Version classiqueVersion mobile

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age

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

Urbanisation in Eastern Iran

A pyrotechnological installation from the “metallurgical workshop” at Shahdad and its next geographical and chronological comparisons

David M.P. Meier

Résumé

Ce papier expose quelques idées nouvelles concernant la structure et le modèle fonctionnel d’une installation pyrotechnique découverte à Shahdad, en Iran. Compte tenu de sa situation, à l’intérieur d’un bâtiment contenant d’abondants résidus métallurgiques, les travaux précédents avaient rattaché l’installation à des activités de fonte du cuivre. De nouvelles observations et recoupements avec des données archéologiques, jusqu’ici négligées, provenant de Shahdad et de sites plus ou moins éloignés, nous ont conduit à réinterpréter la fonction de l’installation en question.

Texte intégral

History of research at Shahdad

  • 1 30° 25′ 3″ N, 57° 42′ 24″ E.
  • 2 Mostofi 1351/1973; Gentelle 2003, p. 46‑48.
  • 3 Salvatori 1977; Salvatori and Vidale 1982.
  • 4 Kaboli 1374/1995; Kaboli 1376/1997; Kaboli 1391/2012.
  • 5 Eskandari et al. 2014.
  • 6 Pers. comm. N. Eskandari.

1The protohistoric remains at Shahdad are situated on the eastern outskirts of the eponymous modern town in Kerman Province. The town is located on top of an alluvial fan on the western fringes of the Dasht‑eh Lut in Southeast Iran and lies at a distance of approximately 80 km to the east of the city of Kerman1 (fig. 1).
The first archaeological discoveries were made by a joint French-Iranian team of geoscientists in 1967 by observing scatters of archaeological artefact on the surface2. In continuation the first archaeological investigations at site were directed by Ali Hakemi between 1968 and 1977. During this period his research mainly focused on the excavation of three burial sites called “Cemeteries A, B & C” where 382 graves were discovered. At the end of the project the archaeologists were joined by two Italian colleagues, Sandro Salvatori and Massimo Vidale, from the archaeological mission at Shahr‑eh sukhteh. In January 1977 they conducted for the first time terrestrial surveys in the vicinity of the archaeological excavation sites3. Besides the identification of different activity areas, the “metallurgical workshop” was detected and excavated right after its discovery (fig. 2).
After the Iranian revolution in 1979 the investigations at site stopped for 13 years. Between 1992 and 1994 Mir Abedin Kaboli directed further archaeological excavations in another area at Shahdad where remains of another building, the so called “Private House”, were discovered4. There, a few pyrotechnological installations were documented too which will be described at a later point in this paper.
A new serie of archaeological research at Shahdad and its next vicinity was recently conducted in 2011 and 2013 under the supervision of Nasir Eskandari by terrestrial surveys and small scale excavations5. Thereby the survey area was extended towards Keshit where numerous islamic and prehistoric remains were observed. The excavations were conducted at Tappeh Deh No and Tappeh Deh No East which are located to the east of the modern settlement on the outskirts of the Kalout6.

Fig. 1 – Geographical map of the area and the mentioned sites.

Fig. 1 – Geographical map of the area and the mentioned sites.

Fig. 2 – Photographical snapshot of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D right during excavation (with the courtesy of S. Salvatori).

Fig. 2 – Photographical snapshot of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D right during excavation (with the courtesy of S. Salvatori).

The pyrotechnical installation Type I at the “metallurgical workshop” Site D at Shahdad7

  • 7 The numeration of the different types is according to Ali Hakemi’s publications from 1992 and 1997
  • 8 Hakemi 1992, p. 122.
  • 9 Hakemi 1997, p. 87, fig. 50.
  • 10 Bayani 1979, p. 45.
  • 11 Hakemi 1992, p. 122.
  • 12 Bayani 1979, p. 97‑100.
  • 13 Hakemi 1997, p. 109, fig. 77. While Hakemi labels this Room with no. 26, Bayani labeled it as Room (...)
  • 14 Hakemi 1992, p. 124, fig. 15.9. Although it is not well identifiable on the photography it seems t (...)
  • 15 Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 124, pl. 43 (loc. 1035, 1092 and 1126).

2Examples of Type I were observed throughout in fragmentary state and have been documented inside of the Rooms 1, 6, 13, 27 and 26 (fig. 4). It seems plausible to propose that the building as well as the installation were built with clay and mud. Based on the find situation Type I was initially entitled as “first stage (smelting) furnace”8 and “metal foundry kiln”9 by Hakemi and as “fornace”10 by Bayani. The best preserved example is located in Room 6 with a preserved height of 1.3×0.85×0.28 (fig. 3a). According to their reconstruction it was composed by a central mould on top of it where the copper ore and the fuel were heated. After the metal got liquefied it should have reached a shallow enclosed depression to the right hand side by a narrow channel. This reconstructed channel with a 45° angle led the molten copper towards the enclosed depression11 (fig. 5). Bayani already recognized an inner, hollow structure but concentrates in his descriptions and discussions more on questions of ventilation12. Another example of this type was documented in Room 26 and shows an elevated platform to the left on the inside of the installation. To the right of the platform there is a narrowed segment which is ending in a circular round depression in front of the installation13 (fig. 3b). It seems also that just in front of the installation in Room 26 was a small step attached to it14. The arched front wall of this installation as seen on figure 4 was not described in none of their reports. The actual height of the installation is reconstructed by circa 0.3 m which interestingly matches with the preserved height of the next adjacent eroded walls. It seems that the proposed height of the installation is caused by the low height due to the eroded state. It is rather likely to reconstruct the heavily weathered feature in a higher state similar to the examples which were found inside of the “Private House”15.

