intrusions of much later times, they could have a terminus ante quem of Acr. I, 13 (end of PE 2b) and a terminus post quem of Acr. I, 19/18.1114

The only securely dated late complex of Sondage 2/South is the material of the so-called “Vase à cachette” (Fig. 6, 1─3), which can be correlated with “Couche 3” of the Terrace-excavation by Stève and Gasche, dated by the youngest find, a seal of the “Ur I-style” phase of Nagel, what can be partially correlated (see above) with ED IIIB and VR I, 9.1115

Since the “Baroque”- group was also found in Tall-I Malyan together with PE 2a material, this group has a running time of PE 2a─2b equal to late Proto-literate d/early ED I up to ED II.

13.1.4 External Connections of the Proto-Elamite material at Susa and a first approach to date the different painted pottery styles (App. C)

Problematic are also the connections of the younger levels of the more recent excavations with the Diyala. Meyer noted, that Grave VR I, 553 (possibly sunk from VR I, 13/12 – or later?)1116 is to be dated to ED IIIB or the End of IIIA at best.1117 A whipstick sleeve of copper/bronze from this grave (Fig. 6, 4) can be related to a similar piece, found by de Mecquenem in the Donjon (Fig. 6,5).1118 Since Meyer believes that Grave 555 was sunk from VR I, 12, he speculated that there must have been a gap in the sequence, based on the erosion layer between VR I, 12 and 13, covering the ED II-period and a large part of ED IIIA, “Couche 4b” seems to date to the later part of ED IIIA (Here Tab.I).

A further hint as to the date of the sequence of Susa, are findings from al-Hiba/Lagash where a painted pottery was found, an import from Iran?, comparable to the material of the Terrace-excavation at Susa, “Couche 3” and VR I, 9 (Fig. 7,1─2).1119 The findspot at Lagash is dated by sealings of Enannatum I, plus some of his son and his father Eannatums, who. according to Porada, followed by Boehmer marks the beginning of the ED IIIB-period).1120 Therefore, the quite short ED IIIB-period in Susa would be represented by VR I,9 and “Couche 3” on the Terrace (lasting till the beginning of the Akkad-period) and “Couche 4a─b” as well as VR I, 12─11, could start somewhere (late) in ED IIIA.

From the Terrace excavation “Couche 4b”, there is only little material pointing to ED IIIA, or which can be related to Khafagah Houses 3─2, which according to Gibson would be of ED IIIA-date (Fig. 8, 1─2).1121 The rest of the finds is not very typical.1122 Some of the vessels from “Couche 4b─a” have also connections to VR I, 15─13. That means that the distance between “Couche 4b” and VR I, 13 cannot be too important.1123 The opinion of Stève-Gasche, that “Couche 4b” with the “Bâtiment Protodynastique” dates to ED IIIA is correct, supposing that “Couche 4b” starts somewhere late in ED IIIA. As a consequence the older PE 3-phase (VR I, 15─13) has a running time from ED II up to the early part of ED IIIA. The Gap between VR I, 13 and 12 could date to the end of the earlier part of ED IIIA.

We have already noted, that Susa Db-pottery (with connections to VR I, 15─13) reminds early Late Banesh-pottery from TUV I and Late Banesh/Early Kaftari- pottery from By8 in Tall-I Malyan.1124

Nagel called Susa Db- “Susianische-Sub-Ğamdat Nasr”-pottery. The latter lasts, as already discussed, until the early ED IIIA-period in Susa. It overlaps with the “Proto Susa II” pottery, running parallel to it, dated by Nagel to Db.1125 This pottery, being not homogenous, is attested with variants, until the Akkad-period (Fig. 8, 3─5).1126

The “Classical Susa II”-pottery, in the severe narrow definition of Nagel (Fig. 9),1127 was almost non-existent in the more recent excavations, what is not astonishing, since that material comes almost exclusively from settlement-context.1128

The Terrace-excavation has given in “Couche 3” “Classic-Susa II”-pottery together with “Susa-II-Verfalls”-pottery (“Susa II-Decay”-pottery) – (Fig. 9, 1─2; 7, 3─6).

That “Susa II”-pottery runs in graves up to the Akkad-period, can be shown on behalf the Donjon, grave A334.1129

In regard to the end of “Susa II”-pottery, findings from Luristan are of importance. A polychrome painted pottery was found in Bani Surmah, correlated by Vanden Berghe with Susa Dc─Dd.1130 The seals from this necropolis1131 were dated by Calmeyer1132 to the “Mesilim- and Fara Style”-phases. Similar are the findings from Takht-I Khan. The polychrome pottery is quite similar to Bani Surmah, and Vanden Berghe called it a developed “Scarletware.”1133 The same is recognized for the oldest graves of Qabir Nahi. Vanden Berghe correlated these findings, he called Early Bronze II, with Giyan IVa and Susa II-late. Two vessels of the accompanying unpainted pottery of Takht-I Khan, date to the Early Akkad-period.1134

The painted pottery of this period in Luristan1135 corresponds to the Proto-Susa II”-pottery in the definition of Nagel, dated by him only to Susa Db.1136 But this group is not absolutely homogenous, and lasts, with variations, until the early Akkad-period (Fig. 8, 3─5).1137 Graves from Kallah Nisar, with similar pottery like Bani Surmah, have Early Akkadian seals.1138

The necropolis of Dar Tanha has a monochrome painted ware, paralleled in the Susa II-style,1139 a bichrome painted pottery1140 an an unpainted ware as it is known from Bani Surmah and Kalleh Nissar. The monochrome painted Godin III.6-ware is identical to Nagel’s “Late Classical Nihavand”-pottery, dated by Nagel to De/Ur I.1141

The youngest phase of the Early Bronze Age in Luristan can be dated from the Akkad- to Ur III-period, according to graves in Gululai-Galbi and the latest graves in Kalleh Nissar.1142

Painted pottery of Susa II”-type is also rare in VR I, 8─7. Nagel refers to a painted vessel found at Ur, as to him of Susa II-Decay”-style.1143 Unfortunately, it was not found in a grave, but 0,50 m above the Meskalamdug ED IIIA.2-grave PG/1101.1144 Another vessel in the „Susa II“-style comes from JNG/239.1145

Finally a look at the Deh Luran-region might be useful. In Tepe Farukhabad “Proto-Susa II”-pottery runs up to ED II, if not ED IIIA.1146 I dated a vessel1147 from this site to late ED I, since I didn’t recognize any criteria for a later date and Carter gave also a PE 2a-date for Level A,5.1148 This date from 1983 needs today some modifications (see Tab.II): If one dates the vessel in question from Farukhabad A,5 to ED IIIA,1149 than another one from Farukhabad A, 3, would join the scene.1150 If these correlations were accepted, than the connection drawn in 1983 with Nippur must be modified.1151

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

If these new connections are agreed to, than it would be of interest, that also in Tepe Farukhabad, the settlement was given up at the End of ED IIIA(1) until the Shimashki-period. Perhaps this evidence, together with the gap between VR I, 13:12, can be correlated with a historic note, that a king of Kish, named Enna-il, was in conflict with Elam.1152 Enna-il calls himself son of A-dImdugud, one should ask, if his father could not be the donator of the famous statue of Dudu?1153 This lower date of Tepe Farukhabad, if accepted, would reflect the evident poorness of datable pottery types at Farukhabad, which could perhaps be dependent of the lower size of and rank of Tepe Farukhabad vis à vis the center of the Deh Luran-plain Tepe Moussian.

The reduction of painted pottery might be in connection with the different activities of the Akkadian ruler Rimush.1154

Summing up: “Classic Susa II”-pottery starts with VR I, 12 and Terrace, “Couche 4b”. That means it would start later, than Nagel had assumed, who favored a “Mesilim Style”-phase date (see Tab.I). The different “Susa II-style groups come than to an end in the Akkad-period.

I will not deny, that a lot of important finds come from Susa, but one has hardly any chance to integrate them in a kind of stratigraphic sequence. Just for the periods Susa III-IV/V of the more recent excavations, a more conceptualized excavation strategy would have been welcomed. Such a complex concept should have turned to the Donjon, because the large amount of seals found here by de Mecquenem,1155 would have helped to date the different groups of the “Susa II”-complex more accurately. This unique chance to structure the 3rd. Millennium at Susa is lost.

13.3.2 Tepe Sialk IV.1─2 (App. C )

Since the material of Ghirshman’s excavations at Tepe Sialk A (and B) were published in 19381156, it had an enormous impact on the archaeology of Iran for the 3rd millennium B.C. LeBreton connected his phases Susa Cb─Cc with Sialk IV.1─2.1157 Dyson followed LeBreton by large, but did not exclude an end of Sialk IV.2 in ED II.1158 The latter date was also accepted by Alden.1159 As the more recent excavations have shown, the division of Susa Bc/d─Cb has to be given up, since contrary to the opinion of LeBreton his phases cannot be isolated in the way proceeded, but occurs together in Acr. I, (19)18─16(14).1160 Vallat, working on the tablets from Acr. I, noted, that the tablet, Ghirshman had attributed to Sialk IV.2, must be related to Acr. I, 16 on palaeographic reasons. Those from Sialk IV.1 he dated to Acr. I, 17.1161 In 1983 I presented an attempt to date Sialk IV,1162 which was quite similar to the one of Nagel (cf. Tab.4), originating in my Dissertation from 1983, which was published only in 1986.1163

In Dittmann 1986a I speculated, if there could not exist a phase Sialk IV.x, older than Uruk IV, because in the repertoire of Sialk IV.1 some vessel-types reminded more Uruk VII-VI and Susa Acr. I, 19─18.1164 Two spouted vases (Fig.12, 6─7) from Sialk III.6, also correlated already by Ghirshman with such a date, match this impression.1165

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. III Correlations according to Nagel 1964b and others.

Fr. I─II = Früh/Early Sumerian I─II; UrD.= Ur-Dynastic

Tab.IV Correlations according to the author.

Furthermore, finds, which seemed to date quite late in Sialk IV.1, were attributed to a phase Acr. I, 17Ax, not really excavated by the Arc. I-sounding, because there were quite a lot of vessel-types published by LeBreton for Susa C(a)b(c), which were absent from the more recent excavation. Also the tablets from Sialk IV.1 seemed to be a little younger than those of Acr. I, 17B─A.1166 This “younger” Sialk IV.1 was dated post Acr. I, 17B/A and pre-Acr. I, 16, i.e. to a phase Acr. I, 17Ax.

The later Sialk IV.2 was dated to Acr. I, 16─15B, i.e. Proto-Elamite 1. The older finds from Sialk IV.1x had therefore to be correlated with Susa, Acr. I, 19/18─7. Just before the print of Dittmann 1986b, Amiet published his study about Sialk III.6─IV.2. It confirmed my datings, but could only be integrated in my work at that time quite rudimentary.1167

For the following discussion, especially the findings of Chantier I are of concern, because only here, a continuous sequence is given.1168

The Sialk IV.2-material originates from -1,0 to -1,3 m depth; the tablet S.28 was found here, which can be connected with tablets of Susa, Acr. I, 16, as mentioned before. Here also two vessels with -as Nagel calls it- “Uruk-pottery with Zonendekor”, were found, with vague parallels at Tall-I Malyan, as already noted by Amiet.1169 In Tall-I Malyan, ABC II this pottery occurs together with polychrome pottery, which is absent in Sialk IV.2 (Abb.10, 1─3) .1170

A “Plain Pottery with Bands Décor” in form of carinated vases with obliquely superscript spout occur in Sialk from IV.1D─IV.2 (Fig. 10, 4) and occur also in Malyan, ABC IV (Fig. 10, 5),1171 dated elsewhere to Susa, Acr. I, 17Ax.1172 This type was dated by LeBreton to Ca─Cc.1173 Such unpainted types occur also in Acr. I, 17B2─1 (Fig. 10,6─7) and in Susa Cb.1174 That the painted specimen of this type were missing in the more recent excavations, is surely due to the hazards of excavation. Even though this type is missing before Arc., 17Ax and 15, there are indications, that Plain Uruk Pottery with Bands Décor” starts in fact earlier (see below).1175

A cylinder seal from Sialk IV.2 (Abb. 10, 8) has a filling motif , which is known in cruder form from Khafadjah, Sin Temple II and a better parallel in Sin IV.1176 But Classic Sin IV/V-seals are missing in Sialk IV.2. That is why Sin IV.2 was paralleled with Sin III. A correlation, which seems still to be valid


According to Amiet, four layers or units can be distinguished for Sialk IV.1:In Sialk IV, 1A─B, from -2.00 to -3.2 m, “Plain Uruk Pottery with Bands Décor” has been found (Fig.11, 3─7. 9) and a seal with parallels in Sin III and IV (Fig. 11,10).

The chronological distance from Sialk IV. 1A─B to Sialk IV.2 can not be too long, even if a sterile layer of 60─70 cm separates both layers.1177

From Sialk IV.1C (-3,5 to -3,7 m) from the bottom of the layer, pottery was found as it occurs also in Acr.I, 17B (Fig. 11,11─12)., and a seal (Fig.11,13) which can be correlated with sealings from Susa, Acr. I, 17B (Fig.11, 14─16).1178

In Sialk IV.1D (-3.9 to -4.0 m) late local Sialk III/Godin VI- and “Plain Uruk Pottery with Bands Décor”occur together (Fig. 12,1─3). Here also a seal was found, which can be compared to a sealing on a tablet of Acr. I, 19─18(17B)-type at Susa (Fig. 12, 4─5).1179

This evidence is a hint that Sialk III.7 and “Plain Uruk Pottery with Bands Décor”, dated by LeBreton to Susa Ca, are of Susa, Late Uruk A (Acr. I, 19─18)-date, even though this pottery-type was only present in Acr. I, 17A in the more recent excavations. The evidence in Tepe Farukhabad points in the same direction, since here corresponding material was found in the same horizon, in B34.1180

Two round bodied bottles from Sialk III.6 have already been connected by Ghirshman with UrukVII/VI, i.e. the Susa, Late Uruk A-phase (Fig. 14, 12, 6─7). One can resume that Sialk III.6─III,7/IV.1D date to Late Uruk A (Acr. I, 19─18), Sialk IV.1C to the beginning of Late Uruk B (Acr. I, 17B) and Sialk IV,B─A to the late Uruk B-phase (Acr.I, 17A─17Ax), parallel to Sin Temple II/III in the Diyala. Sialk IV.2 is of Proto-Elamite 1-date, but reaches perhaps also just phase 2a (Tab.V).

In my older works, the finds from Habuba Kabira-S., especially the pottery, reminded me the one of Uruk VII/VI─V.1, and was dated older than Godin V, to the Late Uruk A period.1181 Also the tablets of Habuba Kabira-S. were more of a Late Uruk A-type.1182 Sealed Hollow Balls are quite rare at Habuba Kabira-S., what would fit Acr. I, 18 (but see below).1183

Some findings, however, speak for a later date, as suggested by Strommenger,1184 i.e. Susa. Acr. I, 17B: only few Hollow Balls were found, in respect to the large surface excavated. The Habuba tablet- type runs into to Acr. I, 17B,1185 and finally the co-occurrence of Nagel’s “Khafagah-Style”(Pig-Tailed Women) with fine cut Late Uruk seals is interesting, since the same holds true for Acr. I, 17B, not for I, 18.1186 Some of the sealing motifs from Gebel Aruda and Habuba Kabira-S. point to level Acr. I, 18,1187 others to I, 17B.1188

In short, both Syrian sites could well originate in the Late Uruk A-phase, and, similar to Chogha Mish,1189 where given up at the beginning of Late Uruk B. Therefore, they could shortly overlap with the initial phase of the Oval, in Late Uruk B.1190

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

This construct bears some difficulties. In another context Nippur, Eanna-Temple XIV, Archaic settlement 43 (next to Uruk, where a tablet of Writing stage III.2 was found) and Susa, Acr. I, 17A, were dated to one common horizon, perhaps to be correlated with the so-called “Zwischenschicht” in Uruk, Eanna IVa:III.1191 Besides Uruk and Ğamdat Nasr, Writing stage III.2-tablets were found in Tell Asmar, Sounding in H18:14, 24─25 m, what according to the pottery can be connected with Nipur, Inanna Temple XV/XIV.1192 Another tablet comes from Sounding D 15:3, 22─21 m,, which on behalf of the pottery can be connected with Nippur, Inanna temple XI and Susa, VR I, 18.1193 To this horizon one has also to count Asmar, Sounding H18:14, 24─23 m. Both were dated by Delougaz to Proto-Literate d, based on the tablets. In light of the Nippur sequence the running time of D15:13, 22─21 m and H18:14 24─23 m. has to be dated to ED I.1194 This date is somewhat tricky, because if Habuba Kabira-S. can be connected on behalf of the pottery to Uruk VI─V, but considering the glyptik, to Susa, Acr. I, (18)17B, is than a horizon of Nippur, Inanna Temple XIV – Archaic Settlement 43?

Nippur, Inanna Temple XVIIB─XVB covers Late Uruk A to early B (Susa, Acr. I, 19─18. 17B). What is than the relation to Uruk IVc─a?

A solution could be that only Nippur, Innana Temple XVI and XVB had Pig-Tailed-Women seals (Nagel’s “Khafadji-Style”), what would be in agreement with Habuba Kabira-S.= Susa, Acr. I, 18─17B.1195 in general Nippur XV is correlated with Uruk IV.1196 Therefore, Uruk IVc─a/Nippur Inanna Temple XVA─XV can not mark a long period, because Nippur, Inanna Temple XIV can be related to Susa, Acr. I, 17A, Archaic Settlement 43 and Asmar Sounding 18:14, 22─21 m.1197 The debris-band Susa, Acr. I, 17A, would by consequence be correlated with Nippur, Inanna Temple XVA─XVB─XIV and Uruk IVc─a-?

Writing stage III.2 was dated by Nissen younger than Uruk IVa. Stage III.3 on the contrary has traits of Stage IV and III.2 but cannot be attributed within the “stratigraphy” of Eana.1198 Sealings from the supposed “Zwischenschicht” point already to the tablets of the site of Ğamdat Nasr, which belong also to Stage III.2.1199

An overlap of Stages III.2 and IV at the end of Uruk IVa might not be impossible. Moreover, since also polychrome pottery (to be differenciated locally) starts earlier than thought before, at least at Nippur. The problems of dating the two major indicators of the Ğamdat Nasr complex are evident and more complex as some publications suggest.

According to the foregoing discussion, Stage III.2 runs up into the early ED I-period, just before what Karg has called the earlier ED II-period.1200 The distance to the “Fara-tablets”, would encompass Nippur, Inanna Temple X─VIII (See Tab.V). The sealings of the Archaic Texts of Ur from SIS 5/4, have been dated by Karg to ED II. Such a date was also given by Kolbus to the so-called Ğamdat Nasr graveyard in Ur (Late ED I/beginning of ED II).1201 Nissen dated the Archaic Texts from Ur, SIS 5/4 to ED II.1202 The gap between the Stage III.2, texts, running into the Beginning of ED I and the Archaic Texts from Ur could be filled - at least at Uruk - with Stage III.1-texts. The supposed gap in the written tradition, would only be real if one would date Stage III in Uruk exclusively to the Ğamdat Nasr period and the Archaic Texts from Ur to ED I, whereas the Fara texts date to ED IIIA.1203

13.3 Summing up

Due to external circumstances the more recent excavations at Susa had to be terminated earlier than intended. If ever excavations would continue, they should include the Donjon and open larger areas for the 3rd millennium, in order to get a more differentiated picture of this millennium and not only an incomplete impression of the succession of various painted pottery styles.1204

One of the major problems of the relative chronology is the insecure dating of the material from Ville-Royale I, 15─13 and 12─9 and the connections of this material with ceramics published from the Donjon graveyard, from the older excavations at the Acropolis and the Apadana-Mound as summarized by LeBreton. There are only few fix-points for the later phases, since material as it has now been found in Ville-Royale-I 9-9 a (cf. E. Carter, 1980, Fig. 28: 14, 29: 9) and in the Terrace-excavation "Couche-(4)3" (cf. M.J. Stève/Gasche, H., 1971, pl.21: 28,31; 16: 10, 12─13) is also reported from Al Hiba I (ancient Lagash), dated to Enannatum I, that means to the Early-Dynastic IIIB period.1205 The material from "Couche 4 b" of the Terrace-excavation and VR I 12─11 and 15─13 must therefore cover roughly the Early-Dynastic III a and II period in Babylonia; perhaps the beginning of the Early-Dynastic II period should be connected with the end of the Proto-Elamite 2b and the beginning of the Proto-Elamite 3 phase. But until the material from Tepe Farukhabad A 1 and B 19 and Ville-Royale I, (16) 15 cannot be accurately dated in respect to the Babylonian sequence, this question must be left open.

As to me -at least for Khuzestan- the sequence proposed by LeBreton and Nagel should be given up, since almost none of the material can be fixed to only one phase - cf. Table 4. Nevertheless, based on the data which were available at the time when Nagel did his pioneering study of painted pottery, his scheme was the best that could be deduced from the excavation reports. Furthermore, he was the first to distinguish local styles among the painted wares and to propose a parallel development and not an unilinear one. A lot of his thoughts on the subject are still valid and should be used by anybody who is dealing with this difficult subject. I hope further that the discussion so far as the problem of this conference (Tübingen 1983 – see Finkbeiner-Röllig 1986) is concerned, has shown, that in Khuzestan there can be no doubt, that there is a horizon between the Late­Uruk and the Early-Dynastic I period in Babylonian terms. The "real" Ğamdat-Nasr horizon -at least at Susa- is characterized by monochrome Ğamdat-Nasr ware, only after this phase, which I would like to call Proto-Elamite I-phase, bichrome Ğamdat Nasr ware occurs, dating - together with the Sin IV/V seals/ sealings - just at the beginning of the Early Dynastic I period in Babylonia, if compared with the Nippur sequence. This phase has been called here Proto-Elamite-2a. The question if the Ğamdat-Nasr complex is a regional style in Khuzestan is hard to answer. This might be true for the Deh Luran region, where polychrome pottery #starts much earlier than at Susa. On the other hand, the Ğamdat-Nasr pottery from Susa is quite different from that of Bablyonia and the Diyala region as Nagel had already shown and occurs only in a small amount at Susa (if there is not much more, for the moment unidentifiable material in the Donjon graveyard). It seems not impossible to me that this pottery developed from the painted Late-Uruk pottery, over the monochrome Ğamdat-Nasr pottery in Khuzestan. If one contrasts the quantities of bi-/polychrome painted pottery found at Susa (or better: known Susa in the Proto-Elamite Period from Susa, so far), with the abundance of such material from the Deh Luran plain (Tepe Farukhabad), where furthermore a greater variation in the material can be observed, then it seems probable that one of the nuclear regions for the development of such a pottery is to be found in the Deh Luran region in Iran and not in the Susiana. Further, I hope it has become clear that the Proto-Elamite-1 phase-as far as Susa is concerned-seems to mark a horizon when Susa was of minor importance, since up to now, positive evidence for an occupation comes only from the Acropolis-Mound. This fits well the situation at the end of the Late-Uruk period which saw the "collapse" of the Late-Uruk settlement system, as described by G.A.Johnson.1206

An increase in settlement size of Susa is only to be recognized with the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase. That means the Ğamdat-Nasr/Proto-Elamite 1-phase is a time of visible changes/transformations in the Susiana.Alden's suggestion that Susa was only of minor importance in the Proto-Elarnite-period1207 is only valid for the Proto-

Elamite 1-phase. Later on Susa can be considered as the second urban center-besides Tall-i Malyan-of the Proto Elamite universe, both centers being equal partners.

13.4 Epilogue 2018

13.4.1 Annotations to the painted pottery (App. C)

In 1986 Haerinck published an overview of the painted potteries of the time discussed here. My study from 1986 was presented at Tübingen in 1983 but was written before. Interesting enough, both studies are quite similar, but of course completely independent, the topic was ‘in the air’ at the time. Anyhow, I would not follow Haerinck, because he simply used Stève and Gasches publication without any consciousness of the problems involved with that extremely difficult work. I guess the discussion so far has shown, that one cannot uncritically adapt this publication. However, the general compilation of Haerinck is nevertheless extremely useful1208 and I will present the essentials in Tab. VI

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. VI

13.4.2 Sialk IV – recent trends (App. C)

Coming to the second part of the study, up to some years ago, people were convinced that Proto-Elamite was the (Iranian) daughter of the Babylonian Proto-Cuneiform.1209 Now with the well [14]C-dated Proto-Elamite texts, it became evident that both writing/sign-systems were in fact ‘sisters’ functioning both at the same time, i.e between 3300─3000 BC.1210 The common ancestor are the Numero-Ideographic texts using numerals and sealings and 1─2 signs for communication/information storageing. Tepe Sialk IV.1 would be a case, where both systems overlap, whereas Habuba Kabira-S. and Gebel Aruda belong to the older numerical system, using only numerals and seals.1211 Concerning the end of the PE-system, it is not attested after ED I anymore.1212

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. VII Stages of PE-script after Desset 2016

This fits well with parallels between some sealings from Ur and Tall-I Malyan.1213 In the same direction points also an observation by Dahl,1214 who identified linear patterns on late PE-tablets as marks of scribes. A contemporaneous system was used in Ur in the Seal-Impression-Strata.1215

It was the famous “Uruk-Filtre”1216 which led to a complete overemphasis of a supposed spread of the Uruk-culture in the neighboring regions, often misunderstood as ‘colonies,’ in order to make access to raw material outside of Babylonia. Even though PE traits were recognized in the glyptic and architecture,1217 the Oval of former Godin V, now called Godin VI:1, was considered as an Uruk-outpost with a Susanian touch.

New research proofed, that the “Uruk”-pottery of Godin VI:1 was completely made of local resources, except of one nose-lugged sherd with red slip of possible Susanian origin. However, this one was found outside the Oval in the settlement.1218 There is no escape: Godin VI:1 belongs already to the Proto-Elamite realm. How long the Oval continued into the PE-Period is hard to say, it seems to have been destroyed before 3120 BC.1219 That means that Godin VI:1 could well run up to the early Middle Banesh period1220 in Tall-I Malyan, dated 3250─2950 BC.

In the recent past a gap between Sialk III.7 and IV.1 was proclaimed, even though Amiet in his study from 1986 didn’t mention it. On the other hand, he noted an almost sterile layer of about 70 cm between Sialk IV.1 and IV.2, not much discussed in the literature.

No gap exists at Qolī Darvīš. Phase II.5 (on virgin soil), has material as mono- and polychrome pottery, BRBs, local black-gray and brown ware, but otherwise numeric-ideographic tablets and a Hollow-ball which might be of Susa, Acr. I, 17-date.1221 In phase II.2 a typical Sin IV/V-seal is attested.1222 The site runs from Late Uruk B up to early PE 2a at best.1223

At Arisman, on the other hand, material is present, which can be dated between Arisman, Areas B and C (i.e, Susa 17 and Sialk IV-akin) in Area D.1224

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. VIII Proposal for a reasonable chronology of the PE-period

As for me it is not the question of gaps in local sequences, but a general decline of settlements in a temporary phase of desertification and difficult ecological conditions1225 which led to a significant abandonment of sites of the Sialk III.7-horizon.1226


13.5.1 APPENDIX A - THE OLD EXCAVATIONS AT SUSA The Gallery-Sequence and Grande-Tranchée by J. de Morgan

These excavations are of little value for our problem, since de Morgan was digging in artifical layers of 5 m depth.1227 Gallery E might be of Proto-Elarnite date, even if there is already a wall cone type present, which is undoubtedly of a later date.1228 In the Grande Tranchée, Proto-Elamite-material had been found in "Niveau III" but it is impossible to give any exact proveniences for the objects recovered. Sondage-1 by R. de Mecquenem

With the excavations of de Mecquenem we are on more solid ground. Until 1911 the whole Acropolis-Mound had been razed at a level of about 25m over the plain. In 1912/13 and 1922 de Mecquenem was digging in a "Faux-Niveau" of 1.5 m depth under the lowest level of "Niveau III." In 1924 Sondage-1 in the northern part of the Acropolis-Mound was opened, situated midway between the Château and the Sondage-Centre of the years 1908─1910 (the latter penetrated only in a mass of bricks, obviously parts of a terrace-structure). In this "Faux-Niveau" Uruk ceramics and tablets have been found besides one possible fragment of a goblet à base en moignon.1229 Sondage-2 by de Mecquenem

At 17,30 m, a room partly destroyed had been found with Late-Uruk ceramics and Late­Uruk tablets of Acr. I, 19─18 type together with bullae including calculis, I guess this room dates around Acr. I, 19─18.1230 At 17. 50 m Late-Uruk tablets (called Proto-Elamite tablets by the excavator) have been found, besides bullae and sealings, this level marks the end of beveled rim bowls.1231 Further to the east in the same trench the excavator noted bichrome Ğamdat-Nasr ware.1232 "Proto-Elamite" tablets are said to have been recovered in a layer from the surface of Sondage-2 up to -3.8m depth. Taking 21.0m as the starting point of Sondage-2, this would give 17.50 m.1233 Since de Mecquenem did not always distinguish between Late-Uruk and real Proto-Elamite tablets, this could explain the obvious contradiction. Furthermore Scheil had published a corpus of tablets which-as to him come from the upper layer of "Niveau III." These tablets seem to come from the first campaign of Sondage-2. The majority of them be­ longs to the Proto-Elamite type (Acr. I, 16─14B) and only a handful of them is of Late-Uruk date.1234 The occurrence of real Proto-Elarnite tablets in the top layers of Sondage-2 is confirmed by LeBreton who noted such tablets and polychrome pottery in levels between 18─20.50 m, corresponding to his phase Cc.1235

Equally important is a sequence given by de Mecquenem for the northwestern part of this trench, unfortunately without niveaus. He referred to some sherds at a "high level," which are similar to a ceramic which had been found by Gauthier and Lampre in Tepe Aliabad. In a "middle level" bichrome ĞamdatNasr ware is said to come from and from a "lower level" 'Uruk-Bänderkeramik' had been reported.1236 The color of the bichrome pottery of the "middle level" is said to be non resistant to water. Such pottery had been ascribed by LeBreton to his Cc-phase, which makes sense, since the "Uruk-Bänderkeramik" is dated by him by and large to Ca─b, very little comes from Cc.1237

If one has a look at the section of the Témoin de Morgan as it is published by Le­ Brun,1238 the upper limit of Sondage-2 by de Mecquenem is just above layer 13 of the recent Acr. I-Sounding. ln this context it is interesting to note that a copper blade with a rolled end is said by de Mecquenem to have been found just at the top level of his Sondage-2, because this blade has its exact counterpart in Acr.I, 13.1239

Reference should also be made to the Archaic-Deposits 1─2 and a head of a sculpture being partly of Proto-Elarnite-date1240 and to small finds from graves from levels above 17.80 m in Sondage-2, especially two seals which are undoubtedly of Proto-Elamite 2a-date, from a layer at 20.50─21m and dated by LeBreton to his Cc- phase.1241 Donjon Graveyard

In this paper I cannot make an extensive study of this vast necropolis, just at the extreme southeast of the Ville-Royale-Mound.1242 Nevertheless, there are some clear hints in the publication for Late-Uruk and Proto-Elamite activities in this part of the Ville-Royale.

A 315b: A findspot/grave ? with two Proto-Elarnite tablets: cf. de Mecquenem, 1943a, 103 at ca. 11.50 m depth.

B 248: A kiln (four) with: "Écuelles grossières rappelant celles de la cote 19 du Chantier-II ( = Sondage-2) de l'Acropole." cf. de Mecquenem 1943a, 120 at ca. 11.00 m depth.

B 222: "Tombe en fosse, squelette membres ployées; vases de terre cuite; vase à bec ouvert (Fig. 76, 3; sur la même Figure, le no. 1 est un vase à bec ouvert provenant de l'Acropole côte 19, et par conséquent antérieur à 3000 ans avant notre ère, tandis que le précédent est de 2500 au plus); une écuelle grossière (Fig.71,4)." cf. de Mecquenem 1943a, 118 at ca. 9.50 m depth.

The mentioned beveled rim bowl on de Mecquenem 1943a, Fig. 71, 4 clearly belongs to the late variant of this type which is found in Acr. I, 17 and not before.1243 It is furthermore interesting to note that de Mecquenem refers to his Fig. 71, 4 also for later graves, but always without the addition of (écuelle) grossière, a term which at Susa meant always beveled rim bowls! In these cases de Mecquenem is probably referring to conical-cups?

Furthermore, de Mecquenem published three vessels which clearly belong to LeBreton's Da-group:1244 de Mecquenem 1943 a, Fig. 72, 2─3, 7. No. 3+ 7 are said by de Mecquenem to have been found together with ibid., Fig.72, 32 in Grave A 309. This would give for this grave an Early-Dynastic III-date or would connect it with "Couche 4" of the Terrace excavation by Stève and Gasche, contemporaneous with VR. I, 12─11; but a recent reevaluation of unpublished data from LeBreton's unpublished Ph.-D. thesis by Carter could show, that ibid., Fig. 72, 32 had not been found in this grave!1245 A vessel belonging to LeBreton's Da-group is now reported from VR. I, 18.1246 That this group lasts until the Proto-Elamite 2b phase will be discussed later on. Grave B 257 (at ca. 10.50 m depth) has also two jars with an open spout like the one found in Grave B 222 mentioned above, together with a small jar which could also be later.1247 I am equally not sure if Grave A 306 could not be of Proto-Elamite-date, since from this grave -at about 10.80m depth- polychrome pottery with geometric designs is reported but unfortunately not published.1248 Ville-Royale, "Angle-Sud-Ouest du Tell"

There are at least two objects from the "Niveau Inférieur" which could be of Proto-Elamite date: cf. de Mecquenem 1934a, 216, Fig. 61 -which has connections to the Scarlet-ware of the Diyala region, called "Proto-Susa II-Keramik" by Nagel,1249 which can -as will be discussed below- be dated to the Proto-Elamite 2 a/b-phase; the second object is a cylinder sealing: cf. de Mecquenem, 1934 a, Fig. 63, 1 -which can be paralleled at the Sin-IV temple at Khafadji.1250 Beneath the "Niveau Inférieur" a layer of 50 cm thickness had been found, said to be of very hard soil mixed with some sherds of "fragments de cratères à quatre boutons à engobe rouge,"1251 just above virgin soil. This could be a hint for nose-lugged vessels either of Late Uruk- or Proto-Elamite-date. As far as the Ville-Royale is concerned -together with the Donjon- I doubt Alden's suggestion of an only two hectare large occupation of this part of Susa in the Proto-Elamite-period,1252 moreover, since in late layers from Chantier-A of Ghirshman's excavation in the northern part of this mound two Proto-Elamite 2a sealings have been found.1253 This excavation never reached virgin soil. If we estimate settlement size on surveys on behalf of the distribution of surface material -problematic as it is-, then there is absolutely no reason not to use objects from later levels in the excavations which did not penetrate into the virgin soil of a site, even if these objects trouble the theories. Apadana-Mound

Almost all excavations at this part of Susa have given a sequence (if I consider only the earlier strata) of "Style II" -pottery above Uruk material, sometimes with Susa-A material underneath. A small excavation could confirm the presence of Uruk-material but could unfortunately not give any information about older or younger layers.1254 From the old excavations only a very small amount of artifacts is published from this mound, which could belong to the Proto-Elamite period. A Scarlet-ware related sherd -or as Nagel would call it, "Proto-Susa II"- ceramic, had been found at this mound.1255 A vessel belongs clearly to LeBreton's Da-group,1256 others are perhaps of Db-date, the rest of the published ceramics dates to Ville-Royale I, 12─9 and even in the Ur III-period.1257 Amiet1258 noted that a child grave had been found at this mound in 1926 by de Mecquenem in his "Fouille sous le Parvis-Est" of the Apadana together with three original seals of the schematic/geometric cylinder seal group and in association with Late-Uruk-pottery, de Mecquenem noted further an adult skull in relation with this grave.1259

To sum up: for the Uruk-period there is good evidence of an occupation at the Acropolis Mound, the Apadana and perhaps also -in the final phase of that period- in the Donjon-area. Since the Donjon is situated about 550 m southeast of the Acropolis, this part of Susa might have been unconnected with the Acropolis-Apadana complex. This is of course only valid if the red-ware with nose-lugged vessels from the lowest layer in the southwest-part of the Ville­Royale excavation by de Mecquenem were really not of Late-Uruk date. For the Proto-Elamite I-phase things change. Positive evidence for this phase comes only from the Acropolis-Mound, and even there it is somewhat scanty. I doubt if the two tablets from the Donjon will be of Proto-Elamite 1-date.

In the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase almost all parts of Susa have been in use (excluding the Ville des Artisans of course). I do not mean that necessarily all parts of Susa have been densely settled, but that the whole site had been in whatsoever use. The extension of the occupied area in the following Proto-Elamite 2b─3 phases is not very clear. But if Carter's connection between VR I, 15─13 and LeBreton's Db is valid, then the whole area had been occupied.1260


In this summary I will only analyze the material of the levels I, 17─13 of the more recent excavations on the Acropolis-Mound, since only these levels are of primary concern for the subject of this study. Level 17B has two subphases (17B1─2) followed by a layer of debris called level 17A.1261 With level 16 (with 3 subphases 16 C-A) the direction of the buildings changes and new ceramics are found and the first Proto-Elamite tablets.1262 A further slight change is observed between level 14B and 14A─13.1263

One of the crucial problems with the stratigraphy of the Acropolis I-sounding is, if there is -or is not- a gap in the sequence between level 17A and 16. LeBrun, the excavator, has interpreted level 17A as a shift of the occupation to other parts of the Acropolis-Mound, which could not be found in the recent excavations of the Témoin de Morgan."1264 I suggest that if there is a gap, then it cannot have been a very long one, since there are some typological and functional ties between level 17 and 16.

- First of all cylinder seals and tablets (from level 16 up to 14B, tablets bear (contrary to the level 19─17 tablets) also signs (more than one) in the Proto-Elarnite script) they mark a continuity between level 17 and 16 on the administrative level.
- Furthermore, beveled rim bowls are also found in level 16, but in smaller quantities than before.1265
- Low sided trays (which start early in the Uruk period) are also found in layers 16─14, being typologically only little different from the older types.1266
- Bowls with impressed rims occur as early as 17B2 and are also found in 17 A and in the Proto-Elamite-period.1267
- Plastic applications at the rim of jars have a primitive forerunner in 17B1268 and are typologically very similar to Proto-Elamite types in 17 A.1269
- Oval jars with outflaring rims are found in level 17 and they are very typical for layers 16─15.1270
- Bowls with red/burgundy painting in the form of the so called "Uruk-Bänderkeramik" are found in level 17A and level 16.1271
- Jars with finger impressed clay bands beneath the neck occur in level 17A and as late as level 14A.1272

But besides these typological relations one should keep in mind that from level 16 on the wares change completely, if compared with those of level 17.

- Typical for level 16─14B are the so called "goblets à base en moignon."1273
- Monochrome Ğamdat-Nasr ware is reported from 16─15B, whereas bichrome Ğamdat-Nasr ware occurs in level (15 A─) 14 B.1274
- Cylinder seals/sealings with good connections to material from the Diyala, especially to that from Khafadji, Sin IV/V are found in level 14B.1275
- With levels 14A─13 slight changes in the ceramic material are to be observed in the Acropolis-Sounding, but as the discussion of the material from the Ville-Royale I-excavation will show, this still belongs to the Proto-Elamite period.
- Proto-Elamite tablets are not reported anymore from Acr. I, 14A─13.1276 Ville-Royale I

Carter summarizes levels 18─16 under Proto-Elamite and connects Ville-Royale I, 18 with Acropolis I,14B.1277 Monochrome Ğamdat-Nasr ware is unreported from Ville- Royale-I, but a small amount of bichrome Ğamdat-Nasr ware is found in levels 18 B─17.1278 A Proto-Elamite tablet (uninscribed) with a sealing (lion motif) comes from level 18 Band Sin-IVN seals/ sealings from V. R. I 18 A─17 .1279 In her comparisons of the ceramics of Ville-Royale-I 18─17 with those of Acr. I, Carter has noted also material which can be compared with that of Acr. I 14A─13. That this material is unreported from layer 14B in the Acropolis-Sounding may be due to the very small extent of the excavation (cf. note 17). Based on ceramics, seals/sealings and tablets I would like to connect Acr. I and VR. I as shown in Table 1. This correlation is primarily based on the occurrence of Bichrome pottery and Sin-IV N seals/ sealings and the Proto-Elarnite tablets. Goblets à base en moignon and low sided trays are only found in a very small amount in Ville-Royale I, 18─161280 perhaps due to functional differences between the structures of the VR I, and the Acr. I-sounding. That goblets à base en moignon have not been found in Acr. I, 14A─13 may be due to the very small scale of the excavation. It is not clear whether Acr. I, 11 belongs to the PE 3-phase.1281

It may be debatable whether I am right in isolating a Proto-Elamite 2b-phase, but since I consider Acr. I, 14A-13 and VR I, (17) 16 to be of Proto-Elamite 2-date, this is not dramatic. Furthermore, neither Acr. I, 14A─13 nor VR I, 16 have bichrome Ğamdat-Nasr-ware, that is the main reason for grouping them together.1282 The Proto-Elamite 3-phase is relatively well defined by Carter. Ridged jars and Band-painted-rim ware occur in VR I, 15─13.1283 The Terrace-Excavation AND THE 1965-SOUNDING BY STÉVE AND GASCHE

The excavators have published material, which they consider to be of "Djemdet-Nasr Ancien et Uruk-Récent" -and of "Phase Finale de Djemdet-Nasr" date.1284 Nevertheless, these labels are completely misleading, since there is almost nothing on the plates in their publication which could be dated to Acr. I, 17 or 16─13. Moreover, there is a sharp contrast between their discussion of sometimes sloping layers in the text of the publication and the presentation of the material, which is published rigorously only with absolute niveaus in the catalogue, so nobody will know where the sherds really come from. This is especially true for the material of the sounding from 1965. It is astonishing how one can make a sounding of 10x20m in order to get an idea about the stratigraphic sequence and then publish the material so inadequately.1285

Locus 266/267 is said to be of Djemdat Nasr date. But this particular locus is extremely inhomogeneous and dates at least from the Early- to the Late-Uruk-period.1286 This locus is said to be contemporaneous with the massive Riemchen-wall in the “Sondage of 1965,” dated to the "Djemdet-Nasr"-period on behalf of the building material. As already known from Uruk, Riemchen date from Eanna VI to III.1287

Furthermore Riemchen debris are covered by a layer of debris and beveled rim bowls are said to be abundant in loc. 101.1288 Since -as the recent excavations have shown- beveled rim bowls do not occur in large quantities after Acr. I, 17, it seems to me that the Riemchen-wall has to be dated to the Late­Uruk period. Furthermore also the "Massif-Orange" is not necessarily of Late-Uruk, but surely more of Middle-Uruk (Acr. I 21─20) date, as is the big pit in Loc. 325.1289

Only a layer between "Floor 3─2" in the sounding from 1965 and in loc. 101─102 -in relation to loc. 374- can be ascribed to the Proto-Elamite 2a─b-phase.1290 '? From loc. 101, 21.27 m, also 2 Proto-Elamite tablets are reported.1291 A one room building in the south of the Terrace in loc. 100 is dated by the excavators to the Early-Dynastic I- period,1292 since they believe that this complex is younger than the Riemchen-fill in the south part of the "Massif-Orange" a little bit farther to the east in loe. 314.1293 In fact, there is absolutely no stratigraphic overlap between loe. 100 and 314 ! The one room building has a floor at 22.41 m, a Riemchen wall just to the east of loc. 100 - dated by the excavators to the final phase of the Ğamdat-Nasr-period1294 - has its surface at 22.84 m, that 1neans it is at least 43 cm higher than the floor in loc. 100. Even the surface of the "Massif-Orange" at 22.74 m is about 33 cm higher than the floor just mentioned. As to me there is no positive evidence for an Early-Dynastic I-date for loc. 100. A painted Uruk-sherd under the floor of loc. 1001295 is also of little help, since painted Uruk-pottery has a long chronological range. From the room as such no material is published.

Carter has compared material from VR. I, 18─17 with material published by Stève and Gasche.1296 Unfortunately the findspots of the comparative material from the Terrace excavation by Stève and Gasehe are to be dated to "Couche 3─4" in Stève and Gasche's terminology and should therefore be parallel to VR. I, 12─9.1297 These early types in "Couche 3─4" are either older sherds in younger layers or types which have a long chronological distribution. One seal from loc. 203, 22.29 m published by Stève and Gasche1298 could be of Proto-Elamite-date. The excavators are not sure if this seal, with parallels at Khafadji, Sin-Temple IV, could not be contemporaneous with "Couche 4b."1299 But as already stated, this is impossible, since "Couche 4" is to be dated to VR. I, 12─11. Furthermore Stève and Gasehe speculate if the loci 236 and 238 in H─J/5 and the foundations of the so called "Bâtiment-Proto-Dynastique" (lasting under "Couche 4b") could not be ascribed to the Early-Dynastic-II period.1300 The material coming from this building is not older than VR I, 12,1301 that means it is of Early Dynastic III-date in Babylonian terminology, but the foundations could of course be older. Loc. 236 and 238 are of little help since no material is published.

Reference should also be made to a monochrome and a bichrome Ğamdat-Nasr jar from a trash zone (loc. 282, 22.68 m).1302 It becomes clear that there is only positive evidence for the Proto-Elarnite 2a/b- phase on the Terrace of the Acropolis-Mound. The stratigraphic link between the Late-Uruk and Proto-Elamite 2a phase is missing in that excavation, or might be present in the sondage from 1965, but cannot be really isolated due to the inadequate publication of the material. Furthermore, perhaps "Floor 3" in loc. 101 could be of Proto-Elarnite I-date, since here "Céramique­ Lustrée" is noted but not published and it is older than the layer called "Floor 2─3" which is of Proto-Elarnite 2a/b-date.1303 Nevertheless, the unrepresented Proto-Elamite 1-phase on the Terrace cannot be taken as an argument that at that time the Acropolis-Mound would have been unoccupied. First of all the nuclear part of the Terrace had been razed by the old excavations, Proto-Elamite material is only found at the periphery of the central part, i.e. the "Massif­ Orange", being of Early-to Middle-Uruk date. Second Stève and Gasehe obviously stopped their excavations at many instances where this phase is surely present. If the excavators had made a deep sounding in the squares G-K./4─7 they would surely have found the missing link between "Couche 4" and the Uruk period but this was-as in other instances -obviously not their primary aim.1304


Before going into further details, I would like to discuss shortly the problem of the dating of the Proto-Elamite phases with respect to the relative chronology of Babylonia. Even inner-Khuzestanian connections are very hard to establish, since there is only one site outside of Susa, Tepe Farukhabad in the Deh Luran plain, which has an unbroken sequence of the periods under discussion, but the material from Tepe Farukhabad has only ~little affinities to that of Susa. Connections between both sites with Babylonia are equally hard to establish, since they are very loose. Furthermore, speaking of the Babylonian sites, there are almost no places which have real comparable material -or an unbroken- and published-sequence. Uruk, for instance, is of little value as already discussed by Finkbeiner in this conference (Tübingen 1983). Tell Uqair has an unbroken sequence, but the material from this site is not published according to actual findspots. In the Diyala no site has produced -at least by excavation- an unbroken sequence. Nippur has a complete sequence from the Middle-Uruk period until later periods, but the material has been published so far only in two summaries.1305 Even if it is difficult to handle the Nippur data - moreover, since the material comes from a "Temple-sounding"-, I will take Nippur as a key site for references, since some of the material from Susa and Tepe Farukhabad finds closest known parallels at this site.

The first problem one has to deal with, is the question when Susa Acr. I, 17 ends with regard to the Late-Uruk-period in Babylonia. As mentioned above, there could be a short gap in the sequence of the Acropolis I-sounding between Acr. I, 17 A and 16. Material from the debris layer Acr. I, 17A has already been published by LeBrun and is in essentially similar to that of Acr. I, 17B.1306 LeBreton has ascribed tablets- as they have now been found in Acr. I, 19─17B- to his phase Ca.1307 The first tablets with Proto-Elamite-script were dated by him to Cb. But as already shown by LeBrun, the pottery ascribed by LeBreton to his phases Ca─c is completely mixed up if it is contrasted with the evidence of the more recent excavations.1308 So the sequence, as proposed by LeBreton, should be given up. Excursus - Tepe Sialk Interlude

Tablets from Susa Acr. I, 17B can be paralleled with Uruk/Eanna IVa, Godin Tepe V and Tall-i Ghazir, Trench 1.1309 Tepe Sialk IV.1 has Susa Acr. I, 17B-type tablets and tablets of the later Proto-Elamite type. Vallat has dated the Proto-Elamite-tablet from Sialk IV.2 -on behalf of its Palaeography- to Susa Acr. I, 16.1310 If we assume that the Sialk IV.l assemblage has not been mixed up too much with material from the upper level Sialk IV.2, then the material from Sialk IV.1 could partly belong to the "gap" between Acr. I, 17 B (and Godin V) and 16. The ceramics from Sialk IV.1 can by and large be paralleled with Acr. I, 17B─A or material from LeBreton's "Susa-Ca/b"-phase.1311 There is absolutely nothing in the Sialk IV.1 assemblage which shows connections with Susa Acr. I, 16 (except the tablets with some Proto-Elamite signs, mentioned above). That means Sialk IV. 1 has an essential Late-Uruk ceramic assemblage and already Proto-Elamite-tablets. In Godin V a tablet has been found bearing one Proto-Elamite-sign.1312 Similar tablets have been found in the old excavations at Susa.1313 Tablets very similar to those of Susa and Godin V, with only one to two signs, numerical impressions and a sealing are reported from Uruk/Eanna IVa, Red Temple -besides other findspots of lesser chronological value-. ln the Red Temple the tablets just mentioned, tablets only with numerical impressions and tablets of the so-called "stage-IV''-type signs have been found together;1314 contrary to Susa Acr. I, 17B, where only tablets with numerical impressions and sealings have been found.1315 Coming back to Sialk IV.1, the tablets which have already Proto-Elamite-signs, belong technically to "stage-III" in Uruk, which cannot be dated before Uruk/Eanna Ill.1316 From the palaeography, the Proto-Elamite-tablets are similar to "stage-III" at Uruk, but the organization of the "inscriptions" and the character of the signs are completely different from the babylonian material. That Tepe Sialk IV.1 is to be dated late in the Acr. I-sequence at Susa is also shown by the occurrence of the high, slender beveled rim bowl type which is also found in Susa Acr. I, 17A.[179]ª I would like to date Sialk IV.1 essentially to Susa Acr. I, 17A or more precisely to Acr. I, 17Ax, a quite short time span which is surely present at Susa -as the analysis of LeBreton’s material has shown- but which could not be excavated in the recent excavations at the Témoin de Morgan. This phase Susa, Acr. I, 17Ax would have to be called a Late-Uruk-/Proto-Elamite 1-Transitional phase, since its ceramics are of Late-Uruk-type contrary to the tablets which are already of Proto-Elamite­type, comparable by palaeographic reasons with "stage-III" of the palaeography of the Uruk tablets, that means being of immediately post Uruk/Eanna IVa date. So this phase seems to date roughly at the very end of the Late-Uruk IVa phase or perhaps to what the excavators at Uruk wanted once to call "Zwischenschicht", that means the time of the levelling of the Uruk IVa-buildings and the reorganization of the Eanna district.1317 DATING THE PROTO-ELAMIDE PHASES

Now in order to fix the Proto-Elamite-phases, one has first to connect Tepe Farukhabad and Susa, which is very difficult, since connections between both sites are relatively few. Since at Tepe Farukhabad A 19 and B 29u a vessel type occurs, which can perhaps be related to the "goblets à base en moignon" at Susa, and further since such goblet-types are unreported from Susa Acr. I, 17A and Sialk IV.1 - I take these two levels as the beginning of the Proto-Elarnite period at this site, contrary to the subdivison originally proposed by the excavator Wright1318 -cf. Table 2- for all references. ln Tepe Farukhabad this type concentrates until A 14 and B 23. I have paralleled this with Susa Acr. I, 14B, since after that level this type occurs only in a very small amount in VR. I, (18─)16 and also at Tepe Farukhabad A 13─2 and B 20. Ville­Royale I, 18 has a vessel type which is paralleled at Nippur XII and is then typical for the Early Dynastic I period at Nippur. From VR. I, 18A comes another vessel, which has its parallel in Nippur XI. Parallels with Nippur XI─IX are also found at Tepe Farukhabad A 9─10 and B 23. Due to the distribution of these types at Nippur, I connect Farukhabad B 23 with Nippur XI and Acr. I, 14B (end of concentration of "goblets à base en moignon") and date Farukhabad A 9─10 a little bit lower in the sequence of Nippur, since only one goblet has been found at Tepe Farukhabad in A 9─10 and since A 9──10 are 3 levels higher than A 14, i. e. the end of comparable goblet-type concentration at Tepe Farukhabad. What further becomes clear is that Farukhabad A 1 and B 19 cannot be much younger than the Early-Dynastic I-period in Babylonia, since in the ceramics there are no hints as to Early-Dynastic II-material at this site, but this could of course also be due to local variations. The connection between Susa, VR. I, 16 and Tepe Farukhabad A 1 and B 19 as proposed here, is due to the occurrence of the last goblets which are not found anymore after level 16 in the Ville-Royale-I sequence.1319 At Susa the "goblets à base en moignon" are no mass produced types, as the famous Solid Footed Goblets, and should not be confused with them and be dated exclusively to the Early-Dynastic I period as proposed recently by E.Strommenger.1320 Aliabad painted pottery in form of the "Arc-and-ray" motive occurs as early as Tepe Farukhabad B 26. In trench A 13 one such example is reported. I have paralleled the first occurrence of Aliabad ware at Tepe Farukhabad in Trench B 26 with the beginning of the Proto-Elamite 2a- phase at Susa, in fact at Tepe Farukhabad it could also begin in the Proto-Elamite 1 phase, but this is of little importance. Furthermore, interesting is the distribution of the Sin-IV/V-seal group, since it is found in Susa Acr. 14B and VR. I, 18 A─17 and Nippur XI.1321 Based on Susa and Nippur, the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase can therefore be correlated with Nippur XI, that means with the beginning of the Early-Dynastic I period at Nippur. The beginning of the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase seems to date to Nippur XII, i.e. the transitional phase between the Ğamdat-Nasr and Early-Dynastic I- period at this site.1322 If one has now a look at the distribution of the painted wares in Susa and Tepe Farukhabad with regard to the genetic model Nagel had proposed in 1964, some modifications to his scheme can be made -cf. Tab. 3+4. Nagel’s sequence, a synopsis

- Nagel's "Susianische-Ğamdat-Nasr-Keramik"- cf. Nagel 1964b, Taf.26, 2a─b. The sherd had been found by de Mecquenem in Sondage-2, at 20.50 m. LeBreton had dated this findspot to his Cc-phase.1323 Since the sherd belongs to the Bichrome painted pottery group it has to be dated to the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase.
- Nagel's "Susianische-Sub-Ğamdat-Nasr-Keramik" -cf. ibid., Taf. 26, 6─11. Dated by Nagel to Db, being also present in the Apadana-Mound in the "Parvis de l'est"-sounding. A similar sherd has been found by Carter in VR. I, 9: -cf. Carter 1980, Fig. 29, 4, being of Early-Dynastic IIIB or earliest Akkadian date.1324 Furthermore, I would like to relate the "Late-Banesh-Painted-Pottery" from the Kur-River basin to this ceramic group: -cf. Alden 1979, Fig.51, 12─24; Sumner 1974, Fig. 4g; Sumner 1976, Fig. 7d. If this connection is valid, then this group would start in the Proto-Elamite 2b- phase.1325

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. IX

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. X

- Nagel's "Proto-Susa II-Keramik" -cf. Nagel, 1964, Taf. 28, 1─7. No.6 comes from the southwest sounding of de Mecquenem in the Ville-Royale, no. 5 from the Apadana-Mound Sounding at the south edge of this mound. If one relates some sherds of this group to scarlet-ware, then they have to be dated to the Proto-Elamite 2a-b-phase as is shown by Tepe Farukhabad. That late forms of this group may last until the end of the Early Dynastic III/earliest Akad period, may be shown by Nagel, 1964, Taf. 28, 2 which had been found by Gauthier and Lampre at Tepe Aliabad (-cf. Gauthier-Lampre 1905, Pl.VII) since an almost identical jar had been found in "Couche 3" on the Acropolis­Mound (-cf. Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.16, 1). If I said earlier that the Necropolis at Tepe Aliabad and the "Klassische-Aliabad-Keramik" start at least in the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase, it is clear from the just quoted parallel, that this Necropolis covers a very wide chronological range. This is also confirmed by the occurrence of socketed-axes at Tepe Aliabad (-cf. Gauthier-Lampre 1905, 145, Fig. 295) which have their counterpart in Ville Royale I, 12/13 (-cf. Carter, 1980, Fig. 22c). A gray ware jar from Tepe Aliabad (-cf. Gauthier-Lampre 1905, Fig. 287) has its exact parallel at Tepe Farukhabad A. 5 of Proto-Elamite 3-date (-cf. Wright et al., 1981, Fig. 63n).1326 So the term "Proto-Susa-II-Keramik" used by Nagel is completely misleading, since this-inhomogenous-pottery group is in fact partly contemporaneous with Susa II-pottery.
- Nagel's "Frühe-Aliabad-Kerarnik" -cf. ibid., Taf. 27: 1-2. Nagel dated these sherds -based on LeBreton - to the Da-phase. Sherds of this group date from the Proto-Elamite I-phase (Tepe Farukhabad) until the Proto-Elamite 2a- phase (Susa), if not until the Proto-Elamite 2b-phase (Tepe Farukhabad).
- Nagel's "Klassische-Aliabad-Keramik" -cf. ibid., Taf. 27─11. Starts in the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase - if not in the Proto-Elamite I-phase (Tepe Farukhabad). Ibid., Taf. 27, 8. 10─11 are surely of Proto-Elamite 2b-date, since knobs of jar shoulders of that kind are not found before the very end of the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase at Tepe Farukhabad B23.1327 Such a late date of parts of this group is also confirmed by the occurrence of a typical Aliabad sherd above Proto-Elamite 2a-material in Sondage 2 by de Mecquenem, mentioned above.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. XI Nagel’s Types

1 = Susianische Ğamdat-Nasr-Keramik; 2 = Frühe-Aliabad-Keramik; 3 = Klassische Aliabad Keramik; 4 = Susianische-Sub-Ğamdat-Nasr-Keramik.; 5 = Proto-Susa-II-Keramik; T.A. = Necropolis of Tepe Aliabad. x = Nagel's proposition; = = chronological distribution after recent data.

14. Good Places keep us occupied - The Burnt Building lies in ashes, but The debate on the Dating of the Sequence of Shahr-i Sohkta has reached another Peak .

14.0 Introduction

On my way through old problems of Iran, I came along a debate on the dating of the sequence of Shahr-i Sokhta, a problem I had completely put aside for years. In fact the last time I was seriously - not essayists - dealing with Iran, was a long article in German "Anmerkungen zur Genese und Transformation des Reif-Harappa-Komplexes" as part of my Habilitation in 1991. Due to several reasons it was only published in 2003, in Festschrift for Wolfram Nagel, a place which one could consider in international perspective - as a "First Class Burial," as a colleague from the states correctly remarked.

In this long article I dedicated also some pages to the sequence of Shahr-i Sokhta as one of the twin cities of what some would call the "Helmand Civilization." It might be useful to reproduce and translate these few pages and contrast them with data from the recent debate of Tosi and Salvatori and Cortesi et al. on one side, and Jarrige et al. on the other.

14.1 A voice from a First Class Burial (1991/2003)

"Mundigak, one of the twin cities of the Hilmand Complex, even if it is in some regards a near neighbor to the Indus-Culture, does not show too many connections in the material culture with the latter.1328 Mundigak III─IV can be connected together with Shahr-i Sokhta IV, and Mehrgarh VI─VII,1329 and is therefore, contemporaneous to Amri IIA─B.1330

Biscione had divided Mundigak IV3 in two subphases:1331 an older one, 3A = Shahr-i Sokhta III 4─3, and a younger one, Mundigak IV3B = Shahr-i Sokhta IV 2─0. The latter phase at Mundigak was already considered by Casal as problematic, and dated by him between Mundigak IV3 and V.1332 Today, Bisciones' view of 1974 must be modified, because according to his most recent work,1333 Phase 2 in Shahr-i Sokhta should be connected with period III and not IV. Part of the pottery, formerly counted to Shahr-i Sokhta IV 1 = Burnt Building, is in fact intrusive in IV 1 and has now been attributed to the end of Period III.1334 Therefore, only Mundigak IV3B has to be equated with Shahr-i Sokhta IV 1─0. The pottery of Shahr-i Sokhta III 2 can be paralleled to the one from Lal Shah and Nausharo ID in the Kachi plain, and to a part of the one of Mundigak IV 3A .1335 Also the pottery of Said Qala Tepe and Deh Morasi Ghundhai shows direct connections to Mundigak:1336 Jarrige also,1337 dates Mundigak IV3A to Mehrgarh VIIC and Nausharo ID.

