Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies. Vol. 32 issue 32

IRAN Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 1994

VOLUME XXXII

CONTENTS Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Governing Council iii Report of the Council . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . Professor Louis Vanden v ............. Obituary: Berghe Preliminary Report on the 1993 Excavations at Horom, Armenia, by Ruben S. Badaljan, Philip L. Kohl, David Stronach and Armen V. 1 Tonikjan ........................ Elamites and Other Peoples from Iran and the Persian Gulf Region in 31 EarlyMesopotamian Sources, by Ran Zadok .......... The International Merv Project. Preliminary Report on the Second Season (1993), by Georgina Herrmann, K. Kurbansakhatovet al. 53 The Fall of al-Maddiin: Some Literary References Concerning Sasanian Spoils of War in Mediaeval Islamic Treasuries, by Avinoam Shalem ..................... 77 The Chinese Uighur Animal Calendar in Persian Historiography of the Mongol Period, by Charles Melville ............ 83 Anecdotes of a Provincial Sufi of the Dehli Sultanate, KhwaijaGurg of 99 Kara,by Simon Digby ...... .............. The Accession of Iskandar Khan, by Audrey Burton ......... 111 The Ijdzafrom Yidsuf (d. 1186/1772) to Sayyid Muhammad Al-Bahrmni Mahdi Bahr al-cUlfim (d. 1212/1797-8), by Robert Gleave . . . 115 James Baillie Fraser: Traveller, Writer and Artist 1787-1856, by Denis 125 Wright ......................... British Indian Views (Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries) of the Later Followers of the Raukaniyya Sect in Afghanistan and Northern India, by Sergei Andreyev ............ Production of Sugar in Iran in the Nineteenth Century, by A. Seyf . Shorter Notices

Hijji cAbbas,byJ.W.Allan Diz, by Mary Burkett

................

..................

135 139

145 149

THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES A Registered

Charity

c/o The British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace, London ISSN 0578-6967

NW1 4QP

STATEMENTOF AIMS AND ACTIVITIES 1. The Institute has an establishment in Tehran at which British scholars, men and women of learning versed in the arts, friends of Iran, may reside and meet their Iranian colleagues in order to discuss with them subjects of common interest; the arts, archaeology, history, literature, linguistics, religion, philosophy and cognate subjects. 2. The Institute provides accommodation for senior scholars and for teachers from British Universities in order that they may refresh themselves at the source of knowledge from which their teaching derives, the same service is being rendered to younger students who show promise of developing interests in Persian studies. 3. The Institute, whilst concerned with Persian culture in the widest sense, is particularly concerned with the development of archaeological techniques, and seeks the co-operation of Iranian scholars and students in applying current methods to the resolution of archaeological and historical problems. 4. Archaeological excavation using modern scientific techniques as ancillary aids is one of the Institute's primary tasks. These activities, which entail a fresh appraisal of previous discoveries, have already yielded new historical, architectural, and archaeological evidence which is adding to our knowledge of the past and of its bearing on the modern world. 5. In pursuit of all the activities mentioned in the preceding paragraphs the Institute is gradually adding to its library, is collecting learned periodicals, and is publishing ajournal, Iran, which appears annually. 6. The Institute arranges occasional seminars, lectures and conferences and enlists the help of distinguished scholars for this purpose. It will also aim at arranging small exhibitions with the object of demonstrating the importance of Persian culture and its attraction for the world of scholarship. 7. The Institute endeavours to collaborate with universities and educational institutions in Iran by all the means at its disposal and, when consulted, assists Iranian scholars with technical advice for directing them towards the appropriate channels in British universities.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE INSTITUTE Anyone wishing to join the Institute should write to the membership Secretary, Miss Mary Totman, 63 Old Street, London EC1V 9HX. The annual subscription rates (lstJanuary-31 December) are as follows: ?25 Full membership (U.K. only) ?8.00 Member not receiving journal ?30 or $60 Full membership (Overseas) Student membership ?7.50 COPIES OF IRAN Full members of the Institute receive a post free copy of the current issue of the journal Iran each year. Copies of Iran may be obtained from the Publications Secretary, Miss Mary Totman (address as above) at the following prices: UK addresses ?30 or $60 each-to Current issue-single copies purchased by non-members post free -to addresses overseas plus postage & packing see publications list inside back cover Back numbers-please Those ordering from overseas may pay in US dollars or by sterling draft drawn on London, by international money order or by Eurocheque.

IRAN Volume XXXII 1994

CONTENTS

Governing Council ............................. of the Council ..... ... . Report .......................... .. .... ... Obituary: Professor Louis Vanden Berghe. ........... on the 1993 Excavations at Horom, Armenia, by Ruben S. Preliminary Report Badaljan, Philip L. Kohl, David Stronach and Armen V. Tonikjan. ........ Elamites and Other Peoples from Iran and the Persian Gulf Region in Early ... Mesopotamian Sources, by Ran Zadok ................ The International Merv Project. Preliminary Report on the Second Season (1993), . by Georgina Herrmann, K. Kurbansakhatov et al. ............... The Fall of al-Mada•in: Some Literary References Concerning Sasanian Spoils of War in Mediaeval Islamic Treasuries, by Avinoam Shalem ... ....... The Chinese Uighur Animal Calendar in Persian Historiography of the Mongol Period, by Charles Melville ................... ..... Anecdotes of a Provincial Sufi of the Dehli Sultanate, Khwaja Gurg of Kara, by Simon .. ............. .. ...99 ... Digby ............ The Accession of Iskandar Khan, by Audrey Burton ........... .... The Ijdza from Yusuf Al-Bahrani(d. 1186/1772) to Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi Bahr ......... by Robert Gleave . . ... al-cUlfim (d. 1212/1797-8), Baillie Fraser: Writer and Artist Denis Traveller, 1787-1856, by James Wright . . . . British Indian Views (Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries) of the Later Followers of the Raukianiyya Sect in Afghanistan and Northern India, by ........135 Sergei Andreyev ................... Production of Sugar in Iran in the Nineteenth Century, by A. Seyf .. .. . ..... Shorter Notices .

HaIt-jicAbbas, byJ.W.Allan.......................

Diz, by Mary Burkett

Page ii iii v 1 31 53 77 83

111 115 125

139 145 149

.........................

ISSN 0578-6967

THE

BRITISH

INSTITUTE

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

(A Registered Charity)

c/o The British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace, London

NW1 4QP

BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES (A Registered Charity) GOVERNING COUNCIL President

*tProfessor MICHAEL ROGERS, MA, D Phil, FBA, FSA Vice-President

tProfessor ROBERT HILLENBRAND, MA, D Phil, FRSE Honorary Vice-Presidents

*Professor D. B. STRONACH, OBE, MA, FSA SIR DENIS WRIGHT, GCMG MA Members

MrsJANET AIDIN, MA tDrJ W ALLAN, MA, D Phil Mr DONALD ALLEN Mr C A BURNEY, MA, FSA MrJOHN C CLOAKE,CMG, MA MrJOHN COOPER, MA DrJ E CURTIS, BA, PhD, FSA Dr R W FERRIER,MA, PhD MrJOHN R GRUNDON tDrJ D GURNEY, MA, D Phil Mr DESMOND HARNEY,OBE, BSc Professor A K S LAMBTON, OBE, D Lit, PhD, FBA Dr PAUL LUFT, MA, PhD tProfessor K S McLACHLAN, MA, PhD Dr CHARLES MELVILLE,MA, PhD Dr DAVID O MORGAN, BA, PhD Mr A H MORTON, MA Mr CJ S RUNDLE, OBE, MA Professor A REZA SHEIKHOLESLAMI,MA, PhD Mr PETERJ W TAYLOR,OBE, MA Honorary Treasurer

tMrJOHN S PHILLIPS, TD, MA, FCA Honorary Secretary

tDr VESTA CURTIS, MA, PhD Honorary Joint Editors

tProfessor C E BOSWORTH, MA, PhD, FBA tDr VESTA CURTIS, MA, PhD Assistant Secretary

Miss DIANA MORGAN Membership and Publications Secretary

Miss MARY TOTMAN Special Adviser

Mrs M E GUERITZ, MBE Auditors

PRIDIE BREWSTER,29-39 London Road, Twickenham, Middlesex TW1 3SZ. c/o The British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace, LONDON NW1 4QP

tMember of Executive Committee *Editorial Adviser

P.O. Box 11365-6844 Tehran, IRAN

REPORT OF THE COUNCIL to 31st March 1993 The most significant event of the year was the appointment of new officers and staff of the Institute. Professor Keith McLachlan retired after a period of three years as President and Professor Michael Rogers was elected in his place. Professor McLachlan took over in 1989 at a crucial time when the future of the Institute had once again reached an uncertain and critical point. With his enthusiasm, positive attitude and immense knowledge and dedication to Iran, he refused to accept defeat and created a period of stability and optimism which influenced all those who worked with him. At the same time Mrs. Mary Gueritz, our hardworking and enthusiastic Assistant Secretary handed in her resignation after more than thirty years of complete devotion to the Institute, its officers, fellows and members. Her expertise and encouragement and at the same time her love of Iran, its people and culture were unique. It was for these efforts that she was awarded an M.B.E. in 1982. Although she has officially retired as Assistant Secretary, Mrs. Gueritz has taken up a new appointment as Special Adviser and we look forward to her continuing association with the Institute. Another sad retirement was that of the Hon. Membership Secretary, Mrs. Molli Cloake, who for many years, on a voluntary basis, gave much able to assistance to Mrs. Gueritz. Finally, thanks are also due to Professor Robert Hillenbrand whose term as Hon. Secretary came to an end but who has now taken a new position as Vice-President of the Institute. The new Hon. Secretary is Dr. Vesta Curtis. For the post of Assistant Secretary the Institute has been most fortunate to find Miss Diana Morgan. She and the Membership and Publications Secretary, Miss Mary Totman, have set up the London office and are undertaking the process of computerising accounts, publication orders and membership records. Mr. Peter Davies was appointed Hon. Covenant Secretary. The extensive work on the Institute building in Tehran has continued under the supervision of Dr. Georgina Herrmann and the Treasurer, Mr. John Phillips. Their task has been made even more difficult by the need to direct the work from London. Nevertheless, the roof has now been replaced, the Assistant Director's flat has been made habitable and work is well advanced on the plumbing and rewiring. In Tehran, Mr. Manouchehr Bayat and Mr. E. J. Andrews, Technical Supervisor of the British Embassy, gave them invaluable advice and support. The year also witnessed visits to Iran by a number of members and fellows, including Dr. James Allan, Keeper of Eastern Art at the Ashmolean Museum, who attended a conference, on carpets, in Tehran. Mr. Allan was able to travel in Iran and also look at the reserve collections of the Iran Bastan Museum in Tehran. Awards for study visits and projects in Iran were also made to Dr. John Gurney and Mr. Kamran Safamanesh to undertake jointly "A Survey of Qajar Architecture of Public Buildings in Tehran" and to Professor Keith McLachlan to continue a project on qanats and traditional water provision, begun in 1991. Grants for travel to Iran were given to Dr. Vanessa Martin to study "Aspects of Modern Shi'ism, Particularly the Relationship Between the 'Ulema and the State in the Mid-Twentieth Century", to Dr. Richard Tapper and Dr. Susan Wright to attend an international conference in Isfahan on "Nomadism and Development" and to Miss Susan Bull to study "Fatima as a Role Model for Women in Iranian Shi'ism". Mr. Paul Mitchell, Ms. Sophie Godrick and Ms. Mariam Imani received grants to clear the library and sort out the many boxes of sherds, thus enabling the building contractors to continue with their work. Dr. Javad Golmohammadi and Dr. Michael Harverson took up the grants that had been awarded to them during the previous financial year and visited Iran. A travel grant for work outside Iran was given to Ms. Elaine Wright to study in the Topkapy Saray in Istanbul "The role of the Pir Buda Qara Qoyunlu and the Evolution of Fifteenth Century Manuscript Illumination". Also a special grant was given to Miss Jennifer Scarce towards the cost of a Day Conference at SOAS in November on "Language of Dress in the Middle East". Grants from the Institute's own funds aimed at promoting work in Central Asia were given to Dr. Georgina Herrmann (for the International Merv Project) and to Dr. Vesta Curtis (to attend the iii

Third International Merv Conference in Turkmenistan and for travel to Bukhara in Uzbekistan). The summer lecture entitled "Fops, Floozies and Farangis; the Late Work of Rizayi cAbbasi" was delivered by Dr. Sheila Canby, Assistant Keeper of Oriental Antiquities of the British Museum. The Annual Lecture was given by Dr. James Allan on "'Alams and Artisans; the Tradition of Steelworking in Iran". A large audience enjoyed the lecture and particularly appreciated the slides taken by Dr. Allan during his recent visit to Iran. This followed the Thirtieth General Meeting at the British Academy on Wednesday 18th November 1992. The resignations of Professor Ilya Gershevitch, Dr. Clare Hill and Mr.John Hanson were accepted with regret. Other members due to retire in rotation were re-appointed. These were Professor Michael Rogers, Professor Robert Hillenbrand, Mr. John Cloake and Dr. Vesta Curtis. Dr. David Morgan, a former member was welcomed back to the Governing Council and Mr. John Cooper was invited to join as a new member. We learned with great sadness of the death of Michael Browne, Q.C., on 1st April 1992. He was a member of our Council from 1966 until 1988 and gave valuable advice to the Institute on legal matters. Once again, a successful series of monthly lectures was held at SOAS on Thursday evenings in cooperation with the Centre of Near and Middle East Studies. Under the general title of "Iranian Art and Archaeology", talks were given by Dr. Barry Flood, Dr. Eleanor Sims, Mr. Marcus Frazer and Miss Teresa Fitzherbert. For help of various kinds the Governing Council wishes to express particular thanks to the staff of the Middle East Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to Mr. David Reddaway, the former Charge d'Affaires, to Mr. E. J. Andrews, Technical Supervisor in Tehran, for his advice and help with the building and to the British Academy for its support and financial assistance. Thanks are also due to Mr. Manouchehr Bayat, BIPS' financial supervisor in Tehran and Mr. Houman Kordmahini, caretaker of the Tehran Institute. We are also grateful to Mrs.Janet Aidin for her legal advice. VESTA CURTIS Hon. Secretary

MICHAEL ROGERS President

iv

OBITUARY LOUIS VANDEN BERGHE (1923-1993)

It is sometimes said of. great scholars that they do not just make contributions to their subject, they change its shape. In such a league was Prof. Dr. Louis Vanden Berghe, doyen of Iranian archaeologists, who died in Gent on 17th September 1993 aged 69 years. He was Professor of the Archaeology and History of Ancient Near Eastern Civilisations at the University of Gent, and also Professor of the Archaeology and History of Ancient Iran at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles, as well as being Director of the Iranian Section of the National Museum in Brussels. He was born on 24th December 1923 in Oostnieuwerke in West Flanders, between Bruges and the French border, and studied Near Eastern archaeology and the history of art at the University of Gent and Oriental languages at the Universities of Brussels, Amsterdam and Leiden. This linguistic training later stood him in good stead, and amongst his many achievements was a remarkable fluency in modern Persian. Having obtained his doctorate in 1950 with a thesis about prehistoric painted pottery, he became an assistant in the University of Gent in 1951, rising to professor in 1957 and being given a chair in 1965. During an extremely productive career he produced about 150 books, catalogues and papers, with the emphasis throughout being on Iranian archaeology and history. His first major task was to give some structure to a subject which was still in the 1950s in a state of some disorder. To this end, his Archeologiede l'IranAncienappeared in 1959. This is a masterly survey of Iranian archaeology, first by region and then by period, going from prehistoric to Sasanian times. It has well stood the test of time and the numerous discoveries made in the 1960s and 1970s, and containing as it does a wealth of information it is still widely consulted. Shortly afterwards he was instrumental in establishing, together with R. Ghirshman, a newjournal devoted to Iranian archaeology. The first volume of Iranica Antiqua appeared in 1961, and largely as a result of Vanden Berghe's energy and drive it still continues. Further evidence of his determination to introduce order and discipline into the subject can be found with his Bibliographie analytique de l'archeologie de l'Iran Ancien (Leiden 1979), supplements

to which appeared

in 1981 and 1987 covering the years 1978-1985. Vanden Berghe is perhaps best known for his archaeological work in Luristan. Between 1965 and 1979 v

he led an expedition sponsored jointly by the University of Gent and the Musees Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire in Brussels that for fifteen seasons worked in the Pusht-i Kuh, the western part of Luristan. More than 30 cemetery sites were investigated, varying in date between the Chalcolithic period and Iron III. Particularly productive sites were Parchineh, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Kutal-i Gulgul, Bard-i Bal, Tattulban, CamziMuimah and War Kabud. A monograph about War Kabud appeared already in 1968, and preliminary reports about the other sites appeared with commendable speed, usually in the French journal Archedologiaor in Iranica Antiqua. The contribution that Vanden Berghe has made through his work in Luristan has been immense. This remote and mountainous region is poorly known archaeologically, and there has been only a small amount of scientific research here. Apart from Vanden Berghe's work, the few scientific projects include the Holmes Expedition to Luristan, that resulted in the 1938 excavation of E. F. Schmidt at Surkh Dum-i Luri in the Pish-i Kuh, and Clare Goff's excavations at BabaJan. It is known that the many "Luristan bronzes" in collections around the world come from this area, but practically nothing is known about the culture which produced them. Vanden Berghe's work has gone some way towards remedying this deficiency with the discovery of about a dozen canonical Luristan bronzes. It would be wrong, however, to think that Vanden Berghe's work in the field was restricted to Luristan. Among many projects we might cite, for example, his survey of the Mary Dasht Plain in the 1950s and his brief excavations at the necropolis of Khurvin which resulted in a book published in 1964 (La Nicropole de Khuirvin). He also discovered an ancient road connecting Firuzabad and Siraf, an Achaemenid tomb at Buzpar in Fars and many "chahar taqs" (fire temples). His versatility is demonstrated by the description of an early Islamic castle at Puiskafn in Fars (La Decouverte d'un chdateau-fortdu dcbut de l'dpoque islamique a Puskan (Irdn), Iranica Antiqua Supplement IV, Gent 1990). He also recognised the importance of promoting the subject, and to this end he was an indefatigable organiser of exhibitions. For example there were major exhibitions about Luristan in Munich (1981), Gent (1983) and St. Petersburg (1992), and an exhibition about Urartu in Gent (1983). These were all accompanied by attractive and informative catalogues. Mention should also be made of an exhibition of photographs (by Erik Smekens) of Iranian rock reliefs organised in Brussels in 1984 (Reliefs Rupestres de l'Iran Ancien, Brussels 1984). This was followed in the next year by ajoint publication with Klaus Schippmann on Les Reliefs rupestres d'Elymaide (Iran) de l'dpoque parthe (Gent 1985). Several of these reliefs were discovered by Vanden Berghe himself. During his lifetime many honours came to Vanden Berghe and he was much respected. In his own country he was a corresponding member (1962) and a full member (1968) of the Academie Royale des Sciences, Lettres et Arts de Belgique, becoming President in 1973. Abroad, honours included being a full member of Institut (1973), an honorary fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London the Deutsches Archfologisches (1980) and a fellow of the Explorers Club of New York (1978). Much prized was his honorary doctorate from the University of Tehran, awarded as early as 1964. In some ways Louis Vanden Berghe lived life to the full. His consumption of alcohol was legendary and he was seldom without a large cigar. Yet at the same time he was a lonely person, and for much of his life lived in a hotel near the main railway station in Gent. From there he journeyed sometimes to his home village in West Flanders. The drawbacks to this solitary lifestyle were, however, largely offset by the devoted help and support of a number of friends and former students including Ernie Haerinck, the late Christiane Langeraert-Seeuws and latterly Alexandre Tourovets. It was one of these colleagues, Dr. Haerinck, who together with Prof. L. de Meyer edited a two-volume Festschrift in his honour in 1989 (Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe) which included an informative memoir about Vanden Berghe together with a full bibliography. Happily, Haerinck has now succeeded his old teacher as lecturer in Near Eastern archaeology at Gent. In spite of failing eyesight, Vanden Berghe continued to work right up until the end of his life. Even in his last year he organised an enormously impressive exhibition of Sasanian art in Brussels accompanied by a sumptuous catalogue (Splendeur des Sassanides, Brussels 1993). And it is gratifying for friends and admirers in Britain that he was able to attend the 1993 Lukonin Memorial Seminar in the British Museum on "Later Mesopotamia and Iran, c. 1600-539 B.C." To this event he contributed a lecture on "Excavations in Luristan and Relations with Mesopotamia", and although he could not deliver it in person he was able to introduce it, which was much appreciated. The passing of Louis Vanden Berghe leaves a major gap in the ranks of Iranian archaeologists, but his many contributions have pointed the way to others who will surely follow in his footsteps. Above all, his commitment to the subject never faltered, and in spite of the political changes which have dominated the last 15 years he never doubted the value of studying Ancient Iran and remained optimistic about future prospects. JOHN CURTIS

vi

PRELIMINARYREPORT ON THE 1993 EXCAVATIONSAT HOROM, ARMENIA and Armen V. Tonikjan By Ruben S. Badaljan, Philip L. Kohl, David Stronach and Yerevan,Wellesley,Massachussetts,

Berkeley

NORTH HILL EXCAVATIONS

Collaborative American-Armenian and Americanon the investigations archaeological Georgian Shirak plain of northwestern Armenia and the Djavakheti plateau of southern Georgia (see below: Appendix A) began during the summer of 1990 as field component the principal, regionally-focused and structured of the more broadly conceived for International Anthropological Program Research in the Caucasus (or IPARC). The 1990 and 1992 excavations at the site of Horom, Armenia have been reported in previous volumes of Iran (Badaljan et al. 1992 and 1993), while the 1990 and 1991 field seasons in Georgia, particularly at the Early Bronze Age site of Satkhe, have been briefly described in the Bulletin of the Asia Institute the (Kohl et al. 1992). This report presents excavations the 1993 of results preliminary at Horom1 and includes the Palaeolithic investigations and later Bronze and Iron Age prein in southern historic excavations Georgia Appendix A.2 On the basis primarily of surface reconnaissances and topographic mapping undertaken in 1990, the c. 45-50 ha. Horom settlement, which is centered around two dominant hills set along a north-south axis (the North and South Hills) and characterised by standing cyclopean stone architecture, was distinguished from a c. 400 ha. mapped area termed the Horom site, which consists of undulating, rocky stone structures of uncertain terrain containing date and clusters of circular stone-ringed tombs or cromlechs dating to the late second or early first millennium B.C. (Badaljan et al. 1992: fig. 3). The Horom settlement was located within the northwestern quadrant of the Horom site. This view may need to be modified in as much as additional stone structures, including possible fortifications, were recently noted to the east and southeast of the Horom and future excavations within such settlement, structures may relate them to the Iron Age outlying Urartian fortifications on the North Hill. Thus, the overall size of the fortified settlement remains unclear, and the 45-50 ha. figure could well represent a minimal estimate. At the end of the taken from a heli1993 season, photographs copter provided a series of aerial views of the Horom settlement and its cyclopean architecture (Pl. Ia-b).3

