اثار بلاد فارس

The Archaeology of Iran from the
Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire
The Archaeology of Iran from the Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire is the first modern academic study to provide a
synthetic, diachronic analysis of the archaeology and early history of all of Iran from the Palaeolithic period to the
end of the Achaemenid Empire at 330 BC.
Drawing on the authors’ deep experience and engagement in the world of Iranian archaeology, and in particu-
lar on Iran-based academic networks and collaborations, this book situates the archaeological evidence from Iran
within a framework of issues and debates of relevance today. Such topics include human–environment interac-
tions, climate change and societal fragility, the challenges of urban living, individual and social identity, gender
roles and status, the development of technology and craft specialisation and the significance of early bureaucratic
practices such as counting, writing and sealing within the context of evolving societal formations.
Richly adorned with more than 500 illustrations, many of them in colour, and accompanied by a bibliography
with more than 3000 entries, this book will be appreciated as a major research resource for anyone concerned to
learn more about the role of ancient Iran in shaping the modern world.
Roger Matthews is Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Reading. He is President of
RASHID International, and previously was Director of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq and of the
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. He is an elected Fellow of the British Academy and a Corresponding
Fellow of the German Archaeological Institute. He has directed major field projects in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Tur-
key for more than 35 years, and has published widely on the prehistory, archaeology and heritage of the Middle
East. His current projects focus on early farming communities of Iran and Iraq, and on bureaucratic practices in
early urban communities of the Middle East.
Hassan Fazeli Nashli is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Tehran. From 2005 to 2009 he was Director
of the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research. He is a Corresponding Fellow of the German Archaeological
Institute. Since 1996 he has directed numerous international joint research projects and fieldwork with colleagues
and universities from the USA, Germany, UK, Italy, Canada, Poland and China. He has conducted more than
25 years fieldwork in the central plateau and northern regions of Iran, with a focus on socio-economic trans-
formations from the late Epipalaeolithic to the Iron Age. Since 2017 he has directed a multi-disciplinary project
in Mazandaran province of northern Iran in order to investigate long-term human-environment interactions
through the Early and Middle Holocene.
Routledge World Archaeology
The Ancient Central Andes

Jeffrey Quilter
Prehistoric Britain, 2nd edition

Timothy Darvill
Ancient Turkey
Antonio Sagona, Paul Zimansky
Ancient Southeast Asia

John Norman Miksic, Goh Geok Yian
Archaeology of the Southwest, 3rd edition

Maxine E. McBrinn, Linda S, Cordell
Archaeology of Pacific Oceania

Inhabiting a Sea of Islands
Mike Carson
The Archaeology of Iran from the Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire

Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-World-Archaeology/

book-series/RWA
The Archaeology of Iran from the
Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire
Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli
ILLUSTRATIONS EDITOR: AMY RICHARDSON
LONDON AND NEW YORK

Cover image: © Bruno Overlaet
First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli
The right of Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-032-12332-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-69169-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-22412-9 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129
Typeset in Bembo
by codeMantra
This book is dedicated to the future of Iran’s past and to all its students
Contents
List of figures xii

List of tables xxx
Preface and Acknowledgements xxxi
1 The archaeology of early Iran: perspectives from the past for the present 1
The archaeology of Iran as a field of study 1
Characterising Iran: a land of “prismatic diversity” 2
What is this book about? Scope, themes, issues 3
Who is this book for? 5
2 Placing Iran: land, environment and ecology 6

Introducing Iran: landscapes of contrast and challenge 6
The zones of Iran: contexts for human−environment interactions 12
The Khuzestan lowlands 12
The Zagros mountains 14
The northern highlands 16
The eastern highlands 17
The central basins 19
Routes of communication: the lay of the land and the sea 19
Climate, environment and human interactions: the challenge of Iran 20
3 Approaching the past of Iran: a history of archaeological investigation 22

Approaching the past of Iran: key sources 22
Difficult birth and infancy of a discipline: 1800–1930 22
Internationalisation of a discipline: 1931–1958 26
A golden age of Iranian archaeology: 1959–1979 28
After the revolution: 1979–2000 30
Difficult rebirth of a discipline: 2001–2020 32
4 Peopling Iran: the Palaeolithic period, 500,000–12,000 BP 35

Putting people in the picture 35
First steps: the Lower Palaeolithic, 500,000–200,000 BP 36
“Complex and interesting”: the Middle Palaeolithic, 200,000–40,000 BP 39
The Zagros region 39
The northern highlands and Caspian region 41
The central plateau 42
The eastern highlands 43
Trends in the Middle Palaeolithic of Iran 43
The first Iranian revolution: the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic, 45,000–12,000 BP 43
The Upper Palaeolithic, 45,000–20,000 BP 45
The Epipalaeolithic, 20,000–12,000 BP 50
The end of the Palaeolithic in Iran: creating human communities 52
viii Contents
5 Domesticating Iran: the Neolithic period, 10,000–5200 BC 54
Iran in the Neolithic Transition 54
Researching the Iranian Neolithic 55
Neolithic terminology and chronology 57
Human–environment interactions in the Neolithic 57
The Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic transition, 11,000–9800 BC 61
A formative zone: the Early Neolithic of the Zagros, 9800–7000 BC 63
The central Zagros: core zone of Early Neolithic transformations 75
Spreading the word: initial Neolithic dispersals across Iran, 7500–6500 BC 79
The south and central Zagros 80
The earliest Neolithic beyond the Zagros 85
Becoming farmers, herders and villagers: the Neolithic climax, 6500–5200 BC 89
The significance of ceramics 89
The central and south-central Zagros 90
The southern Zagros and Fars 92
South-eastern Iran 97
North-western Iran and the Caucasus 99
The central and northern plateaux 102
North-eastern Iran and Turkmenistan 105
Iran domesticated: the culmination of the Neolithic 109
6 Early social complexity in Iran: the Chalcolithic period, 5200–3200 BC 111

The domestication of human society: Chalcolithic communities of Iran 111
First steps: Chalcolithic societies of northern and central Iran 112
The transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Chalcolithic in
north-western Iran, 5400–4500 BC 114
The developed Chalcolithic of north-western Iran, 4500–3200 BC 115
The Transitional Chalcolithic of north-central Iran, 5300–4300 BC 117
Settlement patterns and food procurement strategies 118
Craft specialisation: ceramics and architecture 120
Mortuary practices 123
The nature of society: hierarchical or transegalitarian? 125
The developed Chalcolithic of north-central Iran, 4300–3300 BC 127
Settlement patterns and food procurement strategies 127
Ceramics, metallurgy and networks of material movement 127
Later Chalcolithic societies of north-central Iran: the emergence of
societal complexity and its (temporary) collapse 134
Ceramics and connectivity: Chalcolithic societies of the central and northern Zagros 134
The Early Chalcolithic, 5500–5000 BC 135
The Middle Chalcolithic, 5000–3800 BC 136
The Late Chalcolithic, 3800–3200 BC 137
Social complexity and pastoral mobility 143
Early state formation and the Chalcolithic societies of south-western Iran 144
Chronology 145
The Early Susiana period, 5700–5400 BC 145
The Middle Susiana period, 5400–4600 BC 147
The Late Susiana period, 4600–4000 BC 149
The Late Chalcolithic, 4000–3100 BC: state formation and reformation and
the resurgence of Susa and Chogha Mish 157
Explaining the evidence from Late Chalcolithic Khuzestan: some attempts 171
Chalcolithic societies of south and south-eastern Iran 172
The Early Chalcolithic of Fars, 5000–4000 BC: settled or mobile (or both)? 173
The Late Chalcolithic of Fars, 4000–3200 BC: expansion and contraction 177
Contents ix
The Early Chalcolithic of south-eastern Iran, 5000–4000 BC:
Tepe Yahya to the fore 178
The Late Chalcolithic of south-eastern Iran, 4000–3200 BC:
transregional engagement 180
Chalcolithic kaleidoscope: divergent, fragmented trajectories towards complexity 183
7 Iran’s first state? The Proto-Elamite horizon, 3200–2900 BC 188

The Early Bronze Age of Iran: regionalisation and interconnection 188
Encountering and defining a cultural phenomenon: the Proto-Elamite horizon 189
Proto-Elamite chronology: a thorny but important issue 192
Susa in the Susa IIIA period: disjunction and continuity 192
Writing and sealing at Susa in the Susa IIIA period 195
The significance of Susa in the Susa IIIA period 204
The Ram Hormuz plain: Tall-e Geser 205
Tal-i Malyan/Anshan and the Fars region 207
The Proto-Elamite horizon in eastern Iran 214
Tepe Yahya in Kerman: fortified foreigners? 214
Shahr-i Sokhta: over the Proto-Elamite horizon? 221
Proto-Elamite presence in north-central, north-east and central Iran 222
Characterising the Proto-Elamite horizon 230
The end of the Proto-Elamite world 233
8 People on the move: prehistoric networks of Bronze Age Iran, 3400–1100 BC 236
Iran beyond the Proto-Elamite horizon 236
The Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) in Iran, 3400–2600 BC: an ideology of
home and the hearth 236
History of ETC research in north-western Iran 238
Chronology of ETC 238
ETC regions and sites of Iran 239
North-western Iran at the crossroads of culture 239
ETC borderlands 1: the Qazvin plain, Gilan and western Mazandaran 247
ETC borderlands 2: the central Zagros region 248
ETC settlement patterns in Iran 250
ETC sites as new foundations 250
Duration of settlement at ETC sites 251
Abandonment of ETC sites 251
Scale and density of ETC settlements 252
ETC identity: society and economy 252
ETC ceramics – pots equalling people? 255
The ETC expansion: one component of a mega-phenomenon? 257
North-western Iran in the Middle-Late Bronze Age, 2100–1250 BC 259
The central plateau of Iran, 3000–1250 BC 263
Luristan and the burial of the dead, 3000–1200 BC 264
Defining Luristan 264
Archaeological research in Luristan 266
Luristan chronology 267
Luristan in Early Bronze Age I 267
Luristan in Early Bronze Age II–III 270
Godin III: 1200 years of domesticity 274
Luristan in Early Bronze Age IV and beyond 277
The problem of Luristan in the Bronze Age 279
Regional dynamics in Bronze Age Fars, 2900–1100 BC 282
Cultural geography of Fars 282
x Contents
Late Banesh settlement in Fars, 2900–2300 BC 283
Kaftari settlement in Fars, 2200–1600 BC 283
Qaleh and Middle Elamite settlement in Fars, 1600–1100 BC 284
Interpreting settlement and society in Bronze Age Fars 284
Conclusion: a socio-political mosaic in Bronze Age western Iran 285
9 Iran beyond borders: Bronze Age societies of eastern Iran, 3100–1250 BC 286
Eastern Iran in its cultural context: interconnected worlds 286
South-eastern Iran in the Bronze Age 289
Spectacular florescence: Early Bronze Age archaeology of the Halil Rud and Kerman region 291
On the desert fringes: Early Bronze Age archaeology of the western Dasht-e Lut 304
Connected communities: the Rud-e Bampur complex and the Jazmurian basin 308
The Helmand civilisation: Shahr-i Sokhta, jewel in the Sistan crown 312
Climate collapse: the end of the Bronze Age in south-eastern Iran 325
Terra incognita: north-eastern Iran and its neighbours in the Bronze Age 326
Bronze Age archaeology of Khorasan 329
Bronze Age archaeology of Semnan, Mazandaran and western Khorasan 330
BMAC and the end of the Bronze Age in north-eastern Iran 332
Eastern Iran in the Bronze Age: the nature of society 337
10 Elam in the world of Bronze Age Southwest Asia, 2900–1100 BC 340

Elam: key issues 340
Khuzestan and the early Elamite state 341
Susa in the third millennium BC: chronology of Susa IIIB-C, Susa IV and Susa V 342
The emergence of Elam and Awan, 2800–2350 BC 344
Akkadian and Ur III imperial engagement with Elam and Iran, c. 2350–2000 BC 352
Elam in the Akkadian empire, c. 2350–2100 BC 352
Local hero interlude: Puzur-Inshushinak, c. 2150–2000 BC 356
Elam in the Ur III empire, c. 2050–2000 BC 359
Grand Viziers of Elam: the Old Elamite period, 1950–1500 BC 365
The mature Elamite state: the Middle Elamite period, 1500–1100 BC 372
The cult of craft and death: Middle Elamite I archaeology and Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 373
“Such as the ancients never made”: Middle Elamite II archaeology and Chogha Zanbil
(Al Untash-Napirisha) 378
Susa and beyond: Middle Elamite III archaeology 386
Elam in the world of Bronze Age Southwest Asia: an ever-revolving door or a profound duality? 388
11 Iran imperial: villages, cities, states and empires of the Iron Age, 1250–330 BC 393
From village to empire in the age of iron 393
Iran in the age of Iranian migrations 393
A climate of collapse and a climate of empire 396
Imperial studies 398
North-western Iran in the Iron Age, 1250–550 BC 399
Iron Age I, 1250–1050 BC: ongoing local evolution 399
Iron Age II, 1050–800 BC: imperial encounters 403
Iron Age III, 800–550 BC: between imperial powers 410
Northern, Central and North-Eastern Iran in the Iron Age, 1250–600 BC 419
Luristan in the Iron Age, 1250–600 BC 434
The Neo-Elamite kingdom, 1000–539 BC 442
South-eastern Iran in the Iron Age, 1250–550 BC 453
Media studies: “mighty Medes of the rising sun,” c. 750–550 BC 454
Achaemenid Persia: archaeology of a world empire, 550–330 BC 468
Iran in the Iron Age: climate and society 497
Contents xi
12 Themes and issues in the archaeology of early Iran 499
A few pockets of exploration 499
Human–environment interactions in early Iran: trends and patterns through time 499
Identities of early Iran, individual and social 504
Complex societies in early Iran: “fragile and evanescent” 506
Where next for the archaeology of early Iran? 509
Bibliography 511
Index 613
Figures
2.1 Iran in its global context: fulcrum of Eurasia (Google Earth 2018) 7
2.2 Iran: its provinces and its neighbours 8
2.3 Topographic map of Iran 8
2.4 Cross-sections through Iran: N-S and E-W 9
2.5 Annual precipitation of modern Iran (after Ganji 1968: fig. 80) 10
2.6 Arable soils of modern Iran (after Dewan et al. 1968: figs 84–85) 11
2.7 Major physiographic units of Iran 12
2.8 View of Khuzestan landscape: the Zohreh plain (photo credit: Abbas Moghaddam) 13
2.9 High Zagros landscape with cross-section through Zagros range. Arrow indicates location of
Early Neolithic mound of Sheikh-e Abad (Chapter 5) (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 14
2.10 Alborz mountain landscape, Neshel, Mazandaran (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 16
2.11 View of eastern Iran landscape, Baluchistan (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 18
2.12 Major routeways of Iran, ancient and modern 20
3.1 1851 plan of Susa by Henry Churchill and Willam Kennett Loftus (Loftus 1857) 23
3.2 Susa, the chateau with the Acropole mound behind and the tomb of Daniel to the right (photo
credit: Loghman Ahmadzadeh) 24
3.3 The mound of Susa under excavation. Le Tell de Suse pendant les travaux. Oil painting by
J.-G. Bondoux (1866–1919) (RF3690; photo: © RMN-Grand Palais,
Musée du Louvre/Gérard Blot) 25
3.4 Iran Bastan Museum, Tehran (photo courtesy of Jebrael Nokandeh, National Museum of Iran) 26
3.5 Excavations in 1934 at the South Mound of Tepe Sialk, Kashan (Bridey and Cuny 2019a:
47–48; Ghirshman Archive, Department of Near Eastern Antiquities, Musée du Louvre. Inv.
no DAO-600–004–0132) 27
3.6 Historical archaeology: plan of Kazemabad landlord village, Tehran plain (Young and Fazeli
2018: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Ruth Young and Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 33
3.7 Neolithic gallery in the Iran Bastan Museum, Tehran (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 34
4.1 Palaeolithic sites of Iran by period 37
4.2 Lower Palaeolithic stone tools from assorted sites of Iran (Biglari and Shidrang 2006: 162)
(permission courtesy of Fereidoun Biglari) 38
4.3 Darband Cave (arrow) overlooking the Siahrud river (photo credit: Fereidoun Biglari) 38
4.4 Hazar Merd Cave overlooking Suleimani plain, Iraqi Kurdistan (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 39
4.5 Middle Palaeolithic tools from Mar Tarik ( Jaubert et al. 2009: Figure 1.5) (permission courtesy
of Fereidoun Biglari) 41
4.6 Engraved limestone slab from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Mar Tarik ( Jaubert et al. 2009:
Figure 1.15) (permission courtesy of Fereidoun Biglari) 42
4.7 Palaeolithic migratory corridors on the Iranian plateau (after Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a:
Figure 10). For site code, see Figure 4.1 44
4.8 Global temperature variation over the past 20,000 years, according to Greenland ice cores 45
4.9 Excavation of Warwasi Cave (photo credit: Frank Hole) 46
4.10 Yafteh Cave, view of cave entrance (photo credit: Frank Hole) 47
4.11 Yafteh Cave, Early Upper Palaeolithic ornaments and tools (Shidrang 2018) (image courtesy of
Fereidoun Biglari and Sonia Shidrang) 48
4.12 Excavations in Ghar-e Boof Cave 2006 (photo credit: Nicholas Conard) 49
4.13 Zarzi Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan (centre) (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 50
Figures xiii
4.14 Hotu Cave, 2021 excavations (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 51
5.1 Neolithic sites of Iran by period 56
5.2 Chronology of the Neolithic of Iran and neighbouring regions 58
5.3 Chart of Neolithic 14C dates from selected key sites 59
5.4 Summary of Lake Zeribar climatic indicators, c. 28,000 cal BP –6900 cal BP (after Asouti et al.
2020: Figure 4) 60
5.5 The Early Neolithic mound of Sheikh-e Abad on the Dinavar Plain
(photo credit: Roger Matthews) 63
5.6 Sheikh-e Abad Trench 3 architecture (Matthews et al. 2013a: Figure 4.18) 64
5.7 Sheikh-e Abad Trench 3 skulls, deposit of wild goat and sheep (Matthews et al. 2013a:
Figure 4.29) (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 65
5.8 Sheikh-e Abad chipped stone tools (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013b: Figure 9.14) 66
5.9 Anatomy of a Neolithic mound: 60 m-long section at Jani, Islamabad-e Gharb (photo and
drawing: Roger Matthews and Wendy Matthews) 66
5.10 Asiab: plan and photogrammetry model of the communal structure (Bangsgaard et al. 2019:
Figure 2) (image courtesy of Hojjat Darabi and Tobias Richter) 67
5.11 Ganj Dareh, view of site (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 68
5.12 Ganj Dareh level D, plan of architecture (after Smith 1990: Figure 1) 69
5.13 Abdul Hosein, view of site (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 70
5.14 Abdul Hosein, aceramic Neolithic architecture (after Pullar 1990: Figure 19) 70
5.15 East Chia Sabz, view of site (photo credit: Hojjat Darabi) 71
5.16 East Chia Sabz, stone vessels (after Darabi et al. 2011: Figure 9) 72
5.17 Chogha Golan, views of site and figurines (photo credit: Nicholas Conard) 72
5.18 Chogha Golan, ground stone tools (after Zeidi et al. 2012: figs 9–10) 73
5.19 Rahmatabad, view of site (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2014a: Figure 3)
(photo credit: Hosein Azizi Kharanaghi) 74
5.20 Toll-e Sangi, view of site after excavation (Khanipour 2021: Figure 1)
(photo credit: Morteza Khanipour) 75
5.21 Characteristic ecological cross-section from the Mesopotamian plain through Khuzestan and
into the Zagros (after Hole et al. 1969: Figure 2) 80
5.22 Ali Kosh, view of site (Darabi et al. 2018b: Figure 2) (photo credit: Hojjat Darabi) 81
5.23 Ali Kosh, cranial deformation on individual H6 (Sołtysiak and Darabi 2017: Figure 5)
(photo credit: Hojjat Darabi) 82
5.24 Ali Kosh, animal exploitation through time (after Hole et al. 1969: Figure 134) 82
5.25 Tappeh Mahtaj, chipped stone cores and tools (Darabi et al. 2017a: Figure 7)
(photo credit: Hojjat Darabi) 83
5.26 Tepe Sarab, figurine (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 8) (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot
Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the National Museum of Iran) 84
5.27 Sang-e Chakhmaq West, architecture (Masuda et al. 2013: Figure 14.4a) 85
5.28 Map of south-eastern corner of Caspian Sea to show key sites (Leroy et al. 2019: Figure 1)
(image courtesy of Suzanne Leroy) 87
5.29 Komishani Tepe, view of site with Komishan Cave behind (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 87
5.30 Gav Koshi, architecture (photo credit: Nader Alidad Soleimani) 88
5.31 Gav Koshi, painted pottery (Soleimani and Fazeli Nashli 2018: Figure 10) 88
5.32 Tepe Guran (right) under excavation in 1963 (Mortensen 2014: Figure 9)
(photo credit: Peder Mortensen) 90
5.33 Tepe Guran, Zagros Standard Ware, painted pottery (Mortensen 2014: pl. I) (photo credit:
Peder Mortensen) 91
5.34 Tepe Guran, section through excavations in trench G1 with associated painted pottery types
(after Darabi 2015: figs 5.14 and 5.16) 91
5.35 Chogha Mish, painted pottery of Archaic Susiana 3 phase (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 66)
(courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 92
5.36 Qaleh Rostam, Neolithic faunal assemblage by NISP and weight (after Daujat et al. 2016: Figure 6) 92
5.37 Rahmatabad, relative proportions of plant categories across trenches and periods (after
Tengberg and Azizi Kharanaghi 2016: Figure 3) 93
xiv Figures
5.38 Prehistoric sites of the Fars region (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2013: Figure 9.1). Inset:
Toll-e Sangi, possible lip-plugs or earspools of stone and clay (Khanipour 2021: Figure 5)
(photo credit: Morteza Khanipour) 94
5.39 Hormangan, chipped stone tools (Abe and Khanipour 2019: Figure 7) (permission courtesy of
Morteza Khanipour) 95
5.40 Tol-e Bashi, painted pottery with typical motifs (Bernbeck 2010: 149) (permission courtesy of
Reinhard Bernbeck) 96
5.41 Tepe Yahya, level VIIB.2 architecture (Beale 1986: Figures 6.8–6.9) (images courtesy of
C. C Lamberg-Karlovsky) 97
5.42 Tepe Yahya, chlorite figurine (Beale 1986: figs 7.17, 7.29) (image courtesy of
C. C Lamberg-Karlovsky) 98
5.43 Tall-e Atashi, views of site and architecture (photo credit: Omran Garazhian) 98
5.44 Painted pottery from Ahrendjan and Qara Tepe (after Ajorloo 2016: Figure 4) 99
5.45 Yanik Tepe, human head figurine of stone with clay plug (after Burney 1964: pl. 15.11) 100
5.46 Hajji Firuz Tepe, general view of excavations in 1968 (photo credit: Mary Voigt) 100
5.47 Hajji Firuz Tepe, phase C architecture (after Voigt 1983: Figure 15)
(permission courtesy of Mary Voigt) 101
5.48 Hajji Firuz Tepe, deposit of human remains (photo credit: Mary Voigt) 101
5.49 Hajji Firuz Tepe, painted pottery (after Voigt 1983: Figure 93)
(permission courtesy of Mary Voigt) 101
5.50 Tepe Sialk North, aerial image (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019: Figure 2.3)
(photo credit Loghman Ahmadzadeh) 103
5.51 Tepe Sialk North, Late Neolithic painted pottery (Fazeli Nashli and
Nokandeh 2019: Figure 2.5) 103
5.52 Tepe Khaleseh, views of site and infant burial in pot (photo credit: Hamid Reza Valipour) 104
5.53 Tepe Khaleseh, plan of trench V, showing botanical composition of sample (Whitlam et al.
2020: Figure 8) (image courtesy of Jade Whitlam) 105
5.54 Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of north-eastern Iran (after Thornton 2013a: Figure 15.1;
Rezvani and Roustaei 2016; Roustaei 2016b: Figure 2) 106
5.55 Sang-e Chakhmaq East, finds with Jeitun connections (Thornton 2013a: Figure 15.5) 107
5.56 Sang-e Chakhmaq East, finds with Sialk connections (Thornton 2013a: Figure 15.6) 108
6.1 Map of Chalcolithic Iran 112
6.2 Dalma Tappeh, Dalma ceramics (photo credit: University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania) 115
6.3 Kul Tepe, view of mound from the north (Abedi et al. 2014b: Figure 1)
(photo credit: Akbar Abedi) 116
6.4 Kul Tepe VII pottery of Late Chalcolithic 1 (Pisdeli) (Abedi et al. 2014b: Figure 12)
(image courtesy of Akbar Abedi) 116
6.5 Kul Tepe VIA pottery of Late Chalcolithic 3 (Chaff-faced) (Abedi et al. 2014b: Figure 30)
(photo credit: Akbar Abedi) 117
6.6 Settlement through time on the Tehran and Qazvin plains 118
6.7 Transitional Chalcolithic subsistence strategies on the Qazvin plain: the evidence of faunal
remains (data from Mashkour et al. 1999; Young and Fazeli 2008) 119
6.8 Charred plant seeds from Chahar Boneh and Ebrahimabad, Qazvin plain
(after Ilkhani et al. 2019) 119
6.9 Clay tokens from Transitional Chalcolithic levels at Zagheh (data and images from Fazeli
Nashli and Moghimi 2013; Moghimi and Fazeli Nashli 2015) 120
6.10 Tepe Pardis, architecture and terracotta slow wheel (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 121
6.11 Painted ceramic styles of north-central Iran in the Transitional Chalcolithic (photo credit:
Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 121
6.12 Zagheh, plan of Transitional Chalcolithic architecture (adapted from Malek Shahmirzadeh
1979: plan I) 123
6.13 Zagheh Painted Building with schematic distribution of figurines
(adapted from Negahban 1979, 1984) 124
6.14 Zagheh, adult female burials close to the Painted Building (Tala’i 1999: Figures 5–6) 124
Figures xv
6.15 Cheshmeh Ali, view of site (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 125
6.16 Tepe Sialk, cremation burials of the Transitional Chalcolithic (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 126
6.17 Shoghali, evidence for early silver production (Nezafati and Hessari 2017: Figure 4)
(photo credit: Morteza Hessari) 128
6.18 Ghabrestan, view of excavated area (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 128
6.19 Ghabrestan, plan of structures including coppersmith’s workshop (after Majidzadeh 1979:
Figure 1), and Middle Chalcolithic ceramics (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 129
6.20 Tepe Sialk, architecture of levels III6, III7 and IV1 (after Abbasnejad Seresti and
Tashvigh 2016: Figures 3, 6) 129
6.21 Tepe Sialk, administrative artefacts from level IVA (after Pittman 2013b: Figure 16.32)
(image courtesy of Holly Pittman) 130
6.22 Meymanatabad Tepe, selection of pottery styles (Yousefi Zoshk et al. 2015: Figure 10)
(images courtesy of Rouhollah Yousefi Zoshk) 131
6.23 Meymanatabad Tepe, large-scale mudbrick architecture view
(image courtesy of Hassan Afshari) 131
6.24 Meymanatabad Tepe, large-scale mudbrick architecture plan (image courtesy of Hassan Afshari
and Rohollah Yousefi Zoshk) 132
6.25 Tepe Hissar, metabolic disease profiles period by period (after Afshar 2017: Figure 9) 133
6.26 Arisman, view of the site looking southwest, with the Karkas mountains beyond,
and sherds and slag in the foreground (photo credit: Hermann Parzinger, DAI-EA;
photo no: Teh50_fig163) 133
6.27 Early Chalcolithic pottery styles of highland western Iran (after Rothman and Badler 2011:
Figure 4.4) 135
6.28 Chalcolithic pottery from Tepe Gheshlagh (after Motarjem and Sharifi 2014: Figure 24) 136
6.29 Dum Gar-e Parchineh, Tomb 72 and selected grave goods (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002:
Figure 2) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 138
6.30 Seh Gabi, plan of excavated architecture (after Rothman and Badler 2011: Figure 4.7) 139
6.31 Godin Tepe, view of site (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 139
6.32 Godin Tepe, level VI:1 Oval Enclosure in 2007, ca. 45 years after excavation (photo credit:
Roger Matthews) 140
6.33 Godin Tepe, level VI:1 Oval Enclosure (after Matthews 2013: Figure 17.4) 140
6.34 Godin Tepe, level VI:1 tablet T295 from room 18 (after Matthews 2013: Figure 17.4) 141
6.35 Chogha Gavaneh, exposed section face (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 143
6.36 Chogha Mish, Archaic-Middle Susiana architecture in Trench XXI (Alizadeh 2008: Figure
14) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 146
6.37 Chogha Mish, Middle Susiana painted pottery (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 40)
(image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 147
6.38 Chogha Mish, Late Middle Susiana architecture in East Area (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 15)
6.39 Jaffarabad, architecture of levels 5b and 6 (after Dollfus 1978: Figure 4) 149
6.40 Susa, overall plan of the site showing excavated areas (after Harper et al. 1992: Figure 3) 150
6.41 Left: Susa, plan of the Acropole mound at c. 4000 BC showing Susa I structures and cemetery
(after Hole 1992: Figure 23). Right: Susa, section drawing of Operation 2 to show earliest
excavated levels (Ahmadzadeh et al. 2021: Figure 8) (images courtesy of Ramin Yashmi and
Loghman Ahmadzadeh) 151
6.42 Susa, reconstruction of a Susa I burial (after Hole 1992: Figure 24) 151
6.43 Susa I cemetery, ceramic vessel with painted motifs including wild goat with curving horns
(Nokandeh 2017: Figure 23) (photo credit: Neda Hossein Tehrani and Nima Mohmmadi
Fakoorzadeh, courtesy of the National Museum of Iran) 152
6.44 Susa I cemetery, ceramic vessel with anthropomorphic figure between standards
(after Hole 1992: 33) 152
6.45 Susa I stamp seal and seal impressions (after Hole 2010: Figure 15.8e-l) plus stamp seal from
Qara Tepe (bottom row, after Fazeli Nashli et al. 2021: Figure 3.1) 153
6.46 Tol-e Chega Sofla, painted ceramics (after Moghaddam 2020: Figure 85)
(images courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam) 155
xvi Figures
6.47 Tol-e Chega Sofla, view of shrine and adjacent features (Moghaddam 2020: Figure 53)
(images courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam) 155
6.48 Tol-e Chega Sofla, deposit of >70 flat stones or stelae (Moghaddam 2020: Figure 41)
(image courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam) 156
6.49 Tol-e Chega Sofla, selection of carved flat stones or stelae (Moghaddam 2020: Figures 94, 95,
101, 105, 132, 136) (images courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam) 156
6.50 Tol-e Chega Sofla, multiple animal burial (Moghaddam 2020: Figure 49)
(image courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam) 157
6.51 Settlement through time in south-western Iran according to regional surveys
(adapted from Hopper and Wilkinson 2013: Figures 3.1, 3.8) 159
6.52 Tepe Sharafabad, section of Uruk Pit and associated chipped stone tools (after Pollock 2008:
Figures 2–3) 160
6.53 Tepe Sharafabad, ceramics of Middle Uruk type (after Wright 2013: Figures 4.10–4.11) 161
6.54 Susa, Late Susa II stone vessels and statuettes (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 22) (photo credit: Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 162
6.55 Susa, Late Susa II jewellery and metalwork (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 25) (photo credit: Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 163
6.56 Susa, Late Susa II cylinder seal impressions on sealings from Acropole I.18 (after Pittman
2013b: Figure 16.10) (images courtesy of Holly Pittman) 164
6.57 Susa, Late Susa II cylinder seal impression depicting a “priest-king“ in combat before a
monumental horned building (after Pittman 1992a: Figure 28) (image courtesy of Holly Pittman) 165
6.58 Chogha Mish, Late Susa II cylinder seal impressions on sealings (after Pittman 2013b: Figure
16.11) (images courtesy of Holly Pittman) 165
6.59 Susa, Late Susa II sealed bulla with tokens and numerical tablet (SB1927; photo credit: ©
RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Gérard Blot; SB2313; photo credit: © RMN-Grand
Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry Ollivier) 166
6.60 Chogha Mish High Mound, Late Susa II and Old Elamite architecture (Alizadeh 2008: Figure
8) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 168
6.61 Chogha Mish East Area, Late Susa II phase 1 architecture (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 16)
6.62 Chogha Mish, gazelle femur bones from room 1005, Late Susa II phase 1 architecture
(Alizadeh 2008: pl. 13B) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 169
6.63 Chogha Mish, Late Susa II carved bone figurine (Alizadeh 2008: pl. 26A) (image courtesy of
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 170
6.64 Chogha Mish, Late Susa II seals and seal impressions (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 76)
6.65 Chogha Mish East Area, Late Susa II upturned bevelled-rim bowls (Delougaz et al. 1996: pl.
15A-C) (images courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 171
6.66 Tall-e Bakun A, levels III and IV architecture (Alizadeh 2006: Figure 7) (image courtesy of
6.67 Tall-e Bakun A, levels III and IV clay sealings (Alizadeh 2006: pl. 17) (image courtesy of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 174
6.68 Tall-e Bakun A, human and animal figurines (Alizadeh 2006: Figure 58) (image courtesy of
6.69 Rahmatabad, Middle Bakun ceramics, motifs and correlation of motifs with vessel form
(Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2017: Figures 5–6) (photo credit: Hosein Azizi Kharanaghi) 176
6.70 Rescue excavations at Tappeh Mehr Ali (Sardari 2013: Figure 11) (photo credit: Alireza Sardari) 178
6.71 Tepe Yahya, period VC architecture (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: Figure 6.23)
(permission courtesy of C. C Lamberg-Karlovsky) 179
6.72 Tal-e Iblis, area D architecture (after Evett 1967: Figure 9) 180
6.73 Khaje Askar, ceramic vessels from cemetery (Soleimani et al. 2016: Figure 19)
(photo credit: Nasir Eskandari) 181
6.74 Mahtoutabad cemetery, plan of site (Vidale and Desset 2013: Figure 13.4) (image courtesy of
Massimo Vidale) 182
6.75 Mahtoutabad, excavations in Trench I (Vidale and Desset 2013: Figure 13.6)
(photo credit: Massimo Vidale) 183
Figures xvii
6.76 Mahtoutabad I, ceramics (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale) 183
6.77 Aerial image of Sialk South Mound (Vidale et al. 2018: Figure 5b)
(photo credit: Loghman Ahmadzadeh) 185
6.78 Black on buff ceramics from Sialk South Mound (Vidale et al. 2018: Figure 6)
(photo credit: the National Museum of Iran) 186
6.79 The world of the Uruk expansion in the later fourth millennium BC (Sauvage 2020: 36)
(image courtesy of Pascal Butterlin and Martin Sauvage) 186
6.80 Map to show distribution of recording systems across Chalcolithic Iran 187
7.1 Regional cultural zones of Early Bronze Age Iran and its neighbours 189
7.2 Archaeological sites of Proto-Elamite Iran and contemporary Mesopotamia 190
7.3 Susa, plans of architecture in Acropole I levels 18, 17B and 16C (after Dahl et al. 2013: Figure 18.3) 193
7.4 Susa, Acropole I stratigraphic section (after Dahl et al. 2013: Figure 18.2) 194
7.5 Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa (MDP 26S 4774, MDP 26S 4783, MDP 26S 4802) (after Dahl
2012: Figure 4) 196
7.6 Numerical systems in Proto-Elamite texts (after Dahl 2019: Figure 9) 197
7.7 Most commonly occurring Proto-Elamite signs (after Dahl 2002: Table 3) 197
7.8 Semantical structure of Proto-Elamite texts (after Damerow and Englund 1989: Figure 7) 198
7.9 Graphical correspondences between proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite signs and their
counting systems (after Desset 2016: Figure 6) 199
7.10 Proto-Elamite sign M136 (“hairy triangle”) and its variants (after Dahl 2019: Figure 11) 199
7.11 Proto-Elamite signs representing sheep and goat (after Dahl 2019: Figure 10) 200
7.12 Proto-Elamite seals and seal impressions (SB4832; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée
du Louvre/Franck Raux; SB2801; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/
Franck Raux; SB1484; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry
Ollivier; SB6166; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry Ollivier;
SB2675; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry Ollivier) 201
7.13 Piedmont style seals and seal impressions, including one from Jemdet Nasr
(after Pittman 1994: Figures 3–4; Matthews 2002c: Figure 7.8) 203
7.14 Tall-e Geser, Proto-Elamite monumental building in Stake Trench (Alizadeh 2014: Figure 15)
7.15 Tall-e Geser, Proto-Elamite ceramics (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 4) (image courtesy of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago) 206
7.16 Tall-e Geser, Proto-Elamite ceramics (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 4) (image courtesy of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago) 206
7.17 Tall-e Geser, Proto-Elamite alabaster figurine (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 7D) (image courtesy of the
7.18 Tal-i Malyan, plan of site to show excavated areas and surrounding city wall
(after Sumner 2003: Figure 4) 207
7.19 Tal-i Malyan, ABC building levels 2–5 (after Alden 2003b: Figure 9.3) 209
7.20 Tal-i Malyan, ABC building level 3 from the south (after Sumner 2003: pl. 8) 209
7.21 Tal-i Malyan, ABC building level 3, selection of motifs painted on wall plaster
(Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 31) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 210
7.22 Tal-i Malyan, ABC building level 3, selected seals, seal impressions and Proto-Elamite tablet
(after Sumner 2003: Figure 44, pl. 21e) 211
7.23 Tal-i Malyan, TUV building levels I-IIIB (after Nicholas 1990: Figures 13–16) 211
7.24 Tal-i Malyan, TUV operation from the air, looking west. Building level III in the foreground
(after Nicholas 1990: pl. 1) 212
7.25 Tal-i Malyan, TUV sealings and Proto-Elamite tablet (after Nicholas 1990: pls 35–36) 212
7.26 Tepe Yahya, period IVC architecture (Mutin 2013a: Figure 2.2)
(image courtesy of Benjamin Mutin) 215
7.27 Tepe Yahya, heulandite beads from period IVC (© 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard
College; Mutin 2013a: Figure 4.13) (photo credit: Benjamin Mutin) 217
7.28 Tepe Yahya, copper objects from period IVC (© 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard
College; Mutin 2013a: Figure 4.25) (photo credit: Benjamin Mutin) 217
7.29 Tepe Yahya, canister-jars with parallels from sites to the east (Mutin 2013a: Figure 3.116)
xviii Figures
7.30 Tepe Yahya, bevelled-rim bowls and their distribution across period IVC (Mutin 2013a:
Figures 3.3–3.4) (image courtesy of Benjamin Mutin) 218
7.31 Tepe Yahya, selected Proto-Elamite tablets from period IVC (after Damerow and Englund
1989; Mutin 2013a: Figure 5.1; Nokandeh 2017: Figure 30) (photo credit: Neda Hossein
Tehrani and Nima Mohammadi Fakoorzadeh) 219
7.32 Tepe Yahya, distribution of Proto-Elamite and blank tablets across period IVC
(Mutin 2013a: Figure 5.3) (image courtesy of Benjamin Mutin) 219
7.33 Tepe Yahya, seals and seal impressions from period IVC (Mutin 2013a: Figure 5.5)
7.34 Shahr-e Sokhta, period I seal, sealing and Proto-Elamite tablet (Ameri 2020: Figure 2)
(images courtesy of Marta Ameri and ISMEO) 222
7.35 Tepe Sofalin and Shoghali, satellite image (Hessari and Saeedi 2017: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Morteza Hessari) 223
7.36 Tepe Sofalin, Proto-Elamite tablets (Dahl et al. 2012: Figures 5–7; Hessari and Saeedi 2017:
Figure 4) (images courtesy of Morteza Hessari) 223
7.37 Tepe Sofalin, clay sealings with seal impressions (Hessari and Saeedi 2017: Figures 3, 5)
(images courtesy of Morteza Hessari) 224
7.38 Qoli Darvish, satellite image of the site (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 3) (image courtesy of
Abbas Alizadeh) 225
7.39 Qoli Darvish, plan of phase II5 (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 5)
(image courtesy of Abbas Alizadeh) 225
7.40 Qoli Darvish, Proto-Elamite pottery from phases II3–II5 (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 11)
7.41 Qoli Darvish, seals, sealings, bulla and numerical tablet fragments from phases II2 and II5
(Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 14) (image courtesy of Abbas Alizadeh) 226
7.42 Qoli Darvish, plan of phase II2 architecture (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 8)
7.43 Tepe Sialk, Proto-Elamite tablet AO18173 (Bridey and Cuny 2019a: 52) (Ghirshman Archive,
Department of Near Eastern Antiquities, Musée du Louvre. Inv. no DAO-600–004–0093) 228
7.44 Arisman, Area C layer of house I (photo credit: Barbara Helwing, DAI-EA; photo no: ARI_
chapt2-1-3-2_fig36) 228
7.45 Arisman, Area C painted pottery (photo credit: Hermann Parzinger, DAI-EA; photo no:
2-2-2 fig06) 229
7.46 Arisman, Area C cylinder seals with modern impression (photo credit: Barbara Helwing,
DAI-EA; photo no: Teh50_fig172) 229
7.47 Settlement trajectories through time for the Kur river basin (lower) and Susiana (upper),
showing occupied areas, in hectares, per period (adapted from de Miroschedji 2003:
Figures 3.2–3.3) 234
8.1 Distribution of ETC and Bronze Age sites in north-western Iran and adjacent regions 237
8.2 North-western Iran and the Caucasus: major features and ETC sites (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015:
Figure 2) (image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh) 239
8.3 Köhne Shahar from the south (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015: Figure 3)
(image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh) 240
8.4 Köhne Shahar, excavated structures of the eastern neighbourhood, Trench 12J21,
phase III in brown, phases IV–V in grey (Samei and Alizadeh 2020: Figure 4a)
8.5 Köhne Shahar, excavated structures of the eastern neighbourhood,
Trench 13I5, phase III in brown, phases IV–V in grey (Samei and Alizadeh 2020: Figure 4a).
Image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh) 240
8.6 Köhne Shahar, excavated structures of the eastern neighbourhood, Trench 13J1,
phase III in brown, phases IV–V in grey (Samei and Alizadeh 2020: Figure 4a)
8.7 Köhne Shahar, ETC ceramics (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015: figs 17–19)
8.8 Kul Tepe, ETC II–III architecture (Abedi and Omrani 2015: Figure 9)
(image courtesy of Akbar Abedi) 242
Figures xix
8.9 Kul Tepe, possible stamp seal and cylinder seal (Abedi and Omrani 2015: Figure 12; Abedi
2016a: Figure 15) (images courtesy of Akbar Abedi) 242
8.10 Kul Tepe, animal figurines (Abedi and Omrani 2015: Figure 13; Abedi 2016a)
(images courtesy of Akbar Abedi) 243
8.11 Kohneh Tepesi during excavation, with the Araxes river beyond ( Jayez et al. 2017: Figure 2)
(photo credit: Mozhgan Jayez) 244
8.12 Kohneh Tepesi, bifacial chert sickle elements ( Jayez et al. 2017: Figure 6
(photo credit: Mozhgan Jayez) 244
8.13 Yanik Tepe, ETC II plan of level 15 (Summers 2013b: Figure 61) (image courtesy of Geoffrey
Summers and Peeters Publishing) 245
8.14 Yanik Tepe, ETC II level 14 circular structures (Summers 2013b: Figure 73)
(image courtesy of Geoffrey Summers and Peeters Publishing) 245
8.15 Yanik Tepe, ECII pottery with white-filled incised and excised decoration (Summers 2004:
Figure 9) (image courtesy of Geoffrey Summers and Peeters Publishing) 246
8.16 Yanik Tepe, ETC III rectilinear architecture (photo credit: Charles Burney, supplied by
Geoffrey Summers) 246
8.17 Godin Tepe, plan of period IV:1a2 (Rothman 2011: Figure 5.17)
(image courtesy of Hilary Gopnik) 248
8.18 Godin Tepe, typical Godin IV beaker or cup (Rothman 2011: Figure 5.27)
8.19 Yanik Tepe, deep sequence of stratified ETC deposits (Summers 2013b: Figure 10)
(image courtesy of Geoffrey Summers and Peeters Publishing) 251
8.20 Faunal spectra from ETC sites in north-western Iran by percentage of the Number of
Identified Specimens (NISP) and of the Weight of Identified Specimens (WISP)
(after Davoudi et al. 2018: Figure 3) 254
8.21 Kohneh Pasgah, charred fruits: hackberry, fig, grapevine (after Decaix et al. 2019b: Figure 8) 255
8.22 Palaeo-environmental change according to cores from lakes Imera and Aligol, southern
Georgia (after Connor and Sagona 2007: Figure 5) 258
8.23 Hasanlu, level V columned-hall building and internal gate (Danti 2013b: Figure 17.6)
(image courtesy of Michael Danti) 261
8.24 Bayazid Abad, stone-lined tomb (Amelirad and Khanmohamadi 2016: Figure 2)
(photo credit: Sheler Amelirad) 262
8.25 Bayazid Abad, selected cylinder seals from tomb (Amelirad and Khanmohamadi 2016: figs
1–8) (images courtesy of Sheler Amelirad) 262
8.26 Khanghah Gilavan, Middle Bronze Age grave and grave goods (Rezalou and Ayremlou 2016:
figs 9–12) (images courtesy of Reza Rezalou) 262
8.27 Kafarved-Varzaneh, looting pits at cemetery Site 051 (Ilkhan et al. 2019: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Ilkhan Tabasom) 263
8.28 Kafarved-Varzaneh, excavated burial at cemetery Site 051 (Ilkhan et al. 2019: figs 4–5)
(image courtesy of Ilkhan Tabasom) 264
8.29 Map of Luristan and adjacent regions, showing key sites and features (Haerinck 2011: pl. 1)
(image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 265
8.30 High peaks in Luristan (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 265
8.31 Saimarreh river, Luristan (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 266
8.32 Tepe Giyan, view of mound (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 267
8.33 Mir Khair, EBA I grave and grave goods (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 3)
(image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 268
8.34 EBA I bichrome and polychrome pottery and later pottery from Kalleh Nisar (image courtesy
of Bruno Overlaet) 269
8.35 Kunji cave, grave D/F and its contents (Emberling et al. 2002: figs 6–8) (photo credit: John Speth;
images courtesy of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology) 269
8.36 EBA I metal artefacts from graves at Mir Khair (Begemann et al. 2008: Figure 2) (image
courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 270
8.37 Bani Surmah, communal tombs with plan of tomb A14 (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 270
8.38 Bani Surmah, polychrome painted pottery in Scarlet Ware style (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002:
Figure 6) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 271
xx Figures
8.39 Selected cylinder seals, and/or their modern impressions, from Bani Surmah graves
(Tourovets 1996: figs 2, 4–6, 8–9) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 272
8.40 Grave goods from selected sites of Luristan showing connections to the Deh Luran plain
(Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 7) (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 272
8.41 Dar Tanha, tomb 1 and grave goods showing connections to Godin III:6
(Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 8) (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 273
8.42 Deh Dumen, view of site and excavated trenches (Sołtysiak et al. 2019b: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Reza Naseri) 273
8.43 Deh Dumen, bronze vessels from Bronze Age graves (Oudbashi et al. 2016: Figure 5a-b)
8.44 Godin Tepe, plan of period III:4c (Henrickson 2011b: Figure 6.3)
8.45 Godin Tepe, painted vessels from period III:5 (Henrickson 2011b: Figure 6.24)
8.46 Chogha Maran, cylinder seal impressions on clay sealings (after Pittman 2014: figs 7–8) 276
8.47 Godin Tepe, period III carpenter’s tool kit from Late Bronze Age grave
(after Dellovin 2011: Figure 1) 277
8.48 Kalleh Nisar, EBA IV tomb and its contents (Begemann et al. 2008: pl. 2) (image courtesy of
Bruno Overlaet) 277
8.49 Surkh Dum-e Luri, excavations in 1938 (Schmidt et al. 1989: pl. 38) (image courtesy of the
8.50 Surkh Dum-e Luri, plan of level 2C (Schmidt et al. 1989: pl. 51) (image courtesy of the
8.51 Surkh Dum-e Luri, Late Bronze Age cylinder seals (modern impressions) (Schmidt et al. 1989:
pl. 134) (images courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) 279
8.52 Lead isotope data of copper-base artefacts from Mesopotamia and Luristan
(after Begemann et al. 2008: Figure 11) 281
8.53 Map of Fars, showing key sites and features 283
9.1 Map of Iran and Middle Asia to show major cultural regions, sites and routes 287
9.2 View of Dasht-e Lut (photo credit: Xavier Dealbert, iStock 1300518012) 290
9.3 Map of Helmand river and location of Shahr-i Sokhta (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale) 290
9.4 Kerman Museum, display of Jiroft objects (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 292
9.5 “Royal sceptre” from Jiroft region (Eskandari et al. 2020b: Figures 2–4) (images courtesy of
François Desset) 292
9.6 Mahtoutabad, aerial view showing multiple looter pits (Desset et al. 2017: pl. 2)
(image courtesy HARP project) 293
9.7 Mahtoutabaad, Grave 2, view, plan and grave goods (Desset et al. 2017: pls 6, 12, 14–15)
(images courtesy of François Desset) 293
9.8 Hajjiabad-Varamin location map (Eskandari et al. 2021: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Nasir Eskandari) 294
9.9 Hajjiabad-Varamin, surface collection of selected worked stones (Eskandari et al. 2021:
Figure 26) (photo credit: Nasir Eskandari) 295
9.10 Hajjiabad-Varamin, hoard of copper artefacts (Eskandari et al. 2021: Figures 29–30)
(image courtesy of Nasir Eskandari) 295
9.11 Jiroft, chlorite vessel with carved and inlaid scene (after Madjidzadeh 2003: 13–14) 296
9.12 Jiroft, chlorite vessels depicting possible Oryx (after Madjidzadeh 2003: 24–26, 32–33;
Devillers 2013: Figures 7–8, pls 3–4) 296
9.13 Halil Rud valley, key sites (image courtesy of François Desset) 297
9.14 Halil Rud valley, date palm grove (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 297
9.15 Konar Sandal South, citadel mound (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 298
9.16 Konar Sandal South, “city seal” impression (Matthews and Richardson 2018: Figure 14) 298
9.17 Konar Sandal South, citadel enclosure wall (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 299
9.18 Konar Sandal South, engaged painted sculpture at citadel entrance
(photo credit: Holly Pittman) 299
9.19 Konar Sandal South, seal impressions on clay sealings (after Pittman 2019:
Figures 11, 16–17, 21–22, 27) 300
Figures xxi
9.20 Konar Sandal South, scorpion bowls and canister vessels (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008:
Figure 24) (image courtesy of Holly Pittman) 300
9.21 Geometric and Linear Elamite texts from Konar Sandal (Desset 2014b: pls 1–2)
(images courtesy of François Desset) 301
9.22 Early Bronze Age II and III settlement in the SOJAS regional survey (Pfälzner et al. 2019:
Figures 7–8) (image courtesy of the SOJAS project, the University of Tübingen) 302
9.23 Chlorite outcrop in the Bagh-e Borj mountains (Pfälzner et al. 2019: Figure 19)
(photo credit: Peter Pfälzner) 302
9.24 Tepe Yahya, carved chlorite fragments in the Intercultural Style
(after Aruz 2003: Figures 242–243) 303
9.25 Chlorite “handbag weight,” National Museum, Tehran (Vidale and Micheli 2012: Figure 1)
(image courtesy of Massimo Vidale) 303
9.26 Jiroft, chlorite plaque in form of scorpion (after Madjidzadeh 2003:136); Tepe Yahya, fragment
of similar plaque (after Dunn-Vaturi and Schädler 2006: pl. 2) 304
9.27 Area of Shahdad from Google Earth with key features marked (Vidale et al. 2012: Figure 2)
9.28 Shahdad, view of exposed graves in Cemetery A (after Hakemi 1997: Figure 18) 305
9.29 Shahdad, plan of craftworking area, Site D (after Hakemi 1997: Figure 54) 306
9.30 Shahdad, chlorite box from grave 116, object 1103 (after Hakemi 1997: pl. 7) 306
9.31 Shahdad, “Standard of Shahdad” (after Hakemi 1997: pl. 2, Figure Gt) 307
9.32 Shahdad, fragment of painted matting (after Hakemi 1997: Figure K) 307
9.33 Shahdad, copper alloy pin with engraved scene (Meier and Vidale 2013: Figure 3)
9.34 Shahdad, cylinder seals from Cemetery A (after Hakemi 1997: Figure Ib) 308
9.35 Bampur, ceramic connections with Tell Abraq (after Potts 2003: Figure 16) 309
9.36 Spidej, grave 125 plan, view and selected ceramic and other grave goods (after Heydari et al.
2019: pls 4, 6, 16, 22, 24) (images courtesy of Massimo Vidale) 310
9.37 Ceramic connections of Spidej grave 125 and sites of south-eastern Iran and beyond
(after Heydari et al. 2019: pl. 23) 311
9.38 Copper stamp seals from Spidej, Chegerdak and Keshik, eastern Jazmurian basin (after
Heydari et al. 2018b: Figure 11) 311
9.39 Map to show location of Shahr-i Sokhta and sites to the east (Mutin and Minc 2019: Figure 1)
9.40 Shahr-i Sokhta, aerial view looking southwest (image courtesy of Hussain Moradi) 313
9.41 Shahr-i Sokhta, plan of site to show main excavated areas (Sajjadi 2003: Figure 2; Sajjadi and
Moradi 2016: Figure 1; Moradi 2019: Figure 2) (images courtesy of Hussain Moradi) 314
9.42 Shahr-i Sokhta, period I ceramics (Mutin and Minc 2019: Figures 2, 3, 5) (image courtesy of
Benjamin Mutin) 315
9.43 Shahr-e Sokhta, periods II-III, Monumental Area, view and plan of Building 1
(Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 2) (images courtesy of Hussain Moradi) 315
9.44 Shahr-i Sokhta, turquoise industry including mineral lumps and finished beads
(Foglini and Vidale 2017: col. pls. 17–18) (images courtesy of Massimo Vidale) 316
9.45 Shahr-i Sokhta, period II items from the stone-cutter’s hoard including wooden bead holders,
bead roughouts, beads shattered while being drilled, and finished beads, all of lapis lazuli
(Lazzari and Vidale 2017: col. pl. 8) (images courtesy of Massimo Vidale) 317
9.46 Shahr-i Sokhta, period II clay anthropomorphic figurines (after Shirazi 2007: Figures 5, 9) 317
9.47 Shahr-i Sokhta, period III Central Quarter building (after Salvatori and Vidale 1997: Figure 2) 318
9.48 Shahr-i Sokhta, period III, wooden gaming board and pieces from catacomb grave 731
(Sajjadi 2015: pl. 8) (images courtesy of Hussain Moradi) 319
9.49 Shahr-i Sokhta, period III, Monumental Area, view and plan of Building 20
(Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 3) (images courtesy of Hussain Moradi) 319
9.50 Tepe Dasht, textiles of ovicaprid fibres (after Mortazavi et al. 2011b: Figure 3) 320
9.51 Tepe Dasht, animal figurine fragments (after Mortazavi 2010: Figures 7–8) 320
9.52 Tepe Dasht, assorted figurine fragments (after Mortazavi 2010: Figures 7–8) 320
9.53 Shahr-i Sokhta, period IV, Area 26 building (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 6) (image courtesy
of Hussain Moradi) 321
xxii Figures
9.54 Shahr-i Sokhta, period IV, Area 26 building (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 6) (image courtesy
of Hussain Moradi) 322
9.55 Shahr-i Sokhta, section through catacomb grave 19 (after Sajjadi 2015: Figure 8) 323
9.56 Shahr-i Sokhta, catacomb grave 731 (after Sajjadi 2015: Figure 21) 324
9.57 Shahr-i Sokhta, grave 6705, plan, view and hemispherical artificial eye (Sajjadi et al. 2008:
Figures 7, 10–12) (image courtesy of S. M. S. Sajjadi and Hussain Moradi) 324
9.58 Shahr-i Sokhta, periods II-III, seals of bronze, stone and bone (Ameri 2020: Figure 3)
(images courtesy of Marta Ameri and ISMEO) 325
9.59 Lake Hamoun lake core with reconstructions of environments through time (Hamzeh et al.
2016: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Mahmudy Gharaie) 326
9.60 Map of northern Iran and adjacent areas in the Bronze Age and Iron Age (Piller and
Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 1; Thornton 2013b: Figure 10.1; Vahdati et al. 2019: Figure 1) 327
9.61 Alborz mountains in the region of Mt Damavand (photo credit: Petr Kahanek,
iStock 1316019339) 328
9.62 The Astarabad treasure (after Rostovtzeff 1920: pl. III) 328
9.63 Tepe Damghani, seed and fruit remains (after Francfort et al. 2014: pl. 11) 329
9.64 Tureng Tepe, Mound C, copper/bronze objects (Olson and Thornton 2021: Figure 10). a:
TT392; b: UPM 32–41–44/TT540; c: TT113; d: UPM 32–41–45/TT541). Not to scale
(images courtesy of Kyle Olson/UPM) 330
9.65 Gohar Tappe, contour plan of the mound (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 2) (image
courtesy of Ali Mahfroozi and Christian Piller) 331
9.66 Ghal-e Ben, aerial view of the site (photo credit: Loghman Ahmadzadeh
and Hassan Fazeli Nashli) 331
9.67 Tepe Hissar, excavations of Burned Building in 1932 (after Dyson 1977a: 419) 332
9.68 Tepe Hissar, plan of Burned Building (after Dyson 1977a: 420) 332
9.69 Tureng Tepe, main mound under excavation in 1975 (Bessenay-Prolonge and Vallet 2019:
Figure 2) (image courtesy of Regis Vallet) 333
9.70 Tureng Tepe, anthropomorphic figurines (Olson 2020: Figure 6). Photographs of the
University of Pennsylvania Museum Corpus; 1–32–41–69, TT#025; 2–32–41–68, TT#024;
3–32–41–67, TT#348; 4–32–41–62, TT#643; 5–32–41–64, TT#364; 6–32–41–42 TT#577;
7–32–41-25, TT#648; 8–32–41–65, TT#321; 9–32–41–66, TT#323; 10–32–41–70,
TT#174; 11–32–41–63, TT#269; Used with permission from the Near Eastern Section of
the University of Pennsylvania Museum, photographs 1 and 5–11 by Kyle Olson
(images courtesy of Kyle Olson/UPM) 333
9.71 Shahrak Firoze, silver vessel (Basafa and Davari 2019: Figures 2–3)
(images courtesy of Hassan Basafa) 334
9.72 Gavand, southern Khorasan, composite figurine from a looted grave
(Biscione and Vahdati 2021: Figure 19.4) (image courtesy of Ali Vahdati) 334
9.73 Tepe Chalow, BMAC ceramics from graves (Vahdati et al. 2019: Figures 10–11)
(image courtesy of Ali Vahdati) 335
9.74 Tepe Chalow, grave goods from BMAC graves (Vahdati et al. 2019: Figures 17–18)
(images courtesy of Ali Vahdati) 335
9.75 Gohar Tappe, Late Bronze Age grave AJ2XX-2 (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 6)
(image courtesy of Ali Mahfroozi and Christian Piller) 337
10.1 Map of western Iran and Mesopotamia, with key sites 341
10.2 View of Zohreh plain, Khuzestan, in region of Tol-e Chega Sofla (photo credit:
Abbas Moghaddam) 342
10.3 Plan of Susa to show excavated remains from Susa IVA to Neo-Elamite (Sauvage 2020: 105)
(image courtesy of Clélia Paladre, François Bridey and Martin Sauvage) 343
10.4 Susa IVA, architectural complexes on the Acropole, c. 2600–2450 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 32)
(image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 345
10.5 Susa IVA, votive limestone wall plaques (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 34) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 346
10.6 Susa IVA, painted ceramics (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 38) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 347
10.7 Susa IVA, clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 42)
Figures xxiii
10.8 Susa IVA, objects made of carved bitumen compound (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 35)
10.9 Susa IVA, metal objects (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 46) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 349
10.10 Susa, temple of Ninhursag (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 33) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 350
10.11 Susa IVA, Vase à la Cachette vessels and contents (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 41) (image courtesy
of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 351
10.12 Stele of the Akkadian king Naram-Sin, ca. 2254–2218 BC (SB4; photo credit:
© RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux) 353
10.13 Susa, fragment of stele of Sargon, ca. 2300 BC (SB1; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais,
Musée du Louvre/Hervé Lewandowski) 354
10.14 Susa, statue of Manishtushu, 2269–2255 BC (SB47; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais,
Musée du Louvre/Mathieu Rabeau) 355
10.15 Susa IVB, cylinder seals and seal impressions (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 50) (image courtesy of
Javier Álvarez-Mon) 355
10.16 Susa IVB, statue of Eshpum with Akkadian inscription across back (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 36a)
10.17 Environmental and climate change in Southwest Asia, ca. 3000–1700 BC (Carolin et al. 2019:
Figure 4) (image courtesy of Stacy Carolin) 357
10.18 Susa VA, statue of the goddess Narundi (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 57) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 358
10.19 Susa VA, cellular granary structures (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 54) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 359
10.20 Linear Elamite inscriptions (Desset 2018a: Figure 6) (image courtesy of François Desset) 359
10.21 Map to show distribution of writing systems across Southwest Asia in the later third and early
second millennia BC (Desset 2018a: Figure 1) (image courtesy of François Desset) 360
10.22 Gunagi vessels (Desset 2018a: Figure 15) (image courtesy of François Desset) 361
10.23 Susa VB, temple of Inshushinak at time of Shulgi, c. 2050 BC, and selected finds
10.24 Map to show location of rock reliefs and stelae of late third and early second millennia
BC date in western Iran and eastern Iraq (Alibaigi et al. 2020: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi) 363
10.25 Selected rock reliefs and stelae of late third and early second millennia BC date in western Iran
and eastern Iraq (Alibaigi et al. 2020: Figure 14) (image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi) 364
10.26 Tappeh Senjar, cylinder seal and modern impression, in the Anshanite style (Sardari and
Attarpour 2019: Figure 13) (image courtesy of Alireza Sardari) 365
10.27 Chogha Mish, vessel of bitumen compound (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 29) (photo credit: Neda
Hossein Tehrani and Nima Mohammadi Fakoorzadeh, National Museum of Iran) 366
10.28 Susa, Ville Royale, Chantier A, plans of levels XI to XV (after Gasche 2013: Figure 5) 367
10.29 Susa, school tablet with Sumerian and Akkadian terms (after Malayeri 2013: Figure 5) 368
10.30 Chogha Gavaneh, early second millennium BC building. The cuneiform archive came from
room B15 (after Abdi and Beckman 2007: Figure 5) 369
10.31 Old Elamite seals and seal impressions from Malyan (a) and Susa (b-h) (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl.
72) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 369
10.32 Susa, vessels of bitumen compound from the Shimashki and Old Elamite periods,
ca. 2050–1500 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 68) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 370
10.33 Susa, incised and infilled grey-ware vessels, ca. 1880–1700 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 70)
10.34 Kurangun, general view of relief scenes (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 10b) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 371
10.35 Kurangun, representation of carved relief scenes (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 11) (image courtesy
10.36 Haft Tepe, plan of areas excavated by Ezat Negahban (after Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013: Figure 3) 373
10.37 Haft Tepe, geomagnetic map and interpretation (after Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013: Figure 4) 374
10.38 Haft Tepe, clay head and mask, 15th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 90) (image courtesy
10.39 Haft Tepe, selected seal impressions (after Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2011: Taf. 7) 375
xxiv Figures
10.40 Haft Tepe, cuneiform tablets under excavation (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2011: Taf. 6)
(image courtesy of Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi) 375
10.41 Haft Tepe, main tomb complex (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pls 86, 88) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 376
10.42 Haft Tepe, plan of mass burial in Trench 298, c. 1400 BC (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2014: Taf. 31.2;
Jafari 2018: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi) 376
10.43 Susa, terracotta figurines of females clasping breasts (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 97)
10.44 Susa, plan showing locations of major finds (after Carter et al. 1992b: Figure 41) 379
10.45 Susa, gold and silver statuettes of offering bearers (SB2758, SB2759; photo credit: ©
RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux) 379
10.46 Susa, limestone lion and hedgehog on bitumen compound cart (SB2908, SB2905;
photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Hervé Lewandowski) 380
10.47 Susa, schist whetstone with gold lion head finial (SB2769; photo credit: © RMN-Grand
Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux) 380
10.48 Susa, bronze statue of queen Napir-Asu (SB2731; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais,
Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux) 381
10.49 Susa, sandstone stele of Untash-Napirisha (SB12; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais,
Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux) 381
10.50 Chogha Zanbil, plan of the ancient city to show major features (Sauvage 2020: 106)
(image courtesy of François Bridey and Martin Sauvage) 382
10.51 Chogha Zanbil, plan of the ziggurat (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 101) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 383
10.52 Chogha Zanbil, view of the ziggurat (photo credit: ivanadb, iStock 506995934) 383
10.53 Chogha Zanbil, glazed terracotta knobbed tiles from Chogha Zanbil and Malyan
10.54 Chogha Zanbil, plan of city to show 13 districts (after Carlson 2014: Figure 1) 385
10.55 Chogha Zanbil, glazed zebu bull with inscription (photo credit: Neda Tehrani, Baloot
10.56 Chogha Zanbil, palais hypogée (after Carter 2011b: Figure 4) 386
10.57 Susa, excavation of the Law Code stele of Hammurabi in the 1901–1902 season
(Harper and Amiet 1992: Figure 45; photo credit: Gustave Jéquier) 387
10.58 Susa, sit-shamshi sculpture, 12th century BC (SB2743; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais,
Musée du Louvre/Image RMN-GP) 388
10.59 Susa, moulded brick relief scene, with inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak, 12th century BC
(SB2732, SB2733; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Christian Larrieu) 389
10.60 Shekaft-e Salman, relief SSII, 12th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 142) (image courtesy
10.61 Tal-i Malyan, building EDD, level IV, ca. 1250–1000 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 144)
11.1 Map of Iran to show major Iron Age sites and palaeoclimate record locations 394
11.2 Left: Iron Age climate change attested in Kuna Ba cave speleothem (Sinha et al. 2019:
Figure 3) (image courtesy of Ashish Sinha). Right: summarised pollen diagram of Lake
Maharlou, Lake Almalou and Lake Parishan (Andam et al. 2020: Figure 5)
(image courtesy of Sara Andam) 397
11.3 Periods of enhanced atmospheric dust, correlated with socio-political episodes in Iran
and Upper Mesopotamia (Sharifi et al. 2015: Figure 9) (image courtesy of Arash Sharifi).
A: episodes of dry conditions. B: Drought records from Iran. C: Historical records of
famine events. Orange areas denote major episodes of dust deposition. Grey arrows
denote power transitions 398
11.4 Hasanlu, aerial photograph and contour plan with excavated areas indicated (Cifarelli 2019:
Figure 1; Danti 2013a: Figure 1.4) (images courtesy of Michael Danti) 400
11.5 Hasanlu, citadel period IVc, 1250–1050 BC (Danti 2013a: Figure 1.5) (image courtesy of
Michael Danti) 401
11.6 Zardkhaneh, view and plan of citadel and associated cemetery sites (Kazempour et al. 2017:
Figures 2–3) (images courtesy of Mehdi Kazempour) 402
Figures xxv
11.7 Zardkhaneh, multi-room stone building on Mound A fortress (Kazempour et al. 2017: Figure 9)
(image courtesy of Mehdi Kazempour) 402
11.8 Zardkhaneh, grave goods from burials (after Kazempour et al. 2017: Figures 11, 20, 27)
(images courtesy of Mehdi Kazempour) 403
11.9 Jafar Abad and Tu Ali Sofla, Eurasian-style horse-bits and tortoise carapace sounding box with
fingerpick (Iravani Ghadim and Beikzadeh 2018: Figures 15–16, 23)
(images courtesy of Iravani Ghadim) 403
11.10 Hasanlu, citadel period IVb, 1050–800 BC (Danti 2013a: Figure 1.6) (image courtesy of
Michael Danti) 405
11.11 Hasanlu, destruction at end of citadel period IVb (UPenn Museum image #78138)
11.12 Hasanlu, citadel period IVb, metal weaponry (Danti 2013b: Figure 17.16) (image courtesy of
Michael Danti) 406
11.13 Hasanlu, lapis and gold-leaf vessel with lion-headed handle (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh,
Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the National Museum of Iran) 407
11.14 Hasanlu, gold bowl shortly after excavation in 1958 (Danti 2014: Figure 5) (image courtesy of
Michael Danti) 407
11.15 Hasanlu, gold bowl decorative scheme (after Winter 1989: Figure 6) 407
11.16 Hasanlu, reconstruction of BBIW Room 9 gold bowl context (Danti 2014: Figure 6)
11.17 Hasanlu, silver beaker with electrum appliqué (after Winter 1977: Figure 1) 408
11.18 Hasanlu, Low Mound, Operation V, “Artisan’s House” destruction level (Danti 2011: Figure 5)
11.19 Hasanlu, Operation LIe Burial 3, Iron Age II (Danti and Cifarelli 2015: Figure 18)
11.20 Shahr Yeri stelae (after Dan and Cesaretti 2020: Figures 5–10)
(images courtesy of Roberto Dan) 410
11.21 Hasanlu, citadel period III (after Kroll 2013: Figure 6) 411
11.22 Hasanlu, Urartian red-slipped trefoil jar from Operation Z26 (Kroll 2013: Figure 8) 411
11.23 Urartian fortified sites in north-western Iran and adjacent regions, arranged in clusters
(Biscione and Dan 2019: Figure 6) (image courtesy of Roberto Dan) 412
11.24 Bastam, view from the northeast and site plan (Kleiss 1979: Taf. 2)
(permission courtesy of Stephan Kroll) 412
11.25 Bastam, plan of the citadel (Kleiss 1979: Abb. 36) (permission courtesy of Stephan Kroll) 413
11.26 Bastam, Urartian clay tablet with seal impression (Kleiss 1979: Taf. 28)
(permission courtesy of Stephan Kroll) 413
11.27 Bastam, rooms with concentrations of animal bones and clay bullae (Zimansky 1979: 55)
(permission courtesy of Paul Zimansky) 413
11.28 Bastam, bulla with inscribed seal impression of king Rusa II, son of Argishti, 7th century BC
(Zimansky 1979: 53) (permission courtesy of Paul Zimansky) 414
11.29 Ziwiye, ivory and bone plaques (Amelirad and Razmpoush 2019: Figures 1–4; Nokandeh
2017: Figure 52) (images courtesy of Sheler Amelirad; bottom left photo credit: Nima
Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the National Museum of Iran) 415
11.30 Rabat Tepe, pebble floor (Kargar and Binandeh 2009: pl. 5) (images courtesy of Alireza
Binandeh and Reza Heydari) 416
11.31 Rabat Tepe, painted bricks showing winged lion-man (Kargar and Binandeh 2009: pl. 7) and
winged genie (images courtesy of Alireza Binandeh and Reza Heydari) 416
11.32 Sarrez, decorated bronze beaker (Amelirad and Razmpoush 2015: Figure 5)
(images courtesy of Sheler Amelirad) 416
11.33 Ruwar, Iron Age tomb in the Sirwan river area, Hawraman, Kurdistan. Site location,
tomb and selected grave goods (Ghasimi et al. 2019: Figures 2, 6, 10–11, 13, 15)
(images courtesy of Taher Ghasimi) 417
11.34 Kani Koter, bronze belt from grave (Amelirad and Azizi 2021: Figure 13)
(images courtesy of Sheler Amelirad) 418
11.35 The 8th Campaign of Sargon II in 714 BC (Sauvage 2020: 123) (image courtesy of Mustapha
Djabellaoui and Martin Sauvage) 418
xxvi Figures
11.36 Marlik, site location map and aerial view (after Oudbashi and Hessari 2017: Figure 1)
(images courtesy of Morteza Hessari) 421
11.37 Marlik, excavated area and numbered graves (Oudbashi and Hessari 2017: Figure 2)
11.38 Marlik, selected metal grave goods (Oudbashi and Hessari 2017: Figure 3)
11.39 Selected gold grave goods from Marlik (top row, middle left, bottom right), Kaluraz
(middle right) and Kelardasht (bottom left) (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh,
National Museum of Iran) 423
11.40 Marlik, selected ceramic grave goods (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 60) (photo credit: courtesy
Jebrael Nokandeh, National Museum of Iran) 424
11.41 Marlik, gold beaker from grave 26 (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh, National
Museum of Iran) 425
11.42 Toul-e Talish, bronze bracelet with Urartian inscription (Vahdati 2007: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Ali Vahdati) 425
11.43 Kelardasht, selected objects from the Kelardasht Treasure (Samadi 1959: Figures 4–5,
7, 11–13; Nokandeh 2017: Figure 47) (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh,
National Museum of Iran) 426
11.44 Tepe Hissar, location of trenches with Iron Age material (after Roustaei 2010a: Figure 28) 426
11.45 Gohar Tappe, horse figurine (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 25) (images courtesy of Ali
Mahfroozi and Christian Piller) 427
11.46 Shahne Poshte, Iron Age I burials (Sołtysiak et al. 2019a: Figures 1–2) (images courtesy of
11.47 North-eastern Iran and its neighbours in the Early Iron Age (adapted from Vahdati 2018:
Figure 14) (image courtesy of Ali Vahdati) 428
11.48 Jayran Tepe, circular mudbrick structure and ceramics of Early Iron Age
(Vahdati 2016: Figures 3–5, pl. 4) (images courtesy of Ali Vahdati) 428
11.49 Qara Tappeh, selected Iron Age burials and grave goods
(images courtesy of Mostafa Dehpahlavan) 429
11.50 Qeytariyah, burnished grey-ware vessels from graves (photo credit: Neda Tehrani, Baloot
11.51 Qoli Darvish, Iron Age rooms with storage vessels (after Fahimi 2019: Figure 4) 431
11.52 Shamshirgah, decorated brick (Malekzadeh and Naseri 2013: Figure 5)
11.53 Map to show location of Qom, Qoli Darvish, Shamshirgah and Sialk (Malekzadeh and Naseri
2013: Figure 1) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri) 431
11.54 Shamshirgah, faunal remains by NISP and weight (after Mashkour and Fahimi 2019: Figure 6) 432
11.55 Estark-Joshaqan, burials and grave goods (photo credit: Javad Hossainzadeh, courtesy of
11.56 Tepe Sialk, Cemetery B painted Iron Age ceramics (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019:
Figures 2.28–2.30) (images courtesy of the National Museum of Iran) 433
11.57 Tepe Golestan, sherd with seal impression depicting ploughing scene (Alibaigi and Khosravi
2014: Figures 4–5) (images courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi) 433
11.58 Map of Iron Age I-II cemetery sites in Luristan (Overlaet 2005: Figures 1–2) (images courtesy
of Bruno Overlaet) 435
11.59 Baba Jilan graveyard showing illegal (top) and legal (bottom) excavations (Hasanpur et al. 2015:
pl. 3) (images courtesy of Ata Hasanpur) 437
11.60 Luristan, canonical Luristan style bronze artefacts (Overlaet 2013: Figures 18.6–18.10)
(images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 438
11.61 Luristan, selection of excavated bronze artefacts (Overlaet 2013: Figure 1) (images courtesy of
Bruno Overlaet) 438
11.62 Baba Jilan, bronze ring with image of Ahura Mazda (Hasanpur et al. 2015: pl. 6)
(images courtesy of Ata Hasanpur) 439
11.63 Baba Jan, isometric reconstructions of the level III fort and painted chamber
(after Goff 1977: Figures 5–6) 439
11.64 Surkh Dum-e Luri, scenes from cylinder seals (after Maras 2005: Figures 2, 4–5) 440
Figures xxvii
11.65 Sangtarashan, views and plan of stone structure (Hasanpur and Malekzadeh 2019: pl. 19,
Figure 3) (images courtesy of Ata Hasanpur) 440
11.66 Sangtarashan, deposits of metal artefacts (Hasanpur and Malekzadeh 2019: pls 4–5, Figures
1–2) (images courtesy of Ata Hasanpur) 441
11.67 War Kabud, view of graveyard with illegal pits and Belgian Expedition excavations in 1966
(Fleming et al. 2006: Figure 2) (mage courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 442
11.68 War Kabud, selected Iron Age III grave goods (Overlaet 2005: pls 12–14)
(images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet) 442
11.69 Map of Elam and Babylonia in the Neo-Elamite period (Sauvage 2020: 131)
(image courtesy of Francis Joannès, Philippe Clancier and Martin Sauvage) 443
11.70 Susa, Neo-Elamite I ceramics and vitreous wares (Álvarez-Mon 2013b: Figure 23.2)
11.71 Susa, Ville Royal II, Tomb 693, 7th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 166; after Wicks
2015: pls. 34, 36–38) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 445
11.72 Susa, carved limestone and bitumen reliefs 8th–7th centuries BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl.
190b) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon) 445
11.73 Susa, stela of Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak, 6th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 192)
11.74 Kul-e Farah III, carved relief scene photo (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 39) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon) 447
11.75 Kul-e Farah III, carved relief scene drawing (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 39) (image courtesy of
11.76 Kalantar, stone and clay architecture (Valipour et al. 2017: Figure 9)
(image courtesy of Hamid Reza Valipour) 448
11.77 Jubaji map and plan of Neo-Elamite tomb (Ahmadinia and Shishegar 2019: Figure 3)
(images courtesy of Roonak Ahmadinia) 449
11.78 Jubaji, Neo-Elamite tomb selected objects of gold and semi-precious stone, ca. 625–525 BC
(Ahmadinia and Shishegar 2019: Figures 3, 18, 28–29)
(images courtesy of Roonak Ahmadinia) 449
11.79 Arjan, Neo-Elamite tomb and selected grave goods (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 167)
11.80 Arjan, Neo-Elamite tomb, open ring with disked finials (Álvarez-Mon 2011: Figure 7, 10)
11.81 Arjan, bronze bowl with narrative scenes (Álvarez-Mon 2004: Figure 3) (image courtesy of
11.82 Arjan (top) and Jubaji (bottom) coffins and selected objects (Ahmadinia and Shishegar 2019:
Figure 24) (images courtesy of Roonak Ahmadinia) 452
11.83 Tepe Yahya, possible hydrology of the Soghun valley in the Iron Age
(after Magee 2005a: Figure 4) 454
11.84 The Median “empire” according to Herodotus (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Median_Empire-en.svg) 455
11.85 Stele of Tiglath-Pileser III found in western Iran (Alibaigi 2017: Figure 2)
(images courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi) 456
11.86 Stele of Sargon II found at Najafabad, Hamadan province (Alibaigi et al. 2017: Figure 4;
Alibaigi and MacGinnis 2018: Figure 2 (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei
Inst., courtesy of the National Museum of Iran; drawing courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi) 456
11.87 Tapeh Kheibar, view from the air (Alibaigi et al. 2016: Figure 7)
11.88 Tapeh Kheibar, view from the west (Alibaigi et al. 2016: Figure 8)
11.89 Khorramabad, Meshgin Shahr, kurgan graves numbers 20 and 26
(after Rezalou and Airmlo 2017: Figures 13, 15) 458
11.90 Khorramabad, Meshgin Shahr, selected finds from kurgan graves (after Rezalou and Airmlo
2017: Figure 6) 458
11.91 Heydarabad-e Mishkhas, Neo-Assyrian rock-cut relief (Alibaigi et al. 2012b: pl. 6)
xxviii Figures
11.92 Sonqor-Koliyaie plain, central Zagros, Iron Age settlement (after Heydarian and Ghorbani
2016: Figure 10) 460
11.93 a: Godin Tepe level II.2, main Median phase (Gopnik 2011: Figure 7.7); b: Godin Tepe level
II.1, reoccupation of part of the Median citadel (Gopnik 2011: Figure 7.18)
11.94 Nush-i Jan, view of site (photo credit: Nicole Brisch; courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi) 461
11.95 Nush-i Jan, inside the Central Temple (photo credit: Wendy Matthews) 462
11.96 Nush-i Jan, plan of the main Median level (after Stronach et al. 1978: Figure 1) 462
11.97 Nush-i Jan, view of excavated and conserved architecture, from the Columned Hall looking
east (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 462
11.98 Nush-i Jan, reconstructed (above the dot-dash line) section and elevation through the main
Median level, looking north (after Stronach et al. 1978: Figure 3) 463
11.99 Nush-i Jan, plan of “squatter occupation” within the Columned Hall (after Stronach et al.
1978: Figure 4) 463
11.100 Nush-i Jan, selected objects from the Median hoard (Curtis 2000: Figure 37) (permission
courtesy of John Curtis) 464
11.101 Gunespan, fortified building of Median date (Naseri et al. 2016: pls 3, 5, 7a) (image courtesy of
Reza Naseri) 464
11.102 Tepe Ozbaki, view looking north (photo credit: Hojatollah Ahmadpour; courtesy of
Rouhollah Yousefi) 465
11.103 Zar Bolagh, views of site and excavated oval structure (Malekzadeh et al. 2014: pls 1, 3)
(images courtesy of Reza Naseri) 466
11.104 Tepe Sialk, decorated bricks of the Iron Age III period (Naseri and Malekzadeh 2019:
Figure 7.2) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri) 466
11.105 Storage and other structures of Iron Age III date: a: Godin Tepe; b: Nush-i Jan; c: Ulug Depe;
d: Gunespan; e: Tell Gubba; f: Moush Tappeh; g: Tepe Ozbaki (Naseri et al. 2016: pl. 21)
11.106 The Achaemenid Persian empire at its greatest extent, showing provinces and the royal road
from Susa to Sardis (Sauvage 2020: 132) (image courtesy of Damien Agut-Labordère and
Martin Sauvage) 468
11.107 Rock-cut relief scene of Darius at Bisotun, with blocks of text indicated as Per (Old Persian);
Sus (Elamite); Bab (Babylonian) (after Stolper 2005: Figure 6) 471
11.108 The Cyrus Cylinder, found in 1879 during Hormuzd Rassam’s excavations at Babylon, on
display in the British Museum, Ancient Iran gallery (© The Trustees of the British Museum) 471
11.109 Tang-i Bolaghi, excavated Achaemenid pavilion (Atayi and Boucharlat 2005: Figure 6)
(image courtesy of Joint Iran-France team in Tang-i Bolaghi, with permission of Mohammad
Atayi and Rémy Boucharlat) 473
11.110 Pasargadae, plan of the site showing the principal monuments (Boucharlat 2013a: Figure 26.1)
(image courtesy of Joint Iran-France mission at Pasargadae) 474
11.111 Pasargadae, plan of the palace and formal garden area (after Curtis 2005c: Figure 8) 474
11.112 Pasargadae, view of Palace P from the air (Boucharlat 2019) (image courtesy of B. N. Chagny,
Joint Iran-France mission at Pasargadae) 475
11.113 Pasargadae, Gate R stone relief of winged genie with Egyptian crown (after Curtis 2005c:
Figure 10) (permission courtesy of John Curtis) 475
11.114 Pasargadae, Tall-i Takht (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 475
11.115 Pasargadae, Tomb of Cyrus (Boucharlat 2019) (image courtesy of Joint Iran-France mission at
Pasargadae) 476
11.116 Pasargadae, selected items from jewellery hoard, 5th–4th centuries BC (after Stronach 1978:
pls 147a, 148a, 150a–150b) 476
11.117 Borazjan, Achaemenid palaces compared to Pasargadae palaces (after Zehbari 2020: Figure 49) 477
11.118 Borazjan, fragment of relief scene with parasol shielding royal Figure (after Zehbari 2020:
Figures 31–32) 477
11.119 Bisotun, rock relief of Darius, 520–519 BC (Briant 2005: Figure 2) (permission courtesy of
John Curtis) 478
11.120 Bisotun, celebrations in November 2006 to mark its accession to the UNESCO World
Heritage List. Darius’s relief is visible top centre (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 479
Figures xxix
1 1.121 Ganj Nameh, inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes (photo credit: Rokita) 479
11.122 Persepolis, view of terrace from the east, Hall of 100 Columns centre right
11.123 Persepolis, plan of the major buildings on the terrace (Sauvage 2020: 136) (image courtesy of
Julien Cluny and Martin Sauvage) 481
11.124 Map of the Persepolis area to show major features (Sauvage 2020: 137) (image courtesy of
Julien Cluny and Martin Sauvage) 481
11.125 Tol-e Ajori, site plan, view, decorated bricks and bricks with fitter’s marks (Askari Chaverdi
et al. 2017: pls 1, 4b, 10a–10b, 14a–14b) (images courtesy of Iranian-Italian Joint Archaeological
Mission in Fars) 482
11.126 Tol-e Ajori, glazed brick fragments with cuneiform inscriptions (Basello 2017: pls 2a, 3a)
(images courtesy of Iranian-Italian Joint Archaeological Mission in Fars) 483
11.127 Persepolis Terrace, Apadana viewed from the northeast, with Palace of Darius behind
11.128 Persepolis Terrace, Apadana, relief scenes on eastern side (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 484
11.129 Persepolis Terrace, Apadana, relief scenes on northern side (after Curtis and Razmjou 2005:
65; drawings by Ann Searight) (permission courtesy of John Curtis) 485
11.130 Persepolis Terrace, Apadana, relief scene on eastern side of lion attacking bull (photo credit:
Roger Matthews) 486
11.131 Persepolis Terrace, Gate of All Nations from the northeast (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 486
11.132 Persepolis Terrace, Palace of Darius doorjamb relief showing the king slaying a lion (photo
credit: Roger Matthews) 487
11.133 Cuneiform tablets in Elamite from the Persepolis Fortification Archive relating to rations and
cattle (Meadows 2005: 197) (permission courtesy of John Curtis) 487
11.134 Cuneiform tablet with seal impression depicting a mounted warrior attacking enemies.
Inscription on the left names “Kurash, the Anshanite, son of Teispes,” probably an ancestor of
Cyrus the Great (Meadows 2005: 197) (permission courtesy of John Curtis) 488
11.135 Naqsh-i Rustam, tombs of Darius I, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I (photo credit: Roger Matthews) 488
11.136 Susa in the Achaemenid period (Sauvage 2020: 133) (image courtesy of Julien Cluny, François
Bridey, Clélia Paladre and Martin Sauvage) 489
11.137 Susa, Palace of Darius (http://www.achemenet.com/en/visit/?/susa/palace-of-darius/8) and
aerial image looking west (photo credit: Susa UNESCO World Heritage Base; plan courtesy
of Archaeological Mission at Susa) 490
11.138 “Propaganda of imports”: the building of the Palace of Darius at Susa (after Roaf 1990: 212–213) 491
11.139 Susa, Palace of Darius, glazed brick reliefs of archers (SB3305, SB3309, SB3310, SB3302;
photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre / Hervé Lewandowski) 491
11.140 Statue of Darius, found at Susa (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst.,
courtesy of the National Museum of Iran) 492
11.141 Statue of Darius, base of the statue (photo courtesy of Archaeological Mission at Susa) 493
11.142 Susa, depiction in watercolour of Achaemenid tomb (Muscarella et al. 1992: Figure 54)
(image from http://www.achemenet.com/visit/suse/map/1.6.2P_Tombe_Acropole.jpg) 493
11.143 Tappe Rivi, North Khorasan. Top: aerial view of grid F16, with excavated wall lines of
Achaemenid Building A. Bottom left: close-up of the central part of Building A with column
base in situ. Bottom right: remaining walls of the monumental Building D, founded in 8th
century BC (images courtesy of Tappe Rivi Project, ICHHTO Bojnurd & DAI Tehran) 494
11.144 Oxus Treasure, gold model chariot drawn by four horses (© The Trustees of the British Museum) 495
12.1 Summed Probability Distributions (SPD) of calibrated radiocarbon dates for Iran against a null
logistic model (95% confidence grey envelope) compared with palaeoclimate records from Iran
and beyond (Palmisano et al. 2021: Figure 12) (image courtesy of Alessio Palmisano) 501
12.2 Major cereal-related epsiodes of Iran’s past through time (Ghahremaninejad et al. 2021: Table
1) (image courtesy of Ehsan Hosein) 503
12.3 Summed Probability Distributions (SPD) of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Iran and beyond
against a null logistic model (95% confidence grey envelope) (Palmisano et al. 2021: Figure 3)
(image courtesy of Alessio Palmisano) 504
12.4 Map to show occurrences of writing in Iran through time 508
12.5 Map to show occurrences of sealing in Iran through time 509
Tables
2.1 Soil use in Iran in 1968 (data from Dewan et al. 1968: 258–259) 11
2.2 Vegetation zones of Iran (data largely from Miller 2003: 10–11) 11
3.1 Major survey and excavation projects in Iran, 1960–1979 (partly based on
Young 1986a: tables 1–2) 31
5.1 Prehistoric cultural phases of Tang-e Bolaghi based on lithic assemblages
(after Tsuneki 2013: table 7.1) 62
5.2 Founder plants forming the basis of early farming in Southwest Asia (after Willcox 2012: table 9.1) 78
5.3 Sang-e Chakhmaq West and East, radiocarbon dates (Roustaei et al. 2015: table 3) 86
6.1 Chronology chart 113
6.2 Chronology of occupation at Kul Tepe (after Abedi et al. 2014b: fig. 6) 114
6.3 Fourth millennium BC chronology of Fars and adjacent regions (after Petrie 2014: table 9.1) 177
8.1 Chronology of ETC at major sites in north-western Iran (adapted from
Davoudi et al. 2018: Table 1) 239
8.2 Periodisation of north-western Iran 2100–300 BC (after Danti 2013b: table 17.1) 260
8.3 Approximate correlations between Luristan, Godin Tepe and Lower Mesopotamian chronologies
(after Haernick 2011; Henrickson 2011b: 210; Potts 2013b: 206; Renette 2015: Figure 5) 267
8.4 Chronology of Fars and Khuzestan in the Bronze Age (after McCall 2013a: Table 15.1) 282
10.1 Comparative chronology of Iran and Mesopotamia, 3100–1900 BC (after Sardari and Attapour
2019: Table 1) 344
11.1 Comparative chronology of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age of the central plateau of Iran
(after Fahimi 2019: Figure 5) 420
11.2 Comparative chronology of Luristan Pusht-i Kuh and neighbouring regions
(after Overlaet 2005: Figure 3) 436
11.3 Languages and writing systems of the Achaemenid Persian empire
(information largely from Stolper 2005) 470
Preface and Acknowledgements
This book has been a considerable time in the making. Its history begins with an email exchange in 2002, which
led to a trip, which led to making plans and submitting grant applications. Success in the Marie Curie Incoming
International Fellowship scheme enabled one of us to spend two years with the other of us at the University of
Reading, 2011–2013, conducting research for this book. Now, a full decade and more after the start of that fel-
lowship we feel ready to launch our ship upon the waters. May they be not too stormy.
In this book, which draws heavily on our engagement across the global community of scholars working on Iran
from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age, we take an approach that recurrently stresses and explores the special value
of the archaeological evidence. The chapters are arranged broadly chronologically and, for Chapters 4–11, also
regionally in sequence. Our approach is to begin by presenting the evidence from key sites, cited in bold, site by
site and region by region, bracketed by consideration of major themes, debates and issues relevant to each period
and more broadly. In Chapter 12, we conclude the volume by reverting to the key issues articulated in Chapter 1.
With regard to spelling of names of sites, peoples and other proper names, we have made no attempt to impose
a standard orthography throughout the volume. Our approach has been to accept common practice throughout,
by which we almost always mean the spellings adopted by the first or principal excavator of each site, including
the highly varied spellings of Tal, Tall, Tell, Tol, Tapeh, Tappeh, Tepe, Teppe, etc. Where commonly used, we
have generally retained the prenominal Tal or Tepe designation, especially in the alphabetical lists accompanying
the site distribution maps. Similarly, we have taken no strong position on use of the enclitic or ezāfe in proper
names, again following common usage. Except for Chapter 4, all dates are given as calibrated BC, whether de-
rived from radiometric analysis or otherwise.
We owe enormous debts of gratitude to many people around the world for making this volume possible. Firstly,
we sincerely thank all those funding organisations who have supported the research underpinning this book as
well as enabling its production in colour and its free availability as an Open Access publication. Generous funding
has been provided by the European Union FP7 Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowship scheme (grant
PIIF-GA-2010–271787), the University of Reading School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Sci-
ence Research Fund, the University of Reading Department of Archaeology Research Fund, the University of
Reading Monograph Open Access Fund, the University of Reading Research Endowment Trust Fund, and,
for research on Chapters 4–6, the European Union Horizon 2020 programme through a European Research
Council Advanced Grant for project MENTICA – Middle East Neolithic Transition: Integrated Community
Approaches (grant ERC AdG 787264). The Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences of Peking University
enabled one of us (HFN) to focus on research for this book for an extended period in 2019.
For taking the time to read book proposals and draft texts and provide insightful and supportive feedback, we
are eternally grateful to John Alden, Fereidoun Biglari, François Desset, Claudia Glatz, John Curtis, Benjamin
Mutin, Holly Pittman, Amy Richardson, Mitchell Rothman, Geoffrey Summers, Lloyd Weeks, Ruth Young and
Melinda Zeder. Barbara Helwing’s as yet unpublished ARCANE volume on the third millennium BC archaeol-
ogy and chronology of western Iran represents an impressive feat of integrative scholarship, only fleetingly drawn
upon in this book prior to its publication. Our sincere thanks go to Barbara for enabling access to that volume.
Dozens of scholars have helped by lending an ear or emailing a pdf – please accept our deepest thanks and sincere
apologies if we have not mentioned you by name here. We also wish to thank the many students and colleagues
in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran who have helped in various ways, in particular: Babak Rafiei Alavi, Hussainali
Kavoush, Mehrdad Malekzadeh, Mehdi Omidfar, Mojtaba Safari and Mahnaz Sharifi.
We have been fortunate in raising sufficient funding to support our vision for colour illustration throughout
the book, enabling the inclusion of over 500 figures in total. Scholars’ responses to our manifold requests for
support in this endeavour have been extraordinarily generous and universal, as the list of names below highlights.
For assistance with providing images, and/or permissions relevant thereto, we express our deep gratitude to the
following people (in alphabetical order by surname), also cited where appropriate in the relevant figure captions:
xxxii Preface and Acknowledgements
Akbar Abedi, Hassan Afshari, Damien Agut-Labordère, Roonak Ahmadinia, Hojatollah Ahmadpour, Loghman
Ahmadzadeh, Sajjad Alibaigi, Abbas Alizadeh, Karim Alizadeh, Susan Allison, Javier Álvarez-Mon, Sheler Amelirad,
Marta Ameri, Sara Andam, Alireza Askari, Mohammad Atayi, Hassan Basafa, Reinhard Bernbeck, Anne-Catherine
Biedermann, Fereidoun Biglari, Alireza Binandeh, Andrea Blaser, Rémy Boucharlat, François Bridey, Nicole Brisch,
Pascal Butterlin, Pierfrancesco Callieri, Stacy Carolin, B. N. Chagny, Alireza Askeri Chaverdi, Philippe Clancier,
Nicholas Conard, Julien Cuny, John Curtis, Roberto Dan, Michael Danti, Hojjat Darabi, Hossein Davoudi, Mostafa
Dehpahlavan, François Desset, Mustapha Djabellaoui, Morteza Djamali, Geoff Emberling, Nasir Eskandari, Virginie
Fabre, Hamid Fahimi, Nicolas Filicic, Omran Garazhian, Iravani Ghadim, Mahmudy Gharaie, Taher Ghasimi,
Felicity Goldsack, Hilary Gopnik, Michael Gregg, Mohammad-Ali Hamzeh, Ata Hasanpour, Yousef Hassanza-
deh, Barbara Helwing, Morteza Hessari, Reza Heydari, Frank Hole, Ehsan Hoseini, Javad Hossainzadeh, Mozhgan
Jayez, Francis Joannès, Mehdi Kazempour, Morteza Khanipour, Hosein Azizi Kharanaghi, Stephan Kroll, Karl
Lamberg-Karlovsky, Alessandra Lazzari, Suzanne Leroy, Cynthia Mackey, Ali Mahfroozi, Wendy Matthews,
David Meier, Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi, Abbas Moghaddam, Hussain Moradi, Mehdi Mortazavi, Peder Mortensen,
Benjamin Mutin, Reza Naseri, Jebrael Nokandeh, Kyle Olson, Bruno Overlaet, Clélia Paladre, Alessio Palmisano,
Hermann Parzinger, Stephanie Peeters, Alessandro Pezzati, Peter Pfälzner, Christian Piller, Holly Pittman, Clem-
ens Reichel, Reza Rezalou, Tobias Richter, Adriano Rossi, Mitchell Rothman, Sara Saeedi, Seyed Mansour Seyed
Sajjadi, Alireza Sardari, Martin Sauvage, Arash Sharifi, Ashish Sinha, Arkadiusz Sołtysiak, Gil Stein, Geoffrey Sum-
mers, Ilkhan Tabasom, Margareta Tengberg, Judith Thomalsky, Chris Thornton, Aliakbar Vahdati, Hamid Reza
Valipour, Regis Vallet, Massimo Vidale, Mary Voigt, Jade Whitlam, Nicola Woods, Ramin Yashmi, Ruth Young,
Rouhollah Yousefi, Paul Zimansky and Zahra Sanatgar.
We give special thanks to all at Routledge, who have shown exceptional patience and understanding as this
project has developed over the past ten years and more, above all to Matthew Gibbons and, for the final push, to
Kangan Gupta and Assunta Petrone at codeMantra.
Completion of this book would not have been possible without the support and input of several special people.
For immense assistance with many aspects of its preparation, in particular with illustrations and bibliography,
we are forever grateful for the tireless efforts of Mónica Palmero Fernández and David Mudd who together with
Amy Richardson compiled the book’s substantial bibliography which we believe in itself will stand as a valuable
research resource for years to come. For overseeing all matters relating to illustrations, as well as producing a
great many of them, including the innovative interpretive maps, we owe our largest debt of gratitude to Amy
Richardson whose capability and ingenuity shine through every page of this book. Working together on this
book has had the additional benefit of enabling us to develop new directions in collaborative research which
will surely bear fruit in the years ahead. Finally, we give deepest heartfelt thanks to our partners and colleagues,
Wendy Matthews and Ommolbanin Nasrzadeh Nashli, who have encouraged and engaged with this project from
inception to completion. A huge thank you to all!
Roger Matthews
Reading, UK
26 August 2021
Hassan Fazeli Nashli
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
4 Shahrivar 1400
1 The archaeology of early Iran: perspectives
from the past for the present
The archaeology of Iran as a field of study

Why study the distant past of Iran? In this introductory chapter we address this basic question by considering a
range of issues concerning which the archaeology of Iran has immense potential to inform and enlighten us. Our
first answer is that the study of ancient Iran can greatly enhance our appreciation and understanding of Iran today,
and that in itself is an aim worth devoting time and attention to. In contemporary geopolitics (Chipman 2019)
and throughout recorded history (Axworthy 2007), Iran has played a key and distinctive role in world affairs, a
place where ideas, ideologies, movements, technologies and practices have been generated, developed, consumed,
imported, reworked and exported in new forms through networks of engagement often spanning much of Asia
and well beyond. In historic times Iran performed a central role through the long lifespan of the Silk Roads
(Frankopan 2015), a role it sustains within a contemporary successor, the Belt and Road Initiative connecting
China to the Mediterranean (Griffiths 2017). Iran is also a country that has frequently been misunderstood on the
world stage, often because of ignorance of its history and its culture and of the ways in which they have shaped
modern Iran and the world around it. While the ancient pasts of Greece and Rome form staple fare on school and
university curricula, and the visually magnetic monuments and mummies of ancient Egypt captivate generations
of school-children, “the vast Iranian panorama in which our ancestors arose and flourished seems as remote to the
majority as the moon” (Iliffe 1953: 1), a statement from decades ago that is perhaps even more valid today than
it was then. Our first reason for studying ancient Iran, therefore, is in order to expand and enhance our under-
standing of Iran today through appreciation of its deep-time history and culture.
More directly, in this book we propose to employ the archaeology of Iran as a portfolio of case-studies, period
by period and diachronically, with which to address major concerns that archaeologists have increasingly fore-
grounded in recent years. A 2014 review of “Grand Challenges for Archaeology” articulated 25 issues for future
archaeological investigation, focused on “dynamic cultural processes and the operation of coupled human and
natural systems” with the aim “to inform decisions on infrastructure investments for archaeology” (Kintigh et
al. 2014: 5). The authors grouped these issues, which might more aptly be titled “Global Challenges,” into five
themes: (i) emergence, communities and complexity; (ii) resilience, persistence, transformation and collapse; (iii)
movement, mobility and migration; (iv) cognition, behaviour and identity; (v) and human-environment interac-
tions. The archaeology of Iran has special potential to contribute to all these major areas of concern, as we attempt
to illustrate throughout this book.
At the same time, archaeologists, anthropologists and historians have begun to explore the deep-time origins
and early development of social inequality, articulating trends and patterns through analysis of material attributes
such as size and complexity of household dwellings, access to storage space and variation in quantity and type
of grave goods, on the basis that the pervasiveness of inequality across much of the world today (Wilkinson and
Pickett 2009) can only be understood through historical understanding of how we got here: “Inequalities develop
through historical processes that operate on many levels, from the individual to the society, from the kin group
and neighbourhood to the state” (Smith et al. 2018: 5; Fochesato et al. 2019). Again, the past of Iran provides a
wealth of case studies with which to investigate issues of social inequality within the context of trajectories of
change and continuity across millennia. Many of the earliest written records of Mesopotamia and Iran, dating
from c. 3200 BC onwards, are concerned with the administration of slaves, male and female, adult and child,
who were put to work on massive state projects or exchanged as gifts amongst the dynastic urban elite groups
residing in the cities and palaces of southern Iraq and south-western Iran (Bartash 2020). How significant was the
role of slave labour in the development of early Iranian societies, and how can we deploy archaeology to assist in
understanding early steps in the development of social inequalities?
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-1
2 The archaeology of early Iran
Along with Iran’s neighbour to the west, Iraq or ancient Mesopotamia, it is hard to name another country of
the contemporary world that, on the basis of what we already know about its past, can contribute such rich and
detailed historically contingent case-studies with which to inform and address these global challenges and issues,
all of which can be framed within a discourse of deep-time perspectives on planetary sustainability (Satterwhite
et al. 2016), the single most urgent and important research field across today’s academic disciplines.
From Iran’s key role in the development of hominin and early human communities and their initial diffusions
into and across Asia, to its unique significance in the early domestication of wild animals such as goat, the in-
tensification of plant cultivation leading to full agriculture, and the increasing sedentarisation of human societies
more than 10,000 years ago, and from the pristine development of early state-level societies accompanied by
some of the world’s earliest complex bureaucracy and writing practices from 5,000 years ago, to the growth and
expansion of some of the most impactful and diverse empires from 2,500 years ago, Iran makes a very special and
fundamental contribution to the history, culture and contemporary conditions of humanity on planet Earth. We
could not agree more with the words of an authority on Iran in the periods following those covered in our study:
“There are aspects of Iranian civilisation that, in one way or another, have touched almost every human being
in the world. But the way that happened, and the full significance of those influences, is often unknown and
forgotten” (Axworthy 2007: xiv). We plan to illuminate and illustrate those unknown and forgotten influences
and ways throughout this book, which is our second reason for studying ancient Iran.
But where and what is “ancient Iran”? We talk of “Iran” as if the term relates to a consistent geographic entity
through time. The idea of “Iran” in the most ancient past is of course an anachronism. As we will explore in this
volume, it is impossible to investigate the archaeology of Iran without considering at the same time the situation
of Iran, as defined today, within a malleable matrix of lands near and far. Thus, the notion of “Iran” must be
highly fluid through time, just as fluid as the contours and borders of the ancient societies dwelling in “Iran” at
any time in the past. The lifeways of Neolithic human societies living in the high Zagros mountains at 8000 BC
can only be apprehended in the context of contemporary developments across the modern border in the foothills
of Iraqi Kurdistan, while early state-level developments such as the origins of bureaucracy and early writing on
clay tablets in Late Chalcolithic Khuzestan only make sense when we also take account of evidence from sites
in the south of Iraq such as Uruk and Jemdet Nasr. The distinctive Early Transcaucasian Culture of the Early
Bronze Age has to be studied as a large-scale transregional phenomenon spanning lands of the southern Caucasus,
north-western and western Iran, eastern Turkey, northern Syria and into the Levant, while for the thriving craft
and trade centres of south-eastern Iran in the later third millennium BC our field of view expands to the east to
include Central Asia and into South Asia. As the first “world empire,” the Achaemenid Persian empire of the Iron
Age also of course demands such a transregional approach. Our third reason for studying ancient Iran, then, is
because of its special importance in enhancing understanding of much larger-scale socio-cultural phenomena in
whose origins and development many other lands and peoples were involved.
Characterising Iran: a land of “prismatic diversity”

That said, our book is first and foremost about Iran and about what happened in prehistory and early history
within the lands of Iran as defined by its modern borders. Within all the transregional cultural phenomena dis-
cussed in the preceding section, and in many more investigated through this book, we contend that there is a
core and distinctive “Iranian” element that can be associated with the physicality of place that is Iran and with
the human societies living there, throughout the deep-time patterns and processes we are about to trace, while
eschewing unfounded assumptions of ethnic, linguistic, genetic or any other form of continuity, as well as as-
sumptions of a uniform or predictable relationship between landscapes and peoples settled thereon. Indeed, as
discussed below, throughout this book we reject a so-called longue durée approach to Iran’s ancient past that asserts
underlying structural continuities as shaping fundamental elements of Iranian societies while allowing variations
on a theme. How then might we characterise “Iran” in this sense of its distinctive, core contributions to the
great episodes of the past? We should begin by acknowledging the clear challenges in undertaking such a task,
as adroitly phrased by Lara Fabian (2018: 1120): “a central characteristic of the stories of ancient Iran lies in the
region’s prismatic diversity and confounding complexity. As hard as they are to capture, it is these traits that we
should make central as we expand our scholarly engagements with the space.” What, then, are those central traits?
As we discuss in Chapter 2, the landscapes of Iran are highly diverse, providing special challenges and oppor-
tunities for their resident human communities. The lands of Iran have impacted in so many ways the lives of the
peoples, animals and plants that have made their homes there, prescribing some limits to existence and behaviour
while stimulating human creativity and resilience in negotiating or overcoming those limits, in a complex, non-
linear relationship through time. Any study of Iran’s past has to take account of ancient landscapes, climates and
The archaeology of early Iran 3
environments in attempting to reconstruct past lifeways, as we do recurrently in this work. Many writers have
commented on the significance of Iran’s physical geography, climates and environments in impacting the lives of
the peoples living therein and their socio-political structures. In his classic work Iran from the Earliest Times to the
Islamic Conquest, the archaeologist Roman Ghirshman (1954a: 114) set out his thoughts on this topic:
Iran is not watered by rivers like the Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates which by their yearly floods bring fertility
to the country. Nor does it enjoy a regular season of beneficial rains stimulating the earth to production.
From earliest antiquity, the question of water has been vital, for man could settle only where irrigation was
possible. Thus the inhabitants were perforce scattered, and the population was far less dense than in Egypt or
Mesopotamia. This is well illustrated by the dispersion of tells or artificial mounds, remains of ancient settle-
ments, which the modern traveller finds lying scores of miles apart. Physical conditions thus led to the devel-
opment in each district, and even in each valley, of a kind of particularism, traces of which have not even yet
disappeared. This is the reason why Iran contained, and still contains, so many nomadic, semi-nomadic, and
sedentary tribes who have preserved their dialects, manners, and customs. This is why, politically, the unity
of Iran depended, and still depends, on the character of the ruling dynasty.
As we will explore in particular in the later chapters of this book, the character of ruling elite groups can indeed
be fundamental to structuring and unifying the daily lives of the peoples ruled by them, as well as to their prone-
ness to frequent overthrow and reformulation. But, more generally, while Iran’s physical and environmental at-
tributes have always constituted a set of circumstances, time after time, within which human societies have lived
as best they can, we interrogate the predictability of specific human responses to those attributes. Above all, in
this book we aim to show that the variability, diversity and often fragility of the manifold societies of Iran’s past
vividly demonstrate the ingenuity, innovativeness, agency and historical contingency of the human social soul in
devising new ways to live together, to cope with the challenges and to generate and seize new opportunities for
individual and social development.
Ghirshman (1954a: 50) highlighted another geographic attribute of Iran that he saw as persistently impacting
its resident human societies – its key location between Mesopotamia, Anatolia and, ultimately, Europe to the
west, and all of Asia to the east, and its consequent role as a cultural mediator and communicator between these
great regions of the Old World: “Iran, as we have seen, was a highway for the movement of peoples and for the
transmission of ideas. From the prehistoric period onwards, and for 1,000 years more, it held this important po-
sition as an intermediary between East and West. In return for what it received it never ceased to give; its role
was to receive, to recreate, and then to transmit.” Through this book we will examine case studies of how Iran
recurrently acts as a cultural communicator and mediator by its engagement with contemporary societies around
its borders.
In a concluding chapter, boldly entitled “The Personality of Iran,” to the magisterial The Cambridge History of
Iran I. The Land of Iran, in itself a rich collection of expert essays on all aspects of Iran’s geography, the geographer
W. B. Fisher (1968b: 734) was also keen to emphasise the connection between Iran’s “special geographical charac-
ter” and its “historical tradition.” Pointing to Iran’s pronounced physiography, its extremes of climate, its dearth
of great rivers, its suitability for integrated food production systems of agriculture alongside seasonal pastoralism
and its relative abundance of desirable natural resources, Fisher detected certain continuities of cultural response,
at least in recent historical times, generating a distinctive Iranian identity through time (1968b: 739). Fisher’s final
comments closely echo those of Ghirshman cited above: “If we seek to define Iran’s function as a state and as a
human grouping in terms of a ‘personality,’ then the country can be said to generate, to receive and transmogrify,
and to re-transmit.” Let us explore throughout this book, by meticulous examination of the material remains
from its past, these bold and profound statements regarding the character of Iran and its peoples.
What is this book about? Scope, themes, issues

In this book we investigate the archaeology of Iran from the very earliest times, the Lower Palaeolithic period,
when prehuman hominins began to leave their material traces across much of the land, through the Upper Pal-
aeolithic, and all of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age periods of Iran’s past. These periods
are of course conventional archaeological divisions of the past which need not bear significant relation to genuine
socio-cultural episodes of that past. Nevertheless, we believe it is possible to articulate distinctive characteristics
and features of Iranian societies through these various periods, drawing on the often rich but always patchy ar-
chaeological evidence and, when we have it, on the historical evidence too, if only indirectly and contextually.
We close the book with the end of the Achaemenid empire at c. 330 BC. We have chosen this end-point partly
4 The archaeology of early Iran
because study of the post-Achaemenid periods of Iran’s past requires a major reorientation of approach that must
incorporate fully the historical and archaeological evidence, which would require a whole additional volume,
and partly because the end of the Achaemenid state can reasonably be viewed as a genuine end-of-era event:
“When Persepolis went up in flames at the feast of the Macedonian conqueror, a world lasting several millennia
finally expired” (Burney 1977: 204), in the evocative words of one pioneering investigator of Iran’s ancient past,
with whom we empathise. At the same time, we salute those scholars bold, skilled and knowledgeable enough to
treat regions or aspects of Iran’s past across the rather arbitrary dividing lines of our archaeological and historical
classificatory systems. Daniel Potts’ The Archaeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State
(Potts 1999, 2016; see also Potts 2011a) is exceptional in this regard.
Mention of Potts’ book prompts us to express at the outset our alignment with his views on deep-time history,
broadly understood, as expressed at the conclusion of his volume on Elam. In examining the archaeology of Elam
over millennia of prehistory and history, Potts (2016: 430–432) rejects the interpretive historical framework of
la longue durée, with its notions of deep-time structures of continuity underpinning shifting historical cycles, in
favour of la courte durée, where “periodic realignment and transformation” marked by “events and periods of dest-
abilization followed by readjustments and reconstruction” seem more apposite for thinking about the long-term
archaeology and history of Elam. Such an approach involves detailed, case-by-case investigation and explication
of the evidence, which is always partial and usually complex, forming an evidential basis upon which to draw out
wider themes and issues, which we set out here and return to in Chapter 12.
What then are the major themes and issues recurrently addressed through this book? Firstly, the deep-time
past of Iran provides us with a special opportunity to explore human–environment interactions, an issue of
unique significance for us today. Several studies in recent years have explored the relationships between climatic
and environmental change and the human societies of ancient Iran. Particularly ambitious is the analysis by
Sharifi et al. (2015), which attempts to correlate occurrences of high aeolian dust, as attested in a sediment core
spanning 13,000 years from Lake Neor in north-western Iran, with multiple episodes of societal collapse across
Iran from c. 3000 BC onwards. The authors rightly stress that the human–environment relationship is a two-way
process, with human activity in the form of deforestation and agro-pastoral intensification potentially feeding
into a cycle of increased dust generation, which then negatively impacts on human communities and their crops
and animals. In this context, most scholars stress the fragility of complex human societies of Iran to even slight
modifications in climate and environment. Thus, Farshad and Barrera-Bassols (2003: 284) regard Iran’s land-
scapes as “environmentally fragile. The fragility is caused by water scarcity, susceptibility to degradation, climate
variability, and topography,” issues explored further in Chapters 3 and 12 and throughout the book. A recurrent
feature of ancient, and indeed modern, societies of Iran is their ingenuity and engineering inventiveness in ad-
dressing the basic issue of water scarcity, attested in Chalcolithic irrigation channels, Iron Age rock-cut canals,
the famed Iranian qanat system and much else besides (Magee 2005a; Wilkinson et al. 2012). But there is clear
variability in the resilience of human societies across Iran in the face of sometimes global-scale climatic and envi-
ronmental challenges (e.g., at the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition). In each case we have to investigate
the specifics of the evidence region by region rather than arriving too readily at generalising interpretations. As
a major review highlights: “Archaeology demonstrates not only the importance of climate to human history but
also shows the great diversity in human cultural responses to environmental change even in earlier prehistory”
(Hudson et al. 2012: 316).
Secondly, throughout this book we investigate a host of issues relating to identity, individual and social.
Iran has always been and remains today ethnically a highly mixed country, estimated on the basis of current ge-
netic studies (Mehrjoo et al. 2019) to comprise Persians (65%), Iranian Azeris (16%), Iranian Kurds (7%), Iranian
Lurs (6%), Iranian Arabs (2%), Iranian Baluchis (2%), Iranian Turkmen (1%), Qashqai and other tribal groups
(1%), plus small numbers of Armenians, Assyrians, Georgians, Jews and Zoroastrians (all <1%). Iran hosts a total
of 21 distinct ethnic groups, with their own languages or dialects and cultural traditions, and largely the out-
come of autochthonous development of populations in Iran over centuries and more. Mehrjoo et al.’s (2019: 1/29)
summary of the genetic make-up of Iran today serves as a useful template for thinking about Iran’s identity at all
stages of its past: “Iranians, while close to neighboring populations, present distinct genetic variation consistent
with long-standing genetic continuity, harbor high heterogeneity and different levels of consanguinity, fall apart
into a cluster of similar groups and several admixed ones and have experienced numerous language adoption
events in the past,” a picture congruent with Iran’s role both as a critical geographical crossroads and as a host to
long-term resident communities who have become integral creators of and key components of Iran’s deep-time
geo-bio-historical trajectories.
Within the broad field of identity, we strive to address issues of gender and age, as far as the evidence per-
mits. We heed the call to action by Aurelie Daems (2018: 763, 777) with regard to the study of ancient Elam
The archaeology of early Iran 5
that, in view of the general failure of archaeologists and historians, and not solely those studying Iran, “to speak
of the participation of women in society,” we need “to actively engage with far more ambitious questions to gain
insights into what it meant to be a woman in Elam. Only then can we alter the discourse, from a top-down,
descriptive approach centred on the elite and its iconography, to a bottom-up holistic view that does justice to
the women and men alike who helped shape the Elamite world.” Additionally, we can rephrase this profound
statement by augmenting “the women and men” with “and the children and the elderly,” who also too rarely
feature in our research programmes into the past.
Thirdly, particularly in Chapters 6–11, a recurrent key issue of the book and a tangled problem through Ira-
nian late prehistory and early history, is that of complex societies, including states and empires. How do
such polities develop and how do they operate and impact subject peoples and their environments, for example
through expansion and intensification of settlement and of agricultural production? Intimately connected to this
problematic is the issue of bureaucracy and of writing in particular. Jacob Dahl (2018: 393–394), a leading au-
thority on writing in ancient Iran, has made the striking statement that “Writing is invented more times in Iran
than in any other place in the world,” stimulated by “an extraordinary ingenuity rarely matched in other ancient
civilizations.” What are the socio-cultural and political factors that lie behind the special place of writing in an-
cient Iranian societies and, in particular, in the ways in which they enter, exit and re-enter the worlds of writing
on so many occasions through its past? As we will see, the rich Iranian evidence allows us to examine these issues
at the very birth of state-level societies in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age as well as within the context of
more mature states and empires of the Iron Age.
Who is this book for?

We have planned and written this book for anyone – scholar, student, interested individual – with a concern to
further their knowledge and understanding of the past of Iran and of how that past enlightens us with regard to
the key issues outlined above and throughout the book. We aim to demonstrate the richness and diversity, as well
as the patchiness, of the evidence recovered from 125 years of archaeological excavations and surveys across Iran.
We have drawn heavily both on original field reports, many of them difficult to access, as well as on synthetic
studies of specific issues in the archaeology of Iran. We have been lavish in referring to and in citing quotations
from published books and articles, partly in order to provide a high-level research resource for readers wishing
to pursue particular areas of concern and also as an illustration of the advanced levels of research and writing that
Iranian archaeology stimulates its scholars to aspire to and to achieve.
We aim for this book to be a showcase for Iranian archaeology that does verbal and visual justice both to the
subject and to its practitioners from around the world, with Iranian archaeologists increasingly leading the way
and indeed setting an example for other nations of the Middle East and the world to follow. We never cease to
be impressed by the numbers and the high-quality of Iranian post-graduate students across the country with the
passion, commitment and expertise to take the discipline of Iranian archaeology forward, often in highly chal-
lenging circumstances. They deserve all the support we can provide.
Finally, Daniel Potts in his book on Elam (2016: 438) notes regretfully that “Compared to the number of
scholars working in the fields of Egyptology, Syro-Palestinian archaeology, or Mesopotamian studies, Iran has
never claimed a large share of scholarship on a worldwide level,” relating this shortcoming partly to the lack of
suitable synthetic and interpretive works dedicated to the study of ancient Iran. We hope that our book takes at
least a step in addressing that concern.
2 Placing Iran: land, environment and ecology
Introducing Iran: landscapes of contrast and challenge

Anyone visiting Iran today and traveling through some of its landscapes will be impressed at the diversity and
drama of Iran’s physicality of place. From seashores to upland plains, from high mountains to alluvial flats, and
from jungle-clad hillslopes to bleak salt deserts, the spectacular variety afforded by Iran’s geography is matched
by few countries in the world. We begin by approaching Iran as a physical place, in order to ground and situate its
past and to evaluate the roles of its landscapes within its contribution to world prehistory and history. Throughout
the book we stress the significance of landscape, environment and climate in facilitating and constraining the
development of human societies across Iran as well as in structuring Iran’s relationships with its neighbours. At
the same time, we aim to explore the diversity and contingency of human social trajectories within parameters
contoured by the physical environment. At the outset, we need to develop awareness of Iran’s physicality and the
immense diversity and richness in its geology, mineral wealth and biogeography (Ehlers 1980).
A truly global perspective (Figure 2.1) demonstrates the strategic significance of Iran’s location as a fulcrum
of Eurasia, forming a critical land bridge connecting major components of the Eurasian continent. Situated be-
tween the steppes and deserts of Central Asia to the east, the riverine plains of Mesopotamia to the west and the
Caucasus to the north and the plateau of Anatolia to the northwest, the land of Iran has been central to major
developments in human history, forming an arena of communication and interaction between manifold peoples
and societies of the ancient Old World reaching far back even into prehuman times. Despite its upland nature,
Iran is essentially an open country, with easy access to and from the plains to the west and the valleys to the north,
as well as to the steppe to the northeast and the sea routes of the Persian Gulf in the south. Symptomatic of this
openness is Iran’s key role in the Silk Road interactions of Roman and later times (Frankopan 2015), as well as its
proneness through the ages to invasion and incursion from outside, of peoples bringing with them their animals,
crops, ideas, practices and products.
Iran is a large and diverse country, with a land area of 1,648,000 km 2, approximately six times that of the
United Kingdom, and with a total border length of c. 4,500 km. Modern states sharing land borders with Iran in-
clude Iraq and Turkey to the west, Armenia and Azerbaijan to the northwest, Turkmenistan to the northeast and
Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east and southeast (Figure 2.2). Iran’s northern and southern borders are partly
formed by major stretches of water: to the north, the largest inland lake in the world, the Caspian Sea, and to the
south, a 1,770 km-long coastline with the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Iran is one of the most seismically
active countries of the world, subject to episodes of severe destruction and displacement through earthquake ac-
tivity (Ambraseys and Melville 1982; Walker and Jackson 2004; Berberian et al. 2012). The attraction of human
settlement to freshwater springs along active fault zones renders them prone to recurrent disaster (Berberian and
Yeats 2001, 2017; Jackson 2006; Quigley et al. 2011), including dramatic landslides as occasionally attested at ar-
chaeological sites (Heydarian et al. 2017). Study of the evidence for, and impact of, earthquakes at archaeological
sites in Iran is not well-developed, but an integrated analysis of stratigraphy and monuments at sites in the region
of the Kazerun fault in western Fars detected evidence for very large earthquakes at c. 3850–3680 BC and at c.
3030 BC, which may have resulted in site abandonments (Berberian et al. 2014).
Most of Iran is highland, with an average height above sea level of over 1,000 m, making it one of the highest
countries in the world (Figure 2.3) (Makki 2017). At 5,610 m high, Mount Damavand in the Alborz range, 45
km east of Tehran, is the highest mountain in all Eurasia west of the Himalayas, while the land altitude drops to
−26 m on the plains along the south Caspian shores, less than 100 km due north of Damavand. Cross-sections
through Iran (Figure 2.4) vividly illustrate both its predominantly upland nature and its contrast to the surround-
ing topography. In essence, Iran is composed of high mountain ranges enclosing elevated plateaux or basins, with
relatively restricted areas of low-lying plain. The physical geography of Iran strongly influences the course and
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-2
Placing Iran 7
Figure 2.1 I ran in its global context: fulcrum of Eurasia (Google Earth 2018).
nature of routes of communication across the country, a characteristic that can be traced in settlement patterns of
all periods from the Palaeolithic onwards (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a; Petrie 2013b: 7, Figure 1.1).
In keeping with its geographical location, Iran’s climate at the broad scale is determined by a mix of factors,
with the western, higher reaches of the country affected by dominant westerly weather conditions bringing
precipitation from the Mediterranean, while the eastern, lower regions of Iran are hotter, more arid and more
impacted by the monsoon systems of the south (Ganji 1968; Alijani and Harman 1985; Kehl 2009; Djamali et al.
2011a; Jones 2013; Jones et al. 2013; Fallah et al. 2017; Petrie et al. 2018). Lower levels of rainfall also affect Iran on
a northwest-southeast transect (Figure 2.5). Above all, these variations are orographically determined, with the
Zagros and Alborz ranges intercepting almost all the precipitation ultimately derived from the Mediterranean,
Black Sea and Caspian Sea: “Disposition of relief therefore conditions the contrast between the rainy outer flanks,
and the sub-arid to almost completely rainless inner basin regions” (Scharlau 1968: 187). Broadscale features of
Iran’s climate, past and present, include high variability in diurnal and annual temperatures, low annual precipita-
tion ranges and strong seasonality characterised by hot/dry summers and cold/stormy winters (Stevens et al. 2001).
An equally defining characteristic of Iran, more broadly, is the scattered distribution of high-quality soils capable
of intensive agricultural exploitation, as well as of water sources needed to farm those soils (Figure 2.6) (Ehlers 1985).
8 Placing Iran
Figure 2.2 I ran: its provinces and its neighbours.
Figure 2.3 Topographic map of Iran.

Placing Iran 9
Figure 2.4 Cross-sections through Iran: N-S and E-W.
Table 2.1 shows the use of soils across Iran as recorded in 1968 (Dewan et al. 1968: 258). Also notable is the fact that
many of the potentially productive soil regions are at high altitude and therefore prone to severe seasonal variations in
temperature and rainfall, which can limit both the range of suitable crops and their productivity. The soil potential of
the largest low-lying plain of Iran, the region of Khuzestan in the southwest, was intensively exploited for agricultural
production in the Sasanian period, AD 224–651, but only by systematic manipulation of the water regime through
barrages, canals and lifting devices (Adams 1962; Oberlander 1968: 275). Salinization of these soils, along with rising
water tables, has foiled subsequent attempts to maximise the agricultural potential of this region. Khuzestan apart,
Iran lacks the extensive spreads of alluvial soils that characterise the Mesopotamian flood plains to the west where ir-
rigation enables double-cropping of cereals alongside produce such as dates (Hole 2011). The distribution of available
soils and water resources across Iran has been critical in structuring human settlement (de Planhol and Brown 1968;
Petrie 2013b: 6), to the extent that in terms of population distribution “Iran appears as an arid zone with green islets
scattered over it” (Behnam 1968: 470). Iran’s relatively limited capacity for production of staple crops such as grains is a
critical factor in considering major issues such as the Neolithic transition to farmer-herder lifeways and the long-term
sustainability of state-level political structures, as discussed throughout this book.
Highly significant also is the distinctive hydrography of Iran, concisely addressed in Oberlander’s (1968: 279; see
also Beaumont 1974, 1982, 1985; Spooner 1974; Vidale 2018b) few sentences: “On the whole, the hydrographic
character of Iran does not serve the country well, since all its influences are centrifugal. Plentiful surface water and
procurable subsurface water make large areas habitable; but these are widely separated, most of them lying around the
periphery of the country, isolated one from the other by high mountains, empty deserts, or treacherous kavīrs, across
which communications are extremely difficult. Unnavigable rivers and impassable gorges further hinder contact be-
tween adjacent populations.” Iran’s fragile freshwater resources are highly vulnerable to climate change and human
impact, dramatically illustrated by an estimated 56% reduction in Iran’s surface water over the 30 years up to 2015
(Pekel et al. 2016). The impact of water, and its frequent scarcity, on human communities of Iran through the ages is
aptly summarised by Marjan Mashkour and Margareta Tengberg (2013: 189): “subsistence economies in this part of
the world show at all times a high level of adaptation to specific environmental constraints, often linked to aridity.”
By contrast, Iran is blessed with a wealth of minerals and materials, many of which have been cherished and ex-
ploited by the ancient inhabitants of Iran as well as by contemporary societies near and far. Significant materials include
10 Placing Iran
Figure 2.5 A
nnual precipitation of modern Iran (after Ganji 1968: fig. 80).
a vast range of timber (Wulff 1966; Potts 2016: Table 2.9), metals such as iron, copper, tin, lead and gold (Pleiner 1967;
Momenzadeh 2004; Nezafati et al. 2006, 2008b: Table 1; Roustaei 2012b; Helwing 2018; Petrie et al. 2018: 107), valued
and workable stones such as carnelian, turquoise, marble and chlorite, as well as extensive deposits of salt, bitumen and
cobalt amongst many other minerals (Harrison 1968; Potts 2016: Table 2.6). The differential distribution of these de-
sirable materials and commodities across Iran is a significant factor in structuring the historical development of human
societies within Iran and their relations with neighbouring peoples, as we explore throughout the book.
The vegetation of Iran also shows immense variety (Zohary 1963, 1973; Bobek 1968; Frey and Probst 1986; Dja-
mali et al. 2011a; Petrie et al. 2018: 105–107; Ghahremaninejad et al. 2021), with more than 8,200 species from a wide
range of plant groups, distributed according to topography, climate and soil types across Iran. Miller (2003: 10–11)
distinguishes five major vegetation zones of Iran (Table 2.2). Human impact on the vegetation regimes has been highly
significant for at least the past 10,000 years, in particular through fuel-collecting, including charcoal-production, and
grazing or over-grazing by herded animals (Bobek 1968: 281–282; Nemati 1977). These factors have hugely reduced
and degraded both the woodland and the grassland cover of Iran. Broad categories of vegetation types in Iran comprise
humid forest, semi-arid forest, steppe and desert with scattered brushwood, riparian forests and salt marsh brushwoods.
In line with Iran’s richness in physical geography is its wealth of animal life. Iran hosts, or until recently hosted,
no fewer than 168 species of mammal, nine of which are marine (Misonne 1968; Harrington 1977; Gilbert 2002:
table 1.1; Firouz 2005: 47–48), as against 133 species across all of Europe, with 18% of those species endemic to
Iran. Special mammals range from the Caspian tiger in northern Iran (almost certainly now extinct: Azarpay
2005; Firouz 2005: 66) to the plague-bearing gerbils of the Zagros. Some 500 bird species are found in Iran
( Jervis Read 1968; Gilbert 2002: Table 1.2; Firouz 2005: 108), including permanent residents, summer visitors,
winter visitors and passage migrants. For the archaeologist, identification of birds within these categories can be
of major assistance in determining seasonality of occupation at excavated sites (Serjeantson 2009). Ancient ex-
ploitation of a wide range of Iran’s fauna is attested in zooarchaeological remains recovered from sites across the
country (partly summarised in Potts 1999: Tables 2.3−2.5).
Placing Iran 11
Figure 2.6 A rable soils of modern Iran (after Dewan et al. 1968: figs 84–85).
Table 2.1 S oil use in Iran in 1968 (data from Dewan et al. 1968: 258–259)
Soil usage Hectares
Irrigated cultivation of crops (rice, sugar-beet, cotton, oil seeds, cereals) 2,300,000
Irrigated cultivation of vineyards and orchards 700,000
Unirrigated cultivation of crops and orchards 3,600,000
Fallow 12,400,000
Pastureland 10,000,000
Forest and woodland 19,000,000
Wasteland, desert, mountain 117,000,000
Total 165,000,000
Table 2.2 Vegetation zones of Iran (data largely from Miller 2003: 10–11)
Region Climate attributes Characteristic vegetation features
Caspian High annual precipitation; mild winters Thermophilous and temperate forest
Zagros Westerlies bringing moisture from the Xerophilous oak forest; pistachio-almond
Mediterranean; cold winters; hot summers steppe-forest
Central plateau Dry continental climate; low annual Artemesia or Astragalus steppe; psammophilous
precipitation and halophilous plants
Khorasan Low-moderate annual precipitation Primarily steppe or desert; juniper steppe-forest
Laro-Baluchistan Dry continental climate; hot and dry Primarily desert and steppe
12 Placing Iran
The zones of Iran: contexts for human−environment interactions
The land of Iran can usefully be understood as an assemblage of major physiographic units (Figure 2.7): the
Khuzestan lowlands, the Zagros mountains, the northern highlands, the eastern highlands and the central basins
(Fisher 1968a). To some extent each of these regions has its own characteristics of climate, environment and ecol-
ogy, determined above all by latitude and orography (Djamali et al. 2011a), as now discussed.
The Khuzestan lowlands

Situated adjacent to the Lower Mesopotamian plain of Iraq to the west, the Khuzestan lowlands comprise a tri-
angular wedge of flat, low-lying land, bounded by the Tigris and Shatt al-Arab to the west, the coast of the head
of the Persian Gulf to the south and the slopes of the Zagros to the east (Figure 2.8). At 28,500 km 2 in area, the
Lower Khuzestan plain is the largest lowland region of Iran, formed of silts deposited by the Karun, Karkheh and
associated rivers, all of which drain a total area of some 100,000 km 2 of the Zagros mountains, and are fed by
annual rainfall in the high Zagros (Kirkby 1977: 251; Potts 1999: 15). The silt volume deposited by these rivers is
truly phenomenal, with the Karun in its rush from the high Zagros bringing more than two-thirds of the 27 km 3
of annual water discharge into the Persian Gulf from the combined Euphrates, Tigris and Karun systems (Cressey
1958: 455; Potts 2016: 20). As with the Tigris and Euphrates in Lower Mesopotamia, the rivers of Khuzestan were
also prone to abrupt shifts in course, or avulsions, which could have dramatic impacts on human communities
living alongside the riverbanks (Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Woodbridge et al. 2016). The Khuzestan plain has
been characterised as “a platform built out by the deposition of sediments eroded from the Zagros mountains,
and hence an extension of the Iranian plateau” (Fisher 1968a: 33). It has also been viewed as a bridge connecting
the Mesopotamian alluvium with the Iranian uplands (Wright 2013: 51), but we should keep in mind that the
presence today and in the past of extensive marshes along the present Iran-Iraq border zone may well have served
a role in shaping Khuzestan-Mesopotamia connections (Potts 2016: 21).
Figure 2.7 Major physiographic units of Iran.

Placing Iran 13
Figure 2.8 V
iew of Khuzestan landscape: the Zohreh plain (photo credit: Abbas Moghaddam).
It was previously believed that the massive levels of silt deposition in the Tigris/Euphrates/Karun delta were
counter-balanced by down-warping of the underlying deposits due to the increasing weight of the sediments,
thus maintaining a more or less stable position for the coastline at the head of the Persian Gulf (Lees and Falcon
1952; Fisher 1968a: 34; discussion in Potts 1997: 30–40). Later work suggested a transgression of the sea some 200
km inland, close to Ur and Eridu in southern Iraq (Geyer and Sanlaville 1996; Lambeck 1996). Based on evidence
from Lower Khuzestan (Heyvaert and Baeteman 2007; Heyvaert et al. 2013; Bogemans et al. 2017), research
now suggests that at c. 6000 BC the shore of the Persian Gulf extended at least 80 km inland from its present
position in Khuzestan, with salt marshes and coastal sabkha developing rapidly thereafter and the current shore
line being established from perhaps 500 BC. It now seems probable that a marine gulf did not extend as far north
as Ur and Eridu at c. 6000 BC, but that the landscape of Lower Mesopotamia was marked by marshes, lagoons
and inter-tidal flats (Pournelle 2007, 2013; Wilkinson 2012: 20). Certainly, during the Late Glacial Maximum
(19,000–16,000 BC) with sea levels lower than today by 120–130 m, the Persian Gulf bed was dry land bisected
by a massive extension of the Tigris-Euphrates complex, the Ur-Schatt River, which drained into an immense
freshwater lake west of the Straits of Hormuz (Uchupi et al. 1999; Kennett and Kennett 2007; Rose 2010). This
configuration has major implications for movement of Palaeolithic populations across Southwest Asia (Chapter 4;
Dennell 2020). Inflow of the sea into the Persian Gulf during the Early Holocene was remarkably rapid, averaging
140 m per year (Kennett and Kennett 2007: 235–236; Wilkinson 2012: 20).
Levels of rainfall in lowland Khuzestan vary between 150 and 300 mm per year, while summer temperatures ex-
ceed 45°C (Ganji 1968; Kehl 2009). Saline marshes and desert scrub characterise much of the region in the south and
west, while towards the Zagros flanks the soils are a little more fertile and the rainfall greater (Dewan et al. 1968).
We include within this transitional lowland region the plains of Mehran, Deh Luran, Susiana, Ram Hormuz, Beh-
bahan and Zohreh, together sometimes called Greater Susiana (Adams 1962; Hole and Flannery 1968; Carter 1971;
Dittmann 1984, 1986a; Kouchoukos 1998; Moghaddam 2012a, 2012b; Alizadeh 2014), a distinctive ecotone where
human communities could maximise the resources of major adjacent regions, including the lower plain, the Zagros
slopes and the sea of the Persian Gulf. This area is where the major archaeological sites of the region are situated,
14 Placing Iran
including Susa, Chogha Mish, Chogha Zanbil and Haft Tappeh, the heartland of ancient Elam (Petrie et al. 2018).
Across the lower and upper plains of Khuzestan there has been significant human impact with regard to manipula-
tion of water courses and degradation of vegetation by humans with their crops and flocks of animals (Bobek 1968:
290; Johnson 1973: 21). Indeed, this region of Iran, with its searing hot summers, salty soils and meandering marshes
necessitates significant human adaptation and innovation in order for its bounty to be reaped (Adams 1962). A major
cherished resource of the region, exploited through time, is bitumen (Connan and Deschesne 1996).
The Zagros mountains

Formed by tectonic collision of the Eurasian and Iranian plates ( Jackson and McKenzie 1984), the Zagros moun-
tain chain is the most dominant topographic and biogeographic feature of all Iran, occupying almost half the
total land area of the country (Figure 2.9). The range stretches up to 2,000 km from the Armenian border in the
northwest to the Straits of Hormuz in the southeast, varying in width from 200–600 km (Minc 2016: 802–803;
Potts 2016: 15–18; Balatti 2017). The highest peaks of the Zagros attain 4,500m in the central area but more
commonly the high ridges are at c. 2,000–3,500 m. The chain is composed of multiple parallel ridges, mainly of
Cretaceous and Tertiary limestones, and broadly aligned northwest-southeast. Although the western slopes of
the central Zagros and its foothills reach across the modern border into Iraq in the region of Kurdistan, the range
itself forms a formidable but not insurmountable western boundary to the country of Iran. At its eastern end, the
range tends to be steep and severe with a rugged topography, caused by resistance to folding by the bulk of the
Iranian plateau (Fisher 1968a: 17). In the more central stretches, bordering Iraq, the tectonic collision pressures
have been less extreme and the system is characterised by more even parallel ranges with extensive high plains and
foothills. The upper Zagros zone has karstic features including many caves, important for Palaeolithic evidence
(Chapter 4). Geological resources include limestone, cherts, diorites, basalts, ochres and umbers (Ghazi and Has-
sanipak 1999) as well as bitumen (Connan 1999).
Figure 2.9 H igh Zagros landscape with cross-section through Zagros range. Arrow indicates location of Early Neolithic mound of
Sheikh-e Abad (Chapter 5) (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Placing Iran 15
The central and northern reaches of the Zagros, where rainfall is high, are marked by a complex system
of rivers, including the Seimarreh-Karkheh, that wend and cut their way through the mountains in often
dramatic gorges before falling westwards into the Tigris region and the Persian Gulf (Harrison 1968). Lower
rainfall in the southern Zagros means that there are fewer major streams here, and irrigation of fertile land
is by qanat and other means. Route-ways through the Zagros are defined by the topography, the major one
being the course of the modern road leading westwards from Hamadan through Kermanshah, Sar-e Pol-e
Zahab and on to Khanaqin and Baghdad. The high central Zagros can also be accessed from the south via
Ahvaz, Dezful and Khorramabad.
Not surprisingly given its massive extent, from latitude 39° in the northwest to latitude 27° in the southeast,
the Zagros hosts a wide range of environments, including forests, high plains and pastures, high mountains,
foothills, riverine valleys and lakes. Annual rainfall ranges from 400 to 1,000 mm, falling mainly in winter and
spring (Ganji 1968). Winters are severe, with temperatures dropping to −25°C while summers are dry and hot,
reaching over 40°C. Spring and autumn are short transitional seasons between long winters and summers. Forms
of human adaptation and interaction with this variety of environments have been equally varied, but a recurrent
historical feature has been an element of periodic mobility, or transhumance, in particular to take advantage of
seasonally determined variability in vegetation regimes underpinned by water availability. Seasonal movements
of people and their animals within the Zagros ranges, and their interaction with settled cultivators, is a key de-
fining feature of historically attested Iranian societies, although its significance within the earliest societies of
Iran is much debated (Chapter 6; Potts 2014; Balatti 2017). In 1968 it was estimated that up to 10% of Iran’s total
population of 20 million belonged to tribal groupings pursuing some form of nomadic lifestyle, principally in the
Zagros region (Sunderland 1968: 635). Four zones of altitude feature in indigenous terminology of the southern
Zagros range (Henkelman 2012: 932; Potts 2016: 22–23): garmsir, up to 900–1,300 m, a dry, warm zone suitable
for date culture; mo‘tadel, 1,300–2,000 m, a fertile, moderate zone for grape, fruit and vegetable growing; sardsir,
2,000–2,200 m, high, cold lands for summer pasture and some cereals; and sarhadd, 2,200–4,000 m, an Alpine
zone suitable solely for summer pasture.
At the southeast end of the Zagros, to the east of modern Shiraz, the climate is notably warmer and drier, al-
lowing cultivation of crops such as dates, millet and rice, but dependent on irrigation. On their southern faces,
the Zagros mountains here plunge directly into the waters of the Persian Gulf. The lack of significant coastal
plain and of natural harbours and river deltas along the entire coast between Bushehr and Bandar Abbas has made
this region of Iran, with its plethora of dramatic salt plugs, quite remote where “the inhabitants live self-sufficient
lives away from the country’s main currents of activity” in Fisher’s words (1968a: 30). The very end of the Zagros
range, in the region of Bandar Abbas, is marked by a northwards swing in the coastline at the Straits of Hormuz.
Here the sweep of the ranges away from the line of the coast provides greater opportunity for coastal settlement,
as well as enabling easy communications both northwards by land into the interior of eastern Iran and southwards
by sea from Minab across the narrow straits to Oman. Access to the sea from inland Iran at this point was critical
in facilitating sea-borne trade between south-eastern Iran and Mesopotamia to the west.
The Zagros slopes today host extensive spreads of loose oak forest, with stands of scattered low trees inter-
spersed with grassy steppe (Bobek 1968: 285; van Zeist 2008b; Petrie et al. 2018: 106). Varieties of oak grow
alongside elm, maple, celtis, walnut, pear, pistachio and almond, with steppe-forest reaching the timberline at
1,800–2,000 m above sea level. The commonest oak of the region, and the most tolerant of low precipitation,
Quercus brantii has evolved the ability to regenerate by producing root sprouts, which gives it some resilience
against grazing (El-Moslimany 1986; Djamali et al. 2008). But analysis of pollen in a sediment core from Lake
Zeribar in Kurdistan indicates that the spread of oak forest in this region of the Zagros did not succeed until into
the fourth millennium BC, prior to which an Artemisia steppe dominated (Bobek 1968: 293). The Lake Zeribar
core suggests the presence of scattered stands of oak, pistachio and maple in the period 46,000–36,000 BC, fol-
lowed by an episode of tree disappearance due to severe climatic dryness during Pleniglacial times, accompanied
by a fall in lake water levels (van Zeist and Bottema 1977; van Zeist 2008a; Kehl 2009; Jones et al. 2013).
From c. 10,000 BC, open woodland of pistachio spreads over the Zagros slopes, but the major development
in the vegetation of the region is a transition from Late Pleistocene dwarf-shrub steppe to Early Holocene
grass-dominated steppe, with the establishment of extensive oak woodland by c. 4000 BC. The oak woodland
belt of the Zagros slopes, found at altitudes from 700 m to over 2,000 m, is dependent on rainfall of at least 500
mm per year (van Zeist 2008b: 26). Grazing by herded animals, above all goats, has seriously depleted the extent
of Zagros slope forests throughout the Holocene (Pullar 1977: 18; Brookes 1982: 193). The rapid change to grassy
steppe in the Early Holocene has been associated with a major climate shift, involving increased spring and sum-
mer rainfall as well as increased average temperatures (El-Moslimany 1987; Griffiths et al. 2001; W. Matthews
2013a). Against this argument, Stevens et al. (2001, 2008) propose that winter snow melt rather than spring/
16 Placing Iran
summer rainfall may have supported the spread of grass steppe in the Early Holocene. Diatom evidence from the
Zeribar core supports the idea of increased precipitation at this time (Witkowski et al. 2008: 186). The presence in
the Lake Zeribar core of quantities of charred plant macrofossils in sediments from 46,000 BC onwards (Langer
and Wasylikowa 2008) may be indicative of fires caused naturally by lightning strikes or by human activity in
the vicinity of the lake.
The Zagros is home to a vast array of animal life (Firouz 2005; Potts 2016: 28–36), from wild boar to red deer,
from wild goat to wolf, from endemic lizards (Anderson 1968) to flocks of visiting bee-eaters who announce the
onset of spring with their chirruping call. As host to such biogeographic diversity in its landscapes, climate, flora
and fauna, and forming as it does the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, the Zagros range is of fundamental
significance to the development of human societies in Iran through the ages and as such will feature recurrently
throughout this book.
The northern highlands

Iran’s central northern border is marked by the world’s largest inland water body, the Caspian Sea. Running
parallel with its southern shore is the Alborz range of mountains, forming a crescent of high country between
the Tehran and Qazvin plains to the south and the Caspian Sea to the north (Figure 2.10). Combined with the
Talesh range in the northwest, the Alborz range is smaller in extent than the Zagros, covering a length of c. 800
km from Ardabil and the Aras river banks in the northwest to Jajarm in the northeast, and ranging from 70 to
120 km in width (Fisher 1968a: 38). But the range is extremely high, containing as it does the highest peak of
Eurasia west of the Himalayas, Mount Damavand at 5,610 m. The northern slopes of the Alborz are especially
severe as they rise almost directly from the Caspian Sea above a modest coastal plain, which lies below sea level.
Beyond the western end of the Alborz-Talesh range, at their junction with the northern limits of the Zagros, lies
the region of Iranian Azerbaijan with the saline Lake Urmia in its centre, a fertile and densely populated part of
Iran (Danti 2013a: 2–11). Uncontrolled exploitation of the lake’s waters, including construction of dams on the
rivers feeding into it, have had a devastating impact on Lake Urmia, with at least an 80% reduction in its waters
over the past few decades alone.
Figure 2.10 A
lborz mountain landscape, Neshel, Mazandaran (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
Placing Iran 17
The Alborz mountains receive very heavy rainfall, 1,950 mm per year at Rasht, which is five times the aver-
age for the country as a whole (Ganji 1968: 234; Khalili 1973), with less than 25% of this amount falling in the
winter. The Caspian region, in other words, is generally wet year-round with almost daily summer rains and,
along with high summer temperatures and lack of severe winter frosts (Ganji 1968: 227), these factors account
for the lush vegetation that adorns its north-facing slopes, the so-called Hyrcanian forest (Bobek 1968: 284). A
relic of the temperate forest that covered much of Europe and northern Asia in the Late Tertiary, the Hyrcanian
forest is composed of dense growths of lime, ash, elm, walnut and maple, mixed with pomegranate, fern and
thorny shrubs. At higher altitudes, beech, juniper and oak are dominant but much of the original forests has
been cleared in historical and recent times for livestock grazing and fuel (Homami Totmaj et al. 2020). Within
the high ranges there are narrow plains with fertile soils suitable for small-scale agriculture and orchards.
Communications through the Alborz are affected by means of high passes to the north from the Tehran and
Qazvin plains and a more circuitous route taken by the modern railway via Gorgan in the east (Fisher 1968a:
46). Drainage of the vast quantities of water falling on the Alborz is through numerous streams and the major
rivers of the Sefid Rud and the Alamut.
The coastal plain of the Iranian Caspian Sea varies in width from 1 to 30 km, broadening to its greatest extent
at the Turkmen lowlands between Gorgan and the Atrek river (Fisher 1968a: 48). The coast, which is currently
emerging from a shrinking Caspian Sea (Chen et al. 2017), is marked by sand dunes, brackish lagoons, terraces
and foothills. Over the longer term, the Caspian Sea has risen significantly since AD 500, by as much as 31 m
(Wilkinson et al. 2013: 33–36). In the west, the region of Rasht includes the delta of the Sefid Rud and is subject
to extremely humid conditions with luxuriant vegetation, with year-round cropping today of rice, cotton, sugar,
tobacco and tea. The Mazandaran region, due north of Tehran, has a narrow coastal plain but is densely popu-
lated and intensively farmed (Behnam 1968: 470). The plain widens out again to the east and at Gorgan we are in
“definitely much more of a transition zone towards Central Asian conditions” (Fisher 1968a: 52), with a semi-arid
climate and steppe dotted with archaeological mounds. Here we are indeed on the fringes of the great Central
Asian steppe, stretching for hundreds of kilometres to the northeast. Communications to and from Central Asia
along the coastal plains of the southern Caspian Sea, leading westwards to the courses of the Kura and Aras rivers,
and on even to the Black Sea and Anatolia, are hinted at by the distribution along this route of archaeological sites
and materials ranging from Palaeolithic to Iron Age in date (Piller 2012c; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a).
The Alborz range is a distinctive feature of Iran’s biogeography, hosting a wealth of plant and animal life, and
home to a significant proportion of Iran’s population today. Modes of living in this green upland environment
have included animal husbandry and intensive agriculture, but the region is also critical as a route of communi-
cation and shipment of produce from the Caspian plains southwards to Tehran and beyond. The very location
of Tehran, on the southern slopes of the Alborz range, is rooted in its role as a winter base for Qajar nomads,
commanding the roads to the Caspian, to Qom, and to central Iran and Fars to the south (de Planhol and Brown
1968: 446). On these harsh slopes and plains along the southern Alborz fringes, traces of intensive cultivation by
means of qanat and other forms of irrigation attest sporadic attempts to turn the semi-desert of the plateau into
productive fields. Further northwest, on the Qazvin plain, fertile soils and good water sources have encouraged
human settlement through prehistory and history, but with significant interruptions (Fazeli et al. 2005; Schmidt
et al. 2011), in a zone spanning the limits of the north-west Zagros and the south-west Alborz ranges.
The eastern highlands

Turning our attention east of a north-south line drawn from Gorgan to Bandar Abbas, Iran’s eastern zone is more
of an irregular complex of physical and biogeographic features than the regions we have discussed so far (Fisher
1968a: 60–90). This area is characterised by scattered highland massifs, attaining well over 2,000 m in places,
interrupted by elevated plains and basins over 1,000 m above sea level. The massifs broadly form an eastern rim
to Iran, defining its borders with Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While not as formidable in its topog-
raphy as the Zagros and Alborz ranges, this region’s arid climate renders difficult human and animal movement
across the bleak terrain, isolating the Iranian interior zones to the west.
The Khorasan region of north-eastern Iran is marked by parallel mountain ridges, the outermost of which,
the Kopet Dagh, straddles the border between Iran and Turkmenistan, with Ashgabat situated against its
northern slopes (Vahdati 2018: Figure 1). The accessible passes here act as a gateway into Iran’s interior, ex-
ploited by invading peoples from Central Asia through time. Attempts to control these incursions are most
dramatically attested in the Sasanian Gorgan Wall that traverses the plain north of Gorgan (Sauer et al. 2013).
The north-western reaches of these ranges benefit from precipitation derived from the Caspian Sea which
supports relatively lush vegetation on the slopes, and the high plains and valleys are suitable for cropping and
18 Placing Iran
animal husbandry. The main line of communication, the modern road between Gorgan and Mashhad, partly
follows the valley of the Atrek river as it heads towards the Caspian Sea. The inner ranges of mountains here
form a high northern boundary to the central plateau. The modern Tehran-Mashhad road and the railway skirt
the lower slopes and plain edge of this transitional zone, with pockets of arable land and pasture in the valleys
to the north. Qanat and stream irrigation have enabled a degree of agricultural colonisation of the salty soils
fringing the great plateau to the south, but this is not a territory capable of supporting large populations. The
major town of the northeast, Mashhad, draws its importance both from its religious significance as the burial
place of the 8th Shi’a Imam, ‘Ali Reza, as well as its location on a node of natural route-ways into Central Asia,
Afghanistan and to south-eastern Iran.
To the south of Mashhad as far as Zahedan, the topography of eastern Iran is mixed, with rugged hilly out-
crops interspersed with often barren high plains with salty crusts, capable of supporting only thinly scattered
human habitations, except in the more fertile valley of Birjand (Figure 2.11). Directly north of Zahedan the re-
gion of Sistan includes a large portion of the well-watered Helmand basin, much of which lies across the border
in Afghanistan. The south-eastern region of Iran, Baluchistan, is composed mainly of highlands that connect
the limits of the Zagros with the Makran range of Pakistan to the east (Shearman et al. 1976; Spooner 1988).
Severe volcanic topography, high daytime temperatures, cold night-time temperatures, proneness to extreme
winds and lack of rainfall all restrict the agricultural capability of this region to a few pockets (Ganji 1968:
219, 235), with some degree of seasonal transhumance also practiced. Overall, however, south-eastern Iran is
thinly populated, largely because of the low levels of rainfall: “Extreme aridity is therefore the main problem
of agriculture – even of existence – in Iran” (Behnam 1968: 470). One of the most significant areas is the Jaz
Murian oasis, watered by the Halil Rud from the west and the Rud-e Bampur from the east. Settlement and
cultivation occur along the Rud-e Bampur towards Iranshahr, assisted by qanat irrigation. The region of Jiroft,
on the middle reaches of the Halil Rud, receives relatively high rainfall for this general area of Iran, due to the
proximity of the high Jabal Bariz range to the west. Coupled with the good soils of the region, this attribute al-
lows cultivation of a range of crops, including date-palm and winter cereals in an economy mixed with a degree
of transhumance. The region has clearly supported significant levels of past human settlement (Majidzadeh and
Pittman 2008; Gurjazkaite et al. 2018).
Figure 2.11 View of eastern Iran landscape, Baluchistan (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
Placing Iran 19
The central basins
The central basins cover a vast region of Iran effectively surrounded by the mountain complexes discussed above,
and with no drainage outlets to the sea (Gabriel 1938; Fisher 1968a: 90–110; Oberlander 1968: 276–278; Schar-
lau 1968: 191–193; Spooner 1994). They consist of elevated basins, 900–1,500 m asl and highly varied in extent,
which together cover some 800,000 km 2 or approximately half the total land area of Iran. This region, one of
the hottest on earth today (Mildrexler et al. 2006), suffers from extremely arid conditions, with less than 100mm
rainfall per year across more than half of the region and significant evaporation from high summer temperatures,
coupled with very low night-time and winter temperatures. These conditions, along with the high salinity of the
soils, allow the development only of sparsely scattered Artemisia dwarf-shrub vegetation, with plant cover across
the region estimated as being as low as 5% (Zohary 1973: 487; van Zeist 2008b: 28). In short, this is principally a
desert region, characterised by spreads of sand dunes, seasonal salt lakes, and viscous slime or kavir.
In the north, the largest of these basins is the Dasht-e Kavir, covering c. 400 by 150 km, while less extensive
salt basins reach to within a few kilometres of Tehran, Qom and Kashan. To the southeast, the Dasht-e Lut is a
broadly oval spread of barren land between Kerman and Zahedan, ringed by high mountains on all sides except
the northwest. Extensive complexes of sand dunes and salt lakes are dominant features in this forbidding, harsh
landscape. The towns of Kerman and Bam sit along the western edge of the Dasht-e Lut, making use of more
fertile lands and water sources to the west and south (Beckett and Gordon 1966). Further salt basins lie in parallel
with ridges of the eastern Zagros, from Esfahan in the northwest to Sirjan in the southeast.
Routes of communication: the lay of the land and the sea

“Everywhere in Iran movement from north to south or from north-east to south-west is difficult, but at right
angles along the grain of the country from north-west to south-east there is not much trouble, and each of the
long basins is traversed by an important easy road” (Harrison 1942: 177).
The topography, climate and hydrology of Iran have sharply affected the course of routes of communication
across its varied landscapes (T. Potts 1994: 36–43; Petrie et al. 2018: 108), to the extent that almost all of the route-
ways described here, illustrated in Figure 2.12, are significant in all periods of Iran’s past, and indeed remain
so today. Routes of communication in south-western Iran would always include waterways as well as overland
routes, which serve to connect the region with Lower Mesopotamia to the west. Thus, access from the south
to the key site of Susa in Khuzestan would normally have been by boat. The extent to which the sea routes of
the Persian Gulf were used appears to have been highly variable through prehistory and history, but the Iranian
shores northwest of Bushehr offer some good harbours and the sea route following this shore eastwards provides
access to the Oman peninsula and beyond to the Indus Valley. There is significant archaeological evidence for
boats from Early Chalcolithic Ubaid-period and later sites in Lower Mesopotamia and along the southern shores
of the Persian Gulf (Carter 2012). The Kerman region of south-eastern Iran has good access to the sea at Minab
near the Strait of Hormuz, and it is likely that many of the connections between the Kerman region and Lower
Mesopotamia (Chapter 9) were conducted via sea routes rather than traversing the harsh land terrain.
Major land routes into and across Iran naturally have to take account of such massive features as the Zagros
mountains and the central deserts. Firstly, the so-called Great Khorasan Road traverses northern Iran, in the west
providing access to Iran via the Diyala and through the Zagros gates to the region of modern Islamabad-e Gharb,
and thence via Kermanshah and Hamadan onto the plateau and to the plains around Tehran. From Tehran the
Great Khorasan Road reaches due east along the northern edge of the Dasht-e Kavir to Mashhad where the road
divides into a range of options stretching northeast, east and southeast. This northern route-way is of fundamen-
tal significance in enabling movement of raw materials, artefacts, animals, people and ideas across the entirety
of Iran through the ages but also, even more significantly, in connecting Iran with the broader world outside,
including Turkmenistan and Central Asia to the east and Mesopotamia to the west. Many major archaeological
sites are located within easy reach of the Great Khorasan Road, as we shall see throughout this book. This is the
most important strand of what became known in later times as the Silk Road or Silk Roads (Frankopan 2015,
2019). To some extent parallel with this route, another way to travel from Central Asia westwards across Iran and
on to the Caucasus and Anatolia, or vice versa, would have been to move along the northern flanks of the Kopet
Dagh in Turkmenistan to the Gorgan plain at the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea. From there, one could
travel westwards along the Caspian Sea littoral to reach the Kura and Aras (Araxes) rivers which provide access
to southern Caucasia, the eastern Anatolian highlands, the Black Sea and beyond (Piller 2012c). Direct north-
south access from the plains of central-northern Iran to the Caspian Sea littoral was restricted to natural passes,
principally along the course of the Sefid Rud.
20 Placing Iran
Figure 2.12 Major routeways of Iran, ancient and modern.
The second major east-west route across Iran is the so-called Achaemenid Royal Road running through the
southern Zagros region of Fars to Anshan (Tal-e Malyan), the highland capital of Elam and a major settlement
of the Proto-Elamite and other periods (Chapter 7). In the Achaemenid empire of the Iron Age (Chapter 11)
this road connected Babylon and Susa in the west with Persepolis and Pasargadae in the east. Extending further
east, the route gives access to all regions of south-eastern Iran and beyond to South Asia. A range of routes cross
Iran in broadly north-west/south-east alignments, linking Susiana with Luristan, Kerman with Tehran, and Za-
hedan with Mashhad, for example. Key among these is the trans-Tigridian corridor (Renette 2013), the swathe
of land between the Zagros mountains and the Tigris river in Iraq, connecting Susa and Khuzestan all the way
to Nineveh via the plains of Deh Luran and Mehran and the lower reaches of the rivers Diyala, Adhaim, Lesser
Zab and Greater Zab.
In the periods covered in this book, human movement along all these land routes would have been above all
on foot, with donkeys as beasts of burden from the Chalcolithic period onwards (T. Potts 1994: 44–45). Camels
do not feature as pack animals until the later second millennium BC, and wheeled vehicles would have been
unsuited to most of the routes traversing the challenging terrain of Iran.
Climate, environment and human interactions: the challenge of Iran

In view of Iran’s highly variable physical geography and biogeography, as we have seen, we need to consider the
nature of interactions between human communities and the climate and environment of ancient Iran, from the
Palaeolithic onwards. How did human communities cope with the many challenges presented to them by
the harsh, topographically severe and seasonally extreme conditions of the land of Iran? In addressing this ques-
tion, we may come to some significant insights regarding the special nature of Iranian societies, their resilience,
hardiness and adaptability, generated through their recursive engagement with their physical surroundings, near
and far. Human−environment interrelations form a major theme addressed through this book, but a few general
comments are in order here. Firstly, we stress that establishing direct causal relationships between climate and
Placing Iran 21
human society is tempting but highly problematic, particularly when considering short-term fluctuations and
adaptations (Hudson et al. 2012; Flohr et al. 2016; Jones et al. 2019; Carleton and Collard 2020).
Approaching the past climates and environments of Iran involves analysis of palaeoclimate proxy evidence
available largely from lake bed and wetland cores, the most important of which are from the Caspian Sea (Leroy
et al. 2014) and Lakes Almalou, Urmia, Neor, Zeribar, Mirabad, Maharlou, Parishan and Dasht-e Arjan, mainly
in the western half of the country, as well as analysis of loess soil beds and occasional speleothem evidence from
cave sites (Griffiths et al. 2001; Djamali et al. 2008, 2009b; Kehl 2009; Jones 2013; Jones et al. 2013, 2015; Ponel et
al. 2013; Sharifi et al. 2015, 2018; Wang et al. 2017; Petrie et al. 2018; Aubert et al. 2019). While there is scope for
much further research, the indications are that the climate of Iran, as experienced in each of its distinctive zones,
has remained relatively stable but with significant oscillations over at least the past 6,000 years or so (van Zeist
1967; Brookes 1982; Brookes et al. 1982). The major climatic shift which impacts on Iran, as elsewhere in the
region and beyond, is that brought about by the ending of the Pleniglacial and the onset of the Holocene from c.
9500 BC, often called the Climatic Optimum, which lasted from c. 9500 to c. 4000 BC (COHMAP 1988) and
was characterised by warmer, wetter weather and attendant changes in vegetation regimes, including a spread of
grasslands and woodlands (van Zeist 2008b; Kehl 2009; Roberts 2013). Within the context of this ameliorating
climate, groups of humans dispersed across the increasingly fertile and attractive uplands of the Zagros in pursuit
of herds of wild goat and sheep, while intensifying their exploitation of a range of animal and plant resources,
leading in course to the full Neolithic transition (Chapter 5). At least some Neolithic societies of Southwest Asia
appear to have been resilient to episodes of rapid climate change attested at c. 7200 BC and 6200 BC, including
cooling and aridification (Flohr et al. 2016), although in other regions the human impact appears to have been
greater (Weninger et al. 2009; Roffet-Salque et al. 2018).
In a bold synthesis, Sharifi et al. (2015: Figure 9) identify eight episodes of high aeolian dust input within the
Holocene, detected in a peat core from Lake Neor in north-western Iran, which they correlate with times of
drought, famine and socio-cultural transitions across Iran and neighbouring regions, including the collapses of
the Akkadian empire at c. 2200 BC, of the Ur III state at c. 2000 BC, of the Elamite empire at 800 BC, of the
Median state at 500 BC, and of the Achaemenid empire at 330 BC (Figure 11.3). Other palaeo-environmental
studies in Iran provide supporting evidence for episodes of transregional aridification at c. 3200 BC and 2200 BC,
which have been associated with the collapse of complex societies including the greater Uruk world at 3200 BC
and the Akkadian empire and beyond at 2200 BC (Chapter 10; Staubwasser and Weiss 2006; Walker and Fattahi
2011; Leroy et al. 2014). The human−environment relationship worked both ways. Increases in aeolian dust input
are likely to have been caused at least partly by intensified human and animal activity such as deforestation for
agriculture and building, and excessive grazing by herds of goat and sheep leading to soil erosion and dust trans-
port by wind (Kehl 2009: 12). A further factor to consider is the extent to which Late Pleistocene and Holocene
erosion and sedimentation may have buried archaeological sites, especially small ones from prehistoric periods
(Sharafi et al. 2016), an issue that needs to be borne in mind when reviewing diachronic settlement evidence from
most regions of Iran. Further discussion of specific human−environment interrelations takes place at relevant
points in the following chapters.
3 Approaching the past of Iran: a history of
archaeological investigation
Approaching the past of Iran: key sources

In this chapter we trace the development of archaeological knowledge and understanding of Iran’s past through
its historical development. This process will serve both to situate the evolution of our knowledge in its histor-
ical context and to highlight how the discipline has recurrently been shaped by the research agendas of highly
motivated individuals, Iranian and non-Iranian, with strong views on how to take their ideas and commitments
forward, a productive dialectic between historical contingency and individual agency. The sources for the
study of ancient Iran can broadly be termed archaeological and historical, with a strong reliance in this book on
archaeological sources. For all periods predating c. 3000 BC Iran’s past is prehistoric, and our knowledge of it
is totally dependent on the material remains of societies and their environments recovered in a range of ways.
Considerable variety through time and space in the ways that ancient societies of Iran have been, and continue
to be, recovered is also a critical factor in constructing the sources. No excavation and no survey is free of a
bias of some sort, and no field project recovers, let alone processes and publishes, 100% of available evidence. As
in other regions of Southwest Asia and beyond, an increasingly sophisticated array of scientific approaches has
been developed and applied in the context of archaeology in Iran, remodeling the contours of knowledge as the
discipline has developed.
From c. 3000 BC, the practice of writing makes very sporadic appearances amongst the ancient societies of
Iran, and we have surviving written documents from a range of sites and contexts. Written sources, especially
from long-dead languages, require special skills in their reading, apprehension and interpretation. For archaeol-
ogists, a significant concern regarding the texts is to consider their ancient contexts: who wrote them, who was
able to read them, what were the socio-political situations of their construction, use and disposal in the archaeo-
logical record? Throughout the relevant chapters in this book we attempt to integrate our text-based knowledge
within a broad archaeological narrative that does not prioritise either written or nonwritten sources, but that
views them all as valid sources of information about the past, all equally in need of critical appreciation. The
development, uses and collapse of writing systems within Iran’s past societies are in themselves important topics
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 2003) that we examine in subsequent chapters.
The history of archaeology in and of Iran cannot be divorced from the socio-political contexts within which
the discipline is always situated (Goode 2007; Hassanzadeh and Miri 2012; Taylor 2014). Socio-political factors
have been critical in shaping the nature, extent and location of field projects, as well as in structuring research
agendas and the extent to which projects have engaged with international colleagues, to mention a few examples.
In tracing the development of the discipline, we need at the same time to delineate the socio-political trends, and
such are the aims of the rest of this chapter. In the following pages we consider the development of the archaeol-
ogy of Iran in a series of chronological phases. These phases are of course arbitrary divisions, but their use serves
to highlight the major trends in the narrative while contextualising the details of the story.
Difficult birth and infancy of a discipline: 1800–1930

Early explorers and traders from Europe, such as Pietro della Valle in the early 17th century and Cornelius de
Bruin in the early 18th century, provided accounts and drawings of some of the spectacular sites and monuments
of Iran, Persepolis above all (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1991; Floor 1994; Gurney 1994; Stronach 2011). Progress in
approaching the sources of ancient Iran commenced with Georg Grotefend’s identification in 1802 of the names
of Achaemenid kings in the Old Persian inscriptions at Persepolis (Schmitt 2002), an achievement significantly
augmented by Henry Rawlinson’s decipherment in the 1830s–1840s of the Old Persian component of Darius the
Great’s trilingual Bisotun inscription near Kermanshah (Rawlinson 1847–1848; Larsen 1996; Daniels 2009). The
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-3
Approaching the past of Iran 23
great significance of the decipherment of languages written in cuneiform script was that it opened a new, indig-
enous door on the past of countries such as Iran and Iraq, where previously biblical and classical traditions, both
originating mainly from outside those countries, had shaped scholarly appreciation of their histories.
The early development of archaeology in Iran went hand-in-hand with nascent Iranian nationalism in the
Qajar period, in particular through the reign of Naser ad-Din Shah (1846–1896) (Abdi 2001a; Goode 2007). The
basic tenet of Iranian nationalism was the notion of “Iran” as a place and a nation with a distinctive identity that
predated the Arab invasions of the seventh century AD and the spread of Islam across Iran from the west. Features
of this identity, propagated by intellectuals such as Fath’Ali Akhundzadeh (1812–1878) and Mirza Agha Khan
Kirmani (1855–1889), included the idea that before the Arab invasion Iranians had been free from despotic rule
and that Iranian culture had been subverted and oppressed by the cloak of Arab Islam (Goode 2007:131).
Unfortunately at this time, several archaeological sites, including Tepe Hissar in Damghan province of
north-eastern Iran, were subjected to so-called tala-shuyi or “gold-washing,” whereby running water was passed
through archaeological deposits in order to recover objects of metal, clay and stone for collections of the Qajar
elite (Abdi 2001a). Recovered items were housed in a special museum in one of the royal palaces in Tehran,
which ultimately had the benefit of encouraging the foundation of the National Museum of Iran in Tehran in
1910 (Mousavi 2013b: 7).
Archaeological excavations in Iran began in the mid-19th century with a site that was to prove of unique and
lasting significance – Susa in Khuzestan. The location of Susa or Shushan as it is called in the Book of the prophet
Daniel was of considerable interest to biblical scholars (Dyson 1968; Dubovský 2018b). The British geologist
William Kennett Loftus with Henry Churchill made a map of the site of Susa in 1850, of great importance as it
is the only plan to show the site before its severe disfigurement by decades of large-scale digging and dumping
(Figure 3.1). The first excavations at Susa, and indeed in Iran, were undertaken by Loftus between 1851 and 1853
(Loftus 1857; Curtis 1993, 2018; Mousavi 1996, 2013b; Benoit 2004; Chevalier 2013), just a few years after Austen
Henry Layard, who had visited Susa in 1841, and Paul Emile Botta had made their astounding discoveries at the
Assyrian capital cities of Khorsabad, Nimrud and Nineveh in northern Iraq (Larsen 1996). Having articulated
part of the Achaemenid apadana or columned hall at Susa, Loftus returned to his excavations at Nineveh and
Warka in Iraq. Inscriptions found at Susa by Loftus confirmed the site’s identity as biblical Shushan (Dyson 1968;
Potts 2018).
The Crimean War and other distractions kept European powers occupied for 30 years or so from 1853, so
that there was minimal engagement by them with the past of Iran and other countries of the region during that
time. To the incidental fact that Naser ad-Din Shah’s physician, Dr Tholozan, was French (Abdi 2001a: 54) we
can attribute the consequence that the archaeology of Iran came to be dominated by French antiquarians for a
period of half a century from 1882 until the ratification of the Iranian Antiquities Law in 1930. Dr Tholozan’s
role in this episode was to persuade Naser ad-Din Shah to grant the Susa permit to Marcel and Jane Dieulafoy
in 1882. Backed by the National Museums of France, they excavated at Susa from 1884 to 1886, exporting their
finds to Paris where they stimulated much interest. Amongst their discoveries were an Achaemenid bull’s-head
capital and much of a glazed brick frieze depicting royal archers of Darius the Great, both now on display in
the Louvre (Figure 11.139) (Dieulafoy 1893; Carter 1992; Chevalier 1992, 2013, 2018; Mousavi 1996; Stronach
1998; Cotty 2018).
Figure 3.1 1851 plan of Susa by Henry Churchill and Willam Kennett Loftus (Loftus 1857).
24 Approaching the past of Iran
On the basis of the Susa excavations, two remarkable conventions were agreed between Iran and France (Cheva-
lier 2002, 2018; Goode 2007) the first of which, in 1895, granted France exclusive rights to excavate in any part of
Iran. The second convention, signed in Paris in 1900, confirmed the French monopoly on excavations (“the gov-
ernment of his Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia grants France exclusive and perpetual rights to excavate over
the whole of the Persian Empire”: Perrot 2013a: 49) and further stipulated that antiquities discovered in Susiana
could go to France, with compensation paid to Iran for items of gold and silver, while objects found outside Susiana
would be divided between Iran and France (Goode 2007: 127). Between the signing of these two extraordinary
agreements, which were not universally well-received within Iran, a major development was the founding in 1897
of the Délégation Scientifique Française en Perse, directed from then until 1912 by Jacques de Morgan, who had already
conducted an extensive geological, archaeological and ethnographic mission through the regions of the Caspian,
Kurdistan, Luristan and Khuzestan in 1889–1891 (de Morgan 1895, 1896, 1900, 1902, 1912; Tissot 1994; Chevalier
2012: 66). De Morgan constructed the fort or château on the Acropole mound that even today dominates the Susa
skyline, then a necessary protection against cross-border raids by local tribes (Figure 3.2) (Chevalier 1992: 18).
De Morgan’s excavations at Susa were unsatisfactory even by the standards of the day, described as “industrial”
by de Morgan himself and employing some 1200 workers (detailed discussion in Dyson 1968: 27–34; Young
1986a; Carter 1992: 24; Mousavi 1996: 6–14; Chevalier 2012: 68, 2013, 2018; Dahl 2019). De Morgan opened a
trench on the Acropole mound measuring 100 × 40 m, digging in 5 m steps (Figure 3.3) (visible in a contempo-
rary painting illustrated in Chevalier 1992: Figure 17), and keeping minimal records (Steve et al. 2002). By these
means he intended to excavate 50,000 m 3 per year, thus aiming for total excavation of the Acropole mound in
about 50 years (Mousavi 1996: 8)! In total between 1897 and 1905 de Morgan excavated at least 280,000 m 3 of
deposits at Susa, inflicting incalculable damage to this unique repository of archaeological and historical evidence
(Potts 2016: 327–328). Significant numbers of clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform script were recovered and their
study and publication by the Assyriologist Jean-Vincent Scheil established the political entity of Elam as a major
international protagonist of Bronze Age and Iron Age Southwest Asia, alongside Assyria and Babylonia (Álvarez-
Mon et al. 2011: 4–5; Álvarez-Mon 2020: xxxvi–xxxviii). Tablets of so-called Proto-Elamite type were also
recovered and still today form by far the largest assemblage of texts of that type, approximately 1,560 out of some
1,650 Proto-Elamite clay tablets in total (Chapter 7; Englund 2004: 143; Dahl 2019). Prime amongst de Morgan’s
finds were important Mesopotamian monuments that had clearly been taken from Babylonia to Susa as booty
during Shatruk-Nahunte’s campaign of 1158 BC, including the victory stele of Naram-Sin and the law code stele
of Hammurabi of Babylon (Harper 1992). At the base of his massive trench de Morgan excavated a cemetery of
fifth millennium BC date, comprising tombs with grave goods in the form of copper objects and finely painted
pottery of Susa A type (Chapter 6). Results from the excavations began to be published in the series Mémoires de la
Délégation en Perse (de Morgan 1900). Field direction of the excavations at Susa passed to Roland de Mecquenem
from 1908, interrupted by the First World War (de Mecquenem 1980; Mousavi 1996: 14–15; Chevalier 2013). Just
before the war, French excavations also took place at Hamadan (Ecbatana), Tepe Pisa just outside Hamadan, Rayy
near Tehran and at Lian in Bushehr (Tissot 1994). In 1916 Aurel Stein entered Iran from the east and conducted
the first excavations in Sistan (Stein 1928, 1937; Whitfield 2005).
Figure 3.2 Susa, the chateau with the Acropole mound behind and the tomb of Daniel to the right (photo credit: Loghman Ahmadzadeh).
Figure 3.3 T
he mound of Susa under excavation. Le Tell de Suse pendant les travaux. Oil painting by J.-G. Bondoux (1866–1919)
(RF3690; photo: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Gérard Blot).
These developments in the archaeology of Iran need to be considered within the wider context of the
evolution of the discipline, as well as in the light of technical advances during the later 19th and early 20th
centuries. Contemporary excavations elsewhere in Southwest Asia, including those by Heinrich Schliemann
at Troy and Ernest de Sarzec at Telloh, had begun to reveal traces of civilisations barely hinted at in either
biblical or classical sources (Dyson 1968; Matthews 1997, 2011). While the work of Rawlinson and others
had to some extent freed the study of the past of Southwest Asia from its biblical and classical constraints, it
is an anachronism to consider any of the protagonists as professional archaeologists. Indeed, the work in Iran
at least until well into the 20th century fell significantly behind the research and technical standards of the
pioneering interdisciplinary programme of excavations as early as 1903–1904 led by the geologist Raphael
Pumpelly at Anau in neighbouring Turkmenistan (Pumpelly 1905, 1908; Hiebert 2003). And the major ad-
vances in articulating and excavating architecture of unbaked mudbrick made by Robert Koldewey and Wal-
ter Andrae at Babylon and Assur in the late 19th century went unheeded by French archaeologists at Susa, for
example, until after the Second World War. Nevertheless, the sequence of materials excavated at Susa, with
their immense chronological span dating back to c. 4000 BC, was then unique in the region and provided
the major reference points for dating pottery and other objects from Mesopotamian sites until well into the
1930s and beyond (Dyson 1997b: 61).
Significant political developments within Iran started to impact on the archaeological scene at this time,
namely a resurgence of Iranian nationalism culminating in the 1921 coup d’état of Seyyed Zia ad-Din Tabataba’i
and Reza Khan (later Reza Shah) (Goode 2007: 132; Imanpour 2015). In 1922 the Society for the Preservation of
the National Heritage was founded in Tehran, with the stated goal “to enhance public interest in ancient knowl-
edge, and crafts; and to preserve antiquities and handicrafts and their ancient techniques” (Mousavi 2013b: 7).
The society aimed to build a museum and library in Tehran, to ensure the proper recording and registration of
sites of heritage significance and to conduct the proper recording of antiquities held by government and national
bodies. The founders of the society were especially active in publishing synthetic accounts of Iran’s past, which
served as key texts in the national curriculum between the two world wars and therefore helped to shape a sense
of Iranian national identity. These books included Hasan Pirniya’s Ancient Iran, Myths of Ancient Iran, and History
of Ancient Iran and Mohammad-Ali Foroughi’s History of Iran (Goode 2007: 153).
A natural outcome of the rise of Iranian nationalism and the ascendancy of Reza Shah was the abolition in 1927
of the French concessions of 1895 and 1900 (Goode 2007: 138). A national Conservation of Antiquities Act came
into force in 1930, stipulating equal division of excavated finds between Iran and the partner country (Mousavi
2013b). The French were now restricted to Susa and would be overseen by an Iranian government representative.
A new Department of Antiquities was formed and, in a conciliatory gesture to the French, André Godard was
appointed its first director in 1929 and continued to hold senior positions in Iranian archaeology for over 20 years.
His major achievements included a journal of Iranian archaeology and the building of the Iran Bastan Museum
(Figure 3.4), architecturally modelled on the Sasanian palace at Ctesiphon in Iraq and officially opened by Reza
Shah in 1937 (Goode 2007: 178–179). But the era of exclusive French control over the archaeology and heritage
of Iran was over, and the door was open for wider international engagement.
Figure 3.4 I ran Bastan Museum, Tehran (photo courtesy of Jebrael Nokandeh, National Museum of Iran).
Internationalisation of a discipline: 1931–1958

The major development subsequent to the 1927 abrogation of the French concession was the internationalisation
of archaeological activity in Iran. A towering figure in this process was the German archaeologist Ernst Herzfeld
(1879–1948) (Gunter and Hauser 2005). Herzfeld had learnt about excavating in the Middle East through two
years working with Walter Andrae at Assur in Iraq, and had travelled extensively in Iran and published major
works on sites such as Pasargadae, Persepolis and Naqsh-e Rustam (Herzfeld 1929–1930b; Hauser 2003; Boucha-
rlat 2005). Already in 1923 Herzfeld had conducted small-scale excavations at the Sasanian site of Paikuli in
Iraqi Kurdistan as well as prospecting at Pasargadae. With the support of the Governor of Fars province, he was
commissioned by Tehran in 1923 to produce a report on the archaeological site of Persepolis with a view to its
excavation and preservation (Hauser 2003; Goode 2007: 142). Herzfeld’s favoured status in Iran can be at least
partly attributed to the publication in 1919 of his radical views to the effect that modern states of the Middle
East could best protect their own heritage by establishing strong and active departments of activities, a notion
well ahead of its time in the West (Hauser 2003). Much less attractive was Herzfeld’s habit of illegally exporting
and selling objects recovered from his own excavations (Muscarella 2012b, 2018). In 1925–1926 Herzfeld served
as archaeological adviser to the Tehran government and assisted with drafting the Antiquities Law as well as
compiling lists of national sites and monuments. Another major influence on Reza Shah’s views on ancient Iran
at this time was the American art historian Arthur Upham Pope. Reza Shah was encouraged by Pope’s ideas to
pursue an agenda of state support for and involvement in the recovery and curation of Iran’s artistic and cultural
heritage, broadly understood. Pope established the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology in New
York in 1928 which supported expeditions to Iran, including Erich Schmidt’s pioneering Holmes expeditions to
Luristan in 1934–1935 and 1937–1938 (Schmidt et al. 1989). The Holmes expeditions were stimulated by the first
appearance on the market of the so-called “Luristan bronzes” in 1928.
Herzfeld conducted the first excavations at Pasargadae in 1928 (Herzfeld 1929–1930a; Hauser 2003; Stronach
2005b), as well as briefly at the nearby prehistoric mound of Tall-e Bakun and at Kuh-i Khwaja in Sistan. Of
lasting significance was Herzfeld’s founding of the journals Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran in 1929 and Iranische
Denkmäler in 1932. But Herzfeld’s heartfelt desire was to excavate at the great Achaemenid site of Persepolis and
eventually his wish was granted by the Iranian authorities. The financial crisis in Europe, however, meant that
no German institution could afford to support him and so he turned to the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, under its director James H. Breasted, who appointed Herzfeld director of the Persepolis excavations
from 1931 (Goode 2007: 146).
Persepolis had already attracted significant antiquarian attention, unsurprisingly in view of its spectacular
above-ground remains (Mousavi 2002, 2012). In 1772 Carsten Niebuhr cleared part of the Apadana Hall stair-
way in order to sketch the reliefs, and in 1821 the site was first illustrated in water colour by Robert Kerr Por-
ter (Dyson 1997b: 60). During a visit to Persepolis in 1811 by the then British Ambassador to Persia, Sir Gore
Ouseley and his colleagues, a number of substantial fragments of relief sculpture were removed from the site for
private collections in Britain, eventually forming the heart of the British Museum’s collection of Achaemenid
relief sculpture (Barnett 1957; Curtis 1998; Mitchell 2000). The French architect Pascal Coste and painter Eu-
gène Flandin stayed at Persepolis for two months in 1840–1841, digging a number of soundings into the ruins
(Chevalier 2012: 65). A few decades later the superb photographic record of Persian sites, including Persepolis,
were published by Franz Stolze (1882). Portrayal of Persepolis, and other sites in Iran, reached its culmination in
Erich Schmidt’s (1940) pioneering volume of aerial photographs taken from Schmidt’s biplane Friend of Iran in
aerial surveys in 1935–1937.
Herzfeld’s excavations at Persepolis between 1931 and 1934 set the scene for a modern understanding of Achae-
menid archaeology (Chapter 11; von Gall 2003; Mousavi 2005a, 2013b). He investigated the major buildings
on the monumental platform, and his interpretation of the function of these structures has persisted until today
through retention of his nomenclature. Using architectural features, foundation inscriptions and occasionally
pure guesswork, Herzfeld labelled the various buildings with interpretive names such as “Apadana,” “Tripylon
Gate,” “Hall of 100 Columns,” “Harem,” “Palace of Darius,” “Palace of Xerxes,” “Treasury” and “Gate of All
Nations,” thus constructing a narrative of how the site of Persepolis might have been used by the Achaemenid
royal family. Recent studies have questioned the validity of these terms and thereby the whole interpretation
of the site’s function (Razmjou 2010), but it is striking that Herzfeld’s architectural terminology of Persepolis
has survived for so long. Also of enduring significance from Herzfeld’s work at Persepolis was the discovery in
1934–1935 of the so-called Fortification Archive, a collection of some 30,000 clay tablets inscribed in Elamite
found in the fortification wall at the northeast end of the platform, of major importance for approaching social,
economic and administrative aspects of the empire (Hallock 1969).
Other American engagement in these years included three expeditions sponsored by the University Mu-
seum of the University of Pennsylvania: 1931–1932 excavations by Frederik Wulsin at Tureng Tepe (Olson
and Thornton 2021), 1931–1932 excavations by Erich Schmidt at Tepe Hissar (Schmidt 1937) and 1934–1936
excavations at Cheshmeh ‘Ali near Rayy, also by Schmidt (for Schmidt's photographs of these campaigns see
Gürsan-Salzmann 2007). Schmidt, “one of the last excavators of the heroic age in archaeology” (Schmidt et al.
1989: xv), succeeded Herzfeld as director of the Persepolis excavations from 1934 until 1939 (Schmidt 1953,
1957, 1970; Stronach 1986, 1998; Goode 2007: 167). The Oriental Institute additionally sponsored excavations
at the prehistoric site of Tall-e Bakun, near Persepolis in 1932 and 1937, directed by Alexander Langsdorff and
Donald McCown (Alizadeh 2006), while a Swedish team under T. J. Arne excavated at Shah Tepe near the
Caspian Sea (Arne 1945). Aurel Stein returned to Iran in the 1930s to conduct surveys and excavations across
southern and western Iran (Stein 1940).
Through the changing political environment, de Mecquenem continued excavating at Susa from 1920 to 1938,
revealing levels of late prehistoric, Elamite and Achaemenid date but failing still adequately to identify and trace
mudbrick buildings (Carter 1992: 22; Tissot 1994). In the late 1930s he expanded his work to take in the ziggu-
rat at Chogha Zanbil while his assistant Louis Le Breton surveyed prehistoric sites in Susiana. At the same time
Georges Contenau and Roman Ghirshman excavated on behalf of the Louvre at Tepe Giyan in eastern Luristan
and at Tepe Sialk near Kashan (Ghirshman 1939; Tissot 1994; Spycket 1997; Mousavi 2013b: 8; Bridey and Cuny
2019a, 2019b; Curtis 2019b). Ghirshman’s excavations at Tepe Sialk (Figure 3.5) and Schmidt’s at Tepe Hissar
have been seen as “models at the time for the stratigraphic recovery of regional prehistoric sequences” (Dyson
1997b: 61), and they remain of fundamental importance for understanding the prehistory of the Iranian plateau.
Figure 3.5 Excavations in 1934 at the South Mound of Tepe Sialk, Kashan (Bridey and Cuny 2019a: 47–48; Ghirshman Archive,
Department of Near Eastern Antiquities, Musée du Louvre. Inv. no DAO-600–004–0132).
Nevertheless, the general standard of excavation in Iran through the 1930s was poor (Young 1986a), and much
of the material and data recovered at the time remain frustrating and tantalising to work with. Throughout the
1940s–1950s the practice of issuing commercial digging permits in Iran was widespread, in theory with all finds
divided 50–50 between the state and the excavator, but in practice often with falsified records enabling retention
and illicit export and sale of all finds, a sad practice gradually brought to an end following governmental inspec-
tion of the Archaeological Service of Iran (Negahban 2002).
An event of long-term significance was the opening of the Department of Archaeology at the University of
Tehran in 1937, which rapidly became associated with proponents of Iranian nationalism (Abdi 2001a: 62; Malek
Shahmirzadeh 2004). In 1941, one of its first graduates, Fereydoun Tavalli, excavated at sites on the Marv Dasht
in Fars (Mousavi 2013b: 10). With the outbreak of the Second World War foreign expeditions ceased work in
Iran, while excavations continued at Persepolis under the direction of a succession of Iranian archaeologists led
by Hosein Ravanbod (Stronach 1998). Following the end of the war, French excavations resumed at Susa from
1946, directed until 1967 by Roman Ghirshman, who had been highly active in Iran before the war (Ghirshman
1952, 1953, 1954b, 1964; Le Breton 1957; Chevalier 2018). Interested in the arrival of Indo-Iranian peoples into
Iran, he excavated in the northern sector of the Ville Royale and in the so-called Ville des Artisans in search of
Achaemenid origins (Carter 1992: 22). From 1951 to 1962 Ghirshman moved his attention to the site of Chogha
Zanbil 50 km southeast from Susa, concentrating on the massive Middle Elamite ziggurat of king Untash-Na-
pirisha (Chapter 10; Carter 1992: 23). Back at Susa, Ghirshman’s later campaigns exposed areas of architecture
principally of second millennium BC date.
Under the tutelage of Henri Frankfort at the Oriental Institute in Chicago, the 1940s saw the first systematic
attempts to correlate the stratigraphy of excavated sites across Iran and into Mesopotamia (McCown 1942, 1954),
relying heavily on the sequences excavated at Sialk, Hissar, Giyan and later augmented by renewed study of the
Susa sequence by Louis Le Breton (1957). From the Mesopotamian side these efforts were well-matched by the
comparative stratigraphic study of Anne Perkins (1949). These two graduate seminar studies even today shape
much of the relative chronology of both Iran and Mesopotamia, with much subsequent refinement. The quantity
and geographic spread of excavations in Iran gathered pace through the late 1940s and into subsequent decades.
On behalf of the Office of Archaeology, ‘Ali Sami carried out excavations and restoration at Pasargadae and Perse-
polis (Stronach 1998), while Mahmoud Rad and ‘Ali Hakemi began investigations at Hasanlu in north-western
Iran, following Aurel Stein’s earlier dig at the site, as well as excavating Iron Age graves at Khorvin in Alborz
province in 1950 (Mousavi 2013b: 10). Donald McCown of Chicago excavated at the Proto-Elamite mound of
Tall-e Ghazir on the Ram Hormuz plain in Khuzestan in 1948–1949, T. Burton Brown of Manchester dug at
Geoy Tepe near Urmia in 1948, and Carleton S. Coon from Pennsylvania commenced Palaeolithic studies in Iran
through excavation of cave sites in the Zagros and Caspian Sea regions from 1949 (Coon 1951; Stronach 1998).
Louis Vanden Berghe of Ghent University had a major impact on the development of Iranian archaeology (Haer-
inck 2009). His surveys and test excavations at multiple sites in Fars and Luristan since 1951 established a tentative
chronology for these regions from the Neolithic to the Iron Age (Stronach 1998). Japanese archaeologists Namio
Egami and Seiichi Masuda began a long association of Japan with Iran’s ancient past through their excavations at
Tall-e Bakun in Fars in 1956. In western Azerbaijan, the Hasanlu Project, directed by Robert H. Dyson, Jr., of
the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, began in the same year (Dyson 1997a).
A golden age of Iranian archaeology: 1959–1979

Several major episodes mark 1959–1961 out as pivotal years in the archaeology of Iran, the start of what we may
regard as a golden age, a coming of age (Stronach 1998), “an explosive phase” (Young 1986a) or “the beginning of
the modern era in Iranian archaeology” (Abdi 2001a: 65). Firstly, the year 1959 was graced by the publication of
Louis Vanden Berghe’s seminal volume L’archéologie de l’Iran ancien (1959), a worthy companion to the previously
issued books by Ghirshman, L’Iran des origins à l’Islam (Ghirshman 1951; English edition 1954a), and Herzfeld, Iran
in the Ancient East (1941). Secondly, under H. H. von der Osten and R. Naumann, a long-term German project
at the Sasanian site of Takht-i Suleiman from 1959 brought sophisticated field and recording techniques into
Iran (Stronach 1998). Thirdly, the Hasanlu Project, begun in 1956, became in 1959 a joint enterprise between
the University of Pennsylvania and the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art and innovatively expanded to
include regional studies and excavations at nearby sites such as Hajji Firuz, Dalma, Pisdeli and Dinkha (Dyson
1997a: 480), thereby introducing a host of talented young American and Canadian researchers to the discipline,
including Mary Voigt, Oscar White Muscarella, Harvey Weiss, Irene Winter and T. Cuyler Young, Jr.
Fourthly, the 1958 revolution in Iraq had terminated the Iraq-Jarmo Project, directed by Robert Braidwood
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Braidwood had set an ambitious, anthropological agenda:
“The expedition described here is different [from previous excavations in the Near East] in that it is working
toward the solution of a general problem: How are we to understand those great changes in mankind’s way
of life which attended the first appearance of the settled village-farming community?” (Braidwood and Howe
1960: 1). With the transfer of his fieldwork and research interests across the border into Iranian Kurdistan in
1959–1960, Braidwood brought with him the novel approaches of problem-oriented archaeology executed by
a team of specialists in the natural sciences (Hole 1995: 2718; Matthews 2003a: 24–25), excavating at Neolithic
sites in the Kermanshah region, including Asiab and Sarab (Braidwood et al. 1961). Another brilliant American
introduced to Iran at this time was Robert McC. Adams, also of the Oriental Institute, who had already con-
ducted a new form of multi-period survey and analysis in the Diyala region across the border in Iraq (Adams
1965; Abdi 2005). Adams applied his pioneering approach to the Susiana plain in 1960–1961, publishing the
results as a characteristically insightful blend of geography, archaeology and history (Adams 1962). Following
on from Adams, multiple archaeological surveys were undertaken in Iran, with a focus on the Khuzestan and
Zagros regions (Young 1986a: Table 2).
A visionary and hugely influential figure in Iranian archaeology in the years from 1960 onwards was the
Iranian archaeologist, Ezat Negahban, who had studied at the Oriental Institute in Chicago and thereafter as-
sumed positions as the first Technical Director of the Iranian Archaeological Service, 1960–1965, and lecturer
at the University of Tehran, where he established the Institute of Archaeology (Stronach 2009; Mousavi 2013b:
11). He was also Director of the Iran Bastan Museum, 1966–1968. Often called the Father of Modern Iranian
Archaeology, he directed excavations at the Iron Age cemetery of Marlik and, from 1965 to 1978, turned his
attention to the Elamite site of Haft Tappeh (Chapter 10), as well as investigating multiple sites on the Qazvin
plain, including Zagheh, Ghabrestan and Sagzabad. He played a key role in encouraging and enabling American
and international involvement in the archaeology of Iran through the 1960s and 1970s, aided by the convening
of an annual International Congress on Iranian Art and Archaeology (Porada 1969). Perhaps Negahban’s greatest
achievement lay “in building the infrastructure of an indigenous archaeology apparatus” in Iran (Abdi 2013),
through creation of a university curriculum in archaeology supported by all relevant facilities such as libraries,
textbooks and in-field training. The creation in 1972 of the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, directed
by Firouz Bagherzadeh (Malek Shahmirzadeh 2004; Aryamanesh 2019), set the seal on the maturity of archaeol-
ogy in Iran, demonstrated through annual conferences where excavators produced their previous seasons’ results,
a model since adopted by many other countries.
Supported by grants from the American National Science Foundation, in contrast to the museum-based sup-
port for European activity, more American engagement in the archaeology of Iran in these active years came in
the form of graduate students from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and elsewhere, including
Frank Hole, Kent Flannery, Gregory Johnson, Patty Jo Watson, Henry Wright and Charles Redman, all of
whom were to make significant contributions to the study of ancient Iran, in particular opening up the discipline
to the methods and approaches being developed in the so-called New Archaeology (Abdi 2001a: 66, 2005). Hole
and Flannery’s Prehistory of Southwestern Iran Project involved systematic excavation in 1961, 1963 and 1969 at
several sites on the Deh Luran plain in Khuzestan, including Ali Kosh, Tepe Sabz and Chagha Sefid (Hole and
Flannery 1968; Hole et al. 1969; Johnson 1973; Wright and Johnson 1975; Hole 1977; Wright 1981; Neely and
Wright 1994; Moghaddam 2012a: 3–7, 2012b: 516–519). Hole and Flannery’s project, boldly framed as an exercise
in “human ecology,” involved the first use of water flotation to recover charred plant remains (Helbaek 1969;
Hole 1995: 2718; Miller 2003), a development that provided samples for the new technique of radiocarbon dating
as well as insights into ancient food procurement practices. The surveys of the Susiana plain by Adams (1962) and
their subsequent publication established a paradigm for the conduct and interpretation of multi-period surveys on
the alluvial plains of Lower Mesopotamia and southwest Iran (Kouchoukos 1998). Further advances in scientific
archaeology include the systematic study of ancient technologies, epitomised in the Wertime Pyrotechnological
Expedition of 1968, which set out to investigate the early stages of Old World metallurgy at sites of ancient min-
ing and craft production in Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan (Wertime 1968; Arab and Rehren 2004).
The year 1961 saw the start of a long-term involvement by the Chicago Oriental Institute in excavations at
Chogha Mish in Khuzestan as well as at the nearby sites of Chogha Bonut and Boneh Fazili. Directed by Pinhas
Delougaz and Helene J. Kantor from 1961–1978, the project focused on the so-called Proto-Literate period but
also investigated much earlier levels, the whole project published in exemplary manner largely through the efforts
of Abbas Alizadeh (Delougaz et al. 1996; Alizadeh 2003a, 2008). A major programme of survey and excavations
in Kerman province, focused on the multi-period site of Tepe Yahya, started in 1967 under the leadership of Karl
Lamberg-Karlovsky of Harvard University (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1968). Around the same time, significant steps
in the development of Palaeolithic archaeology in Iran were well underway (Chapter 4; Vahdati Nasab 2011;
Conard et al. 2013a).
A further methodological innovation developed at this time was that of ethnoarchaeology, defined as the
study of “contemporary peoples for insights into prehistoric life” (Hole 1995: 2721). Hole himself carried out
ethnoarchaeological study of Luri pastoral nomads (Hole 1979; Hole and Amanolahi-Baharvand 2021). Earlier,
in 1959–1960, Patty Jo Watson had conducted the first such research by systematically investigating architecture,
material culture and social organisation in a small village in Iranian Kurdistan, as a component of Braidwood’s
project in Kermanshah (Watson 1979), expanded on by Carol Kramer in later work (Kramer 1982). These studies
should be viewed within an already established tradition of social anthropological research into nomadic peoples
of the Zagros region of Iran, including the Kurds, the Bakhtiyari, the Basseri and the Qashqa’i (Barth 1953, 1965;
Bacon 1954; Digard 1981; Beck 1983, 2003; I. Mortensen 1993).
The winds of change eventually arrived at Susa with the accession in 1967 of the prehistorian Jean Perrot who,
in collaboration with Firouz Bagherzadeh, director of the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, and the
University of Tehran, assembled an international interdisciplinary team to begin to do justice to the site (Steve
and Gasche 1971, 1990; Le Brun 1978; Carter 1992: 23–24; Tissot 1994; Perrot 2013b, 2013c; Chevalier 2018)
and its regional context (Dollfus 1978, 1985). Under their guidance, stratigraphically controlled excavations and
cleaning operations in old and new trenches began to establish a more secure chronology of occupation at Susa
and at surrounding sites such as Jaffarabad, Jowi and Bandebal (Dollfus 1978). Meanwhile, in 1969, the system
of dividing excavated finds between host country and foreign partner was at last brought to an end, in line with
policies adopted in other countries of the region and beyond (Stronach 1998).
The openness and richness of the discipline of archaeology in Iran in the 1960s encouraged the foundation of
residential research institutes in Tehran. Key amongst these were the British Institute of Persian Studies (BIPS,
founded 1961; Stronach 2012, 1950s–1970s British field projects in Iran are summarised in Moorey 1972) with
its world-renowned journal Iran (Bosworth and Curtis 2006), and the Tehran branch of the Deutsches Archäol-
ogisches Institut (also founded 1961; Kleiss 1994; activities described in Helwing and Rahemipour 2011) and its
journal started by Herzfeld in 1929 Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. French and Italian institutes and universi-
ties were also pursuing multiple lines of research (Callieri and Genito 2012; Panaino 2012), while scholars from
America, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark and Japan joined their Iranian colleagues in archaeological and
historical researches across the range of Iran. From 1965 the Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran (BAMI)
conducted research in the Pusht-i Kuh region of Luristan, as a joint venture of Ghent University and the Royal
Museums of Art and History in Brussels, directed by Louis Vanden Berghe until 1979 (Haerinck 2009). Founded
in 1971, the American Institute of Iranian Studies employed William M. Sumner as its first resident director
(Miller and Abdi 2003: 1). At the same time, the University of Tehran trained waves of talented Iranian ar-
chaeologists who progressed to senior positions within the framework of Iranian archaeology, including Yussef
Majidzadeh, Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi, Massoud Azarnoush and Mahmoud Mousavi, amongst many others
(Mousavi 2013b: 11).
On this foundation of indigenous capabilities and confidence, combined with truly international engage-
ment, a host of short- and long-term projects investigating most periods of the past of Iran was able to flourish
through the 1960s and 1970s (summarised in Young 1986a; Stronach 1998; see also Dyson 1997b; Helwing in
press-a), which can be most comfortably presented in table form (Table 3.1). The table, which does not purport
to be exhaustive, or to be definitive in its period assignations, or to cover projects later in date than Achaemenid,
demonstrates at a glance the global extent of institutional and professional involvement in studying the past of
Iran during the period 1960–1978, justifying our characterisation of it as a golden age. As Young (1986a) has
emphasised, the table demonstrates a concentration of archaeological effort in particular regions of Iran, including
Khuzestan, Azerbaijan and the central-west Zagros.
After the revolution: 1979–2000

The Iranian Revolution of February 1979 brought a sudden and complete end to the age of international collab-
oration, exacerbated by the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war from 1980. Furthermore, because of Mohammed Reza
Shah’s co-option of the Achaemenid remains at Pasargadae and Persepolis into his 1971 celebrations of the 2500th
anniversary of the foundation of the Persian empire by Cyrus the Great, the new regime in Tehran regarded all
archaeology with suspicion. The University of Tehran’s Department of Archaeology was closed down for three
years, while the Institute of Archaeology lay dormant till 1990 (Abdi 2001a: 70). New excavations at Susa were
commissioned in 1982, led from 1994 onwards by Mir-Abedin Kaboli (Kaboli 2000). Chance discovery and
excavation of a major Neo-Elamite tomb at Arjan in 1982 is one of the few archaeological highlights of this
era (Alizadeh 1985a). In 1985 the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation (ICHO) was formed, incorporating
the Centre for Archaeological Research, the Iran Bastan Museum and other institutions (Mousavi 2013b: 12).
Table 3.1 M
ajor survey and excavation projects in Iran, 1960–1979 (partly based on Young 1986a: tables 1–2)
Period (approximate) Site Institution Director Fieldwork dates
Palaeolithic Kunji Cave University of Michigan John Speth 1969

Palaeolithic Khorramabad Caves University of Michigan, Frank Hole and 1967
Museum of Anthropology Kent Flannery
Palaeolithic Kiaram I Cave, Ali University of Cambridge Charles McBurney 1963
Tappeh
Palaeolithic Warwasi Cave Oriental Institute, Chicago Robert Braidwood 1959–1960
Palaeolithic Ladiz University of Minnesota Gary Hume 1966–1967
Palaeolithic Kashafrud Basin Centre National de la Ariai and Thibault 1974–1975
Recherche Scientifique
Palaeolithic/Neolithic Luristan survey Danish Archaeological Peder Mortensen 1963–1965
Expedition
Neolithic Tepe Guran Danish Archaeological Henrik Thrane 1963–1965
Expedition
Neolithic Ganj Dareh University of Montreal Philip Smith 1965–1974
Neolithic Abdul Hosein London University/British Judith Pullar 1978
Institute of Persian Studies
Neolithic Asiab and Sarab Oriental Institute, University Robert Braidwood 1959–1960
of Chicago
Neolithic Ali Kosh, Chagha University of Michigan, Frank Hole and 1961–1969
Sefid, Tepe Sabz Museum of Anthropology Kent Flannery
Neolithic Hajji Firuz University Museum, Mary Voigt 1968
University of Pennsylvania
Neolithic Tepe Tula’i Yale University Frank Hole 1973
Neolithic Sang-e Chakhmaq Tokyo University of Seiichi Masuda 1971–975
Education
Neolithic/Chalcolithic Mushki, Jari, Gap, University of Tokyo Shinji Fukai 1965
Bakun
Neolithic/Chalcolithic/ Chogha Mish, Chogha Oriental Institute, University Pinhas Delougaz 1961–1977
Bronze Age Bonut of Chicago/UCLA and Helene
Kantor
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Tureng Tepe Paris University Jean Deshayes 1960–977
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Yarim Tepe British Institute of Persian David Stronach 1960–1962
Studies
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Yanik Tepe Manchester University Charles Burney 1960–1962
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Tepe Hissar University Museum, Robert Dyson, Jr. 1976
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Shahr-i Sokhta Italian Institute (IsMEO) Maurizio Tosi 1967–1978
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Bampur Royal Asiatic Society Beatrice de Cardi 1966
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Tepe Yahya Harvard University, Peabody Carl Lamberg- 1967–1975
Museum Karlovsky
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Tal-i Iblis Illinois State Museum Joseph Caldwell 1966
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Shahdad Iranian Centre for ‘Ali Hakemi 1968–1978
Archaeological Research
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Malyan University of Pennsylvania William Sumner 1971–1978
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Farukhabad University of Michigan, Henry Wright 1968
Museum of Anthropology
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Susa Délégation archéologique Jean Perrot 1967–1978
française en Iran
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Djaffarabad Centre National de la Genevieve Dollfus 1967–1976
Recherche Scientifique
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Haft Tappeh Tehran University Ezat Negahban 1966–1978
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Godin Tepe Royal Ontario Museum T. Cuyler Young 1965–1974
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Bani Surma, War Belgian Archaeological Louis Vanden 1965–1979
Kabud Mission Berghe
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Zagheh, Qabrestan, Tehran University Ezat Negahban 1970–1979
Sagzabad
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Haftavan Tepe Manchester University Charles Burney 1968–1978
Iron Age Marlik Iranian Archaeological Service Ezat Negahban 1961–1962
Iron Age Kordlar Tepe Innsbruck University Andreas Lippert 1971–1978
Iron Age Hasanlu University Museum, Robert Dyson, Jr. 1956–1977
Iron Age Dahan-i Ghulaiman IsMEO Umberto Scerrato 1960–1965
(Continued)
Period (approximate) Site Institution Director Fieldwork dates
Iron Age Pasargadae British Institute of Persian David Stronach 1961–1963

Studies
Iron Age Persepolis IsMEO Giuseppe Tilia and 1965–1978
Ann Britt Tilia
Iron Age Persepolis Iranian Archaeological Service Akbar Tajvidi 1969–1972
Iron Age Baba Jan Tepe Institute of Archaeology, Clare Goff 1966–1969
London
Iron Age Nush-i Jan British Institute of Persian David Stronach 1967–1977
Studies
Iron Age Bisotun Deutsches Archäologisches Wolfram Kleiss 1966
Institut
Iron Age Jama Shuran Royal Ontario Museum Louis Levine 1978
Iron Age Ziwiya University Museum, Robert Dyson, 1964/1976–
University of Pennsylvania Jr and M. 1978
/Iranian Centre for Mo’tamedi
Archaeological Research
Iron Age Bastam Deutsches Archäologisches Wolfram Kleiss 1968–1978
Institut
Multi-period Khuzestan survey Oriental Institute, Chicago Robert Adams 1960
Multi-period Khuzestan survey University of Michigan, Henry Wright 1969
Museum of Anthropology
Multi-period Atrek valley survey University of Turin R. Venco Ricciardi 1976–1978
Multi-period Urmia survey IsMEO P. E. Pecorella and 1974–1978
M. Salvini
Multi-period Behbahan and Zohreh Oriental Institute, University Hans Nissen and 1974
plains survey of Chicago Charles Redman
Multi-period Kur River Basin Ghent University Louis Vanden 1951–1953
survey Berghe
Regional offices were established across Iran, and archaeological sites began to be protected from looting. The
year 1994 marked a watershed with the First National Archaeological Symposium of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, held at Susa and with 38 contributing scholars including one of us (HFN; Alizadeh et al. 1996). In 1997 the
Centre for Archaeological Research established three departments to undertake research in the fields of prehis-
toric, historic and Islamic archaeology. Outside Iran, ongoing publication of analytical bibliographies of Iranian
archaeology, arranged by region and site, proved invaluable in sustaining research into Iran’s past through often
difficult times (Vanden Berghe 1979c; Vanden Berghe and Haerinck 1981, 1987; Haerinck and Stevens 1996,
2005; De Schacht and Haerinck 2013). The Belgian scholar of Iran, Ernie Haerinck at Ghent University, played
a uniquely significant role in this respect and as long-term editor of Iranica Antiqua (Overlaet 2017).
Sporadically but steadily, international connections were re-established by and with Iranian colleagues in the
years since 1995. The first joint project since the revolution fittingly involved an Iranian archaeologist based at
the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Abbas Alizadeh, who carried out surveys in Fars in 1995 with col-
leagues from ICHO followed by excavation at Chogha Bonut in Susiana in 1996 (Alizadeh et al. 1996; Alizadeh
2003a). ICHO also began sponsoring symposia on Iranian archaeology, although without foreign participation,
in Susa in 1994 and Tehran in 1997, as well as issuing a regular journal Archaeological Reports of Iran. Equally
positive was the foundation from 1988 of new University Departments of Archaeology at Tarbiyat-e Modarres
(Tehran), the Free University at Abhar, Kazerun and Tehran, Zahedan and Bu Ali Sina (Hamadan).
Difficult rebirth of a discipline: 2001–2020

The wave of positive change came to a head with the election of President Khatami in 1997 and has broadly con-
tinued since then, although not without significant halts along the way. In 2003 the Iranian Center for Archaeo-
logical Research (ICAR) was re-founded and its activities, including several international engagements, enhanced
by its director Massoud Azarnoush (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005; Mousavi 2010). Azarnoush was especially keen
that Iranian archaeologists would be able to meet the challenge posed by major programmes of civil construction
and development throughout Iran, in particular through a nation-wide programme of dam building (Ghasemi and
Watson 2014). Principal among such programmes was the 2003 Sivand Dam Archaeological Project, involving
archaeologists from Iran, France, Germany, Italy and Poland (Mousavi 2013b: 12). New Iranian projects began at
Jiroft in south-eastern Iran (Madjidzadeh 2003; Lawler 2004) and at Sialk (Malek Shahmirzadeh 2006), followed
by multiple projects co-directed by Hassan Fazeli Nashli and colleagues on behalf of the University of Tehran and
ICAR. Joint Iranian-Japanese surveys and excavations got underway in the Gilan region of northern Iran from
2001 (Tadahiko et al. 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2006). Archaeological research in Khuzestan, the birthplace of
Iranian archaeology, was revitalised through new Iranian field and research projects, led by Abbas Alizadeh (Aliza-
deh 2003a, 2008; Alizadeh et al. 2004) and Abbas Moghaddam (Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Moghaddam 2012a),
while research into Susa, Susiana and Elam has been hugely advanced by academics from Iran and teams based
partly in Australian universities (Potts 2016; Álvarez-Mon et al. 2018a; Álvarez-Mon 2020).
While several collaborative projects between Iranian and foreign archaeologists have started in the first two
decades of the 21st century none of them has continued without break since their start, often due to problems
with issue of necessary permits and visas. Of greater significance for the archaeology of Iran has been the devel-
opment of indigenous capability and activity in Iranian archaeology, particularly within the university environ-
ment. This development has been especially marked in the field of prehistoric archaeology, with a new focus on
the Palaeolithic (Vahdati Nasab 2011; Heydari-Guran 2014; Vahdati Nasab and Aryamanesh 2016) and Neolithic
(Matthews and Fazeli Nashli 2013; Roustaei and Mashkour 2016) periods of Iran’s distant past. A significant fea-
ture of the new phase of archaeological research in Iran is the development and application of scientific techniques
to the material evidence. These have included ambitious programmes of radiocarbon dating for local and regional
sequences, as well as integrated approaches to archaeological landscapes, environments and subsistence practices,
for example, through inter-disciplinary research (Miller 2003, 2013). As an illustration of these positive devel-
opments, in 2013 a total of 21 Iranian archaeologists, employed by ten different universities located across Iran,
contributed articles to a synthetic study of the Neolithic transition in Iran (Matthews and Fazeli Nashli 2013).
A distinctive and still greatly under-developed area of research in Iran is historical archaeology, the investiga-
tion of the material remains of the recent past through the archaeological lens (Hicks and Beaudry 2006). Within
Robin Coningham and Hassan Fazeli Nashli’s project Socio-Economic Transformations of the Tehran Plain,
recently abandoned “landlord villages” of the region were investigated as archaeological sites and the results in-
tegrated with information gathered through interviews with people who had inhabited those villages until their
abandonment in the 1960s–1970s through the land reform programme known as Iran’s “White Revolution.”
The production of detailed plans of the mudbrick villages, spatial analysis of recovered artefacts and the record-
ing of rates and processes of deterioration of structures, generated valuable insights into contemporary historical
processes as well as informing archaeological and historical interpretations more broadly (Figure 3.6) (Fazeli and
Young 2008, 2013; Fazeli et al. 2009; Young and Fazeli 2013, 2018).
In 2011 the offices of ICAR were moved from Tehran to Persepolis (Mousavi 2013b: 13) only to be moved
back again with the end of President Ahmadinejad’s spell in power. While the practice of archaeology in Iran by
non-Iranians has proven challenging, often insurmountably so, it has not proven much easier for native Iranian
archaeologists dealing with debilitating power struggles between national and local governmental authorities
(Alizadeh 2014). The convening of Annual Symposia on Iranian Archaeology since 2002 has provided an oppor-
tunity for Iranian and non-Iranian archaeologists to present the latest results of their fieldwork and analyses. The
Society of Iranian Archaeology was founded in Tehran in 2011 with the mission to “elevate and signify Iran’s
glorious cultural heritage through archaeological research” (brochure statement), partly through production of a
biannual journal, the International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists.
Figure 3.6 H
istorical archaeology: plan of Kazemabad landlord village, Tehran plain (Young and Fazeli 2018: Figure 2) (image
courtesy of Ruth Young and Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
Figure 3.7 N
eolithic gallery in the Iran Bastan Museum, Tehran (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
A significant development in recent years has been the holding in Iran of an International Congress of Young
Archaeologists, first held in 2000 and subsequently in 2003, 2006, 2013, 2017 and 2019, at which only archaeolo-
gists under the age of 35 years are permitted to present papers, overseen by an international scientific committee.
The health and scale of Iranian archaeology can be measured by the quantity and quality of delivered papers and
by their swift and full publication following the congress (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2014b, 2019). Accompanying
these positive developments, the Iran Bastan Museum in Tehran (Figure 3.7) has undergone a thorough mod-
ernisation to incorporate the major advances in recent years in our understanding of the Iranian past, with lavish
galleries devoted to prehistory, early states and urban societies, the Achaemenid empire and beyond (Nokandeh
2017 is an excellent introduction to the museum's collections). Iran has also had considerable success in the nom-
ination of archaeological and heritage sites to the UNESCO World Heritage List (Mozaffari 2014). In 2020, the
list hosted a total of 22 Iranian cultural sites, including Susa, Shahr-i Sokhta, Chogha Zanbil, Pasargadae, Perse-
polis and Bisotun, plus two natural sites, with a further 56 sites on the Tentative List.
Welcome as all these developments are, Iranian archaeology remains in need of an enhanced skills base through
training and experience in all aspects of modern scientific archaeology. Most of the Iranian experts, relatively
few in number but highly talented, in fields such as palaeoclimatology, zooarchaeology and archaeobotany work
abroad, especially in France and Germany, where they have access to the laboratories, libraries and advanced
facilities necessary for pursuit of their research. An ongoing aim for Iranian archaeology must be the develop-
ment of sustainable in-house, state-of-the-art laboratories, skills and expertise across the spectrum of scientific
archaeology, an end that may most effectively be met through enhanced, integrated engagement with colleagues
working in universities and museums around the world. Such developments, and many besides, will be feasible
when circumstances allow a full and secure resumption of global engagement of Iranian colleagues with their
international partners to a degree not truly witnessed in Iran since Iranian archaeology’s Golden Age of the
1950s–1960s. We hope and we plan for such a time to come.
4 Peopling Iran: the Palaeolithic period,
500,000–12,000 BP
Putting people in the picture

