01kj Roach 2008 Thesis PDF

The Elamite Cylinder
Seal Corpus, c.3500

– 1000 BC
Volume I,
Part I
K. J. Roach
Doctor of Philosophy, (Near Eastern) Archaeology

2008
The University of Sydney
Table of Contents
Volume I
Part I
Table of Contents page i
Synopsis vi
Acknowledgments vii
List of figures ix
List of tables xi
List of graphs xxi
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Glyptic Studies 8
1.1.1. Seals and Sealings 8
1.1.2. The Function of Cylinder Seals 10
1.1.3. Materials of Seals 17
1.1.4. Seal Production 43
1.1.5. Nature of Study: Art History or Archaeology? 43
1.2. Parameters of the current study 45
1.2.1. ‘Elam’ 45
1.2.2. Chronology 48
1.3. Summation 51
2. History, Chronology and Archaeology of Elam, c.3500 – 1000 BC 54
2.1. History and Chronology of Elam 55
2.1.1. Susa II 56
2.1.2. Susa III 57
2.1.3. Susa IV 59
2.1.4. Akkadian and Awan 61
2.1.5. Ur III and Shimashki 66
2.1.6. Sukkalmah 71
2.1.7. Middle Elamite Period 78
2.2. Archaeology 100
2.2.1. Khuzistan 102
2.2.2. Luristan 170
2.2.3. Fars 223
2.3. Summation 242
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I i

3. Construction of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Styles Paradigm, the
Methodology 261
3.1. Provenance and Stratigraphy 264
3.2. Previous Analyses and Classifications, Literature Review 272
3.2.1. Amiet 276
3.2.2. Pittman 283
3.2.3. Porada 286
3.3. Mesopotamian Cross-Reference and Association 287
3.4. ‘Dated Seals’ 290
3.5. Seriation and Art Historical Progression 302
3.6. The ‘Tehran Sealings’ 308
3.7. Summation 313
Part II
4. The Elamite Glyptic Styles 316
4.1. Susa II Style (STS) 322
4.2. Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 339
4.3. Classic Proto-Elamite Style (CPE) 352
4.4. Glazed Steatite Style (GS) 364
4.5. Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 375
4.6. Susa III/IV Style (STF) 388
4.7. Susa IV Style (SF) 398
4.8. Late Susa IV Style (LSF) 410
4.9. Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 417
4.10. Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) Style (PEA) 428
4.11. Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 441
4.12. Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) Style (PEU) 456
4.13. Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 472
4.14. Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) Style (PEO) 483
4.15. Early Middle Elamite Style (EME) 492
4.16. Kassite Related Style (KRS) 509
4.17. Late Middle Elamite Style (LME) 519
4.18. Anshanite Style (AS) 533
4.19. Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 538
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ii

4.20. Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 549
4.21. No Image 555
4.22. Miscellaneous Styles 558
4.23. Unclassifiable Designs 560
4.24. Not Illustrated 561
4.25. Summation and Conclusion 562
Part III
5. Summary of Style Distribution across the Elamite Sites 577
5.1. Susa 577
5.2. Chogha Mish 585
5.3. Haft Tepe 590
5.4. Choga Zanbil 594
5.5. Tepe Sharafabad 599
5.6. Deh-i Now 601
5.7. Surkh Dum-i-Luri 602
5.8. Kamtarlan 606
5.9. Chigha Sabz 609
5.10. Bani Surmah 612
5.11. Kalleh Nisar 615
5.12. Godin Tepe 617
5.13. Tepe Djamshidi 621
5.14. Tepe Giyan 622
5.15. Chogha Gavaneh 624
5.16. Tal-i Malyan 625
6. Glyptic Function in Elam 630
6.1. Administrative 633
6.1.1. Non-writing administration 634
6.1.2. Writing administration 657
6.1.3. Summation of Administration Function 671
6.2. Symbolic 682
6.2.1. Votive 683
6.2.2. Funerary 695
6.2.3. Summation of Symbolic Function 697
6.3. Other Functions 698
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iii

6.3.1. ‘Palace’ Seals 698
6.3.2. Non-Votive Hoards 699
6.4. Unknown Function 700
6.5. Conclusion and Summation 706
7. Elamite and Mesopotamian Contact and Interaction 712
7.1. ‘Dated Seals’ 713
7.2. Location and Chronology of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style
Influence 736
7.2.1. Direction of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction 739
7.2.2. Location of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction
and Influence 741
7.2.3. Chronology of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction
and Influence 750
7.2.4. Summation 758
7.3. Conclusion – Ethnic Duality, ‘Elamite’ Cycles and Cylinder Seals 759
8. Conclusion 768
8.1. General Conclusion and Summation 768
8.2. Directions for Future Study 774
Bibliography 776
Appendix A 816
Volume II
Part I
Details of Catalogue page 1
Abbreviations of Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles 1
Abbreviations of Original Classification (Orig. Class.) Styles 2
1. Susa II Style 3
2 Jemdet Nasr Related Style 87
3 Classic Proto-Elamite Style 128
4 Glazed Steatite Style 175
5 Archaic Geometric Designs 216
6 Susa III/IV Style 261
7 Susa IV Style 305
Part II
8 Late Susa IV Style 327
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iv

9 Akkadian Related Style 330
10 Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) Style 355
11 Ur III Related Style 369
12 Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) Style 390
13 Old Babylonian Related Style 417
14 Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) Style 436
15 Early Middle Elamite Style 445
16 Kassite Related Style 485
17 Late Middle Elamite Style 494
18 Anshanite Style 520
19 Luristan Provincial Style 521
20 Late Geometric Designs 551
21 No Image 564
22 Miscellaneous Styles 568
23 Unclassified Designs 570
24 Not Illustrated 583
Concordance 588
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I v

Synopsis
The ancient region of Elam (southwestern Iran) has produced a significant
assemblage of cylinder seals across a considerable chronological span. Unlike the
glyptic material from the related and neighbouring region Mesopotamia, the Elamite
cylinder seals have not previously been studied in detailed reference to one another,
nor has there been an established paradigm of stylistic development articulated. This
study addresses this lacuna by compiling all the published cylinder seals from Elam
(as defined here, thus incorporating the historical provinces of Khuzistan, Luristan
and Fars), from their earliest appearance (c.3500 BC), throughout the era of their
typological dominance (over stamp seals, thus this study departs c.1000 BC). This
compilation is presented in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue (Volume II), and is
annotated and described through the annunciation of eighteen chronologically defined
developmental styles (with another two non-chronological type classifications and
four miscellaneous groups).
Through the further analysis of this data, including the newly formulated and
articulated styles, several facets and problems of Elamite glyptic material have been
addressed (and thus the reliance upon assumed similarity in type and function with the
Mesopotamian glyptic material is abandoned). These problems particularly pertain to
the function of cylinder seals in Elam and the type and form of the Elamite-
Mesopotamian glyptic interaction. In regards to function, a standard administrative
function can be discerned, though of varying types and forms across the region and
the period of study. Other, non-standard, symbolic glyptic functions can also be
demonstrated in the Corpus, including the apparent proliferation of a form known as
the ‘votive’ seal, perhaps a specifically Elamite form. The analysis of the style type
(whether ‘Elamite’, ‘Mesopotamian Related’ or ‘Shared Elamite-Mesopotamian’), in
association with their relative geographical and chronological distribution, has also
enabled the discussion of the nature of Elamite-Mesopotamian glyptic interaction, and
thereby the constitution of Elamite civilisation (especially in regards to Mesopotamian
cultural impact and influence, and thus the testing of several previously presented
paradigms [Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Miroschedji 2003]).
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vi

Acknowledgments
In form and structure, the study here presented was a generally solitary undertaking;
however, this work would not have been achieved without the significant contribution
and support from family, friends and colleagues, to whom I am entirely indebted.
Firstly, thanks must be accorded to my family. To Mum, Dad, Tony, Lisa, Jodie and
Kimberley, thank you for your love and support, for the numerous coffees, patience,
assistance, coffees, understanding, interest, for generally being you and being there,
and of course, for the coffees. Sorry for the absolute dominance and saturation of the
Elamite cylinder seals in the past few years, culminating especially in the recent
Elamite invasion; thanks again for your understanding and patience throughout.
Thanks must also be given to my other family, my brothers and sisters at
Gymea Anglican Church and Soul Revival. Thankyou for your love, prayers, support,
friendship and fellowship, especially (but not solely) your understanding and support
throughout my recent self-imposed exile. I look forward prayerfully to many more
years of fellowship and friendship as we serve our Lord together.
Thank you to my supervisor, Prof. Dan Potts, who indeed initially introduced
me to the Elamites as an undergraduate. Thank you for your support, assistance and
help, for being an extraordinary font of knowledge and information and for your
encouragement.
Much thanks, the appropriate words for which I cannot truly express, must be
accorded to my unfailing and indefatigable reader, Iona Kat McRae. Thank you not
only for your assistance in proofreading and editing (any limitations of which in the
preceding study are, of course, my own), but also for your friendship, assistance,
feedback, enthusiasm, errands and support. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thanks also to my comrade-in-arms, Bernadette McCall, and my other friends
and colleagues in the Near Eastern Archaeology department at the University of
Sydney. To Bernadette in particular (and Di, Negin and Abbas), thank you for being a
support at the coalface, a sounding board and source of advice, a friendly face, and a
welcome and happy diversion when required.
Thank you to the staff and organisation at the Iran Archaeological Museum
(Tehran), for granting me access to the material included here as the ‘Tehran
Sealings’, and for welcoming me in my short, but happy, time at your facility. Special
thanks to Shahrokh Razmjou for your help and guidance offered to a bewildered
stranger, and to the staff at the ‘Seals and Coins Department’ for your help and
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vii

friendly assistance. Partial funding for the study trip to Tehran was provided by a
grant from the Carlyle Greenwell Bequest Fund, for which I am grateful.
Thanks and credit to Luis Siddall, formerly of the University of Sydney, now
of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, for assistance in, and reading
of, ancient texts, including the translation of several seal inscriptions not included in
the Corpus, and the important information regarding the transliteration and
identification of the term <Kapnak>, for which I am most indebted to you and your
linguistic skills. Thank you to Fiona and Stephen Francesconi for reconnaissance in
the British Museum. Thanks to Prof. E Haerinck for allowing me access to the
relevant chapters of the Kalleh Nisar volume (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008) prior to its
publication.
Thank you seems a word of little consequence, but all I have to offer. So
thanks, and again I say thanks.
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I viii

Figures
1.
1.1. Glass cylinder seal page 29
1.2. Faience cylinder seal 29
1.3. General map of ‘Elam’ 48
2.
2.1. Map of sites yielding Elamite or Elamite-related glyptic material 101
2.2. General plan of Susa 103
2.3. General plan of Chogha Mish 122
2.4. Composite plan of the ‘High Mound’ of Chogha Mish 125
2.5. Proposed outline of the Sukkalmah ‘Fort’ of Chogha Mish 128
2.6. Plan of Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 135
2.7. General plan of the excavated (Negahban) remains of Haft Tepe 137
2.8. General plan of Choga Zanbil 151
2.9. Plan of the temenos area of Choga Zanbil 152
2.10. Plan of Tepe Sharafabad excavations 162
2.11. General plan of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri excavations 173
2.12. Sub-set of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’ area demonstrating
location of wall and floor hoards 174
2.13. General plan of the excavation of Kamtarlan (I and II) 189
2.14. General plan of the excavation of Chigha Sabz 194
2.15. General plan of the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’ 207
2.16. General plan of Tepe Djamshidi 210
2.17. South-North cross section of the Tepe Djamshidi excavations 211
2.18. Sketch map of Tepe Giyan 215
2.19. Plan of the ‘architectural complex’ of Chogha Gavaneh 220
2.20. General Plan of Tal-i Malyan (Anshan) 224
2.21. Plan of TUV (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level II 227
2.22. Plan of TUV (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IIIA and IIIB 228
2.23. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IVB and IVA 229
2.24. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IIIB and IIIA 230
2.25. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level II 231
2.26. Plan of the ‘Middle Elamite Building’ of Operation EDD (Tal-i
Malyan) 235
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ix

3.
3.1. Various seals illustrating possible re-cutting or remodelling 268
3.2. The PEU (7), so-called ‘Anshanite Style’ seals/sealings
included in the current study, and an unprovenanced example 282
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I x

Tables
1.1. Bibliographic table of Mesopotamian glyptic studies page 3
1.2. Bibliographic table of Iranian/Elamite glyptic studies 4
1.3. Various terms in the primary literature for bitumen-based materials 21
1.4. Bitumen-based seals reassessed as ‘bitumen aggregate’ 25
1.5. Summation of quartz-based materials 30
1.6. System of nomenclature of natural materials (rocks and minerals) 35 – 41
1.7. Minerals commonly contained in rock types typical of the Elamite
Cylinder Seal Corpus 42
2.
2.1. The ‘Awanite’ Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian kings 63 – 64
2.2. The ‘Shimashki’ Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian
kings and inscription and textural references 69 – 70
2.3. Proposed (tentative) order of succession of the ‘Sukkalmah’
Dynasty 72 – 74
2.4. Comparative table of previous proposed orders of succession
of the Sukkalmah Dynasty 76
2.5. Comparative table of proposed Sukkalmah and Middle
Elamite periodisation 82
2.6. The Middle Elamite I ‘Kidinuid’ Dynasty 86
2.7. Middle Elamite Dynasties proposed order of succession with
Mesopotamian associations 91 – 92
2.8. The Middle Elamite II ‘Igihalkid’ Dynasty 93 – 94
2.9. The Middle Elamite III ‘Shutrukid’ Dynasty 96 – 97
2.10. The Middle Elamite IV Dynasty 99
2.11. General summary of the publications of the Susa glyptic material 115
2.12. Survey of glyptic material from Susa with known provenance 119 – 121
2.13. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Mish 132 – 133
2.14. Survey of the glyptic material from Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 147 – 149
2.15. Survey of the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil 158 – 160
2.16. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Sharafabad 167
2.17. Survey of the included glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri 182 – 186
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xi

2.18. Survey of the glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri not
included in the Corpus due to their non-contemporary or non-
Elamite styles 187
2.19. Survey of the glyptic material from Kamtarlan (I and II) 192
2.20. Survey of the glyptic material from Chigha Sabz 197
2.21. Chigha Sabz cylinder seals not included in the Corpus 197
2.22. Survey of the glyptic material from Bani Surmah 200
2.23. Survey of the glyptic material from Kalleh Nisar 204
2.24. Chronological periodisation of Godin Tepe in reference to the
chronological scheme of this study 206
2.25. Survey of the glyptic material from Godin Tepe 209
2.26. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Djamshidi 212
2.27. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Giyan 216
2.28. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Gavaneh 223
2.29. Survey of the glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan (Anshan) 241 – 242
2.30. ‘Elamite’ and Mesopotamian dynastic interactions 244 – 255
2.31. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information
for Khuzistan province according to the chronological scheme of
this study 256
2.32. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information
for Luristan province according to the chronological scheme here
presented 257
2.33. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for
Luristan province (cont.) and Tal-i Malyan (Fars) according
to the chronological scheme of this study 258
2.34. Survey and summary of the chronological scheme here adopted 259 – 260
3.
3.1. Survey of the previous publications of the glyptic material
included in the Corpus 274
3.2. Amiet’s stylistic paradigms and the corresponding translations,
additions and alterations here proposed 280
3.3. Survey of the classification system for the Choga Zanbil
material by Porada, according to classification criteria and current
style here proposed 287
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xii

3.4. Sources used for correlative/cross-referential Mesopotamian material 288
3.5. Elamite ‘Dated Seals’ 293 – 299
3.6. ‘Dated Seals’ from the Elamite Corpus naming Mesopotamian kings 300
3.7. Unprovenanced ‘Elamite Dated Seals’ 301
3.8. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous kings with dated seals 302
3.9. Survey of previously published ‘Tehran Sealings’ according to
primary publication and current number (Catalogue allocation) 309
3.10. Survey of ‘Tehran Sealings’ previously unpublished and included
in the Corpus, indicating current stylistic designation 313
4.
4.1. Survey of Susa II Style (STS) sub-group division 323
4.2. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa II Style (STS) 332
4.3. Glyptic materials of the Susa II Style (STS) 334
4.4. Site distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 335
4.5. Province distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 336
4.6. Survey of Jemdet Nasr Related (JNRS) sub-group division 340
4.7. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 345
4.8. Glyptic materials of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 346
4.9. Site distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347
4.10. Province distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347
4.11. Survey of Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style sub-group division 353
4.12. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 357
4.13. Glyptic materials of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 359
4.14. Site distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361
4.15. Province distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361
4.16. Survey of Glazed Steatite (GS) Style sub-group division 367
4.17. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Glazed Steatite(GS) Style 370
4.18. Glyptic materials of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 370
4.19. Site distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372
4.20. Province distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372
4.21. Survey of Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) sub-group division 378
4.22. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382
4.23. Glyptic materials of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382
4.24. Site distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 383
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiii

4.25. Province distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 384
4.26. Survey of Susa III/IV (STF) Style sub-group division 390
4.27. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 392
4.28. Glyptic materials of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 393
4.29. Site distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394
4.30. Province distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394
4.31. Survey of Susa IV (SF) Style sub-group division 400
4.32. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa IV (SF) Style 405
4.33. Glyptic materials of the Susa IV (SF) Style 406
4.34. Site distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407
4.35. Province distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407
4.36. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 412
4.37. Glyptic materials of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413
4.38. Site distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413
4.39. Province distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 414
4.40. Survey of Akkadian Related Style (ARS) sub-group division 418
4.41. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 423
4.42. Glyptic materials of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 424
4.43. Site distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425
4.44. Province distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425
4.45. Survey of Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 430
4.46. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan)
(PEA) Style 433
4.47. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA)
Style 434
4.48. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436
4.49. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA)
Style 436
4.50. Survey of Ur III Related Style (UTRS) sub-group division 442
4.51. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 448
4.52. Glyptic materials of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 449
4.53. Site distribution of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 450
4.54. Survey of UTRS ‘dated seals’ 452
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiv

4.55. Survey of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style sub-
groups 456
4.56. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki)
(PEU) Style 464
4.57. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU)
Style 465
4.58. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 466
4.59. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU)
Style 466
4.60. Survey of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) sub-group division 473
4.61. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477
4.62. Glyptic materials of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477
4.63. Site distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 479
4.64. Province distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 480
4.65. Survey of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style
sub-group division 483
4.66. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/
Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 486
4.67. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)
(PEO) Style 487
4.68. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)
(PEO) Style 488
4.69. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/
4.70. Survey of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style sub-group division 494
4.71. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 500
4.72. Glyptic materials of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501
4.73. Site distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 502
4.74. Province distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 503
4.75. Survey of EME ‘dated seals’ 506
4.76. Survey of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) sub-group division 509
4.77. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 513
4.78. Glyptic materials of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514
4.79. Site distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xv

4.80. Province distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515
4.81. Survey of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style sub-group division 520
4.82. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 528
4.83. Glyptic materials of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 529
4.84. Site distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530
4.85. Province distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530
4.86. Survey of the Anshanite Style (AS) sub-group division 534
4.87. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Anshanite Style (AS) 535
4.88. Glyptic materials of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536
4.89. Site distribution of the Anshanite Style (AS) 537
4.90. Survey of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) sub-group division 540
4.91. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 543
4.92. Glyptic materials of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 544
4.93. Site distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 545
4.94. Province distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 546
4.95. Survey of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) sub-group division 549
4.96. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551
4.97. Glyptic materials of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551
4.98. Site distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 552
4.99. Province distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553
4.100. Glyptic materials of the ‘No Image’ Classification 556
4.101. Site distribution of the ‘No Image’ Classification 557
4.102. Survey of the ‘Miscellaneous Styles’ classification 559
4.103. Glyptic materials of the ‘Unclassifiable Designs’ group 561
4.104. Survey of the Style Proportions of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 562
4.105. Graphical representation of the relative chronology of the Elamite
Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles 563
4.106. Glyptic items according to chronological distribution 566
4.107. The glyptic materials of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 567
4.108. Survey of the seal/sealing types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 568
4.109. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 570
4.110. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 573
4.111. Summary and survey of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles
according to chronological placement, style type and development 574
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvi

5.
5.1. Susa style distribution 578
5.2. Susa glyptic types 579
5.3. Susa glyptic materials 580
5.4. Susa glyptic function 583
5.5. Style distribution of the Susa ‘funerary’ seals 584
5.6. Style distribution of the Susa temple/votive seals 585
5.7. Chogha Mish style distribution 586
5.8. Chogha Mish glyptic types 587
5.9. Chogha Mish glyptic materials 588
5.10. Chogha Mish glyptic function 589
5.11. Haft Tepe style distribution 590
5.12. Haft Tepe glyptic types 591
5.13. Haft Tepe glyptic materials 592
5.14. Haft Tepe glyptic function 594
5.15. Choga Zanbil style distribution 595
5.16. Choga Zanbil glyptic materials 596
5.17. Choga Zanbil glyptic context 597
5.18. Choga Zanbil glyptic function 597
5.19. Tepe Sharafabad style distribution 599
5.20. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic types 600
5.21. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic materials 601
5.22. Surkh Dum-i-Luri style distribution 603
5.23. Surkh Dum-i-Luri glyptic materials 605
5.24. Kamtarlan style distribution 607
5.25. Kamtarlan glyptic types 608
5.26. Kamtarlan glyptic materials 608
5.27. Kamtarlan glyptic function 609
5.28. Chigha Sabz style distribution 610
5.29. Chigha Sabz glyptic materials 611
5.30. Bani Surmah style distribution 612
5.31. Bani Surmah glyptic materials 614
5.32. Bani Surmah glyptic context 615
5.33. Kalleh Nisar style distribution 616
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvii

5.34. Kalleh Nisar glyptic materials 616
5.35. Kalleh Nisar glyptic context 617
5.36. Godin Tepe style distribution 617
5.37. Godin Tepe glyptic types 619
5.38. Godin Tepe glyptic materials 620
5.39. Godin Tepe glyptic function 621
5.40. Tepe Giyan style distribution 623
5.41. Tepe Giyan glyptic materials 623
5.42. Tepe Giyan glyptic function 624
5.43. Tal-i Malyan style distribution 625
5.44. Tal-i Malyan style distribution by Operations (Malyan sectors) 626
5.45. Tal-i Malyan glyptic types 627
5.46. Tal-i Malyan glyptic materials 628
5.47. Tal-i Malyan glyptic function 629
6.
6.1. Functional classifications of the ‘Geometric Design’ (AGD and LGD)
Items 633
6.2. Site distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding
bullae) 637
6.3. Style distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding
bullae) 639
6.4. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated sealings
(excluding bullae) 641
6.5. Site distribution of bullae/bulles 645
6.6. Style distribution of bullae/bulles 646
6.7. Chronological distribution of bullae/bulles 646
6.8. The multiple seal-impressed bullae from Susa and Chogha Mish 650
6.9. Type distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 652
6.10. Site distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 652
6.11. Style distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 655
6.12. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated
administrative sealings 655
6.13. Site distribution of sealed tablets 658
6.14. Style distribution of sealed tablets 660
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xviii

6.15. Chronological distribution of sealed tablets 661
6.16. Site distribution of sealed envelopes 665
6.17. Style distribution of sealed envelopes 666
6.18. Chronological distribution of sealed envelopes 666
6.19. Type distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667
6.20. Site distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667
6.21. Style distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667
6.22. Chronological distribution of the writing associated administrative
items 670
6.23. Survey of the glyptic types of the administrative function items 671
6.24. Survey of the site distribution of the administrative function glyptic
items 674
6.25. Survey of the style distribution of the administrative function glyptic
items 676
6.26. Survey of the chronological distribution of the administrative function
glyptic items 678
6.27. Site distribution of ‘votive seals’ 685
6.28. Style distribution of the ‘votive seals’ 688
6.29. Chronological distribution of the ‘votive seals’ 689
6.30. ‘Heirloom’ classification of ‘votive seals’ 692
6.31. Site distribution of the ‘funerary seal’ 696
6.32. Style distribution of ‘funerary seals’ 697
6.33. Chronological distribution of ‘funerary seals’ 697
6.34. Style distribution of ‘palace seals’ 699
6.35. Site distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 701
6.36. Style distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 701
6.37. Chronological distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 703
6.38. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal
Corpus 709
7.
7.1. Elamite ‘dated seals’ naming Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous
Kings 713 – 714
7.2. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronised ‘dated’ seals 717 – 732
7.3. List of ‘Not Illustrated’ Mesopotamian ‘dated’ seals 732
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xix

7.4. Site distribution of the style classifications 742
7.5. Province (including Susa) distribution of the style classifications 742
7.6. Chronological distribution of the Elamite Corpus items according
to style type classification 750
8.
8.1. Summary and survey of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles
according to chronological placement, style classification and
development 770
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xx

Graphs
4.1. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa II Style (STS) page 332
4.2. Glyptic materials of the Susa II Style (STS) 335
4.3. Site distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 336
4.4. Province distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 337
4.5. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 345
4.6. Glyptic materials of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 346
4.7. Site distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347
4.8. Province distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 348
4.9. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 357
4.10. Glyptic materials of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 360
4.11. Site distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361
4.12. Province distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 362
4.13. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 370
4.14. Glyptic materials of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 371
4.15. Site distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372
4.16. Province distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 373
4.17. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382
4.18. Glyptic materials of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 383
4.19. Site distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 384
4.20. Province distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 385
4.21. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 392
4.22. Glyptic materials of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 393
4.23. Site distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 395
4.24. Province distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394
4.25. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa IV (SF) Style 405
4.26. Glyptic materials of the Susa IV (SF) Style 406
4.27. Site distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407
4.28. Province distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 408
4.29. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 412
4.30. Glyptic materials of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413
4.31. Site distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413
4.32. Province distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 414
4.33. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 423
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxi

4.34. Glyptic materials of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 424
4.35. Site distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425
4.36. Province distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 426
4.37. Seal/Sealing of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 434
4.38. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 435
4.39. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436
4.40. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA)
Style 437
4.41. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 448
4.42. Glyptic Materials of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 449
4.43. Site distribution of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 450
4.44. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki)
(PEU) Style 464
4.45. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 465
4.46. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 467
4.47. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU)
Style 466
4.48. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477
4.49. Glyptic materials of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 478
4.50. Site distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 479
4.51. Province distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 480
4.52. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/
4.53. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)
(PEO) Style 488
4.54. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)
(PEO) Style 489
4.55. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/
Sukkalmah) (PE) Style 490
4.56. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501
4.57. Glyptic materials of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501
4.58. Site distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 502
4.59. Province distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 503
4.60. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxii

4.61. Glyptic materials of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514
4.62. Site distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515
4.63. Province distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 516
4.64. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 528
4.65. Glyptic materials of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 529
4.66. Site distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530
4.67. Province distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 531
4.68. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536
4.69. Glyptic materials of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536
4.70. Site distribution of the Anshanite Style (AS) 537
4.71. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 544
4.72. Glyptic materials of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 545
4.73. Site distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 546
4.74. Province distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 547
4.75. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551
4.76. Glyptic materials of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 552
4.77. Site distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553
4.78. Province distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553
4.79. Glyptic materials of the ‘No Image’ Classification 557
4.80. Site distribution of the ‘No Image’ Classification 557
4.81. Survey of the Style Proportions of the Elamite Cylinder Seal
Corpus (miscellaneous classifications excepted) 564
4.82. Glyptic items according to chronological distribution 566
4.83. The glyptic materials of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (with five
or more examples) 569
4.84. Survey of seal/sealing types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 570
4.85. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 571
4.86. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus,
minus the Susa corpus 572
4.87. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 573
4.88. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus,
minus the Susa corpus 573
5.
5.1. Susa style distribution 578
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiii

5.2. Susa glyptic types 579
5.3. Susa glyptic materials (with five or more examples) 581
5.4. Susa glyptic function 583
5.5. Chogha Mish style distribution 586
5.6. Chogha Mish glyptic types 587
5.7. Chogha Mish glyptic materials 588
5.8. Chogha Mish glyptic function 589
5.9. Haft Tepe style distribution 591
5.10. Haft Tepe glyptic types 592
5.11. Haft Tepe glyptic materials 593
5.12. Haft Tepe glyptic function 594
5.13. Choga Zanbil style distribution 595
5.14. Choga Zanbil glyptic materials 597
5.15. Choga Zanbil glyptic function 598
5.16. Tepe Sharafabad style distribution 600
5.17. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic types 600
5.18. Surkh Dum-i-Luri style distribution 604
5.19. Surkh Dum-i-Luri glyptic materials with three or more items 606
5.20. Kamtarlan style distribution 607
5.21. Kamtarlan glyptic types 608
5.22. Kamtarlan glyptic materials 608
5.23. Kamtarlan glyptic function 609
5.24. Chigha Sabz style distribution 610
5.25. Chigha Sabz glyptic materials 611
5.26. Bani Surmah style distribution 613
5.27. Bani Surmah glyptic materials 614
5.28. Kalleh Nisar style distribution 616
5.29. Kalleh Nisar glyptic materials 616
5.30. Godin Tepe style distribution 618
5.31. Godin Tepe glyptic types 619
5.32. Godin Tepe glyptic materials 620
5.33. Godin Tepe glyptic function 621
5.34. Tepe Giyan style distribution 623
5.35. Tepe Giyan glyptic materials 624
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiv

5.36. Tepe Giyan glyptic function 624
5.37. Tal-i Malyan style distribution 626
5.38. Tal-i Malyan glyptic types 627
5.39. Tal-i Malyan glyptic materials 628
5.40. Tal-i Malyan glyptic function 629
6.
6.1. Functional classifications of the ‘Geometric Design’ (AGD and LGD)
Items 633
6.2. Division of non-writing associated sealings according to classification 636
6.3. Site distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding
bullae) 638
6.4. Style distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding
bullae) 640
6.5. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated sealings
(excluding bullae) 641
6.6. Site distribution of bullae/bulles 646
6.7. Style distribution of bullae/bulles 647
6.8. Chronological distribution of bullae/bulles 648
6.9. Type distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 653
6.10. Site distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 654
6.11. Style distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 656
6.12. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated
administrative sealings 657
6.13. Site distribution of sealed tablets 659
6.14. Style distribution of sealed tablets 661
6.15. Chronological distribution of sealed tablets 662
6.16. Site distribution of sealed envelopes 666
6.17. Style distribution of sealed envelopes 666
6.18. Chronological distribution of sealed envelopes 666
6.19. Type distribution of the writing associated administrative items 668
6.20. Site distribution of the writing associated administrative items 669
6.21. Style distribution of the writing associated administrative items 669
6.22. Chronological distribution of the writing associated administrative items 670
6.23. Survey of the glyptic types of the administrative function items 672
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxv

6.24. Survey of the site distribution of the administrative function glyptic
items 675
6.25. Survey of the style distribution of the administrative function glyptic
items 677
6.26. Survey of the chronological distribution of the administrative function
glyptic items 680
6.27. Site distribution of ‘votive seals’ 686
6.28. Style distribution of ‘votive seals’ 689
6.29. Chronological distribution of ‘votive seals’ 690
6.30. ‘Heirloom’ classification of ‘votive seals’ 692
6.31. Site distribution of the ‘funerary seals’ 696
6.32. Style distribution of the ‘funerary seals’ 697
6.33. Chronological distribution of the ‘funerary seals’ 697
6.34. Style distribution of ‘palace seals’ 699
6.35. Site distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 702
6.36. Site distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals, excluding Susa 703
6.37. Style distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 704
6.38. Chronological distribution of the ‘unknown function’ seals 705
Corpus 710
Corpus, with division of the functional classes 711
7.
7.1. Site distribution of the style classifications, excluding Susa 743
7.2. Province (including Susa) distribution of the style classifications 744
7.3. Chronological distribution of the Elamite Corpus items according
to style type classification 751
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxvi

Chapter 1 – Introduction
Cylinder seals are described by Moorey as “the most distinctive artefact created by
the Sumerians” (Moorey 1994: 103). Indeed, cylinder seals are often found in the
excavations of Mesopotamian sites, and other areas of the Ancient Near East, for a
period of close to three millennia, and form a group of diagnostic artefacts within the
material culture of the region. Cylinder seals are generally useful artefacts, as trends,
social movements and changes can be traced in their study (Collon 2005). Much of
our understanding of Mesopotamian iconography, imagery of the gods and mythology
comes from glyptic studies (Black & Green 1992; Collon 2005: 165 – 171, 178 –
186), and the images found on seals further provide an insight into common,
quotidian life that is unparalleled elsewhere (Collon 2005: 145 – 149). Cylinder seals,
through their depictions, provide insights into clothes and fashions, building
techniques and decoration, weaponry and furnishings, agricultural methods and
accoutrements, as well as ritual actions and ceremonies, such as royal hunts, banquets
and worship/presentation scenes (Collon 2005: 145 – 197).
Furthermore, cylinder seals, particularly those that are inscribed with the name
of a king or known personage, can also provide useful dating mechanisms (though the
use of seals and sealings for dating purposes is extremely precarious and should be
approached with great caution [Matthews 1990: 10; Collon 1990: 24 – 25; contra
Negahban 1996: 205], as will be further discussed below [Chapter 3.4]). Seals and
sealings also provide information concerning the administration and control
mechanisms of a society, and testify to trade and social contacts both within a single
community and between communities (Collon 1990: 21 – 30; Gelb 1977; Rathje
1977; Renger 1977). Thus glyptic studies are an important aspect of Ancient Near
Eastern archaeology, for much can not only be garnered from the study of these items,
but their frequent (if not regular) nature makes such a study profitable.
However, either by deliberate design or dearth of information, the majority of
past glyptic studies have tended to focus primarily on Mesopotamian 1 materials and
1
As will become evident in this study, Mesopotamia is often a source of comparison with the
neighbouring region of southwestern Iran under discussion here, in terms of history and chronology, as
well as material culture. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus on Mesopotamia as an example and
contrast in the realm of glyptic studies. It should be noted that there is also a multiplicity of glyptic
studies that deal with Syrian-Levantine (for example: Amiet 1963; Collon 1975; 1982b; 1997: 20 – 21;
2005: 24, 52 – 55, 69 – 70; Matthews 1997; Mazzoni 1984; Schaeffer-Forrer 1983; Amiet 1992b; Otto
2000) and Anatolian (for example: Özgüç 1965; 1968; Teissier 1994; Boehmer & Güterbock 1987;
Collon 1997: 20 – 21; 2005: 57) glyptic material, that for the sake of brevity, will not be detailed here.
Their existence should, however, be noted. These corpora do not, however, diminish the current point
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 1

examples (Collon 1997; 2005; Gibson & Briggs 1977; Kelly-Buccelati 1986). Indeed,
as demonstrated by Table 1.1, a plethora of studies have been devoted to the cylinder
seals of Mesopotamia. A major theme of many of these publications is the
construction and annunciation of stylistic paradigms. Further studies have also dealt
with other aspects of Mesopotamian glyptic material, such as function, manufacture
processes and material provenance (Part 5, Table 1.1). While it may not be correct to
say that Mesopotamian cylinder seals are entirely understood, it can be said that much
is known of these items and that their general chronological and stylistic development
is well-established (Parts 1 – 4, Table 1.1), albeit with a reservation that some of this
construction may be subject to change with ensuing new discoveries.
In stark contrast, and despite the fact that cylinder seals are equally ubiquitous
and characteristic of the ancient civilisations and societies of southwestern Iran
(Elam), relatively few studies have been devoted to the related Iranian/Elamite glyptic
material, as demonstrated by Table 1.2. Most commonly the Iranian/Elamite glyptic
material has been published as part of the general excavation report of a particular site
(see Section 1b of Table 1.2), though in some cases a volume in a series of excavation
reports (thus Susa and Choga Zanbil), or an article study (Shahr-i Sokhta, Bani
Surmah, Marlik and Kalleh Nisar) is devoted to the glyptic material exposed in the
excavations (Section 1a of Table 1.2). Due to this practice, the glyptic material has
generally only been subjected to a rather preliminary study, often not by a recognised
glyptic expert (exceptions to this include Tal-i Malyan [Sumner 2003] and Tepe
Yahya [Potts 2001], as Pittman prepared the glyptic studies for both of these
volumes). The cursory nature of these glyptic material publications, as well as lending
a preliminary quality to any conclusions, also means that most often the material is
discussed in relative isolation from material of other related sites. For example, the
glyptic material of the, at least partially, contemporaneous Middle Elamite sites of
Susa, Choga Zanbil and Haft Tepe has been published with only a cursory indication
of the existence of, and cross-reference to, the others. In other words, unlike the
glyptic material from neighbouring Mesopotamia, a study devoted to the stylistic
developments of the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material of this, or any other period, has
that there is a general dearth of Iranian glyptic studies, but in fact emphasises the point by demonstrating that
other, ‘non-core’ areas of cylinder seal use, such as Syria-Levant and Anatolia have undergone significant
glyptic material study, while the same cannot be said of Iranian glyptic material.

not been attempted, and as such the stylistic development for this region is practically
unknown, and in effect unpronounced.
1. Public Collections
Bibliothèque Nationale Paris (Delaporte 1910) Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Munn-Rankin
Louvre (Delaporte 1920; 1923) 1959)
Berlin (Moortgat 1940) Brussels (Speleers 1917; 1943)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Buchanan 1966; Geneva (Vollenweider 1967/1983)
Moorey & Gurnet 1978) Danish National Museum (Ravn 1960, Møller
British Museum (Wiseman 1962; Collon 1982a; 1992)
1986) Fribourg (Keel-Leu 2004)
Vienna (Bleibtreu 1981) Gulbenkian Museum, Durham (Lambert 1979)
Yale Babylonian Collection (Buchanan 1981) University Museum, Philadelphia (Legrain 1951)
The Hague (Zadoks-Josephus 1952) Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (Gordon 1939)
2. Private Collections
Pierpont Morgan Library (Porada 1948) von Aulock Collection (von der Osten 1957)
Marcopoli Collection (Teissier1984) Frederick Lewis Collection (Owen 1975)
Southesk Collection (Carnegie 1908) Cherkasky Collection (Pittman & Aruz 1987)
de Clercq Collection (de Clercq & Ménant Sissa Collection (van Buren 1959)
1888/1903) Anavian Collection (Volk 1979)
Moore Collection (Eisen 1940; Williams Forte Haskel Museum (Williams 1928)
1976) Guimet Museum (Delaporte 1909)
Birmingham Collections (Lambert, W. 1966) Private New York Collections held at the
Cugnin Collection (Legrain 1911) Metropolitan Museum of Art (von Bothmer 1961)
Gorelick Collection (Noveck 1975) Baldwin Brett Collection (von der Osten 1936)
Newell Collection (von der Osten 1934)
3. Excavated Sites
Tepe Gawra (Tobler 1950) Tell Fara (Heinrich 1931; Martin 1988)
Uruk (Brandes 1979; Boehmer 1999) Abu Salabikh (Martin & Matthews 1993)
Ur (Woolley 1934; Legrain 1936; 1951; Matthews Babylon [and Ashur] (Moortgat 1940)
1993) Diyala/Hamrin (Frankfort 1955; al-Gailani Werr
Jemdet Nasr (Matthews, R. 1992) 1992)
Nippur (Matthews, D. 1992)
4. Stylistic/Chronological Studies
Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Mesopotamia (Rova 1994) Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (al-Gailani Werr
Glazed Steatite Style (Pittman 1994) 1988a; Blocher 1988; Colbow 1995)
Archaic Mesopotamia (Amiet 1980a) Kassite Mesopotamia (Beran 1957 – 1958;
Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (Garrison 1989; Matthews 1992)
Hansen 1971) Late 2nd millennium BC Near East (Matthews
Akkadian and Post-Akkadian Mesopotamia 1990)
(Bernbeck 1996; Boehmer 1965) General (Ward 1920; Frankfort 1939; Wiseman &
Ur III Mesopotamia (Franke 1977) Forman 1959; Collon 2005)
5. Scientific Studies, Analyses and General Glyptic Studies
Microscopic study, methods of manufacture and Sealings study (Zettler 1987)
engraving (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; Function (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1990)
1981b; 1992; Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987; Glyptic Studies (Gibson & Biggs 1977; Kelley-
Sax, McNabb & Meeks 1998; Sax & Meeks 1994; Buccellati [ed.] 1986; Hallo & Winter [eds.]
Sax & Meeks 1995; Sax, Meeks & Collon 2000; 2001)
Sax & Middleton 1992)
Table 1.1. Bibliographic table of Mesopotamian glyptic studies. It should be noted that this
bibliography is by no means extensive, but rather offers a sample of the available sources.
Only volumes/excavation reports devoted solely to cylinder seals are included in section 2),
with the addition of chapters and other partial reports, this section would be much inflated.
Similarly, only styles within the chronological constraints of this study (c.3500 – 1000 BC,
detailed below), have been included in section 4), it thus should be noted that more styles
outside these parameters exist, and would further demonstrate the propensity for
Mesopotamian-focused studies.

1. Excavated Sites
1a. Devoted studies
Susa (Amiet 1972) Choga Zanbil (Porada 1970)
Shahr-i Sokhta (Amiet 1978) Kalleh Nisar (vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994)
Bani Surmah (Tourovets 1996) Marlik (Negahban 1996)
1b. Partial studies
Susa (Delaporte 1920; Börker-Klähn 1970) Shahdad (Hakemi 1997)
Haft Tepe (Negahban 1991) Godin Tepe (Young 1969a; 1986; Young &
Tepe Sialk (Amiet 1985) Levine 1974; Weiss & Young 1975)
Tal-i Malyan (Nicholas 1990 [TUV]; Carter 1996 Tepe Yahya (Potts 2001)
[EDD]; Sumner 2003 [ABC]) Tepe Sharafabad (Schacht 1975)
Tepe Giyan (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935) Holmes Expedition to Luristan, including Surkh
Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996) Dum-i-Luri, Kamtarlan, Chigha Sabz (Schmidt et
Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006; vanden al. 1989)
Berghe 1968) Kalleh Nisar (vanden Berghe 1973; Haerinck &
Overlaet 2008)
2. Stylistic/Chronological Studies
Proto-Elamite (Dittmann 1986a; Pittman 1997) Glazed Steatite Style (Pittman 1994)*
Archaic styles (Amiet 1980a)*
3. Functional/Scientific Studies
Iranian Plateau (Dyson & Harris 1986) Chemical analysis of clay sealings (Blackman
Function of sealing (Ferioli & Fiandra 1979; 1985)
1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979)
Table 1.2 Bibliographic table of Iranian/Elamite glyptic studies, denoted by 1a) Excavated
Sites, devoted studies (papers and monographs dedicated solely to glyptic material), 1b)
Excavated sites, partial studies, 2) Stylistic/Chronological Studies and 3)
Functional/Scientific Studies. Those studies in section 2 marked with an asterix(*) detail
shared Mesopotamian/Elamite styles.
The single 2 exception to this is Pittman’s analysis of the ‘Proto-Elamite’

glyptic material (1997), a study that collates all the cylinder seals and sealings of the
‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III) period from various sites, and expands upon and
annunciates the styles of these seals. This unique study will be discussed in further
detail below (Chapter 3.2), but suffice it to say that the existence of this study does
not preclude the need for the current work, as it is limited to a single period, whereas
the current study aims to discuss the stylistic progression and development of Elamite
cylinder seals across many periods. The other three studies listed in Table 1.2 section
2 (Stylistic/Chronological Studies), also cannot be said to be solely devoted to
Iranian/Elamite styles. Amiet’s seminal work on the archaic (early) styles of
Mesopotamia does deal with Iranian/Elamite material and styles (1980a: 38 – 44).
However, the focus of this study is very much on Mesopotamian styles, with the
Iranian/Elamite material an addendum to the main Mesopotamian focus, with little
detail or analysis given (indeed the very title of the study, La glyptique
2
Rashad’s study of the early stamp seals of Iran (1990) should be noted as an exception to this
statement, though as it deals specifically with stamp seals, and those from an earlier period than that
under discussion here, it is not relevant to this study.

mésopotamienne archaïque, indicates its Mesopotamian focus). Pittman’s (1994)
study of the Glazed Steatite Style also deals with Iranian/Elamite glyptic material,
however the common Mesopotamian-Iranian nature of this style (indeed in this study,
it is one of only two characterised as a ‘Shared Mesopotamian-Elamite Style’ [see
Chapter 4.4]) means that it too is not devoted to Iranian/Elamite glyptic material.
Thus, the studies of both Amiet and Pittman treat the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material
as an adjunct or appendix of the major work, a smaller, minor part of the
Mesopotamian-focused whole.
Thus, despite the fact that the cylinder seal is as ubiquitous in Iranian/Elamite
excavations, and as useful in the reconstruction of Iranian/Elamite society as those
from neighbouring Mesopotamia, the cylinder seals of Elam have been neglected in
the literature. Apart from the aspiration to fill this obvious gap in the literature, the
definition of an Elamite glyptic style paradigm is also desirable and necessary so as to
test, and in some cases correct, the use (or indeed misuse) that Elamite glyptic styles
have been put, even in the absence of their articulation outlined above.
Cylinder seals are often used as evidence for changing patterns of ethnic,
social or cultural structure of a society, as the appearance of a particular glyptic style,
image-type or depiction method can be shown to demonstrate the introduction of a
people, or probably more correctly the introduction of contact or influence from
another people (such assertions are numerous, and abound in the volumes detailed in
both Tables 1.1 and 1.2). While needing to avoid facile equations of ‘pots with
people’ (or seals as the case may be), the alteration of a style or depiction type may be
seen as an indication of some change in the society that resulted in this amendment,
be it the advent of external influences or changes in the internal constitution of that
society. Of course for any such discussion to take place an actual understanding of the
developmental pattern of the glyptic material must be available.
Thus, Carter’s use of the apparent increased appearance of Mesopotamian
glyptic material in the early third millennium BC at Susa as evidence for greater
Mesopotamian cultural influence generally at Susa (Carter 1980: 31) is an example of
employing glyptic material to demonstrate apparent social or cultural change of a
particular society (in this case the Susa society). However, without a thorough study
of the development of the glyptic styles from Susa, and indeed of Elam in general, a
statement such as this must remain unproven and classified as speculative. Indeed, in
order for Carter’s statement to be authenticated and eventually accepted (or rejected)

the stylistic developments of the preceding period, as well as the state of glyptic
material in the actual period under discussion must be assessed, and the extent of
Mesopotamian contacts understood. In the current state of research (that is, before this
study) this information is not available.
Similarly, Amiet’s landmark ethnic duality and alternance thesis (1979a;
1979b), discussed in greater detail below (Chapter 7), states that two separate ethnic
populations existed at Susa; a native/indigenous, ‘highland’, Iranian/Elamite group,
and an intrusive, ‘lowland’, Mesopotamian plains group that was related to, if not
immigrant from neighbouring Mesopotamia. According to the thesis, in any one
period one of these ethnic groups held sway or was dominant over the other. In the
following period this dominance would alternate, and the other ethnic group would
gain dominance. Thus this theory seeks to characterise an essential duality of Susian
and, by extension, Elamite society. One of the main proofs of this thesis has been
cylinder seals (Amiet 1979a: 198 – 202; Amiet 1979b). Again, in order to test this
theory, an accurate stylistic paradigm must be established, so that the extent, if any, of
Elamite or Mesopotamian influence on the Susian material, and any discernable
change in the level of this influence can be detailed. However, in the current state of
knowledge, without a thorough, unified, developmental, stylistic paradigm for the
glyptic styles of Elam the use of glyptic material to reconstruct such elements of
society and to discuss relative levels of Mesopotamian influence is flawed.
There has also been a general assumption that what is true for Mesopotamian
glyptic in terms of function and use is true of its Iranian equivalent (Collon 2005 for
example, where examples from each region are variously used to reconstruct function
without reference to any geographic distinction). Again, however, without a thorough
study of Elamite glyptic across several sites, rather than focused on a single site, the
accuracy or otherwise of this statement must be questioned. Indeed, as will be shown
in greater detail below (Chapter 6), in at least some examples, the Elamite function of
seals was quite different from that in Mesopotamia.
Thus, the single primary aim of this work is to fill a void in the glyptic
literature by integrating the disparate excavated Elamite cylinder seals and sealings
into a single study, and through a study of these items, each with reference to the
other, the creation of an inclusive stylistic paradigm for this material, from their
earliest appearance (c.3500 BC) through to a break in Elamite society around 1000
BC (that is the end of Middle Elamite period). The meaning of and definition of the

borders and parameters of ‘Elam’ will be outlined in detail below, as will the
chronological justification of these limitations (Chapter 1.2). As a whole this
collection is labelled the ‘Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus’, often abbreviated here
simply to the ‘Corpus’. The major result of this undertaking is the Elamite Cylinder
Seal Corpus Catalogue (Volume II). This catalogue presents all 3597 published
excavated Elamite cylinder seals and sealings from the Susa II period (that is the
period of the earliest manifestation of cylinder seals) through to the end of the Middle
Elamite period. As well as all the published Elamite glyptic material, also included in
this study is a group of unpublished sealings from Susa held in the Tehran Museum,
that will be further discussed below (Chapter 2.2.1.1). Each piece in the catalogue is
listed with a detailed description of their vital statistics and an illustration (where
applicable/available).
The current introductory chapter will continue to provide a general
introduction to glyptic studies (Chapter 1.1), followed by an outline of the geographic
and chronological parameters (Chapter 1.2) of this study. The study will then continue
by discussing in further detail the history and chronology relevant to this study and
the specific details of the sites from which the pertinent glyptic material is sourced
(Chapter 2). The methodology of the style creation (including a literature review of
the previous publications of the material) (Chapter 3) and finally the articulation of
the actual styles created for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (Chapter 4) and a
discussion of their distribution across the ‘Elamite’ sites (Chapter 5) completes this
data presentation. Following this, two discussions regarding issues that have arisen
from the preceding study and are of chief pertinence to glyptic studies will be
addressed. The first of these problems is the function of seals and sealings in Elam
(Chapter 6), which, as will be shown, can vary greatly from the mostly administrative
function in Mesopotamia. The second problem and discussion concerns the question
of contact, and the extent to which this question can be addressed using glyptic
material (Chapter 7). In reference to this study, the contact in question is specifically
that between southern Mesopotamia (variously over time Sumer, Akkad and
Babylonia) and Elam, and the existence and extent thereof, especially in regards to
Amiet’s ethnic duality thesis (and indeed, other more recent studies that have
proposed similar such patterns, for example that of de Miroschedji [2003]).

1.1 Glyptic Studies
This study is devoted to the cylinder seals of ‘Elam’ from their earliest occurrence
through to the end of the Middle Elamite period, that is c.3500 – 1000 BC. This
section will provide an introduction to the field of glyptic studies, especially
pertaining to the current subject matter (that is Elamite glyptic studies). This
introduction is not intended to be thorough nor exhaustive, as such a study would be
beyond the introductory nature of this section. For further and more detailed
expositions of current and historic glyptic studies and an extended bibliography, the
interested reader is directed to the works of Collon (1997; 2005), as well as the
bibliographies contained in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Furthermore, Moorey (1994: 75 – 77,
103 – 106) provides a useful introduction to the materials and manufacture of
Mesopotamian seals, while various works of Porada (including 1982; 1995) are a
solid basis to the more art historical approach to glyptic studies discussed below
(Chapter 1.1.5). The works of Matthews (1990; 1992) provide a recent and reliable
introduction to modern glyptic studies. Finally, the studies of Ferioli and Fiandra
(1979; 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979) and Zettler (1987) provide an important
introduction to the more recent use of glyptic material as a source of functional
information rather than purely as pieces of art.
Following a brief outline of the terms employed in glyptic studies (1.1.1), a
discussion of the function of seals and sealings, as is currently generally accepted,
will be given (1.1.2). The study will then focus on the problem of the material from
which a seal was made (1.1.3) and a brief discussion of seal production (1.1.4).
Finally, the discussion will turn to a more general philosophical and methodological
problem of glyptic studies, the nature of this field of investigation and the justification
of the approach adopted in this study (1.1.5).
1.1.1 Seals and Sealings

A ‘seal’ is here defined as an object, generally made of a rock or mineral (popularly a
‘stone’), but also of ivory, shell, faience, glass, metal, wood, clay and bitumen
compound, that is carved with a design (usually in intaglio) so that when the object is
impressed upon a soft substance (primarily in the Ancient Near East, unfired or ‘wet’
clay) an impression in relief of the design is made (Roaf 1990: 72). Thus, for the
purpose of this study, other items used in ancient times to make a distinctive
impression on clay (such as the hem of a garment, and fingernails [Gelb 1977: 111])

are not defined as a ‘seal’, as these are more ad hoc seal replacements or substitutes
rather than actual objects made for the purpose of sealing.
The impression made by the seal is also, rather confusingly, popularly known
as a ‘seal’. However, to avoid confusion, scholars generally use the term ‘sealing’ to
describe the ancient impression made by a seal (Collon 1990: 11). In this study the
term ‘sealing’ is used as a synonym for, and is interchangeable with, ‘impression’ or
‘seal impression’. Unless otherwise stated, all impressions referred to here are ancient
impressions, that is, impressions made by a seal in antiquity and preserved in the
archaeological record, as opposed to a modern impression made recently from an
ancient cylinder seal for illustration purposes. To further complicate matters, the term
‘sealing’ has also been used in the Tal-i Malyan publications to refer to any piece of
clay used to secure (that is seal) vessels, baskets, doors and so on (Nicholas 1990: 74).
That is, at Malyan, “sealings may or may not have been impressed [sic]” (Nicholas
1990: 74), in almost direct opposition to the definition adopted here. While the logic
of this definition following the popular meaning of ‘to seal’ is acknowledged, the
specialist definition outlined above will be adhered to as cylinder seals and their
impressions are the chief subject of this study. When a clay sealing that does not bear
an impression is intended here, the term ‘unimpressed sealing’ is used. ‘Glyptic’ is
used to refer to both seals and sealings (Collon 1990: 11) and the study thereof.
Two types of seals were used in the Ancient Near East (including Iran), the
cylinder seal and the stamp seal. The stamp seal was the earliest seal form found in
the area, first appearing perhaps as early as c.7000 BC (Collon 1997: 11), and
gradually becoming generally ubiquitous around 4500 BC (Collon 1997: 11). The
cylinder seal first appeared in Mesopotamia (and southwestern Iran) around 3500 BC,
and came to overwhelmingly dominate stamp seals from around 3000 BC, a primacy
which continued until the beginning of the first millennium BC, when again the stamp
seal replaced the cylinder as the most common type (Collon 1990: 11 – 14; 2005: 11 –
16). The present study will focus on cylinder seals only, as stamp seals show less
variation across time, figural scenes and images are rarely represented (and so provide
less insights into society) and because following the rise to primacy of the cylinder
seal relatively few stamps seals were discovered in controlled excavations (Collon
1990: 11 – 13). Thus, cylinder seals alone are studied in this study, and stamp seals
are not included as they would provide a tangent of limited use.

A cylinder seal, as the name suggests, is a cylindrical shaped seal, with the
design carved along the face of the object. When this seal is rolled over clay, a
continuous, frieze-like impression is created (Roaf 1990: 72). Thus the cylinder seal
can cover a larger area of the sealed object with greater speed than is possible for a
stamp seal (Collon 1997: 13). A cylinder seal is usually perforated lengthways, or has
a boss or link at one end so that the object can be hung (Collon 2005: 108 – 112).
From the design element of the boss or cap and from the occasional illustration, it is
believed that, at least some, cylinder seals were worn as pieces of jewellery, on a
fibula, brooch or pin, or as a sort of pendant (Collon 2005: 108 – 112).
1.1.2 The Function of Cylinder Seals

Cylinder seal function can be divided into four distinct, though interrelated, uses;
administrative, amuletic, votive and funerary. These four types will be outlined briefly
below, and as will be discovered, there is no absolute distinction between these types;
any one seal may well have functioned in two or more manners simultaneously or
across the period of its use. It should therefore be noted that the functions of seals
outlined below are not mutually exclusive, nor can it be said that any one function
was more important than another. Indeed, it seems that one function led to, or enabled
another, as will be shown.
As already discussed, and as will be further elucidated below, the nature of
past glyptic studies means that the information contained in this outline of seal
function is sourced primarily from Mesopotamian-based, and focused, sources. Thus
the following is essentially an outline of the function of cylinder seals in
Mesopotamia as our level of knowledge currently stands. However, such a reliance on
Mesopotamian evidence and sources is inappropriate for an accurate study of
Iranian/Elamite types. Thus the following outline is intended to provide an
introduction to the current state of knowledge of seal function, as a basis from which a
more complete analysis of the function of seals in Iran/Elam will be undertaken
following the outline of the Elamite cylinder seals (Chapter 6). This function outline
will thus provide both an introduction generally to the function of cylinder seals, and
a basis from which the Mesopotamian function of seals can be compared and
contrasted with the Iranian/Elamite function.

1.1.2.1 Administrative Function
Seals were used, most obviously, to seal clay tablets and envelopes and the clay that
secured jars, bales, sacks, boxes, baskets and (store)room doors as a type of lock or
marker (Collon 2005: 113; 1990: 11; Matthews 1990: 11; Potts 1997: 239). The
function of seals beyond the previously generally accepted function as pieces of art, or
as adjuncts or addenda to tablets studied for their apparently primary
philological/historical importance, has more recently become apparent through the
increased archaeological attention to sealings. Seals were used to mark, or seal an
object (Collon 1990: 11; Gelb 1977: 11), though the precise significance of this in
ancient times is not totally understood. It is generally assumed here that the presence
of a seal impression functioned in a manner roughly synonymous to that of a modern
signature or corporate logo/letterhead. In the case of a sealed tablet or envelope the
presence of a seal impression, it is believed, signified the participation in, or witness
to, the transaction by the owner of the seal (Reneger 1977: 79; Gelb 1977: 11;
Rothman 2007: 237). In the other sealing instances, the presence of a sealing
authorised, validated, identified or authenticated the objects, or the transaction or
exchange, that they represented (Potts 1997: 239; Reneger 1977: 75 – 78; Collon
2005: 113; 1990: 11; Gelb 1977: 11). Seals could also be used to mark or signify
ownership of an object or the contents of a room or vessel (Collon 2005: 113; 1990:
11). Finally, the presence of an individual’s sealing on a door lock most likely
signified that the owner of this seal was the one who ‘locked’, or closed, the room
(Collon 1990: 25).
Two important preconditions and factors must be assumed in order for seals to
have been a useful and functional part of society. Firstly, the individuals within the
society must have respected seals and the action of sealing. That is, a seal must have
been recognised as a powerful symbol, in much the same way that today a signature,
while only letters in ink, is a powerful symbolic action that binds an individual. Thus
the forging or misuse of a signature is a serious social (criminal) breach. A similar
function, or power, must be attributed to ancient seals (Collon 2005: 5 – 7, 113 –
119).
Secondly, an individual’s seal must have been recognisable and representative
of, to at least some degree, the individual (Collon 2005: 113 – 119). In other words,
the seal of person X must be distinguishable, and importantly, recognisably so, from
that of person Y. In some periods and examples, the identity of the seal owner is

inscribed on the seal, and so identification is assured (at least to the literate) (Collon
2005: 105 – 107). For many seals though this is not the case, and instead the identity
of the owner (or the institution) is presumably demonstrated by the variation in the
depiction of the scene. Thus the images found on seals must belong to a visual lexicon
whereby they are both recognisable (that is, could be ‘read’) and differentiable (that
is, sufficiently dissimilar so as to indicate a distinction one from another).
The use of cylinder seals to seal tablets and envelopes, and storage objects (be
they portable objects such as vessels, bales and baskets or immovable storage areas
such as storerooms) can be described as the main or standard administrative function
of seals. The term ‘administration’ does not simply mean bookkeeping or finance
documentation, but rather is an encompassing term that describes the means and
methods of regulation of a society, and how this is discernable in the archaeological
record. Thus as well as the more obvious areas of bookkeeping found in economic
and legal texts, administration also covers other areas of the ancient economy and
society and the way these areas were controlled (hence the Malyan defined and
labelled ‘control category’ that includes seals and sealings [Nicholas 1996: 84 – 85;
Sumner 2003: 80 – 82]). Thus a seal, in an administrative context, is used to, in some
way, control or regulate the society’s economy, in all its ancient facets (including
taxation, tribute and trade). This is the primary function and definition of a seal,
indeed the eponymous function, though it is not the only, nor always the chief use to
which a seal was put, as will be shown below.
1.1.2.2 Amuletic Function

In a general sense, an amulet is an object, generally worn or carried on an individual’s
person, thought to ward off evil or act as a protective charm (Black & Green 1992:
30). The role of a seal as an amulet is testified to by Mesopotamian texts where the
use of a seal is proscribed for exorcistic spells, and by the seals themselves which
often bear spells or prayers on their inscriptions (Gelb 1977: 112; Hallo 1977: 58;
Black & Green 1992: 300; Matthews 1990: 11; Collon 2005: 62; 1997: 20; van Buren
1954: 33, 119, 131). This amuletic function of cylinder seals apparently originally
derived from stamp seals, which, it has been suggested, may themselves have
originally evolved from pure amulets or amuletic beads (Collon 1997: 19; Moorey
1994: 103; Gorelick & Gwinnett 1981a; 1990).

The role of a seal as an amulet also derived from its role as an identifier of an
individual, that is, its administrative function. This identifying role led a seal to be
seen as an embodiment, or extension, of the owner’s identity and self (Collon 1990:
21; 1997: 19; Black & Green 1992: 300; Hallo 1987). This function is reminiscent of
the importance of an individual’s name in the Ancient Near East, where knowledge of
a name was important beyond simple recognition, and implied knowledge of the
nature and characteristics of the individual (Bottéro 1998). Similarly, a cylinder seal’s
identification with its owner’s identity, self and person came to lend the cylinder seals
an amuletic, or talisman quality. Alternatively, it could be argued that the amuletic
quality of beads and stamp seals, which themselves, may have evolved into cylinder
seals (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1981a; 1990), gave the very identification quality to
cylinder seals that allowed them the administrative function. Barring entering a
philosophical causality dilemma, little more to this discussion of primacy can be
added here; merely the possibility of each process can be put forth.
The amuletic function of seals was further added by the material from which
the seal was made. Indeed, it has long been recognised that certain stones in the
Ancient Near East embodied, or represented, certain magical qualities or powers that
could be passed on to the bearer of the stone object (Collon 2005: 62, 100; 1997: 19).
Indeed it was this association of stone colour with magical power and qualities that
gave beads and stamp seals their original amuletic function (Collon 2005: 62, 100),
that was then inherited by cylinder seals. The most well known and commonly cited
example of stone-type/colour association with magical power is lapis lazuli, though
other precious and semi-precious stones also held great significance (Collon 2005: 62,
100; 1997: 19). This magical quality of the stones from which a seal was made thus
also contributed to the amuletic function of a seal.
Finally, the scenes depicted on the seal itself, such as worship, cultic and
mythological scenes, including symbols, and in some instances, actual depictions of
the gods, also served to add an amuletic function to many seals (Black & Green 1992:
82; Collon 2005: 119), as did the inclusion of prayers and dedications on some
inscribed seals.
Thus seals had an amuletic function based upon their administrative, identity-
representing function, their material, and the scenes that they bore. It is probable that
all seals had this amuletic function (Collon 2005: 199), to lesser and greater degrees
depending on the material used (a valuable, significant stone or a common, familiar

example), the scene depicted, the period in which the seal was in use and its age (as
the heirloom quality well known for many seals [Collon 2005: 120 – 122] may have
decreased its amuletic value with time, as the seal may no longer have been
identifiable with the ‘self’ of its owner, or, alternatively, its ancient quality may have
increased its ‘specialness’ and such ties with the past may have given it its amuletic
function). Also, the above defined administrative function of seals had a degree of
amuletic, identity-associated character inherent in its use. As all seals can be assumed
therefore to have at least some degree of an amuletic quality it is both redundant to
attempt, and difficult if not impossible, to discern specific amulet seals in the
archaeological record. The amuletic function and definition of cylinder seals should
be noted however.
1.1.2.3 Votive Function

Votive literally defines an object given or dedicated, generally to a god or deity, in
accordance with a vow or promise. For the purpose of this study, any seal apparently
dedicated in a temple or other religious structure, or area, is described as a votive seal.
There are several instances where an inscription on a seal seems to indicate that the
seal was dedicated to a god (Collon 2005: 131; 1990: 21), though these are quite rare,
and are not represented in the Corpus.
A votive seal is dedicated to a deity as a representative, or representation, of
an individual (Collon 2005: 131; Gelb 1977: 112). This function is due to the nature
of a seal as outlined above, where the seal embodied or represented part of the
owner’s self (Collon 1990: 21; 1997: 19; Black & Green 1992: 300). The votive seal
thus functioned in a manner analogous to the statues deposited in a temple by
worshippers in the Ancient Near East (a well-known example is the Early Dynastic
Diyala temples and statuary [Roaf 1990: 90 – 91; Frankfort et al. 1940]), as a symbol
or reminder to the god of the owner’s constant prayer, devotion and piety, so that, in a
sense, the worshipper can always be considered to be before his god (Roaf 1990: 90).
The motivation for the deposition of a seal in a temple may not have always
been based upon this conception of representation before the deity, but rather seals
may have been deposited as a votive gift or devotion to the deity. The justification for
such deposition presumably derived from the ‘value’ of a seal, both in simple
monetary or economic terms due to the cost of labour and procurement involved in
purchasing a seal (especially of an imported material), as well as the more

unqualifiable value of the seal to its owner as an important item enabling participation
in the economic/administrative life of a society (Hallo 1977: 58; Collon 1990: 21). A
seal acted as a status symbol (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1990) and, at least to some
degree, the possession of a seal was an important prerequisite for participation in the
administrative and (part of the) economic functioning of society (Gorelick &
Gwinnett 1990; Collon 1997: 17 – 19; 2005: 113 – 122). Thus a seal was an important
personal artefact, and was therefore deemed to be of sufficient value to be dedicated
to a deity. Thus votive seals can form just one part of a temple’s rich treasury of other
valuable items. Examples of votive seals in a temple repository in the current study
primarily include those from Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Choga Zanbil, though examples
from Susa can also possibly be discerned, all to be further discussed below.
In some instances it seems that seals were deposited in temples simply because
of the intrinsic value of the stones or materials from which they were made, regardless
of their seal function. An example of this is the so-called ‘Thebes Hoard’, a set of
lapis lazuli Kassite cylinder seals deposited in a temple in Thebes in Boeotia (Porada
1981). It has been suggested by Porada that these seals were deemed worthy of
deposition due to the value of their material, rather than their seal function, as is
testified to by the inclusion of lapis lazuli seal blanks or beads among their number
and the fact that cylinder seals were not part of the cultural assemblage of such Greek
sites (Porada 1981: 66, 68). Such an interpretation is difficult to differentiate from the
more standard motivation for seal deposition, and surely must rely on the value of the
stone from which the seal was cut, and our ability to appreciate this ancient value.
Examples of such seals deposited for the value of their stones may include some of
the Surkh Dum-i-Luri examples, though this possible interpretation of this material
will be returned to below (Chapter 6).
The major method for discerning a votive seal is through the seal’s provenance
on a site, that is, its presence in a temple or other related religious structure or area.
Thus the description of a seal as votive is entirely reliant on the place within a site
where the seal was found, and the nature of that area. This means that the accurate
description of a site and its nature, as well as thorough recording of the provenance of
individual seals and items is essential before votive seals can be detected.
Unfortunately, information on the nature of a site, and the provenance of the items
there within, is not always known, a situation that indeed plagues many objects in this

particular study (especially, for example, those items from Susa and Haft Tepe, see
below Chapter 2.2).
1.1.2.4 Funerary Function

A third and final symbolic function of seals is their apparent funerary use. Examples
of individual’s being buried with their seals are known throughout the history of the
use of seals in the Ancient Near East, and include most noticeably the seals deposited
in the Royal Tombs of Ur (Woolley 1934; Collon 2005: 62; 1990: 24; Matthews
1990: 10). There are also a number of examples of seals deposited in tombs from the
time span and area under discussion here, such as at Susa (Amiet 1972), Kamtarlan,
Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989), Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006)
and Kalleh Nisar (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994).
The precise significance of the inclusion of a seal amongst the grave goods of
an individual is unclear. It may be that, as an important personal artefact, the seal was
merely placed with the deceased as a part of his various paraphernalia and personal
effects. Alternatively, a seal may have been placed in a grave out of some other, more
spiritual, motivation regarding the seal’s and the deceased individual’s function or
place in the ‘afterlife’, a process indeed related to the above discussed identification
of the seal with its owner’s identity. There is no discernable technique whereby this
interpretation can be proven on the basis of the current available evidence however.
Like the votive seals the identification of a seal as funerary is, obviously,
reliant on details of its provenance. Thus, any seal found in a tomb or grave is
considered funerary. However it should be noted that, also like the votive seals, it is
possible, indeed probable, that before their deposition in graves (or temples) these
seals functioned in society as standard administrative seals. The accuracy or otherwise
of this statement, especially as pertains to votive seals, will be returned to below, in
particular in discussion of Choga Zanbil (Chapter 6).
1.1.2.5 Summation
While, as Matthews states, “seals are made for sealing” (Matthews 1990: 11), the
standard administrative role of seals is not their only function. Other seal functions
include votive, amuletic and funerary functions. Votive, amuletic and funerary
functions can all be described as symbolic, intangible uses of seals, as opposed to the
more concrete, mundane, administrative function. However, even in the apparently

mundane administrative action, a certain element of symbolic power had to have been
held by seals. Indeed, it has been argued that seals had at least some
amuletic/symbolic function, or ‘power’, that enabled or permitted their administrative
function. It should thus be noted that both administrative and ‘symbolic’ functions
need not have, necessarily, been mutually exclusive. Thus most seals may well have
had an administrative and amuletic function simultaneously, the one indeed enabling
the other. Furthermore, it can generally be assumed that before deposition in a temple
area or tomb, votive and funerary seals had a life as an administrative seal.
Indeed, it is unclear whether the amuletic/symbolic function led to the
administrative use of seals, or whether it was the administrative identification of the
seal with the identity or self of its owner that led to the symbolic, amuletic, votive and
funerary function of seals. Both seem equally possible, and moreover, the initial
impetus and primacy is of little relevance here. Indeed, it is probable that each
function influenced the other over time, supplementing and adding to their function
and use.
The relevance and correctness of the application of the preceding
Mesopotamian focused cylinder seal function outline to the cylinder seals of Elam
will be returned to following the outline of the styles and provenance of these seals
(Chapter 6).
1.1.3 Material of Seals

The material from which a seal is made is a significant factor in understanding both
the function of a seal and the period in which the seal was made. As outlined above,
the material of a seal, especially the particular stone from which it was made, can
serve as an indicator to its symbolic amuletic or votive function. The material of a seal
is also of importance in determining the ‘style’ of a seal (Matthews 1990: 14). Indeed,
for most periods, a certain material or material-type can be said to be characteristic of
that period and its styles (as will be demonstrated below, Chapter 4) (Collon 2005:
100), and as such the material of a seal can be used as a chronological marker (in
tandem with the design it bears). Furthermore, as the stones from which the seal is
made were often materials that were imported from other regions, an analysis of the
varying patterns of the materials of seals across periods can provide an insight into
changing patterns of trade and contact (Collon 2005: 100).

The material of a seal is thus an important element in our understanding and
classification of seals, yet this area of glyptic studies has been afflicted with many
inconsistencies and problems. Firstly, the recording of material information in
publications has been traditionally less than satisfactory. Several factors have led to
these unsatisfactory recordings. The cause especially lies however in the general lack
of expertise in the area of mineralogy possessed by the authors of most glyptic
studies, leading to the material of a seal being incorrectly or arbitrarily labelled
(Moorey 1994: 166; Matthews 1990: 14). Similarly, very few scientific or
petrographic studies have been undertaken on excavated materials, ensuring that any
material identification is generally based purely on macroscopic visual examination.
Another primary cause of inconsistencies in material designation is the use of
arbitrary language of little use (for example, grey stone, pink stone and so on). While
this generic language may be preferable in terms of scientific accuracy, rather than the
incorrect labelling of seals to a mineral/material group without an adequate study,
from a comparative position it makes evaluation and comparison across publications
subjective, complicated and generally unprofitable (Moorey 1994: 166; Matthews
1990: 14). Finally, the lack of consistency in the definition as to what terms actually
mean, confounded by the various written and native languages of excavators (as the
same word, or its translation, may refer to or connotate a different stone in different
languages), has further complicated the issues of the identification of a seal’s material
(Moorey 1994: 166; Matthews 1990: 14).
While calling for a more rigid and scientific approach to the description of seal
materials in publications, Matthews has advocated a remedy whereby the description
of a seal’s material should be classified by two basic, easily discernable, categories;
firstly between artificial and natural materials, and then within the natural materials,
between hard and soft (Matthews 1990: 14). However, this position oversimplifies
and underestimates the importance of a seal’s material. Such a distinction does not
take into account the relative value within the ancient society nor the importance of
certain stones (such as lapis lazuli and other semi-precious stones), nor does it provide
an adequate enough distinction between materials as representative of different styles.
For example, if such a position were to be adopted here, then the majority of the seals
from some Old Elamite through to Middle Elamite styles would be considered and
treated under the single rubric ‘artificial’, as ‘bitumen aggregate’, common in several
Old Elamite styles, and glass and faience, common in Middle Elamite styles, are all

potentially ‘man-made’ (or at least ‘man-manipulated’) artificial materials (see below
for further information regarding the artificial or natural nature of ‘bitumen
aggregate’, and Chapter 4 for details of these styles). Thus, by subsuming all these
seals under the one rubric an important and defining factor between these styles is
removed. Furthermore, Matthews’ proposed division eliminates seals as a source for
tracing and understanding the development of new and varying technologies that were
involved in the production of artificial materials, a factor that is important to our
understanding of the general cultural developments of the society that produced these
objects, as well as the distinctions understood by these same societies. Also, the
evidence for contact and trade that seal material imports provide is removed by
Matthews’ proposal. Therefore, wherever possible, an attempt should be made to
describe the material as accurately and meticulously as possible. In the absence of any
petrographic or scientific analysis of the material, the descriptions should be taken as
preliminary.
In this study, the material designation of a seal was based upon the
information given in their original (or in some instances, secondary) publications. The
majority of the seals under discussion here have not been subjected to any
petrographic or mineralogical study. This means that the material designations of
most seals has been achieved by visual examinations undertaken by individuals with
varying levels of expertise in the area, and as such all designations are preliminary
and subject to future revision. Two groups of seals in this study, bitumen compounds
and heulandite seals, both from Susa, have however undergone petrographic studies
(Lahanier 1976; 1977; Connan & Deschesne 1996; 1998; Connan 1999; Deschesne
2003), and will be discussed further below. However, these studies are limited to two
seal groups of very specific material types, and represent a relatively small proportion
(see Chapters 4 and 5 for details) of the total seals in this study. All the studied items
were also provenanced from Susa, further limiting the relative and qualitative value of
these studies. Thus it must be noted that the majority of the seals in this study have
not received any chemical, petrographic or mineralogical treatment.
Due to the fact that mineralogical and non-mineralogical, or popular, terms
have both been used in the Iranian/Elamite (and indeed all) glyptic literature – the
mineralogical without justification, the popular with misleading inconsistencies across
academic and modern social eras and languages – it can be said that the material
classifications of the cylinder seals in this study are lacking in consistency and

clarification. This lack of a material system, paradigm or nomenclature makes
comparison across studies and within the Corpus difficult if not unattainable. Some
attempt at rectifying this situation has therefore been undertaken here. Specifically,
this has included an attempt to codify and equate the disparate and differing terms
from the multiple sources into one justified and announced nomenclature system.
Methodologically, this revision has involved the application of mineralogical and
petrographic definitions, replacing popular, non-scientific terms, as well as the
application of more recent studies and analyses of material types and names. Lacking
the expertise in, and the application of, a thorough mineralogical or petrographic
study, this revision has been based on secondary sources and is entirely preliminary. It
is aimed only at allowing for some similarity and scope for comparison across the
sites and styles discussed in this study. Thus, the material definitions and
nomenclature system employed here must be treated as entirely preliminary, and the
Elamite glyptic material in this study must await a more complete, scientific, study to
further systemise and finalise any conclusions suggested here. In the Elamite Cylinder
Seal Catalogue (Volume II) any alteration to the material designation from the
original publication inspired by the following revision is indicated by an asterix(*).
Only those materials deemed to require some clarification, justification for alteration
or (re)analysis will be discussed here, thus the rare metal and organic material (shell,
bone, ivory) seal materials will not be discussed as they require no reassessment.
1.1.3.1 Bitumen-based materials

The natural bitumen seeps of southwestern Iran, known for their modern geo-political
ramifications, have long provided the inhabitants of the region with a source of raw
material that was used to produce a variety of materials and fulfil many functions
(Moorey 1994: 333; Potts 1997: 99; Connan 1999: 33; Rapp 2002: 235). As well as
the more recognised uses of bitumen to water-proof, ‘seal’ or caulk vessels, boats and
buildings (‘pitch’) and as an adhesive (Moorey 1994: 335; Potts 1997: 100; Connan &
Deschesne 1996: 22 – 28; Connan 1999: 33 – 35; Rapp 2002: 235), a bitumen
material was used, particularly at Susa, though items of this type in this study are also
provenanced from Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Choga Zanbil and Tepe Sharafabad, that was
carved or sculptured as a rock to produce statuary, vessels and, importantly for this
study, seals (Moorey 1994: 334 – 335; Connan & Deschesne 1996: 22 – 28; Connan
1999: 34 – 35; Deschesne 2003: 25 – 26).

However, the precise identification and classification of the raw materials used
to produce these items has been subject to little agreement and is a cause of some
debate; as reflected both by the variety of terms employed (see below and Table 1.3),
and in the literature of Connan and Deschesne (1996; 1998; Connan 1999; Deschesne
2003). The primary causes of this problem are a lack of articulation, or accurate
nomenclature for this material and somewhat contradictory results of a petrographic
study.
Indeed, over time there has been great confusion and no real scholarly
agreement on what to call this particular material, or indeed if all the objects made of
bitumen-based materials were composed of the same material. A brief survey of the
variety of terms employed in the primary literature used to refer to objects composed
of bitumen-based materials demonstrates the variability and lack of codification
across a range of sources, as illustrated by Table 1.3. These original material
identifications were made without the aid of any petrographic or scientific analysis,
and as such they represent attempts to describe this material through macroscopic
visual examination without the use of any codified language.
bitume [bitumen] Susa: Delaporte 1920; Mecquenem

1928; Mecquenem 1937;
Mecquenem et al. 1943; Amiet 1972;
Amiet 1973;
Choga Zanbil: Porada 1970
Surkh Dum-i-Luri: Schmidt, van
Loon & Curvers 1989
Tepe Sharafabad: Schacht 1975
calcaire bitumineux [bitumous limestone] Susa: Delaporte 1920
pâte bitumineuse [bitumous paste] Susa: Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1972
pierre bitumineuse [bitumous stone] Susa: Amiet 1972
calcaire gris bitumineux [grey bitumous limestone] Susa: Delaporte 1920
calcaire bitumineux noir [black bitumous limestone] Susa: Delaporte 1920
matière bitumineuse [bitumous material] Susa: Delaporte 1920
brun bitumineux [brown bitumous (material)] Susa: Delaporte 1920
rock asphalt Susa: Carter 1980
schiste bitumineux [bitumous schist] Susa: Amiet 1972
terre cuite bitume [terra cotta bitumen] Susa: Amiet 1972
Table 1.3. Various terms in the primary literature for bitumen-based materials, according
to provenance and source.
Connan and Deschesne attempted to resolve this problem by undertaking a

petrographic study of the 507 bitumen-based objects (including some 195 cylinder
seals) held in the Louvre Museum and provenanced from Susa (Connan & Deschesne
1996). In this study (henceforward referred to as Le bitume à Suse) three differing

bitumen based materials were identified (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 39). One type,
with a particularly limited data set, was labelled asphaltite, and is described as a pure,
naturally occurring, solidified bitumen that is somewhat similar to obsidian in
macroscopic appearance (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 40). No cylinder seals in the
Louvre collection, nor amongst the studied seals from Susa housed in the Tehran
Museum, were made of this material (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 36 – 41), and thus
it can be assumed that asphaltite was never, or at least rarely, used to make cylinder
seals, and so is of no relevance here.
The second bitumen-based material was labelled simply ‘bitumen’ (bitume)
and is defined as a manipulated material, or artificial compound (Connan &
Deschesne 1996: 117). The production process for this material, as described by
Connan and Deschesne, involves the acquisition of natural, as pure as possible
bitumen-asphalt, that is then liquefied around 160°C, and mixed with a mineral
powder (such as sand, powdered calcite, dry clay, gypsum or ash) and plant fibres
(Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117). Indeed, in many ways this production technique is
reminiscent of the standard preparation for clay; the addition of mineral powder and
plant fibres evocative of a temper. In this form ‘bitumen’ was then applied to vessels,
walls or other objects as a pitch, mortar, plaster or adhesive, or was placed in moulds
and allowed to set and form actual vessels (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 115).
According to Le bitume à Suse, when placed in moulds and baked at a
temperature approaching 250°C, ‘bitumen’ becomes the third, and most relevant to
the current study, bitumen-based material, labelled ‘bitumen mastic’ (mastic de
bitume) (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 116 – 117). Thus the material identified by
Connan and Deschesne as ‘bitumen’ is simultaneously both a material used in its own
right (to produce vessels, as a ‘pitch’ and as an adhesive), and a partially refined
substance that is a basis of the further production of a related material-type (‘bitumen
mastic’).
Thus three separate bitumen-based materials were used at Susa to produce
artefacts, petrographically identified and labelled by Connan and Deschesne in Le
bitume à Suse as ‘asphaltite’, ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen mastic’ (1996: 115 – 117). The
three materials are discernable through chemical analysis (Connan & Deschesne
1996: 115 – 116), though mineralogically ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen mastic’ are alike as
they are both heterogenous and composed of similar materials (Connan & Deschesne
1996: 116). Visual macroscopic identification can also distinguish these three

materials. ‘Asphaltite’ has a glossy, shinny appearance reminiscent of obsidian, and
thus can be distinguished from the matte-finish of both ‘bitumen’ and ‘bitumen
mastic’ (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 40). The visual difference between ‘bitumen’
and ‘bitumen mastic’ is more subjective and arbitrary though none the less real. While
‘bitumen’ can be moulded and shaped, and is sufficiently durable so as to be used for
vessels, ‘bitumen mastic’ is significantly harder and can therefore be carved,
sculptured, abraded and cut (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 39, 117, 430). Thus,
according to these classifications, only the third material type, labelled ‘bitumen
mastic’, had the requisite hardness and durability to receive cutting and treatment
sufficient to produce cylinder seals. From this it can be assumed, following Connan
and Deschesne, that all bitumen-based material cylinder seals were composed of so-
called ‘bitumen mastic’ (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117), as evidenced by the fact
that all 195 cylinder seals analysed in the Le bitume à Suse belonged to the ‘bitumen
mastic’ group (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 207 – 344; see Table 1.4).
Connan and Deschesne originally characterised ‘bitumen mastic’ as a kind of
artificial stone (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 429 – 430). The justification for the
‘artificial’ label of this object was based upon several elements of compelling
evidence, namely that it was suitably reproduced in the laboratory, and that there were
no identified examples of a naturally occurring rock that were sufficiently similar to
the known examples (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 116 – 117). Indeed this artificial
characterisation was confirmed by Connan and Deschesne who conferred upon it the
appellation ‘bitumen mastic’, as mastic implies some human production or
manipulation (Connan & Deschesne 1996: 117).
However, within mere months of the publication of Le bitume à Suse, a
naturally occurring bitumen limestone seam was discovered just north of Susa, the
properties and appearance of which were remarkably similar to the previously
labelled ‘bitumen mastic’ material (Connan 1999: 38; Deschesne 2003: 26). Tests and
analyses are still being undertaken on this rock and the artefacts in question (Connan
1999: 38), however, if these prove that the materials under discussion here are indeed
carved from a natural, albeit rare, rock, the use of the term ‘bitumen mastic’ to
describe this material would be inappropriate, as it implies a manipulated compound.
The possible reassessment of the nature of ‘bitumen mastic’ further
compounds a nomenclature problem for bitumen-based materials, beset as it is with
similar terms referring to separate materials, arbitrary language, and a multiplicity of

elucidations (Deschesne 2003: 27 – 37). Indeed, the use of the term ‘bitumen’ to
describe the softer, artificial compound is problematic, as bitumen is understood both
popularly and in Le bitume à Suse to refer to all materials and technologies associated
with petroleum based products, thus confusing the issue. For this reason ‘bitumen’ the
specific compound material is always referred to here thus (‘bitumen’), though it is
advocated that a replacement, more suitable term is sought. While it was hoped that
the petrographic analysis of Connan and Deschesne would resolve the nomenclature
problems of bitumen-based materials this result has not been entirely achieved. While
it can be concluded that all carved and sculptured objects were made of ‘bitumen
mastic’ the (generally internal) debate regarding the natural or artificial nature of the
material remains open and unsettled.
It is important for the natural or artificial nature of the material labelled
‘bitumen mastic’ to be finally resolved, not only more to correctly understand this
material, but also to resolve the question as what to call this material. The term
‘bitumen mastic’ originally suggested by Lahanier (1977) and adopted by Connan and
Deschesne (1996) strongly implies human manipulation, and thus by extension
indicates that the material is artificial. The, albeit unproven, suggestion that this
material is not artificial but a naturally occurring rock therefore renders the term
‘bitumen mastic’ inappropriate (Connan 1999: 38; Deschesne 2003: 38). Alternate
terms ‘bitumous rock’ [roche bitumineuse] and ‘kerogen’ [kérogène] (a specific
petroleum-geological term) have thus been suggested by Deschesne to describe this
material (Deschesne 2003: 38). However, while it is still uncertain if the material
under discussion here is artificial or natural these terms seem to be as equally
prejudiced in favour of a natural identification, as ‘bitumen mastic’ is to an artificial
classification. Thus, until further scientific analyses can resolve the problem of the
natural rock or artificial compound nature for this material, a more neutral proxy term
is advocated. Therefore in this study the material formerly characterised as ‘bitumen
mastic’ is here labelled ‘bitumen aggregate’. This term is suggested as it is a new term
that has not previously been employed (as evidence by Table 1.3), and thus cannot be
said to be tainted by use in previous studies, and because it could eventually be
adopted to apply to either an artificial or a natural material, as aggregate has both a
geological connotation, in reference to a rock composed of multiple minerals, and an
artificial connotation of manufacture.