Fig. 3 – Overview map of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D at Shahdad and the distribution of the Type I pyrotechnological installations.

Fig. 3 – Overview map of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D at Shahdad and the distribution of the Type I pyrotechnological installations.

Fig. 4 – Examples of “Type I” pyrotechnological installations at Shahdad. a: Room 6; b: Room 26 (with the courtesy of H.A. Hakemi).

Fig. 4 – Examples of “Type I” pyrotechnological installations at Shahdad. a: Room 6; b: Room 26 (with the courtesy of H.A. Hakemi).

Fig. 5 – Reconstruction drawings of the “Type I” pyrotechnological installation of the “metallurgical workshop” according to Bayani and Hakemi (a, c‑h: Hakemi 1992; b: Bayani 1979).

Fig. 5 – Reconstruction drawings of the “Type I” pyrotechnological installation of the “metallurgical workshop” according to Bayani and Hakemi (a, c‑h: Hakemi 1992; b: Bayani 1979).

The “Private House” at Shahdad

  • 16 According to the notes on pl. 41 the excavations were conducted between 1372 and 1374 after the Ir (...)
  • 17 The units are actually named with the equivalent seven first letter of the Persian alphabet (Kabol (...)
  • 18 Salvatori 1977; Salvatori and Vidale 1982, fig. 1.
  • 19 Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 105‑110. He describes this type with the Persian word “اجاق” which is synonym (...)
  • 20 Only the “oven” loc. 1060, which is of rectangular shape has been situated in central position in (...)
  • 21 Kaboli uses the Persian expression like “بخاری” (Maleki 1382/2003, p. 192) and “تنور” (Maleki 1382 (...)
  • 22 Kaboli 1374/1995, p. 115; Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 105‑110.
  • 23 Kaboli 1391/2012, p. 102, fig. 3. This example is presumably identical to loc. 1076.

3Between 1372 and 1374 (1992‑1994) an archaeological research group under the directorship of Mir Abedin Kaboli excavated another architectural feature at Shahdad which is known as the “Private House”16. The complete building is composed by 26 rooms of different size which are segmented in seven units named A to G17. According to the published survey data from Sandro Salvatori this place was recorded as point 23 and already must have been known after the survey activities in January of 197718. During the excavations pottery vessel of different size as well as stamp seals were discovered according to the published data. Besides these small finds there were also several architectural features unearthed. Of special interest for this research are the pyrotechnological installations.
According to Kaboli two types of pyrotechnological installation can be distiguished inside of the “Private House”. The first one (Type I) is of round shape and low height and is identified as “ojāgh”19. Several examples of this type were situated inside of the building and designated as loc. 1036, 1077, 1127 and 1128. It is also noteworthy that the majority of the ovens was situated in close vicinity to the second type of pyrotechnological installation20. Unfortunately there are no further published descriptions about their composition and the archaeological background.
The second type (Type II) appears also inside of the building and these examples has been throughout attached to the walls. These examples have in common an almost cubic shape by approximately 1×1×1 m with an arched opening in the front as well as a small bench and a small lower situated circular depression situated right next to the bench (fig. 7a‑b). On top of these features there were square surfaces with small cut‑outs. The whole installation is refered to as heater and was tagged as loc. 1035, 1076, 1092 and 112621 (fig. 6). Kaboli heterogenously describes them as “bokhāri”22 or “tannur”23. In accordance to the published schematic representations this type was hollow on the inside and subdivided into two parts: a raised platform and another lower section placed right next to it which was ending in a shallow round depression just in front of the installation. Both segments had not been separated from each other inside of the installation (fig. 7c‑d).

  • 24 Orazov 2007, p. 203‑204.
  • 25 Hakemi 1997, p. 87, fig. 50.
  • 26 Bayani 1979, p. 103.