In this chapter we aim to put Palaeolithic people into the picture, to enliven the stage that we have constructed
in the previous chapters. In doing so, we recognise the challenges involved in bringing to life human or hominin
societies of scores of millennia ago and more, especially those living prior to the Upper Palaeolithic revolution
that hosted the arrival and flourishing of modern humans in the region. How then do we treat the Palaeolithic
past of Iran, in our efforts to provide “more than a story from a faraway land, as remote from people as the epochs
of geology” (Gamble 1999: 5), and how can we make best use of evidence from studies of historically recent or
contemporary hunter−gatherer societies (Kelly 2013: xvi; Jordan 2014)? How did early hominins behave with
each other and with other groups? What kinds of activities did they undertake and how resilient and adaptable
were their modes of engagement with each other and with their natural and cultural environments? What pat-
terns of change and continuity can we trace across the millennia of the Palaeolithic past of Iran?
In approaching the Palaeolithic period, we address the very question of what it means to be human, for it was
during these unimaginably long millennia that our basic anatomy, genetic make-up and fundamental behavioural
and social traits took the form that still shapes how and who we are today, even if we have largely turned our backs
on the hunting-gathering lifestyle that was the dominant mode of human existence throughout the pre-Neolithic
millennia. Palaeolithic mastery of fire, attested in South Africa 1 million years ago (Berna et al. 2012), further
shaped the development of hominin lifeways and their environments, stimulating large-scale alteration of entire
landscapes, encouraging pyrophytic flora and fauna to flourish and deployed as a hunting tactic for mass slaughter
of prey. Used in cooking of otherwise inedible or indigestible plant and animal substances, fire greatly expanded
the scope and nutritional accessibility of foodstuffs available to early hominins and early humans. Cooking by fire
enabled hominins to benefit from greatly reduced gut and teeth size, shifting the nutritional emphasis from the
gut to the brain, a step-change in the evolution of truly modern humans and their cognitive and social capacities
(Wrangham 2009; Scott 2017).
The Palaeolithic period of Iran is of major significance in the study of the human past (Speth 2014), and yet
archaeological investigation of this period has been under-developed. Recent and ongoing research, however, is
starting to fill in some of the expansive blanks in our knowledge of Iran’s deep-time human and hominin past.
In Chapter 2, we stressed the importance of Iran’s geographical location, spanning the boundary zones of Europe
and Asia, and including the major routes of communication connecting these vast regions. For the Palaeolithic
period, some of the key questions are: to what extent did Iran serve as a corridor for the movement of early hom-
inin and human communities from west to east and south to north (Dennell and Roebroeks 2005; Petraglia 2005,
2010; Biglari and Shidrang 2006; Rose and Petraglia 2009; Bailey 2010; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a; Dennell
2020; Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2020); to what extent can we identify and interpret the development of local
characteristics in the Palaeolithic communities of Iran; and, how do we interpret the often sparse and complex
material evidence in terms of social and individual modes of behaviour amongst Palaeolithic hominin peoples?
A genuine knowledge and understanding of the millennia of the Palaeolithic past has only in recent years
begun to be constructed through targeted research in Iran, conducted largely by Iranian archaeologists (for a
history of Palaeolithic archaeology in Iran see Vahdati Nasab 2011; Conard et al. 2013a: 29–32; Heydari-Guran
2014: 1–4). Smith’s (1986) overview of the Palaeolithic archaeology of Iran can now be significantly revised and
augmented in the light of research over the past 35 years (Biglari 2010, 2012a; Vahdati Nasab 2011; Conard et al.
2013a; and the exemplary syntheses of Iran's Palaeolithic produced by Heydari-Guran 2014; Vahdati Nasab and
Aryamanesh 2016). But undoubtedly scores of Palaeolithic sites lie as yet undiscovered across the plains and up-
land slopes of Iran: a single survey of parts of Kermanshah province, for example, detected more than 260 sites
of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic date (Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2020; see also Biglari and Shidrang 2016).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-4
36 Peopling Iran
As we move through time in our study of Iran’s Palaeolithic past, the depth of archaeological information increases
significantly, with much of our knowledge focused on the Upper Palaeolithic phase. In all cases, proposed dates for
Palaeolithic phases and sites are highly approximate. In this chapter, only, dates are given as BP (Before Present).
First steps: the Lower Palaeolithic, 500,000–200,000 BP

During the Lower Palaeolithic period, by far the longest and least understood single period in Old World pre-
history, the genus Homo diversified and expanded its geographical range from Africa across Eurasia. Throughout
these many millennia and across large regions, techniques of artefact manufacture remained relatively stable,
strongly suggesting both inherent technological conservatism and considerable success as a strategy for long-term
hominin-environment engagement.
The millennia of the Lower Palaeolithic of Iran, arguably “the most understudied archaeological period in
Iran” (Vahdati Nasab and Hashemi 2016: 144), are likely to remain obscure for some time to come. As of 2020
there has been almost no excavation of in situ archaeological evidence from the Lower Palaeolithic of Iran (Biglari
and Shidrang 2006; Conard et al. 2013a: 33), with the exception of test trenching in Darband Cave in Gilan
province (Biglari et al. 2014). Otherwise, our information comes exclusively from surface finds of artefacts typo-
logically assigned to the Lower Palaeolithic, which have been recovered from more than a dozen regions widely
distributed across Iran (Figure 4.1). Lower Palaeolithic stone tool assemblages in Iran (Figure 4.2) are character-
ised by extensive use of choppers, core-choppers and large flakes, with minimal occurrence of the distinctive
bifacial hand axes that typify contemporary assemblages in regions west of the Euphrates (Hole 2008), and which
are frequently associated with the distribution of the hominin Homo erectus. While relatively few in number, it is
notable that putative Lower Palaeolithic sites occur in almost all regions of the country with the exception of the
central deserts. It is certain that many more Lower Palaeolithic sites remain to be located through intensive field
survey – one survey along the Tigris valley in neighbouring Iraq, for example, identified 22 Lower Palaeolithic
sites in an area of only 15 km 2 (Mazurowski 1987).
Key surveyed sites for the Lower Palaeolithic of Iran include the complex of locations in the Kashafrud basin
of north-eastern Iran (Ariai and Thibault 1975; Biglari and Shidrang 2006: 161–162; Jamialahmadi et al. 2008).
Stone artefacts from the Kashafrud sites indicate local production of tools, largely from quartz pebbles, including
flakes, scrapers, notches and awls, an assemblage broadly comparable to East African Oldowan tool collections
as well as to those recovered in excavations from the site of Dmanisi in Georgia to the north, where remains of
a form of Homo erectus dated to 1.75 million years ago have been recovered (Vekua et al. 2002). In south-eastern
Iran, late Lower Palaeolithic or early Middle Palaeolithic tool assemblages were recovered at a series of river ter-
race sites in the region of Ladiz (Hume 1976; Biglari and Shidrang 2006; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2010a), while Lower
Palaeolithic assemblages are also attested in western and north-western Iran. Of particular note is a scatter of
stone tools and debitage in the Gakia area, close to Kermanshah, some of which appear to be Lower Palaeolithic
in date (Biglari and Shidrang 2006: 164). Further north, in the western Alborz region, the site of Ganj Par has
produced large numbers of Lower Palaeolithic implements, including cores, bifaces, flakes and hammer stones,
many made from limestone (Biglari et al. 2004; Biglari and Shidrang 2006: 166; Biglari and Jahani 2011). The lo-
cation of Ganj Par is significant, situated on the Sefid Rud valley, which provides good access to multiple regions
of Iran and beyond, in particular towards the Caucasus. Only 16 km from Ganj Par, the cave site of Darband is
so far the only known cave in Iran with evidence for Lower Palaeolithic occupation. Recent excavations at Dar-
band Cave (Figure 4.3) suggest occupation dating back to 250,000 years. To the west, in western Azerbaijan, the
site of Shiwatoo, and in Zanjan the site of Khaleseh, have yielded typical Lower Palaeolithic artefacts, including
Acheulean chopper-cores, large flakes and pebble tools ( Jaubert et al. 2006; Alibaigi et al. 2010, 2012a). On the
western slopes of the Zagros, several Lower Palaeolithic sites have been identified through survey of the Mehran
and Deh Luran plains (Biglari et al. 2000; Darabi et al. 2012; Zeynivand 2017).
The only known faunal evidence from the Lower Palaeolithic of Iran comes from Darband Cave, showing a
predominance of cave bears with some ungulates (Biglari and Jahani 2011: 9, 13). For further information on the
fauna and environment of late Lower Palaeolithic Iran, we turn to the briefly excavated site of Barda Balka,
across the border in the western foothills of the Iraqi Zagros (Wright and Howe 1951; Braidwood and Howe
1960; Matthews 2000: 14; Howe 2014). Recovered faunal remains indicate the presence of Indian elephant,
rhinoceros, large wild cattle, sheep/goat and a wild equid, probably onager. These remains, which date to the
very end of the Lower Palaeolithic, give some idea of the great diversity of wildlife potentially hunted by early
hominins in Iran. The recovery at Pal Barik in the Hulailan valley of Luristan of stone tools comparable to those
excavated at Barda Balka (P. Mortensen 1993; Conard et al. 2013a: 33) suggests contemporary occupation also in
this region of the Zagros.
Peopling Iran 37
Figure 4.1 Palaeolithic sites of Iran by period.
The potential significance of Iran as a corridor for hominin migration is indicated by the presence of major
Lower Palaeolithic sites in adjacent regions, such as the site of Shuwayhitiyah in northern Saudi Arabia (Whalen
et al. 1989). Dated to 1.4–1.3 million years old, the evidence from Shuwayhitiyah traces possible migration routes
of early hominins, probably Homo erectus, out of Africa and into Eurasia. The presence of numbers of Lower Pal-
aeolithic sites in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly Oman, supports the proposal that early hominin dispersal
from East Africa took place across Arabia and the then-dry Persian Gulf directly onto the Iranian plateau (Biglari
and Shidrang 2006: 167; Otte et al. 2009: 157; Dennell 2020). Discovery of Lower-Middle Palaeolithic traces on
the Persian Gulf island of Qeshm near the Straits of Hormuz (Dashtizadeh 2010) strengthens the case for early
hominin movement along this route.
The location of Lower Palaeolithic sites in Iran and adjacent regions suggests a preference for open-air
habitation, rather than cave-dwelling, with access to a range of environments, including mountains, foot-
hills, river terraces and lake shores. Should any of the Iranian Lower Palaeolithic sites predate 1.5 million
years old, which is far from established, it is likely that the archaic hominins involved consumed a largely
or exclusively plant-based diet, but with the appearance of Homo erectus from c. 1.6 million years ago, meat
formed a more significant part of the hominin diet, whether scavenged or hunted (Robinson 2014). From
that time, small groups of Lower Palaeolithic hominins were doubtless following herds of hunted animals
38 Peopling Iran
Figure 4.2 L ower Palaeolithic stone tools from assorted sites of Iran (Biglari and Shidrang 2006: 162) (permission courtesy of
Fereidoun Biglari).
Figure 4.3 D
arband Cave (arrow) overlooking the Siahrud river (photo credit: Fereidoun Biglari).
and gathering plant resources in their seasonal patterns of movement across the landscape, returning reg-
ularly to well-established sites but also expanding their geographic ranges as the years passed. Given the
immense timespans of the Lower Palaeolithic, an annual range expansion of only a few square kilometres
would in due course see the dispersal of hominin groups across all of Southwest Asia and beyond (Bar-Yosef
and Belfer-Cohen 2001; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a).
Peopling Iran 39
“Complex and interesting”: the Middle Palaeolithic, 200,000–40,000 BP
Our knowledge of Iran’s Middle Palaeolithic period has been enhanced by recent research, following initial
discoveries in the 1940s-1970s (Vahdati Nasab 2011; Vahdati Nasab and Hashemi 2016; Conard et al. 2013a), so
that we can say that “the Middle Palaeolithic of Iran is much more complex and interesting than was thought
until recently” (Conard et al. 2013a: 38). As well as evidence from multiple surveys, we also benefit from input
from several excavated Middle Palaeolithic sites in Iran and adjacent regions. Earlier studies of the stone tool
assemblages of Iran in the Middle Palaeolithic suggested lesser use of the Levallois core preparation technique
than is attested to the west in the Levant and across Europe, generally in association with Neanderthal hom-
inins (Hole 2008; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2009). More recent analyses, however, have revealed extensive use of
the Levallois technique at Zagros Middle Palaeolithic sites such as Mar Tarik ( Jaubert et al. 2009). In any case,
the tool assemblages of the Middle Palaeolithic are marked by an increasing range of tool types designed and
made for specific tasks, including points, side scrapers, perforators and gravers. The evidence from Middle
Palaeolithic stone tools and from excavated faunal remains across Eurasia indicates that Neanderthals were
adept at hunting large animal prey (Zilhão 2014). What is remarkable is the increased spread and density of
Middle Palaeolithic sites across Iran, and indeed across all of Southwest Asia, as compared to the Lower Pal-
aeolithic. Middle Palaeolithic stone tool assemblages are found widely across Iran and suggest a major influx
of hominins, at least some of whom are likely to have been Neanderthals, across the region from c. 200,000
years ago. Mitochondrial DNA analyses suggest the possibility of an Asian, rather than European, origin for
the Neanderthals (Meyer et al. 2014) which, if verified through future research, would place Iran centre stage
in investigations of Neanderthal development and dispersal.
The Zagros region

Much of our knowledge of the Middle Palaeolithic of Iran comes from the Zagros region of western Iran
(Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2020), but with increasing input from other areas. The Middle Palaeolithic of the
broad region is most richly attested by excavations at Shanidar Cave in the northern Iraqi Zagros (Solecki 1971;
Lindly 2005). Through 8.5 m of deposits of level D, the evidence takes the form of typical Mousterian stone
tools, with little use of the Levallois technique. Faunal remains are dominated by wild goat, clearly the preferred
prey of the inhabitants of the cave, along with wild sheep, boar and cattle. The most important finds, however,
are the remains of ten hominin individuals, clearly identifiable as Neanderthals (Trinkaus 1983; Pomeroy et al.
2017, 2020) and dated to c. 60,000–45,000 years old, at least one of whom appears to have been deliberately bur-
ied. The Middle Palaeolithic evidence from Shanidar is supported by excavations at the caves of Hazar Merd
(Figure 4.4), also in Iraqi Kurdistan, where hearths and assemblages of Mousterian tools were recovered, in this
case without hominin remains (Garrod 1930). Lindly’s (2005) analysis of the Middle Palaeolithic of the Zagros
suggests that sites such as Shanidar and Hazar Merd were seasonally occupied only during the summer months,
as access to these regions outside of summer during the Pleistocene would have been difficult or impossible due
to snow and ice. For the rest of the year, hominin groups would have lived at lower elevations, where we have as
Figure 4.4 H
azar Merd Cave overlooking Suleimani plain, Iraqi Kurdistan (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
40 Peopling Iran
yet no information from excavated sites. Rose (2010: 857) has proposed that these Middle Palaeolithic groups
alternated seasonally between summers in the high Zagros and winters in the Persian Gulf basin lowlands, taking
advantage of the ample fresh water resources in the large lake that is postulated as dominating the region prior to
the Holocene marine incursion into the Persian Gulf (Wilkinson 2012: 19–20).
Within the Iranian Zagros, starting in the south, Rosenberg’s survey of the western Marv Dasht area of Fars
located more than 20 sites with Middle Palaeolithic tools (Rosenberg 1990, 2003), while south of Shiraz a major
Middle Palaeolithic site was found at Jahrom (Piperno 1972). Middle Palaeolithic rock shelter and open-air sites
have been identified in the Dasht-e Rostam and Basht regions of western Fars (Ghasidian et al. 2009), including
excavated levels at Ghar-e Boof underlying Upper Palaeolithic deposits (Conard and Zeidi 2019; see below),
while survey of the Arsanjan region of the southern Zagros has identified multiple sites of Middle Palaeolithic
date (Tsuneki 2013: 92). In the Bakhtiyari, Seimarreh and Kohgiluyeh regions of the south-central Zagros large
numbers of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool scatters have been identified in surveys, including clear evidence for in
situ knapping (Roustaei 2010b; Azadi 2017; Zeynivand et al. 2018).
Excavated sites in the Khorramabad region include Kunji Cave, with a radiocarbon date of c. 40,000 BP, and
a stone tool assemblage dominated by side scrapers and Mousterian points, which may have been used to hunt the
onagers attested in the faunal assemblage (Hole and Flannery 1968; Baumler and Speth 1993). In the same region,
Ghamari Cave and Gar Arjeneh rock shelter have Middle Palaeolithic occupation, and further Middle Palaeolithic
sites have been located in a more recent survey (Roustaei et al. 2004). The cave site of Kaldar in the Khorramabad
valley is of special significance in that it contains rare evidence from Iran for occupation in both the Middle Palae-
olithic and Upper Palaeolithic and has been extensively excavated (Bazgir et al. 2014, 2017). Layer 5 at Kaldar, as
yet lacking chronometric dating, contains typical Mousterian lithics including Levallois flakes, blades, points and
cores, shifting to a bladelet dominated lithic industry in Layer 4 of the Early Upper Palaeolithic, with dates spanning
c. 50,000–23,000 BP (Shidrang 2018: table 10.1). Charcoal evidence from Kaldar and the nearby cave of Gilvaran
shows the presence of plum and almond trees in both the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic phases, suggestive of
temperate interstadial conditions characterised by open steppe (Allué et al. 2018). Their remains in these cave sites
may indicate their use as fuel and for fruit by hominin occupants of the caves.
Further west, on the plain of Islamabad-e Gharb, the site of Wezmeh Cave appears to have been used mainly
by carnivorous animals, but a single hominin premolar dated to a minimum of 25,000–20,000 BP and probably
much earlier was also found (Abdi et al. 2002a; Trinkaus et al. 2008; Mashkour et al. 2009). Reassessment of
this unerupted tooth from an individual aged 8 ± 2 years has confirmed its status as evidence of a Neanderthal
presence in western Iran (Zanolli et al. 2019), now significantly predated by a single Neaderthal milk tooth from
Bawa Yawan rock shelter, northwest of Kermanshah, dated to 44,000–41,000 BP (Heydari-Guran et al. in
press). Study of pollen in coprolites from Wezmeh Cave reveals a steppe environment around the cave, with little
evidence for stands of trees (Djamali et al. 2011b).
On the western edges of the Zagros, on the Mehran Plain, survey has identified seven sites with Middle Pal-
aeolithic tool assemblages (Darabi et al. 2012: 447–448), while the site of Khervali at the northern limits of the
Susiana plain hosts a significant spread of scrapers and other tools made with the Levallois technique (Bahramiyan
and Shouhani 2016; Bahramiyan 2019). Within the Zagros range, the rock shelter at Houmian has Middle Pal-
aeolithic evidence, arguably from summer only occupation with hunting of wild sheep and goat (Bewley 1984).
A rare analysis of pollen from a Middle Palaeolithic site (Leroi-Gourhan 1984) indicates on the basis of the high
representation of oak, pear and Pistachia at this high altitude (c. 1800 m asl) that the occupation of the cave took
place during the Brorup Interstadial at 70,000–60,000 BP. In the Hulailan valley of Luristan, Mortensen’s survey
located three rock shelter sites and five open-air lithic scatters of Middle Palaeolithic date, including Levallois
points and scrapers (P. Mortensen 1993). Surveys in the Hulailan valley and the nearby Kuran Buzan valley of the
central Zagros have significantly increased the attested number of Middle Palaeolithic sites of this region (Alibaigi
et al. 2011a; Davoudi et al. 2015). Further north in the Zagros, excavations at Hunter’s Cave at Bisotun recov-
ered a Zagros-type tool assemblage and faunal remains of red deer, onager and gazelle. Also from this cave came
a fragment of a hominin arm bone, insufficiently preserved to be confirmed as Neanderthal (Coon 1951; Dibble
1984; Trinkaus and Biglari 2006). The nearby cave of Ghar-i Khar also yielded Middle Palaeolithic materials
(Young and Smith 1966; Shidrang et al. 2016), as did the rock shelter of Warwasi where the faunal assemblage
comprised onager, red deer, cattle, sheep and goat (Braidwood 1961; Dibble and Holdaway 1990, 1993). Excava-
tions at Malayerd Cave west of Warwasi (Shidrang et al. 2014) and at sites in the Darian Dam salvage project in
the Hawraman region (Biglari and Shidrang 2019) have also investigated rich layers of Middle Palaeolithic and
Upper Palaeolithic date.
Peopling Iran 41
Figure 4.5 M iddle Palaeolithic tools from Mar Tarik ( Jaubert et al. 2009: Figure 1.5) (permission courtesy of Fereidoun Biglari).
The small cave site of Kobeh near Kermanshah city contains several metres of Middle Palaeolithic materials
including lithics and faunal remains of large mammals, including a large wild equid probably onager (Equus hemionus),
with some surface modifications (Marean and Kim 1998). On the Songhor plain near Kermanshah (Heydarian
and Ghorbani 2016), at Warkaini rock-shelter (Shidrang 2006), and in the Marivan region of western Kurdistan
province, wherein lies Lake Zeribar, archaeological survey has detected sites with lithics of Middle Palaeolithic
type including Kach Gaver (Mohammadifar and Motarjem 2008). Test excavations at cave sites in the Razawar
valley northwest of Kermanshah have recovered lithics and faunal remains of wild cattle, onager, goat and hare
from levels of both Middle and Upper Palaeolithic date (Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2017).
Survey of the Bisotun massif by Biglari (2001) has led to excavations at the cave of Mar Tarik, yielding typ-
ical Zagros late Middle Palaeolithic tools (Figure 4.5), including points and scrapers with much use of Levallois
technique (Biglari 2001; Jaubert et al. 2006, 2009; Vahdati Nasab and Vahidi 2011; Heydari-Guran 2014: 50). The
tool assemblage shows strong relationships both with contemporary Zagros assemblages and with those found at
Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Taurus region of Turkey and across the Caucasus ( Jaubert et al. 2009: 25). Faunal
remains from Mar Tarik include sheep/goat, gazelle and smaller components such as fish, reptiles and birds, and
the site has been interpreted as a seasonal butchery station, taking advantage of proximity to routes of migratory
animals. Human skull fragments and teeth found at Mar Tarik cannot with certainty be assigned to the Middle
Palaeolithic, but they lack Neanderthal characteristics ( Jaubert et al. 2009: 15). An intriguing limestone slab with
incised rectilinear designs on two faces is also of doubtful context but, if of Middle Palaeolithic date as the exca-
vators argue, is potentially of major significance as the earliest objet d’art, loosely defined, from Iran (Figure 4.6)
( Jaubert et al. 2009: Figure 1.15). In the northern Zagros in Iranian Azerbaijan, Coon (1951) excavated Middle
Palaeolithic tools and faunal remains from the cave site of Tamtama.
The northern highlands and Caspian region

Beyond the Zagros our knowledge of Middle Palaeolithic Iran is significantly reduced but with some important
developments in recent years. In Mazandaran province, the cave site of Ke Aram (McBurney 1964) includes
typical Mousterian artefacts and faunal remains of cattle, red deer and rhinoceros, indicative of a rich forest envi-
ronment similar to that of the Caspian region today, while Middle Palaeolithic remains have also been recovered
from Yar-Shalam in Gilan province (Biglari and Jahani 2011: 15). Along the southern Caspian coast at Bande-
pey major spreads of stone tools using the Levallois technique have been recorded (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2017).
Open-air sites of similar date have also been located in the southern foothills of the Alborz range, with tools
manufactured from locally available nodules of chert, quartzite and limestone (Berillon et al. 2006). It has been
suggested that the environmental conditions of the Caspian region in the Middle Palaeolithic may have favoured
a late survival of Neanderthal populations in this region (Dolukhanov et al. 2009) but further evidence is needed
in order to test this theory.
42 Peopling Iran
Figure 4.6 E
ngraved limestone slab from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Mar Tarik ( Jaubert et al. 2009: Figure 1.15) (permission
courtesy of Fereidoun Biglari).
The central plateau

Recent fieldwork has now established that the central plateau region of Iran was of major importance during
the Middle Palaeolithic period (Biglari 2007; Eskandari et al. 2010; Conard et al. 2013a: 35; Vahdati Nasab and
Hashemi 2016; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019a). The distribution of Middle Palaeolithic sites across the central pla-
teau reveals a preference for habitation in close proximity to travertine springs and lakes, now extinct, and gives
some idea of the more favourable environmental conditions prevailing in this region during the millennia of the
Middle Palaeolithic, with sites attested at altitudes even well above 2000 m, as at Chakhmaq Li well to the
northwest of the plateau (Heydari-Guran et al. 2009; Conard et al. 2013a: 35; Heydari-Guran 2014). Hominin
groups would also have been attracted to the rich availability of chert outcrops across much of this region,
ideal for tool production. Important discoveries have been made along the north-central edges of the plateau,
where the site of Zavyeh yielded points and scrapers of Levallois type (Djamali et al. 2006), also found at the
cave site of Qaleh Kurd located at 2100 m above sea level in the mountains fringing the southern edge of
the Qazvin plain (Soleymani and Alibaigi 2018) as well as at sites on the adjacent Boeen Zahra Plain (Vahdati
Nasab et al. 2009).
The open-air site of Mirak, close to modern Semnan town, comprises an extensive spread of Middle Palaeo-
lithic tools, including points, scrapers, cores and flakes, with much use of Levallois technology (Rezvani and Vah-
dati Nasab 2010; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a). The tool assemblage at Mirak has been interpreted as indicative of
a palimpsest of short-term ephemeral campsites situated around reliable water sources on the edge of the central
desert, with a focus on butchery and processing of meat and animal hides. Intensive field survey of an estimated
ancient shoreline of the Chah-e Jam lake, at the north-eastern limits of the Iranian Central Desert, recovered a
dispersed sprawl of largely Middle Palaeolithic tools, debitage and cores in a linear spread covering 8.5 by 3 km
(Vahdati Nasab and Hashemi 2016). The commonest tools are scrapers and points, and 64% of pieces are formed
by Levallois technology, significantly higher than in Zagros Middle Palaeolithic assemblages. While unlikely to
represent in situ artefacts, the Chah-e Jam lithics are suggestive of long-term, repeated sets of hunting and butch-
ery activities taking place along the shores of a major ancient lake.
On the western fringes of the central plateau, 25 km southwest of Isfahan, a cluster of cave and rock shelter sites
has been surveyed and partially excavated at Qaleh Bozi (Biglari et al. 2009; Jaubert et al. 2010; Biglari 2014). In-
terestingly, the stone tool assemblages at these shelter sites differ from those recovered from contemporary open-
air sites, with the Levallois technique much rarer at the rock shelter sites where points and side scrapers dominate.
This differentiation may relate to seasonality of occupation or to variability in activity according to site location,
but has also been associated with Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of Oman to the south, supporting Rose’s (2010:
860) proposal of a significant Middle Palaeolithic presence distributed around the fresh water lake that stood in
Peopling Iran 43
place of the lower Persian Gulf at that time. Faunal remains from Qaleh Bozi include equids, cattle and rhinoc-
eros and sheep/goat and gazelle, with burning and cut marks indicating hominin involvement in animal butchery
and marrow extraction, also attested through use-wear analysis of stone points (Claud et al. 2012). Smaller faunal
and plant remains are indicative of steppe, forest and riverine environments. Stone tool assemblages dominated by
use of the Levallois technique have been recovered at multiple open-air sites near Kashan and Arisman (Biglari
2004; Conard et al. 2009; Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2011). At the southern extremes of the plateau, Middle
Palaeolithic sites have also been surveyed around Minab near the Straits of Hormuz (Conard et al. 2013a: 38) and
in the region of Bushehr (Dashtizadeh 2009).
The eastern highlands

In the eastern highland zone of Iran there has as yet been little progress in identifying a significant Middle Pal-
aeolithic presence, but it is too early to determine whether this apparent dearth of sites relates to lack of intensive
fieldwork or to a genuine pattern of habitation distribution. An initial survey of the southern Khorasan region of
eastern Iran, for example, detected significant numbers of Middle Palaeolithic lithic scatters (Nikzad et al. 2015).
The common occurrence further east still, across southern Central Asia, of Middle Palaeolithic sites, including
fragments of Neanderthal hominin remains (Davis and Ranov 1999; Coolidge 2010), indicates that Neanderthal
access to Central Asia must have been via the land of Iran.
Trends in the Middle Palaeolithic of Iran

In conclusion, appreciation of Iran’s Middle Palaeolithic millennia is developing apace as field research contin-
ues. The main features include evidence for significant regional and local diversity in stone tool assemblages,
arguably related to a range of factors including seasonality of occupation, functional and stylistic variability, as
well as perhaps to change through time and possibly to hominin type. Alongside the regional diversity, how-
ever, there is also a strong component of compatibility of Iranian stone tool assemblages with contemporary
evidence from a much broader region, including Turkey and the Caucasus. This transregional picture is sug-
gestive of large-scale connectivity and communication amongst widely spaced hominin groups throughout the
Middle Palaeolithic, at least some of whom were of Neanderthal type. The predominance of the Zagros region,
at least as a major source of evidence, is undeniable, but it is now evident that other regions of Iran, including
the northern highlands and the central plateau, were also of considerable importance. It is also clear that, con-
trary to previous understanding, open-air sites are more common than cave or rock shelter sites in the Middle
Palaeolithic (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a).
The distribution of Middle Palaeolithic sites along natural corridors across the landscape of Iran suggests the
long-term importance of these route-ways far back into the Palaeolithic. Vahdati Nasab et al. (2013a; Jayez et al.
2019a; Dennell 2020; Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2020) postulate three migratory corridors for Middle Palae-
olithic foragers across Iran: the north coast of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman in southern Iran, the south-
ern shore of the Caspian Sea in northern Iran and the boundary between the southern foothills of the Alborz
mountains and the northern edge of the central desert in north-central Iran (Figure 4.7). Proximity of Middle
Palaeolithic sites to natural corridors may also relate to hunting strategies of migrating game such as gazelle, deer
and onager. Future researches into the Middle Palaeolithic of Iran will need to refine the still vague chronol-
ogy of habitation, as well as more rigorously consider potential explanations for local and regional variability in
stone tool and faunal assemblages. Input from palaeo-environmental studies will also be of major significance
in advancing our understanding of this key period, building on initial indications of sequences of alternating
glacial-interglacial and stadial-interstadial stages through 125,000–70,000 BP at least, with summer snow lines as
low as 1200 m in contrast to a present level of 4000 m (Djamali et al. 2008).
The first Iranian revolution: the Upper Palaeolithic and

Epipalaeolithic, 45,000–12,000 BP
The onset of the Upper Palaeolithic is characterised by a major shift in the development of hominin communities,
visible in archaeological evidence from across the Old World. This shift is so marked that it has been reasona-
bly defined as “the Upper Palaeolithic revolution” (Gilman 1996; Bar-Yosef 2002; Ghasidian 2014: 13). Major
issues include the role of climate and environmental change, the significance of hominin/human demography
and migration, including the extinction of Neanderthals and the rise to dominance of modern humans, and the
nature and pace of change from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic. Archaeological features of the
44 Peopling Iran
Figure 4.7 Palaeolithic migratory corridors on the Iranian plateau (after Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a: Figure 10). For site code, see
Figure 4.1.
Upper Palaeolithic revolution across Southwest Asia include (1) a shift from flake to blade-based, and eventu-
ally microlithic, stone tool assemblages; (2) increased use of bone and antler material in artefact manufacture;
(3) development of ground stone tool technology and use; (4) concern for body decoration in the form of beads
and pendants; (5) evidence for long distance engagement through movement of raw materials such as stones and
shells; (6) development of storage facilities such as pits; (7) sophisticated cooking/heating installations; and (8) spatial
differentiation of activity within occupation sites. Taken together these attributes are interpreted as
evidence for rapid technological changes, emergence of self-awareness and group identity, increased social
diversification, formation of long-distance alliances, the ability to symbolically record information and that
these are being the most typical expressions for the capacity of Upper Paleolithic humans for modern culture.
(Bar-Yosef 2002: 369)
The issues outlined above can be addressed with varying degrees of detail and confidence using the available Up-
per Palaeolithic evidence from Iran and neighbouring regions, once more with much of the recovered sites and
materials coming from the Zagros region of western Iran and eastern Iraq (Shidrang 2018; Heydari-Guran and
Ghasidian 2020), but with increasing input from other regions of Iran (Otte et al. 2009; Conard et al. 2013a). The
Upper Palaeolithic of Iran, and of Iraq (Matthews 2000: 23–29), is conventionally treated as a series of sequential
phases, defined on the basis of stone tool assemblages. The so-called Baradostian phase, named after the Baradost
mountains where Shanidar Cave is located, lasts from c. 45,000 to 20,000 BP, while the Zarzian or Epipalaeolithic
phase, named after the site of Zarzi Cave, lasts from c. 20,000 to 12,000 BP. As excavated evidence increases from
Upper Palaeolithic sites of the Zagros region, in particular, it has become clear that there were multiple parallel
lithic traditions across the regions of the Zagros through the Upper Palaeolithic phases, indicating a complex mo-
saic pattern of cultural development associated with the spread of human communities here and beyond (Conard
and Ghasidian 2011; Ghasidian et al. 2017). As we see below, a striking feature of much of the Upper Palaeolithic,
in Iran and especially in Iraq, is the lack of evidence for cultural continuity through its successive phases, with
few or even no sites convincingly showing continuity of occupation through Middle to Upper to Epipalaeolithic
(Conard et al. 2013a; Shidrang 2018). What might be the significance of climate and environmental change in
forming this picture?
A critical factor is the uncertain dating of the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Iran and across
much of Southwest Asia (Becerra-Valdivia et al. 2017; Heydari et al. 2021). It is however clear that there was a
significant overlap in the presence in Southwest Asia, at least, of both Neanderthals and anatomically modern
humans over at least several millennia, with genetic evidence for interbreeding outside Africa leading directly to
the presence of 1.5–2.1% of Neanderthal-derived DNA in all non-sub-Saharan-African-origin modern humans
(Prüfer et al. 2014). We accommodate this overlap in our chronology here by ending the Middle Palaeolithic at c.
Peopling Iran 45
40,000 BP and commencing the Upper Palaeolithic at c. 45,000 BP, a start date in accordance with a programme
of dating and Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon determinations from Upper Palaeolithic levels at Yafteh Cave,
Ghar-e Boof and Shanidar Cave (Becerra-Valdivia et al. 2017: Figure 9; Heydari et al. 2021). These dates suggest
that modern humans were initially present and active in western Iran at approximately the same time as in the
Levant (Douka 2013) and southern Europe (Wood et al. 2014), and may well have overlapped significantly with
existing Neanderthal populations at least in the Zagros region (Shidrang 2018).
By the Upper Palaeolithic period we start to benefit from the availability of chronologically well-defined in-
formation on ancient climate and environment of Southwest Asia (Bar-Matthews and Ayalon 2003). The major
source of environmental proxy data for Iran is the deep pollen core from Lake Zeribar in central western Iran
(Snyder et al. 2001; Wasylikowa 2005; Wasylikowa and Witkowski 2008), supported by evidence from Lake Mi-
rabad and Lake Urmia in Iran and Lake Van in eastern Turkey (Stevens et al. 2006; Djamali et al. 2008; Litt et al.
2014; Pickarski and Litt 2017). The Zeribar core provides evidence for at least the local vegetation of the central
Zagros region over more than 40,000 years (van Zeist 2008a). For the period 48,000–38,000 BP, scattered stands
of oak, maple and pistachio trees are steadily represented, fluctuating in density according to variations in aridity.
Between 38,000 and 15,000 BP there is a collapse of tree representation in the pollen record from Zeribar, which
occurs in association with the full onset of the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM), or last Ice Age, with severely re-
duced temperatures and decreased rainfall at a time when 30% of the earth’s surface was covered in ice. During
these centuries, which cover the bulk of the Upper Palaeolithic, the vegetation of the Zeribar region, and doubt-
less well beyond, was that of mountain tundra, steppe and scrub-steppe, situated in a cold and arid environment.
These conditions would not have been conducive to human occupation of the region, particularly at the higher,
colder altitudes. During the LGM, global sea levels were much lowered, with the Caspian Sea at 50–58 m lower
than its present level (Coolidge 2005; Yanina 2012). What is today the Persian Gulf was then the south-eastern tip
of the Fertile Crescent, a low-lying floodplain receiving the waters of the Tigris-Euphrates, Karun and Wadi Ba-
tin river systems combined in the massive Ur-Schatt river valley (Kennett and Kennett 2007; Rose 2010: Figure
2; Wilkinson 2012: 19–20). Along with drainage from adjacent upland zones in Arabia and Iran and upwelling
springs, the Ur-Schatt waters emptied into a massive fresh-water lake, >100,000 km 2, which may have attracted
a significant human presence during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Rose 2010).
During the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, c. 15,000–13,000 BP, a warmer, wetter climate provided the context
for the development of Epipalaeolithic communities as discussed below (Figure 4.8). From 12,000 BP, towards
the end of the Younger Dryas cold, dry spell, the lake core evidence indicates a rapid expansion of grasses across
the region, but the full spread of oak forest over the Zagros did not take place till after c. 7000 BP, long after the
end of the Upper Palaeolithic (Roberts 2002). These patterns of vegetation development, and their climatic im-
plications, would certainly have had significant impact upon human presence and activity across the region, but
let us turn to the archaeological evidence for further clarification.
The Upper Palaeolithic, 45,000–20,000 BP

Upper Palaeolithic sites are found sporadically across Iran but extremely few sites have evidence for continuity
either from the Middle Palaeolithic or into the Epipalaeolithic. The cave sites of Kaldar in the Khorramabad
valley and Ghar-e Boof in the southern Zagros are rare examples of sites with stratified material spanning the
Figure 4.8 Global temperature variation over the past 20,000 years, according to Greenland ice cores.
46 Peopling Iran
Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition, even if the dating of that transition remains unclear (Bazgir et al. 2017;
Becerra-Valdivia et al. 2017; Heydari et al. 2021). Much of the surveyed and excavated material comes from cave
and rock shelter sites and, once more, the Zagros region is of special significance. There have been attempts to
divide the Upper Palaeolithic into early and late phases on the basis of a reduction in implement size, based on
material excavated at Yafteh Cave and other sites in the Khorramabad region of the south-central Zagros (Hole
and Flannery 1968) but this scheme has limited applicability across the broader region. Typical stone tools of Up-
per Palaeolithic assemblages include points, backed blades and bladelets, burins and a variety of scrapers (Conard
et al. 2013a: 39), all attesting increasingly sophisticated use of task-specific tools.
Shanidar Cave in the Iraqi Zagros is once more of key significance for approaching the Upper Palaeolithic of
the region. Limited radiocarbon dating evidence from Shanidar suggests a gap of at least 10,000 years between the
top of level D, the Middle Palaeolithic, and the bottom of level C, the Early Upper Palaeolithic. Level D top is
dated to c. 47,000 BP while level C bottom dates to c. 35,000 BP, with other dates from level C bottom up rang-
ing from c. 35,000 to 28,700 BP (Becerra-Valdivia et al. 2017: table 2). These dates suggest a long abandonment
of the region following the demise of the Neanderthals, an interpretation supported by the fact that no other
Upper Palaeolithic sites have been located in the Iraqi Zagros, with the possible exception of Kowri Khan on the
Chemchemal plain well to west (Braidwood and Howe 1960: 55–56). The apparent lack of Upper Palaeolithic
sites in the region argues against the idea that Neanderthal demise, at least in this region, was directly consequent
upon significant incursion by modern humans into pre-existing Neanderthal territory. Much further fieldwork
is required in order to address this issue, however, and further multi-period surveys taking place across both the
Iraqi and Iranian Zagros are likely to deliver important evidence on this topic.
Level C at Shanidar is marked by a complete shift in the stone tool assemblage, away from the flakes and points
of the Middle Palaeolithic and into the blade dominated assemblages of the Upper Palaeolithic, characterised by
burins, scrapers, notched blades, perforators and awls, suggesting an increased range of activities such as wood
and leather working. One element of continuity from level D is the focus on hunting wild goat as the major
food source for the cave’s inhabitants. A few pieces of obsidian were also found in level C, the earliest stratified
obsidian from Southwest Asia, shown to originate from sources in eastern Anatolia (Renfrew et al. 1966). These
few fragments are the first significant artefactual evidence for long-distance movement of people and/or materials
across the highland zone. There are no human or hominin skeletal remains from Shanidar level C, nor indeed
from other Upper or Epipalaeolithic sites of the region, with the exception of a single tooth from Warwasi Cave
and fragments from Gar Arjeneh and Eshkaft-e Gavi, discussed below.
Material comparable to Shanidar level C has been found at sites within the Iranian Zagros, but with var-
iable evidence for continuity of occupation from the Middle Palaeolithic. In the central Zagros region, the
rock shelter of Warwasi (Figure 4.9) appears to show some continuity of occupation from Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic, at least according to one interpretation of the stone tool assemblages (Olszewski and Dibble 1994;
see also Braidwood et al. 1961; Olszewski 1993, 2009, 2017; Tsanova 2013; Heydari-Guran 2014). The Upper
Palaeolithic faunal assemblage at Warwasi is dominated by onager, with goat, sheep, cattle and hare also pres-
ent (Turnbull 1975; Uerpmann 1987: 17). Hunting of onager (Equus hemionus) seems to have been the major
activity of the occupants of the rock shelter, which is well situated for observing passing herds of animals,
Figure 4.9 Excavation of Warwasi Cave (photo credit: Frank Hole).

Peopling Iran 47
which may also have included wild horse (Equus ferus) a larger equid than the onager. A find of a hominin tooth
amongst the Warwasi animal bone collections in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago (Tsanova
2013: 62) may represent the earliest physical anthropological evidence for the presence of modern humans in
Iran, as it appears to derive from the Upper Palaeolithic levels of the site, dated by association to c. 35,000
BP. In the Bisotun region the cave of Ghar-i Khar has a considerable depth of Upper Palaeolithic deposits,
again with some suggestion of continuity from the underlying Middle Palaeolithic levels (Young and Smith
1966; Shidrang et al. 2016), and with an emphasis on hunting of wild sheep and goat (Hesse 1989). Survey in
Kermanshah province detected large numbers of Upper Palaeolithic sites widely distributed across a range of
landscape zones (Biglari and Shidrang 2016, 2019; Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian 2020), likely indicative of
increased population densities, greater adaptability and more complex food procurement strategies as com-
pared to the Middle Palaeolithic. Upper Palaeolithic levels at Kaldar Cave in the southern central Zagros also
appear to date to early in the Upper Palaeolithic period and to attest long-term use of the site as a basecamp
for hunting of goat, boar, red deer and roe deer (Bazgir et al. 2017).
At Yafteh Cave (Figures 4.10–4.11) in the Khorramabad region of the south-central Zagros, a blade tool in-
dustry was recovered in association with grinding stones, the earliest ground stone tools from the region, proba-
bly used for ochre processing (Hole and Flannery 1968; Smith 1986; Otte et al. 2007; Bordes and Shidrang 2009;
Tsanova 2013; Shidrang 2018). Hearths and bone tools also occur at Yafteh, with radiocarbon dates spanning
36,000 to 25,000 BP (Otte et al. 2011). Along with Warwasi rock-shelter, Yafteh Cave is one the key sites of the
Upper Palaeolithic in the Zagros mountains in shaping our knowledge on several aspects of Upper Palaeolithic
life strategies. The Yafteh cave excavations for the first time yielded considerable evidence of personal ornaments
including pierced marine shell beads and perforated vestigial deer canines, bone tools, with frequent use of ochre
and other minerals alongside grinding stones throughout the sequence. Such evidence is completely absent in the
Middle Palaeolithic of the Zagros, and their presence in the early Upper Palaeolithic may point to considerable cul-
tural differences in the behavioural patterns of the Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Paleolithic hunter−gatherers of
the Zagros (Shidrang et al. 2020). Hunting activity at this cave was concentrated on small herbivores, and principally
wild goats. Based on the faunal spectrum, Yafteh cave may have been surrounded by several ecological niches such as
steppe lowlands, piedmont, cooler uplands and forested areas (Mashkour et al. 2009).
Figure 4.10 Yafteh Cave, view of cave entrance (photo credit: Frank Hole).
48 Peopling Iran
Figure 4.11 Yafteh Cave, Early Upper Palaeolithic ornaments and tools (Shidrang 2018) (image courtesy of Fereidoun Biglari and
Sonia Shidrang).
In the same region, the rock shelter site of Pa Sangar contained an Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblage, plus two
large marine scallop shells, like the Shanidar obsidian and Yafteh shell beads, indicative of long-distance interac-
tion of some kind between early communities of the region. Gar Arjeneh rock shelter has both Middle and Up-
per Palaeolithic levels but the stratigraphy is too disturbed to allow understanding of the transition between them,
although a human premolar and bone fragments appear to come from Upper Palaeolithic levels at this site (Bazgir
et al. 2014; Trinkaus 2018). Upper Palaeolithic sites were not specifically distinguished during Mortensen’s survey
of the Hulailan valley (P. Mortensen 1993). On the Mehran plain of the west-central Zagros, in the Kuhdasht
region and in western Kermanshah province, many sites appear to belong to the Upper Palaeolithic (Moradi and
Bakhtiari 2010; Biglari and Shidrang 2011; Darabi et al. 2012).
For the Upper Palaeolithic of the Fars region of the southern Zagros the surveys of Sumner and Rosenberg are
key, supported by survey by Dashtizadeh (Rosenberg 2003; Dashtizadeh 2006). Excavations at the cave site of
Eshkaft-e Gavi (Rosenberg 1985) recovered tool assemblages with affinities to those of the Upper Palaeolithic
of the central Zagros but also with some local attributes. Radiocarbon dates centre around 25,000 BP but there
is also a suggestion of continuity from the late Middle Palaeolithic and perhaps into the Epipalaeolithic, accord-
ing to the lithic assemblages and the stratigraphy. The commonest species attested amongst the faunal remains is
gazelle, along with sheep, cattle and equid (Zeder 1991: 59). Hominin remains from Eshkaft-e Gavi comprise ten
craniodental and postcranial pieces of which several show traces of butchery by humans. A single molar crown is
amongst the earliest skeletal evidence for modern humans in Iran (Scott and Marean 2009).
One of the most important Upper Palaeolithic sites of Iran is Ghar-e Boof Cave (Figure 4.12) in the Dasht-e
Rostam-Basht region of the southern Zagros (Ghasidian et al. 2009, 2017; Conard and Ghasidian 2011; Ghasid-
ian 2014; Baines et al. 2015), investigated as part of the Tübingen Iranian Stone Age Research Project (TISARP)
which has identified multiple Palaeolithic sites (Conard et al. 2006, 2007, 2013a; Ghasidian 2014: 209–227; Conard
and Zeidi 2019). Radiocarbon and luminescence dates from Ghar-e Boof show Upper Palaeolithic occupation
from c. 41,000 BP (Becerra-Valdivia et al. 2017: Figure 5; Heydari et al. 2021), thus from the very start of the Upper
Palaeolithic and with plausible continuity from the Middle Palaeolithic, in contrast to the central Zagros. Chipped
stone tools from Ghar-e Boof and other contemporary sites of the region include many uniformly-produced blade-
lets attesting a lithic tradition of the Upper Palaeolithic quite distinctive from the Baradostian lithic assemblages of
the northern and west-central Zagros, to the extent that they have been characterised as the “Rostamian” tradition
(Ghasidian 2014: 193–207, 253–254; Jayez et al. 2019b). The tool-making and tool-using strategies of the human
groups occupying these sites indicate their life-styles as highly mobile hunter−gatherer groups, moving from site
to site within the region in pursuit of seasonally available prey and keen to minimise time and energy costs in
obtaining and working lithic materials (Ghasidian and Heydari-Guran 2018). There are numbers of beads from
Ghar-e Boof made from five different species of shell, showing some concern with personal adornment (Conard
et al. 2013a: 45; Ghasidian 2014: 67–70). Faunal remains reveal a focus on hunting of gazelle, sheep-goat and cattle
with exploitation also of game birds (Ghasidian 2014: 66). Charred seed and fruit remains suggest gathering of wild
pulses and Poaceae seeds for food and sedges for possible bedding (Baines et al. 2015).
Peopling Iran 49
Figure 4.12 Excavations in Ghar-e Boof Cave 2006 (photo credit: Nicholas Conard).
Outside the Zagros region, Upper Palaeolithic sites are rare in Iran, probably because of the exceptionally cold
and dry climate, but this feature may also be a factor of the distribution of archaeological investigation. On the
central plateau close to the city of Kashan, the site of Sefid-Ab sheds new light on human occupation of Iran
beyond the Zagros (Shidrang 2009). Located close to an ancient spring, Sefid-Ab is an open-air site, in contrast
to almost all the known Zagros sites of this period, with a lithic scatter over some 1000 m 2. Tools include blades,
bladelets, flakes, burins and cores, comparable to assemblages from Warwasi, Shanidar Cave level C and Yafteh
Cave. In the Arisman region of the west-central plateau, many Palaeolithic lithic scatters have been located,
including the open-air Upper Palaeolithic site of Bardia which has an assemblage with multiple cores and deb-
itage from tool knapping in situ (Conard et al. 2009; Chegini and Helwing 2011). Some 400 km to the north of
Sefid-Ab, the open-air site of Garm Roud 2 lies on the northern slopes of the Alborz range, 25 km from the
Caspian shores (Chevrier et al. 2006, 2010; Berillon et al. 2007, 2009). Dated to c. 35,000 BP, the site yielded a
lithic assemblage of bladelets, burins and scrapers, as well as red deer and wild cattle bones with cut marks indi-
cating butchery by humans. There were also traces of a hearth with burning attested on lithics and animal bones.
The assemblage from Garm Roud 2 compares well to those of the Zagros Upper Palaeolithic. Surface collection
at Delazian and excavations at Mirak on the northern fringes of the Iranian Central Desert recovered large quan-
tities of lithic tools and debitage indicative of Upper Palaeolithic seasonal campsites (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2010b,
2019a; Vahdati Nasab and Clark 2014).
Overall, the Upper Palaeolithic evidence from Iran and neighbouring regions is suggestive of a lifestyle in-
volving seasonal movement of hominin groups, almost certainly modern humans, following herds of animals
and plant availability over the landscape. They occupied base camps and smaller specialised hunting and butchery
sites, almost all of which are in caves and rock shelters. There is marked variation in the hunting focus of hominin
groups, with an emphasis on onager at Warwasi, goat at Shanidar, sheep and goat at Ghar-i Khar, and gazelle at
Eshkaft-e Gavi, matched by significant regional variability in stone tool assemblages (Ghasidian et al. 2017). With
their enhanced planning and cognitive capabilities (Abdi 2015a), human communities of the Upper Palaeolithic
were broadening their hunting and gathering strategies and intensifying their exploitation of the edible resources
around them in an increasing range of environments. Variability in food acquisition and processing, as well as
multiple other factors, doubtless underlies the significant spatial and temporal diversity that characterises the stone
tool assemblages of the Upper Palaeolithic of Iran. Suggestions that the Upper Palaeolithic communities of the
Iranian Zagros can be seen as related, even ancestral, to the European Aurignacian (Otte et al. 2007; Olszewski
2009; Tsanova 2013; Otte 2014) have not been widely accepted (Vahdati Nasab 2011: 72; Conard et al. 2013a: 45).
While all agree on an African origin for the evolution of anatomically modern humans up to 200,000 years ago,
followed by an exit from Africa by 60,000 BP at the latest and possibly much earlier (Boivin et al. 2013; Groucutt
et al. 2015), the question of neighbouring source region(s) for the presumably non-Neanderthal hominin groups
making stone tools in their regional traditions across Iran in the Upper Palaeolithic remains wide open, with the
Caucasus, the Balkans, the Levant, Arabia and Central Asia all considered as possible source regions of human
expansion (Shidrang 2014; Ghasidian et al. 2017: 43–47).
50 Peopling Iran
The Epipalaeolithic, 20,000–12,000 BP
On the Iraqi side of the Zagros, the Shanidar Cave evidence is once more indicative of a break in occupation
between the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. Radiocarbon dates suggest a gap between c. 26,500 BP and
13,500 BP (Solecki and Solecki 1983; Matthews 2000: 27). The fact that this 13,000-year hiatus overlaps with
the LGM argues for climatic and environmental adversity as a factor limiting extensive hominin occupation of
the region (Rose 2010: 863). Level B2 at Shanidar Cave yielded typical Epipalaeolithic tool assemblages, with
increasing use of microliths, including scalenes, lunates, trapezoids and rectangles with rare fragments of obsidian
(Barge et al. 2018). There is a massive increase in evidence for edible land snail, Helix salomonica, which becomes
a significant element of diet for the Epipalaeolithic and into the Early Neolithic of the region.
Other key excavated sites of this period in the Iraqi Zagros include the type-site of Zarzi Cave (Figure 4.13)
(Garrod 1930; Wahida 1981, 1999; Olszewski 2012; Jayez et al. 2019b), a small rock shelter with evidence for
broadening of diet to include land snail, river crab and fish as well as hunting of gazelle and sheep/goat. Zarzi
stone tools include many microliths developing from non-geometric to geometric (scalene triangles and lunates)
from the Early Zarzian (20,000–13,000 BP) to the Late Zarzian (13,000–11,700 BP). Ground stone tools also
appear in the Late Zarzian, and there are only two pieces of obsidian from Zarzi, both of which have been iden-
tified as originating from the Nemrut Dağ source in eastern Turkey up to 650 km distant from Zarzi by foot
(Renfrew et al. 1966; Barge et al. 2018; Frahm and Tryon 2018). The Shanidar B2 and later Zarzi evidence is
corroborated by that from the small cave of Palegawra (Braidwood and Howe 1960; Turnbull and Reed 1974;
Asouti et al. 2020), with classic Epipalaeolithic stone tools, a few pieces of obsidian, simple bone tools, and a few
ground stone implements. Amongst the Palegawra fauna, onager are dominant along with red deer, sheep, goat
and gazelle. Bird and tortoise bones and extensive deposits of land snail with river crab and clam are all suggestive
of an expansion of human diet, the so-called Broad Spectrum Revolution (Flannery 1969; Edwards 1989). Taken
together, the evidence from Zarzi, Palegawra and Shanidar B2 suggests that increased use of geometric and mi-
croburin lithic tools, presumably for use in hunting and fishing, is associated with an ameliorating climate at the
ending of the LGM, as attested by charcoal and pollen evidence from oak, tamarisk, polar and conifers at these
sites (Solecki and Leroi-Gourhan 1961; Wahida 1999: 206).
In the Iranian Zagros, several sites show patterns of occupation, diet and manufacture and use of chipped stone
tools comparable to those delineated above from the Iraqi evidence, but with more suggestion of occupational
continuity (Wahida 1999: 201–204; Peasnall 2002c; Thomalsky 2016). At the cave of Ghar-i Khar, habitation
appears to continue without break from the Upper to the Epipalaeolithic, with the latter levels showing a major
increase in consumption of edible snail, Helix salomonica (Reed 1962; Young and Smith 1966). The same pattern
is seen at Warwasi Cave (Turnbull 1975), with the importance of onager hunting continuing alongside the new
fashion for snail consumption, but with the lithic assemblage suggestive of changing types of activities taking
place in the cave compared to earlier levels (Olszewski 2017). Pa Sangar in the Khorramabad region (Hole and
Flannery 1968; Shidrang 2018: 152) also has assemblages which suggest a degree of continuity from the Upper to
the Epipalaeolithic, in contrast to the evidence from the Iraqi side of the Zagros.
Survey in the Hulailan valley located 15 sites, including Mar Gurgalan Sarab, with materials that Mortensen
characterised as “Late Palaeolithic”(Mortensen 1975a, 1993: 165) or “Epipalaeolithic” (Mortensen 2012), most
Figure 4.13 Z
arzi Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan (centre) (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Peopling Iran 51
of which appear to have been of Epipalaeolithic type, with blades, bladelets and burins, but a high proportion of
flake tools suggests mixing with Middle Palaeolithic materials as well (Conard et al. 2013a: 40). Ground stone
tools start to appear in this region in the Epipalaeolithic. Sites of the very late period have been detected on the
Izeh and Pion plains of north-eastern Khuzestan (Wright 1979; Niknami et al. 2009; Jayez 2015). Intensive field
survey of these plains identified up to 35 Upper Palaeolithic or Epipalaeolithic sites, including open sites, rock
shelters and caves, indicative of significant communities of hunter−gatherers exploiting the rich and varied
resources of this region ( Jayez et al. 2019b).
Epipalaeolithic occupation in the region of Shiraz in the southern Zagros was identified by Field (1951) and
Piperno (1974), in particular at the large cave site of Eshkaft-e Ghad-e Barm-e Shur. The assemblage includes
rather small tools such as burins, blades and scrapers struck from chert pebbles, all arguably of Epipalaeolithic date
but with some possible Upper Palaeolithic components (Conard et al. 2013a: 41). Rosenberg’s work at the KMC
Cave in the Kur river basin region of Fars also recovered material of Epipalaeolithic type, including geometric
microliths (Rosenberg 2003), supported by the more recent work of Dashtizadeh (2006). Rosenberg (2003) ar-
gues that the KMC Cave became the dominant site of the western Marvdasht in the Epipalaeolithic. The lithic
assemblage from KMC includes large numbers of all the known Epipalaeolithic types of the region, in contrast
to other identified contemporary sites, suggesting that KMC served as a regional centre for human activity across
the plain and beyond. Known Upper Palaeolithic sites within 25 km of KMC were abandoned at this time,
supporting Rosenberg’s interpretation of “a shift from a circulating to a radiating resource exploitation system”
(Rosenberg 2003: 108). Complexes of Epipalaeolithic rock shelter and cave sites are also known from the Basht
and Kohgiluyeh regions of the south-western Zagros (Ghasidian et al. 2009; Azadi 2017).
Japanese-Iranian investigations in the Arsanjan and Tang-e Bolaghi regions of the southern Zagros have shed
new light on the Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic transition in this region (Tsuneki et al. 2007; Tsuneki and Zeidi 2008;
Tsuneki 2013). The site of Haji Bahrami Cave (also known as TB75) includes layers of Epipalaeolithic type
with similarities to lithics recovered from the KMC Cave site in the Kur river basin as well as to Zarzian assem-
blages in the central Zagros as at Warwasi Cave. Radiocarbon dates indicate Epipalaeolithic occupation spanning
c. 20,000 to 14,000 BP (Tsuneki 2013: 90) with probable continuity into Early Neolithic levels. Faunal remains
indicate hunting of cattle, gazelle, sheep and goats with increasing emphasis on sheep/goat at the transition to
the Early Neolithic (Hongo and Mashkour 2008). In the Arsanjan region, Epipalaeolithic lithic assemblages were
recovered from no fewer than 67 cave and rock shelter sites (Tsuneki 2013: 92), vivid indication of the ability of
intensive survey methods to amplify our evidential base. These sites, with their lithics and faunal assemblages,
have great potential for aiding our understanding of the transition from the Epipalaeolithic into the Early Neo-
lithic, as further discussed in Chapter 5.
In northern Iran, on the shores of the Caspian Sea, Coon’s excavations at the rock shelter and cave sites of
Ghar-i Kamarband (Belt Cave) and Hotu (Figure 4.14) recovered deeply stratified lithic assemblages of Epipal-
aeolithic date and evidence for intensive hunting of seals (Coon 1951, 1952; Coolidge 2010). McBurney’s inves-
tigations of the nearby rock shelter site of Ali Tappeh revealed striking alterations in the main diet component
between gazelles and seals, probably connected to Late Glacial and Post Glacial changes in local steppe/forest
vegetation and Caspian Sea levels (McBurney 1968; Uerpmann and Frey 1981; Coolidge 2010; Vahdati Nasab
Figure 4.14 H
otu Cave, 2021 excavations (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
52 Peopling Iran
et al. 2019b: 295). Study of bone and shell artefacts from Ali Tappeh shows technological parallels with finds from
Epipalaeolithic sites in the Caucasus (Manca et al. 2018). Work at Komishan Cave has refined understanding of
the lithic assemblages of all these sites, showing connections with sites in Georgia, Azerbaijan and eastern Turkey
and characterised as a “Caspian Mesolithic” (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2011; Jayez and Vahdati Nasab 2016; Thomalsky
2016). Three perforated canid canines from Komishan, comparable to examples found at Kamarband and Ali
Tappeh, represent some of the earliest items of artistic adornment from Iran, dating to the very end of the Epipal-
aeolithic phase. Faunal remains from Komishan include gazelle and pig as well as a range of smaller species such
as birds, fish and molluscs (Mashkour et al. 2010). Along with other sites on the eastern shores of the Caspian in
Turkmenistan, the caves of Kamarband, Hotu, Komishan and Ali Tappeh probably represent long-term occupa-
tions by small groups of humans engaged in intensive spells of hunting and fishing.
Epipalaeolithic sites have also been found during survey in Gilan province along the Sefid Rud river to the
southwest of the Caspian shores (Adachi 2004; Biglari and Jahani 2011), and there is evidence for significant
Epipalaeolithic presence at several sites along the northern and western fringes of the Iranian central plateau,
including Delazian, Chah-e Jam, Soofi-Abad and Bardia (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019b: 293–295). Epipalaeolithic
site finds from southern and eastern Iran have so far been extremely rare (Parizi et al. 2014), which may be at least
partly due to a lack of targeted fieldwork.
The end of the Palaeolithic in Iran: creating human communities

In closing this chapter, we can draw some general conclusions concerning the Upper and Epipalaeolithic of Iran.
Firstly, there is a marked episode of apparent abandonment of much of Iran by human or hominin groups during
the Late Glacial Maximum, at least between c. 26,000 and 20,000 BP and possibly much longer. This abandon-
ment was clearly part of a wider picture of severe reduction of human presence across the Old World, as attested
in the absence of sites of this period across Turkey and Greece (Düring 2011: 31) and all of Central Asia (Coolidge
2010: 54). There can be no doubt that this human hiatus is directly connected to climatic and environmental
adversity attendant upon the coolness and aridity of the Late Glacial Maximum.
Secondly, once human groups do reappear in the Epipalaeolithic, initially from c. 20,000 BP but more inten-
sively from c. 15,000 BP, there is a notable shift in the dietary patterns attested in the material evidence from
multiple sites. One element of this shift is the increased diversity in exploitation of specific large game animals, a
trend that began in the Upper Palaeolithic as we have seen. Another element is the broadening of the subsistence
base to include new components such as fish, river crabs, small game and land snails, as well as seals and migratory
birds in the Caspian region. In a highly influential short article, Flannery (1969; Edwards 1989) called this shift the
Broad Spectrum Revolution (BSR), set within a context of population overflow from resource rich regions into
more marginal zones. Stiner (1993, 2001) has argued that a focus on small game may have resulted from over-ex-
ploitation by human groups of large and medium-sized prey. In her interpretation, framed within optimal foraging
theory, humans had become too successful at hunting animals such as onager, gazelle, sheep and goat and were
perforce obliged to look to smaller game such as rodents, birds, land snails and fish to provide their sustenance.
As Zeder (2012: 242) has explored, however, the notion of the BSR and associated developments in studies
of impacts of population growth (Cohen 1977) and optimal foraging theory tend to “portray humans in a one-
way adaptive framework in which they scramble to respond to the negative impact of deteriorating climate or
unbridled population growth.” Within a framework of niche construction theory, Zeder articulates “alternative
perspectives… that portray humans as actively modifying environments to meet fundamental economic and so-
cial goals,” thus accrediting agency and innovation to early human societies. In Zeder’s persuasive argument, the
BSR took place within resource rich environments, rather than marginal zones, where people took maximum
advantage of a breadth of environmental opportunities including those afforded by the warmer, wetter conditions
of the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, c. 15,000–13,000 BP. Certainly, the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic
evidence from the eastern Fertile Crescent, including Iran, does not support the notion of overpopulation or
population pressure on resources during these periods, far from it. Nor are there indications of significant climatic
downturn or environmental adversity during the Epipalaeolithic, at least until the onset of the Younger Dryas
from c. 13,000 BP. Another factor in the broadening of diet at this time may have been the invention and dissem-
ination of new hunting technologies such as spear throwers and bow and arrows, further indications of human
ingenuity in shaping their own trajectories of behaviour and environmental engagement.
Thirdly, the material culture of the communities of the Epipalaeolithic shows significant changes from earlier
periods (Olszewski 2012). Major features of this shift include the use of new materials such as bone and shell
alongside the traditional cherts and flints for tool manufacture, and the development of a nascent ground stone
technology for mineral and plant processing. It is highly likely that there were also significant developments in
Peopling Iran 53
technologies of organic materials such as wood and fibres, although we lack the archaeological evidence in that
regard. Access to and exploitation of materials coming from outside home regions, such as obsidian and seashell, is
an indication that human communities were engaging across large distances in order to acquire desired materials,
even if the precise mechanisms of this connectivity remain difficult to articulate. The use of material culture in
adorning the human body, through beads and pendants, is also a new feature of the Upper Palaeolithic, suggest-
ing a developed concern with social identity within and between human groups.
Fourthly, there are further indications of developments in social structures by the Epipalaeolithic. We have seen
Rosenberg’s idea (2003) that the KMC Cave grew to become a regional centre for human activity during this pe-
riod, and there are indications of increasing specialisation in technologies such as tool manufacture and use. The
increasing weight and diversity of material culture may itself have been a factor in engaging human groups with
their physical surroundings in multiple senses, arguably leading to a more developed sense of attachment to place
and to material objects and identities. All these factors, and doubtless many others, were instrumental in shaping
the trajectories of human communities during the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. A notable contrast to
the Middle Palaeolithic appears to be the predilection of Upper Palaeolithic communities for occupation of cave
and rock shelter sites as opposed to open-air sites, but this feature may be a result of survey methodologies as
much as a genuine attribute.
With regard to the social structure of Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic hunter−gatherer groups, stud-
ies drawing on evidence from contemporary hunter−gatherer groups stress the special nature of human social
lifeways, characterised by the prevalence of allomaternal child-care and extensive cooperation and sharing in all
aspects of food acquisition, processing and consumption (Kelly 2013). These attributes underpin the development
of frequent interactions within and between human groups, in turn stimulating cognitive and social develop-
ments that encourage the growth of sophisticated social learning mechanisms (Hill et al. 2011).
Above all, we should refrain from viewing the highly developed hunter−forager groups of the Upper and
Epipalaeolithic of Iran principally as communities on the verge of becoming Neolithic, as discussed in the fol-
lowing chapter. Rather, we should view them as the climax of a millennia-old way of life, involving intimate
connection with the landscape and its resources in innovative and long-term sustainable modes of interaction.
Finally, with regard to Iran specifically, we end with an agenda-setting quote from one of the most active and
thoughtful Iranian Palaeolithic archaeologists:
Although new discoveries of Paleolithic sites look very promising, much remains to be done to get a picture of
site distributions in time and space for the Iranian Plateau (indeed, for the nation as a whole) as a necessary prel-
ude to the behavioral interpretation that should be the goal of a paleoanthropologically informed archaeology.
(Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a: 279)
5 Domesticating Iran: the Neolithic period,
10,000–5200 BC
Iran in the Neolithic Transition

The significance of Iran in the broad sweep of developments encapsulated in Gordon Childe’s striking phrase
“Neolithic Revolution” is immense, and increasingly recognised as such by the global community who re-
search this critical episode of human history. In this chapter, we examine the evermore detailed evidence from
Iran in the light of key issues and topics centring on what might best be called the Neolithic Transition. Major
components of this episode across Southwest Asia and beyond include the changing climatic and environmental
context of the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene transition, intensified relationships between humans, plants and
animals involving the development of sophisticated modes of production, storage, preparation and consump-
tion of foodstuffs, in turn facilitating both a major shift in the settlement habits and demography of human
communities (Bocquet-Appel 2002, 2008), and an enhanced capacity for increased social inequality within and
between those communities (Bogaard et al. 2018). All these elements underpin the way almost all human com-
munities live today across our planet.
As a globally significant socio-cultural phenomenon, the Neolithic Transition has provided a fertile research
arena for the development and application of a rich range of theoretical, analytical and discursive frameworks
(Mithen 2003; Bellwood 2005; Barker 2006 are some of the many global overviews and interpretations; see
also Matthews 2003a: 67–92). In the case of Iran, as we shall see, we are concerned with two major socio-cultural
processes that together form the Neolithic Transition. Firstly, there is convincing evidence that some human
communities in Iran, certainly in the central Zagros region and possibly elsewhere, worked through the tran-
sition from mobile hunter–gatherer to settled farmer–herder essentially by themselves, without significant
external influence. We can characterise this process as pristine Neolithisation in a “formative zone” (Özdoğan
2005), one of many across the Fertile Crescent (Ibáñez et al. 2018). Secondly, some human communities be-
came Neolithic in their behaviours by learning to be so, under duress or otherwise, from others who had al-
ready made that transition. There is also considerable evidence for this secondary spread of Neolithic practices
across Iran. Each of these two processes needs articulating and analysing on their own terms (Fazeli Nashli
and Matthews 2013: 2–6).
Recent studies have focused on the “ratchet” nature of the Neolithic Transition whereby once certain steps
have been taken it becomes impossible or extremely difficult for them to be reversed, as human communities
become “entangled” in increasingly complex relationships with the plants, animals, materials, objects, ideas and
practices that make up their worlds (Hodder 2012; Lewis and Maslin 2018: 113–146). Thus, once humans had
selected plants and animals for intensified engagement it became possible for them to settle more permanently in
attractive locations, in turn leading to their ability to produce more offspring due to the more reliable and more
energy-rich food supply and the end of the need to carry children around. “At this point the ratchet is complete.
Even if farming entails tedious work with the reward being monotonous food, you must do it for the sake of
the children…And anyway, more children means more workers for the fields” (Lewis and Maslin 2018: 121). As
plants and animals become more adapted to intensive human exploitation, they require ever more attention in
the way of soil preparation, cultivation, weeding, nurturing, penning, herding, foddering and birthing, which in
turn leads to higher yields capable of supporting more and more people. The closer spacing of human births ena-
bled by sedentarisation more than compensates for the high infant mortality attendant on poor diet, malnutrition
and the spread of new diseases (Bocquet-Appel 2011), so that yet more people survive and must be fed. There is
no easy way out of these self-reinforcing cycles of entanglement. At the same time, the capacities of human com-
munities, along with their plant and animal partners, for ecological transformation of their surrounding worlds
through “niche construction” were massively augmented through the Neolithic Transition (Zeder 2012; Boivin
et al. 2016; Weninger 2017). Intensified usage of land, including clearance and tillage, range expansion of herded
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-5
Domesticating Iran 55
animals such as goat, sheep, cattle and pig, as well as dispersal of newly evolving pathogens affecting humans,
animals and plants, all played their part in dramatically reshaping the world wherever agriculture spread.
Within this broader context, major issues of the Neolithic Transition to which the Iranian evidence speaks
include: human interactions with climatic and environmental changes through the Early Holocene; intensified
exploitation of certain species of plants and animals leading in due course to full domestication; transitions from
seasonal mobility to year-round sedentism; elaboration of social and ritual activity, including human burial
practices; modes and means of the diffusion of Neolithic life-ways across the land of Iran and beyond; and the
chronology of Neolithic developments. The excavated evidence from Iran is of relevance to all the above issues
(Bernbeck 2001, 2004; Peasnall 2002a; Hole 2004; Matthews and Fazeli Nashli 2013; Weeks 2013a; Helwing
2014; Darabi 2015; Roustaei and Mashkour 2016; Helwing and Fazeli Nashli 2017).
Researching the Iranian Neolithic

The first significant steps in researching the Neolithic of Iran were taken with the problem-oriented research
of Braidwood and colleagues in the 1950s, investigating the origins of food production and village life through
excavations at Asiab and Sarab in the high Zagros of western Iran (Braidwood and Howe 1960; Braidwood 1961).
Braidwood believed that the origins of farming should be sought in a region hosting the wild ancestors of later
domesticated plants and animals, and the hills, mountains and high plains of the Zagros appeared to fit what
became known as “the hilly flanks theory.” Braidwood’s work in Iran, although never fully published (unlike his
earlier work on the same set of problems in the Iraqi Zagros: Braidwood et al. 1983), set the standard for future
work, and he was followed by Hole and Flannery’s systematic programme of investigation into the prehistory of
the Deh Luran plain in the south-central Zagros, including excavation of Neolithic levels at Ali Kosh and Chagha
Sefid (Hole and Flannery 1968; Hole et al. 1969; Hole 1977, 1987c). Amongst its many scientific achievements,
including an impressive publication record, this project was notable for employing the first flotation machine in
Southwest Asia (Helbaek 1969), generating new forms of evidence for ancient diet and environment, and material
for radiocarbon dating, which remain critical in approaching the Neolithic Transition.
Through the Golden Age of Iranian archaeology, 1959–1979 (Chapter 3), several projects investigated issues of
Neolithic Iran. A Danish team under Thrane surveyed the Hulailan valley in Luristan, excavating the Neolithic
site of Guran (Meldgaard et al. 1963, 1964; Mortensen 1975b, 2014), while a Canadian team under Smith exca-
vated the Early Neolithic site of Ganj Dareh near Kermanshah (Smith 1990). Japanese archaeologists led by Egami
and Fukai excavated Neolithic and later sites in Fars (Egami 1967; Fukai et al. 1973; Weeks et al. 2006) and, as
a component of the Hasanlu project, Voigt excavated Hajji Firuz in the Solduz valley of northwest Iran (Voigt
1983). Smaller-scale work was conducted by Hole at Tula’i (Hole 1974) and by Pullar at Abdul Hosein (Pullar
1990), while Masuda directed a Japanese team excavating at Sang-e Chakhmaq in northeast Iran (Masuda 1974;
Masuda et al. 2013; Thornton 2013a). In southwest Iran, work directed by Delougaz and Kantor investigated
Neolithic levels at Chogha Mish and Chogha Bonut (Delougaz et al. 1996; Alizadeh 2003a).
During the hiatus in new fieldwork in Iran from 1979, researchers conducted a considerable amount of re-
search into Iranian Neolithic materials excavated in the 1950s–1970s, and that has continued until today. Major
advances have taken place in our understanding of areas such as chronology (Hole 1987c; Voigt and Dyson 1992),
archaeozoology (Hesse 1984; Hole 1996; Zeder 1999, 2006a; Zeder and Hesse 2000), archaeobotany (Miller
2003; Charles 2007), lithics (Kozlowski 1999), figurines (Voigt 2000; Daems 2001, 2004, 2008), burial practices
(Solecki et al. 2004; Croucher 2012) and other elements of Neolithic material culture and society, generally situ-
ating the Iranian evidence within broader geographical contexts (Kozlowski and Aurenche 2005).
As in other fields of Iranian archaeology, the study of the Neolithic of Iran has been revitalised since 2001(Darabi
2015). Some of the impetus has come from rescue archaeology in advance of dam construction, such as the Sei-
marreh river project in the central Zagros where the Early Neolithic site of East Chia Sabz has been excavated by
Iranian archaeologists led by Darabi (Darabi et al. 2011, 2013). In the Sivand dam project of the southern Zagros,
Japanese and Iranian archaeologists, led by Tsuneki and Zeidi, explored caves and rock shelter sites spanning the
transition from Epipalaeolithic to Early Neolithic (Tsuneki et al. 2007; Tsuneki and Zeidi 2008; Tsuneki 2013).
Iranian work directed by Fazeli Nashli, in collaboration with British and other colleagues, on the Qazvin and
Tehran plains and at Sialk on the central plateau has situated Neolithic developments within long-term trajecto-
ries of socio-economic change (Fazeli et al. 2004; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009, 2011, 2013a). In the Fars region, exca-
vations at Tol-e Bashi by Pollock, Bernbeck and Abdi (Abdi et al. 2003; Pollock et al. 2010), and in the Mamasani
region by Potts and Roustaei and colleagues (Potts and Roustaei 2006; Weeks et al. 2006; Weeks 2013c), have
begun to elucidate the Neolithic of this region. The work of Hasan Rezvani, Kourosh Roustaei and colleagues
in north-eastern Iran (Roustaei et al. 2015; Roustaei 2016a, 2016b; Roustaei and Gratuze 2020), in particular, has
56 Domesticating Iran
significantly amplified our understanding of the Neolithic of this region, while Hojjat Darabi’s surveys, excava-
tions and publications on the earliest Neolithic of the central Zagros have strengthened the claim of this region
to be a key zone of Neolithic innovation (Darabi 2015, 2016).
The earliest Neolithic of Iran was explored through joint Iranian-British excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and
Jani in the central Zagros, directed by Matthews, Matthews and Mohammadifar (Matthews et al. 2010, 2013a;
W. Matthews et al. 2019). Multiple regional surveys, mostly by Iranian archaeologists, have begun to investigate
Neolithic issues across the breadth of Iran (Chapter 3; Azarnoush and Helwing 2005). Recent and ongoing re-
search into the Neolithic of Iran is brought together in multi-author volumes (Matthews and Fazeli Nashli 2013;
Roustaei and Mashkour 2016) and in overview books and articles (Weeks 2013a; Helwing and Aliyev 2014;
Darabi 2015), vividly illustrating the health of research into this broad set of topics, with Iranian archaeologists in
the vanguard. It is important to stress, however, that very few excavated Neolithic sites in Iran have been subject
to the application of a full range of modern scientific techniques, including radiocarbon dating, so that in-depth
analysis and interregional comparison has to be provisional and incomplete as things stand. The distribution of
Neolithic sites in Iran and adjacent regions is shown in Figure 5.1.
While in recent decades researchers have constructed and applied multiple theoretical frameworks to the
study of the Neolithic Transition in Southwest Asia and elsewhere, incorporating a range of factors including
Figure 5.1 Neolithic sites of Iran by period.

environmental change, population growth, societal and ideological development and multi-causal elements, it
is fair to say that the evidence from Iran has featured too rarely in such debates (Matthews and Fazeli Nashli
2013). As a source area for major Neolithic transitions, Iran is critical to understanding how human communi-
ties worked through a dramatic episode of change that culminated in a fundamental transformation in human
societies as well as in the plant, animal and environmental worlds that accompanied them on this journey. It is
increasingly recognised that the Neolithic Transition in Southwest Asia cannot be meaningfully explained on the
basis of single overarching theories, but rather that each region needs detailed, inter-disciplinary investigation to
articulate the trajectories of change and continuity specific to each region, even to each site within regions (Zeder
2006b; Asouti and Fuller 2013; Asouti 2017). At the same time, it is important that we do not abandon discussion
of broader themes, factors and connections that may articulate conceptual frameworks within which to interpret
the ultimately dramatic suite of developments encapsulated with the Neolithic Transition (Weninger 2017). The
ever-increasing evidence from Iran is vital in providing a kaleidoscopic picture of diversity and connectivity
spanning all stages and episodes within the great transition from mobile hunter–gatherer to settled farmer–herder,
as we will now begin to explore.
Neolithic terminology and chronology

The start of the Neolithic in Southwest Asia is generally seen as coinciding with the end of the Younger Dryas at
c. 9600 BC (Watkins 2009: 201). We are reluctant to use the value-laden term “Proto-Neolithic,” which has been
applied to the period c. 11,000–8300 BC (Solecki et al. 2004), covering the transition from the Pleistocene to the
Holocene. For the Iranian Neolithic, it seems most straightforward to apply the term Early Neolithic to the span
10,000–7000 BC and Later Neolithic to the span 7000–5200 BC. Early Neolithic approximately corresponds to
Aceramic or Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Later Neolithic to Ceramic or Pottery Neolithic (Hole 1987c; Voigt and
Dyson 1992). We also need to take account of several sites that sit right on the boundary between the Epipalae-
olithic and the Early Neolithic, such as Shanidar Cave level B1, Zawi Chemi Shanidar and Karim Shahir, all on
the Iraqi side of the Zagros range (Matthews 2000: 31–35).
The absolute chronology of the Iranian Neolithic needs much further input from systematic application of a
modern radiocarbon dating programme, expanding work already undertaken by Zeder (Voigt 1987; Voigt and
Dyson 1992; Zeder 2006a; Marshall 2012; Pollard et al. 2012, 2013; Matthews et al. 2013c). For now, most avail-
able Neolithic dates for Iran and adjacent regions can be viewed at the Radiocarbon Context Database (http://
context-database.uni-koeln.de/intro.php) and the Platform for Neolithic Radiocarbon Dates (http://www.ex-
oriente.org/associated_projects/ppnd.php). Figure 5.2 shows the chronological relationships of Neolithic sites
in Iran, with reference also to neighbouring regions, while Figure 5.3 shows relevant radiocarbon dates from
selected key sites. All dates in this book from here on are given as calibrated BC, whenever possible.
Human–environment interactions in the Neolithic

As we saw in the preceding chapter, there is good evidence for significant variation in climate and environment
through the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, with the steady easing over many millennia of the Late Glacial
Maximum, interrupted by the Younger Dryas. There has been much discussion regarding the possible nature of
the interrelationships between climate, environment and human societies through the course of the Neolithic of
Southwest Asia (H. E. Wright 1980; Weninger et al. 2006, 2009; Jones and Roberts 2008; Wasylikowa and Wit-
kowski 2008; Gronenborn 2009; Kehl 2009; Walker and Fattahi 2011; Jones 2013; Jones et al. 2013; W. Matthews
2013a; W. Matthews et al. 2013c; Asouti and Kabukcu 2014; Sharifi et al. 2015, 2018; Biehl and Nieuwenhuyse
2016; Asouti 2017). Lake core records from Zeribar (Figure 5.4), Hashilan, Mirabad and Urmia, loess soil se-
quences from northern Iran and alluvial fan deposits in eastern Iran agree in indicating a shift from c. 13,000 BC
to a warmer, wetter climate, the Bølling-Allerød Interstadial, which gradually facilitated the spread of grasses and
trees into upland, steppe and desert-steppe regions.
This long-term warmer/wetter trend was interrupted by the climatic episode known as the Younger Dryas, c.
10,600–9600 BC, which saw a return to cold and dry conditions and a re-establishment of Artemesia-Chenopo-
diaceae steppe across the entire region and beyond (Smith et al. 1997; Roberts 1998: 70–71; Alley 2000; Snyder
et al. 2001; Wasylikowa 2005; Robinson et al. 2006; Aubert et al. 2019). The conditions of the Younger Dryas
would have had a significant impact on the range of zones in the high Zagros suitable for human habitation
(Hole 1996; Darabi 2015), even if it is now clear that the region was not deserted for the duration of the Younger
Dryas. In other regions of Iran, such as the Caspian Sea shores and adjacent plains, it seems that disruption to
human occupation would have been minimal as attested by suggestions of Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic continuity
Figure 5.2 Chronology of the Neolithic of Iran and neighbouring regions.
of occupation in cave sites of this region (Gregg and Thornton 2012; Jayez and Vahdati Nasab 2016; Leroy et al.
2019). It has been argued that the environmental constraints of the Younger Dryas were influential in encourag-
ing human groups to intensify cultivation of available food resources, for example in the face of decreasing wild
cereal returns, which can be seen as early steps towards an agriculture lifestyle (Weiss 2000). While this model
appears to work for the western Fertile Crescent in the Levant (Bar-Yosef 1998, 2011), it has less applicability
to the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, including the Zagros region of western Iran and eastern Iraq, as it
appears that Early Holocene communities here were not heavily dependent on wild cereals as a food resource
but rather they made use of wild goat and legumes, fruits and nuts (Arranz-Otaegui et al. 2016; Riehl 2016)
as their major sources of sustenance, and these resources were less directly impacted by the conditions of the
Younger Dryas. Increasing evidence for human presence in the Zagros during the Younger Dryas (Matthews
et al. 2013b) supports this interpretation.
From c. 9500 BC, lake sediment core evidence indicates the expansion of grasses, almond and pistachio
trees across the Zagros, peaking at c. 8500 BC and enabled by an increase in precipitation in particular during
the period 8000–6000 BC (Araus et al. 2014), followed by a much slower spread of oak forest, not peaking
until c. 4000 BC (Stevens et al. 2001; Stevens et al. 2006; Djamali et al. 2010; Jones et al. 2013: 27). Roberts
(2002) has argued for significant human impact in slowing the spread of oak across the Zagros and other re-
gions of Southwest Asia through deliberate forest clearance, burning, and overgrazing by early domesticated
animals such as goat, while Asouti and Kabukcu (2014: 178) propose that oak-dominated steppe-forests of the
Zagros-Taurus uplands “represent an anthropogenic vegetation type that evolved gradually during the first
half of the Holocene in response to people-vegetation interactions of increasing complexity and intensity.”
Increased presence of charred grass awns and micro-charcoal in Lake Zeribar sediments around 10,000 BC
suggests frequent burning of land around the lake, possibly human-induced (Wasylikowa et al. 2006). Survey
evidence for extensive human occupation of the Marivan region, in which Lake Zeribar is situated, from the
Palaeolithic through Neolithic periods and beyond (Mohammadifar and Motarjem 2008) provides a possible
long-term context for such activity.
Figure 5.3 C
hart of Neolithic 14C dates from selected key sites.
Figure 5.4 S ummary of Lake Zeribar climatic indicators, c. 28,000 cal BP –6900 cal BP (after Asouti et al. 2020: Figure 4).
Following the end of the Younger Dryas, the global climate remained subject to fluctuations caused partly by
so-called meltwater pulses, the sudden and massive release of cold freshwater from glacial lakes into the North
Atlantic, and by shifts in polar-continental airflows. The dominance in Iran’s climatic regime of westerly winds
combined with Iran’s location directly east of the Arabian Peninsula, the largest dust source on our planet, makes
Iranian ecosystems especially prone to changes in dust deposition. Deep-time analyses of dust from sediment
cores shows a high correlation of dust with sudden cooling events (Safaierad et al. 2020). There appear to have
been at least six of these global cooling anomalies or “Rapid Climate Change” events through the Holocene
(Mayewski et al. 2004). There is some evidence for a short episode of climatic instability at 10.2ka BP (c. 8200
BC) that may have impacted on socio-cultural development at least in the western Fertile Crescent (Weninger et al.
2009; Borrell et al. 2015; Weninger 2017). Another of these events is detectable in ten different palaeoclimate
records dated to 9.2 ka BP (c. 7200 BC) and lasting for 150–200 years, with the effect of significantly reduced
temperatures and rainfall (Fleitmann et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2019). This event coincides at least approximately
with a break in the Neolithic occupation of Iran, which is not to suggest direct causality. Very few sites show
occupation spanning the Early to Later Neolithic, and many sites were abandoned in the later eighth millennium
BC, including Sheikh-e Abad, Ganj Dareh, Abdul Hosein, East Chia Sabz and possibly Guran, all in the Iranian
Zagros, and also Bestansur and Shimshara in the lower Iraqi Zagros (Flohr et al. 2020). At about the same time,
occupation starts at a host of new sites on the lower plains, including Ali Kosh, Chogha Bonut and Chagha Sefid,
as well as Jarmo in the foothills of the Iraqi Zagros (Matthews et al. 2013b: 233). The mega-site of Çatalhöyük in
central Turkey is also founded at about this time. One scenario is that the 9.2ka BP event was severe enough to
lead to the collapse of agricultural and social systems in the high Zagros while encouraging the spread of Neo-
lithic communities into lowland zones where the cooler, drier conditions had less impact, but this interpretation
needs more input from detailed local climate records and significant refinement of the chronology.
A further climatic change of potentially major importance to the Neolithic of Iran is the so-called 8.2ka BP
event, which lasted from c. 6400 to 6000 BC and, like the Younger Dryas and 9.2ka BP event, was marked by
abrupt cooling and aridity across much of the world (Alley et al. 1997; Weiss 2000; Weninger et al. 2006, 2009).
The Neolithic in Iran was highly developed by the later seventh millennium BC, by which time human com-
munities had been herding animals and cultivating crops for several millennia, as well as developing sophisticated
resilience strategies involving resource diversification and storage, which may well have protected them from
the worst impacts of these cooling events (Clare and Weninger 2010; Flohr et al. 2016; Ghahremaninejad et al.
2021). Perhaps the most persuasive evidence for significant human behavioural adaptation to the impacts of the
8.2ka BP event comes from the Fars region of south-western Iran where at sites such as Tal-e Mushki and Hor-
mangan a shift from cultivation to hunting is vividly attested in both the faunal and the stone tool assemblages
at c. 6200–6000 BC (see below; Abe and Khanipour 2019). From c. 4000 BC the climate of the Zagros region,
and indeed across Iran, has been broadly similar to that of today although not without significant fluctuations in
temperature, rainfall and wind regimes (Kehl 2009: 10; Sharifi et al. 2015).
The Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic transition, 11,000–9800 BC

Before addressing the full Neolithic period, we need to consider a suite of important early sites on the Iraqi side
of the Zagros range as they inform us on the vital centuries spanning the transition from the Late Pleistocene to
the Early Holocene, which is also the transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Early Neolithic (Peasnall 2002b;
Darabi 2015: 22–28). The sites in question include Shanidar Cave level B1, Zawi Chemi Shanidar and Karim
Shahir, all of the so-called Proto-Neolithic period (Solecki et al. 2004). In the last chapter we saw that human
communities were developing in a range of ways through the Upper and Epipalaeolithic, with evidence for in-
creasing material and social sophistication by the last millennia of the Epipalaeolithic.
The Iraqi sites of Shanidar Cave B1, Zawi Chemi Shanidar and Karim Shahir have been well published and we
look only briefly at them here (for summary and references see Hole 1987a; Matthews 2000: 31–35; Solecki et al.
2004; Matthews et al. 2013d). These sites are all in the lower Zagros and so far we have no evidence of occupation
in the high Zagros between c. 13,000 and 10,000 BC, an apparent absence that may be due to climatic severity or
to lack of intensive field survey over the region. At Shanidar Cave level B1 we have a unique cemetery of this pe-
riod, with some 35 individuals in graves dug into ashy deposits (Solecki et al. 2004), tentatively dated to c. 10,500
BC, firmly in the Younger Dryas period. Many of the graves have beads and traces of red pigment as well as bone
and stone tools, and there is a major increase over previous periods in the use of ground stone tools, including
querns, rubbers, mortars and incised pebbles. Elongation of two of the skulls suggests deliberate cranial modifica-
tion through head binding (Lorentz 2010: 134). The inhabitants of the cave hunted wild goat, sheep and red deer
and consumed large quantities of smaller items such as land snail and crab. Bone isotope analysis indicates that the
Shanidar B1 humans enjoyed a diet rich in plant intake and relatively poor in meat consumption (Solecki et al.
2004: 181), which may indicate largely winter occupation of the cave when hunting opportunities were reduced.
This evidence for seasonality ties in well with the nearby open-air site of Zawi Chemi Shanidar (Solecki
1981), which dates to c. 11,000–10,400 BC. Here we have an oval floored structure, the earliest “building”
known from the Zagros region, constructed of unworked stone plus many examples of broken and complete
ground stone tools. Outside this structure a remarkable deposit was recovered, including 15 skulls of wild goat
and perhaps sheep, and articulated wing bones of at least 17 large birds such as vultures and eagles. These items
appear to have been remnants of ritual costumes. A high proportion of young sheep in the faunal assemblage
indicates spring/summer residence at Zawi Chemi Shanidar, complementing the winter occupation at the higher
altitude cave of Shanidar, just 5 km distant. Some 200 km to the south, the open site of Karim Shahir is contem-
porary with Shanidar Cave B1 and Zawi Chemi Shanidar on the basis of the material culture assemblages (Howe
1983). Pits and working surfaces were excavated, along with clay fragments perhaps from dismantled structures,
and one pit was coated with red pigment and contained a single small figurine. Lithic tool production took place
at the site and the main diet elements were wild goat/sheep plus multiple other items including boar, deer and
cattle as well as freshwater clam and land snail.
In sum, the Younger Dryas sites of the western lower Zagros in Iraq indicate seasonally dispersed occupation of
the foothill regions, with an emphasis on hunting locally available wild goat and sheep while continuing the trend
we identified in the Epipalaeolithic (Chapter 4) of expanding their diet to include smaller items such as crab, clams
and land snail. Beyond diet and subsistence, however, there are several characteristics of these Zagros foothill sites
that mark them as significant staging posts on the long trajectory from Palaeolithic to Neolithic, from Pleistocene
to Holocene and from mobile hunter–gatherer to sedentary herder-farmer. Firstly, there is a notable elaboration of
material culture, in the form a widening range of ground stone tools and of bone tools as well. Many of these new
tools, which appear to relate to plant and pigment processing, are large and heavy – attachment to material culture
may begin to be associated with attachment to place. Secondly, a related point is that we start to have evidence for
the construction of shelters or basic buildings, using dry stone, reused stone tools and probably wattle and daub as
well. As yet we are not sure what people were doing in these buildings but again they can be seen as materialising
a growing attachment to place that may be interpreted as the first stages towards sedentarisation. Thirdly, we have
evidence for increased concern with body adornment in the form of beads and use of red and yellow pigments,
but also the new fashion for cranial modification in the form of head binding. As we shall see, cranial modification
becomes a major feature of the Iranian Neolithic (Lorentz 2010). Fourthly, we have evidence for the significance
of what may loosely be termed cultic or ritual behaviour, in the form of the animal skulls and large bird wings
from Zawi Chemi Shanidar. These attributes of the Younger Dryas sites of the lower Zagros can be interpreted
as hints and previews of what was to come during the full Neolithic millennia to follow.
To the northwest of Iran, significant cultural and social developments were also underway in the Taurus moun-
tains and foothills of south-eastern Turkey, where sites such as Hallan Çemi, Çayönü and Körtik Tepe all reveal
increasing elaboration of material culture, architecture, economy, cultic and social life through at least the latter
centuries of the Younger Dryas (Özdoğan et al. 2011), culminating in the spectacular floruit of the cultic centre
of Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2012).
Outside the central Zagros region in Iran, recent explorations of cave sites in the Bolaghi valley and the Arsan-
jan region in the southern Zagros provide convincing evidence for occupation spanning much of the Epipalaeo-
lithic-Neolithic transition (Table 5.1) (Tsuneki et al. 2007; Tsuneki and Zeidi 2008; Tsuneki 2013). The Bolaghi
valley is over 1800 m above sea level, therefore very much in the high Zagros. Excavations in Haji Bahrami
Cave (also called TB75) revealed levels of Epipalaeolithic and so-called Proto-Neolithic date, spanning approxi-
mately 15,000 to 7500 BC. Phases 3 and 4 are dated to c. 10,000–7400 BC, thus including occupation during the
late Younger Dryas. The nearby cave site of TB130 also contained levels dated to c. 10,000–7400 BC. The lithic
assemblages from these levels match well with those from Karim Shahir and the Iraqi lowland site of M’lefaat,
with development of the new techniques of micro-blade production from “bullet” cores and pressure flaking
that become so characteristic of Neolithic chipped stone technology (Hildebrand 1996; Ohnuma 2008; Nishiaki
2016, 2018; Thomalsky 2016). A series of radiocarbon dates suggests that “prehistoric people used the caves of
the Bolaghi valley repeatedly but intermittently from the final phases of the Pleistocene to the beginning of
Holocene periods” (Tsuneki 2013: 90). Large numbers of animal bones from Haji Bahrami Cave indicate a
significant increase from Epipalaeolithic to “Proto-Neolithic” in the proportions of sheep and goat from
c. 17% to c. 46% (Hongo and Mashkour 2008). This evidence may suggest a trend towards herding of animals
that were still morphologically wild, but which were in fact under human management and well on the way to
domestication.
Finally, cave sites close to the southern shores of the Caspian Sea provide evidence of occupation through the
Younger Dryas, including Komishan Cave in Mazandaran (Mashkour et al. 2010; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2011,
2019b; Jayez and Vahdati Nasab 2016; Leroy et al. 2019) and Hotu and Ali Tappeh Caves (McBurney 1968;
Harris and Coolidge 2010: 55–57; Gregg and Thornton 2012). There are therefore several major regions of Iran
and neighbouring countries with good evidence for at least episodic occupation by human groups through much
of the Younger Dryas, with some indication of differing trajectories of material and economic life in the different
regions: a focus on wild goat hunting in the central Zagros, on sheep and goat herding in the southern Zagros,
and on seal and gazelle exploitation on the Caspian shores. As the climate rapidly ameliorated at the end of the
Younger Dryas from c. 9600 BC, with a return to warmer, wetter weather, the pace of change in human societies
and their interactions with the diverse flourishing environments around them began to increase.
In our discussion below, we treat the Neolithic of Iran in three major sections, broadly corresponding with
Mary Voigt’s definitions of Neolithic 1–3 (Voigt 1987: 624–625). In the first section, our attention is on the ear-
liest Neolithic, c. 9600–7000 BC, which in our present state of knowledge means a strong focus on the central
Table 5.1 Prehistoric cultural phases of Tang-e Bolaghi based on lithic assemblages (after Tsuneki 2013: table 7.1)
Phase Haji Bahrami Cave (TB75) TB130 Cave Period Dates cal BC
Phase 5 Trench B, layer 2 Trench E, layers 2, 1 Proto-Neolithic/ ?

Aceramic Neolithic
Phase 4 Trench D, layer 3 Trench D, layer 3 Proto-Neolithic 7600–7400
Trench C, layer 3
Phase 3 Trench B, layer 3 Trench B, layer 4 Proto-Neolithic 10,000–8300
Trench D, layer 4
Trench C, layer 4
Phase 2 Trench D, layer 5 Late Zarzian 13,000–12,000
Phase 1 Trench D, layer 6 Zarzian 18,000–17,500
Zagros of western Iran, home to many of the wild progenitors of the plant and animal species first domesticated
in the Neolithic (Willcox 2012). The second section considers the evidence for early dispersals of Neolithic life-
ways outward across Iran in the millennium from c. 7500 BC, treating in turn the regions of the south-central
Zagros, Fars, eastern and north-eastern Iran, north-western Iran and the central plateau. The final section dis-
cusses the last millennium or so of Iran’s Neolithic, c. 6500–5200 BC, evaluating the evidence from all regions of
Iran and situating it within a broader context of Neolithic developments in adjacent regions.
A formative zone: the Early Neolithic of the Zagros, 9800–7000 BC

Once more the Zagros region of western Iran is of fundamental importance, and recent work has shed new light
on this region in the Early Neolithic, overturning earlier suggestions that the high Zagros valleys may have been
“slightly too high to have been in the optimum part of the environmental zone for utilization, by incipient agri-
culturalists, of the potential plant and animal domesticates” (Braidwood et al. 1961: 2009). In particular, ongoing
research has shown that a posited 2000-year gap in the occupation of the Zagros starting from c. 10,000 BC (Hole
1996; Bernbeck 2001; Darabi 2012) can be shortened to a few centuries at most of the early Younger Dryas. The new
evidence comes from a suite of excavated sites in the central and south-central Zagros, including Sheikh-e Abad, Jani,
Kelek Asad Morad, East Chia Sabz and Chogha Golan, which we here examine alongside the previously excavated
sites of Asiab, Ganj Dareh and Guran. There is also increasing Early Neolithic evidence from surveyed regions across
the central Zagros region (Mohammadifar and Motarjem 2008; Heydarian and Ghorbani 2016; Mansouri and Man-
souri 2016), augmented by evidence for the potential burial of Early Neolithic sites under Holocene alluvial deposits
(Alibaigi and Salimiyan 2020).
The oldest amongst the excavated sites is the mound of Sheikh-e Abad, where radiocarbon dates span c. 9800
to c. 7600 BC from the base of the mound to its summit (Matthews et al. 2013a; Darabi 2015: 64–67). The mound
thus comprises a superb intact sequence, over 10 m in total depth, through almost the entire Early Neolithic of
Iran, with no evidence for occupation of the Later (Ceramic) Neolithic period. Sheikh-e Abad is located on the
fertile Dinavar plain at 1425 m above sea level with surrounding peaks above 3,000 m (Figure 5.5). The lower-
most trench, Trench 1, at Sheikh-e Abad contained layers of ash, lying directly on natural, with bone, lithics and
charred plant remains. Radiocarbon dates from this trench, which agree with the stratigraphy, span c. 9800–9250
BC, indicating a long period during which episodic visits were made to the site but with some evidence for dis-
mantled architecture and hearths. Half-way up the mound, in Trench 2, hardened working surfaces and ash and
debris from food preparation and cooking with fire-cracked stones indicate a more substantial presence. Archi-
tecture of rammed earth or chineh was excavated close to the mound’s summit in Trench 3 (Figure 5.6), including
a one-room structure with a T-shaped plan and a distinctive deposit of large wild goat and sheep skulls carefully
placed in two pairs with the sheep skull in the middle at the back and some traces of red pigment, plus a wing-
bone from a large bird such as a crane on the floor at one end of the room (Figure 5.7). This structure, which
may have been a small shrine or room for display of hunting trophies, is radiocarbon dated to c. 7600 BC. Its
uppermost floor was covered in a thin lens of scattered charred plant material and flecks of red pigment. Adjacent
to the east is a multi-roomed rectilinear structure (W. Matthews 2018: 76–77).
Figure 5.5 The Early Neolithic mound of Sheikh-e Abad on the Dinavar Plain (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 5.6 S heikh-e Abad Trench 3 architecture (Matthews et al. 2013a: Figure 4.18).
There is extensive evidence for herbivore dung, burnt and unburnt, in Trenches 2 and 3 at Sheikh-e Abad but
not in Trench 1 where charred wood is abundant, which may indicate that wood was the major fuel in the early
phase of occupation prior to a shift to animal dung as fuel from c. 8000 BC (W. Matthews 2013b: 100). This shift
in fuel preference may relate to a degradation of the wooded environs of the site through over-exploitation by hu-
mans and human-protected animals, goat above all. Stratified lenses of non-burnt herbivore dung within partly
walled spaces in Trench 3 at Sheikh-e Abad are strongly suggestive of management and penning of herbivores,
almost certainly goat and perhaps sheep. The faunal assemblage is dominated by goat with sheep, red deer, cattle
and smaller game also represented (Bendrey et al. 2013). Although morphologically wild, the goat and perhaps
sheep appear to have been under close human management by the end of the occupation at Sheikh-e Abad in the
mid-eighth millennium BC, as attested by penning deposits.
Omnivore coprolites, at least some of which are human, were also found, in one case in a probable latrine
(Shillito et al. 2013). At the nearby Neolithic sites of Asiab and Sarab, Braidwood identified thousands of probable
human coprolites, which have never received study (Braidwood 1960: 695). Their potential for providing insights
into diet and environment is immense. Six human burials in Trench 3 at Sheikh-e Abad were probably interred
through the floors of architecture that has since been eroded off the mound’s summit. There are traces of matting
and red pigment with several of the burials. Tooth wear patterns are suggestive of a hunter–gatherer diet rather
than a farmer–herder diet (Cole 2013).
Charred wood at Sheikh-e Abad comes in particular from pistachio and shrubs, and nuts and reeds/sedges are
also well attested, which suggests that the region was not as cold and dry as the Lake Zeribar core evidence indicates
(W. Matthews 2013b: 99). The charred archaeobotanical assemblage is dominated by Gramineae (grasses) and Le-
guminosae (legumes) (Whitlam et al. 2013). Occasional examples of domestic type barley grain were recovered from
Trenches 2 and 3 but not from Trench 1, attesting cultivation of a domesticated crop package at the site by c. 8000
BC possibly introduced from outside (Whitlam et al. 2018). The dominance of wild grasses and scarcity of cereals
prior to then is supported by the phytolith evidence (Shillito and Elliott 2013). Charred rodent pellets and evidence
for pest damage on legumes are indicators of storage within the settlement at least from Trench 2. Fruits and nuts are
also well attested, and there is evidence in Trench 2 for consumption of land snail in large quantities (Shillito 2013).
Figure 5.7 Sheikh-e Abad Trench 3 skulls, deposit of wild goat and sheep (Matthews et al. 2013a: Figure 4.29) (photo credit:
Roger Matthews).
The material culture of Sheikh-e Abad is modest but distinctive. There is a wide range of bone tools, as well
as objects of unfired clay and stone, although the ground stone industry is minimalist (Cole et al. 2013). There
are also small clay “tokens” comparable to those previously found at Asiab and Sarab, which may have been used
in simple accounting or recording exercises or in games (Schmandt-Besserat 1992; Bennison-Chapman 2019).
Only one small human figurine was found at Sheikh-e Abad so far. Lacking from the small find assemblages
in all trenches is any evidence for long-distance interaction – the chipped stone assemblage lacks a single piece
of obsidian and there are no imported semi-precious stones or copper alloy fragments nor seashells. Lithic tools
are almost exclusively blades and bladelets with some sickle blades and borers (Figure 5.8) (Vahdati Nasab et al.
2013b). The material culture is rooted in the local environment and is suggestive of a deeply situated community
of people maximising their use of the full range of proximate resources, animate and inanimate.
The results from Sheikh-e Abad are reinforced by evidence from the mound of Jani near Islamabad-e Gharb
(Abdi 2003b; Matthews et al. 2013a; W. Matthews et al. 2013b, 2019; Darabi 2015: 67–68). Jani is located at 1280
m above sea level in the warmer, lower Zagros as compared to Sheikh-e Abad. Investigation of a 60 m-long sec-
tion through the mound (Figure 5.9) detected a shift from probably periodic occupation, with much burning and
cooking, to more permanent occupation with plastered fire installations and impressive architecture constructed of
“boat-shaped” bricks with fine white plaster floor sequences. The middle deposits at Jani are radiocarbon dated to
c. 8000 BC, but the site is certainly occupied much earlier than that. Animal bones from Jani include remains of
goat, sheep, red deer, tortoise and fish (Bendrey et al. 2013: 151). Evidence for animal penning or dung collection
and use as fuel comes from levels dated to c. 8000 BC (W. Matthews 2013b).
Located approximately midway between Sheikh-e Abad and Jani on an alluvial terrace of the Qara Su river,
and at 1304 m above sea level, the flat site of Asiab comprises extensive midden-like deposits, the major excavated
feature being a large circular structure, 10 m in diameter, which appears to have served as a semi-subterranean
communal facility with plastered floors and traces of pisé walls (Figure 5.10) (Braidwood et al. 1961; Howe 1983:
115–117; Darabi 2015: 29–31; Darabi et al. 2018b, 2019; Richter et al. 2021). One depressed area of flooring was
Figure 5.8 Sheikh-e Abad chipped stone tools (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013b: Figure 9.14).
Figure 5.9 A natomy of a Neolithic mound: 60 m-long section at Jani, Islamabad-e Gharb (photo and drawing: Roger Matthews
and Wendy Matthews).
painted red and adorned by a single cattle horn. In the centre of the structure was a large pit containing the
carefully arranged skulls of at least 19 wild boars, one brown bear skull plus antler from red deer, clearly a ritual
deposit perhaps associated with feasting (Bangsgaard et al. 2019). Subsequently, the circular feature was filled with
layers of ash and sequences of hearths, and within the fill there were two human burials, one sprinkled with red
pigment. Large quantities of apparently human coprolites suggest that at least part of the large feature was used as
a latrine at some stage. The lithics from Asiab are mainly chert blades, bladelets and scrapers, knapped on site in
very large quantities. The rare obsidian pieces are probably intrusive from upper, later levels, and there are basic
ground stone tools. Clay tokens, including cones and spheres, as well as animal figurines also occur. Radiocarbon
dates for Asiab indicate occupation of the site at c. 9750–9300 BC (Zeder 2006a: 193–194; Bangsgaard et al. 2019;
Darabi et al. 2019: 49), thus contemporary with some of the earliest occupation at Sheikh-e Abad and probably
with lower levels of Jani too.
Evidence for human diet at Asiab is distinctive, with massive quantities of freshwater clam (Unio tigridis sp.),
gathered from the nearby Qara Su along with freshwater crab and a range of fish. Clam would have been a sea-
sonally harvested resource that may have been the major attractant for human groups to settle at the site seasonally
over long periods. Hunted animals comprise, in order of frequency, red deer, goat, pig, sheep, badger, red fox,
hare and cattle, with many other species including a range of birds attested in small quantities (Bökönyi 1977).
Bökönyi’s (1977: 16–22) argument that goat at Asiab were domesticated was based on the morphology of a few
horn cores and on the high frequency of adult male bones in the assemblage. Zeder by contrast sees the high pro-
portions of adult male goats at Asiab, attested by high frequency of fused long bones, as indicative of “a hunting
strategy that seeks to optimize short-term off-take by preying on animals with the greatest amount of meat per
Figure 5.10 A siab: plan and photogrammetry model of the communal structure (Bangsgaard et al. 2019: Figure 2) (image courtesy
of Hojjat Darabi and Tobias Richter).
individual” (Zeder 2006a: 198). Hesse (1982: 413) proposes that the Asiab goat kill-off patterns indicate seasonal
hunting of so-called bachelor herds of wild goat, which gather only in the spring, at the same time as large-scale
clam availability. Rutting herds of male and female adults plus kids would also be hunted in the autumn. Goat
hunting must have taken place at some distance from the site itself as bachelor herds dwell in the high mountains
well above the plain on which Asiab is situated. Further evidence for seasonality of occupation at Asiab is pro-
vided by the bird bones of migratory species, such as corn crake. In sum, Bökönyi (1972) suggests that occupation
at Asiab took place during February to April and occasionally also over winter from August to April. Plant re-
mains are dominated by small-seeded grasses with some wild barley and wheat, with no evidence for cultivation.
Charcoal suggests a woodland-steppe environment featuring pistachio and almond (Darabi et al. 2019: 49).
Clustering of Early Neolithic sites is suggested through intensive survey of the Sarfirouzabad plain in south
Kermanshah province, which has detected three Early Neolithic sites, all situated with access to multiple ecolog-
ical zones, as well as 15 sites with Neolithic ceramics. One of the sites, Chia Chakmagho, continued in occupa-
tion into the Later Neolithic (Niknami and Nikzad 2012; Niknami et al. 2013). Other potential Early Neolithic
central Zagros sites, about which we know very little, include Sarab-e Qareh Daneh on the Kuzaran plain 70
km northwest of Kermanshah (summarised in Darabi 2015: 121–124; Bahrami and Abbasnejad Seresti 2017) and
Tappeh Qazanchi in the Razavar valley where excavations have investigated levels of later ninth millennium BC
date (Mashkour et al. 2021).
Our understanding of the central Zagros Early Neolithic is enhanced by the small mound of Ganj Dareh
(Figure 5.11) (Smith 1968, 1972, 1976, 1990; Darabi 2015: 31–37; Darabi et al. 2019), at 1,400 m above sea level
and part of a cluster of small Neolithic sites in the region west of Harsin including Ghenil, Qasemi and Qala Ka-
mand Bagh (Smith and Mortensen 1980). Again, issues of goat exploitation and early steps towards domestication
have been to the fore. Ganj Dareh appears to have been occupied for at least several centuries around 8200–7600
BC (Zeder and Hesse 2000; Zeder 2006a: 193–194; Meiklejohn et al. 2017; Darabi et al. 2019: 52), contempo-
rary with Jani and upper levels at Sheikh-e Abad. The earliest occupation at Ganj Dareh, in level E, consists of
Figure 5.11 Ganj Dareh, view of site (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
multiple fire pits cut into natural soil, their ashy fill containing fire-cracked stones, animal bones, clay tokens
and figurines and chipped stone debitage of locally available radiolarian chert with no obsidian (Nishiaki 2016;
Thomalsky 2016). In all levels at Ganj Dareh, the lithic technology involves bladelet production through pres-
sure-flaking of cores in the so-called M’lefaatian tradition (Kozlowski 1999) with considerable evidence also for
percussion flaking. Tools comprise backed points, borers, scrapers and sickle blades of two distinct types. Traces
of sickle sheen on blades increase in frequency in the upper levels of occupation. The level E evidence suggested
a repeated seasonal presence at the site by small numbers of people, without permanent architectural traces. The
Ganj Dareh level E material is augmented by the briefly excavated nearby sites of Ghenil, Qasemi and Qala
Kamand Bagh (Smith and Mortensen 1980; Meiklejohn et al. 1992), all of which comprise ashy deposits rich in
animal bones, land snails, clams, lithics without obsidian and, at Ghenil, two human burials, one with cranial
modification, and all apparently of Early Neolithic date. Taken together, the sites of Ganj Dareh level E, Ghenil,
Qasemi and Qala Kamand Bagh suggest a significant Early Neolithic presence within a single valley system.
Increased evidence for the house mouse (Mus musculus) in levels above level E at Ganj Dareh, may indicate a
transition from seasonal to year-round human presence by the early eighth millennium BC (Hesse 1979). Over-
lying level E, levels D-A comprise significant architecture constructed of mudbrick and chineh (Figure 5.12)
(Smith 1990). Buildings in irregular formations have generally small rooms, sometimes connected by “portholes”
of unclear function, with thin fragile walls supported by makeshift buttresses with little evidence for planning.
Goat and sheep horns and skulls are fitted into niches in what may be ritual adornment or trophy display. In Ganj
Dareh level D vessels made of chaff-tempered, lightly fired clay were found in small storage rooms (Smith and
Crépeau 1983; Smith 1990; Le Mière and Picon 1998; Petrie 2012: 282; Bernbeck 2017). It seems probable, how-
ever, that these containers were originally of unfired clay accidently burnt during an intense fire that affected the
whole village in level D (Yelon et al. 1992). More convincing early ceramics, baked over open fires, come from
levels C-A at Ganj Dareh, and the presence of kilns for preparation of lime in levels D-A indicates a sophisticated
awareness of the transformative powers of fire and heat (Mortensen 2011). There are also large quantities of ani-
mal figurines and other baked clay objects, especially from level D, including so-called “gashed clay cones” found
at several upland sites of the Zagros (Broman Morales and Smith 1990; Eygun 1992; Daems 2008; Richardson
2020). Anthropomorphic figurines take the form of basic squatting figures either female or without clear sexual
characteristics (Daems 2001: 3, 2004: 5–7).
Zeder and Hesse’s study of the Ganj Dareh goats, representing 89% of the faunal remains, has established that
early stages of the domestication process were well underway by the early eighth millennium BC, attested above
all by selected culling of sub-adult male goats from level D upwards and probably in level E too (Hesse 1978,
1982; Zeder and Hesse 2000; Zeder 2001, 2006a). Goat genomes from Ganj Dareh and Abdul Hosein indicate
genetic distinction of managed goats from wild populations as early as 8200 BC, well prior to the development
of morphological characteristics of domestication (Daly et al. 2021). Furthermore, the kill-off patterns plus im-
pressions of hoof-prints in mudbricks suggest human control over herds of goat, before morphological changes
in body size and horn shape have begun to manifest themselves in the archaeozoological assemblages. The Ganj
Dareh goat evidence nicely complements the penning and dung evidence from Sheikh-e Abad, dated to ear-
ly-mid eighth millennium BC, making a strong case for behavioural domestication of goats by humans prior to
Figure 5.12 Ganj Dareh level D, plan of architecture (after Smith 1990: Figure 1).
8000 BC. Hesse (1984: 260–261) has argued for the importance of goat dung as a cooking and heating fuel in the
human drive to control and eventually domesticate herds of goat. He proposes the “socialization of wild herds”
perhaps through targeted provision of salt licks. Sheep, cattle, deer and pig were hunted but not domesticated
through the lifespan of the Ganj Dareh settlement. Large quantities of chukar partridge amongst the faunal re-
mains indicate intensive use of this species in the Ganj Dareh diet.
Regarding plant exploitation, the people of Ganj Dareh utilised domesticated two-row hulled barley (Hordeum
distichum) in increasing amounts through levels E to A (van Zeist et al. 1984; Darabi et al. 2019: 51). Of special
note are finds of some 50 special Y-shaped tools made from goat or deer scapulae that appear to have been used
to separate grain from harvested stands (Stordeur and Anderson-Gerfaud 1985). Wild legumes and nuts such as
pistachio and almond also occur and there are significant quantities of wood charcoal including pistachio, hack-
berry and poplar. Chemical analysis of human skeletons indicates a strong focus on a meat diet rather than con-
sumption of plant resources (Schoeninger 1981). Human burials, adult and infant, occur in large numbers at Ganj
Dareh, up to 116 individuals and generally inserted under house floors in levels D-A, including a burial of three
individuals inside a clay container (Smith 1976: 17; Meiklejohn et al. 1980, 2017; Merrett 2004). The demographic
make-up of the Ganj Dareh human remains includes large numbers of infants less than three years old plus older
adults, with an overall mortality profile “similar to those in modern developing countries” (Merrett 2004: 223)
and considerable evidence for dietary stress and a range of pathologies. Analysis of aDNA of an adult female from
Ganj Dareh suggests a possible genetic contribution from early farmers of the high Zagros to the first farming
communities of South Asia (Gallego-Llorente et al. 2016; see also Broushaki et al. 2016), while stable isotope
analysis hints at possible mobility of at least a component of the human population (Merrett et al. 2021). There is
extensive evidence for deliberate skull shaping on both male and female skulls (Lambert 1979; Meiklejohn et al.
1992; Daems and Croucher 2007; Lorentz 2010: 134) and for secondary reburial. Child burials were set into wall
niches and more often than adults accompanied by modest grave goods.
As at Sheikh-e Abad, the complete absence of obsidian and of any other imported exotica at Ganj Dareh indi-
cates a community at home in its local vicinity and dedicated to the pursuit of, and subsequently the penning and
taming of, the rich protein resources represented by the abundant herds of goat in their surroundings. In living
this way, the inhabitants of the high Zagros were continuing age-old traditions, stretching well back into even the
Middle Palaeolithic, of focusing their hunting efforts and their diet on the richly available edible resources of
the region, goat above all. That this lifestyle was to lead to the earliest domestication of goat is unlikely to have
been an intention on the part of the people of Ganj Dareh, but its consequences were of huge impact. Once pro-
tected by human herders and provided by them with every assistance in breeding, birthing and feeding, herds
of goat could thrive and spread into ecological zones previously too dangerous for them to exploit. With the
proto-domesticated goats of Sheikh-e Abad and Ganj Dareh, the human–animal partnership had entered a new
phase with ultimately global significance.
Still in the high central Zagros, at 1860 m above sea level, the site of Abdul Hosein was excavated in 1978
(Figure 5.13) (Pullar 1975, 1977, 1990; Darabi 2015: 50–52). Radiocarbon dates indicate basal occupation around
8200–7800 BC (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 159; Darabi 2015: 52; Broushaki et al. 2016; Daly et al. 2018), overlap-
ping with that at Ganj Dareh and Sheikh-e Abad. As at those sites, the earliest evidence at Abdul Hosein is in
the form of pits dug into natural soil with extensive ash deposits and cooking remains in the form of charred
wood and nuts, fire-cracked stones and animal bones. Upper levels have more substantial mudbrick and chineh
architecture (Figure 5.14), including hearths with multiple re-plasterings, interpreted as attesting a development
from seasonal to year-round occupation at the site. Obsidian, absent in the lowest levels, starts to feature in small
quantities originating from Nemrut Dağ sources in eastern Anatolia. The suite of plant remains from the site
includes domesticated two-row hulled barley (Hordeum distichum), emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) and rare lentils
(Lens culinaris), perhaps brought to the site in domesticated form (Hubbard 1990: 220). Charred wood comes from
Figure 5.13 A
bdul Hosein, view of site (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 5.14 A
bdul Hosein, aceramic Neolithic architecture (after Pullar 1990: Figure 19).
pistachio, almond, tamarisk and willow, all used for fuel and also in architecture (Willcox 1990). Oak is notably
absent from the charcoal record. The chipped stone industry, almost entirely of chert, comprises the conventional
toolkit of the Zagros Early Neolithic: blades, bladelets, scrapers and borers, often knapped from bullet cores.
Sickle blades are common. Other forms of material culture at Abdul Hosein include basic ground stone and
worked bone and antler tools, clay figurines of animals and rarely humans, conical clay tokens and assorted shell
and bone beads. Tools and objects are made from bones of goat, sheep, gazelle, boar and wolf or leopard. Pre-
liminary analysis of the faunal remains (Daly et al. 2018, 2021) indicates dominance of wild and managed goat.
Early Neolithic human burials at Abdul Hosein are intriguing in their nature and positioning. One adult fe-
male was buried with a foetus under a plastered floor and a large stone bowl placed beside her head, while in the
same building a crouched human burial was crammed into an erstwhile doorway and plastered over (Pullar 1990:
10, pls. 3–4). Another adult appears to have been buried in a slumped squatting position along with the scapula of
a cow (Pullar 1990: 10, pl. 14 top), and a group of four individuals, two adult and two infants, were either killed
and buried by roof collapse (Pullar 1990: 10, pl. 12) or may have been inserted into the fill of an abandoned build-
ing. In any case, the intricate association of human burials with architectural spaces is a dominant feature of the
Early Neolithic of the Zagros and likely indicates a developing concern over ownership of space and increasing
attachment to architectural place. As at Ganj Dareh, a significant proportion of the Abdul Hosein adult skulls,
probably all male, show evidence for deliberate headshaping but in a form much more pronounced than at Ganj
Dareh and that would have been clearly visible, indeed striking, in vivo (Lorentz 2008: 296–297, 2010: 134–135,
Figure 9.5, 2017). This pattern is in contrast to the headshaping attested at Ganj Dareh where both males and
females display circumferential shaping. Analysis of aDNA from three of the Abdul Hosein individuals suggests
that early farmers in this region were descended from local hunter–gatherer populations, distinct from those of
other regions of Southwest Asia, and deriving from “the earliest known Eurasian population branching event”
estimated at 46,000–77,000 years ago (Broushaki et al. 2016: 503).
Our knowledge of Early Neolithic life in the central Zagros has been substantially augmented in recent years
by ongoing investigations at the sites of East Chia Sabz and Chogha Golan. Occupied from c. 8500 BC until up to
7000 BC, East Chia Sabz is situated in the Seimarreh river valley of the west central Zagros at an altitude of 662
m above sea level (Figure 5.15) (Darabi et al. 2011, 2013; Darabi 2015; Nishiaki and Darabi 2018). It is important
to note that the Qara Su river adjacent to Asiab and close to other Early Neolithic sites of the Kermanshah region,
flows into the Seimarreh river and that communications between these contemporary communities of the Zagros
would have been quite straightforward. Architecture at East Chia Sabz is largely of stone with paved floors in
small rooms. Ground stone tools and stone vessels on floors (Figure 5.16) indicate food processing and consump-
tion within the rooms. Chipped stone tools include blades, bladelets and borers, relatively rare sickle blades, and
very small quantities of Nemrut Dağ obsidian occurring in the upper levels (Darabi and Glascock 2013; Khazaee
et al. 2014; Nishiaki and Darabi 2018). The majority of tools were manufactured from chert sources within 10–15
km of the site and from local riverbed nodules (Nezafati and Hessari 2016). The faunal assemblage is dominated
by sheep and goat, with sheep more than twice as common as goat and an emphasis on slaughter of younger an-
imals. Fish and birds are also represented. Amongst the plant remains there are pulses and large-seeded grasses.
A size increase through time in wild barley grains at East Chia Sabz is taken to indicate intensive cultivation at
Figure 5.15 East Chia Sabz, view of site (photo credit: Hojjat Darabi).
Figure 5.16 East Chia Sabz, stone vessels (after Darabi et al. 2011: Figure 9).
about 8000 BC (Riehl et al. 2012). Human burials at East Chia Sabz consist of two flexed individuals with grave
goods of beads and stone tools.
Brief investigations at Kelek Asad Morad in the Pol-e Dokhtar region of Luristan have revealed Early Ne-
olithic occupation dated to c. 8400–8250 BC (Moradi et al. 2016). The site is located at the intersection of the
Seimarreh and Kashkan rivers at 800 m above sea level. Lithics comprise mainly pressure-flaked blades and asso-
ciated bullet cores along with a few pieces of obsidian from the Nemrut Dağ source in eastern Turkey, amongst
the earliest Neolithic obsidian in the central Zagros region (Barge et al. 2018; Roustaei and Gratuze 2020). Faunal
remains are dominated by goat and then sheep, the goat identifiable as both wild and domestic. Gazelle and on-
ager remains indicate a local steppe environment.
At the western limits of the central Zagros, close to the Mesopotamian plains of eastern Iraq, the mound of
Chogha Golan sits close to the bank of the Konjan Cham river at an altitude of 485 m above sea level (Figure
5.17) (Darabi and Fazeli 2009; Zeidi et al. 2012; Conard et al. 2013b). Radiocarbon dates show occupation at
Chogha Golan between c. 9750 and 7650 BC (Riehl et al. 2013: Figure 2, 2015: Table 1), exactly matching the
duration of occupation at Sheikh-e Abad. The site is large, at 3 ha, and comprises some 8 m accumulation of Early
Neolithic deposits. Its location between the very early sites of the high Zagros, discussed above, and the later
sites of the low Zagros, discussed below, suggests a potential significance for Chogha Golan in the transmission
of practices, and perhaps of people, animals and plants, from the highlands to the lowlands in the initial spread
of Neolithic life-ways.
Architecture at Chogha Golan includes chineh and mudbrick structures with plastered floors and in situ mortars.
Figurines of animals and humans, conical clay tokens, stone vessels, and pendants of bone and shell are commonly
found. Very small quantities of green obsidian are found in the upper layers amongst the extensive chipped stone
Figure 5.17 Chogha Golan, views of site and figurines (photo credit: Nicholas Conard).
assemblage that is dominated by bladelet-based tools (Zeidi et al. 2012: 262; Zeidi and Conard 2013), and there is a
wide range of ground stone tools including mortars, pestles and pounders (Figure 5.18) (Conard and Zeidi 2013).
The plant remains show a shifting emphasis through time from goat grass (Aegilops sp.) to cultivated wild barley
(Hordeum spontaneum) followed by emmer cultivation (Riehl et al. 2012, 2013, 2015; Conard et al. 2013b: 79). Bases
of domesticated-type emmer wheat spikelets (Triticum dicoccum) appear from c. 7800 BC and have been suggested
as indicating early management of domesticated species (Riehl et al. 2013, 2015; Willcox 2013; Weide et al. 2015,
2017). This well-stratified evidence, although from a trench only 1 m 2 in area, suggests the possibility that intensi-
fication of cereal exploitation, leading to morphologically visible domestication, occurred locally within the Early
Neolithic communities of the Zagros rather than being an import from the western end of the Fertile Crescent, as
has been argued (Bar-Yosef 1998) but much further evidence is required on this important issue. Eleni Asouti (2017:
38) doubts that the available evidence from Chogha Golan convincingly demonstrates “the local independent devel-
opment of phenotypically domesticated crop taxa,” but rather sees it as showing variable intensities of plant manage-
ment strategies through time. Animal remains from Chogha Golan include sheep-goat, wild boar, gazelle, equids,
red deer, cattle, rodents and freshwater shells (Zeidi et al. 2012: 263; Riehl et al. 2015). Charred wood remains show
persistent use of pistachio and almond woods throughout the site’s occupation (Riehl et al. 2015).
The importance of the western slopes and plains of the central Zagros in Early Neolithic developments is
further underlined by the discovery of two sites, to the southeast of Chogha Golan, on the Mehran plain at
300–485 m above sea level (Darabi and Fazeli 2009). Located close to two seasonal streams, Fasil is a 3 ha spread
of aceramic material including classic Early Neolithic chipped stone tools, while Choga Khulaman yielded much
ground stone and some obsidian, which might suggest a slightly later date within the Early Neolithic. Directly to
the north, the site of Bar-e Palang also seems to possess significant levels of Early Neolithic date (Mansouri and
Mansouri 2016), while Holocene alluviation is likely to have buried Early Neolithic sites in other regions of the
western Zagros (Alibaigi and Salimiyan 2020). The significance of these sites, as with Chogha Golan, lies in their
location well outside the natural habitat of wild goat and sheep. Any exploitation of these animals in this region
would indicate their full domestication under human control.
Figure 5.18 Chogha Golan, ground stone tools (after Zeidi et al. 2012: figs 9–10).
Excavations at the site of Tepe Guran in the Hulailan valley of Luristan add to the picture of a marked tran-
sition from seasonal to year-round occupation by human communities at specific locales across the landscapes
of the central Zagros (Meldgaard et al. 1964; Mortensen 1972, 2012, 2014; Darabi 2015: 37–42). The mound is
at 950 m above sea level and its lowermost levels, V-T, are of late Early Neolithic date, c. 7200–7000 BC (Zeder
2006a: 195). Initial occupation at Guran consists once more of bands of ash and charcoal with open hearths and
evidence for sub-rectangular wooden structures. Chipped stone is common but obsidian is absent in the lower
levels, rising to 11% of the assemblage in upper levels. Winter-only occupation is suggested by extensive evidence
of migratory waterfowl such as goose, crane and stork, in the Early Neolithic levels (Mortensen 1972; Hole
1987b: 47). Upper levels, which date to the Late Neolithic, have more substantial architecture in the form of
houses built of chineh and mudbrick with red and white plaster and painted terrazzo floors, but there is possibly
a hiatus in occupation at Guran between the Early and Late Neolithic levels. Obsidian from Lake Van sources
is common in levels T and P (G. Wright 1969: 51). Undecorated early pottery is found in levels S-O (Bernbeck
2017). There appear to be domesticated goats in the Early Neolithic levels of the site, which may have been in-
troduced from elsewhere in the high Zagros (Flannery 2014). Notably, the later levels of occupation are marked
by an increased emphasis on hunting of wild animals, including gazelle, aurochs, boar and red deer, as well as
exploitation of domesticated two-row hulled barley, which Mortensen (1972) has argued as indicative of a devel-
opment from seasonal transhumance to permanent village life. Land snails are also common. A discrete deposi-
tion of human bones, including four skulls and limb bones, in a pit in the early levels at Guran suggests a form
of curation of human remains prior to final burial. Burials of the Late Neolithic levels at Guran take the typical
form of inhumations below house floors.
We have mentioned above the indications of long-term human activity in the cave sites of TB75 and TB130
in the Tang-e Bolaghi region of Fars in the southern Zagros, where phases 3–5 cover the period 10,000–7400
BC (Tsuneki 2013). This evidence has been interpreted to outline
a new schema for the neolithisation in this region: the people were more inclined towards herding than farm-
ing during the Proto-Neolithic period in the southern Zagros. If we consider the modern environment and
mode of subsistence around Tang-e Bolaghi, which is dominated by the sphere of activities and transhumance
of the nomadic people, the inclination towards herding in the Neolithic period seems quite understandable.
(Tsuneki 2013: 91)
Beyond the intensifying exploitation of animals in this region, plant use in the Early Neolithic focused on wild
legumes and nuts, with little evidence for cereals (Tanno 2008), and no traces of sickle sheen on the chipped stone
tools (Ohnuma 2008).
Close to the northwest, the small site of Rahmatabad, at 1775 m above sea level, has provided evidence for
Early Neolithic mound occupation in Fars (Figure 5.19) (Bernbeck et al. 2005, 2008; Azizi Kharanaghi et al.
2013, 2014; Weeks 2013a), with 2.5 m of aceramic deposits directly underlying Later Neolithic levels. As with
the central Zagros sites the earliest levels at Rahmatabad, radiocarbon dated to the mid-late eighth millennium
BC (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2013: 122, 2014a), consist of beaten surfaces and layers of ash without significant
Figure 5.19 R
ahmatabad, view of site (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2014a: Figure 3) (photo credit: Hosein Azizi Kharanaghi).
architectural evidence. The site of Toll-e Sangi (Figure 5.20) near Safa Shahr in Fars has also yielded convincing
evidence for Early Neolithic occupation in this region, dated to c. 7100–6800 BC, with early chaff-tempered
ceramics in upper levels. Features at Toll-e Sangi include stone and mudbrick architecture, red-stained plaster
floors, hearths and tools of chert and obsidian (Khanipour 2021).
While the early dates for Rahmatabad and Toll-e Sangi, taken alongside the Tang-e Bolaghi dates, allow for the
possibility of indigenous Neolithisation in Fars, the alternative scenario of a dispersal of Early Neolithic practices
to Fars from the central Zagros is likelier according to the earlier dates and evidence for goat herding, in particular,
from sites of the central Zagros. Barley and wheat are present in the Early Neolithic levels but with no indication
of local domestication, leading to the interpretation that “It is therefore likely that crops arrived at the site in an al-
ready domesticated form as a result of diffusion from other sites or regions” (Tengberg and Azizi Kharanaghi 2016:
144). Amongst the archaeobotanical remains from all the Neolithic levels at Rahmatabad there is a notable absence
of cultivated pulses, an attribute also noted at Later Neolithic sites of the Kur river basin and of north-eastern Iran
(Tengberg and Azizi Kharanaghi 2016). But wild, small-seeded legumes and wild grasses dominate the crop spec-
trum in the early levels at Rahmatabad, possibly from animal fodder, while cereals become more dominant into
the Later Neolithic (see below). Significant evidence for use of sedges (Cyperaceae) in the Early Neolithic but not the
Later Neolithic levels may suggest an increasingly arid environment around the site. Lithic assemblages in the earlier
levels of Rahmatabad are in the so-called Early M’lefaatian tradition with bullet-shaped cores produced through the
pressure technique, typical for the Zagros region at this time (Nishiaki 2018). Lithic scatters at sites such as Qal’at
Suragh in eastern Fars (Nikzad et al. 2018) are also indicators of an Early Neolithic presence in this region.
The central Zagros: core zone of Early Neolithic transformations

In sum, the Early Neolithic sites of the Zagros, especially in the central region, display many features in common,
as detailed above (Darabi 2015, 2016). In their lower levels they consist of stratified deposits of ash with charcoal
and fire-cracked stones, pits dug into natural soil, accumulations of animal bones, sequences of open hearths and
Figure 5.20 T
oll-e Sangi, view of site after excavation (Khanipour 2021: Figure 1) (photo credit: Morteza Khanipour).
traces of temporary wooden and plaster structures. Their material culture is rooted in locally available resources
such as wood, chert and bone with little evidence for interactions, directly or otherwise, with distant contem-
porary communities. Import of obsidian, for example, is only sparsely attested until after 8000 BC with import
from both Nemrut Dağ and Bingöl regions of eastern Anatolia often in association with use of white marble or
alabaster for manufacture of beads, vessels and bracelets (G. Wright 1969: 79; Barge et al. 2018). Judith Thomalsky
(2016: 177, Figure 10) points out that the location of Early Neolithic sites in western Iran is strongly associated
with the occurrence of outcrops of radiolarian chert and other cherts across the Zagros range used to manu-
facture stone tools with newly developed pressure-flaking techniques. Similarities in lithic tool manufacturing
techniques across the central Zagros region, and sometimes beyond, underpin significant levels of regional en-
gagement by at least some elements of society some of whom may have been specialised craft-workers (Kozlowski
1999; Nishiaki and Darabi 2018).
Also common to all the sites examined above is a trend through the Early Neolithic both towards increasing
complexity and elaboration in architecture, involving rectilinear, multi-roomed structures of both chineh and
mudbrick with plastered internal surfaces, suggesting a shift from seasonal to year-round occupation, and towards
increasing engagement with the wider world manifest in imported materials such as obsidian. Widespread use of
simple clay tokens, as attested at Sheikh-e Abad, Ganj Dareh and other sites, may be associated with an increas-
ing concern to record and control the agricultural economy (Ghahremaninejad et al. 2021), simple enjoyment of
games involving counters, or their use in ritual circumstances (Schmandt-Besserat 1992, 2018; Bennison-Chapman
2019; Palka 2020). The communities of the high Zagros were undergoing fundamental changes in their lifeways,
which would have a lasting impact not only on themselves but also on the environments around them and on the
subsequent human communities of Iran and beyond.
In the present state of knowledge, the central Zagros zone stakes a claim to primacy as a core region or “form-
ative zone” for the Early Neolithic (Özdoğan 2005; Helwing 2012, 2014), so that we may envisage practices
such as herding and penning of goat and intensified cultivation of barley as originating in that zone and spreading
outwards. The DNA evidence relating both to goat domestication (Luikart et al. 2006; Naderi et al. 2008; Pereira
and Amorim 2010; Daly et al. 2018, 2021) and to barley domestication (Morrell and Clegg 2007, 2011; Saisho
and Purugganan 2007; Lister et al. 2018) does not contradict an interpretation of Zagros primacy in the Neolithic
Transition, although it does suggest that other centres of early domestication were also involved (Willcox 2012,
2013). An increasing body of evidence renders invalid the so-called “Levantine primacy” paradigm, which ar-
gues for a late arrival from the west of Neolithic lifeways including domesticated crops (Bar-Yosef and Meadow
1995; Bar-Yosef 2011). A critical point here is that very early sites such as Sheikh-e Abad and Asiab are located
in the native habitat zones of the wild precursors of several plants and animals that became domesticated during
the Neolithic (goats, sheep, barley, emmer, lentils), an essential attribute for pristine domestication (Pullar 1977;
Zeder 2011; Arbuckle 2012, 2014; Willcox 2012).
Key to the debate on the earliest stages of animal domestication is the issue of pre-domestication man-
agement, culmination of a deep-time process of human-animal engagement rooted in previous millennia of
hunting that can be traced back into the Middle Palaeolithic. It is now recognised that human societies exer-
cised substantial control over certain animals, such as sheep and goat, without that control necessarily having
detectable impact on the zooarchaeological assemblages recovered from excavated sites (Zeder and Hesse 2000;
Zeder 2005, 2006a, 2011; Zeder et al. 2006; Arbuckle 2014). The widely accepted morphological attributes of
domestication, such as size decrease and changes in horn and cranial and dental proportions, appear to develop
significantly after animals have been brought under human control. In assemblages lacking these indicators, we
can investigate issues of animal management through kill-off patterns, where slaughter of surplus young males
as against hunting of large, meat-rich adults, may suggest a close degree of herd management (Arbuckle 2012).
Similarly, the presence of stratified deposits of animal dung may indicate penning of animals that are morpho-
logically wild, as at Early Neolithic Sheikh-e Abad where considerable deposits of herbivore dung, identified
through micromorphology and archaeometric analyses, suggest both penning of animals and deliberate col-
lection of animal dung for fuel by the late ninth millennium BC (W. Matthews 2013b: 99–101; Shillito et al.
2013). Whether a new emphasis on animal dung as fuel from c. 8000 BC is related to a diminishing woodland
resource, arguably caused by human over-exploitation of such resources, is at present unclear but serves as a
hypothesis for further investigation.
The fact that goat and sheep are the earliest animals, apart from dog and cat, to be fully domesticated is con-
nected to their social, gregarious nature, their hierarchical social structure allowing humans to usurp the herd-
leader role and their ability to consume a broad range of fodder types (Hole 1996; Driscoll et al. 2009). While
the earliest management of sheep (Ovis aries), derived from the wild Asiatic mouflon (Ovis orientalis), occurred
at the intersection of the Taurus-Zagros foothills in south-eastern Turkey and northern Iraq from the late tenth
millennium BC onwards, as attested at Hallan Çemi, Zawi Çemi Shanidar, Körtik Tepe and Çayönü, the inten-
sified management of sheep in the central Zagros is not attested until c. 7000 BC, as at Tepe Sarab, Tepe Guran
and Jarmo (Zeder 2008; Chessa et al. 2009; Arbuckle 2012: 203–204, 2014: 4–7).
More at home in the high Zagros of western Iran was the bezoar (Capra aegagrus), the wild progenitor of
domestic goats (Capra hircus). aDNA analyses suggest multiple wild founder populations across Southwest Asia,
including the high Zagros (Fernández et al. 2005; Luikart et al. 2006; Naderi et al. 2008; Pereira and Amorim
2010; Gerbault et al. 2012; Daly et al. 2018, 2021; Frantz et al. 2020). There is some evidence that even at the ear-
liest stages of management and domestication, human groups in Southwest Asia were differentially selecting for
piebald pigmentation in their newly herded goats, perhaps for aesthetic reasons or to enable ready identification
of animals within shared herds (Daly et al. 2018). It is not clear to what extent the native habitat of the bezoar
extended eastwards across Iran to reach the heights of the Alborz range, for example, a critical issue in establish-
ing the plausibility of independent goat domestication in regions of Iran outside the high Zagros, but the absence
of wild goat remains from Upper Palaeolithic sites of the Caspian region argues against their presence there (see
below). Within the Iranian Zagros the earliest management of goat is attested at Sheikh-e Abad, Ganj Dareh and
Abdul Hosein from before c. 8000 BC (Zeder and Hesse 2000; Bendrey et al. 2013; Daly et al. 2021), as discussed
above, with later spread to sites such as Bestansur in the Iraqi Zagros foothills to the west by c. 7600 BC (Bendrey
et al. 2020). The transition to intensive herding of goat and sheep as dominant modes of economic activity, how-
ever, was a slow and steady process that played out over centuries after their initial domestication. It is not until
the mid-later eighth millennium BC that we can detect the widespread adoption of goat and, later, sheep herding,
and their dominance over hunting, which may relate to the slow development both of technologies of herding
and penning and of the social acceptance of herding practices, over and above hunting, as legitimate modes of
social and economic activity (Arbuckle 2014).
The early management and domestication of pigs and cattle is of less import within the context of Early Ne-
olithic Iran (Flannery 1983; Ervynck et al. 2001; Mashkour 2006b; Arbuckle 2012; Price and Arbuckle 2015;
Arbuckle et al. 2016). A study of mitochondrial DNA of ancient and modern domesticated cattle suggests that
cattle were domesticated in a limited, localised region of Southwest Asia, probably southeast Anatolia in the ninth
millennium BC, spreading outward from there (Scheu et al. 2015). A wide-ranging comparative study by Ar-
buckle et al. (2016) of cattle in the eastern Fertile Crescent demonstrates a low-level of representation at sites until
the sixth millennium BC when a sudden introduction of small-sized domestic cattle at many sites across northern
Iraq and all Iran strongly suggests the import of fully fledged domestic herds from outside, ultimately from the
Euphrates region and possibly in association with the regional spread of Halaf culture, rather than a local process
of domestication in Iran. By the later sixth millennium BC pigs and cattle occur at Neolithic sites across Iran as
part of the domestic assemblage of sheep, goat, cattle and pigs, as vital components of an eastward dispersal of
Neolithic agropastoral ways of life that held sway for millennia (Harris and Gosden 1996; Harris 2010). A con-
siderable degree of regional variability in the make-up of herding strategies across Neolithic Iran, and indeed all
Southwest Asia (Conolly et al. 2011, 2012), is likely to reflect social and cultural preferences and traditions as well
as suitability of species for specific environmental conditions. A critical factor would have been the areal grazing
requirements of each domesticated species, in hectares per month, with cattle needing 1–1.5 ha, sheep and goat
0.1–0.15 ha, and pigs potentially more free ranging (McClure 2013).
Human exploitation of so-called “secondary products” of domesticated animals (Sherratt 1981, 1983; Halstead
and Isaakidou 2011) such as dairy produce, wool, fibres and traction intensified in the millennia after initial do-
mestication, particularly through the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (Arbuckle 2012: 210–213; Good 2012). But
the extensive use of animal dung is attested from the Early Neolithic onwards and its acquisition may have been
instrumental in the domestication of goat and sheep. Furthermore, evidence for use of dairy products is attested
at seventh millennium BC sites in Anatolia and Syria (Evershed et al. 2008). Wool from sheep and hair from goat
do not appear to have featured significantly in the economies of Southwest Asia until the fourth millennium BC,
although it is probable that household-level exploitation of sheep wool and goat hair, including as felt, was widely
practiced from the Late Neolithic onwards (Ryder 1983, 1987; Barber 1991). Goat may also have been used as
pack animals from an early date (Sutliff 2015). Significant human exploitation in Iran of other animals including
horse, donkey, camel and zebu cattle developed much later, through the course of the Chalcolithic and Bronze
Ages (Potts 1997; Mashkour 2002; Arbuckle 2012).
It is also clear that hunting continued to form a major component of food procurement and elite enhancement
strategies long after the full domestication of the major animal species. Thus, hunting of gazelle and wild equids
is well attested in zooarchaeological assemblages from sites of Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and even Iron Age date
in several areas of Iran (Mashkour 2002). It is highly likely that fish and other water resources formed a significant
part of Neolithic and later diets across Iran, but their recovery is dependent on the use of suitably fine-resolution
excavation and sieving methods (Potts 2012). A Palaeolithic taste for land snail, Helix salomonica, survives and
thrives throughout the protracted processes of Neolithisation taking place across the central Zagros.
Analogous to current understanding of processes of animal management and domestication in Southwest Asia,
intensified human engagement with the plant world is also viewed as a complex, multi-staged set of developments
involving a wide range of factors including climate change, sedentarisation, demographic change and an initial
phase of intensified exploitation and cultivation leading in time to full domestication and morphological change
of certain selected species in “a protracted and geographically diffuse process of plant domestication” (Table 5.2)
(Fuller et al. 2012: 629; Willcox 2012, 2013; Riehl 2016). The evolution of domesticated characteristics including
increased cereal grain size and non-shattering ears enabling crops to be harvested on the stand may have taken up
to 2000 years fully to play out (Fuller 2007). Tantalising hints at the workings out of such processes are provided
by the archaeobotanical evidence from sites such as Chogha Golan and East Chia Sabz, sites with very early indi-
cations of domesticated two-row barley, emmer wheat and lentil by c. 8000 BC (Riehl et al. 2012, 2013). Prior to
this date, the evidence suggests a distinctive pattern of intensified plant exploitation in the eastern Fertile Cres-
cent with a focus on legumes and wild plants without clear evidence for wild cereal cultivation (Arranz-Otaegui
et al. 2016). Due to their suitability as fodder plants, intensified exploitation of these plant types may have been
intimately connected with the enhanced management of goat in the region (Butler 1995).
From c. 8000 BC cereals play a larger part in the plant assemblages of sites in the eastern Fertile Crescent and
there is a broad trend through the Neolithic across Southwest Asia to more uniformity and an associated loss of
diversity in plant use, as attested by detailed comparative analyses (Riehl 2016; Ghahremaninejad et al. 2021).
Tentative evidence from highland Zagros sites such as Sheikh-e Abad (Whitlam et al. 2018) suggests that cereal
crop farming may have been introduced from lowland sites such as Chogha Golan to the uplands by c. 8000
BC, a fair exchange for the herds of managed goats that made the journey in the opposite direction. Still open
is the question of whether cereal domestication happened independently in both the eastern and western Fertile
Crescent (Riehl et al. 2013), or whether early domesticated cereals were introduced from one region to the other
in the later ninth millennium BC. Comparative transregional studies of changing cereal grain size (Fuller et al.
2017) and of increasing use of flint sickles through the Neolithic (Maeda et al. 2016) have not resolved this issue,
and we keenly need further rich, well-contextualised, well-dated archaeobotanical evidence from key sites such
as Chogha Golan and Sheikh-e Abad where human occupation spans the critical centuries of change. Beyond
question is the fundamental significance of cereals, wheat and barley above all, to all post-Neolithic societies
of Iran, as encapsulated in a recent quote: “Humans and grains transformed and tied their fate to each other. A
grain-free modern human society in Iran and many other parts of the world is hard to imagine” (Ghahremanine-
jad et al. 2021: 17).
Analysis of human ancient DNA (aDNA) is increasingly significant in addressing the origins and early spread
of Neolithic lifeways within Southwest Asia and well beyond. The aDNA evidence from Iranian Early Neolithic
sites, including Ganj Dareh and Abdul Hosein, reveals a distinctive genetic make-up of early Iranian farmers
differing from that of early farmers of the western Fertile Crescent to an extent “as great as the differentiation
between Europeans and East Asians today,” with both groups of farmers genetically derived from local hunter–
gatherer populations (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Reich 2018: 95). A genetic contribution from Neolithic Iranian/
Caucasian humans to Early Holocene central Anatolian populations (Feldman et al. 2018) could attest mutual
meetings and pair-bondings in the course of procurement of materials such as obsidian from Anatolian and Ar-
menian sources, supported by increasing evidence for early exploitation of such sources in the southern Caucasus
(Orange et al. 2021a, 2021b).
Table 5.2 F
ounder plants forming the basis of early farming in Southwest Asia (after Willcox 2012: table 9.1)
Wild progenitor Cultivar English name

Triticum urartu ?
Triticum boeoticum Triticum monococcum einkorn
Triticum dicoccoides Triticum dicoccum emmer
Hordeum spontaneum Hordeum distichon barley
Lens orientalis Lens culinaris lentil
Pisum humile Pisum sativum pea
Cicer reticulatum Cicer arietinum chickpea
Vicia ervilia Vicia ervilia bitter vetch
? Vicia faba broad bean
Linum bienne Linum usitatissimum flax
At present the central Zagros region has the fullest evidence for significant human activity, including intensified
engagement with plant and animal resources, through much of the tenth millennium BC and later, with the sites
of Sheikh-e Abad, Asiab and Chogha Golan especially to the fore (Figure 5.2). But new evidence is continually
being generated by ongoing surveys and excavations, and it may be that in due course we view the origins and early
dispersal of a Neolithic way of life in the eastern Fertile Crescent as a multi-core process within and across Iran and
adjacent regions. Intimately connected to the development of animal and plant management and domestication is
the issue of sedentism. As we have seen above, the earliest levels at Early Neolithic sites of the central Zagros com-
prise little or no evidence for substantial architecture but rather host layers of ash and debris with pits and hearths.
Only the large semi-subterranean structure at Asiab is suggestive of a significant investment of labour and resources
into a substantial built structure, which may have fulfilled a communal function analogous to that of similar Early
Neolithic structures across Southwest Asia (Richter et al. 2021). Solid architecture is attested from c. 8000 BC at
many of the same sites across the region, and if we may associate this architecture with a more permanent human
presence at these sites, then the development of year-round sedentism marches hand-in-hand with the earliest con-
vincing evidence for intensified animal management in the form of penning and extensive dung use.
Taken together, the increasingly rich data and comparative analyses support an interpretation of the origins
of the Neolithic of central western Iran as following a locally distinctive pattern of socio-cultural development
(Darabi 2016), whereby small-scale communities intensified their interactions with the gradually changing en-
vironments around them so as to enhance their resource bases in the context of a steadily ameliorating climate
within a mosaic of change across Southwest Asia. These developments reached a climax at about 8000 BC at
which point we can discern many significant socio-cultural attributes of the Early Neolithic societies of the cen-
tral Zagros, including the construction and elaboration of architecture, the management of herds of goat, the use
of animal dung as fuel, the intensified cultivation of cereal crops, the enhancement of transregional networks of
engagement as attested by obsidian imports and changes in chipped stone tool technologies (Nishiaki and Darabi
2018). Study of similar, approximately contemporary socio-cultural developments in the Levant region of the
western Fertile Crescent has suggested the possibility of impact from a short episode of global climatic instability,
the so-called 10.2ka BP event (Borrell et al. 2015), succeeded by the so-called Levantine Moist Period (Weninger
et al. 2009), which may have stimulated an environmental context for the intensified exploitation and ultimately
domestication of plants and animals, but our data from the eastern Fertile Crescent remain insufficient to address
this issue adequately.
The Early Neolithic evidence from DNA of humans, including from Iranian Neolithic individuals (Broushaki
et al. 2016; Gallego-Llorente et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016; Reich 2018), DNA of goats (Daly et al. 2018), DNA
of barley (Lister et al. 2018) and from the composition of plant assemblages (Fuller et al. 2012; Arranz-Otaegui
et al. 2016; Riehl 2016) all point to “a domestication process carried out by humans in dispersed, divergent, but
communicating communities across the Fertile Crescent” (Daly et al. 2018: 86–87), with communities of the
central Zagros region contributing their own special attributes and achievements to this kaleidoscopic episode of
steady but ultimately dramatic transition.
Spreading the word: initial Neolithic dispersals across Iran, 7500–6500 BC

We now examine the evidence for the earliest Neolithic occupation across Iran outside the central Zagros,
beginning with the south-central Zagros. To some extent overlapping in time with the later centuries of the
developments outlined in the previous section, the process of dispersal of newly acquired practices in animal and
plant exploitation was well underway by the later eighth millennium BC. In tracing the earliest dispersals of the
new modes of life developed during the Early Neolithic we descend from the highlands of the central Zagros and
follow the spread of Neolithic lifeways into other regions of Iran. As we depart from the central Zagros, we are
also departing from the native habitat zone of many of the cultivated and domesticated species now locked into
increasingly intensified engagement with human communities (Figure 5.21). Thus, the herds of goat attested at
sites such as Ali Kosh on the Deh Luran plain and at Chogha Bonut on the Susiana plain cannot have wandered
there by themselves but must have been moved and sustained there under human control and protection, in other
words as entirely managed herds.
The evidence suggests that Neolithic dispersals across Iran were effected by movement of people (with their
plants and animals) as much as by cultural diffusion or acculturation, the movement of ideas and practices.
DNA studies of modern populations support the interpretation of significant movement of early farmers in the
Neolithic of Iran (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004), while aDNA studies show that Early Neolithic Iranian farmers
of the Zagros were distinctly different from contemporary early farmers in the western Fertile Crescent
Figure 5.21 C
haracteristic ecological cross-section from the Mesopotamian plain through Khuzestan and into the Zagros (after
Hole et al. 1969: Figure 2).
(Broushaki et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016; Reich 2018: 95). They also show that Iranian Neolithic genes have
a significant presence amongst the contemporary population of India, suggesting an Iranian origin for the spread
of farming eastwards as far as the Indian sub-continent (Reich 2018: 148, Figure 18). DNA studies of barley
(Morrell and Clegg 2007; Saisho and Purugganan 2007; Lister et al. 2018) and goats (Naderi et al. 2008; Daly et al.
2018) indicate multiple independent domestications across Southwest Asia including Iran, but the archaeological
evidence so far provides little indication of pre-domestication experimentation prior to the introduction of full-
blown cereal agriculture in any region outside the central Zagros.
Input from palaeoclimate proxy records is also shaping the research agenda. As discussed above, there is sug-
gestive evidence for an association of Neolithic settlement distributions and the 9.2 ka BP event (i.e. later eighth
millennium BC) and its associated drop in temperatures and precipitation (Fleitmann et al. 2008), arguably de-
tectable in the abandonment of several Early Neolithic sites and the new foundation of several Late Neolithic
sites in the eastern Fertile Crescent and beyond. Further concerted programmes of radiocarbon dating in concert
with analysis of existing and new palaeoclimate proxy records (Flohr et al. 2016; Jones et al. 2019) are needed
effectively to address this issue.
The south and central Zagros

The key sites of Ali Kosh, Chagha Sefid on the Deh Luran plain and Chogha Bonut on the Susiana plain are
located close by good fresh water sources on the low-lying plains and foothills of the Zagros range in the mod-
ern provinces of Ilam and Khuzestan, well beyond the habitat zone of wild goat (Zeder 2006a: 202). At 150 m
above sea level, Ali Kosh is especially important because of its long sequence of occupation and because it is a
well-researched and published site (Figure 5.22) (Hole et al. 1969; Hole 1987c; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 123–124;
Darabi et al. 2017b, 2018a). Recent radiocarbon dates indicate occupation in the earliest (aceramic) phases, called
Bus Mordeh and Ali Kosh, at c. 7500–7400 BC, and in the subsequent Mohammad Jaffar phase (earliest ceramic)
from c. 7000 BC (Zeder 2006a: Table 14.2). The earliest occupation at Ali Kosh consists of rectilinear architec-
ture, and layers of ash and midden with lithic debris, burnt animal bones and charred plants, mainly legumes and
also emmer wheat and two-row hulled barley (Hole et al. 1969: 36). Obsidian, from east Anatolian sources (Ren-
frew et al. 1966; Barge et al. 2018), features rarely in the chipped stone assemblage from the aceramic Neolithic
levels. Both chipped stone sickle blades and ground stone implements increase in time in the successive layers at
Ali Kosh (Thomalsky 2016: 174), while clay figurines and tokens similar to highland Zagros types decrease in
frequency through time. Architecture also increases in sophistication and scale through time, with stone founda-
tions underlying mudbrick walls in the Mohammad Jaffar phase. Early experiments with metal are indicated by
finds such as a rolled copper bead from Ali Kosh (Pigott 1999: Figure 4.2; Weeks 2012: 296), dated to late eighth/
early seventh millennium BC (Thornton 2009: 308). Basic ceramic vessels in the Mohammad Jaffar phase include
examples coated in bitumen, probably from local sources (Gregg et al. 2007), perhaps building on a tradition of
manufacture of vessels from gypsum and calcareous clays (Kingery et al. 1988; Miyake 2016; Petrova 2019).
Figure 5.22 A li Kosh, view of site (Darabi et al. 2018b: Figure 2) (photo credit: Hojjat Darabi).
Within the Bus Mordeh level at Ali Kosh there is a distinctive deposit of human remains, comprising limb
bones of at least three adults with strings of stone and shell beads and turquoise ornaments, all coated in red pig-
ment (Hole et al. 1969: 248). This deposit compares well to the contemporary secondary human burial at Guran
discussed above and, as at Guran, burials in subsequent Neolithic levels at Ali Kosh take the form of interments
under house floors, wrapped in reed mats, suggestive of more permanent occupation at the site. In the Ali Kosh
phase, there is a deposit of up to 13 human burials, placed in a squatting position, coated in red pigment and
accompanied by hundreds of beads of stone and shell (Sołtysiak and Darabi 2017). These burials appear to be
associated with a distinctive deposit of animal skulls and horn cores within a chineh and mudbrick structure itself
coated in red pigment (Darabi et al. 2017b). Many of the Ali Kosh human skulls show signs of deliberate cranial
deformation (Figure 5.23) (Hole et al. 1969: 42; Darabi et al. 2017b: 17; Sołtysiak and Darabi 2017: Figure 5; on
a cautionary note regarding head-shaping at Ali Kosh, see Niknami et al. 2011) as also attested at Chagha Sefid
(Hole 1977) and at several highland Zagros sites (Meiklejohn et al. 1992; Daems and Croucher 2007). In the Mo-
hammad Jaffar phase a group of adult burials was found in an external area, perhaps a small cemetery.
Regarding animal use at Ali Kosh, the earliest occupation at the site features domesticated goat, with increasing
morphological evidence for domestication in the phases after Bus Mordeh (Figure 5.24). As Zeder (2006a: 202)
has pointed out, isolation of herds of goat at Ali Kosh from breeding with their wild cousins in the high Zagros
would be a significant factor in the morphological and metrical changes, including a reduction in animal size, that
are detectable in the Ali Kosh goat remains. It is likely that layers of “orange compost” at Ali Kosh (Hole et al.
1969), dated to c. 7000 BC, are in fact trampled dung deposits of penned animals, similar to those attested in the
upper levels at Sheikh-e Abad (W. Matthews et al. 2013b; Shillito et al. 2013). There can be no doubt that goats
were fully under human control from the earliest occupation at Ali Kosh. Goat kill-off patterns, with emphasis
on slaughter of young males and delayed slaughter of females, show “management of goat herds with the goal
of promoting the overall security and growth of the herd” (Zeder 2006a: 201). Suggestions by Hole et al. (1969:
322) that in this phase Ali Kosh was seasonally occupied, only during autumn-winter, while at other seasons
flocks of goat were herded to upland pastures do not find support in either the culling patterns – with juvenile
Figure 5.23 A li Kosh, cranial deformation on individual H6 (Sołtysiak and Darabi 2017: Figure 5) (photo credit: Hojjat Darabi).
Figure 5.24 A li Kosh, animal exploitation through time (after Hole et al. 1969: Figure 134).
goats culled in spring-summer – or the archaeobotanical evidence, which indicates summer grazing of herds on
nearby harvested fields (Miller 2013; Arbuckle and Hammer 2019). Alongside the exploitation of domesticated
goats, the early occupants of Ali Kosh hunted a range of wild animals in the vicinity of the site, including gazelle,
onager, aurochs and boar.
The earliest phases at Ali Kosh are marked by significant consumption of aquatic resources including fish, tur-
tles, crabs and clams as well as duck and geese, reflecting the marshy environs of the site. Through the centuries
of the Early Neolithic we might envisage groups of humans making their way from their summer camps in the
high Zagros to their winter hunting and fishing grounds of the low plains of Deh Luran, Mehran and Susiana.
The marshes and springs of the low plains would be highly attractive to the migratory birds and herds of ani-
mals, such as gazelle and onager, which would in turn be highly attractive to these hunting and foraging bands
of people. In due course, around 7500 BC, human groups decided to take their newly penned and perhaps tamed
goats from the highland zone with them on their autumn descent to the plains, thus ensuring a “walking larder”
(Clutton-Brock 1989) that could act as a reserve in case of failure during the winter hunting and fishing season.
Herds of goat would also provide fuel in the form of dung, and it is notable that wood charcoal was not found at
Ali Kosh or at Chogha Bonut. That we see a marked decline in consumption of aquatic resources in the upper
levels at Ali Kosh is likely due to the considerable success of this policy of goat herding and movement.
A further pointer to the highland connections of the early occupants at Ali Kosh is provided by analysis of the
plant remains, which are interpreted to indicate that the Bus Mordeh phase inhabitants of Ali Kosh “came from
uplands with only faintly developed agricultural attitudes; but with a long tradition of plant collecting behind
them” (Helbaek 1969: 423). The highland Zagros origins of the first settlers at Ali Kosh are thus attested through
multiple strands, including herded goats, cultivated cereals such as emmer wheat and two-row barley, and the use
of spherical clay tokens similar to those of upland Early Neolithic sites. These last objects have been interpreted
by Denise Schmandt-Besserat (2018: 365) as evidence for the development of a Neolithic “farming redistribution
economy,” which might be viewed as a first step on the path towards the sophisticated administrative technolo-
gies of Chalcolithic and later societies of the region and beyond (Chapter 6), although doubts have been expressed
about the validity of this concept within the context of Neolithic Southwest Asia (Bennison-Chapman 2019;
Palka 2020).
Also on the Deh Luran plain, the site of Chagha Sefid has early levels of late eighth and early seventh millen-
nia BC, a little later than earliest Ali Kosh (Hole 1977, 1987c; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 124–125). Earliest levels at
Chagha Sefid comprise midden layers of ash with disarticulated architectural fragments and figurines, along with
rectangular mudbrick houses built on natural soil, human skulls with evidence of cranial modification and basic
vessels of gypsum (Miyake 2016). The food resources at Chagha Sefid show a more developed Neolithic aspect,
with fully domesticated goat and sheep as well as use of domesticated cereals, suggesting a rapid acculturation of
the occupants of the Deh Luran plain to the new Neolithic farming and herding practices that had been intro-
duced, probably by themselves, from the highland zone to the north.
Further southeast, on the Susiana plain in Khuzestan, the small site of Chogha Bonut has Early Neolithic
layers of ash and clay dated to c. 7200–7000 BC (Alizadeh 2003a: table 3, 2008: 4–5; Zeder 2006a: Table 14.2),
with beaten earth surfaces, hearths with fire-cracked stones and multiple animal bones. Clay tokens, figurines
and rocks coated in red pigment are also found. In the Formative Susiana levels (E-B) at Bonut, c. 6900–6700 BC,
two partially preserved buildings were excavated, constructed of long cigar-shaped bricks covered with plaster.
One of the buildings has a substantial “hall” with at least eight fire pits dug into the floor, all interpreted as in-
dicating “non-domestic use for this building” (Alizadeh 2003a: 40). In the succeeding Archaic Susiana 0 phase
at Bonut, c. 6700–6500 BC, further large-roomed buildings were built of cigar-shaped bricks. Faunal remains
from Chogha Bonut show herding of goat and sheep and some exploitation of wintering birds, all interpreted as
evidence for human presence at the site at least during winter and early spring (Redding 2003: 142), as proposed
for early levels at Ali Kosh discussed above. Charred plant remains include barley (Hordeum vulgare), emmer wheat
(Triticum dicoccum), einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and lentils (Lens), an assemblage indicative of a developed agri-
cultural capability (Miller 2003). Early pottery from Chogha Bonut includes so-called “tadpole ware” similar to
examples from Tepe Sarab, Sarab-e Yavari and Jarmo a long way to the northwest in Iraqi Kurdistan (Levine and
McDonald 1977; Alizadeh 2008: 57; Alibaigi 2013).
At the southern limits of Greater Susiana, initial investigations of Tappeh Mahtaj on the Behbahan plain have
revealed occupation of the later eighth and early seventh millennia BC, only 45 km north of the current shores of
the Persian Gulf at 310 m asl (Darabi et al. 2017a, 2020). Lithics comprise typical Neolithic bullet cores of chert
(Figure 5.25), small quantities of obsidian and many ground stone tools for plant processing. Plant remains are
not sufficient to establish whether or not domesticated crops were being exploited. Faunal remains include sheep/
goat, Persian gazelle and aurochs with no morphological evidence for domestication, although deposits of animal
dung may indicate penning. The site may have been a seasonally occupied camp, comparable to early levels at
Ali Kosh and Chogha Bonut, whose occupants pursued a mixed economy of herding, hunting and cultivation,
doubtless with significant interaction with communities of the high Zagros not far to the east and north. The
Figure 5.25 Tappeh Mahtaj, chipped stone cores and tools (Darabi et al. 2017a: Figure 7) (photo credit: Hojjat Darabi).
significance of Tappeh Mahtaj lies in its location, both close to the shores of the Persian Gulf and also midway
between the Early Neolithic sites of the central Zagros and the earliest Neolithic occupation of the Fars region
to the southeast, as discussed below. Human presence on the Izeh plain in eastern Khuzestan includes many
Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic rock shelter sites and a few of Neolithic date, according to surface lithics
(Niknami et al. 2009; Jayez 2015).
A distinctive component of the settlement trajectory of Neolithic communities of Iran is suggested by the small
site of Tepe Tula’i in northern Susiana. The site, dated to c. 6700 BC, has been interpreted as a camp for mobile
pastoralists on their seasonal movements with herds of domesticated animals, analogous to known campsites of
modern pastoral groups (Hole 1974, 1987a, 2004). Others, by contrast, have interpreted the Tula’i evidence as
attesting low-level seasonal movement of people with their animals within an integrated agro-pastoral economy
associated with nearby larger villages (Wheeler Pires-Ferreira 1975; Bernbeck 1992; Sutliff 2015; Arbuckle and
Hammer 2019). Either interpretation is supported by the absence of sickle blades, mortars and grinding stones at
the site (Thomalsky 2016: 175). Lumps of bitumen at Tula’i come probably from local sources (Gregg et al. 2007).
Little understood highland sites situated between Khuzestan and Fars, such as Tappeh Harrar and other sites in
the Kohgiluyeh region of the southern Zagros, with their chipped stone bullet cores and bladelets as well as heavy
stone mortars may represent very Early Neolithic occupation of this region but excavated information is as yet
lacking (Azadi and Gezelbash 2011; Azadi 2016; Azadi et al. 2016).
Back in the central Zagros, the site of Tepe Sarab near Kermanshah is of special interest as it attests continua-
tion of seasonal hunting practices well after the early development of goat-herding (McDonald 1979; Hole 1987b:
46–47; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 157; Darabi 2015: 42–49). Located at 1300 m above sea level, the site consists of
successive spreads of ash with burnt reeds from modest structures. Thin mud walls in the upper levels suggest a
transition to more permanent settlement. The faunal remains indicate a strong focus on hunting of gazelle along-
side goat/sheep and pig herding (Bökönyi 1977; Hesse 1978), with heavy consumption of land snail, an ancient
Zagros delicacy as we have seen. Clay figurines of humans and animals (dog, pig, boar, sheep, goat) are found
at Sarab in very large numbers (Broman Morales 1990; Daems 2004: 7–9), one of which bears incised markings
dubiously understood to represent a fleece (Ryder 1987: 114; Good 2012). Most striking is a figurine representing
a human female with elongated neck, protruding breasts and exaggerated thighs, probably related to fertility
(Figure 5.26) (Broman Morales 1990: pl. 6.d; Vahdati Nasab and Kazzazi 2011). Only 18 of the c. 650 figurines
from Sarab are clearly portrayed as male (Daems 2004: 8).
Ceramics from Sarab comprise a range of painted styles with geometric motifs in two major phases (Voigt and
Dyson 1992: 157; Mortensen 2011; Darabi 2015: 45–46). Radiocarbon dates suggest some occupation at Sarab
from c. 7000 to 6400 BC (Zeder 2006a: Table 14.2, 2008) although other dates put the main occupation later in
the seventh millennium BC (Darabi 2015: 49). The evidence from Sarab thus indicates that human communities
in the high Zagros chose to maintain traditional hunting practices for several centuries along with herding and
penning of goat and sheep. The site also hosts the earliest evidence for the introduction of cattle into the Zagros
at 6400–6000 BC, probably originating from the middle Euphrates region (Zeder 1999, 2005).
Figure 5.26 Tepe Sarab, figurine (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 8) (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of
the National Museum of Iran).
To the northwest in the western foothills of the Zagros range around Sar-e Pol-e Zahab, initial field surveys
have located ceramic Neolithic sites, some of which may have pre-pottery levels (Alibaigi and Salimiyan 2019,
2020), stressing the potential importance of this region as a likely routeway for the movement of materials such
as obsidian from their Anatolian sources into the high Zagros zone. Surveys of the Azna plain in eastern Luristan
and the Khorramabad plain have identified significant numbers of ceramic Neolithic sites, all proximate to fresh
water sources (Bahrami et al. 2012; Abdollahi et al. 2015). Radiocarbon dates from Qaleh Rostam, situated at
almost 2000 m above sea level in the high Zagros at the southern edges of the Central Plateau, indicate earliest
occupation in this challenging region by the late eighth millennium BC with subsequent intermittent occupation
for up to a millennium (Daujat et al. 2016: 109; see also below).
In sum, the south-central Zagros is clearly a major region for the initial spread of pristine Neolithic devel-
opments from the mid-eighth millennium BC, probably originating in the central Zagros to the north. The
dispersal of herding and cultivation practices occurred across multiple regions, with poorly understood aceramic
Neolithic sites such as Rihan III and Tamerkhan in the western Zagros foothills (Oates 1968; Matthews 2000:
50) probably attesting a contemporary westward spread of the new Neolithic lifeways. Early Neolithic sites on
the Shahrizor and Rania plains of central-eastern Iraq, including Bestansur and Shimshara (Matthews et al. 2016,
2019, 2020) may also be understood as elements in this initial dispersal, whether of people, animals, plants, prac-
tices or all of them. Any connection with the apparent climatic adversity of the 9.2ka BP event (Fleitmann et al.
2008; Flohr et al. 2016) remains highly tenuous, and in fact much of the evidence points to dispersal taking place
several centuries before 9.2 ka BP.
The earliest Neolithic beyond the Zagros

Evidence for the initial pulse of Neolithic expansion beyond the foothills and low plains of the central and
south-central Zagros is sparse. We discussed above the evidence from Tang-e Bolaghi and Arsanjan as well as
from Rahmatabad and Toll-e Sangi for early developments in Fars, which span the transition from the earliest
Neolithic developments in the Zagros to the spread outwards (Weeks et al. 2006). What are the earliest Neolithic
indicators in regions of Iran beyond the central and southern Zagros?
In north-eastern Iran, aceramic Neolithic occupation is attested at only a few locations. The poorly understood
site of Qaleh Asgar near Tehran appears to date to c. 7200–6900 BC, with obsidian originating from east Ana-
tolian sources (Biglari 2012b; Barge et al. 2018). This site, and another putative aceramic Neolithic site within
modern Tehran (Esmaeili Jelodar 2018), could constitute important staging posts for the spread of Neolithic com-
munities making their way along the Great Khorasan Road to found new settlements to the east (Roustaei and
Gratuze 2020). Prime amongst these is the mound of Sang-e Chakhmaq West near Shahrud, located at 1400 m
above sea level on an alluvial fan to the south of the Alborz Mountains (Masuda 1974; Harris and Coolidge 2010;
Masuda et al. 2013; Thornton 2013a; Roustaei 2014a, 2014b, 2016b; Roustaei et al. 2015). The Neolithic levels
here include substantial single-room mudbrick houses (Figure 5.27) with red-painted plastered floors and fire
installations, which have been interpreted as having ritual purpose, partly because of their association with delib-
erately deposited clay figurines (Masuda et al. 2013: 216). Pottery is limited to a few sherds of soft-ware (Masuda
Figure 5.27 Sang-e Chakhmaq West, architecture (Masuda et al. 2013: Figure 14.4a).
1984). Tools were made of chert and imported obsidian as well as ground stone, antler and bone. Obsidian was
imported from Bingöl A and Bingöl B sources near Lake Van in eastern Anatolia, making the site the easternmost
recipient of obsidian from Anatolian sources at 1300 km directly distant (Roustaei and Gratuze 2020).
There are many figurines, human and animal (Furusato 2014), as well as human burials in flexed positions un-
der house floors at Sang-e Chakhmaq West (Tagaya 2014). One foetal burial was accompanied by 183 shell beads
and 90 clay beads (Miyauchi 2014). Hunting of wild sheep, goat and gazelle appears to have been the major source
of meat at Sang-e Chakhmaq West, with lesser emphasis on wild boar and red deer (Mashkour et al. 2014; Rous-
taei et al. 2015). The inhabitants also herded domestic goat and possibly sheep and small quantities of cattle but
not pig. Significant quantity and diversity of wetland bird species indicates exploitation of watery environments
while hunting of gazelle shows incursions into the desert steppe to the south. Seeds and fruits of wild species are
more common than remains of cultivated crops, in sharp contrast to the archaeobotanical remains from the later
mound of Sang-e Chakhmaq East, although domesticated wheat and barley are present from the earliest levels at
Sang-e Chakhmaq West (Tengberg 2014; Roustaei et al. 2015).
Previously, dates of c. 7100–7000 BC were suggested for occupation at Sang-e Chakhmaq West by several
radiocarbon determinations (Harris and Coolidge 2010: 69; Masuda et al. 2013: 239; Thornton 2013a: 243). Sub-
sequent programmes of radiocarbon dating (Nakamura 2014; Roustaei et al. 2015) confirm occupation at Sang-e
Chakhmaq West as occurring from c. 7000 to 6700 BC (Table 5.3). The west mound was then abandoned and,
after a hiatus of up to 500 years, Late Neolithic occupation started at Sang-e Chakhmaq East from c. 6200 BC
(see below). Sang-e Chakhmaq thus has a uniquely rich, long sequence of Neolithic occupation for this region
of Iran, providing “the key to understanding the spread and adoption of Neolithic lifeways into eastern Iran and
southern Central Asia” (Thornton 2013a: 254). Critical to such dispersal is the site’s location on the major route-
way that formed one strand of the ancient Silk Roads and which today connects Tehran with Mashhad, as well as
on a north-south route linking the southern Alborz foothills with the Caspian Sea lowlands and beyond (Tsuneki
2014b). Certainly, the highly sophisticated nature of the architecture in the earliest levels at Sang-e Chakhmaq
West does not suggest an experimental engagement with sedentism by local hunter–gatherer communities, but
rather the introduction from outside of an already well-developed Neolithic lifestyle, an argument supported by
genetic analysis of the spread of barley across northern Iran (Lister et al. 2018; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019b: 299).
Further evidence for a Neolithic presence in north-eastern Iran prior to c. 6500 BC is attested in ongoing oc-
cupation of the Caspian shore rock shelter sites of Komishan, Kamarband (Belt) and Hotu (Figure 5.28) (Coon
1951, 1957; Harris and Coolidge 2010: 56; Gregg and Thornton 2012; Jayez and Vahdati Nasab 2016; Leroy et al.
2019; Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019b). Excavations at Komishan Cave have identified intensive exploitation of gazelle,
birds and marine resources in Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic transitional levels (Mashkour et al. 2010). Survey of the
Darreh Gaz plain bordering Turkmenistan to the north of the Kopet Dagh range is suggestive of an undated
aceramic Neolithic presence at least at site DG 19 (Kohl and Heskel 1980; Harris and Coolidge 2010: 64). Initial
research at the site of Komishani Tepe (Figure 5.29), close to Komishan Cave on the southern coastal plain of
the Caspian Sea, has investigated layers of Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic and later date suggestive of continuity of oc-
cupation from the Epipalaeolithic onwards with a strong focus on exploitation of sheep, goat and water birds plus
wild oats and wild barley (Leroy et al. 2019). At present it is not clear whether or at what point in the sequence of
occupation the sheep and goat at Komishani Tepe were domesticated, but this region of the Caspian littoral does
Table 5.3 S ang-e Chakhmaq West and East, radiocarbon dates (Roustaei et al. 2015: table 3)
Site Lab code Trench no. Phase Context Radiocarbon Calibrated 2σ age Calibrated 2σ age
age (BP) range (BP) range (BC)
East Mound UBA-13479 2 – 204 6543 ± 27 7423–7499 5550–5474

UBA-13480 1 1 108 7109 ± 44 7848–8009 6060–5899
UBA-13555 1 1 123 7297 ± 35 8024–8176 6227–6075
UBA-13556 1 2 131 7028 ± 30 7794–7936 5987–5845
UBA-13557 1 4 160 7041 ± 31 7953–7947 5998–5846
UBA-13558 1 5 182 7271 ± 30 8016–8166 6217–6067

West Mound UBA-13472 1 1 106 7983 ± 26 8726–8995 7046–6777
UBA-13473 1 1 112 8005 ± 27 8774–9001 7052–6825
UBA-13474 1 2 116 8009 ± 27 8847–9006 7057–6825
UBA-13475 1 3 129 8015 ± 27 8776–9007 7058–6827
UBA-13476 1 3 134 8026 ± 29 8776–9012 7063–6827
UBA-13477 1 4 141 8067 ± 32 8780–9089 7140–6831
UBA-13478 1 4 147 8031 ± 31 8776–9015 7066–6827
Figure 5.28 Map of south-eastern corner of Caspian Sea to show key sites (Leroy et al. 2019: Figure 1) (image courtesy of Suzanne Leroy).
Figure 5.29 Komishani Tepe, view of site with Komishan Cave behind (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
seem to have served as a refuge for a host of plant and animal species, including humans, through the Younger
Dryas episode. The botanical and faunal evidence suggests a continuity of development from c. 9200 BC for at
least a thousand years. Whether or not these locally situated developments truly constitute an autochthonous
process of Neolithisation (Leroy et al. 2019: 360), whereby local communities shaped their own transition from
hunter–gatherer to farmer–herder remains to be investigated by further work at this promising site and region.
Our knowledge of Neolithic south-eastern Iran before 6000 BC is sparse. Earlier notions that the aceramic Ne-
olithic site of Tall-e Atashi might attest an Early Neolithic presence in this region have been diffused by more
recent research that establishes occupation no earlier than 5600 BC (Garazhian 2016: 49; Mutin and Garazhian
2018; Mutin et al. 2020; see below). Systematic intensive survey of the region between Jiroft and the Persian Gulf
coast has failed to detect any Neolithic sites (Pfälzner et al. 2019). Only one excavated site so far in this entire
region appears to predate 6000 BC, although there are claims of a significant but undated aceramic Neolithic
presence in the Bam region (Mutin and Garazhian 2018). At Gav Koshi (Figures 5.30–5.31) on the Esfandageh
plain in Kerman province, radiocarbon dates indicate occupation spanning 7000–6500 BC and 6400–6000 BC,
with well-built mudbrick structures with red-painted plastered walls and platforms, painted pottery, figurines
and significant quantities of obsidian tools and cores (Soleimani and Fazeli Nashli 2018). Plant evidence recovered
from Gav Koshi shows a strong focus on consumption of pistachio nuts with minimal evidence for cereals, while
faunal remains are mainly of wild sheep and goat.
Figure 5.30 Gav Koshi, architecture (photo credit: Nader Alidad Soleimani).
Figure 5.31 Gav Koshi, painted pottery (Soleimani and Fazeli Nashli 2018: Figure 10).
As yet, Neolithic occupation of the high plains and valleys of north-western Iran and of the plains on the pla-
teau of central Iran is attested only after the invention and adoption of pottery as a major component of material
culture, that is well after 6500 BC, as discussed in the section below. Despite multiple surveys and excavations
in these regions there is so far no indication of Early Neolithic occupation in central and north-western Iran but
future fieldwork can of course redraw this picture at a stroke. For the long millennia from c. 10,000 to 6000 BC,
we must for now envisage these regions as sparsely inhabited by small groups of hunter–gatherers continuing
essentially Palaeolithic ways of life and/or by scattered bands of early herders and farmers whose archaeological
traces have yet to be identified and explored.
For the time-being, the initial dispersal of Neolithic lifeways outward from the central Zagros appears to be
focused on a major movement, of ideas and of people with animals and new herding and farming practices, to the
south into Khuzestan via Ilam and beyond into Fars by the late eighth millennium BC and to the west into Iraqi
Kurdistan by the mid-eighth millennium BC. This movement was no doubt rooted in, and developed from, pre-
vious centuries of seasonal mobility by local communities of hunter–gatherers. The transmission or development
of Neolithic lifeways across northern Iran at sites such as Sang-e Chakhmaq and across southern Iran at sites such
as Tall-e Atashi is poorly understood (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019b; Mutin et al. 2020; Roustaei and Gratuze 2020).
Detailed study of bio-archaeological and cultural remains from both regions, and from yet to be discovered sites
in intermediate regions, is necessary before we can delineate the varying influences of local as against imported
factors in determining the trajectories of transition from hunter–gatherer to farmer–herder in these regions of
Iran and beyond.
Becoming farmers, herders and villagers: the Neolithic climax, 6500–5200 BC

We now focus on the last millennium or so of the Neolithic period, from c. 6500 BC. We can view this period
as a climax of the Iranian Neolithic because it witnessed the spread and adoption of farming and herding lifeways
across all of Iran. Thus, by 5200 BC the vast majority of human communities living in Iran made their living
through farming the land and herding their animals rather than through hunting wild animals and gathering wild
foods. This shift in use of food resources represents a major change in the human condition that underpins all sub-
sequent social and political developments, in Iran and beyond (Hole 1987c: 30). Without the Neolithic Transition
there could have been no permanent villages, no towns and cities and no empires. The rest of this book is about
what was made possible by the Neolithic Transition and could not have happened without it.
The significance of ceramics

A major feature of the communities of Iran from c. 6750–6500 BC is their widespread adoption of pottery, fol-
lowing several centuries since its first appearances at sites such as Ganj Dareh, Tepe Guran, Sang-e Chakhmaq
West, Rahmatabad and Ali Kosh. Potsherds and pottery vessels are arguably the most significant and useful of all
types of material culture for the archaeologist studying ancient Iran. Variations and similarities in their technol-
ogy, forming, firing and decoration provide grist for detailed discussions on chronology, typology and intercultural
connections, while also informing us about the people who made and used them (Dyson 1965, 1991; Mortensen
2011; Petrie 2012; Darabi 2015: 92–94; Gibbs 2020). All the Ganj Dareh level D “vessels” were found in storage
rooms that had been heavily burnt, probably by an accidental fire so that firing of the unbaked clay vessels may
not have been intentional and they should not be regarded as true ceramics (Yelon et al. 1992). Local knowledge
of lime-firing technology is attested at Ganj Dareh and other contemporary sites, and it is likely that the earliest
experiments with pottery manufacture developed out of existing capability in pyrotechnology, as well as from
long-standing familiarity with the properties of clay through manufacture of figurines and tokens and through
architectural skills in working with chineh and mudbrick (Bernbeck 2017; Petrova 2019). The earliest Neolithic
pottery of Iran is lightly fired, probably on open campfires, with a moderate temper of chaff, generally coarsely
formed with slipped and burnished surfaces. Painted geometric decoration appears in the central Zagros from
c. 6500 BC as at Sarab (Petrie 2012: 58), and possibly slightly earlier in Fars at sites such as Toll-e Sangi (Kha-
nipour 2021). The common use across Iran of a lightly fired fabric for Neolithic ceramics has led to the identifica-
tion of a “soft-ware horizon” (Dyson 1965, 1991; Petrie 2011, 2012: 283–284; Weeks 2013a: 57). So far, the only
area of Iran to host significant numbers of Neolithic sites lacking evidence for ceramics and dating to later than
6000 BC is Darestan in the southern Lut Desert region, where a relatively dense settlement pattern is dominated
by the 12 ha site of Tall-e Atashi (see below; Mutin et al. 2020).
The development of ceramic technology is of major significance in our understanding of the prehistoric com-
munities of Iran and its neighbours (Helwing 2012). Prior to its invention, people used containers of basketry,
wood, worked stone, leather and felt, as well as storage bins of unbaked clay. With the invention of fired clay ves-
sels, the potential for new modes of storage, processing, cooking and consumption was hugely increased (Gregg
2009). Methods of analysis are increasingly able to recover and identify organic residues from ceramic surfaces,
giving some indication of modes and ingredients of ancient cooking including from Iranian Neolithic sites such as
Ali Kosh, Tepe Sarab and Tol-e Bashi (Gregg and Slater 2010). Seen in conjunction with the transition from sea-
sonally mobile hunting and foraging to sedentary farming and herding, we can readily appreciate the importance
of pottery as a new and flexible agent in a wide range of developing activities, including: large-scale, long-term
storage of farming surplus, including dairy products such as milk and yoghurt and plant products such as grain
and legumes; new forms of cooking such as frying in oil, boiling, simmering, steaming; new forms of consump-
tion such as communal use of vats, use of serving vessels and individual use of cups and beakers; new forms of
personal and social entanglement with material culture through attachment to individual vessels, via decoration,
or to particular styles of form and/or decoration of pottery; trade and exchange of vessels within and beyond
individuals, communities and regions; and the development of a specialised cadre of skilled potters alongside the
domestic-level production of pottery within households.
In addition to its ancient uses and values, pottery is of immense significance to the archaeologist today, not
least as one of the most commonly recovered forms of material culture from all sites of Iran and neighbouring
regions after c. 6500 BC. Sherds of pottery, from surveyed and excavated sites, are used to establish chronologies
and sequences of long-term settlement patterns at sites and across regions (Helwing 2012). Ceramics inform us
on technological capabilities, on modes of production, distribution and consumption, on local and transregional
networks of connection and communication, and on continuities and discontinuities in style and fashion through
diverse periods and places. Techniques of analysing lipid residues adhering to vessel surfaces allow us to trace
culinary developments such as the increasing significance of cow’s milk and other dairy products through the
Late Neolithic and beyond (Evershed et al. 2008; Gregg and Slater 2010), as well as the origins of wine and beer
production and consumption (McGovern 2007, 2009; Tengberg 2012b).
The central and south-central Zagros

As with preceding sections, the first focus in our study of the period 6500–5200 BC is the central Zagros of west-
ern Iran. A key site here is Tepe Guran (Figure 5.32), levels S-D, radiocarbon dated to cover c. 6700–6400 BC
(Zeder 2006a: table 14.2; Mortensen 2014). Early pottery from Guran level S is comparable to the material from
Ganj Dareh level D (Le Mière and Picon 1998) although later in date. Early painted pottery occurs at Guran from
level R and develops into so-called Zagros Standard Ware, which is found at a wide range of sites, from Jarmo in
the north to Ali Kosh in the south (Figures 5.33–5.34) (Kozlowski and Aurenche 2005: Figure 13.1; Mortensen
2011; Weeks 2013a: 58; Darabi 2015: 41; Bernbeck 2017). Early Neolithic levels at Guran are succeeded by more
substantial, densely packed mudbrick houses with red ochre decoration on the walls and human burials under the
floors, in contrast to the secondary burials in Early Neolithic levels at Guran. Goat and sheep dominate the fauna
throughout, with little evidence for hunting of other wild animals. The presence of migratory birds reveals some
winter occupation (Hole 1987b: 47). From c. 6200 BC barley appears and there is more exploitation of animals
in addition to goat, including gazelle and deer with also large-scale consumption of land snail, Helix salomonica.
In Khuzestan in the south-central Zagros, several of the sites examined above continue in occupation into
the Later Neolithic. At Ali Kosh, Chagha Sefid and Chogha Bonut the aceramic Neolithic levels are succeeded
by occupation with early pottery, developing from coarse, undecorated wares to painted and burnished vessels
(Hole 1987b: 39–40; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 124–125; Alizadeh 2003a; Weeks 2013a: 58). The long-lived site
of Chogha Mish is first settled at c. 6500 BC in the so-called Archaic Susiana 1 period (Delougaz et al. 1996;
Alizadeh 2008). Chogha Mish sits between the Dez and Karun rivers in northern Susiana, in an area where
rain-fed farming without irrigation is possible. From its earliest settlement the site develops through the Archaic
Susiana 1–3 periods from a hamlet to a small village over several centuries, with buildings constructed of long
cigar-shaped bricks often with parallel finger-drag impressions (Delougaz et al. 1996: pl. 54) and burial of the
Figure 5.32 Tepe Guran (right) under excavation in 1963 (Mortensen 2014: Figure 9) (photo credit: Peder Mortensen).
Figure 5.33 Tepe Guran, Zagros Standard Ware, painted pottery (Mortensen 2014: pl. I) (photo credit: Peder Mortensen).
Figure 5.34 T
epe Guran, section through excavations in trench G1 with associated painted pottery types (after Darabi 2015:
figs 5.14 and 5.16).
dead under house floors (Alizadeh 2008: 6–9). In the earliest phase the economy of Chogha Mish involved mixed
hunting of gazelle, onager and wild cattle alongside herding of domesticated sheep and goat, with domesticated
cattle and pigs appearing around 5900 BC, probably introduced from outside (Alizadeh 2008: 6, table 14). Plant
remains from Neolithic Chogha Mish show a focus on wild and domesticated forms of legumes, including milk
vetch (Astragalus) and vetch (Vicica) as well as domesticated lentil and pea, with minor emphasis on domesticated
cereals such as emmer, einkorn wheat and barley (Woosley 1996: 316; Alizadeh 2008: 9).
Other material culture assemblages from Neolithic Chogha Mish include a rich ground stone industry (Shima-
buku 1996) and chaff- and grit-tempered, painted pottery (Figure 5.35) that compares well with contemporary
ceramics from a range of Neolithic sites across Susiana and Khuzestan (Delougaz et al. 1996: 230–247; Alizadeh
2008: 61–66). By the end of the Neolithic period at Chogha Mish – and there is continuity of occupation into the
Chalcolithic period from c. 5600 BC (Chapter 6) – the painted pottery shows strong connections with ceramics
from central and south Mesopotamian sites to the west, including Umm Dabaghiyah, Chogha Mami and Tell
el-Oueili (Delougaz et al. 1996: 288; Alizadeh 2008: 65). The possible introduction by the later Neolithic levels
at Chogha Mish, at c. 6000 BC, of new technologies such as irrigation (Alizadeh 2008: 7–8) and of new domes-
ticated animals such as cattle and pig may well point to influences coming from the northwest, from sites such as
Chogha Mami where there is good evidence for irrigation farming and exploitation of cattle and pig alongside
sheep and goat (Helbaek 1972; Bökönyi 1978). Indeed, Hole (1977: 35–36) argues for the introduction of irriga-
tion farming onto the Deh Luran plain by farmers coming from the northwest at this time. The long mudbricks
Figure 5.35 Chogha Mish, painted pottery of Archaic Susiana 3 phase (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 66) (courtesy of the Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago).
with distinctive parallel finger grooves are exactly matched at Chogha Mami (Oates and Oates 1976: 64), highly
suggestive of movement of people between the two regions. One route of communication between the Late
Neolithic sites of central-eastern Mesopotamia and those of Iranian Khuzestan and the south Zagros would have
been across the Mehran plain on the western borders of the Zagros, where the as yet undated Neolithic sites of
Fasil and Khulaman are situated and where significant numbers of sites with Samarran-style ceramics have been
located through surveys (Darabi and Fazeli 2009; Darabi 2020).
The southern Zagros and Fars

The final millennium of the Iranian Neolithic sees a major expansion of farmer–herder communities across
Iran and into adjacent regions. Whether or not this expansion can be connected with the so-called 8.2ka BP
event of climatic adversity is as yet unproven, although it has been suggested that the Neolithic movement into
the Zagros foothills and Fars may have been stimulated by this century-long episode (Nishiaki 2010a, 2018;
Weeks et al. 2006: 24; Abe and Khanipour 2019; Darabi 2020). One of the problems is that we know so little
about Neolithic presence across the large stretch of mountains, hills and high plains situated between the central
Zagros and the southern Zagros, essentially the rugged Bakhtiyari region. Our knowledge is limited to the site
of Qaleh Rostam on the plain of Khana Mirza at 1900 m above sea level (Nissen and Zagarell 1976; Zagarell
1982; Bernbeck 1989, 2017; Gebel 1994; Daujat et al. 2016), where pottery shows a local development from low-
fired, chaff-tempered wares to painted and burnished red wares. Following initial settlement in the later eighth
Figure 5.36 Q
aleh Rostam, Neolithic faunal assemblage by NISP and weight (after Daujat et al. 2016: Figure 6).
millennium BC (see above), radiocarbon dates span much of the seventh millennium BC but with major gaps
(Daujat et al. 2016: 109).
Detailed analysis of the Qaleh Rostam faunal assemblages (Figure 5.36) shows massive representation of
caprines at 97% with goat, possibly domesticated from local wild populations, more common than sheep, both
wild and domesticated, and minor quantities of cattle, wild boar, deer, gazelle and hare. Analysis of goat teeth
suggests occupation at Qaleh Rostam spanning early spring to autumn with seasonal abandonment during the
extremely harsh winters at this altitude where temperatures can drop to -25°C (Daujat and Mashkour 2017).
Archaeobotanical remains, including emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), pistachio nuts and almonds, tend to sup-
port the interpretation of spring and summer occupation, while pollen and phytolith evidence suggest conditions
increasingly favourable for agriculture and animal herding in this highland zone (Daujat et al. 2016: 123). The
communities attested at Qaleh Rostam may therefore have practised vertical transhumance involving cyclical
mobility between lowland villages, such as those attested in Khuzestan, and upland base camps. Other surveyed
sites of the region have chipped stone assemblages comparable to those of the central Zagros, with bullet cores,
blades and bladelets, little trace of sickle sheen and infrequent occurrence of obsidian (Zagarell 1982). These
attributes broadly align Qaleh Rostam and its associated sites with contemporary developments in the central
Zagros. In the mountainous region to the south of Qaleh Rostam, archaeological surveys have detected Later
Neolithic sites in the Farsan region in the north-western Bakhtiyari mountains, all located near to springs and
streams (Khosrowzadeh 2016). Ceramics from these sites show stylistic parallels with ceramics from Fars to the
southeast and Khuzestan to the southwest. As with Qaleh Rostam, it is hard to believe that Neolithic farmers
could have over-wintered in this severe environment.
Amongst the excavated sites of Fars, the mound of Rahmatabad has occupation spanning the transition from
Early to Later Neolithic (Bernbeck et al. 2005, 2008; Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2013, 2014a; Nishiaki et al. 2013).
Radiocarbon dates indicate occupation spanning from the late eighth millennium BC through the Neolithic and
into the Early Chalcolithic. The painted ceramics from Rahmatabad are comparable to contemporary material
from Tal-e Mushki and Tol-e Bashi, with simple geometric designs painted on chaff-tempered wares. Chipped
stone tools from Rahmatabad, however, are in the M’lefaatian tradition as attested at multiple Early Neolithic
sites of the central Zagros and adjacent regions, with especially strong linkages to lithic assemblages of the Deh
Luran plain (Nishiaki et al. 2013). These connections might suggest an ultimate origin for the Rahmatabad settlers
from the central and south-central Zagros rather than an autochthonous development in Fars. Compared to the
Early Neolithic occupation (see above), the archaeobotany of Later Neolithic levels at Rahmatabad (Figure 5.37)
shows an enhanced focus on hulled wheats including emmer and, more rarely, einkorn as well as barley. Pistachio
and almond are also present in these levels, which see a decrease in use of wild, small-seeded pulses and in spe-
cies associated with wetland habitats such as lakes and riverbeds, possibly indicative of the development of more
arid conditions by the Later Neolithic (Tengberg and Azizi Kharanaghi 2016). The 6.5–ha large site of Q asr-e
Ahmad, 100 km south of Rahmatabad, also spans the Early to Later Neolithic of Fars, with use of obsidian
from both Nemrut Dağ and Bingöl sources (Bernbeck et al. 2006; Barge et al. 2018). A radiocarbon date suggests
occupation here by c. 7000 BC enduring for up to 500 years. Plant remains from Qasr-e Ahmad include wild and
Figure 5.37 R ahmatabad, relative proportions of plant categories across trenches and periods (after Tengberg and Azizi Kharanaghi
2016: Figure 3).
Figure 5.38 Prehistoric sites of the Fars region (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2013: Figure 9.1). Inset: Toll-e Sangi, possible lip-plugs or
earspools of stone and clay (Khanipour 2021: Figure 5) (photo credit: Morteza Khanipour).
domesticated wheat and barley alongside wild plants and nuts, while the zooarchaeological assemblage is domi-
nated by wild and domestic goat with much smaller representations of sheep, cattle and pig (Safoora et al. 2018).
The Kur river basin region of Fars, northeast of Shiraz, has been the focus of major research projects that have
included the Neolithic period within their agendas (Figure 5.38) (Fukai et al. 1973; Egami et al. 1977; Sumner
1977; Potts and Roustaei 2006; Weeks et al. 2006; Nishiaki 2010a, 2010b; Pollock et al. 2010; Weeks 2013c).
Apart from the Early Neolithic occupation attested in the Tang-e Bolaghi and Arsanjan regions and at Tepe Rah-
matabad, as discussed above, the earliest Neolithic occupation of Fars dates to c. 6400 BC. Three key sites have
given their names to sub-phases of the Neolithic of Fars: Tal-e Mushki (6400–6100 BC), Tol-e Bashi (6100–6000
BC) and Tal-e Jari A and B (6000–5000 BC), although there is debate over the duration of each of these phases
(Alden et al. 2004: Figure 2; Abe and Khanipour 2019: Table 1). At Tal-e Mushki, architecture of chineh and
mudbrick occurs in the earliest levels, and the ceramics include burnished wares painted with geometric designs,
in a style that seems to have originated in the region. The wide distribution across Fars of sites with Mushki
ceramics, usually located next to large springs, suggests a strong network of regional engagement (Sumner 1977:
303; Pincé et al. 2019) reaching into the high mountain passes as attested at Tang-e Khiareh at 1650 m above sea
level where a small Mushki-related site is located (Zeidi et al. 2016). Early experimentation with native copper in
the production of small objects is also attested at several Neolithic sites of the region (Weeks 2012: 296). Lithics
from Neolithic Tal-e Mushki are in the Late M’lefaatian style with increasing representation of sickle blades and
geometric tools (Nishiaki 2018), while radiocarbon dates confirm the site’s Neolithic occupation as spanning a
few centuries around 6200 BC (Nishiaki 2010b).
While the plant remains at Tal-e Mushki indicate cultivation of domesticated barley, emmer and einkorn
(Miller and Kimiaie 2006: Table 7), the faunal remains show a strong emphasis on hunting of wild animals in-
cluding onager, aurochs and gazelle (Mashkour et al. 2006: Table 2). Surprisingly, goats appear to be largely wild
and there are no sheep (Zeder 1991: 60). Diachronic study of the faunal assemblages from Mushki and from Jari A
and B shows a vivid switch from hunting of onager and gazelle to herding of domesticated goat (Mashkour et al.
2006: Table 3). It appears that, unlike the earliest Neolithic settlement of Khuzestan, the early farmers of the Kur
river basin did not bring the practice of goat-herding with them, or that they abandoned the practice on settling
down in the region, perhaps because of the wealth of wild animal resources at their disposal or as a response to
climatic adversity attendant upon the 8.2 ka BP event (Weeks 2013c: 103). The subsequent decline in hunting and
the corresponding increased emphasis on herding of domesticated animals is also detectable in the chipped stone
tools from Tal-e Mushki as compared to Tal-e Jari B, with a drop in geometric arrow heads matched by a surge
in sickle blades (Abe 2011: 168). Particularly notable amongst the finds from Mushki are a total of 391 “earspools”
mainly of clay. Hole (1987b: 53) suggests the possibility that these objects, whether or not really used as earspools,
were being manufactured at Mushki for both local and regional use.
As discussed above, initial excavations at Toll-e Sangi in north-eastern Fars suggest significant occupation
through the Early-Later Neolithic transition, c. 7100–6800 BC, with stone tools of chert and obsidian, pound-
ers for processing red pigment, human and animal figurines, plus polished stone and clay objects that may have
functioned as lip-plugs or earspools (Figure 5.38) (Khanipour 2021: Figure 5). Earspools also occur in significant
quantities in clay and stone at the upland site of Hormangan in north-eastern Fars, which has yielded rectilinear
chineh architecture, preceded by a phase of ash lenses and hearths without architecture (Khanipour and Niknami
2017: Figure 6; Khanipour et al. 2018). Radiocarbon dates place the earlier phase at c. 6400–6200 BC and the
later phase at c. 6200–6000 BC (Abe and Khanipour 2019: Table 2). Lithic tools from this site are very much in
the Zagros Late M’lefaatian tradition, as at Mushki, with abundant geometrics in the form of lunates and trapezes
as well as sickle blades with gloss (Figure 5.39) (Abe and Khanipour 2019: Figure 7). Only a single obsidian blade
has been recovered from Hormangan, as yet of unknown origin. A dominance of hunting tools, in the form of
geometrics, over tools of cultivation, such as sickle blades, is matched by a strong representation of hunted wild
animals such as gazelle and onager with lesser quantities of domesticates including goat. As at Mushki, these
associations have been interpreted as possible evidence of a major shift in food procurement strategy as a direct
consequence of the 8.2 ka BP cooling event (Abe and Khanipour 2019).
Figure 5.39 H
ormangan, chipped stone tools (Abe and Khanipour 2019: Figure 7) (permission courtesy of Morteza Khanipour).
Through the sixth millennium BC in the Kur river basin, the sites of Tol-e Bashi and Tal-e Jari A and B
demonstrate the increasing significance of goat, sheep and cattle herding and a corresponding decline in hunting
of wild animals (Mashkour et al. 2006; Weeks 2013c). At Tol-e Bashi goat and sheep were the main herded ani-
mals while hunting of gazelle continued (Mashkour 2010). At Tol-e Nurabad and Tol-e Spid in the Mamasani
region of Fars, the economy is heavily based on herding of sheep and goat, with no hunting at all of gazelle
(Mashkour 2006a). Plant remains at Tol-e Bashi include cultivated cereals such as wheat and two-row barley as
well as a range of wild plants, including reeds and grasses (Kimiae 2010). More broadly, all the ceramic Neolithic
sites of Fars show a strong reliance on domesticated cereals, including einkorn, bread wheat and two-row barley
along with exploitation of pistachio and almond but with a notable absence of cultivated pulses (Tengberg and
Azizi Kharanaghi 2016: 137), a feature also of Neolithic sites of north-eastern Iran (see below). As Weeks has
pointed out (2013c: 101; Pincé et al. 2019), the lavish use of agricultural by-products such as straw and chaff as
pottery temper is further indication of the importance of cereal-based agriculture in the region, as is the increased
evidence for use of chert sickle blades (Nishiaki 2013, 2018). Bernbeck’s (2010) highly detailed “microstylistic”
analysis of painted motifs on ceramics from Tol-e Bashi (Figure 5.40) innovatively proposes the identification of
individual potters at work. Rectilinear, multi-roomed houses of mudbrick and chineh are a common feature of
all the Kur river basin sites as well as of Tol-e Nurabad in the Mamasani region of north-western Fars (Potts and
Roustaei 2006; Weeks et al. 2006; Weeks 2013c). On the south-western fringes of the city of Shiraz the Later
Neolithic site of Tappeh Poustchi is located on the little explored Shiraz plain to the west of Lake Maharlou
(Hamzavi and Zeidi 2016). Ceramics from the site suggest a date in the first half of the sixth millennium BC.
Ancient springs and major natural watercourses across the Shiraz plain, now all dry, could have attracted and
supported significant prehistoric populations across its fertile soils. Similarly, Later Neolithic occupation of the
Marvdasht and Firuzabad plains is attested at Tappeh Mianroud and Tol-e Sabz, respectively, with rich assem-
blages of painted Neolithic ceramics (Mansouri and Ahmady 2015; Ebrāhimi et al. 2016).
By 5500 BC we can therefore view the entire Fars region as occupied by settled farmers living in small villages
on the plains, cultivating a range of domesticated cereals in their fields, herding their flocks of sheep and goat in
Figure 5.40 Tol-e Bashi, painted pottery with typical motifs (Bernbeck 2010: 149) (permission courtesy of Reinhard Bernbeck).
daily and seasonal patterns of movement, and making and using a range of artefacts largely derived from locally
available resources. A few more exotic items such as obsidian, seashells, copper lumps and bitumen pieces suggest
some engagement, however indirect, with a world beyond the valley. Several millennia later, it would be on this
agricultural foundation in this region of Iran that the great Achaemenid empire of the Iron Age would be con-
structed (Chapter 11).
South-eastern Iran
Looking southeast from Fars, the Neolithic of the Kerman region of south-eastern Iran is poorly understood.
Following the earlier settlement at Gav Koshi near Jiroft (see above), occupation of early sixth millennium BC
date has been found at several sites in the Shah Maran-Daulatabad valleys (Prickett 1986b: 223–224). Here the
mound of Tepe Gaz Tavileh (or R37) is one of a cluster of apparently contemporary Neolithic sites that suggest
a significant Later Neolithic presence in the region, with mudbrick domestic architecture attested at the site. Fau-
nal remains from Gaz Tavileh are dominated by domesticated goat, sheep and cattle and exploited plants include
cereals (wheat, barley, millet) supplemented by dates and caper (Meadow 1986). The very early occurrence of date
stones from Gaz Tavileh lends support to the suggestion that this region may host the origins of date palm culti-
vation (Tengberg 2012b: 196), a development of major significance for the region and well beyond. The fact that
zebu cattle (Bos indicus) are represented in bone assemblages from Gaz Tavileh (Meadow 1986: 37) is also striking
because of their extremely early date. Zebu are domesticated to the east in South Asia and are attested at c. 6000
BC at Mehrgarh in Pakistan (Meadow 1984). From archaeological and aDNA evidence zebu cattle can be tracked
in movements westwards across Iran and into Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Levant through the Chalcolithic,
Bronze and Iron Ages (Matthews 2002a; Verdugo et al. 2019; Frantz et al. 2020).
At the nearby multi-period site of Tepe Yahya in the Soghun valley, ceramic Neolithic occupation, of level
VII, dates to the late sixth and early fifth millennia BC (Beale 1986; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 147–151) and features
rectilinear mudbrick buildings (Figure 5.41), some likely for storage, and a possible external cemetery of human
Figure 5.41 Tepe Yahya, level VIIB.2 architecture (Beale 1986: Figures 6.8–6.9) (images courtesy of C. C Lamberg-Karlovsky).
Figure 5.42 Tepe Yahya, chlorite figurine (Beale 1986: figs 7.17, 7.29) (image courtesy of C. C Lamberg-Karlovsky).
burials with traces of red pigment. Pottery is coarse and chaff-tempered with rare painted decoration, and there is
evidence for use of copper in production of small artefacts such as pins and tacks (Thornton et al. 2002; Thornton
and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004). A notable find is a large human figurine (26.6cm long) of locally available chlorite
(Figure 5.42), deliberately buried with three bone tools (one of which appears to be a kind of wand), 63 lithic pieces
and three grooved stones (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970: 113, pls. 42–43; Beale 1986: Figures 7.16–7.17, 7.25–7.29).
These objects were deliberately placed on the floor of one of the small rooms, perhaps as an offering of some kind.
The human figurine displays a unique blend of male and female sexual characteristics (Daems 2001: 5). Clay tokens
in the form of cones and spheres are common. Goat and sheep are the main herded animals (Meadow 1986), while
barley and wheat (emmer and einkorn) are the principal crops, a package strongly suggestive of whole-sale intro-
duction from outside the region. To the northwest, level I at Tal-e Iblis consists of well-constructed mudbrick
houses with red-plastered floors. The occupants herded goat, sheep and cattle while still hunting aurochs, gazelle
and onager, and there are indications of early experiments with copper (Caldwell 1967).
Investigations at the site of Tall-e Atashi (Figure 5.43) in the region of Bam in Darestan indicate an aceramic
Neolithic presence on a substantial scale, with architecture and lithic scatters over a total area of up to 12 ha
(Garazhian 2009, 2016; Garazhian and Shakooie 2013; Mutin and Garazhian 2018; Mutin et al. 2020). Chipped
stone tools are of chert with no obsidian ( Jayez and Garazhian 2013; Shakooie and Garazhian 2013), and
items such as clay figurines, tokens, miniature vessels, and a polished stone bowl suggest connections with
Neolithic sites to the west. There is some trace of an early phase of circular architecture, before a shift to recti-
linear structures, which may indicate a local evolution of architectural tradition rather than an imposition from
outside. But the use of thumb-impressed mudbricks and the lithic assemblages at Atashi connect the site with
Neolithic levels at Tepe Yahya, Tal-e Iblis, Tepe Sialk period II and Mehrgah period I (Mutin et al. 2020: 6).
Figure 5.43 Tall-e Atashi, views of site and architecture (photo credit: Omran Garazhian).
Although apparently a Pre-Pottery Neolithic (or better, aceramic Neolithic) site, radiocarbon dates suggest an
occupation at Atashi spanning or within c. 5600–4600 BC (Garazhian and Rahmati 2012; Garazhian 2016: 49;
Mutin et al. 2020: 9), a dating that indicates a late survival or appearance of aceramic Neolithic occupation in this
region. Plants exploited by the inhabitants of Atashi included domesticated wheat and barley plus wild grasses,
pulses and oil-seed plants. Food storage and cooking practices employed by the Atashi people may perforce have
differed significantly from those of their ceramic-rich contemporaries across Iran.
Surface survey identification of 64 Neolithic sites in Darestan, of which 25 lacked any Neolithic ceramics,
altogether reveal a significant Neolithic presence in this region, with some suggestion of settlement movement
according to water availability (Mutin et al. 2020: 9), always a critical factor. The total absence of pottery at
Tall-e Atashi and at many other Neolithic sites of the southern Lut desert region remains something of a mystery,
given the adoption of ceramic technology in Fars and other regions of Iran at least several centuries prior to the
Neolithic occupation of Atashi and its region. Mutin and colleagues (Mutin et al. 2020: 13) situate this attribute
within the context of Neolithic sites to the east, such as Mehrgah in Pakistan, together constituting a late ace-
ramic Neolithic horizon of the Indo-Iranian borderlands, and probably supporting an interpretation of external
origins for the Neolithic of this region through processes of diffusion, whether demographic, cultural or both.
North-western Iran and the Caucasus

The Neolithic of north-western Iran begins at 6500 BC at the earliest, apparently predating the 8.2 ka BP
event but our knowledge of the region is limited: a major issue is a lack of fieldwork focused on the Neolithic
period. Between 10,000 and 6500 BC we have no evidence for human presence across the regions of the north
Zagros, the Lake Urmia basin and Iranian Azerbaijan, arguably due to the excessively cold and dry climate of
the Early Holocene in this region (Bottema 1986; Kelts and Shahrabi 1986). Preliminary publication by Tala’i
(1984) and Ajorloo (2008, 2016) of survey and excavation in Iranian Azerbaijan includes ceramic material from
several sites that appears to pre-date the earliest known pottery from the site of Hajji Firuz Tepe (Voigt 1983).
Especially significant are the sites of Ahrendjan and Qara Tepe on the Salmas plain to the northwest of Lake
Urmia (Tala’i 1984; Ajorloo 2008: 112–113, 2016). The Salmas plain is situated on multiple connecting natural
routes of communication, with access to and from the Caucasus to the north, the Lake Urmia basin and the
Zagros to the south, Lake Van and eastern Anatolia to the west, and the Mughan plain and the Caspian region
to the east. Excavations at Ahrendjan and Qara Tepe recovered chaff-tempered pottery, a rich ground-stone
industry, tools of obsidian originating from Lake Van, only 120 km to the northwest, and possibly from other
sources too including Syunik in Armenia (Niknami et al. 2010; Barge et al. 2018), and clay spindle whorls. As
at Hajji Firuz Tepe, the pottery from Ahrendjan and Qara Tepe (Figure 5.44) compares well to assemblages
from Mesopotamian sites such as Umm Dabaghiyah and Hassuna but seems to be associated more with dairy
produce rather than grain processing. To the southeast of Tabriz, east of Lake Urmia, the multi-period mound of
Değirmen Tepe also hosts occupation of ceramic Neolithic date (Ajorloo 2008: 113–114). Ahrendjan, Qara Tepe
and Değirmen Tepe are important indicators of the earliest Neolithic of the region but their occupation cannot
be dated to earlier than ca. 6500 BC and is probably later. A critical factor in the early appearance of Neolithic
Figure 5.44 Painted pottery from Ahrendjan and Qara Tepe (after Ajorloo 2016: Figure 4).
settlement of the region is likely to have been the environment: by the sixth millennium BC an increasingly wet
climate enabled the development of grasslands, meadows and woodlands in the Urmia basin (Kelts and Shahrabi
1986). As to the origin of the Neolithic of Iranian Azerbaijan, Ajorloo (2008, 2016) argues that ceramic parallels
between assemblages from Ahrendjan and Qara Tepe with those from Sarab, Guran and Jarmo point strongly
to the central Zagros region as a source for diffusion northwards of early farming and herding communities
travelling with their plants and animals.
A key site is the multi-period mound of Yanik Tepe near Tabriz (Burney 1964; see Chapter 8). Over 5 m of
Neolithic occupation at Yanik starts from c. 6200 BC, with well-developed rectilinear architecture of mudbrick.
Walls and floors were plastered with gypsum and painted with red pigment in patches. Human burials were
placed under room floors. Objects include many alabaster bowl and bracelet fragments, comparable to those from
Neolithic sites of the Zagros, and bone and obsidian tools using obsidian from south Caucasian and north Iranian
sources (Orange et al. 2021). A small stone figurine takes the form of a human head with clear representation of
artificial cranial elongation (Figure 5.45) (Burney 1964: pl. 15.11), also a key trait of the Zagros Neolithic (Lor-
entz 2010). Chaff-tempered pottery, occasionally painted, compares well to Neolithic ceramics from Hajji Firuz
to the southwest of Lake Urmia (Voigt 2011). The alabaster bracelets and evidence for cranial elongation suggest
a Zagros origin for the Neolithic settlers of the Lake Urmia basin rather than a development from local hunter–
gatherer communities, until now conspicuous by their absence from the archaeological record. Future survey and
excavations may well overturn this interpretation.
The most fully excavated, analysed and published Neolithic site of north-western Iran (and well beyond) is
Hajji Firuz Tepe (Voigt 1977, 1983, 2000; Hole 1987b: 44–45), situated at 1300 m above sea level in the fertile
Ushnu-Solduz valley to the south of Lake Urmia. Occupation at Hajji Firuz dates to the first half of the sixth
Figure 5.45 Y
anik Tepe, human head figurine of stone with clay plug (after Burney 1964: pl. 15.11).
Figure 5.46 Hajji Firuz Tepe, general view of excavations in 1968 (photo credit: Mary Voigt).
Figure 5.47 H
ajji Firuz Tepe, phase C architecture (after Voigt 1983: Figure 15) (permission courtesy of Mary Voigt).
Figure 5.48 Hajji Firuz Tepe, deposit of human remains (photo credit: Mary Voigt).
Figure 5.49 Hajji Firuz Tepe, painted pottery (after Voigt 1983: Figure 93) (permission courtesy of Mary Voigt).
millennium BC (Tonoike 2009). As at Yanik Tepe, the Neolithic architecture at Hajji Firuz (Figures 5.46–5.47)
consists of very neat rectilinear mudbrick buildings plastered with lime and with traces of red and black paint.
Internal features include ovens and plaster storage bins. There are many human burials below floors, as well as so-
called “ossuary burials” comprising both primary and secondary interments with red pigment (Figure 5.48). Typical
Neolithic chaff-tempered pottery is common, sometimes decorated by incision and paint (Figure 5.49) (Voigt
2011), and there is a range of ground stone items and tools of bone and obsidian originating from Armenian sources
directly to the north (Barge et al. 2018). Of some significance are the figurines from Hajji Firuz, fully studied by
the excavator, Mary Voigt (1983, 2000; Daems 2004: 11). Her analysis detected differential spatial distribution of
the varying figurine types, whether cones, human, animal or so-called “sealings” (not impressed by seals), as well
as deliberate ancient breakage of all the recovered figures and their association with ash-filled pits. Her conclusion
is that most figurines were “vehicles of magic and therefore documented ritual behaviour” (Voigt 2000: 264), an
interpretation supported in a contextual analysis of clay tokens from Hajji Firuz and other sites (Palka 2020).
Plant remains from Hajji Firuz show a fully agricultural aspect, with cultivation of barley, wheat and lentils along
with use of a range of wild species (Voigt 1977: 316–317). Hajji Firuz has yielded the earliest convincing evidence for
wine production, detected through liquid chromatography of organic residues in storage vessels set into the floor of
a room identified as a kitchen (McGovern 2007: 64–68; Tengberg 2012b: 186–187). Traces of a pistachio-based resin
in the same residues suggest the production of a type of retsina. Domesticated sheep and goat were the main herded
animals, combined with pig and dog, and hunting of aurochs, red deer and wild pig also took place (Voigt 1977:
318–320). Voigt interprets many of the pottery vessels as having a function within dairy processing and storage, an
interpretation strengthened by more recent analysis of milk residue on vessels from seventh millennium BC sites
in Southwest Asia and Southeast Europe (Evershed et al. 2008). Concerning the origin of the first settlers at Hajji
Firuz, on the basis of the pottery Voigt (1983: 166) argues for connections across the northern Zagros to the west
into Upper Mesopotamia, with sites such as Telul eth-Thalathat, Sotto and Umm Dabaghiyah. Once more there
is no evidence for a development in this region of sedentary Neolithic society out of local hunter–gatherer groups.
Further to the north, beyond the great Aras/Araxes river, the earliest Neolithic sites of the southern Caucasus,
such as Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in western Azerbaijan (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012; Nishiaki et al. 2015a,
2015b; Nishiaki and Guliyev 2020), Kültepe I in Nakhchivan (Marro et al. 2019) and Aruchlo in Georgia (Hansen
et al. 2007; Lyonnet et al. 2012), with their packed clusters of circular buildings, knob-adorned pottery, and tools
of obsidian obtained from relatively local sources in Georgia, Armenia and north-eastern Anatolia (Nishiaki et al.
2019), all date to the sixth millennium BC with little evidence for evolution from a local Pre-Pottery Neolithic
presence, at least in terms of agropastoral practices (Nishiaki et al. 2015a). DNA analysis on Neolithic sheep and
cattle from Aruchlo indicates their introduction to the southern Caucasus from an as yet unidentified external
source (Benecke 2017). Recent work on the Mil plain of southern Azerbaijan, close to the border with Iran, has
detected a dispersed Late Neolithic presence of mid-sixth millennium BC date with plausible connections both
westwards to the Halaf world of Upper Mesopotamia and southwards to the highlands of north-western Iran (Hel-
wing et al. 2017; Helwing and Aliyev 2018; Ricci et al. 2018). In sum, much research remains to be conducted into
the origins and chronology of the Neolithisation of this region (Chataigner et al. 2014; Sagona 2018).
The central and northern plateaux

