Dokumen - Tips - Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1969 Second Preliminary Report

British Institute of Persian Studies
Excavations at Haftavān Tepe 1969: Second Preliminary Report

Author(s): Charles Burney
Source: Iran, Vol. 10 (1972), pp. 127-142
Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300469 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 14:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EXCAVATIONS AT HAFTAVAN TEPE 1969:
Second Preliminary Report
By Charles Burney
The background to the excavations at Haftavan Tepe, situated near the town of Shahpur in the
province of Western Azerbaijan, and the relation of this site to others, excavated or known from field
surveys, in the Urmia region and beyond was briefly summarized at the beginning of the first pre-
liminary report, and therefore need not be repeated here.x
The second season was conducted during the summer of 1969, excavations proper beginning on
July 13th and the camp being closed on September I8th. As before, the excavations were sponsored
by the University of Manchester. They were generously supported by the Calouste Gulbenkian
Foundation, the Russell Trust, the University of Manchester, the British Academy, the Ashmolean
Museum, the British Museum and the Munro Trust.
Many thanks are due to the Archaeological Service of Iran, especially to Mr. Pourmand, the
Director-General, and to Mr. Khorramabadi, the Deputy Director. Mr. Asker Mirfatah was appointed
as official representative to serve with the expedition, and performed his duties with zeal and good
humour. Much help was also received from the education department in Shdhpur, through whose
good offices we were once again allowed the use of the village school at Haftavan, with its ample
accommodation and delightful compound.
There was a staff of fourteen, of whom six had taken part in the 1968 season, comprising: Charles
Burney (director) and Brigit Burney (photographer and also in charge of the health of the expedition
and of its labour force); Malcolm Stephenson (architect-surveyor); George Learmonth (conserva-
tionist); Miss Gail Durbin (housekeeper and archaeological assistant); Mrs. Helga Schippmann
(archaeological assistant); Messrs. Peter Burney, John Curtis, Robert Garland, Nigel Nicholson,
Duncan Noble, Klaus Schippmann, Nicholas Sims-Williams and Stuart Swiny (site supervisors). Mr.
Noble also had the responsibility of arranging for the cleaning and recording of pottery; and he
carried out a preliminary classification. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Mr. David Stronach
for his unfailing help in Tehran. We were delighted to have a visit by him and his family in August
1969. His services to archaeological expeditions in Iran can never be over-estimated.
The site of Haftavdn Tepe is a mound of formidable size and height, as the site plan (Fig. i) demon-
strates. This plan shows the mound as it must have appeared as recently as fifty years ago, before the
commercially motivated excavations were carried out across the top of the citadel and at the foot of
its south side. The site has been terribly scarred since then, both by those trenches and by very recent
diggings by villagers evidently quarrying for soil to fertilize their fields. If this mound, one of the
largest near Lake Reza'iyeh, had been left without investigation by properly conducted excavations,
by 198o little would have survived beyond the remnants of a honeycombed landscape. Even by 1968
very extensive damage had been done, especially on the south and west sides. Only the steep north
slope and the wide lower shelf on the east, extending towards the spring, remained almost unscathed.
This large mound-at least 550 m. from east to west and up to 400 m. from north to south, with a
maximum height of about 25 m. above virgin soil-would present by its very area of some fifty acres a
considerable challenge. The extent of recent destruction aggravated the task of choosing where best
to lay out the areas for excavation. In addition, the powdery consistency of much of the mound,
particularly the citadel, has resulted in extensive erosion and washing down of deep layers of silt,
especially evident on the west side. So soft are many layers that the sides of the trenches became
1 C. A. Burney, Iran VIII (1970), pp. 157-64.
127

0 0 ) 1 14 1 li 1 15 2 21 2 2 213
0 13 17 19 242
- -
-'" -- --------'--
• I---'- •-
",oooo o "0
,0o? , ,
,
F
. . . . .-- :-
/
----'t,
t t .
i1/'•I.
1 6 1 11 1 3 1 3 1 18 1 2 2 2
7 9 1 15 1 20 21 22
-14*
9,1,011 12131415161 1819202122 2322 2

aboutfiftyyearsago, beforerecentdamage: contoursat half-metreinte
Fig. I. The moundof HaftavanTepeas it probablyappeared