Original Material Classification Cylinder Seals
bitumen [bitume] 541, 628*, 647, 701, 708, 741, 916, 936*, 994,
1307*, 1357*, 1417, 1479*, 1521, 1560*, 1565,
1566*, 1568-1569, 1621*, 1746*, 1789, 1825,
1838, 1849*, 1852-1853, 1893*, 1894*, 1901*,
1939, 2018, 2025, 2083, 2103*, 2132, 2153,
2170, 2177, 2184, 2200*, 2261-2262, 2263*,
2264-2266, 2267*, 2268-2269, 2270*, 2272,
2274-2275, 2276*, 2279*, 2280, 2281*, 2284-
2285, 2286*, 2287*, 2289*, 2294-2298, 2305*,
2306*, 2307, 2308*, 2310-2311, 2312*, 2313,
2315-2316, 2327-2328, 2329*, 2330-2335,
2336*, 2339*, 2368, 2406, 2429, 2440, 2466*,
2478, 2481*, 2484-2486, 2493*, 2494*, 2497,
2498*, 2499-2502, 2503*, 2504-2507, 2508*,
2509, 2511*, 2512-2514, 2516, 2517*, 2518-
2520, 2522*, 2523*, 2524, 2525*, 2531*, 2534*,
2538, 2541-2544, 2546*, 2547-2549, 2550*,
2551, 2552*, 2557-2558, 2564-2567, 2568*,
2569*, 2572-2574, 2575*, 2576-2577, 2578*,
2580-2585, 2586*, 2587-2588, 2589*, 2590-
2592, 2593*, 2595, 2600, 2611*, 2615, 2617*,
2739, 2741*, 2742, 2758, 2768*, 2769-2770,
2858*, 2889, 2971, 3058*, 3095*, 3163*, 3214*,
3218, 3220-3221, 3230*, 3241*, 3242*, 3254,
3261, 3315, 3326*, 3352, 3381*, 3382*, 3501,
3504*, 3505, 3517*, 3522*, 3549*
bitumous limestone [calcaire 556, 604, 1321, 1383, 1547, 1589*, 1708, 1780,
bitumineux] 1906, 1977, 2060, 2320, 2326, 2556, 2560, 2609,
2716*, 3489
bitumous paste [pâte bitumineuse] 599, 1409, 1781, 1785, 1848*, 2260, 2292*,
2293, 2322-2323, 2324*, 2460, 2462, 2490-2492,
2528-2530, 2555, 2571, 2735
bitumous schist [schiste bitumineux] 1399*, 1850*
bitumous stone [pierre bitumineuse] 1660*, 1811, 1851*, 2258*, 2861*, 3157
bitumous terra cotta [terre cuite bitumée]
1701*, 2664*, 3500*
bitumous grey limestone [calcaire gris 1980
bitumineux]
grey limestone [calcaire gris] 1472, 2052
black limestone [calcaire noir] 1717, 2325
limestone [calcite] 1819
glazed steatite [stéatite blanche] 1824
grey schist [schiste gris] 2204, 2441
brown serpentine [serpentine brune] 2435
basalt [basalte] 2563
unknown material 3251
bitumen mastic [mastic de bitume] 3529
rock asphalt 2377*
Table 1.4. Bitumen-based seals reassessed as ‘bitumen aggregate’ following Connan &
Deschesne 1996. Seals marked with an asterix(*) include those not analysed in Le bitume à
Suse but assumed, following the conclusions of Connan and Deschesne to be composed of
bitumen aggregate.

Thus, following Connan and Deschesne, all bitumen-based materials,
originally classified as various bitumous stones have been classified here as ‘bitumen
aggregate’, as demonstrated by Table 1.4. The few items originally classified as
various non-bitumous stones but reclassified in Le bitume à Suse as ‘bitumen mastic’
are accepted as such, though under the rubric ‘bitumen aggregate’. Finally, following
Connan and Deschesne, it is assumed that all cylinders seals carved in a bitumen-
based material are made of ‘bitumen aggregate’ and so are detailed in Table 1.4 as
such, and are listed in the Catalogue (Volume II) under this term. These few items
generally include those from sites other than Susa not studied by Connan and
Deschesne, including seals from Tepe Sharafabad, Chogha Zanbil and Surkh Dum-i-
Luri (see the Catalogue for details). In the Catalogue these seals not classified by
Connan and Deschesne but assumed to be composed of ‘bitumen aggregate’ are
marked with a cross(+).
1.1.3.2 Quartz-based artificial materials (faience, glass, frit)

Due to patterns of discovery and research, most information regarding the nature and
production of quartz-based materials (frit, faience and glass) are derived from the
investigations and reconstructions undertaken by Egyptian specialists (Moorey 1994:
182). While it is apparent that distinctions and differences in techniques occurred
between ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran, these sources can be used to provide a
useful general outline of quartz-based material production (Moorey 1994: 182). All
three materials, faience, frit and glass, are made of the same basic ingredients, silica
(quartz sand), an alkali, lime and, usually, a copper colourant, in varying amounts and
portions (Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 178; Rapp 2002: 193). However, the
resulting materials are distinct, separate and do not belong on a continuum, as faience
cannot be turned to glass, nor glass to frit and so on (Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000:
178). In other words, faience is not to glass what ice is to water or steam.
1.1.3.2.1 Frit
Frit is an unglazed material with a polycrystalline body (Moorey 1994: 167). It is like
faience in many respects, such as its heterogenous body with interstitial glass,
however significantly, unlike faience, frit is unglazed (Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000:
178). Frit, as well as being used as a material for artefacts in its own right, can also be
broken down, refined into a powder-like substance and used as one ingredient in glass

production (Moorey 1994: 167). Frit is often used as a synonym for faience, though
the materials are quite different, and can generally be differentiated macroscopically,
for only if the glaze has totally degraded can faience be mistaken for frit (Moorey
1994: 167).
Relevant to this study, both Negahban and Ghirshman use the term ‘frit’ to
describe seals found at their respective excavations (Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil)
(Negahban 1991; Ghirshman 1966: 71). However, in both cases, it is held that
‘faience’, as defined here, is in fact meant. In the instance of Ghirshman and Choga
Zanbil this is due to the fact that Porada later classifies these same items as faience
(Porada 1970). While in the case of Haft Tepe, faience is understood rather than frit
because Negahban’s definition of frit, albeit in another related publication (regarding
the seals from Marlik), as a “primitive porcelain with a rather smooth glaze on the
surface” (1996: 205) more aptly describes faience than frit. There are no known
examples of a definitely frit seal in the current study, and so further discussion of this
material is unnecessary.
1.1.3.2.2 Faience
The term ‘faience’ is itself a misnomer (Moorey 1994: 167), derived from the
apparent similarity of the ancient material to a tin-glazed ceramic, more correctly
labelled majolica, made in Faenza, northern Italy, from Medieval times (Moorey
1994: 167; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 177; Rapp 2002: 192). The name is thus
doubly misleading in this regard as ‘faience’, the material discussed here, is neither a
ceramic based on clay, nor tin-glazed. The qualifier ‘Egyptian’ has previously been
added to faience to describe this ancient material, as the first examples were
discovered in Egypt (Moorey 1994: 167; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 177).
However, it is advocated that this qualifier should be abandoned as too confusing, for
the examples found in Mesopotamia and Iran were not imports from Egypt but locally
produced objects (Moorey 1994: 167; Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 177).
Much time and effort has been devoted to arguing that the term faience is
inappropriate and should be abandoned (Moorey 1994: 167; Matthews 1990: 14;
Collon 2005: 10, 61 – 62), however ‘faience’ is so entrenched in the literature, and the
current examples so removed from Italian majolica as to make any confusion of the
two virtually impossible, that its retention seems simpler (Moorey 1994: 167). One
must be aware however that several synonyms are also used in the literature for

faience, including ‘sintered quartz’, ‘glazed frit’, ‘composition’, ‘Egyptian faience’,
‘(blue) paste’, ‘quartz frit’, ‘quartz ceramics’, ‘Egyptian blue’ and ‘compost’ (Moorey
1994: 167; Matthews 1990: 14; Rapp 2002: 192 – 193; also detailed in Table 1.5).
Further confusing the issue, faience is sometimes also referred to as ‘frit’ and ‘glass’,
two related but distinct materials (Moorey 1994: 167). As will be shown, however,
these three materials – faience, frit and glass – can be distinguished and are indeed
quite separate.
The finished product ‘faience’ is achieved through multiple production steps.
Firstly, a slurry of lime, silica and soda is mixed, and placed in a mould to achieve the
desired shape (though cutting and abrasion can also be used to shape the mixture
when the slurry has dried somewhat) (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184; Nicholson &
Peltenburg 2000: 190 – 191). The second and third steps for faience production
include the application of the glaze and the firing, though in the self-glazing
techniques these two steps are combined. Three techniques for the application of the
glaze (the second production step) have been detected. The ‘Application Method’,
where glaze is applied or painted on the object after firing, and the two self-glazing
methods, where the action of glazing occurs in the firing process, ‘Efflorescence’ and
‘Cementation’ (also known as the ‘Qom technique’, after the modern Iranian city
where the method can still be observed today) (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184; Nicholson &
Peltenburg 2000: 190 – 191).
After firing at 800 – 1000°C (and glaze application if necessary) faience has a
chalky, at times friable body, that demonstrates the presence of interstitial glass and a
smooth, usually blue-green, shiny, vitreous glaze (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184;
Nicholson & Peltenburg 2000: 190 – 191; Rapp 2002: 193). This glaze is often
somewhat worn, though this, and the friable quality of the body, is presumably due to
age deterioration (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184). Importantly, both the glaze and the
faience body can be highly variable and heterogeneous (Moorey 1994: 181 – 184).
Faience can be cut, carved, abraded and generally treated as a stone after firing. Thus
faience seals appear to have been treated similarly as stone seals (Moorey 1994: 167 –
169). The properties of faience can easily be detected under a microscope, though it is
also usually possible to distinguish faience (from glass and frit) with the naked eye
(Moorey 1994: 167).

1.1.3.2.3 Glass
Ancient glass is similar in appearance to its modern counterpart, though it is less
translucent and at times quite opaque (Moorey 1994: 189, 203; Barag 1985: 30 – 32).
This is probably due, at least in part, to the ageing process and preservation. The same
materials as used in faience production, in different proportions, were also used in the
production of glass (Moorey 1994: 189, 203; Barag 1985). The mixture is allowed to
liquefy completely under high temperatures, and is then cast into the desired shape
(glass blowing was not developed until much later in the Roman period [Stern 1995]),
and allowed to solidify (Moorey 1994: 203). The resulting glass material is
distinguishable from faience by the lack of a glaze and the absence of interstitial glass
(as the whole object is glass) (Moorey 1994: 203; Barag 1985: 30 – 32). The body of
glass is homogenous, while the body of faience is variable and heterogenous (Moorey
1994: 189, 204; Barag 1985: 30 – 32).
Figure 1.1 is a glass cylinder seal, now in the British Museum, and Figure 1.2
a faience seal also in the British Museum. These figures demonstrate the general
difference in appearance between ancient glass and faience. For this reason, coupled
with the different techniques of manufacture involved in each, the retention of a
differentiation between glass and faience is advocated. This visual and technological
difference between faience and glass is further grounds for the rejection of Matthews’
above discussed proposal to divide seal materials simply into artificial and natural
groups. For if this dichotomy was to be accepted faience and glass would by
subsumed under the one rubric, despite their obvious differences, which it can be
assumed were also realised by the ancient societies that produced them.
Figure 1.1. Glass cylinder seal of Middle Elamite type, now in the British Museum,
photograph by S. Francesconi, January 2003.
Figure 1.2. Faience cylinder seal from the Neo-Assyrian period, now in the British Museum,
after Curtis & Reade 1996.

Table 1.5 summaries the types and details of the relevant quartz-based
materials, including synonyms and subsumed varieties. Due to the lack of a visual
examination, no materials previously classified as either faience or glass have been
reassessed here, rather those listed as faience retain this categorization, and similarly
those classified as glass. In some instances, however, seals classified as various
synonyms of faience, are reassessed as faience, in line with more recent discussions of
nomenclature and analysis.
Quartz-based materials (frit [not represented here], faience, glass)

Faience
Description Friable/chalky body with interstitial glass and smooth, blue-green glassy or dull
glaze.
Subsumed sintered quartz; glazed frit; composition; Egyptian faience; (blue) paste [pâte (bleu)];
synonyms Egyptian blue; compost; frit; light cream frit; green white frit; limestone paste (?)
[pâte calcaire]; grey-blue paste [pâte gris-bleu]; grey paste (?) [pâte gris]
Varieties faience [faïence]; blue faience [faïence bleue]; green faience [faïence verte]; greenish
faience [faïence verdâtre]; grey faience [faïence grise]; grey-green faience [faïence
gris-vert]; grey-pink faience [faïence gris-rose]; greyish faience [faïence grisâtre];
pink faience [faïence rose]; red coloured faience [faïence colorée en rouge]; white
faience [faïence blanche]; discoloured faience [faïence décolorée]; faience with traces
of green colour [faïence avec des taches de couleur verte]; faience with traces of
green enamel [faïence avec des traces d’émail vert]; white faience with traces of light
green enamel [faïence blanche, traces d’un émail vert clair]; faience with traces of
light green enamel [faïence avec des taches d’émail vert clair]; siliceous faience
[faïence siliceuse]; green enamelled faience [faïence émaillée verte]; white enamel
faience [faïence émail blanchâtre]; whitish enamel faience [faïence émail
blanchâtre]; green enamel faience [faïence émail vert]; enamelled faience [faïence
émaillée]; traces of a brown-yellow enamel faience [faïence avec traces d’un émail
brun-jaune]; greenish white faience [faïence blanche verdâtre]; discoloured faience,
with traces of brownish enamel [faïence décolorée, traces d’émail brunâtre]; faience
with traces of green-grey enamel [faïence avec des traces d’émail vert-gris]; faience
with yellow enamel [faïence avec émail jaune]; powdery discoloured faience [faïence
poudreuse, décolorée]; faience with traces of blue-green enamel [faïence avec traces
d’émail bleu-vert]; faience with traces of yellowish enamel [faïence traces d’émail
jaunâtre]; faience covered with blue-green enamel [faïence couverte d’émail bleu-
vert]; sky-blue powdery faience [faïence poudreuse bleu de ciel]; pale green faience
[faïence vert pale]; white, yellowish faience [faïence blanche, jaunâtre]; grey-white
faience [faïence grise-blanche]; yellowish faience [faïence jaunâtre]; faience with a
pink-violet surface [faïence avec une surface rose-violette]; faience with traces of
pale green enamel [faïence avec émail vert pâle]; blue paste [pâte bleue]; grey paste
(?) [pâte gris]; grey-blue paste [pâte gris-bleu]; white paste (?) [pâte blanche].
Glass
Description Often quite opaque; vitreous; not glazed; no interstitial glass; homogenous body.
Varieties glass [verre]; blue glass [verre bleu]; light blue glass [verre bleu clair]; dark blue
glass [verre bleu foncé]; blue-green glass [verre bleu-vert]; green glass [verre vert];
light green glass [verre vert clair]; light blue-green glass [verre clair bleu-vert];
discoloured, cream glass [verre décoloré, crème]; grey-beige glass [verre gris-beige].
Table 1.5. Summation of quartz-based materials, including description, synonyms and
subsumed varieties, details from Moorey 1994; Nicholas & Peltenburg 2000; Rapp 2002;
Matthews 1990; Barag 1985.

1.1.3.3 Glazed Steatite
Glazed steatite is the name given to a variation of the rock steatite (or in some
circumstances, possibly the related chlorite [Pittman 1994: xv]), that has apparently
been altered by human manipulation, and thus appears distinctively white in colour
(Pittman 1994: 134). Unfortunately, the only distantly relevant scientific study
regarding glazed steatite as a material is a more than 70 year-old article detailing an
experimental reproduction of comparative material for an ancient Egyptian scarab-
seal dating to the 18th Dynasty (Bannister & Plenderleith 1936). Despite this, glazed
steatite as a material is generally discussed as a discrete, definable entity (Pittman
1994). Glazed steatite is described as a steatite rock that has been fired at a high
temperature and thus hardened (Collon 2005: 20; Pittman 1994: xv; 134). Indeed,
Bannister and Plenderleith achieved a material with similar characteristics to glazed
steatite (such as a Mohs hardness of 7, and the white surface) by firing a piece of
steatite at 900°C (Bannister & Plenderleith 1936: 4). Due to the lack of scientific
analysis it is unclear if the characteristic white appearance of the glazed steatite
material is caused by the heating process or by an applied glaze (Pittman 1994: 133 –
134). Indeed, before the problem of the presence or otherwise of a glaze is resolved it
may be more appropriate to speak of ‘burnt steatite’ (thus [Amiet 1971: fig. 44.13]),
as this title does not presuppose the presence of a glaze. However, the term ‘glazed
steatite’ seems so entrenched in the literature, indeed it is even used to define a style
(the Glazed Steatite Style [Pittman 1994]), discussed further below [Chapter 4.4]),
that it seems more practical to retain the term ‘glazed steatite’, albeit with a definition,
and understanding of the possible limitations of this term.
Glazed steatite is also sometimes referred to as ‘enstatite’ (Collon 2005: 20;
Pittman 1994: 133). While this may be more fitting if indeed it is discovered that the
white appearance is not due to a glaze but heating, enstatite is more correctly defined
as a naturally occurring metamorphosis of steatite (Read 1970: 382 – 383). As it
seems more likely that the material under discussion here was deliberately heated by
humans, for the natural occurring enstatite is quite rare as an individual form
sufficient to create seals (Read 1970: 382 – 383), the term ‘glazed steatite’ with all its
potential for inherent incorrectness is preferred.
In earlier, particularly French literature, before the separated, specific nature
of glazed steatite was recognised, this material was merely defined as “stéatite
blanche” (or white steatite). As white is an unusual complete colour for steatite, and

as its appearance is similar to our definition of glazed steatite, the stéatite blanche
seals in the current study are here labelled as glazed steatite. Similarly, burnt steatite
(stéatite brûlée) is also equated with glazed steatite in this study. Again, seals that
have thus been reassessed have been marked in Volume II by an asterix(*). The
analysis of glazed steatite materials and in particular the Glazed Steatite Style will be
discussed in more detail in both the literature review and style sections (Chapter 4.4).
1.1.3.4 Ceramic cylinders

It is assumed that clay is a well-known, easily recognisable material, and so no
reclassification of the clay or ceramic (including the terra cotta variation) is
undertaken here. For an introduction to the use of clay, including a brief discussion of
clay cylinder seals, in the Ancient Near East, and Mesopotamia in particular, the
reader is directed to the relevant chapters of Moorey’s Ancient Mesopotamian
Materials and Industries (1994: 141 – 166) and Rapp’s Archaeomineralogy (2002:
190 – 192). Nothing more of significance can be added here, as the production of clay
and ceramic is relatively well-known and has undergone no essential reanalysis in
recent years to warrant a discussion as undertaken for bitumen-based and quartz-
based materials.
For the purposes of this study however, two problems should be noted. The
first is the simple reality of the presence of clay cylinder seals amongst the Elamite
cylinder seal corpus, and indeed other glyptic corpora (Al-Gailani Werr 1988b). The
nature of clay cylinder seals is unclear; it is possible that they were utilized as “cheap”
alternate seals by the poor, as suggested by Moorey (1994: 163), or as ad hoc
emergency seals created at the moment for the purpose of sealing in the unexpected
absence of a stone/artificial material seal. Another possibility is that they were
deliberately short-lived, temporary seals, intended to be used only once, or a limited
number of times, and presumably disposed of; an analogy from modern society may
be found in the shredding of a credit card slip when it is no longer of use. These
suggestions are all possible, and indeed all three uses could well have been
simultaneously employed, and regardless this cannot be resolved on the basis of the
current evidence.
The second point regarding the clay seals is the question as to whether they
were composed of fired/baked clay (true ceramics) or sun-dried. This problem is itself
related to the first, as it impinges on the question of their use. Deliberate firing of a

clay cylinder would seem to indicate both a higher degree of effort and endeavour
expended on the seal and a desire to prolong its life, or enable the seal to be kept for
some time. This effort to create a relatively long-lasting, functioning item may
indicate that clay cylinders were not always intended as ‘stop-gap’, short-lived
substitute seals, but rather as simply cheaper alternatives to more expensive stone and
other seals.
Those seals classified by the original publishers as baked or fired clay
(including terra cotta, a ceramic variation) are retained in the current study. Some of
the original classifications employed in this study do not expressly specify if the
material was fired clay, or the possible alternative sun-dried clay. Moorey presumes
that clay cylinder seals were all sun-dried (Moorey 1994: 163), however in opposition
to this is the already mentioned fact that some seals in the current study are definitely
listed as fired by their original publishers. Thus while it may be accurate to say that in
some instances clay seals were sun-dried, by no means can it be said that this was an
irrevocable fact. Furthermore, without a visual examination, the fired nature or
otherwise of the clay seals whose nature was not specified cannot be resolved. If some
clay cylinders were indeed sun-dried, this may indicate that, at least these particular
examples, were intended for quick disposal (that is, they did not have to be durable, or
long-lasting) or were ad hoc creations, unfired clay being the quickest, easiest sourced
material. The accurate classification of the clay cylinders in this study (that is,
whether they were fired or sun-dried) must await a further analysis, and thus the
original classifications and distinctions are retained. The presence of the clay
cylinders should be noted, as should the prospect that the cylinders may have been
baked or sun-dried.
1.1.3.5 Rocks and Minerals

A great source of the problems and inconsistencies in the literature regarding
mineralogical designation is the lack of scientific or petrographic analysis (Sax &
Middleton 1992: 11). Another problem is the fact that both mineralogical and non-
mineralogical, or popular, terms have been used together, the mineralogical without
scientific/chemical justification or definition, the popular with misleading
inconsistencies and differences across languages (Sax & Middleton 1992: 11). One
particular problem in this regard is the propensity of non-experts (the current author

should indeed be counted amongst the non-mineralogical-experts) to ignore the
difference between the geologically defined terms mineral and rock.
A mineral is a naturally occurring inorganic element or compound that has
a discrete, definable crystal structure and chemical composition (Rapp & Hill 1998:
112; Rapp 2002: 13). A rock is a specific collective of one or more mineral(s) that
occurs commonly enough to justify a definite classification/name (Rapp & Hill 1998:
112; Rapp 2002: 42). A rock group or type is by nature heterogenous, with varying
degrees of minerals and inclusions combined in their generation (Rapp & Hill 1998:
112; Rapp 2002: 42). Thus rocks can occur along a spectrum of types, with a
tendency to grade from one type to another, often meaning that classification along
the margins may prove difficult. Indeed, this inherent spectrum quality of rocks is
another major cause of the problems in mineralogical/petrological identification,
especially for the untrained, compounded by the general lack of an articulated
definition of rock type and characteristics. The differing native and written tongues of
scholars has further deepened the problems of material designation, especially in
regards to comparative classification, as specific terms and titles may connotate or
imply a different stone or rock in different languages.
As already detailed above, it is necessary for the current study to address
these inconsistencies in order to create a workable nomenclature system for the
purposes of comparison of material types across the relevant Elamite sites. Thus,
Table 1.6 provides an outline of the nomenclature system of rocks and minerals
adopted in this study. The information in this table is based on several mineralogical,
geo-archaeological, and minero-archaeological studies (Hurlbut 1971; Read 1970;
Rapp & Hill 1998; Sax & Middleton 1992; Rapp 2002). The specific, especially
macroscopic visual, characteristics of each mineral and rock is detailed in Table 1.6,
as is the justification and evidence for any required reassessment of material
classification, the variations (including colour), subsumed varieties and their
(particularly French) translation found in the Elamite Glyptic Corpus.
The rock and mineral type group of cylinder seal material can be defined as
‘natural’ and divided into several groups as demonstrated by the Table 1.6. These
groups include rocks, minerals and rock types or classifications. The characteristics of
the mineral groups are defined by several specific criteria. These criteria include the
chemical/mineralogical type of the mineral, its lustre, opacity, colour and hardness.
Lustre refers to the state and quality of the surface shine of the material, with ranges

from vitreous to shiny, pearly, waxy or dull. Opacity technically refers to the ability
of the crystals in the material to reflect, absorb or allow light to pass through the
material, with the three chief classifications being opaque, translucent, and
transparent. The hardness of the mineral is stated according to the Mohs system.
Subsumed Examples and

Material
Varieties (including Colour)
Rocks
1. Limestone Description: coarse-grained sedimentary limestone [calcaire]; beige
rock composed largely of the mineral calcite[beige]; dark beige [beige foncé];
(calcium carbonate). brown [brun]; brown-pink [brun-
Colour: variety of colours, including white,rose]; cream [crème]; soft, cream
grey, yellow and shades of blue, red, brown [tendre, crème]; grey [gris]; grey-
and black due to impurities. brown [gris-brun]; grey-cream
Comments: well-recognised so requires little[gris-crème]; grey-white [gris-
reanalysis; calcite is sometimes listed as ablanc]; grey-yellow [gris-jaune];
material (for example Pittman 1994, grey-pink [gris-rose]; light grey
catalogue entry ‘1217. SA05:01’), though [gris clair]; hard orange [dur
orange]; pink [rose]; red [rouge];
more correctly this is the mineral that forms
the basis for limestone (see Table 1.7); duedark red [rouge foncé]; white
[blanc]; hard, white [dur, blanc];
to the fact that “the rock dolomite resembles
burnt white [blanc, brûlé]; white-
limestone so closely in its appearance that it
is usually impossible to distinguish betweencream [blanc-crème]; yellow
them without a chemical test” (Hurlbut [jaune]; grey & yellow veined
1971: 497), and the lack of such a test on [veiné gris et crème]; white,
the materials listed here, items listed as greenish [blanc, verdâtre]; grey
<dolomite> are subsumed as limestone due dolomite [dolomite grise]; reddish
to their macroscopic similarity. dolomite [dolomite rougeâtre]
2. Marble Description: fine-grained metamorphic rock marble [marbre]; black [noir];
of limestone, a smooth stone capable of black & white [noir et blanc];
taking a polish. black, with white veins [noir
Colour: white when pure, colour variations veiné de blanc]; green [vert]; dark
occur due to impurities. green [vert foncé]; light green
Comments: distinguishable from limestone [vert clair]; grey [gris]; grey &
(and other rocks) macroscopically; no white [gris et blanc]; grey &
reanalysis necessary. yellow [gris et jaune]; pink
[rose]; pink, violet & beige
[couleur rose, violette et beige];
pink & yellow [rose et jaune]; red
[rouge]; dark red [rouge foncé];
red & white [rouge et blanc]; red-
violet [rouge-violet]; white
[blanc]; pink veined, white
[blanc, veiné de rose]; red veined
[rouge veiné]
3. Chalk Description: fine-grained, porous limestone –
variant.
Colour: generally white or shades of white.
Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis
necessary

Material
4. Sandstone Description: fine-grained sedimentary rock sandstone [grès]; grey-brown
composed of small grains of quartz or more [gris-brun]; fine, grey-pink [fin
rarely feldspar, cemented together by bonds gris-rose]; pink [rose]; dark pink
of silica, hematite, calcium carbonate, etc. [rose foncé]
Colour: generally light colour, usually pale
yellows, buff, white or grey; hematite
addition may give a red to reddish brown
colour.
Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis.
5. Lapis lazuli Description: semi-precious metamorphic lapis lazuli [lapis-lazuli]; lap la
rock composed chiefly of the mineral assumed abbreviation of lapis
lazurite (see Table 1.7), with small amounts lazuli
of calcite, pyrozene and other silicates.
Colour: distinct deep blue to azure blue,
sometimes greenish blue to violet blue, with
specks of silver or gold due to impurities.
Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis
required; lapis lazuli is a rare stone, the only
Old World source is the Badakhshan
Mountains, Afghanistan (Rapp 2002: 104);
lazurite is also often listed as a synonym,
though more correctly lazurite is the mineral
basis of lapis lazuli.
6. Basalt Description: fine-grained igneous rock that basalt [basalte]; black [noir];
is feldspar dominant.
Colour: dark coloured, often pearly/glassy.
Comments: well-recognised, no reanalysis.
7. Steatite Description: fine-grained, compact steatite [stéatite]; beige [beige];
metamorphic rock, composed chiefly of the black [noire]; cream [crème];
mineral talc (see Table 1.7). green [verte]; dark green [vert
Colour: generally shades of white/grey, that foncé]; light green [vert clair];
trends greenish or reddish. grey [grise]; grey-blue [gris-
Synonyms: <soapstone> and <soaprock>; bleu]; grey-green [gris-vert];
<chlorite> is also used as a synonym (thus grey-white [gris-blanc]; white-
Pittman 1994), though more correctly this is cream [blanc-crème]; white-green
a related mineral variant similar to the [blanc-vert]; white-pink [blanc-
steatite mineral base talc; also <talc>, rose]; yellow [jaune]
though again, more correctly this is the
mineral base of steatite and not a synonym.
Comments: generally well recognised so
little reassessment required; distinction
between the rock steatite and the mineral
talc should be noted; as already noted, the
term white steatite (<blanche stéatite>) and
other glazed steatite varieties are treated
elsewhere; other pale steatite examples
could also be discoloured ‘glazed steatite’
items, though without a visual confirmation
such a proposal is uncertain and so not
undertaken here.

Material
Minerals
1. Quartz Type: silicon dioxide.
Lustre: vitreous.
Opacity: transparent to opaque.
Colour: colourless when pure, colour variations due to impurities occur.
Hardness: Mohs 7.
There are multiple sub-varieties of quartzes; a system of nomenclature
specifically for quartz cylinder seals has been developed by Sax and Middleton
(1992); the following will detail, according to Sax and Middleton, the quartz
varieties that appear in the Corpus, including their type and any necessary
reassessments
1a. Rock Type: macroquartz. rock crystal [cristal de roche];
Crystal Lustre: vitreous. translucent quartz
Opacity: transparent.
Colour: colourless, can show iridescent
colouring.
Comments: according to the above
definition, the item originally classified
<translucent quartz> is classified under this
rubric.
1b. Amethyst Type: macroquartz. –
Lustre: vitreous.
Opacity: transparent to translucent.
Colour: shades of purple or violet to hues of
blue-red.
Comments: well-recognised variety, no
reassessment required.
1c. Rose Type: macroquartz. rose quartz, translucent [quartz
quartz Lustre: vitreous. rose, translucide]
Opacity: transparent to translucent.
Colour: shades of pale pink to deep rose-
red.
1d. Milky Type: macroquartz. white quartz [quartz blanc]
quartz Lustre: vitreous to waxy.
Opacity: translucent to opaque.
Colour: milk-white, often uneven.
Comments: <white quartz> is taken as a
synonym of milky quartz, due to above
definition.

Material
1e. Type: microquartz white chalcedony
Chalcedony Lustre: waxy.
Opacity: translucent, varying almost
transparent to almost opaque.
Colour: varying pale colours, tones of grey,
blue, green, yellow, brown, white to almost
colourless.
Comments: Moorey uses <smoky crystal>
as a synonym for chalcedony (Moorey
1994: 76), while Sax and Middleton (1992:
18) use this term to describe another quartz
variety (not represented here), thus the
synonym is rejected.
1f. Carnelian Type: microquartz. carnelian [cornaline]
(cornelian) Lustre: waxy.
Opacity: translucent.
Colour: red to orange, red-brown.
reassessment required; can be artificially
created by heating yellowish, greenish or
brown chalcedony.
1g. Agate Type: microquartz. burnt agate; white agate
Lustre: waxy.
Colour: distinctly banded in two or more
microquartz colours.
Comments: Sax and Middleton identified
several sub-varieties of agate (such as
<eyed-agate> and <onyx>) (1992), the
identification of these varieties is dependent
on the nature and patterning of the bands, of
which we have no information here, so this
secondary classification was not completed;
agate can be dyed or etched to enhance its
markings; the appearance of agate can also
be achieved by similar alterations to
chalcedonies or other quartzes; the
appearance of agate is well-recognised, no
1h. Flint Type: microquartz. greenish flint
Lustre: waxy to dull.
Colour: generally light to dark grey or
black, also shades of blue, brown and black.
Comments: well recognised variety, requires
no reassessment.

Material
1i. Jasper Type: microquartz. jasper [jaspe]; green [vert]; light
Lustre: waxy to dull. green [vert clair]; grey-violet
Opacity: opaque. [gris-violacé]; violet [violacée];
Colour: shades of red, yellow, brown and garnet [grenat]; dark garnet
less commonly, green, blue and brown to [grenat foncé]
black.
Comments: well recognised quartz, requires
no reassessment.
2. Gypsum/ Type: hydrated calcium sulphate. alabaster [albâtre]; brown [brun];
alabaster Lustre: shiny and pearly, silky. alabaster gypsum [albâtre
Opacity: transparent like glass, also grades gypseux]
to translucent and opaque.
Colour: colourless or white, sometimes
grey, yellowish or red.
Hardness: Mohs 1.5 – 2.
Comments: gypsum is a mineral that also
appears in massive form as a rock based
upon the mineral; alabaster is a very fine-
grained, compact, snow-white or light
coloured variety of gypsum; while it is
possible to macroscopically differentiate
these two types, they have generally been
confused and subsumed in the literature,
thus due to this, and a lack of a visual
examination, the dual term
<alabaster/gypsum> is adopted here to refer
to this material.
3. Aragonite Type: a calcium carbonate similar to calcite. aragonite [aragonite]; green
Lustre: vitreous. [verte]; translucent green [verte,
Opacity: transparent to translucent. translucide]; light green [vert
Colour: white, grey, yellowish, red, brown, clair]; pink [rose]; white
sometimes green or violet. [blanche]; white, veined with
Hardness: Mohs 3.5 – 4. brown [blanche, veinée de brun]
Comments: no requirement for
reassessment.
4. Heulandite Type: hydrous silicate of calcium and heulandite [heulandite]; green
aluminium, zeolite family. [heulandite verte]; light green
Lustre: pearly. [vert clair]; green & purple [verte
Opacity: transparent to sub-translucent. et violacée]; grey [grise]; grey-
Colour: white, brick-red, brown. green [gris-vert]
Hardness: Mohs 3.5 – 4.
Comments: a series of distinctive green-
coloured heulandite (and the related
material <mordenite>), have been shown to
be heulandite in studies by Lahanier (1976)
and Sax and Middleton (1989), despite their
uncommon green shade; this classification
has thus been adopted here with no
reassessment.

Material
5. Hematite Type: iron oxide. hematite [hématite]
Lustre: metallic and highly splendent, silky
or dull.
Opacity: opaque.
Colour: steel-grey to iron-black, when
particles thin enough can reflect red.
Hardness: Mohs 5.5 – 6.5.
Comments: also rock of the same name
composed of hematite mineral in the main;
well-recognised, no reassessment required,
unsure if mineral hematite or massive (rock)
form.
6. Serpentine Type: hydrous magnesium silicate. serpentine [serpentine]; black
Lustre: greasy, waxlike, silky. [noire]; brown [brune]; green
Opacity: translucent to opaque. [verte]; green-black [vert-noir];
Colour: different shades of green to almost dark green [vert foncé]; light
black, sometimes red, yellow, or brown; in green [vert clair]; grey-pink [gris-
massive form (rock) often veined or spotted rose]
with white, green, red etc.
Hardness: Mohs 3 – 4.
Comments: also rock of the same name,
composed chiefly of the mineral serpentine;
well-recognised, no reassessment required,
though without visual examination unclear
if examples are mineral or massive in form.
7. Chlorite Type: hydrous silicate of aluminium, iron –
and magnesium.
Lustre: pearly.
Opacity: subtransparent to opaque.
Colour: various shades of green.
Hardness: Mohs 1.5 – 2.5.
Comments: also rock of the name,
composed chiefly of the mineral chlorite;
often confused with <talc> and the talc-
based rock <steatite>, though are distinct;
generally well-recognised, no reassessment
required.

Material
Rock Type/Classification
1. Porphyry Some igneous rocks show distinct crystal porphyry [porphyre]
minerals embedded in a finer-grained
matrix, such rocks are known as porphyries
or as porphyritic rocks. Mineralogically,
porphyry is neither a mineral nor a rock, but
a classification or type of rock that can
occur in a variety of rock and mineral
compositions (thus ‘granite porphyry’,
‘diorite porphyry’). The use of porphyry on
its own without base rock qualifier (as in the
relevant literature here) is therefore
mineralogically incorrect, however without
a visual examination, this practice has been
continued here, though with the stipulation
that the true nature (that is, the base igneous
rock) should be sort.
2. Schist As above, schist is not a rock or mineral but schist [schiste]; black [noir];
type or classification of a metamorphic rock green [vert]; grey [gris]; grey-
that is characterised by “schistosity”, that is black [gris-noir]; grey-blue [gris-
lamination of bands within the rock, along bleu]; grey-green [gris-vert];
which the rock may be easily broken. grey-brown [gris-brun];
Common types include ‘micaschist’ mica schist [micaschiste]
(represented here), ‘chlorite schist’, ‘talc
[steatite] schist’, and ‘hornblende schist’.
Again, apart from micaschist, the schist in
this study have been published without
reference to the base mineral/rock, a
situation that must, unfortunately, be
perpetuated here.
Table 1.6. System of Nomenclature of Natural Materials (Rocks and Minerals) for the
Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, based upon Hulburt 1971; Read 1970; Rapp & Hill 1998;
Roberts et al. 1990; Sax & Middleton 1992; Rapp 2002.
.
As mentioned above, rocks are naturally occurring phenomenon composed
of minerals and other elements in reasonably standardised, classifiable form. Table
1.7 provides the details of several minerals, not represented in the cylinder seals of the
Corpus, but that compose some of the main rock types within it. These mineral types
are described here as they are relevant to an understanding of the nature of the rocks
that they compose.

Mineral Description
1. Calcite -type: calcium carbonate.
-lustre: vitreous to earthy.
-opacity: transparent to opaque.
-colour: colourless or white, sometimes grey, yellow, blue, red, brown or
black tints.
- hardness: Mohs 3.
2. Lazurite - type: sodium aluminium silicate with sodium sulphide.
- lustre: vitreous.
- opacity: translucent.
- colour: deep azure-blue, greenish blue, Berlin blue.
- hardness: Mohs 5 – 5.5.
3. Talc - type: hydrous magnesium silicate.
- lustre: pearly.
- opacity: subtransparent to translucent.
- colour: white, silvery-white, apple-green, greenish-grey, dark green.
- hardness: Mohs 1.
Table 1.7. Minerals commonly contained in rock types typical of the Elamite Cylinder Seal
Corpus, based upon Hulburt 1971; Read 1970; Rapp & Hill 1998; Rapp 2002.
1.1.3.6 Summation of Seal Materials

Due to the problems and limitations of previous seal material designations a system of
nomenclature has been proposed here, in order to facilitate comparison of seal
material proportions across sites and styles in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. This
system is entirely preliminary, and is purely an attempt to standardise terms and
implement more recent studies and classification techniques on material published
under older or incomplete systems (thus the bitumen-based, quartz-based, glazed
steatite and quartz materials). Also included in the Corpus is a variety of stones listed
by their original publishers merely by colour qualifiers (for example, ‘brown stone’,
‘grey stone’ and ‘apricot coloured stone’). While one may be tempted to equate these
stones with rocks and minerals listed in the nomenclature system (for example black
stone with hematite), without a visual, mineralogical/petrographic study, such a
classification would be imprudent. Indeed, it is equally likely that these stones
represent some other rock or mineral not previously discerned in the Corpus. For this
reason, the stones listed only according to colour and appearances by their original
publishers are listed in the Catalogue with their original classification retained. The
comparisons and conclusions resulting from the application of this nomenclature
system will be returned to in the discussion of the seal styles (Chapter 4).
Furthermore, a discussion regarding the relative value of seal materials, and the
motivation behind the use of artificial materials will be undertaken in regards to the
function of cylinder seals in Chapter 6.

1.1.4 Seal Production
The method of production of a cylinder seal is another area of investigation that has
arisen from the more ‘archaeological’, as opposed to ‘art historical’, approach to
glyptic studies (discussed further below, Chapter 1.1.5). Thus, since the late 1970s
several scientific studies, based upon (scanning electron) microscopic studies of
cylinder seals, have aided in the discussion and identification of several cutting
techniques for Mesopotamian cylinder seal (Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987;
Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; 1981b; 1992; Sax & Meeks 1994; 1995; Sax,
McNabb & Meeks 1998; Sax, Meeks & Collon 2000). These techniques include
micro-chipping, filing, wheel-cutting and drilling by both stone and metal tools (Sax
& Meeks 1995: 28 – 35; Sax, McNabb & Meeks 1998: 4 – 8). The reader is directed
to the above cited articles, as well as the relevant chapters of Moorey’s Ancient
Mesopotamian Materials and Industries (1994: 103 – 106) and Collon’s general
glyptic studies (2005: 100 – 104) for a more thorough description of seal production.
Little more can be added to these landmark studies here, as no comparable
microscopic study has been undertaken. However, the conclusions of Sax and her
colleagues regarding the later introduction of the cutting-wheel (and for that matter
the ‘mechanical’ drill) around the middle of the second millennium BC (Sax, Meeks
& Collon 2000: 386 – 387), rather than the much earlier second half of the 4th
millennium BC invention earlier espoused (Pittman 1994; 1997) should be noted, as
this is of importance to a seal style and definition discussed below (see Chapters 3.2.2
and 4.5). Again, it must be noted that all these sources discuss this production of
cylinder seals from a decidedly Mesopotamian vantage point, an inherent limitation
that cannot unfortunately be redressed through this current study.
1.1.5 Nature of Study: Art History or Archaeology?

The nature of cylinder seals not only as artefacts, but also as a work of art in miniature
(Pittman & Aruz 1987) means that the study of seals and sealings has often been
approached from a more art historical rather than archaeological perspective. Many of
the earliest, and indeed the most commonly referred to, works are primarily based
upon museum and private collections (as demonstrated by Table 1.1), which are in the
main made up of seals bought from the antiquities market, acquired by other
‘clandestine’ means or from earlier, less then scientific excavations. As such these
seals lack any archaeological context in any meaningful sense and were of original

interest due to their intrinsic value and fascination as works of art (Collon 1990: 21 –
22; Rothman 2007: 237). The study of seals thus focused on their aesthetic value,
concerning themselves with developments in artistic styles and manners of depiction
(Rothman 2007: 236 – 237). This approach considers the seal not as an artefact but as
a work of art, and as such makes value judgements concerning the visual appeal of the
seal and its nature as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art. This method of study can be described as the
‘art historical approach’, and characterises many of the major early works of glyptic
studies (Buchanan 1981; Eisen 1940; Frankfort 1939; Gordon 1939; Lambert 1966;
1979; Legrain 1925; von der Osten 1934; 1946; Ward 1910; Wiseman 1959).
The discovery of seals in excavations led to their publication either as part of
the final excavation reports or as a companion or volume in a series (see Table 1.1
and 1.2 for examples). Often, this task was entrusted to a ‘glyptic specialist’ who was
themselves schooled in the art historical approach. Thus this approach was
perpetuated, with excavated material being subjected to an art historical analysis by a
scholar expert in the art historical discipline. The works of Porada and Amiet are
amongst those that display, to varying degrees, the hallmarks of this phenomenon
(Porada 1970; Amiet 1972; 1980).
As already stated above, it has only been in more recent times with the study
of sealings unearthed in excavations that glyptic studies have begun to assume a more
archaeological perspective (beginning with Ferioli & Fiandra 1979; further continued
Ferioli & Fiandra 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979; Zettler 1987; Collon 1990: 25; Rothman
1994a; 1994b). Sealings themselves lack the aesthetic appeal of the cylinder seal, and
consequently are not generally of interest to the art historian. Sealings can be used to
help in our understanding of a great deal of archaeological problems however,
including as stated above, administration and control, trade contacts and social
interactions.
The study of the sealings found in excavations has led to the development of
an archaeological approach to glyptic studies. This approach views seals and sealing
as artefacts that should be studied not due to their intrinsic ‘beauty’ or attractiveness,
but for what can be revealed about their creators and their societies. There is still a
place for what has been traditionally labelled art history in this approach however, for
in order to fully understand a seal, one must understand its ‘style’. Style places the
seal in both time and place. From a seal’s style and classification its chronological and
geographical position can be discerned. An extended study of a stylistic paradigm,

especially as here, in relation to other neighbouring regions and across time, can
illustrate cultural, social and ethnic developments of the society which produced the
seal. As such the classification of seals into stylistic and subject matter groups is an
important first step in or understanding of that seal. Thus, much of the current study is
dedicated to the development of such a system of classification for Elamite glyptic
material, a task that, as was discussed above, has been neglected for Iranian/Elamite
glyptic material, especially relative to the Mesopotamia example. However, where the
art historical approach would stop at the description of such styles, the archaeological
approach continues beyond this, for there is more that the seal, as an artefact, can tell
us. Thus the function of the seal (beyond that simply of a device that seals) is
addressed, as is the material from which the seal is made (thus providing information
regarding a society’s contacts and technological skills), and the sealings are studied,
for the important information they provide regarding the administration of a society.
The current work will thus be a study of the Elamite glyptic material,
approached from the perspective of archaeology, not art history. Indeed, this is
another area where this study is archaeological, and not art historical. For the common
theme in this study is not their presence in a museum collection, but rather the similar
archaeological context (in space and time) of these seals and sealings. The more
precise methodology employed for the construction of the stylistic paradigm will be
further discussed below (Chapter 3).
1.2 Parameters of the Current Study, ‘Elam’ and Chronology

As already alluded to above, the area under discussion here is that, that can generally
be subsumed under the rubric ‘Elam’, from c.3500 BC to 1000 BC. Both these
parameters, the geographic and the chronological, require some refinement and
justification however. The geographical must be defined as to what is meant by the
somewhat beleaguered term ‘Elam’, and the justification for its use here, and
similarly, the reasons for the chronological beginnings and departure in this study
must be described.
1.2.1 Elam
This study is devoted to the cylinder seals of southwestern Iran, an area roughly
defined by Figure 1.3. The ancient past of this area is generally described by the
geographic term ‘Elam’, home to the people known as the ‘Elamites’ (Potts 1999;

Carter & Stolper 1984), a descriptor that is employed here. The term Elam must
however be defined somewhat, specifically as to what Elam was, when it existed and
where, with each of these questions impinging on the conclusions of the others. The
precise history of the term Elam, the area it entailed and its changing definition
through time will be outlined in greater detail below in reference to its history and
chronology (Chapter 2.1), and so it is not necessary here to devote exorbitant time and
space to this subject, however a brief introduction to this term is required for the
current purposes of definition.
The question of what Elam was is itself problematic, for its meaning,
constitution and definition changed over time and throughout the period of its use. In
its most basic of uses, and indeed most common, Elam is used to describe the area of
southwestern Iran, neighbouring southern Mesopotamia (variously Sumer, Akkad and
Babylonia), that produced an ancient civilisation that was distinct, though related, to
that of neighbouring Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 1 – 9). The confusion arises however
from the fact that to speak of Elam as a discreet, functioning, definable entity would
be false, especially in some earlier periods. Over time the nature and definition of
Elam changed, and indeed, in its original conception and use, the term was a
construction, imposed upon the area by outsiders, in particular the scribes of southern
Mesopotamia. Thus the Sumerian <NIM> (and later the Akkadian equivalent <KUR
elammatum>) was first used to unequivocally refer to Elam around 2600 – 2500 BC
(Potts 1999: 1), some 900 years before a corresponding ‘Elamite’ term was in use.
Indeed, the first recorded use of <halHatamti> (or its alternatives <hal Hatamti> or
<Hatami>) occurred during the reign of Siwe-palar-huppak (Potts 1999: 1), the
contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon (for further details on the reign of Siwe-
palar-huppak, and his contemporaneity to Hammurabi, see Chapters 2 and 7). In its
original use by Mesopotamian scribes it simply referred to the neighbouring, foreign,
particularly highland, region to the east (Potts 1999: 1). Over time Elam, as used both
by outsiders and ‘Elamites’ themselves variously referred to a general area, a
kingdom, an empire, a province of a larger empire, and so on, until eventually it even
came to refer to an ecclesiastical province (Potts 1999). In light of this, what is meant
by Elam in this study, and perhaps more directly, why the term is retained here needs
to be addressed.
As well as the above noted fact that Elam was not originally an indigenous
‘Iranian’ term it can also be said that, in many ways, Elam is also a construct of

modern scholars. Indeed, as will become apparent below (Chapter 2), the
geographical and political/cultural constitution of Elam altered over time and cannot
be said to be consistent from one period to the next. Similarly, Mesopotamia is an
anachronistic term, created by outsiders. However, it is used as a non-prejudiced term
to refer to the area between the two rivers without resorting to the specific, culturally
determined/prejudiced terms of Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia. Lacking a coincident
term for southwestern Iran, ‘Elam’ is here sometimes employed, despite the fact that
it is less satisfactory as a non-prejudiced term than is ‘Mesopotamia’. The term
‘Iran/Elam’ (‘Iranian/Elamite’) is also sometimes used, especially to refer to the
earlier, pre-Elamite periods of history, so as not to imply that an ‘Elamite’ identity is
meant. Due to its imposed nature, in many regards ‘Elam’ can be considered an
artificial construct. Indeed, over time this term subsumed, and was associated with,
areas with either equally imposed names, or terms thought to be of a more indigenous
nature, such as Awan, Anshan, Shimashki, and Marhashi (Potts 1999; further detailed
below).
Thus in its wider application the term ‘Elam’ is used to refer to this area
without intending to imply strict cultural unity, or a monolithic entity across the
entirety of this study. It could be argued that the less culturally specific term,
‘southwestern Iran’ is preferable, however its use here is rejected due to two factors.
Firstly, the term ‘Iran’ as well as implying the modern national, political state, alludes
to the presence of Indo-European or Indo-Iranian peoples, and thus has a specific and
pointed connotation to the era after the arrival of these peoples; a problem and debate
that is best avoided here for the sake of clarity, as this study ends just before the
advent of these peoples (Persians; Potts 1999: 259ff.; thus the hesitant use of the term
‘Iran/Elam’ described above). Secondly, the term ‘Elam’ is preferred because, despite
the previous outlined problems and limitations of this term, its rejection would be to
deny the reality of the existence of ‘Elam’ as an actual cultural phenomenon. Thus the
area under discussion here, and labelled in the most general sense ‘Elam’, includes
roughly the areas of three historical provinces of Iran, Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars
(demonstrated by Figure 1.3). While this area appears to be a large slab of ancient
Iran, in reality the whole area is generally little understood, with several large sites
that dominate the region (such as Susa and Tal-i Malyan) combined with large areas
of limited to no known occupation.

Figure 1.3. General map of ‘Elam’, indicating the three historical provinces, Khuzistan,
Luristan and Fars. Shaded area corresponds to a hypothetical extension of Elam. Red
squares mark major ancient ‘Elamite’ and Mesopotamian sites, black modern towns/cities.
Shaded area does not directly correspond with either a) modern political boundaries of Iran,
or b) the actual known or anticipated extension of Elam. Map after Carter & Stolper 1984:
fig. 1, with alterations.
1.2.2 Chronology
This study focuses on the cylinder seals from Elam from c.3500 BC to c.1000 BC.
Both the upper and lower limits of this chronological definition must, however, be
discussed. Despite the above outlined fact that it cannot accurately be stated that
‘Elam’ was used by outsiders to describe the region of southwestern Iran until roughly
2500 BC, and that a complementary Elamite term was not in use for some 900 years,
this study begins its amalgamation and analysis of the cylinder seals of Elam around
3500 BC, or in Susian archaeological terms the Susa II period (see Chapter 2). There
are several reasons why the discussion of ‘Elamite’ cylinder seals begins a full
millennium before the use of the term in Mesopotamia, and nearly two millennia
before its indigenous use, none of which should in any way be construed to mean that

it is being proposed ‘Elam’ in any capacity was in existence c.3500 BC (when Elam
came to exist will be discussed in further detail below, Chapter 2).
Firstly, as already mentioned, it is sometime around the middle of the 4th
millennium BC that the cylinder seal was first developed in southern Mesopotamia
and southwestern Iran (Collon 2005: 11 – 16). This study is equally devoted to
cylinder seals as to Elamite archaeology. Thus, for the sake of completeness, it
seemed apposite to commence this study with the earliest manifestation of cylinder
seals (in Iran and generally). Secondly, as the primary aim of this study is to establish
a continuous stylistic paradigm for the cylinder seals of Elam it is appropriate to begin
the construction of this paradigm with their earliest appearance, to facilitate a
continuous development by definition.
Also, as will be discovered below, several styles (particularly the Glazed
Steatite Style, the Archaic Geometric Designs and the Susa III/IV Style; see Chapter 4
for details) straddle the period before and after the first recorded use of the term
‘Elam’, and so for the sake of comparison it is necessary to include all the partially
contemporary styles of these from the earlier periods, for comparison and
completeness.
Another reason in favour of this earlier beginning date is that to begin the
discussion of Elamite cylinder seals abruptly with the first foreign, or indeed local,
evidence for the use of the term ‘Elam’ would create the false and facile impression
that Elam was suddenly born with its first annunciation. Rather than develop suddenly
from a vacuum it is much more likely that Elam existed before its first vocalisation,
and so it is not entirely false to speak of Elamite cylinder seals prior to this earliest
use.
Most importantly and convincingly, and as will become more apparent below
in the discussion of both the styles (Chapter 4) and the contact between Elam and
Mesopotamia (Chapter 7), problems, questions and indeed illustrations of phenomena
that arise in the early ‘pre-Elamite’ periods and styles echo, foretell and prefigure
those of the true Elamite periods and so their annunciation here further illustrates
these points and increases our understanding of them. For once again, it is important
to study and describe these phenomena from their earliest manifestation for a more
complete understanding of these processes and their development.
The later chronological limit of this study must also be explained. The end of
the Middle Elamite period is dated to c.1000 BC (see below Chapter 2.1.7 for details

of this slight readjustment of previous chronological assessments) and it is here that
this study takes its leave. The study is concluded here due to wider historical/political
considerations, glyptic dynamics and archaeological factors. Archaeologically, there
is a break in occupation in Khuzistan and Fars following the end of the Middle
Elamite period (Potts 1999: 260ff.), that provides a convenient point of departure.
Glyptically, in the following Neo-Elamite period, stamp seals again begin to become
common, eventually gaining pre-eminence (Amiet 1972: 273 – 297; Collon 1997: 15
– 16). As the focus of this study is specifically cylinders, only the periods during
which they are in dominance are studied here. Thus this study finishes at the end of
the Middle Elamite period, before the following period when the primacy of the
cylinder seal diminishes (and indeed, is established in the period when the cylinder
seal first gains ascendancy for the same reason).
Finally, historically and politically, in the periods under discussion here
(c.3500 – 1000 BC) the contacts and interactions between Elam and Mesopotamia
were primarily focused on the western front towards southern Mesopotamia
(variously Sumer, Akkad and Babylonia) as will be discovered in the contact chapter
(Chapter 7). However, in the proceeding Neo-Elamite period (and following) this
focus of interaction switches, at least for a time, to northern Mesopotamia,
particularly the area of Assyria (Potts 1999: 260ff.). Also, the Neo-Elamite period
announces the earliest appearances of the Persians and other related peoples (Potts
1999: 260ff.). Thus to continue this study into this period would open up this
discussion to a whole new realm of regional contacts and interactions.
This study is focused on the cylinder seals of Elam primarily, with a secondary
purpose of analysing the nature of the contacts between Elam and Mesopotamia (and
also, though not of relevance here, the function of cylinder seals in Elam). A cut off
point at the end of the Middle Elamite period (c.1000 BC) is adopted here firstly
because in the following periods stamp, rather than cylinder, seals again rise to
prominence, thus failing the first test of this study, that of the cylinder seal. The end
of the Middle Elamite period is also adopted here as a departure date, for in the
preceding period Elam enters a phase of different interaction focus (at least for a time)
from southern Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia) to northern Mesopotamia
(Assyria) and northern Iran (while it is indeed true that some interaction between
Elam and northern Mesopotamia occurred in these earlier periods, the overwhelming
focus of the interaction pattern was to the south, as will be shown [Chapters 2 and 7]).

Thus the c.3500 – c.1000 BC chronological span is adopted here because it enables
the complete discussion of the exact parameters of this study, namely the study of
cylinder seals from Elam, and through this to test the nature of the pertinent
interaction between (southern) Mesopotamia and Elam.
1.3 Summation
The primary aim of this work is to create a defined and functioning stylistic paradigm
for the cylinder seals of Elam, from their earliest appearance (c.3500 BC) through to
the end of the Middle Elamite period (c.1000 BC), to trace and articulate their
development across this time span. This study is intended to fill a gap in the literature
pertaining both to Elam and to glyptic studies. While the cylinder seals of
neighbouring Mesopotamia are relatively well-studied and understood, and a
stylistic/developmental construct is quite established, the same cannot be said of the
seals of neighbouring Elam. Despite this fact Elamite cylinder seal styles are often,
most unsatisfactorily given their lack of articulation, used to illustrate and define
elements of international contacts and social constitution. The lack of an articulated,
defined stylistic paradigm is not due to a lack of material however. Indeed, over 3500
seals and sealings provenanced from the region of Elam have been published in
various manners by various authors (Susa [Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1972], Chogha
Mish [Delougaz & Kantor 1996], Haft Tepe [Negahban 1991], Choga Zanbil [Porada
1970], Tepe Sharafabad [Schacht 1975], Deh-i No [Amiet 1972], Surkh Dum-i-Luri,
Kamtarlan and Chigha Sabz [William Forte 1981; Schmidt et al. 1989], Bani Surmah
[Tourovets 1996; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006], Kalleh Nisar [Vanden Berghe &
Tourovets 1994; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008], Godin Tepe [Young & Levine 1974;
Weiss & Young 1975], Tepe Djamshidi and Tepe Giyan [Contenau & Ghirshman
1935], Chogha Gavaneh [Abdi & Beckman 2007] and Tal-i Malyan [Carter 1996;
Nicholas 1990; Sumner 2003]). Furthermore, it is extremely probable, and indeed
stated in some instances (for example, Sumner 2003: 107; Weiss & Young 1975: 8 –
10), that more relevant glyptic material has been unearthed in numerous excavations
but not published. Thus the lack of articulation does not lie in a dearth of information.
Rather, the insufficiency in the literature lies in the fact that either due to political
realties (with scholars unable to view certain pieces of material, thus Haft Tepe),
coincidences of publications (the works regarding the two major sites, Susa and
Choga Zanbil, were prepared simultaneously, and thus without real availability of

coincident material [Amiet 1980: 140]), or simple cursory treatment (with only
limited detail and treatment rendered to material as part of a larger excavation reports
or preliminary articles, thus Haft Tepe, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Tepe Sharafabad,
etc.) the glyptic material of Elam has not been thoroughly nor adequately studied.
Therefore, this study aims to fill the void in the literature by uniting the disparate and
varyingly treated pieces of Elamite glyptic material and studying them each with
reference to the other in order to create a single, definable, functioning stylistic
paradigm.
Through the creation of this paradigm several previous assertions and
conclusions that have drawn heavily upon Elamite glyptic material as evidence can be
tested. In particular these include problems regarding the nature and extent of
Elamite/Mesopotamian contact and relations (Chapter 7). As well as testing these
theories this study will also discuss the use and function of cylinder seals in Elam
across time (Chapter 6).
In order to facilitate the previous outlined discussions, the parameters of this
study have been set, somewhat artificially. Thus the area of Elam is defined at its
largest conceivable extent throughout the entire chronological span of this study,
bounding the areas of Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars. This is not to suggest, and should
in no way be used as evidence for, a conclusion that Elam, in any articulated capacity,
extended to these borders over any period of time, but rather this greatest extension is
employed to facilitate a complete and thorough study, across the entire chronological
span defined here. Thus in some periods areas of Luristan fell within the Elamite
realm, while in others not, however, in this study the rule of inclusion ordains that this
area is included in the extent of ‘Greater Elam’ for the entirety of our attention, so as
to provide completeness.
The chronological parameters of c.3500 – 1000 BC have been set in order to
fulfil the primary aim of this study, to construct a stylistic paradigm of the cylinder
seals of Elam, and the secondary goal to examine the nature of the interaction
between southern Mesopotamia and Elam. Thus the chronological span of this study
details the period of the main use and pre-eminence of the cylinder seal, from its
earliest use and beginnings of primacy over stamp seals, until the period where its
ascendency began to wane. The earliest date, though certainly before one can speak
with accuracy of ‘Elam’ is also set so as to fully appreciate the extent and limitations
of Mesopotamian influence over a period or part of Elam. In order to accurately test

the extent of Mesopotamian-Elamite contact in any one period, the preceding and
proceeding periods must also be studied in order to provide a comparable data set, a
control to decide on an increase or decrease in Mesopotamian influence. The later
date is also set, as the following period marks the beginning of the era when the
nature of the contacts of Elam switches to other areas, and thus ushers in a change in
the pattern of interactions, that would form another study entirely.
As articulated above, this work aims to embrace the archaeological, rather
than art-historical approach to glyptic studies. As such, rather than merely focusing on
the visual style of a particular seal/sealing, the function of seals and sealings, the
materials of the seals and the provenance of the particular item, both in a macro-site
sense and micro(within)-site sense are studied. Already a preliminary base of seal
function has been outlined in this chapter (Chapter 1.1.2). This will be expanded upon
and re-stated from an Elamite, rather than Mesopotamian, perspective (following the
articulation of the styles) in Chapter 6. Also, the preceding chapter has given an
articulated nomenclature system of materials (Chapter 1.1.3), for use with the Elamite
Cylinder Seal Corpus, that will facilitate the discussion and comparison of the styles
(Chapters 4 and 5). The following chapter (Chapter 2), will continue the
archaeological approach of this study by providing an outline of the position of the
Elamite glyptic material in time (chronology) and space (the specific archaeology of
each site) that will enable the discussion of both the nature of interaction (Chapter 7)
and the function of the seals (Chapter 6), that follows the actual articulation of the
styles (Chapter 4; Chapter 5 will provide a summary of the specific glyptic material
and styles from each ‘Elamite’ site).

Chapter 2 – History, Chronology and Archaeology of Elam, c. 3500 – 1000 BC
This chapter will outline the history, chronology and archaeology of southwestern
Iran, according to the current state of our knowledge. The first section (Chapter 2.1)
will provide a general outline of the historical, chronological and general
archaeological developments of Elam (and, in the earlier phases, pre-Elamite
southwestern Iran) during the chronological limits of this study (c.3500 – 1000 BC).
The second section (Chapter 2.2) will provide a more detailed outline of the
archaeology of the period here studied, specifically through a discussion of the
relevant Elamite sites (that is, those sites that yielded glyptic material included in the
Corpus). It should be noted that this chapter, and indeed the entire study, is devoted to
these subjects from a decidedly glyptic perspective. Thus, only passing reference,
where relevant, will be given to sites and phenomena not pertaining to the current
subject (that is, glyptic studies).
The primary aim of this chapter is to provide the context for the seals and the
stylistic paradigm here created. As will be further discussed below, the chronological
framework provided here is used in both the construction and definition of these
styles, and in their designation (hence, the so-named ‘Susa II’ and ‘Susa IV’ Styles for
example [Chapter 4]). This chapter will thus establish the context both in time and
space for the material under discussion here, and as such will provide the foundations
upon which the edifice of the discussion will be built. Not only the general discussion
of the glyptic styles (Chapter 4), but also the preceding discussions relating to their
function (Chapter 6) and Mesopotamian contact (Chapter 7) will be built upon the
following historical, chronological and archaeological study.
The following is not intended to be a thorough study of all things Elamite, for
we have not the time nor space for such detail here. The reader is directed to the
historical and archaeological surveys in Carter and Stolper (1984) and Potts (1999),
and other sources cited in the course of this text, for more complete treatments of this
subject.
As will be detailed below (Chapter 3), both the historical/chronological
evidence and the archaeological context of the glyptic material were methods, or
pieces of evidence, used in the construction of the styles. While one method among
others, this whole chapter is devoted to the discussion of this evidence as it also
provides the context for the later discussions regarding contact and function.

2.1 History and Chronology of Elam
The following section will attempt to provide an outline of the historical, political and
chronological developments of Elam during the relevant time constraints. As
mentioned above, this chapter is not intended to be a detailed discussion nor
reanalysis of the history of Elam, both because the required philological and historical
skills and sources are lacking, and because this is not the aim of the study. Rather the
preceding is intended as an outline and introduction to the history/chronology of
Elam, to provide the context for the study and elucidation (and indeed in some cases,
the appellation) of the seal styles, and to facilitate the later discussion regarding
Elamite-Mesopotamian contact.
Like the already discussed nature of the term ‘Elam’ itself, the history of the
entity is largely gleaned not from indigenous, Elamite sources, but rather from
Mesopotamian (Sumerian and Akkadian) texts that directly discuss, or merely allude
to their eastern neighbour(s) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 3 – 5). This has the effect of
both decidedly skewing and biasing the information, as it is viewed through foreign,
at times enemy, glasses, and of creating gaps and lacunae in our sources that
correspond to periods of limited Mesopotamian-Elamite contact and to areas, facets
and phenomena of Elamite culture that were of no interest or relevance to the
Mesopotamian observers. This Mesopotamian bias is due to the wealth of texts and
details from that area and the relative dearth of similar information from Elam.
Furthermore, the Elamite language itself remains not entirely deciphered, further
complicating and reducing the reliable reading of the few sources that are found in
this language. Little can be done to rectify this situation here, however the nature and
state of the Elamite historical sources, and the Mesopotamian sources, should be
noted.
Indeed, as if to compound the Mesopotamian bias of the
historical/chronological sources, what little Elamite (that is indigenous material
sourced from within the confines of Elam; and it should be noted that linguistically,
these texts may be Akkadian [or indeed rarely Sumerian] rather than Elamite) sources
that are available, are themselves predominantly sourced from Susa, and so further
lend a lowland, Mesopotamian-orientated aspect to the information (see the below
discussion for the Mesopotamian-like nature of the Susiana lowlands). Thus in the
preceding survey many of the titles and discussions are decidedly Susa-centric. This is
not to argue for or against the proposal that Susa was the centre of Elam for any or all

periods, but rather is a reflection of the reality of the currently available materials.
Where possible other, non-Susian materials are also included in the preceding survey,
though as will become apparent on reading, there is not often sufficient information to
make such a study plausible.
Similarly, the Mesopotamian bias of the material and sources, as well as their
Susian Mesopotamian nature means that many of the periods and divisions are here
outlined in relation, and opposition, to contemporary Mesopotamian periods. This
paradoxical phenomenon simultaneously reflects the reality of an actual accord
between Mesopotamian and Elamite history (especially as represented in our current
state of knowledge) and the above outlined preponderance of Mesopotamian studies
and information (that is the actual available materials). Again, thus is the current state
of our knowledge, and is neither to be admonished nor lauded, but merely noted and
accepted.
In the following survey, sites analysed in this study that demonstrate evidence
for a particular period occupation (for example, the Middle Elamite Choga Zanbil
occupation), will merely be stated as such. Following the outline of the chronological
paradigm of this study here included, a thorough treatment of each site, and the
evidence for occupation of any period will be given (Chapter 2.2). The reader is thus
directed to these sections (for example, following the above cited Choga Zanbil
reference, one would see, Chapter 2.2.1.4) for evidence and discussion of this
material, and bibliographical references.
2.1.1 Susa II
As already discussed, the point of origin of this study is the invention or adoption of
the cylinder seal in lowland Elam (Khuzistan) (Chapter 1). This event is
conventionally dated c.3500 BC (Collon 2005: 11 – 16), which corresponds generally
to the middle of the Susa II period. Thus the earliest phase of Elamite (or more
correctly in this case, pre-Elamite southwestern Iranian) history included in this study
is the Susa II period. This period is conventionally dated c.3800 – 3100 BC (Potts
1999: 52), and thus, strictly speaking it is only the later part of this period that
correctly belongs in this study, according to the definition of cylinder seal dominance
for a period’s inclusion previously outlined (Chapter 1). The entire phase is included
however, for the sake of completeness, and as the c.3500 BC date for the origin of the

cylinder seal is itself only theoretical, and thus to arbitrarily begin this study in the
middle of a period on a hypothetical proposal seems imprudent.
The Susa II period can generally be defined as an urban civilisation that is
manifestly similar, in material culture forms and styles, to the contemporary period of
neighbouring Mesopotamia, the Uruk period (Potts 1999: 52 – 53). Susa and the other
Khuzistan/Susiana plains towns (and Luristan sites) that demonstrate a Susa II
material culture (in this study, Chogha Mish, Tepe Sharafabad, possibly at the
unexcavated Deh-i Now, Chigha Sabz and Godin Tepe all demonstrate Susa II type or
contemporary cultures, see below for details) are thus part of an horizon of shared
material culture characteristics that stretches from Habuba Kabira in the west through
Mesopotamia and Iran in the east (Algaze 1993; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112 – 114;
Potts 1999: 52 – 69). This shared culture manifests itself particularly in ceramic and
control/administrative artefacts (including cylinder seal styles, accounting/‘proto-
cuneiform’ tablets, bullae, clay tokens), and is conventionally labelled, following
Algaze, as the ‘Uruk World System’ (Algaze 1993; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112 –
114). There is some debate in the literature regarding the exact nature both of this
system generally (Collins 2000; Rothman [ed.] 2001) and in the Iranian/Elamite realm
specifically (Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Steinkeller 1993; Potts 1999: 52 – 69). This
question will form part of the later discussion regarding Susian/Elamite ‘ethnic
duality’ and Mesopotamian contacts (Chapter 7), and so need not overly occupy us
here. For the purposes of this survey, suffice it to note for now that there is a marked
similarity between the material cultures of (particularly) lowland southwestern Iran
(particularly Susa, Chogha Mish and Tepe Sharafabad included in this study), and
Mesopotamia, dating to the Susa II – Uruk period, so much so that while the
preference of scholars working in an Iranian field may be to adhere to an indigenous,
non-externally defined chronological term (Susa II), the foreign periodisation ‘Uruk’
would equally well apply and characterise this period (indeed further, the Early,
Middle and Late Uruk subdivisions are equally meaningful and applicable here
[Wright & Johnson 1985: 28]) (Potts 1999: 52 – 53).
2.1.2 Susa III

Again, as will be discussed in greater detail below (Chapter 7), the following period in
the chronological paradigm of this study, the Susa III period, demonstrates an
apparent marked dissimilarity with both the preceding Susa II/Uruk culture, and with

the contemporary Mesopotamian Jemdet Nasr horizon (Potts 1999: 71 – 83; Carter &
Stolper 1984: 115 – 132; the rights or wrongs of the term Jemdet Nasr, and its
definition, are beyond the scope of this study, and not entirely of relevance, for more
detailed discussion see [Finkbeiner & Röllig (eds.) 1986]). Conventionally dated
c.3100 – 2900 BC (Potts 1999: 84), the Susa III period is represented in this study at
Susa, possibly the later part of the early Tepe Sharafabad occupation (though more
correctly, this fragmentary material belongs to the Uruk/Susa II cultural world, see
below), (in its later stages) at Kamtarlan I, at Godin Tepe, in funerary evidence at
Tepe Djamshidi, at Tepe Giyan and at Tal-i Malyan. The highland Marvdasht/Tal-i
Malyan periodisation, the Banesh horizon, is considered generally contemporary with
the Susa III culture (though Early Banesh, not represented at Tal-i Malyan or any site
in this study, probably extends before the Susa III period into contemporaneity with
the Later Susa II, and the Late Banesh possibly continues beyond the Susa III period
of lowland Khuzistan, into the following Susa IV period).
The Susa III period has previously been labelled the ‘Proto-Elamite’ period,
after the distinctive (and different from the ‘proto-cuneiform’ Susa II/Uruk and
Mesopotamian) texts known from Susa and elsewhere (including Tal-i Malyan in this
study) so characteristic of this period (Potts 1999: 71; Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 –
132). The term ‘Proto-Elamite’ was coined by Scheil (1905), and demonstrates a
conscious suggestion that the (still unknown and fully undeciphered) language of
these texts was related to the later, truly historical Elamite cuneiform language (Potts
1999: 71). No evidence for nor against such a relational link is currently known (Potts
1999: 71 – 74), and to then in turn apply this term to the cultural manifestation as a
whole, and thus enforce a ‘genetic’ link between the Proto- and true (historical)
Elamites seems imprudent (Potts 1999: 71 – 74). Rather, the non-culturally specific
‘Susa III’ term is employed here to describe this period. It seems, however, perhaps
equally inappropriate to refer to the texts from this period and type known from Tal-i
Malyan (and elsewhere, interestingly, but not included here due to geographical
considerations, at Tepe Sialk, Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta, among others [Carter
& Stolper 1984: 115 – 132]) by a specifically lowland/Susian term as Susa III. For
this reason, and because the term is so entrenched in the literature (including in the
realms of glyptic styles, as detailed further below [Chapter 4]), ‘Proto-Elamite’ is
retained here to refer specifically to the texts (and some of the associated glyptic
paraphernalia). Whenever so used, the discontent and alleged, though unproven,

nature of this term is indicated by the use of inverted commas (thus ‘Proto-Elamite
texts’).
As already mentioned, the material cultural of this period is generally
considered to starkly contrast that of the preceding period of Mesopotamia/Iran, and
of contemporary Mesopotamia (Carter & Stolper 1984: 115 – 132; Amiet 1979a;
1979b). The Susa III culture manifests itself in shared styles of ceramics, texts (as
already mentioned), and (at least partly) a distinctive glyptic style (the so-called
‘Classic Proto-Elamite Style’ [Pittman 1997], discussed in greater detail below
[Chapter 4]), in a region from Susa in the west, to Malyan in the east, and beyond the
realms of this study, to the Kerman site Tepe Yahya and the Sistan, at Shahr-i Sokhta,
as well as north to the Plateau at Tepe Sialk (Potts 1999: 71 – 83; Carter & Stolper
1984: 115 – 132). This extension indeed has led to the hypothesis of a ‘Proto-Elamite
Expansion’, similar to the Uruk Expansion of the previous period (Potts 1999: 70 –
79; Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Weiss & Young 1975). The accuracy or otherwise of the
characterisation of this material as strikingly different to what came before it, and the
nature of this ‘Expansion’, will be returned to through an examination of the glyptic
material, following the annunciation and codification of these styles (Chapter 7).
2.1.3 Susa IV
The following period in the current paradigm is, for the sake of simplicity, referred to
here as ‘Susa IV’, though more correctly this period, as used here, refers to the earlier
part of that phase as characterised at Susa (the Susa IVA period), with the latter part,
Susa IVB, associated with the Akkadian ‘annexation’ of Susa (Potts 1999: 112), and
thus the following period of our paradigm. This confusion of terms demonstrates
several problems with the construction of such a paradigm, based upon archaeological
and historical material over an extended and diverse area. The use of Susa IV to refer
to the entire archaeological era, and so to correspond both to the current period and
that of the Akkadian intrusion, is rejected here as this would deny the reality of, and
remove the emphasis on, the difference in historical Mesopotamian interaction terms
and material culture, wrought by the Akkadian advent (this is not to deny the accuracy
of the Susa IV definition of the specific stratigraphy of Susa discussed below
however). Another solution to the possible confusion here could be the abandonment
of the Susa IV term altogether, except to refer to the internal periodisation of Susa, in
favour of the Mesopotamian term ‘Early Dynastic’ to refer to this earlier period, and

‘(Old) Akkadian’ to refer to the time of their invasion. While this solution may serve
for the sake of clarity in the use of Susa IV, the false impression that the
Iranian/Elamite material culture of this period was essentially Mesopotamian would
be created. Furthermore, on a purely theoretical/ideological level, the retention of
Iranian/Elamite terms of reference over Mesopotamian-centric terms, unless entirely
descriptive of a strong material culture (and probably generally cultural) similarity, is
preferred. Thus, despite the apparent confusion of the term, Susa IV is used here to
describe the period following the Susa III, but preceding the Akkadian annexation of
Susa/Susiana (and beyond), with the understanding that in strictly Susian
archaeological terms, the period intended is more correctly the Susa IVA period only.
The use of the term Susa IV is also advocated (over a substituted
Mesopotamian periodisation) because the Susa III period continues into the early part
of the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic period (Early Dynastic I) (Potts 1999: 90),
further making the Mesopotamian term confusing and inappropriate. The post-Susa
III, pre-Akkadian Susa IV is conventionally dated c.2900 – 2330 BC (that is ending
with the invasion of Sargon) (Potts 1999: 128), though the precise nature of the Susa
III – IV transition is unknown, with several forms and styles apparently developing
from one to another, with no sharp or definite break in tradition (as testified to by
such glyptic styles as the Susa III/IV Style, detailed below [Chapter 4]). However,
other Susa III material culture types, including the (‘Proto-Elamite’) texts, statuary
and some of the glyptic styles (emphasis must be placed on some of the glyptic styles,
contra Amiet [1992a: 82], and others, who implicitly or otherwise see a total break in
glyptic tradition, as will be discussed further below [Chapter 4]) are seemingly
abandoned in favour of Early Dynastic Mesopotamian influenced material, and
material associated with northern, Luristan regions (Potts 1999: 90 – 92). In some
respects, therefore, the material culture of this period corresponds to Early Dynastic
forms (Potts 1999: 92 – 97), though specifically Iranian/Elamite styles and types also
occur, such as the so-called ‘Trans-Elamite’ phenomenon and the carved-soft-stone
vessels of the Intercultural Style (série ancienne) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 132 – 135;
Potts 1999: 98 – 100).
The Susa IV (pre-Akkadian) period is represented in this study by occupation
at Susa, Kamtarlan I and II, Chigha Sabz, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe,
Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan, and the terminal Banesh period occupation of Tal-i
Malyan. It should be noted that much of this evidence, in the form of grave goods

from Luristan sites, displays a particularly Early Dynastic Mesopotamian, rather then
lowland Susa IV type (see below, the relevant site descriptions for details). This is
despite that fact that the significant occupation in the Luristan region of this period
may be linked to the ‘Iranian’ cultural phenomenon ‘Awan’ in its earlier
manifestation (Potts 1999: 97 – 98). Awan will be discussed further below.
In an important historical event, the Susa IV period corresponds to that of the
first definite, historical reference to ‘Elam’ (Potts 1999: 87). These references, found
on the Early Dynastic III (c.2600 – 2350 BC) Sumerian King List, include several
references to bellicose relations between, in some cases (for example, Enmebaragesi
of Kish) known historical, Mesopotamian figures and eastern regions, including Elam
and Awan (Potts 1999: 87; Jacobsen 1939). If the proposed date of c.2675 BC for
Enmebaragesi of Kish (Edzard 1967a: 54; Potts 1999: 87) is accepted, the first truly
historical reference to Elam can thus be dated generally to this period (Potts 1999:
87). From this point on, one can speak of Elam as an actual entity, though the precise
definition of what it is, and the boundaries of Elam, remain uncertain.
2.1.4 Akkadian and Awan

Another historical event, the invasion of Susa by Sargon of Agade, defines both the
end of the Susa IV period in this study, and the beginning of the following
Akkadian/Awan period. From this point on, the history and chronological
periodisation of Elam is inexorably linked to historical dates and phases of
Mesopotamia, with many of the successive periods similarly defined by interactions
(generally bellicose) with Mesopotamia. The task at hand is to reconcile both the,
generally external, historical sources (and the scant, though in some instances
important local historical sources) and the archaeological evidence, to define discreet
chronological entities that are relevantly ‘Elamite’.
Sargon’s long reign is conventionally dated c.2334 – 2279 BC 1 , with the
conquest of Susa/Elam early in this reign (c.2330 BC), as testified to by several year
names detailing eastern conquests (Potts 1999: 101; Gelb & Kienast 1990: 49 – 50).
Old Babylonian copies of Sargon’s Royal Inscriptions also detail the long and
continued interaction between Sargon and the east; to Elam and indeed other ‘Iranian’
regions such as URUxA, Barashum, Awan and others (Potts 1999: 102; Gelb &
1
As is standard, all dates of Mesopotamian kings in this study (unless otherwise stated) follow
Brinkman 1977.