The Neolithic arrives late and fully formed on the central and northern plateaux of Iran, as far as present under-
standing goes, possibly coinciding with an episode of increasing precipitation (Schmidt et al. 2011; Vidale et al.
2018). The earliest known Neolithic site on the Kashan plain, hard against the foothills of the Karkas mountains,
may be the site of Tepe Shurabeh, which has sherds of primitive soft-ware probably dating to the early sixth
millennium BC (Malek Shahmirzadeh 2006: 13). Located only 5 km east of Shurabeh, the large north mound of
Tepe Sialk (Figure 5.50) on the Kashan plain is especially important (Ghirshman 1939; Mellaart 1975: 187–190;
Malek Shahmirzadeh 2006; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013a; Kourampas et al. 2013; Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019;
Matthews 2019). Sialk lies in an ecotone between the Karkas mountains to the west and the central plateau to
the east. Ghirshman’s excavations in level I at Sialk North recovered disarticulated traces of light structures of
reeds and mud succeeded by structures of chineh. Human burials were placed below floors and coated with red
pigment, with infants buried in pots and lacking grave goods (Sołtysiak and Fazeli Nashli 2010). Domesticated
goats along with barley and emmer wheat and agricultural tools, including sickle blades (Thomalsky 2016: 176;
Ilkhani et al. 2019), suggest the full-scale practice of farming from the earliest occupation of the site alongside
hunting of gazelle, wild sheep and cattle. Micromorphological analysis shows the presence in the earliest levels
of trampled and burnt dung deposits, from stabling of domesticated animals (Kourampas et al. 2013: 195). There
are some basic artefacts of cold-worked native copper (Pigott 1999: 74), and chaff-tempered pottery is common
Figure 5.50 Tepe Sialk North, aerial image (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019: Figure 2.3) (photo credit Loghman Ahmadzadeh).
Figure 5.51 Tepe Sialk North, Late Neolithic painted pottery (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019: Figure 2.5).
(Marghussian et al. 2017). More recent work at Sialk North has established the chronology of occupation with
multiple radiocarbon dates (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013a: 127–128, Table 10.2). These dates suggest a duration of
800 years for the Neolithic at Sialk North, starting from c. 6000 BC with abandonment at the end of the sixth
millennium BC. Renewed occupation at Sialk South then starts from c. 4100 BC after a long hiatus (Chapter 6).
Neolithic ceramics from Sialk North are chaff-tempered and through time show increasing connections with
other Late Neolithic communities of the broader region (Figure 5.51). Survey of the Arisman region directly
southeast of Sialk recovered Neolithic evidence from three sites one of which, Tappe Mesi, yielded a distinctive
lithic bladelet assemblage that may betoken an aceramic Neolithic presence in this region (Helwing et al. 2011).
Northwards from the Kashan plain, Late Neolithic occupation is attested in the narrow strip of habitable land
between the central deserts to the south and the Alborz mountains to the north. With the possible exception of
Qaleh Asgar (see above; Biglari 2012), settlement on the plains south of Tehran does not appear to pre-date c. 5600
BC (Fazeli et al. 2004; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013a). The mound of Cheshmeh Ali has an unbroken sequence of oc-
cupation from Late Neolithic through Transitional Chalcolithic and Early Chalcolithic, with ceramics comparable
to those from Sialk North level I. Late Neolithic ceramics have been excavated at Tepe Pardis, also on the Tehran
plain, and again appear to date to the later sixth millennium BC, as attested also at Ismailabad (Tala’i 2000). Neo-
lithic settlement on the fertile Qazvin plain has been investigated at several sites, in particular Chahar Boneh, Tepe
Ebrahimabad and Mai Tappeh (Mashkour et al. 1999; Fazeli et al. 2005; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009, 2013a; Sarlak 2016).
Occupation at Chahar Boneh commences with ashy layers containing bones, lithics and ceramics, interbedded
with natural deposits, suggestive of seasonal, short-lived presence. Domesticated cereals and sheep/goat dominate
the economic evidence at Chahar Boneh. These ashy layers are radiocarbon dated to c. 6000 BC, suggesting Ne-
olithic occupation of the Qazvin plain some 400 years before that of the Tehran plain to the east. Approximately
contemporary occupation has been encountered at Mai Tappeh on the southwest of the Qazvin plain (Sarlak 2016),
while nearby Ajorband has ceramics dating to the mid-sixth millennium BC (Niakan 2016). Soundings at Tepe
Ebrahimabad recovered scant architecture and a single human burial, with further evidence for cereals and leg-
umes along with domesticated sheep/goat. The Neolithic at Ebrahimabad is dated to c. 5600–5200 BC.
At the western edges of the Qazvin plain towards Zanjan, the small site of Tepe Khaleseh is situated at 1,600
m above sea level near a tributary of the Abhar Rud (Valipour et al. 2012, 2013). Excavations here have uncovered
mudbrick and chineh architecture, ovens and a pottery kiln of the Later Neolithic. Floors are plastered and occasion-
ally paved with potsherds, and stone door sockets suggest use of wooden doors. Three infant burials were inserted
beneath house floors (Figure 5.52) (Gręzak et al. 2010). Amongst the small finds, large quantities of clay tokens
(mainly cones and spheres), bone tools, and a single clay stamp seal with schematic design are notable. The stamp
seal (Valipour et al. 2013: Figures 11.39–11.40) is the earliest convincing example of a seal from all of Iran. Animal
remains from Khaleseh are dominated, at 90%, by domesticated sheep/goat along with cattle and pig, with some
hunting of gazelle and onager (Gręzak et al. 2010). Cultivated crops comprise above all barley and glume wheats
with low numbers of pulses and large quantities of wild mustards probably gathered for use as fuel in firing of ce-
ramics (Figure 5.53) (Whitlam et al. 2020). There are no radiocarbon dates but the pottery and other material point
to a date of c. 6000–5600 BC, contemporary with Chahar Boneh 100 km to the southeast. Elsewhere in Zanjan and
Gilan provinces, to the southwest of the Caspian Sea, scattered Later Neolithic occupation in the form of soft-ware
pottery has been identified through survey (Alibaigi and Khosravi 2009; Alibaigi et al. 2012a), including the small
sites of Arg-e Dasht B and C, perhaps seasonal campsites for Later Neolithic herders and hunters (Nokandeh 2005).
In sum, across the plains of central and northern Iran there is as yet no convincing sign of local precursors to the
well-adapted Neolithic farmers and herders who spread into the region from c. 6000 BC, bringing their domesti-
cated herds and grains with them. Where did they come from? The likeliest hypothesis for the time-being is that
they moved into central and northern Iran from the west, steadily advancing across the Zagros ranges and foothills
from areas where farming had already been practiced for up to 2000 years (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019b). Why did
they move? To what extent their movement was stimulated by climatic adversity attendant upon the 8.2 ka BP event
Figure 5.52 Tepe Khaleseh, views of site and infant burial in pot (photo credit: Hamid Reza Valipour).
Figure 5.53 Tepe Khaleseh, plan of trench V, showing botanical composition of sample (Whitlam et al. 2020: Figure 8) (image
courtesy of Jade Whitlam).
remains unclear (Schmidt et al. 2011), but there appears to be an at least approximate contemporaneity. A concerted,
country-wide programme of radiocarbon dating and statistical analysis of samples from all relevant sites across Iran,
in concert with renewed investigation of palaeoclimatic proxy records would yield some exciting results. Given the
still sparse distribution of Neolithic sites across all regions of Iran, including even probable core zones such as the
central Zagros, it appears unlikely that pressures of population density and associated resource exhaustion played a
significant role in stimulating the spread of farming-herding communities across Iran and beyond. The expansion
of the Neolithic across Iran can more usefully be viewed through the lens of human innovation and environmental
opportunism articulated in Zeder’s (2012, 2016) broad interpretive concept of human niche construction.
North-eastern Iran and Turkmenistan

The northeast of Iran is a critical region both in itself and as a transit zone for the spread of Neolithic lifeways across
the Kopet Dagh and into Central Asia (Figure 5.54) (Harris and Gosden 1996; Coolidge 2005; Harris and Cool-
idge 2010; Roustaei 2014a, 2014b, 2016a, 2016b; Roustaei and Gratuze 2020; Taylor et al. 2021). We saw above
that aceramic Neolithic occupation is well attested at Sang-e Chakhmaq West, probably introduced from outside
(Vahdati Nasab et al. 2019b: 301). As yet no Neolithic sites predating c. 7000 BC have been located in north-eastern
Iran and there is general agreement that the Neolithic of the region did not develop indigenously but was probably
introduced from regions to the west such as the central Zagros (Roustaei and Gratuze 2020). A significant caveat,
however, is the possibility that sites with Early Neolithic occupation have been completely buried under subse-
quent alluviation in geomorphologically dynamic environments such as the Gorgan plain (Roustaei 2016b: 45).
The west mound of Sang-e Chakhmaq was abandoned at c. 6700 BC and after a 400-year gap occupation restarted
on the east mound, which is much larger at c. 400 m in diameter (Harris and Coolidge 2010: 63–64; Masuda et al.
2013; Thornton 2013a; Roustaei et al. 2015). Multi-room structures of cigar-shaped mudbrick and chineh occur
through 6 m of deposits at Sang-e Chakhmaq East, with courtyards, fireplaces and kilns. Large quantities of wood
charcoal were found, indicating a wooded local environment, possibly over-exploited by the inhabitants. The re-
gion is treeless today and has been for a very long time. Small finds include bone and antler implements, chert sickle
blades and rare obsidian blades, stone axeheads (for chopping wood?), clay spindle whorls, clay and stone figurines
(Furusato 2014) and large quantities of pottery, which shows connections both to the west (Sialk and Cheshmeh Ali)
and to the east (Jeitun and Namazga I) (Tsuneki 2014a). Some 140 human burials, at least 75% of them infants, were
also excavated with infants buried under house walls or under floors close to walls and rarely accompanied by grave
goods or application of red ochre (Miyauchi 2014; Tagaya 2014). Adult body position changes from flexed at Sang-e
Chakhmaq West to extended at Sang-e Chakhmaq East. Three females and one juvenile appear to have been buried
at the same time. Radiocarbon dates from Sang-e Chakhmaq East indicate Neolithic occupation from c. 6300 BC to
at least 5700 BC or possibly 5200 BC (Table 5.3) (Nakamura 2014) with levels of Transitional Chalcolithic on top.
The faunal assemblage from Sang-e Chakhmaq East compares well to that from the earlier occupation at Sang-e
Chakhmaq West, with hunting and herding of goat and sheep, hunting of gazelle, red deer, wild boar, onager and
wetland birds and increased representation of cattle that appear to be domesticated by the time of settlement at Sang-e
Figure 5.54 Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of north-eastern Iran (after Thornton 2013a: Figure 15.1; Rezvani and Roustaei 2016;
Roustaei 2016b: Figure 2).
Chakhmaq East (Mashkour et al. 2014; Roustaei et al. 2015). Charred plant remains show a reliance on barley for
human consumption but with no evidence for local domestication, as well as a diverse range of wheats, an absence of
cultivated pulses and a decline in proportions of wild plants (Fuller 2014; Tengberg 2014; Roustaei et al. 2015).
In addition to the ceramic parallels, there are many points of connection with sites of the Jeitun culture of
the Neolithic of southern Turkmenistan 200 km to the northeast, including use of long cylindrical mudbricks,
cosmetic vials, flat spindle whorls and hook-shaped bone sickles (Figure 5.55) (Masson and Harris 1994). Other
artefacts, such as alabaster vessels, biconical spindle whorls and straight-handled bone sickles, compare well to
material from Neolithic Sialk to the west (Figure 5.56) (Thornton 2013a: 244). This janiform attribute of Sang-e
Chakhmaq East material culture strongly suggests that the occupants of the site were indeed agents of transmis-
sion of Neolithic lifeways from west to east across northern Iran and into Turkmenistan (and back again?). Petro-
graphic analysis of pottery reveals their manufacture from purely local clays, even though stylistically the sampled
vessels differ widely (Thornton 2013a: 254; Kurosawa 2014), which suggests that local potters had good awareness
of a range of regional styles even if there was only limited movement of the vessels themselves.
Investigation at two other Neolithic sites in the Shahroud area augments the evidence from Sang-e Chakhmaq
East: Deh Kheir and Khalateh Khan. Additionally, survey work has identified at least three further Neolithic sites
in this region (Roustaei 2012a). The site of Deh Kheir lies just 2.5 km north of Sang-e Chakhmaq, adjacent to
springs and seasonal streams on the southern flanks of the Alborz Mountains (Rezvani and Roustaei 2016). At
Deh Kheir animal remains comprise both domesticated and hunted species, with goat, sheep and gazelle espe-
cially common (Mashkour et al. 2016). The high presence of gazelle bones at all three excavated Shahroud sites
suggests deliberate location for exploitation of the animal resources of the desert fringe zone directly to the south.
Also notable is the presence of a brown bear mandible, as also found at Sang-e Chakhmaq (Mashkour et al. 2014)
and the scarcity of remains of cattle. Major architectural features at Deh Kheir include substantial kilns or ovens
of chineh with multiple clay floors and structures of low parallel mudbrick walls with traces of burning, com-
parable to examples from the Jeitun culture of southern Turkmenistan although their purpose remains unclear.
Handmade ceramics are comparable to those from Sang-e Chakhmaq East, in painted and plain styles. Painted
motifs are exclusively geometric designs in the form of lines, lozenges and squares. Blades and bladelets domi-
nate the chipped stone industry with some perforators and scrapers. Only two pieces of obsidian were found, as
Figure 5.55 S ang-e Chakhmaq East, finds with Jeitun connections (Thornton 2013a: Figure 15.5).
yet unprovenanced. Amongst the small finds, two almost identical carved stone pieces depicting the head, torso
and legs of an animal, perhaps a mouse, compare well to carved objects from Sang-e Chakhmaq East, while a
marble animal pendant is exactly paralleled by examples from Jeitun sites in southern Turkmenistan (Rezvani
and Roustaei 2016: 20). Two radiocarbon dates from Deh Kheir at c. 6050–5900 BC plus the ceramic evidence
together indicate approximate contemporaneity of occupation with Sang-e Chakhmaq East, spanning much of
the sixth millennium BC. Sherds of Cheshmeh Ali type occur across the surfaces of all three excavated sites in
the Shahroud area but are not found in excavated contexts, suggesting either severe site deflation following aban-
donment or transitory occupation in the later sixth millennium BC (Rezvani and Roustaei 2016: 21).
To the south of Deh Kheir, Khalateh Khan is located on the ecotone between an alluvial fan and adjacent agri-
cultural land not far from the desert fringes to the south, as at Deh Kheir (Roustaei 2016a). The site has been severely
destroyed by removal of archaeological soils as fertilizer, a common problem here and in much of Iran and elsewhere.
As at Deh Kheir and Sang-e Chakhmaq East, at Khalateh Khan there are substantial kilns or ovens of chineh with mul-
tiple clay floors and traces of mudbrick walls. Painted ceramics also compare well to those from Deh Kheir and Sang-e
Chakhmaq East, mainly open bowls. Chipped stone tools include blades, perforators and scrapers with no evidence
of obsidian. A few copper pins and beads are amongst the oldest known from the Central Plateau and north-eastern
Iran. Eight radiocarbon dates show occupation covering at least 5600–5300 BC, towards the end of the Neolithic
tradition of this region of Iran. In the archaeobotanical remains, a hulled tetraploid wheat is commonest as at Sang-e
Chakhmaq East along with lesser representation of hulled and naked barley, while cultivated pulses such as lentils,
peas and vetches as well as fruits such as pistachio and almond are notably absent at Khalateh Khan and other sites
of the Shahroud region (Tengberg and David 2016: 103). Domesticated animals include goat, sheep and cattle with
hunting of gazelle, wild boar, equids and hare (Mashkour et al. 2016). As at Deh Kheir and Sang-e Chakhmaq East
there are no traces of domesticated pig in contrast to contemporary sites in the Zagros (Roustaei 2016a: 61).
Taken together, the three excavated Later Neolithic sites of the Shahroud region – Sang-e Chakhmaq East,
Der Kheir and Khalateh Khan – show remarkable affinities in cultural attributes suggesting that strong social and
economic bonds held these communities together while also connecting them to more distant communities such
Figure 5.56 Sang-e Chakhmaq East, finds with Sialk connections (Thornton 2013a: Figure 15.6).
as those of the Jeitun tradition in southern Turkmenistan (Roustaei 2016a, 2016b). These commonalities include
choice of settlement location at the distal end of alluvial fans with access to a broad range of biomes including
arable land for tillage of hulled wheat, above all, with minimal engagement with pulses and fruits/nuts, pastur-
age for herding of goat and sheep, hilly and wooded terrain for hunting of wild boar and hare, and desert for
hunting of gazelle and wild ass, as well as shared architectural traditions, even down to specific shapes and sizes
of mudbricks. Affinities in ceramic styles, chipped stone tools and modest decorative items further emphasise the
connectedness of these sedentary farming and hunting communities of north-eastern Iran. As to the geographic
origins of these early farmers, the complete lack of evidence for local domestication processes of cereals at all
excavated sites (Tengberg and David 2016: 104) strongly suggests an introduction from outside with the west of
Iran the likeliest source. Moreover, the absence or rarity of pulses and pigs at Neolithic sites across northern and
eastern Iran, from Tepe Khaleseh eastwards to Sang-e Chakhmaq East, suggests deliberate human selection of
specific crops and animals to accompany them on their pioneering travels by means of which they introduced
farming and herding to these regions of Iran and beyond.
Further information comes from the fertile and well-watered Gorgan plain at the south-eastern corner of
the Caspian Sea, 50 km north of Sang-e Chakhmaq. Late Neolithic materials in this region have been found at
Tureng Tepe (Deshayes 1969a), Aq Tepe (Malek Shahmirzadi and Nokandeh 2000) and Yarim Tepe (Crawford
1963). That other, and earlier, Neolithic sites might well exist in this region below recent alluvium is indicated by
the fact that the Neolithic levels at Tureng Tepe lie below the modern water table (Deshayes 1969a; Kohl 1984:
46). Surveys of the Gorgan plain have detected multiple Later Neolithic sites with painted ceramics comparable to
those of Aq Tepe, suggestive of a dense level of occupation of the plain through the sixth millennium BC (Rous-
taei 2016b; Roustaei and Nokandeh 2017; Roustaei and Gratuze 2020). On the edges of the Gorgan plain the site
of Pookerdvall is situated by a tributary of the Qara Su (Yousefi Zoshk and Zeighami 2013; Abbāsi et al. 2016).
Ceramics from the site suggest occupation in the mid-sixth millennium BC, with strong parallels with Sang-e
Chakhmaq East and Jeitun. Briefly investigated Neolithic sites of the region include Tappeh Chino (Roustaei
2016a: 53). Ceramics of Jeitun type are found in the Atrek valley and the Darreh Gaz plain along the long border
with Turkmenistan (Kohl and Heskel 1980; Kohl et al. 1982; Harris and Coolidge 2010: 64). The sites of Pahl-
avan and Challow on the Jajarm plain have also yielded Later Neolithic ceramics and chipped stone assemblages
(Vahdati 2010; Kharanaghi et al. 2016; Dana and Hozhabri 2019), as has Qaleh Khan on the Samalghan plain
with radiocarbon dates of c. 5900–5700 BC, mudbrick architecture and circular kilns (Garazhian et al. 2014).
Excavations at Tapeh Baluch on the Neyshabur plain west of Mashhad have recovered Neolithic pottery with
painted motifs including rare representations of human figures (Sabori et al. 2017), as well as skulls and horns of
possibly wild sheep and goat (Garazhian 2012), but precise dating of the site is unclear.
On the southern Caspian shores, ongoing use of the cave sites of Kamarband (Belt), Hotu and Komishan into
the Later Neolithic is indicated by chaff-tempered soft-ware ceramics, sometimes decorated with red and brown
paint, as well as sherds of Jeitun type (Dyson 1991; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 172; Gregg and Thornton 2012). Resi-
due analysis of sherds from these caves indicates the use of pottery for cooking meat and processing dairy products
from sheep and goat (Gregg 2009). Some way to the west very late Neolithic occupation is attested at Tepe Kelar
and the small rock shelter of Rashak III (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013c).
As to the dispersal of Neolithic lifeways eastwards from Iran into Turkmenistan and beyond, the many material
culture connections between the Neolithic sites of north-eastern Iran and those of southern Turkmenistan across the
Kopet Dagh, such as Monjukli Depe, are highly suggestive (Pollock and Bernbeck 2011; Bernbeck and Pollock 2016).
The first point to make is that, yet again, the appearance of the earliest Jeitun culture sites in Turkmenistan appears
to coincide with the 8.2 ka BP event (Harris 2010: 233; see also Düring 2011: 124–125 for possible impact of the 8.2
ka BP event on agricultural expansion across Turkey). The presence of domesticated sheep by 6000 BC at Obishir
V in southern Kyrgyzstan suggests a relatively rapid spread of Neolithic herding practices eastwards from southern
Turkmenistan across challenging terrain (Taylor et al. 2021). Secondly, there is no evidence for local development of
the Neolithic in Turkmenistan or beyond. David Harris summarises the Neolithic of southern Turkmenistan thus:
The general uniformity of the material culture of the Jeitun-Culture settlements, especially their mudbrick
architecture and chaff-tempered pottery, supports the inference that they were initially founded as sedentary
settlements by migrants seeking new land to occupy with their crops and livestock.
(Harris 2010: 233)
Finally, Harris concludes that the dispersal of Neolithic settlers, with their herds and plants, towards Turkmen-
istan took place across the northern reaches of Iran, an “inviting corridor” (Harris 2010: 235) leading from the
Zagros to the Kopet Dagh. Naomi Miller (2003: 14; Stevens et al. 2016) points out that the spread of einkorn, the
major crop plant at Jeitun, is unlikely to have happened along the Caspian Sea coast as the hot humid conditions
there would be inimical to its growth. The west-east spread is therefore likelier to have been along the northern
edge of the Iranian plateau south of the Alborz range. It is however striking that einkorn is conspicuously absent
from the archaeobotanical record at excavated sites in the Shahroud region, including Sang-e Chakhmaq East,
Deh Kheir and Khalateh Khan (Tengberg and David 2016).
Iran domesticated: the culmination of the Neolithic

By 5200 BC the majority of Iran’s human population, which in total is unlikely to have numbered more than
a few tens of thousands, were farmers and herders living in rather small mudbrick villages, perhaps an average
of 100–200 people per settlement. Their villages tended to cluster in areas favourable to a mixed economy of
farming, herding and hunting always with good access to fresh water in the form of springs or rivers (Mortensen
1972; Hole 1987a: 83). They spread across Iran in a slow but steady manner, absorbing local hunter–gatherer pop-
ulations where they existed. Analysis of dated Neolithic sites across Iran and regions to the east has indicated an
average speed of dispersal of farming lifeways of 0.65 km per year. Farming spread along the two major east-west
routes of Iran: the Great Khorasan Road skirting the northern edge of the Dasht-e Kavir into Turkmenistan and
Central Asia, and the Royal Road through Fars and Kerman to Baluchistan and beyond into South and Southeast
Asia (Gangal et al. 2014; Lister et al. 2018; Mutin et al. 2020), mirroring the great Palaeolithic diaspora pathways
of much earlier millennia (Chapter 4: Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a; Dennell 2020) as well as the Silk Roads of more
recent times (Frankopan 2015). This rate of spread is slightly slower than that of the Neolithic from Southwest
Asia into Europe, perhaps because of the lack of major inland waterways connecting the west of Iran to the east.
Neolithic farmers of Iran sowed their seeds and grains in prepared fields, and they tended their flocks of goat
and sheep, leading them on movements to pastures high and low according to season. They stored their foodstuffs
in pots and clay bins within their houses. They began to experiment with the cultivation of a diverse range of
foods including fruit- and nut-bearing trees, building on millennia of collecting and consuming wild species such
as fig, grape, pistachio, almond, acorn, hackberry and pear (Tengberg 2012b; Willcox 2016). They felt a strong
attachment to place, building their houses directly on top of earlier houses to create artificial mounds that dotted
the landscape. They liked to hunt, heading into the marshes, mountains and desert fringes to chase boar, gazelle,
aurochs and deer, and they enjoyed extensive knowledge of how to use the wide range of plants around them.
They made their own pottery and were increasingly adept at a range of craft activities including the production
of textiles, basketry, and tools of chert, stone, bone, antler and wood. Developments in chipped stone tool man-
ufacturing technology, including widespread adoption of the pressure-flaking technique to produce standardised
forms of tools such as blades and bladelets, are products of an ever-increasing “permanency of the working se-
quence” associated with routinised settled Neolithic behaviour (Thomalsky 2016: 176).
We have little insight into gendered aspects of the Neolithic of Iran. What did men and women differentially do,
if anything at all (apart from the obvious roles prescribed by biology)? At present we cannot answer that question de-
finitively, but we can draw on evidence and discussion from elsewhere in order to consider it. Diane Bolger’s (2010)
analysis of gender in early agricultural societies of Southwest Asia highlights the assumptions made by archaeologists
in constructing polarised narratives for prehistoric societies, assigning roles such as hunting, shepherding and plough-
ing to men, and gathering, grinding and ceramic manufacture to women. One of the first studies of the gender issue
to draw directly on physical evidence from the Neolithic was Theya Molleson’s (2000) analysis of Epipalaeolithic
and Neolithic human skeletons from Abu Hureyra in northern Syria, in which she detected indications of stress and
strains to joints, mainly on adult females, suggestive of long hours spent grinding grain in a kneeling position, leading
Molleson to propose that “Women were tied to the house for several hours every day, while the men would have
worked in the field and, in the appropriate season, trapped and processed game” (2000: 324). More extensive work by
Jane Peterson (2002, 2006) on Neolithic Levant skeletons, however, could not identify any significant differences in
stress and strain indicators to support male vs. female task differentiation in the Neolithic. A related issue is the extent
to which Neolithic modes and methods of food storage, preparation, cooking and consumption may have generated
new potential for gendered roles in early sedentary societies (K. Wright 2000). As yet the human burial evidence from
Neolithic Iran does not enable us to discern significant gender- or age-based variation in treatment of the dead but
there is scope for more detailed contextual studies to be conducted (Croucher 2012).
Neolithic Iranians began to experiment with cold-working of copper ores (Pigott 1999: 74) and with transforming
materials through fire. They invested significant amounts of time and ingenuity in decorating their pottery with paint
and they showed acute awareness of correct “styles” in doing so. They made figurines of animals and people out of
clay and stone, and they also made use of small clay tokens in the form of cones and spheres for purposes that are not
clear to us but perhaps for counting, storing and redistributing commodities, in games and perhaps also for ritual pur-
poses as “token” offerings seeking divine support (Schmandt-Besserat 2018; Bennison-Chapman 2019; Palka 2021).
They were involved in long-distance networks of material movement, involving obsidian from Lake Van sources, for
example, but individual communities may not have been aware of the considerable distances to raw material sources,
as movement may have been down-the-line from village to village rather than direct to source for each village (G.
Wright 1969). Unlike their Palaeolithic forbears, they had the potential to accumulate, inherit and pass on to their
offspring significant wealth in the form of agricultural surplus, farmed land, animal stock, buildings and material
possessions, thereby stimulating a trend towards ever-increasing social inequality (Bogaard et al. 2018, 2019), but
there is little sign that they chose to do so. An intriguing cross-cultural study has identified intergenerational wealth
transfer as “modest in hunter–gatherer and horticultural systems and substantial in agricultural and pastoral systems”
(Borgerhoff Mulder et al. 2009: 686), an interpretation that encourages us to stress the highly mixed nature of food
procurement strategies of the small-scale Neolithic communities of Iran, with hunting, gathering and horticulture or
“garden agriculture” (Bogaard 2005) at least as important as intensive crop cultivation and stock-rearing.
They liked to keep their dead close by, burying them a few tens of centimetres beneath their house floors,
dabbing them with red ochre, covering them over and carrying on with daily life directly above them. Many
of their children died young, doubtless as a result of the increased risks from “spillover” zoonotic diseases such
as brucellosis attendant upon the settled farmer–herder lifestyle (Quammen 2012; Moreno 2014). Indeed, it has
been argued that the pressure of new diseases was a major stimulus in the agricultural transition, obliging newly
settled communities to increase their birth rates, and to intensify their food production accordingly, just to stay
ahead of the terrible impacts of infectious diseases flourishing under conditions of year-round human sedentism
(Groube 1996; Bocquet-Appel 2011). The effect of the newly virulent diseases on local hunter–gatherer com-
munities, as they encountered incoming farmer–herders, may have been devastating (as we barely need to stress
in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic within which the writing of this book has been completed).
With rare possible exceptions, they do not appear to have constructed special buildings in which to worship their
gods. They appear to have treated each other as equals in both life and death. It was a simple life, one very different
from the hunter–gatherer ways that had persisted for thousands of years before, but what they had in common with
their hunter ancestors was an intimate familiarity with the physical worlds around them – the worlds of plants,
animals, sun, water, wind, rain and the spirits of nature. Their life, like that of the hunter–gatherers, was utterly
shaped by the rhythms of day and night, and of winter and summer. But without knowing it, step by step over
several millennia they were establishing the agricultural and social foundations upon which the achievements of
all future generations of Iran would be constructed.
6 Early social complexity in Iran:
the Chalcolithic period, 5200–3200 BC
The domestication of human society: Chalcolithic communities of Iran

We explored in the previous chapter how the Neolithic period in Iran was a time of significant change in human
relationships with the natural world, a reformulation and intensification of human engagement with plants, ani-
mals and the broader environment, creating the farming and herding basis of subsequent societies in the region.
Against this background, the following Chalcolithic period can be characterised as a time when human rela-
tionships with other humans underwent fundamental realignments, built upon and enabled by the agricultural
foundations established through the Neolithic. Above all, these changes involved basic reorientations of social
relations amongst and between human communities, culminating in the emergence of complex, hierarchical,
state-like societies by the last centuries of the Chalcolithic, at least in parts of Iran. If people during the Neolithic
constructed the enduring rural and pastoral platform for subsequent Iranian societies then people during the
Chalcolithic created the socio-political structures that adorned that platform for millennia to come and to some
extent still do even today. While humans succeeded in domesticating certain plants and animals during the Ne-
olithic, it was the achievement of humans to domesticate themselves through the centuries of the Chalcolithic.
Key components of the Chalcolithic in Iran include significant technological developments in a range of fields,
metallurgy above all, (as indicated by the term “Chalcolithic“ = “Copper-Stone Age”; Benoit 2004: 184–190;
Weeks 2004, 2012, 2013b; Helwing and Nokandeh 2017), including the intensification of agricultural production
through new technologies such as irrigation (Bagg 2012; Vidale 2018b), the establishment of craft specialisation,
the development of long-distance trade and exchange, increasingly complex ritual activities, and new social
hierarchies attested in multiple forms of evidence including settlement patterns, architecture, material culture,
iconography and mortuary practices. Following their successful domestication of the founder crops and animals
of the Neolithic, human communities during the Chalcolithic and beyond succeeded in bringing into cultiva-
tion an increased range of resources that came to have major significance for the diet and economy of the region
(Tengberg 2012b), both as fresh and preserved elements of diet and also in the form of secondary products such
as wine and oils that could be locally consumed or exchanged as valuable commodities in ever-intensifying and
expanding networks of trade across Iran and beyond.
In terms of palaeoclimate, the sixth-fourth millennia BC was a propitious time for human settlement in Iran,
the so-called climatic optimum, with indication of increased levels of rainfall across Iran, while the end of the
Chalcolithic coincides with an episode of relative aridity (Kehl 2009; Hole 2011; Schmidt et al. 2011; Jones 2013:
25; Jones et al. 2013; Sharifi et al. 2015). In this chapter we examine the evidence for these issues from relevant
regions and sites of Iran in a broadly chronological manner, focusing in turn on north-western Iran, north-central
Iran, western Iran, south-western Iran, southern Iran and south-eastern Iran. In so doing we follow specific
themes and issues appropriate to particular sites and bodies of evidence. The chrono-spatial co-ordinates of major
Chalcolithic regions and sites are depicted in Figure 6.1.
Our knowledge of the Chalcolithic period in Iran comes from a range of sites, with excavation often focused
on major multi-period mounds such as Tepe Sialk (Ghirshman 1939), Tepe Hissar (Schmidt 1937; Roustaei
2010a; Gürsan-Salzmann 2016), Cheshmeh Ali (Schmidt 1935, 1936; Matney 1995), Chogha Mish (Delougaz et al.
1996; Alizadeh 2008), Susa (Harper et al. 1992), Godin Tepe (Gopnik and Rothman 2011), Tepe Yahya (Lam-
berg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986) and Tal-e Iblis (Caldwell 1967) to cite a few of the most important (see Peasnall
2002b; Helwing 2005 for good overviews of most of these sites). Alongside these excavations, some of which took
place at a time when field excavation and recording techniques had yet to meet modern standards, there is a range
of information from new excavations and surveys of extensive territories of Iran, including much of Khuzestan,
parts of the Zagros, the Qazvin and Tehran plains and regions across northern and eastern Iran, largely conducted
by Iranian archaeologists as referred to throughout this chapter. What has not been attempted, here or elsewhere,
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-6
112 Early social complexity in Iran
Figure 6.1 M
ap of Chalcolithic Iran.
is a synthesis of the vast amount of data generated by multiple surveys across Iran, in particular over the past 20
years by archaeology departments in Iranian universities and by national and local offices of the Iranian Centre for
Archaeological Research. Most of these surveys have been reported on only in internal archive reports in Persian,
and a major project for the future would involve systematic collation and analysis of this extremely rich dataset.
First steps: Chalcolithic societies of northern and central Iran

We studied in the last chapter the processes by which the plains and hills of north-central and north-western
Iran were first settled from 6500–6000 BC, as the evidence currently indicates, while to the northeast the west
mound of Sang-e Chakhmaq reveals occupation there from c. 7000 BC. Systematic programmes of survey with
associated test excavations and radiocarbon dating have established a sound chronology for north-central Iran
(Fazeli et al. 2004, 2005; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009, 2013b: Table 7.1; Pollard et al. 2013) as set out in Table 6.1.
This chronology has limited portability beyond the plains of the north-central region where our knowledge
is generally less well-developed (Helwing 2013b). In north-western Iran the Hasanlu sequence is still critical
7200
7100
7000
6900
6800
6700
6500
6400
6300
6200
6100
6000
5900
5800
5700
5600
5500
5400
5300
5200
5100
5000
4900
4800
4700
4600
4500
4400
4300
4200
4100
4000
Date BC
Early
Pre-Pottery Neolithic Pottery Neolithic Transitional Chalcolithic/Cheshmeh Ali Culture Chalcolithic
Period
Beginning of Pottery Gap Early Chakhmaq Late Chakhmaq TC I TC II Hissar I

Horizon
Sang-e
Chakhmaq
Table 6.1 Chronology chart
Khān
Kalāteh
Northeast
Tappeh
Pahlavan
Ghaf Khāneh Qaleh Khan Shir Ashian
Early
Late Neolithic Transitional Chalcolithic/Cheshmeh Ali Culture Chalcolithic
Period
Late Neolithic I Late Neolithic II TC I TC II Sialk III

Horizon Chahar Bone
Sialk
Ali
Central Plateau
Cheshmeh
Zagheh
Abad
Ebrahim
Pardis
Neolithic Aeneolithic/Chalcolithic
Period
Pre-Anau
Early Jeitun Middle Jeitun Late Jeitun Anau Ia
Ia(Meana)
Horizon
Jeitun
Kopet Dag
Depe
Monjukli
Bami
Anau
Early social complexity in Iran 113
(Voigt 1987; Voigt and Dyson 1992), in particular the Dalma phase (Hasanlu IX: 5350–4700 BC) and the
Pisdeli phase (Hasanlu VIII: 4700–3950 BC). To the northeast, the sites of Tepe Hissar, Sang-e Chakhmaq
East, Aq Tappeh and Shir-e Shian provide important information, but precise chronological relationships are
difficult to establish given the shortage of reliable radiocarbon dates (Dyson 1991; Dyson and Thornton 2009;
Gürsan-Salzmann 2016).
The transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Chalcolithic in north-western Iran, 5400–4500 BC
Our understanding of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition in north-western Iran has been significantly en-
hanced by ongoing fieldwork in the region. The excavated sites of Dava Göz and Kul Tepe (note – there are
many sites with this name, which means “Ash Mound”) as well as new settlement surveys across north-western
Iran have provided useful information not only with regard to the broader chronology of the region but also to
address the almost 1,000-year hiatus in settlement evidence between levels VIII and VII at Hasanlu in the Late
Chalcolithic (Table 6.2) (Nobari et al. 2012a; Abedi et al. 2014b, 2015, 2018b, 2018c, 2019; Abedi 2016b, 2017).
The apparent hiatus between the Late Neolithic of Hajji Firuz and the Early Chalcolithic of Dalma has been
largely bridged by excavations at Dava Göz, with a short interval after the start of the Transitional Chalcolithic
at 5400 BC. Neolithic Hajji Firuz ceramic assemblages were succeeded by red to brown ceramics with three
major categories of surface treatment: painted, red-slipped and plain wares. Obsidian for lithic tools at Dava Göz
in the Transitional Chalcolithic comes from a range of Caucasian sources to the north, with Syunik in Armenia one
option, although recently investigated obsidian outcrops in the Sarab district of Eastern Azerbaijan province are
also a possible source, now established as being exploited by Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age communities of
the region (Orange et al. 2021a, 2021b).
Dalma-type ceramic assemblages appear first in north-western Iran at c. 5000 BC. At Dalma Tappeh it-
self, excavations by Burney and Young exposed architecture of chineh with occasional plaster. Rare examples of
Chalcolithic burials, 14 in total, were also excavated, all of them single infant burials within ceramic vessels in
probable courtyard contexts (Hamlin 1975: 115). No adult burials were encountered. Spindle whorls indicate
basic textile production at least. The ceramics at Dalma Tappeh show a development from painted decoration to
impressed surface adornment of various kinds. The painted motifs are distinctive, basic geometric shapes in rather
bold designs (Figure 6.2) (Hamlin 1975: Figures 4–7).
Petrographic studies of the Dalma Ware indicate that each site produced their own ceramics, with no evidence for
regional movement or exchange of finished vessels (Henrickson and Vitali 1987; Henrickson 1991; Tonoike 2012).
Most of the lithics at Dalma sites such as Dalma itself, Ghosha in the Ardebil region and sites north of Lake Urmia
are of obsidian from the Syunik source in Armenia with lesser amounts from Lake Van sources (Nadooshan et al.
2013; Abedi 2017; Abedi et al. 2018a; Barge et al. 2018).
Settlement survey along the Lesser Zab river, rising in the mountains of Piranshahr, as well as excavations
at Lavin Tepe, have provided information about settlement types of the Dalma period (Binandeh et al. 2012;
Nobari et al. 2012a), which can be divided into two kinds: permanent settlements in fertile intermontane val-
leys and temporary seasonal camps of probable transhumance in the highlands of the Zagros, the Caucasus and
other uplands of north-western Iran. A village-based form of seasonal migration (transhumant pastoralism) is the
most likely scenario whereby small groups of people moved with their flocks between settlements according to
availability of pasture (Tonoike 2012; Abedi et al. 2015; Abedi 2017). Stratified peat deposits from Lake Neor
Table 6.2 Chronology of occupation at Kul Tepe (after Abedi et al. 2014b: fig. 6)
Kul Tepe phase Period Approximate dates cal BC
Kul Tepe I Achaemenid 6th–4th centuries BC

Kul Tepe II Iron III 8th–6th centuries BC
(Urartian)
Kul Tepe III Middle Bronze Age 2000–1500
(Urmia Ware)
Kul Tepe IV Kura Araxes II-III 3200/3100–23000/2200
(Early Bronze Age)
Kul Tepe V Kura Araxes I 3700/3600–3200/3100
Kul Tepe VIA Late Chalcolithic 3 (Chaff tempered) 4000/3900-3700/3600
Kul Tepe VIB Late Chalcolithic 2 (Chaff-faced/tempered) 4300/4200–4000/3900
Kul Tepe VII Late Chalcolithic 1 (Pisdeli/Hasanlu VIII) 4500/4400–4300/4200
Kul Tepe VIII Early Chalcolithic (Dalma) 5000–4500/4400
Figure 6.2 D
alma Tappeh, Dalma ceramics (photo credit: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania).
in north-western Iran with high frequencies of coprophagous and coprophilous beetle remains, taken alongside
pollen evidence, together suggest an open steppe landscape in this region of Iran through much of its prehistory,
with the practice of village-based pastoralism in the surrounding high plains since at least 4500 BC (Ponel et al.
2013). Survey in the Lesser Zab basin indicates that Dalma sites range from 1 to 3 ha in area and are located at
1,200–1,500 m above sea level. No cultic structures or monumental buildings have been found at the Dalma sites,
and houses include freestanding domestic structures.
The developed Chalcolithic of north-western Iran, 4500–3200 BC

The successor to Dalma Ware was first identified at Pisdeli Tepe in the same region of the Solduz valley (Dyson
and Young 1960; Hole 1987b: 46), different from Dalma Ware but also sharing a resemblance to Mesopotamian
Late Ubaid ceramics (Voigt 1987: 621), with connections to levels XII-XIIA at Tepe Gawra in Iraq. Pisdeli or
Ubaid-related levels were also reached at the base of the multi-period site of Geoy Tepe, where there appear
to have been large, multi-roomed houses with storage vessels and stamp seal impressions (Burton-Brown 1950).
At some time around 4000 BC it appears that many, perhaps all, of the small Chalcolithic settlements in the
Ushnu-Solduz region were abandoned, perhaps indicating a transition from arable farming to pastoral mobility
(Danti et al. 2004: 595). Obsidian from Pisdeli-period sites in the Urmia basin continues to arrive from Lake Van
(Meydan) and Armenian sources (Barge et al. 2018).
According to Abedi (2016b, 2017; Abedi et al. 2018b, 2018c, 2019) the Late Chalcolithic of north-western Iran
is the continuation of the Dalma culture without any interruption (Table 6.2). Abedi divides the Late Chalcolithic
period into the three sub-phases of Kul Tepe VII (= Pisdeli = Late Chalcolithic 1 = post-Ubaid), Kul Tepe VIB
(= Late Chalcolithic 2 = Chaff-faced/Chaff-tempered) and Kul Tepe VIA (= Late Chalcolithic 3 = Chaff-tempered).
Late Chalcolithic 1 spans 4500–4200 BC, supported by radiocarbon dates. Houses of Kul Tepe (Figure 6.3) in
the Pisdeli period were made both of rectangular mudbrick and of stone. Pisdeli ceramics are decorated with
combed, grooved, excised, incised, impressed and geometric adornment applied on the exterior surface of vessels
with brown and black paint on a buff slip (Figure 6.4). Pisdeli Buff Ware’s similarities to Ubaid 4 and Tepe Gawra
Figure 6.3 Kul Tepe, view of mound from the north (Abedi et al. 2014b: Figure 1) (photo credit: Akbar Abedi).
Figure 6.4 Kul Tepe VII pottery of Late Chalcolithic 1 (Pisdeli) (Abedi et al. 2014b: Figure 12) (image courtesy of Akbar Abedi).
ceramics indicate cultural interactions with Mesopotamia to the west. Most of the lithic tools, >95%, are of obsid-
ian using both flake and blade technologies, with major use of sources close to Lake Urmia (Niknami et al. 2010).
Frequent ground-stone tools such as pestles and mortars suggest significant agricultural activities at Kul Tepe.
Late Chalcolithic 2 ceramics are characterised as Chaff-faced Ware, spanning c. 4200–3900 BC, while Late
Chalcolithic 3 Chaff-faced Ware continues until c. 3700 BC (Figure 6.5). Chaff-faced Ware was a new tradition
whereby potters used generous amounts of organic inclusions, or chaff temper, suggestive of technological stand-
ardisation and simplification, as first identified in Braidwood’s work on the Amuq plain in the 1930s. The ceramics
of the first two phases of the Late Chalcolithic in north-western Iran are handmade and the surfaces of ceramics
Figure 6.5 K
ul Tepe VIA pottery of Late Chalcolithic 3 (Chaff-faced) (Abedi et al. 2014b: Figure 30) (photo credit: Akbar Abedi).
were burnished or smoothed, a treatment that at times obliterates the chaff impressions (Sagona 2018: 158). Chaff-
faced Wares of north-western Iran, mainly in the form of jars, can be classified as either plain or decorated in a
range of styles. Whether the widespread occurrence of Chaff-faced Ware represents migration and spread of the
style from a core region such as Upper Mesopotamia, or more or less parallel development of ceramic technology to
meet regionally specific socio-cultural demands, remains an open question (Marro 2010, 2012). In north-western
Iran the emergence of Chaff-faced Ware starts at c. 4200 BC based on the cultural sequences of Dava Göz and Kul
Tepe. Obsidian continues as the main material for lithics including scrapers, burins, points and sickle blades, with
an increasing focus on the Syunik source in Armenia (Nadooshan et al. 2013; Abedi et al. 2018b, 2018c).
From the Hasanlu project there is a gap between level VIIIA (= Pisdeli period) and VIIC (= Kura Araxes II –
see Chapter 8). As Danti and Voigt suggested, the Solduz valley was a corridor or social boundary and prone to
intrusion from Upper Mesopotamia on the one hand and Caucasia on the other (Voigt 1989; Danti et al. 2004:
584). New survey to the south of Lake Urmia in the Lesser Zab river basin has recovered evidence of Uruk ce-
ramics. Bevelled-rim bowls were found at Tepe Badamyar Rabat, Tepe Waliw, Badamyar, Tepe Molla Yousef,
Lavin and Ghoman. These new finds reveal that people continued to live in the region through the Late Chalco-
lithic period 3700–3200 BC and to maintain significant transregional connections, in particular with neighbours
to the west (Nobari et al. 2012b; Abedi et al. 2019). Across the Iraqi border on the Rania plain, Late Chalcolithic
ceramics from surveyed sites attest a degree of connectivity with contemporary north-west Iranian assemblages
at sites such as Pisdeli, Yanik Tepe and Geoy Tepe (Baldi 2018).
The Transitional Chalcolithic of north-central Iran, 5300–4300 BC

For north-central Iran the term “Transitional Chalcolithic” has been given to a long timespan, approximately a
millennium, bridging the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009; Vidale et al. 2018). From the
end of the sixth millennium BC, we can trace the development of essentially Late Neolithic communities to the
more complex societies of the full Chalcolithic (Fazeli Nashli and Abbasnegad Seresty 2005). Indicators of this
transition include: intensified herding of cattle, sheep and goat (Mashkour et al. 1999; Mashkour 2002; Fazeli
Nashli et al. 2009); the cultivation of barley and bread wheat employing irrigation systems (Gillmore et al. 2009);
the development of long-distance exchange and trade; increasingly complex ritual activities including social
differentiation in mortuary practices; the use of specialised craft areas for increasingly standardised craft produc-
tion, including early metallurgy; and the use of innovative production techniques such as mineral-tempered and
wheel-thrown pottery (Dyson 1991; Fazeli et al. 2007; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2010; Vidale et al. 2018). Together these
attributes support an interpretation of early complex societies evolving on the plains of north-central Iran by the
end of the Transitional Chalcolithic. Whether these features can be associated with social hierarchy, however, is
still a matter of debate: the evidence might rather be interpreted as connected to issues of gender, cultic practice
or craft specialisation, for example, without imputing social hierarchy, an issue to which we return below.
Settlement patterns and food procurement strategies

Looking at numbers of sites located in surveys, there is a notable increase in settlement densities on the Tehran
and Qazvin plains during the Transitional Chalcolithic period (Figure 6.6). Most of the sites are below 5 ha in
area. The important site of Zagheh on the Qazvin plain covers 3.5 ha (Malek Shahmirzadi 1977; Fazeli 2004;
Fazeli et al. 2005; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2011), while Akbarabad covers more than 3 ha and is 17–20 m high. Tappeh
Ozbaki in the region of Savajbolagh, west of Tehran, appears to have been larger in the Transitional Chalcolithic
(Majidzadeh 2001). These sites compare well with the size of the Transitional and Early Chalcolithic site of Sialk,
which Ghirshman (1939: 166) reported as c. 3.5 ha. The Transitional Chalcolithic settlements of the Tehran plain
consist of Cheshmeh Ali, Mehdikani and others. Most sites have multiple periods of settlement (Fazeli 2001).
At Tepe Sialk on the Kashan plain, occupation restarted at Sialk South in the late fifth millennium BC, after a
hiatus of up to 800 years (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013a; Kourampas et al. 2013; Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019).
There appears to have been a major episode of settlement interruption during the fifth millennium BC across the
Kashan, Qazvin and Tehran plains, perhaps associated with a period of alluvial sedimentation (Fazeli et al. 2005;
Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009; Pollard et al. 2013; Maghsoudi et al. 2014).
Societies in the Transitional Chalcolithic period in Iran employed mixed subsistence strategies of farming and
animal husbandry, with some exploitation of wild resources (Figure 6.7) (Mashkour et al. 1999; Mashkour 2002;
Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009; Mashkour and Bon 2019). Domesticated ovicaprids (goat and sheep) are the dominant
species at all sites in the Transitional Chalcolithic period (Young and Fazeli 2008). Wild ovicaprids and then cat-
tle are the next most significant types. At Chahar Boneh, Ebrahimabad and Zagheh domesticated sheep/goat
are most common but there is also evidence for hunting of wild goat and equid at Chahar Boneh, of wild equid
at Ebrahimabad and of wild sheep and gazelle at Zagheh, good indications of variability in animal exploitation
strategies according to regional availability and perhaps also to local traditions. These sites span the transition
from the latest Neolithic into the earliest Transitional Chalcolithic (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009, 2013b). A shift in
animal exploitation strategies from the Late Neolithic to the Transitional Chalcolithic has also been discerned at
Sang-e Chakhmaq East in north-eastern Iran, where tools made of antler and deer bone are replaced by tools
made of cow bones (Thornton 2013a: 244).
Figure 6.6 Settlement through time on the Tehran and Qazvin plains.
Figure 6.7 T
ransitional Chalcolithic subsistence strategies on the Qazvin plain: the evidence of faunal remains (data from Mashk-
our et al. 1999; Young and Fazeli 2008).
Figure 6.8 C
harred plant seeds from Chahar Boneh and Ebrahimabad, Qazvin plain (after Ilkhani et al. 2019).
Cereals were cultivated in many settlements of the central Iranian plateau using irrigation systems, and an irriga-
tion canal of the Transitional Chalcolithic period has been excavated at Tepe Pardis on the Tehran plain (Coning-
ham et al. 2004, 2006; Gillmore et al. 2009; Vidale 2018). Cereals such as barley and emmer wheat along with peas
and legumes form the major diet components at all sites (Figure 6.8) (Ilkhani et al. 2019), and there is a notable shift
from wild plants to domesticated plants, cereals above all, as we move from the Late Neolithic into the Transitional
Chalcolithic. This economic strategy enabled and underpinned an increase in population during the Transitional
Chalcolithic period, as attested in the increased density of settlements on the Tehran and Qazvin plains.
Craft specialisation: ceramics and architecture
Petrie (2011) has delineated the technological innovations that mark the start of the Chalcolithic of southern Iran,
including a shift to calcareous clays from vegetal-tempered clays, the use of basic turning devices, the use of black
rather than bichrome painted decoration and an increase in firing temperatures to between 850 and 1,000°C.
Taken together these attributes are understood as characterising an increasing specialisation and centralisation of
ceramic production. The evidence for ceramic production from the plains of north-central Iran during the period
5200–4200 BC indicates similar developments there (Kaspari-Marghussian 2019). Brief excavations at the site of
Kara Tepe 30 km west of Tehran exposed possible pottery kilns associated with Cheshmeh Ali-style ceramics
(Burton-Brown 1962, 1979).
Excavations at Zagheh and Tepe Pardis have provided some direct evidence of ceramic production including
workshops and tools related to production (Fazeli 2006). Some 240 clay tokens (Figure 6.9) were found in ex-
cavations in Trench N30 at Zagheh (Fazeli Nashli and Moghimi 2013; Moghimi and Fazeli Nashli 2015). This
density of tokens may relate to the distribution and receipt of batches of raw materials or processed commodities
connected to the production activities taking place in this part of the site, suggesting a form of monitoring of
movement of materials and/or products to and from the production area. Considered alongside the increasing
evidence of seals and tokens from other highland Iranian sites such as Alou, Qara Tepe, Sialk, Tepe Hissar and
Chakhmaqlokh (Alibaigi et al. 2011b; Moghimi and Davidi 2020), the rich token evidence from Zagheh contrib-
utes to the picture of a long-term development across the Iranian plateau of administrative technologies closely
paralleling those attested in Chalcolithic Khuzestan and across Mesopotamia (Vidale et al. 2018: 28–29).
Tepe Pardis on the Tehran plain (Coningham et al. 2006; Fazeli et al. 2007; Petrie 2012: 289–290; Vidale et al.
2018: 28–29) contained burnt rooms interpreted as a ceramic production area but more likely a domestic quarter
(Figure 6.10). A possible slow wheel was also found, with a diameter of 0.36 m, a thickness of 0.12 m and a pivot
of animal bone. On the Qazvin and Tehran plains a variety of ceramics were produced that are technologically
and stylistically different from those of the Late Neolithic period (Figure 6.11) (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009). The
Figure 6.9 C
lay tokens from Transitional Chalcolithic levels at Zagheh (data and images from Fazeli Nashli and Moghimi 2013;
Moghimi and Fazeli Nashli 2015).
Figure 6.10 T
epe Pardis, architecture and terracotta slow wheel (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
Figure 6.11 P
ainted ceramic styles of north-central Iran in the Transitional Chalcolithic (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
finished products also attest a change in the scale and mode of production during the Transitional Chalcolithic
period. Ceramics show a remarkable increase in uniformity between the core and surface colour. Such uniform-
ity, brought on by greater control of the firing process, reflects technological improvement, greater skill among
potters and standardisation. Distinct major categories of ceramics were produced across the three plains of Teh-
ran, Qazvin and Kashan, including: (1) Zagheh standard ware; (2) Zagheh painted ware; (3) Zagheh simple ware;
(4) Cheshmeh Ali (Sialk II) ware; (5) and, buff and red-crusted ware, which is found only at Zagheh (Marghus-
sian et al. 2017). In fact, all these ceramic types have variable geographical and chronological distributions across
and sometimes beyond Iran, some being highly localised (buff and red-crusted ware, Zagheh painted ware) and
others characterised as “supra-regional” (Cheshmeh Ali ware; Dyson 1991; Dyson and Thornton 2009: 20). The
socio-political frameworks underpinning these differential distributions are much harder to articulate and require
dedicated research agendas involving integrated application of social and scientific methods.
Petrographic, chemical, mineralogical, and X-radiographic analyses of the main types of ceramics from sites on
the Tehran and the Qazvin plains suggest that sites here were producing their own ceramics, including the fine
Cheshmeh Ali ware (Fazeli et al. 2001, 2004). Thus, specialised production of technologically and stylistically
similar ceramics took place separately on each of these plains (Wong 2008). In sum, the organisation of ceramic
production between 5200 and 4300 BC at settlements of the Tehran and the Qazvin plains underwent substantial
changes. Standardisation is suggested in the selection of raw materials, kilns were employed to achieve higher
temperatures, and wheels and other techniques were used for mass production of pottery (Wong et al. 2010). The
development of craft specialisation in the Transitional Chalcolithic period and the associated reorganisation in
the ceramic industry indicate increasing cultural complexity and socio-economic development in this period.
In north-eastern Iran, the common presence of pottery kilns in and around domestic houses at Sang-e
Chakhmaq East in the Transitional Chalcolithic levels suggests a household scale of ceramic production in that
region, with local manufacture of vessels demonstrating a developed awareness of regional decorative styles in-
cluding those called black-on-red Sialk II and Cheshmeh Ali (Thornton 2013a: 244). The briefly excavated site
of Ghaf Khaneh in the Shahroud region appears to have been a single-period ceramic production site produc-
ing Cheshmeh Ali Red Ware presumably for local consumption (Roustaei 2018). Fifth-millennium BC pottery
styles at Shir-i Shian in the same region also attest wide contacts across southern Turkmenistan, at sites such as
Anau level IA, to north-central Iran via Aq Tappeh and many other sites (Dyson and Thornton 2009; Thornton
2013b: 190), including Tepe Pahlavan on the Jajarm plain (Vahdati 2010; Kharanaghi et al. 2016). On the basis
of ceramic distributions across the region, Dyson and Thornton (2009: 20) characterise north-eastern Iran in the
Transitional Chalcolithic as playing an important role in “hybridising and thereby ‘translating’ technological and
cultural developments that allowed their rapid acceptance between distant communities.” Increased evidence for
fibre and textile (wool?) production through the Transitional Chalcolithic comes in the form of spindle whorls,
found in increasing quantities at all sites of this period (Helwing 2013b: 84), while early steps in metallurgy also
begin to be visible at many sites (Thornton 2009; Weeks 2012, 2013b).
Malek Shahmirzadi (1977; Malek Shahmirzadeh 1979, 1990) has suggested that there may also have been spe-
cialisation in the planning and construction of architecture, as attested in the regular house-plans and building
techniques at Zagheh where a considerable extent of buildings was exposed (Figure 6.12). Very striking amongst
them is the Painted Building (Figure 6.13) (Negahban 1979), with occupation dated to c. 4500 BC (Vidale et al.
2018: 21), whose features include a large main hall with raised platforms and a circular fireplace built on clean
sand. Walls and platforms were painted red with a black and white meander pattern. Eighteen wild goat skulls
were mounted on the walls, and at least 30 female figurines were found outside and around the building’s main
entrance (Negahban 1984). Eight female adults were buried directly to the south of the Painted Building (see
below). Late fifth millennium BC architecture in Tepe Sialk phase II consists of well-built rectangular case-
mate-type walls of mudbrick (Ghirshman 1939: pl. 58), while at Yan Tepe in the Qazvin plain there is also evi-
dence of skilful use of mudbrick in large-scale construction (Majidzadeh 2010). In north-western Iran, buildings
at Dalma Tepe (Hamlin 1975) continue the local Neolithic tradition of small-scale houses of mudbrick. In the
Transitional Chalcolithic levels at Sang-e Chakhmaq East, there are structures similar to those of Sialk II, with
finger-impressed mudbricks and internal hearths (Masuda et al. 2013: 209; Thornton 2013a: 244).
Excavations at Qara Tepe on the Qomrud plain have advanced our view of the nature of interaction, craft
activity and architecture on the north-central plateau during the fifth millennium BC (Kaboli 2005). At 8 ha
in area, Qara Tepe is one of the largest sites on the ancient road connecting Qom with Rayy, south of Tehran.
Excavations have uncovered c. 1000 years of occupation. Bakun-style ceramics of Fars province occur with
typical Sialk II and III1–3 (Transitional and Early Chalcolithic period) ceramics, indicating connections between
the communities of Fars and the central plateau during the fifth millennium BC. Numbers of copper tools
(pins, nails and needles) were recorded at Qara Tepe along with evidence of pottery kilns and slag, suggestive of
Figure 6.12 Z
agheh, plan of Transitional Chalcolithic architecture (adapted from Malek Shahmirzadeh 1979: plan I).
specialised craft activities. Morteza Hessari (2011) and Mir-Abedin Kaboli (2005) have reported stamp seals from
the Early Chalcolithic levels at Qara Tepe resembling those of Susa A (see below, Figure 6.45), and there is also
a well-constructed monumental building with multiple rooms, painted plaster wall-faces, all destroyed at the end
of the fifth millennium BC. There are also large storage jars painted with elaborate designs.
Mortuary practices
From the 1970s excavations at Zagheh, Malek Shahmirzadi (1977) reported 23 individual burials. Burials within
the village houses include adults, male and female, and children, many painted with red ochre and some with
modest numbers of ceramic vessels, stone cosmetic palettes, and stone beads. The spatial organisation of the
burials may be divided into four groups: (1) infants tend to be buried in roofed areas and adults in open areas;
(2) adults buried in the architectural units near the Painted Building were buried in roofed areas; (3) some adults
were buried in public spaces, such as in the square and lanes or corridors; and (4) most of the individuals in the
structural units (open or roofed areas) did not receive burial goods. It is striking that one of the richest burials at
Zagheh, with multiple beads made from a range of valued stones and shells, was that of a child. Vidale et al. (2018)
argue against the conventional assumption that rich child burials indicate inherited rather than acquired status,
to suggest that at Zagheh they might represent a form of social compromise, whereby elaborate burial for adults
was considered too socially divisive but was regarded as acceptable for children.
Tala’i (1999) published an extraordinary assemblage of eight adult female burials, aged 25–30 years, in the
open area to the south of the Painted Building at Zagheh (Figure 6.14). These burials are distinguished by their
location, the attitude of the skeletons in facing and reaching towards the Painted Building, the extensive use of
red ochre on their faces, even inside the mouth, and the high numbers of beads of a range of stones and shell,
most of which appear not to have been locally made (Vidale et al. 2018: 21–25). These include necklaces, armlets,
bracelets, belts, diadems and objects placed near the skulls. The placement of the arms of the buried females is
notable, with arms and hands outstretched in front of the face of the body, reaching towards the nearby Painted
Figure 6.13 Zagheh Painted Building with schematic distribution of figurines (adapted from Negahban 1979, 1984).
Figure 6.14 Zagheh, adult female burials close to the Painted Building (Tala’i 1999: Figures 5–6).
Building in a classic pose of divine accolade. Combined with the location of female figurines to the west and
north of the Painted Building (Negahban 1979, 1984; Daems 2004: 12), these burials further underline the build-
ing’s special nature and its strong female connections. One suggestion is that the Painted Building was a special
place for women to give birth. Vidale et al. (2018: 34), by contrast, interpret this building as a “bachelors’ house,”
an arena for the negotiation of identity and induction into social mores for young males, while acknowledging
the gendered significance of the female burials and figurines.
At Cheshmeh Ali (Figure 6.15), Schmidt’s team recovered the remains of 174 burials, of which 34 belong
to the prehistoric period (Gustavel and Fazeli Nashli in press). All 34 burials appear to have been primary inhu-
mations, with the bodies interred below the ground surface. There is no evidence of compound or secondary
Figure 6.15 C
heshmeh Ali, view of site (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
inhumations. The general pattern at Cheshmeh Ali is for graves to be associated with houses and private spaces
spread throughout the community, rather than for use of formal cemeteries. This practice appears to be a wide-
spread cultural preference for the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic communities of north-central Iran
at sites such as Tepe Pardis, Zagheh and Tepe Sialk. It is telling that there is not a great range in the quantity or
quality of grave goods, arguing that there is little class differentiation between the inhabitants buried at the site.
Local and regional burial goods include ceramics, copper tools and stone palettes. The exotic and imported ma-
terials comprise ornaments of materials such as lapis lazuli, turquoise, and marine shells. A single burial at Tepe
Pardis was associated with beads of turquoise, agate, shell and lapis lazuli, which suggests that the burial practices
at Pardis align with those discussed above from other Transitional Chalcolithic sites of the north-central plateau
of Iran (Fazeli et al. 2007; Vidale et al. 2018).
From Tepe Sialk on the Kashan plain, 39 human skeletons, dating from the late fifth to the early first millen-
nia BC were excavated by Ghirshman and studied by Vallois (1939). This sample included six individuals from
the late fifth and five individuals from the early fourth millennia BC. The early burials were coated with red
ochre as at Zagheh, and shell ornaments from the Persian Gulf also occur. There is some evidence for deliberate
headshaping of male and female adults (Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl 1980). During the 2009 excavation at Tepe Sialk
North, a cluster of six burials was excavated within the Late Neolithic-Transitional Chalcolithic stratum, c. 5400
BC (Figure 6.16) (Sołtysiak and Fazeli Nashli 2010, 2016). Of the six burials, one was a double burial with both
cremated and uncremated human bone, four were cremations, and one included the articulated skeleton of an
infant placed in a pit grave filled with numerous sherds. Although cremation is rare in all periods in Iran, as many
as five examples were discovered at Tepe Sialk. The bodies of adults were burned, whereas the bodies of infants
were both cremated and buried without burning. At Sang-e Chakhmaq East burials change from the Neolithic
tradition of inhumations laid flexed on their sides to a Chalcolithic practice of bodies laid extended on their backs
(Thornton 2013a: 244, 2013b: 187). Human burials at the mid-fifth millennium BC site of Shir-i Shian on the
Damghan plain appear to have ceramic vessels as grave goods (Dyson and Thornton 2009: 18).
Grave goods from Transitional Chalcolithic burials tend to be simple and modest in quantity, principally in
the form of beads, but they are often made of exotic materials such as obsidian turquoise, seashell, lapis lazuli and
copper. The presence of such materials in Transitional Chalcolithic communities widely distributed across north-
ern Iran argues both for their participation in extensive networks of engagement, directly or otherwise, with
distant contemporaries and for an increased social role for such materials and commodities, arguably as markers
of prestige (Helwing 2013b: 85).
The nature of society: hierarchical or transegalitarian?

Considering all the evidence discussed above, through the course of the Transitional Chalcolithic of northern
and central Iran we can detect a slow but steady transformation of Iranian society, marked by developments in
the following fields: population growth indicated by increased numbers of settlement sites with some evidence
for basic site hierarchy; large-scale shift to reliance on domesticated goat and sheep and a limited range of crops
with some use of irrigation, while continuing some traditional hunting-gathering practices; craft specialisation
Figure 6.16 T
epe Sialk, cremation burials of the Transitional Chalcolithic (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
in ceramics and architecture along with early steps in metallurgy; increased use of administrative technology as
attested in clay tokens; increasing concern with cult and religion as attested in dedicated buildings and moderately
differentiated burial practices; and steadily increasing levels of engagement in short- and long-distance networks
of exchange enabling movement of cherished exotic materials.
Whether these developments mark the appearance of stratified, hierarchical societies is still an open question
(Fazeli Nashli and Matthews 2021). Evidence for difference is not evidence for hierarchy. The detection of hi-
erarchy requires us to present evidence for individuals or groups of individuals with, in Bogucki’s words (1999:
257), the “sustained ability to claim control over a specific, bounded population, its internal social affairs, and
its external economic relations.” As it currently stands, the available evidence does not support such an inter-
pretation. We propose that the communities of the Iranian plateau can be situated within the context of what
researchers such as Crumley (1995) and Bogucki (1999) have called heterarchical and transegalitarian societies.
These concepts provide a flexible framework, not pyramidal in structure, which allows differentiated material
evidence to be viewed in a variety of shifting lights according to context. Bogucki (1999: 257) has elaborated
on the idea of heterarchy as “an alternative configuration of social relations,” valuable in the analysis of “situa-
tions of increasing complexity without apparent centralized control.” He argues that the transformative element
in the development of societies from transegalitarian to hierarchical is when the domestic sphere is dominated
by “some formalized and structured public life” (Bogucki 1999: 258), which might be manifest in a range of
ways including large non-residential buildings or centralised control over craft production. It is notable that
Wong et al.’s study (2010) of Cheshmeh Ali type ceramics from a range of sites on the Tehran and Qazvin plains
concluded that, despite striking similarities in vessel forms and decorative schemes, pottery production was
organised at local levels with no evidence for centralised control or of integration of production into a broader
regional economy of redistribution.
Following the arguments of Drennan and Peterson (2012: 73) we might view the Transitional Chalcolithic
societies of Iran as “supra-local communities” with regionally specific characteristics that transcended and con-
nected individual settlements, as richly attested in ceramic styles and burial practices, for example, coupled with
the development of central places that served as a focus for a range of social, economic and ritual activities. The
significant sites of Zagheh on the Qazvin plain and Sialk on the Kashan plain may be interpreted in this way. In
sum, the Transitional Chalcolithic communities of northern Iran were certainly complex and multi-stranded,
but there is little evidence to suggest that they had become truly hierarchical by the end of the Transitional Chal-
colithic period in the later fifth millennium BC. Whether we can associate the transegalitarian nature of these
early human societies of northern Iran with the later “failure” of early urban take-off in this region, as opposed
to other regions of Iran and its neighbours in the late fourth and early third millennia BC (Vidale et al. 2018: 36),
remains a questions for focused future research.
The developed Chalcolithic of north-central Iran, 4300–3300 BC

As we turn to examine the last millennium of the Chalcolithic across northern and central Iran, from c. 4300 BC,
we note that the pace of change steps up with regard to both the material attributes of societies and the under-
pinning socio-economic structures. By the end of the period there can be little doubt that complex hierarchical
societies existed across much of Iran, but alongside them and sometimes within them, more ancient ways of life
continued to survive and thrive. As in the previous section, we here examine evidence for a range of socio-cultural
components in order to explore the nature of developed Chalcolithic societies of north-central Iran.
Settlement patterns and food procurement strategies

Figure 6.6 suggests a steady fall in settlement density across the Qazvin and Tehran plains after the end of the
Transitional Chalcolithic period, but if we divide the number of sites by the number of centuries in each period,
we see rather a stable pattern of site density throughout the full Chalcolithic period. At the same time, certain
key sites appear to increase in size and importance through the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC (Hel-
wing 2013b: 85), suggesting a degree of settlement hierarchy. Prime amongst these sites are Tepe Sialk on the
Kashan plain (Ghirshman 1939; Malek Shahmirzadeh 2004), Ghabrestan and Ismailabad on the Qazvin plain
(Tala’i 1983b; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2009), Cheshmeh Ali on the Tehran plain, and Qara Tepe on the Qomrud plain
(Azarnoush and Helwing 2005: 197–198; Kaboli 2005).
Regarding food resources, later Chalcolithic societies show a fully developed dependence on domesticated
goat and sheep as well as on cereals and a limited range of other crops (Mashkour et al. 1999; Mashkour 2002).
Towards the end of the Chalcolithic, the appearance in the highland zone of Iran of specific pottery types such as
spouted vessels and bevelled-rim bowls, may well suggest shifts in cooking and eating practices at least by certain
components of society (Potts 2009; Goulder 2010). Occurrences of grape seeds in archaeobotanical assemblages,
as at Tepe Hissar and Tepe Damghani (Costantini and Dyson 1990; Tengberg 2012b: 187), suggest significant
development of viticulture through the fourth and third millennia BC.
Ceramics, metallurgy and networks of material movement

In ceramics the Early Chalcolithic is marked by a change from black-on-red to black-on-buff wares, also known
as Sialk III6–7 style after its initial discovery at Tepe Sialk (Ghirshman 1939; Majidzadeh 1978; Dyson 1991;
Petrie 2011, 2012; Helwing 2013b; Abbasnejad Seresti and Tashvigh 2016; Vidale et al. 2018). Production of
black-on-buff wares was enabled by the development of a new type of kiln, as excavated at Sialk level III, in
which pottery could be fired at temperatures up to 1,000°C (Hansen Streily 2000). Black-on-buff wares are
distributed across central and northern Iran, with the exception of the northwest where Chaff-faced Ware is
dominant, suggesting connections of that region with communities across the southern Caucasus, eastern Turkey
and Upper Mesopotamia (Marro 2010; Helwing 2013b: 85). Ceramics of Dalma type occur at sites on the Tehran
and Qazvin plains, with connections through sites in Zanjan province (Alibaigi et al. 2011b, 2012a; Motarjem and
Sharifi 2014; Niknami et al. 2017), indicating a degree of contact amongst communities across north-western
Iran, north-central Iran and the central Zagros.
The development of skills in metalworking is a major achievement of the full Chalcolithic period in Iran (Ty-
lecote 1970; T. Potts 1994; Thornton 2009; Weeks 2012, 2013b; Abbasnejad Seresti 2017). Copper is the most
significant metal in this process but at the same time initial experiments with working of gold, silver and lead
were underway, as attested at sites such as Shoghali southeast of Tehran (Figure 6.17) (Malek Shahmirzadeh
2003; Pernicka 2004; Nezafati et al. 2008b; Nezafati and Pernicka 2012; Weeks 2012: 303; Nezafati and Hessari
2017). The importance of Iran in the early development of copper-working has long been recognised (Holzer
and Momenzadeh 1971; Beale 1973; Berthoud et al. 1982; Moorey 1982; Stech and Pigott 1986; Pigott 1999;
Figure 6.17 S hoghali, evidence for early silver production (Nezafati and Hessari 2017: Figure 4) (photo credit: Morteza Hessari).
Figure 6.18 Ghabrestan, view of excavated area (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Oudbashi et al. 2012). Of great significance is the fact that Iran is blessed with a natural wealth of copper and
copper-ore sources – more than 400 separate deposits across Iran (Nezafati et al. 2008b: 78) – as well as other
metals (Harrison 1968; Berthoud et al. 1982). Key evidence for early copper-working comes from the site of Gh-
abrestan (Figure 6.18) on the Qazvin plain, dating to the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC (Negahban
1977; Majidzadeh 1979, 1981; Matthews and Fazeli 2004; Fazeli et al. 2005; Thornton 2009: 312). Majidzadeh’s
excavations revealed a copper workshop in level II (Middle Chalcolithic, 4000–3700 BC), located amongst a
complex of potters’ workshops and other buildings (Figure 6.19). Copper-processing features included small
hearths, crucibles, moulds, ceramic pipes and 20 kg of copper ore in a large bowl. Intensive ceramic production is
Figure 6.19 Ghabrestan, plan of structures including coppersmith’s workshop (after Majidzadeh 1979: Figure 1), and Middle Chal-
colithic ceramics (photo credit: Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
also well-attested at the site, and there is a so-called Main Building with thick walls, which has been interpreted
as a ruler’s residence or a communal meeting place (Majidzadeh 1976: 128). In the Late Chalcolithic (3700–3500
BC) Level IV at Ghabrestan, bevelled-rim bowls appear in some quantities, possibly attesting Lower Mesopota-
mian or Khuzestan interest in copper production (Matthews and Fazeli 2004: 65) before the site was violently
destroyed by fire around 3500 BC. More recent excavations at Ghabrestan and at the nearby site of Tepe Sag-
zabad have explored extensive areas of craft working through the Early, Middle and Late Chalcolithic phases
(Azizi et al. 2012; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 112–113). Associated with the development of metallurgical expertise
there is evidence for a collapse in lithic craft specialisation across the Tehran plain at the same time, doubtless due
to the increased use of copper tools to fill roles previously undertaken by chipped stone tools (Fazeli et al. 2002).
Early copper metallurgy in Iran is attested at a range of other sites. A crucible and slag were found at Chesh-
meh Ali, 4300–4000 BC (Fazeli 2001). Cold-hammered and cast artefacts, including daggers, axes, chisels,
awls, pins and needles, as well as artefact moulds are frequent in levels I-IV (Matthews and Fazeli 2004: 65–66;
Pernicka 2004; Nezafati et al. 2006). As at Ghabrestan, the development of copper metallurgy at Tepe Sialk
(Nezafati et al. 2008a) is accompanied by evidence for social differentiation in architecture and for external en-
gagement (Figure 6.20). Following possible destruction by earthquake (Berberian et al. 2012), buttressed houses
in Sialk III4 are replaced by a single multi-roomed structure in Sialk III6–7. After the destruction of Sialk III by
fire, in Sialk IV1 a well-built structure is situated atop Sialk South, and is associated with Uruk- or Susa-related
items such as pottery forms, cylinder seals, seal impressions and numerical and numero-ideographic tablets
Figure 6.20 Tepe Sialk, architecture of levels III6, III7 and IV1 (after Abbasnejad Seresti and Tashvigh 2016: Figures 3, 6).
Figure 6.21 Tepe Sialk, administrative artefacts from level IVA (after Pittman 2013b: Figure 16.32) (image courtesy of Holly Pittman).
(Figure 6.21) (Pittman 2013b: Figure 16.32; Abbasnejad Seresti and Tashvigh 2016). This complex is interpreted
by Algaze (1993: 55–56) as an Uruk control post, while Pittman prefers to interpret this assemblage as repre-
senting an early stage in the development of the Proto-Elamite horizon in Iran (Chapter 7; Pittman 2013b: 329).
In fact, it could be both. An unusual type of clay sealing occurs in Sialk IV1 in the form of thin labels with a
single pierced hole, as if the sealings were attached as labels to containers perhaps as a means of identifying their
owner or sender (Amiet 1988: pl. 2.5). The same perforating technique was used on Proto-Elamite tablets from
Sialk (Chapter 7; Ghirshman 1939: 67; Dyson 1987: 663). Algaze has stressed the strategic location of Sialk, like
Godin Tepe (see below) commanding a major route across the Iranian plateau, and therefore with the potential
to control movement of cherished raw materials and commodities. The practice of using stamp seals on clay
sealings, in association with a variety of token forms is also abundantly attested at the site of Alou on the Qazvin
plain (Niknami et al. 2020).
Probably performing a role similar to that of Sialk in this period, the site of Tepe Sofalin near Tehran, is
located close to the Great Khorasan Road that skirts the northern edge of the central plateau (Figure 6.1). While
Sofalin is important as a Proto-Elamite site (Chapter 7), some of the ceramics and the administrative artefacts
from the site, including a hollow clay ball with tokens and several numerical tablets (Hessari 2011; Dahl et al.
2013: Figure 18.17) show clear connections with the Late Uruk/Late Susa II world (see below). Both Sialk and
Sofalin thus indicate continuity of activity across the Late Susa II/Proto-Elamite transition, which is otherwise
matched only at Susa and probably also at Tall-e Geser on the Ram Hormuz plain (Chapter 7; Wright and
Carter 2003: 67; Alizadeh et al. 2013a). As with Sofalin, the site of Meymanatabad Tepe southwest of Tehran
by the Shad Chai river has significant evidence of occupation through the later fourth millennium BC (Kashani
et al. 2013; Yousefi Zoshk et al. 2015, 2018), including black-on-buff wares with painted animal motifs, string-
cut conical bowls, bevelled-rim bowls and classic Uruk-style trays, as well as copper tools, in association with
large-scale mudbrick architecture (Figures 6.22–6.24). Situated along the Great Khorasan Road, both Sofalin
and Meymanatabad likely played a role in connecting Uruk and Late Susa II sites of Lower Mesopotamia and
Khuzestan with the resource-rich regions of the highland zone.
Figure 6.22 Meymanatabad Tepe, selection of pottery styles (Yousefi Zoshk et al. 2015: Figure 10) (images courtesy of Rouhollah
Yousefi Zoshk).
Figure 6.23 Meymanatabad Tepe, large-scale mudbrick architecture view (image courtesy of Hassan Afshari).
In north-eastern Iran, there is a cultural divide between sites that show affinities with Central Asian settlements
to the east and those with connections westwards to the Iranian plateau and beyond (Kohl et al. 1982; Garajian
2006; Thornton et al. 2013a). Extensive surveys of regions including the plains of Jajarm (Dana and Hozhabri
2019) and Roshtkhar (Rezaei et al. 2019) have recovered ceramics of Late Chalcolithic date from a handful of
sites, including significant representations of Uruk/Late Susa II ceramics such as droop-spouts, pierced nose-
lugs, low-sided trays and bevelled-rim bowls from excavations at the site of Kaleh Kub in south Khorasan
(Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2020). Late Chalcolithic grey ware ceramics from the 40 ha site of Tepe Chalow on
Figure 6.24 Meymanatabad Tepe, large-scale mudbrick architecture plan (image courtesy of Hassan Afshari and Rohollah Yousefi
Zoshk).
the Jajarm plain take forms comparable to material from sites in southern Turkmenistan (Vahdati et al. 2019). On
the Damghan plain, initial settlement at Tepe Hissar, level I, consisted of a dispersed layout with functionally
distinct quarters, including a domestic housing neighbourhood and separate craft production areas concerned
with processing of copper, steatite and lapis lazuli (Yule 1982; Dyson and Remsen 1989; Tosi 1989; Pigott 1999;
Dyson 2009; Thornton 2014; Gürsan-Salzmann 2016). Specialised production of elaborately painted pottery was
also taking place at Hissar (Yule 1982: Abb 4–7; Dyson 1991). At this time, and later in levels II-III, Hissar appears
to have functioned as a major intermediary in the processing and shipment of lapis lazuli from its source in the
Badakhshan mountains of northern Afghanistan onwards to the west, with specialised craft workers at Hissar
preparing blanks and finished artefacts both for local consumption and for onward transport (Bulgarelli 1974;
Casanova 1997; Lazzari and Vidale 2017: 47–49). In addition to working of lapis lazuli, other materials including
calcite, limestone and chlorite were also intensively worked at Hissar (Tosi and Bulgarelli 1989; Casanova 2013).
Over 360 human burials, including some collective burials of up to 12 individuals, were excavated from Hissar
levels I–III, many of them dug into the floors of abandoned houses (Roustaei 2004; Thornton et al. 2013: 132; Afshar
2017; Afshar et al. 2019). It is notable that the cultural connections of Hissar change direction during the fourth mil-
lennium BC, with some evidence for conflict and inter-personal violence (Afshar et al. 2018). For the earlier half of
the millennium the material links, in ceramics, technology and architecture, are with sites to the west and southwest,
such as Sialk and Arisman, while in the latter half of the millennium, Hissar’s material culture connects the site firmly
with sites to the east and northeast in the Gorgan plain and in southern Turkmenistan (Helwing 2006). At the same
time, around 3500 BC, Hissar’s key role in the processing of lapis lazuli appears to increase greatly in scale, along with
evidence for elite burials and increased wealth at the site. The shift in cultural orientation at Hissar may relate to shift-
ing control over trade routes and consequent realignment of economic and cultural relations (Thornton 2014). One
stimulus to this process of centralisation and administration of production may have been the intensification of con-
nections with the Uruk- and Susa-related world to the southwest, whether from Lower Mesopotamia or Khuzestan.
Inscribed tablets and tablet blanks from Hissar appear to align more with Uruk-style rather than Proto-Elamite-style
texts. Subsistence and diet throughout the occupation at Hissar were founded on cultivation of wheat and barley along-
side husbandry of cattle, sheep, goat and pig with significant hunting of gazelle, red deer and wild birds (Costantini
and Dyson 1990; Mashkour and Yaghmayi 1998; Afshar et al. 2019). although the human remains of Hissar I-II attest
significant levels of malnutrition, worsening into Hissar III (Figure 6.25) (Afshar 2017).
Beyond north-eastern Iran and into southern Turkmenistan, the piedmont plains north of the Kopet Dagh
ridge, stretching from the shores of the Caspian Sea to the delta of the Tedjen river, were occupied by sophisti-
cated village communities already with a long tradition of local farming practices and developed technologies
in ceramics, ground stone and metallurgy (Hiebert 2002; Bonora and Vidale 2013). During the Middle-Late
Chalcolithic, partly contemporary with the Uruk-Late Susa II impact on western and central Iran, communities
of southern Turkmenistan developed into large-scale, arguably urban, sites, characterised by defensive walls,
monumental gates, elaborate buildings with wall paintings (possible hammams – see Bonora and Vidale 2013:
160), specialised craft quarters, trade in metals, semi-precious stones and sea shells, differential treatment of hu-
man burials and the use of stamp seals and clay sealings. Key sites in this local episode of urban flowering include
Namazga-depe, Kara-depe, Altyn-depe, Ilgynly-depe and Geoksyur 1.
Figure 6.25 T
epe Hissar, metabolic disease profiles period by period (after Afshar 2017: Figure 9).
Within central Iran, a degree of functional specialisation in site location is indicated by the emergence of
copper-smelting sites at Arisman 60 km to the south of Sialk (Figure 6.26) (Chegini and Helwing 2011;
Helwing 2013b: 86). The copper-working sites at Arisman are hugely informative on the development of copper
metallurgy through the late fifth, fourth and third millennia BC (Helwing 2011b; Pernicka et al. 2011). Evidence
from Arisman includes waste from smelting of copper ores and production of arsenical copper in pit furnaces
through use of crucibles, using ores from at least four different sources (Helwing 2013b: 86). By the late fourth
millennium BC at Arisman, smelting in crucibles was superseded by large reaction vessels including a copper
smelting furnace, and silver was being extracted from argentiferous metallic lead by means of cupellation (Weeks
2012: 301–303). Many casting moulds for ingots, flat axes and a double axe were also found at Arisman, in forms
that match finished artefacts found at sites such as Susa and Sialk as well as at many sites of Late Uruk/Jemdet
Nasr/Early Dynastic I date of central and northern Mesopotamia and southern Anatolia (Helwing 2011c: 268).
Ceramics from Arisman show a wide range of connections across Iran (Boroff ka and Parzinger 2011), and the
silver worked at the site was coming from the Anarak region, 200 km to the east (Helwing 2012: 510).
New techniques such as casting and smithing enabled the production of large, complex artefacts such as daggers
and double axes, which were widely circulated across and beyond Iran. Chalcolithic double axes from the Susa
I cemetery may well have been produced in matching moulds found at Ghabrestan and Arisman (Hole 1992;
Helwing 2011b, 2013a) and their distribution reaches the southern Caucasus (Boroff ka 2009). It is striking that
significant finds of copper artefacts have not been made at Lower Mesopotamian sites such as Eridu and Ur in
contexts pre-dating c. 3500 BC, suggesting that copper “was neither vital for subsistence nor valued as a prestige
commodity” (Moorey 1994: 256) by the occupants of those sites at that time.
Figure 6.26 A
risman, view of the site looking southwest, with the Karkas mountains beyond, and sherds and slag in the foreground
(photo credit: Hermann Parzinger, DAI-EA; photo no: Teh50_fig163).
Later Chalcolithic societies of north-central Iran: the emergence of societal complexity and its (temporary) collapse
By the end of the Chalcolithic period at c. 3300 BC, communities of northern and central Iran appear to have been
hierarchical and were certainly complex, characterised above all by differential access to and consumption of rare and
cherished materials and artefacts, principally of metal. There are also significant indications of differentiation in
architecture and in allocation of internal space within settlements for specific purposes, suggestive of central planning
and control. Intensified levels of long-distance engagement and of administrative control over movement and storage
of goods, attested by a significant increase in the use of seals, are also likely to be indicative of ranked societies with
centralised control over multiple aspects of daily life. One result of this process was the increasing fragmentation of
Iranian highland societies, as archaeologically expressed in their modes of living and material culture, which culmi-
nates in the disparate cultural groups of the succeeding Early Bronze Age, as we explore in following chapters.
Networks of engagement had existed for centuries prior to the full Chalcolithic, as attested by movement of
obsidian and shells in the Neolithic or of semi-precious stones and other materials in the Transitional Chalcolithic,
for example, but what appears to be new from c. 4000 BC is the intensified level of engagement by far-flung com-
munities and the increasing levels of investment of materials and expertise in production of the commodities and
artefacts featuring in these exchange networks, including major advances in metallurgy. In a thoughtful, highly
informed review of the development and transmission through space and time of metallurgical skills in Iran and
beyond, Lloyd Weeks (2013b) situates the technological advances in this field within their wider socio-cultural
contexts. In particular, Weeks highlights the potential of the Uruk phenomenon of the mid-later fourth mil-
lennium BC as providing the transregional context for effective sharing of ideologies and material behaviours
including metallurgical skills and knowhow, enhancing the capacity for multiple independent technological
innovations across the entire geographic sphere of interaction; “If incorporation into the Uruk world provided
the social context for the innovations of fourth-millennium BC metallurgy, then these innovations could have
developed independently in the various metallurgical source regions of the Uruk world” (Weeks 2013b: 287).
Long-distance movement of materials and objects from c. 4000 BC was greatly facilitated by the use of domes-
ticated donkeys as pack animals (Matthews and Fazeli 2004: 70; Benecke 2011; Potts 2011c), although goat are also
perfectly capable of being trained as pack animals (Mionczynski 1992). The commissioning or procuring of exotic
artefact production and of its transport must be viewed as projects requiring significant organisational capability as
well as administrative oversight, arguably attested by the proliferation of stamp seals at sites such as Ghabrestan (Ma-
jidzadeh 2008: 43), Sialk (Ghirshman 1939) and Hissar (Schmidt 1937) from c. 4000 BC. It is tempting to associate
such projects with elite-driven desire for acquisition of rare, difficult-to-acquire, therefore high-status objects such
as copper daggers and axes, and so with the establishment of truly hierarchical or ranked societies within and beyond
Iran through the course of the fourth millennium BC. Also of note is the significant level of Uruk- or Susa-related
evidence, in the form of distinctive ceramic forms and perhaps also of early administrative technologies at sites such
as Sofalin, Meymanatabad and Sialk, suggestive of long-distance networks of engagement connecting elite commu-
nities of the Lower Mesopotamian and Khuzestan plains with their contemporaries of the Iranian highland zones.
Across the northern Central Plateau of Iran, permanent human settlement in the form of occupied mounded
sites appears to come to an abrupt halt at some stage in the mid-later fourth millennium BC, with little evidence
for settlement through much of the third millennium BC (Fazeli et al. 2004; Pollard et al. 2013; Vidale et al. 2018:
11). Occupation at Sialk in level III ends in flames at c. 3400 BC and, following a hiatus of uncertain length, is
succeeded by Proto-Elamite buildings and material culture very different in kind (Chapter 7; Ghirshman 1939,
58). As Barbara Helwing (2013b: 88) phrases it: “the late Chalcolithic period [of northern Iran] seems to have
ended in a scenario of collapse around 3400 BC, following several centuries of rapid growth.” The precise cause
of this reversal to a preceding long-term trend of increasing settlement spread and intensity is not at all clear but
impacts from climate change, earthquakes and floods cannot be ruled out (Vidale et al. 2018: 31). Much more
investigation of environmental and palaeoclimatic records is required adequately to address this key problem.
Despite these reversals, once human societies of the region succeed in regrouping and resettling, they do not
restart from zero, but they take forward with them and build upon the major social, economic and technological
advances made by their forbears in the region through the Chalcolithic period.
Ceramics and connectivity: Chalcolithic societies of the central and northern Zagros
To the west of the plains of north-central Iran, the Zagros range was host to distinctive human societies through
the Chalcolithic (Moghaddam and Javanmardzadeh 2013), as it had been in the Neolithic. In this region a
separate chronological scheme is conventionally applied, based largely on ceramic assemblages from the few rel-
evant excavated sites of the region, in particular Tepe Giyan (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935) and Godin Tepe
(Henrickson 1985b), and from regional surveys on the Mahidasht, Kangavar, Songhor; Hamedan and Marivan
plains and in Luristan (Young 1969; Goff 1971; Levine 1974b; Levine and McDonald 1977; Henrickson 1983;
Levine and Young 1987; Hole 2007; Heydarian and Ghorbani 2016; Abbasnejad Seresti and Rezaei 2018; Zamani
Dadaneh et al. 2019a, 2019b).
Excavations at a range of sites including Tepe Gheshlagh, Tepe Karvansara, Soha Chai Tepe and Tepe Kal-
anan are shedding new light on the Zagros Chalcolithic (Mucheshi et al. 2011; Alibaigi et al. 2014; Mucheshi
2014; Rahimi Sorkhani et al. 2017; Sharifi and Motarjem 2018). In broad terms, the ceramic assemblages of the
highland zone throughout the Chalcolithic show both a desire for group expression of identity through recur-
rent use of stylised forms and decorative motifs (Henrickson and Vitali 1987: 43; Henrickson 1991), but also a
significant degree of social interaction with lowland neighbours dwelling in the foothills and steppe zones to the
west (Darabi 2020).
The Early Chalcolithic, 5500–5000 BC

Our knowledge of the first 500 years of the Chalcolithic in the region is limited to ceramic material recovered
from extensive surveys of the major plains of the region (Figure 6.27). The type of pottery known as J Ware
is found across the Mahidasht and valleys in the west of the central Zagros region (Henrickson 1985b, 1986;
Abdi 2003b; Balmaki et al. 2013; Sharp and Kaercher 2018). J Ware bears some resemblance to contemporary
Halaf pottery of Upper Mesopotamia although its manufacture and decoration are not as well-developed (Lev-
ine and McDonald 1977; Levine and Young 1987). More than 60 J Ware or Halaf-related sites were found in
survey of the Mahidasht, some of them over more than 4 ha in area, suggesting a basic settlement hierarchy
(Levine and McDonald 1977: Figures 3–4; Hole 1987b: 47–48), also attested on the Islamabad plain where J
Ware sites are numerous (Abdi 2003b: 420). Sherds of painted pottery from Choga Mami and Ras al-Amiya in
Iraq have been suggested as indicating Iranian connections at this time (Oates 1983: 259). Other occurrences
of Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic ceramics in the central Zagros include Samarran-related material from
Figure 6.27 E
arly Chalcolithic pottery styles of highland western Iran (after Rothman and Badler 2011: Figure 4.4).
Giyan VA and a range of surveyed material from the central Zagros foothills (Darabi 2020), the Pish-e Kuh and
Khorramabad (Goff 1971; Hole 2007), as well as the Hulailan and Saimarreh valleys (Mortensen 1975, 1976),
showing some connections to excavated assemblages from Deh Luran (Chogha Sefid, Sabz and Khazineh) and
Chogha Mish in Susiana (Garfinkel 2000). At Tepe Gheshlagh in Kurdistan province a deep sequence of oc-
cupation through the Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition includes ceramics with influences from Hassuna
and Late Sarab Tadpole Ware succeeded by local Early Chalcolithic styles (Figure 6.28) (Motarjem and Sharifi
2014; Sharifi and Motarjem 2018).
The Middle Chalcolithic, 5000–3800 BC

In her classic studies Henrickson (1985b, 1991) divided the Middle Chalcolithic of the central Zagros into three
phases, here treated in turn (also following Moghaddam and Javanmardzadeh 2013: 97–100). In Middle Chal-
colithic I (c. 5000–4800 BC), the key pottery type of the region is co-called Dalma Ware, initially recovered at
Dalma Tappeh in north-western Iran at the south-western edge of Lake Urmia (see above; Hamlin 1975; Hen-
rickson and Vitali 1987). Dalma Ware is found across most of the Zagros region of western Iran, from southern
Azerbaijan in the north to the Hamrin of east-central Iraq and the Khorramabad region in the south (Young
1963; Hamlin 1975: 120; Levine and McDonald 1977: Figure 5; Henrickson and Vitali 1987; Balmaki et al. 2013;
Khosravi et al. 2013).
Dalma painted and Dalma-Ubaid pottery occurs at Tepe Siahbid and Chogha Maran on the Mahidasht,
and at Seh Gabi and Godin Tepe on the Kangavar plain (‌Hamlin 1973, 1974b; Henrickson 1985a; Levine and
Young 1987; Renette 2018: 297–314; Renette et al. 2021). The earlier Dalma types appear to be contemporary
with Halaf and the later varieties with Ubaid in the Mesopotamian sequence (Henrickson 1985a; Hole 1987b:
46). As to what these varying distributions of ceramics styles might mean in social terms, Hole (1987b: 48) argues
that within the highland zone of the Zagros “the presence of Halaf mixed with Ubaid and Dalma suggests a
movement of peoples and perhaps an ethnic intermixing rather than trade.”
Multiple sites with Dalma Ware have been recorded in surveys stretching from Iranian Azerbaijan to southern
Luristan (Moghaddam and Javanmardzadeh 2013: 98). Dalma Ware is richly attested in a range of styles through
multiple levels at Tepe Gheshlagh in the central Zagros along with husking trays in Hassuna style (Sharifi and
Motarjem 2018). The socio-economic mechanisms by which Dalma Ware is so widely distributed, though with
much regional variability, have barely been explored and there has been little application as yet of methods of
analysis that might form the basis of such interpretations, for example by characterisation of clays, minerals and
techniques used in the manufacture and decoration of the various types of Dalma Ware across their regional
distributions (Tonoike 2012). A rare exception is the study by Henrickson and Vitali (1987), which applies
instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) to Dalma ceramics in order explore local and regional pro-
duction and distribution patterns, concluding that “Dalma stylistic homogeneity was a reflection of highland
ethnicity rather than any far-flung, complex Dalma political or economic system” (Henrickson and Vitali 1987:
42), whereby the distinctive Dalma ceramic style served as a material indicator of shared tribal, linguistic and
perhaps religious alignments.
Figure 6.28 C
halcolithic pottery from Tepe Gheshlagh (after Motarjem and Sharifi 2014: Figure 24).
In the Middle Chalcolithic II phase, c. 4800–4200 BC, we see greater regionalisation in the ceramic assem-
blages of western Iran (Moghaddam and Javanmardzadeh 2013: 98–99; Motarjem and Sharifi 2014). On the Kan-
gavar plain new painted wares appear including Seh Gabi, from level IX at Godin Tepe, featuring stylised goats as
major elements of painted decoration (Henrickson 1985b; Levine and Young 1987). At Tepe Gheshlagh in the
central Zagros, the Middle Chalcolithic levels have ceramics showing transregional connections to north-western
Iran and across the Zagros to Upper Mesopotamia (Sharifi and Motarjem 2018).
In the south-western Zagros range of Pusht-e Kuh in Luristan, remarkable cemeteries of Middle Chalcolithic
date have been excavated at Hakalan and Dum Gar-e Parchineh, spanning approximately a millennium from
4600 BC (Vanden Berghe 1974; Hole 1987b: 43–44; Haerinck and Overlaet 1996; Abdi 2003b: 433–434; Aliza-
deh 2008: 16–18). More than 200 stone cist tombs were excavated, exclusively of adult burials, and many of the
tombs were used for multiple burials. Grave goods comprised principally pottery, and occasional items such as
copper mace-heads, beads, stamp seals and stone tools (Figure 6.29), but many of the tombs had no grave goods
at all. The painted pottery in the tombs consists of several regional styles (Henrickson 1985b; Alizadeh 2008: 17;
Mutin 2012: 163), while a ceramic production centre for painted ceramics in the Ubaid style has been identified
at Kall Karim in the north-western Pusht-e Kuh (Mazaheri 2018). Lacking associated settlement sites, these
cemeteries have been interpreted as belonging to pastoral nomadic groups, moving in seasonal patterns with their
flocks of animals (Henrickson 1985a). Alizadeh (2008: 16–18) suggests that the diversity of pottery styles indicates
the movement of “dowries” of goods brought into the region through transregional marriages between nomadic
and settled groups. The Middle Chalcolithic III phase, c. 4200–3800 BC, is less well represented in Luristan,
apart from Chigha Sabz (van Loon 1989c, 1989d), but black-on-red wares show connections with Susa A material
to the south (Henrickson 1985b), and there are several Middle Chalcolithic settlement sites in the Khorramabad
Valley to the east (Hole 2007: 73).
The Late Chalcolithic, 3800–3200 BC

Periods VII and VI at Godin Tepe are the key archaeological contexts for the Late Chalcolithic of the central
Zagros (Rothman and Badler 2011; Moghaddam and Javanmardzadeh 2013: 100). Godin VII red-slipped pottery
occurs in Luristan and Kurdistan and has some parallels at Ghabrestan on the Qazvin plain (Majidzadeh 1978)
but we have little in the way of architecture from Godin in this period (Rothman and Badler 2011). Excavations
at the nearby site of Seh Gabi exposed a suite of thick-walled rooms with cruciform hearths, eight infant burials
under house floors, and much evidence for craft production, including ceramics, chipped stone, textiles and
metal-working (Hole 1987b: 50; Rothman and Badler 2011) (Figure 6.30). Seals and sealings with seal impres-
sions suggest the involvement of this small village in wider patterns of socio-economic engagement in the Godin
VII period (Hamlin 1974; Henrickson 1988; Rothman and Badler 2011: 80).
Godin VII is a critical period in the central Zagros of Iran. The recently excavated sites of Tepe Gheshlagh,
Tepe Karvansara, Soha Chai Tepe and Tepe Kalanan add important new information to our understanding of
Godin VII (Mucheshi et al. 2011; Alibaigi et al. 2014; Rahimi Sorkhani et al. 2017; Sharifi and Motarjem 2018).
Recent settlement surveys in the central Zagros suggest a major population increase during the Godin VII period
(Mucheshi et al. 2013; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2019a). Sharifi and Motarjem (2018) refer to obvious similarities
between the pottery tradition in layer III at Tepe Gheshlagh and the Godin VII phase. All of these sites are located
in regions favourable for dry farming with adjacent plains suitable for grazing of animals. Tepe Gheshlagh has
rectangular houses, ovens, kitchens and the other elements indicative of permanent settlement. Administrative
artefacts at Tepe Gheshlagh include stamp seals and tokens. Tepe Karvansara is a small site but with evidence
of craft activities such as metal production (moulds and copper tools) and ceramic kilns. Seal and seals impressions
and tokens reveal administrative activity at the site. Furthermore, traces of Godin VII ceramics such as Plum Ware
are attested on the Qazvin plain at sites such as Ghabrestan and Ozbaki and at Tepe Pardis on the Tehran plain,
showing interconnections between the central Zagros and north-central Iran (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2021).
Fourth millennium BC materials were also excavated at the central Zagros sites of Baba Jan (Goff 1971) and
Tepe Giyan, where glyptic evidence shows links across the Zagros to the piedmont of northern Iraq at sites such
as Tepe Gawra (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935; Caldwell 1976). Ample Chalcolithic remains occur at sites such
as Chigha Sabz and Kamtarlan in Luristan, including cylinder seals of Late Uruk-Jemdet Nasr geometric styles
(van Loon 1989a, 1989c, 1989d). As Goff (1971: 145) commented,
Many of the Lūristān sites are large by Persian standards, suggesting that here, as in Iraq, villages were turn-
ing into towns. Each of the large plains in Western Lūristān – Tarhan, Kūh-i Dasht, and Rumishgān – are
dominated by one or more major tepes of this period.
Figure 6.29 Dum Gar-e Parchineh, Tomb 72 and selected grave goods (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 2) (images courtesy
of Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 6.30 Seh Gabi, plan of excavated architecture (after Rothman and Badler 2011: Figure 4.7).
It is likely that these sites were keyed into transregional networks of communication and exchange that connected
lowland-highland communities of the Late Chalcolithic.
In the Khorramabad valley, Late Chalcolithic occupation occurs in caves such as Kunji and Ghamari, where
there are stone enclosures perhaps for animal penning, and ceramics, including bevelled-rim bowls and spouted
vessels, showing Lower Mesopotamian and Deh Luran connections (Hole 2007: 73–74). It is likely that these
intrusive Middle Uruk ceramics were picked up by groups moving seasonally from lowlands to highlands. Sig-
nificant quantities of Uruk ceramics have also been found on sites in the Pol-e Dokhtar region directly west of
Khorramabad, attesting networks of east-west communication around the mid-fourth millennium BC (Abbasne-
jad Seresti and Rezaei 2018). In the Hulailan region no sites of mid-fourth through early third millennia BC have
been found (Mortensen 1975), a pattern that fits with a major hiatus in settlement across much of Luristan and
beyond from c. 3500 to 2800 BC (Hole 2007: 75), possibly as a result of a drain of rural populations to thriving
settlements of the plains (Haerinck 2011: 59). Well to the northwest of Godin Tepe, significant finds of Uruk-
style ceramics at the site of Sar Qala west of Sanandaj in the high Zagros likely indicate east-west connections
via the Shahrizor plain in Iraqi Kurdistan (Mucheshi et al. 2013).
At Godin Tepe itself (Figures 6.31–6.32), the major site of the Kangavar valley (Gopnik and Rothman 2011;
Rothman 2013), there is an extensive exposure of architecture in level VI:1 (note that this level was previously
labelled level V by the excavator Cuyler Young – see Rothman 2013: 79) dated to the last third of the fourth
millennium BC (Rothman and Badler 2011: Table 4.2; Matthews 2013). The architecture and material finds of
Godin VI:1 indicate strong connections with Late Uruk/Late Susa II material culture of Khuzestan and Lower
Mesopotamia, and the site has featured prominently in debates over the nature of the so-called “Uruk expansion”
of the later fourth millennium BC (Weiss and Young 1975; Algaze 1993).
Figure 6.31 G
odin Tepe, view of site (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 6.32 G
odin Tepe, level VI:1 Oval Enclosure in 2007, ca. 45 years after excavation (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 6.33 G
odin Tepe, level VI:1 Oval Enclosure (after Matthews 2013: Figure 17.4).
The location of Godin on a major pass across the Zagros mountains and onto the Iranian plateau gives the site
enduring strategic value, in particular with regard to control from the south via the Diyala valley, over access to
the rich metal and semi-precious stone resources of the highlands. Godin VI:1 is marked by the construction of
an Oval Enclosure on the upper mound (Figure 6.33). The main phase of the Oval Enclosure comprises a series
of courts and formally arrayed rooms across an area about 33 × 25 m, with a single access through the main
enclosure wall (Rothman 2013: Figure 5.4). Rooms 14–20 form a monumental building with niches in room
18, which has a fireplace in the centre of one wall face, flanked by two doorways. As Pittman (1994: 90) first
pointed out (see also Desset 2014a), this architectural layout has good parallels in Proto-Elamite buildings at Susa
Acropole I 16-15B and Tal-i Malyan in Fars (Chapter 7). Jars with grape residue and clay stoppers suggest the stor-
age of wine within this compound, and wine may have been a major commodity for export from the highland
to the lowland zone (Badler 1995, 2000; McGovern 2007: 40–63). Other rooms in the complex contain evidence
for storage of legumes and grains (Miller 2011), as well as for craft activity, food preparation and rubbish disposal
(Rothman 2013). Charred roof beams indicate at least partial destruction by fire. Numerous intact vessels and
other artefacts were found within the buildings (Rothman and Badler 2011: Figures 4.22–4.24), and walls were
preserved to a considerable height with plastered faces in good condition, all suggestive of “a rapid departure of
the inhabitants rather than gradual abandonment and slow decay” (Weiss and Young 1975: 3).
Pottery of Godin VI:1 has some local elements but also a significant proportion, up to 30%, of vessels with
strong parallels to Uruk/Late Susa II pottery from Lower Mesopotamia and Susiana, including bevelled-rim
bowls, droop spouts and four-lugged jars (Badler 1995, 2002; Rothman and Badler 2011). Helwing (2011a: 216,
2013a) suggests a Middle Uruk dating for much of the Godin VI:1 ceramics, tenuously supported by recalibration
of old radiocarbon dates (Wright and Rupley 2001: 96). Painted pottery, until then a major feature of the Godin
assemblages, more or less disappears in level VI:1, replaced by undecorated vessels made on the fast wheel often
with string-cut bases, suggestive of mass production. Analysis of the clays indicates that almost all the pottery of
Godin VI:1, including the Uruk-style vessels, was locally made but that some types may have been imported from
local highland sites (Blackman 2011: 112; Gopnik et al. 2016). A few vessels, including a four-lugged jar, may have
been imported from the Susiana plain. In contrast to the changing nature of much of the pottery assemblage, the
chipped stone tools of the Oval Enclosure phase sit very much within the pre-existing lithic traditions of Godin,
suggesting continuity in local practice of agriculture and other activities (Edens 2002).
Most notable amongst the level VI:1 finds are various material elements of administrative bureaucracy, com-
prising clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions, geometric clay tokens, so-called “sling balls” of clay, and nu-
merical tablets (Rothman and Badler 2011: Table 17.1; Figure 4.24; Matthews 2013: Figure 17.4). The contextual
distribution of these finds (Figure 6.33) reveals clustering of tablets and tokens at the entrance to the compound
and in a clay bin close to a storage area in room 14 at the back of the main building. The provenance of many of
the tablets in these liminal zones indicates that they may relate to interactions between people working and living
in the Oval Enclosure and people living outside the Oval. The interactions accounted for in the tablets, and the
clay sealings, are likely to involve control over movements of herds of animals and specific commodities such as
dairy products, grain and oils into and out from the Oval.
The 43 tablets from Godin VI:1 are almost exclusively numerical tablets, with the sexagesimal and ŠE grain
capacity systems probably attested. A single Godin VI:1 tablet, T295 from room 18 (Figure 6.34), displays one
ideographic sign, DUGb, representing a large ceramic vessel, in addition to number signs, in all accounting
for 33 jars of dairy product over a period of one year (Englund 1998: 159; Matthews 2013: 346). This single
numero-ideographic tablet ties Godin VI:1 closely to level 17A of the Susa Acropole I sounding, which is the very
last level with Uruk/Late Susa II connections, immediately prior to the switch at Susa to so-called Proto-Elamite
material culture (see below for more on Susa, and Chapter 7 for Proto-Elamite Susa). In level 17A of Susa Acro-
pole I, numero-ideographic tablets similar to the Godin VI:1 example were found and they enable us to date Godin
VI:1 to 3300–3200 BC (Englund 2004: 122), a suggestion that agrees well with the range of 3350–3140 BC
Figure 6.34 Godin Tepe, level VI:1 tablet T295 from room 18 (after Matthews 2013: Figure 17.4).
proposed by Robert Dyson (1987: 666) on the basis of five available radiocarbon dates from the Godin Oval En-
closure. The Godin VI:1 texts appear to relate solely to the management of the local rural economy by an elite
group resident in the Oval Enclosure. Animal bones from Godin VI:1 come mainly from the Brick Kiln Cut
trench where domestic buildings were excavated (Rothman and Badler 2011: 107–109). The bones indicate a
strong reliance on goat and sheep with some use of cows and pigs as well as hunting of deer. Goat and sheep were
mainly kept for meat but with some evidence for wool production too.
The seal evidence from Godin VI:1 has been characterised as “closely comparable to ones found either at Uruk
or Susa in levels that can be dated to level 17 of the Acropolis sounding…in fact so similar that they must have
been made in the same workshop” (Pittman 2011: 114), a cogent indication of the Uruk/Late Susa II connections
of Godin in this period. Seal impressions at Godin VI:1 occur on 12 of the 43 tablets, as well as on clay sealings,
while the only cylinder seal from the Oval Enclosure is in an early Proto-Elamite style (Chapter 7). Pittman
(2013b: 329) has argued that the glyptic evidence and “arguably the entire administrative assemblage from Godin
Tepe can best be situated within the emerging tradition of the Proto-Elamite” but, as Dahl et al. (2013: 354) point
out, the Godin VI:1 tablets are all Uruk-style not Proto-Elamite and, as Helwing (2011a: 216) stresses, the ceramic
connections of Godin VI:1 suggest a dating “several centuries” before the Proto-Elamite horizon. Furthermore,
the depiction of a human figure, a kneeling archer on tablet Gd 73–320, which is closely paralleled in seal im-
pressions on Susa numerical tablets and on a seal from Nineveh (Pittman 2011: 114), does not sit well within the
Proto-Elamite iconographic repertoire, which eschews representation of the human form (Chapter 7).
Harvey Weiss and Cuyler Young interpreted the Oval Enclosure at Godin VI:1 as a trading colony founded
by merchants from Susa, Sumer or the Diyala region probably with an interest in securing transport of materials
such as lapis lazuli from the east to the lowlands to the southwest (Weiss and Young 1975; Young 1986b). We
interpret the material evidence for bureaucracy at Godin VI:1 as indicating the presence at the site of a cadre of
Uruk- or Susa-origin administrators, familiar with complex counting systems, who organised the construction
of a defensible enclosure and carried out the administration of the local economy while attempting to protect the
routes by which valued commodities were being transported (Matthews 2013). An argument for the presence of
an Uruk outpost at Godin Tepe, coordinated with others at strategic locations such as Tepe Sialk near Kashan
(see above), has been most cogently made in the world systems approach employed by Guillermo Algaze (1993:
53–56), who sees the outposts’ role as critical in Uruk-driven desire for trade and exchange in valued highland
raw materials such as timber, metals, precious and semi-precious stones and perhaps wine as well (Algaze 1993:
Table 3, 2008: 95). Fundamental to his interpretation is an understanding of local participation in these processes:
The survival of outposts such as Godin and Sialk implies that the highland communities in the midst of
which they were located were amenable to participation in a wider exchange network tying into the alluvial
lowlands of southern Iraq and Khuzestan.
(Algaze 1993: 63)
Rothman and Badler (2011: 119) make a similar point regarding the collaboration of locally situated elites with
external powers in a mutually beneficial enterprise of regional exploitation and administration. Historical exam-
ples of indigenous buy-in to external-origin exploitative projects are of course legion.
It is important to note that Godin sits at the top of a hierarchy of many contemporary sites in the Kangavar
valley in the mid-later fourth millennium BC, suggestive of population increase and perhaps also the introduc-
tion of irrigation agriculture at this time (Young 2004: 652–653; Rothman and Badler 2011: 110–111; Balmaki
et al. 2013). Godin’s central location and its evidence for economic administration demonstrate its key role as a
node of control, storage and redistribution of regional agricultural wealth in the form of grain, animals and ani-
mal products, arguably over considerable distances of the Kangavar valley. In concert with its agricultural power,
Godin was also a regional centre as regards craft production in beads, pottery and metal-working, perhaps also
in wine and beer. Its central role in the economy of the region is likely to have developed over the centuries of
the Chalcolithic period prior to period VI:1. Uruk or Susa colonists or traders from the south will doubtless have
had good knowledge of Godin’s regional status prior to setting up their base on the summit of the mound and
assuming control of an already well-developed regional centre. It is likely that the large site of Chogha Gavaneh
on the Islamabad plain on the western side of the Zagros served a similar function at the western end of the same
route (Figure 6.35) (Abdi 1999, 2003b: 424).
Virginia Badler (2002) has argued that the mix of Mesopotamian-style and local ceramics, the latter principally
cooking wares, taken in concert with the use of local, non-Mesopotamian, spindle whorls, indicates a gendered
presence at Godin VI:1 of men from Mesopotamia (whether from Uruk, Susa or the Diyala), living alongside
local women who are cooking for, spinning for, and doubtless marrying the incomers. Analysis of the chipped
Figure 6.35 Chogha Gavaneh, exposed section face (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
stone assemblages from Godin supports the idea of “a small number of foreigners with a large local staff” (Edens
2002: 41). This situation contrasts with that pertaining at other sites impacted by the “Uruk expansion,” such
as Hacınebi Tepe in south-eastern Turkey, where two contemporary but differing sets of ceramic inventories,
including cooking wares, have been distinguished in the Uruk phase, suggesting that “local” and “colonial” fam-
ilies maintained their respective ethnic identities through decades of cohabitation (Pearce 1999). A third scenario
may be where colonial males adopt local material culture in its entirety, marrying local women and blending
into the local environment, as may have been the case with the Old Assyrian merchants at Kültepe-Kanesh in the
Middle Bronze Age of Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia (Veenhof 1995).
That this brief experiment in colonial control at Godin, however directly implemented, ended in collapse is
vividly illustrated by the partial burning and sudden abandonment of the Oval Enclosure and its replacement by
a totally alien intrusion from the north in the overlying layers at Godin in level IV, the so-called Early Transcau-
casian Culture (Young 1986b: 219; Rothman 2011: see Chapter 8). The end of Godin VI:1 is part of wider pic-
ture of regional disruption and site abandonment that can be traced across the Iranian highlands and Khuzestan,
evident in the burning of Sialk III, the lack of settlement at Malyan and Yahya and at least partial, if short-lived,
abandonment at Susa (Helwing 2013b: 88)
Social complexity and pastoral mobility

Overall, the Chalcolithic evidence from the central Zagros indicates a steady development towards increasing
complexity over a period of almost two millennia. General trends include increased densities of settlement sites,
and a probable decline in hunting and foraging coupled with a stronger emphasis on farming and animal herding –
although we lack much detailed faunal and plant evidence with which to explore this issue (Hole 1987b). Basic
settlement hierarchies are detectable in some regions such as the Mahidasht (Moghaddam and Javanmardzadeh
2013: 101). A debated issue concerning the Chalcolithic societies of the central Zagros is the possible development
of pastoral nomadism as a distinctive mode of life, as arguably attested in archaeological sites identified through
survey as “temporary campsites beyond the agricultural zone in the peripheries of the plain toward areas where
one can expect to find pastures” (Abdi 2003b: 421, 2015b), as well as by the evidence for stylistic connections
in ceramic assemblages spanning the border zones of western Iran and eastern Iraq (Sharp and Kaercher 2018).
Excavations at Tuwah Khoshkeh on the Islamabad plain in the western central Zagros have shed light on one
such possible campsite, with evidence for small-scale seasonal occupation probably by transhumant shepherds and
their flocks, combined with hunting of wild deer and boar (Abdi et al. 2002b; Abdi 2003b: 428–429; Mashkour
2003; Mashkour and Abdi 2003). In support of this interpretation, Clare Goff (1971: 149) noted a transition in
the Early Bronze Age from settlement on large mounds centrally located on the plains of Luristan to settlement
along the fringes of valleys close to the mountains, more conveniently located for vertical transhumance with
herds of goats and sheep.
There is, however, much debate about when and how true pastoral nomadism developed in Iran (Gilbert 1983;
Henrickson 1985a; Abdi 2003b; Potts 2010b; Balatti 2017: 33–50; Arbuckle and Hammer 2019). According to
Alizadeh (2008: 20), the Late Susiana I phase (see below; c. 4700–4500 BC) saw “the crystallization of mobile
pastoralist mode of production in western and south-central Iran” and he included the Fars region of southern
Iran in this development (Alizadeh 1988, 1994, 2003b, 2004, 2006, 2010). Alizadeh’s argument is that, while also
providing wool and other animal products such as milk, cheese and yoghurt, mobile pastoralists fulfilled a key
role as media for interregional contact and exchange, as attested in their wide-ranging repertoire of ceramics, at
a time when settled elite groups in various regions of Iran and Mesopotamia were interested in securing access to
cherished exotic commodities such as lapis lazuli, turquoise and copper, all of which are increasingly attested in
the archaeological record from 5000 BC onwards.
In contrast to this scenario is Potts’ (2010b, 2014) argument that the presence of true pastoral nomads in Iran
cannot be indisputably demonstrated until they are mentioned by Herodotus and other ancient authors, at the
earliest. The prehistoric archaeological evidence is too sparse, and too reliant on absence rather than presence of
sites and attributes, to be decisive in this regard. Potts argues that it was the large-scale influx of Turkic-speaking
nomadic groups from the eleventh century AD onwards that laid the foundations for the significance of pastoral
nomadism within Iran in modern times, and he stresses that we need to be very cautious in “viewing nomadism
as a timeless, eternal feature in Iran” (Potts 2010b: 18, 2014). A deep-time perspective on 10,000 years of pas-
toralism in Anatolia is similarly cautious, concluding that “long-distance sheep and goat mobile pastoralism, of
the type practiced by some ethnographically studied groups and often projected into the deep past, appears to
have been a historically late development in Anatolia” not securely attested until the eighth-tenth centuries AD
(Hammer and Arbuckle 2017: 248).
While heeding these wise cautions, we may agree that much of the evidence cited in support of the early
development of pastoral nomadism in Iran might equally relate to village-based herding within integrated
agro-pastoral economies, whereby small groups of people take charge of flocks of sheep and goat on behalf of
their co-villagers in movements to available pastures according to daily and seasonal dictates of environment,
without engagement in full-time, long-distance pastoral nomadism (Arbuckle and Hammer 2019). Such an
adaptable pattern of behaviour is identified by Niknami et al. (2017) on the basis of materials of Late Chalco-
lithic and Early Bronze Age date from Botkhane cave in Luristan, and has also been explored in depth through
study of interconnected sedentary farmer/mobile pastoralist societies of Bronze Age southern Turkmenistan
(Rouse and Cerasetti 2018).
A flexible view of the food acquisition strategies of Neolithic and later societies of Iran has been well put by
John Alden:
herding, agriculture, hunting, gathering and exchange have been elements in the subsistence economies of
every group in the Middle East since the origins of domestication. Every group utilised each element, with
the balance between the various modes of procurement shifting with the seasons, with short- and long-term
variations in physical, cultural and political environments, and with cultural preferences. Archaeologists
should be examining how ancient groups and societies balanced these elements and how those balances
changed over time.
(Alden 2015: 997)
Significant advances in isotopic analysis of animal and human remains, coupled with the generally excellent sur-
vival of bone collagen at archaeological sites on the Iranian plateau, compared to hotter and more humid regions
of Southwest Asia (Bocherens et al. 2000), provide a promising avenue for future research into this critical issue.
Early state formation and the Chalcolithic societies of south-western Iran

South-western Iran has been described as “a bridge between the Mesopotamian alluvium and the mountain
ranges and inner basins of Iran” (Wright 2013: 51), a place whose archaeological evidence enables us to approach
issues of early state formation within a broad interregional context. The Khuzestan region of south-western Iran
is especially well-researched for the Chalcolithic period. Multiple archaeological surveys and excavations have
taken place across the plains and hillsides of Khuzestan since the origins of the discipline (see Chapter 3), and
the region continues to host significant investigations (Kouchoukos and Hole 2003; Moghaddam 2012a, 2012b,
2013: 107–108). For the Chalcolithic period, key sites include Susa, Chogha Mish, Jaffarabad and Farukhabad
plus input from many surveys of the region. The study of Chalcolithic societies of Khuzestan has focused on
issues concerning early state formation as represented in evidence for settlement hierarchy, craft specialisation,
mortuary practices and cult and religion (Adams 1962; Johnson 1973; Wright and Johnson 1975; Weiss 1977;
Wright 1977, 1984, 1998; Berman 1987, 1994; Hole 1987a, 1987b, 2010; Pollock 1989; Hopper and Wilkinson
2013). A key factor in the interpretation of survey data from Khuzestan, and beyond, is the extent to which ar-
chaeological sites, particularly of prehistoric periods, are buried beneath recent sedimentation, which is highly
variable across the plains of south-western Iran (Brookes et al. 1982; Kouchoukos 1998; Kouchoukos and Hole
2003; Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Hopper and Wilkinson 2013; Rashidian 2019).
As discussed in Chapter 2, Khuzestan is a distinctive region of Iran situated between, and with easy access to,
the Zagros ranges to the north and east and the low-lying Mesopotamian plains to the west, with the waters of
the Persian Gulf to the south. The fertile plains of Khuzestan, including the Mehran, Deh Luran, Susiana and
Eastern plains (Moghaddam 2012b: map 1) were all created by tectonic uplift (Hamzehpour et al. 1999) and, be-
cause of their proximity to the Zagros range, they are capable of supporting farming both by natural precipitation
and by irrigation (Heyvaert and Baeteman 2007; Walstra et al. 2010). Settlers on these plains had the benefit of
ready access to a vast richness and variety of natural resources, including the marshlands of the south and west
with their fish, water fowl and reeds, the hillsides, mountains and upland plains of the Zagros to the north and
east with their high pastures and wild plant, animal and mineral resources, and the plains of central and south
Mesopotamia with their extensive arable soils.
Critical to the context of human settlement of this region and adjacent Lower Mesopotamia to the west
throughout the Chalcolithic was the shifting location of the head of the Persian Gulf (Wilkinson 2012: 19–20;
Pournelle 2013). From the start of the Holocene at c. 9500 BC the marine transgression of the Persian Gulf
proceeded at an alarming pace, an average of 140 m per year (Teller et al. 2000), rapidly displacing coastal
dwelling communities who may then have contributed to ever denser populations in dry-land settlements fur-
ther inland, a factor argued by Kennett and Kennett (2007) to be a major stimulus to early state development
in the region. The work of Belgian researchers in Khuzestan suggests an initial rapid transgression at the
start of the Holocene followed by stabilisation of sea level at c. 3500 BC leading to the generation of a resilient
marshy, intertidal zone that has essentially persisted to today with minor fluctuations (Baeteman et al. 2004;
Gasche 2007; Heyvaert and Baeteman 2007). It is now clear that the earliest development of complex societies
from the Ubaid period onwards in Lower Mesopotamia and the adjacent Khuzestan lower plains took place
within a deltaic environment of intertidal flats, marshes, lagoons, estuaries, and anastomosing and occasionally
avulsing river courses, with settlements developing on Pleistocene “turtlebacks” standing proud of the sur-
rounding waters (Pournelle 2007, 2013; Ur 2013).
Chronology
There are multiple chronological schemes pertinent to south-western Iran, based on excavations at the region’s
major sites as well as on regional surveys and broader interpretive frameworks (de Miroschedji 2003: Table 3.1;
Alizadeh 2008: Table 1; Moghaddam 2012b: Table 1). For the prehistory of Khuzestan and western Iran more
broadly, Frank Hole (1987b: 30–32) devised a scheme of “village periods,” with the Initial Village Period cov-
ering the Neolithic, and the Early, Middle and Late Village Periods essentially covering the Chalcolithic. There
is also the Susiana a-e scheme developed by Le Breton (1957) and Johnson (1973) to cover the Chalcolithic of
the Susa plain, plus site-specific frameworks for Susa, Chogha Mish and other sites. For the Early Chalcolithic
we here employ the “Early, Middle, Late Susiana” scheme widely applied across Khuzestan (Kouchoukos and
Hole 2003: Table 5.2; Alizadeh 2008: Table 1; Moghaddam 2012a, 2012b: Table 1, 2013), while recognising the
inclusive value of Mary Voigt’s (1987: Figure 2), treatment of the Chalcolithic of Iran in six sequential stages. For
the Late Chalcolithic we employ the Susa II scheme, as discussed below.
The Early Susiana period, 5700–5400 BC

The earliest Chalcolithic of Khuzestan sees major socio-economic developments, including the expansion of
Chogha Mish on the Susiana plain to some 5 ha, alongside the foundation of sites such as Jaffarabad on the west-
ern plains (Alizadeh 2008: 10). Evidence for settlement on the Eastern Plains beyond the Karun River prior to
c. 5100 BC is, however, sparse (Moghaddam and Miri 2007). Survey on the Deh Luran plain located multiple
small villages of the so-called Sabz phase, and there are indications of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture
(Adams 1962: 112; Helbaek 1969: 412; Neely and Wright 1994: 166). A distinctive attribute of the pottery of
this phase is the use of potters’ marks on the base of a specific type of vessel, perhaps to enable identification of
batches of vessels being fired in communal kilns (Alizadeh 2008: 10, Figure 64). More broadly, the ceramics
of Early Chalcolithic Khuzestan show much continuity with preceding Late Neolithic wares as well as many
similarities with Ubaid 0 and 1 assemblages of Lower Mesopotamia, as excavated at Tell el-’Oueili (Alizadeh
2008; Moghaddam 2013).
New types of stone tools, including crescentic hoes and polished celts, hafted with locally occurring bitumen,
may well indicate increased agricultural activity at this time, in association with irrigation (Hole et al. 1969: 356;
Alizadeh 2008: 10). As to architecture, in Trench XXI at Chogha Mish we have an extensive plan of mudbrick
buildings (Figure 6.36), including three multi-roomed structures, with fireplaces, interpreted by Alizadeh
(2008: 11) as “residences of extended or chiefly families.” There is also evidence for supra-domestic struc-
tures, including ranges of long, narrow rooms, perhaps for storage, and a low mudbrick platform in a large
open area that may have functioned as a loading-dock connected with nearby storage facilities (Alizadeh
2008: Figure 14). A provisional interpretation of the Early Susiana architecture at Chogha Mish thus sug-
gests that we have residences of well-to-do individuals who were concerned with receipt, storage and per-
haps also distribution of certain unknown commodities. Finds of in situ storage vessels associated with “large
quantities of carbon” (Delougaz et al. 1996: 163) may indicate that storage and distribution of foodstuffs
was a component of these activities. Common finds of clay tokens, mainly cones, discs and spheres (Aliza-
deh 2008: 77–78), support this interpretation. On the Mehran plain in Ilam province, close to the border
with Iraq, the multi-period site of Chogha Ahovan appears to be occupied from this period and through
subsequent millennia of the Chalcolithic ( Javanmardzadeh et al. 2013; Khazaee et al. 2014), and is clearly a
settlement of major importance at this time.
Figure 6.36 Chogha Mish, Archaic-Middle Susiana architecture in Trench XXI (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 14) (image courtesy of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
The Middle Susiana period, 5400–4600 BC
There is good evidence for a substantial increase in sites and population in Khuzestan in the Middle Susiana phase,
with increasing dominance of the region by the site of Chogha Mish (Alizadeh 2008: 11–13; Moghaddam 2013:
110). Across the plains of south-western Iran we see a similar pattern of increased site hierarchy and generally
increased numbers of sites (Hole 1987b: 40; Kouchoukos and Hole 2003: 56; Hopper and Wilkinson 2013: Figure
3.5), including on the Eastern Plains region between the Karun river and the Ram Hormuz plain (Moghaddam
and Miri 2007; Moghaddam 2012b: 65). Even on the Deh Luran plain, a slight reduction in occupied sites from
the Khazineh through Mehmeh to Bayat phases is at the expense of increased growth at a few major sites such as
Tepe Sabz, Musiyan and Farukhabad (Hole 1987a: 84).
The site of Chogha Mish rises to real prominence in this period, reaching 15 ha in occupied area by the Late
Middle Susiana phase (Delougaz et al. 1996: 284). In the Early Middle Susiana phase there are strong ceramic
connections with Lower Mesopotamia in the Ubaid 2 phase, as attested at Eridu levels XII–IX, while in the Late
Middle Susiana phase the ceramics in particular show more highland connections (Figure 6.37) (Alizadeh 2008:
11; Mutin 2012: 162–163). In the Early Middle Susiana phase at Chogha Mish, the architecture is similar to that
of the preceding Early Susiana phase, with multi-roomed houses built of mudbricks (Alizadeh 2008: 12; Figure
14). A major shift in gear is attested in the Late Middle Susiana phase, from c. 5000 BC, most vividly by the con-
struction of a massive monumental building at least 20 x 20 m in area (Figure 6.38) (Alizadeh 2008: 42, Figure
15, pls. 10–11). This structure, only half excavated, consists of parallel ranges of long rooms defined by substantial
plastered mud-brick walls excavated to a height of 1.5 m. Its destruction by fire had preserved organic materials
used in roofing, including timbers and reeds. Many of the rooms were full of intact contents, including complete
pottery vessels, clay “sling-shots” and considerable evidence for in situ production of chipped stone tools.
The purpose of this impressive building, with its multiple recessed doorways and buttressed exterior facades, is
obscure. Alizadeh (2004, 2008: 13) proposes to view the building as a chiefly residence, analogous to the White
Room at Tepe Gawra level XII identified as such by Flannery (1998), and he sees its destruction as an outcome of
Figure 6.37 Chogha Mish, Middle Susiana painted pottery (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 40) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago).
Figure 6.38 C
hogha Mish, Late Middle Susiana architecture in East Area (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 15) (image courtesy of the Ori-
ental Institute of the University of Chicago).
aggressive tension between the inhabitants of Chogha Mish and increasingly active groups of “highland mobile
pastoralist communities who may have been vying with the Chogha Mish elite to control the eastern Susiana
plain” (Alizadeh 2008: 13). Frank Hole (1992) associates the Chogha Mish destruction with social tension across
the region brought about by an environmental downturn during the later fifth millennium BC, which may also
have increased the power of mobile components of society such as pastoral nomads. Contrary to Alizadeh’s inter-
pretation of the Chogha Mish monumental building, we point out that it bears little resemblance to the White
Room complex at Gawra XII (Rothman 2009: 23, 37), which is situated in an organic mix of mudbrick residences
at the edge of the mound and lacks the architectural elaboration of formal layout, niched facade and recessed door-
ways that characterise the Chogha Mish structure. These attributes speak more of planned religious architecture
(Margueron 2009). In any case, the Chogha Mish building clearly represents a major investment of skill, time and
labour by the community at Chogha Mish, to a degree unparalleled by any previous building attested at Chogha
Mish or indeed anywhere else in Iran prior to this time. The voluminous evidence for chipped stone production
within the building, at least, is striking evidence both for intensification of craft specialisation and for control over
that production by a powerful authority of some kind. It is also remarkable that following the destruction of this
building, the site of Chogha Mish and several of its satellite villages were abandoned (Alizadeh 2008: 13).
At the same time as the construction of the Chogha Mish monumental building, there appears to be a shift
in human burial practices. In the Early Middle Susiana phase at Chogha Mish, human burials were made under
house floors and in open spaces, as in previous periods at the site (Alizadeh 2008: 12), but from the Late Middle
Susiana phase this practice appears to stop and it is no longer clear how the dead were being disposed of, although
off-site cemeteries have been proposed but not located (Hole 1987a: 88). At least one of the Middle Susiana burials
from Chogha Mish shows clear traces of artificial cranial modification through cloth binding, a practice originat-
ing in the Neolithic in this region (Chapter 5; Ortner 1996; Daems and Croucher 2007: 7). Figurines of human
heads from Early Susiana levels at Chogha Mish also appear to depict cranial modification. Contemporary burials
at Tepe Sabz show slight evidence for differentiation in their grave goods (Hole et al. 1969: 363).
As to subsistence at Chogha Mish and beyond in the Middle Susiana period, prime plant foods were wheat,
six-row barley and lentils (Alizadeh 2008: 12) with some evidence for a shift from wheat to barley by the end of
the period (Miller 1977: 51). Goat and sheep were the main herding animals, along with cattle, and there seems
to have been a steady decline in hunting, of onager and gazelle, through the course of the period, as well as an
increase in herding of sheep as against goat (Alizadeh 2008: 12, 19; Moghaddam 2013: 110). Hole and Flannery
(1968: 181; Hole et al. 1969: 361) associate the extensive use of irrigation and of recently domesticated cattle as key
components in the emergence of social complexity during this period on the Deh Luran plain.
The site of Jaffarabad on the Susiana plain seems to have been a specialised ceramic production site (Hole
1987a: 86), with evidence for standardisation of production of fine painted vessels, and strong connections in
ceramic types across a broad region of southern and north-eastern Mesopotamia (Hole et al. 1969: 365). Architec-
ture at Jaffarabad is well-planned, consisting of multi-roomed residences with storage facilities, three infant/child
burials, and much evidence for use of stamp seals (Figure 6.39) (Dollfus 1977, 1978, 1983b). Similar buildings as
well as storage vessels with distinctive potters’ marks were encountered at the nearby site of Jowi (Dollfus 1983a)
and from Bendebal there are domestic houses with kilns and more burials of children only (Dollfus 1983b,
1983c). We have already mentioned the Chogha Mish evidence for specialisation in chipped stone tool produc-
tion. It has also been proposed that the large site of Tall-e Abu Chizan, almost 8 ha in extent, was located for
specialist extraction of locally available bitumen as well as for large-scale craft production in the form of ceramics
and chipped stone (Moghaddam and Miri 2007; Connan et al. 2008; Moghaddam 2012a: 138, 2012b: 529–530).
The full range of domesticated animals (sheep/goat above all) and plants, as well as selected wild species, were
exploited by the site’s inhabitants (Mashkour and Mohaseb 2012; Tengberg 2012a). The appearance of clay jar
sealings and cylindrical bead seals in the Bayat phase at Tepe Sabz, c. 4500 BC, also indicates an increased con-
cern with marking and tracking of property or commodities (Hole et al. 1969: 365). Lower excavated levels of
Tall-e Geser (= Tell-i Ghazir) on the Ram Hormuz plain appear to be contemporary with Late Middle Susiana
(Caldwell 1968: 349; Alizadeh 2014: Table 1).
The Middle Susiana phase thus sees some major socio-political developments in Khuzestan, including the
first monumental architecture, evidence for craft specialisation in pottery, chipped stone and possibly bitumen
extraction (Schwartz and Hollander 2016), new mortuary practices and an intensification of the agricultural ba-
sis of society, with wheat, barley, sheep, goat and cattle forming the basis of food resources, as hunting steadily
declined in significance. Taken in concert, these components can readily be interpreted as forming key stages in
the formation of state-level societies.
The Late Susiana period, 4600–4000 BC

The processes of socio-political development we have discerned in the late sixth and early fifth millennia BC
continue apace through the rest of the fifth millennium BC and beyond. The key event by the end of this period
was the rise to dominance of the site of Susa, following the abandonment of Chogha Mish in the early fifth mil-
lennium BC. There was slight subsequent occupation at Chogha Mish in the Late Susiana phase, with evidence
for pottery production, but not comparable in scale to that of the Middle Susiana phase. A 50 x 50 m mudbrick
Figure 6.39 Jaffarabad, architecture of levels 5b and 6 (after Dollfus 1978: Figure 4).
platform, surmounted by an even larger platform, has been revealed at the site of Chogha Do Sar, 8 km south-
west of Chogha Mish, which suggests that Chogha Do Sar may have supplanted Chogha Mish as the key regional
centre for a short time in the fourth millennium BC but we know little more about this site (Alizadeh 2008: 15).
One of the most important places in the archaeology of Iran and Southwest Asia, and a UNESCO World
Heritage site since 2015, the site of Susa, biblical Shushan, is situated in a transitional zone between the Lower
Mesopotamian plains to the west and the Zagros highlands to the north and east (Figure 6.40) (see Chapter 3 for
a history of excavations at Susa; Harper et al. 1992 for excellent overviews). This liminal location is a key factor in
shaping Susa’s cultural connections through the centuries (Le Breton 1957; Amiet 1979b, 1979c, 1992), with low-
land and highland components competing for domination in the material culture and in the political and economic
spheres within which the material culture was produced and consumed. The earliest occupation at Susa, called Susa
I, was originally identified in two soundings, Acropole I levels 27-24 and Acropole II levels 11–7 (Moghaddam 2013:
112), as well as at the base of the Apadana mound, spanning from c. 4350 to 3800 BC (Weiss 1977; Hole 1983: 317;
Alizadeh 2008: 22). Recent investigations adjacent to the massif funéraire, however, have exposed layers of earlier
date, suggesting a foundation of Susa by Late Middle Susiana, ca. 4700 BC, arguably pre-dating the abandonment
of Chogha Mish at ca. 4600 BC (Figure 6.41) (Ahmadzadeh et al. 2021). Even earlier levels remain to be excavated.
One of the earliest buildings excavated at Susa is the Susa I Building on the Apadana mound (Steve and Gasche
1990; Potts 1999: 46–47). The Apadana mound appears to have been surrounded by a wall of chineh some 6 m
thick, and the Susa I Building has pink-plastered walls, also of chineh, over 2 m thick. Steve and Gasche (1990: 22)
interpret this building as a chief ’s residence, a secular complement to the contemporary cultic structures on the
Acropole. As this building stands atop some 2.5 m of archaeological deposits, there clearly must have been even
earlier settlement at Susa, about which we know very little.
Susa rapidly replaced Chogha Mish as the major site of Susiana, retaining this position for several millennia
apart from a short time at the end of the fourth millennium BC, the so-called Protoliterate period (see below).
Susa was clearly of supreme cultic and political significance, with a monumental mudbrick platform, the haute
terrasse, rising in a series of steps up to perhaps 20 m above the plain and with a surface area of c. 70 × 65 m (Figure
6.41) (Steve and Gasche 1971, 1990; Canal 1978b, 1978a). The scale of this structure was truly immense: Frank
Hole (2010: 238) has pointed out that the bricks used in its construction could cover 5.5 ha to a depth of 1 m.
Inlaid ceramic cones (also found at Jaffarabad) and clay models of goat horns were set in groups into the face of
the upper stage of the platform (Canal 1978b: 173). The haute terrasse was constructed after the abandonment of
a smaller platform, the massif funéraire (Potts 1999: 47; Alizadeh 2008: 16; Álvarez-Mon 2018c). These platforms
would have been topped by cultic buildings, which have survived only as fragmentary plans (Steve and Gasche
1971, 1990; Canal 1978a; Pollock 1989; Hole 1992, 2010: Figure 15.5, 2011). Susa I buildings on the Acropole
and the Apadana were all destroyed by fire at the end of this phase (Canal 1978a).
Close to the massif funéraire on its south side and partially cut into it, was a major cemetery of up to 2000 individ-
uals, all dating to the centuries around 4000 BC (Figure 6.42) (Hole 1983, 1990, 1992, 2010). The excavators, de
Figure 6.40 Susa, overall plan of the site showing excavated areas (after Harper et al. 1992: Figure 3).
Figure 6.41 L
eft: Susa, plan of the Acropole mound at c. 4000 BC showing Susa I structures and cemetery (after Hole 1992: Figure
23). Right: Susa, section drawing of Operation 2 to show earliest excavated levels (Ahmadzadeh et al. 2021: Figure 8)
(images courtesy of Ramin Yashmi and Loghman Ahmadzadeh).
Figure 6.42 Susa, reconstruction of a Susa I burial (after Hole 1992: Figure 24).
Morgan (1912) and de Mecquenem (1943), reported finding bodies and disarticulated bones densely stacked within
the cemetery, but the widely accepted notion that many of the burials in the Susa I cemetery were secondary
burials, deposited there after initial burial or exposure elsewhere, has been forcefully countered by Álvarez-Mon’s
(2018c) critical examination of the excavation records, demonstrating that the apparently disarticulated and frag-
mentary nature of the human remains relates to taphonomic factors rather than to secondary burial. Infants appear
to have been buried elsewhere, perhaps to the north on the other side of the massif funéraire, where two child burials
with pots were found (Hole 1983: 316). More recent excavations in this area by Perrot and Canal (Canal 1978b,
1978a) established that the massif funéraire suffered from two major episodes of burning and collapse before the ma-
jor cemetery was in use. The collapsed material contained many disarticulated human bones, suggesting that on
top of the massif funéraire there may have been a charnel house full of human bodies before the platform’s collapse.
Most of the burials were accompanied by finely painted pottery, including serving sets of beaker, dish and
jar interpreted by Susan Pollock as essentially prestige goods (Pollock 1983; Hole 1984; Álvarez-Mon 2020:
7–20). Judith Berman’s (1987, 1994) neutron activation analysis suggests that the cemetery vessels were made at a
range of nearby sites, not at a single production centre. Study of the decorative motifs and the skills required to
produce them also supports the idea of multiple centres of production (Hole 1992: 29). These dispersed ceramic
production centres may have been connected with the residential localities, or villages, of particular high-status
individuals brought to Susa for burial in the cemetery (Berman 1994: 28). If so, then arguably at Susa we have an
early case of a major religious centre acting as a focus for burial of individuals from a wide range of localities, a
common practice in the region to this day, as exemplified at the great Shia shrines of Nejef and Kerbala in central
Iraq, and which continues traditions of the eastern Fertile Crescent that reach far back into the eighth millennium
BC of the Early Neolithic as attested at Bestansur in Iraqi Kurdistan (Matthews et al. 2019).
The painted motifs on the Susa I vessels, in particular the striking portrayals of wild goat with exquisite curv-
ing horns (Figure 6.43), demonstrate the highland relations of the Susa ceramics, at sites such as Tall-e Bakun,
Tepe Giyan and Godin Tepe, as well as situating Susa within a trajectory of Iranian cultural engagement with
wild goat that we can trace back for many millennia, at least as far as the Early Neolithic shrine at Sheikh-e Abad
in the central Zagros with its skulls of massive male goats (Chapter 5). Hunting dogs of saluki or greyhound type,
water birds, snakes and turtles are also depicted on the Susa I pots (Hole 1992: 32–41). One painted bowl (Figure
6.44) (Hole 1992: 33) has a rare depiction of an anthropomorphic figure standing between two triangular-headed
standards. Triple parallel lines in front of the figure have been interpreted as representing irrigation canals, but
they could rather portray in plan the stepped facade of a platform such as the nearby massif funéraire, with the
anthropomorphic figure representing a high priest or a deity, or a statue thereof, situated on a projecting dais of
Figure 6.43 Susa I cemetery, ceramic vessel with painted motifs including wild goat with curving horns (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 23)
(photo credit: Neda Hossein Tehrani and Nima Mohmmadi Fakoorzadeh, courtesy of the National Museum of Iran).
Figure 6.44 S usa I cemetery, ceramic vessel with anthropomorphic figure between standards (after Hole 1992: 33).
the platform and thus overseeing the cemetery below. The depiction of stylised vultures on the same bowl might
then allude to excarnation of the dead prior to burial in the cemetery.
In addition to the painted pottery, many of the burials were accompanied by hammered copper axes and disks
(Stech and Pigott 1986), which may have been used by priests in religious ceremonies (Hole 1983, 1992: 30). This
interpretation is bolstered by the evidence from Susa I clay sealings with stamp seal impressions, which portray
individuals wearing animal head-dresses and large disks suspended around their necks (Amiet 1972; Hole 1983;
Aruz 1992: 45). Analysis of copper artefacts from Susa I contexts shows that they are composed of very pure
copper with minor arsenic content, probably from Anarak sources on the plateau (Malfoy and Menu 1987: 365;
Pigott 1999: 79). Finds of small vases of ceramic, stone and bitumen with metal mirrors have been speculatively
associated with female burials (Hole 1992: 41).
Multiple clay sealings with stamp seal impressions of the Susa I period were found at Susa (Amiet 1972,
1973a,1986b; Aruz 1992; Pittman 2001a; Hole 2010; Piran 2013). Although not all their contexts were recorded,
it seems that none of them were found in the cemetery. The scenes depicted on these stamp seal impressions,
of which there are at least 260 different examples, give us vivid insights into the cultic life of Susa in its earliest
centuries of settlement (Figure 6.45), showing “a range of activities and complexity that is unprecedented in the
Near East” (Hole 2010: 237). They show high-status anthropomorphic figures engaged in a variety of activities,
in some cases possibly deities or high priests wearing cultic garb and paraphernalia while conducting ceremonies
under a glaring hot sun. Their head-dresses take the form of wild goat heads with massive horns or vultures with
drooping beaks. Once more, these components align Susa I in a deep-time trajectory reaching back to the wild
goat heads and large bird bones found at Early Holocene sites such as Zawi Chemi Shanidar and Sheikh-e Abad
in the high Zagros (Chapter 5).
The Susa I clay sealings also inform us on systems of storage and administration. By examining the impressions
on their reverse faces, we can see to which kind of objects the clay pieces had been affixed. The Susa I sealings
were affixed to pot mouths covered with cloth, as well as to wooden pegs or knobs used to secure store-room
doors (Amiet 1986b, 1988; Charvát 1988; Aruz 1992). The association of cultic activity with an administrative
concern for storage and distribution is a persistent theme in ancient Iran and Mesopotamia, clearly to do with
storage of offerings and tithes collected by the priesthood on behalf of their deity, but also a key feature of what
has been called “the institutionalisation of religion” (Hole 1983: 315). It is notable that a range of probable store-
rooms is situated on the top of the haute terrasse at Susa (Figure 6.41). In the case of the Susa I sealings, we cannot
tell exactly what types of commodity were being stored in the containers and storerooms of the temple but anal-
ogy with later fourth and third millennia BC examples, where we sometimes have written evidence, suggests that
a range of agricultural and animal produce as well as luxury items, would be involved.
As to the nature of society at Susa in the Susa I period, the seminal role of cult and religion can hardly be denied
in view of the evidence discussed above. But was Susa I society egalitarian or headed by powerful leaders such as
chiefs? Clearly there was the ability to mobilise large groups of labourers with a common purpose, attested in the
construction of the massif funéraire and the haute terrasse, each of which would have demanded hundreds of thou-
sands of labour-hours, but that does not necessarily imply an organising individual leader. The graves themselves
Figure 6.45 Susa I stamp seal and seal impressions (after Hole 2010: Figure 15.8e-l) plus stamp seal from Qara Tepe (bottom row,
after Fazeli Nashli et al. 2021: Figure 3.1).
show only moderate evidence amongst the grave goods for social differentiation. Hole has thoughtfully addressed
this problem, musing about societies composed of “semiautonomous modules…that could aggregate at times
of mutual interest and dissolve at other times. The assumption of any particular role and status was situational”
(Hole 1983: 325). He further proposes that Susa I society may have been headed by lineage or clan leaders who
could assume positions of cultic authority for the purposes of specific festivals. An associated interpretation of the
Susa I glyptic imagery has been propounded by Javier Álvarez-Mon (2020: 24): “Seen against the development
of rational systems for the organization, securing and supervision of property, the imagery implies that the man-
agement of wealth made recourse to ritual.”
The Susa I Building on the Apadana mound might then be viewed as a residence and administrative focus for the
exercise of political and cultic authority, a system characterised by Gil Stein (2020: 180) as “elaborate but unstable
and prone to periodic cycles of collapse.” Hole (1992: 28, 2010: 228) further associates the social investment at this
time in the construction of large-scale platforms and temples, as attested at Uruk and Eridu as well as at Susa, with
an intensified religious sensibility of peoples undergoing social and political disruption in the face of significant
environmental change. Similarly, he sees the destruction by fire of the Susa I buildings on the Acropole and the
Apadana mound, and at other sites in Iran such as Tepe Sialk and Tall-e Bakun, coupled with evidence for regional
abandonment in many areas, as resulting from social tensions due ultimately to environmental downturn in the
later fifth millennium BC (Hole 1992, 2010). At the same time, increasing evidence through this period for use
of items of personal adornment, including probable labrets and ear spools (Croucher 2010; Stein 2010: 30–31), as
well as for the continued practice of head-shaping (Lorentz 2010), suggests a developing concern with personal
identity.
On the Deh Luran plain, to the northwest of Susiana, the site of Farukhabad is especially significant in the
Late Susiana period. Henry Wright’s analyses of the site indicate some degree of social differentiation amongst
the residential buildings at Farukhabad, with variability in socio-economic capabilities such as access to exotic
raw materials, consumption of high-status painted ceramics and employment of elite iconography on stamp seals
(Wright 1981; Wright et al. 1999; Moghaddam 2012a). The supply of bitumen from this region to Early Ubaid
sites in Mesopotamia is also notable (Connan 1999), and it is further remarkable that a break in Iranian bitumen
supply to Late Ubaid Mesopotamia coincides with a reorientation of Susiana ceramic connections in the later fifth
millennium BC, with Zagros and highland links more to the fore than the pre-existing Mesopotamian lowland
links (Le Breton 1957: 88; Alizadeh 2008; Moghaddam 2013: 113). The presence of Ubaid-related ceramics at a
very few sites along the Iranian shores of the Persian Gulf such as Halili in Bushehr suggests the participation of
small-scale sea-going communities in this episode of trans-regional engagement (Carter et al. 2006; Mutin 2012:
163–165). Stylistically, the Halili ceramics are of Ubaid 2 type, shown by archaeometric analysis to be a mix of
locally made and imported from Mesopotamia.
At the same time there is a major realignment of settlement across Khuzestan at the turn of the fifth-fourth
millennia BC, in the Terminal Susa A period, with Susa diminishing in size from 15 ha to perhaps 5 ha (Steve
and Gasche 1990: 25; Hole 2010: 229), the abandonment of the alluvial plain beside the Mehmeh river and a
major fall in settled area on the Deh Luran plain (Wright et al. 1975; Hole 1987b: 37; Neely and Wright 1994:
71–72). Evidence from Farukhabad for a decrease in use of cattle, an increase in use of goat over sheep, and a
shift from wheat to barley are understood to betoken increasing aridity at this time (Miller 1981, 2011; Redding
1981; Neely and Wright 1994: 175). On the Behbahan and Zohreh plains at the south-eastern corner of Khuz-
estan, survey detected a three-tier site hierarchy, headed by Tepe Sohz at 13 ha, succeeded again at around 4000
BC by almost complete abandonment of the region (Nissen 1976; Dittmann 1984), a pattern of occupation also
detected through survey of the Eastern Plains (Moghaddam and Miri 2003; Moghaddam 2012a: 67–69) and the
Ram Hormuz plain midway between Susiana and Behbahan (Wright and Carter 2003; Alizadeh et al. 2013a).
Excavation at Tol-e Chega Sofla on the Zohreh plain, a transitional zone between Khuzestan and Fars, has
investigated a series of well-furnished burials of late fifth-early fourth millennia BC date, one of which includes
at least 52 individuals with some evidence for disease and violence (Moghaddam 2012a, 2016, 2018, 2020). Es-
pecially notable is the use of cranial shaping through head-bandaging, showing continuity of this distinctive
practice in this region over several millennia following its earliest attestation at sites of the Neolithic Zagros
(Chapter 5). Large numbers of high-quality copper goods, and small quantities of gold and silver items as well
as stamp seals, were also found in the cemetery at Tol-e Chega Sofla. Ceramics in the form of jars, beakers and
small bowls (Figure 6.46) are similar to those of contemporary sites including Susa, Jaffarabad and Jowi as well
as Luristan cemetery sites such as Hakalan and Dum Gar-e Parchineh. Adjacent to the cemetery area, intriguing
structures have been excavated, including a stone and mudbrick shrine and a deposit of more than 70 flat stones
or stelae of distinctive shape, several of which have striking relief scenes of highly stylised human faces, arms and
opposed wild goats (Figure 6.47–6.49). There are also pits containing complete skeletons of goat and cattle, likely
deposited as offerings at this extraordinary site (Figure 6.50).
Figure 6.46 T
ol-e Chega Sofla, painted ceramics (after Moghaddam 2020: Figure 85) (images courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam).
Figure 6.47 Tol-e Chega Sofla, view of shrine and adjacent features (Moghaddam 2020: Figure 53) (images courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam).
Figure 6.48 T
ol-e Chega Sofla, deposit of >70 flat stones or stelae (Moghaddam 2020: Figure 41) (image courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam).
Figure 6.49 Tol-e Chega Sofla, selection of carved flat stones or stelae (Moghaddam 2020: Figures 94, 95, 101, 105, 132, 136)
(images courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam).
Figure 6.50 T
ol-e Chega Sofla, multiple animal burial (Moghaddam 2020: Figure 49) (image courtesy of Abbas Moghaddam).
Hole (1987b: 38, 1992) has stressed the significance of a disruptive episode of environmental change spanning
c. 4500–4000 BC, characterised by a decline in seasonal rainfall patterns following millennia of relatively high rainfall
in the region, which clearly impacted sharply on agricultural productivity and on pastures for herded animals. Over-
all, then, settlements of south-western Iran during the later fifth millennium BC appear to have been rather small-
scale, widely distributed, locally situated and lacking much evidence for interregional interaction (Wright 2013: 57).
The Middle Chalcolithic cemeteries of Hakalan and Dum Gar-e Parchineh in Luristan, discussed above, are
not too distant from the Deh Luran and Mehran plains, and it is beyond doubt that there were intimate con-
nections between the societies of the lowland plains and the Zagros highlands at this time. Indeed, Alizadeh
(2008: 14) points out that pottery vessels from the Luristan cemeteries show evidence of connections across the
highland zone through Susiana and into Lower Mesopotamia, suggestive of considerable mobility on the part
of the pottery producers and consumers, possibly involving intermarriage. A so-called “ophidian” (snake-like)
painted human figurine from one tomb at Parchineh shows strong resemblance to figurines from the Late Ubaid
cemetery at Ur in Lower Mesopotamia, further indication of the extensive connectivity of the people buried in
these Luristan tombs (Daems 2010: 156–157, Figure 10.5). Section sampling of Late Susiana levels at the small site
of Dar Khazineh in eastern Khuzestan recovered faunal and plant remains that indicate seasonal occupation by
sheep and goat herders with limited cereal use (Alizadeh 2008: 20).
The Late Chalcolithic, 4000–3100 BC: state formation and reformation and
the resurgence of Susa and Chogha Mish
The Late Chalcolithic period in Khuzestan is one of the most dynamic in all of Iran’s prehistory, witnessing as
it did the rise of state-level societies, manifest in a doubling in size of Susa to 25 ha during the Susa II period,
c. 3700–3100 BC, the construction of massive monumental architecture on the acropolis at Susa, the utilisation
of sophisticated administrative devices only one step removed from early writing, including hollow clay balls,
cylinder seals and numerical texts, and the use of a figurative iconography at Susa and Chogha Mish attesting high
status males (or deities – see below) engaged in acts of militancy and large-scale construction. These attributes
are understood to indicate the emergence of institutional, centralised authority, administered by a privileged elite
who strove to control access to the materials and artefacts of power. Such developments in south-western Iran
cannot be separated from contemporary developments in Lower Mesopotamia, south Iraq, through the course
of the so-called Uruk period, which is conventionally divided into Early, Middle and Late phases. Indeed, it has
been suggested that the major increase in population and urban growth in Lower Mesopotamia from c. 4000 BC,
richly attested in survey data (Adams 1981), must have been at least partly supported by migration into Lower
Mesopotamia of significant numbers of people from south-western Iran, and perhaps from elsewhere in Iran too
(Kouchoukos and Wilkinson 2007; Hopper and Wilkinson 2013: 44). Assumed connectivity between the plains
of Lower Mesopotamia and those of Khuzestan underpins use of the term “Greater Mesopotamia” to include
both these regions along with southern Anatolia and the northern Levant (Benati 2018).
Many archaeologists have approached south-western Iran as an arena for research into early state societies. But
what are state societies and how do we detect, characterise and investigate them archaeologically? Before we
address the archaeological evidence of the region in this light, we need to articulate what we might expect to
find that would identify a society as a “state” or at “state-level.” During the 1960s and 1970s, while fieldwork in
Iran was at its apogee (Chapter 3), much American anthropological and archaeological research was invested in
addressing these questions. As Melinda Zeder (1991: 2) has articulated, three recurrent components of definitions
of the state are social stratification, centralised governance and specialised economy. Varying emphasis on any of
these three factors can significantly shape a research agenda, for example by prioritising a concern with material
evidence for administration if centralised governance is selected as the primary factor. Common to multiple
theories about the origins of the state is an acceptance that it was the development of capacity for agricultural
surpluses (Yoffee 2005: 229), subsequent to the Neolithic transition to farming (Chapter 5), which enabled the
development of stratified, complex societies, such as the ones we have been examining so far in this chapter, and
in turn the appearance of fully state-level societies. This is not to say that farming necessarily leads to surplus and
that surplus necessarily leads to complex societies that in turn lead to states, but rather to stress that the capacity to
generate surplus is essential for the development of complex and state-level societies. Without surpluses generated
through farming, states could not have evolved (Scott 2017).
In a stimulating critique of approaches to archaic states, Norman Yoffee (2005: 231) has put the case that the
development of human societies into state or state-like polities is an inevitable outcome of social and environ-
mental conditions of the Holocene age:
It is our last myth, then, that cities, states, and civilizations are rare and precious entities in the evolu-
tion of human societies and so require special explanations for their development…. Our growth model,
however, holds that states are the expected products of post-Pleistocene circumstances, and the histories
of societies that do not become states require as much explanation as do the various kinds of the earliest
states that did evolve.
In this argument, the states of Late Chalcolithic south-western Iran might be seen as naturally flowing from all
that went before (as recounted in preceding chapters of this book): the peopling, shepherding, controlling, order-
ing, exploiting, channelling of Iran’s range of natural and human resources as larger and more complex societies
steadily grew and spread across the landscape. The challenge would then shift to explaining why states did not
develop in other areas of Iran at the same time as they did in Khuzestan, and also to considering why states col-
lapsed when and where they did.
Henry Wright’s (1977, 1978, 1984, 1998, 2001, 2013) theoretically informed projects and reviews have been
crucial in the development of research into the state in the context of south-western Iran. For Wright (1977: 383),
the critical factor in defining state-level societies is the specialisation of centralised decision-making, which both
enables massive expansion in information processing capacity of the controlling authority, and restricts the ability
of lower-level social actors to challenge higher-level authority. In the context of south-western Iran through the
course of the fourth millennium BC, we may interpret the appearance and flourishing of technologies of control
and administration, manifest as cylinder and stamp seals, clay sealings, hollow clay balls and tokens, and numer-
ical and numero-ideographic tablets, as material correlates of Wright’s conceptualisation of hugely increased ca-
pacities for information processing and for hierarchies of decision-making that are such key components of early
states, while conceding that not all activities involving the act of sealing need to be correlated with societal com-
plexity. Critical to the concept of centralised decision-making is the existence of institutions capable of fulfilling
such a role. As Benati (2018) articulates, the emergence of institutional organisations across Greater Mesopotamia
through the fourth millennium BC was fundamental to the construction and expansion of the large-scale net-
works of socio-political engagement that characterise state-level societies.
More specifically, the roles of Iran in the development of the so-called “Uruk phenomenon” or “Uruk ex-
pansion” of the mid-fourth millennium BC is a much-debated topic (summarised in Petrie 2013b: 5–15; Wright
1998, 2013; Pittman 2013b). While much new fieldwork and research has taken place in the northern and
north-western regions of Southwest Asia involved in the Uruk phenomenon (Butterlin 2003), there is a need for
new excavations of key Late Chalcolithic sites in Khuzestan and other regions of Iran in order explicitly to address
the nature of Iran’s roles in this early globalising episode in human history ( Jennings 2011; Petrie 2013c: 399).
These issues are discussed further below in the context of reviewing the evidence from Susa and Chogha Mish.
As Alizadeh (2008: xxii) has pointed out, application of the Uruk-period terminology to Khuzestan assumes
a relationship of some kind between Khuzestan and Lower Mesopotamia (Wright 2001), which as yet is poorly
understood, particularly for the first half of the millennium. He therefore eschews use of the Uruk terminology
and instead divides the fourth millennium BC in Khuzestan into Early Susa II (= Early Uruk, Susa Acropole level
22), Middle Susa II (= Middle Uruk, Susa Acropole levels 21–19), and Protoliterate (= Late Uruk, Susa Acropole
levels 18-17), and we follow him here except in that we choose to replace the value-laden term “Protoliterate”
with the more neutral Late Susa II. The term “Protoliterate” originates from Mesopotamian contexts, in particu-
lar early excavations at Uruk, Kish, Jemdet Nasr and Uqair, at all of which sites very early evidence for writing,
in the so-called proto-cuneiform style, is attested (Englund 1998) while no such writing has been found in Late
Susa II sites in Iran (see below).
During the Early Susa II and Middle Susa II periods, c. 3900–3500 BC, settlements began to recover and
increase in size and quantity across Khuzestan, following the period of settlement collapse attested in the
Terminal Susa A period (Figure 6.51) ( Johnson 1973: 90, 1987: 286; Wright 2001: Table 4.1, 2013: 59–60;
Kouchoukos and Hole 2003: 58; Moghaddam 2012a: 70). By the Middle Susa II period a four-tiered hierarchy
of settlement existed on the Susiana plain ( Johnson 1973; Rothman 1987; Wright 1998), a possible indicator of
state-level development (Flannery 1998: 16). Occupation had been re-established across the entire 18ha of the
site at Chogha Mish and a new settlement of up to 12 ha is attested at Tappeh Abu Fanduweh, where there are
Figure 6.51 Settlement through time in south-western Iran according to regional surveys (adapted from Hopper and Wilkinson
2013: Figures 3.1, 3.8).
6 m of Protoliterate deposits ( Johnson 1973: 109–111; Alizadeh 2008: 23, 25; Wright 2013: 65). Thus, at about
3500 BC there were three major regional centres in Susiana: Susa, Chogha Mish and Tappeh Abu Fanduweh
(Alizadeh 2008: 25). Henry Wright (1998: 179) estimates that up to 25,000 people were living on the Susi-
ana plain at this time in some 60 scattered communities. On the Ram Hormuz plain the site of Tall-e Geser
appears to thrive through much of the fourth millennium BC (Caldwell 1968; Whitcomb 1971; Wright and
Carter 2003: 67; Alizadeh 2014).
Excavations at one of the small villages, Tepe Sharafabad, revealed modest mudbrick houses with typical
domestic utensils, as well as evidence for a more elaborate building with clay cone decoration (Wright 1981).
Items such as carnelian beads and stone vessels indicate trade and exchange with neighbours near and far. Much
of the excavation focused on a deep, rubbish-filled pit, called the Uruk Pit and dating to the late Middle Uruk/
Middle Susa II period, such that annual and even seasonal accumulations of rubbish were discerned (Figure 6.52).
On the basis of this pioneering microstratigraphic approach and the associated finds of sealings, tokens and other
domestic items, Henry Wright and Susan Pollock investigated issues of the administration of village agricultural
life (Wright et al. 1980, 1989; Pollock 2008; Charvát 2019). Clay sealings with impressions of stamp and cylinder
seals, along with counters, show village involvement in the storage and distribution of goods and commodities
in a network of interaction with larger centres such as Susa and Chogha Mish. Villagers were cultivating wheat,
barley, lentils and flax while herding sheep, goat and a few cows and pigs (Mudar 1988; Miller 2011; Wright
2013: 65). Chipped stone tools from the Uruk Pit comprise mainly chert blades including many with visible sickle
sheen from harvesting crops of grain or reeds (Pollock 2008). Middle Susa II village life on the Susiana plain
at this time is summarised thus: “country people of the Susiana Plain derived most of their durable consumer
goods from other types of settlements, while producing foods for themselves and other settlements” (Wright et al.
1980, 1989; Wright 1998: 182). Those “other settlements” would have included Susa, as the population of Susa
in the Middle Susa II phase was probably too large to be self-sufficient in grain ( Johnson 1973: 96–98). Clearly,
the production of grain by external villages for supply to a densely inhabited regional centre, such as Susa had
become, as well as the use of seals and counters in a system of supra-local administration, necessitate a probably
asymmetric relationship of some kind between the participants, which may itself be interpreted as an attribute of
early state formation.
Relations with Lower Mesopotamia are indicated in pottery assemblages of Susiana and sites such as Uruk
and Nippur in southern Iraq (Figure 6.53) ( Johnson 1987; Wright 1987). Within these socio-political pro-
cesses, Hole and Flannery (1968) stressed the significance of irrigation and exploitation of domesticated cattle
in the emergence of state-level societies, two agricultural innovations that enabled greater productivity and led
rapidly to population increase and urban-scale settlement where conditions allowed for it. The role of craft spe-
cialisation in these complex processes is not wholly clear. Initial proposals by Johnson (1973) and Wright and
Johnson (1975) that dispersed rural pottery production in the fourth millennium BC in Susiana was supplanted
by centralised production at Susa, Chogha Mish and Abu Fanduweh have been countered by analyses of ce-
ramic fabrics by Berman (1987), Ghazal et al. (2008) and Emberling and Minc (2016), which indicate dispersed,
localised production, distribution and consumption of ceramics, including of bevelled-rim bowls, across the
Figure 6.52 T
epe Sharafabad, section of Uruk Pit and associated chipped stone tools (after Pollock 2008: Figures 2–3).
Figure 6.53 Tepe Sharafabad, ceramics of Middle Uruk type (after Wright 2013: Figures 4.10–4.11).
region. Nevertheless, there is clearly a high degree of standardisation in production of many ceramic forms
during the fourth millennium BC, attesting increased technologies and skills in this craft, with the majority of
production at supra-household levels (Wright 2001: 134–136). Analysis of ceramics from Tall-e Geser on the
Ram Hormuz plain indicates significant movement of vessels, and no doubt their contents, from Susiana to
Ram Hormuz. In particular a ceramic ring scraper, a type of specialised pottery-making tool, probably from
Late Susa II levels at Tall-e Geser, was found to be made of clays from the region of Tappeh Abu Fanduweh in
Susiana, very likely carried to Geser by an itinerant specialist potter (Alden et al. 2014). A tradition of special-
isation in architecture is also enhanced at this time, with evidence for standardised brick sizes, building meas-
urements and bonding techniques, as well as increasing decorative elaboration in the form of niches, buttresses
and coloured plasters (Wright 2001: 136–138).
The transition at Susa from the preceding Susa I period is poorly understood. Louis Le Breton (1957) made a
bold attempt at synthesising results from the long history of early excavations at Susa, demonstrating for the first
time in a systematic manner the strong affiliations of what he called Susa B with the material culture of Uruk
in Lower Mesopotamia. Le Breton’s analysis was significantly enhanced by subsequent work at Susa under Jean
Perrot, with Alain Le Brun’s sounding in Acropole I yielding a well-stratified sequence spanning the fifth to early
third millennia BC (Le Brun 1978, 2019, 2021). Further study of the ceramics from Susa and Uruk (Dittmann
1986a; Butterlin 2003) demonstrated that close connections between Uruk and Susa, as well as sites in Susiana
such as Sharafabad (Wright et al. 1980), could be dated to the Middle Uruk period in Lower Mesopotamian
terms, connections that strengthen further into the Late Uruk/Late Susa II period.
Excavations on the Northern Acropole at Susa exposed a possible grain storage facility with charred wheat,
complex clay tokens and a stamp seal of Early Susa II date (Wright 2013: 60; Schmandt-Besserat 2018: 370–374).
By Middle Susa II times both the Acropole and the lower mound at Susa appear to have been occupied, with
a total settled area of up to 25 ha (Wright 2013: 65). The material culture of Late Susa II, in particular, shows
extremely strong parallels with contemporary evidence from Uruk and other sites in Lower Mesopotamia as
well as with Habuba Kabira South and Jebel Aruda on the Euphrates river c. 700 km to the north-west in Syria
(Algaze 1989, 1993; Potts 1999: 52–58). This shift in cultural connections signifies a decline in Susa’s highland
relations at the same time as an intensified engagement with Mesopotamia to the west. Ceramics of Late Susa II,
as from Chogha Mish, are comparable to those of Lower Mesopotamian sites such as Nippur and Uruk. A few
fragments of large stone sculpture in the round are known from Susa, as well as small-scale sculptures from the
so-called Archaic Deposits (Figure 6.54) (Amiet 1976b; Benoit 1992; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 45–51). These caches of
fine sculptures along with multiple beads, seashells and small stone vessels, may represent temple offerings. While
most of them appear to date to the Late Susa II period, a few of the sculptures are Proto-Elamite in style, and so it
is possible that they were collected and deposited in the Proto-Elamite period (Chapter 7). The figures are in the
form of male and female worshippers, as well as birds and animals including a monkey and a bear. Sophisticated
metalwork of jewellery and figurines in copper, lead, silver and gold display ongoing development of skills and
techniques including very early evidence of welding (Figure 6.55) (Álvarez-Mon 2020: 54).
Figure 6.54 S usa, Late Susa II stone vessels and statuettes (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 22) (photo credit: Javier Álvarez-Mon).
During the later fourth millennium BC use of the stamp seal, which had been around for many centuries, was
augmented and often supplanted by the new cylinder seal, an ingenious invention for rolling designs over soft
clay surfaces leading directly to
a burst of imagery representing animals and hybrids in a multiplicity of styles, arrangements, and behaviors,
and a new wave of quotidian scenery showing a level of interest in depicting daily activities that would not
be matched again in any other period of the ancient Near East.
(Álvarez-Mon 2020: 38)
Seal-cutters across Mesopotamia and Iran were not slow to make imaginative use of this new device, and we have
an astonishing range of iconography surviving in the form of the seals themselves but also, more commonly, as
the pieces of clay (“sealings”) on which seals had been rolled or impressed, which often survive in their hundreds
and thousands (Figure 6.56). As Holly Pittman has commented (2013b: 294)
a radical transformation can be observed in the domain of image-making in the Uruk period, which like
writing, was founded on a cognitive breakthrough that grasped and exploited in new ways the potential of
non-verbal, representational, and abstract images to store and convey information vital to the functioning of
an increasingly complex society.
Furthermore, in her detailed analysis of glyptic imagery from Susa and sites in Susiana, Pittman (2013b: 295)
suggests that the cylinder seal imagery that has often been seen as originating at Uruk is in fact first attested in
Susiana, although we should bear in mind that our knowledge of Middle Uruk sites and material culture in
Lower Mesopotamia is very limited. She traces the development of glyptic iconography at Susa directly from the
so-called “baggy style,” which can be dated to Middle Uruk/Middle Susa II on the basis of finds and ceramics
from Susa Acropole I level 20 and from the Susiana sites of Sharafabad and Farukhabad. These seals and sealings
Figure 6.55 Susa, Late Susa II jewellery and metalwork (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 25) (photo credit: Javier Álvarez-Mon).
depict scenes of workers making vessels, processions of human figures, conflict between humans and a possible
precursor to the Late Uruk priest-king (Pittman 2013b: 297–299), all of which will become major elements of the
classic Late Uruk style but which are until now unattested in Middle Uruk Lower Mesopotamia.
Thus, many cylinder seal impressions from Susa in the Late Susa II period can be seen as developing from those
of stamp seals in the Susa I period (Delaporte 1920; Amiet 1972; Pittman 1992a, 2001a, 2013b; Piran 2013). There
is an increased range in the practices of sealing, including many types of containers (pots, bags, sacks, baskets),
door-pegs, clay tablets and clay balls or bullae (Amiet 1988; Dittmann 2012; Charvát 2019), largely associated with
domestic architecture (Pittman 2013b: 296). Anthropomorphic figures, often naked, wear headbands and dis-
tinctive hairstyles while engaging in a range of activities. Although there are many similarities with cylinder
seal scenes from Uruk, the Late Susa II seal impressions show a range of scenes rare or absent at Uruk, includ-
ing building construction, storage of grain and manufacture of goods (Pittman 2013b: 295, 302). Especially
notable in the glyptic of Susa and Chogha Mish, as well as Sharafabad, are scenes showing workers carrying
out various productive activities, including handling vessels and textiles, loading grain at granaries and in the
act of administration or accounting of these activities (Pittman 2013b: 312–313, 1993). Pittman’s interpretation
of the differences in glyptic repertoires from Susa and Chogha Mish as against Uruk in the Late Susa II/Late
Uruk period is that
during Eanna V and IVb cylinder seals were used in Mesopotamia to control different economic sectors than
was the case in Susiana. To judge from the images, emphasis in Susiana is on production of commodities,
while in Mesopotamia the emphasis is more on the movement of goods to an institution and on the activities
surrounding the control of a workforce that was ultimately under the supervision of the paramount ruler.
(Pittman 2013b: 319)
Heraldic designs of wild animals, rosettes and birds are common at Susa and Chogha Mish, and there is evidence
for borrowing of Susa II motifs as far afield as late Predynastic Egypt probably via the northern Levant (Teissier
Figure 6.56 S usa, Late Susa II cylinder seal impressions on sealings from Acropole I.18 (after Pittman 2013b: Figure 16.10) (images
courtesy of Holly Pittman).
1987). In addition to seal scenes specific to Susa and Chogha Mish, there is also a wide spectrum of iconogra-
phy that can be denoted as interregional in its geographical distribution, as attested at Susa, Chogha Mish and
Uruk but also at sites in Upper Mesopotamia such as Habuba Kabira, Jebel Aruda, Sheikh Hassan, Tell Brak and
Hacınebi (Pittman 2013b: 308–309). Interregional scenes include caprid animal files, snake-necked felines, pro-
cessions of nude males and possible “priest-king” figures. Neutron activation analysis of the clays used for sealings
at Hacınebi suggests that some of them, bearing seal images closely comparable to those of Susa and Chogha
Mish, arrived at Hacınebi having travelled along with small-mouthed jars with incomers all the way from Khuz-
estan (Blackman 1999; Pittman and Blackman 2016). The ample bitumen deposits of Khuzestan also appear to
have been increasingly exploited through the fourth millennium BC by nascent state-level societies of the region
and well beyond, principally for the purpose of waterproofing the reed boats used in burgeoning interregional
trade networks (Schwartz 2002; Schwartz and Hollander 2016).
Some seal impressions, from Susa and from Chogha Mish, show a bearded male figure, larger than others in
the scene and usually wearing a skirt and headband, engaged in activities such as hunting, sitting in a boat or
presiding over the beating of bound prisoners (Figure 6.57) (Amiet 1986b; Dittmann 1986b; Pittman 1992a:
Figure 28; Schmandt-Besserat 1993: 208–209; Potts 1999: 67–69, Figure 3.12, 2016: 64–66; Nissen 2001:
157). This figure is often called a “priest-king” and clearly represents a high-status or sacred individual, whose
origins might be sought in the shaman-like figures depicted in Susa I stamp seals (Marchesi and Marchetti
2011: 187; Pittman 2013b: 297). More recent studies have proposed that these figures be understood as directly
betokening true kingship, since the figure is depicted performing activities that we believe in later times to be
typically conducted by kings (Steinkeller 1999; Gibson 2010: 87). Marchesi and Marchetti’s (2011: 186–196)
contextual study of “priest-king” depictions, however, makes a convincing case that the skirted figure con-
sistently represents a male form of the goddess Inana, and has no direct connection to the origins of kingly
authority in third millennium BC Mesopotamia. They argue that the skirted figure is subsequently attested in
Early Dynastic I-II evidence from Girsu and other sites of Lower Mesopotamia as a clearly sacred representa-
tion, while a totally separate iconography is developed to represent true kingship from the middle of the third
millennium BC onwards.
On those grounds, we may conjecture that the “priest-king” representations from Late Chalcolithic Susa and
Chogha Mish (see below) may indicate the worship of Inana at these sites in the later fourth millennium BC.
Specifically, depictions at Chogha Mish, at least, of the “priest-king” seated on a theriomorphic throne on a
Figure 6.57 Susa, Late Susa II cylinder seal impression depicting a “priest-king“ in combat before a monumental horned building
(after Pittman 1992a: Figure 28) (image courtesy of Holly Pittman).
Figure 6.58 C
hogha Mish, Late Susa II cylinder seal impressions on sealings (after Pittman 2013b: Figure 16.11) (images courtesy
of Holly Pittman).
boat with attendants (Figure 6.58) (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 17b) might then align with the so-called “city seal”
evidence on tablets and sealings from the Mesopotamian cities of Uruk, Uqair and Jemdet Nasr, of Uruk III/
Jemdet Nasr date, i.e. c. 3000 BC, which have been interpreted as associated with cultic processions by boat of
the goddess Inana, visiting dedicated shrines city by city and receiving offerings at each stopping place (Matthews
and Richardson 2018). More broadly, in an ambitious study Reinhardt Dittmann has linked seal iconography
with administrative function to generate a flow diagram of Late Susa II economic organisation at Susa, headed by
the high-status person who oversees a range of administrative units including temple/palace, hunting, industrial,
herding, storage and transportation (Dittmann 1986b: Table 1).
Cylinder seals were extensively used at Late Susa II sites of Iran, including even small hamlets such as Sharafabad
(Wright et al. 1980; Wright and Johnson 1985), either to impress lumps of clay that were used to seal store-rooms
and a range of portable containers such as bags, pots and boxes or to seal so-called numerical tablets. These tablets
are small rectangular cakes of fine clay bearing impressions made by a stylus in the form of circles and wedges,
representing numbers, as well as rollings of seals. Numerical tablets are found at sites across Iraq, western Iran and
Syria, which correlates with the geographical extent of Uruk, or Susa, impact within and beyond Lower Meso-
potamia and Iran (Englund 1998: 50–52; Chrisomalis 2010: 228–239; Pittman 2013b: 319–322). Some 90 numerical
tablets were found at Susa, far more than at any other contemporary site in Iran (Potts 2016: 61), along with more
than 60 sealed hollow clay balls (Figure 6.59) (Amiet 1972). The Susa numerical tablets employ three different
counting systems, as opposed to some 13 counting systems in use at Uruk (Potts 2016: 62), an indication that the
Susa administration was probably not as complex as that at contemporary Uruk (Dittmann 1986b: 332). There
are suggestions that the numbers impressed on numerical tablets bear relation to the long-standing use of clay and
stone tokens (Schmandt-Besserat 1981, 2018; Englund 1998: 50–55). Jöran Friberg’s work on the number systems
attested by the tokens, and by the marks made by tokens impressed on the surfaces of hollow clay balls (which
themselves contain tokens), establishes a clear relationship between at least some types of clay token and specific
counting systems, including decimal, sexagesimal, bisexagesimal and capacity measures (Friberg 1994: 495).
What is clear is that tokens, hollow clay balls and numerical tablets play an important part in the development of
the world’s earliest true writing systems, culminating in proto-cuneiform texts at Uruk and Proto-Elamite texts
in Iran (Chapter 7) by the later fourth millennium BC. These systems comprise clay tablets often with number
signs but also with the addition of impressed and incised signs that clearly convey specific meanings within a shared
discourse, i.e. they constitute writing (Nissen et al. 1993; Englund 1998; Cooper 2004; Dahl 2013). Of particular
note here are tablets of so-called numero-ideographic type, defined as numerical tablets with the addition of only
one or two incised signs or ideograms. They are seen as developmentally transitional between numerical tablets
and proto-cuneiform written tablets, that is, between counting and writing (Englund 1998: 51–54). Numero-
ideographic tablets are more limited in their distribution than purely numerical tablets, being found only at Uruk in
Lower Mesopotamia and at Susa, Godin VI:1, Sialk IV1 and Sofalin in Iran (Hessari 2011; Matthews 2013; Pittman
2013b: 329). At Susa they are found in levels 18C and 17A of the Acropole I sounding (Le Brun and Vallat 1978;
Englund 1998: 56; Dahl 2013: 242), immediately prior to the abrupt break in occupation at Susa that marks the
transition to the Proto-Elamite period (Chapter 7). Dahl (2005b: 82) notes that numero-ideographic tablets from
Uruk and those from Iran can be differentiated in that Mesopotamian examples have number signs preceding the
Figure 6.59 Susa, Late Susa II sealed bulla with tokens and numerical tablet (SB1927; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée
du Louvre/Gérard Blot; SB2313; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry Ollivier).
ideographic sign(s) while the Iranian examples have the ideographic sign(s) before the number signs, as is the case
with the single numero-ideographic tablet from Godin VI:1 discussed above (Matthews 2013).
In fact, the evidence at Susa for early stages in accounting, prior to the development of full proto-cuneiform
and Proto-Elamite writing, is extremely rich (Le Brun 1978, 2021; Le Brun and Vallat 1978; Dittmann 1986b;
Pittman 1992: 52–57; Potts 1999: 59–65; Abdi 2003a: 146–147; Schmandt-Besserat 2018; Álvarez-Mon 2020:
36–45). Such evidence comprises simple and complex clay tokens, hollow clay balls containing tokens and cov-
ered with cylinder seal impressions, clay tags with tally marks, and numerical tablets, as discussed above. What
remains unclear, however, is to what extent these various forms of evidence can be assembled into a develop-
mental narrative that satisfactorily accounts for the origins of writing. It is important to note that where there are
secure contexts for administrative artefacts at Susa they are found within what appear to be domestic architectural
contexts (Le Brun 1978, 2021; Wright 1998: Figure 6.3). The continuation of elements of this complex adminis-
trative apparatus into the succeeding Proto-Elamite period is considered in Chapter 7. Indications of continuity
in cultic practice from Susa I into Late Susa II are provided by continued use of the “spade-headed” and looped
standards in Late Susa II glyptic scenes of clear cultic significance (Pittman 1992: 55), as well as the depiction on
seal impressions of cultic buildings with inset animal horns (Potts 1999: pl. 3.2) bringing to mind the clay goat
horns adorning the haute terrasse of Susa I.
In the Late Susa II period, once more Chogha Mish becomes an absolutely key site for approaching develop-
ments in Khuzestan and beyond (Delougaz et al. 1996; Alizadeh 2008). Chogha Mish expands in size at this time
to match the scale of contemporary Susa, coupled with rural abandonment in the zone between the two sites,
which may be indicative of conflict between Susa and Chogha Mish in the later fourth millennium BC ( Johnson
1973; Wright 2013: 68). Late Susa II occupation of Chogha Mish appears to be restricted to the earlier phase,
equivalent to Late Uruk, with no evidence for slightly later occupation, equivalent to Jemdet Nasr (Alizadeh
2008: 23–24), although Mutin (2013a: 22) suggests that some of the ceramic types from Chogha Mish do have
parallels with Proto-Elamite vessels from Tepe Yahya level IVC (Chapter 7). During the Late Susa II occupation
at Chogha Mish, there are two major architectural phases, with occupation of both the High Mound and the
Lower Terrace. Characterised as a “planned Protoliterate town” (Alizadeh 2008: 26), the settlement layout in-
cludes public and private buildings, streets, drains and wells and craft quarters. On the High Mound the Late Susa
II architecture has been partially obliterated by the Old Elamite fortifications of the early second millennium BC
(Chapter 10). What is still detectable is a substantial rectangular structure with walls so thick, 3 m, that it may
have originally been an extremely imposing tower on the High Mound (Figure 6.60) (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 8),
visible for considerable distances. Close to the tower are fragments of rooms with kilns, pits and a sophisticated
drainage system. In the fill of this part of the site multiple mosaic cones, clay tokens and clay sealings were found,
indicative of a significant concern with administration and control over movement of materials and goods.
The East Area of the Lower Terrace at Chogha Mish includes both public and private buildings built of classic
Uruk-style Riemchen mudbricks, with use of baked bricks in pavements, drains and wells (Alizadeh 2008: 26,
Figures 16–17). Rooms are interpreted as segments of domestic buildings, some with fireplaces and benches. No
human burials were found under the house floors. There is much evidence for pottery production in the form of
kilns and ceramic wasters (Alizadeh 1985b), alongside large quantities of clay sealings, numerical tablets, hollow
clay balls and tokens. As on the High Mound there is a very well-built system of drainage and sewers to carry
waste off the settlement. The first phase of the East Area Late Susa II settlement is dominated by a monumental
building with central court with recessed doorways and niches (Figure 6.61) (Alizadeh 2008: 43, Figure 16). A
heap of gazelle femur bones was found in the main antechamber to this building, which was partially paved with
baked bricks (Figure 6.62) (Alizadeh 2008: pl 13: B). It seems likely that this extremely well-built structure was
a temple and that the gazelle bones relate to offerings. Although there were few finds from within the mon-
umental building itself, the recovery from other contexts of large quantities of administrative artefacts such as
tokens, sealings, hollow clay balls and numerical tablets strongly suggests that the Chogha Mish East Area build-
ing was involved in the receipt, storage and distribution of agricultural produce and other materials on behalf
of a divinely-sanctioned elite cadre of bureaucrat/priests. Furthering this interpretation is the fact that a group
of numerical tablets (Alizadeh 2008: 79, pl. 22: E-I) was found in a small room within what looks like a storage
facility directly to the southwest of the monumental building. Among the few notable finds within the building
are two distinctive female figurines (Alizadeh 2008: 81, Figure 79: G, pl. 26: A), one of which is a voluptuously
carved bone figurine only 3.55 cm high (Figure 6.63). It seems likely that they also relate to religious activity
within this building.
Figure 6.60 Chogha Mish High Mound, Late Susa II and Old Elamite architecture (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 8) (image courtesy of
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Late Susa II-period seal impressions on clay sealings, numerical tablets and hollow clay balls from Chogha Mish
give a vivid picture of socio-political life (Delougaz et al. 1996: Table 16; Alizadeh 2008: 79–80, Figure 76; Ditt-
mann 2012; Charvát 2019), with motifs including plants, animals and humans portrayed in a range of activities
such as walking in files, in ritual scenes, banqueting, combating animals and occasionally in elaborate military
scenes (Figure 6.64). One impression, mentioned above, shows a so-called “priest-king” or deity seated on a bull
inside a boat (Figure 6.58: bottom left) (Amiet 1980: 1669), while another includes the earliest known depiction
of a musical ensemble, with string, percussion and wind instruments all depicted in festive use by squatting hu-
mans (Lawergren 2018: 781). More broadly, the use at Chogha Mish of a complex suite of administrative devices,
as at Susa, illustrates the entanglement of the bureaucracy there with contemporary existing systems in use at
Uruk and at other sites of Lower and Upper Mesopotamia, all of whom were involved in increasingly meticulous
regimes of control over movement and storage of materials and commodities to an extent that the invention of
full writing at Uruk and in Iran, on clay tablets in the proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite scripts (Chapter 7),
came to be the next step.
As at Susa itself, Late Susa II ceramics from Chogha Mish show numerous parallels with assemblages from
selected Late Uruk sites in Lower and Upper Mesopotamia, exclusively of the Protoliterate a-b phases with no
evidence for classic Jemdet Nasr types such as polychrome jars and solid stands (see Chapter 7) (Matthews 1992,
2002c; Delougaz et al. 1996: 101). Huge numbers of bevelled-rim bowls were found at Chogha Mish, often in
discrete deposits in pits and often deliberately turned upside-down (Figure 6.65) (Delougaz et al. 1996: 50, pl. 15:
A-C). Daniel Potts (2009: 13) has proposed that the bevelled-rim bowls at Chogha Mish suggest the baking of
leavened bread there on an industrial scale, possibly as payment for labour performed, while Jill Goulder (2010:
359) sees the association of bevelled-rim bowls with administrative artefacts as indicative of a taste for “prestige
bread” amongst the bureaucratic cadre at Chogha Mish. Identification of beeswax residue in a bevelled-rim bowl
Figure 6.61 Chogha Mish East Area, Late Susa II phase 1 architecture (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 16) (image courtesy of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago).
Figure 6.62 C
hogha Mish, gazelle femur bones from room 1005, Late Susa II phase 1 architecture (Alizadeh 2008: pl. 13B) (image
courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
from Late Chalcolithic levels at Tepe Sofalin on the Tehran plain may indicate collection or storage of honey in
some of these bowls (Mayyas et al. 2012). Ceramic parallels at Chogha Mish are especially strong with Susa Acro-
pole I level 18, Eanna precinct level VI at Uruk and, above all, with Habuba Kabira South, this last site located
700 km distant from Chogha Mish on the middle Euphrates in Syria. This near identity in ceramics at Chogha
Mish and Habuba Kabira South is matched in other aspects of material culture and suggests that similar factors
shaped their socio-political trajectories. The pottery correlations suggest that Chogha Mish was abandoned dur-
ing the later Late Susa II period, around 3200 BC.
Figure 6.63 C
hogha Mish, Late Susa II carved bone figurine (Alizadeh 2008: pl. 26A) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago).
Figure 6.64 Chogha Mish, Late Susa II seals and seal impressions (Alizadeh 2008: Figure 76) (image courtesy of the Oriental In-
stitute of the University of Chicago).
Figure 6.65 Chogha Mish East Area, Late Susa II upturned bevelled-rim bowls (Delougaz et al. 1996: pl. 15A-C) (images courtesy
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Explaining the evidence from Late Chalcolithic Khuzestan: some attempts

The material culture of Khuzestan, including Susa and Chogha Mish, in the Late Susa II period of the fourth
millennium BC is virtually identical to that of major sites in neighbouring Lower Mesopotamia as well as to
Habuba Kabira South in Upper Mesopotamia although, as we have seen, there are differences for example in the
iconographic repertoires depicted on the cylinder seal scenes of the two regions (Amiet 1957, 1972; Delougaz
et al. 1996: 148). How do we explain the material culture similarities? As Holly Pittman (1992a: 52) puts it: “Susa
holds important clues to the dynamic of an enormously vital first civilization.” In longer-time perspective, Pierre
Amiet (1979b, 1993) has underlined the importance of what he calls an ethnic duality at the heart of Susiana
and Susa in particular, whereby “Susa was alternately attached to the two antithetical worlds of Mesopotamia
and the plateau, an alteration which, it seemed to me, reflected the dual nature of the two ethnic elements that
co-exist in the region to this day” (Amiet 1993: 23), an idea that can be traced back to the French epigrapher
Vincent Scheil (1905; Abdi 2003a). In articulating this deep-time janiform trajectory for Susa, Amiet points to
the highland connections of the pottery and other artefacts of Susa I, the intimate Mesopotamian connections
of Susa II, the highland orientation of Susa III (Chapter 7) and finally the reversion to Mesopotamian alignment
in the later third millennium BC (Chapter 10). In Amiet’s schema, material culture connections directly reflect
the alternating political dominance of two ethnic components already present in the indigenous population of
Susiana without the need to invoke intrusion into Susiana by alien peoples. Amiet’s ideas can be traced to the
early twentieth century when the epigrapher Vincent Scheil (1905) had already discerned ethnic duality at Susa
based on his reading of the cuneiform texts, a duality composed of Mesopotamia, the lowlands, on the one hand
and Elam, the highlands, on the other (de Miroschedji 2003). Rooted in a study of the deep-time development of
ceramics at Susa, Butterlin (2003) has argued that Uruk-style pottery was very much a local development at Susa,
and not suggestive of a sudden intrusion from outside, an argument that chimes with Pittman’s (2013b: 297) view
that cylinder seal imagery also developed gradually and locally at Susa first and foremost.
By contrast, Guillermo Algaze (1989, 1993, 2001, 2013; contra Stein 1999; see also Kohl 1987) argues that
the material culture connections of Late Susa II are underpinned by a direct cultural, if not political, hegemony over
Susiana exercised by elite groups from Uruk who organised the mass colonisation of Susiana, in line with their desire
to secure points of access to the rich material resources of the highland zone to the east, including captive human labour
for the massive building projects of the newly burgeoning cities of the Mesopotamian plains (Englund 2009). Such
colonisation, if occurring from around 4000 BC, would not be a major challenge as the settlement evidence indicates
an episode of regional abandonment across Susiana at this time, as we have seen above. Uruk colonists could simply
have boated and walked across from the west with their animals, built their villages, and started farming. In this ar-
gument there would have been similar movements of Uruk administrators, villagers and animal herders across central
Mesopotamia and up the Euphrates as far as Habuba Kabira South and Jebel Aruda, as well as up the Tigris to Nineveh
where they also established carefully planned settlements (Sürenhagen 1974–1975; Strommenger 1980; Algaze 1993).
There is some indication of a Lower Mesopotamian, i.e. Sumerian, origin for the patron deity of Susa, Inshush-
inak, which may also suggest a significant intrusion of Uruk-led influence, if not people, into Susiana (Stein-
keller 1993, 2018), although the textual evidence for the existence of Inshushinak as deity of Susa dates rather
later, to the mid-third millennium BC (Potts 2016: 58). It is possible that Susa itself, as well as Uruk, was involved
as a mother city for some of these colonising movements, as perhaps attested at Godin Tepe (see above; Weiss and
Young 1975; Matthews 2013; Pittman 2013b: 329). A counter argument (Johnson 1987) is that sites such as Susa and
Chogha Mish represent independent small states, competing with each other and with Uruk for domination of the
region and control over the rural economy and over access to imported goods, but the strong compatibility of ma-
terial culture at Uruk and Susa suggests a very close political and economic relationship (Potts 1999: 55). We can in
any case concur with Pittman’s (2013b: 334) balanced evaluation that “While always a neighbour, however, Susiana
and Susa are only rarely completely dominated by Mesopotamia. More often, Susiana is uniquely the closest point of
contact for a competing cultural entity.” In like vein, Potts (2016: 63–64) argues that as only 3 of the 13 accounting
systems attested at Uruk were adopted at Susa and then on tablets differing in physical form from contemporary
Uruk tablets, the transmission of the new forms of administrative bureaucracy from Mesopotamia to Susiana was
not effected by colonial administrators from Uruk. Chiming with this view is Dahl’s (2005b: 82) comment on the
differences in text layout of Susa numero-ideographic tablets as against those from Uruk.
It is important to bear in the mind the sheer scale of Uruk in the Late Susa II period, with the settlement taking
on truly urban proportions (Nissen 2001, 2002). Uruk expanded from 70 to perhaps 250 ha by 3100 BC (and to
c. 600 ha by 2800 BC), ten times the area of Susa in the same period, and the two major cultic precincts of Eanna
and Kullab, dedicated to Inana and Enlil respectively, were constructed with multiple monumental buildings
often interpreted as temples but more recently understood as public assembly halls with associated cultic func-
tions (Nissen 2001: 154–155; Butterlin 2015). The population may have numbered 20,000–40,000 individuals
(Nissen 2002: 7), a demographic explosion further illustrated by the huge increase in settlement of the region
around Uruk at this time, forming a four-tier settlement hierarchy (Adams and Nissen 1972; Adams 1981). Newly
settled communities may have been taking advantage of the freshly exposed Lower Mesopotamian plains, as the
headwaters of the Persian Gulf receded from c. 3500 BC (Nützel 1975; Nissen 1993: 69; Pournelle 2013). Within
this context of chaotically escalating complexity, the administrators of Uruk devised a revolutionary system of
recording: using a stylus to impress and incise signs on clay tablets (Nissen 1993; Englund 1998), the start of the
cuneiform tradition that was to hold sway over much of Southwest Asia for some three millennia. It is little ex-
aggeration to regard these components of Lower Mesopotamian societies of the late fourth millennium BC as
constituting an Urban Revolution (Nissen 1993: 55).
Turning to the end of the Susa II period in Khuzestan, a striking feature of the settlement pattern of Susiana is
the collapse of rural settlement, with a fall from 52 sites in the Middle Susa II period to only 13 in the Late Susa
II period ( Johnson 1973: 143), and similar patterns pertained on the Deh Luran and Izeh plains (Wright 1998:
191–194; Hopper and Wilkinson 2013: Figure 3.5). Only one site continued to be occupied on the eastern side of
the Susiana plain, a fact interpreted by Alizadeh (2008: 25; Wright and Johnson 1975, 1985) as indicative of in-
creased interest in this region on the part of highland mobile pastoralist groups, leading to insecurity and village
abandonment across the region. By 3000 BC and into the third millennium BC, Susa was the only major site of
the entire region and up to half the population of the Susiana plain was living there (Alden 1987). The collapse
of settlement in Susiana by c. 2800 BC brought to an abrupt end a millennia-long process of demographic devel-
opment in the region and represents a major settlement break in the region (de Miroschedji 2003: 19, Figure 3.3).
These dramatic developments in settlement distribution and abandonment are further considered in the following
chapter, as they relate to the Proto-Elamite episode of occupation (Chapter 7).
Chalcolithic societies of south and south-eastern Iran

As with other regions of Iran, the major narrative of the Chalcolithic in south and south-eastern Iran is one
of steadily increasing complexity in all aspects of social, economic and political life, as attested in settlement
patterns, craft technologies and modes of production, long-distance trade and exchange, and the ongoing devel-
opment of administrative practices (Petrie 2013c). As Cameron Petrie (2011, 2013c) has pointed out, the physical
geography of southern Iran has had a major impact on the distribution of human settlement in the region and
on the often attenuated channels of natural communication connecting widely scattered valleys and plains. The
picture we are able to generate from the diffuse evidence is one of diverse paths to complexity, interspersed with
occasional episodes of transcendence of local constraints by globally ambitious polities.
The Early Chalcolithic of Fars, 5000–4000 BC: settled or mobile (or both)?
The fifth millennium BC in Fars is known as the Bakun period (Early, Middle and Late) after excavations at Tall-e
Bakun (Voigt 1987; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 138–140; Helwing and Seyedin 2010), marked by mineral-tempered
black-on-buff ceramics painted with various motifs and fired at high temperatures (Weeks et al. 2010; Petrie
2011). Intensive investigations of the Kur river basin over many years have been instrumental in establishing
the chronology and socio-economic development of the region through the fifth millennium BC, in particular
through excavations at Tall-e Bakun A and B (Langsdorff and McCown 1942; Egami and Masuda 1962; Aliza-
deh 2006), Tal-e Jari A, Tal-e Gap (Egami and Sono 1962), Tol-e Bashi (Abdi et al. 2003; Pollock et al. 2010),
and Rahmatabad (Bernbeck et al. 2005; Marghussian et al. 2009; Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2013, 2014a, 2017), and
regional surveys along the river basin (Vanden Berghe 1952, 1954; Gotch 1968, 1969; Sumner 1977, 1990, 1994).
Excavations at Tall-i Nokhodi near Pasargadae also revealed levels of Bakun A date, including elaborately deco-
rated ceramics, structures with walls of pisé and ovens (Goff 1963, 1964).
The fact that black-on-buff ceramics are found widely distributed both within Fars and well beyond, including
along the Persian Gulf coast (Askari Chaverdi et al. 2008; Mutin 2012: 165–166), suggests a strong degree of in-
terconnection between fifth millennium BC communities of southern Iran (Petrie 2013a: 123–124). Excavations
by Sir Aurel Stein and survey by Askari Chaverdi (et al. 2008) at Tol-e Pir in the Galehdār valley in the south of
Fars province, just 20 km from the coast of the Persian Gulf, show a significant fifth millennium BC occupation
of this remote region. Closer still to the shore, the site of Chahar Roustaei sits on dense sand deposits, and has
yielded Middle Bakun-style ceramics and other materials suggestive of a possible function as a seasonal base for
exploitation of marine resources from the nearby sea (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2018).
Early Bakun occupation is known at only two excavated sites, Tal-e Jari A level I and Tall-e Bakun A level
II (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 138), with indications also at Tal-e Gap and Tol-e Nurabad (Weeks et al. 2009,
2010: Table 16.1). No sites in Fars appear to have occupation sequences that span the entire fifth millennium BC
(Petrie 2013a: 124), a feature suggestive of a significant degree of settlement disruption and/or mobility through
the millennium. Regional survey of the Kur river basin demonstrated a major increase in settlement coverage
during the Bakun period, with occupation spreading out from the Neolithic pattern of close association with
springs or alluvial fans (Sumner 1994: 52; Weeks et al. 2010: 249). Sites were largely small, less than 1 ha, but a
few sites were larger than 6 ha in this period, including Tol-e Bashi (Sumner 1994: Table 2). It is notable too that
as many as 108 surveyed sites in the Kur river basin show evidence for settlement continuity from the Neolithic
into the Chalcolithic (Sumner 1990: 99). In the Mamasani region of western Fars settlement steadily increased
through the Bakun phase (Zeidi et al. 2009) and there is evidence for a special purpose building in the form of a
single-room “shrine” at Tal-e Gap (Egami and Sono 1962).
Excavations at Tall-e Bakun A, levels III and IV, exposed a large spread of multi-roomed architecture built
of mudbrick and chineh, dating to the later fifth millennium BC (Figure 6.66) (Langsdorff and McCown 1942;
Egami and Sono 1962; Alizadeh 1988, 2006; Pollock 2010). Within the settlement there is evidence for met-
al-working, ceramic production and extensive use of clay tokens, stamp seals and about 140 clay sealings, the
majority of them from store-room door-pegs (Matthews 2008), which has suggested the existence of an “ad-
ministrative quarter” (Figure 6.67) (Alizadeh 1988, 1994, 2006: 83–90). Alizadeh proposes that the evidence
for extensive use of seals and sealings at Bakun, as at contemporary Tepe Gawra level XIII in north-eastern Iraq
(Matthews 2008) “is symptomatic of the deterioration of kinship system, particularly in the economic and polit-
ical affairs, a necessary development in the evolutionary processes of the early complex societies” (Alizadeh 1994:
51). Alizadeh further postulates that society at Tall-e Bakun A was dominated either by a few families engaged in
manufacture and trade in specific goods and/or by a cadre of people with high status who controlled the flow of
goods through use of tokens, seals and sealings (Alizadeh 2006: 88). There is little evidence, however, for internal
social differentiation at Bakun A, despite claims that one building may have been an elite residence (Alizadeh 2006:
58) or possibly a cultic structure (Fraser 2008). Human figurines from Bakun have elongated heads (Figure 6.68),
indicating that the already ancient practice of head binding was still current on the Iranian plateau (Daems 2010).
Beyond Tall-e Bakun, evidence for local production of Bakun-type ceramics in kilns is widespread across Fars
and beyond (Petrie 2013a: 128) and there is little evidence for regional specialisation in particular types of vessel
Figure 6.66 Tall-e Bakun A, levels III and IV architecture (Alizadeh 2006: Figure 7) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of
Figure 6.67 T
all-e Bakun A, levels III and IV clay sealings (Alizadeh 2006: pl. 17) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago).
or decoration (Helwing and Seyedin 2010). Excavations at Rahmatabad, however, suggest the inhabitants of
the site may have been involved in specialised pottery production on quite a large scale, certainly with a high
degree of technological skill and showing a strong correlation between vessel form and decorative motif (Figure
6.69) (Marghussian et al. 2009; Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2014a, 2017). The site of Tal-e Mash Karim in Esfa-
han province north of Fars has yielded more than 30 clay tokens and a possible clay tally piece (Niknami et al.
2018) suggestive of a significant need for accounting and recording of the distribution of certain commodities.
Lithic assemblages from Mash Karim suggest a steady increase in agricultural activity, attested by sickle blades,
Figure 6.68 T
all-e Bakun A, human and animal figurines (Alizadeh 2006: Figure 58) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of
accompanied by a decline in hunting, while also indicating significant cultural interactions between Fars and the
Susiana lowlands to the west (Nishiaki et al. 2018).
The economy of Early Chalcolithic settlement in Fars was very much a consolidation of the regime es-
tablished there during the few centuries of the preceding Neolithic, with an emphasis on wheat, barley and
lentils, and exploitation of domesticated goat, sheep, cattle and pig, with increasing use of caprid by the Late
Bakun phase (Zeder 1991: 61; Mashkour et al. 2006a; Mashkour 2009). Alizadeh (1988, 2003b, 2006, 2010;
Zagarell 1982) has argued for the significance of pastoral nomadism in the development of social complexity
in southern Iran, suggesting that communities at sites such as Tall-e Bakun A would not have been able to
generate sufficient agricultural surplus from their environs to support the evidence at the site for specialised
craft production in metal-working and ceramics. Brief excavations at the upland site of Saki Abad in the
Bakhtiari region revealed scattered stone structures associated with Bakun A ceramics, interpreted as re-
mains from a pastoral nomadic campsite (Shirazi et al. 2015). The absence of intramural burials at Bakun A
and at other sites in Fars is striking, and Alizadeh (2006: 93) suggests that this absence may be due to the
nomadic practice of burying their dead in open spaces, away from settlements. By contrast, Potts (2016: 53)
is convinced that “the population of Chalcolithic Fars was overwhelmingly and probably exclusively seden-
tary.” Investigation of exactly this issue formed the research design for a programme of settlement survey and
excavation in the Darre-ye Bolaghi region in Fars that failed to identify significant evidence for seasonality of
occupation or patterns of mobility (Helwing et al. 2010). We also note the excavation of a small Bakun-period
pottery production site in the Darre-ye Bolaghi, in which three human burials were found, one of which
contained the disarticulated remains of nine individuals and a collection of 14 painted vessels (Helwing and
Seyedin 2010: 287, fig, 17.9; Helwing et al. 2012).
William Sumner (1994), in contrast to Alizadeh, interpreted the Bakun-period evidence from Fars as indicative
of the emergence of ranked societies composed of competing kinship groups, based on increasing “prosperity
previously unknown and not equalled again in Fars for almost two millennia” (Sumner 1977: 303). Weeks et
al. (2010: 250) have pointed out that the evidence cited by Alizadeh (2006) for the specialised roles of farmer
and pastoral nomad could equally be seen as indicating a mixed agro-pastoral economy, and that even without
Figure 6.69 R ahmatabad, Middle Bakun ceramics, motifs and correlation of motifs with vessel form (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2017:
Figures 5–6) (photo credit: Hosein Azizi Kharanaghi).
irrigation it would have been possible for the occupants of Tall-e Bakun A to generate agricultural surpluses
(Petrie 2013a: 129). Similarly, the evidence from spindle whorls and plant remains (Miller and Kimiaie 2006;
Sudo 2010) for wool and plant exploitation does not settle the debate either way (Potts 2010b).
On balance, it is probable that the people of Tall-e Bakun A and similar contemporary villages pursued a flex-
ible economic strategy in accordance with varying environmental and climatic factors, in some years laying more
stress on arable farming and surplus accumulation, in others devoting more people, time and energies to seasonal
movements with their herds to the high summer pastures. Some involvement in hunting and gathering was also
always an option. Such flexibility is vividly demonstrated in observations of contemporary pastoral nomads of the
same region, the Qashqa’i of the southern Zagros:
Diverse and flexible patterns had always emerged, however, as people made ongoing individual and group de-
cisions to continue, adjust, or change their current modes of livelihood, residence, and lifestyle…Some Qash-
qa’i lived in tents and practiced only agriculture, while others occupied houses and practiced only pastoralism.
Some families divided their labor between pastoral and agricultural ventures and their residences between
nomads’ camps and fixed settlements. And some Qashqa’i migrated without having any sheep and goats. All
these patterns and the more standard ones described above could change on a yearly and even a seasonal basis.
(Beck 2003: 294)
Above all, we have to concede that our knowledge and understanding of the Bakun period in Fars is rather at-
tenuated, as cogently expressed by Weeks et al. (2010: 268):
We do not have a clear idea of the distribution and organization of settlement during the Early, Middle, and
Late Bakun phases; neither do we have a clear impression of the subsistence regimes that were in use during
the fifth millennium B.C. derived from the analysis of floral and faunal remains; and perhaps most critically,
we have little idea of what was transpiring at the largest Bakun-period sites in the Kur River Basin at this time.
The Late Chalcolithic of Fars, 4000–3200 BC: expansion and contraction

