Version classiqueVersion mobile

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age

 | 
Jan-Waalke Meyer
, 
Emmanuelle Vila
, 
Marjan Mashkour
, 
et al.

Elamite Kingdom

From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana Plain

Alireza Sardari et Samira Attarpour

Résumé

L’essor de la culture élamite et son développement en État dans le sud‑ouest de l’Iran, mis à part les sources historiques, est un problème archéologique en raison du faible nombre de vestiges découverts au cours de ces dernières années, limités seulement au matériel de Suse et de quelques autres sites. Mais les fouilles stratigraphiques de Tappeh Senjar dans le Khuzestan du Nord, menées de 2007 à 2009, ont fourni des vestiges se rapportant au IIIe millénaire av. J.‑C., comme de l’architecture, de la poterie, des sceaux et aussi des échantillons pour des datations radiocarbone. Les vestiges trouvés dans les tranchées A et E apportent des informations précieuses sur le processus de formation du site, le cadre chronologique de la plaine de Susiane ainsi que les relations culturelles entre Suse et les autres centres de la Mésopotamie et de Zagros. Les trouvailles archéologiques indiquent que le site de Tappeh Senjar a été occupé à partir de la fin du Ve millénaire av. J.‑C. et durant la période proto-élamite (Suse III). Il a été réoccupé au cours de la séquence Suse IV A, et à nouveau au cours de la séquence Suse IV B, puis pendant les époques Shimashki, Sukkal Mah et médio-élamite.

Texte intégral

Introduction

1The Susiana Plain on southwestern Iran is one of the most important problematic places during the third millennium BC studied by archaeologists and historians of Elamite kingdom. Issues pertaining to the invention of writing, formation of Proto-Elamite state and early process of emergence of Elam as a politico-cultural nation, its relations with western neighbor, i.e. Mesopotamia, interactions to highlands such as Zagros, Fars and long distant eastern territories of Kerman and also development of ancient nomadic pastoral societies raise some questions whose answers can contribute to comprehensive surveys, reconsideration of previous studies, precise stratigraphy and extensive excavations at various sites on lowland Susiana and its hinterlands.

  • 1 Carter 1985, p. 43.

2The beginning of the third millennium BC on southwestern Iran is contemporaneous with Proto-Elamite, which was characterized by the emergence of a homogeneously administrative system on based seals, sealing and tablets. The end of this millennium emerged Shimashki and Early Elamite dynasty was roughly well‑known by historical resources and archaeological evidences as well. However, there is no information, except for Susa, available on domestic organization between Proto-Elamite and Shimashki. Further, we have no palaces and no complete house plans let us reconstruct Susiana life‑styles or class distinctions in this period at Susa1. Nevertheless, all centuries of the third millennium BC are critical phases to identify the Elamite formation process.

  • 2 Alden 1987; Schacht 1987; Carter 1971.
  • 3 Vallat 1993; Potts 1999.
  • 4 Morgan 1900; Mecquenem 1980; Le Breton 1957; Dyson 1966; Le Brun 1971; Carter 1978; Carter 1980.

3Although, the archaeological surveys2 and discovering the toponymy of ancient centers based on the historical geographic resources3 suggested a trial framework for socio-political relations and the nature of some Elamite towns, only enduring excavations at Susa have relatively revealed cultural sequence of the third millennium BC phases4. Therefore, we can apply this chronological framework for other settlements on the heartland of the Susiana Plain called Susa III a, III b, III c, IV b and V or Shimashki periods.

4Accordingly, the archaeological excavations at Tappeh Senjar on the northern Susiana Plain seems necessary to shed light on the Upper Susiana plain societies. In this context, firstly, the importance of the site is previously described by excavators in Susa and some archaeologists visited and studied Susiana. Secondly, the proximity of Tappeh Senjar to Susa could be helpful to reconsider the stratifications of both sites. Thirdly, Tappeh Senjar as one of the most key sites of Khuzistan includes several enigmatic periods such as Terminal Susa A, Proto-Elamite, Awan and Neo-Elamite.

Tappeh Senjar: KS-007

  • 5 Sardari 2014, p. 171.
  • 6 Carter 1971, p. 120.

5Senjar is an archaeological site including a large central mound, around 17 hectares in area, and five small surrounding tells ranging from one to two hectares in area5. The site lies about 18 km north of Susa, close to the modern road of Khuzestan to Dehluran (fig. 1); and just on the eastern ford of Karkheh River. Traffic following Karkheh River to and from the mountains as well as traffic following the northwest-southwest foothill road would have crossed the river near Tappeh Senjar. Concerning the aerial photos of the past, it is indicated that the number and extent of the small tells were more than the present; the tells that were destroyed due to the development of agricultural activities6.

6The main central mound rises about 13 m (fig. 2) above the ground. But recent stratigraphic excavations indicated that the site has about 20 m height, showing that 7 m of lower archaeological layers have been covered by alluvial sediments of Karkheh River. Tappeh Senjar is the uppermost site of linear settlement patterns on eastern Karkheh River bank which contains sites such as Jowi, Jaffarabad, Soleyman, and Susa.

Fig. 1 – Location of Tappeh Senjar on the Susiana Plain (© Wright 1998, p. 176).

Fig. 1 – Location of Tappeh Senjar on the Susiana Plain (© Wright 1998, p. 176).

Fig. 2 – Tappeh Senjar and some excavated trenches (© Bing Maps).

Fig. 2 – Tappeh Senjar and some excavated trenches (© Bing Maps).

History of Early Researches

  • 7 Morgan 1896, p. 288.
  • 8 Adams 1962.
  • 9 Hole 1969.
  • 10 Dollfus 1985.
  • 11 Johnson 1973, p. 116.
  • 12 Sardari 2014.

7De Morgan is one of the first visitors of Senjar7, who put forward that this site was ancient Haltemash, on the basis of its position on a list of cities conquered by Assurbanipal. Tappeh Senjar was systematically surveyed by Adams with site‑code KS‑007 and a drawing of simple topographic plan, showing its size about 12 hectares in area8. The previous archaeological studies and surveys were carried out by Hole9, Dollfus10, and Johnson11. Moreover, the undertaken excavations at Senjar confirm that the site was established from the prehistoric era, namely, Late Susiana phase during the fifth millennium BC, which continued to the forth and third millennium BC12.

  • 13 Carter 1971, p. 120.
  • 14 Carter 1971, p. 133, tab. 3.
  • 15 Schacht 1987, p. 176.
  • 16 Potts 2005, p. 171.

8Carter also studied Tappeh Senjar through the archaeological surveys in 1968‑1969 to reconstruct the history of Elam and precise knowledge of the role of centers, towns and villages during the second millennium BC13. She attributed the site continuously from Shimashki, Sukkal Mah, transited to Middle Elamite and Neo-Elamite around 1000 BC, on the basis of surface collections and comparison to Girshman’s stratigraphy at Ville Royale of Susa14. Schacht supposed that Senjar was ancient Zahara15 and finally Potts suggested that the site could be ancient Madaktu16.