EXCAVATIONS AT HAFTAVAN TEPE, 1969 129
undercut by weathering within the space of a few weeks, although the earlier levels are on the whole
more compact.
The scale, destruction and erosion of the mound have thus largely dictated the strategy of the
excavations, once the primary objectives had been decided upon. In the 1969 season work was carried
out in four parts of the mound. The addition of only three new letters (Q, R, S) to the list of areas
opened in the first season itself indicates that extension of and continuing in the earlier areas was the
keynote of the general plan of the second season (Fig. 2). Lack of resources to some degree prevented
the achievement of all that it had been hoped to accomplish; for example, the sounding at the east
end of the site (JX) could not be carried right down to virgin soil, one of the tasks awaiting the third
season's work, due to be carried out in the summer of 1971. The discovery in the first season of the
large stone building on the west sides led to the decision to open up an extension (P2) to Area P, with a
further northward extension (Q), in the hope of finding similarly impressive structures of the same level.
But here the sheer depth of deposit was daunting and the results to date are disappointing, though
further work may bring the desired outcome. Some compensation was gained by the uncovering of
interesting burials in PI and P2 (see below). The main effort was concentrated on the citadel, where
several new areas were opened up as extensions of the 1968 excavations, eventually being amalgamated
(Fig. 2): whatever the theoretical advantages of maintaining baulks as stratigraphic checks from one
season to the next, the rate of erosion and the number of soft-filled pits made this here both pointless
and impracticable. At the foot of the north-east side of the citadel, where a recent cut had been made
into the slope by villagers, a new trench (RI) was opened, soon being extended (R2) to give a total
area of 10 X 20 m. Within the Area J (20o X 20 m.) at the east end of the site a smaller sondage JX
(I o Iom.) was made. An extension west-north-west from J was made in an area of I o I o m. (SI)
during the later part of the season.
In RI and R2 was found, not far below the existing surface, a well-preserved building level with
walls radiating at the lower end of the area as if round the end of the mound as it then existed, c.
2000-1800oo B.C. (Pl. Ia). These walls are massive in thickness, well constructed
in mud brick, and thus
contrasting with the method of setting stones in mud which distinguishes the main level in E, which
survives to this day in the surrounding villages and which presents so many problems to the excavator.
The period of the settlement so tantalizingly revealed in RI-R2 must surely have been one of well-
established urban life, its position on the I17m. contour suggesting a long history of settled occupation,
extensive yet soon to be surpassed in the great expansion of the town during the second millennium
B.C., in which the whole wide lower area or skirt of the mound, especially on the east, most probably
originated.
Four phases were distinguished in RI-R2, the latest being represented by stone walls at the lower
(north-east) end, clearly stratified as being cut down into the earlier levels, or terraced against them,
and thus later. Of the three earlier phases the second was the most important, only relatively frag-
mentary remains of the succeeding phase of secondary occupation being found.
Among characteristic features of the pottery are Nakhichevan lugs, both hemispherical and pierced
and of the small vestigial variety; finger-depressions, a form of ornament known widely in the Early
Trans-Caucasian cultural zone in the third millennium B.C. ;3 and black ware with graphite burnish,
probably intended to imitate silver and typical of certain Early Trans-Caucasian III sites (from c. 21oo
B.C.), including sites and cemeteries in Georgia and also Yanik Tepe, near Tabrlz.4 Occurrences of
polychrome painted pottery, including light and dark brown on buff; may well suggest a date after
c. 2000 B.C. for this level.
The dating of this level in RI-R2 seems clearly indicated within limits of c. 2000-I8OO B.C., the
higher date being the more likely, by the pottery and by a polished stone axe or hammer-axe, with
parallels at Shengavit and elsewhere in Trans-Caucasia (Pl. Ic-d).6 There can be no doubt of the
2 Ibid., pl. IIb-d and fig. 6. pottery, Charles Burney and David Lang, Peoples of the Hills:
3 E.g. in the group of pottery from Ernis, on Lake Van, Burney, AncientArarat and Caucasus(London x971), pp. 66-7.
AS VIII (1958), pp. I82-5; and at Yanik Tepe. 5 S. A. Sardarian, Primitive Society in Armenia (Erevan 1967),
4 For this and other features of Early Trans-Caucasian III p. 345, fig. XLVIII and pl. 47.

21S1
I
V• I / - ---
I• ---' - ---- --
,----------- .- -+ .--_ .- . - -
--2, ,/2
.~2
Fig. 2. Siteplan, showingtrenches:contoursat half-metreintervals.

MSL.APPS FACE[VLaL 2]
M1Y.P'W
4Wi.Ot%
SIt
SaowTeXc
t Z11a Mt-D
B4oZf .TV.
5
3
MN.ED'$EU.-OWi6U B1R4IL 6k . 1WE Ui1tN
A5RA
e P3 V.LELLOWISH R 6G.
MI•T% -s
--K' E5
PES
wi* Some. s]au asa
$ay
'RIsbWFILLOfFIT .
Vs/4.
, ..
BR-ICK DESP4
OE•ZlUCIO
oaMcmt-4P flM Ezs.