The fourth millennium BC saw major socio-economic and political developments across almost all of Iran, and Fars
was no exception (Petrie 2013a; Petrie et al. 2013). Towards the end of the millennium complex settlement of upland
Iran develops at Tal-e Malyan, and there are major changes in ceramic production, distribution and consumption,
in food resource exploitation and in patterns of trade and exchange (Zeder 1991). The fourth millennium BC chro-
nology of Fars is set out in Table 6.3. Once more, surveys in and around the Kur river basin are key in approaching
this period (Sumner 1988, 1990; Alden 2003a, 2013; Alizadeh 2003b; Roustaei et al. 2006; Zeidi et al. 2009; Sardari
2013). Of major relevance are excavations at Tal-e Malyan (Sumner 2003), Tal-e Kureh (Alden 2003c), and at sites
in the Mamasani area, including Tol-e Spid where a protracted fourth millennium BC sequence has been sampled
(Petrie et al. 2007) and Tol-e Nurabad (Weeks et al. 2009, 2010; Petrie et al. 2013). Excavations at Tappeh Mehr Ali
in northern Fars are also important (Sardari 2013). Absolute and relative chronologies of the various excavated levels
at all these sites are difficult to establish with certainty, partly because of a major plateau in the radiocarbon calibra-
tion curve between c. 3350 and 2900 BC (Wright 1985; Petrie et al. 2013: 172–182; Petrie 2014).
Surveys suggest that settlements of the Lapui period in Fars were generally small villages, less than 2 ha, with
no evidence for site hierarchy (Sumner 1988; Potts et al. 2005; McCall 2009; Nobari et al. 2012b; Potts 2016:
54). Distinctive Lapui red ceramics were found at 108 sites in the Kur river basin, but Sumner’s analysis showed a
steady drop in settlement numbers through the Lapui period, a decline that continued into the subsequent Banesh
period and may have been caused by increased soil salinity from excessive irrigation (Sumner 1988: 29, 1990;
Alden 2013). What is clear is that by the end of the Banesh period at c. 2800 BC there is a dramatic collapse in
settlement across the Kur river basin, with no evidence for sedentary occupation of the region for up to four cen-
turies (de Miroschedji 2003: 19, Figure 3.2), representing a major episode of settlement disjunction coeval with
that attested in Khuzestan (see above). We discuss this issue further in Chapter 7.
Villagers of the Lapui period lived in mudbrick and chineh houses, with foodstuffs coming mainly from herded
goat, sheep, cattle and pig with wheat, barley and lentils as well as high consumption of almond and pistachio
(Mashkour 2009; Petrie et al. 2013; Sardari 2013). The finding of stamp seals and clay sealings at Tappeh Mehr
Ali (Figure 6.70) suggests some form of economic organisation related to storage and distribution. There is
evidence for site clustering in the Banesh period, associated with the emergence of major occupation at Tal-i
Malyan, ancient Anshan, which attains some 50 ha in area by the late fourth millennium BC (Chapter 7; Sumner
1986a). The rise to supremacy of Malyan coincides with a major decline in rural settlement, and it is likely that
Malyan’s population was significantly comprised of villagers who had abandoned their ancient settlements, for-
cibly or otherwise, to live in the burgeoning settlement there. The role of pastoral nomadism in shaping the tra-
jectory of socio-economic development in Late Chalcolithic Fars is keenly debated (Sumner 1986a, 1988; Abdi
2003b; Alizadeh 2006: 49–50; Alden 2013) but the hard evidence is slight. Also debated is the question of to what
extent large settlements such as Malyan can be usefully be characterised as urban, given the dearth of evidence
for dense and hierarchically structured populations (Meyer 2019).
Lapui ceramics generally lack surface decoration and show signs of standardisation and product specialisation in
their manufacture, including use of a slow wheel or tournette (Blackman 1981, 1989; Petrie 2011; Sumner 2011).
These attributes have been associated with “the minimization of energy expenditure and the maximization of the
rate of production of individual vessels” (Petrie 2013a: 142), which in turn we may view as related to the emergence
Table 6.3 Fourth millennium BC chronology of Fars and adjacent regions (after Petrie 2014: table 9.1)
Dates cal BC Susa Acropole I Tol-e Spid Tol-e Nurabad Tal-e Malyan period Godin Tepe Tappeh Sialk
3149-2930 Susa IIIA TS18? TNA8-6 Late Middle Banesh Terminal Godin VI:1 Sialk IV2
16-15
3350-3140 Transition TS18? TNA10-9 Early Middle Banesh Godin VI:1 Sialk IV1
17-17X
3650-3350 Susa II TS19 TNA12a-11 Initial/Early Banesh Godin VI:2 Sialk III6-7
22-18
4000-3650 Late Susa I TS31-20 Lapui Godin VI:3 Sialk III4-5
24-23
Figure 6.70 R
escue excavations at Tappeh Mehr Ali (Sardari 2013: Figure 11) (photo credit: Alireza Sardari).
of a complex political entity at Malyan where an elite group increasingly determined the distribution of the pop-
ulation’s labour and capabilities across the full spectrum of crafts and activities. From the Early Banesh phase, the
bevelled-rim bowl starts to appear at many sites in Fars and beyond (Potts 2009) but is usually not accompanied by
other vessel forms indicative of interaction with Mesopotamia. Initial interpretations of the presence of bevelled-rim
bowls on highland Iranian sites as indicative of interest in access to cherished resources on the part of lowland com-
munities from Khuzestan or Mesopotamia (Alden 1982a, 1982b), have been succeeded by ideas about the role of
bevelled-rim bowls in spreading culinary fashions such as leavened bread (Potts 2009: 13; Goulder 2010).
The Early Chalcolithic of south-eastern Iran, 5000–4000 BC: Tepe Yahya to the fore
Although south-east Iranian sequences are poorly documented, the evidence from Tepe Yahya and Tal-e Iblis
establishes some understanding of the fifth millennium BC (Beale 2011), combined with increasing evidence
from survey for a significant Early-Middle Chalcolithic presence in the region south of Jiroft (Pfälzner et al. 2019).
Recent studies on the Shahdad plain have brought to light new information that calls into question existing views
as well as revising the chronology of the region in the Early Chalcolithic. Nasir Eskandari has carried out new
research to the west of the Lut desert in the Shahdad area of Kerman province (Eskandari 2017, 2018; Eskandari et al.
2017). Within the plain, 13 fifth millennium BC and 15 fourth millennium BC sites have been recognised, the
largest of which is Tepe Dehno at 20 ha in area. Excavations at Tepe Dehno and Tepe Dehno East have revealed
levels dating from the early fifth to early third millennia BC. Excavations at Dehno East have identified the earliest
periods on the Shahdad plain, establishing that the Iblis I culture dates several centuries earlier than previously
thought, to the first half of the fifth millennium BC. Unlike other areas of Iran in the Early Chalcolithic, little ad-
ministrative evidence of the fifth millennium BC has been recovered in south-eastern Iran. But copper metallurgi-
cal evidence (Caldwell 1967; Thornton and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004) as well as agricultural and irrigation systems
suggest the commencement of complex societies at this time in south-eastern Iran. Future fieldwork is needed to
shed light on the socio-economic and political aspects of the fifth millennium BC societies of this region.
Further east still, building on the early work of Sir Aurel Stein in the Bampur valley of Baluchistan province
(Mutin 2015), systematic survey in this region identified 39 Chalcolithic sites, of both Early and Late Chalcolithic
date on the basis of their ceramics, which show transregional connections westwards to Kerman and Tepe Yahya
and eastwards to the Kech-Makran region of south-western Pakistan (Mutin et al. 2017b). Progressive eastwards
movement of Chalcolithic settlement along the Bampur River is likely associated with episodes of environmental
change involving drying up of the river.
Much of our, admittedly limited, knowledge about south-eastern Iran in the Early Chalcolithic comes from two
excavated sites in Kerman province: Tepe Yahya (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986) and Tal-e Iblis (Caldwell and
Malik Shahmīrzādī 1966; Caldwell 1967; Sarraf 1981). Surveys in the region have mainly identified Late Chalcolithic
sites of the fourth millennium BC (see below; Petrie 2013a: 130). The sequence of excavated levels at Tepe Yahya
is especially significant for understanding the region and its broader connections. Above the Neolithic occupation of
period VII, periods VIB-A at Yahya date to the early/mid-fifth millennium BC, while period VC-A spans the mid-
fifth to early fourth millennia BC (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 148–149; Petrie 2013a: 131). At Tal-e Iblis, Chalcolithic
occupation spans late sixth to late fifth millennia BC (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 143–146; Petrie 2011, 2013a: 132).
Martha Prickett’s (1986a, 1986b) survey of selected regions of Kerman detected significant movement of set-
tlement in the Shah Maran and Dalautabad basin and in the upper Rud-e Gushk. Early Chalcolithic sites are rare
but there is evidence for increased settlement spread and for agricultural intensification by the end of the fifth
millennium BC. Architecture in level VIB at Yahya shows a major break from the preceding Neolithic levels,
with evidence for a new type of building constructed of slender walls of thumb-impressed mudbricks, with corner
and external buttresses and raised internal corner hearths (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 127–129, Figure
6.15). The walls’ internal and external faces were plastered with a thick, chaff-tempered mud plaster and interior
surfaces were then coated in a much finer plaster. Few artefacts were found on the floors of these rooms but there
is a suggestion that some adjacent structures were used as animal pens (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 127).
The succeeding period, VIA, witnesses “one of the most extraordinary and extensive building projects in the
whole history of the site” (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 132). This project involved the construction of
massive retaining walls around the mound’s summit and the deposit of tons of fist-sized rocks, sherds and bones on
the slopes of the mound behind the retaining walls. Multiple smaller retaining walls to contain the rubble were also
constructed (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 132, Figures 6.16–6.18). Thornton’s (2010) analysis of a copper
awl from Yahya VIA shows it to be one of the earliest examples of smelted arsenical copper from anywhere in the
world, dated at c. 4300 BC, indicative of the import to Yahya of raw materials for the production of locally-used
artefacts, in this case an awl probably used for carving of the chlorite bowls produced so lavishly at Yahya.
The major feat of architectural engineering in Yahya VIA, involving the transport of several tons of small rocks
from at least 1 km distant, served as a platform for the overlying period VC building, and it is likely that other
buildings were originally constructed on top of this platform (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 132). The pe-
riod VC building has a fine plan of multiple rectilinear rooms (Figure 6.71) (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986:
140, Figures 6.23–6.24), with use of corner and side buttresses as in the earlier period VIB structure. The plan
comprises small square rooms, possibly for storage, with larger rectangular rooms with corner hearths and raised
platforms, probably living quarters. All the walls of the c. 20 rooms of the period VC building are bonded together,
indicating planning and simultaneous construction of the entire complex. Fragments of collapsed roofing show
Figure 6.71 T
epe Yahya, period VC architecture (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: Figure 6.23) (permission courtesy of C. C
Lamberg-Karlovsky).
Figure 6.72 T
al-e Iblis, area D architecture (after Evett 1967: Figure 9).
that roofs were constructed of thick mud plaster spread on reeds and branches over larger wooden beams. Again,
artefacts within the rooms were very rare, amounting to several chaff-tempered storage jars, with no detectable
contents, a single rubber stone and a copper pin (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 143–146).
In the following VB period, the VC complex was dismantled and this part of the settlement became a large open
area with a series of adjacent rooms (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: Figure 6.26). The technique of external
buttressing was abandoned in this period. In Yahya period VA, occupation comprises open areas and a pottery kiln
(Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 152), following which the site was abandoned for a century or more (Thorn-
ton and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004: Figure 1). Approximately contemporary domestic architecture at Tal-e Iblis,
180 km north of Yahya, includes a total of some 50 rooms (Figure 6.72) across four areas of the site (Evett 1967;
Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 164) bearing strong similarities to the Yahya structures. One difference is that
the Iblis walls are thicker, two courses wide, than the Yahya walls, which enables the rooms to be somewhat larger.
There are two notable human burials from period VB at Yahya. One is of a child in tightly flexed position
with grave goods of a lapis lazuli bead, a cattle pelvis, two flint flakes and some sherds. The second burial was
deposited within a small mudbrick burial chamber, again of a child in a tightly flexed position, with no grave
goods. A further child burial was encountered in period VA (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986: 151). No adult
burials were found in the Early Chalcolithic levels at Yahya. It is possible then that children were buried within
the settlement but adults buried or disposed of somewhere outside the settlement (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale
1986: 149). The use of a mudbrick chamber for burial of a child is certainly distinctive, and the Yahya VB one is
the earliest example of this rare practice from anywhere in Iran.
Evidence from the Kerman sites suggests increasing technical capabilities in pyrotechnology through the fifth
millennium BC (Vandiver 1986; Petrie 2011, 2013a). There are indications of some transregional movement of cer-
tain ceramics such as import of black-on-buff ware vessels from Fars into Kerman (Kamilli and Lamberg-Karlovsky
1979; Beale 2011; Mutin 2012: 166–169). Metallurgy in Kerman made steady progress through the fifth and into
the fourth millennia BC (Thornton et al. 2002; Thornton and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004; Weeks 2012, 2013b),
with increasing quantities of copper artefacts produced by a range of techniques, and at Iblis, significant evidence
for copper ore smelting in clay crucibles (Caldwell and Malik Shahmīrzādī 1966; Moorey 1982; Pigott 1999; Pigott
and Lechtman 2003; Matthews and Fazeli 2004: 66; Frame 2012).
Cultivated crops from Early Chalcolithic Tepe Yahya comprise barley, wheat, milk vetch, hackberry and grape
(Meadow 1986: Table 3.2). In terms of animal exploitation, period VI at Yahya sees a major increase in use of
domesticated cattle compared to Neolithic levels, while goat and sheep are also heavily represented. Cattle, goat
and sheep together account for more than 98% of all faunal remains from Yahya periods VII-IVC (Meadow 1986:
Table 3.4, Figure 3.3). There is some evidence for the presence of zebu cattle (Bos indicus), although it is not clear
in which period they first appear at Yahya (Meadow 1986: 37).
The Late Chalcolithic of south-eastern Iran, 4000–3200 BC: transregional engagement

The fourth millennium BC of south-eastern Iran is poorly known. Our knowledge of this period is limited to the
excavations of Tepe Aliabad (Bardsir), Mahtoutabad in Jiroft, Khaje Askar in Bam and Tepe Dehno (Madjidzadeh and
Pittman 2008; Vidale and Desset 2013; Soleimani et al. 2016; Eskandari 2017; Moradi 2021). Distinctive ceramics in
plain and painted styles enable us to characterise an Aliabad culture that prospered in south-eastern Iran extending
over a large area from west of Kerman to the most eastern lands of Iran and into Pakistan (Mutin 2013b). The new
absolute chronology of Tepe Dehno revises most of the previous studies of the fourth millennium BC archaeology
in the Kerman region (Eskandari 2017). The Aliabad culture (= Iblis IV) is an important period in south-eastern Iran
spanning c. 3900–3300 BC (Eskandari 2018). From the mid-fourth millennium BC cemetery site of Khaje Askar
nine graves were uncovered with 53 funerary goods including ceramics (Figure 6.73), stone and clay beads, stone
vessels, clay objects, shells and a unique metal blade (Soleimani et al. 2016).
Tepe Yahya is once more a key site for this period in south-eastern Iran. Period VA sees the re-occupation of
Yahya after an abandonment of a century or so. The dating of the VA occupation is debated but probably spans c.
4250–3600 BC (Mutin 2013b; Petrie 2013a: 146), while period IVC covers c. 3100–2800 BC (see Chapter 7; Dahl
et al. 2013; Petrie 2013a: 146). Ceramics from Yahya VA demonstrate that the site was situated at a hub of connec-
tions across the regions of Kerman and the Bampur valley in the east, while the presence of Lapui ware connects
Yahya VA to the regions of Fars and Khuzestan well to the west (Mutin 2012, 2013a: 3). Further evidence for
the role of Yahya VA in regional interactions is provided by a major increase in the range and quantity of im-
ported materials attested at the site, including copper, turquoise, limestone and lapis lazuli (Lamberg-Karlovsky
and Beale 1986: 266; Mutin 2013a: 3). These Late Chalcolithic transregional connections served to underpin an
intensification of regional networks of material and social connectivity in the subsequent Proto-Elamite phase.
Following period VA, Yahya was again abandoned, this time for up to 500 years, resettled in the Proto-Elamite
period IVC and then abandoned once more (Lamberg-Karlovsky 2001b: 271; Potts 2001: 199).
Tal-e Iblis was occupied through much of the fourth millennium BC (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 143–146), with
black-on-red ware and Lapui ware of period II at Iblis indicating participation in large-scale regional interactions,
as at Yahya VA. Moreover, the extensive evidence for copper metallurgy at Iblis suggests a scale of production
beyond purely local needs (Caldwell 1967; Pigott 1999: 74–77; Thornton 2009), and the presence in level IV at
Iblis of Uruk- or Susa-related pottery forms, including bevelled-rim bowls, four-lugged jars and trays, demon-
strates connections, in some form, with Late Chalcolithic communities of south-western Iran and Mesopotamia
Figure 6.73 K haje Askar, ceramic vessels from cemetery (Soleimani et al. 2016: Figure 19) (photo credit: Nasir Eskandari).
(Matthews and Fazeli 2004: 66; Mutin 2013a: 4), immediately prior to the Proto-Elamite horizon. Faunal re-
mains from Iblis are dominated by sheep and goat, and there are indications that hunting of gazelle declines
through time at the site (Bökönyi 1967).
Survey in the Shah Maran and Daulatabad plains shows a severe decline in settlement in the later fourth millen-
nium BC (Prickett 1986b: 236). At approximately the same time there is a fivefold increase in settlement numbers
on the Bard Sir plain (Chase et al. 1967). During Yahya IVC, the Proto-Elamite period, only the major site of
Yahya and one other site appear to have been occupied (Prickett 1986b: 237), while site numbers increased on
the plains south of Jiroft (Pfälzner et al. 2019). There is extremely little information on food resources in the Late
Chalcolithic of south-eastern Iran, but Meadow’s study indicates a resurgence of goat herding and a correspond-
ing decline in cattle use in Yahya period V as compared to the preceding period VI, a trend that continues into
Yahya IVC (Meadow 1986: Figure 3.3). The presence of significant foreign components in the material culture
of the late fourth millennium BC in south-eastern Iran, and elsewhere, probably betokens major movements of
people interacting with surviving local communities, but the details are unclear.
Research in the Halil Rud region, east of Tepe Yahya, has shed new light on the fourth millennium BC of
this previously little-explored area. The main information comes from the site of Mahtoutabad, close to Konar
Sandal South. In the third millennium BC Mahtoutabad was a major burial site for the nearby major centre of
Konar Sandal South (Chapter 9), but here we are concerned with its earlier levels, which span much of the fourth
millennium BC (Figures 6.74–6.75) (Desset et al. 2013; Vidale and Desset 2013). The earliest phase, Mahtoutabad
I, extends over c. 1.5 ha, and excavations revealed accumulated trampled floors, with bench and fireplaces, of a large
semi-subterranean structure measuring at least 9.5 × 8 m. There is also evidence for copper metallurgy and for stone
vessel production at Mahtoutabad I, which dates to the early fourth millennium BC. Pottery from this structure
includes basins, jars, bowls and footed vases (Figure 6.76) (Vidale and Desset 2013: Figures 13.9–13.15), often with
finely executed polychrome painted decoration and manufactured with considerable technical skill. Good parallels
for the Mahtoutabad I ceramics can be found to the west in the Shah Maran and Daulatabad plains, but also to the
east through the Bampur valley to sites such as Shahi Tump in the Pakistani Makran (Mutin 2013b). Indeed, the
broad region of south-eastern Iran during the fourth millennium BC (and during the third millennium BC – see
Chapter 9) can only be understood as a participant in transregional socio-cultural interactions between widely sep-
arated communities, stretching from Fars in the west to eastern Pakistan in the east. As Benjamin Mutin (2013b:
272) puts it, ceramics from the region in the fourth millennium BC “tend to be indicative of long-span cultural
boundaries with fluctuations, and perhaps punctual breaks in some cases and long-span interregional relations.”
Mahtoutabad II consists of a series of trampled surfaces lacking architectural features, with ceramics related to
Aliabad wares of Iblis IV (Vidale and Desset 2013: 239). Dating to the late fourth millennium BC, Mahtoutabad
III comprises Uruk-related ceramics, including multiple bevelled-rim bowls, low-sided trays, flowerpots, spouted
jars and bottles and lugged vessels, representing “the easternmost evidence of the Uruk phenomenon across the
Iranian plateau” (Vidale 2011; Desset et al. 2013: 17; Vidale and Desset 2013: 239). Uruk, or Susa, interest in
Figure 6.74 M
ahtoutabad cemetery, plan of site (Vidale and Desset 2013: Figure 13.4) (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
Figure 6.75 Mahtoutabad, excavations in Trench I (Vidale and Desset 2013: Figure 13.6) (photo credit: Massimo Vidale).
Figure 6.76 Mahtoutabad I, ceramics (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
engagement with this distant region of south-eastern Iran, 1000 km east of Khuzestan, may have been stimulated
by the local resources and capabilities in copper and alabaster working as attested already in phase I at Mahtout-
abad, as discussed above. Like Mahtoutabad, the nearby site of Hajjiabad-Varamin also appears to have been
occupied through the fourth millennium BC prior to its expansion into a major cemetery by the mid-third mil-
lennium BC (Chapter 9) (Eskandari et al. 2021).
Chalcolithic kaleidoscope: divergent, fragmented trajectories towards complexity

We have come a long way on our 2,000-year journey through the Chalcolithic period of Iran. At its start in
c. 5200 BC, the landscapes of Iran hosted dispersed, small-scale farming, herding and hunting communities
living in villages situated to take advantage of the diverse range of natural and environmental resources af-
forded by the country. These early agricultural communities, which had developed over the millennia of the
Neolithic (Chapter 5), appear to have lacked significant social stratification with little evidence for socio-economic
inequality, as attested by architecture, material culture and burial practices, for example. By the end of the
Chalcolithic in the late fourth millennium BC, there is a clear gearshift in both the scale and nature of the
societies of Iran, with a wealth of evidence to indicate differential control of, access to, and distribution of a
wide range of human and natural resources. Such evidence includes multi-tier settlement hierarchies sugges-
tive of dependent inter-community relationships in terms of food production and control, underpinned by ag-
ricultural intensification including irrigation; the commissioning and construction of large-scale architectural
structures such as platforms, terraces, and communal buildings, demanding the command, forcible or other-
wise, of large labour-pools and huge quantities of building materials including mudbrick, plasters and roofing
timber; the development of craft specialisation region by region across Iran as major focal sites intensified both
their exploitation of access to specific materials – metals, semi-precious stones, good potting clays and other
minerals – and their skills-base and tastes in the working, trading and consumption of finished artefacts; the
elaboration and centralisation of cultic practice as attested through monumental religious structures, frequent
cultic iconography of seals and seal impressions, and large-scale centralised burial of the dead; and increasing
sophistication and reach of bureaucratic control of agricultural and social resources, materialised in the form
of tokens, seals, sealed bullae and numerical tablets.
But each region of Iran took its own course, at its own pace and not necessarily in a unilinear fashion, through
the pathways to complexity, as we have articulated throughout the regional discussions above, partly formed of
course by the regionally differential investment of archaeological investigation. Thus, in north-western Iran,
the pace of social change was slow and steady through the Chalcolithic, whereby we can trace outlines of transre-
gional connectivity in ceramic styles and exploitation of obsidian sources, for example, accompanying increased
focus on agricultural production and animal herding, but as yet without evidence for quantum leaps in societal
complexity. Across north-central Iran, the pace is somewhat sharper, with a clearer trend toward intensified
craft production in ceramics and metallurgy, as attested at Sialk (Figures 6.77–6.78) and sites on the Qazvin and
Kashan plains, early construction of specialised buildings and associated burial practices as at Zagheh, and, by the
end of the Chalcolithic, an initial engagement of certain communities as at Sialk, Sofalin and Meymanatabad,
with the wider Uruk/Late Susa II world of early bureaucracy attested through seals, sealings and numerical tab-
lets. Chalcolithic societies of north-eastern Iran are not so well investigated, but here too we detect an inten-
sification of craft production and specialisation, such as the focus on lapis and chlorite working at Hissar, and
the elaboration of burial practices also at Hissar. In the Zagros region of western Iran, well-connected village
communities intensified their farming and herding practices with some indications of seasonal herding according
to pasture availability, whilst focusing more attention on sophisticated burial practices as attested in cemetery
sites of Luristan. By the Late Chalcolithic, this region of Iran played its part in the transregional world of Uruk/
Late Susa II, as attested above all in the finds from Godin Tepe VI:1, which connect the central Zagros both with
Khuzestan and Lower Mesopotamia to the southwest and with contemporary sites such as Sialk and Hissar to the
east (Figure 6.79). In the Fars region of southern Iran, developments are focused on the increased importance of
Malyan as a regional centre by the Late Chalcolithic within a context of ongoing village life across these fertile
plains. In south-eastern Iran, the site of Tepe Yahya is key, with evidence for construction of massive public
structures, early metallurgy, and elaboration of burial practices, as also at Mahtoutabad. By the Late Chalcolithic,
sites of this region show strong connectivity with contemporary burgeoning societies well to the east in Bampur
and the Makran, for example, as well as with the Late Susa II world to the west.
But it is in south-western Iran, Khuzestan in particular, where we can delineate the clearest and most dra-
matic changes in socio-political structures of the Chalcolithic communities of Iran, drawing on earlier discov-
eries at Susa and Chogha Mish as well as on newly emerging evidence for cultic elaboration at the special site
of Tol-e Chega Sofla. Founded in the fertility of the alluvial soils, multi-tiered settlement patterns developed
rapidly in this region though not without episodes of disruption. Top-tier settlements such as Chogha Mish show
early evidence for sophisticated, large-scale public architecture accompanied by intensified craft production in
fields such as chipped stone and ceramics. With the onset of settlement at Susa from the mid-fifth millennium
BC the pace of change quickens, starting with elite residences, massive terraces and platforms, through elaborate
and extensive burial grounds and highly skilled ceramic production and metal consumption, culminating in the
explosion of state-level attributes at Susa and Chogha Mish by the mid-late fourth millennium BC.
A key component of Iran’s development towards socio-cultural complexity in the Chalcolithic period was
ever-increasing technological capability in a range of skilled and semi-skilled crafts, as illustrated throughout the
regional discussions above. Prime amongst these was metallurgy and the exploitation of copper, lead, silver and,
more rarely, gold (Moorey 1982; Pigott 1999; Weeks 2004, 2012, 2013b; Thornton 2009, 2010). As Pigott (1999:
79) has stressed, Chalcolithic Iranian metallurgy was focused exclusively on working of native copper and arsen-
ical copper ores, principally through smelting in crucibles. This basic technology stood in good stead for several
millennia of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, with indications from Ghabrestan, Sialk and Hissar of craft
specialisation in the production of an increasing range of copper artefacts. Towards the end of the Chalcolithic
we encounter the first occurrences of tin-bronze artefacts in Iran, in Sialk IIIB and at Susa (Berthoud et al. 1979;
Tallon 1987; Pigott 1999: 79; Weeks 2004; Helwing 2009, 2018), which are likely to indicate new eastern trade
connections with Afghanistan and its deposits of tin and copper, but significant amounts of tin-bronze objects do
not appear until the mid-third millennium BC in deposits such as the “Vase à la Cachette” at Susa (see Chapter
10). Christopher Thornton (2009) has thoughtfully explored the development of metallurgy in highland Iran – a
region with ample mineral resources and highly developed cultural traditions – whereby nascent complex soci-
eties could readily support craft specialists as they developed their craft initially far in advance of contemporary
metallurgy across Southwest Asia.
Figure 6.77 Aerial image of Sialk South Mound (Vidale et al. 2018: Figure 5b) (photo credit: Loghman Ahmadzadeh).
These developments in extracting and processing metals are significant not only from a history of technology
point of view, but also because of their role in situating the highland zones within a complex transregional dy-
namic of socio-cultural change that so characterises the entire Chalcolithic period of Iran and its neighbours. The
wide distribution of flat copper axes in the late fourth and early third millennia BC, for example, spanning south-
ern Anatolia, northern and central Mesopotamia, and much of Iran (Helwing 2011c: 268), hints at the degree of
connectivity between widely spaced communities. As Lloyd Weeks (2013b: 281–282) has stressed, metallurgical
Figure 6.78 B
lack on buff ceramics from Sialk South Mound (Vidale et al. 2018: Figure 6) (photo credit: the National Museum of
Iran).
Figure 6.79 The world of the Uruk expansion in the later fourth millennium BC (Sauvage 2020: 36) (image courtesy of Pascal
Butterlin and Martin Sauvage).
Figure 6.80 Map to show distribution of recording systems across Chalcolithic Iran.
developments in Iran in the fourth millennium BC march very much in step with those of neighbouring re-
source-rich regions such as Anatolia and Central Asia. Not only cherished artefacts but also technological skills
and expertise were moving over considerable distances, and doubtless often across socio-political boundaries,
in the Chalcolithic of Iran and its neighbours, even if the precise mechanisms for transmission of technological
knowledge may today be obscure. Weeks (2013b) has reasonably suggested that the Uruk expansion, and perhaps
the earlier Ubaid cultural phenomenon (Stein 2010), could have provided the sort of large-scale, transregional
cultural context within which the transmission of technological skills in metallurgy could be readily effected.
These arguments equally apply to other features of Chalcolithic transformations such as the transmission of
knowledge and skills in ceramic production, in bureaucratic administration of agricultural and craft activity, in
construction of public architecture and all the components of state-level complexity with which much of Iran had
become familiar directly or otherwise by c. 3200 BC. High degrees of experimentation across much of Chalco-
lithic Iran in the media, scale and scope of administrative control are amply illustrated in Figure 6.80.
In almost all regions of Iran, Chalcolithic developments were brought to an abrupt halt at some time in the later
fourth millennium BC, as attested by site and regional abandonments preceded by destruction levels, doubtless
impacted by a significant climatic downturn at c. 3200 BC ( Jones et al. 2013: 25). By the time the dust had settled,
literally, and human communities once more occupied the key sites, built their houses, seeded their fertile fields
and gathered their thoughts, they continued on their divergent, fragmented pathways through time, but now
increasingly impacted by, and engaged in, the transregional sociocultural and economic scenarios of the Bronze
Age which, for their full apprehension, necessitate our contextualisation of Iranian societies within ever wider
world views. We articulate and pursue these Bronze Age strands of Iran and its neighbours in detail throughout
the following chapters.
7 Iran’s first state? The Proto-Elamite horizon,
3200–2900 BC
The Early Bronze Age of Iran: regionalisation and interconnection

The later fourth millennium BC was a time of significant disruption across the length and breadth of Iran,
from Khuzestan to Kerman and from Fars to Qazvin, characterised archaeologically by abandonment of rural
settlements and interruption of social and cultural developments that had been underway for centuries (Vidale
et al. 2018), as discussed in the preceding chapters. Indications of temporary climatic adversity around this time
(Schmidt et al. 2011; Walker and Fattahi 2011; Jones 2013) form a plausible context for this disjunction in the archaeo
logical record. In many areas at least the break was brief: within a century or less major sites such as Tepe Sialk,
Tepe Yahya and Tal-e Iblis were all re-settled and several new sites were founded, such as Qoli Darvish and Aris-
man (Helwing 2004, 2005, 2012). But the landscape of settlement had changed: the countryside remained largely
devoid of villages and most of the population appears to have been concentrated in regional centres, some of
which appear to have been relatively complex in their range of functions and activities. These centres had planned
layouts using standardised brick types and building plans, sometimes with surrounding walls, and there is much
evidence for continuing development of skills and technology in a range of crafts including ceramics, metallurgy
and stone-working, to some extent regionally distributed across Iran according to local availability of valued raw
materials such as copper, soft stone and alabaster.
The potter’s wheel and copper smelting furnaces enabled major increases in volume of production as well as in
the standardisation of output (Petrie 2012; Weeks 2012). With regard to metallurgy of the Iranian highlands, the
dominant tradition throughout the entire Bronze Age was the production of arsenical copper from native sources
within Iran (Pigott 1999: 81; Helwing 2018; in press-b). Towards the end of the Bronze Age in the mid-second
millennium BC, increasing numbers of tin-bronze artefacts occur, but it is not until the later second millennium
BC (i.e. the “Early Iron Age”!) that tin-bronze becomes the dominant alloy. The development of craft exper-
tise can be viewed both as a significant indigenous Iranian achievement of the Early Bronze Age but also as an
essential component in Iran’s engagement with the wider contemporary world, with Mesopotamia to the west
and the Indus valley to the east, with the Caucasus to the northwest and Central Asia to the northeast. Trade and
exchange had been critical in the construction of social interrelations across and beyond Iran through the Chal-
colithic period, as we saw in Chapter 6, and this attribute was further developed through the first centuries of the
Early Bronze Age, with thriving regional production centres at the heart of early settlement patterns (T. Potts
1994). But these exchange networks were fragile, prone to disruption and collapse from a range of causes at which
we have largely to guess: harassment of traders and travellers by bandits, conflict over taxation and tribute payable
to rulers controlling land through which trade caravans passed, seasonal and longer-term climatic variability and
shifting social traditions and attachments to cherished materials and commodities. Early Bronze Age Iran was
part of a wider world that was sophisticated and intimately networked, but that also hosted dangerous and volatile
components.
In this and the next three chapters we treat the various regions of Iran in turn, following threads of cultural
connections through time and space, often beyond the borders of Iran, in an aim to articulate the important
features of the Early Bronze Age societies of Iran. The map (Figure 7.1) summarises the regional societies of Iran
through the Early Bronze Age. It is important to bear in mind that both the chronological and the geographical
extents of the Early Bronze Age polities of Iran are uncertain, and much work remains to be done in particular
with regard to stratigraphically secure radiocarbon-based chronologies throughout the entire timespan. As Petrie
has pointed out (2013b: 16, 2014; in press) the period between c. 3400 and 2900 BC is marked by a plateau in the
radiocarbon calibration curve, which makes it currently impossible to be precise in the absolute dating of Iran and
its neighbours in the later fourth and earlier third millennia BC. In many cases, a value judgement has to be made,
and all dates cited in this chapter should be considered as highly provisional. To take an example, some scholars
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-7
The Proto-Elamite horizon 189
Figure 7.1 Regional cultural zones of Early Bronze Age Iran and its neighbours.
situate the Proto-Elamite horizon within the terminal centuries of the Late Chalcolithic period (Petrie 2013b:
Figure 1.3) while others, including the present authors, prefer to view it as largely an Early Bronze Age phe-
nomenon (Abdi 2003a; Mutin 2013a: Table 1.1). Major steps in addressing the third millennium BC chronology
of Iran have been taken through research for the soon to be published volume on western Iran within the series
Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean (Helwing in press-a).
In this chapter we focus on the Proto-Elamite phenomenon, examining all key sites and issues across Iran, before
turning in the next chapter to look at the Early Transcaucasian sphere, which features large in the prehistory of
north-western Iran and chronologically overlaps with the Proto-Elamite horizon.
Encountering and defining a cultural phenomenon: the Proto-Elamite horizon

One of the most intriguing socio-cultural phenomena of prehistoric Iran is the so-called Proto-Elamite
culture, which has been hailed as “arguably the first indigenous civilization on the Iranian Plateau” as well
as “one of the most fascinating, albeit elusive, eras in Iranian archaeology” (Abdi 2003a: 140; Petrie 2013b:
15–18). The geographical extent of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon is immense, its material remains encoun-
tered over an area of Iran measuring some 550,000 km 2 , even if the relevant cultural material is thinly spread
over much of this area (Figure 7.2). Key sites with at least some elements of Proto-Elamite material remains, all
discussed below, include Susa, Senjar and Tal-i Ghazir/Tall-e Geser in Khuzestan, Malyan in Fars, Sialk and
Arisman in Esfahan, Yahya in Kerman, Qoli Darvish, Ozbaki and Sofalin in central and north-central Iran and
Shahr-i Sokhta in Sistan.
In exploring the nature and significance of this phenomenon we need to discuss terminology, as the phrase
“Proto-Elamite culture” begs a multitude of questions (Abdi 2003a eloquently traces the changing usages of the
term “Proto-Elamite” and forms the basis of this section). The site of Susa in Khuzestan is once more critical to
the discussion. The Late Uruk-connected society that thrived at Susa during the Late Susa II period was brought to
a dramatic end at c. 3200 BC, as attested by a sharp break in occupation after level 17A of the Acropole I sounding
(Le Brun 1971, 2019; Petrie 2014: see below). This break is followed by a different range of material culture that
was initially encountered in excavations on the Susa Acropole by Jacques de Morgan in 1898–1899 in the form of
190 The Proto-Elamite horizon
Figure 7.2 A
rchaeological sites of Proto-Elamite Iran and contemporary Mesopotamia.
two clay tablets, followed by 200 more tablets in 1901 (Abdi 2003a: 142; Dahl 2019: 57–59). The writing on these
tablets was recognised by the Susa epigrapher Vincent Scheil (1900, 1905) as differing substantially from that attested
on early Mesopotamian or Babylonian texts. Believing there to be a connection to the later Old Elamite writing of
the late third and early second millennia BC, and believing Susa to be the epicentre of ancient Elam, Scheil (1905:
60) coined the term “Proto-Elamite” to describe the newly discovered writing style, and he developed the idea of
linguistic, ethnic and cultural duality in Elam, later elaborated on by Pierre Amiet (1979b, 1979c), as briefly re-
viewed in Chapter 6. But other material from the Susa excavations proved difficult to correlate with the epigraphic
finds and the precise dating and cultural context of these early texts remained obscure for several decades.
Roman Ghirshman’s excavations at Sialk near Kashan were critical in establishing the archaeological and
chronological contexts of the Proto-Elamite tablets. In 1931 Ghirshman found a single Proto-Elamite tablet
along with six cylinder seals and pottery comparable to the Susa II style within a small structure on the south
mound. Additionally, adult and infant burials were found, and the whole assemblage defined as Sialk level IV,
as at Susa following a short sharp break after the preceding occupation in level III at Sialk (see below). Houses
of Late Chalcolithic Sialk III were abandoned, destroyed by fire and succeeded by a new architectural layout,
which Ghirshman (1954a: 47) saw as imposed by “brutal conquest” by incomers from Susa. In his comparative
studies Ghirshman (1934, 1939, 1954a) attempted to correlate the Proto-Elamite levels at Sialk, and by extension
at Susa, with the Jemdet Nasr assemblages excavated in Lower Mesopotamia at the site of Jemdet Nasr itself in
the mid-1920s (Langdon 1928; Matthews 2002c). Donald McCown (1949) coined the first archaeological, as
opposed to epigraphic, use of the term Proto-Elamite to characterise distinctive materials found at Tall-e Geser
(also known as Tal-i Ghazir).
For the next few decades the Proto-Elamite phenomenon was viewed through a Mesopotamian prism, a situ-
ation not helped by poor or inadequate publication of relevant excavations in Iran. Excavations at Tall-e Geser
(Caldwell 1968; Alizadeh 2014) and ongoing investigations at Susa added new material to the mix but did little
to clarify the nature of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon until the start of a new programme of research at Susa
from the late 1960s onwards. The soundings in Acropole I made headway in establishing a secure chronological
sequence at Susa, identifying a layer of ash and debris sealing level 17 (the end of Late Uruk/Late Susa II) before
the appearance of Proto-Elamite materials, now known as the Susa III period, which start in Acropole I level 16C
and continue until level 13 (Le Brun 1971, 1978; Steve and Gasche 1971).
The next major development in Proto-Elamite studies came with Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky’s excavations at
Tepe Yahya in the Soghun valley of south-eastern Iran, 900 km east of Susa, where level IVC provided
much relevant material including architecture, pottery, inscribed clay tablets and cylinder seals (see below;
Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970, 1971, 1972; Potts 2001; full final publication in Mutin 2013a). Lamberg-Karlovsky
continued, however, to view the excavated materials of Yahya IVC through the Jemdet Nasr prism, identifying
only the inscribed tablets as “Proto-Elamite” and the rest of the material culture as “unequivocally tied to Jemdet
Nasr Mesopotamia” (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975: 296; Abdi 2003a: 151). Later, Lamberg-Karlovsky (1978) pro-
posed the idea of a strong Proto-Elamite state developing in Susiana after the collapse of Late Uruk/Late Susa II
influence, with the establishment of colonial outposts, including scribes, at regional centres such as Tepe Yahya
and Tepe Sialk in order to control movement of valued materials and resources.
The significance of trade in underpinning the wide geographical spread of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon was
further elaborated in the stimulating work of John Alden (1973, 1982b), who postulated a role for Proto-Elamite
agents as “wholesalers” securing goods and materials from local producers on behalf of “retailers,” who procured
those goods from the wholesalers and passed them on to consumers. In other words, Proto-Elamite agents were
serving as intermediaries in a vast network of commodity movement and exchange reaching across the entire
Iranian plateau and with impact well beyond, on the premise that “political decisions made by ruling elites were at
least in some instances determined by economic motives and that these same decisions resulted in movements
of populations, ideas, and material goods across large areas of the Middle East” (Alden 1982b: 613). Fittingly in
this scenario, Alden and Minc’s (2016) more recent analysis of clays used in Proto-Elamite ceramics suggested a
role for itinerant potters in creating and sustaining technological connections across the Proto-Elamite world.
The finding in 1975 of a Proto-Elamite tablet and seals at Shahr-i Sokhta close to Afghanistan in Sistan further
emphasised the broad geographical scope of Proto-Elamite engagement (see below; Tosi 1976: 168; Biscione
et al. 1977; Amiet and Tosi 1978). In a classic article, Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi (1973) attempted to interpret
the emerging picture from their excavations at Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta within the framework of “interaction
spheres,” whereby various components of the archaeological record from sites and regions could be viewed as
indicative of shifting spheres or planes of interaction across geographical, political, economic, technological and
other relational domains (see also Mutin 2013a).
William Sumner’s survey of the Kur river basin in Fars distinguished material, pottery in particular, that
seemed to include Proto-Elamite attributes, and that was assigned to a period called Banesh after a village on the
edge of the Marvdasht plain (Sumner 1972; Abdi 2003a: 148). The survey was followed by a major programme of
excavations at Tal-i Malyan, the largest site of the region, which proved to be the Elamite capital city of Anshan
(Hansman 1972) and that yielded levels rich in Proto-Elamite materials, including inscribed tablets (see below;
Sumner 1974, 1976, 2003). A massive city wall was built around Malyan in the later Proto-Elamite period and
there is much evidence for craft production and administrative activity.
Drawing on this information, new syntheses of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon appeared through the late
1970s and 1980s, including major works by Alden (1982b), Amiet (1979b, 1979c), Carter (1984: 115–132); Lam-
berg-Karlovsky (1985, 1989, 1996), Dittmann (1986a, 1986b, 1987) and Sumner (1986a). Amiet in particular
stressed the highland orientation of the Proto-Elamites, proposing that the Uruk Mesopotamian episode of Late
Susa II times at Susa could be viewed as an interruption to a long sequence of largely indigenous socio-cultural devel-
opment. Amiet (1979b, 1979c) saw the Proto-Elamites as heirs to the Susa I tradition of Susiana who re-established
their supremacy over Khuzestan and Luristan after the collapse of Late Uruk influence at about 3200 BC before
spreading their impact across the Iranian plateau. Amiet also attributed the collapse of the Proto-Elamite state, as
he saw it, to another round of military conquest by Mesopotamians from the west. Sumner’s (1986a) interpreta-
tion, by contrast, connected the rise of the Proto-Elamite state to local developments in Fars, and in particular
to the rise to power of pastoral nomadic groups who came to dominate local villages and to establish themselves
in tribal bases of which Malyan became the supreme example. More recently, new syntheses and interpretations
of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon have been assayed, either starting from detailed analysis of important sites such
as Tepe Yahya (Mutin 2013a) or reviewing the evidence for particular material attributes such as seals (Pittman
1994) or inscribed clay tablets (Desset 2012, 2016; Dahl et al. 2013). Excavations by Iranian archaeologists at a
number of important Proto-Elamite sites, including Senjar in Susiana (Sardari and Attarpour 2019), Sofalin
and Shoghali on the Reyy Plain near Tehran (Hessari and Yousefi Zoshk 2013) and Qoli Darvish near Qom
(Sarlak 2011; Alizadeh et al. 2013b) have contributed significant new evidence regarding the extent and nature of
the Proto-Elamite cultural phenomenon.
As Kamyar Abdi (2003a: 150, 2012: 24) neatly summarises, the term “Proto-Elamite” has been applied to a
range of material and associational attributes: to a special type of inscribed clay tablet and to its script, to a glyp-
tic style and to a variety of material associated with such finds including pottery. We follow here Abdi’s (2003a:
150) suggestion in using the phrase “Proto-Elamite horizon’ to describe the phenomenon (his other term, “Pro-
to-Elamite sphere,” is also apposite - Abdi 2012: 24), characterised by an assemblage of material culture traits
that includes tablets, seals and seal impressions, at least, which may occur in a range of otherwise locally-situated
material culture assemblages depending on geographical location.
Proto-Elamite chronology: a thorny but important issue

The chronology of the Proto-Elamite horizon has been much debated, generally on the basis of inadequate num-
bers of, or insufficiently accurate, radiocarbon dates. While recent reviews tend to situate Proto-Elamite sites
within a time range of approximately 3200–2800 BC (Wright and Rupley 2001; Mutin 2013a: 7; Petrie
2013b; Pollard et al. 2013; Alden and Petrie 2015), we note Jacob Dahl’s (2019: 56) view that the Proto-Elamite
script, a fundamental attribute of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon, was in use for only some 200 years between
3100–2900 BC (or “within the span of a small number of scribal generations” Dahl et al. 2013: 375), thus contem-
porary with much of the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I periods in Lower Mesopotamia, the Early Ninevite 5
period in Upper Mesopotamia and, most significantly, with some of the Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) as
attested across north-western and western Iran and fully explored in Chapter 8. Proposals that the earliest phases
of the Proto-Elamite horizon overlap with the Late Uruk/Late Susa II period in Lower Mesopotamia and Susiana
(Helwing 2011a: 219; Desset 2014a, 2016; Petrie 2014: 150) are not denied, or confirmed, by the available radi-
ocarbon dates, either from Uruk or from Proto-Elamite sites, although at Susa at least the transition from one
period to the other is abrupt and marked by a (short?) hiatus (see below). A key issue is the potentially variable
chronologies of differing cultural attributes of the Proto-Elamite world. Thus, while it seems clear that some ex-
cavated Proto-Elamite ceramic assemblages, as at Arisman Area C (Helwing 2011a), chronologically overlap with
Uruk/Late Susa II assemblages elsewhere, the evidence for an overlap of Proto-Elamite texts with Mesopotamian
proto-cuneiform texts of pre-Uruk III (= pre-Jemdet Nasr) date is less convincing, in particular in view of the
Susa evidence discussed below (but see Desset 2016).
While radiocarbon dates from Malyan on samples recovered in association with Proto-Elamite tablets allow for
the possibility of a start date of 3300 BC (or 3100 BC) for the Proto-Elamite phenomenon (Desset 2016: Figure
26), the plateau in the calibration curve spanning 3400 to 2900 BC makes further precision elusive (Dahl et al.
2013: 363–365; Petrie 2014). The dating issue is important because the current brackets of uncertainty allow for
two differing scenarios: (1). Proto-Elamite writing developed independently of, and coterminously with, Uruk
IV proto-cuneiform writing as attested exclusively at Uruk in Lower Mesopotamia, an argument astutely artic-
ulated by François Desset (2016), and (2). Proto-Elamite writing is later than Uruk IV proto-cuneiform and is to
some extent derivative from it in various structural and functional ways, an interpretation that can fairly be called
the received wisdom (most recently, Dahl in press). In order to address this and many other issues, let us now turn
to examine the material evidence itself, beginning with the ever-important site of Susa.
Susa in the Susa IIIA period: disjunction and continuity

Following the collapse at c. 3200 BC of its episode of Mesopotamian engagement, Susa entered a period of
renewed connections with highland elements. But the precise role of Susa in the generation and dissemination
of the Proto-Elamite horizon is a subject of considerable debate. Some authorities argue that, in Amiet’s words,
“Susa was annexed by Anshan” (Amiet 1992: 4, 1993: 25, where Anshan = Tal-i Malyan in Fars) while others,
notably Daniel Potts, contend that “the notion of Tal-i Malyan literally annexing Susa must be rejected out of
hand” (Potts 2016: 77). What is the basis of these conflicting views and how can they be reconciled, if at all?
Amiet’s argument appears to relate to the fact that Susa was much smaller than Tal-i Malyan/Anshan at c. 3000
BC, and to the highland origins of many elements of Susa III material culture. Despite its smaller size, Amiet sees
a role for Susa in contributing to the formation and distribution of “the new civilization” as he calls it, because
of Susa’s long-standing significance in cultural development in Khuzestan and beyond (Amiet 1992: 4). Potts’
argument stresses the evidence for cultural and administrative vitality at Susa in the Susa III period, attested in
the large quantities and volumes of animals and agricultural produce recorded in the Susa Proto-Elamite texts,
much larger than those recorded in contemporary texts from highland sites (Potts 2016: 77).
What, then, does the Proto-Elamite evidence from Susa tell us about the nature of the site during Susa III? Al-
den (1982b: 617–618, 1987: 157) estimated that occupation at Susa shrank from c. 25 ha in the Late Uruk-related
Susa II period (Chapter 6) to 10–11 ha in the Proto-Elamite Susa IIIA period, but Schacht (1987) and Dittmann
(1987) estimate Susa to have occupation over some 30 ha at this time, at least as extensive as during the Susa II
period (Zalaghi 2019). As mentioned above, at Susa a layer of ash and debris, termed level 17A by the excavator
(Le Brun 1971: 210–211; Petrie 2014: Figure 9.2), seals the buildings of level 17B in the Acropole I sounding at
Susa. The 17B buildings appear to have been allowed to stand and decay for an unknown length of time prior to
their levelling and filling with debris and ash (Dyson 1987: 648), which suggests an episode of abandonment at
least of this part of Susa at the very end of the Late Uruk/Late Susa II period. This hiatus has been dubbed Susa
Acropole I level 17X, and matches in time with evidence for the final collapse and abandonment of the haute ter-
rasse at Susa (Steve and Gasche 1971: 10; Canal 1978a: 50; Carter 1984: 117; Dyson 1987: 649), as well as with the
complete abandonment of Chogha Mish which, unlike Susa, was not re-occupied in the Proto-Elamite period
(Alizadeh 2008: 24). Robert Dyson designates the period of time represented by the Susa 17X hiatus as “Pro-
to-Elamite transitional” and, on the basis of radiocarbon dates from Tepe Hissar and Godin Tepe, he dates this
episode to a range of 3350–3140 BC (Dyson 1987: 650; Mutin 2013a: 8). Also on the Acropole there is evidence
for a Susa IIIA addition to the northern edge of the Susa A platform (Chapter 6) in the form of a substantial wall
or reconstructed facade of Riemchen brick (rectangular bricks, with square cross-section), which may indicate on-
going influence at Susa from Lower Mesopotamia after the Late Uruk collapse, as Riemchen bricks are distinctive
of Late Uruk/Jemdet Nasr architecture (Alden 1987: 158).
Further Proto-Elamite materials, including ceramics, seals and sealings, an uninscribed tablet with lion seal
impression and a well-furnished human burial come from the Ville Royal I excavations at Susa (Carter 1980).
Dittmann’s intricate analysis of the Susa material suggests that the initial Proto-Elamite settlement at Susa was
restricted to the Acropole mound, with expansion across almost the whole site in the later phases of the Susa III
period (Dittmann 1986a: 183, 1986b: 347, 1987). Proto-Elamite materials continue to occur until Acropole I
levels 14A-13, Susa IIIB and IIIC (Carter 1978, 1980), but mixed with increasing quantities of ceramics with Early
Dynastic I Mesopotamian parallels (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 133).
Several authors have stated that the new buildings at Susa of level 16 have a different orientation from those of
level 17B on top of which they stand (Dyson 1987: 648; Mutin 2013a: 21), but comparison of the architectural
plans for levels 18, 17B and 16C (Figure 7.3) clearly shows continuity in building orientation even if level 16C is
separated from level 17B by layers of debris and baked brick paving, as is clear from the Acropole I section draw-
ing (Figure 7.4). Pittman (1994: 90, fn 51) points to similarities in the architectural layout of Susa Acropole I levels
16–15B with those of Godin Tepe VI:1 (Chapter 6) and Building level III, room 2, at Malyan, with use of double
doors and the location of hearths along the long wall of each room, an idea elaborated by Desset (2014). Other
clear distinctions in the level 16 material at Susa are an almost completely new ceramic assemblage showing strong
connections to the Middle Banesh material of Malyan and Fars (Le Brun 1978; Dittmann 1986a; Dyson 1987:
648; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 133; Sumner 2011), and of course the appearance of texts written in a new script,
Proto-Elamite, along with the use of new styles in glyptic and small-scale sculpture in the round (Dittmann
1986b; Pittman 1992b). These are all major changes in direction of the material culture of Susa in the late fourth
millennium BC, although Pittman (2013b: 327) points to a notable increase in depictions of animals on seals
and seal impressions from Susa Acropole I level 17 as a precursor to the dominance of animals in Proto-Elamite
glyptic of level 16. Other indications of continuity from Late Susa II into Susa III include the ongoing use of bev-
elled-rim bowls and low-sided trays at Susa and at other Proto-Elamite sites across the plateau, including Malyan
(Nicholas 1987), suggesting a continued consumption of, perhaps, leavened bread baked in bevelled-rim bowls
Figure 7.3 Susa, plans of architecture in Acropole I levels 18, 17B and 16C (after Dahl et al. 2013: Figure 18.3).
Figure 7.4 Susa, Acropole I stratigraphic section (after Dahl et al. 2013: Figure 18.2).
(Potts 2009), a type of flat bread baked in low-sided trays (Mutin 2013a: 192), and other cuisine associated with
the spread of Uruk/Late Susa II influence in the immediately preceding centuries.
But those ceramic forms exclusive to the Jemdet Nasr period as excavated at Mesopotamian sites such as Jemdet
Nasr, Uqair, Uruk, Ur, Nippur, Fara and Khafajah, including solid stands, cut-rim conical bowls, single-lugged
round-based jars, and other specific forms of jars (Matthews 1992: 17), are not found in the Proto-Elamite levels
at Susa (pace Álvarez-Mon 2020: 75). The introduction of Jemdet Nasr phraseology into Iranian archaeology has
not been helpful. The problem is that the 1920s excavations at Jemdet Nasr, poorly conducted and published even
by the standards of the times, unwittingly recovered ceramics and other materials spanning several centuries of
the later fourth and early third millennia BC, i.e. including the Late Uruk, Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I pe-
riods. These mixed assemblages have been misleadingly used as comparanda in assigning Iranian materials to the
Jemdet Nasr period. Stratigraphically controlled excavations at Jemdet Nasr in the 1980s (Matthews 1989, 1990)
recovered ceramics and other artefacts from each of the episodes of occupation at the site and began to define
ceramic attributes unique to the Jemdet Nasr period, which is likely to have lasted only 100–150 years (Matthews
1992, 2002c). This work also enabled the definition of the geographic extent of truly Jemdet Nasr material cul-
ture that is restricted to sites in the Lower Diyala and Hamrin regions of eastern Iraq and the plains of Lower
Mesopotamia southwards from Baghdad. Assemblages from Iranian sites cited as “Jemdet Nasr” or “Uruk-Jemdet
Nasr,” as at Susa (Steve and Gasche 1971: pls 26–33, 83–85) or Tepe Yahya (see below), do not include any of the
ceramic or other artefactual forms unique to the Jemdet Nasr period, and attest either ongoing Uruk/Late Susa
II or nascent Early Dynastic I connections, a point meticulously arrived at in Benjamin Mutin’s (2013a: 82–83)
superb publication of ceramics from Yahya level IVC, as discussed below. The absence of true Jemdet Nasr ma-
terials from Iranian sites suggests a significant break in Lower Mesopotamia-Susiana relations at this point, prior
to and including the Jemdet Nasr period and coterminous with at least part of the Proto-Elamite horizon, fitting
with the major reorientation of cultural alignment otherwise so evident at Susa and beyond.
Outside Susa, occupation of much of the Susiana plain was also at a minimum during the Susa III period. John
Alden (1987: 159; Zalaghi 2019) reports some 30 sites with Susa III material but the majority are small and with
only a few sherds diagnostic of Susa III. Alden (1987: 160) summarises the human occupation of the Susiana plain
in the Susa III period thus: “The settled population of the Susiana Plain was very small in size and concentrated
in a single small town [i.e. Susa]. Most of the other sites were small and were either occupied for brief periods or
visited only sporadically.” Furthermore, Alden (1987: 161) suggests that the late fourth millennium BC decline
in population across the Susiana plain can be accounted for by migration of Susiana people, both westwards into
Lower Mesopotamia during the Middle and Late Uruk periods and eastwards into Fars and highland Iran dur-
ing the Late Uruk/Late Susa II and Susa III periods. An explanation for these large-scale population movements
needs to address possible socio-political causes, which are likely to comprise an atmosphere of conflict and in-
stability existing between the Proto-Elamite state, if state it were, and its increasingly powerful Mesopotamian
neighbours to the west (see Chapter 10 for more on third millennium BC Iran-Mesopotamia interactions).
Writing and sealing at Susa in the Susa IIIA period

Proto-Elamite is unique among the earliest Near Eastern scripts in that it disappeared without leaving behind
a successor script. This fact has influenced attempts at decipherment. Proto-Elamite therefore represents a
unique case of early derived script invention, autonomous development, and sudden abandonment of writ-
ing, with great potential for the study of the mechanisms behind the invention, early use of, diffusion and,
ultimately, death of writing systems.
(Dahl 2019: 56)
These eloquent words from a scholar leading the attempt to decipher one of the ancient world’s last undeciphered,
and earliest, written scripts neatly set out the significance of the Proto-Elamite script for the study of issues of
broader relevance, all of which we consider in our discussions below.
A total of c. 1560 clay tablets and tablet fragments of Proto-Elamite type, also known as Susa III texts, have
been found in excavations in the Acropole I sounding and, to a much lesser extent, in the Ville Royale sounding
at Susa (Potts 1999: 74, 2016: 68; Englund 2004: 143; Dahl 2009: 24, 2012, 2019; Dahl et al. 2013). The Susa
assemblage of texts is by far the largest text corpus from any Proto-Elamite site: all other assemblages added to-
gether comprise fewer than 100 texts (Figure 7.2) (Potts 1999: 81; Desset 2016: 69; Dahl 2019: 61). The major
concern with the Susa Proto-Elamite texts is the fact that the vast majority of them were found in early twenti-
eth-century excavations, which failed to identify and record their archaeological contexts with precision (Dahl
2005b, 2013: 235). Scheil’s (1923: i) statement that many of the Susa Proto-Elamite tablets were found in large lots
might indicate that they formed coherent groups of texts, even archives, at least until the moment when they were
excavated and their contexts and associations were destroyed forever. In fact, only 23 Proto-Elamite texts were
found during the 1970s excavations at Susa – all the others come from the early twentieth century excavations
(Dahl 2012: 8). Assemblages of texts from other sites, such as Malyan and Yahya, fare much better in that regard
(Damerow and Englund 1989).
Any attempt to interpret the Proto-Elamite texts, let alone to decipher their language, has to start and end with
the Susa corpus (much of which can be directly viewed at the excellent resource: https://cdli.ucla.edu/collections/
nmi/nmi_en.html, and see Dahl 2019). We know that Proto-Elamite texts are to be read from right to left, start-
ing at the top of the obverse of the tablet and continuing onto the reverse. The obverse of a text usually comprises
a series of entries while the reverse often provides a summation of those entries (Stolper 1992a: 77–78), as with
proto-cuneiform texts from Uruk (Damerow and Englund 1989: 12). As a note, we strongly feel that all Pro-
to-Elamite texts, and indeed all proto-cuneiform texts, should be portrayed in publications with their original
orientation, as depicted here (Figure 7.5). We eschew the Assyriological convention which rotates all early texts,
including Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform ones (Dahl 2012: 4), by 90 degrees counter-clockwise in order to
align them with Akkadian texts of much later periods when indeed their orientation had changed. Inappropriate
reorientation of the early texts obscures the vertical symmetry of many early signs, turns cylinder seal scenes onto
their sides, and ruins the structural logic and visual impact that early texts clearly would have had for the scribes
and for text readers, including us today (for further discussion of this point, see Damerow and Englund 1989:
11, fn 30). We can also see that almost all Proto-Elamite texts contain sequences of number signs, many of them
comparable to those in Uruk IV/Late Susa II texts (see below), and therefore are mainly concerned with counting
and recording things. In fact, only two Proto-Elamite texts, both from Susa, appear to be metro-mathematical
school texts (Dahl 2009: 24).
Thus, while only moderate progress has been made in decoding the substantive meaning of the Proto-Elamite
script, and no proof of a connection to later Old Elamite script has been established, major steps have been taken
Figure 7.5 P
roto-Elamite tablets from Susa (MDP 26S 4774, MDP 26S 4783, MDP 26S 4802) (after Dahl 2012: Figure 4).
in establishing the texts’ role as exclusively administrative documents and in demonstrating that most of the nu-
merical systems employed in the Proto-Elamite texts “were either identical to or else derived from the systems
found in the proto-cuneiform texts from Uruk” (Potts 1999: 75). Key stages in this realisation were developed by
the mathematician Jöran Friberg (1978), by Peter Damerow and Robert Englund (1989; Englund 2004) and elab-
orated by Jacob Dahl (2019). Furthermore, at least one of the Proto-Elamite counting systems, the grain capacity
system, was already in use on numerical tablets at Susa in Late Susa II times (Desset 2016: Figure 27). Like the
bevelled-rim bowls and the low-sided trays, the continued use of certain numerical systems from Susa II into Susa
III indicates a continuity of socio-cultural practice in the face of dramatic change in many other aspects of life.
An alternative proposal by François Desset (2012: 74–79, 2016: 76) is that the many points of similarity between
proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite numerical systems are due solely to their shared derivation from a common
ancestor, namely the numerical and numero-ideographic tablets found at Susa, Godin Tepe, Tepe Hissar and a
range of other sites (Chapter 6). In fact, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive as Proto-Elamite scribes
could have incorporated knowledge from both the numero-ideographic and proto-cuneiform traditions at the
same time. As discussed above, however, the absolute chronology of this period allows for both the independent
development of Proto-Elamite writing in concert with proto-cuneiform and for the structural derivation of one
from the other. But the archaeological materials associated separately with proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite
tablets, in the form of ceramic and glyptic assemblages (Dahl et al. 2013: 364), argue for the chronological pri-
macy of Uruk IV proto-cuneiform writing, and for the contemporaneity of Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr proto-cuneiform
writing with Proto-Elamite writing at precisely the time when the ceramics and the glyptic iconographies from
Lower Mesopotamia and Proto-Elamite Iran take distinctly divergent paths.
Overall, seven categories of counting system are attested on the Susa Proto-Elamite texts, in contrast to 13 nu-
merical systems attested in proto-cuneiform texts at Uruk: sexagesimal system S (for recording a range of discrete
inanimate objects); a decimal system D (for recording low-status animate objects including domesticated animals
and human labourers/slaves); bisexagesimal system B (for recording grain products possibly dispensed as rations);
bisexagesimal system B# (for recording rations of an unclear nature); capacity system C (for recording capacity
measures of grain, barley in particular); capacity system C# (for recording unclear items); capacity system C” (for
recording capacity measures of emmer wheat) (Figure 7.6) (Damerow and Englund 1989: 22–28; Englund 2004;
Chrisomalis 2010: 239–241; Dahl 2013: 247–248, 2019: Figure 9; Desset 2016: 76–78). Of these broad categories,
only the decimal system is not found in contemporary proto-cuneiform texts of Lower Mesopotamia of so-called
Uruk III type, as attested at sites such as Uruk and Jemdet Nasr at c. 3100 BC (Damerow and Englund 1989: 24;
Englund and Grégoire 1991). Damerow and Englund (1989: 28) argue that the Proto-Elamite decimal system
was a later addition to a suite of counting systems that were otherwise adopted and adapted from the pre-existing
proto-cuneiform tradition of Late Uruk/Late Susa II times. There is also a suggestion of a simple time notation
system attested on the edges of Proto-Elamite texts (Dahl 2013: 245), and there are corner marks on several texts
that may relate to how the tablets were stored and catalogued (Dahl 2012: 8).
Looking at the individual signs utilised by Proto-Elamite scribes, there are some 1,900 discrete signs built
around c. 500 basic forms, several of which have clear proto-cuneiform ancestry (Glassner 2018: Figure 22.2).
As Englund notes (2004: 140), however, more than 1,000 of the 1,900 signs are attested only once (hapaxes or
Figure 7.6 Numerical systems in Proto-Elamite texts (after Dahl 2019: Figure 9).
“singletons”) and another 300 of them only twice in the entire Proto-Elamite corpus, which leaves c. 600 core
signs that occur three or more times in the corpus. Only 16 signs occur more than 100 times each (Figure 7.7)
(Dahl 2002, 2005a). The signs doubtless comprise a mix of ideograms (concepts), logograms (words) and syllabo-
grams (syllables). All these attributes indicate that the Proto-Elamite script did not exist long enough for a rigor-
ous scribal tradition to develop, a critical factor in its failure to survive the political collapse of the Proto-Elamite
world. They also suggest that the Proto-Elamite texts served principally as “mnemonic devices” circulating
within a restricted cadre of scribes or individuals (Dahl 2019: 67).
More significant than the question of whether the Proto-Elamite practice of writing was indigenously developed
at Susa, in highland Iran, or derived from Lower Mesopotamian precursors, or a mix of all the above, is what the
widespread evidence for such a practice tells us about Proto-Elamite society and administration. The fact that several
of the Susa III texts from Susa deal with extremely large quantities of animals, 23,600 individual animals in one text,
and with large volumes of grain, 17,100 units in one text, suggests that Susa played a key role in the organisation
and administration of the rural economy. Another text records a total of at least 1,774 slaves or low-grade workers,
male and female (Damerow and Englund 1989: 57, fn 157), which gives some indication of the labour pool at Susa’s
disposal. It is hard to associate this evidence with suggestions of a decline in importance for Susa in the Proto-Elamite
horizon. John Alden, for example, has described Susa in the Susa III period as a “port-of-trade, a weak but inde-
pendent location where highland resources were exchanged for the products of Sumerian society” (Alden 1982b:
624), a development of his view of Proto-Elamite communities as “wholesalers” and intermediaries in networks
of economic interaction (Alden 1973). Against Alden’s argument is the stark fact that the Susa III texts, from Susa
and from other Proto-Elamite sites across Iran, do not appear to make any mention of exploitable resources of the
Figure 7.7 Most commonly occurring Proto-Elamite signs (after Dahl 2002: Table 3).
highland zone such as metals and semi-precious or precious stones (Damerow and Englund 1989: 63). Where we
understand them, the Proto-Elamite texts relate to the administration of rural production, utilising counting and
measuring systems that had been worked out for exactly this purpose in the immediately preceding centuries at
Uruk and associated sites of the Late Chalcolithic, including Susa. In Alden’s argument we would expect exotic
resources to feature in the Susa III texts (and indeed in the Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr texts of Lower Mesopotamia), but
they stay stubbornly silent in this regard (Dahl 2013: 252). A further point in favour of a unique role for Susa in the
development of Proto-Elamite identity is the fact that the earliest type of Proto-Elamite tablets, clumsily written
and with basic entries, are found at Susa and, in much smaller quantities, at Sofalin and Sialk (plus a single possibly
early text, but out of stratigraphic context, from Tall-e Geser) (Dahl 2013: 251; Dahl et al. 2013: 365–366; Alizadeh
2014: 45), which strongly foregrounds Susa as the locus of first experimentation with the Proto-Elamite script.
In a useful table based on the work of Damerow and Englund (1989), Daniel Potts (1999: Table 3.2; see also
Dahl 2013: 243, 2018: 384) has summarised the points of similarity and difference between Susa III/Proto-Elam-
ite texts and contemporary Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr texts from Lower Mesopotamia. Similarities include: the
general shape and size of the clay tablets; the sealing-writing sequence (see below); the practice of inscribing
numerical entries on the obverse and summations on the reverse faces of tablets; elements of the semantic textual
structure; and multiple aspects of the numerical systems, as discussed above. Differences include: the techniques
of “text wrapping” from obverse to reverse face; the use of a decimal system in Susa III and other aspects of
counting; the placement in the text of signs representing objects or commodities being counted (after number
signs in Mesopotamia, before number signs in Proto-Elamite); the fact that Susa III ideograms are generally more
abstract than those employed in Uruk III proto-cuneiform texts; and the dearth of lexical or “school” texts in
the Proto-Elamite corpora. We can add a further significant difference: whereas the interpretation of Uruk III/
Jemdet Nasr texts has been furthered through graphic and structural comparison with later Mesopotamian texts,
of the Early Dynastic and later periods, the lack of an established connection between the Proto-Elamite script
and the Old Elamite script of the later third and early second millennia BC has negated any value in using the
later texts as points of entry for an understanding of the early texts (Dahl 2019: 66). As Damerow and Englund
put it: “a determination of any genetic relationship between Old Elamite and the language possibly represented
by the proto-elamite texts seems to us at present impossible” (Damerow and Englund 1989: 5).
The workings of Proto-Elamite texts have been much clarified in recent years thanks to the pioneering re-
search of Damerow and Englund (1989), Jacob Dahl (2009, 2013, 2018; Dahl et al. 2013) and François Desset
(2012, 2016). Most texts begin on the obverse with a single sign that probably serves as a header, giving the name
of the “household” involved, followed by a sequence of entries, which are usually summed on the reverse. The
semantical structure of Proto-Elamite texts is depicted in Figure 7.8. Dahl (2013: 247, 2019) discerns four catego-
ries of signs in Proto-Elamite texts: those adapted from Mesopotamian proto-cuneiform, including number signs
(Figure 7.9) (Desset 2016: Figure 6); those depicting natural objects such as plants and animals; those depicting
cultural objects such as vessels, standards and yokes; and those that appear to be completely abstract. The fringed
or “hairy triangle” sign (M136), which occurs as both a written sign and a glyptic motif, is believed to stand for
“household” or “institution” (Damerow and Englund 1989: 16), and always occurs as a frame for other signs that
are seen as specifying a particular household or owner relevant to the text in question (Figure 7.10) (Dahl 2013:
Figure 7.8 S emantical structure of Proto-Elamite texts (after Damerow and Englund 1989: Figure 7).
Figure 7.9 Graphical correspondences between proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite signs and their counting systems (after Desset
2016: Figure 6).
Figure 7.10 P
roto-Elamite sign M136 (“hairy triangle”) and its variants (after Dahl 2019: Figure 11).
249, 2019: Figure 11; Dahl et al. 2013: 367). Lamberg-Karlovsky (1986) has suggested that the hairy triangle in
one of its variants signifies the ruler of Susa, and Dahl (2013: 249, 2019: 81) proposes that the sign is a representa-
tion of the ruler’s standard. We recall here the significance of “spade-headed” standards in the glyptic art of Susa
in both the Susa I and Susa II periods (Chapter 6), which could be viewed as direct ancestors of the hairy triangle
motif of Susa III. A chunky cross symbol is also often inscribed in a position on the text to suggest a significance
comparable to that of the fringed triangle (see below).
The Proto-Elamite texts from Susa, and from all other sites, deal mainly with a range of agricultural produce,
with animals themselves, with human labour, probably in the form of slaves, with field accounts and with cereal
production (Dahl et al. 2013: 365; Dahl 2015, 2018, 2019; Desset 2016; Kelley 2018). Many texts appear to deal
with the issue of rations of grain to low-status workers who are organised into work-gangs with overseers and
administrators (Dahl 2013: 253–254; Dahl et al. 2018). Sheep and goat appear to figure prominently in Pro-
to-Elamite texts (Figure 7.11) (Dahl 2005b, 2009, 2015; but see doubts in Desset 2016: 74–75), in accordance
with their strong representation in the zooarchaeological record, where it exists (Zeder 1991). Dried cheese and
clarified butter from both goat and sheep are frequently counted in the texts. Cows and pigs do not seem to
feature, but one Susa text suggests herding of equids of unknown type (Dahl 2013: 255). A single Susa text prob-
ably deals with wild animals, listing 23,600 specimens of what may be gazelle (Dahl 2013: 255–256). Evolution
in the shape and content of Proto-Elamite texts can be traced at Susa, with later texts generally having longer
strings of signs, suggesting increasingly complex content (Dahl 2012: 3–4). According to Dahl et al. (2013:
Figure 18.17), the Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa span the duration of the Proto-Elamite horizon, from early
(Acropole I 17 AX) to terminal (Acropole I 14B). Only the texts from Tepe Sofalin (see below) match those of
Susa in covering this timespan.
Especially notable amongst the finds from Susa in Acropole I levels 16A to 14B, and equivalent levels of the
Susa IIIA period, are large quantities of seal impressions, many on the clay tablets discussed above and others on
clay sealings (Figure 7.12) (Legrain 1921; Amiet 1972; Pittman 1992b; Piran 2013; Ascalone 2018; Dahl 2019:
90–93; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 62–69) as well as actual seals. In all, some 625 different Proto-Elamite seal images
have been identified at Susa (Pittman 1994: 79, 1997: 140; in press), a major indication of the numbers of people
or offices involved in some kind of bureaucratic activity at Susa through the short duration of the Susa IIIA period
and therefore also of the importance of Susa. Of the 625 images, c. 50% are in Pittman’s classic figural style, 40%
in the glazed steatite style and the remaining 10% in wheel-cut and incised styles (Pittman 1994: 79). There is a
striking shift away from the representation of human beings, so lavishly depicted in Late Uruk/Late Susa II glyp-
tic (Chapter 6), toward the representation of animals on cylinder seal scenes, in particular wild goats and sheep,
lions and bulls (Dittmann 1986b: 348; Amiet 1992: 4–5; Pittman 1992b: 71–77), as well as occasional fantastical
creatures as on “Seal 329” (Dahl 2012: Figure 4). In keeping with their absence from both the Proto-Elamite tex-
tual record (Dahl 2015) and archaeological record (Mashkour 2006b), pigs are not represented in Proto-Elamite
glyptic (Dahl 2019: 91), surely a significant absence to which we return later.
We note here that a similar shift from human to animal representation characterises the change from Late
Chalcolithic to Ninevite 5 glyptic across Upper Mesopotamia at approximately the same time as the Late Susa
II-Proto-Elamite transition in Iran (Matthews 1998). Furthermore, Jacob Dahl (2013: 246, 2014, 2019: 79; see
also Herrenschmidt 2000: 78) has noted that, in contrast to the proto-cuneiform system, no Proto-Elamite writ-
ten signs are based on parts of the human body, except for the two Mesopotamian-origin signs SAL and KURa
(M72 and M388 in the Proto-Elamite sign list), which in the proto-cuneiform tradition represent female and
male genitalia and came to stand for “female slave” and “male slave,” respectively (Damerow and Englund 1989:
57; Englund 2009). The lack of reference to the human body in Proto-Elamite art, including glyptic, sculpture
and written signary, suggests a deliberate prohibition, probably ideologically situated, of portrayal of the human
Figure 7.11 Proto-Elamite signs representing sheep and goat (after Dahl 2019: Figure 10).
Figure 7.12 Proto-Elamite seals and seal impressions (SB4832; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck
Raux; SB2801; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux; SB1484; photo credit: © RMN-
Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry Ollivier; SB6166; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/
Thierry Ollivier; SB2675; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Thierry Ollivier).
form. With the resurgence of Mesopotamian, i.e. Sumerian, influence on Susa in the mid-third millennium BC,
human beings once more reappear as major components of glyptic scenes (Amiet 1992: 6).
Proto-Elamite cylinder seals and seal impressions from Susa show great vitality in subject matter and in execu-
tion. Seal cutters made good use of the bow drill and graver to create lively scenes, including animals in files, in
opposed pairs and in formally arranged heraldic scenes (Pittman 1992b). Lions and bulls are frequently portrayed
together, usually in conflict with each other. Design elements interpreted as representing landscapes, such as
mountains, trees and flowers, may equally serve as referents to signs employed on Proto-Elamite texts (Pittman
1992b: 70). A further device is that of metonymy where a part of an animal is depicted as a referent for the whole
creature, a device commonly in use in signs of the Proto-Elamite script as well as of its cousin in Mesopotamia,
proto-cuneiform. Uses of the chunky cross symbol and the distinctive fringed triangle motif in Proto-Elamite
glyptic are matched by signs employed on Proto-Elamite texts. An especially striking example is illustrated in
Pittman (1992b: 75; Potts 1999: pl. 3.5) (Figure 7.12: top right) where both the inscribed text, neatly confined
to the tablet edges, and the cylinder seal impression, the so-called “ruler of Susa’s seal” (Dahl 2012: 9), carefully
rolled across the middle of the tablet, contain vivid depictions of the fringed triangle. The chunky cross sym-
bol features as a motif on cylinder seals (Dittmann 1986b: Figure 12.5; Pittman 1994: Figure 21), as an integral
component of a wall painting on plaster in area ABC at Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 1976: pl. IId; see below), and as an
inscribed Proto-Elamite sign (M327) on multiple tablets (Dahl 2012: 10). In this last capacity, the chunky cross
sign always appears in a header position on tablets so as to betoken an owner of some kind, whether household,
office, or individual (Dahl 2012: 10). Other texts, which appear to be later in the Proto-Elamite horizon, have
deliberate markings incised into the clay in the places where we would expect to see a seal impression. Such marks
include interlocking angular and rectilinear shapes, occurring on about 60 texts from Susa, almost all of them
from the very last phase of Proto-Elamite writing (Dahl 2012: Figure 2).
On Proto-Elamite glyptic, animals are often portrayed adopting human postures and carrying out human ac-
tivities, in scenes that appear at times “frankly humorous” and at other times “deeply imbued with spiritual force”
(Root 2002a: 181). It is likely that many of these scenes refer to specific myths, legends and religious narratives that
are otherwise lost to us. As discussed in preceding chapters, animals feature prominently in Iranian art throughout
prehistory and history, an attribute singled out by Margaret Cool Root (2002a: 169) as “one overarching theme
that imposes a remarkable hallmark unity upon ancient Iranian creativity in the visual arts. It is a veritable reveling
in the decorative potentials of animal forms and the richly textured valences of their symbolism.” Holly Pittman
(2013b: 299) has pointed out that the practice of portraying animals in human poses dates back to the Middle
Uruk/Middle Susa II phase at Susa, and may be seen as a distinctly Iranian or Elamite characteristic, as attested, for
example, on a Neo-Elamite seal from Susa dating some 2,000 years after the collapse of the Proto-Elamite world
(Chapter 11). Rare small-scale sculptures of stone and metal augment these themes (Álvarez-Mon 2020: 69–71).
Unique to Proto-Elamite glyptic is the widespread use of a soft, light greenish stone called heulandite, gen-
erally for seals displaying figural scenes (Amiet 1983: 204; Pittman 1992b: 70). X-ray diffraction analysis of
Proto-Elamite cylinder seals from Susa and Shahr-i Sokhta (Lahanier 1976) and of an unprovenanced seal in the
British Museum (Sax and Middleton 1989) identified the seal stone as a volcanic tuff that could have been sourced
from a range of locations across upland Iran, including in the vicinities of Sialk and Tepe Yahya. The find of two
heulandite “beads” at Tepe Yahya is discussed below in this connection. Bitumen compound and white limestone
are also used for Proto-Elamite cylinder seals.
In keeping with Uruk/Late Susa II practice, in Mesopotamia and Iran, where we can see the relationship, the
cylinder seal was rolled across the soft clay surface of Proto-Elamite tablets prior to inscription of the written
text – we can see where the stylus cuts across the low relief of the seal impression wherever the two intersect.
This sequence suggests that the seal was employed as a letterhead or general designation of authority rather than
as a signature and confirmation of the specific content of each text (Matthews 1993: 24–25). There are no obvi-
ous correlations between the content of sealed tablets and the iconography of their seal impressions, beyond the
occurrence of goat depictions on seal impressions on some texts dealing with animal management (Dahl 2012:
6). It is also notable, and in step with evolving sealing-writing practices in Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr Mesopotamia,
that the frequency of using seals on written texts declines in the Susa III period as compared to the preceding
Late Susa II period (pace Dahl 2013: 246). Thus, of 44 published Late Susa II numerical tablets from Susa (Vallat
1971: 235, 1973: 103; Le Brun 1971: 179; Le Brun and Vallat 1978: 11), at least 27, or 61%, bear seal impressions.
Of 1,543 published Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa (Scheil 1900, 1905, 1923, 1935; de Mecquenem 1949; Vallat
1971: 235; Dahl 2019), only 275, or 18%, have seal impressions (Pittman 1994: 226), a major fall in sealing fre-
quency compared to the Late Susa II texts (Matthews 1993: 27). The frequency of sealing on the < 100 non-Susa
Proto-Elamite tablets supports the Susa picture, with a frequency of c. 13% sealed tablets across the assemblages
from Malyan, Sialk, Yahya and other sites (detailed in Matthews 1993: 27; Desset 2016: 87). A similar decline in
sealing frequency of proto-cuneiform texts is attested in Uruk III text assemblages from Uruk and Jemdet Nasr
in Lower Mesopotamia, as compared to the preceding Uruk IV assemblage from Uruk (Englund and Grégoire
1991; Matthews 1993: 26), and the practice of sealing texts disappears altogether by the Early Dynastic I period,
to reappear at the end of the third millennium BC in the Ur III period (Steinkeller 1977). By that time, the use
of seals on tablets had evolved to serve as a confirmatory signature, with the act of sealing taking place after the
text had been inscribed on the tablet, sharply differing from earlier practice.
Associated with the decline in Susa III of the association of seals with written texts is a rise in the use of cyl-
inder seals for other purposes, in particular in order to mark clay lumps, or sealings, which were used to secure
containers and store-room doors. Assemblages of clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions have been recovered
from Susa III contexts at a range of Proto-Elamite sites, including Malyan, Yahya, Sialk and Shahr-i Sokhta (see
below). This divergence in the trajectories of writing and sealing from c. 3100 BC doubtless indicates the increas-
ing ability of writing to meet the needs of a complex bureaucracy, thus rendering redundant the information
provided by the iconography of cylinder seals. At the same time administrators switched the use of their seals
away from writing and towards the direct control over storage of and access to goods and commodities.
Alongside the figurative iconography of Proto-Elamite glyptic, a non-figurative cylinder seal style was in full
flow, attested over an enormous area of Early Bronze Age Southwest Asia, from Sistan in eastern Iran to the
Habur valley of northern Syria, and from Nineveh in Upper Mesopotamia to Ur, Fara and Telloh in Lower Mes-
opotamia, with dense concentrations along the foothills of the mountain zones in the Diyala and Hamrin regions
of eastern Iraq and in Khuzestan. The style is the so-called glazed steatite or Piedmont style (Collon 1987: 20–23;
Pittman 1994), which at Susa is first found in level 17 of Acropole I (Pittman 2013b: 328). The seals themselves are
made of steatite, probably from a Kerman source, whitened and hardened by fire at up to 1,100°C to form ensta-
tite (Collon 1987: 20), hence the term glazed steatite. At Iranian Proto-Elamite sites, seals of Piedmont style occur
alongside the figured Proto-Elamite style of cylinder seals. They are very rarely used on clay tablets (only on three
of 275 sealed Susa Proto-Elamite tablets – Pittman 1994: 226), more commonly occurring as seal impressions on
clay sealings or as seals themselves (Amiet 1993: 26). Notably, the distinctive chunky cross motif features on a rare
Piedmont style seal impression on a clay sealing from Jemdet Nasr (Figure 7.13: bottom right) (Matthews 2002c:
Figure 7.8), along with a mountain goat, suggesting some degree of connectivity between Proto-Elamite Iran and
Jemdet Nasr Mesopotamia despite their otherwise divergent artefactual trajectories.
Designs on the Piedmont style seals include simple hatched motifs such as arches, crosses and circles, as well
as stylised natural elements such as trees, leaves and rosettes, with occasional highly stylised animals, wild goat
above all (Figure 7.13) (Collon 1987: 21–22; Pittman 1994: Figures 3–4). As with the figured Proto-Elamite style,
humans are never depicted in Piedmont style glyptic. On the basis of associated ceramics and the wide range of
glazed steatite styles present, Pittman (1994: 212, 249) argues that the glazed steatite style appeared first at Susa as
an integral component of the nascent Proto-Elamite administrative system, before spreading to other sites on the
plateau, further indication of the great importance of Susa at this time.
How then might we interpret the glazed steatite seal phenomenon, one of the most widespread artefact dis-
tributions from the entire ancient world? Their geographic distribution (Figure 7.1) far exceeds the extent of the
Proto-Elamite horizon, or of any other coherent socio-political construct of the time: “their distribution implies
the existence of a vast international Irano-Mesopotamian community which remains difficult to understand,”
as Pierre Amiet has stated (1993: 26). Amiet’s (1980: 201) own interpretation is that these seals were used by
merchants or by low-status administrators, while high-status individuals enjoyed the use of more elaborate and
distinctive figured style seals, but Pittman’s (1994) detailed study shows that there is considerable structured vari-
ability in the glazed steatite style iconography. She argues that this variability was meaningful, not purely decorative,
within systems of local administration that had first developed at Susa. Support for this argument comes from the
fact that many glazed steatite seals have signs that are clearly the same as written Proto-Elamite signs on clay tablets,
including the hairy triangle and the chunky cross. Pittman (1994: 261–262) makes a convincing case that the spread
Figure 7.13 Piedmont style seals and seal impressions, including one from Jemdet Nasr (after Pittman 1994: Figures 3–4; Matthews
2002c: Figure 7.8).
of the glazed steatite style westwards into the Diyala valley and the Hamrin basin of central-eastern Mesopotamia
relates to a desire of Proto-Elamite administrators to extend their control within the context of a
relationship that was not complex enough to require writing or that writing could not be used because two or
more languages were involved. Could the glazed steatite design elements have been used to identify certain
groups that were in some way interacting with each other?
Finally, it is striking that at the time when Proto-Elamite writing disappears, the glazed steatite glyptic style also
disappears, across the entire geographic spread of its occurrence, strong evidence in support of Pittman’s argu-
ment for an integral connection between these two mechanisms of administrative control and official identity.
The significance of Susa in the Susa IIIA period

In summarising the Proto-Elamite evidence from Susa in the Susa IIIA period, we can detect important threads
of continuity through the collapse and hiatus that mark the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early
Bronze Age. Perhaps most significant is the evidence for a local development at Susa of administrative practices,
including specific features of writing and sealing, which appear to continue to relate exclusively to the adminis-
tration of land and rural production. The multiple points of continuity attested in the counting systems, coupled
with those in specific practices such as the sealing-writing sequence, and indeed the very acts of writing and seal-
ing as administrative activities, strongly suggest that Uruk IV/Late Susa II-style or Uruk IV/Late Susa II-trained
bureaucrats must be viewed as the major direct source of influence over the purpose, structures and workings
of the Proto-Elamite writing system, an interpretation that does not rule out also a significant degree of shared
ancestry through the numero-ideographic line (Desset 2016).
And yet the Proto-Elamite script itself, and so many of the material culture components, as we have seen, are to-
tally different from what went before at Susa, in the Susa II period. How do we explain this special mix of disjunction
and continuity? We can start by proposing that the hiatus detected in the Susa Acropole I sounding between levels
17A and 16 must have been very short, less than a human generation. The number systems of the Uruk IV/Late Susa
II, Uruk III and the Susa III texts are complex and idiosyncratic enough that it is inconceivable that they arose through
parallel, or sequential, independent invention. The knowledge of these number systems must have been sustained and
passed on by Late Susa II scribes to Susa III scribes, whose initial experiments with written Proto-Elamite are found
in quantity only at Susa (plus perhaps Sialk and a single text at Tall-e Geser) (Dahl 2013: 251). In concert with this
continuity, the ongoing use of bevelled-rim bowls, low-sided trays and other selected ceramic forms into the Susa
III period further argues for a short hiatus between Late Susa II and Susa III, as asserted by Dittmann (1986a: 171).
Before or during this hiatus a taste was sustained for high-status food products such as the leavened bread produced in
bevelled-rim bowls that were already widespread across Iran in the preceding Susa II period (Potts 2009).
But everything else was new: the architecture, the pottery, the seal iconography, and the script (therefore the lan-
guage?) employed on the texts. These differences suggest the intrusion into Susa of a new elite group at c. 3200–3150
BC, certainly with strong connections to regions to the east, Fars in particular, who quickly realised the benefits to
be had from a tight administration of the region’s rural production, and who therefore retained the services of the
existing bureaucrats long enough to learn the system from them, while insisting on use of their own language as un-
derpinning a new written script. It is striking that, as Jacob Dahl has noted (2013: 243), information in Proto-Elamite
texts is written “continuously in lines...much better resembling spoken language” than is the case with the visual
hierarchies of Uruk IV-III proto-cuneiform texts of Lower Mesopotamia (see also Englund 2004: 140–141). This
innovative attribute of Proto-Elamite texts, which amounts to “a reformulation of the principle of writing when in
Iran” (Dahl 2013: 243), suggests that a single imposed language may lie behind the non-numerical signs of the Susa
III texts and that that language, whatever it may have been, was the elite lingua franca of the Proto-Elamite world
from Susa to Shahr-i Sokhta and from Sofalin to Yahya, a suggestion that is not invalidated by the possible inclusion
of personal names of non-slave humans, which may have had Akkadian or Sumerian origins (Desset 2016: 87).
Susa’s true situation in the Proto-Elamite horizon, then, may lie somewhere between the positions articulated
by Alden (1982b) and Potts (1999, 2016): Susa was still a major administrative hub, exercising control over large-
scale rural production, including sizable labour gangs, and engaging in networks of interaction across the high-
land plateau. As Alden (1987: 162) proposes, Susa may have functioned
as a port of trade, a more or less neutral location where exchange between traders from the two neighboring
polities [i.e. Proto-Elamite Iran and Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic I Mesopotamia] could take place....a pattern
where most of the town’s residents were engaged in some form of interregional exchange.
We may still wonder about the possible source of the huge numbers of animals and probable slaves (Englund
2009) accounted for in the Susa Proto-Elamite texts – were the animals passing through Susa from the highland
zone into Mesopotamia, as we know they did in huge numbers in the late third millennium during the time of
the Ur III empire (Chapter 10)? And were the slaves captives from the hills being traded further west?
In any case, a new elite group was in control at Susa and their origins were from outside Susa: they had con-
quered Susa but, like many conquerors before them and since, they found much to admire in their conquered
territory and they quickly set about adapting and adopting what they liked in the old regime in order to serve
the new. And the orientation of the new elite cadre at Susa was very much toward the highland zone where they
had almost certainly originated. The contemporary depopulation or realignment of settlement on the Susiana
plain in the Susa III period (Alden 1987; Zalaghi 2019) might then be seen as a response of previously settled
rural communities to an atmosphere of instability and perhaps violence attendant upon the highland take-over
of their lowland homelands.
The only other excavated Proto-Elamite site on the Susiana plain is the complex of mounds at Tappeh Senjar,
located 18 km north-north-east of Susa at a key point for communications northwards into the Zagros uplands
and westwards to the Mesopotamian plains (Sardari and Attarpour 2019). These mounds extend over some 20
ha in total. Excavated levels of Proto-Elamite date at Senjar include mudbrick structures and typical ceramics.
The fact that c. 7 m of archaeological deposits at the base of Senjar’s main mound lie submerged below alluvial
sediments of the Karkheh river gives a vivid indication of the challenges involved in locating smaller archaeo-
logical sites in this environment and of the dangers in over-interpreting what must always be extremely partial
diachronic settlement evidence. The apparent dearth of small-scale Proto-Elamite settlements on the Susiana
plain, for example, may be a result of their submergence below modern alluvial sediments, a fate likely to befall
all sites in this region with heights less than 7 m. It is notable that the Proto-Elamite phase at Senjar is followed
by a gap of up to 400 years in occupation, chiming with significant trans-Iranian evidence for regional settlement
collapse through much of the third millennium BC, as discussed below.
The Ram Hormuz plain: Tall-e Geser

On the Ram Hormuz plain 145 km to the southeast of Susa and on a major routeway connecting Susiana with
Fars, Proto-Elamite materials were excavated in the late 1940s at the multi-mound site called Tal-i Ghazir,
renamed Tall-e Geser in recent studies by Alizadeh (Caldwell 1968; Whitcomb 1971; Alizadeh et al. 2013a,
2013b; Mutin 2013a: 22–23; Alizadeh 2014). Proto-Elamite levels at Geser directly overlie occupation of Late
Uruk/Late Susa II and earlier date (Whitcomb 1971: 16; Wright and Carter 2003: 67; Alizadeh 2014). The fullest
architectural evidence of the Proto-Elamite horizon was uncovered in the Stake Trench at the north end of the
mound (Figure 7.14) (Whitcomb 1971: Figures 3, 5; Alizadeh 2014: Figures 15–16), where at least four rooms of
an imposing building were revealed in Stake Trench 10, with walls of 1–1.5 m width (Whitcomb 1971: Figure
5). One room contained multiple polychrome jars and large carinated bowls (Figures 7.15–7.16). Stone vessels
and animal figurines were also found in these rooms and elsewhere at the site. INAA analysis of ceramics from
Malyan suggests an origin for them in the region of Tall-e Geser (Alden et al. 2014). It is likely that the contents
Figure 7.14 Tall-e Geser, Proto-Elamite monumental building in Stake Trench (Alizadeh 2014: Figure 15) (image courtesy of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Figure 7.15 Tall-e Geser, Proto-Elamite ceramics (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 4) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago).
Figure 7.16 T
all-e Geser, Proto-Elamite ceramics (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 4) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago).
Figure 7.17 T
all-e Geser, Proto-Elamite alabaster figurine (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 7D) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the
of the vessels, such as dates or oils, were more important than the vessels themselves in terms of traded items.
These ceramic connections are further supported by Alizadeh’s (2014) study of the Geser Proto-Elamite ceramics,
which demonstrates strong similarities with Late Banesh Fars, Yahya IVC, Arisman and Sofalin, all situated well
to the east and north of Geser itself.
A single clay tablet fragment from Geser, with numerical signs only (Whitcomb 1971: 31, pl. XIA; Alizadeh
2014: 56, Figure 87: E, pl. 6F), is of early type within the developmental sequence of Proto-Elamite writing
(Dahl 2013: 251). An alabaster figurine of a monkey or baboon in human pose (Alizadeh 2014: pl. 7D) is typical
of Proto-Elamite figurative art (Figure 7.17).
In contrast to the Susiana plain, the Ram Hormuz plain appears to be more densely occupied following the
transition from Late Susa II to Proto-Elamite phases (Alizadeh et al. 2013a: 124; Alizadeh 2014; Zalaghi 2019).
But after the abandonment of Tall-e Geser at the end of the Proto-Elamite period the site is not occupied for
some 1,000 years from c. 2900 BC, and the entire Ram Hormuz plain appears to be devoid of human occupation
through this long timespan (Alizadeh et al. 2013a: 124; Alizadeh 2014).
Tal-i Malyan/Anshan and the Fars region

We saw in Chapter 6 that Late Chalcolithic settlement patterns in Fars were characterised by small villages with
little evidence for settlement hierarchy, and a general decline in settled population towards the end of the fourth
millennium BC (Sumner 1988, 2003: 109; Hopper and Wilkinson 2013: Figure 3.5). The rise of Tal-i Malyan
to regional dominance is contemporary with this decline in rural settlement (Figure 7.18). Situated some 500
km southeast of Susa, Tal-i Malyan is of immense importance in the Proto-Elamite horizon, which in Fars is
designated the Banesh period (Sumner 1986), as well as in later periods of Elamite history (Hansman 1972). The
identification of Malyan with the historically attested Elamite capital Anshan is based on cuneiform brick in-
scriptions of second millennium BC date (Hansman 1972; Reiner 1973b; T. Potts 1994: 15). Surveys in the Kur
river basin emphasise the unique position of Malyan and the limited distribution and hierarchy of Middle Banesh
settlements outside Malyan (Sumner 1974; Alden 2013: 221). There appears to have been specialised production
Figure 7.18 Tal-i Malyan, plan of site to show excavated areas and surrounding city wall (after Sumner 2003: Figure 4).
of chaff-tempered goblets and trays in huge quantities, as well as stone and plaster vessels, in the Early Banesh
phase at the site of Tal-e Qarib, some 10 km east of Malyan (Alden 2013: 222). Archaeometric analysis of clays
used to make ceramic ring scrapers, a specialist potter’s tool, from sites in the Kur river basin and in Khuzestan
indicates that the scraper tools were always made from clays differing from those used to make pottery vessels
at each site, the interpretation being that Proto-Elamite potters were itinerant craft specialists constituting “an
important factor in the distribution of broadly similar Proto-Elamite style ceramics throughout a large part of
southwestern Iran” (Alden and Minc 2016: 874).
Malyan is located at c. 1,600 m above sea level in a broad valley drained by the Kur river. Excavations at Malyan
took place between 1971 and 1978 under the direction of William Sumner. The site has a history reaching back
into the Early Chalcolithic but substantive levels have been investigated mainly for the Middle Banesh period.
During this time the site appears to have covered at least 50 ha in area (Sumner 1986a: 202; Thornton 2012: 598),
significantly larger than Susa in the Susa III period and probably drawing its population from abandoned villages
of the region. Building on ideas articulated by Sumner (1986a), John Alden (2013: 226) suggests that not all of
Malyan was permanently occupied, but rather that “a significant proportion of Middle Banesh Tal-e Malyan was
only occupied seasonally, with lineage members involved in trading, specialised craft production, or political
activity arriving in spring and departing in the autumn along with the herds and herders.” He proposes that
Malyan’s population might have comprised 50% permanent residents and 50% seasonally transhumant pastoral
nomads, each component engaging in beneficial interaction with the other, on analogy with historically attested
sedentary-nomad dynamics in the southern Zagros.
In contrast to this scenario, as discussed in Chapter 6, Potts (2010, 2014) denies the validity of ethnographic
parallels of pastoral nomads from recent history, arguing that they represent a relatively modern phenomenon.
Instead, Potts proposes that prehistoric Iranian villagers moved with their herds in seasonal patterns that did
not involve large-scale, long-distance transhumance. A major attribute of Alden’s argument is that it provides a
mechanism for the long-distance interactions and material culture similarities across large geographic spans that
so characterise the Proto-Elamite horizon. If significant elements of society were seasonally moving between
major centres of the Proto-Elamite world, from Fars to Susiana, from Kerman to Fars, then communication
of technologies, styles and practices would be greatly facilitated. In Alden’s argument, then, the Proto-Elamite
horizon does not represent a true state, but rather a coalition of strong tribal leaders (possibly represented in Pro-
to-Elamite texts as “owners” or “households”: Alden 2013: 230), making use of central places such as Malyan
for economic, cultural and social purposes. This argument receives support from the clear evidence that Malyan
functioned as “an administrative focal point for the integration of disparate economic specializations in the re-
gion” (Zeder and Blackman 2003: 137), in particular through serving as a meeting place for settled and pastoral
nomadic communities.
Malyan in the Middle Banesh phase comprises a large mounded upper town and an extensive lower town, the
whole site surrounded by a city wall in the Late Banesh phase (Figure 7.18) (Sumner 1985; Álvarez-Mon 2020:
71–74). Radiocarbon dates indicate a dating within the last three centuries of the fourth millennium BC for Mid-
dle Banesh occupation in both areas, ABC and TUV (Wright and Rupley 2001: 96–97; Sumner 2003: Table 13;;
Desset 2016: Figure 26). Excavations in area ABC on the upper mound exposed a series of major building levels
the lowermost of which, level 4, has a possible curving fortification wall (Figure 7.19) (Alden 2003b: 112). The
most impressive architecture of ABC is in level 3 (Figures 7.19–7.20) (Alden 2003b: Figure 9.3; Sumner 2003:
27–34), a massive structure covering at least 25 x 15 m. Timbers of poplar, maple, elm, oak, pistachio and almond
are attested by charcoal fragments in the ruins of the building (Miller 1982). Polychrome frescos were painted on
many of its walls, in black, white, red and yellow colours (Figure 7.21) (Nickerson 1977; Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl.
31). Motifs include striped borders, stepped patterns, swirls and rosettes (Sumner 2003: 28, Figures 15–19). Ar-
tefacts within the building include painted plaster bowls, many ceramic vessels and beads, over 100 clay sealings
and seven Proto-Elamite tablet fragments (Figure 7.22). Distinctive relief decorated vessels with animal and floral
motifs may have had a cultic significance (Sumner 2003: 50). The succeeding building level 2 (Figure 7.19) also
comprised a massive structure with in situ storage vessels, clay sealings and Proto-Elamite tablets, as well as much
evidence for working of materials such as specular hematite, shell and mother-of-pearl (Sumner 2003: 34–39;
Zeder 1991: 121–122; Vidale 2003; Zeder and Blackman 2003: 123). The ABC buildings can be interpreted as
high-status structures whose occupants were concerned with storage and control over movement of commod-
ities, as well as with accounting and recording of those activities. The production of luxury craft goods is also
well attested in area ABC.
In area TUV, effectively a separate 3 ha mound in the lower town, several phases of a substantial architec-
tural complex with craft production and living quarters with hearths and storage bins were excavated (Figures
7.23–7.24) (Sumner 1986, 1988; Nicholas 1990; Zeder 1991: 123–129; Zeder and Blackman 2003: 123–126). In
Figure 7.19 T
al-i Malyan, ABC building levels 2–5 (after Alden 2003b: Figure 9.3).
Figure 7.20 Tal-i Malyan, ABC building level 3 from the south (after Sumner 2003: pl. 8).
Figure 7.21 T
al-i Malyan, ABC building level 3, selection of motifs painted on wall plaster (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 31) (image
courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
the western section of the TUV level III architectural unit there is evidence for large-scale usage and disposal
of mass-produced pottery vessels, including bevelled-rim bowls and low-sided trays, as well as storage (storage
vessels and clay sealings), record keeping (clay sealings, bullae, tablets) and food preparation, while the eastern
section appears to be more concerned with living and reception. The area to the north of the TUV III building
has evidence for copper-based metallurgical activity, exclusively of arsenical copper (Pigott 1999: 87; Pigott et al.
2003). There is considerable evidence for a range of craft activities in TUV, including cloth working, metallurgy,
bead and shell working, and chipped stone knapping. There was also extensive production of lime for use as wall
plaster on several of the buildings (Blackman 1982; Wasilewska 1991; Zeder 1991: 65–66). A single room in area
TUV also has painted plaster. A few human burials in area TUV are mainly of infants (Nicholas 1990: 50–51).
Overlying TUV III, the architecture of TUV level II consists of a very regular layout of rectilinear buildings, also
with clear distinctions in activity zones.
Clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions were found in both areas ABC and TUV, often in distinct clusters
suggesting episodic disposal of discarded sealings (Figures 7.22, 7.25) (Sumner 1976: 108–109; Nicholas 1990:
84; Pittman 1994, 2003c). Iconographically, the Malyan seal scenes match well with those from Susa Acropole
I 16-14B (Pittman 2003c: 108). Only three cylinder seals were found, two from building level 4A in area ABC
(Pittman 2003c; Sumner 2003: Figures 44a-b), both depicting rows of quadrupeds in Proto-Elamite style, and
one from more recent excavations with eye and flower motifs (Abdi 2001b: Figure 30). Other glyptic scenes on
clay sealings and on 6 of the 33 tablets (Stolper 1985: 5) have classic Proto-Elamite components such as animals in
quasi-human stances (including a caprid acting as a scribe – Pittman 2003c: 108, Figure 44f ), crosses and rosettes,
plus a striking stepped platform scene found on 43 jar sealings from ABC level 3A and reminiscent of painted
motifs on the building wall faces of the same level (Sumner 2003: Figure 44h). It seems likely that the stepped
platform motif represents the institution involved in running the ABC building and in coordinating the eco-
nomic and bureaucratic activities clearly taking place in and around that building. It is notable that almost all the
seal scenes attested in area ABC are of the so-called classic Proto-Elamite style, while those of area TUV include
all four types of Proto-Elamite scene styles, including the glazed steatite style (Pittman 1994: 95, 2003c: 108;
Sumner 2003: 82), an indication of highly specialised administrative activity within area ABC and its impressive
Figure 7.22 T
al-i Malyan, ABC building level 3, selected seals, seal impressions and Proto-Elamite tablet (after Sumner 2003:
Figure 44, pl. 21e).
Figure 7.23 Tal-i Malyan, TUV building levels I-IIIB (after Nicholas 1990: Figures 13–16).
architectural setting. Eight sealed hollow clay balls and geometric tokens were also found in area TUV (Nicholas
1990: 84–85).
Analysis of the clays used in sealings from ABC and TUV shows that separate sources of local clay were used in
each area (Zeder and Blackman 2003: 136), which Alden (2013: 229) interprets as congruent with “a socio-political
system based on lineage affiliations, with no evidence of centralised administration and no hierarchical control
of information processing and decision-making.” The TUV sealings, which number c. 200, include impressions
from both cylinder and stamp seals, and were largely used to seal storage jars (Nicholas 1990: 75). The fact that
local clays were used to seal jars in both areas is understood to mean that the jars and their contents arrived at
the storage facilities of ABC and TUV unsealed, were sealed there, stored and then opened, with breakage and
disposal of the sealing all done very locally. This reconstruction of the sequence of receipt, storage and issuing
actions is significant because, in Zeder and Blackman’s (2003: 136) words, “rather than controlling the movement
of goods, sealing and unsealing activities at Banesh Malyan seem to have concentrated on local storage, security,
and disbursement with a high value placed on controlling and accounting for extremely localized allotments of
goods.” These perceptive phrases equally apply to everything we understand about Proto-Elamite administrative
activity, be it tokens, hollow clay balls, seals, sealings or tablets – their sole concern is to maintain close control of
local productivity, to ensure that local rural production is closely monitored and, no doubt, taxed.
A total of 33 Susa III-type tablets were found in the major Middle Banesh buildings of Malyan, both in ABC
Building Level 3 and in area TUV (Figures 7.22, 7.25) (Stolper 1985; Dahl et al. 2013: 358, 373–375; Potts 2016:
75–76). They have been described as “in exact uniformity with texts from Susa” (Damerow and Englund 1989:
Figure 7.24 T
al-i Malyan, TUV operation from the air, looking west. Building level III in the foreground (after Nicholas 1990: pl. 1).
Figure 7.25 T
al-i Malyan, TUV sealings and Proto-Elamite tablet (after Nicholas 1990: pls 35–36).
22), although only the Susa texts involve very large quantities of animals and people. Tablets at Malyan employ
header signs such as the hairy triangle (Sumner 2003: 115) familiar from Susa and Yahya texts, and probably rep-
resenting an institution or administrative unit of some kind (Damerow and Englund 1989: 61). They correlate
well with the later Proto-Elamite texts from Susa, that is from Acropole I 15b-14b (Dahl et al. 2013: 374; Dahl
2019: Figure 3). The quantities of accounted items attested in the Malyan texts do not approach the extremes of
the Susa Proto-Elamite records, but they do suggest a greater scale of economic activity than that attested by the
Yahya IVC texts (see below; Damerow and Englund 1989: 63, fn 171). The ABC tablets appear to deal with larger
quantities than the TUV tablets (Sumner 2003: 116). It is intriguing that the Malyan texts are sealed with stamp
seals rather than the cylinder seals used to seal tablets at Susa (Pittman 1994: 69) and, further, that the Malyan tab-
lets are found in the buildings of area TUV (Nicholas 1990: 85, Figure 32) as well as in the grander architectural
context of area ABC. One summary text found in ABC is composed of clay similar to those for tablets in TUV
(Zeder 1991: 67; Sumner 2003: 82; Zeder and Blackman 2003: 137), suggesting that the TUV administrative
unit reported to the ABC unit, and that therefore there existed at least two levels of administrative hierarchy at
Malyan, contra Alden’s (2013: 229) suggestion of a lack of administrative hierarchy based on the sealing evidence.
As with Proto-Elamite texts from other sites, the Malyan tablets appear to deal with the accounting of purely
local economic and agricultural activities.
The recovery of Proto-Elamite tablets, clay sealings with cylinder and stamp impressions, sealed hollow clay
balls and geometric tokens from well-defined contexts in area TUV is striking. We should note that, according
to the meticulous excavation and recording methods employed at Malyan, all of the tablets and sealings come
from what are defined as secondary and mixed contexts, i.e. from rubbish disposal in rooms or in pits rather
than as in situ finds on floors, and therefore do not necessarily relate directly to the function of their architectural
contexts (Nicholas 1990: Figure 32). There are, however, good parallels for the occurrence of the full range of
administrative paraphernalia within similar architectural contexts in third millennium BC Mesopotamia, such
as the Early Dynastic III texts, seals and sealings from the Sumerian site of Fara (Matthews 1991). Ilene Nicholas
(1990: 119) argues that the compartmentalisation and scale of evidence for craft and other activities in area TUV
at Malyan suggest “the controlling influence of a supra-familial institution” operating at the site level. While
accepting that people were living and eating in at least part of the TUV building complex, Nicholas (1990: 120)
proposes that “the institution using this structure was an administered one. Account tablets were written, sealed
goods were opened and disbursed, and large numbers of bevelled-rim bowls and low trays, plus lesser numbers
of goblets, were utilized.”
Noting the association of administrative artefacts with high quantities of bevelled-rim bowls and trays
in the western unit of TUV building level III, Nicholas (1990: 128, italics in original) makes the intrigu-
ing suggestion that “those vessels were being brought to the administrators’ building, but as tax-containing
bowls rather than votive bowls.” She suggests that the TUV complex represents a governmental control
centre for the receipt of taxes in the form of goods in vessels as well as perhaps other commodities including
animals. In this scenario, the administrative complex of area TUV was probably subordinate to the major
complex of area ABC on the main mound at Malyan, a relationship later materialised in the construction of
the city wall in the Late Banesh phase. By contrast, Zeder (1991: 128) argues that the mass-produced pots
in the western unit of TUV III relate to preparation and serving of food from an institutional kitchen, an
interpretation that more reasonably accounts for the mass of broken mass-produced vessels in this part of
TUV. In Zeder’s argument, the sealings and tablets in TUV relate to basic accounting of goods disbursed to
the TUV kitchen from a central authority, while the possible transfer of one summary tablet from TUV to
ABC indicates “that activities conducted at TUV were monitored by the elite Banesh residents of these large
buildings” (Zeder 1991: 129). Nicholas’s and Zeder’s interpretations are not in fact mutually exclusive – it is
possible that the mass-produced vessels and the artefacts of storage, recording and accounting at TUV level
III were used both in a system of tax or tribute payment to a centralised authority as well as in a system of
institutionalised kitchen provisioning.
Proto-Elamite scribes and administrators were all doing the same thing regardless of where in Iran they were
working – counting animals and pots of dairy products, tallying sacks of grain and measuring allotments of arable
land. It is important to note that nowhere at Malyan do we find texts of Late Susa II type such as those found at
Susa Acropole I levels 18-17 (Stolper 1985: 5), and that therefore there are no grounds for arguing for an in situ
development at Malyan of the Proto-Elamite/Susa III writing style or of the featured numerical systems. Only
Susa boasts such evidence (see above). This is not the same as saying that the Proto-Elamite language (if such
existed) could not have had its home and its origin at Malyan and elsewhere in Fars, and then been carried thence
to Susa where it was inserted into the existing administrative tradition in written form.
Large quantities of animal bones were recovered from areas ABC and TUV, and they have been superbly an-
alysed in the rich study by Melinda Zeder (1991; Zeder and Blackman 2003), a model of how to recover, record,
analyse and publish a large animal bone assemblage (c. 100,000 bones) within a theoretically informed and intel-
lectually stimulating context. The bone assemblages of both ABC and TUV are dominated by sheep and goat,
at 99% in ABC and 97% in TUV, with goats outnumbering sheep by 2:1 in both areas (Zeder 1991: 137). Fur-
thermore, Zeder (1991: 162–163) makes the important suggestion that “The almost exclusive reliance on caprid
meat in the Banesh phase suggests, however, that the primary suppliers of urban meat resources specialized in
sheep and goat management – an indication that nomads were the primary suppliers of Banesh meat resources.”
She also proposes, on the basis of kill-off age patterns, that goats were used principally for meat while sheep were
used for milk and wool as well as for meat. Domestic cattle are the only other regular meat animal, while equids
appear to be mainly beasts of burden. Residents of area ABC consumed meatier cuts of animals than residents of
area TUV (Zeder 1991: 152; Zeder and Blackman 2003: 128).
Despite rigorous sampling programmes, recovery of charred plant remains was poor and appears to be mainly
from burnt animal dung, with barley the preferred fodder (Miller 2003: 13, 2011). Naomi Miller (1982, 1985)
estimates that the agricultural capacity of the environs of Malyan was sufficient to support a population of at least
5,000 individuals who may have been living at the site during its heyday, and she surmises that this substantial
population was responsible for massive deforestation of the environs of Malyan. The rise of Malyan to regional
dominance can be attributed to a combination of its hinterland agricultural capacity, the availability of good pas-
turage and its proximity to natural passes used to access the Kur river valley by seasonally mobile pastoral groups
(Zeder 1991: 68).
In the Late Banesh phase, contemporary with Susa Acropole I levels 14A-B, a massive mudbrick city wall was
constructed at Malyan, enclosing a total area of 200 ha (Figure 7.18) (Sumner 1985). Its construction is radiocarbon
dated to 2,970 ± 70 BC (Sumner 1985: 159). This impressive wall consists of parallel mudbrick walls filled
with brick packing, reaching a total length of 5 km. Whatever its function, and a defensive one seems likely
(Sumner 1986a: 209), this wall represents an enormous investment of human labour, which Sumner calculates
as totalling a minimum of 140,000 person-days, so that the wall could have been built by 1,000 labourers over
140 days of late spring/summer, for example (Sumner 1985: 159). Such figures bring to mind the labour gangs
of at least 1,774 people listed in individual Susa Proto-Elamite texts (see above). Given Sumner’s (2003: 112)
estimate of a minimum of 4,000 people in total at Middle Banesh Malyan, it is likelier that construction of the
wall took place over more than one year. In any case, this scale of construction demonstrates the administrative
ability for that labour to be summoned, organised and deployed in the realisation of major public ventures.
This ability in turn argues for a sophisticated and well-adapted system of public government in place at Malyan
certainly by the Late Banesh phase at the latest. As to the nature of occupation within the 200 ha enclosed by
the city wall, Sumner speculates that at least 100 ha of it would have been “fortified empty space: whether for
gardens, flocks, a fortified refuge for villagers, for planned expansion of the city, or simply as a monument to
the power of the local ruler” (Sumner 1985: 159). From c. 2800 BC much of Malyan was abandoned and there
was a hiatus in settlement in the valley for up to 500 years until a resurgence of occupation in the Kaftari phase
from 2400 BC (Sumner 2003: 54–55; Miller and Sumner 2004). Elsewhere in Fars, there has been limited
excavation of levels datable to Proto-Elamite at the sites of Tal-e Kureh (Alden 2003c; Alden and Petrie 2015),
Nurabad and Spid (Weeks et al. 2009).
The Proto-Elamite horizon in eastern Iran

Tepe Yahya in Kerman: fortified foreigners?
Proto-Elamite materials, including inscribed tablets, have been excavated at two important sites in eastern
Iran, at Tepe Yahya in the Soghun valley of Kerman province and at Shahr-i Sokhta in Sistan (Figure 7.2). Of
the two sites, we have a richer understanding of Yahya than we do of Shahr-i Sokhta in the Proto-Elamite
horizon. In fact, the Proto-Elamite levels of Tepe Yahya have become some of the best published materials
with which to examine this phenomenon, thanks to work by the excavator, Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky (1971,
1972, 2001b) and his colleagues Daniel Potts (2001) and Benjamin Mutin (2013a; Mutin et al. 2016) amongst
others. The location of the site of Yahya is significant in that it lies at the south-eastern extremity of the Pro-
to-Elamite world (Figure 7.2).
We saw in Chapter 6 how Tepe Yahya was abandoned for up to 500 years after the Chalcolithic settlement of
level VA (Mutin 2013a: 187). Level IVC at Yahya was originally seen as comprising two phases, IVC2 (earlier)
and IVC1, which Lamberg-Karlovsky estimated as together enduring for less than a century and therefore rep-
resenting “a settlement “event,” a community bearing little resemblance to the material culture which preceded
and followed it” (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: viii). In his publication of the Yahya third millennium levels, Potts
(2001: 1–14) argued that levels IVC2 and IVC1, as defined by Lamberg-Karlovsky, could be combined as one
phase. Lamberg-Karlovsky (2001b: 270) has proposed a dating within the range c. 3100–2800 BC for Yahya IVC,
while Potts (2001: 196) and Dahl et al. (2013; Petrie 2013a: 146; Mutin et al. 2016: 851) argue that the very late
style of the Yahya Proto-Elamite tablets, found in the IVC buildings (see below) indicates a dating at the end of
the Proto-Elamite horizon at c. 2900–2800 BC. In either case, the occupation is relatively short-lived and is sand-
wiched between substantial episodes of abandonment. Potts (2001: 200–201) argues that Yahya was abandoned
for at least 500 years after the end of the Proto-Elamite occupation of the site.
It is also striking that there appears to have been a collapse in rural settlement of the region during the Pro-
to-Elamite occupation at Yahya, as at Malyan. According to Martha Prickett’s surveys, only Yahya itself and one
other site were occupied during the IVC phase across the whole Shah Maran and Daulatabad basin (Prickett
1986b: 237; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: viii; Mutin 2013a: 176–177). To the north, the Bardsir plain around Tal-i
Iblis also experiences a major decline in settlement in the phase contemporary with Yahya IVC (Prickett 1986b;
Sajjadi 1987; Mutin 2013a: 184). In the Halil Rud valley to the east of Yahya, following the rich evidence for a
Late Chalcolithic/Late Susa II presence as attested at Mahtoutabad (Chapter 6; Desset et al. 2013) there is little
indication of early third millennium BC settlement (Mutin 2013a: 178). A single example of a seal impression of
“City Seal” type (Matthews and Richardson 2018), found in undated deposits at Konar Sandal South in the Halil
Rud valley (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 99, Figure 32:e), hints at the possible engagement of this region in a
network of international interaction at around 2900 BC. It is particularly notable that the city name of Ur itself
appears to be represented by a ligature motif on the Konar Sandal South seal impression (Chapter 9).
Level IVC certainly marks a major reorientation of multiple aspects of material culture at Yahya, just as the
Proto-Elamite levels do at Susa and at other sites of this extraordinary Early Bronze Age phenomenon. At Tepe Yahya
the mudbrick architecture of IVC is formally laid out on the summit of the mound in a series of rectilinear rooms
surrounded by open areas and with well-constructed drainage (Figure 7.26). The Proto-Elamite settlement at Yahya
was excavated over an area of almost 500 m2, but it is likely that occupation covered the full 2 ha of the site. A large
mudbrick wall, up to 2 m wide in places, runs parallel to the main IVC building at some distance from it, probably
serving as a circumvallation or fortification wall for the entire Proto-Elamite settlement on the mound’s summit
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: v). Thus, not only is there rural abandonment across this region at the start of the Early
Bronze Age, but there is also the fortification of at least some of the few settlements that do exist, both features sug-
gestive of an atmosphere of instability and conflict. The fact that multiple valuable items were left on the floors of
the IVC buildings, with no later return to claim their possessions, suggests a sudden departure by the inhabitants
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: vi), also indicative of a hostile atmosphere at the very end of the Proto-Elamite occupation
of the site. Finds on the upper floors of rooms in levels IVC appear to be contemporary and can be treated together.
Beale and Carter (1983) have shown that the Yahya IVC building was constructed according to a standard
unit of measure, equivalent to 72cm, which corresponds to that used for similar buildings at the Late Chal-
colithic site of Habuba Kabira in Syria, some 2,500 km distant from Tepe Yahya. The architectural value of
the 72cm unit (or “Yahya large kuš,” as Beale and Carter call it, after a Sumerian measurement known from
the late third millennium BC) lies in the fact that it equals 1.5 times the length and three times the width of
the standardised mould-made mudbricks used in construction at Yahya. Beale and Carter’s discovery is quite
sensational as it indicates a sophisticated development of the craft and theory of architecture. As they put it,
Figure 7.26 T
epe Yahya, period IVC architecture (Mutin 2013a: Figure 2.2) (image courtesy of Benjamin Mutin).
The widespread appearance in this period of an exact measuring system marks a profoundly important turn-
ing point in the history of architecture. It gave would-be architects independence from building styles and
plans based on ‘tradition’...For the first time, each new building could, in a very real sense of the word, be
‘designed’.
(Beale and Carter 1983: 88)
But how do we explain the connection with architectural conformity at Habuba Kabira, so far away to the west?
Searching for an answer takes us back to Susa and to the evidence there for continuity across the Late Chalco-
lithic/Early Bronze Age divide, as well as to Susa’s connectivity both with Habuba Kabira and with Tepe Yahya.
As we saw in the previous chapter, there are numerous strong material culture connections between Susa and
Habuba Kabira, and other contemporary sites, in the Late Susa II/Late Uruk period. Connections between Susa
in the Susa III period and Yahya IVC are multiple and obvious in many aspects of material culture, including spe-
cifics of writing, sealing, ceramics and items of adornment, as discussed in this chapter. As to continuity of use of
the “large kuš” unit of measurement into the Proto-Elamite horizon, it seems that the architectural skills of Late
Susa II builders and planners were as valued by the new Proto-Elamite elite as were capabilities in administration
by means of written records and the use of certain pottery forms in high-status cuisine and/or in distribution of
rations to labour gangs. The Proto-Elamite elite chose to maintain selected elements of the Late Uruk/Late Susa
II world, and skill in the design and construction of formal buildings was clearly one of those selected elements. If
Lamberg-Karlovsky (1978) and Potts (2001: 198) are correct in seeing Susa as the homeland of the settlers in level
IVC at Yahya, their argument reinforces the picture of connectivity of the Proto-Elamite world and its origin
within the world of Susa in the Late Susa II period. Even if the Proto-Elamite elite originated from elsewhere,
and Malyan is the only other serious candidate, the evidence for connectivity and for Susa’s key role across space
and time remains unchanged.
As important as the building itself in level IVC at Yahya are the contents of that building (see Mutin 2013a:
145–167 for small finds from Yahya IVC). Strewn across the floors of the IVC building, and of the adjacent rooms,
were inscribed clay tablets, tablet blanks, clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions, clay “slingballs,” pottery
storage vessels, a metal vessel containing the mineral natrojarosite (Reindell and Riederer 1979; Lamberg-Karlovsky
1989: vi), a metal spearhead, an alabaster vessel and what are described as “two large biconical heulandite beads”
(Figure 7.27) (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: vi; Potts 2001: 10–11). The presence of these latter, found in room 1
of the IVC building (Mutin 2013a: 153, Figures 4.13, 4.15), is notable in view of the fact that heulandite was a
favoured material for the manufacture of Proto-Elamite cylinder seals (see above; Pittman 1992b: 70) and that
possible sources of heulandite occur in the vicinity of Tepe Yahya (Sax and Middleton 1989: Figure 1). Overall,
the small finds from Yahya IVC indicate a concern with bodily ornamentation and decoration, plant cultivation,
hunting and fishing, as well as with a range of basic craft activities (Mutin 2013a: 164–167). They also demon-
strate the wide connectivity of the Yahya IVC community in terms of access to a range of valued resources,
including metals (Figure 7.28) (Thornton and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004: 51), shell and semi-precious stones,
originating from across Iran, south-eastern Turkey, Afghanistan, western Pakistan and the Persian Gulf (Mutin
2013a: Figure 4.29).
In his immaculate publication of Yahya IVC pottery, Mutin identifies a range of “geographical spheres of influ-
ence” (Mutin 2013a: 48; see also Lamberg-Karlovsky 1972: 95–99), including the Proto-Elamite component,
a south-eastern Iranian plateau group with connections across Iranian Sistan-Baluchistan as well as Pakistani
Kech-Makran (Figure 7.29), and a northern Iran group. These ceramic connections and their putative spheres
of influence usefully fill out the interpretive framework of third millennium BC interaction spheres first
articulated by Caldwell (1964) and Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi (1973), contextualising the Proto-Elamite
horizon within broader patterns of social and economic interaction across Iran and neighbouring regions.
Instrumental neutron activation analysis of ceramics from Yahya IVC and the following IVB periods (Chap-
ter 9) demonstrates production from clays local to the Soghun valley for the vast majority of Proto-Elamite
vessels from level IVC (Kamilli and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1979), while the clays of sherds in the Baloch-style, a
ceramic tradition found in the east of Iran at Shahr-i Sokhta, Iranian Baluchistan and the Kech-Makran region
of Pakistan, suggest import of these vessels and the engagement of the community at Yahya in transregional
networks reaching well to the east (Mutin et al. 2016). The presence at Yahya IVC of significant quantities
of Burnished Ware, also locally made and using the same paste preparation procedures as the Proto-Elamite
ceramics at Yahya, has stimulated the intriguing suggestion that there may have been some blending of Early
Transcaucasian Culture-related (ETC; Chapter 8) and Proto-Elamite communities prior to their arrival at
Yahya in period IVC (Mutin et al. 2016: 860).
Figure 7.27 T
epe Yahya, heulandite beads from period IVC (© 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College; Mutin 2013a:
Figure 4.13) (photo credit: Benjamin Mutin).
Figure 7.28 T
epe Yahya, copper objects from period IVC (© 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College; Mutin 2013a: Figure
4.25) (photo credit: Benjamin Mutin).
Yahya IVC pottery has good parallels with assemblages from Fars in the Middle Banesh phase (Potts 2001:
6–53, 195–199; Petrie 2013a: 149) and with Mesopotamian assemblages of Late Uruk date (Mutin 2013a: 57), in
particular in forms that often continue from Late Susa II times such as bevelled-rim bowls, trays, footed goblets
and spouted vessels, typical of the Proto-Elamite horizon across Iran. The occurrence of multiple bevelled-rim
bowls (Figure 7.30) connects the site, in some way, with at least 100 other sites in Iran and as far east as Baluch-
istan in Pakistan where bevelled-rim bowls have been found, although only at the sites of Susa, Chogha Mish
and perhaps Malyan are they found in the vast quantities attested at Lower Mesopotamian sites such as Uruk,
Eridu and Ur (Benseval 1997; Potts 2009; Mutin 2013a: 62). Painted jars from Yahya IVC show morphological
and decorative parallels with late fourth-early third millennia BC assemblages from Susa, and from Jemdet Nasr
and other Lower Mesopotamian sites as well as with the Diyala and Hamrin regions of central-east Iraq and
other adjacent regions (Matthews 1992; Mutin 2013a: 77–83), while Mutin’s analysis is uniquely careful enough
to distinguish Late Uruk and Early Dynastic I materials from Jemdet Nasr period materials when making com-
parisons to published examples from the multi-period site of Jemdet Nasr (see discussion above). Other ceramic
types at Yahya, including painted and burnished vessels, fit more into a south-eastern Iran context and there are
also ceramic connections to assemblages from further east, through the Bampur valley of Iranian Baluchistan and
into south-western Pakistan (Mutin 2013a: 88–90, 2013b: 267–269; Petrie 2013a: 149). In sum, the ceramic and
small find assemblages from Yahya IVC constitute evidence for considerable connectivity of the Proto-Elamite
community living and working at Tepe Yahya.
Figure 7.29 Tepe Yahya, canister-jars with parallels from sites to the east (Mutin 2013a: Figure 3.116) (image courtesy of
Benjamin Mutin).
Figure 7.30 Tepe Yahya, bevelled-rim bowls and their distribution across period IVC (Mutin 2013a: Figures 3.3–3.4) (image cour-
tesy of Benjamin Mutin).
A total of 27 clay tablets with Proto-Elamite inscriptions were found in Yahya IVC (Figure 7.31). They have
been excellently published by Damerow and Englund (1989; see also Dahl et al. 2013: 358–359; Mutin 2013a:
169–172, Figures 5.1–5.2). The tablets were recovered from rooms 1 and 5 of the IVC building as well as in ad-
jacent areas to the east (Figure 7.32) (Mutin 2013a: Figure 5.3). A deposit of 84 possible tablet blanks lay on the
floor in the corner of room 5 (Damerow and Englund 1989: 62). Of the 27 inscribed texts, 21 concern the distri-
bution of grain and land allotments to specific individuals, four are accounts of sheep and goat, and one deals with
distribution of grain to a group of female workers. The grain texts mainly deal with the issue of rations of grain
to feed workers for periods varying from one to 30 days, while larger volumes of grain may relate to accounting
of entire harvests (Damerow and Englund 1989: 31–32).
Figure 7.31 T
epe Yahya, selected Proto-Elamite tablets from period IVC (after Damerow and Englund 1989; Mutin 2013a: Figure
5.1; Nokandeh 2017: Figure 30) (photo credit: Neda Hossein Tehrani and Nima Mohammadi Fakoorzadeh).
Figure 7.32 T
epe Yahya, distribution of Proto-Elamite and blank tablets across period IVC (Mutin 2013a: Figure 5.3) (image
courtesy of Benjamin Mutin).
The Yahya IVC texts are “in full accord with the complexity and structure of the proto-elamite texts from
Susa” (Damerow and Englund 1989: 15), even if the immense quantities of animals and humans attested at
Susa do not feature in the Yahya texts. Indeed, several of the signs used as headers at Susa are found also at
Yahya, including the hairy triangle, interpreted by Damerow and Englund (1989: 16) as the symbol of an
institution. Minor variations in certain number signs at Yahya, as compared to the same signs at Susa, sug-
gest that the Proto-Elamite script was conveyed (by people?) in standardised form from Susa to Yahya where
“smallish attacks on graphic conventions were undertaken” (Damerow and Englund 1989: 30). The numeri-
cal systems attested at Yahya include the ŠE system and probably the sexagesimal, bisexagesimal and decimal
systems. In addition to the inscribed tablets, it is notable that Proto-Elamite signs, including the hairy tri-
angle, are found incised on the shoulders of ceramic jars from Yahya (Mutin 2013a: 83–84, Figure 3.34) and
from Arisman (Helwing 2011a).
As Damerow and Englund (1989: 62) stress, the Yahya IVC texts deal with the administration of a purely
local economy with no indication of engagement beyond the immediate environs of the site. The question
must then be – why employ writing at all? As discussed above, only at Susa do we have Proto-Elamite texts
that record activities involving huge numbers of people and animals, situations in which it might indeed be
useful, even essential, to employ writing as a means of maintaining orderly records. At all other sites with
texts, the quantities involved are modest and a system of writing would not be essential in order to keep
account of incomings and outgoings. The answer must be that it was the system of administration that mat-
tered more than the scale of its content. Careful accounting of modest quantities of animals, fields and rations
makes sense only in a context of respect, enforced or otherwise, for a bureaucratic system itself. Communities
of late fourth millennium BC Iran had familiarity with such a system from their encounters with Late Uruk/
Late Susa II Mesopotamia and Khuzestan (Chapter 6), and they adapted that system to their own ends in the
centuries around 3000 BC, taking on most of the numerical systems of the Uruk world but employing a new
script that was tied to their own language rather than to that of Lower Mesopotamia. In the end, the use of
writing (and sealing) at Yahya IVC, as at all Proto-Elamite sites, was about the control of rural production,
land and resource distribution, and human labour by a cadre of administrators capable of securing local par-
ticipation in their bureaucratic system through successful construction and imposition of a specific ideology.
The wide-ranging reach of that ideology, short-lived as it was, is demonstrated by the fact that Proto-Elamite
texts and glyptic iconography, along with many other components of material culture, are remarkably similar
across the span of the Proto-Elamite horizon.
In addition to written texts, the world of seals and sealing was also intimately enmeshed in a Proto-Elamite
ideology of bureaucratic control. As we have seen in our discussion of Susa III glyptic above, Proto-Elamite
seals are characterised by an avoidance of human representation and a vivid use of animal motifs often adopting
apparently human postures. The glyptic from Yahya IVC comprises two cylinder seals and 43 seal impressions,
with both the classic figured style and the glazed steatite style well represented (Figure 7.33) (Pittman 1994:
98–102, 2001b; Mutin 2013a: 170–172, Table 5.2, Figures 5.4–5.6). Only two of the 27 inscribed tablets have seal
impressions. Other seal impressions occur on clay sealings, both container and door closing devices, indicating a
concern to control access to storage facilities within the IVC building. A concentration of jar sealings in rooms
Figure 7.33 Tepe Yahya, seals and seal impressions from period IVC (Mutin 2013a: Figure 5.5) (image courtesy of Benjamin Mutin).
3–4 confirms their use as storerooms. The iconography of the Yahya Proto-Elamite glyptic shows multiple points
of connections with seals and seal impressions from contemporary Susa and Tal-i Malyan (Pittman 2001b: 232).
The chunky cross symbol, a common Proto-Elamite motif in multiple media, appears on at least three different
sealings at Yahya. Overall, the decline in association of seal use with writing and its concomitant increased associ-
ation with sealing of containers and store-room doors, as discussed for the Susa evidence above, is fully supported
by the Yahya IVC glyptic materials.
The inhabitants of Yahya IVC made extensive use of fully domesticated cereals and goats in their diet, with
sheep and cattle of lesser significance (Meadow 1986: tables 3.2, 3.4; Mutin 2013a: 166). They hunted wild an-
imals including bear, fox, mongoose, lion and a range of birds, but their subsistence was essentially agricultural
and pastoral. An increase in use of flint sickle blades in level IVC, as compared to preceding levels, suggests an
intensification of agricultural production (Piperno 1973). In sum, the inhabitants of Proto-Elamite Tepe Yahya
consisted of some 15–20 extended families (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1989), whose rural and economic lives
were to some extent monitored and controlled by a protoliterate element of society, arguably representing the
implantation of “foreign colonies or outposts” (Petrie 2013a: 151; see also Mutin 2013a: 194–195). Their time
was spent largely in agricultural production and animal husbandry in the Soghun valley. They had sophisticated
knowledge of building techniques in mudbrick and probably in wood too (Mutin 2013a: 191). The ceramic as-
semblages suggest both local production and probably also some long-distance movement of selected wares, prin-
cipally of Proto-Elamite style from central and western Iran, but also showing connections to the east and north
(Mutin 2013a: 192–193). Small finds also show participation in a network of regional movement of cherished
materials, and perhaps also of finished artefacts, but only on a small scale. The evidence for on-site working of
imported exotic materials is also quite modest, and Piperno (1973: 71) has noted that a lack of lithic micro-drills
from Yahya IVC suggests that bead-working was not a major activity at the site.
Lamberg-Karlovsky (1971; Mutin 2013a: 195–196) has suggested that Yahya IVC was occupied only seasonally,
during the summer months, by populations migrating from the extremely hot regions of the Halil Rud, an inter-
pretation also applied to Proto-Elamite Malyan by John Alden (2013). This pattern of occupation might account for
the use of sealings to secure possessions in rooms during the absence of much of the population with their animals.
Seasonal movements over substantial distances would be one way for Proto-Elamite communities to maintain con-
tacts with each other and to engage in exchange and social interactions. Such a system would have ensured optimum
use of both lowland and highland resources by human groups and their herded animals, goat and sheep above all.
After no more than 100–150 years (Mutin 2013a: 187), the IVC building at Yahya was abandoned, apparently in
some haste according to the quantities of valuable objects left lying on the building’s floors (Lamberg-Karlovsky
1989: vi). While there is debate about exactly how long after this time Yahya lay empty, perhaps up to 500 years
(Mutin 2013a: 189–190), there is no doubting a serious rupture in occupation at Yahya following the collapse of
the Proto-Elamite horizon at the site. We do not know whether the abandonment of Yahya IVC was brought
about by locals, perhaps objecting to imposed foreign rule, by incursions from outside, or a by decision by the Pro-
to-Elamite inhabitants to move away. Northwards from Yahya, ceramics from Tal-i Iblis, period VI, show limited
Proto-Elamite affinities amongst local and Uruk- or Late Susa II-related materials (Mutin 2013a: 29).
Shahr-i Sokhta: over the Proto-Elamite horizon?

Located some c. 600 km northeast from Tepe Yahya, the site of Shahr-i Sokhta (“Burnt City”) in Iranian Sistan
shows attenuated links with the Proto-Elamite world (Biscione et al. 1977; Amiet and Tosi 1978; Amiet 1983). A
single Proto-Elamite clay tablet was found in an area of domestic architecture at Shahr-i Sokhta period I, level 10,
along with about 20 clay sealings and cylinder seals (Figure 7.34) (Amiet 1983; Dahl et al. 2013: 359–360; Ameri
2020). The tablet belongs to the late writing phase, according to Dahl’s schema (Dahl et al. 2013: Figure 18.17),
and it bears a classic style seal impression (Pittman 1994: 104). Most of the seals and seal impressions correlate well
with examples from Susa Acropole I levels 16-13, including the glazed steatite style, while others represent local
iconographic traditions (Amiet and Tosi 1978). There are also seals carved in stones of heulandite type, a material
favoured by Proto-Elamite glyptic engravers as discussed above (Amiet 1983: 204). Their presence at Shahr-i
Sokhta confirms a role for the site in access to, and working of, cherished raw materials for trans-shipment west-
wards into the Proto-Elamite world.
The ceramics of Shahr-i Sokhta, by contrast, show strong parallels with assemblages from regions to the east,
including southern Turkmenistan and the Kech valley of south-western Pakistan (Mutin 2013a: 30–41). These
assemblages attest Early Bronze Age cultural interactions beyond the world of the Proto-Elamite horizon, span-
ning the uplands and plains of the Indo-Iranian borderlands and the remoter still areas of southern Turkmenistan,
Afghanistan and south-western Pakistan. The early third millennium BC materials from Shahr-i Sokhta do not
indicate the presence of a Proto-Elamite settlement at this site, but rather the participation of some people at
Shahr-i Sokhta in long-distance interactions with their Proto-Elamite contemporaries to the west (see Chapter 9).
Figure 7.34 S hahr-e Sokhta, period I seal, sealing and Proto-Elamite tablet (Ameri 2020: Figure 2) (images courtesy of Marta
Ameri and ISMEO).
Proto-Elamite presence in north-central, north-east and central Iran

In 1992 Holly Pittman presciently wrote that “Future investigations will undoubtedly reveal a substantial Pro-
to-Elamite presence along the northern route skirting the edge of the Kavir Desert” (Pittman 1992b: 69). Her
argument was that the import of cherished commodities such as lapis lazuli from the east would underpin the
significance of the north Iran route for transregional communication and interactions of Proto-Elamite commu-
nities. Discovery of a single Proto-Elamite tablet associated with a large platform at Tepe Ozbaki on the Sav-
ajbulaq Plain west of Tehran (Majidzadeh 2001: 141–145; Vallat 2003) indicates a Proto-Elamite administrative
presence, at least, on a major plain close to the Alborz range in north-central Iran. The Ozbaki text deals with
herds of sheep and goat, using signs “entirely analogous to those found at Susa” (Dahl et al. 2013: 373), and is
dated to the middle Proto-Elamite writing phase by Dahl et al. (2013: Figure 18.17). Excavations at Meymana-
tabad, southeast from Ozbaki in Tehran province, uncovered remains of a substantial mudbrick building over-
lying layers of mid-fourth millennium BC date with ceramics suggesting significant continuity from Late Uruk/
Late Susa II into Proto-Elamite (Yousefi Zoshk et al. 2015).
Most germane to Pittman’s prediction is the discovery of a major Proto-Elamite site at Tepe Sofalin (“Pottery
Mound”), located 35 km southeast of Tehran on the Reyy plain (Figure 7.35) (Hessari and Akbari 2007;
Hessari 2011; Dahl et al. 2012, 2013; Hessari and Saeedi 2017). Sofalin, with its neighbouring mound of
Shoghali, is located on a natural spur close to the timeless northern route, the Great Khorasan Road, which
traverses the edge of the Dasht-e Kavir at the point where that route intersects with a major north-south
route along the western edge of the central plateau. Significant numbers of Proto-Elamite tablets, at least 16
and possibly up to 137 (Figure 7.36) (Desset 2012: 18; Dahl et al. 2012; Desset 2016) were found at Sofalin
in area H14, in association with large quantities of clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions, tablet blanks,
clay tokens, figurines, bevelled-rim bowls, low-sided trays and painted pottery, with significant evidence
for on-site pottery production (Hessari 2011; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: Figure 7.24; Hessari and Yousefi
Zoshk 2013).
Materials from several periods appear to have been dumped together at Sofalin, making a chronological as-
sessment of the finds especially difficult. In addition to the Proto-Elamite texts there is a hollow clay ball with a
token as well as numerical tablets comparable to those of Susa Acropole I levels 18-17A, demonstrating Sofalin’s
significance for Late Uruk/Late Susa II connections across the great north route prior to the Proto-Elamite ho-
rizon (Chapter 6). In Dahl’s schema (Dahl et al. 2013: Figure 18.17), the Proto-Elamite texts from Sofalin belong
to the early, middle and late writing phases, underlining the enduring importance of the great north route for
Proto-Elamite interaction across and beyond northern Iran. The Sofalin texts deal with the issue of cereal rations
to workers and with herds of sheep and goat, altogether “indicative of the same kind of self-sufficient community
which has been suggested for the other sites with proto-Elamite tablets such as Tape Yahya and Tape Malyan…
entirely within the range of a local administration” (Dahl et al. 2012: 69). Along with the inscribed tablets, some
3,000 clay sealings were found at Sofalin (Figure 7.37), showing multiple points of comparison with Proto-Elamite
seal iconography from Susa, including the glazed steatite style, with much rarer occurrence of Central Asian sty-
listic traits (Hessari 2011: Figure 17; Hessari and Yousefi Zoshk 2013: Figure 7). Infant jar burials at Sofalin and
Shoghali are comparable to contemporary examples at Ozbaki, Malyan and Arisman (Hessari and Saeedi 2017).
Figure 7.35 Tepe Sofalin and Shoghali, satellite image (Hessari and Saeedi 2017: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Morteza Hessari).
Figure 7.36 Tepe Sofalin, Proto-Elamite tablets (Dahl et al. 2012: Figures 5–7; Hessari and Saeedi 2017: Figure 4) (images courtesy
of Morteza Hessari).
The occurrence of three adjacent metallurgical workshop, putatively for silver cupellation, hints at one of the
major functions of this extraordinary complex of sites.
Looking eastwards from Sofalin, the site of Tepe Hissar has significant evidence for involvement in Late
Chalcolithic movement and working of lapis lazuli and other cherished materials, as we saw in Chapter 6 (Thorn-
ton 2014). Period II at Hissar is dated to the later fourth millennium BC (Dyson 1987: 655, 2009; Thornton et al.
Figure 7.37 T
epe Sofalin, clay sealings with seal impressions (Hessari and Saeedi 2017: Figures 3, 5) (images courtesy of
Morteza Hessari).
2013: tables 8.1–8.2; Gürsan-Salzmann 2016), at least partly coeval with the Proto-Elamite horizon. Two cyl-
inder seals show Proto-Elamite affinities (Dyson 1987: 657–660; Pittman 1994: 107), but inscribed tablets from
Hissar II are not in the Proto-Elamite style (Dahl et al. 2013: 354). The seals at least are likely to be indicative of
transregional interactions of Proto-Elamite communities of north and central Iran with Central Asia to the east.
As Dyson (1987: 655) puts it: “In period II Hissar became a prosperous trading town filled with craftsmen smelt-
ing copper and working exotic materials (gold, silver, lapis lazuli, carnelian, turquoise, alabaster, etc.).” But Pigott
(1999: 86) has underlined the considerable conservatism evident in the metal-working technology of Hissar across
many centuries, presumably due to the ongoing success of tried and tested methods of production. It is striking
that there is no evidence for tin-bronze anywhere in the Hissar sequence, even after tin-bronze had started to
appear further west in Khuzestan and Lower Mesopotamia, leading Pigott (1999: 86) to support
the notion that tin, which may have been carried from Afghanistan and/or Central Asia to Sumer, either was
not moving across the Plateau or was “by-passing” or being “by-passed” by metalworkers in major Bronze
Age urban centers on the Plateau.
The significance of the north-south route along the western edge of the central plateau, along the eastern fringes
of the Zagros range, is emphasised by a Proto-Elamite presence at evenly spaced sites on this route including
Qoli Darvish, Sialk and Arisman (Figure 7.2). Let’s look at these sites and regions in turn, moving from north
to south. Qoli Darvish is located near Qom city at 940 m above sea level, in close proximity to rich natural
resources including copper at Veshnaveh 60 km to the south (Vatandoust et al. 2011), iron, gypsum, alabaster
and chlorite. Much damaged by modern farming and road-building, the site may originally have covered 100 ha
(Figure 7.38) (Sarlak 2011; Alizadeh et al. 2013b; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 110, Figure 7.25). The Proto-Elamite
settlement at Qoli Darvish is constructed on natural soil with four successive architectural levels including sub-
stantial rectilinear structures, some of which appear to be non-domestic in character. Phase II5 includes a large
Figure 7.38 Q
oli Darvish, satellite image of the site (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Abbas Alizadeh).
Figure 7.39 Qoli Darvish, plan of phase II5 (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 5) (image courtesy of Abbas Alizadeh).
room with internal buttresses (Figure 7.39) and collapsed wall plaster painted in purple, blue and yellow, as
well as typical painted and plain Proto-Elamite ceramics (Figure 7.40). Also found here were five fragments of
numerical tablets, simple clay tokens, a hollow clay ball with tokens, a stamp seal and several door and container
sealings (Figure 7.41) (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: 161, Figure 14). There is significant evidence for metallurgy and flint
working in rooms of this complex. In phase II3 there is a jar burial of a child coated in red pigment, similar to
Figure 7.40 Qoli Darvish, Proto-Elamite pottery from phases II3–II5 (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 11) (image courtesy of
Abbas Alizadeh).
Figure 7.41 Q
oli Darvish, seals, sealings, bulla and numerical tablet fragments from phases II2 and II5 (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure
14) (image courtesy of Abbas Alizadeh).
Figure 7.42 Q
oli Darvish, plan of phase II2 architecture (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: Figure 8) (image courtesy of Abbas Alizadeh).
Proto-Elamite burials at Sialk, Ozbaki and Arisman (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: 155). Phase II2 comprises a mudbrick
platform surmounted by thick-walled rooms with benches, again with evidence for craft activity in an external
area. There is also a highly unusual square structure with internal niches and semi-circular protrusions (Figure
7.42). A typical Proto-Elamite steatite seal was found in one of the rooms of this phase. Radiocarbon dates from
Phase II2 span 3300–3000 BC (Pollard et al. 2013). The sequence of rectilinear Proto-Elamite architecture at
Qoli Darvish is succeeded after a significant hiatus by a complex of at least three circular structures in the style of
Early Transcaucasian Culture architecture (ETC: Chapter 8) with ETC-related ceramics.
Period IV at Tepe Sialk overlies a burnt level resulting from a destruction of Sialk III (see Chapter 6; Ghirsh-
man 1939: 58–59; Dittmann 1987: 52–59; Dahl et al. 2013: 357; Mutin 2013a: 27; Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019;
Helwing 2019), which together suggested to the excavator, Roman Ghirshman, that Sialk had been invaded by in-
comers from Susa (Ghirshman 1939: 58; contra Damerow and Englund 1989: 62, fn 170). As we saw in Chapter 6, Sialk
IV1 comprises an important building on Sialk South associated with Late Uruk/Late Susa II-related materials such as
ceramics, cylinder seals and numerical tablets, all interpreted as an Uruk or Susa control post on an important trade
route (Algaze 1993: 55–56). Overlying these buildings, and separated from them by a sterile layer 70 cm thick, are
the remains of Sialk IV2, which comprise disturbed deposits with Proto-Elamite material culture including painted
ceramics as well as bevelled-rim bowls and low-sided trays (Ghirshman 1939: 58–61; Amiet 1985; Dahl et al. 2013:
357), radiocarbon dated to c. 3200–3100 BC (Nokandeh 2010b; Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 111). Thus Sialk, like Sofalin,
maintains its importance in transregional connections across the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transition.
Burials of infants in jars in Sialk IV2 are comparable to examples from Malyan and Arisman, and there are
intra-mural graves of adults richly furnished with alabaster vessels, copper mirrors and elaborate jewellery of lapis
lazuli, shell, gold, silver and carnelian (Ghirshman 1954a: 48, Figure 17). Continuing the Late Chalcolithic tradi-
tion of early administration and numeracy at Sialk, there is evidence of Proto-Elamite bureaucracy in level IV2,
with up to five tablets with Proto-Elamite signs, dealing with herds of animals (Figure 7.43) (Ghirshman 1934,
1954a: Figure 18; Damerow and Englund 1989: 2; Dahl et al. 2013: 357; Desset 2016: 69; Dahl 2018: 383–384,
2019: 61; Bridey and Cuny 2019a: 52; Bridey and Cuny 2019b: Figure 11.4). Texts from Sialk IV2 have poorly
drawn signs and may date to the earliest Proto-Elamite writing phase (Dahl et al. 2013: 373). They also have per-
forated holes in them, a most unusual feature (Ghirshman 1939: 67) that continues the local Chalcolithic practice
of piercing clay sealings, perhaps for archiving or label-attaching purposes.
What appears to happen at Sialk in the late fourth millennium BC, then, is the destruction by fire of a local
culture at the end of Sialk III, the implantation of a Late Uruk/Late Susa II colony on the summit of Sialk South,
analogous to Godin VI:1 (Chapter 6), and its succession by a Proto-Elamite presence in Sialk IV2 followed by a
significant period of abandonment. Algaze (1993: 55–56) has stressed the strategic location of Sialk, like Godin
Tepe commanding a major route across the Iranian plateau, and therefore with the potential to control movement
of cherished raw materials and commodities as part of a transregional network of interaction.
Figure 7.43 T
epe Sialk, Proto-Elamite tablet AO18173 (Bridey and Cuny 2019a: 52) (Ghirshman Archive, Department of Near
Eastern Antiquities, Musée du Louvre. Inv. no DAO-600–004–0093)
Figure 7.44 A risman, Area C layer of house I (photo credit: Barbara Helwing, DAI-EA; photo no: ARI_chapt2-1-3-2_fig36).
Proto-Elamite levels have been extensively explored at Arisman, just 60 km south of Sialk (Helwing
2006, 2013a, 2019). Major evidence for copper working develops at Arisman through the fourth millennium
BC, contemporary with Sialk III and IV, including a transition from crucible smelting to furnace smelting
in the Proto-Elamite levels (Helwing 2018: 124–125). Metallurgical activity in Area A at Arisman, dated to
3100–2900 BC, generated a heap of some 20 tons of slag from production of arsenical copper and speiss, an
iron-arsenic alloy (Rehren et al. 2012). This step change in metal production is matched by a switch from
largely hand-made to wheel-turned mass-produced ceramics (Helwing 2013a: 100), both probable indicators
of increasing social and economic complexity. The settlement in Area C includes a well-planned domestic
quarter (Figure 7.44) with ceramic and metal workshops, Proto-Elamite-style pottery comparable to Susa
Figure 7.45 A risman, Area C painted pottery (photo credit: Hermann Parzinger, DAI-EA; photo no: 2-2-2 fig06).
Figure 7.46 A
risman, Area C cylinder seals with modern impression (photo credit: Barbara Helwing, DAI-EA; photo no: Teh50_fig172).
Acropole I 16-14 and to Malyan (Figure 7.45) (Helwing 2011a: 216) and three typical cylinder seals (Figure
7.46) (Helwing 2011c: 274–276). No tablets or clay sealings, and only a single token, have been found at
Arisman. Radiocarbon dates for Area C, phases 7-4 (Proto-Elamite) lie around 3300–3100 BC (Helwing
2011a: 215, 2013a: 100). Jar burials, largely of infants, date to slightly later within the Proto-Elamite horizon
(Chegini et al. 2011: 44). As with other Proto-Elamite assemblages, the chipped stone material is dominated
by the standardised production of sickle blades (Helwing and Thomalsky 2011). Settlement patterns in the
region of Arisman show a pattern of rural abandonment contemporary with the growth of the site of Arisman
itself (Helwing 2013a: 100), the classic pattern for Proto-Elamite settlement.
Characterising the Proto-Elamite horizon

From the above review of evidence from key sites and regions, we can emphasise and attempt to interpret some char-
acteristic features of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon (excellently surveyed by Mutin 2013a). Proto-Elamite settlement
patterns are characterised by important regional centres with sparse evidence for surrounding village occupation.
A serious decline in settled population across much of Iran, accompanied by a trend to agglomeration in regional cen-
tres, appears to characterise the later fourth and early third millennia BC more broadly (Young 1977; T. Potts 1994:
62–63, Table 2; Alden 2013: 229; Hopper and Wilkinson 2013: Figure 3.8). Thus, the Proto-Elamite centres of
Susa, Senjar, Malyan, Sialk, Arisman, Sofalin and Yahya appear as widely spaced regional foci across the land-
scape, with sparse evidence for surrounding rural settlement. Other areas, such as northern Susiana ( Johnson
1973; Dollfus 1985; Zalaghi 2019), the Ram Hormuz plain (Alizadeh et al. 2013a; Alizadeh 2014), the Izeh plain
(Wright 1979, 1987; Alden 1982b: 619–620), and the Mamasani region (Potts and Roustaei 2006) may have
hosted more dense and hierarchical settlement at this time, but a problem is the lack of intensive programmes of
regional survey in many of the key regions, coupled with the issue of modern alluviation referred to above which
has clearly buried many small and even substantial sites.
Still something of a mystery is the apparent absence of Proto-Elamite (and of Late Uruk/Late Susa II) traces in
north-eastern Iran, for example at Tepe Hissar (Thornton et al. 2013: 141), a site where significant quantities of
lapis lazuli were being processed through the later fourth millennium BC. It is possible that the people of Hissar
participated in the Proto-Elamite world, as a centre for lapis lazuli processing and shipment, but without adopting
any of the material traits of the Proto-Elamite horizon (Helwing 2006). To the west, settlement on the Deh Luran
plain shows signs of significant growth, in step with Lower Mesopotamia to the west (Wright 1987). In fact, it is
notable that Proto-Elamite ceramics are lacking from the Deh Luran plain, where Lower Mesopotamian-related
assemblages of Early Dynastic I types take their place, clearly demonstrating the situation of Deh Luran within
the Mesopotamian sphere of influence at this time.
While local evidence from Iran is slight (Stevens et al. 2006), there is some indication from palaeoclimate
proxies from Southwest Asia, in particular from Soreq Cave (Bar-Matthews et al. 1997), of a short sharp decline
in precipitation at about 3200 BC, which may have impacted on crop harvests particularly in marginal regions.
The concentration of human and economic resources in Proto-Elamite centres, along with rural abandonment,
might therefore be seen as responses to a relatively sudden onset of adverse climatic and agricultural conditions
(Staubwasser and Weiss 2006).
How did Proto-Elamite regional centres function and can we consider them as urban centres? We can detect
clear elements of central planning and transregional architectural consistency in features such as the formal layout
of buildings in Area C at Arisman (Chegini et al. 2011: 63, Figure 10) and in level IVC2 at Yahya (Mutin 2013a:
Figure 2.2), and in the use of standardised mudbricks and building plans at least at Arisman, Malyan, Yahya and
Susa (Potts 2001: 10; Mutin 2013a: 11). These features suggest the existence of powerful organisations, house-
holds or even individuals who could structure settlement plans de novo according to their own designs. The scale
of Proto-Elamite Malyan is impressive, with up to 50 ha of settled area in this period, and significant evidence for
monumental architecture, a 5 km-long surrounding wall and specialised craft and administrative activity, as we
have seen. But other Proto-Elamite sites, probably apart from Susa, appear to have been quite modest in size and
on the criterion of scale alone cannot be considered truly urban, even if hosting material evidence for social and
economic complexity. It seems more appropriate to characterise Proto-Elamite settlement developments as a pro-
cess of “centralisation” rather than “urbanisation,” in the sense employed by Çevik (2007) in her analysis of Early
Bronze Age Anatolia, another highland region bordering the plains of Mesopotamia. In this light, centralisation
of settlement means the emergence of regional centres, which need not be substantial in areal extent, dominating
a simple two-tiered settlement hierarchy.
As with Lower Mesopotamia in the Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods, we have little information on how
Proto-Elamite communities disposed of their dead. Burial of children, rarely adults, in pits and ceramic pots,
sometimes placed under floors of buildings, is attested in Proto-Elamite levels at Arisman (Chegini et al. 2011),
Malyan in area TUV (Nicholas 1990: 50–51), Qoli Darvish (Alizadeh et al. 2013b: 155) and Sialk (Ghirshman
1939: 59–61). Adults may have been buried in discrete cemeteries not yet located or disposed of in ways that have
not left recoverable traces.
Proto-Elamite diet and economy were based on agricultural production and animal herding, particularly
of goat and sheep, with evidence for seasonal pastoral mobility in some regions such as Fars. Goat and sheep
provided the bulk of meat while sheep were exploited also for milk and wool (Zeder 1991: 163). As we have seen,
there is debate about the extent to which Proto-Elamite communities engaged in seasonal transhumance with
their flocks of goat and sheep. Cattle may have been used as draft animals while donkeys were used as beasts of
burden (Zeder 1986, 1991: 138) and pigs appear to have been avoided or eschewed as major components of diet
(Mashkour 2006b), an attribute that matches the absence of pig representations in Proto-Elamite writing and
sealing systems (Dahl 2018: 386), which together may indicate a dietary taboo on pigs and pig products. Hunting
of wild animals does not appear to have played a major role in Proto-Elamite economy (Zeder 1991: 138). Barley
and wheats were the mainstay crops of the Proto-Elamite world (Meadow 1986: 30).
A characteristic marker of the Proto-Elamite horizon is the presence of material remains of bureaucracy in the
form of seals, seal impressions and inscribed tablets, as we have seen above. As Dahl et al. (2013: 353, Figure 18.1;
Desset 2016; Alizadeh 2017: 65; Dahl 2019: 61) have summarised, Proto-Elamite tablets have been found so far
at eight widely dispersed sites: Susa (c. 1560), Tall-e Geser (1), Malyan (33), Sialk (c. 7), Ozbaki (1), Sofalin (>16),
Yahya (27) and Shahr-i Sokhta (1) (Figure 7.2). There are unconfirmed reports of Proto-Elamite tablets from
Qoli Darvish near Qom (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 110). But the distribution of Proto-Elamite tablets across these
sites is highly uneven, with Susa yielding by far the largest proportion (c. 1,560 out of more than 1,600 total
tablets: Dahl et al. 2013: 354). We have discussed above the possibility that the Proto-Elamite script is connected
to the spoken language of the administrative elite, which is not to claim that the script renders the language in
all its grammatical fulness. As we have seen, the relationship of Proto-Elamite to later Elamite remains unclear,
but one scenario is that “the geographical range of Proto-Elamite tablets marks the early establishment of an
Elamite cultural area including at least the valleys of Fars, the lowlands of Khuzistan, and outposts or enclaves to
the north and east of these regions” (Stolper 1984: 9), supported by Englund’s (2004: 140–141) view that “Given
later linguistic evidence, it is likely that an indigenous, Elamite-speaking population was living there [in Iran] in
the latter half of the fourth millennium.”
The tablets reveal an overriding concern with administration of the rural economy, based on agriculture and
animal herding, as well as with the organisation of labour (Desset 2016; Dahl 2018; Dahl et al. 2018) and the move-
ment of commodities and items such as dairy products and stone and metal tools amongst individuals, households
and institutions. While the Susa texts, discussed above, show management of very large numbers of people, ani-
mals and commodities, texts from other sites such as Malyan and Yahya relate to more modest scales of interaction.
Alongside the inscribed tablets, distinctive types of cylinder seal were used to seal tablets, storeroom doors and a
range of containers (Pittman 2001b). The iconography of Proto-Elamite seals, in particular the glazed steatite style
that is found way beyond the borders of the Proto-Elamite world, in the Hamrin and Diyala regions, in Lower
Mesopotamia, and at Ninevite 5 sites in Upper Mesopotamia (Figure 7.1) (Pittman 1994), suggests major transre-
gional connections within and beyond the Proto-Elamite world. Notable aspects of glyptic iconography include
an aversion to human (and porcine) depiction, the portrayal of animals in human poses and the inclusion of some
signs comparable to those attested on inscribed tablets, such as the hairy triangle and chunky cross.
The detailed analysis by Dahl (Dahl et al. 2013; Dahl 2018) of all known Proto-Elamite texts has begun to estab-
lish a relative chronology for the evolution of these distinctive bureaucratic aids, while Englund (2004: 140) points
to the evidence for rapid development of a full writing system in Proto-Elamite once a decision had been made (by
a single individual at Susa?) to adopt this mode of written communication. It is striking that tablets assigned to the
early and middle phases of the Proto-Elamite horizon are found at Susa and Tall-e Geser in Khuzestan and other-
wise only in central and northern Iran, at Sialk, Ozbaki and Sofalin, thus linking Susiana with routes leading along
the western and northern edge of the central plateau. Later Proto-Elamite texts are found at Susa, Malyan, Yahya
and Shahr-i Sokhta, as well as Sofalin, showing the development of administrative connections of Susiana with
southern and eastern Iran, as well as the continued significance of the great high road to the north. In all phases,
the site of Susa is the axis upon which the Proto-Elamite horizon turns, the place where key components of the
Proto-Elamite world are first devised, including the distinctive script and the glazed steatite style of cylinder seal.
Ceramic assemblages from Proto-Elamite sites show many elements of consistency in their manufacture, form
and decoration, possibly realised through cadres of itinerant specialist potters (Alden and Minc 2016), as well as
points of comparison, at least in terms of assemblage structure, with contemporary Jemdet Nasr assemblages from
Lower Mesopotamia to the west (Helwing 2011a; Petrie 2014) and ceramic traditions to the east (Mutin et al.
2016). But there are local components in all Proto-Elamite assemblages, and there is evidence for local manufacture
of ceramics within a transregional koine of shared ceramic concepts and practices (Mutin 2013a: 13, 17; Mutin et al.
2016). It is fair to say that insufficient attention has hitherto been devoted to analysis and interpretation of the local
components of material culture assemblages within which Proto-Elamite materials are situated (Petrie 2013b: 15).
Production, distribution and consumption of metals, above all copper but also silver, gold and lead, are well at-
tested across the Proto-Elamite horizon, with the site of Arisman playing a major role in extraction and smelting
of copper for distribution across much of Iran and beyond (Vatandoust et al. 2011; Helwing 2011b, 2018). Chris-
topher Thornton (2009: 315–316) has pointed out that contemporary with Proto-Elamite Arisman, we can trace
a major step change in metal production at a range of sites in highland Iran, including the “Industrial Quarter”
at Sialk and the “South Hill” at Hissar, which we can characterise as specialised production, probably under the
control of “central “elite” authorities.”
The manufacture of high-quality artefacts from compounds of materials, including stone, metal and shell,
appears to be a distinctive Proto-Elamite feature (Helwing 2006: 42). Immense skill and aesthetic refinement are
evident in the production of the few high-status Proto-Elamite artefacts known to us, mainly without archae-
ological provenance. Such items include a silver kneeling bull holding a spouted vessel (Hansen 1970; Pittman
2003a: 43), an extraordinary standing lioness of magnesite or crystalline limestone in a twisted, fist-clenched
pose, matching scenes on several Proto-Elamite cylinder seals (Porada 1950; Amiet 1966: 104–105; Pittman
2003a: 44–45), and a silver ithyphallic bull pendant (Aruz 2002). All these objects are likely to have been pos-
sessed and displayed by high-status individuals or households within Proto-Elamite societies.
Furthermore, the movement over considerable distances, sometimes from outside the Proto-Elamite world, of
cherished commodities such as lapis lazuli, turquoise, carnelian, obsidian and seashells suggests well-connected
communities with tastes for the exotic, but we should bear in mind that such exotica are not found in large numbers
at Proto-Elamite sites (Mutin 2013a: 14), nor do they feature as far as we can tell in the content of Proto-Elamite
texts (Lamberg-Karlovsky 2013: 565). Connections across the Proto-Elamite world are demonstrated through mul-
tiple common aspects of material culture, and also by the occurrence of shared practices in Proto-Elamite texts,
including usage of specific signs such as the fringed triangle variant containing a four-pointed star, found on texts
from Susa, Tal-i Malyan, Tepe Sofalin and Tepe Yahya (Dahl 2013: 249). Abdi (2012: 26) has pointed out that
many sites with Proto-Elamite material culture may be interpreted as “gateway communities for contact between
Proto-Elamites and other cultural regions.” Thus, Susa could have served as a gateway between Iran and Mesopo-
tamia, Shahr-i Sokhta as a gateway between eastern Iran and Afghanistan and the Indus Valley, and Tepe Hissar as
a gateway between the central plateau and Turkmenistan and Central Asia.
The Hamrin region of eastern central Iraq is of particular interest during the Proto-Elamite period, bordering
as it does the Zagros foothills and mountains of Luristan to its east and the central Mesopotamian plains to its
west. As we have seen, the glazed steatite or piedmont glyptic style is richly attested in early third millennium BC
sites of the Hamrin and Diyala valleys, but what also marks this region is the appearance of large-scale circular
architecture at several major sites of the region, including Tell Gubbah, Tell Razuk and Tell Madhhur. Renette’s
(2009) re-examination of the Hamrin circular structures demonstrates their main function for storage of agri-
cultural surpluses, above all grain, almost certainly by mobile groups of herders. The use of seals and sealings at
all these sites, as also at contemporary Chogha Maran on the Mahi Dasht (Pittman 2014; Renette 2018: 311–312;
Renette et al. 2021), fits with such a pattern. While lacking evidence for proto-writing, the societies of the
Hamrin region in the early third millennium BC provide an interesting model for considering how small-scale
mobile communities of the region managed and maximised their resources through collective means. Certainly,
the location of Proto-Elamite sites, and the material evidence itself, suggests a strong Proto-Elamite concern with
access to cherished commodities and materials, many of which were imported from outside into Iran.
In sum, the shared attributes of the Proto-Elamite horizon in multiple aspects of material culture argue
for a strong degree of social cohesion across large distances, mediated through structures of political and
administrative control, neatly captioned as “communities of interest” by Massimo Vidale (2018a), including
the use of writing and seals, and perhaps also sustained through seasonal movements of significant pro-
portions of village populations with their animals. This apparent cohesion may have been based on notions of
tribal affiliation, an ideology that may have successfully integrated sedentary and more mobile components
into a coherent state-like political entity, capable of self-sustaining for just a few centuries. But as yet it is
unclear whether we should view the Proto-Elamite horizon as comprising politically autonomous spheres
of regional power, broadly distributed across Khuzestan (Susa, Geser), Fars (Malyan), Qom-Isfahan (Qoli
Darvish, Sialk, Arisman), Tehran (Sofalin) and Kerman (Yahya), sharing means and modes of socio-eco-
nomic interaction, or as a centralised political entity controlled by an over-riding elite based in one of these
regional centres, be it Susa or Malyan or elsewhere. As to the means by which Proto-Elamite social identity
was sustained across such large spans of Iran, Mutin et al.’s (2016: 860) richly contextualised analysis of ce-
ramics from Tepe Yahya IVC concludes that
This tends to indicate population replacement – by a community and not only a portion of it – rather than
assimilation or emulation of all these Proto-Elamite aspects by locals….the newcomers, possible migrants
from the west, re-created their material culture using local resources.
The universal avoidance across the Proto-Elamite world of the depiction of the human form in the media of
writing and glyptic, plus the striking absence of evidence for consumption of, and depiction of, pigs and pig
products, strongly suggests the top-down imposition of a distinctive ideology, doubtless religiously mediated,
as a mechanism for creating and sustaining social identity at a transregional scale. There are of course numerous
historical parallels for such a process.
How then can we characterise the Proto-Elamite horizon as a socio-cultural phenomenon? Algaze (1993:
107) usefully designates it as a “successor state,” which assumed control of networks of political and economic
engagement that were already in existence by the later fourth millennium BC (Tosi 1976; Mutin 2013a: 18,
200). The routes of communication were already established and indeed well-trodden, strategic points of con-
trol along those routes had already been settled, the apparatus of administrative control of rural production,
storage and distribution had already been devised and applied, and the mechanisms of management and ex-
ploitation were already in place. The strategically located sites of Sialk and Sofalin both demonstrate the con-
cern of Proto-Elamite administrators to maintain Late Uruk/Late Susa II control over rural economies at these
key nodal points in the landscape. By contrast, the fact that Godin apparently fails to make the transition to a
full Proto-Elamite site, despite hesitant evidence of a Proto-Elamite presence there (cylinder seals), may have
to do with the success of the people represented by the Early Transcaucasian pottery that dominates at the site
following the abandonment of the Oval Enclosure of Godin VI:1 (Chapter 8). Basing her arguments on Taint-
er’s (1988) study of collapse, Barbara Helwing (2013a: 98, 2019) proposes that the Proto-Elamite phenomenon
should be viewed as a local articulation of complexity in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Uruk/
Susa II dynamic, an argument that chimes well with Algaze’s idea of a successor state, as well as with Mutin’s
(2012: 180) comment that the Proto-Elamite phenomenon in south-eastern Iran “was constructed, at least par-
tially, in relation to dynamics rooted in the previous periods from other locally and regionally separate polities
and corresponding political structures.” The Proto-Elamite state was the state of Late Uruk/Late Susa II with a
new face, speaking a new language and writing a new script, but its inner workings and its raison d’être remained
the same, which is why certain structural and institutional (Benati 2018) components of the Late Uruk/Late
Susa II world – written records, use of cylinder seals, architectural planning, taxation and rationing, consump-
tion of certain foodstuffs – were sustained into the new era.
The end of the Proto-Elamite world

We can date the collapse of the Proto-Elamite system at Susa to c. 2900–2800 BC when Early Dynastic Meso-
potamian styles of pottery and glyptic become dominant in much of western Iran (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 133;
Potts 1999: 90; Wright and Rupley 2001). Proto-Elamite collapse at Tal-i Malyan and Tepe Yahya appears to
happen a little later but certainly before 2700 BC (Mutin 2013a: 42). At Susa, collapse can be attributed to a
resurgence of Mesopotamian influence, in the form of newly coalescing Sumerian city-states, and possibly to
outright invasion, but direct Sumerian action is unlikely to be the cause of collapse further east (Potts 1999: 90).
Amiet (1992: 5) attributes collapse to the instability inherent in the “intrinsic duality of Proto-Elamite civiliza-
tion....compounded by the excessively rapid urbanization of the mountain heartland.” A similar view is inherent
in Lamberg-Karlovsky’s (1978: 118) statement that the Proto-Elamite polity had “overextended its own lines of
communication and control.”
Dahl (2013: 257) points out that the collapse of the Proto-Elamite writing system would have been hastened
in view of the fact that there is virtually no evidence for a scholarly tradition at Susa to support the cultivation
of the Proto-Elamite written system. The scribes at Susa in the Susa III period borrowed much from Lower
Mesopotamia, as we have seen, but one attribute that failed to travel from the Late Uruk/Jemdet Nasr world
to Proto-Elamite Susa was the scholarly practice of employing exhaustive lexical lists as training aids. Once the
Proto-Elamite writing system started to collapse, and Dahl et al. (2013: 375) estimate that there were only “a very
small number of practitioners,” there was no apparatus with which to sustain it or to bring it back at a later date.
Thus, the impact of Proto-Elamite on later writing traditions in Iran is virtually nil. After c. 2800 BC, writing
disappeared from western Iran for more than half a millennium and when it did reappear it was as an imposition
from outside in the form of Mesopotamian cuneiform script at c. 2300 BC (Dahl 2009: 26, 2013: 234). For central
and eastern Iran, the interlude between episodes of writing was far greater.
But not only writing disappeared from the central plains of Iran. People also seem to vanish into thin air.
For at least the period c. 2900 to c. 2300 BC we lack evidence for settlement on the plains of Qazvin, Tehran,
Kashan (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013a: 126) and Qom, with the significant exception of Qoli Darvish where Early
Trans-Caucasian occupation starts at c. 2700 BC (Chapter 8), and across the entire Arisman region (Helwing
2011b: 531, 2018: 126). The plains of Susiana and Ram Hormuz in Khuzestan see a major fall in settlement
Figure 7.47 S ettlement trajectories through time for the Kur river basin (lower) and Susiana (upper), showing occupied areas, in
hectares, per period (adapted from de Miroschedji 2003: Figures 3.2–3.3).
enduring throughout the early-mid third millennium BC (Figure 7.47) (de Miroschedji 2003: 19; Alizadeh
2014: 3), while the Kur river basin, the most fertile region in Fars, lacks evidence for permanent settlement
between 2800 and 2400 BC (and again between 1000 and 550 BC: de Miroschedji 2003: 19). Along the Za-
gros chain from Godin Tepe to Fars and across the Zagros into the Hamrin valley of eastern central Iraq, all
these regions appear devoid of permanent settlement for several centuries of the early-mid third millennium
BC (Renette 2009: 80; Thornton 2012: 596). These figures are extraordinary indications of a major rupture
in long-term village life that requires explanation, doubtless partly through climatic and environmental fac-
tors given the evidence for an episode of a cold and dry climate spanning c. 3200–2700 BC (Schmidt et al.
2011; Islam et al. 2016), as well as through possible transitions from settled to more mobile lifestyles. It is also
likely that some areas of Iran became too unstable and unsafe for year-round human settlement, during the
lengthy episodes of military conflict between Mesopotamia and the Elamite state that characterise much of
the third millennium BC (Chapter 10).
In eastern Iran, the end of the Proto-Elamite horizon is marked by sudden, complete and lengthy abandon-
ment of key sites such as Tepe Yahya (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: ix; Mutin 2013a: 42, 189–190), and the col-
lapse of the apparatus of regional and agricultural control as manifest in the Proto-Elamite system of writing
and sealing. This part of Iran stayed out of the written word for a very long time thereafter. The connected
world of the Proto-Elamite horizon is replaced across eastern Iran by regional centres such as Shahr-i Sokhta,
Shahdad and Tepe Hissar with increasing evidence for contacts into Central Asia and Baluchistan (Chapter 9;
Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989: ix; Amiet 1993: 26–27). In his thoughtful reviews of the Proto-Elamite material
from his own excavations at Yahya, Lamberg-Karlovsky (1978, 1989) interprets the Proto-Elamite phenome-
non in the same terms as the preceding Uruk phenomenon, as the colonisation of areas previously peripheral
to core areas where increasing socio-economic complexity and population pressure led to a need for socie-
ties to expand into new territories. Collapse is inevitable in such a scenario, as the potential for expansion is
highly restricted, in particular across the deserts and high plateaux of upland Iran. Networks of communica-
tion and control over tough terrain and daunting distances get stretched beyond sustaining point. A related
point, made by Hans Nissen (2001: 176), is that the geographical span of the Proto-Elamite horizon, unlike
the preceding Late Uruk/Late Susa II world, covered highly diverse environmental zones, from the lowlands
and marshes of Khuzestan to the high Zagros plains, from the desert-edge routes of the Great Khorasan Road
to the hot valleys of Kerman and Sistan. Control over such geographical diversity in the pre-modern era
could only ever be fragile and fleeting.
In an ambitious review covering the period 3500 to 700 BC, Pierre de Miroschedji (2003) articulates a long-
term systemic view of “cyclic variations” in the transitions through time between what he calls the Irano-Mes-
opotamian System (defined as the Lower Mesopotamian plains plus the Iranian highlands) and the Elamite
System (defined as the Iranian highland zones plus Khuzestan). Each of de Miroschedji’s cycles comprises distinct
sequential phases: (1) trade-driven expansion of Mesopotamian polities onto the Zagros highlands and down the
Persian Gulf; (2) secondary state formation in the highland zone, stimulated by lowland engagement; (3) desire of
secondary states to control trade and eventually to conquer lowland partners, leading to; (4) collapse of entire
lowland-highland network, political fragmentation, rural abandonment, and resurgence of pastoral nomadism
in the highland zone (de Miroschedji 2003: 23–25). The Proto-Elamite collapse can be seen as the first instance
of this phenomenon, with the Proto-Elamite “state” directly resultant from Uruk/Late Susa II highland en-
gagement in the late fourth millennium BC, and its collapse indeed leading directly to rural abandonment on a
massive scale, as we have seen.
Partly chiming with this interpretation, Pierre Amiet’s view of Proto-Elamite collapse, “as from a single blow,”
cites “an urbanisation that was excessive for the agricultural and demographic capacities of its cradle, present
Fars, where the city of Anshan was abandoned” (Amiet 1993: 26). Furthermore, in a rare bottom-up perspective,
Lamberg-Karlovsky (2001a, 2003, 2013) has discussed the possibility that the societies of Iran and neighbouring
regions deliberately chose to reject state-like complexity and its potentially oppressive apparatus of control and
manipulation, physically manifest in the Proto-Elamite tablets and seals, preferring instead to pursue less inten-
sive, and more traditionally rooted, modes of living in harmony with their natural and constructed environments.
Such a scenario is theorised by Yoffee (2005: 139) in his discussion of collapse of Mesopotamian states: “Collapse,
in general, tends to ensue when the center is no longer able to secure resources from the periphery, usually hav-
ing lost the legitimacy through which it could disembed goods and services of traditionally organized groups.”
For reasons we can never know but can freely imagine, the centralising authorities of the Proto-Elamite world,
whether at Susa or Malyan or both, lost their legitimacy in exerting control over widely-dispersed regional bases
of power across almost all of Iran, a control that was after all exercised by small cadres of protoliterate administra-
tors, sometimes living as strangers in a strange land within fortified enclosures atop settlements with substantial
local populations, many of whom may have been only too happy to see an end to bean-counting and bureaucratic
interference in their daily lives. For now, the state experiment in Iran was over.
8 People on the move: prehistoric networks of
Bronze Age Iran, 3400–1100 BC
Iran beyond the Proto-Elamite horizon

In the previous chapter, we saw that much of Iran was involved at least to some degree in the Proto-Elamite state
experiment for a period of a few centuries centring on c. 3000 BC. But not all of Iran was so engaged. Large
swathes of the country appear to have remained firmly outside the control of the pen-pushers (“stylus-scratchers”?)
and agricultural managers who ran the Proto-Elamite state, if state indeed it was. In this chapter, we study the
regions of Iran beyond the Proto-Elamite horizon, tracing cultural, economic, social and political developments
in north-western, western and southern Iran, regions that remained preliterate throughout the Early Bronze Age
(Helwing 2017b), before turning in the following chapter to consideration of south-eastern and north-eastern
Iran through the third millennium BC in the aftermath of the Proto-Elamite collapse.
We begin our study with one of the most extraordinary large-scale cultural phenomena of ancient Iran, the
Early Transcaucasian Culture of the Early Bronze Age and its impact upon north-western and western Iran,
before considering this distinctive region in the Middle-Late Bronze Age, up to the onset of the Iron Age
from c. 1250 BC. Our focus then shifts southwards to examine the spectacular evidence for Bronze Age funerary
practices in the Luristan region of western Iran, before finally covering Bronze Age developments in the core
Fars region of southern Iran. As explored in the Chalcolithic chapter, communities in each region of Iran pursued
their own courses of socio-economic behaviour through time whilst sustaining to varying degrees regional and
transregional engagements that keyed them into wider worlds, as attested through attributes of their material
culture, including architecture, ceramics and metalwork. These cultural threads can equally be discerned and
followed through the Bronze Age, as we now consider in detail.
The Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) in Iran, 3400–2600 BC: an ideology of home
and the hearth
Partly overlapping with the period when the Proto-Elamite horizon is attested across much of Iran, there is clear
evidence of an even more expansive socio-cultural phenomenon known by most archaeologists as the Early
Transcaucasian Culture, or ETC for short, originally an abbreviation of “Early Trans-Caucasian” coined by
Charles Burney (Burney and Lang 1971: 44), alternatively called by some the Kura-Araxes Culture or Horizon
after the Kura and Araxes rivers, which flow through Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to the north of Iran
(Kohl 2007: 86–102, 2009; Smith 2012: 675–679; Batiuk 2013), or within Iran the Yanik Sphere (K. Alizadeh
2010; Abdi 2012: 26; Summers 2013a, 2013b, 2014). The Early Transcaucasian Culture is a purely prehistoric
entity, lacking any trace of writing or proto-writing, and our approach to it must therefore be firmly grounded
in all aspects of its material manifestations (the special issues of Paléorient 40/2 2014 and 41/3 2015 dedicated to
“The Kura-Araxes culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: between unity and diversity” are
especially informative and stimulating on ETC). As far as Iran is concerned, ETC evidence is concentrated across
the mainly highland regions of north-western and central-western Iran, with a southern limit in the region of
Arak to the east of the central Zagros region and an eastern limit in the region of Mazandaran to the north of the
Alborz range (Figure 8.1) (Summers 2013b).
North-western Iran is only one region within the ETC expanse (see Figure 7.1), which at its greatest extent
reached from the Transcaucasian regions of Azerbaijan, Georgia (except Colchis, western Georgia), Nakhchivan
and Armenia in the north (Lyonnet 2007b; Smith 2012, 2015; Batiuk 2013; Marro et al. 2014; Rova and Tonussi
2017) to central-western Iran in the south, and from central-northern Iran in the east across the Upper Euphrates
highlands of eastern Anatolia (Marro 2011) and into the southern Levant, where its distinctive pottery is called
Khirbet Kerak Ware (Amiran 1965; de Miroschedji 2000; Philip 2000; Philip and Millard 2000). It is important
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-8
People on the move 237
Figure 8.1 Distribution of ETC and Bronze Age sites in north-western Iran and adjacent regions.
to stress that within this vast and diverse geographic span the degree of cultural homogeneity was highly variable,
and that not all regions within it show evidence for an ETC presence. In this study we will approach the ETC as
a phenomenon both of north-western Iran and of ancient Southwest Asia more broadly (Kohl 2007; Batiuk 2013;
Palumbi and Chataigner 2014).
Distinctive material culture attributes of the ETC include mudbrick and wattle and daub architecture in cir-
cular and rectilinear forms and handmade pottery, in red or black tones often highly burnished and decorated
with incised and applied geometric and naturalistic motifs (Henrickson 2011a). Both of these material attributes –
round and rectilinear houses and highly decorated ceramics – seem to hark back to a much earlier age such as the
prehistoric Halaf culture of Upper Mesopotamia which, like ETC, also occurs across an enormous span of steppe,
foothills and uplands of Southwest Asia (Matthews 2000: 85–111) but precedes the ETC by some two millennia.
238 People on the move
Additional classic ETC cultural traits include zoomorphic baked clay hearths, lithic assemblages characterised
by chert sickle blades and obsidian scrapers and points, metal ornaments such as double-spiral headed pins and
animal figurines (Courcier 2007; Smith 2012: 676; Abedi et al. 2018a). In approaching the ETC here we begin
by reviewing previous research into the topic before summarising the evidence from key sites and regions of
north-western Iran. We conclude by attempting to apprehend the socio-cultural significance of the ETC sphere.
History of ETC research in north-western Iran

Erich Schmidt’s pioneering use of aerial photography in Iran included the region of Lake Urmia, leading to the
identification of substantial mounds (Schmidt 1940) one of which, Geoy Tepe near Urmia town, was selected for
excavation by Theodore Burton-Brown in 1948 (Burton-Brown 1951). Burton-Brown’s work at Geoy Tepe
recovered the first sequence in the region for the Chalcolithic to Middle Bronze Age. Subsequently, Charles
Burney’s regional survey (Burney 1958) and excavations in 1960–1962 at Yanik Tepe, east of Lake Urmia, yielded
one of the richest sequences of ETC occupation from north-western Iran (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 175–176). The
Yanik Tepe sequence covers the ETC II-III phases. Burney’s later work at Haftavan Tepe, at the north-western
corner of Lake Urmia, further augmented the picture of ETC occupation in the Urmia basin. Other limited
investigations of ETC levels in Iran include Italian excavations at Gijlar Tepe (Pecorella and Salvini 1984) and a
deep sounding at Hasanlu south of Lake Urmia. Iranian rescue and research excavations at Kohneh Pasgah and
other sites on the banks of the Araxes river have started to outline the local development of ETC from preceding
cultural traditions of the region. Very few ETC sites within Iran have been extensively excavated, let alone fully
published.
Information about ETC settlement patterns from archaeological surveys is of mixed quality, partly due to the
difficulties of working in the terrain of north-western Iran. Amongst surveys of this region, those by Burney
(1958), Ingraham and Summers (1979), Swiny (1975), Kleiss and Kroll (1979), Kroll (1984), Pecorella and Salvini
(1984), Tala’i (1984), Young (2004) and Biscione (2009) have all contributed to our knowledge of ETC presence
in the region. More recent surveys in north-western Iran have also provided new evidence (Omrani et al. 2012;
Piller 2012a, 2012b; Maziar 2015, 2019).
Chronology of ETC
The chronology of the Early Transcaucasian Culture, in Iran and beyond (Di Nocera 2000; Marro 2000), has
three distinct phases (Table 8.1) (Rothman 2003a: 211; Batiuk and Rothman 2007: 9; Summers 2013b: 167–168,
2014; Palumbi and Chataigner 2014: Figure 1). Discernible in the Kura-Araxes valleys, in Nakhchivan and re-
gions of Armenia, ETC I covers the mid-later fourth millennium BC (Bahşaliyev 1997; Kiguradze and Sagona
2003; Sagona 2010, 2014; Marro 2011; Smith 2012; Rova 2014), thus contemporary at least in part with the Late
Chalcolithic of other regions of Iran and overlapping in time with the earliest phase of the Proto-Elamite hori-
zon. ETC I is restricted to the southern Caucasus and regions in the far north of Iran, such as the sites of Kohneh
Pasgah (Maziar 2010, 2015) and Kul Tepe near Jolfa (Abedi 2016a; Abedi et al. 2018a). ETC II is attested at many
sites in Iran, although only a few of them have been excavated, and only Yanik Tepe has extensive exposures.
ETC II is marked by distinctive circular architecture, often with rectilinear pens or enclosures. ETC IIA is de-
fined by a heavy representation of decorated handmade ceramics, using incision and excision often filled with
white paste, while in ETC IIB the pottery is largely plain. In ETC III at Yanik Tepe, buildings switch from cir-
cular to rectilinear although the internal fittings stay the same. It is not clear to what extent the excavated Yanik
sequence is representative of the region more broadly, but limited evidence from Haftavan, Geoy and Hasanlu
does not contradict the scheme outlined here.
In absolute terms, ETC I starts possibly as early as c. 3600 BC in the Caucasus and Transcaucasus (Di Nocera 2000:
78; Marro 2000: 477; Badalyan 2014; Lyonnet 2014; Sagona 2014). The sites of Kohneh Pasgah and Kul Tepe in the
southern Araxes valley are the key Iranian sites with ETC I occupation (Maziar 2010, 2019; Abedi et al. 2018a). ETC
II covers much of the first half of the third millennium BC, as tentatively supported by radiocarbon dates from Koh-
neh Pasgah, Geoy Tepe, Hasanlu VII and Godin IV (Maziar 2010: 174; Rothman 2011: 166; Summers 2013b: 170).
In eastern Anatolia, ETC III appears to stretch from c. 2500 BC well into the second millennium BC, as indicated
by multiple dates from Sos Höyük (Sagona 2000, 2004, 2011). But within Iran a series of dates from Haftavan VI,
the period succeeding ETC at Haftavan, suggests an end to ETC III before 2000 BC. At its southernmost extent,
at Godin Tepe and sites on the Kangavar plain, the ETC comes to an end much earlier, as early as 2700 BC (Potts
2013b: 207), earlier than the end of ETC in its homeland of the Transcaucasus (Edens 1995: 53). ETC in Iran thus
lasts for anywhere between 500 and 800 years, varying according to site and region. Beyond Iran, the ETC presence
endures for up to 1,500 years, ending as late as c. 1500 BC at Sos Höyük in eastern Anatolia (Sagona 2000: 338).
Table 8.1 Chronology of ETC at major sites in north-western Iran (adapted from Davoudi et al. 2018: Table 1)
Cultural period Dates cal BC Hasanlu Kul Tepe Haftavan Ovçular Tepesi Kohneh Pasgah Kohneh Tepesi
Middle Bronze I 2100–1900 VIc III VIc – – –

Early Bronze III 2200–2100 VIIa IV VII – IV–V –
Kura Araxes III (Early Bronze II) 2500–2200 VIIb IV VIII – III X
Kura Araxes II (Early Bronze I) 3000–2500 VIIc IV – EBKA II X
Kura Araxes I 3350–3000 – V – EBKA I –
Late Chalcolithic 4500–3750 VIII VII–VI – LCI–LCII I (KAI) –
LCKA
ETC regions and sites of Iran

North-western Iran at the crossroads of culture
North-western Iran is a highly distinctive region, dominated by highlands and the major basin of Lake Urmia,
today almost dry and certainly saline since the Neolithic period (Danti 2013a: 2–5; Summers 2013b: 161). The
region’s geopolitical significance is well summarised by Danti (2013b: 327) as “a crossroads between Mesopo-
tamia, the southern Caucasus, eastern Anatolia, and the Iranian plateau.” The two high mountains of Kuh-e
Sahand (3,700 m) and Kuh-e Sabalan (4,800 m) and their streams ensure ample water to the region, while to the
east lie the humid uplands bordering the Caspian Sea. To the west the northern limits of the Zagros mountains
merge into the eastern Taurus range in the region of Lake Van and the uplands of eastern Anatolia. To the north
the region is bordered by the valley of the great Araxes river and its many tributaries. Hot summers and long cold
winters, punctuated by short transitional seasons, are characteristic of this land. We discuss the ETC sites of this
region by starting in the north-western corner of Iran before moving our attention eastwards and then south to
the Lake Urmia basin (Figure 8.2) (see useful map of Iranian ETC sites in Maziar 2015: Figure 1).
The site of Köhne Shahar (also known as Ravaz), in the area of Maku in the far northwest of Iran close to
the border with Turkey, has spectacular traces of an extensive ETC settlement comprising a fortified citadel with
Figure 8.2 North-western Iran and the Caucasus: major features and ETC sites (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015: Figure 2) (image courtesy
of Karim Alizadeh).
round houses and a lower town with enclosures, streets and a communal open area, all visible as surface traces
over an area of >10 ha, some of which have been excavated (Figure 8.3–8.6) (Kleiss and Kroll 1979; Kroll 2005a;
Summers 2013b). Excavations at Köhne Shahar recovered ceramics of ETC II-III phases (Figure 8.7) comparable
to those of the south Caucasus and east Anatolia rather than to materials from Yanik Tepe and Godin Tepe, plus
Figure 8.3 K
öhne Shahar from the south (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh).
Figure 8.4 K
öhne Shahar, excavated structures of the eastern neighbourhood, Trench 12J21, phase III in brown, phases IV–V in
grey (Samei and Alizadeh 2020: Figure 4a) (image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh).
Figure 8.5 Köhne Shahar, excavated structures of the eastern neighbourhood, Trench 13I5, phase III in brown, phases IV–V in grey
(Samei and Alizadeh 2020: Figure 4a). Image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh).
Figure 8.6 K
öhne Shahar, excavated structures of the eastern neighbourhood, Trench 13J1, phase III in brown, phases IV–V in grey
(Samei and Alizadeh 2020: Figure 4a) (image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh).
Figure 8.7 Köhne Shahar, ETC ceramics (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015: figs 17–19) (image courtesy of Karim Alizadeh).
rare painted ETC wares that show tenuous connections with Ninevite 5 painted wares well to the southwest
in Upper Mesopotamia (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015). There are also extensive areas of specialised craft production
within architectural contexts both curvilinear and rectilinear (Figures 8.4–8.6), including use of imported bitu-
men and specialised working of stone beads, bone, deer antler, cattle horn and textiles (K. Alizadeh et al. 2018b;
Samei and Alizadeh 2020).
Investigations at the 6 ha mound of Kul Tepe near Jolfa in the Araxes valley have established its occupation
from Early Chalcolithic (Chapter 6) through ETC I-III and into the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages, a unique
sequence for this region of Iran (Abedi et al. 2014b; Abedi and Omrani 2015; Abedi 2016a). There appears to be
a break of 300–350 years, however, between the Late Chalcolithic and ETC I occupations at the site, the latter
represented by both circular and rectilinear mudbrick architecture (Figure 8.8). For their chipped stone tools
the occupants relied on obsidian either from sources at Syunik in Armenia and Meydan Dağ in the Lake Van
region (Nadooshan et al. 2013; Abedi et al. 2018a) or from possible sources inside Iran at Sahand and Sabalan
mountains north of Ardebil (Niknami et al. 2010), with much evidence for use of sickle blades. Other finds
include the only known ETC cylinder seal, bearing designs identical to those incised on ceramics (Figure 8.9),
a possible stamp seal with simple geometric design (Figure 8.9), basic bronze artefacts and animal figurines
including a humped zebu bull (Figure 8.10). Caprines and cattle were the main exploited animal species
(Figure 8.20) (Davoudi et al. 2018).
Figure 8.8 Kul Tepe, ETC II–III architecture (Abedi and Omrani 2015: Figure 9) (image courtesy of Akbar Abedi).
Figure 8.9 Kul Tepe, possible stamp seal and cylinder seal (Abedi and Omrani 2015: Figure 12; Abedi 2016a: Figure 15) (images
courtesy of Akbar Abedi).
Figure 8.10 Kul Tepe, animal figurines (Abedi and Omrani 2015: Figure 13; Abedi 2016a) (images courtesy of Akbar Abedi).
Other sites in this extreme northern region of Iranian Azerbaijan such as Tepe Baruj (K. Alizadeh 2008;
Abedi et al. 2009; Omrani et al. 2012) and Nadir Tepe (K. Alizadeh 2007; K. Alizadeh et al. 2018a) also appear
to have levels dating to ETC 1 with some continuity from Late Chalcolithic into Early Bronze Age and obsidian
also arguably originating from Iranian volcanic sources (Agha-Aligol et al. 2015). Excavations at the 5 ha site of
Nadir Tepe have uncovered circular mudbrick buildings succeeded by rectilinear structures with typical objects
including andirons and large storage jars, with an ETC sequence spanning c. 3100–2425 BC. Regional surveys
of the region more broadly indicate significant Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age presence and probable
continuity in settlement (K. Alizadeh and Ur 2007; Omrani et al. 2012).
The important site of Kohneh Pasgah, at some stage to be flooded under the waters of the Khoda Afarin
Dam, is located in the far north of Iran on the south bank of the Araxes river valley, approximately equidistant be-
tween Lake Urmia and the Caspian Sea (Maziar 2010, 2015), thus within the ETC heartlands of the Kura-Araxes
valleys. Kohneh Pasgah, like the adjacent site of Kohneh Tepesi, has a deep sequence of ETC occupation from
Late Chalcolithic through much of the Early Bronze Age with some 18 m of accumulated deposits. Continuity
of occupation, including some aspects of the pottery assemblages from Late Chalcolithic into Early Bronze Age
I, in contrast to ETC sequences at sites further south in Iran (and elsewhere in the expanded ETC world after
c. 3000 BC – see below), confirms the site’s probable situation within or close to the ETC zone of origin (Maziar
and Zalaghi 2018, 2021). ETC architecture at Kohneh Pasgah comprises a circular structure of plastered mud-
brick and wattle and daub, radiocarbon dated to c. 2800–2670 BC. Typical ETC portable hearths or andirons
were found on the floor, and there was a focus on cattle and goat as meat resources (Figure 8.20) (Mohaseb and
Mashkour 2017: 164; Davoudi et al. 2018; Decaix et al. 2019a). Pottery of the Early Bronze Age phases has good
ETC II parallels at sites in Iran such as Geoy Tepe and Yanik, and also in Georgia and Nakhchivan. There is some
evidence that Kohneh Pasgah was abandoned following flooding of the Araxes valley in the ETC II phase (Maziar
2010: 175). A rare study of chipped stone tools from an ETC site, that of Kohneh Tepesi (Figure 8.11) adjacent to
Kohneh Pasgah, reveals that obsidian tools were produced by non-specialists probably at a distributed household
level, while chert tools mainly in the form of large bifacial sickle blades were produced at a more standardised and
specialised level (Figure 8.12) ( Jayez et al. 2017).
Yanik Tepe on the eastern shores of Lake Urmia to the west of Tabriz is effectively the type site for the Iranian
ETC, giving its name to the designation “Yanik Sphere” employed by some scholars (Abdi 2012: 26). Yanik is
located on a fertile plain at the north-eastern edge of the Urmia basin (Burney 1961a; reports and syntheses on
Yanik include Burney 1961b, 1962, 1964; Burney and Lang 1971; Summers 1982, 2004, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, in
press; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 175–176). Following the site’s occupation during the Late Neolithic (Chapter 5) and
brief Middle Chalcolithic presence, the site was abandoned until the ETC settlement, the earliest of which be-
longs to ETC II. The ETC presence at Yanik appears to shift through time across the mound, making it difficult
to estimate its extent at any time, but it appears always to have been less than 8 ha throughout the 6.5 m depth
of deposits (Summers 2013b: 173). Geoffrey Summers’ (1982, 2004, 2013a, 2014) detailed analysis of the Yanik
excavations identified 14 successive levels of round-house occupation and four levels of rectilinear settlement.
The earliest ETC levels at Yanik Tepe are of the ETC II phase, arguably datable to c. 2900 BC. These levels
at Yanik are characterised by well-spaced circular mudbrick structures. Subsequent levels have increasingly
Figure 8.11 Kohneh Tepesi during excavation, with the Araxes river beyond (Jayez et al. 2017: Figure 2) (photo credit: Mozhgan Jayez).
Figure 8.12 Kohneh Tepesi, bifacial chert sickle elements ( Jayez et al. 2017: Figure 6 (photo credit: Mozhgan Jayez).
dense and complex circular houses (Figures 8.13–8.14) (Summers 2013b: Figure 9.1). The round buildings
measure 3–5 m in diameter with some more complex structures containing bins, platforms, niches and stand-
ardised forms of cooking installations with flat ovens, sunken fire pits containing firestones and gypsum-plas-
tered trays. One structure, Circle 1, has two concentric walls as well as inner partition walls, and between
the buildings there are communal open spaces. Roofing was constructed of light wattle and daub laid over a
wooden superstructure, supported by wooden posts. There is considerable evidence for burning of significant
areas of the settlement, and buildings were continually rebuilt following destruction by fire through a total of
Figure 8.13 Y
anik Tepe, ETC II plan of level 15 (Summers 2013b: Figure 61) (image courtesy of Geoffrey Summers and
Peeters Publishing).
Figure 8.14 Y
anik Tepe, ETC II level 14 circular structures (Summers 2013b: Figure 73) (image courtesy of Geoffrey Summers
and Peeters Publishing).
14 stratigraphic levels in the ETC II phase. A substantial construction of large stones surmounted by mudbrick
upper courses served either as a defensive perimeter wall or possibly as a platform leading to an elevated com-
munal area in the centre of the settlement. In either case, this massive structure indicates a degree of communal
engagement in its planning and construction.
Ceramics of the earlier ETC levels, ETC IIA, at Yanik comprise significant proportions of vessels with incised
and excised decoration, almost always filled with white paste after firing (Figure 8.15). Decorative motifs include
double spirals, birds, highly stylised ibex and geometric bands and panels. At some point within the ETC II round
building phase, however, there is a gradual but distinct change in that the decorated ceramics cease almost en-
tirely by the ETC IIB phase. Subsequently, there is an increase in production of fine cups with highly burnished
black sheen alongside ongoing domestic wares. All ETC ceramics at Yanik are handmade. The succeeding phase
Figure 8.15 Yanik Tepe, ECII pottery with white-filled incised and excised decoration (Summers 2004: Figure 9) (image courtesy
of Geoffrey Summers and Peeters Publishing).
Figure 8.16 Yanik Tepe, ETC III rectilinear architecture (photo credit: Charles Burney, supplied by Geoffrey Summers).
at Yanik, of ETC III phase, is marked by a switch in architectural layout, from round to rectilinear, and occa-
sionally two-storey buildings, frequently rebuilt through time (Figure 8.16) (Summers 2013b: Figure 9.3). There
may be a hiatus of uncertain duration between the ETC IIB and ETC III levels at Yanik. The ETC III structures
include the same range of internal fittings as found in the earlier circular buildings, suggesting continuity in
household activities. Pottery of ETC III at Yanik shows development from the preceding later ETC IIB levels
with further emphasis on plain, undecorated wares. Investigations have taken place at other Early Bronze Age
sites on the eastern side of Lake Urmia, including Topraghli Tepe and Tepe Shiramin (Omrani et al. 2012), where
there appear to have been varied degrees of ETC impact on local cultures.
Located on the Salmas plain in the western Urmia basin, Haftavan Tepe is one of the largest mounds of the
region. Like Yanik Tepe, on the other side of Lake Urmia, Haftavan has occupation of both ETC II and III phases
(reports and discussion on Haftavan ETC levels include Burney 1970, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976; Summers 2013b).
In level VIII, two simple circular houses were excavated of ETC IIB date (Burney 1973: Figure 1), with ceramics
comparable to Geoy Tepe and the Lake Van region of eastern Anatolia. Haftavan VII occupation dates to ETC III
and comprises substantial rectilinear mudbrick buildings similar to those of ETC III date at Yanik Tepe (Burney
1973: Figure 2). Limited archaeobotanical evidence from Haftavan VIII shows use of a full range of cereal crops,
flax and pea (Summers 1982: 169–171). Most commonly exploited animals include cattle, goat and sheep, with
some hunting of wild pig, equids, gazelle and red deer (Figure 8.20) (Mohaseb and Mashkour 2017; Davoudi et al.
2018). The strong focus on cattle as the major meat resource, as opposed to goat, which is the more typical focus
across the Iranian plateau, is a distinctive feature of Bronze and Iron Age sites of Iranian Azerbaijan (Mohaseb
and Mashkour 2017: Figure 11.14).
Gijlar Tepe is a large mound with a long sequence of ETC occupation through 13 m of its 25 m total deposits
(Pecorella and Salvini 1984; Summers 2013b). The architectural sequence of circular to rectilinear, as attested
at Yanik and Haftavan, also appears to hold at Gijlar although the evidence comes from limited area exposure.
Ceramics are again in the same vein as Haftavan VIII/VII and Geoy Tepe. ETC levels at Geoy Tepe, also in the
western Urmia basin, comprise circular buildings of ETC II date (Burton-Brown 1951; Crawford 1975; Piller
2012a; Summers 2013b), and ceramics comparable to those of Haftavan VII, Gijlar and the Van region. The ETC
levels at Geoy Tepe occupy at least 6 m of the mound’s stratigraphy.
At the south-western corner of Lake Urmia there are 11 substantial burial tumuli at Sé Girdan, several of
which have been excavated, yielding distinctive artefacts of arsenical copper-bronze and carnelian beads (Desh-
ayes 1973; Muscarella 1973, 2003; Kohl 2007: 85–86). Originally dated to the Iron Age III period, it is clear that
they in fact belong to the mid-later fourth millennium BC, representing the southernmost extent of the Maikop
culture of the north-western Caucasus. Bertille Lyonnet (2000: 309–310) has noted that raw materials such as
arsenical copper and carnelian, both richly attested in early Maikop kurgan tombs in the steppe region, probably
originated from Iranian sources. To the south of Lake Urmia the site of Hasanlu has levels of ETC date follow-
ing a hiatus in occupation after the Chalcolithic levels (Chapter 6), but exposed only in small soundings (Danti
et al. 2004; Summers 2013b). Hasanlu level VII appears to be contemporary with the ETC II sequences of Yanik
and Haftavan VIII, probably ceasing at c. 2500 BC at Hasanlu where ETC ceramics overlap with local Urmia
basin traditions known as Hasan Ali and Painted Orange Wares (Danti et al. 2004; Danti 2013a: 12; Helwing and
Neumann 2014: 53–54), as excavated at Barveh Tepe in the Lesser Zab basin to the south of Hasanlu (Sharifi
2020). Animal remains of ETC levels at Hasanlu comprise principally caprines and cattle (Figure 8.20) (Davoudi
et al. 2018). Further southwest along the valley of the Lesser Zab river in western Iran and into Iraq there appear
to be no traces of an ETC presence (Abedi et al. 2019).
ETC borderlands 1: the Qazvin plain, Gilan and western Mazandaran

Significant evidence for ETC presence comes from the region of the Qazvin plain to the west of Tehran. The site
of Tepe Shizar sits in the hills southwest of the Qazvin plain, in a natural route connecting the plain with the
Zagros range to the west (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 114). This location is significant in that it indicates a specific
route by which ETC people, ideas and/or materials might have moved across the southern limits of the north-
west Iranian highlands from the Alborz to the Zagros, enabling access to the outlying ETC regions of Hamadan,
Malayer and Kangavar, where Godin Tepe is situated (see below). Typical ETC decorated pottery from Shizar
dates to c. 2900 BC and is found alongside local red, grey and buff wares. ETC pottery is also found at other
sites around but not on the Qazvin plain (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 122), including Tepe Duneh and Doranabad
(Piller 2012a). One mystery is the dearth of evidence for ETC presence on the Qazvin plain itself, which seems
to have been abandoned for up to 1,700 years from c. 3500 BC (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2013b: 126). If ETC popula-
tions were on the move in search of arable land why did they not settle on the fertile fields of the Qazvin plain?
It may be that in this region they were more comfortable inhabiting the mountainous fringes of the plain where
they could focus on animal herding rather than arable cropping. There is also the possibility of burial of ETC
sites under more recent alluviation.
In the Gilan region along the south-western reaches of the Caspian Sea, ETC ceramics have been encountered at
sites such as Diarjan (Fahimi 2005; Piller 2012c: 123). Some of the easternmost ETC evidence so far encountered in
Iran comes from ongoing excavations at the site of Arastu Tepe in the Malard region of Tehran province, where
decorated red burnished ETC pottery has been recovered but as yet there is little information on this site. Related
ETC sites in this broad region include Barlekin and Tepe Ostur, west and southwest of Tehran, and Tepe Kelar
and Ghal-e Ben in western Mazandaran province by the Caspian Sea (Burton-Brown 1981; Piller 2012a, 2012b;
Ghasemi 2017; Kouhpar et al. 2017; Heydari et al. 2018). ETC occupation at these sites appears to be late in the ETC
sequence at c. 2500–2400 BC. To the south of Tehran in the region of Qom, ETC materials from the site of Qoli
Darvish represent the furthest limits of the ETC phenomenon (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005: 207–208; Piller
2012a: 452; Alizadeh et al. 2013b) and this is the only site in Iran, or anywhere, to have yielded evidence of both a
Proto-Elamite and an ETC presence, although separated by a significant hiatus following abandonment of the Pro-
to-Elamite levels at the site at about 2900 BC (Chapter 7). The ETC materials from Qoli Darvish are situated within
a context of local ceramic materials, lacking some features of classic ETC pottery such as incised/excised decoration
and white paste infill, which suggests rather a local imitation of the ETC tradition than a full incorporation and
absorption of the ETC worldview. Here we have reached the south-eastern marches of the ETC world.
ETC borderlands 2: the central Zagros region

The most important site in the central Zagros with ETC evidence is the multi-period mound of Godin Tepe,
located at the southernmost edge of the ETC impact (Young 1969; Young and Levine 1974; Rothman 2011).
After the abandonment of the Late Chalcolithic Oval Enclosure (Chapter 6) and a probable hiatus in occupation,
an ETC settlement develops at Godin in level IV (Rothman 2011: 162; Potts 2013b: 206). Within Godin IV,
which endures for about 250 years from c. 2900 BC, there are several architectural phases, commencing with
modest rectilinear buildings in phase IV:2, and progressing to substantial structures, largely rectilinear but with
some curving walls in phase IV:1. A large two-roomed structure, Building 3, is in use through much of the ETC
presence at Godin (Figure 8.17). Building 3 has black-painted benches around the sides of its anteroom, with a
simple pattern of lines on one wall (Rothman 2011: Figure 5.10). Within the anteroom there were considerable
quantities of animal bones and some ceramic vessels, probably remains from feasting in this special building. The
Figure 8.17 Godin Tepe, plan of period IV:1a2 (Rothman 2011: Figure 5.17) (image courtesy of Hilary Gopnik).
rear room of Building 3 contained items used in food preparation, including a quern, grinding stones, cutting
tools and serving vessels. The building is interpreted as serving “a public function, possibly as a place for ritual
sacrifice or public feasting” (Rothman 2011: 184). Other ETC buildings at Godin appear to be modest houses
with evidence for a range of domestic activities. The last phase of ETC occupation includes a plastered white
platform that may have been part of a cultic centre towards the summit of the mound.
ETC ceramics from Godin IV are fairly consistent through the succeeding phases (Levine and Young 1987;
Rothman 2011: 167–174). Pots are handmade and come in a range of colours, including black, grey-brown, grey
and pale red. Vessels are usually burnished and the fabric and firing technology is basic, with firing at low tem-
peratures (Henrickson 2011a), but no pottery kilns or dedicated craft production areas have been found in ETC
levels at Godin, or at other ETC sites in Iran, with the possible exception of a metal-working installation in level
IV:1a at Godin (Rothman 2011: 175) and significant craft evidence from Köhne Shahar. A new attribute in level
IV at Godin is the inclusion of ground up pottery fragments, or grog, as temper within the fabric, a practice that
ceases at Godin with the end of the ETC occupation. As Mason and Cooper (1999: 27) say,
the sudden introduction of a new technological approach to ceramic production, in this case the introduction
of grog-tempering, coupled with a completely new stylistic expression in period IV at Godin Tepe, seems to
be a significant indicator of the introduction of a new group of people.
Diversity in the mineral composition of ceramic fabrics at Godin and other ETC sites on the Kangavar plain,
along with the consistent use of grog temper, have been proposed by Mason and Cooper (1999: 29–30) as indic-
ative of pottery production by societies with some degree of engagement in pastoral nomadism. Regular move-
ments around the landscape would develop their knowledge of regionally available clay sources, and the use of
grog would make sense as a consistent form of temper and, moreover, would be an economical way to recycle
broken pots at any stage during their seasonal movements.
Ceramic forms include bowls, cooking pots, storage jars, trays, cups and lids, an assemblage befitting practices
such as preparation, serving and eating of food by individuals or small groups (Figure 8.18). Cooking methods
involved stewing by placing cooking pots on top of andirons (portable hearth stands) and frying of meat and
vegetables on griddles with inbuilt drains (Rothman 2011: 173). Decoration on the exterior of vessels includes
incision and much use of white paste infill. Motifs are simple, with crosses, swirls, and indented triangles most
common (Rothman 2011: Figure 5.48). Rothman’s (2011: 192) stylistic analysis suggests that individual house-
holds in the earliest ETC phase at Godin may have “owned” specific sets of motifs, whereas in the later phases the
motifs are more evenly distributed amongst the houses. This transition may indicate a social development towards
a stronger sense of community. Parallels for the Godin IV pottery are most closely found in the Urmia basin, at
Yanik Tepe and Gilan, but also in the Murat river region of the Upper Euphrates in eastern Anatolia (Rothman
2011: 193). Suggestions of continuity in ceramic technology from levels IV into III at Godin (Henrickson 1987)
are not supported by more recent studies, which identify a clear break in fabrics and manufacturing techniques at
the end of level IV, even if some of the vessel forms continue (Mason and Cooper 1999: 29).
Figure 8.18 G
odin Tepe, typical Godin IV beaker or cup (Rothman 2011: Figure 5.27) (image courtesy of Hilary Gopnik).
Other artefacts from Godin IV include chipped stone tools, with many chert sickle blades and evidence for on-
site knapping (Edens 2002), ground stone tools for grain and plant processing, a range of polished bone tools for
textile and leather working, and clay animal figurines. Animal remains are dominated by sheep, goat and cattle in
that order, with rare pigs and equids (Crabtree 2011: 178; Piro and Crabtree 2017). Kill-off patterns of the sheep
and goat, including an absence of young animals, suggest a shift from herding principally for meat in level VI
(Late Chalcolithic) to herding for renewable products such as wool, hair and milk in the ETC levels.
Apart from Godin, Young (2004: 654–656) also proposed that the sites of Karkhaneh, Tepe Giyan, Baba Gas-
sem and Tepe Sangalan near Hamadan, all in the central Zagros region, may have been major ETC settlements,
even towns, but our knowledge of the ETC levels at these sites is minimal. Mason and Cooper’s (1999) analysis
of ETC sherds from several of these sites demonstrates the use of grog-tempering, as at Godin IV, but with lo-
cal diversity in choice of specific fabrics, a pattern also detected through analysis of ETC ceramics from several
sites on the Kolyaei plain north of Kermanshah city (Heydarian and Ghorbani 2016; Heydarian et al. 2020). The
southernmost evidence for ETC spread is found in the province of Markazi at Tapeh Qal’eh-ye-Sarsakhti, to the
southeast of Godin Tepe (Abedi et al. 2014a).
Otherwise there is so far no convincing evidence for an ETC presence in the western parts of the Zagros in-
cluding the Sarfirouzabad plain (Niknami and Mirghaderi 2019), the Lesser Zab river valley (Abedi et al. 2019)
and western Luristan (Abbasnejad Seresti and Rezaei 2018). ETC ceramics have been found at multiple sites on
the plains of Malayer, Hamadan and Kangavar in the central Zagros region but not on plains to the west such as
the Mahidasht and Islamabad (Swiny 1975; Howell 1979; Young 2004: 658; Abdi 2012: 28), nor across the border
on the Shahrizor plain of Iraqi Kurdistan (Altaweel et al. 2012). We may also mention the site of Tepe Pisa on the
outskirts of Hamadan city, which has been proposed as a large ETC settlement, but excavations suggest much
of the occupation there dates to the second half of the third millennium BC, after the end of ETC presence in
the region (Chevalier 1989; Mohammadifar et al. 2009). ETC sites have not been detected south of Kermanshah
but are found in the Sahne and Songhor regions in the north and northeast of Kermanshah province, bordering
Hamadan to the east (Heydarian 2015; Heydarian et al. 2020).
A lack of detected ETC sites in the Harsin region east of Kermanshah (Naseri and Chehri 2016) highlights the
Bisotun massif and its associated routeways as a significant boundary beyond which the ETC phenomenon failed
to penetrate. This lack in itself is an intriguing attribute of the ETC settlement distribution, as penetration south of
the Bisotun massif would have opened up access to the Great High Road running directly south of Bisotun, one of
the major routeways of ancient Iran as we have seen. Failure to control and exploit this route for the distribution of
ETC characteristics strongly suggests that the requirements for incoming ETC settlers, if such they were as seems
increasingly probable (see below), were focused above all on gaining access to specific ecological and agro-pastoral
environments rather than on establishing control of major transregional routeways that might have been critical
to the movement of cherished, high-status exotica such as metals and semi-precious stones. In turn, this attribute
aligns with the generally low-key, exotica-poor nature of ETC material culture assemblages. “Back to basics”
could have been their motto. Let us now draw out some of the key features of ETC settlement and society as we
are able to articulate them from the evidence accumulated in the excavations and surveys detailed above.
ETC settlement patterns in Iran

As Stephen Batiuk (2013) has stressed in his remarkable analysis of no fewer than 682 sites across the entire ETC
world, the relative dearth of excavated and published sites means that we need to rely heavily on settlement in-
formation from surveys. Surveys and preliminary excavations in far north-western Iran, and elsewhere, start to
contribute to our understanding of ETC settlement patterns (Omrani et al. 2012; Maziar 2019). On the basis of
available excavated and surveyed evidence, from within and beyond Iran, we can provisionally underline specific
attributes of ETC settlements. ETC sites tend to be (a) new foundations on abandoned sites; (b) long-lasting, fre-
quently through multiple centuries; (c) concluding in abandonments followed by a hiatus in occupation; (d) small,
dispersed villages. Let us consider each of these points in turn.
ETC sites as new foundations

The southern Araxes valley and regions of north Iranian Azerbaijan, including the site of Kohneh Pasgah, are the
only areas of Iran to show some evidence, not always convincing, for a degree of cultural continuity from Late
Chalcolithic into the Early Bronze Age (Maziar 2010; Omrani et al. 2012; Maziar and Zalaghi 2018, 2021). As for
the rest of Iran, as Summers (2013b: 169) puts it, “Everywhere, it seems, there is discontinuity and very probably
a hiatus” prior to ETC occupation, an interpretation that applies equally to those regions of eastern Anatolia
impacted by ETC spread (Conti and Persiani 1993: 406; Palumbi and Chataigner 2014). At Godin Tepe there is
a break between period VI and the ETC level, IV (Rothman 2011: 162; Potts 2013b: 206), while almost all ETC
sites on the Kangavar plain are new foundations (Young 2004). Indeed, the ETC settlement pattern of the Kan-
gavar plain is utterly changed from the preceding Late Chalcolithic pattern, with a new preference for living in
larger sites (Godin and the unexcavated site of Karkhaneh) surrounded by greater numbers of small sites (Young
2004: table 3). At Yanik there is no occupation between Early/Middle Chalcolithic and ETC (Summers 2004:
623), and at Hasanlu to the south of Lake Urmia, at Kul Tepe near Jolfa and at sites on the Qazvin plain, ETC
levels occur after gaps following the Late Chalcolithic period (Danti et al. 2004; Fazeli Nashli and Abbasnegad
Seresty 2005; Abedi et al. 2014b). In the southern Caucasus there is mixed evidence for local development of early
ETC from pre-existing societies of the region (Akhundov 2004: 431; Kohl 2007: 69, 89; Rova 2014).
It is striking that in many regions ETC settlements rarely occur as new foundations on plains. Instead they
tend to cluster in foothill and upland regions or are founded on top of existing, previously abandoned mounds.
Whether this distinctive pattern is due to a desire to maximise the use of arable land, or to some climatic factor
affecting the environment of plains in a way inimical to settlement, such as flooding or heavy alluviation, is not
clear. It may also be the case that small, flat ETC sites on the plains do exist but have been buried under Holocene
alluvium since their abandonment (Schmidt and Fazeli 2007). On the Kangavar plain, by contrast, ETC sites are
located firmly on the plain, usually in close association with water sources (Young 2004: 656).
Duration of settlement at ETC sites

Once a site was settled by ETC incomers then often a lengthy ETC presence followed at that site, sometimes
for multiple centuries as at Kul Tepe, Nadir Tepe, Yanik, Haftavan, Gijlar, Hasanlu, Kohneh Pasgah, probably
at Geoy Tepe and Godin, and at multiple ETC sites outside Iran. The tendency for ETC occupants frequently
to demolish and rebuild their mudbrick houses led to rapid and deep accumulation of mounded deposits as en-
countered at many ETC sites (Figure 8.19) (Kohl 2007: 76, 88). ETC deposits at sites in southern Azerbaijan, for
example, range from 6 to 9.5 m in depth (Bakhshaliyev et al. 2009: 84). This longevity of occupation suggests
both considerable forethought and specific requirements in choice of location by ETC migrants and a conserva-
tive sense of attachment to place once a connection had been made.
Abandonment of ETC sites

At Yanik, Haftavan and Gijlar in the Urmia basin, at Kohneh Pasgah in the Araxes valley, at Nadir Tepe and
Tepe Zarnaq (Nobari and Kamrani 2017), at Ghal-e Ben in Mazandaran (Heydari et al. 2018), and at Godin in
the central Zagros, the end of ETC occupation is followed by abandonments of uncertain duration (Maziar 2010:
171; Rothman 2011: 164; Summers 2013b: 169), perhaps lasting “about one century” from c. 2700 BC at Godin
before the start of Godin III:6 (Potts 2013b: 206–207). At Nadir Tepe there is convincing evidence for extensive
destruction by fire of the final ETC occupation levels, succeeded by a hiatus in occupation until resettlement
Figure 8.19 Yanik Tepe, deep sequence of stratified ETC deposits (Summers 2013b: Figure 10) (image courtesy of Geoffrey Sum-
mers and Peeters Publishing).
in the Middle Bronze Age (K. Alizadeh et al. 2018a). Nor is there any indication of continuity in the ceramic
repertoires that succeed the ETC, such as polychrome Urmia ware, Van-Urmia Ware, the Yayla Culture ceram-
ics of the Van region (Edwards 1981, 1986; Belli and Baxşäliyev 2001; Özfirat 2001; Rubinson 2004; Summers
2013b: 170), the painted wares of Godin III (Mason and Cooper 1999: 29; Henrickson 2011a), and the grey and
red wares of Mazandaran and north-eastern Iran (Heydari et al. 2018). Indeed, our knowledge of human societies
of north-western Iran following the collapse of the ETC phenomenon is extremely limited. As in north-western
Iran, across eastern Anatolia the settlement patterns and the ceramic assemblages of the post-ETC Middle Bronze
Age are completely changed in character (Özfirat 2001; Marro 2011: 305). In northern Iran ETC occupation is
succeeded, after a hiatus of uncertain duration, by settlement at sites such as Ghal-e Ben with new burial practices
suggestive of greater social stratification (Heydari et al. 2018; Fazeli Nashli et al. in press-a). In Transcaucasia the
settlement pattern changes dramatically at the transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age, with abandonment of
multiple settlement sites and the new appearance of burial mounds and new painted ceramic styles (Edens 1995;
Kohl 2007: 112–113). In the southern Caucasus, including along the southern banks of the Araxes river, ETC set-
tlements are abandoned by about 2400 BC and kurgan tumulus burials appear across the region, heralding “a new
way of life predicated on increased mobility, social inequality, and a politics of charismatic militarism” (Smith
2012: 679). Only in eastern Anatolia do ETC traditions and material culture habits appear to survive through the
later third and even into the early second millennium BC (Smith 2012: 681).
Scale and density of ETC settlements

There is little evidence for complex hierarchy amongst ETC settlements, nor for what one might call towns
(Batiuk 2013; Summers 2013b; Rothman 2018). Cuyler Young’s (2004) survey of the Kangavar plain detected a
two-tier hierarchy of ETC settlement, headed by two large and long-lived mounded sites, Godin and Karkhaneh,
with much smaller surrounding villages and hamlets, an interpretation based on the questionable assumption of
complete occupation of sites in attested periods. The site of Köhne Shahar (Ravaz) in the far northwest of Iran is
unique in having a fortified citadel and a lower town covering some 15 ha in total but our understanding of the role
and significance of this site within the ETC world is still preliminary, and precise dating of the major surrounding
wall is as yet uncertain (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015). It has been estimated that at Yanik Tepe in ETC II there may have
been up to 300 round houses supporting a population of 1,000 or more (Summers 2004: 626). The vast majority
of ETC sites appear to be relatively small, dispersed villages (Kohl 2007: 90), rather reminiscent of Late Neolithic
farming settlements of a much earlier time and technologically not vastly different from them either.
ETC identity: society and economy

In some respects, the ETC phenomenon in Iran can be defined as much by what it lacks as by what it possesses.
The Iranian ETC lacks (or more cautiously, as yet lacks evidence for): complex, multi-functional settlements (i.e.
towns or cities, with the possible exception of Köhne Shahar); public buildings in the form of high-status resi-
dences, large-scale temples or administrative structures; writing, seals and sealings; elaborate human burials, and;
evidence for warfare or conflict (with the possible exception of Nadir Tepe). Within Iran, with the exception
of Köhne Shahar (Samei and Alizadeh 2020), we also have no indications of supra-domestic modes of produc-
tion, for example of ceramics or metalworking (Henrickson 1988; Summers 2014: 165). In the Transcaucasus
there is evidence for specialised metalworking but with small-scale production (Edens 1995: 54). The positive
features of ETC in and beyond Iran – the handmade, low-tech, decorated ceramics, the widespread use of basic
arsenical-copper artefacts (Courcier 2007), the mixture of round and rectilinear mudbrick and wattle and daub
architecture, the use of standard domestic cooking installations, and an emphasis on hearths in fixed or portable
forms in distinctive shapes (andirons) – are remarkably uniform across the ETC world, and they suggest a strong
sense of social and family kin, binding and connecting ETC societies through space and time while allowing
for a significant degree of regional diversity underlying this “cultural skin” (Palumbi and Chataigner 2014: 253).
Moreover, Smith (2012: 677) has commented on how the social boundaries of the ETC world appeared to
have been “tightly regulated,” in that there is little evidence for contact and interchange between the inside of
the ETC world, huge as it was, and the outside of the ETC world, at least as regards Upper Mesopotamia and
north-western Iran. Smith (2015: 125) characterises ETC as “a virtually self-contained repertoire” that “repro-
duced a sense of proper social life centred on the hearth, elevating values of domesticity and precluding the kind
of social segmentation that was developing in neighbouring regions, a social affirmation of egalitarianism.” As
Toby Wilkinson (2014: 205) points out, commenting on the lack of cultural seepage from contemporary neigh-
bouring societies, “it as though such features were actively rejected” while Geoffrey Summers (2014: 165) posits
the entire ETC zone as “a barrier to long distance international trade or exchange rather than a facilitator, even
less a stimulant,” chiming with our point above about apparent lack of ETC interest in controlling the Great High
Road despite ETC villagers being settled so closely to it. Might this have been because the Great High Road and
its associated movements of cherished commodities were under the control of other socio-political entities of the
time, including Proto-Elamite traders and bureaucrats, who were clearly in control of the Great High Road in its
reaches along the plains south of the Alborz range as we saw in Chapter 7, or the Early Bronze Age inhabitants of
Luristan with their artefact-rich cemeteries (see below), or the city-dwellers of the Mesopotamian and Khuzestan
plains with their eagerness to sustain access to metals and other materials from the eastern highlands, who delib-
erately kept ETC communities at bay? Exactly how such internal and external relationships were articulated and
sustained through centuries of occupation at ETC sites specifically in the uplands of north-western and western
Iran, and far beyond, is at the moment difficult to discern. Significant advances in our knowledge and under-
standing await fully modern inter-disciplinary excavation and analysis at key ETC sites within Iran coupled with
much sharper chronological resolution.
ETC architecture in Iran is generally modest in scale, with a range of circular and rectilinear structures. Only
at Köhne Shahar do we have significant evidence for architectural elaboration (K. Alizadeh et al. 2015), with a
tripartite settlement structure comprising a citadel, a lower town and a communal open area, surrounded by a
2.5 m-thick defensive wall of basalt boulders. There is also extensive evidence for major craft activity including
metalworking, textile production, bone, horn and antler working, and bitumen use. At other ETC sites in Iran,
most buildings appear to be simple dwellings, often with distinctive cooking facilities. The size, scale and con-
sistency through time and space of almost all ETC architecture strongly underline the social significance of the
domestic household within ETC society. The motto “home and hearth” might have been invented to betoken
the ETC way of life. The preparation and consumption of food in socially defined ways, using standard forms of
vessels, andirons and cooking ranges, seems to have been an important cultural characteristic of ETC communi-
ties everywhere (Rothman 2018). Andirons in particular are characteristic of many ETC sites more broadly (de
Miroschedji 2000: 262), and it may be that portable hearths served as domestic ritual installations as well as for
daily cooking, as suggested by finds from sites in eastern Anatolia such as Pulur and Sos Höyük (Sagona 1998,
2011: 693; Kelly-Buccellati 2004; Rothman 2011: 150). The piercing of many ETC clay andirons by a single
central hole may have permitted the use of bellows as a means of increasing fire temperature, suggesting a possible
connection of these distinctive artefacts with metallurgical activity (Tonussi 2014).
Transcaucasian obsidian, occurring naturally in multiple sources of the region, is commonly used for cutting
tools at widely distributed sites of ETC date, indicating varying degrees of participation in regional networks of
exchange (Badalyan et al. 2004; Maziar and Glascock 2017; Abedi et al. 2018a). Indeed, pre-Bronze Age corridors
of movement and exchange of east Anatolian and Transcaucasian obsidian, reaching into the central Zagros and
many other regions of Southwest Asia (Wright 1969), would have served as well-trodden routeways for the spread
of the ETC phenomenon from c. 3000 BC onwards. These routes include the two major north-south passages
connecting north-western Iran with the central Zagros (Young 2004: 658; Omrani et al. 2012: 13–14). One route
reaches from the northern Urmia basin southwards through Mahabad, Saqqiz and Sanandaj to Kermanshah and
beyond, its use in ETC times supported by finds of ETC wares at sites such as Kurtavij Tepe on the Sahneh plain
(Motarjem 2009). The other, more eastern, route heads south from Tabriz through Maragheh and Zanjan to the
Hamadan plain, where at least 15 ETC sites were identified in the survey by Swiny (1975).
At both Yanik and Godin there are indications of impressive platforms leading towards the centre of the set-
tlement that may have served some grander function. Within Iran, only Building 3 at Godin IV stands out as a
distinctive non-domestic structure (Figure 8.17). In its simple plan and scale, with its single entrance, plastered
benches, steps and associated platforms, Building 3 closely resembles cultic buildings from Upper Mesopotamia
in the contemporary Ninevite 5 period. Such shrines are well-known from widely distributed early-mid third
millennium BC sites, including Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Chuera and Mari (Matthews 2002b, 2003b). Indeed,
within the Tell Brak HS4 shrine a solid clay stand with central hole, found in association with baked clay portable
hearth fragments (Matthews 2003b: Figure 5.78: 4–6), is identical to ETC examples from Sos Höyük (Sagona and
Zimansky 2009: Figure 5.20). These rare points of comparison suggest that Ninevite 5 and ETC communities
were not only in contact with each other but that they may have shared and exchanged cultic and ritual practices.
Further intriguing areas of comparison between ETC and Ninevite 5 societies include low-hierarchy settlement
patterns, mostly modest architecture, limited evidence for social hierarchy, a lack of evidence for writing (although
use of cylinder seals is relatively common in Ninevite 5), limited human burial evidence and several structural
similarities in ceramic assemblages (a resurgence of high-investment decorated pottery after a period dominated
by plain wares; a new emphasis on handled cooking pots and circular lids for stewing; a high frequency of small
cups and bowls as individual eating/drinking vessels; a low frequency of large storage vessels). These points suggest
that ETC and Ninevite 5 societies were broadly similar in their degrees of complexity and in much of the specifics
of their daily lives too, with an emphasis on domestic household scales of production, consumption and social en-
gagement. The evidence can reasonably be characterised as suggestive of a heterarchical social nature, with flexible
horizontal relationships between approximately equal partners throughout society (Samei and Alizadeh 2020).
A rare hint of significant social hierarchy within the ETC world comes not from Iran but from the so-called
royal tomb of level VIB at Arslantepe on the Malatya plain in southern Anatolia, dated to c. 3000–2900 BC (Di
Nocera 2000; Frangipane 2000: table 1, 2014; Frangipane et al. 2001; Batiuk 2013: 453–454; Palumbi 2019). The
Arslantepe royal tomb is constructed at some time after the destruction of a massive Late Chalcolithic temple and
palace complex, and coincides with their replacement by modest wooden and wattle and daub huts (Frangipane
and Palumbi 2007: Figures 10–11). As at Godin Tepe, these modest structures of c. 3000 BC at Arslantepe were
soon replaced by more substantial architecture including a large mudbrick two-roomed building with central
hearth and storage vessels which, like the Godin IV:1 structure discussed above, has been interpreted as a special
building with probable cultic functions (Frangipane 2014; Palumbi 2019).
Buried within the Arslantepe royal tomb were a principal male individual plus four young retainers, probably
sacrificed (Frangipane 2001: 6, 2011: 982). Extremely rich grave goods include weapons, ornaments, metal vessels
and ceramic jars, with many parallels to items of material culture from the south and north Caucasus, as well as
from Upper Mesopotamia (Frangipane 2011; Marro 2011). Palumbi’s (2008) interpretations of the tomb are either
as that of a chief from a Caucasian community who regularly engaged in regional migration to the Upper Eu-
phrates region of Arslantepe, or as that of a local leader with significant contacts with ETC Caucasian communi-
ties driven by exchanges in metal ores and manufactured high-status artefacts. The Arslantepe royal tomb stands
in stark contrast to the collective tombs of ETC sites elsewhere (Smith 2012: 678; Palumbi and Chataigner 2014:
249), but our information on ETC human burials in Iran is virtually nil. Outside Iran, ETC evidence from the
south Caucasus (Edens 1995: 54; Lyonnet 2000: 301, 2007a; Kohl 2007: 91; Poulmarc’h et al. 2014) and eastern
Anatolia (Sagona 2004: 480–481) indicates human burial in pits and cist-tombs within settlements or adjacent
cemeteries with modest grave goods. From the mid-third millennium BC, the burial evidence in the Transcau-
casus changes dramatically with the appearance of collective burial in large kurgans (Smith 2012). The tombs
at Sé Girdan in Iran appear to predate this episode, and may indicate much earlier connections, of the mid-later
fourth millennium BC, between north-western Iran and the Maikop communities of the northern Caucasus.
We have some evidence for the economy of ETC settlements within Iran and also within Anatolia and the Cau-
casus (Marro 2011: 301). The assumption, based largely on information from ETC sites outside Iran (Kohl 2007:
94–95; Rothman 2011: 154–155; Batiuk 2013; Decaix et al. 2019b, 2019a), is that Iranian ETC communities were
essentially farming villages, herding sheep, goat and cattle while cultivating wheat, barley and pulses, as sparsely
attested at Haftavan (Summers 1982) and more fully at Ghal-e Ben in Mazandaran (Fazeli Nashli et al. in press-a;
in press-b). Analysis of faunal assemblages from Kohneh Pasgah, Köhne Shahar, Kul Tepe and other ETC sites of
north-western Iran (Figure 8.20) (Davoudi et al. 2018; Decaix et al. 2019a; Samei et al. 2019; Samei and Alizadeh
2020) indicates a heavy emphasis on herding of sheep and goat, with some cattle and negligible exploitation of pig,
and minimal engagement in hunting of wild animals. Evidence from south Caucasus ETC sites reveals a strong
Figure 8.20 F
aunal spectra from ETC sites in north-western Iran by percentage of the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and
of the Weight of Identified Specimens (WISP) (after Davoudi et al. 2018: Figure 3).
reliance on cereals, with barley dominant at higher altitudes and minimal evidence for non-cereal crops such as
pulses, alongside an element of pastoral transhumance of flocks of sheep and goat (Hovsepyan 2015). Oxen were
probably used as plough animals, and a few ETC sites of Iranian Azerbaijan such as Kohneh Pasgah and Haftavan
show a preference for cattle over goat as the main meat resource as well as displaying pathologies indicative of use of
cattle as draught animals (Mohaseb and Mashkour 2017; Decaix et al. 2019a). Faunal remains from Ghal-e Ben in
Mazandaran show a focus on sheep-goat husbandry during the ETC phase of occupation, with pig increasing in fre-
quency in the post-ETC occupation at the site (Fazeli Nashli et al. in press-a). Clay figurines across the ETC world
appear to focus on horned animals, cattle in particular, suggesting a special significance for cattle perhaps as draft
animals as much as sources of meat and dairy products (Knudsen and Greenberg 2019; Samei and Alizadeh 2020).
There are indications that wine was important to ETC societies, an idea deftly elaborated by Stephen Batiuk
(2013; see also Edens 1995: 54) who proposes a significant role for viticulture and viniculture as economic niches
into which migrating ETC groups situated themselves, while at the same time utilising wine as a high-status
commodity that enabled ETC migrants to sustain their distinctive social identity over long time periods, as the
material evidence indeed suggests. Intriguingly, rare ETC archaeobotanical evidence from Kohneh Pasgah in-
cludes significant quantities of charred grape pips (Figure 8.21) (Decaix et al. 2019a). Support for Batiuk’s argu-
ment comes from the fact that the vast majority of ETC sites, in and beyond Iran, are situated in regions in receipt
of 400–600 mm of rain per year with rich but quite specific agricultural potential, ideal for viticulture. Fittingly,
the earliest evidence for viticulture and viniculture comes from the Transcaucasus region, the homeland of ETC
as we have seen (McGovern et al. 2003; Batiuk 2013: 459). The role of cuisine in defining and sustaining an ETC
identity, whether founded in drinking wine or beer, underpins Wilkinson’s (2014: 219) interpretation of ETC as
“an alternative ritual economy” consciously focused on the house and home in opposition to the temple focus of
the Uruk/Late Susa II world of Mesopotamia and Khuzestan.
An increase in sheep and goat, along with a decline in cattle and pig, is attested in the few cases where we have
sufficient evidence of the pre-ETC-ETC transition, for example at Ghal-e Ben in Mazandaran and at the Upper
Euphrates site of Arslantepe (Frangipane 2001: 4), which may be an indication of an increased emphasis on some
form of herding mobility as an ETC economic strategy (Piro and Crabtree 2017; Palumbi 2019). Other evidence
on this point is absent, sparse or unconvincing (Howell-Meurs 2001; Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 190–191; Sa-
gona 2011: 692). More significantly, a key to the success of ETC communities as they spread across the upland
zones of Southwest Asia is likely to have been their flexibility in diversifying their agro-pastoral strategies in order
to suit the varying environmental contexts within which they settled. Within a broad spectrum of strategies, it
seems clear that seasonal vertical and horizontal movements of elements of otherwise settled society with herds of
sheep and goat formed one of the enduring options for ETC societies of the upland zones.
ETC ceramics – pots equalling people?