Constructions of Urartian Date While no materials of early first millennium B.C. date chanced to come to light within the restricted sounding of 1990, the results of the 1992 and 1993 excavations have made it clear that the major visible fortifications on the North Hill are to be ascribed to the Urartian period. In more precise terms the period in question is likely to have lasted for more than a century and a half, between the time that Argishti I (c. 785-760 B.C.) annexed the presentday region of the Shirak plain (cf. Badaljan et al. 1993: 15) and the moment when the kingdom of Urartu came to an abrupt end, somewhere close to 600 B.C. The association of wheelmade, buff to red pottery of an Urartian or Urartian-related type with grey wares which clearly continue a local Late Bronze/Early Iron Age ceramic tradition is currently from Operations Bi, B2, C2, firmly documented and D1 (Fig. 5). The association was first acknowledged during the 1992 season (Badaljan et al. 1993: 12-23), and the work of the past summer, in Areas B2 and D1 in particular, has continued to demonstrate the strength of this connection. Above all, the recent discovery of a small cosmetic jar of a known Urartian type (Fig. 5: 19, P1. Ic), such as occurs elsewhere at Bastam, for example (Kleiss et al. 1979: 208, fig. 3, 5) in the deep fill of one of the better preserved rooms of the B2 area (Room 3 of B2 complex see Fig. 3, P1. IIa) has underlined the likeliof the hood that the more intact magazines century B.C. "border settlement" at eighth/seventh Horom will one day serve to document the extent to which the local Iron Age wares of the Shirak by elements of the wellplain were complemented known ceramic corpus of the Urartian core area. In the balance of this report all Horom's architectural remains of the eighth/seventh century B.C. are referred to as "Urartian". It should be understood, however, that this label deserves to be read in several separate ways. On the one hand, the label is used with the above-mentioned chronological connotation and, on the other hand, it is intended to be indicative of a period of intense interaction with Urartu or of the citadel's physical incorporation-at 1

2

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

least at certain times, within the accepted boundaries of the Urartian state. In other words, the present writers are acutely aware that, while the presently exposed architecture on the North Hill offers its fair share of Urartian traits, the site as a whole has so far produced remarkably few incontrovertible Urartian artefacts. But it may also be noted before we proceed to review the work of the past season which took place in Operations A2/3, B2, and D1 that the small piece of a bronze quiver that was found on the heavily burnt roadway of the BI North-West Gate at the end of the 1992 season (Badaljan et al. 1993: 12-15 and pl. IId) was decorated in a distinctive fashion; i.e., it was marked by groups of transverse ridges in repousse (P1. Id) in a design that otherwise occurs on a group of five bronze quivers from the Urartian citadel at Kayalidere (Burney 1966: pl. 18c). The 1992 Operations B1 and C2 were not continued in 1993, but several architectural features including a stone-covered drain extending down the central axis of the B1 North-West Gate, which were uncovered at the very end of the 1992 season, were accurately mapped. We hope to continue work in these two areas in future seasons. Operation A2/3 (Figs. 1 and 2) Early in the 1993 season a small, exploratory trench, only 3 x 3.5 m. in size, was opened on the flat summit of the North Hill near the presumed northeastern corner of the A terrace. The precise location of this probe, called Operation A2, was determined by the presence of stone remains that were visible inside an animal burrow. Although the exposure was limited, stone architecture was encountered, and a thick Early Mediaeval deposit was explored to a depth of 1.5 m. In the course of the work, a large, complete storage vessel of Mediaeval date was removed, and an adjoining burnt surface yielded a rich cache of well-preserved carbonised seeds. It was subsequently decided that it would be of advantage to extend the excavation for a distance of 9 m. to the northeast down the slope of the A terrace. It was hoped that the extension, termed A3, would throw useful light on the still little examined uppermost line of Urartian fortifications and that it would also serve to reveal any subsidiary architectural features that might have been built up against the inner face of the A Wall. To begin with, work in the A3 extension proved to be a considerable challenge: a nearly unbroken sequence of parallel stone faces was found to extend throughout the eastern end of the narrow trench. It was only when the outer face of the A Wall was at last exposed, in fact, that this apparent sequence of "walls"could be read

STUDIES

as a series of monumental steps that advance, for a distance of 6 m., up the steep slope to the line of the flat summit. While much more of the A Wall needs to be exposed in order to understand its construction in full, it does now appear that we have uncovered the point at which the A Wall turned to the north-west, in accord with the natural contours of the North Hill (Fig. 1), and that the wide series of steps very probably functioned as a socle for the now missing stone superstructure that presumably once defended the flat summit at the apex of the whole Urartian fortification system. The materials from the eroded, steeply sloping terrain of Operation A3 included, hardly against expectation, examples of Urartian red ware mixed with sherds of known (and presumed) Mediaeval date. Operation B2: Architecture located on the B Terrace inside the Inner Face of the B Fortification Wall (Fig. 3, P1.IIa) From the prior account of the work that was carried out in Operation B2 during the 1992 season (Badaljan et al. 1993: 15-18, fig. 13), it will be recalled that this part of the site (Fig. 3 and P1. IIa) had already revealed well-preserved architecture that was located just inside the inner face of the B Fortification Wall. Accordingly, excavations were at once resumed in Room 2, one of two adjoining rooms (Rooms 1 and 2) that had been at least partially defined in 1992. Since the floor of Room 2 had only been reached within the limits of a small test trench in the course of the previous campaign, one of our first concerns was to expose the remaining, available floor surface. The only feature of note to come to light in the course of this endeavor consisted of the remains of a clay walled oven (or tanur), the floor of which was still covered by a layer of ash. The flue which had been used to draw air into the oven was also detected; it could be seen to have been sunk into the top of the earth floor, near the middle portion of the room, close to Wall 2 (P1. IIb). It ought to be added, however, that such a distinctly domestic feature offers a curious contrast to the monumental walls which adjoin it; for this reason, therefore, the oven could well represent a later feature which is not to be connected with the otherwise undetermined, orginal function of Room 2. As far as the 1993 extensions to Operation B2 are concerned, these took the form of the B2.3 trench to the south, where Rooms 3 and 4 were exposed; the B2.4 trench to the west, where a well-preserved room or corridor, Room 5, was uncovered; and the B2.5 trench to the north, where the work disclosed a number of barely sub-surface, one-to-two course

REPORT

PRELIMINARY

f

ON THE

1993

AT HOROM,

EXCAVATIONS

oo1620

ARMENIA

3

++

2B

C2

,

C40

E2

El

//

.

???..

.

.

.

?

5M5

~cM4

......~rr\~~~r~,+

m

mM .

20

10

0

.

.

. . .

.

.

.

0

Fig. 1. Generaltopographicmap of Northand South Hills of Horom,showingexcavationunits of 1992 and 1993. Thesummitof the NorthHill is also markedbythe remainsof a previouslyexposed,EarlyMediaevalbuilding.

4

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

wide stone walls (Features 12-16), all of which undoubtedly post-date the more deeply set rooms of the main B2 architectural complex. Indeed, the narrow walls in B2.5 (Fig. 4) are almost certainly contemporary with two other virtually sub-surface, insubstantial walls (Features 1 and 2) which were found to run above the massive, two metre and more high remains of Wall 6. In sum, then, this single part of the Horom settlement may be said to offer persuasive evidence for the existence of a later, less monumental period of occupation that was either Late Urartian or post-Urartian in date (see Fig. 7).4 It is tempting, of course, to link the thin stone walls which eventually came to be erected over the abandoned B2 complex with other examples of inferior, very often clearly secondary construction that have been noted in other sections of the North Hill. One of the more striking instances of late, secondary building activity may be said to come from the BI North-West Gateway, where the socalled guardroom represents an obvious late addition to the original fabric of the Gate (Badaljan et al. 1993: 15 and pl. IIc). In addition, it would not be at all surprising to find that the whole of the D1 complex (Fig. 8), which has for long been seen to stand outside the limits of the otherwise formidable fortification system on the North Hill (see below and Badaljan et al. 1992: 44-5), was itself representative of such a widespread, late building phase. While the ceramics from the North-West Gate, B2.5, and D1 are clearly similar, with each containing well-fired Urartian red wares together with grey wares of the still persisting local Late Bronze/Early Iron Age tradition, Operations B2.5 and D1 are alone in also producing sherds of still another kind with either wavy-combed or pattern-burnished decoration (Fig. 6: 13, 14 and Fig. 9). Eventually, therefore, pottery of this latter type may come to serve as a valuable, separate indication of late occupation. As for the relationship of such a late phase of occupation to the date of the fire which ravaged the North-West Gate, it is a matter of decided interest that the traces of extensive burning on the BI roadway were found to run up against the exterior of the already extant east wall of the above-mentioned "guardroom". In other words, we can be sure that at least some of the late and very largely inferior stone walling on the North Hill pre-dates rather than post-dates the time of the Gate's destruction. For the present, therefore, it may be justified to categorise the more or less massive Urartian architecture on the North Hill as "Early Urartian" and those examples of clearly related, but assuredly later, local building activity as "Late Urartian."

STUDIES

HOROM1993 AREA A2

0o2m

W2

1669.72

1669.76 1669.38

1670.18

W

16 9.

7

52

1670.86

W5

S1670.14

W4

W3

1669.43

1669.14

1669.54

W6

UNEXCAVATED 1668.75

1668.23 1668.15 1668.43

"\,A.os Fig. 2. OperationA2/3, summitof NorthHill, illustratingstepped fortificationsystemon summitas it turns to thenorth-west.