Jarriges opinion seems to be valid only for Phase 2 at Shahr-i Sokhta and not for Shahr-i Sokhta IV 1─0 (!), if considering the shift from Phase 2 from Period IV to III, as proposed by Biscione.1338

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 1 Different approaches to a reasonable sequence for Shahr-i Sokhta1339

Coming to Hili 8 and Tepe Yahya, Cleuziou and Tosi note,1340 that Hili 8, Phase IIc2 has material like Shahr-i Sokhta III─IV, Phases 4─1 (corrected according to Biscione now to Shahr-i Sokhta Phases 4─2), and Hili 8, Phases IId─e is equal to Shahr-i Sokhta IV 1─0. But, since Hili 8, Phases IIf─g are beyond doubt related to Yahya IVB1 to IVA4─3,1341 and in Yahya IVA-older still Shahr-i Sokhta IV pottery occurs, at least Shahr-i Sokhta IV 0 should run as long as Hili 8, Phases IIf-g, minimum. That would mean, that Sohkta IV 0, would reach the horizon with Chlorite vessels of the "Serie récente",1342 which cannot be dated before the "Middle" of the Akkad-Period, since Maništušu.1343

But, crucial for the date of Yahya IVB1 to IVA4-3 is not the date of the Chlorite vessel-types, but the occurrence of Kaftari-like pottery in Yahya IVB1 to IVA3/2, a pottery, which, as to present knowledge, cannot be dated much before the late Ur III-period.1344 Potts notes also the presence of this ware in Bahrain, City IIA─B, and in the Wadi Suq-horizon of Isin-Larsa-date.1345 For the date of the Kaftari-horizon in South Iran see also Nickerson, Amiet and Sumner.1346 According to MASCA-callibrated [14]C-dates, the Kaftari-horizon at Tall-i Malyan (old Anšan) starts around 2100 BC. According to Amiet, the seals and sealings of this horizon cannot be dated much earlier than the beginning of the Sukkalmakh-period. As for Sumner,1347 the material of the site of Tall-I Nokhodi II-I, next to Pasargadae, should belong to the older phase of the Kaftari.horizon, since here, as in Malyan, the percentage of the dark painted red Kaftari-ware is very high if contrasted to the dark painted light colored Kaftari-ware. Moreover, an ax blade from Nokhodi II has a direct parallel in Sapalli-Tepe and in Bactrian graves, contemporaneous with Mehrgarh VIII.1348 A date earlier than Ur III for the Kaftari-horizon can obviously be excluded. Moreover, since at Yahya in periods IVB1 to IVA-older, dark painted, light Kaftari-Ware is present, also Period IVB1 comes closer to the end of the Ur III period, View the evidence, it is beyond doubt, that finds from Shahr-i Sokhta IV─0 date late in the Ur III-period or early in the Isin-Larsa-period at best.

In this context, it is also interesting to note, that Chlorite-vessels of "Serie ancienne"-style are of course not limited only to the Early Dynastic period. They could have been used until late after Akkadian times and therefore overlap with vessels of the "Série récente".1349 That finds of Shahr-i Sokhta IV─0 reached the Mature Harappan-Period, is also shown by a stamp seal of clay with a direct parallel, as far as the material and as well as the motif is concerned, from Harappa, Mound F, Stratum IV = Intermediate I.1350 A Compartement Seal from Mari, from Early-Akkadian context, has a parallel in Shahr-i Sokhta III, 4.1351 But, according to the chronology used here, the seal would date earlier, once one accepts the equation of Shahr-i Sokhta III, 4 = Hili 8, IIc2, this would be older than Early-Akkadian, since the material of Shahr-i Sokhta III is older than the Amri IIIA- and Nausharo II-horizon (dating with some probability around ED IIIA).1352

Further to the West, Mature Harrapan material is rare in South- and Southwest-Iran. Furthermore, up to now it was assumed most of the time that Bampur VI and Shahr-i Sokhta IV would end before Yahya IVA4,1353 but, as discussed here, there are some arguments that Shahr-i Sokhta IV and Bampur VI, as well a Mundigak IV3B, could continue somehow up to Yahya IVA4─3. From this older part of Yahya IVA also two sealings are known, one of them belongs to the Indus-seal-group; mentioned must also be a sherd which has a "Kulli-touch".1354

A vessel-form with a running time of Yahya IVB4 to IVA2, with a 'concentration' in Yahya IVB1, reminds types already known from Uzbekistan, Djarkutan-Phase, or from the Kelelli-oasis in the Margiana. But, the type-variation cannot be defined for the moment on behalf of the material available.1355 Similar forms are also attested in the Namazga V-horizon, what would fit into Yahya IVB4.1356

One thing is for sure, the peak of urbanization in the Hilmand region after Shahr-i Sokhta IV and Mundigak IV3A, had been exceeded for a long time. Nevertheless had this urban complex created forms which were perhaps not without influence to the later urban Indus-system:

To mention are cities with inner partition walls, the pilling up of platforms and the evidence of a (small) Bath in Mundigak IV2/3.1357 Platforms occur also in the Quetta Valley in Damb Sadaat III and Merhgarh VII. The "Acrosancts," associated by Flam with the Amri Culture, could also point in such a direction.1358 Also one part of Kot Diji lays on a natural elevation and Amri IIB with its projections of walls fits in this horizon.1359 But if the small 'elevations' had the same function like those of the Mature Harappan phase is doubtful, because the later, monumental examples, were used to protect the settlements of saisonal flooding.1360 Moreover, in Punjab and in the Sutle-area circumference walls like in Kalibangan I occur. Here inner partition walls of the settlement are missing, contrary to Mehrgarh and Nausharo.

In period IV1─2 a monumental building was erected on the central mound of Mundigak, understood as a palace or the like. According to more recent research the whole structure is now interpreted as a basement of an upper structure, perhaps not much different from the ziqqurrat-like structure in Namazga V.1361 In Mundigak IV1, a little bit outside of the main settlement and with an individual precinct, a building with perhaps sacral function has been encountered in Mound G. This type is also known from Sokhta III = "Building 2" of Mundigak IV3A-date.1362 The glyptic material of these structures has good parallels in Namazga IV, less the pottery. Human Figurines, on the other hand, like those of Waziristan, point also in the same direction, contrary to those of Nausharo ID, which can be understood as a forerunner of the figurines of the Mature phase.1363

14.2. The emperor's new clothes and the Flipping back to tradition

In 2005 Sandro Salvatori and Maurizio Tosi reopened the debate about the dating of the sequence of Shahr-i Sokhta, updated and enlarged in 2008 by Cortesi/Tosi/Lazzari and Vidale. Starting points were [14]C-dates from Shahr-i Sokhta and from Miri Qalat/Makran, Periods IIIa-IIIc to IV, as well as single finds. A reaction was formulated by Jarrige et al. in 2011, in contrasting also the proposed absolute dates to the actual archaeological-historical framework.1364

There is a general agreement as to the date and character of Period I, Phases 10-9 in Shahr-i Sokhta (According to Salvtori/Tosi and Jarrige et al.1365 ). like it was already published by Amiet and Tosi, years ago.1366

According to [14]C-dates, Shahr-i Sokhta I, 10 starts somewhere at end of the 4. Millennium BC and is reaching up to the 29., if not beginning of the 28. Millennium at the end of I, 9. Finds reflecting external connections were the well known Protoelamite objects like a tablet and sealings.

For Salvatori and Tosi the oldest graves and findings from the Central Quarters of Shahr-i Sokhta show that Phases 8 and 7 belong together at the beginning of Period II, lasting only for about half a century. Phase 7 has a date around 2750-2650 BC. In the Central quarters a Kot Diji jar is attested,1367 but this is not really helpful for a narrow dating, considering the running time of the type.1368 To mention are also several pots of Nal-pottery from the settlement and graves (Tab. 2)1369. The authors stress the good parallels of the material from Mundigak III, 6 with the one of Shahr-i Sokhta, Phase 8.1370 Phase 7 is destroyed by fire.1371

Shahr-i Sokhta II, 6 has nothing spectacular to offer, with the exception of a stamp seal; a corresponding one was found a little bit later in Nausharo IB.1372 To mention also a Namazga III-bowl.1373 Also for III, 5 extern finds are rare, with the exception of a bowl of Namazga IV-Type.1374 Nal-Pottery is also attested in phase 5b.1375 From the end of III, 5b/Beginning III, 4 a special horn-like handle type is known.1376 More interesting is Phase 3, because here painted pottery occurs,1377 as it is also known from Mundigak IV3 and Rud-i Biyaban 2; in Phase 3 examples of Wet-Ware1378 occur which can also be related to Mundigak IV3 and Nausharo ID─II. According to a couple of [14]C-Dates, Period III ended around 2500 BC.1379

Tab. 2 NAL Pottery from Shahr-i Sokhta

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

According to Cortesi et al. 2008: 11 Tab. 1.

Period IV 1 was the living phase of the Burnt Building, which was destroyed according to radiocarbon dates around 2200─2000 and according to Paleo-magnetism determination, around 2050─1950 BC. Dates from Miri IIIc, of the same horizon, confirm this date. Pottery relations of Shahr-i Sokhta IV1 point i.a. to Bampur V─VI and late Namazga V/early VI.1380

In 2008 Cortesi et al. made additional comments on the subject, dealing now with findings which should complement the picture:1381

- Cortesi et al. discuss first the evidence of the pottery,1382 but, since all examples of Cortesi et al. come from the surface, they in fact are without any stratigraphic and/or chronological value.
- The fragment of a Zhob-style terracotta,1383 on the other hand, was found in a level, contemporary to the "Kot Diji - period," from Shahr-i Sokhta II, 6.1384
- The majority of terracotta cakes, identified as being used in pyrotechnical activities, found in Shahr-i Sokhta Period II (but not in II, 8─7) and to a lesser degree in period III, have a too long running time to be of chronological value.1385
- Not much better is the situation for the glyptic.1386
- Fired Steatite beads come from Period III, 4; the mouse trap discussed1387 is without chronological value. Dice - with the exception of one from Period IV (cubic type) - are all from Period III and rectangular.1388 The three heads of sculptures, mentioned by the authors, are very interesting, but the only item from an excavation is the famous head of Mundigak, excavated in a dump of possible IV3-date.1389 A sculpture fragment from Shahr-I Sokhta, Surface1390 could belong to the Sitting-type like the reconstructed ‘Priest-King’ and similar statues have also affiliations to the BMAC. But, if this type started already with Mundigak IV3, then it would be older than the specimen from Mohenjo Daro.The fragment of a Harappan faience bangle,1391 attributed to Period III (?), is also from the surface.

In other words, almost none of these finds present at Shahr-i Sokhta, comes from a reliable context and/or is of secure Mature Harappan-date, or at best only of Early Harappa B or Harappa A date.1392

Coming finally to the absolute dates,1393 the following comment can be made:

- The overwhelming majority of radiocarbon dates for the Eastern Residence Area, are earlier than the Akkad-period. Only one date from Phase 4 is the exception to the rule (Ibid., Fig. 2. III, 4 - according to the chronology used by the authors, it would be End-Early Dynastic anyway).
- The same is also true for the dates from TRB, at least from Phases 4 and 2. Only the sample from Phase 3 reaches in its extreme from ED II to the Late Akkadian period. In other word, this sample is quite useless.
- Remain the data from under the burnt building: Of 8 dates, 3 go with the core to the late Akkadian period and only 2 from Phases 1 and 0 date younger up to the Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian period (from Phase 0, stretching from Ur III to Old Babylonian) and to Ur III (from Phase 1, stretching from Late Akkadian to Isin-Larsa).

By the way, the absolute dates for the cultural units from ED IIIB up to Ur III are a little bit strange and do not fit conventional dates. But anyway all dates are too young if compared with the series of dates from the other sites.

14.3 Fresh flowers for the tomb

Even though the upper layers in Shahr-i Sokhta III are severely damaged by erosion, and accepting, that good and reliable conditions, as far as stratigraphic relevant material is concerned, are only present in layers under the Burnt Building,1394 it is nevertheless hard to believe that Sohkta was still a flourishing center in the times of the Mature Indus Culture. The material base is not clear and extremely scarce. The few items enumerated by Salvatori and Tosi, followed by Cortesi et al., are not sufficient to prove an ongoing life as an important center as the Burnt Building surely was in Early Harappan times. At best the site was of minor importance, bobbing up and down. The small amount of 'late finds' and even material for radiocarbon dates, could well have been brought into the burnt ruins long after the fall of the building/city, by the famous 'shepherd taking a break' for instance. At least from late in Harappa A1395 onwards, Shahr-i Sokhta gave its last puffs of presence. That does not mean that the site took not part of the famous "Interaction sphere(s)1396 of the time. But, if we follow Jarrige et al., for me there is no doubt, that most of the 'late' Indus material must be dated to the beginning of the mature Harappan period (Amri IIIA).1397

14.4 Afterglow - Steps to reasonable constructs

14.4.1 Remarks on the chronology based on the excavations of Nindowari

In the publication of Nindowari the authors have kicked the Amri *II phase1398 and combined Amri ID with Nausharo ID, with the consequence that Amri IA-C must cover the time (and the material!) of Mehrgarh VI to VIIC at least. Though I have no problems with that the early strata and material of Amri must be rearranged (Amri II was always a problem), it takes nevertheless a moment to digest these new data.

Let's go back to the beginning: As far as I can see the old equations by Casal concerning the occurrence of Togau A-C with Amri IA-B and Mundigak I-II are somehow still valid.1399 One can add Mehrgarh IIIC and IV.1400 On the other hand Togau D pottery occurs in Amri IB─IC. Togau C is also found in Miri Qalat IIIA, together with Beveled-rim-bowls, of the tall type, starting at Susa at the end of the Late Uruk (acropolis I, 17A) period, but is commonly found on the plateau, together with proto-­Elamite tablets (starting at Susa, Acropolis I, 16 or already in 17Ax).1401 This horizon is traditionally equated with Mundigak III and Merhgarh VI, and there are no reasons to see other connections. Since Amri ID is now to be connected to Nausharo ID, then obviously Amri IA─C (and parts of II go to ID) should be contemporaneous with Mehrgarh IV─VIIC at least. Mehrgarh III is a very long period covering roughly 4800─3500 BC., Mehrgarh IV can be dated around 3500─3000 BC. An Imitation of Togau D-Pottery is also known from the Kanrach Valley from Murda Sang, roughly of Balakot I-date1402 to be equated with Nindowari I.1403 So with some probability the initial date of the Togau material from early Amri and Mundigak is late, around 3800 BC. Anyhow, the new sequence for Amri makes sense. A rest-doubt is due to the fact, that the synchronous sequences of the (later) Indus sites, as for me, are too smart. I can hardly imagine, that's a kind of interregional synchronization of the development of Indus sites occurred. A look at the sequence of Kot Diji, if going into details, gives a somewhat differentiated picture.

14.4.2 Remarks on the so-called Kot Diji - Complex

Jarrige et al. stated, that what has been summarized in the literature under 'Kot Diji Pottery/Period or Complex' is in fact an absolute heterogeneous amalgamation of finds and wares. To reduce the whole to vessels with a broad dark painted band, outside under the lip, is just no sufficient criterion. I completely agree, and will refer to my "First class burial-study" and the remarks and suggestions made there:

Dittmann 2003: 90─94, 217─218 Tab. 1─2: "Mughal dated in his dissertation on the Early Harappan period1404 the "Kot Diji-aspect,” similar to the excavator Khan, before the Mature Indus period (= Amri III, Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and Kalibangan II). Casal, Gupta, Dikshit and Chaolong would date this aspect running into the Mature phase1405 Already the evidence of Mehrgarh makes it also clear, that the running time of so-called Kot Diji-pottery is not as long as thought by Mughal, because contrary to his dating of the pottery, mainly paralleled with Amri IA─ID, this kind of pottery is found in Mehrgarh only in period VII what was then equated with Amri *IIB.1406 Almost no types quoated by Mughal can be dated before Amri *IIA.”1407

Some 'late' parallels are:

· KD 1, Khan PA 2, 1965,

Fig. 11, 6- Casal 1964: II, Fig. 81,

360 (Form), Amri IIIB.

· KD 1b, Ibid., Fig. 11, 2 - ibid., 79, 341 (Motif)

Wheeler 1947: Fig. 10, 39

(Motif), Harappa, Group iiib.1408

· KD 2, ibid., Fig. 11, 8 - Casal op. cit., II, Fig. 73,

314, Amri IIIA─C

· KD 2, ibid., Fig. 15, 9 - Casal op. cit., II, Fig. 74, 317, Amri

· KD 2B, ibid., Fig. 12,12 - Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 75,

320, Amri IIIA

· KD 3, ibid., Fig. 13,12 - Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 74,

316a-317, Amri IIIA─B

· KD 3A, ibid., Fig. 15, 17 - Casal op. cit., II, Fig. 73,

315, Amri IIIA Jarrige-

LeChevallier 1979, Mehrgarh VI

· KD 3A, ibid., Fig. 12,5 - Casal op. cit., II, Fig. 316a; 75, 320,

Amri IIIA, the motif; it does not occur earlier than Amri IIIA, also not in Mehrgarh VII. Representations of the birds are different in Mehrgarh VI, see Jarrige-LeChevallier op. cit. Fig. 24, 2. 4. 6; the peacock motif has occurred only since Nausharo II/Amri IIIA.

· KD 4a/4. 6, ibid., Fig. 14, 5. 10;

15, 7- Casal op. cit. II, Fig. 72, 303, Amri

*IIB-IIIB; Jarrige-LeChevallier op. cit., 530, since Mehrgarh VI

· KD 5A/6, ibid., Fig. 15: 2;

25, 5 - Dales-Kennoyer 1986: Fig. S2, 3a,

Wheeler Context A

· KD 5A-1C, Khan op. cit.,

Fig. 12, 1─2; 25,20 (early type

Fig. 23, 17 = level KD 7;

21,19 = KD 9). As in KD 5- Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. S2,3b,

Wheeler Context A and Casal, II, Fig. 76, 327 77, 334 Amri IIIA─B (early type ibid., II, Fig. 71, 289 Amri *IIB)

· KD 11/6 dots under the dark band

Under a red zone in the area of the

Neck = Khan op. cit., 44 pl. XX; Fig.

15, 3 = KD 11; 15, 10= KD 6- Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 76,

325, since Amri IIIA-C and Dales-Kenoyer op. cit., Fig. S27g, Wheeler Context A

· Such a vessel, but without

Dots but with the red zone,

occurs since KD 14A,

cf. Khan op.cit., Fig. 17, 10 Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 76,327, Amri IIIA-IIIC and Pracchia 1985: 58s. Fig. 4E─G, Lal Shah I (MehrgarhVIIC)

· KD 14A/7, Khan op.cit.,

Fig. 17,18; 14, 11; 25, 17;

11, 10 (level 10/5A/1) - Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 70,286,


The supposed running time of KD 16─4, parallel to Amri IA─D, followed by a Transition Period of Kot Diji- and Harappan material in the upper city of KD 3A and lower town levels 3─2, parallel to Amri *IIA-*IIB, as proposed by Mughal,1410 is less probable; the same is true for the other extreme, proposed by Casal.1411

Chaolong proposes similar dates,1412 but with two points, I disagree: His Fig. 12-left =Khan, op.cit., Fig. 17,14, KD 16, is with some certainty not a fragment of a fruit stand as it occurs late in Amri IIIB, moreover, since all other types occurring with this special stand-type together, are completely missing. The same is true for Chaolong op. cit. Fig. 13 = Khan op.cit., Fig. 17,15. In no case is this a fragment of a Pointed base Indus Beaker! Since this is the mass-type of the Indus culture, there must have been more than one fragment, which is not the case (own experience at the site) and Mughal would have mentioned its existence. Another, more recent work of Chaolong, on the other hand, fits well with my scheme.1413

As a trend one could state that that at a time when first Mature Harappan traits occur in West-Sind and the Kachi plain (since Amri ID/IIa, Nausharo ID) the Kot Diji aspect persists in East Sind for a short time longer, than West of the Indus.

Mughal subdivided in a later study the Kot Diji-horizon as follows:

KD II = Levels 3─1/Mature Harappa

KD IC = Level 3A -C/Mixed

KD IB = Levels 7─4/Early Harappa

KD IA = Levels 16─8/Early Harappa

Kot Diji IA was paralleled to Mehrgarh V─VI and Kot Diji IB with Mehrgarh VII and Kalibangan I.1414

A typical Indus Stamp-seal has been attributed to the Mature Harrappan period, without exact provenience. From the same (?) context a geometrical seal with good parallels in Mehrgharh VII was found,1415 a style former attributed to the Jhukar horizon.1416

In the Kachi plain, Mehrgarh VI can be related to Amri *IIA, but with some probability the overlap reaches also Amri *IIB, since in Mehrgarh VI fruit stands occur with incisions inside the dishes as well as the motif of intersecting circles, which are both not known before Amri *IIB.1417 Mehrgarh VIIA─B has good parallels in Nausharo IA─B, and Mehrgarh VIIC with Lal Shah and Nausharo IC.1418

Amri IIIA and IIIB are parallel to Nindowari II and III. Especially Amri IIIB must have been quite long, because, contrary to Amri with only two Subphases, Naussharo III has a lot of Subphases. The material, once published, will be of uttermost importance."1419

14.4.3 How to trace a "Late Kot Dijian" site - Quelqu'un devrait faire taire la tombe.

At the end of this short contribution two notes on Baluchistan and Waziristan are added. Especially the re-analysis of the stratigraphy of Gumla gives some hints as to the nature of a "Late Kodijian" site.

Suivons la tombe – Dittmann 2003 125-133:"Manifestations of the Mature Harappan-horizon in the highlands of Baluchistan are rare, and only a couple of sites can be mentioned. The reason might be a change in the limited and than available resources, since in 'Early Harappan' times this part was quite densely settled. Another, further factor might be that in these relatively remote areas older manifestations in the material continued into the Mature phase of the lowlands.

According to the old excavations at Periano Ghundhai in the Zhob Valley, traces of a Mature Harappan horizon are scarce and only very few hints point to a time after the Mehrgarh VII horizon.1420 Mughal was able to trace such Mature Harappan settlements, also in the Loralai Valley in Kaonri, in form of settlement segments leaned on older ruins. Mature Harappan material is at least attested at the important and huge Mound of Dabarkot in the Duki plain. Such finds do not come from the eastern part of the ruin, and are not settled higher than 25' under the surface of the ruin.1421

For Periano Ghundhai Mughal isolated several phases:1422

PG A Is paralleled by Mughal with Anau IA, Kile Ghul Mohammad II─III and Anjira I─II. It should be roughly contemporaneous to Mehrgarh II─III.

PG B-C Marks the transition to the 'Kot Diji-Phase'; Faiz Mohammad Gray Ware was also found here (PG C), which at Mehrgarh is attested since Period V, but is more characteristic for Mehrgarh VI─VII.

PG D Is dated by Mughal to the Mature Harappan Period. Material of this phase has not be been published by him.

PG E Islamic 'Middle Ages'

At Dabarkot the work of Mughal has brought up a vessel form, which can be related to Mehrgarh VIII and the Quetta-Hoard.1423 Mature Harappan could also be reached at Dabar Kot till Nausharo III, followed by the Mehrgarh VIII-horizon.1424

In the Quetta valley a similar sequence could be proposed for a couple of sites, but the material is to be published.1425 In Baluchistan only a handful of Mature Harappan sites seems to have existed, what is in contrast to the amount of sites of Mehrgarh VI-VII. The new orientation after Nausharo III in the Kachi plain with Nausharo IV and Mehrgarh VIII, is also attested in the Las Belas plain, Makran (Kulli, Mehi and Khurab) and can also be mentioned for the Quetta valley1426 and perhaps the Duki Plain with Dabar Kot.

At Gumla, In the Gomal Valley, the excavator Dani presented the sequence of the site as follows:

Period I Level 12 directly on virgin soil, is devoid of pottery.

Period II Levels 11─9, separated from Period I by a long gap, shows relations to Mehrgarh IV? ─VI, and to Kot Diji.

Period III Levels 8─4, should also be related to Kot Diji.

Period IV Level 3, has already first traces of Mature Harappan

Period V-VI Are not included here (see Dittmann 2003, 3.1.2)

My interpretation of the sequence at Gumla differs radically from the one of Dani: According to Dani, Level 3 ended in a catastrophe and the traces of an overall conflagration should be connected with the aggressive manifestation of the Mature Harappans. A similar process, he sees also for Kot Diji.1427

Period II was subdivided in 3 Subphases according to levels of kilns: Level 11 = IIa, I0 = IIb and 9 = IIc:1428

Level 11/IIa Consists of loose, ashy soil, mixed with carbon, bones and pottery, obviously a trash layer.

Level 10/IIb Is compact soil, obviously a levelling with a sunken kiln.

Level 9/IIc Seems to be another levelling serving as the foundation for a wall in section AO. The surface of this levelling is equal to the first occupational layer/running horizon of this phase.

Levels 8-6/

IIIa-b Are two levels of rammed ground, attached to the Wall mentioned above (levels 8─7) d level 6, is fill immediately over level 7.

Level 5 In CO─AO = called IIIc, another levelling, clogging the wall in AO 100'─102', to be flushed with the upper edge of the Wall. Level 5 in CO─AO is related by its material to levels 5─6 in DO─CO. Level 6 in DO─CO, 40'─60' belongs either to level 5 or is part of an earthen lense separating Level 5─6 in CO─BO.

Level 4 In CO─AO, Phase IIId, is connected to Level 5 in DO─CO and level 7 in EO─DO (Phase IVa). That means Period IIId and IVa are obviously contemporaneous. Levels 5─6 in EO─DO, 12'-40' = IVb is an earthwork, A wall in EO can be attached to this, and in DO─CO this earthwork joins another wall. The Wall in DO, and another one in CO, have foundation trenches sunk in EO─DO in level 7 and in DO─CO in 5 to 5─6 (48'─60' = hard earth) and in CO─BO in 3a to 3a─4 (60'─80' = level 3 in BO─AO) and 4.In CO─AO another levelling is found with level 3a─4 in CO─BO and in 3 in BO─AO, joining a wall in AO 100'. In CO─BO a floor is superposed = level 3a = level 2 in BO─AO. The levelling just mentioned belongs obviously to the earthwork in EO─DO, level 6─5, Between the walls in DO─CO 46'─56' the floor of level 3a in CO─AO was not isolated.

The first horizon of current use of the second building phase can be defined as follows:

Upper edge of level 5 (earthwork) in EO─DO, lower edge of 4a in DO─CO between the walls in 46'─56', 3a in CO─BO and 2 in BO─AO running towards the wall in AO 100'.

It follows a difficult to define second phase of use.

In EO─DO, West of the wall in 26'─28' level 4a marks trash over the upper edge of the earthwork (5), on top of which follows a floor, level 4 = hard earth with pottery (a new levelling?). This level runs to the upper edge of the wall in EO─DO 26'─28'. On the other side of this wall are two floors level 4 in 30'─42' with an oven and level 4─5. Superposed is a filling = level 3, reaching over the wall in DO 42'─44'. This Filling seems to be contemporaneous to level 4in EO 12'─26'. Between the walls in DO─CO 42'─44' and 58'─60' with level 4a hard rammed earth was encountered, obviously to be connected with similar material in CO─BO 62'─82', Level 3. At a time when in EO, 12'─35' a floor of the second phase of use exists (upper edge of 4a, lower edge of 4), between the walls in EO─DO 28'─42' two floors = level 4 and 4─5 exist. A corresponding evidence for this is missing in DO─AO, because the Level 3 called unit in DO, 46'─50' seems to be contemporaneous with the fill level 4 in EO and 3 in EO─DO.

With level 3─2 in EO and 2 in EO─DO, 2 in DO─CO, 2 in CO─BO and 1 in BO─AO, the period of the abandonment of the second building-horizon is reached.

To summarize:

Period I Aceramic Neolithgic, followed by a gap in the sequence,

Pre-structural Phase Period IIa, level 11, is a settlement without architecture (IIa─b) or level of trash (IIb), 10 a first levelling and its use (kiln). Level 10 seems to be in close relation to level 9.

Structural Phase I Period IIc/level 9 = second levelling as ground for a building and (IIc─IIIb) Obviously a first horizon of use. A second one is defined by the rammed floors level 8─7 (IIIa─b) overlaid by a trash level 6 (IIIb).

Intermediate level The building of the first structural phase is closed by a levelling (5 = IIIc; 5─6 IIIc─IVa in DO─CO) overlaid by the conflagration trash of level 4 = IIId. In EO─DO this corresponds to level 7 = IVa and in DO─CO Level 5.

Structural Phase II In EO─DO a terrace is erected (IVb) and in DO─CO with the lower edge of 4a (IVa─c) a levelling, corresponding to another levelling in CO─BO = 3a─4 and level 3 in BO─AO (IVa). This structural Phase II has two phases of use in EO─DO (IVc).

Post-structural Phase The building was given up. Level 2─3 in EO ("Va"─IVd) 2 in EO─DO; 2 in DO─CO (IVa─"Va"); 2 in CO─BO (IVa) and 1 in BO─AO (IVa).

This different interpretation has of course an impact on the material-attribution:

General remarks:

The pottery of the Pre-structural phase should not date before Mehrgarh VI, even though some motifs are reminiscent of older material. At least the figurines of Gumla (II) are close to those of Mehrgarh IV─VI, in regard to the lower half of the body.1429 Besides the large amount of parallels with Kot Diji, already emphasized by

Mughal1430 the material of Gumla II (Pre-structural and Structural phase I) can be related to Amri *IIA─B. The pottery of the Intermediate Level is closely related, but has already elements of the Mature Harappan material. Of Structural Phase II almost no material is published. The Post-Structural Phase (I) is of Mature Harappan age.

Pre-structural Phase

-Small vessels like Dani 1970─71, Fig. 13, 35, also cf. Casal 1964, II, Fig. 69, 272 attested in AO 9, ibid., Fig. 13, 33─34 and in (Amri *IIB─IIIA). BO 6 Structural Phase I) to AO 4 (ibid., Mughal 1972a, 41, Fig. 25, 169─ Fig. 23, 197-196 = Intermediate level and 170 (Sarai Khola Type XII, in CO 1 (ibid., Fig. 29, 251) since IA)
-High pedestals, Dani op.cit., Fig. 11, 1. 3 (AO 11, BO 101) cf. Khan 1965, Fig. 18,14; 22─23; 24,20; 12,16 and Fig.11, 8 = KD 12. 8. 7. 3─2.
-Small cups/Deckel? BO 11 Dani op.cit.: Fig. 12, 17─17a-Mughal op.cit., Fig. 26, 176 Sarai Khola II (Type XIIIA, since level 9).
-Lips like Dani op.cit., Fig. 21, 174 (AO 6=Structural Phase I) cf. ca. Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 71, 289 *Amri IIB
-Since AO 8 (Beginning of Structural Phase I Beginning of Mature Harappan Phase? Dani op.cit., 146, Pl. 1b. 2 the motif of the horned god Occurred, also in BV/6, level 3A.
-Since Gumla III Intersecting Circles occur Jarrige-LeChevalier 1979, 530, Dani op.cit., 144 and Khan op.cit., Fig. 14, 5.10 since Mehrgarh VI; Casal 1964,II, Kot Diji 4─4a Fig. 72, 303─304*Amri IIB

Intermediate Level

- Dani op.cit., 19,149 (Levelling clogging Structural Mughal op.cit., Fig. 15, 89 = Phase I) and Nos. 150─151 Sarai Khola II (Typ VIIIA) since level 10
- Dani op.cit.: Fig. 20, 161 – Dales-Kenoyer1986, Fig. S1, 1e= Wheeler Context A.
- Khan op.cit., Fig. 12,16 = KD 3, Dani op.cit., Fig. 22,189 – Casal op.cit., I, Fig.73,312 = Amri IIIA
- Khan op.cit., Fig. 11,15= KD 1a; Dani op.cit., Fig.22,195 (CO, Level 3, Fig. 29,254) - cf. Khan op.cit., Fig. 14,17 KD 5 (Ib)

Post-Structural Phase I

- Dani op.cit., Fig. 31,280; Pl. 86, 6 (CO 3 and CO 4) – Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. S10, 54a─b "Cut Ware",Wheeler Context B; ibid., Fig. 93 = UM, Phase A─B (But late in Context B and Phase A; cf. ibid., 229). Cut Ware starts late in Mehrgarh VII: Jarrige-LeChevalier 1979, 530.
- Dani op.cit., Fig. 33,321 (EO 3) – Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. S2,3b. S7,33e = Wheeler Context A+B
- Dani op.cit., Fig. 32, 312─15. 317 – Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., S6, 27 = Wheeler Context A; ibid , Fig. 96, 5. 7 UM, Phase A.
- Khan op.cit., Fig. 12, 7-9, KD 2b─1; Dani op.cit., Fig, 2c─d. 7, 32c─d = Wheeler Context A─B.
- Dani op.cit., Fig. 29,253 – Wheeler 1947: Fig. 12, IIa = Harappa R37
- Dani op.cit., 29,255─257 – Wheeler 1947: Fig. 11, Type I = Harappa R 37
- Khan op.cit., Fig. 11, 3 = KD 1B – Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. 76, 2-3 = UM Phase A.
- Dani op.cit., Fig. 25,218─221. 224 – Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig.25,11 = UM A─B
- Dani op.cit., Fig. 30,258, DO 2 – Dales-Kenoyer op.cit.: Fig.S15, Type 75─76 = Wheeler, Context C

Gumla, from the Intermediate Level onwards to the Poststructural Phase I, dates at least to Amri IIIA. Amri IIIB could be excluded, because bottles with S-Profile are missing. Since this very characteristic form is present in Groupe iiib of Wheeler in Harappa,1431 Gumla IV could have been theoretically abandoned before the construction of the Defence in Harappa. If ever the Jar with the S-Profile would be late in Amri IIIB, the pottery of the Post-Structural Phase I in Gumla could well reach up to Amri IIIB.1432 A flat dish type from DO 2 could even be later. But, since all other late forms are missing, any date after late Amri IIIB can be excluded.

Mughal's impression that Gumla IV would be in very close relation to III one cannot but agree.1433

But the evidence of Gumla illustrates well the continuation of this horizon at some sites. This might also be true for Kalibangan I/II. To the early Mature Harappan horizon, but not later than Gumla, Intermediate level, seems to date Rehman Dheri1434 and the sites Lewan in the Bannu Basin and Tarakai Qila.1435

14.4.5 A critical glimpse on Kalibangan - joining the club?

This site should be added to the discussion because it is also a candidate for a possible longer lasting Pre-Harrapan horizon.

Turning back to the grave – Dittmann 2003: 110-112:"Kalibangan I is considered by Mughal to run parallel to the Kot Doji aspect in Sind, also Casal, Possehl, Gupta; Allchin and somehow also Dikshit1436 won't exclude the possibility that in Punjab and somewhat to the East, manifestations of the Kot Diji aspect would last longer than in Sind. The until now published material from Kalibangan I, so-called Sothi ware, was presented in somehow contradictory preliminary reports covering at least the Amri IIIA-period,1437 similar to Kot Diji, Important is the observation of the excavtors that in KLB 2, in the deepest layers Kalibangan I and II material was found together and that the Indus beaker occurs only in Period II,1438 The type is attested in Amri IIIB-late and IIIC and in Mohenjo Daro. Kalibangan I would then, as suggested by Casal, include Amri IIIA and start somewhere in Amri *II, parallel to the sequence of Kot Diji. Kalibangan I/II (KLB 2) would be therefore of early Amri IIIB-date and Kalibangan (later-) II would than be parallel to Amri IIIB-late and Amri IIIC.

The cemetery of Kalibangan doesn't have Indus beakers, like some graves at Harappa R37,1439 Pottery forms of the graves can be paralleled at the cemeteries of Rupar and R37 in Harappa., as well as Phases UM, A-B in Mohenjo Daro.1440 The cemetery of Kalibangan is obviously contemporaneous to R37 and Amri IIIB-late/IIIC. That the Indus beaker was not found in the few graves of Kalibangan- is not astonishing, since also in the graves of R37 is this type of pottery rare or nonexistent. The 'late' date of the graves is nevertheless guaranteed by the accompanying pottery, which has only 'late' parallels. But perhaps Kalibangan was given up, before the trash-layer separating R37 and Cemetery H accumulated in Harappa. In other words, the settlement at Kalibangan could have stopped with Mohenjo Daro, first half of UM-Phase B."

An overall synchronous development of the Indus Culture can be postulated as a general guideline, but going into the local sequences in detail, affairs become more differentiated, which - in view of the immense territory and time span affected, is what is to be expected.

15 Some Observations on the Glyptics of the Indus-/Harappan-Culture - Reloaded and updated-

15.0 Introduction

The glyptic-material of the Indus-Culture can only be differentiated in a rudimentary way. Especially the material from Mohenjo Daro suffers from this situation as Franke-Vogt has convincingly shown.1441 In regard to the older excavations, at least Harappa und Chanhu Daro have sufficient material1442 to allow some additional remarks.A Since this study was written (in 1989) and published (only in 2000), a couple of new studies have appeared which fit perfectly my earlier work on the subject .

13.1 Annotations on the chronology of the Indus ─ Complex

I follow here a comparative chronology (in the largest sense of the word) based on typological criteria proposed by Casal in 1979.1443 His observations of the development of pottery types at Amri have been adopted to other sequences. One important benchmark seems to be the first occurrence of the so-called "Indus beaker or -Pointed Base Goblet" a mass product, which has its own history and typological development. It starts with a more globular form and at the end it got his Pointed Base-shape. Key points are: late/end of Amri IIIB,1444 Lothal AIII-IV,1445,B Chanhu Daro-Surface of Mound I,1446,C Mohenjo Daro: Mackay, Intermediate III (?),1447 Wheeler Kontext C and UM Excavations A-late;1448 Harappa: Vats, Intermediate II.1449 For the new excavations at Harappa the Pointed Base Goblet is only mentioned for Period IIIC.1450 The globular type might start earlier? With all caution, we have prepared the chronological synopsis on Table 1, which marks at least defined correlations,1451 knowing that in a strict sense Casal's observations are only (?) valid for Sind.A

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 1 Chronological Synopsis

15.2 Remarks on the Glyptics of Harappa

In addition to the study of Franke-Vogt, my observations will focus on glyptics from Harappa and Chanhu Daro, since both sites have a certain kind of stratigraphic depth, lacking at Mohenjo Daro.E

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 2 Harappa - seals occurring in more than one area

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 3 Mound F

15.2.1 DIA- and Synchronous Diffusion of seals in Harappa

Consulting the glyptic-finds from Harappa, where more than 700 stamp seals and so-called sealings were found. One notes at once that some seal- and sealing motifs occur in more than one trench and in more than one stratigraphic unit: see Tab. 2. If these data reflect some kind of interaction between the different parts of Harappa, then these were the closest in the Late Period. Having a closer Look at Mound F, where most of the seals were found, a lot of seals and sealings occur more than once. (Tab. 3), and in relation to the individual trenches, a differentiated distribution can be plotted (Tab. 4).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 4 Mound F

Since the findings have individual find numbers, the multiple occurrence of the seals is out of the question.1452

15.2.2 Diachrone Diffusion of Seals and Motifs in Harappa

Next was investigated if certain Seals or Motifs concentrate in special strata. (See Tab. 5-8).1453

- That Unicorn-Seals are not attested in Mound F, IM IV is perhaps due to the limited space excavated, because Bovide-Motifs (Buffalo and Bison) which occur parallel to the Unicorn-Motif in Mound F, start also in IM IV, G and the absence of Unicorn-Seals in period 3A in Mound E (recent excavations) may be due to the hazards of excavation.
- The Elephant-Motif occurs parallel with the Unicorn-Motif in Mound F and AB H; the same applies to the Crocodile-Representations.
- Monster-Scenes (= Composit-Figures) are attested in Mound F in IM II, and Mound AB LIV.
- Mythological inspired motifs occur in Mound F, LIII-IM I and IM Ill.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

- Tiger- and Rhinoceros-Motifs are so lightly represented, that no compelling narrowing can be done on these subjects.
- Animal-shaped Seals and "Sealings" are limited to IM III-II in Mound F and Area J. Only 4 pieces were found in L II-III in Mound F.
- The by Vats as "Tiny-Sealings" addressed group scatters mainly from IM IV/III until IM I in Mound F, then they drop proportionally strongly, but are still attested in all excavation sites up to Late I.
- Swastika-Seals occur from IM II/I to LII in Mound F and AB, and Murghab-Seals were found only in Mound F, IM II, and in AB L I, what would fit well the run time (here independently determined) of Mehrghar VIII (see Tab. 1).

Within the motifs no unequivocal focal point can be defined.

15.2.3 Diachronous Diffusion of Seal-sizes in Harappa and Chanhu Daro

Vats impression that seals of a larger format would be more typical for the Late Levels (Tab. 9-12) - as a trend seems to be ok.1454


2.07[2] 2

2.02[2] E226

1.85[2] 11

1.8[2] 68 7

1.75[2] 12

1.7[2] 9

1.65[2] 173 5


1.6[2] 19 16


1.55[2] 44

1.5[2] 81

23 17

1.45[2] 13 168 823a



1.4[2] (52)

1.35 53

1.3[2] *60 30 28

46 56

1.25[2] 49 48 29 32

51 11

71 174

1.21[2] 65 78 175 59


1.15[2] 52 80 76

1.1[2] 87 84 37 62

57 67


1.05[2] 199 88 83 55 144

109 89 74

180 82




1.0 108 189 64 110

121 107

0.95[2] 92 !37 124 90


0.9[2] B234 101 94 *45 130

111 220 123

133 620



0.85[2] 122 66 125 115

160 141

08[2] 206 166 118 149 127

215 119 140


0.75[2] 211 139 136


0.7[2] 148 129 162 165



0.65[2] 164

0.55[2] 161

Tab. 9 Mound F, Indus-Seals according to size

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 10 Seals from Mound AB according to size

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The few seals emphasized on Tab 9 (from 1.45[2] in. on) in Mound F, IM I, III and IV seem to be out of the "norm"; a sign of stratigraphic distortion?

In order to test the variations in size, the seals of Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthaltenChanhu Daro were used as a corrective.1455 The Harappa II/I-Stratum is supposed to antecedent the IM II-Horizon in Harappa (absence of Indus-Beakers), only the most recent layers of Mound I seem to be roughly contemporaneous with Harappa, IM II-I.

The distribution of sizes according to strata in Chanhu Daro has been plotted in Tab.13.1456

In Chanhu Daro larger sized seals also occur as singular types in a horizon equal to Harappa, IM IV-III. A large size seal with a Unicorn- Motif comes from Mound I, Areal 12/K, Locus 26, Level +14'1", found in the youngest stratum at Chanhu Daro. Seals of comparable size are exclusively attested at Harappa, Late II-I, but were always of square form. Since in the pottery inventory of the upper strata at Chanhu Daro, L II to L I types known from these levels at Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, are missing, this rectangular seal from Chanhu Daro could be fairly older than Late II - Late I in Harappa.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 13 Chanhu Daro - Indus-Seals according to size

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 13 suite

The few seals emphasized on Tab 9 (from 1.45[2] in. on) in Mound F, IM I, III and IV seem to be out of the "norm"; a sign of stratigraphic distortion?

The difficulties which Franke-Vogt had faced in trying to differentiate the material of Mohenjo Daro, can also be postulated for Harappa and Chanhu Daro.1457

What is further puzzling is the obvious lack of breaks in the continuum of seal sizes as well as the lack of clusters of special motifs. In relation to their singular occurrence the larger scale seals from IM IV/III context could perhaps express a special or higher rank of their owners?.

15.2.4 Annotations to the style of the Harappan glyptic and to some Motifs

Stylistic differences in the seals of the Harappa culture are hard to define. One important stylistic element could be the Furrowed-Horn of some Unicorns. According to their presence at Mohenjo Daro, this horn-type concentrates in LIB and LI, but in IM I and III an example of each is present. Since at Harappa the type occurs exclusively in Late context, with a clear concentration in LII, the two earlier attestations at Mohenjo Daro can be understood as intrusions,1458 or as attributed to the wrong level.1459 Such Unicorn-Types are also known from Kalibangan and Banawali.1460 At Lothal A, which, according to my scheme with some probability is not much younger than IM I in Harappa, this style element is missing.I

A further observation can be mentioned: the structure of the forehead of an elephant-Motif on a sealing from the West, from a cylinder seal from Tell Asmar in the Diyala-region/lraq, Houses IVA (End-/Post-Akkad-period)1461 corresponds perfectly to an analogous representation on a stamp seal from Mohenjo Daro, Intermediate IIIAbbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten1462

There are quite a lot of similarities between the Harappa sites which will be mentioned only exemplary:

l. The well known motif of the "Master of the animals" - a sitting figure crowned be a Bukranion-Motif, being already known in the Kot Diji-Culture, occurs in its special form only in Mohenjo Daro, DK, IM I (Abb. 2).1463
2. A variation of this type is found in Mohenjo Daro, DK, +Late III,1464. In Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Late III1465 and perhaps in in Kalibangan (Abb. 3a-d)1466.
3. A motif of a person sitting on a tree with a Tiger underneath, looking backwards towards the person, is attested in Mohenjo Daro, DK, IM II to Late Ib (?)1467 (Abb. 4a-b) as well as in the excavations of Marshall in the DK- and HR-area;1468, in Harappa, Mound F, Trench I, Intermediate III und Trench IV, Intermediate I1469 and in Kalibangan1470 (Abb. 4c-e). A seal from Chanhu Daro can also be associated with this group.1471 (Abb. 40).
4. A motif of a standing Figure composed of human and animal parts, crowned with a dropping scarf is known from Mohenjo Daro, DK, IM I1472 and Kalibangan1473 (Abb. 5a-c).
5. A standing figure in a wreath of pipal or between two pipal-trees are quite common in Mohenjo Daro, DK, +1M II and from Intermediate-Kontext1474 (Abb. 6a), are also found several times in Harappa, Mound G, Trench II, Late I1475 | and Mound F, TAOE, Intermediate I; TAWE, Late III and Trench IV, Late II1476 (Abb. 6b-c). On a prism shaped sealing the motifs 2-3 and 5 are united (Mohenjo Daro, Late III, SD)1477 (Abb. 7a-c).
6. A procession of 7 figures towards a standing person flanked by Pipal trees, in front of which a further person is kneeling, accompanied by a Markhor, is known from Mohenjo Daro, DK, IM I/II-Kontext1478 (Abb. 6a). A seal fragment of Harappa (Mound F, Trench I, Late III)1479 (Abb. 6a and d) belongs with high probability to the same kind of motif.
7. Composite beings with the corps of a Zebu, a human face and a long beard/trunk of an elephant are found in Mohenjo Daro with 5 exemplars from the early excavations coming obviously from late Intermediate or Late Kontext from the DK-, VS and HR-Area1480 (Abb. 8a). At Harappa such a seal was found in Mound F, Trench TAOE, Intermediate I1481 (Abb. 8b), and from Lothal a sealing of such a stamp seal is also known1482 (Abb. 8c).

These iconographic close relations,1483 besides those mentioned for the Unicorns, , witness first of the temporary nearness1484 and of a common ideological background.

Also striking is the fact that these mythologic-narrative seals were almost exclusively found in the "Lower City" of Mohenjo Daro, and not within the so-called acropolis, the supposed seat of the (more virtual than real?) elite. The same is true for Harappa, where these seals come from the area of the "Great Granarys" and "Working areas".

15.2.5 Remarks on the inner-/inter-site and possible international relations of the glyptic material of the Harappan-complex.

To speak about the interaction between different sites can more or less be considered as guesswork. On behalf of the seals this is hard to detect, moreover, since the sealings are missing, due to the early excavation techniques. In the following I give some possible examples.

- Signs1485 on seals from Mohenjo Daro correspond to a seal from Harappa; another sealing from Kalibangan has similar signs1486 (Abb. 9a-c) .J
- Similar relations can be shown for Rupar and Mohenjo Daro.1487
- A sealing with two signs on a round tablet from Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Late III1488 occurs on Unicorn-Seals from Mohenjo Daro1489 (Abb. 10a-b).
- A couple of seals have the same "legend", partly also in combination with the same motif and they are found at different sites1490 (Abb. 11-12).
- In Mohenjo Daro some seals were found bearing only a "legend", nothing else. The "legend" is also attested on Unicorn- Seals in Harappa1491 (Abb. 13a-d).
- In two cases Unicorn-Seals from Mohenjo Daro have a "legend" which fits to a seal bearing only this "legend" from Lothal1492 (Abb. 14a-e).
- An Elephant-Seal from Mohenjo Daro has a "legend" corresponding to a seal from Harappa.1493
- A Unicorn-Sealing from Mohenjo Daro has a "legend", (on the back is the same and motif no, 7) like it occurs at Harappa on a seal without the Unicorn.1494
- A sealing from Harappa has on both sides three signs, which are also present at Lothal on an unfinished seal1495 (animal is missing).
- On a small sealing from Harappa three signs occur, being also present on a Unicorn-Seal from Chanhu Daro.1496
- A Unicorn-Seal from Mohenjo Daro has a "legend" as it is known from Banawali; the same occurs on a seal without further motifs.1497
- Some Unicorn-Seals with the same "legend" occur more than once at Mohenjo Daro1498 (Abb. 15a-b).
- In Mohenjo Daro a seal with Zebu-Motif has a "legend" corresponding to a seal without animal representation.1499

Sorting these examples according to their findspots and levels where they have been found in Mohenjo Daro and the other sites the following picture emerges (see Tab. 14-15):

According to our examples, Kalibangan would have relations to Harappa, Intermediate (III) II to Late III and Mohenjo Daro, Intermediate II/I to Late II; Lothal (A) joins Harappa, Intermediate I to Late II and Mohenjo Daro, Intermediate to Late III. Chanhu Daro, Harappa II-Stratum and younger levels point to Harappa, Intermediate III-I. These possible inter-site relations are in concordance with the pottery parallels. Only Lothal A will not run much later than the more recent Intermediate levels, due to pottery parallels and the missing motif of the Furrowed-horn. Interesting enough Mohenjo Daro, Intermediate I/Late III fits very well Harappa, Late III.

In a next step all "inscriptions" of the Mature Harappa-complex, compiled by Mahadevan,1500 have been analyzed according to their occurrence at the different sites. The first List Appendix BB notes all the "legends" being attested more than once at a site.

The second one, Appendix C, collects all the "legends" being present in more than one site. The result of these compilations can be formulated as follows (see Tab. 16):1501

The percentage of correspondences in one site are stupefying, especially concerning Harappa. Analyzing the inter-site correspondences, one should note that, based on 2855 "inscriptions", from Mohenjo Daro, Harappa, Chanhu Daro, Lothal und Kalibangan, 384 corresponds to each other = 13.5% of all, listed by Mahadevan1502. Excluding Shortughai, so correspond from 2855 "inscriptions" of the sites discussed here, 846 inner-site correspondences = 29.6% of the total. In Tab. 17 the correspondences are differentiated according to the sites.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 16 Inner-site correspondences

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 17 Correspondences according to the sites

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Remarkable, but not unexpected, is the small number of signs with objects from more than one site (see Tab. 18):

Tab. 18 Quantity of signs with corresponding objects

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The largest group has only 1-3 signs, more signs are rare. "Legends" being attested more than once in a site, the following quantities of signs occur (See Tab. 19):

Tab. 19 Sign-frequency on "inscriptions" attested at more than once at the same site

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

This table shows that "inscriptions" occurring more than once at a site, also only have a limited number of signs. Lacking a convincing decipherment of the so-called Indus-script, any interpretation is pure guess-work. Do we deal with personal names, institutions or/and commodities and quantities?1503 In regard to personal names - the low number of signs and their uniformity would be astonishing. Moreover, since some of the corresponding "inscriptions" at some sites agglomerate and have a broad chronological dispersion (cf. Tab. 14-15), personal names are perhaps less probable, Labels of clans and institutions could run over a long time. Considering the situation at Harappa, the majority of "inscriptions" comes from Mound F, "Grannary" and the Working-Area. Unfortunately a higher level institution for instance cannot be deduced from the architecture excavated. The same is true for Mohenjo Daro, where the mass of seals and sealings originates from more or less living quarters.1504 What is hidden by the "script" could well be a bracket between some kind of higher level structure and the private sector. A designation of some kind of group affiliation comes to mind,1505 with groups been involved in inner- and intersite transactions. Moreover, that certain institutions and services and/or commodities and objects are represented by the "script" cannot be excluded. Furthermore, quantities and rang (?) -designations are also possible. The Problem of the correspondences might be illustrated by an example:

House 1 in Mohenjo Daro, HR-A, (Late), is supposed to be some kind of shrine by Jansen, has given 12 seals. None of the "legends" has a correspondence at Mohenjo Daro. As exclusive animal motif figures seven times a Unicorn. One of the seals has only one sign = HR 1400, and has a direct parallel at Harappa, on a sealing from Mound F, Trench IV1506 The object from Harappa belongs to the Intermediate period, and is therefore earlier than the one from Mohenjo Daro. So any direct synchronous contact can be excluded, at best the objects reflect a similar meaning in a general way.

Next the findspots of "inscriptions" attested in more than one site will be plotted (cf. here, Appendix D). General inter-site relations are collected in Tab. 20.1507

Special concentrations of sites with external relations are not to be recognized. But, it might be not unimportant, that Lothal and Kalibangan never have relations to the same house. Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, have 99 relations, Mohenjo Daro to Chanhu Daro: 9, Mohenjo Daro to Kalibangan: 19, Mohenjo Daro to Lothal: 14. Looking to Harappa, to Kalibangan: 13, to Lothal: 9 and to Chanhu Daro 5, But these relations must not reflect close relations or trading houses or the like.1508 More instructive is Tab.21.


Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tab. 21 Synchronous relations between Mohenjo Daro and Harappa

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The relations between the "inscriptions" in Mohenjo Daro and Harappa is hardly synchronous. In fact, a "real 1:1" relation occurs only once in a period.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Somehow remarkable is the relative number of correspondences in LIII and IM I-III.

However, combining the unstratified seals from Harappa with their occurrence at Mohrnjo Daro (Tab.23), no convincing concentration is recognizable.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Leaving the realm of the Indus-Culture in the rest of the Ancient Near East correspondences to "inscriptions" of South Asia are rare.1509 ##################

- A Stamp-Seal from Ur has a "legend" with one sign, known only from Mohenjo Daro so far.1510 One of the signs of this "legend" occurs also on three Copper Tablets.1511 According to Mackay, these tablets should date exclusively to the Late period. K Those from Intermediate context should be considered as Intrusions.Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten1512
- A Stamp Seal from the Iraq-Museum (origin unknown) has the same "legend" as a seal from Kalibangan.1513
- In addition to the cylinder seals from Tell Asmar, mentioned above, with a possible relation to a Stamp-Seal from Mohenjo Daro, IM III, another cylinder seal from Tell Suliemeh/Hamrin, Level IV, which can be connected to Indus-Seals,1514 was dated by al-Gailani-Werr to the Early-Akkadian period. Since in that layer also Post-Akkadian seals occur, a younger date is not excluded.1515 If the seal from Tell Suliemeh IV date for the Post-Akkadian period,1516 the seal from Tell Asmar would be a little bit older.
- Boehmer1517 has discussed that the representation of the Arni-/Water-Buffalo on the glyptics of Babylonia, should be connected with the import of such animals from Melluḫḫa, generally identified with the Indus-Culture. The earliest representation should date to "Akkadian Ic"1518 in Boehmer's scheme, to be connected with the latest rule of Sargon. The latest evidence dates to the year 2 of the fourth ruler of Ur III, Šu-Sin.1519 But the motif is only common in the Akkad-Period. In the Indus area this motif is known from Banawali, Harappa - Late III, Kalibangan and at Mohenjo Daro from -IM III to Late.1520
- In this context two further objects are of interest: first is the well known cylinder seal in Akkad-Style, which represents and names a translator of Melluḫḫan1521 (Abb. 16a) and second, the fragment of an Akkadian relief from Susa (Abb. 16b),1522 already indicated by FrancfortAbbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten1523
- Even older contacts between the Indus-Culture and the Ancient Near East could be represented by Carnelian Etched Beads. According to a study by Reade these beads can be dated from the younger Early Dynastic III period onwards,1524 Possibly they start about the Mature Meskalamdug-Phase = Early Dynastic IIIA2, in the definition of Boehmer.1525 The oldest Carneol pearls in the East are found in the earlier Mature Harappan-Period, so in Mundigak IV 3,1526 and Gumla IV, both roughly of Amri IIIA/B-date, and Kot Diji, Harappan-Level1527 (ending before Amri IIIB-late and Nausharo IIIC), Further beads come from Chanhu Daro1528 (Amri IIIA-B), Lothal A1529 and Shortughai I-II1530 (Amri IIIA-B). In Tepe Yahya such beads occur for the first time in IV BI, but an Indus-origin is not proven.1531 If these finds in the West would mark a direct contact with the East, than the Early Dynastic IIIA-Period in Babylonia would be contemporaneous with Amri IIIA and Nausharo II.
- Also the fragment of a relief of Susa, as mentioned above, can be attributed to the Akkadian ruler Maništušu L and to Nausharo IIIC/Amri IIIB-late to Amri IIIC.1532
- At the end of the Akkad-period dates the cylinder seal from Tell Asmar and possibly of Tell Suliemeh. For the Ur III- to the Old Babylonian period those seals should be mentioned, discussed at length in the current Literature, which date all to the Amri IIIC-Horizon, contemporaneous to the Murghab seals of the Mehrgarh VIII-Horizon.1533
- Early in this horizon date two cylinder seals from Mohenjo Daro, and perhaps the unstratified seal from Susa, which could also be a little bit older.1534
- In the Arabian region and Babylonia date the so-called Persian Golf-Seals, which "give place" to the so-called Dilmun-Seals also in the Isin-Larsa period and which have clear relations to the Karum IB-horizon in Anatolia. M

15.2.3 Summing up

Among the Mature Harappan sites a lot of "inscriptions" have been found in different media, which correspond to each other The same is true of Motifs and "inscriptions", being attested at more than one site. Obviously the sites of the Indus Culture had a web of close relations, even though we are unable for the moment to define the nature of these relations. Since at Lothal, Dholavira and Kalibangan we also have real sealings, which can be connected with a certain kind of transfer of goods, the sealing-praxis will not be radically different from the rest of the Ancient Near East. But differences beside the large amount of "legends" are evident, like the the small amount of cylinder seals and the complete absence of tablets especially for the administration and exchange (See note O).

The mass of sealed small tablets, prisms and the like reminds the situation of Babylonia at the dawn of scripting of the language(s) at Babylonia and Elam. Considering the very "inscriptions" found on items of inter-sites relations, personal names seem to be out of the question. Designations of institutions, goods and perhaps quantities seem more alike. This might be indicated by the evidence at Harappa, where seals of the same appearance and same "legends" occur in more than one stratum and at different areas of this settlement. If personal names would be involved, the number of seal owner would be quite limited or one should think of family-seals being used after a certain amount of time.

The inner- and inter-site relations at Mohenjo Daro seem in the first instance to be linked to the houses of the of the "Lower Town". In the "Acropolis-mound" such items are rare. At Harappa the situation is different, because most seals and sealing come from Mound F, the area of this so-called "working platforms" (of what function so ever) and the "great granary" besides Mound AB, the so-called Acropolis. In the case of Harappa a relation of local Institutions and seals might have existed if the excavated structures of Mound F would have a special function.1535

The situation at Harappa will have to be analyzed like currently done. Specially the development of the sealing-praxis and types of seals and sealings merit high attention . N Furthermore the analysis of the original seals could be of interest and could perhaps lead to a definition of individual seal cutters or workshops. O Such an analysis would be highly welcomed because it would ameliorate the inner chronology of the strata of Harappa, due to the relatively short lifetime of workshops and seal cutters

The last point will be illustrated: details of motifs of Indus Seals, lead to certain observations which can be used to define the stylistic individuality of a seal-cutter or workshop. The basic idea is that every seal-cutter can be traced by a specific individual treatment of the proportions of seals and motifs.

- As a first example we use a seal from Harappa, Mound AB, Late II (Abb. 17a).1536 Stylistic peculiarities are: the tail end at the back-part of the body in the form of a small bulge, the integrated scrotum in the hind leg, the shape of his ear, the stylization of the belly slaps and the muscles, the heart shaped motif on the foreleg in addition to a small curl and the deep skin fold between the forelegs. Similar details are found on two further seals from Harappa, F, Trench I, Late III und F, Late II (here only the curl is missing [Abb. 17b-c]).1537 A correspondent seal is known from Mohenjo Daro, DK, 7, V, 52, -4'3" = Late II (Here, the curl is present)Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten1538
- The second example is a seal from Harappa, Mound AB, Late II (Abb. 18a). Eye-catching here is his belly-line, being circle-shaped between the forelegs, forming the outer limit, of the heart-shaped motif on the foreleg and shoulder. The same elements can be found on six more seals from Harappa, Mound Ab, Late II; Mound F, Trench III, Late II; F, TAOE, Late II; F, Trench IV, Late II und F, Trench IV, Late III (z. B. Abb. 18b).1539 The same features occur on a seal from Mohenjo Daro, DK, 1, 1, 74, -18'5", -Intermediate II (Abb. 18c).1540
- A third example is two seals from Harappa, Mound AB, Late III und Late II (Abb. 19a-b).1541 The outer limit of the heart-shaped motif on the foreleg and shoulder is at the -same time the outer line of the back part of the forelegs and the second external, middle line of the heart-shaped motif originates in the outer contours of the foreleg.
- A fourth example is a seal from Harappa, Mound F, Trench V, Late II and a corresponding one from Mohenjo Daro, VS, 7, Lane 2, -5'0", Late (Abb. 20a-b).1542 Common to both is the completely mis-proportion and the lousy cut.