Kienast 1990). Sargon’s successors, Rimush, Manishtushu and Naram-Sin all
continued to dominate and aggressively interact with ‘Elam’ and the east (Potts 1999:
103 – 108). Indeed, in the cases of Rimush, Manishtusu and Naram-Sin textual and
inscribed evidence indicates that governors (ensí) were appointed at Susa and in
‘Elam’ (Potts 1999: 103 – 111; demonstrated by Table 2.1), further indicating that
Elam, or at least Susa, was incorporated into the Akkadian Empire. Furthermore,
inscribed bricks attest to the construction of a building, possibly a temple, at Susa by
Naram-Sin (Potts 1999: 107). Indeed, beyond Susa and lowland Khuzistan, Akkadian
kings claim to have ‘conquered’ or visited such far flung eastern locations as Awan
(Sargon, Rimush), Mahrashi/Barahsum (Sargon, Rimush, Naram-Sin), Anshan
(Manishtushu), the lands of the Lullubi (Naram-Sin), Meluhha (Rimush) and even
across the Gulf to the Arabian Peninsular (Manishtushu, Naram-Sin) (Potts 1999: 103
– 108). The accuracy or otherwise of these ‘conquests’, whether they were achieved
by the Akkadian kings themselves or by proxy, or whether they more correctly reflect
mere kingly rhetoric and propaganda (Potts 1999: 103), is a moot point for the current
discussion, for whatever the ancient reality, such a list indicates that such eastern
regions, beyond Elam were, at least, part of the Akkadian world; “on the map” as it
were.
The fall of the Akkadian Empire is traditionally attributed to the incursion and
intrusion of an eastern highland (from the southern Mesopotamian perspective)
people, the Guti (Potts 1999: 121). Like Awan below (and indeed, in a certain regard,
the precise borders of Elam), the exact location of the Guti homeland is unknown
(Potts 1999: 121), though a northwestern Iranian region is generally hypothesised,
perhaps as north as Iranian Azerbaijan or as south as Iranian Kurdistan or Luristan
(Potts 1999: 121 – 122). Whatever the case, it can certainly be shown that, beginning
in the reign of the Akkadian Shar-kali-sharri, and culminating in that of his successor,
Dudu, the power and authority of the Akkadian Empire was greatly diminished, and
eventually collapsed, with the western Iranian regions Awan and Elam again (or for
the first time truly) asserting their independence from Mesopotamian authority, as
testified to by the inscriptions (in the so-called ‘Linear Elamite’ language) of the
“twelfth king of Awan”, Puzur-Inshushinak (Potts 1999: 108 – 111,125 – 127; see
below).
The precise structure of Akkadian sovereignty and Susiana vassalship and
gubernatorial status, and that of individuals entitled ‘king’ (lugal) of Awan and other

eastern regions, is currently unclear (Potts 1999: 109 – 111), and the details of such a
system will no doubt continue to allude us without further evidence. The existence of
an apparently contemporary ‘Dynasty of Awan’ in the Akkadian period also further
complicates and confuses the political structure of the Elamite/Iranian world in this
period. The ‘Awan Dynasty’ is known from an Old Babylonian (therefore
chronologically significantly removed) text that lists twelve kings of Awan (along
with twelve from Shimashki discussed further below) (Scheil 1931: 2; Potts 1999:
144, 109 – 111), as illustrated in Table 2.1.
The precise location of ‘Awan’ is currently unknown, though a locus in the
area north of Khuzistan, incorporating the modern provinces of Luristan,
Kermanshah, Kurdistan and Hamadan (and thus including part of the area here
defined broadly as ‘Elam’ [Chapter 1]) has been suggested (Potts 1999: 97 – 98). The
veracity of the Old Babylonian Dynastic List must also be questioned however, due to
the chronological distance between the reigns of these ‘kings’ and their notation in the
List (the possibility that this list is a copy of a more ancient, contemporary with Awan
list is accepted, similar to the Old Babylonian copies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions
already mentioned, though without any evidence to support such a suggestion, the
chronological remove must currently be acknowledged however), and our awareness
that such lists may often serve contemporary political purposes and rhetoric rather
then ancient realities (Potts 1999: 144). However, several individuals named on the
list (Sanam-shimut, Hishrep-ratep, Luh-ishan and Puzur-Inshushinak) are elsewhere
accorded other political offices in the Elamite/Susiana realm, and associated with
Akkadian (or in the case of Puzur-Inshushinak, Ur III Dynasty) kings, as
demonstrated by Table 2.1.
Kings of Awan Other Mesopotamian King Association

(according to the ‘Awan ‘Elamite’
Dynasty List’ Officials
Pi-e-li
Ta-a-ar
Uk-ku-ta-hi-eš
Hi-i-šu-ur Akkadian Dynasty
Sanam-shimut ↔ Sargon – OB copies of Sargon’s royal
inscriptions commemorate victories over
“Sanam-shimut, governor (ensí) and viceroy (?)
(GÌR.NITA) of Elam” (Carter & Stolper 1984:
11; Potts 1999: 102).
Ulul
Sidga’u

Kings of Awan Other Mesopotamian King Association
(according to the ‘Awan ‘Elamite’
Dynasty List’ Officials
Na-pi-il-hu-eš
Ki-ik-ki-si-me-te-em-ti
Hishep-ratep ↔ Sargon – OB copies of Sargon’s royal
inscriptions commemorate victories over “Luh-
ishan, son of the king (lugal) of Elam,
Hishiprashini [Hishep-ratep]” (Carter & Stolper
1984: 11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102).
Luh-ishan ↔ Sargon – OB copies of Sargon’s royal
inscriptions commemorate victories over “Luh-
ishan, son of the king (lugal) of Elam,
Hishiprashini” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 11, 12;
Potts 1999: 88, 102).
Abalgamash
Emashsini
Shar-GA-PI
Hi-e-lu
Eshpum* ↔ Manishtushu – Inscription on a dedicated statue
found at Susa names the donor as Eshpum,
“servant of Manishtushi”; inscribed seal
impressions entitle him “governor (ensí) of
Elam” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 13; Potts 1999:
106).
Ilshu-rabi
Hi-ta-a
Epirmupi* ↔ Naram-Sin – “Governor (ensí) of Susa”, “viceroy
(GÌR.NITÁ) of the land of Elam”, under Naram-
Sin (Carter & Stolper 1984: 14; Potts 1999: 107).
Ili’ishmani
Ur III Dynasty
Puzur-Inshushinak* ↔ Ur-Nammu – OB copy of an inscription of Ur-
Nammu from Isin names Puzur-Inshushinak as an
adversary (Potts 1999: 122; Wilcke 1987: 108 –
111); Gasche et al. 1998); “governor (ensí) of
Susa, GÌR.NÍ[TA] of the land of Elam” (Potts
1999: 123); “king (lugal) of Awan”
Table 2.1. The ‘Awanite’ Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian kings. Kings
marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of one or more ‘Dated Seal(s)’ (see Chapters
4 and 7). Information sourced primarily from Potts 1999 and Carter & Stolper 1984.
Thus, through the haze of contradictory evidence and fragmentary (and greatly
chronologically removed) inscriptions a general pattern, albeit vague and
hypothetical, can be proposed. The area of ‘Awan’, though the exact location of
which is currently unknown, is placed in a general west-north-west region of Iran, that
is in the area immediately to the north of the Susiana/lowland/Khuzistan Elamite
‘heartland’, possibly in the historical Luristan region (and hence in the greater Elamite
realm as used here). This polity (and the term is used most loosely here so as not to

suggest any concrete structured kingdom but a region with a general authority figure)
was manifested by varying limits and extents of recognition, as detailed in the ‘Awan
Dynastic List’ (Table 2.1). The ‘Awanite’ entity was generally contemporary with
(and indeed preceded it as testified to by Sumerian King List entries that detail Early
Dynastic Mesopotamian and Awanite [generally bellicose] interactions [Potts 1999:
127]), the Akkadian Empire. The sovereignty of the kings of Agade over
Susa/Susiana is fairly assured, as testified to by numerous inscriptions both from Susa
and the Mesopotamian realm, and manifested itself in some reigns by the appointment
of governors or viceroys. Some of the individuals listed as Akkadian representatives
or governors can also be identified as kings of Awan on the ‘Awan Dynasty List’. It
can thus be hypothesised that the ‘kings of Awan’ listed in the earlier part of the list
were petty kings or local officials whose territory was annexed by, and incorporated
into, the Akkadian Empire. These kings bowed to the superior power of their
Akkadian counterparts, and served as essentially vassal kings. Or alternatively, it may
be conjectured that the Akkadians, upon conquering Susa, merely co-opted and used
the existing political control figures by enlisting the petty Awanite kings as governors.
This policy of co-option was not strictly adhered to however as individuals not
detailed in the ‘Awan Dynasty List’ also served as officials and governors for the
Akkadian Empire (as demonstrated by Table 2.1). With the collapse of the Akkadian
Empire, whether at the hands of ‘Iranian’ Guti-tribes or not, local, that is Awanite,
political figures again filled the subsequent vacuum, or seized for the first time control
of Susa/Susiana. This is testified to by the twelfth and final Awanite king, Puzur-
Inshushinak, whose reign at Susa is known from numerous inscriptions at Susa (Potts
1999: 122 – 127).
Due to this apparent chronological coincidence of the Awanite ‘dynasty’ or
entity, and the Akkadian incursion into Susiana/Elam, the period of the Akkadian
Empire in this study is referred to as the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ period, and indeed
continues beyond the Akkadian incursion, to the period of Awanite ‘sovereignty’, as
testified by Puzur-Inshushinak, until his reign was brought to the end by Ur-Nammu
of the Ur III Dynasty, who thus ushered in the following chronological/cultural
period.
The ‘Akkadian and Awan’ period of this study is thus bracketed by two
similar historical events, the annexation of Susa/Susiana, and eventually other
‘Elamite’ areas, into the Akkadian Empire c.2330 BC as the upper limit, and the fall

of Susa (and before that, Puzur-Inshushinak) to the Ur III kings c.2100 BC as the
upper limit. Two sub-phases of this period can thus be identified, the first is the period
of the Akkadian domination of Susa and interaction with wider Elam, and the second,
following the fall of Agade, is the brief period of Awanite ‘independence’,
culminating (and then collapsing) in the reign of Puzur-Inshushinak. This period as a
whole is represented in this study at Susa, the funerary remains of Bani Surmah and
Kalleh Nisar, at Godin Tepe, Tepe Giyan, and early Early Kaftari period Tal-i
Malyan.
2.1.5 Ur III and Shimashki

The next chronological phase of this study is labelled the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’
phase, and is generally dated from c.2100 – 1940 BC (Potts 1999: 158 – 159). Like
the preceding period, this period can also be divided into two historical/political
phases defined by ‘Elamite’ – Mesopotamian interactions. The first is defined as the
era of Ur III control of Susa/Susian, and if not control, then heavy interaction with
Anshan (Potts 1999: 158 – 159), the second is the period of the Shimashki ‘kingdom’
following the fall of Ur (Potts 1999: 158 – 159).
Despite our knowledge that the westward expansion of Puzur-Inshushinak was
halted by Ur-Nammu, the first king of the Ur III (or Neo-Sumerian) dynasty, it is not
until the reign of his son, Shulgi, that clear evidence for Ur’s control of Susa, and thus
the actual conquest/annexation of this region, is apparent (Potts 1999: 130). Inscribed
objects and bricks at Susa testify not only to Shulgi’s control of, and activities at Susa
(including the construction of a temple to Inshushinak [Malbran-Labat 1995: 22]), but
also, the absence of the divine determinative before the king’s name on these
inscriptions indicates that these activities, and therefore the Ur III control of Susa,
occurred before his apotheosis, in the 23rd year of his reign (Potts 1999: 130 – 132;
Sigrist 1992: 8). Other Susian finds, including an inscribed foundation figurine from
another temple at Susa, demonstrate that Shulgi continued operations and activities at
Susa after assuming divinity, for in these examples dingir precedes his name (Potts
1999: 132; Carter 1990: 95).
In the highly ordered and bureaucratic Ur III state, Susa was a high-status seat
of a governor, in the peripheral, or second tier, region of the Empire (Potts 1999: 132
– 135; for the structure of the Ur III state, and Susa/Elam’s position within it see Jean
1922; Michalowski 1978; 2008 (ed.); 2008; Sigrist & Gomi 1991). In terms of

taxation, Susa paid a ‘governor’s tax’, but was not obliged to pay the bala tax that
defined the central, generally Mesopotamian, core of the Empire (Potts 1999: 132 –
135). Beyond Susa and its second tier region, lay the outer area, not directly governed
by a true ensí (governor), but obliged to pay a kind of vassal tribute, obliged that is,
under threat of war or raids (Potts 1999: 135). This third tier includes other
eastern/Iranian areas, including Anshan and Shimashki (Potts 1999: 135).
The other element of Iranian/Elamite – Mesopotamian interaction in this
period, aside from direct/gubernatorial control or vassal tributary/raiding and looting,
is in the form of inter-dynastic or ‘diplomatic’ marriages (Potts 1999: 136 – 139).
Shulgi, Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin of Ur all gave their daughters in marriage to princes or
petty kings of ‘eastern’ regions, including Anshan, as testified to by the year names of
the Ur III kings, and texts dealing with the associated dowry or wedding gifts (Potts
1999: 137). The alleged ‘diplomatic’ purpose of these marriages appear less than
successful however, and did little to quell or pacify the pattern of raids and aggression
between the Ur III kings and their eastern neighbours, as demonstrated by year names
that cite such raids after those indicating such marriages (Potts 1999: 137).
The pattern of continued operations and acts of aggression between the kings
of the Ur III dynasty and their eastern neighbours continued throughout the period of
the Ur III domination of Susa (Potts 1999: 158 – 159). Eventually, it was an apparent
coalition of Elamite forces, led by Kindattu (“the man of Elam [lú-elamki]”) and
those of a former general of Ibbi-Sin’s, Ishbi-Erra (the future founder of the First
Dynasty of Isin) that dealt the death blow to the Ur III Empire (Potts 1999: 142; van
Dijk 1978: 197; Quintana 1998). Traditionally, it was the Elamites who were credited
with this destruction, as in the Sumerian poem the Lamentation over the Destruction
of Sumer and Ur (Michalowski 1989), and following the settlement after the fall of
Ur, Ishbi-Erra expelled Kindattu and his people in the 26th year of his reign (Potts
1999: 142 – 144). Thus the ‘liberation’ of Susa and the eastern lands (or perhaps more
correctly, the removal of the Ur III yoke and threat of raids through the final
destruction of the Ur III Empire) by Kindattu is conventionally dated c.2004 BC
(Potts 1999: 158). This marks the beginning of the second phase of the ‘Ur III and
Shimashki’ period, when Susa and the ‘Elamite’ realm was under the control of the
kings of Shimashki (Potts 1999: 158 – 159).
The same Susa tablet discussed above that names twelve ‘Kings of Awan’ also
names twelve ‘Kings of Shimashki’ (Potts 1999: 144; Scheil 1931: 2). These twelve

kings are detailed in Table 2.2, along with the evidence for associated Mesopotamian
interaction. As can be seen, as well as the just cited associations between the sixth
king of Shimashki (Kindattu), the last of the Ur III kings (Ibbi-Sin), and the founder
of the Isin Dynasty (Ishbi-Erra), other associations between kings of Shimashki and
kings of Ur, before its fall, and subsequently, other kings of other Mesopotamian
dynasties, occur. While we have no way of discerning between references and
associations of synonymously named kings (for example, if the Amar-Sin and Shu-
Sin associations occurred with either Tazitta I or II, or both, or one association with
one, another with the other), it is still evident, even discounting any possible
contradiction by synonymously named kings, that, at least the earliest part of this list
of kings is not dynastic or linear in the true, successive, sense of the word (Potts 1999:
144). Thus, the ‘first’ king, Girnamme, is associated with Shulgi (c.2094 – 2047 BC)
and Shu-Sin (c.2037 – 2029 BC) (Potts 1999: 147; Table 2.2). While these
associations do not detail successive Ur III kings, the relatively short dividing reign of
Amar-Sin (2046 – 2038 BC), makes associations between Girnamme, Shulgi and
Shu-Sin not impossible. However, the fact that Shulgi is also associated with Ebarti (I
or II), Shu-Sin with Tazitta (I or II) and Ebarti (I or II), and Amar-Sin also with a
Tazitta and an Ebarti, indicates that it would be false to conclude that these ‘Awanite
kings’ are indeed successive. No filiation is indeed included in the ‘Dynasty’ of
Shimashki List, nor any indication of succession, and thus it has been suggested that
the first portion of the list details the names of a group of more or less contemporary
‘leaders’ or perhaps petty kings, of highland (that is not Susian) Elamite entities
(Stolper 1982: 50; Potts 1999: 144; Steinkeller 2007). The later part of the list,
particularly from the reign of Kindattu, may be considered more correctly a ‘dynastic’
(though not necessarily in the absolute sense of genetic or familial relationship) or
successive list (Steinkeller 2007: 222). In this regard, the associations with the Ur III
kings with individual/s named Ebarti can be linked to the first of this name and
rejected for the second (that is the Ur III association is with the ‘third’ Shimashkian
king, not the ninth).

Kings of Shimashki Mesopotamian King Association
1. Girnamme ↔ Shulgi of Ur – Guriname (Girnamme) mentioned in a text from
Drehem, dated Shulgi 44 (Steinkeller 1988: 201 – 202; Gasche
et al. 1998)
↔ Shu-Sin of Ur – Kirname (Girnamme) listed in parallel with
governors of Marhashi and the SU in a text dated Shu-Sin 6
(Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al. 1998; Jacobsen
1939: no.7)
2. Tazzitta I ↔ Amar-Sin of Ur – Dazite (Tazzitta) “man of Anshan” in texts
from year Amar-Sin 8 (– Shu-Sin 2) (Carter & Stolper 1984:
20; Gasche et al. 1998; Keiser 1971: 477)
↔ Shu-Sin of Ur – Dazite (Tazzitta) “man of Anshan” in text
from year Shu-Sin 2 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al.
1998; Keiser 1971: 477)
3. Ebarti I* ↔ Shulgi of Ur – (Gasche et al. 1998)
↔ Amar-Sin of Ur – “Iabrat (Ebarti) the SU” in a text from year
Amar-Sin 7 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gashe et al. 1998;
Jacobsen 1939: no. 7)
↔ Shu-Sin of Ur – “Iabrat (Ebarti) the SU” in a text from year
Shu-Sin 6 (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al. 1998;
Jacobsen 1939: no. 7)
4. Tazitta II see Tazzitta I above
5. Lu-[(x)-r]a-ak-lu-uh-ha-an
6. Kindattu* ↔ Ibbi-Sin of Ur; Ishbi-Erra of Isin – Sumerian Hymn in honour
of Ishbi-Erra narrates the war between Ibbi-sin of Ur, Ishbi-
Erra of Isin and Kindattu (Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Potts
1999: 142); messengers from Ki-in-da-du (Kindattu)
mentioned on a text dated Ishbi-Erra 19 (Carter & Stolper
1984: 22; Potts 1999: 145; Gasche et al. 1998; Van Dijk 1978)
6a. Imazu seal inscription: “Son of Kindadu (Kindattu), king [lugal] of
Anshan” (MDP 43: 1679 [2456]; Potts 1999: 147)
7. Idaddu I* ↔ Ishbi-Erra of Isin – messengers from I-da-[x] (Idaddu)
mentioned on a text dated Ishbi-Erra 19 (Potts 1999: 145)
text: “Inta[ttu]-Inshushi[nak], ensí of Susa, GÌR.NÍTA of
Elam, son of Pepi” (Potts 1999: 145)
text: I-da-du “king of Shimashki and Elam” (Potts 1999: 145)
8. Tan-Ruhurater* ↔ building inscriptions, text: Tan-Ruhurater, ensí of Susa,
mentioned as husband of Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama,
governor of Eshnunna (Carter & Stolper 1984: 22 – 23; Potts
1999: 146; Gasche et al. 1998; Scheil 1900: 80, pl.15.6; Scheil
1902: 9, pl. 1.6)
seal inscription: “Tan-Ruhurater, ensí of Susa … son of I-da-
d[u?]” (MDP 43: 1675 [2346])
seal inscription: “Nur-Sin, scribe, son of Puzur-Ishtar, servant
of Tan-Ruhurater” (MDP 43: 1674 [2418]).

Kings of Shimashki Mesopotamian King Association
9. Ebarti II* text: “Ebarat, king of Anshan and Susa and Shilhaha
sukkalmah and priest of Anshan and of Susa, Adda-hushu
(Atta-hushu) regent and scribe of the people of Susa” (Potts
1999: 147)
text: “E/Ia-ba-ra-at king” (Potts 1999: 147)
text: “son of Kindattu” (Steinkeller 2007: 221 – 222)
seal inscription: “Ebarat the king, Kuk-Kalla, son of Kuk-
sharum, servant of Shilhaha” (MDP 43: 1685 [2420]).
seal inscription: “Buzua, servant of Ebarat” (MDP 43: 1686
[2421])
seal inscription: “…-Inshushinak, scribe, [son of …]-Kalla [?],
servant of Ebarat” (MDP 43: 1680 [2372])
10. Idaddu II* text: “Indattu, ensí of Susa, son of Tan-Ruhurater” (Potts 1999:
148)
seal inscription: “Idadu, ensí of Susa, beloved hero of
Inshushinak, son of Tan-Ruhurater, to Kuk-Simut the scribe, to
his beloved servant, has given [this seal]” (MDP 43: 1677
[2454])
seal inscription: “Idadu, ensí of Susa, Kuk-Inshushinak,
messenger, [is] his servant” (MDP 43: 1678 [2455]
seal inscription: “Shurimku the doctor, [son of] Puzur-Ishtar,
[servant of] Idadu” (MDP 43: 2325 [2442]).
11. Idaddu-napir ↔ Sumuabum of Babylon – a seal used on a tablet from Susa
dated to the reign of Sumuabum was also used on another Susa
text mentioning Idaddu-napir (Potts 1999: 146)
12. Idaddu-temti
Table 2.2. The ‘Shimashki’ Dynasty with associations with Mesopotamian Kings and
inscription and textual references. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of
one or more ‘Dated Seal(s)’ (see Chapters 3 and 7). Note that for the seal impressions
naming Ebarti and Idaddu, except in instances where filiation is made clear, it is uncertain
whether the first or second of that name is intended. Identification (that is placement in the
current table) is according to Potts 1999: 147 – 148, though may be subject to alteration in
the subsequent ‘Dated Seal’ discussion (Chapter 7). Information sourced primarily from
Potts 1999, André-Salvini 1992 and Carter & Stolper 1984.
As evidenced by Table 2.2, the later Shimashkian kings, from Kindattu on, are
also known from other external (that is, not ‘Shimashki Dynasty List’) sources,
allowing for their order of succession and in some cases filiation, to be hypothesised
(Potts 1999: 144 – 149; Steinkeller 2007). The multiplicity of terms used, and areas of
sovereignty claimed by these kings, as demonstrated by their inscriptions (king
[lugal], governor [ensí], viceroy (?) [GÌR.NÍTA], of Elam, the SU-people, Anshan,
and Susa), not to mention the inclusion of these ‘kings’ (excluding Imazu) on a
Shimashki Dynasty List, demonstrates either (or perhaps both) a fragmented and ill-
defined political structure, and a somewhat ad hoc approach to terms used for
different purposes in different circumstances (Potts 1999: 146 – 149). Be that as it
may, a general picture of an authority and control exerted by a succession of ‘kings’

(associated with the, as yet wholly unidentified [Potts 1999: 139 – 149] region,
Shimashki) over a large area including, importantly for this study, Susa, Anshan and
Elam during a period following the fall of the Ur III dynasty can be created. The end
of the Shimashki period is associated with the beginning of the following, Sukkalmah
period, and will be discussed in the following section.
In conclusion, the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period can be divided into two
phases, the first phase saw Susa governed by an installed governor or representative
of the reigning Ur III kings, and wider Elam (through to Tal-i Malyan/Anshan)
involved in a complex pattern of vassalage and tribute, raiding and hostility and
‘diplomatic’ marriages. The second phase follows the fall of the Ur III dynasty, an
event directly precipitated by the ‘king’ of Shimashki (and Elam), Kindattu. A
confederation, of unknown structure and strength, of various ‘eastern’ polities
previously hostile or subject to the Ur III Empire, including the areas of Susa, Elam,
Anshan and Shimashki was subsequently ruled by a succession of ‘kings’ who
displayed various titular titles. The ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period is conventionally
dated c.2100 – 1940 BC, and is represented in this study at Susa, Kamtarlan II,
Chigha Sabz, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan, and later Early
Kaftari Tal-i Malyan.
2.1.6 Sukkalmah
Unlike the preceding two periods (the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ and ‘Ur III and
Shimashki’ periods), the Sukkalmah period is not defined at its upper limit by the
invasion and subjection to a foreign (Mesopotamian) ruler. Rather, the Sukkalmah
period is characterised by a local, or indigenous ‘Iranian dynasty’, that would
eventually raise the prestige and influence of Elam throughout the entire West Asian
region (indeed, beyond the southern Mesopotamian field regularly cited here, to
Assyria, the Syrian lands of Mari and beyond) to unprecedented levels (Potts 1999:
160).
The Sukkalmah period is generally defined here c.1930 – 1500 BC (Potts
1999: 187), though, possibly due to the lack of Mesopotamian intervention, both the
upper and lower extent of this span are shrouded in uncertainty and a certain fluidity
between the preceding and proceeding periods exists. The term sukkalmah, from
whence is derived the name of this period, is already a term of some antiquity in the
cuneiform world by the early second millennium BC flourishing of the Sukkalmah

Dynasty (Potts 1999: 159 – 160). First encountered at pre-Akkadian (Early Dynastic)
Girsu (Hallo 1957: 113), the term continued to be used throughout history, including
in the Ur III period at Lagash (Potts 1999: 160), to refer to a ‘prime minister’/‘chief
vizier’, governor or other authority figure (though never, before Elam, to the highest
ranking official) (Potts 1999: 160). The precise mechanism whereby the term
sukkalmah came to refer to the supreme ruler of the ‘Elamite’ state of the early second
millennium, attended by several junior sukkals and lugals, is unknown (Potts 1999:
160). Though an analogy of this etymology may possibly be found in the evolution of
Latin ‘Caesar’ (a family name, referring, perhaps ironically, to a ‘hairy’ individual,
that eventually was synonymous with ‘emperor’) to German ‘Kaiser’.
As demonstrated by Table 2.3, Kuk-Kirmash was the first ‘king’ to call
himself sukkalmah (or more correctly, the first king for whom we have inscriptional
evidence for doing so), while his predecessor, Shilhaha, was the first to be so called
(Potts 1999: 162). Shilhaha himself is identified as the “chosen son of Ebart”,
identified with Ebarti II, an individual already encountered on the above discussed
‘Shimashki Dynasty List’ (see Table 2.2) (Potts 1999: 162). Whether Ebarti (II) can
be considered a sukkalmah (as later named, and testified to in the modern literature by
the sometimes cited alternate name of this dynasty ‘Epartid’ [Vallat 1994; 1995]) or a
king of Shimashki, or perhaps both, and thus the transitional figure between the two
political structures, is unknown at this point (Potts 1999: 162), and indeed compounds
and adds to the generally clouded and fragmented picture (as preserved for us in the
available textual sources) of the final Shimashkian, initial Sukkalmah period.
Sukkalmah Other officers Mesopotamian King Association

Ebarti II ↔ Shu-ilishu
“king (lugal) of Anshan and Susa”
Shilhaha ↔ Sumuel of Larsa, textually doubtful, (Carter &
Stolper 1984: 26)
chosen son of Ebarat
king (lugal)
sukkalmah, adda-lugal of Anshan and Susa
Pala-ishshan*
Lankuku
Kuku-sanit
Kuk-Kirmash ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha
son of Lankuku
sukkal of Elam, Shimashki and Susa
sukkalmah
Tem-sunit
Kuk-Nahundi

Kuk-Nashur I ↔ Gungunum (Vallat 1994)
son of Shilhaha
sukkalmah
Atta-hushu* ↔ Gungunum of Larsa – text from Susa dated
Gungunum 16 (Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al.
1998; Vallat 1996a: 310 – 311)
↔ Sumuabum of Babylon – text from Susa dated
Sumuabum 1 (Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al.
1998; Vallat 1996a: 310 – 311; Vallat 1994)
‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha
sukkal and ippir of Susa
shepherd of the people of Susa
shepherd of Inshushinak
he who holds the … of Susa
Tetep-mada* ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha
Shiruk-tuh ↔ Zambiya of Isin (Gasche et al. 1998; Vallat
1996a: 313 – 314)
↔ Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria- letter to Shamshi-
Adad (Shamshi-Adad 28?) reporting on the
activities of Shuruktuh (Shiruk-tuh), king of
Elam (Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999:
168; Gasche et al. 1998; Læssøe 1965; Vallat
1994)
‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha
Simut-wartash I son (?) of Shiruk-tuh
Siwe-palar-huppak ↔ Hammurabi of Babylon – texts from Mari name
Sheplarpak (Siwe-palar-huppak) “king of
Elam”, “sukkal of Elam” (Carter & Stolper
1984: 26, 29; Potts 1999: 169 – 171; Gasche et
al. 1998; Durand 1986: 111 – 115; Vallat 2000)
‘sister’s son of’ Shiruk-tuh
sukkal of Susa
prince of Elam
Kudu-zulush I ↔ Hammurabi of Babylon – texts from Mari name
Kudusulush (Kudu-zulush) (Carter & Stolper
1984: 26, 29)
↔ Zimri-Lim of Mari (Gasche et al. 1998; Durand
1986: 121)
‘sister’s son of’ Shiruktuh
sukkal of Susa
sukkalmah
Kutir-Nahhunte I son (?) of Kudu-zulush
Atta-mett-halki
Tata*(?) sukkal
Lila-irtash
Temti-Agun ‘sister’s son of’ Shiruktuh
sukkal of Susa
Kutir-Silhaha sukkal
sukkalmah

Kuk-Nashur II* ↔ Ammisaduqa of Babylon – text from Dilbat
recording a land grant made by Kuk-Nashur,
dated Ammi-saduqa I (Carter & Stolper 1984:
26; Potts 1999: 171; Gasche et al. 1998; Vallat
2000; Vallat 1994)
‘sister’s son of’ Temti-Agun
sukkal of Susa
sukkal of Elam
Temti-raptash
Simut-wartash II
Kudu-zulush II king of Susa
Shirtuh ‘sister’s son of’ Kuk-Nashur
king of Susa
Kuk-Nashur III ‘sister’s son of Shilhaha
sukkal of Elam
sukkalmah
Tan-Uli ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha
sukkal
sukkalmah
Temti-halki ‘sister’s son of’ Shilhaha
sukkalmah
Kuk-Nashur IV ‘sister’s son of’ Tan-Uli
sukkalmah
Table 2.3. Proposed (tentative) order of succession of the ‘Sukkalmah’ Dynasty, with royal
titles and Mesopotamian associations. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence
of one or more ‘Dated Seal(s)’ (see Chapters 4 and 7). Table after Potts 1999: Table 6.1, with
additions and alterations.
In the absence of an indigenous (or indeed non-indigenous, or Mesopotamian)

dynastic list or other such source (as flawed as the Awanite, Shimashki, and the
following Middle Elamite sources may be, their evidence in this regard is helpful), the
general order and succussion of the sukkalmahs is open for debate. A survey of
proposed order of successions is thus presented in Table 2.4. The final, though
tentative, order employed here is demonstrated in Table 2.3. As illustrated by this
table (2.3), the variety of royal terms (lugal, ‘chosen son’, sukkalmah, sukkal, ‘sister’s
son’, ippir) and areas of claimed sovereignty (Elam, Anshan, Susa, Shimashki) further
confuses the discussion of the order of succession (Potts 1999:160 – 166).
Two unique facets of the Sukkalmah ‘state’, as limited as the current evidence
is, are owed further remarks. The first is the proposed political structure of the
Sukkalmah realm, formed by a kind of governing triumvirate. The senior, or
paramount, ruler of this structure appears to be the sukkalmah, with the second in
command sukkal (‘minister’) of Elam (and Shimashki), and thirdly (and most lowly),

the sukkal of Susa (Potts 1999: 162; Cameron 1936: 71 – 85). Upon the death of the
sukkalmah, the junior members of the triumvirate are supposedly elevated a rank in
the structure, with the next most senior member of the royal family promoted to
sukkal of Susa (Potts 1999: 162 – 163). The precise familial relationship (or lack
thereof) between the sukkalmah and his sukkals, and the criteria for admittance to the
‘Triumvirate’ (whether the sons or nephews, uncles or fathers were considered ‘heirs’
to various offices), is currently unknown (Potts 1999: 160 – 166). This structure is
assumed on the basis of the association of junior officials (sukkals), with a supreme
ruler (sukkalmah) in numerous texts and inscriptions from the Sukkalmah period
(Potts 1999: 162 – 163; Table 2.3).
The second unique Sukkalmah phenomenon is related to the first as it impacts
upon the question of succession, and is that of the ruhushak, conventionally translated
‘sister’s son’ (Potts 1999: 162). There is some debate as to whether this term refers to
an actual offspring of an incestuous brother-sister relationship, or is a conventional
term, perhaps ancestral of earlier incestuous practices, to imply legitimate, or ‘true’
son, or represents an adopted younger brother, or possibly an adopted nephew, or the
son of a married couple (genetically related or otherwise), or to a descendant, either
close or distant, or to refer to the chosen (through whatever means) heir to the throne
(Potts 1999: 166; Cameron 1936: 61; Lambert 1971: 217; Vallat 1989a; 1994; 1995:
1028 – 1029; 1996b: 300 – 301; Yusifov 1974: 328). All such suggestions are indeed
possible, and it seems probable that the term may have evolved over the time of its
use, perhaps originally employed to refer to an actual genetic descent as with Kuk-
Kirmash (whether from a married brother-sister, or a couple who where so named out
of deference to a relationship not currently recognised), but eventually employed as a
tool for claiming legitimacy and association with an established dynasty, as with the
later sukkalmahs who similarly claimed to be the ‘sister’s son of Shilhaha’ (Kudu-
zulush II, Kuk-Nashur III, Tan-Uli and Temti-halki), a sovereign who reigned many
generations before (as demonstrated by Table 2.3). The existence of this term should
be noted however, and the resultant added difficulty in discerning the order of
succession of the sukkalmahs acknowledged.

Vallat 1994 & 2000 Potts 1999 Carter & Stolper 1984 Glassner 1994
Ebarat (II) Ebarat II Ebarat Ebarat
Silhaha Silhaha Shilhaha Shilhaha
Pala-ishshan Pala-ishshan Addahushu
Ebarat (II) Ebarat II Shiruktuh Siruk-duh
Silhaha Silhaha Shimuktuh
Siwepalarhuhpak Siwe-palar-huhpak
Kuduzulush Kudu-zulush
Pala-ishshan Pala-ishshan Kuk-Nashur Temti-agaun
Lankuku Kuk-Nashur I
Kuk-sanit Kuku-sanit Kutir-Nahhunte I
Kuk-Kirmash
Kuk-Kirmash
Tem-sanit
Kuk-Nahundi Tem-sunit
Kuk-Nashur (I) Kuk-Nahundi
Kuk-Nashur I
Atta-hushu
Tetep-mada Atta-hushu
Siruk-tuh
Simut-wartush (I)
Siwe-palar-huppak
Tetep-mada
Kudu-zulush (I) Shirukt-tuh
Simut-wartash I
Siwe-palar-huppak
Kutir-Nahhunte (I)
Atta-merra-halki
Tata Kudu-zulush I
Lila-irtash
Temti-Agun Kutir-Nahhunte I
Atta-merra-halki
Kutir-Silhaha Tata
Kuk-Nashur (II) Lila-irtash
Temti-raptash
Simut-wartash (II) Kutir-Shilhaha
Kudu-zulush (II)
Sirtuh Kuk-Nashur II
Tan-Uli
Temti-halki Temti-raptash
Simut-wartash II
Kudu-zulush II
Kuk-Nashur (III) Sirtuh
Kuk-Nashur III
[x]-matlat
Tan-Uli
Temti-halki
Kuk-Nashur IV
Table 2.4. Comparative table of previous proposed orders of succession of the Sukkalmah
Dynasty.

Like its beginning, the end of the Sukkalmah period appears not with a bang
of Mesopotamian invasion or war, but rather with a transitional period resulting from
(or resultant of) a kingly titular change (Potts 1999: 189). The change from the
sukkalmah to ‘King of Susa and Anshan’ (and thus the Middle Elamite period), will
be discussed below.
As already alluded to above, and as demonstrated by Table 2.3, the
interactions between Sukkalmah Elam and Mesopotamia continued throughout the
Sukkalmah period (Potts 1999: 166 – 171). Of particular interest is the fact that these
interactions followed somewhat of a different pattern to those of previous periods.
Whereas previously (the Akkadian, Ur III and the Gungunum interregnum) we have
seen ‘warfare’ within the Elamite realm and the conquest of Susa and
destruction/raiding of Iranian regions, the Sukkalmah period Elamite – Mesopotamian
interactions occurred not within Elam, but on Mesopotamian soil, and at times with
the Elamite sukkalmah as chief power and king in several coalitions (Potts 1999: 168
– 169). Thus the coalitions of a sukkalmah (probably Shiruk-tuh) and Zambija of Isin
against Sin-iqisham of Larsa, or that of Zimri-Lim of Mari, Hammurabi of Babylon
and a sukkalmah (possibly Siwe-palar-huppak or Kudu-zulush I) against the Assyrians
(Potts 1999: 168 – 169). While generally short-lived, and ending in ultimate betrayal
and a return to patterns of war and raids, the evidence we have for these alliances
demonstrate that the ruling sukkalmah was the senior partner whose allies called
themselves his ‘sons’, while referring to one another only as ‘brothers’ (Potts 1999:
169 – 171). The status of the sukkalmah even allowed him to play the role of arbiter
of disputes between Syrian kings (between the rulers of Qatna and Aleppo), and
demand non-aggression towards his interests (thus Hammurabi) and association with
possible rivals (thus Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim, Ishme-Dagan of Assyria) (Potts 1999:
168 – 169). The cause for the respect and strength of the sukkalmah of Elam was
perhaps partly due to memory of the destruction of Ur by the Shimashkians, but also
to the wealth and power of Elam associated with the control of the important tin (and
to a lesser extent lapis lazuli) trade from beyond Elam (Afghanistan/Bactria) (Potts
1999: 178 – 182), and no doubt to the basic fact of Elamite/Iranian military power and
the size of the army controlled by the sukkalmah (Potts 1999: 169).
The different pattern of interaction is also testified to by the period following
the breakdown of these alliances. For after the ultimate defeat of Sukkalmah Elam in
battle at the hands of its former allies, Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim (who inturn

eventually turned upon each other), Susa, and Elam generally, was not conquered or
occupied as in times past, but continued to assert its independence within the Iranian
sphere, and have, albeit less frequent, interactions with Mesopotamia (Potts 1999:
171).
In summary, the Sukkalmah period begins with a change of kingly titulature,
possibly associated with the foundation of a new dynasty (Potts 1999: 160), or the
seizure of power by lowland Elamites/Susians, from the Shimashkian dominance of
the preceding phase, and the establishment of a three-tiered political power-structure,
with a supreme sukkalmah and two junior sukkals. The precise structure and
functioning of this system is currently uncertain, as indeed is the pattern and ordering
of succession. However, the Sukkalmah period was one of relative stability within
Elam, with a long succession of kings claiming joint ancestry (whether ancient
actualities or rhetorical devices of usurpers is moot) ruling the general Elamite realm.
For a time the sukkalmahs of Elam were owed much respect from their western
neighbours, and the general pattern of interaction between Elam and Mesopotamia
switched from the Elamite theatre, to that of Mesopotamia. Apart from the brief
interregnum of Gungunum of Larsa (c.1932 – 1906 BC) at, at least, Susa, Elam
maintained its independence from Mesopotamia throughout the entire Sukkalmah
period (here defined 1930 – 1500 BC; thus roughly contemporary to the Old
Babylonian period of Mesopotamia, both the earlier Isin-Larsa and later First Dynasty
of Babylon phases). In this study Sukkalmah period occupation is encountered at
Susa, Chogha Mish, possibly (as argued here, see below for details) Haft Tepe, Tepe
Sharafabad, Kamtarlan II, Chigha Sabz, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi,
Tepe Giyan, Chogha Gavaneh and Middle and Late Kaftari Tal-i Malyan.
2.1.7 Middle Elamite Period

The final period under study is the Middle Elamite period, that follows directly on
from the preceding Sukkalmah period. This period is here dated from c.1500 – 1000
BC (Potts 1999: 188), and thus spans the second half of the second millennium BC,
broadly contemporary with Kassite (Dynasty) Babylonia. The Middle Elamite period
is generally divided into three sub-phases, known as Middle Elamite I (ME I), Middle
Elamite II (ME II) and Middle Elamite III (ME III) (Potts 1999: 188, 191; Vallat
1994; 1995: 1026), a fourth Middle Elamite sub-phase (Middle Elamite IV [ME IV])
is also proposed here, as will be discussed below. The ceramic and other

archaeological assemblages currently lack the refinement necessary to create these
sub-divisions and as such the ME I – III paradigm is based upon broad lines of
dynastic succession (Potts 1999: 191, 195), like the previously outlined chronological
periods (Awanite, Shimashkian, Sukkalmah). Thus this division is primarily
historical, and not archaeological.
The general chronological outline for this period, including the I – III/IV
division, is largely provisional, for as noted above, the divisions are articulated
according to dynastic changes, which are themselves somewhat uncertain and
fragmentary, and as such are subject to reassessment and alteration according to any
subsequent discoveries (indeed, a circumstance which aptly describes all
historical/archaeological reconstructions to greater and lesser degrees). A general lack
of radiocarbon dating and ceramic periodisation for this period ensures this current
reliance on historical divisions. This problem is further confounded by the fact that
the Middle Elamite historical sources are intrinsically linked to correlations with the
historical tradition from neighbouring Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 188ff.; Vallat 1994).
While, as already seen, this is a similar situation to that of previous periods (the
‘Akkadian and Awan’, ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ and ‘Sukkalmah’ periods particularly),
the chronology for this period in Babylonian history is itself, however, one of the
most uncertain in Mesopotamian history and is still fluid and un-codified
(Sommerfield 1995: 919; Brinkman 1970: 307). Indeed, much of the Babylonian
chronology for this period is reliant upon calculated comparisons with Assyrian
chronology (Brinkman 1976: 6). This has lead Brinkman to state that “Babylonian
chronology, in its present state of uncertainty, is not a reliable standard against which
to measure other chronologies of the late second millennium” (1970: 307). Despite
this ominous warning, the absolute Middle Elamite chronology depends on
synchronisms with this unreliable Babylonian chronology (Potts 1999: 206ff.; Steve
& Vallat 1989). Meaning that uncertain Babylonian dates, themselves based upon
Assyrian correlations, form the basis of Elamite chronology, the inherent faults and
dangers of which are obvious. This reliance on Babylonian chronology is a symptom
of necessity, not choice, and while the realities of what can and cannot be proven
from this, its shortcomings and dangers must be acknowledged, the system must be
used for what it can tell us.
The general definition of the Middle Elamite period, and the one adhered to
here, is that this term refers to the period of the Kingdom (Empire?) of the kings of

‘Anshan (Anzan) and Susa’ (in Elamite; in Akkadian the order is usually reversed to
king of ‘Susa and Anshan’, possibly in an attempt to pander to different ethnic
sections of the community) (Potts 1999: 188; Steve et al. 1980: 91; Amiet 1966: 335).
Thus a king with a titulature ‘King of Anshan and Susa’ is generally placed in the
Middle Elamite period (the exception being the remarkable Eparti (II), already
detailed above, who, as well as being the ‘founder’ of the Sukkalmah dynasty, and a
‘king of Shimashki’, also bore the title ‘King of Susa and Anshan’ [Steve et al. 1980:
91 – 92; Amiet 1992a: 85; Potts 1999: 193]). Thus even the definition and cut-off
point for the Middle Elamite period is an historically documented event (the change in
titulature) and not an archaeologically recognisable occurrence (such as a stratigraphic
break or significant change in material culture).
The term ‘Middle Elamite’ is employed here as part of a (standard
archaeological) tripartite system, Old Elamite, Middle Elamite and Neo-Elamite. For
reasons already outlined, the Neo-Elamite period (generally contemporary with the,
later, Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian periods) is not included in this study. The
term ‘Old Elamite’ has not however, as yet, been encountered in this study, as one
might expect, as its usage has been abandoned for the more defined, articulated and
refined system adopted here. Broadly speaking, the Old Elamite period can be taken
to include the ‘Akkadian and Awan’, ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ and ‘Sukkalmah’ periods
of this study. Its use has thus been rejected because, as has been seen, there is
significant historical and, perhaps less marked, though no less significant,
archaeological differences between these periods to warrant their nomenclature
division. While one could argue for the adoption of an Old Elamite I, II and III system
to refer to these three periods, as with the system shortly outlined for the three (or
four?) Middle Elamite dynasties, this has not been employed however, as it is judged
to imply a greater continuity between the periods then is proposed (as opposed to the
strong material culture, and titular, similarity across the Middle Elamite sub-
divisions). Furthermore, in terms of Mesopotamian-Elamite interactions, an adoption
of the Old Elamite system for these three periods would confuse the discussion of this
interaction, for the Old Elamite period does not solely correlate with the Old
Babylonian period, but also the (Old) Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian periods. Thus, the
three divisions ‘Akkadian and Awan’, ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ and ‘Sukkalmah’ are
retained in favour of Old Elamite, for the sake of clarity. The Middle Elamite period,

with its traditional I, II and III, with a Middle Elamite IV here proposed, is
perpetuated here however.
2.1.7.1 Middle Elamite I

The starting date for the Middle Elamite period, and the chronological parameters of
the period generally is a subject of some confusion and disagreement in the literature,
as demonstrated by Table 2.5. The beginning dates have ranged from as early as
c.1600/1500 to as late as c.1300/1200 BC (Carter1979; Steve et al. 1980; Vallat 1994;
1995; Potts 1999; see Table 2.5). One cause of this confusion is a general lack of
synchronisms between the later phases of the Sukkalmah period and Babylonia (Potts
1999: 189), which as discussed above, is our major means of dating in the Middle
Elamite period. It is not until the ME II period that such correlations again begin (see
below). However, another cause of these varying paradigms is a lack of sources and
definition. Thus Carter’s proposal was produced before the publication of the material
from Haft Tepe and the realisation that the kings mentioned at this site possessed the
same titulature as the Igihalkids (Negahban 1991: 8; Carter & Stolper 1984: 33).
Steve (1994), based upon his analysis of the epigraphic data from the Ville
Royale level A XII at Susa, outlined the evidence for the basis of the date paradigm
adhered to here. Simply put, there is a synchronism between the Babylonian king
Ammisaduqa (1646 – 1626 BC) and one of the last sukkalmahs Kuk-Nashur II,
providing a date of around 1620 BC for this Elamite king (Potts 1999: 189; Vallat
1993; Steve 1994: 28). Following the reign of Kuk-Nashur, four sukkalmahs (Kudu-
zulush II, Tan-Uli, Temti-halki and Kuk-Nashur III, see Table 2.3) must be accounted
for before the reign of the first ‘King of Anshan and Susa’, Kidinu (Potts 1999: 189;
Steve 1994: 28; Amiet 1980b: 138). A time span from c.1620 to 1500 BC is adequate
for these last sukkalmahs and thus provides a starting date of c.1500 BC for the
Middle Elamite period (Potts 1999: 189; Steve 1994: 28), however it should be noted
that this is only a rough estimate, based upon approximations of reign lengths and so
on.

Year Carter 1979 Steve et al. Vallat 1994 & Potts 1999 Current Study
BC 1980 1995
2000
1950
1900
1850 Sukkalmah Sukkalmah
Phase Period or Sukkalmah
1800 Sukkalmah
(c.1900 – Epartide Dynasty Period
1750 Period
1600) (c.1970 – 1500) (c.1900 –
1700 (c.1900 –
1600/1500)
1650 1500)
1600
1550
1500 Transitional Epoch méso- Middle
Middle Elamite
Phase élamite I (c.1500 Elamite I
I
1450 (c.1600 – Moyen – 1400) (c.1500 –
(c.1500 – 1400)
1300) Elamite I 1400)
1400 (c.1475 –
1350 1325) Epoch méso- Middle
Middle Elamite
1300 élamite II (c.1400 Elamite II
II
– 1210) (c.1400 –
(c.1400 – 1200)
1250 1200)
Moyen dynastic break
Middle
1200 Elamite II Middle
Elamite (c.1325 – Epoch méso- Middle Elamite
1150 Elamite III
Period 1075) élamite III (1200 III
(c.1200 –
(c. 1300 – – 1100) (c.1200 – 1100)
1100)
1000)
1100 Middle
Elamite IV
1050 (c.1100 –
1000?)
1000
950
Table 2.5. Comparative table of proposed Middle Elamite and Sukkalmah periodisation.
Importantly, the sealed tablet with an impression naming Kidinu was found in
the same stratigraphic level of Susa, A XII, as the texts naming the last five
sukkalmahs (Amiet 1980b: 140), meaning that, in all likelihood, there was no time
gap of any significance between the last sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period
(Potts 1999: 189). This is further supported by Carter in her earlier studies of the
Elamite ceramic materials of the second millennium BC (1971: 93; 113), where the
era, including the last sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period down to the
foundation of the Igihalkid dynasty (then estimated to be c.1300 BC), was deemed to
be one ‘Transitional Phase’ (Carter 1971; 1979). Although, based upon the more
recently discovered and published material from Haft Tepe and Susa (discussed
below), this Transitional Phase is no longer recognised, and the foundation date for

the Middle Elamite kingdom is pushed back, the point still remains. The
archaeological evidence from Susa points to a continuum of development (Carter
1971: 113), where a departure and beginning point is essentially an arbitrary cut-off
point. Thus it is more apt to talk of an evolution to the Middle Elamite state rather
than a revolution. The arbitrary cut off point adhered to here is the return to the
ancient titulature of Eparti, ‘king of Susa and Anshan’, which is deemed significant
enough a change to warrant a new periodisation (Potts 1999: 189). It should be noted
that this return to the titulature of Eparti, ‘founder’ (?) of the Sukkalmah Dynasty, is
itself an indication of the continuum, and the evolutionary manner of this transition.
Whilst the use of the term ‘Transitional’ is rejected here, as this period is important
enough to justify more than transitional status and as this is in opposition to our above
stated definition of the Middle Elamite period, the term has some use as an indication
of the evolutionary nature of this early period of the Middle Elamite kingdom.
Table 2.6 demonstrates the kings of the Middle Elamite I dynasty, including
the proposed order of their succession adhered to here, and some alternate paradigms
suggested elsewhere. Although these kings are conventionally labelled the ‘Kidinuid’
Dynasty, both their filiation and order of succession remains extremely unclear (Potts
1999: 191; Vallat 1994: 5), with the order proposed here largely hypothetical and
tentative. Four of these kings warrant special attention here due to their importance to
the current study. These kings are Tepti-ahar, Inshushinak-shar-ilani, Shalla and
Hurbatila. The first three are important in relation to Haft Tepe, and the last in regard
to the possible Kassite contact during his reign.
Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani are both known from seal impressions
found at Haft Tepe (Amiet 1996: 139; 2912, 2934, 2982, 2984, 2985), meaning that it
can be said that Haft Tepe was occupied, at least to some extent, during the reigns of
these two kings. This point will be further outlined below in a more thorough
discussion of Haft Tepe, but it should be noted here that this is an extension of the
usually accepted duration of occupation at Haft Tepe, which is implicitly or explicitly
stated as being occupied only during the reign of Tepti-ahar (Negahban 1990: 137;
1991: 8; 1994: 31; Carter & Stolper 1984: 33; Amiet 1996: 142; Potts 1999: 206;
indeed, it is hypothesised here, that Haft Tepe was in fact occupied during some of the
Sukkalmah period, detailed further below). If Carter and Stolper (1984), Steve and
Vallat (1989) and Steve (et al. 1980) are correct in their placement of Inshushinak-
shar-ilani as the second Kidinuid king following Kidinu himself, then this suggests

that Haft Tepe was occupied for a large portion of the Middle Elamite I period. There
is however, no solid evidence for the order of succession of these kings, either at Susa
or Haft Tepe. The lack of documents naming other Middle Elamite I kings (other, that
is, from Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani) at Haft Tepe, mean that it is more
probable that one of these two kings succeeded the other, though which had the
primacy is uncertain. This is further evidenced by the assertion of Steve that the
syllabary of the bricks of Inshushinak-shar-ilani from Susa is “practically identical” to
that of the bricks of Tepti-ahar (Steve et al. 1980: 95) (despite this however, as
demonstrated in Table 2.6, Steve [et al. 1980] place Tan-Ruhurater II and Shalla
between Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani, why is uncertain). Thus in this study,
Inshushinak-shar-ilani is placed immediately after Tepti-ahar in time (though there is
no reason why this order cannot be reversed).
A text from Haft Tepe provides evidence for a possible Mesopotamian-
Elamite interaction during the reign of Tepti-ahar, and therefore a mechanism
whereby a date for Tepti-ahar, and perhaps thereby the whole Kidinuid dynasty, may
be hypothesised. A tablet from Haft Tepe (H. T. 38; Herrero 1976: 102 – 103, no.6)
bears both the seal impression of Tepti-ahar and the date formula “Year in which the
king repulsed/expelled Kadashman-dKUR.GAL” (Cole & De Meyer 1999; Potts
1999: 192 – 193). The identification of the deity <dKUR.GAL>, and thus the name
and identification of the figure (presumably a king or individual of similar stature to
warrant a year name formula creation [sic Cole & De Meyer 1999: 44]) has been the
subject of some debate (Potts 1999: 192 – 193; Brinkman 1976: 144 – 145; Steve et
al. 1980: 97; Seidl 1990: 130; Amiet 1996: 135; Glassner 1991: 119; Cole & De
Meyer 1999). Originally identified as Enlil, thereby allowing for the identification of
this individual as Kadashman-Enlil I (or the less chronologically likely due to later,
more concrete Mesopotamian-Elamite synchronisms, Kadashman-Enlil II) (Herrero
1976: 102 – 103), the <dKUR.GAL> = Enlil association has been questioned by
Brinkman however (1976: 114 – 145), who has shown that <dKUR.GAL> more
consistently refers to the god Amurru in Kassite texts. Following this (and the
“suspicious” absence of a kingly title for Kadashman-dKUR.GAL [sic Potts 1999:
193; contra Cole & De Meyer 1999]) the Kadashman-dKUR.GAL – Tepti-ahar
correlation has generally been rejected (Potts 1999: 192 – 193; Brinkman 1976: 144 –
145; Steve et al. 1980: 97; Seidl 1990: 130), though neither universally nor
completely (Amiet 1996: 135; Glassner 1991: 119; Cole & De Meyer 1999).

However, it has more recently been noted by Cole and De Meyer that <dKUR.GAL>
in Kassite period texts may in fact refer to the Kassite god <Harbe> (Cole & De
Meyer 1999: 45; following Balkan 1954). If this association is accepted, the Kassite
king (if we accept the kingly identification) whom Tepti-ahar “repulsed” may have
been Kadashman-Harbe (again presumably the first of this name, as the latter is
disallowed by the later, more concrete Kassite – Elamite associations) (Cole & De
Meyer 1999: 45). The identification of Tepti-ahar’s foe with either of these two kings
(Kadashman-Enlil I or Kadashman-Harbe I) is chronologically plausible, though the
Kadashman-Harbe synchronism is perhaps more acceptable. The third option, that a
Kassite king is not intended in the year formula, and so this identity should not be sort
in the Kassite Dynasty, is also of course, a possibility. Which of these identifications
is accepted is dependent on associations between other Middle Elamite I kings and
Kassites, and the general interpretation of the structure of the period as a whole, and
so will be returned to following the annunciation of these factors.
An equally vexing problem is centred on the king Shalla. This man is
sometimes labelled ‘a king without title’, as no extant text giving this individual a
titulature is known (Steve et al. 1980: 96; Potts 1999: 192). Shalla is regarded as a
king however due to texts that invoke him in a formulaic oath, typical of kingship
(Glassner 1991: 117; Potts 1999: 192; Steve et al. 1980: 96). This places Shalla in a
position akin to that of Tepti-ahar before the discoveries at Haft Tepe (Steve et al.
1980: 96), and so it is more than possible that it is an accident of discovery only that
limits our knowledge of this king. Shalla is chiefly known from a series of texts
known as the ‘Malamir Texts’ (Potts 1999: 192; Glassner 1991: 117; Steve et al.
1980: 96; Stolper 1987-90: 280). The exact provenance of these tablets is uncertain,
though there is a suggestion that they originated from Haft Tepe (see below), as one
of them mentions Tepti-ahar and they contain similar epigraphic details to texts from
this site (Stolper 1987-90: 280; Reiner 1963: 169 – 174). If this is correct then it can
be said that Haft Tepe was also occupied during the reign of Shalla. Glassner’s
‘Huhnur hypothesis’ states that the ‘Malamir Texts’ originated not from Malamir nor
Haft Tepe, but another, as yet unidentified ‘Elamite’ region/town ‘Huhnur (Glassner
1991: 118). It has been suggested that Huhnur be placed near Arjan (Duchene 1986),
though this is currently little more than a hypothetical reconstruction. If the ‘Malamir
texts’ did in fact originate from the entity known as ‘Huhnur’, then Shalla may be
identified as the petty king or authority (governor?) of this region/town, possibly

during the reign of Tepti-ahar, thus his association with this king in these texts. In
light of the lack of any concrete information regarding the identity or location of the
town (?) ‘Huhnur’ it seems most prudent to accept this reconstruction as mere
conjecture at the moment, and rather see Shalla as a king who reigned at some point
in the fragmented, less powerful Middle Elamite I period. If the ‘Huhnur hypothesis’
is thus rejected, there is no real evidence for where in the Middle Elamite I period
Shalla’s reign should be placed, but, due to his apparent ties with Tepti-ahar, Shalla is
placed immediately before him, if it is accepted that he reigned as a king. If not then
the ‘governorship’ (or perhaps period of Shalla’s competition or rivalry with Tepti-
ahar) should be placed concurrently with the reign of Tepti-ahar.
Carter & Vallat 2000 Steve et al. Potts 1999 Current Study
Stolper 1984 1980
Kidinu Kidinu Kidinu Kidinu Kidinu – ancestry uncertain;
seal impression on tablet from
Susa (Acropole A12): “Kidinu,
king of Susa and Anzan, son of
Adad-šarru-rabu, servant of his
god, Kirwašir” (2867)
Inshushinak- Tan- Inshushinak- Tan- Tan-Ruhurater II – ancestry
shar-ilani Ruhuratir II shar-ilani Ruhurater II uncertain; cylinder seal in
private collection “King of Susa
and Anzan” (Porada 1982)
Tan- Shalla Tan-Ruhuratir Shalla ?Shalla? – ancestry uncertain;
Ruhuratir II II fifteen ‘Malamir’ texts, name
used in oath formula, no kingly
title
Tepti-ahar Inshushinak- Shall Inshushinak- Tepti-ahar – ancestry
sunkir- shar-ilani uncertain; inscribed bricks from
nappipir Susa; 55 tablets from Haft
Tepe; seal impressions from
Haft Tepe “King of Susa and
Anzan, servant of Kirwasir and
Inshushinak” (2912, 2982,
2984, 2985)
Hurbatila Tepti-ahar Tepti-ahar Tepti-ahar Inshushinak-shar-ilani –
ancestry uncertain; inscribed
bricks from Susa; seal
impressions from Haft Tepe
“Adad-eris, chief of the
horseman, servant of
Inshushinak-shar-ilani, servant
of Adad” (2934)
– – Hurbatila – ?Hurbatila? – ancestry
uncertain; Chronicle P defeated
by Kassite Kurigalzu I or II?
Table 2.6. The Middle Elamite I ‘Kidinuid’ Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here
adopted, and a sample of previous proposals.

Another king that warrants some discussion is an individual known as
Hurbatila (or Hurpatila). This individual is only known from the Babylonian
Chronicle P, where he is called the ‘king of Elammat’, taken by some to mean Elam
(Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; Vallat 1995: 1027; Steve et al. 1980: 100). Hurbatila
featured prominently in the earlier studies of Elamite history (Labat 1975b: 381;
Cameron 1936: 96; Carter 1971: 45; Amiet 1966: 580; Brinkman 1976: 207), but has
gradually been ignored in the scholarly literature, as our knowledge of the Middle
Elamite period becomes better understood (Potts 1999; Vallat 1994; 1995). The
justification for this appears to be a lack of native Elamite sources mentioning this
king, and the absence of space in the later Middle Elamite order of succession for this
king to reign, if the association is made between Hurbatila and Kurigalzu II (Gassan
1989; note however that this is not a problem if the association is made with
Kurigalzu I). While this is significant, there is external and circumstantial evidence
that Hurbatila was a king, and for these reasons he is mentioned here, albeit with a
due amount of caution. In Chronicle P it is stated that Hurbatila fought the Kassite
king of Babylonia, Kurigalzu (Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; Vallat 1995: 1027; Steve et
al. 1980: 100; Harper et al. 1992: 153). Several inscribed objects naming Kurigalzu
have been found at Susa, and have been interpreted as objects devoted in thanks by
this conquering king (Harper et al. 1992: 153; Carter & Stolper 1984: 35). It is also
possible however that these objects where brought to Susa along with the rest of the
Mesopotamian booty following the conquests of the later Middle Elamite kings (see
below) (Harper et al. 1992: 153; Potts 1999: 233-36). Thus the evidence for the
existence of Hurbatila is scanty, but as Chronicle P is a generally reliable source
(indeed one that is trusted and employed for other historical points of reference in the
Middle Elamite period, such as the battles between later Middle Elamite kings and
Kassite rulers), it is more than possible that Hurbatila existed. Another objection to
the Hurbatila-Kurigalzu synchronism is not this king’s existence, but the association
of ‘Elammat’ with Elam (Gassan 1989). Lacking the requisite philological expertise,
and any further information on the location of Elammat (if not identified as Elam
itself), little of substance may be added to this debate here, though this rejection
should be noted. However, if Elammat may be considered a neighbouring or nearby
(to Elam proper) region, then it may be possible to identify Hurbatila not as a king of
Elam, but as a petty king, who, along with others in the confused ME I period
(including Shalla at Huhnur, and perhaps Tepti-ahar at Haft Tepe) were rivals and

competitors for wider political control of the region (returned to below). In this
regard, the inclusion of Hurbatila amongst the ME I kings (who, it must be
remembered, never formed a true dynasty, and probably never controlled a unified
‘Elam’ [or even Khuzistan]) is legitimate.
If the Hurbatila – Kurigalzu incident did occur, it may provide the first Kassite
– Middle Elamite correlation (this, and other correlations are listed in Table 2.7, a full
list of the Middle Elamite kings and Mesopotamian correlations), and as such is useful
for cross-dating purposes generally. There were two Kassite kings known as
Kurigalzu, the first, Kurigalzu son of Kadashman-Harbe I, reigned around 1390 –
1375 BC and the second, Kurigalzu son of Burnaburiash II, reigned around 1332 –
1308 BC (Brinkman 1976: 205 – 207; Nijhowne 1999). Brinkman, and others, assign
the events of Chronicle P to Kurigalzu II (1976: 205 – 207). However, this would
mean that Hurbatila was king of Elam sometime around the reign of Untash-Napirisha
or his immediate successors, a period that is better documented than Middle Elamite I,
and which leaves no room for the insertion of Hurbatila. However, a synchronism
between Kurigalzu I and Hurbatila fits our current schema much better (Vallat 1995:
1027). It is known that the later Middle Elamite king, Pahir-ishshan married a sister or
daughter of the first Kurigalzu (Steve & Vallat 1989: 226, 234; Steve 1991: 6; Potts
1991: 207; van Dijk 1986: 163), but this does not lesson the possibility of the
Hurbatila/Kurigalzu I correlation. A possible sequence of events is that Kurigalzu I
fought and defeated Hurbatila (the length of whose reign is uncertain). The first king
of the ME II period, Igi-halki, rose to the throne in the ensuing power vacuum, a
possibility given his rhetoric which justifies his kingship on the basis of divine favour
(that is, he was a usurper) (Potts 1999: 206). This rise may not have been in the form
of vassalage, but may have at least had the support of the Kassite king, a tie that was
cemented by the giving of the sister (or daughter) of Kurigalzu in marriage to the
crown prince, Pahir-ishshan, son of Igi-halki. This description both places Hurbatila
in time, and also explains the origins of the close ties between Kassite Mesopotamia
and Middle Elamite Elam in the Middle Elamite II and III periods (see below).
However, this reconstruction requires that Brinkman’s assessment of Chronicle P be
rejected; a position that the author is hesitant to accept, especially in light of the lack
of expertise in the cuneiform sources. Thus the position of Hurbatila, and his role in
ushering in the age of Kassite – Middle Elamite contact is an attractive, but extremely
provisional, hypothesis that is yet to be proven in any way.

Following this outline, we must now return to the question of the possible
Kassite correlation with Tepti-ahar. If the most recent identification of this Kassite
king with Kadashman-Harbe (I) is accepted, the order of succession here proposed
may be taken as fairly secure. Thus in this rubric, Tepti-ahar engaged in battle (?)
with Kadashman-Harbe (I), was succeeded to the throne of Elam by Inshushinak-shar-
ilani, who in turn was succeeded Hurbatila, who was himself defeated by Kurigalzu
(I, the son of Kadashman-Harbe I). In the ensuing power vacuum, Igi-halki, perhaps
the client or ally of Kurigalzu, came to the Elamite throne and founded the Igihalkid
dynasty, with the support of the Kassite vanquisher. The daughter of Kurigalzu was
given to the son of Igi-halki, Pahir-ishshan (the future Elamite king) as a means of
cementing this alliance.
The Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-Enlil I association is more chronologically
problematic (and possibly less acceptable philologically) however. If this association
is correct, then Tepti-ahar must have been at least partially contemporaneous with Igi-
halki. This follows from the fact that Kurigalzu I, with whom there is quite certain
evidence for an association with Igi-halki (and his son, possibly as crown-prince,
Pahir-ishshan), is the father of Kadashman-Enlil I, and therefore the reign (and thus
the Igi-halki – Kurigalzu synchronism) of Kurigalzu must have preceded the reign
(and therefore the Tepti-ahar synchronism) of Kadashman-Enlil I. This reconstruction
is possible if it is accepted that Tepti-ahar was a (partial) contemporary of Igi-halki,
and that the above stated concept that the Middle Elamite I period represented a
period of political fragmentation and petty kingship, with such authorities vying for
ultimate control before the consolidation of power with a supreme king in the
Igihalkid era (ME II), is accepted. In this regard, Shalla (of Huhnur?), Tepti-ahar of
Haft Tepe, Hurbatila of ‘Elammat’ (possibly identified as ‘Elam’ or some other
unknown ‘Elamite’ region) and Igi-halki (perhaps from Susa), may all be considered
partial contemporaries, all vying for ultimate control; a prize which eventually went to
Igi-halki. In this reconstruction, the reign of Inshushinak-shar-ilani may be placed
before that of Tepti-ahar, or perhaps his name should also be added to the list of
competing authorities.
The third option, that the Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-dKUR.GAL date formula
be rejected as a Kassite synchronism on the grounds that the figure mentioned was not
a Kassite king, but merely some other, unknown political figure (an hypothesis put
forth due to the lack of direct kingly title given for this figure), could allow for a

reconstruction whereby the first Kassite – Elamite interaction is that between
Hurbatila and Kurigalzu, that directly or indirectly precipitated the rise of Igi-halki
and his dynasty, and the rough order of succession here proposed should be taken as
an accurate general picture. The question as to which of these options is more likely is
vexed, and one may vainly hope for the discovery of another piece of evidence
(perhaps the identification of Huhnur, or textual references to Shalla or Hurbatila) that
would clarify this situation. For the time being, if any Kassite – Tepti-ahar
synchronism is accepted (and there is no absolute conviction that it should be) the
Kadashman-Harbe I – Tepti-ahar synchronism is preferred, as this more comfortably
fits with the current scheme. The titular of Tepti-ahar ‘King of Susa and Anshan’
would seem to imply more than just local, challenged power, and the, even partial,
contemporaneity of this king with the equally powerful Igi-halki seems difficult to
currently fathom. Thus the first option, whereby Tepti-ahar was succeeded (either
directly or following the Inshushinak-shar-ilani interlude) by Hurbatila, who was
defeated by Kurigalzu, following which Igi-halki was installed as king, is favoured
here. Though the tentative nature of this reconstruction should be noted.
Thus the picture of the Middle Elamite I period is extremely unclear and
confused. For the most part, our knowledge of each king is limited to historical
references, inscribed bricks and/or seal impressions. Archaeologically speaking, it is
difficult to differentiate a Middle Elamite I assemblage from the preceding late
Sukkalmah period, as these belong along a continuum, that did not suffer a major
break nor disruption. Indeed, in many ways (including in the realm of glyptic art, as
will be seen below, Chapter 4), the Middle Elamite I period belongs more to the
Sukkalmah period than the Middle Elamite culture, and it can be argued that the true
beginning of the Middle Elamite period began with the era of the Igihalkids. Thus the
major break or disruption may have been the Hurbatila defeat and the Kassite
involvement in this period. However, the Middle Elamite I period is so named
because the kings of this period use the characteristic Middle Elamite titulature, one
that is quite different from that of the sukkalmahs.
It is possible therefore that the Middle Elamite I kings represent the phase of
transition between the sukkalmahs and the ‘true’ Middle Elamite kings, being a series
of unrelated rulers that ruled over a reduced Elamite Kingdom filling the power
vacuum until the advent of the Igihalkids (Potts 1999: 191). Thus, while considered
part of the Middle Elamite period, ME I is quite fragmentary, and many characteristic

elements of the Middle Elamite period are not yet apparent or are only beginning to
emerge. The descriptor ‘transitional’ does aptly describe this period therefore, though
it should not be labelled “Transitional” as previously proposed.
Middle Elamite Kings Mesopotamian King Association

Kidinuids (ME I)
Kidinu*
Shalla
Tan-Ruhurater II
Tepti-ahar* ↔ Kadashman-Enlil I/Kadashman-Harbe I (?) – date formula of a
Haft Tepe text dated “the year in which the king expelled
Kadashman-dKUR.GAL”, linked with Kadashman-Enlil I
(Carter & Stolper 1984: 34) or Kadashman-Harbe I (Cole & De
Meyer 1999)
“King of Susa and Anzan”
Inshushinak-shar-ilani*
Hurbatila ↔ Kurigalzu I – according to Chronicle P, Kurigalzu defeated
Hurbatila “king of Elammat” (Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; see
Gassan 1989 for rejections to this association)
Igihalkids (ME II)
Igi-halki ↔ Kurigalzu I (Vallat 2000)
Pahir-ishshan ↔ Kurigalzu I – according to the ‘Berlin Letter’, married a
daughter or sister of “the powerful king of Kurigalzu” (Potts
1999: 211; Gasche et al. 1998; van Dijk 1986; Steve & Vallat
1989; Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004)
Attar-kittah
Unpahash-Napirisha
Kidin-Hutran I
Humban-numena ↔ Kurigalzu I – married daughter of Kurigalzu I (Potts 1999: 207)
son of Attar-Kittah
Untash-Napirisha ↔ Burna-Buriash II – according to the ‘Berlin Letter’, married a
daughter of Burna-Buriash II (Potts 1999: 212; Gasche et al.
1998; van Dijk 1986; Steve & Vallat 1989; Vallat 2000; Vallat
1994; Goldberg 2004)
Kidin-Hutran II ↔ unknown Kassite king – married daughter of ….-duniash (Potts
1999: 207)
Napirisha-Untash
Kidin-Hutran III ↔ Enlil-nadin-shumi – according to Chronicle P, attacked and
overthrew Enlil-nadin-shumi (Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al.
1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000; Carter & Stolper
1984)
↔ Adad-shuma-iddina – according to Chronicle P, attacked Adad-
shuma-iddina (Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al. 1998; Steve &
Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000; Carter & Stolper 1984)

Shutrukids (ME III/IV)
Hallutush-Inshushinak
Shutruk-Nahhunte ↔ Meli-Shipak – according to the ‘Berlin Letter’ married a
daughter of Meli-Shihu (Meli-Shipak) (Potts 1999: 233; Gasche
et al. 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 1994; Goldberg
2004)
↔ Zababa-shuma-iddina – invaded Babylonia and overthrew
Zababa-shuma-iddina (Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al. 1998;
Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989; Carter & Stolper
1984)
Kutir-Nahhunte ↔ Enlil-nadin-ahi – invaded Babylonia and overthrew Enlil-nadin-
ahi and ended the Kassite dynasty (Potts 1999: 237; Gasche et
al. 1998; Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228;
Carter & Stolper 1984)
Shilhak-Inshushinak ↔ Ashur-dan I – (Cameron 1936: 119; Gasche et al. 1998)
Hutelutush-Inshushinak ↔ Nebuchadnezzar – according to a poem, Nebuchadnezzar
defeated Hutelutush-Inshushinak (Potts 1999: 252 – 253;
Gasche et al. 1998; Frame 1995: 33 – 35; Carter & Stolper
1984)
Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar
Humban-numena (II)
Table 2.7. Middle Elamite Dynasties proposed order of succession, with Mesopotamian
associations. Kings marked with an asterix(*) indicate the existence of one or more ‘Dated
Seal’ (see Chapters 4 and 7).
2.1.7.2 Middle Elamite II

The Middle Elamite II period is less complicated than the Middle Elamite I, thanks to
two major sources of information lacking for the preceding period. The ME II
(‘Igihalkid’) Dynasty is a dynasty in the true sense of the word, and as such the
recorded filiation of these kings enables us to more easily place them in an order of
succession (Potts 1999: 205; Vallat 1994: 5). Secondly, as alluded to above (and
demonstrated by Table 2.7), this is the period of political ties with Kassite
Mesopotamia, mostly in the form of dynastic intermarriages, that provide us with
synchronisms between the reigns of Elamite and Kassite kings. For the purpose of the
present study it is not necessary to describe in detail the succession of these kings, the
paradigm adhered to here is demonstrated in Table 2.8. However, it should be
explained that the suggestion of Potts (1999), Carter & Stolper (1984) and Steve et al.
(1980) has been followed regarding the succession of the sons of Pahir-ishshan and
Humban-numena, as this follows the order given in the inscriptions of Shilhak-
Inshushinak (Potts 1999: 205, 211), and as there appears to be no real justification
(either stated or discernable) for the change in order proposed by Vallat (1994) and
Steve & Vallat (1989).

Carter & Steve et al. Goldberg Vallat 1994; Potts Current Study
Stolper 1980 2004 Steve & 1999
1984 Vallat 1989
Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki Igi-halki – ancestry
(c.1400 – uncertain; inscriptions
1380) from Deh-i Now;
inscribed maceheads
from Choga Zanbil (as
father of Attar-kittah);
Shilhak-Inshushinak’s
inscription
Pahir- Pahir- Pahir- Pahir- Pahir- Pahir-ishshan – son of
ishshan ishshan ishshan ishshan ishshan Igi-halki; Shilhak-
(c.1380 – Inshushinak’s
1370) inscriptions; according to
the ‘Berlin Letter’
married sister or daughter
of Kurigalzu I
Attar- Attar- Attar- Attar-kittah Attar- Attar-kittah – son of
kittah kittah kittah (c.1370 – kittah Igi-halki; Shilhak-
1360) Inshushinak’s inscription
Humban- Humban- Humban- Unpahash- Humban- Humban-numena (I) -
numena numena numena Napirisha numena son of Attar-kittah;
(c.1360 – (I) inscribed bricks from
1355) Susa
Untash- Untash- Untash- Kidin- Untash- Untash-Napirisha – son
Napirisha Napirisha Napirisha Hutran I Napirisha of Humban-numena;
(c.1355 – inscriptions from Tepe
1350) Bormi, Tepe Gotward,
Chogha Pahn East, Susa
and Choga Zanbil;
according to the ‘Berlin
Letter’ married daughter
of Kassite Burnaburiash
II; Shilhak-Inshushinak
inscription
Unpahash- Unpahash- – Humban- Unpahas Unpahash-Napirisha –
Napirisha Napirisha numena h- son of Pahir-ishshan;
(c.1350 – Napirisha Shilhak-Inshushinak’s
1340) inscription
Kidin- Kiddin- Kidin- Untash- Kidin- Kidin-Hutran I – son of
Hutran Hutran Hutran Napirisha Hutran I Pahir-ishshan; Shilhak-
(c.1340 – Inshushinak’s
1300) inscriptions
– – Napirisha- Kidin- Kidin- Kidin-Hutran II – son
Untash Hutran II Hutran II of Untash-Napirisha;
(c.1300 – Shilhak-Inshushinak’s
1270) inscriptions; according to
the ‘Berlin Letter’
married daughter of …-
d.duniash

Carter & Steve et al. Goldberg Vallat 1994; Potts Current Study
Stolper 1980 2004 Steve & 1999
1984 Vallat 1989
– – – Napirisha-Napirisha Napirisha-Untash – son
Untash -Untash of Kidin-Hutra II;
(c.1270 – Shilhak-Inshushinak’s
1240) inscriptions
– – – Kidin-Hutra Kidin- Kidin-Hutran III – son
III Hutran of Napirisha-Untash(?);
(c.1240 – III Chronicle P defeat of
1210) Kassite Enlil-nadin-
shumi and Adad-shuma-
iddina
Table 2.8. The Middle Elamite II ‘Igihalkid’ Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here
There are a number of important events in the ME II period that should be

noted, and are of particular interest to the glyptic material of this period. The first is
the already mentioned contact between Kassite Babylonia and the Middle Elamite
kingdom in this period. As well as Pahir-ishshan’s marriage to a daughter (or sister)
of Kurigalzu I (c.1390 – 1375 BC) (Potts 1999: 207; Vallat 1994: 14), Untash-
Napirisha married a daughter of Burnaburiash II (c.1359 – 1333 BC) and Kidin-
Hutran II married a daughter of an uncertain Kassite king, recorded in a fragmentary
text as …- d.duniash (Potts 1999: 207, 230; Vallat 1994: 14). The Kassite contacts
were not limited to these so-called diplomatic marriages however, and towards the
end of the dynasty acquired a more bellicose nature. Thus Kidin-Hutran III, according
again to the later Babylonian text, Chronicle P, defeated two successive Kassite
rulers, reigning as puppet kings for the conquering Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta I, Enlil-
nadin-shumi (c.1224 BC) and Adad-shuma-iddina (c.1222 - 1217 BC) (Vallat 1994:
14; Potts 1999: 231). These date correlations are important as they provide dating
synchronisms and because they attest to the contact between Kassite Babylonia and
the Middle Elamite state, a contact that will manifest itself in the glyptic material of
the later (post ME I) Middle Elamite period, as will be discussed below (Chapters 4
and 7).
The other major important event in this period was the foundation of Choga
Zanbil (ancient Al Untash-Napirisha) by Untash-Napirisha, sometime around 1340
BC (Steve 1991: 6; Ghirshman 1966: 1ff.; Porada 1970: 3 – 4; Potts 1999: 220 – 223;
Steve & Vallat 1989), discussed in greater detail below. Previously, the foundation of
Choga Zanbil was placed around 1240/1260 BC (Steve 1991: 6; Ghirshman 1966: 7;

Carter 1979: 125), based primarily upon spurious Kassite synchronisms. However,
with the publication of the so-called ‘Berlin Letter’ (discussed below), the correlation
of Untash-Napirisha with Burnaburiash II seems more certain and so the foundation
date of Choga Zanbil has been pushed back. There is no doubt that Untash-Napirisha
was responsible for the foundation of Choga Zanbil, as demonstrated by the texts
found at the site (Ghirshman 1966: 1ff.; Potts 1999: 220 – 223; Steve & Vallat 1989).
2.1.7.3 Middle Elamite III

The events surrounding the end of the reign of Kidin-Hutran III and the reasons for a
dynastic change are unclear, but what is clear is that the Igihalkid dynasty ended and
the next documented (by inscribed bricks) king was Shutruk-Nahhunte, after whom
the Middle Elamite III dynasty, the ‘Shutrukid’, is known (Vallat 1995: 46; Potts
1999: 188, 231 – 232). The father of Shutruk-Nahhunte is here proposed to have
reigned before his son, as there is room in the chronology to insert his reign between
Kidin-Hutran III and Shutruk-Nahhunte, and as he is named in the building
inscriptions of Shilhak-Inshushinak (Vallat 1994: 2-5; Carer 1971: 50-51; Potts 1999:
231-32). Table 2.9 demonstrates the succession of Middle Elamite III kings.
The dynastic intermarriages continued into the ME III period, with Shutruk-
Nahhunte marrying a daughter of the Kassite Meli-Shipak (Potts 1999: 233; Vallat
1994: 2-5, 14). Shutruk-Nahhunte is believed to have been the author of the already
mentioned ‘Berlin Letter’ (so-called due to its current location) (Potts 1999: 233 –
237; Steve 1991: 6 – 7; Steve & Vallat 1989: 226 – 267; Vallat 1995: 1029 – 1030).
This is in fact a letter from an Elamite king to the Kassite court, bemoaning the
injustice of his not receiving an invitation to sit on the Babylonian throne (presumably
recently made vacant), despite being descended from royal Kassite matrilineal stock
(Potts 1999: 233 – 237). As proof of this, the author lists the dynastic marriages
between Kassite princesses and Elamite kings, and thus forms the basis for the above
synchronisms and therefore much of the dating mechanisms for the Middle Elamite
period (Potts 1999: 233 – 237; as demonstrated by Table 2.7). As a consequence of
his Kassite rejection, the author (Shutruk-Nahhunte) promises a war of retribution and
conquest (Potts 1999: 233 – 237). Good to his word, Shutruk-Nahhunte invaded
Mesopotamia, leading a campaign into Babylonia, with his son Kutir-Nahhunte II,
sacking many cities and overthrowing the Kassite king Zababa-shuma-iddina (c.1157
BC) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 40; Steve et al. 1980: 104; Potts 1999: 233 – 237). This

work was later completed by Kutir-Nahhunte, who again invaded Mesopotamia and
overthrew the last Kassite monarch, Enlil-nadin-akhi (Carter & Stolper 1984: 40;
Steve et al. 1980: 104; Potts 1999: 233 – 237). Thus Middle Elamite kings brought to
an end the Kassite dynasty that had reigned, near continually, for around 450 years
(Sommerfield 1995: 981) or 576 years according to the Babylonian Kinglist A
(Brinkman 1976: 8).
Carter & Steve et al. Glassner Vallat Potts 1999 Current Study
Stolper 1980 1994 1994;
1984 Steve &
Vallat 1989
Hallutush- Hallutush- Halludush- Hallutush- – Hallutush-
Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak –
(c.1210 – ancestry uncertain;
1190) Shilhak-
Inshushinak’s
inscriptions (as
father of Shutruk-
Nahhunte)
Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk- Shutruk-Nahhunte
Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte – son of Hallutush-
(c.1190 – Inshushinak;
1155) inscribed bricks at
Susa, Deh-i Now,
Chogha Pahn West
and Liyan; author of
the ‘Berlin Letter’,
married to daughter
of Kassite Meli-
shihu; Babylonian
sources defeat of
Kassite Zababa-
shuma-iddina;
Shilhak-
Inshushinak’s
inscription;
inscribed
Mesopotamian
booty in Susa
Kutir- Kutir- Kutir- Kutir- Kutir- Kutir-Nahhunte –
Nahhunte II Nahhunte Nahhunte Nahhunte II Nahhunte II son of Shutruk-
(c.1155 – Nahhunte; inscribed
1150) bricks at Susa,
Bushire and Deh-i
Now; Babylonian
sources defeated
Kassite Enlil-nadin-
ahhi; ended Kassite
dynasty

Carter & Steve et al. Glassner Vallat Potts 1999 Current Study
Stolper 1980 1994 1994;
1984 Steve &
Vallat 1989
Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak- Shilhak-Shilhak-
Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak
Inshushinak – son
of Shutruk-
Nahhunte;
inscriptions from
Susa, Bushire,
Chogha Pahn West
and Tul-e Spid;
author of
‘genealogical
inscriptions listing
kings who resorted
temples
Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush-
Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak – son
of Shilhak-
Inshushinak;
inscriptions at Susa
and Tal-i Malyan;
“King of Elam and
Susiana”;
Babylonian sources
defeated by
Nebuchadnezzar I of
Babylonia; possibly
escaped and
continued to region
in the highlands
(Anshan)
Table 2.9. The Middle Elamite III ‘Shutrukid’ Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here
Kutir-Nahhunte II was succeeded by his brother, Shilhak-Inshushinak, whose

long reign is often described as the apogée of (Middle) Elamite civilisation (Harper et
al. 1992: 122; Carter 1971: 50; Labat 1975b: 399; Carter & Stolper 1984: 41).
Shilhak-Inshushinak is of special importance here as the author of important building
inscriptions (Carter 1971: 54; Potts 1999: 205). These building inscriptions attached
to temples built or restored by Shilhak-Inshushinak at Susa pay homage to his
predecessors who restored the temples before him, and thus provide us with a
‘genealogical’ list of sorts (Potts 1999: 205), a useful tool in our dating procedure.
Shilhak-Inshushinak was succeeded by his son, Huteludush-Inshushinak, who
was king during the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar I, fourth king of the Dynasty of
the Sealand (Isin II) (Potts 1999: 188, 252; Vallat 1995: 1028; Brinkman 1972: 278).

The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I took as motivation for these invasions a
desire to avenge the Elamite destruction of Babylon and return the, presumably looted
from a Babylonian sanctuary, statue/idol of Marduk (Potts 1999: 252). His first
attempt resulted in failure, but his second (in 1104 BC) resulted in the defeat of
Huteludush-Inshushinak, the return of the Marduk statue and the destruction of
Elamite cites and towns, including Susa and Choga Zanbil (Potts 1999: 188, 252;
Vallat 1995: 1028; Brinkman 1972: 278). Traditionally this defeat was taken as the
end point of the Middle Elamite kingdom (Labat 1975b: 502; Potts 1999: 188, 252;
Cameron 1936: 132; Carter & Stolper 1984: 42; Hinz 1973: 17; Vallat 1995: 1028;
Carter 1971: 56 – 59), however the so-called ‘survival hypothesis’ has gained
credence in recent years (Potts 1999: 253 – 254; Carter & Stolper 1984: 42 – 43; Pons
1994: 43; Steve 1991: 7; Vallat 1995: 1028; Steve et al. 1980: 105 – 106; Carter
1971: 59). Thus it is now possible to propose a fourth Middle Elamite sub-phase,
Middle Elamite IV, outlined below.
2.1.7.4 Middle Elamite IV

The ‘survival hypothesis’ states that Hutelutush-Inshushinak escaped the conquering
Nebuchadnezzar and continued to reign over the (albeit reduced) Middle Elamite
kingdom from Tal-i Malyan (ancient Anshan) (Potts 1999: 253 – 254). The
Babylonian text that records the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar states that “Hutelutush-
Inshushinak, king of Elam, hid himself in the mountains” (Hinz 1973: 17).
Traditionally this was taken to be a euphemistic expression meaning that he died
(Hinz 1973: 17). However, with the discoveries at Tal-i Malyan of texts dating to the
reign of this king (discussed further below), it has been proposed that this statement,
more literally, meant that he continued to reign from Anshan (Potts 1999: 252 – 255).
This is possibly supported by the titulature of Hutelutush-Inshushinak, who is
described as a king of Elam and Susiana (Potts 1999: 252 – 255), perhaps because he
was unable to lay claim to the conquered Susa. The ‘survival hypothesis’ is further
supported by the presence of two layers of occupation at Malyan that are of the
Middle Elamite type although one apparently postdates the traditional end date for the
Middle Elamite period (Carter 1996: 47), see below.
As demonstrated by Table 2.10, two other kings, Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar and
Humban-numena II are also placed in the Middle Elamite IV period, though the
evidence for their reigns is less than certain. All three Middle Elamite IV kings are

listed in a text of a later king of the Neo-Elamite period, Shutruk-Nahhunte II (716 –
699 BC) as being ancient predecessors on the Elamite throne (Carter & Stolper 1984:
43; Potts 1999: 254 – 255; Steve et al. 1980: 106). Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar is known
from the inscriptions of Shilhak-Inshushinak as being the next youngest brother of
Hutelutush-Inshushinak (Carter & Stolper 1984: 43; Potts 1999: 254 – 255; Steve et
al. 1980: 106), and so it is quite conceivable that he reigned after his brother. The
filiation of Humban-numena II is uncertain (Potts 1999: 254 – 255), but it is more
than possible that he reigned after Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar, and was perhaps his son,
who was not yet born at the time of the Shilhak-Inshushinak inscriptions.
Carter & Steve et al. Vallat 1994; Potts 1999 Current Study
Stolper 1980 Steve &
1984 Vallat 1989
Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush- Hutelutush-Inshushinak – son
Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak Inshushinak of Shilhak-Inshushinak;
inscriptions at Susa and Tal-i
Malyan; “King of Elam and
Susiana”; Babylonian sources
defeated by Nebuchadnezzar I
of Babylonia; possibly escaped
and continued to region in the
highlands (Anshan)
Shilhina- Shilhina- Shilhina- Shilhina- Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar –
hamru- hamru- hamru- hamru- son of Shilhak-Inshushinak;
Lagamar Lagamar Lagamar Lagamar mentioned as son in texts of
Shilhak-Inshushinak; resigned
as king according to later texts
(Shutruk-Nahhunte II, Neo-
Elamite)
Humban- Humban- – – ?Humban-numena II? –
numena II numena II ancestry uncertain; mentioned
in later texts (Shutruk-
Nahhunte II, Neo-Elamite)
Table 2.10. The Middle Elamite IV Dynasty, indicating proposed succession here adopted,
and a sample of previous proposals.
Thus it is proposed that a fourth and final Middle Elamite period be added to
the paradigm of Middle Elamite I – III. This period should date from c.1100 to
sometime around 1000 BC. In this period Elam descends into a ‘dark age’ with little
evidence until the advent of the Neo-Elamite period (Potts 1999: 259 – 263), and as
such, the history of the Middle Elamite period slowly dwindles, rather than abruptly
stops. It should be noted that during the ME IV period the Elamite state no longer
engaged in political contacts with neighbouring Mesopotamia.