Recent Stratigraphic Excavations

9Archaeological excavations at Tappeh Senjar took place during two seasons from 2006 to 2009, on the central mound and its two surrounding small mounds. The main goal of this program was to study the site formation process, distribution of occupational phases and its extent through stratigraphic trenches. Trenches A, C, D, E, F and G on the central mound and Trenches H and J at two small mounds by 2×2 m and 2×3 m in size, including deposits of Late Susiana (Trenches A and F), Terminal Susa A (Trenches A and F), Susa II or Uruk (Trenches A, F and G), Proto-Elamite (Trench A), Old Elamite (Trenches A and E), Middle Elamite (Trenches A, C, D and E), Neo-Elamite (Trench H) and Parthian (Trenches H and J) periods (fig. 2).

10Therefore, according to the discovered evidences of Proto-Elamite and Old Elamite in Trenches A and E on the Central mound, we analyzed some material and deposits of the trenches to revise third millennium BC phases. The area excavated in the two stratigraphic soundings was extremely small; however, the ceramic sequence was studied via diagnostic sherds recovered from all well-stratified excavation units.

Occupational Phases of Trench A

11Trench A is located on the center of the main site and 6 m lower than the uppermost benchmark, including 22 occupational phases; the excavation was continued approximately 14 m into the archaeological deposits without access to virgin soil (fig. 3). As a result, we suppose that the archaeological deposits possibly extended around 2 m downward. The earliest periods of this trench are Phases 22‑19 attributed to Terminal Susa A and Phases 18 and 17 to Susa II period (fig. 4). The Proto-Elamite phases contain 16 to 13 and continued later on to the Elamite on the upper levels which are described as follows.

12Phase 16: this is first Proto-Elamite phase, consisting of a domestic space with an oven which is orange, due to burning. Its size is 55 cm in diameter and 65 cm high. Its extent is over an area of 1×2 m formed by ashy deposits.

13Phase 15: this phase is an accumulation of pot sherds and cobble (ca. 20×15 cm) extending about 1.10×1 m, which made a mud‑brick wall and brick floor; some ground stones were found among the cobbles and periodically various sherds from Late Susiana to Proto-Elamite mixed with earlier sherds.

14Phase 14: the structural remains consist of mud‑brick wall with 35×70 in size and 20 cm thickness. A rubbish pit was attested close to the wall, which filled by a mixture of garbage materials.

15Phase 13: the last Proto-Elamite phase includes a large amount of mud‑brick and collapsed walls; mud‑bricks are different in size, light brown in color, and are set in a grey mud mortar. A great deal of charcoal and carbonized seeds were found inside the mortar along with some small lumps of bitumen.

16Phase 12: non-structural material form this phase and associated with gradually covered fills on Phase 13. Some features such as pits, hearths with orange color and ashy material with firm texture are made among the deposits.

17Phase 11: this is a non-structural phase consisting of burnt soils, ashes and loosely sponge soils comprising layers of gray sandy clay and overlying layers of brown, up to Phase 10.

18Phase 10: this phase is an alignment of mud‑brick wall on the northern corner of the trench with 130 cm long. The extent exposed over an area of 2×2 m; the mud‑bricks placed in two rows of wall with 25×25×15 cm dimensions. Although any floor associated with the wall could not be found, it was filled with a large quantity of silty compacted soils.

19Phase 9: this phase constituted by several deposits without structural/architectural elements, consisting of layers of grey and greenish brown sandy clay fill while its thickness was about 130 cm.

Fig. 3 – Trench A on the center of mound (© Sardari).

Fig. 3 – Trench A on the center of mound (© Sardari).

Fig. 4 – Western Section of Trench A (© Sardari).

Fig. 4 – Western Section of Trench A (© Sardari).

Occupational Phases of Trench E

20Trench E on northern part of the central mound is similar to the step trench, including 11 occupational phases excavated to 8.5 m in depth (fig. 5). Although several meters of earlier deposits have not yet been excavated, the discovered materials are attributed to the Early Elamite, which are going to be discussed below. The deposits include Phases 11‑8 which are attributed to the Old Elamite while the upper phases are traced back to Shimashki and Sukkal Mah periods.

21Phase 10: the lowest occupational phase known from Trench E, which includes dump of the collapsed mud‑bricks. This is an even surface varied in size and dimensions, extended over the trench 2×2 m. Over this dump of mud‑bricks, there is a wall with 55 cm continued to the middle of trench. The wall has 3 rows of mud‑brick, two of them have remained.

22Phase 9: It includes deposits and several pits filled with collapsed mud‑bricks although there can be seen some remains of small heavily damaged walls.

23Phase 8: it is considered as the most interesting features known from Tappeh Senjar; it is an area of 3×2 m, where appears like a kitchen area (fig. 6). Here, there are two mud‑brick walls joint together, an oven along with two hearths. The wall is 50 cm thick and has mud‑bricks with dimensions of 30×30/25×30 cm. The diameter of the oven is 80 cm made by stripes of clay with 6 cm thickness. One of the ovens is a square with 35×35 cm and another is circular with 32 cm in diameter. Making the wall had two steps such that it was, firstly, 35 cm in diameter, then another wall with 15 cm thickness in the internal part of the kitchen has joined aiming to make a new oven.

Fig. 5 – Sections of Trench E (© Sardari).

Fig. 5 – Sections of Trench E (© Sardari).

Fig. 6 – Phase 8 of Trench E, kitchen space (© Sardari).

Fig. 6 – Phase 8 of Trench E, kitchen space (© Sardari).

Pottery Assemblages of Trench A

  • 17 Alden 1987, fig. 42.

24Phase 16: potteries from this phase are mostly jars with various rim forms (fig. 7). Necked mouth jars with everted rims, sand-tempered have brown and buff stains; many of these fugitive slips are the same as Susa III diagnostic potteries17. There are examples of these sherds which are white watercolor painted on the exterior surface while they have irregular linear patterns inside; these, in some cases, are pink watercolor. The texture of these sherds is coarse and similar to the beveled rim bowls which continued from lower layers (Phases 18‑17).

  • 18 Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 9.
  • 19 Le Brun 1971, fig. 63, no. 14; Le Brun 1978, fig. 36, no. 8.
  • 20 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 32, no. 21.
  • 21 Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 16.

25The base form of these sherds are mostly flatted, while some of them are very fine and small in diameter (fig. 7, no. 9); and these base types have continued to the later Elamite periods. However, the fine buff sand-tempered body sherds are the same with the so‑called Terminal Susa sherds that are average in the assemblage. Ledge rim jars with semi-undercut forms have been found (fig. 7, no. 10), which are similar to those discovered from the Susiana Plain18; they were also found in Acropole 1519, and in the 1965 excavations of Acropole20; also, large jars with big ledge rims are attested (fig. 7, no. 16). There are some other jars from this phase, which are comparable to those found from Acropole 1321.