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

1993

ON THE

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

5

ARMENIA

HOROM1992-93 A

AREAB2/CI

B2 0

1

2M LL 1645.00 FLOOR 1645.20

S164,

WW9

1646.10 164 3.48

7

1

LL

6.1644.92/

,0

LL 1643.27

LL 1644.03

OVEN

aQ

1644.85

~~~1643.16 1643.97

L639

LL164369

W4 P

3 ROOM

1644.16 FLOOR ROOM

2

W2ROOM

1

1.1642.40

0L

1643.47 LL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION

o

0

AT UPPER LEVELS

D

o

o~ 08

wl

d0~

TOMB E.B. 1640.96 Cl

w

1642.71

E

UNEXCAVATED

A F8

1642.87

Fig. 3. Plan of the substantial "Early Urartian" architecture in Area B2. Note also, in Area C1, certain traces of "Late Urartian" walling and the location of the Early Bronze tomb outside (and well below the level of the B Fortification Wall.

6

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

If Rooms 2-5 in the B2 area may be taken to exemplify certain of the main characteristics of "Early Urartian" construction at Horom, such features would appear to include consistent orientation, symmetrical planning, and the use of relatively heavy, skillfully built dry-stone walls (Pls. IIa-c and Fig. 3).5 With respect to two of the rooms (Rooms 2 and 3), certain of the walls were also found to retain traces of a plaster surface. Doorways are, of course, well represented. One doorway linked the seemingly paired square rooms, Rooms 3 and 4 (Pl. IIc); another connected Room 3 with a still unexcavated room to the south (P1. IIc); and yet another provided a link between Rooms 5 and 2, at least until such time as the west wall of the latter room (Wall 4) came to be widened over the greater part of its length (Fig. 3).6 Of special interest, of course, is the perfectly preserved doorway between Rooms 3 and 4; rectangular in shape, and capped by flat stones, the doorway was given a height of almost 2 m. and a width of 89 cm. Needless to say, the doorway's all-stone frame was by the exclusive use of stone in predetermined these ground floor walls, many of which still stand to a height of 3 m. Last but not least, a still not fully defined opening at the north end of Room 5 is likely to have provided access to yet other associated rooms, including Room 1. The number of small objects from Rooms 2-5 was not large, but the discovery in Room 3 of the cosmetic jar (P1. Ic, Fig. 5: 19) above-mentioned and a fragment of a large storage jar with a seal impression (P1. Ie) could perhaps indicate that this part of the site was occupied, at one time, by administrators or, at all events, by residents of some status. Other finds of note include a winged bronze arrowhead from the north end of Room 5 which directly accords with a standard Caucasian type that was current for a period of several centuries both before and after 1000 B.C.,7 and a more perplexing object: namely, an iron door-key (Pi. IIe), also from Room 5, which looks strangely out of place in an century B.C. context. That is to say eighth/seventh that, while the key was indeed recovered from the floor of Room 5 near the later blocked doorway that led into Room 2, it has an oddly modern appearance; and, in view of the local presence of many animal holes, its actual find spot could be fortuitous. Finally, it should be noted that Early Bronze Kura-Araxes sherds chanced to be found beneath the floors of both Rooms 3 and 5. In other words, the whole of the B2 complex would appear to have been built over a much earlier Early Bronze finding which is also consistent Age occupation-a with the discovery, in 1992, of an Early Bronze tomb in the C1 Operation (Fig. 3 and 7), beyond the outer or eastern face of the B Fortification Wall

STUDIES

(Badaljan et al. 1993: 4 and pl. Ia). Architecture Operation D1-Domestic Terrace (Fig. 8)

on the D

Prior to excavations in the D 1 Area, it was speculated that the whole of the unfortified D Terrace, which is so very different in appearance from the various fortified sectors of the North Hill (Fig. 1), could have represented the remains of a separate "administrative complex" (Badaljan et al. 1992: 44-5). In the aftermath of the 1992 campaign this characterisation remained unchallenged, if only because it seemed premature to rush to conclusions on the basis of two strictly limited, local probes. Indeed, the one clear message that emerged from the 1992 excavations in this part of the site was the fact that all construction on the D Terrace could have been restricted to a "relatively late date" within the time-frame of Horom's eighth/seventh century B.C. occupation (Badaljan et al. 1993: 21). On the one hand, the work of the 1993 season has clearly strengthened the case for such a probable late date (see page 4 above), and, on the other hand, there is now a sound case to be made for the domestic, rather than the representational-or administrative of those D1 structures (Rooms 1-3) -character that have been examined to-date. Of the rooms in question-all of which run along the same north-south axis-Room 1 was excavated in its entirety in 1992. It is a sub-rectangular unit, 6.7 x 3.8 m. in area, with a flagstone floor and with a broad stone platform located in front of its slightly curved western wall (Fig. 8). In accord, moreover, with the less than regular character of the walls of Room 1, the corridor which leads northwards to the next room, Room 2, consists of no more than a narrow, bent passage of irregular width. Because of other calls on our time and resources, only about one third of Room 2's total floor area of 8 x 9.5 m. came to be exposed in 1992. The main features to emerge in the course of the excavation consisted of a large, squarish basin of pink tuff set close to the line of the west wall (Badaljan et al. 1993: pl. IIIe) and a low "double partition" (composed of two parallel rows of slim stones set on edge) which stood perpendicular to the west wall. The presence of this last fixture, and the considerable size of Room 2, suggested at the time that the room might have been subdivided into several separate "cubicles" and that, in addition, the whole space might have remained unroofed. Following the 1993 season, however, new assessments are in order. In the first place, the discovery of four symmetrically placed stone column bases (Fig. 8, P1. IId) would seem to prove that Room 2 was roofed; and, secondly, if due account is taken of cer-

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

7

ARMENIA

HOROM1992-93 AREA B2 UPPER LEVELS

O

1

2M

Fig. 4. OperationB2.5. "LateUrartian"architectureexcavatedto the east of theB FortificationWall and to the northof theB2 "Early Urartian"complexof Fig. 3.

8

OF PERSIAN

JOURNAL

tain of the present-day fixtures that are associated with the stabling of animals in the local village, there can be little doubt that Room 2 came to be used, for a time at least, to water and shelter animals. Thus, while the tuff basin, which stands on a low stone platform, almost certainly represented a suitable water container, both the original east-west partition, and a newly exposed double partition, are likely to have served as feeding troughs-presumably if the width of the doorways is kept in mind, for animals of rather modest size, such as sheep and goat. Since the two long feeding troughs appear to have been sited in such a way as to take advantage of the presence of three of the four columns (Fig. 8), it is also possible that there was a time when Room 2 was roofed, but not yet used as an animal shelter. In this last regard it is in fact evident that Room 2 retained a rival identity right to the end. That is to say that parts of the room were supplied with a well-laid flagstone floor and that a variety of domestic activities continued to be pursued, especially towards the north end of the room. Many pestle-shaped ground stones were recovered, for

STUDIES

example, in an area of the room where both a circular stone-lined hearth (Feature 7) and an adjacent stone table (Feature 9) were located. In addition, a small stone-lined pit (Feature 8) may have been on the analogy of contemporary used-again collect glowing coals from the nearby practices-to large stone-lined hearth. An entry from Room 2 to the north led into the Room 3. This slightly smaller, irregularly-shaped room contained four large flat grinding stones set on a stone platform (Feature 1) in its north-eastern corner. The remains of a hearth (Feature 2), possibly for baking bread, lay immediately to the south, and to its west lay a shallow circular stone "milling" not necessarily funcbasin, similar in form-though tion-with those repeatedly uncovered on the top of the South Hill. If Room 2 housed animals, Room 3 may have functioned as a bakery. Room 3 also was connected to another room on its northern side, which will be excavated in the future. As one proceeds north in this interconnected complex, the in places depth of deposit increases, exceeding 1.5 m. Noteworthy also were the remains of charred 4

1

5

6

7

9

8

10

11

18 __19

12

13

14

15

16

i 17

li Fig. 5. Ceramicsfrom B2 Complex.Reddish-Buffand Red Wares,Urartianperiod.

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

section of wooden beams in the north-western Room 3, as well as considerable evidence for uncontrolled burning near the hearth of Room 2. The evidence suggests that this complex may have been devastated by fire and recalls the evidence for largescale burning from the Bi North-West Gate area. The D1 complex, which presently appears to have a substantial domestic character, seems to have been occupied during one period, presumably in Late Urartian times. The ceramics from the area consis(c. 20 per tently include a significant component to those similar red fine Urartian of wares, cent) found in the Ararat Valley to the south, as well as more numerous wares continuing the local Shirak ceramic traditions of the Late Bronze/Early Iron periods. As noted above, a few more elaborately decorated vessels (Fig. 9) from this trench together with those from B2.5 may help define the Late or immediately Post-Urartian phase at Horom. Three radiocarbon dates taken from the 1992

8

9

EXCAVATIONS

ARMENIA

9

excavations in the B1 and B2 areas were received from the AMS Facility of the University of Arizona: 1) sample no. AA-10194--B1 a-c, gateway: 2,520+/-55 (yr BP) or calibrated at 790-430 B.C. (1 sigma; or locus 4, 800-410 B.C. at 2 sigma); 2) AA-10189-B2, north of Feature 8: 2465+/-55 (yr BP) or calibrated at 760-410 B.C. (1 sigma; or 790-400 B.C. at 2 TT4, level 4 (beneath sigma); and 3) AA-11129-B2, or calibratthe earliest floor of Room 2): 2770+/-55 ed at 970-830 B.C. (1 sigma; or 1050-800 B.C. at 2 sigma). The dates are not enormously helpful for refining the Urartian chronology at Horom, since their calibrated ranges simply preclude any further subdivisions. The AA11129 date from the 1992 deep sounding beneath the eastern third of Room 2 is somewhat surprising in that it suggests that there may have been an immediately pre-Urartian occupation in this area of Horom which presumably had been totally destroyed by the construction of the B Fortification Wall and the high-standing architecture

10

13

AT HOROM,

11

14

12

greywarevessels Fig. 6. Examplesof black,brownand greywaresfrom theB2 Complex.The distinctivepattern-burnished (nos. 13 and 14) from OperationB2.5 appearto berestrictedto a "LateUrartian"horizon.

10

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

HOROM1992- 93 AREA CI/B2 B2

3 ROOM

4 ROOM

5 ROOM WALL 8

IWALL9

FLOOR

FORTIFICATION

CI

WALL B

FLOOR DOORWAYS . i'

0 SECTION A - A

Fig. 7. SchematicSectionof C1/B2 showingheightsof EarlyBronzetomband Rooms3-5 of "EarlyUrartian"period. built against it; by itself, the archaeological evidence in the B2 area only demonstrates a much earlier Early Bronze occupation beneath the Urartian architecture (see above). The Second Millennium Occupation and the Early Bronze Occupations at Horom and Anushavan Operations and 11)

C3b/5 and E2: the Gate 6 area (Figs. 10

The initial 1990 sounding at Horom was placed just within and west of Gate 6 in the C Fortification Wall. No distinctive Urartian materials happened to be recovered from this sounding, and for this reason the fortifications on the North Hill were initially dated to the pre-Urartian Early Iron period (Badaljan et al. 1992: 37-41), a conclusion subsequently corrected after the more extensive 1992 campaign. Additional excavations on both sides of the C Wall and to the east and west of Gate 6 were conducted in 1992 (Badaljan et al. 1993: 4-5, 19-21), and these again confirmed the absence of of significant Urartian remains in this area-save, course, for the C Wall itself. The recovery of several painted Middle Bronze sherds, and a single, surprisingly early calibrated C14 date of 1887-1693 B.C. no. AA-7766) from the bottom (1 sigma-sample of the "Early Iron" level in the 1990 sounding sugin this area could have gested that occupation extended back even into the Middle Bronze period or the first half of the second millennium B.C.

Additional work in 1993 reinforces this impression. Work began in C5 which extended 2.5 m. west of the 1992 C3b trench and 4 m. to the north. C5 with C3b in order to ultimately was connected expose a sufficient area to understand the stratigraphic relationship of the diagonally running wall, initially discovered in 1990,8 with the C Fortification Wall. Since this diagonal Wall lb ran beneath the C Fortification Wall, a small 2 x 3 m. trench E2, which was later extended into a 4 x 5 m. sounding, was placed outside the C Wall to trace Wall lb's extension farther to the south-west. Excavations in C3a in1992 did not reach the level at which this wall would have appeared (n.b., the north-eastern continuation of Wall lb into the 1990 sounding is not shown in Fig. 10); nevertheless, a calibrated C14 determination from a surface-C3a, area G, locus 31 - apparently above the wall yielded a date of B.C. [at 1 sigma; sample AA-101931290-1050 BP (uncalibrated); or 1370-1010 B.C. 2975+/-55 calibrated at 2 sigma]. As currently exposed, Wall lb stretches from the northern section of the 1990 sounding across the connected trenches C3a and C5; it then runs under the C Fortification Wall into the trench E2, continuing into its southern section (Figs. 10 and 11 and Badaljan et al. 1992: pl. XIIa). Thus, this massive wall of uncertain function, which extends for at least 10 m. in this area of the North of the C Hill, clearly predates the construction Fortification Wall and presumably is earlier than the calibrated date from C3a; its orientation is

AREA DI

2M

HOROM1992-93

o0

O I ROOM DJ O

00....

CDC

,,..,

~

1641.41f

18 -642

74

EO

1641

1641.28

BASIN

s

BASIN HEARTH 641 26B

1641474

O 1641.7,16A2.13

6-FLOOR

ROOM 2

81E

SCOL BASE 16AI.51

I /16A

COL

76BASIN 1641 1. 58 16A I03 )6A 18 1641 COLoo BASE 1 16AI BASE I0 16

Fig. 8. OperationDI, Rooms1-3.

ROOM 3

12

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

102

3

4

5

Fig. 9. Dl Ceramics, tannish-brown incised nos. I and 2from Room 2 have only beenfound in this operation, also presumably of the "Late Urartian" period; no. 3 is a black painted on greyfragment.

roughly perpendicular to the wall found in 1992 in trench El further to the east which also extended beneath the C Wall. Although additional work is needed to confirm the stratigraphic relationship of these walls, a picture of a substantial earlier settlement in this area of the site, if not even an earlier was subsequently which fortification system, seems to be the Urartian construction, destroyed by coming into focus. During the C5 excavation it became clear that the topmost portion of Wall lb had been cut away by the foundation trench for the C Fortification Wall. As was first noted in 1990, Wall lb appears to have been built in at least two phases (Badaljan et al. 1992: 36-7, fig. 4), the upper phase being partially removed by the construction of the C Wall. Most of the surfaces encountered in C3b/5 and E2 were ephemeral, although one decent plastered surface was uncovered on both sides of Wall lb in C3b/5; and, as far as could be ascertained, this surface separated the two building phases of this same Urartian wares wall. As before, no diagnostic from in area. Ceramics this C3b/5 were appeared mixed: dominantly "Early Iron" local consistently grey wares and occasional Middle Bronze painted and impressed wares were associated with the later rebuild of Wall lb; and roughly equal amounts of unmistakeable, black-burnished Early Bronze KuraAraxes wares and the same type of "Early Iron" wares were associated with the initial construction of Wall lb (P1. IIIa and Fig. 12). Unmixed Early Bronze sherds were only found beneath Wall lb in C3b/5 at the end of the season. Besides ceramics, a stone head and a few stylized anthropomorphic horse bones were recovered from these presumably unmixed Early Bronze levels; the latter have been submitted for radiocarbon analysis. Bedrock was not reached in this operation.

The precise dating for the different phases of Wall lb is unclear, and some of the difficulty relates to the uncertainty of the "Early Iron" attribution for all the local grey ware forms. The continuity of the Bronze to Iron Age ceramic tradition on the Shirak plain may be underestimated by recourse to this terminology. It is true that most of the surfaces here are fleeting or ephemeral, and that there was considerable disturbance in this area associated with the construction of the Urartian fortifications. the architecture, C14 dates, and Nevertheless, ceramics from the different trenches in this area may suggest not so much that the materials are mixed, but that a substantial settlement in this part of the North Hill dates back to the first half of the second millennium B.C., overlying, in turn, a late Early Bronze occupation, dating to the middle or late third millennium B.C, as well as an earlier Early Bronze occupation. A stone cist burial appeared just beneath the surface in the south-eastern corner of trench E2; the burial contained the remains of a young juvenile contracted on its right side with its head oriented to the north-west (P1. IIIb). Two undecorated pots or lugged (Fig. 13), including a double-handled grey ware vessel resting on the pelvis, several glass beads (including one with an "evil eye" design), an iron bracelet worn on the skeleton's arm, and a hollow-based brown obsidian arrowhead were found in the burial. Although this burial was not sealed, it clearly postdated Wall ib, which extended across E2 to the west (Fig. 11). The cist burial clearly differed in its form both from the numerous stone-ringed "Early Iron" tombs or cromlechs located east and south of the Horom settlement (see below and Badaljan et al. 1993: 8-12) and from the collective Early Bronze tomb accidently found in trench C1 of the at the end 1992 season (Badaljan

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

13

ARMENIA

HOROM1992- 93 AREA C3/E2

C3

Wlb E2

S0

1

2M

AJ

Fig. 10. Operation C3b/5-E2, showing diagonal Wall lb running beneath C Fortification Wall and stone cist burial to the south-east.

14

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

et al. 1993: 4, pl. Ia). While one grave does not make a cemetery, this stone cist burial may reflect the presence of additional mortuary remains in this area of the site, all of which may date to a period substantially later than the construction of Wall ib; i.e., to a time that was immediately pre-Urartian or Urartian. Operation

C1

Nearly the entire 1992 C1 trench was excavated down to sterile soil at the beginning of the 1993 season in the hopes of encountering additional collective Early Bronze tombs similar to that excavated in 1992. None were found, though materials recovered throughout the trench beneath the surface on which the B Fortification Wall was built were almost exclusively identified as Early Bronze Kura-Araxes wares. As mentioned above, Early Bronze ceramics also were uncovered beneath the Urartian architecture in the B2 complex immediately to the west, suggesting that this area of the Horom settlement, like the C3b/5 and E2 area to the south, was occupied during the Early Bronze period. Two discrepant C14 dates were obtained from the Early Bronze tomb in CI: sample no. AA-10191 BP or taken from burnt human bone-4505+/-50 calibrated at 3350-3050 B.C. (1 sigma; or 3360-2930 B.C. at 2 sigma); and sample no. AA-11130 which was charcoal from the burnt surface of the tomb--

HOROM

5150 +/-60 BP or calibrated at 4070-3810 B.C. (1 sigma; or 4220-3800 B.C. at 2 sigma). A late fourth millennium B.C. date for the typologically early forms of the three Kura-Araxes vessels from this tomb (P1. IIIc) is reasonable, particularly given the revised downdating for the beginnings of this "culture" (see Glumac and Anthony 1992: 203; Kavtaradze 1983); the discrepant, earlier date of the late fifth to early foutth millennium B.C. is problematic. Some of the Early Bronze ceramics recovered from the B2/C1 area, as well as many from the C3b/5 area (Fig. 14), exhibit incisions and surface decorations; they are considered typologically late and should indicate a much later mid to late third millennium Early Bronze occupation of the settlement as well. While more evidence of the Early Bronze period at Horom needs to be uncovered, particularly from undisturbed levels in different areas of the settlement, it is possible that the site may have been occupied continuously from the late fourth millennium B.C. onwards, the major difficulty, of course, being that the Iron Age levels either overlie and/or have strata containing the Early partially destroyed Bronze materials. It remains the case, however, that Early Bronze remains have been encountered beneath the Iron levels in all the operations at Horom, except for the excavations on the summit

E2/C3 AREA

1992-93

E2

STUDIES

--

-

C3

----

FORTIFICATION WALL C

REBUILD O

TOMB WALL lb

SECTION A -A

O Fig. 11. SchematicsectionthroughOperationC3b/5-E2.

1

2M

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

4

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

ARMENIA

6

5

9

7

8 10

11

12

16

17

20

14

13

18

15

19

21

22 23

24

25

2627

I I I I 12. "EarlyIron,"paintedMiddleBronze,and EarlyBronzeMixed GreyWareceramicsfrom OperationC3b/5 (number15Fig. wares). pattern burnished,numbers24-7 black-on-red

15

16

JOURNAL

1

OF PERSIAN

2_

STUDIES

-

_

C),

0

Fig. 13. Two lightgreypotsfrom E2 burial. of the South Hill, and this suggests that the occupation may have been fairly substantial, larger possibly than other known Kura-Araxes settlements, such as Karnut, on the Shirak Plain and, more generally, within highland Transcaucasia. The Early Bronze Settlement

at Anushavan

the Early Due to the difficulty of exposing Bronze settlement at Horom, a 6 x 6 m. sounding was opened near the end of the season at the neighboring site of Anushavan, which is located to the east of Horom immediately north of the town of Artik. Characteristic Kura-Araxes ceramics, serrated flint sickles, and andiron/hearth fragments picked surface reconnaissance initially in up during summer 1990 had indicated that an Early Bronze settlement once occupied a few hectares on the southern slope of a natural hill south-east of the modern Anushavan village and a later small Hellenistic site. More surface Early Bronze remains were retrieved by walking over the site in 1993, including a double spiral-headed copper or bronze toggle pin. The sounding was placed on the second of its three terraces. The cultural deposit was very shallow and filled with loose rocks. Nevertheless, a two course wide stone wall ran north-south across the trench, and a stone cist burial (Feature 2), reminiscent in form to the burial in E2, and containing the remains of an infant, had been placed immediately east of this wall (Fig. 15); the burial could not be dated since only one Early Bronze sherd was found beneath the skeleton, and it was unclear whether it related to the burial or to the underlying Early Bronze cultural level. Given the shallowness of the deposit, Anushavan may not prove to be the appropriate site to obtain more extensive exposure of Early Bronze remains in the Horom region, though a future sounding in a different area of the site is no doubt warranted.