In summary, four Middle Elamite phases can be discerned in the historical
record. Middle Elamite I, the period of the so-called ‘Kidinuid’ dynasty (c.1500 –
1400 BC), the Middle Elamite II (‘Igihalkid’ dynasty, c.1400 – 1200 BC), the Middle
Elamite III (‘Shutrukid’ dynasty, c.1200 – 1100 BC) and the terminal Middle Elamite
IV (the later ‘Shutrukid’ kings [?], c.1100 – 1000 BC). The Middle Elamite I period is
discerned in this study at Susa, Haft Tepe, Tepe Sharafabad, Chogha Sabz, Godin
Tepe and Tepe Giyan. The Middle Elamite II period at Susa, possibly still Haft Tepe
(see below), Choga Zanbil, Deh-i Now, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Chigha Sabz, Tepe Giyan,
and Qaleh Tal-i Malyan. The Middle Elamite III period is also represented at Susa,
Choga Zanbil, Deh-i Now, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Chigha Sabz, Tepe Giyan and Tal-i
Malyan (Qaleh). The final chronological period included in this study, the Middle
Elamite IV period is known from Susa, Choga Zanbil, Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Chigha
Sabz, Tepe Giyan, and (Qaleh) Tal-i Malyan.
2.2 Archaeology
The preceding survey has provided an outline of the historical and chronological
developments of Elam from c.3500 (or more accurately c.3800 BC) to c.1000 BC, the
era of the dominance of the cylinder seal as a glyptic device, and thus the period of
reference of this study. The following section will now outline the specific
archaeology of the period by surveying the relevant data from the sites included in
this study, that is those that yielded glyptic material from the relevant time frame.
As already outlined in the definition of ‘Elam’ above (Chapter 1), the Elamite
realm can be divided into three board historical provinces, Luristan, Khuzistan and
Fars (Carter & Stolper 1984: 103). These provinces not only provide convenient
geographical realms to aid in discussion and treatment, but also demonstrate a certain
degree of cultural uniformity (particular in the case of lowland Khuzistan), as will be
demonstrated below. For this reason, the following survey is divided into three parts
according to these geographic divisions. In a general sense, the province of Khuzistan
can be described as a lowland area, that is a geological extension of the
Mesopotamian alluvial plain (Carter & Stolper 1984: 105). Both Luristan and Fars
can be considered ‘highland’ provinces (Carter & Stolper 1984: 106 – 107), though in
the case of Luristan a description of transitional foothills and intermontane valleys
reaching to higher peaks is perhaps more apt (Carter & Stolper 1984: 107).

Figure 2.1 presents a general map of the region under discussion here,
illustrating the sites included in this study (those that produced glyptic material) and
several Mesopotamian sites mentioned in this text.
Figure 2.1. Map of sites yielding Elamite or Elamite-related glyptic material. Map after
Carter & Stolper 1984, with alterations.
KEY Elamite Sites 12 Godin Tepe

Site with ‘Elamite’-type 1 Susa 13 Tepe Djamshidi
glyptic material 2 Chogha Mish 14 Tepe Giyan
3 Haft Tepe 15 Chogha Gavaneh
Mesopotamian site 4 Choga Zanbil 16 Tal-i Malyan
5 Tepe Sharafabad Mesopotamian Sites
Modern town/city 6 Deh-i Now 17 Ur
7 Surkh Dum-i-Luri 18 Larsa
8 Kamtarlan 19 Uruk
9 Chigha Sabz 20 Nippur
10 Bani Surmah 21 Babylon
11 Kalleh Nisar 22 Nuzi
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part 1 101

2.2.1 Khuzistan
The modern and historical province of Khuzistan (see Figures 1.3 and 2.1) forms the
primary source generally, and here, for the Elamite civilisation. This is both a
reflection of the importance of this lowland region in ancient times, and of the
accidents and circumstances of discovery that frame and colour any archaeological
reconstruction (Potts 1999: 8 – 9). In terms of sites included here, Khuzistan is
actually the second largest of the three provincial divisions in this study, with six sites
(Susa, Chogha Mish, Haft Tepe, Choga Zanbil, Tepe Sharafabad and Deh-i Now) as
opposed to the nine of Luristan (see below). However, with four of the five largest
site corpora, and among them the extraordinarily large and dominant site Susa,
Khuzistan has in fact produced over ninety percent of the items in the Elamite
Cylinder Seal Catalogue. This dominance is a reflection of the extensive excavations
(and indeed, the extensive occupation) of Susa, but the fact that excavations at
Chogha Mish and Haft Tepe also produced generally large corpora in spite of the
relatively limited excavations at these sites does indicate that the dominance of
Khuzistan is not solely the responsibility of Susa, but is also evidence of a wider
occupational phenomenon.
The Khuzistan plain and the river systems that define it (of particular interest
to this study are the Rivers Karkeh, Diz and Karun), is essentially an extension of the
Mesopotamian alluvial plain (Potts 1999: 15). This geological similarity is, as will be
discovered, reflected in many ways in the historical and archaeological (material
culture) developments of the lowland Khuzistan region which are tied, concomitant
with, and mirrored in those of southern Mesopotamia.
2.2.1.1 Susa
2.2.1.1.1 Location and Site
Susa is the dominant site of the plain to which it lends its name (Susiana), in the
Khuzistan province of southwestern Iran (Carter & Stolper 1984: 103; Harper et al.
1992: xiv ). The site is located upon the Karkeh River, which is itself an extension of
the Tigris-Euphrates River system, as it eventually converges with these
Mesopotamian rivers at the Shatt al-Arab (Potts 1999: 16). Thus, geographically
speaking, the Susiana area is an extension of the Mesopotamian plain (Harper et al.
1992: xiv; Potts 1999: 15 – 18), a factor that is important to our understanding of the
cultural history of this region, as will be explored below.

Susa was apparently continuously occupied from around 4000 BC until the
end of the 13th century AD (Harper et al. 1992: xiv; Ghirshman 1970: 223; Carter &
Stolper 1984: 104), albeit at varying degrees of importance and extent. The site is thus
the only in the Corpus to have experienced continual occupation throughout the
entirety of this study, yet another reason why the chronological paradigm adopted
here, outlined above, is, in many regards, based upon this site. Susa is made up of
several areas, or mounds, which are known by their Old Persian or French titles: the
Apadana, the Acropole, the Donjon, the Ville Royale and the Ville des Artisans, see
Figure 2.2 for details. Most of the glyptic material studied here comes from the
French excavations in the Ville Royale and Acropole areas, however, as will be seen
below, the nature of these excavations means that we do not possess concrete locus
information (even in regard to general site area) for much of the material excavated
in, especially, the earlier operations.
Figure 2.2. General plan of Susa, indicating the location of the various ‘mounds’ or areas of
the site. Areas shaded green and labelled in italics represent excavated areas. Khaki areas
indicate modern (post-ancient) structures. Figure after Carter & Stolper 1984: Figure 13,
with alterations

2.2.1.1.2 Excavation and Publication
The British geologist William Kennet Loftus undertook short excavations on the Susa
mound in the middle of the nineteenth century (Mousavi 1996: 2 – 3). Little of note
can be said of this work expect that it produced the first identification of Susa with
biblical Shushan and probably confounded the later damage done to the site by the
early French excavators (Mousavi 1996: 2). The first in the long series of French
excavators of Susa were the Dieulafoys who worked between 1884 and 1886
(Mousavi 1996: 4 – 6). The age of the French monopoly of excavations at Susa (and
indeed Iran) truly began however with the work of Jacques de Morgan with his large
scale excavations in 1898 (Mousavi 1996: 6 – 7). A succession of excavators (Roland
de Mecquenem, Roman Ghirshman, Jean Perrot, Alain Le Brun) continued the French
excavations of Susa almost incessantly until the Islamic Revolution, with brief
hiatuses for the World Wars (Mousavi 1996: 7-15). Unfortunately, the excavations
prior to World War II were undertaken in a less than scientific manner (Carter 1979:
113; Miroschedji 1978: 215; Young 1978: 237; Amiet 1972: 1; Mousavi 1996: 7 – 16;
Potts 1999: 188). As a result of these excavations, much of the excavated material
from Susa lacks a secure provenance and there was also irreparable damage to, even
loss of, unrecognised mudbrick architecture (Mousavi 1996: 15 – 16).
As will become patently apparent in the preceding survey of the various sites
that produced relevant glyptic material, and indeed as with any such reanalysis of
material excavated during earlier eras of archaeological excavations, the current
survey of the Susa material is prisoner to the vagaries and flaws in the techniques (or
lack thereof) of past generations of archaeological explorers (Mousavi 1996). While
applying this lesson from the past to our current efforts, knowing that we too may be
judged by future generations of scholars for our ‘techniques’, little more then resigned
acceptance of the reality of the material can be employed here. The site of Susa has
suffered immeasurably from such earlier, more clumsy excavation techniques, a fact
more than disheartening in light of the extraordinary level of occupation, and the
apparently high status for much of its occupation, of the site of Susa.
More recent excavations at Susa, in the form of smaller scale sondages and
test trenches, generally undertaken in an attempt to rectify the current befuddled state
of Susian archaeology, by Carter (1980), Le Brun (1978; 1985) and others (Steve
1994; Steve & Gasche 1971; 1990; Steve et al. 1980), has rectified this situation
somewhat, enabling a general survey of the site to be outlined here. However, it

should be noted that such a survey is incomplete, and the fact remains that much of
the material from Susa (including the great majority of the glyptic material under
discussion here), was excavated without, or with little regard for, stratigraphic and
provenance information, and thus the material presented here must be treated
accordingly.
The results of the century long French excavations at Susa have been
published in a whole series of volumes in the Mémoires series (abbreviated MDP,
variously Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Mémoires de la Mission
Archéologique de Susiane, Mémoires de la Mission archéologique de Perse, and
Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran). Only the specifically relevant and
cited volumes will be included here (Scheil 1905; Pézard 1912; Legrain 1921; Scheil
1923; 1935; Mecquenem 1943; 1949; Rutten 1949; Amiet 1972; De Graef 2005;
2006), the existence of the, still growing, list of such volumes should be noted
however. The more recent French excavations have also been published in a series of
Cahiers (de la Délégation archéologique Française en Iran, abbreviated CDAFI), and
again only the relevant works of this series will be discussed here (Amiet 1971; Le
Brun & Vallat 1978; Carter 1980). Notes and articles on the excavations of Susa have
also appeared in numerous periodicals, most noticeably Revue d’Assyriologie et
d’archéologie Orientale (RA), and again the same regime of selection for the MDP
and CDAFI publications apply (Mecquenem 1922; 1925; 1927; 1928; 1937; Scheil
1927; 1931; Rutten 1950; Amiet 1957; 1959; 1960). Other relevant miscellaneous
publications of Susa material, particularly of the glyptic material discussed below,
include articles (Amiet 1973; 1980b) and earlier synthesis monographs (Dieulafoy
1893; Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1966; Herzfeld 1941; Amiet 1988).
2.2.1.1.3 Site Description, Chronology and Function

It should be noted that, following the above outlined limitations and problems with
the earlier Susa excavations, while the following survey of the occupation and
stratigraphic levels of Susa may seem relatively limited in comparison to the detail of
the other surveys to follow, the actual occupation of the site is extensive, and the
amount of material (albeit from unstratified, unknown provenance) from the
occupation of Susa legion. Thus the apparent cursory and fragmented survey of Susa
that follows is a reflection of the usefulness and problems of the available
information, rather than the ancient realities.

2.2.1.1.3.1 Susa II period
As already mentioned, Susa was originally founded c.4000 BC in the Susa I period
(Potts 1999: 47). This occupation, including the massif funéraire and haute terrasse
installations (Potts 1999: 47 – 50; see Figure 2.2), is thus beyond the realms of this
study and so requires no further description here. The Susa II occupation, with the
dates c.3800 – 3100 BC (Potts 1999: 52) marks the beginning of the current study
generally and at Susa. Susa II occupation is found in Acropole I, levels 22 – 17,
Acropole II, levels 6 – 1 and on the Apadana mound (Potts 1999: 52; Steve & Gasche
1990: 27; Amiet 1986: 12 – 13; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112; Canal 1978: 173). In
broad material culture terms, the Susa II Susian assemblage is in definite opposition to
that of the preceding Susa I assemblage, in terms of ceramics (bevelled-rim bowls and
other forms), brick style and size and, of particular interest here, glyptic material and
related administrative/accounting devices (such as bullae, tablets and clay tokens)
(Potts 1999: 52 – 69; Carter & Stolper 1984: 113 – 114).
As already discussed above, the, particularly later, Susa II period (that is the
period of general interest here, following the invention/adoption of the cylinder seal
c.3500 BC) is the time of the so-called ‘Uruk Expansion’ (Algaze 1993; Potts 1999:
56 – 59). Indeed, in many regards the, particularly ceramic and glyptic repertoires of
Susa II Susa can be likened and conflated with that of Middle and Late Uruk
Mesopotamia (Potts 1999: 65 – 69; Carter & Stolper 1984: 112 – 114).
2.2.1.1.3.2 Susa III period

The Susa III period is known from Acropole I, Levels 16 – 13 and Ville Royale I,
Levels 18 – 13 (Potts 1999: 71; Amiet 1986: 12; Le Brun 1978: 189 – 190; Carter &
Stolper 1984: 118; Carter 1980: 13, 20, 25 – 26). A break in occupation, or at least a
levelling of previous occupation to make way for the Susa III installations can be
discerned between Acropole Levels 17A/B (terminal Susa II) and the initial Level 16
Susa III occupation (Le Brun 1978: 189 – 190; Dyson 1987: 648; Carter & Stolper
1984: 118). This break, of unknown length and extension, is concomitant with an
alteration of the Susian material cultural assemblage from the typical Uruk-type Susa
II repertoire to the Susa III assemblage, previously characterised as ‘Proto-Elamite’
(Potts 1999: 71 – 79). This new assemblage, and its difference from the preceding
Susa II occupation, is especially noted in the areas of ceramics, glyptic art (further
outlined below), and tablets and writing (that is, the so-called ‘Proto-Elamite’ writing

system) (Potts 1999: 71 – 79; Carter & Stolper1984: 118 – 119). The occupation on
the Apadana mound known from the Susa II period appears to have been abandoned
in the Susa III period (Potts 1999: 93; Steve & Gasche 1990: 28).
2.2.1.1.3.3 Susa IV period

The following period of occupation at Susa is defined as Susa IV (Potts 1999: 93).
Specifically, the pre-Akkadian occupation at Susa is referred to as the Susa IVA
period, and is generally correlated, both chronologically and in a general material
culture sense, with the Early Dynastic period of southern Mesopotamia (Potts 1999:
93 – 97; Carter & Stolper 1984: 133 – 135). The end of the period IVA occupation is
the first change in nomenclature and cultural/chronological designation inspired by a
dated (relatively or otherwise) historical event, in this instance, the conquest of Susa
by Sargon and the Akkadians (see above).
The Apadana mound of Susa appears to once again be occupied in the Susa
IVA period, after a hiatus in the Susa III, as proposed through the discovery of
numerous kilns and graves on the mound under the Achaemenid palace (Steve &
Gasche 1990: 28). Other Susa IVA occupation levels have been uncovered in the
Donjon area, including a ‘cache’ of sealings, and some tombs, originally excavated by
de Mecquenem (Potts 1999: 95), and a possible temple with “Sumerian type” stone
wall plaques on the Acropole (Carter 1985: 43). Stratified remains from Carter’s Ville
Royale I (levels 12 – 9A) excavations include mudbrick architecture, and ceramics
(Carter 1980; Potts 1999: 96 – 97).
2.2.1.1.3.4 ‘Akkadian and Awan’

The subsequent phase of Susa history can be defined by the conquest of Sargon of
Agade, and the resulting Akkadian sovereignty over Susiana during the subsequent
reigns of Rimush, Manishtusu and Naram-Sin (Potts 1999: 101 – 121). The extent or
otherwise of the actual sovereignty exerted by Akkadian kings over Susa and other
eastern regions, and the reality of these conquests can be debated (Potts 199:103,
111), however, archaeological evidence from Susa itself testifies to Akkadian
construction of temples at the site, as evidenced by the presence of inscribed brick
fragments naming Naram-Sin (Potts 1999: 107). Other written sources, including
inscribed cylinder sealings, discussed in more detail below (Chapters 3.4 and 7.2),
also name Naram-Sin and provide evidence for the presence of governors (ensís) at

Susa of this king and his predecessor Manishtusu and successor Shar-kali-sharri (Potts
1999: 107 – 109; Gelb & Kienast 1990: 318 – 319).
The Akkadian period of Susa is labelled the Susa IVB period (Carter 1985: 43
– 45). Susian occupation evidence for this period includes possible graves under the
Achaemenid palace on the Apadana (as judged by the grave goods) (Steve & Gasche
1990: 28), the evidence for a building with vaulted rooms, possibly a granary on the
Acropole (levels 1 and 2; Steve & Gasche 1971: 77) and a domestic complex in Ville
Royale I, evidenced by an oven and a fireplace (as well as a grave), in Levels 8 – 7
(Carter 1980; Potts 1999: 112).
In terms of ceramics, glyptic items (including inscribed sealing items
discussed later) and some of the human figurines found at Susa, clear Akkadian
Mesopotamian types were employed (Potts 1999: 112 – 116), though in at least the
realms of glyptic art and the figurines local, ‘Elamite’ (or non-Akkadian) types also
occurred (Potts 1999: 116; see below and Chapter 5 for details of the glyptic
material). The obvious presence of Akkadian language texts at Susa also testifies to
the presence of influence and Akkadian types during period IVB Susa.
The precise status of Susa following the fall of the Akkadian Empire, its
incorporation into the entity known as ‘Awan’, and the reign of Puzur-Inshushinak,
discussed above, are uncertain (Potts 1999: 129) and need not be entered into here.
However, the presence of several texts of the so-called ‘Linear Elamite’, type heavily
associated with Puzur-Inshushinak, and the testimony these provide to his control of
Susa (Potts 1999: 125 – 127) should be noted.
2.2.1.1.3.5 ‘Ur III and Shimashki’

In terms of archaeological evidence, there is no clear break or distinction between the
late Akkadian material at Susa and the material from the period of the Ur III
annexation of the site, nor the subsequent era of the Shimashki Dynasty rule (Potts
1999: 150), as discussed above. The transition at Susa, and elsewhere, between the
‘Akkadian & Awan’ phase and the subsequent ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ phase is
therefore essentially historical, and not archaeological, though within these periods
archaeological/material culture differences can be identified. The so-called ‘House of
Igubuni’ or ‘Archive Building’ discovered by Ghirshman in the Susa Ville Royale
Chantier B, level 6, demonstrates two floor levels, both of which reportedly date to
the late Ur III, pre-Shimashkian era of Susa (or roughly the middle of the ‘Ur III &

Shimashki’ period of this study), according to numerous tablets found in the building
bearing Ur III dated texts, ranging from Ibbi-Sin 1 through to Shu-Sin 4 (or 2028/27 –
2034/34 BC in our system) (de Meyer 1986: 76; Potts 1999: 151 – 152). It is thus
textual sources, as here, and other inscribed objects (such as those already outlined
above in the initial survey of the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period), that forms the
majority of our available evidence regarding the occupation of Susa in this period.
Little else of any relevance regarding the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ occupation of
Susa can be discerned from the available archaeological evidence. The presence of
Mesopotamian (Ur III) texts and other elements of Mesopotamian-type material (such
as ceramics) should be noted (Carter & Stolper 1984: 148 – 149). Similarly, as will be
discerned below, the glyptic material from the ‘Ur III and Shimashki’ period at Susa
may reflect in a microcosm the material culture of Susa of the time more generally,
with both clear, standard Mesopotamian styles (the UTRS detailed below [Chapter 4])
and the contemporary, ‘local’, popular material (PEU, discussed below [Chapter 4],
formerly the ‘Anshanite’ or ‘Popular Elamite’ styles [Potts 1999: 151; Amiet 1986;
1992a]). This dichotomy is also reflected in the textual ethnic/linguistic evidence from
this period at Susa, where the evidence of the names and languages found in the texts,
testify to both Mesopotamian and Elamite (and indeed other ‘eastern’) peoples at Susa
(Potts 1999: 156 – 157), illustrating a kind of shared, or mixed culture society.
2.2.1.1.3.6 Sukkalmah
As already discussed above, and like the preceding periods, there is no sharp
stratigraphic break between the Sukkalmah and the preceding ‘Ur III and Shimashki’
periods at Susa (and indeed, the same applies to the Sukkalmah to Middle Elamite
transition below) (Carter & Stolper 1984: 146 – 149), for again the change is more an
historical, rather than an archaeological one. Levels 15 – 12 of Ghirshman’s ‘Chantier
A’ Ville Royale excavations can be assigned to the Sukkalmah period according to
material culture and architectural evidence (Potts 1999: 171). In this area a succession
of buildings, including a ‘chapel’ (Level 15), a ‘large household’ (14), an industrial
area equipped with kilns (13), and a “house of the temple prostitutes”, have been
discerned by Carter (1985: 47; Potts 1999: 171 – 172).
Among the graves of the Apadana, already discussed, a complex of rooms can
be associated, ceramically, with material from Ville Royale A15 and B6 – 5 (Steve &
Gasche 1990: 16, 18, 23; Potts 1999: 172). Houses in the Ville Royale (‘Complexe

Est’), levels A12 and A11 can also be associated with the Sukkalmah period on the
evidence of tablets uncovered in the two building levels, naming six of the final
sukkalmahs (and the first ‘King of Susa and Anshan’, Kidinu, returned to below)
(Potts 1999: 172; Steve 1994: 25 – 27). Brick inscriptions from five sukkalmahs
(Kuk-Kirmash, Atta-hushu, Temti-Agun, Temti-halki and Kuk-Nashur, see above for
details) also testify to royal constructions at Sukkalmah Susa (including a ramp [the
purpose of which is unclear], a Temple of Ishmekarab and a Temple of Inshushinak)
(Potts 1999: 172 – 174), the remains of which cannot be certainly discerned.
The ceramic materials from Sukkalmah Susa demonstrate a continuity from
the largely Mesopotamian forms of the Shimashki period, with the addition of some
new types, including ‘cylindrical goblets’, ‘Elamite flasks’ and an incised/punctate
‘greyware’ known also from the Diyala and Luristan regions (Potts 1999: 174 – 175;
Carter & Stolper 1984: 148; Gasche 1973). Other elements of material culture,
including ‘bitumen compound’ (or as in this study, ‘bitumen aggregate’, see Chapter 1
for the discussion of this material) vessels (and seals, see below) (Connan &
Deschesne 1996: 228 – 337; Potts 1999: 175), male and female terra cotta figurines
(Potts 1999: 175 – 176) and various metal items including weapons (axes, spears,
lances, arrows, daggers), tools (adzes, sickles, hoes), vessels, personal ornaments, and
figurines and statuary (Potts 1999: 177).
2.2.1.1.3.7 Middle Elamite

As described above, in the articulation of the Middle Elamite period, the material
culture of this period at Susa, or indeed elsewhere, cannot generally be sub-divided
according to the four, generally historical/dynastic, sub-phases identified here (Potts
1999: 195) (an exception for some of the glyptic material, through a study of the
distribution of styles at the chronologically mutually exclusive Middle Elamite sites,
Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil to this lack of archaeological correlates for the sub-
phases will be outlined below however [Chapter 4]). Thus the Middle Elamite period
at Susa can be considered, generally, as a cultural and stratigraphic whole.
As already mentioned, a tablet in the upper (Level 11), of the ‘tablet archive’
room in the Ville Royale ‘Complexe Est’ names Kidinu, the first king of the Middle
Elamite period (see above), found in association with tablets naming several
sukkalmahs of the preceding period (Potts 1999: 172; Steve & Gasche 1994: 25 – 27).
This not only provides evidence for the non-stratigraphic or distinct break between the

late Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite periods, but also for the designation of level
A11 of the ‘East Complex’, at least in part, to the Middle Elamite period. As well as
this occupation that can be dated to the early (Middle Elamite I) period, evidence for a
hiatus in the Ville Royale A between the earlier (ME I) level 11 and later (ME III)
levels 10 – 9 also demonstrates that some, limited, stratigraphic refinement at Susa
can be discerned (based upon ceramic correlations with the more securely dated Haft
Tepe and Choga Zanbil Middle Elamite occupations, see below) (Steve et al. 1980:
67; Potts 1999: 205). De Miroschedji’s small exposure of mudbrick architecture in his
Ville Royale II sounding (levels 12 and 13), can similarly be dated to the Middle
Elamite I period (Potts 1999: 194 – 195).
Other evidence for Susian Middle Elamite occupation, such as a large area of
domestic architecture in the Ville Royale A, level 11 area (Steve et al. 1980; Potts
1999: 194; Spycket 1992: 157) and a ‘pit’ on the Acropole (Potts 1999: 205), can be
dated to the Middle Elamite period more generally, and testify to the extent of Middle
Elamite occupation of Susa. Numerous inscribed bricks from Susa, naming Middle
Elamite kings from Tepti-ahar to Kutir-Nahhunte (Potts 1999: 195, 205 – 206, 232,
see above for kingly details), testify to numerous constructions erected by various
kings across the site of Susa, the remains of which cannot be generally discerned
following years of subsequent occupation, Mesopotamian sacking, and less then
scientific excavations, despite which, knowledge of their existence further
demonstrates the occupation of Susa in this period.
Carter has described the ceramic material of the second millennium as a single
course of continuous development, and as such the ceramics of Middle Elamite Susa
can be seen to generally continue trends and types from the Sukkalmah period (1971:
113), patterns that can also be discerned in the Middle Elamite ceramic assemblages
from Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil. Of particular note is the so-called ‘Middle Elamite
goblet’ (Carter 1971: 115). Similar in form to the ‘Kassite chalice’, though with the
variations of a finer fabric and hollow stem (Carter 1971: 115), this type indicates
again that the ceramic material from Susa demonstrates general similarities to
Mesopotamian forms, though with local characteristics.
Other characteristic artefacts of Middle Elamite Susa included naked female
clay/terracotta figurines (Potts 1999: 194; Sypcket 1992: 145 – 147, 157) and clay
wall plaques (Carter 1996: 31; Potts 1999: 232, 248). Both the figurines (Haft Tepe:

Negahban 1991: 39 – 41) and the wall plaques (Choga Zanbil, Tal-i Malyan: Potts
1999: 232, 248) are also known from other Middle Elamite sites.
As well as these assemblages, more spectacular and impressive items found at
Susa and dating to the Middle Elamite period deserve some attention. These include
works of bronze such as the bronze relief depicting seven warrior deities found in the
excavations of the (Acropole) Inshushinak Temple at Susa (Potts 1999: 217; Amiet
1966: 404 – 405), the cast bronze statue of Untash-Napirisha’s wife, Napir-Asu (Potts
1999: 218 – 219; Amiet 1966: 373), and the so-called sit shamsi (‘sunrise’) cast
bronze model apparently depicting a religious ceremony (Potts 1999: 239; Amiet
1966: 392 – 393). Works of stone, such as the Stele of Untash-Napirisha (Miroschedji
1981; Amiet 1966: 374 – 377), a limestone statue, possibly of Napirisha,
commissioned by Untash-Napirisha (Potts 1999: 220 – 221) and the ‘Stele of Shutruk-
Nahhunte’, re-cut from a Babylonian original (Potts 1999: 233 – 236; Amiet 1966:
410 – 411), also demonstrate the material culture of this period. In the realm of
architectural decoration the moulded brick façade of the (northern, Apadana, see
Figure 2.2) Temple of Inshushinak commissioned by Shilhak-Inshushinak is a fine
example of the expertise in this area (Potts 1999: 240 – 242; Amiet 1966: 396 – 397).
As well as providing an insight into the technical expertise and advances of the
Middle Elamite civilisation, this list of objects also provides an introduction to the
iconography, themes and manner of depictions of the Middle Elamite period that, as
will be shown below, at times are reflected and similarly manifested in its glyptic art
(Chapter 4).
The later occupation of Susa, beyond the Middle Elamite period, need not be
discussed here as it lies beyond the realms of this study. However, the existence of
significant, continued occupation of the mound of Susa itself (Potts 1999: 259ff.), and
indeed the surrounds to this day (the modern town of Shush), should be noted,
particularly the damage, destruction and impact such occupation has had on the
remains that concern us here.
2.2.1.1.4 Function
For most of its existence Susa appears to have functioned as, at least, a regional
centre, if not a fully-fledged capital (Harper et al. 1992: 1ff). The preceding survey
has evidenced this, through the discussion of many royal inscribed bricks and public
and monumental religious structures. The exact functioning of Susa in each period as

a capital in the sense of an administrative or residential seat of government or regime
cannot really be discerned on the basis of the current evidence, as this requires both a
more thorough understanding of the ‘Elamite’ political structure generally, and the
interaction (and indeed location) of the various geographic locations associated with
Elam throughout time (Awan, Shimashki, etc.). The role of Susa as, at least, a titular
(co-)capital is assured by the titles and terms of the many kings and authorities
through the Shimashki, Sukkalmah and Middle Elamite dynasties (see Tables 2.2, 2.3,
and 2.7). The ancient reality of some of these claims as opposed to terms of rhetoric
and royal propaganda similarly must remain shrouded in some obscurity based on the
material currently at hand.
The role of Susa as a cultural capital, an urban, cosmopolitan metropolis, can
perhaps also be hypothesised on the basis of the material and evidence for occupation
at Susa (Carter & Stolper 1984: 104). The kingly actions of urban beautification and
construction of temples and other such installation at Susa, testified to by numerous
brick inscriptional remains from these buildings detailed above, also testify to the
importance of Susa throughout many (if not all) the periods under discussion here
(and indeed, also testify to the desire of the kings to please, satisfy and propitiate both
the divinities and the denizens of Susa). Finally, during the Middle Elamite period, it
was to Susa that the triumphant Shutrukids brought and displayed their booty won in
victories over Kassite Babylonia (including the well-known ‘Law Code of
Hammurabi’ and ‘Victory Stele of Naram-Sin’ [Potts 1999: 233 – 236]), surely a
function of a capital.
The geographical position of Susa on the Khuzistan lowlands, that are
themselves a geological extension of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, means that “at
times Susa appears the most Elamite of the Mesopotamian city-states; less often it
seems to be the most Mesopotamian of the Elamite towns” (Carter & Stolper 1984:
104). Whether Carter’s characterisation is absolutely accepted, for while in
archaeological (material cultural) terms, many Mesopotamian forms are indeed found
at Susa, the textual evidence, and at times equally evident material culture forms
(including, as will be discovered, in terms of glyptic art [Chapters 4, 5 and 7])
previously surveyed does indicate that Susa was, often, if not always, considered
‘Elamite’ rather than ‘Mesopotamian’, the existence of a certain Mesopotamian
‘flavour’ to the occupation should be acknowledged.

2.2.1.1.5 Glyptic Material
Like the general Susa material outlined above, the glyptic material from the site has
been published in many different studies, from monographs devoted solely to glyptic
material (Amiet 1972; Delaporte 1920), to short note articles providing examples of
excavated material (Pézard 1912), to large illustrative, almost pictorial, volumes
(Amiet 1966; 1988; Herzfeld 1941), to simple asides in texts devoted to tablets and
philological concerns (Scheil 1905; De Graef 2005). The material has also received a
variety of treatments, from detailed, annotated study and stylistic classification (Amiet
1972) to cursory mention, perhaps limited to simple illustration with no associated
details (Herzfeld 1941). Indeed, a desire to provide a more consistent and standard
treatment of all the Susian glyptic material was an initial motivation for the present
study. Table 2.11 provides a summary of the various publications from which material
in this study was sourced, and evidences the variety and inconsistency of the
treatment the Susa material has received over a century of study and publication.
Several of these studies warrant further attention here, by way of explaining the
numbers of items included, and the criteria for such inclusion.
The first major work devoted to the glyptic material from Susa is a catalogue
of variously composed collections housed in the Louvre, authored by Delaporte
(1920; abbreviated CCO I). Thus the relevant Susa material is published alongside
that excavated by Ernst de Sarzec at Tello and a number of art market based
collections donated to the Louvre (Delaporte 1920). The items thus published in CCO
I include the material excavated at Susa by de Morgan between 1897 and 1912, and
curated in the Louvre (Delaporte 1920: 27). Therefore any similarly excavated
material kept in Tehran has not thus been published here (or perhaps anywhere). In
the same volume the Dieulafoy Collection, also donated to the Louvre, is published
(Delaporte 1920). This collection includes cylinder seals collected by M. and Mme
Dieulafoy from Baghdadi art markets and, of interest to us here, during their 1886 –
1888 excavations at Susa (Delaporte 1920: 66). Only four items from the Dieulafoy
Susa excavations are thus published by Delaporte however, and no information
regarding the relative proportions of these items within the Dieulafoy excavated
material is given (that is, how many other, not published materials may have been so
found, and the current location of these items).

Publication Type Included
1. Scheil 1905 (MDP 6) catalogue of ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets 6
2. Pézard 1912 (MDP 12) general preliminary site report 10
3. Delaporte 1920 (CCO I) glyptic catalogue (Louvre Susa seals, 1897 – 457
1912; 1886 – 1888)
4. Legrain 1921 (MDP 16) catalogue of ‘Elamite’ seal impressions from 162
Susa
5. Mecquenem 1922 (RA 19) catalogue of glyptic material excavated 3
7. Mecquenem 1925 (RA 22) catalogue of seals excavated, 1923 – 1924 3
8. Mecquenem 1927 (RA 24) catalogue of seals excavated, 1925 – 1926 3
9. Scheil 1927 (RA 23) note on excavated materials 6
10. Mecquenem 1928 (RA 25) note on excavated materials 2
11. Scheil 1931 (RA 28) study/publication of ‘Awan and Shimashki 1
Dynasty List’
13. Mecquenem 1937 (RA 34) note on excavated materials 1
14. Herzfeld 1941 (IAE) general study of Iranian archaeology 22
15. Mecquenem 1943 (MDP note on excavated materials, 1929 – 1933 11
29)
16. Rutten 1949 (MDP31) general preliminary site report 4
17. Rutten 1950 (RA 44) catalogue of glyptic material 2
18. Amiet 1971 (CDAFI 1) catalogue of glyptic material from Acropole, 19
1969 – 1971
19. Amiet 1972 (MDP 43) catalogue of glyptic material, 1913 – 1967 1757
20. Amiet 1973 (AA 26) catalogue of ‘Susa reserves’ and ‘recent’ 39
glyptic material
21. Le Brun & Vallat 1978 catalogue of glyptic material, Acropole 17B, 46
(CDAFI 8) 1972
22. Carter 1980 (CDAFI 11) general excavation report, Ville Royale I 5
23. Amiet 1980a (GMA) study of early Mesopotamian glyptic, 34
including some Susa material
24. Amiet 1980b (I. A. 15) catalogue of glyptic material from Ville 4
Royale Chantiers A & B, 2nd millennium
25. Amiet 1986 (I – I) general study of Iranian archaeology 1
26. Connan & Deschesne 1996 study of ‘bitumen compound’ (‘bitumen 1
(LBS) aggregate’) items held in Louvre
27. Tehran Sealings (T. S.) personal study of sealings held in Tehran 62
Archaeological Museum, 2004
28. De Graef 2005 (MDP 54) study of tablets from Ville Royale B 15
29. De Graef 2006 (MDP 55) study of tablets from Ville Royale B 12
Table 2.11. General summary of the publications from whence the Susa glyptic material
was sourced, including volume type, and amount of items published included in this study. It
should be noted that in most cases, all the items published in a given text, for example RA 22,
were not included, but only those deemed not to have been published before, based upon
detailed concordances and bibliographic information, and in the absence of such, visual
comparison. In rare instances it is possible that a seal, published without a detailed list of
previous publication or bibliographic information, is included here more than once, as it was
deemed better to err on the side of caution and so include all, possibly, unpublished material.
The generally cited seminal text of Susian glyptic material by Amiet (1972;
also MDP 43), published as part of the Mémoire series, does not, contrary to popular
opinion, detail all the Susian excavated glyptic material. According to the ‘official’

parameters of that work, Amiet studied and published the glyptic material discovered
by the French excavators at Susa only in the seasons during the period 1913 – 1967
(Amiet 1972: 3). Furthermore, some of the material from the so-called ‘Susa
Reserves’ (material excavated before 1913 and curated in the ‘Chateau de Suse’ site
museum) was published in an appendix to MDP 43 (Amiet 1972: appendix I) and in
two later articles, along with some (though by no means all) material uncovered in
more recent excavations (Amiet 1973 [AA 26]; 1980b [I.A. 15]). Thus, MDP 43
contains a small portion of the material uncovered prior to 1913, but reportedly only
that curated at Susa itself, and presumably (at no point is this assured) all the material
excavated at Susa between 1913 and 1967, that is, the material from the excavations
of de Mecquenem and Ghirshman (Amiet 1972: 2). This structure is contradicted by
the text itself however, as some of the material contained in MDP 43 is provided with
the annotation “fouilles J. de Morgan” (for example MDP 43: 479, Amiet 1972: 85),
presumably indicating that these items were excavated by Jacques de Morgan. As de
Morgan ceased excavations at Susa in 1912 (Amiet 1972: 2), these materials belong
beyond the stated 1913 – 1967 realm of this study. Furthermore, the catalogue number
of these items (in the case of the above cited MDP 43: 479, Sb4854) suggest that they
are currently kept in the Louvre, and so presumably do not belong to the ‘Susa
Reserve’ group acknowledged as having been excavated prior to 1913 but included in
MDP 43. While the inclusion of these seals in the work is not problematic per se the
lack of an explanation for their inclusion causes confusion, and uncertainty as to how
many such items were included in that study, and what proportion of those items
excavated prior to 1913 have been included, and what proportion remain unpublished
and unstudied.
Thus, on face value, the Delaporte catalogue (CCO I, Delaporte 1920)
combined with the Amiet volume (MDP 43, Amiet 1972), should detail the material
excavated at Susa from the two periods 1897 – 1912 (with several from the 1886 –
1888 Dieulafoy excavations), and 1913 – 1967 respectively. However, there is some
internal contradiction in the material so published, and thus there can be no confident
belief that all items have been published (indeed, the non-Louvre or Susa curated pre-
1913 material, that is currently in Tehran, is known to have been unstudied).
Furthermore, if the 1913 – 1967 Amiet data set was complete, one would expect that
all the glyptic items published in numerous site reports and short catalogues (that is,
volumes 4 – 7 in Table 2.11) reportedly detailing material excavated within the 1913

– 1967 window would have been studied, detailed and republished by Amiet.
However, as the very presence of these volumes in Table 2.11 verifies (for only those
items presenting material not sourced elsewhere, that is, the primary sources of a
given item included in the Catalogue, have been included in the table), this is not the
case, and several, admittedly isolated, seals from, for example RA 22 which details
material excavated in the 1923 – 1924 Susa season (Mecquenem 1925), have not been
included by Amiet. Thus, again this causes some doubt as to the exact extent and
proportion of the material publication of the Susian glyptic material.
The study abbreviated T. S. (number 27 in Table 2.11, short for ‘Tehran
Sealings’), should also be noted. This abbreviation refers to a study of, allegedly,
unpublished glyptic material held in the Tehran Museum, of a ‘Proto-Elamite’ (that is
Susa III) type, reportedly sourced from ‘earlier French’ excavations at Susa (possibly
the previously unaccounted for pre-1913 excavated material, corresponding to the
Louvre Delaporte material) by the author in October 2004. The details of this study
will be returned to below (Chapters 3, 5), but it should be noted that much of this
material had in fact, as was revealed upon study, been published previously (as
testified to by the Concordance associated with the Catalogue, where T. S. items
appear as sub-sources of materials published by Amiet and others, for example seal
31; and incidentally, the material was not entirely of Susa III type [see below]). The
publication of some of this material by Amiet would seem to discount the hypothesis
that this material is, at least a portion of, the pre-1913 excavated material, however,
the above cited contradiction of the inclusion of other items of pre-1913 material
published by Amiet in MDP 43 would indicate that this hypothesis should not be
rejected out of hand. The exact constitution of the Tehran Sealings thus remains
somewhat of an enigma, though their provenance from Susa is assured (both by the
field numbers recorded on the items themselves and by the simple fact that some of
the material was published by Amiet) and thus the T. S. material that was judged to
have been previously unpublished has been included here.
In conclusion, a variety of sources were gleaned to produce the Susa corpus
here included. All previous publications of Susian glyptic material were studied, and
all items thus available have been included. The absolute possibility that other glyptic
items, both from the earlier and the more recent (post-1967) excavations of Susa exist
should be noted, but as they have not been published they, obviously, have not been

included here. From the available sources therefore, the Susa corpus included here
numbers 2755 items.
As already mentioned, the Susa corpus is overwhelmingly the largest of the
site corpora included in the Catalogue (as demonstrated below, see Chapters 4 and 5
for this, and all cited relative proportions). It is hypothesised that this is emblematic
both of the ancient reality of the extensive occupation of Susa and of the extraordinary
extent of excavation at the site. Due to the great numbers of the Susa corpus, a
summary table of the glyptic material will not be presented here as with the other site
corpora, however, Table 2.12 does present a summary of the glyptic items from Susa
with a known provenance. The (especially earlier) excavations of Susa, as discussed
above provided little stratigraphic information and contained few locus refinements,
and as such only 270 Susa items have any sort of provenance information (or less then
10%). For the most part, as demonstrated by Table 2.12, what information is available
is limited to general areas of the site (such as ‘Acropole south’).
It is therefore, on the basis of this information, difficult to ascertain a function
for much of the glyptic material on the basis of provenance. The fourteen items
reportedly found in ‘Tombs’ can however be assigned a funerary context/function,
though the possibility that other items exist that were not recorded as such but
similarly provenanced cannot be discounted. The thirty-six items said to be
provenanced from the ‘Temple of Shushinak’ (sic Delaporte 1920, one can assume
the ‘Temple of Inshushinak’, presumably that on the Acropole, and not the Apadana
synonymously named temple, is meant, as this was the area excavated by de Morgan
[see Figure 2.2]), can be assumed to have held a votive function of some type due to
their temple association, though this reconstruction is only preliminary and essentially
speculative. No other reconstruction of function on the basis of provenance can thus
be made.
On the basis of type, it can be assumed that much of the glyptic material from
Susa had an administrative/control function. Fifteen hundred and seventy-two seals,
and eleven hundred and eighty-three sealings (including two hundred and fifteen
bulla(e) and three hundred and twenty-one tablets) can be discerned in the Susa
corpus (as illustrated in the Catalogue). Thus a control/administrative function can be
associated with the sealings, though while a similar function can be assumed for the
seals, this cannot currently be assured.

Seal Class. Provenance Seal Class. Provenance
1 STS (1) Acropole south 338 STS (15) Acropole I, 18
20 STS (2) Acropole 341 STS (15) Acropole I, 18
34 STS (2) Acropole I, 18 343 STS (15) Acropole I, 18
40 STS (3) Acropole south 344 STS (15) Acropole, 17B2
46 STS (3) Acropole 345 STS (15) Acropole, 17B2
47 STS (3) Acropole 346 STS (15) Acropole, 17B
69 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 347 STS (15) Acropole, 17A
70 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 363 STS (16) Acropole
71 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 364 STS (16) Acropole
72 STS (4) Acropole I, 18 366 STS (16) Acropole south
87 STS (5) Acropole south 377 STS (16) Acropole south
88 STS (5) Acropole 379 STS (16) Acropole south
96 STS (5) Acropole, 17A 380 STS (16) southeast Acropole
97 STS (5) Acropole, 17B 382 STS (16) Acropole south
153 STS (7) Acropole, 17B 391 STS (16) Acropole, 17B2
154 STS (7) Acropole, 17B 392 STS (16) Acropole, 17B2
156 STS (7) Acropole I, 17B 416 STS (17) Acropole south
157 STS (7) Acropole, 17B2 417 STS (17) Acropole I, 18
158 STS (7) Ville Royale, 3 418 STS (17) Acropole I, 18
187 STS (8) Acropole south 436 STS (19) Acropole north
190 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 437 STS (19) southeast Acropole
192 STS (8) Acropole I, 18 444 STS (20) Acropole north
206 STS (9) Acropole, 17B2 468 STS (21) Acropole south
243 STS (11) Acropole I, 18 591 JNRS (3) Acropole, 17B2
244 STS (11) Acropole I, 18 592 JNRS (3) Acropole, 17A
249 STS (12) Acropole, 17B 593 JNRS (3) Acropole, 15A
253 STS (12) Acropole, south 665 JNRS (5) east of the Apadana
255 STS (12) Acropole, south 681 JNRS (5) east of the Apadana
266 STS (13) Acropole south 691 JNRS (5) Acropole
275 STS (13) Acropole north 699 JNRS (5) Apadana
282 STS (13) Acropole, 17A 702 JNRS (5) Acropole south
283 STS (13) Acropole I, 18 714 JNRS (5) Acropole, 21
292 STS (14) Acropole south 715 JNRS (5) Acropole, 17
293 STS (14) Acropole north 716 JNRS (5) Acropole, 17A
301 STS (14) Acropole south 717 JNRS (5) Acropole, 17B2
302 STS (14) Acropole south 750 JNRS (6) east of the Apadana
306 STS (14) Acropole south 752 JNRS (7) Temple of Shushinak
310 STS (14) southeast Acropole 759 JNRS (7) Acropole south
320 STS (15) southeast Acropole 763 JNRS (7) Acropole south
322 STS (15) Acropole south 783 JNRS (7) Acropole I, 18
323 STS (15) Acropole south 817 CPE (1) Ville Royale
334 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 916 CPE (3) Acropole
335 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 920 CPE (3) Acropole south
336 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 926 CPE (3) Acropole south
337 STS (15) Acropole I, 18 942 CPE (3) Acropole, 16

977 CPE (4) Acropole south 2208 ARS (10) Temple of Shushinak
983 CPE (4) Acropole 2231 ARS (10) Acropole
985 CPE (4) Acropole 2232 ARS (10) Acropole
989 CPE (4) Acropole north 2233 ARS (10) Acropole
991 CPE (4) Acropole south 2254 ARS (11) Tomb
995 CPE (4) Acropole south 2292 PEA (3) Temple of Shushinak
1053 CPE (8) Acropole south 2293 PEA (4) Temple of Shushinak
1072 CPE (8) Acropole, 15A 2302 PEA (6) Temple of Shushinak
1073 CPE (8) Acropole, 15A 2304 PEA (6) Temple of Shushinak
1146 GS (1) Acropole, 14B 2320 PEA (7) Temple of Shushinak
1149 GS (2) Acropole south 2322 PEA (7) Temple of Shushinak
1157 GS (3) Acropole south 2323 PEA (7) Temple of Shushinak
1161 GS (3) Ville Royale, 5 2346 UTRS (2) Ville Royale, 6B
1192 GS (4) Acropole 2348 UTRS (2) Ville Royale
1201 GS (4) Acropole, 16 2350 UTRS (2) Ville Royale B
1241 GS (5) Acropole 2355 UTRS (3) Tomb
1331 GS (6) Acropole, 17 2388 UTRS (4) Temple of Shushinak
1332 GS (6) Acropole, 14B 2401 UTRS (4) Tomb
1333 GS (6) Acropole, 15A 2402 UTRS (4) Tomb
1340 GS (6) north Ville Royale, 9 2423 UTRS (4) Ville Royale
1362 GS (6) Acropole, 9 2427 UTRS (4) Ville Royale
1373 GS (7) Acropole, 15A 2442 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, 14A
1389 AGD (1) Acropole, 14A 2447 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B
1474 AGD (7) Acropole, 17A 2448 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B
1489 AGD (8) Acropole south 2449 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B
1615 AGD (14) Acropole 2450 UTRS (4) Ville Royale, B
1616 AGD (14) Acropole, 14A 2490 PEU (2) Temple of Shushinak
1624 AGD (14) Acropole 2491 PEU (2) Temple of Shushinak
1641 AGD (14) Acropole, 14B 2528 PEU (3) Temple of Shushinak
1706 STF (1) Ville Royale, 4 2530 PEU (3) Temple of Shushinak
1732 STF (2) south Donjon 2555 PEU (4) Temple of Shushinak
1737 STF (2) Donjon 2573 PEU (6) Donjon(?)
1738 STF (2) Donjon 2586 PEU (6) Donjon(?)
1751 STF (2) Acropole, 17A 2593 PEU (6) Donjon(?)
1819 STF (3) Acropole south 2596 PEU (6) Donjon(?)
1829 STF (3) Apadana 2599 PEU (7) Temple of Shushinak
1836 STF (3) Acropole 2626 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
1898 STF (3) Acropole, 17A 2627 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
1899 STF (3) Acropole, 17A 2628 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
2001 SF (3) Acropole south 2629 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
2002 SF (3) southwest Ville Royale 2630 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
2011 SF (3) Acropole 2631 OBRS (2) –
2027 SF (3) Ville Royale, 4 2632 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
2063 SF (6) Donjon south 2633 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
2064 SF (6) Acropole 2634 OBRS (2) Temple of Shushinak
2112 ARS (1) Ville Royale 2693 OBRS (2) Tomb
2132 ARS (2) Donjon 2696 OBRS (2) Donjon Tomb
2135 ARS (3) Donjon Tomb 2715 OBRS (3) Temple of Shushinak
2137 ARS (3) Donjon Tomb 2727 PEO (3) Temple of Shushinak
2144 ARS (3) Ville Royale 2728 PEO (3) Temple of Shushinak
2148 ARS (3) Acropole 2729 PEO (3) tomb
2149 ARS (3) Acropole 2735 PEO (4) Temple of Shushinak
2160 ARS (5) Ville Royale 2743 PEO (7) Temple of Shushinak
2166 ARS (6) southeast Ville Royale 2745 PEO (7) Temple of Shushinak
2178 ARS (7) Ville Royale 2759 PEO (7) Ville Royale
2186 ARS (8) southeast Ville Royale 2762 PEO (8) Temple of Shushinak
2190 ARS (9) Temple of Shushinak 2763 PEO (8) Temple of Shushinak

2775 EME (1) Ville Royale, 12A 3458 No Image Ville Royale B
2867 EME (5) Acropole, 12A 3459 No Image Ville Royale B
3020 KRS (1) Ville Royale, 13A, tomb 3460 No Image Ville Royale B
3055 LME (1) Temple of Shushinak 3461 No Image Ville Royale B
3130 LME (6) Ville Royale, 13A, tomb 3462 No Image Ville Royale B
3131 LME (6) Ville Royale, 12A 3463 No Image Ville Royale B
3158 LME (7) Ville Royale, 13A, tomb 3464 No Image Ville Royale B
3175 LME (8) Ville Royale, 12A 3465 No Image Ville Royale B
3254 LPS (3) Ville Royale 3466 No Image Ville Royale B
3318 LPS (6) Ville Royale, 9A 3467 No Image Ville Royale B
3391 LGD (2) Ville Royale, 12A 3468 No Image Ville Royale B
3412 LGD (3) Ville Royale, 13A, a tomb 3469 No Image Ville Royale B
3455 No Image Ville Royale B 3472 No Image Ville Royale B
3456 No Image Ville Royale B 3473 No Image Ville Royale B
3457 No Image Ville Royale B 3506 Unclass. Ville Royale, 13A, a tomb
Table 2.12. Survey of glyptic material from Susa with known provenance.
2.2.1.2 Chogha Mish

2.2.1.2.1 Location, Excavation and Publication
The site of Chogha Mish is a large 20 hectare site located some 28km from Susa, on
the eastern flank of the Susiana plain of Khuzistan (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1;
Carter 2001: 311), as demonstrated by Figure 2.3. The site is split into two parts, the
so-called ‘High Mound’ to the north and the ‘Terrace’ areas to the south (Delougaz &
Kantor 1996: 1; Carter 2001: 312; Figure 2.3).
Before the major American excavations at the site, Chogha Mish had already
been noticed and noted by Layard (1846) and Adams (1962; Delougaz & Kantor
1996: 1). The site was excavated by a team from the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, led by Delougaz and Kantor, from 1961 until Iranian political
disturbances brought work to a close in 1978 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1; Carter
2001: 312).
The single main publication of the Chogha Mish material (Delougaz & Kantor
1996) was originally intended to be a preliminary report of the earliest excavations,
however this became the final report of the first five seasons, edited by Alizadeh,
following the deaths of both the primary excavators and authors (Carter 2001: 312).
Most recently Alizadeh has published a second volume, reporting on the Chogha
Mish excavations from the final six seasons of excavations at Chogha Mish (Alizadeh
2008). This volume was published during the final production of this study, and thus
the seals and sealings published in this monograph have not been included here
(Alizadeh 2008: 78 – 79; figure 76). The existence of these items should be

acknowledged however. A preliminary report of the 1974 – 1975 season (Kantor
1976) has also been published and has been included in this study.
Figure 2.3. General plan of Chogha Mish, indicating trenches, sondages and cuts. Areas
shaded blue contained the majority of glyptic items, areas shaded purple produced 1 – 5
glyptic items each. Figure after Delougaz & Kantor 1996: plate 260, with alterations.

The Delougaz and Kantor publication details the results of the excavations of
some thirty-two trenches, seven soundings and the so-called ‘Gully Cut’ operation
(illustrated in Figure 2.3; Delougaz & Kantor 1996), and has produced a significant
amount of material, including a large glyptic assemblage.
2.2.1.2.2 Site Description, Date and Function

The Chogha Mish ‘High Mound’ (illustrated in Figures 2.3 and 2.4), measures some
200 x 150m in area, and rises some 23m from the surrounding plain at its highest
point (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1; Carter 2001: 312). The ‘Terrace’ areas, also
illustrated on Figure 2.3, measure c.400 x 300m at their greatest extent and rises 8.5m
at the highest point (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 2; Carter 2001: 312). As mentioned
above and illustrated by the plan (Figure 2.3) many trenches and sondages were
opened across the entirety of the mound (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 1 – 6).
The site of Chogha Mish was founded in the seventh millennium BC
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 155 – 168, 284 – 305; Carter 2001: 312), and was
continually occupied for several millennia until it was evidently abandoned after the
Middle Susiana Period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 284 – 305; Carter 2001: 312).
During this period the site reached a size of about 13 – 15 hectares at its greatest
extent, and included a “substantially built burnt structure” that was surrounded by a
“fortification” wall (Carter 2001: 312; Kantor 1976; not included in the first major
Chogha Mish publication as it was uncovered in a later, ninth season). The site was
apparently reoccupied in the Late Susiana period, and then again abandoned in the
Terminal Susa A/Early Uruk phase at the end of the fifth millennium (Delougaz &
Kantor 1996: 284 – 305; Carter 2001: 312). As this so-called ‘Archaic’ or
‘Prehistoric’ occupation dates to periods beyond the realms of this study, little more
time need be spent here describing this material.
The Chogha Mish mound was resettled in the so-called ‘Protoliterate’ period
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27 – 36), corresponding to the Middle and Late Uruk
periods of greater Mesopotamia, dated c.3700 – 3200 BC (Delougaz & Kantor 1996;
Carter 2001: 312), or the Susa II period in this study, and it is this occupation that
(along with the Old Elamite occupation discussed below) is of major interest here.
The ‘Protoliterate Town’ was uncovered in the ‘High Mound’ area, and the ‘Terraces’
including the, east and west areas (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27 – 35), with
discoveries also uncovered in numerous smaller areas in isolated trenches (Delougaz

& Kantor 1996: 34 – 35), demonstrated on Figure 2.3. Due to problems of
preservation, as the majority of the Protoliterate remains were uncovered just below
the modern surface, there is no real coherent plan for the ‘Protoliterate Town’
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35; Carter 2001: 312). In the ‘Terrace’ area, however,
drains, kilns and fireplaces were identified (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 28 – 35).
Furthermore, in the east terrace areas houses were also discovered (Delougaz &
Kantor 1996: 30 – 32). In the west terrace area small-scale buildings (identified as
houses) and other features were discerned (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 33 – 34), as was
a ‘Polygonal Platform’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35). This ‘platform’ was uncovered
in Squares J14 – K14 (see figure 2.3) and was constructed of “very hard” mudbricks
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 32). The presence of objects identified as ‘ritual’ (the
precise details and description of which are however, unknown) in the area below the
platform, as well as round hearths and a small feature identified as an altar (Delougaz
& Kantor 1996: 35), have led the excavators to hypothesise that the platform was in
fact a foundation of a no longer preserved temple, built above and over an already
existing, earlier shrine (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35). The accuracy or otherwise of
this statement cannot be further tested on the basis of the current presented evidence
however.
Architectural remains, including brickwork, of “rather imposing proportions”
were uncovered in Squares M9 – N9, on the southwestern slope of the Chogha Mish
‘High Mound’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27), as indicated by Figure 2.4. It has been
suggested that this material represents a temple platform, though this too can only be
classified as an hypothesis on the basis of the current evidence (Delougaz & Kantor
1996: 35). The presence of many typical Uruk period clay cones across the surface of
the Chogha Mish mound, and, reportedly “in the Protoliterate strata” (though details
of where in this strata are not given) (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35), indicative of
public/monumental architecture in the Uruk world generally, does offer evidence to
the presence of some substantial architecture on the Protoliterate ‘High Mound’
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35).

Figure 2.4. Composite plan of the ‘High Mound’ of Chogha Mish, indicating location of
architectural remains, especially the ‘Protoliterate’ (that is, Susa II) and ‘Elamite’ (that is
Sukkalmah) period remains. Figure after Delougaz & Kantor 1996: plate 261, with
alterations.
Other ‘High Mound’ Protoliterate materials include the evidence for a wall in
Square Q10 in association with the ubiquitous Uruk artefact, the bevelled-rim bowl
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27), as illustrated on Figure 2.4. Two baked-brick
‘cesspits’ in Square O9, also containing many bevelled-rim bowls, associated with a

terra cotta drain and paving, also provide evidence for the ‘Protoliterate’ occupation
of Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27; illustrated on Figure 2.4). It has been
suggested by the excavators that these cesspits served a public building in the
Protoliterate period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 35), however again, without the
identification of this unknown public building, such a suggestion cannot by
confirmed.
As already mentioned, the architectural remains at Chogha Mish, particularly
during the Protoliterate period, are quite fragmentary, and indeed, as illustrated by
Figure 2.3, a relatively small proportion of the Chogha Mish mound as a whole has
been excavated. However, on the basis of the preserved and uncovered evidence, a
picture of the so-called ‘Protoliterate Town’ can be, however fragmentarily,
discerned. Thus there is evidence for occupation on the ‘High Mound’, possibly in the
form of monumental/public architecture, including a suggested temple. Other
‘Protoliterate’ remains include the possible temple platform (the ‘Polygonal
Platform’) in the west ‘Terrace’ area, and evidence for houses, drains, kilns and
fireplaces.
These remains are labelled, in the chronology of the Chogha Mish excavators,
‘Protoliterate’. In wider chronological terms, the Protoliterate period corresponds,
according to the excavators, with the Middle and Late Uruk periods (or the period of
the Uruk expansion) (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 27 – 36; Carter 2001: 312 – 313), a
period that corresponds with the Susa II period in the chronology of this study. This
date is assured through the correlative data of the material culture, including the
pottery (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 37 – 102), stone vessels and implements
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 103 – 105), metal tools (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 105 –
106), figurines (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 111 – 112), the clay cones already
mentioned, and of particular interest here, the glyptic items (discussed below), and
other accounting/administrative artefacts such as the so-called ‘clay counters’
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 115 – 132).
Following the Protoliterate occupation of Chogha Mish the site was again
abandoned for a time (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7 – 24; Carter 2001: 312). The
reason for this continual pattern of abandonment and resettlement at Chogha Mish is
unclear, and remains uncommented on in the publication. It must be noted that, given
the relatively large areas of Chogha Mish that remained unexcavated (as demonstrated
by Figure 2.3), it is possible that this pattern is more a reflection of the excavated data

rather than an ancient reality. While this possibility is mere hypothesis, a more
thorough and complete understanding of the pattern of occupation at Chogha Mish
must therefore await both the complete publication of the later excavations and further
excavations at the site.
Be that as it may, on the basis of the current evidence, it is believed that
following the abandonment of the ‘Protoliterate Town’, Chogha Mish was reoccupied
in the early second millennium BC, in the Old Elamite or Sukkalmah period
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18; Carter 2001: 312). The Sukkalmah period remains, on
the basis of the current exposed evidence, appear to be isolated to the ‘High Mound’
region of Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18). Figure 2.4 demonstrates the
areas of occupation and the location of the brickwork dated to the Sukkalmah period.
The main Sukkalmah remains uncovered in the excavations include “very massive
brickwork”, eight to eleven metres in width, uncovered in Squares N6 – N8, and O8
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18). The preserved wall runs 60m north to south, and is
generally very straight (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18). Similar, less well preserved
brickwork was also uncovered in Square R8 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 19). It has
been suggested that these two installations are all that remains of a “massive circuit”
or wall, that enclosed much of the ‘High Mound’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18 – 22;
Carter 2001: 312). Indeed, the modern configuration of the contours of the ‘High
Mound’ reflect, it is proposed, the general outline of this wall, which is interpreted as
a ‘Fort’ (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18 – 22; Carter 2001: 312). The general proposed
outline of this ‘Fort’ is demonstrated in Figure 2.5, and as is shown, only a relatively
small proportion of the proposed projection of this installation is preserved, or
corresponds to actual physical evidence. The accuracy or otherwise of the ‘Fort’
hypothesis cannot be further tested on the basis of the current evidence, though it
should be noted that the excavators anticipated no further remains would be
forthcoming in the area due to the general poor preservation and erosion on the ‘High
Mound’ surface (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 18 – 20).
The Sukkalmah date for the installation, regardless if the ‘Fort’ designation is
accepted or not, is assured courtesy of the ceramic correlations with the associated
pottery and Old Elamite (Sukkalmah) material from Susa (Delougaz & Kantor 1996:
22 – 23). Like the architectural remains themselves, small finds and other artefacts
dating to the Sukkalmah period and levels are relatively scant (Delougaz & Kantor

1996: 24). Fragmentary terra cotta mould figurines found at Chogha Mish can also be
correlated with similar material from Susa (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 23).
Figure 2.5. Proposed outline of the Sukkalmah ‘Fort’, the area shaded green indicates the
location of the preserved, uncovered architecture, area shaded blue the proposed projection.
Figure after Delougaz & Kantor 1996: figure 1, with alterations.
Following the already established pattern of abandonment and resettlement

(which, as discussed above, may be a reflection of excavation and preservation rather
then ancient reality), Chogha Mish again appears to have been abandoned following
the Sukkalmah occupation (Carter 2001: 312; Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7). Again,
there are no clues nor apparent explanations for this abandonment. The site was
‘reoccupied’ in the Neo-Elamite-Achaemenid period (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7;

Carter 2001: 312), and as well as this material, evidence for Parthian, post Parthian,
pre-Islamic and modern architecture and materials has been discerned at Chogha Mish
(Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 7 – 18; Carter 2001: 312). As this material and periods of
occupation belong beyond the chronological realms of this study, no further
discussion of this material is required here.
In conclusion, bracketing the chronologically relevant material, Chogha Mish
was initially occupied for several millennia from the seventh millennium BC until its
abandonment (prefiguring the relevant Middle/Late Uruk occupation) in the fifth
millennium BC. Evidence for occupation from the first millennium BC through to the
modern period has also been found at Chogha Mish but is of no relevance here. The
major, so-called ‘Protoliterate’ occupation occurs in several areas of Chogha Mish,
and includes houses and domestic installations, as well as possible evidence for
monumental/public architecture. The other relevant occupation at Chogha Mish is
represented by a possible ‘Fort’ dating to the Sukkalmah period. The fragmentary
nature of the preceding survey should be noted, and is a reflection of both the
excavation technique, whereby scattered trenches across the mound prevented the
recovery of any broadly exposed architecture, and the poor preservation and thorough
erosion of the remains.

The glyptic material from Chogha Mish was published in the major monograph in two
devoted chapters, prepared by Kantor (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 115 – 154; Carter
2001: 312). While esteem must indeed be accorded to Kantor, as recognised by Carter
(2001: 312), for the great effort taken in unravelling and presenting the multiple seal
impressions found on the Chogha Mish bullae, the presentation and ordering of the
Chogha Mish glyptic material was less than straight forward, and in some ways quite
problematic. The first of these problems is simply one of terminology. The term
‘sealing’ is used throughout the initial administration and accounting chapter of the
Chogha Mish monograph (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: Chapter 6) to refer both to any
piece of clay used to close or ‘seal’ a device (jar, door, bale, bottle etc., that is a
sealing in the popular, general, non-specialised sense), and to refer to a piece of clay
that had been impressed by a seal and so marked (and thus similarly used to seal a jar
door, bottle etc., that is, a sealing in the sense used here). This problem is a common
one in glyptic literature, and has already been addressed above (Chapter 1), but the

result for the purposes of this study is to cause confusion and uncertainty in regards to
when a sealing, as of interest here, is referred to, or simply an unimpressed piece of
clay.
Thankfully, the term ‘clay stopper’ is used in a table in the Chogha Mish
publication to, presumably, refer to the unimpressed clay pieces used to seal bottles
and jars (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: Table 10, 116 – 117), as opposed to the seal
impressed sealings. Thus, according to this table, some 2040, reported, ‘clay [bottle
and jar] stoppers’, were uncovered at Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 117),
six of which are listed as seal impressed (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 116 – 117).
However, no similar information regarding the impressed and not impressed non-
stopper sealings (such as door/wall sealings, door lock sealings, bale sealings) is
presented. Thus the precise number of sealings, either impressed or otherwise, is not
detailed in the Chogha Mish publication.
According to Table 13 of the Chogha Mish monograph, three hundred and
forty-seven impressed sealings were uncovered (or more correctly, registered with a
precise locus) at Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 129). However, following
the sum of the totals presented in Table 15 a number of three hundred and fifty-three
seal impressed sealings is discerned (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 131). Thus,
somewhere around three hundred and fifty sealed items were discovered at Chogha
Mish, significantly less then eventually published, as will be discovered below. As
will also be discovered below, the number of individual seal images represented on
these c.350 sealings was possibly larger given the penchant for bullae sealed by more
than one seal at Chogha Mish.
The second major problem with the Chogha Mish glyptic publication is one of
presentation. While, as already mentioned, great effort was taken in the unravelling
and identification of the individual seal images, the results of this analysis were
presented in a somewhat complicated manner. The designs were defined in terms of
subject matter, and thus presented in Table 16 (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 151 – 154).
However, as is customary, rather then allocating a catalogue or presentation number,
the individual items are detailed according to plate number (Delougaz & Kantor 1996:
151 – 154, plates 131 – 158). As the line drawings and photographs of each sealing
and bullae were presented on separate plates, this approach means that in most cases
at least two plate numbers, and often more then two, are listed for each individual
item/image. This not only makes general analysis and study more complicated and

difficult, but also fails to emphasise and illustrate the bullae that bore more than one
seal image. Furthermore, in several instances, typographical errors appear in regards
to which photograph of a bullae corresponds to which line drawing, further
complicating their presentation.
Through a study of the published images, one hundred and forty-nine
individual glyptic designs can be discerned, and are thus included in the Corpus, as
demonstrated by Table 2.13. The emphasis needs be placed on the term ‘glyptic
designs’, rather then items, for, as already alluded to, some of the bullae from Chogha
Mish were in fact sealed more then once, by separate seals. Thus nine bullae in the
Chogha Mish published corpus bear two or more (as many as six in one case)
impressions made by separate seals. These nine bullae together bore twenty-six
images. The images found on the nine bullae of multiple impressions are marked in
Table 2.13 by an asterix(*) (and further detailed in their individual entries in the
Catalogue).
Thus, the 149 glyptic images included in the Corpus comprise less then half of
the acknowledged glyptic items found at Chogha Mish in the Delougaz and Kantor
excavations. This proportion is further diminished when one takes into account that
the c.350 number refers to glyptic items while the 149 of the corpus includes glyptic
images. Assuming, for the sake of discussion here, that each of the bullae bearing
more then one image only actually contained one, 132 individual glyptic items can be
identified as published from Chogha Mish, thus significantly less then half of the
actual excavated corpus. If the full Chogha Mish corpus had been available for
inclusion here, Chogha Mish would comprise the second largest of the site corpora,
after Susa only. As it stands with the included published corpus, Chogha Mish is the
fifth largest of the site corpora (see Chapters 4 and 5). This limited corpus must be
taken into account when discussing relative distribution and proportions.
One hundred and thirty-eight of the glyptic images are classified as sealings
(bullae, jar sealings, door sealings and so on), with eleven cylinder seals, as
demonstrated by Table 2.13. Figure 2.3 demonstrates the relative proportions of the
glyptic item distribution, according to excavation squares. Four locations can be
characterised as ‘major’ (Square R18 contained 31, R17 produced 46, and the two
lesser squares Q18 and H14 with 12 and 8 items respectively), and the minor areas
that each produced between one and five items. The sealings obviously held an
administrative function, as testified to both by their very existence, and their apparent

provenance in refuse or dump areas (Delougaz & Kantor 1996: 115 – 133). In turn it
can be assumed that the cylinder seals found at Chogha Mish also held an
administrative function. Certainly a funerary function can be discounted as no seals
were reported from a tomb or grave locus. A votive function can also be denied,
though somewhat more tentatively, as no items were found in a definite shrine or
temple context, though this must be said with some caution as the definite temple
designation of several areas of Chogha Mish remains unknown. It is striking, as
demonstrated by Table 2.13, and further discussed in detail below (Chapter 5), that
the styles and images of the sealings do not generally correspond with those of the
cylinder seals themselves however, a dichotomy which may disavow the assumed
similarity in function for the seals and sealings.
Seal Class. Prov. Type Seal Class. Prov. Type

12* STS (1) R18 bulla 117* STS (6) R18 bulla
13* STS (1) J14 – 15 bulla 118* STS (6) R18 bulla
14 STS (1) Q18 door 119 STS (6) Q17 door
sealing sealing
15 STS (1) R17 jar 120 STS (6) R18 door
sealing sealing
16 STS (1) P17 – S17 door 121 STS (6) R18 door
sealing sealing
17 STS (1) H15 bulla 122* STS (6) R21 bullae
18 STS (1) P17 – S17 sealing 123 STS (6) R17 sealing
36* STS (2) J14 – J15 bulla 161* STS (7) R18 bulla
37 STS (2) R17 bulla 162* STS (7) N9 bulla
50 STS (3) S17 tablet 163 STS (7) R17 bulla
51 STS (3) R17 jar 164 STS (7) north of bulla
sealing Q18
52* STS (3) J14 – J15 bulla 165 STS (7) R17 sealing
73 STS (4) north of jar 166 STS (7) R17 door
R17 stopper sealing
74 STS (4) R17 flattish 167 STS (7) R17 sealing
sealing 168 STS (7) Q18 bottle
75* STS (4) R18 bulla stopper
76 STS (4) P17 – S17 sealing 169 STS (7) H13 sealing
77 STS (4) Q18 bulla 170 STS (7) R17 sealing
78 STS (4) R17 sealing 196* STS (8) N9 bulla
79 STS (4) S17 jar 197* STS (8) H14 bulla
sealing 198 STS (8) R18 sealing
80 STS (4) R17 sealing 199 STS (8) R19 bale
81 STS (4) P17 – S17 sealing sealing
82 STS (4) R17 sealing 200 STS (8) H14 tablet
83 STS (4) R17 door 207* STS (9) H14 bulla
sealing 208 STS (9) near Q18 door
84 STS (4) P17 jar sealing
sealing 209 STS (9) R17 door
100 STS (5) R18 tablet sealing
101* STS (5) R21 bullae 228 STS (10) R17 door
114 STS (6) K14 bulla sealing
115* STS (6) J14 – J15 bulla 229 STS (10) R17 door
116* STS (6) N9 bulla sealing

Seal Class. Prov. Type Seal Class. Prov. Type
230 STS (10) R17 door 429 STS (17) S17 sealing
sealing & 452 STS (20) Q18 bulla
sealings 453 STS (20) R21 bulla
231 STS (10) R17 sealing 454 STS (20) R17 bulla
232 STS (10) Q18 sealing 455 STS (20) R17 bulla
234 STS (10) R17 sealing 457 STS (20) north of jar
235 STS (10) P17 sealing R19 stopper
247 STS (11) Q18 sealing 458 STS (20) east of bulla
262 STS (12) P17 sealing R21
263 STS (12) Q18 sealing 459 STS (20) R18 bulla
284 STS (13) R17 bullae 460 STS (20) R18 bulla
285* STS (13) J14 – J15 bulla 473 STS (21) Q18 tablet
286 STS (13) R18 sealing 474* STS (21) H14 bulla
349 STS (15) S17 tablet 476* STS (21) R18 bulla
350 STS (15) R18 tablet 477* STS (21) R18 bulla
351 STS (15) R18 bulla 478 STS (21) R17 & door
352* STS (15) R18 bulla R17 sealings
353 STS (15) J14 bulla 479 STS (21) R17 sealing
354 STS (15) near Q18 sealing 480 STS (21) R17 jar
355 STS (15) R17 sealings sealing
356 STS (15) near Q18 door 481 STS (21) R17 sealing
sealings 482 STS (21) P17 sealing
357 STS (15) R18 bulla 483 STS (21) north of bottle
358 STS (15) R17 sealing Q18 stopper
359 STS (15) Q18 sealing 484 STS (21) R18 sealing
360 STS (15) S22 sealing 485 STS (21) R17 sealing
394 STS (16) R18 tablet 486 STS (21) R18; Q18 bale
395* STS (16) R18 bulla sealings
396* STS (16) R18 bulla 511 STS (22) H15 tablet
397 STS (16) west of jar 512 STS (22) R18 tablet
R21 sealing 513 STS (22) H14 bulla
398* STS (16) H14 bulla 514 STS (22) R17 sealing
399 STS (16) near Q18 sealing 515 STS (22) J13 sealing
400 STS (16) west of flat 516 STS (22) R17 sealing
R18 sealing 596 JNRS (4) Q18 sealing
401 STS (16) J14 bulla 720 JNRS (5) wall cylinder
402 STS (16) R17 sealing between
403 STS (16) near Q18 sealings Q19 &
404 STS (16) Q17 sealings Q18
405 STS (16) R18 sealing 721 JNRS (5) R21 cylinder
406 STS (16) R17 sealing 722 JNRS (5) east of cylinder
407 STS (16) H14 bulla R18
408 STS (16) R18 bale 723 JNRS (5) R17 cylinder
sealing 724 JNRS (5) Q19 cylinder
421 STS (17) R17 door 725 JNRS (5) R18 cylinder
sealings 726 JNRS (5) R17 sealing
422* STS (17) H14 bulla 727 JNRS (5) R17 sealing
423* STS (17) R18 bulla 728 JNRS (5) R18 sealing
424 STS (17) R17 sealings 1431 AGD (3) west of P8 cylinder
425 STS (17) R17 sealing 1573 AGD (13) R17 cylinder
426 STS (17) R17 sealing 1678 AGD (15) Q19 cylinder
427 STS (17) R17 sealing 2606 PEU (7) surface cylinder
428 STS (17) P17 sealing 3300 LPS (5) – cylinder
Table 2.13. Survey of glyptic material from Chogha Mish.

2.2.1.3 Haft Tepe
Haft Tepe 2 lies some 15km southeast of Susa (Carter & Stolper 1984: 156), on the
Susiana Plain in the modern province of Khuzistan, see Figure 2.1. There is, however,
some disagreement in the literature regarding this distance; Potts states the distance as
c.10km (1999: 196), while Amiet (1996: 135), Carter (Carter & Stolper 1984: 33;
Carter 1999: 114) and Mofidi Nasrabadi (2003-04b: 225) place the distance at 20km.
While an appeal to the excavator may help solve such a dilemma, Negahban only
gives the distance of Haft Tepe from the modern Iranian town Andimeshk (50km to
the south [Negahban 1990: 137]). Therefore the median of the listed distances has
been given here.
Haft Tepe comprises some fourteen variously proportioned mounds of an area
of at least 30 hectares (Carter & Stolper 1984: 158; Potts 1999: 196; Negahban 1991:
120). More recently, Carter has listed the estimated area of Haft Tepe (including the
area covered by a modern sugar plantation, see Figure 2.6) as 150 hectares (Carter
1999: 114). There is also some discrepancy in the reporting of the number of mounds
at Haft Tepe, for, along with the above cited references to fourteen mounds,
Negahban counts eleven mounds in the preliminary publication (1969: 175), and
curiously, the name Haft Tepe itself means ‘Seven Mounds’ in the local Persian
dialect, though of course, this could indicate ‘many’.
The initial excavations of Haft Tepe were led by Negahban over fourteen
seasons (eleven of which focused on excavations, the others formed short restoration
and repair seasons) from 1965 to 1976 (Negahban 1991: 6 – 11). More recently a joint
Iranian-German team has returned to Haft Tepe, undertaking geophysical
(geomagnetic) analysis and small excavations over, to date, three excavation seasons
(Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04b). Apart from the single preliminary report (Mofidi
Nasrabadi 2003-04b), details of these excavations have yet to be published, and as
such the presentation of Haft Tepe here is limited to information yielded in the
Negahban excavations and contained in his major excavation report (1991). Two
volumes, an excavation report and, of primary interest here, a volume detailing the
glyptic material from the Iranian-German excavations, are currently being prepared
by Mofidi Nasrabadi.
2
Also Haft Tappeh

It is estimated that only one fiftieth of Haft Tepe was excavated in the
Negahban excavations (1991: 137), as demonstrated by Figure 2.6, a factor which
must be taken into account when discussing the nature of the site. Most of
Negahban’s work was focused on the so-called ‘Tomb-Temple’ and ‘Terrace
Complex’ areas (1991: 6 – 11), marked on Figures 2.6 and 2.7. Although work on the
mound Haft Tepe B was undertaken by Negahban, there are no published results from
this area (Negahban 1991: 6 – 11), apart from the reference to the provenance of
glyptic material discussed below.
Figure 2.6. Plan of Haft Tepe (Kabnak), indicating the excavated area and surrounds
(coloured black). Area shaded blue corresponds to Haft Tepe Mound B, apparently one of
three major areas of glyptic provenance according to Negahban 1991:53 – 54; for the other
two sections see Figure 2.7. After Carter 1999: fig. 2, with alterations.
2.2.1.3.2 Site Description

The ‘Tomb-Temple’ building (see Figure 2.7) contained a vaulted tomb (Negahban
1991: 8), one chamber of which contained “possibly 21” skeletons (Negahban 1991:
8, 20 – 21). Negahban believes that two skeletons found at the northern end of this
chamber are the remains of Tepti-ahar and his “favourite servant girl” (1991: 15, 21),
though this is purely speculative. A second, smaller chamber to the west of this main
room contained twenty-three articulated skeletons and is called the ‘mass burial tomb’
(Negahban 1991: 21 – 22). Thus the funerary nature of this building is without
question. What seems less apparent, however, is the ‘temple’ designation. The
evidence for this term seems to rest with the discovery of a broken stele that details
offerings to be made to the building (Negahban 1991: 7 – 9, 14 – 15, 102 – 109).

However, a mistranslation of the term É.DÙ.A used on this stele causes this
interpretation (Reiner 1973b: 88; Malbran-Labat 1995: 185). This word is more
correctly translated as ‘house, construction’ rather than ‘temple’ and thus makes no
reference to the temple nature of the tomb (Potts 1999: 198). Therefore the area is
here accepted as a ‘tomb’, that, based on current evidence, is most appropriately
labelled a ‘Funerary Complex’. However, it should be noted that the fragmentary stele
does assure the connection of the tomb area with Tepti-ahar (Reiner 1973b: 88; Potts
1999: 198).
The function and designation of the two ‘Terrace Complexes’ is equally
difficult to ascertain, and little discussion of their function is given in the excavation
report. ‘Terrace Complex I’, located to the southeast of the ‘Funerary Complex’ (see
Figure 2.7), is a large, almost square brick terrace with adjacent rooms (Negahban
1991: 12 – 15). ‘Terrace Complex II’, located to the south of the first (Figure 2.7), is
apparently higher, though little of this complex was excavated (Negahban 1991: 19).
The rooms, courtyards and corridors surrounding Complex I yielded the
majority of the small finds from Haft Tepe (including the glyptic material; as
demonstrated in Figure 2.7) (Negahban 1991: 15 – 19). Of particular note is Hall No.
6, the so-called ‘artist’s workshop’, which contained sculptured human heads of clay,
worked and unworked ivory, bitumen roundels and mosaic fragments (Negahban
1994; Potts 1999: 199). In the same general vicinity was a kiln, which Negahban
believes to have been used for ceramic and metal manufacture, along with bronze
weaponry, the majority of the seal impressions found at Haft Tepe, and an unspecified
amount of the “nearly four thousand complete and partial clay tablets” found at the
site (Negahban 1991: 31, Negahban 1994: 361; Potts 1999: 199). It is possible that
this area of the site had a temple function, as demonstrated by the apparent presence
of scribal and craft activity here (Potts 1999: 200 – 201).

Figure 2.7. General plan of the excavated (Negahban) remains of Haft Tepe. Area coloured
blue indicates two of three sections identified as major sources of glyptic material (Negahban
1991: 49, 53 – 54), for the third area see Figure 2.6. Area coloured red indicates the kiln and
‘workshop’ area, alternatively cited as an area of major glyptic provenance (Negahban 1990:
138). Area coloured yellow indicates area where many tablets, including those that were
sealed, were discovered (Negahban 1991: 9). After Carter 1999: fig. 3, with alterations.