4In reference to other protohistoric architectural features from the Murghab-Delta in Turkmenistan, which will be presented and explained in the following paragraph, the segments can be described as a platform and a lower situated combustion chamber24. The platform might have been used to heat meals or other goods, while the combustion chamber might have been suited to burn fuels to ensure a proper heating of the installation. The small cut‑out on top of the feature therefore can be seen as a flue to educe the annoying fumes from the room where the installation was situated.
There are legitimate reasons that the installations from Shahdad’s “metallurgical workshop” Site D which are labelled here as “pyrotechnological installation Type I” can be seen as identical to these installations which were discovered during Kaboli’s work. Although the examples which were discovered during Hakemi’s mission are reconstructed in a lower state, there are several details of undoubtful similarities. For instance there is the open arched front, the shallow round-shaped depression in front of it as well as the small bench which was situated right next to the depression. These are all identical shared characteristics which can be observed at both features at Shahdad. Further to mention are that some of the installations inside of both buildings were situated at similar positions like inside of central rooms or at least one on every of the building units (fig. 4 and 6).
And finally not to forget the two building remains itself where the installations have been documented. Both show also similarities with their architectural layouts and extents. Due to the eroded state of the examples from the “metallurgical workshop” which were analyzed and published by Hakemi25 and Bayani26, the hollowness of the installations has not been able to witness in a way like Kaboli did (fig. 4a‑b and 7a‑b). For this reason it is difficult to review and evaluate their first observations. But according to their reconstructional drawings and photographies there was on top a lowered space in central position which can be seen as corresponding to the hollow inside. It seems also questionable/doubtful if there has been any steep and narrow channel to segregate the molten metal from the slag by gravity like proposed before. Finally it needs to be emphasized that the reconstructions according to Kaboli seems more plausible because of the better state of the architecture’s preservation in comparison to the first reconstructions in 1977.

Fig. 6 – Overview map of the “Private House” at Shahdad and the positions of the Type II pyrotechnical installations.

Fig. 6 – Overview map of the “Private House” at Shahdad and the positions of the Type II pyrotechnical installations.

Fig. 7 – Photographical representations of two examples of Type II pyrotechnical installations at the “Private House” at Shahdad.

Fig. 7 – Photographical representations of two examples of Type II pyrotechnical installations at the “Private House” at Shahdad.

a: loc. 1035 and 1036; b: loc. 1092 (a‑b with the courtesy of E. Cortesi; c‑d after Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 111, pl. 30).

Preliminary evaluation of the presented evidences from Shahdad

  • 27 Pigott 2004, p. 31; Steiniger 2011, p. 90‑91.
  • 28 “... Some features of furnace construction in Arisman can be found at Shahdad as well, for example (...)
  • 29 Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 124, pl. 43 (loc. 1035, 1076, 1092, 1126).

5Although traces of heavy firings like ashes, slags, charcoal and red burnt clay which are unquestionable indicators of pyrotechnological actions were observed all over the “metallurgical workshop” it is still unknown in which specific way metallurgical actions were conducted there. Strangely not a single tuyere or even a fragment which would be expected inside of a Bronze Age metal workshop was documented inside or around the building. Furthermore, the absence, or better the missing description, of highly molten and vitreous furnace linings does not support the interpretation that the workshop was used for the smelting of copper ores which would have been caused at 1084.62 °C, the melting point of pure copper, or at circa 950 °C, the melting point of copper alloys/bronze. But maybe this interpretation is caused by the heavy eroded state of the architectural remains.
Further doubts also were mentioned by V.C. Pigott and D. Steiniger27. But it needs to be gainsaid to Steiniger28 that Type I was not build for smelting reasons. According to further archaeological data from the last 20 years e.g. the “Private House” at Shahdad which was discovered by M.A. Kaboli29 and several examples from the Murghab Delta in modern Turkmenistan. It seems that these installations with an average height of 1 m were of domestic use as hearth for preparing meals and as a heater to regulate the rooms temperature. The latter will be presented and described in the following.

Protohistoric examples of pyrotechnological installations from Turkmenistan

  • 30 Besides this he also names a type of “double-furnaces” which he sees not as used for domestic acti (...)
  • 31 Sarianidi 2006, p. 120, fig. 27; p. 143 sq., fig. 34; Sarianidi 2008, p. 66, fig. 11, p. 252‑261.
  • 32 Rossi-Osmida 2007; Rossi-Osmida 2011.
  • 33 Orazov 2006, p. 112, fig. 20‑29.
  • 34 Orazov 2007, p. 203.
  • 35 Orazov 2007, p. 207.
  • 36 Pers. comm. by Reinhard Bernbeck and Julia Schönicke (Schönicke 2012). The best preserved example (...)
  • 37 Berdiyev 1972, p. 13, fig. 1, R.7.