%1T 7 E~f A"&(745 SURFA5.
D645.
xf VT
Aug Fr
MIwV.AsH .1MM"
WNT SUKFA46
FitOFT MIWAFTAVAN
PI
-
om .bw TEP5
oT4 &*"o sA.St. Cimgsf Aswt FIu OFPM.
.Wu **"-L
LC ww we
RLfL'OIN
4FRLEO
fPIT.x %Tx7
WSP#
NOR
s
U17 VEv-.L.WARp
x5A EASFig. 3. Sectionof northside of X.
E1 0ME. U%
0 2 3A 4. AFTAVAN
Fig- 3. Section of north side of JX.

132 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES
general contemporaneity of the pottery with that from the second Early Bronze Age period at Yanik
Tepe and of its consequent attribution to the period which the writer now terms Early Trans-Caucasian
III, the Early Trans-Caucasian I period not being represented at Yanik Tepe.6
The sondage in JX was largely intended to yield a sequence of pottery, to help to fill a void in
knowledge of the Urmia region hitherto illuminated only by the material from Dinkha Tepe.7
The first task was to complete the exposure of JX3, a level partially revealed in the I968 season.
Then the fill of the very large pit (JX3A) had to be removed before the excavations of the surrounding
levels could begin. This pit had been given a terminusante quemby the presence overlying its fill of J I,
Grave 7, the one burial so far found at Haftavan Tepe which can definitely be attributed to the Iron I
period (c. 1350-1000 B.C.), best known from IHasanlfi V.8 The writer is inclined to place this burial on
present evidence late in this period, towards c. 1000 B.c., although of course this dating may have to
be revised.
The section (Fig. 3) of the north side of JX, begun from the surface of Level 2, reveals a succession
of building levels, some with little occupation deposit and mostly bricky fill characteristic of destruction
debris (JX7), others with occupation layers overlaid by bricky destruction debris (JX6). Courtyard
layers are suggested by part of JX5, with alternating clay surfaces and ashy bands. The bricky debris
forming most of the fill ofJX4 and JX3 suggests buildings of some size in the vicinity. Pits provide their
5-74
+5.25
HEART
.• 00
b
•.,.HEARTH%
.025
LEVEL
3APIT LEVEL
4 FLOOR
• HAFTAVAN
TEPE
1969
AREA 3A&I
kx-LEVELS
Fig. 4. Plan of JX, Level4.
6 Peoplesof theHills, chapter III. For a discussion of fascicle 66 (1968), pp. 20-3; (b) "Dinkha
terminology, Tepe ", Iran V
p. 44. (1967), pp. 136-7.
SR. H. Dyson, (a) " The Archaeological Evidence of the 8 Iran VIII, pl. IIIc and fig. 8 (1).
Second Millennium B.C. on the Persian Plateau ", CAH I-II,

EXCAVATIONS AT HAFTAVXN TEPE, 1969 133
usual disturbances of stratigraphy. The general impression is one of relatively peaceful development:
there is no indication of any violent burning.
As the plan (Fig. 4) shows, structural remains in JX4, hearths and scattered remnants of stone
foundations, suggest a courtyard: there is no proof of any well-constructed buildings in this level,
element
though this is probably fortuitous. In a sondage of this limited area there is .inevitably.an of.-1
luck in the uncovering of buildings with a significant plan or merely of open areas. A short section of
wall in the south-east corner ofJX is sufficient to show that JX5 must be reckoned a significant building
level. Better fortune met our efforts in Levels JX6 and JX7 (Figs. 5-6), in both of which more of a
plan of mud brick houses was distinguishable. In JX6 the buildings had walls up to 8o cm. thick,
6 FLOORS
LEVEL
BRICK/PISE
MUD WALLS
LEVEL
6 FLOOR
TEPE1969
HAFTAVAN
Jx
AREA 6
LEVEL
3 2 1 0o5 0
though mostly slightly thinner; stones were used for foundations. Most impressive of all the plans
uncovered was that of JX7, the first level unaffected by the deep Iron I pit (JX3A). Damp patches in
the soil suggested that here the sondage had reached a point not many metres above the water table.
This is a period demanding further investigation.
The development of painted pottery can be traced back to JX7, the best preserved example being
the tumbler (P1. IId) from JX6, which is of fairly fine light brown ware with red wash inside and out
and decorated in black paint. This shape of pot, presumably for drinking and thus termed a tumbler,
is most readily distinguished by its sharp carinationjust above the flat or slightly convex base; and it is
a characteristic type of this period.9 At least up to JX4 there was a continuous evolution of painted
wares; but their variety must not lead to an over-emphasis of their importance in relation to the
T. Burton-Brown, Excavations in Azerbaijan g948 (London the base. But there is no example of the tumblers found in JX
1951), fig. 22 (no. 1o52), for a bowl with carination just above at Haftavin Tepe.
12A