These examples show that in this regard a lot remains to do. Taking furthermore the excellent photos of the Corpus of Indian Seals, with representations of seals in natural size, it must also be possible to define concrete seal-cutters on behalf of the proportions of the seals. Another important part would be to analyze the cut of the "inscriptions", were severe differences are evident. Also crucial is the question if the motif and the "legends" were cut by the same individual. The work on the seals of the Indus Culture has just started.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 15a Abb. 15b

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb. 15c Abb. 15d

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abb.16a Abb.16b

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-IranicA Vol III

General Bibliography

Reinhard Dittmann/Münster


Chogha . Chogha Mish

F+/─F Façade +/─ Flag

GT Gubba─Type

Hab─S. Habuba Kabira─Süd

Jebel A. Jebel Aruda

Pred. Temp. Predecessor Temple

SCS Stratified Cylinder Seals

SIS Seal Impession Strata

SqT. Square Temple

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten 2

Abe -Kharanaghi 2014: A Study on the Early Pottery Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblage from Rahamatabad, in: Kharanaghi (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Young Archaeologists (Tehran) 27-40.

Adams 1981: Heartland of Cities. Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplains of the Euphrates (Chicago).

Adams─Nissen 1972: The Uruk Countryside (Chicago).

Abraham-Gullapalli-Raczek-Rizvi (eds.) Connections and Complexity: New

Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia. Left Coast Press.

Akkermans─Schwartz 2003: The Archeology of Syria.

Alcock 1986:.A Pottery Sequence from Mohenjo Daro: REM Wheeler's 1950

Citadel Mound Excavations. In Dales-Kenoyer, Excavations at Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan: the Pottery, 493-570.

Alden 1979: Regional Economic Organization in the Banesh Period Iran (Ann Arbor).

Alden 1982: Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology, 23(6), 613-640.

Alden 1986: The Protoelamite Period. In: Hole (Ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Washington D.C.) 157─170.

Alden 1987: Trade and Politics in Proto─Elamite Iran,, Current Anthropology 23.6, 613─640.

Alden et al. 2004: Kushk-e Hezar: A Mushki/Jari Period Site in the Kur River Basin, Fars, Iran, IRAN 42, 25-45.

Algaze 1979: The ceramic sequence of the Inanna temple in Nippur (Ma-thesis n.d,)

Algaze 1995: Fourth Millennium BC Trade in Greater Mesopotamia: Did It

Include Wine?, in: McGovern ─ Fleming ― Katz (Eds). The Origins and Ancient History of Wine: Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology (Routledge) 9ss.

Algaze 2001: Social Complexity in Western Asia: the Mesopotamian

Advantage, CA 44.2, 199─233 (My comment ibid., 217─218).

Al-Gailani Werr:"Catalogue of the Cvlinder Seals from Tell SuIleimanie~-

Hamrin", Sumer 38,68-88

Alizadeh 1994-95: Archaeological Surveys in Northwestern Fars, Iran. Oriental Institute Reports, 29-32.

Alizadeh 2004: Mobile pastoralism and prehistoric exchange. In: Clement ─ Stöllner ─ Slotta (Eds), Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau ─ Handwerk ─ Archäologie, Band 1 & 2 (Bochum. Deutsches Bergbau─Museum) 76─91.

Alizadeh 2006: The Origins of State Organiz ations in Prehistoric Highland of Fars, Southern Iran. Excavations at Tall-I Bakun A. OIP 128 (Chicago).

Alizadeh 2008: Chogha Mish: Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972─1978. The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008.

Alizadeh 2014: Oriental Institute Publications 140. Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Geser and Regional Survey of the Ram Hormuz Area.

Alizadeh et al. 2004: , Iranian Prehistoric Project, The Annual Report of the Oriental Institute of The Unversity of Chicago, 94─106.

Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015: Highland-Lowland interaction in the late 4th and 
early 3rd millennium BCE: the evidence from Qolī Darvīš, Iranian Central Plateau, AMIT 47, 149-168.

Allchin-Hammond 1978 (Eds.), The archaeology of Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period. London: AcademyC Press.

Allchin-Knox 1980: Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tarakai Qila (1978-79). SAA 1979, 245-250.

Allchin, B., & Allchin, F. R. (1984). SAA1981. Cambridge University Press.

Allchin-Khan 1986: Lewan and the Bannu Basin: Excavation and Survey of Sites and Environements in North-West Pakistan, B.A.R

Ambos 2004: Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ISLET, Dresden.

Ambos 2013: Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ─ Nachträge und Verbesserungen. In: Ambos ─ Verderame (Eds.), Approaching Rituals in Ancient Cultures: Questioni di rito: Rituali come fonte di conoscenza delle religioni e delle concezioni del mondo nell culture antiche. Proceedings of the Conference, November 28─30, 2011, Roma. Supplemento No. 2 alla Rivista degli Studi Orientali Nuova Serie LXXXVI. Pisa & Roma,17─38.

Ameri 2013. Regional Diversity in the Harappan World: The Evidence of the Seals. in: S. Ameri 2016: Regional diversity in the Harappan world: The evidence of the seals. In Connections and Complexity 355-374, Routledge.

Amiet 1957: Glyptique Susiene Archaique, RA 51, 121─129.

Amiet 1961: La Glyptique Mésopotamienne Archaique (Paris).

Amiet 1966: Elam (Auvers sur Oise).

Amiet 1971: La glyptique de l’acropole (1969–1971). DAFI 1, 217.

Amiet 1972: Glyptique Susienne dès Origines á l’Époque des Perses

Achémenides . 2 Vols (Paris).

Amiet 1973: Glyptique Élamite a propos de documents nouveaux, Arts asiatiques, 26, 3-64.

Amiet 1976:.Contribution à l'histoire de la sculpture archaïque de Suse Association Paléorient.

Amiet, 1980: & Lambert. La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque.

Amiet 1983: The Archaic Glyptic at Shahri Sokhta (Period I). Prehistoric Sistan 1 (IsMEO Rep. Mem. XIX, 1), Ed: M. Tosi. Rom

Amiet 1985:. La période IV de Tépé Sialk reconsidérée in De l'Indus aux Balkans. Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes.

Amiet 1985a: A propos de l'usage et de l'iconographie des sceaux à Suse. Paléorient, 11 (2), 37-38.

Amiet 1986; L'âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500-1700 avant J.-C. Paris

Amiet-Tosi-Meriggi 1978: Phase 10 at Shahr-i Sokhta: Excavations in Square XDV and the Late 4th Millennium BC Assemblage of Sīstān. East and West, 28(1/4), 9-31.

Arne 1945: Excavations at Shah Tepe, Iran (Vol. 5). Elanders boktryckeri aktiebolag.

Asthana 1979: “Indus-Mesopotamian Trade and structural Analysis of the operative system” in (eds.D.P.Agrawal and .Chakrabarti) Essays in Indian Protohistory, New Delhi.

Asthana 1984: The place of Shahdad in Indus-Iranian trade. Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, New Delhi, Books and Books/Indian Archaeology Society, 353-61.

Ardeleanu-Jansen, A. (1984). Stone sculptures from Mohenjo-daro. In, M. Jansen and G. Urban, eds. Reports on Field Work.

Bachmann 1998: Das keramische Inventar eines urukzeitlichen Gebäudes in Tell Sheikh Hassan, Syrien. Brepols.

Bahrani 1989: The Administrative Building at Tell al Hiba, Lagash, Vol. I─II (Ann Arbor).

Bargahi, H., & Rezaei, M. H. (2015). The Emam Zadeh Chahar Rustayi Site, a Bakun Period Settlement in Bushehr Province, Southern Iran. Sociology and Anthropology, 3 (1), 45-51.

Barrelet 1974:, Dispositifs à feu et cuisson des aliments à Ur, Nippur, Uruk, Paléorient 2, 243ff.

Behm-Blancke, 1979:. Das Tierbild in der altmesopotamischen Rundplastik: eine Untersuchung zum Stilwandel des frühsumerischen Rundbildes. Zabern.

Behm ─ Blancke1991─92: Hassek Höyük. Eine Uruk─Station im Grenzland zu Anatolien, Nürnberger

Blätter zur Archäologie 8, 82─94.

Benati ─ Lecompte 2014: New Light on the Early Archives from Ur: The «Ancient Room» Tablet Hoard, Proceedings, 9th ICAANE Vol. 3 (Basel) 13–30.

Bernbeck 1992: Migratory patterns in early nomadism: a reconsideration of Tepe Tula'i. Paléorient 18.1,77─88.

Bernbeck 2008: An archaeology of multisited communities. In: Wendrich─ Barnard (Eds),The archaeology of mobility: Old World and New World nomadism (Topoi. Berlin) 43─77.

Bernbeck 2009: Class conflict in ancient Mesopotamia: between knowledge of history and historicising knowledge, 4.1, 33─64. Bernbeck-Pollock-Fazeli Nashli 2008, Rahmatabad: dating the Aceramic Neolithic in Fars Province, Neo-Lithics 1, 37-39

Bernbeck 2012: Discontinuity and Continuities: Constructing a Chronology from the Evidence at Neolithic Tol-e Bashi, Fars, in: Fahimi-Alizadeh (Eds.), Nāmvarnāmeh, Papers in Honour of Massoud Azarnoush (Teheran) 43─54.

Bernbeck-Pollock-Fazeli Nashli 2008, Rahmatabad: dating the Aceramic Neolithic in Fars Province, Neo-Lithics 1, 37-39

Besenval, R. (1993). The 1992-1993 field-seasons at Miri Qalat: new contributions to the chronology of Protohistoric settlement in Pakistani Makran. In Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series B (Vol. 271, pp. 81-91).

Besenval, R. 1994 The 1992–1993 field-seasons at Miri Qalat. New contributions to the chronology of Protohistoric settlement in Pakistani Makran. In: Parpola, A./Koskikallio, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1993. 81-91

Besenval 1997: The Chronology of Ancient Occupation in Makran : Results of the 1994 Season at Miri Qalat, Pakistan Makran. SAA 1995 : 199-216.

Besenval,1997a: Entre le Sud-Est iranien et la plaine de l'Indus: le Kech-Makran: Recherches archéologiques sur le peuplement ancien d'une marche des confins indo-iraniens. Arts asiatiques, 5-36.

Besenval 2000: New Data for the chronology of the Protohistory of Kech-Makran (Pakistan) from Miri Qalat 1996 and Shahi-Tump 1997 Field Seasons, SAA 1997. Rome, 161– 187.

Besenval – Marcon – Buquet – Mutin - Franke-Vogt – Weisshaar 2005: Shahi-Tump: Results of the last field-seasons (2001-2003). South Asian Archaeology, 2003, 49-56.

Beyer, D. (1989). Un nouveau témoin des relations entre Mari et le monde iranien au IIIème millénaire. Iranica Antiqua, 24, 109.

Beuger 2005: Keramik der spätfrühdynastischen bis spätassyrischen Zeit aus Assur. (Diss. FU-Berlin 2005: www.FUDISS_derivate_000000003202).

Beuger 2013: Keramik der Älteren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur: Von der zweiten

Hälfte des 3.Jahrtausends bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., WVDOG 138 (Wiesbaden)

Bhan 1975: Excavation at Mitathal (1968) and other explorations in the Sutlej-Yamuna divide.

Bigelow 1999: Zooarchaeological Investigations of Economic Organization and Ethnicity at Late Chalcolithic Hacinebi: A Preliminary Report, Paléorient 25.1, 83–89.

Biscione 1974: Relative chronology and pottery connections between Shahr-i Sokhta and Mundigak, Eastern Iran. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, 2, 131-145.

Biscione 1979: The Burnt Building of Shahr-i Sokhta IV An attempt of functional analysis from the distribution of pottery types.

Biscione 1990: -The elusive phase two of Shahr-i Sokhta sequence SSA1987.

Boehmer 1965: Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad─Zeit, UAVA 4 (Berlin).

Boehmer 1969: Zur Glyptik zwischen Mesilim─ und Akkad─Zeit (Early Dynastic III), ZA 59, 261─292.

Boehmer 1978: Früheste altorientalische Darstellungen des Wisents.(Les représentations les plus anciennes du bison dans l'Orient Ancien). Baghdader Mitteilungen Berlin, 9, 18-21.

Boehmer 1985: Glyptik von der frühsumerischen bis zum Beginn der altbabylonischen Zeit. In: Orthmann (Ed.), Der Alte Orient, PKG 18 (Berlin) 213–241.

Boehmer 1987–1990: Lugalanda─Stufe, RLA 7 (Berlin ─ New York) 111–114.

Boehmer 1989: Früheste Darstellung des altorientalischen Wisents, ItAnt 24,

Boehmer 1999: Uruk: Früheste Siegelabrollungen, AUWE 24 (von Zabern).

Boehmer 2003: Eine neue Gefangenenszene aus dem Uruk IVa–zeitlichen Uruk. In: Dittmann – Eder – Jacobs (Eds.), Aertumswissenschaften im Dialog. Festschrift für Wolfram Nagel. AOAT 306 (2003) 1–7.

Boehmer 1995: Uruk─Zeit. In: Boehmer – Pedde – Salje (Eds), Uruk, Gräber, AUWE 10 (Mainz), 1.

Böhm - Römer /Eds.), Texte und Artifacts in the Ancient Near East. Studies presented to Benjamin Sass (Paris ) 512-519.

Boese 1971: Altmesopotamische Weiheplatten, UAVA 6 (Berlin –New York).

Boese 1978: Mesanepada und der Schatz von Mari, ZA 68, 6–33.

Boese 1995: Ausgrabungen in Tell Sheikh Hassan (Vol. 1). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Boese 2009: Die reliefverzierte Tüllenkanne aus Uruk und ihre Datierung, Altorientalische Forschungen 36, 243–250.

Boese 2010: Die Blau'schen Steine und der Priesterfürst im Netzrock, AOF 37.2, 208–229.

Bonatz 2002: Agens ─ Bild. Handlungszusammenhänge altorientalischer Bildwerke, in: Heinz – Bonatz (Eds.), Bild – Macht – Geschichte. Visuelle Kommunikation im Alten Orient (Berlin) 53–70.

Börker─Klähn 1957─71: Greif‘: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde III.

Börker-Klähn 1970; Untersuchungen zur altelamischen Archäologie.

Börker─Klähn 1980: Die Stellung Mesilims und der damit verbundene Stilbegriff, BaM 11, 33–41.

Brandes 1979: Siegelabrollungen aus den Archaischen Bauschichten von Uruk–Warka, FAOS 3 (Freiburg).

Brandes 1980: Waffenkammer ein neues Siegelthema der Uruk Zeit, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, 21, 77─86.

Brandes 1986: Commemorative seals. In: Kelly─Buccelat (Ed.). Insight through images: Studies in honor of Edith Porada, BiMes 21: 51─56.

Braun–Holzinger 1977: Frühdynastische Beterstatuetten, ADOG 19 (Berlin).

Bravo, del 2014: ‘Scarlet Ware': Origins, Chronology and Developments. In: Lebeau ─ de Miroschedji (Eds), ARCANE Interregional Vol. I: Ceramics, Turnhout (Brepols), 131─14

Breniquet 1996: Du fil à retordre: réflexions sur les «idoles aux yeux» et les fileuses de l´époque d´Uruk. In: Gasche–Hrouda (Eds.), Collectanea Orientalia. Histoire, Arts de l´éspace et industrie de la terre. Études offertes en homage à Agnès Spycket, Civilisations du Proche–Orient. Series 1. Archéologie et Environnement 3 (Neuchâtel‒ Paris) 31─ 53,

Breniquet 2008 Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie. Dès première communautés, sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J.─C.Travaux de la Maison René─Ginouvés 5 (Paris).

Breniquet 2016: Weaving, Potting, Churning. Women at Work during the Uruk Period Evidence from the Cylind er Seals. In: Michel (Ed.) The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East (de Gruyter).

Bretschneider 2015:. Seals, Tablets and Bricks: Fine-tuning of Early Dynastic Chronology in Syria: It's a long way to a historiography of the early dynastic period (Vol. 15, 33-49). Ugarit-Verlag.

Brunswig- Parpola-Potts1983:. New Indus Type and Related Seals from Near East. Reimer.

Butterlin 2003: Les Temps Proto─Urbains de Mésopotamie. Contacts et Acculturation à l’Époque d’Uruk au Moyen Orient (Paris).

Butterlin 2009: À propos de Tepe Gawra: le monde proto-urbain de Mésopotamie ( Brepols).

Budcred space and its evolution, In: Laneeri et al. (Eds.), Defining the Sacred (Oxbow) 60─72.

Calmeyer 1969: Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah (Berlin, 1969).

Canal 1978: Traveaux à la terasse haute de l`acropole de Suse, Dafi 9, 11ss.

Canal 1978a, La haute terasse de l´acropole de Suse, Paléorient 4. 169ss.

Carter 1978:. Suse" Ville Royale". Paléorient 4, 197-211.

Carter 1979: Elamite pottery, ca. 2000-1000 BC. journal of Near Eastern studies, 38 (2), 111-128

Carter1979a:The Susa sequence-3000-2000 BC: Susa, Ville Royale I. American Journal of Archaeology, 83 (4), 451-454.

Carter 1980: Excavations in Ville Royale at Susa: the Third Millennium BC Occupation. CDAFI 11, 11-134.

Carter 1982: Excavations in Ville Royale I in Susa (Documents épigraphiques de la Ville Royale 1972 et 1975). In: CDAFI) 11,(Association .

Carter--Stolper1984:. Elam: surveys of political history and archaeology (Vol 25). Univ of California Press.

Carter et al. 2006:. The Bushehr Hinterland results of the first season of the Iranian-British archaeological survey of Bushehr Province, November-December 2004. Iran, 44 (1), 63-103.

Caubet 2006: Des yeux et des lunettes Syria, 177─181.

Casal 1961: Fouilles de Mundigak (Paris)

Casal 1964: Fouilles d´Ámri (Paris)

Casal 1969: La Civilisation de ITndus et ses. Enigmes, (Paris).

Casal 1979: Amri: An introduction to the history of the Indus

Civilization. Essays in Indian Protohistory, 99-112.

Casanova 2006:. La vaisselle d'albâtre d'Iran et d'Asie Centrale aux IIIe

et IIe millénaires av.J.-C . Edition recherche sur les civiliastion 135.

Chaolong 1990: The Kot Dijians and the Harappans: their simultane possible interpretation SAA 1987.

Chaolong 1994: Mohenjo-daro according to pottery comparative study. From Sumer to Meluhha:

Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales, Jr, 3, 69.

Charvá t 1976: The oldest royal dynasty of ancient Mesopotamia. Archív Orientální 44, 346─352.

Charvát 2002: Mesopotamia before History (London – New York).

Charvát 2005: The Iconography of Pristine Statehood. Painted Pottery and Seal Impressions from Susa, Southwestern Iran (Prague).

Charvát 2010: Inscriptions and Sealings from Archaic Ur. In: Šašková ─ Pecha ─ Charvát (Eds.), Shepherds of the Black─headed People: The Royal Office vis─à─vis Godhead in Ancient Mesopotamia (Plzeň) 39─72.

Charvat 2014: The Dep Wall of the Past: Earliest Seal Impressions from the City of Ur. In: Bieliński et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th

International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. I, 603─ 611.

Charvát 2015: O tempora, o mores? The Sumerian City f Ur, Before and After 3000 B.C. In: Dittmann--Selz ─ Rehm (Eds.), It's a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15, 53─70.

Chakrabarti, D. K. (1978). The Nippur Indus Seal and Indus Chronology. Man and Environment, 2, 88- 90.

Chakrabarti 1990, Chakrabarti, D. K. (1990). The external trade of the Indus civilization.

Chakrabarti-Moghadam 1977: Some Unpublished Indus Beads from Iran. Iran 15, 166-168.

Christaller 1980: Die zentralen Orte inb Süddeutschland (2. Auflage).

Cleuziou, S. 1989. The Chronology of Protohistoric Oman as seen from Hili Pages 47–78 in Costa--Tosi(eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma

Cleuziou – Tosi 1989a: The South-Eastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East-in SAA 1985, 15ss,

Collon 1987: First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (British Museum Publications Limited).

Coningham 2002: Deciphering the Indus script. Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, 2, 81-103.

Cooper 1983: Reconstructing history from ancient inscriptions: the Lagash─Umma border conflict (Undena publications),

Cooper ─ Renger 1975: ‘Heilige Hochzeit‘, RLA 4/4─5, 251─ 259.

Corbiau, S. (1936). 1. Sumerian Dress Lengths as Chronological Data, II1. An Indo-Sumerian Cylinder. Iraq, 3(1), 97-103.

Cortesi et al. 2008: Cultural relationships beyond the Iranian Plateau: The Helmand civilization Baluchistan and the Indus Valley in the 3rd millennium BCE. Paléorient, 5-35.

Crawford 1973: Mesopotamia's Invisible Exports in the Third Millennium BC., W orld Archaeology 5.2, 232─241

Crüsemann et al. 2013: Uruk 5000 ─ Jahre Megacity. Begleitband zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung im Pergamon Museum zu Berlin (Imhof Verlag).

Czichon 2006: Neue Überlegungen zu den Beterstatuetten, AoF 33, 179-188.


Dahl 2012: The marks of early writing. Iran, 50 (1), 1-11.

Dahl-Hessari-Zoshk 2012: The Proto-Elamite Tablets from Tape Sofalin, Iranian Journal of archaeological studies 2: 1, 57-73.

Dahl—Petrie—Potts 2013: Chronological Parameters oft he earliest writing systems in Iran. Ancient Iran and its Neighbour s,18ss.

Dales 1965: New excavations at Mohenjo-daro. Archaeology, 18(1).

Dales-Kenoyer 1986: Excavations at Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan: The Pottery, with an Account of the Pottery from the 1950 Excavations of Sir Mortimer Wheeler (Vol. 1). UPenn Museum of Archaeology.

Dani 19 70-71: Excavations in the Gomal Valley", Ancient Pakistan, Vol. V,

Damerow-Englund 1987: Die Zahlzeichensysteme der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk, In Green-Nissen, Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Berlin) 117-166.

Damerow-Englund-Nissen 1988: Die ersten Zahldarstellungen und die Entwicklung des Zahlbegriffs. Spektrum der Wissenschaft 3, 46-55.

Damerow ─ Englund 1989: Bemerkungen zu den vorangehenden Aufsätzen von A.A. Vaiman unter Berücksichtigung der 1987 erschienenen Zeichenliste ATU 2, BaM 20, 133─138.

Dangi,--Uesugi 2013: A study on the Harappan painted pottery from the Ghaggar plains. Purātattva. 43, 195-215.

Daujat-Mashkour-Emery-Barbier-Neef-Bernbeck 2016; Qale Rostam: Reconsidering the “rise of a highland way of life”. An integrated bioarchaeological analysis. The Neolithic of the Iranian plateau. Recent research, 107-136.

Del Bravo2014). Scarlet Ware”: Origins, Chronology and Developments. Ceramics, ARCANE Interregional 1, 131-148.

Delougaz 1933: Plano─Convex Bricks and the Methods of their Employment, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 7 (Chicago 1933).

Delougaz 1940: The Temple Oval at Khafājah, OIP LIII (Chicago).

Delougaz 1952: Pottery from the Diyala Region, OIP LXIII (Chicago).

Delougaz –Lloyd 1942: Pre─Sargonic Temples of the Diyala Region, OIP LVIII (Chicago).

Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967: Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, OIP LXXXVIII (Chicago).

Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996: Chogha Mish I. The First Five Seasons OIP 101 Chicago)

Deshayes 1958: Marteaux de bronze iraniens, Syria 35.

Desset 2012: Premières écritures iraniennes: les systèmes proto-élamite et élamite linéaire.

Desset 2014:. A new writing system discovered in 3 rd millennium bce iran: the Konar Sandal 'geometric' tablets. Iranica Antiqua.

Desset 2016:. The Proto-Elamite writing in Iran. Archéo-Nil.

Dikshit 1984. Late Harappa in northern India. In: Lal—Gupta (Eds.), Frontiers of the Indus Civilization. Books and Books, Delhi, pp. 253–269.

Dittmann 1984: Der Behbehan─Zuhreh Survey, BBVO 3 (Berlin).

Dittmann 1986a: Betrachtungen zur Frühzeit des Südwest─Iran. BBVO 4.1─2 (Reimer)

Dittmann 1986b: Seals, Sealings and Tablets: Thoughts on the Changing Patterns of Administrative Control from the Late─Uruk to the Proto─Elamite period at Susa. In Röllig―Finkbeiner (Eds.) Ğamdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style (Wiesbaden) 332─66.

Dittmann 1986c: Susa in the Protoelamite Period and Annotatons on the Painted Pottery of Protoelamite Khuzestan In: Röllig ― Finkbeiner (Eds.) Ğamdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style (Wiesbaden) 171─198.

Dittmann 1987: Bemerkungen zum Protoelamischen Horizont, AMI 20, 31─ 63.

Dittmann 1994: Glyptikgruppen am Übergang von der Akkad- zur Ur III-Zeit, BaM 25, 75-117.

Dittmann n.d: Bericht über die 1988 von der FU-Berlin in Assur Durchgeführten Arbeiten:https://www.academia.edu/18151645/Bericht_über_die_19#88_vo _der_ Berlin_in_Assur_durchgeführten_Arbeiten.

Dittmann 2000: Beobachtungen zur Glyptik des Harappa―Komplexes, in: Dittmann ― Hrouda ― Löw ― Matthiae ― Mayer─Opificius und Thürwächter (Eds.), Variatio Delectat. Iran und der Westen, Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer, AOAT 272, 231─312.

Dittmann 2001: Nur Bilder oder mehr? Aspekte der Glyptikanalyse. In: Richter ─ Prechel ─ Klinger (Eds.), Kulturgeschichten zum 65 Geburtstag von Volker Haas (Saarbrücken) 85─101.

Dittmann 2002: Stadtnetze─Städtische Funktionen am Beispiel Altorientalischer Städte. In: Jansen – Hook (Eds.), Stadtnetze, IAS 3, 25─86.(Vol. 13).

Dittmann 2003: Altertumswissenschaften im Dialog: Festschrift für Wolfram Nagel zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres, AOAT Vol. 306,. Ugarit-Verlag.

Dittmann 2006 Bemerkungen zu Ur, Pit F, in: Dittmann—Faist--van Ess (Hrsg.), Festschrift für U. Finkbeiner, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37, 2006, 23-44

Dittmann 2007: Elam and Babylonia ─ two Neighbors in the Third Millenium, In: Bretschneider--Driessen ─ Van Lerberghe (Eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and the Aegean (Leuven et al) 45─72.

Dittmann 2009: Randnotizen zu den frühen Beziehungen Anatoliens, Altorientalische Forschungen 36/1, 3─15.

Dittmann 2010: ’ina ištarate ul ibašši kima šašu’. In: Shehata ─ Weiershäuser und Zand (Eds.), Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift Brigitte Groneberg, Cuneiform Monographs 41, 47─ 61.

Dittmann 2012: Multiple Sealed Hollow Balls. A fresh look at the Uruk System almost Thirty Years later, in: Baker―Kaniuth and Otto (Eds.), Stories of long ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf, AOAT 397 (Münster) 69─90.

Dittmann 2013: Glyptik and Patterns of Urbanization─a Humble Approach, in: Kämmerer─Rogge (Eds.), Patterns of Urban Societies, AOAT 390/. (Münster) 35─ 137.

Dittmann 2015: Genesis and changing Inventories of Neighberhood Shrines and Temples in the Diyala Region. From the Beginning of the Early Dynastic to the Initial Akkadian Period. In: Dittmam – Selz 2015 (Eds.), 71─127. .

Dittmann 2016: The Lifetime of Institutions as Reflected in the Glyptic, StudMes 3, 39─ 93

Dittmann 2017: The Hare has lost his Spectacles. Notes on: Contest Scenes. Early Occurrences in the Diyala, Ash─sharq 1.1, 162─169.

Dittmann 2017a: Approaches to the Early Dynastic Period(s). Elements for a Virtual Workshop. To appear in AVO.

Dittmann 2018, Notes on Pigtailed Women in the Glyptic of the Third Millennium B.C. In Kleber-Neumann, G., -Paulus (Eds.): Grenzüberschreitungen, Festschrift für Hans Neumann, dubsar 5, 163-185.

Dittmann 2022: The Dark Site of the Moon ─ Notes on the other (?)"Late Uruk/Ğmdat Nasr─Complex at Uruk. In: Feder ― Lohwasser― Schenke (Eds.), Sortieren-Edieren-Kreieren. Zwischen Handschriftenfunden und Universitätsalltag. Stephen L. Emmel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Aegyptiaca Monasteriensia Bd. 8 (Aachen) 213-232.

Dittman n.d: The “Big Man” of the Uruk─Period. Uniformity vs.

Diversification Some observations.

Dittmann n.d.here No. 5: Games People Play.

Dittmann, n.d. here No. 6: The Representation of Architecture in Glyptic from the Middle Uruk to the Earlier Part of the Early Dynastic Period─Reality or pure Guess Work?

Dittmann n.d. here No. 7: Alice in the Wonderland.

Dittmann n.d. here No. 8: A Spotlight on the Early Dynastic IIIB―Period in the Diyala.

Dittmann n.d. here No,9: Babylonia at the Turn from the Uruk to the older Part of the Early Dynastic period (A Quick One).

Dittmann n.d. here No. 10: materials for an alternative reading of the sequence of the excavations of the fu-berlin at assur, campaigns 1988-89.

Dittmann ― Larsen 1997: Eine altassyrische Siegelabrollung aus Assur (FU Berlin, Kampagne 1989). In: Waetzoldt ― Hauptmann (Eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten, Heidelberg Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6, 247─250

Dittmam – Selz 2015 (Eds.), It’s a long Way to a Histography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15 (Münster. Ugarit).

Dollfus 1971: Les fouilles à Djaffarabad de 1969 à 1971. CDAFI 1 : 17-161.

Dollfus 1973: Cachets en terre cuite de Djaffarabad et cachets apparentés. RA 67 : 1-19.

Dollfus 1975: Les fouilles de Djaffarabad de 1972 à 1974, Djaffarabad période I-II. CDAFI 5 : 1-205.

D+ollfus G. 1978: Djaffarabad, Djowi, Bendebal : Contribution à l’étude de la Susiane au Ve millénaire et au début du IVe millénaire. Paléorient 4 : 141-167.

Dollfus 1983a: Tépé Djowi, contrôle stratigraphique, 1975. CDAFI 13 : 17-132.

Dollfus 1983b: Tépé Bendebal, travaux 1977, 1978. CDAFI 13 : 133-275.

Dollfus 1985: Le Peuplement de la Susiane au cours du Ve Millénaire. Paléorient, 11(2), 11-20.

Driesch, van den 1993, Faunal Remains from Habuba Kabira in Syria. In: Buitenhuis ─ Clason (Ed.) Archaeozoology of the Near East (Leiden: Universal Book Services) 52─59.

Dumarçay 1984 ; L'architecture de Mundigak. Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient, 73, 47-66.

During-Caspers 1965 Further evidence for cultural relations between India, Baluchistan, and Iran and Mesopotamia in early dynastic times. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 24 (1/2), 53-56.

During-Caspers 1973, Harappan trade in the Arabian Gulf in the third millennium BC. In Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 3-20.

During-Caspers 1982: Sumerian Traders and Businessmen Residing in the Indus Valley Cities. Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 42, 341ss.

During-Caspers 1984: Sumerian trading communities residing in Harappan society. Frontiers of the Indus civilization, Wheeler commemoration volume, 363-370.

During-Caspers 1990:.multi-coloured birds of Meluhha. In Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 9-16.

During-Caspers 1994:. Non-Indus glyptics in a Harappan context. Iranica antiqua, 29, 83ss.

Durrani 1986: Rehman Dheri and the origins of Indus Civilization. (volume i: text. volume ii: appendices). Temple University.

Durrani 1988: Excavations in the Gomal Valley (Rehman Dheri Report No. 1). Ancient Pakistan, 6, 1-232.

Dyson R.H. Jr. 1965 – Problems in the relative chronology of Iran, 6000-2000 BC. In: Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology: 215-256. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd ed.).

Dyson 1966: Excavations on the Acropolis at Susa and Problems of Susa A, B and C (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).

Eichmann 2001: Die „leichte“ Bauweise der ‚archaischen Schichten’ von Uruk─Warka. In Boehmer ─ Maran (Eds.), Lux Orientis. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann (Rahden/ Westf.) 121─131.

Eichmann 2013: Frühe Grossarchitektur der Stadt Uruk, in: Crüsemann et al. 117─127.

Egami-Masuda 1962: The Excavation at Tall-i Bakun 1956. MARV DASHT I. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition Report 2 (Tokyo).

Egami-Sono 1962: The Excavation at Tall-i Gap 1959. MARV DASHT II. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition Report 3 (Tokyo)

Egami 1967: Excavations at two Prehistoric sites, Tepe Djarri A and B in the Marv Dasht Basin, in: Pope/Ackerman (Eds.), A Survey of Persian Art. From Prehistoric Times to the Present, Vol. XIV (London – New York) 2936ff.

Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977: Tal-i Jarri A: A Preliminary Report of the Excavations in Marv Dasht 1961 and 1971, ORIENT XIII, lff.

Emberling—Robb—Speth—Wright 2002: Kunji cave: early bronze age burials in Luristan. Iranica Antiqua, 37, 47-104

Emberling ― McDonald 2003: Excavations at Tell Brak 2001―2002:

Preliminary Report: Iraq, Vol. 65, 1―75.

Englund 1990: Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III─Fischerei, BBVO 10 (Berlin).

Englund 1998: Texts from the Late Uruk Period. In: Attinger ─ Wäfler (Eds), Mesopotamien. Späturuk─Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen 1, OBO 160/1(Göttingen) 15─233.

Evans 2005: Redefining the Sculpture of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. A Dissertation submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Doctor of Philosophy. Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, September 2005 (Unpublished, Courtesy of J. Evans).

Evans 2007: The Square Temple at Tell Asmar and the Construction of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, ca.2900─2350 B.C., AJA .Vol. 111, 599─632.

Evans 2011: Continuity and Adaption at the Beginning of Early Dynastic Dedicatory Sculpture Traditions.in: Miglus ─ Mühl (Eds.), Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium B.C., Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten, HSAO 14 (Heidelberg) 47─58.

Evans 2012: The Lives of Sumerian Sculpture, An Archaeology of the Early Dynastic Temple (Cambridge).

Fairservis 1956: Excavations in the Quetta valley, West- Pakistan. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 45/ 2, 169-402.

Fairservis, 1959. Archaeological surveys in the Zhob and Loralai districts, West Pakistan. Anthropological papers of the AMNH; v. 47, pt. 2.

Fairservis, 1975 The roots of ancient India. University of Chicago Press.

Fairservis 1986: Cattle and the Harappan chiefdoms of the Indus Valley. Expedition, 28 (2), 43.

Farmer- Sproat-Witzel, M. 2004:. The collapse of the Indus -script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization. Electronic journal of Vedic studies, 11(2), 19-57.

Falkenstein 1936: Archaische Texte aus Uruk/[1]. Archaische Texte aus Uruk.

Feder-Lohwasser-Schenke (Eds.) 2022: Sortieren-Edieren-Kreieren. Zwischen Handschriftenfunden und Universitätsalltag. Stephen L. Emmel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Aegyptiaca Monasteriensia Bd. 8 (Aachen) 213-232.

Frenez—Prabhakar—Bisht 2016: Administrative clay sealing technology from the Indus site of Dholavira (Gujarat, India). Preliminary observations. SAA. 4-8).

Feller 2013: Die Anfänge der Bürokratie. Funktion und Einsatz von Siegeln im 4. und 3. Jahrtausend v .Chr., in Crüsemann et al. 2013, 159─165.

Fentress 1976: Resource Access, Exchange Systems and Regional Interaction in the Indus Valley: an investigation of archaeological variation at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Department of Oriental Studies.

Ferioli-Fiandra-Tusa 1979: Stamp seals and the functional analysis of their sealings at Shahr-i Sokhta II-III (2700-2200 BC). SAA 1975, 7-26.

Fiandra 1975: Attivitá a Kish di un mercante di Lagash in epoca presargonica, Oriens Antiquus 20,165‒

Fiandra 1981: Ancora a proposito delle cretule di Festòs: connessione traI sistemi amministrativi centralizzati e l'uso delle cretule nell'età del bronzo. Istituto poligrafico dello Sndia, in: Röllig─Finkbeiner (Eds.) Ğamdat Nasr. Period or Regional Style? Beihefte z um TAVO B62 (Wiesbaden) 33─56.

Flam 1986: Recent Explorations in Sind: Paleogeography, Regional Ecology, and Prehistoric Settlement Patterns (ca. 4000-2000 B.C.). In J. Jacobson (Ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan (pp. 65-New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing

Forest 1983: Les pratiques funéraires en Mésopotamien du 5e millénaire au début du 3e , étude de cas (Paris)..

Forest 1984: 2nd season at Keith Qasim – Hamrin, Sumer 40, 64─67.

Forest 1987: La grande architecture obeidienne, sa forme et sa fonction. Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie, 385─423.

Forest 2011: Some Thoughts about the Scarlet Ware Culture, in: Miglus─Mühl (Eds.), Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the 3. to the 1. Millennium B.C. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14 (Heidelberg) 29–35.

Foster .2012: The Uruk Phenomenon: A View from the Househ old, in: Bradeley─Parker─Foster (Eds.), New Perspectives on Household Archaeology (Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake) 437─472.

Francfort 1989. Fouilles de Shortughaï: Recherches sur l'Asie Centrale Protohistorique, I-II. (Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française en Asie Centrale, 2. Paris.

Franke-Vogt 1991; Die Glyptik aus Mohenjo-Daro: Uniformität und Variabilität in der Induskultur: Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Ikonographie und räumlichen Verteilung.(in two vols.).(= Baghdader Forschungen, 13).

Frankfort 1932: Archeology and the Sumerian Problem, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 4 (Chicago).

Frankfort 1933: Tell Asmar, Khafaje and Khorsabad, OIC 16 (Chicago).

Frankfort 1934: Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute, Third Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition, OIC 17 (Chicago).

Frankfort 1935: with a chapter by Th. Jacobsen, Oriental Institute Discoveries in Iraq, 1933/34, Fourth Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition, OIC 19 (Chicago).

Frankfort 1939: Sculpture of the Third Millennium B.C. from Tell Asmar and Khafāgah, OIP XLIV(Chicago).

Frankfort 1939a: Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East (London. Macmillan and Co).

Frankfort 1943: More Sculpture of the Diyala Region, OIP LX (Chicago).

Frankfort 1955: Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region, Oriental Institute Publications Vol. 72 (Chicago).

Frankfort 1969: The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient [4](1969).

Frankfort–Jacobsen–Preusser 1932: Tell Asmar and Khafaje. The First Season’s Work in Eshnunna 1930/31, OIC 13 (Chicago).

Fujji 1986: in M.S. Damerji, Researchs on the Antiquities of Sadam Dam Basin. Salvages and other Researches, 44ff.

Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973: The Excavations at Tall-i Mushki. MARV DASHT III. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition Report 14 (Tokyo).


Ganjalin 1967: Raskopi v 1959-1961 gg. ne. Altyn-Tepe, SA 4, 207-219

Gasche 1973: La Potterie Elamite du Deuxieme Millenaire a.C. Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique en Iran XLVII, Brill and Geuthner, Leiden-paris

Gaur 2006: the Early and Mature Harappans. Early Harappans and Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, 1, 167.

Gautier─Lampre 1905: Fouilles de Moussian, MDP VIII, 59RA

Gelb 1970: Makkan and Meluḫḫa in early Mesopotamian sources.RA 64(1), 1-8.

Ghirshman 1938: Fouilles de Sialk: près de Kashan, 1933, 1934, 1937.

Gibson 1972. The City and area of Kish. Appendix by Robert McG. Adams. Edited by Henry Field and Edith M. Laird, pp. xiv, 316. Miami, Field Research Projects

Gibson, M. (1977). An Indus Valley Stamp Seal from Nippur, Iraq. Man and Environment, 1

Gibson et al. 1981: Üch Tepe 1 (Copenhagen)

Gibson 1982: A Re─Evaluation of the Akkad Period in the Diyala Region on the Basis of Recent Excavationsat Nippur and in the Hamrin, AJA 86, 531─538.

Gibson 1984: Pottery of the Himrin and the Diyala, Sumer 40, 93─94.

Gibson 2011: The Diyala Sequence: Flawed at Birth. In: Miglus ─ Mühl (Eds.), Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1 st Millennium B.C., HSAO 14 (Heidelberg) 59─84.

Gibson-Brinkman 1977:. Nippur Regional Project: Umm Al-Hafriyat. The Oriental Institute, 78, 20-26.

Gibson et al. 2002: Hamoukar, Eastern Terrace: a summary of three seasons of excavation.Akkadica 123/1, 1─11.

Gockel 1983: "Ur und Al─Ubaid. Akkadica 32, 32─52.

Goetze, A. (1961). Early kings of Kish. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 15 (3), 105-111.

Goff 1963: Excavations at Tall-i Nokhodi. IRAN I, 43ff.

Goff 1964: Excavations at Tall-I Nokhodi, 1962, IRAN II, 41ff.

Gopnik, -– Rothman 2011:. On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Bibliotheca Iranica. Archaeology, Art and Architecture Series 1. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers

Gopnik—Reichel—Minci—Elendarin 2016: A view from the east: The Godin VI Oval and the Uruk Sphere. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 7, 835-848.

Gotch 1968: A Survey of the Persepolis Plain and Shiraz Area, IRAN VI, 168ss.

Gotch1969: The Persepolis Plain Survey and Shiraz: Field Survey 2, IRAN VII, 190ss.

Gotch 1971: Bakun A5 Pottery. A History and Statement of Possibilities. Bulletin of the Asia Institute No.2, 73ss.

Goulder 2010: Administrators' Bread: an Experiment─based on a Re─assessment of the Functional and Cultural Role of the Uruk Bevel─rim Bowl. Antiquity 84. Jg., Nr. 324, 351─362.

Govindankutty--Caspers 1978: R. Thapar's Dravidian Hypothesis for the Locations of Meluhha, Dilmun Makan. JRSHO 21(1), 113-145.

Green 2010: Reconstructing operational sequences: A new methodology for the study of seal carving in the Indus civilization. Man and Environment, 35(2), 15-34.

Green 2015: Stamp Seals in the Political Economy of South Asia's Earliest Cities (Doctoral dissertation, New York University).

Green 2016: Finding Harappan seal carvers: An operational sequence approach to identifying people in the past. Journal of Archaeological Science, 72, 128-141.

Green--Nissen 1987: Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Archaische Texte aus Uruk 2), Berlin

Gropp – Nadjmabadi 1970: Bericht über eine Reise in West- und Südiran im Jahre 1969, AMI 3, 173ss.

Gupta 1978. Archaeology of Soviet Central Asia and the Indian Borderlands Vol. II, (From Mesolithic to Early Iron Age). New Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.

Gupta 1984: Internal trade of the Harappans. Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, 417ss.

Gupta 1996:.The Indus-Saraswati Civilization: Origins. Problems and Issues, 147ss.

Haerinck 1986: The iron age in Guilan. Proposal for a chronology. Bronzeworking centres of Western Asia c. 1000 - 539 B.C. [Colloquium, London]

Haerinck, E. (1987). The Chronology of Luristan, Pusht-i Kuh in the Early Bronze Age I (ca.3000 to ca. 600). Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie, 55-72.

Haerinck 2011: Painted pottery of the first half of the early bronze age (late 4(th): first centuries of the3rd millennium BC) in Luristan, W-Iran, IRANICA ANTIQUA. 46, 55-106 , 63-78.

Halim, M. A. (1972). Excavations at Sarai Khola, Part 2. P akistan Archaeology, 8, 1-112.

Hansen 1965: The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia II. The Pottery Sequence of Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the End of the Old-Babylonian Period (3400-1600 B.C.) in: R.W. Ehrich (Ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago) 201-213.

Hansen 1971: Some Early Dynastic I Sealings from Nippur, in: Mitten-Pedley-Scott (Eds

Hansen 1973: Al-Hiba, 1970 - 1971. A preliminary report. Artibus Asiae, 17, 62-70.

Hansen 1985: Frühsumerische und frühdynastische Rundplastik, in Orthmann, Der Alte Orient, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 18 (Propyläen) 158─170.

Hansen 1987: The Fantastic World of Sumerian Art: Seal Impressions ncient Lagash. Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval World. Papers presented in honor of Edith Porada (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern) 53─64.

Hansman 1972: Elamites, Achaemenians and Anshan. Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, 10. 101-125.

Hansman 1975: “An Achaemenian Stronghold,” in Hommages et Opera: Momentum H. S. Nyberg III, Acta Iranica 6, Leiden, 1975, pp. 289-309.

Harper 1961: The Senmurv, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin New Series, Vol. 20, No. 3, 95─101.

Hauser 1994: Chronologische und historisch-politische Untersuchungen zur östlichen Gazira in vorislamischer Zeit: Band I: Chronologie der Arsakidenzeit, die Grabungen der Freien Universität Berlin in Assur: Band II: Die östliche Ǧazira in vorislamischer Zeit, Siedlungsgeographie und historische Untersuchungen. (Diss. FU-Berlin unpublished).

Heimpel 1987: Das Untere Meer, ZA 77: 1-21

Heinz 1997: Der Stadtplan als Spiegel der Gesellschaft. Siedlungsstrukturen in Mesopotamien als Indikator für Formen wirtschaftlicher und gesellschaftlicher Organisation 26.

Heinz 2002: Bild und Macht in drei Kulturen; in: Heinz ─ Bonatz (Eds.), Bild ─ Macht ─ Geschichte. Visuelle Kommunikation im Alten Orient (Berlin) 71 ─ 95

Heil 2001: Early Dynastic Round Buildings in: Miglus─Mühl (Eds.) Between the Cultures. Central Tigris Region from 3 to the 1 Millennium B.C. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14 (Heidelberg) 37–45

Heinrich 1950: Die Stellung der Uruktempel in der Baugeschichte. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 49.1, 21─44.

Heinrich 1950a, Moderne arabische Gehöfte am unteren Euphrat und ihre Beziehungen zum Babylonischen Hofhaus, MDOG 82, 41ff.

Heinrich 1957: Bauwerke altsumerischer Bildkunst (Wiesbaden).

Heinrich 1982: Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im Alten Orient (Berlin).

Heinrich 1985: Architektur von der Früh─ bis zur Neusumerischen Zeit, in: Orthmann 1985, 131─158.

Helwing 2006: Recent archaeological research in Iran - Prehistory to Iron Age , AMIT 37, 189-246.

Helwing 2013: Ancient Iran and its neighbours : local developments and long- range interactions in the fourth millennium BC, British Institute of Persian Studies archaeological monographs series ; 3 (Oxford, Oakville).

Henrickson 1984: Šimaški and central western Iran. The archaeological evidence. ZA, 74, 98-113.

Henrickson, (E.F.) 1985: An updated chronology of the early and middle chalcolithic of the Central Zagros Highlands, Western Iran. Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, 23. 63-108.

Henrickson, R. C. (1986). A regional perspective on Godin III cultural development in central western

Iran. Iran, 24 (1), 1-55.

Herbordt 1992: Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8. ─7. Jh. v. Chr. State Archives of Assyria Studies I (Helsinki

Herman 1989: Rodji material culture. The Sorath Harappan ceramics, in: Posehl-Ravel (Eds)Harappan Civilization and Rodji, 55-156 (New Dehli)

Herzfeld 1932a: Iranische Denkmäler.

Herzfeld 1932b: Steinzeitlicher Hügel bei Persepolis.

Heuzey 1897:. La construction du roi our-nina d´apres les levés et les notes de M. de Sarzec, RA, 4 (4), 87-122.ole

Hole 1968: Evidence of social organization from Western Iran, 8000-4000 BC(academia.edu).

Hole 1987 (Ed.): The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Washington─London).

Hole-Flannery 1967: the prehistory of southwestern iran: a preliminary report, proceedings of the prehistoric society 33,147-206

Hole et al. 1969: Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran Plain an early village sequence from Khuzistan, Iran (Vol. 1). University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Anthropology and Archaeology.

Hole et al. 1977: Studies in the archeological history of the Deh Luran Plain: the excavation of Chagha Sefid (Vol.9). University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology.

Hole 1987 (Ed.): The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Washington─London).

Hole ohne Jahr: Cemetery or Mass Grave? Reflections on Susa I.

Hockmann 2010: Gräber und Grüfte in Assur. Von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., WVDOG 129 (Wiesbaden).

Hrouda 1970: Die Megaron─Bauten in Vorderasien.Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi (Ankara).

Hrouda 1971: Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien I (Beck 1971).

Huh 1999: Chogha Mish zur Urukzeit. Rekonstruktion der Stratigraphie. (Unpublizierte) Hausarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades der WWU (Münster).

Huh 2008: Studien zur Region Lagasch. Von der Ubaid─ bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit, AOAT 345 (Münster).

Ingholt, H. (1940). Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie:(1932-1938). Arkaeologisk-kunsthistoriske meddelelser, 3.

Jacobs, L. K., 1980, Darvazeh Tepe and the Iranian highlands in the second millennium B.C., University of Oregon, London.

Jacobs 2009, Grausame Hinrichtungen – friedliche Bilder. Zum Verhältnis der politischen Realität zu den Darstellungsszenarien der achämenidischen Kunst. In: Zimmermann (Hrsg.). Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild und Text des Altertums (Herbert Utz Verlag · München), 121─154.

Jacobsen, 1939:The Sumerian king list (Chicago)..

Jacobsen 1940: Inscriptions, in: Delougaz 1940, 146─150.

Jacobsen 1942: Inscriptions, in Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 289─298.

Jamison 2017: The organization of Indus unicorn seal production: A diachronic comparative study style, skill, and sociopolitical organization (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin--Madison).

Jans – Bretschneider n.d: The Glyptic of Tell Beydar: An Impression of the Sealing Evidence for an Early Dynastic Official Household, in: 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale.Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien, Münster, 17. ─21. Juli 2006, AOAT (in preparation).

Jans – Bretschneider 2011: Seals and Sealings of Tell Beydar/Nabada (Seasons 1995─2001), Subartu XXVII (Turnhout Brepols).

Jauss 2013: Keramiknutzung in der Herrschaft im späten 4. und frühen 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, in: Crüsemann et al. 2013, 139─145.

Jansen 1986; Die Indus-Zivilisation. Wiederentdeckung einer frühen Hochkultur,

Jansen 1979:. Architektur in der Harappakultur: eine. kritische Betrachtung zum umbauten Raum im Industal d. 3.-2. Jahrtsd (Vol. 2). Habelt

Jansen 1997: Ggrenzen und Stadt in der Indus-Zivilisation. In Jansen (Ed.), Beiträge der Interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Stadtkulturforschung 2,101-116.

Jarrige 1973: La fin de la civilisation harappéenne. Paléorient, 263-287.

Jarrige 1974-86: PA 10-22, 6ss.

Jarrige 1974: Nouvelles recherches archéologiques au Baluchistan. Les fouilles de Mehrgarh, Pakistan. Paléorient, 2 (2), 495-498.

Jarrige 1984─1986: Excavations at Mehrgarh – Nausharo, PA 10-22, 63-131.

Jarrige 1985 : Continuity and Change in the North Kachi Plain (Baluchistan, Pakistan). , SAA 14, 1-35.

Jarrige et al., 1987: PA 23, 149-203

C. Jarrige 1991:. The Terracotta Figurines from Mehrgarh. Forgotten Cities on the Indus: Early Civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to 2nd Millennium B.C., edited by Jansen -Mulloy-Urban, 87-93.

Jarrige1993a. The final phase of the Indus occupation at Nausharo and its connection with the following cultural complex of Mehrgarh VIII. In Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series B (Vol. 271, 295-313).

Jarrige 1993:. Activités du musée national des arts asiatiques-Guimet. Arts Asiatiques, 48(1), 136-148.

Jarrige 1996: les fouilles de Nausharo au Balochistan pakistanais et la contribution à l'étude de la civilisation de l'indus, comptes rendus des séances de l'académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres année 1996 140-3, 821-878

Jarrige 1997: Les Fouilles de Nausharo au Balochistan Pakistanais et leur Contribution a l'etude de la Civilisation de l'indus. In Comptes Rendus. (ed.) I’ academie des Inscriptions & Belles-Letteres 1996: 11-67.

Jarrige, C. 1997:. From Nausharo to Pirak: continuity and change in the Kachi/Bolan region from 3rd to 2nd millennium BC. In Allchin, B. and Allchin, F. R. (eds.), SAA 1995, Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, 11-32

Jarrige 2006: Mehrgarh Neolithic, Paper presented in the International Seminar on the "First Farmers in Global Perspective', Lucknow, India, 18-20 January.

Jarrige--LeChevalier 1979 : Excavations at Mehrgarh, Baluchistan: Their significance in the prehistorical context of the Indo-Pakistani borderlands. Istituto universitario orientale.

Jarrige-Tosi 1981: The natural sources of Mundigak: Some observations on the location of the site in relation to its economical space.SAA 1979: (Berlin) 115-142.

Jarrige-Hassan 1989: Funary Complexes in Baluchistan at the >End of the third Mlllennium in the light üf recent excavations at Quetta and Mehrgarh, SAA 1985, 159-166.

C.Jarrige et al. 1995: Mehrgarh Field Reports 1973-1985, from the Neolithic to the Indus Civilization (Karachi). Jarrige et al. 2011: Shahr-i Sokhta and the chronology of the Indo-Iranian regions. Paléorient, 7-34.

Jarrige 2013: Les relations archéologiques entre les régions au sud et au nord de l’Hindu Kush du V millénaire jusqu’au milieu du III millénaire avant notre ère à la lumière des données fournies par les sites de la région de Kachi-Bolan au Balochistan pakistanais, in: J. Bendezu- Sarmiento (Ed.), L'archólogie Francaise en Asie Central, Nouvel recherches et enjeux socioculturel, Cahiers de l'Asie Centrale 21/22, 41 ─ 68.

Jenkins 1994: Cemetery R37: New perspectives on style and chronology. From Sumer to Melhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of Sarch and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales Jr, 105-112.

Jéquier 1900: MDP 1, 103-116

Johnson (C.) 2013Late Uruk Bicameral Orthogrphies and their Early Dynastic Rezeptionsgeschichte, in: Dittmann ─ Selz ─ Rehm (Eds.), It's a Long Way to a Historiography of he Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15 (Ugarit Verlag. Münster) 169─210.

Johnson (G.A.) 1973: Local Exchange and Early State Development in southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers.

Johnson (G.A.) 1982: Organizational structure and scalar stress. Theory and explanation in archaeology : 389─421.

Johnson (G. A.) 1987: The Changing Organization of Uruk Administration on the Susiana, in: Hole (Ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran, 109─139.

Johnson (G. A). 1988─89: Late Uruk and Greater Mesopotamia: Expansion or Collapse? Origini 14, 595―613.

Joshi - Parpola 1987: Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. I. Collections in India. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennae. Series B. Vol. 239..

Kämmerer ─ S. Rogge 2013 (Eds.): Patterns of Urban Societies, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 390/2 (Münster)

Kantor 1976: The Prehistoric Cultures of Chogha Mish and Boneh Fazili, in The Memorial Volume the VIth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran, 1976, pp. 177-92.

Kantor 1984: The Ancestry of the Divine Boat (Sirsir) of Early Dynastic and Akkadian Glyptic, JNES 43, 227─280

Karg 1984: Untersuchungen zur älteren frühdynastischen Glyptik Babyloniens Aspekte regionaler Entwicklungen in der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends. Baghdader Forschungen Vol. 8. (von Zabern)

Kalyanaraman 2010: Response to Prof. Witzel’s critique of ‘The Bronze Age Writing System of Sarasvati Hieroglyphs’. Book reviews.

Keith 1998: Spindle Whorls, Gender, and Ethnicity at Late Chalcolithic Hacinebi Tepe, Journal of Field Archaeology 25.4, 497─515.

Kelly─Buccelati 1986 (Ed.): Insight through images: Studies in honor of EdithPorada,BiMes21,51─56.

Kennoyer 1991: The Indus Valley tradition of Pakistan and Western India, Journal of World Prehistory 5: 1-64.

Kenoyer 2001: Bead technologies at Harappa, 3300-1900 BC: a comparative summary. SAA 157-170.

Kenoyer 2006: Indus seals: An overview of iconography and style. Ancient Sindh Annual Reseach Journal, 9(1), 24-24.

Kenoyer 2006:a. The origin, context and function of the Indus script: Recent insights from Harappa In Proceedings of the Pre-symposium of RIHN and 7th ESCA Harvard-Kyoto Roundtable, 9-27.

Kenoyer2006b:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304826633_The_ Origin_Context_and_Funcion_of_the Indus_Script_Recent_Insights_from_Harappa

Kerner 1993: Vakilabad-Keramik, BVO 13 (Berlin).

Khan 1965: Preliminary Report on Kot Diji Excavations 1957-58. Karachi.

Khan--Knox-Thoms, K. D. (1989) 'New perspectives on early settlement in Bannu District, Pakistan. In SAA1985: 281–91.

Khan--Knox- Thomas 1997: Technology transfer and culture change: An example from Northwest Pakistan. SAA 1995, 1, 237-51.

Kharanghi-Fazili Nashli-Nishiaki 2013: Tepe Rahmatabad: A Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic site in Fars Province, in: Matthews-Fazeli Nashli (Eds.),The Neolithisation of Iran. The Formation of New Societies (Oxford-Oakville) 108-123.

Kharunaghi-Fazeli Nashli-Nishiaki 2014: The Second Season of Excavations at Tepe Rahmat Abad, Southwestern Iran, The absolute and relative Chonology, ANES 51, 1-2

Khosrowzadeh, A. (2015). The Chalcolithic Period in the Bakhtiari Highlands: Newly Found Sites of Farsan, Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari, Iran. Int. J. Soc. Iranian Archaeol., 32-53.

Kjærum 1983: Failaka, Dilmun/1, 1 The stamp and cylinder seals: plates and catalogue descriptions. Aarhus Univ. Press.

Kircho, L.B. 1988: The Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Southern Turkmenia on the Basis of Altyn-depe Materials, East and West 38, 33–64.

Knox – Pinch 2010: Urban Social Geography an Introduction (6. Edition ─ Pearson).

Kohl 1975: A Trade in Finished Commodities in the Third Millennium, Expedition 18/1, 18─34

Kohl 1985: Recent Research in Central Asia. American Antiquity, 50 (4), 789 -795.

Kohl 2009: The Maikop singularity: The unequal accumulation of wealth on the Bronze Age Eurasiansteppe. Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals, and Mobility (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 91─103.

Kohl ― Lyonnet 2007: Les Cultures du Caucase (VI e─IIIe millenaries avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche─Orient (Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations).

Kohlmeyer 1981:. "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann. Grenzen der Interpretation von bei Oberflächenbegehungen gewonnenen archäologischen Informationen.(Ce dont on ne peut pas parler. Limites de l'interprétation des informations recueillies par les explorations de surface). Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 113, 53─79.

Kohlmeyer 1996: Houses in Habuba Kabira─South. Spatial organization and planning of Late Uruk residential architecture. Houses and households in ancient Mesopotamia,: 89─103.

Kohlmeyer ─ Ludwig 2021: Die Stadt Habuba Kabira-Süd: Bauten und Gräber. WVDOG 159,

Kolbus 1982: Unter dem Schutt aus einem der ersten Handelskontore von Ur: wohin datiert der sog. Gemdet Nasr─Friedhof? (Sous les décombres de l'un des premiers comptoirs commerciaux d'Ur: où placer la date du cimetière dit de Djemdet─Nasr?). Akkadica 30, 1─11

Kolbus 1983: Zur Chronologie des sog. Ǧamdat Naṣr—Friedhofs in Ur. Iraq 45, 7─17.

Kolbus 1986: Ein EDV─gestützter Gliederungsvorschlag der Keramik─, Stein─und Metallgefässe aus den Schächten X und W des sog. Gemdet Nasr─Friedhofs von Ur, aus der Sicht eines Archäologen.BaM 17, 135─139

Korbel ─ Youzan 1979: Der sogenannte Gemdet─Nasr─Friedhof in Ur – Eine Keramikanalyse. BaM 10, 9─16.

Korbel 1984: Ein EDV─gestützter Gliederungsvorschlag der Keramik─, Stein─ und Metallgefässe aus den Schächten X und W des sogenannten Jemdet Nasr─Friedhofs von Ur (relative Chronologie). BaM 15, 1984, 35─86.

Kose 2013: Das Seleukidische Resch─Heiligtum. In: Crüsemann et al. (Eds.),, Uruk 5000 ─ Jahre Megacity. Begleitband zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung im Pergamon Museum zu Berlin (Imhof Verlag) 333─339.

Kozbe-Rothman20 05: Chronoloogy and function at Yarim Höyük, Part II, Anatolica 40, 110-140.