6During the last decades of research in Central Asia there also several pyrotechnological installations have been discovered in the Murghab delta in Turkmenistan. According to Victor Ivanovic Sarianidi, the most influential archaeologist of this area these installations are interpreted as hearth or heater30, similar to Kaboli’s interpretation. They can be observed as attached at or installed into walls as well as in isolated positions. Sarianidi emphasizes according to his observations that some of these installations due to there position, enormous size and find material as of cultic use31. The majority of the examples he is referring to is deriving from the site of Gonur Depe North. As visible on fig. 8 the numerously pyrotechnological installations which were observed at Gonur Depe North are of similar character. They are also composed by a bipartition with an elevated platform and a lower placed segment, the possible combustion chamber. Besides the evidences from Gonur Depe North there are further examples of similar pyrotechnological installations from the sites in the Adji Kui Oasis. The excavations there were conducted by the joint Italian-Turkmenian “Margiana Archaeological Mission” from 2003 until 2012 under the directorship of Gabriele Rossi-Osmida32.
In course of the excavation at Adji Kui 9 (AK9) two types of pyrotechnological installations which are described as “oven-fireplaces”33 were able to distinguish: The first type with two chambers and the second type with one chamber. The first type which is for this study of particular interest has been documented and studied intensively inside of the Rooms 38, 82 and 180 at AK934. Annamurad Orazov describes them as domestic features of cubic to rectangular shape which are consisting of a combustion chamber with a fire plane. This part was also a little extended to the front of the installation and was enclosed by a low clay lining, as already been attested for the examples from Shahdad and Gonur Depe. On the inside of this part the fire was prepared and due to the good accessibility fuel and its remains could have been added or removed continuously. This part was separated from the adjacing platform by a low bench. The platform itself was slightly elevated and was extended to the outside as well. It was hypothesized that this elevated platform primarily was used for heating/preparing meals. On top of the whole feature there was also a small cut‑out to observe which might have been used as a flue to educe the fumes. Of particular interest are the different examples of the first type according to their positions. The one from Room 38 (fig. 9) seems to be completely set in the wall while the ones from Room 82 and Room 180 (fig. 10) were built into the wall in a way that the installation’s back reached into the next adjacing rooms. This observation shows the high degree of technical knowledge and energy efficiency to heat at least two adjacent rooms with the help of one installation. This is a technical improvement which so far had not been observed in other contemporary neighbouring cultures. It seems also that the installations were in use for long periods and were restored during periodical maintenance35. In view of their size it is noteworthy to remark that the examples of the first type has a height of approximately 1 m which is identical to the examples from Kaboli’s site as well as from Gonur Depe.
Reconvened excavations at Monjukli Depe in the northern piedmont region of the Kopet Dag mountains in Southwest Turkmenistan revealed further examples of two-chambered ovens from eneolithic contexts which are dated in the 5th millennium BCE36 (fig. 11). Similar features also were found during the first investigation in the early 70s37.

Fig. 8 – Pyrotechnological installations from Gonur Depe North (a‑b: with the courtesy of S. Winkelmann-Witkowski).

Fig. 8 – Pyrotechnological installations from Gonur Depe North (a‑b: with the courtesy of S. Winkelmann-Witkowski).

Fig. 9 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 38 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).

Fig. 9 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 38 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).

Fig. 10 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 180 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).

Fig. 10 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 180 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).

Fig. 11 – Monjukli Depe. a: Unit D, “Haus X”; b: Two-chambered oven (loc. 475), “Haus X” (with the courtesy of R. Bernbeck).

Fig. 11 – Monjukli Depe. a: Unit D, “Haus X”; b: Two-chambered oven (loc. 475), “Haus X” (with the courtesy of R. Bernbeck).

Pyrotechnological installations called “cheminées” from Susa

  • 38 Potts 1999, p. 130 sq.
  • 39 Potts 1999, p. 160 sq.
  • 40 Carter and Stolper 1985, p. 146 sq.
  • 41 Gasche 1986.
  • 42 Ghirshman 1967, p. 7‑8., fig. 11‑13, 16‑19; Gasche 1986, p. 89.
  • 43 Ghirshman and Steve 1966, fig. 7; Gasche 1986, p. 91.
  • 44 Gasche 1986, p. 88 sq.
  • 45 Trümpelmann 1981.

7At the end of R. Ghirshman’s work at Susa between 1965 and 1967 he conducted excavations in an area of particular interest concerning the domestic life in Susa during the reign of the Šimaškian Dynasty38 to the Sukkalmah period39. It provided us with an extraordinary opportunity to study the Susian town planning on base of a composition of discovered written sources, daily life objects as well as major crossroads and numerous examples of domestic, workshop and public architecture40. At that time several examples of oven-hearthplaces called “cheminées” were also discovered at “Chantiers A and B”, belonging to the Periods Susa AXV‑XIII41. Some of them were in good state of preservation that layout, design as well as decorations were able to investigate. All here presented examples are showing the bipartition of the installation in an elevated platform and a lower situated combustion chamber as in common. Furthermore there are significant and clear similarities in sense of positioning and decorations to the already presented examples from the Murghab-Delta and southeastern Iran to emphasize. It is also noteworthy that the features were observed inside of monuments of communal character like the “cella de la maison du culte” in loc. 124 AXV42, as well as in room of domestic use like for example loc. 66 AXIV43, loc. 34 BIV and loc. 96 AXV44 (fig. 12). Another feature was described by L. Trümpelmann at AXIII loc. 3545 in the so called “Kneipe” at Susa.

Fig. 12 – Divers “cheminées” from Susa (from Gasche 1986. a: p. 100; b: p. 101, fig. 7; c: p. 102; d: p. 103, fig. 8; e: p. 105, fig. 10b; f: p. 104, fig. 10a).

Fig. 12 – Divers “cheminées” from Susa (from Gasche 1986. a: p. 100; b: p. 101, fig. 7; c: p. 102; d: p. 103, fig. 8; e: p. 105, fig. 10b; f: p. 104, fig. 10a).