preponderant plain wares (P1.IIc). Naturally their significance lies largely in the evidence which they
provide of external relations. Bowls with a lozenge-patterned painted zone along the shoulder are
paralleled at the nearest contemporary excavated site, some seventy miles south of Haftavan Tepe,
Geoy Tepe near Rezd'iyeh, especially in Period D.10 The origins of this painted pottery appear to lie
in and around the Urmia basin rather than further afield, with a movement north into the Araxes
valley. No suggestion of a direct link with the Ali?ar III (Cappadocian) painted pottery of central
Anatolia seems tenable, although the tin trade through Assur doubtless may have brought some
contact between the two regions."
-3-46
LEVEL 7 FLOORS
HAFTAVAN
TEPE1969
Jx
AREA 7
LEVEL
3 2 1 &5 0
Two burials uncovered in PI are of intrinsic interest and of additional significance in that they
supplement the data gathered from a number of graves excavated in the 1968 season, especially N I,
Grave 5,12with its long bronze chain and bronze diadem or circlet. The section (Fig. 7) of the west
side of PI shows the position of PI, Grave 3, which was cut down from the surface of Level I in that
area, and which moreover is stratigraphicallyrelated to N i, Grave 5. The appearance of pottery found
with two of these burials (Ni, Grave 5 and PI, Grave 5) and the probable parallel for the bronze chains
in those attached to the bronze lion pins from IHasanlh3 both seem to indicate a date contemporary
with the Hasanlil IV period (c. Iooo-800ooB.C.) for these burial groups, which can thus be classed as
Iron II. The evidence from J suggests a ninth- rather than a tenth-century B.c. dating; but in a con-
servative area an early eighth century B.C.date can scarcely be ruled out.
10 Ibid., fig. 19, fig. 20o (no. 56), fig. 21 (no. 58), etc.
13
R. H. Dyson, " Protohistoric Iran as seen from Hasanlfi ",
11 R. H. Dyson, CAH I-II, fascicle 66, p. z7. JNES XXIV (1965), pl. XXXVII.
12 Iran VIII, pl. IVa-b; fig. 7.

The richest burials found in the 1969 season were PI, Graves 3 and 5, both of young girls aged
about seven or eight. In PI, Grave 3 (Fig. 8 and Pls. IIIa-IVb) the body had been laid in the usual
contracted position, on the left side, the hands resting on the knees. A stone slab lay close to the back
of the head. This girl was lavishly decked with jewellery: the plain bronze band on her head was the
centrepiece of a splendid headdress, comprising large and small bronze discs, some with a loop on the
inner side for attachment by sewing, the thread and woven cloth having survived in very small frag-
ments (P1.IVa). Seven strings of beads of brown, green and yellow glass and frit as well as carnelian
LINEOF C..ARlEAoSroZ $WSuFAE OF MouhD
4- F
PoW-R1.-0 s- l/
D--
.P1/iSP/
e
_ - eosl .
,w L1/i. . -
..- .
BIZJITL47-. F" ,
WMn, pt'
pt mMEDOZ?FT
CAT m IOM=ZD&
BR.ICKNf.
Pl1/5 Pl/56 PP 51/
"AFTAVAN
S1 TEPE 1969
, WEST SECTION
SAREA. P1
Fig. 7. Section of west side of PI.
beads and mollusc shells were probably attached to some form of woven skull cap, to which also the
bronze head band would have been attached. She wore the S-shaped bronze earrings found with many
burials of this general period in different parts of the site. Two simple bronze pins presumably held her
garments together. On her left wrist she wore one bronze bracelet, with three such on her right wrist.
Her hands were clasped together, with a bronze ring on each middle finger. On each ankle was a
heavy bronze anklet, surely too massive to have been worn in her lifetime, and therefore probably
pressed on after death. Beneath her head, and so certainly associated with this burial, was unearthed a
cylinder-seal (P1.IVb) of frit; its possibly Mitannian style must make it several centuries older than the
level in which it was found.4
14
Briggs Buchanan, Catalogueof Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the pare very closely with the seal from Haftavdn Tepe, though
AshmoleanMuseumI: CylinderSeals (Oxford 1966), pp. z179-85 some comparison may be permitted with nos. 9g9igand 941-2
for seals of the Mitannian style. There are none which com- (pls. 57-8).