Krebernik 2013: Die frühe Keilschrift und ihr Verhältnis zur Sprache. In: Crüsemann et al. (Eds) 201,187─193.


Laird 1985: Linear─Style Cylinder Seals of the Akkadian to Post─AkkadianPeriods, A Dissertation in the Departnemet of Fine Arts (New York)

Lambrick 1975:sind before the muslim conquest.history of sind series, Vol. ii.

Lamprichs (unpublished): Assur 1988 und 1989. Die Keramik der Schicht III: Ein Katalog.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1970: Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran/1. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967- 1969; Progress report.

Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988: The intercultural style carved vessels, Iranica Antiqua XXIII, 45-49.

Lamberg-Karlovsky-Tosi 1973: Shahr-I Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau. E&W 23.2─3, 2lff.

Langsdorf-McCown 1942; Tall-i Bakun A. Season of 1932. OIP 59 (Chicago).

Langdon 1931: Pinches, T. G. (1931). A Sumerian Palace and the “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Part II. By Ernest Mackay, with a preface by Stephen Langdon. 13× 11, pp. 65–215, 42 plates, 1 map. Field Museum-Oxford University Joint Expedition. Bertold Laufer, Curator of Anthropology, Editor. Chicago, 1929. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 63 (4), 917-920.

Larsen (unpublished): Stratigraphie und Architekturbefunde der Kampagnen 1988-89. Die Ablagerungssequenzen in den Schichten III und II.

Lau 2012: Ein älter Frühdynastisches Siegel aus K XII/XIII, ZOA 5, 75─86. LeBeau 1983: Mari 2, 165ff,

LeBreton 1957: The early periods at Susa, Mesopotamian relations. Iraq, 19(2), 79-124.

LeBeau 1984: Notes sur les sceaux et empreintes de sceaux de Kheit Qasim, in: Sumer XL/1–2, 115–118

Le Brun 1971: Recherches stratigraphiques à l'Acropole de Suse (1969- 1971). CDAFI 1, 163-216.

Le Brun 1978c: Suse, Chantier „acrople 1“ Paléorient 4, 177ss..

Le Brun 1978b : La glyptique de la couche 18, DAFI 8, 216ss.

Le Brun 1978a: Le niveau 17B de l'Acropole de Suse (campagne de 1972). CDAFI 9, 57-154.

Le Brun 1980: Les écuelles grossières. État de la question. L’archéologie de l’Iraq: du début de l’époque néolithiquea, 333, 59-70.

Le Brun—Vallat 1978: L'origine de l'écriture à Suse. CDAFI 8, 11-59.

Le Brun 1999: Hacinebi et Suse. Paléorient, 25 (1), 139-140.

Le Brun 2020: Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia. The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age: Development of urbanisation, production and trade, 101ss.

Legrain 1936: Archaic Seal─Impressions, Ur Excavations Vol. III (London).

Lenzen 1955: Mesopotamische Tempelanlagen von der Frühzeit bis zum zweiten Jahrtausend. ZA 51.1, 1─36.

Lenzen 1965: Zwischenschicht zwischen Archaisch III und IV, UVB XXI, 13ss

Lloyd–Safar–Frankfort 1943: Tell Uqair: excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2.2, 131─158.

Mackay 1925:. Report on the excavation of the "A" cemetery at Kish, mesopotamia.. (Vol. 1). Field Museum of Natural History.

Mackay 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro (Delhi)

Mackay 1943: Chanhu-daro excavations, 1935-36 (Vol. 20). American School of Indic and Iranian Studies and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Mahadevan 1977: The Indus script: texts, concordance, and tables (Vol. 77). Archaeological Survey of India.

Mahadevan 2002: Aryan or Dravidian or Neither: A Study of Recent Attempts to Decipher the Indus Script.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies Vol. 8 ,

Mahadevan 2009: The Indus non-script is a non-issue.

Marshall, J. (1931). Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization, Vol .1- 3 (London),

Marchesi 2004: Who was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual data, Or. 73, 153─197.

Marchetti 2006: La Statuaria Regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica, Atti della Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, Serie IX, Vol. XXI/1 (Roma).

Marchesi─Marchetti 2011: Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, Mesopotamian Civilizations 14 (Winona Lake).

Mariani1989:The monumental area of Shahr-i Sokhta: notes from a surface reconnaissance. SAA 1985, 114-36.

Masson 1988:. Altyn-depe . UPenn Museum of Archaeology. (Vol. 55)

McGovern―Fleming― Katz (Eds.) 2003: The Origins and Ancient History of Wine: Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology (Routledge).

McCown 1942a, The Comparative. Stratigraphy of Early Iran, SAOC 23 (Chicago).

McCown1942b: The Material Culture of Early Iran, JNES 1, 424ss.

MacMahon 2006: Nippur V. The Early Dynastic to Accadian Transition. The Area WF Sounding at Nippur, OIP 129 (Chicago).

MacMahon 2009: The Lion, The King and the Cage: Late Chalcolithic Iconography and Ideology in Northern Mesopotamia, Iraq 71, 115─124.

MacMahon et al. 2011: Late Chalcolithic Mass Graves at Tell Brak, Syria, and Violent Conflict During the Growth of Early City─states. Journal of Field Archaeology 36.3, 201─220

Majidzadeh 1976: The early prehistoric cultures of the central plateau of iran: an archaeological history of its development during the fifth-and fourth-millennia bc (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago).

Majidzadeh 1981: Sialk III and the pottery sequence at Tepe Ghabristan: the coherence of the cultures of the Central Iranian Plateau. Iran, 19 (1), 141-146.

Majumdar 1934: Explorations in Sindh, MASI 48 (Dehli)

Martin 1988: Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak (Birmingham).

Martin─Matthews 1993: Seals and Sealings, in: Green (Ed.), The 6G Ash─Tip and its Contents: Cultic and Administrative Discard from a Temple? Abu Salabikh Excavations Vol. 4 (London) 23‒81.

Marzahn 2013:Keilschrift schreiben. In: Crüsemann et al. (Eds) 2014, 177─183.

Matthews 1993: Cities, Seals and Writing. Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur, Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Vol. 2 (Berlin).

Matthews (D) 1995: Twist in the Tale, in: Finkbeiner–Dittmann–Hauptmann (Eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer (Mainz) 385─388.

Matthews (D.)1997a: The Early Dynastic─Akkadian transition, Part 1. When did the Akkadian period begin? Iraq 59, 1─7.

Matthews (D) 1997b: The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak. Cylinder Seals of Third

Millenium Syria, OBO 15, Series Archaeologica (Fribourg─ Göttingen).

Matthews, R. 2013. The Power of Writing: Administrative activity at Godin Tepe, central Zagros, in the later 4th millennium bc. In Petrie, C. A. (ed.), Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 327–341.

Maul 1994: Zukunftsbewältigung, BaF 18 (Mainz).

Maul 2005: Altorientalische Trauerriten, in Assmann─Maciejewsky─Michaels: (Eds.), Der Abschied von den Totentrauerrituale im Kulturvergleich (Göttingen) 359ss.

Maxwell-Hyslop 1988: A Comment on the Finds from Khinaman. Iranica Antiqua, 23, 129.

Meadow-Kenoyer 2005: Excavations at Harappa 2000–2001: New insights on chronology and city organization SAA 2001, 207-225.

Meijer 2016: Mesopotamian Temple Roofing and Realism and Naturalism in Art. In: Kaelin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Harassowitz. Wiesbaden) 236─246.

Meyer, J. W. (1983). Excavations in Ville Royale I in Susa (Documents épigraphiques de la Ville Royale 1972 et 1975). In: CDAFI 11

Meyer ─ Vidale 2014: The “Man with Serpents” revisited. On a Figurated Pin from the Bronze Age Site of Shahdad (Kerman, Iran), Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 3.1, 1─9. de Mecquenem, de 1922: Fouilles de Suse: campagnes des années 1914-1921-1922. RA 19(3), 109-140.

Me,cquenem. 1924: Fouilles de Suse 1923-24, RA 21, 105ss.

Mecquenem, de 1927: Inventaire de Cachets et Cylindres, Suse 1925-1926, RAa 24.1, 7-21.

Mecquenem, de 1928: Notes sur la céramique peinte archaique en Perse. Tell de L´Acropole, MMAI 20, 100 ss.

Mecquenem, de 1934: Fouilles de Suse 1929–193de3. Acropole, Sondage-No. 1. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique de Perse, 25, 179.

Mecquenem, de 1934a: Fouilles de Suse 1929-33, Ville Royale Angle sud-ouest, MMAP 25, 206 ss.

Mecquenem, de 1934b: Fouilles de Suse 1929-33, 188ss.

Mecquenem, de 1943:Fouilles de Suse, 1933–1939. Memoires de la Mission Archeologique en Iran, Mission de Susiane, 29, 3-161.

Mecquenem, de 1943a: Donjon, MMAI 29, 70ss.

Mecquenem, de—LeBreton—Rutten 1947, Archéologie susienne. Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Iran.

Meriggi 1971: Zu den neuen Inschriften in proto-elamischer Prunkschrift. 28, 171-3.

Michel ― McGovern ― Baler 1993: The first Wine & Beer. Analytical Chemistry 65.8,: 408A―413A Chicago).

Miller 2005: A New Interpretation of the Stratigraphy at Chanhu-daro and the Jhukar Phase. In: SAA 2001: 253-256.

Miroschedji, de 1972 : Prospections archéologiques dans les vallées de Fasa et de Darab. Proceedings f the Annual Symposium on rchaeological Research in Iran (Teheran).

Miroschedji, de- 1973: : Vases et objets en stéatite susiens du Musée du Louvre. Association paleorient.

Miroschedji, de 1974: Tépé Jalyan, une nécropole du IIIe.millénaire av.J.c. du Fars oriental (Iran). Arts Asiatiques XXX, 19ff.

Miroschedji, de 1976: Un four de potier du IVe millenaire sur le Tell de l'Apadana. CDAFI 6, 13-45.

Mirsky 1977: Sir Aurel Stein, Archaeological Explorer. University of Chicago Press (London – Chicago).

Morgan, de 1900: travaux au tell de la citadelle, traveaux souterains, MDP 1, 81ss.

Morgan, de 1927: Préhistoire Orientale III (Paris).

Moorey 1979: Kish excavations 1923-1933: with a microfiche catalogue of the objects in Oxford excavated by the Oxford Field Museum, Chicago expedition to Kish in Iraq, 1923-1933. Clarendon.

Moorey 1985: Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: Evidence of Archaeology and Art, BAR Intern. Series 237 (Oxford).

Moorey 1994: Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries.The Archaeological Evidence (Winona)

Moortgat 1935: Frühe Bildkunst in Sumer, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch- Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 40.

Moortgat 1966: Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel (Berlin 1940; Nachdruck 1966).

Moortgat 1967: see 1982.

Moortgat 1982: Die Kunst des alten Mesopotamien. Die klassische Kunst Vorderasiens I. Sumer und Akkad (DuMont. Köln. Nachdruck of 1967).

Moortgat─Corrrens 1959: Bemerkungen zur Glyptik des Diyala─Gebietes, OLZ 54, 7/8, 242─254.

Moortgat─Correns 1989: La Mesopotamia (Turin. UTET).

Morandi Bonacossi 1996: Eine späturukzeitliche Figur des Mannes mit den Schlangen aus Elam, Baghdader Mitteilungen 27, 45─80.

Mughal 1971: The Early Harappan Period in the Greater Indus Valley and Northern Balochistan (ca. 3000-2400 (BC) Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, No.71-19, 263).

Mughal 1972: Excavations at Jalilpur, AP 8,117-34

Mughal 1972a: A Summary of Excavations and Explorations in Pakistan (1971 and 1972). Pakistan Archaeology, 8, 113-158.

Mughal 1974: New Evidence of the Early Harappan Culture from Jalilpur, Pakistan, Archaeology 27.2, 106-113.

Mughal 1981: New Archaeological Evidence from Bahawalpur. In : Dani (Ed.) Indus Civilization: New Perspectives (Islamabad) 33-41.

Mughal 1984: The Post-Harappan Phase in Bahawalpur distt., in: Lal-Gupta (Eds.) Frontires… Dehli, 499-503.

Mughal 1990: Further evidence of the early Harappan culture in the greater Indus Valley: 1990. SAAS 6 (1), 175-199.

Mughal 1992: Jhukar and the late Harappan Cultural Mosaic of the Greater Indus Valley. SAA 1989. 213-221.

Mughal 1994:The Harappan nomads of Cholistan. Living Traditions: Studies in the Ethnoarchaeology of South Asia, 53-68.

Mughal 2012: Cultural Continuity of the Indus Valley Civilization in Sindh, Southern Pakistan. Studie in Heritage of South Asia ed. by MH Bhuiyan.—Dhaka: Heritage Manag ement & Research, 230-237.

Mutin 2006: La Basket-Ware, une production céramique originale de la protohistoire des confins Indo-Iraniens, Paléorient 32.2, 175─18 3.

Mutin--Lamberg-Karlovsky-- Minc 2016: Investigating ceramic production during the Proto-Elamite period at Tepe Yahya, southeastern Iran: Journal of Archaeologica Science Reports /, 889-862.

Murdie 1969: Factorial Ecology of Metropolitan Toronto, 1951–1961 Resarch paper No. 116 Department of Geography, University of Chicago


Nagel 1959: Datierte Glyptik in frühdynastischer Zeit, Or Ns 28, 141─162.

Nagel 1961: Zum neuen Bild des vordynastischen Keramikums in Vorderasien I-IV, BJV 1 (Berlin) 1ff.

Nagel 1962: Frühe Tierwelt in Südwestasien. Z A 55, 169-236.

Nagel- 1964a: Die Bauern- und Stadtkulturen im vordynastischen Vorderasien (Berlin).

Nagel 1964: Djamdet Nasr Kulturen und frühdynastische Buntkeramiker, BBV 8.

Nashli---Fazeli--Hamid Reza Valipour--Azizi Kharanaghi 2013: The late chalcolithic and early bronze age in the Qazvin and Tehran plains: a chronological perspective." Ancient Iran and its neighbours. Local developments and long-range interactions in the fourth millennium BC. Institute of Persian Studies Archaeological Monographs Series 3 (2013): 107-129.

Nickerson 1983: Intrasite variability during the Kaftari period at Tal-e Malyan (Anshan), Iran. The Ohio State University

Nicolas 1981: Investigating an ancient suburb, Excavation at the TUV-Mound at Tal-e Malyan, Iran, Expedition 33/3,

Nishiaki 2010: A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Neolithic Settlement of Tall-I Mushki, Marv Dasht Plain, Fars, Iran, IRAN 48.1, 1-10.

Nishiaki 2010a: The Development of Architecture and Pottery at the Neolithic Settlement of Tall-I Jari B, Marv Dasht, Southwest Iran, AMIT 42, 113-127.

Nishiaki-Mashkour 2006: The Stratigraphy of the Neolithic Site of Jari B, Marv Dasht, Southwestern Iran, Orient Express 2006/3, 77-81.

Nishiaki-Kharanaghi-Abe 2013: The Late Aceramic Flaked Stone Assemblage from Tepe Rahmatabad, Fars, South-West Iran, IRAN 51, 1-6

Nissen 1966: Zur Datierung des Königsfriedhofes von Ur: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stratigraphie der Privatgräber. Beiträge zur ur-und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes, 3.

Nissen 1970: Grabung in den Quadraten K/L XII in Uruk-Warka.

Nissen, 1970a:The expedition to the Behbehan Region. The Oriental Institute Annual Report, 71, 9-12.

Nissen. 1974: Zur Frage de Arbeitsorganisation in Babylonien während der Späturukzeit, Acta Antiqua Hungarica XXII, 5─14.

Nissen 1977: Aspects of the Development of Early Cylinder Seals. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6, 15─24.

Nissen 1982: Linking distant areas (manuscript)

Nissen 1985: Problems of the Uruk─Period in Susiana, Viewed from Uruk., Paléorient 11/2, 39─40.

Nissen 1986a: Mesopotamia before 5000 years. Dipartimento di Science Storiche Archaeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichita. Sussidi Didattichi 1 (Università degli Studi di Roma – La Sapienza)).

Nissen 1986b: The development of writing and of glyptic art. n Finkbeiner- -Röllig.(Eds.) Gamdat Naṣr: period or regional style?

Nissen 1986c: The archaic texts from Uruk. World Archaeology, 17(3), 317-

Nissen 1988 The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000-2000 B.C. Chicago

Nissen 1999: Geschichte Alt─Vorderasiens. Grundriss der Geschichte 25 (München)

Nissen 2000: Die Bedeutung systemischer Lücken. Schlusskommentar zum internationalen Symposium zum 65. Geburtstag von Hans J. Nissen (Tübingen) 20 Seiten Manusscript.

Nissen 2002: Uruk: Key site of the Period and Key site of the problem. In: Postgate (Ed.), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Iraq Archaeological Reports 5, 1─16.

Nissen 2012: Geschichte Alt─Vorderasiens. 2. Vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (München).

Nissen 2013a: Anfänge und frühe Entwicklung der Stadt Uruk. In: Crüsemann et al. 2013, 107─113.

Nissen 2013b: Die Erfindung und frühe Nutzung des Mediums Schrift in Mesopotamien. In: Crüsemann et al. 2013, 169─173.

Nissen-Zagarell 1976: Expedition to the Zagros mountains, 1975. In Proceedings of the IVth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran (pp. 159-189). Tehran: The Iranian Center for Archaeological Research.

Nissen-Damerow-Englund 1990: Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient: Informationsspeicherung und-verarbeitung vor 5000 Jahren;[die Ausstellung... findet statt im Museum für Vor-und Frühgeschichte, Berlin-Charlottenburg, vom 16. Mai bis 29. Juli 1990. Franzbecker.

Nissen 2015: Die Ältere Frühdynastische Zeit Als Forschungsproblem. In: Dittmann ─ Selz ─ Rehm (Eds.), It's a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15 (Ugarit Verlag. Münster) 1─31.

Nissen 2016: Uruk: Early Administration and the Development of Proto─Cuneiform Writing Archéo─Nil 26, 33─48.

Nunn 1985: Die Wandmalereifragmente aus Uruk─Warka, BaM 16, 7─16.

Oates (D. & J.) 1993: Excavations at Tell Brak 1992─93, Iraq LV, 155─271.

Oates (J.)1993: Trade and Power in the Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC: New Evidence from Northern Mesopotamia, World Archaeology 24, 403─422.

Oates (J.) 1994: A Stratigraphic Summary, Iraq 56, 167─76.

Oguchi 1997: A reassessment of the distribution of Khabur Ware: an approach from an aspect of its main phase. al-Rāfidān 18.

Oguchi 2006: The Date of the Beginning of Khabur Ware Period 3: Evidence from the Palace of Qarni-Lim at Tell Leilan. Journal of Western Asiatic Studies Al-Rafidan, 27, 45-58

Orthmann 1985: Der Alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 18 (Berlin).

Otto 2010: The Iconography and Use of the Ur SIS 8─4 Seals Reconsidered, in: Šašková―Pecha―Charvát (Eds.), Shepherds of the Black─eaded People: The Royal Office vis─à─vis Godhead in Ancient Mesopotamia (Plzeň) 19―28.

Palmisano 2012: Diachronic and Spatial Distribution of Khabur Ware in the Early Second Millennium BC. Journal of Open Archaeology Dat a,

Pande in Possehl 1979.

Parpola 1987: Copper tablets from Mohenjo-daro and the study of the Indus script. Intercultural relations etween South and Southwest Asia: Studies in commemoration of ECL During Caspers (1934-1996), 132-139.

Parpola, A. (2007). Human sacrifice in India in Vedic times and before. In The strange world of human sacrifice, 157-177.

Parpola--Parpola, A.--Brunswig 1977: The Meluḫḫa village: evidence of acculturation of harappan traders in late Third Millennium Mesopotamia?. JESHO, 129-165.

Parpola—Pande—Koskikallio 2010: Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions: Volume 3 New material, untraced objects, and collections outside India and Pakistan, Part 1: Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. Suomalainen tiedeakatemia.

Pedde 1993: Keramik aus Nord-Belutschistan: die Sammlungen Noetling und Henckmann im Museum für Indische Kunst, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Vol. 1). Reimer.

Pedde 1993a: Pottery from Northern Baluchistan–The Noetling Collection in the Museum of IndianArt, Berlin. SAA, 1991, 215-230.

Peeters—Parpola 2007: Human sacrifice in India in Vedic times and before. In The strange world of human sacrifice, 57-177.

Petrie-Weeks-Potts-Roustaei 2009: Chapter 7. Perspectives on the Cultural Sequence of Mamasani, in: Potts-Roustaei-Alamdari-Petrie (Eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One, BAR International Series, 173–174

Pézard 1914:. Fouilles à Bender-Bouchir (Golfe persique). Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 58(1), 28-28.

Pfälzner 1995: Mittanische und Mittelassyrische Keramik. Eine chronologische, funktionale und produktionsökonomische Analyse (Reimer Verlag).

Pinnock 2013: “Go, pace out the Walls of Uruk”. Ideology and Reality of City Walls in pre─clasical Mesoüotamia. In: Baartoloni─Michetti (Eds.): Mura di legno, murra die terre, murra die pietra: fotrtificazioni dell’ Medoterraneo antico, Szienze dell’Antichità 19 (Roma) 157─167.

Pittman 1994: The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style. The Structure and Function of an Image System in the Administration of Protoliterate Mesopotamia. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 16 (Berlin)

Pittman 1997: The Administrative Function of Glyptic Art in Proto─Elamite Iran: a Survey of the evidence. In: Gyselen (Ed.): Sceaux d’Orient et leur emplois. Res Orientalis 10.(Bures─sur─Yvette), 133‒161.

Pittman 1999: Administrative Evidence from Hacinebi Tepe: An Essay on the Local and the Colonial, Paléorient 25/1, 43─50.

Pittman 2001: Mesopotamian Intra–regional Relations Reflected through Glyptic Evidence in the Late Chalcolithic 1‒5 Periods. In: Rothman (Ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors. Cross─cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation (Santa Fe―Oxford) 403―443.

Pittman 2003: Proto─Elamite Glyptic Art from Oped(Ed.), Malyan Excavations Report III: Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan. Excavations at Tal─e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. Vol. 3 (UPenn Museum of Archaeology) 107─108

Pittman, H. (2013). Seals and sealings in the Sumerian world. In The Sumerian World. 343-366 Routledge.

Pollock 1985: Chronology of the Royal Cemetery of Ur, Iraq XLVII, 129─58.

Pollock 1992: Beaucrats and managers, peasants and pastoralists, imperialists and traders: Research on the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods in Mesopotamia. Journal of World Prehistory 6.3, 297─336.

Pollock 1999: Ancient Mesopotamia, The Eden that never was (Cambridge).

Pollock, 2010. "Radiocarbon Dates", in Pollock. Political economy and archaeological practice in the middle east. Controlling the past, owning the future: The political uses of archaeology in the Middle East, 196ss.

Pollock et al. 2010: The 2003 excavations at Tol-e Basi, Iran, Archäologie in Iran und Turan 10 (Mainz),

Pollock 2013: Differenzierung und Klassifizierung in Gesellschaften des 4. und 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.. In: Crüsemann et al. 2013, 149─155.

Pollock 2018: The Animals from Tepe Sohz, in: Kaniuth--Lau--Wicke (Eds,) Übergangszeiten, Altorientalische Studien für Reinhard Dittmann anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags, marru 1, 25-38.

Pongratz─Leisten 1988: Keramik der Frühdynastischen Zeit aus den Grabungen in Uruk─Warka, BaM 19, 177─319.

Porada 1965: the relative chronology of Mesopotamia… In: Ehrich, Chonologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago.London) 133ss.

Porda et al. 1992: The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000─1600 B.C. In: Ehrich, Chonologies in Old World Archaeology ([3]Chicago –London) Vol. I, 77─121 and Vol. II, 90─124.

Possehl 1979: Ancient Cities of the Indus (New Dehli)

Possehl 980: Indus civilization in Saurashtra. Indian Archaeological Societfy [by] BR Publishing Corporation.

Possehl, 1989 (Ed.): Radiocarbon dates for South Asiadiversity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Possehl 1999:. Indus Age: the beginnings. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Postgate 2002 (Ed.): Artefacts of Complexity.Tracking the Uruk in the Ancient Near East. Iraq Aechaeological Reports 5 (Warminster).

Potts 1980: Tradition and Transformation: Tepe Yahya and the Iranian Plateau During the Third Millennium BC. (Ph. D. -Thesis, Harvard University).

Potts 1984: On salt and salt gathering in Ancient Mespdconomic and Social History of the Orient/Journal de l'histoire economique et sociale de l'Orient, 225─271.

Potts 1990: The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity .I-II

Potts 1997: Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations (London).

Potts 2009: Bevel-rim bowls and bakeries: evidence and explanations from Iran and the Indo-Iranian borderlands. JCS, 61 (1), 1-23.

Potts et al, 2009: (Eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One, BAR International Series 2044 (Oxford 2009).

Pottier 1912: Etude historique et chronologique sur les vases peints de l'Acropole de Suse.

Pottier 1937: Recueil Edmond Pottier. Études d'art et d'archéddes Études Grecques, 51 (240), 294-295.

Pottier1984: Materiel funeraire de la Bactriane meridionale de l' age du bronze (Paris).

Prickett 1986:Man, land, and water:settlement distribution and the development of irrigation agriculturein the upper rud-i Gushk drainage, southeastern Iran.(volumes i-iii). Harvard University.

Quivron 1994: The Pottery Sequence from 2700-2400 B.C. at Nausharo, Baluchistan, SAA 1993, 629-647.

Quivron 2000: The evolution of the Mature Indus pottery style in the light of the excavations at Nausharo, Pakistan. East and West, 50(1/4), 147-190

Quivron 2008: New Light on the Kulli-Culture, SAA 1999, 47-59.

Radner 2008: Lapislazuli, Glas und Gold. In: Bohn et al. (Eds.), Fernhandel in Antike und Mittelalter (Darmstadt) 9―27

Rao, S. R., & Rao, C. R. 1973: Lothal and the Indus civilization. New York: Asia Publishing House.

Rao, S. R. :. Lothal/2. Lothal a Harappan port town;(1955-62).

Ratnagar 1982: The location of Harappa.in: Possehl, Gregory L., Harappan Civilization, Delhi, Oxford and IBH, 261-264.

Rashad 1990: Die Entwicklung der vor─ und frühgeschichtlichen Stempelsiegel in Iran. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 13.

Reade 1979: Early etched beads and the Indus-Mesopotamia trade. British Museum, Dept. of West Asiatic Antiquities.

Reade 2001: Assyrian King─Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins, JNES 60.1, 1─29.

Reade 2002: Early Monuments in Gulf Stone at the British Museum, Observations on some Gudea Statues and the Location of Agade, ZA 92, 258─95.

Reichelt 2009: Hamoukar: 2008―2009 Annual Report. Oriental Institute.

Renger 1984: Zur Inschrift Mesannepadda , ZA 78, 175─176.

Renette 2015: Painted Pottery from Al-Hiba: Godin Tepe III Chronology and Interactions between Ancient Lagash and Elam. Iran, 53 (1), 49-63.

Röllig─Finkbeiner (Eds.) Ğamdat Nasr. Period or Regional Style? Beihefte zum TAVO B62 Wiesbaden) 33─56.

Rohn 2011 : Beschriftete mesopotamische Siegel der Frühdynastischen und der Akkad─Zeit, OBO 32, Series Archaeologica (Friburg – Göttingen).

Romano 2015: Holding the Cup: Evolution of Symposium and Banquet Scenes in the Early Dynastic Period. In: Dittmann ─ Rehm ─ Selz (Eds.), It’s a long way to a Histography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15, 189―301

Rothman et al. 1998: Yarim Höyük and the Uruk expansion (Part 1) Anatolica 24, 65-99.

Rothman 2001 (Ed.): Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbours. Cross─Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation (Santa Fe ─ Oxford).

Rothman 2013:. Interpreting the role of Godin Tepe in the “Uruk expansion”. Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Longrange Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC, Oxbow Books, 75-91.

Rova 1994: Ricerche sui sigilli a cilindro Vicino─Orientali del period di Uruk/Jemdet Nasr, Orientis Antiqui Collectio XX (Roma).

Rubio 2001: Inanna and Dumuzi. A Sumerian Love Story, JAOS 121.2, 268─274.

Safar 1949: The identification of Dudu. Sumer, 5, 133-135.

Sallaberger 2004: Relative Chronologie von der späten frühdynastischen bis zur alt­babylonischen Zeit. In: Meyer ─ Sommerfeld (Eds.), 2000 v. Chr. Politische, Wirtschaftliche und Kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. CDOG 3 (Saarbrücken) 15─43.

Sallaberger 201: The City and the Palace at Aarchaic Ur. In: Šašková ─ Pech ─ Charvát (Eds.), Shepherds of the Black─headed People – The Royal Office Vis─à─vis Godhead in Ancient Mesopotamia (Plzeň) 31─3

Sallaberger ─ Schrakamp 2015: History and Philology, Arcane III (Brespols. Turnhout).

Salvatori--Tosi 2005: The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. BAR International

Salvatori—Vidale 1997: Shahr-i Sokhta, 1975-1978: Central Quarters Excavations: Preliminary Report. Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente. Series. 1806

Santoni 1984: Sibri and the South Cemetery of Sibri and the South Cemetery of Mehrgarh: Third Millennium Connections between the Northern Kachi Plain (Pakistan) and Central Asia”, in SAA 1984: 52ss.

Santoni1989: Known to have been a locus of intensive pottery production beginning at least as early as the fourth millenium. In S AA 1985 (Vol. 4, p. 176ss). Routledge.

Santoni 1989a: Potters and pottery at Merhgarh during the third millennium B.C. (Periods VI and VII) SAA 1985, 176-185.

Scheil 1925: Un nouveau sceau hindou pseudo-sumérien. RA.

Scheil 1935: Textes de comptabilité Proto-Elamites, MMAP 26.

Schippmann 1970: Notizen zu eine Reise in den Bakhtiaribergen. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 3, 231-237.

Schmid, H. 1992: Zur Inneren Organisation früher Mesopotamischer Palastbauten, in: Hrouda ─ Kleiss ─ Spanoz (Eds.), Von Uruk nach Tuttul, Festschrift Eva Strommenger (Mün chen) 185─192.

Schmidt, J. 2002: Zum Realitätscharakter der sumerischen Baukunst in der Frühsumerischen Sakralarchitektur, BaM 33, 45─88.

Schmidt, E. F. 1933: Tepe Hissar Excavations, 1931 (Vol. 23). University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Schmidt, E. F. 1939: Tall-i Bakun. The Tresury of Persepolis and Other Discoveries in the Homeland of the Achaemenians, 121-129.

Schneider 1987: Natur und Kunst im Mittelalter. In: Busch (Ed.), Funkkolleg Kunst II (München – Zürich) 619–648.

Scheil, V. (1916). Cylindres et légendes inédits (avec trois planches).

Scheil 1923: Textes de comptabilité proto-élamites.(Vol. 17). E. Leroux.

Schrakamp 2015: UruKAgina und die Geschichte von Lagaš am Ende der Präsargonischen Zeit. In: Dittmann ─ Rehm ─ Selz (Eds.), It’s a long way to a Histography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15, 303─386.

Schuster─Brandis 2008: Steine als Schutz─ und Heilmittel.Untersuchung zur Verwendung in der Beschwörkunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr., AOAT 46 (Münster).

Schwartz―Hollander─ Stein 1999: Reconstructing Mesopotamian Exchange Networks in the 4th Millennium BC: Geochemical and Archaeological Analyses of Bitumen Artifacts from Hacinebi Tepe, Turkey. Paléorient 37, 67─82.

Scott 2005: Figure, Symbol, and Sign: Semiotics and Function of Early Dynastic I Cylinder Seal Imagery from Ur (Ann Arbor UMI 3179810.

Seeher 2005: Bohren wie die Hethiter: Rekonstruktion von Bohrmaschinen der Spätbronzezeit und Beispiele ihrer Verwendung. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 55, 17─36.

Seeher 2007: A mudbrick city wall at Hattusa: diary of a reconstruction.

Selz 1995: Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš, OPSNKF 13 (Philadelphia).

Selz 2005: Sumerer und Akkader. Geschichte, Gesellschaft, Kultur (Beck).

Selz. 2013: Dumuzi (d) s Wiederkehr? In: Sassmannshausen (Ed.), He has opened Nisaba's House of Learning. (Brill) 201─215.

Selz 2016: Raum, Raumordnung und sozio─politische Identitäten im frühen Mesopotamien. In: Schmidt ─ Hoffner ─ Ambos ─ Eich (Eds.), Raum─Ordnung, Rum und soziopolitische Ordnungen im Altertum (Winter, Heidelberg) 301─323.

Selz – Niedermayer 2015: The Burials after the Battle. Combining Textual and Visual Evidence. In: Dittmann ─ Rehm ― Selz (Eds.), It’s a long way to a Histography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15, 189―301.

Selz (Gudrun 1983): Die Bankettszene: Entwicklung eines überzeitlichen Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien Von der frühdynastischen bis zur Akkad─Zeit. Vol. 1―2.

Seminara 2015: Die Rede des Königs. Die sogenannten 'Reformtexte' UruKAginas zwischen Politik und Theologie. In: Dittmann ─ Rehm ― Selz (Eds.), It’s a long way to a Histography of the Early Dynastic Period(s), AVO 15, 405─431.

Seresti-Tashvigh 2016: Central Plateau of Iran: the Transition from Sialk III6- 7 to Sialk IV1 (3700-3400 BC), International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 2 (4), 15-25

Shaffer 1978: Prehistoric Baluchistan. BR Publishing Corporation.

Shah---Parpola 1991: Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 2. Collections In Pakistan. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series B. Vol. 240.( Suomalainen tiedeakatemia).

Sharma 1982: Harappan complex on the Sutlej (India). Harappan Civilization: a contemporary perspective, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing co., and AIIS, 141-184.

Sinclair 2012: Color Symbolism in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Planet Online Journal.

Smith 1976 I: Regional Economic Systems. Linking Geographical Models and Socioeconomic Problems. Regional Analysis I: Economic Systems (Academic Press) 3ss.

Smith 1976 II: Exchange Systems and the Spatial Distrdganisation of Stratification In Agrarien Societies. Regional Analysis II (Academic Press) 309s.

Sollberger 1957: From the Tablets of Sumer. Twenty-five Firsts in Man's Recorded History.

Sommerfeld 1999: Die Texte der Akkade─Zeit, 1. Das Dijala Gebiet: Tutub, IMGULA 3/1 (Münster).

Sommerfeld 2004: Die inschriftliche Überlieferung des 3. Jahrtausends aus Tutub. In: Waetzoldt (Ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück, Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato, HSAO 9 (Heidelberg), 285─292.

Sommerfeld 2011: Sommerfeld, Geschichte des Dijala─Gebietes in der Akkade─Zeit. In: Miglus –Mühl (Eds.), Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC, HSAO 14 (Heidelberg) 85─96.

Steible ─ Behrens 1982; Die altsumerischen Bau─ und Weihinschriften, Teil II: Kommentar zu den Inschriften aus ‚Lagaš’, Inschriften außerhalb von ‚Lagaš’, FAOS 5/II Wiesbaden).

Stein1928: Innermost Asia: detailed report of explorations in Central Asia, Kansu and Eastern Iran, 4 vols.

Stein 1929: On Alexander's Track to the Indus. Camebrsige University Press (2014)

Stein 1936: An archaeological tour in the Ancient Persis. Iraq, 3(2), 111-225.

Stein 1999: Material Culture and Social Identity: the Evidence for a 4 TH Millennium BC Mesopotamian Uruk Colony at Hacinebi, Turkey, Paléorient Vol. 25.1, 11─22.

Steinkeller 2002a: Archaic City Seals and the Questidty. In: Tzvi Abusch (Ed.),Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Estern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (Winona Lake) 1―12.

Steinkeller 2002b: More on the Archaic City Seals. NABU 2002, 29―30.

Steinkeller 2003: An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List. In:

Sallaberger ─ Volk ─ Zgoll (Eds.),Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien, Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, Orientalia

Stève-Gasche 1971: L’acropole de Suse MDAI

Stève - Gasche - De Meyer - Amiet 1980: La Susiane au IIe millénaire: à propos d'une interprétation des fouilles de Suse. Iranica Antiqua,

Strommenger 1960: Das Menschenbild in der altmesopotamischen Rundplastik von MHammurapi, BaM 1, 1─103.

Strommenger 1980: Habuba Kabira Biblica et Christina 14 (Wiesbaden) 267─92.

Strommenger Stadt vor 5000 Jahren. 12. Sendschrift der Deutschen Orient─Gesellschaft (Mainz).

Strommenger 2008: Netzrock und Wolle oder die Macht der Qud98, 1─11.

Strommenger─Hirmer 1962: Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien. Die Kunst von den Anfängen um 5000v.Chr. bis zu Alexander den Großen (Hirmer.München).

Strommenger—Heinrich 1970: Kleinfunde. Zweiter vorlaufiger Bericht… in Habuba Kabira und in Mumbaqat, MDOG 102, 61-71.

Strommenger ─Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014: Die Kleinfunde von Habuba Kabira─Süd, WVDOG 141

Stronach 1961: Excavations at Ras al ‘Amiya. Iraq, 23(1-2), 95-137.

Sumner 1972: Cultural Development in the Kur River Basin. An Archaeological Analysis of Settlement Patterns (Ann Arbor).

Sumner 1974: Excavations at Tall-I Malyan 1971-72, Iran 12, 155ss.

Sumner 1976: Excavations at Tall-i Malyan (Anshan) 1974. Iran, 14 (1), 103- 115.

Sumner 1977: Early settlements in Fars Province, Iran BiMes 7, 291ss.

Sumner 1977b: Early settlements in Fars province, Iran. Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Undena Publication, Malibu, 291-305.

Sumner 1985: The Proto-Elamite City Wall at Tall-I Malyan, Iran XIII, 153ss.

Sumner 1988: Prelude to Proto-Elamite Anshan: the Lapui Phase, Iranica Antiqua XXIII.

Sumner 1989: Anshan in the Kaftari phase: patterns of settlement and land use.

Sürenhagen 1978: Keramikproduktion in Ḥabūba Kabira-Süd:

Untersuchungen zur Keramikproduktion innerhalb der Spät- Urukzeitlichen Siedlung Ḥabūba Kabira-Süd in Nordsyrie n. Hessling.

Sürenhagen-Töpperwein 1973: Heinrich,., Strommenger, Frank, Ludwi

Sürenhagen-Töpperwein-Rhode (1973). Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln des Stiftung Volksmagenwerk in Habuba Kabira (Hububa Kabira, Herbstkampagnen 1971 und 1972 sowie Testgrabung Frühjahr 1973) und in Mumbaqat (Tell Munbaqa, Herbskampagne 1971) unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet von Mitgliedern der Mission. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 105, 5-68.

Sürenhagen 1980: Die Frühdynastisch I─zeitliche Nekropole von Tall Ahmad al─Hattu. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient─Gesellschaft im Hamrin─Becken, Paléorient 6, 229─231.

Sürenhagen 1986: Archaische Keramik aus Uruk-Warka: Erster Teil: Die Keramik der Schichten XVI -VI aus den Sondagen" Tiefschnitt" und" Sägegraben" in Eanna. Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Sürenhagen 1987: Archaische Keramik aus Uruk-Warka: Zweiter Teil Keramik der Schicht V aus dem " Sägegraben";" Keramik der Schichten VII bis II" in Eanna; die registrierte Keramik aus den Sondagen O XI-XII und KL XII-XIII; Keramik von der Anu-Zikkurrat in K XVII. Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Sürenhagen1999: Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie Babyloniens und angrenzender Gebiete von der ausgehenden ʿUbaidzeit bis zum Beginn der Frühdynastisch-II-Zeit.

Sürenhagen 2011: Urban Centers and Rural Sites in the Diyala Region During Early Dynastic I and II. In: Miglus ─ Mühl (Eds.), Between the Culturess. The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC. HSAO 14, 5─29.

Suter 2014: Human, Divine or Both? The Uruk vase and the problem of Ambiguity in Early Mesopotamian visual arts, in: Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (Berlin) 545-568.

Thapar, R. (1975). A Possible Identification of Meluhha, Dilmun and Makan*. JESHO 18 (1), 1-42.

Tsuneki-Zeidi-Ohnuma 2007 : Proto-neolithic caves in the Bolaghi Valley, South Iran, Iran 45, 1-22

Tsuneki 2013, Proto-Neolithic caves and Neolithisation in the southern Zagros, in: Matthews-Fazeli Nashli (Eds.),The Neolithisation of Iran. The Formation of New Societies (Oxford-Oakville) 84-96

Tunca 1984: L‘architecture religieuse protodynastique en Mésopotamie, Akkadica Supplementum II (Leuven).

Uesugi 2013: A note on the diachronic changes of Harappan pottery-a preliminary analysis. Heritage Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, 1, 356-371.

Uesugi-Jamison-Dangi-Nakayama 2016: A Study on the Stylistic and Technological Aspects of Indus Seals with a Focus on an Example from Bhirrana. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, 4, 1-17.

Urban - Ardeleanu-Jansen 1987: Vergessene Städte am Indus: frühe KulturePakistan vom 8.-2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.;[Aachen, Krönungssaal im Rathaus, 27. Juni bis 6. September 1987; von Zabern.

Vallat 1971: Les documents épigraphiques de l´acropole, CDAFI 1.

Vallat 1978: L'origine de l'ecriture a Suse", CDAFI 8: ll--60.

Vallat 1980:, Suse et l’Élam, Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, Mémoire 1, Paris, 1980.

Vallet 1998: L’urbanisme colonial urukien, l’exemple de Djebel Aruda. In: Pascal Butterlin (Ed.), Les espaces syro─mésopotamien dimensions de l'expérience humaine au Proche─Orient ancient. Volume d'hommage offert à Jean─Claude Margueron, Subartu Vol.4/1, 53─88.

Vanden-Berghe 1951-52: Archaeologische Opzoekingen in de Marv Dasht Vlakte (Iran). JEOL. 12, 2lss.

Vanden-Berghe 1952 : Les ateliers de la céramique peinte chalcolithique en Iran Sud-Ouest. Revue Archeologique XXXIX, lss. - 1954a : Archaeologische Navorsingen in de Omstreken van Persepolis. JEOL.13, 194ss. - 1954b : De beschilderte ceramiek in Voor Azie. Van oudste tijden tot + 2000 voor onze jaartelling tweede dell: Iran. Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenes XV, 5ss.

Vanden Berghe 1968: 968a, La Nécropole de Bani Surmah. Aurore d’une civilisation du bronze Archeologia 24, 53-63.

Vanden Berghe 1970: La nécropole de Kalleh Nisar, Archeologia 32, 64-73.

Vanden Berge 1972: Recherches archéologiques dans le Luristan. Cinquième campagne: 1969. Prospections dans le Pusht-i Kuh central (Rapport préliminaire). Iranica Antiqua, 9, 1ss.

Vanden Berghe 1973: Recherches archéologiques dans le Luristan. Sixième campagne: 1970. Fouilles à Bard-i Bal et à Pa-yi Kal. Prospections dans le district d'Aivan (rapport préliminaire). Iranica Antiqua, 10, 1.

Van Driel 1982: Tablets from Jebel Aruda. ZIKIR SUMIM. Assyriological Studies Presented to FR Kraus. 12─25.

Van Driel 1983: Seals and Sealings from Jebel Aruda 1974─1978, Akkadica Vol. 33, 34―62.

Van Driel 2002: Jebel Aruda: Variations on a Late Uruk Domestic Theme. In: Postgate (Ed.), 191―205..

Van Driel ─ van Driel─Murray 1983: Jebel Aruda, the 1982 Season of Excavation, Interim Report (1), Akkadica 33, 1─36.

Van Ess 2013: Uruk ─ Verortung in Raum und Zeit. In: Crüsemann et al. 2003, 39─45.

Van Ess 2013a, Uruk, die Forschungsgeschichte. In Crüsemann et al. 2013, 95─103

Van Ess 2013b: Die Technik der Tonstiftmosaiken. In: Crüsemann et al. 2013, 128─129.

Van Ess─Neef 2013: Rohstoff Schilf. In:Crüsemann et al. 2013, 114─115.

Van Loon 1981: Review of M.-J. Steve & H. Gasche, 1971. BiOr, 707-716.

Vértesalji 1989: Were there supralocal cemeteries in southern Mesopotamia of Late Chalcolithic times? In: Henrickson ─ Thuesen (Eds.), Upon this foundation: The Ubaid reconsidered (Museum Tusculanum Press) 181─198.

Vértesalji ─ Kolbus 1985: Review of Protodynastic Development in Babylonia, Mesopotamia 20, 53– 109.

Vogel 2008: Wie man Macht macht Eine macht─und genderkritisch Untersuchung der frühesten Repräsentationen von Staatlichkeit. Inaugural Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades am Fachbereich Geschichts─ und Kulturwissenschaften der Freien niversität Berlin. Dataobject from FUDISS_thesis_00000008148.

Vogel 2013: Der ‚Grosse Mann von Uruk‘. Das Bild der Herrschaft im späten 4. und frühen 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. in: Crüsemann et al. 2013, 139─145.

Von Haller 1932: Die Kerramik der archaischen Schichten von Uruk, UVB IV, 31ss.

Von Haller 1954: WVDOG 65.

Von Wickede 1990: Prähistorische Stempelglyptik in Vorderasien. Münchner Vorderasiatische Studien Bd. VI (München).

Vats 1975 : Excavations at Harappā: Being an Account of Archaeological Excavations at Harappā Carried Out Between the Years 1920-21 and 1933-34; in 2 Vol. with Plans and Plates. 139 Plates. Bhartiya Publishing House.

Vértesali 1984: Babylonien Zur Kupfersteinzeit

Vértesaji – Kolbus 1985: Review of Protodynastic Development in Babylonia,” Mesopotamia 20, 53– 109.

Vidale 1987: The paste plaques and cylinders of Chanhudaro: A descriptive report. ANNALI All, 57-66.

Vidale 1989: Early Harappan steatite, faience and pastedm Mehrgarh-Nausharo (Pakistan). East and West, 39(1/4), 291-300.

Vidale 2005: The short horned bull on the seals; a symbol of families in the western trade.In: Vogt-Weisshaar (Eds.), SAA 2003, 147-158.

Vidale 2017: A “Priest King” at Shahr-i Sokhta? Archaeological Research in Asia

Voigt –Dyson 1992: Chronology of Iran, ca. 8000–2000 BC. In: RW Ehrich (Ed.) Chronologies of Old World Archaeology,(i) 122–178; (ii) 25–53.

Wartke 20 1 Das Uruk-Kultgefäß aus technischer Sicht. In: Finkelstein -

Watanabe 2015: The Symbolic Role of Animals in Babylon: a Contextual Approach to the Lion, the Bull and the Mushussum, Iraq 77/1, 215―224.

Weeks-Alizadeh (K) et al. 2006: The Neolithic Settlement of Highland SW Iran: New Evidence from the Mamasani District, IRAN 44, 1-31.

Weeks 2013, The Neolithisation of Fars, Iran, in: Matthews-Fazeli Nashli (Eds.),The Neolithisation of Iran. The Formation of New Societies (Oxford-Oakville) 97-107.

Weeks-Petrie-Potts 2010: Ubaid-related-related? The" black-on-buff" Ceramic Traditions of Highland Southwest Iran. In Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Weiss 1976: Ceramics for chronology: discriminant and cluster analyses of fifth millennium ceramic assemblages from Qabr Sheykheyn, Khuzestan.

Weiss-Young 1975: The merchants of Susa: Godin V and plateau-lowland relations in the late fourth millennium BC. Iran, 13(1), 1-17.

Wheeler 1947: Harappa 1946: the defences and cemetery R-37. Ancient India, 3, 58-130.

Wheeler 1968:. The Indus Civilizatio n (Vol. 1). CUP Archive.

Wiggermann 2012: Where Reality Meets Mythology – The Horizon in Mesopotamian Iconography. Vortrag gehalten am 26.04.2012 im Rahmen des Colloquiums zur Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orient am Institut für Altorientalische Philologie und Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde der WWU─Münster.

Wilhelm 2001: Der Mann im Netzrock und kultische Nacktdvák ─ Pruss, Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie.

Winfried Orthmann gewidmet (Frankfurt a.M) 478─483.

Wilcke 1987: Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampdrsg., Isin-Išan Baḥriyat 3 = ABAW 94 (München: Verlag der Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 83-120, Taf. 33-44.

Wilcke 1995: Die Inschrift der ‘Figure aux plumes’: Ein frühes Werk sumerischer Dichtkunst.in:Finkbeiner ─ Dittmann ─ Hauptmann Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer (Mainz) 669─674.

Wilson 1986: in Finkbeiner- Röllig, Nippur: the definition of a Mesopotamian Ǧamdat Naṣr Assemblage, 57-89..

Wilson 2012: Bismaya the Lost City of Adab, OIP 138 (Chicago).

Wilson, Kinnier J.V. 1984. The Case for Accountancy. In Lal--Gupta, (eds.), Frontiers of the Indus Civilisation. New Delhi: Books and Books, 173-78.

Winkelmann 2003; Berliner Schlangenbecken, Trichterbecher und Cincinnati─Mann. Verkannte Schlüsselobjekte der altorientalischen Archäologie. In: Dittmann ─ Eder ─ Jacobs (Eds.), Altertumswissenschaften im Dialog. Festschrift für Wolfram Nagel. AOAT 306, 567─678.

Winter 1986: The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals. In: M. K. Bucellati (Ed.), Insights through Images in Honor of Edith Porada, BiMes 21, 253─168.

Whitcomb 1971: The Proto-Elamite Period at Tall-i Ghazir. Unpublished Master thesis. Athens-University Georgia.

Wilcke 1987: Lugalbanda.

Woolley 1934: The Royal Cemetery: a report on the predynastic and Sargonid graves excavated between 1926 and 1931.

Woolley 1955: The Early periods: a report on the sites and objects prior in date to the 3. dynasty of Ur discovered in the course of the excavations. Ur Excavations, 4.

Wrede 1995: Relief einer Göttin oder Herrschers. In: Finkbeiner ─ Dittmann ─ Hauptmann (Eds.), Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens.Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer (Mainz) 677─689.

Wright 1969: The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town, Museum of Anthropology, Michigan, Anthropological Papers No. 38 (Ann Arbor).

Wright 1978 n.d. Susa Acr. III (manuscript)

Wright 1979: Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan. Research Reports in Achaeology, 10.

Wright 1987: The Susiana Hinterlands during the Early Primary State Formation. In Hole 1987 (Ed.), 41-155.

Wright 1998: Uruk States in Southwestern Iran, in: Feinman ─ Marcus (Eds.) Santa Fe: School of Anthropology (Krican Research Press), 171―197

Wright―Johnson 1975: Population, Exchange, and Early State in Southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77/2: 267―289.

WRIGHT—NEELY—JOHNSON--SPETH, J.D. 1975. Early fourth millennium developments in southwestern Iran. Iran 13: 129–148.

Wright et al. 1981:. An early town on the Deh Luran Plain: excavations at Tepe Farukhabad University of Michigan Museum Anthropology and Archaeology.

Wright. ─ Johnson 1985: Regional Perspectives on Southwest Iranian State Development, Paléorient 11/2, 25―30.

Wright - Carter 2003: Archaeological survey on the western Ram Hormuz plain. Yeki bud, yeki nabud: essays on the archaeology of Iran in honor of William M. Sumner, 61-82.

Wright,--Petrie 2013: A bridge between worlds: south-western Iran during the fourth millennium BC. ancient Iran and its neighbors, local developments and long-range interactions in the fourth millennium BC., The British Institute of Persian Studies, Archaeological Monograph Series III, OXBOW Books, 51-75.

Wright (RP) 1995: Fine Ware Tradition at Mehrgarh, in: C. Jarrige et al. (1995): Mehrgarh Field reports 74-1985, From Neolithic Times to the Indus Civilization (Karachi) 662-671.

Young 1969: Excavations at Godin Tepe: First Progress Report. Occasional Paper.

Yule, P. (1985). Metalwork of the Bronze Age in India (Vol. 11). CH Beck.

Zagarell 1975: Nomad and settled in the Bakhtiyari Mountains, Soziologus 25.2, 127-138.

Zagarell 1982: The Prehistory of the Northeast Bahtiyari - Mountains. The Rise of the Highland Way of Life. Beihefte des Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B 42.

Zagarell 1982a: The first Millennium in the Bakhtiyari Mountains, AMI 15, 31ss.

Zeidi-McCall-Khosrowzadeh 2009: Chapter 6. Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e International Series 2044 (Oxford) 147-168.

Zeidi-Hamzavi-Conard 2016: Tang-e Khiareh: A Newly Discovered Neolithic Site in the Kur River Basin. In: Roustaei-Mashkour (Eds.) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau. Recent Research, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18, 217-225..

Zettler 1977: The Sargonic Royal Seal: A Consideration of Sealing in Mesopotamia. In: Gibson ─ Biggs (Eds.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, BiMes 6, 33─39.


1 Dittmann – Selz 2015.

2 For the moment see here Appendices I─II: 'Neuere Ansätze zur Glyptikanalyse im urbanen Kontext' and 'Analyseansätze für Mesopotamische Bildwerke des 3. JT v. Chr.' At the origin, both statements were part of information─panels for disciplines connected to the Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde at Muenster.

3 Hopefully I avoided at least some of the systemic pitfalls discussed by Nissen 2000.

4 Fiandra 1975.

5 Three articles that follow more traditional ways are: Dittmann―Larsen 1997, 247―250; Dittmann et al. 2000, 231―312 and Dittmann 2009, 3―15.

6 Studia Mesopotamica 3, 2013, 39―93.

7 Dittmann 2022.

8 Dittmann 2018

9 First published in Ash-sharq 1 (2017) 162-169. Unfortunately without the addition ('in the Diyala') which is essential for understanding the slightly later arrival/use of seals of Fara Elegant style in the Diyala region.

10 Vogel 2013; see also her important study on the subject, Vogel 2008, 1―162.

11 As far as we know an early occurrence of the Lion’s hunt─motif is to be found in Late Chalcolithic 2─3 of Northern Mesopotamia in Tell Majnuna, one of the small elevations surrounding Tell Brak, cf. here Fig. 1, 4 and MacMahon 2009, 115─124, Fig. 1 . For the Caged lion motif see also Delougaz ─ Kantor ─Alizadeh 1996, No. 207, Chogha Mish, East Area; according to Huh 1999, 89 Loc. Pit R17:208 dates more to Susa I, 18 than to 17B. At Susa the Lion hunt was not the privilege of the “Big Man”! as Fig. 1, 7 shows. See also Rova Nos. 289─292. This might be different with attacking a lion with a spear – cf. Rova No. 294 where a wrap around ("Wickelrock) is clearly visible.

12 See the important contribution by Strommenger 2008 on the different reconstructions of the main scene and the type as such. and as reaction to the interpretation of Czichon 2006. For technical aspects of the vase see Wartke 2016.

13 See on the general Problem Johnson 1982 and Nissen 1985..

14 See Johnson 1988─89 on the interregional impact of this competition. See also Algaze 2001 and my comment ibid., 217─218.

15 Johnson 1973; Dittmann 1997, same 2007, esp.. 59―60.

16 Alden 1986 and 1987.

17 Sürenhagen 2011; Heil 2011; Dittmann 2013, 59─62. 100 and Pollock 1999, 138―142.

18 Forest 2011.

19 Nissen 2012, 63―65; 2015, 4―5.

20 Nissen 2012, 60―62; 2013a.

21 Nissen 2012, 37 and Schmidt 1992.

22 Nissen 2013a, 110 Abb.14,5;.Pollock 2013, 149 estimates 25─50.000 inhabitants for the Late Uruk period.

23 Nissen 2012, 63; 2015; Nissen 1986, Fig. 20, b: Nissen 2013a, 112 Fig. 14.8 estimates the number of inhabitants (intra muros = 30-80.000 and 30-60.000 extra muros) of about 60-140.000 persons. On city walls see also Pinnock 2013.

24 Nissen 2012, 60―62; ders. 2015, 6─7.

25 See Dittmann 2013, Tab. 119a─c. For Archaic IV, see Fig. 12 and Appendix 2.1 and for Archaic III, Fig. 14, Appendix 3.1.

26 Dittmann 2016.

27 At least the short ‘Net-rock’ as it is known from a sealing from Tell Billa (Rova No.901). Such a version is also found in a painting of a procession of the Painted Temple at Tell Uqair (Fig. 1, 9). This temple is stratigraphically older than the following, local Ğamdet Nasr shrine with its tablets – see Dittmann 2015, esp. 73, Note 11, and for the garment-type see Wilhelm 2001.

28 Both persons are of equal height, same as No. 648. That means next to the “Big Man” is an equal important figure, possible a female counterpart. Cf. Strommenger ― Hirmer 1963, Bild 30―31 ‘Lady of Warka‘ and here Fig.1, 8, Cult-Vase.

29 For the chronology of Jebel Aruda cf. Dittmann 2013, 43─45.

30 Big Man “rubs someone with ointment,” Amiet, 1961, no. 662.

31 Van Ess 2013.

32 Van Ess 2013, 128; for the terrace see Nissen 1986, 70─71, Fig. 19.

33 Legrain 1936; Martin 1988 and Martin ─ Matthews 1993.

34 See Seeher 2005 and 2007 for the effords and coasts of such an enterprise on behalf of 1% of the reconstructed city wall of Hattuša.

35 Archaic tablets ─ Dittmann 2013, 125.

36 For an “Early Dynastic I”-date of the inscription see Damerow ─ Englund, BaM 1989, 137; for the object as such, see Boese 2010.

37 Dittmann, n.d., here No. 2.

38 Dittmann 2013, 102.

39 On the Inscription see Wilcke 1995.

40 Steinkeller 2002a-b.

41 This contribution is a further step to improve our understanding of the Early part of the Early Dynastic period. The agenda has been set by H.J. Nissen 2015.

42 Nissen 2015. Dittmann 2013. 2015.

43 It should be noted, that these latest seals lack one important criterion, i.e. the flags. So perhaps we are here already not dealing with shrines!

44 Dittmann, n.d. here No. 2.

45 Krebernik 2014; Marzahn 2013; Nissen 2013b und 2012, 66-67.

46 Dittmann 2013, 85-86. 89-90. Here No. 8.

47 With all our ignorance, there might be nevertheless a cultic constant which can be traced with all caution. Since the time of the Steingebäude, which Eichmann dates to Eanna VI-V in conventional terms (Eichmann 2013, 120), we have an underground structure, which from time to time was filled-up and re-opened. Holes on the surface of some of the walls seem to attest to a temporary light-weight construction on top. Further examples beside the Steingebäude in Uruk (Eichmann 2001, bes. 123; Schmidt 2002 and Heinrich 1982, 134) are the ‘Construction inférieure’ at Girsu, followed by a ‘Zwischenschicht’ immediately before the ‘Bau des Urnanse’ (see Huh 2008, 85-95 Abb. 22-24, Notes 467 and 470) and last not least Adab, Mound V, earliest temple (Wilson 2012, 95-97). All this reminds the temporary burial of Dumuzi, husband of Inanna. Even though one could sometimes get the impression that quoting Dumuzi and his cult is not very popular in the Near Eastern Archaeology, at least in Germany. As to me he is an integral element of Inanna’s cult. See Rubio 2001, 268─274; Maul 2005 and Selz 2013.

48 See the important work by Charvát summarized in Charvát 2002.

49 Charvát 2002. 2010; Otto 2010 and Sallaberger 2010.

50 Heinz 2002, 83 emphasizes the integration of the Early Dynastic rulers into the collective. But it should be noted, that already the “Big Man” of the Uruk period was represented at larger scale then the rest – see Rova No. 666 (Boat procession). An exception is his female counterpart, being of the same size as he - see here Figs. 3, 10─11.

51 In the sense of Kohlmeyer 1981.

52 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014.

53 Rittig in: Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, 309─368.

54 Cf. Strommenger 1980, Frontispiz, Taf. , Abb. 13. 15. 2;. Strommenger ─ Kohlmeyer, in: Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, XI.

55 Finet 1979.

56 Rova 1994, Nos. 62─65.

57 The more appropriate term than ‘house’ (would be estate!). But since we are not informed about the hierarchical relations of the different households within the estate, I remain the term 'house'.

58 See Dittmann 2012.

59 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Taf. 193, 1 (S29).

60 Rova 1994, No. 65 and here Abb. 1. Kohlmeyer ─ Ludwig 2021, 29ff. (House 2), 156ff. (House 40)

61 Legrain 1936, No. 299, W4─5 (here Fig. 34) und Hansen 1987, Pl. XIII, 16.

62 See Dittmann 2013, 43.

63 Bernbeck 2009, 46. This continues at least up to the SIS 6─4-material in Ur.Vorläufer Gawra.

64 Ibid., 49.

65 Dittmann 2013, 43─45.

66 Heinz 1997, 89─90; see also Kohlmeyer 1996. Recently Sauer―Sürenhagen 2017, 40 Note 121, have argued, that some houses at Habuba-Kabira―S. were filleed up with tertiairy trash, when given up. As to me I am skeptical if this is true for Houses 2 and 40; the distribution pattern of administrative advices is too regular. At least for House 40 in situ finds are not excluded, cf. Strommenger―Sürenhagen―Rittig 2014, 6.