Conclusion

  • 46 Ligabue and Salvatori 1979; Salvatori 2010.
  • 47 Kohl 2007, p. 199.
  • 48 Sarianidi 2002, p. 326 sq.; see also Potts 2008b, p. 183 sq., n. 40.
  • 49 Sarianidi 2006, p. 258, fig. 114.
  • 50 Potts 2008b, p. 165‑179, fig. 2‑8.
  • 51 During-Capsers 1992; Winkelmann 1993, 1998; Ratnagar 2006; Potts 2008a.
  • 52 Schmidt 2005, p. 104, fig. 4.
  • 53 Potts 2008b.
  • 54 Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992.
  • 55 Potts 2008b.
  • 56 Biscione and Vahdati 2011; pers. com. by A. Vahdati.
  • 57 Ghorbani emphasizes the outstanding trading position of Shahdad in the 3rd millennium BCE (Ghorban (...)
  • 58 Salvatori 2010, p. 251.
  • 59 Carter and Stolper 1985, p. 196 sq.

8All presented examples are deriving not just from different areas but also from different contexts and not to forget from different periods, dating from the second half of fifth millennium to the first half of the second millennium BCE. The earliest examples are from the late fifth millennium BCE eneolithic site at Monjukli Depe in the Kopet Dagh region and were found in rural, domestic environment. The late third millennium BCE examples were either found in contexts of palatial architecture like at Gonur Depe and Adji Kui but also in domestic contexts like at Shahdad. The examples from Susa are dating to the transitional phase from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE and were documented in areas of communal and privat character.
The obvious similarities between the pyrotechnological installation are leading to the assumption that there might have been existing something more than regular exchange contacts. The emergence of aesthetic as well as technical characteristics observed in artefacts and architectural features are leading to the assumption that there was maybe a trading network with all of its cultural and political implications comparable to the already known examples like the Old Assyrian kārum-system as initially proposed by Sandro Salvatori46. Also Philip Kohl emphasizes the importance of the sites in the Murghab delta and their role in the supra-regional trade to sites in Mesopotamia, East Iran and the Indus Valley at the transitional phase from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE47. His statement bases upon finds from the Royal Cemetery at Gonur Depe North like e.g. an inscribed cylinder seal with an Akkadian animal scene48 and a Harrapan stamp seal49 which he sees as evidences for substantial relationships between the different regions. The wide distribution of further relevant objects like e.g. high cylindrical metal beakers with incised and embossed decorations50, Bactrian axes and other groups of metal objects as well as pottery vessels of significant shape and decorations and stone objects like figurines of females in seated position, stone columns and ivory combs are other evidences for the great radius of the trading community which shared finished goods as well as raw materials between Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia and the Indian Subcontinent51.
In this context there is also an amulett-seal of distinctive shape and decoration to be called in mind which was discovered in northern Mesopotamia at Tall Mozan, the ancient center of Urkeš. According to Conrad Schmidt it shows clear parallels to the iconography of the MBAC and might therefore stand as an evidence for cultural contatcs between these two far distant regions during the Middle and Late Bronze Age period52.
But besides the economic trading contacts there is the possibility of stronger, fundamentally cultural ties that existed during the Bronze Age between Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau and the Mesopotamian alluvial53. Frederik T. Hiebert and Carl C. Lamberg-Karlovsky are observing similarities in the material remains from closed burial complexes at sites like Shahdad, Khinaman, and Sibri with those found in Bactria and Margiana and interpreting it as evidence for the movements of Central Asians, presumably here Indo-Aryans, into eastern Iran en route to the Indian subcontinent54. Daniel T. Potts also proposes a possible Central Asian political influence at Susa/Elam during the Dynasty of Šimaški55.
As proven by the dimensions of the monumental sites like Gonur Depe North and South, Adji Kui 1 and 9 and settlements of the Togolok Oasis, which are all located in the Murghab Delta in Turkmenistan, this region must have been of an influental political and economical power to subsist in this period during the Middle and Late Bronze Age (MBA: 2400‑1950 BCE; LBA: 1950‑1450 BCE). The distribution of characteristic artefacts at archaeological sites in East Iran like e.g. Tappeh Chalo56, Shahdad57, Tappeh Yahya and the Jiroft Region, which are labeled as “Marhašian trajectory” by Sandro Salvatori58 or as “Šimaški outposts” by Elisabeth Carter59, is indicating the strong cultural relationships between the already mentioned sites of the Murghab Delta and East Iran. In accordance to the above mentioned obvious similarities in the material culture there are also common shared parallels in architecture like the pyrotechnological installations which were documented at the sites of Gonur Depe, Adji Kui in the Murghab Delta as well as at the Iranian sites of Shahdad and Susa. These similarities, sometimes also appearing in combination with contemporaneity, might imply a deep traditional relationship, maybe comparable to shared origins.

Bibliographie

Bayani M.E. 1979, Primi risultati dello scavo nel quartiere artigiano di Shahdad (Kerman, Iran). Aspetti della produzione metallurgica alla fine del terzo millenio in Iran, Rome (unpublished work).

Berdiyev O.K. 1972, “Monzhukli-depe: Mnogosloinoe po selenie neolita i rannego eneolita v juschnom Turkmenistane”, Karakumskie Drevnosti 4, Ashgabat, p. 11‑34.

Biscione R. and Vahdati A. 2011, “Excavations at Tepe Chalow, Northern Khorasan, Iran”, Studi micenei e Egeo Anatolici 53, p. 236‑241.