  • 22 Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 8.
  • 23 Le Brun 1971, fig. 66, no. 14.

26Phase 15: potteries from this phase are buff interior everted rims that are mostly known via their cut rim forms (fig. 7, no. 1); these can be paralleled with the Acropole 14a potteries22. However, there are some concave and club rim cases (fig. 7, no. 7‑8) similar to Acropole 13 as well23.

  • 24 Alizadeh 2014, pl. 153 E-G.
  • 25 Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 16.

27These forms, neckless in some cases, have concave rim and most of them are brown and sand-tempered; their characteristics are almost identical to the Proto-Elamite potteries as known from Ram Hurmoz as a hinterland of the Susiana Plain24. Hemispherical sand-tempered deep bowls with rounded upright rims (fig. 7, no. 3) have also occurred in this phase; there are some flatted sand-tempered bases with coarse surface as well (fig. 7, no. 4). There can be seen some other everted rim bowl samples that are bigger in diameter (fig. 7, no. 2), some from Acropole 1325 and Late Jamdat Nasr phase. Another is a dark buff sand-tempered pottery with common fabric painted with horizontal band (fig. 7, no. 5) and incised decoration (fig. 7, no. 6). Red‑slip potteries diagnostic of Proto-Elamite have also occurred in this phase such that some have been given slip either on both sides/one side. Ring bases with black band decoration that are similar to the earlier periods (Middle and Late Susiana) have been also attested; some are brown and red sherds with crumbly exterior surface and simple stripe interior.

Fig. 7 – Trench A – Phases 16 and 15 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Fig. 7 – Trench A – Phases 16 and 15 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
  • 26 Carter 1978, fig. 43, no. 2.
  • 27 Alizadeh 2014.
  • 28 Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 13.
  • 29 Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 11.

28Phase 14: there are some examples on the Proto-Elamite diagnostic potteries with concave rims, which have continued over this phase as well (fig. 8, no. 11). These everted rims are fine and red, including carinated bowls. Other forms of carinated ledge rim bowls are attested in this phase as some have occurred in Susa IV26. However, these forms have not yet been found from the earlier period in Tappeh Senjar. A thick flat everted rim has been found from this phase in Tappeh Senjar, which has a tenon on shoulder (fig. 8, no. 17). These forms that have extremely extended over Elamite periods have started to use Tappeh Senjar; however, their fabric is brownish buff and sand-tempered, which is different from later samples. Although there is no such parallel from the earlier phases of Shimashki period of Susa, there are examples from the Proto-Elamite of Ram Hurmoz, which were discovered via archaeological surveys27. These sherds, in some cases, have regular wet‑hand coating while they have gypsum slip on the interior side; some ledge rimmed goblets have also occurred (fig. 8, no. 13), which are common over Susa III period28; there is a fine small buff pottery as well (fig. 8, no. 12), which is similar to Susa II period pottery29. Neckless heavy rimmed and opened jars (fig. 8, no. 12) along with small deep cup are also attested (fig. 8, no. 16).

29Phase 13: potteries from this phase are the continuation of bowls and jars tradition of Proto-Elamite period, which are open-mouths. Some cases with incised decorations (fig. 8, no. 7) and appliqué stripe (fig. 8, no. 10) occurred as well. The rim forms are not too complicated as there is no special difference so as to distinguish this phase. A rounded club rimmed pottery is slanting everted with pinkish brown and coarse black sand-tempered (fig. 8, no. 6) while its fabric is similar to that of Proto-Elamite. The exterior surface of the sherds has parallel grooves.

30In Phase 13, there could be found interior white slipped potteries as well as a dark grey fabric with white particles with brown fabric and polished slip. Red body with thick grooves occurred, which is smoothed by sand temper though some bitumen plastered cases are attested. In one case, there is a wheel-made out‑flaring cut rim that seems to be a kind of more regular beveled with buff fabric (fig. 8, no. 9).

31Phase 12: the main characteristic of this phase is the appearance of potteries with forms and decorations other than those in the previous periods, which is more likely to be an Elamite pottery while having special difference with Shimashki in terms of fabric. Some vessels with appliqué bands and brown wash on the exterior side and plain stripe interior (fig. 8, no. 3) or mixed sand and vegetal-tempered red/pink pottery have also occurred. There is a sample with incised decoration (fig. 8, no. 5), which is coarse and uneven in the interior side.

32Most of the potteries have a pink fabric, however, in some cases covered by buff slip on the exterior and interior surfaces. In terms of fabric, pinched sherds have also occurred while there is an engraved decoration on their rims (fig. 8, no. 20) and their rim forms are ledged with pink fabric as mentioned above. Another type of the potteries of the phase is a pottery with light buff fabric, which was not known from the earlier phases. A case of such potteries with bowl form and out‑flaring sand-tempered rim, fine fabric and buff wash on the exterior side was found from this phase (fig. 8, no. 1) although this wash on the interior side seems to be a muddy material rather than wash and in some cases more likely to be greenish. In another case, an open-mouth collar rim jar with greenish buff and sand/grit-tempered has been found (fig. 8, no. 18). The bases are flat and string cut while they are sand/gypsum-tempered with dark brown fabric (fig. 8, no. 4).

Fig. 8 – Trench A – Phases 14, 13 and 12 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Fig. 8 – Trench A – Phases 14, 13 and 12 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
  • 30 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 27.

33Phase 11: the main change in the assemblage of this phase is usually attested in big ledge rim jars (fig. 9, no. 14). Most of these jars, in terms of fabric/color, are different from the previous cases as they were more likely to be Old Elamite pottery simultaneously with the so‑called Early Akkad30; they were homogeneously formed by sand-tempered fabric covered by buff wash on the exterior side.

  • 31 Gasche 1973, pl. 36.
  • 32 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 4, 19.
  • 33 Carter 1978, fig. 46, no. 5.
  • 34 Carter 1978, fig. 46, no. 7; Carter 1979; Carter 1981, fig. 50, no. 11.

34Another new type of this phase is a hole-mouth jar with given buff fabric with elongated ledge rim (fig. 9, no. 13). Various forms of this necked jars have been found from the Girshman’s operation B excavation at Susa, which came about to be common from Shimashki onward31. Moreover, short‑neck examples have been found from Acropole which were dated back to Early Akkad by the excavators32 and in Ville Royale in the Susa VA context, Layers 5‑633 to Susa VB, Layers 3‑4 have been found as well34. The texture of such potteries with flatted string cut base is diagnostic of Elamite period. These potteries have incised decorations as well.

  • 35 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 5.
  • 36 Carter 1978.
  • 37 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 5, no. 10.