PI, Grave 5 was largely similar to Grave 3, though there were significant differences (Fig. 9 and
Pls. IVc-Va). One was the presence of pottery, two handled bowls at the feet and ajar beside the face.
There were also the remains of a small sheep, a food offering placed beside the two bowls. This provides
further evidence for the dating of these burials to the ninth century B.c., for a similar offering was found
with JI, Grave 3 in the 1968 season, that burial being accompanied by a bridge-spoutedjug of drab red
ware, unmistakably of Hasanhli IV type.15 There were similarities to the jewellery of PI, Grave 3,
with the headgear of the same pattern, a bronze head band and a headdress formed of small bronze
discs, here found arranged in three triangles beneath the skull, a pattern originally in all probability
repeated to cover the whole of the now vanished skull cap. There were also large bronze discs and a
variety of beads. Six bronze tassels, of the type found with many burials in different areas of the site,
also formed part of the headdress: parallels for these are not easy to find.1e The girl's garments were
PI Burial 3 head-band
7strings of beac
")',and small discs
2 earrings
discs of 2 pins
.head-dress
bracelets
2 finger rings
anklets
scale $- cm
5 10 15
Fig. 8. PI, Grave 3: the burial in situ.
fastened with three bronze pins. She wore at least four necklaces of carnelian and blue frit beads and
two of white beads, one also including some mollusc shells. On each wrist was a coiled bracelet of iron;
she wore also a pair of heavy bronze anklets. She had only one finger-ring and no earrings. The brace-
lets illustrate the use of iron in this period, when it was still largely confined to decorative purposes.
Other burials in PI-P2 were accompanied by largely comparable beads and metal jewellery,
though not all in the same level. With PI, Grave 2 were some carnelian and iron beads and a bronze
stud. In P2, Grave 3 the skeleton wore two iron and two bronze bracelets and a necklace of iron, glass,
carnelian and frit beads. The necklace in P2, Grave 4 comprised beads of bronze made from a flat
sheet and others of iron and glass; and there was a bronze stud like the one from PI, Grave 2. P2,
Graves 5 and 6 each contained a pair of bronze S-shaped earrings, while the latter included a hitherto
unique string of carnelian beads with silver spacers and a pair of bronze dress pins with rolled head
(P1. Vb).
1s Iran VIII, fig. 8 (2). Occidentale(London 1948), fig. 217 (19, 20o) and fig. 2x9 (18)
1 C. F. A. Schaeffer, StratigraphieComparieet Chronologiede l'Asie for possible parallels.

Pl. Ia. TrenchRI-R2, generalview lookingnorth-east. P1. Ib. TrenchRI-R2: fragmentof clay
Pl. Ic. TrenchRI-R2: polishedstone axe or hammer-axe,7.5 cm long: width along Pl. Id. TrenchRI-R2: potteryjar andbowlof Early Tra
blade, 7 cm.; widthacrossshaft-hole,4 -6 cm.
4"

Pl. Ha. JX: the beginningof theseason'sexcavations,lookingsouth-east.
Pl. Hlb. JX: Level7 wal
P1. IIc. JX: paintedpotteryof variousstyles. Pl. Id. JX: paintedtum

diameterof rim,9- I cm

P1. IIIa. PI, Burial 3, as found. P1. IIIa. PI, Burial 3: grave goods after clea

Pl. IVa. PI, Burial 3: bronzediscsfrom theheaddress,withtracesof wovenclothstill Pl. IVb. Cylinder-seal bepeathPi, Burial 3, w
found immediately
adhering: diameter, 2 15 cm. diameter, o -85 cm.
Pl. IVc. PI, Burial5, asfound. Pl. IVd. PI, Burial 5: detailof headdress
beneaththesk

Pl. Va. PI, Burial5: gravegoodsaftercleaning. Pl. Vb. P2, Burial 6: gravegoodsaftercle
Pl. Vc. The Urartiancitadel: viewfromthelargebuilding(4) with thecornerroom(2) (rightrear) Pl. Vd. The Urartian citadel: the perimeterwall, wit
and the open court (12) (left rear). background.

Pl. VIa. Generalview of the Urartiancitadel,lookingnorth.
Pl. VIb. The Urartiancitadel: thecolumn-bases,

lookingeast.

Pl. VIIb. A pottery " salad bowl "from the Urartian citadel.
P1. VIIa. Two typicalUrartianbowlsof redpolishedwarefrom

thecitadel.
Pl. VIIc. The Urartian citadel: view looking south from the kitchen (5) in the foreground Pl. VIld. The Urartian citadel: the columnedhall, looking west.
to the area of the columnedhall.

P1. VIlla. Bronzering with carnelianandglass beads,from thecitadel:
diameter,2 8 cm.
Pl. VIIIb. A groupof ironarrowheads

fro
Pl. VIIIc. Part of the earlySasanianperimeterwall with a semi-circular bastion: view lookingeast, with Pl. VIIId. Fragmentary
bronzetassels,stu
part of the Urartianlevel (centreright).