Carter E. and Stolper M. 1985, Elam – Surveys of political history and archaeology, London.

During-Caspers E.C.L. 1992, “Intercultural/Merchantile contacts between the Arabian Gulf and South Asia at the close of the third millennium B.C.”, Proccedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 22, p. 3‑28.

Eskandari N., Abedi A., Shafie M. and Javadi M. 2014, “Keshit: an early Bronze Age urban centre on the western edge of the Lut Desert, south-eastern Iran”, available at: http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/eskandari341.

Gasche H. 1986, “Architecture d’intérieur susienne: les cheminées”, in L. de Meyer, H. Gasche and F. Vallat (ed.), Fragmenta Historiae Aelamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.J. Steve, Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations, Paris, p. 83‑110.

Gentelle P. 2003, “Shahdad-Khabis, au fond du désert du Lut”, in P. Gentelle, Traces d’eau. Un géographe chez les archéologues, Paris, p. 18‑53.

Ghirshman R. 1967, “Suse. Campagne de l’hiver 1965‑1966. Rapport preliminaire”, Arts Asiatiques 15, Paris, p. 3‑27.

Ghirshman R. and Steve M.J. 1966, “Suse. Campagne de l’hiver 1964‑1965. Rapport préliminaire”, Arts Asiatiques 13, Paris, p. 3‑32.

Ghorbani M. 2014, The economic geology of Iran – Mineral deposits and natural resources, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-New York-Berlin.

Hakemi A. 1992, “The copper smelting furnaces of the Bronze Age in Shahdad”, in C. Jarrige (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1989 – Papers from the Tenth International Conference of South Asia Archaeologists in Western Europe, Musée national des Arts asiatiques – Guimet, Paris, France, 3‑7 July 1989, Monographs in World Archaeology 14, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 119‑132.

Hakemi A. 1997, Shahdad. Archaeological excavations of a Bronze age centre in Iran, IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XXVII, Rome.

Hiebert F.T. and Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. 1992, “Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian Boarderland”, Iran 30, p. 1‑15.

Kaboli M.A. 1374/1995, “Masaken mardom‑eh Shahdad va moqayeseh‑yeh an ba sokunatgah-hayeh jonub‑eh shargh‑eh Iran dar chahar hezahreh” (The dwellings at Shahdad in comparison with other examples from Southeastern Iran during 4 millennia), in ICHTO (ed.), Tarikh‑eh memari va shahrsazi‑yeh Iran, vol. III, Tehran, p. 111‑120 (in Farsi).

Kaboli M.A. 1376/1997, “Gozaresh‑eh dahomin fasl‑eh kavosh gruh‑eh bastan shenasi Dasht‑eh Lut dar mohavate bastani Shahdad” (Report of the tenth season of Excavation from the archaeological Dasht‑eh Lut mission at ancient Shahdad), in ICHTO (ed.), Gozaresh-hayeh Bastan Shenasi, vol. 1, p. 89‑124 (in Farsi).

Kaboli M.A. 1391/2012, “Shahdad – Dirouz va Emrouz” (Shahdad – yesterday and today), in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh (ed.), Namvarnameh – Majale-hayeh dar pasdasht yad‑eh Masoud Azarnoush (Papers in honour of Massoud Azarnoush), Tehran, p. 99‑108 (in Farsi).

Kohl P.L. 2007, The making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge.

Ligabue G. and Salvatori S. 1979, “La Battriana e l’occidente dalla fine del III’ alla meta’ del II millennio a.Cr.”, Rivista di Archeologia 3, p. 5‑11.

Maleki O. 1382/2003, Farhang farsi farhikhteh, Tehran.

Mostofi A. 1351/1973, Shahdad va joghrafiya‑yeh tarikhi (Shahdad and it historical geography of Dasht‑Lüt), Geographical Reports Publication 8, Tehran (in Farsi).

Orazov A.T. 2006, “Hearths and fireplaces of the Adji Kui Oasis”, Türkmenistan 2006 – Ancient Margiana is the new Centre of the World Civilization. Materials of the International Scientific Conference, 14‑16 November, Mary, 2006, Ashgabat, (abstract of a conference lecture) p. 112.

Orazov A.T. 2007, “L’architettura die forni-caminetto di Adji Kui” (The architecture of the Adji Kui oven-fireplaces), in G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Adji Kui Oasis – La cittadella delle Statuette I, Trebaseleghe, p. 203‑212.

Pigott V.C. 2004, “Zur Bedeutung Irans für die Erforschung prähistorischer Kupfermetallurgie”, in A. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (ed.), Persiens antike Pracht (Exhibition’s catalogue), Deutsches Bergbau Museum, Bochum, p. 28‑43.

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

Potts D. 2008a, “An Umm an‑Nar‑type compartmented soft‑stone vessel from Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan”, Arabian Arts and Epigraphy 18, p. 167‑180.

Potts D. 2008b, “Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus civilization (BMAC): Reflections on Šimaški and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 98, p. 165‑194.

Ratnagar S. 2006, Trading encounters. From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age, New Delhi.

Rossi-Osmida G. 2007, Adji Kui Oasis – La cittadella delle Statuette I, Trebaseleghe.