2.2.1.3.3 Date
It is almost universally accepted that Haft Tepe is associated with the Middle Elamite
king Tepti-ahar (Negahban 1990: 137; 1991: 8; 1994: 31; Carter & Stolper 1984: 33;
Amiet 1996: 142; Potts 1999: 206; Carter 1999: 116 – 119). Negahban believes that
Tepti-ahar founded Haft Tepe (1990: 138; 1991: 108), a proposition that is implicitly
or explicitly accepted by many. However, this assumption requires some refinement.
As already discussed above (see Tables 2.6 and 2.7) the reign of Tepti-ahar is usually
placed somewhere in the Middle Elamite I period (c.1500 – 1400 BC) (Potts 1999:
188). The order of the Middle Elamite kings is not definite, but it is generally held
that Tepti-ahar’s reign was towards the middle of the Kidinuid ‘dynasty’, after the
reign of Shalla (provided this individual reigned at all) and before the reign of
Inshushinak-shar-ilani (Potts 1999: 191 – 193; Table 2.6). The sixteen tablets,
originally thought to have originated from Malamir in the Bakhitiari Mountains and
hence known as the ‘Malamir texts’, are dated to the early Middle Elamite period on
epigraphical evidence, and comprise most of our evidence regarding Shalla (Glassner
1991: 117). Fifteen of these tablets mention this individual, and one Tepti-ahar (Steve
et al. 1980: 96) (thus assuring the Middle Elamite date of these texts), and on this
basis Shalla is usually placed immediately before Tepti-ahar in time (Glassner 1991:
17; Steve et al. 1980: 96). Stolper, following Reiner, has suggested, based on
prosographic evidence, that the Malamir texts actually originated from Haft Tepe
(1987-90: 280). Glassner however disputes this finding, concluding that, upon the
basis of statistical analysis and probability, these texts did not originally come from
Haft Tepe (1991: 117-18). Instead he believes the texts originated from Huhnur
(Glassner 1991: 118). Lacking the necessary expertise in epigraphy, nothing more can
be added to this debate here.
Be that as it may, if Stolper’s assertion is correct, this calls for a
reconsideration of the date of the foundation (occupation?) of Haft Tepe. The
Malamir texts detail the reign of the king that preceded Tepti-ahar, and, if they do
originate from Haft Tepe, then the date of the foundation/occupation of Haft Tepe
must be pushed back at least to the reign of Shalla. This of course also relies upon the
assumption that Shalla reigned as king, a proposition that is still unproven (see
above), and his place in the order of succession. Thus, the foundation date of Haft
Tepe currently rests upon two unproven hypotheses. Firstly, that the Malamir texts

should be sourced from Haft Tepe, and secondly, that Shalla was an actual Middle
Elamite king who preceded Tepti-ahar.
The exact duration of the occupation of Haft Tepe was not discussed in the
final publication, but it is implied that the site was primarily occupied during the reign
of Tepti-ahar. However, in a preliminarily publication, Negahban describes a 2m2
‘deep test trench’ (1969: 177), not mentioned in the final publication. This trench
yielded “two main constructional levels below the level which we have been
excavating” (Negahban 1969: 177; Carter 1971: 73). Nothing more is said of these
two levels, except that the “walls were very thick” (Negahban 1969: 177). This gives
possibly three major construction levels at Haft Tepe, indicating that the site may well
have been occupied for more than the reign of Tepti-ahar. It is stated by Negahban in
the final publication, as an incidental comment, that the occupation levels of Haft
Tepe appear to display “a single historical period lasting no more than 100 or 150
years” (1991: 12), further lending evidence to the extended occupation (extended, that
is, beyond a single kingly reign) hypothesis proposed here.
The possibility that Haft Tepe was occupied, in some capacity, before the
reign of Tepti-ahar is thus suggested from both the epigraphic evidence (if Stolper is
correct and the Malamir texts do originate from Haft Tepe, and Shalla was indeed a
king), and the depth of occupation. Both pieces of evidence are unsubstantiated and
difficult to prove, and as such the possibility that Haft Tepe extended before the reign
of Tepti-ahar is only a speculative hypothesis, and must remain so until further
evidence, especially in the form of excavated data from Haft Tepe is made known.
The glyptic material itself provides evidence for dating the occupation of Haft
Tepe beyond the reign of Tepti-ahar. As well as sealings belonging to servants of
Tepti-ahar, there is a sealing that names a certain Adad-eris, servant of Inshushinak-
shar-ilani, king of Susa (Amiet 1996: 140; 2934). The Elamite king Inshushinak-shar-
ilani is thought to have been the immediate successor to Tepti-ahar (Potts 1999: 191 –
193) (see above for details, Table 2.6). As such, the presence of a seal belonging to a
servant of Inshushinak-shar-ilani at Haft Tepe indicates that the site was occupied at
least into the reign of this king. We can therefore state that Haft Tepe was occupied
during the reigns of Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani (based on the presence of
texts, in the case of Tepti-ahar, and dated seals for both kings [2934, 2982, 2984,
2985]; for further details on the ‘Dated Seals’ see below, Chapters 3.4 and 7.2) and
perhaps also during the reign of Shalla.

A cylinder seal from the nearby site of Tepe Sharafabad (2760), discussed in
more detail below, dated on the basis of stylistic grounds to the Sukkalmah period,
names an individual in its inscription called “Tatta son of Shukuku” (see Chapter
2.2.1.5 for details). Both Tatta and Shukuku can possibly be linked to synonymously
named individuals on texts from Susa, also dated to the Sukkalmah period (Schacht
1975: 326). In one of these texts Tatta is associated with a place, originally
transliterated as Gapnak. It is proposed that the previously unidentified place (town?)
Gapnak be associated with ‘Kapnak’ (or its preferred usage here Kabnak) (L. Siddall
pers. comm. 2008), the ancient name of Haft Tepe (see below for further details).
Admittedly, this proposal is not entirely proven. However, if it is accepted that the
Tatta on the Sharafabad seal can be associated with the Tatta on the Susa texts, and in
turn if the place ‘Gapnak’ associated with Tatta in the Susa texts is identified as
‘Kapnak’, proposals that are all possible if not definite, then it can be concluded both
that there were interactions between Susa, Tepe Sharafabad and Haft Tepe in this
period (late Sukkalmah/early Middle Elamite), and, more importantly, that Haft Tepe
was occupied during this period (that is, before Tepti-ahar). Furthermore, is it possible
to connect “Tatta” of the Sharafabad seal, with “Tata” the sukkal (see Table 2.3)
detailed on another Susa text? This association would further reinforce the Sukkalmah
period date for Tatta/Tata, that may further indicate in turn an earlier date of Haft
Tepe.
While it would be imprudent to (re)date the foundation of a site on such
hypothetical reconstructions alone, coupled with the above outlined evidence for
earlier, unexplored occupation levels at Haft Tepe, and the proposal of the association
with Shalla, the possible mention of Haft Tepe/Kabnak in a Sukkalmah period text
from Susa adds further evidence to a proposal that Haft Tepe was occupied for a time
before Tepti-ahar, back into the late Sukkalmah period.
Little information is given in Negahban’s report regarding the end of the
occupation at Haft Tepe, though, as reported above, there is a general implication that
it was abandoned with, or shortly after, the demise of Tepti-ahar. As already
mentioned, the presence of a sealing naming Inshushinak-shar-ilani provides evidence
that Haft Tepe was occupied in the reign of this king. There is evidence that, at least,
part of Haft Tepe suffered some destruction by fire, though any supporting data is
generally reported as incidental remarks, rather than through any detailed

explanation 3 (Negahban 1991: 19, 45). Carter reports that “evidence for sacking is
limited”, but does accept that many of the halls surrounding the Terrace Complexes
were cleared before they were destroyed by fire (Carter 1999: 114, 118). Though
again, evidence for this is not particularly forthcoming, the ‘clearing out’ process
seems to primarily have been concluded by the lack of certain finds in the excavations
(Negahban 1991: 45). Thus, apart from the proposal that Haft Tepe was not
immediately abandoned concurrently with the demise of Tepti-ahar, but continued in
use at least into the reign of Inshushinak-shar-ilani (assuming, of course, that the
current chronological placement of this king after Tepti-ahar is accepted), little more
can be said regarding the final date of occupation at Haft Tepe. The proposal for the
sacking and fire destruction of Haft Tepe, must remain precisely a proposal on the
current basis of evidence 4 .
In conclusion, direct textual evidence from Haft Tepe indicates that the site
was occupied during the reigns of the early Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite I) period
kings, Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani. Other textual references, of uncertain
provenance, may also imply that Haft Tepe was occupied during the reign of Shalla.
Limited published information regarding other, unexplored levels of occupation
below the main detailed level, and the possible identification of Haft Tepe with
Gapnak mentioned in Sukkalmah period texts (possibly in association with the
Sukkalmah period sukkal Tata) from Susa indicate that Haft Tepe may have been
occupied for some time before the reigns of these ‘Kidinuid’ kings, into the late
Sukkalmah period. As no evidence or artefacts belonging to a significantly later
period have been found, the occupation of Haft Tepe can reasonably be limited to the
early part of the Middle Elamite period (Middle Elamite I, perhaps into Middle
Elamite II). Thus, in this study, the estimated period of occupation of Haft Tepe
includes, conservatively, the late Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite period, with
the tentative dates c.1700 – 1400/1300 BC proposed for the primary occupation of the
site. This gives Haft Tepe a larger chronological extension than is often assumed or
implied. For the purpose of this study, this means that the glyptic material from Haft
Tepe does not belong to a single reign, but a longer period, and as such more
3
For example: “Metal objects were limited in number at Haft Tepe, possibly because the site had been
sacked before its destruction by fire” (Negahban 1991: 45).
4
Early internet reports from the most recent Iranian-German excavations at Haft Tepe, indicate that
there is indeed more evidence for fire destruction at Haft Tepe (http://www.staff.uni-
mainz.de/mofidi/Hafttape,english/projects.html; last modified 30/5/2007), that will, it is anticipated, be
included in the forthcoming Mofidi Nasrabadi work.

completely bridges the gap between the glyptic material from the Sukkalmah and
Middle Elamite periods (outlined below, Chapters 3 and 4).
2.2.1.3.4 Ancient Name, Function and Status

Texts, and a seal impression (2912) that refers to the ‘grand-governor of Kabnak’,
have meant that Haft Tepe has long been associated with the ancient town Kabnak 5
(Negahban 1990: 138; 1991: 109; Potts 1999: 201 – 205), a proposition that there is
no just cause to question here (though the above outlined proposal that Kabnak be
associated with Gapnak should be noted). However, the nature of the site of Haft Tepe
must be discussed. Negahban believes that Tepti-ahar lived, reigned and was buried at
Haft Tepe (1991: 12 – 15, 31, 36; Potts 1999: 204), which was an important political,
administrative and religious centre during his reign (Negahban 1994: 36). This
promotes Haft Tepe to a capital position, a concept that is at odds with the titulature
of Tepti-ahar himself, who is a ‘king of Susa and Anshan’ (Carter & Stolper 1984:
160; Negahban 1991: 108). It is expediently argued that Susa was in a period of
decline and partial abandonment at this time (Potts 1999: 204 – 205), allowing Haft
Tepe to fill the principal site vacuum left by the Susa decline. This decline and
abandonment is possibly more a symptom of the present state of our knowledge rather
than an accurate description of the situation at Susa, and indeed, the survey of Susa in
this period as detailed above is not exactly one of abandonment. However, as will be
outlined below, the titular co-capital, Anshan (modern day Tal-i Malyan), was
apparently not even occupied in this early Middle Elamite period, indicating that the
kingly titulature can be deceptive, and should not be taken on its own as motive to
reject such a proposal.
It has also been suggested that Tepti-ahar was a regional or petty king, who
ruled over a smaller kingdom, perhaps extending only to the area around Haft Tepe,
and vied for control of Susa and greater Elam with an unnamed king of Huhnur
(Carter & Stolper 1984: 34; Glassner 1991: 118). Similarly, Glassner has suggested,
in an attempt to reconcile the now rejected Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-Enlil correlation
with the chronology presented by the Berlin Letter for the later Middle Elamite period
(discussed above), that Tepti-ahar was a rival and contemporary of Igi-halki (Glassner
1991: 118). It seems more appropriate to dismiss the Kadashman-Enlil correlation
5
Perhaps more appropriately ‘Kapnak’ (L. Siddall, pers. com.), though the term Kabnak is retained here
following convention.

rather than accept this hypothesis (Potts 1999: 204ff), for this would also require a
reassessment of the position of the kings that succeeded Tepti-ahar but preceded the
Igi-halkids (see above).
The ‘Huhnur hypothesis’ is rather more appealing however. If the location of
Huhnur is placed near Arjan, as has been suggested (Duchene 1986), and the
occupation of the two sites was contemporaneous, then it is probable that a power
struggle of some sort occurred between the sovereigns of these two sites. The
disjointed and disunited nature of Elam in this period could account for the very
fragmentary and unclear picture presented by the current evidence. Further, the vague
and uncertain reference of an early Kassite defeat of the otherwise unknown
Hurbatila, king of Elammat (Elam?), mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle P (Vallat
1995: 1027; Carter & Stolper 1984: 35; Steve et al. 1980: 99 – 100), could be placed
in this fragmented period (see above). However, this hypothesis is currently only
extremely speculative as neither the king of Huhnur’s name, nor the exact location of
this site is known, and as such any hypothesis regarding this is pure speculation.
Indeed, as the Malamir texts, discussed above, are our only source of information
regarding Shalla, if Glassner’s suggestion that these texts originated from Huhnur
(1991: 118), and not Haft Tepe as outlined above, is correct, then it is possible that
Shalla is the unknown king of Huhnur competing with Tepti-ahar. Again, such a
proposal is extremely speculative and must remain purely hypothetical on the basis of
current information.
It seems that during the Middle Elamite I period, or at least the period of the
Kidinuid kings Shalla, Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-ilani, the site of Haft Tepe
was a site of some importance. To a certain degree this was probably at the expense of
Susa, though it is doubtful that Haft Tepe ever attained the extent of influence that
was Susa’s. Indeed, for political or other unfathomable personal reasons, Haft Tepe
may have become the actual residence of any or all of these monarchs, though this
does not mean that Susa lost it’s, at least titular, capital status, or that it was
abandoned.
The above outlined proposal for the extension of the occupation of Haft Tepe
back into the Sukkalmah period further provides evidence for the function of Haft
Tepe in this period. In the text that forms the primary basis of this proposal, Tatta is
referred to as the scribe and ‘canal-inspector’ of Gapnak (Kabnak), in a list of
“important people” (Schacht 1975: 326). This text is compared by Stolper with a

similar list that details the issuing of garments and sheep to people that can possibly
be identified as ‘officials’ (Schacht 1975: 326). If the (above described possible, but
tenuous) association of Tatta of Gapnak with Kabnak is accepted, and Stolper and
Schacht’s interpretations of these texts are also accepted, it can be inferred that during
the early periods of occupation at Haft Tepe (the Sukkalmah period), the site was
involved in a system of control that involved Susa as the primary partner and, to some
degree, the governing or control of Haft Tepe (and if the identification of Tatta of
Gapnak in the Susa texts with the Tatta on the Sharafabad seal, discussed below, is
accepted, control of Tepe Sharafabad as well). Thus during the Sukkalmah period
Haft Tepe can be seen as a satellite, or dependant site under the control of Susa, while
in the following early Middle Elamite period (especially the reign of Tepti-ahar), it
can be proposed that the importance and status of Haft Tepe rose in comparison to
Susa, for at least a time.
As stated above, only an extremely small portion of Haft Tepe has been
excavated, and no residential, or indeed any form of domestic architecture, has been
uncovered at the site, thus any conclusion as to its function is extremely provisional. It
should also be noted that Ghirshman has estimated that only about one-fiftieth of the
area of the Ville Royale of Susa, occupied in the second millennium, has also been
excavated (Carter 1971: 74). This means that we are attempting to reconstruct the
interactions between these two sites, and the history of a period as a whole through
two equally limited excavated sites and obscure, often secondary, references in
occasional historical documents. Thus little can be said with anything resembling
certainty. All that is known is that Haft Tepe appeared to have gained a role of some
importance in the early Middle Elamite period, the precise nature of which is
currently unknown.
One possible facet of this importance is Haft Tepe’s potential role as a craft
centre. The small finds in the halls and rooms surrounding the ‘Terrace Complexes’
testify to this function. It is possible that the large amount of sealings found in the
vicinity of Hall No. 6 and the kiln (in both the general and immediate vicinity, as
evidenced by Figure 2.7) indicates that items that were sent from other areas of Haft
Tepe, or indeed from other Elamite sites, to be worked in these craft workshops. This
potential craft function, and especially the impact this has on the function of the
sealings found here, will be further discussed below (Chapter 6).

As already mentioned, Negahban published the final excavation report of his Haft
Tepe excavations in 1991, some twelve years after cessation of his excavations. This
was completed in the U.S.A., and the author lacked access to many essential pieces of
information that remained in Iran (Negahban 1991: xxv). In light of these difficulties,
the publication is an important, and useful, addition to Elamite glyptic studies. The
glyptic information from Haft Tepe has only been published in this report (except for
a brief article by Amiet [1996], which limits itself primarily to commenting on the
problems with the publication, an issue that will be addressed here also), and therefore
has not received thorough treatment by a glyptic expert 6 .
Without dwelling on the problems excessively, something must be said
regarding the publication of the glyptic material of Haft Tepe, which, in some regards
leaves a lot to be desired. One of the major problems is in the area of language. There
is a general lack of quantitative terms throughout the publication. In a preliminary
report it is stated that a “fairly large number of cylinder seals and seal impressions”
were found at Haft Tepe (Negahban 1990: 138), however in the final publication we
are told that “a few seals and a large number of seal impressions were found”
(Negahban 1991: 49). Finally a reference to “nearly 300 impressions” is found
elsewhere (Negahban 1991: 54). This arbitrary language, that uses terms such as ‘a
few’, a ‘fairly large number’ and ‘nearly 300’, means that the reader has no clear idea
of how many actual seals and impressions were found at Haft Tepe, a situation which
obviously impacts upon the conclusions reached for this material (indeed, it can be
argued that, without access to the material held in Iran, or records detailing such
information, Negahban had no exact numbers on hand regarding the glyptic material,
a situation that while understandable, does not alter the fact of the difficulties
presented by a lack of absolute numerical terms).
Amiet has already drawn attention to problems with the classifications and
line drawing reproductions of the impressions, noting that very similar examples were
classed by Negahban under different rubrics and that the line drawing draftsman made
some erroneous representations (Amiet 1996: 136). Also, no indication of scale for
the photographic reproductions is given, nor are any dimensions recorded in the
6
The addition of the Mofidi Nasrabadi glyptic publication will, of course, change the publication status
of the Haft Tepe glyptic material.

written catalogue, hampering any study based upon such considerations or
comparisons.
The glyptic material was divided by Negahban according to cutting style, with
the larger group (the so-called ‘Haft Tepe Common Style’) further sub-divided by
subject matter (Negahban 1991: 100). We are assured that all styles and themes are
presented in sample in the publication (Negahban 1991: 100), however no indication
of how much these sub-divisions reflect actual proportions in the excavated material
is given.
The types of seal impressions found at Haft Tepe include jar stoppers, door
locks, sealed tablets and clay envelopes. Apparently the sealings are “mostly jar
stoppers” (Negahban 1991: 53). However, no indication of impression type is
generally given in the catalogue. Furthermore, due to the above mentioned lack of
scale or indication of size, any attempt to rectify this situation and discern the type of
impression from the photograph, is difficult to say the least.
Finally, the catalogue does not detail where, within the site, the seals and
impressions were found. Certain locations are identified as being ‘major locations’ or
sources of glyptic material (Negahban 1991: 49, 53 – 54). However, as indicated by
Figures 2.6 and 2.7, there is some discrepancy in these designations. The second time
Negahban lists these designations, the previously missed area “H. T. B” is included
(Negahban 1991: 54). It is assumed that this refers to Mound B, as no other
designation appears to correspond to this title. However, there is also little
information given regarding Haft Tepe Mound B in the final excavation report,
though Negahban does state that excavations were undertaken there (1991: 6 – 11).
Also, in another article, Negahban cites the area around Hall No. 6 and the ‘kiln’, not
mentioned in this regard in the final excavation report, as a source of a “fairly large
number of cylinder seals and seal impressions” (Negahban 1990: 138). It can be
accepted that all these areas were primary sources of sealings, though again there is
no indication of what proportion of the excavated corpus is actually represented by
the term “many”.
Seven stamp seals (obviously of no relevance here) and seven cylinder seals
were published in the final publication (Negahban 1991: 49ff), and this can be
considered the total examples found (Negahban 1991: 49). Two hundred and ten seal
impressions were also published, with fifteen of these confusingly catalogued twice,
the second time as so-called ‘partial pieces’ (Negahban 1991: 49 – 101). This is

approximately one hundred less than the total found at the site, assuming that three
hundred glyptic pieces can be understood from the ‘nearly 300’. It is alluded to by
Negahban, and confirmed by Amiet, that the best-preserved and most attractive
examples only were published (Negahban 1991: 49 – 53; Amiet 1996: 136). While
this is an understandable and common situation, it still disadvantages this study, as the
publication is the only resource available.
Thus, the total Haft Tepe corpus included in this study numbers two hundred
and ten pieces, including seven cylinder seals and two hundred and three sealings, as
illustrated by Table 2.14, this is a relatively large group within the Corpus. Indeed,
aside from the unusual site of Susa, this is the largest of all the site corpora. In light of
the fact that, at least, another one hundred known items uncovered in the Haft Tepe
excavations are not included in this group, and the fact that Haft Tepe is believed to
have been occupied for a relatively short amount of time, the size of the Haft Tepe
corpus is even more extraordinary.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the glyptic material from Haft Tepe is
sealings, rather than seals (as demonstrated below, Chapters 4 and 5). The
preponderance of the sealings at Haft Tepe can be seen as a reflection of the function
of seals (and sealings) at the site. Reportedly, the majority of these sealings were
discovered in trash deposits surrounding workshops and possible craft production
areas (Negahban 1991: 49), as demonstrated by the Figure 2.7 areas specifically. The
dichotomy between seals and sealings at Haft Tepe is even more pronounced in
reflection of the corresponding dominance of cylinder seals at the partially
contemporary site of Choga Zanbil (further outlined below). The exact functioning of
seals at both these sites will be further outlined below (Chapter 6).
Current Current Type Current Current Type

Number Classification Number Classification
2252 ARS (10) sealing 2786 EME (2) sealing
2702 OBRS (2) cylinder 2787 EME (2) sealed tablet
2776 EME (1) sealing 2788 EME (2) sealing
2780 EME (1) sealing 2792 EME (2) sealed tablet
2795 EME (2) sealing
2796 EME (2) sealed tablet
2784 EME (2) sealing 2804 EME (3) cylinder

2811 EME (3) sealing 2894 EME (6) sealings
2817 EME (3) sealed tablet 2900 EME (6) sealing
2822 EME (3) sealed envelope 2905 EME (6) sealing
2828 EME (3) sealing 2911 EME (6) sealed envelope
2829 EME (3) sealed clay cone 2912 EME (6) sealed tablets
2830 EME (3) sealed clay cone 2913 EME (6) sealing
2873 EME (5) sealing 2944 EME (6) sealed envelope

2963 EME (6) sealed envelope 3028 KRS (1) cylinder
2982 EME (8) sealing 3043 KRS (2) sealing
2983 EME (8) sealing 3474 No Image sealed tablet
2984 EME (8) sealed tablet 3483 Mittanian cylinder
2985 EME (8) sealed tablet 3484 Mittanian cylinder
2986 EME (8) sealing 3561 Unclassifiable fired clay sealing
2987 EME (8) sealing 3562 Unclassifiable fired clay sealing
2988 EME (8) sealed tablet 3563 Unclassifiable cylinder
2989 EME (8) sealing 3564 Unclassifiable cylinder
2990 EME (8) sealing 3565 Unclassifiable sealing
2991 EME (8) sealed tablet 3566 Unclassifiable sealing
2992 EME (8) sealed tablet 3567 Unclassifiable sealing
2996 EME (9) sealing 3592 Not Illustrated sealing
Table 2.14. Survey of glyptic material from Haft Tepe (Kabnak).
2.2.1.4 Choga Zanbil

Choga Zanbil 7 is located approximately 40km southeast of Susa, on a ridge above the
Diz River, in the Susiana region of Khuzistan (Potts 1999: 222; Carter & Stolper
1984: 37; Carter 1999: 119, who lists the distance as 35km), see Figure 2.1. The site
was brought to the attention of the French excavators of Susa by oil prospectors,
leading Mecquenem to execute several sounding trenches in 1936 and 1939
(Mecquenem & Michalon 1953; Potts 1999: 222). However, it was Ghirshman, again
under the auspices of the French Délégation, who carried out the major excavations at
7
Also spelt Tchoga Zanbil, Choga Zambil, Chogha Zanbil and Tchoga Zambil. The name means
‘Basket Mound’ a reference to the shape of the ziggurat.

Choga Zanbil over nine seasons in the 1950’s and early 1960’s (Ghirshman 1966: 2).
The results of these excavations were published in four volumes in the French
Mission series (MDP). One volume details the central ziggurat (Ghirshman 1966)
another the other architectural remains (Ghirshman 1968), another is dedicated to the
tablets and texts found at the site produced by Steve (1967), and, of primary
importance here, a fourth volume is dedicated to the glyptic remains from Choga
Zanbil, authored by Porada (1970).
From 1997 to 2002, a joint Iranian-German team, led by Behzad Mofidi
Nasrabadi returned to Choga Zanbil, and undertook surveys, geophysical operations
and excavations (in three areas, labelled Areas A – C, see Figure 2.8). The results of
this work has been detailed in an article (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04a) and a recently
published monograph (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007). A single seal found in these
excavations (3100; discussed below), was published by Mofidi in the main
monograph (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007).
2.2.1.4.2 Site Description

The main site of Choga Zanbil lies within a major enclosure wall that runs for
approximately 4km, enclosing an area of roughly 100 hectares (Potts 1999: 222;
Carter & Stolper 1984: 37, 160), as illustrated by Figure 2.8. Within this area is a
large amount of open space that, according to Ghirshman, appeared never to have
been built upon (Ghirshman 1968: 47), though there are several areas of excavated
architecture within the outer wall, specifically in the far eastern and western regions,
as demonstrated by Figure 2.8., Porada has suggested that the area within the first
enclosure wall served as fields or gardens used to support the population of Choga
Zanbil (Porada 1965: 55), while Ghirshman believes that this open area was used as
camping grounds by visiting pilgrims (Ghirshman 1968: 47). However both these
hypotheses lack any substantive evidence and are purely speculative. Indeed, in the
more recent Mofidi excavations evidence for occupation/domestic architecture has
been uncovered in three areas, two within the temenos area (that is, within the second
enclosure wall; Areas B and C), and one just beyond this, but still within the first
enclosure wall (Area A) (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: 45 – 46, 90 – 91), see figure 2.8.
Furthermore, evidence in the form of ceramic sherd distribution, was also discovered
beyond the first enclosure wall, in the vicinity of the site (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-
04a), further indicating that there was both more extensive domestic, or mundane

occupation at Choga Zanbil, and providing additional dating material, further outlined
below. These discoveries change the traditional interpretation of Choga Zanbil, as will
be returned to below.
Figure 2.8. General plan of Choga Zanbil, indicating areas uncovered in the Ghirshman
excavations. Areas notated include those mentioned in the text and those that were a source
of glyptic material (see Table 2.13 for details of glyptic provenance). Area marked blue
indicates areas excavated in the recent Mofidi Nasrabadi excavations (2007). Area shaded
red indicates the Chapel region, detailed further on Figure 2.9, from whence many seals were
found. Figure after Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: plan 2, with alterations.
Up to 20 hectares within this first enclosure wall was excavated by

Ghirshman’s team, revealing, for the most part, structures that have been labelled
‘religious’ (Carter 1971: 188). In the eastern section of the first enclosure wall lies an
area labelled the ‘Royal Quarter’, that contains several installations that have been

described by the excavator as palaces, including the so-called palais hypogée and a
‘Royal Gateway’ (Ghirshman 1968: 47ff.; Carter 1999: 119 – 120), as illustrated by
Figure 2.8. A structure identified as a temple dedicated to the god Nusku also stands
in this general eastern area (Ghirshman 1968; Carter 1999; Figure 2.8).
A second enclosure wall defines an area referred to as a temenos by
Ghirshman (1968), as illustrated in Figures 2.8 and 2.9. Some twenty-two temples
dedicated to various deities (as identified by inscribed bricks) lie within the temenos
area (Ghirshman 1968; Carter 1999; Potts 1999: 222 – 230). The most prominent and
well known structure at Choga Zanbil, the Ziggurat, which still stands some twenty-
five metres high, is itself enclosed within a third wall that also had other temple
structures built into it (Ghirshman 1968: 1; Hinz 1973: 115 – 115; Potts 1999: 222 –
230), also demonstrated by Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9. Plan of the temenos area of Choga Zanbil, inclusive of the second and third
enclosure walls. Areas notated include those that produced cylinder seals, including Area B
excavated by Mofidi Nasrabadi (2008), and Chapels III and IV (the majority source areas for
cylinder seals), coloured red. Figure after Amiet 1966: 253, with alterations.

Several of the installations at Choga Zanbil are of particular importance here.
These include the Temples of Ishni-qarab and Kiririsha, as well as a series of Chapels
lining the southwestern façade of the ziggurat (Porada 1970: 3), all illustrated on
Figure 2.9. The Temple of Kiririsha is thought to have contained workshop
installations in its annex area (Ghirshman 1966: 95 – 98; Carter & Stolper 1984: 161).
It is possible that this workshop served as a production area for the many faience
objects (called frit by Ghirshman [1966: 71], see the above discussion of faience for
details, Chapter 1.1.3), including cylinder seals, found at Choga Zanbil (Ghirshman
1966: 95; Carter 1999: 120 – 121). This provides the only evidence for a possible
production area of the large amounts of faience and glass objects found at Choga
Zanbil, and indicates that the seals found at the site may have been manufactured on
site (a possibility that will be returned to below, Chapter 6).
Along the southwestern façade of the ziggurat, facing the third wall, stand four
rooms, labelled chapels by the excavator (Ghirshman 1966: 71), see Figure 2.9. The
central room is sometimes described as a niche (Ghirshman 1966: 71), but is also
sometimes identified as Chapel I (Porada 1970: 39). To the south of Chapel I are two
other chapels; each is 11.7m long, with the larger (called Chapel III), 3.4m wide and
the smaller (Chapel II), 2.25m (Ghirshman 1966: 71). To the west of Chapel I stands
another chapel (Chapel IV), 17m long and 3.4m wide (Ghirshman 1966: 71). These
chapels appear to have served as votive depositories (Ghirshman 1966: 71 – 72;
Porada 1965: 60; Collon 2005: 69; Porada 1970: 3 – 4; Potts 1999: 226; Amiet 1966:
340; Carter 1999: 121), an interpretation that, though widely accepted, has never
really been questioned. Both the nature of Choga Zanbil, and the list of items found in
these Chapels, point to the votive nature of their contents and so this interpretation is
accepted here. Some of the items found in these Chapels include, in Chapel III,
pomegranate and pearl replicas made of faience, and pendants and mace-heads of
stone (Ghirshman 1966: 72). In Chapel IV, the list includes animal and human
figurines of faience and bronze, and other items of gold and terracotta (Ghirshman
1966: 72). Perhaps most importantly (certainly for the purpose of this study), was the
abundance of seals discovered in these Chapels (one hundred and twenty-four
cylinders, and two stamps in the four Chapels, discussed further below; Ghirshman
1966: 71 – 72).
Aerial photography of the Choga Zanbil surrounds has also identified what
appears to be a “‘ceremonial way” leading to the east (‘Royal’) gate (Tourovets

1997). This, coupled with the more recent evidence of sherd scatter beyond the first,
largest enclosure wall, discovered by Nasrabadi Mofidi (2003-04a), and the evidence
for wider domestic habitation, within the enclosure (Nasrabadi Mofidi 2007: 45 – 46,
90 – 91) gives the impression that the occupation, and use (see below for further
details) of Choga Zanbil may have been more extensive than previously believed, and
indeed, in some cases (for example, Areas A – C uncovered in the Mofidi Nasrabadi
exactions) more mundane (that is, domestic).
2.2.1.4.3 Date and Ancient Name

The foundation of Choga Zanbil is securely dated to the reign of the Middle Elamite
king Untash-Napirisha (Ghirshman 1966: 1ff; Porada 1970: 3 – 4; Potts 1999: 220 –
223; Carter 1999: 123). Thousands of inscribed bricks from the site testify to this and
give the ancient name of the site, Al Untash-Napirisha 8 (Potts 1999: 222). Thus the
relative date for the foundation of Choga Zanbil is established, however the absolute
date for the foundation of the site is more complex, and rests, naturally, on the date of
the reign of Untash-Napirisha. Formerly, the reign of this king was given as c.1275/65
– 1245/40 BC (Ghirshman 1966: 7; Carter 1979: 125) based upon correlations with
Kassite kings from Babylonia. More recently however, the date of Untash-Napirisha
has been placed c.1340 – 1300 BC (Potts 1999: 207 – 230; Steve & Vallat 1989)
based upon newly discovered, more concrete Kassite correlations (already outlined
above, Table 2.8). Thus the foundation of Choga Zanbil is now thought to have
occurred in the later part of the 14th century BC. This re-assessment of the dates of
Choga Zanbil means that the entire dating system for the Middle Elamite glyptic, for
which Choga Zanbil has been integral, must in turn be adjusted (discussed in Chapter
4).
The history of Choga Zanbil following the reign of Untash-Napirisha down to
its abandonment/destruction is more difficult to describe. While this impacts on the
function of Choga Zanbil and will therefore be discussed below, it is generally
thought that any focus on Choga Zanbil ceased with the death of Untash-Napirisha
(Ghirshman 1966: 8; Potts 1999: 231). This is based on the absence of inscriptions
naming the immediate successors of Untash-Napirisha at Choga Zanbil (Ghirshman
8
The correct reading of the ancient name of Choga Zanbil is somewhat confused in the literature. The
site is called Dur-Untash, Dur Untash Napirisha, Al-Untash and Al Untash-Napirisha. ‘Dur’ meaning
citadel or fort and ‘Al’ meaning town. Thus these names are all essentially the same and mean ‘Town
or Citadel of Untash-Napirisha.

1966: 7; Potts 1999: 223, 231) (especially in light of the massive amounts of
inscriptions naming Untash-Napirisha), and the belief that some of the buildings at
Choga Zanbil were never completed (Hinz 1973: 115-16; Carter 1971: 188).
However, this lack of official patronage does not equate with a complete nor
absolute abandonment. Ceramic evidence, and other pieces of material culture
(including seals), indicates that Al Untash-Napirisha continued to be occupied, for at
least a time (Pons 1994: 43ff). The nature of this continued occupation is uncertain.
Some scholars have claimed that the remaining population was essentially a small
contingent of religious personnel who maintained the temples and other installations
(Ghirshman 1966: 8; Carter 1971: 188 – 189), while others describe the inhabitants as
an essentially squatter population (Young 1978: 237). Whatever the nature of Choga
Zanbil’s occupation after Untash-Napirisha, it can be accepted that the site continued
to be occupied for some time beyond his reign. The question remains as to how long
after the death of Untash-Napirisha Choga Zanbil was occupied.
Ghirshman proposed the standard view that Choga Zanbil was occupied until
its destruction (or abandonment) during the campaigns of Assurbanipal of Assyria
around 646 BC (Ghirshman 1966: 8; 1968: 83). This is based primarily on a reliance
on the Babylonian traditional sources and an understanding of the ceramic parallels
between the final remains in the Temple of Ishni-qarab (the only area of Choga Zanbil
where any sort of stratigraphy was revealed in the Ghirshman excavations) and
ceramic evidence from Susa (Pons 1994: 44ff; Ghirshman 1966: 8; 1968: 83).
However, this relies on the use of Susa for cross-dating purposes, which, as discussed
above, is extremely perilous. A reassessment of the ceramic evidence by Pons places
the destruction of Choga Zanbil during the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar I, rather
than Assurbanipal (Pons 1994). This study compares ceramics from the Temple of
Ishni-qarab with those from Middle Elamite Tal-i Malyan, as well as ceramics from
the more recently studied (and reliable) Middle Elamite levels of Susa to arrive at this
conclusion (Pons 1994).
Mofidi’s more recent work at Choga Zanbil has also provided evidence
regarding the extent of occupation at the site. Evidence for building phases (1 – 3) in
Areas A – C indicate not only possible domestic occupation within the temenos area,
but also dating evidence (by way of ceramic parallels) for the use of these areas
(Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007: 45 – 46, 90 – 91). Thus there is ceramic evidence allowing
Mofidi to date Building Phase 3 (Bauschicht 3), represented in Areas C and A (see

Figure 2.8 for location of these areas), to the 12th – 11th Centuries BC (that is the late
Middle Elamite period), Phase 2, represented in Areas A – C, to the 10th – 9th
Centuries BC (the transitional Middle Elamite – Neo-Elamite period) and Phase 3,
known primarily from Area C, to the 8th – 7th Centuries BC (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007:
45 – 46, 90 – 91). Ceramic evidence from surface surveys in the areas surrounding
Choga Zanbil, outside the main perimeter wall, can also be dated to the Middle
Elamite II period, the Neo-Elamite I – II, Achaemenid, Parthian-Sassanid and even
Islamic periods (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2003-04a). This evidence, though preliminary and
indistinct suggests that, to at least some extent, Choga Zanbil, and indeed the general
surrounds of Choga Zanbil, were occupied for much longer than the originally
implied Middle Elamite II occupation.
The extent or otherwise of this occupation, and especially the effect this has on
the dating of the main use of the Ziggurat (and even more pertinently, the Chapels)
remains unclear. For the purposes of this study, the general flourishing of Choga
Zanbil can be associated broadly with the reign of its founder Untash-Napirisha,
which has now been redated from the traditionally held date to c.1350 BC. Based on
the evidence from the Ishni-qarab Temple, compared by Pons to Middle Elamite
material from Susa and Tal-i Malyan (Pons 1994), it can be argued that the main
occupation (or use) of the Ziggurat area of Choga Zanbil ended with the bellicose
advent of Nebuchadnezzar I, c.1105 BC (that, as outlined above, precipitated the end
of the Middle Elamite III period and transition to Middle Elamite IV). Thus it can be
argued that the majority of the materials found in the chapels and temples surrounding
the Ziggurat (that is, within the temenos area of the site), including the cylinder seals,
date to the later Middle Elamite period (c.1350 – 1105 BC). That the occupation of
the wider area of Choga Zanbil, in some manner or another, continued much further
into the first millennium (and indeed beyond), should be noted, though the impact of
this occupation to the dating of the material found in the main area (and thus of
primary interest here) currently seems negligible.
2.2.1.4.4 Function
The function of Choga Zanbil has never really been questioned, but rather simply
accepted. Choga Zanbil is thought to have been a religious centre (Ghirshman 1966:
7; Porada 1970: 1 – 5; Potts 1999: 230; Carter 1999). More than this, the site is
thought to represent a unification of the different ethnic elements of the Middle

Elamite kingdom (lowland Susian and highland Anshanite) in a kind of federal
sanctuary, where the highland and lowland gods were worshiped together (Harper et
al. 1992: 121; Carter & Stolper 1984: 164). The political and ideological motivations
for the foundation of Choga Zanbil cannot really be understood from our current state
of understanding, and any attempt to explain these complex motivations are merely
speculative thoughts undertaken with limited degrees of caution. The position of
Choga Zanbil vis-à-vis Susa is an important one, as it impacts on the function of both
sites, and in turn the function of the glyptic material discovered there. It is unlikely
that Choga Zanbil was ever a city in the manner that Susa was a city (Carter 1971:
188 – 189). The apparent lack of any substantial residential or administrative areas
and evidence at Choga Zanbil demonstrates this. However, the importance of Choga
Zanbil, at least during the reign of Untash-Napirisha, was great, as testified to by the
obvious display of wealth entailed in the foundation of a new city and construction of
a Ziggurat.
It seems certain that Choga Zanbil did indeed have a distinct, and apparently
specifically religious, function. Whether this meant that the site was a place of
pilgrimage or not is hypothesising that cannot be proved at this point. The impact of
this unique function of the site on the function of the glyptic material will be further
discussed below (and Chapter 6).

One hundred and sixty-four cylinder seals (and four stamp seals, not included in the
Corpus) excavated by Ghirshman at Choga Zanbil were published by Porada in the
fourth MDP volume dedicated to Choga Zanbil (1970: 1; Ghirshman 1966: 71). A
further eleven cylinder seals from Choga Zanbil, not included in Porada’s study, were
published by Amiet along with some more seals from Susa not included in his main
Susa publication (Amiet 1973). Finally, a single seal found in Area B in the recent
Mofidi excavations was published in the monograph report of these excavations
(Mofidi Nasrabadi 2007). Thus the Choga Zanbil corpus included in the current study
numbers 176 examples, demonstrated in Table 2.15, a not insignificant sized corpus
(see Chapters 4 and 5).
It should be emphasised that no sealings whatsoever were found at Choga
Zanbil and that the entire corpus is composed of cylinder seals only (Porada 1970; see
Chapter 4 and 5). This prevalence of cylinder seals at Choga Zanbil is even more

striking given the recent discovery of domestic/mundane occupation at the site, where
it could be expected that sealings would be present. The preponderance of cylinder
seals no doubt reflects the function of seals at Choga Zanbil, which in term seems to
reflect the function of the site itself. Table 2.15 illustrates the provenance within
Choga Zanbil of each seal. As is demonstrated in the Table, and illustrated by Figures
2.8 and 2.9, the great majority of the seals were found in temple or chapel structures.
Indeed, over 70% of the Zanbil seals came from the Chapels that face the southwest
façade of the ziggurat (Ghirshman 1966: 71; Carter 1999: 122; illustrated on Figure
2.9). The location of cylinder seals in temple and chapel structures allows these
materials to be given a votive function designation, a proposal that will be returned to
in greater detail below (Chapter 6).
Seal Provenance Current Material Seal Provenance Current Material

Class. Class.
1508 – AGD (9) white 3050 Chapel IV KRS (2) brown stone
limestone with white
2703 Ziggurat OBRS (2) black & beige
steatite veins
2733 Tomb 1 PEO (3) grey stone 3051 Chapel IV KRS (2) dark blue
2771 Chapel IV PEO (8) white/green glass
limestone 3052 Chapel IV KRS (2) glass
2772 Chapel III PEO (8) blue faience 3053 Chapel IV KRS (2) glass
2773 Chapel IV PEO (8) green 3058 – LME (1) bitumen
faience aggregate*
2964 Chapel IV EME (6) green 3059 Chapel III LME (1) faience
faience 3060 Chapel III LME (1) faience
2994 – EME (9) faience 3061 Chapel III LME (1) faience
2995 – EME (9) faience 3062 Palace, LME (1) unknown,
3029 Chapel III KRS (1) glass Chamber 19 cylinder
3030 Chapel III KRS (1) light blue 3063 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
glass 3064 Chapel III LME (1) faience
3031 Chapel IV KRS (1) light green 3065 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
glass 3066 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
3032 Chapel IV KRS (1) dark blue 3067 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
glass 3068 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
3033 Chapel IV KRS (1) glass 3069 Chapel III LME (1) faience
3034 Chapel IV KRS (1) glass 3070 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
3042 – KRS (2) yellow 3072 Chapel IV LME (1) faience
faience 3073 Chapel III LME (1) faience
3044 Chapel III KRS (2) dark blue 3074 Palace, LME (1) blue-green
glass Chamber 7 glass
3045 Chapel III KRS (2) dark blue 3075 Chapel IV LME (1) glass
glass 3076 Chapel III LME (1) glass
3046 Chapel IV KRS (2) green glass 3077 Chapel III LME (1) light blue
3047 Chapel IV KRS (2) blue-green glass
glass 3079 – LME (2) faience
3048 Chapel IV KRS (2) dark blue 3080 Chapel III LME (2) faience
3083 Chapel IV LME (2) faience

Class. Class.
3084 Chapel IV LME (2) faience 3156 Chapel IV LME (6) pink, violet
3090 – LME (3) faience & beige
marble
3091 – LME (3) faience
3160 Chamber M LME (7) glass
3092 Chapel III LME (3) faience 3161 Chapel IV LME (7) apricot
3093 Chapel III LME (3) green (coloured)
faience stone
3094 Chapel III LME (3) faience 3162 Chapel IV LME (7) glass
3095 Chapel E LME (3) bitumen 3163 Chapel III LME (7) bitumen
aggregate* aggregate*
3096 Chapel III LME (3) faience 3164 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
3097 Chapel IV LME (3) faience 3165 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
3098 Chapel IV LME (3) faience 3166 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
3099 outside LME (3) faience 3167 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
corner of the 3168 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
Royal Door 3169 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
3100 Area B LME (3) alabaster/ 3170 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
gypsum* 3171 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
3103 Chapel I LME (4) faience 3172 Chapel IV LME (7) faience
3104 Temple of LME (4) faience 3179 Chapel IV LME (8) faience
Pinikir 3180 Chapel IV LME (8) faience
3105 Chapel III LME (4) faience 3181 Chapel IV LME (8) faience
3106 Chapel III LME (4) faience 3182 Chapel III LME (8) faience
3107 Chapel IV LME (4) faience 3183 Chamber 1 LME (8) faience
3108 Chamber M LME (4) blue glass 3184 near Temple LME (8) red veined
3118 – LME (5) faience Ishni-qarab marble
3119 Chapel IV LME (5) dark blue 3185 Chapel III LME (9) faience
3120 Chapel IV LME (5) faience 3187 Chapel IV LME (9) greenish
3121 Chapel IV LME (5) faience faience
3122 Chapel III LME (5) faience 3189 Chapel IV AS (1) faience
3123 Chapel III LME (5) faience 3224 Northwest LPS (2) faience
3124 Chapel III LME (5) faience Temple,
3125 Chapel III LME (5) faience Chamber 12
3126 Chapel III LME (5) white 3319 – LPS (6) faience
faience 3320 Ziggurat, LPS (6) faience
3127 Chapel E LME (5) faience? southwest
3128 Southwest LME (5) white door
square faience 3355 Royal LPS (7) faience
3139 Chapel IV LME (6) faience Entrance
3140 Chamber M LME (6) faience 3392 Chapel II LGD (2) faience
3141 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3393 Chapel IV LGD (2) bronze with
3142 Chapel IV LME (6) faience silver inlay
3143 Chamber M LME (6) faience 3394 Chapel IV LGD (2) faience
3144 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3395 Chapel IV LGD (2) faience
3145 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3421 – LGD (3) faience
3146 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3422 Chapel IV LGD (3) faience
3147 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3423 Southeast LGD (3) faience
3148 Chapel III LME (6) faience square
3149 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3424 Chapel IV LGD (3) faience
3150 Chapel II LME (6) faience 3425 Chapel IV LGD (3) faience
3151 Chapel III LME (6) faience 3426 Palace, LGD (3) faience
3152 Chapel IV LME (6) faience Court A
3153 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3427 Chapel III LGD (3) faience
3154 Chapel IV LME (6) faience 3428 Palace, LGD (3) unknown,
3155 Chapel III LME (6) faience Chamber 20 cylinder
3429 Palace, LGD (3) terra cotta
Chamber 19

Class. Class.
3446 Chapel II LGD (4) faience 3574 Chapel III Not faience
3447 Palace, LGD (4) faience Illustrated
Chamber 19 3575 Chapel III Not grey-white
3544 West Unclass. faience Illustrated faience
Complex 3576 Chapel III Not faience
3545 Palace, Unclass. grey & Illustrated
Chamber 8 white 3577 Chapel III Not faience
marble Illustrated
3546 Chapel III Unclass. bitumen 3578 Chapel III Not faience
aggregate* Illustrated
3547 Palace, Unclass. rose quartz* 3579 Chapel IV Not faience
Chamber 19 Illustrated
3548 Chapel III Unclass. faience 3580 Southeast Not faience
3549 Chapel IV Unclass. faience square Illustrated
3550 Court 1 Unclass. blue faience 3581 Palace, Not faience
3551 Temple of Unclass. faience Chamber 5 Illustrated
Simut & 3582 Chapel II Not faience
Nin-ali Illustrated
3552 Palace, Unclass. green 3583 Southeast Not yellow
Chamber 8 faience square Illustrated faience
3553 Chapel IV Unclass. faience 3584 Ziggurat Not blue faience
3554 Chapel IV Unclass. apricot Illustrated
(coloured) 3585 Chapel I Not faience
stone Illustrated
3555 Chapel IV Unclass. pink & 3586 Palace, Not white,
yellow Court B Illustrated yellowish
marble faience
3558 Palace, Unclass. white- 3587 Chapel III Not faience
Court B yellow Illustrated
faience 3588 Palace, Not faience
3557 Northwest Unclass. glass Chamber 8 Illustrated
Temple 3589 Palace, Not faience
3571 Chapel IV Not glass Court A Illustrated
Illustrated 3590 Palace, Not grey stone
3572 Chapel III Not faience Chamber 6 Illustrated
Illustrated 3591 Palace, Not dark blue
3573 Chapel IV Not faience Chamber 19 Illustrated glass
Illustrated
Table 2.15. Survey of the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil.
2.2.1.5 Tepe Sharafabad

Tepe Sharafabad 9 is a small site located in the north-central area of the Susiana plain,
in the province of Khuzistan, some 15km northeast of Susa (Schacht 1975: 307), that
is, roughly half-way between this major site and Chogha Mish (Wright et al. 1989:
107), see Figure 2.1. The modern course of the Diz River lies about one kilometre to
the west of Tepe Sharafabad, and most likely was an ancient source of irrigation water
(Schacht 1975: 307). The Sharafabad mound rises some 11m above the surrounding
plain, is oval shaped, c.130m in length and covers an estimated 2 hectares (Schacht
9
Also transliterated Tappeh Šarafabad (Wright et al 1980).

1975: 307; Wright et al. 1980: 268; Wright et al. 1989: 106). The site was originally
surveyed by Adams and Hole (and designated KS-36), and excavated in 1971 by a
joint Iranian (the Archaeological Service of Iran)-American (University of Michigan)
team lead by H. T. Wright (Schacht 1975: 307; Wright et al. 1980: 268 – 271; Wright
et al. 1989: 107 – 109). Tepe Sharafabad was chosen for excavation with the
expressed aim of uncovering remains of an Uruk period small, local centre, as
indicated by the presence of clay cones recovered in the surface survey of the site
(Schacht 1975: 307; Wright et al. 1980: 268; Wright 1989: 107 – 109). However, the
test and deep trenches undertaken on the mound revealed later ‘Elamite’ remains
overlaying and damaging the Uruk occupation (Schacht 1975: 307 – 309; Wright et
al. 1980: 268; Wright et al. 1989: 107). The excavations at the site were relatively
limited, as demonstrated in Figure 2.10, and thus it can be anticipated that more
extensive excavations would reveal greater Uruk (and presumably other periods)
occupation.
The ‘Elamite’ levels uncovered in the Tepe Sharafabad excavations were
published in a preliminary excavation report article by Schacht (1975). The Uruk
period occupation (or more correctly, the ‘Uruk pit’ that produced the main body of
the Uruk period information) has been detailed in two conference papers primarily
authored by Wright (Wright et al. 1980; Wright et al. 1989).
2.2.1.5.2 Site Description and Date

Sherds from surface survey and test excavations at Tepe Sharafabad provide evidence
that the site was occupied from c.5500 BC until c.2800 BC, when the site was
supposedly abandoned, until some time around 2000 BC, (re-)occupied for several
centuries, and then permanently abandoned (Schacht 1975: 307). As reflected in the
above cited articles, the majority of the excavated materials from Tepe Sharafabad
belong to two major periods, the Uruk (Wright et al. 1980; Wright et al. 1989) and the
so-called ‘Elamite’ (Schacht 1975), and thus the above outlined chronological extant
is garnered primarily from surface sherd distribution, and so must remain generally
speculative.

Figure 2.10. Plan of Tepe Sharafabad Excavations, indicating the areas that Uruk (red) and
‘Elamite’ (blue) material was uncovered. The black striped areas indicate trenches that
produced either limited materials, or that were abandoned due to a lack of Uruk material.
Combined image after Schacht (1975: figure 1) and Wright et al. (1980: figure 3), with
alterations.
The majority of the Uruk occupation had seemingly been destroyed by the
later ‘Elamite’ occupation terracing at Tepe Sharafabad (Wright et al. 1980: 268). The
only Uruk period architectural remains recovered at Sharafabad were portions of four
small rooms on the south summit of the mound, that contained a series of Middle
Uruk debris deposits, labelled the ‘Uruk Rooms’ by the excavators (demonstrated by
Figure 2.10, red coloured area) (Wright et al. 1980: 268). Little information regarding
artefacts discovered in the ‘Uruk Rooms’ has been forthcoming (Wright et al. 1989:
268; Wright et al. 1989: 107), and as such little more can be added here. In the
trenches at the western foot of the mound a remnant wall and a dump, labelled the
‘Uruk Dump’ (Figure 2.10), was also uncovered (Wright et al. 1980: 268). Again,
other than the indication of an early Middle Uruk date (Wright et al. 1980: 268), little
information regarding the ‘Uruk Dump’ has been published.

Finally at the eastern base of the Tepe Sharafabad mound (Wright et al. 1980:
268; located, presumably erroneously, on the northern flank in the second paper on
the subject [Wright et al. 1989: 107]), another rubbish dump, labelled the ‘Uruk Pit’,
was excavated (Wright et al. 1980: 268). This dump was meticulously and thoroughly
excavated and analysed, and provides the great majority of the published Uruk period
information regarding Tepe Sharafabad (Wright et al. 1980; Wright et al. 1989;
Wright 2007). Artefacts uncovered in the ‘Uruk Pit’ include many whole and
fragmentary ceramic vessels (Wright et al. 1980: 272 – 274; Wright et al. 1989: 110 –
111), grinding stones (Wright et al. 1980: 274), and possible chipped stone debitage
(Wright et al. 1989: 111), clay spindle whorls (Wright et al. 1980: 274), faunal and
floral remains, providing evidence of agriculture, animal husbandry and hunting
(Wright et al. 1980: 275 – 277; Wright et al. 1989: 109 – 110), and accounting
accoutrements, including clay tokens, unsealed bullae and seals and sealings (Wright
et al. 1980: 277 – 281; Wright et al. 1989: 111 – 112).
The “micro-stratigraphy” of the ‘Pit’, and the analysis of the artefacts found
therein, enabled the excavators to reconstruct the activities and fluctuations in
occupations at Sharafabad from season-to-season over a two-and-a-half year period
(Wright et al. 1980: 270 – 271, 281; Wright et al. 1989; Wright 2007: 181 – 183).
Apart from noting the remarkable testimony that Wright’s study provides for the
advocates of excavating and researching in detail even the most mundane of deposits
(Wright et al. 1989: 113), little more detail of the ‘Uruk Pit’ need be provided here.
On the basis of the ceramic evidence, this ‘Uruk Pit’ has been dated to the late Middle
Uruk period (Wright et al. 1989: 268). Due to the presence of evidence for cylinder
seal use (several cylinder seal sealings, discussed below), a late Middle Uruk, or early
Late Uruk date is advocated here.
The majority of the later ‘Elamite’ occupation at Tepe Sharafabad was
uncovered in eight excavated squares near the summit of the mound (see Figure 2.10,
areas coloured blue) (Schacht 1975: 309). This occupation is divided into four Phases
(I – IV, I being the oldest) (Schacht 1975: 309 – 314). These phases demonstrate
alterations and changes to building patterns and structures, and can be considered as a
whole in chronological and cultural terms (Schacht 1975: 328). Several buildings,
both occupational and structures of other, undiscerned, use, constructed of both baked
and sun-dried mudbrick were uncovered at the site, as was a pavement of baked
bricks, ovens, kilns and a hearth (Schacht 1975: 309 – 314). As well as numerous

pieces of ceramics (Schacht 1975: 323 – 326), the other small finds from the
‘Elamite’ levels include clay female figurines, similar to those from Susa dating to the
second millennium BC (Schacht 1975: 323 – 325), stone tools (Schacht 1975: 327 –
328), copper (and/or copper alloy) items including a bracelet and pins or needles
(Schacht 1975: 327), an inscribed tablet fragment (Schacht 1975: 325 – 326), and of
particular interest here, two cylinder seals (Schacht 1975: 317, 325). It should be
noted that Phases IV, III and II of the ‘Elamite’ occupation were all “disturbed by
many burials of much later date” (Schacht 1975: 309). No qualifiers to the terms
‘many burials’ or ‘much later’ have been given, and thus it must merely be assumed
that these burials contained no material of any relevance to the periods under
discussion here.
Elements of the material culture, particularly the ceramics, but also the
figurines, can be related to the ‘Sukkalmahhu’, the Transitional (that is transitional
‘Sukkalmahhu’ to Middle Elamite) and perhaps the early Middle Elamite phases of
Carter’s Susiana chronology (Schacht 1975: 326, 328). A radiocarbon date of c.1434
BC corrected (Schacht 1975: 328) has also been given, and this along with the general
material culture correlations and, perhaps somewhat spuriously, the stylistic evidence
of the cylinder seals, has lead Schacht to propose a date of c.1700 – 1400 BC for the
‘Elamite’ occupation of Tepe Sharafabad (Schacht 1975: 328 – 329). In the
chronological terms of this study this corresponds generally to the Sukkalmah and
early Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite I) periods.
As mentioned elsewhere (Chapter 1), and further outlined below (Chapter
3.4), the use of cylinder seals as a dating mechanism can be extremely spurious, and it
is generally not advisable to date (or re-date) an entire occupation level, and indeed
often even a site, on the basis of the stylistic designation of a lone cylinder seal. If
anything, the presence of a cylinder seal in a given strata can provide a terminus a
quo, an indication that the site was occupied at some point after the earliest use of the
specific style. The potential heirloom quality of cylinder seals means that items, that
stylistically belong to much earlier periods (that is, stylistically, it can be said that
they were originally created in a certain period) can be found in later stratigraphic
layers. Therefore, to use a cylinder seal as a type fossil or chronological indicator can
often provide misleading and false information.
In the current case, the two cylinder seals are used to suggest a possible
narrower chronological occupation for construction Phase III (c.1700 – 1600 BC)

(Schacht 1975: 328). This proposal is rejected here due to the above outlined
reluctance to accept the stylistic designations of cylinder seals as a dating mechanism.
Furthermore, the stylistic correlations and identifications suggested by Schacht for
these cylinders (1975: 325, 327), is here rejected, especially for seal 2339. The actual
designation of this seal will be further discussed below (Chapters 4 and 5), however,
for our current purposes it should be noted that though this seal was originally dated
to the Sukkalmah period (1700 – 1650 BC; thus Schacht 1975: 327, following the
defunct and rejected stylistic chronology of Börker-Klähn [1970], discussed further
below), it is here associated with a group of cylinder seals belonging to the Akkadian
period (Chapter 4.10), and accordingly should be dated somewhat earlier than that
proposed by Schacht. Again, due the above outlined function of the heirloom quality
of cylinder seals, this earlier date should not be taken to indicate, on its own, that
Tepe Sharafabad was occupied in this era, but rather merely that by some unknown
mechanism or another, an Akkadian period cylinder seal was found in a later
Sukkalmah/early Middle Elamite context (albeit in a reasonably insecure stratigraphic
context, see below). However, while the use of cylinder seals, due to their inherent
nature, and the stylistic considerations here, are rejected as dating evidence, there is
sufficient ceramic and other material (especially the figurines) evidence to accept the
c.1700 – 1400 BC date advocated by Schacht (1975: 329).
In summary, the information on the occupation of Tepe Sharafabad is
currently quite limited, due mostly to the relatively small-scale excavation coverage at
the site. While surface sherd distribution indicates that Tepe Sharafabad underwent
two main phases of occupation, the first c.5500 – 2800 BC, and the second c.1950 –
c.1500 BC, only two shorter periods are known from actual excavated materials. The
first period, known primarily from rubbish deposits, is dated to the late Middle Uruk
and early Late Uruk period (the Susa II period in the language of this study). The
second phase (labelled, somewhat confusingly in cursory correlation with the current
study, as ‘Elamite’) is dated c.1700 – 1400 BC, or the Sukkalmah through to the early
Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite I) period. It is advocated by Schacht, presumably
due to the relatively small amount of occupation evidence, that the excavated areas of
Tepe Sharafabad were not occupied for the entirety of this (the Sukkalmah/Middle
Elamite) period, or indeed, the entirety of the Middle Uruk period (1975: 328). Thus,
in the current state of our knowledge, it can be said that Tepe Sharafabad was
occupied sometime in the Middle Uruk/early Late Uruk period, and sometime in the

Sukkalmah/early Middle Elamite period. The extent of these occupations, and indeed,
the occupation of Tepe Sharafabad in the periods between these two phases, cannot be
commented on in light of our current knowledge.

Three sealing images, including one image that is repeated on three separate bale
sealings (361), were discovered in the ‘Uruk Pit’, and published by Wright (et al.
1980), along with nine stamp sealings of no real significance here (Wright et al. 1980:
279; two of these stamp sealings have been published again recently by Wright [2007:
182]). According to the first ‘Uruk pit’ paper (Wright et al. 1980), two stamp seals
(one “perhaps of chlorite” and another of, as described above, the misnomer material
“calcite” [Chapter 1.1.3]) were also found discarded in the pit (Wright et al. 1980:
278). One sealing (Wright et al. 1980: fig. 6.5) is described as “perhaps a cylinder
seal” by the publishers, but is not included in the current Corpus as it is here deemed
to have most probably been made by a stamp seal (by comparison with other stamp
seals from Sharafabad, and the shape of the sealing). Another sealing, listed by
Wright as “definitely [made by] a cylinder”, is not illustrated in the publication and so
is not included here as it could not be studied (Wright et al. 1980: 279). Thus in the
original ‘Uruk pit’ paper two actual stamp seals and twelve stamp and cylinder seal
sealings were published, with at least one other not illustrated cylinder sealing
mentioned, making a total of fifteen glyptic items (three of which, a cylinder sealing
and two stamp seals were not illustrated) found in the ‘Uruk pit’ (Wright et al. 1980:
278 – 281). However, it is stated in the second ‘Uruk pit’ paper, that only one stamp
seal was found in the dump (Wright et al. 1989: 112), though this is presumably a
typographical error, and besides which, is of no real impact here as it regards stamp,
and not cylinder, seals. Therefore, according to Wright four sealings found in the
‘Uruk pit’ were made by cylinder seals, the other nine sealings were clearly made by
stamp seals (as evidence by their morphology and designs) (Wright et al. 1980: 280 –
279). However, only three of the four mentioned cylinder seal sealings have been
published, and are therefore included in the Corpus.
Two cylinder seals from the ‘Elamite’ levels at Tepe Sharafabad were
published by Schacht (1975) (2339 and 2760 from Phases IV and IIIC deposits
respectively). It is explicitly stated by Schacht that this is the sum total of the glyptic
material found in the ‘Elamite’ levels at Sharafabad (1975: 317, 325 – 328).

Thus, two cylinder seals and three sealing images (that is, a total of five
pieces) complete the Tepe Sharafabad corpus in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue,
as illustrated in Table 2.16, a relatively small corpus (see Chapters 4 and 5). Indeed, it
is by far the smallest of the excavated Khuzistan corpora (Deh-i Now excepted, as this
site, and its single seal, was not excavated, see below). This contrast in seal
proportions may be indicative both of the limited excavations (especially relative to
Susa and Choga Zanbil, but also to Haft Tepe and Chogha Mish, discussed elsewhere)
at the site, and to a certain degree, of the relatively limited occupation here.
Little can be said of the function of the two seals, as both came from relatively
unarticulated, fill or debris deposits (Schacht 1975: 314, 325). The fact that the three
sealing images were found in the rubbish dump of the ‘Uruk pit’ (Wright et al. 1980:
278 – 281), indicates that the objects that they sealed were at least opened (that is the
seal broken) and discarded at Tepe Sharafabad, if not actually sealed there. This in
situ sealing is, of course, assured for the door lock sealing (210), however, the bale
(361) and jar (487) sealings could well have been used to mark objects that were
originally sealed elsewhere, and then dispatched to Sharafabad, where they were
‘opened’ and the sealing remnants discarded (Wright et al. 1980: 279). An
unpublished neutron activation analysis undertaken by Blackman demonstrates that
some of the sealings, including door sealings, from Tepe Sharafabad were impressed
in “local” clay, while at least one jar rim sealing was impressed in a non-local clay,
indicating that some of the sealed objects were presumably sealed elsewhere,
transported to Sharafabad and opened (and the sealings discarded) there (Wright et al.
1989: 110, 113). This is of interest as to what it can reveal regarding the interactions
between Tepe Sharafabad and nearby sites, a phenomenon that, unfortunately, cannot
be further commented on with any precision at the moment.
Current
Current
Provenance Material Inscription Stylistic
Number
Classification
210 ‘Uruk Pit’ door lock sealing – STS (9)
361 ‘Uruk Pit’ three bale sealings – STS (15)
487 ‘Uruk Pit’ jar sealing – STS (21)
2339 Phase IV bitumen aggregate* – PEA (7)
2760 Phase IIIC steatite Tatta, PEO (7)
son of Shukuku,
servant of (the god) Na…
Table 2.16. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Sharafabad.

The steatite cylinder seal 2760, found in a Phase III debris deposit at Tepe
Sharafabad bears an inscription that mentions two individuals Tatta, and his father
Shukuku (Schacht 1975: 325). This is particularly of interest for, as already
mentioned above, both Tatta and Shukuku are mentioned on several texts from the
nearby site of Susa (Shukuku on three known tablets, MDP 18: 120 and MDP 28: 441
and 470; and Tatta also on MDP 28: 441) (Schacht 1975: 325 – 326). These texts are
dated (on linguistic grounds) to the Sukkalmah period of Susa (Schacht 1975: 326),
and so can be said to be generally contemporary with the ‘Elamite’ occupation of
Tepe Sharafabad. If these individuals named on the Susa texts prove to be the same
individuals mentioned on the Sharafabad seal, this would indicate close contacts, at
least by some individuals, between Susa and Tepe Sharafabad.
The text that mentions both Tatta [Ta-at-ta] and Shukuku (MDP 28: 441) is
apparently a list of officials within the ‘Elamite Empire’, thus Tatta is called the canal
inspector [KÙ.GÁL] and scribe of ‘Gapnak’, and Shukuku the scribe of Pishanne
(Schacht 1975: 326). According to Schacht, the locations of both Gapnak and
Pishanne are unknown (Schacht 1975: 326), though Gapnak has been associated with
Gapnak (-KI) mentioned in another Susa text in association with an individual called
Addabuni, also dated on linguistic evidence to the Sukkalmah period (Schacht 1975:
326; MDP 28: 423). It is possible that Tatta the ‘canal inspector’ and scribe of Gapnak
can be associated with the junior triumvir known from another Susa text the sukkal
Tata, discussed above (see Table 2.3), perhaps in an earlier, pre-sukkal point in his
career. This is merely a proposal based on simple phonographic similarity however,
and as such is tentative.
It is proposed here however, that the site originally identified as Gapnak,
mentioned in texts from Susa, and associated with an individual whose seal was found
at Tepe Sharafabad, can in fact be transliterated KA.3-AP-NA-AK, and thus
translated Kapnak (L. Siddall, pers. comm. 2008), and therefore identified as the
ancient site Kabnak/Kapnak, that is ancient Haft Tepe (discussed above). While the
initial signs used in Susa text MDP 28: 441 and a standard Haft Tepe example of
Kapnak (found on a seal inscription 2912) are different, both can be rendered in
English ‘KA’ (as demonstrated in the Elamite Sign List, Steve 1992), and thus,
considering other similar alterations in signs used to refer to sites, it can be proposed
that both texts refer to the same site Kapnak/Kabnak (L. Siddall, pers. comm. 2008).

Thus, if the associations of the individual named Tatta detailed on the
Sharafabad seal (2760) with a synonymously named individual on a Susa text linked
to a site named Kapnak, which is in turn identified as ancient Haft Tepe, are accepted,
then an axis of interaction in the Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite periods
between the Susiana sites of Susa, Tepe Sharafabad and Haft Tepe can be proposed.
For the possible evidence and implications this provides to the proposed reassessment
of the foundation date of Haft Tepe, see Chapter 2.2.1.3.
2.2.1.6 Deh-i Now

2.2.1.6.1 General Details
The site of Deh-i Now 10 lies some 20 km east of Haft Tepe in Khuzistan province,
southwestern Iran (Potts 1999: 206), see Figure 2.1. The site was identified in
Johnson’s main Susiana survey, and given the designation KS-120 (Johnson 1973:
77). Deh-i Now has not been excavated as yet, and it is only known from such surveys
(Johnson 1973) and from brick fragments discovered on the surface of the mound
(Potts 1999: 206 – 207, 209, 231 – 233, 237; Steve 1968; 1987).
On the basis of sherds found on the surface of the Deh-i Now mound, Johnson
has suggested that the site was originally settled in the Early Uruk period (Johnson
1973: 77 81). It is estimated that the Uruk foundation is covered by perhaps 15m of
“Elamite deposits” (Johnson 1973: 81), though in its current unexcavated state this is
only an hypothetical reconstruction. Due to this lack of excavations, obviously no
meaningful comment can be made regarding the extent or nature of the occupation of
the site. It is estimated that during the Middle Elamite period the site covered the, not
inconsiderable, area of 9.5ha (Potts 1999: 206 – 207). Of particular interest, mostly
because they provide actual evidence for occupation in the absence of any excavated
data, are several inscribed bricks and fragments found on the surface of the Deh-i
Now mound that provide evidence for (temple) buildings and general occupation at
Deh-i Now, that, due to the inclusion of the names of various kings, can be dated with
some confidence (Potts 1999: 231 – 233, 237). The kingly names on these bricks
include Igi-halki (founder of the Middle Elamite II, Igihalkid dynasty, see Table 2.8)
(Steve 1987: 11 – 13; Potts 1999: 209) and Halltutush-Inshushinak (Steve 1987: 20 –
26; Potts 1999: 231 – 232), Shutruk-Nahhunte (Steve 1968: 300 – 303; 1987: 20, 27;
10
Also Deh-e Now (Potts 1999) and Tell Deh-i-Now (Amiet 1972).

Potts 1999: 231 – 232) and Kutir-Nahhunte (Steve 1987: 31; Potts 1999: 237) of the
Middle Elamite III, Shutrukid dynasty (Table 2.9; see above for further details of
these periods). Thus it can be confidently asserted that Deh-i Now was, at least,
patronised by Middle Elamite II and III kings. These Middle Elamite kingly
associations are the only concrete information regarding Deh-i Now currently
available in the absence of any excavations.

A single seal from the site of Deh-i Now (2890) was included in the major Amiet
publication of the Susa corpus (MDP 43; Amiet 1972: 262, no. 2040), and it is this
solitary cylinder seal that forms the, obviously, extremely limited Deh-i Now corpus.
Thus, the Deh-i Now corpus is the smallest within the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus.
The precise circumstances of the discovery of this seal, and how it came to be
included in Amiet’s publication of the Susa material is unknown, as no details other
than “trouvé à Tell Deh-i-Now” are given in its publication (Amiet 1972: 262). It
could possibly be assumed that it was found by members of the French Delegation
coincident with the discovery of the inscribed bricks discussed above, such as by de
Morgan early last century (Steve 1987: 300, note 1), or in the 1962 visit to the mound
of Deh-i Now prompted by Dr. Gremliza’s (of the “Khuzestan Water and Power
Authority”, during his quaintly entitled promenades archéologique) reports of
inscribed bricks (Steve 1987: 299 – 300). However, such origins are not specified in
the seal’s publication, and so these suggestions are merely speculative. There is no
reason to doubt the Deh-i Now origin for this seal however, and as such, despite the
lack of any stratigraphic context, or indeed any excavated material, this seal is
included in the corpus as Deh-i Now most certainly fits within the geographic bounds
of Elam and indeed, as shown above, it is believed that it played an important part in
(Middle) Elamite history. As will be detailed below (Chapters 4 and 5) this seal
belongs to a Middle Elamite style (EME), thus conforming to the only certain period
of occupation at Deh-i Now.
2.2.2 Luristan
The historical (and modern political Iranian province of Luristan), forms the northern
region of the greater Elamite realm under analysis here, see Figures 1.3 and 2.1. For
the sake of completeness and clarity, the glyptic material from all Luristan sites that

have occupation within the chronological strictures of this study have been included
here. Thus the Luristan corpus includes nine sites: Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Kamtarlan,
Chigha Sabz, Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar, Godin Tepe, Tepe Djamshidi, Tepe Giyan
and Chogha Gavaneh. As will be demonstrated below (Chapters 4 and 5) Luristan is
the most abundant, in terms of individual sites, of the three province divisions in this
study. However, it should be noted that the Khuzistan province has produced more
actual glyptic pieces (even without the inclusion of the extraordinary site of Susa
[extraordinary both in terms of actual size and occupation, and in extent and duration
of excavation, see above]). This can be seen both as a reflection of modern
scholarship, as many of the Luristan sites only received very cursory, and at times,
ineffective and unscientific exploration (Tepe Giyan, Tepe Djamshidi, the Holmes
Expedition sites, the early [that is, those that produced glyptic material] Chogha
Gavaneh excavations), and possibly as an indication of the realties of Luristan
Elamite occupation, that was perhaps much more limited and of a rural/regional
nature than the urban Elamite manifestation of Khuzistan and Tal-i Malyan.
2.2.2.1 Surkh Dum-i-Luri

The site of Surkh Dum-i-Luri is located in the Kuhdasht valley of eastern Luristan, on
the slope of a mountain also called Surkh Dum-i-Luri, see Figure 2.1 (Schmidt et al.
1989: 34). The name Surkh Dum-i-Luri translates as “Red Slope of the Lurs”, and
refers to the modern occupation in the area (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). Surkh Dum-i-
Luri will often be referred to here simply as Surkh Dum, and as such should not be
confused with Surkh Dum-i-Lakki, situated on the opposite side of the Kuddasht
Valley (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), as the latter is of no relevance here.
Like many Luristan sites, commercial diggers in search of metal for profit
were the first to expose the remains of Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34).
The illicit digging was stopped by authorities, and Schmidt then excavated the site for
less than three weeks in 1938 under the auspices of the Holmes Expedition to Luristan
(the same project that undertook excavations at Chigha Sabz and Kamtarlan, amongst
others [not relevant here], discussed below) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). The results of
these excavations were later published by van Loon and Curvers in the Holmes
Expedition monograph, a publication that included a re-publication of Schmidt’s
original excavation reports (Schmidt et al. 1989).

The limited time constraints combined with the prevailing archaeological
techniques of the day meant that little care was taken with the Holmes excavations.
Nine 10 x 10m plots were specifically chosen for excavation in locations where there
was evidence of architectural remains (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). As well as the
architectural remains thus uncovered (discussed below), many artefacts, including the
so-called ‘wall hoards’ were discovered (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), demonstrated on
Figure 2.12. Indeed, the limitations of the technique of the excavations can be
illustrated by the fact that upon discovery of these rich finds, the final days of the
excavations were spent indiscriminately destroying the walls in order to recover any
other similar deposits (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49) 11 . Further symptomatic of the Holmes
expedition approach to excavation is the abandonment of the tenth plot (GK) shortly
after work had begun, as this sounding produced only architecture and ceramic sherds,
and no spectacular finds (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49). Thus, due to both the limited
excavations at the site, and the manner in which they were carried out, the conclusions
formed by the excavator, and the publishers, regarding the nature of the site
(discussed below) must be viewed with a degree of scepticism.
2.2.2.2.2 Site Description and Function

A multi-roomed building with several occupation phases (3B the lowest, oldest
construction, through to 1A) was revealed at the summit of Surkh Dum-i-Luri
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 49-50), Figure 2.11. The architecture of the main building is of
stone construction with a mud-brick superstructure, with strong walls and evidence
for buttressing and a stone paved floor (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49 – 51). The building
was altered several times over its use, though only with slight variations that did not
change the overall structure or plan of the building (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49 – 56), as
demonstrated by Figure 2.11. The main room of the main building was “exceptionally
abundant in artefacts” (Room 1 in the main complex in Figure 2.11), including whole
and partial ceramics, a “ram-headed pestle of stone, encircled by a bracelet of
bronze”, bronze, and other metal, pins, mirrors and other “cosmetic” objects,
necklaces, stamp seals and, of interest here, more than two hundred cylinder seals
11
“After the first wall hoard had begun to appear, the two final days were spent razing the walls in order
to recover other, similar deposits” (Schmidt et al 1989: 49). While, those that did this would no doubt
argue that these actions were taken to prevent the further commercial/clandestine operations at the site
following the departure of the Holmes team, little real difference in the motivation for the two groups
can be discerned, with the same result of unearthed material with no real archaeological context.

(Schmidt et al. 1989: 34, 59 – 56). Many of these objects were found in clusters or
hoards, others were scattered around the room, and many more were found in the
actual walls of the main room (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34), as demonstrated by Figure
2.12. Indeed, pins and other objects were found stuck in the intervals between the
stones of the wall, with one wall yielding more than eighty-seven such objects
(Muscraella 1981: 328; Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). In some cases, groups of objects
deposited as such amounted to hoards (demonstrated in Figure 212; Schmidt et al.
1989: 34, 49) and it was the search for these treasure troves that lead to the
destruction of the walls in the excavation’s last days in an attempt to find more of
these objects (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49).
Figure 2.11. General plan of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri excavations, indicating changing
pattern of occupation by Levels according to Schmidt et al. Room 1 indicates the main room
of the so-called ‘Sanctuary’. Level 2C is described as the ‘Original Sanctuary’, with 2B and
following levels of preceding alterations to the construction. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989:
plates 51 and 53, with alterations.

Figure 2.12. Sub-set of Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’ area demonstrating location of wall
and floor hoards assigned to Levels 3A, 2C and 2B. Precise periodisation of hoards
unknown. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989: plate 52, with alterations.
The main Surkh Dum building was labeled a ‘sanctuary’ or temple by the
excavator (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34), a conclusion that was accepted and continued by
the publishers (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50). Schmidt’s original cult designation was
based upon the quality, quantity, nature and depositional positioning of the small finds
found in the building, the ground plan, its stone construction and the appearance of an
installation described as an ‘altar’ (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34, 50, 487), see Figure 2.11.
Indeed, the positioning of objects in the walls does seem to indicate a certain degree
of deliberate, non-standard domestic function, and the building’s construction can be
shown to be reminiscent of other contemporary shrines (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487).
Further, inscribed objects dedicated to the goddess Ninlil were also found among the
hoards (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50). However, the ‘altar’ installation described by
Schmidt (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34), noted on Figure 2.11, is more convincingly
described, through parallels to the northwestern Iranian site Hasanlu, as a column base
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 52). Indeed, the ‘sanctuary’ interpretation is accepted by the
publishers, not upon the basis of the ‘altar’, but on the floor plan that includes
buttresses, a recessed outer doorway and a triple-recessed cella doorway that was
faced by a one-columned entrance hall (and thus the column base, and not altar still
figures as evidence for the ‘sanctuary’ designation) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487), see

Figure 2.11. The presence of the inscribed objects dedicated to Ninlil is also used by
the publishers to support the sanctuary appellation (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50), though
this evidence must also be questioned. Elsewhere these same inscribed beads are
discounted as chronological or cultural indicators due to their highly portable nature
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). Rather, they are interpreted as items valued “as
semiprecious stones, not as inscribed objects” (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). Thus, it
follows logically that, if it is accepted that these objects were not valued for their
inscriptions by the people of Surkh Dum-i-Luri, and so cannot be used as evidence for
contact with Kassite kings, these same inscriptions cannot elsewhere be used for their
information regarding deities and the religious nature of an installation.
The ‘sanctuary’ is further interpreted as dedicated to the “mistress of the
mountains” by the publishers, a claim supported by the presence of many cast ibex
horns and hammered mouflon horn-shaped ornaments (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). The
identification of the deity as female is apparently indicated by the “scarcity of
weapons and the profusion of pins and other ornaments deposited in the sanctuary”
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 487), though the identification of pins and ornaments as female
accoutrements seems more based upon modern engendering rather than any evidence
of an ancient reality. Rather, the identification of the deity honoured by the sanctuary
(if indeed, the sanctuary identification is accepted) seems fanciful in the extreme, and
based, at least in part, on the presence of the Ninlil inscribed beads previously
rejected. The presence of horns is a well known cult motif in the ancient Near East,
one known from Susa and other areas of the Elamite world (Potts 1990a), and so the
presence of horns in this building may indeed be evidence for the sanctuary
interpretation of this site, though to limit this to a “mistress of the mountains” seems
unnecessary and unproven.
Thus, there is evidence for the identification of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri building
as a sanctuary, namely the patterned floor plan reminiscent of other known shrines
and the curious and apparent hoard deposition of the objects in the room. However,
some of the evidence used by others to form this conclusion, the ‘altar’ and the
inscribed objects must be rejected here. The limited exposure at Surkh Dum in general
and indeed this building in particular, coupled with the above mentioned limitations in
the excavations, must further call into question any interpretation of the Surkh Dum
building, as the evidence is limited and corrupted. On this basis, the sanctuary

identification cannot currently be fully accepted or rejected. The floor plan along with
the depositional character of the hoards and objects does lend itself however to a
sanctuary or cult interpretation. As a result, the sanctuary identification is tentatively
accepted here, albeit with a heavy degree of caution. The sanctuary designation means
that the objects placed within the building may have carried a votive function, an
important factor in the discussion of the function of cylinder seals to follow (Chapter
6).
Another area further down the western slope of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri hill,
some 200m from the main excavations, was also explored by the Holmes Expedition
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 35, 49, 56). This area yielded several stone-walled graves with
garbled roofs (Schmidt et al. 1989: 35, 49, 56). Little information regarding this area
is known, and besides which no glyptic material appears to have been discovered in
these tombs, and so little more need be said of this area here.
Any information on the identity of the ancient inhabitants or ‘worshippers’ at
this site is completely lacking, and indeed, it is not known, if the sanctuary
designation is accepted, if the site was an isolated shrine, or if the ‘sanctuary’ was a
temple of a large occupied site. This obscurity is due to the lack of inscriptions (apart
from the incidental inscribed beads discussed above) or comparative data at the site
coupled with the very limited exposure at Surkh Dum-i-Luri generally, limited as it is
to the ‘sanctuary’ only. There is, however, some evidence of another building facing
the ‘sanctuary’ (Schmidt et al. 1989: 49), as well as the above mentioned abandoned
sounding (KG) that produced architectural remains (shown on Figure 2.11; Schmidt et
al. 1989: 49), both of which may be interpreted, tentatively, as evidence for more
extensive, possibly domestic, occupation at the site. Any conclusions on the ancient
identity of the people of Surkh Dum, and the nature of the site, must await any further
work, that would hopefully include a broader exposure of the site.
2.2.2.1.3 Date
Surkh Dum is usually dated to the Iron Age, specifically to the first half of the first
millennium BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 50, 487 – 488), and so seems out of place here
according to the above outlined chronological limitations of this study. However, the
below discussed presence of cylinder seals that belong stylistically within the
chronological bounds of this study (Chapter 5) have caused the inclusion of Surkh
Dum-i-Luri here.

Furthermore, although ceramic links between Surkh Dum’s earliest occupation
level (3B) and other Late Bronze Age sites are described as extant though “tenuous”
by the publishers (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486), the correlation with Iron Age ceramic
traditions are even less tenable (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486). Thus, it is concluded
through these isolated ceramic correlations and through “considering the stratigraphy”
(that is, the belief that this lower, older level must pre-date, to some degree, the later,
upper levels that are more securely dated), that the earliest manifestation of the
‘sanctuary’ was erected around 1350 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487), and continued in
use until the new level 2C, or ‘main sanctuary’, was built around 800 BC (Schmidt et
al. 1989: 487). The 800 BC date for the 2C level is, at least partly, derived from the
appearance of a cylinder seal in the level below this (3356 in the current study)
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). According to the Holmes Expedition publishers, this seal
is of a Neo-Elamite date, and its presence in a 3B context gives a late date for the
erection of the 2C sanctuary; that is, the 3B occupation must be dated until the end of
the Neo-Elamite period, and hence the 800 BC, Iron Age II date for the 2C sanctuary
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 487 – 488). In the current study, however, this seal is classified
as belonging to the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS, see Chapters 4 and 5 for details).
If this LPS designation is correct, this may alter somewhat the chronological
classification of the ‘sanctuary’. The LPS group has been dated to the later Middle
Elamite period, though, as will be discussed below, the use of this style very probably
continued down into the Neo-Elamite period (see Chapter 4). This thus gives an
earlier possible date for this seal, and therefore an earlier possible date for the 3B
occupation, and thus in turn an earlier possible date for the 2C sanctuary. Indeed, in
support of this, 1350 – 800 BC seems an exorbitantly long occupation phase for the
earliest occupation of the site, especially in light of the more limited finds from this
level (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486).
Thus it is possible that the 2C erection of the “main sanctuary” more
accurately occurred at some point in the Iron Age I period, though an Iron Age II
classification for at least part of the occupation cannot be completely rejected as other
iron artefacts can be dated to this period (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487). It is therefore
suggested, that, possibly, the original foundation of the 2C ‘main sanctuary’, believed
to be its apogée, occurred somewhat earlier than the date proposed by the publishers,
possibly at some point in the early Neo-Elamite or Iron Age I periods. That is, at some
point in the first two centuries of the first millennium BC. These ruminations are only

speculative however, as indeed the original Holmes Expedition classification of 800
BC is itself based upon the presence of a particularly fragmentary, unremarkable
cylinder seal, a proof that seems highly spurious to base an argument on, and thus any
alternate argument made here must be considered equally speculative.
Be that as it may, there is little doubt that the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ can, in
the main, be dated to the Iron Age period (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486 – 490),
notwithstanding the above arguments regarding internal chronology. The Iron Age
designation can be made on the bases of ceramic and metal (including the very
obvious presence of iron) material correlations, as well as the presence of some
cylinder seals that securely belong to these later periods (including Neo-Elamite and
Neo-Assyrian, as discussed below, see Table 2.18) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 487 – 490).
Later alterations, during the Iron Age II and III periods, further occurred at
Surkh Dum (Schmidt et al. 1989: 53 – 556, 490), and it is unnecessary for the
purposes of the study to dwell on these in any detail, though they are illustrated by
Figure 2.11. The fact that cylinder seals dated to earlier, that is Middle Elamite and
early post-Middle Elamite, periods were found in these later Iron Age II/III contexts
should be noted (see below and Table 2.17 for details). Though this is no preclusion
to the later date for the ‘sanctuary’, for, as discussed elsewhere (Chapter 1), the
heirloom and curiosity quality of cylinder seals makes them prime candidates for
appearance in contexts later then the apparent period of their manufacture, a point that
will be returned to (Chapter 6).
The Surkh Dum sanctuary was described as being in use well into the Iron
Age III period, with its abandonment proposed to coincide with the activities and
campaigns of Ashurbanipal’s Assyrians in the Iranian theatre, including the
destruction of Susa (646 BC), around 650 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 490). It should
also be noted that the grave goods from the western graveyard at Surkh Dum-i-Luri,
not of primary interest here due to the absence of glyptic material, indicate a Middle
Bronze Age (c.2000 – 1600 BC) date for these burials (Schmidt et al. 1989: 486).
In conclusion, the Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’, a designation that is
tentatively adhered to here, was founded at some point in the Late Bronze Age period
of Luristan, possibly around 1350 BC (sometime in the Middle Elamite II period
according to the governing chronological system of this study). The ‘sanctuary’
building underwent several phases of rebuilding and alteration, with the major
alteration previously dated, on the spurious basis of a single cylinder seal classified as

stylistically Neo-Elamite, to c.800 BC. This major rebuilding, it is argued here, may
have in fact been slightly earlier, perhaps during the early Neo-Elamite period,
regardless though, in an era beyond the scope of this study, so further details are
unnecessary here. The Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ continued in use through the first
millennium, until its possible destruction by the Assyrians c.650 BC.
The seals found at Surkh Dum are therefore included in this study as at least
part of the site’s use can be dated within its chronological bounds (that is, its earliest
period of use, c.1350 BC). Furthermore, many of the Surkh Dum seals are included
because, although they may have originated from a more recent stratigraphic context,
their stylistic date, that is the date of their origin, belongs within this study’s
periodisation (they are ‘heirloom’ seals, as will be further discussed below and in
Chapter 5).