The main effort of the 1969 season was devoted to excavations on the highest part of the site, the
citadel. The great trench cut across it some forty years ago left the larger undamaged area to the
north, the general contours of the summit giving it the semblance of a saucer, with the highest part
along the rim and sloping down towards the centre. The principal aim was to uncover as wide an
area as possible of the major building level found in the 1968 season.17 The attainment of this objective
was hampered by problems of the disposal of soil but much more by the complex character of the later
deposits. Their poor preservation, honeycombed as they were by innumerable pits, made the interpre-
tation of the evidence a challenging task and the outcome none too rewarding. By the end of the
season, however, when the workmen were all put to this task, the clearance of a considerable area of the
main building level on the citadel had just been achieved, in spite of the sudden onset of rain and cold
weather (Figs. Io-I I and Pls. Vc-VIIIb, VIIId). To shorten and clarify the following description of
the plan (Fig. io), locusnumbers have been superimposed and are indicated in brackets after each
related feature.
2 strings
P1 Burial 5
of beads>gi
head-band o0
O
stems loops anddiscs

.pins
J"pendant
iron bracelets
strings of
carnelian and
blue frit beads
remains of
bowl small sheep
anklet
scale -- -- cm bowl
5 10 15
Fig. 9. PI, Grave 5: the burial in situ.
As discussed below, there seems no doubt that this building level can be ascribed to the Urartian
period; and there is evidence for a more precise date than simply within the whole time-span (c. 850-
600ooB.C.) which could legitimately be so termed. The fact that such a long period can be called
Urartian must be seen in the context of the firm political and military control of the northern half of
the Urmia basin by the kings of Urartu, with only the briefest interruptions caused by the campaigns of
Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II of Assyria.18 This level will henceforth be described as the Urartian
citadel.
17 Iran VIII, pl. VIa-c; fig. 4. (Chicago 1927), vol. I, paras. 795, 81 1-13 (Tiglath-Pileser III);
18
D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia and vol. II, paras. 139-78 (Sargon II's eighth campaign).

I
HAFTAVAN
TEPE
1969
Fig. to. Plan of the Urartiancitadel(1968-1r969excavations).

It seems reasonable to interpret this building level as the residence of an Urartian provincial
governor, administering a fertile district, the Salmas plain, from the settlement situated therein, whose
modern equivalent is the town of Shahpur. If this is the earliest Urartian level at Haftavdn Tepe, it
seems as if Urartian rule may not have been established without violence, for there is an underlying
layer of burning.
The extent of the Urartian citadel (Fig. Io) has revealed a feature not apparent at an earlier stage
of the excavations, the uniform N.N.W-S.S.E. alignment of the buildings. Therefore it seems reason-
able to reconstruct this as essentially one extensive building, laid out to a plan, with separate rooms
and open areas, rather than a number of contemporary but not directly related buildings. This
realization made the significance of the column-bases (P1. VIb and VIId) at once apparent, when
taken together with the finding of Urartian red polished pottery, some of it of the finest quality, in the
fill above the floor (P1. VIIa). These column-bases did not support a colonnade belonging to the
building to the north (4, 5) and strangely masked by the blank wall of another building (8), nor for that
matter did they support a colonnade belonging to the latter. The columns which they upheld supported
the ceiling of a large hall (6, 7, 9) facing on to the open court (I2), with rooms in an upper storey
above. The occurrence of Urartian red polished pottery, mostly bowls, both in the debris of this upper
storey and in a similar context in the fill overlying the floor of a corner tower (2) seems to indicate
domestic quarters, perhaps for high-ranking persons. In contrast, kitchen wares were found along one
side of the largest structure (5), on the floor.
The civilian character of this citadel is discernible by comparison with Urartian fortresses of
varying size in the surrounding districts and at Bastam.19 Moreover, the very plan excavated at
Haftavan Tepe shows that the citadel was probably never very seriously fortified, the reasons presum-
ably being the contours and situation of the mound and the lack of stone in the immediate vicinity.
Urartian fortressesalways required unlimited stone, though mud brick also was, of course, much used.
Part of the Urartian perimeter wall is shown in the section of the east side of HY (Fig. I2), where four
courses of mud bricks were found in situ above two courses of stone footings, with a small stone in the
shallow foundation trench. The HY4A surface in Fig. I2 belongs to a terrace (3) associated with a
secondary entrance to the Urartian citadel. The narrowness of this entrance suggests limited signifi-
cance; but it was nevertheless guarded by two rooms (1, 2) apparently serving at least as porter's
lodges. Later occupation and subsequent erosion along the steep north slope of the mound make it
improbable that any trace of the approach to the terrace (3) will ever be recovered.
Among the material recovered from the Urartian citadel are objects of undoubtedly Urartian
appearance and others which are identical with or similar to grave-goods and other finds from the lower
parts of the site outside the citadel. In the burnt debris marking the destruction of this level were
scattered the remains of at least one burial, suggesting the disturbance of the level, probably in the
processof stone robbing, some time after the destruction. A site such as Haftavdn Tepe, not immediately
next to a source of stone, is inevitably vulnerable to quarrying of ruined buildings and the consequent
problems in the elucidation of their plans. Near the column-bases, for example, only limited areas of
contemporary stone paving were found in situ (Pls. VIb and VIId). The clearest proof of the Urartian
date of this level is provided by the range of red polished and comparable pottery, mostly bowls of
simple form and repaired from many sherds. In addition to these simple bowls (P1.VIIa) there were
forms which can be paralleled at other Urartian sites: an unusual divided dish, perhaps for salad, with
strainer holes through the partition, is like one from Altintepe (P1. VIIb);20 and a fragmentary goblet
is of the form found at Patnos (Giriktepe) and at Kayalidere.21 Among the finds from the burning
of the citadel near the entrance rooms (I, 2), shown in the west section of HX as HX4B (Fig. I3),
was a bronze fragment possibly from a quiver,22 bronze nails, studs and tassels, as well as a fragmentary
example of a form of personal ornament characteristic of this period, a bronze ring threaded through a
19Wolfram Kleiss, (a) " Bericht fiber zwei Erkundungsfahrten Belleten XXXIII (1969), pp. 291-301, fig. 15.
in Nordwest-Iran", AMI New Seriesvol. II(1969), especially 21 (a) Ibid., pl. III (2, 3), for cruder variants of this form;
pp. 2o-6; (b) " Ausgrabungenin der urartaischenFestung (b) Burney, AS XVI, pl. XV(b) and fig. I5 (Kayalidere).
Bastam (Rusahinili) 1969 ", AMI III (x970o), pp. 7-65. 22 Cf.
ibid., fig. x8 (6, 6b) and pl. XVIII (c).
20 Kutlu Emre, "The Urartian Pottery from
Altintepe",