Rossi-Osmida G. 2011, Adji Kui Oasis – La cittadella delle Statuette II, Trebaseleghe.

Salvatori S. 1977, A brief surface survey at Šahdad, held at the VI. Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, November 1977 (unpublished manuscript).

Salvatori S. 2010, “Thinking around Grave 3245 in the ‘Royal Graveyard’ of Gonur (Murghab Delta, Turkmenistan)”, On the track of uncovering a civilization (A volume in honor of the 80th anniversary of Victor Sarianidi), Transactions of the Margiana archaeological expedition, St. Petersburg, p. 244‑257.

Salvatori S. and Vidale M. 1982, “A brief surface survey of the protohistoric site of Shahdad (Kerman, Iran): preliminary report”, Rivista di Archeologia 6, p. 5‑10.

Sarianidi V.I. 2002, Marguş – Murgap derýasynyň köne hanasynyň aýagyndaky gadymy gündogar şalygy (Margush – Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old delta of the Murghab river), Ashgabat.

Sarianidi V.I. 2006, Gonurdepe: Şalaryň we hudaýlaryň şäheri (Gonurdepe, Türkmenistan – City of kings and gods), Ashgabat.

Sarianidi V.I. 2008, Marguş – Beýik medeniýetiň syrlar dünýäsi we onuň hakyky keşbi (Margush – Mystery and truth of the great culture), Ashgabat.

Schmidt C. 2005, “Überregionale Austauschsysteme und Fernhandel in der Ur III‑Zeit”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 36, p. 7‑156.

Schönicke J. 2012, Der Umgang mit dem Feuer im Äneolithikum Südturmenistans am Beispiel von Monjukli Depe, Bachelor of Arts thesis, Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin (unpublished).

Steiniger D. 2011, “6. Excavations in the slag heaps of Arisman”, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (ed.), Early mining and metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian plateau, Report on the first five years of Research ot the Joint Iranian-German Research Project, Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9, Mainz, p. 69‑99.

Stöllner A., Slotta R. and Vatandoust A. (ed.) 2004, Persiens antike Pracht (Exhibition’s catalogue), Deutsches Bergbau Museum, Bochum.

Tkáčová E. 2013, Near‑Eastern tannurs now & then: A close‑up view of bread ovens with respect to the archaeological evidence and selected ethnographical examples, Bachelor of Arts, Brno university (unpublished work).

Trümpelmann L. 1981, “Eine Kneipe in Susa”, Iranica Antiqua 16, p. 35‑44.

Winkelmann S. 1993, “Elam – Belutschistan – Baktrien: Wo liegen die Vorläufer der Hockerplastiken der Indus Kultur? Erste Gedanken”, Iranica Antiqua 28, p. 57‑96.

Winkelmann S. 1998, “Bemerkungen zum Grab 18 und den Silbernadeln von Gonur Depe”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30, p. 1‑16.

Notes

1 30° 25′ 3″ N, 57° 42′ 24″ E.

2 Mostofi 1351/1973; Gentelle 2003, p. 46‑48.

3 Salvatori 1977; Salvatori and Vidale 1982.

4 Kaboli 1374/1995; Kaboli 1376/1997; Kaboli 1391/2012.

5 Eskandari et al. 2014.

6 Pers. comm. N. Eskandari.

7 The numeration of the different types is according to Ali Hakemi’s publications from 1992 and 1997.

8 Hakemi 1992, p. 122.

9 Hakemi 1997, p. 87, fig. 50.

10 Bayani 1979, p. 45.

11 Hakemi 1992, p. 122.

12 Bayani 1979, p. 97‑100.

13 Hakemi 1997, p. 109, fig. 77. While Hakemi labels this Room with no. 26, Bayani labeled it as Room 28.

14 Hakemi 1992, p. 124, fig. 15.9. Although it is not well identifiable on the photography it seems that the other examples from R.1 were of a similar layout (see Hakemi 1992, fig. 15.10 and Hakemi 1997, p. 91, fig. 55) as well as the one from R.13 (Hakemi 1997, p. 101, fig. 67) and from R.27 (Hakemi 1997, p. 108, fig. 76).

15 Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 124, pl. 43 (loc. 1035, 1092 and 1126).

16 According to the notes on pl. 41 the excavations were conducted between 1372 and 1374 after the Iranian calendar (Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 122).

17 The units are actually named with the equivalent seven first letter of the Persian alphabet (Kaboli 1374/1995, p. 114).

18 Salvatori 1977; Salvatori and Vidale 1982, fig. 1.

19 Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 105‑110. He describes this type with the Persian word “اجاق” which is synonymous with “oven” (Maleki 1382/2003, p. 50).

20 Only the “oven” loc. 1060, which is of rectangular shape has been situated in central position in the main room of Unit B (Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 123, pl. 42‑43).

21 Kaboli uses the Persian expression like “بخاری” (Maleki 1382/2003, p. 192) and “تنور” (Maleki 1382/2003, p. 444‑445) to name the installations. It needs to be stressed that actually the first term is used for installations to raise temperature inside of closed rooms. For this reason they can be also used to cook meals. The second term is of unknown origin and presumably deriving from a Sumerian term. Through all the times it was and still is in use to describe installations for cooking and baking (Tkáčová 2013, 4 sq., fig. 1, 2).