67 Pittman 2000, 49 No. 5.

68 Strommenger 1980, 51. 55; but see C.B. Foster 2012; Blackman 1999 and Van der Driesch 1993; Kohlmeyer Ludwig 2021, 283-286.

69 Delougaz─Kantor─Alizadeh 1996, 27.

70 Refer also to Wright 1998.

71 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996.

72 Johnson 1987; Dittmann 1986, 121─123 including information also about KS 34. 54 and KS 76; see also Wright 1998.

73 As to me, the status of Susa is due to the graves of the ancestors who since the beginning of Susa A had been installed in the necropolis of Susa. Pace Hole (ohne Jahr, ‘mass grave’).

74 Johnson 1987.

75 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 264.

76 Alizadeh 2008, 43. A small bone figurine can be associated with this building ─ lbid., Pl. 26A.

77 How these balls could have been used is discussed in Dittmann 2012, 80, No. 6.

78 For the date of Jebel Aruda see Dittmann 2012, 73 Note 17. Alizadeh 2008, XXII sees a similar division. First of all, he doesn’t accept the subdivision in Early and Middle Uruk, because he has no criteria to make such a division. Moreover, he considers this time span to be more imbedded in the development of the Susiana. Johnsons Early and Middle Uruk were therefore called Early Susa 2 (Susa I, 22) and Middle Susa 2 Phase (I, 21─19) followed by Protoliterate 2─1 (Susa I, 18─17). Wright 1998, 193 would agree. As to, me this is highly probable, since there is a a very large continuity of settlement use from Middle-/Late Susiana and the Uruk period (Dittmann 1986, I, 221 Tab. 79).

79 Huh 1999, esp. 92─93 Tab. 8. SE = Stratigraphic Entity.

80 Alizadeh 2008, 21─25.

81 For the „Baggy Style” see Pittman 2010; for the “Susa 17, more Linear Style” see Dittmann 1986a, Fig.8, 4. 7. The only Baggy Style sealing from Chogha Mish comes from Sounding C, cf. Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 146 C.

82 According to Wright the site was refoundet in the Middle Uruk─ period, of 2 ha size, growing up as concurrent center to Susa in Late Uruk to 17 ha (Wright 1998, 182).

83 Dittmann n.d, here No 3.

84 Delougaz ─ .Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, 27.

85 But the sealing comes from a little ball, which speaks more for a local origin: Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 151C.

86 Amiet 1968, 86 No.45.

87 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 136C─E; 138G.

88 For the Griffin see Börker-Klähn 1957─19711. For the Lion Griffin (here Fig. 3,2) see Harper 1961.

89 Watanabe 2015.

90 One of the small elevations, which surround Tell Brak, see McMahon 2009. Equally important is the forerunner sealing of the Lion hunt motif from this site.

91 McMahoan 2009. Otherwise Lions are involved in the same actions as at Susa: Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, pl. 139A─E (all East Terrace); 140A (same); 140B (West Terrace); 141A─E (East Terrace).

92 Boehmer 1999, 21, Abb. 14─15, Nos. 1─2.

93 Delougaz―Kantor―Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 142A―E (East Terrace; B ─ Sounding C and E, Trench VI).

94 Kantor 1984.

95 Such Punishment scenes are quite common in the Uruk system: Chogha Mish has 6 ones (Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Nos. II─369ab. III─760-761. IV─7. V─1 and II─830a─c); Habuba Kabira─S.: has three (Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Taf. 140, 3. Taf. 193, 2 and Rova No.60?); from Uruk six are known (Rova Nos. 560. 566. 637. 712. 715. 719); and from Susa ca. 30 (Rova Nos. 105. 106. 108. 110. 115. 169?.252? 250? 259? 278. 337. 338. 339. 345. 355. 356. 359. 363. 371. 373. 374. 376. 387. 392? 393. 402. 410─12?). (S. 30). To mention also one sealing from Ğamdat Nasr and one from Nippur (Rova Nos. 839 and 967).

96 See Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 146E; 147A─H; 148A─G. Outstanding is pl. 146B, perhaps a harrow?

97 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl.31Q. Z. AA─G and perhaps also the counterweight ; 29I.

98 Dittmann 1986a, Fig. 1, 5─7; 2, 4.

99 Dittmann 1986a, Fig. 10, 7.

100 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, pl. 149A─B. Bags could also be stored on small scale, as a sealing on pl. 155B suggests. Pl. 155C represents a magazine where pottery was stored and Eye-symbols.

101 We do not know when the oppression in the Uruk─system started, probably at least in Late Chalcolithic 4. To quote Bernbeck in his excellent article on the Uruk society: “…all such scenes from Uruk that are listed by Boehmer, torturers and victims are distinguished solely by their bodily comportment, not by hairdo or clothing. Judging by the photos and drawings, they are all naked. It is therefore not entirely clear that this is a scene of war, that is, an external conflict; rather, it may well depict the repressive forces of an emerging state against its own population. Indeed, the idea of a clear political and conceptual separation between external and interior populations in the Uruk period is another preconception that impinges on the interpretation of the imagery and the period as a whole” (Bernbeck 2009, 51) and further “..From the pictorial and written evidence, we can safely conclude that Uruk society was class─based with sharp gender inequalities..” (ibid., 52, referring to the work of Englund).

102 Emberling ─ MacDonald 2003, 3.

103 Johnson 1988─89. See also Algaze 2001 (= and see my comment bid. 217─218)..

104 For Susa see Dittmann 2012, 71 Fig. 4; for Brak see D. & J. Oates1993, 178 Fig. 3.

105 That is why on Tab. 1 the entry “Bows” has been added. Cf. Brandes 1980 ─ for the ‘Waffenkammer‘.

106 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 29A ─ ax blade.

107 Cooper 1983; Selz ─ Niedermayer 2015.

108 Gibson et al. 2002; Reichel 2009.

109 Nissen 1985 stresses here the important problem of differences in scale and dimension between Mesopotamia and Khuzestan. the situation in Khuzistan see Johnson 1973, 141─156; Wright ─ Johnson 1975; Dittmann 1986, 230─232; Johnson 1987 and 1988─89 and Alizadeh 2008, 1─30.

110 Collon 1987, 158―161.

111 Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 152─153.

112 Rova 1994, Nos. 106. 113. 364 etc.

113 Dittmann 2013, 40.

114 Dittmann 2012, Fig. 12.

115 Van Driel 2002, 191.

116 Vallet 1998. See also Van Driel 1982. 1983. 2002 and Van Driel ─ Van Driel Murray 1983..

117 Van Driel 2006, 191. I am sceptic, if such a long cult tradition from the Uruk─Period up to today is realistic for the site.

118 Rova 1994, No. 36

119 Rova 1994, No. 40

120 Van Driel ─ Van Driel─Murray 1983, 15.

121 Rova 1994, Nos. 32+24

122 Rova 1994, Nos. 2, 21? ─23.

123 Rova 1994, No. 37 cf. Nos. 400─401 from Susa.

124 Like Rova 1994, Nos. 19. 20. 37?

125 Rova 1994, Nos. 19─20.

126 Rova 1994, No. 1.

127 Akkermanns ─ Schwartz 2003, 208. Perhaps the conflagration of Tell Sheikh Hassan 6 belongs also to this initial phase (ibid.).

128 Rova 1994, Nos. 62─65.

129 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 193, 1.

130 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 193, 2.

131 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 197.2. 7. 11-14; 198,4. 6─8.

132196, 6─8, in two cases combined with fish!

133 Strommenger 1980, 51.

134 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 194,6. 11-13; 195, 1-4. 7─8.

135 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 148─150.

136 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 199, 1 and 3?

137 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl. 194, 7.

138 Strommenger 1980: 45.

139 Strommenger 1980: 46.

140 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl.166─167, 2 and 6.

141 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl.194,7 and 199, 4?

142 At least there are two sealing fragments combining the Fish- and Spider motifs and one sealing with fish rows Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pls.196, 4. 7─8.

143 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Pl,169, 17─26. Fish hooks were more common than sickles. Strommenger 1980, 51.

144 Strommenger 1980, 55. Jebel Aruda has more signs of household activities. But this would be different if the site would have functioned as a service center for a major sanctuary on top of the site, as the excavator believes,

145 Crawford 1973.

146 Radner 2008.

147 Strommenger 1980, 51; Algaze 1995; Michel ─ McGovern ─ Badler 1993 and McGovern ─ Fleming ─ Katz 2003. For Hacinebi asphalt was important: Schwartz ─ Hollander ─ Stein 1999; for other meagre resources see Keith 1998 and Bigelow 1999.

148 Otto 2010, 23─24 gives a nice list of relations between the Uruk─ and the SIS─material.

149 For the different dates attributed to the SIS see Charvát 2010, 15. See also Sallaberger 2010 and Sallaberger ─ Schrakamp 2015.

150 SIS 387, Pit W SIS 4─5 and D SIS 4.

151 SIS 169, W 45 + Fish and Music; SIS 382, W 4─5 + Drinking and Scorpion.

152 SIS 300, Pit Z 4─6; another sealing shows two men in a boat: SIS 299 W 4. Otto sees the first man as victor, similar to the one from Chogha Mish (Otto 2010, 25).

153 Benati ─ Lecompte 2014, 24 referring to an idea by Marchetti and Marchesi.

154 SIS 386, W 4─5.

155 SIS 385, 4; 388, 2nd. Person from the left figures also in Birth Scenes (Here Level C), and is perhaps attested at Susa, cf. Rova 1994, Nos. 305 and 307. For the sacred marriage see Cooper ─ Renger, 1975.

156 SIS 374, W 4─5.

157 SIS 477, 3 ─ Level 1c.

158 SIS 294, W 4─5; 296, W 4─5 and 293, D 4.

159 SIS 3, 8?; SIS 5─6, 8 2x; 330, 4 and 331? F. Pottery production is not referred to in the inscriptions of the SIS 8─seals: Charvát 2010, 39─43.

160 SIS 298, 6+4.

161 SIS 328, D4; 329, Z 4.5, W 4─5.

162 The different types of Animal Combat and other motifs of the Pastoral Realm have been analyzed by Karg 1984. The Uruk roots are discussed in Otto 2010, 23─24. But one should note that from the 198 texts, coming from the “Ancient Room”, only 5 deal with livestock (!) as opposed to 73 and 51 dealing with foodstuff and cultivated fields.

163 SIS 44, W 6─7; 302, D 4.

164 SIS 303, W 5─4.

165 G. Selz 1983; Romano 2015. Coming up in the Early Dynastic Period as motif (Otto 2010, 24).

166 Cooper ─ Renger 1975.

167 Dittmann 2013, 75. 104─105. 110 and 122; Otto 2010, 24 No. 5.

168 The protagonists wear according to Otto 2010, 21: “a flat cap and a kilt reaching down to the ankles, the front part gathered in front and tucked up behind the girdle.” This type figures also on SIS 388 (Fig. 36). Is he the Early Dynastic substitute for the ‘Big Man’ of the Uruk period? What is than the relation to the Man in the boat on SIS 300 (Fig. 33) or the two in SIS 299 (Fig. 34)? For an accentuated position of this type ─ see Gibson 1981, Pl. 111 (Cylinder seal from Tell Razouk).

169 See Matthews 1993 and Steinkeller 2002a─b. One of these sealings was found in the “Ancient Room” Benati ─ Lecompte 2014, 19.

170 Whatever was the real function of these seals, with Otto 2010, 26─27 we note, that “the majority of motifs turn up in several (up to ten) variants, which seems to correspond to administrative and/or economic units. If this interpretation is right, it can be concluded by the number of variants that the unit or units which used the City Seals, was or were by far the largest one.” According to Benati and Lecomptet, it should be possible to differenciate the SIS 5─4 Material further according to more precise findspots (Benati ─ Lecompte 2014, 19).

171 This is also true for the thesis of van Driel 2000, 191, that the settlement excavated “would be a subsidiairy service center to a major sanctuary on the summit” of the site.

172 The sealing reminds me always a Minoan painting on a sarcophagus from Hagia Triada (Demargne 1965, 92-93 Abb. 94-95). But in case of the SIS-sealing the destination of the procession is not dead but seems to be alive.Unless by the gesture of the arms and hands it would be a dedicatory statue?

173 See Dittmann 2010, Abb. 1.

174 See also Meijer 2016 on this point.

175 Dittmann here No. 4.

176 At least since LC 2/3 as the imaginary of Tell Majnuna/Brak told us, see McMahon 2009. On the Tripartite Building type see Butterlin 2015.

177 This matches also known house-models, cf. van Ess 2013a.

178 Rova 1994, Nos. 713 and 758─759..

179 See Van Ess 2013; Heinrich 1934 and 1957.

180 Strommenger ─ Sürenhagen ─ Rittig 2014, Taf. 193, 1. 199, 1─3.

181 Rova 1994, Tav. 2,36. Tav. 3, 37; in fact also the Boar Hunt seal has a Façade ─ Tav. 3, 53,

182 Stein 1999, Fig. 7.

183 Rova 1994, No. 347.

184 Ear motif: Pittman 1999, 50 Fig. 3, 3; Rova 1994, Nos. 424─425; Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 138, I.

185 SCS 29─30

186 Friendly Information by D. Lau (2013), who works on the Uruk material. For Early Ur see also Charvát 2014. From Lagash the SIS 6-4 style is also known. Huh 2008, 142. 148. 728 (G 179a).

187 There are two important parallels to be mentioned between Tall-I Malyan and Ur: Pittman 2003 Fig. 4f+g (- SIS 6─4; Dittmann n.d. No. 2, naturalistic PTW) and 44:g (─ cf SIS 4, Pit Z 7, No. 41─ standing lion with clenched fists).But, as discussed in Dittmann 2013, 77, younger seals than ED C are present.

188 Van Ess 2013, Abb. 3,3 gives a good impression.

189 Pit D: 387, SIS 4; W 387, Sis 4.5

190 Pit D: 337 SIS 4;W: 45, SIS 6─7; W: 386, SIS 4─5; W: 374, SIS 4─5; W: 346, SIS 4-5;Z 357, SIS 4─6.

191 Pit W: 388. 387. 352 and 350, all from SIS 4─5.

192 Martin Nos.F-F, Nos19─20 belong to F─F; 119. 125; (F─F Early Early Dynastic) and No. 282 (F─F Elegant ED I).

193 Akkermans ─ Schwartz 2003, 207─210.

194 At least the Storage Unit with a large dome seems to have continued in PE 1-2a cf. Dittmann 1986, Fig. 10, 7 from Suse, Ville Royale.

195 Pittman 1999.

196 Alizadeh, 2008, XXII. In the initial enthusiasm to find Uruk-material outside Babylonia a lot of people saw everything exclusively through the Uruk Filter. That the Uruk-aspect was infiltering in some regions was already remarked by me in 1986: see. Final Discussion of Finkbeiner ─ Röllig 1986, 569; Also H.T. Wright 1998, 193 would agree to this thesis. That Alizadehs’ observation is extremely probable is also shown by the fact, that there is an enormous continuity between Middle-Late Susiana and Uruk sites – see Dittmann 1986 I, 221 Tab.79.

197 D. and J. Oates 1993, 155─199; Oates (J) 1994: 167─76.

198 Nissen 1977.

199 Nissen 2016, 33─48.

200 Dank der frühen g rrabungwn…..

201 Orthmann 1983, 17─ 34.

202 Rothman 2001.

203 Here, only a selection of indicators is presented without the aim of being complete. Anyhow, due to the incomplete tradition on all sectors, our impressions and reconstructions of past periods are of limited probability.

204 Dittmann, n.d., here No. 2.

205 See for example the situation at Lagash: Selz 1995.

206 Forest, J.-D. 2011 and Heil 2011.

207 Wright 1969.

208 Charvát 2002, 202.

209 Nissen 1974; on the brick type see also Delougaz 1933.

210 Barrelet 1974.

211 Delougaz 1952, 39. 127. I have not included the Flower Pot ("Blumentopf") as possible "Leitfossil" of the Ğamdat Nasr─period, since its occurrence in excavations is not unequivocal. But nevertheless sites on surveys which have no Beveled Rim Bowls and SFGs but masses of Flowerpots also for me should date to the Ğamdat Nasr─perod (Nissen in Adams-Nissen 1972, 99-103: Nissen 2012, 61 and Discussion in Röllig ─ Finkbeiner 1986, 272─273 and here No. 6,3)..

212 A similar view has been formulated by Moortgat-Correns in regard to the chronological position of Sin III and associated seals of the the Naturalistic─narrative Pseudo─Uruk─style (Moortgat-Corrrens 1959)..

213 Pace Potts, D. 1984, 225─271.

214 Evans 2011, 54.

215 Delougaz ─ Lloyd, 1942, 34. Delougaz is not convinced by the deliberate destruction of the goblets.

216 Evans 2012, 155.

217 Sculpture could have been known already to Sin IV, where an eyeball of a big statue has been found Delougaz ─ Lloyd 1942, 139, Kh. VII 65.

218 Gruber 2015.

219 See Nagel 1964; Dittmann 1986b and 1987 and del Bravo 2014.

220 For the moment see Goulder 2010 and Jauss 2013.

221 Huh 2008, 122─128.

222 Huh 2008, 122─128: Grab III 2 Stamp seals, woman; XV??, XVIII 1 Stamp, woman; XIX 1 Stamp; XXI 1 Stamp; XXIII 7 Stamps, woman; XXV 2 Stamps woman; XXIX 9 Stamps.

223 But one must be careful with such identifications without anthropological tests.

224 See here No. 2.

225 What I personally do not believe, but if so, where are the deads?

226 Strommenger had made efforts to find the necropolis of Habuba Kabir─S; in vain..

227 Boehmer 1995, 1 No. 3.

228 Dittmann 1986a, Fig. 11,2 of Protoelamite date. Pittman 1997. For the change and continuity of motifs from Late Uruk─ to Ğamdat Nasr─seals see Dittmann 2013, 47─49, Tab. 19a─d.

229 Dittmann 2000; for the groups see the study by Pittman.

230 Huh 1999; Dittmann ─ here No. 2

231 Dittmann ─ here No. 3.

232 Frankfort 1955, 22.

233 Charvát 2002, 202 and Dittmann 2013, 101 from Early Dynastic B onwards.

234 Scott 2005, 205. 215 Note 360.

235 See list in Huh 2008, 270 Note 1313.

236 Vértesalji 1989.

237 Woolley 1955.

238 Korbel─ Youzan 1979 and Korbel 1984.

239 Kolbus 1982. 1983; Forest 1983; Gockel 1983; Vertesálji ─ Kolbus 1985; Kolbus 1986 and Eickhoff 1993.

240 Dittmann 2013, 81 Tab. 6─8.

241 Sürenhagen 2011, 15 Fig. 10.

242 This will be dealed with in another planed workshop: “Digesting the Uruk Culture. After the transformation - Fara ─ the New Paradigm on the run to late Early Dynastic.”

243 Sürenhagen 1980 and 2011.

244 Forest 1983.1984 and 2011.

245 Gautier─Lampre 1905: Fouilles de Moussian, MDP VIII, 59ff. ; Sürenhagen 2011.

246 This short spotlight is dedicated to Erika Bleibtreu who had the chance to spend her academic life in the nice city of Vienna. Gibson 1982 and 1984.

247 Dittmann 1987, 44 note 56.

248 Porada et al. 1992, 113.

249 Matthews 1997a, 6. Besides ED IIIb seals mentioned below, Matthews would add: Frankfort 1955 Nos. 495 = here Fig. 2 (Asmar, Earlier Northern Palace), No. 561 = here Fig. 3 (Asmar, Houses Va) and No. 575 = here Fig. 4 (Asmar, Houses IVb). One could add also No. 362, from Khafagah, P 46, surface. This fragment of a sealing shows inter alia detached rows of lion heads, not unlike examples from northern Syria (Matthews 1995, 386-87 Figs. 1-4, from Tell Brak; see also Bretschneider 2015: Fig. 1, from Brak, ED IIIb and Early Akkadian context). The motive is also well known from ED IIIb context from the Ash Pit in Abu Salabikh (for example Martin ─ Matthews 1993, No. 5a─b).

250 Strommenger 1960, 23 note 193.

251 Boese 1971, 88─90 CN 7, Taf. XII, 3, Nintu VII, Kh. III 1207 = Frankfort 1939a, pl. 114, No. 201 = Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 82. 150 note 105 and Jacobsen 1942, 290─293, Fig. 205 No. 3 (from P 45:6+12 and Q 45:3, in the area occupied by Nintu Temple VII). The inscription has been dated by Jacobsen not earlier than the Royal Cemetery of Ur and not later than Eannatum of Lagaš. Cf. also Strommenger 1960, 23─24, Tab. 2 and Dittmann 1987, 44-45 note 56. Another votive plaque from Tell Asmar, Single Shrine III is Boese 1971, 86-88 AS 5, Taf. IV,2, As. 32:800 = Frankfort 1939a, 43. 47, No. 200, Pl. 112B; Boese gives a final Ur I date for this plaque, perhaps overlapping with the Early Akkadian period (ibid., 88 note 461); cf. Strommenger 1960, 13 note 97 without a specific date. For Frankfort the plaque would be of Akkadian date.

252 In the south, ED IIIb was originally defined by artifacts from Ur from the time of Mesannepada and A’annepada as well as from the reign of Eannatum of Lagaš onwards: Porada et al. 1992, 111; Boehmer 1969, 278. Seals of the Mature Meskalamdug style come from the oldest graves in the Royal Cemetery, in SIS 3, supposed to be the level of the “Kalam-Dynasty”- cf. Martin 1988, 80 note 54 with reference to Pollock 1985, 153-54, PG 1054 and 1236. Meskalamdug is the father of Mesannepada ─ cf. Boese, 1978 and Renger 1984. The royal seal of Meskalamdug was in fact not a typical representative of Boehmer’s Mature Meskalamdug group. More typical is a seal of the wife of Akalamdug (supposed to be the son of Meskalamdug ─ but see Marchesi ─ Marchetti 2011, 123 Tab. 15b, where Akalamdug is placed at least one generation before Meskalamdug), Ašusikildig͊ir (Rohn 2011, 6─7, Taf. 9, 55). For a new proposal for the definition of ED IIIb by Marchesi and Marchetti, see below.

253 Boehmer 1969.

254 Boehmer 1969, 288 Fig. 46, Mature Meskalamdug/ ED IIIa2” = Frankfort 1955, No. 370, Khafagah, surface; here Fig. 5 = Boehmer 1969, Fig. 45, Mature Meskalamdug/ED IIIA2” = Frankfort 1955, No. 335, Khafagah, Houses 2, Grave 167 = Gibson 1982, 537 and 2011, 83, Early Akkadian; here Fig. 6 ─ Boehmer 1969, Fig 11, Diyala School/ED IIIa1 = Frankfort 1955, No. 502, Asmar, Northern Palace, Main Level = Gibson 1982, 537 and 2011, 83 Late Akkadian. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41 does not exclude an ED IIIa origin, but would date the context to ED IIIb; here Fig. 7 = Boehmer 1969, Fig. 14, Diyala School/ED IIIa1 = Frankfort 1955, No. 554, Asmar, Houses Vb = Gibson 1982, 537, Early Akkadian and Gibson 2011, 83, ED IIIb/Early Akkadian; here Fig. 8 = Boehmer 1969, Fig. 12-13. 15, Diyala School/ED IIIa1 = Frankfort 1955, No. 320, Khafagah, Houses 3 or 2. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41 does not exclude an ED IIIa origin, but would date the context to ED IIIb; here Fig. 9 = Frankfort 1955, No. 332, Khafagah, Houses 2 = Gibson 1982, 537 and 2011, 83 ED IIIa. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41 does not exclude an ED IIIa origin, but would date the context to ED IIIb, furthermore the lion motive reminds him seals from the Royal Cemetery at Ur. One can add material referred to by Strommenger 1960, 23 note. 193 = Frankfort 1955, No. 353 – Ur I/Lugalanda style = Khafagah, Houses 1 = Gibson 1982, 537, Early Akkadian = here Fig. 10; Strommenger´ 1960, 24 note 194 - concerning a small torso = Frankfort 1943, Pl. 28C, As. 32:700, D17:1, Asmar, Single Shrine II, the inscription, according to Strommenger, could be younger than those of Eannatum of Lagaš, cf. Jacobsen 1942, 298, Fig. 205, No.13; here Fig. 11 = Strommenger 1960, 23 note 193 and Martin 1988, 80 note 57 = Frankfort 1955. No. 550 – Ur I/Lugalanda style/Boehmer 1965, 143, No. 27 – “Akkadisch Ia”, Asmar, Houses Vc (?) = Gibson 1982, 537, ED IIIb to Early Akkad and Gibson 2011, 83, ED IIIb; Strommenger, ibid. = Frankfort 1955, No. 370 – Ur I/Lugalanda style, Khafagah, Surface and Strommenger ibid. and Martin 1988, 80 note 57 = Frankfort 1955, No. 380 (?) – Ur I/Lugalanda style, Khafagah, Surface. Cf. Dittmann 1987, 44-45 note. 56. Martin 1988, 80 note 57 refers also to Frankfort 1955, No. 428 for an ED IIIb date, coming from Khafagah, Mound C, Surface.

255 Called “Ripe Meskalamdug” by Martin 1988, 80 note 54.

256 Martin 1988, 77 and 80.

257 Laird 1985, 65 note 23─24 and page 66. Seals of the Diyala School occur in Khafagah, Houses 3─2 and 2, which as to Gibson 2011, 83 would be of ED IIIa date, Asmar, Main Level = Akkadian, Asmar Houses Vb = Akkadian according to Gibson 2011, 83 – cf. here note 9. Laird 1985, 67 and 69 would add Frankfort 1955, No. 553 and 562 = here Fig. 12-13 to the Akkadian seals, coming from Asmar, Houses Vb and Va. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41 does not exclude an ED IIIa origin for No. 562, but would date the context to ED IIIb.

258 Laird 1985, 23 Tab. 6 and 24 note 36 = here Figs. 14-16. 5 = Frankfort 1955, No. 331. 339. -366 (?) and 335. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41, does not exclude an ED IIIa origin, but would date the context to ED IIIb. Furthermore the lion motive reminds him seals of the Royal Cemetery at Ur.

259 Ibid. = Frankfort 1955, No. 267 = here Fig. 17.

260 Ibid. = Frankfort 1955, No. 551, SW corner of H 20 = here Fig. 18.

261 Ibid. = Frankfort 1955, No. 513 = here Fig. 19.

262 Ibid. = Frankfort 1955, No. 895 = here Fig. 20.

263 Braun-Holzinger 1977, esp. Tab.1-2.

264 Omitted in Braun-Holzinger 1977, Tab. 2.

265 Braun-Holzinger notes that hardly any sculptures from the Diyala date to her “Stilstufe III” (ibid., 53) and admits that there are no real inventions in “Stilstufe III”, the only real criterion, as to her, is the garment of Lamgi-Mari, combined with his characteristic hair-knot – Braun-Holzinger 1977, 53. The garment already occurs in Sin IX, in “Stilstufe II“ - cf. ibid. Taf. 19d with Taf. 25e (Nintu VII) and Single Shrine I (Taf. 25c-d – both “Stilstufe III“) but, according to Braun-Holzinger “die Kontur wirkt [ bei dem jüngeren Stück aus Nintu VII ] von allen Seiten gleichmäßig geschlossen…“ (ibid., 56). Another sculpture with a similar garment comes from Temple Oval II (Evans 2005, pl. 135, 79 = Frankfort 1939a, pl. 67A, from K 45:2). The differences are very subtle and the attribution of sculptures to “Stilphase III” was mostly based on inscribed material (Evans 2005, 294 note 23). What puzzles further in respect to an Early Dynastic IIIb date of “Stilphase III” is the complete lack of Early Dynastic IIIb seals in the levels dated by the statues.

266 Evans 2011, 55 relates this statue to the depiction of similar ones on the Uruk vase, uppermost register, arguing that a “limited dedicatory sculpture tradition [existed] at an early date (note 31)”. Already suggested by Strommenger 1060, 14 note 110.

267 Already suggested by Delougaz ─ Lloyd 1942, 26, on behalf of Kh. VII 65; Evans 2005, 20 note 46.

268 Evans 2005, 2007 and 2011.

269 For example Braun-Holzinger 1977,40.

270 Evans 2007, 630 Tab. 6.

271 As to Marchesi ─ Marchetti 2011, 12, “most of the finds are from favissae, that is, votive pits” which as to him have not been recognized by the excavators. “Excavation reports often assign favissae to the floor levels that actually sealed them (..), whereas they must be earlier (a different reasoning applies, however, to objects found inside walled structures. (note 2).”

272 i.e. Marchetti 2006.

273 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 18 note 8.

274 Which deals with the architectural problems of some of the royal tombs; quoted after Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 61 note 155?

275 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 61.

276 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 123 Tab. 15b.

277 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 64, my emphasizing; Porada et al. 1992, 108 and Fig. 5, would date the Royal Cemetery at Ur from Urnanše to Eannatum of Lagaš. I do not follow Reade’s (2001, 13─26, esp. 18 Tab. 1) extremely short chronology of the Early Dynastic period but the one proposed by Sallaberger (2004) and Schrahkamp n.d.; Pollock’s (1985) seriation of the graves of the Royal Cemetery, refined by Matthews 1997, 20-28, as to me are still of value. As a consequence, based on glyptic and pottery analysis Matthews stated (1997, 21─22): “Agreeing with Pollock’s proposed chronology (1985, 29) both Early Akkadian and the Angular Style first appear in phase III, which should be ED IIIb .. then it is evident that the ED IIIb style overlaps both the ED IIIb and the Angular style, and that the Angular style overlaps both ED IIIb and Early Akkadian” and further (P.26): The narrowest, and therefore best solution is to assign Phase III to the ED IIIb period. The problem is that the ED IIIb style cannot be far from phases II, because of seal 162, yet there is also strong evidence for an absociation of ED IIIb and Akkadian seals, in Graves 435. 544. 796. 861 and 1276. Thus either the ED IIIb seals in these graves are antiquities, being deposited in graves which belong to a phase later than the phase in which they were made; or there is a transitional phase between ED IIIb and Early Akkadian.”

278 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 95.

279 Rohn 2008, 6 and Nagel 1959.

280 Gibson 1982, 537 Tab.; Gibson 2011, 83 Tab. gives a date of Late Akkadian to Early Akkadian?

281 Evans 2007, 608 Tab. 2 – called “construction pavement (31.8 m elev.) and predecessor to Square Temple (no elevation given);” Evans 2005, 112-115; Tunca 1984, 24-26.

282 Evans 2005, 115, on this locus. The locus is published within structures connected to the Northern Palace, Main Level and the Single Shrine, in Frankfort 1934, 25 Fig. 20.

283 No. 99 does not figure in Braun-Holzinger’s publication; cf. Braun-Holzinger 1977, 87-88. See Frankfort 1939, pl. 70, D-E, As. 33:109, and E 17:1.

284 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 20.

285 Braun-Holzinger 1977, 87; Evans 2005, pl. 35, Nos. 98. 177-178. 180. 257, (with the exception of No. 98, which was found 40 cm below Single Shrine I).

286 Braun-Holzinger 1977, 56, note 389. For the problems concerning this interval cf. Evans 2005, 111-115.

287 Frankfort 1955, No. 245.

288 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 22 note 31. Compared to their pls. 19, 3-5 from Ingharra E, YW sounding, below the Flood stratum, a seal possibly of Uheimir, seal of Palace A, foundations of room; and pl. 21, 3 from Tell Jokha II.

289 Frankfort 1939b, 45. 47, Pl. X, I.

290 Rohn 2011, 14-16, Nos. 1-5. 10a. 27.

291 Martin 1988, 38. 74-75, No. 365.

292 Here note 7 and Dittmann, n.d., 6.2.1, notes 131 and 132.

293 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 23.

294 Boese 1971, 176.

295 Braun-Holzinger 1977, 47, No. 37.

296 Braun-Holzinger 1977, 42-43 note 295: „aus R 42:1 bei 39 m, wahrscheinlich also 1. Niveau.“

297 Braun-Holzinger 1977, 43.

298 Braun-Holzinger 1977, Tab 2.

299 Quod erat demonstrandum - if ever we can assume a “development” or “evolution”.

300 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 28 and 225-226.

301 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 21 and 226.

302 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 29 note 57.

303 Based on Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 72.

304 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 30.

305 Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 93 Fig. 85.

306 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 31-32.

307 The location is incorrect, according to Frankfort 1943, 23, No. 201 was found beneath P45:6 and 12. The same provenience for this votive plaque fragment is given by Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 150 on behalf of Kh. III 1207. According to note 165 more fragm99ents of it have been found later in Q 45:3.

308 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 31 note 64.

309 Boese 1971, 178.

310 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 91.

311 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 87 Tab. 12 – here Nintu VI is extended to early ED IIIb, like Sin IX:5.

312 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 27 note 49, give an Early Dynastic IIIb date to a female head, found on the Altar of a later rebuilding in M 14:2, Ag.35:550 (Frankfort 1943, 9. 30-31), dated by Braun-Holzinger 1977, 50, Taf. 21a-c to “Stilstufe IIb” They attribute also No. 290 to ED IIIb, which is not impossible, but the inscribed fragment was found in the temple area, surface above Shara Temple (Frankfort 1943, 31). An Akkadian Linear seal is reported from Agrab, Q 13, Grave 2 – Laird 1985, 70, Pl. IV, No. 28 = Frankfort 1955, No. 888 = here Fig. 21. But as noted above any finds of Braun-Holzinger’s “Stilstufe IIb”, stylistically connected with Urnanše and the Royal Cemetery at Ur, should now be dated to ED IIIb following the line of reasoning of Marchesi – Marchetti.

313 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 91-92.

314 Marchesi – Marchetti 2011, 87 Tab. 12.

315 Gibson 2011.

316 Frankfort No.549 (As. 33:321, H 20:47, ED IIIa. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41 does not exclude an ED IIIa origin, but would date the context to ED IIIb); No. 544 (As.32:1354. J 19:62); No. 545 (As.33:312, J 20:40, ED IIIa). Unpublished: Frankfort 1955, 57 – As.33:304, J 19:77 like No. 57 (Sin III). 788 (Shara T., 31,00 m). 946 Ischali, Serai); No. 544 is a Pigtailed Women seal, which as to Evans studies might have been produced as late as ED III. A banquet scene in a similar style from Fara, cited before, points in the same direction – cf. Martin 1988, 225 No. 188.

317 Strommenger 1960, 23 note 193 = Frankfort 1955, No. 550; Boehmer 1965, 143, Nr. 27 = here Fig. 11.

318 Laird 1985, 23 Tab. 6 = Frankfort 1955, No. 551 = here Fig. 18. Furthermore a sealing and a seal from Houses Vc: Frankfort 1955: 546 and 551 = here Fig. 18 remind seals with crowded scenes without division lines, known from the Djezirah in the Late ED period, like Jans – Bretschneider n.d., Nos. 14-18. 26 from Tell Beydar (For Beydar in general see now Jans – Bretschneider 2011). Matthews 1997b, 29 would date Houses Vc from ED IIIa to early ED IIIb.

319 Gibson 2011, 74.

320 Frankfort 1955, No. 592.

321 Laird 1985, 67, Pl. III, No. 21 = Frankfort 1955, No. 553, Houses Vb = here Fig. 12,

322 Frankfort 1955, No. 552 (As. 32:1031, G 20:2 [below]); Nos. 554 (As.33:168, H20:38, ED IIIa1, Diyala School = here Fig. 7); No.553 (As.33:204, J19:27, ED IIIa. Matthews 1997b, 30 note 41 does not exclude an ED IIIa origin, but would date the context to ED IIIb). Unpublished: Frankfort 1955, 57 As. 33:207, J 20:32, like No.163 (Sin IV).

323 Gibson 2011, 75, Pl.VIIIf1; As. 32:1045; Gibson 1982, Fig. 3.

324 Gibson 2011, 75-76, Fig. 12, As.32:992 ( OI A3475) = Frankfort 1955, No. 497; Gibson 1982, Fig.4. Frankfort 1955, supra No. 497 gives below E 15:1. In Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 335, E 15:14, level of Earlier Palace, is given.

325 Gibson 2011, 77.

326 Laird 1985, 23, Tab. 6 = Frankfort 1955, No. 499 = here Fig. 22.

327 Gibson 1982, 537 Tab.

328 Gibson 2011, 83 Tab.

329 Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 199.

330 Tunca 1984, 25-26.

331 Frankfort 1935, folding plan at the end of the publication.

332 Frankfort 1934, 40.

333 Tunca 1984, 24, who has calculated more than 2 m of preserved height, including the foundations.

334 Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 123, the authors even do not exclude a certain gap between Sin IX and X.

335 Laird 1985, 23 Tab. 6 = Frankfort 1955, No. 267 (Kh. II 276) “West of L 45:1” = here Fig. 17.

336 Kh. II 51, from J 44:1, Oval III, not later than Eannatum, cf. Delougaz 1940, 162; Jacobsen 1940, 146―147, Fig. 126, 3; Steible – Behrens 1982, 206―07, AnHaf. 2.

337 Jacobsen 1940, 147―149, Fig. 126, 5 (Kh. I 636); cf also Sommerfeld 2004, 286. 288 and Gibson 2011, 69, Delougaz 1940, 99 Fig. 91. 163 from M 44:5. This Locus is next to the ”Macehead Room“ in N 44:1 of Oval I, where a large number of mace heads and sculpture fragments have been found, cf. Delougaz 1940, 7. 27 and Frankfort – Jacobsen – Preusser 1932, 65 Fig. 23; 66-70.

338 Delougaz 1940, 106.

339 Frankfort 1933, 74.

340 Jacobsen 1940, 147 Fig. 126, 8 = Frankfort 1933, 73-74, Fig. 47 – left.

341 Delougaz 1940, 162.

342 Gibson 2011, 69.

343 Delougaz 1940, Pl. IV.

344 Gibson 2011, 68 note 12.

345 Frankfort 1933, 74 Fig. 47-right.

346 Frankfort 1933, 74.

347 Delougaz 1940, 162 and Jacobsen 1940, 150, Fig. 126, No.10.

348 Possibly duplicating Kh. II 94 is Jacobsen 1940, 150.

349 Jacobsen 1940, 149, Fig. 147, No. 7.

350 Jacobsen 1940, 150, Fig. 126 No. 11, dated by Sommerfeld 2004, 291 to Maništušu.

351 Delougaz–Hill–Lloyd 1967, 16 “A few fragmentary walls at a level somewhat lower than Houses 2 but contemporaneous with the latest phases of the Nintu Temple and the Small Temple (note 18) were found in squares O-P 41-42, Q-R 43-44 and R 45 (see Pl. 14). Since these walls were all in very poor condition and apparently belonged to isolated units, we may assume that they represent the first structures built in this area after the large-scale abandonment that was evidenced by the extensive layer of ashes which covered the ruins of Houses 3.” Finds see ibid.: 37-39 “Below Houses 2 (with note 33)”.

352 Delougaz – Lloyd 1942, 123.

353 Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 38 = Frankfort 1955, No. 332 = Boehmer 1969, Abb. 13 (Diyala School/”ED IIIa1”) = here Fig. 9; No. 337; No. 339 = here Fig. 15; No. 323; Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 39 = Frankfort 1955, No. 324; Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 39, Houses 2 or below = Frankfort 1955, No. 322. For a late ED III date for this group see Laird 1985, 65 notes 23─24.

354 Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 41 and Frankfort 1955, No. 327 = here Fig. 24 (cf. Ash Pit, context G and L, Martin – Mathews 1993, Nos. 113 and 116 and Jans – Bretschneider n.d., Fig. 8, Tell Beydar, Late ED III); Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 43 and Frankfort 1955, No. 326 = here Fig. 25 (cf. Ash Pit, ibid.); Frankfort 1955, No. 341 = here Fig. 26 belongs to the ‘Rod-like nose and hollow eye’ group, like Martin – Matthews 1993, Nos. 77 (context H), 76a─b (context K).

355 Delougaz 1940, 139 suggested that the Walled Quarter might have been connected to Oval III.

356 Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 47 and Frankfort No. 349─350. 359 = here Figs. 27─29 (cf. Ash Pit, Kontext G. H and J, Grave 130 and context H and K and Jans – Bretschneider n.d., Figs. 8─9, Tell Beydar, Late ED III). According to Martin – Matthews 1993, 34, these geometric motives are late, cf. ibid., Nos. 114c, 112 and 114a; for No. 358-359 ‘Rod-like nose and hollow eye’ group see note 108). Here Fig. 10 = No. 353 (“Lugalanda style”, cf. Strommenger 1960, 23 note 193; ED IIIb according to Matthews 1997b, 29).

357 Bahrani 1989, 189 Tab.: Sargon‘s early reign =.Enannatum I - Lugalanda, Sargon’s late reign = UruKAgina and Lugalzagesi; similar is the opinion of McMahon 2006, 4, that Enannatum II., Enentarzi, Lugalanda and UruKAgina would be contemporaneous to Sargon. Huh 2008, 245 was more cautious, equating Sargon’s reign with the “Endfrühdynastische Phase” (Enentarzi to UruKAgina) or shortly before, similar approaches are found in Sallaberger 2004, 27 Tab. 2 and more recently in Schrahkamp n.d., who sees an overlap with UruKAgina, but taking only 40 years of reign for Sargon.

358 Delougaz – Hill - Lloyd 1967, 23-24 and 129-130, Kh. VI 36 = Frankfort 1955, No. 377, Boehmer 1965, Taf. X, 106 = here Fig. 30. For the tablets from this and other areas see Sommerfeld, 1999; 2004, 291 and 2011. 92-94.

359 Sommerfeld 2004, 289,“Kriterien für die Datierung dieser Gruppe sind noch nicht eindeutig faßbar.”

360 Delougaz – Hill – Lloyd 1967, 23 ”…some of the thin walls seemed to correspond in general alignment to the thick foundations rather than to the earlier buildings.”

361 Delougaz ─ Hill ─ Lloyd 1967, 54, D 28:1 and Frankfort 1955, No. 389; G 29:2, Frankfort 1955, No. 387; From B─G 26-30 are: Frankfort Nos. 378-379. 381-382. 384-385.

362 Frankfort 1955, No. 383 = here Fig. 31, from B-G 26-30 within the building (?); Laird 1985, 23 Tab. 6.

363 A seal from G 29:2, Frankfort No. 388, belongs to Boehmer’s “Akkadisch I(b)” group (Boehmer 1965, 151, No. 345 and Laird 1985, Pl. III, 26). Another one from B-G 26-30 within the building (?) is Frankfort 1955, No. 386, belonging to Boehmer’s “Akkadisch I(a)” - group Boehmer 1965, 143, No. 23. To mention also an older ED votive plaque fragment: Delougaz – Hill - Lloyd 1967, 54, from C 27:1, Kh. VI 41 = Frankfort 1943, No. 324.

364 The earlier phases have been recently discussed by Evans 2005 and Dittmann 2013.

365 Gibson 2011, 83, would also prefer a system with more combined phase designations like ED IIIb/Early Akkadian and the like.

366 Evans 2005, 20-34 and 323-324. As discussed by Evans 2005, 180-182, even Pigtailed Women seals seem to have been produced in later Early Dynastic phases. As Evans 2011, 49 notes: “Square Temple I with its ED I ceramic assemblage is not contemporary with Sin Temple VIII with its ED III fruit stands” as Braun-Holzinger 1977, Tab. 2 has suggested. Evans 2007, 602-603 dated the fruit stands to ED II.

367 Already suggested by Pollock 1985, 140, who did not exclude the possibility that members of the first dynasty were buried in the Royal Cemetery.

368 Pottery was not included here, since this would have been beyond the limits of this spotlight.

369 This phase F corresponds somehow to Pollocks phase III, refined by Matthews 1997, 21, having also graves with ED IIIB and Early Akkadian seals. His proposed phase II-III is a somewhat typologically inspired construct.

370 Following the dynastic line as proposed by Steinkeller 2003.

371 Adams─Nissen 1972, 17─33, Fig. 8; Adams 1981, 52─130; Pollock 1999; Nissen 2015: 1─31; Charvát 2015: 51─70. That there was already a tendency for discrete City states at the end of the Late Uruk─ period (Archaic IVA), is discussed by Algaze 2001 (= see my comment bid. 217─218).

372 Jacobsen 1939..

373 Steinkeller 2003. Moreover, the succession of the kings of Agade was partly changed by this List: Now Maništušu followed Sargon and not Rimuš, who is now situated after Maništušu and before Naram Suen.

374 Cooper 1983 and 1986,

375 Vogel 2008; Pollock 1992.

376 See Englund 1998 and Nissen ─ Damerow ─ Englund 1990.

377 But one should think of the Achaemenids, who killed their prisoners in a brutal way, but for the audience they were Saints: Jacobs 2009.

378 Nissen ─ Damerow ─ Englund 1990, 89ff.

379 Nissen 2002, 6.

380 Dittmann 2007, 51 Note 20.

381 See Cooper 1983 and 1986..

382 Evans 2005. 2007; Dittmann 2013.

383 Cf. Adams─Nissen 1972, Fig. 4─5 and Algaze 2001.

384 Huh 2008, 6─13 with additional literature.

385 Initially, some basic systems should be mentioned: The K2 ─ or transportation system is of interest, here since a smaller center is always half way of two larger centers. It is quite common in the Ancient Near East. A further system, called K7, is the administrative System. One can trace it around Uruk and Susa. In addition, Susa, being situated on the boundary of its system, functioned as a Gateway city, with a maximum of control of what's coming in and what left the Susiana. Another system which exploited as much as possible the resources is the dendritic one, with Anshan as a good example. Here the flow of decisions and products was strictly vertical; On central place theory see: Christaller 1980; Dittmann 1986: I. 405─410, 441─445 Abb.24; Smith !976: I,. 3ff.: Smith 1976: II, 309ff.

386 Dittmann 1986: I, 251─253.

387 Eichmann 2013; 118─119 Abb. 16.3; Dittmann 1986: I, 116─120; Dittmann n.d. No.2; Schmidt, J. 2002.

388 Selz 1995: 300─301.

389 Pongratz─Leisten 1988, Plan 1, and following an idea by Pollock 2015, 267 Fig. 5.

390 Johnson 1983 and Nissen 1985.- Mesalim of Der is the oldest known ruler of this function. He decided as Supreme Court in an old conflict between Lagaš and Umma. See Charvat 1976, 346─352.

391 Nissen 2013, 112.

392 Nissen 2012, 66.

393 For a long time, I have pled for an Early Dynastic I date of the 'Blau'shen Steine' and the Net─skirt understood as archaism, what is exactly, what could be expected in such a period of turbulences (Dittmann 2007, 94, Note 25 and see now Boese 2010. For more possible archaism see Dittmann 1993, Note 19 and 1994, Note 25; 2001, 92, Note 19.).

394 See the discussion by Nissen 1999, 156─159 and Englund 1998, 209. A differentiated approach is found in Krebernik, ibid, .312.

395 See Seminara 2015 and Schrakamp 2015.

396 Nissen 2012, 63. Finds at Khafagi from the surface of the town wall date from Early Dynastic D (C.526.371a) to Early Dynastic E (or to younger EarlyDynastic (SCS 393 and Kh. IX 135 – Head). Early Dynastic D would be a perfect date, if not earlier. See also Pinnock 2013.

397 Boese 1995.

398 Van Ess 2013, 43 and 2013a, 100.

399 Barrelet 1974.

400 Nissen 2013, 112, adding about another 30.─60.000 people! See Nissen 1986, Fig. 20b.

401 Dittmann 2002, 94 Note 25.

402 Vallet 1998, 53─88.

403 Cale Johnson 2015.

404 Nissen 2013: 110─Abb. 14.5

405 Heinrich 1985, Fig. 2, End Ubaid ─ but the room layout inside the circle is different to the round houses in the Hamrin region.

406 Kose 2013: 333─339.

407 Heinrich 1985, 151, fig. 19─20.

408 Heinrich 1957, 95─97; for Redau Sherqi see Heinrich 1950 and 1950a; Lenzen 1955.

409 Ambos 2004; 2013.

410 Forest 1987 , 385─423.

411 Schmid 1992.

412 Charvát 2015, 53─55.

413 Charvát 2015, 37. For a long time, I have pled for an initial Early Dynastic date of the 'Blau'schen Steine' and the Net skirt, figuring here is, understood as archaism, what is exactly what could be expected in such a period of turbulences a reorientation. Dittmann 2007, 52, Note 26 and see now Boese 2010. For more possible archaisms see Dittmann 2001, 92, Note 19.

414 Matthews 1993.

415 Benati ─ Lecompte 2014.

416 Frankfort 1955, SCS 29 = Sin II.

417 Pittman 1994.

418 Frankfort 1955, SIS 221─ Sin V, SIS 242 = Sin VIII

419 Dittmann n.d. No. 3.

420 Dittmann 2013, pl. 2a─b.

421 Dittmann n.d. No. 3

422 Dittmann 2013, pl. 2 g.

423 Scott 2005, 95; Charvát 2002, 164.

424 New information will give the ongoing research by Benati and Lecompte.

425 Matthews 1993, 43.

426 Scott 2005, 105. 215 Note 360 “A preliminary look at these counter─sealed impressions suggests they were used to seal doors only.” And in regard to sealings with stylus─inscribed proto─cuneiform signs she notes (ibid., Note 361): “The inscriptions are evidenced on blank surface sealings and on some seal─impressed sealings. Again, the majority of these appear to be door sealings, and a number of these also appear to have inscriptions with officials’ names and titles ─ as per a conversation with Charvát.”

427 Martin ─ Matthews 1993, Fig. 2:16, No. 4c.

428 Martin ─ Matthews 1993, 46 as an alternative they quote: “…that the geometric impressions on container sealings somehow related to the contents of the sealed containers, while the figured scenes on door sealings somehow related to the officials involved in door sealing.”The geometric group of Abu Salabikh has good parallels at Khafagah, Houses 2─1: Martin ─ Matthews 1993, Fig. 2, Nos. 112─114. 116─124, cf. Frankfort 1955, Nos. 326─327. 349. The motive developed from GT 3i (This section was already published in Dittmann 2013).

429 Heil 2011; Forest 2011 and Dittmann 2013.

430 Dittmann 2013, 59─64.

431 Hrouda.2000. Abb. 12.

432 Nissen 1986, 95 Fig. 20b.

433 Nissen 1974.

434 Frankfort 1939 and 1943. Moortgat 1935 and 1967.

435 Evans 2012, 160.

436 Evans 2007.

437 Evans 2007 - already suggested by Hrouda 1971, 112.

438 Evans 2012, 127. 194 Fig, 69.

439 Evans 2011. Dittmann n.d. here No. 1.

440 Evans 2012.

441 Evans 2012, 152-156.

442 See the phantastic analysis for Lagaš by Selz 1995.

443 Delougaz─Lloyd 1942, pl.12.

444 Heinrich 1985, 147─148, Fig. 13.

445 Nissen 2012

446 Stefan R. Hauser, "Chronologische und historisch-politische Untersuchungen zur östlichen Ǧazira in vorislamischer Zeit: Band I: Chronologie der Arsakidenzeit, die Grabungen der Freien Universität Berlin in Assur: Band II: Die östliche Ǧazira in vorislamischer Zeit, Siedlungsgeographie und historische Untersuchungen. (Diss. FU-Berlin 1994," unpublished)." - Claudia Beuger, Keramik der spätfrühdynastischen bis spätassyrischen Zeit aus Assur. (Diss. FU-Berlin 2005: www.FUDISS_derivate_000000003202). - Our material was also used by Beuger as reference for her work "Die Keramik der Älteren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur: Von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., WVDOG 138 (Wiesbaden 2013)" and the pottery of our excavation will be published by her as a second volume. - Furthermore: Paul Larsen worked on: "Stratigraphie und Architekturbefunde der Kampagnen 1988-89. Die Ablagerungssequenzen in den Schichten III und II". (unpublished) . - Roland Lamprichs, on: "Assur 1988 und 1989. Die Keramik der Schicht III: Ein Katalog" (unpublished) - Last, but not least, our sequence was used by Daniel Hockmann, "Gräber und Grüfte in Assur. Von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., WVDOG 129 (Wiesbaden 2010)."

447 Beuger 2005, 57f, and especially p. 64 Note 1, for B1, referring to her chapter "Zusammenfassung und Ergebnisse" ibid., 326ff.; p. 327 Note 6, deals with B1, which reminds her of older material, but without any deeper analysis.

448 Beuger ibid., 329 Tab. 13, transferring Larsen's half-baked phase designations in acceptable terms.

449 Larsen n.d.

450 Another point of disagreement is Beuger's construction of an extreme long sequence going down to the Early Akkadian period (Beuger 2005, 322 Tab. 12 and 329 Tab. 13). As to Lamprichs and me, we never reached building levels older than (Isin-Larsa or late Ur III at best). That older material was found is normal, but does not date the levels, we excavated. But this will be discussed in Part II.

451 https://www.academia.edu/18151645/Bericht_über_die_1988_von_der_FU-Berlin_in _Assur _durchgeführten_Arbeiten since 1989.

452 In the original report from 1988, this part of the northern section was still uncorrected, and wall M 1b-c still rendered as anamorphous block. In 1989 the section was cleaned and the real nature of these walls could be traced.

453 CTS = Area C, Deep Sounding (Tiefsondage)

454 Ibid.. ,Bericht über die 1988 von der FU-Berlin in Assur durchgeführten Arbeiten:https://www.academia.edu/18151645/Bericht_über_die_1988_von_der_FUBerlin_in_Assur_durchgeführten_Arbeiten since 1989, Fig. 4

455 Dittmann 1990, 160 Abb. 3.

456 See Beuger 2005, 68ff.

457 Beuger 2005, 60. 62.

458 The Pithos reminds an earlier one from IT G, Beuger 2013, Taf. 44,2.

459 Beuger 2005, Taf. 42,12.

460 Beuger 2005, Taf. 44,04.

461 Hockmann 2010, Taf. 54. 108, Topfgrab 32.

462 Fujji 1986, 46 Fig. 9, 40 and LeBeau 1983, 65ff, Fig. 8, 1.

463 Von Haller 1954, 164, Taf. 1ak-1ay; Hockmann 2010, 123-125, Taf. 87-94.

464 Hockmann 2010, 57.

465.Hockmann 2010, 57 gives the correct date, but on page 124 he associates by mistake the Khabur-Ware exclusively with the older Karum II period

466 Beuger 2005, 329 Tab. 13.

467 Pfälzner 1995, 214. 258-259 Abb. 162 and ibid., 237 Abb. 137, for the short distance between mA IIc and mA III. On Figs. 13-23 figures a mixed assemblage of Ishtar D-C - material and Middle Assyrian pottery running sometimes up to the Late Assyrian period. It illustrates exactly the scenario proposed. As can be seen on the Figs. mentioned, Beuger attributes the pottery of Grave B1 (new Grave 7) to IIb4 (Beuger 2005, Taf . 42,12) as well as to IIb3 (ibid, Taf. 44, 4)!

468 I wonder how the people could have moved this gigantic pithos. When we tried it, it broke into pieces.

469 Obviously agreed by Beuger 2005, 64ff.

470 Larsen n.d. 43: “Anschließend wurde die Grube [G5-R.D.] zugefüllt. Dem Befund nach zu urteilen, war der Fußboden an der Stelle von Grube G12 nicht gestört, d.h. die Nutzung des Fußbodens datiert erst nach der Niederlegung des Grabes.“

471 Brick-size oft the individual levels: IIa = 332 x 7cm (paving bricks); 442 x 6 cm. IIb2 = 332 x 7cm (paving bricks); 392 x 13 cm (northern part of M 18); 40/392 x 13 cm (M 15). IIb3 = 382 x 11/12 cm (M 16). IIIa = 372 x 10/11 cm (M22/24); 372 x 13 cm (M 22); 352 x 10/11 cm (M 2c). Brick-size oft the individual levels: IIa = 332 x 7cm (paving bricks); 442 x 6 cm. IIb2 = 332 x 7cm (paving bricks); 392 x 13 cm (northern part of M 18); 40/392 x 13 cm (M 15). IIb3 = 382 x 11/12 cm (M 16). IIIa = 372 x 10/11 cm (M22/24); 372 x 13 cm (M 22); 352 x 10/11 cm (M 2c).

472 Dittmann, Bericht of 1988, 10-12. This gap in the sequence was already recognized in the excavation, but the distance given was too short: 16. century to early 14. century BC. According to Pfälzner's later analysis of the pottery of IIb3 the gap has to be dated from the l6. to the late 11. Century BC.

473 The gap was already mentioned in the preliminary reports. (Dittmann 1988, 8).

474 Dittmann, Assur und Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta oder das hässliche Entlein und der Strahleprinz – L’archólogie malgré moi, Tagung am 8.11.2016 in Münster.

475 The Roman numbers indicate the structural level, small Latin numbers, layers and building phases within; small Arabic numbers were used for associated floors, running horizons etc. Level IIIc should perhaps better be called "IVa".

476 There should be a Building 2 between both, but I am afraid this belongs to Building 1 (cf. Abb), as a simple extension.

477 Pfälzner… Therefore, half of M15, M19, M21 and M35 on Fig. 5 do not belong to Level III.

478 I almost exclusively used Beuger's references for the compilation of the Tabs. Only the first occurence of a pottery for-m was noted. For possible running times one has to consult Beugers' catalogues and here Tab. 10 for selected sherds, discussed here..-

479 Flache Teller/Schalen fehlen im IT!

480 Typ fehlt im IT!

481 Pfälzner 1995, 23-24, Abb. 10.

482 For a critical resumée of the finds from the Sinkašid palace, see Beuger

483 For Bi’a see Beuger 2005, 302-303.

484 Beuger, 2005, 276-77.

485 Add, No. 71.12 for IIIy1 in the group 'drops on lips.'

486 More recent works on the topic have isolated a pre-Shamshi-Adad Khabur Horizon (I) starting around 1900 BC. what could also be the case with some of our material. See below and Oguchi 1997. 1998 and 2006 and Palmisano 2012.

487 Beuger 2005, no. 72.11 as well as 77.02 from IIIolder c.

488 Oguchi 1998, 119 Note 3.

489 Beuger 2005, 278, Taf. II. 70.22 identifies the decoration of the vessel on Fig, 28 as „Streifenpolitur“ (pattern burnish). Since I, myself and K. Bastert drew the sherds, I do not remember such a kind of decoration in Assur. But it could be polished painted stripes. Where-ever Beuger got this information (she couldn’t work on our original sherds), and whatever it is, it copies at least Khabur I-Ware, regarding the form and the arrangement of (polish?) stripes..

490 Most of our parallels in Tabs. would date our layers more to the Isin Larsa period, but this is due to the fact that in the tabulations only the first occurrence was noted, not the complete running time of a type, The parallels to Tell Bia, Palace A, give an Old Babylonian date (Tab…). For the running time of our types in our excavation see: Tab. 10

491 Hockmann 2010, 49.

492 Beuger 2005, Pls. 70-71.1

493 Hockmann 2010, 49.

494 Beuger 2005, Pl. 70, 8-9. 12 and Pl. 71, 30a and 35.

495 Beuger 2013, Taf. 66,21, if it begins not with G - Taf. 66,26?

496 Nissen 2012; Nissen 2014.

497 Strommenger 1960; Braun-Holzinger 1977.

498 Frankfort 1939; Frankfort 1943; Frankfort 1955; Frankfort 1969; 18–40; Moortgat 1935; Moortgat 1966.

499 Moortgat 1967, 51─60; Boehmer 1965.

500 Frankfort 1932; Delougaz 1933.

501 Frankfort 1939, 143; Frankfort, 1969, 23–32.

502 Strommenger 1960; Boehmer 1969; Braun-Holzinger 1977.

503 Evans 2007.

504 Evans 2012.

505 Evans 2012, 139.

506 Delougaz ─ Lloyd, OIP 1942, 89–91; Evans 2012, 141.

507 Evans 2011, 54.

508 Evans 2011, 54.

509 Evans 2012, 155.

510 Frankfort 1939a; Frankfort 1955; Moortgat 1966.

511 Nissen 1977; zusammenfassend: Collon 1987.

512 z. B.: Dittmann 1994; Dittmann 2001; Dittmann 2013.

513 In Bezug zur Indus-Kultur s. Dittmann 2000.

514 Wiggerman 2012.

515 Selz 1983; Winter 1986.

516 Schneider 1987, bes. 623.

517 Bonatz 2002, bes. 63─68.

518 Zettler 1977.

519 Dittmann 2001, 98 Abb. 1.

520 Bonatz 2002, bes. 67.

521 Dittmann 2001, 98f. Abb. 1.

522 Herbordt 1992, 41─45.

523 Maul 1994, 12.

524 Ursprünglich stammt dieser ─ erweiterte Text ─ von einem Plakat im Rahmen einer Instituts─Ausstellung, darum werden Inhalte von Appendix I z.T. dupliziert..