SECTION
AA
HAFTAVAN
, TEPE1969
SECTION 2
'
BBBe.-l
sectionsacrossthe Urartiancitadel: the lines of thesesectionsare as indicatedonfig. io.
Fig. zr. Architectural
carnelian bead (cf. P1. VIIIa, also with a striped glass bead). Beads included many of carnelian,
though the commonest were small, almost spherical yellow glass beads, a type hardly found in the
burials below the citadel and distinctive of this level; a few beads of yellow glass striped with black
were also found. In this same level (HX4B) was found an iron spearhead with carbonized fragments of
its wooden shaft. In this same period there was evidence of a thriving industry producing ground stone
vessels, best exemplified by a tripod and a bowl of basalt. Seven iron arrowheads, found together,
were among other contemporary objects (P1. VIIIb).
The history of this Urartian governmental residence and of the subsequent levels overlying its
remains is by no means straightforward. In one part (6) there is very clear proof of replanning in a
secondary phase, with the construction either of an entirely new room or of such a room created by a
projection added to two screen walls flanking an entrance. One thing is obvious, that this room as
r.->ID FfIT
WALL
12A [W LE
?"r-
$
AVPPoy, .TE LEVEL W
IAFTAVAN EAST
4
AREA
TEPE 1969
14" SECTION.
Fig. rI. Sectionof east side of HT.

)-
wow WALF To? OFMoJMP

OFIVMW!! tik.,I- M" MOAE
UPI
at.. **- 9
. R- U. me ma
0
.1o. RAmeW flLW L7 0 ,
ssus.
ae• ••2•o •
MW POFWAL-
PA4QbUD
PARp 41WSiH toccDranoMri oFSOFT FIL OFfir
'"
wr S 4
FILL
PWmumcsMAREA
NY-lie IMEx
-
an
I WErT
14s
/to
e
CD4seVm an
SEC
wrAs FUcIM*OF 4.w fxeoez" aWPts wITP Olbw a
caAIZ u.O,.
0] opnacrnw0 0 C&/
1 5
o • * ss 2. 4 4.
W-AFTAVAN
14AFTAVAN TEPE
TEE
AREA HX WEIT
Fig. z3. Section
of westsideof HX.