35Among the potteries of the period, there are some red/pink fabric vessels that are the continuation of the previous red vessels. However, their texture is finer tempered and some of them are ledge rim jars (fig. 9, no. 15). Some primary examples of such potteries with more distance in between the incised lines had been produced before Shimashki, which are by the Early Akkad35 or Susa IV b reported from Susa36. Their bodies have horizontal parallel incised lines, often cut by zigzag grooved lines on (fig. 9, no. 16) and their texture and color are the same as the previous one. Potteries with such texture, pink fabric, and buff slip decorated by an appliqué stripe also exist (fig. 9, no. 17); such sherds have been painted dark brown in some cases (fig. 9, no. 18). This sand-tempered pottery has a vertical form and decoration on the rim. There can be also seen a ledge rim bowl: its parallels have been produced by the Late Akkad period from Susa37.

36Phase 10: by this phase, some heavy and horizontal ledge rimmed vessels had been appeared (fig. 9, no. 9); some vegetal-tempered vessels are everted rounded rims buff/greenish buff colored (fig. 9, no. 7, 10). The bodies of such vessels is incised as the exterior become concave. The Elamite diagnostic bases of this phase are vegetal-tempered ring and string cut; brown barrel bodies with smoothed exterior and convex shoulders and, in some cases, the gypsum plastered turning to white interior side is, could be identified as well.

  • 38 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 2.

37Phase 9: the assemblage found from this phase includes changes in texture and fabric; Elamite big jars are known from this phase, which in some cases have rounded ledge rim having a tenon below the rim, which is the diagnostic feature of the given period (fig. 9, no. 6). The texture of these potteries is vegetal-tempered greenish buff and some are brown (fig. 9, no. 3). Moreover, some rims with concave top have been attested as well (fig. 9, no. 4), which are backed to the earlier period of Shimashki and Early Akkad, like hole-mouth jars38. Ring (fig. 9, no. 5) and string cut bases that are slightly convex belong to the given period in buff and greenish buff colors.

Fig. 9 – Trench A – Phases 11, 10, 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Fig. 9 – Trench A – Phases 11, 10, 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Pottery Assemblages of Trench E

  • 39 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 3, no. 8.

38Phase 10: regarding Phase 11 that is includes the uppermost of a mud‑brick platform, we did not excavate the lower parts since we could only clean the brick materials of the given platform. Hence, some noticeable findings such as pottery were not found as it seems that Phase 11 was related to Phase 10 continuingly because the material from Phase 10 could be the continuation of Phase 11. The most important vessel forms of the phase are jars, goblets, and bowls that are diagnostic of the Elamite periods and their texture was clearly distinguished from other periods. Open-mouth jars of this period are varied in size such that some have diagonal ledge (fig. 10, no. 9) flat (fig. 10, no. 13) rims with linear and wavy incised decorations. These rim types have been found from the Acropole excavations that are contemporaneous with Ur III of Mesopotamia39.

  • 40 Gasche 1973, pl. 16, no. 11.
  • 41 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 3, no. 8.

39The most common diagnostic rim forms in this period are the complex incised rims whose bodies have the same decorations, either linear or wavy lines, while their texture is brownish red (fig. 10, no. 15). These forms are also the diagnostic features of Shimashki period known from different excavations in Susa which were identified by Ghirshman from the Layers VI, VII of the operation B40, Steve and Gasche at Acropole and by Carter from VB of Ville Royale41. There are some goblets with stripe or niched rims which in some cases are shallow in depth (fig. 10, no. 19).

  • 42 Gasche 1973, pl. 17, no. 9.
  • 43 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 7.

40Two painted sherds have been found from this layer painted dark red on brown, which include parallel lines (fig. 10, no. 16) or are along with zigzags (fig. 10, no. 27); temper of such potteries is sand, which seems different from the Susiana potteries, as a buff slipped sherd with light brown fabric painted with dark brown painting similar to Late Susiana potteries. Similar cases to Shimashki painted potteries from Ville Royale VII of the operation B42 or from earlier period (the Late Akkad) are exist as well43. In addition to such decorations, the finger impressed decoration has been highly used (fig. 10, no. 26) whose fabric is dark brown; potteries with white interior plaster have also been attested. The flat (fig. 10, no. 12) ring (fig. 10, no. 4 and 18) base forms exist, too.

  • 44 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 6, no. 16.
  • 45 Carter 1978, fig. 47, no. 4.

41Bowls in various diameters have different rims that are in club or ledge forms. One of the most interesting forms of such vessels is a bowl with everted rim and incised decorations on top (fig. 10, no. 22); it could be paralleled with a case backed to the Late Akkad from Acropole44. There are some common and plain bowls (fig. 10, no. 6‑7, 11) paralleled with Susa VB45. A small and shallow everted bowl (fig. 10, no. 23) could be a diagnostic of the given period. The texture of potteries from this period is more likely sand/grit-tempered buff and brown from dark to light although in some cases they contain lime particles as well.

  • 46 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 4, no. 6.
  • 47 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 2, no. 2‑7; Gasche 1973, pl. 7; Carter 1978, fig. 47, no. 1.
  • 48 Carter 1981, fig. 84 b.

42Phase 9: the main difference between the potteries from this phase and those belonging to the last one is the emergence of vegetal-tempered potteries continued to Sukkal Mah. Moreover, some big changes in color of the fabric has been occurred as in some cases the Elamite standard greenish buff ware has been formed. An example of the standard hole-mouth jars in the given period, with club rim and brown fabric were attested (fig. 11, no. 9); although they were sand-tempered, they are formed with vegetal temper on both sides and, in some cases, they have finger-pressed decorations simultaneously. Ledge rim bowls with horizontal grooved decorations (fig. 11, no. 1) are similar to the cases from Susa46, and in some cases, they became goblets with wavy grooved lines (fig. 11, no. 11). Their texture is brown covered by milky white slip, but the diagnostic example that became common over this period and its parallel have been found from Susa47, Farukhabad48 is a big goblet carinate just below the rim (fig. 11, no. 7), which was formed in various sizes by the Shimashki period.

Fig. 10 – Trench E – Phase 10 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Fig. 10 – Trench E – Phase 10 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Fig. 11 – Trench E – Phase 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Fig. 11 – Trench E – Phase 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).

Cultural Sequences

  • 49 Carter 1978, p. 211.
  • 50 Le Brun 1978.
  • 51 Carter 1978; Carter 1979; Carter 1980.

43The chronology and cultural sequence of the third millennium BC deposits of Tappeh Senjar (tab. 1) are based on the Carter’s Chronology for Susa. Though regarding the small scale of the excavations in Susa, she claimed that this chronology is a primary framework and cannot be the final one49. The Proto-Elamite of Susa is contemporaneous with Susa III phase at Susa and the adjacent sites on the plain based on which the undertaken investigations at Acropole I50 and Ville Royale I51 in this period can be divided to three phases: Susa III a, b, and c. This period is roughly spanned from 3100‑2600 BC, that is the chronology system known via 16‑13 layers of Ville Royale Trench A; however, it is difficult to segregate these periods since, over all these phases, potteries related to the whole Susa III and its phases are mixed.