The appearance of black, red and dark grey incised handmade pottery and circular mudbrick structures at the
onset of ETC occupation at sites in north-western Iran, as elsewhere in the ETC world, is highly suggestive of
incursion by new peoples (Abay 2005). New ETC settlements in Iran are marked by dramatic changes in material
Figure 8.21 Kohneh Pasgah, charred fruits: hackberry, fig, grapevine (after Decaix et al. 2019b: Figure 8).
culture traditions, with little suggestion of local evolution of ceramic or other styles. As Mason and Cooper (1999:
28, 30) emphasise, ETC ceramics represent “a radical departure in ceramic technology” from preceding and suc-
ceeding practices of region, to the extent that “an equation between pots and people seems highly plausible.” In
the Urmia basin, the only hint at the existence of a local ceramic style possibly developing alongside ETC wares
is provided by the poorly understood Painted Orange Ware and Hassan ‘Ali Ware encountered in Hasanlu level
VII, in excavations at Barveh Tepe in Sardasht (Sharifi 2020), and in surveys of the Urmia basin (Kroll 2004,
2005a; Summers 2013b: 167)
The problem of how to interpret the considerable homogeneity in ceramic styles across huge swathes of Early
Bronze Age Southwest Asia has taxed archaeologists since the first discoveries of ETC pottery. In a review of
ceramics from extreme ends of the ETC world, north-western Iran and the southern Levant, Ruth Amiran
(1965: 165) set out what is still the most widely accepted view: “Diffusion of ceramic culture to such an extent
requires the interpretation of an ethnic movement emanating from a region where that culture is at home, the
Transcaucasian regions,” even if most scholars might today question use of the word “ethnic” in that statement.
Indeed there has been no serious challenge to the view that “The ETC expansion…was a migration of people”
(Rothman 2011: 142; see also Kohl 2007: 97) or, better still, “rather than a single or a few large migrations, we
are probably looking at many smaller movements outward and possibly even back over a long span of time”
(Rothman 2011: 149; Marro 2011: 293). Batiuk’s (2013: 452) meticulous analysis also interprets the ETC settle-
ment data as indicating “multiple migrations – first, pastoralists and/or traders who made initial contact in the
region, followed by farmers establishing themselves on the outskirts of an indigenous settlement system, drawn
in or pushed by some social, political or economic need” and never fully integrated or assimilated into their new
homelands. Palumbi and Chataigner (2014: 256; Palumbi 2019), by contrast, suggest that at least in the case of
some sites and regions, including the Upper Euphrates at Arslantepe and the Kangavar valley at Godin Tepe, the
transition from sophisticated, centrally organised Late Chalcolithic settlements with formal public architecture to
ETC “squatter” occupation in wattle and daub huts may have been made by peoples indigenous to those sites, in
particular by local pastoral communities who may have been “particularly receptive to the Kura-Araxes cultural
system,” a pattern of cultural adaptation that may have existed alongside ETC movement and migration. This
specific pattern may be most relevant for ETC sites in the far northwest of Iran where there appears to be some
continuity in ceramic technology and style from Late Chalcolithic into ETC (Abedi 2016b).
The possibility that ETC peoples might be ancestors of the historically attested Hurrians has been long consid-
ered (Burney 1997; Abdi 2012: 28). By the later third millennium BC we can identify a Hurrian presence at sites
such as Tell Mozan, ancient Urkesh, through inscribed seal impressions bearing names of Hurrian kings, queens
and court officials (Kelly-Buccellati 2004). Material correlates of this connection at Mozan/Urkesh are vividly
present in the form of ETC andirons and a remarkably well-preserved decorated horseshoe-shaped hearth from
an area of domestic housing dating to the early second millennium BC (Kelly-Buccellati 2004: 72–73). In any
case, attempts to connect ETC material culture with discrete ethnicities (Burney 1989, 1994) lack conviction,
except in the loosest possible sense, in the light of regional variability of ETC material traits and the manifold
challenges in connecting material culture traits with ethnic identities, as further discussed in Chapters 11–12.
Intriguingly, recent analysis of DNA from modern and ancient human populations of Iran suggests significant
genetic input from the Caucasus and the Steppe into central Iranian populations “restricted to the Bronze Age or
briefly before” (Mehrjoo et al. 2019), fitting perfectly with the onset of the ETC phenomenon in Iran. We should
probably accept therefore that with regard to the ETC in Iran, at least, pots do equal people.
But it is important to appreciate that ETC ceramic repertoires were not restricted and static across time and
space. As we have seen at Yanik Tepe, there were fundamental changes in the composition of ceramic assemblages
from ETC IIA to ETC IIB (Summers 2013a: 67), and we can also see much variability in assemblages across
space, as ETC communities clearly interacted with local pre-existing societies in the course of their expansion
and developed their own regional traditions (Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 187), with much evidence for produc-
tion of ceramics from local clays at multiple sites across the entire ETC zone (Kibaroğlu et al. 2011). Even in the
ETC heartlands of the southern Caucasus, as well as in eastern Anatolia, there are distinctive regional design tra-
ditions (Rothman 2003a, 2011: 145). Regional variation is also evident in the ETC ceramics from north-western
Iran, whereby so-called dimple and groove decoration is found at sites west of Lake Urmia, such as Geoy Tepe,
Gijlar and Haftavan, but not at sites east of the lake, such as Yanik Tepe. By contrast, decoration by white-inlaid
incision occurs east of the lake but not west of it (Rothman 2003a: 212, Figure 18.2a), all of which is suggestive
of adaptability and interaction with the societies amongst whom ETC communities came to settle. One model
for the movement of ETC ceramics has been suggested by Pierre de Miroschedji (2000: 264) in his study of Kh-
irbet Kerak pottery in the southern Levant. He proposes that the migrations were spearheaded by specialist ETC
potters producing aesthetically appealing “poterie exotique qui pouvait passer pour le symbole d’un statut social
eminent.” This model might account for the diffusion of some ETC vessels into the southern Levant, but it is
hard to see how it applies to sites where ETC pottery is found throughout all domestic contexts with no apparent
elite associations. Analysis of ETC ceramic fabrics in the central Zagros region in Iran, while showing common
use of grog temper and basic hand-forming techniques, also reveals considerable diversity in fabric types that “can
only be explained by diverse production probably at the household level” (Mason and Cooper 1999: 28; see also
Kouhpar et al. 2017). Most scholars see evidence for significant migrations of people, not just pots and potters,
into the Jordan valley as part of the ETC spread (Greenberg 2007).
The ETC expansion: one component of a mega-phenomenon?

What factors might have underlain the very broad expansion of the material attributes that characterise the ETC
horizon? There is little question that ETC originates broadly in the upland regions of eastern Anatolia, Georgia,
Azerbaijan, Armenia and, arguably, far northern Iran (Palumbi 2003; Smith 2012), and that therefore the move-
ment is one from the north, both to the south and east into north-western and central-western Iran and to the
south and west into eastern Anatolia and ultimately through the Levant. As Adam Smith (2012: 676) has stressed,
the notion of cultural diffusion southwards from the Transcaucasus, with or without movements of peoples, chal-
lenges conventional interpretations “that privilege Syro-Mesopotamia as a generative location of cultural pro-
duction.” He relates how Andrew Sherratt (1997) strove to interpret the Kura-Araxes phenomenon as ultimately
derived from Mesopotamian Uruk expansion, as with the earlier rich culture of Maikop in the north-western
Caucasus (Lyonnet 2000; Kohl 2007: 72–86). On the contrary, as Smith (2012: 677) articulates, the ETC must be
viewed as a locally situated Transcaucasian culture whose spread “effectively overturned Mesopotamian hegem-
ony in parts of the northern Near East that had developed during the Late Uruk era.”
Mitchell Rothman’s (Rothman 2003b, 2011: 158) proposal that ETC communities were drawn southwards to
newly developing markets and nodes of trade and exchange helps us to understand ETC attraction to the strategi-
cally located sites of Arslantepe on the Upper Euphrates and Tell Mozan/Urkesh in north-eastern Syria, but most
of the movement of ETC communities seems to have been driven by desire for arable land and pasture for herded
animals and possibly good soils for vines too (Kohl 2007: 90; Batiuk 2013), with little evidence of an ETC desire
to control key trade routes such as the Great High Road. Research in the southern Caucasus has discovered large
numbers of early agricultural settlements, numbering in the hundreds (Akhundov 2004: 424), so it is possible
that simple pressures of expanding populations and increasing demand for land and pasture were the key drivers
in stimulating ETC migration.
The timing and details of each step of the expansion need to be studied on their own terms using high-resolu-
tion locally situated evidence (Rothman 2003b, 2011: 156–160) but as yet we lack such evidence for most regions
of the ETC world. A detailed study of ETC origins and spread, by Giulio Palumbi (2003), argues for the develop-
ment of red-black burnished pottery in eastern Anatolia, a spread of this material eastwards to the Kura-Araxes
valleys, a return to eastern Anatolia of rapidly developing early ETC communities, followed by a mixture of
population movements and cultural assimilation in the diffusion of ETC societies more broadly across much of
Southwest Asia. This theory has been challenged by more recent discoveries at Ovçular Tepesi in Nakhchivan,
which suggest a local development of ETC traits amongst Late Chalcolithic societies of the southern Caucasus
(Marro 2011: 291–292; Palumbi and Chataigner 2014).
The earliest ETC presence in Iran occurs at Kohneh Pasgah, Kul Tepe and neighbouring sites of the northern
extremity of Iran, close to the Araxes river, and datable to the later fourth millennium BC. This region of Iran
clearly plays an integral part in a regionally autochthonous development of ETC within the southern Caucasus.
The subsequent spread of ETC into the rest of north-western Iran takes place from about 3100 BC (Summers
2013b: 170), and thus broadly coincides with several other significant transregional socio-cultural phenomena
of ancient Southwest Asia (Figure 7.1): the collapse of Late Uruk/Late Susa II influence at the end of the Late
Chalcolithic; the succeeding Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I periods in Lower and east-central Mesopota-
mia; the Scarlet Ware ceramic horizon of western Iran and east-central Mesopotamia; the early stages of the
Proto-Elamite horizon in south-western and north-central Iran; and the early phases of the Ninevite 5 cultural
phenomenon in Upper Mesopotamia which, like early ETC and Proto-Elamite (to a lesser extent), involves a
resurgence of high-investment, decorated ceramics (painted, incised, excised; Roaf and Killick 1987), and major
shifts from preceding traditions in architectural traditions and settlement patterns. A further component on this
broad canvas may be mid-fourth millennium BC movements of new groups of peoples from the steppe regions
north and east of the Caspian Sea, travelling with their four-wheeled, oxen-drawn carts southwards into the
Transcaucasus and thereby displacing local Kura-Araxes/ETC I populations, who move southwards into Anatolia
and Iran in several streams (Kohl 2007: 96).
In this light, any attempt to explain the ETC phenomenon may best address all these components in a single
integrated essay (Kohl 2009; Wilkinson 2014; Palumbi 2019). One key issue within such an essay centres on the
need to establish whether the incursion of ETC peoples into north-western Iran, and other regions of Southwest
Asia, was a cause or a consequence of any of the other transregional phenomena of the time. The current chron-
ological data are too parlous for a convincing attempt at an answer (Di Nocera 2000: 79; Marro 2007: 93), but
provisionally it seems that the Late Uruk/Late Susa II phenomenon came to an end at some point prior to signif-
icant ETC spread beyond its homelands. Thus, Potts (2013b: 206) argues for a hiatus “likely to have been at least
a century” between the abandonment of Godin VI:1 and the start of Godin IV. If this break applies more broadly,
we may at least regard the ETC movements as essentially filling a population vacuum that undoubtedly existed
across large swathes of Southwest Asia and Iran by the early third millennium BC (Smith 2012: 678; Thornton
2012: 596), however that vacuum might have come about. Others, however, have argued that the collapse of the
Late Uruk/Late Susa II world was directly caused by violent incursion from the north by ETC peoples, which in
turn encouraged Lower Mesopotamian elites and their traders to shift their connections away from the highland
zone southwards to the Persian Gulf, in order to secure access to the metals and other commodities which they so
cherished (T. Potts 1994: 81–82; Kavtaradze 2004; Summers 2014). Whether or not a direct cause of Late Uruk/
Late Susa II collapse, the presence of new peoples at key trade nodes, such as at Godin Tepe on the Great High
Road (Weiss and Young 1975: 15) and Arslantepe in the Euphrates valley, certainly stimulated a major reorienta-
tion in interregional interconnections from c. 3000 BC, even if it seems that ETC communities failed to, or chose
not to, take advantage of access to those routeways for their own trading purposes.
What might have been the significance of climate and environment in the later fourth and through the third
millennia BC as possible stimuli to large-scale population movements from the Caucasus southwards? Analyses of
pollen sequences in cores from Lakes Imera and Aligol west of Tbilisi in southern Georgia (Figure 8.22) (Connor
and Sagona 2007) have outlined some suggestive initial answers to this question. Firstly, palaeoclimate records
across this region demonstrate that the period 4000–2000 BC was a climatic optimum, with increased tempera-
tures and precipitation (Roberts and Wright 1993; Connor and Kvavadze 2014). As Connor and Sagona (2007:
30) point out, increased precipitation (as snowmelt and spring rains) may have made lowland floodplains too wet
for arable farming, while higher summer temperatures will have increased the risk of drought and crop failure.
A visible transition in Late Chalcolithic settlement of the Caucasus region from lowlands towards upland plains
and pastures (Edens 1995: 55) was one response to these risks, with the adoption of a flexible, mixed economy of
upland agriculture with increased emphasis on animal herding and perhaps viticulture. Overflowing of major riv-
ers such as the Araxes, as historically attested (Maziar 2010: 175), may have significantly impacted on settlements
along the low-lying riverbanks at this time, leading to episodic abandonments and relocations.
Secondly, from 4000 BC onwards the climatic optimum in the southern Caucasus enabled the spread of
oak-dominated forests across regions that had earlier been too dry and cold for tree spread, with potentially dis-
astrous results for farming communities of the region: “For agriculturalists reliant upon domestic livestock and
crops, the disappearance of formerly arable land beneath a forest canopy would have led to economic difficulties,
particularly for light-demanding grain crops” (Connor and Sagona 2007: 30–31; Connor and Kvavadze 2014). In
Figure 8.22 Palaeo-environmental change according to cores from lakes Imera and Aligol, southern Georgia (after Connor and
Sagona 2007: Figure 5).
the cores from both Lakes Imera and Aligol, there is clear charcoal evidence for a massive increase in fires in the
period 4000–3000 BC (Connor and Sagona 2007: Figures 3–5), interpreted as resulting from human attempts to
stem the spread of woodland vegetation onto previously arable land. From c. 3000 BC the Imera and Aligol re-
cords demonstrate that the battle had been won not by people but by trees, with the environment characterised by
oak-dominated savannas, and a lack of lake core charcoal from 3000 BC suggesting that people had surrendered
in their attempts to wrest their fields back from the forest. Wild fauna such as bear and red deer in assemblages
from east Anatolian ETC sites shows that much of the Upper Euphrates region was also heavily forested through
the fourth and third millennia BC (Marro 2011: 302).
These intriguing environmental indicators, which surely need support from further climate proxy records
of the region and beyond, suggest that Late Chalcolithic and early ETC societies of the southern Caucasus re-
sponded to major changes in environmental conditions through the climatic optimum of the fourth and third
millennia BC both by physically moving to higher localities, where they developed an increasingly flexible mix
of farming and herding practices, and by attempting to stall the spread of trees through large-scale targeted use of
fire. From 3000 BC, the indications are that both of these responses had failed to cope in supporting the agricul-
tural populations that the region had previously been capable of sustaining, and that therefore the attractions in
moving to pastures new, literally, were irresistible. It cannot be coincidence that it is at this point in time that we
see the first major spreads of ETC communities southwards into south-eastern Anatolia and north-western Iran.
The fact that many of the ETC foundations within the newly settled areas, such as the Qazvin plain, are founded
not on the plains themselves but in adjacent highland zones, may indicate that the incomers preferred to maintain
their mixed upland farming/herding strategies that they had employed in their adaptations in the Caucasus to
environmental changes there from c. 4000 BC.
As Catherine Marro (2011: 294) has stressed, ETC expansion settlements are located in a great arc of highland
territory from the Caucasus and north-western Iran across eastern Anatolia and into the Levant, and within this arc
there is no evidence for ETC settlements on the low-lying plains and steppes of Upper Mesopotamia and Syria. We
might then usefully consider the ETC phenomenon within the context of niche construction theory (Smith 2016;
Zeder 2016), whereby human communities, deliberately or otherwise, shape particular ecological niches to their
own purposes while adapting their socio-economic behaviours and practices to suit. In the case of ETC, the con-
structed niche was that of mixed herding and arable farming on light upland soils, possibly including viticulture, a
niche that may have been to some extent forced on them by the changing climatic conditions discussed above. Once
developed within the context of the later fourth millennium BC Caucasus, the cultural practices and associated
material culture attributes attendant upon interaction with this specific niche proved to be so successful that they
were fully portable to vast swathes of hitherto under-exploited upland territories across much of Southwest Asia.
The collapse of ETC as a detectable archaeological phenomenon in Iran occurred by the mid-third millennium
BC, as in neighbouring south Caucasus (Smith 2012: 679; Palumbi and Chataigner 2014: 257). Radiocarbon dates
from Nadir Tepe and Ghal-e Ben in Mazandaran suggest an end to ETC occupation at these sites by around
2400 BC succeeded, after a short hiatus, by settlers with new ceramic styles including grey and red wares indi-
cating widespread contacts across the Alborz mountains and into Central Asia (Heydari et al. 2018). The outer
reaches of the ETC world collapsed significantly earlier, at c. 2700 BC at Godin Tepe for example (Potts 2013b:
206–207). Across the ETC world we see a dramatic shift in settlement patterns with a significant episode of re-
gional abandonment before resettlement, generally at a more modest scale. To what extent this disruption in set-
tlement patterns in the mid-late third millennium BC can be associated with wider trends of climatic adversity,
including the so-called “4.2kya Abrupt Climate Change event,” claimed as a global phenomenon (Staubwasser
and Weiss 2006), is at present impossible to say, but it appears that the significant abandonments of ETC sites at
least across north-western and western Iran had occurred well before the 4.2 kya event and therefore cannot be
directly connected to it.
North-western Iran in the Middle-Late Bronze Age, 2100–1250 BC

As discussed above, the end of the ETC in north-western Iran is shrouded in obscurity, with little support from
radiocarbon dating and considerable uncertainty over the applicability of excavated sequences, as at Yanik Tepe
and Haftavan for example, to the broader region. Danti’s (2013a: Figure 2.2, 2013b: table 17.1) revised chronol-
ogy for the region puts the start of the Middle Bronze Age at 2100 BC (Table 8.2), with the appearance of Simple
Ware and Painted Ware at Hasanlu VIc, Dinkha V, Geoy Tepe G and Bastam (Kroll 2018). Between the end of
ETC and the start of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) in north-western Iran, we therefore have perhaps several
centuries of occupation (or not) of this region where our knowledge is limited to ceramic assemblages such as
Painted Orange Ware recovered largely from surveys (Kroll 2005a; Danti 2013a: 13; Summers 2013b; Helwing
Table 8.2 P
eriodisation of north-western Iran 2100–300 BC (after Danti 2013b: table 17.1)
Dates cal BC Period Ceramic horizon Hasanlu Dinkha Geoy Kordlar Haftavan
550–300 Achaemenid Classic Triangle Ware IIIa/II – – – –

Iron IV
800–550 Iron III Late Buff Ware/Ziwiyeh IIIb – – – –
Iron III Ware IIIc – – – III
(Urartian) Late Buff Ware/Urartian
1050–800 Iron II Late MBW IVb II Geoy A IIb–I IV
1250–1050 Iron I Middle MBW/Painted IVc Late III Geoy B IV/III–IIb ?
Ware (North)
1450–1250 Later Late Bronze Early MBW/Painted Ware Late V III Geoy B IV ?
Early Late Bronze (North) Early V III Tomb K V? V
Early MBW/Painted Wares
(North)
1600–1450 Middle Bronze III Early MBW/Polychrome VIa Early III Late V? Late VIb
Painted Wares D-C
1700–1600 Terminal Middle Painted Wares/Early MBW? VIb IV Phase D Geoy D – Early VIb
Bronze II
1900–1700 Middle Bronze II Painted Wares VIb IV Phases Geoy D – Early VIb
A-C
2100–1900 Middle Bronze I Simple Ware/Painted Ware VIc V Geoy G – VIc
(North)
2017a). Middle Bronze I ceramics of the region show good connections with assemblages of Upper Mesopotamia
in the later third and early second millennia BC, a trend that reaches its apogee in Middle Bronze II, 1900–1600
BC, with the widespread occurrence of Upper Mesopotamian Khabur Ware at the key sites of Hasanlu period
VIb, Dinkha period IV and Khanghah Gilavan cemetery (Hamlin 1974a; Henrickson 2011a; Rezaloo and Kha-
nali 2017). Piller (2003–2004, 2004) suggests that the origins of the Iranian grey wares, so typical of the Iron Age
(Chapter 11), may be sought in the Middle Bronze Age ceramic traditions of northern Iran.
Danti (2013a: 13, 147) speculates that these major sites of Middle Bronze Age north-western Iran may have
participated in the extensive trading networks of the Old Assyrian period, centred on Assur on the Iraqi Tigris and
characterised by kārum trading colonies as attested at this time in Anatolia, although none of the typical Old As-
syrian texts have been found at Hasanlu and Dinkha. We may therefore wonder about the possible role of Hasanlu
and Dinkha in the collecting and transshipment westwards of the tin and lapis lazuli that feature prominently in
the Old Assyrian trade as a commodity transported from the east through Assyria and into Anatolia, along with
textiles, in exchange for Anatolian gold and silver. The sources of the traded tin have been a topic of speculation
for a long time (Pigott 2021), with mines in north-eastern Afghanistan and Uzbekistan previously seen as the like-
liest candidates (Veenhof 2008: 82), although mines east of Tabriz in the Urmia basin, not far from Hasanlu and
Dinkha, have also been proposed (Larsen 1967: 4). There is also the possibility that tin was mined from sources
proximate to Mundigak in Afghanistan with westwards transport either by sea along the Persian Gulf (Weeks
2004) or through southern Iran and Susa into Mesopotamia (Kaniuth 2007: 34). Tin sources at Deh Hosein in
eastern Luristan may also have been sourced at this time (Nezafati et al. 2009). Whatever the source, it is possible
that tin and lapis lazuli reached Assur by at least two highland-lowland routes, a southern route via Susa, Der and
Eshnunna to Assur (Dercksen 2005), and a northern route across northern and north-western Iran passing by
Hasanlu and Dinkha and connecting directly to Upper Mesopotamia through the natural passes at Kel-i Shin and
Khaneh to the Rowanduz gorge and the Upper Zab headwaters (Danti 2013b: 329). This latter route would accede
considerable importance to Hasanlu and Dinkha as nodes of control along the trading network.
Further eastwards in northern Iran in Gilan, no sites of Middle Bronze Age date have been located (Piller
2012c: 123), an absence of evidence that chimes with the picture across all of eastern Iran through much of the
second millennium BC, almost certainly due to the onset of a major episode of climatic aridification (Sharifi et al.
2015). It is striking that north-western Iran is the only region of Iran where human societies appear to thrive
through the centuries of the Middle-Late Bronze Age and into the Early Iron Age, indicative both of a favourable
environment especially in terms of reliable water supply and of impressive societal adaptability. Episodes of dis-
ruption in north-western Iran are attested, however, by repeated destructions by fire in the Middle Bronze II-III
levels at Haftavan (Edwards 1983), succeeded by levels with pits and stake-hole constructions, and destruction
of the final Middle Bronze II level at Dinkha, ending the Khabur Ware Mesopotamian connections before 1600
BC (Danti 2013a: 15). At about the same time, the Old Assyrian trading colonies across central Anatolia are
terminated, also through destruction by fire (Veenhof 2008: 143), suggestive of a transregional episode of violent
disruption across the upland zones in the mid-second millennium BC, plausibly stimulated by fierce competition
over resources during the millennium-long phase of climatic adversity affecting much of the region.
Through the course of the Late Bronze Age (LBA), c. 1450–1250 BC, levels of social and economic complexity
steadily revive across north-western Iran, as attested at Hasanlu V, Dinkha III, Haftavan VI (Burney 1973), Kord-
lar IV, Zardkhaneh (Kazempour et al. 2017) and Khanghah Gilavan (Rezaloo and Khanali 2017), although none
of these settlements can be considered full-blown urban centres, and the material culture, above all ceramics, sug-
gests a high degree of regionalisation within north-western Iran (Guarducci 2019: 111–115). Common ceramic
types include what Danti (2013b) calls Early Monochrome Burnished Ware, a more specific term for what others
have loosely classed as Grey Ware, which has been too readily associated with the so-called “Indo-Iranian migra-
tions” of the late second-early first millennia BC (Chapter 11). A chance find of copper-bronze weapons from a
grave at Bit-Sorgh near Kermanshah shows good parallels with Hasanlu V materials (Dyson 1964). At Hasanlu
in the later LBA a small columned-hall building was constructed (Figure 8.23) (Danti 2013b: Figure 17.6) with
a central raised hearth, a “throne seat” and internal benches along the wall faces. This and other LBA buildings
were likely enclosed within a fortified and gated citadel on the High Mound at Hasanlu, while Kordlar level
IV comprises a fortified manor house with towers and a columned hall, destroyed by fire probably in the Early
Iron Age (Lippert 1979; Danti 2013b: 337). The site of Zardkhaneh covers some 30 ha in the Late Bronze Age-
Early Iron Age, including a central citadel, manor house, craft-working areas and a necropolis with burials in
the mounded kurgan style (see Chapter 11; Kazempour et al. 2017). The widespread use of fortifications suggests
ongoing insecurity across the region in the LBA.
Human burial practices at Hasanlu show a transition from multiple diverse modes of burial of the dead in the
MBA - including multiple burials, single pit inhumations, stone-built tombs and pithos burials – to an almost
exclusive use of single pit inhumations in extramural cemeteries in the LBA (Danti 2013b: 339–340). At both
Hasanlu and Dinkha, LBA cemeteries comprise largely pit burials with varied body orientations, traces of reed
mats underlying skeletons and the dead being accompanied by drinking and eating vessels and sheep/goat bones
indicating the provision of a final meal for their journey into the next world. Metal objects and jewellery were
also occasionally buried with the dead.
An extraordinary tomb of LBA date has been excavated at Bayazid Abad, just 18 km southwest of Hasanlu
(Amelirad and Khanmohamadi 2016). A stone-lined chamber (Figure 8.24) contained the remains of 15 individ-
uals, adult and child, with heads to the north. Some 500 ceramic vessels, 2000 bronze and iron objects, numerous
beads of diverse materials, plus 55 cylinder seals in basic Mitanni style were deposited in this tomb (Figure 8.25),
indicative of strong Upper Mesopotamian connections. A massive multi-period cemetery, spanning up to 300
ha, has been excavated at Khanghah Gilavan in Ardabil province, 60 km southeast of Khalkhal (Rezalou and
Ayremlou 2016; Rezaloo and Khanali 2017), with burials spanning Middle Bronze Age (Figure 8.26) to Parthian
in date including some graves with burial customs comparable to those of the kurgan tradition to the north.
These Middle-Late Bronze Age developments in north-western Iran laid the foundations for the elaboration of
sites like Hasanlu, Zardkhaneh and Kordlar in the following Early Iron Age (Chapter 11). As Danti (2013a: 22) puts
it “The archaeological culture of Hasanlu IVb has its roots in the mid-2nd millennium, arriving not through punc-
tuated culture change or wave migration, but rather through a gradual development rooted in indigenous traditions.”
Figure 8.23 H
asanlu, level V columned-hall building and internal gate (Danti 2013b: Figure 17.6) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
Figure 8.24 Bayazid Abad, stone-lined tomb (Amelirad and Khanmohamadi 2016: Figure 2) (photo credit: Sheler Amelirad).
Figure 8.25 Bayazid Abad, selected cylinder seals from tomb (Amelirad and Khanmohamadi 2016: figs 1–8) (images courtesy of
Sheler Amelirad).
Figure 8.26 K hanghah Gilavan, Middle Bronze Age grave and grave goods (Rezalou and Ayremlou 2016: figs 9–12) (images
courtesy of Reza Rezalou).
The central plateau of Iran, 3000–1250 BC
As discussed in Chapter 6, the human settlement of north-central Iran, including the plains of Qazvin, Tehran
and Kashan, underwent a significant reduction in scale and intensity from c. 3400 BC and across much of the
third millennium BC, for reasons not yet fully understood (Vidale et al. 2018). During the second millennium
BC human occupation of the central plateau of Iran to some extent revived from this significant episode of aban-
donment or retrenchment, although the picture is still far from clear (Fazeli Nashli and Abbasnegad Seresty 2005;
Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019).
There is convincing evidence for resettlement from the early second millennium BC across the plains of
north-central Iran (Figure 8.1) (Pollard et al. 2012, 2013). Grey ware and painted ceramics of Bronze Age and
Early Iron Age date, including the so-called “Urmia Style,” occur widely at sites such as Qoli Darvish, Tepe
Shizar and Sagzabad (Azizi Kharanaghi et al. 2010; Velayati et al. 2017; Sarlak and Hessari 2018), and at Pardis on
the Tehran plain (Chapter 11; Fazeli et al. 2007). As with north-western Iran, there is evidence for a degree of
cultural continuity spanning the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in these regions of north-central Iran (Fa-
zeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019). A key site is Qoli Darvish, located close to Qom city. Excavations by Siamak
Sarlak since 2002 at this site have investigated occupation dating from the late fourth millennium BC onwards,
including Proto-Elamite (Chapter 7) and ETC (see above) levels separated by a hiatus (Sarlak 2011; Alizadeh et al.
2013b). Alongside the ETC materials, there is evidence for the flourishing of local ceramic traditions at Qoli Dar-
vish in the mid-third millennium BC. The Qom plain hosts increased levels of settlement through the Middle
and Late Bronze Ages, with a wide range of transregional connections, including with Central Asia, attested in
the ceramic assemblages of Qoli Darvish and other surveyed sites (Sarlak and Hessari 2018). The Iron Age argu-
ably begins as early as 1500–1400 BC in this region, according to the presence of iron objects and the increasing
preponderance of grey wares at Qoli Darvish (Chapter 11).
On the Kashan plain, following the collapse of Sialk IV in the late fourth millennium BC, there is little evi-
dence for occupation until the mid-second millennium BC (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019). Investigations in
the hilly flanks of the Kashan plain have detected cemetery sites of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age date, and ex-
cavations at Estark-Joshaqan show a rich range of burial practices, including multiple inhumations, and deposits
of grave goods through much of the second millennium BC (Sołtysiak et al. 2016a; Hosseinzadeh et al. 2019).
Along the southern edges of the central plateau, significant numbers of Bronze Age sites dating from c. 2800 BC
onwards according to ceramic finds have been located in surveys of the Gavkhuni wetlands and surrounding plains
lying southeast of Esfahan city (Esmaili Jaludar 2016; Shojaee Esfahani and Rafi’i Alavi 2018). Surveyed Bronze
Age sites range in size from small villages to sizeable urban-scale settlements, all of which must have depended on
water supplied by the Zayandehrud river and associated lakes that have subsequently dried up. Brief excavations
at Tepe Kopandeh in this region revealed a rich sequence of occupation spanning a millennium from 2500 BC,
showing strong connections with the Zagros, Khuzestan and Fars regions, while a human burial recovered during
excavations at the previously looted Site 051 of the Kafarved-Varzaneh survey yielded grave goods of silver, gold,
alabaster, carnelian and ceramics dated to c. 2500 BC (Figures 8.27–8.28) (Ilkhan et al. 2019).
In sum, we have much still to learn about the dynamics of Bronze Age human settlement and society across the
plains and hilly flanks of the central plateau of Iran. Recent and ongoing research at least enables us to recognise
Figure 8.27 K afarved-Varzaneh, looting pits at cemetery Site 051 (Ilkhan et al. 2019: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Ilkhan Tabasom).
Figure 8.28 Kafarved-Varzaneh, excavated burial at cemetery Site 051 (Ilkhan et al. 2019: figs 4–5) (image courtesy of Ilkhan Tabasom).
significant evidence for cultural continuity spanning the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition, with the widespread
development and adoption of grey ware ceramic traditions seamlessly persisting throughout the second millen-
nium BC. We can also highlight the evidence for transregional connections, including for Central Asian impacts
on ceramic styles during the second millennium BC (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019).
Luristan and the burial of the dead, 3000–1200 BC

No traces of an ETC presence have been detected in the regions of Iran to the south and west of Kermanshah city,
that is in the modern provinces of western Kermanshah and all of Ilam and Luristan (Figure 8.1). This region of the
south-central Zagros also appears to have been beyond the Proto-Elamite sphere of influence, as we saw in Chapter
7. What, then, are the archaeological features of Luristan and adjacent regions during the Early Bronze Age and how
can we approach and investigate the human communities of this area? How were the peoples of this region affected
by the proximity of the massive socio-political entities of the ETC and the Proto-Elamite horizon, not to mention
the burgeoning powers of Sumerian city-states directly to the west and southwest? Let us examine the evidence.
Defining Luristan
For archaeological purposes, Luristan is here defined as the region bounded to the north by Kermanshah, to the
east by Malayer, Borujird and the Dez river, to the south by the Deh Luran plain and Khuzestan and to the west
by Mandali, Mehran and the modern border between Iran and Iraq (Figure 8.29) (Edmonds 1922; Harrison 1942,
1946; I. Mortensen 1993; Hole 2007: 65–69; Potts 2013b: 203), comprising the modern provinces of both Luristan
and Ilam (Overlaet 2013: 377). The major geographical features of ancient Luristan are the northwest-southeast
trending spines of the Zagros Mountains, including the zones known as the Pish-e Kuh (“before the mountain”
Figure 8.29 M
ap of Luristan and adjacent regions, showing key sites and features (Haerinck 2011: pl. 1) (image courtesy of
Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 8.30 H
igh peaks in Luristan (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
as viewed from the Iranian plateau) and the Pusht-e Kuh (“behind the mountain”), the “mountain” in question
here being the Kuh-e Kabir, the westernmost of Luristan’s Zagros high ranges (Overlaet 2013: 377–379). Because
of greater proximity to Mesopotamia, societies and material culture of the Pusht-e Kuh show stronger western
connections than those of the Pish-e Kuh. High peaks in Luristan hover around the 2,800 m mark (Figure 8.30),
while the high plains are at 1,200 m and more. A major topographic feature of Luristan, stretching from Ker-
manshah to Khorramabad, is the Kuh-e Sefid ridge that separates the sardsir, the cool, high summer pastures of
the northeast, from the garmsir, or warmer, lower winter pastures of the southwest.
Figure 8.31 Saimarreh river, Luristan (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
The Saimarreh river (Figure 8.31) is the major drainage feature of Luristan as well as forming a natural route-
way from Khuzestan into the highland zone, connecting the Karkheh river to the south with the Gamas Ab and
Qara Su to the north in one fluid system. Luristan thus includes both fertile plains and high pastures, ideal for
the vertical transhumance that is such a feature of historical and modern occupation of the region (I. Mortensen
1993), as well as much bleaker terrain: “Hot in summer, cold and draughty in winter, all of it rugged and bare,...
emphatically desolate” (Naval Intelligence Division 1945: 64). In like vein, Hole (2007: 66) describes Luristan
as “a rugged and perversely difficult landscape to penetrate, marked by a series of anticlinal mountain ridges
breached by few easy passes.”
Archaeological research in Luristan

Following initial exploration of Luristan by Henry Rawlinson in 1836 (Rawlinson 1839), archaeological work
in Luristan continued with Jacques de Morgan’s two-year exploration of Luristan and Kurdistan in the late nine-
teenth century (de Morgan 1896; I. Mortensen 1993; Haerinck 2011; Potts 2013b). At the fringes of Luristan
on the Deh Luran plain, early French excavations at Tappe Aliabad and Musiyan uncovered vaulted tombs with
painted vessels in distinctive styles (Gautier and Lampre 1905; Helwing and Neumann 2014). In 1928 Ernst Her-
zfeld excavated a Bronze Age tomb near Gilviran (Herzfeld 1929–30b; Calmeyer 1971). Shortly afterwards the
first so-called “Luristan bronzes’ started to appear on antiquities markets in Kermanshah and Baghdad and were
rapidly acquired by museums in Europe and the United States (Muscarella 1988, 1989, 2012b). In search of a
provenance for these bronzes, Freya Stark visited Luristan in 1931 (Stark 1932). Further investigations in Luristan
include the 1931–1933 French excavations at the important mounds of Tepe Giyan and Tepe Jamshidi, near Ne-
havand (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935), Aurel Stein’s 1936 survey of parts of Luristan (Stein 1938, 1940), and
Erich Schmidt’s 1934–1935 and 1938 Holmes Expeditions to Luristan, which included surveys and excavations at
several Bronze Age sites (Schmidt et al. 1989).
With the development of Iranian archaeology in the decades from 1950 onwards (Chapter 3), modern archaeo-
logical projects started to take place in Luristan. Such projects included the 1960s–1970s surveys in Hulailan and
other valleys and the 1962–1964 excavations at Tepe Guran conducted by the Danish National Museum (Meld-
gaard et al. 1963; Mortensen 1963, 1975a; Thrane 1964, 2001), Frank Hole’s surveys of the Khorramabad valley
in 1963–1965 (Hole 2007), Clare Goff’s surveys in the Pish-e Kuh and excavations at Baba Jan (Goff Meade 1968;
Goff 1971, 1976) and, most significantly, the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Iran’s investigations in 1965–1979
of multiple regions and sites of Luristan (Vanden Berghe 1968, 1970a, 1970b, 1973a, 1973b, 1979a, 1979b; Vanden
Berghe and Haerinck 1984; Haerinck 1987, 2008, 2011; Vanden Berghe and Tourovets 1992; Haerinck and
Overlaet 2002, 2004a, 2006a, 2006b, 2008, 2010a). Iranian excavations have taken place at Tepe Nurabad, again
at Tepe Giyan (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005: 231, fn 190) and at Deh Dumen in Boyer-Ahmad province to the
southeast (Naseri 2019). Beyond survey and excavation, archaeo-metallurgical research on Luristan materials and
artefacts has begun to enhance our understanding of the movement and working of metals in the Bronze Age of
the region and beyond (Begemann et al. 2008; Nezafati et al. 2009), including the proposal that a major source
of copper for Mesopotamia in the Early Dynastic III period was Gujarat/Southern Rajasthan (Begemann and
Schmitt-Strecker 2009). Ongoing analysis of ceramics has started to articulate the complexities of regional and
chronological variation in pottery styles including the many painted wares of the early-mid third millennium BC
(Del Bravo 2014; Helwing and Neumann 2014).
Luristan chronology
The Bronze Age chronology of Luristan (Potts 2013b: 206) broadly comprises the Early Bronze Age (c. 3100–
1900 BC), the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1900–1600 BC) and the Late Bronze Age (c. 1600–1200 BC). Haerinck
and Overlaet’s (2002, 2004a, 2006b, 2008, 2010a, 2010b; Overlaet 2006a, 2006b) detailed research in western
Luristan have further defined four distinct phases within the Early Bronze Age: EBA I (c. 3100–2900 BC), EBA
II (c. 2900–2600 BC), EBA III (c. 2600–2300 BC) and EBA IV (c. 2300–1900 BC). Table 8.3 shows approximate
correlations between Luristan and Lower Mesopotamian chronologies, as well as the Godin Tepe phase scheme
(see Potts 2013b: 206).
Luristan in Early Bronze Age I

Evidence for late fourth-early third millennia BC settlement in Luristan is virtually non-existent. The poorly
excavated site of Tepe Giyan (Figure 8.32) seems to have been abandoned between level VD of Late Chalcolithic
date and level V of mid-third millennium BC date (Negahban 2001; Potts 2013b: 207). As we saw above, Godin
Tepe appears to have been deserted for a century or more of the mid-third millennium BC prior to the start of
level III:6 occupation (Potts 2013b: 206–7; see below). Our evidence for human presence in Luristan for the pe-
riod 3000–2600 BC comes almost exclusively from burials, a feature whose implications we will discuss below.
As to the cemeteries of this phase in Luristan, major sites include Andjireh in southern Ilam and Mir Khair
near Badreh in the Saimarreh river valley (Vanden Berghe 1979b; Haerinck 2011: 67). Most of the 64 excavated
graves at Mir Khair were individual subterranean cist tombs with gable or capstone roofs (Figure 8.33). The
graves contained painted ceramics of so-called Transitional Polychrome type (Del Bravo 2014; Helwing and
Table 8.3 Approximate correlations between Luristan, Godin Tepe and Lower Mesopotamian chronologies (after
Haernick 2011; Henrickson 2011b: 210; Potts 2013b: 206; Renette 2015: Figure 5)
Dates cal BC Luristan period Godin period Lower Mesopotamia period
1600–1300 Late Bronze Age post-III:2-III:1 Kassite

1900–1600 Middle Bronze Age III:3–III:2 later Isin-Larsa/Old Babylonian
2300–1900 Early Bronze Age IV III:5–III:4 later Akkadian/Gutian/Ur III/early Isin-Larsa
2450–2300 Early Bronze Age III III:5 Early Dynastic IIIB/early Akkadian
2750–2450 Early Bronze Age II-III III:6 Early Dynastic II–IIIA
2800–2750 Early Bronze Age II hiatus Early Dynastic I–II
2900–2800 Early Bronze Age II IV Early Dynastic I
3100–2900 Early Bronze Age I VI:1 and hiatus Jemdet Nasr/early Early Dynastic I
Figure 8.32 Tepe Giyan, view of mound (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 8.33 M ir Khair, EBA I grave and grave goods (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Neumann 2014) with strong connections to early third millennium BC pottery of central-eastern Mesopotamia,
in particular with the site of Ahmad al-Hattu in the Hamrin region to the northwest and with sites of the Lower
Diyala valley northeast of Baghdad (Eickhoff 1993; Potts 2013b: 207).
Northwest of Ilam town, a further 19 EBA I tombs have been excavated at the cemetery of Kalleh Nisar
(Haerinck and Overlaet 2008). Some of the tombs here are large enough to have been for collective burial and
two have faintly vaulted roofs. Painted monochrome and polychrome pottery vessels of Transitional Polychrome
type, and cylinder seals (Vanden Berghe and Tourovets 1994), have good parallels at Mesopotamian sites imme-
diately to the west (Figure 8.34), including the Diyala region, such as Khafajah, Tell Asmar and Tell Agrab, and
the Hamrin region, such as Gubba, Razuk and Ahmad al-Hattu (Haerinck and Overlaet 2008: 27–28; Haerinck
2011: 60; Potts 2013b: 207). As Del Bravo (2014: 134) suggests, the sites of the Hamrin region in the EBA I-II
phases may have been acting as intermediaries between the urbanised settlements of the Lower Diyala and the
more mobile populations of the Luristan uplands. Metal objects from Kalleh Nisar, including rings and pins, are
made of deliberate alloys of copper and tin, with 3.5% tin content, some of the earliest true tin-bronzes from
anywhere in Southwest Asia (Fleming et al. 2005; Helwing 2009). It is possible, but currently unproven, that the
tin was mined from the nearby source of Deh Hosein (Nezafati et al. 2006, 2009; Helwing 2009). Other burial
sites of EBA I date have been found within Ilam town (Soto Riesle 1983; Haerinck and Overlaet 2010b: 282;
Haerinck 2011: 61) and at Tepe Jarali northeast of Mir Khair (Thrane 1964; Haerinck 2011: 68).
The site of Kunji Cave near Khorramabad in the east of Luristan has yielded eight graves containing at least 33
individuals, all adults, deposited in the slopes below the cave mouth (Figure 8.35) (Emberling et al. 2002; Haer-
inck 2011; Potts 2013b: 207–208). A high degree of dental caries amongst the buried individuals indicates heavy
grain consumption from an agriculturally based lifestyle, suggesting that these individuals had good access to ag-
ricultural produce (Emberling et al. 2002: 57). Pottery from the graves includes so-called “fruit-stands” and many
painted vessels, comparable to Early Dynastic I types from Mesopotamia, Susiana and Malyan. A single lead bowl
has parallels at Malyan, Susa, Ahmad al-Hattu and Ur (Haerinck 2011: 71). Tombs with painted ceramics at Alia-
bad and Musiyan on the Deh Luran plain also appear to date to this phase (Helwing and Neumann 2014: 48–49).
Figure 8.34 E BA I bichrome and polychrome pottery and later pottery from Kalleh Nisar (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 8.35 K
unji cave, grave D/F and its contents (Emberling et al. 2002: figs 6–8) (photo credit: John Speth; images courtesy of
the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology).
Metal objects are relatively rare in Luristan tombs of EBA I. From Mir Khair and Kalleh Nisar there are
knives and daggers, axes, rings and bracelets, all of copper (Figure 8.36) (Begemann et al. 2008: 4, Figure 2),
with some indications of alloying of copper and tin to produce bronze rings, bracelets and pins (Fleming et al.
2005: 37; Pigott 2008: 56–57), amongst the earliest tin-bronze objects from Southwest Asia (Weeks 2013b:
280). The tin source at Deh Hosein in north-eastern Luristan (Nezafati et al. 2009) may be significant in in-
dicating a likely provenance for EBA tin. Tin-bronzes appear at Godin Tepe from c. 2600 BC in level III:6
(Frame 2010: 1705).
Figure 8.36 E
BA I metal artefacts from graves at Mir Khair (Begemann et al. 2008: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Luristan in Early Bronze Age II–III

The EBA II phase in Luristan, equating to Early Dynastic I-IIIa in Mesopotamia, sees a major development in
tomb layout, with widespread use of communal corridor-shaped tombs (Begemann et al. 2008: 5; Potts 2013b:
208–209). Key sites of this phase are Bani Surmah and Kalleh Nisar, north of Ilam town, and Takht-e Khan, Bani
Sol, Mehr War Kabud, Shatt-i Siah Safalaki and Cheshmeh-e Takht-e Khan, all in the Pusht-e Kuh in western
Luristan (Haerinck and Overlaet 2010a). The EBA II Bani Surmah tombs range from 15.7 m to 5 m in length
and up to 3 m in width, the largest tombs constructed in the region (Figure 8.37). The tombs were unpaved
but covered with massive capstones (Haerinck and Overlaet 2004a, 2006a). Pottery within the graves includes
cooking wares as well as unpainted and painted vessels, with parallels at sites in Lower Mesopotamia such as Fara
and Abu Salabikh. Other painted vessels, with goat and bird motifs, include Scarlet Ware types comparable to
examples from the Diyala and Hamrin regions (Figure 8.38) (Carter 1987: 79; Haerinck and Overlaet 2006a;
Figure 8.37 Bani Surmah, communal tombs with plan of tomb A14 (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Potts 2013b: 209; Del Bravo 2014: Figure 2; Helwing and Neumann 2014: 47–50). Ongoing use of tin-bronzes
is attested in grave goods from EBA II tombs at Kalleh Nisar (Fleming et al. 2005: 37).
Cylinder seals from Bani Surmah graves (Figure 8.39) range from Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I styles
to Early Dynastic III and even Old Akkadian types (Tourovets 1996), suggesting use of the communal
tombs at Bani Surmah over several centuries. With the exception of Bayazid Abad (see above), cylinder seals
have not been found in contemporary burial sites more remote from Mesopotamia than Bani Surmah. But
Schmidt’s excavations at the small settlement sites of Kamtarlan I and II and Surkh Dum-e Luri in central
Luristan also recovered Mesopotamian cylinder seals in a wide variety of styles, along with pottery showing
Early Dynastic III and Akkadian connections (Schmidt et al. 1989: pl. 132; van Loon 1989f ).
In the EBA II-III phase, Ernie Haerinck (2011: 66–67) identified three distinct zones of collective burials
in the Pusht-e Kuh, all of them reusing tombs originally constructed in the EBA II phase (Begemann et al.
2008: 5). Zone I is the northwest of Luristan, including Bani Surmah, Kalleh Nisar and Mehr War Kabud,
sites with strong Mesopotamian connections in their material culture. Zone II is at the southern end of the
Pusht-e Kuh, including the sites of Qabr Nahi, Takht-e Khan, Tawarsa and Pusht-e Qaleh-e Abdanan, with
close relations to the nearby Deh Luran plain (Figure 8.40). Finally, Zone III lies to the north of the Kabir
Kuh, with ceramic connections principally to Godin Tepe in level III.6 (Figure 8.41) (Haerinck 1987: 66–67,
2011: 63–64; Ascalone 2006: 107–109; Henrickson 2011a). EBA II-III materials, including vessels related
to Scarlet Ware types, also occur in gabled-roofed cist tombs at Mir Vali in the Rumishgan area (van Loon
1989g) and at Dar Tanha and Ban Chaliah in the Badreh region of the Saimarreh valley (Haerinck 2011: 64,
68, 73; Potts 2013b: 210), with parallels in the Diyala and Hamrin regions as well as at Godin Tepe level III:6
Figure 8.38 Bani Surmah, polychrome painted pottery in Scarlet Ware style (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 6) (images
courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 8.39 S elected cylinder seals, and/or their modern impressions, from Bani Surmah graves (Tourovets 1996: figs 2, 4–6, 8–9)
(images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 8.40 G
rave goods from selected sites of Luristan showing connections to the Deh Luran plain (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002:
Figure 7) (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
(Henrickson 2011a; see below). Small EBA I-III sites occur on the valley floor in Khorramabad, with ceramic
connections mainly to the southwest (Hole 2007: 76–77).
Salvage excavation of 15 stone cist graves at Deh Dumen in Kohgiluyeh/Boyer-Ahmad Province, well to the
southeast of Luristan, recovered tin-bronze vessels, including one bowl with an incised Master of Animals scene
and another with a central lion in relief, suggestive of connections with south-eastern Iran in the mid-later third
millennium BC (Figures 8.42–8.43) (Oudbashi et al. 2016; Sołtysiak and Naseri 2017; Naseri 2019; Sołtysiak et al.
Figure 8.41 Dar Tanha, tomb 1 and grave goods showing connections to Godin III:6 (Haerinck and Overlaet 2002: Figure 8)
(image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 8.42 Deh Dumen, view of site and excavated trenches (Sołtysiak et al. 2019b: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri).
Figure 8.43 Deh Dumen, bronze vessels from Bronze Age graves (Oudbashi et al. 2016: Figure 5a-b) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri).
2019b). The site lies on a possible routeway connecting south-eastern Iran with Mesopotamia, through Ker-
man, Fars and Khuzestan. The looted site of Deh Pāyeen in the same region also appears to have been a major
cemetery of third millennium BC date (Ghasemi and Watson 2014), while study of human remains from Lamā
cemetery suggest a degree of mobility in male individuals (Sołtysiak et al. 2010a; Sołtysiak 2013; Mucheshi and
Jafari 2016). Notably, all these cemeteries are situated on gently sloping hillsides of the Zagros range.
Levels IVB-IVC and tomb 102 at Tepe Giyan (Dyson 1965) appear to be contemporary with Godin III:6
(Potts 2013b: 210), while the megalithic tomb at Gilviran produced bronze spearheads and arrowheads and two
bronze spouted vessels of classic Early Dynastic IIIB style (Bellelli 2002: 16, 134, Tav. 28. 160–161; Haerinck and
Overlaet 2013). Bronze Age settlement dating to c. 2300–2100 BC, and again to c. 1800–1500 BC, is attested at
Baba Jan IV, levels 5–4, where stone-walled domestic quarters and graves with metalwork and ceramic vessels
were excavated (Goff 1976).
Godin III: 1200 years of domesticity

At Godin Tepe on the Kangavar plain, after an episode of abandonment following the ETC occupation of the
site (see above), period III:6 sees the introduction of new ceramic styles from c. 2750 BC, largely in the form of
wheel-made monochrome buff wares quite distinctive from the burnished hand-made grey-black vessels of the
earlier third millennium BC, even if a few vessels continued to be made in the old ETC manner (R. C. Henrick-
son 1986, 1987, 2011a, 2011b: 251; Helwing and Neumann 2014: 50–52). Architecture of this period at Godin
comprises multi-roomed, mudbrick domestic houses with period III at Godin enduring for over a thousand years
and ending at c. 1400 BC (Figure 8.44). Interruptions to the millennial succession of domestic life at Godin III
are suggested by episodes of abandonment during which mudbrick houses fell into disrepair, and by evidence for
earthquake destruction in the form of human skeletons and complete pots buried under collapsed bricky debris
(Henrickson 2011b: 215). Intentional human burials from Godin III are exclusively of adults, indicating burial of
Figure 8.44 Godin Tepe, plan of period III:4c (Henrickson 2011b: Figure 6.3) (image courtesy of Hilary Gopnik).
Figure 8.45 G
odin Tepe, painted vessels from period III:5 (Henrickson 2011b: Figure 6.24) (image courtesy of Hilary Gopnik).
infants in locations not encountered in excavation, and the grave goods – ceramic and metal vessels above all – are
suggestive of some social stratification. One adult skeleton from Godin III:2 includes a metal spearpoint embed-
ded in two articulated vertebrae, definitive evidence for interpersonal conflict in the early second millennium
BC (Henrickson 2011b: 235).
Levine and Young (1987) pointed to similarities between the Godin III:6 ceramics and material from grave
sites through Luristan, from Susa in period IVA and monochrome painted vessels and sherds from Al-Hiba-Lagash,
Telloh-Girsu and Ur in Lower Mesopotamia, which Renette (2015) has reassigned to Godin III:5 equating to
Early Dynastic IIIB in Lower Mesopotamia (Figure 8.45). The presence of these painted vessels at several of the
major Sumerian cities of the Mesopotamian plain can be situated within an environment of their burgeoning en-
gagement with the highland region and their concern to sustain access to cherished highland resources, as richly
attested in archaeological and textual evidence from the Mesopotamian alluvium in the late Early Dynastic III
period (Selz 2014). Potts (2016: 86) proposes that Luristan, in particular the Pusht-e Kuh, formed a significant
part of the regional toponym of Awan at this time, a major political power accredited in the Sumerian King List
as having hegemony over Sumer and Akkad at some stage during the Early Dynastic period (see also Chapter 10).
Excavations at the substantial site of Chogha Maran on the Mahi Dasht 100 km directly west of Godin Tepe
recovered ceramics comparable to those of Godin III:6 as well as an important collection of clay sealings within
extensive ash deposits overlying the Chalcolithic levels of the site (Henrickson 1987, 2011a). In total, about 200
clay sealings were recovered, mostly with cylinder seal impressions and a few instances of stamp seals (Figure 8.46)
(Pittman 2014; Renette 2018: 311–312; Khayani and Niknami 2020a, 2020b; Renette et al. 2021). In functional
terms, the vast majority of the sealings had been affixed to portable containers including baskets, bags and pots
with a small proportion of door peg sealings from closure of storeroom doors. Iconographic parallels for the seal
impressions lie to the west, most notably in glyptic from Early Dynastic I-II sites in the Hamrin (Al-Gailani-Werr
1988, Ii 1988; Sürenhagen 2011) Susa (Amiet 1972) and Nineveh (Collon 2003). There are several examples in the
glazed steatite/Piedmont style while others depict animals, basically rendered, including horned quadrupeds with
distinctive straight legs probably rolled by cylinder seals made of baked clay. Schematic portrayals of humans with
outsplayed feet and elongated arms indicate that we are well and truly beyond the iconographically androphobic
world of the Proto-Elamite horizon. This remarkable collection of clay sealings attests the presence at Chogha
Maran, strategically located on the Great High Road, of an administrative organisation of some kind involved in
the receipt of sealed goods arriving at the site in a range of containers and in the oversight of the storage and re-
distribution of those commodities to specific individuals or households. The iconographic connections, pointing
broadly westwards from Susa in the south to Nineveh in the north, indicate the participation of the Early Bronze
Age community at Chogha Maran in the trans-Tigridian world of the western Zagros piedmont (Renette 2018).
As to the later phases of Godin III, intensive surveys of the Sarfirouzabad plain in southern Kermanshah
and the Harsin region to the east have identified an upsurge in settlement in the early second millennium
BC and into the Late Bronze Age (Naseri and Chehri 2016; Niknami et al. 2016; Niknami and Mirghaderi
2019). An off-site cemetery at Godin appears to date to the end of Godin III – one intriguing grave included
a most unusual set of carpenter’s tools, including saw, blades, chisels and a hammer (Figure 8.47) (Dellovin
2011), similar in some respects to carpentry tools historically attested in Iran (Wulff 1966: 80–88). No richer
Figure 8.46 Chogha Maran, cylinder seal impressions on clay sealings (after Pittman 2014: figs 7–8).
Figure 8.47 Godin Tepe, period III carpenter’s tool kit from Late Bronze Age grave (after Dellovin 2011: Figure 1).
summary of the Godin III centuries in central western Iran can be found than the concluding paragraph to
Robert Henrickson’s magisterial survey (1986: 28):
The changing distribution of Godin III:6-2 pottery in central western Iran reflects a dynamic process of
socio-political and economic integration of a mosaic of localized ethnic groups into loose confederation.
Long-distance trade and political and economic pressure from the Mesopotamian lowlands, combined with
factors of local economy and geography, contributed to this development. Even when the integration reached
its greatest extent and the central western highlands exhibited considerable overall cultural homogeneity,
regional differences are still found, probably marking various ethnic groups. After a period of strength and
relative unity, the regional organization disintegrated into a simpler and more localized economy in which
pastoralism was apparently dominant as the Godin III tradition came to an end.
Luristan in Early Bronze Age IV and beyond

EBA IV is attested only in Haerinck’s Zone I, the northwest of Luristan where the Mesopotamian connections are
most richly encountered. At sites such as Kalleh Nisar, Darvand A, Gululal-e Galbi and Sardant, small tombs of so-
called “Gutian” type date from the Late Akkadian to Isin-Larsa periods, spanning the transition from the late third to
early second millennia BC (Haerinck and Overlaet 2010a: 115; Potts 2013b: 210–211). Material grave goods include
shaft-hole axes made from folded sheet bronze (Fleming et al. 2005: Figure 3) as well as ceramic vessels showing
connections to Mesopotamia to the west and to Godin to the northeast (Figure 8.48) (Begemann et al. 2008: 7–8).
Tin-bronze objects occur in some tombs of EBA IV date but much less commonly than in earlier phases of the EBA
Figure 8.48 K alleh Nisar, EBA IV tomb and its contents (Begemann et al. 2008: pl. 2) (image courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
(Bellelli 2002; Fleming et al. 2005: 38; Helwing 2009). In the Khorramabad valley only one site of EBA IV date was
located in survey and its occupation is followed by a 700-year hiatus in settlement in the valley (Hole 2007: 77).
EBA tombs in Luristan often continued in use well into the second millennium BC (Haerinck and Overlaet
2004a: 128), while other new cemeteries show parallels in their ceramics with Middle Bronze Age phases of Godin
III and Tepe Giyan. Bronze vessels become increasingly common from the Middle Bronze Age, as attested at Go-
din Tepe, Chigha Sabz, Tepe Jamshidi and other sites of Luristan (Potts 2013b: 211). By the Late Bronze Age, the
practice of burying the dead in cemeteries of stone-clad tombs falls into decline, with only a handful of examples
known, such as Sarab Bagh in the Pusht-e Kuh (Haerinck and Overlaet 2004a: 128) and Zarde Savar in Rumish-
gan (Schmidt et al. 1989). A significant Late Bronze Age site of the region is Surkh Dum-e Luri, where a mul-
ti-roomed structure was excavated by Schmidt (Figures 8.49–8.51) (Schmidt 1989; van Loon 1989e). Finds from this
extraordinary site where most of the deposits date to the overlying Iron Age (Chapter 11), include Late Bronze Age
ceramics, bronze objects, stone beads with cuneiform inscriptions giving Kassite names and multiple cylinder seals,
including one belonging to an official of a Kassite king Kurigalzu (there are several kings of this name; Brinkman
1976: 48) and other seals of Middle Elamite, Mitanni and Middle Assyrian types (van Loon 1989f: 218–220).
The mound of Tepe Guran in Hulailan, first settled as a Neolithic site (Chapter 5), is reoccupied and used as
a cemetery in the Late Bronze Age, with ceramics indicating far-flung connections, including the Khabur Ware
of Upper Mesopotamia and classic goblets of Kassite and Middle Elamite style (Thrane 1999, 2001). Khabur
Ware also occurs in Godin Tepe III:2, graves at Tepe Giyan II, and at Jamshidi and Baba Jan (Henrickson 1987:
213). As at Guran, the mound of Godin Tepe hosts a Late Bronze Age cemetery (Dellovin 2011), and there is a
Figure 8.49 S urkh Dum-e Luri, excavations in 1938 (Schmidt et al. 1989: pl. 38) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the
Figure 8.50 Surkh Dum-e Luri, plan of level 2C (Schmidt et al. 1989: pl. 51) (image courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the
Figure 8.51 S urkh Dum-e Luri, Late Bronze Age cylinder seals (modern impressions) (Schmidt et al. 1989: pl. 134) (images cour-
tesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
return to settlement in the Late Bronze Age of the Khorramabad valley (Hole 2007: 77–78) and in the Bakhtiari
highlands (Azadi 2015). One grave at Baba Jan contained ten bronze spearheads (probably in fact arrowheads –
Thrane 2001: 48), assorted beads, pottery and a stone lid, and has good parallels with late Godin III and Giyan
IIB, therefore dating to the mid-second millennium BC (Goff 1976: 26; Henrickson 2011c). Multiple graves of
Late Bronze Age date were excavated at Tepe Giyan I (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935). Many sites of the region
appear to have been abandoned around the end of the Late Bronze Age (Overlaet 2005: 9).
As Potts argues (2013b: 212), the items at Surkh Dum-e Luri may have been deposited in the sanctuary as
votive items (and mainly in the Iron Age – Chapter 11), but they still indicate some form of interaction, however
indirectly, with the Late Bronze Age polities of Assyria and Babylonia. Taken with the interregional connections
attested in the ceramics from several sites of Late Bronze Age Luristan, the picture is very much one of continuing
manifold connections with contemporary powers in all directions.
The problem of Luristan in the Bronze Age

The classic view of the human occupation of Luristan in the Bronze Age, and in other periods, has been well
articulated by Frank Hole (2007: 63–64):
Indeed, it appears that most sites were small and short-term, and for long stretches of time, Luristan may have
lacked permanent settlements. When sites were present, their ceramic parallels came from diverse regions,
possibly reflecting shifting social, economic, and political alliances.
Can we contest this view in the light of the evidence adduced above? The ceramic, metalwork and glyptic connections
radiating like spokes from Haerinck’s three EBA II-III zones give a vibrant indication of the nature of Luristan in the
Early Bronze Age, a highland region located in the midst of multiple cultural zones of Iran and Mesopotamia and
clearly interacting with most of them, but apparently not with their ETC neighbours to the north and northeast. It is
likely that sub-regions, even individual valleys, of Luristan were creating and pursuing their own historical trajectories
through their internal dynamics and external relations, shaped by geography and cultural traditions. Frank Hole has
envisioned ancient Luristan as “an enclosed periphery, one that has no center and whose valleys are impacted differen-
tially by events from outside. If we had complete information, we would probably find that each valley holds a unique
history,” a characterisation that captures the essence of Luristan’s topography and regional situation, but that accredits
little sense of agency or local development to the inhabitants of Luristan, ever “impacted” as they are “from outside.”
As we have seen above, there is no shortage of cemetery sites in Luristan throughout the Bronze Age, the Early
Bronze Age in particular. The Middle-Late Bronze Age of the region is much less well attested or understood
(Overlaet 2005). Many of the EBA cemetery sites are quite spectacular in terms of the investment of energy in their
construction and the evidence for transregional connections in the materials and artefacts deposited with the bur-
ials. The cemeteries often host long-lasting use, covering several centuries in some cases, and similar practices con-
tinue well into the Iron Age from c. 1250 BC (Chapter 11: Overlaet 2013). Recurrent, long-term use of cemeteries
challenges Hole’s (2007: 63) characterisation of sites as being “short-term,” while also defining a sense of agency
in people’s attachment to place, clearly a significant factor in human interaction with the distinctive landscapes of
Luristan. A critical aspect is the frequent location of cemeteries, and graves within in them, in highly visible places
ensuring the ancestors enjoyed a “tomb with a view” in the neat phrase of Emberling et al. (2002: 64).
Settlement sites directly associated with these cemeteries are rare or apparently absent, the houses and intra-mural
graves of Kamtarlan I and II notwithstanding (van Loon 1989b), and this attribute has given rise to a widely accepted
view that the peoples of Luristan were pastoral nomads who did not settle in permanent villages. As Potts (2013b:
212) articulates, however, the archaeological focus has been very much on the cemeteries themselves, partly because
of the likelihood of finding spectacular assemblages of artefacts, and there has been little systematic attempt to inves-
tigate settlement sites in the region (de Meyer 2004; Hole 2007; Begemann et al. 2008: 40–41). Hole’s (2007) survey
of the Khorramabad valley detected significant numbers of settlement sites, ranging in date from Early Chalcolithic
to Islamic, but with significant breaks in evidence for occupation during the periods c. 3500–2800 BC, c. 2400–1800
BC and c. 1400–800 BC. Several village sites of EBA I-III date were found in the Khorramabad valley (Hole 2007:
76), and it is plausible that these villages served as regional bases for communities pursuing mixed arable and pastoral
lifestyles, aligning with Clare Goff’s (1971: 149) observation that EBA settlement in Luristan was concentrated on
ecotones at the edges of plains with optimum opportunities for mixed subsistence activities including transhumance.
A key factor in the presence, density and distribution of human settlement in Luristan is the basic geography
of the region. As historians, geographers, anthropologists and ethnographers have stressed (Edmonds 1922; Stein
1938; Oberlander 1965; Black 1972; Black-Michaud 1986), plains with extensive spreads of soils suitable for agri-
culture are in short supply in Luristan, the best of them being the lacustrine plains of Hulailan and Kuh-i Dasht,
where settlement can be traced back to the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Chapters 5–6). Outside these
plains there is little scope for agricultural activity, rain-fed or irrigated, and the verticality of the topography is
well-suited to transhumant pastoralism, with herds of goat and sheep herded to seasonally available pastures. A
further factor, often ignored in interpreting ancient settlement patterns, is security, or lack of it. If we agree with
Hole’s (2007: 66) view that the landscape of Luristan “favors hardy, independent, and combative people,” then
we may speculate that human communities in the Bronze Age, and beyond, may have been reluctant to invest
too much energy and time in settling and farming in remote valleys only to have their fields and stores raided at
harvest time by neighbouring or distant tribes. On his visit to Khorramabad in 1917, Edmonds (1922: 443) com-
ments on the need for villagers to harvest crops quickly so that crop processing activities could take place in the
safety of their homes rather than out in the dangerous fields. We may suggest that the long hiatuses in settlement,
attested for example in the Khorramabad valley (Hole 2007), coincide with chronic episodes of such insecurity
and instability. Modern settlement of much of the region can be traced only as far back as Reza Shah’s policy of
sedentarisation of nomads in the 1920s–1930s (I. Mortensen 1993; Hole 2007: 82; Potts 2013b: 212).
A critical concern in the question of human society and economy in Bronze Age Luristan, then, is when did
transhumant pastoralism begin, and can we reasonably assume that the Bronze Age communities of the region
were indeed undertaking vertical seasonal movements with their herds of goat and sheep, as their primary sub-
sistence pursuit? Robert Adams (1974) originally suggested that the first development of pastoral nomadism in
this and other regions of western Iran went hand-in-hand with the appearance of the first large-scale centres of
Khuzestan and Lower Mesopotamia around 3200 BC, whereby animal herders took advantage of the new eco-
nomic opportunities for trade and exchange in animal and other products provided by the dense settlements of
the plains. During historical times, the inhabitants of Luristan provisioned major nearby cities such as Hamadan
and Nehavand with valuable materials such as charcoal, carpets, pack-bags, horse-trappings and mules (I.
Mortensen 1993: 41), and we may imagine that a similarly diverse range of products and materials were
brought to the Bronze Age cities of Khuzestan and Mesopotamia from the adjacent mountain zones by at
least partly mobile tribes. Prior to Reza Shah’s sedentarisation policy, the entire region was home to tribes
of pastoral nomads, some of them covering enormous distances in their seasonal migrations, but this pattern
of human-animal engagement with Luristan can be traced with confidence only as far back as the unsettled
times of the Turkic and Mongol incursions from the 10th–14th centuries AD (de Planhol 1969; Potts 2014),
and we need to exercise extreme caution in ascribing this historically attested situation uncritically back
into the distant past, as we have discussed in previous chapters. Debate concerning the timing and nature
of early nomadic pastoralism in Luristan, Fars and elsewhere in Iran, is ongoing but here we concur with
Potts (2014: 45) in his assertion that “until such time as evidence to the contrary emerges, nomadism, as
opposed to transhumance or herdsman husbandry, was not practiced in Iran during the prehistoric era or
the Bronze Age.”
A further issue in considering the nature of Early Bronze Age societies of Luristan is their access to and use
of metals. The frequently elaborate inclusion of metalwork in the tombs of Luristan argues for ready access to
the necessary raw materials and/or the finished products. Prime amongst these metals was tin, from c. 2800 BC
replacing arsenic as the major alloy component added to copper to form bronze (Moorey 1982; Weeks 2004,
2013b). As Barbara Helwing (2009: 209) stresses in her review “the appearance of tin as the second major alloy-
ing partner of copper to produce bronze is regarded as one of the markers of the beginning of the Bronze Age
in most parts of the Old World.” In Iran, tin sources are known in Sistan as well as further east in Afghanistan
and Uzbekistan (Stech and Pigott 1986; Vatandoust 1999; Parzinger and Boroff ka 2003; Kaniuth 2007), but the
discovery of a major tin-copper source at Deh Hosein in the central Zagros (Momenzadeh et al. 2002; Nezafati et
al. 2006, 2009) has opened the possibility of tin availability for the Bronze Age societies of Luristan much closer
to home. Ancient mining activities at the ore-rich source of Veshnaveh near Qom on the Central Plateau have
been dated to the third and second millennia BC and may also have been exploited by communities of Luristan
to the west (Stöllner et al. 2011; Weeks 2013b: 280).
Significantly higher proportions of tin in Luristan bronze artefacts as compared to contemporary material from
Lower Mesopotamia (Cuénod et al. 2015) strongly suggests that the communities of Luristan had ready and constant
access to tin while their Mesopotamian neighbours were more at the mercy of changeable geopolitical circum-
stances that could all too readily disrupt established trading routes. Comparative analysis of lead isotope data from
Luristan and Mesopotamian bronze objects shows significant variation (Figure 8.52), suggesting that communities
at the Mesopotamian sites did not have access to the copper sources of Deh Hosein and its region, which feature
prominently in the Luristan metalwork. Begemann and colleagues (Begemann et al. 2008: 38) propose copper
and tin sources in the region of southern Rajasthan/northern Gujarat as most plausibly matching the lead isotope
profiles of Mesopotamian Early Bronze Age metals, with trade conducted by sea along the Persian Gulf and via
Dilmun-Bahrain. Furthermore, Helwing (2009: 213) argues that a decline in the use of tin in the later Early Bronze
Age tombs of Luristan may be caused by the usurpation of control over mining and use of metals in this region by
the expanding empires of Akkad and Ur III (Chapter 10), denying or limiting access of local communities to prox-
imate metal sources.
Prior to that decline, the strong ceramic connections attested in particular in the EBA I-II grave assemblages
of Luristan with contemporary ceramics, such as Transitional Polychrome Pottery and Scarlet Ware (Del Bravo
2014), in the Hamrin region to the northwest and the Lower Diyala of central-eastern Mesopotamia, suggest a
Figure 8.52 L ead isotope data of copper-base artefacts from Mesopotamia and Luristan (after Begemann et al. 2008: Figure 11).
significant role for the societies of Luristan in channelling cherished materials from the highland zone via the
Hamrin and into the nascent EBA towns of the Lower Diyala and beyond. These ceramic connections clearly
underpin deeper socio-cultural connectivity between these diverse regions of the Iran-Iraq borderlands along the
Zagros flanks and its outliers. Thus, sites in Haerinck’s (2011) Zone 1 of Luristan, including Bani Surmah, Kalleh
Nisar and Mir Khair, show a trend through time from single to multiple burials that is matched by a similar trend
at sites in the Hamrin region including Ahmed al-Hattu and Kheit Qasim I (Forest 1980; Eickhoff 1993). In short,
the Bronze Age burial sites of Luristan can only begin to be understood through investigation of their situation
and role within a broad geographical framework.
Regional dynamics in Bronze Age Fars, 2900–1100 BC

The Bronze Age of Fars has received sufficient archaeological investigation to enable basic interpretations of long-
term trends in issues such as settlement patterns, demographic dynamics and shifting highland-lowland engagements
(Sumner 1986a; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 135–142; de Miroschedji 2003; McCall 2013a). Surveys and excavations
within Fars, initially in the Kur river basin, have established a firm sequence of periods based on ceramic assemblages,
comprising the Banesh (c. 3500–2600 BC) and Kaftari (c. 2200–1600 BC) succeeded into the Early Iron Age by the
Qaleh and Shogha-Taimuran (Sumner 2003: Table 12; McCall 2013a: 287–289, Table 15.2). The Banesh period in
Fars is thus approximately contemporary with the Late Uruk/Late Susa II and Proto-Elamite phenomena of the Late
Chalcolithic and the initial Early Bronze Age phases of western Iran, and is separated from the Kaftari phase by a
significant episode of regional abandonment lasting perhaps as long as 400 years, again occurring significantly before
the putative 4.2 kya climatic event (Table 8.4). At the start of the Late Banesh phase, c. 2900–2500 BC, settlement
across Fars suffered a major decline coincident with the end of Proto-Elamite impact across much of Iran, while the
Kaftari period hosted a resurgence of settlement followed by a steady reduction in site numbers and density in the later
Kaftari and Qaleh phases (Sumner 2003; Petrie et al. 2006; McCall 2013a: 284; Overlaet and Pincé 2018). By the later
third millennium BC, lowland written sources in Elam and Mesopotamia refer to the Fars region as Anshan, with
Tal-e Malyan in the Kur river basin identified from texts as the major city of Anshan (Reiner 1973b), and we are able
to use these and other sources to investigate highland-lowland interactions (Stolper 1984b; Zadok 1994; Potts 1999).
Cultural geography of Fars

The Fars area is dominated by the massif of the southern Zagros Mountains and its associated plains and valleys, an
area subject to hot, dry summers and cool, wetter winters (Figure 8.53). Major regions of Fars with significant Bronze
Age archaeology include the Kur river basin, the Mamasani district and the Fasa and Darab plains. The Kur river
basin to the north of Shiraz comprises a total area of 3,400 km2, with high plains at an average altitude of 1,600 m
and mountains rising to 3,400 m. The climate and environment of the region, occasionally assisted by irrigation, en-
abled the development of agriculturally based societies cultivating wheat and barley and herding goat, sheep and cattle
(Miller 1985; Zeder 1991). The dominant and most extensively excavated site in the Kur river basin is Tal-e Malyan,
a complex of low mounds spread over 200 ha (Carter 1996; Sumner 2003) and a site we have previously encountered
through its Proto-Elamite engagement (Chapter 7). Other notable sites in this region include Darvazeh Tepe of
later second millennium BC date (Jacobs 1980) and the Early Kaftari site of Tal-e Nokhodi (Goff 1963, 1964).
In north-western Fars, the region of Mamasani has been subject to intensive archaeological investigation
(Potts et al. 2005; Potts et al. 2009). The Mamasani region, 90 km northwest of Tal-e Malyan, comprises three
intermontane valleys forming a major natural route connecting Anshan and the southern Zagros uplands with
Khuzestan and beyond. Covering some 250 km 2, the Mamasani district includes significant expanses of arable
Table 8.4 C
hronology of Fars and Khuzestan in the Bronze Age (after McCall 2013a: Table 15.1)
Dates cal BC Fars Khuzestan Periods
1300–1000 Shogha-Teimuran Susa VIII– Middle Elamite II–III

Qaleh/Middle Elamite
1600/1500–1300 Qaleh Susa VII– Middle Elamite I
1800–1600/1500 Late Kaftari Susa VI Old Elamite/Sukkalmah
1900–1800 Middle Kaftari Susa V Old Elamite/Sukkalmah
2200–1900 Early Kaftari Susa V Old Elamite/Shimashki/Ur III
2600–2200 Banesh-Kaftari transition/hiatus Susa IVA–B Early Dynastic III/Akkadian
2900–2600 Late Banesh Susa IIIC
Figure 8.53 Map of Fars, showing key sites and features.
land capable of sustaining high levels of population through cultivation of cereal crops and husbandry of animals
(Roustaei et al. 2006). Notable Bronze Age sites in Mamasani include Tol-e Spid and Tol-e Nurabad, with
deposits dating to Banesh, Kaftari, Qaleh and Middle Elamite phases (Potts et al. 2009b; Weeks et al. 2009).
Regional survey has also demonstrated a significant Bronze Age presence in this area (McCall 2009; Zeidi et al.
2009). Finally, the arable valleys of Fasa and Darab are situated southeast of Shiraz at an altitude of 1,100–1,400
m (de Miroschedji 1972b). Initial surveys and excavations at sites including Tal-e Vakilabad and Tal-e Zohak
indicate Kaftari-period occupation without a clear Banesh presence (Kerner 1993), while communal tombs of
mid-third millennium BC date at Tepe Jalyan, lacking contemporary settlement sites, may attest burial practices
similar to those discussed above for Luristan in the Bronze Age (de Miroschedji 1974).
Late Banesh settlement in Fars, 2900–2300 BC

Late Banesh ceramics are characterised by vessels decorated with painted geometric and animal motifs, match-
ing contemporary assemblages from Susa IIIC and IVA (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 133–134; Sumner 2003: 53). At
Malyan, Late Banesh occupation is reduced in area from that of earlier Banesh phases, with settlement covering
up to 40 ha within a total enclosed area of 200 ha. A perimeter wall with internal rooms surrounded the settle-
ment at this time (Chapter 7), but earlier Middle Banesh buildings appear not to continue in use into the Late
Banesh phase (Nicholas 1990; Abdi 2001b; Sumner 2003; Miller and Sumner 2004; Alden et al. 2005). Similarly,
Late Banesh occupation in the Mamasani region is significantly reduced from Middle Banesh times, with strat-
ified deposits excavated only at Tol-e Nurabad (Weeks et al. 2009), while no trace of Late Banesh materials has
been found in the Fasa and Darab regions of eastern Fars, suggesting abandonment of permanent settlement in
this region by 2900 BC (de Miroschedji 2003). The overall picture for Fars in the Late Banesh phase is of re-
trenchment and regional abandonment of settlements (McCall 2013a).
An uncertain span of time separates the Late Banesh and Kaftari periods, an issue under exploration at the site
of Tol-e Gap Kenareh (Khanipour et al. 2017). At Malyan, excavations in H5 recovered vessels that appear to
be transitional between the Banesh and Kaftari periods, suggestive of a minor scale of continued settlement at
Malyan or a shorter than assumed period of abandonment in the mid-third millennium BC (Miller and Sumner
2004; Mutin 2013a). These ceramic forms may also suggest a local origin for the development of Kaftari wares,
but with parallels in assemblages from Susa IV and Godin Tepe III 6–5. Nothing similar has been found in the
Mamasani or Fasa and Darab regions (McCall 2013a: 291).
Kaftari settlement in Fars, 2200–1600 BC

Distinctive Kaftari ceramics, in plain and painted forms, are widely found across Fars, indicating a resurgence in
settlement by the end of the third millennium BC or slightly later. At Malyan, surface collection and excavations
suggest that Late Kaftari settlement covered up to 130 ha of the site, enclosed by a new city wall built atop the
Banesh structure (Sumner 1989b, 2003; Petrie et al. 2005). Survey in the Kur river basin suggests a rapid spread of
Early Kaftari settlement succeeded by a steady decline through the Late Kaftari to Qaleh periods (Sumner 1989b),
a pattern broadly matched by survey and limited excavation data from the Mamasani and Fasa and Darab regions
(McCall 2013a: 292). Kaftari ceramics in the Mamasani region suggest affiliations with contemporary sites to the
north in Luristan rather than with Kaftari sites in central and eastern Fars (Potts 2013a: 131).
Qaleh and Middle Elamite settlement in Fars, 1600–1100 BC

Settlement across Fars in the Qaleh period suffered a major decline, with site numbers in the Kur river basin re-
duced by half and occupation at Malyan down from 130 to 40 ha (Sumner 1989a, 1989b; Carter 1996; Overlaet
2007). The EDD building at Malyan includes ceramics of Middle Elamite II-III type, indicative of contact with
lowland Elam to the west (see also Chapter 10). Within the same building, the recovery of administrative Elamite
texts brings the region back into the sphere of written history, after an interval of up to 1,500 years since the end
of the Proto-Elamite phase at Malyan. The EDD Elamite texts record the storage and disbursement of materials
such as metals and finished goods and the use of decorated objects in temples (Stolper 1984a). This brief historic
phase at Malyan ends by c. 1100 BC with the construction of Qaleh-type pottery kilns in the ruins of the EDD
building. Qaleh and Middle Elamite materials are also found in the Mamasani region but not in Fasa and Darab
(Petrie et al. 2006). A single inscribed Middle Elamite brick from Tol-e Spid, recording a temple dedication, hints
that both literacy and temple construction and dedication may have been relatively widespread across Fars in the
Middle Elamite period (see also Chapter 10).
Interpreting settlement and society in Bronze Age Fars

In light of the ceramic and settlement evidence discussed above, how then do we understand the nature of Bronze
Age societies of the Fars region through the centuries from c. 2900 to 1100 BC? Firstly, we need to ensure some
confidence in the reliability and representativeness of the evidence coming as it does from only one extensively ex-
cavated site (Tal-e Malyan), several modestly excavated sites plus a considerable amount of survey data. A recurrent
issue is the extent to which the lack of evidence for settlement during specific periods can be equated with a real
lack of human presence, or may be due to other factors such as burial of sites by post-occupation geomorphological
processes (Brookes et al. 1982), relocation of settlement to areas of Fars not yet investigated by systematic survey
(McCall 2013a: 294) or adoption of modes of living less likely to leave significant traces in the archaeological record.
Nevertheless, the decline in settlement attested in the Late Banesh period, both at Malyan itself and across the
survey data, does suggest a crisis in Fars as a component of a massive scale of transregional abandonment and
disruption across Iran in the early-mid third millennium BC. Sumner’s (1986a, 1989b) argument that societies in
Fars during this time shifted from settled farming to fully nomadic pastoralism finds slight support in the faunal
assemblages of pre-Late Banesh sites that are increasingly dominated by goat and then by sheep (Zeder 1991; Abdi
2003b), but such herding practices might equally fit with village-based pastoralism and seasonal transhumance
(McCall 2013a: 295), widespread practices not to be confused with full nomadic pastoralism, as previously dis-
cussed. Significantly, palaeo-environmental evidence from Lake Maharlou, southeast of Shiraz, indicates a period
of enhanced aridity for most of the third millennium BC (Djamali et al. 2009b), which would have had a signif-
icant impact on harvest yields over a period of decades or longer thus directly affecting the population carrying
capacity of the limited available arable land of the Fars plains.
By 2300 BC textual sources in Mesopotamia refer to “Anshan” and “Anshanites,” and to the conquest of An-
shan by the Akkadian ruler Manishtushu a few decades later (Chapter 10; Stolper 1984b; Zadok 1994; Potts 1999),
which may provide a context for the rebuilding of the Malyan city wall around this time (Sumner 1985). These
texts also suggest the forging of an Anshanite identity by the Early Kaftari period, even if imposed or stimulated
by external forces. Ceramic finds across the Persian Gulf indicate a degree of maritime connections (Potts 2003;
Petrie et al. 2005), perhaps related to metals acquisition or other forms of trade and exchange. Increasing Elamite
impact on the highland zones is attested through the earlier second millennium BC (Chapter 10; Stolper 1984b;
Moghaddam and Miri 2003, 2007), with Mamasani incorporated into a communication route connecting Susa
with Anshan (McCall 2013a: 297). The value of the region to the burgeoning Elamite kingdom to the west is
explicit in the royal title “king of Anshan and Susa’ attested in texts from Susa (Stolper 1984b: 28–29). Sites in
western Fars show clearer and greater Elamite impact in their material assemblages than those in the east of the
region (McCall 2013a: 297), delineating a limit across the middle of Fars to Elam’s zone of influence at this time.
Archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence from Malyan in the Kaftari period indicates a stable regime
of animal management focused on cattle, sheep and goat, with a significant level of intra-settlement hierarchy and
economic centralisation (Zeder 1991), coupled with an environmental impact in the form of deforestation and an
associated switch to animal dung fuel, and the intensified exploitation of a range of cereal and tree crops including
olive and vine (Miller 1985) continuing into the Late Kaftari and Qaleh periods. Faunal assemblages from the
Qaleh period have greater representation of horse and camel bones alongside the dominant sheep, goat and cattle,
indicating an increasing reliance on pack animals likely used in transport of local and non-local materials and
goods (Zeder 1991). Palaeoclimate evidence from Lake Maharlou suggests an episode of wetter conditions from
c. 1800 BC enduring for at least several centuries (Brisset et al. 2019).
The Bronze Age of Fars ends in a flurry of site abandonment and fragmentation in ceramic styles at Malyan and
in the Kur river basin (Sumner 1994), while the evidence westwards in the Mamasani region is more suggestive
of continuing links with Elam into the Iron Age (Petrie et al. 2006). Advancing our understanding of the Bronze
Age societies of Fars, and of the dynamics of their intra- and interregional interactions through time and space,
will require concerted programmes of interdisciplinary investigation embracing large-scale, open-area excava-
tions – as yet, the Tal-e Malyan project is the only one of the entire region that even begins to fit this bill. Much
work remains to be done in this key zone of Bronze Age engagement.
Conclusion: a socio-political mosaic in Bronze Age western Iran

In this chapter we have examined a wealth of archaeological evidence from excavation and surveys covering
both an extensive timespan, c. 2300 years, and a very large region of Iran, including almost all of its western and
southern uplands and flanks, complementing our study of the Early Bronze Age Proto-Elamite phenomenon in
the previous chapter. To this end we have attempted to trace comprehensible pathways through an otherwise
bewildering array of evidence from a vast range of regions and sites. In one regard, this wealth of evidence for the
Bronze Age societies of Iran, which we continue to interrogate in the following two chapters, is demonstration
in itself of the diversity and vitality of early Iranian society.
Much of this chapter was devoted to investigation of the ETC phenomenon, the major cultural episode of
north-western and central-western Iran during the first half of the third millennium BC. The cultural attributes
of ETC communities in so far as we can characterise them – back to basics in ceramic technology, low-key archi-
tectural scales and styles, eschewing of engagement in transregional trade in raw materials and finished artefacts,
a determined focus on specific modes of agro-pastoral food production, a lack of trans-cultural “seepage” with
contemporary neighbours – all combine to dissuade us from taking a unilinear view on the longue durée of the
Iranian past whereby societies developed in predetermined fashion from simple to complex along ineluctable
pathways where each step followed naturally from the previous one till we conclude with state-level societies
across the entire land. The ETC evidence for low-key, house- and home-based activities including probably
cultic and ritual practices centring on hearths and, doubtless, deities of the hearth, reminds us that ideologies can
be powerful actors in people’s lives, encouraging them to act in specific ways over decades and even centuries,
adhering to sharply defined codes of practice and ways of life that might militate against change for change’s sake.
If so, we need to consider the possible modes of creation and communication of such ideologies in an age with-
out the written word. Oral stories and social histories around the hearth are likely to have been one such mode.
We look forward to further excavation of key ETC sites across western Iran, enhanced palaeo-ecological
research and scientific analysis of material and biological remains that will enrich our understanding of this ex-
traordinary phenomenon in so many ways. As one example, the suggestion from human DNA research of an in-
gression from the Caucasus and the Steppe of new genes into the Iranian population pool at c. 3000 BC (Mehrjoo
et al. 2019) could hardly be more germane to advancing our apprehension of the spread of the ETC phenomenon
across Iran and beyond, and we eagerly anticipate further research in this field.
By sharp contrast, the evidence from Luristan through the Early Bronze Age is highly suggestive of outwardly
engaged communities active in transregional interactions in almost all directions, as richly attested in the material
culture of death and burial, metalwork and ceramics above all. The deposition of so much wealth in many of these
tombs hints at firm beliefs in an after-life where such material wealth, doubtless enhanced by perishable items such
as textiles and foodstuffs that have not survived in the archaeological record, could be put to good use either by
the deceased themselves or by the gods, goddesses and spirits awaiting their arrival. We hope to have demonstrated
that the often spectacular tombs and grave goods of Bronze Age Luristan, as also in the Iron Age (Chapter 11),
can only be understood within a broad geographical context that highlights the connectivity of these highland
communities, that must underpin significant socio-cultural and economic relations between the dwellers of the
uplands and their more settled cousins in the cities and villages of the plains.
Moving eastwards from here, and following our brief overview in this chapter of settlement and society in the
Fars region of southern Iran, characterised by the ongoing rise of Malyan as the key site of the region, we con-
tinue our eastwards track in the next chapter by focusing on the Bronze Age societies of eastern Iran.
9 Iran beyond borders: Bronze Age societies of
eastern Iran, 3100–1250 BC
Eastern Iran in its cultural context: interconnected worlds

The third millennium BC is marked by the rise to power across much of Asia of a series of sophisticated states
or kingdoms, reaching from Upper Mesopotamia in the west to the Indus Valley in the east and from Central
Asia in the north to both shores of the Persian Gulf in the south, characterised by Possehl (2007) as the Middle
Asian Interaction Sphere (Figure 9.1) (Kohl 2007: 214–225; Frachetti and Rouse 2012). A major factor in struc-
turing and connecting these geographically dispersed communities was the differential distribution of certain
natural resources, highly desired by elite groups in widely separated regions (Vidale 2017). Networks of exchange
and communication, including booty-grabbing raids by Mesopotamian and other rulers (T. Potts 1993, 1994:
269–275) as well as more mutually respectful modes of interaction, enabled the flow across much of Bronze Age
Asia of materials such as alabaster, chlorite (probably the Mesopotamian “duhšia stone”: Steinkeller 2006: 2–7),
carnelian, turquoise, lapis lazuli, agate and, above all, metal ores, both as raw materials and as finished artefacts
artfully constructed from such materials (Weeks 2016). As an example, Michelle Casanova’s research demon-
strates a dramatic increase in the movement of lapis lazuli across Southwest Asia from the Neolithic to the Bronze
Age and the dominance of Mesopotamian urban elites as prime consumers of this luxury material (Casanova
2019: Tables 2–3).
During these centuries the famous great highway of northern Iran, the Great Khorasan Road or Great High
Road, later a key component of the Silk Roads (Frankopan 2015), was critical in facilitating the distribution of
many of these materials and artefacts (Francfort 2019), underpinning the increase in wealth differentials that
more and more come to characterise the burgeoning states and kingdoms across the vast swathes of Central and
Southwest Asia in the Bronze Age (T. Potts 1994; Kohl 2007). Traders and craftworkers at the major centres such
as Susa, Malyan, Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta as well as seasonally mobile upland pastoralists played their part
in these exchanges, assisting with the production and transport of commodities and crafted artefacts as well as the
transfer of technological developments in ceramics and metallurgy, and doubtless ideologies, belief-systems and so-
cio-cultural practices, in a large-scale engagement reaching from Southwest Asia to China (Kohl 2007, 2011; Mei
and Rehren 2009; Frachetti et al. 2010; Frachetti and Rouse 2012: 698–699; Mutin et al. 2017a). Accompanying
these transregional interactions through the millennia and often across challenging terrain, we can also track such
critical developments as the eastwards spread of animals and crops such as domesticated pigs and cattle, and wheat
and barley (Liu et al. 2017) in their centuries-long dispersal from core zones of domestication in the Neolithic of
the eastern Fertile Crescent (Chapter 5), matched by a westwards spread of animals such as zebu cattle, plausibly
associated with climatic adversity (Matthews 2002a; Frantz et al. 2020), and water buffalo (Potts 1997: 257–259).
Much of this trade and exchange was stimulated by elite desire for luxury materials and high-status objects
to enable elites to indulge in conspicuous displays of wealth in life and in death (Casanova 2019). In the west,
newly emergent urban elites of the Lower Mesopotamian plains were fundamental in driving the development of
trade from the mid-third millennium BC onwards (Van De Mieroop 2002). Following the collapse of the Late
Chalcolithic Uruk/Late Susa II world at c. 3200/3100 BC (Chapter 6), the nascent urban communities of Lower
Mesopotamia largely disengaged from interregional interaction for several centuries, with little written or arte-
factual evidence for movement of valued commodities into Lower Mesopotamia until the mid-third millennium
BC. From c. 2600 BC the pace of interregional engagement, including imports of objects such as chlorite vessels,
lapis lazuli and carnelian beads, gold, silver and other metals, dramatically increased as richly attested in contexts
such as the Royal Cemetery of Ur (Zettler and Horne 1998), accompanied by the first evidence for royal palaces
and for secular kingly authority at major cities across Mesopotamia (Marchesi and Marchetti 2011; Matthews and
Matthews 2017). At the same time, there is a resurgence in Mesopotamian textual evidence for engagement with
foreign lands, peaceably or otherwise. With the rise to power of the Akkadian dynasty from c. 2350 BC, these
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-9
Figure 9.1 Map of Iran and Middle Asia to show major cultural regions, sites and routes.
Iran beyond borders 287
288 Iran beyond borders
interactions were further enhanced by a significant expansion of maritime trade along the Persian Gulf with
Omani copper of special importance in this regard (Edens 1992; Weeks 2016).
The eastern perspective on highland Iran through the third millennium BC is equally distinctive (Salvatori
2008; Vidale 2018a), whereby the evidence suggests relatively low-level movement of materials and finished ar-
tefacts between the societies of eastern Iran and their contemporaries in Baluchistan and the Indus Valley to the
east through the early third millennium BC, likely “to reflect sporadic trade contacts, individual trips or mar-
riages rather than systematic, specialized forms of long-distance trade” (Cortesi et al. 2008: 29). But from about
2500 BC the most abundant source of evidence for eastern imports into eastern Iran, the excavated site of Shahr-i
Sokhta in Sistan (see below), shows a significant shift in the type of imported materials from domestic items such
as ceramics and mousetraps (!) in period II to more elite, status-oriented items such as beads of chlorite, ivory and
carnelian as well as shell inlays and gaming pieces in period III (Cortesi et al. 2008). This surge in eastern elite
engagement involving the resource rich societies of highland Iran neatly mirrors the revival of western, Mesopo-
tamian, attraction to Iran discussed above. Cleary Iran had much to offer to the thriving elite-driven societies of
the Bronze Age world, as both provider and consumer of high-quality materials and artefacts.
Emblematic of this transregional connectivity is the so-called Intercultural Style (Kohl 1978; Lamberg-
Karlovsky 1988; Aruz 2003; Ascalone 2008; Vidale 2021) attested on carved soft-stone bowls and other artefacts
with depictions of combatant snakes, bulls and eagles, an integrated repertoire of iconography Possehl and others
(Winkelmann 2005; Kohl 2007; Possehl 2007; Francfort 2019) interpret as signifying shared systems of belief.
Critical analysis by Holly Pittman (2018a) of carved objects of “dark soft stone” confirms an interpretation of the
Halil Rud region of Kerman (see below) as the sole production location for objects of carved chlorite, support-
ing a renaming of the Intercultural Style to the “Jiroft Type.” But we should be careful not to overestimate the
volume, intensity and significance of trade and exchange amongst the Bronze Age societies of eastern Iran and its
neighbours, represented as they are by generally modest quantities of elite commodities and finished artefacts (T. Potts
1994; T. C. Wilkinson 2012). The vast majority of high-quality production in eastern Iran, certainly of lapis lazuli
and chlorite, appears to have been above all for consumption by local elites with relatively minor amounts destined
for export (Vidale 2018a: 278, 2021). We should also avoid the temptation to interpret the sites and societies of
Bronze Age Asia through the lens of simple core-periphery dialectics, with dominant central regions asymmetri-
cally engaging with less advanced peripheries, heeding instead Philip Kohl’s portrayal (Kohl 1987: 16):
the Bronze Age world system of the late third and early second millennia B.C. was characterised not by a single
core region linked to less developed peripheral zones, but by a patchwork of overlapping, geographically disparate
core regions or foci of cultural development, each of which primarily exploited its own immediate hinterland.
The Bronze Age societies of eastern Iran clearly did not develop in isolation but rather within a matrix of ebb-
ing and flowing “interaction spheres” (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1972; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973; Dittmann
2002; Franke 2002; Cortesi et al. 2008; Beaujard 2011; Mutin 2013a: 218–219), where “the distribution of arte-
facts stand as proxies for cultural interaction” (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1985: 58) and where the interpretive emphasis
is placed upon the dialectic between interaction spheres rather than on a concern to characterise them as either
“core” or “peripheral.” Amongst their many engagements, explored in detail below, connections with Mesopota-
mia to the west are well attested in archaeological and textual evidence (Guichard 2021). In the textual evidence,
almost entirely from Mesopotamian sources, three key place names stand out: Aratta, Marhashi and Shimashki.
The location of all these places is variably contested (Schrakamp in press).
Mesopotamian references to Aratta from the mid-third millennium BC onwards feature in narrative epic
poems such as “Enmerkar and Lugalbanda” and “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta” where Enmerkar lays
siege to the city of Aratta, having passed through Susa and the mountain lands of Anshan (T. Potts 1994: 90–91).
In these poems Aratta is especially associated with materials exotic to the Sumerians, including gold and silver
and, above all, lapis lazuli. These clues have inspired attempts to locate Aratta as a place somewhere in the east,
including the Caspian Sea shores (Herrmann 1968), Kerman (Majidzadeh 1976), Badakhshan (Sarianidi 1971) and
Shahr-i Sokhta (Steinkeller 1982; Vallat 1985), amongst others (T. Potts 1994: 13–14; Lazzari and Vidale 2017:
55–58). Since Aratta is not mentioned as a place in any Sumerian administrative texts (Alster 1973; Vanstiphout
1983), however, most scholars prefer to characterise Aratta as “a mythological invention” (Michalowski 1986:
133, 1988), a “purely fantastic concept” (Steinkeller 2006: 2), and as a “Sumerian El Dorado” (Moorey 1993).
Stressing the elite-serving role of Aratta within the political ideology of the Ur III state in the late third mil-
lennium BC (Chapter 10), Potts (2004a: 6) articulates how “Aratta partakes of one reality only, a literary reality
concocted to celebrate a brutally powerful political dynasty’s links to the ancient and very real city of Uruk.”
The toponym Marhashi, equating with Barahshum/Parahshum in Akkadian, features as the most significant
foreign state in Mesopotamian texts through the period 2300–1750 BC, denoting an exotic region providing plants,
special stones and animals such as dogs, sheep, bears, monkeys, elephants and zebu (T. Potts 1994: 27–30; Potts 2002,
2004a; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2013: 571). Mesopotamia-Marhashi relations alternated between hostility and mutual
respect. The Akkadian king Rimush, in an inscription carved on a soft-stone bowl, boasts of his role as “slayer of
Elam and Marhashi” (Steinkeller 1982: 254; Sallaberger and Westenholz 1999: 42; Potts 2016: 93–94), while one of
the five Ur III kings, Shulgi, gave his daughter in marriage to a prince of Marhashi and ambassadors from Marhashi
are attested at the Ur III site of Puzrish-Dagan in Mesopotamia in year 46 of Shulgi’s reign (Potts 2016: 127–128).
Most authorities situate Marhashi in eastern Iran, either as far east as Iranian Baluchistan (Vallat 1985, 1991) or,
now most plausibly in view of discoveries discussed below, in the region of eastern Kerman including Tepe Yahya
and the Halil Rud/Jiroft area (Steinkeller 1982, 1989, 2006, 2014b, 2018; Potts 2004a; Kohl 2007: 230). An alterna-
tive identification of Marhashi with the Bactria-Margiana or Oxus civilisation of Central Asia (Francfort and Trem-
blay 2010; Francfort 2019) has received little support. Localisation of Marhashi as including the Halil Rud region
would confirm the close association between Marhashi and the region of Makkan (coastal Oman), with Makkan
acting as a transit zone in the transregional trade in chlorite vessels and other eastern materials such as carnelian and
lapis lazuli for shipment westwards to Mesopotamia. This relationship is attested in ceramic affiliations between the
areas of the Halil Rud and coastal western Oman, with indications that a cadre of potters travelled from south-east-
ern Iran across the Persian Gulf to Oman, taking their distinctive potting methods with them (Potts 2005b).
As to Shimashki (Stolper 1982; T. Potts 1994: 30–34), various attempts at localisation have included northern
Kerman province including Shahdad (Vallat 1985, 1991), the entire region from Fars to the Caspian Sea (Zadok
1991) and the Oxus civilisation or the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) (Potts 2008, 2016:
94). Steinkeller (2007: Figure 1; 2014a, 2014b) situates Shimashki as covering much of the Iranian Zagros region
as far south as Esfahan, while pointing out that for the inhabitants of Mesopotamia Shimashki was used “as a
general inclusive designation of the various polities scattered over the Iranian plateau” (Steinkeller 2014b: 698).
The precise localisation remains undecided but in seeking to pin down such toponyms on the ancient maps we
should heed the caution of Lamberg-Karlovsky (2013: 573, italics in original):
To identify political entities within specific geographical locales casts a political centrality over a far more
complex and autonomous cultural complexity. Additionally, identifying the name of any of the above places
has, to date, offered virtually no understanding of the indigenous social, religious, economic, and political
structure(s) of the named region.
South-eastern Iran in the Bronze Age

Some of the most exciting and tantalising discoveries of Iranian archaeology relate to the Early Bronze Age of
south-eastern Iran. In this region, complex city-state and arguably state level societies developed through the
third millennium BC, drawing on the area’s rich natural and mineral resources as foundation for transregional
networking through trade, warfare, alliance and other modes of interaction. For a millennium or so these polities
exercised control over their hinterlands and over routes of communication and trade stretching well beyond the
borders of modern Iran, eastwards into Pakistan and Afghanistan and westwards across Iran to Lower Meso-
potamia (Mutin 2017; Pittman 2017). But south-eastern Iran is a challenging environment, with a topography
ranging from fertile alluvial valleys, augmented by springs, to forbidding mountains rising over 4,400 m. The
region’s climate is highly seasonal, with hot, dry summers and cool, dry winters (Fouache et al. 2005; Mashkour
et al. 2013). Summer months also feature extremely hot, dry winds that can blow for up to 120 days attaining
speeds of 120 km per hour and reconfiguring the landscape as they do so (Mortazavi et al. 2015). Variable levels
of rainfall render the area’s settlement especially prone to fluctuations in precipitation, and it is not a coincidence
that a globally attested episode of aridity in the later third millennium BC saw the decline of the region’s major
states along with evidence for massive regional abandonment by the early second millennium BC. Against its
climatic and topographic challenges, the region’s uplands host rich deposits of minerals, stones and metals that
underpinned extensive craft activity and trade networks through the third millennium BC in what Amiet (1986c)
characterised as L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens.
South-eastern Iran is bounded by major topographic features. To the southwest, the southern extremities of
the Zagros ranges peter out around Hormuzgan, allowing a strip of coastal plain at Bandar-e Abbas and Minab
before the mountains resume their eastwards march through Baluchistan and on to the Makran range of Pakistan.
To the north and northwest, the barren Dasht-e Lut forms a natural boundary (Figure 9.2), along the edges of
which sit the modern towns of Kerman and Bam, and the ancient site of Shahdad, with more productive lands
directly to the west and south. The regions surrounding the Jazmurian depression, at 300 m, are the most fertile
and archaeologically rich zones in south-eastern Iran, watered by the Halil Rud flowing from the north-western
highlands into the Jazmurian oasis, with the Rud-e Bampur joining the oasis from the Makran range to the east
Figure 9.2 V
iew of Dasht-e Lut (photo credit: Xavier Dealbert, iStock 1300518012).
Figure 9.3 Map of Helmand river and location of Shahr-i Sokhta (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
and forming the main route of east-west communication in this region. Both the Halil and Bampur river systems
hosted rich Early Bronze Age occupation, as we shall see. To the north, the region of Sistan includes the large
Helmand basin, into which the Helmand river debouches from its Afghan origins (Figure 9.3), yielding the wa-
ters that sustained the major site of Shahr-i Sokhta amongst others.
In contrast to the Bronze Age urban states of Mesopotamia and Khuzestan, or indeed of the Indus and
Egypt, who enjoyed easy access to the sea, either directly through propinquity or indirectly through navigable
ocean-reaching rivers, many of the complex polities that developed across Bronze Age Iran can be characterised
as “oasis riverine systems” (Pittman 2019), in the sense that they developed alongside major rivers that did not
reach the sea but instead drained their waters into inland swamps, marshes and ultimately the bleak sand and salt
deserts that constitute so much of the inner Iranian land mass. Dependable availability of water was especially
critical for oasis riverine systems, with more limited options for radical adaptation in the face of drastic fluctua-
tions in water supply. For the city-states of Lower Mesopotamia, a major avulsion of the Tigris-Euphrates com-
plex would have been a challenging but by no means fatally damaging circumstance to negotiate, as they often
did ( Jotheri et al. 2018). A major shift in river behaviour within an oasis system would be more likely to lead
directly to devastating consequences for dependent settlements (Fouache et al. 2021).
A classic example is the Helmand river, which flows broadly south-westwards from its source in the Afghan
uplands before debouching into the Helmand basin where the great site of Shahr-i Sokhta is located. Another
Bronze Age oasis riverine system is found at the western edge of the Dasht-e Lut where the site of Shahdad and
its satellite villages lie on an alluvial fan deposited by waters flowing from the mountains to the southwest, while
further south the rivers Halil and Bampur flow from opposing directions to empty into the Jazmurian basin at the
fringes of which sit the sites of the Jiroft and Bampur regions, all examined below. Well to the north across the Atrak
mountains and into southern Turkmenistan a major Bronze Age oasis riverine system developed in the later third
millennium BC along the waters of the Amu Darya, or Oxus river, known as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeolog-
ical Complex (BMAC), the Oxus Civilisation, or the Greater Khorasan Civilisation (Vahdati et al. 2019; Lyonnet
and Dubova 2021). All these Bronze Age oasis riverine systems demand close study both on their own terms but
also as interacting components of transregional networks of engagement that are vividly attested in the surviving
material remains, as partially excavated, analysed and published by generations of archaeologists. That said, we
should bear in mind that much of the trade and exchange between the inland societies of south-eastern Iran and
their contemporaries in Mesopotamia must have taken place by sea traffic, with the relatively open valley of the
Minab river providing a convenient corridor connecting the Halil Rud and regions beyond with the coast of the
Persian Gulf at Minab (T. Potts 1994: 36–39; Pfälzner and Soleimani 2015). This route was doubtless a major
highway for third millennium BC engagement between south-eastern Iran and Lower Mesopotamia.
Overall, south-eastern Iran has not benefited from archaeological investigation to the extent enjoyed by western
and northern Iran. Pioneering explorations in south-eastern Iran and north-western India (as it then was,
now Pakistan) were conducted by Sir Aurel Stein (1934, 1937) who located scores of Early Bronze Age and
other sites. This work was followed by major projects at Tepe Yahya, Tal-e Iblis, Shahdad and Shahr-i Sokhta,
amongst others, through the 1960s and 1970s as detailed below. More recently, archaeological surveys of the
Jiroft region of the Halil Rud (Madjidzadeh 2003; Pittman 2013a) the region to the south of Jiroft (Pf älzner
and Soleimani 2015; Pf älzner et al. 2019) and the western Dasht-e Lut (Eskandari 2019) have been conducted
by Iranian and other archaeologists.
Spectacular florescence: Early Bronze Age archaeology of the Halil Rud and Kerman region
In Chapter 6 we traced the development of Chalcolithic societies in south-eastern Iran, while in Chapter 7 we
examined the evidence for Proto-Elamite influence of the region, especially at Tepe Yahya. What happened
next? The major Proto-Elamite occupation of Tepe Yahya, level IVC2, was abandoned early in the third millen-
nium BC and the site appears to have been unoccupied for up to 500 years, with level IVB tentatively dated to
2600–2400 BC (Mutin 2013a: 190; Pittman 2013a: 307). Other sites of south-eastern Iran fill in some of this gap,
including Konar Sandal South and Shahr-i Sokhta, but regional surveys have failed to find significant numbers
of sites contemporary with Yahya IVC2, i.e. the Proto-Elamite or Early Bonze Age I period, c. 3100–2900 BC
(Pfälzner et al. 2019: 113), fitting with the overall Proto-Elamite settlement picture across Iran of concentrations
of activity in limited numbers of focal nodes (Chapter 7).
Modern illicit looting of Bronze Age cemetery sites in the region south of Jiroft along the Halil Rud brought vast
numbers of decorated stone and metal artefacts onto the market, hundreds of which were recovered by the Iranian au-
thorities and are now displayed in Kerman Museum, the Archaeological Museum of Jiroft and the National Museum of
Iran (Figure 9.4) (Madjidzadeh 2003; Perrot 2003; Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2003; Piran 2019; Eskandari et al. 2020b).
Many of these items are of the Jiroft Type (Pittman 2018a), in the form of carved soft-stone vessels, as well as more
unique zoomorphic statues, handled “weights” or “handbags” (Muscarella 1993, 2001, 2012a; Aruz 2003: 328–329),
plaques or gaming boards (Dunn-Vaturi and Schädler 2006), inlaid footed goblets, lapis lazuli amulets, bronze vessels
decorated with high relief and items manufactured of diatomaceous limestone. Some of the forms and iconography
suggest connections with BMAC sites such as Gonur-depe in southern Turkmenistan (Kohl 2007: 227; Salvatori 2010;
Francfort 2019) but most are in local style and produced locally in the Halil Rud region or at contemporary sites such as
Tepe Yahya to the southwest. Particularly striking is an elaborate copper or bronze staff, 90 cm long and decorated with
shell inlays, made with the lost-wax casting process, which has provisionally been interpreted as a “royal sceptre” and
was probably originally deposited in a high-status grave of mid-third millennium BC date (Figure 9.5) (Eskandari et al.
Figure 9.4 Kerman Museum, display of Jiroft objects (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 9.5 “ Royal sceptre” from Jiroft region (Eskandari et al. 2020b: Figures 2–4) (images courtesy of François Desset).
2020b: Figures 3–4). It has parallels with items from graves at Shahdad (see below), Gonur-depe and other sites across
Middle Asia (Eskandari et al. 2020b). All this spectacular material, largely unprovenanced beyond a broad association
with the Jiroft region, attests an extraordinary flourishing of iconographic expression replete with pregnant symbolism
and of transregional appeal and significance to contemporary societies near and far.
Intricate investigation of looted Early Bronze Age tombs (Figure 9.6) extending over an area of at least 6 ha
at the sites of Mahtoutabad on the banks of the Halil Rud suggest that there may originally have been at least
1,000 graves of 2600–2200 BC date in this region, most of them containing valuable objects including carved
soft-stone vessels, bronze objects, painted ceramics, and beads of lapis lazuli, carnelian and other materials (Desset
Figure 9.6 Mahtoutabad, aerial view showing multiple looter pits (Desset et al. 2017: pl. 2) (image courtesy HARP project).
Figure 9.7 Mahtoutabaad, Grave 2, view, plan and grave goods (Desset et al. 2017: pls 6, 12, 14–15) (images courtesy of François Desset).
et al. 2013). Meticulous excavation and recording of one undisturbed tomb enabled reconstruction of a complex
sequence of events associated with the burial, including excavation of a vertical shaft, offerings of food and drink
(to the underworld deities?) at the opening of the shaft, excavation of a mortuary chamber, placing of a mat on
the chamber floor, insertion of the grave furnishing and the body, deposition of grave goods, and subsequent
post-burial activities (Figure 9.7) (Desset et al. 2017: pl. 7). Surface survey and excavations at the extensive cem-
etery and craft-working site of Hajjiabad-Varamin, located only 8 km southwest of Mahtoutabad (Figure 9.8),
indicate prolonged use of this location over many centuries, climaxing in the mid-third millennium BC with
evidence for crafting of vessels from a range of stones (Figure 9.9) probably for local consumption, and for hoard-
ing of distinctive copper artefacts (Figure 9.10) (Eskandari et al. 2020a, 2021).
In so far as we are able to treat the Jiroft objects as a coherent assemblage uncontaminated by forgeries (Muscarella
2001), the vivid and highly structured iconography of the carved soft-stone artefacts of the Jiroft region relate to
local and possibly transregional myths and epic narratives rooted in cosmological principles concerning cycles of
life and death and human-nature entanglement (Winkelmann 2005; Perrot 2012; Vidale 2015; Francfort 2019).
Thus, one extraordinary scene cut into a tall vase showing opposed zebu bulls held at the dewlap by a reclining
human while a standing skirted human holds up a rainbow (or a stream?) with the sun and the moon represented
nearby is interpreted by Jean Perrot (Figure 9.11) (Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2003: 110) in terms of a world vision:
Réduit à ses propres forces, l’Homme élève les bras vers la voûte céleste ou vers quelque arc-en-ciel, flanqué
des symboles du Soleil et de la Lune. Cette scène…apparaît comme une parfaite illustration d’une situation
dans laquelle la société humaine grandissante aspire à un ordre comparable à celui que de longue date elle a
observé dans le ciel.
In the depicted scene, zebu bulls serve as emblems for wild nature that has been tamed, a powerful force brought
into the nurtured human world, decorated with tassels and held calmly by the throat as part of a grand human-nature
Figure 9.8 Hajjiabad-Varamin location map (Eskandari et al. 2021: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Nasir Eskandari).
Figure 9.9 H ajjiabad-Varamin, surface collection of selected worked stones (Eskandari et al. 2021: Figure 26) (photo credit:
Nasir Eskandari).
Figure 9.10 H
ajjiabad-Varamin, hoard of copper artefacts (Eskandari et al. 2021: Figures 29–30) (image courtesy of Nasir Eskandari).
vision. Other frequent carved and modelled motifs, often with eyes and other features inlaid with coloured stones,
include the tree of life, palm trees, eagles, goats, possible oryx (Figure 9.12) (Devillers 2013), panthers, lions,
scorpions and snakes, as well as geometric designs and architectural facades that may represent temples. There
appear to be significant associations of specific motifs, and the theme of human control over nature is much to
the fore. More specifically, Massimo Vidale (2015: 42; Pittman 2018a) interprets the iconography of the carved
Jiroft chlorite artefacts as representing narratives of myths and legends, including a possible flood story, that
Figure 9.11 Jiroft, chlorite vessel with carved and inlaid scene (after Madjidzadeh 2003: 13–14).
Figure 9.12 Jiroft, chlorite vessels depicting possible Oryx (after Madjidzadeh 2003: 24–26, 32–33; Devillers 2013: Figures 7–8, pls 3–4).
connected this region of Iran with the world beyond, from Mesopotamia in the west to Central Asia in the east:
“At least in part, the images should be interpreted in the context of lost funerary ideologies and rituals, and of a
pre-existing oral tradition deeply rooted also in the prehistory of the Iranian Plateau.”
Similarly decorated and inlaid soft-stone vessels and objects, with “Master of Animal” motifs and comparably
executed depictions of snakes, zebu, lions and eagles feature in Joan Aruz’s (2003) sumptuous publication of “In-
tercultural Style” chlorite objects, most commonly from Mesopotamian temples, as at Kish, Nippur, Khafajah
and Mari, or, sadly, with no known provenance (Pittman 2018a). A great number have also been excavated from
stone-lined tombs on the small island of Tarut northwest of Bahrain on the south shores of the Persian Gulf (Za-
rins 1978; Aruz 2003: 325–328; Kohl 2004).
The recovery of the looted objects from Jiroft and the international interest stimulated thereby (Lawler 2003,
2010) led to a programme of survey and excavations south of Jiroft led by Yousef Madjidzadeh with international
colleagues (Madjidzadeh 2003; Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008). While early claims for discovery of “the earliest
Figure 9.13 Halil Rud valley, key sites (image courtesy of François Desset).
Figure 9.14 Halil Rud valley, date palm grove (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Oriental civilization” or the mythical state of Aratta (Madjidzadeh 2003; contra see Steinkeller 2006: 1–2) have sub-
sided, there is no doubt that the Bronze Age societies of the Jiroft region of the Halil Rud constituted an extremely
important complex society competing and connecting with other similarly complex and capable societies of the
region and beyond in a rich episode of interregional engagement across considerable expanses of Asia. Indeed, the
Jiroft discoveries significantly enhance the region’s claim to the historical name of Marhashi (Steinkeller 2006;
Kohl 2007: 230; see above). The Jiroft plain lies close to major mountain ranges rising to more than 3,500 m in
height and enjoys relatively rich overground and underground water resources (Mashkour and Tengberg 2013).
Regional survey of the Bardsir and Halil Rud reveals continuous occupation through most of the third millen-
nium BC, with the major sites of Konar Sandal South and North dominating the Jiroft region (Figure 9.13) (Sajjadi
1987; Fouache et al. 2005). In total about 300 tell sites have been surveyed in this region, some of them reaching
100 ha in area, convincing evidence for the density and scale of settlement and activity in this area during the third
millennium BC, which has been characterised as “a small Mesopotamia” on account of its climate of hot humid
summers and relatively mild winters as well as its agricultural productivity (Figure 9.14) (Muscarella 2012a).
Excavations at Konar Sandal South and Konar Sandal North indicate an expansion of occupation through the
third millennium BC, culminating in construction of a high citadel mound at Konar Sandal South with an as-
sociated Lower Town (Figure 9.15) (Madjidzadeh 2003; Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008). The earliest excavated
phase at Konar Sandal South, Lower Town 1, is dated to Early Bronze Age II (2900–2500 BC) also known as
Phase A of the Jiroft Culture. From rubbish deposits in Trench XIV, a clay door-peg sealing with distinctive seal
impression was excavated, closely resembling Early Dynastic I seal impressions of so-called “city seal” style from
Ur in Lower Mesopotamia (Matthews 1993; Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 100, Figure 32e; Pittman 2012:
Figure 1). Identification of the city name of Ur on this seal impression (Figure 9.16) (Matthews and Richardson
2018, 2020: Figure 7; Pittman 2018b) suggests some form of intimate contact between these two distant regions
in the early third millennium BC, long before such contacts are evidenced by contexts such as the Early Dynastic
III Royal Cemetery of Ur (Zettler and Horne 1998) with its rich finds of gold, silver, lapis lazuli and carnelian
attesting Sumerian engagement with south-eastern Iran, including gold representations in sumptuous wreaths
and headdress of the leaves of the sissoo tree, native to south-eastern Iran and regions to the east and found in
charred wood remains from Konar Sandal (Tengberg et al. 2008; Mashkour et al. 2013). Pittman (2018b: 34)
adroitly summarises the distinctive usages of seals within the context of highland Iran in this period:
On the Iranian plateau in the Early Bronze, in an environment where writing, if it existed at all, was not used
administratively, seals played a vital role in differentiating the various actors who came to central places or
markets to acquire, disperse, or exchange raw or semi-processed materials and certainly also finished goods
of the types found in the Royal Tombs (of Ur).
The citadel at Konar Sandal South comprises a superimposed sequence of monumental mudbrick structures en-
closed within a massive niched and buttressed wall (Figure 9.17), all dated to Early Bronze Age III (2500–2000
BC), Phase B of the Jiroft Culture and partly contemporary with Early Dynastic III in Mesopotamian terms.
Figure 9.15 Konar Sandal South, citadel mound (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 9.16 K
onar Sandal South, “city seal” impression (Matthews and Richardson 2018: Figure 14).
Figure 9.17 K
onar Sandal South, citadel enclosure wall (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 9.18 Konar Sandal South, engaged painted sculpture at citadel entrance (photo credit: Holly Pittman).
Entrance to the citadel was through a gateway with at least one semi-circular tower, plus an anteroom or shrine
contemporary with a unique engaged monumental painted sculpture depicting a male skirted and bare-chested
figure, possibly a deity, sadly with the head missing (Figure 9.18). Associated with the citadel, the administrative
quarter at Konar Sandal South, dated to 2450–2300 BC, yielded large quantities of clay sealings with seal im-
pressions showing affiliations with examples from the Ur Seal Impression Strata, Fara, Susa Ville Royale 18-17,
Tepe Yahya, Shahdad and Shahr-i Sokhta II (Ascalone 2013, 2018; Pittman 2013a: 308, 2018b, 2019). Also from
this level came a carved chlorite plaque in the form of a scorpion man, and considerable amounts of carved green
soft-stone items in the so-called série ancienne or Intercultural Style. The craft areas include a large platform and
associated rubbish deposits, with thousands of pieces of colourful stones, including agate, jasper and lapis lazuli,
as well as used flint drill bits, clearly attesting in situ bead manufacture.
The rubbish deposits include many clay sealings, mainly from sealed containers such as bags, baskets, boxes
and jars, with typical Lower Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III combat scenes alongside impressions from local-
style seals comparable to those from Tepe Yahya IVB and graves at Shahdad. Pittman (2013a: 308, 2018b) inter-
prets the combat scenes as evidence for the presence in the Halil Rud region of Mesopotamian agents engaged
in acquiring access to the luxury items desired by the powerful Sumerian elites, as attested above all by the
contemporary Royal Tombs at Ur. Contemporary cylinder seals found far to the northeast at Gonur-depe in
Turkmenistan are directly influenced by the narrative iconography found on seals and seal impressions at Konar
Sandal South and the Kerman region (Pittman 2019). The considerable variety in the iconography of the seals
attested on the clay sealings at Konar Sandal South (Figure 9.19) underlines the interregional connectivity of the
occupants of the site through much of the third millennium BC, underpinning Pittman’s (2019: 284) proposal
that representatives of widely dispersed communities across much of Asia were physically present at sites such as
Konar Sandal South using their regionally distinctive seals in a process of storing, securing and distributing highly
valued commodities such as the semi-precious stones richly attested at the site, in “some kind of merchant-like,
Figure 9.19 K
onar Sandal South, seal impressions on clay sealings (after Pittman 2019: Figures 11, 16–17, 21–22, 27).
Figure 9.20 Konar Sandal South, scorpion bowls and canister vessels (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: Figure 24) (image courtesy
of Holly Pittman).
commercial, behavior.” What remains unclear are the societal mechanisms by which such trade was conducted –
did individual traders act solely on their own behalf or were they commissioned by state-level institutions such
as temples and palaces to conduct trade, or a combination of both these scenarios? Conspicuous consumption of
luxury materials in contexts such as the Royal Tombs at Ur suggests that much of this trade must have involved
elite-level supervision and engagement.
Lower Town Phase 2 at Konar Sandal South includes a large domestic complex, craft production areas and an
administrative quarter. Distinctive ceramic types include “scorpion bowls” with upturned handles, also found
at Yahya IVC and IVB, Bampur II–IV and Shahr-i Sokhta III (Figure 9.20). Vessels are also found in so-called
“Emir Ware,” common at sites throughout eastern Iran and across the Persian Gulf at Tell Abraq (Potts 2005b).
Craft production continued during Lower Town Phase 3 at Konar Sandal South, alongside the construction of
massive structures dating into the late third millennium BC. The end of this phase at Konar Sandal South in the
Figure 9.21 G
eometric and Linear Elamite texts from Konar Sandal (Desset 2014b: pls 1–2) (images courtesy of François Desset).
late third millennium BC may have been brought about by an earthquake, judging by the volume of overlying
collapsed mudbrick (Pittman 2013a: 310), after which the site was largely abandoned.
A fragment of inscribed baked clay was found on one floor (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 81) during the
Citadel Shrine phase. Meanwhile, excavations in a villager’s garden, 550 m north of Konar Sandal South, re-
covered three clay tablets with inscriptions (Figure 9.21). Taken together, these four inscribed items, which are
poorly understood, appear to represent intriguing experiments in writing on clay in the Konar Sandal region
(Desset 2014b). Three of the tablets include texts in two scripts: (i) an early form of Linear Elamite, convention-
ally associated with the Elamite king, Puzur-Inshushinak (c. 2100 BC; Chapter 10), but apparently pre-dating his
reign by up to 200–300 years, if the chronology is correct, and (ii) a completely unrelated script, called “Geomet-
ric” by François Desset (2014b: 84). Both these scripts or graphic systems appear to have been locally devised and
lacking clear connection to known writing systems previous or contemporary.
Excavations at Konar Sandal North have revealed an extensive mudbrick platform on two levels, sur-
mounted by Iron Age deposits. Radiocarbon dating suggests the platform itself may belong to the Iron Age not,
as originally assumed, to the Early Bronze Age (Chapter 11). Bioarchaeological remains from the Konar Sandal
sites show the community’s reliance on herding of sheep and goat with some use of cattle, including rare evidence
for zebu, alongside cultivation of barley, wheat, date palm and grapevine (Mashkour et al. 2013). Overall, the ev-
idence from the Konar Sandal sites underlines its role as a major centre for interregional engagement in the Early
Bronze Age, with ceramic and glyptic materials attesting long-distance contact with Mesopotamia, Central Asia,
the Indus Valley and the Persian Gulf (Thornton 2012: 604; Vidale and Frenez 2015; Pittman 2018b). Christopher
Thornton’s (2012) emphasis on the significance of the cultural connections of the Jiroft region with the rising
powers of Dilmun (Bahrain and adjacent Arabian coast) and Magan/Makkan (the Omani Peninsula) in the late
fourth and much of the third millennia BC, attested in shared painted ceramic styles (Potts 2005b), lends further
support to identification of this area of south-eastern Iran as ancient Marhashi.
With the aim of investigating relations between the Jiroft region and the Persian Gulf coast to the south,
systematic multi-period survey in recent years has detected more than 200 archaeological sites, in particular on
the plains of Boluk and Faryab and the Middle Halil Rud valley (Pf älzner and Soleimani 2015; Pf älzner et al.
2019). Settlement developed especially densely during the Early Bronze Age II-III phases (2900–2000 BC;
Figure 9.22), and there is evidence that several sites were focused on control of routes of communication to
and from the coast and on processing and trade in chlorite artefacts, including a possible chlorite mining site of
Early Bronze Age III date in the Bagh-e Borj mountains (Figure 9.23). Deposits of gabbro stone and travertine
in this region were also likely quarried for export to Mesopotamia for use in manufacture of elite statues and
stone vessels during the Early Bronze Age (Pf älzner et al. 2019: 120). This region appears to be more or less
deserted during much of the second and the early first millennia BC, with full-scale reoccupation only in the
Achaemenid period (Chapter 11).
Level IVB 4-2 at Tepe Yahya, c. 2400–2000 BC, hosts a blossoming of carved chlorite vessels and artefacts
in the série ancienne or Halil Rud/Jiroft Style (Figure 9.24) (de Miroschedji 1973; Kohl 1975, 1978, 2001, 2004;
Figure 9.22 E
arly Bronze Age II and III settlement in the SOJAS regional survey (Pfälzner et al. 2019: Figures 7–8) (image courtesy
of the SOJAS project, the University of Tübingen).
Figure 9.23 Chlorite outcrop in the Bagh-e Borj mountains (Pfälzner et al. 2019: Figure 19) (photo credit: Peter Pfälzner).
Kohl et al. 1979; T. Potts 1994: 250–262; Ascalone 2007; Pittman 2018a), as well as developments in metallurgy
(Thornton and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004). There appear to have been open-air workshops at Yahya dedicated
to the production of chlorite objects, yielding large quantities of debitage and unfinished items (Potts 2001).
Level IVB 1 at Yahya has circular and rectilinear architecture as well as ceramics with parallels in Central Asia,
Namazga V, and seals showing the development of a local style less influenced by Mesopotamian iconography
(Ascalone 2013: 22, 2018: 632). Analysis of period IVB ceramics from Yahya shows a significant discontinuity
from the preceding IVC Proto-Elamite period, with increasing quantities of serpentine and chlorite dust in ce-
ramic pastes resulting from the deliberate inclusion of debris from working of soft stone (Mutin et al. 2016: 861).
Evidence from the looted tombs in the Halil Rud, including those at Mahtoutabad discussed above, with more
than 700 items confiscated by the Iranian authorities, establishes that the bulk of carved chlorite vessel and ar-
tefact production, as attested at Yahya, was for local consumption along the Halil Rud, as indicated by their low
representation in excavated tombs either at Shahdad to the north or at sites along the Bampur valley to the east
(Kohl 2004: 286; Pittman 2013a: 309). Additionally, about 100 examples of this type of object have been found
at mainly temple contexts in Mesopotamia (Kohl 1974, 1975, 1978; Moorey 1994: 46–50; T. Potts 1994; Pittman
2018a) as well as on the small island of Tarut (Zarins 1978). The finished vessels could have travelled either over-
land via Susa and into Lower Mesopotamia and north-westwards to sites such as Mari (Ascalone 2007, 2019) or
by land from the Halil Rud south to the coast at Minab and thence by sea to the head of the Persian Gulf. Kohl’s
Figure 9.24 T
epe Yahya, carved chlorite fragments in the Intercultural Style (after Aruz 2003: Figures 242–243).
Figure 9.25 C
hlorite “handbag weight,” National Museum, Tehran (Vidale and Micheli 2012: Figure 1) (image courtesy of
Massimo Vidale).
analysis (Kohl 2004; Kohl et al. 1979) of soft stone vessels suggests that specific Mesopotamian cities or groups of
cities may have obtained their vessels from separate sources, for example at Bismaya (Adab) where vessels were
made of steatite rather than chlorite. Strikingly, exported items comprise only open vessels, including uncarved
bell-shaped bowls (Kohl 2004: 286), with no representation of the other forms such as goblets, plaques, or sculp-
tures richly attested in the material from the Halil Rud (Figure 9.25) (Vidale and Micheli 2012). Only two so-
called “handbag weights” have been found in Lower Mesopotamia, one each at Nippur and Ur, in the latter case
as part of a probable foundation deposit for a temple of Inanna (de Miroschedji 1972a; Reade 2002).
The latest Bronze Age occupation at Tepe Yahya, period IVA, the least adequately published of the Yahya lev-
els, is variously dated to 1700–1400 BC (Beale 1986: 11), 1900–1700 BC (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1972; Thornton
and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004: 52) or 2200–1900 BC (Ascalone 2013: 4), with the earlier dates more plausible.
Metal objects and the increasing use of tin-bronze in Yahya IVA are indicative of influence on the region from the
Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) at the turn of the third-second millennia BC (Thornton and
Figure 9.26 J iroft, chlorite plaque in form of scorpion (after Madjidzadeh 2003:136); Tepe Yahya, fragment of similar plaque (after
Dunn-Vaturi and Schädler 2006: pl. 2).
Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004: 53; Mutin and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2021: 558–560). Chlorite vessel production contin-
ues and the local seals show Bactrian and Persian Gulf connections in their iconography (Ascalone 2013: 22, 2018:
638–639). Bactrian influences are found as far west as Ebla in north-western Syria with the occurrence of distinctive
eagle pendants and huge quantities of unworked and semi-worked lapis materials found in Royal Palace G, destroyed
at c. 2300 BC (Pinnock 2006; Ascalone 2007). A single fragment from Yahya IVA of a possible scorpion-form gam-
ing board, in carved chlorite, compares well with a complete example from the Jiroft looted materials (Figure 9.26)
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988: pl. XX:C; Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2003: 56; Dunn-Vaturi and Schädler 2006: pl. 2b).
Well to the south of Tepe Yahya and the Dawlatabad plain, survey has identified Bronze Age sites on Qeshm
island in the Persian Gulf, with ceramics indicating connections to communities of south-eastern Iran and
south-eastern Arabia in the Umm an-Nar period (2700–2000 BC) (Khosrowzadeh et al. 2017). These sites and
others along the coast of the Persian Gulf (Carter et al. 2006) are located for exploitation of the local marine re-
sources including fish and seashells.
On the desert fringes: Early Bronze Age archaeology of the western Dasht-e Lut
Along the western edge of the Dasht-e Lut, watered by the springs and streams that flow off the edge of the Ba-
nan mountains, sits the site of Shahdad on an alluvial fan of the Takab plain (Salvatori and Vidale 1982; Hakemi
1986, 1992, 1994, 1997; Pittman 1984: 23–31; Hakemi and Sajjadi 1989; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 146–147; Salva-
tori and Tosi 1997; Kaboli 2002; Lawler 2011). Survey reveals that the settlement at Shahdad shifted westwards
through time, moving from fifth-fourth millennia BC mounds in the east to an urban sprawl of 80–100 ha by the
later third millennium BC directly east of the modern city of Shahdad (Figure 9.27) (Vidale et al. 2012: Figure
2; Eskandari 2019). Excavations by Ali Hakemi focused on a massive mortuary ground in Area A (Figure 9.28)
and associated craft areas, for the manufacture of pottery, luxury stone artefacts and copper metallurgy (Figure
9.29). Excavations by Mir Abedin Kaboli (Kaboli 2002) added new information regarding residential and craft
production areas. Again, highly valued artefacts were being produced more for deposition in human burials in
the Shahdad cemetery than for interregional trade. Most of the 382 excavated graves date to the mid-later third
millennium BC but much of the site appears to date to the later fourth millennium BC although these levels have
not been extensively investigated. Many graves contain ceramic vessels, mainly plain in keeping with the regional
trend to plainer ceramics in the later Early Bronze Age but also including some terracotta model buildings, prob-
ably representations of temples (Gasche and Cole 2018: 745). Several vessels and metal artefacts have parallels with
the BMAC of the Oxus region to the north and northeast (Mutin and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2021: 554–558), which
may indicate a presence of Central Asian individuals in Shahdad’s cemetery (Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky
1992). Kilns suggest significant production of pottery on site (Fazeli Nashli et al. 2012).
Strikingly, there are very few examples of carved soft stone vessels in the Shahdad graves, in contrast to their
abundance in the graves of the Halil Rud and at the sites of Konar Sandal South and Tepe Yahya IVB, which
suggests a strong degree of regional specialisation in both production and consumption of valued grave goods. By
contrast, chlorite artefacts at Shahdad include undecorated vessels, bell-shaped bowls, boxes with lids and small
perfume or cosmetic jars (Figure 9.30) (Kohl 2004: 286), including one with lead-based cosmetic contents still
intact that may date to the fourth millennium, BC (Vidale et al. 2012). There are also stone staffs that may have
Figure 9.27 A
rea of Shahdad from Google Earth with key features marked (Vidale et al. 2012: Figure 2) (image courtesy of
Massimo Vidale).
Figure 9.28 S hahdad, view of exposed graves in Cemetery A (after Hakemi 1997: Figure 18).
served as badges of power or authority. In many respects, such as iconography of glyptic art and painted clay
sculptures of human heads and torsos, there are robust regional connections that may underlie shared ideologies.
A notable feature of the Shahdad graves is the relative lack of evidence for social differentiation in the manner of
burial and in the quality and quantity of grave goods, suggestive of a level distribution of wealth across society,
or at least across those strata of society represented by the excavated graves.
The Shahdad graves frequently contain spectacular copper and silver objects, especially vessels and implements,
often with repoussé figured scenes, as well as ceremonial axes and blades that compare well to examples from
Tepe Hissar IIIC and the Oxus region (Meier 2011; Pittman 2013a: 312; Helwing 2018: 126). The extraordinary
“Standard of Shahdad” (Figure 9.31) shows a seated male (?) figure addressing a squatting female, with other
figures in the surroundings. Felines and a humped bull or zebu, along with palms and other trees, complete the
scene. These figurative elements situate the standard within the context of the iconography of the Halil Rud and
beyond in the mid-later third millennium BC. The metal plate of the standard was originally fixed to a shaft
attached to a solid base, with a flying eagle at the shaft’s summit (Figure 9.31) (Hakemi 1997: 271, 649). There are
also extraordinary fragments of painted matting including a scene depicting a bearded, long-haired man seated
Figure 9.29 Shahdad, plan of craftworking area, Site D (after Hakemi 1997: Figure 54).
Figure 9.30 Shahdad, chlorite box from grave 116, object 1103 (after Hakemi 1997: pl. 7).
under a crescent moon and planets or stars (Figure 9.32) (Hakemi 1997: 663), and a copper alloy pin with an en-
graved scene of a horned, long-haired man seated between rearing snakes (Figure 9.33) (Meier and Vidale 2013).
A so-called “metallurgical workshop” excavated at Shahdad as well as ovens located within a “private house” in
fact appear rather to have been for domestic heating and cooking, comparable to contemporary examples from
Turkmenistan and possibly indicative of strong sociocultural connections between these regions (Meier 2019) as
also attested by the grave good evidence outlined above.
Copper stamp seals at Shahdad, sometimes in the form of elaborate pinheads and in the “compartmented”
form, also compare to seals from Shahr-i Sokhta II-III (see below), the Halil Rud and the Oxus region (Bagh-
estani 1997; Winkelmann 1997, 2000). A handful of cylinder seals from the Shahdad graves bear similarities
to the seals from Yahya and Konar Sandal South (Figure 9.34) (Ascalone 2011, 2013), with a focus on female
deities but without the evidence of impressions on sealings, probably because the sorts of rubbish deposits that
traditionally yield large quantities of clay sealings have not been excavated at Shahdad. A small red vase bears the
only Shahdad inscription, in the “Linear Elamite” style, possibly contemporary with the Linear Elamite inscrip-
tions from Konar Sandal discussed above (see also Chapter 10; Amiet 1973b; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 147; Desset
2018b). To the west of Shahdad, near the town of Rafsanjan, metal objects like those excavated at Shahdad have
been found at the site of Khinaman, including weapons, tools and vessels (Curtis 1988; Maxwell-Hyslop 1988).
Faunal remains from the site of Kalehkoob in the northern Lut desert include cattle, gazelle and equids, varying
in representation according to environmental conditions (Hashemi et al. 2018).
Survey east and south of Shahdad has recovered evidence for occupation from the fifth millennium BC on-
wards, including a dozen Early Bronze Age sites two of which, Keshit and Mokhtarabad, comprise multi-hectare
Figure 9.31 S hahdad, “Standard of Shahdad” (after Hakemi 1997: pl. 2, Figure Gt).
Figure 9.32 S hahdad, fragment of painted matting (after Hakemi 1997: Figure K).
deflated spreads of ceramics, fragments of stone vessels, bronze objects, lithic tools and slag, candidates for possible
urban or trade and craft centres along a major circum-desert routeway (Eskandari 2019). Other EBA sites east of
Shahdad and located on the same alluvial fan appear to have served as satellite sites for Shahdad, while the large
centres of Keshit and Mokhtarabad lacked satellite sites and may have been situated to control movement of cher-
ished materials and finished items along an important north-south routeway still in use today.
Figure 9.33 Shahdad, copper alloy pin with engraved scene (Meier and Vidale 2013: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
Figure 9.34 S hahdad, cylinder seals from Cemetery A (after Hakemi 1997: Figure Ib).
Connected communities: the Rud-e Bampur complex and the Jazmurian basin
During the Bronze Age, the valley of the Bampur river to the southeast of the Jazmurian basin hosted thriving
communities, maximising their connecting role between central Iran to the west and Pakistan, India and Af-
ghanistan to the east (Tosi 1974; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 151–152; Mortazavi 2006; Kohl 2007: 227–230; Besenval
2011), but our in-depth understanding is hampered by the lack of intensive investigation of the region (Mutin
et al. 2017b). Analysis of a sediment core from the Jazmurian basin (Vaezi et al. 2019) indicates that a significant
increase in rainfall and a decline in aeolian dust input in the early third millennium BC may have provided a
favourable context for the socio-cultural developments of this region and beyond.
Figure 9.35 Bampur, ceramic connections with Tell Abraq (after Potts 2003: Figure 16).
The most important site is Bampur, excavated first by Sir Aurel Stein and then by Beatrice de Cardi (1967,
1968, 1970). Ceramics from third millennium BC levels at Bampur show connections with Shahr-i Sokhta II–IV,
Tepe Yahya IVB, Konar Sandal South Lower Town phase 2 and the late Umm an-Nar grave from Tell Abraq
across the Persian Gulf (Figure 9.35) (Potts 2003; Pittman 2013a). Carved soft-stone vessels of the type found so
frequently in the Halil Rud sites are rare in the Bampur region, although imitated in the form of incised grey-
ware ceramic forms, suggesting that the Jazmurian basin may have been culturally divided into western and
eastern political entities in the Bronze Age (Kohl 2007: 230). Occupation of the eastern Jazmurian is focused
on the periods c. 4500–3500 BC and 2600–1800 BC, interrupted by a significant hiatus with the exception of
lavishly furnished graves as at the site of Spidej (Figure 9.36) (Heydari et al. 2018b, 2019). The major ceramic
comparanda of this region are with Shahr-i Sokhta III-IV, Mundigak IV, Yahya IVB and sites of the Halil Rud
(Figure 9.37) (Mutin and Minc 2019), while copper and silver stamp seals show connections to Shahdad, Yahya
and Konar Sandal South. The large site of Chegerdak in the southern foothills of the Jazmurian basin emerged
as a major centre in the third millennium BC, with ceramics and seals attesting significant cultural connections
with the Halil Rud to the northwest, the Sistan plains to the northeast and the Kech Makran valleys to the south-
east (Figure 9.38) (Heydari et al. 2015, 2018b).
Survey of the Bampur valley indicates a steady increase in human settlement of the region through the
Early Bronze Age, peaking by the end of the third millennium BC (Mortazavi 2006). There is evidence that
the river episodically dried up from the west, leading to an eastward migration of human settlement through
the fifth to third millennia BC (Mutin et al. 2017b; Sarhaddi-Dadian et al. 2020). Small-scale investigations
at the sites of Damin and Khurab yielded ceramics and bronze artefacts including stamp seals and, from
a grave at Khurab, an axe adorned with a figured Bactrian camel (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1969; Tosi 1970a;
Lamberg-Karlovsky and Schmandt-Besserat 1977; Potts 2004b). Ceramic connections to the east include
occurrences at several sites in the Rud-e Bampur region of Basket Ware, made by moulding the clay vessel
inside a basket (Mutin 2006).
Figure 9.36 Spidej, grave 125 plan, view and selected ceramic and other grave goods (after Heydari et al. 2019: pls 4, 6, 16, 22, 24)
(images courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
Figure 9.37 C
eramic connections of Spidej grave 125 and sites of south-eastern Iran and beyond (after Heydari et al. 2019: pl. 23).
Figure 9.38 C
opper stamp seals from Spidej, Chegerdak and Keshik, eastern Jazmurian basin (after Heydari et al. 2018b: Figure 11).
The Helmand civilisation: Shahr-i Sokhta, jewel in the Sistan crown
In the later fourth and through the third millennia BC a distinctive civilisation developed across the watershed
of the great Helmand river, spanning sites such as Mundigak in Afghanistan and Shahr-i Sokhta in eastern Iran,
sites that display significant connectivity through their architecture, ceramics, lithics, metallurgy, figurines and
glyptics (Mutin and Minc 2019). First investigated by Sir Aurel Stein (1928) and a UNESCO World Heritage
site since 2014, the hugely important site of Shahr-i Sokhta is located in a large intermontane basin, at the end
of the Helmand river, which flows for 1,400 km from inner Afghanistan westwards across the border into Sistan
before debouching into the Helmand basin (Figure 9.39) (Genito 2014: 163–170). Long-term Iranian and Italian
excavations of third millennium BC levels ensure that Shahr-i Sokhta provides the fullest evidence regarding
the Early Bronze Age of eastern Iran (Tosi 1968, 1969, 1983, 1984; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973; Biscione
et al. 1974; Piperno and Salvatori 1983, 2007; Vidale 1984; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 152; Salvatori and Vidale 1997;
Sajjadi 2003, 2006; Salvatori and Tosi 2005; Sajjadi et al. 2008; Lawler 2011; Sajjadi and Moradi 2015, 2016;
Ascalone and Sajjadi 2019; Mutin and Minc 2019). Study of wood charcoal from the site suggests that the envi-
ronment of Shahr-i Sokhta may have been considerably more favourable, with ampler water input, through the
third millennium BC than is the case in subsequent times including today (Shirazi and Shirazi 2012).
The mounds of Shahr-i Sokhta rise to 18 m above the plain and cover up to 150 ha (Figure 9.40). Commenc-
ing from the late fourth millennium BC, occupation at Shahr-i Sokhta persists through multiple levels, with
period II in the mid-third millennium BC hosting its greatest extent and its widest engagement in networks of
exchange reaching across the Iranian plateau, Lower Mesopotamia, Central Asia and the Indus Valley (Cortesi
et al. 2008). The site can be divided into five major zones (Figure 9.41) (Sajjadi 2003: 21, Figure 2; Sajjadi and
Moradi 2016: Figure 1):
The Eastern Residential Area at the highest point of the mound

The Central Quarters Area in the middle of the north-eastern mounds
The Craft Quarters focused at the northwest of the site
The Monumental Area directly east of the Craft Quarters
The Graveyard Area across the central region of the site, covering up to 25–30 ha in area.
Period I, dating to c. 3200–2800 BC, includes fragments of evidence for low-level Proto-Elamite engagement
(Chapter 7), including a single tablet and 20 seal impressions in Proto-Elamite style (Amiet and Tosi 1978; Amiet
1979a, 1983; Ameri 2020). Multiple ceramic styles from period I, including Emir Grey Ware and painted slow-wheel-
made vessels show affinities with assemblages to the east in Pakistani Makran as at Shahi-Tump and Miri Qalat
IIIa-b (Figure 9.42) (Franke 2008; Besenval 2011; Mutin 2013b; Mutin et al. 2017a; Mutin and Minc 2019), to
Namazga III sites in Central Asia (Biscione 1973; Thornton 2012: 599; Kirtcho 2021: 127) and to contemporary
materials in the Halil Rud region and in Lower Mesopotamia (Moradi in press). The use of cylinder seals in period
I phase 10 is succeeded by exclusive use of stone and bone stamp seals in period I phase 9-8 (Ferioli et al. 1979;
Fiandra and Pepe 2000), suggesting a significant reorientation in the modes of bureaucratic activity.
Period II at Shahr-i Sokhta, radiocarbon dated to 2800–2600 BC, sees an expansion of the Eastern Residen-
tial Area, with large house compounds and streets. There is an elaboration of painted decoration on the ceramics, to
include birds, animals and plants as well as geometric patterns. Certain polychrome vessels have their only parallels at
Mundigak significantly upstream to the north in Afghanistan (Casal 1961; Biscione 1974; Mugavero and Vidale 2003).
Period II occupation expanded beyond the Eastern Residential Quarter to include the Central Quarter covering 20
ha, making the total occupied area more than 100 ha, one of the largest sites from any prehistoric period on the Iranian
plateau. The Central Quarter includes large buildings and significant evidence for craft activity, including copper and
bronze metallurgy (Keykhaei et al. 2012), alabaster or calcite vessel production (Ciarla 1979; Boccuti et al. 2015), and
large-scale working of lapis, turquoise and other valued stones (Tosi and Piperno 1975; Ciarla 1981; Tosi 1984; Casa-
nova 1991, 1992, 2013). Within the Monumental Area, Building 1 represents one of the largest structures excavated
at the site, with several phases spanning much of periods II and III (Figure 9.43) (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 2),
interpreted as a possible temple with surrounding residential units (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: 151).
Analysis of metal ores and slags from period II at Shahr-i Sokhta suggests evidence for production of sheet bar
ingots (Heskel and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1986; Hauptmann et al. 2003; Thornton and Lamberg-Karlovsky 2004).
The complete absence of tin in copper-based artefacts in period II, despite relative proximity to cassiterite sources
in Afghanistan, suggests adherence to traditional modes of production, in contrast to metallurgical developments
at other sites such as Tepe Yahya (see above).
The lapis lazuli arriving at Shahr-i Sokhta came from the Badakhshan mines of north-eastern Afghanistan
(Mariotinni et al. 2017) with no evidence of material from the Pamir/Lake Baikal source east of Badakhshan.
Figure 9.39 Map to show location of Shahr-i Sokhta and sites to the east (Mutin and Minc 2019: Figure 1) (image courtesy of
Benjamin Mutin).
Figure 9.40 Shahr-i Sokhta, aerial view looking southwest (image courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
Figure 9.41 S hahr-i Sokhta, plan of site to show main excavated areas (Sajjadi 2003: Figure 2; Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 1;
Moradi 2019: Figure 2) (images courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
Suggestions of a significant lapis lazuli source in the Chagai hills of western Baluchistan (Casanova 1992, 1997)
have been dismissed as incompatible with the local geology (Law 2014; Mariotinni et al. 2017: 167–168). The
lapis attested at Tepe Sialk came from an as yet unidentified source (Delmas and Casanova 1990). Turquoise at
Shahr-i Sokhta, especially richly attested in graves of period II (Figure 9.44) (Foglini and Vidale 2017), appears
to originate from the Kyzyl Kum mines of Turkmenistan and was worked exclusively for local consumption at
Shahr-i Sokhta.
The lapis lazuli and other semi-precious stone bead-working site excavated in area EWK-EWP at the
north-western edges of Shahr-i Sokhta represents the most informative and significant context of its type from
all of Middle Asia and we are fortunate in having an exhaustive publication of every aspect of this exceptionally
rich archaeological discovery (Lazzari and Vidale 2017). Especially notable is the period II stone-cutter’s hoard,
contained within a buff-ware jar set into the floor of a room (Tosi 1969; Lazzari and Vidale 2017: 21–35). This
hoard provides a wealth of information regarding the technology of semi-precious stone bead manufacture in
Figure 9.42 S hahr-i Sokhta, period I ceramics (Mutin and Minc 2019: Figures 2, 3, 5) (image courtesy of Benjamin Mutin).
Figure 9.43 S hahr-e Sokhta, periods II-III, Monumental Area, view and plan of Building 1 (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 2)
(images courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
the third millennium BC. The hoard elements include lengths of hollow cane used as containers for fragments of
a wide variety of worked stones, including lapis lazuli, carnelian, calcite, chalcedony, alabaster, rock crystal and
other materials. Also in the hoard were shaped and worked pebbles used as bead-working tools and six extraor-
dinary wooden tablets with holes used to hold beads while being worked (Figure 9.45) (Lazzari and Vidale 2017:
Figure 16, col. pl. 8). The lack of drill bits in the hoard suggests that the process of drilling may have been carried
out at a different location from the basic bead cutting and shaping.
More broadly across area EWK-EWP, a total of some 2000 lapis fragments weighing 3.8 kg was recovered
from surface collection and excavations in this region of the site, from a major dumping ground of bead-working
debris. Other important discoveries include “craftsmen graves” in area IRR, consisting of adult male interments
in brick-lined tombs accompanied by bronze and stone tools for stone-working as well as blocks of lapis lazuli
ready for cutting and finished worked items such as beads and assembled necklaces of lapis lazuli, turquoise and
other materials (Tosi and Piperno 1975; Sajjadi 2003; Lazzari and Vidale 2017: 40–45). This deposition in the
grave of craft tools along with partially worked materials and fully finished items affords us poignant insight into
a dynamic conception of the afterlife, which envisaged ongoing activity and the exercise of socially valued skills
and expertise persisting eternally after death.
Figure 9.44 Shahr-i Sokhta, turquoise industry including mineral lumps and finished beads (Foglini and Vidale 2017: col. pls.
17–18) (images courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
As with so much of the specialised craft activity of the broader region, bead production was above all for local
consumption plus limited consignments for interregional exchange (Bulgarelli 1981), with increasing consensus
that most of the production was for deposition within graves in the immense cemetery at the site (T. Potts 1994:
214; Thornton 2012: 600; Vidale 2017). How was semi-precious stone bead production organised at Shahr-i
Sokhta? While some authors have argued for a “coordination globale et centralisée de la production” of lapis
lazuli at the site (Casanova 2013: 108), Massimo Vidale (2017: 309) points to the lack of any evidence, such as
seals, sealings and tokens, for administrative monitoring of the lapis lazuli bead-making or of any other craft
activity: “As far as the archaeological record is concerned, the craft activities may well have been carried out by
independent groups or individual craftsmen without any control, accounting concern or formalized duty.” Finds
of large quantities of bird and fish bones and eggshell fragments mixed amongst the stone-working debris in area
EWK-EWP (Tosi 1972) have suggested the intriguing possibility of seasonal working of lapis and other stones,
carried out in the spring either by permanently resident farmers of the region or by mobile groups of pastoralists
moving annually from summer pastures in the Badakhshan highlands, with direct access to the lapis lazuli mines
at Sar-i Sang, carrying blocks of lapis lazuli in the winter down to Sistan where they spent the spring at Shahr-i
Sokhta working on beads and lithics in exchange for local agricultural produce and other urban products (Vidale
2017: 316–317). The frequent occurrence of lambs or kids in generally rich graves in the cemetery at Shahr-i
Sokhta (Sajjadi 2017: 329) enhances Vidale’s discussion of pastoralist involvement in spring activities at the site.
In other areas of the site there is evidence for intensive use of stone and copper stamp seals, including the com-
partmented type, in administrative activity at Shahr-i Sokhta, comprising more than 180 clay sealings used to seal
store-room doors and containers (Cattini 2000; Ameri 2020), associated with possible clay tokens or counters,
which may relate to control over local agricultural production organised on a household basis. There are also
many animal figurines, principally of the humped bull or zebu (Bos indicus) (Tosi 1984; Cattini 2000; Fiandra and
Pepe 2000), and stylised human figurines in stone and clay in both standing and seated positions (Figure 9.46)
(Shirazi 2007). This flourishing episode of craft and administrative activity was brought to an abrupt conclusion
by a massive fire that raged across the Central Quarter and the Eastern Residential Quarter, always a major risk
in a craft area involving intensive pyrotechnology.
After the fire that ended period II, period III occupation, c. 2600–2450 BC, restarted in the Central Quarter
with the systematic construction of a massive structure, comprising two distinct architectural complexes enclosed
within a large double, occasionally treble, parallel wall system covering a total area of 6,000 m 2 (Figure 9.47)
(Salvatori and Vidale 1997: Figure 2). This impressive building, surviving only at foundation level and possibly
having two storeys, made use of a sophisticated system of drainage using ceramic piping. What has not previ-
ously been commented on is this building’s remarkable resemblance in its scale and plan, with its double-walled
surrounding corridor and internal suites of rooms and courtyards, to large-scale buildings of Lower Mesopo-
tamia of approximately contemporary date as attested at Early Dynastic III Sumerian sites including Eridu,
Kish and Abu Salabikh, widely interpreted as palatial complexes (Matthews and Matthews 2017). It is notable
that the double-walled corridor technique with ceramic drainage is also attested on the so-called “palace and
Figure 9.45 Shahr-i Sokhta, period II items from the stone-cutter’s hoard including wooden bead holders, bead roughouts,
beads shattered while being drilled, and finished beads, all of lapis lazuli (Lazzari and Vidale 2017: col. pl. 8) (images
courtesy of Massimo Vidale).
Figure 9.46 S hahr-i Sokhta, period II clay anthropomorphic figurines (after Shirazi 2007: Figures 5, 9).
fortification” building of late third millennium BC date at Gonur-depe in Turkmenistan (Sarianidi 2002;
Muradov 2021), and there are further parallels with architectural compounds at Mundigak and Altyn-depe
(Salvatori and Vidale 1997: 10). As in Mesopotamia in the mid-late third millennium BC (Van De Mieroop
2002), these dramatic changes in the nature of occupation at Shahr-i Sokhta in period III, as compared to the
earlier period II, include increased evidence for the use of elite items of status display such as chlorite, ivory and
carnelian beads, and a wooden gaming board similar to the famous “Game of Ur” with all its gaming pieces,
another strong connection with the burgeoning elite societies of Lower Mesopotamia (Figure 9.48) (Piperno
and Salvatori 1983: Figures 6–7, 12; Dunn-Vaturi and Schädler 2006; Cortesi et al. 2008; Sajjadi 2015). In the
Monumental Area in period III, Building 20 displays certain unusual features including very thick walls, red
painted wall-faces, an open portico-style entrance and large central hearths, all suggestive of some public or
official significance (Figure 9.49) (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 3).
These socio-political developments are further emphasised by the removal of craft production activity away
from Shahr-i Sokhta itself to so-called satellite sites such as the 5 ha mounds of Tepe Dasht, 3 km to the
southwest. Rare textiles from Tepe Dasht, made of ovicaprid fibres, can be associated with similar textiles from
period III at Shahr-i Sokhta (Figure 9.50) (Mortazavi et al. 2011b). Excavations at Tepe Dasht indicate the site’s
role as a ceramic production centre serving Shahr-i Sokhta, lacking evidence for residential occupation. Kilns
were used for firing ceramics as well as figurines including both human and animal forms (Figures 9.51–9.52).
Especially notable are figurines in the form of zebu bulls, and it is likely that cow dung was the major source
of fuel for firing the ceramic kilns at Tepe Dasht (Mortazavi 2010) and at the sites of Rud-i Biyaban 1 and
2, which served a similar satellite function for Shahr-i Sokhta (Tosi 1970b, 1972). Rud-i Biyaban 2, 20 km
southeast of Shahr-i Sokhta, was a major focus for ceramic manufacture, with at least 50 chambered kilns
and extensive spreads of slag and wasters (Tosi 1983). Excavations at Tepe Graziani, another site affiliated
Figure 9.47 S hahr-i Sokhta, period III Central Quarter building (after Salvatori and Vidale 1997: Figure 2).
Figure 9.48 Shahr-i Sokhta, period III, wooden gaming board and pieces from catacomb grave 731 (Sajjadi 2015: pl. 8) (images
courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
Figure 9.49 Shahr-i Sokhta, period III, Monumental Area, view and plan of Building 20 (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 3) (im-
ages courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
Figure 9.50 T
epe Dasht, textiles of ovicaprid fibres (after Mortazavi et al. 2011b: Figure 3).
Figure 9.51 Tepe Dasht, animal figurine fragments (after Mortazavi 2010: Figures 7–8).
Figure 9.52 T
epe Dasht, assorted figurine fragments (after Mortazavi 2010: Figures 7–8).
to Shahr-i Sokhta in this period, uncovered mudbrick houses, kilns and areas for craft-working in metal and
precious stone, spanning much of the third millennium BC up to c. 2300 BC and showing strong connections
to Shahr-i Sokhta (Kavosh et al. 2019).
As at Shahr-i Sokhta in all phases (Caloi and Compagnoni 1977; Bökönyi and Bartosiewicz 2000), faunal re-
mains from Graziani are dominated by sheep/goat at 92% of identified species by number. In contrast to Shahr-i
Sokhta, however, at Graziani goat are much more common than sheep, strongly indicative of a pastoral economy
specialised on herding these animals (Mashkour et al. 2019). The very low representation of cattle at Graziani, at
<1%, compared to their 18% representation at Shahr-i Sokhta itself, suggests the possibility that cattle were bred
and raised at satellite sites such as Graziani, partly to provide dung for fuel for the many kilns at those sites, and
then herded to Shahr-i Sokhta for slaughter and consumption there. Given the higher nutritional value, and likely
social status, of sheep over goat and the very high value of beef, these differential patterns of meat consumption
support the interpretation of sites such as Graziani as true satellite settlements to Shahr-i Sokhta. Fish remains
from both Graziani and Shahr-i Sokhta suggest significant exploitation of the riverine and marsh resources of the
Helmand river and its tributaries. In all periods at Shahr-i Sokhta the main crops were wheat, barley and lentils
with significant evidence for cropping of fruits (watermelon, grape, date), nuts (pistachio), vegetables (cucumber,
garlic), herbs and spices (coriander, cumin) (Costantini and Costantini-Biasini 1985; Shirazi 2019).
The physical shift in the location of ceramic production to satellite sites further involved an increased use of
the fast wheel, standardisation in ceramic decoration, and greater use of pot-marks, all indicative of a trend to-
wards craft specialisation and rationalisation. This trend is also attested in some of the period III burials at Shahr-i
Sokhta, with one individual buried with a complete toolkit for working chalcedony and calcite beads (Piperno
1976). Survey of the Sistan plain has detected large numbers of Bronze Age sites, including Tepe Sadegh and
Tappeh Yalda (Mousavi Haji and Mehrafarin 2006, 2009), indicating that Shahr-i Sokhta was situated within a
dense network of contemporary settlements many of which appear to have served it as a central place for craft
production and burial of their dead.
Occupation at Shahr-i Sokhta in period IV, dating to c. 2450–2200 BC, previously believed to have been
reduced in scale from period III (Sajjadi and Moradi 2015, 2016), is shown by new survey to be equally exten-
sive with multiple large buildings (Moradi 2019). A massive Burned Building was excavated at the southeast of
the mound, with an unfortunate youth trapped inside (Biscione 1979). This building appears to have been a
residence for a community of families or an extended family, sharing facilities such as ovens and storerooms. In
the Central Residential Area, excavations in Area 26 exposed a complex of rooms either side of an impressive
buttressed corridor, 50 m long, plus associated suites of rooms (Figures 9.53–9.54) (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016:
Figure 6). Ceramics, including canister jars, incised grey ware and snake-cordoned decorative elements, show
affinities with assemblages from Bampur V-VI as well as links to Namazga V and early VI in Bactria-Margiana
(Tosi 1983; Pittman 2013a: 316; Tahmasebi Zave and Iravani Ghadim 2016). A reputed surface find of a headless
torso sculpture, now in Zahedan Museum, has been suggested as representing a “priest-king” and compared to
contemporary examples from Gonur-depe in Margiana, Mundigak in Afghanistan and Mohenjo-Daro in the
Indus Valley (Vidale 2018c). A major reduction in administrative activity is suggested by the lack of seal evidence,
with only a few baked clay stamp seals attested (Tusa 1977). Following destruction by fire and abandonment, the
last occupation at Shahr-i Sokhta in period 0 consisted of modest “squatter” evidence, with final abandonment of
Figure 9.53 S hahr-i Sokhta, period IV, Area 26 building (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 6) (image courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
Figure 9.54 Shahr-i Sokhta, period IV, Area 26 building (Sajjadi and Moradi 2016: Figure 6) (image courtesy of Hussain Moradi).
the site prior to the appearance of BMAC ceramic evidence in the broader region (see below for BMAC; Biscione
and Vahdati 2021: 541, 546).
Excavations at the small site of Tepe Taleb Khan, 20 km south of Shahr-i Sokhta, have uncovered a sizeable
mudbrick storage depot, dated to 2450–2350 BC, with an adjacent pit containing discarded administrative ar-
tefacts including clay bullae, tokens, miniature vessels, jar sealings with stamp seal impressions, small clay stamp
seals, clay tags, animal and human figurines and possible numerical tablets. This extraordinary assemblage of
items suggests the presence at Tepe Taleb Khan of a group of people exercising meticulous control over the input,
storage and output of commodities of unknown nature, independently of activities centred at Shahr-i Sokhta
itself. Parallels in the stamp seals suggest significant connectivity with the Bactria-Margiana region to the north-
east. Rich archaeobotanical evidence from Tepe Taleb Khan (Kavosh et al. 2020) indicates both the exploitation
of a wide range of cultivated and wild species, and the significantly more favourable climatic conditions of the
region in the mid-late third millennium BC within which societies of the region flourished.
The dead of Shahr-i Sokhta were buried in an immense necropolis, spread over some 30 ha at the southwest
of the site with an estimated total of 20,000–30,000 graves across all periods, of which some 1,000 have been
excavated, most commonly of periods II–III (Tosi and Piperno 1975; Piperno 1976, 1977, 1979, 1986; Piperno
and Salvatori 1982, 1983, 2007; Bonora et al. 2000; Sajjadi 2003, 2005, 2015, 2017; Sajjadi and Casanova 2006;
Sajjadi et al. 2008). Physical anthropological study of hundreds of the recovered skeletons indicates average age at
death of men at 33 and women at 30 years of age, with significant numbers of women, especially, surviving into
older age (Shadmehr et al. 2017). Analysis of tooth wear patterns suggests systematic use of the frontal teeth as “a
third hand” in as yet unidentified craft activities (Sajjadi et al. 2008), likely related to basketry as amply attested in
material form in many of the tombs and in modern ethnographic examples from elsewhere (Smith 1977). Analysis
of aDNA from Shahr-i Sokhta human skeletons suggests a genetically mixed population with significant evidence
for input from an Indus Valley gene pool in the later third millennium BC (Narasimhan et al. 2019).
Grave types include pits with internal mudbrick walls, often lined with split reed matting, niched or domed
chambers with entrance shafts, rare collective graves for successive deposition of bodies, and “memorial buri-
als” with grave goods but no evidence for a human body. The tombs comprising a vertical shaft with adjacent
domed chamber have been characterised as catacomb graves (Figure 9.55), which can contain single or multi-
ple burials, and are interpreted by Sajjadi (2015) as containing the remains of high-status individuals or chiefs
and their immediate family. These tombs, 41 examples of which have been excavated at Shahr-i Sokhta, tend
to be quite elaborate both in their construction and in the quantity and quality of grave goods deposited
within them, including textiles, baskets, metal vessels and jewellery, polychrome pottery and necklaces of
lapis lazuli, carnelian, gold and turquoise as well as occasional cylinder and stamp seals (Sajjadi 2015: table 1). The
Figure 9.55 Shahr-i Sokhta, section through catacomb grave 19 (after Sajjadi 2015: Figure 8).
Shahr-i Sokhta catacomb graves have good parallels at Bronze Age sites in southern Uzbekistan and Central
Asia, with male and female adults and children buried within them as at Shahr-i Sokhta. The wooden game
board with dice and gaming pieces referred to above (Figure 9.48) comes from one of these catacomb graves,
number 731, of a male individual aged 20–25 years, one of the richest graves in the entire cemetery (Figure
9.56) (Sajjadi 2015).
More broadly, goods buried with the dead include young goats, ceramics, beads of turquoise, lapis lazuli and
chalcedony, stone vessels, stamp and cylinder seals (Ameri 2020), with occasional survival of organic materials
such as wood, textiles and hair. The peak of deposition of materials of lapis lazuli occurs in period I (Lazzari and
Vidale 2017: 46). Very early textile evidence includes unusual pieces integrating sheep wool with goat hair (Good
2012), and remains of ancient bread have also been identified within graves (Sajjadi et al. 2008).
Chemical analysis of distinctive stone vials commonly found in female, and occasionally male, graves across
periods I-III shows that they were used as cosmetic containers, holding minerals that could produce colourings
in white, green and blue-green, probably applied to the skin using bird feathers (Vidale et al. 2016). One female
adult burial, dated to 3000–2900 BC, was accompanied by multiple ceramic vessels, a bronze mirror, beads of
lapis lazuli and turquoise and, most strikingly, a possible artificial eye in the form of an engraved bitumen hem-
isphere set into the left eye socket (Figure 9.57) (Sajjadi et al. 2008: Figures 10–12). The convex surface of the
“eye” was finely engraved with a central circle and radiating silver-gold lines that must, in vivo, have presented a
truly startling appearance. Differential modes of burial and deposition of sets of grave goods may be suggestive of
ethnic or cultural grouping of buried individuals. The great variety of styles attested in the ceramic vessels and
other items deposited in graves, showing links to Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, north-eastern Iran and
the Kerman region, as well as the lack of consistency in orientation of graves (Sajjadi 2015, 2017: 325), have raised
the suggestion that “Shahr-i Sokhta was less a true “city” than an enlarged trading entrepôt – a sort of prehistoric
caravanserai – in which merchants and tradesmen from across the Indo-Iranian borderlands congregated to do
business” (Thornton 2012: 600).
The word “tradesmen” (our italics) used in the preceding quote prompts us to highlight the insightful research
of Marta Ameri (2020) on the use of seals at Shahr-i Sokhta (Figure 9.58). Through detailed comparison of, on
the one hand, seals and sealings found in residential areas of the site with, on the other hand, seals deposited in
burials at the site, the majority of which (70%) are with female individuals, Ameri deduces that “it was in fact
women who were responsible for most of the administrative sealing at Shahr-i Sokhta” rightly calling “into
question the often unchallenged assumption that men were by default responsible for administration in ancient
societies” (Ameri 2020: 2). A similar deduction can be made for female administrators at sites in Turkmenistan
such as Gonur-depe and Altyn-depe where seals are also more commonly found in female graves (Ameri 2020:
25). Drawing on the contextual distribution of seals and sealings across the non-cemetery components of the site,
Figure 9.56 Shahr-i Sokhta, catacomb grave 731 (after Sajjadi 2015: Figure 21).
Figure 9.57 Shahr-i Sokhta, grave 6705, plan, view and hemispherical artificial eye (Sajjadi et al. 2008: Figures 7, 10–12) (image
courtesy of S. M. S. Sajjadi and Hussain Moradi)
Figure 9.58 Shahr-i Sokhta, periods II-III, seals of bronze, stone and bone (Ameri 2020: Figure 3) (images courtesy of Marta Ameri
and ISMEO).
Ameri (2020: 12) interprets seal use at Shahr-i Sokhta as principally focused on “local storage and commerce” in
keeping with interpretations of the social hierarchy at the site as segmentary rather than highly stratified.
For over a thousand years Shahr-i Sokhta thus functioned as an extraordinary hub of interregional engagement
and exchange, connecting widely dispersed communities from across much of Southwest and Central Asia and
providing a unique arena for the transmission of materials, artefacts, practices and ideologies, as well as a perma-
nent home for untold thousands of their dead.
Climate collapse: the end of the Bronze Age in south-eastern Iran

At around 2100–1900 BC, the previously flourishing polities of south-eastern Iran all declined and collapsed,
as attested in the abandonment of long-lasting major settlements and craft production centres at Tal-i Iblis,
Konar Sandal South and North, Tepe Yahya, Shahdad and Shahr-i Sokhta, a collapse at least approximately
contemporary with that of the Indus Valley cities to the east (Ratnagar 2004). Evidence from regional surveys
for urban or rural settlement is completely lacking for the period c. 2000–800 BC (Vidali et al. 1976: 250;
Sajjadi 1987; Mortazavi 2007; Pfälzner and Soleimani 2015). As Peter Magee (2013: 493–494) starkly expresses
it, “there is no identifiable Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in southeastern Iran,” a situation that can be as-
sociated with wider geographical trends including in areas adjacent to south-eastern Iran such as Pakistan and
Southeast Arabia where there are similarly extensive breaks in human settlement. Evidence from palaeo-cli-
mate proxies, including from a peat sequence near Jiroft (Gurjazkaite et al. 2018) and sediment cores from Lake
Hamoun in Sistan (Figure 9.59) (Hamzeh et al. 2016), for a significant reduction in summer rainfall patterns
across south-eastern Iran and beyond, caused by southwards drift of the Indian Ocean Summer Monsoon sys-
tem within which south-eastern Iran had been situated (Fleitmann et al. 2003; Fallah et al. 2017), suggests that
the fragile agricultural basis of societies in this region was fatally affected by lack of rainfall from c. 2000 BC,
with the result that significant human settlement of the region ceased for a period of up to 1,200 years, the
earliest Iron Age occupation at Tepe Yahya not commencing until 800 BC (Chapter 11). Evidence for increased
exploitation of drought tolerant species such as zebu cattle in the later third millennium BC (Matthews 2002a;
Verdugo et al. 2019; Frantz et al. 2020) suggests that human communities attempted to adapt to the deteriorating
environments prior to abandoning their towns and villages.
The proneness of Iran to high levels of dust deposition from westerly winds sweeping across Arabia is also likely
to have been a significant driver in ecosystem collapse (Safaierad et al. 2020). An associated factor was the decline
in demand from Mesopotamian and Persian Gulf elite communities for the luxury materials and artefacts pro-
duced by the south-east Iranian centres of production, out-competed by sea-borne traded goods from the Indus
Valley and the Oman peninsula (Thornton 2012: 597). Moreover, the shift in Babylonian attention to the north
and west, exemplified in Hammurabi’s march to Mari and the Middle Euphrates in the 18th century BC and the
subsequent favouring of Cypriot and other copper sources over those of Oman and the east (Weeks 2003), yielded
the final death-knell to significant Mesopotamian engagement with the region. Pollen core evidence from the
Figure 9.59 Lake Hamoun lake core with reconstructions of environments through time (Hamzeh et al. 2016: Figure 2) (image
courtesy of Mahmudy Gharaie).
long drought period spanning c. 2000–800 BC, however, hints at the persistence of low-level human and herded
animal activity in south-eastern Iran, even when agriculture was not being practiced, doubtless in the form of re-
silient mobile pastoralist lifeways that have otherwise not been detected archaeologically (Gurjazkaite et al. 2018).
Terra incognita: north-eastern Iran and its neighbours in the Bronze Age
North-eastern Iran has frequently been seen as a key frontier zone between the oasis communities of Central
Asia, from Turkmenistan north-eastwards, and the upland societies of the Iranian central plateau (Sarianidi 1971;
Tosi 1973–74; Kohl 1984; Cleuziou 1986; Frachetti and Rouse 2012), but our knowledge of north-eastern Iran
throughout the Bronze Age, and the preceding Chalcolithic, is arguably less substantial than that of any other
region of Iran (Figure 9.60) (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Table 1). As Thornton (2013b) notes in his excellent
overview, our lack of information and understanding of this region is due partly to a shortage of concerted pro-
grammes of investigation but, more critically, also to systematic failure of teams to produce full, detailed publi-
cations on the projects that have taken place. This issue affects especially such major sites as Tepe Hissar, Tureng
Tepe, Hotu and Kamarband (Belt) Caves, Shir-i Shian and Sang-e Chakhmaq, although in each case fuller
publications are steadily appearing.
The region of north-eastern Iran, often viewed as “the northeastern frontier of the ancient Near East” (Tosi
1973–74: 21), comprises the Alborz mountains eastwards from Tehran, the Caspian plain to the north of those
mountains including the fertile Gorgan plain and the plains to the south of the Alborz that fringe the great
Dasht-e Kavir. This is a highly distinctive region (Figure 9.61), enjoying relatively abundant water, soil and
mineral resources including, in the Alborz mountains, timber, gold, copper and turquoise, materials highly
cherished by Bronze Age societies of the region and well beyond, as we have seen. Access to and through
Figure 9.60 M
ap of northern Iran and adjacent areas in the Bronze Age and Iron Age (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 1;
Thornton 2013b: Figure 10.1; Vahdati et al. 2019: Figure 1).
north-eastern Iran is geographically restricted as the region is bordered by severely challenging ecotones in
the form of the Dasht-e Kavir to the south, the Turkoman steppe to the north, and the Kopet Dagh moun-
tains to the east. The lifeways of human societies of north-eastern Iran, and their engagement with the worlds
beyond, were greatly shaped by the severe topographic and hydrological variability of their landscapes, char-
acterised by vertical seasonal transhumance of people and animals combined with a transregional east-west
axis of communication and trade with neighbours in Central Asia to the east and north and across Iran and
beyond to the west.
Archaeological engagement with north-eastern Iran (summarised in Mousavi 2008: 107; Piller and Mahfroozi
2009: 3–4; Thornton 2013b: 182–185), starts with the so-called “Astarabad Treasure,” a spectacular hoard of gold
and alabaster vessels, bronze weapons and stone figurines found near the city of Astarabad, modern Gorgan (Fig-
ure 9.62) (de Bode 1844; Rostovtzeff 1920), which encouraged early excavations at mounded sites in the region
of Gorgan, including Tepe Khargush, Tureng Tepe and Shah Tepe (Deshayes 1966, 1969b; Dyson 1991). A major
step forward came with Erich Schmidt’s large-scale excavations at Tepe Hissar near Damghan, swiftly if partially
published by Schmidt (1933, 1937). Other excavated sites, including Belt and Hotu Caves (Coon 1951, 1957), Ali
Tappeh Cave (McBurney 1968), Tureng Tepe (Deshayes 1975) and Yarim Tepe (Stronach 1972) generally lack
adequate full and final publication. Through the 1970s, excavations at the Neolithic site of Sang-e Chakhmaq
(Chapter 5) plus extensive archaeological surveys of regions including the Gorgan plain (Ohtsu et al. 2010), east-
ern Khorasan (Gropp 1995), the Atrak valley (Venco Ricciardi 1980) and the Darreh Gaz plain (Kohl and Heskel
1980) started to construct a chronology for north-eastern Iran and to highlight its interregional connections. In
more recent years, advances in our understanding of north-eastern Iran in its wider context have been led by Ira-
nian archaeologists working on the Gorgan plain at Neolithic Pookerdvall (Yousefi Zoshk and Zeighami 2013),
at the Bronze Age sites of Bazgir and Narges (Nokandeh et al. 2005; Abbasi 2007, 2011, 2015), on the Roshtkhar
plain in Khorasan Razavi province (Rezaei et al. 2019), in Semnan province (Rezvani 1999), renewed work on
Tepe Hissar (Mashkour and Yaghmayi 1998; Roustaei 2010a) and excavations at Gohar Tappe in Mazandaran
Figure 9.61 A lborz mountains in the region of Mt Damavand (photo credit: Petr Kahanek, iStock 1316019339).
Figure 9.62 The Astarabad treasure (after Rostovtzeff 1920: pl. III).
province (Mahfroozi 2003; Piller and Mahfroozi 2009), supported by palaeo-environmental research on key sites
such as Lake Kongor on the Gorgan plain (Shumilovskikh et al. 2016).
Within Bronze Age north-eastern Iran, Thornton (2013b: 185; Biscione 1981) highlights a geographical di-
viding line between communities of the western and eastern halves of the broad region, with material culture of
north-central and eastern Khorasan being wholly different from that of sites to the west in eastern Mazandaran,
Semnan, Golestan and western Khorasan (Garajian 2006; Mousavi 2008; Vahdati and Francfort 2011). Following
Thornton, here we treat these two sub-regions in turn, stressing that the east-west divide in the Bronze Age is
very much in keeping with regional patterns and identities we have already traced in the Neolithic and Chalco-
lithic of north-eastern Iran (Chapters 5–6).
Bronze Age archaeology of Khorasan

While poorly understood, Bronze Age communities of this region participated within the cultural milieu of
Namazga sites of southern Turkmenistan (Masson and Sarianidi 1972; Kohl and Heskel 1980; Kohl 1984; Masson
1992; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 169–171; Gropp 1995; Rahbar 1997; Hiebert 2003), as attested by excavations at site
such as Tepe Borj, Nishapur-P, Shahrak Firoze, Tepe Damghani, Tepe Chalow and Razeh cemetery (Hiebert
and Dyson 2002; Garajian 2006; Vahdati and Francfort 2011; Francfort et al. 2014; Rezaei et al. 2018, 2019; Vah-
dati et al. 2019, 2021; Vahdati and Meier 2019). Within an ill-defined network of relationships between the Kho-
rasan communities and those over and across the Kopet Dagh in southern Turkmenistan, each side maintained
a strong sense of identity, as manifest in variabilities in ceramic assemblages such as the prevalence of burnished
grey wares at Khorasan sites and their rarity at Namazga sites in Turkmenistan (Cleuziou 2011; Thornton 2013b:
186). But the evidence from glyptic, chipped stone technology and metallurgy does indicate significant levels of
cultural connectivity across the broad region (Hiebert and Dyson 2002). The inhabitants of Tepe Damghani
and doubtless other sites of this region in the Early Bronze Age cultivated cereals, pulses and grapes (Figure 9.63),
gathered fruits and nuts, herded sheep and goat, and hunted wild sheep, goat and gazelle. Recovery of charcoal
from Damghani indicates that its environs in the Bronze Age were richer and more varied than today with more
wooded zones and considerable scope for pursuit of mixed hunting/herding/farming lifestyles (Francfort et al.
2014). Overall, however, our understanding of the socio-cultural and economic dynamics of relationships be-
tween Bronze Age societies of far north-eastern Iran and those of the southern fringes of Central Asia remains
significantly underdeveloped.
Bronze Age archaeology of Semnan, Mazandaran and western Khorasan

Turning westwards within north-eastern Iran, the scope and detail of available information become slightly
more helpful in characterising the region’s Bronze Age societies, even if major aspects such as the relationships
between the highland and lowland zones of this region are presently “a complete mystery,” not least because of
inadequate publication of excavated sites (Thornton 2013b: 187). Renewed investigation of Tepe Hissar (Dyson
and Howard 1989; Roustaei 2010; Thornton et al. 2013) enabled situation of Schmidt’s results within more secure
chronological and geographical contexts, in particular underlining the significance of Tepe Hissar in period II
(c. 3400–3000 BC) as a major regional centre for processing of lapis lazuli, alabaster, copper alloys and lead/silver
(Pigott 1989; Tosi 1989; Roustaei 2004; Thornton 2009, 2012). From the early third millennium BC, ceramic
assemblages across north-central and north-eastern Iran are marked by the presence of monochrome grey wares
that steadily replace the local burnished, incised or painted ceramic styles, as at Tepe Hissar in periods II-III
(Dyson 1991; Cleuziou 2011).
Figure 9.63 T
epe Damghani, seed and fruit remains (after Francfort et al. 2014: pl. 11).
Identifiable impact of the Proto-Elamite horizon on north-eastern Iran was minimal, as we saw in Chapter
7. While settlement at Tepe Hissar, period IIIA, appears to subside in conjunction with the collapse of the Pro-
to-Elamite phenomenon, Bronze Age occupation of the eastern Caspian littoral zones thrives during the earlier
third millennium BC, with Tureng Tepe on the Gorgan plain arguably replacing Tepe Hissar as the major focus
of lapis lazuli processing from 3000 BC (Wulsin 1932; Deshayes 1968, 1969a, 1975; Olson and Thornton 2021).
The mounds of Tureng, up to 35 m high and 35 ha in area, form one of the most important sites of the Gorgan
plain and are subject to ongoing programmes of publication of both the French (Bessenay-Prolonge and Vallet
2019) and the American (Olson 2012, 2020; Olson and Thornton 2021) excavations at the site that exposed levels
dating from Late Chalcolithic to Iron Age (Figure 9.64).
This material richness is matched at Parkhai II in the Sumbar valley in south-western Turkmenistan where
Early Bronze Age graves contained a wealth of lapis, silver and other artefacts (Khlopin 2002), which may be con-
nected to the rise of major trade and consumption centres in the Namazga IV period of southern Turkmenistan,
including Ak-depe and Altyn-depe (Masson 1992; Thornton 2013b: 192). In the early third millennium BC,
occupation at the site of Gohar Tappe in eastern Mazandaran expanded to some 30 ha with a massive mudbrick
city wall, making it one of the most substantial sites of the broader region, with the settlement reducing in scale
through the later third millennium BC (Figure 9.65) (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009; Piller 2012c).
Other key sites of the late fourth-early third millennia BC of eastern Mazandaran include Tepe Kelar, Ghal-e Kesh
and Ghal-e Ben (Figure 9.66) where significant occupation spans c. 3200–1500 BC (Afshar et al. 2019; Fazeli Nashli
et al. in press-a). These sites have burnished grey ware ceramics indicating strong connections with north-eastern Iran
and, as mentioned in Chapter 8, they represent the eastern limits of the spread of ETC ceramics in the mid-third mil-
lennium BC. This is a heavily forested region differing in character considerably from the plains of the north-central
plateau and north-eastern Iran. Subsistence depended on a combination of animal husbandry and cultivation. Faunal
remains from Ghal-e Ben include cattle, sheep, goat and pig, while cereals and pulses were grown.
In the mid-later third millennium BC, Tepe Hissar (level IIIB) returned to regional prominence, as attested
by many rich burials (Schmidt 1937: 232–261; Afshar 2017) as well as exotic finds from the Burned Building
including an elaborate hearth or household shrine with niches in the form of seated female figures (Figures
9.67–9.68) (Dyson 1972, 1977b). Items of material culture at this time, including fine, pattern-burnished grey
ware, beads, pins and pendants, and fenestrated braziers from Gohar Tappe and Tureng Tepe, amongst other
sites, demonstrate a high level of achievement in the production of quality artefacts, some of which may have
had cultic functions (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009; Olson 2012). There is also significant evidence in the form of
decorated bronze, ceramic and soft-stone artefacts, mainly from illicit excavations, for engagement of commu-
nities of the north-eastern region with their contemporaries in the Kerman-Jiroft region to the south (Vahdati
and Meier 2019).
Figure 9.64 Tureng Tepe, Mound C, copper/bronze objects (Olson and Thornton 2021: Figure 10). a: TT392; b: UPM 32–41–44/
TT540; c: TT113; d: UPM 32–41–45/TT541). Not to scale (images courtesy of Kyle Olson/UPM).
Figure 9.65 Gohar Tappe, contour plan of the mound (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Ali Mahfroozi
and Christian Piller).
Figure 9.66 Ghal-e Ben, aerial view of the site (photo credit: Loghman Ahmadzadeh and Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
Figure 9.67 Tepe Hissar, excavations of Burned Building in 1932 (after Dyson 1977a: 419).
Figure 9.68 T
epe Hissar, plan of Burned Building (after Dyson 1977a: 420).
BMAC and the end of the Bronze Age in north-eastern Iran

In concert with almost all other areas of Iran, the north-eastern regions of Iran host a major decline in settlement
and in evident socio-political complexity at the turn of the third-second millennia BC. At Tepe Hissar, the so-
phisticated architecture of level IIIB was replaced by poorly planned structures at the start of Hissar IIIC (Schmidt
1937: 155), at the same time as the appearance of >400 richly furnished elite burials (Schmidt 1937: 306), while at
Tureng Tepe a massive two-stepped high terrace of mudbrick was built, covering some 5500 m 2 and parallel-
ing examples of similar date in Central Asia (Figure 9.69) (Deshayes 1977; Bessenay-Prolonge and Vallet 2019).
The terrace is provisionally dated to the mid-late third millennium BC, as is a series of up to 80 distinctive an-
thropomorphic “naked woman” clay figurines (Figure 9.70) (Bessenay-Prolonge 2017; Olson 2020: Figures 6–7).
Detailed contextual analysis by Kyle Olson (2020) indicates that the Tureng figurines were recovered in distinct
clusters in association with other materials in areas of domestic occupation and only once in a human burial, and
that they may have fulfilled important roles within the context of personal and social identity with a focus on
issues of adornment. At least 150 Bronze Age and Iron Age burials were also excavated at Tureng, with grave
goods indicating widespread connections to Central Asia as well as to south-eastern Iran (Bessenay-Prolonge and
Vallet 2019). Connections eastwards as far as the Indus Valley are attested by etched carnelian beads and other
artefacts in small quantities (Chakrabarti and Moghadam 1977; Possehl 2012). Tureng Tepe was abandoned by c.
1700–1600 BC and subsequently reoccupied in the Iron Age.
At approximately the same time, items of material culture related to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological
Complex (or Culture; BMAC or Namazga V–VI), c. 2250–1700 BC, also known as the Oxus Civilization
Figure 9.69 Tureng Tepe, main mound under excavation in 1975 (Bessenay-Prolonge and Vallet 2019: Figure 2) (image courtesy
of Regis Vallet).
Figure 9.70 T
ureng Tepe, anthropomorphic figurines (Olson 2020: Figure 6). Photographs of the University of Pennsylvania
Museum Corpus; 1–32–41–69, TT#025; 2–32–41–68, TT#024; 3–32–41–67, TT#348; 4–32–41–62, TT#643;
5–32–41–64, TT#364; 6–32–41–42 TT#577; 7–32–41-25, TT#648; 8–32–41–65, TT#321; 9–32–41–66, TT#323;
10–32–41–70, TT#174; 11–32–41–63, TT#269; Used with permission from the Near Eastern Section of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum, photographs 1 and 5–11 by Kyle Olson (images courtesy of Kyle Olson/UPM).
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994; Lyonnet and Dubova 2021) or the Greater Khorasan Civilization or GKC (Vahdati
et al. 2019; Biscione and Vahdati 2021: 543), are found at sites across north-eastern Iran, sometimes with lo-
cal grey ware pottery (Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002: 69–73; Vidale 2018a;
Biscione and Vahdati 2021). The north-eastern corner of Iran, including the regions of Mashhad, Nishapur and
Sabzevar, along with much of south-western Turkmenistan, centring on the Kopet Dagh, can be characterised
as a formative area for the BMAC, with subsequent west and southwards expansion of BMAC cultural traits into
Khorasan and Sistan (Biscione and Vahdati 2021: Figure 19.2). Characteristic BMAC items include distinctive
grooved stone columns as found on top of the high terrace at Tureng Tepe (Deshayes 1975; Bessenay-Prolonge
and Vallet 2019), in period IIa at Shah Tepe (Arne 1945: 282), elite burials and hoards in period IIIC at Tepe Hissar
(Schmidt 1937: pl. 61; Afshar et al. 2019), burials at Narges Tappeh (Abbasi 2007) and prestige objects including
a striking silver vessel with depictions of real and mythological animals from excavations at Shahrak Firoze in
Neyshabour (Figure 9.71) (Basafa and Davari 2019: Figures 2–3), and a composite figurine from a looted grave
at Gavand (Figure 9.72) (Biscione and Vahdati 2021: Figure 19.4). The poorly understood site of Tepeh Ferizi
on the Sabzevar plain of western Khorasan appears to have been a very large BMAC settlement (Garazhian and
Papoli Yazdi 2005; Sabori 2014). A BMAC grave within a possible cemetery encountered during building work
at Tepe Eshgh near Bojnord yielded a human and a dog skeleton accompanied by vessels of Namazga VI type.
Traces of ash and burning in the Tepe Eshgh grave match the evidence for similarly fiery funerary practices across
the BMAC world, likely connected with shared religious beliefs (Vahdati 2014). Excavations at Bazgir on the
Gorgan plain have uncovered an elite burial contemporary with Hissar IIIC comprising a copper-lined cham-
ber containing some 700 high-status objects, principally copper and bronze vessels (Nokandeh et al. 2005). The
unique Astarabad Treasure (Figure 9.62), found near Gorgan, contains both elements of BMAC style, including
miniature “trumpets,” echoing real trumpets found at BMAC sites such as Gonur-depe and at Tepe Hissar and
Shahdad and possibly used in elite hunting activities (Lawergren 2003), and also items connected more to local
Hissar IIIC assemblages, such as female figurines made of stone plates.
Figure 9.71 Shahrak Firoze, silver vessel (Basafa and Davari 2019: Figures 2–3) (images courtesy of Hassan Basafa).
Figure 9.72 Gavand, southern Khorasan, composite figurine from a looted grave (Biscione and Vahdati 2021: Figure 19.4) (image
courtesy of Ali Vahdati).
Figure 9.73 Tepe Chalow, BMAC ceramics from graves (Vahdati et al. 2019: Figures 10–11) (image courtesy of Ali Vahdati).
Figure 9.74 T
epe Chalow, grave goods from BMAC graves (Vahdati et al. 2019: Figures 17–18) (images courtesy of Ali Vahdati).
Strikingly, at few of these sites are there significant traces of Namazga V–VI pottery, with the notable excep-
tion of the rich BMAC cemetery at the large site of Tepe Chalow near Sankhvast east of Jajarm, the western-
most manifestation of a significant BMAC presence (Figures 9.73–9.74) (Biscione and Vahdati 2011; Sołtysiak
et al. 2016b; Dana and Hozhabri 2019: 132–134; Vahdati et al. 2019, 2021). Surface ceramics at Chalow indicate
occupation over an area of some 40 ha spanning Late Chalcolithic to Late Bronze Age, the locus of settlement
shifting horizontally according to westwards avulsions of the Darband river (Vahdati et al. 2019). BMAC-style
and other finds at Chalow, principally from excavated graves, include a stone rod or sceptre, carved stone weights
or “hand-bags,” tanged daggers, items of jewellery and grooved stone columns. Faunal remains from Chalow
are dominated by sheep-goat but with significant representation of cattle and equids, while archaeobotanical
evidence suggests storage of grape products, possibly wine, in ceramic vessels and cultivation of barley and wheat
with an absence of pulses. Ceramics from Chalow show connections both eastwards with the world of BMAC
as well as westwards with sites on the Gorgan plain and the Damghan region, such as Shah Tepe and Tureng
Tepe. The location of Chalow on an important route connecting the Gorgan plain with Nishapur and beyond
was clearly significant in facilitating the cosmopolitan nature attested in its surviving material remains, and it is
possible that transregional trade in wine formed a major part of economic activity at this time (Tengberg 2013).
Alongside the evidence from Tepe Yahya IVA (see above), these occurrences of BMAC culture in Iran, along
with craniometric measurements of human remains from Hissar IIIC, suggest the movement of BMAC peoples
and materials into Iran at c. 2000 BC (Hiebert 1998; Hemphill 1999). Such movement, possibly by means of
wheeled carts pulled by bulls as attested in model form at Altyn-depe (Kirtcho 2009) as well as by the horses,
donkeys and Bactrian camels attested at BMAC sites in Central Asia (Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992:
3; Bonora 2021: 747–753), may have been stimulated by a desire of BMAC communities to gain closer access
to the material resources of Iran and neighbouring regions, above all semi-precious stones and metals, which
feature prominently at BMAC sites (Francfort 2005; Sarianidi and Dubova 2010; Frachetti and Rouse 2012:
695). In their pioneering analysis, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky (1992: 11) characterise the BMAC as “a
facsimile of a state structured polity of power” that underwent an episode of dramatic expansion into eastern
Iran followed by an equally dramatic collapse. Recent aDNA analysis intriguingly suggests dominant genetic
inheritance, up to 65%, by BMAC populations from ancestral Iranian Neolithic populations ultimately deriv-
ing from the central Zagros (Narasimhan et al. 2019). In a sense, then, in migrating to Iran incoming BMAC
peoples were returning to their erstwhile distant homeland. Beyond the formative and core zones of the
BMAC in north-eastern and eastern Iran, BMAC impacts and influences can be traced in material evidence
distributed over a much wider extent of Iran, as far west as Susa in Khuzestan (Mutin and Lamberg-Karlovsky
2021). As mentioned above, many of the burials at Shahdad include objects such as stone containers, ceramics
and metal axes and seals showing strong BMAC connections.
Steinkeller (2014b) draws on texts and archaeological evidence to propose that Tukrish, a toponym often
mentioned in Mesopotamian texts alongside Marhashi, Meluhha and Makkan, and renowned as a source of lapis
lazuli and gold as well as of finished luxury objects, may have been the ancient name of the BMAC homeland.
Detailed analysis of the material evidence from both southern Iran and western Central Asia in the mid-later
third millennium BC paints a picture of “an integrated cultural complex of two distinctive civilizations prob-
ably developed on a reciprocal utility where the nomadic entities played an important role in the transmission
of artistic elaborations, writing systems, beliefs, traditions, and knowledge” (Ascalone 2014: 14). A fundamental
attribute of the region at large was the recurrent interaction between settled farmers and more mobile pastoralist
groups. While the large-scale Oxus or BMAC settlements of southern Turkmenistan, the Murghab alluvial fan
in particular, were founded upon intensive agricultural exploitation of the alluvium, at the same time the evi-
dence from contemporary pastoralist campsites on the Murghab plain suggests that farmers and pastoralists, while
engaged in mutually beneficial technological and material exchanges retained their distinct identities through
many centuries of engagement, as manifest in differing ceramic traditions (pastoralist: handmade, coarse; farmer:
wheelmade, fine) and food procurement strategies (pastoralist: sheep-goat, minimal plants; farmer: cattle, sheep-
goat, cereals, pulses) (Rouse and Cerasetti 2018).
In any case, by the turn of the third-second millennia BC the overall impression is of collapse on a massive
scale across all of eastern Iran and well beyond. As discussed above with regard to the end of the Bronze Age
in south-eastern Iran, to what extent this episode of collapse in the northeast can be associated with a suggested
downturn in rainfall leading to agricultural failure (Fouache et al. 2010; Walker and Fattahi 2011; Sharifi et al. 2015;
Shumilovskikh et al. 2016), or to over-exploitation by human communities of natural resources (Mousavi 2008),
or both, is difficult to address with available palaeo-environmental evidence from the region, but the scale of the
collapse argues for a cause or causes of supra-regional significance. Evidence for Indus Valley connections with Iran,
albeit slight, also breaks down at about this time and does not reappear for many centuries (Possehl 2012: 769).
In sum, as Thornton argues (2013b: 195), north-eastern Iran can reasonably be viewed as both an interregional
frontier zone between the greater Near East to the west and Central Asia to the east, and an intraregional frontier
zone between Khorasan to the east and Semnan, Gorgan, Damghan and Mazandaran to the west. These dual
dynamics of intercultural interaction, at the local and transregional scales, combined with the mineral and arable
wealth of much of the region, acted as powerful drivers in structuring relationships between towns, villages and,
perhaps, states throughout the Bronze Age of north-eastern Iran and its neighbours.
It is difficult to trace developments across eastern Iran in the centuries following the late third-early second
millennia BC collapse. At Tepe Hissar, early second millennium BC levels are attested only by ceramic and metal
finds and the site is then abandoned until the early first millennium BC (Schmidt 1937; Bovington et al. 1974;
Mousavi 2008:110; Roustaei 2010a; Thornton 2013b: 195), while other sites to the northeast such as Bazgir,
Narges and Tureng Tepe have evidence of late BMAC occupation contemporary with Namazga VI, with Late
Bronze Age occupation at Tureng Tepe ending by c. 1700 BC, as is also the case at Yarim Tepe (Gorgan), Shah
Tepe and Tepe Chalow (Deshayes 1967, 1973; Nokandeh et al. 2006; Abbasi 2007; Mousavi 2008). Concerning
the centuries of the Late Bronze Age in eastern Iran, c. 1800–1250 BC, we are more or less completely in the
dark, with rare points of light from levels at Ghal-e Ben, Gohar Tappe, where well-furnished graves have been
excavated (Figure 9.75) (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009; Sołtysiak and Mahfroozi 2009; Sołtysiak et al. 2010b), and
an unpublished cemetery at Shahrud and perhaps at Tureng Tepe too (Deshayes 1973; Mousavi 2008). Other
cemeteries at Djamshidabad west of the Sefid Rud and in the Talesh region suggest a significant Late Bronze Age
presence across the southern Caspian region, about which we know very little (Piller 2012: 125).
Surveys of the Roshtkhar plain in Khorasan Razavi province bordering Afghanistan to the east and Turkmen-
istan to the northeast, and of the Bojnord, Jajarm, Darreh Gaz and Esfarayen plains in North Khorasan province,
have detected sites of both Late Bronze Age (Namazga VI) and Early Iron Age date, the latter characterised
by exclusively handmade ceramics of so-called Yaz I type indicating influence from Turkmenistan at this time
(Chapter 11; Kohl and Heskel 1980; Boucharlat et al. 2005; Vahdati 2014: 26, 2016, 2018; Dana and Hozhabri
2019; Rezaei et al. 2019). Understandably, the material traces of the Yaz culture of southern Turkmenistan have
been designated as “strikingly utilitarian” (Buławka 2017: 143) in marked contrast to the luxury-laden hierarchi-
cal societies of the region in the preceding centuries of the Bronze Age.
Eastern Iran in the Bronze Age: the nature of society