THE SOUTH HILL EXCAVATIONS Two operations were conducted on the South Hill of the Horom settlement in 1993: 1) M7, which began as a 5 x 5 m. trench placed immediately northwest of the 1992 M1/6 "horizontal exposure" on the eastern summit of the South Hill (Badaljan et al. 1993: 4-6, fig. 3) and which was expanded several times to the north, south, and west as more architecture of this complex was uncovered, yielding by summer's end a total excavated area together with M1/6 of 26.5 m. (E/W) x 17 m. (N/S); and 2) M8, an 8 x 2.5 m. wide trench which was placed farther to the southwest near the bottom of the southern slope of the South Hill within what appeared to be a room in order to determine whether or not this occupation, which was beyond the fortification walls of the South Hill, was contemporaneous with the M1/7 complex on the summit or later in date. The M8 room was paved with flagstones, similar to those in the M1/7 area and in the D1 complex on the North Hill, but its walls were only preserved to a height of a single course; ceramics recovered from M8 were identical with those on the top of the South Hill, a circumstance which suggests that the occupations were, in fact, contemporaneous. Operation M1/7: The Architectural Complex on the Eastern Summit of the South Hill (Fig. 16) A large area of interconnected architecture x 17 m. has been 26.5 (c. m.) exposed on the eastern summit of the South Hill (Fig. 16). This complex now appears to continue even farther to the west, possibly extending all the way to what appears to be the main entrance through the southern fortification walls of the South Hill. The extensive flagstone flooring and lack of evidence for roofing uncovered during the 1992 M1 excavations implied that this complex may have been an open-air forum, and the presence of numerous hollowed-out

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

7

1

2

8

AsI

3

/k/

~t

4I

,oo

10

0000

0%"

-D.

11

Fig. 14. Incised Early Bronze Grey Waresfrom Operation C3b.

ARMENIA

17

18

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

stone pits or "basins" often in association with stone "tethering rings" chiselled out of adjacent rocks suggested that the complex may have been the scene of non-utilitarian, cultic activities, possibly including the sacrifice of animals (Badaljan et al. 1993: 5-6). The 1992 excavations uncovered four distinct areas within the part of the complex that was exposed; to and at least two more related areas-connected the area of the M1 excavations by a narrow corridor -were revealed in 1993. The cultural deposit on the South Hill is rela1 m. in depth. tively shallow, rarely exceeding Clearly only a single period of architecture is preserved on the top of the South Hill, though four separate loci were distinguished while clearing to the flagstone and packed clay floor of the architecture: 1) a c. 30-5 cm. deep topsoil level containing generally elaborate "Early Iron" grey wares with handles, spouts, and burnished designs; 2) a relasoil tively sterile deposit of loose homogeneous extending c. 30-70 cm. beneath the surface; 3) a culturally rich, dense mixture of clay, ash, and charcoal at a depth of c. 70-85 cm. directly above the flagstone floor; and 4) the flagstone and hard packed clay floor on which the walls and other features of the architectural complex were erected. This floor was occasionally cut through by pits which also seem to be associated with the architecture. Thus, even though it may prove possible to trace a development of the local grey wares from relatively undecorated to more elaborate forms on the South Hill, there is really evidence for only a single period of occupation. Two main walls were excavated in M7 during the 1993 season: a slightly curved eastern wall (Feature 1) which was 1 course thick and 4-5 courses high (max. height of 1.2 m.) (Pl. IIId); and a second wall (Feature 4) composed of large stones (up to 80 cm. wide) to its west, which was 2 courses wide but only 1 course high. It was initially thought that this more massive western wall might define the western limits of the entire interconnected complex, but a series of features, such as stone basins set directly into its western face, suggest that the complex continues still farther west beyond the limits of the 1993 excavations. Several features were found in the room defined by these two walls, including more pits and stone basins. One large basin, Feature 3 (P1. IIId), is particularly noteworthy. It was carved from a large triangular-shaped bedrock stone and has a diameter of c. 28 cm. Channels were cut into the bowl of the basin for drainage and a small lip or depressed spout also was carved into it presumably to facilitate the pouring of liquids. The channels drain into a large pit (Feature 5) set immediately to its west. A surprising number of finely-made bone artefacts (P1. IIIe) were recovered from this room, including

STUDIES

two points which were found within a small rectangular installation (Feature 13-165 cm. N/S x 70 cm. E/W) of vertically set stones south of the large basin together with a cache of forty-five ankle (astragali) and fifty-six metatarsal bones of cattle (c. 80 per cent) and red deer (c. 20 per cent), some of which had been perforated. The purpose of this installation is unclear, though the combination of features again suggests something other than simple domestic utilisation (the casting of lots, ritual divination, or the like?). Three additional basins were set into the western face of the large western wall (Feature 4) in association with a stone-lined hearth or area of burning (Feature 15).

ANUSHAVAN 1993 2M

0

_F3 F2

Fig. 15. Walland featuresfrom thesounding at theEarlyBronze site of Anushavan; notestone cist burial (F2).

BASINS

952

aa

16Q

O)108 on

1

41669 o

?)

67 0TETHERING

1669 43

00

A

HORO A

Fig. 16. M1/M7 Interconnected architecturalcomplex;stonerectangularinstallationin thesouth-westcontainedbonepoints and cacheof cattleand re metatarsalbones.

20

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

and associated features The architectural artefacts from the interconnected complex on the eastern summit of the South Hill are difficult to interpret. Present evidence neither confirms nor negates the hypothesis that animals may have been ritually sacrificed in this complex. Several of the bone artefacts found in Feature 13 and within the room defined by Features 1 and 4 show no evidence of use, possibly suggesting that they were fashioned within the complex. A large, worked red deer antler found south of Feature 13 also supports this interpretation. The proximity of several basins with one another, such as the three set in the western face of Feature 4, makes it difficult to conceive that all functioned as receptacles for animal sacrifice. For these, a more prosaic, industrial function may ultiThe complex mately seem more reasonable. remains enigmatic, and only additional clearing, possibly of the entire summit, may elucidate it. Tombs East of the Horom Settlement Numerous walls and surface features are spread across several hundred hectares to the east and south of the two citadel hills which define the Horom settlement. Most noteworthy and unequivocally prehistoric are circular rings of stones or cromlechs clustered in groups to the east and particularly south of the settlement. Two of these "Early Iron" tombs (labelled T1 and T2) were excavated in 1992 (Badaljan et al. 1993: 8-12), and four structures( T3-T6), thought to be tombs, were dug in 1993. For the purpose of defining chronological or social variety in the contents of these tombs, it was decided to sample structures from different clusters of tombs or different areas of the site. T4, which was defined by a circular ring of stones on the eastern ridge of the northern slope of the South Hill, proved to be natural and yielded no skeletal or material remains. T5, which appeared as a deliberately raised pile of stones and not a ringed circle, was located a few hundred meters to the northwest of T1 and T2. It was hoped that this structure might prove to be a kurgan, possibly earlier in date than the ubiquitous Iron Age cromlechs. Fragmentary human bones and potsherds were found in a pit beneath the pile of stones in T5, confirming indeed that it was a burial. These remains, however, were so in antisparse and badly disturbed-presumably quity, that they could not be dated. T3, a typically shaped cromlech defined by a ring of stones c. 6 m. in diameter, proved more informative, though its central burial pit had also been robbed in antiquity. T3 was located in a cluster of recognisable cromlechs west of T1 and T2 (i.e., closer to the South Hill) on the eastern slope of a small natural ridge. A large red basalt capstone had

STUDIES

been placed in the centre of the ring of the stones covering the central burial pit. After removing the surface vegetation and defining the ring of stones, two subsidiary rings of stones covered by smaller to the east (Feature A) and south capstones (Feature B) of the central burial pit became evident; Tomb 1, excavated in 1992, also had such an auxiliary ring of stones to its southeast (Badaljan et al. 1993: fig. 7) where it marked the presence of an additional pit containing ceramic vessels. The central capstone was split, and upon excavation it was immediately apparent that the central pit had been robbed; a few disarticulated human bones emerged, including part of the skull near the western edge of the pit. Parts of three vessels were recovered from the central pit along with nearlyl00 small beads, made primarily of carnelian, frit, and shell. Feature A contained six vessels, three of which were whole, and Feature B the partial remains of two additional vessels. Typologically, the vessels were similar to those found in T1 and T2 and presumably date to the late second or early first millennium B.C.; i.e., to the "Early Iron", pre-Urartian period (Fig. 17: 1-5). T6 was defined by a an oval ring of stones (c. 4.9 m. N/S x c. 5.5 m. E/W) clustered together with other stone-ringed cromlechs to the west of T3 on the eastern slope of the last ridge of hills separating this area of the Horom site from the South Hill. Three stones covered the central pit, two of which were removed. T6 was a cenotaph containing no skeletal remains but three vessels, two of which were complete (Fig. 17: 6-8), were recovered. The larger burnished dark grey complete vessel (Fig. 17:8) had a fragment of obsidian set in its base, a trait sometimes found on Middle to Late Bronze vessels in this vessel and the Transcaucasia; morphologically second complete vessel from T6 seemed earlier than the vessels recovered from other tombs at Horom, suggesting that this cenotaph (and others on this ridge of hills?) possibly date to the mid to late second millennium B.C. Faunal Remains from Horom Faunal remains from Horom are numerous and extremely well-preserved. Nearly 6000 animal bones from the 1992 and 1993 seasons were identified by Dr. Saindor Bokonyi. Eight domestic (cattle, sheep, goat, pig, horse, ass, dog, and chicken) and sixteen wild (red deer, roe deer, aurochs, Asiatic moufflon sheep, bezoar goat, wild boar, onager, badger, gazelle, red fox, hyena, brown bear, wolf, two wild birds, and one type of fish) species were represented in the Horom materials. 92.4 per cent of the identifiable remains were of domestic animals. The Shirak plain today is dominantly a cattle-breeding region, and this type of animal husbandry clearly

REPORT

PRELIMINARY

ON THE

1993

characterised the Bronze and Iron Ages as well; cattle constituted c. 63 per cent of the identifiable domestic forms. Caprovines were far less frequent (c. 26.5 per cent), and these were followed, somewhat surprisingly, by horse (6.7 per cent) and then pig (1.6 per cent). Red deer were by far the most numerous wild species, constituting at least 60 per cent of the hunted animals, followed by aurochs. The natural habitat for most of the wild animals is forest or forest-steppe. The large body and antler sizes of the red deer also suggest that these animals lived under favorable environmental conditions; which in dense woods grew probably specifically, throughout the plain at that time. It is noteworthy that the wild relatives of the domestic species whose 1

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

ARMENIA

21

origins go back to the Neolithic (namely, cattle, sheep, goat, pig, and dog) were indigenous to the region and still lived in the area during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Horse, however, would have to have been brought into highland Transcaucasia from elsewhere, most probably from the Eurasian steppes to the north, though it is not yet known when this momentous introduction first took place. As mentioned above, domesticated horse bones from "unmixed" Early Bronze levels in operation C3b/5 have been submitted for C14 determination, and their analysis will, hopefully, demonstrate the early presence of horses in the area. Dr. B6k6nyi also observed that some of the cattle horn cores showed a circular impression near the base, such as could

2

3

6

5

_8

Fig. 17. Ceramicvesselsfrom HoromTombsT3 (nos. 1-5) and T76(nos. 6-8); vesselno. 8 had an obsidianflake set in its base.

22

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

have been caused by the pressure of a yoke, a circumstance that would point to the use of draught oxen. The Horom Digital Mapping Project In summer 1993 a mapping project was initiated which began to incorporate detailed architectural drawings of the excavated areas and the visible surface architecture into a digitised map of the site compiled through the use of the AutoCAD pro-

STUDIES

gram. All the excavation units, including the extensive stepped fortifications uncovered in Operation A2/3 on the summit of the North Hill, were located on the base map and digitised as well. The aerial images will now be used to check and further refine the digitised model of the base map. We are now able to view the site and its architecture three dimensionally along several different, spatially significant scales of resolution. Work on this mapping project will continue in future seasons.

APPENDIX A: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN SOUTHERN GEORGIA 1993 By Barbara Isaac, Zaal Kikodze, Philip L. Kohl, Giorgi Mindiashvili, Alexander Ordzhonikidze, and Greg White PALAEOLITHIC INVESTIGATIONS Three weeks were spent studying Palaeolithic and Plio-Pleistocene deposits in the field and State in the Georgian materials Palaeolithic localities Museum in Tbilisi. Four Plio-Pleistocene were surveyed: the Tsalka Basin; the Lake Paravani Plateau-Diliska Basin; the Paravani (Djavakheti) was established Plateau. It Persati and the Gorge; that sediments and volcanic rocks along the Diliska Gorge and under the Paravani Plateau offer ideal contexts for Plio-Pleistocene archaeological surveys. Mulitple extrusive rocks provide excellent dating potentials, while minor pyroclastic deposits should enhance correlation of fluvial and lacustrine facies. Sedimentary environments include floodplain and lacustrine littoral settings that would have been suitable for prehistoric occupations. Bone preservation is excellent, as may be that of plant macrofauna as well. Steep canyon and quarry exposures make exploration of these thick deposits feasible with minimal manual excavation of trenches. Abundant lithic artefacts were found on the Persati Plateau in and on fluvial-colluvial clays in this small elevated montane basin. Faunal materials probably are not preserved here, but this site of record an important to contain appears Acheulean technology, typology, and raw material transport. Geologically, areas with intact spatial patterning are quite possible. Trenching will be necessary to define the full character of the artefact assemblages and their geological context. Two caves were visited farther north in the area of Sachkere (Imeretia): Dzudzuana; and Ortvala. This area is strikingly similar to the Dordogne region of France and is characterised by extensive karstic activity within an uplifted Palaeozoic lime-

stone plateau. Incision of the plateau has exposed numerous caves and rockshelters. The Dzudzuana cave had only c.10 per cent of its fill removed by previous excavations. Sufficient exposures revealed the presence of Neolithic/Early Bronze materials that of the Palaeolithic. overlying Upper Interestingly, and for reasons which need to be clarified more extensive excavations, through no Middle Palaeolithic layers have yet been found. The Ortvala rockshelter is filled by sediments remarkably similar to the eboulis rich deposits which from French rockshelters. typify the sediments These are highly calcareous loams rich in angular limestone debris derived from the walls and roof. Most of the iboulis is intercalated with zones of fine, sediments dusty, and crumbly matrix-supported some hearths and ashes. The so-called containing "transitional" industry situated between the Upper and Middle Palaeolithic layers may be particularly important. Although it has been suggested that there is an unconformity between these industrial complexes, no evidence (e.g., soil or weathering) of such a break was observed in the field. Further exploration of both these caves should be highly informative, as should continued investigations of the earlier Plio-Pleistocene deposits further to the south. Both the Georgian State University and the Georgian State Museum have extended invitations for such collaborative field investigations, and these have been gladly accepted. BRONZE AND IRON AGE INVESTIGATIONS Short

field seasons were conducted on the of southern in 1990 Plateau, Djavakheti Georgia and 1991 (Kohl et al. 1992), a relatively level upland

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

stretching c. 40-50 km. west to east and km. north to south. The border between Georgia and Armenia represents the watershed between the tributaries of the Araxes river flowing south into Armenia and the Kura and its tributaries, particularly the deeply downcutting Paravani river, flowing north into Georgia. While the Plateau slopes northeast to southwest, its average elevation (c. 1800 m.a.s.l.) is higher than that of the Shirak Plain, and its climate accordingly is more severe and suitable for the pasturing of sheep and goats than for cereal growing and the herding of cattle, the dominant practises today and apparently during later prehistoric times on the Shirak Plain. The Djavakheti Plateau is surrounded by high mountain ranges, the most notable of which is the metalliferous Trialeti Range to its north. To date, the later prehistoric investigations in southern Georgia have concentrated on two sites: Satkhe, a site covering at least 7 ha. on the eastern edge of the Plateau; and Amagleba,9 a site near its northern boundary immediately south of the Trialeti Range. area 30-5

Early Bronze Excavations at Satkhe The site is located on a small hill above the contemporary village of Satkhe, c. 8 km. northeast of the regional center of Nino Tsminda (formerly Bogdanovka), near the confluence of the Paravani River and a small stream which runs through the village. The site was initially defined by a c. 4 m. thick wall formed by two rows of boulders (generally preserved to a height of only one course) separated by rubble infill. This wall follows the natural contour of the hill, securing a c. 6 ha. horshoe-shaped concave depression that forms the hill's summit. Early Bronze sherds were collected from within this fortified area and to the south and west beneath the contemporary village. In 1991 a late Early Bronze vaulted stone kurgan, which had been plundered in antiquity, was excavated in a field immediately to the north of the fortification wall, but two small exploratory soundings within the fortified area revealed the presence of Hellenistic and Medieval in addition to the dominant Early occupations The 1993 excavations were Bronze settlement: the extent and directed towards: 1) determining preservation of Early Bronze remains both within the fortified area (Operation Al) and on a sloping terrace at the foot of the hill beneath the fortifications to the southeast where a villager had unof decorated Early covered a dense concentration Bronze pots and storage jars at the end of the 1991 season (Operation Bi); 2) dating the wall by digging against its inner face and sectioning it A2 and A3); and excavating what (Operations appeared to be another small kurgan located on

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

ARMENIA

23

the remains of an early agricultural terrace immediately east of the fortified hill (Operation C1). This last excavation determined that this raised mound of stones had simply been collected by villagers in the course of agricultural work and was not a prehistoric kurgan that would help to date the extensive terracing east of the settlement. A 10 x 10 m. exposure (Al) was opened immediately to the northeast of where a large Kura-Araxes vessel, set on a plastered surface,10 had been recovered in 1991. Only Kura-Araxes materials were recovered from Al, although the cultural deposit which lay almost immediately beneath the surface was not well-preserved. Single courses of dry stone were structures walls, delineating rectangular revealed, and one such structure had been erected over an earlier structure, suggesting the presence of at least two distinct Early Bronze building phases in this area of the settlement. The black and brown burnished ceramics included a few incised decorated fragments, similar to those from Operations C1 anc C3b/5-E2 at Horom and other well-known Kura-Araxes sites, such as Shengavit, Mokhra Blur, and Kvatskhelebi, suggesting a date in the first half of the third millennium B.C. Unfortunately, the shallowness of the deposit and later cultural activities in this area, including its contemporary cultivation by villagers, meant that the Early Bronze remains here were badly disturbed and unlikely to yield additional significant information. Operations A2 and A3 were both small soundings set against and through the fortification wall for the purpose of determining the wall's date (Fig. 18). A2, which was located near the northeastern corner of the wall next to an internal feature or tower, contained a shallow Early Bronze deposit directly beneath the surface which continued partially underneath the wall, suggesting that at least in this part of the site an Early Bronze occupation predated the construction of the wall. A3 sectioned a 1 m. wide cut through the wall at a place where excavations in 1991 had revealed a dense concentration of Early Bronze artefacts underlying Medieval constructions against its inner face. A few unidentifiable, presumably Medieval sherds were recovered from the rubble fill of this trench, and the wall itself rested on bedrock (i.e., the Early Bronze deposit did not continue here beneath the wall). Thus, the results of these operations were It is possible that the wall initially inconclusive. could have been constructed during Early Bronze times, but it is equally, if not more, likely that it dates to a much later period, an interpretation its primitive form and which leaves unexplained of state preservation. poor Operation Bi, which began as a 10 x 10 m. trench, yielded a complex of Early Bronze domes-