Table 1 – Relative Chronology for Tappeh Senjar and correlation with Susa (© Sardari).

Table 1 – Relative Chronology for Tappeh Senjar and correlation with Susa (© Sardari).

44A painted pottery slipped by semi‑red color is known from 18‑13 layers of Ville Royale while in some few cases, it is known from Layers 15‑16 of the operation A in Ville Royale. The characteristic of the Susa III occupation at Tappeh Senjar from Trench A is the large amount of mud‑brick architecture discovered from the depth 8‑9.5 m below the surface of the trench. There is no occupational evidence from Trench E and hence, it is supposed that the beginning of occupation in this trench was started directly on virgin soil.

  • 52 Carter 1980.
  • 53 Wright 1981.
  • 54 Sumner 2003.

45The first twelfth phases of Trench A show the appearance of a new pottery type known as buff‑colored differed from the last potteries, and it can be paralleled to those from Susa IV52. Monochrome painted pottery with geometric decoration is rare and mostly comparable to those forms from Susa IVB. The lack of the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III pottery types implies that this period, Susa IVA, has not been identified in Tappeh Senjar, and there might be a long gap from the Mid‑Susa III (Proto-Elamite) to Susa IVb (Early Elamite/Awan), which according to absolute dating is around 400 years. A radiocarbon sample (Wk‑26936) taken from this trench (fig. 12, no. 1) with 95% probability proved the date between 2600‑1900 BC, while another sample with 68% probability proved 2460‑2130 BC. The domain of the former is as far as it is acceptable; however, its calibration with other findings such as potteries and according to the beginning of its date show that the deposits of this period could be attributed to about 2400‑2300 BC; the period is contemporary with Akkad in Mesopotamia and Awan in Iran. The lack of the Susa IVa occupational deposits or the Early Dynastic phase of Tappeh Senjar is the same as the gap in Farukhabad in Dehluran53 and Tal‑e Malyan deposits in Fars54.

 

  • 55 Carter 1980, p. 26.
  • 56 Steve and Gasche 1971.
  • 57 Steve and Gasche 1971.

46By the next phase, Tappeh Senjar had begun the new stabilized period related to Susa V or Shimashki dynasty. If the twelfth phase of Trench A has a long gap, it has, by the later phases, gradual changes in pottery and cultural sequence. Phase 11 can be paralleled to the Ville Royale 6‑755 and Layer 1 of Steve and Gasche’s operation at Acropole56. The pottery of this period tends to the Elamite one that is excavated by Ghirshman in his excavation at Ville Royale B later on57 although the Shimashki phase has not been included yet.

  • 58 Potts 1999, p. 158.

47Pottery assemblage of Phase 11 at Trench A are highly comparable with Phase 10 of Trench E, as high homogeneity is well observed both in texture and form. Phase 10 of Trench E includes deposits and ashy materials located just on the earlier Phase 11; indeed, the lowest level of this phase is architecture in 8.5 m from the top of the trench. If we suppose that the pottery found from shallow deposits of Locus 119 is related to this phase, we can accept that the Phase 11 might be the first appearance of the occupation on the northern sides of the site by the Shimashki period. This can be proved by absolute dates showing some date between 2140‑1950 BC with 95% probability and 2140‑2080 BC by 68% probability (WK‑26939) [fig. 12, no. 4] from locus 123. According to this sample, the most acceptable date of this phase is between 2100 to 2000 BC; the time contemporary to Late Ur III and the rise of Shimashki58.

 

48It is not unexpected that some evidence of the earlier than Shimashki (Susa V) can be found below Phase 11. Regarding the location of the Susa IV deposit of Tappeh Senjar, adjacent to the prehistoric slopes of Tappeh Senjar, it is not possible to find this material on the center of the main mound, but lower deposits of Phase 11 of Trench E contain noticeable portion of the given period, showing the development of Tappeh Senjar to the northern sides in size.

  • 59 Potts 1999, p. 150.

49Potteries from Phase 10 of Trench E are highly compared to those from Phase 10 of Trench A since there are large quantities of common vegetal-tempered greenish buff wares in both phases. Another radiocarbon sample (Wk‑26935) from Phase 10 of Trench A (locus 50) indicates the date between 2040‑1880 BC with 95% probability and 2020‑1925 BC with 68% probability (fig. 12, no. 2), which can shed light to the date of the given period. Hence, there is no doubt that this period in both trenches is the rising date of Shimashki and has continued from lower layers without any gap. Although Potts believes that it is impossible to discern a clear break between the Late Akkadian and Ur III periods when Susa was under Mesopotamian control59, Susa was lost to Shimashkian forces under Kindattu or one of his predecessors, but architecture remains of the operation B in Ville Royale might be helpful on this issue.

  • 60 Carter 1978, p. 202; Carter 1980, p. 26.
  • 61 Gasche 1973.
  • 62 Amiet 1992.
  • 63 Potts 1999, p. 151.
  • 64 Porada 1993, p. 571.

50Phase 9 of Trenches A and E has regular sequence of Shimashki as pottery traditions are standards of their own period; phases contemporary of Ville Royale VB60 and the operation B of Ville Royale61 as well, being continued to several later phases too. Among the discovered objects from Phase 9 of Trench A, a cylinder seal was made of black Chlorite and was finely engraved (fig. 13). This type of seal attributed to the diagnostic glyptic style was previously called “Popular Elamite” by Amiet62 and now is called “Anshanit”; according to the written documents, it can be attributed to Ebarti or Ebarat II. The term “Anshanit” is used because of the origins of such seals, which were identified from Tal‑e Malyan, the site of Ancient Anshan63. A large quantity of the cylinder seals during the Early Elamite similar to Old Babylonian period by the presentation of worship scenes, which heir from third dynasty of Ur seal impressions. Most of the scenes show the presentation of a worshiper, presumably the seal owner, to a seated deity or an enthroned king64.

  • 65 Porada 1965, p. 48.

51The seal design occurring Phase 9 show motley collections of Elamite and Mesopotamian motif elements include a crescent moon above two persons, two stars under the scene, a tree probably likes date palm behind standing the worshiper and also amazing thing look like a censer or candelabrum. The date palm on the corner of scene usually is one the Elamite seal patterns found greatly in the Susa, which present the “Tammuz” or god of agriculture and vegetation in the Mesopotamian myths. Crescent moon is the Mesopotamian god “Sin” or Elamite god “Napir”. Stars identified the goddess “Ishtar” that continued to Middle Elamite period65.

Fig. 12 – Determinations of Radiocarbon Dates for Tappeh Senjar (© Sardari).

Fig. 12 – Determinations of Radiocarbon Dates for Tappeh Senjar (© Sardari).

Fig. 13 – Trench A – Phase 9 Cylinder Seal and its impression (© Sardari).

Fig. 13 – Trench A – Phase 9 Cylinder Seal and its impression (© Sardari).

Cultural Interactions

  • 66 Alden 1987, p. 157.