How most effectively might we interpret the wealth and diversity of material evidence so far recovered from
the Bronze Age societies of eastern Iran as reviewed above? How were the societies of the region structured and
organised? Can they usefully be compared with their contemporaries in other regions of Southwest Asia such as
Lower Mesopotamia, Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia? What were the critical factors shaping the rise, devel-
opment and final collapse of the Bronze Age societies of eastern Iran? In this concluding section we address these
questions in a more synthetic manner, while admitting that much of our understanding needs further enhance-
ment from systematic programmes of radiocarbon dating and the integrated application of scientific archaeology
and palaeo-environmental research. Much work remains to be done.
Figure 9.75 Gohar Tappe, Late Bronze Age grave AJ2XX-2 (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 6) (image courtesy of Ali Mah-
froozi and Christian Piller).
Firstly, there can be little doubting the key role of climate and environment both in enabling the rise and thriv-
ing of the societies of Bronze Age eastern Iran, and in precipitating or furthering the collapse of those societies,
at least in the form of large-scale, settled communities, at some time around the end of the third millennium
BC. As we have stressed, the environments of eastern Iran, in particular, could be extremely harsh so that even
small changes in precipitation, dust deposition or temperature regimes could have had devastating consequences
for the availability of water and the viability of associated arable agriculture, pasturing and human settlement.
While the fluorescence of the Early Bronze Age societies of south-eastern Iran appears to have occurred within a
context of increased precipitation and decreased dust deposition in the earlier third millennium BC, as revealed
by a Jazmurian sediment core (Vaezi et al. 2019), a major reversal of these environmental trends across the region
in the latter third millennium BC (Gurjazkaite et al. 2018) led directly to agricultural collapse and the large-scale
abandonment of settlements in eastern Iran and well beyond. We would expect there to have been major move-
ments of people associated with this collapse, migrating to more favourable areas of Iran and adjacent regions,
but our archaeological resolution is not fine enough to detect these movements. Some palaeo-environmental
evidence hints at on ongoing low-scale human presence even through the darkest decades, but our insight into
this episode is minimal.
The Early Bronze Age polities of south-eastern Iran have been characterised as sharing “similar lifeways based
on agricultural production and intensive craft production within a ranked society of low complexity” (Pittman
2013a: 317; see also Pittman 1984; Kohl 2007: 225–231). What is the evidence for this distinctive characterisation?
Many aspects of the development of complex societies in all of Iran through the Bronze Age remain obscure and
hugely under-researched. To take one major instance, when we discuss the issue of “urban” or “urban-scale” sites
and societies in Iran, what do we really understand about how major sites such as Konar Sandal or Shahr-i Sokhta
operated at this time? How were they structured, who was in control, was control consensual or coercive, and
what kept high densities of people together beyond a need to nurture, feed and protect themselves? At what level
were decisions made about the allocation of land, access to cherished resources, participation in civil projects,
timing and scale of religious festivals and construction of communal buildings, for example? Given the mounting
evidence for considerable global diversity in the pathways people pursued to early urbanism (Feinman 2018), can
the development of complex societies in the Late Chalcolithic (Chapter 6) and into the Early Bronze Age of Iran
(Chapters 7–10) be usefully compared with other attested examples of pristine urban development such as those in
Lower Mesopotamia, or in Upper Mesopotamia where a distinctive early urban pattern of extensive low-density
occupation zones and flexible use of urban space has been discerned as characteristic (McMahon 2020) that might
serve as a model for early Iranian urbanisation?
In a volume devoted to “the development of urbanisation, production and trade” on the Bronze Age Iranian
plateau, Jan-Waalke Meyer et al. (2019: 353) suggest that during the third millennium BC only Shahr-i
Sokhta, Konar Sandal and Shahdad, and possibly Tall-i Malyan, can be considered as truly urban centres,
with more “clearly visible urbanisation” developing only in the Old Elamite period in Khuzestan (Chap-
ter 10) from c. 2000 BC. While sites such as Shahdad and Shahr-i Sokhta are undoubtedly urban in scale,
achieving areal extents of up to 200 ha, we have little idea of the intensity and density of occupation at
any single period and we also need to consider the impact of horizontal stratigraphy by which the foci of
settlement may have drifted across the settled area according to the rise and fall of individual households or
other micro-environmental factors. Excessive erosion and deflation by wind of entire levels of settlement
at long-lasting sites also contribute to the challenges in investigating diachronic settlement histories at the
Bronze Age sites of eastern Iran. In some cases, all that remains of entire towns is the deepest pits and graves
dug below the occupation layers of the settlement.
Even basic features of early Iranian urban-scale sites such as estimates of areal occupation period by period,
identification of urban zones for residential quarters, craft areas, open spaces, temples and palaces, relations of
urban populations with their hinterlands and their contemporary urban and rural communities near and far re-
main largely hidden in the shadows of Iran’s past (Sajjadi 2015), with some notable exceptions as explored in this
chapter, and are likely to do so for some time to come. As articulated by Eskandari (2019: 202),
the EBA urbanization of southeastern Iran can be approached through our increasing knowledge of large
and densely populated centers, an increased understanding of the patterns of occupation surrounding these
centers, socio-economic stratification, long distance trade, craft specialization and an emergence of mana-
gerial agencies.
These are all key issues where significant advances in knowledge need to be made before we can satisfactorily
address the specifics of early Iranian urban societies.
With the currently modest exception of the Linear Elamite texts from Konar Sandal South and Shahdad, a
notable feature of the societies of eastern Iran is the shortage of evidence for writing, an absence that Hiebert and
Lamberg-Karlovsky (1992: 11, italics in original) insist should not disqualify large settlements of the region from
being classified as cities:
We note that within the context of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley, the designation of a commu-
nity as a “city” is usually taken to be coterminous with the emergence of the state and literacy. On the vast
stretches of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia archaeologists have been reticent to use the term “city” for
certain settlements and restrained in arguing for the presence of “state” polities. We believe that this view is
not only in error but that it continues to submerge the central importance of both particular sites and entire
regions within this vast area. Altyn-depe, Mundigak, Shahr-i Sokhta, and Shahdad, are but a few examples
of important cities within their respective geographical domains. Within each of their locales excavations
and surveys have offered abundant evidence that these cities held sway over the economic and political de-
velopment of the surrounding region.
Holly Pittman’s (2019) suggestion that the widespread use of cylinder seals in south-eastern Iran and the asso-
ciated glyptic iconography may have in effect stood in for writing to some extent addresses this issue as well. It
might further be argued that the very lack of evidence for writing amongst the societies of eastern Iran through-
out the third millennium BC, after and in contrast to the brief Proto-Elamite horizon, coupled with the great
diversity and interregional connectivity of glyptic iconography attested at many of the major sites of the region,
is suggestive of a less centralised organisation of economic activity amongst and between these communities. In
Chapter 7 we saw that in the Proto-Elamite case, the role of writing was above all to administer and control the
rural economy with no obvious concern for transregional trade and exchange. We have no evidence for central-
ised control of economic activity within the societies of Bronze Age eastern Iran after the Proto-Elamite horizon.
How then might trade and exchange have been organised?
Trade was clearly of some significance to the societies of eastern Iran, even if production of high-quality goods
appears to have been above all for local consumption, in life and in death. Still, the necessary raw materials had to
be obtained and many finished items were traded on in multiple directions. Do the Konar Sandal South sealings
allow us to envision a system of “merchant-like, commercial, behavior” as Pittman (2019: 284) argues? If so, we
have little idea of the societal mechanics of how such trade was organised and controlled, including the possible
role of markets (Lamberg-Karlovsky 2009). The absence of evidence for state-level bureaucratic involvement in
any aspect of economic activity, however, suggests that trade may have been organised and conducted at lower-scale
levels, such as between individual families, households or neighbourhoods, to each of whom specific seals or
groups of seals may have belonged, styled according to their owners’ homeland, family affiliation or other distinc-
tive attribute. The diversity of iconography might further attest a role of key sites such as Konar Sandal South and
Shahr-i Sokhta as “intermediary markets” (Casanova 2019: 308), where people from widely dispersed regions of
Southwest and Central Asia went specifically to engage in trade. Future studies of clay sealings, including from
a functional point of view, and through analyses such as pXRF of sealing clays, could usefully inform on issues
such as these (Matthews and Richardson 2018, 2020).
One surprising absence, including at key sites such as Tepe Hissar and Tepe Yahya, in the material evidence
for trade across eastern Iran in the Bronze Age is tin, in sharp contrast to Luristan in western Iran where tin is
commonly attested, as we saw in Chapter 8. This absence is notable because of the known tin sources in Afghan-
istan/Bactria where lapis lazuli and other materials were being sourced by these same communities (Cuénod et al.
2015). It seems that the inhabitants of Luristan were able to access tin readily from their proximate sources at Deh
Hosein (Pigott 2021), while communities of the east were either conservatively retaining their pre-tin modes
of bronze production, or for some reason were excluded from the Bactrian tin trade by competitors such as the
burgeoning Sumerian cities of Lower Mesopotamia.
More positive evidence for east-west engagement by the mid-later third millennium BC comes in the form of
arguably high-status games, in particular the so-called “Game of 20 Squares,” which may have been connected
to divination (Dunn-Vaturi and Schädler 2006: 19). Such board games have been recovered from sites in Lower
Mesopotamia – the famous “Royal Game of Ur” – and from Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Yahya and the Jiroft region in
eastern Iran, as detailed above. Coupled with the evidence for the development of palatial architecture as attested
in period III at Shahr-i Sokhta and at several cities of Lower Mesopotamia, this evidence suggests that in the
decades prior to their collapse the societies of south-eastern Iran, at least, may have shifted towards a more elite-
driven model of social organisation with increasingly centralised control over resource distribution, but as ever
the evidence on this point is in need of significant augmentation only future research may provide.
10 Elam in the world of Bronze Age Southwest
Asia, 2900–1100 BC
Elam: key issues

In previous chapters we have recurrently traced the dynamics of interaction between the societies of the Iranian
upland regions and the adjacent Mesopotamian plains to their west, singling out the site of Susa as a nexus of
cultural change in the later prehistoric periods. Fundamental to shifting political, cultural and economic relations
between Elam, the Iranian highlands and the Mesopotamian lowlands in the Bronze Age, as in all periods, was
the differential distribution of key resources such as metals, timber and semi-precious stones including carnelian
and lapis lazuli, and the diverse routeways and means, peaceful or otherwise, employed by powerful lowland
states to secure access to those resources (see Figure 9.1) (T. Potts 1993, 1994). From the start of the Bronze
Age onwards we are able for the first time to combine the sources and approaches of archaeology and history,
of a kind, in addressing the past of a significant region of Iran (Niknami and Hozhabri 2020 contains valuable
overviews of the archaeology of several of Iran’s historical periods). As ever, we need to exercise caution and nu-
anced awareness in following such an integrated agenda. The divergent research strategies of archaeologists and
historians, individually and according to their disciplinary traditions and capabilities, mean that the integration
of multiple strands of evidence is challenging. In this chapter we continue to maintain the focus specifically on
the archaeological evidence and issues while taking advantage of the fact that, for the first time, we are able to
provide chronological frameworks that incorporate, however tentatively, the evidence from historical documents
alongside the archaeology including, for example, excavated stratified sequences with Elamite ceramic and met-
alworking assemblages (Gasche 1973; Bridey 2018; McCall 2018).
At the same time in a manner very different from archaeology, the historical evidence provides us with
tantalising glimpses of specific Iranian individuals and their characters that add a new type of life to the ma-
terial evidence of the past addressed through archaeology. Elamite and Elam-related texts from the third to
first millennia BC enable historians to address issues that may significantly complement approaches through
ahistorical archaeological evidence (as richly recounted throughout the synthetic studies in Álvarez-Mon
et al. 2018a). Thus, investigations of important areas such as the role of women in ancient Elam (Daems 2018;
Dabbagh 2019), including as depicted in Elamite art (Carter 2014), the nature of religious beliefs, festivals and
cultic practices (Quintana 2018), the intricacies of bureaucratic procedures (Basello and Giovinazzo 2018),
and all other aspects of Elamite “cuneiform culture” (Basello and Ascalone 2018) each make their contribu-
tion to an ever-richer picture of lifeways in ancient Elam. But where and what is “Elam”? As ever, we need
to begin by getting our bearings.
The name “Elam” comes not from the local peoples of the region so designated but is a name devised and
applied from outside, “coined by Mesopotamian scribes gazing across the alluvium towards the Iranian plateau,
who imposed it from without on the disparate regions of highland southwest Iran and its peoples,” as expressed
by Daniel Potts in his masterful account of the history and archaeology of this region of Iran (Potts 2016: 1;
Zadok 2018a). Moreover, the Mesopotamian designation “Elam” referred to differing extents of Iran through
time, ranging from Khuzestan and the entire Iranian uplands in the third-second millennia BC to the restricted
region of Susiana by the first millennium BC, rendering it especially difficult to localise names of towns and riv-
ers attested in Mesopotamian and Elamite texts (Vallat 1993; Desset 2017; Rashidian 2019). An early convincing
naming of Elam comes from Sumerian cuneiform texts of the Early Dynastic III period, c. 2550 BC, where the
sign NIM, meaning “high” or “elevated,” almost certainly refers to Elam (Zadok 1994: 37–38; Álvarez-Mon
2012: 740, 2016; Álvarez-Mon et al. 2018b: 1; Schrakamp in press). Earlier occurrences of NIM in texts of Late
Uruk and Jemdet Nasr date, including lists of female slaves from NIM.KI (KI signifying “land” or “place”) do
not definitely refer to Elam (Potts 2016: 80; Desset 2017: 3–4). But it is not until the early second millennium
BC that an Elamite individual, Siwe-palar-huhpak, uses an indigenous term for Elam, “Hatamti” (Desset 2017:
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-10
Bronze Age Southwest Asia 341
7), and even then, it is unlikely that the peoples and societies living in south-western Iran at that time regarded
themselves as belonging to a distinct unified region.
In keeping with the recurrent lack of an indigenous sense of unified political identity, the geographical borders
of Elam were fluid through time but in broad terms we can trace the maximum extent of Elam on a map (Figure
10.1) as reaching from the central Zagros in the northwest to the eastern border of Fars in the southeast, with the
low-lying region of Khuzestan as a key zone of intercultural interaction always at the heart of Elam (Petrie et al.
2018). As Javier Álvarez-Mon (2012: 740; see also Álvarez-Mon 2020: xxxiii–xxxv) eloquently sets out regarding
the significance of its geography:
The appearance of Elam as a political and cultural notion is deeply entrenched in the unique lowland-highland
physical setting provided by the Iranian provinces of Khuzestan and Fars. This setting was responsible for con-
ditioning the material wealth, cultural resiliency and longevity characterizing Elamite civilization. It also deter-
mined the political history of Elam as an empire by providing a buffer or retreat zone that allowed for the periodic
mustering of expansionistic ambitions upon neighboring political entities.
Khuzestan and the early Elamite state

Khuzestan in south-western Iran (Figure 10.1) was of unique significance in the dynamics of Iran-Mesopotamia
relations, situated directly between the fertile riverine plains and marshes of Lower Mesopotamia and the uplands
of the Iranian plateau with their rich human, animal, mineral and material resources. Throughout prehistory and
early history, as explored in earlier chapters, the Khuzestan plains were connected to the Mesopotamian lowlands
by accessible water and land routes, while at the same time providing direct access to and from the upland zone
to the east. The Khuzestan plains (Figure 10.2) were highly fertile, capable of supporting large-scale, urban set-
tlements based on intensive agriculture and animal management. In particular, the plains of Mehran, Deh Luran,
Izeh, Susiana and Ram Hormuz are all of major significance in examining the shifting relationships between the
Bronze Age polities of Iran and Mesopotamia (Álvarez-Mon 2012, 2013a). Once more, Susa provides the most
Figure 10.1 M
ap of western Iran and Mesopotamia, with key sites.
342 Bronze Age Southwest Asia
Figure 10.2 V
iew of Zohreh plain, Khuzestan, in region of Tol-e Chega Sofla (photo credit: Abbas Moghaddam).
informative archaeological evidence while the historical evidence, particularly from the later centuries of this
period, originates from a range of locales both within and beyond Elam, but from Mesopotamia above all. Let us
establish the chronological framework before examining the evidence in detail.
Susa in the third millennium BC: chronology of Susa IIIB-C, Susa IV and Susa V
Following the collapse of the Proto-Elamite “state” at c. 2900–2800 BC (Chapter 7), Susa’s material culture was
increasingly impacted by Sumerian and then Akkadian influences from Lower Mesopotamia (Figure 10.3; Table
10.1) (Steve et al. 2002; Desset 2012). The Susa IV (also known as Susa D) period is preceded by a phase of tran-
sition from the Proto-Elamite period, Susa IIIA, as represented by material from Acropole I levels 16-14B, and
the start of Susa IV in Acropole I level 12 and Ville Royale I level 12 (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 134). These inter-
mediate levels, Susa IIIB (Acropole I levels 14A-13, Ville Royal I 18-16) and Susa IIIC (Acropole I level 13, Ville
Royale I 15-13), contain ceramics and cylinder seal impressions with good parallels in assemblages from Lower
Mesopotamian sites of Early Dynastic I-II date, including Nippur and Tell Asmar (Carter 1978, 1980; Carter et
al. 1992a; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 133), suggesting a significant period of engagement between Khuzestan and
Lower Mesopotamia, including the Diyala region, in the early third millennium BC, immediately following or
even contemporary with the collapse of the Proto-Elamite horizon.
The Susa IV period is conventionally divided into two major phases (Steve and Gasche 1971; Carter 1978,
1980; Voigt and Dyson 1992: 134). Susa IVA equates to Early Dynastic III in Lower Mesopotamia, although the
ceramic parallels at Susa are more with Zagros sites such as Godin Tepe III:6 than with Lower Mesopotamian
sites, as well as showing connections to Luristan, the Hamrin, the Diyala and the Deh Luran regions (Carter et al.
1992a; Henrickson 2011b; Del Bravo 2014; Potts 2016: 85–86). The “Early Group” of soft-stone vessels in intri-
cate style found at Susa and at sites in Mesopotamia appear to date to this phase and indicate Susa’s key role within
a thriving trade network connecting Lower Mesopotamia, Susa, the Persian Gulf and south-eastern Iran in the
mid-third millennium BC (de Miroschedji 1973; Kohl 1975; Amiet 1979a; Casanova 2019). Contemporary with
the Early Dynastic III and Akkadian periods of Mesopotamia (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 134, Figure 2), Susa IVB
sees the conquest of Susa and Elam by the Akkadian king Sargon and a major increase in Mesopotamian influence
in ceramics, including conical bowls and “goddess handle” vessels (Carter 1978, 1980), in the introduction of the
Mesopotamian cuneiform script at Susa (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 134; Desset 2012: 132) and in the use of cylinder
seals with strong Mesopotamian iconographic connections (Ascalone 2018: 628–629).
In the following Susa V period, the Susa VA phase represents a short episode of Elamite independence sand-
wiched between political domination by the Mesopotamian powers of Akkad and the Ur III empire. During Susa
VA, the Elamite king Puzur-Inshushinak promoted a linear script for the local Elamite language (Dahl 2013:
257–259; Desset 2018b). Susa VB is the time of domination by the Ur III state, attested by construction of the
Ninhursag Temple on the Acropole and by seals and serpentine vessels decorated with concentric circles, which
are widely distributed across Mesopotamia, Iran, the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia at the end of the third
millennium BC (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 135).
Figure 10.3 Plan of Susa to show excavated remains from Susa IVA to Neo-Elamite (Sauvage 2020: 105) (image courtesy of Clélia
Paladre, François Bridey and Martin Sauvage).
Table 10.1 Comparative chronology of Iran and Mesopotamia, 3100–1900 BC (after Sardari and Attapour 2019: Table 1)
Date BC Historical periods Susa sequence Susa stratigraphy Mesopotamia
Acropole I Ville Royale I Steve & Gasche

1900 3 Old Babylonian
Susa V B
2000 Old Elamite 4A Isin/Larsa
(Shimashki) 4B
5 Ur III
2100 6A
Susa V A 6B
2200 7 Couche I
(Neo Akkadian)
2300
Susa IV B 8 Couche 2
2400 Old Elamite (Neo Akkadian) Akkadian
(Awan) 9A
9B Couche 3
10 (Proto-Imperial)
2500 11
12 Couche 4:
2600 Early dynastic? Susa IV A Strata 4a Early Dynastic III
10? 13 Strata 4b
14
2700 Susa III C 11? 15
12? 16
13 17 Early Dynastic II
2800 Susa III B 14A 18
14B Proto-Dynastic
2900 15A
15B Early Dynastic I
3000 16A
16B
3100 Proto-Elamite Susa III A 16C Jemdet Nasr
The emergence of Elam and Awan, 2800–2350 BC

Following the transitional Susa IIIB-IIIC phases, the Acropole continued to serve as the religious focus of Susa dur-
ing Susa IVA. To the north of the High Terrace on the Acropole mound, multi-room mudbrick complexes with large
storage vessels and grain stores, dated to c. 2600–2450 BC, were constructed (Figures 10.3–10.4) (Steve and Gasche
1971: 107–111, Figure 8; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 81–83). The existence of a temple is attested by votive limestone wall
plaques of Early Dynastic style, comparable to Mesopotamian examples (Figure 10.5) (Pelzel 1977; Potts 2010a; Ál-
varez-Mon 2020: 83–86, pl. 34), including one with an early depiction of a seated musician playing an arched harp,
a common Mesopotamian and Susan elite musical motif through the third and second millennia BC (Lawergren
2018: 782–789). Pottery from Susa IVA includes vessels decorated with wavy lines, appliqué strips and painted motifs
including animals and fish, with parallels at many central Zagros sites including Godin III:6 (Figure 10.6) (Potts 1999:
96; Henrickson 2011a; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 92–100, pls. 37–39). Mesopotamian ceramic types include mass-produced
vessels such as conical cups and conical bowls (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 134), suggesting that modes of production and
consumption of ceramics at Susa had been significantly impacted by Mesopotamian custom and practice. Cylinder
seals and clay sealings with seal impressions characteristic of Early Dynastic I-III Mesopotamian types further attest
Figure 10.4 Susa IVA, architectural complexes on the Acropole, c. 2600–2450 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 32) (image courtesy of
Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.5 S usa IVA, votive limestone wall plaques (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 34) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
this trend (Figure 10.7) (Potts 2016: 89; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 102–109, pls. 42–44). Especially characteristic of Susa’s
material culture through the third millennium BC and beyond are bitumen vessels and other artefacts, including
stands adorned with depictions of human and animal processions (Figure 10.8). These objects were made from a bitu-
minous compound, sourced from Pol-e Dokhtar in Luristan (Connan and Deschesne 1996; Deschesne 2003), mixed
with ground calcite and quartz, heated, hardened and carved often in highly elaborate forms (Carter et al. 1992a:
99–105; Álvarez-Mon 2018b: 605, 2020: 86–87, pl. 35; Basello and Ascalone 2018: 708–711).
Roland de Mecquenem’s excavations at Susa, in particular, uncovered large quantities of burials in the Ville
Royale I and Donjon areas of the site, including burials of chariots with wooden wheels and nailed copper tires.
Sophisticated metallurgical skills are further attested by metal vessels, tools and weapons, including the first ap-
pearance of tin-bronze objects alongside the traditional use of arsenical bronzes (Figure 10.9) (de Mecquenem
1943: 123; Amiet 1966: 143; Tallon 1987: 297–307; Helwing 2018: 126–128; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 110–116, pls.
46–47). Wall plaques of alabaster and bitumen compound with banquet and human-animal contest scenes similar
to those of Early Dynastic Sumer, but carved in a local Susa style, were found in the temple of Ninhursag at Susa
(Figure 10.10) (Carter et al. 1992a: 84–85; Álvarez-Mon 2018b). A striking find made by Morgan at Susa in 1907
was the Vase à la Cachette, two large painted jars, with lids, containing artefacts with a date range of c. 2900–2400
BC, likely the hoard of a well-to-do Elamite merchant buried at some time around 2400–2300 BC (Figure 10.11)
(Pittman 2002). Objects included many alabaster, copper and bronze vessels, tools, weapons, and six cylinder seals
mainly in Early Dynastic IIIA Mesopotamian style, though locally executed (Carter et al. 1992a: 108–110; Álva-
rez-Mon 2020: 100–102, 104, 110–117, pls. 41, 46–48). But one seal from the cache has a depiction of a humped
zebu in classic Harappan pose and other items - vessels and tools made of Omani copper, bronze objects including
Afghan tin - indicate strong trade and exchange networks reaching to and from the east. At this time, we can also
identify an especially wide distribution across the Persian Gulf, the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia and Syria of carved
chlorite vessels in the so-called Intercultural or Halil Rud/Jiroft Style arriving from eastern Iran (Kohl 1975; Kohl
et al. 1979; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 119; see Chapter 9). In sum, the material evidence from Susa in the early-mid third
millennium BC betokens “a vibrant and creative period that saw the elite of Susa actively showcasing wealth and
Figure 10.6 Susa IVA, painted ceramics (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 38) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.7 S usa IVA, clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 42) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.8 S usa IVA, objects made of carved bitumen compound (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 35) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
military paraphernalia and articulating new paradigms associated with the metaphysical world, leading to the es-
tablishment of canons in religious, elite, and royal art” in the astute phrases of Álvarez-Mon (2020: 79).
Earlier possible renderings of the name of Elam as NIM and NIM.KI on proto-cuneiform texts of c. 3000
BC from Uruk and Jemdet Nasr and on Early Dynastic I and III texts from Ur, Fara and Abu Salabikh notwith-
standing (Potts 1999: 87), the state of Elam receives an early mention in Mesopotamian cuneiform texts in the
Sumerian King List, where “the king of Kish (En)Mebaragesi carried away the spoil of the weapons of the land of
Elam and kingship went from Kish to Uruk, from Uruk to Ur, from Ur to Awan, and from Awan back to Kish”
( Jacobsen 1939: 83–97; Marchesi 2010). Dating of Enmebaragesi to c. 2675 BC (Edzard 1967: 54) is supported
by fragments of alabaster vessels inscribed with his name, found at Khafajah in the Diyala region northeast of
Baghdad (Steible 1982: 213). This and other Elamite connections with Early Dynastic sites in the Diyala region
suggest that the main route of communication, friendly or otherwise, between northern Babylonia where Kish
is situated and Elam was via what became known to Herodotus as the “Royal Road” (Figure 10.1), leading from
Babylonia up the lower Diyala to Der (Tell ‘Aqar near Badra) and then down the trans-Tigridian corridor into
northern Khuzestan and on to Susa, a route already defined in Early Dynastic III texts from Abu Salabikh in
Lower Mesopotamia and Ebla in northern Syria (Frayne 1992: 58–59; Potts 2016: 81). This route is also likely to
have underpinned the networks of transregional socio-cultural engagement marked by the “city seal” evidence
from Jemdet Nasr, Ur and Konar Sandal South, in which the city of Der appears to feature significantly at c.
3000–2750 BC (Matthews 1993; Matthews and Richardson 2018, 2020).
Early Dynastic III texts from Girsu-Lagash list the import of equids, resin, spices and slaves into Lower Mes-
opotamia from Der (Zadok 1994: 38; Selz 1991, 2014: Table 2), commodities that would have reached Der from
the highland zones of Iran to which it had ready access via Susiana. Much of this extensive trade between Sumer
and Elam was also conducted via sea and riverine routes using the seaport and ship-building centre of Gu’abba
on the coast of the Persian Gulf and closely connected by canal to Girsu-Lagash. Exports from the Girsu-Lagash
region to Elam included barley, textiles, tin-bronze, pig fat, flour and silver (Laursen and Steinkeller 2017; Stein-
keller 2018). Other texts from Girsu-Lagash record severe military conflicts between the city-state of Lagash and
Figure 10.9 S usa IVA, metal objects (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 46) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.10 Susa, temple of Ninhursag (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 33) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.11 S usa IVA, Vase à la Cachette vessels and contents (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 41) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
a coalition of Akshak, Kish, Mari, Elam, Shubur and Arawa at c. 2400 BC (Frayne 2008a: 126–158; Steinkeller
2018: 180–181). Textual evidence for gift exchanges amongst the dynastic households of this era records consid-
erable movement of unfree humans, i.e. slaves, of all ages and gender between male-dominated elite groups in
cities across Lower Mesopotamia and eastwards into south-western Iran (Bartash 2020).
The location of Awan remains uncertain but, as one-time host of Sumerian kingship, it was clearly a site or
region of major significance in the Sumerian dynastic tradition. Later Elamite kings traced their origins to Awan,
which suggests a highland location – and Potts (1999: 92) has proposed the Kangavar valley and the site of Godin
Tepe as possibilities for ancient Awan – but its mention alongside heartland Sumerian cities such as Kish, Uruk
and Ur might suggest a location closer to the Lower Mesopotamian plains (Álvarez-Mon 2012: 744), or the term
“Awan” may be a local toponym congruent with the exonym “Elam” (Steinkeller 2018: 179). On the Mehran
plain in Ilam the large site of Chogha Ahowan is a major settlement of the late fourth and early third millennia
BC (Nokandeh 2010a), a plausible candidate for ancient Awan or the major site of Awan, while Michalowski
(2008) suggests a location east of Susa in the southern Zagros. Further southeast, in the Kohgiluyeh/Boyer-Ah-
mad region of south-western Iran, excavations at the cemetery site of Deh Dumen have recovered a rich assem-
blage of tin-bronze objects and ceramics comparable to materials from Susa IV and sites in Luristan such as Bani
Surmah (Figures 8.42–8.43) (Chapter 8; Oudbashi et al. 2016).
Akkadian and Ur III imperial engagement with Elam and Iran, c. 2350–2000 BC
Mesopotamian connectivity of Susa and Elam in the earlier-mid third millennium BC culminated in the con-
quest of Elam by the Akkadian king Sargon at c. 2300 BC, marking the start of the Susa IVB phase at Susa, and
the first occasion on which south-western Iran was incontrovertibly incorporated fully into the Mesopotamian
political sphere (T. Potts 1994: 97–121; Potts 2016: 91–112; Foster 2016; Steinkeller 2018: 183–190; Álvarez-Mon
2020: 130–141). From this time until the collapse of the Ur III state at 2004 BC, except for the brief interlude
of Puzur-Inshushinak, Susa and Elam were ruled by a succession of Mesopotamian kings, and Elam became a
participant in a transregional world of conflict, treaty and inter-dynastic marriage alliance.
Elam in the Akkadian empire, c. 2350–2100 BC

The critical importance of this region to the early Akkadian kings is underlined by the fact that three of the four
surviving year names of Sargon commemorate his victories in the east (Sallaberger and Westenholz 1999). Ac-
cording to royal inscriptions of Sargon and Rimush, regions of Iran well to the east of Susa were conquered, at
least temporarily by them or their allies, including Barahshum which equates with Marhashi which most scholars
agree as including the Halil Rud region of eastern Kerman including Tepe Yahya and Jiroft (Potts 2004a; 2016:
93–94; Steinkeller 2006; see Chapter 9). A typical boast by Rimush paints a grim scene of battle and slaughter
followed by appropriation and enslavement:
Rimush defeated Abalgamash, king of Barahshum, in battle; Zahara and Elam arrayed themselves for battle
in the midst of Barahshum, but Rimush was victorious; 16,212 men were killed and another 4,216 taken
prisoner; Emahsini, king of Elam, was captured…from Elam was captured, and Shar-GA-PI from Zahara
was captured between Awan and Susa by the river Qablitum; mounds of corpses were heaped up in the city
and he conquered the cities of Elam and razed their walls and he tore the roots of Barahshum out of the land
of Elam, for Rimush, king of the totality, rules now Elam……After conquering Elam and Barahshum he
removed 30 minas of gold, 3600 minas of copper and 360 male and female slaves and dedicated them to Enlil.
(Potts 2016: 95)
The Akkadian king Naram-Sin, 2254–2218 BC, campaigned extensively against the peoples living in the moun-
tainous regions fringing eastern Mesopotamia, including the Lullubi of the north-central Zagros (Altaweel et al.
2012; Balatti 2017; Renette 2018: 100–102), as most famously depicted in the Naram-Sin stele, which originally
stood in the Babylonian city of Sippar before its later removal to Susa by Shutruk-Nahhunte in 1158 BC (Fig-
ure 10.12) (Winter 1999; Bahrani 2017: 123–125; see below). Naram-Sin also campaigned against Elam and
Barahshum, this last campaign taking place after the deification of Naram-Sin as indicated by use of the divine
determinative, dingir, before his name in the relevant inscription (Potts 2016: 97). Additionally, Naram-Sin is
the only Akkadian king for whom we have evidence of building commissions in Elam, namely two inscribed
brick fragments from Susa, which may originally have marked the construction of a building comparable in scale
to the so-called Naram-Sin Palace at Tell Brak in Upper Mesopotamia (McMahon 2020). Towards the end of
the Akkadian domination of the east, indication of a new policy of inter-dynastic alliance is provided by the
Figure 10.12 S tele of the Akkadian king Naram-Sin, ca. 2254–2218 BC (SB4; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du
Louvre/Franck Raux).
marriage of either the Akkadian king Sharkalisharri or his son to a princess of Marhashi, which appears to have
taken place in Marhashi.
Key to understanding Akkadian rule of Susa and Elam is an Old Elamite text found at Susa that records an agree-
ment between Naram-Sin and an Elamite king of unknown name (Hinz 1967; Álvarez-Mon 2012: 745, 2013a),
with the classic formulation that “the enemy of Naram-Sin is my enemy; the friend of Naram-Sin is my friend.”
The text starts with an invocation of more than 30 deities, of whom at least 26 are Elamite (Potts 2016: 101). The
Akkadian conquest of Elam was followed by a resurgence of writing at Susa, as a means of elite control and adminis-
tration (Desset 2017: 12–13), for the first time in half a millennium since the collapse of the Proto-Elamite world at c.
2900/2800 BC, along with the adoption at Susa of silver as the main currency medium (Helwing 2018: 126). A few
poorly provenanced texts from Susa may suggest a modest degree of early-mid third millennium BC literacy, prior
to Akkadian rule (Desset 2017). The increasing “Akkadianization” of Susa society in the later third millennium BC,
at least in its upper strata, is attested by some 85 Old Akkadian administrative and legal documents from Susa, plus
inscribed statues, bronze axes, stone mace-heads and brick fragments from building activity by Naram-Sin (Scheil
and Legrain 1913; De Graef 2013; Basello and Giovinazzo 2018). But the extent to which the material culture of
Susa and Elam at this time can be connected to direct Akkadian imperial control is doubtful, as summarised by
Augusta McMahon (2012: 662): “Akkadianizing material culture in Elam provides a classic example of connection
and emulation between elites within a wider region that was already tightly culturally integrated.”
Archaeological evidence for the Akkadian presence at Susa comprises a possible granary and domestic buildings
on the Acropole and in Ville Royale I (Steve and Gasche 1971: 77; Carter 1980). Fragments of inscribed stelae
found at Susa, made of olivine-gabbro (previously thought to be of diorite) from southern Iran or Oman, depict
Sargon and his troops capturing and dispatching defeated enemies (Figure 10.13), while a headless statue of Man-
ishtushu from Susa (Figure 10.14) bears an inscription of the later Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte (c. 1190–1155
BC) informing us that this statue along with much else had been taken to Susa from the Akkadian capital city of
Agade (Amiet 1976a; Nigro 1998a; 1998b; Hansen 2003; Bahrani 2017: 114–125), as yet not located on the ground.
While ceramics and metalwork show many Mesopotamian connections (Helwing and Neumann 2014; Hel-
wing 2018: 126), there are ongoing highland parallels in the material culture, including painted clay figurines
similar to examples from Tal-i Malyan to the east (Potts 2016: 102–111). Cylinder seals from levels of this date at
Susa show direct Akkadian Mesopotamian influence (Figure 10.15) (Amiet 2005; Ascalone 2018; Álvarez-Mon
2020: 131–136), as well as contacts with the Jiroft region (Ascalone 2019). The presence of a cylinder seal with
Harappan characters and iconography along with incised shell bangles and etched carnelian beads all show con-
nections with the Indus Valley. Other objects, including many série récente soft-stone bowls with dotted circle
adornment and square-based flasks attest contacts with Oman and Central Asia respectively (de Miroschedji 1973;
Potts 2016: 112). The evidence of manifold stone weights made from a range of materials including haematite,
limestone and bitumen, and showing morphological parallels eastwards to the Indus Valley as well as westwards
to Mesopotamia and Anatolia, underline the significance of Susa as a vital hub of transregional engagement in the
late third and early second millennia BC (Ascalone and Peyronel 1999; Ascalone 2019). As mentioned in Chap-
ter 8, sherds of Godin III:5 type, Early Dynastic IIIb in date, occur in small numbers at the Lower Mesopotamian
sites of Al-Hiba-Lagash, Telloh-Girsu and Ur (Henrickson 1987, 2011a; Renette 2018).
Figure 10.13 Susa, fragment of stele of Sargon, ca. 2300 BC (SB1; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Hervé
Lewandowski).
Figure 10.14 Susa, statue of Manishtushu, 2269–2255 BC (SB47; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/
Mathieu Rabeau)
Figure 10.15 S usa IVB, cylinder seals and seal impressions (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 50) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Looking westwards, Susa played a vital role as a transhipment point for the movement of animals, commodi-
ties, slaves and troops along the great trans-Tigridian route, trending southeast-northwest and connecting Susiana
with central and eastern Mesopotamia and beyond. We should bear in mind that the course of the Tigris in c.
2500 BC lay far to the south of where it lies today (Benati 2018), allowing for a significantly wider land corridor
between the Tigris and the Zagros foothills in the past than has been possible following the northwards avulsion
of the main Tigris channel. Excavations at archaeological sites along the modern Iraq-Iran border are filling in
some of the toponym gaps along the trans-Tigridian corridor. Thus, excavations at Tell Abu Sheeja have es-
tablished its identity as ancient Pashime (Hussein et al. 2010), with a temple to the god Shuda, a site previously
believed to be located significantly further to the east along the coast of the Persian Gulf. The Akkadian king
Manishtushu installed a governor of Pashime named Ilshu-rabi (Potts 2016: 96) who is depicted on an inscribed
stone stele found in the temple of Shuda at Tell Abu Sheeja/Pashime. A group of stone sculptures found by Ro-
land de Mecquenem on the Acropolis at Susa includes one with an inscription in Akkadian naming an individual
as Eshpum, “servant of Manishtushu, king of Kish” (Figure 10.16) (Álvarez-Mon 2020: 89–92, pl. 36). Holly
Pittman (2018c: 590) points out that the depiction of Eshpum at Susa is remarkably similar to that of Ilshu-rabi on
the Pashime stele, with distinctive haircut, beard and other features, leading her to propose that Elamite sculptors
under the rule of the early Akkadian kings including Manishtushu, father of Naram-Sin, developed a distinctive
court style for the depiction of local officials that did not challenge the royal style exclusive to the Akkadian kings
themselves, doubtless a diplomatic move in the circumstances.
Also important in the chain of east-west communication is the Deh Luran plain, approximately midway be-
tween Der to the west and Susa to the southeast. Here, the site of Tepe Musiyan was at its largest, >15 ha, in
the early third millennium BC, and has been proposed by Steinkeller (1982) as ancient Urua/Arawa, an Elamite
city known from Early Dynastic and later sources (Carter and Stolper 1984: 212; Wright and Neely 2010). Early
excavations here exposed a large building of uncertain Elamite date (Gautier and Lampre 1905), while more
recent survey of the plain recovered an inscribed cylinder seal bearing an Amorite name from Musiyan and
inscribed materials from nearby Tepe Garan (Zeynivand 2019). On the Mehran plain in Ilam, the large site of
Chogha Ahowan is also a significant through the late fourth and early third millennia BC (Nokandeh 2010a),
as mentioned above, and must surely feature in early Mesopotamian texts perhaps as a centre of ancient Awan.
Above all, much of the Zagros chain would have served as a frontier zone between the state of Simurrum to the
west, focused on the Shahrizor plain of eastern Iraq, and the highland kingdoms to the east through the third
millennium BC and beyond (Frayne 2009–2011; Henrickson 2011b; Altaweel et al. 2012; Glatz and Casana 2016).
Local hero interlude: Puzur-Inshushinak, c. 2150–2000 BC

Following the collapse of the Akkadian regime, associated broadly and plausibly with an abrupt episode of cli-
matic adversity involving transregional drought and major dust dispersal (Figure 10.17) (Sharifi et al. 2015; Caro-
lin et al. 2019), and more specifically with invasion by the Gutian peoples of the Zagros, the reign of the last king
of Awan, Puzur-Inshushinak, is conventionally taken as equating to the Susa VA phase at c. 2100 BC (André and
Salvini 1989; T. Potts 1994: 122–123; Potts 1999: 122; Sallaberger and Schrakamp 2015: 122–125). New readings
of Linear Elamite texts suggest that the king’s name be read as Puzur-Sushinak rather than Puzur-Inshushinak
(Desset pers. comm.). This remarkable person, arguably the first native individual to step from the shadows of
Figure 10.16 Susa IVB, statue of Eshpum with Akkadian inscription across back (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 36a) (image courtesy of
Figure 10.17 E
nvironmental and climate change in Southwest Asia, ca. 3000–1700 BC (Carolin et al. 2019: Figure 4) (image cour-
tesy of Stacy Carolin).
Iran’s prehistory into the still dim and flickering light of its history, engaged in an expansionist policy whereby
he brought Susa and Anshan into the kingdom of Awan, conquered a large number of Elamite and other Iranian
towns and raided and dominated towns of northern Babylonia in order to exert control over the major routes of
communication between Elam and Mesopotamia, once more with a focus on the trans-Tigridian route leading
to the Diyala and Jebel Hamrin regions. The enduring significance for Iranian history of Puzur-Inshushinak’s
short reign has been well characterised by Piotr Steinkeller (2013: 303):
In view of the huge geographical scale of Puzur-Inšušinak’s conquests, it will not be unjustified to call his
state an ‘empire.’ Although this empire was short-lived, its historical importance cannot be overstated, since
the act of putting of much of the Iranian plateau under a single rule, and of incorporating the Susiana into
Elam, was a watershed event of the early Elamite history.
During his brief sway, Puzur-Inshushinak undertook a programme of temple construction at Susa, attested by
Akkadian and bilingual inscriptions on votive nails and cultic statues (Amiet 1966: 227; Steve and Gasche 1971:
61), including a fine limestone statue of the goddess Narundi (or possibly Inana: Desset pers. comm.) seated on
a throne whose sides depict standing lions (Figure 10.18) (Álvarez-Mon 2020: 150, pl. 57). Amongst the attested
building activities at Susa commissioned by Puzur-Inshushinak (Álvarez-Mon 2020: 143–146), the most signifi-
cant include the construction or restoration on the Acropolis of a temple of Shugu, an obscure deity, the building
of cellular-plan granaries in the centre of the Acropolis (Figure 10.19), and the dedication of a monumental stair-
case to the temple of Inshushinak inscribed in Akkadian and Linear Elamite (see below), with the Akkadian text
typically invoking the wrath of Elamite and Babylonian deities on future defacers:
To (his) Lord, Puzur-Inshushinak, mighty king of Awan, son of Shimibishuk. The year in which Inshush-
inak looked upon him and the four quarters of the world gave (him) to govern, a staircase he built. To the
one defacing this inscription may Inshushinak, Shamash and Nergal uproot his foundations and remove his
offspring. Oh my Lord! Provoke trouble in his spirit!.
(Álvarez-Mon 2020: 159)
Figure 10.18 S usa VA, statue of the goddess Narundi (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 57) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.19 Susa VA, cellular granary structures (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 54) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.20 Linear Elamite inscriptions (Desset 2018a: Figure 6) (image courtesy of François Desset).
Puzur-Inshushinak also promoted the use of a script, so-called Linear Elamite, “a graphic expression of Elamite
identity” (De Graef 2013: 268), which is presently known in only some 40 inscriptions with a total of 103 signs
of which more than 40 occur only once (Figure 10.20) (Dahl 2009, 2013: 257–259; Salvini 2011; Desset 2012,
2018a; 2018b; De Graef 2013: 265–268; Potts 2016: 117–118; Glassner 2018: 455–457; Malbran-Labat 2018: 468).
The majority of securely provenanced texts are from Susa (Carter et al. 1992a: 87–91), with examples also to the
east at Shahdad and Konar Sandal South (Figure 10.21) (Chapter 9; Dahl 2013: 25; Desset 2014b; Pittman 2018c:
598). As three of the Susa texts occur in concert with Akkadian inscriptions it is likely that they provide abbre-
viated translations of those texts in a newly devised script relating to a local language (Potts 1999: Table 4.12;
De Graef 2013: 265–266). It has been suggested that silver alloy vessels of so-called gunagi beaker form, several
of which bear substantial Linear Elamite inscriptions, may have been used exclusively during funeral ceremonies
(Figure 10.22) (Desset 2018a).
There is a fine Linear Elamite inscription cut into the upper neck of a spectacular silver vessel, reportedly found
by workmen near Persepolis, which bears striking relief images of a standing and a seated female comparable
in style and dress to portrayals of women on high-status objects excavated at Gonur-depe in the Murghab river
delta region of Turkmenistan. Potts (2008) argues for an origin for this vessel within the context of the later third
millennium BC Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) of Central Asia (Chapter 9), proposing that
the inscribed vessel can best be understood within
a period of contact and inter-cultural communication between Elam/Anšan and Bactria-Margiana that lasted
from the lifetime of Ur-Namma and Puzur-Inšušinak – with whom the Persepolis vessel is linked by virtue
of its Linear Elamite inscription – to the sukkalmah or Kaftari/Old Babylonian period,
i.e. a period of some 200 years around the turn of the third-second millennia BC. Related evidence of BMAC
connections at Susa include bronze wheel rims and fittings, found in burials, comparable to examples from elite
burials at Gonur-depe (Álvarez-Mon 2020: 170–172).
In any case, at least at Susa, Linear Elamite appeared and disappeared as briefly as king Puzur-Inshushinak
himself and, following their demise, the Akkadian language in cuneiform script reasserted its role as the main
medium of written expression at Susa (Stolper 1992c). There appears to be no linguistic connection between
Linear Elamite and the earlier Proto-Elamite script (Chapter 7; Potts 2016: 118).
Figure 10.21 Map to show distribution of writing systems across Southwest Asia in the later third and early second millennia BC
(Desset 2018a: Figure 1) (image courtesy of François Desset).
Figure 10.22 G unagi vessels (Desset 2018a: Figure 15) (image courtesy of François Desset).
Elam in the Ur III empire, c. 2050–2000 BC

Following Puzur-Inshushinak’s cometary rise and demise, Susa and Elam were once more brought under the
direct control of a Mesopotamian polity, in this case the Third Dynasty of Ur or Ur III dynasty, in the Susa VB
period (Steinkeller 1987, 2018: 193–196; T. Potts 1994: 124–140; Zadok 1994: 40–44; Michalowski 2008, 2013;
Potts 2016: 123–132; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 163–179). Daniel Potts (2016: 146) summarises the Mesopotamia-Elam
opposition of this period effectively: “the conflict between Elam and Ur in the last century of the third mil-
lennium emerges as a clash between two very different political forms: the hyper-centralized, unitary state par
excellence of Ur, and the segmentary state of Elam,” having characterised segmentary states as composing often
multiple pyramids of power amongst which individual components may often shift allegiance, and with consid-
erable degrees of cultural and ethnic internal variability bound together as a functioning whole by shared ritual
belief and practice.
At Susa, the Sumerian rulers of the Ur III empire, commencing with Ur-Namma, left their mark in the form
of multiple building projects across the entire site (Figure 10.3) (Malbran-Labat 1995; Steve et al. 2002) plus a
group of about 50 Ur III texts mainly in Sumerian with a few in Old Akkadian (De Graef 2013: 268, 2015). Cop-
per foundation nails with inscriptions of king Shulgi (2094–2047 BC) indicate his construction of temples on the
Acropole to the local deity Inshushinak (Figure 10.23) and to the Mesopotamian deity Ninhursag (Tallon 1987:
308–310; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 164–166). Also built at this time was a large temple on the south-western flank of
the Ville Royale, protected at its main entrance by three pairs of painted terracotta lions (Amiet 1966: 292–293).
An unknown quantity of Ur III texts found at Tal-i Malyan (Sumner 2003; Desset 2012: 133–134; De Graef
2013: 269) suggest an ongoing importance for Anshan within the context of Ur III administration. In his year 18,
Shulgi’s daughter became queen of Marhashi, probably the Halil Rud region of south-eastern Iran (Potts 2004a;
Steinkeller 2006), and others of his daughters were married to kings of Anshan and Pashime. Such inter-dynastic
marriages were a key mechanism of interregional engagement by the powers of the day. Alternating with this
policy was one of outright aggression in the form of military campaigns aimed at acquiring booty such as items
of carnelian and lapis lazuli and metals such as gold, silver and copper (Potts 2016: 126). In particular, the Ur III
kings like their Akkadian predecessors campaigned vigorously against the local kingdoms of the western and
central Zagros regions, including Simurrum and Lullubum (Frayne 2008b; 2009–2011).
At around this time, building on the Akkadian tradition of monumental propagandistic art typified by the
Naram-Sin stele, the practice of carving large-scale rock reliefs and stelae with depictions of powerful rulers
Figure 10.23 S usa VB, temple of Inshushinak at time of Shulgi, c. 2050 BC, and selected finds (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 61) (image
sometimes accompanied by inscriptions in Akkadian is continued across the highland fringes of Mesopotamia, as
attested by the four reliefs of Anubanini, king of the Lullubi, at Sar-e Pol-e Zohab along the Great Khorasan
Road (De Graef 2013: 269) and at other sites northwards through the Zagros range (Postgate and Roaf 1997;
Altaweel et al. 2012; Biglari et al. 2018; Mirghaderi and Alibaigi 2018; Alibaigi et al. 2020), clearly intended to
stake ideological claims to the highly contested border zone between the ever-competing lowland and highland
powers of the day. This frontier aspect is materialised in the form of rock reliefs and stelae defining the eastern
bounds of Simurrum through the later third and earlier second millennia BC, as attested at Bamu, Bitwata, Hala-
diny/Qarachatan, Shaikhan and Sar-e Pol-e Zohab (Figures 10.24–10.25) (Biglari et al. 2018; Alibaigi et al. 2020).
Shulgi’s son Amar-Sin (2046–2038 BC) made use of Girsu-Lagash in Lower Mesopotamia as the main en-
trepôt for trade with the east, a role Girsu had already assumed several centuries earlier in the Early Dynastic III
period as discussed above. The governor of Girsu assumed the title “Grand Vizier or Regent,” SUKKAL.MAH, a
power title that came to have major significance for Elam in later centuries, as we shall see. Meanwhile, Akkadian
appointees to the rule of Susa were entitled “governor of Susa” and “viceroy of the land of Elam.” The wealth
of Ur III administrative texts from Puzrish-Dagan (Tell Drehem) and other sites of Lower Mesopotamia reveal
frequent visits to the Ur III heartland by dignitaries, ambassadors, hostages and prisoners from the Iranian east
(Sigrist 1992; Zadok 1994; Potts 2016: 130).
Towards the end of Ur III control of Elam, the kings Shu-Sin (2037–2029 BC) and Ibbi-Sin (2028–2004 BC)
sent military expeditions into the highlands in an attempt to maintain control of the Ur III state’s territory, but
their failure in this attempt is ultimately marked by the fall in 2004 BC of Ur and other Mesopotamian cities in-
cluding Eridu, Kesh, Uruk and Nippur to a coalition of Elamites and people from the land of Shimashki (Stolper
1982; Potts 2016: 137). In a classic dirge, the Sumerian “Lamentation over the destruction of Sumer and Ur” re-
lates how the cult statues of Ur’s patron deity Nanna and other gods were carried off to Anshan, the king Ibbi-Sin
himself was taken in fetters to Elam and the glorious city of Ur was left in ruins:
Figure 10.24 Map to show location of rock reliefs and stelae of late third and early second millennia BC date in western Iran and
eastern Iraq (Alibaigi et al. 2020: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
Elam, like a swelling flood wave, left only the spirits of the dead. In Ur people were smashed as if they were
clay pots, its refugees were unable to flee, they were trapped inside the walls, like fish living in a pond.
(Michalowski 1989: 61–63)
What led to this dramatic reversal in the fortunes of Ur and its imperial project? Our sources are not sufficiently
rich to say, but there is palaeo-environmental evidence for a further pulse of drier climate and dust dispersal at
this time (Sharifi et al. 2015: Figure 9). We may anyway agree with Michalowski’s verdict that “the lands that
had been subservient to Ur were instrumental in the final downfall of the kingdom. The Empire struck back”
(Michalowski 1989: 2). The location of Shimashki, a poorly understood agglomeration of socio-political en-
tities, partners with Elam in the overthrow of Ur III rule, is not certain but Potts (2008, 2016: 133; see also
Stolper 1982; Vallat 1993 for alternative localisations of Shimashki) suggests that the Oxus civilisation or the
Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) may have been the Shimashki homeland prior to their mi-
gration to south-western Iran. An Akkadian inscription on a statue of Puzur-Inshushinak found at Susa features
an obeisant king of Shimashki in a list of over 70 places conquered by Puzur-Inshushinak, the earliest historical
attestation of Shimashki. Potts (2008: 188) argues that Bactrian camels, finely depicted on a silver vessel compa-
rable in style to the Persepolis vessel discussed above, may have been gifted by the rulers of Shimashki to the Ur
III kings, and camels are also probably attested in Ur III tablets from Puzrish-Dagan where animals brought to
Babylonia in huge quantities, including diplomatic gifts, were meticulously recorded (Steinkeller 2007, 2008).
A key point is that, for the first time in centuries, the power of Shimashki under its ruler Ebarat I succeeded in
once more uniting upland Iran, or at least parts of it, with lowland Susiana in an integrated political entity, capable
of contesting Mesopotamian claims to control over border territory and routes of access to cherished goods and
commodities (Steinkeller 2014a; 2014b; 2018). Throughout the following decades, in the early twentieth century
BC, we have much evidence for this contest, with outright warfare alternating with episodes of treaties and in-
ter-dynastic marriages. King Ishbi-Erra of Isin (2017–1985 BC), a major city of Lower Mesopotamia, named his
Figure 10.25 Selected rock reliefs and stelae of late third and early second millennia BC date in western Iran and eastern Iraq (Al-
ibaigi et al. 2020: Figure 14) (image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
12th, 13th and 23rd regnal years after victories over Elam, including the expulsion of an Elamite garrison from
Ur, while also giving away a daughter, Libur-nirum, to an Elamite prince, Humban-shimti. Ishbi-Erra’s suc-
cessor, Shu-ilishu of Isin (1984–1975 BC), celebrated the return to Ur of the cult statue of Nanna, perhaps from
Anshan, a hugely significant achievement given Nanna’s status as prime deity of Ur. Further Mesopotamia-Susa
engagement at this time is attested by an inter-dynastic marriage at c. 1980 BC between Me-Kubi, daughter of
Bilalama, king of Eshnunna (Tell Asmar in the Diyala region) and Tan-ruhurater, governor of Susa. Me-Kubi
sponsored the construction on the Acropole at Susa of a new temple to the most ancient Mesopotamian deity
Inana (Steve et al. 2002: 439). Other kings of Isin and Larsa continued to engage in weddings and warfare with
their Elamite neighbours to the east.
Archaeological and textual evidence from Susa congruent with the events and episodes curtly dealt with
above are few and far between. In Ville Royale Chantier B, Ghirshman excavated a “Bâtiment aux Archives,”
the house of a scribe named Igibuni of late Ur III date (De Graef 2005, 2015). In this building, located on the
southern edge of the Ville Royale, Ghirshman recovered 38 tablets from two of its rooms, dating from Shu-Sin
year 4 to Ibbi-Sin year 1, c. 2034–2027 BC. The texts deal principally with loans of barley, administrative lists
and household expenses, unusual insights into the conduct of everyday business within a well-to-do household
situated politically and culturally within the wider context of a major empire. The evidence for destruction in
this part of Susa, in the form of hundreds of Ur III-style projectile points (Gasche 1973: 12–13), may be attributed
to the conquest of Susa either by the Shimashki king Ebarat I or subsequently by Ibbi-Sin early in his reign (De
Graef 2015: 290), bringing to a violent end the quiet bureaucratic domesticity that we can imagine as prevailing
in Igibuni’s house till then. Significant occupation of this period is also attested at the site of Tappeh Senjar,
only 18 km distant from Susa (Sardari and Attarpour 2019).
At Susa and Senjar there are cylinder seals in a distinctive style known as Anshanite that show strong con-
nections with Tal-i Malyan and Central Asia (Figure 10.26) (Potts 2008, 2016: 143; Ascalone 2018: 636–638;
Sardari and Attarpour 2019: Figure 13). At Tal-i Malyan itself, settlement restarted across the mound at c. 2200
BC following a 400-year hiatus, in the so-called Kaftari phase, which lasted till 1600 BC (Sumner 1989b; Alden
et al. 2005; Petrie et al. 2005). The resurgence of Malyan, which expanded to 130 ha encircled by a wall at this
time, coincides with the decline of the Akkadian imperial project and may be connected to its location along
major trade routes of luxury materials moving from the east of Iran, from sites such as Shahr-i Sokhta (Thornton
2012: 599; Chapter 9). As Potts (2016: 144) summarises, archaeobotanical remains from Tal-i Malyan indicate
that wheat was the major cereal for human consumption while barley was grown mainly for animal fodder. Weed
species indicate use of both irrigation and dry farming methods (Miller 1982, 1990) while alongside sheep, goats
and cattle, horses make an early appearance in the zooarchaeological record of the region (Zeder 1986). Zebu
cattle also make their appearance, at least in the form of distinctive clay figurines (Sumner 1974: Figure 11). Kaf-
tari-related assemblages are found across Fars and along the Persian Gulf coast (Petrie et al. 2005, 2016).
Grand Viziers of Elam: the Old Elamite period, 1950–1500 BC

From c. 1950 BC, the title sukkalmah was used by the rulers of Elam as a designation of their supreme power. We
saw above the origins of this Sumerian term in the Ur III period to designate the viziers of Girsu who oversaw
trade between Lower Mesopotamia and the east. The development of the sukkalmah dynasty out of the kingdom of
Shimashki is obscure but there is no evidence for a sharp break between them (Álvarez-Mon 2012: 747–750, 2020:
185–230; De Graef 2012; Glassner 2013; Potts 2016: 148–175). During the first half of the second millennium BC
Elam under the sukkalmahs played a major role in the interregional politics and cross-cultural engagement of wider
Southwest Asia, interacting on equal terms peaceable or not with the great powers of the day, including Assyria un-
der Shamshi-Adad (1813–1781 BC), Babylonia under the rival powers of Isin, Larsa and Babylon under Hammurabi
(1792–1750 BC), the Diyala region under the kingdom of Eshnunna and the great city of Mari on the Middle Eu-
phrates in Syria (Liverani 1990). Elam also engaged with regions to the south and east, including Dilmun (Bahrain),
Magan (Oman) and Bactria (northern Afghanistan and southern Uzbekistan). Within the Elamite state at this time,
power lay within a hypothetical hierarchy headed by the sukkalmah or Grand Vizier, assisted by a sukkal or Vizier of
Elam and a sukkal or Junior Vizier of Susa, usually related to each other by blood. Additionally, there was a role for
the “sister’s son” (ruhushak), which may relate to royal descent through the maternal line, a possible indication of the
important political role of women at this time, not solely as currency in inter-dynastic marriage brokering. More
broadly, there is much evidence across the spectrum of Elamite economic and legal texts for significant autonomy
for women in conducting a range of activities, including issue of contracts, sales and rentals, inheriting property,
witnessing legal texts, and participating in agricultural and craft production roles (Dabbagh 2019).
Our focus as ever is on the archaeological evidence relating to the period rather than on the sequences of histor-
ical events, fascinating as they are (for which, see Carter and Stolper 1984; Kuhrt 1995; Van De Mieroop 2004; De
Graef 2012; Liverani 2014; Potts 2016: 148–161; Peyronel 2018). In sum, the sukkalmahs of Elam in the early-mid
second millennium BC show themselves to be as powerful and capable as any of their contemporary rivals and allies,
as is vividly demonstrated in royal correspondence of the time, in particular the letters in the Mari royal archives
of king Zimri-Lim (1776–1761 BC) (Heimpel 2003). These letters demonstrate the ongoing importance of the
Figure 10.26 Tappeh Senjar, cylinder seal and modern impression, in the Anshanite style (Sardari and Attarpour 2019: Figure 13)
(image courtesy of Alireza Sardari).
trans-Tigridian corridor route, skirting the western edge of the Zagros foothills, as shown by a letter that relates how
Elamite messengers from Susa travelled to Babylon via Der (Figure 10.1) (Heimpel 2003: 327). The supreme status
and prestige of the sukkalmah of Elam is sharply indicated in Syrian and Babylonian royal letters, including from
the kingdom of Qatna, in which Amorite kings address each other as “brothers” while addressing the sukkalmah as
“father”(Álvarez-Mon 2013a: 223). Elam’s power during the age of the sukkalmahs was most severely challenged by
a series of military campaigns led by the Babylonian king Hammurabi who defeated an army of Elam comprising
components from Marhashi, Subartu, Gutium, Eshnunna and Malgium, prior to his famous conquest of Mari in
1762/1761 BC (Sasson 1995: 911). After this time, the historical sources for the sukkalmahs disappear and it is not
clear whether or not Elam had become subservient to Babylon following these military defeats.
Critical to Elam’s status in these centuries was its role in accessing or channelling the rich natural resources of
the uplands of Iran and beyond to the east. Above all, massive transregional demand for tin, originating either
in Afghanistan or in much closer sources at Deh Hosein in Luristan ( Joannès 1991; Potts 1997: 269, 1999: 169,
2016: 158; Nezafati et al. 2006, 2009; Helwing 2009; Peyronel 2013), was basic to international engagement with
Elam, with large quantities of this essential metal for bronze production reaching the king at Mari and being
transshipped on to the kingdoms of the Levant to the west, including Ebla. Such material movements under-
pinned the rise to power of Assur on the Tigris and its trade of tin and textiles to newly emergent Bronze Age
powers of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian period (Barjamovic 2011). The time of the sukkalmahs was the heyday
of this sophisticated yet fragile network of redistribution of natural resources across hundreds of kilometres of
ancient Southwest Asia, and the central role of Elam in this process is well summarised by Potts (2016: 172): “At
no later period did any Elamite monarch enjoy a role comparable to that played by the sukkalmah in the balance of
power between Babylon, Assyria, Eshnunna and Mari.” A corollary to this engagement is the wealth of onomas-
tic evidence for the presence of people of Elamite origin across Babylonia through the second millennium BC,
from a wide range of social strata and in many varied occupations, including royal officials, soldiers, messengers,
landowners, paid workers and slaves (Zadok 1987).
Archaeological evidence for the sukkalmah episode of Elam’s history includes a major expansion of settlement
on the Susiana plain and adjacent plains (Moghaddam and Miri 2003, 2007), including at Chogha Mish with
the construction of fortifications and the discovery of a remarkable vessel of soft bituminous stone in the form of
cylinder with an attached wild goat (Figure 10.27) (Kantor 1977; Alizadeh 2008: 30). At Susa itself occupation
covered up to 85 ha (Carter and Stolper 1984: 150). Through the period 1700–1400 BC, new neighbourhoods of
domestic buildings were repeatedly laid out in Chantier A north of the Ville Royale at Susa in a closely packed
manner with narrow streets to minimise the effects of temperature extremes and wind, with burial of the dead
under room floors (Figures 10.3, 10.28) (Ghirshman 1965; Gasche 2013; Peyronel 2018). Small houses jostled
for space with large villas, clearly elite residences including the so-called House of Rabibi, composed of ranges
of rooms arranged around a courtyard and with a reception hall featuring two pairs of pilasters (Vallat 1999a;
Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2018a; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 185–188). Parallels for this mode of elite construction have been
drawn with the Royal Palace at Qatna, Hall B, which may indicate shared influences in architectural design
(Álvarez-Mon 2013a: 224). Further connections between Susa and Qatna in the early second millennium BC
Figure 10.27 Chogha Mish, vessel of bitumen compound (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 29) (photo credit: Neda Hossein Tehrani and
Nima Mohammadi Fakoorzadeh, National Museum of Iran).
Figure 10.28 Susa, Ville Royale, Chantier A, plans of levels XI to XV (after Gasche 2013: Figure 5).
include worship of the deity NIN.É.GAL whose worship at both sites probably starts in the Ur III period. Build-
ing inscriptions from Susa and other sites in Khuzestan and Fars during this period record a significant amount
of royal-sponsored activity including construction of ramps and temples for Ishmekarab and Inshushinak (Potts
2016: 162). Occupation of this period is also attested in the earliest levels of the Middle Elamite site of Haft Tepe,
southeast of Susa (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2014; see below).
Textual evidence for the period 2000–1500 BC includes more than 1400 tablets from Susa, almost all in
Akkadian and including scribal exercises in the Mesopotamian tradition adapted for the local linguistic en-
vironment at Susa (Figure 10.29) (De Graef 2007; Tanret and De Graef 2010; Malayeri 2013), indicating the
practice of Mesopotamian modes of economic organisation at Susa in this period. A unique collection of seven
texts from Susa, unparalleled in Mesopotamia and probably found in association with a group of tombs, ap-
pear to relate to funerary rites to be conducted prior to burial of the deceased in the nearby tombs (Tavernier
2013a). Additionally, a group of 84 early second millennium BC tablets excavated from a large building at the
site of Chogha Gavaneh in the central-west Zagros region, are in conventional Babylonian style and content,
lacking any Elamite or Hurrian influence (Figure 10.30) (Abdi 1999; Abdi and Beckman 2007; Gentili 2012;
De Graef 2013: 272; Potts 2020: 59–60), therefore suggestive of a significant degree of Mesopotamian control
over this site located on the main access route for highland-lowland communications, an important stretch
of the Great Khorasan Road. A Babylonian presence at Chogha Gavaneh may have been significant for the
movement of commodities such as tin from Afghanistan or elsewhere westwards to centres such as Eshnunna,
Assur and Mari, and an associated development is the intensification of rural settlement through the early
second millennium BC in the Zagros as attested on the Firouzabad plain (Niknami et al. 2016; Niknami and
Mirghaderi 2019).
Large numbers of cylinder seals from Susa of this period show a range of regional and interregional con-
nections (Amiet 1972, 1980; Neumann 2013). They include a fine hematite example depicting Mesopotamian
deities - the seal was brought from Babylonia or Mari to Susa where an Elamite inscription was added (Carter
et al. 1992a: 112–113). Susa glyptic of this period shows strong connections with regions along the trans-Tigridian
corridor including the Diyala and Hamrin regions and the kingdom of Eshnunna in particular (Peyronel 2007,
2013; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 196–202), as well as links to the Cappadocian style of central Anatolia in the early
second millennium BC. Many seals include depictions of snakes and water, including a god seated on a snake
throne (Figure 10.31g), and there are also stamp seals in the typical Persian Gulf or Dilmun style, known from
the islands of Bahrain and Falaika and widely across adjacent regions (Amiet 1986a). Rare Mesopotamian
examples of carved vessels of bituminous compound, a Susa speciality (Figure 10.32) (Connan and Deschesne
1996; Potts 2016: 165–166; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 188–193), have been found in the Sinkashid Palace at Uruk
and in the Temple of Ishtar Kititum at Tell Ischali/Neribtum, indicative of “reciprocal gift exchange between
the highest social hierarchies of the Eshnunna and Elam kingdoms” (Peyronel 2013: 57). Ceramics at Susa and
other sites of the sukkalmah horizon continue in the Mesopotamian tradition, with the addition of fine grey
ware vessels with incised and punctate decoration with white infill, found over an extensive region from Nuzi
in the northwest to Tal-i Malyan in the southeast and many locations between (Figure 10.33) (Carter 2011a;
Potts 2016: 163; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 194–196). Terracotta figurines of male and female humans from Susa find
Figure 10.29 S usa, school tablet with Sumerian and Akkadian terms (after Malayeri 2013: Figure 5).
Figure 10.30 C
hogha Gavaneh, early second millennium BC building. The cuneiform archive came from room B15 (after Abdi
and Beckman 2007: Figure 5).
Figure 10.31 Old Elamite seals and seal impressions from Malyan (a) and Susa (b-h) (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 72) (image courtesy
of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.32 S usa, vessels of bitumen compound from the Shimashki and Old Elamite periods, ca. 2050–1500 BC (Álvarez-Mon
2020: pl. 68) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.33 S usa, incised and infilled grey-ware vessels, ca. 1880–1700 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 70) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.34 Kurangun, general view of relief scenes (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 10b) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.35 K
urangun, representation of carved relief scenes (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 11) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
many parallels in contemporary Mesopotamian assemblages (Spycket 1992a; 1992b; Daems 2018; Álvarez-Mon
2020: 218–224), while metal jewellery, weapons, tools and vessels, principally of tin-bronze, include distinc-
tive types of socketed axes of so-called Bactrian type (Tallon 1987; Steinkeller 2014b; Helwing 2018: 128).
Soft-stone flasks and a small number of items of adornment also show ongoing connections with Bactria far
to the northeast (Potts 2016: 169).
Early Elamite rock reliefs in the region of Fars and upland Khuzestan date to this period, as recently published
in extenso by Javier Álvarez-Mon (2019, 2020: 204–213). They include depictions at Xong-e Azdhar at the
north border of the Izeh plain, and at Shah Savar east of Izeh town, of groups of individuals standing before a
seated deity or monarch (Vanden Berghe 1963; Álvarez-Mon 2019: 11–14). Most significant is the set of carved
scenes at Kurangun in western Fars of 17th century BC date (Figures 10.34–10.35) (Potts 2004b; 2013a;
2016: 169–173; Binder 2013; Álvarez-Mon 2014, 2018b: 611, 2019: 15–22). Together constituting an outdoor
sanctuary, these scenes were cut into a cliff face 80 m high, dramatically overlooking the Fahliyan river in
the Mamasani region on the route linking Susa with Anshan/Malyan. The central panel at Kurangun depicts
seated male and female deities, probably the major Elamite deities of Napirisha and Kiririsha ( Jahangirfar
2018), with the male deity sat on a snake-throne, probably of sukkalmah date according to glyptic parallels for
this scene (Figure 10.31g). A similar rock-carved scene of a deity seated on a snake-throne is found at Naqsh-i
Rustam near Persepolis but has been overcut by a later Sasanian relief (Potts 2016: 172; Álvarez-Mon 2019:
23–26). Additional scenes at Kurangun of lines of worshippers were added through the Neo-Elamite period,
800–550 BC (Chapter 11).
The mature Elamite state: the Middle Elamite period, 1500–1100 BC

During the fifteenth century BC Mesopotamia was greatly impacted by the ascent to power of the Kassite dynasty,
a people originating in the central Zagros mountains although early sources are not clear as to their precise origin
(Brinkman 1976; Reade 1978; Zadok 1987, 2018b; Álvarez-Mon 2012). There are indications that the Kassites
brought the first horses from the Zagros into Babylonia and that they also served as mercenaries (Zadok 1987: 17).
Other peoples impinging on Babylonia from the mountains to the east at this time include the Gutians, Turukians
and Hurrians (Zadok 1987). As regards Elam, there is no evidence of a significant hiatus between the age of the
sukkalmahs and the new dynasties entitled “kings of Susa and Anshan,” even if the historical evidence suggests a
major dynastic avulsion had taken place (Carter and Stolper 1984; Carter et al. 1992b; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2018b).
Through the later second millennium BC, the Elamite state exercised occasionally far-reaching power over west-
ern Iran and into much of Mesopotamia (Potts 2016: 176–248). Elamite-Babylonian relations through these cen-
turies alternated between episodes of peaceful intercourse, often cemented through inter-dynastic marriages, and
outbreaks of outright war, often stimulated by claims to kingship arising from those very same inter-dynastic
marriages (van Dijk 1986; Zadok 2018b).
Settlement patterns in Elam indicate agglomeration of peoples in urban centres at the expense of rural settle-
ment (Moghaddam and Miri 2007: 38), suggesting that the economic basis of Elam was increasingly dependent
on livestock herding, trade and booty rather than on arable crop production (Schacht 1987: 180–184). At Susa
the Elamite kings displayed their power and devotion by constructing and reconstructing major temples (Potts
2010a), taking care to insert inscribed bricks (Roche 2012), stelae and sculptures to ensure full divine and sec-
ular appreciation of their piety. Such renovations could include the replacement of unbaked brick structures or
parts thereof with more durable and impressive moulded terracotta brick constructions, culminating by the 12th
century BC in the use of glazed brick doors and gateways at a range of Susa temples including those of Nin-
hursag and Inshushinak (Figure 10.3) (Carter et al. 1992b: 123; Daucé 2018). Also distinctive at Susa through
the centuries of the later second millennium BC is the elaboration of human burial practices (Gasche and Cole
2018: 752–753), a trend that reaches its apogee in the royal funerary cults attested at Kabnak (Haft Tepe) and Al
Untash-Napirisha (Chogha Zanbil) (Carter 2011b), as discussed below. Across Iran, only at Susa do we see the
practice of burying the human dead under the floors of domestic houses, a marked indication of Susa’s persistent
Mesopotamian influences.
Archaeologists and historians conventionally discuss the Middle Elamite period in three phases each with its
own dynasty (Vallat 1994; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2018b: Table 12.1; Zadok 2018b): Middle Elamite I and the Kidi-
nuids (1500–1400 BC), Middle Elamite II and the Igihalkids (1400–1200 BC), and Middle Elamite III and the
Shutrukids (1200–1100 BC). We briefly treat each of these in turn, focusing once more on the archaeological
evidence for this period.
The cult of craft and death: Middle Elamite I archaeology and Haft Tepe (Kabnak)
The Kidinuid dynasty at Susa comprises five kings beginning with Kidinu, who called themselves “kings of
Susa and Anzan,” Anzan being a variant of Anshan. Most of the Kidinuid kings are known from scant evi-
dence, including inscribed cylinder seals and texts (Potts 2016: 176–180). Most notable of the Kidinuid kings
is Tepti-ahar, who took the title “king of Susa and Anzan, servant of Kirwashir and Inshushinak” and whose
reign can be dated to the late 15th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2013a: 225). Tepti-ahar’s great achievement, and
major contribution to the archaeological record of Iran, was his foundation or re-foundation of the religious and
royal mortuary complex of Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak) 10 km southeast of Susa, a site already occupied in the
early second millennium BC (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2003–2004, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2018a, 2018b; Mofidi-Nasrabadi
et al. 2010; Potts 2016: 184–197; Gasche and Cole 2018: 750–752; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 231–257). Despite its name
(“Seven Mounds”), Haft Tepe comprises a total of 14 mounds over an area of at least 30 ha and perhaps up to 200
ha (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2018b: 237–240). The site was excavated by Ezat Negahban from 1965 to 1978 (Negahban
1969, 1991) who focused on the so-called “Tomb-Temple Complex” and associated “Terrace Complexes I and
II” (Figure 10.36), and by Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi since 2003 (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013, 2014, 2018a). The im-
pressive excavated structures were made of mudbrick with occasional use of baked and glazed brick for outdoor
surfaces and special features (Daucé 2018). Geophysical prospection of the site has identified five monumental
complexes, some with walls at least 100 m long and 10 m wide (Figure 10.37).
Figure 10.36 Haft Tepe, plan of areas excavated by Ezat Negahban (after Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013: Figure 3).
Figure 10.37 Haft Tepe, geomagnetic map and interpretation (after Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013: Figure 4).
Figure 10.38 Haft Tepe, clay head and mask, 15th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 90) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
In the excavated structures at Haft Tepe, gypsum plaster was used lavishly to cover wall surfaces, ceilings and
baked brick floors, while basins and water channels were coated with bitumen for proofing. Polychrome motifs
were incised or painted on some of the halls and ceilings (Álvarez-Mon 2005b; 2012: 751). In Terrace Complex
I, covering 40 × 44 m in area, there appears to have been a scribal school and workshops for highly specialised
craft activity, including manufacture of life-like, life-size painted terracotta human heads that may represent
members of the Elamite court (Figure 10.38) (Álvarez-Mon 2005a; 2018b; 2020: 237–245). An almost com-
plete elephant skeleton in one trench plus other craft debris suggests significant ivory working. Hundreds of
clay sealings with seal impressions (Figure 10.39) (Amiet 1996; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2011; Ascalone 2018: 641)
plus more than 650 inscribed clay tablets from across the site (Figure 10.40) record receipts and disbursements
of a wide range of daily provisions and valuable commodities including the assignment of metals to specific
workshops (Helwing 2018: 120). These documents, a few of which were found at Abu Fandowa located 1 km
northwest of Haft Tappeh, are written in Akkadian but contain largely Elamite names (Herrero 1976, 1991;
Herrero and Glassner 1990; Negahban 1991; De Graef 2013: 275; Basello and Giovinazzo 2018). At Haft Tepe
some of the tablets appear to have been stacked on shelving made from tamarisk wood, excavated from a room
that functioned as a scribal workroom (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2013: 162). The function of Terrace Complex I ap-
pears to have been as a temple precinct wherein a range of craft activities, including scribal training, writing
and extispicy, were undertaken in order to sustain the livelihoods of the resident gods, priests, workers and
dependents (Potts 2016: 189).
The main tomb complex at Kabnak (Figure 10.41) was probably built for Tepti-ahar himself – two adult indi-
viduals laid out on a platform may have been the corpses of the king and his queen, with retainers buried around
them. A stele fragment from the tomb complex names Tepti-ahar and gives a record of offerings of flour, beer and
Figure 10.39 Haft Tepe, selected seal impressions (after Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2011: Taf. 7).
Figure 10.40 H
aft Tepe, cuneiform tablets under excavation (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2011: Taf. 6) (image courtesy of Behzad
Mofidi-Nasrabadi).
sheep to be made to the deceased throughout the year by six guards who are clearly assigned the role of curating
the tomb and its rites, while eight women are tasked with sweeping the chambers’ floors (Reiner 1973a; Potts
2016: 185, 191). The guards are instructed to sacrifice “before the chariot of Inshushinak” and to honour a festival
of “the chariot of the god” (Potts 2016: 190), details that chime intriguingly with a miniature copper figurine
from Susa of a deity seated in a chariot (Tallon et al. 1989) and with mention in the Haft Tepe texts of chariot fit-
tings. Equally intriguing is the fact that amongst the faunal remains from Haft Tepe, equids represent more than
Figure 10.41 Haft Tepe, main tomb complex (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pls 86, 88) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.42 Haft Tepe, plan of mass burial in Trench 298, c. 1400 BC (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2014: Taf. 31.2; Jafari 2018: Figure 2)
(image courtesy of Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi).
35% of all identified species, including donkeys, mules and hinnies (Mohaseb and Mashkour 2012; Potts 2014:
53), animals that could have served to pull chariots on cultic processions (from Susa to Kabnak?).
The walls of Tepti-ahar’s tomb stood 3.75 m high and the main chamber of Hall 1 was roofed with a massive
barrel vault of brick, the interior wall faces plastered and decorated with geometric designs. Adjacent to Hall 1 a
smaller room, Hall 2, also barrel vaulted, contained the remains of 23 individuals, possibly retainers sacrificed in
advance of the main royal burial. Further human burials have been excavated at the north-western edge of the
site beyond Complex C including more than 100 individual burials in pits and pot graves and an extraordinary
mass grave containing at least 228 male and, principally, female adults and subadults (Figure 10.42) ( Jafari 2018).
Although contained within a matrix of ash there is no evidence for cremation of these individuals. Burial goods
comprise some complete ceramic vessels and bronze items. The excavator interprets the mass grave as containing
the rapidly gathered remains of individuals killed during the sacking of the city (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2014), but the
bioarchaeologist working on the human remains points to the lack of evidence for any perimortem trauma and
for weapons associated with the burial ( Jafari 2018). Isotopic analysis of some of the individuals in the mass grave
suggests a limited degree of mobility amongst the interred population ( Jafari 2017). Some 900 metal objects were
found at the site, not all in graves, including tin bronze ingots, daggers and spearheads (Rafiei-Alavi 2012, 2015,
2019; Helwing 2018; Oudbashi et al. 2019).
In any case, the entire site appears to have been violently destroyed, as attested by layers of ash and burnt roof
beams, possibly by a Kassite Babylonian army (Álvarez-Mon 2013a: 226). Following the site’s destruction, Middle
Elamite burials with pottery were inserted into the ruins of some of the buildings. Much remains obscure about
this extraordinary complex so richly devoted to cult, craft and death. It is not even clear whether Tepti-ahar re-
sided at Kabnak or at Susa as we have no convincing palace of this date from either site.
Beyond the extraordinary archaeology of Haft Tepe, Middle Elamite I remains were excavated at Susa,
where in the Ville Royale area domestic houses and a structure entitled Building T were exposed. Excep-
tional finds from Building T include much pottery, 50 figurines of naked coiffured females clutching their
breasts (Figure 10.43) (Curtis 2018; Daems 2018: Figure 37.1; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 248–251), and figurines
of lute-players and model beds laid upon by naked heterosexual couples, suggestive of a house dedicated to
sexual engagements (Steve et al. 1980). Inscribed bricks further indicate that Tepti-ahar constructed at Susa a
baked-brick building dedicated to Inshushinak (Potts 2016: 183). Practices of human burial at Middle Elam-
ite Susa include construction of vaulted tombs, jar burials and burial under house floors, with evidence for
multi-staged burials involving the movement of skeletal remains through several phases of disposal, including
the use of ceramic “feeding tubes” and food offerings to sustain the dead long after death, as well as selected
use of funerary masks or clay heads (Carter 2011b). The lack of excavated evidence for royal tombs of the rul-
ers of Middle Elamite Susa may be explained by the content of the following text of Assurbanipal following
Figure 10.43 Susa, terracotta figurines of females clasping breasts (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 97) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
his sack of Susa in 646 BC, sharply reminding us that ideological intolerance and deliberate destruction of
locally cherished heritage assets have deep historical roots:
I pulled down and destroyed the tombs of their earlier and later kings, who had not revered the deities of
Ashur and Ishtar my lords and I exposed them to the sun. I took away their bones to Assyria, I put restlessness
on their ghosts, I deprived them of food-offerings and libations of water
(Saggs 1984: 14, quoted in Carter 2011b: 50)
Middle Elamite I occupation is also attested at Farukhabad on the Deh Luran plain and at Sharafabad in
northern Susiana, while settlement patterns in Susiana and the Ram Hormuz suggest the rise to prominence of
a range of middle-level settlements (Carter 1981). At Tal-i Malyan and the Kur river basin there appears to be
a settlement gap of some 250 years following the end of the Kaftari period at 1600 BC, which Potts (2016: 182)
understands to mean that use of the Middle Elamite title “king of Susa and Anzan” was “conventional and anach-
ronistic, much as the title ‘king of Kish’ was used by later Old Babylonian rulers.”
“Such as the ancients never made”: Middle Elamite II archaeology and Chogha Zanbil
(Al Untash-Napirisha)
Some of the Susa evidence suggests a short hiatus between the Kidinuid dynasty of Middle Elamite I and the
Igihalkid dynasty of Middle Elamite II (Potts 1999: 205; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2018b: 234–236). Inscriptions from
the site of Deh-e Now, close to Haft Tepe, give an indication that king Igi-halki may have come from this lo-
cation and in due course usurped the throne of Elam (De Graef 2013: 276). Kings of the Igihalkid dynasty were
intimately connected with the thriving Kassite dynasty in Babylonia and it is possible that the Kassite king Kuri-
galzu I destroyed Kabnak and helped to install the new dynasty in Elam (Álvarez-Mon 2013a: 226). Through
the course of five generations, males of the Igihalkid line married Kassite princesses, closely tying the two dy-
nasties together (Potts 2016: 202). The most significant king of the Igihalkid dynasty was Untash-Napirisha (c.
1340–1300 BC) who married a daughter of the Kassite king Burna-Buriash II and was himself the son of a Kassite
princess. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Elamite line eventually staked claim to kingship over Babylonia, leading
to the sack of Babylon in 1150 BC and the termination of the Kassite line there (van Dijk 1986; Vallat 1999b).
The Elamite king Untash-Napirisha personifies the internationalism of his age, of Kassite descent through his
mother and related by marriage to the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) and the Hittite king Shup-
piluliuma. Untash-Napirisha constructed a vast new religious complex called Al Untash-Napirisha, modern-day
Chogha Zanbil (see below), one of the major archaeological sites of Iran and one of the first heritage sites of
Iran to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List (Lantos 2013). The cultic complex was laid out on an
elevated plateau overlooking the plain of the Diz River and facing the probable ancestral city of Deh-e Now 7.5
km to the north, a site that expanded to 9.5 ha with excavated houses and graves of the Middle Elamite period
(Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2010). Evidence for Untash-Napirisha’s building activities is widespread across south-western
Iran, with inscribed bricks found at Tol-e Bormi (= ancient Huhnur: Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2005; against this identi-
fication, see Alizadeh 2013) and several other sites in the Ram Hormuz region. Elamite overtook Akkadian as the
major written language of Elam during the Igihalkid dynasty, although Akkadian inscriptions and Mesopotamian
scholarship continued at Susa (Stolper 1992c; De Graef 2013: 276; Tavernier 2018b). At Al Untash-Napirisha, in-
scriptions include temple building dedications with curse formulae in both Akkadian and Elamite (Reiner 1969).
From Susa (Figure 10.44) we have brick inscriptions in Middle Elamite attesting at least 11 different major
episodes of temple building and statue carving commissioned by Untash-Napirisha to the glorification of a broad
array of deities (Potts 2010a; 2016: Table 7.8). The only one of these buildings at Susa archaeologically attested
is the great temple of Inshushinak, brusquely excavated in the late 19th century, which was decorated with in-
laid polychrome wall knobs and glazed relief brickwork (Potts 2016: 210; Daucé 2018). Important finds by de
Mecquenem and his team in 1904 in the vicinity of the temple of Inshushinak include two distinct caches of
precious artefacts, variously dated as from the 14th to the 12th centuries BC (Carter et al. 1992b: 146–153; Pitt-
man 2003b; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 320–326). As articulated by Potts (2016: 210; Tallon et al. 1989; Helwing 2018:
130–133), Deposit I was found in a brick container, 1.5 × 1.2 m, and comprised many male and female figurines
of copper and tin-bronze, plus half-worked beads, cylinder seal blanks and metal scrap. Deposit II was recovered
from the top of a glazed brick platform, 0.96 × 0.64 m, to the south of the temple, and included very fine gold
and silver statuettes, only 7.6 cm tall, of male worshippers bearing offerings (Figure 10.45), plus faience figurines
also of male worshippers, limestone animal figurines on sledges of bituminous compound (Figure 10.46), a schist
whetstone with lion’s head finial (Figure 10.47) and an agate bead inscribed in Akkadian “To Ishtaran, Kurigalzu
Figure 10.44 S usa, plan showing locations of major finds (after Carter et al. 1992b: Figure 41).
Figure 10.45 Susa, gold and silver statuettes of offering bearers (SB2758, SB2759; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du
Louvre/Franck Raux).
has dedicated [this].” Ishtaran was the city god of Der and Kurigalzu was of course the Kassite king of Babylon,
a close relative by marriage of Untash-Napirisha himself. The bead indicates the ongoing strategic significance
of the Elam-Babylon alliance and of the trans-Tigridian corridor as the main land route for such engagement.
Evidence for Untash-Napirisha’s activities is attested in achievements in metallurgy including advanced use of the
lost-wax casting method, first attested at Susa by 2100 BC (Tallon 1987: 310). A striking example of metallurgical
expertise takes the form of a 1.29 m-tall statue of queen Napir-Asu, excavated from an upper level in the main sanc-
tuary of the temple of Ninhursag (Figure 10.48) (Potts 2016: 210–213; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 301–304). Its considerable
Figure 10.46 S usa, limestone lion and hedgehog on bitumen compound cart (SB2908, SB2905; photo credit: © RMN-Grand
Palais, Musée du Louvre/Hervé Lewandowski).
Figure 10.47 Susa, schist whetstone with gold lion head finial (SB2769; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/
Franck Raux).
weight, 1,750kg, probably saved it from removal from this temple. It was cast in two parts using a clay core, coated in
copper using the lost-wax method. After removal of the clay core, the interior of the copper shell was filled with solid
bronze and much of the statue’s engraved surface may originally have been infilled with silver and gold leaf (Carter
et al. 1992b: 132–135; Meyers 2000; Bridey 2018: 558–559; Helwing 2018: 133–135). Napir-Asu, who may have been
the daughter of the Kassite king Burna-Buriash II, is depicted wearing a short-sleeved long dress with elaborate cast and
chased decoration (Kawami 2018), including an inscribed Elamite curse against anyone causing damage to the statue.
Of major significance from Susa is the stele of Untash-Napirisha found in five fragments on the Acropole at
Susa, and probably brought to Susa from Chogha Zanbil (Al Untash-Napirisha) by the Middle Elamite III king
Shutruk-Nahhunte (Figure 10.49) (Vallat 1981; Potts 2016: 213–214; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 290–293). The stele
adapts Mesopotamian iconography to portray Elamite mythology, with Untash-Napirisha depicted stood before
a seated deity in the top register. Below this scene are depictions of other royal figures, including Napir-Asu,
wife of Untash-Napirisha, minor deities and two mouflon-men either side of a sacred tree. Large snakes run up
the sides of the stele as well as featuring strongly in the carved registers (Carter et al. 1992b: 127–130). At the
other end of the social spectrum, hundreds of clay figurines from Susa in the form of breast-clasping naked or
bejewelled females, musicians and assorted animals, give some insights into the preoccupations of daily life at Susa
through the generations of the second millennium BC (Spycket 1992a; 1992b).
The extraordinary complex at Chogha Zanbil (Al Untash-Napirisha), 35 km southeast of Susa, covers c. 100
ha enclosed within three perimeter walls, located on a plateau beside the Diz River (Figure 10.50) (Potts 2010a:
60–62, 2016: 214–223; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2003–2004, 2018a; 2018b: 241–242; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 258–318).
Figure 10.48 S usa, bronze statue of queen Napir-Asu (SB2731; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux).
Figure 10.49 S usa, sandstone stele of Untash-Napirisha (SB12; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Franck Raux).
Figure 10.50 C
hogha Zanbil, plan of the ancient city to show major features (Sauvage 2020: 106) (image courtesy of François
Bridey and Martin Sauvage).
Excavations by Roland de Mecquenem in 1935–1939 and 1946, Roman Ghirshman in 1951–1962, and Behzad
Mofidi-Nasrabadi in 1999–2005 have uncovered extensive areas of the site (de Mecquenem and Michalon 1953;
Ghirshman 1966, 1968; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2003–2004). The main feature is a massive stepped ziggurat set within
its own walled compound, dedicated to Napirisha and Inshushinak, “one of the most ambitious brick construc-
tions ever erected in the ancient Near East” (Figure 10.51) (Potts 2016: 218). Constructed on top of an earlier
large square brick building including a temple of Inshushinak, the ziggurat was built of millions of mudbricks
faced by a skin of baked bricks to resist erosion (Figure 10.52). Inscribed bricks of Untash-Napirisha were in-
serted at frequent intervals and in places bitumen and wood were used to bind courses together. In contrast to
Mesopotamian ziggurats, the Chogha Zanbil example is ascended by means of internal, not external, staircases
flanked at their bases by pairs of glazed bulls and bird-headed griffins. The shrine on top of the ziggurat was made
of glazed baked bricks decorated with geometric patterns and massive glazed knobs, many with inscriptions of
Untash-Napirisha (Figure 10.53) (Basello 2012; Tourtet 2013; Daucé 2018). The ziggurat was protected from
the elements by a well-designed water management system of bitumen-lined gutters, channelling rainwater into
wells and vessels at the ziggurat’s base (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 101).
Al Untash-Napirisha was built as a home for worship of a plethora of gods, highland and lowland, Elamite and
Mesopotamian in origin, with a total of at least 25 temples within its vast precincts and a ceremonial way leading
to the east gate of the outermost perimeter wall (Tourovets 1997; Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2007; Quintana 2018). Key
to the city’s existence was the desire of Untash-Napirisha to demonstrate and enhance his royal authority through
conspicuous and extravagant dedication of resources to the rightful worship of the gods. More than 5,000 in-
scribed bricks from Chogha Zanbil, mainly in Elamite with some Akkadian examples, attest Untash-Napirisha’s
determination to please the gods, at least 25 of them, through the construction and maintenance of temples at
the site (Potts 2016: Table 7.8). About half of the temples named on the bricks have been identified with exca-
vated structures. Unlike other Middle Elamite sites such as Susa, Haft Tepe and Malyan, no inscribed tablets, as
opposed to inscribed bricks, have been found at Chogha Zanbil (Carlson 2014: 32).
Figure 10.51 C
hogha Zanbil, plan of the ziggurat (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 101) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 10.52 C
hogha Zanbil, view of the ziggurat (photo credit: ivanadb, iStock 506995934).
Figure 10.53 Chogha Zanbil, glazed terracotta knobbed tiles from Chogha Zanbil and Malyan (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 108) (image
In an intricate analysis, Evan Carlson (2014: 29, Figure 1) divides the city into 13 districts each of which may
include “inscribed” and “uninscribed” space (Figure 10.54):
The inscribed spaces, such as temples or other public works, and uninscribed spaces comprising residences
and buildings connected with daily life, occur throughout the city and were produced concurrently by
means of continuous interactive planning among the city’s authorities, builders, and residents.
Through demonstration that the city underwent multiple building phases and that it included residential, craft
as well as religious quarters, Carlson’s important study undermines common assumptions, based on Ghirshman’s
initial interpretations, to the effect that the city layout as excavated represents an original unified city plan; that
the city, at least within the second enclosure wall, contained only temples, and; that at the founder’s demise the
city was abandoned unfinished and unpopulated.
Finds from the ziggurat compound match the scale and grandeur of the construction itself, including from
the north-eastern gateway a blue-glazed guardian zebu bull, 1.35 m tall and bearing on its back an inscription
identifying it as “a bull in glazed terracotta, such as the ancients never made” (Figure 10.55) (Steve 1967: 95; Potts
2016: 218; Daucé 2018: 574). A blue-glazed griffon of similar size protected the south-western gateway to the zig-
gurat. Large numbers of animal figurines, beads and mace-heads as well as more than 150 cylinder seals (Porada
1970; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 304–311), were recovered from small chapels or shrines along the ziggurat perimeter,
presumably votive deposits. Finds from temples close to the ziggurat are equally striking, with large quantities of
tall ceramic beakers (Mofidi-Nasrabadi 2014), bronze shaft-hole axes, metal weapons, rings and figurines, stone
mace-heads and alabaster vessels with good parallels at Middle Assyrian Assur on the Tigris (Potts 2016: 220).
In the so-called Royal Quarter at the northeast of the site, large building complexes were arranged around
courtyards, possibly hosting residential and commercial activities (Carlson 2014; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 271–274).
Under the floors of a large courtyard building, the palais hypogée (Figure 10.56), Ghirshman excavated five monu-
mental vaulted tombs containing an astonishing mix of evidence for funerary practices, including intact skeletons
and cremated remains with grave goods in the form of weapons and jewellery (Ghirshman 1968; Gasche and Cole
2018: 748–750). Finds across the building include many goblets and stemmed dishes probably from communal
feasting in post-mortem rituals arguably depicted in cylinder seal scenes also found in the palais hypogée, while
flint knives may have been used for animal sacrifice (Carter 2011b). Of the five underground vaulted tombs,
only Tomb IV remained completely intact upon excavation. It contained an adult female laid upon a plastered
brick platform adjacent to the burnt remains of two individuals with burnt items of adornment and weapons,
Figure 10.54 C
hogha Zanbil, plan of city to show 13 districts (after Carlson 2014: Figure 1).
Figure 10.55 Chogha Zanbil, glazed zebu bull with inscription (photo credit: Neda Tehrani, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the
National Museum of Iran).
all wrapped in red cloth. In Tomb II there were the partially burnt remains of at least five individuals, whereby
the deceased had been incinerated whilst wearing personal ornaments and weapons. Accompanying the human
remains were small clay ovals with Elamite cuneiform inscriptions perhaps bearing the names of the dead indi-
viduals as a means of identifying them to the gods in the afterlife (Steve 1967: 103). The practice of cremation
of the dead attested at Al Untash-Napirisha is especially notable as there is no evidence for this practice in the
Figure 10.56 C
hogha Zanbil, palais hypogée (after Carter 2011b: Figure 4).
rich burial evidence from Susa. The variability in human burial practices at Al Untash-Napirisha may reflect the
multi-ethnic, international make-up of the Igihalkid dynasty (Potts 2016: 222), an ambitious attempt to
unify in death – and preserve in memory through ritual meals and related ceremonies – the members of the
Elamite elite of diverse origins (including family members from the Elamite highlands and Mesopotamian
Kassite princesses who married into the Middle Elamite royal family).
(Carter 2011b: 56)
It is likely that several of the late second millennium BC settlements located on the Susiana plain within 25 km of
Al Untash-Napirisha would have provided agricultural and labour support for the new city (Carlson 2014: Figure
2). Finally, Al Untash-Napirisha was installed with an impressive system of drains, wells and basins, probably for
channelling excess winter rains through the city, while summer water was brought in from the Karkheh river some
55 km to the northwest by means of a major new canal along the Haft Tepe ridge (Corfù 2006; Mofidi-Nasrabadi
2007; Carlson 2014: Figure 9). The site was destroyed probably by Nebuchadnezzar I, 1125–1104 BC, at the end
of the Middle Elamite III Shutrukid dynasty, although there is evidence for some occupation in the 8th and 7th
centuries BC and Ghirshman ascribed much of the destruction of the site and looting of its most valued artefacts
to the final Elamite campaign of Ashurbanipal in the mid-7th century BC (Chapter 11).
Susa and beyond: Middle Elamite III archaeology

With the ascent to the Elamite throne of Shutruk-Nahhunte (c. 1190–1155 BC), and his successors Kutir-Nahhunte
(1155–1150 BC) and Shilhak-Inshushinak (1150–1120 BC), the forces of Elam pressed ever more forcefully their
claims to kingship over Babylonia, leading to the final collapse of the long-lasting Kassite line and the seizure of
the cult statues of Marduk and other deities from Babylon to Susa. The burgeoning power of Elam in the Mid-
dle Elamite III phase culminated in Shilhak-Inshushinak’s extensive campaign to the north and west of Elam
as enumerated in an inscribed stele from Susa, demonstrating the ongoing significance of the trans-Tigridian
corridor past Der and the Diyala as the major land route to the northwest (König 1965; Boehmer and Dämmer
1985; Potts 2016: 233–234; Zadok 2018b: 309–315). This period of Elamite history witnessed a further boom in
temple construction and reconstruction across Elam and beyond, with new temples and temple rebuilds attested
in Khuzestan, Anshan, the Susiana plain and along the Persian Gulf, commissioned by Shutruk-Nahhunte and his
successor sons (Potts 2010a, 2016: 225). Many of these buildings have dedicatory inscriptions, more frequently in
Elamite than Akkadian (De Graef 2013: 277). At Bard-e Karegar east of the Karun river a vast spread of col-
lapsed brickwork includes inscriptions attesting the construction and restoration of temples to the deities Pinigir
and Kamul by the Elamite kings Shutruk-Nahhunte and Shilhak-Inshushinak (Moghaddam and Miri 2007: 40).
Famously taken to Susa in c. 1158 BC by Shutruk-Nahhunte and dedicated to Inshushinak on the Acropole,
to be found 3,000 years later by French archaeologists, were many classic Mesopotamian monuments including
Kassite kudurrus (so-called “boundary stones”), the victory stele of Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BC; Figure 10.12),
the stele inscribed with the Law Code of Hammurabi (1792–1750 BC; Figure 10.57), plus fine assorted examples
of standing statues and kings’ heads in diorite and alabaster, all of which shine as much light on Mesopotamian
as on Elamite history and iconography (Harper and Amiet 1992; Potts 2016: 225, Table 7.9). Elamite textual ev-
idence reveals that the cult statue of Marduk was taken from Babylon to Susa at the same time, to be reclaimed
by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I in 1120 BC. Shutruk-Nahhunte also brought to Susa stelae and other
monuments from sites in Iran such as Al Untash-Napirisha and Anshan. Garrison (2012: 37) situates this episode
of material appropriation within the context of asymmetries of power and display that persisted for millennia
through ancient Southwest Asia, also richly attested in textual evidence.
Found in the temple of Ninhursag at Susa was the bronze sit-shamshi (“sunrise”) sculpture inscribed by Shil-
hak-Inshushinak and found encased in plaster covering a tomb set into a wall of the temple (Figure 10.58) (Carter
et al. 1992b: 137–141; Potts 2016: 231–232; Helwing 2018: 135–136; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 328–334). The sit-sham-
shi sculpture is a remarkable item, the only one of its kind from ancient Southwest Asia. The three-dimensional
scene comprises two kneeling naked men engaged in handwashing. Objects around them include stepped plat-
forms or altars possibly originally faced with gold or silver, piles of conical shapes, trees, tables and conical pillars.
The likeliest interpretation of this extraordinary artefact is that it depicts a ritual cleansing activity by two priests
at daybreak prior to the conduct of daily sacrifices and offerings. The inscription reads “I, Shilhak-Inshushinak,
son of Shutruk-Nahhunte, beloved servant of Inshushinak, king of Anzan and Susa, enlarger of my kingdom,
protector of Elam, sovereign of the land of Elam, I have made a bronze sunrise [sit-shamshi]….”
From Susa we have examples of highly decorated baked brick building façades, influenced by Mesopotamian
examples such as the Kassite temple of Inana at Uruk, depicting bull-men, date palms and female deities grasping
their breasts (Figure 10.59), possibly from a “sacred grove” adjacent to the main temple of Inshushinak (Carter et al.
1992b: 141–144; Potts 2016: 232–233; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 338–343). Relief panels carved on a cliff face at Shekaft-e
Salman near Izeh depicting a royal family and a fire altar and worshipping figures are also believed to be of Middle
Elamite III date (Figure 10.60) (De Waele 1981; Stolper 1988; Álvarez-Mon 2018b: 617, 2019: 27–46, 2020: 345–352).
Middle Elamite occupation of the highland regions, such as the Kur river basin, is hard to define but a pres-
ence of this period is evident at Tal-i Malyan in the EDD large building and associated pottery kilns dating to
Figure 10.57 Susa, excavation of the Law Code stele of Hammurabi in the 1901–1902 season (Harper and Amiet 1992: Figure 45;
photo credit: Gustave Jéquier).
Figure 10.58 S usa, sit-shamshi sculpture, 12th century BC (SB2743; photo credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Image
RMN-GP).
1300–1000 BC (Figure 10.61) (Carter 1996, 2017; Potts 2016: 240–243; Pincé et al. 2019; Álvarez-Mon 2020:
355–356). Some 250 Middle Elamite III tablets were found at Malyan/Anshan, showing a distinctive mixture of
Akkadian and Elamite words, phrases, units of measure and dating formulae (Stolper 1984a; Basello 2011; Basello
and Giovinazzo 2018: 487–488; Tavernier 2018b). The texts, dating to c. 1100 BC, include informative accounts and
recipes for metalworking for production of items such as figurines, rosettes and adornments for temple doors and
furniture, in total involving more than 300kg of copper/bronze (Helwing 2018: 136). Sheep and goat dominate
the faunal remains from this period at Malyan (Zeder 1991). In the Mamasani region of Fars, on the route from
Susa to Anshan, there is evidence for an increase in rural settlement in the Middle Elamite period, while the dis-
covery at Tol-e Spid of a Middle Elamite brick with inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak, 1150–1120 BC, suggests
a major building phase by this ruler at the site (Potts 1999: 238; McCall 2013b). Middle Elamite or Qaleh-period
levels have been excavated at Tol-e Spid and Tol-e Nurabad, and regional survey detected 16 Middle Elamite
sites preceding an early first millennium BC collapse of settlement (Zeidi et al. 2006; Asgari Chaverdi et al. 2010).
At some around 1120 BC, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 BC) defeated the last Shutrukid
king Hutelutush-Inshushinak near the Ulai (Karkheh) river, bringing to an end this remarkable period in the his-
tory and archaeology of Elam. Following the dramatic collapse of the Elamite state our evidence for any activity
across Elam is lacking for up to 300 years (Potts 2016: 246), “a total Dark Age” within de Miroschedji’s (2003:
34; see also Zadok 2018b: 304) cyclical schema of the longue durée ebb and flow of Elamite societies.
Elam in the world of Bronze Age Southwest Asia: an ever-revolving door or a

profound duality?
In this chapter we have tracked over a period of more than 2,500 years the shifting nature of the lowland-highland
relationships between the societies of Mesopotamia and those of Elam, principally as mediated through Khuz-
estan and as attested in the material evidence from the site of Susa above all. In a nice turn of phrase, Álvarez-Mon
Figure 10.59 Susa, moulded brick relief scene, with inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak, 12th century BC (SB2732, SB2733; photo
credit: © RMN-Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre/Christian Larrieu).
(2020: 499) has commented on “Elam and its strategic position as a revolving door between Mesopotamia and the
Iranian plateau.” Elam’s character and strength were rooted in its ability to draw on the talents and resources of
two quite distinct regions of Iran – the lowland plains of Khuzestan and the Zagros highlands to the north and
east, characterised by Malbran-Labat (2018: 466) as “the profound duality of the state.” At its most powerful, the
Elamite state integrated these components into a formidable, internationally renowned force that was respected as
a core member of the so-called “Club of the Great Powers” of Late Bronze Age Southwest Asia, including Elam
alongside Egypt, Mitanni, Assyria, Babylonia and the Hittites, as explored by Marc Van De Mieroop (2004: 137)
whose summary is worth quoting in extenso:
The rulers of the Near Eastern states were fully aware that they all belonged to a common system that encom-
passed the entire region. This is clear from the way they interacted with each other in diplomatic and military
terms. They also shared an ideology about the social structures within their states and the role of the majority
of the people living in them. While the political organization of the states varied, they were all characterized
by an enormous discrepancy in access to wealth and power between the numerically small elites and the mass
of the populations. An international elite class emerged, whose participants had more in common with their
colleagues in the other states than with the lower classes at home.
Interactions between the members of the Club of the Great Powers were conducted as much through diplomacy,
inter-marriage and trade as through occasional outright warfare (Liverani 2014: 269–377 is a masterful overview
of this episode). Inimical to smooth dynastic succession in Elam was the royal succession practice, partially influ-
enced by highland traditions, whereby power might be passed father-son, father-(brother)-son or father-(sister)-
son, often generating a “multiplicity of heirs able to claim the throne” (Malbran-Labat 2018: 466) and a highly
unstable set of arrangements with predictable consequences.
Figure 10.60 Shekaft-e Salman, relief SSII, 12th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 142) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
An extreme manifestation of the Late Bronze Age social stratification whereby the ruling classes sought to distin-
guish and distance themselves from their people, was the royal foundation or refoundation of new capital or cultic
cities, mostly featuring their own names in the new city’s title: Al Untash-Napirisha in Elam, Dur-Kurigalzu in
Babylonia, Kar Tukulti-Ninurta in Assyria, Per-Ramesse and Akhetaten in Egypt. That these foundations tended
not to thrive or even survive long beyond the lifetimes of their founding kings is comment enough on their sustain-
able appropriateness to the societies within which they were created.
Critical to rulers’ attempts to consolidate and sustain their power, in Elam as elsewhere amongst the Great
Powers’ Club, was the role of religion, with the king determined to be seen as a conduit between his people and
their gods. Elamite religion was heavily syncretistic with more than 200 deities textually attested, a diachronic
agglomeration of gods and goddesses from Susiana, Mesopotamia, Awan, Anshan, Shimshaki and places beyond
(Quintana 2018). The principal deity of Susa, Inshushinak lord of the dead and overseer of law and justice, re-
mained a constant touchstone of religious devotion throughout the Elamite centuries. From the Middle Elamite
period onwards, the texts indicate an increasing dominance of highland deities, headed by the divine couple of
Napirisha and his consort Kiririsha. Archaeologically, royal Elamite religious devotion is richly attested, as we
have seen, through dedicated cultic sites such as Haft Tepe and Chogha Zanbil as well as the hundreds of foun-
dation and dedication inscriptions, above all at Susa, showing the determination of each new king to appease and
please the gods through the construction or refurbishment of the residences of the gods, their temples, and the
proper fulfilment of the necessary rituals (Malbran-Labat 1995, 2018; Potts 2010a). These massive construction
projects must have been a major drain on the human and material resources of the Elamite state, but will also
have served to consolidate and enhance elite power through vivid demonstration of royal ability to envisage and
execute such grand projects. We should also keep in mind the fundamental role of religion in structuring Elamite
“art” more broadly, including the increasing significance of open-air shrines or sanctuaries with their figurative
iconography depicting the entwining of the sacred and profane worlds of the Elamite elite (Álvarez-Mon 2020).
As to the nature of Elamite urban settlement, beyond the shadowy outlines provided above regarding such key
sites as Susa, Haft Tepe, Chogha Zanbil and Tal-i Malyan, we lack an advanced understanding of the character
Figure 10.61 Tal-i Malyan, building EDD, level IV, ca. 1250–1000 BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 144) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon).
of Elamite urban settlement, as with all periods of Iran’s early history. In a stimulating review, Elnaz Rashidian
(2019) proposes that we consider so-called “dimtu” settlements, as attested in the Akkadian texts from Nuzi in
Upper Mesopotamia, as possible models for approaching Elamite urban settlement. Indeed, Neo-Assyrian texts
refer to a number of dimtu settlements within the territory of Elam (Kolinski 2001). Dimtu settlements were small-
scale, semi-independent entities that could work together and with dominant central authorities when political
circumstances dictated, fitting rather well with Daniel Potts’ (2016: 146) notion of Elam, at least in the late third
millennium BC, as essentially a segmentary state composed of loosely fitting socio-political components that could
cohere and act together as and when required before reverting to their semi-autonomous status. The geographic
distribution of small-scale widely distributed settlements, generally smaller than 2 ha, outside the major urban cen-
tres would be more suitable where available settled and arable land was more restricted, as in the Elamite highland
zone, as compared to the great plains of Khuzestan and Mesopotamia that could support denser and more intensive
urban and rural occupation.
Underpinning these settlement patterns, the economic basis of Elam, as far as we can tell from rather limited
evidence, was rooted in cultivation of a range of crops and herding of goat and sheep above all. The notion that
the Elamite state at least in the second millennium BC was sustained principally through transhumant pastoralists
and their control of access to resources, analogous to Bakhtiari and Qashqa’i nomadic federations of recent times
(Alizadeh 2010), has been effectively critiqued as anachronistic by Potts (2014: 34–35; Arbuckle and Hammer
2019). By some way the most important, arguably the only, archaeological and anthropological study of the food
economy of a major settlement of the Elamite state is Melinda Zeder’s (1991) diachronic analysis of faunal re-
mains from Tal-i Malyan, integrated with the archaeobotanical work of Naomi Miller (Miller 1982; Miller and
Smart 1984). These studies show that during the Kaftari phase at Malyan, c. 2200–1600 BC, greater tracts of sur-
rounding land were brought under cultivation of crops such as wheat and two-row barley for human and animal
consumption, with outlying pastures controlled by satellite villages. Animal herding, foddering and consumption
in the Kaftari phase were focused on goat and sheep with an increased use of cattle, indicative of a “centralized
urban system” (Zeder 1991: 206) with some possible input from pastoral nomadic elements. In the Qaleh phase,
c. 1600–1100 BC, by contrast, Zeder (1991: 239) sees a resurgence of pastoralist input into meat consumption at
Malyan, buffered by a more centralised control over the production and consumption of beef. Zeder’s brilliant
study brings into sharp relief the otherwise parlous state of our knowledge and understanding of food production
and consumption across the span of ancient Elam.
Towards the end of the 12th century BC the Elamite state came to a shuddering halt, its last Shutrukid king
defeated in battle by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I. We can view this episode of collapse and the subse-
quent centuries of darkness within the broader context of transregional collapse across much of the Late Bronze
Age eastern Mediterranean and the associated disintegration of the Club of the Great Powers. Across the Ae-
gean, Anatolia, and the coastal plains of Syria and the Levant there is widespread evidence for major disruption
including the collapse of once mighty empires such as the Hittites, and the appearance of the still mysterious Sea
Peoples. But initial disruption was largely restricted to regions of Southwest Asia west of the Euphrates river,
with more gradual impact on Assyria, Babylonia and Elam. Alongside the fall of Elam, other regions of Iran were
undergoing episodes of severe challenge in the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition, as we have seen in
preceding chapters, with significant evidence for adverse climate underpinning major reorientations of settlement
patterns, including regional abandonments across almost all of Iran. In the following chapter we pursue these de-
velopments across and through that transition, in the process illuminating the ways and means by which Iranian
societies once more adapted to, and continued to shape, the ever-changing environmental and socio-political
circumstances through which they lived.
11 Iran imperial: villages, cities, states and
empires of the Iron Age, 1250–330 BC
From village to empire in the age of iron

In this extended chapter we review and interrogate the archaeological evidence from the broad spectrum of hu-
man societies that existed in Iran during the millennium of the Iron Age from c. 1250 BC. As we discussed in
earlier chapters, people were living in villages across Iran with their domesticated crops and animals for millen-
nia prior to the Iron Age, and the majority of people in Iran continued to live in this way even as the evidence
accumulates through the first millennium BC for ever-increasing levels of inequality and social stratification,
culminating in the rise to dominance of the socio-political structures of globally significant imperial powers by
the mid-first millennium BC. We have an impressive array of topics to cover in this chapter, as summarised and
visualised in Figure 11.1.
One of the challenges in the system of nomenclature for the past of Iran, and not just Iran, lies in our use of
the term “Iron Age” for the thousand-year span starting at c. 1250 BC. The fact is that for much of this period
bronze, as an alloy of tin and copper, remained a dominant metal for the production of tools, weapons and items
of adornment, even as enhanced iron-working technologies were developed through the first millennium BC
(Oudbashi 2019). Only by the mid-first millennium BC in areas where iron was relatively accessible did iron
supplant bronze as the main material for tools and weapons, at the same time freeing bronze to enjoy an enhanced
role within the decorative arts (Moorey 1982, 1988; Helwing 2018). On the other hand, there is significant evi-
dence for early production and use of iron objects at sites such as Qoli Darvish on the central plateau by c. 1500
BC (Sarlak and Hessari 2018). The use of iron demands a major increase in resources including labour in order
to mass produce iron objects, as each artefact has to be hand-forged in contrast to the multiple castings rapidly
achievable in copper or bronze. A sustainable iron industry thus requires a highly organised and efficient system
of production, including skilled labour as well as ready access to raw materials including fuel. The often-feuding
states and empires of the Iron Age of Iran and beyond, including Urartu, Media, Elam, Assyria, Babylonia and
the Achaemenids, provided a context of recurrent inter-state warfare within which such technological and or-
ganisational developments were encouraged to take place.
Iran in the age of Iranian migrations

We commence this section on a contentious issue with some wise words from a seasoned scholar of ancient Iran:
In the context of a renewed fashion of relating archaeology, culture, and language it is well to remember that
neither sherds nor genes are destined to speak specific languages, nor does a given language require a specific
ceramic type or genetic structure.
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002: 75)
A vexed topic in studying the past of Iran is the so-called “Iranisation” of Iran, that is the processes by which
the land of Iran became inhabited, at least in part, by speakers of Iranian languages. This question has occu-
pied scholars for decades and today involves the fields of linguistics, history and genetics as well as archaeology,
which is where our focus will be. In addressing this topic, we are concerned with complex issues of identity and
the shifting interplays between language, ethnicity and culture, encapsulated in the quote above from Karl
Lamberg-Karlovsky. Our viewpoint is that all peoples who have inhabited the land of Iran, as defined today,
and regarded it as their home, from earliest prehistory up to today, can rightly and reasonably call themselves
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-11
394 Iran imperial
Figure 11.1 Map of Iran to show major Iron Age sites and palaeoclimate record locations.
“Iranians” or be so designated, while accepting that a linguistic definition of “Iranian” must be more restricted
in its inclusivity. But we should also heed Witzel’s (2013: 425–426; Kohl 2007: 234) cautionary words:
the simplistic linkage of archaeological cultures with languages is just as dangerous as that with genes and ethnic-
ities…Without written sources we cannot be certain whether a particular archaeological culture was mono- or
multilingual, or whether a certain language or its dialects were spoken in several adjacent archaeological cultures.
It is important to appreciate that Iranian-speaking peoples were widely distributed through the Iron Age across
Southwest, South and Central Asia in regions well beyond Iran, from Romania in Europe to the west to Xinjiang
in China to the east, and south to the shores of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean (Witzel 2013: 423). The
Iranians of Iran need to be viewed within this broad geographic context, as important components of transre-
gional cultural connectivity spanning the Mediterranean to South and Central Asia (Kohl 2007).
A focus on pan-Iranian migrationist interpretations of the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition in Iran
has not served Iranian archaeology well, arguably encouraging devotion of much time, effort and thought into
the pursuit of academic dead ends. We cannot do better than quote in extenso the lucid, even acerbic, comments
Iran imperial 395
of Danti and Cifarelli (2015: 64) regarding the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition and its putative signif-
icance for the migration of Iranians into and across Iran:
While time has shown this would-be pan-Iranian chronological distinction proffers little by way of heuristic,
historical, or archaeological relevance, as it fails to temporally bracket regional archaeological assemblages
and horizons and requires constant local and global chronological revisions and qualifications, we are still
dealing with the paradigmatic aftershocks. This model has been left in place out of inertia, for convenience,
or, as one may argue, because it was inextricably linked to promoting a sense of Iranian nationalism. The
ripple effects include the defense of the concomitant migrationist theories, which has distracted a generation
of scholars from a normative research process predicated on the full and timely presentation of primary data.
Instead, much time and energy were spent on the highly selective presentation of data to patch increasingly
threadbare theoretical concepts and constructs.
With this damning critique in mind, we pick our way cautiously through the issues in the ensuing paragraphs.
The first historical mentions of Iranian languages and peoples occur in Neo-Assyrian cuneiform sources, from
879 BC onwards, which attest the campaigns of Assyrian kings including Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-Pileser III
and Sargon II against Iranian peoples including Median tribes in the Zagros highlands to the east of the Assyrian
homeland (Witzel 2013: 435; Potts 2016: 264–265). Other Neo-Assyrian documents make it clear, however, that
the populations of the Zagros at that time were highly mixed, with identifiable Iranian and Persian elements in the
minority (Potts 2014: 60). Assyrian and Urartian texts indicate the presence of Iranians, Kassites, Hurro-Urartians,
Mannaeans and other local populations across north-western and western Iran by the 9th century BC (Postgate
1989; Zadok 2002; Danti 2013b: 352). The designation “Parsua” in Assyrian and Urartian texts, relating to a so-
cio-political coalition of rulers, is especially intriguing and has been taken to refer to early Iranian settlement of
the Urmia basin or the central Zagros region (Zimansky 1990; Atayi and Roaf 2019).
Prior to this time, Indo-Aryan words, personal names and deities occur in Mitanni cuneiform texts in Upper
Mesopotamia around 1400 BC, with an emphasis on horses and horse racing (Starke 1995) while, beyond the
eastern end of Iran, Indo-Aryan populations interacted with communities of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeolog-
ical Complex (BMAC) of southern Turkmenistan and northern Afghanistan in the late third and early second
millennia BC (Chapter 9; Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002; Witzel 2013: 431).
The movement of Iranian-speaking peoples to the south and into Iran occurred only after these Indo-Aryan
migrations, at c. 1000 BC, and can more firmly be associated with the use of iron and the replacement of Bronze
Age chariots with horseback riding at the start of the Iron Age (Anthony 2007).
Horse management and horseback riding have been recurrently connected with the origins and early diffusion
of Iranian-speaking peoples (Burney 1999; Kelekna 2009). The development of horse riding both granted signif-
icant military advantage and facilitated rapid mass population movements, military or otherwise. In his review of
archaeological and historical evidence for the horse in early Iran and adjacent regions, Potts (2014: 47–58) traces
the appearance of the horse in faunal remains from Iranian sites dating from the fifth millennium BC onwards
and in Mesopotamian texts from the mid-later third millennium BC onwards. Of particular importance are the
horse and other equid remains from Tepe Sagzabad on the Qazvin plain, of Iron Age I date (c. 1265–1025 BC;
Mashkour et al. 1999; Mashkour 2002), horse burials of similar or later date from the cemetery sites of Marlik
and Kaluraz in Gilan (Piller 2008) and from Pardis on the Tehran plain (Fazeli et al. 2007), horses, often with
dogs, accompanying kurgan-style burials in the Khodafarin region of north-western Iran (Iravani Ghadim and
Beikzadeh 2018; Kiani et al. 2018) and a range of domesticated equids from Iron Age levels at Haftavan northwest
of Lake Urmia (Mashkour and Mohaseb 2017). Horse burials have also been excavated at Godin Tepe (Young
1968: 160), Hasanlu and Baba Jan (Goff 1969: 123). The tradition of ritual burial of horses has been traced from
the Eurasian steppes via the Caucasus into Iran from the north by the late second millennium BC (Kuzʹmina
2007). As Potts points out (2014: 58; Balatti 2017: 283), however, horse breeding and husbandry in the Za-
gros region of western Iran are attested archaeologically and in Mesopotamian texts significantly before the
Early Iron Age and we therefore need to be careful in making a strict association between the arrival in Iran
of Iranian-speaking peoples and an increased representation of the horse. Apart from the equine aspect, then,
what do archaeology and related disciplines tell us about the arrival across Iran of Iranian-speaking peoples
from the later second millennium BC onwards?
Genetic studies continue to strive for a broadly accepted interpretation of Iranian origins and dispersal (Quin-
tana-Murci et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2010; Witzel 2013: 427). Ancient DNA results have been argued to suggest
a homeland in “present-day Iran or Armenia” for the first speakers of an Indo-European language (Reich 2018:
120), an argument that rules out the need for significant migration into Iran of Iranian-speaking peoples, as it
396 Iran imperial
proposes that they or their ancestors were already there, or nearby, possibly as far back as 4000 BC. This argument
is difficult to tally with the archaeological evidence for considerable population mobility around 1000 BC, and
with the historical evidence that lacks any occurrence of Indo-Aryan names prior to 1400 BC in Mesopotamian
texts, or prior to 1650 BC in the case of the Indo-European languages of Hittite Anatolia (Watkins 2008). The
genetic and linguistic evidence more likely indicates that incoming Indo-European languages were adopted by
some elements of already ancient populations in Iran at some time around 1000 BC (Mehrjoo et al. 2019).
In terms of archaeological evidence, there have been many attempts to track the migration of Iranian
speakers across Iran through surviving material culture, above all ceramics and burial of the dead in discrete
cemeteries (Ghirshman 1954a: 60–63, 73–76; Henkelman 2012: 934). Building on Ghirshman’s ideas, Cuyler
Young (1965, 1967) associated the westwards spread of grey-ware ceramics in the Early Iron Age with the
movement of Iranian tribes into and across northern Iran, an interpretation that has not been widely accepted.
Piller (2003–2004, 2004; Mousavi 2005b) prefers to see a local development of the grey wares out of Bronze
Age ceramic traditions of northern Iran, congruent with Danti’s (2013b) view of significant local, indigenous
cultural development in north-western Iran through the second and early first millennia BC. Excavations at
Tepe Sialk levels V-VII, as well as increasing numbers of radiocarbon dates from several sites, support the idea
of a local development of grey-ware ceramics from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age (Fahimi 2013, 2019; Ho-
seinzadeh et al. 2019). Others have explored possible connections between climate change and Iranian migra-
tion, with episodes of coolness and aridity stimulating mass migrations from the steppic zone into Iran to the
south (Kuz’mina 2000; Makhortykh 2004). Also to be considered is the issue of the origins of Zoroastrianism
and the question of the geographical setting of the Avesta, the compilation of Zoroastrian holy books, an area
where opinions are widely divergent (Skjærvø 1995, 2013; Potts 2014: 62–66). It is likeliest that the material
culture and social developments attested in the Early Iron Age result from a combination of local development
and migration into Iran of new peoples.
Linguistic analyses indicate connections between early Iranian and the languages of south Russia, the Urals
and west Siberia, including a shared faunal and floral vocabulary that depicts an Indo-European homeland in
a temperate zone with cold winters, characteristic of the steppic regions of Central Asia (Witzel 2001, 2013).
Linguistically speaking, the Medes and Persians formed a western Iranian group while eastern Iranian languages
characterised the regions of Afghanistan, the Pamirs and Sogdiana (Witzel 2013: 423). It seems that western and
eastern Iranian groups both passed through the BMAC regions of southern Turkmenistan before arriving in
Iran and going their separate ways. It remains unclear as to the nature of interactions between incoming Irani-
an-speaking peoples and pre-existing local populations but there is significant evidence that even after the Iranian
migrations into Iran the country still hosted a rich ethnic and linguistic diversity, as it continues to do today
(Zadok 2002, 2018a; Witzel 2013: 433; Mehrjoo et al. 2019). In south-western Iran and the southern Zagros re-
gion Elamite peoples continued to thrive, while further north across the Zagros successors of the Guti, Lullubi
and Hurrian-related populations of Mitanni and Urartu were also present, as attested in the textual evidence.
Doubtless future investigations incorporating new archaeological, historical, linguistic and genetic evidence
will continue to tangle with the issue of the populations and populating of Iran in these critical centuries. For
now let us allow the last word to one of the most significant contributors to the debate, Cuyler Young (1967: 34):
One point is clear: the centuries from 1300 to 550 B.C. witnessed events in western Iran of such complexity
that the available data must sometimes be strained beyond what they perhaps can bear in any attempt to create
a coherent explanation of those events.
A climate of collapse and a climate of empire

A major episode of increased aridity and cold is attested in multiple palaeoclimate records of Southwest Asia,
spanning 1200–900 BC, the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition. This episode was marked by a drop of
up to 5°C in mean annual temperatures and a decrease of 40% in winter precipitation (Kaniewski et al. 2019). As
we illustrate throughout this chapter, this episode of cold, dry weather across Iran, and well beyond, appears to
have had a major negative impact on the ability of Iranian villagers, herders and farmers to pursue their agricul-
tural activities at the levels they had become accustomed to during the warm, wet climatic optimum of the Late
Bronze Age, swiftly resulting in extensive settlement abandonment across almost all of Iran with the exception
of its north-western reaches. From c. 900 BC temperature and rainfall steadily recovered towards pre-1200 BC
levels (Fallah et al. 2017), providing once more a climate and environment conducive to human settlement and
the pursuit of intensive farming and stock-keeping. It was on these environmental and agricultural foundations
that the great Iron Age empires of Iran and Southwest Asia were constructed.
Iran imperial 397
Neumann and Parpola’s (1987) analysis of 2,000 cuneiform letters from the Nineveh archives of the
Neo-Assyrian empire proposed correlations between episodes of extreme dryness, as attested in the Lake Van
isotopic record, with Assyrian textual references to drought, famine and political unrest, while the maximum
extent of Assyrian imperial reach coincided with a wetter phase that enabled higher crop yields and subsequent
greater political stability and territorial expansion (Rosenzweig 2016). High-resolution speleothem evidence
from Kuna Ba Cave in eastern Iraq reinforces this narrative (Figure 11.2) (Sinha et al. 2019), attesting an anoma-
lously wet period across the region of up to 200 years from c. 925 BC, which enabled a spread and intensification
of rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, and coincided with the major phase of Assyrian imperial expansion. This
“Assyrian megapluvial” episode was followed by a 125-year period of severe aridity from c. 725 BC leading to
an “Assyrian megadrought,” synchronous with the collapse of the Assyrian empire in the later seventh century
BC. The magnitude of this Iron Age drought is matched in the historical and palaeoclimate records only by the
post AD 1980 drought afflicting the modern Middle East and also attested in speleothem records from the region
(Flohr et al. 2017; Sinha et al. 2019).
At the height of the Iron Age there are clear environmental impacts of imperial control and agricultural inten-
sification across Iran. The Lake Zeribar core zones 7b and 7c show an increase in Plantago lanceolata-type pollen,
an indicator of pasturelands and anthropogenic disturbance that can arguably be associated with Neo-Assyrian
and/or Achaemenid exploitation of this region of western Iran (van Zeist and Bottema 1977: 75). Survey of the
Marivan plain, in the middle of which sits Lake Zeribar, has identified an increase in settlement during the Iron
Age III period, preceding and during its incorporation into the Achaemenid state (Dadaneh and Qasrian 2019).
This picture is supported by palaeoclimate data from Lake Mirabad (van Zeist and Bottema 1977; Stevens et al.
2006) and Lake Almalou, east of Lake Urmia (Figure 11.2) (Djamali et al. 2009a; Andam et al. 2020: Figure 5).
The evidence from Lake Maharlou in Fars (Djamali et al. 2009b; Andam et al. 2020) includes a major increase
in microcharcoal, at 750–500 BC, possibly from the deliberate burning of woodland to create pasture, orchards
Figure 11.2 L eft: Iron Age climate change attested in Kuna Ba cave speleothem (Sinha et al. 2019: Figure 3) (image courtesy of
Ashish Sinha). Right: summarised pollen diagram of Lake Maharlou, Lake Almalou and Lake Parishan (Andam et al.
2020: Figure 5) (image courtesy of Sara Andam).
398 Iran imperial
and managed woodlands of walnut, pistachio and plane. Core evidence from Lake Parishan tells a similar story,
indicating the use of fire to clear land for pasture and cultivation, including of olives, from c. 500 BC ( Jones et al.
2015; Djamali et al. 2016; Balatti 2017: 308–315). In south-eastern Iran, the evidence from a peat core at Jiroft
shows a period of intensive cereal cultivation, grasslands expansion and desert retreat commencing at c. 800 BC
and continuing through the lifespan of the Achaemenid empire (Gurjazkaite et al. 2018: 153). Finally, core evi-
dence from Kongor Lake at the eastern edge of the Gorgan plain in north-eastern Iran also provides a picture of
increasingly moist conditions from c. 800 BC, enabling intensification of cereal agriculture, deliberate clearance
of Hyrcanian forest and cultivation of fruit and nut trees, supporting significant human settlement after a major
hiatus in the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition (Shumilovskikh et al. 2016).
Neo-Assyrian and Achaemenid imperial expansions would have had major environmental impacts, including
through extensive irrigation projects, the spread of rural settlement, native forest clearance, an increase in inten-
sive agricultural production and changes in crop regimes such as the widespread use of lentils from c. 900 BC
(Riehl 2009): “the farmer was as much a herald of Assyria’s territorial claims as the soldier in this period” (Rosen-
zweig 2016: 53). All these intensive activities could accelerate soil salinity, erosion and exhaustion (Rosenzweig
2016: 55), thus leading to instability and collapse, particularly in the context of unpredictable episodes of severe
drought and associated high levels of atmospheric dust as attested at c. 800 BC, 500 BC and 300 BC, arguably
correlated with imperial downturns (Figure 11.3) (Sharifi et al. 2015: Figure 9).
Imperial studies
In the concluding sections of this chapter, we consider the archaeological evidence from the largest socio-political
entity that had existed in Iran, and indeed in the entire world, up to that point: the Achaemenid Persian empire. What
are the special challenges in dealing with the evidence from a polity of such an expansive and diverse geographical
reach as the Achaemenid empire? How can archaeologists best study ancient empires as archaeological phenomena,
taking into account but not being blinded or bound by the historical evidence where we have it, especially where
much of that evidence originates from sources essentially hostile or alien to the empire in question?
Figure 11.3 P
eriods of enhanced atmospheric dust, correlated with socio-political episodes in Iran and Upper Mesopotamia (Sharifi et al.
2015: Figure 9) (image courtesy of Arash Sharifi). A: episodes of dry conditions. B: Drought records from Iran. C: Historical
records of famine events. Orange areas denote major episodes of dust deposition. Grey arrows denote power transitions.
Iran imperial 399
Building on earlier work by Sinopoli (1994), Alcock et al. (2001), Smith and Montiel (2001), Matthews (2003a:
127–154), Turchin (2009), Liverani (2017) and others, Claudia Glatz (2009, 2020) has promulgated an explicitly
archaeological approach to ancient empires in her study of the Hittite empire and its material interactions across
Late Bronze Age Anatolia. Eschewing conventional top-down conceptualisations of empire, shaped above all by
elite-origin archaeological and historical evidence, Glatz formulates an agenda for empire studies whereby
Empire is both a relationship and a process that underlie recurring episodes of individual and collective inter-
action on a multitude of socio-political and cultural levels. Material culture – from pottery to monumental
architecture – is formed by, expresses and mediates these relationships and articulates the spectrum of possi-
ble modes of engagement. An archaeology of imperial relationships is, thus, the investigation of overlapping
spatial and temporal patterns of material categories that are diagnostic of inter-regional interaction.
(Glatz 2009: 127)
While Glatz herself has pioneered the application of such a methodology to the study of the Hittite empire, it is
fair to state that explicitly archaeological approaches to the Achaemenid empire, that might pursue and integrate
investigations of all surviving material attributes of core and provincial regions, and their interactions, as attested
in forms such as settlement patterns, architecture, ceramics, metalwork, glyptic plus environmental, archaeobo-
tanical and zooarchaeological assemblages, still have some way to go even if early steps are underway.
Because of the scale of their reach, power and ambition, empires have a special ability to generate impacts on
entire landscapes, in the sense of “a socially constituted set of interlinked places” (Smith 1999: 45). Wittingly or
not, empires act as “ecosystem engineers” with potentially transformative impacts on landscapes and everything
and everyone dwelling therein (Morrison 2018). As Adam Smith articulates, “It is impossible to describe regimes
independent of the spatial order they created: the regions they united, the cities they built, or the architectural
monuments they raised.” We should then expect to be able to investigate the appurtenances of imperial power in
Iron Age Iran through their surviving material remains in all their forms, subject as always to modes and methods
of archaeological investigation, analysis and publication. In an inspiring study of impacts of Urartian expansion
in southern Transcaucasia, Smith (1999: 51) foregrounds the “architectonics of inequality” demonstrating how
settlement patterns in the region during the Urartian imperial period in the 8th century BC indicate a more di-
rect and controlling presence across the plains and uplands of the region. Liverani (1979, 2017) characterises such
imperial behaviour as “provincialisation,” an “ideological project [that] transformed members of conquered pop-
ulations from defiant captives into participating members of the empire” in Melissa Rosenzweig’s words (2016:
49). How might the Achaemenid evidence inform us in this regard?
Critical in the endeavour to execute a bottom-up archaeological approach to empire is the need to excavate
non-elite sites and dwellings in order to generate evidence for how ruled peoples lived. In a stimulating study of
Urartian archaeology, Paul Zimansky (1995) demonstrated how the focus of research on hilltop, fortified, elite
sites constructed a picture of cultural homogeneity across the Urartian world, illustrating how
a relatively small ruling group can constitute an overwhelming archaeological presence in an empire popu-
lated by peoples of different and longstanding cultural traditions. When the authority structure that sustains
the imperial assemblage disappears, the active use and production of the assemblage is instantly suspended …
leaving an almost imperceptible cultural legacy….It is time to excavate habitation sites in various parts of the
empire to see how diverse or uniform it really was
(Zimansky 1995: 111)
a clarion call to action that has rarely been heeded since. We return to these issues later in the chapter. For now,
we turn to examine Iron Age developments in the upland regions of north-western Iran.
North-western Iran in the Iron Age, 1250–550 BC

Iron Age I, 1250–1050 BC: ongoing local evolution
We saw in Chapter 8 how the Late Bronze Age societies of north-western Iran, as attested at key sites such as
Hasanlu and Haftavan, appear to have evolved seamlessly from their Middle Bronze Age ancestors with little ev-
idence for dramatic change through the mid-late second millennium BC, while maintaining a significant degree
of regionalisation in their cultural attributes such as ceramics and modes of human burial (Burney 1994; Çevik
2007; Danti 2013b; Guarducci 2019). With the onset at c. 1250 BC of the Iron Age, a convenient term that belies
the extreme lack of actual iron from sites of this period (the Iron Age I period IVc at Hasanlu, for example, in-
cludes only two small iron rings: Pigott 1989), we see a continuation of these gradual developments in this region
400 Iran imperial
Figure 11.4 H
asanlu, aerial photograph and contour plan with excavated areas indicated (Cifarelli 2019: Figure 1; Danti 2013a:
Figure 1.4) (images courtesy of Michael Danti).
Iran imperial 401
with the growth of fortified elite centres at strategic locations in the landscape and with access to good stretches
of arable land (Kroll 2005b; Hassanzadeh and Curtis 2018). It is likely that much of the region’s population lived
in small villages along the valleys with some engagement of people and their flocks in vertical transhumance
according to seasonal pasture availability. The classic site of Iron Age I is Hasanlu, period IVc, which comprised
a fortified citadel of some 2–3 ha (Figure 11.4) (Dyson 1977b, 1989; Cifarelli 2019). After destruction by fire at c.
1050 BC of Hasanlu’s citadel and the settlement on its Low Mound, the Hasanlu citadel was rebuilt to a similar
plan, as also happened at Kordlar further to the north where there is more serious evidence of regional conflict
in the form of human victims and arrowheads amongst the burnt debris (Lippert 1976, 1977; Danti 2013b: 347).
Faunal remains from Kordlar evince a strong reliance on sheep, with cattle and goat. Human burial practices, as
attested at Hasanlu, Dinkha and Geoy, show continuity from the Late Bronze Age with deposition of ceramic
vessels, many of which imitate metal forms, as well as beads and metal artefacts. There are increasingly adorned
burials of children, possibly indicative of their ascribed social status.
The Hasanlu IVc citadel plan (Figure 11.5) includes a series of grand buildings designated by Dyson as BB
(Burned Building). Dominant amongst them is BBII, interpreted by Dyson and Voigt (2003: 221) as a temple.
We discuss this major building in more detail below as we have more evidence regarding its function from the
successive level, Hasanlu IVb. To the north and northeast of BBII in period IVc there are large columned halls
arranged loosely around an open central space, but few artefacts were recovered from these buildings to aid
us with their interpretation. The columned halls are likely to have served as elite residences, with less elite
elements of society residing on the Low Mound and in surrounding villages.
Rich evidence for cultural connections across north-western Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia and eastern Turkey is
found in sites with mounded kurgan burials, spanning Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age and containing grave
goods in the form of weapons, jewellery and vessels. Located close to agate sources, Zardkhaneh fortress near
Ahar city in eastern Azerbaijan province includes an impressive multi-roomed stone-built structure plus associ-
ated kurgan burials with rich grave goods, including metal objects, jewellery and ceramics (Figures 11.6–11.8;
see also Chapter 8) (Kazempour et al. 2017). Many of these tombs also include horse, goat, cow or dog skulls or
skeletons (Gahramani 2017; Iravani Ghadim and Beikzadeh 2018). Key excavated sites of this type in Iran include
Figure 11.5 Hasanlu, citadel period IVc, 1250–1050 BC (Danti 2013a: Figure 1.5) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
402 Iran imperial
Figure 11.6 Z
ardkhaneh, view and plan of citadel and associated cemetery sites (Kazempour et al. 2017: Figures 2–3) (images cour-
tesy of Mehdi Kazempour).
Figure 11.7 Z
ardkhaneh, multi-room stone building on Mound A fortress (Kazempour et al. 2017: Figure 9) (image courtesy
of Mehdi Kazempour).
Iran imperial 403
Figure 11.8 Zardkhaneh, grave goods from burials (after Kazempour et al. 2017: Figures 11, 20, 27) (images courtesy of Mehdi Kazempour).
Figure 11.9 Jafar Abad and Tu Ali Sofla, Eurasian-style horse-bits and tortoise carapace sounding box with fingerpick (Iravani
Ghadim and Beikzadeh 2018: Figures 15–16, 23) (images courtesy of Iravani Ghadim).
Abillu, Larijan, Sangar, Jafar Abad and Tu Ali Sofla, all in the Khodafarin region (Faizkhah 2017; Timurpor
Torabi 2017; Iravani Ghadim 2018). Eurasian-style horse-bits and bronze jewellery were found in the graves at
Jafar Abad and Tu Ali Sofla (Kiani et al. 2018), as well as a musical instrument utilising a tortoise carapace as a
sounding box (Figure 11.9). Association of these tomb sites, set within a rugged landscape of hilltop fortified sites,
with a mobile pastoralist lifestyle needs further support from so far sparse zooarchaeological data and analysis.
Iron Age II, 1050–800 BC: imperial encounters

Through the centuries of Iron Age II, north-western Iran was increasingly impacted by and involved in the
broader scale socio-political developments of the region at large, including the rise to power of the Assyrian em-
pire, with its core region along the Tigris valley in Upper Mesopotamia to the west (Figure 11.1). More directly,
the approximately contemporary rise of Urartu as a political entity included at least part of this region within its
control, as suggested by similarities in military equipment from north-western Iran and other regions of Urartu
404 Iran imperial
in the 9th century BC (Piller 2012b). In addition to the archaeological evidence, therefore, from the 9th cen-
tury BC we start to have relevant historical records to aid us in interpreting the socio-political circumstances of
north-western Iran into the full Iron Age, even if understanding of the texts themselves and their geographical
implications can be problematic (Levine 1973, 1974a; Balatti 2017: 119–133; Kroll 2020). These records underline
the importance of the region as an economic and strategic prize, a cherished objective for imperial conquest and a
zone hotly contested between Assyria and Urartu. The key archaeological site for Iron Age II remains Hasanlu,
even if the state of its publication remains scattered and inadequate (Muscarella 2006), with input also from exca-
vations at Dinkha Tepe, Geoy Tepe, Kordlar and Zendan-e Suleiman (Thomalsky 2006). Study of faunal remains
through the Bronze Age and Iron Age occupation at Hasanlu indicates consistent reliance on herding of sheep
and goat, with some cattle, as forming the basis of meat production for the population, with increasing evidence
for equid breeding in the Iron Age levels (Davoudi and Mashkour 2019).
As mentioned above, period IVb at Hasanlu (Figure 11.10) is essentially a rebuild and substantial elaboration of
the underlying IVc buildings (Roaf 2012). Our understanding of Hasanlu IVb is especially fulsome because of the
dramatic circumstances of its end: sudden, violent and complete destruction by fire, which impacted both the citadel
mound and areas of the Lower Town (Danti 2011). This catastrophic end, probably brought about by an invading
Urartian army (Dyson 1960, 1989; Dyson and Muscarella 1989; Danti 2014) and often characterised as “the Pompeii
of early Iron Age Iran” (Danti 2013a: xxv), provides archaeologists with an astonishing wealth of contextualised ma-
terial, including more than 14,000 artefacts and the skeletons of 285 human victims and combatants in amongst the
burnt and collapsed ruins of the citadel (Figure 11.11). Many recovered artefacts, including ceramics, ivories, seals
and seal impressions, show strong Assyrianising influences alongside distinctive local styles (Winter 1977; Marcus
1996; Maras 2005; Collins 2006; Danti and Cifarelli 2016) as well as connections with the Caucasus and Caspian
regions (Rubinson 2003; Thornton and Pigott 2011). Large quantities of weaponry, including mace-heads, swords,
daggers, spears, belts, and arrows of stone, copper-bronze and iron, were also recovered (Figure 11.12) (de Schau-
ensee 1988; Danti 2013b: Figure 17.16). Amongst the ceramics of Hasanlu IVb, especially distinctive are vessels of
so-called Palace Ware, glazed wares and forms with Urartian and Assyrian influences. While the excavators and
most commentators assign the destruction of Hasanlu IVb to c. 800 BC at the hands of an Urartian army (Dyson and
Muscarella 1989), there are proposals that a date in the late 8th century BC is indicated by some items of material
culture in the destruction level, including particular types of bronze bowl handles and horse bridles, underpinning
Medvedskaya’s (1988, 1991, 2017; Curtis 2019a) longstanding argument that Hasanlu IVb was destroyed not by an
Urartian force in 800 BC but by an Assyrian army during Sargon II’s eighth campaign in 714 BC, an argument
refuted at length by Dyson and Muscarella (1989; see also Magee 2008; effectively countered by Danti 2011: 14–15).
The IVb citadel appears to have been heavily fortified with a major circumvallation plus internal gateways
and towers all controlling access to the inner courtyard areas. Major buildings on the citadel (Figure 11.10), all
designated BB for Burned Building as in period IVc, include horse stables and columned halls with suites of
surrounding multi-storey rooms, interpreted as elite residences. BBII is one of the most important structures of
Hasanlu IVb, interpreted as a monumental columned-hall temple of Mesopotamian/Assyrian style, with an inner
sanctuary accessed through a multiple-recessed entrance (Dyson and Voigt 2003: Figure 20.1). It is likely that
the deity’s cult statue would have been placed within this small room, facing out to the outer sanctuary through
the narrow, recessed opening. Other rooms of BBII include storage facilities with giant pithoi and other ceramic
vessels. From within this impressive building more than 1,500 highly varied artefacts were recovered, including
ivory eye inlays possibly from life-sized cult statues, comparable to examples from Chogha Zanbil (Dyson and
Voigt 2003: 231). Other items include an exquisite lapis and gold-leaf vessel with lion-headed handle (Muscarella
1965) (Figure 11.13), a possible drum, red deer antlers (probably fallen from their attachment to the wall faces),
wooden furniture, wall tiles, multiple mace-heads of stone (some with inscriptions of Elamite rulers), Kassite
mosaic glass beakers, and hundreds of beads made from glass, lapis, carnelian, copper and Baltic amber. Within
the enclosed Outer Sanctuary of BBII, the bodies of 55 adults and children were excavated. Military gear suggests
that a few of the individuals were soldiers, perhaps attempting to protect women and children most of whom were
adorned with valuable metal jewellery including so-called “lion pins” (Marcus 1993).
Undoubtedly the most extraordinary find from the destroyed buildings of Hasanlu IVb is the famous Hasanlu
Gold Bowl, recovered from the ruins of BBI West located to the northwest of temple BBII (Figure 11.14) (Porada
1959; Dyson 1960; Winter 1989; Rubinson 2003; Danti 2014). The bowl, 20 cm high and with an 18 cm rim diam-
eter, was found amongst the skeletons of three armed individuals within collapsed brickwork inside a small space,
Room 9, of BBI West (Winter 1989: Figure 2; Danti 2014: Figure 6). The bowl’s rich iconography (Figure 11.15),
in repoussé and incised decoration around the bowl’s exterior surface including its underside, depicts gods, humans,
animals, chariots and furniture in a vivid combination of “the divine, the liturgical, and the mythological” (Winter
1989: 98) with strong Hurrian connections. The date of the bowl’s manufacture has been variously assigned to the
later second millennium BC, which would make it an heirloom by the time of Hasanlu IVb, or more directly to
Iran imperial 405
the Iron Age II phase of period IVb itself (Winter 1989: 91–92). Danti’s (2014) meticulous analysis of the archae-
ological context of the Gold Bowl establishes that the bowl was in the hands of one of a group of three Urartian
soldiers, wearing distinctive crested helmets with earflaps, all of whom were killed in a dramatic episode of collapse,
tumbling along with masses of brickwork and burning timbers at least 3 m onto the ground floor level from an
upper storey (Figure 11.16). A spectacular Silver Cup with two rows of iconography depicting soldiers, chariots and
animals was also found in the burnt remains of BBI West (Figure 11.17) (Winter 1977: Figure 1).
Further evidence of life and death at Hasanlu during Iron II is provided by excavations on the Low Mound,
in particular in Operation V at the eastern foot of the citadel (Danti 2011). Here a so-called “Artisan’s House”
was excavated, its contents including much evidence for metal-working such as moulds, hammers, crucibles,
slag and a copper/bronze ingot (de Schauensee 1988). This building, which was rebuilt through several phases,
suffered violent destruction by fire on at least two occasions the last of which is almost certainly contemporary
with the citadel’s destruction. The presence on floor surfaces of human, canid and equid skeletons within the
final destruction debris of the Artisan’s House (Figure 11.18) strongly suggests that the Lower Town of Hasanlu
was spared none of the grim violence visited upon the elite residential and cultic quarters on the citadel by the
invading army. The whole town was razed.
In addition to the plentiful human remains from the Hasanlu IVb destruction level (Kazzazi and Kranioti 2018),
we also have some 100 graves of Iron Age II date from the Low Mound. While most of them were single primary
inhumations, a number of the graves take the form of stone-built hypogea containing multiple burials accompanied
by weapons and armour, so-called “warrior burials,” suggestive of an increasing militarisation of society at Hasanlu
IVb prior to its destruction (Figure 11.19) (Danti and Cifarelli 2015). In addition, more than 65 burials are known
from contemporary levels at Dinkha II (Muscarella 1974b), plus further graves at Haftavan (Tala’i 2007; Tala’i
and Aliyari 2009) and Masjed-e Kabud in Tabriz (Hojabri Nobari 2004). While there is some variety in mortu-
ary practices at all these sites, including burying children in urns and use of mudbrick and stone tombs for adults, a
common feature is the burial of the dead in extramural cemeteries. Also common is the increasing elaboration of
grave goods, with deposition of ceramics, metal-ware including elaborate bronze belts (Cifarelli 2016; Cifarelli
et al. 2018, 2019), jewellery and weapons, including a steady increase in the representation of iron weapons and
items of adornment (Danti 2013b: 356). Overall, the level of craftwork is high and the materials used in the man-
ufacture of grave goods are indicative of extensive networks of trade and exchange.
Figure 11.10 Hasanlu, citadel period IVb, 1050–800 BC (Danti 2013a: Figure 1.6) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
406 Iran imperial
Figure 11.11 Hasanlu, destruction at end of citadel period IVb (UPenn Museum image #78138) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
Figure 11.12 H
asanlu, citadel period IVb, metal weaponry (Danti 2013b: Figure 17.16) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
Iran imperial 407
Figure 11.13 Hasanlu, lapis and gold-leaf vessel with lion-headed handle (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst.,
courtesy of the National Museum of Iran).
Figure 11.14 Hasanlu, gold bowl shortly after excavation in 1958 (Danti 2014: Figure 5) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
Figure 11.15 H
asanlu, gold bowl decorative scheme (after Winter 1989: Figure 6).
408 Iran imperial
Figure 11.16 Hasanlu, reconstruction of BBIW Room 9 gold bowl context (Danti 2014: Figure 6) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
Figure 11.17 Hasanlu, silver beaker with electrum appliqué (after Winter 1977: Figure 1).
Iran imperial 409
Figure 11.18 H
asanlu, Low Mound, Operation V, “Artisan’s House” destruction level (Danti 2011: Figure 5) (image courtesy of
Michael Danti).
Figure 11.19 Hasanlu, Operation LIe Burial 3, Iron Age II (Danti and Cifarelli 2015: Figure 18) (image courtesy of Michael Danti).
During Iron Age II and into Iron Age III there is increasing use of stone anthropomorphic statues across
north-western Iran, as attested at sites such as Shahr Yeri, Chinab, Ahmedabad and others (Burney 1979; Dehghani
2013). At Shahr Yeri, more than 500 stone statues were set within a possible temple, depicting adult males armed
with daggers or swords (Figure 11.20) (Ingraham and Summers 1979; Dan and Cesaretti 2020), with evidence for
the deposition of votive offerings including jewellery and metal vessels in platforms adjacent to the standing statues.
The end of Iron Age II and the transition to Iron Age III occurs at a time of decline in Assyrian power under
Adad-nerari III (811–783 BC) and an expansion of Urartu under Ishpuini (828–810 BC) and his son Menua
410 Iran imperial
Figure 11.20 S hahr Yeri stelae (after Dan and Cesaretti 2020: Figures 5–10) (images courtesy of Roberto Dan).
(810–786 BC) (Ayvazian 2012). As discussed above, period IVb at Hasanlu is brought to a violent end involving
total destruction by fire at about 800 BC, a date that has been contested. Contemporary levels at Kordlar are also
destroyed at about the same time.
Iron Age III, 800–550 BC: between imperial powers

The Iron Age III period commences as Iron II ends, with the probable Urartian sacking of Hasanlu and other
major sites of north-western Iran. Following its violent destruction at c. 800 BC, occupation at Hasanlu re-
sumed with the so-called “Urartian fortress” of period III, but analysis and publication of this level have been
poor (Muscarella 2006; Kroll 2010, 2013; Danti 2013b: 367–368). Walls of period IIIb were built directly on
the burnt level of period IVb (period IVa “exists only as a fancy” in the excavator’s mind according to Kroll
2013: 181), with no evidence for a significant episode of abandonment. A major fortification wall was con-
structed on the citadel, its foundations set deeply into the period IVb destruction debris (Figure 11.21). This
wall may have been left unfinished but modest rectilinear structures, including possible stables, were built
against its internal face (Kroll 2010: 25, 2013: 184, 2014). Missing from the “Urartian fortress” at Hasanlu is
any evidence for the large-scale public buildings such as garrison blocks and storage facilities with large ves-
sels that normally characterise major Urartian centres, and it is likely that Urartian occupation of the site was
short and sharp (Figure 11.22). The low-lying location of Hasanlu is not ideal for a major Urartian strategic
settlement and following the sacking of the town the Urartians applied their architectural talents and energies
to more favourable locations in the region.
Thus, following the period IVb destructions at Hasanlu, there is increasing evidence in the form of fortified
sites, settlements, rock-cut tombs and inscribed royal stelae for a major Urartian presence across much of the
Urmia basin, especially to the north and west, through the later 9th and early 8th centuries BC, as attested in
surveys that have detected more than 100 Urartian sites (Biscione 2003, 2009; Kroll 2014, 2020; Dan et al. 2019).
This evidence betokens an upswing in Urartian fortunes in their ongoing struggles with their Assyrian opponents
to the west, with local Iranian polities such as the Mannaeans striving to survive (Postgate 1989; Zadok 2006,
2013: 415–416; Radner 2016; Balatti 2017: 250–256; Hassanzadeh 2017). The Urartians constructed a network of
fortified sites across the Urmia basin, with large fortresses at key communication nodes and smaller forts protect-
ing routeways (Figure 11.23) (Kroll 1976; Zimansky 1985; Danti 2013a; Biscione and Dan 2019), thus blocking
Assyrian or other access to the mountain passes vital for Assyrian campaigning in the region and beyond into the
central Zagros. Key sites include Urartian citadels at Haftavan (Burney 1970, 1972: 137–142) and Kal Kharabe
(Mohammadi et al. 2018), the hilltop fortress of Qalatgah controlling the Ushnu valley and yielding inscrip-
tions of the Urartian kings Ishpuini and Menua at c. 800 BC (Muscarella 1971; van Loon 1975), the rock niche
at Ain-e Rum with an Urartian inscription identifying it as a “fountain of Menua” (Salvini 2019), Tash Tepe
(Pecorella and Salvini 1984; Kroll 2005b) and Agrab Tepe overlooking the Solduz valley (Muscarella 1973). The
multi-period site of Anaqizli Tapeh is situated on a natural rock plateau on the Qara Zia’eddin plain (Heinsch
et al. 2019), on a major communication route controlled by Urartu prior to the foundation of nearby Bastam by
Rusa II.
Iran imperial 411
Figure 11.21 Hasanlu, citadel period III (after Kroll 2013: Figure 6).
Figure 11.22 Hasanlu, Urartian red-slipped trefoil jar from Operation Z26 (Kroll 2013: Figure 8).
412 Iran imperial
Figure 11.23 U
rartian fortified sites in north-western Iran and adjacent regions, arranged in clusters (Biscione and Dan 2019: Fig-
ure 6) (image courtesy of Roberto Dan).
Figure 11.24 Bastam, view from the northeast and site plan (Kleiss 1979: Taf. 2) (permission courtesy of Stephan Kroll).
Much of our archaeological knowledge of this episode comes from the enormous Urartian fortress site of
Bastam in far north-western Iran north of Khoy, founded by the Urartian king Rusa II, 685–645 BC, and
the largest of all Urartian fortified sites (Figures 11.24–11.25) (Kroll 1972, 2020; Kleiss 1979, 1988, 1989). The
adjacent plain shows significant traces of Urartian irrigation activity. The Urartian site of Bastam comprises a
rectangular eastern complex built in the valley below the fortress, with guardrooms and a three-aisled stable
building. This complex appears to relate entirely to stabling and exercising of horses. At the foot of the fortress
there is a settlement area, 600 × 300 m, featuring stone-built houses accommodating officials and merchants.
The fortress itself covered 800 × 400 m and included a series of staged citadels, the middle of which contained
a square tower-temple of Haldi, the major Urartian deity. The governor’s residence was located in the upper
citadel. A few fragments of inscribed Urartian clay tablets (Figure 11.26), very rare examples from Iran, contain
royal instructions to officials. Typical Urartian items of material culture such as burnished red ceramics and a few
cylinder seals were also found.
Amongst the many remarkable features of Bastam, a suite of rooms between the middle and upper citadels
stands out (Zimansky 1979, 1988). Three adjacent rooms (Figure 11.27) contained some 600,000 animal bones
principally of sheep and goat but also dog, cow, deer and, equid, generally lacking heads and feet and therefore
from butchered creatures. Mixed amongst the bones were more than 1,200 clay bullae, many impressed with
king Rusa II’s seal and some with short inscriptions (Figure 11.28) (Dara and Shirzade 2017; Dara 2019). This
Iran imperial 413
Figure 11.25 Bastam, plan of the citadel (Kleiss 1979: Abb. 36) (permission courtesy of Stephan Kroll).
Figure 11.26 Bastam, Urartian clay tablet with seal impression (Kleiss 1979: Taf. 28) (permission courtesy of Stephan Kroll).
Figure 11.27 Bastam, rooms with concentrations of animal bones and clay bullae (Zimansky 1979: 55) (permission courtesy of
Paul Zimansky).
414 Iran imperial
Figure 11.28 Bastam, bulla with inscribed seal impression of king Rusa II, son of Argishti, 7th century BC (Zimansky 1979: 53)
(permission courtesy of Paul Zimansky).
striking assemblage of items is matched by a discrete layer of bones and inscribed bullae also of Rusa II at Ayanis
in Turkey (Işık and Işıklı 2015), and by similar concentrations of decapitated animal remains at the major Urar-
tian citadel sites of Toprakkale in Turkey and Karmir Blur in Armenia, although here lacking the sealed bullae
as found at Bastam and Ayanis. In his thoughtful discussion of these special deposits, Paul Zimansky (1988: 123)
concedes that
it is possible that these assemblages have to do with a pollution concept or taboo which was part of the con-
ceptual system that maintained the Urartian social order. The evidence of royal involvement, be it personal
or somewhat more general, would accord well with this view, since the behavior of monarchs is inevitably
constrained by elaborate prohibitions and ritualistic imperatives.
Others have interpreted the deposits as the remains of meat stores with the sealings being used to keep account
of meat stocks (Kleiss 1989).
To the south and west of the Urmia basin the Urartian hold was not so strong, with greater Assyrian and
local influences on the sites of Kurdistan (Levine 1974a). Approaches to and through this region were mar-
shalled by a complex of fortified hilltop sites such as Jowš ā t ū , Bari, Jan Aqa and Qal’e Bardineh (Binandeh
and Kargar 2008; Hassanzadeh 2009; Mollazadeh 2015; Binandeh et al. 2017; Binandeh 2019). At Ziwiye
near Sakkiz, possibly ancient Zibiya, a spectacular collection of silver, gold and ivory objects deposited with
a burial in a bronze coffin was found in about 1947, including a gold belt with depictions of stags, ibexes
and lion’s heads, a bracelet with lion-head finials, a ram’s head rhyton and assorted weapons and items of
adornment dated to the 8th–7th centuries BC (Ghirshman 1950; Godard 1950; Barnett 1956; Kantor 1960;
Dyson 1963; Wilkinson 1975; Motamedi 1997; Curtis 2001, 2017; Mazzoni 2011), although doubts have
been expressed regarding the integrity and authenticity of the deposit (Muscarella 1977, 2018). If genuine
as an assemblage, it demonstrates a distinctive mélange of Assyrian, Urartian, Scythian and local Mannaean
craft and iconography. A series of excavation campaigns at Ziwiye, not yet fully published, have recovered
a range of materials, including exquisite strips of ivory and bone carved with scenes strongly evocative of
Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs, such as royal wild bull and lion hunting and military campaigns but with sig-
nificant Urartian, Mannaean and other more local traits, all suggestive of local manufacture (Figure 11.29)
(Amelirad 2019; Amelirad and Razmpoush 2019; Thomalsky 2019: 144–146). So far peculiar to north-
western Iran in this period was the manufacture of bimetal swords, i.e. swords taking the form of a bronze
exterior surrounding an iron core (Kontani 2005).
Iran imperial 415
Other key sites of the region, with varying degrees of Urartian and/or Assyrian influence (MacGinnis 2016;
Balatti 2017: 250–256), include Kani-zirin (Qanbari-Taheri et al. 2020), Qalaichi, where a columned hall and
religious structure decorated with polychrome glazed bricks have been excavated (Kargar 2004; Mollazadeh
2008; Hassanzadeh and Mollasalehi 2011, 2017; Nezamabadi et al. 2011; Hassanzadeh 2016a; Hassanzadeh and
Curtis 2021), and Rabat Tepe on the Lower Zab close to the Iraq border, with an 8th century BC decorated
pavement formed of pebbles in concentric circles (Figure 11.30) and examples of high-quality painted and glazed
bricks (Figure 11.31) with inscriptions suggesting the site’s identity as ancient Arzizu (Kargar and Binandeh 2009;
Reade and Finkel 2014; Holakooei et al. 2017; Ebrahimipour 2019). Just across the border on the Peshdar plain in
Iraq, Iron Age sites in the Dinka Settlement Complex attest Assyrian attempts to control the Lower Zab route to
and from the high Zagros (Radner et al. 2019). Underlining the importance of Assyrian influence in this area, the
style of glazed bricks found at several sites across the region, as far west as Satu Qala in Iraqi Kurdistan (Van Soldt
et al. 2013), shows stronger connections to Assyrian than to Elamite glazed brick production (Gries and Fügert
2019). At Sarrez near Kamyaran, Babylonian influence is attested on a distinctive decorated bronze nipple-based
beaker with winged bull motif (Figure 11.32) (Amelirad and Razmpoush 2015), directly comparable to unprove-
nanced examples in museum and other collections dating to the 10th–9th centuries BC and believed to originate
entirely from western Iran (Muscarella 1974a).
Figure 11.29 Z
iwiye, ivory and bone plaques (Amelirad and Razmpoush 2019: Figures 1–4; Nokandeh 2017: Figure 52) (images
courtesy of Sheler Amelirad; bottom left photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the
National Museum of Iran).
416 Iran imperial
Figure 11.30 R
abat Tepe, pebble floor (Kargar and Binandeh 2009: pl. 5) (images courtesy of Alireza Binandeh and Reza Heydari).
Figure 11.31 R abat Tepe, painted bricks showing winged lion-man (Kargar and Binandeh 2009: pl. 7) and winged genie (images
courtesy of Alireza Binandeh and Reza Heydari).
Figure 11.32 Sarrez, decorated bronze beaker (Amelirad and Razmpoush 2015: Figure 5) (images courtesy of Sheler Amelirad).
Iran imperial 417
Also significant are the cemeteries at Guringan (Sorkhabi and Salimi 2019), Sanandaj (Amelirad et al. 2012;
Sołtysiak et al. 2018), Kul Tarike (Rezvani and Roustaei 2007), Changbar (Hassanzadeh 2016b: 373), Mala Mcha
(Amelirad et al. 2017), Shiran and Ruwar (Figure 11.33) (Ghasimi et al. 2019; Mucheshi and Soltani 2019). A
looted burial at Kani Koter contained a fine bronze belt with relief depictions of galloping lions, gazelles, bulls,
deer, wild sheep, goat plus compound fantastic creatures, probably of 7th century BC date (Figure 11.34) (Ame-
lirad and Azizi 2021). Along with other excavated sites of the central Zagros such as Baba Jan (Goff 1977, 1978,
1985), and early Median impacts attested at Nush-i Jan and Godin II (see below), altogether these sites provide
evidence for “a series of small rich kingdoms having their own local élite, handicraft production and specific
Figure 11.33 R
uwar, Iron Age tomb in the Sirwan river area, Hawraman, Kurdistan. Site location, tomb and selected grave goods
(Ghasimi et al. 2019: Figures 2, 6, 10–11, 13, 15) (images courtesy of Taher Ghasimi).
418 Iran imperial
Figure 11.34 K ani Koter, bronze belt from grave (Amelirad and Azizi 2021: Figure 13) (images courtesy of Sheler Amelirad).
Figure 11.35 T
he 8th Campaign of Sargon II in 714 BC (Sauvage 2020: 123) (image courtesy of Mustapha Djabellaoui and
Martin Sauvage).
cultural identity, but lacking the complex administrative system of the Mesopotamian states” (Balatti 2017: 255).
To the east, in the 8th–7th centuries BC the site of Zendan-e Suleiman I served as a spectacular mountain
sanctuary with structures and terraces arranged around a natural conical peak containing a crater lake (Boehmer
1967; Kleiss 1971; Naumann 1977; Thomalsky 2006, 2019).
Taken together, the diffuse evidence from these sites of western and north-western Iran gives tantalising hints
at the nature of an Iron Age territory historically known to us as Mannaea, situated in the highland zone south
and southwest from Lake Urmia and first attested in records of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III in 843 BC
Iran imperial 419
(Hassanzadeh 2016a). From the Assyrian and Urartian records we can envisage Mannaea as a loose confedera-
tion of small states or kingdoms occasionally obliged by Assyrian and Urartian threats into a form of cohesive
alliance initially led by a king named Udaku, based at Izirtu (= Qalaichi?) to the south of Lake Urmia (Levine
1974a: 113–116; Postgate 1989; Zadok 2006; Bryce 2009: 443–445; Binandeh 2020). During the 8th century BC,
Mannaea coalesced more firmly into a unified state whose relations with Assyria alternated between episodes
of relative calm interspersed with outright warfare. Beyond doubt is the high technical craftworking skill of the
Mannaeans, as attested above all in distinctive assemblages of metalwork as outlined above. As with Urartian elite
material culture, Mannaean artisans of high-status artwork borrowed their narrative repertoire and motifs largely
from Assyria to the west but always executed them with a flair all their own (Sheikhi et al. 2017).
The Urartian presence in the Urmia basin region was severely disrupted through the famous eighth campaign
of Sargon II in 714 BC (Figure 11.35) (Zimansky 1990; Jakubiak 2004; Kroll 2020), which brought the region
under Assyrian control at least for a while. But little is known about north-western Iran in the centuries of the
later Iron Age (Summers and Burney 2012; Ebrahimi et al. 2019), during which the Medes rose to ascendancy nor
concerning the subsequent rise to domination of the region by the Achaemenid empire, although the Mannaean
state was still attested into the Achaemenid period. Finds of so-called Triangle Ware across the region appear to
date to the incorporation of the region into the Achaemenid empire in the late 6th century BC (Dyson 1999;
Kroll 2000; Khatchadourian 2018: 209–227).
Northern, Central and North-Eastern Iran in the Iron Age, 1250–600 BC

Looking eastwards from the Lake Urmia basin and north-western Iran across northern Iran, we can detect a
similarly complex pattern of local cultural trends situated within broader scale socio-political developments,
punctuated by significant episodes of disruption, through the Iron Age of the northern edges of the central Ira-
nian plateau, the Alborz range and the Caspian Sea basin regions of northern Iran (Table 11.1) (Mousavi 2013a).
A notable feature is the apparent absence of significant Late Bronze Age settlement across the entire region, which
may be an artefact of archaeological investigation, or lack thereof, or may be associated in some way with other
regional settlement disruptions, as attested in the Qaleh period in the Fars region, 1600–1100 BC, for example
(Chapter 8), including climatic adversity in the form of a 300-year episode, starting at c. 1200 BC, of severe
cold and aridity affecting the eastern Mediterranean, Southwest Asia and beyond (Kaniewski et al. 2019). In this
section, we examine key sites of the Iron Age of northern Iran region by region (Figure 11.1), moving eastwards
along the southern reaches of the Caspian and the adjacent Alborz range before studying the evidence from the
plains on the northern and western fringes of the Dasht-e Kavir.
Geographically, northern Iran is a highly distinctive and varied region, as outlined in Chapter 2, dominated
by the great Alborz mountain range that divides the Caspian basin and its low-lying littoral from the uplands of
the Iranian plateau to the south (Bazin et al. 2011). Nestling into the relatively fertile and well-watered southern
slopes of the Alborz are several of the great plains of northern Iran, including the Qazvin, Savajbulaq, Tehran
and Varamin plains, while further south the Qom and Kashan plains draw their moisture from the eastern slopes
of the Zagros. In all these regions we find occupation of Iron Age date even if the picture is fragmented and not
easy to synthesise (Piller 2004; Mousavi 2005b).
Along the coastal plains and upland regions of the Alborz bounding the Caspian Sea to its south, there are
distinctive ecotones that hosted significant human activity in the Iron Age, as in earlier periods. From the west,
these regions comprise Gilan, Mazandaran and Golestan (formerly Gorgan), each of which contains a stretch of
littoral 1–30 km in width plus an adjacent segment of the Alborz range. Major north-south passes through the
Alborz in these regions are restricted to the course of the Sefid Rud, debouching at Rasht, the Karaj-Now Shahr
road west of Tehran and the tougher road to Amol and Sari northeast of Tehran, which allows access to the
Gorgan plain at the Caspian’s south-eastern corner. The Alborz north-facing slopes comprise a humid, heavily
vegetated and wooded environment (Bobek 1968; Shumilovskikh et al. 2016). Human settlement has tended to
focus on the foothills and coastal plains where possible, although communities must have been exploiting the rich
fauna and flora of the upland slopes through time.
Key Iron Age sites of the southern Caspian region are concentrated along the banks of the Sefid Rud, the
major river of the whole region, and its tributaries, including the famous sites of Marlik and Kaluraz in Gilan
province (Haerinck 1988; Piller 2004; Fahimi 2017). At Marlik, also known as Cheraq-Ali Tepe, Ezat Negah-
ban (1964, 1965, 1996, 1998; Abdi 2010; Oudbashi and Hessari 2017) excavated 53 stone tombs mainly of Early
Iron Age date set into the slopes of a natural hill with two rocky summits (Figures 11.36–11.37). Many of the
dead were accompanied by spectacular grave goods (Figures 11.38–11.40) including gold, silver and tin-bronze
vessels, glass and frit vessels, highly sophisticated human and animal figures (with an emphasis on humped zebu
Table 11.1 C
omparative chronology of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age of the central plateau of Iran (after Fahimi 2019: Figure 5)
420 Iran imperial
Region Central Iranian Plateau
Period BC N NW NE C S
Late Iron 500 Veshnoveh

Age (III) Sialk VII
600 Zarboq
Shamshirgah Gurtan
700 Sagzabad Wasun
X
<- - - - - - ->
<- - - - - - ->

Middle Iron 800 Tepe Ozbaki
Age (II) Sialk B Sialk VI
900 Qabrestan Sagzabad
VIII
Sarm Qoli Darvish
<- - - - - - ->
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> (A1)
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
1000
Sagzabad Hesar
VII (V?)
Early Iron 1100 Qeytariyeh Khorvin Shahrud
Age (I) Kahrizak Geyran Tepe Sagzabad Gandan-e Sialk V Sialk V
VI
1200 Ma'murin Maral Tepe Kharand Qoli Darvish Milajerd
<- - - - - - ->
(A2)
<- - - - - - ->
<- - - - - - - - - ->
<- - - - - - - - - ->
<- - - - - - - - - ->
Pardis Dushan Hesar
Tepe (IV?)
1300 Sagzabad Qoli Darvish
V (A3a)
Late Bronze
Age 1400 Pishva
Sagzabad Sialk IV
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
IV
<- - - - - - ->
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
1500 Hesar Qoli Darvish

(IIIC) (A3b)
Iran imperial 421
cattle), jewellery of gold, carnelian, glass, frit, shell and bone, many tin-bronze weapons (mace-heads, swords,
spearheads, daggers, axes and arrowheads) and a wide range of Early and Late Iron Age ceramic types including
zoomorphic and anthropomorphic vessels and typical long-spouted pots. Perhaps most famous is the Marlik Gold
Beaker from Tomb 26 (Figure 11.41) (Negahban 1996: col. pl. xiii), adorned with winged bulls either side of a
tree of life symbol. The decoration of this extraordinary vessel was achieved through a combination of techniques
including repoussé, soldering, plating, inlay and lost-wax (Mousavi 2013a: 401). Various types of deer feature
prominently in scenes on metal vessels and as figurines (Kawami 2005).
Fourteen cylinder seals and five stamp seals were also found in the Marlik tombs, mainly in the late-second
millennium BC Mitanni style but with some later examples two of which have Middle Assyrian inscriptions. It
is not clear whether these seals functioned as administrative devices within their north Iranian contexts – there
are no clay sealings nor sealed tablets from anywhere in this region, or nearby, to support such an interpretation.
A comparative study of seals from cemetery and settlement sites across north-central Iran indicates that seals from
human burial contexts tend to be made of softer materials than seals from settlement contexts, possibly because
the former were not designed for use within an administrative system (Mucheshi and Tala’i 2012). There are also
indications at Marlik that some of the burials contained horses and horse trappings. Human remains were
poorly preserved within the tombs but the variable distribution of grave goods within the graves, including some
extremely rich tombs such as Tomb 52 with 180 artefacts and Tomb 35 with more than 200 precious objects, sug-
gests the society represented by the Marlik cemetery may have been significantly stratified (Abdi 2010), although
it may be a step too far to claim that Marlik represents “the Royal Cemetery of a long-forgotten kingdom” (Neg-
ahban 1996: xlix). Brief excavations at the nearby settlement site of Pileh Qal’eh exposed architectural levels
contemporary with the Marlik cemetery (Negahban 1996: 11). Faunal remains from Pileh Qal’eh attest hunting
of a range of species including red deer, boar, sheep, goat and gazelle – all wild – with cattle as the dominant
domesticated animal (Davoudi et al. 2019).
Further along the Sefid Rud, excavations at Kaluraz uncovered further richly furnished Iron Age tombs in
association with stone structures, with ceramics and metal vessels comparable to the earlier tomb groups from
Figure 11.36 M
arlik, site location map and aerial view (after Oudbashi and Hessari 2017: Figure 1) (images courtesy of Morteza Hessari).
422 Iran imperial
Figure 11.37 Marlik, excavated area and numbered graves (Oudbashi and Hessari 2017: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Morteza Hessari).
Figure 11.38 Marlik, selected metal grave goods (Oudbashi and Hessari 2017: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Morteza Hessari).
Marlik and other sites of the Gilan region, including a contemporary cemetery at Toul-e Talish (Egami et al.
1965; Hakemi 1968, 1973, 2017; Fukai and Matsutani 1982; Khalatbari 1997; Tadahiko et al. 2006; Vahdati 2007).
Included in one of the Toul-e Talish tombs was a bronze bracelet bearing an Urartian inscription naming Argishti
of the 8th century BC, interpreted as a later addition to a tomb largely of 10th–9th century BC date (Figure
11.42) (Vahdati 2007). In addition to the legally excavated sites and tombs, the region has suffered considerably
from illicit looting of tombs and accidental discoveries such as the Kelardasht treasure including a famous
gold bowl and golden dagger (Figure 11.43) (Samadi 1959; Rafiei-Alavi 2019). Japanese and Iranian excava-
tions in the region of Kaluraz (Tadahiko et al. 2003; Ohtsu et al. 2005; Takuro 2005; Fallahian et al. 2006;
Iran imperial 423
Figure 11.39 S elected gold grave goods from Marlik (top row, middle left, bottom right), Kaluraz (middle right) and Kelardasht
(bottom left) (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh, National Museum of Iran)
Ryuji 2006) revealed further Iron Age remains at Jalaliyeh, including mudbrick and stone architecture, and
at Jamshid Abad. Domesticated sheep and goat, with some cattle, alongside hunting of deer and boar, char-
acterise the animal exploitation at Jalaliyeh (Mashkour 2005; Davoudi et al. 2019). Eastwards around Deyla-
man further Iron Age cemeteries were excavated at Ghalekuti and Lasulkan. Palaeoenvironmental evidence
from Lake Neor suggests a major presence of herded animals and the cultivation of cereals and fruit trees
424 Iran imperial
Figure 11.40 M
arlik, selected ceramic grave goods (Nokandeh 2017: Figure 60) (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh, Na-
tional Museum of Iran).
through the Iron Age (Ponel et al. 2013). At all these sites ceramic assemblages include wheel-turned vessels
in the so-called Orange Ware tradition, widely distributed in Iron Age III across the Gilan and Mazandaran
stretches of the Alborz range of northern Iran and arguably associated with the introduction of communal
ceremonial practices across the region (Arimatsu 2015).
Our knowledge of the Iron Age of the Alborz range eastwards from Qazvin-Deylaman is sparse. The situation
in north-eastern Iran closely mirrors that in the southeast (see below), with the Early Iron Age of the region
cited as “one of the least understood periods of Iranian archaeology” (Vahdati 2018: 51), although surveys and
excavations across the region are steadily enhancing our understanding of the richness of Iron Age occupation
in this previously under-researched area of Iran (Roustaei 2012a; Sharifi and Motarjem 2014). Following the
abandonment of key sites of the region, including Hissar and Tureng Tepe at c. 1700–1650 BC (Chapter 9), we
lack evidence for reoccupation of these and other sites until the 10th century BC at the earliest (Roustaei 2010a).
Renewed investigations at Tepe Hissar on the Damghan plain, in advance of railway construction potentially
impacting the site, recovered the first significant evidence of Iron Age occupation at Hissar (Figure 11.44), in-
cluding copper-smelting ore and slags, pottery of Iron Age II date and human burials with pottery and beads
(Roustaei 2010a). On the coastal plain at the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea, excavations at Gohar
Tappe have begun to shed light on settlement in this region, including the evidence from “warrior burials” of
Iron Age I date with grave goods of ceramic vessels and items of adornment similar to contemporary tomb fur-
nishings at Marlik (Sołtysiak and Mahfroozi 2008; Piller and Mahfroozi 2009; Piller 2012c). Humped bull or
zebu figurines are common at the site and there is an unusually detailed rendition in baked clay of a horse with
trappings (Figure 11.45). Iron Age I burials have also been excavated at the cemetery site of Shahne Poshte in
Mazandaran province, with grave goods of ceramics, beads and bronze weapons (Figure 11.46) (Sołtysiak et al.
2019a) as well as traces of wattle and daub architecture. Petroglyphs depicting wild goat and bovids at the site of
Jorbat in western Khorasan and other sites of north-eastern Iran appear to date to the Late Bronze and Iron Ages
and may relate to hunting activities in this fertile region (Vahdati 2011).
Iran imperial 425
Figure 11.41 Marlik, gold beaker from grave 26 (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh, National Museum of Iran).
Figure 11.42 Toul-e Talish, bronze bracelet with Urartian inscription (Vahdati 2007: Figure 2) (image courtesy of Ali Vahdati).
In northern Khorasan and adjacent regions of north-eastern Iran, there is some evidence for continuity of hu-
man presence, if not in forms of ceramic production and social organisation, through the Late Bronze Age-Early
Iron Age transition, with indications of a significant intrusion of, perhaps, peoples from south Central Asia at this
time (Vahdati 2016; see Chapter 9). There appears to have been intensive Early Iron Age settlement of the Atrak
river basin with sites showing connections both to south-eastern (Yaz I) and south-western Turkmenistan (Ar-
chaic Dehistan) (Figure 11.47) (Vahdati 2018: 55, Figure 14). Brief excavations at Tepe Yām in the Upper Atrak
valley exposed materials of Yaz I type including typical coarse, handmade ceramics (Vahdati 2018: 55), while at
Tappe Rivi excavated levels date back to the 10th century BC ( Jafari and Thomalsky 2018).
Excavations at Jayran Tepe on the Esfarayen plain in the southern foothills of the Aladagh mountains un-
covered human burials and a substantial circular mudbrick structure over an area of 470 m 2 with internal rooms
and corridors (Figure 11.48) (Vahdati 2016: Figure 3, 2018). One room contained a platform with traces of ash
and fire across its surface. The excavator, Ali Vahdati, interprets the structure as a fortified citadel comparable to
Early Iron Age examples from sites in south Central Asia. Pottery from the site includes both the classic hand-
made Yaz I types of south-eastern Turkmenistan and the wheel-turned polished grey ware of so-called Archaic
Dehistan type characteristic of Early Iron Age sites in south-western Turkmenistan. These intriguing discoveries
suggest considerable cultural connectivity of this region of Iran at the shadowy Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age
transition. They also hint at the possibility that incoming communities from the east brought with them not
426 Iran imperial
Figure 11.43 Kelardasht, selected objects from the Kelardasht Treasure (Samadi 1959: Figures 4–5, 7, 11–13; Nokandeh 2017: Fig-
ure 47) (photo credit: courtesy Jebrael Nokandeh, National Museum of Iran).
Figure 11.44 T
epe Hissar, location of trenches with Iron Age material (after Roustaei 2010a: Figure 28).
only unfamiliar, sometimes more basic, ceramic technologies but also the notion and practice of a new way of
structuring local societies, with elite ruling groups living in large fortified residences constructed atop natural
eminences, as at Jayran Tepe, and controlling the production and storage of local agricultural activity.
Well to the west across the central plateau (Table 11.1), the Qazvin plain is one of the more fertile expanses of
arable land in northern Iran, as we have seen. Survey and excavations there have suggested an occupation hiatus
of up to 500 years preceding a modest Iron Age presence (Negahban 1977), including rare architectural remains
and richly furnished human burials at Qara Tappeh (Dehpahlavan et al. 2019) (Figure 11.49), Sagzabad (Malek
Iran imperial 427
Figure 11.45 G
ohar Tappe, horse figurine (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009: Figure 25) (images courtesy of Ali Mahfroozi and
Christian Piller).
Figure 11.46 Shahne Poshte, Iron Age I burials (Sołtysiak et al. 2019a: Figures 1–2) (images courtesy of Hassan Fazeli Nashli).
428 Iran imperial
Figure 11.47 North-eastern Iran and its neighbours in the Early Iron Age (adapted from Vahdati 2018: Figure 14) (image courtesy
of Ali Vahdati).
Figure 11.48 Jayran Tepe, circular mudbrick structure and ceramics of Early Iron Age (Vahdati 2016: Figures 3–5, pl. 4) (images
courtesy of Ali Vahdati).
Shahmirzadi 1977; Tala’i 1983a), and Iron Age graves at nearby Tepe Ghabristan (Majidzadeh 1977; Malekza-
deh 1977) where females were buried on their left and males on their right sides accompanied by ceramic vessels
and strings of beads. Survey along the southern reaches of the Qazvin plain hints at a degree of settlement conti-
nuity from Bronze Age to Iron Age in this region but needs further investigation (Tahan and Naghshineh 2016).
Synthetic analysis of the faunal remains from excavations on the Qazvin plain demonstrates a significant increase
in hunting of wild equids and boar alongside increased herding of cattle in the Iron Age levels at Sagzabad in
Iran imperial 429
contrast to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age emphasis on herding sheep and goat (Mashkour et al. 1999; Mash-
kour and Mohaseb 2017). Metal objects from Iron Age I–II levels at Sagzabad were manufactured from a range
of copper alloys, including unalloyed copper, arsenical copper and tin bronze, suggesting selection of alloys to
achieve specific decorative effects (Mortazavi et al. 2011).
Due west of Tehran on the Savajbulaq plain, excavations at the four mounds of Khorvin investigated an Iron
Age cemetery without any clear settlement or architectural associations and with relatively impoverished metal
grave goods (Hakemi 1950; Vanden Berghe 1964). Significant numbers of Iron Age sites have been located by
survey across the Savajbulaq plain (Kleiss 1997; Mousavi 2005b). Excavations at Tepe Mushalan and Tepe Mo-
hammadabad have recovered grey wares and burnished dark wares of late second millennium BC date (Hakemi
1949; Tala’i 1983a; Mousavi 2005b). The most important site of this region is Tepe Ozbaki where the uppermost
excavated remains are of Late Iron Age or Median date constructed above earlier Iron Age levels, including a
cemetery of at least 25 burials with ceramic grave goods (see below; Majidzadeh 2001).
On the Tehran plain itself, there are several important Iron Age sites including the extensive cemetery at
Qeytariyeh now in the northern suburbs of Tehran city (Kambakhsh Fard 1969, 1991; Curtis 1987; Mousavi
2001), where excavations uncovered 350 pit graves, some possibly lined with wood, containing large quantities
of Early Iron Age wheel-made burnished grey ware (Figure 11.50), with no trace of associated settlement or
architecture. In about 10% of the graves there were also depositions of metal objects, principally bronze knives
and daggers. Early Iron Age materials were also excavated at the sites of Qara Tepe and Barlekin Tepe on
the Shahryar plain, west of Tehran (Burton-Brown 1962, 1979, 1981) and at Kahrizak south of Tehran where
kilns for local production of grey-ware vessels were excavated (Kambakhsh Fard 1991: 144). At the southern ex-
tremity of modern Tehran, the sites of Rayy and Qaleh Mortezagird also yielded evidence of Early Iron Age
occupation in the form of burnished grey wares (Schmidt 1936). Adjoining the Tehran plain to the south, the
Varamin plain hosted a modest Iron Age presence. Survey of the two plains detected only two sites of obvious
Iron Age date, including a cemetery with grey ware, burnished and incised ceramics adjacent to the mound of
Tepe Pardis (Fazeli et al. 2007: 271–272), with burials of cattle and horse of mid-second millennium BC date.
Figure 11.49 Q
ara Tappeh, selected Iron Age burials and grave goods (images courtesy of Mostafa Dehpahlavan).
430 Iran imperial
Iron Age occupation has also been documented at nearby Pishva including mudbrick-lined tombs (Tehrani
Moghaddam 1996). Significant architectural remains including multiple plastered floors have been excavated at
Tepe Ma’murin, 40 km south of Tehran, with ceramics of Iron Age I-II date (Mehrekian 1996).
Looking southwards along the Zagros eastern flanks, Late Bronze Age and Iron Age remains have been re-
vealed at Qoli Darvish near Qom including Iron Age houses, rooms with large grain storage vessels, metal-
working areas, clay sealings with cylinder seal impressions and a mudbrick platform 30 × 3 × 10 m in dimensions
with deposits of pottery and bronze objects set into the mudbrick structure (Figure 11.51) (Sarlak and Malekza-
deh 2005; Sarlak 2011; Sarlak and Hessari 2018). Large quantities of animal bones associated with a fireplace on
the platform likely originate from offerings or sacred feasts held on this unusual structure. Human and animal
figurines, clay tokens and seals are also associated with this probable shrine, all of which underlines the impor-
tance of Qoli Darvish as a regional centre in the later second millennium BC. Although now badly damaged by
agricultural and construction activities, it is estimated that Qoli Darvish at its peak may have extended over an
area of up to 100 ha.
A remarkable decorated brick depicting a horse (?)-drawn, manned chariot (Figure 11.52) comes from the
strategically located site of Shamshirgah 20 km southeast of Qom (Figure 11.53) (Kleiss 1983; Malekzadeh and
Naseri 2005, 2013; Fahimi 2010), and bears comparison with similarly decorated bricks from Sialk and Qoli
Darvish, which may signify Median influence (see below). Excavations at Shamshirgah have revealed massive
mudbrick and stone walls of Iron Age II date, 1200–800 BC, and other traces of a large-scale fortified site situated
between two limestone ridges. Faunal remains show a focus on sheep and goat herding, with some cattle and pos-
sibly domesticated pig (Figure 11.54) (Mashkour 2006b; Mashkour and Fahimi 2019). Close to Shamshirgah sits
the cemetery site of Sarm, where burials span the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I-II (Fahimi 2010; Mucheshi
and Tala’i 2012; Hosseinzadeh et al. 2018; Kavoosi and Sarlak 2019).
Iron Age occupation is also attested on the Kashan plain, as at Sialk levels V–VII (Ghirshman 1939; Fahimi
2013) and the cemetery site of Estark-Joshaqan where excavated burials appear to span much of the second and
early first millennia BC (Figure 11.55) (Sołtysiak et al. 2016a; Hosseinzadeh et al. 2017; Szymczak et al. 2018).
The Sialk V Cemetery A lacks any association with evidence for a contemporary settlement, a not uncommon
attribute of Iron Age sites across Iran, while the Sialk VI grande construction, an impressive mudbrick platform
probably faced with decorated bricks (Chegini 2002), appears to be associated in some way with Cemetery B at
Sialk with >200 burials in gable-roofed tombs (Ghirshman 1939: 23–25; Medvedskaya 2015; Fazeli Nashli and
Nokandeh 2019). The Sialk VI platform compares well in scale with the structure at Qoli Darvish near Qom,
which appears to be significantly earlier in date. Cylinder and stamp seals from Cemetery B are comparable to
some of the examples from Marlik well to the northwest, although generally later in date. The painted pottery
of Sialk VI (Figure 11.56) includes geometric designs as well as animals such as goat, ibex and horse painted on
beak-spouted vessels, distinctively different from the unpainted burnished grey wares of the Early Iron Age prior
to 800 BC that appear to develop from local Bronze Age ceramic traditions (Fahimi 2013). Bridge-spouted ves-
sels from Sialk are a distinctive Iron Age II type attested at several sites across Iran, including Tepe Yahya, and
Figure 11.50 Qeytariyah, burnished grey-ware vessels from graves (photo credit: Neda Tehrani, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of
the National Museum of Iran).
Iran imperial 431
Figure 11.51 Q
oli Darvish, Iron Age rooms with storage vessels (after Fahimi 2019: Figure 4).
Figure 11.52 Shamshirgah, decorated brick (Malekzadeh and Naseri 2013: Figure 5) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri).
Figure 11.53 Map to show location of Qom, Qoli Darvish, Shamshirgah and Sialk (Malekzadeh and Naseri 2013: Figure 1) (image
courtesy of Reza Naseri).
across the Persian Gulf in eastern Arabia where they appear to have formed one component of a cosmopolitan
elite repertoire (Magee 1997, 2005b).
Also distinctive in the material culture of the Early Iron Age communities of the Central Plateau is the use of
cylinder seals to impress on storage vessels, before firing, figurative designs of humans and animals engaged in
432 Iran imperial
Figure 11.54 S hamshirgah, faunal remains by NISP and weight (after Mashkour and Fahimi 2019: Figure 6).
Figure 11.55 Estark-Joshaqan, burials and grave goods (photo credit: Javad Hossainzadeh, courtesy of Hassan Fazeli Nashli)
agricultural activities such as ploughing (Figure 11.57). Examples of this practice are known from Tepe Golestan,
Tepe Sofali-Ma’murin, Qoli Darvish, Sagzabad and Tepe Sialk and, along with evidence for clay tokens at least at
Qoli Darvish, may attest some form of economic management at these sites during the Iron Age I period (Alibaigi
and Khosravi 2014).
Surveys in the Arisman region suggest an apparent absence of human settlement on the Iranian Plateau proper for
the entire period from c. 2900/2800 BC (the end of the Proto-Elamite horizon) until the late second millennium
BC, an astonishing hiatus of some 1,500 years (Helwing et al. 2011: 425). To what extent this apparent hiatus is
Iran imperial 433
Figure 11.56 Tepe Sialk, Cemetery B painted Iron Age ceramics (Fazeli Nashli and Nokandeh 2019: Figures 2.28–2.30) (images
courtesy of the National Museum of Iran).
an impact of later sedimentation burying possible Bronze Age sites is not clear (Brookes et al. 1982; Schmidt and
Fazeli 2007; Schmidt et al. 2011), but there does appear to be at least a major reorientation of settlement through
the Bronze Age of the plateau, possibly including significant abandonment and/or a switch from settled farming to
seasonal transhumance or a low-level combination of both. Radiocarbon dates, ceramics and architecture from Qoli
Darvish do, however, suggest a significant Late Bronze Age presence at this location at least (Sarlak 2011: 364).
As elsewhere in northern and central Iran, the Iron Age of the Arisman region is announced by the spread
of the distinctive grey-ware ceramics that have been too readily associated with migrations from the north.
Iron Age settlements in the Arisman region are few in number but indicate a preference for protected, secure
locations, with cemeteries (only discovered through traces of their looting) and slag heaps from metalworking
(Helwing et al. 2011: 430). Most significant in the Arisman survey is the suite of Iron Age II/III sites at Milājerd
1–5 (Helwing et al. 2011: 426). The site Milājerd 4 consists of a substantial cemetery of Iron Age II date, looted
following its exposure by pipe-line excavation (Fahimi 2011). A total of 93 looted pit graves were recorded, with
grey-ware sherds common in the looters’ spoil heaps and many whole grey-ware vessels, as well as bronze blades,
pins and discs, amongst the materials confiscated by Natanz police from arrested looters. Many of the pots have
intriguing incised pot-marks on the body or base of vessels (Fahimi 2011: Figure 15). The Milājerd 4 ceramics
Figure 11.57 Tepe Golestan, sherd with seal impression depicting ploughing scene (Alibaigi and Khosravi 2014: Figures 4–5) (im-
ages courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
434 Iran imperial
and metalwork compare well with excavated materials from other cemetery sites such as Sialk Cemetery A,
Qeytariyeh, Khorvin and Sarm, as well as with Marlik and Kaluraz and even with materials from north-western
Iran at Hasanlu and Dinkha II, indicative of widespread connectivity across central and northern Iran at this time.
To summarise the Iron Age of northern and central Iran, we begin by emphasising the very partial nature of
the evidence. The Iron Age has only recently become a focus of archaeological investigations across the region
(Fahimi 2013), and its image has suffered from contentious associations between ceramic assemblages and eth-
nicity, with the “sudden” appearance of grey wares taken as representing the migration into and across Iran of
Iranian-speaking peoples (see above; Mousavi 2013a: 400). With the exception of certain fertile valleys and plains
of the region, such as the Qom plain (Sarlak and Hessari 2018), there is a significant hiatus in attested human set-
tlement across central Iran, at least, that precedes the first Iron Age presence in the last quarter of the second mil-
lennium BC, but the possible causes of this apparent hiatus are as yet unclear. Climatic impacts cannot be ruled
out, with the onset of a wetter, cooler period from 950/900 BC (Neumann and Parpola 1987: 175; Kaniewski
et al. 2019) encouraging Iron Age settlement, but more evidence is needed. Suggestions of an Iron Age increase
in cattle herding (Mashkour et al. 1999), alongside the rich iconographic evidence for zebu cattle as attested at
Marlik and other sites (Negahban 1996: pls. 42–44), might fit the picture of a dry and challenging environment
given the superior resilience of zebu, as against taurine, cattle to more arid conditions (Matthews 2002a).
Difficulties in distinguishing unpainted Iron Age ceramics may be a contributing issue to the apparent shortage
of settlement sites (Medvedskaya 1982). In any case, Iron Age settlement of the region can be defined as sparse
and scattered, with small-scale settlements and occasional hill-top sites situated amongst a mosaic of quite richly
furnished cemeteries. As with Luristan (see below), we have far more cemetery sites, almost always discovered
through having been looted, than we do settlement sites. We lack even a basic understanding of settlement lay-
out, neighbourhoods and use of space as regards the internal dynamics of Iron Age sites in this region. The large
multi-period mound of Qoli Darvish near Qom appears to be the most promising site for addressing many of
these issues (Sarlak 2011).
Iron Age tomb types (Cinquabre 1978; Negahban 1996: 13–24) and grave goods from the cemeteries, in the
form of ceramics, metalwork and imported materials such as carnelian and cylinder seals, all suggest advanced
skills in craftworking and a steady level of transregional networking, however indirectly, that kept the Iron Age
communities of northern and central Iran engaged with each other and with the world at large, including con-
nections with Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia and Transcaucasia (Negahban 1996: map 6; Abdi 2010). These
networks formed a basic framework of cohesion and community that would come to underpin the dramatic glo-
balising developments that swept across all of Iran, and well beyond in the second half of the first millennium BC.
Luristan in the Iron Age, 1250–600 BC

In Chapter 8 we studied how Bronze Age human settlement in the region of Luristan might be characterised as
low-key and small-scale, with a focus on burial of the dead in often long-lasting cemeteries attesting extensive
access to and use of metals, tin and copper in particular, as well as widespread networks of material and social
interaction. We also discussed the possibility that there may have been a significant element of mobile pastoralism
to the economic basis of societies in this region, even if the evidence for full-scale nomadism is not convincing
till much later (Potts 2014; Balatti 2017). Can we trace threads of continuity of these settlement and economic
patterns from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age as we turn our focus once more onto Luristan (Figure 11.58;
Table 11.2)? One element of continuity that sadly we can trace is that of extensive looting of these often remote
cemetery sites (Figure 11.59) (Hasanpur et al. 2015: pl. 3), an affliction that has devastated the Iron Age as much
as the Bronze Age evidence of the region.
Firstly, as with other areas of Iran, we note that the onset of the Iron Age as defined archaeologically does not
mean a sudden and complete switch from bronze to iron as the dominant metal for tools, weapons and adornments
at the very start of the Iron Age. Nevertheless, the onset of the Iron Age at c. 1250 BC is marked by significant
developments in the material culture of Luristan that serve to distinguish the period from the preceding Bronze
Age, including an increased sophistication and elaboration of metal objects often featuring complex combinations
of human, animal and mythological creatures (Figure 11.60) (Overlaet 2005, 2013; Oudbashi 2019). These devel-
opments were the product of an advanced metal-working technology, including the use of hammering, engrav-
ing, lost-wax and casting (Moorey 1969), with an increasing representation of iron as against bronze through the
course of the Iron Age (Fleming et al. 2005). It is to this period that most of the classic Luristan bronzes belong,
defined by Muscarella as “canonical Luristan bronzes” (Muscarella 1988; Overlaet 2006a, 2006b, 2008, 2013).
Detailed diachronic analysis by Overlaet (2005, 2013: 384–389), building on earlier work by Moorey (1967
1969, 1971a, 1971b, 1982, 1991, 1999; see also Calmeyer 1969; Rehder 1991), traces a clear development in the
Iran imperial 435
Figure 11.58 M
ap of Iron Age I-II cemetery sites in Luristan (Overlaet 2005: Figures 1–2) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Luristan bronzes from simple and naturalistic to complex and often fantastical iconographies through the course
of the Iron Age. Typical objects include horse-bits, cheek-pieces, weapons such as spiked axe-heads, halberds,
swords, daggers and whetstone handles, “idols” in the form of finials or standards plus a range of jewellery. The
whole issue of the Luristan bronzes is clouded by the fact that much of our knowledge of the material culture re-
lies on unprovenanced objects acquired by western museums in less than ideal circumstances, with the high prices
encouraging both illicit excavations and an active market in forgeries (Potratz 1963; Muscarella 1988; Overlaet
2006a, 2006b). As forcefully articulated by Muscarella (1988: 40):
Essentially, what we have at present are the thousands of exotic and varied bronzes, the hundreds of burials, and
many questions. After fifty years of study it is not yet possible to summon to life the people of ancient Luristan.
436 Iran imperial
Table 11.2 C
omparative chronology of Luristan Pusht-i Kuh and neighbouring regions (after Overlaet
2005: Figure 3)
As to sources of metal for the countless objects found in the Iron Age cemeteries of Luristan, the tin-copper mines
of Deh Hosein, 200 km west of Veshnaveh, are the likeliest candidate as excavations have revealed structures and
materials dating to the Iron Age (Nezafati et al. 2009).
Iran imperial 437
Figure 11.59 B
aba Jilan graveyard showing illegal (top) and legal (bottom) excavations (Hasanpur et al. 2015: pl. 3) (images courtesy
of Ata Hasanpur).
Secondly, the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in Luristan, as in most other regions of Iran and beyond, is
marked by a significant episode of regional abandonment with no identified Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age
settlements in either the Pusht-e Kuh or Pish-e Kuh and a cessation or significant reduction of settlement at
key sites such as Tepe Guran, Baba Jan, Djamshidi and Girairan (Goff Meade 1968; Goff 1971, 1976; Schmidt
et al. 1989; Thrane 2001; Haerinck et al. 2004: 133; Overlaet 2003, 2013: 379–380). In the Kangavar valley to
the east, small-scale settlement moved from the plains to the hills, perhaps indicative of an increased emphasis
on herding (Young 2002: 424–426). It is as yet unclear to what extent these shifts in settlement densities and
locations might have been impacted by climate change otherwise attested through the Late Bronze Age-Early
Iron Age transition, including severe fluctuations in precipitation, as discussed above (Neumann and Parpola
1987; Sinha et al. 2019).
Thirdly, as with the Bronze Age, the majority of our knowledge of Iron Age Luristan comes from mortuary
evidence. Burial in cemeteries located on gentle hill slopes continues unabated in the Iron Age. In Iron Age IA
(1250–1150 BC) cist tombs are used and reused in cemeteries in the Pusht-e Kuh, at sites such as Ilam, Bard-i
Bal and Kutal-i Gulgul (Haerinck and Overlaet 2010b). Kassite Mesopotamian influences are attested in the
form of inlaid shell rings, ceramic vessels and miniature faience buckets (Overlaet 2005, 2013: 380). As elsewhere
across Iran, the painted ceramics of the Bronze Age are replaced by ubiquitous plain wares. These tombs contain
some of the earliest exemplars of the canonical Luristan style, including spike-butted axeheads and finials of op-
posed animals (Figure 11.61) (Overlaet 2013: Figure 18.1).
Iron Age IB-IIA (1150–950 BC) is marked by the end of Mesopotamian influence in the form of Kassite im-
ports to the Pusht-e Kuh, following the destruction by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte of the Hamrin sites
in c. 1160 BC (Chapter 10; Boehmer and Dämmer 1985: 80). There is significant evidence for long-term reuse of
cist tombs with material and skeletal contents being pushed aside to make room for new additions, and an increas-
ing representation of high-status iron objects such as pins, rings and bracelets, along with elaborate bronzes in the
canonical Luristan style (Overlaet 2013: 380–381). In Iron Age IIB (950–800 BC), burials were more commonly
438 Iran imperial
Figure 11.60 Luristan, canonical Luristan style bronze artefacts (Overlaet 2013: Figures 18.6–18.10) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
in small individual tombs while the trend of increasing use of iron continued, typified by an iron mask pommel
sword and a bronze ring found at the cemetery site of Baba Jilan near Nurabad (Figure 11.62) (Hasanpur et al.
2015). Metal objects from this site were made of copper alloyed with tin at 3%–11%, comparable to alloys used
across Luristan at this time (Oudbashi and Hasanpour 2018). Metallurgical analysis of extraordinary metal finds at
the site of Saruq al-Hadid in Dubai, dated to c. 1250–800 BC and located hundreds of kilometres to the south-
east across the Persian Gulf, has suggested the import to Dubai of iron from the Sanandaj-Sirjan metallogenic
belt of western Iran, both in the form of iron ores and as finished artefacts (Stepanov et al. 2020), yielding critical
insights into the interconnectivity of material and technological spheres of activity covering substantial distances.
A rare excavated settlement site in Luristan for Iron Age IIB (900–800 BC) and Iron Age III (800–650
BC) is Baba Jan in the Pish-e Kuh (Figure 11.63), a series of mounds with a large residential dwelling or
Figure 11.61 Luristan, selection of excavated bronze artefacts (Overlaet 2013: Figure 1) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Iran imperial 439
manor on the Central Mound, and a fort and decorated temple with c. 200 painted tiles on the East Mound
(Goff Meade 1968; Goff 1969, 1970, 1977). In the Iron Age III phase, pottery at Baba Jan takes the form of
distinctive painted wares, which are not found in association with canonical Luristan bronzes, suggesting that
the inhabitants of Baba Jan may have been recent incomers to the region (Goff 1978: 35; Overlaet 2013: 383),
and which are also suggestive of Median connections (see below). Overlying the fort and in some cases built
directly on its wall stumps, the latest Iron Age levels at Baba Jan consisted of a series of residential dwellings
terraced into the mound with the roofs of the lower buildings acting as courtyards for adjacent upper build-
ings, a tradition of community architecture still thriving in the Zagros today (Goff 1985). Level III at Baba Jan
was destroyed by fire probably in the late 8th century BC while Level II was destroyed by the late 7th century
BC. A single horse burial with bronze fittings was set into the abandoned manor on the Central Mound (Goff
1969: 123–126). The excavated settlement at Baba Jan provides valuable augmentation to the picture provided
by the artefact-rich tombs of Luristan to the north, as neatly put by the excavator Clare Goff (1978: 40): “In
eighth century Luristan not everyone was a warrior chief. Men tilled the field, kept animals, raised families
and followed traditional crafts, exactly as they do in villages today.”
Iron Age shrines of Luristan include the sites of Surkh Dum-e Luri and Sangtarashan, with stone architecture
and so-called favissae, that is buried depositories of votive objects (Schmidt 1989; Overlaet 2012, 2013: 383). At
Surkh Dum-e Luri a substantial Late Bronze Age building of unclear function (Chapter 8) was overlain by a
Figure 11.62 Baba Jilan, bronze ring with image of Ahura Mazda (Hasanpur et al. 2015: pl. 6) (images courtesy of Ata Hasanpur).
Figure 11.63 Baba Jan, isometric reconstructions of the level III fort and painted chamber (after Goff 1977: Figures 5–6).
440 Iran imperial
multi-phased Iron Age shrine in the walls and floors of which there were rich deposits of objects including seals
and jewellery, some of which date back to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Of 200 seals found at the site, 125
had been incorporated into the building’s walls and floors, most of them dating significantly earlier than the
sanctuary itself (Figure 11.64) (Maras 2005: 136–138). An adjacent building contained quantities of Neo-Elamite
faience vessels. The Surkh Dum-e Luri shrine, in use for c. 200 years until its abandonment in c. 650 BC, attests
significant continuity of cultic practice amongst the inhabitants of the region.
At Sangtarashan the spectacular buried deposits include an astonishing array of tin-bronze vessels, bronze
and iron weapons and canonical Luristan bronzes of Iron Age II-III date distributed over a large area of the site,
with many stone and metal finds deposited in clusters within a sizable stone-walled enclosure that appears to have
functioned as a sacred precinct (Figures 11.65–11.66) (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Malekzadeh et al. 2017; Hasanpur and
Malekzadeh 2019). As to the nature of the religious framework and cultic activities associated with the favissae
at Surkh Dum-e Luri and Sangtarashan our knowledge and understanding is extremely limited. Were the lavish
deposits of metal weapons and vessels sets of offerings made to a local deity of the region, or were they each des-
tined for future graves in the region that somehow never got deposited? We have no answer, or too many answers.
Luristan in Iron Age III (800–650 BC) is characterised by increased transregional connectivity, with grave
goods imported from Mesopotamia to the west and Susa to the south, and increased numbers of rich graves and
cemeteries in the Pusht-e Kuh such as Karkhai, War Kabud and Chamahzi Mumah (Vanden Berghe 1987;
Haerinck and Overlaet 1998, 1999, 2004b; Overlaet 2005, 2013: 383; Wicks and Álvarez-Mon 2019). At War
Kabud, 25 km northwest of Ilam, it is estimated that some 1,000 tombs had already been looted before Belgian
archaeologists led by Louis Vanden Berghe commenced excavations there in 1965 (Figure 11.67) (Fleming et al.
2006: Figure 2). More than 200 undisturbed tombs were excavated by the Belgian team, yielding a wealth of re-
mains of Iron Age III date. All the tombs are individual inhumations ranging from simple pit graves to cist tombs
with stone walling and capping, with one possible example of a horse burial (though lacking a surviving horse
skeleton). Grave goods comprise ceramic vessels, iron objects such as arrowheads, axes and swords, bronze items
Figure 11.64 S urkh Dum-e Luri, scenes from cylinder seals (after Maras 2005: Figures 2, 4–5).
Figure 11.65 Sangtarashan, views and plan of stone structure (Hasanpur and Malekzadeh 2019: pl. 19, Figure 3) (images courtesy
of Ata Hasanpur).
Iran imperial 441
Figure 11.66 S angtarashan, deposits of metal artefacts (Hasanpur and Malekzadeh 2019: pls 4–5, Figures 1–2) (images courtesy of
Ata Hasanpur).
of jewellery such as rings, anklets and bracelets, bronze luxury vessels, and rare silver or gold fine items (Figure
11.68). The quality of the metal objects demonstrates a high level of skill and expertise amongst the Luristan
metalworkers above all in the working of tin-bronze, possibly using ingots of bronze imported via Mesopotamia
(Fleming et al. 2005, 2006) or more likely directly from the Deh Hosein sources on the eastern Zagros flanks
(Nezafati et al. 2009).
Remarkable artefacts including bronze quivers decorated with figural scenes vividly illustrate the wide geo-
graphical range of influences at play on the art of Luristan at this time (Moorey 1975). Iron was increasingly used
for weapons as against items of adornment, indicating its greater availability. Neo-Assyrian impact on the region
is attested both through imported artefacts such as glazed vessels and the cutting of powerful rock reliefs at sites
such as Shikaft-e Gulgul (Reade 1977), Heydarabad-e Mishkas (Alibaigi et al. 2012) and Surkh Dum-e
Laki west of Khorramabad (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005: 221–222). A spectacular hoard of silver and gold
vessels and human masks from the cave of Kalmakarra near Pol-e Dokhtar includes Neo-Elamite inscriptions
naming a ruler of the “kingdom of Samati,” probably in southern Luristan (Motamadi 1992; Vallat 1996; Henkel-
man 2003b; Balatti 2017: 143–147) although several items alleged to come from the Kalmakarra cave are clearly
modern forgeries (Muscarella 2018: 89–92).
The overall impression of Luristan in the centuries prior to the rise of the Achaemenid empire is of a region epi-
sodically controlled by multiple small-scale rulers widely distributed across the valleys and peaks with the occasional
442 Iran imperial
Figure 11.67 W
ar Kabud, view of graveyard with illegal pits and Belgian Expedition excavations in 1966 (Fleming et al. 2006:
Figure 2) (mage courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
Figure 11.68 War Kabud, selected Iron Age III grave goods (Overlaet 2005: pls 12–14) (images courtesy of Bruno Overlaet).
rise to prominence of larger-scale political entities such as Ellipi whose rulers were referred to as “kings” by the
Assyrians (Balatti 2017: 264–266). While the archaeological evidence relating to subsistence practices for this period
is slight, the likelihood is that the peoples of Iron Age Luristan continued to pursue a mixed economy of farming
along with village-based herding of sheep and goat, above all, and elements of longer-distance pastoral nomadism,
which may have involved shepherds and flocks from Mesopotamia and Khuzestan moving in summer from their
low plains to the Zagros heights and/or highland flocks descending to the foothills for the less severe winters, as
arguably attested in Assyrian and later texts relating to the Zagros region (Balatti 2017: 276–283). The final stages of
the transition to the age of the Achaemenid empire in this region are totally obscure (Overlaet 2013: 384).
The Neo-Elamite kingdom, 1000–539 BC