More than 200 cylinder seals and “quite a number” of stamp seals were reportedly
found in the Surkh Dum-i-Luri ‘sanctuary’ (Muscraella 1981: 327 – 328; Schmidt et
al. 1989: 34). Two hundred and eight cylinder seals, and a number of not included
stamp (Schmidt et al. 1989: 221 – 223, 381, 383, 471, 473 – 474), seals were
published in the Holmes Expedition Report with the notation that they were found at
Surkh Dum-i-Luri (Schmidt et al. 1989: 209 – 227), as demonstrated by Tables 2.17
and 2.18. There is no indication in the report as to whether this represents the total
excavated number or just a sample.
Some of the seals found in the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ cannot be included in
the Corpus as they belong to styles that are both geographically (such as the Middle
Assyrian style) and chronologically (such as the Neo-Elamite and Neo-Assyrian
styles) beyond the parameters of this study (Schmidt et al. 1989: 209 – 227). As
outlined above, much of the occupation of Surkh Dum-i-Luri dates to these later, first
millennium BC (the Neo-Elamite) periods, and so such a pattern of distribution across
these styles is to be expected.
As well as the seals that can be associated with the ‘foreign’ (that is,
Mesopotamian) and later styles, a great deal of the cylinders found in the ‘sanctuary’
can be considered to belong to a style, or type, indigenous to Surkh Dum-i-Luri and
its surrounds (Schmidt et al. 1989: 34). These ‘local’ seals can be characterised as
‘provincial’ versions of contemporary seal styles (the Luristan Provincial Style will be

further discussed below, Chapter 4). This ‘local’ seal style appears to span the entire
period of use of the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ (that is from c.1350 BC through to the
c.650 BC abandonment), as the styles that these seals are related to can be correlated
with Middle Elamite (and Middle Assyrian and Kassite Babylonian) styles through to
Neo-Elamite (and Neo-Assyrian) styles. Thus in the Surkh Dum-i-Luri corpus
numerous styles, both of pure foreign origin, and of local, provincial type, that belong
within the chronological parameters of this study and beyond it occur. Therefore,
some of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri material belongs within the Elamite Cylinder Seal
Corpus, while some does not. The task at hand is therefore to distinguish which seals
should be included.
The character of the site of Surkh Dum-i-Luri makes the division of the
glyptic material less than straightforward however. The nature of the Surkh Dum
stratigraphy (or lack thereof) discussed above means that such considerations are of
no real use in the chronological division of the Surkh Dum material. Furthermore, if
the ‘sanctuary’ designation of the main building is accepted (and it is so, tentatively,
here) then the cylinder seals found at Surkh Dum-i-Luri can be considered to be
‘votive’ seals (for a definition of votive seals see Chapter 1). A votive designation
may further increase the possible heirloom quality of a seal, as the antiquity of a seal
may be seen to increase its value and therefore make it a suitable gift to a divinity,
that thus enables it to be placed in a temple. This means that stylistically ancient seals
could be found in more recent contexts, in association with contemporary, earlier and
later seals, making the task of classification more difficult and the use of stratigraphy
negligible, even if it were available. The long, perhaps multi-generational practice of
depositing objects in a temple also means that earlier and later items could be found in
association together in the one group of a ‘temple depository’, by very definition.
The Surkh Dum-i-Luri cylinder seals have only been subjected to a relatively
limited analysis in the Holmes Expedition Report (Schmidt et al. 1989). The task of
separating the Surkh Dum cylinder seals into separate chronological periods and
styles was not, obviously, a priority for the Holmes Expedition publishers, nor should
it be expected to be. Rather the Surkh Dum glyptic material was classified according
to general subject matter considerations, meaning that, for example, Middle Elamite,
Middle Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seals were classified under the same rubric as
local ‘provincial’ seals (Schmidt et al. 1989: 413, 416), thus deferring a more
thorough treatment of the material to others.

Thus the first process in the classification of the Surkh Dum material was to
make a more accurate, stylistic division of seals, as documented in Table 2.17. The
stylistic classifications in Table 2.17 further demonstrate the above mentioned fact
that non-occupationally contemporaneous (that is, ‘heirloom’) seals were included in
the votive inventory of the Surkh Dum sanctuary (729, 945, 1163, 1534, 1901, 2028
– 2031, 2072 – 2073, 2087, 2110, 2155, 2340, 2451 – 2452, 2704 – 2709, 2734,
2761). However, as illustrated by Graph 2.17 many of the seals from Surkh Dum-i-
Luri do not belong to any of the Elamite styles, nor do they belong to definable
‘foreign’ styles (that is, non-Elamite, generally Mesopotamian styles, such as Kassite,
Middle Assyrian, etc.). Rather the majority of these seals in fact belong to a
‘provincial’, non-standard, indigenous style, labelled here the Luristan Provincial
Style (LPS). This style will be discussed in greater detail below (Chapters 4 and 5).
The basic criteria adopted throughout this study for inclusion into the Elamite
Corpus is discernable manufacture in an ‘Elamite’/Iranian style within the
chronological timeframe defined above. Thus, except for the shared Mesopotamian
styles (the Glazed Steatite and Kassite Related styles, discussed below [Chapters 4
and 5]) where it is difficult to ascertain a Mesopotamian or Elamite origin by very
nature, Mesopotamian (or indeed any other non-Elamite location) styles discerned in
the Surkh Dum-i-Luri corpus have not been included in the Corpus, despite their
provenance from an ‘Elamite’ site. Thus the Middle Assyrian and Kassite seals from
Surkh Dum (demonstrated in Table 2.18 with the other non-Elamite Surkh Dum
seals), despite chronologically belonging to our timeframe, have not been included in
the Corpus of Elamite cylinders, though their presence at Surkh Dum should be
noted 12 .
Thus, through a study of the entire corpus of published Surkh Dum-i-Luri
seals, according to a similar methodology employed for the classification of the entire
Corpus (see Chapter 3), one hundred and eighty-one of the two hundred and eight
cylinder seals originally published in the Holmes Expedition Report were classified as
12
A different classification criteria for the Mittanian seals provenanced from Susa, Haft Tepe and Tepe
Giyan included in the ‘Miscellaneous Styles’ group of the Corpus has been applied (see Chapters 4 and
5 for details of this group). The Surkh Dum seals have not been included in the Corpus proper due to
the application of the here discussed distinction classification, where only some of the Surkh Dum seals
are included. For Susa, Haft Tepe and Tepe Giyan, all chronologically relevant cylinder seals have
been included, and so these foreign styles are listed here. Furthermore, the inclusion of Table 2.18
allows for the existence of these non-Elamite but contemporary to the current study cylinder seals from
Surkh Dum-i-Luri to be noted and commented upon, further allowing their exclusion from the main
Corpus.

belonging within the Corpus of Elamite Cylinder Seals. The selected seals are listed in
Table 2.17, along with details of their original classification in the Holmes Report
(Schmidt et al. 1989). Table 2.18 illustrates the remaining twenty-four cylinder seals
not included in the Corpus as they are deemed to have been either chronologically
beyond the limits of this study, or to have originated beyond our geographical bounds
(that is, from Mesopotamia). It should be noted, and as demonstrated by Table 2.17,
that the majority of the seals from Surkh Dum are deemed to belong to the Luristan
Provincial Style (LPS), and therefore, as will be outlined below (Chapters 4 and 5),
many of these may also, strictly speaking, have originated from a date later then that
which bounds our study, as it is argued that this style continues beyond the Middle
Elamite period, well into the first millennium.
Seal Holmes Prov. Style Seal Holmes Prov. Style

Exp. Exp.
Class. Class.
729 PL 13 Area 1; JNRS (5) 2110 ILME Area 1-2; LSF
Level 3A Level 2C
945 PL Area 9E; CPE (3) 2155 BAD Area ARS (4)
Level 3A 13(?);Le
1163 BPE 14 Area GS (3) vel 1
1/3; 2340 ILME Area 13; PEA (7)
Level 3A Level 1
1534 PL Area 2; AGD (11) 2451 BAD Area 19, UTRS (4)
Level 1 21; Level
1901 BED 15 Area 7S; STF (3) 1
Level 2B 2452 BOB Area 1N; UTRS (4)
2027 BAD 16 Area 1; SF (3) Level 1
Level 1 2704 BOB Area 3-4; OBRS (2)
2028 BAD Area 7N; SF (3) Level
Level 2B 2B-A
2029 BAD Area 4; SF (3) 2705 BOB Area OBRS (2)
Level 9/11;
2B-A Level 3A
2030 BAD Area 1; SF (3) 2706 BOB Area 3; OBRS (2)
Level Level
2A(?) 3A-2A
2071 BAD Area 7N; SF (6) 2707 BOB Area OBRS (2)
Level 1 9/11;
2072 BAD (?);Level SF (6) Level 3A
3A-1 2708 BOB Area 1; OBRS (2)
2087 ILME 17 Area 1; SF (7) Level 2B
Level 3A
13
Protoliterate, Late Chalcolithic (Susa B – C)
14
Bronze Age – Proto-Elamite
15 17
Bronze Age – Early Dynastic Iron Age – Late Middle Elamite, Neo-
16
Bronze Age – Akkadian Elamite and Contemporary Styles

Exp. Exp.
Class. Class.
2709 BLOA 18 Area 1- OBRS (2) 3210 ILME Area 20; LPS (1)
11; Level Level 2A
1 3211 ILME Area 1N; LPS (1)
2734 BOB Area 4; PEO (3) Level 2B
Level 2B 3212 ILME Area 1, LPS (1)
2761 BOB Area 4; PEO (7) 7; Level
Level 2B 1
2853 BEME 19 Area 1; EME (3) 3213 ILME Area 1N; LPS (1)
Level Level 2B
3A-2A 3214 ILME Area 1; LPS (1)
2877 BEME Area EME (5) Level 1
2/12; 3215 ILME Area 1N; LPS (1)
Level 2C Level 1
2878 BEME Area 1-2; EME (5) 3216 ILME (?);Level LPS (1)
Level 2C 3A-1
2965 ILME Area 1; EME (6) 3225 ILME Area 13; LPS (2)
Level 1 Level
2973 BEME Area 9W; EME (7) 2B-A
Level 1 3226 ILME Area 1; LPS (2)
3036 ILME Area 1/3; KRS (1) Level 3A
Level 2B 3227 ILME Area LPS (2)
3054 ILME Area 7S; KRS (2) 1(?);Leve
Level 2B l 3A-2B
3078 ILME Area 19; LME (1) 3228 ILME Area 2; LPS (2)
Level 1 Level 1
3109 ILME Area 1; LME (4) 3229 ILME Area 1-2; LPS (2)
Level Level 2C
2B-A 3230 ILME Area LPS (2)
3173 ILME Area 1; LME (7) 11N;
Level 1 Level 1
3174 ILME Area 3; LME (7) 3231 ILME Area 9; LPS (2)
Level 2B Level 1
3204 BM 20 Area 1-2; LPS (1) 3232 ILME Area 1-3; LPS (2)
Level 2C Level 2B
3205 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (1) 3223 ILME Area 3; LPS (2)
Level 2B Level 3A
3206 ILME Area 2; LPS (1) 3234 ILME Area 1; LPS (2)
Level Level 1
2B-A 3235 ILME Area 1; LPS (2)
3207 ILME Area LPS (1) Level
3(?);Leve 2B(?)
l 2B-A 3236 ILME Area LPS (2)
3208 ILME Area 1; LPS (1) 1/7/9;
Level 2B Level 2B
3209 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (1) 3237 ILME Area 7; LPS (2)
Level 3A Level
2B-2A
3238 ILME Area 1N; LPS (2)
Level
18
Bronze Age – Late Old Assyrian 2B-2A
19
Bronze Age – Early Middle Elamite
20
Bronze Age – Mittanian

Exp. Exp.
Class. Class.
3239 ILME Area 5; LPS (2) 3281 ILME Area 1N; LPS (4)
Level 1 Level 2B
Level 1 Level 1
Level 2B Level 3A
Level Level 2B
2A(?) 3285 ILME Area 7S; LPS (4)
3243 ILME Area 13; LPS (2) Level 2B
Level 1 3286 ILME Area 1/9; LPS (4)
3244 ILME Area 3; LPS (2) Level 3A
Level 2B 3287 ILME Area 1; LPS (4)
3246 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (2) Level 2C
Level 3A 3289 ILME Area 4; LPS (4)
3247 ILME Area 1/9; LPS (2) Level 2A
Level 3A 3290 ILME Area 2/3; LPS (4)
Level 2A 3291 ILME Area 7N; LPS (4)
3263 BOB Area LPS (3) Level 1
1/9/11(?) 3292 ILME Area 3-4; LPS (4)
;Level Level 2B
3(?) 3293 ILME Area 3; LPS (4)
3264 BM Area 3; LPS (3) Level
Level 2B-A
3A-2A 3294 ILME Area 3; LPS (4)
3265 BM Area 1; LPS (3) Level 3A
Level 3295 ILME Area 1; LPS (4)
2A(?) Level 1
Level 2A Level
3267 ILME Area 3; LPS (3) 2A(?)
Level 2B 3301 BMA 21 Area 1/3; LPS (5)
3268 ILME Area 19, LPS (3) Level 2B
21; Level 3302 IN 22 Area LPS (5)
1 9/11;
Level 1 3303 IN Area 1/3; LPS (5)
Level 2B 3304 IN Area 3; LPS (5)
3271 ILME Area 1-2; LPS (3) Level
Level 2C 3A-2A
3272 ILME Area 1; LPS (3) 3305 ILME Area 1/2; LPS (5)
Level 2B Level 2C
3273 ILME Area 6; LPS (3)
Level 2B
3274 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (3)
Level 2B 21
Bronze Age – Middle Assyrian
22
Iron Age – Neo-Assyrian, Provincial Neo-
Assyrian, and Assyrianized Neo-Elamite

Exp. Exp.
Class. Class.
3306 ILME Area 12; LPS (5) 3335 ILME Area 1/3; LPS (6)
Level 2A Level 2B
3307 ILME Area 1N; LPS (5) 3336 ILME Area LPS (6)
Level 2B 3/13 (?);
3308 ILME Area LPS (5) Level
11N; 2B(?)
Level 3337 ILME Area LPS (6)
2A(?) 3/13;
Level 2B 3338 ILME Area 3, LPS (6)
3310 ILME Area 9W; LPS (5) 4; Level
Level 2A 2B-1
3321 IN Area LPS (6) 3339 ILME Area 1; LPS (6)
2/23; Level 3A
Level 2C 3340 ILME Area 1; LPS (6)
3322 IN Area 3; LPS (6) Level 1
3A-2A Level
3323 ILME Area 4; LPS (6) 3A-2A
Level 3342 ILME Area LPS (6)
2A-1 9/10;
3324 ILME Area LPS (6) Level 3A
11N; 3356 IN Area 1/3; LPS (7)
Level 1 Level 3A
3325 ILME Area 1- LPS (6) 3357 ILME Area 9; LPS (7)
11; Level Level 1
2B 3358 ILME Area 1; LPS (7)
3326 ILME Area 19, LPS (6) Level
21; Level 2B-A
1 3359 ILME Area 1; LPS (7)
3327 ILME Area 7; LPS (6) Level
Level 3A-2A
2B-2A 3360 ILME Area LPS (7)
3328 ILME Area LPS (6) 11N;
2/23; Level
Level 2C 3A(?)
Level 2A Level
3330 ILME Area 1; LPS (6) 3A-2A
3333 ILME Area 4; LPS (6) Level 1
2B-1 Level 1
3334 ILME Area LPS (6) 3366 ILME Area 1; LPS (7)
9/11; Level 1
Level 3A

Exp. Exp.
Class. Class.
3367 ILME Area 1; LPS (7) 3402 ILME Area 23; LGD (2)
Level Level
2B-A 2A-1
3368 ILME Area KG; LPS (7) 3430 ILME Area LGD (3)
Level 1 9/11;
3369 ILME Area 1-3; LPS (7) Level 3A
Level 1 3431 ILME Area 1-2; LGD (3)
3370 ILME Area 4; LPS (7) Level 2C
Level 1 3432 ILME Area 1; LGD (3)
3371 ILME Area 3; LPS (7) Level 1
Level 2B 3433 ILME Area LGD (3)
3372 ILME Area 3; LPS (7) 3/13;
Level 2A Level 2C
3373 ILME Area 2/3; LPS (7) 3434 ILME Area 23; LGD (3)
Level 3A Level
3374 ILME Area LPS (7) 2A-1
1(?);Leve 3435 ILME Area LGD (3)
l 3A-2B 2/23;
3375 ILME Area 7S; LPS (7) Level 2C
Level 2B 3436 ILME Area 3; LGD (3)
Level 2A 3437 ILME Area 7S; LGD (3)
3380 ILME Area 4; LGD (1) Level 2A
Level 3438 ILME Area 1N; LGD (3)
2B-1 Level 2B
3381 ILME Area 1-2; LGD (1) 3448 ILME Area LGD (4)
Level 2C 2/12;
3382 ILME Area LGD (1) Level 2C
9/11; 3449 ILME Area 25; LGD (4)
Level 3A Level
3396 ILME Area LGD (2) 1(?)
4(?);Leve 3450 ILME Area 3; LGD (4)
l1 Level 2B
3397 ILME Area 4; LGD (2) 3451 ILME Area 4; LGD (4)
Level 2A Level 2B
3398 ILME Area 3; LGD (2) 3452 ILME Area 3; LGD (4)
Level 3A-2A
2A(?) 3558 ILME Area 1; Unclass.
3399 ILME Area 1, LGD (2) Level 1
3, 4; 3559 ILME Area 1; Unclass.
Level 1 Level
3400 ILME Area 1; LGD (2) 2A(?)
Level 3560 ILME Area 1; Unclass.
3A-2A Level
3401 ILME Area 23; LGD (2) 2B-A
Level
2A-1
Table 2.17. Survey of the included glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri.
The 181 seals of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri included corpus thus creates the third
largest of the site corpora, following Susa and Haft Tepe, and the largest of the

Luristan (or non-Khuzistan) corpora (see Chapters 4 and 5). This is a reasonably large
corpus, especially in light of the relatively limited excavation at Surkh Dum-i-Luri,
where practically only one building was excavated, as demonstrated by Figure 2.11.
The deliberate deposition of cylinder seals in the Surkh Dum ‘sanctuary’ no doubt
added to the relatively large corpus discovered here.
Holmes Expedition Holmes Expedition Current Classification

Seal Classification
34 Kassite Kassite
38 BMA Middle Assyrian or Neo-Assyrian
39 BMA Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian
43 IN Neo-Assyrian
44 IN Neo-Assyrian
71 ILME Middle Assyrian/Neo-Assyrian
191 ILME Not Classified
Table 2.18. Survey of the glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri not included in the
Corpus due to their non-contemporary or non-Elamite styles.
Another probable result of this ‘sanctuary’ designation is the fact that all the
glyptic items found at Surkh Dum-i-Luri are cylinder seals. This lack of impressions
is no doubt caused by the nature of the site/building, where cylinder seals, or other
objects of some worth, were deposited as votive gifts in the ‘sanctuary’. Thus,
assuming that the ‘sanctuary’ identification of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri building is
correct (and on the basis of the current evidence, such an assumption is not
unreasonable), the votive function of all the glyptic material from Surkh Dum is
assured. This is not to say that seals did not also have a more traditional,
administrative function at Surkh Dum-i-Luri, or indeed, that these particular seals did
not originally hold such a function before their votive deposition, but while there is no

evidence for any other seal use, or indeed site function at Surkh Dum (be it
commercial, domestic or any other type), the only discernable function for the seal is
that of votive offerings, a point that will be further discussed below (Chapter 6).
2.2.2.2 Kamtarlan
The site of Chigha (or Tepe) Kamtarlan (consequently referred to here simply as
Kamtarlan) is located in the Rimishgan valley of Luristan province, western Iran
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 3 – 4), see Figure 2.1. Two occupation areas occur at Kamtarlan,
the main mound that measures c.150 x 125m and rises some 7m above the plain,
referred to as Kamtarlan I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), and a seemingly flat area that
measures c.65 x 45m and rises just 1m above the plain about 170m southwest of the
main area, referred to as Kamtarlan II (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19), as demonstrated by
Figure 2.13. Like Surkh Dum-i-Luri, discussed above, and Chigha Sabz, below, the
site of Kamtarlan was excavated by Schmidt as part of the Holmes Expedition to
Luristan (Schmidt et al. 1989: 4), with 3 weeks spent at Kamtarlan I, and less than 2
weeks, partially concurrently, at Kamtarlan II, in October/November 1935 (Schmidt
et al. 1989: 15, 19). As such, the same limitations and criticisms as for the Surkh
Dum-i-Luri excavation technique (discussed above), can be applied to the Kamtarlan
excavations.
Several test trenches were opened on the northeastern slope of Kamtarlan I
where stone slabs may have indicated the presence of burials, but yielded nothing and
so were abandoned (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15). The main Kamtarlan I trench, 5m wide
and divided into 16 plots each 10m long (Plots A – P) was located across the mound,
along its north-south axis (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), as illustrated by Figure 2.13. The
excavations at Kamtarlan II included four 10 x 5m plots (A-D) along the east-west
axis, three plots (E-G) perpendicular to the first and two plots (E and F), that doubled
the width of plots H and I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19), see Figure 2.13.
2.2.2.2.2 Site Description, Function and Date

The description of the site of Kamtarlan can conveniently be divided into two, based
upon the mounds of Kamtarlan I and Kamtarlan II. The degree or nature of the
relationship between these two areas is unclear. While there is no information
regarding the extent of occupation/use in the area between the Kamtarlan I and II

mounds, and indeed, throughout much of the site, any resolution of this question
seems unattainable on the basis of current evidence.
2.2.2.2.2.1 Kamtarlan I
Two building levels were encountered at Kamtarlan I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15),
building level 2 (the lower) and building level 1 (the upper level) (Schmidt et al.
1989: 15 – 17). While a chronological progression from level 2 to 1 may be assumed,
it appears that some architecture from level 2 in fact postdates that from level 1
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 15), indicating that the building levels may not be considered an
accurate stratigraphic progression. Some 7 whole and fragmentary rooms were
discovered in building levels 1 and 2 at Kamtarlan I (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15 – 17).
Figure 2.13. General plan of the Excavation of Kamtarlan, indicating Kamtarlan I and
Kamtarlan II. Areas shaded red each produced three glyptic items, area shaded blue
produced two glyptic items. Figure after Schmidt et al. 1989: plate 14, with alterations.
The two building levels of Kamtarlan I have, in turn, been divided into three
chronological periods (Schmidt et al. 1989: 15 – 17). The first, delineated by pisé
walls, contains red-slipped ware, bevelled-rim bowls and cylinder seals reportedly of

Uruk/Jemdet Nasr style (certainly, as outlined below, some of these seals are
accordingly dated here; 732 – 734), dated to c.3000 – 2750 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989:
16 – 17). The second period is characterised by narrow mudbrick and stone
architecture, that tended wider during the period, and stone pavements (Schmidt et al.
1989: 16 – 17). Adult inhumations and child jar burials also occurred in this phase,
dated c.2600 – 2300 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 – 17). The final phase is
characterised by very wide stone walls, possibly indicating a fortified building, on
comparisons with other buttressed buildings from Iron Age fortresses at Baba Jan and
Godin Tepe (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16). An iron smelter has also been hypothesised in
this area due to the presence of iron slag and an apparent installation (Schmidt et al.
1989: 16 – 17). Inhumation burials are also present in this phase, which is dated on
the basis of architecture and finds to c.1000/750 – 550 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 16 –
17). The nature of the Kamtarlan I occupation can be characterised as containing
possible domestic or non-monumental architecture in earlier phases, with a possible
fortress or monumental building and evidence for industry or metallurgy in the latest
phase. Some seventeen burials were also discovered at Kamtarlan I, across all phases
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 18, 486). These findings are preliminary, as the remains are
fragmentary and limited in scope, not to mention the above detailed problems with the
stratigraphy (that is, the apparent misnomer of building levels 1 and 2).
In conclusion, two building levels (1 and 2) were encountered at Kamtarlan I,
however three periods of occupation can be identified through the artefacts discovered
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). The first period, producing pisé walls and Uruk/Jemdet
Nasr period ceramics and other artefacts, represented in Plots O – P, is dated by the
publishers to c.3000 – 2750 BC (that is the Susa III and partial Susa IV periods of the
current chronology) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). The second phase contained mudbrick
and stone walls, and burials, discovered in Plots A – I, is dated by artefact
comparisons to c.2600 – 2300 BC (the later part of the Susa IV period in this study)
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). Finally, the third phase is represented by wide stone walls,
possibly forming a fortified building, and an iron smelter, found in Plots K – P, and
burials in Plots J and N, dated c.1000/750 – 550 BC (that is the Iron Age, beyond the
limits of this study) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 17). On the basis of the current evidence (as
limited and fragmentary as it is) there is no reason to challenge this chronological
scheme. Indeed, as will be discovered below, the evidence of the glyptic material
concords with this phasing (below, and Chapter 5).

2.2.2.2.2.2 Kamtarlan II
At Kamtarlan II both occupational architecture and burials were found, generally not
in association with one another (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20, 486). Like Kamtarlan I,
two building levels were distinguished at Kamtarlan II, the upper again labelled level
1, the lower level 2 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19). Again however, the stratigraphical and
chronological accuracy of this dichotomy is unclear, as it seems more a reflection of
excavation technique rather than ancient reality.
Some six partial or complete rooms (labelled Rooms 6 – 12) were discovered
at Kamtarlan II, characterised by pisé, stone and mudbrick walls (Schmidt et al. 1989:
19 – 20). Installations include stone pavements (Level 1 Plots C – D), a stone-walled
storage pit (Level 2 Plot C), door sockets (Level 1 Plots B – C), stone wall cubicles
(Level 1 Plot G) and a possible kiln (Level 2 Plots F, I) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20).
Little detail of the architecture type is given, though it is assumed by the publishers
that these remains represent domestic architecture of some form (Schmidt et al. 1989:
19 – 20, 485).
Many burials were discovered at Kamtarlan II, mostly in the form of stone cist
tombs (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20 – 22). Adults, possibly both male and female,
juveniles, children and infants were all found in these tombs (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20
– 22), some of which were apparently partially collective in nature (Schmidt et al.
1989: 20 – 22). Grave goods included pottery and copper/bronze objects including
‘weapons’ and jewellery (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20 – 22). Little detail of these tombs,
or indeed of the associated architecture is given.
Based upon correlations with material from the second occupational phase at
Kamtarlan I, Susa and Giyan IV, a similar c.2600 – 2300 BC (Susa IV) date for the
Level 2 occupation of Kamtarlan II has been proposed (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20). A
cylinder seal (2111) is also used as evidence for this date, as it is deemed to belong to
the Piedmont Early Dynastic style (Schmidt et al. 1989: 20). In the current study, this
seal is classified to the Late Susa IV Style (LSF, see Chapter 4 for details), and thus,
despite this stylistic reclassification, still concurs with this date.
The majority of the evidence from Level I of Kamtarlan II, indeed the only
dateable material, consists of grave goods from the many tombs found in the area
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 19 – 20). Through comparisons with material from (particularly)
Larsa in southern Mesopotamia, these grave goods have been given an Old
Babylonian (Sukkalmah in the current study) date (c.2000 – 1600BC; Schmidt et al.

1989: 20). Some of these burials “seem to be associated with level 1 architecture”,
and thus by extension Level 1 at Kamtarlan II is similarly dated c.2000 – 1600 BC
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 20). The accuracy or otherwise of this statement cannot
currently be discerned.

Seven cylinder seals and one sealing were uncovered in the Holmes Expedition
excavations at Kamtarlan (I and II), giving a total corpus of eight glyptic items, as
illustrated in Table 2.19. As will be indicated below (Chapters 4 and 5), this is a
reasonably small corpus, though apart from the extraordinary Luristan site, Surkh
Dum-i-Luri, it is about the average size of a Luristan corpus.
Figure 2.13, and Table 2.19 indicates where, within the Kamtarlan site, the
individual glyptic items were uncovered, according to the Holmes Expedition Report
(Schmidt et al. 1989). Thus, five seals and a sealing were found in two areas of
Kamtarlan I, with three items each found in Plots P and M. Two cylinder seals were
also uncovered at Kamtarlan II, both in Plot F. The coincidence of the Holmes
Expedition dating of these Plots and the chronological designation of the glyptic items
found within them will be further discussed below, following the annunciation of the
styles (Chapter 5).
Current Provenance Original Material Current

Number Classification Style
732 Kamtarlan I, PL marble JNRS (5)
Plot P
733 Kamtarlan I, PL alabaster/gypsum* JNRS (5)
Plot P
734 Kamtarlan I, PL limestone JNRS (5)
Plot P
2111 Kamtarlan II, BED faience LSF
Plot F
3343 Kamtarlan I, ILME faience LPS (6)
Plot M
3344 Kamtarlan I, ILME faience LPS (6)
Plot M
3377 Kamtarlan II, BED clay cylinder LPS (7)
Plot F
3378 Kamtarlan I, ILME baked clay sealing LPS (7)
M, fill
Table 2.19. Survey of the glyptic material from Kamtarlan (I and II), see Tables 2.17 and
2.18 for details of the ‘original classification’ abbreviations.

As there is no certain information available regarding the exact provenance of
the individual items, and the function of the areas thus associated with this
distribution, little information regarding the function of the items can be put forth
here. The presence of the sealing (3378) at Kamtarlan I indicates at least some
employment of an administrative function for seals at Kamtarlan (in opposition,
especially, to other Luristan sites such Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Chigha Sabz), though
the association in a domestic or commercial/industry context is unknown.
Furthermore, despite the large numbers of tombs reportedly found at Kamtarlan, none
of the discovered cylinder seals were (reportedly) found in a funerary context. This is
again in opposition to the strong funerary function of cylinder seals in other Luristan
contexts, such as Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar and Tepe Djamshidi. A more complete
discussion of the function of the glyptic material at Kamtarlan, and the comparative
function with Luristan and the wider Elamite sites will be further discussed below
(Chapter 6).
2.2.2.3 Chigha Sabz

Chigha Sabz (“Green Mound”) is located in the Rumishgan valley of Luristan
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 5 – 6), see Figure 2.1. It measures c.120 x 100m and rises some
9m above the surrounding plain (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23). Like the preceding two
Luristan sites, Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Kamtarlan, Chigha Sabz (hereafter often
referred to simply as Sabz) was excavated by Schmidt during the Holmes Expedition
to Luristan, with final publication in the Holmes Expedition Report (Schmidt et al.
1989). Schmidt excavated Sabz for two and a half weeks in November, 1935, during
which time he opened a single plot (Plot F7) on the northern slope of the mound, five
concomitant plots (Plots H3 – 7) on the western slope, two disjointed plots (Plots H10
– 11) on the eastern foot of the mound, and finally six adjoining plots (Plots I – N7)
on the mound’s southern slope (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23), see Figure 2.14. Again, the
same limitations and problems of the excavation technique of the other Holmes
Expedition sites already discussed (Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Kamtarlan) apply to
Chigha Sabz.

Figure 2.14. General plan of the Excavation of Chigha Sabz. Area shaded red (Plot H6)
produced five seals, area shaded blue (Plot I7) produced three seals. Figure after Schmidt et
al. 1989: Plate 21, with alterations.
2.2.2.3.2 Site Description, Function and Date

In the excavated areas of Chigha Sabz, no levels or superimposed architecture was
uncovered (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23), thus there was no identification of building
phases. However, due to the (stepped trench) technique of the excavations no
architectural features were followed from one plot to the next (Schmidt et al. 1989:
23), meaning that the remains are fragmentary and disjointed, and any attempt at
formulating a plan of the site (and thus an hypothesis of site function) is difficult.
The little architectural remains discovered at Chigha Sabz include stone wall
fragments and several areas of rectangular paving, of unknown function (Schmidt et
al. 1989: 23 – 25). Several intrusive burials were also discovered at Chigha Sabz
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 23 – 25). Artefact remains include various whole and partial
pieces of pottery, “many” iron fragments (indicating obviously at least a partial Iron

Age date), animal and human-shaped vessels and of particular interest her, twelve
cylinder seals (Schmidt et al. 1989: 23 – 25).
A reconstruction of the chronological occupation of Chigha Sabz has been
proposed by the Holmes Expedition publishers on the basis of the limited architectural
finds and material culture correlations (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). In this way, six
phases of occupation at Chigha Sabz have been proposed. The first phase, labelled
Giyan V or Chalcolithic, dated 5000 – 3250 BC (thus, before the advent of this study
through to the Susa II period) was not encountered in any architectural remains, but is
proposed on the basis of ceramic evidence (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). The second
phase, dated 2600 – 2300 BC (that is, the latter Susa IV period), is only represented at
Sabz by a burial in Plot J7 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). The third phase, is the only
identified period at Chigha Sabz that produced any real architectural remains,
specifically in Plot N7 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). This period is associated with Giyan
IVC – III, dated 2000 – 1600 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25), and thus accords with the
Sukkalmah period of the current study. Many burials were also found associated with
this building level and are thus dated to this period (a date also achieved through
comparative analysis of the grave goods) (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25). The fourth phase
is represented by a burial (in Plot F7), a well (in Plot H3), a pit (in Plot L7), and
“scattered remains elsewhere”, and is dated to Giyan II, or 1600 – 1200 BC (Schmidt
et al. 1989: 25), the late Sukkalmah and early (ME I and II) Middle Elamite periods of
this study. The fifth phase at Chigha Sabz is represented by two burials in Plot L7 and
is dated to the Giyan I4 – 3 period, 1200 – 1000 BC (Schmidt et al. 1989: 25), or the
late Middle Elamite (ME III and IV) period in this study. Finally, the sixth phase is
dated to the Iron Age III period (700? – 550 BC), and is identified as a possible camp
site, represented in Plots H6 – 11 and I – J7 (Schmidt et al. 1989: 26). Several hoards
containing Iron Age ceramics and seals found buried in apparent earlier contexts are
attributed to this period and are interpreted as hoards buried under threat of danger
(Schmidt et al. 1989: 24, 26).
Thus, the fragmentary remains from Chigha Sabz are dated by artefact
correlations to several periods throughout (and before and beyond) the bounds of this
study. Discounting the evidence of burials only, four phases of occupation at Chigha
Sabz can be identified. The first is the Chalcolithic Giyan V (5000 – 3250 BC)
occupation, the later part of which is contemporary with the Susa II period in the
current study. The second occupation phase is associated with the Giyan IVC – III

(2000 – 1600 BC) period, equated with the Sukkalmah period. The third phase
continues directly in terms of chronology from the second, though the actual
functioning and operation of this transition is unknown on the current evidence. This
third phase is equated with the Giyan II period (1600 – 1200 BC), or the late
Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite period in the current study. The fourth and final
phase is identified as a “camp” occupation, and is dated to the Iron Age III period
(700 – 550 BC), and so belongs beyond the realms of this study. Incidental burials can
also be assigned, on the basis of correlations, to other periods within this
chronological scheme.
This reconstruction is extremely fragmentary and disjointed, a result of the
equally fragmentary and disjointed excavated remains at Chigha Sabz. Again, there is
no basis on the current evidence to dispute this scheme, though the entirely tentative
and fragmentary nature of this information should be acknowledged. Following a
discussion of the styles of the cylinder seals (Chapter 4), a reassessment of the date of
some of these items may be necessary, and will be outlined below (Chapter 5).

Twelve cylinder seals were discovered in various Plots on the Chigha Sabz mounds,
as demonstrated by Tables 2.20 and 2.21, and partially illustrated by Figure 2.14.
Three of these cylinder seals, detailed in Table 2.21 are not included in the Corpus as
they belong to styles chronologically beyond the bounds of this study. These seals are
amongst those discovered in the Iron Age hoards supposedly dug by the occupiers of
the ‘camp site’ of Chigha Sabz discussed above (Schmidt et al. 1989: 24 – 25), and
thus also belong in ‘stratigraphic’ terms to periods beyond the realms of this study.
Thus a corpus of nine seals from Chigha Sabz is incorporated in the Corpus. Like with
Kamtarlan discussed immediately above, the nine seals of this corpus is a relatively
small group, though reasonably sized in the context of Luristan aside from Surkh
Dum-i-Luri.
Figure 2.14 illustrates the areas of provenance of the Sabz seals (also
demonstrated in Table 2.20). It is striking that all the cylinders (apart from 1363 for
which there is no listed provenance) were located in two plots (H6 and I7). Due to the
fragmentary nature of the remains from Chigha Sabz, nothing can be said on the
function of cylinder seals at Chigha Sabz, though it should be noted that there are no

sealings amongst the glyptic items, and that no cylinders were found in the many
tombs uncovered at Sabz.
Current Number Provenance Original Classification Material Current Style

1363 – BPE chlorite GS (6)
1407 H6 ILME faience AGD (1)
3217 H6 ILME faience LPS (1)
3249 I7 ILME steatite LPS (2)
3311 I7 IN porphyry LPS (5)
3312 I7 IN porphyry LPS (5)
3439 H6 ILME faience LGD (3)
Table 2.20. Survey of the glyptic material from Chigha Sabz. See Tables 2.17 and 2.18 for
details of the ‘Original Classification’ abbreviations.
Holmes Provenance Holmes Expedition Current

Expedition Seal Classification Classification
52 H11 IN Neo-Assyrian
69 J7 ILME Neo-Elamite
153 I7 ILME Neo-Assyrian
Table 2.21. Chigha Sabz cylinder seals not included in the Corpus.
2.2.2.4 Bani Surmah

The graveyard site of Bani Surmah is located along the river Rudkhaneh Lashkan in
the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan, lying around 3.5km north-east of the village of Chavar
(Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3), see Figure 2.1. Some thirty-seven stone built tombs
were excavated by a Belgian team (the Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran, or
BAMI), lead by L. Vanden Berghe, over two seasons in 1966 and 1967 (Haerinck &
Overlaet 2006: 3). A preliminary report of the graves of Bani Surmah was published
by the excavator (Vanden Berghe 1968), with a final excavation report published by
Haerinck and Overlaet (2006) as part of the Luristan Excavation Documents (LED
VI). Finally, of particular importance to this study, an article discussing the glyptic
material from Bani Surmah was published by Tourovets (1996).

The perennial tributaries of the river bisect the plateau on which Bani Surmah stands
into three sectors, labelled A, B and C (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3). Fourteen tombs
were found and documented in Area A (labelled A1-14), eighteen in Area B (B1-18)
and five in Area C (C1-5) (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 7 – 14), though it should be

noted that tombs C1 – 4 were, seemingly, not explored but only received a numerical
designation (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 14). Thus a total of thirty-seven intact tombs
were documented at the Bani Surmah graveyard (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 63).
Generally, the stone built tombs of Bani Surmah were large and seemingly
collective (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 5), though three smaller tombs from Area B
(12, 14 and 17) may have been individual tombs (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 5). In
general the tombs adhere to three orientation patterns (described as two only by
Haerinck & Overlaet [2006: 5]), a NW-SE pattern (Tombs A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6,
A7, A11, B1, B2, B3, B16, C4), a NE-SW pattern (Tombs A9, A10, A12, A13, A14,
B8, B11, B13, B14, B15), and a N-S pattern (Tombs A8, B4, B5, B5, B7, B9, B10,
B12, B18) (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 5 – 14). There appears to be no other
classifiable difference between these groups, such as type, construction or grave good
distribution, thus these orientation patterns cannot currently be associated with any
discernable meaning or difference in status, or type, for those buried within.
Many of the tombs at Bani Surmah had been looted and depleted of some or
all grave goods by clandestine digging (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 3, 5). However,
some 314 items were recovered from the complete and partially looted tombs
excavated by the BAMI team. The inventory of the material discovered in the tombs
includes various monochrome and polychrome ceramics, metal objects including
copper/bronze tools and weaponry (dagger blades, axes, adzes or chisels, saws, awls,
pins and needles) and copper/bronze (and in some cases, silver) items of personal
adornment (bracelets, rings, earrings, buttons), chipped stone tools, whetstones, beads
and, of most interest here, cylinder seals (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 15 – 62).
The analysis of this material has provided sufficient correlative evidence to
date the Bani Surmah tombs generally to the periods defined as Early Dynastic I
through to the early Akkadian period (Haerinck 1986: 56 – 68; Haerinck & Overlaet
2006: 3 – 4). Most of these correlations are with various Mesopotamian types
(Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 66 – 68), thus the Mesopotamian periodisation in this
chronological description. In ‘Elamite’ terms, these chronological periods correspond
to the later part of the Susa III period through to the Akkadian and Awan period, with
the Susa IV period inclusive.
The northwestern region of the Pusht-i Kuh, that contains both Bani Surmah
and the below discussed Kalleh Nisar, has been labelled ‘Zone 1’ (of three) by
Haerinck (1986: 61 – 67; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 66 – 70). This Zone is defined

as the ‘Mesopotamian related group’, as it displays general material culture
correlations with Mesopotamia (Haerinck 1986: 61; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 66),
as demonstrated in the nature of the items used to date the assemblage and the
resultant Mesopotamian chronological periodization. The apparent Mesopotamian,
rather than Elamite (or more correctly southwestern Iranian-Khuzistan cultural area),
nature of the Bani Surmah material will be returned to below both in the discussion of
the styles represented here (Chapters 4 and 5) and in the discussion of Elamite-
Mesopotamian contacts (Chapter 7).
The depositional placement of the goods within the tomb, as well as their size,
indicates that these tombs were collective graves that were re-used over a long period
of time, perhaps generations (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 63). Whether the collections
in these graves represent families, clans, tribes, or any other social distinction not
known to us cannot at this point be discerned (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 63).
Similarly, the identity of the people who buried their dead in the tombs of Bani
Surmah, and whether these people were sedentary, semi-nomadic or nomadic, cannot
currently be ascertained, however a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle seems likely
as there is no known contemporary settlement in the region (Haerinck 1986: 56;
Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 68), though this could of course be a reflection of the state
of our knowledge rather than an ancient reality.
Suggestions that identify the people responsible for the Bani Surmah graves
(and those at Kalleh Nisar), with the ‘Guti’ or the ‘Lullubi’, or that associate Luristan
with the little understood cultural phenomena of ‘Awan’ or ‘Shimashki’ (Vanden
Berghe 1968: 62; Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 70; Potts 1999: 97 – 98; discussed
above), while intriguing, cannot be proven with any certainty beyond speculation on
the current basis of our knowledge. However, Haerinck and Overlaet advocate a
location of the ‘Guti’ within the Pusht-i Kuh during (at the least) the Early Bronze
Age IV period (that is the latter part of the Akkadian, post-Akkadian [a period indeed
often labelled the ‘Guti’ period] and the Ur III periods), based upon evidence from
two cuneiform letters and associated historical geography (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006:
70). However, even if this identification is accepted, there is no evidence to suggest
with any certainty that the graves of Bani Surmah (and Kalleh Nisar) can be
associated with the Guti (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 70). Certainly, if the Guti
identification was accepted it should be noted that the chronological designation of
the Bani Surmah material (including the cylinder seals), discussed above as Early

Dynastic (as evidenced by the glyptic material also [see Table 2.22 and Chapter 5]) to
early Akkadian does not generally coincide with the ‘Guti’-Pusht-i Kuh association,
but in fact precedes it. The question of the identification of Awan, Shimashki and the
Guti will be further discussed below (Chapter 7).
The site of Bani Surmah, and the glyptic material it produced, is included in
this study due to the above outlined wide definition of the area of ‘Elam’ (see Chapter
1). There should be no suggestion that Bani Surmah, nor its general area, be equated
with Elam in the strictest sense in the period of use discussed here. However, as will
be shown below (in the outline of the glyptic material, Chapters 4 and 5), at least, the
cylinder seal materials of Bani Surmah conform to styles found in the more
recognised ‘Elamite’ regions of Khuzistan, so as to make its inclusion here not
unreasonable, and a placement of Bani Surmah within the ‘Elamite realm’ or sphere
of influence.

Nine cylinder seals were found in the graves of Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet
2006: 51), as illustrated by Table 2.22. This is a relatively small distribution of
cylinder seals within the corpus, though within Luristan the size of the Bani Surmah
corpus is only bettered by Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Godin Tepe. Also, relative to the
limited available exposure at the site this is not an insignificantly sized glyptic corpus.
Due to the nature of Bani Surmah, the funerary designation of these seals is thus well
established. The exact functioning of the funerary seals from Bani Surmah, and
indeed in Elam more generally, and the related question of function that is raised by
the presence of cylinder seals in a context of no discernable occupation and written
sources will be discussed in further detail below (Chapter 6).
Current Tomb Original Classification Current Stylistic

Number Classification
730 B6 Jemdet Nasr or Early Dynastic I/Proto-Elamite JNRS (5)
1481 A14 Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic I (Piedmont style) AGD (7)
1679 B13 Jemdet Nasr AGD (15)
2032 A14 Early Dynastic II/III SF (3)
2033 A2 Early Dynastic III/Akkadian SF (3)
2034 A14 Early Dynastic III SF (3)
2044 A2 Early Dynastic III/Akkadian SF (4)
2088 B6 Early Dynastic SF (7)
2089 A14 Early Dynastic II/III SF (7)
Table 2.22. Survey of the glyptic material from Bani Surmah.

2.2.2.5 Kalleh Nisar
The site of Kalleh Nisar was excavated during two seasons in 1967 – 1968 as part of
the BAMI expedition lead by Louis Vanden Berghe that also explored the site of Bani
Surmah discussed above (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets
1994: 9; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). Indeed, the aim of the Kalleh Nisar
excavations was to further explore and understand the Bronze Age Civilisation that
came to light in the Bani Surmah excavations (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25). Kalleh
Nisar is a wide plateau site on the left bank of the Kalah Rud river in the Pusht-i Kuh
region of Luristan, 50km north-west of Ilam (thus situated politically in the Ilam
district) and about 25km north-west of Bani Surmah (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25;
Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 9 – 10; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3), as
illustrated by Figure 2.1.
Preliminary results from these excavations were published by Vanden Berghe
(1973), and, importantly for this study, a paper on the glyptic material from Kalleh
Nisar has more recently been published (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994). The
final excavation report (LED VII, Haerinck & Overlaet 2008) appeared towards the
end of the period of preparation of the current study, however the cylinder seal section
of this publication was kindly supplied ahead of publication to help facilitate their
complete study and inclusion by E. Haerinck.

The plateau on which the site of Kalleh Nisar rests is intersected by a series of
depressions, which divide the plateau into four zones, labelled by the excavators
Zones A, B, C and D (Vanden Berghe 1973: 25; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994:
10; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). Kalleh Nisar is described by Vanden Berghe as a
necropolis (1973: 25) and indeed, like Bani Surmah, many graves were found at the
site. The remains of two stone ‘buildings’ were also found in Areas C and D (Vanden
Berghe 1973: 28; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3), however as no glyptic material of
any type were discovered in these areas (Vanden Berghe 1973: 28), and there appears
to be no chronological or cultural correlation between this scanty evidence for
Chalcolithic occupation here contained and the later graves (Haerinck & Overlaet
2008: 64), these occupation areas do not warrant discussion here.

Like the graves of Bani Surmah, many of the Kalleh Nisar graves were the
subject of clandestine commercial diggings that emptied and destroyed many of them
(Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10 – 12; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 10), severely
limiting the amount of material available for excavation, as well as the completeness
of this survey. Twenty-one cist tombs containing multiple burials were excavated in
Area AI (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3), two large, already plundered, tombs were
discovered in Area B (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3, 5), eighteen collective tombs, of
which fourteen had been looted, were noted in Area C (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3,
6), and six large tombs, five of which were already looted, were discovered in Area D
(Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3, 8). As well as these forty-seven collective tombs, some
fifty-two single inhumation tombs, of which only eighteen were left untouched by
clandestine looters to be excavated by Vanden Berghe’s team, were also discovered in
Area AII (Vanden Berghe 1973: 27; Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 11; Haerinck
& Overlaet 2008: 3). As the AII graves apparently date to a later period, they have
been reserved for final publication in a forthcoming Luristan Excavation Volume and
were not detailed in LED VII (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3). However, as the
material (including the cylinder seals) uncovered in these tombs does comply with the
chronological limits of the current study they are included here. Thus, while some
ninety-nine tombs were identified at Kalleh Nisar, only forty-four were left untouched
by looters and thus yielded any information to the excavators.
The graves of Kalleh Nisar fall into two broad groups (Vanden Berghe &
Tourovets 1994: 10; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 3 – 10). Type I describes the group of
relatively small, individual tombs of Area AII (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994:
10), which though numbering more than Type II in identified examples, contains
significantly fewer (eighteen, while Type II includes forty-seven) actual excavated
examples. The larger, collective inhumations of the ‘Bani Surmah Type’ are labelled
Type II (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994: 10). A similar material culture inventory
to that of Bani Surmah was uncovered in the tombs of Kalleh Nisar, including various
mono- and polychrome ceramic wares, copper/bronze objects, including weaponry
and tools (daggers, spearheads, axes, pins and needles), personal ornaments
(bracelets, rings, earrings) and vessels, chipped stone tools, whetstones, beads, and of
most interest to the current study, glyptic material in the form of cylinder and stamp
seals (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 11 – 59).

The material culture correlations made for these materials allows the
construction and primary use of the collective tombs to be dated to the Jemdet Nasr
through to the early Akkadian periods (Haerinck 1986: 59 – 68; Haerinck & Overlaet
2008: 64 – 67). There is some evidence that several of the collective tombs
(specifically AI. 1, 2 and 4) were re-used in the Old Babylonian period (Haerinck &
Overlaet 2008: 67). The single inhumation tombs of Area AII can be dated to the
Early Bronze Age IV (the later Akkadian, the ‘Guti’ period and the Ur III periods in
the Mesopotamian periodisation) (Haerinck 1986: 68; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 67).
Thus through the combined use of the collective and single inhumation tombs at
Kalleh Nisar the use of the graveyard can be dated in total to the Jemdet Nasr through
to the Old Babylonian period. In the Elamite chronological periodisation this
corresponds to the Susa III/Proto-Elamite through to the Sukkalmah periods.
Like the nearby site of Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar is located by Haerinck and
Overlaet in Zone 1 (the ‘Mesopotamian related group’) of the Pusht-i Kuh (Haerinck
& Overlaet 2008: 63 – 68). Similar conclusions and discussions regarding the ethnic
and cultural associations of Kalleh Nisar (such as the possible link with the ‘Guti’ and
the Mesopotamian, rather than ‘Elamite’ nature of the material) as those of Bani
Surmah, discussed above, can be applied, and will be returned to following an
exposition of the styles. It should be noted that the incidental chronological objection
to an association with the ‘Guti’ for the Bani Surmah material discussed above does
not apply to the Kalleh Nisar graves as some of these graves do chronologically
coincide with the ‘Guti’ period.

A total of seven cylinder seals (and a single stamp seal of no relevance here [Haerinck
& Overlaet 2008: 47]) were found in the tombs of Kalleh Nisar (Vanden Berghe &
Tourovets 1994), as illustrated by Table 2.23. The Kalleh Nisar corpus is therefore
one of the smallest in the general Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. Five of the Kalleh
Nisar cylinders seals were found in the earlier, collective tombs of areas AI, C and D
(Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 47), while a further two cylinder seals were found in the
single inhumations of area AII (Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994).
As is the case for the Bani Surmah material, the funerary nature of the Kalleh
Nisar graveyard, and therefore by extension the funerary function of the cylinder seals
found in these graves is assured. Though again, like in the Bani Surmah case, the

precise function of cylinder seals (funerary or otherwise) in a presumably illiterate
society (at least on the current evidence there are no known written sources to indicate
Kalleh Nisar literacy) is currently still unclear and will be returned to below (Chapter
6).
Current Number Tomb Original Classification Current Stylistic Classification

731 AII.7 Guti/Ur III JNRS (5)
1966 AII.34 Guti (?) STF (4)
2035 C12 Early Dynastic SF (3)
2253 C12 Early Akkadian ARS (10)
2710 D2 Old Babylonian OBRS (2)
2711 AI.1 Old Babylonian OBRS (2)
2774 C13 Old Babylonian PEO (8)
Table 2.23. Survey of the glyptic material from Kalleh Nisar.
2.2.2.6 Godin Tepe

The site of Godin Tepe is a large mound on the south bank of the modern course of
the seasonal Khorramrud branch of the Gamas Ab river, in the Kangavar Valley of
central western Iran (Young 1969a: 1; Young 1986: 212), in the cultural province of
Luristan, see Figure 2.1. This places the site of Godin Tepe along the Baghdad to
Kermanshah/Hamadan stage of the east-west ‘Silk Road’ (Young 1969a: 1; 1986:
212).
Godin Tepe was excavated by a team lead by T. C. Young Jr. for the Royal
Ontario Museum over several seasons in the 1960’s and early 1970’s (1969a: 1;
Young & Levine 1974: 16; Weiss & Young 1975: 1). Following a preliminary
identification survey in 1961, the first two excavations seasons (in 1965 and 1967)
were published by Young in a preliminary excavation report (1969a). The following
two seasons (1969 and 1971) were published by Young and Levine in the second
Godin Tepe progress report, along with details of the excavation of the nearby site
Seh Gabi (not of relevance here) (1974). A final excavation season in 1973 has not
been treated in an excavation report, but details of the results of this important season
have been partially detailed in an article (Weiss & Young 1975) and a conference
paper (Young 1986).

The site of Godin Tepe rises some 30m at its highest point above the surrounding
plain, and has been divided into three sections, labelled the ‘Outer Town’, the

‘Citadel’ and the ‘Upper Citadel’ by the excavators (Young 1969a: 1). The modern
site of Godin Tepe covers an area of some 14 – 15 hectares (Young 1969a: 1),
however, as the whole site bears evidence of cultivation and erosion damage (Young
1969a: 1), it is possible that its original extent was somewhat greater. Eleven
cultural/chronological phases, dating from the mid-5th millennium through to the 6th
century BC (labelled periods I – XI, I indicating the most recent, XI the earliest
phase), have been identified at the site (Young 1986: 212). Not all the Godin Tepe
phases are of pertinence to the current study, but only those that fit within our
chronological confines will be examined here. Thus phases XI – VIII are of no
interest here as they belong to a period before this study begins (and indeed, before
the introduction of the cylinder seal) (Young 1986: 222). Similarly, phases II and I are
dated to the first millennium BC (Young 1986: 212; Young & Levine 1974: 29 – 36)
and so fall outside of the realms of this study. Thus phases Godin VII to Godin III are
those that are of particular interest here. Table 2.24 summaries the Godin Tepe
periodisation suggested by Young and Henrickson (Young & Levine 1984: 15; Young
1986: 212; Young & Weiss 1975: 1; Henrickson 1985), with reference to the Susa
chronological scheme, as this is the chronological paradigm that governs this study.
It is unnecessary to provide a detailed description of the individual phases and
material culture of Godin Tepe here, both because this has been adequately
undertaken elsewhere (Young 1969a; 1969b; Young & Levine 1974; Young 1986;
Weiss & Young 1975) and because, as will be shown, the majority of the Godin Tepe
occupation is of no significance to the glyptic theme of this study. However, the
Godin V occupation does warrant a brief discussion here, as it is the area from
whence the majority of the Godin Tepe material was sourced, and because it
demonstrates strong contacts with Mesopotamia and (or) southwestern Iran
(Khuzistan) that are of importance to the nature of Godin Tepe itself and to the
question of contact and influence between ‘Elam’ and Mesopotamia that is a recurring
theme of this study.
The Godin V remains were chiefly excavated in the (final) 1973 season (Weiss
& Young 1975: 1). The main Godin V occupation is found on the uppermost summit
of the Godin mound (the so-called ‘Upper Citadel’), and is characterised by
“monumental” architectural remains that have been designated the ‘Oval Enclosure’
due to its distinctive circular/ellipsoid shape (Weiss & Young 1975: 13; Young 1986:
213, fig. 1), see Figure 2.15. Godin V material was also found in the ‘Brick Kiln Cut’

at the western base of the Citadel Mound (Weiss & Young 1975: 2). As well as the
unusual nature of the oval architecture of this area (Figure 2.15), the Godin V remains
are notable for their similarity with the Late Uruk (Susa II period in the chronological
scheme of this study) culture known from southern Mesopotamia and Khuzistan
(Young 1986: 213; that is, the so-called ‘Uruk Expansion’, already mentioned above
and discussed further below). As well as the basic ceramic tradition that demonstrates
the inclusion of Godin V in the Uruk cultural realm, the ubiquitously characteristic
Uruk artefact, the bevel-rimmed bowl, and, of most interest here, administrative and
accounting objects such as tablets and seals were also found in the Godin V ‘Oval
Enclosure’ (Weiss & Young 1975: 3 – 13; Young 1986: 213 – 218).
Godin Tepe Chronological Scheme Susa (Elamite Corpus) Chronological Scheme
Godin VII
Susa II
(3700 – 3400)
(3800 – 3100)
Godin VI
(3400 – 3100)
Godin V
(3200 – 3100;
Susa III
3200 – 3000)
(3100 – 2900)
Godin IV
(3000 – 2600)
III: 6
(2600 – 2400) Susa IV
(2900 – 2300)
III: 5
(2400 – 2250)
Godin III Akkadian/Awan

(2600 – 1500) (2300 – 2100)
III: 4 Ur III/ Shimashki
(2100 – 1950) (2100 -1940)
III: 2
(1950 – 1600) Sukkalmah
III: 1 (1930 – 1500)
(1600 – 1500)
Middle Elamite I
(1500 – 1400)
Table 2.24. Chronological periodisation of Godin Tepe in reference to the chronological
scheme of this study. Godin Tepe dates following Young & Levine 1974, Young 1986, Young
& Weiss 1975 and Henrickson 1985. The two proposed Godin V dates of Young 1986 and
Young & Weiss 1975 respectively have both been listed. It should be noted that there are
several gaps between the various Godin III phases. All dates are approximate and BC.

This Godin V material, including the ‘Oval Enclosure’ architecture, is
distinctive from the ‘local’ Godin VI material (Young 1986: 212; Weiss & Young
1975: 2; Henrickson 1988: 13), however there is apparently no occupation gap
between the Godin VI occupation and the Godin V intrusion (Young 1986: 212 – 213;
Weiss & Young 1975: 2 – 3). Indeed it appears that the Godin VI occupation
continued concurrently with the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’ occupation elsewhere on
the mound (Henrickson 1988: 13; Young 1986: 212, 222; Weiss & Young 1975: 13),
as depicted by Table 2.24. There is, however, evidence for a break in occupation
following the period V horizon (Young 1986: 213, 222).
Figure 2.15. General plan of the Godin V ‘Oval Enclosure’, from whence the majority of the
Godin Tepe glyptic remains were sourced. Figure after Young 1986: figure 1, with
alterations.
There is therefore little doubt that Godin V demonstrates a relationship with

southern Mesopotamian and Susian cultures, as characterised by the so-called Uruk
Expansion (Young 1986: 220). However, the mechanisms and functioning of this
intrusion and the relationship between Godin V and the lowland (be they lowland
Khuzistan or lowland Mesopotamian) cultures is unclear. Young and Weiss

specifically see this phenomenon as the intrusion by Susian individuals (or locals
heavily influenced by Susians) bearing the Late Uruk culture, who established an
outpost, most probably for the purposes of trade (a genuine entrepôt), on the top of
the Godin mound (Young & Weiss 1975: 14 – 16; Young 1986; Henrickson 1988:
13). The precise mechanisms whereby an apparent foreign group were able to
establish such an outpost on the highest point of an already occupied mound are
unclear.
Thus, there is little doubt that the Godin V phenomenon demonstrates a
relationship with a lowland, intrusive, culture (Weiss & Young 1975; Henrickson
1988: 13). According to Young, the Godin V intrusion is totally of a Late Uruk
character, as opposed to the later, Iranian ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III) expansion
(Young 1986: 221). This is in spite of the fact that, according to the earlier
chronological designation of this phenomenon by Weiss and Young, part of the Godin
V period appears to coincide with the earlier part of the ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III)
expansion (Weiss & Young 1975: 1; as demonstrated by Table 2.24). Similarly, as
will be demonstrated later (Chapter 5), some of the glyptic material appears to be of a
Proto-Elamite/Susa III, rather than Uruk/Susa II, character, as indeed acknowledged
by Young (1986: 221). The resolution of the Uruk or ‘Proto-Elamite’ nature of the
Godin V intrusion relies not only on the nature of the Godin material, the glyptic
element of which will be discussed further below (Chapter 5), but also on a discussion
of the Uruk and Susa III/‘Proto-Elamite’ Expansions, phenomena that will be returned
to in the contact discussion following the annunciation of the styles (Chapter 7).
The long Godin III occupation (see Table 2.24), while of great importance to a
study of Godin Tepe generally, need not be discussed here, for, apart from a solitary
sealing (1362, discussed in greater detail elsewhere [below, and Chapters 4 and 5],
which itself belongs stylistically to a very early period of Godin III) no glyptic
material dating to this long period has been found.

According to Weiss and Young thirteen sealed tablets, four sealed jar stoppers and
two cylinder seals were found in the ‘Oval Enclosure’ of Godin Tepe V (Weiss &
Young 1975: 8). Five of the thirteen tablets, two of the four sealings and the two
cylinder seals have been published by Weiss and Young (1975: 8 – 10) and thus are
included in the Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 2.25. According to Young, “no

bullae, jar sealings, cylinder seals or tablets were found anywhere at Godin outside of
the Oval Enclosure” (1986: 217). However, in at least one instance this statement is
incorrect, for a sealing was published in the second Godin Tepe progress report
purportedly from a Godin III context (the current 1365) (Young and Levine 1985:
111). Also, as somewhat of a contradiction to this statement is the fact that Weiss and
Young had previously stated that the provenance of seal 999 was in fact inside a
Godin IV mudbrick, with the Godin V designation made on stylistic grounds (Weiss
& Young 1975: 11).
Thus a total of ten glyptic items form Godin Tepe are included in the Elamite
Cylinder Seal Corpus, as demonstrated by Table 2.25, though as detailed above, it
should be noted that this is not the total number of the glyptic material from Godin,
but rather the entirety of the published corpus. This is a relatively small corpus,
though it is the second largest of the Luristan corpora, after the large Surkh Dum-i-
Luri group. Such size comparisons between the seventeen sites represented in the
Corpus should of course be viewed with considerable scepticism, as the number of
glyptic items from each site is reliant on modern factors of scholarship, such as extent
of excavation and publication, as well as realties of preservation, use and distribution
within the ancient site.
Current Number Provenance Type Current Style

102 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet STS (5)
442 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet STS (19)
571 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ jar sealing JNRS (2)
946 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ sealed tablet CPE (3)
947 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ cylinder seal CPE (3)
998 Godin V, ‘Oval Enclosure’ jar stopper CPE (4)
999 Godin IV, within a mudbrick cylinder seal CPE (4)
1365 Godin III, AO1, Lot 19 sealing GS (6)
Table 2.25. Survey of the glyptic material from Godin Tepe.
It should also be noted that the Godin Tepe material has not previously been
subjected to a thorough glyptic study, but rather the majority of the material was
published by Weiss and Young as examples of Godin V material culture, with the
direct purpose of demonstrating the Late Uruk nature of the Godin V material (Weiss
& Young 1975: 6 – 13), which as will be demonstrated, may not have been entirely
appropriate or successful (Chapter 5).

2.2.2.7 Tepe Djamshidi
Tepe Djamshidi 23 is a site in northern Luristan, situated on the plain of Havé, some
25km northwest of Alishtar (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 91), see Figure 2.1. The
site was originally identified by Contenau and Ghirshman in their first season to
Nehavend (including the excavation of Tepe Giyan, discussed below), and
subsequently excavated in 1933 (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 91). Two trenches
were dropped on or near the summit of the mound (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935), as
demonstrated by Figures 2.16 and 2.17. The results of the ‘sondages’ at Tepe
Djamshidi were published in the excavation report that included the excavations at
Tepe Giyan (and the not relevant site Tepe Bad-Hora) (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935),
and thus has only received cursory, and somewhat dated treatment.
Figure 2.16. General plan of Tepe Djamshidi, indicating location of Trenches 1 and 2.
Figure after Contenau and Ghirshman 1935:70, with alterations.

The Tepe Djamshidi mound rises some 23m above the surrounding plain (Contenau &
Ghirshman 1935: 92). On or near the summit of the mound, Islamic installations,
obviously of no relevance here, were discovered (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93).
Below this, three levels (Couche II – IV, Couche I being the Islamic period
occupation) were uncovered (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93 – 104), though it is
23
Also Tepe Jamshidi.

unclear if these layers are true stratigraphic realties, or rather the result of the
excavation technique. The latter seems more likely in light of the fact that no evident
architecture was discerned in the excavations. In light of the realities of early 1930’s
excavations, it is possible that mudbrick architecture present at Tepe Djamshidi was
missed in the excavations. Rather, nineteen stone built (or stone-lined), single
inhumation tombs were discovered at Tepe Djamshidi (Tombs 1 – 2 in Couche II,
Tombs 3 – 10 in Couche III, Tombs 11 – 10 in Couche IV) (Contenau & Ghirshman
1935: 93 – 111), as demonstrated by Figure 2.17. The grave goods found in these
tombs include ceramics, of Giyan III and Giyan IV type (as classified in the original
Giyan report, see below), bronze jewellery and weaponry, and two cylinder seals
(Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 93 – 111).
Figure 2.17. South-North cross section of the Tepe Djamshidi excavations, indicating
relative levels of Tombs discovered in Trenches 1 and 2. Tomb 3 (T3) is marked red and
corresponds to the provenance of the two Djamshidi cylinder seals. Figure after Contenau
and Ghirshman 1935: 72, with alterations.
Through correlative analysis of this material the tombs of Tepe Djamshidi can
be dated from the end of the third millennium through to the first three quarters of the
second millennium BC (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 94), that is the later part of the
Susa II/early Susa III period through to the first part of the Sukkalmah periods,
inclusive of the Susa IV, Akkadian/Awan and Ur III/Shimashki periods, in the current
chronological paradigm. This is obviously a long period of time, and merely
represents the longest possible extent of use according to the correlative data.

There is no information regarding the possible identity of the individuals who
buried their dead in the Djamshidi tombs, nor the possible location of their habitation,
nor even the possible presence of domestic architecture, or occupation, at Tepe
Djamshidi. The size, and indeed inclination of the Djamshidi mound (as illustrated by
Figure 2.16), would seem to indicate that there was some occupation at the site, as
opposed to the site being a graveyard, in the literal sense. However, on the basis of the
available evidence, no conclusions can be made in this regard, in the current absence
of any domestic (or indeed any) architecture.

The glyptic corpus of Tepe Djamshidi is formed by two cylinder seals, both
provenanced from Tomb 3, as demonstrated by Table 2.26 and Figure 2.17.
Comprising just two cylinders, the Tepe Djamshidi corpus is thus the smallest (along
with Chogha Gavaneh) of the excavated sites corpora (Deh-i Now, the unexcavated
site discussed above, excluded).
Current Number Provenance Original Classification Current Style

1408 Tomb 3 terra cotta AGD (1)
2712 Tomb 3 hematite OBRS (2)
Table 2.26. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Djamshidi.
The styles, and the chronological implications of these styles, of the Djamshidi
seals will be further discussed below (Chapters 4 and 5). It is striking that the only
two seals found at Tepe Djamshidi were discovered in the same tomb. Thus while the
funerary function of these seals is assured, the implications of two cylinder seals
found in the one tomb must be considered, and will be returned to below (Chapter 6).
It may be suggested that seal 1408, classified as belonging to the Archaic Geometric
Designs group (AGD), is in fact not a seal but a bead. This proposal will be returned
to below (Chapter 4), but the possibility that such items, thus decorated, can be
classified as beads rather than seals has been raised elsewhere (Collon 2005: 69;
Schmidt et al. 1989: 381), and is entirely possible. This would explain the apparent
incongruous appearance of two seals in a single inhumation burial, and the evident
discrepancy in the dating of the seal styles of these two items, as the AGD style is
dated significantly earlier then the Old Babylonian style (OBRS) of the other
Djamshidi seal (2712). If it is not concluded that seal 1408 is in fact a bead, this
dating incongruity can be explained either by the difficulty in dating geometric design

seals (discussed below, Chapter 4), meaning that this seal should be dated to a period
closer to the Old Babylonian period, or by the possible heirloom quality of the seal.
2.2.2.8 Tepe Giyan

The site of Tepe Giyan is located about 10km southeast of the town of Nehavend
(Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 2), see Figure 2.1. The site, like so many, was brought
to the attention of the archaeological community due to the appearance of materials
on the illicit art markets reportedly from the area of Nehavend (Contenau &
Ghirshman 1935: v). Tepe Giyan was subsequently excavated by Contenau and
Ghirshman over two seasons in 1931 and 1932, during which three major Trenches (A
– C) and a Sondage Trench were opened (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: vi, 4 – 7), see
Figure 2.18. The results of these excavations were promptly published, along with the
excavations of the nearby sites of Tepe Djamshidi (discussed above) and Tepe Bad-
Hora (the last not included in the Corpus; Contenau & Ghirshman 1935). Due to the
long term occupation at Tepe Giyan the site has previously been used as a type site for
its region of Luristan, and as such, the (generally ceramic) material from the site has
been reassessed and incorporated into several studies attempting to order the
chronology of Luristan (Henrickson 1985; Henrickson 1988). This is despite the fact
that the material from Tepe Giyan (like other contemporary excavations) “was
excavated with little concern for stratigraphic, architectural, or cultural context, so
that even its gross periodization remains problematic” (Henrickson 1988: 1). More
recently, the more securely dated and carefully excavated site of Godin Tepe
(discussed elsewhere), has replaced the disjointed evidence from Tepe Giyan as a type
site for this region of Luristan (Voigt & Dyson 1992: 159 – 164).

The above cited Henrickson quote regarding the quality of the Tepe Giyan material
and excavations must be taken into account when discussing the chronology, and
indeed, the material uncovered at the site. A caveat of sorts thus must be placed on
any conclusions or materials discussed here. Five cultural levels were discerned by
the excavators at Tepe Giyan (labelled I – V, V being the oldest, I the most recent)
(Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 62 – 80). The mound of Tepe Giyan rises some 19m
above the plain, with the first (from the top down) 9.5m containing some 119 tombs,

occupying Levels I and II of the mound (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 7). The lower
three levels (Levels III – V) contain evidence for architectural remains, though of
varying quality and preservation (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 7 – 11).
Level V produced painted ceramics, and has been associated by the excavators
with Susa I and Ubaid materials from southern Iran and Mesopotamia (Contenau &
Ghirshman 1935: 79). Voigt and Dyson also identify Chalcolithic Dalma type pottery
at Giyan (Voigt & Dyson 1992: 160), thus placing the earliest phase of Tepe Giyan
beyond the scope of this study. Level IV of Tepe Giyan produced Late Uruk and
Jemdet Nasr related pottery (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 79; Voigt & Dyson 1992:
163), including bevelled-rim bowls (Voigt & Dyson 1992: 162), and was accordingly
dated c.3000 – 2500 BC by the excavators (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 79). This is
a longer chronological extension into the Susa IV period (from the Susa II
contemporary Uruk, and Susa III contemporary Jemdet Nasr) then would normally be
allowed by the presence of Uruk period material, however. Furthermore, according to
Voigt and Dyson, “Classic Giyan IV” material should be considered contemporary
with Godin III: 4 material (1992: 164), thus further extending the Giyan IV material
into the second millennium. Level III of Tepe Giyan is dated through ceramic
parallels c.2500 – 1800 BC by the excavators (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 80). If
the above cited Voigt and Dyson Giyan IV – Godin III: 4 correlation is accepted (and
lacking any evidence to the contrary, the current study must defer to the greater
expertise of the authors and assume that it should be), then the Giyan III material
would be contemporary with this Giyan IV-Godin III parallel. This apparent
incongruous chronological progression may be explained by the false phasing
between Giyan IV and III, a result of the less then meticulous excavations cited
above, and therefore Giyan IV and III can be considered at least partially
contemporaneous, or indeed, as a single period from c.3000 – 1800 BC. It seems more
likely that two phases are represented in the Giyan IV and III levels, with an earlier
Uruk/Jemdet Nasr phase testified to by bevelled-rim bowls and other
characteristically Uruk materials, and a later phase, represented both by the material
that led Contenau and Ghirshman to suggest a terminal c.2500 BC date for Giyan IV,
the ‘Classic Giyan IV’ material of Voigt and Dyson, and the Giyan III material.
As mentioned above, Giyan Levels II and I are characterised primarily be
burials (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 7), and, like elsewhere, the realities of these
levels as stratigraphic actualities must be questioned. However, on the basis of

correlations with grave goods, the Level II tombs are dated c.1800 – 1400 BC, while
the Level I examples are similarly dated c.1400 – 1100 BC (Contenau & Ghirshman
1935: 80).
In summary, Giyan V is considered roughly contemporary with the Luristan
Chalcolithic, or Susa I/Ubaid periods of southern Iran/Mesopotamia and thus falls
outside the realms of this study. The early Giyan IV period is considered to represent
Uruk/Jemdet Nasr period occupation (that is, the Susa II and Susa III periods in the
current study), while later Giyan IV and Giyan III can be considered to be
contemporary with Godin IV and III, and thus corresponds to the Susa IV through to
the early Sukkalmah periods in the current study (inclusive of the Akkadian/Awan
and Ur III/Shimashki periods). The Giyan II graves are dated c.1800 – 1400 BC, that
is the Sukkalmah and early Middle Elamite periods, while the Giyan I tombs are dated
c.1400 – 1100 by the excavators. Thus the Giyan I tombs can be considered
contemporary with the Middle Elamite period generally.
Figure 2.18. Sketch map of Tepe Giyan, indicating the location of the major trenches A – C,
and the sondage trench, listed as Aa here. The existence of trench (mound?) D should be
noted, however despite its appearance in this figure, no information regarding this operation
is included in the publication. Figure after Contenau and Ghirshman 1935: plate 2, with
alterations.
It should be emphasised, as already mentioned and testified to by the

disjointed nature of the preceding survey, that the excavation technique (or lack there
of) executed at Tepe Giyan means that the chronological and periodisation
information regarding Giyan remains fragmentary, cursory and open to possible

reinterpretation. No significant information regarding the function or nature of the
fragmentary ‘Constructions’ (labelled I – IV, corresponding roughly with the phases
discussed above) (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935: 8 – 11) has been forthcoming, nor
can be added here.

Ten cylinder seals were discovered at Tepe Giyan and are included in the Corpus, as
demonstrated by Table 2.27. A further forty-five stamp seals (not included for
obvious reasons in the Corpus) were also uncovered at Tepe Giyan (Contenau &
Ghirshman 1935: 41 – 42, 47 – 49, plates 35 & 36). It is striking that such a great
number of stamp seals, relative to cylinders, were uncovered across the whole site,
when one would expect the stamp seals to date primarily only to the earliest level of
Tepe Giyan (Giyan V); the distribution of stamp seals to cylinders thus seems
disproportionate to the extent of the levels dating to the periods of cylinder seal
dominance (Giyan IV – I). The reasons for this division cannot be discerned on the
basis of the current evidence, though one could easily see merely a reflection of the
fragmentary and uneven excavations at Tepe Giyan as a cause (that is, accident of
discovery in its purest form).
The ten cylinder seals that comprise the included Tepe Giyan corpus is the
equal largest of the Luristan corpora (along with Godin Tepe), not including the
extraordinarily large Surkh Dum-i-Luri group. In overall terms, the Tepe Giyan
corpus is thus significantly smaller then the ‘large’ corpus sites such as Susa, Chogha
Mish, Haft Tepe and Chogha Zanbil (and again, Surkh Dum-i-Luri), though it is not
insignificant amongst the lesser sites.
Current Number Provenance Material Current Style

550 depth of 10m dark grey stone JNRS (1)
735 – grey stone JNRS (5)
1025 Tomb 52 serpentine CPE (7)
1364 depth of 7.4 – 9.5m grey stone GS (6)
1469 depth of 9m grey stone AGD (6)
1642 depth of 6m terra cotta AGD (14)
3485 depth of 3.5m faience* Mittanian
3486 Tomb 68 soft stone Mittanian
3568 depth of 4.5m soft yellow stone Unclassifiable
3569 Tomb 102 grey stone Unclassifiable
Table 2.27. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Giyan.

Three of the Tepe Giyan cylinder seals were reportedly uncovered in tombs
amongst the grave goods, as demonstrated by Table 2.27. The funerary function of
these three seals (1025, 3486, 3569) is thus assured. As there is no information
regarding the function of the buildings and materials at Tepe Giyan (apart, of course,
from the funerary designation of the graves), no information regarding the function of
the other seals can be proposed. It is striking that no sealings were uncovered at Tepe
Giyan, a phenomenon that would, in normal circumstances, be suggestive of the
function of seals in the society. However, it seems highly likely that any sealings
preserved at Tepe Giyan would have been missed, according to the excavation regime
of the 1930’s, and so no conclusions can be drawn on the absence of sealings here.
2.2.2.9 Chogha Gavaneh

The site of Chogha Gavaneh is located actually within the modern town of Islamabad-
e Gharb (formerly Shahabad-e Gharab, and earlier, Harunabad, the name listed here is
the post-Revolution, and therefore current, name), which lies some 60km southwest of
Kermanshah (Abdi 1999: 34; Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39; listed as a distance of 70km
by Amiet [1986: 154]), and therefore within the bounds of the historic province of
Luristan in the current study, see Figure 2.1. Chogha Gavaneh is a mound site that
rises above, from within, the town (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39). This location within
a place of modern occupation has, of course, effected greatly the preservation and
situation of the Chogha Gavaneh remains (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39).
Aerial photographs of Chogha Gavaneh taken by Schmidt during his aerial
reconnaissance of western Iran in 1936 (Schmidt 1940) provides evidence that in the
1930’s the ancient remains of the site covered perhaps 40 hectares (Abdi & Beckman
2007: 39). However, more recent constructions of dwellings within the ‘Lower
Town’, and cutting into the mound slopes to prepare for such construction, has
severely impinged upon the integrity of Chogha Gavaneh, leaving a current area of
only about 4 hectares, or perhaps as little as 10% of the original extent of occupation
at the site (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39 – 40). Thus, while it may be expected that
evidence of ancient occupation lies below the modern ‘Lower Town’, this modern
occupation means that no excavations in this area have been undertaken and so such a
reconstruction is hypothetical (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 39 – 40). The only
archaeological remains from Chogha Gavaneh (apart from a small, not detailed test

trench in the east town [Abdi 2000: 163]) thus come from the ‘High Mound’ of the
site proper, that rises some 25m above the surrounding plain (Abdi & Beckman 2007:
40). Indeed, the height of the mound itself may have also suffered some deterioration,
as testified to by reports that the conical-shaped top of the mound was cleared to make
way for a tea house immediately preceding the 1970 excavations (Abdi & Beckman
2007: 41) and the construction of an anti-aircraft battery on the mound summit during
the Iran-Iraq War (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 43).
The site of Chogha Gavaneh was first brought to the attention of the academic
community in the 1930’s when it was noted by Aurel Stein in his travels, and viewed
in Schmidt’s aerial reconnaissance already mentioned (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40).
Chogha Gavaneh, and the surrounding plain, has been surveyed by Braidwood in
1959 – 1960 and Goff in the early 1960’s (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40). A team from
the, then entitled, ‘Archaeological Service of Iran’ completed a short season on the
‘High Mound’ in 1967 (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40 – 41). Presumably, there is no
published material from this excavation, as none is cited by Abdi and Beckman
(2007). Mahmoud Kordevani led an Archaeological Service of Iran salvage
excavation to the site in 1970, prompted by the erection of the already cited tea house
(Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41; results of this excavation season was originally
published in Persian by the excavator [Kordevani 1971]). Despite the anticipation for
such by the excavator (and indeed the discovery of remains that would warrant such),
further Kordevani excavation season(s) where not forthcoming (Abdi & Beckman
2007: 41, 43), but rather only the single three month season at the site was
undertaken, in which about 0.8 of a hectare was excavated (Abdi & Beckman 2007:
41).
More recently Kamyar Abdi has returned to Chogha Gavaneh, as part of a
research project of the entire Islamabad plain, beginning in 1997 (Abdi 1999; 2000,
2001; Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). As well as a general regional survey and work at
other sites of no interest here (that is, sites that did not produce any appropriately
dated glyptic material), the work of Abdi has included the execution of several test
and step trenches at Chogha Gavaneh, the re-excavation of Room B15 (detailed
further below) originally excavated by Kordevani, and the re-analysis of the material
uncovered in the Kordevani excavations, over three, reported, seasons (Abdi 1999;
2000; 2001; Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41 – 46). These excavations (and the not relevant
surveys) have been detailed in a series of report articles (Abdi 1999; 2000; 2001),

while the re-excavation of Room B15 has been discussed in an article that also
includes the publication and translation of a group of tablets originally discovered by
Kordevani (Abdi & Beckman 2007). The final reanalysis of Kordevani material, with
an assumed incorporation of the results from the Abdi excavations, is currently under
construction (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41).

The original 1967 excavation at Chogha Gavaneh was limited to a step trench on the
northeastern side of the ‘High Mound’ that reportedly produced levels dating from the
Chalcolithic through to the Iron Age (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 40 – 41), of which little
more is known. The more extensive Kordevani excavations revealed an ‘architectural
complex’ on the summit of the mound (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41), illustrated in
Figure 2.19. This complex as described by Abdi, is characterised by a range of public
and private buildings (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42). In the absence of any detailed
information regarding provenance within the complex, any functional interpretation of
the rooms is fraught (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42). However, several such labels for
the complex have been proposed by Abdi, on the basis of “general observation” (Abdi
& Beckman 2007: 42). These include a “domestic activities” section to the north, a
“series of residential spaces” to the east and an “administrative part” to the west,
including a ‘reception hall’, and Room B15, an apparent tablet archive (Abdi &
Beckman 2007: 42), as demonstrated by Figure 2.19.
The architectural complex was dated by Kordevani to the Iron Age II period
(c.800 BC), with the evidence for conflagration revealed in the excavations associated
with the destruction of the ancient site by an unknown Neo-Assyrian king (Abdi &
Beckman 2007: 41). This date is based, according to Abdi, upon evidence of the
materials found within the architectural complex (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). These
materials are currently under reanalysis by Abdi (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41), and so
any possible reassessment of this original chronology cannot be confidently preposed
here, with any confirmation awaiting the publication of this work. However,
something can be said regarding the chronology of Chogha Gavaneh on the basis of
the available published material. Firstly, according to Abdi, the tablet archive was one
of the groups of artefacts used by Kordevani to date Chogha Gavaneh to the first
millennium BC (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41). However, paleographically, the
cuneiform of the tablets is typical Old Babylonian (that is, contemporaneous with the

Sukkalmah period in the current periodisation) Akkadian (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 41,
46), and thus dates to the early second millennium BC, and therefore to use this
archive to date the occupation of Chogha Gavaneh to the first millennium BC is false.
Furthermore, the glyptic material (2713, 2714; discussed further below) and examples
of a fine grey, punctate and incised, pottery type, known from sites both in the Diyala
area (Tell Asmar [ancient Eshnunna] and Tell Hasan in particular) and Elam proper
(specifically Susa and Tal-i Malyan) found in the Kordevani excavations can be dated
to the Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah period (Amiet 1986: 154; Potts 1999: 174 – 175).
Figure 2.19. Plan of the ‘architectural complex’ of Chogha Gavaneh, excavated by

Kordevani in 1970, with function areas as proposed by Abdi (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 42).
Area shaded blue (Room B15) is the location of the tablet archive, the red star indicates the
“alleged” (sic Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47) location of the tablets within the room. Figure
after Abdi & Beckman 2007: fig. 5, with alterations.
A stratigraphic cut on the western edge of the Chogha Gavaneh mound

executed by Abdi in 1998 (labelled ID 1 by the excavators) produced ceramic
evidence that provided a late Neolithic through to Middle Chalcolithic date (Abdi
1999: 39). Other material, of an earlier date than is of interest here (specifically Ubaid
period ceramics), have also been uncovered by Abdi at Chogha Gavaneh (Abdi 2000:
163; 2001: 299). It is also reported, in the second Islamabad progress report, that a
stratigraphic cut (exact details of the location, or if indeed this is the same cut just

mentioned), produced variant Godin III wares (for the Godin III chronology above
Chapter 2.2.2.6; Godin III corresponds to Susa IV through to the middle of the Middle
Elamite period in the chronology of this study, that is, roughly the Luristan Bronze
Age) (Abdi 2000: 162). Furthermore, Uruk material (bevelled-rim bowls, and other
Uruk period ceramics and a fragmentary clay nail) have been found by Abdi in the
surface pickup at Chogha Gavaneh and in Step Trench 1 on the northern slopes of the
mound (Abdi 2000: 163). ‘Bronze Age’ evidence, of an apparently domestic nature,
was also uncovered in this trench (Abdi 2000: 163). Finally, in a sounding cut into an
open area east of the ‘High Mound’, between modern residential properties, a mixed
layer of Iron Age III – Parthian ceramic materials were found, overlying apparently
‘Bronze Age’ material (Abdi 2001: 163). Currently, the known material from the
Abdi excavations are limited generally to short notes or excavation reports, and thus
without a detailed, fully synthesised, tested and illustrated publication of this material,
such evidence must remain fragmentary and disjointed. However, the recent Abdi
excavations do provide evidence that Chogha Gavaneh was occupied for an extended
period of time, with evidence for late Neolithic-Chalcolithic material (that is, material
beyond the lowest chronological limit of this study), through the Uruk and Godin III
periods (Bronze Age), and beyond the upper limits of this study through to the first
millennium/Iron Age.
However, as the nature of the material and our knowledge is quite fragmentary
at present, and this survey is based primarily on suggestions of occupation, the extent
of occupation at Chogha Gavaneh throughout the entirety of these periods is currently
unclear. The proposed occupation periods suggested by these finds are, however,
significantly longer, and earlier than the original Kordevani proposals. The evidence
for earlier, more extensive occupation at Chogha Gavaneh then suggested by
Kordevani, does not necessarily alter the date of the ‘architectural complex’ (though
the above cited textual and ceramic evidence does indicate this), but rather should
merely be taken here as indicative of the fact that Chogha Gavaneh appears to be a
site that had a long history of occupation over many chronological periods. The
extent, duration and transition between and within these suggested periods of
occupation cannot be commented on currently. Regardless, for the purposes of the
current study, the precise details of the chronological and occupational extent of
Chogha Gavaneh is not important (even if, on the basis of the current available
information such a synthesis could be presented). Thus, other than the possibility of

extended occupation, beyond, through and after the period of this study, as suggested
by the more recent excavations of Abdi, nothing more need be noted (nor currently
can be proposed).
However, the period of occupation of Room B15 (and its surrounds, the
‘architectural complex’) is of some interest, as this is where the glyptic material from
Chogha Gavaneh was provenanced (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47). There is thus strong
evidence, in the manner of ceramics, texts and glyptic material to date at least some of
the occupation within the ‘architectural complex’ to the Sukkalmah (Old Babylonian)
period, though the extent of this reanalysis, if the entire final occupation can be
associated with this period (rather than the previously held first millennium BC date)
or if this merely reflects evidence for a Sukkalmah occupation at the site, proceeded
by later manifestations (including first millennium), must await both the results of the
Abdi reanalysis, and further excavations, with more complete exposure, at the site.