52By the Proto-Elamite/Susa III, the population of the Susiana Plain had dramatically decreased as settled at a township named Susa66; here, large areas of the region were completely abounded since it seems that there were few occupations remained permanent; and there was no evidence on the political pattern of the region and no hierarchy as well; all of these characteristics are indications on dramatic changes in regional political organizations and subsistence patterns.

  • 67 Alden 1987, p. 160.
  • 68 Alden 1982.

53During the Proto-Elamite Susa was ca. 11 hectares in size including Acropole and 2 hectares of Ville Royale. Here, Susa was the only large site of the plain while most of other sites were about one or less hectares which were either occupied for brief periods or visited only sporadically67. However, Susa took new role as became a port-of-trade in between political organization of Iranian Zagros and Mesopotamia68.

  • 69 Weiss et al. 1975.
  • 70 Wright 1981; Wright and Neely 2010.
  • 71 Alden 1987, p. 159.
  • 72 Alizadeh 2010, p. 372.
  • 73 Alden 1987.

54Although excavating the Proto-Elamite deposit of Tappeh Senjar was at a small scale and there is no evidence of the so‑called Proto-Elamite tablets similar to those from Susa, Tappeh Yahya, Shahr‑i Sukhteh, Sofalin and Godin, future great excavations can contribute to discover such objects showing trade with Susa. The 2015 studies on the eastern sides of Tappeh Senjar revealed evidence on the given period, showing Tappeh Senjar had probably been a village with 3 hectares area. Tappeh Senjar was one of the northern sites on the plain, which could play a key role in the exchanges with northern societies of Highland Zagros69 and Dehluran in the west70. Although Alden hypothesized that the settlements of the northern borders of the plain were abounded71, it seems that Tappeh Senjar could be an effective and key site on importing goods from the Iranian Plateau. Another viewpoint on this issue is Alizadeh’s idea72 who, unlike Alden73, believes that the rarity of settlement and population in Upper Susiana during this period is not a result of the region’s depopulation but of what could be termed “de-settlement”, a process on which most of the population do not leave a region permanently but they revert to a life of pastoral nomadism without leaving much archaeological evidence behind.

  • 74 Haerinck 1986.
  • 75 Naseri et al. 2013.
  • 76 Nowruzi 2010, p. 166.
  • 77 Alizadeh 2010, p. 371.

55The amount of population of the Proto-Elamite and early third millennium of Susa that became nomads has not been cleared yet as more extensive investigations are needs on the seasonal site and related graveyards that had almost no evidence on the center of the plain yet or has not been interpreted. But identification of sites such as Bani Surmah and Kale Nissar in Pusht‑I Kuh74 close to north and Dehdouman75 in the west of Susiana as well as seasonal sites of Bakhtiari region76 with Susa IV pottery could definitely lead us to infer that the population of such regions were increased by the time people occupied the Susiana Plain by the winter and returned to the mountains in Summer. However, Alizadeh believes that the main center of the extensive activities of such societies must be at some plains such as Dehluran and Ramhurmoz plains and northern part of Susiana on which Tappeh Senjar is located, where was placed for agriculture and industrial purposes77.

 

  • 78 Carter 1985, p. 43.
  • 79 Schacht 1987, p. 175.
  • 80 Schacht 1987, p. 176.

56By the Early Dynastic period or Susa IVA, it seems that Tappeh Senjar was not occupied since we do not have any evidence yet. Moreover, the lack of information on the texts and written documents, discerning the situation of Susa in terms of exchange and interactions with Sumerian cities is problematic78; however, Tappeh Senjar was re‑occupied by the Susa IVB period playing an important role in the Susiana settlement pattern framework. By the Susa IVB period, playing an important role in of the Susiana Plain was influenced by Susa. This system was 46 hectares in size and Susa was the main center. In Schacht’s viewpoint, the second largest site of the given settlement model was Tappeh Senjar that was smaller than what was predicted by the model (fig. 14)79. He believes that Tappeh Senjar was ancient Zahara as by the being discussed period, Senjar was a subordinate of Susa but Chogha Pahn and Deh‑No had more unpredictable relation with Susa and another 32 sites with extent in between 0.2‑0.7 hectare were exist as well80.

  • 81 Bryce 2009, p. 784.
  • 82 Potts 1999, p. 103.
  • 83 Carter 1985, p. 45.
  • 84 Carter and Stolper 1984, p. 134.
  • 85 Carter 1985, p. 45.

57Zahara was a small highland county in the Zagros Mountain region, southwestern Iran, adjacent to or near the frontiers of Elam and Parahshum (Marhashi)81. It is attested only in texts of the Akkadian king Rimush (2278‑2270 BC), and according to Potts, its location is vague82. In the most parts of this period, Susa was in the dominance of foreign forces as the commercial and economic texts of Susa by this period are in Akkadian language; archives of Sumerian families have shown that they sent deputies and officials and were regularly in travel between Akkad, Sumer and Susiana83, But potteries of this period are showing that by the Susa IVB period some changes happened more likely to the Akkadian style in Mesopotamia in terms of form and decorations84. Settlement pattern indicates that the population and administrative organizations far more than been expected were centralized at Susa85.

  • 86 Schacht 1987, p. 177.
  • 87 Carter 1985, p. 46.

58By the Shimashki period Susa is surprisingly huge in size about 80 hectares86, and Tappeh Senjar as the northern parts were under the influence of settlements of Susa. Susa was the only center of this period in the Susiana Plain; twelve cities (ca. 4‑10 hectares in size), 8 small villages (less than 4 hectares) were distributed along with the roads passing the region87. The excavations at Tappeh Senjar revealed that large amount of deposits (about 8 m) in different occupational phases in an area with 7 hectares were highly populated. According to the similarities revealed from Tappeh Senjar it seems that the Ur III kings of Mesopotamia, whose controlled and observed the administrative organizations of the Susiana by the rise of Shimashki, chose some centers such as Tappeh Senjar as a pathway for transferring their precious commodities from Iranian Highlands.

Fig. 14 – Rank-size graph of Susa IV (© Schacht 1987, p. 195, fig. 46).

Fig. 14 – Rank-size graph of Susa IV (© Schacht 1987, p. 195, fig. 46).

Conclusion

59Stratigraphic excavations at Tappeh Senjar in northern Khuzestan shed light on the understanding of the formation process of the site and its cultural sequence. The investigations can help us to have more precise interpretations on the cultural sequence of the settlements of the region. Tappeh Senjar that was located in the north of Susa had an important role in reinvestigations of Susiana since Susa has a long cultural sequence of occupational deposits started in contemporaneous with Susa (if not earlier), which continued to the late historical times such as Parthian periods.

  • 88 Alden 1987.
  • 89 Alizadeh 2010.