24

JOURNAL.

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

SATKHE 1993 TRENCHES A2 AND A3

A3

PLAN 0

1

VIRGIN SOIL A3 SECTION E-W

A3 SECTION N-S

BEDROCK

EBA 7/71/71

,r

,7/7-1,7;-77/

-/77"/

VIRGIN SOIL

SECTION E- W

A2

2I

I A2

PLAN

Fig. 18. Satkhe Soundings A2 and A3 against and through fortification wall of uncertain date.

2M

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

1993

EXCAVATIONS

AT HOROM,

25

ARMENIA

ROOM D

B

MROOM

o

E

ROOM C

2ID

ROOM D

E

B.

PITHOS ROOMA

A-A PIT E.B.

B- B

ROOM D

SATKHE 1993

ROOM B

AREA BI 0

Fig. 19. Satkhe, Uperation •l-Early

Bronze domestic archztectural complex.

1

2M

26

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

tic, rectangular or sub-rectangular structures (Fig. 19). Although found directly beneath the surface, these rooms had been covered by a deposit of wash eroding from the hill and were less disturbed than those from Al. The rooms had well-defined floors preserved to a depth of nearly 2 m. A large, nearly complete black-burnished cooking vessel or storage jar was found on the floor near the northwestern corner of Room D; behind this several Kura-Araxes vessels and deer antlers had been placed (P1. IlIf). This evidence and other Early Bronze materials recovered from this excavation suggests that the rooms of this complex had been left while still containing usable items and that the site may have been suddenly abandoned, a feature also suggested for other Kura-Araxes settlements, such as Karnut on the Shirak Plain. There was also evidence of a Mediaeval midden deposit above Room C to the east, and today this terraced area of Early Bronze structures is being encroached upon and further disturbed by the expansion of the village. Some of the faunal materials from Satkhe were analysed by Dr. B6k6nyi, and these suggested that the Early Bronze inhabitants of Djavakheti practiced a different form of animal husbandry from to the south on the that of their contemporaries Shirak Plain. Specifically, ovicaprine remains slightthose of cattle, implying a far ly outnumbered greater reliance on sheep and goats on the higher Djavakheti Plateau. Horse bones (Equus caballus) also were recovered, as were remains of aurochs and red deer, although the wild animals were not as relatively numerous as at Horom, possibly suggesting that Djavakheti was not as densely wooded as Shirak. The Sounding at Amagleba The site of Amagleba sits on the northern edge of the Djavakheti plateau c. 25 km. north of Akhalkalaki, immediately to the southwest of Lake Tabatskuri, at the point where the Plateau first widens after descent from the Trialeti Range to the north. The latter contains rich metal deposits which are known to have been worked in late prehistoric times, and it is possible that Amagleba could have functioned as a transit station and/or production center for a trade in metals to the south. The site itself consists of a thin cultural deposit on the summit of a cone-shaped hill that rises c. 70 m. above the plain at a height of nearly 1900 m.a.s.1. and a thicker Bronze and Iron Age deposit with visible walling and possible fortifications spreading out from the southern base of this hill. A 3 x 3.5 m sounding was opened next to some of the visible architecture at the hill's base at the end of the 1993 season (Fig. 20). This sounding un-

STUDIES

covered the following stratigraphic sequence. The first 15 cm. were mixed, containing Medieval, Early Iron, and Early Bronze materials, and this mixture continued for another 55 cm., containing the foundation for a wall of undetermined Iron Age or Medieval date. Below this, a white surface was exposed containing Early Iron materials followed by several levels of undisturbed Early Bronze KuraAraxes deposit until bedrock was reached at 2.1 m. beneath the surface. The bottom of an Early Bronze stone wall was encountered at a depth of 1.3 m. and two additional Kura-Araxes living surfaces were exposed at 1.6 and 1.8 m. respectively. The Early Bronze materials included brown and black burnished wares, two of which were decorated with spiral volutes and incised triangles, a portable hearth or andiron fragments, a tanged brown obsidian arrowhead, and characteristic serrated red chert blades. A large and nearly 10 cm. long tanged stone spearhead was collected from the site's surface. Ceramic parallels again can be made to Mokhra Blur and Kvatskhelebi, as well as to the neighboring Early Bronze site of Amiranis Gora near Akhaltsikhe to the west. Faunal remains from the sounding were well-preserved. The single limited sounding at Amagleba essenfrom tially confirms what could be reconstructed the site's surface materials and reflects the basic known settlement pattern documented in highland Transcaucasia: a relatively thick and presumably long-lived Early Bronze occupation followed by a period of uncertain abandonment, beginning probably in the late third or early second millennium B.C., and then a reoccupation in the Late Bronze or Early Iron periods towards the end of the second millennium. The results suggest that the preservation of Early Bronze materials from Amagleba may be better than at Satkhe and Anushavan and much easier to recover than at Horom. On the basis of its location, the upper "Early Iron" levels at Amagleba may ultimately prove important for documenting a late second/early first millennium B.C. metals trade to the south when metallurgy in the Caucasus was a spectacular period of florescence experiencing and included the mass production of "Colchidean" tools and weapons (or "Koban") tin-bronze 1992: more extenAdditional, 275-95). (Chernykh sive excavations at Amagleba are clearly warranted and are indeed planned for the future.

CONCLUSION Limited investigations are scheduled for 1994. Already excavated materials from Horom will be studied and prepared for publication, possibly in conjunction with minor work on the site, involving

V

A

IV -

IV-

VI

+

TOPSOIL

\

4

STERILE SOIL

LIGHTBROWN

BROWN OF

CARBON

SOFTCHALKY

BROWN

PACKED REDDISH

BROWN PACKED

BRWNIV-

PACKED LIGHT M BROWN

FTTFF

I

V TRACES

I - EB-A FLOOR II- EB-A FLOOR

B

III- CULTURALBREAK BAND OF SOFT ORANGE-BROWN SOIL

2M

A

V- BAND OF WHITE SOIL, POSSIBLE BREAK BETWEEN EB-A AND LB- A

1

DEPOSIT VI-ENDOFCULTURAL

0

from initial sounding at Amagleba,northof Akhalkalakion thenorthernperiphery Fig. 20. Sectionand architecture of theDjavakhetiPlateau.

28

JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

the completion of already initiated operations, such as those in the B1 North-West Gate area. We also hope to extend the coverage of our project in the Caucasus far to the northeast by opening a small test trench at the site of Velikent 2 on the Caspian littoral plain north of Derbent in Daghestan, Russia;

this exploratory work will be conducted with archaeologists from the Daghestan Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences. IPARC will then resume its various investigations on a more extensive scale in 1995.

Bibliography

Kress Foundation in New York and from the Centre for Field Research (Earthwatch) and the Azadoutioun Foundation (Carolyn G. Mugar) in the Boston area. Support also was received from the Stahl Fund of the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Arizona, and Wellesley College. 2 Barbara Isaac, Assistant Director, Peabody Museum, Harvard University was supported by a grant from the Mary Leakey Foundation to continue her Palaeolithic investigations in southern Georgia in collaboration with Dr. Zaal Kikodze of the Georgian State University in Tbilisi. In addition to Ms. Isaac, Prof. O. Bar-Yosef, Dept. of Anthropology, Harvard University, Dr. Paul Goldberg, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, Prof. Reid Ferring, University of North Texas, and Dr. Anna Belfer Cohen, Dept. of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Israel visited Palaeolithic sites and studied the Pleistocene geology of southern Georgia. Dr. Bejan Tutberidze of the Georgian State University, Dr. Mehrab Tvalcrelidze, Institute of Geology, and Dr. Tengis Mechvelia, Georgian State Museum also took part in these Palaeolithic investigations. Future Palaeolithic work in Georgia will be supported both by the Georgian State University and the Georgian State Museum. Mr. Greg White, Ms. Nahrein Daniel, and Ms. Bevin Etheridge participated in the later prehistoric IPARC excavations at the sites of Satkhe and Amagleba. This latter work was also sponsored by the Georgian State University and by the Centre for Archaeological Investigations of the Georgian Academy of Sciences in Tbilisi. Drs. (;iorgi Mindiashvili and A. Ordzhonikidze from the Centre led a Georgian team of students from the State University to excavate Satkhe and Amagleba, and Mr. Levan Kalandarishvili was the architect/draftsperson for these excavations. :'The Air Force of the Republic of Armenia kindly allowed us to fly in one of their helicopters around the North and South Hills of the Horom settlement. Indeed this same area may have also begun to provide evidence for an Intermediate Phase of construction. In this context it is still necessary to continue our excavation of a particular wall, Wall 8, which is not yet definitely associated with either the first, or the last, phase of local construction. 'The extent to which walls other than ground floor walls were also made of stone is not, of course, known. To judge from B1 NorthWest Gate area, the B Fortification Wall's four m. high stone socle was capped by mud-brick (Badaljan et al. 1993: pl. IIb). "Note, however, that the 'jog" in the north face of Wall 4 begins at a point that is 2.70 m., not 3.70 m. (for which see Badaljan et al. 1993: fig. 13), from the inner face of the B Fortification Wall. 7 Cf. C. F. A. Schaeffer, Stratigraphiecompareeet chronologiede l'Asie occidentale,III et II millenaires,London, 1948, figs. 273, 274, 282, and 283. Compare also the stone mold for producing such bronze arrowheads which was found in the Early Iron settlement at the site of Dvin on the Ararat plain to the south (K. Kh. Kushnareva, DrevneishiePamyatnikiDvina, Yerevan, 1977, p. 31,

Badaljan, R. S., Edens, C., Kohl, P. L. and Tonikjan, A. V. 1992 "Archaeological Investigations at Horom in the Shirak Plain of Northwestern Armenia, 1990," Iran, XXX, pp. 31-48. Badaljan, R. S., Edens, C., Gorny, R., Kohl, P. L., Stronach, D., Tonikjan, A. V., Hamayakjan, S., Mandrikjan, S., and Zardarjan, M. 1993. "Preliminary Report on the 1992 Excavations at Horom, Armenia," Iran, XXXI, pp. 1-24. Burney, C. A. 1966 "AFirst Season of Excavations at the Urartian Citadel of Kayalidere,"AS 16, pp. 55-111. Chernykh, E. N. 1992. Ancient Metallurgyin the USSR: The Early MetalAge. Cambridge. Glumac, P. and Anthony, D. 1992. "Culture and Environment in the Prehistoric Caucasus: The Neolithic through the Early Bronze Age," in RelativeChronologiesin Old WorldArchaeology,ed. R. W. Ehrich, 3rd ed., Chicago, pp. 196-206. Kavtaradze, G. 1983. K khronologiiepokhi eneolita i bronzi Gruzii. Tbilisi, Metsniereva. Kleiss, W. et al. 1979. Bastam I. Ausgrabungen in den Urartiischen Anlagen 1972-5, Teheraner Forschungen IV, Berlin. Kohl, P. L., Edens, C., Pearce, J. and Carson, E. A. 1992. "International Program for Anthropological Research in the Caucasus: Field Seasons 1990 and 1991," Bulletin of the Asia Institute,NS 6, pp. 143-50. 'Participants in the 1993 field season at Horom on the American side included the following students: Laura Tedesco from New York University; Kim Codella, Eleanor Barbanes, Sanjyot Mehendale, and Nahrain Daniel from the University of California, Berkeley; Adam Smith, Amy Tucker, and Doug Gann from the University of Arizona, Tucson; Armine Ishkanian from the University of California, San Diego; Greg White from Cambridge University in England; and Bevin Etheridge from Wellesley College. Mr. Gann, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Codella were also responsible for the digital mapping project described in this report. Dr. Karen Rubinson, Research Associate of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania directed the 1993 excavations of the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age cemetery at Horom. Dr. Sdindor B6konyi, Director of the Institute of Archaeology in Budapest, Hungary, analysed the faunal remains, and Christopher Rasmussen from Berkeley, California was the excavation photographer. The help of all the above is gratefully acknowledged. Ms. Eleanor Barbanes was responsible for drafting the architectural plans and assembling all the line drawings for this article; her invaluable assistance must be especially mentioned. The original ceramic drawings were prepared in the field by Ms. Anna Dokhikjan. The Armenian participants included the following archaeologists from the Institute of Archaeology in Yerevan: Simone Hamayakjan, Sergei Mandrikjan, and Mrktich Zardarjan. We also wish to acknowledge the invaluable support of the Institute's Director, Dr. Aram Kalantarjan. The 1993 season could not have been conducted without the logistical and organisational assistance rendered by Vladmir Kostandjan and Ruben Tonikjan of the Shirak Foundation. Both the Institute of Archaeology in Yerevan and the private Shirak Foundation supported the excavations at Horom. The American work was sponsored by a matching grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (RO-2252392), and additional support was received from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the Samuel H.

fig. 45).

"This wall, here called Wall 1b, was referred to as Feature 5 in the report of the 1992 excavations (Badaljan et al. 1993: 20). "This site was incorrectly referred to as Amareleba in the 1992 report. "'A charcoal sample was obtained from beneath the vessel lying on this surface. It yielded a radiocarbon date of 4380 +/- 45 BP (AA-No. 7768) or 3090-2921 3293-2912 B.C. at 2 sigma).

B.C. calibrated

(at 1 sigma; or

29

JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

Addendum The following 17 radiobarbon determinations of samples taken during the 1993 excavations were received from the AMS Facility at the University of Arizona after this article was prepared for publication: Provenience Calibrated age BC C14 age (BP) I.D number 1 sigma, 2 sigma Satkhe B1, loc. 10 AA-12853 3343-3043, 3365-2925 4500+/-60 Satkhe B1, loc. 2, pit sq, Room A Horom C3b/5 loc. 11 lev. II - horse bone

4445+/-60

3301-2926, 3345-2914

3035+/-55

1387-1204, 1413-1117

AA-12856

Horom C3b/5 loc. 6

3285+/-55

1620-1511, 1682-1425

AA-12857

Horom C3b/5 loc. 9

3190+/-55

1515-1407, 1591-1319

AA-12858

Horom M7, loc. 12, fea. 15, burned bone

3045+/-75

1401-1139, 1440-1038

AA-12859

Horom M7, C, loc. 6 fea. 6

3145+/-55

1444-1324, 1517-1265

AA-12860

Horom B2.4, loc. 10

2850+/-55

1110-918, 1190-847

AA-12861

Horom B2.4, loc. 16, surf. C

2485+/-50

770-423, 794-403

AA-12862

2480+/-55

770-416, 795-401

AA-12863

Horom B2.4, surf. A2 (so. baulk ext.) Horom B2.4, fea. 7

2540+/-55

796-543, 808-419

AA-12864

Horom B2.4, loc. 17

3285+/-55

1620-1511, 1682-1511

AA-12865

Horom B2.4, loc. 6 fea. 4

2410+/-55

752-398, 767-384

AA-12854 AA-12855

AA-12866

Horom B2.3, loc. 6

2570+/-55

802-605, 819-525

AA-12867

Horom B2.5, loc. 4 burnt bone

2490+/-60

779-420, 799-401

AA-12868

Horom D1, room 3 (northwest corner)

2520+/-55

792-529, 804-408

AA-12869

Horom D1, rm. 2, loc. 3 (west of fea. 4)

2485+/-55

773-420, 796-402

ELAMITES AND OTHER PEOPLES FROM IRAN AND THE PERSIAN GULF REGION IN EARLY MESOPOTAMIAN SOURCES* By Ran Zadok Tel-Aviv University

1. ELAMITES AND INDIVIDUALS BEARING ELAMITE NAMES IN MESOPOTAMIA

This section does not include a complete prosopography of the Elamites in Mesopotamia, but I apply here a "maximum" approach (cf. Iran XXV, 1987, p. 1). Every name is followed by at least one prosopographical number (for full documentation of homonyms see Table 2). The total number of the individuals who were Elamites and/or bore assured or hypothetical Elamite names in Sumer during the Ur III period is 340 (maximum; minimum: 269). Since all the persons are mentioned within 52 years (2072-2020 B.C.) it is possible that

most, if not all, the homonymous individuals who lived or were active in the same place were physically identical unless there is evidence to the contrary. Therefore, an estimate between the maximum and the minimum number, but closer to the latter, would seem more likely. Admittedly, only a comprehensive study of the various Ur III archives would give more accurate statistics. Nevertheless, I hardly expect a radical change of my results. The main purpose of this study is to establish criteria for identifying Elamites in the huge and ever-increasing Ur III documentation. Only 77 (maximum; minimum 72 as 1.3.1.17.27. 97-99 are anonymous [Elam(mu)] and 1.3.1.66; 1.3.2.9 are homonymous) individuals are defined as Elamites (75 as Elam or dumu and two as

*Abbreviations as in A. L. Oppenheim et al (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago-Gliickstadt, 1956-), as well as R. Borger, Handbuchder Keilschriftliteratur1.2 (Berlin, 1967 and 1975 resp.), except for the following: ARET = Archivi reali de Ebia. Testi;AUCT = M. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum (Berrien Springs [Mich.], 1985 f.); BNF = Beitrage zur Namenforschung,CSAU = D. C. Katz, A ComputerizedStudy of the Aga-tisof the Ur III period (Minneapolis, 1979); CTMMA 1 = I. Spar (ed.), Tablets,ConesandBricksof the Thirdand SecondMillennia B.C. CuneiformTextsin theMetropolitanMuseumofArt 1 (New York, 1988); DAS = B. Lafont, Documentsadministratifssumiriens (Paris, 1985); DCEP = J.-M. Durand, Documentscun?iformesde la IVe sectionde l'EcolePratiquedesHautes Etudes 1 (Geneva-Paris, 1982); Di Vito, Diss. = R. A. Di Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerianand AkkadianOnomastics:TheDesignationand Conception of the Personal God (Harvard Dissertation; Cambridge [Mass.], 1986); Eb. 1975-85 = L. Cagni (ed.) Ebla 1975-1985: Dieci anni di studi linguistici efilologici. Atti del convegnointernazionale(Napoli, 9-11 ottobre1985; Naples 1987); ElWb = W. Hinz and H. Koch, ElamischesWorterbuch(Berlin, 1987); Englund, Fischerei = R. K. Englund, Organisationund Verwaltungder Ur-IIIFischerei(Berlin, 1990); EO = R. Zadok, the Elamite Onomasticon(Naples, 1984); FAOS = FreiburgerAltorientalische Studien;FordeandFlaugher = N. W. Forde and W. R. Flaugher, Neo-Sumerian Textsfrom South Dakota University,Luther and Union Colleges(Lawrence, Kansas, 1987); Fs. Lacheman = M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen (eds.), Studies on the Civilization and Cultureof Nuzi and the Hurrians in Honorof E. R. Lachemanon his SeventyfifthBirthday,April 29, 1981 (Winona Lake, 1981); HE = E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam: SurveysofPolitical HistoryandArchaeology(Berkeley, 1983); Huber, PNN = E. Huber, Die Personennamenin denKeilschrifturkunden aus der Zeit der Kinige von Ur und Nisin (Leipzig, 1907); ITT2 = B. Lafont and F. Yildiz, Tablettescuneiformesde Telloau Musie d'Istanbul datant de l'Ppoquede la HfP dynastie d'Ur (Leiden, 1989); Kutscher, Wadsworth= R. Kutscher, Neo-Sumerian Tablets in the Wadsworth Atheneum. WadsworthAtheneum Bulletin, 6th

series, vol. 6/2 (1970), pp. 41-64; Ladders to Heaven = O. W. Muscarella (ed.), Laddersto Heaven (Toronto, 1982); Mil. Steve = L. de Meyer, H. Gasche and F. Vallat, Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae.MelangesoffertsciM.J. Steve (Paris, 1986); MessT = R. C. McNeil, The "MessengerTexts"of the Third Ur Dynasty (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1970; Ann Arbor, 1971); MTBM = M. Sigrist, Messenger Texts from the British Museum (Potomac, 1990); NATN = D. I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur (Winona Lake, 1984); Sigrist, Princeton = M. Sigrist, Tablettesdu Princeton Theological Seminaryipoque d'Ur III (Philadelphia, 1990); Sigrist, Syracuse = M. Sigrist, Textes economiques neo-sumiriens de l'Universite de Syracuse(Paris, 1983); SNSA = T. Gomi and S. Sato, SelectedNeoSumerian Administrative Texts from the British Museum (Chiba, 1990); STTI = V. Donbaz and B. R. Foster Sargonic Textsfrom Telloh in the IstanbulArchaeologicalMuseum (Philadelphia, 1982); TAD = S. H. Langdon, Tabletsfrom the Archivesof Drehem(Paris, 1911); TE = Ch. Virolleaud and M. Lambert, Tablettesiconomiquesde Lagas'1 (Paris, 1968); TJAMC = E. Szlechter, Tablettes juridiques et administrativesde la 111H dynastied'Ur (Paris, 1963); TS = H. Limet, Textes sumriens de la 1f dynastie d'Ur (Brussels, 1976); und. = undated; UNL = G. Pettinato, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischenLandwirtschaft 1: die Felder (Naples, 1967); USP = B. R. Foster, Umma in the Sargonic Period (Hamden, 1982); Watson, Cat. = P. J. Watson, Catalogue of Cuneiform Tabletsin BirminghamCityMuseum, 1: Neo-Sumerian Texts from Drehem with Some copies by W. B. Horowitz (Warminster, aus der Zeit der 1986); WMAH = H. Sauren, Wirtschaftsurkunden III. Dynastie von Ur im Besitz des Musded'Art et d'Histoire in Genf (Naples, 1969); Yang, Adab = Zhi Yang, Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab (Changchun, 1989). The preparation of this study was supported by the Foundation of Basic Research of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. I should like to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to quote from several unpublished tablets (courtesy Prof. M. Sigrist, cf. 1.3.1, 1.4) and Prof. D. I. Owen, who kindly showed me the MS of his MVN 15 ahead of publication.

1.0 Introduction

31

32

JOURNAL

STUDIES

OF PERSIAN

TABLE

1

Explicit Elamites and Elamites accordingto onomasticcriteria (with various degreesof plausibility; minimum amounts in brackets;t = total) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

place

explicit

t

assured

t

probable

t

possible

t

dubious

t

total

Lagash (1.3.1)

2.6.10.17.18.22. 24.27.29-40.44. 50.59-79.82.83. 86.97-100.102. 121.122.125. 129.133

Umma (1.3.2)

9.17.25.31. 38-40

5.60.89.100

12.13.32.56.84. 85.88

12 1.11

49(44)

100(75)

6

11

7(6)

9(8) 13

1-3.7.8.10

4.5.9.11

13

6

69(52)

2-6.8.9

1.7 2

unknown 12 (1.3.6) Grand total

33(32)

2.4.6.7.9.10 1

1

2

1

28(9) 5

8

138(120)

1.3.4.9.11. 16-18.20.33.36. 39-43.45. 47-49.51.52.54. 58.59.61.63.65. 68.69.71-77.79. 80.83.86.87. 90-93.95.96.99

2.6-8.10.14.15. 19.21.33.34.37. 38.44.46.50.53. 55.62.64.66.67. 70.78.81.82.97. 98 4

7(6)

41(36) 2-4.7.10-13.15. 16.19.21.23.26. 27.36.37.43. 45-48.50.53.56. 58.60.61.63.65. 67

19(7)

6(5)

4(2)

7(6) Puzrish- 22-31.57.94 Dagan (1.3.3)

22(18) 5.14.20.24. 28-30.32.33.35. 41.44.49.57.62. 64.66.68.69

1.6.18.34.42.59

8.22.51.52

4.5.7.12.15.21. 23.26.42.45.49. 51.54.56.80.81. 84.85.87.91-96. 109-116.119. 124.126-128. 131.132.137

11.13.14.16.20. 43.46.52.53.55. 90.101. 103-108.117. 118.120.130

13(12)

6(2)

56(52)

Nippur 3 (1.3.4) Ur (1.3.5)

1.3.25.28.41.48. 57.58.88.89. 134.136.138