The Chogha Gavaneh corpus comprises two glyptic items (as demonstrated by Table
2.28), and as such forms the smallest of the excavated site corpora (the single seal of
the Deh-i Now corpus excepted, as this seal was not excavated but collected in a
survey, as discussed above). Both these items (the cylinder seal 2713 and the five
tablets that bore the impression of the same seal 2714), were reportedly found in the
so-called cuneiform/tablet archive of Room B15 of the ‘architectural complex’ (Abdi
& Beckman 2007: 47). The published archive consists of fifty-six whole tablets and
twenty-eight fragment tablets, all found along the southern wall of Room B15 (Abdi
& Beckman 2007: 47), as demonstrated by Figure 2.19. The twenty-eight fragmentary
tablets are qualified as those “deemed worth copying” (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47),
and so it can be assumed that other, less useful fragments were also discovered at the
site. In assuming that the original Kordevani first millennium date for the building is
correct, Beckman explains that the fragmentary nature of many of the tablets in the
‘archive’ as evidence for their fill depositional nature (Abdi & Beckman 2007: 47).
Regardless of the final date concluded for the terminal occupation at the site, the
presence of these Old Babylonian Akkadian texts at Chogha Gavaneh, together with
the other identified evidence outlined above, and indeed, the style of the seal and the
sealings themselves (as outlined in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5), indicates that
Chogha Gavaneh was occupied during the Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah period.

Current Number Provenance Type Inscription Current Style
2713 Room B15 cylinder Shemitum, OBRS (2)
daughter of Nuriri,
servant of Adad
2714 Room B15 5 sealed tablets Belšunu, OBRS (2)
son of Daqatum,
servant of Inib-šarri
Table 2.28. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Gavaneh.
2.2.3 Fars
The modern political and historical province of Fars (see Figures 1.3 and 2.1) contains
just one site that has produced glyptic material of a date relevant to the current study,
Tal-i Malyan. This is in fact surprising for a work devoted to a study of Elamite
cylinder seals, especially given the fact that some scholars consider Fars generally,
and the area around Tal-i Malyan/Anshan specifically, to be a, if not the, centre of
Elamite civilisation (for example Young 1986: 226; Steve 1991: 3). This pattern of
discovery can be considered to be reflective both of the extent of research and
excavation in the Fars area, particularly in the pre-Persian Elamite periods of history,
and of the occupational realities of Fars in this period (Carter & Stolper 1984). That
is, the dominance of Tal-i Malyan and absence of other excavated data is considered
symptomatic of both phenomena, and it is anticipated that further excavation in the
area would reveal relevant glyptic material (for example at sites discerned in survey
and dated to chronologically relevant periods [Sumner 1989]), but perhaps not to the
extent as in Khuzistan. Indeed, the singularity of Tal-i Malyan in the Fars province
further emphasises the point made in the initial definition of the boundaries of Elam
(Chapter 1). For, despite the wide expanse proposed as possible Elamite territory,
incorporating the whole of Fars, the reality of archaeological evidence is that just one
area around the site of Malyan can be considered Elamite, on the basis of material.
2.2.3.1 Tal-i Malyan

2.2.3.1.1 Location, Excavation, Ancient Name and Publication
Tal-i Malyan 24 (hereafter the shorthand Malyan may be used) is located some 46km
north of the modern city of Shiraz in Fars Province, Iran (Nicholas 1990: 4; Sumner
2003: 2). The site also lies a similar distance to the west of the major ancient Fars site,
Persepolis (Sumner 1974: 158). The site dominants the Kur River Basin, and lies
24
Also Tal-e Malyan.

approximately 500km southeast of Susa (Potts 1999: 8; Carter 1996: 1), see Figure
2.1.
A survey of the Kur River Basin in 1968/69, led by William Sumner, showed
that Malyan was the occupational centre of the Basin (Carter 1996: 1). This survey
also recovered a number of brick fragments that led to the, originally, tentative
identification of the site as ancient Anshan (Carter 1996: 1). Although described as
‘tentative’ by Carter, the philologist Reiner, is more definite in her description (Reiner
1973b: 62), and Sumner states that the Malyan/Anshan association is “beyond
dispute” (Sumner 1974: 155), and thus this identification is universally accepted
(Potts 1999: 247; Sumner 1997; 2003), and so will be used here. It should be noted,
however, that in some instances, ancient references to Anshan may have inferred a
region, rather than a specific city, a problem which shall be returned to (Chapter 7).
Figure 2.20. General Plan of Tal-i Malyan (Anshan), demonstrating the location of various
‘Operations’. Figure after Sumner 2003: figure 4, with alterations.

Malyan was excavated by a team from the University Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania, under the direction of Sumner, for five seasons, from
1971 until 1978, when, like so many Iranian sites, political disturbances put an end to
such work (Carter 1996: 1; Sumner 2003: i). A series of monographs dealing with
discreet sectors of excavation, or ‘Operations’ (detailed below) have been published
(TUV: Nicholas 1990; EDD: Carter 1996; ABC Sumner 2003; see Figure 2.20), as
have several progress reports and articles (Sumner 1974; 1976; 1985; 1986; 1988;
1989). The operations entitled GHI, BY8, GGX98 and FX106 (see Figure 2.20 for
locations), are still awaiting publication of devoted volumes, and thus are only known
from articles and short reports (Sumner 1974; 1989; 1997). Importantly for this study,
a monograph regarding the seals and sealings of Tal-i Malyan, by Pittman, is
seemingly forthcoming (Sumner 2003: i), though not yet available. Some of the
results of this study have been incorporated into Sumner’s ABC report however
(Sumner 2003: 80 – 82).

The site of Malyan is enclosed by a c.5km long ancient city wall or ‘embankment’
that delineates an area of more than 200 hectares, some 130 hectares of which was
apparently occupied by the Malyan mound (Nicholas 1996: 4; Sumner 1985: 153;
2003: 2), see Figure 2.20. The general outline and contour of the remains of this
mound can be viewed from the air (Sumner 1985: 153). Sherd scatter and soundings
indicate that Malyan was first occupied in the Jari Period (c.5500 BC) of highland
Iran, if not earlier (Sumner 2003: 2). From this point on Malyan was continuously
occupied into the Islamic period (Sumner 1997: 406), though Sumner describes four
“great eras” of Malyan occupation (Sumner 2003: 2), three of which are relevant here;
the Banesh Period (or ‘Proto-Elamite’ period, c.3500 – 2800 BC), the Kaftari Period
(or ‘Old Elamite’ period, c.2200 – 1600 BC), and the Qaleh Period (or Middle
Elamite period, c.1300 – 1000 BC) (the fourth, Sasanian period flourishing is beyond
the realms of this study) (Sumner 2003: 2).
As these three periods are discreet, and lack any real coherency between them,
and are represented in separate excavation areas on the Malyan mound, it is
appropriate here to discuss these three periods separately.

2.2.3.1.2.1 Banesh/Proto-Elamite period occupation
The Banesh period occupation of Tal-i Malyan is represented in four ‘operations’
(ABC, TUV, BY8 and GHI, see Figure 2.20) (Sumner 1997: 406). Primarily the
information discussed here will be based upon the two main published areas,
Operations ABC and TUV (Sumner 2003; Nicholas 1990), however the presence of
evidence for Banesh period occupation in Operation BY8, including the indication of
the existence of a city wall, with a stone foundation and mudbrick glacis should be
noted (Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 1985).
Operation TUV at the southern end of the Tal-i Malyan mound was only
occupied (or produced evidence only for occupation) in the Banesh period (Sumner
1997: 406; Nicholas 1990: 5, 12; Sumner 1976: 106). Three building levels were
uncovered in the TUV operation (Nicholas 1990: 21). The highest level (that is the
most recent), was poorly preserved and significantly eroded, but remains of two
buildings were discerned in the excavations (Nicholas 1990: 34 – 36; Sumner 1997:
406). No glyptic material was uncovered in Building Level I (Nicholas 1990: 84), and
so further detail of this fragmentary occupation need not be outlined here.
The successive Building Level II was more extensively preserved and
produced the largest TUV exposure (Nicholas 1990: 29). A “mazelike” architectural
complex characterizes TUV Building Level II, with “substantial weight-bearing
walls” dividing the complex into three “units” (the east, north and south-west units)
(Nicholas 1990: 29). The ‘North Unit’ apparently comprised the general living
quarters of the complex, including a kitchen area, as illustrated by Figure 2.21, so
discerned by the presence of many pyrotechnical installations in the area (Nicholas
1990: 116). The ‘East Unit’ is described as an area of “short-term storage”, as
apparently testified to by the presence of broken sealings in the area (see Figure. 2.21)
(Nicholas 1990: 116). The ‘South-west Unit’ is interpreted as an area of long-term
storage, as indicated by the presence of magazines or storerooms (Nicholas 1990:
116), see Figure 2.21. The accuracy of the differentiation between the storage types in
the ‘East’ and ‘South-west Units’, on the basis of sealing location must be questioned,
however, the general pattern of storage/administration as testified to by the sealings
and floor plan can be acknowledged.
The earliest TUV occupation level, Building Level III, was the best preserved
of the three (Nicholas 1990: 22). The constructions had a general (though not
cardinal), north-south, east-west orientation that was continued in the subsequent

Building Level II occupation (Nicholas 1990: 22). Two sub-phases of Building Level
III were identified (B.L IIIA and IIIB), with the original IIIB plan slightly remodelled
and added to in the following IIIA phase (Nicholas 1990: 28). The Building Level III
occupation continued right up until the construction of Building Level II (Nicholas
1990: 28). Building Level III has also been divided into ‘West’ and ‘East Units’ (see
Figure 2.22) (Nicholas 1990: 107), though on the basis of excavated evidence these
two construction areas can be interpreted as discreet (though probably related)
entities. The ‘West Unit’ is described as a storage area, due to the presence of storage
devices and containers, and sealing artefacts (as demonstrated by Figure 2.22) in the
area (Nicholas 1990: 107). The ‘East Unit’ is described as a “relatively ‘fancy’ area”
(Nicholas 1990: 107), with the evidence for elaborate plaster wall decorations,
‘unusual’ hearths, and an activity annex that contained evidence for storage and craft
production (Nicholas 1990: 107). The IIIB phase circular structure in the southern
TUV occupation may have been a grain silo or oven (Nicholas 1990: 107), though the
hypothetical nature of this proposal should be noted.
Figure 2.21. Plan of TUV Building Level II, indicating the provenance of glyptic material
and location of hearths. Figure after Nicholas 1990: figures 17 and 32, with alterations.
The Banesh period identification of all three levels of the TUV occupation is
assured by several artefact groups found in the area, specifically ceramics (Nicholas
1990: 53 – 63), metallurgy (Nicholas 1990: 68 – 69), and the glyptic and

administrative material (including tablets) (Nicholas 1990: 85), discussed in further
detail below. Other artefacts of interest found in TUV include chipped stone tools,
stone beads and shell inlay, and evidence for their production, personal ornaments
(pins and rings) and evidence for basketry (Nicholas 1990: 67 – 80).
Figure 2.22. Plan of TUV Building Level IIIA and IIIB, indicating the provenance of
glyptic material and location of hearths. Installations shaded grey indicate the Phase IIIB
additions to Building Level IIIA. Figure after Nicholas 1990: figures 17 and 32, with
alterations.
The other major Banesh occupation of Tal-i Malyan is found in Operation

ABC (see Figure 2.20.). Five Building Levels (I being the most recent uppermost
Level, V the lowest, oldest) were uncovered in Operation ABC, the lower four of
which (Building Levels II – V) date to the Banesh period (Level I belongs to the
Kaftari period, discussed below) (Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 2003: 3 – 4). Below the
Banesh remains of Building Level V virgin soil was reached (Sumner 1976: 103),
indicating that this installation was the first occupation in this area of Tal-i Malyan.
The mudbrick architecture of Building Level V is quite fragmentary, and few finds
were discovered (Sumner 1976: 103; Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 2004: 76). Evidence
for red and white coloured wall paint and a hearth were uncovered in this Level
however (Sumner 1976: 103), and a domestic and craft production function has been
hypothesised by the excavator (Sumner 2003: 4). No glyptic items were uncovered in

Building Level V. This Level was razed in the construction of Building Level IV
(Sumner 2003: 23).
Building Level IV demonstrates a ground plan similar to that of later
buildings, including a number of irregular rooms, corridors and hearths (Sumner
1976: 103), as demonstrated by Figure 2.23. Building Level IV includes two phases of
construction, Building Level IVB is the first phase of construction, Building Level
IVA demonstrates later additions and remodelling, as illustrated on Figure 2.23.
Glyptic items uncovered in Building Level IV are the earliest found in the ABC
operation (Sumner 2003: 76, 82; 1997: 406). The installations (such as storage areas,
painted walls and hearths), and artefacts found within Building Level IV (such as
ceramics, bones, and glyptic artefacts) indicate a domestic and craft production
function for the area (Sumner 1976: 103; 2003: 4).
Figure 2.23. Plan of ABC Building Level IVB and IVA, indicating the provenance of the
glyptic material and the location of hearths. Areas shaded brown were discovered in Phase
IVB only, areas shaded green IVA only, and area shaded purple represents both IVB and IVA
remains. Grey shaded walls indicate proposed reconstructions. Figure after Sumner 1976:
figure 1, with alterations.
Building Level IV was also subsequently razed to make way for the
construction of Building Level III (Sumner 2003: 27). The more regular ground plan

of Building Level III extended beyond the limits of Operation ABC in all directions
(Sumner 2003: 3, 27). Seventeen rooms, many with painted walls, and several hearths
comprise the so-called “sumptuous” Building Level III structure (Sumner 1976: 103;
Sumner 2003: 3). Again, two construction phases, Phase IIIB (the oldest), and the
subsequent Phase IIIA (Sumner 2003: 27), illustrated by Figure 2.24, have been
discerned. A significant amount of glyptic material was found in the Building Level
III construction, and in Stratum 9, between Building Levels III and II, but assigned to
Building Level III (Sumner 1997: 406; Sumner 2003: 76, 107). The artefacts and
structure of the Building Level III construction (including the glyptic material, storage
devices, ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets) has led to a warehouse or storage area function, or
perhaps more correctly, association with a storage area, proposal for Building Level
III (Sumner 1976: 103; Sumner 2003: 3, 76; Potts 1999: 81). The relative dearth of
finds from Building Level III (Sumner 1976: 103) makes the precise designation of
the function of the construction uncertain however.
Figure 2.24. Plan of ABC Building Level IIIB and IIIA, indicating the provenance of the
glyptic material and the location of hearths. Areas shaded purple indicate Phase IIIB remains
only, area shaded green represents both IIIB and IIIA remains. Grey shading indicates
proposed reconstructed walls. Figure after Sumner 1976: figure 2, with alterations.

The final Building Level in Operation ABC with Banesh remains (thus
excluding the Kaftari phase Building Level I) is labelled Building Level II, and is
illustrated by Figure 2.25. Building Level II was built, like the earlier levels, upon the
razed foundation of the previous Building Level (III); Sumner 2003: 34). Only one
construction phase has been identified for Building Level II (Sumner 2003: 34).
Building Level II is described as a ‘warehouse’ (Potts 1999: 81; Sumner 2003: 3, 76),
a designation assured by the thirteen (incorrectly cited as twelve in one instance
[Sumner 2003: 3]) large ‘Jemdet Nasr’ type polychrome storage jars or pithoi
uncovered in the remains, and the relatively large amounts of sealings (both
impressed with a seal and unimpressed) found in the area (Sumner 2003: 76; Figure
2.25). The walls of Building Level II were painted (Sumner 1997: 406; 2003: 3), and
other artefacts found in the area included ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets, pieces of unworked
hematite, a mother-of-pearl inlay and unworked Persian Gulf shell pieces (Sumner
1997; 406; 2003: 76).
Figure 2.25. Plan of ABC Building Level II, indicating the provenance of the glyptic
material and the location of burnt areas. ‘Platform 27’ produced many glyptic items (Sumner
2003: 107). Items coloured orange indicate thirteen large storage pithoi (Sumner 2003: 76).
Figure after Sumner 1976: figure 3, with alterations.

Like the material from Operation TUV, the Banesh period designation of
Building Levels V – II of the ABC Operation is provided by the numerous pieces of
material culture, including the glyptic material (Sumner 2003: 107 – 108), discussed
further below, the ceramic assemblage (Sumner 2003: 44 – 50), and ‘Proto-Elamite’
tablets (Sumner 2003: 3). There have been several different proposed periodisations
for the Banesh period (Potts 1999: 69), however the system adopted here is the
tripartite Early, Middle and Late Banesh system of the excavator (Sumner 1986).
Early Banesh corresponds to Susa II, Acropole I: 18 – 17 (or Terminal Susa II), and is
not currently known from any material at Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 2003: 53; Potts 1999:
69). Middle Banesh corresponds to Susa III, Acropole I: 16 – 14a/13, or the earlier
‘Proto-Elamite’ period, and Late Banesh to Susa III/IV, Ville Royale I: 18 – 13,
Acropole 14/13 – 15 (Potts 1999: 79 – 81; Sumner 2003: 53). During the Middle
Banesh period Malyan reached a size of at least 45ha (Potts 1999: 81), and during the
Middle and Late Banesh period some 200 hectares of the Tal-i Malyan mound was
enclosed in a c.5km wall (Potts 1999: 81; Sumner 1985: 153), as illustrated by the
general contours of the mound and Operation BY8 (Sumner 1985: 153; 1997: 406).
Building Level V – IVB of Operation ABC and Level IIIB of TUV dates to the early
Middle Banesh period (c.3300 BC) (Sumner 2003: 52 – 53). Building Levels IVA – II
of Operation ABC and IIIA – II of TUV dates to the late Middle Banesh period
(c.2900 BC) (Sumner 2003: 52 – 53). The Late Banesh (c.2600 BC) occupation of
Tal-i Malyan is found in TUV Building Level I, the unpublished material from
Operations BY8 and the lower strata of Operation GHI (Sumner 2003: 52 – 53). The
occupation of Banesh Tal-i Malyan thus corresponds generally to the Susa III period,
into the Susa III/IV transition, or the period previously described as ‘Proto-Elamite’.
2.2.3.1.2.2 Kaftari/Old Elamite period occupation

It is unfortunate that the period of occupation that, presumably, according to the
number of Kaftari sherds discovered and the number of squares in which these sherds
were recognized in the 1971 surface survey of the Tal-i Malyan mound (60 squares
and 1582 sherds, as opposed to 26/69 Banesh squares/sherds and 9/18 representing
Qaleh; Sumner 1974: 158 – 160), is the period that has been less detailed in published
material. The Kaftari period survey is thus significantly more fragmentary then the
preceding and subsequent periods, and is based primarily on several preliminary

excavation report articles (Sumner 1974; 1976) and analysis papers (Sumner 1989;
1997).
As well as the surface survey remains just cited, Kaftari remains were found in
the uppermost level of the ABC operation (Level I; Sumner 1974: 164), four reported
levels from Operation GHI (Building Levels I – IV (Sumner 1989: 138; Sumner 1997:
406; Level V of this operation contains Banesh period remains [Sumner 1997: 406]),
five levels from Operation FX106 (Sumner 1997: 408), four levels from Operation
BY8 (Sumner 1985: 155) and two levels in the GGX98 Operation (Sumner 1997:
408), see Figure 2.20 for locations of these operations. The limited available
information regarding these levels include the description of a courtyard building in
Level II of Operation GHI and an extensive trash deposit (Sumner 1997: 408), that
yielded Sumerian language administrative and school texts, seals and sealings and a
bronze buckle or torque (Sumner 1997: 408). Of the five Kaftari levels of Operation
FX106, it is known that the remains in Building Level II demonstrate a domestic
structure with an exterior wall, drainage ditch and paved walkway (Sumner 1997:
408). The artefacts found in this Building Level include figurines, cylinder seal
blanks, stone tools and apparent by-products of metallurgical production (Sumner
1997: 408). The two Kaftari building levels of GGX98, including an intrusive Kaftari
pit, produced black-on-red (that is typical Kaftari type) ceramics, “inscribed sealings”,
and evidence for a production area for (sun-dried) mudbricks (Sumner 1997: 408).
The Kaftari material in Operation BY8 indicates that an enclosure wall surrounded the
Kaftari period settlement of Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 1985: 153). An inscribed brick
found at Tal-i Malyan also testifies that the sukkalmah Siwe-palar-huppak (see above
and Table 2.3 for details) constructed a temple during the Sukkalmah period
somewhere on the Malyan/Anshan mound (Stolper 1982: 60; Potts 1999: 173).
Above the final Banesh period Building Level of the ABC Operation
(Building Level II), a 2 – 3m deep trash deposit was uncovered (Sumner 1974: 164).
This deposit has been labelled Building Level I (Sumner 1974: 164), despite the
apparent misnomer of a garbage deposit being labelled a ‘Building’ level. The
ceramics (and glyptic materials) from this deposit enable a Kaftari period date to be
proposed (Sumner 1974: 164 – 167, 170). Other Kaftari artefacts found in the ABC I
trash deposit include female and animal figurines (Sumner 1974: 170 – 172),
copper/bronze tools, including pins, blades and points (Sumner 1974: 172), small
stone tools of obsidian and chert (Sumner 1974: 172), and heavy stone tools such as

querns and door sockets (Sumner 1974: 173), alabaster and steatite (or chlorite)
vessels (Sumner 1974: 172), typical Kaftari ‘hut pots’ (Sumner 1974: 172), other
pieces of clay, such as a model chariot, spindle whorls and clay billets (Sumner 1974:
173), and evidence for bead and ornament production, including worked and
unworked pieces of carnelian, lapis lazuli, turquoise, quartz, Persian Gulf shells, bone
and ivory (Sumner 1974: 173). The trash deposit of ABC Level I has been interpreted
by the excavator as evidence for accumulation of rubbish in an area that was used for
cooking and other hearth activities as well as craft production (Sumner 1974: 173).
As with the Banesh period materials discussed above, the Kaftari date of the
preceding material can be associated with lowland (Khuzistan) chronology, through
ceramic and other material culture correlations (including cylinder seals), and the
inscribed Sukkalmah period brick discussed above (Sumner 1974; 1989; Potts 1999:
151 – 156). The Kaftari period has been subdivided into three phases by the excavator
(Sumner 1989: 138), though it should be noted that there is a general uniformity of
material culture across the entire Kaftari span (Potts 1999: 151). The Early stage of
the Kaftari period is dated c.2200 – 1900 BC (Sumner 1989; Potts 1999:151), and is
thus roughly concomitant with the later Akkadian/Awan and Ur III/Shimashki periods
of this study. The Middle Kaftari stage (c.1900 – 1800 BC) (Sumner 1989; Potts
1999: 152) coincides generally with the early Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah period and
the Late Kaftari period (c.1800 – 1600 BC) (Sumner 1989; Potts 1999: 152) with the
later part of the same. Lacking any detailed available information regarding the
Kaftari material and represented operations, any further clarification of the phases
represented at Tal-i Malyan is unattainable here.
2.2.3.1.2.3 Qaleh/Middle Elamite period occupation

The Qaleh period (or Middle Elamite in the chronology of this study) occupation was
generally concentrated in the northwestern section of the Malyan mound (Sumner
1988: 308). Primarily, this occupation was excavated in the sector labelled EDD
(Potts 1999: 247 – 252; Carter 1996: 1, 5 – 16, 37 – 44; Carter & Stolper 1984: 173),
see Figure 2.20. The ten 10 x 10m squares excavated in EDD revealed part of a large
scale, multi-sectioned building, labelled the ‘Middle Elamite building’ (Potts 1999:
247 – 252; Carter 1996, 5 – 16, 37 – 44; Carter & Stolper 1984: 173). The proposed
full reconstruction of the ‘Middle Elamite building’ is illustrated in Figure 2.26,
which also indicates the actual excavated remains. It is estimated the entire building

covered an area of more then 1000m2 (Carter 1996: 49). Levels IV and III of the
‘Middle Elamite building’ are dated to the Qaleh period occupation (Carter 1996: 49).
Level IVB, the earliest Qaleh building phase encountered, comprises the classic
multi-roomed floor plan demonstrated in Figure 2.26 (Carter 1996: 49). This building
is similar in basic layout and details of architectural decoration (such as faience or
glazed wall tiles/plaques and decorative knobs) to buildings from the ‘Royal Quarter’
of Choga Zanbil (see Figure 2.8), specifically the so-called palais hypogée, albeit on a
significantly reduced scale (Carter 1996: 6, 49; Potts 1999: 247 – 248).
Figure 2.26. Plan of the ‘Middle Elamite Building’ of Operation EDD, area shaded green
indicates preserved excavated remains, area shaded grey indicates proposed projection of the
building. Dark line indicates the limits of Operation EDD. Figure after Potts 1999: figure
7.12, with alterations.
In the subsequent Level IVA phase the building was remodelled somewhat,
though without any major alteration to the ground plan (Carter 1996: 50 – 51; Carter
& Stolper 1984: 173). The Level IVA building appears to have been destroyed by fire,
with the subsequent Level III occupation of the building functioning as a ceramic
production workshop, including four functioning kilns (Carter 1996: 50 – 51; Potts
248).
The Middle Elamite date of this construction is assured by both the
archaeological evidence, in the form of ceramics and other small finds which parallel
those from lowland Khuzistan in the Middle Elamite period (specifically from Susa
and Choga Zanbil), and C14 dates which concur with this evidence (Carter & Stolper
1984: 164, 173; Carter 1996: 15 – 16; Potts 1999: 248). The period of time in which

the EDD area was occupied appears to be quite short, as there appears to be no
evidence to indicate that the site was occupied in the Middle Elamite I period (Potts
1999: 193). It is suggested that the earlier IVB level was built by Humban-numena (c.
1350 BC) or Untash-Napirisha (c. 1340 BC) (Carter 1996: 49; Potts 1999: 248). A
foundation date of c.1250 – 1150 BC for Level IVA (the ‘burnt building’) is
established on the basis of C14 dates, with a destruction just before c. 1100 BC (Carter
1996: 2, 16; Potts 1999: 248). Four texts found in the Level IVA building provide,
somewhat fragile, evidence, in the form of oath formulae known from elsewhere, and
possible reconstructions of kingly names, for association with three Middle Elamite
royal personages; the Middle Elamite III king Shilhak-Inshushinak, his son, the
Middle Elamite III/IV king Hutelutush-Inshushinak, and another son of Shilhak-
Inshushinak, Kutir-Huban (for whom there is no concrete evidence for an actual
reign) (Potts 1999: 248), discussed above (Table 2.9). This evidence would concur
with the later Middle Elamite date preposed for the installation on the basis of
material culture and C14 dates discussed above however.
Thus, the entire Level IV occupation of the ‘Middle Elamite building’ can be
given the possible maximum time span of c.1350 – 1100/1000 BC. Little
chronological information regarding the subsequent Level III building phase has been
given, except for the proposal that it was abandoned at some point “early in the first
millennium” (Carter 1996: 47). With the above cited textual associations for the Level
IV building phase with the royal personages from the time of the political
disturbances at the end of the Middle Elamite III to the Middle Elamite IV period
(coincident with the Nebuchadnezzar invasion detailed above), it may be
hypothesised that the destruction of Level IV was a result of these disturbances, and
the Level III occupation represents the terminal Middle Elamite (Middle Elamite IV;
the era of the so-called Malyan/Anshan ‘survival hypothesis’) occupation at Tal-i
Malyan, that like the Middle Elamite period itself, disappears into the shroud of
obscurity of the early first millennium BC.
The ‘Middle Elamite building’ was apparently surrounded by a complex of
buildings that stood on the highest point of the Malyan mound (Carter & Stolper
1984: 173), beyond the excavations of sector EDD. However, as we currently lack
any information regarding the rest of the site in this period, few conclusions in this
regard can be drawn, and such a reconstruction remains hypothetical. The plan of the
excavated building suggests that the area had many functions (Carter 1996: 14). One

of these functions appears to have been religious, as attested to by the presence of
faience knobs and tiles associated in the lowlands (that is Choga Zanbil) with
religious buildings, and a large room with a niche in the back wall (Carter 1996: 15).
There is some dispute as to whether this area was a temple (perhaps the temple
constructed by Hutelutush-Inshushinak known from texts) or a palace (Carter 1996:
15), however the clear monumentality, or at least high status, of the area cannot be
disputed (Potts 1999: 248).
In the Level IV building some two hundred and forty-six fragmentary and
whole administrative tablets (four of which have already been cited) were found
(Carter & Stolper 1984: 42; Potts 1999: 248). These detail the transfer of gold, silver,
copper, tin and, to a lesser degree, hides and foodstuffs (Carter & Stoper 1984: 42;
Potts 1999: 248), and are thought to date to the reign of Hutelutush-Inshushinak
(Carter & Stolper 1984: 42). This suggests that the area may have functioned as an
entrepot or workshop (Potts 1999: 248 – 252). Such installations, however, are known
to be associated with public or monumental institutions (religious and royal), and thus
a workshop function could provide further evidence for such an identification for the
Level IV ‘Middle Elamite building’. Until the entirety of the architectural complex
partially represented by the ‘Middle Elamite building’ is uncovered (see Figure 2.26),
and indeed, further evidence for the period as a whole is unearthed at Tal-i Malyan,
the precise function of this installation must remain unknown.
Another important facet to the function of Tal-i Malyan in the Middle Elamite
period is its role as titulary co-capital (Carter 1996: 1; Potts 1999: 191, 247 – 252).
This function rests on the identification of Malyan with ancient Anshan, which is
fairly certain. However, archaeologically speaking, the site is a less than impressive
capital and appears more aptly described as an outpost on the edge of an Empire
(Carter 1996: 1, 5 – 16, 49 – 51; Carter & Stolper 1984: 180). Indeed, for at least the
first century of the Middle Elamite period, the site of Malyan appears not to have been
occupied at all (Potts 1999: 247 – 248).
Several hypotheses can be forwarded to reconcile the archaeological reality of
Malyan with the expectations of a co-capital of an empire. The first is that the
identification of Malyan with Anshan is false. This however is not likely as the
epigraphic evidence is fairly conclusive, and generally universally accepted. The
second possibility is that the more impressive installations of this highland capital
have yet to be uncovered on the Malyan mound. This is possible, and only further

excavation and increased knowledge of Malyan will vindicate or disprove this theory.
A third theory is that ‘Anshan’ referred to both a city and an area, and the kings of the
Middle Elamite period claimed sovereignty over this area in their titulature, and did
not intended to imply that Malyan was a capital city. A final explanation is that the
title ‘king of Susa and Anshan’ was merely a rhetorical device, a title synonymous
with ‘king of Elam’, that merely proved and justified the current kingship by linking it
with the glories of past Empires and cities. A Mesopotamian parallel can be found in
the title ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’. In this option the Middle Elamite ‘push’ into the
highlands represented by the foundation of the Middle Elamite building may be seen
as a conscious effort by the Middle Elamite monarchs to rectify this situation and
make their titularly co-capital at least a local centre.
As an aside, this discussion should be a warning, showing that archaeological
reality should not be based upon the rhetoric of kings. In this regard we should
perhaps not always look to make Susa a capital also, if the archaeological evidence is
lacking, for example in the early Middle Elamite period when Haft Tepe/Kabnak
appeared to flourish, possibly at Susa’s expanse (see above for details).
In summary, Tal-i Malyan demonstrates three periods of occupation, the
Banesh period occupation, generally coincident with the Susa III and earliest Susa IV
periods of this study, the Kaftari period, contemporaneous with the late
Akkadian/Awan, Ur III/Shimashki and Sukkalmah periods in the current scheme, and
the Qaleh period occupation, generally associated, in terms of the Tal-i Malyan
occupation, to the Middle Elamite II – IV periods of this study. The Banesh
occupation is represented primarily in Operations TUV and ABC, and to a lesser
extent BY8 and GHI. The Kaftari period at Tal-i Malyan is known from the upper
levels of Operations ABC and BY8, and in several levels of the GHI, FX106 and
GGX98 Operations, though little published material from this period has presently
been forthcoming. Finally, the Qaleh period occupation is known primarily from the
EDD Operation. As demonstrated by Figure 2.20, these operations represent a
relatively small portion of the Tal-i Malyan mound, with further investigation, it is
anticipated that our knowledge of Tal-i Malyan would substantially increase.
The function of Tal-i Malyan/Anshan appears to have fluctuated and changed
across the period of its occupation, though due to the fragmentary evidence from Tal-i
Malyan just evidenced, such a reconstruction is essentially hypothetical and limited.
Evidence for craft production and mechanisms of control can be seen in the TUV and

ABC Banesh (Susa III) occupations of Tal-i Malyan. A certain degree of
monumentality, particularly in ABC, can perhaps indicate centralisation and structure
hierarchy in this period (Carter & Stolper 1984: 123 – 124). The presence of inscribed
bricks and tablets that name several Elamite monarchs, particularly the sukkalmah
Siwe-palar-huppak from the Kaftari period occupation and the Shutrukids Shilhak-
Inshushinak and Hutelutush-Inshushinak in the ‘Middle Elamite Building’ of EDD
IV, and indeed the standard titulature of the Middle Elamite kings, indicates that
Malyan had a royal or capital function to some degree, or perhaps in the case of Siwe-
palar-huppak, only evidence for royal patronage. The precise function of this
royal/capital status is unknown, though the evidence from Tal-i Malyan, albeit in the
current fragmentary and unarticulated manner presently available, does not seem to
imply or concur with the expected remains of a capital city of an Empire. Again, until
further, more extensive, operations at Tal-i Malyan are undertaken, and indeed
presented/published, the inconsistency between the royal title and archaeological
remains of Anshan will remain unclear.

Like all the material excavated at Tal-i Malyan, as testified to by the preceding
survey, the glyptic material from the site has been published in a somewhat disjointed,
or at least inconsistent manner. Eight separate publications (Nicholas 1990; Sumner
1974; 1976; 2003; Carter 1996; Pittman 1997; Amiet 1980a; Carter & Stolper 1984)
have included glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan, some repeated several times (see
the Concordance associated with the Catalogue for exact details). As demonstrated by
Table 2.29, sixty-three separate glyptic items provenanced from Tal-i Malyan have
been included in the Corpus. It should be noted that the published Tal-i Malyan
glyptic corpus as included here, is by no means the sum of the excavated glyptic items
from the site. All three of the Tal-i Malyan monographs, those that detail the ABC,
TUV and EDD Operations, provide direct statements for the existence of glyptic
items (both seals and sealings), beyond that which has been published (Nicholas
1990: 84 – 85; Carter 1996: 11, 35 – 36; Sumner 2003: 107, Appendix A). Similarly,
no glyptic material, directly cited as provenanced from Operations GHI, FX106 and
GGX98 has been published (the three glyptic items included in the Corpus from
unknown sources are assumed to have been sourced from one or other of these
operations, though this is purely hypothetical), despite the fact that it is stated by the

excavator that glyptic material was discovered in these three operations (Sumner
1997: 408).
A precise count of the glyptic items uncovered from Tal-i Malyan, including
the unpublished material, is never explicitly stated however. An attempt to discern
such information from the published catalogues and registers of finds (as included in
Sumner 2003 and Carter 1996) is difficult and problematic as the material contained
in these surveys are inconsistent and confusing. An example of the difficulty of such a
study can be provided by the Find Register of the ABC material included in the
Sumner publication (2003: Appendix A). The main problem with this material is the
same, common problem of glyptic literature encountered before, the conflation of the
two classification items, simple non-sealed clay ‘sealings’ and the seal-impressed
sealings as defined here, under the one, undefined term ‘sealing’ (Sumner 2003: 80 –
82). Thus in the Appendix Register, the seal impressed and non-seal impressed
sealings are classified under the same ‘Find/Type Code’ (Sumner 2003: 120). While
in some instances these items are noted as ‘impressed’ (for example item mf1973 in
Sumner 2003: Appendix A), and others as ‘not impressed’ (e.g. mf1639.2), for the
majority of the materials classified as ‘sealings’ no such designation is provided,
meaning that it is unclear if these items were impressed or not, in turn meaning that
their inclusion or exclusion in a count of ‘sealed’ (with an actual seal) materials
uncertain.
Thus, on the basis of the current, available material, the actual number of
glyptic materials found at Tal-i Malyan cannot be discerned. As a primary criteria for
inclusion in the current study is availability in a publication, due to the structure of
this study (as discussed further below, Chapter 3), only the published Tal-i Malyan
material has been included in the Corpus. The presence of a significantly larger set of
glyptic items from Tal-i Malyan should be taken into account however in any
discussion of the relative size and distribution of the Tal-i Malyan corpus.
On the basis of the current available (published) material, the sixty-three
glyptic items of the Tal-i Malyan corpus is the sixth largest of the site corpora. The
corpus includes eighteen cylinder seals, and forty-five sealed items. The Tal-i Malyan
corpus includes seventeen glyptic items uncovered in Operation EDD, seventeen from
Operation TUV, twenty-six from the ABC Operation (including both Banesh and
Kaftari materials), and three items from an unknown (that is, not detailed) area, as
demonstrated by Table 2.29. It can be hypothesised, however, on the basis of the

stylistic classifications of the unknown origin seals (especially 2489, 2608, both
classified as Popular Elamite Ur III/Shimashki Style, see Chapters 4 and 5 for details)
that these items were provenanced from one of the Kaftari deposits discussed above
that have not been published in detail. The general administrative/control function of
the sealings from Tal-i Malyan is, as with most, if not all, sealings, generally assured.
The cylinder seals of the Malyan corpus were generally found in fill or trash deposits
(Sumner 1974), and so little direct evidence for cylinder seal function is found,
though on the basis of their disposal and the significant amount of sealing from the
site, a general administrative/control function can be assumed. A single seal from
Operation EDD (3277), was found in a late Middle Elamite IV to first millennium
(but pre-Achaemenid) grave (Carter 1996: 47), thus assigning a funerary function to
this item.
Seal Provenance Current Type Seal Provenance Current Type

Class. Class.
171 EDD; STS (7) clay tag 1108 ABC; CPE (9) sealings
BL IVA sealing BL IIIA
362 EDD; STS (15) jar sealing 1109 ABC; CPE (9) sealing
BL IIA Stratum 9
551 TUV; JNRS (1) cylinder 1110 ABC; CPE (9) sealing
BL II Stratum 9
834 ABC; CPE (1) jar sealing 1111 ABC CPE (9) sealing
Stratum 9 1112 ABC; CPE (9) sealing
948 EDD; CPE (3) clay tag Stratum 9
BL IIA sealing 1113 TUV; CPE (9) sealing
949 ABC; CPE (3) cylinder BL III
BL IVA 1114 TUV; CPE (9) sealing
950 ABC; CPE (3) white plaster BL III
BL IVA sealing 1115 TUV; CPE (9) sealing
951 ABC; CPE (3) sealed tablet BL III
BL IIIB 1309 TUV; GS (5) sealing
952 ABC; CPE (3) sealing BL IIIB
BL IIIA 1310 TUV; GS (5) sealing
953 ABC CPE (3) sealing IIIB
954 ABC; CPE (3) sealing 1311 TUV; GS (5) sealing
Stratum 9 BL III
BL II BL II
956 TUV; CPE (3) cylinder 1366 TUV; GS (6) sealing
BL II BL III
BL II BL III
1009 EDD; CPE (6) jar sealing 1368 TUV; GS (6) sealing
BL IIA BL III
1026 TUV; CPE (7) sealing 1470 TUV; AGD (6) sealing
BL II BL II
1074 ABC; CPE (8) jar sealings 1535 TUV; AGD (11) sealing
Stratum 9 BL IIIA
1075 ABC; CPE (8) sealing 1536 TUV AGD (11) cylinder
BL II 1537 TUV AGD (11) cylinder

Seal Provenance Current Type Seal Provenance Current Type
Class. Class.
1680 ABC; AGD (15) jar sealings 3191 EDD; AS (1) clay tag
BL IIIA BL IIA sealing
2282 ABC; PEA (1) cylinder 3192 EDD; AS (1) clay tag
BL I BL IIA sealing
2283 ABC; PEA (1) cylinder 3193 EDD; AS (2) jar sealing
BL I BL IVA
2318 ABC; PEA (6) cylinder 3194 EDD; AS (2) door lock
BL I BL IVA sealing
2319 ABC; PEA (6) cylinder 3195 EDD; AS (2) door lock
BL I BL IVA sealing
2489 – PEU (1) sealing? 3196 EDD; AS (2) door lock
2559 ABC; PEU (4) cylinder BL IVA sealing
BL I 3197 EDD; AS (2) sealed tablet
2570 ABC; PEU (5) cylinder BL IVA
BL I 3198 EDD; AS (2) sealed tablet
2597 ABC; PEU (6) cylinder BL IVA
BL I 3199 EDD; AS (2) door lock
2607 ABC; PEU (7) cylinder BL IIIB sealing
BL I 3276 EDD; LPS (3) cylinder
2608 – PEU (7) sealing BL IVA
2622 ABC; PEU (8) cylinder 3277 EDD; LPS (3) cylinder
BL I BL II; burial
3188 EDD; LME (9) cylinder 47
BL IIA 3570 – Unclass. cylinder
3190 EDD; AS (1) clay tag
BL IVA sealing
Table 2.29. Survey of the glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan (Anshan).
2.3 Summation
The preceding surveys of both the historical/chronological and specific site
archaeological developments of the relevant ‘Elamite’ sites that produced glyptic
material is intended to act as an introduction to the history and archaeology of the
period and region under discussion here, and to provide a background for the
articulation of the glyptic styles from these sites (Chapters 4 and 5) and for future
discussions regarding the function of glyptic material in Elam (Chapter 6) and
Mesopotamian-Elamite interactions, as characterised and revealed in the glyptic
material (Chapter 7). The, at times unwieldy, reconstruction thus produced, can be
summarised in several tables here presented, for ease of reference and clarity of
intention.
Table 2.30 provides a graphical representation of the Elamite Dynasties and
the associated, contemporary Mesopotamian Dynasties, with special indication of
historical ties or evidences of interactions between Elam and Mesopotamia. This table
therefore summarises the many interactions between these two neighbouring regions
as presented in Chapter 2.1, and thus provides a foundation for the later discussion of

this pattern of interaction, and the evidence of the so-called ‘Dated Seals’ (that is,
seals that bear the name of a king or other known, historical personage that can,
through this, be ‘dated’). Tables 2.31 – 2.33 provide summaries of the archaeological
and chronological information just presented. The relevant periods of occupation at
each site are thus contained with reference to others in this study, according to the
chronological paradigm here adopted. Finally, Table 2.34 summaries the data here
presented, in reference to Mesopotamian chronological periods, sites represented (that
is, containing relevant glyptic material) and an included description of important
facets of each period.

Synchronisms Between Mesopotamian and ‘Elamite’ Kings
Assyria Babylonia Elam
Akkadian Dynasty Kings of Awan Other ‘Elamite’ Officials
Pi-e-li
Ta-a-ar
Uk-ku-ta-hi-eš
Hi-i-šu-ur
Sargon Sanam-shimut 1
2334 – 2279
Nap-pi-il-hu-eš Ulul
Ki-ik-ki-si-me-te-em-ti
Hishep-ratep 2
Sidga’u
Luh-ishan 3 Abalgamash
Rimush Hi-e-lu
2278 – 2270
Emashisin
Manishtushu Shar-GA-PI
2269 – 2255
Eshpum 4
Naram-Sin Hi-ta-a
2254 – 2218
Shar-kali-sharri Epirmupi 5
2217 – 2193
Igigi Ilish-mani
2192 – 2190
Nanijum
Imi
Elulu

Akkadian Dynasty Kings of Awan
Dudu
2189 – 2169
Shu-Turul
Ur III Dynasty Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Kings of

Isin Shimashki
Ur-Nammu
2112 – 2095
Puzur-Inshushinak 6
Shulgi
2094 – 2047
Girnamme 7 8
Amar-Sin
2046 – 2038
Tazitta 9 10
Shu-Sin
2037 – 2029
Ebarti I 11 12 13
Tazitta II

Ur III Dynasty Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Kings of Shimashkian Contemporaries
Isin Shimashki
Ibbi-Sin
2028 – 2004
Naplanum Lu-[(x)-r]a-ak-lu-uh-ha-an
2025 – 2005
Kindattu 14 15
Ishbi-Erra
2017 – 1985
Imazu
Emisum
2004 – 1977
Idaddu I
Sukkalmah Dynasty
Shu-ilishu
1984 – 1975
Tan-Ruhurater I 16
Samium
1976 – 1942
Iddin-Dagan
1974 – 1954
Ebarti II
Ishme-Dagan
1953 – 1935
Zabaja Idaddu II
1941 – 1933

First Dynasty of Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Kings of Sukkalmah Dynasty
Babylon Isin Shimashki
Lipit-Ishtar
1934 – 1924
Gungunum
1932 – 1906
Ur-Ninurta
1923 – 1896
Idaddu-napir 17
Abisare
1905 – 1895
Bur-Sin Idaddu-temti
1895 – 1874
Sumuabum Sumuel Shilhaha 18
1894 – 1881 1894 – 1866
Sumulael Pal-ishshan Lankuku
1880 – 1845
Lipit-Enlil
1873 – 1869
Erra-imitti Kuk-Kirmash
1868 – 1861
Nur-Adad Tem-sunit
1865 – 1850
Enlil-bani Kuk-Nahundi
1860 – 1837
Sin-iddinam Kuk-Nashur I 19
1849 – 1843
Sabium Atta-hushu 20 21
1844 – 1831

First Dynasty of Larsa Dynasty First Dynasty of Sukkalmah Dynasty
Babylon Isin
Sin-eribam
1842 – 1841
Sin-iqisham
1840 – 1836
Zambiya Tetep-mada
1836 – 1834
Silli-Adad
1835
Warad-Sin Shiruk-tuh 22 23
1834 – 1823
Iter-pisha
1833 – 1831
Apil-Sin Urdukuga
1830 – 1813 1830 – 1828
Sin-magir
1827 – 1817
Rim-Sin I
1822 – 1763
Rim-Sin II Damiq-ilishu Simut-wartash I
1816 – 1794
Shamshi-Adad
1813 – 1781
Sin-muballit
1812 – 1793

First Dynasty of Mari First Dynasty of Sukkalmah Dynasty
Babylon the Sealand
Hammurabi
1792 – 1750
Zimri-Lim Siwe-palar-huppak 24
1776 – 1761
Ishme-Dagan I
Ashur-dugul Kudu-zulush I 25 26
5 kings Kutir-Nahhunte
Belu-bani Kassite
Libbaya Gandash Atta-merra-halki
Tata
Lila-irtash
Samsuiluna Iluma-AN
1749 – 1712
Shamshi-Adad I Agum I Temti-Agun
3 kings
Abi-eshuh Kashtiliashu I Kutir-Silhaha

1711 – 1684
3 kings
Ammiditana Damiq-ilishu
1683 – 1647

First Dynasty of Kassite First Dynasty of Sukkalmah Dynasty
Babylon the Sealand
Shamshi-Adad II Kuk-Nashur II 27
Ishme-Dagan II Temti-raptash
Ammisaduqa 6 kings
1646 – 1626
Shamshi-Adad III
Samsuditana 7 kings Kudu-zulush II

1625 – 1595
Ashur-nirari I Burna-Buriash I Shirtuh
Puzur-Ashur III Kashtiliashu III? Ea-gamil Tan-Uli
Ulam-Buriash
Agum(-kakrime?) Temti-halki
Enlil-nasir I (Hurduzum)
Nur-ili (Shiptaulzi) Kuk-Nashur III
Kidinuids
Ashur-shaduni
Ashur-shaduni
Ashur-rabi I Kidinu
Ashur-nadin-ahhe I Kara-indash

Kassite First Dynasty of Kidinuids
the Sealand
Ashur-nadin-ahhe I Kara-indash
Enlil-nasir II Tan-Ruhuratir II
Ashur-nirari II
Ashur-bel-nisheshu Shalla
Ashur-re’im-
nisheshu
Ashur-nadin-ahhe Kadashman-Harbe I
II
Tepti-ahar 28 29
Inshushinak-shar-ilani
Kurigalzu I Hurbatila 30
Igihalkids
Igi-halki 31
Eriba-Adad I
Pahir-ishshan 32
Attar-kittah
Kadashman-Enlil I Unpahash-Napirisha
? – 1360
Ashur-uballit I
Kidin-Hutran I
Burna-Buriash II
1359 – 1333
Humban-numena
Untash-Napirisha 33

Kassite Igihalkids
Kara-hardash
1333
Nazi-Bugash
1333
Kurigalzu II
1332 – 1308
Enlil-nirari
Arik-den-ili
Nazi-Maruttash
1307 – 1282
Adad-nirari I Kidin-Hutran II
Kadashman-Turgu
1281 – 1264
Napirisha-Untash
Shalmaneser I
Kadashman-Enlil II
1263 – 1255
Kudur-Enlil
1254 – 1246

Kassite Igihalkids
Tukulti-Ninurta I Shagarakti-Shuriash Kidin-Hutran III 34 35
1245 – 1233
Kashtiliashu IV
1232 – 1225
Enlil-nadin-shumi Shutrukids
1224
Kadashman-Harbe II Hallutush-Inshushinak
1223
Adad-shuma-iddina
1222 – 1217
Ashur-nadin-apli Adad-shuma-usur
1216 – 1187
Ashur-nirari III
Enlil-kudurri-usur
Shutruk-Nahhunte 36 37
Ninurta-apil-Ekur
Meli-Shipak
1186 – 1172
Marduk-apla-iddina I
1171 – 1159
Marduk-kabit-
ahheshu
Zababa-shuma-iddina
1158

Kassite Second Dynasty of Shutrukids
Isin
Kutir-Nahhunte 38
Ashur-dan I Shilhak-Inshushinak 39
Enlil-nadin-ahi
1157 – 1155
Iter-Marduk-balatu
Ninurta-tukulti-
Ashur
Mutakkil-Nusku
Ashur-resha-ishi I
Ninurta-nadin-
shumi
Nebuchadnezzar I
Hutelutush-Inshushinak 40
Tiglath-pileser I
Table 2.30. ‘Elamite’ and Mesopotamian dynastic interactions. The blue broken line indicates a generally accepted Mesopotamian-Elamite synchronism,
that coloured yellow an uncertain, doubtful or unproven synchronism and red indicates a synchronism that is now rejected as longer fitting. The green broken
line indicates the secondary synchronism of Tan-Ruhurater and Shu-ilishu, that is proposed on the basis that both kings are associated with Bilalama of
Eshnunna.

Key 21
Secure or generally Carter & Stolper 1984: 26 │ Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 1996b:
310 – 311; Vallat 1994
accepted synchronism 22
Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 1996b: 313 – 314
Uncertain, doubtful or 23
Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999: 168; Gasche et al 1998; Læssøe 1965;
unproven synchronism Vallat 1994
24
Unlikely, false or not Carter & Stolper 1984: 26, 29; Potts 1999: 169 – 171; Gasche et al 1998;
accepted synchronism Durand 1986: 111 – 115; Vallat 2000
25
Carter & Stolper 1984: 26, 29
Secondary synchronism 26
Gasche et al 1998; Durand 1986: 121
27
Carter & Stolper 1984: 26; Potts 1999: 171; Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 2000;
Vallat 1994
28
1
Carter & Stolper 1984: 11; Potts 1999: 102 Cole & De Meyer 1999; Gassan 1989
29
2
Carter & Stolper 1984: 11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102 Carter & Stolper 1984: 34; Potts 1999: 192 – 193.
30
3
Carter & Stolper 1984:11, 12; Potts 1999: 88, 102 Carter & Stolper 1984: 35
31
4
Carter & Stolper 1984: 13; Potts 1999: 106 Vallat 2000
32
5
Carter & Stolper 1984: 14; Potts 1999: 107 Potts 1999: 211; Gasche et al 1998; Van Dijk 1986; Steve and Vallat 1989;
6
Potts 1999: 122; Wilcke 1987: 108 – 111; Gasche et al 1998 Vallat 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004
33
7
Steinkeller 1988, 201 – 202; Gasche et al 1998 Potts 1999: 212; Gasche et al 1998; Van Dijk 1986; Steve & Vallat 1989; Vallat
8
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no. 7 2000; Vallat 1994; Goldberg 2004
34
9
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Keiser 1971: 477 Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000;
10
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no.7 Carter & Stolper 1984
35
11
Gasche et al 1998 Potts 1999: 231; Gasche et al 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 2000;
12
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20 Carter & Stolper 1984
36
13
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Gasche et al 1998; Jacobsen 1939: no.7 Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al 1998; Steve & Vallat 1989: 228; Vallat 1994;
14
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Potts 1999: 142 Goldberg 2004
37
15
Carter & Stolper 1984: 20; Potts 1999: 142 │ Carter & Stolper 1984: 22; Potts Potts 1999: 233; Gasche et al 1998; Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989;
1999: 145; Gasche et al 1998; Van Dijk 1978 Carter & Stolper 1984
38
16
Carter & Stolper 1984: 22 – 23; Potts 1999: 146; Gasche et al 1998; Scheil Potts 1999: 237; Gasche et al 1998: Frame 1995: 19 – 21; Steve & Vallat 1989:
1900: 80, pl.15: 6; Scheil 1902: 9, pl.1: 6 228; Carter & Stolper 1984
39
17
Potts 1999: 146 Cameron 1936, 119; Gasche et al 1998
40
18
Carter & Stolper 1984: 26 Cameron 1936, 119; Gasche et al 1998
19
Vallat 1994
20
Potts 1999: 163; Gasche et al 1998; Vallat 1996b: 310 – 311

Khuzistan
Susa Chogha Mish Haft Choga Tepe Deh-i
Tepe Zanbil Sharafabad Now
Susa II II –
Acropole I: 22 – 17
Acropole II: 6 – 1 ‘Protoliterate’ Middle and Late
Apadana (3700 – 3200) Late Uruk Uruk?
break (?)
Susa III III –
Acropole 1: 16 – 13
Ville Royale I: 18 – 13
Susa IV break (?)
IVA –
(c.2600 – 2400)
Apadana
Acropole
Donjon
Ville Royale I:
12 – 9A
IVB –
Akkadian & (c.2400 – 2100)
Awan Apadana?
Acropole: 1 – 2
Ville Royale I: 8 – 7
Ur III & Ville Royale: Chantier B, ?
Shimashki 7–6
Sukkalmah Ville Royale:
Chantier A, 15 – 12
Chantier B, 5
Apadana ‘3rd phase’ ‘Old Elamite’
Ville Royale: Complexe
Est, A 12 – A 11
Middle Ville
Elamite I Royale: East ‘Elamite’
Comp. A11 ? (c.1700 –
Ville Royale 1400)
A: 11
Ville Royale
Ville II: 12 – 13
Middle Royale I: Major
Elamite II A11 period of
Acropole patronage Surface
pit finds
Middle Ville Royale
Elamite III A: 10 – 9
Middle
Elamite IV
?
Table 2.31. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Khuzistan
province according to the chronological scheme of this study.

Luristan
Surkh Dum-i-Luri Kamtarlan Chigha Sabz Bani Surmah Kalleh Nisar

Susa II I
(c.5000 –
3250)
Susa III
Kamtarlan I;
Susa IV Level I
(c.3000 – 2750)
funerary
Kamtarlan I; evidence
II – funerary funerary
Level II
evidence evidence
Kamtarlan II;
(c.2600 –
Level I
2300)
(c.2600 – 2300)
Akkadian &
Awan
Area AII
Ur III & only
Shimashki III –
Sukkalmah funerary and
Kamtarlan II; architectural
Level I evidence Area AI
(c.2000 – 1600) (c.2000 – only, re-use
1600)
IV –
primarily
Middle Elamite I funerary
(well also)
Middle Elamite II evidence
(c.1600 –
1200)
Middle Elamite
III Level 3B V – funerary
(c.1350 – c.900) evidence
(c.1200 –
Middle Elamite 1000)
IV
Table 2.32. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Luristan
province according to the chronological scheme of this study.

Luristan Fars
Godin Tepe Tepe Tepe Giyan Chogha Tal-i Malyan
Djamshidi Gavaneh
Susa II Godin VII
(c.3700 – 3400)
Godin
VI (c.3400 – 3100)
[Godin V
(c.3200 – 31/3000BC)]
Susa III Godin VI Middle Banesh
Godin IV (c.2900)
(c.3000 – 2600) TUV – BL III –
II
Giyan IV
ABC – BL V – II
(c.3000 –
Susa IV 2700) Late Banesh
(c.2600)
TUV – BL I
Funerary BY8
evidence GHI – lower
Godin III: 6
(c.2600 – 2400)
Godin III: 5
Akkadian & Awan (c.2400 – 2250)
Later Giyan Early Kaftari
break IV/Giyan III (c.2200 – 1900)
Ur III & Godin III: 4 (c.2700 – ABC – BL I*
Shimashki (c.2100 – 1950) 1800) GHI*
Sukkalmah Middle Kaftari
(c.1900 – 1800)
BY8*
Godin III: 2
B15 Archive Late Kaftari
(c.1950 – 1600)
Giyan II – (c.1800 – 1600)
funerary FX106*
evidence GGX98*
Godin III: 1 (c.1800 –
(c.1600 – 1500) 1400)
Middle Elamite I
Middle Elamite II Giyan I –
funerary
Qaleh
Middle Elamite III evidence
EDD – BL IV
(c.1400 –
(c.1350 – 1100)
1100)
Middle Elamite IV Qaleh
EDD – BL III
Table 2.33. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for Luristan
province (cont.) and Tal-i Malyan (Fars) according to the chronological scheme of this
study.
*It should be noted that the specific, intra-site divisions of the Kaftari material are not
accurate. That is there is currently no available evidence to discern whether the ABC, GHI,
etc, Kaftari remains accord to either one or all of the Early, Middle and Late Kaftari phases.
There position here is just according to restraints of data presentation.

Period Date (BC) Mesopotamia Description Sites
Susa II c.3800 – 3100 Uruk Uruk World System/ Susa
Uruk Expansion; Mish
early Early Banesh phase Sharafabad
(Malyan); Deh-i Now (?)
‘proto-cuneiform’ texts Sabz
Godin
Djamshidi
Susa III c. 3100 – 2900 Jemdet Nasr – ‘Proto-Elamite texts’; Susa
Early Dynastic ‘Susa III Expansion’; Kamtarlan I
I later Early and Middle Kalleh
Banesh (Malyan) Godin
Djamshidi
Giyan
Malyan
Susa IV c. 2900 – 2330 Early Dynastic Early Dynastic Susa
Mesopotamia interactions Kamtarlan
with Susa, Elam, Awan Sabz
and other ‘Iranian’ Bani
entities; Kalleh
first certain historical Godin
reference to ‘Elam’; Late Djamshidi
Banesh (Malyan) Giyan
Akkadian c.2330 – 2100 Akkadian and Akkadian Empire; Susa
and Awan Post-Akkadian Akkadian annexation of Bani
(‘Guti’) Susa and surrounds, Kalleh
interaction with other Godin
‘Elamite’ areas (Malyan); Malyan
Awanite ‘Dynasty’
associated with Puzur-
Inshushinak; Linear
Elamite texts; Early
Kaftari (Malyan)
Ur III and c.2100 – 1940 Neo-Sumerian Ur III Empire, control of Susa
Shimashki Susa, vassalage of Kamtarlan II
Anshan (?), Sabz
Mesopotamian raids; Kalleh
effected fall of Ur III Godin
Empire; Shimashkian Djamshidi
‘Dynasty’ and Giyan
‘Kingdom’; Early and Malyan
Middle Kaftari (Malyan)
Sukkalmah c.1930 – 1600 Old Babylonian Gungunnum of Larsa Susa
(including Isin- interregnum at Susa (?); Mish
Larsa) impendence of Haft (?)
Sukkalmah state Sharafabad
(Empire?); interactions Kamtarlan II
with Babylon, Mari, Sabz
Assyrian, Larsa, Isin; Kalleh
powerful Elamite entity Godin
Middle and Late Kaftari Djamshidi
(Malyan) Giyan
Gavaneh
Malyan

Period Date (BC) Mesopotamia Description Sites
Middle c.1500 – 1400 late Old ‘Kidinuid’ dynasty; Susa
Elamite I Babylonian – fragmented, rival Haft
Kassite kingdoms (?) Sharafabad
Sabz
Godin
Giyan
Middle c.1400 – 1200 Kassite ‘Igihalkid’ dynasty; Susa
Elamite II Kassite intermarriage; Haft (?)
foundation of Choga Zanbil
Zanbil; Elamite apogée; Deh-i Now
Qaleh period (Malyan) Surkh Dum
Sabz
Giyan
Malyan
Middle c.1200 – 1100 Kassite ‘Shutrukid’ dynasty; Susa
Elamite III Kassite intermarriage and Zanbil
ultimate destruction of Deh-i Now
Kassite dynasty Surkh Dum
precipitated by Elamites; Sabz
Elamite apogee; Qaleh Giyan
period (Malyan) Malyan
Middle c.1100 – 1000 Kassite – later ‘Shutrukid’ dynasty; Susa
Elamite IV Sealand defeat (conquest?) of Zanbil (?)
Dynasty (early Elam by Nebuchadnezzar Surkh Dum
Neo- I; ‘survival hypothesis’ at Sabz
Babylonian) Malyan; Qaleh period Giyan
(Malyan) Malyan
Table 2.34. Survey and summary of the chronological scheme here adopted.

Chapter 3 – Construction of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Styles Paradigm – the
Methodology
As already outlined above (Chapter 1.1.5), the current study was undertaken within an
archaeological, rather than, as is traditional in past glyptic studies, an art historical
frame of reference. In this regard, the general regional, and specific intra-site
provenance of a glyptic item, its material (and what this can reveal regarding ancient
techniques of production, technology, and trade routes and patterns) and its function
(and thus evidence for the reconstruction of the control/administrative structures of a
given society and, in the current case, the less concrete, more ethereal, though no less
significant symbolic function of glyptic material [that is, the funerary and the votive
aspects]) is of paramount importance. In order to achieve an accurate and functional
data set from which to discuss and analyse these problems and questions, a complete,
thorough and articulated stylistic paradigm must be in place. This is not to again place
the emphasis on the image as a piece of art to be admired and treasured as such, but
rather the style (and the stylistic development) is discussed as to what it can tell us
regarding the chronological and geographical positioning of the items. In other words,
the style and stylistic development is employed to create a functioning typology of, in
this case, Elamite cylinder seals. Through this typology important archaeological
questions, such as glyptic function (and thus the structure and control mechanisms of
a society), and patterns of cultural and political interactions with a neighbouring
power (in this case specifically southern Mesopotamia; and thus the ethnic/cultural
constitution of Elamite society, and the degree to which archaeological evidence
supports or contradicts contemporaneous textual sources) can be addressed.
The focus of the current work, as already outlined, are the Elamite cylinder
seals, from c.3500 – 1000 BC. Despite the fact that there is as yet no such functioning
stylistic paradigm or typology for Elamite cylinder seals, these objects have been used
in the past to provide evidence for glyptic function and patterns of interactions (see
Chapter 1). The use of such material without a qualifying and articulated
stylistic/typological framework is imprudent to say the least, and may provide proofs
and evidences for phenomena that, upon closer, more rigorous, inspection may indeed
be false. In short, to use these unarticulated, intuitive stylistic developments is to
employ circumstantial, rather than substantive, articulated, tested evidence as a basis
for such reconstructions. The current study’s primary aim has therefore been to
produce such an articulated, tested stylistic (and therefore chronological) paradigm or

typology, from whence such theories and patterns may be analysed, and further such
hypotheses formulated. The result of this formulated stylistic development is
presented in Chapter 4 (and with reference to specific site distribution in Chapter 5),
and further such problems tested in Chapters 6 (function) and 7 (cultural interaction).
The current chapter will provide an outline of the methodology used to create this
paradigm, as a further indication of the desire of the current work to provide a
useable, working, but tested and examined cylinder seal typology.
Except for the so-called ‘Tehran Sealings’ already mentioned and detailed
further below (Chapter 3.6), all the material in the Corpus was sourced from
published works. This reliance on published material was both by design and
circumstance. As just outlined, a primary motivation for the commencement of this
study was a desire to rectify the situation whereby the previously published, but
inadequately studied and analysed material had been used to reconstruct various
cultural phenomena, by thoroughly studying and detailing this material. It therefore
seemed appropriate to limit this study to the previously published material, so as to
provide corrections to this, already available, material. In this way it is anticipated that
the current study (and particularly the stylistic paradigm section) could act as a kind
of supplement, expanded primer, a correction, to the already available published
material. Thus it is hoped that, for instance, both the Haft Tepe site report (Negahban
1991) and the proposed stylistic classification (placed within the wider Elamite
framework) here detailed for the Haft Tepe glyptic material could be used in unison to
further academic scholarship and proposed reconstructions.
Furthermore, the excavated items under discussion here are currently housed
in numerous museums around the world (including the Tehran Archaeological
Museum, the Louvre, and various American university museums, such as the
University Museum [the University of Pennsylvania] and the Oriental Institute
[Chicago]), as well as site museums and collection storage areas within Iran (for
example the Susa Museum/Chateau and the Haft Tepe site museum), where varying
degrees of access and availability to the current author reigned. Some of this material
is currently awaiting ultimate publication and study by those who (rightly) claim
precedence to such analysis (the excavators and possessors; for example the Tal-i
Malyan material [Sumner 2003: i]). Thus, with such considerations of intellectual
property, and institutional politics, it is doubtful that full and equal access to the thus
curated pieces would have been available across the Corpus. Thus, rather than create

an unequal level of study, with some material sourced only from published reports,
others subjected to a new physical study, and thus perpetuate the already uneven
levels of analysis and information available for the various pieces (as outlined above
and below; for there was no guarantee that the material most in need of such
reanalysis would be that to which access would be achieved), it was deemed
appropriate to study all the items from the same starting point (that is the published
reports), and thus have a unified, albeit in some ways less agreeable, data set.
Certainly, in some instances, where important information (such as dimensions or seal
material) is lacking from the primary publications, access to the actual items in
question would have been useful. However, for the most part the problems with the
available data are those that any amount of physical/visual study could rectify, and
that arose long before the publication, namely the lack of adequate intra-site
provenance or site-area functioning, problems that were caused by poor techniques of
excavation and recording, rather than glyptic publication. Other, certainly less
academic, but none the less real, considerations (monetary/funding, time, logistics,
geography) also contributed to the decision to base the current study on published
material as a primary source.
Thus, considerations of unity across the Corpus in terms of the level of
information available, and questions of potential access (the circumstantial reasons),
and a desire to produce an analysis that appropriately corresponds with and facilitates
use (that is, is a usable and functioning work) with the already published material (the
design reasons) has lead to this study being one that is based, apart from the
exceptional ‘Tehran Sealings’ (that, in level of information and usefulness, are
anything but exceptional), upon published material as the primary source. As testified
to by the nearly 3600 items included in the Corpus however, this has by no means
produced a limited data set.
As will have already been noticed in the preceding survey of the Elamite
archaeological sites from whence the glyptic material contained in the Corpus was
sourced (Chapter 2.2), the past treatment, and thus the form of the material as
preserved for study, has varied from site to site and between the modern eras of
scholarship under which the materials have been excavated and published. Due to this
varying level of information, the following study has employed a somewhat fluid and
supple, at time almost ad hoc, approach and range of techniques. Thus, alternating
methods for the study of the material and the construction of the stylistic paradigm

have here been applied, at varying levels and degrees of primacy dependent on the
available material and information for a given item. In order to minimise the impact
on the accuracy of the paradigm thus presented caused by such varying levels of
information and possible techniques, a variety of different methods have been used
concurrently to produce this paradigm. Thus, for example, the intra-site provenance of
a particular item, evidence for stylistic cross-references with available contemporary
Mesopotamian (or if any, other contemporary non-Elamite) styles and other Elamite
material culture (and thus iconographic) pictorial representations (for example
statuary, stone carving, etc.), historical evidence (the ‘Dated Seals’) and general
principles of seriation and development for a given item are all combined to produce
the paradigm here proposed. This multiple level, multiple test method is employed in
order to minimise and lessen the effect of the varying degrees of information available
for the items, and to allow the stylistic development to be in effect, internally tested
and justified through the coherency of these different methods. The various methods
thus employed will be presented in the following chapter.
3.1 Provenance and Stratigraphy

As already mentioned (Chapter 1), the simple criterion for a seal’s (or sealing’s)
inclusion in the Corpus was provenance from the area defined above as Elam (roughly
the modern Iranian provenances of Luristan, Khuzistan and Fars). Thus, in its
simplest form, provenance (within the Elamite region) was the criteria by which seals
were included in the Corpus, and thus a method in its construction. In this regard,
glyptic material found beyond the borders of Elam, unprovenanced or art-market seals
that can be considered stylistically ‘Elamite’, have not been included here as they fail
on this most basic of tests. The ‘peripheral’ seals, and indeed some of the
unprovenanced art-market seals, themselves pose some interesting questions in
relation to the distribution and reach of Elamite styles, while also contributing to some
problems of chronology (for example the ‘Dated or Royal Seals’, below), and so are
by no means unimportant. Thus, where necessary these non-Elamite Elamite items are
mentioned in this study, but as they fail the basic inclusion test, that of the geographic
parameters, these items are not included in the Corpus.
Beyond this, the findspot of a glyptic item within the site (its intra-site
provenance; where known) and its associated stratigraphy has been used (in
combination with the other techniques described below) as a method in the

construction of the stylistic paradigms here proposed. The relative stratigraphic
distribution of a particular stylistic type (where discernable) was thus employed in the
definition of a style, particularly in the discerning of the relative date, and the
chronological development of such. However, the use of provenance and stratigraphy
as a tool for dating and chronological placement must be tempered somewhat,
especially in regards to facile assumptions of chronology (and indeed for provenance
more generally, those of origin).
Firstly on origin; while it has been stated above that provenance within the
Elamite realm from a time frame coincident with that set here (c.3500 – 1000 BC),
was the primary criterion by which a seal or sealing was included in the Corpus
(except in the special case of Surkh Dum-i-Luri, where attributed chronological style
took precedent over provenance in ‘Elam’, as outlined above 2.2.2.1), this does not
mean that all seals and sealings (and indeed the styles they represent), should be
considered ‘Elamite’ in style or type. The ‘portable/transportable’ nature of cylinder
seals means that individual glyptic items, of any given style or type, could have been
brought to Elam with travellers or through trade, and thus ultimately found in Elam
(Collon 2005: 138). Patterns of interaction, particularly in the current case between
Elam and Mesopotamia, already outlined above and further discussed below (Chapter
7), also meant that the indigenous Elamite seal carvers were influenced, to greater and
lesser degrees, by styles and depiction techniques from these other regions, resulting
in locally carved cylinder seals that may have had Mesopotamian (or other ‘foreign’)
elements. Similarly, the possibility that traded items were sealed at their point of
origin, to perhaps verify the integrity of the ‘shipment’, and then broken at their
destination and discarded also means that sealings in a ‘foreign’ style may be found in
an Elamite context (evidence for the presence of sealed clay found some distance
from its point of origin, as testified to by the source of clay, can be found in the
current study, from Tepe Sharafabad, discussed above [Chapter 2.2.1.5]). In this
regard, the items found within ‘Elam’ may be considered ‘Elamite’, or
Mesopotamian-influenced Elamite, or ‘Mesopotamian’ styles, or possibly Elamite
copies of Mesopotamian originals, and thus simple provenance in Elam should not be
taken, simply, to equate with an ‘Elamite’ designation. The Elamite, or otherwise,
classification of the styles will be further detailed below (Chapters 4 and 7), and for
now it should only be noted that the simple equation, Elamite provenance equals
Elamite style should be rejected as facile in the extreme.

A more important caveat need be placed on the use of glyptic material for
dating purposes. As already mentioned, the presence of a seal or sealing in a given
area or strata of a site has previously been used as a method of dating either the seal,
or, more alarmingly, the strata in which it was found (Chapter 1; Negahban 1996:
205). While in some instances it may indeed be possible to use seals for such
purposes, the accuracy and usefulness of such use is tempered somewhat by the strong
‘heirloom quality’ of seals (Collon 2005: 135 – 137). The compact, easily portable
(by very design) nature of cylinder seals, the often attractive, and in certain cases
‘expensive’ (such as lapis lazuli) material from which a seal may have been made, the
very human attraction to ‘nice things’ (the aesthetic appeal of the seal) and the equally
human affection for keeping items associated with a known individual (a deceased
loved one) all provide indications that cylinder seals, regardless and separate to their
functioning as actual items in administrative/control systems, may have been kept as
heirlooms long after the period of their creation and initial use (Collon 2005: 135 –
137). In this manner, the ‘heirloom’ or ‘antique’ (in the modern sense of the collection
of curiosities) factor of cylinder seals has led to some seals being uncovered in
contexts far removed from their original point of origin (both in time and space)
(Collon 2005: 138 – 139). This therefore hampers the legitimacy of using cylinder
seals, thus deposited, as type fossils for strata or site dating, or conversely, using such
contexts to date a cylinder seal.
As well as the quirks of human behaviour responsible for creating ‘heirlooms’
out of seals, there is strong evidence for the, if not common than certainly not rare,
practice of seal re-use, including (partial) re-carving and re-cutting (Collon 2005: 120
– 122; Steinkeller 1977; Rathje 1977). There is textual references (albeit from less
than satisfactory Mesopotamian rather than Elamite sources [see above and below])
for individuals using seals that were not their own (Steinkeller 1977: 46 – 48),
including kings who used the seal of a (deceased) predecessor on treaty tablets
(Collon 2005: 120; figure 511), indicating that it was not unheard of to use a seal
originally belonging to another, and indeed, that there may have been a legitimate,
political or ‘constitutional’ (in the most loosest and uncodified of senses) justification
for so doing. The practice of re-use of a seal originally belonging to another
individual is only currently discernable if a seal, known to belong to one individual
(namely, it is inscribed with the name and title of said individual), is used by another
on a dated tablet, and annotated as such (a practice not unheard of in, particularly,

Mesopotamia, where a line of text would indicate the name and date of the individuals
‘undersealed’ as it were) (Collon 2005: 113 – 119). In this way, the simple re-use of a
seal may have been exceedingly more common than can currently be discerned (or
alternatively, rarer than we may anticipate); for the large portion of seals with no
inscription, impressed upon unannotated, non-tablet devices (see below, for
indications for the proportions of the inscribed seals [Chapter 4] and of sealed tablets
[Chapter 6] in the current study, both, as will be seen, sub-sets of the whole), there is
no way for us to discern who made the particular seal impression, and for how long
(over how many generations, or so few days) the seal was in use.
As well as the re-use, without alteration, of another’s seal, there is also
evidence that seals were re-cut by ‘new’ owners (Collon 2005: 120 – 122). Such re-
cutting can include the simple addition of new design element(s) (whether inexpertly
placed with little regard for the original integrity of the design [Figure 3.1.1, 3.1.2], or
through subtle remodelling [3.1.3]) or inscriptions (3.1.4), so the identity and use of
the ‘new’ owner could be distinguished from that of the old, original owner, to the
erasure of the inscription (3.1.5), or possibly the whole design and cutting of a new
image entirely (the possible intermediate stage of abrasion/erasure may be represented
by seal 3506, Figure 3.1.6, from the current study; the motivation for this may be to
‘recycle’ the expensive or hard to source material of the stone, rather than any
association with the [perceived] intrinsic worth of another’s seals) (Collon 2005: 120
– 122). Most of the examples here presented are Mesopotamian, though the presence
of at least two seals from the current (Elamite) Corpus suggests that in some instances
the phenomenon of re-cut, or altered re-used, seals was known. Furthermore, it is only
when a re-cutting/remodelling was inexpertly finished (3.1) that such re-cutting or
additions can be discerned, and so it may be hypothesised that other seals in the
present Corpus were similarly treated, but remained unidentified.

Figure 3.1.1. Susa seal (992 in the current 3.1.2. Ur seal (F. I: 514). A standard Ur III
study). A CPE animal file design can be seen to Presentation Scene with the addition of an
one side, with the addition of a, presumably unrelated, and truncated, bird and scorpion
later, scene containing human figures. over the original (erased) inscription.
3.1.3. British Museum seal (F. I: 515). 3.1.4. Vienna seal (F. I: 518). Early Dynastic
Standard Ur III Presentation Scene, it can be contest scene, over which a significantly later
seen that the original horned crown of the Old Persian inscription was carved.
seated figure was remodelled to depict a
standard Ur III ‘kingly cap’
3.1.5. Ur seal (F. I: 517). Akkadian contest 3.1.6. Susa seal (3506 in the current study).
scene, the seal inscription has been erased to Evidence of surface abrasion, possibly
allow for re-use by another. indicative of a preparatory stage of re-cutting
Figure 3.1. Various seals illustrating possible re-cutting or remodelling. Figure 3.1.2 –
3.1.5 after Collon 2005: 120 – 122.
Thus, knowledge that at least some seals were re-cut or re-used further limits
the appropriateness of using cylinder seals as dating mechanisms. Indeed, through this
evidence, a seal made perhaps years (indeed generations) before may have continued
to have been used, and then eventually disposed of, and ultimately discovered in a
much later context than that from whence it was originally created. Thus an Early
Dynastic period seal of lapis lazuli may have been in continual use over generations,
either as a seal or simply as an item appreciated for the intrinsic worth, value and
appeal of the stone (Collon 2005: 120). In this manner this Early Dynastic seal may

have eventually been disposed of or lost by its last owner in say, an Old Babylonian
context, where it was ultimately discovered by archaeologists. It would thus be
problematic to use the Early Dynastic stylistic identification for the design of this seal
to thus date the actual Old Babylonian context in which it was found to an Early
Dynastic period. Further, to use the material of this seal (lapis lazuli) to reconstruct a
pattern of long-distance trade and contact (Mesopotamia – Afghanistan) in the period
from which it was found, would be equally inappropriate. This is an extreme (and
hypothetical example) but it illustrates the point that, as we are aware that it was not
uncommon for seals to be re-used (or simply kept as ‘heirlooms’ or ‘curiosities’
without an apparent sealing function) and re-cut, it can be extremely inaccurate to use
cylinder (or indeed any) seals as a dating mechanism or type fossil.
While it can be argued that the possibility of seal re-cutting and re-use should
merely be noted by scholars, and thus when discerned, the use of seals as dating
mechanism put on hold, the simple fact that in both instances (re-cutting and re-use) it
is most probable that, from the current sources of information, only the exceptions,
and not the majority, are actually known. That is, the fact that only in rare cases
(where seal re-use is textually supported or seal re-cutting is inexpertly achieved and
thus testified to by the physical remnants of an earlier design) can actual re-use or re-
cutting be discerned. This means that to simply impose a dating embargo on those
seals known to have been so treated, but to carry on regardless for the majority of
other pieces with no discernable evidence for re-use or re-cutting, would be to, most
probably, perpetuate the use of such re-cut/re-used items incorrectly for dating
purposes, for it could be anticipated that many such treated items remain unidentified.
Thus, the use of a cylinder seal, alone, to date particular strata is false, as it is
probable, if not likely, that this item may have originally been carved in a period
earlier than that in which it was found, and so the stylistic date of the item would be
significantly earlier than its actual context. At best, seals can provide a terminus a
quo, an indication of the earliest possible date of the strata, at sometime generally
concurrent with, or after the production of the seal.
If seals are often (the frequency of which cannot really be quantified following
the above arguments for difficult discernment of such) known to have been re-used or
re-cut, and thus are unsuitable as pieces of evidence for dating strata, then the reverse
is also true. Namely, that generally speaking, the use of the date of a stratum (obtained
through other dating mechanisms) cannot, except in the most general of senses, be

used to date a particular seal or the design (style) that it bears. For if, as we have
discovered, it is known that seals were re-used over an extended period of time, the
presence of a seal in a given style in say, an Old Babylonian context, does not,
automatically mean that the style of the seal should similarly be considered Old
Babylonian. By the same principle of re-use, the seal in question may have originated
in an Early Dynastic context, and its style accordingly correctly dated to this period,
but re-used over time and ultimately deposited in an Old Babylonian context.
In the current study, the apparent function of cylinder seals as votive items
(see above [Chapter 2] and below [Chapter 6]) also further adds to the problem of
dating both seal styles through context, and the converse, context by seal styles. A
seal deposited as a votive gift in a temple or shrine, may have remained a part of that
temple depository over time, as other items (both seals and others) were similarly
placed, resulting in an assemblage of items from numerous, original, periods when
such depositories are ultimately discovered. This is exemplified by both of the votive
deposits in the current study, Surkh Dum-i-Luri and Choga Zanbil (further detailed
below, Chapter 5, but already demonstrated for Surkh Dum above [Chapter 2.2.2.1]),
where items of several separate styles, across a relatively large chronological span are
found in association with one another, in the same direct archaeological unit or strata.
To thus hypothesise that all the seal styles represented at, Surkh Dum for example, are
directly contemporary would be to ignore the function (in this case, votive) of the
context in which they were found, and result in a false impression.
Similarly, using stratigraphy to construct a proposed chronological extension
for a given style cannot be done so lightly, though this was one of the techniques here
employed. This is again due to the ‘heirloom’ quality of seals, and the tendency for
their re-use (and to a lesser extent, re-cutting). For again, to return to our above
example, to use our Early Dynastic seal in an Old Babylonian context to propose a
chronological extension of the Early Dynastic style so contained into the Old
Babylonian period, for the major time of its use or articulation, would be false. It may
be interesting to note through the existence of a seal in a later context that, at least to
some degree, this style was known in the later period, and thus may have contributed
to the lexicon of the contemporary seal carvers; though this does not mean that these
carvers were still producing items in an Early Dynastic style, and thus this style
cannot be dated accordingly.