525 Siehe Karte Abb. 1 in Appendix I.

526 Als gelungene Einführung in fast alle Aspekte der Glyptik Altvorderasiens siehe Collon 1987.

527 Von Wickede 1990; Rashad 1990.

528 Joshi ─ Parpola 1987; Shah ─ Parpola 1991; Dittmann 2000.

529 Frankfort 1939 and 1955.

530 Moortgat 1940.

531 Boehmer 1969.

532 Evans 2005. 2007.

533 Dittmann 2001.

534 Dies ist sogar bei einem so spröden Material wie der Indusglyptik möglich (Dittmann 2000).

535 Wiggermann: 2012.

536 Maul 1994, 12, 207 ff.

537 Nissen 1977.

538 Nissen Damerow Englund 1990: 44 f. Abb. 5a (Siegel) und 66-70, Abb. 9a (Tafel)

539 Bernbeck 2009, 46; ein Faktor, der bis SIS 6 4 in der Glyptik zu finden ist.

540 Ibid., 49. Streng genommen sind etliche Szenen in der hierarchische Unterschiede oder Handlugen, wie sie auf den Uruk─zeitlichen Rollsiegel vorkommen, schon vor der Uruk─Zeit in Tepe Gaura, zur Gaura─Zeit, belegt: Gefangenenszene: Boehmer 1999, Abb. 124a; Tiere hüten: Tobler 1950, 91 (XII). 102 (XIII); Rankunterschiede (festgemacht am Größen und Aus­stattungsunterschied): Tobler 1950, 90 (XIII); Boehmer 1999, Abb. 130f.k. (Susa Ba); "Heilige Hochzeit": Tobler 1950, 86 (XIA); Banquette: Tobler 1950, 91 (XIII). Für Gaura siehe auch Butterlin 2009.

541 Dittmann 2013.

542 Collon 1987.

543 Hier Appendix 1, Abb.13.

544 Hacinebi B2 (Pittman 1999, 49 Fig, 3, 3), Chogha Mish, East Terrace (Delougaz ─ Kantor ─ Alizadeh 1996, Pl. 138, I) and Susa (Rova 1994, 424+Hut symbol. 425)

545 Fiandra 1981.

546 Fiandra 1975.

547 Jans ─ Bretschneider 2011.

548 Kämmerer ─ Rogge 2013.

549 Von G.J. Selz/Wien zu Recht als ‚Schrift‘ aufgefasst.

550 Dittmann 2013.

551 Benannt nach ähnlichen Befunden in Uruk - Brandes 1980.

552 Die ist kein Mittelsaalhaus, sondern eher ein Versammlungshaus.

553 Zum möglichen Gebrauch siehe Dittmann 2012, 80, 6.

554 Siehe die Diskussion hier Lecture 2.

555 Dittmann 2013, 49-51. Allerdings könnte der Eindruck einer Zuhname an Originalsiegeln zur Ğamdat Nasr Zeit falsch sein, denn früher zählte man PTW-Siegel ausnahmslos zu dieser Periode.

556 Dittmann 2013, 49-51..

557 Brandes 1979.

558 Die Organigramme wurden anhand von mehrfach gesiegelten Hüllen von sphärischen Bullae ermittelt: Siehe Dittmann 1986a und 2012. A For a deep admiration of Stein's personality and work, see Mirsky 1977. New additions written after my original publication (Dittmann 1986a) are indicated by footnotes in letters, and chapter 3 and 4 are new. I dedicate these thoughts to Abbas Alizadeh, who for me is the Doyen of Iranian Archaeology. May you stay in good health dear friend and continue your work in Fars.

559 Stein 1936, 127ss., Plan 2 (ibid., 119).

560 Alle ha-values are the result of transforming the values for the lenght and the with to an ellipse, corresponding better to the shape of tells, than a simple multiplication of both axes. See the discussion in Schacht 1973, 40s. B The value is corrupt or includes more sections.

561 I is the lowest and XIII highest section.

562 Stein 1936, 129.

563 ibid., 119, Plan-2 ─ figuring here as section XIV, C For the subdivision used here, see Dittmann1986a. D For the Sohz-Phase see Dittmann 1984. There is a restudy-project, headed by Susan Pollock at the FU:-Berlin: " Tepe Sohz: A Fifth Millennium BCE site in Southwestern Iran" see: http://www.geschkult.fuberlin.de/e/vaa/forschung/ Tepe_Sohz/ index.html (26.07.2017) and Pollock 2018. E Equal to Bakun AIII─IV.

564 Stein 1936, 129.

565 Gropp-Nadjmabadi 1970, J84.

566 ibid., 131,

567 ibid.

568 ibid., 132 - Impossible to fix the location more precisely.

569 Ibid., 135f.

570 Stein, 1936, 136. F de Miroschedji,1972,Fig.l = F.97, here map Karte 39 = f.97. Tall-i Zohak is spart of a larger settlement.

571 Ibid., 138, 139 - Plan-5; cf. also de Miroschedji, 1972, 44; ders., 1974, esp. 35s.

572 de Miroschedji 1972, 5.

573 Ibid., 5 - here equated with the Kaftari A-group of Vanden Berghe.

574 Vanden Berghe 1954a, 402ss. for a definition of his Kaftari-Wares.

575 de Miroschedji, 1972, 5.

576 Hansman 1975, 289s.

577 Stein, 1936, 149ss. 151 - Plan 8.

578 de Miroschedji, 1972, 2, Fig.I.

579 Cf. plan 8 of Stein with the location of F.103 by de Miroschedji, 1972, Fig.I.

580 Stein, 1936, Pl.XXX:15 - the legend relates this sherd to Tall-i Gaud-i Rahim, but the text (ibid., 150) refers beyond doubt to Kanakan A. I (=Bakun Ab),

581 Level designations according to the author.

582 Stein, 1936, Pl.XXX:33-37

583 ibid., 150.

584 Stein 1936, ibid.

585 Ibid., Pl.XXX: 11.

586 Ibid., Pl. XXX, 23.

587 Ibid., 152.

588 Ibid., 153s. - and de Miroschedji, 1972, 3. 5; ders., 1974, 35,

589 De Miroschedji, 1972, 3, Fig.I.

590 Stein 1936, 154..

591 Ibid., Pl.XIX:17 - cf. de Miroschedji, 1972, Fig.5: I5.

592 Ibid., Pl. XXIX:30.

593 ibid., 154.

594 Ibid., Pl. XX:5.

595 Ibid., Pl. XX:10 - cf. Potts 1980, Fig. 51, C (Yahya IVA4?).

596 Stein 1936, Pl. XX:7.

597 Ibid., Pl. XX: 3. 6.

598 Ibid., 154.

599 Ibid., 156.

600 See here below, Ware 1.

601 Stein 1936, 154.

602 Ibid., 155 - Plan 9. 156.

603 Ibid., Pl. XXII:5-6. "Red Ware" is a exagerated definition, in fact it is Ware 5 with a light reddish core with a thin slip and black paint. Some of the motifs have a long tradition in Fars, Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 19:5─6 (Gap Ia); Stein 1936, Pl. XXII: 4- Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 7: 1 (Bakun Ab); the first pattern is still to be found in the Banesh-Phase of Tall-I Malyan: Alden, 1979, Fig. 42: 5.

604 Stein 1936, 154.

605 Ibid., Pl. XIX: 15.

606 Ibid., Pl. XXX:9, if it is a cylinder seal, a parallel would be Frankfort 1955, Pl. 79:850.Shara-Temple.

607 Ibid., Pl. XXII:1.

608 De Miroschedji 1972, 517.

609 Ibid., 719.

610 Ibid., 3 Fig. 1. I S. Kerner 1993.

611 Stein, 1936, I S3. 15 I - Plan-8.

612 de Miroschedji, 1972, 2, Fig. I.

613 Stein 1936, 157. 151-Plan 8.

614 de Miroschedji, 1972, 2, Fig. I.

615 Stein, 1936, 157.

616 de Miroschedji, 1972, 2, Fig. I.

617 de Miroschedji 1972, Fig. 1 F.63.

618 Stein, 1936, 161.

619 De Miroschedji 1974, 19ff. Fig. 1.

620 Ibid., 35.

621 Stein, 1936, 162.

622 Ibid., 163.

623 Ibid.

624 Ibid., 175.

625 Ibid.

626 Ibid., 178.

627 Ibid., 180. Not identical with a Shogha- and Taimuran A-date site of the same name, tested by Vanden Berghe and Nicol. See Jacobs 1980.

628 Stein 1938, Pl. XXIII: 56. 66─67.

629 Ibid., 180f.

630 Ibid., 180f.

631 Vanden Berghe 1954, 400.

632 Stein, 1936, 181s. The tepe is cut by robery trenches in three parts.

633 Ibid., 182.

634 ibid. There is a orange-slipped ware present at Tepe Yahya. The relation between both wares is unknown: cf. Lamberg-Karlovsky -Tosi 1973, Fig.107: l. vessel at the top left.

635 Stein 1936, 182.

636 ibid., Pl.XXIII:95m Mushki 2a-Ware {Mushki A-Phase), besides ibid., Pl. XXIII:93. 97-100a Jalyan-Ware; cf. also Vanden Berghe, 1954, 401 and Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973,80f. and Pl.L:18-19, and de Miroschedji, 1972, 5 on the presence of Mushki- and Jalyan-Ware on this site.

637 Stein 1936, Pl. XXX: 14─15.

638 Ibid., 1826.

639 Ibid.

640 Ibid., 182.

641 Ibid., 185 Plan 12.

642 De Miroschedji 1972, Fig. 1.

643 Stein, 1936, 185 - Plan-12. In the BRM the Findingno. is Mad.Mas./N = Mas'ud Khan's excavation with Mad.Mas./TS = Stein's excavation.

644 Stein 1936, 184.

645 Ibid., Pl. XXX: 16-22.

646 Ibid., Pl. XXXX: 6.

647 Ibid., 184.

648 Ibid., 184. 186.

649 ibid., 184 - possibly ibid., Pl.XXX:41.

650 Ibid., Pl. XXX: 1-2. 4.

651 Ibid., Pl. XXIII: 37-38.

652 Vanden Berghe 1954, 400.

653 Stein 1936, 186. 185 Plan 13.

654 De Miroschedji 1972, 2 Fig. 1.

655 Stein 1936, Pl. XXIX: 39. 42a and ibid., 187, Area F in Plan-13 (ibid., 185) marked as Trench of Mas'ud Khan.

656 Ibid., XXIX: 32.

657 Ibid., 187.

658 Ibid.

659 DeMiroschedji 1972, 2, Fig. 1 - No. D.88-89.

660 Vanden Berghe 1954, 400.

661 DeMiroschedji 1972, 2, Fig. 1.

662 Stein 1936, 188ss. 185-Plan 13.

663 DeMiroschedji 1972, 2, Fig. 1.

664 Stein 1936, 189.

665 Stein 1936, 189.

666 The patterns of the Bakun BII-pottery were systematically presented by Nagel 1961, 70f., Abb. 19. Concerning the style of the two groups, Bakun Ba and Bb, they can be related to the Do Tolune-phase in the Behbehan-aera. Bakun Bb can be associated with Gap II to the Sohz-phase. See Dittmann 1984, 24.44.63.

667 Vanden Berghe 1954, 400.

668 Stein 1936, 190.

669 Ibid.

670 Ibid., 194.

671 Ibid., 200.

672 Ibid., 201ff.

673 Ibid., 202.

674 Ibid.

675 Ibid., 201.

676 Ibid., 201.

677 DeMiroschedji 1972, 2, Fig.I:D:17. Ibid., 201 he quoates a red ceramic with light slip.

678 Vertical scraped walls of vessels are known from Bakun A and Tepe Farukhabad, Faruk-Phase: Langsdorf-McCown 1942, 25, and Wright et al. 1981, 14ff.

679 Stein 1937, 220. See also the Comment in Petrie 2013, 437 Appendix B.

680 Ibid., Pl. XXVI:10 is without good parallel; the ware suggests a Bakun A(a)-date.

681 Ibid., 220ff. 238-Fig. 86.

682 Ibid., Pl. XXVIII:ii:26.

683 Ibid., 218.

684 Ders., 1936, 208s.

685 Ibid., 210.

686 Ibid., Pl. XXX: 7.

687 Ibid., 211.

688 Ibid., 209s.

689 Ibid., 210.

690 Ibid., Pl. XIX: 14. XX: 22. XIX: 9 - Spouted-Vessel: see Potts 1980, Fig. 32: 4. 7 (Yahya IVc2). This type lasts as long as Yahya IVb1 (ibid., Fig.45: G). The painted vessel - Gefäß Stein 1936, Pl. XX: 23, can be compared to Alden 1979, Fig. 41:12 (Banesh D). Parallels to Shahi Tump: ibid., 201 Note 4. For the sequence in Makran and Shahi Tump see: Besenval 1994. 1997a-b. 2000 and 2005; Jarrige-Didier-Quivron 2011. Jarrige 2013. Mutin 2013. Mutin (Forthcoming).

691 see Alden 1982, 617, who is also carefull.

692 Stein 1936, 210.

693 Ibid., 211.

694 Ibid.

695 Ibid., 212.

696 Ibid., 213, Fig. 20, 215-Plan 17.

697 Ibid., 214.

698 Ibid., 216.

699 Ibid., 218s. 219-Plan -19, supra No. 5. For Deh Bid see also Alizadeh 2006, 44─45.

700 Ibid., Pl. XXX: 39.

701 Ibid., 220.

702 Stein 1936, 220.

703 Stein 1936, 220.

704 Goff 1963 and 1964; Dittmann 1986, 328─331.

705 Goff 1963, 43 perhaps of Bakun Aa-date.

706 Stein 1936, 221.

707 Ibid.

708 Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, 74ss.

709 ibid. 5ss, Roman numbers mark building levels, arabic numbers levels in general.

710 ibid., 22.

711 Ibid.,Tab. 1.

712 Ibid., Pl. XLV. VIII.

713 Dittmann 1986a, 347.

714 Ibid., Pl. XLIII.

715 Ibid., 77.

716 Anyhow, the case remains somewhat obscure: Taking the East Section of the Japanese trench K/L─11-12 (Fig. 1c), the layers indeed slope from the North to the South and in the South Section (Fig. 1d) they slope from East to West. Vanden Berghe’s TMB trench is directly South of the South Section in K/L 11─12. Opening this trench he would have got TMB-pottery from the beginning. The Northern Trench from Vanden Berghe, starting almost at the same absolute Level, would have given Mushki B pottery from the beginning, followed by Mushki A-pottery. So where did he get his sequence Mushki prior to Jari B from, since the surface of both trenches of Vanden Berghe are at about the same niveau? Moreover, the sloping levels have been horizontal razed, as is clear from the sections. So definitely a certain portion of the former upper levels of Tall-I Muski is missing.

717 ibid., 24 und Pl.XLVIII: 2─3, XLVII:3─4.

718 ibid., 24. Pottery with buff and red slip: Pl. XVII: 6 and page V and Pl. XIX: 1 (cf. also Dittmann 1986a, Note II:48).

719 Ibix., Pl. XLVII: 8 (carination), Pl. XLVII: 4 (hemispheric wall).

720 Ibid., Pl. XLVIII: 9. Bottles with an accentuated- (Pl. XLVII: 3) and weak carinations are known (Pl. XLVII: 2. 11).

721 Ibid., 24.

722 Ibid., 23ff. , Pl. XLIX. L, Tab. 1-3.

723 Ibid., 29, Pl. L.

724 Ibid.

725 Ibid., 31ff.

726 Ibid., 33f.

727 Ibid., 33, Pl. XX: 8.

728 ibid., Pl. XLII.

729 Ibid., 34, Pl. XXIII: 2:6.

730 Ibid., 33f., Pl. XXIII-XXIV compared to Vanden Berghe 1951─52, 213, Fig. 28.

731 Discussed by Matsutani in: Fukai─Horiuchi─Matsutani 1973, 77ff.

732 Ibid., Tab. 11─12; see the discussion in Dittmann 1986, 413ff.

733 Present in Tall-i Jari AIII: Egami─Masuda─Gotoh 1977, 3, Pl. VI: 7-11.

734 Egami 1967, 2938f.

735 Egami 1967, 2938f.; Vanden Berghe 1951─52, 212.

736 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 3, Pl. VI: 7─11.

737 Egami 1967, 293s.

738 Vanden Berghe 1951-1952, 212. Fig. 28. Nota bene the sherd ibid., Fig. 28: 1.R.v.u, 2v.l seems to belong to the Mushki-complex; also a sign for an overlap of Mushki and Jari B?

739 Tall-i Jari AIII, level 7 is only one building level, whereas Tall-I Jari B has 8 levels. Therefore, how long does Mushki and Jari B overlap?

740 Mushki 1-Ware is perhaps directly related to the unpainted Pottery Neolithic 1-Ware from Rahmatabat and Qal’e Rostam III. If this would be true, the Soft-Ware of the Pottery Neolithic 1 would be a phenomenon of the ‘longue durée’ accompanying the several neolithic painted wares up to the Bakun A-period. I would also suggest that the Lapui-aspect should be tested in this perspective. Is this the very end of a local constant or substratum?

741 Ibid., 2936. The material is related here to the one oft he upper levels in Tall-i Mushki. Either to Ware 2b or to Jari B-pottery (from TMB). The last seems more probable, asis shown by the second report.

742 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 3, Pl. V.

743 Vanden Berghe, 1951-52, 212, Fig. 28. One sherd: Fig. 28: 1.row from above and 2. From the left seems to belong to the Mushki-complex.

744 In this article the designations of McCown are used: Bakun BI(McCown) = Bakun B2 (Egami) and Bakun BII (Mcown) = Bakun B1 (Egami).

745 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 2, Pl.V:33-38.

746 Ibid., 2, Pl. IV

747 Ibid., Pl. IV: 1─2.

748 Ibid., Pl. IV,

749 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Pl. V.

750 Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, Pl. L: 1─30.

751 Ibid., Pl. L:31─47.

752 Ibid., Pl. XXIII-XXIV.

753 Cf. Dittmann 1986a, Note III, 42.

754 Sumner 1972; Sumner 1977b.

755 Sumner 1972; Sumner 1977b.

756 Ders., 1977b passim.

757 DeMiroschedji 1971; ders., 1972 and 1974.

758 Stein 1936.

759 Sumner 1977b, esp. 295 und ders. 1972, Pl. III: A─H. L. N-Q. S. V-X.

760 Sumner 1977b.

761 Ibid. Fig. 4:f─j. ; ders. 1972, Pl.III: A─H. N─Q.

762 Ibid., Fig. 4:f-g.

763 Ibid., 295.

764 My own ware designation. Sumner has called it "Kazerun-Painted-Buff-Ware". (Sumner 1977b) [In Tol-e Nurabad Kuthai-Ware is rare, but present: Potts et al. 2009, Fig. 3.77: No. 1495 (A22─23); Fig. 3:78: TNP 1480 (A21)].

765 Ibid., Fig. 4:k─m. [The pottery of Morge has excellent parallels in the Mamasani-District at Fars, in Tol-e Nurabad - Potts et al. 2009, Fig. 2.68: TNP 1747 (2b). 369: TNP 1648. 1730 (A24b). 3.70: 1644. 1646. 1654. 1669. 1672. 1701. 1704. 1712. 1713. 1724. 1727. 1729 (24b); Fig. 3. 72: TNP 1648. 1728 (A24b); Fig. 3:73: TNP 1560. 1562. 1600 (24a); Fig. 3.74: TNP 1566 .1569. 1605. 1608. 1610. 1614. 1616. 1617 (A24a); Fig. 3, 75: TNP 1536. 1539. 1541. 1543. 1544; Fig. 3. 78: TNP 1480 (auch = Kuthai)(A21); Fig. A 19:TNP 1399─1407 (A 19)].

766 Ibid., 295.

767 Ders. 1972, Pl. III:V.

768 DeMiroschedji 1972, 6 = Stein 1936, Pl. XXX: 93. 95─100 from Tall-I Gaud-I Rahim.

769 Ibid., 5─6- de Miroschedji noted for Tall-i Jari A Mushki-pottery, obviously based on the first preliminary report by Egami; since the second report by Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977 this misinterpretation has to be given up.

770 DeMiroschedji 1972, 5.

771 Sumner 1977, 299s.

772 Sumner 1977, 299s.

773 Ders., 1972, 36.

774 Ders., 1977b, 195.

775 Ibid., 300.

776 Vanden Berghe 1954a, 401.

777 Ibid., 400s,

778 DeMiroschedji 1972, 59.

779 Ibid.

780 Vanden Berghe 1954,a 401.

781 Stein 1936, Pl. XXIII_97─100; de Miroschedji 1972, 5.

782 Cf. also Stein 1936, Pl. XXIII: 95 - a typical Mushki-Motiv: Vanden Berghe 1954a, 401 and Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutami 1973, 80.

783 For carinated vessel forms of Mushki 2b-Ware cf. Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, Pl. XXII:A: 5. 7. 10-12. 14-16, Pl. XXIII:B: 8?

784 See above..

785 Sumner 1972, Pl. III:M.S.U.Y. Pl. IV:passim; Sumner., 1977, Fig. 4:a-c.

786 Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, Pl. XXIII─XXIV.

787 Vanden Berghe 1951-52, 212; 1954, 400; 1954b, 47s., Pl. 49:a

788 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Pl. V (= Jari AII). Concerning the pottery of Jari B, Nishiaki 2010, 123 remarked: “…the first stage, that is, Level 8 pottery in Jari B, seems to be rather different from that of the upper levels. Level 8 contains more Type D-a pottery than in the others. As noted before, this level could contain two sub-levels in Trench W. The earlier phases have more Type D-a than Type D-b, 11 and 9 specimen re-spectively. Maeda 1986 noted that “the pottery from this level shows the very common use of burnishing, which was rarely seen on the material from the upper levels. This surface treatment technique was employed in this level not only for the painted pottery but also for plain pottery. This pottery is known to have close parallels to that from the sounding pit of TMB at Tall-i Mushki and Level III of Tall-i Jari A. More recently, comparable pottery was recovered in secure stratigraphic contexts at Toll-e Bashi, by which the Bashi phase has been proposed.”

789 Sumner 1977, Fig. 4b and Morge-Ware: Fig. 4k.

790 DeMiroschedji 1972, 1f. Fig. 2.

791 DeMiroschedji 1972, 1f. Fig. 2.

792 Sumner 1972, Pl. III:G; 1977b, Fig. 4h.

793 Sumner 1972, Pl. III:V.

794 Sumner 1977, 295, Fig. 4k-m.

795 Ibid., Fig. 4s.

796 Vanden Berghe 1951-52, Fig. 28: 2.R.v.o., 1.v.l. - perhaps to be compared to a Mushki B-Motif: Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, Pl. L:41.

797 Sumner1977, Fig. 4i-j.

798 Ibid. Fig. 4a.

799 Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973, Pl. XXIV.

800 Vanden Berghe 1951─52, Fig. 28:1.R.v.u.; 1.v.l.

801 Sumner 1972, Pl. III:V.

802 Vanden Berghe 1954a, 401s,

803 Sumner 1977, 299.

804 This is especially true for patterns like Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1972, Pl. L:39 41─42 47.

805 DeMiroschedji 1972, 1.

806 Sumner 1977, 295 - Sumner seems to follow a wrong asignation by de Miroschedji 1972, Fig. 2: 25 "Bizdan-Ware", a sherd, the latter has attributed to Jalyan-Ware (ibid., 2).

807 Zagarrell 1982, 132, Fig. 134─137.

808 Sumner 1977, Fig. 4: k-m

809 Ibid., Fig. 4: l.

810 McCown 1942a, 23s.

811 E. Schmidt 1939a, 121ss. esp. 123s.

812 The impression of missing architecture in Bakun BI(McCown)-levels might also be due to the fact, that in earlier excavations the centers of the flat Bakun B-tells were excavated, but this would be the place of a central open space, which would have continued through several levels.

813 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 3, Pl. II:VIIIb and Nishiaki-Mashkour 2006, Fig. 1-2, here Text-Fig. 1e for Jari B.

814 Egami-Masuda 1962, 4f.

815 Ibid., 5.

816 Ibid.

817 Konkave Böden: ibid., Fig. 18:30f. Sumner 1972,Pl. V: E; flat bottoms: ibid., Fig. 18:22. 25. 32. 33.

818 Ibid., Fig. 18:27. 31.

819 Ibid., Fig. 19:36.

820 Sumner 1972, 38, Pl. III,, L, N; Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Pl. IV:3 (Jari AII). Since my study from 1983/86 it took the community 27/24 years to note this layer, but not the significance of the sherds: Weeks-Petrie-Potts 2010, 264.

821 Egami-Masuda 1962, Fig. 21, Pl. V.

822 Iibid, 7, Fig. 21:22.

823 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 1ff.

824 Ibid.2

825 Egami 1967, 2936.

826 Ibid.

827 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, 7.

828 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Pl.IV:9─14.

829 Cf. the specimen Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Pl.IV:5. 8. 10. 14, which could be the first ring-bases.

830 McCown 1942a, Fig. 110:32-33. 40; 11: 56. 60. 132; 12:109. 113. 26. 55. 72. 77: 13: 44. 79. 74. 120.203.

831─:31─47 and Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Pl. V;1─22 and Vanden Berghe 1951─52, Fig. 28. The design patterns of the Bakun BII(McCown)-pottery were presented by Nagel 1961, 70s. Abb.19 and 1964a, 70, A. 19. Nagel gave for ibid., 71, No. 4= McCown 1942a, Fig. 10: 93 as source. This refers to Bakun AIII. More correct would be McCown 1942a, Fig. 11:19.

832 From a stylistic perspective there are close relations of Group Ba to the Do Tolune-phase material in the Behbehan.Treh-area, whereas Group B bis close to the Sohz-phase (Dittmann 1984, 2444.63).

833 DeMiroschedji 1972, 5.

834 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, 29.

835 Cf. Sumner 1972, Pl. XVII:O─P.

836 Similar: Stein 1936, Pl. XX: 3. XXII:4─6 publiziert.

837 Ware 4 will be neglected from the following discussion, because it almost never is found in the collections of the BRM; it is similar to Ware 3, which, according to de Miroschedji, occurs only in the Darab area.

838 Stein 1936, 154. [Kerner, using a much broader material base, than I did, comes to a slightly different subdivision: Kerner1993, 115 Fig. 53 and 136─138. She proposes for the Vakilabad-horizon 3 main phases, with subdivisions, coming eventually to 5 phases in total. The youngest phase Vakilabad IIb is not represented in the Trenches, discussed here. Phase Vakilabad IIa would correspond to C -1' -6'(-7'): Phase C is somewhere in between: -5' to-7'; Phase Ib is represented by -8 -13', phase Ia by -15' - 19'. Ware 5 is dated by her starting in Bakun Ba and a new ware: Nalaki-Ware, is quite close to the Aliabad-Ware of Iblis IV (ibid., 163), but is dated by Kerner to the transition of Bakun Ab : Lapui (ibid., 186, Fig. 83) as Ware 5 (up to Vakilabad Ic (ibid., 187, Fig.85)]

839 [Kerner - cf. Note 274 and Kerner 1993, 48] .

840 cf. Dittmann 1986a, I,337,Tab.116.

841 cf. Zagarell,1982, Fig.24:4.

842 cf. Dittmann 1986a, I, 300, Tab.97.

843 cf. Note 276.

844 Sumner 1985,Fig. 3 :A.C─-G.

845 See also Dittmann 1986a, I, 369.

846 A certain and short overlap of Gap IIc with Bakun Aa had already been discussed (Dittmann 1986a, I, 319ff.).

847 De Miroschedji 1972, Fig. 1.F.77.

848 Dittmann 1986a, I, 396 Tab. 122.

849 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, 33.

850 Egami-Masuda 1962, 8, Pl. III:0-10. Mutin 2006, 188; in the Aceramic Neolithic at Mehrgarh I, bitumen coated baskets occur; in the Ceramic Neolithic (Mehrgarh IIa-b) this technique continues but not for pottery, which follows another technique ("sequential slab construction"). Anyhow, in the Early Chalcolithic (Mehrgarh III) the first basked moldet pottery occurs. See also Jarrige 2006, 149 and Jarrige 2013, 51.

851 DeMiroschedji 1972, 7.

852 Kerner 1993.11.

853 Vanden-Berghe 1951─52. 1952. 1954a,1954b.

854 Egami 1967, Egami-Masuda 1962, Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, Egami-Sono 1962, Fukai-Horiuchi-Matsutani 1973,

855 Alizadeh 1994-95: Archaeological Surveys in Northwestern Fars, Iran. Oriental Institute, Annual Reports, 29-32 Tall-e Nourabad running time from at least Bakun BI – Kaftari, ca. 20 m high, size about 10 ha, the center of he Dasht-e Nourabad plain, surrounded by dependent smaller sites. Excavations at this site, and in Tol-e Spid (at least occupaid from Lapui-Kaftari) gave important informations about the regional sequence (Potts et al, 2009).

856 Ibid.

857 The following 14C-dates were kicked, because they are not in the line: A18 5380-5190; A18 5470-5440; A27 5560-5320 and A27 5610-5590.

858 Bernbeck 2012, 44 Tab, 1. The ladder-motif is known from Bashi IV/III with a peak in I. The motif is known from Nurabad A26─24b, and Dark painted White washed/Slipped-Ware is known from the upper layers in Jari AII, Bakun BI(McCown) and Bashi V─I. Unfortunately, as Bernbeck noted, this ware occurs also in fair numbers at Mushki V, the oldest horizon in Tall-I Mushki (Bernbeck 2012, 4). But of course Tol-e Bashi is also a small scale excavation and as Bernbeck rightly observed (2012, 51) are the results of the diachronic analysis (still) contradictory.

859 Potts et al. 2009, 32─34. Phase A21─A19 was only excavated on 1.5 x 2 m. So any results are somehow impressionistic and can give only a hint at best.

860 From A27─25, 5 sherds could be either of Mushki- or Jari B-type, from A27─24a the ratio is 11 sherds.

861 Alizadeh et al.2004.

862 See Note 286.

863 Alizadeh et al. 2004, 37─39.

864 Ibid., 39-42.

865 Perhaps a plausible explanation.

866 Ibid.,

867 Potts et al. 2009, 15. 72. The 14C-data suggest a gap between A20 and A19 of "up to a millennium."

868 The Bukranion-motif from layer Bakun BI/II has clear parallels in the Susiana and in the Mehmeh-phase of the Deh Luran-region (Egami-Masuda 1962, Fig. 19:3 and for parallels see Dittmann 1984, 83─84.

869 Alizadeh et al. 2004, 42. For the architecture and pottery of the Japanese excavations in Jari B see Nishiaki-Mashkour 2006 and Nishiaki 2010a.

870 “On the other hand, the first stage, that is, Level 8 pottery, seems rather different from that of the upper levels. Level 8 contains more Type D-a pottery than in the others. As noted before, this level could contain two sub-levels in Trench W. The earlier phases have more Type D-a than Type D-b, 11 and 9 specimen re-spectively. Maeda noted that the pottery from this level shows the very common use of burnishing, which was rarely seen on the material from the upper levels. This surface treatment technique was employed in this level not only for the painted pottery but also for plain pottery. This pottery is known to have close parallels to that from the sounding pit of TMB at Tall-i Mushki and Level III of Tall-i Jari A. More recently, comparable pottery was recovered in secure stratigraphic contexts at Toll e-Bashi, by which the Bashi phase has been proposed.” Nishiaki 2010a, 123

871 Alizadeh 2006, 46: " The co-existence of Jari and Mushki pottery at both sites suggests that although Muski may be somewhat earlier, at some point both cultures developed side by side and Jari eventually replaced Mushki." By the way (for a second time), we have for Tall-e Mushki eight bulding levels (TMB included). The same is true for Tall-e Jari B, where also 8 levels occurred. Even this is no strong argument, it shows that the possibility of a coexistence cannot be absolutely excluded. Following this line of reasoning one consequence could be to understand Mushki as more or less intrusive in the Kur River Basin, which would be in agreement with Alizadehs suspicion that Jari B and (Initial) Bakun BI(McCown) would be in a direct line (Alizadeh et al. 2004, 43).

872 Alizadeh et al. 2004, 43. Such a line is also mentioned by Alden et al. 2004, 28.

873 Alden et al 2004, 25.

874 Qal’e Rostam I: Sumner 1977, 303. Based on 14C-dates, this is quite unrealistic: Qal’e Rostam III─II is dated to ca. 7100─6700 and after a gap in the sequence for about 400 years Qal’e Rostam I─0 is dated ca. 6300─6000 BC. Mushki and Qal’e Rostam I─0 belong more or less to the same horizont (Daujat-Mashkour-Emery-Barbier-Neef-Bernbeck 2016, 108─109). But, what is interesting, is the fact that Qal’e Rostam III belongs to a Soft-Ware horizon, like The Pottery Neolithic I of Rahmatabad. This Soft-Ware horizon in Rahmatabad could fill large parts of the Gap in Qal’e Rostam and it is exactly this horizon in which the change in orientation from the Zagros Neolithic to the Fars Neolithic in Qal’e Rostam must have taken place.

875 Dittmann 1986a, I, 411-412; Hole 1987, 54; Voigt-Dyson 1992, 136

876 Dittmann 1986a, I, 411-412; Hole 1987, 54; Voigt-Dyson 1992, 136

877 Tsuneki-Zeidi-Ohnuma 2007; Kharunaghi-Fazeli Nashli-Nishiaki 2014, 17 and Zeidi-Hamzavi-Conard 2016: 217 mention sites and further literature.

878 Bernbeck-Pollock-Fazeli Nashli 2008.

879 Abe-Kharanaghi 2014, 28.

880 Abe-Kharanaghi 2014. 31─32.

881 According to Nishiaki-Kharanaghi-Abe 2013, 9 and 12, the transition from Early to Late M’lefaatien in Fars occurred about 7000─6700 cal.BC. (Rahmatabad) and 6400─6000 cal. BC. (Tall-I Mushki) Jari B belongs more to the Post-M’lefaatien (Ibid., 13).

882 Such pottery occurred also above virgin soil in Trench E. Kharanaghi-Fazeli Nashli-Nishiaki 2014.

883 Pollock et al. 2010, 25; 2013, 111.

884 Mushki is a tricky site: 5 Levels can be isolated, but only three have architecture: Level 1. 2 and 5. ”In contrast, Levels 3 and 4 contained no architecture but were characterised by distributed patches of ash. As shown in the stratigraphic sections …, the positions of the Neolithic buildings in this mound were often relocated in each level. It is therefore possible that buildings existed in Levels 3 and 4, but that they stand outside the excavation squares. This is an important difference to the stratigraphy from Tall-i Jari B, where new buildings were usually built directly above the previous ones in succession, possibly suggesting different mobility/sedentism patterns between these two phases…The evidence for relocation at Tall-i Mushki also indicates that the discovery of specific levels depended on the part of the mound excavated. For this reason, caution must be taken when evaluating the stratigraphic position of any sounding pit isolated from the main squares…” (Nishiaki 2010, 3).

885 Kharanghi-Fazili Nashli-Nishiaki 2013, 112─117.

886 Weeks-Alizadeh (K) et al. 2006, 9 Tab. 1, first row, 4. Lower sherd from the left could be Bizdan-Ware – cf. Dittmann 1986a, II, Fig. 12B,1─2 and 13C,5 running time according to Tab.1: Nurabad A27─26 (1x), A26 (5x); A25 and 24b (3x each).

887 Weeks-Alizadeh (K) et al. 2006, 9 Tab. 1, first row, 4. Lower sherd from the left could be Bizdan-Ware – cf. Dittmann 1986a, II, Fig. 12B,1─2 and 13C,5 running time according to Tab.1: Nurabad A27─26 (1x), A26 (5x); A25 and 24b (3x each).

888 Values for Bakun BI after Potts et al 2009, 268─295 . In Fars this technique is also known from the Vakilabad-Ware 1 (Vak. A.VI.vii/-2' -4'), as mentioned above.

889 Potts et al. 2009, 68─69. For as synoptic chronological table see Alizadeh 2006, 251 Tab. 28.

890 Potts et al. 2009, 68 Tab. 3.2.

891 Discussed by Alizadeh in connection to the question of the origin of the Fars-Neolithic (Alizadeh 2006, 45-46).

892 Alden et al. 2004.

893 Khosrowzadeh 2015; Nissen-Zagarell 1976; Zagarell 1975. 1982; Bernbeck 1989. 1999; Gebel 1994 and Daujat-Mashkour-Emery-Barbier-Neef-Bernbeck 2016 for Qal’e Rostam. From the stratigraphy and the 14C-dates a gap in the sequence of about 400 years separates Qal’e Rostam II─I. QR III─II = 7100─6700 cal. BC and QR I─0 = 6300─6000 BC. (Daujat-Mashkour-Emery-Barbier-Neef-Bernbeck 2016, 108─109). According to the authors Periods III─II are more oriented towards the Zagros Neolithic (Tepe Guran, Tepe Sarab), whereas Period 0 shows loose connections to Sialk I,3, Mushki and Bashi-material (bid., 110). Voigt-Dyson 1992, see also a connection between Sialk I,3, whereas Jari B would point more to Sialk I, 4. But, the authors emphazise the closeness of the two complexes., In view of Alizadeh et al. 2004 and Alizadeh 2006, it should be kept in mind, that an unpainted Soft–Ware horizon (Qal’e Rostam III) preceeds Mushki–akin material (Qal’e Rostam I). See the discussion below.. Furthermore, if I remember well (the publication is not available to me), Bernbeck in his publication of 1989 was criticizing my general reconstruction of a Bakun BI(McCown)-horizon at Stein’s sites, having a Soft-Ware. Even though I rest my case, the existence of a Soft–Ware-horizon like Qal’e Rostam III at some of these sites should be considered as possible.

894 On the possiblity of a hiatus in the sequence see Zagarell 1982, 29.

895 Subdivision according to Dittmann 1986a, I, 18. Tab. 7.

896 According to the terminology of McCown 1942a. Zagarell 1977, 119 was not sure if R.1/Gerd-e Chellegah was settled in this phase. Cf Zagarell 1982, Fig.21,1 cf. Egami-Sono 1962, Fig. 20,12 = Tall-i Gap Ia.

897 Zagarell 1982, 28.

898 Ibid., 28s.

899 See Vértesali 1984: Tab. 4. Due to its connections with Ras al’Amiya, this painting style continues to Ubaid 3.

900 Zagarell 1982, 27s.

901 Zagarell 1982, 27s.

902 Zagarell 1977, 120; same 1982, 136, supra Fig. 21,13.

903 Zagarell 1982, 28 attributes the sherd on Fig. 14, 8 from K.68 to the Hajji Mohammad-tradition, according to him of Ubaid 2-date. However, the sherd could belong to the Early Chalcolithic-period, if the ressemblace to ibid., Fig.19,10 (from S. 2) is accepted.

904 Zagarell 1982, 30s., cf. also Dollfus 1983b, 167, Taf. 41-42.

905 Zagarell 1982, 29.

906 Zagarell 1977, 108ss.

907 1bid., 109.

908 Ibid., 111.

909 Zagarell 1975b, 147f. , Nissen-Zagarell 1976, 163s.

910 Zagarell 1977, 109.

911 Dittmann 1984, 57, Abbb. 3b,15; simlar sherds are known from Chogha Mish “Middle Susiana 2”: Kantor 1976, Fig. 1. 3 and 7.

912 Zagarell 1977, 121.

913 Ibid.

914 Schmidt 1939, 123s,: McCown 1942, 23s.; Egami-Masuda 1962; Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977 and Stein 1936, 135s. 149ss. 180s. 185s. 188ss. and 201s.

915 Dittmann 1984,35.

916 Zagarell 1982, 38s.

917 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 14,9 (Do Tulune).

918 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 4,11.

919 Dittmann 1984, 61, Abb. 3s. 51.

920 Wright et al. 1981,24; Langsdorf-McCown 1942, 25.

921 Zagarell 1982, 31ss.

922 Zagarell 1977, 126.

923 Nissen-Zagarell 1976, 164ss.

924 Ibid. 165s., Fig.1.

925 Egami-Masuda 1962, 2 (Group A1); Langsdorf-McCown 1942, 24s.

926 Langsdorf-McCown 1942, Pl. 32,10 (Tall-I Bakun AI). 33,3 (AIV).

927 Zagarell 1982, 32ss. 186 notes also Middle Chalcolithic(!) material for S. 8.

928 According to sherds in the study-collection in Berlin. In the Susiana examples from Djowi 12 are known: Dollfus 1983a, Fig.27,1.

929 Zagarell 1982, 33.

930 Dittmann 1984, Fig. 24, 15-21. 46,3.

931 Zagarell 1982, 33.

932 Unpublished sherds from Sondage C in Tepe Sohz.

933 Zagarell 1982, 39.

934 Ibid., 39ss.

935 Zagarell, 1977, 127 Note 4.

936 Ibid., 127s.

937 Zagarell 1982, 52s.

938 Ibid., 53.

939 Ibid, 39ss.

940 On Tall-I Ghazir see now: Alizadeh – Ahmadzadeh – Omidfar 2013 and Alizadeh 2014.

941 Ibid., 47s. 39ss.

942 Ibid.,48.

943 Ibid., 53

944 Dittmann 1986a I, 95, Tab. 36.

945 Dittmann 1986a, I, 189 and 193, Tab. 75c

946 Dittmann 1986a , I, 94-98.

947 Late Chalcolithic 4, according to the terminology defined at the Santa Fe-Colloquium: Rothman 2001.

948 Dittmann 1986a, I, 110 Tab. 49

949 Dittmann 1986, I, 99-102

950 Dittmann 1986, I, 133-142

951 Lapui–material runs up to the beginning of early Late Uruk; cf.here Note 67.

952 Dittmann 1986a, I, 95. Wright 1985.

953 Sargarab–ware runs from Middle Susiana Bc2 up to Protoelamite 1. Concentration is the End–Susa A–horizon: Dittmann, I, 193, Tab. 75c.

954 Dittmann 1986a, I, 42-64.

955 Kerner 1993.

956 Dittmann 1986a, I, 354. For first attemps for an internal developpment of the Lapui–complex, assumed to have 5 subphases within a span of 4000–3700 BC, see Petrie-Weeks-Potts-Roustaei 2009, 173–174; Alden-Petrie 2015, esp. 2, give for Terminal Lapui 3525–3365 BC; see also Petrie-Zarchi-Zadeh 2007: 23–44. For Lapui in general see Sumner 1988 and Sardari 2013.

957 Dittmann 1986a, I, 183ss, Excursus III.

958 Zagarell 1982,129, Relative Chronology Chart II.

959 Wright et al. 1975, Fig. 6s.

960 Majidzadeh 1976, 102ss. 203s. Tab. 4-5.

961 For a detailed analysis see Dittmann 1986a, I, 294–298, Excursus IV,

962 At least there are Early Dynastic graves at Kunji, which were only published in 2002: dated by Emberling – Robb – Speth – Wright 2002, to ED II, but Haerick favors a slightly earlier date: Haerinck 2011, 69─71.

963 Majidzadeh 1981, Fig. 18,3 (Ghabristan II) and Ghirshman 1938, Pl.LXXXI, B,8. D,3 (Sialk III5─7).

964 For Godin see now Gopnik-Rothman 2011 and Gopnik et al. 2016. Therefore, former Godin V, now called .VI: 1 has to be dated to the Protoelamite Horizon.

965 Dittmann 1986, I, 294─301.

966 See Desset 2014.

967 Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015, Highland-lowland interaction in the Late 4th and Early 3rd millennium BC: The Evidence from Qoli Darvish, Iranian Central Plateau, AMIT 45, 149─68.See also Fazeli Nashili-Valipur-Kharanaghi 2013, 109. 123─125 and on an intern chronology of Protoelamite-texts Dahl-Petrie-Potts 2013; for Godin see also Matthews 2013..

968 Zagarelll 1982, 52. In the study collection a sherd from G.1.6 exists, a fragment of a bowl, mineral temper, gray to rose clay with a salmon colored slip on both sides. The sides of the bowl are almost vertikal, the rim is T-shaped. Considering the ware, the sherd fits well to Late Chalcolithic-ware. A second example of this ware comes from G.1.5, which corresponds to the Red ware from R.1, i.e. Late Chalcolithic 1a and 1b. Such a ware is also known from G.1.4 and in one case a good parallel to Lapui-material is given: Sumner 1972, Pl. XIV, M.

969 Zagarell 1982, 48ss. 50ss.

970 Ibid. 39ss. 42ss. 50s.

971 Ibid, 44s. 51

972 Dittmann 1986a, I, 274. 202─203.

973 Dittmann 1984, 45s.. 64s. 73 Note 91. Here also a site with Bakun (BII/McCown)- and (of smaller surface) Lapui-material occurred: Bargahi- Rezaei 2015, 50─51. Carter et al. 2006: 71 Tab.1 mentions 1 site of the Sohz-phase, 2 Lapui-sites and 1 Early Middle Banesh-site.

974 One cannot be sure, that at least BZ 102 does not belong in fact to the much older Qal’e Rostam III-horizon, since Bakun BII(McCown) material was not mentioned or published by Stein. If this would be true, one would have to change the period designation. But, one will never know, since this site is obviously completely destroyed.

975 Zagarell 1977, Pl. 17,1.

976 Egami-Masuda-Gotoh 1977, pl. IV

977 Late Susiana 2/Suse I-material is also missing on the Central Plateau, where contacts with the Lowlands seem to be temporary interrupted, according to Alizadeh et al. perhaps caused by inner-Susiana conflicts (Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015, 149).

978 Schippmann 1970

979 Dittmann 1986a, I, 380ss.

980 Zagarell 1983, 185 mentions K.60. 73-75 aand finally R.1 is also a “Slope Site” (ibid., Fig. 409). With the exception of K.73 these sites have all Middle Chalcolithic-pottery.

981 Arjan/Behbehan had not been examined during the Behbehan-Zuhreh-Survey: Potts 2009.

982 Gropp-Nadjmabadi 1970, 182. Ibid., 85,1 Zar 1, of Middle Susiana Bc-date. buff-brownish ware could be of Lapui-date, as well as sherds from Kommehr 1 (ibid., 183, 9. But since drawings are missing this is not for sure.

983 Zagarell 1982, Fig. 2 for S.10. The data of the Farsan-plain, provided by Khosrowzadeh 2015, have only a preliminary character. Nevertheless, the trends observed here are quite compatible with the general development, discussed so far: The plain has given 28 Chalcolithic sites, most of them were newly founded. Like the 14 sites of the Neolithic, most of them are situated on slopes, interpreted by Khosrowzadeh as only saisonally used. The pottery shows interesting relations: sites of the northern half of the plain have good relations to the Susiana, whereas those in the southern half point more to Fars. This reminds the situation of the Behbehan-Zuhreh-region, where a similar dichotomy between the two sub-regions exists. Even though the data of the Farsan-plain cannot be related one to one to the chronological scheme used here, the trend of the settlement evolution is comparable. From few sites in the Neolithic a slight increase in settlement numbers can be observed in the “Early Chalcolithic”, followed by a peak of settlements in the “Middle Chalcolithic”-period and again a slight decrease for the “Late Chalcolithic” (ibid., 40).

984 Dittman 1986a, I, 183-193. For a similar, but not identical situation in the Susiana see Alizadeh, 2008, XXII: “In the initial enthusiasm to find Uruk-material outside Babylonia a lot of people saw everything exclusively through the Uruk Filter.” Since in his perspective from Chogha Mish, he has no criteria to make a subdivision of Early and Middle Uruk, he considers this time span to be more imbedded in the development of the Susiana. Johnsons Early and Middle Uruk were therefore called Early Susa 2 (Susa I, 22) and Middle Susa 2 Phase (I, 21─19) followed by Protoliterate 2─1 (Susa I, 18─17). Wright 1998, 193 would agree. As to, me this is highly probable, since there is also a very large continuity of settlement use from Middle-/Late Susiana to the Uruk period (Dittmann 1986a, I, 221 Tab. 79). That the Uruk-aspect was infiltering in some regions was already remarked by me in 1983, published in 1986: see. Final Discussion in Finkbeiner-Röllig 1986, 569. By the way concerning the “Uruk-Filter” as Gopnik et al. have convincingly discussed, the so-called citadel of Godin V (now called VI:1) is not a foreign element of non-local intruders or the like, but most of the pottery found here is made from local or nearby resources and signs for long distance trade are low. Only one nose-lugged-jar is of Susanian origin! So no foreign colony or/ traders, but locals, which adopted a new way of life (Gopnik et al. 2016, 846-847; see also Rothman 2013 and Matthews 2013). For an almost identical result see Dittmann 1986a, I, 483-484 Note 103.

985 Potts 2009.

986 Dittmann 1984, 76 Note 130. Zagarell’s Sialk III-date for 1975, Fig. 4,1-2, I do not accept; cf. Dittmann 1984, 33f. Petrie mentions for the Lordegan-plain huge Tells, up to 20 m height, together with bevel-rim-bowls. (Comment in Petrie (Ed.) 2013, 437) .

987 Zagarell 1982, 47f.

988 Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak (2015, 149 Note 8) remark that Zagarell (1982 pl. 14) found Protoelamite-pottery without recognizing it and dated it to the 1st Millennium?

989 Dittmann 1986a (written in 1983), I. 113 and 115 Tab. 50 for the definition of this phase.

990 Alden et al. 1982, 617 Note 9

991 Zagarell 1982, Fig.2. 6

992 In the Mamasani-region in Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do about 7 neolithic sites are known. About the following Soft-Ware phase surveys in this region gave no substantial informations (Zeidi-McCall-Khosrowzadeh 2009, 150-152).

993 Ibid., 54ss.

994 Ibid., 57s.

995 Dittmann 1986a, I.276 Tab. 87.

996 Hole-Flannery 1967, 181.

997 Hole et al. 1977, 88.

998 Wright 1979, 43.

999 Ibid., 43, Tab. 5.

1000 Ibid., 127.

1001 Alizadeh 2014, 234.

1002 Hole et al, 1977, 34ss.

1003 Hole et al. 1977,35.

1004 Ibid., 35s.

1005 Ibid., 36.

1006 Ibid. and 1969, 184s. and 188. In this phase also the first stone hoes occur, obviously for agricultural purpose. Concerning the palaeofauna data, one notes goats are the larger portion, followed by sheep. Bovines are low, by 5%.

1007 Wright 1979, 50.

1008 Alizadeh 2014, 234.

1009 Alizadeh 2014, 234 Note 73.

1010 Zagarell 1982, 68, Note 82.

1011 Oates 1983, 255, Note 6 – site Halilih. In the Ram Hormuz area settlements of the Early Middle Susiana Period are missing. Or has been a Soft-Ware-horizon missed? (Alizadeh 2014, 234). For the Gulf-coast see the comment in Petrie (Ed.) 2013, 437.

1012 Hole-Flannery 1967, 189ff.

1013 De Mroschedji 1981, 198, Tab. 2.

1014 Wright 1979, 54, Tab.9, Fig.21.

1015 Alizadeh 2014, 234.

1016 Sumner 1977, 301; Carter et al. 2006,73 Tab.3, found only one intact chalcolithic site = BH56, a site which dates to the Sohz-phase of the Behbehan-Zuhreh -region. Nagel 1962, 13f . believed painted sherds said to be from Tepe Sabzabad (Pézard 1914) would date to the ‘Ubaid-period, since excavators classified it as “Style I” of Susa . The sherds from this site are defenitly of Kaftari-Age (Hansman 1972, 122). In Bhushire, only one chalcolithic site still exists = BH56. Beside this were “stray sherds“ of chalcolithic age found on BH51C and H200. The later has Hajji Mohammad and Middle Susiana 2 –material. See also Bargahi-Rezaei 2015, who made an intensive survey of the site. For the following Lapui-period Carter et al. mention two sites: BH26 and BH49 and for the Banesh-period only one: BH19A.

1017 Contrary to the Mamasani-region, here three early Bakun sites are known, 6 Middle Bakun and surprising 10 late Bakun sites (Zeidi-McCall-Khosrowzadeh 2009: Chapter 6. Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do, in: Potts et al, 2009: (Eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One, BAR International Series 2044 (Oxford) 152-153).

1018 Dittmann 1984, 68s.

1019 Ibid.

1020 Ibid., 69.

1021 Hole-Flannery 1967, 191.

1022 Ibid., 190.

1023 Wright1979, 54, Tab. 6, Fig.21

1024 If we look at the sites, which Stein has examined across Fars, the trend is the same (see: Dittmann 1986a, I, 366 Tab. 122) Mushki/Yalyan A-B = 7+2 interpolated sites; Djarri B/Bizdan/Yalyan C = 6+2; Bakun BI(McCown) = 6+5; Gap II = 16+11; Bakun AI/II = 10+9; Bakun AIII/IV = 9+6 and Vakilabad (all phases) = 13+2.

1025 Ibid., 69s. 74, Note 111.

1026 Ibid., 69, Note 83

1027 Ibid., 75, Note 115

1028 Ibid., map 2.

1029 Wright et al. 1981, 64ff. Fig.31.

1030 De Miroschedji 1981, Tab. 2.

1031 Wright et al. 1981, 66ff. Fig.32.

1032 Wright 1979, 54, Tab.6, Fig.22.

1033 Alizadeh 2014, 235

1034 Alizadeh 2014, 235─236

1035 Here essay No.7, sites J1─3.

1036 Zagarell 1982, 62s. See also the study by Henrickson, (E.F.) 1985, for the Central Zagros.

1037 Wright 1979, 52, Fig.24.

1038 Alizadeh 2014, 236.

1039 Wright-Johnson 1975, Fig. 3.

1040 Dittmann 1984, 30─33.

1041 Zeidi-McCall-Khosrowzadeh 2009: Chapter 6. Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do, in: Potts et al, 2009: (Eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One, BAR International Series 2044 (Oxford) 153─154.

1042 Wright et al. 1975,134, Fig.2─3. 7─8.

1043 Wright et al. 1981, 70.

1044 Wright 1979, 59ss.

1045 Wright-Johnson 1975, Fig. 3.

1046 Alizsadeh 2014, 236.

1047 Wright-Johnson 1975, Fig. 3.

1048 Alizadeh 2014, 236.

1049 Potts 2009.

1050 Zeidi-McCall-Khosrowzadeh 2009: Chapter 6. Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do, in: Potts et al, 2009: (Eds.), The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One, BAR International Series 2044 (Oxford) 154─155.

1051 Wright 1979, 59,

1052 Alizadeh 2014, 237.

1053 Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015, 149.

1054 Alden 1982, 617.

1055 For the Early Dynastic period from graves in the Kunji Cave, see: Emberling – Robb – Speth – Wright 2002.

1056 Wright 1979,16

1057 Dittmann 1986b and 1987.

1058 Alizadeh 2014, 237.

1059 Zagarell 1982a.

1060 Alizadeh 2018.

1061 Stève-Gasche 1971; Carter 1978, 1979a-d. and 1980,1ss. Meyer 1983─84, 138ss.; Dittmann 1986b, 171ss.; Amiet 1985. New additions will be marked as follows: [xxxx]

1062 LeBreton 1957, 79ss.

1063 LeBreton 1957, 113s.

1064 LeBreton 1957, 113. Sondage 1/North of de Mecquenem can be neglected in this work. See Dittmann 1986a, I, 152─154 Tab. 60.

1065 LeBreton 1957 and Pottier 1912 and 1937.

1066 LeBreton 1957, 115ss. [For a new re-evaluation of the Diyala sequence see Gibson 1982; Evans 2005. 2007 and 2011; Dittmann 2013.]

1067 Nagel 1964b.

1068 Nagel 1964b, Tab.II. Boehmer 1969, esp. 277s. dated the Mature Meskalamdug-phase to ED IIIA (IIIA2 in his terminology; ED III.1 would correspond to the older Fara-phase).

1069 Stève-Gasche 1971, 107 saw the starting point for Susa II-pottery only with “Couche 4a”, even though it began already in 4b according to their publication.

1070 Ibid., 205 folded plan.

1071 Ibid.

1072 Carter 1980.

1073 Dittmann 1986a, I, 176 note 30.

1074 Carter 1980, 35 Tab. I. Meyer 1983 is against these correlations, he obviously trusted more the highly problematic findings of Stève and Gasche. But the pottery references listed in Carter's catalogue point without doubt to a correlation of VR I, 8─7 and “Couche 2─1”: Carter 1980, Fig. 32, 1─2 VR I, 7 – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 5, 34. 24 “Couche 1“ ; Carter 1980, Fig. 33, 1─2 VR I, 8 (Grave 539) ─ Stève-Gasche Pl. 5, 35. 26 “Couche 1“; Carter 1980, Fig. 33, 2─VR I, 8 (Grave 539) – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 12 ,37 “Couche 2“ ; Carter 1980, Fig. 34, 3─VR I, 8 – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 5, 4 1─2 “Couche 1─2” ; Carter 1980, Fig. 34, 2─VR I, 7 – ibid. Carter 1980, Fig. 35, 3─VR I, 8 – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 5,36 “Couche 1” ; Carter 1980, Fig. 35; 4─VR I, 7 – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 5,42 “Couche 1” ; Carter 1980, Fig. 36, 4─VR I, 9 – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 8, 4─5; 15, 6─9 “Couche 1─3” ; Carter 1980, Fig. 36, 16 VR I, 8 – Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 9, 8─9 “Couche 1” ; The material of “Couche 1” runs from VR I, 8 into I, 7.

1075 Wilcke 1987, 116.

1076 Vallat 1980, 135ss.; Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.11, 26; 8, 7. The pottery parallels would support such a date: Carter 1980, Fig. 38, 5 VR I, 6 – Delougaz 1952, Pl. 147, B.043.200a, Asmar Houses III, Guti─Ur III; Agrab Hill B, Top layer (FD I) Carter 1980. Fig. 38, 6 VR I,5 – Delougaz 1952, Pl. 147, B.043.200b, Asmar Houses II, Guti─Ur III─Isin Larsa Carter 1980, Fig. 39, 7 VR ,5 ─ Delougaz 1952, Pl. 160, B.556.540, Asmar Houses IVA, Late Akkad. Carter 1980, Fig. 39,16 VR , ─ Delougaz 1952, Pl. 191, D.465.550, Asmar Northern Palace, Houses IVa Carter 1980, Fig. 42, 2─4 VR I, 4 ─. Reference to Susa, VR BVII, Late Ur III (Šu-Sin, Ibbi-sin) – cf. Stève-Gasche-Meyer 1980. 87. That Urnamma is contemporaneous with Puzir/Kutik-Inšušinak is clear by a tablet from Isin: Wilcke 1987. From an art-historical perspective, this correlation was already stated by Amiet 1986, 143ss.

1077 Also, according to Gibson 1982, 531ss. Moreover, in VR I, 8 vessels are attested with parallels also in Late Akkadian context (Carter 1980, Fig. 33, 4.1 and Delougaz 1952, Pl. 146, B.001.200a [Northern Palace] and Pl.176, C.466.450 [Houses IVB─IVA]). Carter 1980, Fig.34,12 would have, according to Carter, a parallel even as late as late Ur III (Susa, VR BVIII). VR I, 9 could also partly cover the early Akkadian-period. proposed by Carter.

1078 Stéve-Gasche 1971, 205; Meyer 1983, 141.

1079 As already discussed in note 14, “Couche 1” is parallel to VR I, 8/7. Carter has accepted Meyer’s proposal to start the Akkad-period with VR I, 8 (Carter-Stolper 1984, Fig. 15. For a correlation of “Couche 4b with VR I, 12 see Dittmann 1986a, I, 177 notes 36─41. I also will not follow Haerinck, who correlated Acr. I, 14 with VR I, 18─17 with “Late Jamdet Nasr;” “Couche 4” and VR I, 12─11 with ED II (Following van Loon 1981, 707ss.) and ”Couche 3” = ED III and VR I, 10─9 = ED IIIA and part of ED IIIB and finally placed a gap between “Couche 3 and 2 correlating the last level with ED IIIB (Haerinck 1987, 63ss.). Carter also commented these somewhat strange correlations in 1987, 73ss.

1080 VR I, 18─17 dates to the beginning of ED I, as discussed later.

1081 Dittman 1986b, 171ss.

1082 Ibid., 4.

1083 Nagel 1964b, 13ss. Tab.V.

1084 Dittmann 1986b, 187ss. Tab, 4.

1085 Ibid., 175ss. Amiet 1973, 11 was convinced, that in the first half of the ED period the settlement at Susa would have shifted from the Acropolis to the Donjon (Map 1).

1086 Dittmann 1986a, I, 142. 144s.

1087 Ibid., 190 and Sumner 1976, 110 (for TUV), and Sumner 1985, 153ss. (for By8).

1088 Nagel 1964b, 49ss. 81s.; Taf. 56,11─12 and Karg 1984, 82s. note 109.

1089 Dittmann 1986b, 186s. and 1986a, 142.

1090 Karg 1984, 76s.; Hansen 1965, 209. – For the Fara Style-phase see Nagel 1959, 141ss. and Strommenger 1960, esp. 23. For Inanna VIIB see Boehmer 1969, 277 Note 73. 29a [For PE-glyptic see Pittman 1997]

1091 Wilson 1986, 1c; Dittmann 1986b, 175 note 15. This correlation is also valid for the Keith Qasim/Hamrin, where such sealings are attested together with ED I-pottery (LeBeau 1984, 115ss.).

1092 Frankfort 1955, Pl. 16, 152. 156 (Sin IV) and Pl. 24, 242─243 (Sin VIII). – To Sin VIII see also Strommenger 1960, 141; Karg 1984, 79f. [For the Brokat-Style see also Dittmann n.d.9]

1093 Dittmann 1986b, 172 Note 15.

1094 Karg 1984, 79ss.

1095 Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 23, 5─6 (Couche 4b/4) is a PE 2a heirloom (damaged); No. 5 is perhaps slightly younger – Stève-Gasche 1971, 110.