8.9.19.47.123. 135

1

1

1

4

6

77(72)

20(13)

25(23)

76(41)

142(130) 340(279)

NOTES: Percentage: Lagash: 40.58(40.89): Umma: 20.29(19.33); PD: 29.41(27.88); Nippur: 3.23(4.08); Ur: 2.64(2.97); unknown: 3.82(4.83). Explicit: 22.64(26.76); assured: 5.88(4.83); probable: 7.35(8.55); possible: 22.35(11.52); dubious: 41.76(48.32). concerning the minimum calculation (nos. refer to columns). Col. 3: Deduct 1.3.1.27.97-99; 1.3.2.9. Col. 5: Deduct 1.3.1.8.19.47.135; 1.3.2.52; 1.3.3.88. Col. 7: Deduct 1.3.1.25 (homonym of 1.3.2.1); 1.3.2.59.

1.3.2. Col. 9: Deduct 1.3.1.14.16.20.43.46.52.53.103-108.130; 1.3.3.2.7.14.21.33.34.37.38.44. 28-30.32.33.35.41.45.49.57.64.66; 46.55.62.66.67.70.78.81.82.98. Col. 11: Deduct 1.3.1.21.56.95.96.115; 1.3.2.44; 1.3.3.65.68; 1.3. 6.10.79.91.92.96; 1.3.5.8. Col. 12: In theory, the minimum may be further reduced to 236, by regarding all the homonymous individuals as physically identical disregarding their place (cf. Table 2), but this does not seem realistic.

Susians; Table no. 1, col. 2). But since Greater Elam was not in all probability ethnoliguistically homogeneous, only a minority of their names is explicable in Elamite terms (6 ? 8: 1.3.1.44; 1.3.2.25.40; 1.3.3.22.23.28 ? 1.3.1.2.6.30; 1.3.3.24-27; 1.3.4.3). The remainder are atypical or too short (17: 1.3. 1.10.18.24.31.32.60.78.79.86.125.133; 1.3.2.31.39; 1. 3. 3. 29-31; 1.3.6.12; many explicable in Elamite terms), Sumerian (20 ? 2: 1.3.1.29.35.36.50.62.66. 69,71-77.82.83.122; 1.3.2.9.17.38 and perhaps 1.3. 1.67.100), Akkadian (4: 1.3.1.22.34.68.121), hybrid (Sumero-Akkadian, 6: 1. 3. 1. 37. 59. 61. 64. 65. 70),

Hurrian (1: 1.3.1.129), unexplained (5: 1.3.1.33.63. 102; 1.3.3.57.94) and broken (3: 1.3.1.38-40). This is, of course, a very weak argument against their Elamite extraction. Several individuals bearing Akkadian names might have originated from Susiana which was heavily Semitised. The Sumero (-Akkadian) names may be due to cultural-political influence or considerations of prestige. All the remaining individuals listed in Table 1 are considered Elamite with various degrees of plausibility due to onomastic criteria (Table 1, cols. 4.6.8.10). More or less assured Elamite names which need

ELAMITES

AND

TABLE

OTHER

FROM

PEOPLES

Name

ProsopographicalNumbers Total

1. A-da-ra,Ad-da-ri 2 1.3.1.80; 1.3.2.27 2. Ad-da-na-pir/pir,/pi/pi-ir 1.3.1.8.9.19.47.135; 1.3.2.8 9 ? 1

Adda-na-(pi/pi)-ir A-da-na-pi-ir 3. Agu/ku-ni 4. D/Tan-kal-la

51.52 + 43; 1.3.6.6 1.3.1.81; 1.3.4.2; 1.3.6.3

3

1.3.1.25; 1.3.2.1

2

5. D/Tan-ne-ki. 1.3.1.91; 1.3.2.3; 1.3.5.2 D/Tan-ni-gi4 6. D/Tanzir-ri,D/Tan-nu-ri 1.3.1.93; 1.3.2.47

3 2

7. E-lak-ra-(at),E-la-kdrlqar 1.3.1.94-96

3

8. E-lam(-mu) 9. EI/I-puga-ru

1.3.1.17.27.97-99

5

1.3.1.4; 1.3.3.11; 1.3.6.1.8

4

10. E-ze-me-na/ni

1.3.2.54;1.3.5.5

2

11. Ga-an-za

1.3.1.101; 1.3.3.50.78

2

12. Hu-ba(-a),U/U1,-ba-al Hu-un-ba-a

1.3.1.11.14.16.20.43.46.52. 53.103-108.130; 1.3.2.20. 28-30.32.33.41.45.57.64.66; 1.3.3.2.7.14.21.34.38.44. 46.55.62.66.67.70.81.82;

1.3.6.9.11 13. Hu-ba-na/an

43

1.3.1.(1 la). 135; (1.3.2.4a);

2(!)

14. Hu-ba-ni/ni-il

1.3.1.57; 1.3.2.34.59

3

15. Hu-hu-ni

1.3.1.55; 1.3.2.24.35.49

4

16. Hu-nu-nu-ur/Hu(-un)-nu-ri 1.3.3.74; 1.3.4.10

2

17. (Hu-)un-du-du

1.3.2.16.44

2

18. Hu-un-ha-al-bi-it/da

1.3.3.8.19

2

19. Hu-un-ha-ap-ur

1.3.3.15.33.37.98

4

20. Hu-un-hu-up-ls

1.3.5.7; 1.3.6.4

2

21. Hu-(un-)na-zi

1.3.3.77; 1.3.6.10

2

22. Hu-undlul-gi

1.3.2.61; 1.3.3.47.68.91.92 1.3.1.18.56

5

24. Ig4-ri/ru, I-gi4-ru-um(?) 1.3.3.20 ? 41 1.3.1.15.21.115 25. I-lam-ma

2 1? 1 3

26. In-da(-a)

1.3.1.54; 1.3.3.4

27. Kur/Kitr-da-lu

1.3.2.21; 1.3.3.79; 1.3.4.7;

1.3.5.3.8

5

28. Mu-ir-ti/ti(n)-ga-ba, Muiir-duo-gab 29. Se-ilx-ha

1.3.3.51.65.96

3

1.3.3.32.88

2

30. dsulgidan/da-angada

1.3.1.26;1.3.3.59

2

31. PI/U-li, U-e-li

1.3.1.32.131; 1.3.2.19;

1.3.3.36

4

32. Ur-ni9-gar 33. Za-na

1.3.1.66; 1.3.2.9

2

1.3.1.138; 1.3.2.42; 1.3.4.8

3

Grand Total Compare 1.3.2.46 with 1.3.3.16.

THE

PERSIAN

GULF

33

REGION

final component is correct-Si-im-ti-"gusir" (1.3.4.5; = Simti-kusir, cf. Te-ep-ku-ti-ir, EO, nos. 119.246).1

Probable Elamite names are e.g., 1.3.2.18, 1.3.1.42 (cf. 1.3.2.69 and perhaps 1.3.3.40; definitely not Akkadian., cf., hesitantly, Gelb, MAD 3, p. 125, s.v. "IHBR?"), La-al-,

Zu-zu-gu-ni

and

Pu-ul-ma

(1.2;

1.3.3.10; 1.3.4.11; see SEL 8, 1991, pp. 231ff.). Ad-dana-nam (1.3.1.1), which begins with atta (EO, no. 18), ends in the equivalent of the Marhashite's name Nana-ma (PDT 529, r.x, 32). Is its resemblance to the second component

of Lii-na-nam/L-na-na-mu

(listed

without interpretation in Limit, Anthroponymie,p. 483) just incidental? The segmentation of many of the following names is open to doubt. Moreover, the apparent presence of elements with Elamite parallels does not necessarily assure the Elamite character of a name as in most cases it cannot be determined whether the assumed compound is syntactically (1.3.1.4; 1.3.3.11; 1.3.6.1.8) permissible. EV/IU-puga-ru is tentatively included here in view of the resemblance of E/I~-pu- to Sarg. E?4-pum/ball (cf. SEL 8, p.

1.3.5.6

23. Hu-ru

AND

further comment are Am-ma-za-za(1.3.5.1; fem. EO, nos. 7.290; if not Sum.) and-if the reading of the

2

Homonymouspersons in general No.

IRAN

2

137 ? 2

226). Kir-dis (1.3.2.62) is on the face of it a perfect forerunner of the name of the Achaemenid dynasts who lived almost a millennium and a half later. Their name is in F. C. Andreas's view originally Elamite, but some other Iranists are of the opinion that the Achaemenids' name is of Indo-Iranian origin.2 In the latter case, the perfect resemblance of this short name would be just a coincidence. Silhak is represented by Se-il-ha-ki-li-ba-as'(1.3.3.27; cf. SEL 8, p. 231) and Si-il-ha-gi (1.6); Se-ill(ILxKAR)-ha

(1.3.3.32.88; not Akkad.) is related. Pu-ra-an-ha-al-bi-it (1.3.3.27) may end with the same element(s) as Huun-ha-al-bi-it(1.3.3.8). For the first component cf. perhaps

Pu-ra-an-hu-ut-ir-ra-an

(1.3.3.99)

whose

second component reminds one of the DN Hutran (with anaptyxis as NA d(j-du-ra-an, EO, no. 58?). A-da-

me-na (1.3.2.14) may be interpreted as atta (with a defective spelling, cf. EO, no. 18) and -min(a)(EO, no. 144), although Gelb hesitantly derived the second component from Akkadian (MAD 3, p. 179; cf. 1.3.2.54; 1.3.5.5; to izi, EO no. 85?). Not every name which apparently contains a-ta- (e.g. 1.3.1.30) is Elamite. Do 1.3.3.7, 1.3.4.9 and 1.3.1.5 contain ta-s (EO, no. 236c)? Does Da-gu-du-sa6 (1.3.2.53) end in tus (EO, no. 252a)? Ba-ak-za-na(1.2), which is followed by gemethereby referring to a female, probably ends in zana (EO, no 287). For Mu-mu-gi (1.2) compare perhaps RAE Mu-me-ig (ElWb. p. 951: Fort. 6043,4). Ha-ap-hi-if (1.2) possibly consists of hap and hil (EO, nos. 30.42); Ba-ar-li-ni (1.2; par + lini, cf. EO, nos. 175.205?). Ku-ki-ni/nidu/dulo (1.3.4.5a) looks as if it

begins with Elam. kuk-, but the remainder of the name has no Elamite counterpart (cf. Ku-ku-ni-ti, BNF NF 18, 1983, p. 166: no. 2362?).

34

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

The same applies to Ku-ku-da-i_(1.3.5.4). Ku-ku-alum (1.3.1.119) may be purely Akkadian (SEL8, p. 234; in OB Zi-im-ri-ku-ku,Greengus, Ischali, 264 r. 4f., it is preceded by an Amorite predicate). Do Gu4-ka-ri (1.3.1.2) begin with kukand Ur-ku-ku(1.3.3.76) end in it? For 1.3.3.60 cf. NABU 1990/39. Hu-ba-na (1.3.1. 134) is hardly a Sumerian anthroponym (as apparently understood by H. Sauren, WMAH, p. 311a, s.v.), but is Elam. Humpan (DN used as PN; cf. perhaps 1.3.1.58.81 with EO, nos. 8.61). Is Hu-ba-la EO, p. (1.3.1.109) a variant thereof? (cf. -hu-um-ba-al, 13: no. 48). Hu-un-ba-a(1.3.2.32) is probably a hypocoristicon of Humpan. Hu-ba(-a,e.g., 1.3.1.11.46), Uba-a (1.3.2.29) and U18(GISGAL)-ba-a (1.3.2.20) may also belong here. However, the name is the commonest one in the documentation under consideration: 43 individuals out of over 250 persons bearing Elamite names.3 Therefore it is probable that not all the individuals bearing this name were actually Elamites, the more so since hup- is also thought to be hypothetically Hurrian (cf. NPN, p. 218) and homonymous names are recorded in early sources from regions where one can hardly expect any Elamites. Such homonyms are Hu-ba-ANfrom Ebla. It can be compared with, e.g., U-ba-AN/nmn/lum (ARET 3, index, s.vv. with references; possibly Sem.), and Hu-un-bafrom MB Emar (RPA 6, 217,21). Hu-ba-riga/gl (ARET 3, p. 275 with refs.) from Ebla may also belong to a non-Elamite milieu, the more so since a component -rikV is not recorded in the Elamite onomasticon. U-ma-ni(Anthroponymie,p. 534, s.v.) seems to be Mesopotamian rather than Elam. Humpan.The fact that a certain U/U18-ba-a(etc.) was an ensi of Adamdun (RGTC 2, p. 4) may be in favour of an Elamite derivation of the name in question, but although many of the provincial civilian governors originated there (cf. P. Michalowski, SAOC46, p. 58), it cannot be demonstrated that ensis of certain peripheral regions always bore names indigenous of those regions. Moreover, there is very slight evidence to the contrary, viz. at least one Mesopotamian local high functionary bearing a non-Mesopotamian name (information of Prof. D. Owen who is due to publish the evidence). It is doubtful whether Hum/Lum-ba/ma(FAOS 15/1, 20, v, 6; pre-Sarg.), Hum/Lum-ba/ma-a(Huber, PNN, p. 124a) and the initial component of Hum/Lum-ba-ru(1.3.1.12) have anything to do with Humpan. The same applies to that of Hu-up-ni-ki-te-er-ra (recte-up-(pa)-with omission due to the fact that -up- is written at the line's end? SA 7,3) whose segmentation is not certain (cf. RGTC 2, p. 76, s.v. Hubni). In Goetze's opinion (JNES 12, 1953, p. 123), 1.3.1.129, who is explicitly described as an Elamite, had a Hurrian name. Is it a coincidence that 1.3.1.6 (explicitly Elam.) looks identical with the second component of Kass. Karziapku (Kass. St., p. 60; hypothetical segmentation as yapku seems to be equally possible)?

STUDIES

For Ga-an-za(1.3.1.101; 1.3.3.50.78) cf. Nap-ga-anza (Iran XXV, p. 3). Hu-hu-ni (e.g., 1.3.1.55) may render Elam. "fortress" or sim. (differently Limet, Anthroponymie,p. 111); cf. Hu-uih-NE(1.3.2.67)? Hu-ihu-' (Sigrist, Syracuse, 479, 16), Hu-hu-hu (see A. Falkenstein, NSGU 2, p. 318 ad ITT 3/2, 6563), Kuku-e (MVN 7, 140), Hu-ba-a (AnOr 1, 115, 3) and La(a-)ni (Limet, Anthroponymie,p. 447) are rather atypical like Hum/Lum-ka-kawhich is listed after 1.3.1.118 (cf. Za-an-ka-ka,STA). The same may apply to Ba-ar, Da-an, Gu-ri,Hu-un (1.2), Gui-gui-ni, Ku-gu-nu (1.3.1.49.135? cf. EO, no. 111?), 1.3.1.18, 1.3.2.23, 1.3.3.75 (cf. EO, nos. 53f. 70a.198.200), 1.3.6.12, U-eli (1.2; 1.3.1.131; homonymous with PI-li, 1.3.1.32; cf. DCEP, p. 67, n. 41 ad U-li [1.3.2.19]; not necessarily Akkad., MAD 3, p. 31; cf. U-i-li, 1.2?) and Um-pu (1.3.1.51) which are too short for an unambiguous interpretation. There is a very slight justification for considering them as potentially Elamite (cf. EO, nos. 57.198.200). Most of them are included here as they occur together with Elamites (cf. SEL 8, p. 234f.). Ab-ba(1.1) and Si-si (1.3.2.31) are definitely atypical, but they were borne by individuals who are described as Elam. Ha-ne and Ra-i (1.1) have the same designation (cf. EO, no. 29.193?). Si-a-a (1.3.6.12) was originally from Susa. In-zu (1.3.1.117) can be short for Sumerian compound names (cf. Di Vito, Diss., p. 71). Za-na (e.g., 1.3.2.42) is a short name, but is definitely neither Sumerian nor Akkadian. Since it refers to females, it can render the Elamite word for "woman". On the other hand, the male's name Za-na (var. Za-ana(-a), AOS 32, p. 208, s.v.) is atypical. An-za-za-a (1.3.2.6) may be the forerunner of Av•~aTi (cf. SEL 8, p. 226). Are La-al-gu (1.3.3.58), La-an-ku (1.3.4.4) and Pu-un-du (1.3.2.63) short for La-al-gu-ni,La-anku-ku and Pu-un-du-du (cf. above and EO, nos. 110.189) respectively? Is Ur III La-an-ga, which is listed without interpretation in Limet, Anthroponymie, p. 447, related to La-an-ku? Hu-ne-re (1.3.1.28) can be a homonym of MB Hu-ne-er (cf. Scheil, MDP 22, p. 189). For 1.3.3.9 see Iran XXV, p. If. 1.3.2.56 is very doubtful (cf. SEL 8, p. 233). The same applies to 1.3.2.10-13 (cf. EO, nos. 72.211?) and Muuir-ti/ti(n)-ga-ba, Mu-ir-dulo-gab (1.3.3.51.65.97; cf. EO, no. 150c?); for -gaba cf. perhaps Ad-da-gaba(1.3.2.50, Akkad. acc. to Gelb, MAD 3, p. 116). For 1.3.6.7 cf. perhaps EO, no. 171a in fine and for 1.3.1.42 EO, no 142c (differently Lafont, DAS p. 226, n. 37). 1.3.1.54, 1.3.3.3-5 (cf. EO, nos. 52.71.232aC/7.1) and 1.2.2.26 (to EO, no. 287?) seem to be explicable in Elamite terms, but are too short for an unambiguous linguistic affiliation. Is I-tu-ni-a(1.3.2.58) the forerunner of NA I-tu-ni-i(EO, no. 256a)? Does 1.3.3.95 end in the same element? Hybrid names are Rib-si/gi-mu-ut(Akk. -Elam.; not -ip- as in Iran XXV, p. 5). 1.3.4.1 is not necessarily hybrid: Hu-b/pu-nulis not certainly Semitic

ELAMITES

AND

OTHER

PEOPLES

FROM

IRAN

(listed without explanation in Gelb, MAD 3, p. 124). Hu-un-dul-gi (1.3.3.47) is Elamite-Sumerian if it is to be differentiated from Am. hunn- (also written defectively, cf. A. Goetze,JSS 4, 1959, p. 197 with n. 4; E. Sollberger,JCS 19, 1965, p. 28 with n. 7) and its initial component is identical with hun- of other non-Semitic names like Hu-un-zu-lu (1.2) which is undoubtedly Elamite (EO, no. 300), Hu-un-da-ri (1.3.6.5, prob. not Hurr. -(a)tal in view of Hu-un-dara, 1.3.2.5), Hu-un-kap-ku (1.3.2.2, cf. Kap-ku-ku, 1.3.1.118 provided it does not end with -kuk), "Huun-ha-ap-ri"?(1.3.3.90), Hu-ungu-uir-bi(MVN 11, 206, 212), as well as, perhaps, Hu-un-sa6(-3a61.3.2.60; 1.3.3.49) is atypical like In-za-za (BNF NF 18, 1983, p. 101:42). For Hu-un-ga6-an(1.3.2.4) cf. perhaps Ursa6-an (AOS 32, O 35, 9) and Hu-un-hu (1.3.3.35) which are alternatively atypical, as well as Hu-un-kiip-ri (1.3.3.41) which may contain Sem. -ki-ib-ri.Hu(cf. un-si/ze-ri(1.3.3.43) looks like Akkad. to in Old MAD 3, p. 129) but ms > ns is not attested Hums.rum Akkadian. However, the case for a segmentation hun + zeri does not seem stronger as Zi-ri (TrD 83) does not necessarily refer to an Elamite and is too short for an unambiguous linguistic affiliation. Huun-za (1.3.1.112) may be either Elamite or Akkadian (hunzua"lame"). Is the resemblance of Hu-na-zi (1.3.3.77) to the 2nd component of I-ti-hu-na-zi (from Ebla, cf. Du-hu-na-sell/e/zi, M. Krebernik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: eine Zwischenbilanz, Berlin 1988, pp. 89.168.209, s.vv.: "wohlnicht sem.") just incidental? A certain Hu-un-d"ul-giwas perhaps an Amorite (mar-tu).His namesake is defined both as Amorite and lz-SU.Aki (cf. RGTC 2, p. 172 with refs.), but this is not a definite proof against an Elamite derivation: compare the case of I-ap-tu-um (mar-tu,MVN 11, 180, 5; Drehem, und.) with Ii-ap-ti (gen.) father of a lt-iSU.Aki(cf. SEL 8, p. 229; cf. Ur III GN Ia-ap-ti-um,Gomi, Orient 16, 1973, p. 10 and Bibl. Yepet?).1.3.2.16 may consist of hun and dudu, unless it is atypical. Is 1.3.2.45 a variant thereof?. 1.3.3.1 is homonymous with A-ku-ku-nifrom Susa (BNF NF 18, 1983, p. 107:121). At least two individuals bearing hypothetical Elamite names belonged to another ethnic group (Amorite), viz. 1.3.2.50; 1.3.3.69 (= iri-ta-h; both from Yamutbal or near it?). For hun- names cf. Goetze, JCS 17 (1963), p. 18, n. 22; Limet, Anthroponymie,p. 178; and Zadok, Iran XXV, p. 1. Do Hu-unda-ah-fe-er(1.2), Hu-ne-ydr-raand Hu-un-k[u(?)-li(?)] (1.3.1.23.110) belong here as well? (cf. 1.3.1.116.136; 1.3.3.5.24.31.39.63.73; EO, nos. 30C, 33a, 193.224 and Su-mu-un-da-ak-le-er, 1.5; cf. also EO, no. 208). 1.3.1.45; 1.3.4.10 (--1.3.3.74) are hardly Amorite as hesitantly suggested by B. Lewis and E. R.Jewell (ASJ 4, 1982, p. 58), but perhaps Elam. Hun-uri, i.e. "my image" (?EO, no 49). Hu-un-na-ru-um(Watson, Cat. 139, 5) looks Amorite. 1.3.3.53.83 end in tuk (EO, no. 282 and U-du-ku,

AND

THE

PERSIAN

GULF

REGION

35

1.3.1.13). Cf. 1.3.2.48. 61? Hu-un-gi-si(?)(1.3.1.111) may be compared with Pap-gi-si (1.2). Hu-un-ur5-ti was from Hu-ur-ti (cf. SEL 8, p. 229f.). On the whole, the segmentation is not always clear. Hu-un-nu-bi (MVN 3, 305, 9) is Akkadian (cf. AHw., p. 356a). DfFan-(Da-an-) is rendered as Elamite "act" (M. Lambert, RA 64, 1970, p. 72) or "Gehorsam"(EIWb., p. 280f.) without sufficient evidence. Does the fact that D/Tan- (Da-an-) is not recorded after the 13th century B.C. strengthen the case for Akk. dan(nu)"strong"? In NEIRAE it is found in final position only (cf. EO no. 241). Was a hypothetical Elamite form D/Tan(n)-misinterpreted by the Mesopotamian scribes and contaminated with the resembling Akkadian element? The pertinent anthroponyms are 1.3.3.6 (to tahra, EO, no. 237a), 1.3.3.80 (to hilu, EO, no. 40?), 1.3.1.91, 1.3.2.3; 1.3.5.2 (to iki, EO, no. 60), 1.3.1.25 (to Kalla, cf. OB Ku-ku-kal-la, ElWb. pp. 421.555), 1.3.1.90; 1.3.3.86 (to EO, nos. 18.85 resp.); 1.3.1.48; 1.3.1.92 (cf. 1.3.2.4.60), 1.3.3.64 (cf. EO no. 229; OB Ku-uk-duu-ku,1.5), 1.3.1.44.93 (Akkad. acc. to Gelb, MAD 3, pp. 55.113, but cf. EO, nos. 241.277?). The same initial component may be followed in the case of 1.3.3.45 (acc. to H. de Genouillac, RA 27, 1905, p. 100:17) by an element related to the Elam. DN El-ha-la-hu(cf. EO, nos. 64.241; cf. GN MDP 14, P1. after p. 10, 111, 14; OAkkad., Ha-ta-ahki, not far from Elam); cf. 1.3.3.71? D/Tan-bi-si(1.3.3.48) is very doubtful (cf. EO, no. 184?). 1.3.3.41 may consist of iki and rum (EO, nos. 60.201). 1.3.3.20 would be related to EO, no. 60b if mah is a Sumerian appellative meaning "I. (who is) outstanding in size" (cf. 1.1 and Ur-ki-mahwith -gula, FAOS 17, 78, 11; 82, 4). 1.3.2.21, 1.3.3.79; 1.3.5.3 may alternatively be Akkadian (Qtir/Qizr-,cf. SEL 8, p. 235; MessT, p. 240, s.v.). Qur-da-s[u(?)](J. N. Postgate, Sumer 32, 1976, p. 100: 14, 2.seal 1) seems-if the reading is correct-to strengthen the case for an Akkadian derivation. La-mu-sa is an Akkadian name according to Limet, DPA, p. 21 ad 45, 3 (mentioned together with Hu-ba and other foreign names; 1.2) who does not interpret the name. It is homonymous not only with persons occurring in Messenger Documents concerning Susa, but also with his namesake who was connected with Shimashki (HLS 3, pp. 102:185; MVN 11, 160). The female name Am-ma-ha-tum(1.5) contains-if the reading is correct-amma (EO, no. 7). Is the final component related to -ha-at(1.3.3.72) and Hattim (patronym of 1.3.2.62)? Regarding the Elamites' names listed in 1.2, Adda-sel-4a consists of atta and perhaps lip (EO, nos. 18.223). Si-nam-ki-ri-ir may end in kirir (EO, no. 103a). Are Si-anha(/kir?, 1.2) and Pi-li-ri-ni (1.3.4.6) based on siyan "temple" (cf. Si-ani, 1.2) and pilir (EO, no. 181a) respectively? Does Si4-ni-fi-ba (1.3.1.128) consist of EO, nos. 205.223? For 1.3.1.116 cf. perhaps E1Wb., pp. 755ff.; EO, no 71.

36

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

same applies to E-la-ak-nu-id(also at Gasur, HSS 10, p. xxxiia with refs.; no. 5 below occurs in a Sargonic text from the Diyala region); or E-la-ak-nu-id (MAD 5, p. 103 with refs.; Sargonic Kish). All the explicable compound names with E/Ilag/k(u) have Semitic predicative elements (mostly Akkad.). They were borne by at least 55 (18 + 37) individuals in Sumer (nos. 2-31; 39-45 below; practically in every city during the entire period of the Ur III documentation; one [no. 1 below] is late Sargonic) and by seven persons in OB Mari (nos. 32-38 be RAE Appi-za-lu-um (OnP 8.101; unexplained) from 24231 more convincing? B/Put-ri-za-lum(BM below). Hence both the linguistic character and the Ur III Lagash; unpubl., courtesy of Prof. Sigrist) geographical distribution of the documentation do apparently ends in the same element. Cf. BAR-ga- not support an Elamite origin (except for 39-45 and perhaps E-la-ga-ak, WMAH 231, 3 [ratherlum (MessT 467)? For Bu6-ka-ra (1.3.1.87) compare Icomlast Does the below. >?]):(1) E-la-ak (ITT 878; MVN 6, 309, i, 7); (2) perhaps Elam B/Pugdrki D la-ak from E-la-akof 32, (4) (3) 1,4). (AOS I-la-ak-ku-r[u-ub]; ponent Su-mu-gi-in-ti (1.3.5.9) originate

The predicative elements of dSulgi-en-u-ba-ak and dSul-gi-ur-u-ru-ukwhose bearers occur in MVN 12, 125 (concerning 1.3.3.12.13) do not seem to belong to any known dialect (cf. Steinkeller, JAOS 108, 1988, p. 202, n. 37). "n4Gul-su-ga(segmentation?) is strange (1.3.1.102; cf. Deimel, SL 2/2 p. 461: 229, 23 in fine and perhaps 1.3.1.100). Ab/p-za-lum (1.3.1.85) has a Semitic appearance (Pinches, Amherst, p. 186 ad loc.). but it does not render any recorded Semitic form. Would an association with

Elam. * tempt (EO, no. 246)? Gelb (MAD 3, p. 261,

s.v. "S'M?")hesitantly regards it as Akkadian. Un-daga looks as if it consists of un and ta-k (EO, nos 238.270). Yet, the relatively high frequency of the name especially at Nippur (at least eleven out of seventeen occurrences ), the most prestigious cultic centre of Sumer, as well as the spelling Un-daga-a (TuM 3, 55, 4.9) seem to weaken the case for a non-Mesopotamian derivation. Kur(u)b-ilak (cf. MAD 5, p. 110, s.v. Ilag; from Sar-

gonic Kish; at least 18 individuals from Lagash, Umma, Puzrish-Dagan and Nippur between 2055 and 2028 B.C.; AUCT 2, 18; 254; 3, 128; 188; 213; CST 178.198; FAOS 17, 112, 93; p. 330: Seal A; Hallo, HUCA 29, 1958, p. 107f.12; ITT 7076; MessT 290.386.436; MVN 3, 82; 219, 13, 911, 4; TE 54) may end with the same theophorous element as in Akk. I-la-ak-nu-id(cf. A. L. Oppenheim, AOS 32, p. 188, n. 34; M. Lambert, TE, p. 147: 248). W. von Soden (AHw., p. 374a) renders e/ilak as "your god" (cf. MB Ba-ah-la-ka, i.e. "your lord/Baal", from Tall Munbaqa, M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and W. Mayer, UF 21, 1989, p. 136f., provided it is not short for a compound anthroponym like Bac(a)lkabar). Sollberger (TCS 1, p. 114b:187) compared E-la-gu.The latter is described as name of Sarpanitu in Elam in a SB list (cf. EO, no 65), but this is a comparatively late source (after such anthroponyms seem to have been out of use). In addition, E-la-guwas in all probability a female deity like SarpTinitu whereas the E/Ilag/ku-containing anthroponyms are all mascu-

ku-ru-ba; (5) E-lagu-(ru)-ub (see Gelb, MAD 3, p. 149f. with refs.); (6) E-a-ga-DINGIR (MessT 338, 18); (7) Ela-ak-MES (? MessT 234, 15), (8.9) E-la-ak-nu-ib (MessT

228, 6; 402, 12; mistake for nu-id?); (10-14) E-la-aknu-id (BRM 3, 53, 2; DAS 51, ix, 19; NATN 926, 7: 927, 5; PDT 341, r. 5); (15-21)

I-a-ak-nu-id (MVN 3,

165 r. 3; 209, v, 7; 271 r. 2; 279 r. 2; 320, 3; 322, r. 4; 376 r. 10; 13, 724, 6 and 732, 9); (22) I-a-ak-ra-am (FAOS 16, 1120 r. 1); (23) E-la-ak-(ITT 2 878, i, 31; x, i, 4), (24) E-tak-'u-qir (ITT 2 902, iv, 18; 911, 28; 1013,

iv, 2); (25) E-la-ak-ha-al-li (ARMT 22, 328, iii, 5); (26-31) I-la-ak-u-qir (FAOS 16, 1327, 3.seal; 1355,

3.seal; 1365, 3.seal; 1375, 3.seal; MVN 15, 142, 41; PDT 556, 3; YOS4, 254, 70); (32-37): - (ARMT 21, 401, 7; 22, 12 r. i, 13'; 14, ii, 13; 25, 690 r. 4; 714 r. 7; 729, ii, 20); (38) I-la-ak-su-qi-ir (ARMT 24, 24, iii,