In Chapter 10 we examined the archaeology of the Elamite kingdom through the Bronze Age, concluding with
the floruit of Elamite civilization at the time of Shutruk-Nahhunte and his successors of the 12th century BC,
which culminated in the defeat of the last Shutrukid king, Hutelutush-Inshushinak, by the Babylonian king Ne-
buchadnezzar I in c. 1120 BC. For up to 300 years after this date the archaeological and historical evidence for
the Elamite presence in south-western and southern Iran is virtually non-existent, with little to relate until the
Iran imperial 443
mid-8th century BC or later (Askari Chaverdi et al. 2010: 291; Álvarez-Mon 2013b; Waters 2013; Potts 2016: 249;
Balatti 2017: 135–153; Gorris and Wicks 2018). Whether this hiatus in evidence relates to a genuine abandonment
of the region, to a recourse to non-settled modes of living or to factors of geomorphological significance, or to
a combination of all three, remains unclear but it is likely to be connected to a larger-scale transregional episode
of disruption that impacted almost all of Iran and well beyond at the time of the Bronze Age-Iron Age transi-
tion. All these factors make it impossible to characterise with any certainty the extent and nature of the Elamite
state throughout the first millennium BC, as articulated by Potts (2016: 249): “It is also likely that, under intense
Assyrian pressure, Elam as it had existed in the Middle Elamite period was no longer a unified state comprising
both the highlands of Fars and the lowlands of Khuzistan.”
As we traverse the first half of the first millennium BC, we are increasingly able to draw upon historical re-
cords from inside and, especially, outside Elam to augment the scant archaeological record. Surviving records,
including Babylonian chronicles and Assyrian royal annals and state correspondence, yield detailed information
on conflict and diplomacy between the Neo-Elamite state and its contemporaries to the west in Mesopotamia
(Figure 11.69) (Stolper 1992c; Potts 2005a, 2016; Balatti 2017). We possess significant onomastic evidence for
the presence of Elamites and some Iranians in the cities of Babylonia prior to the Achaemenid conquest (Zadok
1976). Some of the texts feature otherwise unknown Elamite kings whose reigns were too short and turbulent for
them to make any notable impact on the sequence of royal temple building programmes at Susa. But we do not
propose here to provide a detailed history of Elam and its neighbours in the Neo-Elamite period both because
of this book’s archaeological focus and because excellent studies of this topic already exist (Stolper 1984b; de
Miroschedji 1990; Potts 1999: 259–307, 2016: 249–306; Waters 2000, 2013; Henkelman 2003a; Tavernier 2004;
Carter 2007; Álvarez-Mon and Garrison 2011; Vallat 2011b; Álvarez-Mon 2012; Dubovský 2018a; Gorris and
Wicks 2018; Gorris 2020). In extreme brevity, Elam’s history during the Neo-Elamite period is characterised by
episodes of significant foreign engagement, principally with the resurgent Mesopotamian powers of Assyria and
Babylonia to the west, marked by increased tension and military conflict culminating in the Assyrian sack of Susa
Figure 11.69 Map of Elam and Babylonia in the Neo-Elamite period (Sauvage 2020: 131) (image courtesy of Francis Joannès,
Philippe Clancier and Martin Sauvage).
444 Iran imperial
in 646 BC (Dubovský 2013), Babylonian control of Susa in 626 BC, the rise to power of the Medes and Persians,
and a final floruit of Elam in the 6th century BC prior to its absorption into the Achaemenid empire where the
cultural and linguistic identity of Elam continued to thrive.
For the archaeology of Neo-Elamite Elam, we turn once again to Susa and the Susiana plain where surveys
have detected modest numbers of Neo-Elamite sites (de Miroschedji 1981c). Excavated information for the
Neo-Elamite I phase (1000–730 BC) comes solely from Susa itself where trenches in the Ville Royale and the
Apadana-Ville Royale uncovered mudbrick structures, pits and human burials, associated with Neo-Elamite I
pottery (including the classic “Elamite goblet”), frit figurines and containers, and glazed vessels (Figure 11.70) (de
Miroschedji 1981a, 1981b; Carter et al. 1992c; Álvarez-Mon 2013b: Figure 23.2; Gorris and Wicks 2018: 258–
263). During the Neo-Elamite II phase (730–550 BC), evidence from Susa comprises a major funerary chamber
in the Ville Royale containing six individuals and a rich assemblage of ceramic vessels, metal objects of iron and
gold and a glazed faience cylinder seal depicting an archer hunting a lion-headed griffin (Figure 11.71) (de Miro-
schedji 1982; Álvarez-Mon 2013b: Figure 23.3, 2020: 392–293). Quantities of hairpins composed of iron shafts
with ornamented gold leaf heads have been taken as indicative of important female burials. The ancient Susa
tradition of intricate carving on objects made of locally available bituminous compound continues, epitomised
in an exquisitely modelled scene featuring a high-status seated lady, fanned from behind by a standing servant, in
the act of spinning (Figure 11.72) (Carter et al. 1992c: 200; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 427–430).
Also distinctive of the Neo-Elamite II phase at Susa are fine glazed objects such as wall plaques and pegs, brick
panels, statuettes and a range of containers, all reflecting enhanced capabilities in faience technology and a lively
iconography incorporating real and fantastical creatures in vivid colours (Carter et al. 1992c: 202–210; Álva-
rez-Mon 2010c, 2013b: 462, 2020: 398–423; Holakooei 2014). Fragments of blue-green glazed lions in naturalis-
tic style are associated with a small temple of Inshushinak on the Acropole, which spans the Middle-Neo-Elamite
periods. A limestone stele of king Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak found in the Acropole depicts the Elamite king and
his queen in low relief, variously dated to between 650 and 520 BC (Figure 11.73) (Stolper 1992b; Álvarez-Mon
2013b: 464, 2020: 431–434; Potts 2016: 291). Some 300 Elamite tablets from the Susa Acropole date to the 7th or
Figure 11.70 Susa, Neo-Elamite I ceramics and vitreous wares (Álvarez-Mon 2013b: Figure 23.2) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Iran imperial 445
Figure 11.71 S usa, Ville Royal II, Tomb 693, 7th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 166; after Wicks 2015: pls. 34, 36–38) (image
Figure 11.72 Susa, carved limestone and bitumen reliefs 8th–7th centuries BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 190b) (image courtesy of
446 Iran imperial
early 6th century BC, with significant representation of Iranian names alongside Elamite names (Tavernier 2011,
2018a, 2018b; Boucharlat 2013a: 505; Potts 2016: 291–295). The tablets account for the movement of textiles,
containers, weapons and tools, with at least 355 individuals involved as administrators or handlers of commod-
ities, and in some respects can be seen as forerunners of the Elamite documents from Achaemenid Persepolis
(Basello 2011). Glyptic evidence from Susa in the form of seals, generally made of bituminous compound or
faience, and seal impressions on tablets shows a blend of Elamite and Assyrian elements that strongly influence
later Achaemenid seal styles, as attested by numerous seal impressions on tablets from Persepolis (Amiet 1972,
1973a; Potts 2016: 294; Garrison 2018). A striking cylinder seal scene of animals, including a lion and a donkey,
standing on their hind legs while playing musical instruments, including a harp, drum and pipes (Lawergren
2018: 789–790), brings to mind the Proto-Elamite practice some 2000 years earlier of depicting animals engaged
in distinctly human activities.
Beyond Susa to the east, Neo-Elamite sites include the series of spectacular carved reliefs at Kul-e Farah in the
Zagros range at Malamir 150 km northeast of Susa, which date to the Neo-Elamite period (Vanden Berghe 1963;
De Waele 1981, 1989; Potts 1999: 253–254, 302–303, 2016: 296–300; Álvarez-Mon 2010b, 2010c, 2013b, 2015b,
2015c, 2017, 2018b: 620–622, 2019: 47–93, 2020: 366–368; Gorris and Wicks 2018: 263–265; Kawami 2018:
687–688). The Kul-e Farah reliefs may have been components of an outdoor sanctuary for celebrating festivals
such as the New Year or Nawrouz, with animal sacrifices and musical processions (De Waele 1989; Seidl 1997).
The relief Kul-e Farah III (Figures 11.74-11.75) depicts some 200 figures including a high-status male figure sup-
ported on a platform by kneeling males, with flocks of sheep and zebu cattle. Kul-e Farah IV portrays a massive
communal banquet with 141 participants, presided over by a king and his court, including musicians (De Waele
1989; Henkelman and Khaksar 2015; Lawergren 2018: 792–794). At Kul-e Farah I there is a long inscription in
Elamite cuneiform identifying the largest figure as Hanni, son a local prince who pays homage to the Elamite
king Shutur-Nahhunte.
Further east in the Mamasani region of the southern Zagros, the open-air sanctuary site of Kurangun com-
prises rock reliefs spanning Old Elamite to Neo-Elamite (Chapter 10; Potts 2004b; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 368),
Figure 11.73 Susa, stela of Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak, 6th century BC (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 192) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Iran imperial 447
Figure 11.74 Kul-e Farah III, carved relief scene photo (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 39) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 11.75 K
ul-e Farah III, carved relief scene drawing (Álvarez-Mon 2019: pl. 39) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
448 Iran imperial
with depictions of figures similar to some of those at Kul-e Farah III and IV. These relief scenes, representing “a
highland culture in all its glory” (Álvarez-Mon 2013: 231), attest significant Elamite presence and cultic activity
in the upland Zagros east of Susa as well as serving as iconographic, ideological and stylistic precursors for the
Achaemenid imperial relief sculpture of subsequent centuries, at Persepolis above all (Henkelman 2008; Álva-
rez-Mon 2018a: 837–844, 2019: 115–117). As to what the rock reliefs tells us about Elamite society, Álvarez-Mon
(2019: 99) encapsulates it succinctly: “The clear demarcation of social hierarchy and the formalized physical
representation of participants, including dignified gestures of worship and ritual food consumption, convey a
structurally and stylistically idealized portrait of group identity.” At the same time, these dramatically situated
and ideologically assertive relief scenes need to be considered within the context of severe impingements upon
Elamite identity and security caused by the ever-present threat from Assyria to the west. In this light, we can
interpret the relief scenes and their associated public rituals and devotions as a means of cohering community
identity in the face of chronic existential threats.
A small window into Neo-Elamite village life is provided by excavations at Kalāntar in north-eastern
Khuzestan (Figure 11.76) (Valipour et al. 2017), which have uncovered rectilinear stone and clay houses, stone-
lined tombs, typical Neo-Elamite ceramics and a few modest items of adornment. On the Ram Hormuz plain
Neo-Elamite sites include the large mounded settlements of Tol-e Bormi, which inscriptional evidence suggests
may be ancient Huhnur (Wright and Carter 2003), and Tall-e Geser where Neo-Elamite burials with iron and
glazed grave goods were excavated (Carter 1994). A double “princess burial” was encountered during pipeline
work at Jubaji east of Ram Hormuz (Figure 11.77), with the skeletons of two women aged around 17 and 30–35
in two bronze coffins accompanied by lavish gold jewellery including bracelets, hair pins, pendants and rings,
bronze vessels and figurines, and glazed vessels (Figure 11.78) (Wicks 2015, 2018; Shishegar 2017; Bridey 2018:
562–563; Ahmadinia and Shishegar 2019; Álvarez-Mon 2020). On a bench adjacent to the tomb were skeletons
of cow, sheep and birds along with many ceramic vessels as offerings to the deceased. Inscriptions associate the
princesses with the king Shutur-Nahhunte son of Indada, as featured on the Kul-e Farah I relief, likely to be of
early-mid 6th century BC date (Shishegar 2008).
A similarly rich Neo-Elamite stone-lined tomb was found by chance in 1982 at Arjan on the nearby Behbehan
plain (Figure 11.79) (Alizadeh 1985a; Stronach 1997, 2005a; Álvarez-Mon 2004, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011, 2012:
755–756, 2015a, 2020; Álvarez-Mon et al. 2011: 19–21; Shishegar 2017; Bridey 2018: 562–563), characterised by
Álvarez-Mon (2008: 127) as “one of the most exceptional finds in recent Near Eastern archaeological discov-
ery.” The tomb contained a bronze coffin holding an adult male wearing a cotton garment and holding an iron
dagger adorned with precious stones and gold filigree. Lying on the chest of the individual was an extraordinary
Figure 11.76 K
alantar, stone and clay architecture (Valipour et al. 2017: Figure 9) (image courtesy of Hamid Reza Valipour).
Iran imperial 449
Figure 11.77 Jubaji map and plan of Neo-Elamite tomb (Ahmadinia and Shishegar 2019: Figure 3) (images courtesy of Roonak
Ahmadinia).
Figure 11.78 Jubaji, Neo-Elamite tomb selected objects of gold and semi-precious stone, ca. 625–525 BC (Ahmadinia and Shishegar
2019: Figures 3, 18, 28–29) (images courtesy of Roonak Ahmadinia).
massive “open ring” with disked finials depicting opposed lion-head griffins (Figure 11.80) (Álvarez-Mon 2011:
Figures 8–10). Outside the coffin were large numbers of gold objects and decorated bronze vessels, including
a lion-headed beaker adorned with a frieze of running ostriches, altogether demonstrating “a blending of
Elamo-Assyrian royal artistic tradition(s) with Zagros artistic traditions into a uniquely Elamite format – a
visual language that in effect announces the appearance of early Achaemenid Persian art” (Álvarez-Mon 2011:
359). Most striking is an inscribed bronze bowl bearing narrative scenes of a drinking ceremony, the return
of a hunting party, a battle to capture a city and other processional, musical and feasting occasions (Figure
11.81) (Majidzadeh 1992; Álvarez-Mon 2004: Figure 3; Lawergren 2018: 795–797). Rarely surviving cotton
textiles, decorated with gold rosettes and disks, are amongst the earliest from Southwest Asia (Álvarez-Mon
2015a; Kawami 2018: 689). Four of the Arjan objects bear late Neo-Elamite inscriptions referring to “Ki-
din-Hutran, son of Kurlush,” suggesting a date of 600–570 BC for the manufacture of the objects and their
burial. The Jubaji and Arjan tombs (Figure 11.82) richly indicate the ability of Neo-Elamite royalty to access
high-status materials and to commission superb artisanship to the glorification of their power in life and in
death.
450 Iran imperial
Figure 11.79 A rjan, Neo-Elamite tomb and selected grave goods (Álvarez-Mon 2020: pl. 167) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
Iran imperial 451
Figure 11.80 A rjan, Neo-Elamite tomb, open ring with disked finials (Álvarez-Mon 2011: Figure 7, 10) (image courtesy of Javier
Álvarez-Mon).
Figure 11.81 A rjan, bronze bowl with narrative scenes (Álvarez-Mon 2004: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Javier Álvarez-Mon).
On the Marv Dasht plain in Fars the site of Tal-i Malyan hosts modest settlement at the start of the Neo-Elamite
period followed by abandonment of the site and perhaps the whole region from c. 900–550 BC (Sumner 1986b; de
Miroschedji 1990), matching with an absence of reference to Anshan in Assyrian texts through the Neo-Elamite
period (Potts 2016: 280). Neo-Elamite carvings at Naqsh-e Rustam near Persepolis depict a probable king and
queen possibly of 7th century BC date, with clear Assyrian influences in their execution (Álvarez-Mon 2009a).
Survey and excavations in the Mamasani region of western Fars have identified a limited Neo-Elamite presence
at a few sites, some of which continue into the Achaemenid period (Zeidi et al. 2009; Askari Chaverdi et al. 2010;
452 Iran imperial
Figure 11.82 A rjan (top) and Jubaji (bottom) coffins and selected objects (Ahmadinia and Shishegar 2019: Figure 24) (images cour-
tesy of Roonak Ahmadinia).
Henkelman 2012: 934; McCall 2013b) while in the Kur river basin settlements of the Shogha-Taimuran phase in
the early first millennium BC appear to have been abandoned from c. 900 BC for several centuries until a resur-
gence in the Achaemenid period (Overlaet 1997, 2007; Overlaet and Pincé 2018).
The closing stages of the Neo-Elamite period are vividly attested through Assyrian sources, in particular
treaties, campaign texts and palace relief scenes (Potts 2005a; Álvarez-Mon 2011: 356–360; Dubovský 2018a).
Following Sennacherib’s invasion of Elam in 694 BC, including a major naval fleet crossing the head of the
Persian Gulf and heading up the Ulai river (Gorris 2019), a bilateral treaty was agreed on in 674 BC between
the Elamite king Urtak (675–664? BC) and the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681–669 BC) that facilitated friendly
relations for a period of some ten years, including the provision of food aid to the Elamites by Esarhaddon’s suc-
cessor, Ashurbanipal, at a time of crisis. With the accession in 664 BC of the new Elamite king Te’umman (an
Akkadianisation of his Elamite name Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak; Waters 2006) relations took a sharp turn for
the worse, with a mass exodus of Elamite nobility to Assyria. The famous depiction in ten narrative scenes of
the battle in 653 BC between Ashurbanipal and Te’umman at Til-Tuba on the banks of the Ulai river, displayed
by Ashurbanipal in Room XXXIII of the Southwest Palace at Nineveh and on display at the British Museum,
leaves little to the imagination regarding the brutality and ferocity of Iron Age warfare (Reade 1976; Nadali
2007; Watanabe 2008; Collins 2014; Razmjou 2018). Elamite humiliation at the hands of Assyria was further
materialised in the form of Ashurbanipal’s relief depiction of himself reclining on a couch, part of a narrative
suite of reliefs probably originally located in Room S1 of the North Palace at Nineveh. In this victory scene,
Ashurbanipal is served by captured Elamite rulers, with the severed head of Te’umman hanging from a nearby
tree (Álvarez-Mon 2009a). Following the fall of Nineveh to Babylonian and Median forces in 612BC, Elamite
soldiers exacted iconoclastic revenge through highly focused mutilation by chisel of the king’s and queen’s faces
in these relief scenes (Nylander 1998).
Textual accounts of Assyrian campaigns against Elam such as that of Ashurbanipal in 647/646 BC, including
the devastation of Susa, make for grim reading:
Iran imperial 453
In a month of days I levelled the whole of Elam, I deprived its fields of the sound of human voices, the tread
of cattle and sheep, the refrain of joyous harvest songs. I turned it into a pasture for wild asses, gazelles, and
all manner of wild animals.
(Brinkman 1991: 59 quoted in Potts 2016: 279)
Such words add poignancy to our reflections on the archaeological record of Elam through time and may encour-
age us to foreground the human tragedies underpinning episodes of rural abandonment and urban destruction
that we so frequently encounter in the study of Iran’s past. Despite this devastation and humiliation of Elam, there
is some evidence for a continuation of the Elamite state in some form into the early phases of the Achaemenid
domination of Iran (Álvarez-Mon 2011: 357–358; Henkelman 2011).
In summary, surviving archaeological and textual evidence for the Neo-Elamite period is scant but tan-
talising in its material, iconographic and ideological richness and distinctiveness when we do encounter it:
“Taken together, place, self-representation, communal ritual, and worship provide a nexus of identity markers
defining a population characterized by a specific culture and sociopolitical ideology” (Álvarez-Mon 2013b:
471). Key to the transition from the Neo-Elamite to the Persian Achaemenid worlds may have been the in-
creasing importance of the horse and equestrianism as a status and a military asset of immense significance in
the Achaemenid world (Moorey 1985). In this and many other respects, lie the major contributions of Elamite
art, culture and traditions in helping to shape Achaemenid identity (Potts 2005a, 2016: 304–305; Henkelman
2012; Álvarez-Mon 2020: 500).
South-eastern Iran in the Iron Age, 1250–550 BC

Across all of south-eastern Iran, including the provinces of Sistan-Baluchistan, Kerman and Hormuzgan, our
knowledge of the Iron Age is minimal with only the site of Tepe Yahya providing significant information (Magee
2004, 2005a, 2013; Maresca 2018). As with most other regions of Iran, evidence for the Bronze Age-Iron Age
transition is lacking in south-eastern Iran. Bronze Age settlement at Tepe Yahya ends at c. 1400 BC (Beale 1986:
11), while Tal-e Iblis also appears to have been deserted for several centuries either side of 1000 BC (Caldwell
1967). Surveys of the Bard Sir plain and the Qobeira area of south-eastern Iran failed to assign any settlements to
the period 1400–800 BC (Sajjadi 1987; Sajjadi and Wright 1990), a pattern matched by systematic survey of the
region south from Jiroft to the Persian Gulf coast (Pfälzner and Soleimani 2015; Pfälzner et al. 2019). As Magee
(2013: 494) stresses, these lengthy settlement gaps are complemented by similar lacunae in adjacent regions such
as Pakistan and Southeast Arabia (Magee and Carter 1991; Magee and Petrie 2010).
It is beyond question that shifts in climate underpin these dramatic settlement gaps, attested as they are across
vast swathes of Iran, Southwest Asia and more broadly (Neumann and Parpola 1987; Ward and Sharp Joukowsky
1992; Butzer 1995; Kaniewski et al. 2019). Palaeoclimatic evidence from lake cores, deep-sea sediments and spele-
othems from Iran, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Anatolia and beyond concur in attesting protracted episodes of cool dry
climate possibly caused by solar irradiance and volcanism (de Menocal 2001; Sharifi et al. 2015; Sinha et al. 2019).
South-eastern Iran lay at the intersection between two major weather systems - westerly winds bringing winter
rainfall on the one hand, and south-easterly summer monsoon rainfall from the Indian Ocean on the other - and
the evidence suggests a significant weakening of both these systems in the late second millennium BC with a de-
cline in precipitation and a concurrent increase in aeolian dust deposition (Lückge et al. 2001; Parker et al. 2006;
Magee 2013: 495; Gurjazkaite et al. 2018). Settlement and agriculture in south-eastern Iran would have been
especially sensitive to fluctuations in rainfall, given its low levels of rainfall at the best of times (Mortazavi 2007).
As Magee (2013: 495) points out, the fact that the Helmand river derives its water ultimately from snow melt
from the Afghan uplands explains why, against the trend, Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age occupation appears to
survive in the lower Helmand basin (Whitney 2006).
Following this long hiatus in settlement, Iron Age occupation restarts at Tepe Yahya, period III, from c. 800
BC contemporary with a resumption of settlement in Elam to the west (see above). Two stone and mudbrick
buildings, square in plan and connected by a stone channel, appear to have served a communal function perhaps
as meeting houses (Magee 2004, 2005a). Ceramics are locally made but with some evidence for transregional
interaction in the form of Burnished Maroon Slipped Ware characterised by finely made trays and bowls found
across the region from Southeast Arabia to Pakistan (Magee 2005b). A single complete chlorite vessel from Yahya
sports decoration identical to that on vessels from Iron Age II sites in the United Arab Emirates and Oman (Ma-
gee 2004: Figure 41.2). The resurgence of settlement in south-eastern Iran from c. 800 BC, modest as it is (Vidali
et al. 1976), may be connected to the introduction of the qanat irrigation system at about that time, using gravity
454 Iran imperial
Figure 11.83 Tepe Yahya, possible hydrology of the Soghun valley in the Iron Age (after Magee 2005a: Figure 4).
to convey water through underground channels from aquifers to often distant fields (Figure 11.83) (Magee 2005a,
2013: 496–497). This innovation in irrigation technology came to have immense significance for the settlement and
societies of Iran, mainly in periods which lie beyond the purview of this book (Spooner 2011; Vidale 2018b).
Above the period III buildings at Yahya, two mudbrick platforms were constructed in the immediate
pre-Achaemenid decades of the early 6th century BC (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Magee 1999; Magee 2004).
Associated ceramics indicate widespread connections across eastern Iran, Central and South Asia and Southeast
Arabia (Magee 2004: 40–43). Radiocarbon dating of the massive mudbrick platform at Konar Sandal North,
previously assumed to be Bronze Age in date (Chapter 9), indicates its construction at some stage during the Iron
Age (Maresca 2018), perhaps contemporary with the similar platforms at Yahya. As with northern and central
Iran and Luristan in the early-mid 6th century BC, these large-scale, low-key patterns of cultural connectivity
across and beyond south-eastern Iran provide an historical framework that came to underpin the early develop-
ment of the Achaemenid empire.
Media studies: “mighty Medes of the rising sun,” c. 750–550 BC

Attempts at writing a history of the Medes, arguably “the least well-known of the peoples who ruled a major part
of the ancient Near East” (Stronach and Roaf 2007: 43), have had to contend with Herodotus’ account in the first
book of his Histories, in which he traces the development of a unified Median state or empire with a major capital
at Ecbatana (Hamadan) and a geographical reach as far west as the Halys river (modern Kızılırmak) in central
Turkey. Persistent echoes of Herodotus’ grand claims for Media take modern shape in cartographic representa-
tions of the Median “empire” that “give a sense of regional unity that far surpasses any archaeological or historical
evidence” (Bernbeck 2019: 6, Figure 1) (Figure 11.84). A unitary image of Media through space and time is not
supported by either the archaeological evidence, as discussed below, or the Assyrian sources all of which point to
a Media composed of small-scale, fortified autonomous states each exercising control over local valleys and passes
while participating in larger-scale networks of interaction as attested in commonalities in architecture, ceramics
and small-find assemblages. Historical evidence for a unified Median state comes only very late in the period,
with the late-7th century BC conquest of Assyria by a Median army led by Cyaxares “king of the Medes” in
alliance with Babylon ( Jursa 2003; Liverani 2003; Reade 2003; Radner 2013: 454). After this tumultuous event,
the Medes once more recede from history till 550 BC when the Achaemenid king Cyrus defeats the Median
king Astyages to become the paramount political figure in all Iran. The question of whether the Medes ever
constituted a unified state or empire has taxed historians and archaeologists since the first relevant discoveries
in the so-called “Median triangle” region around Hamadan in western Iran (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1988, 1994;
Lanfranchi 2003). Let us examine the evidence as we have it so far.
Most significantly, the history of Media in the 8th–6th centuries BC is intimately entwined with that of its
western imperial neighbour, Assyria, from where almost all our relevant written sources come as we have no
Iran imperial 455
Figure 11.84 T he Median “empire” according to Herodotus (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Median_

Empire-en.svg).
indigenous Median records (Reade 1978, 1995; Curtis 2001; Jursa 2003; Lanfranchi 2003; Radner 2003a, 2013;
Tuplin 2004; Balatti 2017; Fuchs 2017; MacGinnis 2020). From Median personal names and technical terms, we
know that the Medes spoke an Iranian language and were linguistically related to the Persians (Schmitt 2003;
Rossi 2010; Potts 2014: 67). Assyria’s engagement in the area of western Iran hosting the Median heartland,
principally the central Zagros region, was initially to secure access to supplies of horses for mounted archers and
chariot haulage in the Assyrian army. Like other peoples of the upland Zagros, the Medes were accomplished
horse breeders and riders, always depicted on horseback in Sargon II’s reliefs at Dur-Šarrukin (Khorsabad) (Rad-
ner 2003a: 42; Potts 2014: 79–81; Balatti 2017: 282–285). From the time of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BC) As-
syrian armies marched into the Zagros via the Shahrizor plain, ancient Mazamua or Zamua, east of Sulaimaniyah
with the site of Bakr Awa (Dur-Aššur) as the major staging post (Levine 1973; Altaweel et al. 2016; Balatti 2017:
256–259), with significant evidence for Assyrian fortifications also protecting a major route into the high Zagros
via the Rania plain further north (MacGinnis et al. 2020). Assyrian interests in the Zagros evolved beyond the
purely equestrian to include desire for pastoral and agricultural produce, including wine, and for timber to use
in their massive construction programmes at the Assyrian capitals (Balatti 2017: 319–320), as well as control over
movement of goods such as copper and lapis lazuli moving from further east through the Great Khorasan Road
and associated routes (Brown 1986).
Early historical mentions of Median tribes occur in the reign of the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727
BC), who was the first to establish Assyrian control of the upland Zagros and its major routeway the Great Kho-
rasan Road, founding the provinces of Parsua near modern Sanandaj bordering Mannaea to the north (Zadok
2001) and Bit-Hamban in the region of Kermanshah (Reade 1978; Radner 2003b; Balatti 2017; Alibaigi and
MacGinnis 2018). An Assyrian stele found in the Kermanshah region of western Iran and now in three pieces
marks the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III against peoples of the Zagros region and beyond probably in 737 BC
(Figure 11.85) (Levine 1972; Herrero 1973; Tadmor 1994; Alibaigi 2017). This and subsequent Assyrian expedi-
tions against “the mighty Medes of the rising sun” (Tadmor et al. 2011: 41) may have reached as far into Iran as
Mount Damavand in the Alborz range east of Tehran (Reade 1995: 40) and to the salt desert of the Dasht-e Kavir
(Radner 2003a: 58–61; Alibaigi and Rezaei 2018), with the suggestion that the site of Sialk near Kashan may be
equated with the Median fortified city of Tikrakka, described in the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III as being on the
edge of a salt desert and whose siege by Sargon II is depicted in carved stone on the walls of Room 2 of Sargon’s
palace at Dur-Šarrukin/Khorsabad (Alibaigi 2017).
456 Iran imperial
Figure 11.85 Stele of Tiglath-Pileser III found in western Iran (Alibaigi 2017: Figure 2) (images courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
An inscribed stele found at the unexcavated site of Najafabad in Hamadan province commemorates the con-
quests in this region of Sargon II in the late 8th century BC (Figure 11.86). Following Reade (1995) the stele
had been interpreted as supporting the identification of Tapeh Najafabad with ancient Kišessim, renamed by
the Assyrians as Kar-Nergal, the Assyrian assault of which is also depicted in Room 2 of Sargon’s palace (Levine
1972: 25; Gunter 1982; Gopnik 2011: 292–293; Frame 2013; Radner 2013: 444–445). More recent research led
by Sajjad Alibaigi (Alibaigi et al. 2017; Alibaigi and MacGinnis 2018; Alibaigi 2019), however, proposes that
Tapeh Najafabad is more likely to have been ancient Kisasi, the major city of the region of Urattus. In the same
campaign, the Median stronghold of Ḫarḫar was captured by Sargon II and renamed Kar-Šarrukin, which Reade
(1995; Radner 2013) identified with the site of Tepe Giyan in the Nehavand valley where excavations revealed
rooms of a possible palace in the Assyrian style (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935). More recently, Alibaigi et al.
(2016) suggest that the 20 ha fortified and moated site of Tapeh Kheibar on the northwest of the Mahidasht on
the Great Khorasan Road is a likelier candidate for ancient Ḫarḫar (Figures 11.87–11.88), matching also with the
depiction of Ḫarḫar in stone relief in Room 2 of Sargon’s palace at Dur-Šarrukin/Khorsabad. Following later
rebellions in 715 BC, according to the standard Assyrian practice of diffusing local loyalties and attachments to
place, selected peoples of Ḫarḫar and Kišessim were deported to Assur on the Tigris where some of their resi-
dences and textual archives have been excavated (Miglus 1999: 301). Their documents suggest that these exiled
Iranian families at Assur engaged in textile production, possibly in the form of hand-knotted carpets, as well as
undertaking long journeys for the purpose of trade, probably with their homeland regions of Iran (Radner 2007,
Figure 11.86 Stele of Sargon II found at Najafabad, Hamadan province (Alibaigi et al. 2017: Figure 4; Alibaigi and MacGinnis 2018:
Figure 2 (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the National Museum of Iran; drawing
courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
Iran imperial 457
Figure 11.87 Tapeh Kheibar, view from the air (Alibaigi et al. 2016: Figure 7) (image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
Figure 11.88 T
apeh Kheibar, view from the west (Alibaigi et al. 2016: Figure 8) (image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
2013: 448). The occasional finds of bronze basins in western Iran may also indicate significant Assyrian influence
on elite upland communities (Alibaigi and Khosravi 2016).
Following the Cimmerian invasion of north-western Iran at c. 715 BC, the Scythians established a kingdom
in Azerbaijan and ruled over much of Media until the rise to power of the Median king Cyaxares in c. 625 BC
(Witzel 2013: 435). Archaeological evidence for the Scythians in Iran has been recorded or suggested at the sites
of Ziwiye in Iranian Kurdistan, Hasanlu in southern Urmia and Baba Jan in Luristan amongst others, while
there are hints of Median ceramics in post-Urartian levels at Bastam and sites beyond the borders of Iran (Kroll
2014). At the Iron Age III cemetery of Laforak/Savadkuh in Mazandaran, objects in Scythian style including
daggers and arrowheads are suggestive of a significant Scythian presence in this region of northern Iran (Araghi
and Mohajerneghad 2020). The richest Scythian evidence in Iran comes from a kurgan cemetery in Meshgin
Shahr, Ardebil province (Figure 11.89) (Rezalou and Airmlo 2014, 2015). Iranian archaeologists here excavated
an extraordinary complex of spectacular kurgan-type graves. Grave 22 contained the skeleton of an adult male
accompanied by a horse, overlain by four further human skeletons. The principal burial, apparently looted in an-
tiquity, was set within a stone and mudbrick rectangular chamber 6 × 2 m in area, roofed with timbers and coated
in fine clay. Objects buried within the chamber of Grave 22 include artefacts of iron, stone, ceramics and glass,
including an arrowhead of classic Scythian type (Figure 11.90). Graves 20, 21 and 26 appear to have been subsidi-
ary to the central Grave 22. In Grave 20 no fewer than 34 complete horses were buried in two overlying rows, 17
below and 17 above. Beads of various materials including glass were deposited with the horses, perhaps attached
to horse fittings. In Grave 21 the bodies of four adult females were buried with ceramic vessels, while Grave
26 contained eight horses, two dogs and two cattle. Many of the objects deposited in these graves show strong
458 Iran imperial
Figure 11.89 K horramabad, Meshgin Shahr, kurgan graves numbers 20 and 26 (after Rezalou and Airmlo 2017: Figures 13, 15).
Figure 11.90 K horramabad, Meshgin Shahr, selected finds from kurgan graves (after Rezalou and Airmlo 2017: Figure 6).
Iran imperial 459
Figure 11.91 H
eydarabad-e Mishkhas, Neo-Assyrian rock-cut relief (Alibaigi et al. 2012b: pl. 6) (image courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
Scythian attributes suggestive of a date between 700–500 BC (Rezalou and Airmlo 2017). These kurgan burial
traditions are comparable with those attested in Scythian cemeteries across vast regions of the steppe: northern
Mongolia, southern Siberia and Russia, the Altai, north Caucasia, Crimea, southern Ukraine and south-eastern
Europe. In addition to the equestrian input into Iran from Scythian ingression, the distinctive practice of wearing
torcs in Iron Age Iran, unattested across the contemporary Assyrian and Levantine worlds, appears to be a fashion
adopted from Caucasia and Transcaucasia to the north (Moorey 1985: 32).
The Medes continue to feature in Assyrian texts until c. 656 BC when Ashurbanipal dealt with a Median re-
bellion by sacking their cities (Radner 2013: 61–62) ten years before the Assyrian sack of Susa. Rock reliefs of an
Assyrian king who may be Ashurbanipal at Shikaft-e Gulgul and Heydarabad-e Mishkhas in Ilam (Figure 11.91)
may commemorate Ashurbanipal’s victories in his Median campaign (Alibaigi et al. 2012b). One hundred years
after their deportation, the exiled Median families at Assur could have served as a fifth column for the successful
Median assault of Cyaxares on Assur in 614 BC, followed by the sacking of Nineveh in 612 BC and the fall of the
Assyrian empire (Radner 2013: 449).
Assyrian texts portray the Medes as formidable opponents, organised in small-scale dynastic political units each
headed by a “city lord” or bēl āli in Akkadian, a term uniquely applied to Median rulers, with relatively restricted
geographical spheres of control (Lanfranchi 2003). These lords entered into vassalage with the Assyrian king, se-
curing protection from their powerful northern neighbours of Mannaea and Urartu through tribute payment of
horses, uniquely, to the Assyrian state (Radner 2013: 444). The Assyrian establishment along the Great Khorasan
Road of a string of fortified sites with names prefixed with “Kar” or “trading quay” shows the importance of access
to cherished materials, not solely horses, for the smooth running of the Assyrian empire. Median sites were fre-
quently situated at strategic points along key trade routes, which enabled them to play an important role within the
movement of valuable commodities from further east to Assyria, including metals and lapis lazuli (Balatti 2017: 287).
Regarding the archaeology of Media, we have information from a few key sites in western Iran and beyond
(Figure 11.1), even if the identification of Median sites by their material remains is “necessarily hazardous” (Stro-
nach 2003, 2011; Genito 2005; Razmjou 2005a; Khatchadourian 2016: 87–96; Gopnik 2017; Boucharlat 2020). A
major drawback is the lack of evidence from Hagmatana (Greek Ecbatana), defined by Herodotus (I.98) as the capital
of the Median state. An Assyrian stele at Nimrud of Šamši-Adad V records a victory in c. 820 BC over “Sagbita, the
460 Iran imperial
royal city of Hanaširuka the Mede” (Radner 2013: 444), which has been plausibly identified with modern Hama-
dan (Medvedskaya 2002). But ongoing excavations at the mound in modern Hamadan have as yet failed to locate
significant pre-Achaemenid, or Achaemenid, occupation (Boucharlat 1998; Sarraf 2003; Stronach and Roaf 2007:
44; Mohammadifar et al. 2012). Our most important Median evidence comes from two sites of the central Zagros
region southwest and south of Hamadan, Godin Tepe and Nush-i Jan, complemented by recently excavated sites
across a broader region of western and central Iran. Surveys of the central Zagros suggest an intensification of set-
tlement across the fertile plains in the centuries of Median stability (Figure 11.92) (Heydarian and Ghorbani 2016).
Figure 11.92 S onqor-Koliyaie plain, central Zagros, Iron Age settlement (after Heydarian and Ghorbani 2016: Figure 10).
Figure 11.93 a: Godin Tepe level II.2, main Median phase (Gopnik 2011: Figure 7.7); b: Godin Tepe level II.1, reoccupation of part
of the Median citadel (Gopnik 2011: Figure 7.18) (image courtesy of Hilary Gopnik).
Iran imperial 461
At Godin Tepe in the Kangavar valley, level II.2 includes a formidable multi-phased citadel on the mound’s
summit, ultimately covering more than 5000 m 2 (Figure 11.93a) and containing three massive columned
halls, storage magazines, and a substantial kitchen with large hearths, protected by 3 m-thick exterior walls with
arrow slits (Young and Levine 1974; Gopnik 2003, 2005, 2011: Figure 7.7, 2017). After approximately 150 years
of use and rebuilds, the citadel was abandoned without evidence for violent destruction at c. 650 BC (Gopnik
2011: 345). A modest domestic structure was then constructed in the ruins of the citadel architecture (Figure
11.93b). Finds from within the Godin citadel were rather sparse apart from large quantities of undecorated buff
ware ceramics. Tools and weapons were made of iron apart from arrowheads that were of bronze. Radner’s (2013:
452) suggestion of Araziaš for the Median and Assyrian name of Godin Tepe in level II.2 is persuasive given that
the city lord of Araziaš stayed in power throughout the Assyrian period and could therefore have constructed and
occupied the massive citadel on Godin Tepe’s summit. The unexcavated site of Tapeh Pa Qaleh Dehlur also
appears to have been a major Median fortified site of the Kangavar valley and may have been a key site within the
region known by the Assyrians as Bit-Ištar which Alibaigi and MacGinnis (2018; contra Radner 2003b) equate
with the Median toponym of Urattus. A fortress of probable Median date has been excavated at Bisotun near
Kermanshah, situated for control of the Great Khorasan Road (Luschey 2013).
Located on the Malayer plain east of Godin Tepe, the site of Nush-i Jan bears many parallels in architecture,
ceramics and small finds to Godin level II.2 (Stronach 1969, 2011; Roaf and Stronach 1973; Stronach et al. 1978;
Curtis 1984, 2005a; Stronach and Roaf 2007; Roaf 2010). Spectacularly situated on a natural rock outcrop (Fig-
ure 11.94), Median occupation at the site commences with an imposing Central Temple tower constructed on
the rocky summit, with a free-standing fire altar. With walls surviving up to 8 m in height, thanks to its infilling
(Figure 11.95), the Central Temple has a distinctive stepped lozenge plan with a stepped triangular cella. Further
buildings were then constructed around the Central Temple (Figures 11.96–11.97), including a Columned Hall
with a sub-floor 25 m-long tunnel (probably unfinished; Figure 11.98), a second temple and a fort or fortified
storehouse, all surrounded by an encircling wall composed of rows of tall attached arches giving a most impressive
exterior aspect. Some of the structures were then deliberately filled with deposits of mudbrick and small stones
which, had the filling been completed (only the Central Temple was carefully and completely filled with locally
available shale), would have resulted in a packed platform. This solidly packed structure may have been intended
to support a new phase of the temple that was never built (Stronach and Roaf 2007: 54) or, more probably, the
meticulous packing, which respects even the fine interior fittings of the temple, may have been the outcome of a
shift in religious practices that demanded closure of a still-respected temple while adapting to new circumstances,
which could have been the incorporation of the region into the Achaemenid empire at c. 550 BC (Curtis 2005a:
241). At the least, the construction and indeed the infilling of these massive structures argue for the ability of
an elite power to mobilise an extremely impressive labour force on at least two major occasions. Following the
episode of infilling, there is evidence for a late “squatter occupation” (a term effectively critiqued by Bernbeck
2019) (Figure 11.99), c. 550–500 BC, in the form of more modest dwellings inside the Columned Hall and on top
of the unfinished filling, indicating a major discontinuity in the function of the site.
Exact dating of the structures at Nush-i Jan is unclear but the pottery and small finds, including seal impres-
sions from the Western Temple and a hoard of over 200 silver objects, several of them heirlooms from as far back
Figure 11.94 Nush-i Jan, view of site (photo credit: Nicole Brisch; courtesy of Sajjad Alibaigi).
462 Iran imperial
Figure 11.95 Nush-i Jan, inside the Central Temple (photo credit: Wendy Matthews).
Figure 11.96 N
ush-i Jan, plan of the main Median level (after Stronach et al. 1978: Figure 1).
Figure 11.97 N
ush-i Jan, view of excavated and conserved architecture, from the Columned Hall looking east (photo credit:
Roger Matthews).
Iran imperial 463
as 2000 BC, found in a bronze bowl buried below floor level (Figure 11.100) (Stronach 1969: 15–16; Bivar 1971;
Vargyas 2008), suggest main occupation for much of the period 750–600 BC, with significant evidence of Assyr-
ian influence on the material culture (Curtis 2005a; Stronach and Roaf 2007: 5). Animal remains from the site
show a heavy reliance on sheep, goat and cattle, with significant representation of various breeds of horse includ-
ing heavy and miniature types (Bökönyi 1973; Stronach et al. 1978). The inhabitants hunted in the mountains for
wild goat and sheep, red deer and wild cattle. The archaeobotanical evidence reveals cultivation of emmer, bread
wheat, barley, rye and some pulses (Kyllo and Hubbard 1981).
Figure 11.98 Nush-i Jan, reconstructed (above the dot-dash line) section and elevation through the main Median level, looking
north (after Stronach et al. 1978: Figure 3).
Figure 11.99 N
ush-i Jan, plan of “squatter occupation” within the Columned Hall (after Stronach et al. 1978: Figure 4).
464 Iran imperial
Figure 11.100 Nush-i Jan, selected objects from the Median hoard (Curtis 2000: Figure 37) (permission courtesy of John Curtis).
Figure 11.101 G
unespan, fortified building of Median date (Naseri et al. 2016: pls 3, 5, 7a) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri).
A Median-style storehouse similar to that of Nush-i Jan, but with thicker walls, has also been excavated at
Moush Tepe near Hamadan (Mohammadifar et al. 2015), and Median levels exposed at the hilltop site of Tepe
Yalfan (Almasi et al. 2017a, 2017b) and at Tappeh Gheshlagh (Motarjem and Sharifi 2019). At Gunespan
30 km southeast of Malayer, Reza Naseri and colleagues excavated a fortified building with associated pottery
comparable to Median examples at Nush-i Jan, Godin Tepe and Baba Jan. The Gunespan building (Figure 11.101)
comprises rectangular storerooms enclosed by an oval fortification wall, with engaged pilasters along one inner
wall face (Naseri et al. 2016; Genito et al. 2019). Level III at Baba Jan further southwest includes ceramics com-
parable to Median levels at Godin and Nush-i Jan, indicating that the fortified manor with painted room there
may have belonged to a local Median city lord (see above; Goff 1977, 1978, 1985). The complex was destroyed by
fire in the late 8th century BC and reoccupied by squatters before a final village period in the 6th–5th centuries
BC. The location of Baba Jan in the northeast of the Pish-e Kuh suggests the site may have belonged within the
territory of Ellipi, as attested in Assyrian texts (Medvedskaya 1999; Balatti 2017: 262).
At the multi-period site of Tepe Ozbaki on the Savajbulaq plain west of Tehran (Figure 11.102), four phases
of a possible Median-style fortress, with ceramics comparable to those of Godin II.2 and Nush-i Jan, have been
excavated, the uppermost phase with walls surviving up to 3 m in height and covering 950 m 2 (Majidzadeh
2001, 2010), suggesting the inclusion of this region of north-central Iran within the influence of the Median
world. Not far to the south, between Tehran and Qom, the site of Zar Bolagh is dominated by a multi-storey
stone-built oval structure which, as at Nush-i Jan, was deliberately packed with shale and gravel to ceiling
height (Figure 11.103). Additionally, the packed structure was then totally encased within stone and mudbrick
Iran imperial 465
Figure 11.102 Tepe Ozbaki, view looking north (photo credit: Hojatollah Ahmadpour; courtesy of Rouhollah Yousefi).
masonry thus concealing the packed building from view (Malekzadeh et al. 2014). A remarkably similar packed
and encased structure adorns the hill-top site of Vasun-e Kahak some 90 km to the south of Zar Bolagh
(Malekzadeh 2004). Both these structures appear to have served cultic purposes of an unclear nature. Taken
in consideration with the Central Temple at Nush-i Jan, these packed shrines or sanctuaries of later Iron Age
west-central Iran suggest a dramatic realignment of cultic practice in the region, arguably indicative of reli-
gious conversion in the Median or early Achaemenid periods. Examples of stamped baked bricks displaying
a range of motifs including humans, animals and flowers at a range of sites across central-western Iran, such
as Sialk (Figure 11.104) Shamshirgah, Qoli Darvish and Qolam Tappeh, may represent a native Median art
medium and style that would have been displayed as decorative architectural elements (Malekzadeh and Naseri
2013; Naseri and Malekzadeh 2019).
Ceramics with Median and west Iranian traits, such as burnished grey ware and horizontal loop-handled
bowls, have been excavated at Tappeh Qasrdasht near Persepolis in Fars, indicating connections of the
Achaemenid homeland region with western Iran well before the rise to dominance of the Achaemenid state
(Atayi and Roaf 2019). Median sites beyond Iran are especially difficult to identify but the occurrence of
certain ceramic and architectural forms may indicate dispersed Median presence or at least some influence at
sites such as Nor Armavir and Arinberd in Armenia, Altıntepe, Van and Tille Höyük in Turkey, Qizkapan
and Tell Gubba in Iraq and Ulug Depe in Turkmenistan (Boucharlat et al. 2005; Roaf 2008; Kroll 2019;
Rezaei 2019).
While we have severe challenges in defining the extent and identity of Media through time and space, we
can nevertheless point to several characteristics that draw together the archaeological and historical evidence in
a persuasive manner (Root 2002b). Firstly, several of the excavated sites, including Godin Tepe, Tepe Nush-i
Jan, Moush Tepe, Gunespan, Baba Jan and Tepe Ozbaki, show significant commonalities in architecture (Figure
11.105) (Stronach 2011; Naseri et al. 2016: pl. 21; Boucharlat 2020), ceramics and small finds to be considered
as arguably Median. Median settlement can be summarised as dispersed with fortified nodes controlling major
466 Iran imperial
Figure 11.103 Zar Bolagh, views of site and excavated oval structure (Malekzadeh et al. 2014: pls 1, 3) (images courtesy of Reza Naseri).
Figure 11.104 Tepe Sialk, decorated bricks of the Iron Age III period (Naseri and Malekzadeh 2019: Figure 7.2) (image courtesy
of Reza Naseri).
plains, valley and passes. The style of fortification at putative Median sites is distinctive, in contrast to fortified
sites of Urartu and the Levant as depicted in Assyrian reliefs, composed of rows of walls forming parallel storage
rooms and towers with rectangular openings (Balatti 2017: 260; Genito et al. 2019).
We have little understanding of rural settlement beyond the fortified sites, but plant and animal remains
from Nush-i Jan indicate an economy based on cultivation of barley, emmer, bread wheat, peas, lentils and
Iran imperial 467
Figure 11.105 Storage and other structures of Iron Age III date: a: Godin Tepe; b: Nush-i Jan; c: Ulug Depe; d: Gunespan; e: Tell
Gubba; f: Moush Tappeh; g: Tepe Ozbaki (Naseri et al. 2016: pl. 21) (image courtesy of Reza Naseri).
grapes alongside herding of sheep, goat, pigs and cattle with evidence for horse-breeding and, less so, for
use of Bactrian camels imported from the east (Stronach et al. 1978; Kyllo and Hubbard 1981; Balatti 2017:
285–286). There is also significant evidence for hunting of wild species including goat, red deer, birds and
hare, probably as an elite pursuit (Balatti 2017: 286–287). Survey of the Malayer plain, dominated by Nush-i
Jan, detected 84 sites with Median buff ware sherds including three “monumental sites,” a few hill-top sites
and many small mounds (Howell 1979; Stronach and Roaf 2007: 49), suggestive of some level of settlement
hierarchy. As to its geographic extent, Media was highly flexible in its distribution through time, but gener-
ally included parts of the Iranian provinces of Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Luristan and the central Plateau as far
north and east as the Tehran plain, Mount Damavand and the edges of the Dasht-e Kavir and occasionally
into north-eastern Iran (Potts 2014: 75–76).
In recent decades scholarship (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1988; Liverani 2003; Roaf 2010; Waters 2011) has decon-
structed the concept of a Median empire as vividly portrayed in the first book of Herodotus’ Histories, generating
in its place an image of Media as a loose confederation of tribes occasionally acting in concert to devastating
effect, such as the conquest of Assyria, but lacking in the structures, mechanisms and bureaucracies of centralised
imperial control. Brown’s (1986) innovative application of a model of secondary state formation to the case of
Media proposes that, stimulated by decades of aggressive Assyrian intrusion, Median petty kings learnt by exam-
ple how to organise and administer themselves politically and economically so as to achieve state-like status: “the
Neo-Assyrian imposition of tribute and tax on vassal Median chiefdoms would have touched off a chain reaction
of effects that would have encouraged hierarchical tendencies both within individual polities and among the
various chiefdoms affected,” as arguably attested by the grandiose architecture of Godin Tepe in its Median phase
(Brown 1986: 115; Genito 2005; Balatti 2017: 262–264). But a major significance of the Median state, and its sway
across Iran, however centralised or not, as a precursor to Achaemenid Persia cannot be overstressed (Henkelman
2003b; Roaf 2010; Waters 2011).
468 Iran imperial
Achaemenid Persia: archaeology of a world empire, 550–330 BC
The Achaemenid Persian empire was the largest and most powerful political entity the world had hosted up to
that time, “an unprecedented experiment in world empire” as it has been characterised (Khatchadourian 2012:
963, 2016). Because of its immense geographical reach, diverse multi-ethnic make-up, innovative experimenta-
tion in modes of imperial rule and long-term impact on subsequent socio-economic and political systems of Iran
and beyond, the Achaemenid empire merits study not only on its own terms but also as an historical phenomenon
of truly global significance, as is increasingly the case (Wiesehöfer 2009; Daryaee and Rezakhani 2014). The
empire’s control extended from Thrace and Macedonia in Europe and Libya in North Africa in the west across
all the Middle East and Central Asia as far as the Syr Darya ( Jaxartes) and Indus rivers in the east (Figure 11.106).
The origins of the Achaemenid empire are obscure, although increasingly we are able to situate its early history
within the context of the Iron Age polities of Elam, Anshan and the Medes (Wiesehöfer 1996; Stronach 1997,
2013; Allen 2005; Briant 2005; Henkelman 2012; Potts 2016). The name “Achaemenid” derives from the dy-
nasty’s founding king, Achaemenes, about whom we know very little beyond the fact that his name first occurs
in inscriptions of Darius I (522–496 BC) (Waters 2004). The first great Persian king, Cyrus (the Great; 558–530
BC), was descended from Cyrus I and Cambyses I, kings of Anshan in Fars (Waters 2004; Potts 2005c, 2011b),
through a royal line from Cyrus’ great-grandfather Teispes. Archaeological evidence from the region of Anshan
(Tal-i Malyan on the Marv Dasht) is, however, singularly lacking for both the pre-Achaemenid (Iron Age III)
and Achaemenid periods (Boucharlat 2005: 226, 2013a: 504). Cyrus’ achievement was to establish the empire
through the consecutive conquest and absorption of pre-existing large-scale political entities, including Media in
c. 550 BC, Lydia in Anatolia in the 540s BC and Babylonia in 539 BC, followed by strenuous campaigning to the
east, which established the Syr Darya as the empire’s north-eastern border. Critical to Achaemenid success was
the incorporation of Median, Elamite and other long-standing cultural traditions of Iran alongside new Iranian
identities in forging an imperial Persian sense of identity, at least at an elite level (de Miroschedji 1985; Henkel-
man 2008, 2012, 2018; Álvarez-Mon 2009b, 2018a, 2020: 500; Garrison 2010; Soudavar 2010; Root 2011; Potts
2016; Tavernier 2018a; Zadok 2018a).
Figure 11.106 The Achaemenid Persian empire at its greatest extent, showing provinces and the royal road from Susa to Sardis
(Sauvage 2020: 132) (image courtesy of Damien Agut-Labordère and Martin Sauvage).
Iran imperial 469
The thorny question of “where the Persians came from” should not be separated from the wider issues around
Iranian migrations discussed earlier in this chapter. Early suggestions that the Persians migrated into Fars from
Parsua in western Iran (Ghirshman 1954a: 91) were succeeded by proposals that the Persians arrived in Fars di-
rectly from the north or east in the later second millennium BC (Stronach 1974; de Miroschedji 1985). But ce-
ramics from recent excavations at Tappeh Qasrdasht, situated between Pasargadae and Persepolis, which indicate
strong connections with sites of Iron Age II and III date in western and north-western Iran, have encouraged a
tentative revival of the notion of a western origin for the Persians in the centuries preceding 550 BC (Atayi and
Roaf 2019).
Following his death in 530 BC, Cyrus was buried in a spectacular tomb at Pasargadae, the capital city founded
by Cyrus. His successor, Cambyses (530–522 BC) extended the empire to the southwest through the conquest of
Pharaonic Egypt after commencing work, never completed, on a new capital city on the Dasht-i Gohar 3 km to
the north of the future site of Persepolis (Stronach 2001: 100–101). The following king, Darius (522–496 BC),
dealt successfully with internal rebellions and regional revolts before adding the Indus Valley to the empire’s
limits in the southeast and establishing a significant presence in south-eastern Europe to the west. In the gold
and silver foundation tablets deposited by Darius at his new capital of Persepolis he could justifiably claim “Here
is the kingdom that I possess, from the Sakas [Scythians] who are beyond Sogdiana to the land of Kush [Nu-
bia], from India to Sardis” (Briant 2005: 14). Internal rivalries and a constant need to police the borders of the
empire consumed the energies of subsequent Achaemenid kings, including Xerxes (486–465 BC), Artaxerxes
(465–424 BC), Darius II (424–404 BC), Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC), Artaxerxes III (358–338 BC), Artaxerxes
IV (338–336 BC) and Darius III (336–330 BC). In a series of lightning campaigns in 334–331 BC the Mace-
donian conqueror, Alexander, swept through the Achaemenid lands ultimately putting Persepolis to the torch
(Kosmin 2013). But until his death at Babylon in 323 BC, Alexander saw himself as sustaining the traditions of
Achaemenid imperial rule and he strove to maintain the empire’s territorial and administrative integrity, as his
successors spectacularly failed to do.
Our knowledge of the Achaemenid empire comes from both historical and archaeological sources (http://
www.achemenet.com/en/ is an excellent resource regarding multiple aspects of the archaeology and history of
the Achaemenid empire). We have the empire’s own written records, in the form of monumental inscriptions and
cuneiform clay tablets (Table 11.3) (Stolper 2005; Kuhrt 2007; Henkelman 2013; Tavernier 2017). Monumental
inscriptions were displayed in three (rarely, four, including Egyptian) of the major languages of the empire, most
famously at Darius I’s rock carving at Bisotun (Figure 11.107) (Garrison 2013): Old Persian, the Indo-European
language of the ruling elite; Elamite, the ancient language of Khuzestan and Fars in southern Iran, also used in
administrative texts; and the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, an ancient Mesopotamian language of learning
and high civilisation. But the most important language of imperial communication was Aramaic, a northwest
Semitic language originally of Syria and Upper Mesopotamia (Greenfield 1985; Joisten-Pruschke 2010). Written
alphabetically and usually on perishable materials such as leather and papyrus, and occasionally also on clay and
metal objects, Aramaic was used across the empire as a lingua franca of legal and administrative activity. The ability
of Achaemenid elites to adapt their use of language, in format and content, to regional political circumstances is
vividly illustrated by the Cyrus Cylinder from Babylon (Kuhrt 2007: 70–74; Curtis 2013a, 2013b; Finkel 2013),
which takes the physical shape of a traditional Babylonian building foundation inscription (Figure 11.108), while
its text is phrased in Mesopotamian terms, including a reference to the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, by that time
dead for almost a century.
From outside the empire, we are also able to draw on historical or quasi-historical sources such as the Old Tes-
tament (Kuhrt 2001: 98). In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Persians are portrayed in a favourable light as
supporters of the Yahweh cult, restorers of the Temple at Jerusalem and facilitators of the return of people from
Babylonia to Judah, exiled there in 586 BC following Nebuchadnezzar II’s conquest of Judah. By contrast, the
book of Esther, probably written in the 2nd century BC, treats Persian court life in line with Greek views of
the Persians as decadent and weak. Classical Greek sources (Brosius 2006, 2013) include Herodotus for the early
Achaemenid period, with a focus on the Greek wars with Persia, 490–478 BC, plus later works such as Plutarch’s
Life of Artaxerxes (II) and Strabo’s Geography. Alexander was accompanied on campaign by writers whose works
have not survived except through selective appearance in later Roman histories, including those of Arrian,
Quintus Curtius, Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus, all broadly aligned with Greek views of Persia. Indeed, the
long-term liminal status of Achaemenid Persian studies, caught somewhere between Classical and Near Eastern
Table 11.3 L
anguages and writing systems of the Achaemenid Persian empire (information largely from Stolper 2005)
Language Language group Writing system Writing media Role and status Exemplar
Old Persian Iranian, Indo- Cuneiform; adapted script Royal inscriptions on stone, Used exclusively by Achaemenid
European devised specifically for royal glazed bricks, cylinder seals; kings “for the great king’s display
inscriptions; mixture of rare copies on clay tablets of of his presence and power” (Stolper
470 Iran imperial
consonantal and syllabic signs royal inscriptions on stone 2005: 19–20)
Stone panel, Persepolis

Elamite No agreed Cuneiform; adapted script; Clay tablets; occasional royal Administration; royal inscriptions;
known ancient language of Elam inscriptions on stone, glazed “language of practical literacy in
relatives, bricks Iran” (Stolper 2005: 20)
ancient or
modern
Wine ration text,

Persepolis
Babylonian Semitic Cuneiform; Akkadian script Clay tablets and cylinders; royal “Language of learning that was ancient,
dialect of inscriptions on stone manifold and still productive…it
Akkadian connoted domination over the world
beyond Iran” (Stolper 2005: 21)
Cyrus Cylinder, Babylon
Aramaic Northwest Alphabetic/consonantal script Inked on parchment, papyri, Imperial lingua franca; used for legal
Semitic with 22 characters ostraca, occasionally on clay and administrative matters; “under
tablets; on portable objects such the Achaemenids its use spread to
as seals, weights and coins; very the remotest corners of the empire,
rare copies on papyrus of royal from Egypt and Anatolia to Central
inscriptions on stone (Bisotun) Asia” (Stolper 2005: 21)
Ostracon, Elephantine
Egyptian Semitic Hieroglyphic Royal inscriptions on stone stelae, Used rarely, always on stone objects
stone statues (of Darius from with high royal status
Susa), stone vessels
Base of statue of Darius,

Susa
Iran imperial 471
Figure 11.107 Rock-cut relief scene of Darius at Bisotun, with blocks of text indicated as Per (Old Persian); Sus (Elamite); Bab
(Babylonian) (after Stolper 2005: Figure 6).
Figure 11.108 T
he Cyrus Cylinder, found in 1879 during Hormuzd Rassam’s excavations at Babylon, on display in the British
Museum, Ancient Iran gallery (© The Trustees of the British Museum).
Archaeology, may be traced to a Western predisposition towards the eloquent Greek sources and their emphasis
on the barbarism and weakness of their Persian contemporaries (Root 1991; Khatchadourian 2012, 2016).
In recent decades, as the Achaemenid empire has increasingly come to be studied on its own terms, unrefracted
through the Greek prism, historical attitudes have evolved away from the notion that the empire entered a long
period of decline from the start of the reign of Xerxes, culminating in its collapse at Alexander’s touch 130 years
later, to a consideration of how the empire managed to sustain itself as an immense, complex and diverse
socio-political entity for a period of more than 200 years (Kuhrt 2001). Critical to this shift of perspectives on
Persia has been the work of the Achaemenid History Workshop who have produced a series of influential volumes
of Achaemenid studies over a 30-year period, with the explicit intention to “dehellenise and decolonialise Persian
history” (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1987: 131; Harrison 2010).
Empires are inherently fragile entities, fraught with internal tensions, as illustrated by incessant conflict over
accession to the Achaemenid throne, and external pressures from neighbouring states, polities and tribes anxious
to seize a share of the wealth and power of the imperial possessions on their doorsteps. The question therefore
shifts from “Why did the empire stagnate and collapse?” to “How did the empire manage to survive and even
thrive for so long?” Addressing this and related socio-political questions should enable us to draw upon integrated
approaches to the rich textual and archaeological evidence of the Achaemenid empire even if such approaches are
still in their infancy (Khatchadourian 2012: 964, 2016).
472 Iran imperial
Key to the empire’s cohesion through space and time was its system of “satraps” ( Jacobs 2011; Khatchadourian
2016), a Greek derivative of a Persian term meaning “protecting the kingdom” (Stolper 2005: 19). The empire
was administered through provinces, or satrapies, each ruled by a satrap appointed directly by the king and re-
siding in a grand palace. Within their extensive provinces, satraps were responsible for law and order, taxation
and supply of military personnel for imperial campaigns. Provided these obligations were satisfactorily acquitted,
provincial residents could enjoy considerable latitude in their daily lives as effectively summarised by Danda-
mayev (1999: 280–281):
In the whole, the subjects of the Achaemenids lived in a rather moderate ideological climate and felt much less
pressure of official ideology and religious doctrines than it was characteristic of later periods of history…The
Persian authorities were only concerned with creating a stable administration and establishing an efficient
system for collecting royal taxes.
Provincial palaces hosted archives of texts relating to local and imperial matters, often protected by clay seals
bearing seal impressions that have been found in quantity at sites as far-flung as Daskyleion in western Phrygia
and Artašat in Armenia (Kuhrt 2001: 115). Below the level of satraps, Persian provincial administration drew
heavily on pre-existing local mechanisms of government and control. The importance to the Achaemenids of
long-distance communication in sustaining a coherent empire is vividly attested through the Persian system of
roads, such as the famous Susa to Sardis Royal Road (Figure 11.106), with way stations along the route at one-
day intervals and strategically located guard posts, a trans-imperial system of communication developed above all
under the rule of Darius (Graf 1994; Tallis 2005; Brosius 2006: 53–58; Henkelman 2017). Occasionally, satraps
were tempted to revolt against the central authority, most notably in the “great revolt of the satraps” in western
Anatolia in the mid-4th century BC, but such revolts never seriously threatened the integrity of the empire.
What can archaeology tell us about the nature of this globally significant political power, the Achaemenid Per-
sian empire? As discussed in Chapter 3, the development of the archaeology of the Achaemenid empire in Iran
was a vital strand in the modern history of Iran as a nation, with the dramatic discoveries at Persepolis in particu-
lar forming a key episode in the articulation of Iranian identity (Stronach 1986 provides a clear account of the
history of Achaemenid archaeology). With regard to the empire’s material remains, as Curtis (2005c: 30) points
out, across much of the empire we can identify selected components of an Achaemenid “court style” in elite ar-
chitecture, dress, weapons and jewellery but at the humbler, everyday level it is much harder to characterise spe-
cifically Achaemenid material culture, including pottery apart from a few high-status forms such as fine carinated
bowls (Stronach 1986; Boucharlat and Haerinck 2011). For this reason, multi-period regional surveys within the
territories of the Achaemenid empire, core or periphery, are likely to under-represent the Achaemenid presence
(Matthews 2009: 155–156; Henkelman 2012: 935–939 provides an excellent summary of survey data relevant
to the Achaemenid period). It has been suggested that Achaemenid rulers sought to “play down the conspicuous
presence of Persian power in the provinces on a variety of social/cultural levels” as a strategy of provincial man-
agement (Root 1991: 3), adapting to local social and material culture traditions rather than replacing them or sur-
mounting them with externally imposed imperial fashions. Moreover, we need to pursue nuanced approaches to
articulating the evidence for Achaemenid impacts on regions under imperial control, searching for “more subtle
forms of social re-engineering within materially constituted sociopolitical worlds” (Khatchadourian 2012: 964).
Not surprisingly the majority of our archaeological knowledge comes from Fars, the core region and an ad-
ministrative unit of the empire, hosting the capital cites of Pasargadae and Persepolis (Boucharlat 2005). The
Achaemenid name for the region was Pārsa, a region extending well beyond the modern province of Fars (Hen-
kelman 2012: 931). In addition to the major imperial centres discussed below, archaeological evidence for dams,
canals and sluices across the region provides some indication of the huge imperial investment in the agricultural
and horticultural development of the land of Pārsa (Henkelman 2012: 959–960), detectable in lake core evidence
from Lake Parishan in Fars, which shows a spike in the representation of cultivated trees, including olive, at this
time ( Jones et al. 2015). One text from Persepolis mentions the planting of 6,166 seedlings of fruit trees, including
apple, date, mulberry, olive, pear, pomegranate and quince, all of which would require significant development
of irrigation capacity across the plains of Fars (Henkelman 2013: 528, 539). The intersection of two major royal
roads running north-south and east-west across Fars, along with associated way stations and well-appointed
residences or “pavilions” at various points in the landscape further underline the key importance of Fars to the
economic development and administrative core of the Achaemenid state (Henkelman 2012: 939). Despite these
indications, summed results from archaeological surveys across the Achaemenid heartland depict “a region dot-
ted with smaller and larger sites, yet significantly less densely populated than it had been in the early and middle
second millennium BC” (Henkelman 2012: 938). Apparently empty zones may however be the result of the
Iran imperial 473
agglomeration of populations in major centres with associated intensification of irrigated agriculture in surround-
ing arable zones, as happened in the environs of Susa (Adams 1962; Henkelman 2012: 939). Rescue archaeology
in the Tang-e Bolagi region southwest of Pasargadae (Atayi and Boucharlat 2009) in advance of construction
of the Sivand Dam recovered evidence for Achaemenid occupation at several sites, including rural settlements,
small “pavilions” (Figure 11.109), fortified structures and rock-cut canals, shedding so far unique light on a rural
landscape within the Achaemenid heartland (Askari Chaverdi and Callieri 2006, 2016).
Cyrus the Great founded Pasargadae on the Dasht-e Morghab, at 1900 m above sea level, an appropriate
setting for the grandeur of his newly assembled empire (Stronach 1978; Boucharlat 2001, 2005, 2013a: 506–511,
2014; Henkelman 2012: 940–943). The first excavations at the site were conducted by Herzfeld (1929–30a)
followed by Ali Sami (1956) and a major series of campaigns led by David Stronach for the British Institute of
Persian Studies (Stronach 1963, 1964, 1965, 1978, 1989). Pasargadae has been a UNESCO World Heritage site
since 2004 (Mozaffari 2014). Built between 545 and 530 BC, Pasargadae is essentially an unfortified, open-plan
garden city or royal park covering 250–300 ha (Stronach 2001; Boucharlat 2013a: Figure 26.1; Gondet et al.
2019), with two large but simple palaces and two smaller pavilions framing a rectilinear schema of laid gardens
and associated water channels (Figure 11.110). In the hinterland of Pasargadae there are traces of well-constructed
earth dams, canals and stone conduits with sluices showing a major concern with water management for the site
(Boucharlat 2013a: 510, 2017; Chambrade et al. 2020). The distinctive layout of the Central Gardens, divided
into four parts, set the template for future Persian gardens in the so-called chahar bagh style (“four gardens”; Fig-
ure 11.111) (Stronach 1989; Boucharlat 2009b). Other large structures have been identified through geophysical
survey (Boucharlat 2002; Boucharlat and Benech 2002), and to the northeast of the Central Gardens there lies a
30 ha area bounded by a mudbrick wall within which magnetometer prospection and drone photography after
snow have revealed regular blocks of square buildings that may be military or workers’ barracks (Boucharlat 2019:
33–34). The palaces in the Central Gardens area were clearly not residential but rather served as massive audience
halls or settings for major official ceremonies (Figure 11.112).
Cyrus’ achievement at Pasargadae was to build large structures in stone, quarried from a range of local sources
(Emami et al. 2018), not an architectural tradition native to this region, importing stone masons, artisans and
stylistic influences from western (Greek) Asia Minor, Assyria and Egypt (Henkelman 2012; Garrison 2013). The
use of multiple stone columns, often with contrasting black and white colours, in all the structures at Pasargadae
echoes the Median practice of multi-columned halls. The main entry to Pasargadae would have been through
the free-standing Gate R, originally flanked by Assyrian-style winged bulls and with door jambs adorned in
relief by a winged genie wearing an Egyptian crown (Figure 11.113). A trilingual inscription in Old Persian,
Elamite and Babylonian stating simply “I, Cyrus, the king, an Achaemenian” was probably added later by Darius
I (Boucharlat 2013a: 510). At the entrance to the Audience Hall the depiction in sculpted stone of two fish-garbed
men, unique in Achaemenid art, indicates a direct influence from Assyria where fish-garbed priests were set as
guardians protecting doorways, as for example in Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh (Kawami 1972).
To the northeast of the Central Gardens a 30 m-high hill is topped by a massive ashlar masonry platform known
as Tall-i Takht or “Throne Hill” (Figure 11.114) upon which brick buildings were constructed in the reign of
Figure 11.109 T
ang-i Bolaghi, excavated Achaemenid pavilion (Atayi and Boucharlat 2005: Figure 6) (image courtesy of Joint
Iran-France team in Tang-i Bolaghi, with permission of Mohammad Atayi and Rémy Boucharlat).
474 Iran imperial
Figure 11.110 Pasargadae, plan of the site showing the principal monuments (Boucharlat 2013a: Figure 26.1) (image courtesy of
Joint Iran-France mission at Pasargadae).
Figure 11.111 Pasargadae, plan of the palace and formal garden area (after Curtis 2005c: Figure 8).
Darius I (Stronach 1965: Figure 4). 350 m southwest from the Tall-i Takht stands an apparently isolated 14 m-high
tower, the Zendan-i Suleiman, matched by a similar tower at the royal tomb site of Naqsh-e Rustam near Perse-
polis. An unexcavated large stone building sits adjacent to this tower at Pasargadae (Boucharlat and Benech 2002:
Figure 12). 1 km further southwest from the Central Gardens, the Tomb of Cyrus stands in magnificent isolation
(Stronach 1964: 21–28). The tomb takes the form of a gabled house surmounting a six-stepped stone platform (Fig-
ure 11.115) in style influenced by Lydian and Carian tombs from Asia Minor. In its day this tomb would have been
richly furnished with the burial itself and accompanying grave goods, long since gone, and at the time of Alexander
Iran imperial 475
Figure 11.112 Pasargadae, view of Palace P from the air (Boucharlat 2019) (image courtesy of B. N. Chagny, Joint Iran-France
mission at Pasargadae).
Figure 11.113 Pasargadae, Gate R stone relief of winged genie with Egyptian crown (after Curtis 2005c: Figure 10) (permission
courtesy of John Curtis).
Figure 11.114 Pasargadae, Tall-i Takht (photo credit: Roger Matthews).

476 Iran imperial
Figure 11.115 Pasargadae, Tomb of Cyrus (Boucharlat 2019) (image courtesy of Joint Iran-France mission at Pasargadae).
Figure 11.116 Pasargadae, selected items from jewellery hoard, 5th–4th centuries BC (after Stronach 1978: pls 147a, 148a, 150a–150b).
it was tended by a house of priests. The most significant finds from Pasargadae include a remarkable hoard of jew-
ellery (Figure 11.116) buried in a pot under a Central Gardens pavilion (Stronach 1965: 31–40, pls. X-XIV; Curtis
2005c: 33). The hoard comprised more than 1,000 objects including gold ibex-headed bracelets, miniature gold
bells, gold earrings and necklaces, dating to the 5th–4th centuries BC. A single cylinder seal was recovered (Root
1999). Pasargadae continued to be occupied throughout the Achaemenid period and beyond into Hellenistic times.
Three Achaemenid palaces at Borazjan (Figure 11.117), northeast of Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast were
also probably built by Cyrus the Great, with significant architectural parallels to buildings at Pasargadae (Sarfaraz
1971; Karimian 2011; Henkelman 2012: 939–940; Zehbari 2020). The palaces each comprise a pillared hall with
Iran imperial 477
Figure 11.117 Borazjan, Achaemenid palaces compared to Pasargadae palaces (after Zehbari 2020: Figure 49).
Figure 11.118 Borazjan, fragment of relief scene with parasol shielding royal Figure (after Zehbari 2020: Figures 31–32).
column bases utilising alternating black and white stones, originally surmounted by wooden columns decorated
with plaster mouldings, comparable to the practice at Pasargadae. Within the Charkhab Palace an unusual de-
posit of carved fragments of human and animal teeth, eyes, nails and claws had been set 2 m deep under the
floor, evidence for specialist craft activity here (Karimian 2011). At the Bardak Siyah Palace, 13 km northwest of
Charkhab, folded gold plates and cups were deliberately hidden under a column base, and there is also an excep-
tionally fine piece of carved black stone depicting what must be a royal figure under a parasol remarkably similar
to scenes of Darius I at Persepolis (Figure 11.118) (Karimian 2011: 43; Zehbari 2020: Figures 31–32). Evidence of
478 Iran imperial
burning plus many bronze arrowheads suggest that the Bardak Siyah Palace may have been destroyed during the
Macedonian campaigns that brought the empire to an end. Sang-e Siyah Palace, 10 km north of Charkhab, again
has a layout similar to the Pasargadae palaces but in this case the palace appears not to have been completed as
there is no trace of either a floor or a ceiling. The location of these palaces shows the interest of Cyrus in gaining
access to the sea routes that enabled navigation directly into Lower Mesopotamia and Babylon.
While occupation continued at Pasargadae, Darius celebrated his victory over Gaumata and other revolts
across the empire in the famous Bisotun relief, the outstanding instance of early Achaemenid royal display and
art (Figures 11.107, 11.119) (Luschey 1968, 2013; Root 1979; Vallat 2011a; Garrison 2013; Potts 2016: 313–318;
Jacobs 2017). Situated on a sheer rock face 66 m above the plain east of Kermanshah in western Iran, the Bisotun
relief stands proud over the Great Khorasan Road connecting Central Asia to the east with Mesopotamia to
the west. Cuneiform inscriptions adorn the figured scenes, with blocks of text in Old Persian, Babylonian and
Elamite (Schmitt 2013). The Old Persian text is the earliest attested use of this script, which seems to have been
created expressly for this purpose, as Darius himself states: “Says Darius the king: by the will of Ahura Mazda
that is my script, which I made” (Potts 2016: 314–315). The monument was planned and executed, with some
modifications as work progressed, over the period 521–519 BC. The Bisotun relief shows the king, backed by two
dignitaries, holding a bow and with one foot resting on the chest of a supine defeated enemy. To the right stand
nine manacled and roped figures representing defeated “liar kings,” depicted in chronological order of the date of
their defeat by Darius, their diminished status graphically demonstrated by their smaller stature compared to that
of Darius and his two allies. Overseeing the entire scene is a depiction of Ahura Mazda in the form of a winged
disc with anthropomorphic figure closely modelled on the figure of the king. Inspiration for Darius’s Bisotun
relief came from his encounters with much earlier rock-cut reliefs such as the c. 2000 BC Sar-i Pol I relief of
Anubanini, king of the Lullubi, at Sar-e Pol-e Zohab 150 km to the west along the same Great Khorasan Road,
and drawing on knowledge of Assyrian palace reliefs of Nimrud and Nineveh, the latest of which date to only a
century prior to the Bisotun relief.
A UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2006 (Figure 11.120), the Bisotun relief and its associated trilingual
inscriptions, fundamental to the early decipherment of languages in the cuneiform script (Larsen 1996) including
Old Persian (Tavernier 2013b), stands out as “the only Achaemenid monument that unambiguously seeks to com-
memorate known and specific historical events” (Garrison 2013: 575). Supplementing this statement, Wu (2014)
proposes that depictions of warfare scenes on certain Achaemenid seals and other media might be relatable to
specific historical events. A second rock carving by Darius exists at Ganj Nameh, 12 km southwest of Hamadan,
Figure 11.119 Bisotun, rock relief of Darius, 520–519 BC (Briant 2005: Figure 2) (permission courtesy of John Curtis).
Iran imperial 479
Figure 11.120 Bisotun, celebrations in November 2006 to mark its accession to the UNESCO World Heritage List. Darius's relief
is visible top centre (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
on the lower slopes of Mount Alvand near a springhead (Figure 11.121). Inscriptions here in Old Persian, Elamite
and Babylonian glorify Darius and praise Ahura Mazda, augmented by a later panel of Xerxes (Curtis 2005c: 39).
Darius I marked the consolidation of his rule through the foundation in 520–515 BC of a new capital and
royal residence at Persepolis (Parsa in Old Persian), also in Fars. The Persian king appears not to have resided
permanently in any specific city, but moved according to season and administrative or military requirement from
one royal residence to another, thus governing as “an itinerant State” (Briant 2002: 187; Boucharlat 2013a: 512).
Other royal residences and pavilions were established at Susa (see below), Babylon (Haerinck 1997; Gasche 2013;
Curtis 2020) and Ecbatana, at least, but as yet we have no archaeological knowledge of Darius’s palaces or other
significant Achaemenid buildings at Ecbatana (Hamadan) beyond out of context evidence for a columned palace
of Artaxerxes II (Knapton et al. 2001; Curtis 2005c: 39).
Figure 11.121 Ganj Nameh, inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes (photo credit: Rokita).
480 Iran imperial
Figure 11.122 Persepolis, view of terrace from the east, Hall of 100 Columns centre right (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Excavated by Herzfeld in 1931–1934, by Schmidt in 1934–1939 and by a succession of Iranian archaeolo-

gists including Ali Sami, Tadjvidi and Mousavi since, Persepolis is one of the great sites of the ancient world,
like Pasargadae a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Schmidt 1953, 1957, 1970; Tadjvidi 1976; Roaf 1983, 2004;
Mousavi 1992; Henkelman 2012: 943–950; Boucharlat 2013a: 512–517; Khatchadourian 2016: 105–112). The
ruins are unevenly distributed over an area of some 20 km 2, comprising a massive terrace with multiple structures
(Figures 11.122–11.123), the royal burial site of Naqsh-e Rustam 6 km to the north, and loosely arranged quarters
in between. The royal and elite residential areas were located below, not on, the great terrace, some of which
have been located, including the column bases of a porticoed palace north of the Persepolis terrace (Tilia 1974,
1978; Henkelman 2012: 948). In the area south of the terrace, known as Persepolis South (Figure 11.124), there
are several large stone buildings with hypostyle halls, porticos and courtyards, one with an inscribed column base
of Xerxes, while the terrace itself appears to have been protected by a mudbrick fortification cresting the ridge to
the east (Tadjvidi 1976; Mousavi 1992, 2012). Much of the occupied region of Persepolis remains unexplored and
we would expect there to be quarters for administration, military and craft activity, as well as gardens and water
conduits. Evidence across the Marv Dasht for the development of dams, banks and canals indicates a significant
regional intensification of activity in association with the construction and occupation at Persepolis.
Survey and excavations in area of the plain known as Persepolis West (Figure 11.124), first investigated by
William Sumner (1986b), have explored the so-called “town” settlement appended to the nearby royal terrace,
more broadly identified as the “Persepolis settled zone” (Talebian 2008; Boucharlat et al. 2012; Askari Chaverdi
et al. 2017). Excavations have revealed extensive craft areas with ceramic kilns, possible gardens, and evidence
for occupational continuity spanning the Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid periods, also attested in the Tang-i
Bolaghi region near Pasargadae (Askari Chaverdi and Callieri 2016), supporting an interpretation of settlement
continuity at the rural level in spite of dramatic changes brought about at the palace level by the Macedonian
conquerors in the 330s BC including the torching by Alexander of the Persepolis Terrace itself.
Iran imperial 481
Figure 11.123 P
ersepolis, plan of the major buildings on the terrace (Sauvage 2020: 136) (image courtesy of Julien Cluny and
Martin Sauvage).
Figure 11.124 M ap of the Persepolis area to show major features (Sauvage 2020: 137) (image courtesy of Julien Cluny and
Martin Sauvage).
482 Iran imperial
Of major significance is the site of Tol-e Ajori in the area of Bagh-e Firuzi, c. 3 km west of the Persepolis
Terrace, where excavations have uncovered the extraordinary remains of a copy in slightly larger dimensions
of the Ishtar Gate at Babylon, constructed in the early Achaemenid period according to Babylonian building
traditions (Figure 11.125) (Askari Chaverdi et al. 2013, 2014, 2017). It seems probable that the Tol-e Ajori Gate
provided access to a nearby monumental building complex detected at foundation level in the Bagh-e Firuzi
area, where monumental column bases had previously come to light (Tilia 1974: 203). Tol-e Ajori comprises a
small low mound with surface traces of glazed brick suggestive of an elite construction of some sort. Geophysical
prospection and excavation show that the site consists of a single large rectangular building 29 × 39 m in plan. Its
walls have a 5 m-wide mudbrick core encased within 2.5 m-wide baked brick skirts, in turn faced on the interior
and exterior with white, yellow and brown glazed bricks, many of them bearing fitters’ marks in white paint in a
manner precisely like that used by builders at the Palace of Darius at Susa (Daucé 2010; Maras 2010).
Amongst the collapsed material from the Tol-e Ajori building’s end of life the excavators found several frag-
ments of glazed bricks decorated in relief plus one brick with a single painted cuneiform sign of SAR/ŠAR
perhaps from the Babylonian word šarru “king” while another brick bears the sign KÁ, an Akkadian logogram
for “gate” (Figure 11.126) (Basello 2013, 2017). Several of the glazed bricks bear relief elements that can be
directly compared with glazed relief bricks from the Ishtar Gate at Babylon, including parts of bulls and the
mušhuššu dragon, sacred respectively to Adad and Marduk at Babylon, both of which feature prominently on
the Ishtar Gate itself in both glazed and unglazed brick form (Figure 11.125) (Marzahn 2008). The Tol-e Ajori
Gate bears remarkable resemblance to the famous Babylon Ishtar Gate in its scale, method of construction and
decorative schema, vividly demonstrating a significant influence of Babylonian style on early Achaemenid ar-
chitecture. Moreover, study of the glazing technology of bricks from Persepolis suggests possible borrowing of
this technology from Babylonian experts, albeit applied to differing materials – baked mudbricks in Babylonia,
sintered quartz in Persia (Holakooei et al. 2017). Darius I tells how Babylonian craftworkers were employed in
mudbrick-working for his palace at Susa.
Figure 11.125 Tol-e Ajori, site plan, view, decorated bricks and bricks with fitter’s marks (Askari Chaverdi et al. 2017: pls 1, 4b,
10a–10b, 14a–14b) (images courtesy of Iranian-Italian Joint Archaeological Mission in Fars).
Iran imperial 483
Figure 11.126 Tol-e Ajori, glazed brick fragments with cuneiform inscriptions (Basello 2017: pls 2a, 3a) (images courtesy of Irani-
an-Italian Joint Archaeological Mission in Fars).
The Persepolis Terrace as we see it today represents, subject to the impacts of time, archaeology and skilful
Iranian-Italian restoration (Tilia 1972, 1978), the cumulative vision of successive Persian kings from Darius I to
Artaxerxes III over a period of almost 200 years (Figure 11.123) (Roaf 1983: Figures 152–157). For much of that
time the terrace would have been a massive building site, with scaffolding, ramps and constant movement of
labour and materials to and from the site, with all the accompanying dust, noise and smells necessitated by any
large-scale construction work. The sense of unified grandeur that we experience in visiting the site today would
have become dominant only some 60 years after the start of building in c. 515 BC, well into the reign of Artax-
erxes I (Roaf 1983: 159). The whole enterprise betokens dynastic ambition and confidence on an epic scale. Most
of the buildings, many of which would have contained significant wooden components, succumbed to Alexan-
der’s torch in 330 BC. Evidence for post-Achaemenid use of Darius’ Palace and Palace H on the south-western
corner of the terrace likely dates to the Sasanian period (Roaf 1983: 158, Figure 157).
The royal terrace at Persepolis is even today an awe-inspiring sight (Shahbazi 2011 is an excellent guide). One
can only imagine the feelings it must have inspired in visiting dignitaries, courtiers, local farmers and all
the inhabitants of the empire who had the opportunity to see it, even if from afar. The terrace nestles on its east
side into the slope of the mountain Kuh-i Rahmat for a distance of c. 450 m and stretches out onto the plain for
c. 300 m. A 14 m-high retaining wall of massive limestone blocks defines the eastern limit of the terrace against
the mountain face. Stone for building the terrace and its massive monuments was quarried both from the adjacent
mountain and also, for higher quality material used in reliefs, from a site 40 km distant to the west (Shahbazi
2011: 223–224; Guidi et al. 2012; Boucharlat 2013a: 515; Gondet 2015). All the buildings on this terrace served
ceremonial and official functions – none of them were truly residential (Razmjou 2010; Razmjou and Roaf 2013).
Darius’ original plan seems to have been to leave much of the terrace open, adorned by gardens and open
courts. Early buildings on the terrace include the square Apadana with its massive columned hall, the columns
19 m high and capitals all made of stone (Figure 11.127). Recent analysis reveals the surprising fact that many of
the stone surfaces at Persepolis were coated in a thin application either of gypsum or of fluorapatite formed from
large-scale burning of animal bones, both of which would have given a fine white finish to the stone surfaces
(Askari Chaverdi et al. 2016; Ridolfi et al. 2019). A kiln and associated waste pits at Persepolis West appear to have
been used for production of fluorapatite from the ash of animal bones (Askari Chaverdi and Callieri 2012), but
the precise aim in adorning the cut stone in this way is not clear.
A large square room, 53 × 53 m with six rows of six columns, forms the central space of the Apadana adjoined by
double-columned porticos on three sides. Originally the Apadana had mudbrick walls 5 m thick. Remarkable foun-
dation deposits comprising inscribed gold and silver tablets, Cypriot, Greek and Lydian coins and pieces of amber
were found buried in two corners of the Apadana (Nimchuk 2010). Adorning the staircases of the Apadana on its
northern and eastern sides, is a scheme of carved reliefs (Figures 11.128–11.129), eschewing narrative and thereby not
confined to specific time and place, but rather designed to portray, literally set in stone, the time- and space-defying
power, wealth and diversity of the empire and its king(s) (Root 1979; Calmeyer 1980; Roaf 1983; Khatchadourian
2016). Carving the relief scenes would have been a time-consuming process taking place probably over several years,
and employing sophisticated stone-working tools and techniques from roughing out to fine finishing carried out by
Persian and non-Persian craft workers (Roaf 1980; Roaf 1983: 3–9; Askari Chaverdi et al. 2016).
484 Iran imperial
Figure 11.127 Persepolis Terrace, Apadana viewed from the northeast, with Palace of Darius behind (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 11.128 Persepolis Terrace, Apadana, relief scenes on eastern side (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
The reliefs depict Median and Persian guards and nobles leading 23 delegations of peoples from the satrapies of
the empire in symmetrical arrangements, dressed in their regional costumes and bearing gifts and offerings typ-
ical of their localities, including weapons, metal and ceramic vessels, animals, animal skins and textiles, all in all
“a veritable ethnographic museum” as it has been described (Dandamaev and Lukonin 2004: 251; Gropp 2009).
These guards, nobles and delegations originally marched on both staircases towards a central royal audience scene
depicting an enthroned king, with a standing crown prince behind him and attendant Palace Guards.
The Apadana relief scenes have been explicated in such exquisite language by Margaret Cool Root (2011:
424–425) that a lengthy quote will not go amiss:
the Apadana fabricates a moment of supreme liminality that is legible with variant subtexts drawn from (and
meant to speak to) peoples from different cultures with a sustained, multi-referential message. The moment
describes the imminent, inexorable move of the petitioners from one state of being to another. It is a moment
of “voluntary” submission in which all depends upon the assessment of the petitioners by the higher authority…
The promise of positive outcome rests in the degree to which the king will judge the petitioners and their
gifts worthy of incorporation into the project of the new way of being. If all goes to plan, the exchange will
be parithetic. The value of voluntary cooperation will be realized through the king’s generous compensation
for goods and services in the form of symbolic kinship with the ruler and his dynastic mission. On the Apa-
dana, each petitioning group is a notional construction of a people imbued with a set of innuendoes about
imperial reach, historical legitimacy, cultural memory, and ordained future.
Iran imperial 485
Figure 11.129 P
ersepolis Terrace, Apadana, relief scenes on northern side (after Curtis and Razmjou 2005: 65; drawings by Ann
Searight) (permission courtesy of John Curtis).
Bruce Lincoln (2008: 233) strikes a similar tone in his interpretation of these scenes as betokening a “theology
of empire” whereby the king “reunites the world and restores its perfection.” This perfect, united world is,
however, exclusively male at least in its formal representation in the Persepolis reliefs. Notably absent from these
scenes, and from all other instances of official or monumental Achaemenid art, are depictions of women, who are
primarily attested in small-scale media such as seals, metalwork and ivories (Brosius 1998; Daems 2001: 42–46;
Lerner 2010).
At a later stage, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, the central royal audience scene panels were removed from the
Apadana staircases, stored in the Treasury on the terrace where Schmidt excavated them (Shahbazi 2011: Figures
38–39), and replaced by a scene depicting Median and Persian soldiers facing a blank panel probably intended to
receive inscriptions that were never cut into the stone. Flanking these central scenes, the classic motif of a lion
attacking a rearing bull is finely carved (Figure 11.130). Amongst the many interpretations of this motif, the idea
that it may refer to the precession of the equinoxes whereby the zodiacal zone of Taurus succeeds Leo as happened
in c. 500 BC at the spring equinox, also the time of Nawrouz or New Year as in the modern Iranian calendar,
has some traction (Shahbazi 2011: 103–104), despite the lack of other evidence for the significance of Nawrouz
at Persepolis (Calmeyer 1980).
The terrace was accessed through a massive double staircase at the north-western corner, constructed of mas-
sive limestone blocks joined by metal clamps, leading to the Gate of All Nations with its flanking double pairs of
bearded, human-headed, winged bulls and four columns, capped by back-to-back kneeling bulls (Figure 11.131).
The gate, built by Xerxes, originally included mudbrick walls adorned with glazed tiles (Shahbazi 2011: 36–45).
Passing by the Fortification Walls, a visitor would next encounter the Unfinished Gate before entering the Hall
of 100 Columns (Figure 11.122), all of which would have been mounted by double-bull capitals, and further
grand structures including the Central Building, the Harem, the Treasury and the Palaces of Darius and Xerxes.
All these building names originate in Herzfeld and Schmidt’s often fanciful identifications of the possible roles of
each structure on the Persepolis Terrace and should not be taken as genuine indications of the function of any of
the buildings (Razmjou 2010).
486 Iran imperial
Figure 11.130 P
ersepolis Terrace, Apadana, relief scene on eastern side of lion attacking bull (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 11.131 Persepolis Terrace, Gate of All Nations from the northeast (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Many of the doorjambs of the terrace buildings bear carved scenes depicting the king with attendants or the
king fighting bulls, lions or griffins (Figure 11.132). There are also scenes carved into platforms and staircases of
these buildings, reiterating the themes of imperial wealth, power and diversity attested on the Apadana reliefs.
Shahrokh Razmjou’s interpretation of the so-called palaces and other buildings on the terrace concludes that
none of them were used for residential purposes beyond short-term hosting of royalty, court and distinguished
guests attending official meetings and ritual ceremonies hosted by the king and enacted within the site’s magnif-
icent setting (Razmjou 2010).
Iran imperial 487
We should stress the major role of colour in Achaemenid elite display (Moorey 1998), especially at Persepolis
and Susa, as materialised through painted wooden and plaster surfaces, dyed textiles and wall-hangings, glazed
bricks and tiles, and inlays of materials such as gold, silver, lapis lazuli and limestone. The presence of vivid col-
ours on the Persepolis reliefs is frequently commented on in Ernst Herzfeld’s records and letters composed on the
spot as he excavated at Persepolis: “It seems rather that all reliefs were entirely painted in brilliant, alternating
colors, perhaps on the polished, black ground. What a strange impression this must have been!” (cited in Nagel
2013: 605; Roaf 1983: 8). Elemental analysis of surviving pigments on the Persepolis reliefs has identified use of
Egyptian blue, red ochre, realgar and cinnabar (Ridolfi et al. 2019).
Thousands of clay tablets were excavated at Persepolis in two rooms of the Fortification Walls at the north
end of the terrace, the so-called Persepolis Fortification Archive (Figure 11.133) (Hallock 1969; Razmjou 2008;
Lawler 2012; Henkelman 2013; Basello and Giovinazzo 2018: 489–492). The vast majority of the approximately
15,000 texts are in the cuneiform Elamite language but a significant proportion, some 800 tablets, bear inscrip-
tions solely in Aramaic either incised or inked onto the clay surfaces while a further 250 texts have short Aramaic
texts inked alongside Elamite inscriptions (Henkelman 2013: 532). There are also single texts in Greek, Old
Persian, Akkadian and Phrygian. Many of the tablets bear seal impressions, with more than 3,000 different seals
providing “the richest corpus of Achaemenid glyptic and of Achaemenid iconographic material at large” (Fig-
ure 11.134) (Henkelman 2013: 533), a vivid indication of the engagement of multiple seal-bearing actors within
this highly organised system of administration and rural production (Zettler 1979; Garrison 1991, 2000, 2010,
2011, 2013, 2017; Garrison and Root 2001; Root 2008). The Persepolis fortification texts date from the years
509–493 BC, Darius I years 13–28, and deal exclusively with administrative matters including receipt, storage
and disbursement of goods and animals to members of the royal family and the court, organisation of groups of
temple staff, labourers, artisans and farmers. These documents thus provide a wealth of information regarding
the administration of agricultural production and distribution within the hinterland of a major capital city and
Figure 11.132 Persepolis Terrace, Palace of Darius doorjamb relief showing the king slaying a lion (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Figure 11.133 C
uneiform tablets in Elamite from the Persepolis Fortification Archive relating to rations and cattle (Meadows 2005:
197) (permission courtesy of John Curtis).
488 Iran imperial
Figure 11.134 Cuneiform tablet with seal impression depicting a mounted warrior attacking enemies. Inscription on the left names
“Kurash, the Anshanite, son of Teispes,” probably an ancestor of Cyrus the Great (Meadows 2005: 197) (permission
courtesy of John Curtis).
royal residence. Several hundred texts and fragments were also found in the so-called Treasury of Persepolis,
dated to the years 492–457 BC, thus slightly later than the Persepolis Fortification Archive. The Treasury texts
are concerned to record payments of silver, occasionally in lieu of food rations in the form of sheep, wine, beer
and barley, to skilled craft workers (Hallock 1960; Basello and Giovinazzo 2018: 492–494). Much smaller text
collections have also been found at Susa.
Figure 11.135 N
aqsh-i Rustam, tombs of Darius I, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I (photo credit: Roger Matthews).
Iran imperial 489
Above the Persepolis Terrace on the east and cut into the rock-face of the Kuh-i Rahmat are three tombs, be-
lieved to belong to the kings Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III and Darius III (Curtis 2005c: 35; Shahbazi 2011: 213–
216). The facades are in the form of buildings with columns and double-bull protomes supporting a beamed and
denticulated roof. At Naqsh-e Rustam 6 km northwest of the Persepolis terrace, there are four more massive
tombs of the Achaemenid kings (Figure 11.135), including Darius I, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I and probably Darius II,
of which only that of Darius I bears inscriptions including identification labels for each of the delegates depicted
carrying the gigantic throne on which the king stands, directly above a building façade. At least some of these
scenes appear to have been illustrated in brilliant colour, as with many of the Persepolis reliefs (Nagel 2013: 608).
The king stands in front of a fire altar with the representation of a figure emerging from a circle with wings, a
scene that is now believed not to represent the god Ahura Mazda but the “royal fortune/luminous glory” granted
by Ahura Mazda to the king (Gnoli 1999; Boucharlat 2013a: 517). The tomb itself with in-built sarcophagi is
located in chambers accessed through the middle of the facade – needless to say, no trace of the tombs’ contents
remains. A tower similar to that at Pasargadae accompanies the royal tombs at Naqsh-e Rustam, while at nearby
Takht-e Rostam a stone platform may have been intended to support the tomb of Cambyses II (530–522 BC).
Some 100 km south of Persepolis, the site of Farmeshgan has yielded remains including sculpted stone blocks
and footings of columned buildings and a pavilion in use through much of the empire’s life, interpreted as a major
stopping point on a route of imperial seasonal migration (Razmjou 2005b).
Outside the core region of Fars, the most important location for Achaemenid monumental construction was
the ever-important site of Susa in Khuzestan (Figure 11.136) (Stronach 1974; Muscarella et al. 1992; Boucharlat
Figure 11.136 S usa in the Achaemenid period (Sauvage 2020: 133) (image courtesy of Julien Cluny, François Bridey, Clélia Paladre
and Martin Sauvage).
490 Iran imperial
1997, 2001, 2009a, 2013a: 517–520; Henkelman 2012: 950–955; Perrot 2013b; Khatchadourian 2016: 81–85;
Potts 2016: 323–330). The most significant monument was the great palace of Darius, constructed over some
15 years as attested in texts from Persepolis and Babylon that record the dispatch of materials and labour to Susa
(Briant 2013: 18–22), and excavated by the French mission in the late 19th century AD (Figure 11.137). In a
fabulous example of what Liverani (2006: 41) calls the “propaganda of imports,” Darius enumerates in a famous
inscription the materials for the palace’s construction, as well as the artisans to work them, as resourced from
all corners of the empire, including stone for columns from Elam, cedar from Lebanon via Babylon, sissoo
wood from Gandhara and Kerman, gold from Lydia and Bactria, silver and ebony from Egypt, lapis lazuli and
carnelian from Sogdia and turquoise from Chorasmia (Figure 11.138) (Roaf 1990: 212–213; Vallat 2010; Potts
2016: 323). Construction of this immense building complex involved the excavation of >10 m-deep foundation
trenches that were filled with gravel, supporting a platform covering 12 ha in area and with a retaining terrace
wall rising to 14 m in height. As at Persepolis, Darius’ palace at Susa sits upon a high platform and features a
separate monumental gateway and a massive pillared hall or Apadana comparable in scale to that at Persepo-
lis, 109 × 109 m in area and with columns 21 m high (Stronach 2001: 101–104). The main component of the
palace is the Residence, a complex of three aligned courtyards, the largest of which was adorned with glazed
brick panels depicting guards (Figure 11.139) archers, lions and griffins now on display in the Louvre Museum
(Muscarella et al. 1992: 223–241; Henkelman 2012: 953–954; Caubet and Daucé 2013). To the south of the
innermost courtyards lay an area of royal reception and apartments with rooms for royal officials, scribes and
archives. At the door to the royal apartment stone slabs were buried in the foundations, bearing inscriptions
in Elamite and Akkadian that detail the empire-wide engagement in providing the materials and labour for
Darius’ magnificent palace at Susa. Shattered fragments of inscribed stone vessels and objects of Egyptian Blue
Figure 11.137 Susa, Palace of Darius (http://www.achemenet.com/en/visit/?/susa/palace-of-darius/8) and aerial image looking
west (photo credit: Susa UNESCO World Heritage Base; plan courtesy of Archaeological Mission at Susa).
Iran imperial 491
Figure 11.138 “Propaganda of imports”: the building of the Palace of Darius at Susa (after Roaf 1990: 212–213).
Figure 11.139 Susa, Palace of Darius, glazed brick reliefs of archers (SB3305, SB3309, SB3310, SB3302; photo credit: © RMN-
Grand Palais, Musée du Louvre / Hervé Lewandowski).
(blue frit: Amiet 1990; Moorey 1994: 186–188) found at Susa and Persepolis hint at the richness and colour of
elite Achaemenid lifestyles.
Located 50 m east of the Residence, a monumental gateway provides formal access to the palace complex,
comparable in scale to the Gate of All Nations at Persepolis. This structure, 40 × 28 m in plan, was begun
by Darius and completed in the reign of Xerxes. The famous statue of Darius (Figure 11.140) was found
within this gate complex (Yoyotte 2013: 273 map). The statue was made in Egypt and brought to Susa by
Xerxes at the gate’s completion. Although the upper part is missing, the Egyptian stance of the king is
clear. An inscription in four languages (Akkadian, Elamite, Old Persian, Egyptian hieroglyphic) states that
“Here is the stone statue of the king Darius who ordered it to be made in Egypt.” Around the base are 24
492 Iran imperial
Figure 11.140 S tatue of Darius, found at Susa (photo credit: Nima Fakoorzadeh, Baloot Noghrei Inst., courtesy of the National
Museum of Iran).
cartouches in the form of fortresses representing subject peoples of the king from across the empire (Figure
11.141) (Roaf 1974; Yoyotte 2013).
Across a deep ditch a mudbrick bridge connected the Susa palace complex with the so-called “Ville Royale”
to the east, where within an area of some 100 ha a large building with columned porticos was built by Xerxes
(Ladiray 2013). Access from the east to this part of the Royal City was via a monumental gateway constructed
upon an imposing 18 m-high defensive bank, but our understanding of the nature of occupation and activity
within the Ville Royale remains obscure (Henkelman 2012: 953; Boucharlat 2013a: 520). The lack of official
Achaemenid archives from Susa, unlike Persepolis, hinders interpretation of the function and significance of the
site within the framework of imperial administration and extension of power, but hints from the few recovered
tablets and bullae reveal the workings of an imperial bureaucracy controlling rural production, storage and dis-
tribution on a scale similar to that attested at Persepolis (Henkelman 2012: 954).
Following Darius’ death in 496 BC, further building work at Susa was conducted by his successors including
Xerxes. Artaxerxes II repaired the Apadana of Darius and constructed a new palace outside the walls of Susa
across the Shaur river composed of a series of buildings, including a columned hall with porticos, situated around
a garden (Boucharlat 2013b; Potts 2016: 330–331). Major Achaemenid finds at Susa include an intact 4th century
BC “bath-tub” coffin tomb on the south side of the Acropole (Figure 11.142) (Muscarella et al. 1992: 242–252;
Henkelman 2012: 953; Frank 2013; Wicks et al. 2018), containing a decorated silver bowl, alabaster vessels
and gold bracelets, necklaces and earrings. These grave goods, along with a jewellery hoard from Pasargadae,
the Oxus Treasure and the Lydian Treasure from looted tombs in western Turkey, considered with depictions
in Achaemenid art, together provide rich illustration of personal adornment amongst the Persian elite (Curtis
2005b). The Susa tomb represents a rare example of Achaemenid human burial as extremely few Achaemenid
cemeteries have been excavated in Iran (Henkelman 2012: 956). Achaemenid and later rock-cut tombs, often
difficult to date because of the lack of surviving contents, may have been inspired by the royal tombs at Naqsh-e
Rustam and Persepolis.
Iran imperial 493
Figure 11.141 Statue of Darius, base of the statue (photo courtesy of Archaeological Mission at Susa).
Figure 11.142 Susa, depiction in watercolour of Achaemenid tomb (Muscarella et al. 1992: Figure 54) (image from http://www.
achemenet.com/visit/suse/map/1.6.2P_Tombe_Acropole.jpg).
494 Iran imperial
Beyond the major imperial centres of Pasargadae, Persepolis and Susa, traces of Achaemenid activity within
the imperial heartland include so-called “pavilions” or way stations such as Qaleh Kali in the Mamasani
region of western Fars, 150 km west of Persepolis, part of a regional complex of impressive Achaemenid
buildings with massive columns and porticos on the royal highway between Persepolis and Susa (Potts et al.
2007, 2009a; Henkelman 2012: 957–959). Excavations in Mamasani have also revealed Achaemenid levels at
Tol-e Spid and Tol-e Nurabad (Potts and Roustaei 2006). Survey in the Mamasani region indicates a major
increase in Achaemenid settlement of the region following a Neo-Elamite settlement hiatus in the early first
millennium BC (Askari Chaverdi et al. 2010). Evidence for temples, non-royal tombs, and indeed for non-
royal activity more broadly across the Iranian heartland of the empire is singularly lacking (Boucharlat 2013a:
523), not least because of a strong emphasis on imperial centres within the archaeology of Achaemenid Iran so
far. Multi-period archaeological surveys have contributed modestly to our understanding of the Achaemenid
impact on regional settlement patterns, partly because of challenges in distinguishing recoverable Achaemenid
ceramics from site surfaces (Adjerloo 2010).
As regards eastern Iran and adjacent regions (Vogelsang 1992; Genito 2013), archaeological evidence for an
Achaemenid presence is sparse but levels of appropriate date have been excavated at Tureng Tepe on the Gorgan
plain (Deshayes 1973; Boucharlat and Lecomte 1987) and at a range of sites across the border in Turkmenistan.
Excavations at Tappe Rivi on the Samalghan plain in North Khorasan province have uncovered remains of
Figure 11.143 Tappe Rivi, North Khorasan. Top: aerial view of grid F16, with excavated wall lines of Achaemenid Building A. Bottom
left:close-upofthecentralpartofBuildingAwithcolumnbaseinsitu.Bottomright:remainingwallsofthemonumentalBuildingD,
founded in 8th century BC (images courtesy of Tappe Rivi Project, ICHHTO Bojnurd & DAI Tehran).
Iran imperial 495
a substantial mudbrick building with a central columned hall as well as a complex of impressive buildings and
walls that appear to resemble Median fortified complexes at Godin Tepe and Nush-i Jan (Figure 11.143) ( Jafari
and Thomalsky 2018). Close to Birjand, the site of Takhcharabad has architecture and ceramics of Achaemenid
date (Dana 2019). To the south, in the Achaemenid province of Drangiana, including modern Sistan and Baluch-
istan, the key site is Dahan-e Gholaman, a provincial capital where a temple was excavated, amongst some 30
buildings, with evidence for ritual use of fire and animal sacrifice, and typical Achaemenid ceramics (Boucharlat
2005: 268–269; Genito 2010, 2014; Gnoli 2011; Mohammadkhani 2012; Zehbari et al. 2015). Regional surveys
in Sistan have identified scores of sites with plausible evidence for Achaemenid occupation, including specialised
ceramic production sites (Maresca 2018).
Achaemenid occupation at Tepe Yahya, period IIa dated to c. 500–375 BC, suggests village-scale activity
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1972; Magee 2004). In the Halil Rud-Jiroft region of Kerman province, excavations at
Qaleh Kutchek have uncovered an important settlement spanning c. 600–200 BC with an associated cemetery
of Achaemenid date (Azadi et al. 2012), while surveys of the western Jazmurian basin and the southern Jiroft
region reveal a significant density of Achaemenid rural occupation (Pfälzner and Soleimani 2015; Sheikhakbari
et al. 2015; Pfälzner et al. 2019; Maresca 2018), all indicative of a favourable climate and environment for rural
settlement and perhaps stimulated by central imperial interests.
Beyond eastern Iran and into Central Asia it is even more challenging to identify Achaemenid impact on
settlement or material remains. Inscribed objects include a few scraps of tablets, Aramaic letters and ostraca
from Bactria (Genito 2013: 627), while excavated Iron Age sites within the regions of Margiana and Bactriana
indicate some degree of Achaemenid impact on ceramics and other forms of material culture. Most intriguing
and spectacular is the Oxus Treasure (Dalton 1964; Curtis 2004, 2005b, 2013b: 114–127), which includes
Figure 11.144 O
xus Treasure, gold model chariot drawn by four horses (© The Trustees of the British Museum).
496 Iran imperial
many items of clear Median and Achaemenid influence and can be dated to the 5th–4th centuries BC. Spe-
cial items within this rich assemblage of some 180 pieces of gold and silver, found in the 1870s along with a
large mass of coins probably at the Bactrian site of Takht-i Kuwad on the north bank of the River Oxus in
Tajikistan, include a gold model chariot pulled by four horses and manned by two figures wearing Median
trouser-suits (Figure 11.144), 51 votive plaques of thin sheet gold chased with designs of human figures mainly
also in Median dress, a gold scabbard cover with embossed and chased scenes of royal lion-hunting (Boardman
2006), and a host of sumptuous gold and silver vessels and items of adornment. The likeliest interpretation of
the hoard is that it represents a collection of material accumulated over time, up to 200 years, as dedications to
a temple, possibly with Zoroastrian connections (Curtis 2013b: 127), in these eastern marches of the Achae-
menid empire.
Achaemenid Persian impacts on regions outside Iran are variable, often hard to discern and have too rarely been
the specific focus of survey or excavation strategies (regional summaries in Tsetskhladze 2003; Briant and Boucha-
rlat 2005; Curtis 2005c: 39–49; Magee et al. 2005; Knauss 2006; Magee and Petrie 2010; Potts 2010c; Grave
et al. 2016; Khatchadourian 2016, 2018). Official Persian policy in employing pre-existing regional institutions as
sustainable agents of imperial control means that the materiality of dominance may persist through dramatically
changing political circumstances. Such continuities are attested in the many large-scale structures, designated
as “palaces,” “official residences” or “administrative centres,” found across the geographic span of the empire,
many of which have significant pre-Achaemenid phases. But such structures are often reshaped with some degree
of “reappropriation and rebranding,” for example by the addition of Achaemenid columned halls as commonly
found in the Caucasus region and as distantly as Chorasmia south of the Aral Sea (Khatchadourian 2012; Minardi
et al. 2017; Abdi and Dadafar 2019). As to Georgia in the Achaemenid period, a full-scale adoption of “almost
the whole panoply of genuine Achaemenid art” betokens “a paradigmatic process of acculturation, not only of
the local elite, but of the common people, too” (Knauss 2006: 103, 105). Evidence for imperial conquest, siege
and other forms of military activity are found at sites such as Gordion (Voigt and Young 1999) and Sardis (Ca-
hill and Kroll 2005) in Anatolia, at Palaipaphos in Cyprus (Maier 1996) and arguably at several sites in Palestine
(Tal 2005; Khatchadourian 2012: 967). Throughout the empire an integrated military system of fortresses and
garrisons underpinned Persian desire to control trade and communication routes and to protect sensitive border
zones (Anderson 2010).
The scant available evidence on non-elite domestic life across the empire suggests considerable continuity in
lifeways from pre-Achaemenid times, including with regard to food production and consumption (Lhuillier and
Mashkour 2017), but with some evidence for enhancement of regional elites through networks of exchange and
mobility enabled by Achaemenid transregional hegemony (Grave et al. 2016). Modes of human burial include elite
imitations of core imperial fashions, such as the Pyramid Tomb at Sardis and others inspired by the Tomb of Cyrus
at Pasargadae (Ratté 1992; Dusinberre 2003). As with other aspects of life under Achaemenid rule, treatment of the
dead and the exercise of cultic practices are manifest in a range of religious structures, comprising a complex mix
of pre-Persian traditions with new practices attesting a degree of Achaemenid influence (Khatchadourian 2012:
974–981), including the evidence of so-called “fire temples” at sites such as Tsikhiagora in eastern Georgia (K’im-
šiašvili and Narimanišvili 1995–96).
In summary, our understanding of the archaeology of the Persian Achaemenid empire, even in its Iranian
heartlands, is still a work in progress. While we possess a wealth of evidence for imperial and elite resi-
dences and associated structures, often with limited understanding of how such buildings were lived in and
used (Curtis and Razmjou 2005: 54–55; Razmjou 2010), we have restricted knowledge and appreciation of
non-elite modes of living even in core regions of the empire. Excavation of Achaemenid-period domestic
houses has been extremely rare and usually incidental to excavators’ research agendas. But the potential for
targeted, contextual and integrated archaeological and textual approaches to non-elite houses and neigh-
bourhoods is immense, as demonstrated in the very rare studies of this nature. Thus, Heather Baker’s (2010)
innovative study of Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid houses at Nippur and Isin in Babylonia generates
archaeologically testable hypotheses, including a suggested correlation with high social status of the extent
and degree of house alteration, in the form of adjusting room alignments and sizes for example by building
or demolishing internal walls.
It is increasingly clear that major components of the Achaemenid dominance of Iran and beyond grew out of
pre-existing structures of power and display, as most convincingly illustrated by Persian palace architecture and
decoration. Thus, the columned halls or apadanas that characterise elite residences across much of the Achaemenid
Iran imperial 497
empire can be traced back to Iron Age II (early first millennium BC) examples at Hasanlu (see above), and Iron
Age III columned halls at Ziwiye in Iranian Kurdistan and Median examples at Baba Jan, Godin Tepe and Nush-i
Jan (Curtis and Razmjou 2005: 50; Huff 2005; Gopnik 2010; Roaf 2010; Potts 2016: 329), drawing also on
pre-existing Elamite architectural traditions as attested above all at Susa (Álvarez-Mon 2018a). The genius of
the Achaemenid imperial project lay in intertwining the long-established cultural practices and traditions of
Elam, Fars and Iran with those of other regions of Southwest Asia, near and far, into a unique tapestry of styles
and ways of living and doing that persisted for more than 200 years, thereby constituting “one of the most
interesting cases of ethno-genesis and acculturation in Iranian history” (Potts 2016: 346). The legacy of the
Achaemenid empire has been well summarised by Meadows (2005: 188): “by virtue of the basic insight that
people are most productive if left to their own habits, beliefs, customs and politics, the empire survived and
flourished.”
Iran in the Iron Age: climate and society

We conclude this lengthy chapter with brief comments on the main issues and themes generated through
the course of our study of Iran in the Iron Age. As explored throughout the chapter, our evidential base for
the Iron Age of Iran expands to include archaeological, textual and palaeo-environmental sources, which in
some cases we can combine to provide more integrated interpretations of the developing nature of Iranian
societies through the Iron Age.
There can be little doubting the close-knit relationship between changes in climate and environment,
above all varying levels of temperature and annual precipitation, and changes in human settlement patterns
across almost all Iran, at least. While human societies of the Iron Age doubtless made their own impacts
upon the environment, especially during the episodes of rural intensification accompanying pulses of impe-
rial expansion, such impacts need to be evaluated within this broader palaeo-environmental context. The
severe cold and dry period that marked the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition, c. 1200–900 BC,
clearly had a major negative impact on the agricultural and herding regimes upon which Iranian societies
had come to depend. We can view this impact through analysis of settlement patterns showing a more or
less complete absence of detectable archaeological evidence for this period in most regions of Iran, including
the plains of northern and central Iran, Luristan, Khuzestan, Fars, all of south-eastern Iran and much, if not
all, of north-eastern Iran.
The only significant exceptions to this picture, where we have some evidence for continuity in human set-
tlement through the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition, are in what might be described as the “lusher”
regions of Iran where a decline in annual precipitation levels might have been more readily accommodated by
existing communities by adjustments to agricultural and herding practices. One such region is north-western
Iran, where some 60 sites of the Early Iron Age have been detected in survey of the southern Urmia basin (Kroll
2005b), and we have seen above the evidence for continuity of occupation at Hasanlu and related sites of this area.
Occupation at sites such as Ghal-e Ben in Babol, Ghel-e Kesh in Amol and Gohar Teppe in eastern Mazandaran
and others along the southern Caspian region (Piller and Mahfroozi 2009; Piller 2012c) appears to persist through
the Late Bronze Age to c. 1500–1400 BC if not beyond, but most sites of the Iron Age in this region take the
form of cemeteries in forested upper regions, such as Shahne Poshte, which may indicate a shift in emphasis from
agriculture to more mobile animal husbandry at this time.
More challenging to apprehend in this context is the evidence from survey and excavation in Khorasan Razavi
and North Khorasan provinces in eastern Iran for significant occupation in both the Late Bronze Age and the
Early Iron Age. It is not yet clear, however, whether this region is occupied through the transition or with a
hiatus – at least there is clear evidence of a significant change in the nature of settlement in the Early Iron Age,
with the introduction of the new ceramic technologies of Yaz I type indicating ingression of peoples, probably,
from the east, as at Jayran Tepe (Vahdati 2016). If so, these people were likely moving from areas of south-eastern
Turkmenistan due to climate impacts in that region as well.
By contrast, the return to wetter, warmer climate attested from c. 900 BC provided the environmental con-
text for a spread of settlement and intensified societal activity across Iran, partially interrupted by an episode of
drought at c. 725–600 BC. From 600 BC the conditions were suitable for major expansion of settlement under-
pinned by agricultural and herding intensification across the plains of Iran and culminating in the rise of imperial
powers, as fully considered above.
498 Iran imperial
Finally, it is important to stress that, as with other periods of Iran’s past, we still have so much to learn about
the highly diverse Iron Age societies of Iran. Even after long-term programmes of research at key sites such as
Hasanlu, Godin Tepe or Persepolis, to select three more or less at random, our understanding of fundamental
economic, socio-cultural and socio-political issues is generally very partial and basic. We know extremely little
regarding sites in their landscapes, the social structures of urban life, the nature of interactions between major
centres and their hinterlands, the dynamics of urban-rural food production and consumption, the mechanics of
trade and many other areas that a truly anthropological and scientific archaeology calls for. At the broader chron-
ological scale, these are some of the issues we return to now in our concluding chapter.
12 Themes and issues in the archaeology
of early Iran
A few pockets of exploration

In this concluding chapter we return to the key issues and themes outlined in Chapter 1, taking account of the
considerable ground we have covered throughout the book, as well as evaluating concerns that have arisen from
our study. Our first point regards the nature of the archaeological evidence featuring in this book, which is itself
a direct outcome of the nature of archaeological research in Iran. Readers will have become familiar with our
refrains to the effect that “we lack the evidence with which to investigate this point adequately” or “further
research is needed into this issue,” but we cannot stress enough how partial and biased the available evidence is,
upon which we develop our theories and interpretations, as characterised by Holly Pittman (2019: 268): “Iran is
a huge and diverse land mass. Its ancient pre- and protohistoric past is known to us in the few pockets that have
been explored by archaeologists and historians leaving the zones in between as blank but certainly not empty.”
There remains so much still to discover and understand regarding the archaeology of all periods of Iran’s past. In
our final paragraphs of this chapter we address some of the challenges and opportunities in advancing the archae-
ology of Iran in the future. But let us turn now to address the key themes articulated in Chapter 1, to summarise
what our study may have to contribute to them.
Human–environment interactions in early Iran: trends and patterns through time

As stressed in Chapter 1, the past of Iran provides a unique deep-time case-study for investigation of human–
environment interactions with a focus in particular on the resilience, adaptability and innovativeness of human
societies in often challenging environments ( Jones et al. 2019). What are the important issues to feature through
our diachronic study of Iran’s past, bearing mind that “given that agriculture, livestock and timber production
dominated the economies of early civilizations in this region, climate change can be expected to have played
a significant role in the development of human societies and in power transitions” (Sharifi et al. 2015: 228)? As
regards the Palaeolithic (Chapter 4), the key issues commence up to 1 million years ago or more with the spe-
cial role of Iran as a land bridge and corridor for early Out of Africa migrations of hominins, almost certainly at
least Homo erectus, with movements taking place across the then-dry land of the Persian Gulf, and culminating
in the eventual dispersal of hominin groups across Asia (Dennell 2020). Beyond rare points of light such as the
detection of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites on Qeshm island in the Straits of Hormuz (Dashtizadeh 2010;
Ghasrian 2017), our understanding of the timing and processes of migration and of hominin lifeways in the
Lower Palaeolithic will remain modest until excavation of appropriate sites and further intensive surveys have
been conducted across Iran.
For the Middle Palaeolithic, the widespread distribution of sites, attested by characteristic stone tool assem-
blages, suggests that from c. 200,000 BP the climate and environment of Iran was recurrently amenable to oc-
cupation by groups of hominins, almost certainly including or comprising Neanderthals. Such sites have been
identified in regions not since occupied by hominins or humans, including what are now the salt flats of the
central plateau and at altitudes above 2,000 m, once more underlining the importance of Iran for the migra-
tion of Middle Palaeolithic hominins along its natural corridors connecting Asia, the Caucasus and, ultimately,
Europe (Vahdati Nasab et al. 2013a). Limited palaeo-environmental evidence covering the Middle Palaeolithic
of Iran (Djamali et al. 2008) indicates major alternations of glacial-interglacial and stadial-interstadial stages,
c. 125,000–70,000 BP, which will certainly have impacted upon the ability of hominin groups to thrive or even
survive at specific episodes of this long and obscure past. Whether Neanderthal hominins evolved in Europe, as
conventionally believed, or in Asia as some mtDNA evidence appears to suggest (Meyer et al. 2014), Iran would
have again played a fundamental role in both hosting long-term residence of Neanderthal groups and in enabling
DOI: 10.4324/9781003224129-12
500 Archaeology of early Iran
their dispersal across the Eurasian continent. We hope for the discovery at some date in the future within Iran of
significant Neanderthal or other hominin remains, such as those from across the Iraqi border at Shanidar Cave,
which might greatly augment our knowledge and understanding of these distant times and processes.
With the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic from c. 45,000 BP, the scope and detail of palaeo-environmental ev-
idence from Iran significantly increases, enabling us more fully to investigate human–environment interactions.
The Lake Zeribar core evidence, in particular, demonstrates the inimical impact on human/hominin occupation
of the Late Glacial Maximum, 38,000–15,000 BP, with severely cold and dry conditions inhibiting tree and veg-
etation growth, underpinning major gaps in evidence for hominin occupation in Iran as elsewhere. To the south
of Iran, what is now the Persian Gulf was then a massive fresh-water lake that in the final millennia of the Pal-
aeolithic may have attracted significant animal and human presence. In the Epipalaeolithic, the Bølling-Allerød
interstadial, c. 15,000–13,000 BP, provided the warmer, wetter conditions within which modern human groups,
and the plants and animals on which they depended, were able to thrive, while the impact of the cold and dry
Younger Dryas episode, c. 12,900–11,700 BP, remains to be adequately explored. From this time onwards we are
able to investigate the impact of humans on their environments, for example through the debate over the Broad
Spectrum Revolution in the Epipalaeolithic, and the proposal that human depletion of large animal prey led to
a new focus on smaller and more diverse forms of game (Stiner 1993). Central to this debate, and to all issues
of human–environment interactions, is the relative extent to which we accredit human innovation and agency
as opposed to external environmental pressures, broadly understood, as the dominant driving force for change
(Zeder 2012). Above all, it is clear that human/hominin societies in Iran pursued their own regional trajectories
of development and activity within the climatic and environmental parameters prevalent at the time, hunting
their preferred prey, making stone tools in their preferred ways and from the start displaying the trends to region-
alisation that have always characterised Iran, past and present.
As fully investigated in Chapter 5, there is considerable scope for analysis of human–environment interactions
through Iran’s Neolithic period, c. 10,000–5200 BC, supported by ever-richer lake core and other palaeo-envi-
ronmental records from Iran (Figure 12.1). In sum, these records and the associated archaeological evidence show
that by the later Younger Dryas in the early tenth millennium BC, human communities were present and active
even in the high Zagros zone (Matthews et al. 2013a) while the southern Caspian shores may have hosted con-
tinuous human occupation through the Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic transition (Leroy et al. 2019). In other regions
of Iran, the evidence for occupational continuity is much more parlous, with Neolithic farmers and herders with
their plants and animals arriving in waves across the millennia from c. 7500 BC. An issue in need of further in-
vestigation is that of the extent to which human activity, including the herding of grazing and browsing animals,
had a significant impact upon the nature and distribution of vegetation regimes through the Early Holocene, and
to what extent we can regard such regimes as essentially anthropogenic in the sense explored through the inno-
vative work of Asouti and Kabukcu (2014).
Further research is also needed into the issue of Rapid Climate Change (RCC) cooling anomalies in the Early
Holocene, at 10.2, 9.2 and 8.2 ka BP, and their potential impact upon human settlement and activity (Borrell
et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2019). While it is possible to group Iranian Neolithic sites in broad bands of time that ap-
pear to bear some relation to these RCC events, we are in need of a much fuller, more refined and more secure
chronological framework, rooted in large quantities of reliable radiocarbon dates from all key sites, before we
can address this problem with the confidence it demands (Flohr et al. 2016; Palmisano et al. 2021). One argument
for future investigation is that the resilience and adaptability developed by human societies, with their crops and
herds, through the highly changeable seasonal circumstances of their daily lives in Iran stood them in good stead
in dealing with the larger-scale environmental challenges presented to them by such events as the RCC episodes.
The Chalcolithic period in Iran (Chapter 6), c. 5200–3200 BC, coincides with the so-called climatic opti-
mum with elevated levels of rainfall across Iran enabling both a spread of human settlement as well as the produc-
tion of agricultural surpluses that came to underpin the development of complex and state-level societies at least
in certain regions. Exploitation of the arable lands of Iran accompanied the full adoption of farming across Iran,
while the practice of seasonal mobility, according to pasture availability, of humans with herds of animals, goat
and sheep in particular, added a new dimension to food production and storage options that was incorporated
into a flexible spectrum of practices and activities to be drawn upon as and when circumstances required (Alden
2015). While the climatic optimum provided the environmental context for the development of complex soci-
eties through the Chalcolithic of Iran, a dry period starting at c. 3200 BC (Schmidt et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2013;
Islam et al. 2016; Guerriero and Benati 2021) may have been influential in situating, if not directly stimulating, a
major transregional realignment of those societies in the late fourth and early third millennia BC.
These disruptions and realignments of the Early Bronze Age, 3200–2100 BC, include the collapse of the Late
Uruk/Late Susa II cultural sphere and its succession in Iran, probably after a short hiatus, by the Proto-Elamite
Archaeologo of early Iran 501
Figure 12.1 Summed Probability Distributions (SPD) of calibrated radiocarbon dates for Iran against a null logistic model (95%
confidence grey envelope) compared with palaeoclimate records from Iran and beyond (Palmisano et al. 2021: Figure
12) (image courtesy of Alessio Palmisano).
“state” (Chapter 7) with its widespread evidence for the local management of agricultural economies as attested
in the textual evidence from a range of sites, principal among which are Susa, Sofalin, Malyan and Tepe Yahya.
This explicit concern with micro-management of the food-producing economy across multiple regions of Iran
suggests an acute awareness by ruling elite groups of the fragility of agricultural production in the seasonally and
episodically variable climate of Iran, as well as a concern to control the activity and productivity of subject people.
The fragility of the rural economy at this time appears to be highlighted by the evidence from regional surveys,
with settlement concentrated in larger focal centres and much of the countryside across Iran showing a collapse of
rural settlement from previously healthy Late Chalcolithic levels (Helwing in press-c). The Proto-Elamite settle-
ment pattern of rural abandonment, and agglomeration in central places such as Susa, Malyan, Yahya and Sofalin,
coupled with an enhanced concern to micro-manage the subsistence economy through bureaucratic means, may
all constitute adaptive responses to adverse climatic and environmental conditions at the turn of the fourth-third
millennia BC. Following the breakdown of the Proto-Elamite world at c. 2900–2800 BC, a major episode of
settlement collapse is indicated by survey evidence from many areas of Iran, including the Qazvin, Tehran, Qom
and Kashan plains, and the plains of Khuzestan and of Fars, at least, spanning several centuries and in some areas
much longer, all of which must be connected to the ongoing climatic adversity of the period c. 3200–2700 BC,
centuries that appear to have been exceptionally cold and dry (Djamali et al. 2009b; Islam et al. 2016).
In Chapter 8 we examined the Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) of north-western and western Iran as
one element of the major episode of societal disruption and reformation that characterises Iran in the first half of the
third millennium BC. The ETC focus on specific environmental attributes for the areas into which they chose
to migrate and settle suggests a clear societal vision for agricultural and pastoral activities, probably including
viticulture and village-based seasonal herding mobility, that drove ETC expansion across major swathes of the
upland zones. Limited palaeoclimate evidence from the Caucasus (Connor and Sagona 2007) indicates high levels
of precipitation in this region through the fourth and third millennia BC that may have lain behind the initial
movements of ETC peoples to the south and southwest. At the same time ETC communities developed their
distinctive economic focus on mixed herding and farming on light upland soils, ideally suited to pristine exploita-
tion of the large swathes of territory into which they migrated. If this narrative is valid, then we have an instance
of climatic adversity in the form of excessive precipitation, obliging human societies to devise new agricultural
regimes, with their attendant social attributes, which then enabled and underpinned the dramatic dispersal of
those new regimes far and wide from their original source. The collapse of the ETC world in Iran by 2400 BC at
the latest appears to occur too early to be connected to the famous 4.2 ka event of c. 2200 BC, regarded by many
as a globally impactful phenomenon (Staubwasser and Weiss 2006).
Elsewhere in Iran, beyond the ETC world, there is significant evidence for regional retrenchment in the later
fourth millennium BC, exemplified in the low-key nature of transregional engagement of the emergent complex
societies of south-eastern and north-eastern Iran with their neighbours to the west in Mesopotamia and to the
east in Central and South Asia (Chapter 9). With the amelioration of climate from the earlier third millennium
BC, the pace and intensity of internal socio-political development and external connectivity rapidly increase,
as attested in the movements of raw materials, finished goods, people, animals and crops across vast swathes of
Asia in the middle of the third millennium BC. We can view these centuries as a second pulse of the climatic
optimum with warmer, wetter climes enabling enhanced and more diverse crop yields that underpinned the
scale and complexity of the human societies feeding thereon. The highly sophisticated, transregionally engaged
societies of Early Bronze Age south-eastern Iran, in the Halil Rud, the fringes of the Dasht-e Lut, the Helmand
delta, the Jazmurian basin and the Bampur valley, as well as those of north-eastern Iran, were all founded on the
strength of this agricultural and pastoral bounty. When the climate once more reverted to hotter, drier conditions
towards the later third millennium BC, all these sites and regions were abandoned by permanent settlement for
up to 1,200 years, with sporadic mobile pastoralist evidence alone attesting human activity through this time
(Gurjazkaite et al. 2018; Vaezi et al. 2019). The collapse of these elaborate societies, and of others in surrounding
lands, appears to be directly attributable to a major reduction in summer rainfall patterns and a southwards drift
of the Indian Ocean Summer Monsoon system, once more illustrating both the ecological fragility of complex
societies in Iran and their ingenuity and opportunism in taking maximum advantage of favourable conditions
when they allowed it.
The settlement patterns of Iran in the Middle-Late Bronze Age, c. 2100–1250 BC, are decidedly patchy.
Significant evidence for continuity of occupation through these centuries comes from north-western Iran while
in Luristan, the central Zagros region, the plains of Fars and all south-eastern Iran the evidence suggests reduced
intensities of human activity culminating in a major episode of abandonment at the end of the Late Bronze Age.
In low-lying Khuzestan, consistent levels of societal development through the early third millennium BC culmi-
nated in the increasingly dominant role of intrusive Mesopotamian polities from the west, manifest in the textual
and archaeological evidence from Susa above all (Chapter 10). At the collapse of the Akkadian empire at c. 2100
BC, associated with a major episode of drought and dust dispersal (Sharifi et al. 2015; Carolin et al. 2019) and with
a global climatic downturn (Staubwasser and Weiss 2006), the resilience of society at Susa is personified in the
remarkable character of king Puzur-Inshushinak, and across Khuzestan by expansion of settlement on the plains
of Susiana. Alone amongst the regions of Iran, the fertile and well-watered alluvial plains of Khuzestan supported
dense settlement and socio-culturally sophisticated societies through the centuries of the second millennium BC
until a period of darkness descends at c. 1100 BC and lasts for up to 300 years, only one component of a major
episode of disruption impacting the entire eastern Mediterranean and well beyond.
This major episode of transregional disruption persists through the first phase of the Iron Age, c. 1250–330
BC, and is clearly connected to the increased aridity and cold attested in multiple palaeoclimate records of Iran
and Southwest Asia (Chapter 11). From 900 BC, a recovery in temperature and rainfall levels (Fallah et al. 2017)
facilitated a resurgence of settlement and agricultural productivity that in turn enabled the rise of the great
states and empires of the mid-later Iron Age. At the same time, the impacts of imperial programmes of expan-
sion and rural intensification of agriculture, and of large-scale managed landscapes, have left clear signals in
the palaeo-environmental records of lake and peat cores across Iran, vividly illustrating the dialectic nature of
human–environment interactions through the deep time of Iran’s past. These issues are explored further in the
concluding section to Chapter 11.
In sum, from our diachronic study of human–environment interactions through Iran’s past we can stress the
following points. Firstly, the agricultural basis of all Holocene societies of Iran was essentially fragile in the sense
that even minor fluctuations in rainfall and temperature could doom a farming regime to failure or to radical trans-
formation. This feature was especially the case in certain regions of Iran, such as the southeast, where the climatic
parameters for productive agriculture were relatively restricted, and less so the case for the lusher, greener regions
of Iran in the north and northwest. Secondly, the long-term resilience of Iranian societies as attested recurrently
Figure 12.2 Major cereal-related epsiodes of Iran’s past through time (Ghahremaninejad et al. 2021: Table 1) (image courtesy of
Ehsan Hosein).
in the face of extreme challenges was rooted in high flexibility of those same farming regimes, whereby societies
could select, consciously or not, from a menu of food production options according to changing circumstances
(Gaastra et al. 2021). The complex diachronic interplays of many of these factors, hinging on cereal exploitation,
are boldly summarised in Ghahremaninejad et al.’s (2021: Table 1) table, reproduced here (Figure 12.2).
We have repeatedly noted from the faunal, floral and palaeo-environmental evidence from excavated sites the
considerable diversity and variability in food production strategies from site to site and from period to period
Figure 12.3 Summed Probability Distributions (SPD) of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Iran and beyond against a null logistic
model (95% confidence grey envelope) (Palmisano et al. 2021: Figure 3) (image courtesy of Alessio Palmisano).
within sites, which enabled societies to shift the emphasis, for example, from reliance on arable crop production
to pastoral mobility and back again according to social, cultural and economic preference. It is likely that these
shifting emphases underpin some of the apparent ebbs and flows of settlement patterns through time in many
regions of Iran, with episodes of increased pastoral mobility less visible in the archaeological record than episodes
of permanent settlement based on intensive crop production. Thirdly, we believe that consideration of each of
the case studies of human–environment interactions reviewed above and throughout the book foregrounds pat-
terns of “periodic realignment and transformation” marked by “events and periods of destabilization followed by
readjustments and reconstruction,” which characterise the historical approach of la courte durée as articulated by
Daniel Potts (2016: 430–432) and discussed in Chapter 1. In-depth comparative analysis, based on summed prob-
ability distributions of calibrated radiocarbon dates, of human population trends across Southwest Asia, includ-
ing Iran, similarly highlights “alternating patterns of population booms and busts across the whole Holocene”
in marked contrast to the more stable long-term trends of neighbouring regions including Anatolia, the south
Caucasus, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Arabia and the Levant (Palmisano et al. 2021: 7, Figures 3, 12) (Figure 12.3).
Finally, while significant steps are underway, we stress the need for increased input both from high-resolution,
multi-proxy palaeo-environmental records and from enhanced archaeological datasets and finer chronologies
in order to advance this exciting and important area of research to the next level within an increasingly global
discourse (Hudson et al. 2012).
Identities of early Iran, individual and social

A 2012 compilation of essays surveys the “identity boundaries” of Iran across the historic centuries and up to
today, commencing with the statement that “The study of Iranian identity poses considerable challenges ranging
from the complex legacy of the premodern past to the diversity of ethnic and religious populations, from the
history of encounters with multiple imperial powers to the long shadow cast by nationalist ideologies” (Vejdani
2012: ix). While this statement refers to the study of Iran’s identity across periods more recent than those covered
in this book, it stands equally valid as an introductory comment for our consideration of the topic of identity in
most ancient Iran. Iranian identity is indeed a highly complex issue and we cannot do more than summarise some
of its major features and current research directions in this chapter. A consistent aim throughout our book has
been to explore issues of individual and social identity through study of Iran’s deep-time past, through account
of its material culture remains and through interpretation of those remains in coherent and cogent narratives.
As stressed in Chapter 1, Iran’s population today is ethnically diverse, with up to 21 distinct ethnic groups
identifiable (Mehrjoo et al. 2019), a unique agglomeration and combination of ethnicities resultant from both
autochthonous population development and Iran’s recurrent role as a major highway and crossroads of migrations
from the Palaeolithic period onwards. The potential provided today by developments in the recovery and anal-
ysis of DNA from both modern and ancient human populations of Iran and neighbouring regions adds a new
dimension to our archaeological approaches to ancient peoples and societies. As far back as the Early Neolithic,
and beyond, we can delineate genetic lineages of some of the world’s first settled farmers and herders and their
hunter-forager ancestors. Such research has established that the farmer-herders of Abdul Hosein and Ganj Dareh
in the central Zagros carried a distinct genetic identity substantially differing from that of their contemporaries
in the western and northern Fertile Crescent, and that the earliest Iranian farmers were direct descendants of
local hunter-foragers with a deep genetic ancestry reaching back into the Upper and even Middle Palaeolithic
(Chapter 5; Broushaki et al. 2016; Gallego-Llorente et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016; Reich 2018; Narasimhan et al.
2019). This genetic inheritance supports an interpretation of the development of settled farming and herding in
highland western Iran by local peoples, herding local animals and cultivating local crops. Moreover, as discussed
in Chapter 5, the dispersal of farming practices through movements of people, animals and crops can be tracked
through aDNA of all these components, including goats (Daly et al. 2018) and barley (Lister et al. 2018), underlin-
ing the key role of Iranian Neolithic pioneers in the introduction of farming and herding to regions far to the east.
There is enormous potential for further DNA research on Iranian populations through time, not least because
of Iran’s unique role as both a major corridor of Eurasian connectivity and as host to long-term autochthonous
population traditions. In addition to the origins and dispersal of early farming communities with their animals
and crops discussed above and in Chapter 5, other major issues featuring, or touched upon, in human DNA stud-
ies so far include the intriguing possibility of proving once and for all the widely held assumption that the distri-
bution of ETC material culture traits across western Iran must be associated with migrations of people from the
Caucasus into north-western Iran (Chapter 8; Mehrjoo et al. 2019). The vexed issue of the origins of Indo-European
speaking peoples in Iran, closely tied to a sense of Iranian identity, is also slowly opening its secrets to large-scale
comparative aDNA studies of populations in Iran and adjacent regions (Chapter 10; Narasimhan et al. 2019),
while analysis of human aDNA from Bronze Age sites in eastern Iran such as Shahr-i Sokhta and the BMAC
sites of Turkmenistan is adding a genetic complement to the picture of transregional connectivity and intercourse
vividly illustrated by the archaeological evidence as discussed in Chapter 9. We can expect many significant new
developments and discoveries as the field of aDNA research intensifies, with Iran’s role increasingly to the fore.
Identity is of course about so much more than genetics and indeed is often not about genetics at all. The iden-
tity of Iran and its peoples, past and present, is a topic that consistently attracts attention, with the 1971 celebration
at the Tomb of Cyrus of 2,500 years of Iranian monarchy frequently employed as a launchpad for such discussion
(Ringer 2012). But what can we legitimately say about Iranian identity prior to that 2,500-year timespan, beyond
the genetics? Let us adhere to the material evidence in addressing that question, as we have tried to do throughout
the book. Recurrent material characteristics we can point to as special, if not unique, to ancient Iran include the
following, in no significant order: (1) exuberant decorative tastes in painted and modelled ceramics with a strong
emphasis on the (wild) animal and plant worlds, with lion, wild goat, wild sheep, scorpions and snakes to the fore;
(2) frequent depiction in a range of media of animals adopting human poses, thus an incorporation of the animal
into the human worlds or rather a merging of them both; (3) highly advanced and innovative skills in a range of
crafts and technologies, including architecture, ceramics and metallurgy (to cite Roger Moorey (1967: 83) whose
eye for Iranian art was especially sensitive: “In a country like Iran, where the output of the ancient metalsmiths
never ceases to surprise by its vigour and variety, …”), and the curation of so many of those skills across the
generations and into the recently recorded past (Wulff 1966); (4) an intermittent and intriguing relationship with
the written word as an instrument of administration, as explored more fully below, and much more broadly; (5)
an astonishing and adept ability to adopt, adapt, acquire, accept, alter and advance attributes of assemblages of
material culture from neighbouring societies through all time periods.
Issues of gender and age are considered throughout this book, where we are able to do so, but as outlined in
Chapter 1 we accept the need for a reformulation of archaeological agendas to foreground gender and age as key
concerns, as cogently argued in the work of Aurelie Daems (2001, 2008, 2018; Bolger 2008), and here is an area
where aDNA can make more of a contribution with its assured attribution of sex to skeletal remains. Daems’
insightful analysis of Iranian iconography through time identifies women in a range of roles including as wor-
shippers, participants in high-status elite activities such as banqueting and court receptions, and in the conduct of
everyday activities such as breast-feeding babies, milking animals, pottery making, spinning, weaving, serving
food and drink, playing music and dancing. Explicitly erotic scenes tend to be restricted to the Old and Middle
Elamite periods as attested in terracotta plaques from the Grand Bâtiment Central at Susa (Chapter 10), which
probably represent sex workers rather than participants in ceremonial sacred marriages (Daems 2001: 28–29).
Mina Dabbagh’s (2019) investigation of the social and economic roles of women in Elam as attested in legal
and economic documents from Susa, Haft Tepe and Malyan highlights the autonomous participation of women
in activities such as property dealing, lending money, inheriting wealth and witnessing contracts, as well as re-
ceiving rations for work in textiles, agriculture and administration. Marta Ameri’s (2020) inspirational study
of seals and sealings from Shahr-i Sokhta challenges our assumptions regarding the gender of administrators,
fully exploiting the material evidence from graves and residential contexts that underpins many of the types of
activities articulated in Dabbagh’s text-based interpretations. Overall it is probably the case that, “The largest
proportion of the female population would have been engaged in mundane, religious, ritual and festive activities
that confirmed or (re)negotiated their gendered roles. As well as the traditional “female” tasks of nursing and
childrearing, their roles would have extended far beyond to activities such as tending animals, harvesting crops,
milling grain, preparing food, spinning, weaving textiles and baskets, making jewelry, processing ceramics, and
perhaps trading these goods” (Daems 2018: 763), a spectrum of activities likely to be valid for almost all periods
of Iran’s ancient past.
Finally, we come to the issue of unfree humans or slaves. Our direct evidence for slavery amongst early Iranian
societies is restricted to attestations in proto-cuneiform and cuneiform records, principally of the late fourth and
early-mid third millennia BC and mainly from early urban sites in Lower Mesopotamia (Englund 2009; Bartash
2020), but also including the Proto-Elamite texts from Susa and beyond (Chapter 7). These records indicate that
slaves, male and female, young and old, could be acquired through trade, gift exchange and as prisoners of war,
with the flow of humans mainly from east to west, that is from the Iranian highlands into the Mesopotamian
lowlands. Treatment could be brutal, including branding and blinding. Slaves could be put to work on massive
state-sponsored projects such as temple construction or could be employed in high-status households in a range
of capacities. Beyond these early textual accounts, it is not possible for us to evaluate the extent and role of slavery
within early Iranian societies as distinct from their Mesopotamian neighbours to the west.
Complex societies in early Iran: “fragile and evanescent”

The final general theme will focus our attention on the later phases of prehistory, proto-history and history cov-
ered in this book, commencing in the later fourth millennium BC with the development of state-level societies
at least in Khuzestan and ending with the fall of the Achaemenid Persian empire 3,000 years later. What have we
to learn from the study of these full three millennia of complex statehood that the lands of Iran have to offer us?
In augmentation of the concluding sections to Chapters 6–11, where we have addressed thematic issues relevant to
the content of each of those chapters, we conclude this chapter by considering more thematically and diachroni-
cally a set of issues related to the early complex societies of Iran.
Firstly, we reemphasise the point that Iranian societies through this period did not develop in isolation. Indeed,
it is the very connectivity of Iranian societies that underpins, and stimulates them into, evermore complex modes
of social and economic behaviour that in time can be characterised as state-like or at state-level, as explored
in Chapter 6, and that continued to structure the kingdoms, states and empires of later times. Only with the
Proto-Elamite phenomenon of the Early Bronze Age do we have an instance of a major pan-Iranian, in effect,
political entity geographically confined within the territory of modern Iran. Even then, the inspiration for the
Proto-Elamite “state” (we remain unsure how to categorise this phenomenon despite our exhaustive exploration
in Chapter 7), at least with regard to its bureaucratic apparatus, clearly came from its immediate predecessors in
the west, the state or states of the Late Uruk/Late Susa II worlds.
Secondly, we stress that there is so much research still to be done into the special nature of complex societies
in Iran. All attributes of these unique socio-political constructions, testimony to the ingenuity and resilience
of Iranian peoples through time, demand further investigation. As many have commented (Tosi 1987; Thorn-
ton 2012; Rashidian 2019), we stand in need of a model for early urbanisation in Iran that is designed to ac-
commodate the evidence from Iran, rather than from elsewhere, and that encourages us to think analytically
about the special nature of urban settlements in Iran, differing greatly as they do from urban settlements on the
lowland plains of Lower and Upper Mesopotamia, for example. Thornton’s (2012) innovative model of Bronze
Age urbanism in Iran employs an inclusive tripartite scheme, comprising primate centres, tiered settlement
hierarchies and symbiotic centres. Sites qualifying as primate centres, characterised by dominant size and scant
surrounding rural settlement, might include Susa in the Proto-Elamite period, Tal-e Malyan in various of its
phases, and Shahr-i Sokhta through much of the third millennium BC. Tiered settlement hierarches, with mul-
tiple levels of settlement according to their areal extent and periods of occupation, include Susa and the Susiana
plains in various periods, while symbiotic centres comprise sites focused on specific craft production activities
situated within a symbiotic relationship of exchange with partners near and far. Suggested symbiotic centres
include Tureng Tepe and Tepe Hissar, with its focus on metal and semi-precious stone craft activity through
the fourth and third millennia BC.
The Early Bronze Age site at Konar Sandal in the Jiroft region is singled out by Thornton as distinct from these
three urban categories, marked as it is by evidence for its role as “a major cosmopolitan center for trade and com-
mercial activity, and perhaps also a center for ritual activity and pilgrimage,” altogether a range of socio-political
attributes that, “more than any other site in Bronze Age Iran, fits the traditional model for urban settlements in
the ancient Near East” (Thornton 2012: 604–605). This model is a promising start but as Rashidian (2019) un-
derlines, our knowledge of even the basic parameters of urban life in early Iran – areal extents period by period,
durations and densities of occupation, internal urban layouts and structures, relations with surrounding rural and
other urban sites, organisation of craft production, to name a few – is parsimonious to put it mildly. This fact is
valid for the central settlements of all periods of Iran’s past, across the great states and empires of the Iron Age as
well as the trading, craft and administrative hubs of the Late Chalcolithic and Bronze Age.
An attribute of the early complex societies of Iran worth further attention here, and much more beyond here,
is that of writing. In contrast to Mesopotamia, where cuneiform writing on clay tablets persisted as a more or
less constant feature of urban society following its invention there at c. 3200 BC, ancient Iran’s engagement with
writing was more hesitant and episodic. In the words of Massimo Vidale (2018a: 277), “Writing technologies ap-
peared on the Iranian Plateau as a rare, discontinuous variable; their evolutionary trajectory is unknown, and the
two main systems presently under study (so-called Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite) are still far from being de-
ciphered.” We have already cited in Chapter 1 Jacob Dahl’s (2018: 393–394) comment that “Writing is invented
more times in Iran than in any other place in the world,” taken as evidence for “an extraordinary ingenuity rarely
matched in other ancient civilizations.” What lies behind these striking attributes of the complex societies of early
Iran and their relations with the written word (Figure 12.4)?
At bottom, as we have discussed in our first theme above, the complex societies of Iran were agriculturally
based. When agriculture thrived, they thrived. When agriculture collapsed, for whatever reason, they collapsed.
There is no evidence for the development of complex societies or states in early Iran based solely or principally on
true (i.e. non-village-based) pastoral nomadism, and therefore reliant on the availability of pasturage as opposed
to arable land. Such societies are attested only from much later periods of Iran’s past, such as the Mongol and
Timurid, as exhaustively explored in Daniel Potts’ book Nomadism in Iran from Antiquity to the Modern Era (2014).
We have seen above how settlement and land use patterns in Iran were highly sensitive to even minor fluctua-
tions in factors such as precipitation and temperature. This existential fragility underpins the nature of ancient
Iran’s relationship with writing, with writing’s main role in early Iran being to micro-manage to best effect the
agricultural economy, its fields, crops, animals and human labour, as demonstrated firstly by what we understand
of the Proto-Elamite written corpora.
Only with the adoption of Akkadian cuneiform writing in the second half of the third millennium BC, at Susa,
Malyan and Chogha Gavaneh, at least, and later still with the growth of the cosmopolitan Achaemenid Persian
empire and its use of multiple scripts and languages, is writing in Iran associated, and then only occasionally,
with concerns beyond the essentially agricultural. During these long centuries since the invention of writing,
textual activity in neighbouring Mesopotamia, with its ecologically less fragile cities and states, had developed
to cover multiple areas including legal concerns, business records, letters, royal inscriptions, treaties and literary
texts (Postgate 1992: 66, Figure 3.13).
At the same time, there is a persistent, almost exclusive, elite connection of writing in early Iran. To write was to
control, to make durable on clay the evidence for that control and its products, and these are elite rights and privi-
leges that bear on the issue of social inequality (Fochesato et al. 2019) and its development within the context of the
early complex societies of Iran. Elites were only as stable as the kingdoms, states and empires under their control:
“in the earliest states, writing developed first as a technique of statecraft and was therefore as fragile and evanescent
an achievement as the state itself ” (Scott 2017: 148). As complex hierarchical polities came and went, writing came
and went with them, and a hearty “good riddance” was doubtless the refrain of the non-elite masses, including slave
labour, as they departed. With notable exceptions in Akkadian writing from Susa, the practice of writing was not
embedded in non-elite strata of early Iranian society, for example amongst merchant or property-owning classes,
Figure 12.4 Map to show occurrences of writing in Iran through time.
in contrast to contemporary Assyria and Babylonia, and was all too easy to cast off as a superficial, undesirable
characteristic of controlling elites. As phrased by James Scott (2017: 139) “the first act of many peasant rebellions
has been to burn down the local records office where these documents are housed.” A similar sentiment lies behind
Lamberg-Karlovsky’s (2001a: 221) proposal that certain societies, such as those of western Iran, adjacent to the
newly literate cities and states of Lower Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC deliberately opted not to engage
with writing, thereby avoiding “the cage of the state for another half-millennium.”
Even within large-scale imperial contexts, such as the Achaemenid empire, writing led a fragile and flexible
existence. Jeremy Black’s (2008) study of the demise of cuneiform writing in Elam stresses how the cuneiform
tradition in Achaemenid Iran, employed to write Elamite, Akkadian and Old Persian, appears to stutter to a halt
up to 10 years prior to the fall of the empire, with no cuneiform texts attested during the reigns of Artaxerxes
IV (338-336 BC) and Darius III (336-330 BC), a demise likely connected with the rise to dominance over the
preceding 200 years of Aramaic as a spoken and written language within and beyond the peoples of the Achae-
menid empire. A key issue here is the differential survival of the written evidence: while destruction by fire is
generally good for clay tablets, baking them to durable hardness and therefore long-term survivability, the im-
pact on Aramaic documents is devastating: “it is possible that thousands of fifth to fourth century BC Aramaic
parchment documents went up in smoke when the Persepolis archives were destroyed by fire” (Black 2008: 59).
Alongside the ebbs and flows of the practice of writing within Iranian complex societies, the trajectory through
time of seal use in Iran, often intimately associated with writing since their first co-occurrence at the very inven-
tion of writing, also demands our attention (Figure 12.5). In keeping with earlier synthetic overviews of seal use
in Eurasia (Laurito 2000; Rahmstorf 2011), the Iranian evidence shows a steady geographical expansion of seal
use through time, a transition from stamp to cylinder seal use, and a major pulse of sealing activity associated with
the transregionally engaged craft production and trading centres of the third millennium BC.
Figure 12.5 Map to show occurrences of sealing in Iran through time.
As ever, the evidential blanks are also of note. The almost total lack of evidence for use of seals by ETC commu-
nities is especially stark, contrasting vividly with contemporary societies of the Ninevite 5 cultural koine across Up-
per Mesopotamia who otherwise share many attributes with their ETC neighbours, as we explored in Chapter 8.
Analogous to the conscious rejection of writing suggested by Lamberg-Karlovsky (2001a) for societies peripheral
to Lower Mesopotamia through much of the third millennium BC, we suggest the possibility that the doggedly
unstratified societies of the ETC world consciously and recurrently over a period of centuries chose not to engage
with the world of check and counter-check betokened by the use of seals and sealings. Their apparent success in
fulfilling this desire suggests an extremely effective and pervasive ideological basis to ETC society that was capable
of transmission and absorption, solely through oral and visual means, across vast spans of time and space.
Where next for the archaeology of early Iran?