1096 Dittmann 1986a, 149─152. 155. 158s; 1986b, 171ss.; 1986c, 332. See also here note 110.

1097 See here note 27.

1098 Nagel 1964b; Behm-Blancke 1979,29ss. Pl. 22, 107b dated this Lion-demon figure to his Style-groupe IIa, as well as the Lion-griffin figurine (Fig. 4, 4), correlated with Susa Cc and stylistic related finds of ED I─II context of the Shara Temple and the Earlier Building in Tell Agrab [see now Evans 2005. 2007. 2011 and Dittmann 2013. Such a date is also favored by Karg 1984, 84 (older part of ED II).for the Earlier Building. The Lion-demon figure has a parallel on a sealing from Tall-I Malyan, ABC II, see Fig. 4, 5 and 9 (Pittman 2003, Fig. 44g – the Lion-demon motif is also known from SIS 7 in Pit Z in Ur, see also Pittmann 1997, Fig. 4c), what is beyond doubt PE 2a – see Dittmann 1986c, 335ss. The Lion-griffin is known from Shahr-I Sokhta I (see Fig. 4, 8) and also in Tall-I Malyan TUV II (Pittman 1997, Fig. 4c). For both pieces see also Börker-Klähn 1967─74, 377f. esp. 382ff, and Amiet 1986, 98. [For the SIS in Ur cf. Karg 1984; Scott 2005; Sürenhagen1999; Charvát 2010 and 2014; Otto 2010; Salla­berger 2010; Dittmann 2006 and 2013 and especially Benati─Lecompte 2014, who offer complete new insights in the SIS] .

1099 Karg 1984, 79ss.

1100 Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 23, 5─6 (Couche 4b/4) is a PE 2a heirloom (damaged); No. 5 is perhaps slightly younger – Stève-Gasche 1971, 110.

1101 Dittmann 1986a, 149─152. 155. 158s; 1986b, 171ss.; 1986c, 332.

1102 Nagel 1964b; Behm-Blancke 1979,29ss. Pl. 22, 107b dated this Lion-demon figure to his Style-groupe IIa, as well as the Lion-griffin figurine (Fig. 4, 4), correlated with Susa Cc and stylistic related finds of ED I─II context of the Shara Temple and the Earlier Building in Tell Agrab. [see now Evans 2005. 2007. 2011 and Dittmann 2013]). Such a date is also favoured by Karg 1984, 84 (older part of ED II).for the Earlier Building. The Lion-demon figure has a parallel on a sealing from Tall-I Malyan, ABC II, see Fig. 4, 5 and 9 (Pittman 2003, Fig. 44g – the Lion-demon motif is also known from SIS 7 in Pit Z in Ur, see also Pittmann 1997, Fig. 4c), what is beyond doubt PE 2a – see Dittmann 1986c, 335ss. The Lion-griffin is known from Shahr-I Sokhta I (see Fig. 4, 8) and also in Tall-I Malyan TUV II (Pittman 1997, Fig. 4c). For both pieces see also Börker-Klähn 1967─74, 377f. esp. 382ff, and Amiet 1986, 98. [For the SIS in Ur cf. Karg 1884; Scott 2005; Sürenhagen1999; Charvát 2010 and 2014; Otto 2010; Salla­berger 2010; Dittmann 2006 and 2013 and especially Benati─Lecompte 2014, who offer complete new insights in the SIS] .

1103 LeBreton 1957, 120; Nagel 1964b, 82. – For the PE A-script see Merrigi 1971 and Carter-Stolper 1984, 7. [Dhal-Petrie-Potts 2013; Desset 2016]

1104 Nicholas 1981,47. The latest (uninscribet) tablet was found in VR I, 18A (Fig. 1, 13).

1105 Nagel 1964b, 49ss.; Karg 1984, 32 Note 113.

1106 Nagel 1964b, 52. 81.

1107 Amiet 1972, 130s.

1108 The group is also missing in a grave of the Donjon, which has seals of Mesopotaminan early ED II- and local styles: Karg 1984, 82 Note 108 for Donjon (here Fig.5, 4─11), B246. These seals have been connected by Amiet, in Amiet-Tosi 1978, 27 No. 17 (here Fig. 5, 1) with a find from Susa, dated by him to ED I─II (Amiet 1973, Nos. 1358 and 1400); - Fig. 5, 2 was correlated with Amiet 1973, Nos. 942. 997, dated by Karg 1984 also late. Here Fig. 5, 1 was also paralleled by Amiet with Amiet 1973, 1064. 1089 (PE 2a) and with Nos. 1404─1405, according to Amiet of ED I─II─date. Here Fig. 5, 3 was found in Shahr-I Sokhta I, 8. Amiet correlated this sealing with Amiet 1972, No. 1428 and also Karg 1984, 42. 47. 57 favored an ED II-date. For the glyptic of Shahr-I Sokhta I, see also Amiet 1983.

1109 Dittmann 1986b, 173─175; 1986a, 142ss.

1110 The seals here Fig. 4, 3─4 from Acr.I, 14A─13 are made of unbaked clay. From the old excavations quite a lot of seals are of clay or bitumen, dating probably also to PE 2, as Amiet 1972, Nos. 832. 839. 841. 846 and after all, Nos. 1026. 1035. 1102. 1209─1210. 1233. 1256─57. 1325. 1328. 1358. 1365. From a later context this material is not attested, only from the Akkad-period onwards. One seal of the baroque type is also made of bitumen (No. 1000). Another seal of this group (ibid. 937 – here Fig. 5,15) is also made of bitumen and was found together with seals of early Akkad-date (Boehmer 1965, 3 Abb. 4 [Lugalanda─ Urukagina style phase], and Nos. 1530. 1532 Boehmer 1965, 154. 150 – Nos. 456. 325 – Akkad Ic─b, and No 1607). According to Amiet 1972, No. 937 is a heirloom (worn and damaged). Other schematic seals of this kind were dated by Amiet 1973, 9s. Pl. V, 26s. to Susa, Acr. I, 17A. Similar pieces come from Sondage 2/Nord of de Mecquenem (Amiet 1972, 146, No. 1028). The Locus could be of PE-date (Dittmann 1986a, I, 162, Tab. 61).

1111 Amiet 1972, 139, No. 994.

1112 Dittmann 1986a, I, 152ss.

1113 DeMecquenem 1934b, 195 and Dittmann 1986a, I, 154ss.

1114 For a Acr. I, 13-date of the surface of Sondage 2 see Dittmann 1986a, 161. DeMecquenem 1934b, Fig. 30 attributed these and other seals to the “XXXIIè siècle”. That could mean that the graves were from a niveau, corresponding somehow to the vessel ibid., Fig. 31, dated by LeBreton 1957, Fig. 13, 2 to Susa Ca, found underneath polychrome painted “Susiana-Ğamdat-Nasr”-ware of PE 2a-date (Dittmann 1986a, I, 180). The graves in question might have been only dug through Late Uruk B/PE-I layers and could be therefore, date younger. That seals of this group date also to PE 2b, is shown by their occurrence at Tall-I Malyan, TUV I.

1115 For the „Vase à cachette“ see LeBreton 1957, Fig. 39─40 and Amiet 1986, 125s. 131. Concerning the correlation with “Couche 3” see Stève-Gasche 1971, 90. The seal LeBreton 1957, Fig. 19, below (here Fig. 6, 2) was dated by LeBreton to Susa Dd, as well as the vessel (here Fig. 6, 1). Nagel followed LeBreton and dated the seal to the “Meskalamdug-Style”-phase. Another seal of this vase – LeBreton 1957, Fig. 39 below, left. = Nagel 1964b, Pl. 62, 6 (here Fig. 6, 3) was attributed by Nagel to the “Ur I-Style”-phase. According to Boehmer 1969, the “Ur I”- phase would mark the beginning of ED IIIb. Therefore, VR I, 9 and “Couche 3” would date in the time span from Ur I-, Mesannepada-Lugalanda-/ED IIIB to the beginning of early Akkad maximum. “Couche 4” and VR I, 12 would then be of older date. The ED IIIB-period is also not well represented in the Diyala, already remarked by Strommenger 1960, 23 note 193. A seal dated by her to this period (Frankfort 1955, Pl. 35, 353) comes from Khafagah, House 1, according to Gibson 1982, 537 of early Akkadian-date. A second seal noted by Strommenger is of similar date (Frankfort 1955, Pl. 52,550), coming from Amar, Houses Vc? Gibson 1982, dated the Temple Oval III in Khafagah, like Houses 1 into the early Akkad-period, contrary to Nagel 1964b, Tab. V, who correlated Oval III still with the “Meskalamdug-Style”phase, what is out of time now. Boehmer 1969, Fig. 45 (= Frankfort 1955, Pl. 33, 335) belongs to his “Mature Meskalamdug-Style”- phase (ED IIIA2). This seal belongs to Khafagah, Grave 167, correlated by Frankfort with Houses 2, nowadays, according to Gibson 1982, of early Akkadian-date..

1116 Carter 1980, 75.

1117 Meyer 1983, 139s.

1118 De Mecquenem 1943, Fig. 75, 4 (here Fig. 6, 5). Carter 1980 refers to de Mecquenem 1943, Grave A 125. The sleeve found here is different (ibid. Fig. 75, 3) and ibid., Fig. 75, 4 was never attributed to a specific grave. Perhaps it belonged to A 303, because de Mecquenem noted a sleeve and here de Mecquenem Fig. 73, 4 was found, dated by LeBreton 1957, Fig. 41,27 to Susa De. For the type see Calmeyer 1969, 23ss. important is also a remark by Carter, 1978, 201, who noted that a wheel might be recognizable in the section of the grave pit. In the Apadana de Mecquenem encountered also a grave with wheels (de Mecquenem 1943, Fig. 74,1─2) and in the Donjon, graves A89b and B280 (ibid., Fig. 87, 1 and 73, 3), dated by LeBreton 1957, Figs. 41, 22. 17 to Susa Dd.

1119 See also Henrickson 1984, 105 note 17. The material of Godin III has evident relations to the painted pottery of Khuzestan, but the date of Godin III.6 is under discussion. Henrickson 1986, 21 note 22, favors an ED IIIA-date, contra Haerinck 1987, who prefers an ED II-date. This would be in accord to Pittman (quoted by Henrickson, E.F. 1985, 74 note 25), who has identified ED II-sealings in Godin III.6. Until the finds of Godin III are not published, the question must be left open, if this painting style doesn’t start earlier in the Zagros than in the Susiana.

1120 Boehmer 1969, 178. – according to a synchronism found by Boese 1978, esp. 22 and Renger 1984, 175s. Mesanepada and Akurgal (the son of Ur-nanshe and the father of Eannatum) were contemporaneous, it could be appropriate to start the ED IIIB period with Mesanepada and Akurgal. The ED IIIA2-phase of Boehmer would then cover Meskalamdug and Akalamdug in Ur and Gunidu and Urnanshe in Lagash.

1121 Dittmann 1986b, 191.

1122 Stève-Gasche 1971, 109ss.; the parallels run from ED III to early Akkkad.

1123 Carter 1980, Fig. 15,11(VR I, 13) and Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 21, 5 (“Couche 4a”). Other finds from VR I,15─13, remind finds from “Couche 4a” (Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 21,3─4. 19) and “Couche 4b” (ibid., Pl. 21,1─2. 5─8).

1124 In this context a short remark on the pottery of the Necropolis of Tepe Jalyan/Southern Fars, next to Fasa, has to be made. This necropolis has given Susa Dc─d-akin pottery, similar also to the one of VR I, 12─9 (de Miroschedji 1972, 60ss. and 1974 19ss.) De Miroschedji attributed this pottery to the Zohak-Ware of his survey around Fasa and Darab, dated by him to Kaftari C-older. The so-called Kheyrabad pottery, he correlated with Kaftari A, what he dated earlier than the necropolis and a little bit later than the so-called Vakilabad-pottery (de Miroschedji 1972, 5). In Tall-I Malyan sherds were found which could date to the Vakilabad-period (Sumner 1985, Fig. 3, A. D? G).

1125 Nagel 1964b, Tab. V and Dittmann 1986b, 190.

1126 Dittmann 1986b, For “Proto-Susa II”-Keramik, see also here note

1127 Nagel 1964b, 18s., Pl. 31─34,1; 35-36, 1─14.

1128 An exception could be the „Vase à cachette”.

1129 de Mecquenem 1943, Fig. 70,32; 72,18.24.33. Fig.70,32 starts in the Diyala in Asmar, Houses IVa (Delougaz 1952, Pl. 189, C.777.340), what Gibson…dated in the early Late-Akkad-period. This vessel-type occurs also later (Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 4,11) what dates to VR I, 3 (Carter 1980, Tab.I).Fig. de Mecquenem 1943, 104, Fig.72,18 is a vessel with a praybird with outstreched wings, a typical Susa II-motif.

1130 Vanden Berghe 1968, 53ss., esp. 62.

1131 Ibid., 16.

1132 Calmeyer 1969, 148.

1133 Vanden Berghe 1973, 25ss. [For Scarlet-ware see Del Bravo 2014, even tough I do not agree with all details]

1134 Delougaz 1952, Pl.162, B.634.570a, 633.570a (Asmar Houses Vc─b and Earlier Building/Northern Palace).

1135 Vanden Berghe 1973, 27 Fig. 1─2. 28 below. [see Haerinck 1987 and 2011].

1136 Nagel 1964b, Tab.V and Pls. 28─29.

1137 Dittmann 1986b, 190 Tab.4- therefore, also Delougaz 1952, Pl. 139b/Asmar, Houses Va, must not be a surprise anymore. For Proto-Susa II-pottery see here note 63.

1138 Vanden Berghe 1970, 68. 71 above left and middle left.

1139 Vanden Berghe 1972, 23ss. 27. Pl.IX, according to Hendrickson 1984 is of Godin III.6-date.

1140 Ibid., 27, Pl.X, 1.

1141 Nagel 1964b, Pl. 41, 10.

1142 Vanden Berghe 1973, 29ss. 31 Fig. 6-5 – cf, Delougaz 1952, Pl. 163. 645 (Ur III) and Gasche 1973, Tab. 8, Synopsis B Gr. 15b (VR BVII-VI = Ur III to Isin Larsa), as well as de Mecquenem 1943, 69, 17 (Donjon graves A69. 137. 153. 207. 246. 259, 268. 350 and B 218. 236. 273 – never found together with painted Pottery, unless B 236, where de Mecquenem 1943, points to Fig. 72,15 but without noting the decoration as always, so a Late-Akkad-date might be possible.

1143 Nagel 1964b, Pl. 40, 3.

1144 Woolley 1934, 387. 574, Pl. 186a-b (U 118 38) and Nissen 1966, 180.

1145 Wooley 1955, 118, Pl. 26b (U 200 40) . Perhaps a later intrusion in the “Jemdet Nasr Cemetery”.

1146 Dittmann 1986b, 191 note 102, Tab.4.

1147 Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 63n

1148 Carter-Stolper 1984, Fig. 15.

1149 Delougaz 1952, Pl.142, A.516.373, 100:g – Khafagah, Oval II and Houses 2?.

1150 Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 49b – cf. Delougaz 1952, Pl. 177, C.506.470d – Khafagah, Houses 2 ); Pl.156, B.525.670 – Houses 4─3, but the latter doesn’t fit exactly.

1151 Cf- Dittmann 1986b, Tab.4 with here Tab.II.

1152 For ED IIIA1─2, see Boehmer 1969 (a concept which is outdated today); For Enna-il see: Carter-Stolper 1984, 11; Goetze 1961, 108; Nagel 1964a, 184ss.

1153 Sollberger 1957, 62ss.; Safar 1949, 131ss.; Strommenger 1960, 33; Moortgat 1967, 45; Braun-Holzinger 1977, 63).

1154 Carter-Stolper 1984, 12s. The date of the Akkad I-seals in Luristan would fit. But it remains incomprehensible why Carter and Stolper (1984, 14s., Fig. 15) date the necropolises Kallah Nissar, Dar Tanha and Takht-I Khan only in the ED III-period. The seals give a different picture.

1155 De Mecquenem 1943, 76ss. noted cylinder seals for the following graves in the Donjon: A89b. 114. 128. 174. 185. 191. 238. 246. 269. 279. 293. 327. 339; B105. 135. 227. 229. 230. 246 (see note 43). 285. A seal, made of Bitumen (Amiet 1972, No. 1624) might belong to grave A174, the only grave on de Mecquenem’s list, where Bitumen is mentioned.[1155] For the graves A246 and A114 de Mecquenem noted three seals of shell. Amiet published two seals of this material for the Donjon (1972, Nos. 1565 and 1592) of Akkad III-date. The pottery of these graves would not contradict such a date.

1156 Ghirshman 1938.

1157 LeBreton 1957, 124.

1158 Dyson 1965, 225ss.

1159 Dyson 1965, 266; Alden 1982, 613 note 3.

1160 LeBrun 1978a, 181 Tab.1.

1161 Vallat 1971, 235ss. esp. 243 for tablet S.28 (Sialk IV.2).

1162 Dittmann 1986b, 185 note 86. Contrary to Nagel I saw no gap between IV.1 and IV.2

1163 Dittmann 1986a, 114. 119. 198ss. 294ss. 458 (for a similar approach cf. Amiet 1986, 93.

1164 Dittmann 1986a, 196ss.

1165 Ghirshman 1938, 47 and Amiet 1985, 302 note 15, Fig. 5.

1166 The tablets said to come from a ‘contact 17-16’ (LeBrun 1971, Fig. 43, 1─3 have to be traited as unstratified material (p.c. LeBrun 1983 in Tübingen). The tablets noted by Ghirshman for Sialk IV.1, come from Chantier II, campaign 1934, and especially from the campaign 1937 (Amiet 1985, 305ss.; Ghirshman 1938, Pl. XXXI, 2─7) from layers that lie below those of Sialk IV.2. [for a new re-evaluation of the Proto-Elamite tablets see Dahl – Hessari – Zoshk 2012; Dahl – Petrie – Potts 2013; Desset 2012. 2016].

1167 Dittmann 1986, 297 Tab.95; 458, Tab.159e.

1168 Amiet 1985, 294─302; Amiet 1986, 66ss. 110ss.

1169 Amiet 1985, 296 note 4.

1170 For a definition of the wares see Nagel 1964b, 7,9 Taf. 4.3.

1171 Sumner (P.C. at Tübingen 1983).

1172 Dittmann 1986a, 335, Tab. 116.

1173 LeBreton 1957, Fig. 13.

1174 Ibid., Fig. 11, 6. 8.

1175 LeBrun 1971, Fig. 46, 16 (I, 17A). 63, 1 (I, 15); [this pottery is also knnown from PE-context at Qolī Darvīš – Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015, Fig. 11, 3-2 and 1 (Phases II,3 and II1.)]

1176 Dittmann 1986a, 458, Tab. 159e; 1986b, 185 note 86. For Sialk IV.2 cf. Frankfort 1955, Pl. 5, 28 (Sin II) and 20, 240 (Sin IV).

1177 Amiet 1985, 296. For the seals see Frankfort 1955, Pl. 8, 58-59 (Sin III) and Pl. 9, 70; 18,177 (Sin IV)

1178 See also LeBrun 1978b, 73 Fig. 8, 5 (I, 17B2).

1179 Amiet 1972, Pl. 67, 534 (second sealing on a tablet). For the running time of tablet types see Vallat 1978, 193f. That tablets start in Acr. I, 19, see LeBrun-Vallat in Alden 1982, 633. For a similar sealing from Chogha Mish see Amiet 1980. No. 1673.

1180 Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 56n. For the problems with the dating of the sequence of Tepe Farukhabad see here above and Dittmann 1986b, Tab. 4; in Dittmann 1986a, 188─190. The presence of a curved spout (Susa, Uruk-type 28) in B36 was understood as intrusion, and Farukhabad B36─35, paralleled with Susa, Acr, I, 21─20. If not an intrusion, B36 would to have been correlated to Susa, Acr.I, 19.

1181 Dittmann 1986a, 124. 183. 196ss. 290. 458. 462. 482ss. (For Habuba-Kabira-S.) and 114. 121. 235 (For Gebel Aruda). For Uruk see Sürenhagen 1986 and Dittmann 1986a, 453ss.

1182 The Tablets of Habuba-Kabira-S. have large signs and also the forms recall Susa, Late Uruk A-types (Sürenhagen-Töpperwein 1973, 20ss. Fig. 49)

1183 LeBrun 1978b, 1ss. and Vallat 1978. For Habuba Kabira-S. see Sürenhagen – Töpperwein 1973, Fig. 5c─a.

1184 Strommenger 1980, 479ss.

1185 Vallat 1978, 193. That Hollow Balls filled with Calculi could continue in the PE-period discusses Amiet 1986, 59 note 3 and the findings of Malyan point in the same direction. That this system was perhaps also in use in the East, was discussed by Jarrige 1985, 108. A ball from Susa – Dittmann 1986b, 337 note 24, Fig. 1, 4, seems also to be younger.

1186 Nagel 1964b, 57ss., Pl.54, 4; 55; 56,1─7. For Acr. I, 17B see LeBrun 1071, Fig. 44, 3. 7─8. 10─12. 15─16; LeBrun 1978b, 61ss. Fig. 8, 4 and 9, 1. [For this group, also known as “Pig-Tailed-Women”- seals, see Dittmann 2018].

1187 In addition to the tablet-types, a bow-shaft-motif of Gebel Aruda reminds a sealing of Susa Acr, I, 18 (van Driel 1983, 53, Fig. 40 and LeBrun 1978b, 11ss. and Fig. 7, 8, marking shrines- Dittmann 2012, 75). Such a shaft was found in Girsu, in much later context: Heuzey 1897, 112, Fig. 19. [For the context see Huh 2008, 90].

1188 Sürenhagen-Töpperwein 1973, note Fish- and Spider-seals. The latter occur in Susa not before Acr. I, 17B (LeBrun 1978b, 61ss., Fig. 8, 4; 9, 1). Van Driel 1983, Fig. 24 and Strommenger 1970, Fig. 25 reminds also a sealing from Susa, Acr. I, 17B2 (LeBrun 1978b, Fig. 8, 5)

1189 Dittmann 1986a, 120s.

1190 See Strommenger 1980, 485. Her dates can now be verified by the excavations in Tell Sheikh Hassan (Boese 1995; Bachmann 1998). Such seals are known from Susa, Late Uruk A- and MU-context.

1191 Dittmann 1986a, 199; modified in Dittmann 1986b, Tab. 4.

1192 For the tablet cf. Delougaz 1952, Pl.64,68; for the pottery see ibid., Pl. 64, 22─21m, no. 57. 59. 80─81 have parallels at Nippur, Inanna Temple XIV (Wilson 1986, Fig. 7,16) and Nippur, Inanna Temple XVI-XVB (ibid., Fig. 4, 6. 10).

1193 For the tablet see Delougaz 1952, Pl. 63,73; Pl. 63,70 has a parallel in Carter 1980, Fig. 13, 7 (VR I, 18 with references).

1194 The date Proto-literate d for both sondages was accepted by Nissen 1986a, 322, who correlated both tablets with Writing-Stage III.2 of the Archaic Tablets in Uruk. The two painted sherds from the soundings, called Ubaid by Delougaz (1952, Pl.63, 72─71), even though their paint is greenish, must not necessarily date to Ubaid, but to the so-called Monochrome Ğamdat Nasr-ware, which can have a greenish touch and is found in Nippur up to Inanna Temple XI (Wilson 1986, 63) or both sherds are residue material, what also would be normal.

1195 Wilson 1986, 60 note 7. The first polychrome paint occurs in Nippur, Inanna Temple XVB (ibid., 59). For Uruk, especially for OXI─XII cf. Sürenhagen 1987.

1196 Hansen 1965, 207ss.

1197 For Uruk IVc─a a contemporanety with Nippur, Inanna Temple XVA-XV is reasonable Also Nissen 1986a, is of the opinion, that Uruk IVa is only of relatively short duration). The debris-layer Susa, Acr. I, 17A therefore must be dated to Nippur, Inanna Temple XVA─-XV and XIV. By consequence a “late” sealing from Susa, Acr, I, 17 would be no surprise (LeBrun 1971, Fig. 44, 2 – see Amiet 1971, 224 and Karg 1984, 56 note 219) and should date to I,17A, what is partly younger than Uruk IVa.

1198 Nissen 1986, 322ss.

1199 Already noted in Dittmann 1986a, 45 note 831.

1200 Karg 1984, 80s. had already noted that either the supposed “Zwischenschicht” of Sin VII:VIII or Sin VII would date already to early ED II. The Brocade-Style would than continue in early ED II.

1201 Karg 1984, 35ss. 73s. 84s.; Kolbus 1982, 1ss.; see also Vértesaji – Kolbus 1985, 53ss. Esp. 75ss.

1202 Nissen 1966, 143, against Nissen 1970; Nagel 1964a, attributed these texts to two groups, with a running time of “Ur-dynastic B- to the Mesilim Style-phase” (here Tab. 1). [For the SIS see now Charvát 2010. 2014; Dittmann 2010. 2013; Otto 2010; Sallaberger 2010 and Benati-Lecompte 2012]

1203 That the ductus of Stage III.1-texts in Uruk is not the direct forerunner of the Archaic Texts from Ur, was discussed by Nissen 1986, 325 (p. 326, an ED I date for Stage III.2 not excluding). The picture could be even more complicated, if those texts from Kish, dated by Gelb 1981, 55f. to the pre-Fara-period would be contemporaneous with the Archaic Texts from Ur. ED I/II is a time of divergent regional scribe-traditions, like in the glyptic, as Karg 1984 has shown.

1204 Incomplete in the sense that not all Style-groups, isolated by Nagel, were present in the more recent excavations.

1205 Hansen 1973, Fig.14─15; Renette 2015.

1206 Johnson 1973, 153s., Johnson 1987.

1207Alden 1982, 618s.

1208 Also Haerinck could not fix the beginning of Susa II-pottery (Haerinck 2011, 78).

1209 Desset 2016, 89.

1210 Ibid., 91, already anticipated by Pittman 2013, 322 on glyptic

1211 Ibid., and Dittmann 1986c,

1212 Desset 2016, 91. Dahl-Petrie-Potts 2013, 375, favor a twofold phase-scheme for PE-writing. Phase 1= Format Group 1 and Contents Group A were found in Susa, Ghazir, Sialk IV.1, Ozbaki a d Sofalin Followed by Phase 2 = Format Groups 2, 2sub and x and Content Group B, found in Late PE in Susa, Malyan, Yahya, Sokhta and Sofalin.

1213 Dittmann 2018 , 179 note 34.

1214 Dahl 2012,

1215 Ibid., 8 and Scott 2005.

1216 Term created by Alizade 2008, XXII.

1217 Desset 2015 for architecture and Pittman 2013, 328s. for the glyptic.

1218 In this context it is important that also the PE-pottery from Tepe Yahya is exclusively made of local clay.(Mutin-Lamberg-Karlovsky-Minc 2016) and of course, as the most simple explanation, itinerant potters entered the scene (Mutin-Lamberg-Karlovsky-Minc 2016).

1219 Gopnik et al. 2016, 837.

1220 Dahl-Petrie-Potts 2013, 363.

1221 Alizadeh-Aghili-Sarlak 2015, 161─162, Figs. 12. 1─4.13─13; 14.10─11.

1222 Ibid., Fi. 14, 9.

1223 Ibid., 165 Tab. 1.

1224 D is understood as developed B and was placed therefore in the rcogognized gap between Silak III.6-7 and IV.1 – Helwing 2006, 43; 2011, 374; Seresti-Tashvigh 2016, Fig. 8.

1225 Nashili-Valipour-Kharanaghi 2013, 126.

1226 Helwing 2013, 100-101- The Hinterland of Arisman had 8 sites during the Sialk III.6-7 phase. In the PE-period, only Arisman was left, the same pattern can be observed for the Sialk-region. Helwing connects this pattern with the situation in the Susiana at the End of the Uruk-period. However, here another factor is prominent: Conflict (Johnson 1973 and 1987 and 1989, and Wright 2013, 68).

1227 For a comprehensive re-evaluation of these early excavations cf. Dyson, 1966, 140ss. and Dittmann, 1986a, Chapter IA, Exkurs II

1228 de Morgan, 1900, Fig. 122 and Carter, 1980, Fig. 36:4 = VR. I, 9. But since Gallery E is lower than Gallery F, which disturbs the strata of Acr. I, 9 (LeBrun, 1971, Fig. 32) and in levels Acr. I, 9─8, Style II-pottery has been found (ibid., 166). Gallery E could be older than these levels which are contemporaneous with VR. I, 9─10. Acr. I, 10 could be contemporaneous with VR. I, 12 (cf. Carter, 1978, 198, Tab. I), that means Gallery E could be partly of Proto-Elamite-3 (VR. I, 13─15, Acr. I, 11) and Proto-Elamite-2b (Acr.I, 13─14A) date.

1229 de Mecquenem, 1928, 101; 1924, 104 s.; 1934, 179s. The tablets mentioned in these reports seem to belong to the Late-Uruk type since they are said to be of comptability type (1924, 106). Nevertheless, there must have been also a Proto-Elarnite layer since de Mecquenem, 1924, Fig. 1, first row, first vessel from the right, seems to be a fragment of a "goblet à base en moignon."

1230 It is now clear that tablets with numerical impressions start with Acr.I, 19 -cf. LeBrun-Vallat, in Alden, 1982, 633. For the material cf. de Mecquenem, 1934, 190 ss.; 1943, 17 ss.

1231 de Mecquenem, 1943, 17ss, and Fig.16, 17: 1─6, 18.

1232 Ibid., 18, Fig.15:6. Higher up at 20.5 m, another bichrome pot had been found (ibid., Fig.15: 1 and page 30). It is interesting to note that this pot had been found at a level, which LeBreton ascribes to his Cc-phase (LeBreton 1957, 97), but that it is not included in his Cc -corpus! In fact, it resembles very much his Da-rnaterial, which by definition should be later.

1233 For the problem with the wrong nomenclature, where de Mecquenem confused "Niveau II" with "Niveau III" cf. Dyson 1966, 231. Dyson takes 20.5 m as the surface of Sondage-2; since I correlate the data from de Mecquenem 1934 and 1943 in another way than Dyson does, I get a level of about 21.0 m for the surface of Sondage-2..

1234 Scheil 1935 had published tablets which seem to have come from Sondage-2, saying that they had been found in the upper part of "Niveau III" (ibid., Iss.). The majority of them belong to the Proto-Elamite-type, only ibid., Pl.XXIX: 249, 255; XLVI: 405, 408, 416─418; LII: 485 and perhaps LVI: 4775, LVII: 4778, 4781 belong to the earlier Late-Uruk-type of tablets.

1235 Actually Proto-Elamite-tablets start with his Cb-phase (LeBreton 1957, 97), a fact he connected with building levels at 17.2m (West) and 17.5m (East) and tombs related to those Levels up to 18.0m and furthermore he noted for this phase the end of beveled rim bowls and the introduction of writing. For 17.2/3 m there are no problems, since here we deal with a room with sealed material by the fallen roof, being of Late-Uruk A date. 17.5 m is problematic, since here we deal with a "surface"(?) (cf. de Mecquenem 1943, 17 he notes: "à l'ouest ( = West!) de la tranchée!) which is not sealed by a destruction layer as the room at 17. 2/3 (East!), so the material coming from this findspot could be mixed up by later pits, which would not have been recognized by de Mecquenem. Since the bullae from 17.5 m are beyond any doubt of Late-Uruk A dat,e, writing can not be ascribed to this phase, only in form of tablets with one rare sign which in my opinion should be of Late-Uruk B date as will be discussed below. So, I understand 17.5 m as being a mixed assemblage, which, since it is not sealed up, should not be used as an argument for further reasoning.

1236 de Mecquenem 1934b, 190, Fig. 22 = Aliabad-ware; the unstable bichrome ware is unfortunately not published by de Mecquenem. The "Uruk-Bänderkeramik" is published: ibid., Fig. 23, 1─2 = LeBreton 1957, Fig. 13, 2 (Ca) and 13, 4 (Cb).

1237 LeBreton 1957, 101, Pl.XXVI: 3─4, unstable painted pottery is also t,ypical for the Proto-Elamite-2 a phase (LeBrun 1971, 200).

1238 LeBrun 1978a 178, Fig. 29.

1239 de Mecquenem 1934, 192, Fig.25 and LeBrun 1971, Fig.67, l.

1240 LeBreton 1957, 109ss.; Amiet 1976, 61ss.

1241 LeBreton 1957, 108, Fig.26 and de Mecquenem 1943, 30, Fig.24, 1─2.

1242 For the moment cf. Nagel 1964, 83s. and Börker-Klähn 1970, 12ss. for a discussion of the material from the Donjon. An new approach will be possible if the Ph.-D. Thesis of LeBreton would be published, since he gives much more detailed information - and corrections about the material from the Donjon (personal communication by Carter at the conference). Arniet 1972, Vol. I, 171ss. gives a complete discussion of the glyptic material from the Donjon graveyard. Furthermore Amiet (1973, 11) had already suggested that there might be a phase present at the Donjon-above Proto-Elamite layers (!)-which is not present at the Acropolis, since the excavations by Stève and Gasche had not found the missing link between "Couche 4 b" and the Proto-Elamite period. With the excavations from LeBrun and Carter it has become clear that there is no shift of the settlement from the Acropolis Mound to the Donjon/Ville-Royale area in the Early-Dynastic II period as Amiet suggested (1973, 11). Furthermore already as early as 1964 Nagel was not sure if there could not be a Late-Uruk occupation in the Donjon area (1964, ? - in Table IL I). This famous question mark has never been discussed afterwards in the literature which dealing with the settlement size of Susa in the Uruk period.

1243 LeBrun 1971, Fig.47, 6, and LeBrun 1978a, Fig.24,9─10 (= Acr.I, 17Bl─2) for Mecquenem 1943, Fig. 76, 1 + 3.

1244 Cf. LeBreton 1957, Pl.XXVI, 6─7. No.6 had been classified together with no.7 by Nagel (1964, Taf. 7: 1) as "Frühe-Aliabad-Ware" and dated to Da.

1245 Personal communicaion by Carter at the conference.

1246 Carter 1980, Fig.13, 2.

1247 de Mecquenem 1943, 120 and Fig. 72, 15 which had also been found in graves A 332 (+ Fig. 70, 9), B 202 (+Fig.70, 9.37), B 214 (+Fig.69,19), B236 (+Fig.69,17. 21, 71, 4 = conical cup).

1248 de Mecquenem 1943, 102.

1249 Nagel 1964, Taf. 28, 6.

1250 Cf. Amiet 1972, Vol. II, Pl. 125, 1306 and Vol. I, 111, 143─144 dated by Amiet to the Proto-Elamite-period. An (unfortunately fragmentary) similar sealing has been found at Khafadji, Sin IV Temple -cf. Frankfort 1955, Pl.17,161.

1251 Mecquenem 1934, 218.

1252 Alden 1982, 618s.

1253 Amiet 1980, 134, nos. l─2, and cf. Dittmann 1986c, Fig.12,16─17.

1254 For the old excavations cf. de Mecquenem 1922. 1924. 1928a. For the new excavations: de Miroschedji 1976 (on page 23 de Miroschedji notes that Nissen's strata 49─32 in K/L XII would correspond to Uruk/Eanna XII─VII; this is a complete misunderstanding! Nissen's phases XII─VII have absolutely nothing to do with the levels of the deep sounding in Eanna). Only in a trench on the north-east edge of the Apadana no Susa-A pottery had been found under the Uruk material, this might also be true for Tranchée No.6 (Jéquier 1900, 75).

1255 de Mecquenem 1928a, 109, Fig.10:4 = Nagel 1964b, Taf.28,5 dated by him to LeBreton's Db- phase after LeBreton 1957, Pl.XXVI, 10.

1256 de Mecquenem 1924, Fig. 7, small vessel just above in the middle between the lower two pots.

1257 So for instance de Mecquenem, 1924, first row, vessel in the middle - cf. Carter, 1980, Fig. 47, 7 = VR. I, 3; of Db-type could be de Mecquenem, 1924, Fig. 7, lower row, vessel at the right, cf. LeBreton, 1957, Fig. 35: l.

1258 Amiet 1972, Vol. I, 110s., 119 supra nos.793, 809 and 886.

1259 de Mecquenem, 1927, 13 supra no. 67.

1260 I suppose a lot of seals from Susa, dated by Amiet (cf. note 61) to the Early-Dynastic II period, should in fact be contemporaneous with VR. I, 15─13 and Acr. I, 11 (?), therefore all parts of Susa could be occupied in this phase.

1261 LeBrun, 1971, 179. The famous "contact 16─17" which could be misunderstood as being a zone between layer 17A and 16, is in fact unstratified material from an adjacent step of the old excavations of de Mecquenem at the Témoins de Morgan. The tablets having been labelled to come from this "contact" (ibid., 43, 1─3) should therefore be considered as being out of stratigraphic context (personal communication from LeBrun)

1262 LeBrun, 1971, 189; 1978, 183ss.

1263 LeBrun, 1971, 202ss.; 1978, 190.

1264 LeBrun 1971, 210.

1265 LeBrun, 1971, 192. In the excavations beveled rim bowls have only been found up to level 16, on the other hand they are present -in small quantities- in Ville-Royale I, 18B─16, cf. Carter, 1980, Fig.14, 1-3, 1978, 202, Fig.40, 2-3.

1266 LeBrun, 1971, Fig.46, 7-8 (= Acr. I, 17A), Fig.60, 13-17 (= VR.I 16-15).

1267 LeBrun, 1971, Fig.23, 12 (= Acr. I, 17B2); 1971, Fig.46, 13 (= Acr. I, 17A), Carter, 1980, Fig.9, 3 (= Acr. I, 18), and Fig.10, 4-5 (= VR. I, 18A─17), but the rim form is different in the Proto-Elamite examples.

1268 LeBrun, 1978a, Fig.26, 5 (= Acr. I, 17B); 1971, Fig.48, 6-7 (= Acr. I, 17A).

1269 LeBrun, 1971, Fig. 48, 6─7 ( = Acr. I, 17 A) and Carter, 1980, Fig. 13, 9 (VR. I, 18).

1270 LeBrun, 1971, Fig.48, 9 (= Acr. I, 17A), Fig.62, 1,4─8 (= Acr. I, 16─15).

1271 LeBrun, 1971, Fig.46, 16 (= Acr. I, 17A), Fig.64, 1─2 (= Acr. I, 16).

1272 LeBrun, 1971, Fig. 50, 17 (= Acr. I, 17), Fig.66, 8 (= Acr. I, 14A).

1273 LeBrun, 1971, Fig.60, 1─4.

1274 LeBrun, 1971, Fig.64, 3─5. 8 (= Acr. I, 16─15B), only ibid., Fig.64, 7 comes from level 14B but I am not sure if this fragment belongs to the monochrome group. Ibid., Fig. 64, 9─12 (= Acr. I, 14B), no. 9 has also red and dark bichrome painting (coining from ( = Acr. I, 15A), therefore I include it in the bichrome group.

1275 In order to make a comprehensive scheme, I will include in this footnote also the material from Ville-Royale I. Furthermore, Stamp seals as LeBrun 1971, Fig. 44,17 (Acr. I, 17A) continue in Acr. I, 15/15A (ibid., Fig. 59, 11─12). Also a sign of a certain continuity between Late Uruk and the Proto-Elamite period.

1276 Vallat 1971, 1978.

1277 Carter, 1980, 21. In her Figs.-legends, Carter gives the following parallels for connections between Acr. I and VR I:

1278 Carter, 1980, Fig.14: 15-18.

1279 Cf. note 15 for the seals and sealings and Carter, 1980, Fig. 17: 8 for the tablet.

1280 Carter, 1980, 20.

1281 Carter, 1978, 202ss., Table I.

1282 In fact almost nothing from Ville-Royale I, 16 is published, only Carter, 1980, Fig.9,13 is said to come from level 17/16-with an unpublished parallel in Acr.I, 13; furthermore on ibid., Fig.15, 15─16 two jars are shown coming from level 16/17, but the Figure-legend notes "Pottery from levels 15─13, Period III C (?)," which makes not very much sense; to add 2 smallfinds equally from 16/17 -ibid., Fig.19, 16-17.

1283 Carter, 1978, Fig. 42 and 1980, 16ss. for a complete discussion of this material.

1284 Stève-Gasche 1971, 133ss.

1285 Ibid., Pl.24─25; 30,3; 31, 13─30,32; 33,2. 15; 24, 33; 38,5; 41,9─28. 30─38.

1286 Dittmann, 1983 (1986a), Chapter IA for a critical review of this material.

1287 E.Porada 1965, 154 and Stève-Gasche 1971, 133ss.

1288 A sondage east of the bastion of the Riemchen wall has shown that this wall was laid on the so-called "Strates-Feuilletées" in which beveled rim bowls occurred (Stève-Gasche, 1971, 11). In loc. 101 Riemchen debris are overlaid by the "Strates Feuilletées" and beveled rim bowls are in connection with the Riemchen debris (ibid., 12). [Butterlin 2003).

1289 Dittmann, 1983 (1986a), Chapter IA. Canal after his excavations on the southern edge of the Terrace (Canal, 1978, 1978a) is of the opinion that in the Uruk period this nuclear part of che Acropolis-Mound was without any importance (1978, 50; 1978a, 173). I agree on this point as far as a reduced use of that part seems to have been present. But on the other hand the work by Stève and Gasche had shown that there had been an Uruk-period Terrace, even a step on the "Massif-Orange," since around the nuclear part of this massiv a lot of wall cones of the Late-Uruk-period have been found especially in loc. 325 on the surface of the walls which belong to the big Middle-Uruk-pit and from a lot of other loci which surely mark the periphery of such a step. That nothing of this survived, is not astonishing since che old excavations had razed anything of such a step of che nuclear part of the Terrace. This seems especially true for structures which could be of Late-Uruk-date, i. e. structures which could have been in relation to the Riemchen walls on that nuclear part of the Terrace.

1290 Parallels will be given in tabular form. See Stève-Gasche 1971, 123ss.

1291 Ibid., 127, Fig. 10.

1292 Ibid., 123, Fig. 9.

1293 Ibid., 33.

1294 Ibid., 33, Plan 2 and Fig. 11.

1295 Ibid., Pl. 30, 31 and not Pl. 31, 31 as said on ibid., 33.

1296 Carter 1980, Fig.10,6 (= VR. I, 18) paralleled with Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.19:33 (= loc.232, 22.45 m); Carter 1980, Fig.12,5 (= VR. I, 17/18, and Acr. I, 14A) paralleled with Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.20,5 (= loc. 102, 21.60 m); Carter 1980, Fig. 12, 10 (= V R. I, 17) paralleled with Stève/-Gasche 1971, Pl. 21, 4 ( = loc. 241, 22.60 m); Carter 1980, Fig.12, 13 (= VR. I, 18) paralleled with Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.19:34 (= loc.232, 22.45m); Carter, 1980, Fig.18: 15 (= V.R.I 18A) paralleled with Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.23: 19 (= loe. 251, 22.40 m); Carter 1980, Fig.15,11 (= VR. I, 13) paralleled with Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl.21,5 (= loc.251, 22.40/60 m). If one looks for other parallels from the quoted loci the following picture emerges:

1297 Carter, 1978, 198, Tab. I.

1298 Stève-Gasche 1971, Pl. 23, 5.

1299 Ibid., 109.

1300 Ibid., 123.

1301 For the "Bâtiment-Proto-Dynastique" cf.: The rest of the material: Loc.353, Stève-Gasche, 1971, Pl.21: 14─15; Loc.357, ibid., Pl.19: 38; Loc.352, ibid., Pl.19: 7; Loc.360, ibid., Pl. 19: 5, 21: 22, 23: 20; Loc. 361, ibid., Pl. 22: 18 and Loc. 355, ibid., Pl. 19: 6 and 21:28-all seem to fit a VR I, 12─9 date.

1302 Stève-Gasche 1971, 148 and Pl.29: 16─17.

1303 Ibid., 12.

1304 A similar case is seen on ibid., Plan-4 where a wall in the "Massif-Orange" is attributed to the Susa-A2 period of Stève and Gasche. It would have been very interesting to excavate the central part of the "Massif­Orange/Rose/Vert" in order to get an idea about the sequences of buildings in this nuclear part of the Terrace. Perhaps here a sequence, comparable to the one at the Anu-Zikkurat at Uruk, could have been established. In most other cases the excavation stopped after the surface had more or less been cleaned, this is especially true for the whole sector to the northeast of the "Massif ... " where the Early-Dynastic structures had been found. Especially here the missing link between the Late-Uruk and Proto-Elarnite 2a-phase is surely present, as well as the missing link between the Proto-Elarnite 2a/b-phase and "Couche 4b." I really cannot understand how one can open an excavation with a surface of 1.2 ha without having the relevant questions in mind for the area which one is excavating.

1305 Hansen 1965 and Algaze 1979. Cf. see now Wilson 1986 which modifies some of the statements in the summaries just quoted.

1306 LeBrun 1971, Fig.43, 4─7; 44, 1. 4. 6. 9. 14. 17. 19─20; 45, 2. 6─9. 11. 13─14; 46, 4. 6─13. 16─17; 47, 1. 3─4. 6. 8─10. 12; 48, 1─-9. 5; 49, 3─7. 9─10. 12; 50, 9─11; 51, 2─6. 8─11; 52, 5; 53, 1; 54, 6. 11; 55, 2. 6. 9─11. 13─14; 56, 3─7. 16. 18; 57, 1─3. 5. 7─11. 15─16. 18─19. 21─22. 24.

1307 LeBreton 1957, 97, 104.

1308 LeBrun 1978, Tableau I.

1309 Cf. Dittman 1986c and Whitcomb 1971, Pl.XI: A for Tall-i Ghazir. [For the final publication see Alizadeh 2014] . Reference should also be made to material from Chogha Mish, which as to now is unfortunately almost unpublished, but the glyptic material fits well an Acr. I 18 date -cf. for the moment, Delougaz-Kantor, 1972. [See now Delougaz-Kantor-Alizadeh 1996 and Alizadeh 2008] .

1310 Vallat 1971, 243, referring to Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XCII: S.28.

1311 I wonder how Alden (1982, 613) takes it for granted that Sialk IV.2 lasts into the ED II period, simply taking Dyson's suggestion from 1965 (Dyson 1965, 226) as an argument for such a low dating. Ghirshman 1938, Pl. XC:S. 33 had been dated by Dyson to the ED II period, but the pot in question is hand made, not wheel thrown. Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XC: S. 537 -the high-beveled-rim-bowl type-(hand made) starts with Susa Acr. I, 17 (LeBrun 1978, Fig. 34, 1, 3). A cylinder seal as Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XCIV: S. 42 has a parallel in Sin-III (Frankfort 1955, Pl. 8, 59), Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XCIV: S. 48, 54 seem to belong to material from Sin-II (Frankfort 1955, Pl. 5, 26─28) what would be in general agreement with the chronological scheme developed here. Also Double-spiral ended pins which Dyson takes for a low dating are without any chronological use, since they have a too wide regional and too long chronological distribution. Furthermore a look at Alden's chronological chart (1982, Fig. 2) shows an interesting confusion in the sequence of the level designations: Susa Acr. I, 15B is older than 15A, this is also true for Sialk IV.1 in respect to IV.2 and for Tepe Yahya IV.B. 2 in respect to IV.B. 1 which are all given upside down. Coming to the Late-Uruk-material from Sialk IV. 1, Ghirshman, 1938, Pl. LXXXVIII: S.68 and S. 41 starts with Susa Acr. I, 17B (cf. LeBrun 1978a, Fig. 24, 9─10) and this type has also been found at Uruk/Eanna IV a (cf. von Haller 1932, Taf. 20, A: h).The painted variant of this type has not been found in the recent excavations at Susa so far (Ghirshman 1938, Pl. LXXXVIII: S. 53. 115. 52. 40. 538). From the old excavations such material had been attributed to Ca─e (LeBreton 1957, Fig. 13). At Tall-i Ghazir such vessels have been found in Stake-Trench 7-7.5m (L.3) (cf. Whitcomb, 1971, Pl.Vl: C(?)) and Trench-i, l.5─2.6m (Whiccomb, 1971, Pl.VI: D). Ghirshman 1938, Pl. LXXXVIII, S.56. 32. 21. 44 and Pl. XC: S.7 = so-called "Uruk-Bänderkeramik" is present in Susa Acr. I, 17A until 15 (cf. Brun 1971, Fig. 46, 16; 63, 1). At Tepe Farukhabad such material starts equally in the Late-Uruk period and runs in the Proto-Elam ite period (cf Wright et al. 1981, Fig. 48, 8 (= A. 21), 56, j ( = B. 31), 56, k ( = B. 33 ), 56, I (=A. 20), 56: m (B. 22), 56,n (= B. 34), 56, p ( = B. 22)). Jars with long spouts as Ghirshman, 1938, Pl. LXXXIX: S.43a, 43, 44 bis occur in Tall-i Ghazir in Step-Trench 36 (K) and 37 (J) (cf. D.S.Whitcomb, 1971, Pl. IV: D: 1─2, IV: B). Drooping spouts as R.Ghirshman 1938, Pl. LXXXIX: S.43b, 43d date from Susa, Acr. I, 19─17 (p.c. LeBrun). Bottles like Ghirshman 1938, Pl. LXXXIX: S. 80. 2. 438. 1608 date also to the Late-Uruk-period (cf. LeBrun, 1978a, Fig.29, 5+7 = Acr.I 17Bl─2), the comparable types from Tall-i Ghazir are much more of pear shape (Step-Trench, plot J. 6, cf. Whitcomb 1971, Pl.V: H). The needle type Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XCV: S. 1602e finds its counterpart in Susa, Acr. I, l 7A (cf. LeBrun 1971, Fig. 57, 9─11). But, the discussion might be complicated by the presence of two jars with long straight spouts as early as Sialk III. 6 (cf. Ghirshman 1938, Pl. LXIX: S. 135) which can be paralleled at Uruk/ Eanna VII and VI (cf. von Haller 1932, Taf. 18: D: i and 19: Be') moreover since the jars with long spouts mentioned above, coming from Sialk IV. 1 and having parallels at Ghazir, Step-Trench 36 (K) and 37 (J) find also parallels in Uruk/Eanna VII, that means early in the Late-Uruk-period (cf. von Haller 1932, Taf. 18: Ds'. n). Last but not least it seems to me, that already Early- and Middle- Uruk "lowland" types are present in the local wares of the "highlands," that means a contact between the "low- and highlands" earlier than Late-Godin VI/V (cf. Dittmann, 1986a, Exkurs-IV, which could be confirmed by the material from Godin-Tepe [p. c. T. C.Young at the conference in Tübingen 1983]), so the obvious "bang" by which Uruk-akin material is said to have been introduced in the iranian "highlands" may in fact be nothing else than the end of a long history of relations between the "low- and highlands" which is today only poorly understood. To make a final point, Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XC: S.23 (Sialk IV.2) is no real bichrome Ğamdat­Nasr ware, but a pseudo-bichrome ware of buff clay, with a red reserved slip and dark paint. Such a ware must not necessarily be dated to the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase where real bichrorne ware has been found. I feel not uncomfortable in dating Sialk IV. 1 to about Sin-II, Sialk IV. 2 to about Sin-III.

1312 Weiss-Young 1975, Fig. 4, 2.

1313 With naturalistic sealings: -cf. Scheil 1923, Pl. XXIII: 137. XXVI: 165. XXVII: 169. Amiet 1966, Fig. 32 for example. But also tablets with sealings of the schematic group are known -cf. Dittmann 1986, Fig. 9: 6. This tablet is very interesting, since the spider-motive seems not to occur before Susa Acr. I, 17B, therefore this group of tablets seems to date to this level at Susa, which would also be in harmony with the pottery of Godin V.

1314 Falkenstein 1936 for the material from the Red-Temple (inter alia}, especially W. 6881, a findspot next to the "Rillenrnauer" of this Red-Temple has brought up tablets with sealings, numerical impressions and 1-2 signs: ibid., Taf. 57, 565vs. 567 rs; 58, 568vs. For "stage IV─III" in the palaeography of the Uruk tablets, cf. Nissen 1986.

1315 Cf. Dittmann 1986c.

1316 Cf. Nissen 1986 and 1986a. 179a Ghirshman 1938, Pl.XC: S. 33 and LeBrun 1978, Fig. 34, l.

1317 Lenzen 1965. I am not sure if this "Zwischenschicht" really exists, perhaps it is only a reconstruction on behalf of tablets of "stage-III. 3" type (Nissen 1986). However that may be, the material published by Lenzen is to be dated at the very end of Eanna IVa, i. e. to the time span when the IVa buildings have been levelled for the construction of the Eanna III structures.

1318 Wright et al. 1981, 8, Table 2; 173, Table 42. But cf. also his revised chronology of Tepe Farukhabad in Tübingen 1983. which is very close to my scheme.

1319 Carter 1980, 20.

1320 Strommenger 1980.

1321 For material from Nippur, cf. Wilson 1986. We both agreed on the dating of Acr. I, 14B, Ville-Royale I, 18 to Nippur/Inanna-Ternple XI.

1322 I am speaking of Susa Acr. I, 15A which-since one bichrome Ğamdat-Nasr jar is reported from this level, it should mark the beginning of the Proto-Elamite 2a-phase (cf. note 14).

1323 LeBreton 1957, 101 and Pl.XXVI: 3─5 (no. 5 had been dated by LeBreton to Da, ibid., 115); de Mecquenem 1943, Fig. 15, 1─3.

1324 Perhaps "Couche 3" of Stève and Gasche's excavation on the Terrace of the Acropolis Mound and VR I, 9 which have been connected with the "Proto-Imperial-Period" in the Diyala region (Stève-Gasche 1971, 91, and Carter, 1978, Tab. I), last from ED. IIIB until the very beginning of the Akkad-Period, if one follows McGuire Gibson, 1982, 531 ss.

1325 Since the Middle-Banesh-period is to be connected with Susa Acr. I, 16─14B, Late-Banesh, i.e. Tall-i Malyan TUV. I (being of early Late-Banesh date, Sumner, p. c. at the conference), would consequently have to be dated post Acr. I, 14 B, i. e. to the Proto-Elarnite 2b-phase. This could be substantiated by the fact that after Susa Acr. I, 14B no tablets have been found anymore and at Tall-i Malyan with TUV I writing stops also at this site (Nicholas 1981, 47).

1326 Further examples are Delougaz 1952, Pl.100g = Khafadji, Houses-2?, ED.III?-the question marks had been added by Delougaz who was not sure if this vessel belongs to this level (after McGuire Gibson 1982, 537, Houses 2 should belong to the ED. III a period). It is not impossible, that this type is earlier, being of ED. I/II date. Another example comes from an undated findspot at Fara -Andrae-Heinrich 1931, Abb. 34 = F.2437 = Pl. 18: a from Fara XV m. A gray ware with white incrustations is also found at Susa, Acr. I, 15 -cf. -LeBrun 1971, Fig.62, 2 but is of a completely different type. Also de Mecquenem 1943, 31, Fig. 25, 2 had published an incised gray ware jar, saying that it had been found at 19─21 m in Sondage 2 (ibid., 31, the Fig.-legend notes 20-21 m). But this kind of ware is extremely long living as is shown by de Mecquenem,1943a, Fig. 82, 1─2 and 85, 1─3 from the Donjon-graveyard, graves B 122, B 221 and B 147. I am not sure if these jars, like those from Tepe Farukhabad and Fara, could not be in some kind of relation to the Ninivite V incised ware, but this would ask for a much more detailed study.

1327 Wright et al., 1981, Fig. 53a.

1328 These thoughts are dedicated to Mauricio Tosi with deep regrets that we didn't had the opportunity to meet again. For connections between both sites see, Jarrige-Tosi 1981, 115-142; See Dittmann 2003, esp. 90─94. 112─116. (part of my Habilitation in 1991).

1329 Jarrige-LeChevalier 1979 , 534 and Jarrige 1974─86, 114s. 118.

1330 Jarrige 1974-86 , esp. 114s.; Jarrige et al., 1987, esp., 202s. Jarrige seems to narrow the connection between Mundigak IV and Shahr-i Sokhta III─IV exclusively to Mehrgarh VIIC and Nausharo IC─D. This is problematic in view of Hili 8 and Tepe Yahya, where Shahr-i Sokhta IV-types are attested from IVb1 to IVA4-5. For Amri II see below.

1331 Biscione 1974, 131ss.

1332 Casal 1961, 81. 167, for findings in Mound F and a graveyard in MG 1.

1333 Biscione 1990, 390ss,

1334 Ibid., 392─394.

1335 Ibid., 391, Fig. 16.

1336 Shaffer 1978; moreover, see Allchin-Hammond 1978, 71ss. with a detailed discussion and literature.

1337 Jarrige 1997, 20─21.

1338 Biscione 1974, 131s.

1339 Meadow-Kenoyer 2005, I, 207─225, esp. 207 Tab. 1.

1340 For Hili 8 cf. Cleuziou-Tosi 1989, 15ss. esp. 35─40.

1341 Ibid., 40 (with further references). At the time the final publication of Tepe Yahya was still not available to me, therefore all references concerning Tepe Yahya refer to, Potts, Tradition and Transformation, Tepe Yaha and the Iranian Plateau During the Third Millennium BC (PhD Thesis 1980) 315s. Fig. 49, E. R (Yahya IVB1); 318s. Fig. 51, E(Yahya IVA-?); 322s. Fig. 53, C-D (Yahya IVA3).

1342 Cleuziou-Tosi 1989, 23 Tab. 2; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, esp. 52, Fig. IV, CC-DD. Potts 1980, 580s. since Yahya IVA4─3.

1343 Potts 1990, 108s. Note 66 (for Hili 8, IIf─g). See also de Miroschedji 1973 for the Chlorite vessels. That Maništušu follows Sargon and Rimuš preceeds Naramsin is discussed by Steinkeller 2003, 267─292.

1344 For the presence of "Brown-Banded-Buff"-Kaftari-akin ware in Tepe Yahya iVB1 to IVA3/2 cf. Potts 1980, 217. 258 and 579f. For Yahya see also Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970, Fig. 15G. 16K. M.19T and Prickett 1986, 1474, Dating Criterion 22.

1345 Potts 1990, I, 196. 216.

1346 Nickerson 1983, 194ss.; Amiet 1986, 158s. and Sumner 1989, 135ss.

1347 Sumner, ibid., 138s.

1348 Goff 1964, 48s. pl. IIa; according to Deshayes 1958, 284ss. starting in the 2. Half of the 3rd Millennium BC. For Nokhodi see also Maxwell-Hyslop 1988, esp. 137. For the Bactrian graves see Pottier 1984, 18─21, pl. IX, 58.

1349 So also the opinion of Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, esp.54.

1350 Vats 1975, I, 43, 342, Il. pl. XCI, 257.

1351 See Ferioli-Fiandra-Tusa 1979, 7ss., 10 Fig. 1e (Shahr-i Sokhta III, 4) and Beyer 1989, 109ss. Fig. 3a─b (Mari).

1352 cf. Dittmann 2003, 85─88. For the date of Yahya IVB5 on Dittmann 2003, Tab. 3 see Amiet 1986, 133.

1353 Lamberg-Karlovsky -Tosi 1973, 57 Chart IV.

1354 Potts 1980, 391s. Fig. 60, L (IVA4 - Impression on a "Terracotta cake"); 586s. on the glyptic material of Yahya IVA in general. For the stamp on the sherd cf. Lamberg-Karlovsky-Tosi 1973, 21ss. Fig. 137. Kulli-akin is Potts 1980, Fig. 51, O (Yahya IVA, IVA4?); Potts 1990, I, 105 Note 51, noting a connection with Umm an-Nar, Cairn V.

1355 It should be noted that in Shahr-i Sokhta IV I─0 vessels occur with an almost identical lip-form than the vessel from Yahya IVA4? If bases are not present, these vessels from Shahr-i Sokhta IV could belong to Biscione 1979, Fig. 4, "Fine Ware", type F.These types have, contrary to the Bactrian types, a ring base. Biscione 1974 feels a relation to Sapalli Tepe for Shahr-i Sokhta IV 1─0. If one would accept this, one has to place a gap between Phases 2 and 1 in Shahr-i Sokhta, or such a Sapalli-material occurred not before the very end of Shahr-i Sokhta IV, because it has to be connected to Mehrgarh VIII, datable at the earliest from Nausharo IV to Amri IIIC. But, Shahr-i Sokhta III does not continue after ,Nausharo IC/ID.

1356 Masson 1988, pl. XXXIII; Jarrige 1974.86, 122, had already shown, that this vessel-form is also present in the Mehrgarh VIII-horizon - cf. Santoni 1984, 52ss. Fig. 8, 8 and in the upper Namazga V-levels, Ganjalin 1967, 207─218. According to a friendly remark by Th. Götzelt, also Khan 1965, Fig. 25, 24 (Kot Diji 5A) could belong to this type, which in my chronological scheme would roughly correspond to Amri IIB, Mehrgarh VII (Dittmann 2003, 90─94).