60Tappeh Senjar can be compared to Susa from another point of view as well, through which is the so‑called small scale Susa is the general formation process. As the prehistoric site (fifth and fourth millennium BC) proved by 18 m and on the Proto-Elamite layers beside this site had started to be important centers on the north of Susiana. Then, in contemporary with Early Dynastic period and mid‑third millennium BC in Mesopotamia (Susa IVA) the site was abandonned and its occupants migrated to the highlands of the Iranian Plateau88, or in Alizadeh’s viewpoint89, it was de‑settled and people chose pastoral nomadic way of life. There is evidence on the Tappeh Senjar showing the sequence of the Awan/the Early and Late Akkad, showing that the sequence was continued to Shimashki (Susa V); after on, the population growth in the site continued and its sequence to Sukkal Mah and the Middle Elamite made it as one of the most important cities of Susiana.

  • 90 Henrickson 1984.

61Tappeh Senjar was located in the north of Susa on the communicative road to Dehluran and Mesopotamia. Moreover, it was on the road from Susa to Highland Zagros and Khorram Abad. The strategic location of the site in the north of Susa can be related to the most of the politico-military and socio-economic interactions of the Susiana Plain societies, especially Susa with Godin III on the Highland Zagros90 and Mesopotamia in the west by the third millennium BC. Tappeh Senjar as a way station between Susa and the societies of the Bronze Age in Luristan and Zagros could be a good connector to exchange commodities and services. On the other hand, it is definite that by the invasions or migrations from Mesopotamia in the period of Sumerian City‑States, Akkadian and Ur III to the Awan and Elamite territory, they had to pass Dehluran and the road to Susiana which is passing from the area on which Tappeh Senjar is located. This parameter could be an important factor to have long sequence of Cultural period at Tappeh Senjar.

62Stratigraphic investigations carried out in several trenches revealed the situation of cultural deposits, proximate extend and absolute dates of the site, while the existence of several canals around the site, evidence on pottery production, monuments and fortifications in some periods can contribute to understand the modern irrigation agriculture systems, productive and industrial activities and military and commercial camps during the third millennium BC. The cultural deposits related to the above-mentioned periods can be discovered from the main site from Trench A, but the deposits of Trench E in the north of the site regarding the destructions caused by the modern war between Iran and Iraq are located in 2 m depth (fig. 6). Excavation at several big trenches possibly can reveal noticeable evidence of architecture, occupational spaces, religious and industrial spaces, written documents (we found one of Middle Elamite inscribe tablets on the other trenches) and some other useful documents on the various periods of the site to us.

Bibliographie

Adams R. McC. 1962, “Agriculture and Urban Life in Early south-western Iran”, Science 136/35, 11, p. 109‑122.

Alden J. 1982, “Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran”, Current Anthropology 23/6, p. 613‑640.

Alden J. 1987, “The Susa III Period”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry, Washington DC, p. 157‑170.

Alizadeh A. 2010, “The Rise of the Highland Elamite State in Southwestern Iran: ‘Enclosed’ or Enclosing Nomadism?”, Current Anthropology 51/3, p. 353‑383.

Alizadeh A. 2014, Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavation at Tall‑e Geser and Regional Survey of the Ram Hormuz Plain, Oriental Institute Publications 140, Chicago.

Amiet P. 1994, “Quelques sceaux élamites”, in H. Gasche, M. Tanret, C. Janssen and A. Degraeve (ed.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien, offertes en hommage à Léon de Meyer, Mesopotamiam history and environnment, Occasional publications 2, Gent, p. 59‑66.

Bryce Tr. 2009, The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia: the Near East from the Early Bronze Age to the fall of the Persian Empire, London‑New York.

Carter E. 1971, Elam in the Second Millennium B.C.: The Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (unpublished).

Carter E. 1978, “Suse ‘Ville Royale’ ”, Paléorient 4, p. 197‑211.

Carter E. 1979, “Elamite Pottery, ca. 2000‑1000 BC”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38, p. 111‑128.

Carter E. 1980, “Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa: the third millennium BC occupation”, Cahiers de la DAFI 11, p. 11‑134.

Carter E. 1981, “Elamite ceramics”, in H.T. Wright (ed.), An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 13, Ann Arbor MI, p. 196‑223.

Carter E. 1985, “Notes on archaeology and the social and economic history of Susiana”, Paléorient 11/2, p. 43‑48.

Carter E. and Stolper M.W. 1984, Elam. Survey of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Los Angeles.

Dollfus G. 1985, “L’occupation de la Susiane au Ve millénaire et au début du IVe millénaire avant J.‑C.”, Paléorient 11/2, p. 11‑20.

Dyson R. 1966, Excavations on the Acropolis at Susa and Problems of Susa A, B and C, Ph.D thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge MA (unpublished).

Gasche H. 1973, La Poterie élamite du deuxième millénaire a.C., Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 47, Leiden‑Paris.

Ghirshman R. 1970, “The Elamite Levels at Susa and Their Chronological Significance”, American Journal of Archaeology 74, p. 223‑226.

Haerinck E. 1986, “The Chronology of Luristan, Pusht-I Kuh in the late fourth and first half of the third millennium BC”, in J.‑L. Huot (ed.), Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie, colloque international du CNRS 17‑19 déc. 1984, Paris, p. 55‑72.

Henrickson R. 1984, Godin Tepe, Godin III and Central Western Iran: ca. 26001500 BC, Ph.D. Diss., Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto.

Hole Fr. 1969, “Report on the Survey of Upper Khuzistan”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), Preliminary Reports of the Rice University Project in Iran, 19681969, Houston.

Johnson Gr.A. 1973, Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 51, Ann Arbor MI.

Le Breton L. 1957, “The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamia Relations”, Iraq 19/2, p. 79‑124.

Le Brun A. 1971, “Recherches stratigraphiques à l’Acropole de Suse (1969‑1971)”, Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran 1, Paris, p. 163‑216.

Le Brun A. 1978, “Suse, chantier ‘Acropole 1’”, Paléorient 4, p. 177‑192.

Mecquenem R. de 1980, “Les fouilleurs de Suse”, Iranica Antiqua 15, p 1‑48.

Michalon J. 1953, Recherches à Tchoga Zenbil, Paris.

Morgan J. de 1896, Mission scientifique en Perse IV/1, Ernest Leroux Éditeur, Paris.

Morgan J. de 1900, Mémoires de la Délégation scientifique en Perse I, Ernest Leroux Éditeur, Paris.

Naseri R., Malekzadeh M., Saàdian S., Khanipor M. and Ebrahimi M. 2013, “Rescue Excavation at Dehduman Cemetry, Khersan 3 Dam”, in M.H. Azizi Kharanaghi, M. Khanipour and R. Naseri (ed.), Papers of First International Young Archaeologists Symposium, Tehran, p. 423‑426 (in Persian).

Nowruzi A.A. 2010, “Archaeological Studies on Northern Karun Basin (Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiyari Province)”, Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, p. 161‑176 (in Persian).

Porada E. 1965, Ancient Iran: the Art of Pre-Islamic Times, New York.