41). (39) E-la-ak-ra-at(1.3.1.94) is the only name whose predicative element is not Semitic, but seemingly Elamite (cf. EO, no. 196). Its bearer was indeed connected with Elam. It is not impossible that (40-44) E-la-ak-rain the same documentation group (DAS 124, 3; 155, 11; 165, 7; 200, 7; 204, 14) is a defective spelling and that E-la-kiar/qar (1.3.1.95), who is connected with Anshan, is the same name. (48) E-lak/la-ga-ra-at may be a variant thereof (unlikely Gelb, MAD 3, p. 35, s.v.: an il(a)- name with a predicate deriving from Q-R-D thereby leaving the first two forms unexplained). Do Sarg. E-la-ak-gi (F. Rasheed, Himrin 4, Baghdad [1981], 41, 20) and Gu-ni-la-ak(with an Akkad. patronym, 1.2) as well as Ur III Ku-e-la-ak (AUCT 2, 282, 9) belong here as (MessT well? line, including E4aggu (1.3.1.113)/E-a-ga Linguistically, Ur-daulinak (1.2) is impeccably 121; Umma, SS 5 = 203312 B.C.)/E-lag/kag/k (ITT 2, but its theophorous element is the god of the face which on Sumerian, 714, 3)I-la-k[u] (MVN 15, 142) it looks like a DN used as PN. E/Ilag/ku was not of Susa. The theophorous element of Urdgu-nirra necessarily Elamite, the more so since Kur(u)b-ilak, (1.3.1.7; the initial component is unmistakably Sumerian) is listed in A. Deimel, Pantheon Babyloniwhose initial (predicative) element is definitely cum includhad a (Rome 1950), p. 89:550. It is not clear whether distribution, Akkadian, widespread ing regions northwest of Sumer (e.g. Ebla, D. I. Gunirra is identical with the much more common Owen and R. Veenker, Eb. 1975-85, p. 278, and Sumerian deity Gunura (see D. O. Edzard, RIA 3, p. Mari, cf. below and perhaps PDT, 161 r. 1). The 701 f.). Is it a coincidence that Gu-nir-raand Gu-ru

ELAMITES AND OTHER PEOPLES FROM IRAN AND THE PERSIAN GULF REGION

(cf. 1.3.2.65) resemble the Elamite theophorous elements Kunir and Kur respectively (EO, nos. 115.117? The theophorous element of Ur-d[b]a/[m]ada-[ti?]-[na] (? 1.3.2.7; cf. Limet, Anthroponymie, pp. 158.551; same name-type as the preceding) resembles the Shimashkian's name Ba/ma-da-ti-na (TCL 2, 5508). Was B/madatina a (petty) ruler's name? For such examples (ruler's name > divine name) see Michalowski, SAOC 46, p. 66f.; cf. perhaps the cases of Kur-bi-ak-gu-um (ITT2 665, 16), Li be-Ii-la-gdl (1.3.1.65), Ur-la-mus'-a (0. R. Gurney,JRAS 1937, p. 472: 4, 2), Dan-uir-ma-an-si (DAS 79, 5) and Mi-il-ki-li-il ("Milki-il is god", cf. Iran XXV, p. 4; differently G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period, Naples 1966, p. 173). (1.3.1.26; dSulgidan/dan"/da-anga-da element a theophorous 1.3.3.59) may contain which was originally a ruler's name (Sulgi-dan, itself with a ruler's name > theophorous element; pace Limet, Anthroponymie, p. 258, who offers an unlikely in view of da-an-dananSumerian interpretation; hardly Sum. -kalag- as understood by Di Vito, Diss., p. 51). dSulgi-si-im-ti/tzm (Schneider, Or. 23, p. 57: 916f.; cf. AOS 32, p. 185 with refs.) hardly ends in Elam. *tempt, but contains Akkad. simtum (the Elam. element is contained in 1.5!).5 Is Ur-da-ka (Schneider, Or. 23, p. 76: 1210) the forerunner of NA < Elam. Urtaku? (provided the latter is not an originally Iranian name);6 or is it an audial mistake for Sum. Ur-daga (cf. Limet, Anthroponymie, p. 152)? Elam ("NIM"), which (mostly accompanies follows) the names of 75 (70) individuals in Ur III (table no. 1, col. 2 above), precedes the names of many regions which cannot be located in Elam proper (cf. SEL 8, p. 227f.) like Si-z/umki (sakkanakku: Hu-ba-a whose daughter married a royal prince, see Goetze,JCS 17, 1963, p. 13; Michalowski, SAOC 46, p. 58f. with n. 16), U-lumki (cf. "Hu-un-ki-ip-ri lzi-ulliki,, which may have Elamite onomastic parallels; perhaps identical with OB [Susa] GN U-li-me and Neo-Sum. PI(wi?)-ilki [with PN, Su-ni-ki-ib/p], U-ulki [with PN Gu-up, atypical; 2039 B.C.; PDT 548, 17]; and U-ir-riki/Ur-rik (poss. = U-ra-umki). Elam lhiB/Pu-garki is recorded in ITT2 875 r. viii, 6. In two cases Elam is followed by the ruler's name instead of a GN, namely U-ba-a from Adamdun (MessT 55, 21; cf. H. Waetzoldt, ZA 65, 1975, p. 272) and Hu-ul6, from li-bar (e.g. Sigrist, Syracuse 480, mentioned is Duduli Duduli/Tutuli). frequently together with Susa (e.g., ITT 638.683.772), as well as with Shimashki and Huhnur (e.g., WMAH 225), but Duduli seems to have had a special relationship to Sapum according to DAS 153. The location of the latter is disputed.7 Does the fact that Sapum was terms with the Neoon peaceful generally of Sumerian state reflect a relative proximity Sapum to the Mesopotamian alluvium?8 Duduli is thought to have been located somewhere between the Tigris and the Zagros (see Edzard and

37

Farber-Fliigge, RGTC 2, p. 33 with lit., cf. SEL 8, p. 227). Another region of Greater Elam may be B/Pugdrki (ITT2 875, viii, 6). Was Hagarki, which is recorded in Messenger Documents (cf. RGTC 2, p. 72; MTBM 154, 6), in Greater Elam as well? A field of Elam people is recorded at Lagash in = 2049 B.C. A village and granary of such 46 S in undated documents are mentioned people (MVN 6, 300; TuT 160, iii, 20 and UDT 55 resp.). For store(house)s named after Elam people (one of them situated on a canal of such people acc. to Lagash documents) see G. Pettinato, UNL 2, p. 247 f: 27.50; cf. MVN 12, 5,44; Limet, CRRAI 18, p. 132 f. on settlements named after various foreigners. Several Elamite individuals and most members of the numerous groups of the various Elam people are anonymous (1.4). It is clear that Elam defines regions which-as found in the far as they can be localised-were Iranian Plateau or its piedmont, but not in northern Iran (Gutium and Lullubum; if Elam Si-ma-na with [MTBM 170, 9.10; no year] is identical Simanum Greater Elam would have extended more to the NW), Upper Mesopotamia and Syria which also included mountainous regions. Therefore, it stands to reason that Elam denoted eastern highland[er(s)] from the Lower Mesopotamian point of view. Oppenheim's proposal ("most probably a certain profession") seems less likely. McNeil proposed that most of them were labourers of some important government projects9 The SU(A )-people were identical with Shimashki according to P. Steinkeller (JAOS 108, 1988, pp. 197 ff.; cf. G. Selz, NABU 1989/4, p. 67 f.:94). An orchard from which wood loads were taken was named after these people (gi?-kiri-SU.A, Umma, IS 1 = 2028 B.C.; CST 527).

1.1 Pre-Sargonic in archaic accounts Elamites are mentioned from Ur (UET 2, 274, ii, account or name-list; 279, ii, concerning bread), provided the forerunner of the NIM sign has the same reading as in the postarchaic texts (this problem exists in other archaic texts as well). However, there is not a single named it is impossible to decide Elamite. Therefore, whether the individuals in question were ethnic Elamites or people from Susiana which was heavily Semitised. The same problem exists in most of the from Mesopotamia where earliest documentation (includmany recorded Elamites are anonymous and perhaps 115; cf. 1.2). ing, e.g., 1.3.1.10.27.97-99 There is no assured relevant documentation from Jamdat-Nasr (cf. RGTC 1, p. 43 ad OECT 7, 88, iii). The deity Lugal-Elam(a), i.e. "Lord of Elam" (following Lugal-Aratta), is recorded in the Abli

38

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

Salabi-i god list 63 (OIP 99, 82, iii, 19; cf. W. G. Lambert RIA 7, p. 137b).10 Few named and anonymous individuals (mostly officials) are described as Elam in the Shuruppak (Fara) texts (c. 2550 B.C.; cf. F. Pomponio, La prosopografia dei testi praesargonici di Fara, Rome 1987, pp. xvi.195, s.v. NIM). None bore an Elamite name. Note lhi-URUxAki from Shuruppak (TSS 131; S.N. Kramer, JAOS 52, 1932, p. 111:f.600 [PN?]; URUxAki, TSS 40.453 [PN?]). These documents may refer to people originating from a town which is to be sought in or near Elam not far from the Mesopotamian border (presumably in northwest Susiana according to Steinkeller, RIA 7, p. 381). All the following persons, except for sixteen, are from late pre-Sargonic Lagash (first half of the twenty-fifth century B.C., cf. Westenholz, ARES 1, 1988, p. 117; refs. to Nik. 1 are to Selz's re-edition in FAOS 15/1; see idem, CRRAI 36, pp. 27 ff.): 1-7. Za-na (for the Elamite character of the name see 1.0) occurs in at least 17 documents (CTNMC 4, i, 6; v, 15; xi. 7; xiv, 9; Nik. 1, 1, iv, 22; 2, v, 5; 6, i, 9 [restored]; v, 15; xi, 2; xiv, 9; 9, iii, 8; x, 15; r. ii, 10; 19, vii, 10; STH 1, 15, 10; 16, 10; 17, v, 2; 18 r. ii, 8; 20-23; TSA 10-12.14-17). The name refers to at least seven females between Lugalanda's sixth year and Uruinimgina's eighth year (most-if not allof them of servile status, cf. FAOS 15/1, p. 107; TSA, p. 122). 8. Ab-ba (Elam) is recorded in the same section with Za-na during the first year of Uruinimgina's reign (Nik. 1, 9 r. 11, 10; STH 1, 15, 10; 16, 10). Were Ab-ba and at least certain Za-na's musicians? (cf. Selz, FAOS 15/1, p. 107; for the connection between designations of musical instruments and geographical terms see H. Hartmann, Die Musik der sumerischen Kultur, Frankfurt a/M. 1960, p. 197). 9-14 Ha-ba-ra-du-ne(with -tuni, EO, 256a?), Ka-a (atyp.), Nin-DU-il-il, Ugiur-DUlo.DUlo (both unexplained), dNingir-su-ur-muand PAP.PAPama-da-ri(both Sum.); see Selz, CRRAI 36, p. 39. 15. Pu-da-gi-ir(Nik. 1, 310, see Limet, CRRAI 18, p. 131; Selz, FAOS 15/1, p. 540; time of Lugalanda and Uruinimgina) and 16. Lugal-nimgir-gi(dumu Elam, MVN 3, 53, iii, 7) occur in undated documents. 15 was active in the trade between Lagash and Elam. 17. Ka-ka-ri-tah and 18. Kum-ku-`e's son were engaged in the same activity then. The latter's (cf. J. Bauer, Altpatronym is unexplained sumerische Wirtschaftstexteaus Lagasch, Rome 1972, p. 524 ad 176, ii, 1 with lit.; note Kum-KU,MVN 6, p. 343b, s.v.) and the former's makes a nonMesopotamian impression. This trade was also operated via the watercourses: boatmen such as Dada (DP 486, 5; 637, 8) and Nigin-mud (DP 423, 2; 486, 5; 687, 7; Nik. 1, 19, 4; A. Deimel, Or 26, 1927, p. 39 f.: Wengler 2) brought especially timber and furniture from Elam; an Elamite boat loaded with

STUDIES

spices and livestock is mentioned in RTC 21, 11, 3 (see Lambert, RA 47, 1953, p. 62 f.; ArOr 23, 1955, p. 570 f.; Selz, FAOS 15/1, p. 134 ad loc.). Slaves were also brought by traders from Elam and adjacent mountainous regions to Lagash. A list of 12 slaves (igi-nu-duh; belonging to four Lagashites) from Uru-az is dated to the fourth year of Uruinimgina (DP 339; cf. Lambert, RA 47, p. 69f.). At least half of them bore (or were given by their masters) Sumerian and Akkadian names. The others had "strange" and atypical names (Ab-umbzim,B/Pu-su-e, KAM-ba-eand Ku-ku, Si4-ma respectively). Nin-URUxA-NI-dulo is recorded as an anthroponym in Uruinimgina's fifth year (Nik. 1, 19 r. iii, 10; cf. ad (lii-) URU.Aki above). A forwarding agent (? hli-U5) from Uruaz is recorded at Lagash as early as the first or second year of Lugalanda (Nik. 1, 143). For trade with Elam (e.g., Sumerian grain for Elamite cattle and wool) cf. Selz, FAOS 15/1, p. 302; W. F. Leemans, Foreign Trade (Leiden, 1960), p. 175; Englund, Fischerei, p. 14 f. It is interesting that an anonymous Elamite (Elam) occurs in a record of land distribution (SAKF 3, ii, 6; und.). Ku-kugu-la, i.e. "Ku-kusenior", who is followed by Kuku-tur "Ku-kujunior" in three documents (cf. Mas-gu-la followed by Mag-tur in DP 137, ii, 1 f.), is not necessarily Elamite, but atypical (see Selz, FAOS 15/1, p. 236-5: 12, 14). One of these documents (DP 134) mentions Ni(g)-dub-(b)aNIM. Ku-ku is typologically, but not necessarily linguistically, comparable to Hu-hu-tur (Nik. 1, 3, 4), i.e. "Hu-hujunior". Does Ku-uk-ki-mah(cf. Iran XXV, p. 24, n. 7) mean "Ku-ukki who is outstanding in size"? It is not certain whether gi-NIM, who is recorded in at least 11 Lagash documents (dated between Lugalanda's fourth year and Uruinimgina's fifth year, RGTC 1, p. 43 with references; VS 25, 85, ii, 3; CTNMC 3, viii, 1: g[i-NIM]; cf. En-gi-NIM, RTC 44, 13 from Lugalanda's sixth year [hardly Gi Elam; cf. FAOS 15/1, 264, ii, 5] and 1.2) has anything to do with Elam (Limet, Anthroponymie, p. 422 lists Gi4-ni-mu [certainly not Elam.!] from Ur III Lagash without explanation). In Selz's opinion (FAOS 15/1, p. 139, Nik. 19 r. i, 10), Ki-NIM has probably no relation to Elam. DP 164 (from Lugalanda's fifth year) records a delivery of grain (-products) to Aizkimzid (of Ninmar) at Migime (Bashime) after it was conquered by Eannatum (see Gr6goire, Prov. mer, p. 17 f.). An undated list of Elamites (Nik. 1 = FAOS 15/1, 11) has Ha-ne, Ra-i (cf. 1.0), Al-la, Mi-du (atypical) and Ne-sag (Sum.). Note Bara-URUxGU-a (TSA 2 r. 5; perhaps -Guru, a place which is mentioned together with Elamite locales, cf. RGTC 1, p. 184; 2, p. 239). Inim-ma-ni-zi(Sum.) Elam is recorded in DP 374, 3. For a dubious occurrence of Elam ("NIM") in Pre-Sargonic or early Sargonic Adab see Edzard, SR, p. 164, OIP 14, 75.

ELAMITES

AND

OTHER

PEOPLES

FROM

IRAN

AND

THE

PERSIAN

GULF

REGION

39

ively. Uru-azki ("Bears' town" acc. to Selz, FAOS 15/1, p. 359) is also recorded as an anthroponym in a document Da-an-'-ri is mentioned (< gentilic) then (ITT 1195 r. 3). It is interesting to Lagash. recording delivery of baskets (STTI 37:L. 1277, 2). find a scribe named after U.URUxA-mes, a place An Elamite priest is recorded in a list of metal which is to be sought in Elam (eventually = objects and military equipment (STTI 7: L. 1125, 6). URUxA, see Edzard, Farber and Sollberger, RGTC STTI 63: L. 1469 records a purchasing trip to Elam. 1, p. 188 ad Nik 2, 14, ii, 14). Anonymous Elamite An anonymous Anshanite is recorded in RTC 247 ugula acted in Gudea's eleventh year (MVN 7, 493, r. 17. A Susian occurs in CT 50, 148 (concerning 13). Umma. For Susians and Elamites from Bashime, rations; cf. 146). Hu-ba (possibly Lagash, perhaps who time of Sarkaligarri, 2217-2193 B.C. or slightly see Foster, USP, pp. 15 f. 113. huiu-li-nimki, later) received rations (DPA 45). The ensis of Susa presumably originated from Susa, is recorded in and Elam, who might have been expelled from CT 50, 56, 21 (concerning beer). The very same their regions by Sarkaligarri, held land in Girsu spelling recurs in T. Donald, MCS 9 (1964), 241 r. according to RTC 143 (see B. R. Foster, Mesopotamia 11; 242 r. 7 (from Umma? possibly late Sargonic or [Copenhagen] 9, 1982, pp. 19. 36 f. with n. 31). A Gutian). An anonymous Elamite acted as a scribe certain Ha-ne is recorded in the Mesag archive (DV 5, 61, 3). Nippur. An anonymous Elamite is recorded in a (perhaps near Lagash, cf. S. J. Bridges, The Mesag beer account (OSP 1, 57, i, 7; cf. the anonymous Archive: A Study of Sargonic Society and Economy, Yale craftsmen in i, 2.4.6; ii, 4.5). Westenholz (OSP 1, p. Dissertation 1981, p. 32). The following individuals occur in the late Sargonic period (in MVN 6 unless 38), who suggests a probable date in Sargon's reign, otherwise indicated): Ba-ak-za-na (fem.) is listed is of the opinion that he presumably was an before Ba-ar-si-ni whose name is likewise non- "ambassador". Other anonymous Elamite individMesopotamian (381 r. 7; cf. Ur III Ba-ra-gi-in, uals received beer and clothes (*NI[M]- x I, TuM 5, 1.3.2.37). Hu-um-ba (-"MA";shepherd; 351 r. 5). 15 38, i, 6; 108 +, iv, 7; cf. Westenholz, OSP 1, p. 94, individuals (most probably slaves), who belonged s.v.) there at about the same period. Another docuto four groups (a-d), are listed in a contract (500). ment (OSP 1, 129, v, 2 f.; contents uncertain Some of them bore atypical names, but all are (records Elam-mu from Du6-LUL (Du6-ka5, i.e. explicable in Elamite terms: a. Gu-ri,Na-pis-ir (both "Foxhill"? or Dul-us? see Westenholz, p. 110, s.v. 1.2. Sargonic

fem.), Hu-ba, Da-an; b. Ka-ka, Gu-ri, Ba-ar (three females), Hu-un, U-e-li; c. Si-im-ta[n], A-bi, Am-ba/ma-ar, Hu-un-zu-tu, Za-na (fem.); d. Hu-hu-me (fem.); Ha-ap-hi-

with lit.; cf. 112, s.v.

Gdna-Giggi-dul4-aki). Adab. Elamite prisoners received rations (cf. Yang, Adab, A 672, 4). It is very doubtful whether Uis (late Sargonic? 100, 2). The following individuals i-Ui(ibid. 632, i, 3) was an Elamite. Gasur (all in HSS 10). Pu-ul-ma(185, iv, 15), Si-a-ni are listed in ITT (transcription/transliteration only): Gi-NIM (5839; cf. 1.1); In-tar-ra (3107; cf. (169, 9; 199, 2), Ti-ru-s'a-ki(129, 13; 156, 7; 197, 10; 1.3.3.3); Mu-mu-'i (4559; apparently cultivated a cf. EO, no. 211) and Za-na (fem., 188, ii, 18; iv, 21; cf. field), Zu-zu-i-lum (ITT 4518) and possibly Ur- Th. Meek, ibid., p. xxix n. 15 ad loc.). Other strange names such as Hi-ir-ha-ga(176, 13), Hu-hi-ir (26, 9; dusinak (2855; list of offerings) originated from Susa. An anonymous ensi of Susa is mentioned in 61, 5; 162, 10), Ki-ip-tu-ru(129, 11; 153. iv, 31) and U(ITT 4560. Susians are recorded in ITT 4700 and i-li (cf. Gelb, MAD 3, p. 31!), are not necessarily Elamite as Gasur was situated near regions where Elamites (lh-Elam) in ITT 2905 (after "Nim-hid") and 4514 (account of cattle). An anonymous Elamite Lulubian and other unclassifiable dialects were possessed a slave with a Sumerian name (ITT 5798). spoken. Eshnunna. Ku-ru-zason of 1, 85:TA Ma-ad-ga(RTC 253, 8 r. 5) is homonymous with a Se-ilx-ha (MAD if name of Elam not the Greater 1931, 9). region's region Other places. Susians (sg. li-sulinaki, e.g., Pinches, with omission of the determinative. People from the neighbouring region of Kimash (also sometime Amherst 7, 4'; cf. RGTC 1, p. 154 f.), as well as an within Greater Elam) are recorded in RTC 248, 7; Elamite (E-lam,MAD 4, 16 r. i, 7), are recorded. If a 251, 3'; 252, 5. Pu-ul-ma is mentioned among segmentation Elam ci-um is correct (a name Nim-iaiSusians (MVN 6, 90, 5 r. 9; late Sargonic?); Ha-al-ka um [M. van de Mieroop, RA 79, 1985, p. 20:3, 12] (late Sargonic and 11th year of Gudea, MVN 6, 377, has no parallels and is unexplained), then it may 1.15 and 504, 6 respectively). Anonymous Elamite refer to an Elamite (concerning delivery of guruJwomen received rations according to documents workmen). An Elamite woman (e-la-mi-tum) is from the late-Sargonic Suna archive (MVN 6, recorded in OAIC 9, 10. Hu-un-da-ah-le-eris men105.335.492). They are mentioned twice (105.492) tioned in MAD 3, p. 130: A. 3004 and [Ru(?)]-hupubefore people from E-la-nirki (in Elam?). People ni in BIN 8, 139, 4 (delivery of sheep). from Bashime and Uru-azki are recorded in Nik. 2, Foster (ASJ 4, 1982, p. 24; BJRL 64, 1982, 35, ii, 12 (from Lagash?) and RTC 113, 3' respect- pp. 459.472) notices that CST 19 (possibly post-

40

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

Sargonic) contains Elamite names, viz. Si-an-ha Hu-ba-a (S 48; TuT 152, 18; also TIM 6, 34, AS 2; (IKIR ? cf. Westenholz in Foster, loc. cit.), Si-nam-ki-ri- from Puzrish-Dagan, cf. CSAU, pp. 57.87); 17. An ir, Ad-da-sell-baand Pap-gi-si. However, they were Elamite (Elam) is mentioned (AS 1; CT 10, pl. from B&d-da-NIMki,i.e. "Fortress beside Elam". If 38:15296, i. 23) together with 18. Hu-ru (AS 1; HLC Foster's interpretation is correct, then these Ela- 2, pl. 83:73, i, 3.6; the latter also in Jean, RA 19, p. mites did not reside in Mesopotamia, but were 42: 82, 4; MVN 15, 167 [IS 2]; SET 206, 13); 19. Adson probably stationed near the Elamite border. da-na-pirx (AS 1; CT 7, 34:18409 r. 6); 20. Bu6-sQ(?) of Hu-ba (AS 1? TuT 159, i, 13; cf. vii, 14). 21. Li'dnaru-a son of I-lam-ma(AS 4; from Gu'abba; CT 10, pl. 1.3. Ur III cf. 115? 22. Se-li-bu-um(AS 5; STH 2, Abbreviations of royal names (chronology acc. to 16:12921, i, 24); 75 r. 4). An Elamite is mentioned then (AS 5; TuT J. A. Brinkman in A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient 37 r. 10); 23. Hu-un-k[u(?)-li(?)] (AS 7; SNSA 110 r. 1); Mesopotamia, rev. ed. completed by E. Reiner, 24. Ad-da (AS 8-9; CT 10, 46, 2; DAS 97, 18; 137, 6; Chicago and London 1977, p. 336): S = Sulgi 154, 14; 176, 22; 182, 19; 192, 7; 193, 8; 229, 7; 311, (2094-2047 B.C.); AS = Amar-Sin/Suen (20467; HLC 2, pl. 75: 57, iii, 6; ITT2 683, 23; 879, ii, 10; 2038 B.C.); SS = Su-Sin/Suen (2037-2029 B.C.); IS MTBM 21, 6; 24, 7; 49, 3; TS 99 r. 2; WMAH 227, 1 = Ibi-Sin/Suen (2028-2004 B.C.). The abbreviated f. occurs frequently together with 44 below: AAS RN is followed by the year number (e.g., S 47) 176 [cf. Gregoire, AAS, p. 209 ad 171]; DAS 84, 21; below. 85, 19; 155, 20; 157, 20; 159, 20; 177, 21; 183, 25; 195, 33). 25. D/Tan-kal-la(AS 9), who belonged to a 1.3.1. Lagash guardians' group (DAS 206, 12), was most probably tukul, AS (From Girsu = modern Tall al-Loh unless other- identical with D/Tan-kal-athe guard (l-zigfAS 9 acc. wise indicated.) 9; DAS 114, 4); 26. dSulgi-da-anga-da(etc.," 1. Ad-da-na-nam(S 32; MVN 7, 82); 2. Gu4-ka-ri(S to DAS 148, 7; mentioned frequently together with 33; MVN 7, 251 r. 2); 3. Dumu-dabs-ba-MUS.ERENki 44 below); 27. Elam-mu(AS 9; CT 10, pl. 26:14315, ii, (S 34; A UCT 1, 21); 28. Hu-ne-re(AS 9; WMAH 209, 9). (S 34; MVN 6, 66, 8); 4. Susa" (a-s' susinak, a-sa a20 Elamites are listed in TE 47 (AS 9), but only 12 303, 15); 4a. "The field ofIg-pu-ga-ru names is recorded a (29-40) are preserved: 29. Igi-ni-ta(2); 30. AtSusian(s)'s field?) gar -; originally between S 34 and IS 2 (see Pettinato, UNL 1, p. 64: ti-iz-ta (3); 31. Pd-hu (4); 32. Pi-li (5); 33. A-ad-da-hu (6); 37; 2, p. 194: 774; RGTC 2, p. 190; mentioned after 34. Ip-qui-sa(7; WMAH 233, 3); 35. Ma-ds'(8; WMAH the Elamites' village in TuT 159; cf. i-dub(-fi-) 214, 11); 36. dNanna-hi-li (9); 37. Be-li-a-zu (10); 38. susinaki,Waetzoldt, ZA 65, 1975, p. 276 ad ITT 7131, [...] -]i-im-[ ..] (r. 2); 39. Se-en6-[...] (r. 3); 40. [...] -pa19). Note dNin-usinaki (e.g., MVN 6, 588, 2). 5. ni-h[u] (r. 4); 24 above (r. 5). 41. Ad-da-bi-li-ir(SS 1; IHu(?)l -i-ni-da-a-se (S 37; TuT 226, 5); 6. Ap-ku (S DAS 152, 7); 42. Me-en-ra (SS 1; DAS 100, 3); 43. Hu44; HLC 2, Pl. 92:98, ii, 2); 7. Ur dgu-nir-ra(S 45; TuT ba-a (SS 1; WMAH 210, 7). For anonymous Elamites 258, 4); 8. A-da-napirx (PIRIG; S 45/AS 2; CT 10, 28: who are mentioned in the same year see 1.4. 44. Da14316, ii, 24); 9. Ad-da-na-pirx (S 46; WMAH 175, ii, an-u-pi, D/Tan-i-pi/pi/pi4, [D/Tan]-u-e12 (SS 1--IS 2; 27; cf. Steinkeller, ZA 77, 1987, p. 92 f.); 10. Lu-lu see 1.4). 45-48 are recorded in ITT 6787 from SS 2 (cf. de (wife of an Elamite nu-banda;S 46/AS 3; HLC 1, P1. ITT 5, p. 23; the other names occurring 11. HLC Hu-ba-a 46/AS 12: Genouillac, 3; 1, 4; ii, 4:5, i, (S 2); P1. 52, ii, 5; from Lagash?). 1la. The field of Hu-ba-na in this document are not Elamite; Su-ru is atypical): (cf. 134 below) is recorded in S 46-AS 8 and in 45. Hu-nu-ri; 46. Hu-ba; 47. Ad-da-na-pi-ir; 48. D/Tanseveral undated documents. It is often followed by na-hu-ti; 49. Chi-gi-ni (SS 3; ITT2 826, 15); 50. Ab-bavarious designations: a-sa H.-ambara (in a swampy sa6-ga (SS 4; ITT" 741, i, 13; MVN 6, 62, 7 f.); 51. Umregion), -agi-uis (of the gendarmes), i7-sug-ge-dar-ra pu (SS 4; TE 43, 15). 52. Hu-ba (SS 6; DAS 60, 16.29); (on the Suggedarra Canal). A plot of a-4aH. is fol- 53. Hu-ba and 54. In-da-a (SS 8; HLC 1, pl. 5:37, ii, 3 lowed by kzir being the only field which is desig- and iii, 4 resp.); In-da (went to Adamdun, Pinches, nated as such. For all the material on H. see Berens84 r. 10); 55. Hu-hu-ni (SS 9; ITT2 944); 56. HuPettinato, UNL 1, p. 278 f.: 421 f.; K. Maekawa, ru (IS 2; MVN 15, 167); 57. Hu-ba-ni-i (IS 3; IT7T 726, Zinbun 13 (1974), pp. 22.36. It was situated opposite iv, 24); 58. E-gi-il-ta (IS 3; ITT 906). 59-138 are recorded in documents whose year is the field of dEn-lil-l-[i]-ga6 (Enlil-ifa) according to either not known or not reported; 59-67 and 68-71 WMAH 42, B, ii, 2. For a-&-hu-ba-na igi-ug-uduki (perhaps opposite U'udu) see A. Falkenstein, AnOr belonged to two groups consisting of ten (WMAH 214, 2 ff.) and five (WMAH 233, 1 ff. where 44 above 30/1, 39 (cf. RGTC 2, p. 237). 12. Ur-dgulgi son of Hum/Lum-ba-ru(S 47; HLC 1, P1. 28: 248, ii 6); 13. U- is also mentioned) Elamites: 72-77 belong to a du-ku(S 47; Figulla, Cataloguep. 49: BM 12776, from group of six Elamites (BM 23157, pers. comm. Prof. Lagash?); 14. Ur-bdrson of Hu-ba (S 48; UDT 73, 22); M. Sigrist). 59. Su-d"ulgi; 60. Ba-a-a; 61. dSulgidan; 62. Ur-nin15. I-lam-ma (S 48; WMAH 176, xi, 23'); 16.