1357 Casal 1961, I, 79s.; II, Fig. 21 (Plan of the city) and Fig. 42 ("Bath").

1358 For Damb Saadat III, see Fairservis 1956, 214s. 218 Fig. 11; for the acrosancts see Flam 1986, esp. 74; see also Lambrick 1975, 58s. illustrations on 55 and 61s. This type of settlement has an elevated part, or using a natural elevation, with an acess in stone architecture and a 'lower flat settlements'. The size of the higher parts is quite small, therefore Flam suggests that these elevated parts were used as temporary shelter against saisonal flooding. According to Nissen this type of settlement is also found in the Lake Manchar area in the Khaipur Juso period. For this Iron Age material Nissen p.c. Such a pottery has also be found by the author and F. Pedde 1986 on the West-Mound of Jhukar.

1359 Concerning the projections one can add, Mundigak IV, Mehrgarh VII, Nausharo and Namazga IV for instance, Casal 1961; for Mehrgah VII see Jarrige-LeChevalier 1979, 510s. Fig, 26─27; for Nausharo see Jarrige 1996 , 821─878 esp. 839 Fig. 8; for Namazga IV see Kircho 1988, 33s. esp. 35 Fig. 1 and 42, Fig. 8.

1360 Jansen 1986, 195s. esp. 202ss. 206 Tab.

1361 Dumarçay 1984 , 59.

1362 Mariani 1989, Fig. 2, No.2 ; Fig. 8. 11 and Casal 1961, II, Fig. 36.

1363 C. Jarrige 1997, 33─43.

1364 Salvatori-Tosi, 2005, 281─292; Cortesi et al. 2008 , 5-35; Jarrige et al. 2011, 7─34.

1365 Ibid.

1366 Amiet-Tosi 1978, 9─31 and Amiet 1983, 199─210. The chronological span ranges from the end of the 4. Millennium to the beginning of the 3rd.

1367 Salvatori-Tosi 2005 , 285 Fig. 5 = Cortesi et al. 2008 , 14 Fig. 7, 1. The upper half was found in tertiary context at Period II, 5, the lower half 'in situ'? in II, 7

1368 Dittmann 2003, 90─94, esp. 93. Shahr-I Sokhta 7 belongs in my scheme to Kot Diji IB (levels 7─4 equivalent to the End of Amri IIB).

1369 Salvatori-Tosi 2005, 285. Jarrige et al. 2011, mention Nal-Pottery since Shahr-i Sokhta I (few) but more prominent in Sohkta II. In Mehrgarh first Nal-Style occurs in VB and is quite common in VIIA and B, as well as at Nausharo IA+B (ibid., 12─15 Fig. 8),

1370 Salvatori-Tosi 2005, 285.

1371 Ibid.

1372 Ibid., 285; Salvatori-Vidale 1979: Fig. 252, 5 and Jarrige 1984─1986, 63─131, pl. XXXIX.b- left.

1373 Salvatori-Tosi 2005, Fig.2, 5. Such material is also known from Mundigak III, 6 - Ibid., Fig. 2, 6.

1374 The authors emphasize also the good parallels between Mundigak IV1─IV2 and Sokhta III6─III5. For the Namazga IV-reference see Salvatori-Tosi 2005, 285 with reference to Kohl 1985, Pl. 9a─b.

1375 Salvatori-Tosi 2005, 285─286. The same grave is also attributed to Phase 5a, cf. here Tab. 2 and Cortesi et al. 2008, 11 Tab. 1. For the Nal material from Shahr-i Sokhta see Jarrige et al. 2011, 10─14.

1376 Ibid. Fig. 7+8, all from 5b.

1377 Ibid., 288, Fig. 9.

1378 Ibid., 288, Fig. 10.

1379 Ibid., 288.

1380 Ibid., 288.

1381 Cortesi et al. 2008.

1382 Ibid., Fig. 7, 3─5b. 8─10. A reconstruction like ibid., Fig. 7, 5b is very suggestive, but a look at the single sherd drawing (ibid., Fig. 7, 5a) shows a kind of socket of a carination, completely missing in ibid., Fig. 7, 5b. Incised Grey Ware, present in the Burnt Building, has a long running time of Miri Qalat IIIb, in IV only vew sherds are attested (Ibid., 16). Bowls with vegetal motifs occur in Jarrige et al. 2011, Fig. 12, Lal Shah, Shahr-i Sokhta IV also Grave 705), Nausharo IC, Miri Qalat IIIc, Mundigak IV3 and Mehrgarh VIIA+B. 'Cognac' beakers occur in Nausharo IC, Shahr-i Sokhta IV Grave 731 and Mundigak IV1 - Jarrige et al. 2011, 22, Fig.13. The pottery from the graves from Shahr-i Sokhta IV has good parallels in Lal Shah, Mehrgarh VIIC, Nausharo IC, Miri Qalar IIIc and Mundigak IV3 - Jarrige et al. 2011, 22. Big plates with a fish motif occur in Shahr-i Sokhta IV, Grave 731 and 1705, Mehrgarh VIIA+B, Nausharo IC and Mundigak IV2 - Jarrige et al.2011, 23, Fig.14. A canister from the last level of the Burnt Building has parallels in Miri Qalat IIIc - Jarrige et al. 2011, 27─28, Fig. 18, 1.

1383 Cortesi et al. 2008, Fig. 11; Jarrige et al. 2011, 19, Fig. 10, has good parallels in Nausharo, up to IC (not ID, these are different) and Mehrgarh VIIC.

1384 On the problem of using Kot Diji as period designation, see Jarige et. al. 2011:17.

1385 Ibid., 17─18, Fig. 12 from Mehrgarh VII and Nausharo I..

1386 Cortesi et al. 2008, 18─22; Fig. 13, 1 comes from the surface, the rest of the figure are seals of different proveniences. Fig. 14,1 - surface, 14, 2 - Grave G801/3 = period II, 5b; Fig. 16, 1 = Period I?, Fig. 15, 2─3 and 4─5 come from graves 725 sup. and 311 (Period II late or III early and II6─5a), nos. 6─8 are surface material. A steatite cylinder seal with Indus signs (ibid., 27─28. 31, Fig. 23, 1) from the British Muesum, has an absolute unsecure provenience, so even, if of Harappa Period IIIC-date and belonging to the BMAC, it is chronological irrelevant for the settlement, and may come from one of the graves or cenotaphs of this complex in Iranian ruins.

1387 Cortesi et al. 2008, 24─25.

1388 Ibid., Fig. 19 and 20.

1389 Ibid., 28.

1390 Vidale 2017.

1391 Ibid., 30 Fig. 23, 2.

1392 Especially Mehrgarh VIIC and Nausharo ID have already a large portion of Mature Harappan traits in their material culture, as convincingly discussed by Jarrige et al. 2011.

1393 Cortesi et al. 2008 , 10 Fig. 2.

1394 Cortesi et al. 2088 , 9, Note 42.

1395 The threefold partition of the Indus Culture is the merit of Casal anlysing his material from his excavations at Amri 1961-62 - see Jarrige et al. 2011, 9. I also used this scheme consequently for my discussion of the Indus Culture in my work from 1991/2003 – Dittman 2003: 85 Note 8. Substanial newer studies are Quivron 2000, 147-190 and Uesugi 2013, 356-371.

1396 See Cortesi et al. 2008, 6─9 and Dittmann 1986a, 329─344. esp. 339 Note 43. I guess one should take care, that the terminus "Interaction sphere" does not become a non-term, meaning finally nothing else as 'to interact in a given space,' in what way soever. The term runs the risk to be used as terminological joker for the academic well educated, intelligent looking smart guy, ranting around in self-confirming circles. Exceptions do exist of course, like the studies by Jarrige et al. 2011 and by Uesugi no year, to quoate but two examples. To put it to an exaggerated formulation Dittmann 2003, 329 (Translated), "For the periods I will briefly touch here…the question … in how far both so-called centres of Civilization like Babylonia and the Indus-system could have contributed to the early systems in Iran? The answer might be stupefying, "At the beginning, obviously nothing". In "the Iranian zones of contact developments took place, which on the contrary could have influenced potentially Babylonia and the Indus-complex, but in fact, had no need to do so, but exerting a mutual influence was not excluded."

1397 Same result as Jarrige et al. 2011.

1398 Jarrige et al. 2011a , 87─89; based on an older study by Quivron 2008, 61─83. References to former Amri II are marked by an "*".

1399 Casal 1969 , 87 Tab.

1400 Wright 1995, 664. Jarrige et al. 2011, 11, connect also Mundigak IA with Mehrgarh III or IV.

1401 Besenval 1997: 199─216 esp. 206s. Fig. 18; for the protoelamite material cf. Dittmann 1987, 31─63 ; Dahl-Zoshk 2012, 7─73 and here Essay 13.

1402 Franke-Vogt, www.harappa.com/baluch/e5.html and www.harappa.com/baluch/060.html on Murda Sang and Togau D-imitation.

1403 Jarrige et al. 2011, 17─18.

1404 Mughal 1971.

1405 See Casal 1969 , 212s. Tab. and Dikshit 1984, 531ss. esp. 537; Chaolong 1990, 157ss. and the remarks by Possehl 1999 , 574─576.

1406 Jarrige-LeChevallier 1979 , 463ss. esp. 534; Santoni 1989, 176ss. and Nausharo IB─C, Jarrige 1996 , 821─878, 846, Fig. 12.

1407 The oldest "Kot Diji sherd" comes from Amri IA (Casal 1964, II, Fig. 42, 33). Not present in Kot Diji are, The Indus Beaker, like Jarrige 1974─86, Fig. 23c─d; cf. Dales-Kenoyer 1986, Fig. 23, 6─18; 24, 1─12 (UM, Phase A-B); a fruitstand as it is attested in Nausharo III, Jarrige, op. cit., 63ss. 91, pl. XLVIIa (Mehrgarh VIII-early type); fruit stands with a "bulb" under the dish, as they start in Amri IIIB-Late and Nausharo III-late (typical for Amri IIIC and Nausharo IV) = Casal, op.cit., Fig. 80, 353a.

1408 For Wheeler's Group iiib, cf. Wheeler 1947, 91s. and Dittmann 2003, 104 Notes 80─81. Wheeler connected this group of pottery with the founders of the 'Rampart', marking the beginning of the Mature Phase of the Indus Culture, but the pottery seems to be mixed.

1409 Quivron 2000, 147─190.

1410 Mughal 1971, 50ss., esp. 52, Fig. 2 and 358, Tab. 14.

1411 Casal 1969, 212─213 places KD 4─5 to Amri IIIB.

1412 Chaolong 1990 , esp. 175ff. Fig. 10─11.

1413 Chaolong 1994, 59─70, esp. 69 Fig. 5.6.

1414 Mughal 1990, 175ss. esp. 184ss. 196 Tab. 1.

1415 Khan 1965, Pl. XXXIIIa and Urban-Jansen 1987, 252. A68.

1416 Jarrige 1973 , 263ss. esp. 280s. Added 2017, For Jukhar see Jarrige et al.2011 35; Mughal 1990, 192. 195; Mughal 1984, 449-503; Mughal 1990, 1─17, Fig. 1─8; Mughal 1992, 213─221; Mughal 2012, 230─238 and for Chanhu Daro and the Jhukar-horizon, one can add, Miller 2005, 253─256;

1417 Jarrige-LeChevallier 1979, 530; Casal 1964, II, Fig. 72, 303─304 (Motif), Fig. 73, 315 (Fruitstand-type since Amri IIIA).

1418 Jarrige 1974─86, 63ss. esp. 68. 118, see also Jarrige-Hassan 1989, 165. According to C. Jarrige 1991, 100s., at Mehrgarh a Pre-Harrapan phase VIID was isolated (which was . never mentioned afterwards), similar to Nausharo ID, Jarrige ibid., 65 and (JF) Jarrige1987, esp. 196ss. For early Nausharo see Quivron 1994, 629─544. According to him, Nausharo offers a short transitional phase (ibid., 643), with a platform and pottery reminiscent of Kulli material, like a forerunner of Nausharo IV (ibid., 632). Jarrige 1997, 20─21 connects Mundigak IV1─2 to Mehrgarh VIIA─B and Nausharo IA─B and Mundigak IV3 to Mehrgarh VIIC, Nausharo IC; also to him Nausharo ID has elements which foreshadow Kulli- and Pirak-material (supposed to start with Nausharo IC [?]). These 'Early Harappa' traits should have survived in the Kulli-Culture (ibid., 30-31), forming also the roots of the BMAC (C. Jarrige et al.1995, 95. Nausharo IV is also understood as immediately preceeding Mehrgarh VIII/Sibri. Nevertheless, an Indus stamp seal and a fragmented Kulli-Figurine were found here.

1419 Dittmann 2003, 90-94, 217─218 Tab. 1─2.

1420 Stein 1929, 31ss.; Faierservis 1959, 329ss.; see also Pedde 1993 and 1993a 215-230 and Mughal 1974, 275─286.

1421 Mughal 1972, 117ss. esp. 134. For Dabarkot see Stein 1928, 55ss.; Fairservis 1959, 308ss. and Pedde 1993, 43. 47ss.

1422 Mughal 1972, 140ss.

1423 Mughal 1972, 143s. Fig. 38, 13; Pl. XXXVIIB, 3, cf. Santoni 1984, 55, Fig. 8, 21 = Sibri. For the vessel from Dabar Kot see also Mughal 1974.

1424 If excavated, Dabar Kot would give the definite sequence for Baluchistan for almost all periods, from Pottery Neolithic (? Mehrgarh III is granted) at least to late Buddhist times. Interesting is a Stamp seal from this site - (Stein 1929, Pl. XVI, D. N. d No. 28) which has a direct parallels in Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, Dales 1965, 15 (UM, Phase ?); Marshall 1931, II, 405 No. 528b = III, Pl. CXIV, 528b (VS-Area, Late?); Vats 1975, I, 26. 165.347; II, Pl. XCV, 390─391(Mound F, -4'5'; Mound F, Western Extension , Stratum I = Late; AB-Mound/Trash and AB-Mound , Eastern Section, Northern Part Stratum IV = Late IV) because this seal points in first instance to the late levels of the Mature Harappan Period. That the material is comparable to Nausharo II+III has also been noted by Quivron 2000.

1425 Especially sites B1 and B2 in the Bolan Valley could in respect to surface finds which show relations to the Kulli-complex, be comparable to Nindowari in Las Belas, Fairservis 1956, 352. Pl. 28, E-F. Q and Pl. 29, QQ.

1426 Mature Harappan pottery occurs beside the hoard of Quetta (Jarrige-Hassan 1989, 150; Urban-Jansen 1987, 102ss.) also in Quetta Miri (Mughal 1972a, 149).

1427 Dani 1970-71, 1ss.. esp. 44─46. Level 4 is in CO─AO the supposed destruction level. For an assumed break in the development cf. Mughal 1972, 121 Note 12.

1428 Dani 1970-71, 39 and Fig. 5.

1429 Dani 1970─71, Pl. 21a─b und C. Jarrige 1991, Abb. 72-73 = Halim, PA 8, 1972, Pl. XB (Sarai Khola II). Mughal 1972, 124 compares the figurines from Gulma II─III, Jalilpur II and Sarai Khola II with those of Shahr-i Sokhta. Parallels exist also to material of Namazga IV Altyn Depe, Tukmenia, Dani op.cit. Pl. 21a─b. 22 (Gumla II) and Kircho 1988, 33ss. Fig. 19, 6─10. 17. Possehl 1999, 643─650, dates the sequence of Gumla as follows, Gumla I = Kili Ghul Mohammad I Phase; Gumla II = Kechi Beg Phase; Gumla III = Kot Diji Phase; Gumla IV = Late Kot Diji Phase (up to Mature Harappan); Gumla V = Destruction and Grave Circles and Gumla VI = Gandhara Grave- Phase.

1430 Mughal 1972, 121 Note 11.

1431 Wheeler 1947, 96, Fig. 9, 38.

1432 Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 81, 360─361; Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. 1─2, 2─4 and Khan op.cit., Fig. 11, 6. At Nausharo II (Amri IIIA) a broad version of this type is known (Quivron 2000, Fig. 5A). Types like Amri IIIB come from Nausharo III (Ibid., Fig. 5B).

1433 Mughal 1971, 121 Note 12.

1434 Durrani 1986, Rehman Dheri III, based on late 14C-dates, could be of Mature Harappan date. Rehman Dheri I is to be paralleled with Gumla IIa/Level 11 and has given a Stamp seal of ivory, understood by Durrani as a kind of Proto-Indus Seal and also the Graffiti in Rehman Dheri are considered to be forerunners of Indus signs (Durrani 1986, 50ss., esp. 509s. Fig. 51, 7─8). Period I is marked by a local style and from Period II on, Kot Diji ware is attested. In period III also Nopped ware occurs (Durrani op. cit, Fig. 51, 4) which is rare in Mohenjo Dharo and Harappa, understood as Imports by Mackay (ibid., 598). Nobbed Ware is also early in Tepe Yahya IVC1 to IVB6 (Potts 1980, 277s.); Vague relations exist also to Nindowari I (Jarrige et al., 2011, 86). Unfortunately, the final publication of Rehman Dheri (Durrani 1988) is not available to me. Posshel dates Rehman Dheri IA-B to II to the Kot Diji-aspect and Period III, to the Mature Harppan period like Gumla IV, Possehl 1999, 640─644. 711.############

1435 Allchin-Durrani-Khan 1986, esp. 203, speculated if the latest finds from Lewan could not reach up to the early Mature Phase of the Indus Civilization. But, since the youngest finds are not later than Sarai Khola II (LWN II Pit 5. 7; LWN V = ibid, 230─233 Sheet 9; 250s. Sheet 19) the latest finds from Lewan are just to be connected with the Transitional level at Gumla. Therefore, Lewan as a settlement, specialized in the production of stone artifacts and perls, was obviously without agriculture and breeding, would have ended before the latest finds in Gumla, within the Amri IIIA-horizon. In this horizon Tarakai Qila also seems to date (Allchin-Knox 1981, 245ss.). For further sites in the Bannu region see Khan-Knox-Thomas 1989, 281ss.; see also Possehl 1999, 516─528 and 711; hence Tarakai Qila , Gumla IV and Rehman Dheri would also date to the Mature Harappan Period. Allchin (1984, 51ss.) and believed, based on 14C-dates, that the Early Harappa-sites in Punjab and N.-Baluchistan would continue until the Mature Harappan Period. Based on the evidence discussed so far, there are no connections which would date later than Amri IIIA. Also the small number of building levels at the sites discussed, speaks against any extensive prolongation of the Early Harappan aspect. The somewhat isolated position of Harappa has been discussed in connection to a gateway function of the site, such a function was also postulated for Rakhi Garhi/Shapur and Judeirjo Daro (Ratnagar 1982, 261ss. and also for Lothal. On this problem see also Gupta 1984, 417ss.

1436 First suggested by Casal 1969, 184; see also Possehl 1999, 85ss.; Allchin 1984, 51ss. and Dikshit 1984, 531ss.

1437 Parallels for Kalibangan 1 are, IA 1962-63, 28 Fig.7, 17 (KLB 1, Fabric D) = Casal 1964, II, Fig. 72, 309 (Amri IIIA; early form = Fig. 69,272 Amri *IIB); IA 1962─63, 29 Fig. 8, 20,A (KLB 1, Fabric E) = Santoni 1989, 183, Fig. 8, 1, late Merhgarh VII (Incised Fish-Motif); Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 78, 343a (Amri IIIA, painted Fish-Motif); IA 1962─63, 29, Fig. 8, 12 (KLB 1, Fabric E) = Bhan 1975, Fig. 7, 26 (Mitathal IIa-middle level; Rupar, Cemetary); IA 1962─63, 29, Fig. 8, 18, F (KLB 1, Fabric E) = Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 78, 341 (Amri IIIA; Khan 1965, Fig. 11, 2, Kot Diji 1B); IA 1962─63, 29, Fig. 8, K (KLB 1, Fabric E) = Casal op.cit., I, 119; II, Fig. 79, 349 (Motif since Amri IIIB).

1438 IA 1962─63, 30s. These early KLB levels in KLB 2 will be designated as KLB I/II in the following.

1439 The Indus Beaker is also missing in Rupar in the settlement, contrary to Harappa and Kalibangan.

1440 For the cemetery of Kalibangan, the following parallels can be listed, IA 1963─64, 32, Fig. 4, 21 (Extended Burial); 35, Fig. 7, 12─13 (Pot Burial) = Wheeler 1947, Fig. 18, XXX-XXXc; 19, XXXI-XXXIId, Harappa R37; Dales-Kenoyer 1986, Fig. 65, 1. 5─8, UM, Phase A─B and Fig. 66, 1. 5. 7─8, UM, Phase A(1x), UM, Phase B (49x) and Fig. S15,75─76c = Wheeler Context C and Fig. S22, 109a-1, Wheeler Context D; IA 1963-64, 32, Fig. 4, 8 ('Extendet Burial); 35, Fig. 7, 14 (Pot Burial) = early Forms, Wheeler op.cit., Fig. 19, XXXIIIf, Harappa R37 and Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. S14, 72a-c = Wheeler Context C; better direct parallels are late, ibid., 175, Fig. 53, 1, UM, Phase B-late, Fig. S20,102c = Wheeler, Context D; IA 1963─64, 32 Fig. 4, 11 (Extendet Burial) = Wheeler op.cit., Fig.19, XXXVIIa (Grab 14+Indus Beaker) Harappa R37. IA 1963-64, 37, Fig. 9,39 (Pot Burial) = the famous fruitstand with a bulb under the dish = late Amri IIIB, is than typical for Amri IIIC; IA 1963─64, 34, Fig. 6, 34 (Extended Burial); 37, Fig. 9, 36. 38 (Pot Burial) = Dales-Kenoyer op.cit., Fig. S10, 55a. 55j Wheeler Context C and Fig. 85, 3-5, UM, Phase B-late. An earlier Form is Casal op.cit., II, Fig. 73,313, Amri IIIA. Painted vessels of this kind are Sharma1993;..Fig. 13,15, Rupar cemetary and Bhan 1975, Fig. 7, 26, Mitathal IIA-middle level. Possehl 19999, is of the opinion that an earthquake could have caused the end of Kalibangan.

1441 U. Franke-Vogt 1991. My study was and is dedicated to Peter Calmeyer, whose interest went far beyond the Near East. For a List of the abbreviations used in this text, see R. Dittmann, Beobachtungen zur Glyptik des Harappa-Komplexes, in: Dittmann et al. (Eds.), Variatio Delectat. Iran und der Westen, Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer, AOAT 272 (2000) 231-312, esp. 267-269, Appendix A, and here Appendix A. For the most recent analysis of Harappan seals, following a similar path than I did in 1991/2000, see the excellent study by Jamison 2017. A G.F. Dales told me in 1986 at Harappa, that the type catalogue he had prepared for Mohenjo Daro, was quite useless for the material of Harappa. In the last decades the exploration of the remains of the Indus-Culture in Northern India were intensified: Gaur 2006; Gupta 1996; Uesugi 2013, 356-371; Dangi-Uesugi 2013. Footnotes in letters and in notes in [ ] were included in 2017.

1442 See also the work by Fentress 1976: 208ff. on the glyptics from Mohenjo Daro in relation to Harappa. [For Chanhu Daro and the Jhukar-horizon, one can add: Miller 2005: 253-256 and Mughal 1984. 1992. 2012].

1443 Casal 1979: 99ss.

1444 For Nausharo see Jarrige 1993a: 295ss.; esp. page 304 he mentions also the occurrence of the Indus-Beaker at the end of Amri IIIB. Concerning the relations between Nausharo, Mehrgarh and Amri see Jarrige 1993 [and Quivron 2000].

1445 Rao 1973, 95 refers to the Indus-Beaker only in connection to the Late levels of the Indus culture. Page 55 he refers to the beaker and on Fig. 22, No. 16 could match a type like Wheeler 1947, 58ss, Fig. 13, IIId. According to IA 1959─60, the "Goblet" is decreasing in Lothal B [Rao 1985, 29. 35, notes that the beaker occurs only in the late Levels of Lothal A. According to page 30, the beaker is present only in AIV. Important is also a remark by M.R. Mughal 1992, 213─221, esp. 216 stating that Jukhar-Pottery would occur in Lothal A─B (A─late) and in Rangpur IIA─C, as well as a further index fossil for the Mature Harappan period in Gujarat, the so-called "Stud-Handle," on the surface of Lohumjo Daro in Sind. B Rao 1985, 339 mentions, that the "Indus Goblet with Pointed Base", like ibid-. Fig. 46, 33a are rare in Lothal and occur only in the late Level from Period A. Types like Fig. 30a are "more popular in AIII-IV". and the Goblet does not occur in Period B, nor in Rangpur IIC. The Fruitstand with a Bulb under the Dish: see 340, Fig. 47, 37 und 37a, is popular in AIII-IV, but absent in AV. Fig. 38, 100 occurs from Middle levels on. Therefore, Lothal AIII-IV can be related to Amri IIIB-late to IIIC. This is also in concordance with a certain Dish-Type (Casal 1969, 165, No. 3) - cf. Rao ibid., Fig. 48, 42i; Fig. 49, 49 and Fig. 59, 107d, which are all late in Lothal A and occur in Amri IIIC.

1446Mackay 1943, 75 Pl. XXVI, 73a; XXIX, 36a; Majumdar 1934, 44 Pl. XXI, 30. See also Miller 2005, 253-256; Gujarat-Saurashtra has given a lot of important new material: Possehl 1980; 1992, 117-154. Herman 1989, 53-156. For Jhukar see Mughal 1992; M.R. Mughal 2012.

1447 Mackay 1938, 192 refers to a first occurrence of the Indus-Beaker at ─17'1", not excluding an intrusion. But, on page 339f. an example is listed supra II, Pl. LX, 14, of Intermediate III-date. Pl. LX, 17 was found over Intermediate III, and below Intermediate II. With PI. LX, 16 an example for Intermediate II is given.

1448 The information by Alcock (1986, 496ss,) about the origin of the published pottery of Wheeler's excavation is not unequivocal and hampers a more precise correlation of the strata of the different sites: Kontext A─B was defined for the REM-area, corresponding to the pottery from trench ACC, Period 1─2. According to Alcock Kontext A─B is the phase of the construction and early use of the "Granary"; Marshall settled this phase around Early I and (about) IM III, in accordance to Alcock who gives also for Kontext B an Early I/lntermediate (III)-date. In ACC follow Periods 3─4, and with Period 5, Kontext C is defined (Kontext D = Period 7 = "Late" according to Alcock). The material from ACC, Periods 3─4 is undefined, but seems to be of Intermediate-date. Perhaps UM, Phase A runs up to the point where the Indus-Beaker and the Dish-on-stand with a bulb under the dish occur (like at the end of/late in Amri IIIB), with the Indus-Beaker showing up only in late UM, Phase A. Cf. Dales-Kenoyer 1986, 127s. and 480 for the correlation of Wheeler's and the UM-excavation. The only reliable evidence for the Indus-Beaker from Kontext A is the latest layer of th1985:is phase. Important are also functional aspects of this mass product. Dales-Kenoyer speculated, since the beaker was often found in association with large pithoi, that they could have functioned as measuring units. Casal (1969, 117s.. 172, following Wheeler 1947, 117 Anm. 2) sees them as drinking vessels because they are often found damaged; perhaps for ritual reasons they could be used only once. That there is a connection between this type and nutrition is plausible in view of their occurrence in the graves of Cemetery R37.

1449 In Vat's excavation the Indus-Beaker is attested from AB-Mound, Stratum V = Intermediate I and Mound F, Stratum V = Intermediate II, running up to the latest levels (Vats 1975, 254ss., Nos. 7. 13─14. 28 and 140 [list with references to this type]).

1450 The Pointed Base-type occurs in Harappa in the new excavations only in period 3C (Kenoyer 1991, 40; in older levels typological forerunners of a more globular form are found (Wheeler's type III and variations). See also Jenkins 1994, 105ss.. Tab. 1 has been altered, if compared to Dittmann 2000, Tab. 1: First of all I put more emphasis on the presence of the Short-Horned Bulls in Lothal AIII, which in the West date since the End of Ur III/Isin Larsa-Period (RaoB 1985: 327 in regard to ibid., Pl. CLXIII, 2-3, Sealings which have been already connected by Rao (ibid., 324) with the Persian Gulf Seals from the West (See Dittmann 2003, 121 Note 142) and Vidale 2005, 147-157). A further change concerns the HARP-mission to Harappa, where new data have been included and the sequence as seen in 2003 has also been altered.

1451 Amri IIIC can be subdivided in a structural phase = IIICI, Ai, A level 11─10a (levels 10d─10a are partly fill) as well as in a poststructural phase = IIIC2, ibid., levels 10─9 (Casal 1964, II, Fig. 7). As fixpoints for his stratigrapghic connections Casal used, besides certain dish types and the Indus-Beaker, also the absence of a special ware, absent in Chanhu Daro and Harappa, which emerged only late in Amri IIIC (Casal 1979, esp. 106 and 104, Fig. I); sherds being attributed to the "Abandon" in Chanhu Daro, occur almost exclusively in Amri, Ai, A Schicht 10─9 (cf. Casal 1964, I, 28. 122─125, II, Nos. 377. 379─381. 383. 401. 403. 411. 416. 417a─418. From level 10b occur Nos. 378. 412. 413. 415. 420 and from A13, level 6b, Nos.. 402. 414. 417 can be mentioned. To compete with the connections presented here between Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Amri (Tab. 1) see an alternative approach by Casal 1969, 212-213. A painted Chocolate-Coulored-Ware, mentioned by Casal (See Casal 1969, 166 on "Chocolate Ware") for late Amri IIIC, seems indeed missing ─ in Chanhu Dharo because the site was more or less given up before this ware occured and at Harappa because in contemporaneous levels already Cemetery H-Pottery was present (Tab. 1). The absence of a special Dish-Type (Casal 1979, Fig. 3, 3) and the special Fruitstand-Type (ibid., Fig. 2, 3), known since Amri IIIB (the Fruitstand with bulb only late in IIIB), and continuing in IIIC (Casal 1964, I, 119; II, Fig. 79, 345 for the Dish-Type), seems to indicate the differences between the pottery form Amri/Mohenjo Daro and Harappa. E Concerning the glyptics, not much is published, I therefore remained in my "reloaded version" in my old Harappa-/Mohenjo Daro-centric view. But even here, since the opening of the new excavations, an emphasis should be put on the excellent Harappa homepage: www.harappa.com. See also Green 2010 and 2016, 128-141; Kenoyer 2006, 9-27; Ameri 2013, 355-374; Uesugi et al. 2016, 1-17; Shah-Parpola 1991; Parpola-Pande, 2010.

1452 The numbers in the Tabs. are the nos. of the seals in Vats 1975, 1, 337ff. A minus sign before a number indicates that the seal corresponds to those found in other trenches (according to Vats remarks) F, AB, J, G = F─, AB─Mound und Area J und G; L = Late; IM = Intermediate.

1453 The numbers in the Tabs. are quantitative values. F According to Kenoyer 2006, in Period 1, signs, which sometimes remind "Indus-Script," exist as grafitti post- or before firering on pottery. Groups of Indus-Signs are already present in Period 2 and with 3A the system is more or lesss fully developed.

1454 Vats 1975, 1, 324. The numbers are the seal-numbers in Vats. E = Elephant-Motif; B = Bovide-Motif.

1455 For the glyptics from Chanhu Daro see also Vidale 1987, 57ss.

1456 Mackay 1943. 292s. PI. LI─LII; E = Ein-/Unicorn─, B = Bovide─ and Elef. = Elephant-motiv. Hight is measured in "Feed" und "Inches"; "+/-1" = over/below H─Stratum. Also Jarrige 1974─86, 92 connects the Harappa II─Stratum in Chanhu Daro to Nausharo IIIC = Amri IIIB, on Tab. 13.

1457 Franke-Vogt 1991, I, esp. 159─165.

1458 Already Franke-Vogt 1991, I, 114 had emphizised the importance of Furrowed-Horns. For Mohenjo Daro cf.: Mackay 1938, 11, Pl. LXXXIII, 8 = DK, Late 1; Pl. LXXXIII, DK, Late IB; Pl. LXXXIII, 33 = DK, Late IB•, pl.XCIV, 396 ─ DK, IM. 1; Pl. XCIX, 644 ─ DK, IM. III; Marshall 1931, III, Pl. CIII, 6+11 = HR ;, Pl. CIII 9 = DK, Late; Pl. Clll, 16 = VS, Late; Pl. CIV, 38 = DK,, Late; Pl. CV, 66 = DK, Late (Nos.. 16. 38 and 66 originate from the same building). For Harappa cf.: Vats 1975, No. 41= Mound F, Late 1; 30 = Mound F, Late 11; 9 = Mound F, Late 111; 16 ─ Mound F, Late 111; 17 = Mound F, Late III; 3 = Mound AB, Late 11; 4 = Mound AB, Late 11; 6 = Mound AB, Late II; 8 = Mound AB, Late II; 22 = Mound AB, Late II; 24 = Mound AB, Late 11; 38 = Mound AB, Late III; 69 = Mound AB, Late III (Joshi-Parpola 1987 mention two further seals from Harappa, but without finding spot).

1459 That the vision of horizontal strata is fiction, has been demonstrated by Jansen. Often different parts of a house, belonging beyond doubt functionally and stratigraphically together, have completely different absolute levels (Jansen in: Jansen-Urban, [1983] 39ss. esp. 46s; see also Franke-Vogt 1991, I, 21─26). So here we deal with rough approximations. I Having said, that the Furrowed-Horn occurs only in Late levels, In Lothal AIII a Mountain Goat shows also this horn- type. Among the Unicorns of Lothal this Horn-Type is missing. (Rao 1985, 317 and Pl. CLIX, A,3; ibid. Pl. CL, 3 is from Banawali, p. 305). Therefore, the two examples from Mohenjo Daro IM I and IM III, mentioned above, are perhaps at their right place and the type - and his special function (?) - started in small numbers already in the Intermediate period.

1460 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 298f., K─2. 16. 18 (Kalibangan) and 344, B─I (Banawali).

1461 Frankfort 1955, PI. 61, 642; for the date of Houses IVA cf. Gibson 1982, 531ss. and Dittmann 1994, esp. 85─88.

1462 Joshi-Parpola 1987 68, M─278 = Mackay 1938 11, Pl. XCIX, 648; from DK 7, 1, 19, ─20'4".

1463 Mackay 1938. II, Pl. XCIV, 420 = Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, M─304 A; for the Motif and his possible meaning; for similar seals see Franke─Vogt 1991, I, 78─86.

1464 Mackay 1938, 11, Pl. LXXXVII, 222. 235 = Shah-Parpola 1991, M─1181 a and M─305a.

1465 Vats 1975, I, 337ss. No. 303 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 208, H─176b.

1466 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 307, K─47a.

1467 Mackay 1938, II, Pl. XCVI, 522 und pl. XC, 23b = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 77. M─309a─310a (Origin ?); 115 M─478a. 480a (Origin?).

1468 Marshall 1931, III, pl.CXL, 352─353. 355 = Joski/Parpola 1987, 77, M─310a.

1469 Vats 1975, Nr. 248 and 308 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 204, H─163a; 209, H─181a.

1470 Josh-Parpola 1987, 307, No. K─49a

1471 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 334, C─27a (Harappa II-Stratum).

1472 Mackay 1938, 11, Pl. LXXXIX, 347 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 77, M─311a.

1473 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 307, No. K─50a und 310, No. K─65a (Cylinder seal).

1474 Mackay 1938, II, Pl. XCIV, 430 = XCIX, A ─ Shah-Parpola 1991, 139 M─1186 a bis and Marshall 1931, III, Pl. CXVI, I ─ in connection to a procession = Joshi-Parpola1987, 109, M442a.

1475 Vats 1975, No. 316 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 209, H─177b.

1476 Vats 1975, No. 307. 318 and 317 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 209, H─179b. H─178b; 216, H─242b

1477 Mackay 1938, 11, Pl. LXXXII, 1─2 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 119, M 488a─c.

1478 See also the good representation in Ardeleanu─Jansen 1984, 147, Fig. 21.

1479 Vats 1975, No. 251 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 190, H─97a.

1480 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 73s., M─299a─302a; 81, M─324a

1481 Vats 1975, No. 249 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 190, H─96a.

1482 Joshi-Parpola 1987. 290, L─220.

1483 Attention should also be paid to seals with Composit-Motifs combining three animals: Marshall 1931, III, Pl. CXII, 382 = L-Area, Surface; Mackay 1938, 11, Pl. LXXXIII, 24 = DK─3'9, Late•, Pl. XCVl, 494 = DK Lane between 10 & 12, ─14'8" +1M II Casal 1964, I, 148; II, Fig. 116, 27─27bis (unstratified, but attributed by Casal to Amri IIIC); Joshi-Parpola 1987, 309, K─43a (Kalibangan). See the detailed discussion of the motifs from Mohenjo Daro and possible parallels in Franke-Vogt 1991, I, 61ss.

1484 Only motif no. 3 from Harappa, Trench I, Intermediate III seems to be different. Obviously, it would be much older than the rest. That it cannot be understood as an intrusion, illustrates it's presence in the Harappa II-Stratum at Chanhu Daro, being of late Amri IIIB-date and therefore somehow contemporaneous to Harappa, Intermediate III. So, both seals are the oldest examples of this ideological representation.

1485 The "Indus-Script" is not deciphered yet. For relevant Literature up to 1991 see the list in Dittmann 2000, Appendix A. J To give only some examples of recent trends: Coningham 2002, 81-103. Farmer- Sproat-Witzel 2004. Mahadevan 2002 and 2009. Parpola 2005, Kenoyer 2006a; Kalyanaraman 2010.

1486 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 18, ,M─12a (DK, below Late III), 51 M─175a (? Vs) und M─177a (DK, Intermediate I─Late III), and Vats 1975, No. 126 (Harappa, Area J, Intermediate I) = Shah-Parpola 1991, 266 H─407a; 315, K─82A (Kalibangan); cf. in this context the fragment: Joshi-Parpola 1987, 51 M─177a (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Intermediate I ─ Late III).

1487 Sharma 1982, 154, Pl. 13.6 ─ right sealing (Rupar) and Mackay 1938, No. 87 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 55, M─217 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Late III─II?).

1488 Vats 1975, No. 374 = Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 217, H─249a, on the other side a sign like the Roman VIII is found.

1489 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 52, M─185a. 186a (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Stratum ?; cf. Marshall 131, No. 261 = DK, Section E, ─5'6", Intermediate ?) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 54, M─208 = Mackay 1938, No. 47 (D, Late B).

1490 This phenomenon came also to the attention of Vats 1975, CXVI─List. Further examples of correspondence with different sites are: Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 52, M─182 = Mackay 1938, No. 154 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Late II) and Vats 1975, No. 93 (Harappa, AB─Mound, Intermediate III?/Stratum VII). Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 247, L─42 (Lothal + Unicorn-Motif); 186, H─81 (Harappa + Bison-Motif) and Mackay 1938, No. 368 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Intermediate I ─ Late III). ─ Joshi-Parpola 1975, 345, B─8 (Banawali: Goat turned to the left) und Vats 1975, No. 155 (Harappa, Mound F, Late III; Uniorn, turned to the right). ─ Joshi-Parpola 1987, 344ff., B─5.7. 15 (Banawali, same legend, but different animal motifs) and 303, K─27 (Kalibangan). ─ Joshi-Parpola 1987, 41, M─122 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Late I) and 182, H─53 (Harappa); the legend is similar to Vats 1987, No. 211 (Harappa, Mound F, Late I) and Marshall1931, No. 168 = Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 19 44, M─135a (Mohenjo Daro, HR, Late). ─ Joshi-Parpola 1987, 177, H─37 = Vats 1975, No. 31 (Harappa, Mound F, Trench I, Intermediate II) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 302, K─17 (Kalibangan; head of Unicorn looks in the other direction). ─ Josh-Parpola 1987, 181, H─48 = Vats 1975, No. 91 (Harappa, Mound AB, Late II; Einhornmotiv) and Francfort 1989, Pl. XLI, 2 (Shortughai, Periode IV; following page I, 171, the origin is period I─III; Rhinozeros-Motif, legend same). ─ Vats 1975, No. 166 (Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Late III); cf. Joshi-Parpola 1987, 52, M─188 = Marshall 1931, No. 287 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, BI.10, Late) and Joshi-Parpola1 1987, 57, M─229 = Mackay 1938, No. 639(!) (DIK, Bl .l, Intermediate 111 ─ Vats 1975, 18 = Joshi-Parpola19 175, H─32 (Harappa, Mound AB, Late II); cf. Marshall 1931, No.5 (Mohenjo Daro, HR, First Street, Intermediate ?). ─ Vats 1975, No. 246 = Joshi-Parpola 1987, 189, H-94 (+ Tiger-motif; Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Intermediate I) and Marshall 1931, No. 169 (+ Bovide-motif; Mohenjo Daro, DK, Intermediate). Very similar are: Joshi-Parpola 1987, 98, M─410 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Late II = Crocodile with a Fish-shaped sign at the mouth); cf. Wheeler 1947, PI. LII, BI (Harappa, R 37, debris-level) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 314, K─78B (Kalibangan, on the reverse of a sealed tablet same motif, but now at the tail of the crocodile, two horizontal filling motifs are placed). ─ Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, H─70 = Vats 1975, No. 122 (Harappa, Area D, Intermediate I) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 243, L─20 (Lothal; one more vertical stroke over the Unicorn as in Harappa).

1491 Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 95, M─382a (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Block Il, Room 27, ─3"2', Intermediate or Late) and 185, H─72a = Vats 1975, No. 120 (Harappa, Mound AB, Late III), as well as Joshi-Parpola 1987, 97, M─401a ─ Mackay 1938, No. 346 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, over Intermediate I, below Late III) and Joshi-Parpola1987, 181, H─49a = Vats 1975, No. 133 (Harappa, Mound F, Trench IV, Late III).

1492 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 52s., M─187a. 193a = Mackay 1938, No. 382 and 113 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, over Intermediate I, below Late III and Late II [?]; both come from different blocks in DK) and Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 262, L─102a (Lothal, seal only with legend). ─ Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 37, M─96a = Mackay 1938, No. 698 (Mohenjo Daro, SD, Late III) and Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 242, L─16a (Lothal).

1493 Marshall 1931, No. 366 (Mohenjo Daro, HR, Late) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 201, H─147 = Vats 1975, No. 629 (Harappa, Mound AB, Late III).

1494 Marshall 1931, No. 252 = Joshi-ParpoIa1987, 81, M─324a─b (Mohenjo Daro, HR, Intermediate) und Vats 1975, No. 286 (Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Intermediate I).

1495 Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 209, H─182a─b (Harappa, AB─Mound, Late II); 251, L─59a (Lothal).

1496 Vats 1975, No. 690 (Cf. Pl. CVIII, 10162─inscription; Harappa, Mound F, Trench 1, Intermediate II) and Josh-/Parpola, 328, C─2 (Chanhu Daro, later than Harappa II─Stratum).

1497 Marshall 1931, No. 217 (MD, VS, BI. 2, House XVI) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 346, B─19 (Banawali).

1498 Joshi-Parpola 1987, 52, M─ 188 = Marshall 1931, No. 287 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, BI.10, Late) and Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 57, M─229 = Mackay7 No. 639(!) (DK, BI. 1, Intermediate III [?]); a corresponding seal occurs in Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Late III (Cf. Note 51). Further: Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 52, M─185. 186 (Mohenjo Daro, DK, Stratum ?; cf. Marshall 1931, No. 261 = DK, Section E, ─5'6", Intermediate ?) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 54, M─208 = Mackay 1938, No. 47 (DK, Late IB; a sealing with that motif occurs at Harappa, Mound F, Trench VI, Late III s.o.).

1499 Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, 65, M─264a = Mackay 1938, No. 607 (DK, Intermediate II─III) and Joshi-Parpola 1987, 94, M─388a = Mackay 1938. No. 200 (DK, Late III-II).

1500 Mahadevan 1977, 163ss.

1501 Total of "legends" according to Mahadevan 1977, 6.

1502 In the second list 390 correspondances are noted. In the summation no seals from Alamgirpur, Banawali and the "legend" from Shortughai were considered here.

1503 The problem is increasing by the fact, that parts of "inscriptions" with only few signs, were obviously segments of longer "legends". Therefore, one cannot exclude that the longer onces are specifications of the short type (what would increase somehow possible correspondences). At that moment one has also to refer to the possible existence of Numerical-Signs: see J.V. Kinner Wilson 1984. As long as these are not identified any attempt to "translate" the "legends" is in vain. Especially since we know from the Archaic Script of Uruk, that there might be more than one numeric system! See Green-Nissen 1987; Damerow-Englund- Nissen 1988, 46ss.; Damerow-Englund 1989; Nissen-Damerow-EngIund 1990, esp. 61ss.

1504 Already Fentress 1976, 262 noted significant differences between Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. These differences are also manifested in the dispersion of glyptic-artifacts at both sites: The so-called "Acropolis" of Harappa has indeed given less seals and sealings as Mound F, but on the otherhand, the quantity is much larger and more differenciated, than the glyptic-artifacts from the "Acropolis" at Mohenjo Daro. Differences between Harappa and Mohenjo Daro are also manifested in the architecture.

1505 Gupta 1984: 417ss. eps. 423, speculated, if the motifs on the seals would not represent guilds. In view of the mass of Unicorn-Seals this must have been the largest guild. For Fairservis 1986, esp. 48s., the animals on the seals would reflect a kind of label of a group membership. One should also consider, if the motifs and "legends" could not mark a different affiliations of the owners. The little degree of variation could perhaps mean that the animals point to a certain affiliation and the "inscription" would express a certain specification.

1506 Vats 1975, No. 364.

1507 Here figure only the Houses, mentioned in Appendix D. An excellent recent Ph.-D. by Jamison (2017) has studied the inter-relations of sites on a much broader scale.

1508 Shaikh-Shahr 1988, 127ss. speculate if the structures in DK─G, the so-called Palace-Area, was not part of a production unit, which could be involved in the external exchange. According to their interpretation two complexes could be separated: "Complex A" = Block 1+4 and "Complex B" = Block 7+10. From this context comes a seal which is which has a motif = Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, M─278, similar to a cylinder seal from Tell Asmar, mentioned above. Also a cylinder seal has to be mentioned = Joshi-Parpola 1987, M─418, and a Stamp Seal bearing a motif also known from Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and Dabar Kot (Shaikh-Shahr 1988, Fig. 4, XI. VIII. Ilb). Also the presence of motif No. 7 (s.o.) and a sealing with the impression of a boat, could point in this direction (Fig. 4, VII = Joshi-Parpola 1987, M─303 und Fig. 4, Ila). In view of the large amount of correspondances of the DK-G-Area (esp. Block 1─12A) with other sites, this part of the southern DK-Area could well be the center of activities .

1509 The problems of the chronological fixation of Indus Seals in the Ancient Near has been discussed by Nissen 1982: Potts 1990; Brunswig-Parpola-Potts 1983, esp. 107ss. One has also to consider an Indus-Seal from Kassite context from Nippur: Gibson 1977, 26ss and 1977a, 67, Pl. VIIIC and a Persian Gulf─Seal in the Definition of Potts from Failaka: Brunswig-Parpola-Potts 1983: 103, Nr. 6 and Pl. II, 6. For the time being these are the only finds from the Indus, supposed to date later than the Old Babylonian period. In regard to the seal from Nippur, already Chakrabarti (1978) noted that this seal cannot be used to fix the running time of the Indus-Culture up to kassite period. Also a pretendet "mycenean" Phase for Mohenjo Daro (ibid., 223) can be put aside. Since both seals from Kassite context are damaged and the seal of Nippur is even corroded, both can be considered as heirlooms without any use for dating the Indus-Culture.

1510 Mahadevan 1977, 447, Nr. 9832 100401 ─ Ur, without findspot;; cf. Mackay 1938, No. 515 (DK, IM II) und Nr. 92 (DIK, Late II)..

1511 Mahadevan 1977, Nr. 3334 10 (DK─Bereich)•, 3398 00 (VS─Bereich) und 3378 10 (HR-Bereich). K For the >>Copper Tablets see Dittmann 2000, 296 App. E (Findspots of tablets) and Parpola 2008, 132-139.

1512 Mackay 1938, 1, 363. See also Pande in: Posshel 1979, 268ss., Franke-Vogt 1991, I, 53s. and Yule 1985, 32ss. For the origin of the tablets see Dittmann 2000, Appendix E.

1513 Rashid (no year), Iraq Museum IM 55492; cf. Mahadevan 1977, 453, No. 8062 00.

1514 Gailani-Werr 1982, 83, No.44 = Collon 1987, 143, No. 609.

1515 Gailani-Werr 1982, Nos. 42─43.

1516 For Postakkadian seals see Dittmann 1994.

1517 Boehmer 1978.

1518 Boehmer 1965, 28.

1519 Boehmer 1978, Fig. 8a─b.

1520 Joshi-Parpola 1987, B─7 (Banawali); H─87 = Vats 1975: No. 240 (Harappa, Mound F, Tr. I, Late III); K─33 (Kalibangan); M─270 = Marshall 1931: No. 304 (Mohenjo Daro, L, surface); Joshi-Parpola1987, M─266 = Marshall 1931, No. 306 (Mohenjo Daro, HR─B, north of VIII, ─5'0", Late_?); Nr. 305 (Mohenjo Daro, HR-B─Bereich, östlich von XLVIII, ─3'0", Late ?); Joshi-ParpoIa 1987, M─268 = Mackay 1938, No. 445 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 1, 19, ─9'1", Late_?); No. 332 (Mohenjo Daro, DK W.-Street, ─10'7", Late_?), No. 696 (Mohenjo Daro, SD Main─St., Bet.1&6, +2'1", Late ?), Marshall 1931, III, Pl. .CXVll, 13 (Moheno Daro, Copper-tablet; according to Mackay 1938, 1, 363 = Late; but see here Note 74); Joshi-Parpo1a 1987, M─267 = Mackay 1938, Nr. 257 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 4,─, 13, ─9'1", Late 111); Joshi-Parola 1987, M─492c = Parpola 1984, 184, Fig. 23. 22b = Mackay 1938, 1, 358s. (DK 8120; Mohenjo Daro, DK 9, IV, ─94", Late 111); Mackay 1938, No. 279 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 9A, V, 75, ─9'5", Late III); No. 420 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 1, 11, 7, ─12'8", ─IM 1); Nr. 510 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 9, VI, 34, ─15'2", +1M 11); Nr. 587 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 2, IV,, ─17'6", ─IM II); No. 587 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 2, IV, 22, 17'6", -IM II), II, Pl. CIII, 8 = cf. Marshall 1931, 1, 361s., No. 5 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 3, 11, 34, 17'7", ─IM II); Joshi-Parpola 1987: M─269 = Mackay 1938: No. 663 (Mohenjo Daro, DK 7, III, 51, ─21'3", ─IM III).

1521 Tosi 1987, 123 Fig.97 — Boehmer 1965: Taf. XLVII, 557 (Akkadisch III─style).

1522 Amiet 1966: 220 Fig. 162 = here Fig. (Abb.) 16b. The person on the relief handles without doubt a Dish-on-Stand with a Bulb under the Dish, like it is typical for the Indus-Valley for the Nausharo IIIC (= late Amri IIIB) to Amri IIIC-horizon. Amiet dates the fragment to Maništušu, the third ruler E of the dynasty of Akkade.

1523 Francfort 1989, 1, 392. He mentions also the basis of the statue of Ur-Ningirsu, figuring also recipients of East-Iranian─Central-Asiatic region, referring to a study by Casanova 1991, 82s. Already Marshall 1931, 1, 296 and III, PI. CLIX, 5 noted the first fragment

1524 Reade 1979. For the beads see also During-Caspers 1972.; Chakrabarti-Moghadam 1977, 166s. mention also surface-finds from Jalalabad, near to Persepolis. They identify (168 Note 124) this site with Survey-site No. 32 of the Persepolis-Surveys of Gotch 1971, Fig. 1, following the date given by Gotch: Bakun AV. If correct, these would be the oldest of such beads. Unfortunately Gotch did not make a distinction between Bakun AV- and unpainted Kaftari-pottery. Only the latter, together with younger material, have been found on the site - cf. Sumner 1972, 294 = No. 9JII (Djalabad) and 285. According to MASCA-kaIibrated 14C14-Dates, the Kaftari-Horizon starts in Tall-i Malyan (Ancient Anshan) around 2100 v. B.C. (Nickerson 1983, 194-199). The glyptic-finds of this context cannot be dated much earlier than ca. 1900 B.C. To early relations between Babylonia and the Indus see During Caspers, 1965.

1525 Boehmer 1969, 261ss. Chakrabarti 1990, 37, mentions Carnelian Eched Beads from Abu Salabikh, which could be somewhat older. The kalibrated 14C-Dates for the Mature Harappan-Horizon of about 2600 B.C. (Cf. Mughal 1990, esp. 196s.), are in closest agreement to the Mesopotamian rulers dated by Nagel and Strommenger to the so-called ED IIIA2-horizon (See Dittmann 1987, 48 Note 62, in connection to Strommenger-Hirmer 1972, 132- Königsliste I). For the 14C─Dates of the Indus-Culture see Possehl 1989.

1526 Casal 1961, II Vidale 1989, 242, No. 23, Fig. 138, 23. For beads of the Early Harappan-horizon see Vidale 1989 and Kenoyer 2001: 157-170.

1527 Khan 1965, 21.

1528 Mackay 1943, 199ss. pl. lXXIX, 1─16.

1529 Rao 1973, 102ss. and 1963, 30 mentions such beads for Period A, Phases II─IV.

1530 Francfort 1989. I, 131.

1531 Potts 1980, 355 notes one carnelian Etcched Bead from IV BI─context (Fdno. 3809). Page 586 he refers to three such beads, but according to a study of Asthana (1979, 57), at least two of them are not of Indus-Type. Such beads are also known from Susa, - see Amiet 1986, Ill. 92; Shahdad: Asthana 1984, 353ss., Fig. 39.3, and Tepe Hissar IIIC: Schmidt (EF.) 1933, 438, Pl. CXLIV; and 1937, Pl. XXXV; LXVI; Shah Tepe IIA: Arne 1945, 290, PI. LXXVI, 615 and in the Nekropole Kalleh Nisar: all from grave 41 in Luristan: Vanden Berghe 1970, 73. L Steinkeller 2003, 267-292, Steinkeller 2002 and 2002b, 29―30.#

1532 One seal comes from the same building in Tell Asmar, where also the cylinder seal representing an elephant in a peculiar way, with parallel in Mohenjo Daro, Intermediate III, mentioned above, was found. No. 2 comes from Tepe Gaura VI, roughly of Akkadian-date. Both seals can be somewhat related to Joshi-Parpola 1987, M─350 (= Marshall 1931, No. 516; Mohenjo Daro, HR, surface) and H─125 Vats 1975, No. 395; Harappa, ?, ─17 '0"). Indus-Seals from Tello, Umma and Kish have no secure stratigraphic origin or were bought at the site (Tello, Umma). Concerning the seals from Kish: Mackay 1925, Pl. X, I comes from Tell Uhaimir, found in 1923 in the foundation of a Room situated close to 2 m under the surface NE-corner of the ziqqurrat, dated by Mackay to "Early Sumerian". According to Moorey 1979, 20ss. esp. 27 Note 46, the seal has vaguely been dated older than Old Babyonian or just to the beginning of that period. The second seal from Kish was published by Langdon 1931, 593ss. esp. 595. No. a─b and was found at Hursagkalamma "at Plain level" in Trench C,─9, 9m under the surface. Since the seal was associated to an object with an Akkadian inscription, it was classified by Langdon as intrusive, since he considered the findspot as pre-sargonic. Gibson 1972, 89 Note. 200 has published the find-sheed of the object: it was found in Trench C9, 5m from "Plain Level" at a place where the "Plain Level" was situated at 5m. This contradicts Langdon, who noted that it was found at a depth of about 9m. Younger finds in this area date from Ur III─ to the neobabylonian period. The seal of Umma was obviously impressed on a consignment, according to the traces on the back of the sealing (Scheil 1925, 56); the sealing was applied on a jar stopper. Similar finds are known from Lothal (Joshi-Parpola 1987, L─124ff. one can add Dholavira – see here Note O). Other seals should be menioned: One of the rare cylinder seals, found at Ur, was deepened from an Isin-Larsa - layer: Collon 1987, 143s., No. 611. This seal is not of babylonian origin, nor ressembles it artifacts from the Indus. It reminds seals of the Dilmun-Type from Failaka, not only the cut, but also the big eyes of the animal: cf. Kjaerum 1983, 77, No. 174 for example. Concerning the style a fragment of Hama (H?) belongsto the same type: Ingholt 1940, 62, Pl. XIX, I. Another cylinder seal from Ur has no secure stratigraphic origin, but ressembles artifacts from the Indus, especially Sealings of Mohenjo Daro: Collon 1987, Nr. 612 and Joshi-Parpola 1987, M489, H─253.

1533 For the thesis that a Meluḫḫa-village existed next to Ur in the Ur III-period and the criticism cf. Parpola-Parpola-Brunswig 1977, 129ss. and Edzard 1977, 164s. Meluḫḫa is normally identified with the Indus Valley and Magan with Makran or/and Oman: Gelb 1970;. In the neoassyrian period Meluḫḫa was identified with parts of the Egyptian realm: Heimpel 198 for Magan see also cf. Potts 1990. I, 133ss.. 165ss.; according to Thapar 1975, Dilmun, Magan and Meluḫḫa were all situated in India (contra: During Caspers-Govindakutty 1978). To Dilmun = Bahrain and part of Arabia see Potts 1990, I, 85ss. 182ss. 213. 247. 313. 347. To seals with Murghab-affinity see During Caspers 1994.

1534 Mackay 1938, 7 II, Pl. LXXXIX, 376 = DK, 3, VI, 32, ─11'8" = over Intermediate 1 Collon 1987, 143, No. 606); Mackay 1938, ll 11, Pl. XCVl, 488 = DK 4, 12,─14'5" ─ over Intermediate II (= CoIlon 1987, 143, Nr. 607). For a cylinder seal from Susa see Collon 1987, , 143, No. 608 and Amiet 1986, 143 und III. 94a. A cylinder seal from Kalibangan (Collon76 143f., No.[1534] ) and one from the Antiquities market (ibid., Nr. 614; cf. Corbiau 1936, 100s. Fig. 1) are further examples of this rare seal-tpe in the Indus Valley. Persian Gulf seals with Indus signs are also present at Susa: Amiet 1986, Ill. 94 (= Scheil 1916, 22). That once more cylinder seals existed illustrate some sealings discussed by During- Caspers. The consequnce that people from the West were therefore in India is only one possibility: M During-Caspers 1984 363ss. and 1982, 337ss. N KenoyerA 2006, 9 is of the opinion that in all other countries "the developmental stages of writing systems have not been properly documented, with the exception of the Indus" (Harappa). In view of the possible lower level of complexity of the Indus system I would disagree - see Nissen, 2016.O See the fine work by Green 2016, 128-141; Green 2015: Ameri 2013, 355-374 and Uesugi et al. 2016. Most important is also the ongoing research on the material of Dholavira: Frenez-Prabhakar-Bisht 2016. Which shows, that sealing practices are quite comparable to the Ancient Near East: https://www.academia.edu/27482813/Administrative_clay_sealing technology_from_the_Indus_site_of_Dholavira_Gujarat_India.Preliminary_observations. See also Parpola 2007.

1435 For the architecture see Fentress 1976, 159ss. and 1984, 89ss. and Jansen 1979, 118ss. 260ss. Both discuss also the stratigraphic problems in Harappa. Wheeler 1968, 31s. was of the opinion that the "Granary", the "Workmen Quarters" and the round "Working Platforms" would belong to the same stratigraphic layer. The whole was considered being a production unit , similar to the working quarters in EI Amarna in Egypt (ibid., 33f.). Already Fentress 1976, 174 had shown, that the structures were not contempoareous: the "Granary" belongs to Stratum V = IM II; the "Workmen Quarters" to Stratum IV = IM I (Vats 1975, 1, 58) and the "Working Platforms" belong to Stratum III = L III (ibid., 1, 74). The "Granary" was already overbuilt in the time of Stratum IV = IM I (ibid.. I, 46). If the round "Working Platforms" in Harappa should to be associated to a tree cult, as During-Caspers67 once thought, is unclear.

1536 Joshi/Parpola 1987, H─I0a.

1537 Ibid., H─9a und H─47a.

1538 Ibid., M─29a.

1539 Ibid., H─6a─7a. 20a. 22a. 25a und H─28a.

1540 Ibid., M─9a.

1541 Ibid., H─I la. H─21a.

1542 Ibid., H─24, M─75.

Excerpt out of 426 pages


Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-Iranica Vol I-II. Essays on the Earlier Cultural History of the Ancient Near- and Middle East
University of Münster  (Institut für Altorientalistik)
Catalog Number
ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Book)
miscellanea, orientalia, indo-iranica, i-ii, essays, earlier, cultural, history, ancient, near-, middle, east
Quote paper
Reinhard Dittmann (Author), 2022, Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-Iranica Vol I-II. Essays on the Earlier Cultural History of the Ancient Near- and Middle East, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1305580


  • No comments yet.
Look inside the ebook
Title: Miscellanea Orientalia et Indo-Iranica Vol I-II. Essays on the Earlier Cultural History of the Ancient Near- and Middle East