Porada E. 1993, “Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium BC”, The Art Bulletin 75/4, p. 563‑582.

Potts D.T. 1999, The archaeology of Elam: Formation and transformation of an ancient Iranian state, Cambridge World Archaeology Series, Cambridge.

Potts D.T. 2005, “Neo-Elamite Problems”, Iranica Antiqua 40, p. 165‑177.

Sardari A. 2014, “Tappeh Senjar: a Landscape of Long-term Settlement on the Susiana plain”, in M.H. Azizi Kharanaghi, M. Khanipour and R. Naseri (ed.), Papers of First International Young Archaeologists Symposium, Tehran, p. 169‑186 (in Persian).

Schacht R. 1987, “Early Historic Cultures”, in Fr. Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran, Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry, Washington DC, p. 171‑203.

Steve M. and Gasche H. 1971, L’Acropole de Suse, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 46, Paris‑Leiden.

Sumner William M. 2003, Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tale Malyan in the Highlands of Iran, University Museum Monograph 117, Philadelphia.

Vallat Fr. 1993, Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites, Wiesbaden.

Weiss H., Young C., Cuyler H. and Harvey C. 1975, “The merchants of Susa. Gudin V and plateau-lowland relations in the late fourth millennium BC”, Iran 13, p. 1‑17.

Wright H. 1981, An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 13, Ann Arbor MI.

Wright H. 1998, “Uruk states in Southwestern Iran”, in G. Feinman and J. Marcus (ed.), Archaic States, School of American research advanced seminar studies, Santa Fe, New Mexico, p. 173‑192.

Wright H. and Neely J.A. 2010, Elamite an Achaemenid Settlement on the Deh Luran Plain; Towns and Villages of Early Empires in the Southwestern Iran, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 47, Ann Arbor MI.

Notes

1 Carter 1985, p. 43.

2 Alden 1987; Schacht 1987; Carter 1971.

3 Vallat 1993; Potts 1999.

4 Morgan 1900; Mecquenem 1980; Le Breton 1957; Dyson 1966; Le Brun 1971; Carter 1978; Carter 1980.

5 Sardari 2014, p. 171.

6 Carter 1971, p. 120.

7 Morgan 1896, p. 288.

8 Adams 1962.

9 Hole 1969.

10 Dollfus 1985.

11 Johnson 1973, p. 116.

12 Sardari 2014.

13 Carter 1971, p. 120.

14 Carter 1971, p. 133, tab. 3.

15 Schacht 1987, p. 176.

16 Potts 2005, p. 171.

17 Alden 1987, fig. 42.

18 Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 9.

19 Le Brun 1971, fig. 63, no. 14; Le Brun 1978, fig. 36, no. 8.

20 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 32, no. 21.

21 Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 16.

22 Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 8.

23 Le Brun 1971, fig. 66, no. 14.

24 Alizadeh 2014, pl. 153 E-G.

25 Le Brun 1971, fig. 65, no. 16.

26 Carter 1978, fig. 43, no. 2.

27 Alizadeh 2014.

28 Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 13.

29 Alden 1987, fig. 42, no. 11.

30 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 27.

31 Gasche 1973, pl. 36.

32 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 4, 19.

33 Carter 1978, fig. 46, no. 5.

34 Carter 1978, fig. 46, no. 7; Carter 1979; Carter 1981, fig. 50, no. 11.

35 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 5.

36 Carter 1978.

37 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 5, no. 10.

38 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 12, no. 2.

39 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 3, no. 8.

40 Gasche 1973, pl. 16, no. 11.

41 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 3, no. 8.

42 Gasche 1973, pl. 17, no. 9.

43 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 7.

44 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 6, no. 16.

45 Carter 1978, fig. 47, no. 4.

46 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 4, no. 6.

47 Steve and Gasche 1971, pl. 2, no. 2‑7; Gasche 1973, pl. 7; Carter 1978, fig. 47, no. 1.

48 Carter 1981, fig. 84 b.

49 Carter 1978, p. 211.

50 Le Brun 1978.

51 Carter 1978; Carter 1979; Carter 1980.

52 Carter 1980.

53 Wright 1981.

54 Sumner 2003.

55 Carter 1980, p. 26.

56 Steve and Gasche 1971.

57 Steve and Gasche 1971.

58 Potts 1999, p. 158.

59 Potts 1999, p. 150.

60 Carter 1978, p. 202; Carter 1980, p. 26.

61 Gasche 1973.

62 Amiet 1992.

63 Potts 1999, p. 151.

64 Porada 1993, p. 571.

65 Porada 1965, p. 48.

66 Alden 1987, p. 157.

67 Alden 1987, p. 160.

68 Alden 1982.

69 Weiss et al. 1975.

70 Wright 1981; Wright and Neely 2010.

71 Alden 1987, p. 159.

72 Alizadeh 2010, p. 372.

73 Alden 1987.

74 Haerinck 1986.

75 Naseri et al. 2013.

76 Nowruzi 2010, p. 166.

77 Alizadeh 2010, p. 371.

78 Carter 1985, p. 43.

79 Schacht 1987, p. 175.

80 Schacht 1987, p. 176.

81 Bryce 2009, p. 784.

82 Potts 1999, p. 103.

83 Carter 1985, p. 45.

84 Carter and Stolper 1984, p. 134.

85 Carter 1985, p. 45.

86 Schacht 1987, p. 177.

87 Carter 1985, p. 46.

88 Alden 1987.

89 Alizadeh 2010.

90 Henrickson 1984.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Location of Tappeh Senjar on the Susiana Plain (© Wright 1998, p. 176).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 926k
Titre Fig. 2 – Tappeh Senjar and some excavated trenches (© Bing Maps).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 832k
Titre Fig. 3 – Trench A on the center of mound (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 668k
Titre Fig. 4 – Western Section of Trench A (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 925k
Titre Fig. 5 – Sections of Trench E (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 790k
Titre Fig. 6 – Phase 8 of Trench E, kitchen space (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 7 – Trench A – Phases 16 and 15 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 725k
Titre Fig. 8 – Trench A – Phases 14, 13 and 12 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 675k
Titre Fig. 9 – Trench A – Phases 11, 10, 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 780k
Titre Fig. 10 – Trench E – Phase 10 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 929k
Titre Fig. 11 – Trench E – Phase 9 Ware Forms (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 361k
Titre Table 1 – Relative Chronology for Tappeh Senjar and correlation with Susa (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 669k
Titre Fig. 12 – Determinations of Radiocarbon Dates for Tappeh Senjar (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 729k
Titre Fig. 13 – Trench A – Phase 9 Cylinder Seal and its impression (© Sardari).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 821k
Titre Fig. 14 – Rank-size graph of Susa IV (© Schacht 1987, p. 195, fig. 46).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8046/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 87k

Auteurs

Iranian Center for Archaeological Researches (ICAR)

M.A. student in Archaeology, University of Tehran

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search