ELAMITES

AND

OTHER

PEOPLES

FROM

IRAN

AND

THE

PERSIAN

GULF

REGION

41

giz-zi-da;63. Ga-[ma]h-DU;64. Nu-ir-dsul-gi;65. Lii-be- 11); 131. U-eli (HLC 3, pl. 132:335, 5; IT7T 668, 28); son of Ku-gu-nu(TuT 210 r. i, 5); 133. li-lagdl; 66. Ur-niggar;67. In-ell; (35 above); 68. A-bu- 132. Ur-dba-ba6 um; 69. Luzi-sulgi-zi;(34 above); 70. Idi-~ul-gi; 71. Za-la-a(BM 27572, courtesy Sigrist). 134. [... . son of Li-gui-na; 72. Li'-dingir-sard; 73. Ur- dgegtin-an-ka, Hu-ba-na (grandson of S2a-ba-na-[gar],WMAH 282, 74. Lugal-zage-si; 75. Lti-dingir-ra;76. I-NElbi, 77. iii, 7; cf. MVN 2, p. 18 ad loc. and Ila above); 135. Inim- sara. Ad-da-na-pirx is mentioned in a provision list of six 78. Ba-la-a and 79. Se-ti-ti are mentioned before persons going to and returning from Susa (HSS 4, Elamites from Shimashki and Sapum in a Mes- 65, 5; see T. Fish, MCS 4, 1954, p. 89; Steinkeller, senger Document (ITT 2 893, i, 6; iii, 25); 80. A-da-ra WZKM 77, 1987, p. 192, n. 19; Lagash?); 136. Se-er(DAS 79, 13); 81. Agu-ni (TuT 56 r. 2); 82. A-ha-ma-ti napi-ir (from Lagash? cf. FAOS 16, p. 61 ad 900 r. 2; (HLC 1, pl. 88:92, v, 2) is mentioned in the same A. Uchitel, BSOAS 53, 1990, p. 126); 137. Ur-sag document as 83. Na-ba-s'd(vi, 11); 84. A-ma-an-ne-en (AAS 176, 12, cf. Gregoire, ibid, p. 214 ad loc.; men(connected with Adamdun, ITT 4097); 85. Ap-za-lum tioned in the same document as 24.44 above) was (Pinches, Amherst 111 r. 2); 86. Ba-ad-da-a(DAS 204, perhaps an Elamite; 138. Za-na (fem.; HSS 4, 47, 4). 11); 87. Bu6-ka-ra(TuT 194 r. i, 9); 88. Da-agu-nir An anonymous Elamite functionary (agd-iis) is (MVN 7, 377 r. 6); 89. Da-angu-ni (Jean, RA 19, 1922, recorded in WMAH 139, 2 (no year). An anonyp. 30:8, 12.16); 90. D/Tan-ad-da (MTBM 25, 2); 91. mous Elamite from Susa is mentioned in IS3 (SNSA D/Tan-nigi4 (Jean, RA 19, p. 34: 43, 9); 92. D/Tan-sa- 200, 2 f.). Anshan is recorded in another document sa (DAS 79, 19); 93. D/Tan-ir-ri (Jean, RA 19, 1922, p. (SNSA 252). An unpublished document in Istanbul (L-30315; 42:86, 3); 94. E-lag/k-ra-at (DAS 74), E-laga-ra-at (Pinches, Berens 80, 21; connected with Adamdun); cited by Gelb, Glossa 2/1, 1968, p. 93 f.) lists men 95. E-la-kar/qar(connected with Anshan, AOS 32, X (gurus) and women (gemer)who were probably taken 8, 8; HSS 4, 86); 96. E-lak-ra(ITT2 638, 12; 640, 19; as booty from Susa. Does lzi-Hu-a-a-a (MVN 11, K, 875, ix, 7'); the last document mentions an unloca- 42, und.) refer to an Elamite group?-For a field, 97. Elam- village, canal and granaries of Elam people see 1.0 lised Elamite group (Elamli-B/Pu-gdrki-me); mu (HLC 3, 384, ii, 14); 98. - (HSS 4, 149, 4; TuT 94, and Gregoire, Prov. mer., pp. 1.6.11.17.32.41. Cf. iii, 25; iv, 15); 99. - (STA 9, ii, 23; 10, viii, 8; ix, 16); 1.3.4.5a. 99a. E-lam-ma(an orchard on the Girsu Canal, ITT 6967, 15); 100. na4Elam-iadga (MTBM 154, 4, but 1.3.2. Umma 1. D/Tan-kal-la (S 34; Sigrist, Princeton 263, 2); 2. index, s.v. has: -"'a6-";no copy is published; mentioned together with U-ba-a, poss. the ensi of Hu-un-kap-ku(S 36; SET 243, i, 26); 3. D/Tan-ni-gi4(S Adamdun); 101. Ga-an-za(DAS 199, 3); 102. na4Gul- 40; A UCT 2, 173, 4); 4. Hu-un-ga6-an(S 40; AOS 32, H su-ga (TuT 201, 15); 103. Hu-ba (WMAH 228, 5). 1, 3); 4a. The field of Hu(?)-ba-nais mentioned in S 104-107, all named Hu-ba, are mentioned in Jean, 44/42 (Sigrist, Syracuse 149, 2; cf. CST 883); 5. HuRA 19 (1922): 104. (p. 32:91, 15), 105. (p. 39:1, 3), un-dar-a(S 45/AS 2; Schneider, Or. 47-49, 249, 59); 106. (p. 43:95, 8), 107. (p. 43:98 r. 9). 6. An-za-za-a(fem., c. S 45; FAOS 17, 94, 2; cf. p. 284); 108. Hu-ba-a (SET 209, 8); 109. Hu-ba-la(MVN 11, 7. Ur-dba/ma-[d]a-[ti?]-[nal (?) (AS 1; Gomi, MVN 12, P. 22); 110. Hu-ne-gdr-ra(TuT 204 r. i, 7); 111. Hu-un- p. 8 ad CST 554, 5); 8. Ad-da-napi-ir(AS 1;BIN 5, 106, gi-si (?E. Szlechter, RA 59, 1965, p. 112, 7); 112. Hu- 3); 9. Ur-nig9gar(AS 4; from Umma? AOS 32, C 16, un-za servant of 113. E4ag-gu (see Sollberger, TCS 1, 57); 10-15. A-bi-in-za,Ba-mu-ga-ak, Sa-ki-in-zu,Sa-ku-bap. 133:326 ad 339); 114. Hu-si-in (TuT 192 r. i, 7, li, A-da-me-naand Hu-b/pu-ul(AS 5; TCL 5, 6039); 16. provided it is not an error for Ri-); 115. I-lam-ma Hu-un-du-du(AS 5; BIN 5, 109, 7); 17. A-al-li/li-muson of x-x-e-ni (AS 8; C. A. Peters and D. R. Frayne, (TuT 160 r. iv, 9; the Elamites' village is mentioned in the same document; the same name is recorded ARRIM 8, 1990, p. 56:10); 18. Ha-ap-ru(AS 9;'AUCT in de Genouillac, Fs. Hiiprecht, p. 141:6, i, 6); cf. 21? 2, 168, 3; BIN 3, 382, 10; YOS4, 289, 8); 19. U-li (AS 116. "in-tah-gi-ir"(ITT 9966, most prob. = "in-tah-si- 9-SS 4; DCEP = HEU 34, 7; Schneider, Or. 47-49, ni", ITT 9972); 117. In-zu (Jean, RA 19, 1922, p. 462, 2; SNSA 453 r. ii, 9'; 500, ii, 10; YOS4, 260, 59); 44:118, 14); 118. Kap-ku-ku(ITT 3161); 119. Ku-ku-a- 20. U18-ba-a(SS 3; MessT 264, 6); 21. Kur-da-gu(SS 3; lum (connected with Nippur, MVN 7, 419, 7); 120. MessT 280, 4); 22. Napi-ir-da-szi(SS3; TS 66 r. 2); 23. Kur-in-tak(Jean, RA 19, 1922, p. 39:6 r. 3); 121. Li-ti- Hu-ti-ni (SS 3; CST 822). 24. Hu-ku-ni (SS3; AnOr 7, um (ITT 679); 122. L2-dnin-Jubur(ITT2 879, iii, 31); 306, 40; MessT 135, 8) 25. Hal-ti (SS 3; MessT 130, 123. Me-ri-ig(connected with Adamdun, MVN 7, 9 r. 30); 26. Za-an-na-za(SS 3; wife of dNu-mul-da-an-dul, 3; 386 r. 11); 124. Nagi-kal/tan is mentioned in con- AUCT 3, 373, 5. seal); 27. Ad-da-ri(SS 3; MessT 278, nection with Elamites (MVN 7, 260 r. 8); 125. PI-PI 4); 28. Hu-ba-a(SS 4; CST 841; MessT 517, 6; Owen, (or WA-WAetc., ITT 952); 126. Ri-ge(TE 55, 26); 127. Mesopotamia8-9, 1973-74, p. 158: 14, 12); 29. Ui-ba-a Si4-ni-gi-ba(MTBM 119, 4); 128. Tab1gu-ri (con- (SS 4; MessT 55, 20; 162, 30). 30. Hu-ba (SS 4; MessT nected with Anshan, MVN 7, 296, 3); 129. Tup-ki-na- 185, 2); 31. Si-si (SS 4-6; see McNeil, MessT, p. 78:19 mu (TE 55, 18); 130. U-ba-a(Jean, RA 19, p. 41:56, ad 1, 22); 32. Hu-un-ba-a(SS 5; MessT 450, 3); 33.

42

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

Hu-ba (SS 5; CST 835; SET 231, 19); 34. Hu-a-ni-is' (SS 5; MessT 51, 17); 35. Hu-hu-ni(SS 5; CST 835); 36. Ha-an-ur-a(SS 5; Owen, Mesopotamia8-9, 1973-74, p. 156:12, 8); 37. Ba-ra-li-in (SS 5; MVN 14, 425 r. 1; PN?); 38.39. Gime-dSara, Gu-a-a(SS 5; SNSA 503, 15 f.); 40. Su-ti (SS 5.6; MessT 59, 10; 93, 25); 41. Hu-ba (SS 6; DCEP 253, 14; MessT 476, 3.10; 477, 2); 42. Zana (wife of Ur-ni9-gar;SS 6; SNSA 509, ii, 4); 43. Adda-na-x(x)(SS 6; TS 102, 3; needs collation); 44. Undu-du(SS 9; SA 74); 45. Hu-ba (IS 1; MessT 505, 3); 46. Hu-un-gi-[la-ak(?)](IS 1; SA 71, ii, 8; cf. MAD 3, p. 130); 47. D/Tan-nu-ri, 48. Hu-nu-ha-ra (both IS 1; AUCT 3, 259, 13.41); 49. Hu-hu-ni (IS 2.3; CST 864; DV 5, 365, 11). 50-65 are recorded in documents which do not mention a year: 50. Ad-da-gaba(CST 728); 51. Ad-na(pi/pi)-ir (MessT 319, 9; cf. p. 200, n. 29); 52. A-da-napi-ir (Schneider, Or. 23, 494, 6; are both names homonymous with 43?); 53. Dagu-du-sa6 (AUCT 2, 127, 11; 276, 7 [both-(du)-], 3, 245, 5; 246, 7 [-(du)-]); 54. E-ze-me-na(YOS4, 289, 7); 55. E-zu-na-pi-ir(MessT 178, 25); 56. Gu-ga-at-152.2 kg.) from this season were processed with Munsell recording of diagnostics (8% of the total). Sherds were present in virtually all contexts; higher frequencies in the uppermost 10 cm. over the entire trench and in refuse deposits are indicative of deflation and sweeping-out practices. Among the unusual types was a single sherd with a heavily decayed glaze. Its context is seventh century and its fabric is suggestive of a central/southern Mesopotamian origin; it is worth remarking that Sasanian glazed wares are remarkably rare outside the latter region.

REPORT

ON THE

SECOND

SEASON

(1993)

67

Partly reconstructable forms included small flatbased, bowl-like lamps with incurved rims, a pinched lip wick-support and partially blackened interiors. This is the only type of lamp represented among the 1992-3 finds: given the importance of local cotton cultivation (see Nesbitt below), it is likely that cottonseed oil was the preferred fuel.4 This contrasts with preferences for sesame oil or pitch in other parts of the Sasanian empire (Newman 1932: 102-4; cf. also Hauser 1993: 390). It is not known whether variations in locally available fuel types affected regional typological developments in Sasanian lamps. Finally,joining fragments were found belonging to a large vessel with a high pedestal foot and trough base. This unusual type is known from seventh-ninth century in Iran and Mesopotamia contexts (Wilkinson [1974]: 312, 347, no. 66; Whitcomb 1985: 136-7, 142-3, fig. 53aa, w-z): the trough bases are believed to have been filled with water as a means of deterring insects. Thirteen Middle Persian ostracon fragments, including twojoining sherds, were recovered this season. Apart from two examples, found within the mud mortar of the west wall of Room A, these came from discrete refuse contexts located immediately east of Room A and in the upper fill of Room I. Stratigraphically, these contexts are approximately and date within the seventh cencontemporaneous tury, according to the coin evidence. A report on the 1992 ostraca is given below, those recovered in 1993 are still being studied. Twenty-two ceramic figurine fragments were recovered in 1993. Nineteen belonged to animals, mostly consisting of broken legs and/or hindquarters of quadrupeds, but including three recognizable horse figurines, two ovicaprids, a dog and a distinctive monkey-like creature. The last of these is paralleled by other examples known from earlier investi1962: 168, fig. 32) and is gations (Pugachenkova curiously reminiscent of figurines found by Stein (1907: vol. II, pls. XLVI-XLVII; 1928: vol. III, pl. II) at Yotkan in the Taklamakan. The three remaining figurines are again well-known local types, being variations of the so-called "Great Margiana Goddess" type that apparently date from the second century onwards (Pugachenkova op cit.: 140-141, figs. 16-18: Herrman, et al. 1993: 55, pl. XIVc). Excavated figurine fabrics were usually pale yellow (5Y8/3-4) with occasional light finger-tip or nail impressions on their undersides. Other finds categories include ground stone, worked bone and large fired clay tetrahedra similar to examples found on the 1992 survey. A single, eggshaped, hard-fired slingshot was also recovered (cf. Schmidt 1908: 200-01, 208-10). Supplementing the 1992-3 archaeobotanical evidence for local (cotton) textile industries and the earlier discovery of a

68

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

woollen textile fragment at Erk Kala (Usmanova ceramic spindle1963: 70-2), five hemispherical whorls were found this season. Rare evidence for Late to post-Sasanian board games comes in the form of chipped sherd discs, and rounded some with deliberately smoothed and a cubical and unbaked cones, edges, clay spheres ceramic die with opposing sides adding up to seven, as on examples from Pasargadae (Stronach 1978: 182-3, 214-15, fig. 92:8, pl. 169 e-g) and Qasr-i Abu Nasr (Whitcomb 1985: 191, 196-7, fig. 74d; cf. also Curtis 1984: 53-4). A further die was found in MGK YuTAKE Trench 6 (Varkhotova 1958: unnumbered plate), but unfortunately this rather interesting type of archaeological evidence is rarely published. Chess was played at this date from Central Asia to Iran and Mesopotamia, judging by sporadic finds of chessmen (e.g. Buriakov 1980) but the 1993 finds may instead belong to race-games, such as backgammon. A polished bone pin fragment with the head evidently in the stylised form of a clenched fist was found within the east wall of Room A. Bone pins are a characteristic minor element of Roman, Parthian, material culture Sasanian and Kushano-Sasanian and several have (Crummy 1981; Zavyalov 1993) been reported from earlier excavations at Merv (Schmidt 1908: 201, 209, pl. 56: 7; Usmanova 1955: 19, 48: Katsuris and Buriakov 1963: 153). A small number of beads (stone, glass, coral) complete this year's excavated inventory of items of personal adornment. Further pink or rosy coral beads were recovered from the 1992 surface survey and earlier excavations (Schmidt 1908: 199, 209, pl. 54, fig. 17: Varkhotova, 1958: nos. 149-62. A small number of glassware sherds were also found. Metal (copper alloy, iron) was again represented among the excavated material only in a fragmentary and highly corroded state. The impression is one of careful recycling in antiquity, followed by heavy deterioration owing to adverse ground conditions. Recognisable metal artefacts other than coins were rare but include a small trilobate copper alloy arrowhead and a fibula bow, both probably residual from earlier periods. However, evidence for the casting of small metal pendants was found this year in the form of a mould (1. 5.8 cm.), well stratified immediately above a floor in Room K. This has been made by shaving down the edges of a Sasanian ceramic jar strap handle and incising one surface to allow the simultaneous casting of two different objects (P1. Vd). One of these (1. 1.9 cm.) appears to have a central leaf shape with small, plain, equal-length arm crosses ("Greek crosses") at the terminals. The second was a cross (2.1 x 1.7 cm.) with equal-length, splayed arms, a pair of small blobs on the tip of each arm and a fur-

STUDIES

ther five blobs on the cross itself. This is the first such mould to have been found at Merv, although stone jewellery moulds of similar casting principle are known from other sites (e.g. Rteladze and Kato 1991: 321, no. Pugachenkova, in the Merv mould is uncertain, The metal used 303). but a bronze pendant in the form of a "Greek cross" with splayed arms but lacking the blobs was excavated at Qasr-i Abu Nasr (Whitcomb 1985: 176, 178-9, fig. 66q). The form of the cross is compatible with the Late Sasanian date suggested by its findspot: c. sixth century parallels can be found in the Byzantine world (e.g. BM.EA. 57298) and more elaborate types occur on eighth-ninth century stucco plaques in churches in lower Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf (Okada 1990, 1992; cf. also Wilkinson [1974]: 335, 362, no. 200). Small plain "Greek crosses" and "Latin crosses" (i.e. crosses with an elongated lower arm) often resting on a base also occasionally feature on Sasanian glyptic, sometimes associated with Christian personal names (Lerner 1977: 3-8; Shaked 1977: 17-24). The discovery of such an obviously Christian mould at this site is not particularly surprising as, by the sixth century, Merv had become a metropolitanate within the Nestorian church and a major centre for the transmission of the faith deeper into Central Asia (Fiey 1973). However, firm archaeological evidence hitherto has been lacking from Merv. A ruined, vaulted, mudbrick building at Kharobakoshuk, c. 15 km. north-west of Erk Kala, has been interpreted as a church but its function and date are unconfirmed 1967: 86-7).5 The (Pugachenkova identification of a Late Sasanian "oval building" complex within the north east corner of Gyaur Kala (P1. IVa) as a Christian monastery, mainly on the basis of some finger-marks in the wall plaster of one room, is even more dubious (Dresvyanskaya 1974).

Epigraphic Finds, by A. B. Nikitin The epigraphic finds of 1992 include four fragments of Middle Persian ostraca and short Bactrian inscriptions on bone coming from MEK: 1, together with a handle of a large jar with five lines in Parthian script, engraved before firing. The latter was a chance find made near MGK YuTAKE Trench 6 on old dumps and is currently being studied by Professor V. A. Livshits. In 1993, thirteen more Middle Persian ostraca were recovered from MEK: 1, as well as one Parthian ostracon recovered from the new excavations at MGK: 5. These are being worked on. Presented below is a report on the 1992 excavated epigraphic

finds.

THE

INTERNATIONAL

MERV PROJECT

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

ON THE

SECOND

SEASON

(1993)

69

Middle Persian Ostraca (P1. VII) 1. No. 23 1, from MEK: 1 (P1. VIIa), Context 114. Size 3 x 2.5 cm. Fragment of an ostracon. External surface, two incomplete lines in black ink: Transliteration: 1. ] Y lywk'. [ 2. ]n/w yzd't Y [ Internal surface, two incomplete Transliteration: 1. '] ZLWNt ' bn/w/r [ 2. ]... THNN'Il. [

Translation: ] (son of) Rewag. [ ]Yazdaid, (son of?) [

Transcription: ] i Rewag. [ ]n/w Yazddd i [ lines in black ink:

Translation: ](he) went.. [ ]... miller ... [

Transcription: ]sud b.[ ]... drddr ...[

Comments: Like most other Middle Persian ostraca from Merv, this fragment apparently came from some household document containing personal names and accounts of various products. or patronymic from rkv N.Pr. Revag-hypocoristic be an < av. *raivant "rich" N.Pr. Yazda-d-can abbreviated form of Yazd-dad or Yazdacn-&id-= Sudan "to "created by the god/gods". 'ZLWNtn' could be the the word second ideogram BR' = go", be. THNN'l "miller"-from THNNtn' = drdan "to grind, mill" 2. No. 238, from MEK: 1 (P1. VIIb), Context 114. Size 5.5 x 3.5 cm. Fragment of an ostracon. External surface, end of one line: ] (t)n mtr'n = ] .. (son of) Mihr. 3. No. 237, from MEK: 1 (P1. VIIc), Context 114. Size 9.5 x 8.5 cm. Fragment of an ostracon. External surface, six incomplete faded lines in black ink. The reading suggested here is tentative. Transliteration: 111 [ 1. ]IIII 100 YHTWMVyt 2. ] '/hn zhk (or 'YK ?) MINWltwnd Y[ 3. ]1L.. '/hmn/w[...]n(t)..[ 4. ]In/wcn plhwd't 'lmn(?) (B)RH.. [ 5. ] (...) .. plh 't 30 (or LK ?) Wlsn(?) .... [ 6. ](')k bwlcmtr 1[ Comments: The character of the document is not clear. It contains several Iranian personal names: Farroxdaid, Frahaid, Rain (?) Burzmihr, as well as numerical indications. 4. No. 134, from MEK: 1, Context 1. Size 5.5 x 3.0 cm. Fragment of an ostracon or of an inscribed vessel. External surface: three letters: ]'y 1 [. Bactrian Inscriptions 5. No. 274, from MEK: 1, Context 92. Fragment of a rib, size 4 x 1.4 cm. One line in Bactrian cursive script drawn in black ink: abbbo abbaba abbb[. The inscription makes no sense. Most probably it is a school exercise, with

someone b.

learning how to connect the letters a and

6. No. 313, from MEK: 1, Context 32. Fragment of a shoulder bone, size 5.5 x 3.0 cm. Three short lines drawn in black ink: 1. (Bactrian cursive) loixo 2. (Middle-Persian) . dh 3. (Unknown script, faded, three characters) Comments: Bactrian loixo "land, country"< OIr. dahyu-. Cf. loixobosari "the helper of the country" in the Surkh Kotal inscription (Gershevitch 1966: 101). Middle-Persian dh = deh presents the direct translation of the Bactrian word loixo. We have here obviously also an example of a school exercise left by some scribe learning the Bactrian language. Excavations at Merv Gyaur Kala: Trench 5, by StJohn Simpson, K. Kurbansakhatov and V. Zavyalov New exploratory excavations, lasting only a week,6 were begun on the low-lying mound in the north-east quadrant of Gyaur Kala known as the YuTAKE Trench 5 mound, because of an earlier, unpublished YuTAKE sondage there. Our more extensive archaeological operation took place on the west-facing slopes of the mound. Its purpose was to verify and, if possible, to date architectural anomalies recorded here during the 1992 aerial reconnaissance of the In these structures were the 1993, city. presumed focus of both a detailed GPS survey of the mound and a geophysical survey, see reports above. A temporary grid was established over the mound and four areas excavated (P1. IVc-d). Three measured 5 x 10 m., the fourth measured 10 x 20 m. Remains of mudbrick architecture was found in all areas, with a close match obtained between the aerial/geophysical surveys and the scraping exercise. In order to ascertain deposit depth within one of the identified structures, one room was partially excavated to floor-

70

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

level at a depth of 0.80 m. below the top of the walls. A hearth was sunk into this floor and the goodquality plaster found to curve up at the wall-junctions. The deposit within this room consisted of seven courses of deliberately laid mudbricks, at least one of which bore a fingermark impression on the underside.7

SPECIALIST REPORTS Analytical Investigation of Crucible Steel Production, Preliminary Results, byJ. F Merkel, A. Feuerbach and D. Griffithss to the early Islamic texts, three According methods are described for indirect production of steel (fiildd) as discussed by Allan (1979) and alHassan and Hill (1986). The most common, traditional method is solid state carburisation of wrought iron. There are many variations on this method. It is also known as "case hardening" or in other instances "cementation". This is a diffusion process in which wrought iron is packed in crucibles or a hearth with charcoal, then heated to promote diffusion of carbon into the iron to produce steel. Alternatively, another indirect method uses wrought iron and cast iron. Although there has been some uncertainty on the translation of the word (dus) in Islamic texts, the cast iron interpretation is generally accepted (Allan 1979). In this process, wrought iron and cast iron may be heated together in a crucible to produce steel by "fusion". This is also called a "visco-liquid diffusion process" (Needham 1958) and may operate below the melting point of true cast steel (Smith 1960). A third indirect method to produce steel is partial decarburization of cast iron or a high carbon steel bloom. Again, there are variations of this method, but generally it is considered very difficult to control (see Rostoker and Bronson 1990). Outside the Islamic textual evidence, inadvertent direct production of steel during bloomery iron smelting represents another possibility, but it is not considered here in the context of an indirect or multi-stage process to routine production of steel. A detailed account of the by Rostoker and many variations is presented Bronson (1990). It is against these three main methods for indirect steel production that this prelimievinary report evaluates the archaeometallurgical dence and its interpretations for early Islamic times at Merv. Two areas with surface concentrations of crucible fragments, green "glass" slag fragments and slagged furnace fragments have been located in the survey (P1. VIIIa) in MGK 7.F.II during the 1993 season. The scatter of pottery around and within the archaeois predominantly remains Early metallurgical

STUDIES

Islamic. A small-scale excavation was conducted, but the surface remains were unstratified and directly upon earlier, non-metallurgical layers which were not investigated. The remains are interpreted simply as superficial residue. dumps of metallurgical Charcoal recovered from the slag will be dated by radiocarbon. Fragments of crucibles, furnace wall and tuyeres as well as the glassy slag were collected from the metallurgical dumps by J. Merkel for technical investiScience gation in the Wolfson Archaeological Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology, U.C.L. The analytical work is undertaken, in part, as third year B.Sc. research by A. Feuerbach. The metallurgical process has now been identified as crucible steel production. The identification of the metallurgical process is based foremost upon the presence of abundant carbon steel droplets in the glassy green slag adhering to the inner surface of crucible fragments collected from the two areas. The steel is identified using etched metallographic sections (Pl. VIIIb) and microhardness measurements (Hv 140-320). Against metallographic standards, the carbon concentrations of the steel droplets seem to range from