22 Kaboli 1374/1995, p. 115; Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 105‑110.

23 Kaboli 1391/2012, p. 102, fig. 3. This example is presumably identical to loc. 1076.

24 Orazov 2007, p. 203‑204.

25 Hakemi 1997, p. 87, fig. 50.

26 Bayani 1979, p. 103.

27 Pigott 2004, p. 31; Steiniger 2011, p. 90‑91.

28 “... Some features of furnace construction in Arisman can be found at Shahdad as well, for example, the rectangular, raised mudbrick platforms with furnace remains that display a kind of extension at one side and an open front...” Steiniger 2011, p. 90‑91.

29 Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 124, pl. 43 (loc. 1035, 1076, 1092, 1126).

30 Besides this he also names a type of “double-furnaces” which he sees not as used for domestic activities (Sarianidi 2006, p. 120).

31 Sarianidi 2006, p. 120, fig. 27; p. 143 sq., fig. 34; Sarianidi 2008, p. 66, fig. 11, p. 252‑261.

32 Rossi-Osmida 2007; Rossi-Osmida 2011.

33 Orazov 2006, p. 112, fig. 20‑29.

34 Orazov 2007, p. 203.

35 Orazov 2007, p. 207.

36 Pers. comm. by Reinhard Bernbeck and Julia Schönicke (Schönicke 2012). The best preserved example (loc. 475) is located in Unit D, “Haus X”.

37 Berdiyev 1972, p. 13, fig. 1, R.7.

38 Potts 1999, p. 130 sq.

39 Potts 1999, p. 160 sq.

40 Carter and Stolper 1985, p. 146 sq.

41 Gasche 1986.

42 Ghirshman 1967, p. 7‑8., fig. 11‑13, 16‑19; Gasche 1986, p. 89.

43 Ghirshman and Steve 1966, fig. 7; Gasche 1986, p. 91.

44 Gasche 1986, p. 88 sq.

45 Trümpelmann 1981.

46 Ligabue and Salvatori 1979; Salvatori 2010.

47 Kohl 2007, p. 199.

48 Sarianidi 2002, p. 326 sq.; see also Potts 2008b, p. 183 sq., n. 40.

49 Sarianidi 2006, p. 258, fig. 114.

50 Potts 2008b, p. 165‑179, fig. 2‑8.

51 During-Capsers 1992; Winkelmann 1993, 1998; Ratnagar 2006; Potts 2008a.

52 Schmidt 2005, p. 104, fig. 4.

53 Potts 2008b.

54 Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992.

55 Potts 2008b.

56 Biscione and Vahdati 2011; pers. com. by A. Vahdati.

57 Ghorbani emphasizes the outstanding trading position of Shahdad in the 3rd millennium BCE (Ghorbani 2014, p. 66).

58 Salvatori 2010, p. 251.

59 Carter and Stolper 1985, p. 196 sq.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Geographical map of the area and the mentioned sites.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 660k
Titre Fig. 2 – Photographical snapshot of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D right during excavation (with the courtesy of S. Salvatori).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 965k
Titre Fig. 3 – Overview map of the “metallurgical workshop” Site D at Shahdad and the distribution of the Type I pyrotechnological installations.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 788k
Titre Fig. 4 – Examples of “Type I” pyrotechnological installations at Shahdad. a: Room 6; b: Room 26 (with the courtesy of H.A. Hakemi).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 889k
Titre Fig. 5 – Reconstruction drawings of the “Type I” pyrotechnological installation of the “metallurgical workshop” according to Bayani and Hakemi (a, c‑h: Hakemi 1992; b: Bayani 1979).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 859k
Titre Fig. 6 – Overview map of the “Private House” at Shahdad and the positions of the Type II pyrotechnical installations.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 536k
Titre Fig. 7 – Photographical representations of two examples of Type II pyrotechnical installations at the “Private House” at Shahdad.
Légende a: loc. 1035 and 1036; b: loc. 1092 (a‑b with the courtesy of E. Cortesi; c‑d after Kaboli 1376/1997, p. 111, pl. 30).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 809k
Titre Fig. 8 – Pyrotechnological installations from Gonur Depe North (a‑b: with the courtesy of S. Winkelmann-Witkowski).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 660k
Titre Fig. 9 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 38 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 633k
Titre Fig. 10 – Pyrotechnological installation from Room 180 (a‑b) at Adji Kui 9 (from Orazov 2007, p. 204, 206‑207).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 624k
Titre Fig. 11 – Monjukli Depe. a: Unit D, “Haus X”; b: Two-chambered oven (loc. 475), “Haus X” (with the courtesy of R. Bernbeck).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 678k
Titre Fig. 12 – Divers “cheminées” from Susa (from Gasche 1986. a: p. 100; b: p. 101, fig. 7; c: p. 102; d: p. 103, fig. 8; e: p. 105, fig. 10b; f: p. 104, fig. 10a).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/8121/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 956k

Auteur

Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie (FU), Hüttenweg 7, 14195 Berlin

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search