The earliest known context for a seal of a particular style can be used to
propose the earliest date for a given style however, and was so used here (see Chapter
4). Thus, the earliest known example (earliest in terms of appearance in an otherwise
dated context or strata) of, for example, the Uruk/Jemdet Nasr ‘Eye/Fish’ motif allows
for the proposal that this motif was known, and in use, from this period, as its earliest
point, for an unspecified following time span. That is, the earliest possible date for the
use of the style.
Of course, when there is a strong tendency of a particular group of seals to be
found in a given stratigraphy, or all-the-better across several levels of stratigraphy in
externally dated contemporary sites, provenance can be used to date a particular style.
Thus, in the current study and as will be further expounded below, the known Middle
Elamite date of the sites of Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil, coupled with the strong
internal coherency of the glyptic material from these sites respectively, was one factor
in the construction of the Early Middle Elamite and Late Middle Elamite styles and
the determination of their chronology (Chapter 4). The provenance of glyptic material
can and was used to define the styles (as detailed below, Chapter 4), but only with
some caution and in association with other methods.
In summary, due to the nature of cylinder seals as ‘heirlooms’ or curiosities,
the likelihood that they moved with travellers or traders across regions, and the
propensity for such items to be re-used or re-cut and thus remain in use across lesser
or greater spans of time, all makes the use of these items both to date a given strata or
context (as already encountered above, Chapter 2) and conversely, to use the date of
its context to date a given seal, both suspect and flawed. The difficulty in discerning
seals that have either undergone some re-cutting, or re-use further makes such use for
glyptic material difficult, as there is no way of knowing in the majority of instances if
a seal was re-cut or re-used and thus to be unused for dating purposes. Strict
limitations should be placed therefore on the use of cylinder seals as dating tools. The
earliest known date for the presence of a seal or sealing in a particular style can be
used to describe the period of the earliest possible use of a glyptic style (that is, its
lowest limit), though the latest known presence should not (for the heirloom quality
and other reasons just outlined) be taken, in isolation, to be an indication of the upper
extent of the style use. A strong, tested and repeated (preferably across more then one
site) trend or phenomenon of a particular style within a certain time frame (as
proposed through stratigraphic considerations) can be used, albeit with caution, to

propose a general span of most common usage for a style. This is the manner in which
provenance and stratigraphy has here been used, and only in association with other
pieces of evidence, and never, except in the most extreme of cases, in contradiction of
other pieces of evidence, to aid in the formulation of the styles here proposed.
3.2 Previous Analyses and Classifications

By virtue of the fact that this study was based on previously published material (apart
from the ‘Tehran Sealings’), all of the seals included in the Corpus have previously
been classified and analysed, albeit by varying degrees of application and
thoroughness. While the aim of this study was to reanalyse and create a new,
previously unarticulated stylistic paradigm, independent of and beyond the, generally
fragmentary and specialised to a specific site, styles and classifications previously
announced in these publications, to ignore and dismiss out of hand the conclusions
drawn in these previous works would be imprudent and unnecessarily arrogant.
In the construction of the stylistic paradigm here proposed therefore, the
previous classifications of the individual items, proposed by the primary (and in some
cases, such as Pittman’s work, secondary) publishers were taken into account, and the
justifications for these designations were studied and considered. These earlier styles
were therefore, where applicable, taken as a general outline, or foundation, in the
initial formulations of the styles here proposed. This is not to imply that all (or indeed
in some cases, any) of the conclusions and classifications articulated in these works
were accepted. For indeed, as illustrated in the Catalogue where (when known or
applicable) the ‘Original Classification’ is listed for each seal, an investigation as to
the correspondence between this ‘Original Classification’ and the current ‘Style’
designation as presented in the Catalogue indicates that in many, if not most
examples, an updated (in terminological or chronological terms at least) or new style
is here proposed. Rather, the reasons and justifications (where detailed and given,
such is not always the case) originally proposed by the authors of these original
classifications were merely judged and weighed as to the appropriateness of the
application of these styles to those here proposed. Some of these previously
articulated styles were therefore taken as rough guidelines or parameters for the styles
articulated here, though any such guidelines that were taken to be contradictory to
other pieces of evidence here employed, or to have been subsequently disproved by
the incorporation of further, or more recent work, were dismissed. This is to say that

these previous works were taken as mere guidelines, and not strict rules or
conventions.
As already mentioned, and detailed for each site (Chapter 2.2), the glyptic
material under discussion here has been subjected to a variety of treatments at varying
levels of thoroughness and success. Indeed, for the majority of the site publications
no, or extremely limited (that is, only the most general, cross-reference type, such as a
Bani Surmah seal [2088], listed as “Early Dynastic” [see Chapters 2, 4 and 5]),
stylistic information has been forthcoming, nor any stylistic paradigm proposed.
Indeed, much of the material that has thus been cursorily classified, particularly in the
earlier publications, has been so classified according to flawed, or subsequently
rejected, paradigms. An example of this is the use by Schacht for the Tepe Sharafabad
material of the paradigm constructed by Börker-Klähn (1970), that has both internal
consistency problems and has since been superseded by the later, extended
publication of Amiet’s Susa material (1972), making the Schacht Sharafabad
classification similarly rejectable.
For the most part, as would be expected, the publications that did not include
an attempt to articulate or describe the seals are those that are both not devoted to
cylinder seals only (but are general site reports), and/or have not been prepared by a
‘glyptic specialist’ (Table 3.1). The works that have either been devoted to cylinder
seals (or more generally glyptic material), such as that of Amiet concerning Susa
(1972) or Porada for Choga Zanbil (1970), or that have been prepared by a ‘glyptic
expert’ (thus Pittman for the ABC Tal-i Malyan material [Sumner 2003]) are the only
examples here where an attempt to articulate styles and development is included.
Thus only these volumes have provided any aid in the current formulation of the
styles, and so will be discussed here. Table 3.1 demonstrates this, by summarising the
publication(s) of the glyptic material from each site, denoting the type of study
undertaken. As can be seen, in most instances the seals were published only with
cursory or limited stylistic analysis or designation, and so the information there
pertained did not play a role in the articulation of the styles in this study (of course the
raw glyptic data, that is the seals and sealings that these volumes contained, did play a
role in the formulation of the paradigm), and so will not be addressed here.

Susa see Table 2.11 for full details
Amiet 1972 devoted glyptic volume
Chogha Mish Delougaz & Kantor 1996 general site report
Haft Tepe Negahban 1991 general site report; included
proposed glyptic styles
Amiet 1996 glyptic material, review
see 2.2.1.3
Choga Zanbil Porada 1970 devoted glyptic volume
Tepe Sharafabad Wright et al. 1980 short excavation report/analysis
Wright 2007 short excavation report/analysis
Schacht 1975 short excavation report
Surkh Dum-i-Luri Schmidt et al. 1989 general site report
Kamtarlan Schmidt et al. 1989 general site report
Chigha Sabz Schmidt et al. 1989 general site report
Bani Surmah Vanden Berghe 1968 short excavation report
Haernick & Overlaet 2006 general site report
Tourovets 1996 short glyptic study
Kalleh Nisar Vanden Berghe 1973 short excavation report
Vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994 short glyptic study
Haernick & Overlaet 2008 general site report
Godin Tepe Young & Levine 1974 general short site report
Weiss & Young 1975 short excavation report/analysis
Young 1986 short excavation report/analysis
Tepe Djamshidi Contenau & Ghirshman 1935 general site report
Tepe Giyan Contenau & Ghirshman 1935 general site report
Chogha Gavaneh Abdi 1999 short site report
Abdi 2000 short site report
Abdi 2001 short site report
Abdi & Beckman 2007 short site report & philological
study
Tal-i Malyan Nicholas 1990 TUV site report
Carter 1996 EDD site report
Sumner 2003 ABC site report; including
devoted glyptic section
Sumner 1974 short site report
Table 3.1. Survey of the previous publications for the glyptic material included in the
Corpus. Entries in bold indicate those devoted, at least partially, to seals and/or prepared by
a recognised glyptic specialist.
The exception to this dichotomy is Negahban’s publication of the Haft Tepe

material (1991). Neither the work of a recognised glyptic expert, nor a volume
devoted solely to glyptic material but part of the site excavation report, Negahban did
however propose an, albeit limited, stylistic paradigm for this material (Negahban
1991: 49 – 101). The limitations of Negahban’s publication of the Haft Tepe material
has already been addressed (Chapter 2.2.1.3), and it is unnecessary to make further
comment on this material here. However, brief comments on the proposed style(s),
and the reason’s for its rejection need be noted. The vast majority of the Haft Tepe

material was classified by Negahban to the ‘Haft Tepe Common Style’ (HTCS;
Negahban 1991: 49 – 101). A smaller subset was classified as belonging to the ‘Drill
Hole’ Style and another to the ‘Natural Style’. The ‘Drill Hole’ bears general internal
similarities with, and is only differentiated from the ‘Haft Tepe Common Style’ by the
apparent use of the (mechanical) drill in it production (Negahban 1991: 91 – 93). For
reasons outlined below (see the discussing regarding Pittman’s ‘Wheelcut’ Style), this
designation is rejected here, besides which it is held that these seals are sufficiently
similar to the HTCS material to warrant their association with this material.
Furthermore, in a similar rejection of the majority of the ‘subject matter’ based
classifications of Porada detailed below, the ‘Natural Style’ is also rejected, as the
main difference between this and the HTCS appears to be one of subject matter
(primarily floral and animalian elements in the ‘Natural Style’, as opposed to the
human figure scenes of the HTCS).
The Haft Tepe Common Style is defined by Negahban primarily in reference
to, and drawing upon, the correlative data provided in Amiet’s main Susian
classification system (Amiet 1972; discussed in detail below). Despite the clear
reference to and associations made between this material and that from Amiet,
Negahban has proposed a separate style for the Haft Tepe material (Negahban 1991:
100 – 101). While there is indeed a degree of difference between the Haft Tepe and
Susian material, this is no more than one would normally expect between two sites,
and may indeed merely be the result of something as simple as differing seal artists
(further detailed below). There is enough internal consistency between the Haft Tepe
and Susian material to warrant their inclusion in one style therefore (the Early Middle
Elamite [EME] style, detailed below [Chapter 4]). Thus the Haft Tepe style is rejected
here as it is limited to one site only, and is not applicable to a wider Elamite setting.
The Haft Tepe material is subsumed into a greater style, along with the contemporary
material from Susa (and to a lesser degree elsewhere). This style is also rejected (or
more correctly up-dated and conflated with the Susian material) because, despite the
fact that Negahban correctly identifies the similarities between the Haft Tepe material
and the Sukkalmah and ‘middle of the second millennium’ material identified by
Amiet (Negahban 1991: 100 – 101), the Haft Tepe material is ultimately associated
with Amiet’s Middle Elamite material (the material here classified as Late Middle
Elamite, and so not contemporary with the EME Haft Tepe material). The reason for

this appears to be the overriding opinion that the Haft Tepe material belongs to the
Middle Elamite period, as then defined when this material was published.
Thus, as demonstrated by Table 3.1 only three sources from whence the
cylinder seals included in this study were sourced, were prepared by glyptic excerpts
(marked in bold, those of Amiet [1972] for Susa, Porada [1970] for Chogha Zanbil,
and Pittmann [Sumner 2003] for Tal-i Malyan [Operation ABC only]), and so were
used here as ‘rough guidelines’ and need be articulated further. A fourth volume, the
excavation report of Haft Tepe prepared by Negahban also included stylistic
proposals, though has been rejected as a guideline as outlined above. Both Amiet
(1980a; 1980c; 1986) and Pittman (1994; 1997) have also produced other works, not
devoted solely to excavated material from a site but concerned with the specific
articulation of a style or styles. As such these works, where relevant to the Elamite
material, were also employed as ‘guidelines’ and so require some discussion here.
3.2.1 Amiet
Three major works of Amiet are of interest to the current study, for the ‘guidelines’
they provide for the articulation of the styles here proposed. The numerous shorter
articles and papers also prepared by Amiet, generally devoted to material from Susa
(see Table 2.11 for details) are also of note, though the conclusions drawn in these
papers are generally replicated in the main Susa volume (MDP 43; Amiet 1972; or for
those that proceeded it, replicate the conclusions there contained) and so need not be
individually discussed here (the exception to this is of course, the ‘Anshanite’ style
reassessment detailed below).
3.2.1.1 ‘Archaic Mesopotamian’ Styles

The volume La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque (Amiet 1980a [rev. ed.],
abbreviated GMA), is, as already mentioned above (Chapter 1), primarily devoted to
the early (or ‘archaic’, that is the material up to and including the Mesopotamian
Early Dynastic period, though it should be noted that in some cases Akkadian period
material is also included in this study [Amiet 1980a: 480 – 484]) glyptic material from
Mesopotamia (as indicated by its name) and so more correctly belongs in the
discussion in the following section devoted to Mesopotamian cross-referential
material. However, the position of Susa as a ‘Mesopotamian-looking’ Elamite city,
and thus the idea that the material from this site belonged to a Mesopotamian type

(the accuracy or otherwise of this Susian assessment will be addressed below) meant
that Susian material was included by Amiet in this Mesopotamian study (Amiet
1980a: 19). A chapter of the study was therefore devoted to the glyptic material from
Susa, divided according to the (rather confusingly entitled given the same of the
whole study) archaic (archaïque; generally the Susa I and Susa II material, including
stamp seals) and the ‘Proto-Elamite’ material (or the material from the terminal
Susian ‘Predynastic’ [Early Dynastic] period, according to the scheme then employed
by Amiet) (Amiet 1980a: 38 – 43). Another analysis or, in the terms of Amiet,
iconographic interpretation, chapter is also devoted to the ‘Proto-Elamite’ material,
specifically to the so-called ‘animals acting as humans’ motif (les animaux en
attitudes humaines), characteristic of this style (Amiet 1980: 107 – 110), that would
indeed, later be articulated as the ‘Classic Proto-Elamite’ style. Furthermore, in the
revised 1980 edition of the work, more ‘Proto-Elamite’ seals are illustrated, including
those from the non-Elamite sites of Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta (Amiet 1980a:
510 – 511).
While the 1980 edition of GMA was revised and altered, apart from the
addition of this further supporting evidence (the Yahya etc. seals just noted), this
edition adds nothing of substance to the discussion than was published in the 1961
original. Therefore, the analysis and definition of the Susa material can be considered
to be superseded by the subsequent MDP 43 publication of the Susa material, with
more articulated Susian styles.
3.2.1.2 Susa
As already outlined, the main publication of the Susa material by Amiet (1972; MDP
43), did not contain all the material excavated at Susa up till the date of its
preparation, but only that excavated between 1913 and 1967 (with the inclusion of
presumably only, miscellaneous earlier materials; see above for details). This volume
is however, the only Susian work in which uniquely Susian styles are proposed and
articulated. The published materials from earlier (pre-1913) excavations generally
classified the material according to prevailing (but generally by now superseded)
Mesopotamian classification systems (thus for example, Delaporte 1920), while the
materials subsequently excavated from Susa and published, were (with varying levels
of effectiveness and ease), integrated into the paradigm system proposed by Amiet.

Before an analysis of the styles proposed by Amiet is even begun, some
theoretical and practical limits to the application of this stylistic paradigm to the
material here studied must be raised. Firstly, Amiet’s paradigm, by very design and
through no fault to the author, is one devoted solely to the material excavated from
Susa. The current work is devoted to the development of a stylistic paradigm for
Elam, for which Susa is a major, though not sole part. To thus translate or transcribe
the Amiet Susian styles wholesale to describe the Elamite material would be
methodologically flawed. Secondly, Amiet’s Susian volume was produced over
thirty-five years ago. This means that both general terminological and periodisation
alterations have occurred in this time (for example, the adoption of the Susa II and
Susa III terminology rather than Amiet’s ‘Proto-Urban’ and ‘Proto-Elamite’), and
new material has been uncovered and published, both from Susa and elsewhere in the
Elamite realm (Choga Zanbil: Porada 1970; Tal-i Malyan: Nicholas 1990; Carter
1996; Sumner 2003; Surkh Dum-i-Luri: Schmidt et al. 1989) that has impacted upon,
and caused appropriate alterations or reassessments to Amiet’s creation. Both the
geographical limits (to Susa) and the period of time elapsed since its original
articulation, and the subsequent recovery of relevant material, limits the degree to
which Amiet’s work may be applied to the material here contained, and makes the
current study a valid and necessary addition to Elamite glyptic studies.
Amiet was, according to the art-historical/archaeological type dichotomy
proposed above for glyptic study classification, part of the older, and therefore, art
historical school. The styles thus proposed for the Susa material were framed in an art
historical (that is applying general principles of art historical progression and
development) system, with little reference to archaeological frames of reference such
stratigraphy, seal/sealing type and so on (though such considerations are not entirely
absent from Amiet’s work). Such an approach is not inappropriate for the Susian
material however, for, as already mentioned above but warrants reiteration, the,
especially earlier, excavations at Susa were undertaken with little concern for or
recognition of stratigraphy and archaeological provenance. In this regard, Amiet’s
largely art historical, image developmental approach to, and division of, the Susian
material is both appropriate and useful to the current study (indeed, the principle of art
historical progression is one that was also employed here, albeit in association with
other techniques). In this regard, Amiet’s Susian style progression orders the material

in a general chronological/progressional framework, which this study has borrowed
and employed where appropriate.
The present study has therefore taken as a starting point, or guideline, Amiet’s
Susian styles, which were then tested against other more recently excavated and
published material with more secure (and independent of the glyptic material)
chronological designations (for example those from Tal-i Malyan, Choga Zanbil, Haft
Tepe, Chogha Mish) in order to produce the styles here proposed. The addition and
construction of other styles for the Elamite Corpus, not represented (or generally
recognised) in the Susian corpus (such as the AS and LPS styles discussed below
[Chapter 4]) was also necessary.
In some instances the alterations to Amiet’s styles were required merely
through the application of more current scholarly accepted terminology, such as Susa
II rather than ‘Proto-Urban’. In other instances the material uncovered in more recent
excavations has allowed for a virtual reassessment, or entirely new articulation of
Amiet’s styles. For example the tripartite division of the Popular Elamite style (PEA,
PEU and PEO) spanning the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ through to the Sukkalmah periods,
rather than Amiet’s Sukkalmah period only designation of his élamite populaire,
proposed here due to finds from Tal-i Malyan and a reassessment of the Susa material
(see below), or the reassessment of Amiet’s MSM and ME styles to the various
Middle Elamite styles proposed here (EME, LME, KRS, LGD) stemming from the
additional evidence from Haft Tepe and Choga Zanbil.
Table 3.2 demonstrates the styles proposed by Amiet and the extent, or
otherwise to which they were employed here. Lines between Amiet’s and the current
proposed styles marked blue indicate basic acceptance or perpetuation of the style,
perhaps with minor alterations or additions, and nomenclature change for purposes of
up-dating or clarification. Translations marked red indicate where total
reclassification has been required. Such reclassifications are due to information
gleaned from more recently excavated or published material, or in the case of the
Glazed Steatite Style, more recently articulated styles. The translation marked green
indicates the division and chronological extension here proposed (see below) across
the ‘Akkadian and Awan’ to Sukkalmah periods rather than Amiet’s Sukkalmah
period classification for the élamite populaire style. The dashed line from the AS style
indicates that this style was not represented at Susa, and therefore obviously does not
correspond to a style classified by Amiet, further demonstrating the need to create

new styles applicable to the wider Elamite Corpus. The LPS style is only represented
rarely at Susa, as indicated by the table (dashed purple line).
Current Styles Amiet’s Classification

STS – Susa II Style PUR – Recent Proto-Urban
(proto-urbain Récent)
JNRS– Jemdet Nasr Related Style MS – Mesopotamian
(de style mésopotamien)
CPE – Classic Proto-Elamite Style APE – Ancient Proto-Elamite
(proto-élamite ancienne)
CPE – Classic Proto-Elamite
(proto-élamite classique)
GS – Glazed Steatite Style DPE – Diverse Proto-Elamite
(diverses, contemporaines des tablettes
proto-élamites)
AGD – Archaic Geometric Designs
STF – Susa III/IV Style
AP – Ancient Pre-Sargonic
(présargonique ancienne)
SF – Susa IV Style
RP – Recent Pre-Sargonic
(présargonic récente)
LSF – Late Susa IV Style
ARS – Akkadian Related Style APA – Akkadian and Post-Akkadian
(d’Agadé et post-agadéene)
PEA – Popular Elamite
(Awan/Akkadian Related) Style
UTRS – Ur III Related Style NSS – Neo-Sumerian, Simashki
(neo-sumérienne … dynastie de Simashki)
PEU – Popular Elamite (Ur
III/Shimashki Related) Style
OBRS – Old Babylonian Related OBR – Old Babylonian and Related
Style (paléo-babylonienne et apparentée)
PEO – Popular Elamite (Old PE* – Popular Elamite
Babylonian/Sukkalmah Related) (élamite populaire)
Style
EME – Early Middle Elamite Style MSM – Middle of the 2nd Millennium
(au milieu de IIe millénaire)
KRS – Kassite Related Style ME – Middle Elamite
(médio-élamite)
LME – Late Middle Elamite Style
LGD – Late Geometric Designs
AS – Anshanite Style not represented at Susa
(rarely) CCD – Diverse Cylinders and
Stamps
(cylindres et cachets divers)
LPS – Luristan Provincial Style
Table 3.2. Amiet’s stylistic paradigms and the corresponding translations, additions and
alterations here proposed.
*Later partially (?) renamed the ‘Anshanite’ Style

3.2.1.3 The ‘Anshanite’ Style
As already mentioned, following the publication of the main Susian volume (MDP
43; Amiet 1972), the subsequent Amiet publications generally adhered to the
paradigm there constructed. The exception to this tendency is the style originally
labelled ‘popular Elamite’ (élamite populaire). Following its original classification
(Amiet 1972: 239 – 257), Amiet later advocated a change in nomenclature to
‘Anshanite Style’ (Amiet 1980c: 165 – 166; 1986: 150 – 154; 1992; 1994; Potts 1999:
150). It is not expressively stated whether such a nomenclature change is advocated
for the entire Susian corpus originally classified as ‘popular Elamite’ (MDP 43, seals
1825 – 2014; see the Concordance attached to the Catalogue for information
regarding the numerical designation for each item here adopted, and information
regarding their classification, generally to the Popular Elamite Style divisions, PEA,
PEU and PEO, see below for details), or for the sub-set of this group around which
this discussion generally centres (thus Amiet 1980c: 165 – 166; 1986: 150 – 154;
Potts 1999: 150 – 153). An example of this group of seals is illustrated in Figure 3.2
and is here designated PEU group 7 (the explanation of this designation will be
returned to below).
The motivation for this nomenclature change is the fact that the seals
previously classified as ‘popular Elamite’ by Amiet, and specifically those of the type
represented in Figure 3.2 (Amiet 1980c: 165 – 166; Potts 1999: 150 – 153), were
uncovered at Tal-i Malyan (ancient Anshan). While seals of this ‘popular Elamite’
group do occur at Malyan (as indicated by Figure 3.2), these are in significantly lower
numbers than those from Susa, in both the wider Popular Elamite style here defined,
and the smaller PEU (7) group in particular (only two seals from Tal-i Malyan of the
PEU[7] are known, with eight from Susa, and indeed, at least six unprovenanced or
art market/collection seals, one of which is illustrated below; for the general Popular
Elamite group site distribution see Chapter 4 below). The nomenclature alteration
seems disproportionate to the actual provenanced material therefore, and thus the term
‘Popular Elamite’ is retained here to refer both to the wider group so originally
classified by Amiet (albeit with the new chronological divisions here proposed, see
Chapter 4) and to the smaller PEU(7) sub-set. Indeed, even if the Malyan/Anshan
provenance was accepted as an appropriate description of the distribution of this style,
a change from Popular Elamite to Anshanite due to Malyan dominance seems ill-

placed, as a term referring to a specifically Elamite, common seal expression would
seem to aptly describe a group dominant at the Elamite centre, Malyan/Anshan.
2598 – Susa 2599 – Susa
2600 – Susa 2601 – Susa
2602 – Susa 2603 – Susa
2604 – Susa 2605 – Susa (seal of Pala-ishshan – sukkalmah)
2606 – Chogha Mish 2607 – Tal-i Malyan
2608 – Tal-i Malyan unprovenanced seal of Ebarti (I – King of

Shimashki; or II – sukkalmah [?]) (Lambert
1979: 42)
Figure 3.2. The PEU (7), so-called ‘Anshanite Style’ seals/sealings included in the current
study, and an unprovenanced example.

3.2.2 Pittman
As well as authoring the glyptic section for the site report of Operation ABC of Tal-i
Malyan (Sumner 2003: 107 – 108; and preparing a seemingly forthcoming volume
devoted to the glyptic material of Tal-i Malyan generally), Pittman’s revised
published dissertation on the so-called ‘Glazed Steatite’ style of Mesopotamia and
Iran (Pittman 1994) and an article devoted to the ‘Proto-Elamite’ (that is, Susa III in
the current terminology) glyptic material from Iran (Pittman 1997) are also of interest
here, and have been used as sources in the construction and articulation of the stylistic
paradigm presented in the ECS Corpus.
3.2.2.1 The ‘Glazed Steatite’ Style

Pittman’s The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style (1994) is the seminal work regarding this
style, and has adequately presented and defined this glyptic phenomenon of the
‘Elamite’ (more correctly, pre-Elamite Iranian) and north-western or ‘piedmont’
region of Mesopotamia (specifically the Diyala/Hamrin region). Generally speaking
the style has been adopted as defined by Pittman, and so will be further addressed in
the section detailing the specific styles (Chapter 4), and no further comment need be
added here. It should be noted that, before the definition of the style by Pittman, the
‘Glazed Steatite’ seals from Susa were classified by Amiet under the ‘Diverse Proto-
Elamite’ rubric, that is the category of diverse and varying cylinder seals and sealings
deemed to have been contemporary with the ‘Proto-Elamite’ tablets (that is the Susa
III period in the current study) (Amiet 1972: 143 – 144; Pittman 1994: 131). The
details of this style, and its application as may differ from Pittman’s here, will be
addressed in detail below (Chapter 4).
3.2.2.2 The ‘Proto-Elamite’ Styles

The classification/articulation material contained in the report of the ABC Operation
at Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 2003: 107 – 108) is essentially the same as that contained in
Pittman’s paper regarding the glyptic styles of the entire ‘Proto-Elamite’ (Susa III)
period of Iran (Pittman 1997), and so the definitions from each can be considered as
one whole.
Five distinct ‘Proto-Elamite’ Iranian styles are defined by Pittman; the
‘Classic Style’, the ‘Glazed Steatite Style’, the ‘Wheelcut Style’, the ‘Incised Style’
and the ‘Stamp Seal Style’ (1997: 139 – 140). The ‘Classic Proto-Elamite’ Style as

defined by Pittman is essentially the same as that proposed by Amiet (originally in the
1961 version of GMA, and subsequently in MDP 43 [Amiet 1972] and the revised
version of GMA also [Amiet 1980a]), and is generally adopted here, with few, limited
alterations (detailed in Chapter 4). Similarly, the ‘Glazed Steatite’ style concurs, with
no alterations, to that originally defined by Pittman (1994), and is thus adopted here
accordingly. For obvious reasons of type, Pittman’s ‘Proto-Elamite Stamp Seal Style’
does not concern us here, though the continued presence of stamp seals in the Iranian
seal corpus in the Susa III period (continued from the previous dominance of the form
in the Susa I and, to a lesser degree Susa II periods) should be noted.
The ‘Wheelcut’ and ‘Incised’ seals are not accepted nor perpetuated however,
with most of the designs so classified by Pittman here enjoined under the ‘Archaic
Geometric Designs’ rubric. The ‘Wheelcut Style’ is rejected firstly on the basis of the
simple misnomer of the term. This style, as defined by Pittman, is essentially a
geometric style (though animalian and floral designs also occur, albeit rarely), that is
characterised by a distinctive cutting style, identified by Pittman, as the name would
suggest, as being achieved through the use of a cutting wheel (Pittman 1997: 140).
While the internal integrity of the group of seals classified by Pittman as ‘Wheelcut’
is evident (and indeed, as noted by Pittman, related to the so-called ‘Brocade Style’
known from contemporary Diyala/Hamrin sites [Pittman 1997: 140; Frankfort 1955:
nos. 291, 303, 455]), the term used to define and describe them (‘Wheelcut’) is not
accurately applicable. As already outlined above (Chapter 1), more recent scanning
electron microscopy analysis of cylinder seals undertaken in the British Museum
indicates, on the evidence available, that the cutting-wheel was in fact not
introduced/invented until around the middle of the second millennium BC (Sax et al.
2000: 386 – 387). Such a date obviously post-dates the period to which the current
style is dated (the Susa III period, c.3100 – 2900 BC). Thus, if the Sax study is
accepted (and there is currently no reason to reject it), then the ‘Wheelcut’ designation
is inappropriate and therefore is here rejected. There is no similar evidence to reject
the notion that the ‘Incised Style’ seals were so created through incision. However, on
the basis of the rejection of the ‘Wheelcut’ designation, and the already discussed
(and later returned to) problems with chronological/stylistic designations for
geometric designs, it is here proposed that the items in this group, and all other
geometric design seals, be classified under the rubric ‘Archaic Geometric Designs’ (or
‘Late Geometric Designs’ for the later material) further outlined below (Chapter 4).

A general reluctance to classify styles according to cutting style alone (without
substantial evidence for this identification, such as the detailed scientific study
achieved through microscopy) is also adopted here, and thus results in the conflation
(along with other geometric design seals) of Pittman’s ‘Wheelcut’ and ‘Incised’
styles. This policy is due to the general difficulty in (and apparent easily mistaken)
identification of seal cutting style through macroscopic analysis. Such a system of
classification (according to cutting style) is also rejected as this method is, generally,
not easily nor accurately applicable to sealings, as problems of preservation and the
accuracy and technique of the actual initial ‘rolling’ action can impact on the visual
state of the design. Cutting style may indeed be considered a particular element of a
style or ‘school’ of ancient production, and this rejection outlined here is not intended
to advocate a total dismissal of such considerations in style articulation and definition.
Rather, a policy of noting particular, apparent, visual manifestations of a
cutting/carving style is advocated, without the allocation of a particular interpretation
or description of this method without a thorough macroscopic and
experimental/reproduction testing regime.
In conclusion, as with the Susa material classified by Amiet, some of the
stylistic proposals put forth by Pittman have been accepted here, with slight additions
or alterations (outlined below; namely Pittman’s ‘Classic Proto-Elamite’ and ‘Glazed
Steatite’ Styles), while others are rejected (the ‘Wheelcut’ and ‘Incised’ Styles) and
an alternate (and indeed expanded) style advocated in their place (the Archaic
Geometric Designs’). It should also be noted that the style labelled here the Jemdet
Nasr Related Style (JNRS), which is essentially (with slight variations and
nomenclature change) an adoption of Amiet’s style mésopotamien (Mesopotamian
Style) and is considered, at least partially contemporaneous with the other Susa III
styles, is not articulated, and therefore presumably not accepted, by Pittman. Some of
the items classified as JNRS here were included in the ‘animalian’ division (that is not
geometric) of Pittman’s rejected ‘Wheelcut’ style (1997: 140), though this only
applies to a small sub-set of both Pittman’s ‘Wheelcut’ and the current JNRS styles.
Thus, in this apparent missed style, as well as in the geometric designs, does the
articulation here proposed differ from that of Pittman.

3.2.3 Porada
The third volume used as a primary source for glyptic classification in the current
Corpus authored by a glyptic expert and containing proposed stylistic development is
Porada’s volume devoted to the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil (1970). As Choga
Zanbil was founded in the Middle Elamite period (see above), and thus only dates to
this last period under discussion here, Porada’s classifications only apply, or were of
any use, in regard to the definition of the Middle Elamite styles.
Porada divided the seals from Choga Zanbil into fifteen groups, based upon
both stylistic and subject matter considerations (Porada 1970). Table 3.3 summarises
Porada’s classification of the Choga Zanbil material, and indicates both the primary
(as discerned, not stated by Porada) criteria by which these classifications were made,
and the equivalents adopted here. As is demonstrated, the initial two groups of
Porada’s classification only (‘Pseudo-Kassite’ and ‘Elaborate Elamite’) were made on
the basis of stylistic considerations (that is unified approach in regard to subject
matter, method of depiction, material, cutting style and general internal coherency);
the other classifications were made on the basis of subject matter alone. It may be
assumed (sic Matthews 1990: 66 – 70) that the subject matter classifications all refer
to an, albeit unarticulated, ‘Elamite’ or ‘Choga Zanbil’ style. Indeed, as evidence by
Table 3.3, in many respects these groups have been subsumed under the style here
defined as the Late Middle Elamite (LME) style, further outlined below (Chapter 4).
The fact that such a designation is not explicitly defined or articulated by Porada
makes this proposal mere assumption however.
The internal construction of this classification system (partly stylistic, partly
subject matter based), severely limits the extent to which Porada’s Choga Zanbil
definitions can be applied to the wider (Middle) Elamite corpus. It is noted and
accepted that this was not the intention of this study, and Porada was only proposing a
classification system for the Choga Zanbil material (the fact that this work was
prepared simultaneously with Amiet’s Susian study [Porada 1970: 3 – 5], and that the
other contemporary material, that from Haft Tepe, was not yet available, assured this
Choga Zanbil only limit). However, the subject matter only classification makes the
wider application of the proposals defined by Porada untenable.
Porada’s initial two, stylistic based, classifications do facilitate application to
material from other sites, and as such have been adopted here. The ‘Pseudo-Kassite’
(pseudo-kassite) and ‘Elaborate Elamite’ (élamite élaboré) styles have both been

adopted here, albeit not as two separate styles but as two sub-sets of a single ‘Kassite
Related Style’ (KRS). The justification and reasons behind this conflation into one
style will be further outlined below (Chapter 4). For now it should be noted that both
these (sub)styles, apart from their internal coherency that has led to their conflation
here, are generally adopted following the definitions originally proposed by Porada
(1970: 7 – 25), and altered by Matthews (1990).
Porada’s Classification C. Z. Seal Criteria Current

Style
I Glass cylinders: pseudo-Kassite style (cylindres 1 – 14 stylistic KRS
de verre de style pseudo-kassite) (2)
II Glass cylinders: Elaborate Elamite style 15 – 21 stylistic KRS
(cylindres de verre de style élamite élaboré) (1)
III Faience and glass cylinders: ‘gods’ (cylindres de 23 – 32 subject LME
faïence et de verre: dieux) matter
IV Faience and glass cylinders: archers and heroes 33 – 39 subject LME
(cylindres de faïence et de verre: archers, héros) matter
V Faience and bitumen cylinders: lion-headed 40 – 41 subject LME
demons (cylindres de faïence et de bitume: matter
demons léontocéphales)
VI Faience cylinders: horned animals and trees 42 – 53 subject LME
(cylindres de faïence: bêtes à cornes et arbre) matter
VII Faience cylinders: banquet scenes (cylindres de 54 – 87 subject LME
faïence: banquets) matter
VIII Faience cylinders: facing sphinxes and rows of 88 – 101a subject LME
animals (cylindres de faïence: sphinx affrontés matter
et rangées d’animaux)
IX Glass cylinders: animal and bird files (cylindres 102 – 105 subject LME
de verre: rangées d’animaux et d’oiseaux) matter
X Diverse materials, ancient or foreign (cylindres 106 – 113 stylistic various
anciens et étrangers à Choga Zanbil de matières
diverses)
XI Diverse materials, 13th century and ‘recent’ 114 – 125 stylistic various
periods (cylindres de styles individuals de
matières) diverses, du XIIIe siècle et d’époque
plus récentes)
XII Diverse materials: illegible (cylindres illisibles 126 – 127 appearance –
de matières diverses)
XIII Faience cylinders: geometric designs (cylindres 128 – 157 subject –
de faïence à dessins géométriques) matter
XIV Unengraved cylinders (cylindres non graves) 158 – 160 appearance –
XV Stamps (cachets) 161 – 164 type –
Table 3.3. Survey of the classification system for the Choga Zanbil material by Porada,
according to classification criteria and current style here proposed.
3.3 Mesopotamian Cross-Reference and Association

The historical/political correlations between Mesopotamia and Elam discussed above,
and those in the archaeological assemblages (that is the assemblages other than
cylinder seals), demonstrate that throughout much of its history Elam was involved in

an, albeit varying, pattern of interactions and influence with neighbouring
Mesopotamia (and indeed, to lesser and greater degrees across time, other
neighbouring regions, such as Bactria, Dilmun and the Gulf Region [Potts 1999: 178
– 181], not of primary importance here). This pattern of interaction, as evidenced in
some circumstances by datable historical synchronisms (see above and below), allows
for the use of contemporary Mesopotamian material to be used as correlative and
cross-referential material.
The use of Mesopotamian glyptic material in this regard is especially
constructive, for, as already mentioned above (Chapter 1; Table 1.1) there is a
generally accepted, albeit not entirely concrete, stylistic development paradigm for
Mesopotamian cylinder seals. Thus, in this study the established (and tested)
Mesopotamian stylistic paradigm was used, as one tool among others, in the creation
of the stylistic paradigm here proposed. Table 3.4 illustrates the main published works
used as sources for the Mesopotamian material, according to period divisions.
Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Ur III (Neo-Sumerian)

General Developments Rova 1994 General Developments Franke 1977
Wiseman 1962 Ur Woolley 1934
Basmachi 1994 Legrain 1936
Uruk Amiet 1960 Legrain 1951
Brandes 1979 Old Babylonian (incl. Isin-Larsa)
Jemdet Nasr Matthews 1993 General Developments al-Gailani Werr 1988
Early Dynastic Blocher 1988
General Developments Garrison 1989 Colbow 1995
Hansen 1971 Collon 1986
Wiseman 1962 Babylon and Ashur Moortgat 1940
Tell Fara Heinrich 1931 Hamrin al-Gailani Werr 1992
Martin 1988 Kassite Babylonia
Diyala/Hamrin Frankfort 1955 General Developments Beran 1957 – 1958
City Seals Matthews 1993 Matthews 1990
Glazed Steatite Style Pittman 1994 Nijhowne 1999
Akkadian and Post-Akkadian (Guti) Nippur Matthews 1992
General Developments Bernbeck 1996 General Developments
Boehmer 1964 Ward 1920; Frankfort 1939; Amiet 1980;
Wiseman 1959; Collon 1987
Boehmer 1965 General Studies (Private/Public Collections)
Collon 1982 Buchanan 1996 (Ashmolean); Buchanan 1981
(Yale)
Table 3.4. Sources used for correlative/cross-referential Mesopotamian material. It should
be noted that this table differs from the presentation of Mesopotamian glyptic studies in Table
1.1. Table 1.1 was intended as a survey or example of Mesopotamian focused glyptic
literature, especially in light of the relative dearth of such sources regarding specifically
Elamite glyptic studies. The current table however only includes those sources primarily used
for cross-referential purposes here.

It is unnecessary to here repeat or outline the Mesopotamian stylistic
developments as contained in these volumes, as no reassessment was undertaken here,
nor alteration suggested, and so it would be redundant to unnecessarily repeat
unchanged conclusions. Furthermore, it is unneeded to here summarise these stylistic
developments, for as will be detailed (where relevant) in the articulation of the
Elamite styles below (Chapter 4), some of the Mesopotamian stylistic developments
are of no interest here (that is, they are not reflected in the Elamite material), and so
such a presentation would be unnecessarily time consuming. To therefore only present
the material used in the articulation of the Elamite styles would be to present an
unsatisfactory, partial and fragmented survey of Mesopotamian styles that would
serve no real useful purpose. Indeed, the aim of this study was not to study or
articulate the Mesopotamian material, but rather to do so for the contemporary
Elamite styles, and thus this is the only paradigm here presented. The reader is
directed to the relevant sources contained in Table 3.4 for detailed information and
outlines of the Mesopotamian styles. Where particular similarities (or indeed striking
differences) between the Mesopotamian and Elamite materials occur, that were of
paramount proof in the articulation of the styles, these will be outlined in the detailed
description of the Elamite styles below (Chapter 4).
In summary, the well-tested and previously articulated Mesopotamian stylistic
paradigm (particularly that of southern Mesopotamian; variously Sumer, Akkad and
Babylonia) has been used here as correlative/cross-referential material in the
articulation of the Elamite styles. The Mesopotamian material may be justifiably so
used because there is evidence, both in the form of textual historical/political
synchronisms, and in other areas of material culture (such as ceramics, statuary, etc.),
that Mesopotamian and Elamite correlations existed, to varying degrees, throughout
the period under study here.
It should be noted that there is somewhat of a contradiction in using cross-
referential and correlative data from the Mesopotamian stylistic paradigm as an aid in
the articulation of the Elamite styles, and then to use these styles so created to test the
theory of the extent and pattern of Mesopotamian-Elamite interaction. For this reason,
the Mesopotamian material used here was only so used in the most general of senses
to provide a broad pattern of development and not as a strict set of parameters that
were strongly adhered to. Furthermore, the Mesopotamian cross-referential material
was only used as one tool among others (outlined here), as a means of testing the

conclusions so drawn from this material. Finally, in any instance where the
Mesopotamian correlative data strongly contradicted evidence gleaned from other
methods, the value and worth of the Mesopotamian data was accordingly judged and
weighed as to its application. Through the use of the Mesopotamian correlative
material to construct Elamite styles, and thereby testing the pattern of such
correlations, the Elamite-Mesopotamian interactions may be addressed.
3.4 ‘Dated Seals’

The term ‘dated seals’ is used in this study to refer to a particular type of seal (or
sealing) that bears the name of an historically identifiable (and therefore ‘dated’)
individual. Previously, such seals have been described as ‘Royal’ or ‘Dynastic’ seals
(Collon 2005: 123), as generally it is the name of kingly personages on such seals that
enable a date to be proposed (due to the basic fact that for most, if not all the Elamite
and Mesopotamian history under discussion here, it is only royal personages, or
officials and office bearers associated with such kings, that are historically known).
However, in their most common form these seals are not, strictly speaking ‘royal’ in
the sense that they are the actual (personal or political) seal of the king, but rather they
are generally the seal of an official or other personage who describes himself as the
‘servant of the king’ (the standard from being “X, scribe, servant of King Y”) (Collon
2005: 123). Thus the term ‘dated seal’ rather than ‘Royal Seal’ is here adopted, to
emphasise this slight, though definite, definitional difference.
‘Dated seals’ and sealings can act as a dating mechanism; an anchor point for
the date of use of the style which is borne on the seal. It can be generally assumed that
the seal that bears the name of an individual, who can themselves be placed in a real
historical context, was created at some point during the lifetime of the so-named
individual. Through this it can be concluded that the style borne on the so dated seal
was in use during the lifetime of that individual, and thus a date for the use of a
particular style may be proposed (though importantly, not the end nor necessarily the
initial date of the style’s use). The usefulness of this dating mechanism, like the above
cited use of provenance and stratigraphy must be tempered by the real possibility that
even a ‘royal’ or dated seal could be re-cut or re-used, and any addition or alteration
to the inscription would thus effect the accuracy of the date proposed. Indeed
Steinkeller details, an admittedly Mesopotamian example, where the inscription on an
official’s seal was changed, so that the reference to Amar-Sin became Shu-Sin when

the latter ascended the throne of Ur (Steinkeller 1977: 46 – 48). Similarly, a ‘dated
seal’ in the Corpus (item 2723) bears an inscription that names Shu-Sin (or Ur), that
was later (partly) erased and a new design cut in a later style, the date given this style
by Shu-Sin’s inscription is therefore false (see Chapter 4 for details). Thus again, like
the previous example, one must by generally aware of this possible limitation to the
use of ‘dated seals’ in regard to re-cutting, and thus treat any outlandish or
extraordinary evidence so gleaned with an appropriate amount of scepticism.
Be that as it may, the ‘dated seals’ do provide a useful tool whereby the period
of use of a seal style can be anchored to a known historical event (the reign of a king),
and thereby move, albeit ever so slightly, away from the traditional scheme of relative
dating for seal styles into the realms of absolute chronology. It should be emphasised
that a ‘dated seal’ only provides evidence for the period of use for a particular style.
Neither the start nor finish date can be accurately hypothesised by such a seal. The
appearance of a seal in a given style with a royal, dated name may allow for the
assumption only that that particular style was in use at least by that date in the initial
sense, or at least up to and including that date in the final sense. To what extent and
for how long either side of the anchor point provided by the ‘dated seal’ a given style
was in use/production cannot be assessed through this mechanism; such conclusions
can only be hypothesised on the basis of the other dating/articulation tools described
here.
There are several other limitations to the use of ‘dated seals’ as dating
mechanisms. As well as the above outlined limited chronological application and
possibility of seal re-cutting, it should be noted that the very nature of these seals as
official, political devices (that is, by naming the king of the day the seal owner
presumably indicated some degree of loyalty to, and participation in, the political
structure headed by that king) means that these items can be considered part of the
official, sanctioned, public, visual arts, and not therefore necessarily indications of
popular or non-sanctioned movements. This is neither preferred nor bemoaned, but
the reality of this fact must be acknowledged, and the reconstruction of the style there
contained similarly defined.
The final limitation to the use of ‘dated seals’, and one that is especially
applicable to the current study, is the extent to which such items are useful in the
absence of a certain or concrete date for the named king (or other historical figure).
As has already been seen (Chapter 2.1), the accuracy of the order of succession and

absolute (indeed more often than not, also the relative) date of many Elamite kings
and dynasties is far from certain. The naming of a king in the absence of a certain
chronological timeframe for his reign can still provide a relative date however; that is,
such a seal can be said to have been in use during the mentioned king’s reign.
However, without an accurate understanding of when in time that king reigned, no
further, absolute dating for the style can be proposed.
It should be noted that the presence of a seal impression on a dated tablet
presents a related, though distinct piece of chronological information. A seal
impression in a given style impressed upon a dated text provides an indication of the
period of use of that seal, and not necessarily an indication of the period of its
manufacture. That is, according to the above outlined discussion regarding re-cut and
re-used seals, a seal created in a style current in one period, but no longer employed
by seal cutters in another, may still be in use as an actual seal in this second period,
and so impressed upon a tablet. The presence of such a seal on a dated tablet should
not therefore be taken as evidence that that style was still in production at the time of
impression, but only that the particular seal (and possibly, but not necessarily, others
like it) was still in use in that period. Such impressed seals are therefore a useful
dating mechanism, though the fact that this phenomenon provides a date for seal use,
and not seal manufacture should be noted. Besides which such dated tablets, bearing
seal impressions are relatively rare in the current Corpus and so this particular
mechanism was rarely used in the construction of the stylistic paradigms (any relevant
usage will be noted in the articulation of the styles however [Chapter 4]).
In the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, forty-six seals and sealings can be
classified as ‘dated’, that is, as stated above, seals that bear the name of a king or
other known historical figure. These ‘dated seals’ are presented in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
It is striking, and no doubt reflective of both the large Susian corpus, and the status of
this site, that the majority of the dated seals in the Corpus were provenanced from
Susa. Of the forty-six seals, five (four of Tepti-ahar and one of Inshushinak-shar-ilani)
were provenanced from Haft Tepe, and one (the possible ‘dated seal’ 2760, that may
be identified with the sukkal Tata, and then possibly only from an earlier stage in this
individual’s career) from Tepe Sharafabad. The presence of ‘dated seals’ at these
sites, in particular Haft Tepe, may also be reflective of their function and status during
the era indicated by the seals (that is the reigns of Tepti-ahar and Inshushinak-shar-
ilani, as discussed above).

Of the forty-six seals, two (2354 and 2431; the possible ‘dated seal’ of Tata
should also probably be considered with these potential items) are not strictly
speaking ‘dated seals’, but only potentially so. The first mentions a princess or
daughter of a king, the latter a governor of ‘Der’. The king associated with both of
these figures is unknown, though further identification of their kingly association
would allow these seals to be classified ‘dated’ senso stricto.
Seal Class. King/Official Mesopotamian Image

Correlation
2151 ARS Eshpum – Manishtushu
(4) Akkadian
period
official/
governor
2213 ARS Eshpum – Manishtushu

(10) Akkadian
period
official/
governor
2248 ARS Epirmupi – Naram-Sin

(10) Akkadian
period
official/
governor
2346 UTRS Tan-Ruhurater Shu-ilishu of

(2) – 8th King of Isin
Shimashki
2353 UTRS Attahushu – Gungunum of

(3) sukkal Larsa
Sumuabum of
Babylon

Correlation
*
2354 UTRS princess –
(3) Mamanisha
(strictly not a
‘dated seal’)
2359 UTRS Puzur- Ur-Nammu of

(3) Inshushinak – Ur
12th King of
Awan
2371 UTRS Queen Shu-ilishu of

(3) Mekubi – Isin
Tan-Ruhuratir
(8th King of
Shimashki)
2372 UTRS Ebarti I – 3rd Shulgi of Ur

(3) king of Amar-Sin of Ur
Shimashki Shu-Sin of Ur
Ebarti II – 9th –
king of
Shimashki,
first
sukkalmah (?)
(3) sukkal Larsa
2375 UTRS Kuk-Kirmash –

(3) – sukkalmah
2389 UTRS Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of

(4) King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi

Correlation
(4) King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi
2397 UTRS Kuk-Kirmash –

(4) – sukkalmah
2398 UTRS Pala-ishshan – –

(4) sukkalmah
2405 UTRS Tan-Uli – –

(4) sukkalmah
2418 UTRS Tan-Ruhurater Shu-ilishu of

(4) – 8th King of Isin
Shimashki

(4) sukkal Larsa
2420 UTRS Ebarti II – 9th –

(4) king of
Shimashki,
first
sukkalmah (?)

Correlation
2421 UTRS Ebarti I – 3rd Shulgi of Ur
(4) king of Amar-Sin of Ur
Shimashki Shu-Sin of Ur
king of
Shimashki,
first
sukkalmah (?)
*
2431 UTRS Iram-x – –
(4) governor of
Der (strictly
not a ‘dated
seal’)

(4) King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi

(4) King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi
(4) King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi
2454 UTRS Idaddu II – –
(5) 10th King of
Shimashi

Correlation
(5) King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi
2456 UTRS Imazu – son Ibbi-Sin of Ur;
(5) of Kindattu Ishbi-Erra of
(7th of Isin
Shimashki)
2461 PEU Epirmupi – Naram-Sin

(1) Akkadian
period
official/
governor
2605 PEU Pala-ishshan – –

(7) sukkalmah
#
2760 PEO Tata(?) – –
(7) sukkal
2867 EME Kidinu – 1st –

(5) Kidinuid
2912 EME Tepti-ahar – Kadashman-

(6) 4th Kidinuid Enlil
I/Kadashman-
Harbe I

Correlation
2934 EME Inshushinak- –
(6) shar-ilani – 5th
Kidinuid
2974 EME Kuk-Nashur II Ammisaduqa

(8) – sukkalmah of Babylon
Gungunum – of
Larsa
2975 EME Tetep-mada – –

(8) sister’s son of
Shilhaha
2977 EME Attahushu – Gungunum of

(8) sukkal Larsa
2978 EME Tan-Uli – –

(8) sukkalmah
2980 EME Kuk-Nashur I I – Gungunum

(8) of Larsa
Kuk-Nashur II Ammisaduqa
of Babylon
Kuk-Nashur –
III
2981 EME Kuk-Nashur I I – Gungunum
(8) of Larsa
Kuk-Nashur II Ammisaduqa
of Babylon
Kuk-Nashur –
III

Correlation
I/Kadashman-
Harbe I

I/Kadashman-
Harbe I

I/Kadashman-
Harbe I
3454 No Idaddu I – 7th Ishbi-Erra of

Im. King of Isin
Shimashki
Idaddu II – –
10th King of
Shimashi
Table 3.5. Elamite ‘Dated Seals’. See the Concordance and Catalogue for further details of
*
each seal/sealing, including a translation of the inscription. Seals marked with an asterix( )
#
indicate ‘potential’ dated seals. Seal marked with an hash( ) is the possible ‘dated seal’ of
Tata.
The three seals/sealings in Table 3.6 should also be noted as these ‘dated
seals’ are associated not with Elamite but Mesopotamian kings (Rim-Sin and two of
Shu-Sin). The presence of seals that can be associated with Mesopotamian kings at
Susa provide evidence that, in at least isolated instances, Mesopotamian seals/sealings
were present in Elam. This further justifies the use of the Mesopotamian styles as
correlative data outlined above, for their presence indicates that at least some
Mesopotamian seals were known at Susa, and presumably therefore known by the
seal carvers themselves. The fact that material inscribed with the names of

Mesopotamian kings was found at Susa also provides further evidence for the general
(not necessarily glyptic) Mesopotamian-Elamite patterns of interaction.
Seal Class. King/Official Image

2701 OBRS Rim-Sin of Larsa
(2)
2723 OBRS Shu-Sin of Ur

(3)
3465 No Image Shu-Sin of Ur
Table 3.6. ‘Dated Seals’ from the Elamite Corpus naming Mesopotamian kings.
A further two ‘dated seals’ are presented in Table 3.7. These seals are
unprovenanced, art market items, and thus have not been included in the Corpus
proper (according to the above outlined provenance criteria). They both, however,
bear inscriptions naming known Elamite kings, and so have been treated as a stylistic
dating mechanism along with the other ‘dated seals’ here included. Both these items
will be discussed in greater detail below in the relevant sections of Chapter 4.
As already mentioned, the absolute effectiveness of ‘dated seals’ is somewhat
reliant on the extent to which the individuals named on the seal can be said to be
themselves dated. In the current study, this generally means that it is only the kings
(and officials) for whom there is a known Mesopotamian synchronism, or one that can
be justifiably extended so that another king may be placed in time (thus through a
Mesopotamian-Elamite synchronism with a particular king, a son known to have
immediately succeeded his father can be so dated by extension of the Mesopotamian
synchronism), who are sufficiently well-dated so as to make their ‘dated seal’ useful.
The evidence for Mesopotamian synchronisms for the kings named in the Elamite

‘dated seals’ are presented in Table 3.5 (and Table 3.8), and as can be seen,
fortuitously many of these kings can be so dated.

Correlation
Lambert PEU Ebarti I – 3rd king Shulgi of Ur
1979: 42 (7) of Shimashki Amar-Sin of Ur
Shu-Sin of Ur
king of
Shimashki, first
sukkalmah (?)
Amiet EME Tan-Ruhuratir II –
1980b: 4.2 (6) – Kidinuid
Table 3.7. Unprovenanced ‘Elamite Dated Seals’.
It is also interesting to note that many of the Mesopotamian kings that provide
synchronisms for Elamite ‘dated seals’ kings, themselves possess ‘dated seals’, as
detailed in Table 3.8. This phenomenon provides evidence for classifying the absolute
contemporaneity of Elamite and Mesopotamian styles, and thus gives further support
for the use of Mesopotamian correlations in the construction of the Elamite styles, and
allows for a detailed discussion of the direction, extent and chronology of Elamite-
Mesopotamian glyptic influence and interaction, a point that will be returned to in
detail below (Chapter 7).
In conclusion, ‘dated seals’ provide a mechanism whereby the style of a seal,
inscribed with the name of a known historical figure may be dated. The name of a
king on a seal allows for the assumption (albeit with a degree of caution in regard to
the possibility of seal re-use/re-cutting) that seal carvers were producing items in the
style represented on the seal at least during the lifetime of the named individual. For
the purposes of this study, the ‘dated seals’ thus provide an anchor point (the
particular king’s reign), in which the date, and therefore the general development, of
the seal style can be tied. ‘Dated seals’ were thus employed as a mechanism to
confirm and ascribe dates to a particular style, and thus was one of the tools here
applied in the construction of the Elamite styles.

Mesopotamian Kings Elamite Kings
Akkadian Dynasty ‘Awan Dynasty’ and Contemporaries
Sargon* (3) Sanam-shimut
Hishep-ratep
Luh-ishan
Manishtushu* (1) Eshpum* (2)
Naram-Sin* (18) Epirmupi* (2)
Ur III Dynasty
Ur-Nammu* (2) Puzur-Inshushinak* (1)
‘Shimashki Dynasty’
Shulgi* (51) Girnamme
Ebarti (I)* (3+)
Amar-Sin* (9) Tazitta (I)
Ebarti (I)* (3+)
Shu-Sin* (27) Girnamme
Tazitta (I)
Ebarti (I)* (3+)
Ibbi-Sin* (24) Kindattu* (1)
Old Babylonian Dynasties
Ishbi-Erra* (Isin) (13) Kindattu* (1)
Idaddu (I)* (7+)
Shu-ilishu* (Isin) (6) Tan-Ruhurater* (2)
Shu-ilishu* (Isin) (6) Ebarti II* (3+)
Sukkalmah
Gungunum* (Larsa) (3) Kuk-Nashur I*(2+)
Atta-hushu*(4)
Sumuabum* (Babylon) (1) Idaddu-napir (Shimashki)
Atta-hushu* (4)
Shamshi-Adad* (Assyria) (7) Shituk-tuh
Hammurabi* (Babylon) (18) Siwe-pala-huppak
Kudu-zulush (I)
Zimri-Lim* (Mari) (3) Kudu-zulush (I)
Ammisaduqa* (Babylon) (15) Kuk-Nashur II*(1, 2+)
Kassite Dynasty Kidinuid Dynasty
Kadashman-Harbe I/Kadashman-Enlil I Tepti-ahar* (4)
Kurigalzu I* (14) Hurbatila
Igihalkid Dynasty
Igi-halki
Pahir-ishshan* (2)
Humban-numena
Burnaburiash II* (5) Untash-Napirisha
Table 3.8. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous kings with dated seals. Only those
synchronisms where either one (or both) king is associated with a dated seal are included in
this table (see Tables 2.30 for details of all the kingly synchronisms). Figures possessing a
dated seal are indicated by an asterix(*), and the number of known seals indicated in
parentheses.
3.5 Seriation and Art Historical Progression

The basic archaeological principles of typology assemblage (that a particular set or
type of artefacts created by a single society in a given period will adhere to general
principles of style and likeness) and seriation (that a serialised order or succession of

alteration in the appearance of the aforementioned artefacts occurs over time, and can
be traced through visual examination of these alterations) were employed in the
construction of the Elamite cylinder seal styles. Indeed, the very belief that such a
typology or style development can be created for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus
has incited and motivated this very study. It is unnecessary to detail here the known
principles of seriation and typology, however, some aspects of their application as
pertains to glyptic studies need be mentioned.
Firstly, a pertinent question in the construction of any sequence of change or
typology is of course, at what rate of change does the particular set of artefacts
‘evolve’. That is, for seriation and typology to be meaningful it must be known at
what point along the continuum of change any said design or type can be placed.
Generally, such rates can be discerned through external dating mechanisms. That is, a
particular type may be given a date through association with another dated artefact, a
subsequent type similarly dated, and through an assessment of the intervening period
between these two dates, a general outline of rate of change may be hypothesised. It
should be stressed that such hypotheses are only that, and are indeed generally
speculative, unless tied to an absolute date. In the current study, the use of the above
discussed ‘dated seals’ can tie a rate of change, and indeed a typology/seriation to
such absolute dates. It should be noted however, and as will become apparent below
(Chapter 4), these (‘dated’) seals present information for a particular sub-set of the
Corpus only, and as such, any information they provide (regarding rate of change etc.)
cannot be applied to the vast majority of the material under discussion here.
Stratigraphy can also provide an anchor for the relative rate of change and
indeed the period of use for a particular type/style. As we have already encountered
above however, in many cases the material in this study was excavated without
reference to, or provided understanding/details of, the relevant stratigraphic
information, so in many cases the use of this phenomenon as a source of information
is practically negligible. However, where present and functioning, stratigraphy has
been used in the present study in association with typology in the definition of style
type (for example in the construction and alteration of styles represented at the well
stratified Tal-i Malyan excavations, such as the CPE, PEA – PEU, and AS styles [see
below for details]). The above noted limitations of stratigraphic information for dating
seal styles due to re-cutting and re-use also should be noted as a hindrance to the

application of stratigraphic considerations in the construction of glyptic typologies
and seriation schemes generally.
The type of information presented by a seal for typological analysis must also
be addressed. The basic form (shape) of the cylinder seal changed little over the
millennia of its use (Collon 1997: 16 – 15; 2005: 100 – 104; contrasted with stamp
seals, where general shape [square, circular, figural] can be taken as a chronological
indicator [Collon 1997: 16 – 16; Kawami 2001]), and so this morphological part of
typological change and seriation was not generally of use in the construction of the
styles (as it may be, for example, in ceramic or tool assemblages). Alteration in
cylinder seal size (dimensions) does occur through time however (as will be
evidenced below [Chapter 4]), and so this information was used. However it should
be noted that for some of the seals here studied no dimensional information was
supplied by the original publishers and so such information could not be included
here, nor employed in the construction of the styles (this is, testified to be the absence
of some dimensional information in the Catalogue). Similarly, dimensional
information was often not provided for sealings (witness the entire Haft Tepe sealing
corpus, for which there is no supplied information on dimensions, already noted
above [Chapter 2]). Indeed, due to factors of fragmentary rolling, or sealings that are
not wholly preserved (that is, the original image of the seal has not been completely
reproduced or preserved on the sealing), assuming original seal size on the basis of
sealing dimensions (the dimensions, that is of the sealed area, not the whole artefact
referred to as a ‘sealing’) is fraught. Thus the change in seal dimension was an aspect
of typological alteration used as evidence for change, and definition, of styles, though
this data set was incomplete and at times fragmented, and so such information was
treated as a secondary criterion only.
Alteration in material type over time also provides a typological/seriation
criterion by which seal style can be identified and such styles constructed. While there
is often a strong tendency for seals of a particular type or style to have been cut in a
certain material (for example the Mesopotamian Old Babylonian style preponderance
for hematite seals [Collon 1986: 5], other examples will be provided for the current
Corpus below [Chapter 4]), the above outlined problems in the definition,
identification and recording of material type in glyptic literature places somewhat of a
caveat on the usefulness of this seal element in typological construction. Where seal
material type can be adequately discerned, and the accuracy of this designation

reasonably trusted, seal material is however a changing facet of seals that can be used
in style/type definition, and was so here.
Similarly, seal cutting style or method can be used in the identification and
definition of seal style/typology, though also as above, there is a limitation as to the
effectiveness of this element of seal morphology. As already outlined, without
adequate scientific microscopic and experimental reproduction studies (studies that
identify cutting techniques through microscopic examination and then attempt to
demonstrate the evidenced cutting method through reproduction experiments) as has
been demonstrated by Sax and her colleagues (Sax et al. 1998; Sax & Meeks 1994;
1995; Sax et al. 2000; as well as others, Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; 1981b;
1992; Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987), the macroscopic identification of cutting
style can be difficult, and at time faulty (as evidenced in the above ‘Wheelcut’ style
discussion). In the absence of such microscopic/reproductive studies here (none of the
glyptic material in the Corpus has been subjected to such analysis, the scientific
studies performed on the Louvre heulandite and ‘bitumen aggregate’ seals from Susa
detailed above were for material identification purposes only, not cutting methods),
the application of cutting style as a typological identification tool must therefore be
limited somewhat. A particular method may be macroscopically identified, and indeed
a trend discerned when a particular cutting style is so evidenced in numerous seals of
a particular type, and so used as criteria for typological and chronological likeness.
However, such identification need refrain from identifying the actual method used in
producing the visual results, unless when supported by scientific analysis. Thus in the
current study cutting style/type was used as a typological/seriation tool in the
construction of the Elamite cylinder seal styles (evidenced below), though nothing bar
the most general of identifications of these cutting methods were here proposed
(unless fully, scientifically, supported).
The final, but by no means lesser, method of typological analysis for cylinder
seals is that regarding the image the seal itself bears. The use of the image borne on a
cylinder seal as a typological tool is no less valid than the similar use of decorative
elements, glaze application and ware-type in a similar study of a ceramic assemblage.
However, due to the past abuse of such analyses (the limitations of the above outlined
‘art historical’ school of glyptic studies), there is some reluctance in modern
scholarship to accept and use such methods (for example Rothman 2007: 236 – 237;
where stylistic development studies are dismissed as “description of subject and

analysis of renderings … merely one more trait on the list of the requirements
necessary to be included on the honor role of “civilizations””). Due to the fact that the
elements produced on cylinder seals are images, and therefore visual art, the
technique of studying and analysing the designs on seals and their development may
be labelled ‘art history’, further alienating those who would call themselves
‘archaeologists’ or ‘anthropologists’. Essentially however, the debate is one of
semantics. Where the study of painted pottery decoration and ware-type, of the
frequency, shape, patterns, interactions and visual spacing of these patterns and
shapes there borne, to establish a functioning typological sequence for a ceramic
assemblage may be considered archaeological analysis and seriation; a similarly
formed and undertaken study of the material, cutting-technique, image type and its
internal coherency and alteration (even decline) through time of a seal assemblage
may be labelled ‘art history’. The techniques of both studies are however, essentially
motivated by the same desire to create a functioning development sequence and
thereby an understanding of the society that produced them (or a particular sub-set or
aspect of that society), and essentially carried out through similar methods, any
differences stemming from pure artefact type differences, just as a typological study
of stone tools from the Neolithic Levant will differ from that of a study of post-
contact Australian glass bottles.
This is not to advocate a return to the above outlined ‘art historical’ school, for
one indeed concurs with Rothman that discussions regarding the “Achievements of
the Uruk period” and the “Decline of the Jemdet Nasr” (thus Frankfort entitles his
chapters in Cylinder Seals (1939), cited by Rothman [2007: 236 – 237] as examples
of past glyptic study wrongs), or judgement of the seal subject matter as ‘good’ or
‘bad’ art, based upon current aesthetics, is of little value. What is indeed of more
pertinence is “how and why those images were used by particular individuals or the
organizations they represented” (Rothman 2007: 237), that is, the real archaeological
questions of use, function and the structure of the society that produced the items.
However, as has already been detailed, in order for such questions and problems to be
addressed, the material under discussion must be placed in time and space, or else
such discussions cannot be tested, proven or indeed supported. For the artefact type
reasons already outlined (such as the limitations of stratigraphic considerations both
in glyptic studies generally, and in the poorly excavated material under discussion
here specifically), image design type (and all is attendant factors, such as rendering

technique, internal spacing and patterning, subject matter, etc.) and its alteration
through time are important, useful, elements for the placement of these artefacts in
space and time (that is, the creation of functioning stylistic/typological paradigms, as
attempted here). Unlike in the Mesopotamian example cited above, where such a
paradigm has already been established and tested (incidentally, often through the
methods and techniques of ‘art historians’, among them no greater contributor than
Frankfort, albeit perhaps in language and degrees of judgment that may not adhere to
our modern scholarly sensibilities), the luxury of a previously developed typological
system is lacking for Elamite glyptic studies. Therefore, a return to the use of image
type analysis has been undertaken here (Chapters 4 and 5), so that eventually the
important problems and issues may be addressed (Chapter 6 and 7). Thus, as long as
one does not enter the realms of unnecessary, speculative interpretation and labelling
of figures depicted or subject matter identifications, nor judgements on the
‘achievements’ or greatness (or otherwise) of the manner of depiction as did indeed
characterise the ‘art historical’ school, and is justly rejected (Rothman 2007: 236 –
237), the use of the images depicted on seals as a tool in the study, and articulation, of
the development in a glyptic assemblage is a justifiable method of analysis, and is
employed here.
Thus, the method of depiction and rendering of an image, its internal
coherency, placement of design and actual subject matter and images depicted have
all been studied here as a means by which the typological progression of the Elamite
cylinder seal Corpus was identified, and thus articulated. A final proof as to the
adequacy of this study may be provided by the example of Rova’s analysis of the
Uruk/Jemdet Nasr (primarily Mesopotamian, but also inclusive of the relevant Susian,
though not the then unavailable Chogha Mish) material (Rova 1994). In an attempt to
distance herself from the judgment based ‘art historical’ approach, Rova’s study of
the material entailed a statistical analysis, where a particular design element or subject
matter was assigned a numerical value, as were other important elements of
classificatory information, such as province and type (that is, seal or sealing) and thus
subjected to computational investigation (Rova 1994). The results of this somewhat
artificial and mathematically complex analysis provided essentially the same pattern
of distribution of subject matter groups across glyptic type (seal or sealing) and
location, with no new information or evidence for any new phenomenon, than that
already known through more traditional, visual judgement based studies (as

undertaken here) (specifically that of Amiet, in the original 1961 version of GMA;
Rova 1994; Collon 1998: 733). This result thus confirms the efficacy of a visual,
stylistic based analysis, so completed here.
3.6 The ‘Tehran Sealings’

The relatively small group of sealings here entitled the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were the
only items in the current study to have received a new, physical examination by the
present author. As such, the technique of study for this material differed somewhat
from that undertaken for the majority of the pieces. For this reason it is necessary to
outline this group, and the methodology undertaken in their study.
The ‘Tehran Sealings’ study was undertaken by the author in October 2004 1 .
The ‘Tehran Sealings’ are a corpus of one hundred and fifty-two sealings curated in
the ‘Coins and Seals Department’ of the Iran National (Archaeological) Museum,
Tehran. The sealings were reportedly excavated during the ‘earliest’ French
excavations at Susa, generally believed to have been those led by de Morgan. The
group had been associated by the Tehran Museum staff in several trays with the serial
number 759 (٧٥٩; also marked on many of the sealings themselves). The significance
of this number is unknown, and though it is plainly assumed to be a serial number of
some sort, whether initially applied by the excavators at Susa or by the Museum
curators at some undetermined subsequent point is unclear. As well as the number
759, the sealings were kept in plastic bags marked in Persian (Arabic script) numerals
with the number 1896 (١٨٩٦). While it may be tempting to assume that this number
refers to the year in which the sealings were excavated, no excavations were actually
undertaken at Susa in this year, with the Dieulafoy excavations ceasing in 1888, and
those of de Morgan not begun until 1897 (Mousavi 1996: 7; Harper et al. 1992: 16),
making such an assumption false. Thus again, the significance of the number 1896 is
unclear, and whether it was (originally) applied by the excavators or the curators is
also unknown. As well as these, other individual serial numbers were associated with
each sealing (generally so marked on the actual sealing).
It was originally reported that the one hundred and fifty-two ‘Tehran Sealings’
were previously unpublished. However, following the initial study in Tehran (outlined
below), and the following further study, investigation and consultation of previous
1
Partial funding for this study was provided by a grant from the Carlyle Greenwell Bequest Fund, for
which the author is grateful.

publications (especially MDP 43; Amiet 1972), it became apparent that many of these
items had in fact been previously published amongst the glyptic material so treated by
Amiet (1972), and in one isolated example, Delaporte (1920; the significance of this
will be shortly returned to). While the fact of this previous publication had the effect
of ensuring the, until then only reported, Susa provenance of this material, it also
severely limited the usefulness of the ‘Tehran Sealing’ study. Thus sixty-five of the
one hundred and fifty-two ‘Tehran Sealings’ had previously been published, as
demonstrated by Table 3.9 (as also demonstrated, several separate ‘Tehran Sealings’
had been made by the same original seal, and so are only allocated a single entry in
the current Catalogue, hence the less then sixty-two [fifty-four] items listed in the
table).
Current Original Current Original Current Original

Number Publication Number Publication Number Publication
31 MDP 43: 615 586 MDP 43: 750 1813 MDP 43: 1020
44 MDP 43: 696 595 MDP 43: 714 1865 MDP 43: 1388
95 MDP 43: 679 639 MDP 43: 767 1869 MDP 43: 1392
141 MDP 43: 512 820 MDP 43: 978 1870 MDP 43: 1394
218 MDP 43: 526 828 MDP 43: 987 1883 MDP 43: 1414
221 MDP 43: 531 977* MDP 43: 922 (6) 1885 MDP 43: 1418
222 MDP 43: 532 984 MDP 43: 965 1890 MDP 43: 1427
236 MDP 43: 627 1010* CCO I: S.366 1951 MDP 43: 1368bis
242 MDP 43: 633 1102 MDP 43: 961 2676 MDP 43: 1788
278 MDP 43: 643 1103 MDP 43: 962 3025 MDP 43: 2085
279 MDP 43: 648 1122 MDP 43: 1049 3037 MDP 43: 2068
296 MDP 43: 634 1144 MDP 43: 1076 3088 MDP 43: 2089
297 MDP 43: 635 1145 MDP 43: 1313 3110 MDP 43: 2076
304 MDP 43: 644 (2) 1176 MDP 43: 1098 3113 MDP 43: 2079
326 MDP 43: 627 1697 MDP 43: 1446 3114 MDP 43: 2080
365 MDP 43: 624 1721 MDP 43: 1021 3482 MDP 43: 2049
368 MDP 43: 626bis 1732 MDP 43: 1411
414 MDP 43: 614 1737* MDP 43: 1429 (8)
Table 3.9. Survey of previously published ‘Tehran Sealings’ according to primary
publication and current number (Catalogue allocation). The figure in parentheses indicates
actual sealing items (as opposed to images) in the event where more than one ‘Tehran
Sealing’ bore an image created by a single seal.
Among the previously published ‘Tehran Sealings’, the items marked with an
asterix in Table 3.9 warrant special attention. Sealings 977 and 1737 were both
previously published by Amiet in MDP 43 (Amiet 1972). Amiet provides the
provenance indication Acropole sud (the southern part of the Acropole, see Figure 2.2
for details) for sealing 977 (Amiet 1972: 128) and Donjon for 1737 (Amiet 1972:
181). Of even more interest, Amiet also indicates that sealing 1737 was excavated in

1939 (Amiet 1972: 181). The provenance information of both sealings, and the
excavation evidence for 1737 would seem to indicate therefore that these pieces were
excavated during the de Mecquenem excavations at Susa, and by extension it may be
assumed that the entire ‘Tehran Sealings’ group was similarly excavated (and
therefore not excavated by de Morgan as previously believed).
Several factors may discount this assumption however. Firstly, the ‘Tehran
Sealing’ here allocated the number 1010 appears to have been previously published
by Delaporte (CCO I; Delaporte 1920: 49). This would seem to indicate that, like all
the material published in CCO I, this sealing was excavated by de Morgan prior to
1912 (see above for details). However, all the material so published by Delaporte are
curated in the Louvre, and as the ‘Tehran Sealing’ here under discussion is obviously
kept in Tehran, one can conclude that S.366 (the CCO I sealing) is not the same actual
sealing as that studied in Tehran. It is therefore assumed that the Louvre sealing S.366
is a separate actual artefact to that curated and studied in Tehran, both of which were
impressed with the same original seal (that is, they are duplicate sealings; all such
duplicate sealings were subsumed under one entry in the Catalogue, that is, the
Catalogue includes separate image types, as opposed to single sealings, thus the
Tehran and Louvre sealings discussed here are both allocated the number 1010). It is
therefore possible that the Tehran sealing impressed with the 1010 original seal may
have been excavated in the post-1913 excavations at Susa (that is, in the same
excavations as those Amiet notated for the sealings discussed above), and not those of
de Morgan. Admittedly, it seems incongruously coincident that two items impressed
by the same seal would be excavated by two quite separate excavations (as the
excavations of de Morgan were executed in quite separate areas of Susa than the
proceeding undertakings, see Figure 2.2 for details), though as it is not impossible,
and so cannot be discounted. A more likely scenario would be that both sealings (that
in Tehran and the Louvre) were excavated by de Morgan, and one sent to France as
per the Irano-French agreement of the time, and the other kept in Iran. If this
assumption were accepted, it would seem to confirm the original hypothesis that the
‘Tehran Sealings’, or a part thereof, were some of the non-Louvre curated material
excavated by de Morgan.
However, the pendulum must now swing back to the originally cited material
published by Amiet, for the information here provided places a caveat on this
conclusion. As is demonstrated by Table 3.9, others amongst the previously published

Tehran Sealings are duplicate sealings. This is also evidenced by the serial numbers
seen in the Tehran study when compared to those noted by Amiet, that accord in
every detail. This means that one can therefore assume that the exact same sealings
published by Amiet were studied by the author in Tehran, and not duplicate sealings,
as 1010. Some of the sealings with replicated serial numbers include 977 and 1737.
This would indicate therefore that the exact same sealings published by Amiet were
amongst those studied in the Tehran study, and that the provenance information
provided by Amiet for 977 and 1737 can be shown to apply to at least some of the
Tehran sealings, and thus these two images types (it should be noted that six duplicate
sealings in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ study bore the image 977 and eight sealings bore
1737, as evidenced by Table 3.9; this actually means that the provenance/excavation
information provided by Amiet can in fact be known for fourteen of the one hundred
and fifty-two actual ‘Tehran Sealings’).
Courtesy of this reconstruction, we are no closer to knowing the actual
constitution of the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group, when and by what means this group came
to be associated together (whether excavated concurrently or later associated for some
unknown motivation by museum staff). On the basis of the current evidence, it can be
said that at least one Tehran Sealing is duplicated in another sealing excavated by de
Morgan but curated in the Louvre, indicating that in all likelihood this sealing was
also excavated by de Morgan (though the possibility, however remote, that the
sealings were excavated in two different contexts, the Louvre example by de Morgan,
the Tehran example by another Susian excavator, cannot be absolutely discounted). It
is also known that a group of sealings previously published by Amiet were amongst
the ‘Tehran Sealing’ group (all others entries in Table 3.9 apart from 1010). This
would indicate that these items were excavated between 1913 – 1967, according to the
parameters of Amiet’s study, not withstanding the evidence cited above that other
items excavated before 1913 were included by Amiet, and the possibility that at least
some of these previously published items may also be considered ‘duplicate’ sealings.
On the basis of this evidence, it may be hypothesised that some of the ‘Tehran
Sealings’ group were excavated before 1913, and others during the 1913 – 1967
excavation period. Both suggestions are essentially speculative however, and cannot
be proven on the current evidence. Indeed, the only element that seems to approach
fact in this reconstruction is the suggestion that the ‘Tehran Sealing’ group does not in
fact represent a coherent, single, group, excavated from Susa as a whole, but rather it

seems more likely that they were assembled at some other undetermined point by the
curators at the Tehran Museum, for what purpose or by what reasoning is unknown.
Further complicating this picture is the fact that a further eighty-seven sealings
studied in Tehran were not previously published by Amiet or in any other discerned
work. If it is accepted that all the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were excavated in the 1913 –
1967 era, as evidenced by the ‘Tehran Sealings’ previously published by Amiet
(particularly 977 and 1737), then one need question why these sealings were not
published by Amiet also. This non-publication would rather support the hypothesis
that the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were excavated by de Morgan. For if they were excavated
in the 1913 – 1967 era one would expect that Amiet would have published this
material. A pre-1913 (that is de Morgan) era designation would fit this non-
publication better however, as it is believed that the material excavated by de Morgan
and housed in Tehran had not previously been subjected to a systematic study (these
are the Tehran counterparts of the Louvre items published by Delaporte [1920]). This
would indicate that two distinct groups are in fact present in the ‘Tehran Sealings’
whole. One group is comprised of the sealings previously published by Amiet, and
generally excavated in the 1913 – 1967 excavations at Susa. The second group
includes the unpublished ‘Tehran Sealings’ and the Tehran duplicate of the sealing
published by Delaporte (1010); it is hypothesised this group was excavated by de
Morgan at Susa (and therefore before 1913). This reconstruction confirms the above
assertion that the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group does not form a single coherent group
excavated together, but rather the group was enjoined at some later point by Tehran
Museum staff, for an unknown reason.
Of the eighty-seven remaining, previously unpublished, ‘Tehran Sealings’,
twenty-four sealings were made by stamp seals and so have not been included here
but are reserved for a latter study. This leaves sixty-three sealings in the ‘Tehran
Sealings’ group that have not been published before but are included in the Corpus, as
demonstrated by Table 3.10. The study of these sealings (and indeed all the ‘Tehran
Sealings’, including the previously published material) included standard physical
examination, measuring, drawing, notation, comment collection and photography.
From this point the ‘Tehran Sealings’ were essentially at the same level in terms of
available information as the majority of the material sourced from previous
publications and included in this study (indeed, in some instances more information,
such as dimensions, were now known), and thus were treated accordingly. Due to the

above outlined problems of ‘Tehran Sealing’ constitution however, any information
regarding the provenance and excavation of the ‘Tehran Sealings’ is, unknown
(though admittedly, this is a similar situation to much of the Susa material, detailed
above). The photography undertaken in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ study also provided
photographs for several items for which previously only a line drawing has been
available. Such items are indicated in the Catalogue concordance.
Current Number Style Current Number Style Current Number Style

35 STS (2) 505 STS (22) 1677 AGD (15)
48 STS (3) 506 STS (22) 1900 STF (3)
49 STS (3) 507 STS (22) 2086 SF (7)
160 STS (7) 508 STS (22) 2382 UTRS (3)
245 STS (11) 509 STS (22) 2383 UTRS (3)
246 STS (11) 510 STS (22) 3117 LME (5)
316 STS (14) 547 JNRS (1) 3530 unclass.
348 STS (15) 548 JNRS (1) 3531 unclass.
393 STS (16) 549 JNRS (1) 3532 unclass.
493 STS (22) 719 JNRS (5) 3533 unclass.
494 STS (22) 943 CPE (3) 3534 unclass.
495 STS (22) 944 CPE (3) 3535 unclass.
496 STS (22) 1007 CPR (6) 3536 unclass.
497 STS (22) 1008 CPR (6) 3537 unclass.
498 STS (22) 1308 GS (5) 3538 unclass.
499 STS (22) 1406 AGD (1) 3539 unclass.
500 STS (22) 1443 AGD (5) 3540 unclass.
501 STS (22) 1506 AGD (9) 3541 unclass.
502 STS (22) 1507 AGD (9) 3542 unclass.
503 STS (22) 1572# AGD (13) 3543 unclass.
504 STS (22) 1676 AGD (15)
Table 3.10. Survey of ‘Tehran Sealings’ previously unpublished and included in the
Corpus, indicating current stylistic designation. Sealing 1572 marked by a hash(#) was
represented on two (duplicate) sealings in the ‘Tehran Sealings’ group.
3.7 Summation
Two major characteristics of the material under discussion here have led to the
adoption of a variety of different methods and techniques in the articulation of the
styles here presented, as has just been outlined. The first such characteristic is the
nature of glyptic material generally. Thus, due to inherent limitations of glyptic
material outlined above (such as the risk of using seals as dating tools due to their
‘heirloom’ quality, and the re-use and re-cutting phenomena), provenance and
stratigraphic information, and indeed seriation analysis, that would normally be
applied in the construction of archaeological typologies, must be tempered somewhat.
It therefore seemed prudent to apply several different methods and techniques of

analysis simultaneously, so that each method could act as an internal test one for
another.
The other characteristic that led to a variety of methods being adopted is
specific to the Elamite Corpus. The variety of the material here included in the
Corpus, and particularly the variation in the quality of both the excavation and
presentation of this material has required that changing/interchanging methods of
study were required for different items of information. Similarly, the effectiveness, or
extent to which a particular technique could be applied and trusted also varied across
the Corpus. For example, the modern, thorough, detailed excavation and publication
of the (available) Tal-i Malyan material and the thorough excavation of the
Sharafabad material (if not the somewhat non-glyptic oriented, non-analytical
presentation of this material) meant that provenance and stratigraphic information
could be used in seriation studies and in the articulation of the styles here presented
(with the appropriate limitations in regards to stratigraphic use in glyptic studies). In
contrast, the general lack of even the most basic provenance, let alone any relevant
stratigraphic, information for the majority of the Susa material meant that such
considerations for the Susa corpus were negligible. However, the fact that ‘dated
seals’ are not unheard of in the Susa corpus, with the addition of the guidelines
provided by Amiet’s previous analysis, useable pieces of information were available
for the Susa corpus. In contrast, the well dated material from Choga Zanbil contained
no ‘dated seals’ by which one could anchor particular styles to absolute dates, nor was
(except in the exceptional circumstance of the KRS styles) Porada’s original
classifications as effective a guideline as Amiet’s.
This picture of variation in the published sources was therefore reflected in the
approach adopted in this study. The technique was altered, with different methods
assuming different levels of importance and use for different items. This is simply due
to the fact that to place, for instance, provenance and stratigraphy as the primary
method for all items would be absolute folly in the instances where no such
information is available. Similarly the use of ‘dated seals’, or Mesopotamian-cross
referential material (in the absence of any correlations this technique is obviously of
no use), in corpora where no such items or information is available would be useless.
Thus one may speak of primary, secondary, tertiary and so on down the line,
techniques employed here for the construction of the Elamite styles. However, which

technique was primary, which secondary, was dependent on the individual item and
the information available.
The aim of this study was to produce a workable, functioning, tested stylistic
developmental paradigm for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus. Essentially, the tested
part of this aim was achieved with the internal coherency test applied by the variation
of techniques. Thus, through the application of the different methods of analysis, any
obvious contradictions between the conclusions so achieved were analysed and
judged, with the most internally coherent option favoured. Thus, it is hoped, the
limitations of each method were lessened and compensated by the application of
several different levels of analysis, providing a thorough, tested, examination.

01kj Roach 2008 Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01kj Roach 2008 Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Elamite Cylinder

Seal Corpus, c.3500

Doctor of Philosophy, (Near Eastern) Archaeology

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I i

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I v

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I viii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ix

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I x

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xviii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xix

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xx

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxvi

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 1

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 2

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 3

The single 2 exception to this is Pittman’s analysis of the ‘Proto-Elamite’

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 4

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 5

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 6

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 7

1.1.1 Seals and Sealings

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 8

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 9

1.1.2 The Function of Cylinder Seals

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 10

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 11

1.1.2.2 Amuletic Function

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 12

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 13

1.1.2.3 Votive Function

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 14

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 15

1.1.2.4 Funerary Function

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 16

1.1.3 Material of Seals

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 17

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 18

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 19

1.1.3.1 Bitumen-based materials

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 20

bitume [bitumen] Susa: Delaporte 1920; Mecquenem

Connan and Deschesne attempted to resolve this problem by undertaking a

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 21

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 22

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 23