excavated must have been built later than the colonnade, against three of whose column-bases it abuts.
It is an attractive if insufficiently documented theory that there may have been an approach by means
of a staircaseto the upper storey, which would thus have extended over both the columned hall (6, 7, 9)
and the kitchen to the north (5). The stairs would have had to be steep, but the height of the kitchen
need have been no more than two metres at most. Only fuller exposure of the citadel, the main ob-
jective of the 1971 season, can help to confirm or refute this necessarily tentative reconstruction.
The date of the destruction of the Urartian citadel, within whose lifetime the secondary phase
(room 6) must be included, can be estimated from the pottery, presumably dating not much before-
hand. The bowls with folded rim, found at such Urartian sites as Bastam nearby and Altintepe far
away in the north-west corner of Urartu, seem from their context to date to some stage in the seventh
century B.c.23 The forms of bowl from the citadel at Haftavan Tepe, however, are quite different, with
simple rims and rounded profile, so that it seems virtually certain that they antedate the pottery from
Bastam and Altintepe. The late eighth century B.C. consequently seems the likeliest date for the sack
of this citadel; and it is tempting to suggest it was the work of Sargon II in his famous eighth campaign
(714 B.c.). If so, perhaps this was one of the citadels of the land of Sangibutu which Sargon destroyed.
Against this suggestion is the possibility that after the destruction of Ulhu, perhaps to be located at
Marand, he marched through the district wherein Khoi is now situated, leaving the Salmas plain, with
Haftavan Tepe, unscathed on his left flank.24
Immediately overlying the Urartian citadel level were fragmentary remains of well-constructed
stone foundations, but at this height the depredations of stone-robbers,combined with the effects of the
many pits, have left little more than an indication that there had been a renewal of prosperity, possibly
in the seventh century B.C. and thus tentatively attributable to Rusa II (c. 685-645 B.C.),in whose reign
Urartu enjoyed a political and cultural renaissance. Interesting though it would be to discover a
Median level here, there is no evidence yet of any such remains of importance. It would of course be
rather far north to expect this.
In one area (G4) seven surfaces were traced before the level of the Urartian citadel was reached.
This was typical of the succession of surfaces, often with little intelligible left of building remains.
The one area where a reasonably clear story was obtained was along the perimeter of the north side
of the citadel, where the east section of HY (Fig. 12) shows the sequence of the Urartian wall followed
by a mud-packed wall which had only intermittent stone foundations; this in turn was followed by the
latest perimeter wall (HY2A), an altogether more impressive structure, already partly uncovered in the
1968 season.25 This wall was found to have a semi-circular bastion (P1. VIIIc), a design which may
suggest comparison with the defences of Bishdpir, built in the twenty-fifth year of Shahpir I (266 A.D.)
rather than any date in the Parthian period.26 A later date than the early Sasanian period is scarcely
plausible, however, in the light of the burials of Sasanian date discovered on the citadel in the 1968
season, and seemingly restricted largely to the north-west part. Whatever the precise interpretation of
the discovery of these inhumations, which are termed Sasanian only as an abbreviation for " contem-
porary with the Sasanian empire ", two such burials were found in the 1969 season overlying the citadel
wall here attributed to the late third century A.D. Moreover, a typical miniature glass bottle was found
in the fill of a pit later than the early Sasanian wall, contemporary with the semi-circular bastion,
against which it was cut (Fig. 13). These burials are likely to be no later than the fifth century A.D.,
implying a short duration for the early Sasanian citadel of Haftavan Tepe.
23
(a) Bastam: Stephan Kroll, " Die Keramik aus der Ausgrab- 25 Iran VIII, pl. VIIa.
26 For a reference to the inscription giving the date of the founda-
ungen Bastam 1969 ", AMIIII (1970), pp. 67-92 (figs. I, 3, 4);
(b) Altintepe: Kutlu Emre, Belleten XXXIII, figs. 8, 1o, I2. tion of Bishapfir, see the note by A. A. Sarfaraz. Iran VIII.
24
(a) F. Thureau-Dangin, La HuitiemeCampagnede Sargon (Paris p. 178.
1912); (b) Luckenbill, AncientRecordsII, paras. 162-4.


Dokumen - Tips - Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1969 Second Preliminary Report

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

Dokumen - Tips - Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1969 Second Preliminary Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Institute of Persian Studies

Excavations at Haftavān Tepe 1969: Second Preliminary Report

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

1 C. A. Burney, Iran VIII (1970), pp. 157-64.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

9,1,011 12131415161 1819202122 2322 2

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

Fig. 2. Siteplan, showingtrenches:contoursat half-metreintervals.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

oaMcmt-4P flM Ezs.

Fig- 3. Section of north side of JX.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

Fig. 4. Plan of JX, Level4.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

Pl. Hlb. JX: Level7 wal

P1. IIc. JX: paintedpotteryof variousstyles. Pl. Id. JX: paintedtum

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

Pl. VIb. The Urartiancitadel: thecolumn-bases,

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

P1. VIIa. Two typicalUrartianbowlsof redpolishedwarefrom

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

Pl. VIIIb. A groupof ironarrowheads

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

stems loops anddiscs

Fig. 9. PI, Grave 5: the burial in situ.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

Fig. to. Plan of the Urartiancitadel(1968-1r969excavations).

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

wow WALF To? OFMoJMP

PARp 41WSiH toccDranoMri oFSOFT FIL OFfir

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:57:02 PM

You might also like