A key issue in studying the past of Iran in a synthetic sense is the high variability in the scope, scale and resolution
of archaeological approaches to Iran’s past. In the field, surveys in Iran are principally extensive in their method-
ology with modest use of systematic intensive survey techniques such as have been practiced for many years in
countries of the Mediterranean, with some notable exceptions. The dominant extensive survey approach means
that the majority of located sites tend to be the most conspicuous ones in the form of mounds or tappehs, plus
caves, rock shelters and occasional flat sites and cemeteries (Helwing 2012: 501–502). Iran is not exempt from the
global phenomenon of illicit digging and destruction of sites through urban and rural development, a modern
plague that forever destroys the evidence from the lives of our forebears. Illicit digging and looting of sites can
often be the sole clue to the presence of flat sites such as cemeteries, as most richly illustrated by sites of the Bronze
Age and Iron Age of Luristan and elsewhere.
A further complication, inadequately researched in the context of Iran, is the differential rates of burial and
erosion of archaeological sites by natural forces such as alluviation, flooding, sun, rain and wind, and the impact of
these factors on the visibility and recovery of evidence from surveys (Brookes et al. 1982; Schmidt and Fazeli 2007),
which is certain to be highly variable across Iran according to regional patterns of geology, geography, climate,
environment and human activity. All these factors make it difficult to conduct valid diachronic and geospatial anal-
yses of settlement patterns in any region of Iran. A major future project would be to collate the immense amount
of published, semi-published and unpublished data from regional surveys across Iran for synthesis and analysis in
the light of geo-environmental attributes specific to each surveyed region. This is a massive task that would require
coordination across Iran’s many institutions, public and private, with active field survey programmes.
As regards excavation, all periods of Iran’s past, and all regions of Iran, will benefit immensely from further
programmes of integrated scientific archaeology, applying the full range of modern scientific techniques to mul-
tiple forms of recoverable evidence. As articulated in a recent volume on Bronze Age Iran: “Iran is probably an
ideal laboratory to study non-linear evolution processes, and there is no doubt that with the help of the much-
needed extensive excavation and pluri-disciplinary projects to come, archaeology still has a lot to learn from this
unique country” (Meyer et al. 2019: 354). But such an approach demands major resources that are only rarely
affordable or available, not only within Iran, including laboratory facilities and equipment, scientific training and
expertise in the form of PhD and post-doctoral programmes, and the time and space to interpret, analyse, syn-
thesise and publish. It is challenging to point to more than a handful of the hundreds of archaeological excavation
projects that have taken place across Iran since the 1890s, which we could badge as exemplary, state-of-the-art
(for their time), scientific programmes of research, meticulously conducted, fully analysed and interpreted and
fully published (which today means published in a manner so that independent academics have access to the raw
data and can thereby query the excavators’ own interpretations). Readers can make their own judgements on this
issue through following up on the host of publication references provided in this book for almost every project. It
is sobering to realise that we are still largely reliant on archaeological sequences from sites excavated 60–100 years
ago – Susa, Hissar, Sialk, Hasanlu – for the basic chronologies of much of Iran’s past, while in other areas even
those basic chronologies do not yet exist (Helwing 2012: 503; Meyer et al. 2019: 352). We do not single out Iran
in this regard, as we could make the same comment regarding the development of archaeological knowledge in
almost any other country of the Middle East and well beyond.
Apart from the issue of forbidding expense in executing such programmes, which can only be addressed
through governmental and institutional recognition of the social value of enhancing archaeological knowledge
and understanding – and it remains our task to encourage and justify such recognition – there are other concerns
to consider. In recent decades, as outlined in Chapter 3, there has been an enormous expansion of archaeology as
a discipline within Iranian academe. In the period 1990 to 2020, the number of university departments of archae-
ology in Iran has blossomed at an astonishing rate of growth unlikely to have been matched by any other country
of the world. Moreover, all these departments, old and new, generally have active programmes of field research,
including excavations and surveys, which generate vast quantities of data. Almost all this work is reported on in
abbreviated manner in interim field reports, often in Persian only, with accompanying synthetic summaries in the
ever-expanding stable of journals devoted to ancient Iran and its archaeology, all of which feature throughout this
book. With a few notable and noble exceptions, we lack the final integrated publications, fully supported with
open access to raw data, that are essential for furthering the discipline to the next level.
In these regards and so many others, an enhanced future for the archaeology of Iran depends on a full scientific
integration of the many active communities of archaeologists living and working within Iran with their colleagues
around the world who share their passion for enhancing our knowledge and understanding of the globally signif-
icant socio-cultural developments hosted within the long and glorious past of Iran. From the study of Iran’s past,
we have everything to learn about our place on planet Earth, how we got here and how we might envision and
build sustainable futures. We offer this book as a small contribution to that engagement and to that advancement.
Bibliography
Abay, E. 2005. ‘The expansion of Early Transcaucasian Culture: cultural interaction or migration?’. Altorientalische Forschung 32/1,
115–131.
Abbasi, G. 2011. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations at Narges Tappeh, Gorgan Plain, Iran. Gorgan: Golestan Cultural and
Heritage Organization and Golestan Higher Education Institute (in Persian).
Abbasi, G. 2015. Archaeological Achievements of Great Gorgan Plain (Varkar). Iran: Negar Press.
Abbāsi, G. A., Nokandeh, J. and Omr ā ni Rek āvandi, H. 2016. ‘New findings of the Neolithic period in the Gorgān Plain: Exca-
vation at Tappeh Poukerdowā l’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies
in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 7–30 (in Persian).
Abbasi, Q.-A. 2007. ‘Narges Tappeh-ye Dasht-e Gorgan [Narges Tepe of the Gorgan Plain]’, The 9th Annual Symposium on Iranian
Archaeology. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 247–260 (in Persian).
Abbasnejad Seresti, R. and Tashvigh, S. A. 2016. ‘Central Plateau of Iran: the transition from Sialk III6–7 to Sialk IV1 (3700–3400
B.C.)’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 2/4, 15–25.
Abbasnejad Seresti, R. 2017. ‘Ancient metallurgy and socio-economic complexities in the 4th millennium BC on the Iranian pla-
teau.’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 7/1, 1–15.
Abbasnejad Seresti, R. and Rezaei, M. 2018. ‘Analysis of transitional process from Chalcolithic to Bronze Age in Balageriveh,
Lorestan, Iran’. The International Journal of Humanities 25/1, 1–18.
Abdi, K. 1999. ‘Archaeological research in the Islamabad Plain, central western Zagros mountains: preliminary results from the
first season, summer 1998’. Iran 37, 33–43.
Abdi, K. 2001a. ‘Nationalism, politics, and the development of archaeology in Iran’. American Journal of Archaeology 105/1, 51–76.
Abdi, K. 2001b. ‘Malyan 1999’. Iran 39, 73–98.
Abdi, K., Biglari, F. and Heydari, S. 2002a. ‘Islamabad Project 2001: test excavations at Wezmeh Cave’. Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan 34, 171–194.
Abdi, K., Nokandeh, G., Azadi, A., Biglari, F., Heydari, S., Farmani, D., Rezaii, A. and Mashkour, M. 2002b. ‘Tuwah Khoshkeh:
a Middle Chalcolithic mobile pastoralist camp-site in the Islamabad Plain, West Central Zagros Mountains, Iran’. Iran 40/1,
43–74.
Abdi, K. 2003a. ‘From ecriture to civilisation: changing paradigms of Proto-Elamite archaeology’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi
(eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Mon-
ograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 140–151.
Abdi, K. 2003b. ‘The early development of pastoralism in the central Zagros mountains’. Journal of World Prehistory 17/4, 395–448.
Abdi, K., Pollock, S. and Bernbeck, R. 2003. ‘Fars Archaeology Project 2003: excavations at Toll-e Bashi’. Iran 41, 339–344.
Abdi, K. 2005. ‘Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.
org/articles/oriental-institute-univ-chicago.
Abdi, K. and Beckman, G. M. 2007. ‘An early second-millennium cuneiform archive from Choga Gavaneh, western Iran’. Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 59, 39–91.
Abdi, K. 2010. ‘MĀRLIK’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/marlik.
Abdi, K. 2012. ‘The Iranian Plateau from Paleolithic times to the rise of the Achaemenid Empire’, in T. Daryaee (ed.) The Oxford
Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–36.
Abdi, K. 2013. ‘Negahban, Ezat O.’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/negahban-ezat.
Abdi, K. 2015a. ‘The development of human creativity: cognitive substrates of the Upper Paleolithic archaeological record’. Inter-
national Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 1/1, 9–18.
Abdi, K. 2015b. ‘Towards an archaeology of pastoralism: the Near East and beyond’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian
Archaeologists 1/2, 1–27.
Abdi, K. and Dadafar, F. 2019. ‘Achaemenid columned halls in Caucasus: symbols of imperial ideology’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati
and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1 Tehran:
Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 594–606.
Abdollahi, M., Niknami, K. A. and Hessari, M. 2015. ‘Settlement pattern analysis of the Neolithic sites in the Azna Plain, East
Central Zagros, Iran’. Advances in Bioresearch 6/1, 37–44.
512 Bibliography
Abe, M. 2011. ‘Geometrics from the Neolithic settlement of Tall i Mushki, southwest Iran’, in E. Healey, S. Campbell and
O. Maeda (eds) The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13. Berlin: ex oriente, 163–170.
Abe, M. and Khanipour, M. 2019. ‘The 8.2 ka event and re-microlithization during the Late Mlefaatian in the Zagros mountains:
analysis of the flaked stone artefacts excavated from Hormangan in north-eastern Fars, south-west Iran’, in S. Nakamura,
T. Adachi and M. Abe (eds) Decades in Deserts: Essays on Near Eastern Archaeology in Honour of Sumio Fujii. Tokyo: Rokuichi
Syobou, 305–317.
Abedi, A., Omrani, B. and Eskandari, N. 2009. ‘Kul Tapeh: an Early Bronze Age site in north-western Iran’. Antiquity 83, Project
Gallery. URL: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/abedi322/.
Abedi, A., Eskandari, N., Khatib Shahidi, H., Sharahi, I. and Shirzadeh, G. 2014a. ‘New evidence from Dalma and Kura-Araxes
culture at Tapeh Qal’e-ye-Sarsakhti’. Iran and the Caucasus 18, 101–114.
Abedi, A., Shahidi, H. K., Chataigner, C., Niknami, K., Eskandari, N., Kazempour, M., Pirmohammadi, A., Hosseinzadeh, J.
and Ebrahimi, G. 2014b. ‘Excavation at Kul Tepe (Hadishahr), north-western Iran, 2010: first preliminary report’. Ancient Near
Eastern Studies 51, 33–165.
Abedi, A. and Omrani, B. 2015. ‘Kura-Araxes culture and North-Western Iran: new perspectives from Kul Tepe Jolfa (Hadishahr)’.
Paléorient 45/1, 55–68.
Abedi, A., Omrani, B. and Karimifar, A. 2015. ‘Fifth and fourth millennium BC in north-western Iran: Dalma and Pisdeli revisited’.
Documenta Praehistorica 42, 321–338.
Abedi, A. 2016a. ‘Preliminary reports of the second season excavation of Kul Tepe at Hadi Shahr, northwest Iran’. Archaeological
Studies 8/1, 91–111 (in Persian).
Abedi, A. 2016b. ‘New evidence from Neolithic to Achaemenid periods in north-western Iran: excavations at Kul Tepe (Hadishahr),
second preliminary report (2013)’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 6/1, 59–82.
Abedi, A. 2017. ‘Iranian Azerbaijan pathway from the Zagros to the Caucasus, Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia: Dava Göz, a
new neolithic and chalcolithic site in NW Iran’. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17/1, 69–87.
Abedi, A., Mohammadi, V. D., Steiniger, D. and Glascock, M. D. 2018a. ‘The provenance of Kul Tepe obsidian artifacts: Syunik
and the highlands of Armenia as possible seasonal pastureland’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21, 406–412.
Abedi, A., Varoutsikos, B. and Chataigner, C. 2018b. ‘Provenance of obsidian artifacts from the Chalcolithic site of Dava Göz in
NW Iran using portable XRF’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20, 756–767.
Abedi, A., Vosough, B., Razani, M., Bagherzadeh Kasiri, M., Steiniger, D. and Ebrahimi, G. 2018c. ‘Obsidian deposits from
north-western Iran and first analytical results: implications for prehistoric production and trade’. Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry 18/2, 107–118.
Abedi, A., Heidari, R., Salimi, S. and Eskandari, N. 2019. ‘New Uruk finds in NW Iran: Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes
culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia’. Documenta Praehistorica 46, 414–423.
Adachi, T. 2004. ‘A few chipped stone artifacts found in Shu’ul and Tappeh Jalaliyie’, in T. Ohtsu, J. Nokandeh and K. Yamauchi
(eds) Preliminary Report of the Iran-Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Third Season, 2002. Tehran-Tokyo: Iranian Cultural
Heritage Organization-MECC, 72–75.
Adams, R. M. 1962. ‘Agriculture and urban life in early southwestern Iran’. Science 136/3511, 109–122.
Adams, R. M. 1965. Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Adams, R. M. and Nissen, H. J. 1972. The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Adams, R. M. 1974. ‘The Mesopotamian social landscape: a view from the frontier’, in C. B. Moore (ed.) Reconstructing Complex
Societies. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1–22.
Adams, R. M. (ed.) 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Adjerloo, B. 2010. ‘Cultural Transition in Iranian Azerbaijan through the Iron Age III–Achaemenid Period Based on Recent
Archaeological Survey and Excavations (Abstract)’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia. History,
Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 285–286.
Afshar, Z. 2017. ‘Palaeopathological analyses of human skeletons: statistical analysis of health and disease among the Chalcolithic
and Bronze Age poulations at Tepe Hissar’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 3/5, 31–44.
Afshar, Z., Roberts, C. and Millard, A. 2018. ‘Interpersonal violence among the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages inhabitants living
on the Central Plateau of Iran: a voice from Tepe Hissar’. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 75/1, 49–66.
Afshar, Z., Millard, A., Roberts, C. and Gröcke, D. 2019. ‘The evolution of diet during the 5th to 2nd millennium BCE for the
population buried at Tepe Hissar, north-eastern Central Iranian Plateau: The stable isotope evidence’. Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports 27, 101983.
Agha-Aligol, D., Lamehi-Rachti, M., Oliaiy, P., Shokouhi, F., Farahani, M. F., Moradi, M. and Jalali, F. F. 2015. ‘Characterization
of Iranian obsidian artifacts by PIXE and multivariate statistical analysis’. Geoarchaeology 30/3, 261–270.
Ahmadinia, R. and Shishegar, A. 2019. ‘Jubaji, a Neo-Elamite (Phase IIIB, 585–539 BC) Tomb in Ramhurmuz, Khuzestan’. Iran
57/2, 142–174.
Ahmadzadeh, L., Yashmi, R., Mohammadkhani, K., Amidfar, M., Zadehbagh, M. and Heydarizadeh, B. 2021. ‘Exposing the
“Haute Terrasse” and systematic excavation at the Susa Acropole’, in R. Shirazi (ed.) Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on
Iranian Archaeology, 20–21 March 2021. Tehran: ICAR, 49–60. (In Persian).
Bibliography 513
Ajorloo, B. 2008. ‘The Neolithization process in Azerbaijan: an introduction to review’, in J. Córdoba, M. Molist, M. Carmen
Perez, I. Rubio and S. Martinez (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (3–8
April 2006). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Ediciones, 107–125.
Ajorloo, B. 2016. ‘The early pottery Neolithic tradition of the Salmas Plain in Azerbaijan, northwestern Iranian Plateau’, in K. Roustaei
and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 149–167.
Akhundov, T. 2004. ‘South Caucasus in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: the Question of Epochs and Periods’, in A. G. Sagona
(ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12.
Herent: Peeters, 421–436.
Alcock, S. E., John, H. D., D’Altroy, T. N., Morrison, K. D. and Sinopoli, C. M. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and
History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alden, J. R. 1973. The Question of Trade in Proto-Elamite Iran. PhD thesis, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of
Pennsylvania.
Alden, J. R. 1982a. ‘Marketplace exchange as indirect distribution: an Iranian example’, in J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle (eds)
Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. Studies in Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, 83–101.
Alden, J. R. 1982b. ‘Trade and politics in Proto-Elamite Iran’. Current Anthropology 23/6, 613–640.
Alden, J. R. 1987. ‘The Susa III period’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the
Islamic Conquest. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 157–170.
Alden, J. R. 2003a. ‘Inventory of Banesh sites. Appendix E’, in W. M. Sumner (ed.) Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excava-
tions at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. Malyan Excavation Reports 3. 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum
of Archaeology and Anthropology, 199–204.
Alden, J. R. 2003b. ‘Sherd Size and the Banesh Phase Occupation in the ABC Operation at Malyan, Iran’, in N. F. Miller and
K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology
Monograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 109–120.
Alden, J. R. 2003c. ‘Excavations at Tal-e Kureh. Appendix D’, in W. M. Sumner (ed.) Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Exca-
vations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. Malyan Excavation Reports 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum
Alden, J. R., Abdi, K., Azadi, A., Biglari, F. and Heydari, S. 2004. ‘Kushk-e Hezar: a Mushki/Jari period site in the Kur river
basin, Fars, Iran’. Iran 42/1, 25–45.
Alden, J. R., Abdi, K., Azadi, A., Beckman, G. and Pittman, H. 2005. ‘Fars archaeology project 2004: excavations at Tal-e
Malyan’. Iran 43/1, 39–47.
Alden, J. R. 2013. ‘The Kur River Basin in the Proto-Elamite era – surface survey, settlement patterns, and the appearance of
full-time transhumant pastoral nomadism’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range
Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 207–232.
Alden, J. R., Minc, L. and Alizadeh, A. 2014. ‘INAA analysis of ceramics from Tall-e Geser and Abu Fanduweh: Compositional
signatures and evidence for ceramic exchange. Appendix A’, in A. Alizadeh (ed.) Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the
Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Geser and Regional Survey of the Ram Hormuz Area. Oriental Institute
Publications 140. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 257–272.
Alden, J. R. 2015. ‘Book Review - D.T. Potts. Nomadism in Iran: from antiquity to the modern era. 2014’. Antiquity 89/346,
996–997.
Alden, J. R. and Petrie, C. A. 2015. ‘New radiocarbon dates for the Banesh period occupation at Tal-e Kureh, Fars, Iran’. Iran 53,
185–189.
Alden, J. R. and Minc, L. 2016. ‘Itinerant potters and the transmission of ceramic technologies and styles during the Proto-Elamite
period in Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 863–876.
Al-Gailani-Werr, L. 1988. ‘Cylinder seals made of clay’. Iraq 50, 1–24.
Algaze, G. 1989. ‘The Uruk expansion: cross-cultural exchange in early Mesopotamian civilization’. Current Anthropology 30/5,
571–608.
Algaze, G. 1993. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Algaze, G. 2001. ‘The prehistory of imperialism: the case of Uruk period Mesopotamia’, in M. S. Rothman (ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia
& Its Neighbors: Cross-cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press, 27–84.
Algaze, G. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Algaze, G. 2013. ‘The end of prehistory and the Uruk Period’, in H. Crawford (ed.) The Sumerian World. London: Routledge, 68–94.
Alibaigi, S. and Khosravi, S. 2009. ‘Tepeh Khaleseh: a new Neolithic and Palaeolithic site in the Abharrud basin in north-western
Iran’. Antiquity 83, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/alibaigi319/.
Alibaigi, S., Niknami, K. and Khosravi, S. 2010. ‘A preliminary report on the investigation of the Lower Paleolithic site of
Khaleseh in the Khorramdarreh Valley, Zanjan’. Iranian Archaeology 1, 7–14.
Alibaigi, S., Niknami, K. A., Heydari, M., Nikzad, M., Zainivand, M., Manhobi, S., Qasrian, S. M., Khalili, M. and Islami, N.
2011a ‘Palaeolithic open-air sites revealed in the Kuran Buzan Valley, Central Zagros, Iran’. Antiquity 85, Project Gallery. URL:
http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/alibaigi329/.
514 Bibliography
Alibaigi, S., Niknami, K. A., Khosravi, S., Charmchian, M. and Hemmati, M. 2011b. ‘An impressed pottery sherd: a Chalcolithic
newfound in the southern highland of Abharroud River Basin’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/1, 44–54.
Alibaigi, S., Khosravi, S. and Aali, A. 2012a. ‘Early villages and prehistoric sites in the Abharroud Basin, northwest of the Iranian
central plateau’. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 459–472.
Alibaigi, S., Shanbehzadeh, A. and Alibaigi, H. 2012b. ‘The Discovery of a Neo-Assyrian Rock-Relief at Mishkhas, Ilam Prov-
ince (Iran)’. Iranica Antiqua 47, 29–40.
Alibaigi, S. 2013. ‘Tappeh Sarabe Yavari: a Neolithic site with Tadpole Ware on the Kermanshah Plain, West Central Zagros.’, in
R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 48–54.
Alibaigi, S. and Khosravi, S. 2014. ‘Some socio-economic evidence from Iron Age societies of the Iranian Central Plateau’. Iran
52, 53–64.
Alibaigi, S., Khosravi, S., Nikzad, M., Haidari Dastani, M., Saghfaphi Yazdai, N., Akbari, M. and Jafarzadeh, Z. 2014. ‘The
stratigraphy report of Tepe Kolyery (Karvansara) in the eastern elevation of Zanjan Province’, 13th Annual Archaeological Report.
Tehran: Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 235–239 (in Persian).
Alibaigi, S., Aminikhah, N. and Fatahi, F. 2016. ‘In search of Ḫarḫar (the Neo-Assyrian Kar-Šarrukin) in the Central Zargos
mountains, western Iran: a new proposal’. Iran 54/2, 25–45.
Alibaigi, S. and Khosravi, S. 2016. ‘The Neo-Assyrian bronze coffin discovered in Sarāb-e Qareh Dāneh, Kouzarān; Kermān-
shāh’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 53, 137–148.
Alibaigi, S. 2017. ‘The location of the second stele commemmorating Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaign to the east in 737 BC’. State
Archives of Assyria Bulletin 23, 47–53.
Alibaigi, S., Rezaei, I. and Beheshti, S. I. 2017. ‘Najafabad, Sargon II’s stele, and Mount Urattus: the geological and archaeological
eevidence’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 107/2, 261–273.
Alibaigi, S. and MacGinnis, J. 2018. ‘Bit Ištar and Niššaya/Irnisa: in search of the location of Assyrian Zagros toponyms of the 8th
century BC’. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 11, 198–211.
Alibaigi, S. and Rezaei, I. 2018. ‘Bikni, Bīt-ṭābti, and Uqnū: searching for appropriate identifications for toponyms and terms
mentioned in Neo-Assyrian texts’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 77/1, 15–30.
Alibaigi, S. 2019. ‘Some remarks on archaeology and historical geography of central Zagros in the Neo-Assyrian period’, in
Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and
Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1 Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 184–207.
Alibaigi, S. and Salimiyan, A. J. 2019. ‘Archaeological landscape of the Neolithic period in western foothills of Zagros mountains:
new evidence from Sar Pol-e Zahāb region, Iran-Iraq borderland’, in S. Aryamanesh (ed.) Farr-e Firouz. in Honor of Dr. Firouz
Bagherzadeh. Tehran, 41–80 (in Persian).
Alibaigi, S., Aliyari, S., MacGinnis, J. and Aminikhah, N. 2020. ‘Longitude 45° East: new evidence for one of the oldest political
frontiers in the ancient world’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 79/1, 21–40.
Alibaigi, S. and Salimiyan, A. J. 2020. ‘The archaeological landscape of the Neolithic period in the western foothills of the Zagros
Mountains: new evidence from the Sar Pol-e Zahāb region, Iran-Iraq borderland’. Iraq 82, 15–39.
Alijani, B. and Harman, J. R. 1985. ‘Synoptic climatology of precipitation in Iran’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
75/3, 404–416.
Alizadeh, A. 1985a. ‘A tomb of the Neo-Elamite period at Arjan, near Behbahan’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 18, 49–73.
Alizadeh, A. 1985b. ‘A protoliterate pottery kiln from Chogha Mish’. Iran 23/1, 39–50.
Alizadeh, A. 1988. ‘Socio-economic complexity in southwestern Iran during the fifth and fourth millennia B.C.: the evidence
from Tall-i Bakun A’. Iran 26/1, 17–34.
Alizadeh, A. 1994. ‘Administrative technology and socio-economic complexity at the prehistoric site of Tall-e Bakun’, in P. Ferioli,
E. Fiandra, G. Fissore and M. Frangipane (eds) Archives Before Writing: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Oriolo Romano,
October 23–25, 1991. 1. Torino: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Ufficio centrale per i beni archivistici, 35–55.
Alizadeh, A., Rafifar, J. and Malek Shahmirzadi, S. 1996. ‘Iranian Neolithic research’. Neo-Lithics 1, 7–8.
Alizadeh, A. 2003a. Excavations at the Prehistoric Mound of Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran: Seasons 1976/77, 1977/78, and 1996.
Oriental Institute Publications 120. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in association with the Iranian
Cultural Heritage Organisation.
Alizadeh, A. 2003b. ‘Some observations based on the nomadic character of Fars prehistoric cultural development’, in N. F. Miller
and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archae-
ology Monograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 83–97.
Alizadeh, A. 2004. ‘Mobile pastoralism and prehistoric exchange’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike
Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie: Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28 November 2004 bis 29
Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 76–91.
Alizadeh, A., Zeidi, M., Askari, A., Niakan, L. and Atabaki, A. 2004. ‘Iranian prehistoric project. Excavations at Tell-e Bakun A
and B, Jari A and B, and Mushki: reconstruction of the prehistoric environment in Marvdasht’. Oriental Institute Annual Report
2003/04, 94–105.
Alizadeh, A. (ed.) 2006. The Origins of State Organizations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Bakun.
Oriental Institute Publications 128. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in association with the Iranian
Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization.
Bibliography 515
Alizadeh, A. 2008. Chogha Mish II. The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran: Final Report
on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972–1978. Oriental Institute Publications 130. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago.
Alizadeh, A. 2010. ‘The rise of the highland Elamite state in southwestern Iran’. Current Anthropology 51/3, 353–379.
Alizadeh, A. 2013. ‘The problem of locating ancient Huhnuri in the Ram Hormuz region’. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et
Utilitaires 2, 37.
Alizadeh, A., Ahmadzadeh, L. and Omidfar, M. 2013a. ‘Reflections on the long-term socioeconomic and political development of
Rām Hormoz Plain, a highland-lowland buffer zone’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45, 113–148.
Alizadeh, A., Sarlak, S. and Aghili, S. 2013b. ‘Highland-lowland interaction in the late 4th and early 3rd millennium BCE: the
evidence from Qolī Darvīš’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45, 149–168.
Alizadeh, A. 2014. Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Geser and Regional
Survey in the Ram Hormuz Area. Oriental Institute Publications 140. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Alizadeh, A. 2017. ‘Die Protoelamische Zivilisation im Antiken Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und
Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 62–67.
Alizadeh, K. 2007. Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavations at Ultan Qalasi, Mughan Steppe-Ardabil Province, First and Second
Seasons. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research.
Alizadeh, K. and Ur, J. A. 2007. ‘Formation and destruction of pastoral and irrigation landscapes on the Mughan Steppe,
north-western Iran’. Antiquity 81/311, 148–160.
Alizadeh, K. 2008. ‘The Chalcolithic to Bronze Age transition at Baruj Tepe (Barı Qalası), north-western Iran’, in K. S. Rubinson
and A. Sagona (eds) Ceramics in Transitions: Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of South Caucasus and Anatolia. Leuven:
Peeters, 59–70.
Alizadeh, K. 2010. ‘The Kura-Araxes, Early Transcaucasian or Yanik Culture’. Bastanshenasi Iran/Archaeology of Iran 1/1, 69–85.
Alizadeh, K., Eghbal, H. and Samei, S. 2015. ‘Approaches to social complexity in Kura-Araxes culture: a view from Köhne Shahar
(Ravaz) in Chaldran, Iranian Azerbaijan’. Paléorient 45/1, 37–54.
Alizadeh, K., Maziar, S. and Mohammadi, M. R. 2018a. ‘The end of the Kura-Araxes culture as seen from Nadir Tepesi in Iranian
Azerbaijan’. American Journal of Archaeology 122/3, 463–477.
Alizadeh, K., Samei, S., Mohammadkhani, K., Heidari, R. and Tykot, R. H. 2018b. ‘Craft production at Köhne Shahar, a Ku-
ra-Araxes settlement in Iranian Azerbaijan’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 51, 127–143.
Allen, L. 2005. The Persian Empire: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alley, R. B., Mayewski, P. A., Sowers, T., Stuiver, M., Taylor, K. C. and Clark, P. U. 1997. ‘Holocene climatic instability: a prom-
inent, widespread event 8200 yr ago’. Geology 25/6, 483–486.
Alley, R. B. 2000. ‘The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland’. Quaternary Science Reviews 19/1, 213–226.
Allué, E., Expósito, I., Tumung, L., Ollé, A. and Bazgir, B. 2018. ‘Early evidence of Prunus and Prunus cf. amygdalus from Pal-
aeolithic sites in the Khorramabad Valley, western Iran’. Comptes Rendus Palevol 17/6, 335–345.
Almasi, T., Mollazadeh, K. and Motarjem, A. 2017a. ‘Pottery classification, typology and chronology at Tepe Yalfan, Hamedan’.
Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 7/1, 45–53.
Almasi, T., Motarjem, A. and Mollazadeh, K. 2017b. ‘Tepe Yalfan: A newly-found Iron Age III site on the Hamedan Plain’. Inter-
Alster, B. 1973. ‘An aspect of “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta”’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 67/2, 101–110.
Altaweel, M., Marsh, A., Mühl, S., Nieuwenhuyse, O., Radner, K., Rasheed, K. and Saber, A. S. 2012. ‘New iInvestigations in the
environment, history, and archaeology of the Iraqi Hilly Flanks: Shahrizor Survey Project 2009–2011’. Iraq 74, 1–35.
Altaweel, M., Palmisano, A. and Mühl, S. 2016. ‘In the land of the highlanders: from the kingdom of Simurrum to Mazamua
in the Shahrizor’, in J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke, T. Greenfield and A. Stone (eds) The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 121–131.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2004. ‘Imago mundi: cosmological and ideological aspects of the Arjan bowl’. Iranica Antiqua 39, 203–237.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2005a. ‘Elamite funerary clay heads’. Near Eastern Archaeology 68/3, 114–122.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2005b. ‘Aspects of Elamite wall painting: new evidence from Kabnak (Haft Tepe)’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 149–164.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2008. ‘Give to drink, o cup-bearer!’ The Arjan beaker in the context of lion-headed drinking vessels in the an-
cient Near East’. Iranica Antiqua 43, 127–152.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2009a. ‘Ashurbanipal’s feast. A view from Elam’. Iranica Antiqua 44, 131–180.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2009b. ‘Notes on the Elamite garment of Cyrus the Great’. Antiquaries Journal 89, 21–33.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2010a. The Arjan Tomb at the Crossroads of the Elamite and the Persian Empires. Acta Iranica 49. Louvain: Peeters.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2010b. ‘Platform bearers from Kül-e Farah III and VI’. Iran 48, 27–41.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2010c. ‘Elite garments and head-dresses of the late neo-Elamite period (7th–6th century BC)’. Archäeologischen
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42, 207–234.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2011. ‘The golden griffin from Arjan’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and Persia. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 299–374.
Álvarez-Mon, J. and Garrison, M. B. (eds) 2011. Elam and Persia. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.
Álvarez-Mon, J., Garrison, M. B. and Stronach, D. 2011. ‘Introduction’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and
Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1–32.
516 Bibliography
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2012. ‘Elam: the first Iranian empire’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Chichester: Blackwell, 740–757.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2013a. ‘Khuzestan in the Bronze Age’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 217–232.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2013b. ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 457–477.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2014. ‘Aesthetics of the natural environment in the ancient Near East: the Elamite rock-cut sanctuary of Kuran-
gun’, in M. Feldman and B. Brown (eds) Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Berlin: De Gruyter, 741–771.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2015a. ‘The introduction of cotton into the Near East: a view from Elam’. International Journal of the Society of
Iranian Archaeologists 1/2, 41–52.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2015b. ‘Platforms of exaltation. Elamite sculptural reliefs from the highlands: Kūl-e Farah VI’. Elamica 4, 1–50.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2015c. ‘A highland Elamite archer from Kūl-e Farah IV, CI: 4’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 251–277.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2016. ‘The Elamite civilization’. Ancient History: Resources for Teachers (Macquarie Ancient History Association, Macquarie
University) 46, 1–29.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2017. ‘Elamische Basreliefs’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer
Verlag, 152–157.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2018a. ‘The Elamite artistic heritage of Persia’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite
World. Abingdon: Routledge, 829–850.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2018b. ‘The sculptural arts of Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World.
Abingdon: Routledge, 602–623.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2018c. ‘“Les faits sur le terrain”: the Susa I cemetery, the “Massif Funéraire”, and second-degree burials’. Iranica
Antiqua 53, 77–104.
Álvarez-Mon, J., Basello, G. P. and Wicks, Y. (eds) 2018a. The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge.
Álvarez-Mon, J., Basello, G. P. and Wicks, Y. 2018b. ‘Introduction’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The
Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 1–8.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2019. The Monumental Reliefs of the Elamite Highlands. A Complete Inventory and Analysis ( from the Seventeenth to the
Sixth Century BC). University Park Pennsylvania: Eisenbrauns.
Álvarez-Mon, J. 2020. The Art of Elam ca. 4200–525 BC. London: Routledge.
Ambraseys, N. N. and Melville, C. P. 1982. A History of Persian Earthquakes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amelirad, S., Overlaet, B. and Haerinck, E. 2012. ‘The Iron Age ‘Zagros Graveyard’ near Sanandaj (Iranian Kurdistan)’. Iranica
Antiqua 47, 41–99.
Amelirad, S. and Razmpoush, A. 2015. ‘A newly discovered Iron Age site at Sarrez, Iranian Kurdistan’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
52, 207–216.
Amelirad, S. and Khanmohamadi, B. 2016. ‘The seals of Bayazid Abad (Bayazi Awa) tomb’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 53,
113–136.
Amelirad, S., Mohajerynezhad, A. and Javidkhah, M. 2017. ‘A report on the excavation at the Mala Mcha graveyard, Kurdistan,
Iran’. Iran 55/2, 171–207.
Amelirad, S. 2019. ‘A study of ivory and bone plaques from Ziwiye in the Sanandaj Museum’. Iraq 81, 11–21.
Amelirad, S. and Razmpoush, A. 2019. ‘Ivory and bone plaques in the museum of Sanandaj’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and
Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1 Tehran:
Amelirad, S. and Azizi, E. 2021. ‘Kani Koter, Iron Age cemetery From Iranian Kurdistan’. Iran 59/1, 57–76.
Ameri, M. 2020. ‘Who holds the keys? Identifying female administrators at Shahr-i Sokhta’. Iran. URL: doi: 10.1080/05786967.
2020.1718542.
Amiet, P. 1957. ‘Glyptique susienne archaique’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 51/3, 121–129.
Amiet, P. 1966. Elam. Auvers-sur-Oise: Archée.
Amiet, P. 1972. Glyptique Susienne: Des origines à l’époque des Perses achéménides. Cachets, sceaux-cylindres et empreintes antiques découverts
à Suse de 1913 à 1967. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Amiet, P. 1973a. ‘Glyptique élamite, à propos de documents nouveaux’. Arts Asiatiques 26, 3–64.
Amiet, P. 1973b. ‘La civilisation du désert de Lut’. Archeologia 60, 20–27.
Amiet, P. 1976a. L’art d’Agadé au Musée du Louvre. Paris: Éditions des Musées Nationaux.
Amiet, P. 1976b. ‘Contribution à l’histoire de la sculpture archäique de Suse’. Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique Française en Iran
6, 47–82.
Amiet, P. and Tosi, M. 1978. ‘Phase 10 at Shahr-i Sokhta: excavations in Square XDV and the late 4th millennium B.C. assemblage
of Sistan’. East and West 28/1, 9–31.
Amiet, P. 1979a. ‘Les sceaux de Shahr-i Sokhta’, in J. E. Van Lohuizen-De Leeuw (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1975. Leiden:
Brill, 3–6.
Amiet, P. 1979b. ‘Alternance et dualité: Essai d’interprétation de l’histoire élamite’. Akkadica 15, 2–22.
Amiet, P. 1979c. ‘Archaeological discontinuity and ethnic duality in Elam’. Antiquity 53, 195–204.
Amiet, P. 1980. La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Bibliography 517
Amiet, P. 1983. ‘The archaic glyptic at Shahr-i Sokhta (Period I)’, in M. Tosi (ed.) Prehistoric Sistan 1. Reports and Memoirs XIX,
1. Rome: IsMEO, 199–210.
Amiet, P. 1985. ‘La période IV de Tépé Sialk reconsidérée’, in J.-L. Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet (eds) De l’Indus aux Balkans: Recueil
à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes. Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations, 293–312.
Amiet, P. 1986a. ‘Susa and Dilmun culure’, in H. A. Khalifa and M. Rice (eds) Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology. London/
New York: KPI distributed by Routledge & Kegan Paul, 262–268.
Amiet, P. 1986b. ‘Le problème de l’iconographie divine en Mésopotamie dans la glyptique antérieure à l’époque d’Agadé’, in
P. Matthiae (ed.) Contributi e materiali di archeologia orientale I. Roma: Universtà degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1–65.
Amiet, P. 1986c. L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens, 3500–1700 avant J.-C. Notes et documents des musées de France, 11. Paris:
Ministère de la culture et de la communication/Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux.
Amiet, P. 1988. ‘Les modes d’utilisation des sceaux à Suse au IVe millénaire’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 21, 7–16.
Amiet, P. 1990. ‘Quelques épaves de la vaisselle royale de Suse’, in F. Vallat (ed.) Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran. Mélanges offerts à
Jean Perrot. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 213–224.
Amiet, P. 1992. ‘An introduction to the history of art in Iran’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa:
Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2–15.
Amiet, P. 1993. ‘The period of Irano-Mesopotamian contacts 3500 B.C.–1600 B.C.’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Early Mesopotamia and Iran:
Contact and Conflict 3500–1600 BC. Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin. London: British Museum Press, 23–30.
Amiet, P. 1996. ‘Observations sur les sceaux de Haft Tépé (Kabnak)’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 90/2, 135–143.
Amiet, P. 2005. ‘Les sceaux de l’administration princière de Suse à l’époque d’Agadé’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale
99, 1–12.
Amiran, R. 1965. ‘Yanik Tepe, Shengavit, and the Khirbet Kerak Ware’. Anatolian Studies 15, 165–167.
Andam, S. S. G., Djamali, M., Nelle, O., Beni, A. N., Haghighifard, M., Brisset, E. and Poschlod, P. 2020. ‘Vegetation history
of the Maharlou Lake basin (SW Iran) with special reference to the Achaemenid period (550–330 BC)’. Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00810-1.
Anderson, B. 2010. ‘Achaemenid Arabia: a landscape-oriented model of cultural interaction’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds)
The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 445–455.
Anderson, S. C. 1968. ‘Zoogeographic analysis of the lizard fauna of Iran’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran:
Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 305–371.
André, B. and Salvini, M. 1989. ‘Réflexions sur Puzur-Inšušinak’. Iranica Antiqua 24, 53–72.
Anthony, D. W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Arab, R. and Rehren, T. 2004. ‘The pyrotechnological expedition of 1968’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds) Per-
siens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie: Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28 November
2004 bis 29 Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 550–555.
Araghi, M. and Mohajerneghad, A. 2020. ‘A sign of Scythian art in Savadkuh’. Quarterly Journal of History and Archaeology of
Mazandaran 1, 6–71 (in Persian).
Araus, J. L., Ferrio, J. P., Voltas, J., Aguilera, M. and Buxó, R. 2014. ‘Agronomic conditions and crop evolution in ancient Near
East agriculture’. Nature Communications 5, 3953.
Arbuckle, B. S. 2012. ‘Animals in the ancient world’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Arbuckle, B. S. 2014. ‘Pace and process in the emergence of animal husbandry in Neolithic Southwest Asia’. Bioarchaeology of the
Near East 8, 53–81.
Arbuckle, B. S., Price, M. D., Hongo, H. and Öksüz, B. 2016. ‘Documenting the initial appearance of domestic cattle in the East-
ern Fertile Crescent (northern Iraq and western Iran)’. Journal of Archaeological Science 72, 1–9.
Arbuckle, B. S. and Hammer, E. L. 2019. ‘The rise of pastoralism in the ancient Near East’. Journal of Archaeological Research 27/3,
391–449.
Ariai, A. and Thibault, C. 1975. ‘Nouvelles précisions à propos de l’outillage paléolithique ancien sur galets du Khorassan (Iran)’.
Paléorient 3, 101–108.
Arimatsu, Y. 2015. ‘Homogénéisation de la céramique fine de la deuxième moitié de l’âge du fer au nord de l’Iran dans le cadre de
l’horizon à céramique de type Orange Ware’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 213–232.
Arne, T. J. 1945. Excavations at Shah Tepé, Iran. Sino-Swedish Expedition 27. Stockholm: Elanders boktryckeri aktiebolag.
Arranz-Otaegui, A., Colledge, S., Zapata, L., Teira-Mayolini, L. C. and Ibáñez, J. J. 2016. ‘Regional diversity on the timing for
the initial appearance of cereal cultivation and domestication in southwest Asia’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
113/49, 14001–14006.
Aruz, J. 1992. ‘Late Susa I glyptic: ritual imagery, practical use’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa:
Aruz, J. 2002. ‘Power and protection: a little Proto-Elamite silver bull pendant’, in E. Ehrenberg (ed.) Leaving No Stones Unturned.
Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1–14.
Aruz, J. 2003. ‘“Intercultural Style” carved chlorite objects’, in J. Aruz (ed.) Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B. C. from
the Mediterranean to the Indus. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 325–346.
518 Bibliography
Aryamanesh, S. (ed.) 2019. Farr-e Firouz in Honor of Dr. Firouz Bagherzadeh. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism.
Ascalone, E. and Peyronel, L. 1999. ‘Typological and quantitative approach to the ancient weight systems. Susa, Persian Gulf and
Indus Valley from the end of the III mill. to the beginning of the II mill. BC’. Altorientalische Forschungen 26/2, 352–376.
Ascalone, E. 2006. Archeologia dell’Iran Antico: Interazioni, integrazioni e discontinuità nell’Iran del III millennio a.C. Nisaba 14. Messina:
DICAM - Dipartimento di Civilità Antiche e Moderne, Università di Messina.
Ascalone, E. 2007. ‘Archaeological links between Syria and Iran. Stratigraphical correlation and regional connections’’. From Rela-
tive Chronology To Absolute Chronology. the Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Rome
29th November–1st December 2001.
Ascalone, E. 2008. ‘Cultural interactions among Mesopotamia, Elam, Transelam and Indus civilization. The evidence of a cylin-
der-stamp seal from Jalalabad (Fars) and its significance in the historical dynamics of south-eastern Iran ’, in H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon
and F. J. Kreppner (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
Verlag, 255–275.
Ascalone, E. 2011. Glittica elamita: dalla metà del III alla metà del II millennio aC: sigilli a stampo, sigilli a cilindro e impronte rinvenute in
Iran e provenienti da collezioni private e museali. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Ascalone, E. 2013. ‘A new South-Eastern Iranian glyptic evidence’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeo-
logical, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December
14–17, 2009. Leiden: Brill, 3–26.
Ascalone, E. 2014. ‘Intercultural relations between southern Iran and the Oxus civilization. The strange case of bifacial seal NMI
1660’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 4/1, 1–20.
Ascalone, E. 2018. ‘Glyptic in the 4th-2nd Millennium’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World.
Ascalone, E. 2019. ‘Jiroft as seen from Susa’. Telematic Bulletin of Art 870, 1–29.
Ascalone, E. and Sajjadi, S. M. S. (eds) 2019. Scavi e Richerche a Shahr-i Sokhta. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research.
Asgari Chaverdi, A., Khosrowzadeh, A., McCall, B., Petrie, C. A., Potts, D. T., Roustaei, K., Seyedin, M., Weeks, L. and Zaidi, M.
2010. ‘Archaeological evidence for Achaemenid settlement in the Mamasani Valleys, western Fars, Iran’, in J. Curtis and
S. J. Simpson (eds) World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 287–297.
Askari Chaverdi, A. and Callieri, P. 2006. ‘A rural settlement of the Achaemenid period in Fars’. Journal of Inner Asian Art and
Archaeology 1, 65–70.
Askari Chaverdi, A., Petrie, C. A. and Taylor, H. 2008. ‘Early village settlements on the Persian Gulf littoral: revisiting Tol-e Pir
and the Galehdār Valley’. Iran 46, 21–42.
Askari Chaverdi, A. and Callieri, P. 2012. ‘The activities of the Iranian–Italian joint archaeological mission at Persepolis West
(Fars, Iran). First results of the studies on the pottery of Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid age’, in G. P. Basello and A. V. Rossi
(eds) Persepolis and his settlements. Proceedings of the conference held in Viterbo 16th-17th December 2010. Series Minor 77. Napoli:
Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, 100–122.
Askari Chaverdi, A., Callieri, P. and Gondet, S. 2013. ‘Tol-e Ājori, a new monumental building in Pārsa: preliminary cross inter-
pretations from recent surveys anmd excavations works around Persepolis (2005–2012)’. ARTA 2013/6.
Askari Chaverdi, A., Callieri, P. and Matin, E. 2014. ‘Tol-e Ajori, a monumental gate of the Early Achaemenian period in the
Persepolis area. The 2014 excavation season of the Iranian-Italian project ‘‘From Palace to Town’’ ’. Archäologische Mitteilungen
Askari Chaverdi, A. and Callieri, P. 2016. Tang-e Bolaghi (Fars), Sites TB76 and TB 77: Rural Settlements of the Achaemenid and
Post-Achaemenid Periods. BAR International Series 2799. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Askari Chaverdi, A., Callieri, P., Laurenzi Tabasso, M. and Lazzarini, L. 2016. ‘The archaeological site of Persepolis (Iran): study
of the finishing technique of the bas-reliefs and architectural surfaces’. Archaeometry 58/1, 17–34.
Askari Chaverdi, A., Callieri, P. and Matin, E. 2017. ‘The monumental gate at Tol-e Ajori, Persepolis (Fars): new archaeological
data’. Iranica Antiqua 52, 205–258.
Asouti, E. and Fuller, D. Q. 2013. ‘A contextual approach to the emergence of agriculture in Southwest Asia: reconstructing early
Neolithic plant-food production’. Current Anthropology 54/3, 299–345.
Asouti, E. and Kabukcu, C. 2014. ‘Holocene semi-arid oak woodlands in the Irano-Anatolian region of Southwest Asia: natural
or anthropogenic?’. Quaternary Science Reviews 90, 158–182.
Asouti, E. 2017. ‘Human palaeoecology in Southwest Asia during the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic (c. 9700–8500 cal BC): the plant
story’, in M. Benz, H. G. K. Gebel and T. Watkins (eds) Neolithic Corporate Identities. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence and Environment. Berlin: ex oriente, 21–53.
Asouti, E., Baird, D., Kabukcu, C., Swinson, K., Martin, L., Garcia-Suárez, A., Jenkins, E. and Rasheed, K. 2020. ‘The Zagros
Epipalaeolithic revisited: new excavations and14C dates from Palegawra Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan’. PLoS ONE 15/9, e0239564.
Atayi, M. T. and Boucharlat, R. 2009. ‘An Achaemenid pavilion and other remains in Tang-i Bulaghi ’. ARTA 5.
Atayi, M. T. and Roaf, M. 2019. ‘The arrival of the Persians into Fars’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute
for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 175–190.
Aubert, C., Djamali, M., Jones, M., Lahijani, H., Marriner, N., Naderi-Beni, A., Sharifi, A., Ponel, P. and Gandouin, E. 2019. ‘A
major hydrobiological change in Dasht-e Arjan Wetland (southwestern Iran) during the late glacial–early Holocene transition
revealed by subfossil chironomids’. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 56/8, 848–856.
Bibliography 519
Axworthy, M. 2007. Iran: Empire of the Mind. A History from Zoroaster to the Present Day. London: Penguin Books.
Ayvazian, A. 2012. ‘The Urartian empire’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester:
Blackwell, 877–897.
Azadi, A. and Gezelbash, E. 2011. ‘On recently discovered Neolithic sites in Kohgiluye region’. Bastanshenasi va Tarikh (Archaeology
and History) 24/2, 3–16 (in Persian).
Azadi, A., Ascalone, E. and Peyronel, L. 2012. ‘The first season (2009) of archaeological research by the Iranian-Italian joint ex-
pedition at Qaleh Kutchek, Halil Valley ( Jiroft, Kerman Province, SE Iran)’, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds) Proceedings of the
7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London.
Volume 3 Fieldwork and Recent Research. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 277–302.
Azadi, A. 2015. ‘A Late Bronze/Early Iron Age nomadic site (KR 385) in the Bakhtiari highlands, south-west Iran’. Antiquity 89,
Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/azadi347.
Azadi, A. 2016. ‘New evidence of the aceramic Neolithic in Kohgilouyeh. southern Zagros’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour
(eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment
18. Berlin: ex oriente, 209–216.
Azadi, A., Vahdati Nasab, H. and Motarjem, A. 2016. ‘Bibi Zoleikhaee: new evidence for Pre-Pottery Neolithic period from
Kohgiluyeh region’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 2/4, 1–14.
Azadi, A. 2017. ‘The Pleistocene occupations of the Kohgilouyeh region, southern Zagros, Iran’. International Journal of the Society
of Iranian Archaeologists 3/6, 1–12.
Azarnoush, M. and Helwing, B. 2005. ‘Recent archaeological research in Iran: Prehistory to Iron Age’. Archäologische Mitteilungen
Azarpay, G. 2005. ‘In search of the Persian tiger’. Iranica Antiqua 34/1, 325–332.
Azizi, H., Niknami, K., Ahadi, G. and Moradi, N. 2012. ‘New evidence for late Chalcolithic occupation of Qazvin plain, the
excavations at Sagzabad, 2009’. Iranian Archaeology 3, 15–28 (in Persian and English).
Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Niknami, K. and Moradi, N. 2010. ‘The Late Bronze Age period in Tepe Sagzabad based on the pottery
finds’. Payam-e Bastanshenas 14, 21–34 (in Persian).
Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Nishiaki, Y. 2013. ‘Tepe Rahmatabad: A pre-pottery and pottery neolithic site in Fars
province’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 108–123.
Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Nishiaki, Y. 2014a. ‘The second season of excavations at Tepe Rahmatabad, southern
Iran: The absolute and relative chronology’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 51, 1–32.
Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H., Khanipour, M. and Naseri, R. (eds) 2014b. Proceedings of the International Congress of Young Archaeologists.
Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H., Salehi, M. and Zayeri, F. 2017. ‘The relation between motif and form in Middle Bakun ceramics of
Toll-e Rahmatabad in Fars region (fifth millennium BC) using statistical linear models’. International Journal of the Society of Ira-
nian Archaeologists 3/5, 23–30.
Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Niknami, K., Khanipour, M. and Taheri, M. 2018. ‘Chahar Roustaei Tepe: The evidence of Bakun period
on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf ’. Pazohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 8/17, 65–84 (in Persian).
Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H., Khanipour, M. and Naseri, R. (eds) 2019. Proceedings of the International Congress of Young Archaeologists
2018. Tehran: Iranology Foundation.
Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Abe, M., Jamshidi Yeganeh, S., Akbari, A., Goodarzi, P. and Soltysiak, A. 2020. ‘Eastern Iran Prehistoric
Archaeological Project: First season of excavations at Kaleh Kub, South Khorasan province (2018)’. Journal of Archaeological Stud-
ies, 1–15 (in Persian).
Bacon, E. E. 1954. ‘Types of pastoral nomadism in Central and Southwest Asia’. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10/1, 44–68.
Badalyan, R., Chataigner, C. and Kohl, P. 2004. ‘Trans-Caucasian obsidian: The exploitation of the sources and their distribution’,
in A. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands. Archaeological studies in honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 12.
Leuven: Peeters, 437–465.
Badalyan, R. 2014. ‘New data on the periodization and chronology of the Kura-Araxes culture in Armenia’. Paléorient 40/2, 71–92.
Badler, V. 1995. ‘The archaeological evidence for winemaking, distribution and consumption at protohistoric Godin Tepe, Iran’,
in P. E. McGovern, S. J. Fleming and S. H. Katz (eds) The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Food and nutrition in history and
anthropology, 11. New York: Gordon and Breach, 45–56.
Badler, V. 2000. ‘The dregs of civilisation: 5000 year-old wine and beer residues from Godin Tepe, Iran’. Bulletin of the Canadian
Society for Mesopotamian Studies 35, 48–56.
Badler, V. 2002. ‘A chronology of Uruk artefacts from Godin Tepe in central western Iran and its implications for the interrela-
tionships between the local and foreign cultures’, in J. N. Postgate (ed.) Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East,
British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Warminster: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 79–110.
Baeteman, C., Dupin, L. and Heyvaert, V. M. A. 2004. ‘The Persian Gulf shorelines and the Karkheh, Karun, and Jarrahi Rivers:
a geo-archaeological approach. First Progress Report 1. Geo-Environmental Investigation’. Akkadica 125, 155–215.
Bagg, A. M. 2012. ‘Zur Technologie altorientalischer Bewässerungssysteme: Technologietransfer in Nordmesopotamien im 1. Jt. v.
Chr.’, in H. Neumann (ed.) Wissenskultur im Alten Orient: Weltanschauung, Wissenschaften, Techniken, Technologien. 4. Internationales
Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 20.-22. Februar 2002, Münster. Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Band 4.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 339–371.
520 Bibliography
Baghestani, S. 1997. Metallene Compartimentsiegel aus Ost-Iran, Zentralasien und Nord-China. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 1.
Rahden: Leidorf.
Bahrami, M. B., Sabzi Doabi, M. and Nikzad, M. 2012. ‘Note on three new Neolithic sites in Pish-e Kuh Region, Central Zagros’.
Neo-Lithics 1, 8–14.
Bahrami, M. and Abbasnejad Seresti, R. 2017. ‘The role of environmental factors in settling Neolithic sites in Luristan, Iran’.
International Journal of Humanitites 24/1.
Bahramiyan, S. and Shouhani, L. A. 2016. ‘Between mountain and plain: new evidence for the Middle Palaeolithic in the northern
Susiana Plain, Khuzestan, Iran’. Antiquity 90, e1.
Bahramiyan, S. 2019. ‘Probable evidence of a Middle Palaeolithic site in the northern parts of the Susiana Plain, Khuzestan, Iran’.
Documenta Praehistorica 46, 424–433.
Bahrani, Z. 2017. Mesopotamia. Ancient Art and Architecture. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Bahşaliyev, V. 1997. Archaeology of Nakhchivan. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.
Bailey, G. 2010. ‘The Red Sea, coastal landscapes, and hominin dispersals’, in M. D. Petraglia and J. I. Rose (eds) The Evolution of
Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 15–37.
Baines, J. A., Riehl, S., Conard, N. and Zeidi-Kulehparcheh, M. 2015. ‘Upper Palaeolithic archaeobotany of Ghar-e Boof cave,
Iran: a case study in site disturbance and methodology’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7/2, 245–256.
Baker, H. D. 2010. ‘The social dimensions of Babylonian domestic architecture in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods’,
in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London:
I. B. Tauris, 179–194.
Bakhshaliyev, V., Ashurov, S. and Marro, C. (eds) 2009. The Chronology of Kura-Araxes Sites: 2006 Excavations at Kültepe II and
Maxta I Azerbaijan – Land between East and West. Transfer of Knowledge and Technology during the “First Globalization” of the VIIth –
IVth Millennium BC. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.
Balatti, S. 2017. Mountain Peoples in the Ancient Near East: The Case of the Zagros in the First Millennium BCE. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Baldi, J. S. 2018. ‘Chalcolithic settlements and ceramcs in the Rania Plain and beyond: some results of the French Archaeological
Mission at the Governorate of Sulaymaniyah’, in R. B. Salisbury, F. Höflmayer and T. Bürge (eds) Proceedings of the 10th Interna-
tional Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 27–40.
Balmaki, B., Niknami, K. A. and Harsini, M. R. S. 2013. ‘Analysing typical characteristics of central Zagros potteries during the
Chalcolithic period’. Archaeological Discovery 1/2, 23–31.
Bangsgaard, P., Yeomans, L., Darabi, H., Gregersen, K. M., Olsen, J., Richter, T. and Mortensen, P. 2019. ‘Feasting on wild boar
in the early Neolithic. Evidence from an 11,400-year-old placed deposit at Tappeh Asiab, Central Zagros’. Cambridge Archaeo-
logical Journal 29/3, 443–463.
Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A. and Kaufman, A. 1997. ‘Late Quaternary paleoclimate in the Eastern Mediterranean region from
stable isotope analysis of speleothems at Soreq Cave, Israel’. Quaternary Research 47/2, 155–168.
Bar-Matthews, M. and Ayalon, A. 2003. ‘Climatic conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the last Glacial (60–10 ky) and
their relations to the Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant as inferred from oxygen and carbon isotope systematics of cave deposits’,
in A. N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen (eds) More Than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 13–18.
Bar-Yosef, O. and Meadow, R. H. 1995. ‘The origins of agriculture in the Near East’, in A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price (eds) Last
Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture. School of American Research advanced seminar
series. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 39–94.
Bar-Yosef, O. 1998. ‘The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture’. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues,
News, and Reviews 6/5, 159–177.
Bar-Yosef, O. and Belfer-Cohen, A. 2001. ‘From Africa to Eurasia - early dispersals’. Quaternary International 75/1, 19–28.
Bar-Yosef, O. 2002. ‘The Upper Paleolithic revolution’. Annual Review of Anthropology 31/1, 363–393.
Bar-Yosef, O. 2011. ‘Climatic fluctuations and early farming in West and East Asia’. Current Anthropology 52/S4, 175–193.
Barber, E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barge, O., Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Biglari, F., Moradi, B., Mashkour, M., Tengberg, M. and Chataigner, C. 2018. ‘Diffusion of
Anatolian and Caucasian obsidian in the Zagros Mountains and the highlands of Iran: elements of explanation in ‘least cost path’
models’. Quaternary International 467, 297–322.
Barjamovic, G. 2011. A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period. Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute
of Near Eastern Studies.
Barker, G. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why did Foragers become Farmers? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, R. D. 1956. ‘The treasure of Ziwiye’. Iraq 18/2, 111–116.
Barnett, R. D. 1957. ‘Persepolis’. Iraq 19/1, 55–77.
Bartash, V. 2020. ‘Coerced human mobility and elite social networks in Early Dynastic Iraq and Iran’. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern
History 7/1, 25–57.
Barth, F. 1953. Principles of Social Organization in Southern Kurdistan. Oslo: Brødrene Jørgensen boktr.
Barth, F. 1965. Nomads of South Persia. London: Allen and Unwin.
Basafa, H. and Davari, M. 2019. ‘Cultural links of Khorasan with the southeastern Iran and western part of Middle Asia in the
Bronze Age, the case study: silver vessels of Shahrak Firoze’. Archaeological Researches of Iran, 79–96.
Bibliography 521
Basello, G. P. 2011. ‘Elamite as administrative language: from Susa to Persepolis’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam
and Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 61–88.
Basello, G. P. 2012. ‘Doorknobs, nails or pegs? The function (s) of the Elamite and Achaemenid inscribed knobs’, in G. P. Basello
and A. V. Rossi (eds) Dariosh Studies II. Persepolis and its Settlements: Territorial System and Ideology in the Achaemenid State. Napoli:
Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, 1–66.
Basello, G. P. 2013. ‘Two joining fragments of an inscribed glazed brick. Appendix to Askari Chaverdi et al ‘Tol-e Ājori, a new
monumental building in Pārsa: preliminary cross interpretations from recent surveys anmd excavations works around Persepolis
(2005–2012)’’. ARTA 2013/6.
Basello, G. P. 2017. ‘Two new fragments of cuneiform inscriptions on glazed bricks from the Iranian-Italian excavations at Tol-e
Ajori (Fars)’. Iranica Antiqua 52, 259–281.
Basello, G. P. and Ascalone, E. 2018. ‘Cuneiform culture and science, calendars, and metrology in Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P.
Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 697–728.
Basello, G. P. and Giovinazzo, G. 2018. ‘Elamite administration’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite
Batiuk, S. D. and Rothman, M. S. 2007. ‘Unraveling migration, trade, and assimilation’. Expedition 49, 7–17.
Batiuk, S. D. 2013. ‘The fruits of migration: understanding the ‘longue durée’ and the socio-economic relations in the Early Tran-
scaucasian Culture’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32/4, 449–477.
Baumler, M. and Speth, J. D. 1993. ‘A Middle Palaeolithic assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran’, in D. I. Olszewski and H. L. Dibble
(eds) The Palaeolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1–74.
Bazgir, B., Otte, M., Tumung, L., Ollé, A., Deo, S. G., Joglekar, P., López-García, J. M., Picin, A., Davoudi, D. and van der Made,
J. 2014. ‘Test excavations and initial results at the Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites of Gilvaran, Kaldar, Ghamari caves and Gar
Arjene Rockshelter, Khorramabad Valley, western Iran’. Comptes Rendus Palevol 13/6, 511–525.
Bazgir, B., Ollé, A., Tumung, L., Becerra-Valdivia, L., Douka, K., Higham, T., van der Made, J., Picin, A., Saladié, P., López-
García, J. M., Blain, H.-A., Allué, E., Fernández-García, M., Rey-Rodríguez, I., Arceredillo, D., Bahrololoumi, F., Azimi, M.,
Otte, M. and Carbonell, E. 2017. ‘Understanding the emergence of modern humans and the disappearance of Neanderthals:
insights from Kaldar Cave (Khorramabad Valley, Western Iran)’. Scientific Reports 7, 43460.
Bazin, M., Ehlers, E. and Hourcade, B. 2011. ‘Alborz: iii. Geography’, Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. https://iranicaonline.org/
articles/alborz-geography.
Beale, T. W. 1973. ‘Early trade in highland Iran: a view from a source area’. World Archaeology 5/2, 133–148.
Beale, T. W. and Carter, S. M. 1983. ‘On the track of the Yahya large kuš: evidence for architectural planning in the Period IVC
complex at Tepe Yahya’. Paléorient 9/1, 81–88.
Beale, T. W. 1986. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975: The Early Periods. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin
38. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
Beale, T. W. 2011. ‘CERAMICS v. The Chalcolithic period in Southern Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-v.
Beaujard, P. 2011. ‘Evolutions and temporal delimitations of possible Bronze Age world-systems in Western Asia and the Mediter-
ranean’, in T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet (eds) Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia
BC. Papers from a Conference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 7–26.
Beaumont, P. 1974. ‘Water resource development in Iran’. The Geographical Journal 140, 418–431.
Beaumont, P. 1982. ‘ĀB iii. The hydrology and water resources of the Iranian plateau’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ab-iii-the-hydrology-and-water-resources-of-the-iranian-plateau.
Beaumont, P. 1985. ‘Trends in Middle Eastern agriculture’, in P. Beaumont and K. McLachlan (eds) Agricultural Development in the
Middle East. Chichester: John Wiley, 305–322.
Becerra-Valdivia, L., Douka, K., Comeskey, D., Bazgir, B., Conard, N. J., Marean, C. W., Ollé, A., Otte, M., Tumung, L.,
Zeidi, M. and Higham, T. F. G. 2017. ‘Chronometric investigations of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Zagros
Mountains using AMS radiocarbon dating and Bayesian age modelling’. Journal of Human Evolution 109, 57–69.
Beck, L. 1983. ‘Iran and the Qashqa’i tribal confederacy’, in R. Tapper (ed.) The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan.
London: Croom Helm, 284–313.
Beck, L. 2003. ‘Qashqa’i nomadic pastoralists and their use of land’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays
on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 289–304.
Beckett, P. H. T. and Gordon, E. D. 1966. ‘Land use and settlement round Kerman in southern Iran’. The Geographical Journal
132/4, 476–490.
Begemann, F., Haerinck, E., Overlaet, B., Schmitt-Strecker, S. and Tallon, F. 2008. ‘An archaeo-metallurgical study of the Early
and Middle Bronze Age in Luristan, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 43, 1–66.
Begemann, F. and Schmitt-Strecker, S. 2009. ‘Über das frühe Kupfer Mesopotamiens’. Iranica Antiqua 44, 1–45.
Behnam, J. 1968. ‘Population’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 468–486.
Bellelli, G. M. 2002. Vasi iranici in metallo dell’Età del Bronzo. Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Abteilung II; Bd. 17. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Belli, O. and Baxşäliyev, V. 2001. Middle and Late Bronze Age Painted Pottery Culture in the Nakhichevan Region. Istanbul: Arkeoloji
ve Sanat Yayınları.
522 Bibliography
Bellwood, P. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Malden: Blackwell.
Benati, G. 2018. ‘The construction of large-scale networks in Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia: emergent political institutions and
their strategies’, in D. Domenici and N. Marchetti (eds) Urbanized Landscapes in Early Syro-Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mesoamer-
ica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 103–143.
Bendrey, R., Cole, G. and Tvetmarken, C. L. 2013. ‘Zooarchaeology: preliminary assessment of the animal bones’, in R. Matthews,
W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports
1. Oxford: Oxbow, 147–158.
Bendrey, R., Van Neer, W., Bailon, S., Rofes, J., Herman, J., Morlin, M. and Moore, T. 2020. ‘Animal remains and human-animal-
environment relationships at Early Neolithic Bestansur and Shimshara’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews, K. R. Raheem and
R. A. (eds) The Early Neolithic of the Eastern Fertile Crescent: Excavations at Bestansur and Shimshara, Iraqi Kurdistan. CZAP
Reports 2. Oxford: Oxbow, 311–352.
Benecke, N. 2011. ‘Faunal remains of Arismān’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy
on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Verlag Phlipp Von Zebern, 376–382.
Benecke, N. 2017. ‘Exploitation of animal resources in Neolithic settlements of the Kura Region (south Caucasia)’, in B. Helwing,
T. Aliyev, B. Lyonnet, F. Guliyev, S. Hansen and G. Mirtskhulava (eds) The Kura Projects: New Research on the Later Prehistory of
the Southern Caucasus. Archaologie in Iran und Turan Band 16. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 357–369.
Bennison-Chapman, L. E. 2019. ‘Reconsidering ‘tokens’: the Neolithic origins of accounting or multifunctional, utilitarian
tools?’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29/2, 233–259.
Benoit, A. 1992. ‘The two archaic deposits’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern
Treasures from the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 58–67.
Benoit, A. 2004. ‘Susa’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie.
Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches
Bergbau-Museum Bochum, 178–192.
Benseval, R. 1997. ‘Entre le Sud-Est iranien et la plaine de l’Indus: le Kech, Makran. Recherches archéologiques sur le peuplement
ancien d’une marche des confins indo-iraniens’. Arts Asiatiques 52, 5–36.
Berberian, M. and Yeats, R. S. 2001. ‘Contribution of archaeological data to studies of earthquake history in the Iranian Plateau’.
Journal of Structural Geology 23/2, 563–584.
Berberian, M., Shahmirzādi, S. M. and Djamali, M. 2012. ‘Archeoseismicity and environmental crises at the Sialk mounds, central
Iranian plateau, since the Early Neolithic’. Journal of Archaeological Science 39/9, 2845–2858.
Berberian, M., Petrie, C. A., Potts, D., Chaverdi, A. A., Dusting, A., Zarchi, A. S., Weeks, L., Ghassemi, P. and Noruzi, R. 2014.
‘Archaeoseismicity of the mounds and monuments along the Kazerun Fault (Western Zagros, SW Iranian Plateau) since the
Chalcolithic period’. Iranica Antiqua 49, 1–81.
Berberian, M. and Yeats, R. S. 2017. ‘Tehran: an earthquake time bomb’, in R. Sorkhabi (ed.) Tectonic Evolution, Collision, and
Seismicity of Southwest Asia: In Honor of Manuel Berberian’s Forty-Five Years of Research Contributions. Boulder: Geological Society
of America, 87–170.
Berillon, G., Asgari Khaneghah, A., Chevrier, B., Aminzadeh, N., Antoine, P., Auguste, P., Bahain, J.-J., Beheshti, M., Ebadollahi
Chanzanagh, H., Noshadi, S., Ramirez Rozzi, F. and Zeitoun, V. 2006. ‘Présence humaine au Pléistocène supérieur en Alborz
Central (Iran). Premiers résultats de la fouille du site de plein air Garm Roud 2 (Amol, Mazadaran)’. Bulletins et Mémoires de la
Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 18/3–4, 220.
Berillon, G., Asgari Khaneghah, A., Antoine, P., Bahain, J.-J., Chevrier, B., Zeitoun, V., Aminzadeh, N., Beheshti, M., Chanzan-
agh, H. E. and Nochadi, S. 2007. ‘Discovery of new open-air Paleolithic localities in Central Alborz, Northern Iran’. Journal of
Human Evolution 52/4, 380–387.
Berillon, G., Asgari Khaneghah, A., Chevrier, B., Auguste, P., Zeitoun, V., Beheshti, M., Nochadi, S., Ebadollahi Chanzanagh,
H., Ramirez Rozzi, F., Bahain, J.-J., Antoine, P. and Vercoutere, C. 2009. ‘Late Pleistocene prehistory in central Alborz: pre-
liminary results of the French and Iranian Palaeoanthropological Programme 2006 on the excavation of Garm Roud 2 (Amol,
Mazandaran)’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968.
Oxford: Archaeopress, 101–108.
Berman, J. 1987. ‘Ceramic production and its implications for the sociopolitical organization of the Suse Phase Susiana’. Paléorient
18, 47–60.
Berman, J. 1994. ‘The ceramic evidence for sociopolitical organization in “Ubaid Southwestern Iran”’, in M. S. Rothman and
G. Stein (eds) Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity. Monographs in World Ar-
chaeology 18. Madison: Prehistory Press, 22–33.
Berna, F., Goldberg, P., Horwitz, L. K., Brink, J., Holt, S., Bamford, M. and Chazan, M. 2012. ‘Microstratigraphic evidence of in
situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa’. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 109/20, E1215–E1220.
Bernbeck, R. 1989. Die Neolithische Keramik aus Qale Rostam, Bakhtiyari-Gebiet (Iran): Text.-Vol. 2. Katalog. Rheinfelden: Schäuble
Verlag.
Bernbeck, R. 1992. ‘Migratory patterns In early nomadism: a reconsideration of Tepe Tula’i’. Paléorient 18/1, 77–88.
Bernbeck, R. 2001. ‘Forschungsperspektiven für das Iranische Neolithikum’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 33, 1–18.
Bibliography 523
Bernbeck, R. 2004. ‘Iran in the Neolithic’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handw-
erk, Archäologie. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum:
Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 140–147.
Bernbeck, R., Fazeli, H. and Pollock, S. 2005. ‘Life in a fifth-millennium BCE village: excavations at Rahmatabad, Iran’. Near
Eastern Archaeology 68/3, 94–105.
Bernbeck, R., Abdi, K. and Gregg, M. 2006. ‘A note on the Neolithic of Qara Aghaj Valley, Fars province’. Archaeological Reports
4, Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran, 27–36.
Bernbeck, R., Pollock, S. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2008. ‘Rahmatabad: dating the aceramic Neolithic in Fars Province’. Neo-Lithics
1/08, 37–39.
Bernbeck, R. 2010. ‘The Neolithic pottery’, in S. Pollock, R. Bernbeck and K. Abdi (eds) The 2003 Excavations at Tol-e Baši, Iran:
Social Life in a Neolithic Village. Archäologie in Iran und Turan Bd 10. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 65–151.
Bernbeck, R. and Pollock, S. 2016. ‘Scalar differences: temporal rhythms and spatial patterns at Monjukli Depe, southern Turk-
menistan’. Antiquity 90/349, 64–80.
Bernbeck, R. 2017. ‘Merging clay and fire: earliest evidence from the Zagros mountains’, in A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuyse and
S. Campbell (eds) The Emergence of Pottery in West Asia. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 97–117.
Bernbeck, R. 2019. ‘‘Squatting’ in the Iron Age: an example of third space in archaeology’. eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies 8, 1–20.
Berthoud, T., Besenval, R., Cesbron, F., Cleuziou, S., Pechoux, M., Françaix, J. and Liszak-Hours, J. 1979. ‘The early Iranian
metallurgy: analytical study of copper ores from Iran’. Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Archaeometry and Archaeo-
logical Prospection, Bonn, 14–17 March 1978. Archaeo-Physika 10. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag, 68–74.
Berthoud, T., Cleuziou, S., Hurtel, L.-P., Menu, M. and Volfovsky, C. 1982. ‘Cuivres et alliages en Iran, Afghanistan, Oman au
cours des IVe et IIIe millénaires’. Paléorient 8/2, 39–54.
Besenval, R. 2011. ‘Between East and West: Kech-Makran (Pakistan) during protohistory’, in T. Osada and M. Witzel (eds) Cul-
tural Relations Between the Indus and the Iranian Plateau During the Third Millennium BCE. Cambridge: Dept of South Asian Studies,
Harvard University, 41–164.
Bessenay-Prolonge, J. 2017. ‘At the crossroads of Iran and Central Asia: Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines of Tureng Tepe’.
Iranica Antiqua 56, 1–24.
Bessenay-Prolonge, J. and Vallet, R. 2019. ‘Tureng Tepe and its high terrace, a reassessment’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour,
M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison
de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 165–177.
Bewley, R. H. 1984. ‘The Cambridge University archaeological expedition to Iran 1969’. Iran 22/1, 1–38.
Biehl, P. F. and Nieuwenhuyse, O. (eds) 2016. Climate and Cultural Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Biglari, A., Alibaigi, S. and Beyranvand, M. 2018. ‘The stele of Sarab-e Sey Khan: a recent discovery of a second-millennium stele
on the Iranian–Mesopotamian borderland in the Western Zagros Mountains’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 70/1, 27–36.
Biglari, F., Nokandeh, G. and Heydari, S. 2000. ‘A recent find of a possible Lower Palaeolithic assemblage from the foothills of the
Zagros Mountains’. Antiquity 74/286, 749–750.
Biglari, F. 2001. ‘Recent finds of Paleolithic period from Bisotun, central western Zagros Mountains’. Iranian Journal of Archaeology
and History 28, 50–60 (in Persian with English abstract).
Biglari, F. 2004. ‘The preliminary survey of Paleolithic sites in the Kashan Region’, in S. M. Shahmirzadi (ed.) The Silversmiths of
Sialk. Sialk Reconsideration Project 2. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Iranian Cultural Heritage Organ-
ization, 151–168.
Biglari, F., Heydari, S. and Shidrang, S. 2004. ‘Ganj Par: the first evidence for Lower Paleolithic occupation in the Southern Cas-
pian Basin, Iran’. Antiquity 78, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/biglari302/.
Biglari, F. and Shidrang, S. 2006. ‘The Lower Paleolithic occupation of Iran’. Near Eastern Archaeology 69, 160–168.
Biglari, F. 2007. ‘The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupations of Iran: a brief review’, Fragments from Paradise. Treausres of the
National Museum of Iran. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 31–39.
Biglari, F., Javeri, M., Mashkour, M., Yazdi, M., Shidrang, S., Tengberg, M., Taheri, K. and Darvish, J. 2009. ‘Test excavations at
the Middle Paleolithic sites of Qaleh Bozi, southwest of central Iran: a preliminary report’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert
(eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 29–38.
Biglari, F. (ed.) 2010. Recent Research on the Iranian Paleolithic. Special Issue of the Journal of Iranian Archaeology. Journal of Iranian Archaeology.
Biglari, F. and Jahani, V. 2011. ‘The Pleistocene human settlement in Gilan, southwest Caspian Sea: recent research’. Eurasian
Prehistory 8/1–2, 3–28.
Biglari, F. and Shidrang, S. 2011. ‘The Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic occupation of the western Zagros foothills: new evi-
dence from the Sar Qaleh-e Bāwaisi (Azgeleh), the Kermanshā Province, Iran’. Journal of Iranian Archaeology 2/1, 9–27.
Biglari, F. 2012a. ‘The development of the Palaeolithic archaeology in Iran; a review’, in Y. Hassanzadeh and S. Miri (eds) Eighty
Years of Iranian Archaeology. Tehran: Pazineh Publication, National Museum of Iran and Iranian Center for Archaeological Re-
search, 7–48 (in Persian with English abstract).
Biglari, F. 2012b. ‘A reconsideration of the purported epipaleolithic assemblage of Qaleh Asgar, Alborz mountains’. Iranian Archae-
ology 3, 46.
524 Bibliography
Biglari, F. 2014. ‘Typo-technological analysis of the Late Middle Paleolithic bifacial industry of Qaleh Bozi rockshelter, Central
Iran.’, in T. Akazawa and Y. Nishiaki (eds) Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans: Testing Evolutionary Models of Learning.
Tokyo: RNMH Project Series, 48–50.
Biglari, F., Jahani, V., Mashkour, M. and Amini, A. 2014. ‘Test excavations at the Lower Paleolithic site of Darband Cave, Roud-
bar, Gilan Province, 2012’, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on the Iranian Archaeology. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archae-
ological Research, 101–104.
Biglari, F. and Shidrang, S. 2016. ‘New evidence of Paleolithic occupation in the western Zagros foothills: preliminary report of
cave and rockshelter survey in the Sar Qaleh Plain in the west of Kermanshah Province, Iran’, in K. Kopanias and J. MacGinnis
(eds) The Archaeology of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and Adjacent Regions. Oxford: Archaeopress, 29–38.
Biglari, F. and Shidrang, S. 2019. ‘Rescuing the Palaeolithic heritage of Hawraman, Kurdistan, Iranian Zagros’. Near Eastern
Archaeology 82/4, 226–235.
Binandeh, A. and Kargar, B. 2008. ‘Ghour Ghaleh Jan Aqa: a Mannaean fortress in north-western Iran’. Antiquity Project Gallery
82/315. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/binandeh315/.
Binandeh, A., Nobari, A. H., Neyestani, J. and Vahdati Nasab, H. 2012. ‘A new archaeological research in northwestern Iran:
prehistoric settlements of Little Zab river basin’. The International Journal of Humanities 19/2, 27–41.
Binandeh, A., Khanmohamadi, B. and Hajimohamadi, K. 2017. ‘The Iron Age III of Urmia Lake Basin in the light of new
research’. The International Journal of Humanities 24/3, 1–13.
Binandeh, A. 2019. ‘Urartian borders to the south of Lake Urmia’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for
Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 249–258.
Binandeh, A. 2020. ‘The evidence of Mannaean in western Hasanlu’, in K.-A. Niknami and A. Hozhabri (eds) Archaeology of Iran
in the Historical Period. Tehran: Springer, 105–115.
Binder, A.-B. 2013. ‘Von Susa nach Anšan – zu Datierung und Ursprung des Felsreliefs von Kūrāngūn’. Elamica 3, 35–88.
Biscione, R. 1973. ‘Dynamics of an early South Asian urbanization: first period of Shahr-i Sokhta and its connections with South-
ern Turkmenia’, in N. Hammond (ed.) South Asian Archaeology. London: Duckworth, 106–118.
Biscione, R. 1974. ‘Relative chronology and pottery connections between Shahr-i Sokhta and Mundigak, eastern Iran’. Memoire
dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana 2, 131–145.
Biscione, R., Bulgarelli, G. M., Costantini, L., Piperno, M. and Tosi, M. 1974. ‘Archaeological discoveries and methodological
problems in the excavations of Shahr-i Sokhta, Sistan’, in J. E. Van Lohuizen-De Leeuw and J. M. M. Ubaghs (eds) South Asian
Archaeology 1973. Leiden: Brill, 12–68.
Biscione, R., Salvatori, S. and Tosi, M. 1977. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta: the protohistoric settlement and the chronological sequence’, in
G. Tucci (ed.) La città bruciata del deserto salato. Venezia: Erizzo, 77–112.
Biscione, R. 1979. ‘The Burnt Building of period Shahr-i Sokhta IV. An attempt of functional analysis from the distribution of
pottery types’. Seminario di studi asiatici, series minor 10, 291–306.
Biscione, R. 1981. ‘Centre and periphery in late protohistoric Turan: the settlement pattern’, in H. Härtel (ed.) South Asian Archae-
ology 1979. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 203–213.
Biscione, R. 2003. ‘Pre-Urartian and Urartian settlement patterns in the Caucasus. Two case studies: the Urmia Plain, Iran, and
the Southern Sevan Basin, Armenia’, in A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson (eds) Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Cau-
casia and Beyond. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 47. Los Angeles: University of California, 167–184.
Biscione, R. 2009. ‘The distribution of pre-and protohistoric hillforts in Iran’. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 51, 123–143.
Biscione, R. and Vahdati, A. 2011. ‘Excavations at Tepe Chalow, Northern Khorasan’. Iran. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 53,
236–241.
Biscione, R. and Dan, R. 2019. ‘Ranking and distribution of the Urartian fortifications: a general view of the Urartian territory’,
in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and
Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 45–62.
Biscione, R. and Vahdati, A. 2021. ‘The BMAC presence in eastern Iran: state of affairs in December 2018. ‘Towards the Greater
Khorasan Civilization?’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the Oxus Civilization. Abingdon: Routledge,
527–550.
Bivar, A. D. H. 1971. ‘A hoard of ingot-currency of the Median period from Nūsh-I Jān, near Malayir’. Iran 9, 97–111.
Black, J. 1972. ‘Tyranny as a strategy for survival in an ‘egalitarian’ society: Luri facts versus an anthropological mystique’. Man
7/4, 614–634.
Black, J. 2008. ‘The obsolescence and demise of cuneiform writing in Elam’, in J. Baines, J. Bennet and S. D. Houston (eds) The
Disappearance of Writing Systems. Perspectives on Literacy and Communication. London: Equinox, 45–72.
Black-Michaud, J. 1986. Sheep and land. The Economics of Power in a Tribal Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackman, M. J. 1981. ‘The mineralogical and chemical analysis of Banesh Period ceramics from Tal-e Malyan, Iran’, in M. Hughes
(ed.) Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics. British Museum Occasional Paper, 19. London: British Museum, 7–20.
Blackman, M. J. 1982. ‘The manufacture and use of burned lime plaster at Proto-Elamite Anshan (Iran)’, in T. A. Wertime and
S. F. Wertime (eds) Early Pyrotechnology: The Evolution of the First Fire-Using Industries. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press,
107–116.
Bibliography 525
Blackman, M. J. 1989. ‘Ceramic technology and problems of social evolution in southwest Iran’, in E. V. Sayre, P. B. Vandiver, J. Druzik
and C. Stevenson (eds) Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology: Symposium Held April 6–8, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A. Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society, 103–108.
Blackman, M. J. 1999. ‘Chemical characterization of local Anatolian and Uruk style sealing clays from Hacinebi’. Paléorient 25/1, 51–56.
Blackman, M. J. 2011. ‘Chemical characterization of Godin Period VI ceramics by instrumental neutron activation analysis’,
in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/
Mazda Press, 111–112.
Boardman, J. 2006. ‘The Oxus scabbard’. Iran 44/1, 115–119.
Bobek, H. 1968. ‘Vegetation’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge
Boccuti, S., Squitieri, A., Angelini, G., Lazzari, A., Di Luzio, E. and Albano, M. 2015. ‘Preliminary surface analyses by ES-
EM-EDS of calcite bowls from Shahr-i Sokhta (Sistan, Iran, ca. 3200–1800 BCE): results and possible interpretations’. Journal
of Archaeological Science 61, 244–259.
Bocherens, H., Mashkour, M. and Billiou, D. 2000. ‘Palaeoenvironmental and archaeological omplications of isotopic analyses
(13C,15N) from Neolithic to present in Qazvin Plain (Iran)’. Environmental Archaeology 5/1, 1–19.
Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2002. ‘Paleoanthropological traces of a Neolithic demographic transition’. Current Anthropology 43/4, 637–650.
Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2008. ‘The Neolithic demographic transition, population pressure and cultural change’. Comparative Civili-
zations Review 58/58, 6.
Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2011. ‘When the world’s population took off: the springboard of the Neolithic demographic transition’.
Science 333/6042, 560–561.
de Bode, C. A. 1844. ‘On a recently opened tumulus in the neighbourhood of Asterabad, forming part of ancient Hyrcania, and
the country of the Parthians. By the Baron Clement Augustus de Bode. Communicated by Charles Roach Smith, Esq., FSA’.
Archaeologia 30, 248–255.
Boehmer, R. M. 1967. Forschungen am Zendan-i Suleiman in Persisch-Aserbeidschan, 1958–1964. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Boehmer, R. M. and Dämmer, H.-W. 1985. Tell Imlihiye, Tell Zubeidi, Tell Abbas. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.
Bogaard, A. 2005. ‘‘Garden agriculture’ and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East’. World Archaeology 37/2, 177–196.
Bogaard, A., Styring, A., Whitlam, J., Fochesato, M. and Bowles, S. 2018. ‘Farming, inequality, and urbanization: a compara-
tive analysis of late prehistoric northern Mesopotamia and southwestern Germany’, in T. A. Kohler and M. E. Smith (eds) Ten
Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences. Amerind studies in anthropology. Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press, 201–229.
Bogaard, A., Fochesato, M. and Bowles, S. 2019. ‘The farming-inequality nexus: new insights from ancient Western Eurasia’.
Antiquity 93/371, 1129–1143.
Bogemans, F., Boudin, M., Janssens, R. and Baeteman, C. 2017. ‘New data on the sedimentary processes and timing of the initial
inundation of Lower Khuzestan (SW Iran) by the Persian Gulf ’. The Holocene 27/4, 613–620.
Bogucki, P. I. 1999. The Origins of Human Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Boivin, N., Fuller, D. Q., Dennell, R., Allaby, R. and Petraglia, M. D. 2013. ‘Human dispersal across diverse environments of Asia
during the Upper Pleistocene’. Quaternary International 300, 32–47.
Boivin, N., Zeder, M. A., Fuller, D. Q., Crowther, A., Larson, G., Erlandson, J. M., Denham, T. and Petraglia, M. D. 2016. ‘Eco-
logical consequences of human niche construction: examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions’.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113/23, 6388–6396.
Bökönyi, S. 1967. ‘The prehistoric vertebrate fauna of Tal-i-Iblis’, in J. R. Caldwell (ed.) Investigations in Tal-i-Iblis. Illinois State
Museum Preliminary Reports 9. Springfield: Illinois State Museum Society 309–317.
Bökönyi, S. 1972. ‘Zoological evidence for seasonal or permanent occupation of prehistoric settlements’, in P. Ucko, R. Tringham
and G. W. Dimbleby (eds) Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth, 121–126.
Bökönyi, S. 1973. ‘The animal remains of Nūsh-i Jān: a preliminary report. In Roaf, M. & Stronach, D. ‘Tepe Nūsh-i Jān, 1970:
second interim report’’. Iran 11, 139–140.
Bökönyi, S. 1977. The Animal Remains from Four Sites in the Kermanshah Valley, Iran: Asiab, Sarab, Dehsavar and Siahbid: The Faunal
Evolution, Environmental Changes and Development of Animal Husbandry, VIII-III millennia BC. BAR 34. Oxford: British Archae-
ological Reports.
Bökönyi, S. 1978. ‘Environmental and cultural differences as reflected in the animal bone samples from five Early Neolithic sites
in Southwest Asia’, in R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder (eds) Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East. Cambridge: Peabody
Museum, Harvard University, 57–62.
Bökönyi, S. and Bartosiewicz, L. 2000. ‘A review of animal remains from Shahr-i Sokhta’, in M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke,
H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East IV. Groningen: ARC Publications, 116–152.
Bolger, D. (ed.) 2008. Gender Through Time in the Ancient Near East. Lanham: AltaMira.
Bolger, D. 2010. ‘The dynamics of gender in early agricultural societies of the Near East’. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 35/2, 503–531.
Bonora, G. L., Salvatori, S. and Soldini, A. 2000. ‘The oldest graves of the Shahr-i Sokhta graveyard’, in M. Taddei and G. De Marco
(eds) South Asian Archaeology, 1997. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 495–520.
526 Bibliography
Bonora, G. L. and Vidale, M. 2013. ‘The Middle Chalcolithic in southern Turkmenistan and the archaeological record of Ilgyn-
ly-depe’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium
BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 145–170.
Bonora, G. L. 2021. ‘The Oxus civilisation and the northern steppes’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the Oxus
Civilization. Abingdon: Routledge, 734–775.
Bordes, J.-G. and Shidrang, S. 2009. ‘La sequence baradostienne de Yafteh (Khorammabad, Lorestan, Iran)’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari
and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 85–100.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Bowles, S., Hertz, T., Bell, A., Beise, J., Clark, G., Fazzio, I., Gurven, M., Hill, K., Hooper, P. L., Irons, W.,
Kaplan, H., Leonetti, D., Low, B., Marlowe, F., McElreath, R., Naidu, S., Nolin, D., Piraino, P., Quinlan, R., Schniter, E.,
Sear, R., Shenk, M., Smith, E. A., von Rueden, C. and Wiessner, P. 2009. ‘Intergenerational wealth transmission and the
dynamics of inequality in small-scale societies’. Science 326/5953, 682.
Boroff ka, R. 2009. ‘Simple technology: casting moulds for axe-adzes’, in T. L. Kienlin and B. W. Roberts (eds) Metals and Society:
Studies in Honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 169. Bonn: Habelt, 246–257.
Boroff ka, R. and Parzinger, H. 2011. ‘Pottery of the Sialk III period’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early
Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau: The First Five Years of Work. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 98–193.
Borrell, F., Junno, A. and Barceló, J. A. 2015. ‘Synchronous environmental and cultural change in the emergence of agricultural
economies 10,000 years ago in the Levant’. PLoS One 10/8, e0134810.
Bosworth, C. E. and Curtis, V. S. 2006. ‘Iran, journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL:
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-journal-of-the-british-institute-of-persian-studies.
Bottema, S. 1986. ‘A Late Quaternary pollen diagram from Lake Urmia (northwestern Iran)’. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology
47/3–4, 241–261.
Boucharlat, R. and Lecomte, O. 1987. Fouilles de Tureng Tepe 1. Les Périods Sassanides et Islamiques. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur
les Civilisations.
Boucharlat, R. 1997. ‘Susa under Achaemenid rule’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and Imperi-
alism 539–331 BC. Proceedings of a Seminar in memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin. London: British Museum Press, 54–67.
Boucharlat, R. 1998. ‘À la recherche d’Ecbatane sur Tepe Hegmataneh’. Iranica Antiqua 33, 173–186.
Boucharlat, R. 2001. ‘The palace and the royal Achaemenid city: two case studies - Pasargadae and Susa’, in I. Nielsen (ed.) The
Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Athens:
Danish Institute at Athens, 113–123.
Boucharlat, R. 2002. ‘Pasargadae’. Iran 40, 279–282.
Boucharlat, R. and Benech, C. 2002. ‘Organisation et aménagement de l’espace à Pasargades. Reconnaissance archéologique de
surface, 1999 et 2001’. ARTA 1.
Boucharlat, R. 2005. ‘Iran’, in P. Briant and R. Boucharlat (eds) L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches. Actes du
colloque organisé au Collège de France par le “Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides”. Persika 6. Paris: de Boccard,
221–292.
Boucharlat, R., Francfort, H.-P. and Lecomte, O. 2005. ‘The citadel of Ulug Depe and the Iron Age archaeological sequence in
southern Central Asia’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 479–514.
Boucharlat, R. 2009a. ‘SUSA iii. the Achaemenid period’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/
susa-iii-the-achaemenid-period.
Boucharlat, R. 2009b. ‘The ‘Paradise’ of Cyrus at Pasargadae, the core of the Royal ostentation’, in J. Ganzert and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn
(eds) Bau-und Gartenkulturzwischen “Orient” und “Okzident”. Fragen zu Herkunft, Identität und Legitimation. München: Martin
Meidenbauer, 47–64.
Boucharlat, R. and Haerinck, E. 2011. ‘CERAMICS xi. The Achaemenid Period’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://
iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-xi.
Boucharlat, R., De Schacht, T. and Gondet, S. 2012. ‘Surface reconnaissance in the Persepolis Plain (2005–2008). New data on the
city organisation and landscape management’, in G. P. Basello and A. V. Rossi (eds) Dariosh Studies II. Persepolis and its Settlements:
Territorial System and Ideology in the Achaemenid State. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘L’Orientale, 123–166.
Boucharlat, R. 2013a. ‘Southwestern Iran in the Achaemenid period’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 503–527.
Boucharlat, R. 2013b. ‘Other works of Darius and his successors’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal
Residence of Achaemenid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 359–406.
Boucharlat, R. 2014. ‘Archaeological approaches and their future directions at Pasargadae’, in A. Mozaffari (ed.) World Heritage in
Iran: Perspectives on Pasargadae. Routledge, 29–60.
Boucharlat, R. 2017. ‘Wasserversorgung und Gärten in Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste.
Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 228–236.
Boucharlat, R. 2019. ‘Pasargadae. Seeking the origins of a garden palace’. Current World Archaeology 97, 30–35.
Boucharlat, R. 2020. ‘The citadel of Ulug Depe and the “Median Forts” in western Iran’, in K.-A. Niknami and A. Hozhabri (eds)
Archaeology of Iran in the Historical Period. Tehran: Springer, 141–156.
Bovington, C. H., Dyson, R. H., Mahdavi, A. and Masoumi, R. 1974. ‘The radiocarbon evidence for the terminal date of the
Hissar III C culture’. Iran 12, 195–199.
Bibliography 527
Braidwood, L. S., Braidwood, R. J., Howe, B., Reed, C. A. and Watson, P. J. (eds) 1983. Prehistory Along the Zagros Flanks. Oriental
Institute Publications 105. Chicago, The Oriental Institute.
Braidwood, R. J. 1960. ‘Seeking the world’s first farmers in Persian Kurdistan’. The Illustrated London News 237, 695–697.
Braidwood, R. J. and Howe, B. 1960. Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 31.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Braidwood, R. J. 1961. ‘The Iranian Prehistoric Project, 1959–1960’. Iranica Antiqua 1, 3.
Braidwood, R. J., Howe, B. and Reed, C. A. 1961. ‘The Iranian Prehistoric Project’. Science 133/3469, 2008–2010.
Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Briant, P. 2005. ‘History of the Persian empire 550–330 BC’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient
Persia. London: The British Museum Press, 12–17.
Briant, P. and Boucharlat, R. 2005. L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches. Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France
par le “Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides”. Persika 6. Paris: de Boccard.
Briant, P. 2013. ‘Susa and Elam in the Achaemenid empire’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence
of Achaemenid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris.
Bridey, F. 2018. ‘The metal arts of Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Rou-
tledge, 550–567.
Bridey, F. and Cuny, J. 2019a. ‘An archaeological expedition to Iran in the 1930s. Roman Ghirshman’s excavations at Tepe Sialk
as seen through the Louvre’s archives’. Grande Galerie. Le Journal du Louvre, 48–57.
Bridey, F. and Cuny, J. 2019b. ‘Tappeh Sialk in the Louvre: material and archives from the Ghirshman excavations’, in J. Nokan-
deh, J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London:
Iran Heritage Foundation, 56–60.
Brinkman, J. A. 1976. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty. Materials and Studies for
Kassite History 1. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Brinkman, J. A. 1991. ‘Babylonia in the Shadow of Assyria (747–626 BC)’, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger and
N. G. l. Hammond (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3, pt. 2. The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other states of the
Near East, from the eight to the sixth centuries BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–70.
Brisset, E., Djamali, M., Bard, E., Borschneck, D., Gandouin, E., Garcia, M., Stevens, L. and Tachikawa, K. 2019. ‘Late Holocene
hydrology of Lake Maharlou, southwest Iran, inferred from high-resolution sedimentological and geochemical analyses’. Journal
of Paleolimnology 61/1, 111–128.
Broman Morales, V. 1990. Figurines and Other Clay Objects from Sarab and Çayönü. Oriental Institute Communications 25. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Broman Morales, V. and Smith, P. E. L. 1990. ‘Gashed clay cones at Ganj Dareh, Iran ’. Paléorient 16, 115–117.
Brookes, I. A. 1982. ‘Geomorphological evidence for climatic change in Iran during the last 20,000 years ’, in J. L. Bintliff and
W. van Zeist (eds) Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory.
BAR International Series 133. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 191–228.
Brookes, I. A., Levine, L. D. and Dennel, R. W. 1982. ‘Alluvial sequence in central west Iran and implications for archaeological
survey’. Journal of Field Archaeology 9/3, 285–299.
Brosius, M. 1998. Women in Ancient Persia (559–331 BC). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brosius, M. 2006. The Persians. An Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.
Brosius, M. 2013. ‘Greek sources on Achaemenid Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
Broushaki, F., Thomas, M. G., Link, V., López, S., van Dorp, L., Kirsanow, K., Hofmanová, Z., Diekmann, Y., Cassidy, L. M.,
Díez-del-Molino, D., Kousathanas, A., Sell, C., Robson, H. K., Martiniano, R., Blöcher, J., Scheu, A., Kreutzer, S., Bollongino, R.,
Bobo, D., Davoudi, H., Munoz, O., Currat, M., Abdi, K., Biglari, F., Craig, O. E., Bradley, D. G., Shennan, S., Veeramah, K. R.,
Mashkour, M., Wegmann, D., Hellenthal, G. and Burger, J. 2016. ‘Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent’. Science
353/6298, 499–503.
Brown, S. C. 1986. ‘Media and secondary state formation in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros: an anthropological approach to an Assyri-
ological problem’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38/1, 107–119.
Bryce, T. 2009. ‘Mannaea’, in T. Bryce (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia: The Near East
from the Early Bronze Age to the Fall of the Persian Empire. Abingdon: Routledge, 443–445.
Buławka, N. 2017. ‘The Yaz I-III settlement pattern in the Serakhs oasis, southern Turkmenistan’. Iran 55/2, 143–170.
Bulgarelli, G. M. 1974. ‘Tepe Hissar. Preliminary report on a surface survey, August 1972’. East and West 24, 15–27.
Bulgarelli, M. G. 1981. ‘Turquoise working in the Helmand civilization’, in H. Härtel (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1979. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer, 65–69.
Burney, C. A. 1958. ‘Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age’. Anatolian Studies 8, 157–209.
Burney, C. A. 1961a. ‘Excavations at Yanik Tepe, north-west Iran’. Iraq 23, 138–153.
Burney, C. A. 1961b. ‘Circular buildings found at Yanik Tepe in north-west Iran’. Antiquity 35, 237–240.
Burney, C. A. 1962. ‘Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1961: second preliminary report’. Iraq 24/2, 134–152.
Burney, C. A. 1964. ‘Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962: third preliminary report’. Iraq 26/1, 54–61.
Burney, C. A. 1970. ‘Excavations at Haftavân Tepe, 1968: first preliminary report’. Iran 8, 157–171.
Burney, C. A. and Lang, D. M. 1971. The Peoples of the Hills, Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
528 Bibliography
Burney, C. A. 1972. ‘Excavations at Haftavân Tepe, 1969: second preliminary report’. Iran 10, 127–142.
Burney, C. A. 1973. ‘Excavations at Haftavân Tepe, 1971: third preliminary report’. Iran 11, 153–172.
Burney, C. A. 1975. ‘Excavations at Haftavân Tepe, 1973: fourth preliminary report’. Iran 13, 149–164.
Burney, C. A. 1976. ‘The fifth season of excavations at Haftavân Tepeh: brief summary of principal results’, Proceedings of the 4th
Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, 1975. Tehran, 257–271.
Burney, C. A. 1977. From Village to Empire. An Introduction to Near Eastern Archaeology. Oxford: Phaidon.
Burney, C. A. 1979. ‘Survey of excavations in Iran -1978: Meshkinshahr survey’. Iran 17/1, 155–156.
Burney, C. A. 1989. ‘Hurrians and Proto-Indo-Europeans: the ethnic context of the Early Transcaucasian Culture’, in G. K. Sams,
K. Emre, B. Hrouda and M. Mellink (eds) Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç. Ankara Türk Tarih
Kumuru Basımevi, 45–51.
Burney, C. A. 1994. ‘Contact and conflict in north-western Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 29, 47–62.
Burney, C. A. 1997. ‘Hurrians and Indo-Europeans in their historical and archaeological context’. Al-Rafidan 18, 175–194.
Burney, C. A. 1999. ‘Beyond the frontiers of empire: Iranians and their Ancestors’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 1–20.
Burton-Brown, T. 1950. ‘Archaeological news’. American Journal of Archaeology 54, 66.
Burton-Brown, T. 1951. Excavations in Azarbaijan, 1948. London: Murray.
Burton-Brown, T. 1962. ‘Excavations in Shahriyar, Iran’. Archaeology 15/1, 27–31.
Burton-Brown, T. 1979. Excavations at Kara Tepe 1957. Woodstock: Private Publication.
Burton-Brown, T. 1981. Barlekin. Wooton Woodstock: Burton-Brown.
Butler, E. A. 1995. ‘The role of small legumes as a resource in prehistory with particular reference to temperate Africa’. Acta Pal-
aeobotanica 35/1, 105–115.
Butterlin, P. 2003. Les temps proto-urbains de Mésopotamie: contacts et acculturation à l’époque d’Uruk au Moyen-Orient. Paris: Éditions
du CNRS.
Butterlin, P. 2015. ‘Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia: towards a definition of sacred space and its evolution’, in N. Laneri (ed.) De-
fining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Oxford: Oxbow, 60–72.
Butzer, K. W. 1995. ‘Environmental change in the Near East and human impact on the land’, in J. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. New York: Scribner, 123–151.
Cahill, N. and Kroll, J. H. 2005. ‘New archaic coin finds at Sardis’. American Journal of Archaeology 109/4, 589–617.
Caldwell, D. 1976. ‘The early glyptic of Gawra, Giyan, and Susa, and the development of long-distance trade’. Orientalia 45/3,
227–250.
Caldwell, J. R. 1964. ‘Interaction spheres in prehistory’, in J. R. Caldwell and R. Hall (eds) Hopewellian Studies. Springfield: Illinois
State Museum Society, 134–149.
Caldwell, J. R. and Malik Shahmīrzādī, Ṣ. 1966. Tal-i-Iblis: The Kerman Range and the Beginnings of Smelting. Illinois State Museum
Preliminary Reports 7. Springfield: Illinois State Museum Society.
Caldwell, J. R. (ed.) 1967. Investigations at Tal-i-Iblis. Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9. Springfield: Illinois State Mu-
seum Society.
Caldwell, J. R. 1968. ‘Tell-i Ghazir’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 348–355.
Callieri, P. and Genito, B. 2012. ‘Italy vi. ITALIAN EXCAVATIONS IN IRAN’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/italy-vi-italian-excavations-in-iran-2.
Calmeyer, P. 1969. Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Calmeyer, P. 1971. ‘Gīvirān’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 374–375.
Calmeyer, P. 1980. ‘Textual sources for the interpretation of Achaemenian palace decorations’. Iran 18, 55–63.
Caloi, L. and Compagnoni, B. 1977. ‘I mammiferi’, in G. Tucci (ed.) La città bruciata del deserto salato Venezia: Erizzo Editrice,
183–203.
Canal, D. 1978a. ‘Travaux à la terrasse haute de l’Acropole de Suse (1)’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 9, 11–55.
Canal, D. 1978b. ‘La haute terrasse de l’Acropole de Suse’. Paléorient 4, 169–176.
de Cardi, B. 1967. ‘The Bampur sequence in the 3rd millennium bc’. Antiquity 41/161, 33–41.
de Cardi, B. 1968. ‘Excavations at Bampūr, S.E. Iran: a brief report’. Iran 6/1, 135–155.
de Cardi, B. 1970. Excavations at Bampur: A Third Millennium Settlement in Persian Baluchistan, 1966. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History. New York: American Museum of National History.
Carleton, W. C. and Collard, M. 2020. ‘Recent major themes and research areas in the study of human-environment interaction
in prehistory’. Environmental Archaeology 25/1, 114–130.
Carlson, E. 2014. ‘Inscribed and uninscribed spaces in Al Untash Napirisha: interaction and segregation in a late second-millennium
de novo capital’. Iran 52/1, 29–52.
Carolin, S. A., Walker, R. T., Day, C. C., Ersek, V., Sloan, R. A., Dee, M. W., Talebian, M. and Henderson, G. M. 2019. ‘Precise
timing of abrupt increase in dust activity in the Middle East coincident with 4.2 ka social change’. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA 116/1, 67–72.
Carter, E. 1971. Elam in the Second Millennium B.C. The Archaeological Evidence. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Chicago.
Carter, E. 1978. ‘Suse “Ville Royale”’. Paléorient 4, 197–211.
Carter, E. 1980. ‘Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa: the third millennium BC occupation’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique
Française en Iran 11, 11–134.
Bibliography 529
Carter, E. 1981. ‘Elamite ceramics’, in H. T. Wright (ed.) An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad.
Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 13. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, 196–233.
Carter, E. 1984. ‘Archaeology’, in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper (eds) Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. Near Eastern
Studies 25. Berkeley: University of California Press, 103–313.
Carter, E. and Stolper, M. W. (eds) 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. Near Eastern Studies 25. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Carter, E. 1987. ‘The piedmont and the Pusht-i Kuh in the early third millennium B.C.’, Colloque international du CNRS, Préhistoire
de la Mésopotamie 17–18–19 décembre 1984. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 37–89.
Carter, E. 1992. ‘A history of excavation at Susa: personalities and archaeological methodologies’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon
(eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 20–25.
Carter, E., Bahrani, Z., André-Salvini, B., Caubet, A., Tallon, F., Aruz, J. and Deschesne, O. 1992a. ‘The Old Elamite period circa
2700–1500 B. C.’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 81–120.
Carter, E., Heim, S., Benoit, A., Aruz, J., Tallon, F., Spycket, A., Caubet, A., Hurtel, L., Harper, P. O. and Bahrani, Z. 1992b.
‘The Middle Elamite period circa 1500–1100 B. C.’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient
Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 121–158.
Carter, E., Muscarella, O. W., Stolper, M. W., Heim, S. and Aruz, J. 1992c. ‘The Neo-Elamite period’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and
F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 197–214.
Carter, E. 1994. ‘Bridging the gap between the Elamites and the Persians in southeastern Khuzistan’, in H. Sancisi-Weerden-Burg,
A. Kuhrt and M. C. Root (eds) Achaemenid History. Vol. VIII, Continuity and Change. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het
Nabije Oosten, 65–95.
Carter, E. 1996. Excavations at Anshan (Tal-e Malyan): The Middle Elamite Period. University Museum Monograph 82. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Carter, E. 2007. ‘Resisting empire: Elam in the first millennium BC’, in E. C. Stone (ed.) Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to
Robert McCormick Adams. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 139–156.
Carter, E. 2011a ‘CERAMICS viii. The Early Bronze Age in southwestern and southern Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-viii.
Carter, E. 2011b. ‘Landscapes of death in Susiana during the last half of the 2nd millennium B.C.’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison
(eds) Elam and Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 45–60.
Carter, E. 2014. ‘Royal women in Elamite art’, in M. Kozuh, W. Henkelman, C. Jones and C. Woods (eds) Extraction and Control:
Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 41–61.
Carter, E. 2017. ‘Anschan und Elam’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag,
138–151.
Carter, R. A., Challis, K., Priestman, S. M. N. and Tofighian, H. 2006. ‘The Bushehr hinterland: results of the first season of the
Iranian-British Archaeological Survey of Bushehr Province, November–December 2004’. Iran 44, 63–103.
Carter, R. A. 2012. ‘Watercraft’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell,
347–372.
Casal, J.-M. 1961. Fouilles de Mundigak. Paris: Klincksieck.
Casanova, M. 1991. La vaisselle d’albâtre de Mésopotamie, d’Iran et d’Asie centrale aux IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.-C. Paris: Éditions Recherche
sur les Civilisations.
Casanova, M. 1992. ‘The sources of lapis lazuli sources found in Iran’, in C. Jarrige, J. P. Gerry and R. H. Meadow (eds) South
Asian Archaeology 1989. Madison: Prehistory Press, 49–56.
Casanova, M. 1997. Le lapis-lazuli dans l’Orient ancien: gisements, production, circulation, des origines au début du 2ème millénaire avant
J.-C. PhD thesis, Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne.
Casanova, M. 2013. Le lapis-lazuli dans l’Orient ancien: production et circulation du néolithique au IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Documents
préhistoriques no 27. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.
Casanova, M. 2019. ‘Exchanges and trade during the Bronze Age in Iran’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and
R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient
and de la Méditerranée, 301–311.
Cattini, G. 2000. ‘Administrative indicators in the Shahr-i Sokhta Eastern Residential trench of period II (2800–2600 BC)’, in
M. Taddei and G. de Marco (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1987. Vol. 1. Rome: IsIAO, 485–495.
Caubet, A. and Daucé, N. 2013. ‘The fired arts’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid
Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 301–326.
Çevik, Ö. 2007. ‘The emergence of different social systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: urbanisation versus centralisation’.
Anatolian Studies 57, 131–140.
Chakrabarti, D. K. and Moghadam, P. 1977. ‘Some unpublished Indus beads from Iran’. Iran 15, 166–168.
Chambrade, M. L., Gondet, S., Laisney, D., Mehrabani, M., Mohammadkhani, K. and Zareh-Kordshouli, F. 2020. ‘The canal
system of Ju-i Dokhtar: new insight into water management in the eastern part of the Pasargadae plain (Fars, Iran)’. Water History
12/4, 449–476.
530 Bibliography
Charles, M. 2007. ‘East of Eden? A consideration of neolithic crop spectra in the eastern Fertile Crescent and beyond’, in S. Colledge
and J. Conolly (eds) The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 37–52.
Charvát, P. 1988. ‘Archaeology and social history: the Susa sealings, ca. 4000–2340 B.C.’. Paléorient 14/1, 57–63.
Charvát, P. 2019. ‘Spheres of interest: hollow clay balls at the dawn of ancient Near Eastern history’. Chatreššar 2, 5–22.
Chase, D., Caldwell, J. R. and Fehérvári, I. 1967. ‘The Iblis sequence and the exploration of excavation areas A, C, and E’,
in J. R. Caldwell (ed.) Investigations in Tal-i-Iblis. Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9. Springfield: Illinois State
Museum Society 111–201.
Chataigner, C., Badalyan, R. and Arimura, M. 2014. The Neolithic of the Caucasus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chegini, N. N. 2002. ‘The bricks with seal impressions’, in S. Malek Shahmirzadi (ed.) The Ziggurat of Sialk, Report No. 1. Tehran:
ICHO, 171–175.
Chegini, N. N., Fahim, H. and Helwing, B. 2011. ‘Excavations at Arisman, Area C’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing
(eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the western Central Iranian plateau: The First Five Years of Work. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9.
Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zebern, 40–68.
Chegini, N. N. and Helwing, B. 2011. ‘Archaeological survey in the hinterland of Arisman and Kašan’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger
and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz:
Verlag Philipp Von Zebern, 421–483.
Chen, J. L., Pekker, T., Wilson, C. R., Tapley, B. D., Kostianoy, A. G., Cretaux, J. F. and Safarov, E. S. 2017. ‘Long-term Caspian
Sea level change’. Geophysical Research Letters 44/13, 6993–7001.
Chessa, B., Pereira, F., Arnaud, F., Amorim, A., Goyache, F., Mainland, I., Kao, R. R., Pemberton, J. M., Beraldi, D. and Stear, M. J.
2009. ‘Revealing the history of sheep domestication using retrovirus integrations’. Science 324/5926, 532–536.
Chevalier, N. 1989. ‘Hamadan 1913: Une mission oubliée’. Iranica Antiqua 24, 245.
Chevalier, N. 1992. ‘The French scientific delegation in Persia’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa:
Chevalier, N. 2002. La recherche archéologique française au Moyen-Orient, 1842–1947. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Chevalier, N. 2012. ‘Early excavations (pre-1914)’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Chevalier, N. 2013. ‘The discoverers of the palace of Susa’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence
of Achaemenid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 53–91.
Chevalier, N. 2018. ‘France and Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Rout-
ledge, 41–62.
Chevrier, B., Antoine, P., Berillon, G., Zeitoun, V., Bahain, J.-J. and Asgari Khaneghah, A. 2006. ‘Moghanak, Otchounak, Garm
Roud 2: nouveaux assemblages paléolithiques dans le Nord de l’Iran. Premières caractérisations typo-technologiques et attribu-
tions chrono-culturelles’. Paléorient, 59–79.
Chevrier, B., Berillon, G. and Asgari Khaneghah, A. 2010. ‘New data on the Moghanak prehistoric site (Tehran province, Iran)’.
Antiquity 84, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/chevrier325/.
Chipman, J. 2019. Iran’s Networks of Influence in the Middle East. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Chrisomalis, S. 2010. Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ciarla, R. 1979. ‘The manufacture of alabaster vessels at Shahr-i Sokhta and Mundigak in the 3rd millennium BC: a problem of
cultural identity’, in G. Gnoli and A. V. Rossie (eds) Iranica. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 319–355.
Ciarla, R. 1981. ‘A preliminary analysis of the manufacture of alabaster vessels at Shahr-i Sokhta and Mundigak in the 3rd millen-
nium BC’, in H. Härtel (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1979. Fifth International Conference of South Asian of the Association of South
Asian Archæologists in Western Europe held in the Museum für Indische Kunst der Staatlichen Museen Berlin, 45–63.
Cifarelli, M. 2016. ‘Masculinities and militarization at Hasanlu, Iran: a view from the burials’. Near Eastern Archaeology 79/3, 196–204.
Cifarelli, M., Castelluccia, M. and Dan, R. 2018. ‘Copper-alloy belts at Hasanlu, Iran: a case study in hybridization and heter-
oglossia in material csulture’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28/4, 539–563.
Cifarelli, M. 2019. ‘The Iron Age at Hasanlu. New perspectives’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings
of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for
Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 21–44.
Cifarelli, M., Mollazadeh, K. and Binandeh, A. 2019. ‘A decorated bronze belt from Gargul, Iran’. Iran 57/2, 175–184.
Cinquabre, D. 1978. ‘Les tombes de l’Age du Fer en Iran du Nord-Ouest’. Paléorient 4/1, 335–346.
Clare, L. and Weninger, B. 2010. ‘Social and biophysical vulnerability of prehistoric societies to rapid climate change’. Documenta
Praehistorica 37, 283–292.
Claud, E., Biglari, F. and Jaubert, J. 2012. ‘Primary use-wear analysis of several Middle Paleolithic points from Qaleh Bozi 3 rock-
shelter, Central Iran’. Iranian Archaeology 3, 7–14.
Cleuziou, S. 1986. ‘Tureng Tepe and Burnished Grey Ware: a question of ‘frontier’?’. Oriens antiquus 25, 221–256.
Cleuziou, S. 2011. ‘CERAMICS ix. The Bronze Age in northeastern Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-ix.
Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.) 1989. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin.
Cohen, M. N. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
COHMAP 1988. ‘Climatic changes of the last 18,000 years: observations and model simulations’. Science 241, 1043–1052.
Bibliography 531
Cole, G. 2013. ‘Human burials’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008
Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 163–174.
Cole, G., Matthews, R. and Richardson, A. 2013. ‘Material networks of the Neolithic at Sheikh-e Abad: objects of bone, stone
and clay’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e
Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 135–145.
Collins, P. 2006. ‘An Assyrian-style ivory plaque from Hasanlu, Iran’. Metropolitan Museum Journal 41, 19–32.
Collins, P. 2014. ‘Gods, heroes, rituals and violence: warfare in Neo-Assyrian art’, in B. A. Brown and M. H. Feldman (eds) Critical
Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Berlin: De Gruyter, 619–644.
Collon, D. 1987. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum Publications.
Collon, D. 2003. ‘The Ninevite 5 seal impressions from Nineveh’, in E. Rova and H. Weiss (eds) The Origins of North Mesopotamian
Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society. Subartu 9. Turnhout: Brepols, 249–269.
Conard, N. J., Ghasidian, E., Heydari, S. and Zaidee, M. 2006. ‘Report on the 2005 Survey of the Tübingen-Iranian Stone Age
research project in the provinces of Esfahan Fars and Kohgiluyeh-Boyerahmad’, in M. Azarnoush (ed.) Archaeological Reports.
Tehran: ICAR, 9–39.
Conard, N. J., Ghasidian, E., Heydari, S., Naderi, R. and Zeidee, M. 2007. ‘The 2006 season of the Tübingen Iranian stone age
research project in the provinces of Fars and Markazi’, Archaeological Reports. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Re-
search, 43–67.
Conard, N. J., Ghasidian, E. and Heydari, S. 2009. ‘The open-air Late Paleolithic site of Bardia and the Paleolithic occupation of
the Qaleh Gusheh sand dunes, Esfahan Province, Iran’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique
d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 141–154.
Conard, N. J. and Ghasidian, E. 2011. ‘The Rostamian cultural group and the taxonomy of the Iranian Upper Paleolithic’, in
N. J. Conard, P. Drechsler and A. Morales (eds) Between Sand and Sea: Festschrift in Honor of Hans-Peter Uerpmann. Tübingen:
Kerns Verlag, 33–52.
Conard, N. J., Ghasidian, E. and Heydari-Guran, S. 2013a. ‘The Paleolithic of Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of
Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–48.
Conard, N. J., Riehl, S. and Zeidi, M. 2013b. ‘Revisiting Neolithisation in the Zagros foothills: excavations at Chogha Golan,
an Aceramic Neolithic site in Ilam Province, western Iran’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran.
Oxford: BANEA & Oxbow Books, 76–83.
Conard, N. J. and Zeidi, M. 2013. ‘The ground stone tools from the aceramic Neolithic site of Chogha Golan’, in F. Borrell,
J. J. Ibáñez Estévez and M. Molist (eds) Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East.
Papers Presented to the 7th Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Bellaterra: Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions, 365–376.
Conard, N. J. and Zeidi, M. 2019. ‘New research on the Palaeolithic occupation of Ghār-e Boof, Fars province’. Archaeological
Journal of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research 2/2, 7–16.
Coningham, R. A. E., Fazeli, H., Young, R. L. and Donahue, R. E. 2004. ‘Location, location, location: a pilot survey of the
Tehran Plain in 2003’. Iran 42/1, 1–12.
Coningham, R. A. E., Fazeli, H., Young, R. L., Gillmore, G. K., Karimian, H., Maghsoudi, M., Donahue, R. E. and Batt, C. M.
2006. ‘Socio-economic transformations: settlement survey in the Tehran Plain and excavations at Tepe Pardis’. Iran 44/1, 33–62.
Connan, J. and Deschesne, O. 1996. Le Bitume à Suse. Collection du Musée du Louvre. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
Connan, J. 1999. ‘Use and trade of bitumen in antiquity and prehistory: molecular archaeology reveals secrets of past civilizations’.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 354/1379, 33–50.
Connan, J., Zumberge, J., Imbus, K. and Moghaddam, A. 2008. ‘The bituminous mixtures of Tall-e Abu Chizan: a Vth millen-
nium BC settlement in southwestern Iran’. Organic Geochemistry 39/12, 1772–1789.
Connor, S. and Sagona, A. 2007. ‘Environment and society in the late prehistory of southern Georgia, Caucasus’, in B. Lyonnet
(ed.) Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère): leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: Editions CNRS, 21–36.
Connor, S. and Kvavadze, E. 2014. ‘Environmental context of the Kura-Araxes culture’. Paléorient 40/2, 11–22.
Conolly, J., Colledge, S., Dobney, K., Vigne, J.-D., Peters, J., Stopp, B., Manning, K. and Shennan, S. 2011. ‘Meta-analysis of
zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry’. Journal
of Archaeological Science 38/3, 538–545.
Conolly, J., Manning, K., Colledge, S., Dobney, K. and Shennan, S. 2012. ‘Species distribution modelling of ancient cattle from
early Neolithic sites in SW Asia and Europe’. The Holocene 22/9, 997–1010.
Contenau, G. and Ghirshman, R. 1935. Fouilles du Tépé-Giyan près de Néhavend, 1931 et 1932. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Conti, A. M. and Persiani, C. 1993. ‘When worlds collide: cultural developments in Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age’,
in M. Frangipane, H. H., M. Liverani, P. Matthiae and M. Mellink (eds) Between the Rivers and over the Mountains: Archaeologica
Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Rome: Gruppo Editoriale Internazional, 361–413.
Coolidge, J. W. 2005. Southern Turkmenistan in the Neolithic: A Petrographic Case Study. BAR International Series 1423. Oxford:
BAR Publishing.
Coolidge, J. 2010. ‘Prehistoric archaeology’, in D. R. Harris (ed.) Origins of Agriculture in Western Central Asia. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 41–70.
Coon, C. S. 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran, 1949. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
532 Bibliography
Coon, C. S. 1952. ‘Excavation in Hotu, Iran, 1951: a preliminary report (with sections on the artifacts by L.B. Dupree and the
human skeletal remains by J. L. Angel) ’. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96, 231–269.
Coon, C. S. 1957. The Seven Caves: Archaeological Explorations in the Middle East. New York: Knopf.
Cooper, J. S. 2004. ‘Babylonian beginnings: the origin of the cuneiform writing system in comparative perspective’, in S. D. Houston
(ed.) The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–99.
Corfù, N. A. 2006. ‘Die Wasserauf bereitungsanlage von Čogā Zanbil, Iran’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38,
137–140.
Cortesi, E., Tosi, M., Lazzari, A. and Vidale, M. 2008. ‘Cultural relationships beyond the Iranian Plateau: the Helmand civiliza-
tion, Baluchistan and the Indus Valley in the 3rd millennium BCE’. Paléorient 34/2, 5–35.
Costantini, L. and Costantini-Biasini, L. 1985. ‘Agriculture in Baluchistan between the 7th and 3rd millennium BC’. Newsletter
of Baluchistan Studies 2, 16–29.
Costantini, L. and Dyson, R. H. 1990. ‘The ancient agriculture of the Damghan Plain: the archaeological evidence from Tepe
Hissar’, in N. F. Miller (ed.) Economy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites and Materials. MASCA, Research
Papers in Science and Archaeology 7, Suppl. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 46–68.
Cotty, M. 2018. ‘Between orientalism and Persomania: the presentation of the Iranian collections at the Louvre’, in J. Álvarez-Mon,
G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 63–79.
Courcier, A. 2007. ‘La métallurgie dans les pays du Caucase au Chalcolithique et au début de l’Age du Bronze: bilan des études
et perspectives nouvelles’, in B. Lyonnet (ed.) Les cultures du Caucase, VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le
Proche-Orient. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: CNRS, 199–231.
Crabtree, P. J. 2011. ‘Animal remains from Godin period IV’, in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On the High Road: The History
of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum & Mazda Press, 178.
Crawford, H. 1975. ‘Geoy Tepe 1903-material in the collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge’. Iranica Antiqua 11, 1–29.
Crawford, V. 1963. ‘Beside the Kara-Su’. Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 22, 263–273.
Cressey, G. 1958. ‘The Shatt al-Arab basin’. Middle East Journal 12, 448–460.
Croucher, K. 2010. ‘Figuring out identity: the body and identity in the Ubaid’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds) Beyond the
Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 113–124.
Croucher, K. 2012. Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crumley, C. L. 1995. ‘Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies’. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association
6/1, 1–5.
Cuénod, A., Bray, P. and Pollard, A. M. 2015. ‘The “tin problem” in the prehistoric Near East’. Iran 53, 29–48.
Curtis, J. 1984. Nush-i Jan III: The Small Finds. London: British Institute of Persian Studies.
Curtis, J. 1987. ‘A grave group from Qeytariyeh near Teheran (?)’, in L. de Meyer and E. Haerinck (eds) Archaeologica iranica et
orientalis: miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe. Ghent: Peeters.
Curtis, J. 1988. ‘A reconsideration of the cemetery at Khinaman, south-east Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 23, 97–124.
Curtis, J. 1993. ‘William Kennett Loftus and his excavations at Susa’. Iranica Antiqua 28, 1–55.
Curtis, J. 1998. ‘A chariot scene from Persepolis’. Iran 36, 45–51.
Curtis, J. 2000. Ancient Persia. London: The British Museum.
Curtis, J. 2001. ‘The evidence for Assyrian presence in western Iran’. Sumer 51, 32–37.
Curtis, J. 2004. ‘The Oxus Treasure in the British Museum’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 10, 293–338.
Curtis, J. 2005a. ‘The material culture of Tepe Nush-i Jan and the end of the Iron Age III period in western Iran’. Iranica Antiqua
40, 233–248.
Curtis, J. 2005b. ‘Jewellery and personal ornaments’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia.
London: The British Museum, 132–149.
Curtis, J. 2005c. ‘The archaeology of the Achaemenid period’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient
Persia. London: The British Museum, 30–49.
Curtis, J. and Razmjou, S. 2005. ‘The palace’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. London:
The British Museum, 50–103.
Curtis, J. 2013a. ‘The Cyrus Cylinder: the creation of an icon and its loan to Tehran’, in I. Finkel (ed.) The Cyrus Cylinder: The
Great Persian Edict from Babylon. London: I. B. Tauris, 85–103.
Curtis, J. 2013b. The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning for the Middle East. London: British Museum Press.
Curtis, J. 2017. ‘Ziwije (Ziwiyeh)’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 15/5–6, 336–338.
Curtis, J. 2018. ‘More figurines from Susa’, in S. Gondet and E. Haerinck (eds) L’Orient est son Jardin. Hommage à Rémy Boucharlat.
Curtis, J. 2019a. ‘More thoughts on the destruction of Hasanlu IVB’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute
for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 9–20.
Curtis, J. 2019b. ‘An introduction to Tappeh Sialk’, in J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient
Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London: Iran Heritage Foundation, 1–4.
Curtis, J. 2020. ‘Where did the Persian kings live in Babylon?’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Studies in Ancient Persia and the Achaemenid Period.
Cambridge: James Clark & Co, 10–33.
Bibliography 533
Dabbagh, M. 2019. ‘The contribution of women to trade and production in Elam society’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour,
M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon:
Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 235–245.
Dadaneh, M. Z. and Qasrian, S. M. 2019. ‘Survey of Iron Age sites of Marivan Plain’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi
(eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research
Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 86–103.
Daems, A. 2001. ‘The iconography of pre-Islamic women in Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 36, 1–150.
Daems, A. 2004. ‘On prehistoric human figurines in Iran: current knowledge and some reflections’. Iranica Antiqua 39, 1–31.
Daems, A. and Croucher, K. 2007. ‘Artificial cranial modification: evidence from skulls and figurines’. Iranica Antiqua 47, 1–22.
Daems, A. 2008. ‘Evaluating patterns of gender through Mesopotamian and Iranian human figurines: a reassessment of the Ne-
olithic and Chalcolithic period industries’, in D. Bolger (ed.) Gender through Time in the Ancient Near East. Lanham: Altamira
Press, 77–118.
Daems, A. 2010. ‘A snake in the grass: reassessing the ever-intriguing ophidian figurines’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds)
Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civi-
lization 63. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 149–162.
Daems, A. 2018. ‘Women of Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge,
763–780.
Dahl, J. L. 2002. ‘Proto-elamite sign frequencies’. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin/1, 1–3.
Dahl, J. L. 2005a. ‘Complex graphemes in Proto-Elamite’, Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2005/3.
Dahl, J. L. 2005b. ‘Animal husbandry in Susa during the Proto-Elamite period’. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 47, 81–134.
Dahl, J. L. 2009. ‘Early writing in Iran, a reappraisal’. Iran 47/1, 23–31.
Dahl, J. L. 2012. ‘The marks of early writing’. Iran 50, 1–12.
Dahl, J. L., Hessari, M. and Yousefi Zoshk, R. 2012. ‘The Proto-Elamite tablets from Tape Sofalin’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological
Studies 2/1, 57–73.
Dahl, J. L. 2013. ‘Early writing in Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
233–262.
Dahl, J. L., Petrie, C. A. and Potts, D. T. 2013. ‘Chronological patterns of the earliest writing system in Iran’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.)
Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 353–378.
Dahl, J. L. 2014. ‘The Proto-Elamite seal MDP 16, pl. XII fig. 198’. Cuneiform Digital Library Notes 1.
Dahl, J. L. 2015. ‘The production and storage of food in early Iran’, in M. Bianca D’Anna, C. Jauß and J. C. Johnson (eds) Food and
Urbanisation: Materials and Textual Perspectives on Alimentary Practice in Early Mesopotamia. ORIGINI Preistoria e protostoria delle
civiltà antiche 37/1, 67–72.
Dahl, J. L. 2018. ‘The Proto-Elamite writing system’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World.
Dahl, J. L., Hawkins, L. F. and Kelley, K. 2018. ‘Labor administration in Proto-Elamite Iran’, in A. Garcia-Ventura (ed.) What’s in
a Name? Terminology Related to the Work Force and Job Categories in the Ancient Near East. Alter Orient und Altes Testament Band
440. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 15–44.
Dahl, J. L. 2019. Tablettes et fragments proto-élamites. Proto-Elamite Tablets and Fragments. Textes Cunéiformes 32. Paris: Éditions Khéops.
Dahl, J. L. in press. ‘Early writing from Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
Near East and Eastern Mediterranean. Turnhout: Brepols.
Dalton, O. M. 1964. The Treasure of the Oxus. London: British Museum Press.
Daly, K. G., Maisano Delser, P., Mullin, V. E., Scheu, A., Mattiangeli, V., Teasdale, M. D., Hare, A. J., Burger, J., Verdugo, M. P.,
Collins, M. J., Kehati, R., Erek, C. M., Bar-Oz, G., Pompanon, F., Cumer, T., Çakırlar, C., Mohaseb, A. F., Decruyenaere, D.,
Davoudi, H., Çevik, Ö., Rollefson, G., Vigne, J.-D., Khazaeli, R., Fathi, H., Doost, S. B., Rahimi Sorkhani, R., Vahdati, A. A.,
Sauer, E. W., Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Maziar, S., Gasparian, B., Pinhasi, R., Martin, L., Orton, D., Arbuckle, B. S., Benecke, N.,
Manica, A., Horwitz, L. K., Mashkour, M. and Bradley, D. G. 2018. ‘Ancient goat genomes reveal mosaic domestication in the
Fertile Crescent’. Science 361/6397, 85–88.
Daly, K. G., Mattiangeli, V., Hare, A. J., Davoudi, H., Fathi, H., Bezaiee Doost, S., Amiri, S., Khazaeli, R., Decruyenaere, D.,
Nokandeh, J., Richter, T., Darabi, H., Mortensen, P., Pantos, A., Yeomans, L., Bangsgaard, P., Mashkour, M., Zeder, M. A. and
Bradley, D. G. 2021. ‘Herded and hunted goat genomes from the dawn of domestication in the Zagros Mountains’. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 118/25, e2100901118.
Damerow, P. and Englund, R. K. 1989. The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. Bulletin/American School of Prehistoric Research
39. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
Dan, R., Khan Mohammadi, R. and Hajji Mohammadi, K. 2019. ‘Recently discovered rock-cut chambers in Orumiyeh county,
Iran’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran
and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 63–79.
Dan, R. and Cesaretti, A. 2020. ‘The “mouthless people”: some remarks on the Shahr Yeri statue-stela complex, Iran’. Iran and the
Caucasus 24, 347–357.
Dana, M. 2019. ‘The Late Iron Age and the Achaemenid pottery traditions in eastern Iran’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and
Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran:
534 Bibliography
Dana, M. and Hozhabri, A. 2019. ‘The role of cultural factors in locating of archaeological sites: the settlement patterns of prehis-
toric sites in Jājarm, Khorasan, Iran’. Iran 57/2, 123–141.
Dandamayev, M. A. 1999. ‘Achaemenid imperial policies and provincial governments’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 269–282.
Dandamaev, M. A. and Lukonin, V. G. 2004. The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Daniels, P. T. 2009. ‘Rawlinson, Henry ii: contributions to Assyriology and Iranian studies’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/rawlinson-ii.
Danti, M. D., Voigt, M. M. and Dyson, R. H. 2004. ‘The search for the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transition in the
Ushnu-Solduz valley, Iran’, in A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12. Herent: Peeters, 583–616.
Danti, M. D. 2011. ‘The “Artisan’s House” of Hasanlu Tepe, Iran’. Iran 49, 11–54.
Danti, M. D. 2013a. Hasanlu V: The Late Bronze and Iron I Periods. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeol-
ogy and Anthropology.
Danti, M. D. 2013b. ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in northwestern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient
Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327–376.
Danti, M. D. 2014. ‘The Hasanlu (Iran) gold bowl in context: all that glitters…’. Antiquity 88/341, 791–804.
Danti, M. D. and Cifarelli, M. 2015. ‘Iron II warrior burials at Hasanlu Tepe, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 61–157.
Danti, M. D. and Cifarelli, M. 2016. ‘Assyrianizing contexts at Hasanlu IVb? Materiality and identity in Iron II northwest Iran’, in
J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke, T. Greenfield and A. Stone (eds) The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, 357–370.
Dara, M. and Shirzade, G. 2017. ‘Newly found bulla from Urartian site of Bastam in Iran’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian
Dara, M. 2019. ‘Typology of stamp seal impressions on Bastam Urartian bullae’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi
Darabi, H. and Fazeli, H. 2009. ‘The Neolithic of the Mehran Plain: an introduction’. Antiquity 83, Project Gallery. URL: http://
www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/darabi322/.
Darabi, H., Naseri, R., Young, R. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2011. ‘The absolute chronology of East Chia Sabz: a Pre-Pottery Neolithic
site in Western Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 38, 255–266.
Darabi, H. 2012. ‘Towards reassessing the neolithisation process in Western Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 103–110.
Darabi, H., Javanmardzadeh, A., Beshkani, A. and Jami-Alahamdi, M. 2012. ‘Palaeolithic occupation of the Mehran Plain in
southwestern Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 443–452.
Darabi, H., Fazeli Nashli, H., Naseri, R., Riehl, S. and Young, R. 2013. ‘The neolithisation process in the Seimarreh Valley: ex-
cavations at East Chia Sabz, Central Zagros’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation
of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 55–75.
Darabi, H. and Glascock, M. D. 2013. ‘The source of obsidian artefacts found at East Chia Sabz, Western Iran’. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 40/10, 3804–3809.
Darabi, H. 2015. An Introduction to the Neolithic Revolution in the Central Zagros. BAR International Series 2746. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Darabi, H. 2016. ‘A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 43, 283–300.
Darabi, H., Aghajari, M., Nikzad, M. and Bahramiyan, S. 2017a. ‘In search of Neolithic appearance along the northern shorelines
of the Persian Gulf: a report on the excavation at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Tapeh Mahtaj, Behbahan Plain’. International
Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 3/5, 13–22.
Darabi, H., Bahramiyan, S., Mostafapour, S., Khademi Bami, M. and Yari, A. 2017b. ‘Re-excavation at Tapeh Ali Kosh, Deh
Luran Plain, Iran’. Neo-Lithics 2/17, 15–18.
Darabi, H., Mostafapour, S., Ghaderi, H. and Bahramiyan, S. 2018a. ‘An Early Neolithic flint-knapping spot from Ali Kosh,
southwestern Iran’. Neo-Lithics 18, 34–37.
Darabi, H., Richter, T. and Mortensen, P. 2018b. ‘New excavations at Tappeh Asiab, Kermanshah Province, Iran’. Antiquity
92/361, e2.
Darabi, H., Richter, T. and Mortensen, P. 2019. ‘Neolithization process in the central Zagros’. Documenta Praehistorica 46, 44–57.
Darabi, H. 2020. ‘A consideration of eastward spread of the Samarran phenomenon in the light of new evidence along the Zagros
piedmont’. Iraq 82, 95–110.
Darabi, H., Bangsgaard, P., Arranz-Otaegui, A., Ahadi, G. and Olsen, J. 2020. ‘Early Neolithic occupation of the lowlands of
south-western Iran: new evidence from Tapeh Mahtaj’. Antiquity 95, 1–18.
Daryaee, T. and Rezakhani, K. 2014. ‘The Achaemenid empire in the context of world history (550–330 BCE)’, in T. Daryaee,
A. Mousavi and K. Rezakhani (eds) Excavating an Empire: Achaemenid Persia in Longue Durée. Costa Mesa CA: Mazda Publishers, 3–11.
Dashtizadeh, A. 2006. ‘Paleolithic survey in the Kazeroun Plain’, in S. Zare (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Symposium of Iranian Young
Archaeologists. Tehran: Iranian Cultural and Tourism Organization.
Dashtizadeh, A. 2009. ‘Palaeolithic remains from the north coast of the Persian Gulf: preliminary results from the Jam-o-Riz
plain, Bushehr Province, Iran’. Antiquity 83, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/dashtizadeh319/.
Dashtizadeh, A. 2010. ‘Preliminary report on the discovery of a late Lower Palaeolithic and Middle Palaeolithic site on the island
of Qeshm, Persian Gulf ’. Iranian Archaeology 1, 17–20.
Bibliography 535
Daucé, N. 2010. ‘Le décor de briques glaçurées’, in J. Perrot (ed.) Le Palais de Darius à Suse: une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis
à Babylone. Paris: PUPS, 322–342.
Daucé, N. 2018. ‘The industry of vitreous enamels in Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World.
Daujat, J., Mashkour, M., Emery-Barbier, A., Neef, R. and Bernbeck, R. 2016. ‘Qale Rostam: reconsidering the “Rise of a High-
land Way of Life”: an integrated bioarchaeological analysis’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Pla-
teau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 107–136.
Daujat, J. and Mashkour, M. 2017. ‘Faunal remains from the Middle Neolithic site of Qaleh Rostam’, in M. Mashkour and M.
Beech (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East 9. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 41–58.
Davis, R. S. and Ranov, V. A. 1999. ‘Recent work on the Paleolithic of Central Asia’. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and
Reviews 8/5, 186–193.
Davoudi, D., Hatami Nesari, T., Nourolahi, R. and Biglari, A. 2015. ‘Discovery of Middle Paleolithic Artefacts from the caves of
Holeylan, Western Iran (previously claimed to be Upper and Epi-Paleolithic)’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 1–14.
Davoudi, H., Berthon, R., Mohaseb, A., Sheikhi, S., Abedi, A. and Mashkour, M. 2018. ‘Kura-Araxes exploitation of animal re-
sources in north-western Iran and Nakhchivan’. Archaeozoology of the Near East XII: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium
of the ICAZ Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas Working Group, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, June 14–15 2015,
University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Eelde: Barkhuis.
Davoudi, H. and Mashkour, M. 2019. ‘Subsistence economy in northwestern Iran during Bronze and Iron Ages through archae-
ozoological researches at Tepe Hasanlu’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International
Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage
and Tourism, 484–520.
Davoudi, H., Mashkour, M. and Nokandeh, G. 2019. ‘Animal exploitation along the southern Caspian Sea shore during the Iron
Age, Iran’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western
Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 456–483.
De Graef, K. 2005. Les archives d’Igibuni: les documents Ur III du Chantier B à Suse. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran
54. Ghent: University of Ghent.
De Graef, K. 2007. ‘Les textes de V récent du Chantier B à Suse (fin Sukkulmaḫat – ca. 1575–1530 av. notre ère)’. Iranica Antiqua
42, 41–59.
De Graef, K. 2012. ‘Dual power in Susa: Chronicle of a transitional period from Ur III via Šimaški to the Sukkalmaḫs’. Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies 75/3, 525–546.
De Graef, K. 2013. ‘The use of Akkadian in Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 263–282.
De Graef, K. 2015. ‘Susa in the late 3rd millennium: from a Mesopotamian colony to an independent state (MC 2110-1980)’, in
W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp (eds) History and Philology. ARCANE 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 289–296.
De Schacht, T. and Haerinck, E. 2013. Bibliographie analytique de l’archéologie de l’Iran ancient. Supplément 5: 2004–2010. Supplément
à Iranica Antiqua 10. Leuven: Peeters.
De Waele, E. 1981. ‘Travaux archéologiques à Shekaft-e Salmān et Kûl-e Farah prés d’Īzeh (Mālamīr)’. Iranica Antiqua 16, 45–61.
De Waele, E. 1989. ‘Musicians and musical Instruments on the rock reliefs in the Elamite sanctuary of Kul-e Farah (Izeh)’. Iran
27, 29–38.
Decaix, A., Azadeh Mohaseb, F., Maziar, S., Mashkour, M. and Tengberg, M. 2019a. ‘Subsistence economy in Kohneh Pasgah
Tepesi (eastern Azerbaijan, Iran) during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age based on the faunal and botanical remains ’,
in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of
Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 75–87.
Decaix, A., Berthon, R., Azadeh Mohaseb, F. and Tengberg, M. 2019b. ‘Toward a definition of the Kura-Araxes agropastoral sys-
tems ’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development
of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 89–98.
Dehghani, A. 2013. Study and Typology the Stone Statues in Northwestern Iran. M. A. thesis, Art University of Esfahan.
Dehpahlavan, M., Jahed, M., Tazik, A., Mohammadkhani, K. and Farnam, E. 2019. ‘A newly found Iron II-III western graveyard
of Qara-Tappeh, Sagzabad’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on
the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism,
370–391.
Del Bravo, F. 2014. ‘“Scarlet Ware”: origins, chronology and developments’, in M. Lebeau (ed.) ARCANE Interregional Volume 1:
Ceramics. Turnhout: Brepols, 131–147.
Delaporte, L. 1920. Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental du Musée du Louvre, Vol. 1. Paris: Hachette.
Dellovin, A. 2011. ‘A carpenter’s tool kit from the Godin cemetery (central-western Iran)’. Iranica Antiqua 46, 107–132.
Delmas, A. B. and Casanova, M. 1990. ‘The lapis lazuli sources in the ancient east’, in M. Taddei and P. Callieri (eds) South Asian
Archaeology 1987. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 393–426.
Delougaz, P., Kantor, H. J. and Alizadeh, A. 1996. Chogha Mish I. The First Five Seasons of Excavations 1961–1971 Oriental Institute
Publications 101. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Dennell, R. and Roebroeks, W. 2005. ‘An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa’. Nature 438, 1099.
Dennell, R. 2020. From Arabia to the Pacific: How Our Species Colonised Asia. Abingdon: Routledge.
536 Bibliography
Dercksen, J. G. 2005. ‘Metals according to documents from Kültepe-Kanish dating to the Old Assyrian Colony Period’, in
Ü. Yalçın (ed.) Anatolian Metal III. Der Anschnitt 18. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 17–34.
Deschesne, O. 2003. ‘Le mastic de bitume: un matériau remis en question’. Iranica Antiqua 38, 25–40.
Deshayes, J. 1966. ‘Rapport préliminaire sur la sixième campagne de fouille à Tureng Tépé (1965)’. Iranica Antiqua 6, 1–5.
Deshayes, J. 1967. ‘Céramiques peintes de Tureng Tépé’. Iran 5, 123–131.
Deshayes, J. 1968. ‘Tureng Tépé. Survey of excavations’. Iran 6, 165–166.
Deshayes, J. 1969a. ‘Tureng Tepe et la période Hissar IIIC ’, in C. F. A. Schaeffer (ed.) Ugaritica VI: publié à l’occasion de la XXXe
campagne de fouilles à Ras Shamra (1968). Paris: Geuthner, 139–163.
Deshayes, J. 1969b. ‘New evidence for the Indo-Europeans from Tureng Tepe, Iran’. Archaeology 22/1, 10–17.
Deshayes, J. 1973. ‘Rapport preliminaire sur la neuvieme campagne de fouille a Tureng Tepe (1971)’. Iran 11/1, 141–152.
Deshayes, J. 1975. ‘Les fouilles récentes de Tureng Tépé : la terrasse haute de la fin du 3e millénaire’. Comptes rendus de l’Académie
des Inscriptions et des Belles-Lettres 119/4, 522–530.
Deshayes, J. 1977. ‘Apropos des terrasses hautes de la fin du IIIe millénaire en Iran et en Asie centrale’, in J. Deshayes (ed.) Le plateau
Iranien et l’Asie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 95–111.
Desset, F. 2012. Premières écritures iraniennes: les systèmes proto-élamite et élamite linéaire. Series Minor 76. Napoli: Università Degli
Studi Di Napoli “L’Orientale”.
Desset, F., Vidale, M. and Soleimani, N. A. 2013. ‘Mahtoutabad III (province of Kerman, Iran): an “Uruk-related” material as-
semblage in eastern Iran’. Iran 51/1, 17–54.
Desset, F. 2014a. ‘An architectural pattern in late fourth-millennium BC western Iran: a new link between Susa, Tal-i Malyan,
and Godin Tepe’. Iran 52, 1–18.
Desset, F. 2014b. ‘A new writing system discovered in 3rd millennium bce Iran: the Konar Sandal ‘geometric’ tablets’. Iranica An-
tiqua 49, 83–109.
Desset, F. 2016. ‘Proto-Elamite writing in Iran’. Archéo-Nil 26, 67–104.
Desset, F. 2017. ‘Here ends the history of Elam: toponomy, linguistics and cultural identity in Susa and south-western Iran, ca.
2400–1800 BC’, in M. Dietrich and T. Kämmerer (eds) Studia Mesopotamica. Jahrbuch für altorientalische Geschichte und Kultur.
Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1–32.
Desset, F., Vidale, M., Alidadi Soleimani, N., Battistella, E. and Daneshi, A. 2017. ‘A grave of the Halil Rud valley ( Jiroft, Iran,
ca. 2400–2200 BC): stratigraphy, taphonomy, funerary practices’. Iranica Antiqua 52, 25–60.
Desset, F. 2018a. ‘Nine Linear Elamite texts inscribed on silver “gunagi” vessels (X, Y, Z, F’, H’, I’, J’, K’ and L’): new data on Linear
Elamite writing and the history of the Sukkalmaḫ dynasty’. Iran 56/2, 105–143.
Desset, F. 2018b. ‘Linear Elamite writing’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Routledge, 397–415.
Devillers, A. 2013. ‘Did the Arabian oryx occur in Iran?’. Iranica Antiqua 48, 1–19.
Dewan, M. L., Famouri, J. and Robertson, R. H. S. 1968. ‘Soils’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The
Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 250–263.
Di Nocera, G.-M. 2000. ‘Radiocarbon datings from Arslantepe and Norşuntepe: the fourth-third millennium absolute chronol-
ogy in the Upper Euphrates and Transcaucasian region’, in H. Hauptmann and C. Marro (eds) Chronologies des pays du Caucase et
de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica 11. Paris: Publications de l’Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes, 73–93.
Dibble, H. L. 1984. ‘The Mousterian industry from Bisitun cave (Iran)’. Paléorient 10/2, 23–34.
Dibble, H. L. and Holdaway, S. J. 1990. ‘The Middle Paleolithic of Warwasi rockshelter and its relationship to the Zagros and
Levantine Mousterian’. ANTHROPOLOGIE 94/4, 619–641.
Dibble, H. L. and Holdaway, S. J. 1993. ‘The Middle Paleolithic industries of Warwasi’, in D. I. Olszewski and H. L. Dibble (eds)
The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 75–99.
Dieulafoy, M. 1893. L’Acropole de Suse: d’après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886, sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre. Paris:
Hachette.
Digard, J.-P. 1981. Techniques des Nomades Baxtyari d’Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, J. 1986. ‘Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: eine verhängnisvolle Politik’. Orientalia 55, 159–170.
Dittmann, R. 1984. Eine Randebene des Zagros in der Frühzeit: Ergebnisse des Behbehan-Zuhreh Surveys. Berliner Beiträge zum Vor-
deren Orient 3. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Dittmann, R. 1986a. Betrachtungen zur Frühzeit des Südwest-Iran: Regionale Entwicklungen vom 6. bis zum frühen 3. vorchristlichen Jahr-
tausend. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 4. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Dittmann, R. 1986b. ‘Seals, sealings and tablets: remarks on the changing pattern of administrative control from the Late Uruk to
the Proto-Elamite period in Susa’, in U. Finkbeiner and W. Röllig (eds) Ǧamdat Naṣr: Period or Regional style? Papers Given at a
Symposium Held in Tübingen, November 1983. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften
62. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 332–366.
Dittmann, R. 1987. ‘Bemerkungen zum Protoelamischen Horizont’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 20, 31–63.
Dittmann, R. 2002. ‘Iran als Mittler zwischen Ost und West’, in A. Hausleiter, S. Kerner and B. Müller-Neuhof (eds) Material
Culture and Mental Spheres. Rezeption archäologischer Denkrichtungen in der Vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde. Internationales Symposium
für Hans J. Nissen, Berlin, 23.‒24. Juni 2000. Münster: Ugarit-verlag, 329–344.
Bibliography 537
Dittmann, R. 2012. ‘Multiple sealed hollow balls: a fresh look at the Uruk System almost thirty years later’, in H. D. Baker, K. Kaniuth
and A. Otto (eds) Stories of Long Ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 397. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 69–89.
Djamali, M., Soulié-Märsche, I., Esu, D., Gliozzi, E. and Okhravi, R. 2006. ‘Palaeoenvironment of a Late Quaternary lacus-
trine–palustrine carbonate complex: Zarand Basin, Saveh, central Iran’. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 237/2–4,
315–334.
Djamali, M., de Beaulieu, J. L., Shah-hosseini, M., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Ponel, P., Amini, A., Akhani, H., Leroy, S., Stevens, L.,
Lahijani, H. and Brewer, S. 2008. ‘A late Pleistocene long pollen record from Lake Urmia, NW Iran’. Quaternary Research 69/3,
413–420.
Djamali, M., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Berberian, M., Miller, N. F., Gandouin, E., Lahijani, H., Shah-Hosseini, M.,
Ponel, P., Salimian, M. and Guiter, F. 2009a. ‘A late Holocene pollen record from Lake Almalou in NW Iran: evidence for
changing land-use in relation to some historical events during the last 3700 years’. Journal of Archaeological Science 36/7, 1364–1375.
Djamali, M., de Beaulieu, J. L., Miller, N. F., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Ponel, P., Lak, R., Sadeddin, N., Akhani, H. and Fazeli, H.
2009b. ‘Vegetation history of the SE section of the Zagros Mountains during the last five millennia; a pollen record from the
Maharlou Lake, Fars Province, Iran’. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18/2, 123–136.
Djamali, M., Akhani, H., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Braconnot, P., Brewer, S., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Fleitmann, D., Fleury, J., Gasse, F.,
Guibal, F., Jackson, S. T., Lézine, A.-M., Médail, F., Ponel, P., Roberts, N. and Stevens, L. 2010. ‘Indian Summer Monsoon
variations could have affected the early-Holocene woodland expansion in the Near East’. The Holocene 20/5, 813–820.
Djamali, M., Akhani, H., Khoshravesh, R., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Ponel, P. and Brewer, S. 2011a. ‘Application of the global bioclimatic
classification to Iran: implications for understanding the modern vegetation and biogeography’. Ecologia Mediterranea 37/1, 91–114.
Djamali, M., Biglari, F., Abdi, K., Andrieu-Ponel, V., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Mashkour, M. and Ponel, P. 2011b. ‘Pollen analysis of
coprolites from a late Pleistocene–Holocene cave deposit (Wezmeh Cave, west Iran): insights into the late Pleistocene and late
Holocene vegetation and flora of the central Zagros Mountains’. Journal of Archaeological Science 38/12, 3394–3401.
Djamali, M., Jones, M. D., Migliore, J., Balatti, S., Fader, M., Contreras, D., Gondet, S., Hosseini, Z., Lahijani, H., Naderi, A.,
Shumilovskikh, L. S., Tengberg, M. and Weeks, L. 2016. ‘Olive cultivation in the heart of the Persian Achaemenid Empire: new
insights into agricultural practices and environmental changes reflected in a late Holocene pollen record from Lake Parishan,
SW Iran’. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 25/3, 255–269.
Dollfus, G. 1977. ‘Djaffarabad 1972–74, périodes I et II’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 5, 11–120.
Dollfus, G. 1978. ‘Djaffarabad, Djowi, Bendebal: contribution à l’étude de la Susiane au Ve millénaire et au début du IVe
millénaire’. Paléorient 4/1, 141–167.
Dollfus, G. 1983a. ‘Tépé Djowi: contrôle stratigraphique, 1975’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 13, 17–131.
Dollfus, G. 1983b. ‘Remarques sur l’organisation de l’espace dans quelques agglomérations de la Susiane du Ve millénaire’, in T.
Cuyler Young Jr, P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen (eds) The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia
Presented to Robert J. Braidwood, November l5, l982. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 283–314.
Dollfus, G. 1983c. ‘Tépé Bendebal, travaux 1977, 1978’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 13, 133–275.
Dollfus, G. 1985. ‘Le peuplement de la Susiane au cours du Ve millénaire’. Paléorient 11/2, 11–20.
Dolukhanov, P. M., Chepalyga, A. L., Shkatova, V. K. and Lavrentiev, N. V. 2009. ‘Late Quaternary Caspian: sea-levels, environments
and human settlement’. The Open Geography Journal 2009/2, 1–15.
Douka, K. 2013. ‘Exploring “the great wilderness of prehistory”: the chronology of the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic transition
in the northern Levant’. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 22, 11–40.
Drennan, R. D. and Peterson, C. E. 2012. ‘Challenges for comparative study of early complex societies’, in M. E. Smith (ed.) The
Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–87.
Driscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W. and O’Brien, S. J. 2009. ‘From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domes-
tication’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106/Supplement 1, 9971–9978.
Dubovský, P. 2013. ‘Dynamics of the fall: Ashurbanipal’s conquest of Elam’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam.
Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University,
December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 451–470.
Dubovský, P. 2018a. ‘Elam and Assyria’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Rou-
tledge, 323–339.
Dubovský, P. 2018b. ‘Elam and the Bible’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Routledge, 27–40.
Dunn-Vaturi, A. E. and Schädler, U. 2006. ‘Nouvelles perspectives sur les jeux à la lumière de plateaux du Kerman’. Iranica Antiqua
41, 1–29.
Düring, B. S. 2011. The Prehistory of Asia Minor, From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dusinberre, E. R. M. 2003. Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson, R. H. 1960. ‘Hasanlu and early Iran’. Archaeology 13/2, 118–129.
Dyson, R. H. and Young, T. C. 1960. ‘The Solduz Valley, Iran: Pisdeli Tepe’. Antiquity 34/133, 19–28.
Dyson, R. H. 1963. ‘A Babylonian lion in Toronto’. Expedition 5/2, 14.
538 Bibliography
Dyson, R. H. 1964. ‘Notes on weapons and chronology in north-westem Iran around 1000 B.C.’, in R. Ghirshman, E. Porada, R. H.
Dyson, J. Tembach, R. S. Young, E. L. Kohler and M. J. Mellink (eds) Dark Ages And Nomads c. 1000 B.C. Studies In Iranian And
Anatolian Archaeology. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 32–45.
Dyson, R. H. 1965. ‘Problems in the relative chronology of Iran, 6000–2000 BC’, in R. W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 215–256.
Dyson, R. H. 1968. ‘Early works on the acropolis at Susa’. Expedition 10/4, 21–34.
Dyson, R. H. 1972. ‘The Burned Building of Tepe Hissar IIIB: a restatement’. Bastan Chenassi va Honar-e Iran [Archaeology and Art
of Iran] 9, 57–83.
Dyson, R. H. 1977a. ‘Tepe Hissar, Iran revisited’. Archaeology 30/6, 418–420.
Dyson, R. H. 1977b. ‘The architecture of Hasanlu: periods I to IV’. American Journal of Archaeology 81/4, 548–552.
Dyson, R. H. 1987. ‘The relative and absolute chronology of Hissar II and the proto-Elamite horizon of northern Iran’, in O. Aurenche,
J. Evin and F. Hours (eds) Chronologies du Proche Orient – Chronologies in the Near East. Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology
16,000–4,000 B.P. BAR International Series 379 (i-ii). Oxford: Archaeopress, 647–680.
Dyson, R. H. 1989. ‘The Iron Age architecture at Hasanlu: an essay’. Expedition 31/2, 107.
Dyson, R. H. and Howard, S. M. (eds) 1989. Preliminary Reports of the Tappeh Hesar Restudy Project, 1976. Monografi di Mesopota-
mia 2. Florence, Casa editrice Le Lettere.
Dyson, R. H. and Muscarella, O. W. 1989. ‘Constructing the chronology and historical implications of Hasanlu IV’. Iran 27, 1–27.
Dyson, R. H. and Remsen, W. C. 1989. ‘Observations on architecture and stratigraphy at Tappeh Hesar’, in R. H. Dyson Jr and
S. M. Howard (eds) Preliminary Reports of the Tappeh Hesar Restudy Project, 1976. Monografi di Mesopotamia 2. Florence: Casa
editrice Le Lettere, 69–110.
Dyson, R. H. 1991. ‘Ceramics i. The Neolithic period through the Bronze Age in northeastern and north-central Persia’. Encyclo-
paedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-i.
Dyson, R. H. 1997a. ‘Hasanlu’, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
478–481.
Dyson, R. H. 1997b. ‘History of the field: archaeology in Persia’, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 1.
Dyson, R. H. 1999. ‘Triangle-Festoon Ware reconsidered’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 115–144.
Dyson, R. H. and Voigt, M. M. 2003. ‘A temple at Hasanlu’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the
Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, UCLA, 219–236.
Dyson, R. H. 2009. ‘Tepe Hissar’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/tepe-hissar.
Dyson, R. H. and Thornton, C. P. 2009. ‘Shir-i Shian and the fifth millennium sequence of northern Iran’. Iran 47/1, 1–22.
Ebrahimi, Q., Abedi, A. and Ahmadi, R. 2019. ‘Local distribution of post-Urartian and Achaemenid painted pottery in north-
west Iran in light of recent surveys and excavations’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the
International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural
Heritage and Tourism, 259–276.
Ebrāhimi, S., Abolahrār, A. and Zāre, M. 2016. ‘Preliminary report on the excavations at Tappeh Miānroud, Fars (in Persian)’, in
K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 31–48.
Ebrahimipour, S. A. 2019. ‘Reassessment of Tepe Rabat II and a suggestion for its ancient name and function during the first
millennium BC’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in
Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 228–242.
Edens, C. 1992. ‘Dynamics of trade in the ancient Mesopotamian “world system”’. American Anthropologist 94/1, 118–139.
Edens, C. 1995. ‘Transcaucasia at the end of the Early Bronze Age’. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 299–300,
53–64.
Edens, C. 2002. ‘Small things forgotten? Continuity amidst change at Godin Tepe’. Iranica Antiqua 37, 31–46.
Edmonds, C. J. 1922. ‘Luristan: Pish-i Kuh and Bala Gariveh’. The Geographical Journal 59/5, 335–356, 437–353.
Edwards, M. R. 1981. ‘The pottery of Haftavan VIB (Urmia Ware)’. Iran 19, 101–140.
Edwards, M. R. 1983. Excavations in Azerbaijan (North-western Iran). Volume 1, Haftavan, Period VI. BAR International Series 182.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Edwards, M. R. 1986. ‘“Urmia Ware” and its contribution in north-western Iran in the second millennium B.C.: a review of the
results of excavations and surveys’. Iran 24, 57–77.
Edwards, P. C. 1989. ‘Revising the Broad Spectrum Revolution: and its role in the origins of Southwest Asian food production’.
Antiquity 63/239, 225–246.
Edzard, D. O. 1967. ‘The Early Dynastic period’, in J. Bottéro, E. Cassin and J. Vercoutter (eds) The Near East: The Early Civiliza-
tions. New York: Delacorte Press, 52–90.
Egami, N. and Masuda, S. 1962. Marv Dasht I: The Excavations at Tall-i Bakun, 1956. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeolog-
ical Expedition Report 2. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.
Egami, N. and Sono, T. 1962. Marv Dasht II: The Excavation at Tall-i Gap, 1959. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological
Expedition Report 3. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.
Egami, N., Fukai, S. and Masuda, S. 1965. Dailaman I. Excavations at Ghalekuti and Lasulkan 1960. Tokyo: Tokyo University.
Bibliography 539
Egami, N. 1967. ‘Excavations at two prehistoric sites: Tepe Djari A and B in the Marv Dasht Basin’, in A. U. Pope and P. Ackerman
(eds) A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Shiraz: Asia Institute of Pahlavi University, 2936–2939.
Egami, N., Masuda, S.-I. and Gotoh, T. 1977. ‘Tal-i Jarri A: a preliminary report of the excavations in Marv Dasht, 1961 and
1971’. Orient 13, 1–7.
Ehlers, E. 1980. Iran: Grundzüge einer geographischen Landeskunde. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Ehlers, E. 1985. ‘The Iranian village: a socio-economic microcosm’, in P. Beaumont and K. McLachlan (eds) Agricultural Develop-
ment in the Middle East. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 151–170.
Eickhoff, T. 1993. Grab und Beigabe: Bestattungssitten der Nekropole von Tall Aḥmad al-Ḫattū und anderer frühdynastischer Begräbnisstätten
im südlichen Mesopotamien und in Luristān. Münchener vorderasiatische Studien 14. München: Profil Verlag.
El-Moslimany, A. P. 1986. ‘Ecology and late-Quaternary history of the Kurdo-Zagrosian oak forest near Lake Zeribar, western
Iran’. Vegetatio 68/1, 55–63.
El-Moslimany, A. P. 1987. ‘The late Pleistocene climates of the Lake Zeribar region (Kurdistan, western Iran) deduced from the
ecology and pollen production of nonarboreal vegetation’. Vegetatio 72/3, 131–139.
Emami, M., Eslami, M., Fadaei, H., Karami, H. R. and Ahmadi, K. 2018. ‘Mineralogical–geochemical characterization and prov-
enance of the stones used at the Pasargadae complex in Iran: a new perspective’. Archaeometry 60/6, 1184–1201.
Emberling, G., Robb, J., Speth, J. D. and Wright, H. T. 2002. ‘Kunji Cave: Early Bronze Age burials in Luristan’. Iranica Antiqua
37, 47–104.
Emberling, G. and Minc, L. 2016. ‘Ceramics and long-distance trade in early Mesopotamian states’. Journal of Archaeological Science:
Reports 7, 819–834.
Englund, R. K. and Grégoire, J. P. 1991. The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr I: Copies, Transliterations and Glossary. MSVO
1. Berlin: Mann.
Englund, R. K. 1998. ‘Texts from the Late Uruk period’, in J. Bauer, R. K. Englund and M. Krebernik (eds) Mesopotamien: Spätu-
ruk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1. Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 15–233.
Englund, R. K. 2004. ‘The state of decipherment of proto-Elamite’, in S. D. Houston (ed.) The First Writing: Script Invention as
History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 100–149.
Englund, R. K. 2009. ‘The smell of the cage’. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal [Online]. URL: https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/
cdlj2009_004.html.
Ervynck, A., Dobney, K., Hongo, H. and Meadow, R. H. 2001. ‘Born free? New evidence for the status of Sus scrofa at Neolithic
Çayönü Tepesi (southeastern Anatolia, Turkey)’. Paléorient 27/2, 47–73.
Eskandari, N., Abedi, A., Niazi, N. and Saeediyan, S. 2010. ‘Tapeh Mes: a possible Middle Palaeolithic site in the Delijan Plain,
central Iran. ’. Antiquity 84, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/eskandari323/.
Eskandari, N. 2017. ‘Excavations at the prehistoric site of Tepe Dehno and Tepe East Dehno, Shahdah, south-eastern Iran’. Iranian
Journal of Archaeological Studies 7/1, 16–33.
Eskandari, N., Hekmatollah, M. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2017. ‘Prehistoric settlement trends on the west of the Lut desert, southeast-
ern Iran’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 8/2, 1–15.
Eskandari, N. 2018. ‘A reappraisal of the chronology of the Chalcolithic period in SE Iran: absolute and relative chronology of
Tepe Dehno and Tepe East Dehno, Shahdad’. Journal of Research on Archaeometry 4/1, 23–35.
Eskandari, N. 2019. ‘Regional patterns of Early Bronze Age urbanisation in the southeastern Iran. New discoveries on the western
fringe of Dasht-e Lut’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze
Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 201–216.
Eskandari, N., Desset, F., Hessari, M., Shahsavari, M., Shafiee, M. and Vidale, M. 2020a. ‘A late 4th to early 3rd millennium BC
grave in Hajjiabad-Varamin ( Jiroft, south-eastern Iran): defining a new period of the Halil Rud valley sequence’. Iranica Antiqua
55, 1–48.
Eskandari, N., Desset, F., Maritan, L., Cherubini, A. and Vidale, M. 2020b. ‘Sequential casting using multiple materials: a Bronze
Age “royal sceptre” from the Halil Rud valley (Kerman, Iran)’. Iran 58, 167–179.
Eskandari, N., Desset, F., Shafiee, M., Shahsavari, M., Hosseinzadeh, J., Abedi, A., Anjamrouz, S., Caldana, I., Daneshi, A., Shadadi, A.
and Vidale, M. 2021. ‘Preliminary report on the survey of Hajjiabad-Varamin, a site of the Konar Sandal settlement network (Jiroft,
Kerman, Iran)’. Iran 59/2. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/05786967.05782021.01936595.
Esmaeili Jelodar, M. E. 2018. ‘The first possible evidence of the Aceramic Neolithic in the Iranian Central Plateau’. Antiquity
92/362, e4.
Esmaili Jaludar, M. 2016. ‘Archaeological landscape of the eastern shore of Gavkhuni Marshian).’, in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh
(eds) Namvarnameh. Papers in Honour of Masoud Azarnoush. Tehran: Irannegar, 189–206 (in Persian).
Evershed, R. P., Payne, S., Sherratt, A. G., Copley, M. S., Coolidge, J., Urem-Kotsu, D., Kotsakis, K., Özdoğan, M., Özdoğan, A. E.,
Nieuwenhuyse, O., Akkermans, P. M. M. G., Bailey, D., Andeescu, R.-R., Campbell, S., Farid, S., Hodder, I., Yalman, N.,
Özbaşaran, M., Bıçakcı, E., Garfinkel, Y., Levy, T. and Burton, M. M. 2008. ‘Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and south-
eastern Europe linked to cattle herding’. Nature 455/7212, 528–531.
Evett, D. 1967. ‘Artifacts and architecture of the Iblis I Period: areas D, F, and G’, in J. R. Caldwell (ed.) Investigations in Tal-i-Iblis.
Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9 9. Springfield: Illinois State Museum Society 202–255.
Eygun, G. 1992. ‘Les figurines humaines et animales du site Néolithique de Ganj Dareh (Iran)’. Paléorient 18/1, 109–117.
Fabian, L. 2018. ‘Prismatic perspectives on the pre-Islamic empires of Persia’. Amtiquity 92/364, 1118–1129.
540 Bibliography
Fahimi, H. 2005. ‘Kura-Araxes type pottery from Gilan and the eastern extension of the Early Transcaucasian Culture’. Archäolo-
gische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, 123–132.
Fahimi, H. 2010. ‘An Iron Age fortress in Central Iran: archaeological investigations in Shamshirgah, Qom, 2005. Preliminary
report ’, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology
of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 165–184.
Fahimi, H. 2011. ‘Distribution of Iron Age pottery in the southern part of the central plateau of Iran. Report on the archaeological
site of Milājerd, Natanz’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central
Iranian Plateau. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 499–522.
Fahimi, H. 2013. Studien zur Eisenzeit im zentraliranischen Hochland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der neuen Ausgrabung von Tepe
Sialk:(2001–2005). BAR (International Series) 2537. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Fahimi, H. 2017. ‘Die Eisenzeit Südlich und Südwestlich des Kaspischen Meers’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen
Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 186–201.
Fahimi, H. 2019. ‘The Bronze Age and the Iron Age on the Central Iranian Plateau. Two successive cultures or the appearance of
a new culture? ’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age.
Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 335–344.
Faizkhah, M. 2017. ‘Salvage Kurgan excavation in the village of Abillu, Ahar city’, ICAR Sixteenth Annual Report. Tehran: Iranian
Center for Archaeological Research, 380–383.
Fallah, B., Sodoudi, S., Russo, E., Kirchner, I. and Cubasch, U. 2017. ‘Towards modeling the regional rainfall changes over Iran
due to the climate forcing of the past 6000 years’. Quaternary International 429, 119–128.
Fallahian, Y., Tadahiko, O. and Takuro, A. 2006. ‘Figurines from Jamshid Abad’, in O. Tadahiko, J. Nokandeh and Y. Kazuya
(eds) Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Fifth Season. Tehran and Tokyo, : ICHO-MECC,
150–151.
Farshad, A. and Barrera-Bassols, N. 2003. ‘Historical anthropogenic land degradation related to agricultural systems: case studies
from Iran and Mexico’. Geografiska Annaler. Series A, Physical Geography 85, 277–286.
Fazeli, H. 2001. Social Complexity and Craft Specialisation in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Period in the Central Plain of Iran.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Bradford.
Fazeli, H., Coningham, R. A. E. and Pollard, A. M. 2001. ‘Chemical characterisation of Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery
from the Tehran Plain, Iran’. Iran 39/1, 55–71.
Fazeli, H., Donahue, R. E. and Coningham, R. A. E. 2002. ‘Stone tool production, distribution and use during the Late Neolithic
and Chalcolithic on the Tehran Plain, Iran’. Iran 40/1, 1–14.
Fazeli, H. 2004. ‘Chalcolithic archaeology of the Qazvin Plain’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike
Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie: Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28 November 2004 bis 29
Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Berbau-Museum, 194–199.
Fazeli, H., Coningham, R. A. E. and Batt, C. M. 2004. ‘Cheshmeh-Ali revisited: towards an absolute dating of the Late Neolithic
and Chalcolithic of Iran’s Tehran Plain’. Iran 42, 13–23.
Fazeli, H., Wong, E. H. and Potts, D. T. 2005. ‘The Qazvin Plain revisited: a reappraisal of the chronology of the northwestern
Central Plateau Iran, in the 6th to the 4th millennium BC’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42, 4–82.
Fazeli, H. 2006. The Archaeology of Qazvin. From the Sixth to the First Millennium BC. Tehran: University of Tehran Press (in Persian).
Fazeli, H., Coningham, R., Young, R. L., Gillmore, G. K., Maghsoudi, M. and Raza, H. 2007. ‘Socio-economic transformations
in the Tehran Plain: final season of settlement survey and excavations at Tepe Pardis’. Iran 45, 267–286.
Fazeli, H. and Young, R. 2008. ‘Landlord villages of the Tehran plain: season I’. Iran 46, 347–360.
Fazeli, H., Salimi, M. and Young, R. 2009. ‘Landlord villages of the Tehran plain and historical archaeology in Iran ’. Iran 47,
149–164.
Fazeli, H. and Young, R. 2013. ‘Landlord villages of Iran as landscapes of hierarchy and control’. International Journal of Historical
Fazeli Nashli, H. and Abbasnegad Seresty, R. 2005. ‘Social transformation and international interaction in the Qazvin Plain dur-
ing the 5th, 4th, and 3rd millennia B.C.’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, 7–26.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Beshkani, A., Markosian, A., Ilkhani, H., Abbasnegad Seresty, R. and Young, R. 2009. ‘The Neolithic to
Chalcolithic transition in the Qazvin Plain, Iran; chronology and subsistence strategies’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 41, 1–21.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Vidale, M., Bianchetti, P. and Giuseppe, G. 2010. ‘The evolution of ceramic manufacturing technology during
the late Neolithic and transitional Chalcolithic periods at Tepe Pardis’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42, 87–127.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Bashkani, A., Markosian, A., Ilkani, H. and Young, R. 2011. ‘The Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition in the
Qazvin Plain, Iran’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 43, 1–21.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Mosapour Negari, F. and Firoozmandi Shirejin, B. 2012. ‘Craft specialization at Shahdad: pottery production
during the third millennium BC’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 2/2, 83–93.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Coningham, R., Marghussian, A., Manuel, M., Azizi Kharanagi, H. and Pollard, M. 2013a. ‘Mapping the Neo-
lithic occupation of the Kashan, Tehran and Qazvin Plains’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran:
The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 124–146.
Fazeli Nashli, H. and Matthews, R. 2013. ‘The Neolithisation of Iran: patterns of change and continuity’, in R. Matthews and
H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1–13.
Bibliography 541
Fazeli Nashli, H. and Moghimi, N. 2013. ‘Counting objects: new evidence from Tepe Zagheh, Qazvin plain, Iran’. Antiquity 87,
Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nashli336/.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Reza Valipour, H. and Azizi Kharanaghi, H. 2013b. ‘The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Qazvin
and Tehran plains: a chronological perspective’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-
Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 107–129.
Fazeli Nashli, H. and Nokandeh, J. 2019. ‘The chronology of Tappeh Sialk: from local development to globalisation’, in J. Nokandeh,
J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London: Iran
Heritage Foundation, 5–11.
Fazeli Nashli, H. and Matthews, R. 2021. ‘Hierarchical or transegalitarian? Societies of the Transitional Chalcolithic period on
the north-central plateau of Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Studies 12/4, 175–210.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Nekouei, P. and Yousefi Zoshk, R. 2021. ‘Cultural interactions between prehistoric societies of the central Iranian
plateau with residents of the central Zagros, Fars, and southwestern Iran during the 5th millennium BCE’, in A, Abar et al. (eds)
Pearls, Politics and Pistachios. Berlin: ex oriente, 239–258.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Safari, M., Huang, Y., Deng, Z., Wu, X., Davoudi, H. and Sołtysiak, A. in press-a. Revisiting the Bronze Age of
Mazandaran: Excavation Report of Ghal-e Ben.
Fazeli Nashli, H., Safari, M., Huang, Y., Z., D., Wu, X., Davoudi, H. and Sołtysiak, A. in press b. ‘The Bronze Age and Iron Age
of Mazandaran: resilience and cultural adaptability’, in S. Pollock, R. Bernbeck and G. Eberhardt (eds) Coming to Terms with the
Future. Concepts of Resilience for the Study of Premodern Societies. Berlin.
Feinman, G. M. 2018. ‘The comparative investigation of early urbanized landscapes: an interdisciplinary framing’, in D. Domen-
ici and N. Marchetti (eds) Urbanized Landscapes in Early Syro-Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mesoamerica Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
13–33.
Feldman, M., Fernández-Domínguez, E., Reynolds, L., Baird, D., Pearson, J., Hershkovitz, I., May, H., Goring-Morris, N., Benz, M.,
Gresky, J., Bianco, R. A., Fairbairn, A., Mustafaoğlu, G., Stockhammer, P. W., Posth, C., Haak, W., Jeong, C. and Krause, J. 2018.
‘Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia’. bioRxiv, 422295.
Ferioli, P., Fiandra, E. and Tusa, S. 1979. ‘Stamp seals and the functional analysis of their sealings at Shahr-i Sokhta II-III (2700–
2200 BC)’, in J. E. Van Lohuizen-De Leeuw (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1975. Leiden: Brill, 7–26.
Fernández, H., Taberlet, P., Mashkour, M., Vigne, J.-D. and Luikart, G. 2005. ‘Assessing the origin and diffusion of domestic goats
using ancient DNA’, in J.-D. Vigne, J. Peters and D. Helmer (eds) The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeozoological
Approaches. Oxford: Oxbow, 50–54.
Fiandra, E. and Pepe, C. 2000. ‘Typology and distribution of the administration indicators in Eastern Residential area of Shahr-i
Sokhta during period II (2800–2600 BC). The sealings’’. South Asian Archaeology. Proceedings Of The 14th International Conference
Of The South Asian Archaeologists, Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.
Field, H. 1951. ‘Reconnaissance in Southwestern Asia’. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7/1, 86–102.
Finkel, I. 2013. ‘The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian perspective’, in I. Finkel (ed.) The Cyrus Cylinder: The Great Persian Edict from
Babylon. London: I. B. Tauris, 4–34.
Firouz, E. 2005. The Complete Fauna of Iran. New York: I. B. Tauris.
Fisher, W. B. 1968a. ‘Physical geography’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1–110.
Fisher, W. B. 1968b. ‘The personality of Iran’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge:
Flannery, K. V. 1969. ‘Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East’, in P. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby
(eds) The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 73–100.
Flannery, K. V. 1983. ‘Early pig domestication in the Fertile Crescent: a retrospective look’, in T. Cuyler Young Jr, P. E. L. Smith
and P. Mortensen (eds) The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J. Braidwood, No-
vember l5, l982. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 163–188.
Flannery, K. V. 1998. ‘The ground plans of archaic states’, in G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds) Archaic States. Santa Fe, New
Mexico: School of American Research Press, 15–57.
Flannery, K. V. 2014. ‘Hunting and early animal domestication at Tepe Guran’, in P. Mortensen (ed.) Excavations at Tepe Guran:
The Neolithic Period. Acta Iranica 55. Leuven: Peeters, 89–106.
Fleitmann, D., Burns, S. J., Mudelsee, M., Neff, U., Kramers, J., Mangini, A. and Matter, A. 2003. ‘Holocene forcing of the Indian
monsoon recorded in a stalagmite from southern Oman’. Science 300/5626, 1737–1739.
Fleitmann, D., Mudelsee, M., Burns, S. J., Bradley, R. S., Kramers, J. and Matter, A. 2008. ‘Evidence for a widespread climatic
anomaly at around 9.2 ka before present’. Paleoceanography 23/1.
Fleming, S. J., Pigott, V. C., Swann, C. P. and Nash, S. K. 2005. ‘Bronze in Luristan: preliminary analytical evidence from copper/
bronze artifacts excavated by the Belgian Mission in Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 35–64.
Fleming, S. J., Pigott, V. C., Swann, C. P., Nash, S. K., Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2006. ‘The Archaeometallurgy of War
Kabud, western Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 41, 31–57.
Flohr, P., Fleitmann, D., Matthews, R., Matthews, W. and Black, S. 2016. ‘Evidence of resilience to past climate change in South-
west Asia: early farming communities and the 9.2 and 8.2 ka events’. Quaternary Science Reviews 136, 23–39.
Flohr, P., Fleitmann, D., Zorita, E., Sadekov, A., Cheng, H., Bosomworth, M., Edwards, L., Matthews, W. and Matthews, R. 2017. ‘Late
Holocene droughts in the Fertile Crescent recorded in a speleothem from northern Iraq’. Geophysical Research Letters 44/3, 1528–1536.
542 Bibliography
Flohr, P., Matthews, R., Matthews, W., Richardson, A. and Fleitmann, D. 2020. ‘Radiocarbon dating of Bestansur and Shim-
shara’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews, K. Rasheed Raheem and A. Richardson (eds) The Early Neolithic of the Eastern Fertile
Crescent: Excavations at Bestansur and Shimshara, Iraqi Kurdistan CZAP Reports 2. Oxford: Oxbow, 187–195.
Floor, W. 1994. ‘De Bruin, Cornelis’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/de-bruin.
Fochesato, M., Bogaard, A. and Bowles, S. 2019. ‘Comparing ancient inequalities: the challenges of comparability, bias and pre-
cision’. Antiquity 93/370, 853–869.
Foglini, L. and Vidale, M. 2017. ‘The turquoise industry’, in M. Vidale and A. Lazzari (eds) Lapis Lazuli Bead Making at Shahr-i
Sokhta: Interpreting Craft Production in a Urban Community of the 3rd Millennium BC. Rome: ISMEO, 263–280.
Forest, J.-D. 1980. ‘Khiet Qasim I’. Paléorient 6, 213–220.
Foster, B. R. 2016. The Age of Agade: Inventing Empire in Ancient Mesopotamia. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fouache, É., Garçon, D., Rousset, D., Sénéchal, G. and Madjidzadeh, Y. 2005. ‘La vallée de l’Halil Roud (region de Jiroft, Iran):
étude géoarchéologique, méthodologie et résultats préliminaires’. Paléorient 31/2, 107–122.
Fouache, É., Francfort, H.-P., Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., Vahdati, A. A. and Lhuillier, J. 2010. ‘The Horst of Sabzevar and regional
water resources from the Bronze Age to the present day (northeastern Iran). ’. Geodinamica Acta 23/5–6, 287–294.
Fouache, É., Cez, L., Andrieu-Ponel, V. and Rante, R. 2021. ‘Environmental changes in Bactria and Sogdiana (Central Asia,
Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan) from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of
the Oxus Civilisation. Abingdon: Routledge, 82–109.
Frachetti, M. D., Benecke, N., Mar’yashev, A. N. and Doumani, P. N. 2010. ‘Eurasian pastoralists and their shifting regional in-
teractions at the steppe margin: settlement history at Mukri, Kazakhstan’. World Archaeology 42/4, 622–646.
Frachetti, M. D. and Rouse, L. M. 2012. ‘Central Asia, the steppe and the Near East, 2500–1500 BC’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A
Companion to the Archaeology of the Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 687–705.
Frahm, E. and Tryon, C. A. 2018. ‘Origins of Epipalaeolithic obsidian artefacts from Garrod’s excavations at Zarzi Cave in the
Zagros foothills of Iraq’. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 21, 472–485.
Frame, G. 2013. ‘Two monumental inscriptions of the Assyrian king Sargon II (721–705 BCE) in Iran. The Najafehabad stele and
the Tang-i Var rock relief ’, in S. Faizee (ed.) Collection of Papers Presented at the Third International Biennial Conference of the Persian
Gulf: History, Culture and Civilization. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 433–445.
Frame, L. 2010. ‘Metallurgical investigations at Godin Tepe, Iran, Part I: the metal finds’. Journal of Archaeological Science 37/7, 1700–1715.
Frame, L. D. 2012. ‘Reconstructing ancient technologies: Chalcolithic crucible smelting at Tal-i Iblis, Iran’, in P. Jett, B. E. McCarthy
and J. G. Douglas (eds) Scientific Research on Ancient Asian Metallurgy: Proceedings of the Fifth Forbes Symposium at the Freer Gallery of Art.
London: Archetype Publications in association with the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, 183–204.
Francfort, H.-P. 2005. ‘La civilisation de l’Oxus et les Indo-Iraniens et Indo-Aryans’, in G. Fussman, J. Kellens, H.-P. Francfort
and X. Tremblay (eds) Aryas, Aryens et Iraniens en Asie Centrale. Paris: Collège de France, Publications de l’Institut de civilisation
Indienne, 253–328.
Francfort, H.-P. and Tremblay, X. 2010. ‘Marhaši et la civilisation de l’Oxus’. Iranica Antiqua 45, 51–224.
Francfort, H.-P., Vahdati, A. A., Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., Lhuillier, J., Fouache, É., Tengberg, M., Mashkour, M. and Shirazi, Z.
2014. ‘Preliminary report on the soundings at Tepe Damghani Sabzevar, spring 2008’. Iranica Antiqua 49, 111–158.
Francfort, H.-P. 2019. ‘Iran and Central Asia. The Grand Route of Khorasan (Great Khorasan Road) during the third millennium
BC and the “dark stone” artefacts’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau
in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 247–266.
Frangipane, M. 2000. ‘The Late Chalcolithic/EB I sequence at Arslantepe: chronological and cultural remarks from a frontier site’,
in C. Marro and H. Hauptmann (eds) Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica 11.
Paris/Istanbul: De Boccard/Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 439–471.
Frangipane, M. 2001. ‘The transition between two opposing forms of power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the beginning of the 3rd
millennium’. TÜBA-AR 4, 1–24.
Frangipane, M., Di Nocera, G. M., Hauptmann, A., Morridelli, P., Palmieri, A., Sadori, L., Schultz, M. and Schmidt-Schultz, T.
2001. ‘New symbols of a new power is a “royal” tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey)’. Paléorient 27/2, 105–139.
Frangipane, M. and Palumbi, G. 2007. ‘Red-Black Ware, pastoralism, trade, and Anatolian-Transcaucasian interaction in the
4th–3rd millennium BC’, in B. Lyonnet (ed.) Les cultures du Caucase, VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le
Proche-Orient. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: CNRS, 233–256.
Frangipane, M. 2011. ‘Arslantepe-Malatya: a prehistoric and early historic center in eastern Anatolia’, in G. McMahon and
S. Steadman (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000–323 B.C. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 968–992.
Frangipane, M. 2014. ‘After collapse: continuity and disruption in the settlement by Kura-Araxes-linked pastoral groups at Ars-
lantepe-Malatya (Turkey). New data’. Paléorient 40/2, 169–182.
Frank, C. 2013. ‘The Acropolis tomb’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa. The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid Persia.
London: I. B. Tauris, 347–355.
Franke, U. 2002. ‘Iran between east and west. Widening horizons: south-eastern Iran and its “neighbours” during the 3rd mil-
lennium BCE. Response to Reinhard Dittmann’s paper’, in A. Hausleiter (ed.) Material Culture and Mental Spheres: Rezeption
Archäologischer Denkrich-tungen in der voderasiatischen Alterumskunde: Internationales Symposium für Hans J. Nissen, Berlin, 23.–24. Juni
2000. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 345–362.
Franke, U. 2008. ‘Baluchistan and the borderlands’, in D. M. Pearsall (ed.) Encyclopedia of Archaeology. New York: Elsevier, 651–670.
Frankopan, P. 2015. The Silk Roads: A New History of the World. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bibliography 543
Frankopan, P. 2019. The New Silk Roads: The Present and Future of the World. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Frantz, L. A. F., Bradley, D. G., Larson, G. and Orlando, L. 2020. ‘Animal domestication in the era of ancient genomics’. Nature
Reviews Genetics. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0225-0.
Fraser, J. A. 2008. ‘An alternative view of complexity at Tall-e Bakun A’. Iran 46, 1–19.
Frayne, D. R. 1992. The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. American Oriental Series 74. New Haven: American Oriental
Society.
Frayne, D. R. 2008a. Pre-Sargonic Period: Early Periods, Volume 1 (2700–2350 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Frayne, D. R. 2008b. ‘The Zagros campaigns of the Ur III kings’. Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3, 33–56.
Frayne, D. R. 2009–2011. ‘Simurrum’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 508–511.
Frey, W. and Probst, W. 1986. ‘A synopsis of the vegetation of Iran’, in H. Kürschner (ed.) Contributions to the Vegetation of Southwest
Asia. - Beih. Tübinger Atlas Vorderen Orients A 24. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 9–24.
Friberg, J. 1978. The Third Millennium Roots of Babylonian Mathematics I: A Method for the Decipherment, through Mathematical and
Metrological Analysis, of Proto-Sumerian and Proto-Elamite Semi-Pictographic Inscriptions. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Tech-
nology and the University of Gothenburg.
Friberg, J. 1994. ‘Preliterate counting and accounting in the Middle East: a constructively critical review of Schmandt-Besserat’s
Before Writing’. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 89/5–6, 477–489.
Fuchs, A. 2017. ‘Iran im 1. Jahrtausend vor Chr. aus Assyricher Sicht’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und
Fukai, S., Horiuchi, K. and Matsutani, T. 1973. Marv Dasht III: Excavations at Tall-i-Mushki, 1965, Tokyo. Tokyo: Institute for
Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.
Fukai, S. and Matsutani, T. 1982. Halimehjan II: The Excavation at Lameh Zamin, 1978. University of Tokyo, Institute of Oriental
Culture.
Fuller, D. Q. 2007. ‘Contrasting patterns in crop domestication and domestication rates: recent archaeobotanical insights from the
Old World’. Annals of Botany 100/5, 903–924.
Fuller, D. Q., Willcox, G. and Allaby, R. G. 2012. ‘Early agricultural pathways: moving outside the ‘core area’ hypothesis in
Southwest Asia’. Journal of Experimental Botany 63/2, 617–633.
Fuller, D. Q. 2014. ‘Charred remains from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and a consideration of early wheat diversity on the eastern
margins of the Fertile Crescent’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, Feb-
ruary 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Fuller, D. Q., Colledge, S., Murphy, C. and Stevens, C. J. 2017. ‘Sizing up cereal variation: patterns in grain evolution revealed
in chronological and geographical comparisons’, in J. Fernández Eraso, J. A. Mujika Alustiza, Á. Arrizabalaga Valbuena and
M. García Díez (eds) Miscelánea en homenaje a Lydia Zapata Peña (1965–2015). Bilbao: Servicio Editorial Universidad Del País
Vasco, 131–149.
Furusato, S. 2014. ‘Figurines of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e
Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Gaastra, J. S., Welton, L., de Gruchy, M. and Lawrence, D. 2021. ‘Landscapes, climate and choice: examining patterns in animal
provisioning across the Near East c. 13,000–0 BCE’. Quaternary International, URL: doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2021.1003.1045.
Gabriel, A. 1938. ‘The southern Lut and Iranian Baluchistan’. The Geographical Journal 92/3, 193–208.
Gahramani, N. T. 2017. ‘Settlement survey and interpretation of Kurgan sites distribution in the city of Kulibar’, ICAR Sixteenth
Annual Report. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 391–395.
von Gall, H. 2003. ‘Herzfeld, Ernst iii. Herzfeld and Persepolis’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/
articles/herzfeld-ernst-iii.
Gallego-Llorente, M., Connell, S., Jones, E. R., Merrett, D. C., Jeon, Y., Eriksson, A., Siska, V., Gamba, C., Meiklejohn, C.,
Beyer, R., Jeon, S., Cho, Y. S., Hofreiter, M., Bhak, J., Manica, A. and Pinhasi, R. 2016. ‘The genetics of an early Neolithic
pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran’. Scientific Reports 6. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31326.
Gamble, C. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gangal, K., Sarson, G. R. and Shukurov, A. 2014. ‘The Near-Eastern roots of the Neolithic in South Asia’. PLoS One 9, e95714.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095714.
Ganji, M. H. 1968. ‘Climate’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge
Garajian, O. 2006. ‘Some traces of Turkmenistan prehistoric cultures in Khorasan Province in Iran’, in S. Zare (ed.) The Second
Symposium of Iranian Young Archaeologists, Iran – Tehran. Tehran: ICHTO, 69–98.
Garazhian, O. and Papoli Yazdi, L. 2005. General Survey of Prehistoric Settlements of the Northern and Central Mountains of Khorasan,
North-east of Iran. Report Produced for the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran. Tehran:
University of Tehran.
Garazhian, O. 2009. ‘Darestan: a group of Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in south-eastern Iran’. Antiquity 83/319, e8.
Garazhian, O. 2012. ‘Recent excavations at Tapeh Baluch (Baluch Mound): a Neolithic site in Neyshabur Plain, NE Iran’.
Neo-Lithics 2/12, 20–31.
Garazhian, O. and Rahmati, M. 2012. ‘Period I of Tal-e Atashi: pre-pottery neolithic culture and architecture in the landscape of
SE Iran’. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 3, 111–148 [in Persian].
544 Bibliography
Garazhian, O. and Shakooie, M. 2013. ‘Telle Atashi (Bam, southeastern Iran) and the Neolithic of the eastern Near East’, in
R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 284–296.
Garazhian, O., Papoli Yazdi, L. and Fakhr-e Ghaemi, H. 2014. ‘Qaleh Khan a site in northern Khorassan and the Neolithic of
north eastern Iranian plateau’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 46, 21–50.
Garazhian, O. 2016. ‘Stratigraphic excavation at Tal-e Ātashi, Dārestān, Bam: living floors of a pre-pottery neolithic site, south-
eastern Iran (in Persian)’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in
Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 49–74.
Garfinkel, Y. 2000. ‘The Khazineh painted style of western Iran’. Iran 38, 57–70.
Garrison, M. B. 1991. ‘Seals and the elite at Persepolis: some observations on early Achaemenid Persian art’. Ars Orientalis 21, 1–29.
Garrison, M. B. 2000. ‘Achaemenid iconography as evidenced by glyptic art: subject matter, social function, audience and diffu-
sion’, in C. Uehlinger (ed.) Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millen-
nium BCE). Fribourg: University Press, 115–163.
Garrison, M. B. and Root, M. C. 2001. Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Volume I: Images of Heroic Encounter. Oriental
Institute Publications. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.
Garrison, M. B. 2010. ‘Archers at Persepolis: the emergence of royal ideology at the heart of the empire’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson
(eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 337–360.
Garrison, M. B. 2011. ‘The seal of “Kuraš the Anzanite, son of Šešpes” (Teispes), PFS 93*: Susa – Ansan – Persepolis’, in J. Álvarez-Mon
and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 375–406.
Garrison, M. B. 2012. ‘Antiquarianism, copying, collecting’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East. Chichester: Blackwell, 27–47.
Garrison, M. B. 2013. ‘Royal Achaemenid iconography’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
University Pres, 566–595.
Garrison, M. B. 2017. ‘Sealing practice in Achaemenid times’, in B. Jacobs, W. F. M. Henkelman and M. W. Stolper (eds) Admin-
istration in the Achaemenid Empire. Tracing the Imperial Signature. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 517–579.
Garrison, M. B. 2018. ‘Glyptic in the 1st millennium’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World.
Garrod, D. A. E. 1930. ‘The Palaeolithic of southern Kurdistan: excavations in the caves of Zarzi and Hazar Merd’. Bulletin of the
American School of Prehistoric Research 6, 9–43.
Gasche, H. 1973. La poterie élamite du deuxième millénaire a. c. Leiden: Brill.
Gasche, H. 2007. ‘The Persian Gulf shorelines and the Karkheh, Karun, and Jarrahi rivers: a geo-archaeological approach (3)’.
Akkadica 128, 1–7.
Gasche, H. 2013. ‘Transferts culturels de la Babylonie vers Suse au milieu du 2e millénaire av. n. ère’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier
(eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at
Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 71–82.
Gasche, H. and Cole, S. W. 2018. ‘Elamite funerary practices’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite
Gautier, J.-L. and Lampre, G. 1905. ‘Fouilles de Moussian’, in G. Jéquier (ed.) Recherches Archéologiques. Mémoires de la Délégation
en Perse 8. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 59–147.
Gebel, H. G. 1994. ‘Die Silexindustrie von Qale Rostam, NE-Zagros, Iran’, in H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozłowski (eds) Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent: Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, Seminar für Vorderasia-
trische Altertumskunde, Free University of Berlin, 29th March-2nd April, 1993. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence,
and Environment 1. Berlin: ex oriente, 117–142.
Genito, B. 2005. ‘The archaeology of the Median period: an outline and a research perspective’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 315–340.
Genito, B. 2010. ‘The Achaemenid empire as seen as from its eastern periphery; the case of Dahan-i Ghulaman in Sistan. Forty
years later, a revision of data’, in P. Matthiae and L. Romano (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East: 5 May-10 May 2009, Universita di Roma “La Sapienza”. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 77–92.
Genito, B. 2013. ‘Eastern Iran in the Achaemenid period’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
Genito, B. 2014. ‘Landscape, sources and architecture at the archaeological remains of Achaemenid Sistān (East Iran): Dāhān-i
Ghūlāmān’, in T. Daryaee, A. Mousavi and K. Rezakhani (eds) Excavating an Empire: Achaemenid Persia in Longue Durée. Costa
Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 163–178.
Genito, B., Asandaryani, E. H. and Castelluccia, M. 2019. ‘Iron Age in western Iran: a long debated question’, in Y. Hassanzadeh,
A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions.
Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 113–136.
Gentili, P. 2012. ‘Chogha Gavaneh: an outpost of Ešnunna on the Zagros mountains?’. Egitto e Vicino Oriente 35, 165–173.
Gerbault, P., Leonardi, M., Powell, A., Weber, C., Benecke, N., Burger, J. and Thomas, M. G. 2012. ‘Domestication and migra-
tions: using mitochondrial DNA to infer domestication processes of goats and horses’, in J. Burger, E. Kaiser and W. Schier (eds)
Population Dynamics in Prehistory and Early History: New Approaches Using Stable Isotopes and Genetics. Boston: De Gruyter, 17–30.
Geyer, B. and Sanlaville, P. 1996. ‘Nouvelle contribution à l’étude géomorphologique de la région de Larsa-Oueili (Iraq)’, in J.-L.
Huot (ed.) ‘Oueili: Travaux de 1987 et 1989. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 392–412.
Bibliography 545
Ghahremaninejad, F., Hoseini, E. and Jalali, S. 2021. ‘The cultivation and domestication of wheat and barley in Iran, brief review
of a long history’. The Botanical Review 87/1, 1–22.
Ghasemi, P. and Watson, G. 2014. ‘The Khersan 3 archaeological survey: new insights into settlement patterns in the Zagros fold-
ing zone from hydro-dam project archaeology’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 51, 167–211.
Ghasemi, G. S. 2017. The Beginning of the Iron Age in the Eastern Plains of Mazandaran. MA dissertation, University of Mazandaran.
Ghasidian, E., Azadi, A., Heydari-Guran, S. and Conard, N. J. 2009. ‘Late Paleolithic cultural traditions in the Basht Region of
the Southern Zagros of Iran’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International
Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 125–140.
Ghasidian, E. 2014. Early Upper Palaeolithic Occupation at Ghār-e Boof Cave; a Reconstruction of Cultural Traditions in Southern Zagros
Mountains. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.
Ghasidian, E., Bretzke, K. and Conard, N. J. 2017. ‘Excavations at Ghār-e Boof in the Fars Province of Iran and its bearing on
models for the evolution of the Upper Palaeolithic in the Zagros Mountains’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 47, 33–49.
Ghasidian, E. and Heydari-Guran, S. 2018. ‘Upper Palaeolithic raw material economy in the southern Zagros mountains of Iran’,
in Y. Nishiaki and T. Akazawa (eds) The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Singapore: Springer,
157–174.
Ghasimi, T., Akbari, M., Ghasimi, A., Qadri, M., Shahpurabadi, F. B., Azimi, M. and Azizi, E. 2019. ‘Salvage excavation in an
Iron Age tomb at Ruwar in the Sirwan River area, Hawraman, Kurdistan’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi
Ghasrian, S. M. 2017. ‘Khorbas: a Lower Palaeolithic site on Qeshm Island in the Persian Gulf ’. Antiquity 91, e1. URL: https://www.
cambridge.org/core/article/khorbas-a-lower-palaeolithic-site-on-qeshm-island-in-the-persian-gulf/D230B0BAAC3DBE76D
4E74AC679550AFE.
Ghazal, R., Kouchoukos, N., Speakman, R., Glascock, M. D. and Descantes, C. 2008. ‘Production zone sourcing and intra-regional
exchange of ceramics in the fourth millennium BC Susiana Plain: an INAA case study, Appendix I’, in A. Alizadeh (ed.) Chogha
Mish, Volume II. The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran: Final Report on the Last Six
Seasons of Excavations, 1972–1978. Oriental Institute Publications 130. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
93–152.
Ghazi, A. M. and Hassanipak, A. A. 1999. ‘Geochemistry of subalkaline and alkaline extrusives from the Kermanshah ophiolite,
Zagros Suture Zone, Western Iran: implications for Tethyan plate tectonics’. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 17/3, 319–332.
Ghirshman, R. 1934. ‘Une tablette proto-élamite du plateau iranien’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 31/3, 115–119.
Ghirshman, R. 1939. Fouilles de Sialk près de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Ghirshman, R. 1950. ‘Notes Iraniennes VI. Le Trésor de Sakkez, les origines de l’Art Mede et les bronzes du Luristan’. Artibus
Asiae 13/3–4, 197–198.
Ghirshman, R. 1951. L’Iran, des origines à l’Islam. Paris: Payot.
Ghirshman, R. 1952. Cinq campagnes de Fouilles à Suse (1946–1951). Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran. Mission de
Susiane. Rapports préliminaires 1. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Ghirshman, R. 1953. ‘Travaux de la mission archéologique en Susiane en hiver 1952–1953’. Syria 30/3/4, 222–233.
Ghirshman, R. 1954a. Iran: From the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Ghirshman, R. 1954b. Village Perse-Achemenide. Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Iran 36. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Ghirshman, R. 1964. ‘Suse. Campagne de fouilles 1962/3. Rapport préliminaire’. Arts Asiatiques 10/1, 3.
Ghirshman, R. 1965. ‘Suse du temps des sukkalmah. Campagne de Fouilles 1963–1964’. Arts Asiatiques 11, 3–7.
Ghirshman, R. 1966. Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash). Vol. 1: La Ziggurat. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran. Paris:
Geuthner.
Ghirshman, R. 1968. Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash): Vol. 2: Temenos, Temples, Palais, Tombes. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique
en Iran. Paris: Geuthner.
Gibbs, K. 2020. ‘The emergence of ceramics in Southwest Asia: Early pottery in farming communities’. Quaternary International.
Gibson, M. 2010. ‘The dead hand of Deimel’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds) Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration
in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the
Gilbert, A. S. 1983. ‘On the origins of specialized nomadic pastoralism in western Iran’. World Archaeology 15/1, 105–119.
Gilbert, A. S. 2002. ‘The native fauna of the ancient Near East’, in B. J. Collins (ed.) A History of the Animal World in the Ancient
Near East. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 3–75.
Gillmore, G. K., Coningham, R. A. E., Fazeli, H., Young, R. L., Maghsoudi, M., Batt, C. M. and Rushworth, G. 2009. ‘Irriga-
tion on the Tehran Plain, Iran: Tepe Pardis – the site of a possible Neolithic irrigation feature?’. Catena 78, 285–300.
Gilman, A. 1996. ‘Explaining the Upper Paleolithic revolution’, in R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds) Contemporary Archaeology In
Theory: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 220–239.
Glassner, J.-J. 2013. ‘Les premiers sukkalmah et les derniers rois de Simaški’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam.
Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University,
December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 319–328.
546 Bibliography
Glassner, J.-J. 2018. ‘Writing in Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Rout-
ledge, 450–463.
Glatz, C. 2009. ‘Empire as network: spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia’. Journal of Anthropological Archae-
ology 28/2, 127–141.
Glatz, C. and Casana, J. 2016. ‘Of highland-lowland borderlands: local societies and foreign power in the Zagros-Mesopotamian
interface’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44, 127–147.
Glatz, C. 2020. The Making of Empire in Bronze Age Anatolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gnoli, G. 1999. ‘FARR(AH)’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/farrah.
Gnoli, G. 2011. ‘DAHAN-E ḠOLĀMĀN’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
dahan-e-golaman-or-according-to-walther-hinz-p.
Godard, A. 1950. Le Tresor de Ziwiye (Kurdistan). Tehran: Publications du Service Archeologique de l’Iran.
Goff, C. 1963. ‘Excavations at Tall-i-Nokhodi’. Iran 1, 43–70.
Goff, C. 1964. ‘Excavations at Tall-i-Nokhodi, 1962’. Iran 2, 41–52.
Goff, C. 1969. ‘Excavations at Bābā Jān, 1967: second preliminary report’. Iran 7/1, 115–130.
Goff, C. 1970. ‘Excavations at Bābā Jān, 1968: third preliminary report’. Iran 8/1, 141–156.
Goff, C. 1971. ‘Luristan before the Iron Age’. Iran 9, 131–152.
Goff, C. 1976. ‘Excavations at Bābā Jān: the Bronze Age occupation’. Iran 14/1, 19–40.
Goff, C. 1977. ‘Excavations at Baba Jan’. Iran 15/1, 103–140.
Goff, C. 1978. ‘Excavations at Baba Jan: the pottery and metal from levels III and II’. Iran 16/1, 29–65.
Goff, C. 1985. ‘Excavations at Baba Jan: the architecture and pottery of level I’. Iran 23/1, 1–20.
Goff Meade, C. 1968. ‘Lūristān in the first half of the first millennium B.C.: A preliminary report on the first season’s excavations
at Bābā Jān, and associated surveys in the eastern Pīsh-i-Kūh’. Iran 6, 105–134.
Gondet, S. 2015. ‘Stratégies d’exploitation de la pierre à Persepolis. Nouvelles données archéologiques’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 279–331.
Gondet, S., Mohammadkhani, K., Djamali, M., Farjamirad, M., Ibnoerrida, N., Gopnik, H., Laisney, D., Notter-Truxa, F.,
Rigot, J.-B. and Ubelmman, Y. 2019. ‘Field report on the 2016 archaeological project of the joint Iran-France project on Pasar-
gadae and its surrounding territory’. Iran Heritage Studies 1/2, 1–28.
Good, I. 2012. ‘Changes in fiber use and spinning technologies on the Iranian Plateau: a comparative and diachronic study of
spindle whorls ca 4500–2500 BCE’. Paléorient 38/1/2, 111–126.
Goode, J. F. 2007. Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919–1941. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Gopnik, H. 2003. ‘The ceramics from Godin II in the late 7th to early 5th centuries BC ’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger
(eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON, 249–267.
Gopnik, H. 2005. ‘The shape of sherds: function and style at Godin II’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 249–269.
Gopnik, H. 2010. ‘Why columned halls?’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society
in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 195–207.
Gopnik, H. 2011. ‘The Median citadel of Godin Period 2’, in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On the High Road: The History
of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/Mazda Press, 285–364.
Gopnik, H. and Rothman, M. S. (eds) 2011. On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/
Mazda Press.
Gopnik, H., Reichel, C., Minc, L. and Elendari, R. 2016. ‘A view from the east: the Godin VI Oval and the Uruk sphere’. Journal
of Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 835–848.
Gopnik, H. 2017. ‘The Median confederacy’, in T. Daryaee (ed.) King of the Seven Climes. A History of the Ancient Iranian World (3000
BCE – 651 CE). Irvine: University of California Irvine, Jordan Center for Persian Studies, 39–62.
Gorris, E. and Wicks, Y. 2018. ‘The last centuries of Elam: the Neo-Elamite period’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks
(eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 249–274.
Gorris, E. 2019. ‘The harbour(s) of Nagitu: Mesopotamian mooring places, Elamite garrisons and Aramean settlements’. Iranica
Antiqua 54, 59–82.
Gorris, E. 2020. Power and Politics in the Neo-Elamite Kingdom (c. 1100–520 BC). Acta Iranica. Leuven: Peeters.
Gotch, P. 1968. ‘A survey of the Persepolis plain and Shiraz area’. Iran 6, 168–170.
Gotch, P. 1969. ‘The Persepolis plain and Shiraz: field survey 2’. Iran 7, 190–192.
Goulder, J. 2010. ‘Administrators’ bread: an experiment-based re-assessment of the functional and cultural role of the Uruk bev-
el-rim bowl’. Antiquity 84/324, 351–362.
Graf, D. F. 1994. ‘The Persian Royal Road system’, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.) Achaemenid History: Proceedings of the Last
Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6–9 1990- Ann Arbor, Michigan. Achaemenid History 7. Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het
Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Bilgen, N. and Marsh, B. 2016. ‘The archaeology of Achaemenid power in regional western Anatolia’.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26/4, 697–720.
Greenberg, R. 2007. ‘Transcaucasian colors: Khirbet Kerak Ware at Khirbet Kerak’, in B. Lyonnet (ed.) Les cultures du Caucase, VIe-IIIe
millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: CNRS, 257–268.
Greenfield, J. C. 1985. ‘Aramaic in the Achaemenian empire’, in I. Gershevitch (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 2: The
Medean and Achaemenid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 698–713.
Bibliography 547
Gregg, M. W., Brettell, R. and Stern, B. 2007. ‘Bitumen in Neolithic Iran: biomolecular and isotopic evidence’, in M. D. Glascock,
R. Speakman and R. S. Popelka-Filcoff (eds) Archaeological Chemistry. Analytical Techniques and Archaeological Interpretation. Wash-
ington: American Chemical Society Publications, 137–151.
Gregg, M. W. 2009. Organic Residue Analysis and the Earliest Uses of Pottery in the Ancient Middle East. PhD thesis, University of
Toronto.
Gregg, M. W. and Slater, G. F. 2010. ‘A new method for extraction, isolation and transesterification of free fatty acids from archae-
ological pottery’. Archaeometry 52/5, 833–854.
Gregg, M. W. and Thornton, C. P. 2012. ‘A preliminary analysis of prehistoric pottery from Carleton Coon’s excavations of Hotu
and Belt caves in northern Iran: implications for future research into the emergence of village life in western central Asia’. Inter-
national Journal of the Humanities 9/2, 56–94.
Gręzak, A., Sołtysiak, A., Valipour, H. R. and Davoudi, H. 2010. ‘Tepe Khaleseh (Iran), season 2009’. Bioarchaeology of the Near
East 4, 58–63.
Gries, H. and Fügert, A. 2019. ‘The glazed brick façades from Ashur in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin in context of the
north-western Iranian glazed bricks’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and
Tourism, 63–75.
Griffiths, H. I., Schwalb, A. and Stevens, L. R. 2001. ‘Environmental change in southwestern Iran: the Holocene ostracod fauna
of Lake Mirabad’. The Holocene 11/6, 757–764.
Griffiths, R. T. 2017. Revitalising the Silk Road: China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Leiden: HIPE.
Gronenborn, D. 2009. ‘Climate fluctuations and trajectories to complexity in the Neolithic: towards a theory’. Documenta Praehis-
torica 36, 97–110.
Gropp, G. 1995. Archäologische Forschungen in Khorasan, Iran: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients: Reihe B, Geisteswissen-
schaften. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Gropp, G. 2009. ‘Die Darstellung der 23 Völker auf den Reliefs des Apadana von Persepolis’. Iranica Antiqua 44, 283–359.
Groube, L. 1996. ‘The impact of diseases on the emergence of agriculture’, in D. R. Harris (ed.) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture
and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London: UCL Press, 101–129.
Groucutt, H. S., Petraglia, M. D., Bailey, G., Scerri, E. M. L., Parton, A., Clark-Balzan, L., Jennings, R. P., Lewis, L., Blinkhorn, J.,
Drake, N. A., Breeze, P. S., Inglis, R. H., Devès, M. H., Meredith-Williams, M., Boivin, N., Thomas, M. G. and Scally, A. 2015.
‘Rethinking the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa’. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 24/4, 149–164.
Guarducci, G. 2019. Nairi Lands. The Identity of the Local Communities of Eastern Anatolia, South Caucasus and Periphery During the Late
Bronze and Early Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Guerriero, C. and Benati, G. 2021. ‘Climate change and state evolution’. SSRN. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3725063.
Guichard, M. 2021. ‘The Oxus civilisation and Mesopotamia’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the Oxus Civi-
lization. Abingdon: Routledge, 66–81.
Guidi, G. F., Rahbar, S., Rahmati, S., Sheikholeslami, R., Soleimani, M., Trojsi, G. and Zare, A. 2012. ‘Diagnostic survey of
Persepolis Terrace: preliminary results’, in G. P. Basello and A. V. Rossi (eds) Dariosh Studies II. Persepolis and its Settlements:
Territorial System and Ideology in the Achaemenid State. Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, 387–402.
Guliyev, F. and Nishiaki, Y. 2012. ‘Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Göytepe, the middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan,
2008–2009’, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East, Fieldwork and Recent Research. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 71–84.
Gunter, A. 1982. ‘Representations of Urartian and western Iranian fortress architecture in the Assyrian reliefs’. Iran 20, 103–112.
Gunter, A. C. and Hauser, S. R. 2005. Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900–1950. Leiden: Brill.
Gurjazkaite, K., Routh, J., Djamali, M., Vaezi, A., Poher, Y., Beni, A. N., Tavakoli, V. and Kylin, H. 2018. ‘Vegetation history and
human-environment interactions through the late Holocene in Konar Sandal, S E Iran’. Quaternary Science Reviews 194, 143–155.
Gurney, J. 1994. ‘Della Valle, Pietro’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/della-valle.
Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 2007. Exploring Iran: The Photography of Erich F. Schmidt, 1930–1940. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-
nia Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 2016. The New Chronology of the Bronze Age Settlement of Tepe Hissar, Iran. University Museum Monograph
142. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gustavel, L. and Fazeli Nashli, H. in press. ‘Prehistoric burials at Cheshmeh Ali’, in T. Matney, C. Thornton, H. Fazeli Nashli and
H. Pittman (eds) The Schmidt Expedition to Cheshmeh Ali, Iran, 1934–1936. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Haerinck, E. 1987. ‘The chronology of Luristan, Pusht-i Kuh in the late fourth and first half of the third millennium B.C.’, in
J.-L. Huot (ed.) La Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie (du Vième mill. au début du IIIème mill. avant J.-C.) et l’exploration récente du Djebel
Hamrin. Paris: Éditions du C.N.R.S., 55–72.
Haerinck, E. 1988. ‘The Iron Age in Guilan—proposal for a chronology’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia c.
1000–539 B.C., London: Kegan Paul, 63–72.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 1996. Hakalan and Dum Gar Parchinah. The Chalcolithic Periods. Luristan excavation documents 1.
Brussels: Royal Museums of Art and History.
Haerinck, E. and Stevens, K. G. 1996. Bibliographie analytique de l’archéologie de l’Iran Ancien. Supplément 3 (1986–1995). Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E. 1997. ‘Babylonia under Achaemenid rule’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and
Imperialism 539–331 BC. Proceedings of a Seminar in memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin. London: British Museum Press, 26–34.
548 Bibliography
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 1998. Chamahzi Mumah. An Iron Age III Graveyard. Luristan Excavation Documents 2. Leuven:
Peeters.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 1999. Djub-i Gauhar and Gul Khanan Murdah: Iron Age III sites in the Aivan Plain. Luristan Excavation
Documents 3. Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2002. ‘The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan (West-Iran): chronology
and Mesopotamian contacts’. Akkadica 123, 163–181.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2004a. ‘The chronology of the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan: Results of the Belgian Archaeological Expe-
dition in Iran’, in K. v. Folsach, H. Thrane and I. Thuesen (eds) From Handaxe to Khan: Essays Presented to Peder Mortensen on the
Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 119–135.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2004b. The Iron Age III Graveyard at War Kabud, Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan. Luristan Excavation Docu-
ments 5. Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E., Overlaet, B. and Jaffar-Mohammadi, Z. 2004. ‘Finds from Khatunban B – Badavar Valley (Luristan) in the Iran
Bastan Museum, Teheran’. Iranica Antiqua 39, 105–168.
Haerinck, E. and Stevens, K. G. 2005. Bibliographie analytique de l’archéologie de l’Iran Ancien. Supplément 4 (1996–2003). Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2006a. Bani Surmah: An Early Bronze Age Graveyard in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan. Luristan Excavation
Documents 6. Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2006b. ‘Pošt-e Kuh’. Encyclopedia Iranica [online edition]. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
post-e-kuh.
Haerinck, E. 2008. ‘Le Luristan à l’âge du bronze (vers 3100–1300 av. J.-C.’, in N. Engel (ed.) Les Bronzes du Luristan: Énigmes de
l’Iran ancien, IIIe-Ier millénaire av. J.-C. Paris: Paris musées, 33–41.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2008. The Kalleh Nisar Bronze Age Graveyard in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan. Acta Iranica 46. Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E. 2009. ‘VANDEN BERGHE, Louis’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
vanden-berghe-louis.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2010a. Early Bronze Age Graveyards to the West of the Kabir Kuh (Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan). Acta Iranica
50. Leuven: Peeters.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2010b. ‘Bronze and Iron Age pottery from the Ilam graveyard (Pusht-i Kuh, Iran)’. Iranica Antiqua
45, 277–304.
Haerinck, E. 2011. ‘Painted pottery of the first half of the Early Bronze Age (late 4th-first centuries of the 3rd millennium BC) in
Luristan, W–Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 46, 55–106.
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B. 2013. ‘An Early Bronze Age tomb near Khorramabad (W-Iran). Herzfeld’s Gilviran revisited’. Iranica
Antiqua 48, 39–76.
Hakemi, A. 1949. ‘Haffari dar Tappeh Mushalan, Esma’ilabad, Savajbulaq’. Salnamey-e Keshvar-e Iran 14, 203–207 (in Persian).
Hakemi, A. 1950. ‘Kavoshhay-e ejmali dar tappehay-e Khorvin va Ajin-Dojin’. Gozareshhay-e Bastanshenasi/Archaeological Reports
1, 1–100 (in Persian).
Hakemi, A. 1968. ‘Kaluraz et la civilisation des Mardes’. Archéologie Vivante 1/1, 63–65.
Hakemi, A. 1973. ‘Excavations in Kaluraz, Gilan’. Bulletin of the Asian Institute of the Pahlavi University 3, 1–3.
Hakemi, A. 1986. ‘Les maquettes de Shahdad: Modèles de bâtiments sacrés du troisième millénaire av. J. C.’. Fragmenta Historiae
Elamicae 45/49, 45–50.
Hakemi, A. and Sajjadi, S. M. S. 1989. ‘Shahdad excavations in the context of the Oasis Civilization’, in G. Ligabue and S. Salvatori
(eds) Bactria: An Ancient Oasis Civilization from the Sands of Afghanistan. Venice: Erizzo, 141–156.
Hakemi, A. 1992. ‘The copper smelting furnace of the Bronze Age at Shahdad’, in J.-F. Jarrige (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1989.
Madison: Prehistory Press, 119–132.
Hakemi, A. 1994. ‘Some statues discovered in the excavations at Shahdad’, in A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio (eds) South Asian Ar-
chaeology 1993. Helsinki: Suomaleinen Tiedekatemia, 217–224.
Hakemi, A. 1997. Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran. Roma: Libreria Editrice Herder.
Hakemi, A. 2017. Archaeological Excavations in Roudbar of Gilan, Iran (1965–1968). Tehran: ICAR (in Persian).
Hallock, R. T. 1960. ‘A new look at the Persepolis treasury tablets’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19/2, 90–100.
Hallock, R. T. 1969. Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Oriental Institute Publications 92. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Halstead, P. and Isaakidou, V. 2011. ‘Revolutionary secondary products: the development and significance of milking, animal-traction
and wool-gathering in later prehistoric Europe and the Near East’, in T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet (eds) Interweaving
Worlds: Systemic interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia BC. Papers From a Conference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 61–76.
‌Hamlin, C. 1973. ‘The 1971 excavations at Seh Gabi, Iran’. Archeology 26, 224–228.
Hamlin, C. 1974a. ‘The early second millennium ceramic assemblage of Dinkha Tepe’. Iran 12, 125–153.
Hamlin, C. 1974b. ‘Seh Gabi, 1973’. Archaeology 27/4, 274–277.
Hamlin, C. 1975. ‘Dalma Tepe, Iran’. Iran 13, 111–127.
Hammer, E. L. and Arbuckle, B. S. 2017. ‘10,000 years of pastoralism in Anatolia: a review of evidence for variability in pastoral
lifeways’. Nomadic Peoples 21/2, 214–267.
Hamzavi, S. and Zeidi, M. 2016. ‘Tappeh Poustchi: a prehistoric site in Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour
(eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment
18. Berlin: ex oriente, 227–240.
Bibliography 549
Hamzeh, M. A., Mahmudy-Gharaie, M. H., Alizadeh-Lahijani, H., Moussavi-Harami, R., Djamali, M. and Naderi-Beni, A. 2016.
‘Paleolimnology of Lake Hamoun (E Iran): implication for past climate changes and possible impacts on human settlements’.
PALAIOS 31, 1–14.
Hamzehpour, B., Paul, D. and Wiesner, E. 1999. ‘Views on the structural development of the Zagros simply folded belt in Khuzestan
Province, Iran’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 150, 167–188.
Hansen, D. P. 1970. ‘A Proto-Elamite silver figurine in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’. Metropolitan Museum Journal 3, 5–14.
Hansen, D. P. 2003. ‘Art of the Akkadian dynasty’, in J. Aruz (ed.) Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B. C. from the Medi-
terranean to the Indus. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 189–236.
Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G. and Bastert-Lamprichs, K. 2007. ‘Aruchlo: a Neolithic settlement mound in the Caucasus’. Neo-Lithics
1/07, 13–18.
Hansen Streily, A. 2000. ‘Early pottery kilns in the Middle East’. Paléorient 26/2, 69–81.
Hansman, J. 1972. ‘Elamites, Achaemenians and Anshan’. Iran 10, 101–125.
Harper, P. O. 1992. ‘Mesopotamian monuments found at Susa’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa:
Harper, P. O. and Amiet, P. 1992. ‘The Mesopotamian presence’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of
Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures from the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 159–182.
Harper, P. O., Aruz, J. and Tallon, F. (eds) 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures from the Louvre. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Harrington, F. A. 1977. A Guide to the Mammals of Iran. Tehran: Department of the Environment.
Harris, D. R. and Gosden, C. 1996. ‘The beginnings of agriculture in western Central Asia’, in D. R. Harris (ed.) The Origins and
Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London: UCL Press, 370–389.
Harris, D. R. 2010. Origins of Agriculture in Western Central Asia: An Environmental-Archaeological Study. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Harris, D. R. and Coolidge, J. 2010. ‘The Mesolithic and Neolithic periods: sites, sequences, and subsistence’, in D. R. Harris
(ed.) Origins of Agriculture in Western Central Asia: An Environmental-Archaeological Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 53–70.
Harrison, J. V. 1942. ‘Some routes in southern Iran’. The Geographical Journal 99/3, 113–129.
Harrison, J. V. 1946. ‘South-West Persia: a survey of Pish-i-Kuh in Luristan’. The Geographical Journal 108/1/3, 55–70.
Harrison, J. V. 1968. ‘Minerals’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge
Harrison, T. 2010. ‘Reinventing Achaemenid Persia’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia: History,
Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 21–31.
Hasanpur, A., Hashemi, Z. and Overlaet, B. 2015. ‘The Baba Jilan graveyard near Nurabad, Pish-i Kuh, Luristan: a preliminary
report’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 171–212.
Hasanpur, A. and Malekzadeh, M. 2019. ‘Sangtarashan after six seasons of archaeological excavations’, in Y. Hassanzadeh,
A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring
Regions. Volume 1. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 151–174.
Hashemi, N., Wood, R. and Louys, J. 2018. ‘Faunal remains and environments from the Bronze age of Kalehkoob, Lut Desert,
eastern Iran’. Archaeological Research in Asia 16, 139–147.
Hassanzadeh, Y. 2009. ‘Qale Bardine, a Mannaean local chiefdom in the Bukan area, north-western Iran’. Archäologische Mitteilun-
gen aus Iran und Turan 41, 269–282.
Hassanzadeh, Y. and Mollasalehi, H. 2011. ‘An assessment of three glazed tiles from Qalaichi (Izirtu)’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and
M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 407–418.
Hassanzadeh, Y. and Miri, S. (eds) 2012. Eighty Years of Iranian Archaeology. Tehran: Pazineh Press Center and National Museum
of Iran.
Hassanzadeh, Y. and Curtis, J. 2021. Exhibition of the Repatriated Boukan Glazed Brick Collection. Tehan, Iran National Museum.
Hassanzadeh, Y. 2016a. A Survey of Mannaean Art and Culture. Tehran: National Museum of Iran.
Hassanzadeh, Y. 2016b. ‘A survey on an ‘Assyrian’ glazed pottery type in the Zagros mountains’, in J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke,
T. Greenfield and A. Stone (eds) The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Ar-
chaeological Research, 371–384.
Hassanzadeh, Y. 2017. ‘Die Mannäer und die Urartaer in Nordwest Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser
und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 176–185.
Hassanzadeh, Y. and Mollasalehi, H. 2017. An Archaeological Exploration of the Mannaean Site of Qalaichi. Tehran: National Museum
of Iran.
Hassanzadeh, Y. and Curtis, J. 2018. ‘Western Iran in the Iron Age’, in G. Brereton (ed.) I am Ashurbanipal, King of the World, King
of Assyria. London: Thames & Hudson & British Museum, 166–179.
Hauptmann, A., Rehren, T. and Schmitt-Strecker, S. 2003. ‘Early Bronze Age copper metallurgy at Shahr-i Sokhta (Iran), recon-
sidered’, in T. Stoellner, G. Koerlin, G. Steffens and J. Cierny (eds) Man and Mining – Mensch und Bergbau. Studies in Honour of
Gerd Weisgerber. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 197–213.
Hauser, S. R. 2003. ‘Herzfeld, Ernst i. Life and work’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
herzfeld-ernst-i-1.
550 Bibliography
Heimpel, W. 2003. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Heinsch, S., Shirzadeh, G., Hajmohamadi, Q., Darvish-Zadeh, A. and Kuntner, W. 2019. ‘A contribution to the Iron Age period
in west Azerbaijan province, Iran in light of new research: Anaqizli Tapeh’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi
Helbaek, H. 1969. ‘Plant collecting, dry farming and irrigation in prehistoric Deh Luran’, in F. Hole, K. V. Flannery and J. A. Neely
(eds) Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Memoirs of the Museum
of Anthropology 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 383–426.
Helbaek, H. 1972. ‘Samarran irrigation agriculture at Choga Mami in Iraq’. Iraq 34/1, 35–48.
Helwing, B. 2004. ‘Tracking the Proto-Elamite on the central Iranian plateau’, in S. Malek Shahmirzadi (ed.) The Potters of Sialk.
Sialk Reconsideration. Sialk Reconsideration Project Report 3. Tehran: ICAR, 45–58.
Helwing, B. 2005. ‘Early complexity in highland Iran: recent archaeological research into the Chalcolithic of Iran’. TÜBA-AR
8, 39–60.
Helwing, B. 2006. ‘The rise and fall of Bronze Age centers around the Central Iranian Desert – a comparison of Tappe Hesar II
and Arisman’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38, 35–48.
Helwing, B. 2009. ‘Rethinking the tin mountains: patterns of usage and circulation of tin in greater Iran from the 4th to the 1st
millennium BC’. TÜBA-AR 12, 209–221.
Helwing, B., Makki, M. and Seyedin, M. 2010. ‘Prehistoric settlement patterns in Darre-ye Bolaghi, Fars, Iran: results of archae-
ological and geoarchaeological fieldwork’, in P. Matthiae and L. Romano (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 5 May–10 May 2009, Universita di Roma “La Sapienza”. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 233–247.
Helwing, B. and Seyedin, M. 2010. ‘Bakun-period sites in Darre-ye Bolāghi, Fars’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds) Beyond the
Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 277–292.
Helwing, B. 2011a. ‘Proto-Elamite pottery from areas A, C, D, and E’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early
Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zebern,
194–251.
Helwing, B. 2011b. ‘Conclusions: the Arisman copper production in a wider context’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing
(eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von
Zebern, 523–531.
Helwing, B. 2011c. ‘The small finds from Arisman’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metal-
lurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zebern, 254–327.
Helwing, B., Chegini, N. N. and Thomalsky, J. 2011. ‘Archaeological survey in the hinterland of Arismān and Kāšān’, in A. Vatandoust,
H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie Mittelungen in Iran
und Turan 9. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 421–482.
Helwing, B. and Rahemipour, P. 2011. Tehran 50: ein halbes Jahrhundert deutsche Archäologen in Iran; eine Ausstellung des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum für Islamische Kunst, Staatliche Museen Berlin; 2.12.2011–4.3.2012 im
Pergamonmuseum, Museumsinsel Berlin, aus Anlass des fünfzigjährigen Bestehens der Außenstelle Teheran des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 11. Mainz: von Zabern.
Helwing, B. and Thomalsky, J. 2011. ‘The Arisman lithic industry’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early
Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zebern,
328–369.
Helwing, B. 2012. ‘The Iranian Plateau’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester:
Helwing, B., Lorentz, K. O. and Seyedin, M. 2012. ‘The dead in 5th millennium BC Darre-ye Bolaghi: first evidence on
Bakun-period burial rites from southern Iran’, in H. Fahimi and K. Alizadeh (eds) Nāmvarnāmeh: Papers in Honour of Massoud
Azarnoush. Tehran: Iran Negar Publication, 69–78.
Helwing, B. 2013a. ‘Some thoughts on the mode of culture change in the fourth millennium BC Iranian highlands’, in C. A. Petrie
(ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 94–105.
Helwing, B. 2013b. ‘The Chalcolithic of northern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
Helwing, B. 2014. ‘East of Eden? A review of Turkey’s eastern neighbors in the Neolithic’, in M. Özdogan, P. I. Kuniholm and M.
N. Basgelen (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey Vol. 6. 10500–5200BC: Environment Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief,
with Views from North, South, East, and West. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications Istanbul, 321–377.
Helwing, B. and Aliyev, T. 2014. ‘A monumental Neolithic? New results of the ongoing Azerbaijanian-German investigations in
the Mil Steppe, Azerbaijan ’, Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April–4 May
2012, University of Warsaw, Vol. 2: Excavation and Progress Reports. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 247–258.
Helwing, B. and Neumann, G. 2014. ‘Local painted ceramics in western Iran’, in M. Lebeau (ed.) ARCANE Interregional Volume
1: Ceramics. Turnhout: Brepols, 41–81.
Helwing, B. 2017a. ‘Die Mittel- Und Spätbronzezeit Im Hochland Von Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen
Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 130–137.
Bibliography 551
Helwing, B. 2017b. ‘Die Frühe Bronzezeit Im Hochland Von Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und
Helwing, B., Aliyev, T., Lyonnet, B., Guliyev, F., Hansen, S. and Mirtskhulava, G. (eds) 2017. The Kura Projects. New Research on
the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Helwing, B. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2017. ‘Jäger, Sammler, Bauern und Hirten: Die Jungsteinzeit in Iran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran:
Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 36–41.
Helwing, B. and Nokandeh, J. 2017. ‘Töpfer, Handwerker und Händler in der Kupfersteinzeit’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe
Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 42–49.
Helwing, B. 2018. ‘Metals and mining’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge,
118–145.
Helwing, B. and Aliyev, T. 2018. ‘Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in southern Cau-
casia and northwestern Iran’. Origini 41, 55–82.
Helwing, B. 2019. ‘Proto-Elamite sites in highland Iran: the state of research at Tappeh Sialk and Arisman’, in J. Nokandeh,
J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London:
Iran Heritage Foundation, 21–26.
Helwing, B. (ed.) in press-a. Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean
Turnhout, Brepols.
Helwing, B. in press-b. ‘The metal industry’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
Helwing, B. in press-c. ‘Settlement structures’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
Hemphill, B. E. 1999. ‘Foreign elites from the Oxus civilization? A craniometric study of anomalous burials from Bronze Age
Tepe Hissar’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 110/4, 421–434.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2003a. ‘Defining Neo-Elamite history’. Bibliotheca Orientalis 60/3–4, 251–263.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2003b. ‘Persians, Medes and Elamites. Acculturation in the Neo-Elamite period’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf
and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova:
SARGON, 181–231.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2008. The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts.
Achaemenid History 14. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2011. ‘Parnakka’s feast: šip in Pārsa and Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and Persia.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 89–166.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2012. ‘The Achaemenid heartland: an archaeological-historical perspective’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion
to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 931–962.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2013. ‘Administrative realities: the Persepolis archives and the archaeology of the Achaemenid heartland’,
in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook Of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 528–546.
Henkelman, W. F. M. and Khaksar, S. 2015. ‘Elam’s dormant sound: landscape, music and the divine in ancient iran’, in L. C. Eneix
(ed.) Archaeoacoustics: The Archaeology of Sound. Publications of Proceedings from the 2014 Conference in Malta. Myakka City: OTS Foun-
dation, 211–231.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2017. ‘Imperial signature and imperial paradigm: Achaemenid administrative structure and system across
and beyond the Iranian plateau’, in B. Jacobs, W. F. M. Henkelman and M. W. Stolper (eds) Administration in the Achaemenid
Empire. Tracing the Imperial Signature. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 45–256.
Henkelman, W. F. M. 2018. ‘Elamite administrative and religious heritage in the Persian heartland’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello
and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 803–828.
Henrickson, E. F. 1983. Ceramic Styles and Cultural Interaction in the Early and Middle Chalcolithic of the Central Zagros. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Toronto.
Henrickson, E. F. 1985a. ‘The early development of pastoralism in the central Zagros highlands (Luristan)’. Iranica Antiqua 20, 1–42.
Henrickson, E. F. 1985b. ‘An updated chronology of the Early and Middle Chalcolithic of the central Zagros highlands, western
Iran’. Iran 23/1, 63–108.
Henrickson, E. F. 1986. ‘Ceramic evidence for cultural interaction between Chalcolithic Mesopotamia and western Iran’, in W. D.
Kingery (ed.) Technology and Style. Ceramics and Civilization, 2. Columbus, OH: American Ceramic Society, 87–132.
Henrickson, E. F. and Vitali, V. 1987. ‘The Dalma tradition: prehistoric inter-regional cultural integration in highland western
Iran’. Paléorient 13/2, 37–46.
Henrickson, E. F. 1988. ‘Chalcolithic seals and sealings from Seh Gabi, central western Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 23, 1–22.
Henrickson, E. F. 1991. ‘Chalcolithic era’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chalcolithic-
era-in-persia.
Henrickson, R. C. 1986. ‘A regional perspective on Godin III cultural development in central western Iran’. Iran 24, 1–55.
Henrickson, R. C. 1987. ‘Godin III and the chronology of Central Western Iran circa 2600–1400 B.C.’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology
of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 205–227.
Henrickson, R. C. 2011a ‘CERAMICS vii. The Bronze Age in northwestern, western, and southwestern Persia’. Encyclopaedia
Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-vii.
552 Bibliography
Henrickson, R. C. 2011b. ‘The Godin Period III town’, in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On the High Road: The History of
Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/Mazda Press, 209–282.
Henrickson, R. C. 2011c. ‘Bābā Jān Tepe’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baba-jan-tepe.
Herrenschmidt, C. 2000. ‘Writing between visible and invisible worlds in Iran, Israel, and Greece’, in J. Bottéro, C. Herrenschmidt
and J.-P. Vernant (eds) Ancestor of the West: Writing, Reasoning, and Religion in Mesopotamia, Elam, and Greece. University of Chicago
Press, 67–146.
Herrero, P. 1973. ‘Un fragment de stèle néo-assyrien provenant d’Iran’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 3,
105–113.
Herrero, P. 1976. ‘Tablettes administratives de Haft-Tépé’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 66, 93–116.
Herrero, P. and Glassner, J.-J. 1990. ‘Haft-Tépé: choix de textes I’. Iranica Antiqua 25, 1–45.
Herrero, P. 1991. ‘Appendix IV. Tablettes administratives de Haft-Tépé’, in E. Negahban (ed.) Excavations at Haft Teppeh, Iran.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 127–152.
Herrmann, G. 1968. ‘Lapis lazuli: the early phases of its trade’. Iraq 30/1, 21–57.
Herzfeld, E. 1929–30a. ‘Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Pasargadae 1928’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 1, 4–16.
Herzfeld, E. 1929–30b. ‘Bericht über archäologische Beobachtungen im südlichen Kurdistan und in Luristan’. Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran 1, 65–75.
Herzfeld, E. 1941. Iran in the Ancient East: Archaeological Studies Presented in the Lowell Lectures at Boston. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Heskel, D. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1986. ‘Metallurgical technology’, in C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and T. Beale (eds) Excavations
at Tepe Yahya, Iran: The Early Periods. (American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 38). American School of Prehistoric Research
Bulletin 38. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 207–214.
Hessari, M. and Akbari, M. 2007. ‘The preliminary report of the excavation campaign in Tape Sofalin, Pishva’. Archaeological
Reports 7, 167–200 (in Persian).
Hessari, M. 2011. ‘New evidence of the emergence of complex societies on the central Iranian plateau’. Iranian Journal of Archaeo-
logical Studies 1/2, 35–48.
Hessari, M. and Yousefi Zoshk, R. 2013. ‘New evidences on emergence of complex societies in the Central Iranian Plateau’, in
K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Leiden: Brill,
27–42.
Hessari, M. and Saeedi, S. 2017. ‘New perspectives from the Proto-Elamite horizon in the center of the Iranian Plateau’. The In-
ternational Journal of Humanities 24/4, 33–42.
Hesse, B. 1978. Evidence for Husbandry from the Early Neolithic Site of Ganj Dareh in Western Iran. Ph.D., Columbia University.
Hesse, B. 1979. ‘Rodent remains and sedentism in the Neolithic: evidence from Tepe Ganj Dareh, Western Iran’. Journal of Mam-
malogy 60/4, 856–857.
Hesse, B. 1982. ‘Slaughter patterns and domestication: the beginnings of pastoralism in Western Iran’. Man 17/3, 403–417.
Hesse, B. 1984. ‘These are our goats: the origins of herding in west central Iran’, in J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson (eds) Animals
and Archaeology 3: Early Herders and their Flocks. BAR International Series 202. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 243–264.
Hesse, B. 1989. ‘Paleolithic faunal remains from Ghar-i-Khar, western Iran’, in P. J. Crabtree, D. V. Campana and K. Ryan (eds)
Early Animal Domestication and its Cultural Context. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 37–45.
Heydari, M., Fazeli Nashli, H., Cortesi, E. and Vidale, M. 2015. ‘A surface collection at Chegerdak, a Bronze Age centre in the
Jazmurian basin (South-Eastern Iran)’. Paléorient 41/2, 133–155.
Heydari, M., Abbasnejdad Seresti, R. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2018a. ‘Cultural interaction in Mazandaran during the Bronze Age’.
Journal of Archaeological Studies 10/1, 57–74 (in Persian).
Heydari, M., Desset, F. and Vidale, M. 2018b. ‘Bronze Age glyptics of eastern Jazmurian, Iran’. Paléorient 44/1, 133–153.
Heydari, M., Desset, F. and Vidale, M. 2019. ‘A late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC grave at Spidej (eastern Jazmurian, Iranian
Baluchistan)’. Iranica Antiqua 54, 17–57.
Heydari, M., Guérin, G., Zeidi, M. and Conard, N. J. 2021. ‘Bayesian luminescence dating at Ghār-e Boof, Iran, provides a new
chronology for Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the southern Zagros’. Journal of Human Evolution 151, 102926.
Heydari-Guran, S., Ghasidian, E. and Conard, N. J. 2009. ‘Iranian Palaeolithic sites on travertine and tufa formations’, in
M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford:
Archaeopress, 109–124.
Heydari-Guran, S. and Ghasidian, E. 2011. ‘The Paleolithic survey in Arisman region; western central plateau of Iran’, in A. Vatandoust,
H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metalluragy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau, Archäologie in Iran und Turan Band
9. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zebern, 484–498.
Heydari-Guran, S. 2014. Palaeolithic Landscapes of Iran. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2568. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Heydari-Guran, S. and Ghasidian, E. 2017. ‘The MUP Zagros Project: tracking the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in the
Kermanshah region, west-central Zagros, Iran’. Antiquity 91, e2. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/mup-zagros-
project-tracking-the-middleupper-palaeolithic-transition-in-the-kermanshah-region-westcentral-zagros-iran/B3DDF3AF3
CCCEDB8749DED69C8826B7B.
Heydari-Guran, S. and Ghasidian, E. 2020. ‘Late Pleistocene hominin settlement patterns and population dynamics in the Zagros
Mountains: Kermanshah region’. Archaeological Research in Asia 21, 100161.
Bibliography 553
Heydari-Guran, S., Benazzi, S., Talamo, S., Ghasidian, E., Hariri, N., Oxilia, G., Asiabani, S., Azizi, F., Naderi, R., Safaierad, R.,
Hublin, J.-J., Foley, R. A. and Lahr, M. M. in press. ‘The discovery of an in situ Neanderthal remain in the Baw Yawan rockshel-
ter, west-central Zagros mountains, Kermanshah’. PLoS One
Heydarian, M. 2015. ‘Analysis and typology of Early Bronze ware in Koliayi Plain, Central Zagros’. Journal of Social Issues and
Humanities 3/5, 66–73.
Heydarian, M. and Ghorbani, H. R. 2016. ‘Prehistoric evidence of Sonqor Koliyaie Plain in central Zagros’. Iranian Journal of
Archaeological Studies 6, 19–29.
Heydarian, M., Sarikhani, M., Zarchi, A. S., Mrdani, Y. and Mardani, M. 2017. ‘Human settlements and the role of natural dis-
asters: a case study of landslide at Tepe Mehr Ali’. International Journal of Humanities 24/3, 14–29.
Heydarian, M., Abdorrahimian, F., Emami, S. and Beheshti, S. I. 2020. ‘The provenance and distribution of Early Bronze ceram-
ics in the Kolyaei Plain, central Zagros, Iran’. Archaeometry 62/4 doi: 10.1111/arcm.12551.
Heyvaert, V. M. A. and Baeteman, C. 2007. ‘Holocene sedimentary evolution and palaeocoastlines of the Lower Khuzestan plain
(southwest Iran)’. Marine Geology 242/1, 83–108.
Heyvaert, V. M. A., Verkinderen, P. and Walstra, J. 2013. ‘Geoarchaeological research in Lower Khuzestan: state of the art’, in K. De
Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological Philological Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 493–534.
Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. (eds) 2006. The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hiebert, F. T. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1992. ‘Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian borderlands’. Iran 30, 1–15.
Hiebert, F. T. 1998. ‘Central Asians on the Iranian Plateau: a model for Indo-Iranian expansionism’, in V. H. Mair (ed.) The Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia. Vol. I: Archaeology, Migration, Nomadism, Linguistics. Washington, DC: Insti-
tute for the Study of Man, 148–161.
Hiebert, F. T. 2002. ‘The Kopet Dag sequence of early villages in Central Asia’. Paléorient 28/2, 25–42.
Hiebert, F. T. and Dyson, R. H. 2002. ‘Prehistoric Nishapur and the frontier between Central Asia and Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 37,
113–149.
Hiebert, F. T. 2003. A Central Asian Village at the Dawn of Civilization, Excavations at Anau, Turkmenistan. University Museum Mon-
ograph 116. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Hildebrand, E. 1996. ‘Changes in methods and techniques of blade production during the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic in
the Eastern Fertile Crescent’, in S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. K. Gebel (eds) Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent,
and their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3. Berlin:
ex oriente, 193–206.
Hill, K. R., Walker, R. S., Božičević, M., Eder, J., Headland, T., Hewlett, B., Hurtado, A. M., Marlowe, F., Wiessner, P. and Wood, B.
2011. ‘Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure’. Science 331/6022, 1286–1289.
Hinz, W. 1967. ‘Elams Vertrag mit Narām-Sîn von Agade’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 58, 66–96.
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships Between Humans and Things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hojabri Nobari, A. 2004. ‘Excavations of Masjed-e Kabud in Tabriz: its place among contemporaneous Iranian Iron Age sites’,
in M. Azarnoush (ed.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Iranian Archaeology: Northwestern Region, 265–276 (in Persian).
Holakooei, P. 2014. ‘A technological study of the Elamite polychrome glazed bricks at Susa, South-Western Iran’. Archaeometry
56/5, 764–783.
Holakooei, P., Ahmadi, M., Volpe, L. and Vaccaro, C. 2017. ‘Early opacifiers in the glaze industry of first millennium bc Persia:
Persepolis and Tepe Rabat’. Archaeometry 59/2, 239–254.
Hole, F. and Flannery, K. V. 1968. ‘The prehistory of southwestern Iran: a preliminary report’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
33, 147–206.
Hole, F., Flannery, K. V. and Neely, J. A. (eds) 1969. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence
from Khuzistan, Iran. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Hole, F. 1974. ‘Tepe Tula’i, an early campsite in Khuzistan, Iran’. Paléorient 2/2, 219–242.
Hole, F. 1977. Studies in the Archeological History of the Deh Luran Plain: The Excavation of Chagha Sefid. Memoirs of the Museum of
Anthropology 9. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Hole, F. 1979. ‘Rediscovering the past in the present: ethnoarchaeology in Luristan, Iran’, in C. Kramer (ed.) Ethnoarchaeology: The
Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press, 192–218.
Hole, F. 1983. ‘Symbols of religion and social organization at Susa’, in T. Cuyler Young Jr, P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen (eds)
The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J. Braidwood, November l5, l982. Studies
in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 315–333.
Hole, F. 1984. ‘Analysis of structure and design in prehistoric ceramics’. World Archaeology 15/3, 326–347.
Hole, F. 1987a. ‘Settlement and society in the Village Period’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society
from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 79–105.
Hole, F. 1987b. ‘Archaeology of the Village Period’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehis-
tory to the Islamic Conquest. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 29–78.
Hole, F. 1987c. ‘Chronologies in the Iranian Neolithic’, in O. Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours (eds) Chronologies in the Near East:
Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000–4,000 BP. BAR International Series 379. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports, 353–379.
Hole, F. 1990. ‘Cemetery or mass grave? Reflections on Susa I’, in F. Vallat (ed.) Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran: mélanges offerts à
Jean Perrot. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1–14.
554 Bibliography
Hole, F. 1992. ‘The cemetery of Susa: an interpretation’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient
Near Eastern Treasures from the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 32–41.
Hole, F. 1995. ‘Assessing the past through anthropological archaeology’, in J. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New
York: Scribner, 2715–2727.
Hole, F. 1996. ‘The context of caprine domestication in the Zagros region’, in D. Harris (ed.) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture
and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London: UCL Press, 263–281.
Hole, F. 2004. ‘Neolithic Age in Iran’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/neolithic-age-in-iran.
Hole, F. 2007. ‘Cycles of settlement in the Khorramabad valley in Luristan, Iran’, in E. Stone (ed.) Settlement and Society: Essays
Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 63–82.
Hole, F. 2008. ‘Paleolithic Age in Iran’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/paleolithic-age.
Hole, F. 2010. ‘A monumental failure: the collapse of Susa’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds) Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and
Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63. Chicago: Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago, 227–244.
Hole, F. 2011. ‘Interactions between western Iran and Mesopotamia from the 9th-4th millennia B.C.’. Iranian Journal of Archaeo-
logical Studies 1/1, 1–14.
Hole, F. and Amanolahi-Baharvand, S. 2021. Tribal Pastoralists in Transition: The Baharvand of Luristan, Iran. University of Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 100. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Holzer, H. F. and Momenzadeh, M. 1971. ‘Ancient copper mines in the Veshnoveh area, Kuhestan-e-Qom, west central Iran’.
Archaeologia Austriaca 49, 1–22.
Homami Totmaj, L., Ramezani, E., Alizadeh, K. and Behling, H. 2020. ‘Four millennia of vegetation and environmental history
above the Hyrcanian forest, northern Iran’. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00813-y.
Hongo, H. and Mashkour, M. 2008. ‘Faunal remains from TB75’, in A. Tsuneki and M. Zeidi (eds) Tang-e Bolaghi: The Iran-Japan
Archaeological Project for the Sivand Dam Salvage Area. Shark (Tsukuba, Japan). Tehran & Tsukuba: Iranian Center for Archaeolog-
ical Research & Department of Archaeology, University of Tsukuba, 133–148.
Hopper, K. and Wilkinson, T. J. 2013. ‘Population and settlement trends in south-west Iran and neighbouring areas’, in C. A. Petrie
(ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 35–49.
Hosseinzadeh, J., Javeri, M., Montazerzohouri, M., Banitaba, A., Shadmahani, R. N., Makvandi, L. and Sołtysiak, A. 2017. ‘A
palimpsest grave at the Iron Age cemetery in Estark-Joshaqan, Iran’. Antiquity Project Gallery 91/359, e7.
Hosseinzadeh, J., Sarlak, S., Kavosi, A., Rafie, H. and Sołtysiak, A. 2018. ‘Human remains from Sarm, Iran, 2015’. Bioarchaeology
of the Near East 12, 103–106.
Hosseinzadeh, J., Noralivand, H., Javery, M., Montazerzohori, M., Sohrabinia, A. and Sołtysiak, A. 2019. ‘The Grey Ware culture
and the second millennium BC cemeteries in Central Iran: an appraisal of the recent absolute dates’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati
and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1.
Tehran and Sanandaj: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 421–437.
Hovsepyan, R. 2015. ‘On the agriculture and vegetal food economy of Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus’. Paléorient
45/1, 69–82.
Howe, B. 1983. ‘Karim Shahir’, in L. S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed and P. J. Watson (eds) Prehistoric Ar-
chaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. Oriental Insitute Publications 105. Chicago: University of Chicago, 23–254.
Howe, B. 2014. Barda Balka. Oriental Institute Communications 31. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Howell, R. 1979. ‘Survey of the Malayer Plain’. Iran 17, 156–157.
Howell-Meurs, S. 2001. Early Bronze and Iron Age Animal Exploitation in Northeastern Anatolia: The Faunal Remains from Sos Höyük
and Büyüktepe Höyük. British Archaeological Reports (IS) 945. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B. 1990. ‘The carbonised seeds from Tepe Abdul Hosein: results of preliminary analyses’, in J. Pullar (ed.) Tepe
Abdul Hosein: A Neolithic Site in Western Iran, Excavations 1978. BAR International Series 563. Oxford: BAR, 217–222.
Hudson, M. J., Aoyama, M., Hoover, K. C. and Uchiyama, J. 2012. ‘Prospects and challenges for an archaeology of global climate
change’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3/4, 313–328.
Huff, D. 2005. ‘From Median to Achaemenian palace architecture’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 371–395.
Hume, G. W. 1976. The Ladizian: An Industry of the Asian Chopper-Chopping Tool Complex in Iranian Baluchistan. Philadelphia: Dorrance.
Hussein, A. M., Hamza, H. A., Thaher, A. K., Kadhum, S. J., Hashem, M., Taha, H. M., Altaweel, M. R. and Studevent-Hick-
man, B. 2010. ‘Tell Abu Sheeja/ancient Pašime: report on the first season of excavations, 2007’. Akkadica 131/1, 47–103.
Ibáñez, J. J., González-Urquijo, J., Teira-Mayolini, L. C. and Lazuén, T. 2018. ‘The emergence of the Neolithic in the Near East:
a protracted and multi-regional model’. Quaternary International 470, 226–252.
Ii, H. 1988. ‘Seals and seal impressions from Tell Gubba’. Al-Rafidan 9, 97–134 (in Japanese).
Iliffe, J. H. 1953. ‘Persia and the ancient world’, in A. J. Arberry (ed.) The Legacy of Persia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–38.
Ilkhan, T., Rafi’i Alavi, B., Shojaee Esfahani, A. and Sołtysiak, A. 2019. ‘Human remains from Kafarved-Varzaneh survey, Iran,
2018–2019’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 13, 105–117.
Ilkhani, H., Livarda, A. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2019. ‘Archaeobotanical report about Tappeh Sialk, North Mound: first impressions’,
in J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies
1. London: Iran Heritage Foundation, 40–44.
Imanpour, M. T. 2015. ‘Political archaeology and the growth of nationalism in historiography of Iran in early twentieth century:
the case of Pirniya’s Ancient History’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 5/1, 57–66.
Bibliography 555
Ingraham, M. L. and Summers, G. D. 1979. ‘Stelae and settlements in the Meskin Shahr Plain, north-eastern Azerbaijan, Iran’.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 12, 67–102.
Iravani Ghadim, F. 2018. ‘The role of domestic animals in the life of Eurasian nomadic warrior groups in the light of recent ar-
chaeological evidence’. TÜBA-AR 22, 19–33.
Iravani Ghadim, F. and Beikzadeh, S. 2018. ‘Animal remains excavated at Jafar Abad and Tu Ali Sofla Kurgans, northwestern Iran
(2010 and 2013 seasons)’. TÜBA-AR 23, 100–120.
Işık, K. and Işıklı, M. 2015. ‘Inscribed bullae and bone layer discovered at the Ayanis fortress/Van in 2014’. Altorientalische Forschun-
gen 42/2, 142–152.
Islam, B. S. B., Chaychi Amirkhiz, A. and Valipour, H. 2016. ‘On the possible correlation between the collapse of Sialk IV and
climatological events during the Middle–Late Holocene’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 6/1, 45–57.
Jackson, J. and McKenzie, D. 1984. ‘Active tectonics of the Alpine–Himalayan Belt between western Turkey and Pakistan’. Geo-
physical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 77/1, 185–264.
Jackson, J. 2006. ‘Fatal attraction: living with earthquakes, the growth of villages into megacities, and earthquake vulnerability
in the modern world’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 364/1845,
1911–1925.
Jacobs, B. 2011. ‘Achaemenid satrapies’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-satrapies.
Jacobs, B. 2017. ‘Das Monument von Bisotun und seine Vorgeschichte’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und
Jacobs, L. K. 1980. Darvazeh Tepe and the Iranian Highlands in the Second Millennium B. C. Ph.D., Oregon.
Jacobsen, T. 1939. The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jafari, F. K. 2017. ‘A Multi-Isotopic Approach to the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Mobility and Burial Patterns in the Iranian plateau during
Bronze Age (poster)’. 86th Meeting of the American Society of Physical Anthropologists.
Jafari, F. K. 2018. ‘Human remains from Haft Tepe, Iran, 2012–2013’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 12, 55–60.
Jafari, F. K. and Thomalsky, J. 2018. ‘The Iranian-German Tappe Rivi Project (TRP), north Khorasan: report on the 2016 and
2017 fieldworks’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 48, 77–120.
Jahangirfar, M. 2018. ‘The Elamite triads: reflections on the possible continuities in Iranian tradition’. Iranica Antiqua 53, 105–124.
Jakubiak, K. 2004. ‘Some remarks on Sargon II’s eighth campaign of 714 BC’. Iranica Antiqua 39, 191–202.
Jamialahmadi, M., Vahdati Nasab, H., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Beshkani, A. 2008. ‘Kashafrud revisited: discovery of new Palaeo-
lithic sites in north-eastern Iran’. Antiquity 82, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nasab317/.
Jaubert, J., Biglari, F., Bordes, J.-G., Bruxelles, L., Mourre, V., Shidrang, S., Naderi, R. and Alipour, S. 2006. ‘New research
on Paleolithic of Iran: preliminary report of 2004 Iranian-French Joint Mission’, in M. Azarnoush (ed.) Archaeological Reports.
Tehran: ICAR, 17–26.
Jaubert, J., Biglari, F., Mourre, V., Bruxelles, L., Bordes, J.-G., Shidrang, S., Naderi, R., Mashkour, M., Maureille, B., Mallye, J.-B.,
Quinif, Y., Rendu, W. and Laroulandi, V. 2009. ‘The Middle Palaeolithic occupation of Mar-Tarik, a new Zagros Mousterian
site in Bisotun massif (Kermanshah, Iran)’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR
International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 7–27.
Jaubert, J., Biglari, F., Crassard, R., Mashkour, M., Rendu, W. and Shidrang, S. 2010. ‘Paléolithique moyen récent de la grotte de
Qaleh Bozi 2 (Ispahan, Iran): premiers résultats de la campagne 2008’. Iranian Archaeology 1/1, 21–31.
Javanmardzadeh, A., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Darabi, H. 2013. ‘The Archaeological Project of the Mehran Plain (APMP)’. Journal of
Archaeological Studies, University of Tehran 5/1, 11–30 (in Persian).
Jayez, M. and Garazhian, O. 2013. ‘Chipped stone industry from the excavation at the PPN settlement of Tell-e Atashi, SE Iran’,
in F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez and M. Molist (eds) Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East,
7th Conference on PPN Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 327–339.
Jayez, M. 2015. ‘The shift in bladelet production trajectory from Late Paleolithic to Neolithic: the case study of Izeh, Khuzestan,
Iran’. Lithic Technology 40/1, 52–67.
Jayez, M. and Vahdati Nasab, H. 2016. ‘A separation: Caspian Mesolithic vs Trialetian lithic industry. A research on the excavated
site of Komishan, southeast of the Caspian Sea, Iran’. Paléorient 42/1, 75–94.
Jayez, M., Kazemnejad, A. and Zalaghi, A. 2017. ‘Dichotomous Early Bronze Age chipped stone industry: statistical assessment of
congruence among chert and obsidian chipped stone assemblages from Kohne Tepesi, east Azerbaijan, Iran.’. International Journal
of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 3/5, 45–54.
Jayez, M., Hashemi, S.-M., Nateghi, A., Abdollahi, A., Akhavan Kharazian, M., Vahdati Nasab, H. and Berillon, G. 2019a.
‘Anzo: the first evidence of Paleolithic cave sites in the northern margin of the Iranian Central Desert, Semnan, Iran’. Ar-
chaeology 7/1, 1–5.
Jayez, M., Molla Mirzai, K. and Niknami, K. A. 2019b. ‘Introduction of Late Pleistocene cultural material of an intermediate
region: Paleolithic sites of Pion and Izeh plain between Central and Southern Zagros, Southwest Iran’. Quaternary International
512, 52–66.
Jennings, J. 2011. Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jervis Read, S. 1968. ‘Ornithology’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge:
Joannès, F. 1991. ‘L’étain, de l’Elam à Mari’, in L. de Meyer and H. Gasche (eds) Mésopotamie et Elam. Mesopotamian History and
Environment, Occasional Publications 1. Ghent: University of Ghent.
556 Bibliography
Johnson, G. A. 1973. Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological
Papers 51. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Johnson, G. A. 1987. ‘The changing organization of Uruk administration on the Susiana Plain’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of
Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 107–140.
Joisten-Pruschke, A. 2010. ‘Light from Aramaic documents’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia:
History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 41–50.
Jones, M. and Roberts, C. N. 2008. ‘Interpreting lake isotope records of Holocene environmental change in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean’. Quaternary International 181/1, 32–38.
Jones, M. 2013. ‘Key questions regarding the paleoenvironment of Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran.
Jones, M., Djamali, M., Stevens, L., Heyvaert, V., Askari, H., Norolahie, D. and Weeks, L. 2013. ‘Mid-Holocene environmental
and climatic change in Iran’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in
the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 25–34.
Jones, M., Djamali, M., Holmes, J., Weeks, L., Leng, M. J., Lashkari, A., Alamdari, K., Noorollahi, D., Thomas, L. and
Metcalfe, S. E. 2015. ‘Human impact on the hydroenvironment of Lake Parishan, SW Iran, through the late-Holocene’. The
Holocene 25/10, 1651–1661.
Jones, M., Abu-Jaber, N., AlShdaifat, A., Baird, D., Cook, B. I., Cuthbert, M. O., Dean, J. R., Djamali, M., Eastwood, W.,
Fleitmann, D., Haywood, A., Kwiecien, O., Larsen, J., Maher, L. A., Metcalfe, S. E., Parker, A., Petrie, C. A., Primmer, N.,
Richter, T., Roberts, N., Roe, J., Tindall, J. C., Ünal-İmer, E. and Weeks, L. 2019. ‘20,000 years of societal vulnerability and
adaptation to climate change in southwest Asia’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 6/2, e1330.
Jordan, P. 2014. ‘The ethnohistory and anthropology of ‘modern’ hunter-gatherers’, in V. Cummings, P. Jordan and M. Zvelebil
(eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 903–917.
Jotheri, J., Altaweel, M., Tuji, A., Anma, R., Pennington, B., Rost, S. and Watanabe, C. 2018. ‘Holocene fluvial and anthropo-
genic processes in the region of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia’. Quaternary International 483, 57–69.
Jursa, M. 2003. ‘Observations on the problem of the Median “empire” on the basis of Babylonian sources’, in G. Lanfranchi,
M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5.
Padova: SARGON, 169–179.
Kaboli, M. 2002. ‘Report of the thirteenth season of excavation at the ancient site of Shahdad’. Pajoheshnameh, Tehran: Cultural
Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization of Iran, 141–181.
Kaboli, M.-A. 2000. ‘The Apadana gateway at Susa’. Iran 38, 161–162.
Kaboli, M.-A. (ed.) 2005. Excavation of Qara Tappe. Qomrud, RICHT Publications (in Persian).
Kambakhsh Fard, S. 1969. ‘Fouilles dans les tombes anciennes de Gheytariyeh’. Bastan Chenassi va Honar-e Iran [Archaeology and Art
of Iran] 2, 58–68 (in Persian with French summary).
Kambakhsh Fard, S. 1991. Tehran 3200 Years Based on Archeological Exploration (in Persian). Tehran: Faza.
Kamilli, D. C. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1979. ‘Petrographic and electron microprobe analysis of ceramics from Tepe Yahya,
Iran’. Archaeometry 21/1, 47–59.
Kaniewski, D., Marriner, N., Cheddadi, R., Morhange, C., Bretschneider, J., Jans, G., Otto, T., Luce, F. and Van Campo, E. 2019.
‘Cold and dry outbreaks in the eastern Mediterranean 3200 years ago’. Geology 47/10, 933–937.
Kaniuth, K. 2007. ‘The metallurgy of the Late Bronze Age Sapalli culture (southern Turkmenistan) and its implications for the
‘tin question’’. Iranica Antiqua 42, 23–40.
Kantor, H. J. 1960. ‘A fragment of a gold appliqué from Ziwiye and some remarks on the artistic traditions of Armenia and Iran
during the early first millennium BC’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19/1, 1–14.
Kantor, H. J. 1977. ‘The Elamite cup from Chogha Mish’. Iran 15, 11–14.
Kargar, B. 2004. ‘Qalaichi: Zirtu center of Mannea, period IB’, in M. Azarnoush (ed.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Iranian Archaeology: North Western Region, 17th to 20th June 2004, Urmia, Iran. Tehran, 229–245 (in Persian).
Kargar, B. and Binandeh, A. 2009. ‘A preliminary report of excavations at Rabat Tepe, northwestern Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 44,
113–129.
Karimian, H. 2011. ‘Persian splendour: ancient palaces in Iran’. Current World Archaeology 49, 36–43.
Kashani, P., Sodaei, B., Zoshk, R. Y. and Hamivand, M. 2013. ‘Arsenical copper production in the Late-Chalcolithic period,
central plateau, Iran. Case study: copper-based artefacts in Meymanatabad’. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 4/2, 207–210.
Kaspari-Marghussian, A. 2019. ‘Sialk North: continuity and change in pottery manufacture’, in J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis and M. Pic
(eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London: Iran Heritage Foundation,
16–20.
Kavoosi, A. and Sarlak, S. 2019. ‘Excavations at Tepe Sarm: new evidence of diverse grave structures’, in Y. Hassanzadeh,
Kavosh, H. A., Vidale, M. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2019. Tappeh Graziani, Sistan, Iran: Stratigraphy, Formation Processes and Chronology
of a Suburban Site of Shahr-i Sokhta. (Prehistoric Sīstān 2). Rome: ISMEO.
Kavosh, H. A., Shirazi, Z. and Naseri, R. 2020. ‘The archaeobotanical studies of Tepe Taleb Khan, Sistan, southeast of Iran
(2500–2300 BCE)’. Journal of Research on Archaeometry 6/1, 137–154.
Bibliography 557
Kavtaradze, G. L. 2004. ‘The chronology of the Caucasus during the early metal age: observations from central Caucasus’, in
A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement 12. Herent: Peeters, 539–556.
Kawami, T. S. 1972. ‘Shorter notices: a possible source for the sculptures of the Audience Hall, Pasargadae’. Iran 10, 146–148.
Kawami, T. S. 2005. ‘Deer in art, life and death in northwestern Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 107–131.
Kawami, T. S. 2018. ‘Elamite dress and textiles’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Kazempour, M., Niknami, K., Abedi, A. and Eskandari, N. 2017. ‘A fortress and new Kurgan burials at Zardkhaneh Ahar: reassessment
of the chronology of the late prehistory of northwestern Iran’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 3/6, 13–35.
Kazzazi, S. M. and Kranioti, E. F. 2018. ‘Sex estimation using cervical dental measurements in an archaeological population from
Iran’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10/2, 439–448.
Kehl, M. 2009. ‘Quaternary climate change in Iran: the state of knowledge’. Erdkunde 63/1, 1–17.
Kelekna, P. 2009. The Horse in Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, K. 2018. Gender, Age, and Labour Organization in the Earliest Texts from Mesopotamia and Iran (c. 3300–2900 BC). Ph.D. thesis,
University of Oxford.
Kelly, R. L. 2013. The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly-Buccellati, M. 2004. ‘Andirons at Urkesh: new evidence for the Hurrian identity of the Early Trans-Caucasian culture’,
in A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Kelts, K. and Shahrabi, M. 1986. ‘Holocene sedimentology of hypersaline Lake Urmia, Northwestern Iran’. Palaeogeography, Palae-
oclimatology, Palaeoecology 54/1, 105–130.
Kennett, D. J. and Kennett, J. P. 2007. ‘Influence of Holocene marine transgression and climate change on cultural evolution in
southern Mesopotamia’, in D. G. Anderson, K. A. Maasch and D. H. Sandweiss (eds) Climate Change and Cultural Dynamics: A
Global Perspective in Mid-Holocene Transitions. San Diego: Academic Press, 229–264.
Kerner, S. 1993. Vakilabad-Keramik. Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient 13. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Keykhaei, M., Valieib, M. H., Shirazi, R. and Nadooshand, F. K. 2012. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta and the bronze production workshop: a
review’. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 3/2, 2013–2210.
Khalatbari, M. R. 1997. ‘Kavosh dar Kaluraz’, in M. Mousavi (ed.) Archaeological Symposium at Suse, February 1995. Tehran: Iranian
Center for Archaeological Research, 65–98.
Khalili, A. 1973. ‘Precipitation patterns of central Elburz’. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 21/2, 215–232.
Khanipour, M., Naseri, R. and Nouruzi, R. 2017. ‘Stratified sequence and relative chronology at Toll-e Gap Kenareh, Marvdasht
plain, Iran’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 7/1, 63–71.
Khanipour, M. and Niknami, K. A. 2017. ‘Sequence chronology evaluation of the Neolithic period at Fars on the basis of Hor-
mangan site’. Journal of Research on Archaeometry 3/2, 15–29.
Khanipour, M., Emadi, H. and Akbari, A. 2018. ‘Hormangan site. New evidence for Neolithic occupations in the southern Za-
gros, Iran’. Neo-Lithics 18, 17–23.
Khanipour, M. 2021. ‘Excavations at Toll-e Sangi, Fars’, in M. Mosalla (ed.) A Collection of Archaeological Finds from Excavations in
2019–2020. 18th Annual Symposium on the Iranian Archaeology (2012). Tehran: Research Institute for cultural heritage and Tour-
ism, 33–40.
Kharanaghi, M., Thomalsky, J., Khanipoor, M. and Jafari, M. J. 2016. ‘Archaeological research at Tappeh Pahlavan, North Khorasan
Province (northeastern Iran)’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 53, 59–79.
Khatchadourian, L. 2012. ‘The Achaemenid provinces in archaeological perspective’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Ar-
chaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 963–983.
Khatchadourian, L. 2016. Imperial Matter. Ancient Persia and the Archaeology of Empires. Oakland: University of California Press.
Khatchadourian, L. 2018. ‘Pottery typology and craft learning in the Near Eastern highlands’. Iranica Antiqua 53, 179–265.
Khayani, A. and Niknami, K. A. 2020a. ‘More Early Bronze Age seal impressions from Chogha Maran, the West Central Zagros’. Iran.
Khayani, A. and Niknami, K. A. 2020b. ‘Early Bronze Age clay sealings from Chogha Maran, the west central Zagros: a prelim-
inary analysis’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 79/1, 89–98.
Khazaee, M., Glascock, M. D., Masjedi, P., Nadoshan, F. K., Farsani, R. S., Delfan, M., Mansori, A., Sodaie, B. and Dolatyari, A.
2014. ‘Sourcing the obsidian of prehistoric tools found in western Iran to southeastern Turkey: a case study for the sites of Eastern
Chia Sabz and Chogha Ahovan’. Anatolian Studies 64, 23–31.
Khlopin, I. N. 2002. Bronze Age of South-west Turkmenistan. St Petersburg: Evropeyskiy Dom.
Khosravi, S., Alibaigi, S. and Aali, A. 2013. ‘The Abharrud basin in the Chalcolithic period: revision of the Dalma settlements at
the north-western borders of the Iranian central plateau’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45, 99–111.
Khosrowzadeh, A. 2016. ‘The neolithic period in the Fārsān area, Chāhār Mahāl-o Bakhtiāri’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour
(eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research (in Persian). Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Khosrowzadeh, A., Aali, A. and Weeks, L. 2017. ‘Newly discovered Bronze Age archaeological sites on Qeshm Island, Iran’. Iran
55/2, 120–142.
Kiani, L., Iravani Ghadim, F. and Ahmadi, H. 2018. ‘Study on the discovered ornaments from Jafar-Abad and Tu Ali-Sofla kur-
gans (second phase of excavations)’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10/4, 973–987.
558 Bibliography
Kibaroğlu, M., Sagona, A. and Satir, M. 2011. ‘Petrographic and geochemical investigations of the late prehistoric ceramics from
Sos Höyük, Erzurum (eastern Anatolia)’. Journal of Archaeological Science 38/11, 3072–3084.
Kiguradze, T. and Sagona, A. G. 2003. ‘On the origins of the Kura-Araxes cultural complex’, in A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson
(eds) Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 47. Los
Angeles: University of California, 38–94.
Kimiae, M. 2010. ‘Macro botanical remains’, in S. Pollock, R. Bernbeck and K. Abdi (eds) The 2003 Excavations at Tol-e Baši, Iran:
Social Life in a Neolithic Village. Archäologie in Iran und Turan Bd 10. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 230–237.
K’imšiašvili, K. and Narimanišvili, G. 1995–96. ‘A group of Iberian fire temples (4th Cent. BC–2nd Cent. AD)’. Archäologische
Kingery, W. D., Vandiver, P. B. and Prickett, M. 1988. ‘The beginnings of pyrotechnology, part II: production and use of lime and
gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East’. Journal of Field Archaeology 15/2, 219–243.
Kintigh, K. W., Altschul, J. H., Beaudry, M. C., Drennan, R. D., Kinzig, A. P., Kohler, T. A., Limp, W. F., Maschner, H. D. G.,
Michener, W. K., Pauketat, T. R., Peregrine, P., Sabloff, J. A., Wilkinson, T. J., Wright, H. T. and Zeder, M. A. 2014. ‘Grand
challenges for archaeology’. American Antiquity 79/1, 5–24.
Kirkby, M. 1977. ‘Land and water resources of the Deh Luran and Khuzistan plains’, in F. Hole (ed.) Studies in the Archaeological
History of the Deh Luran Plain: The Excavations of Chagha Sefid. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 9. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
Kirtcho, L. B. 2009. ‘The earliest wheeled transport in Southwestern Central Asia: new finds from Altyn-Depe’. Archaeology,
Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 37/1, 25–33.
Kirtcho, L. B. 2021. ‘The rise of the early urban civilization in southwestern Central Asia from the Middle Chalcolithic to the
Middle Bronze Age in southern Turkmenistan’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the Oxus Civilization. Abing-
don: Routledge, 110–142.
Kleiss, W. 1971. Zendan-i Suleiman: Die Bauwerke. Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geologie des Zendan-i Suleiman 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kleiss, W. (ed.) 1979. Bastam I: Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1972–1975. Berlin: Mann Verlag.
Kleiss, W. and Kroll, S. 1979. ‘Ravaz und Yakhvali, zwei befestigte Plätze des 3. Jahrtausends’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
12, 27–47.
Kleiss, W. 1983. ‘Khowrabad und Djamgaran, zwei vorgeschichtliche Siedlungen am Westrand des zentraliranischen Plateaus’.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16, 69–103.
Kleiss, W. (ed.) 1988. Bastam II: Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1977–1978. Berlin: Mann Verlag.
Kleiss, W. 1989. ‘BESṬĀM (2)’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/bestam-2.
Kleiss, W. 1994. ‘Deutsches Archäologisches Institut’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
deutsches-archologisches-institut.
Kleiss, W. 1997. ‘Hügelgräber in Nordwest-und Westiran’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 29, 179–190.
Knapton, P., Sarraf, M. R. and Curtis, J. 2001. ‘Inscribed column bases from Hamadan’. Iran 39, 99–117.
Knauss, F. 2006. ‘Ancient Persia and the Caucasus’. Iranica Antiqua 41, 79–118.
Knudsen, N. B. and Greenberg, R. 2019. ‘The Khirbet Kerak Ware figurine: a new component in the Kura-Araxes cultural as-
semblage’. Levant 51/3, 271–286.
Kohl, P. L. 1974. Seeds of Upheaval: The Production of Chlorite at Tepe Yahya and an Analysis of Commodity Production and Trade in South-
west Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium. Ph. D. thesis, Harvard University.
Kohl, P. L. 1975. ‘The archeology of trade’. Dialectical Anthropology 1/1–4, 43.
Kohl, P. L. 1978. ‘The balance of trade in Southwestern Asia in the mid-third millennium B.C.’. Current Anthropology 19/3, 463–492.
Kohl, P. L., Harbottle, G. and Sayre, E. V. 1979. ‘Physical and chemical analysis of soft stone vessels from southwest Asia’. Archae-
ometry 21/2, 131–159.
Kohl, P. L. and Heskel, D. L. 1980. ‘Archaeological reconnaissance in the Darreh Gaz Plain: a short report’. Iran 18, 160–172.
Kohl, P. L., Biscione, R. and Ingraham, M. L. 1982. ‘Implications of recent evidence for the prehistory of northeastern Iran and
southwestern Turkmenistan’. Iranica Antiqua 17, 1–20.
Kohl, P. L. 1984. Central Asia: Palaeolithic Beginnings to the Iron Age. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Kohl, P. L. 1987. ‘The use and abuse of world systems theory: the case of the pristine West Asian state’. Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory 11, 1–35.
Kohl, P. L. 2001. ‘Reflections on the production of chlorite at Tepe Yahya: 35 years later’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) Excavations at Tepe
Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975: The Third Millennium. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, 209–230.
Kohl, P. L. 2004. ‘Chloritgefäße und andere steinerne Behältnisse und ihr Austauch im Gebiet des iranischen Zentral-Plateaus und
jenseits davon’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie. Katalog der
Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Mu-
seum Bochum, 282–289.
Kohl, P. L. 2007. The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kohl, P. L. 2009. ‘Origins, homelands and migrations: situating the Kura-Araxes Early Transcaucasian ‘Culture’ within the history
of Bronze Age Eurasia’. Tel Aviv 36, 241–265.
Kohl, P. L. 2011. ‘World-systems and modelling macro-historical processes in later prehistory: an examination of old and a search
for new perspectives’, in T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet (eds) Interweaving Worlds. Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th
to the 1st Millennia BC. Papers From a Conference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow, 77–86.
Bibliography 559
Kolinski, R. 2001. Mesopotamian Dimatu of the Second Millennium BC. BAR International Series 1004. Oxford: British Archaeo-
logical Reports.
König, F. W. 1965. Die Elamischen Königsinschriften. Archiv für Orientforschung/Beiheft. Graz: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers.
Kontani, R. 2005. ‘Searching for the origin of the ‘bronze swords with iron core’ in northwestern Iran and the Caucasus region’.
Kosmin, P. J. 2013. ‘Alexander the Great and the Seleucids in Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 671–689.
Kouchoukos, N. 1998. Landscape and Social Change in Late Prehistoric Mesopotamia. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.
Kouchoukos, N. and Hole, F. 2003. ‘Changing estimates of Susiana’s prehistoric settlement’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki
Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48.
Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 53–59.
Kouchoukos, N. and Wilkinson, T. J. 2007. ‘Landscape archaeology in Mesopotamia: past, present and future’, in E. C. Stone
(ed.) Settlement & Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University
of California, 1–18.
Kouhpar, M. K., Hojabri Nobari, A., Motarjem, A. and Masjedi Khak, P. 2017. ‘Petrography and thin section study of Yanik
Culture’s pottery (Kura-Araxes) at Tape Kelar, Kul Tape and Tape Gourab: case study’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry 17/3, 65–81.
Kourampas, N., Simpson, I. A., Fazeli Nashli, H., Manuel, M. and Coningham, R. 2013. ‘Sediments, soils and livelihood in a late
Neolithic village on the Iranian plateau: Tepe Sialk’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The
Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 189–200.
Kozlowski, S. K. 1999. The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent. BAR International Series 760. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Kozlowski, S. K. and Aurenche, O. 2005. Territories, Boundaries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East. BAR International Series
1362. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Kramer, C. 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Kroll, S. 1972. ‘Excavations at Bastam Iran’. Archaeology 25/4, 292–297.
Kroll, S. 1976. Keramik urartäischer Festungen in Iran: ein Beitrag zur Expansion Urartus in Iranisch-Azarbaidjan. Berlin: Reimer Verlag.
Kroll, S. 1984. ‘Archäologische Fundplätze in Iranisch-Ost-Azarbaidjan’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 17, 13–133.
Kroll, S. 2000. ‘Nordwest-Iran in achaemenidischer Zeit. Zur Verbreitung der Classic Triangle Ware’. Archäologische Mitteilungen
Kroll, S. 2004. ‘Aurel Stein in Hasan Ali. Bemalte frühbronzezeitliche Keramik im Gebeit des Urmia-Sees: “Hassan Ali Ware”’,
in A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Kroll, S. 2005a. ‘Early Bronze Age settlement patterns in the Orumiye Basin’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37, 115–122.
Kroll, S. 2005b. ‘The southern Urmia Basin in the Early Iron Age’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 65–85.
Kroll, S. 2010. ‘Urartu and Hasanlu’. Aramazd - Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5/2, 21–35.
Kroll, S. 2013. ‘Hasanlu Period III–annotations and corrections’. Iranica Antiqua 48, 175–195.
Kroll, S. 2014. ‘Notes on the post-Urartian (Median) horizon in NW-Iran and Armenia’, in A. Özfırat (ed.) Scripta. Essays in Hon-
our of Veli Sevin. A Life Immersed in Archaeology. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, 203–210.
Kroll, S. 2018. ‘Bastam in the Bronze Age’, in A. Batmaz, G. Bedianashvili, A. Michalewicz and A. Robinson (eds) Context and
Connection. Studies on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. Leuven: Peeters, 277–284.
Kroll, S. 2019. ‘A note on the Late Iron Age double-handed tankards from Sialk’, in J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tap-
peh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London: Iran Heritage Foundation, 38–39.
Kroll, S. 2020. ‘The kingdom of Urartu in north-western Iran (ninth–seventh century BCE)’, Archaeology of Iran in the Historical
Period. Tehran: Springer, 11–22.
Kuhrt, A. 1995. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BC. London: Routledge.
Kuhrt, A. 2001. ‘The Achaemenid Persian empire (c. 550–c. 330 BCE): continuities, adaptations, transformations’, in S. Alcock,
T. N. D’Altroy, K. D. Morrison and C. M. Sinopoli (eds) Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge: Cambridge
Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge.
Kurosawa, M. 2014. ‘Mineralogical study of pottery from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran
and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Kurth, G. and Rohrer-Ertl, O. 1980. ‘Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Populationsbiologie des Nahen Osten aus der Zeit vom
Mesolithikum bis zum Chalkolithikum. Ein exemplarischer Versuch anhand der Serien vom Tell es Sultan in Jericho, Khirokitia/
Cypern, Byblos/Libanon, Eridu/Irak und Sialk/Iran’. Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte Bonn 21, 31–203.
Kuz’mina, E. E. 2000. ‘The Eurasian steppes: the transition from early urbanism to nomadism’, in J. Davis-Kimball, E. M. Murphy,
L. Koryakova and L. T. Yablonsky (eds) Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. Oxford: Archaeopress,
118–125.
Kuzʹmina, E. E. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden: Brill.
Kyllo, M. A. and Hubbard, R. N. L. B. 1981. ‘Median and Parthian plant remains from Tepe Nush-i Jan’. Iran 19, 91–100.
Ladiray, D. 2013. ‘The archaeological results’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid
Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 139–208.
560 Bibliography
Lahanier, C. 1976. ‘Note sur l’emploi de l’heulandite et de la modernité dans la fabrication de sceaux cylindres proto-élamites’.
Annales du Laboratoire de Recherche des Musées de France 1976, 65–66.
Lambeck, K. 1996. ‘Shoreline reconstructions for the Persian Gulf since the last glacial maximum ’. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 142 43–57.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1968. ‘Survey of excavations in Iran during 1966–67: survey and excavations in the Kirman area’. Iran
6, 157–171.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1969. ‘Further notes on the shaft-hole pick-axe from Khurāb, Makrān’. Iran 7/1, 163–168.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1970. Excavations at Tepe Yahya. Progress Reports I. Cambridge: American School of Prehistoric Re-
search, Harvard University.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1971. ‘The Proto-Elamite settlement at Tepe Yahyā’. Iran 9/1, 87–96.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1972. ‘Tepe Yahya 1971. Mesopotamia and the Indo-Iranian borderlands’. Iran 10, 89–100.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Tosi, M. 1973. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: tracks on the earliest history of the Iranian Pla-
teau’. East and West 22/2, 21–57.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1975. ‘Urban interaction on the Iranian plateau: excavations at Tepe Yahya’. Proceedings of the British
Academy 49, 283–319.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1977. ‘An evaluation of the Bampur, Khorab and Chah Hosseini collections
in the Peabody Museum and relations with Tepe Yahya’, in L. Levine and T. C. Young (eds) Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in
the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Malibu: Undena Publications, 113–134.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1978. ‘The Proto-Elamites on the Iranian Plateau’. Antiquity 52/205, 114–120.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1985. ‘The longue durée of the ancient Near East’, in J.-L. Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet (eds) De l’Indus
aux Balkans, recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 55–72.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1986. ‘Third millennium structure and process: from the Euphrates to the Indus and the Oxus to the
Indian Ocean’. Oriens antiquus 25, 189–219.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Beale, T. W. 1986. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975. The Early Periods. American School
of Prehistoric Research. Bulletin 38. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1988. ‘The “Intercultural Style” carved vessels’. Iranica Antiqua 23, 45–95.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1989. ‘Introduction to the Proto-Elamite texts’, in P. Damerow and R. K. Englund (eds) The Pro-
to-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 39. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, i–xiv.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Tosi, M. 1989. ‘The Proto-Elamite community at Tepe Yahya: tools of administration and social
order’, in K. Frifelt and P. Sørenson (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1985. London: Curzon Press, 104–113.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1994. ‘The Oxus Civilization: the Bronze Age of Central Asia’. Antiquity 68, 353–354.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1996. Beyond the Tigris and Euphrates: Bronze Age Civilizations. Be’ēr-Ševa Studies .Ben-Gurion:Negev Press.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Magee, P. 1999. ‘The Iron Age platforms at Tepe Yahya’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 41–52.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2001a. ‘Comment. In initial social complexity in Southwestern Asia: the Mesopotamian advantage.
G. Algaze’. Current Anthropology 42/2, 199–233.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2001b. ‘Afterword – excavations at Tepe Yahya: reconstructing the past’, in D. T. Potts and
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds) Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975: The Third Millennium. American School of Prehis-
toric Research Bulletin 45. 45. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 269–280.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2002. ‘Anthropology and language: the Bronze Age Indo-Iranians’. Current Anthropology 43/1, 63–88.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2003. ‘To write or not to write’, in T. Potts, M. Roaf and D. Stein (eds) Culture Through Objects: Ancient
Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 59–75.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2009. ‘Structure, agency and commerce in the ancient Near East’. Iranica Antiqua 44, 47–88.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2013. ‘Iran and its neighbors’, in H. Crawford (ed.) The Sumerian World. London: Routledge, 559–578.
Lambert, P. J. 1979. ‘Early Neolithic cranial deformation at Ganj Dareh Tepe, Iran’. Canadian Review of Physical Anthropology 1/2,
51–54.
Lanfranchi, G. 2003. ‘The Assyrian expansion in the Zagros and the local ruling elites’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger
(eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON, 79–118.
Langdon, S. 1928. The Herbert Weld Collection in the Ashmolean Museum. Pictographic Inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr. Oxford Editions of
Cuneiform Texts 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langer, J. J. and Wasylikowa, K. 2008. ‘Charred plant macrofossils in Lake Zeribar sediments’, in K. Wasylikowa and A. Wit-
kowski (eds) The Palaeoecology of Lake Zeribar and Surrounding Areas, Western Iran, During the Last 48,000 Years. Diatom Mono-
graphs 8. Ruggell: Gantner, 269–282.
Langsdorff, A. and McCown, D. E. 1942. Tall-i-Bakun A: Season of 1932. Oriental Institute Publications 59. Chicagol: The University
of Chicago Press.
Lantos, Z. G. 2013. ‘Essai d’application de la méthode de la psychologie environnementale à travers l’exemple de la ville Mé-
so-Élamite de Dûr-Untaš (Tchoga-Zanbil, Iran), site inscrit au patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier
(eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at
Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Leiden: Brill, 139–159.
Larsen, M. T. 1967. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul
22. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.
Bibliography 561
Larsen, M. T. 1996. The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land 1840–1860. London: Routledge.
Laurito, R. 2000. ‘The distribution of seals and sealings in antiquity’, in M. Perna (ed.) Administrative Documents in the Aegean and
their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium: Naples, February 29–March 2, 1996. Torino: Paravia/
Scriptorium, 367–429.
Laursen, S. and Steinkeller, P. 2017. Babylonia, the Gulf Region, and the Indus: Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Contact in the Third
and Early Second Millennium BC. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Law, R. 2014. ‘Evaluating potential lapis lazuli sources for ancient South Asia using sulfur isotope analysis’, in B. Cerasetti,
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and B. Genito (eds) ‘My Life is Like a Summer Rose’. Marizio Tosi e l’archeologia come modo di vivere.
Papers in Honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday. BAR International Series 2690. Oxford: Archaeopress, 419–429.
Lawergren, B. 2003. ‘Oxus trumpets, ca. 2200 – 1800 BCE: material overview, usage, societal role, and catalog’. Iranica Antiqua
38, 41–118.
Lawergren, B. 2018. ‘Music’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge,
781–802.
Lawler, A. 2003. ‘Jiroft discovery stuns archaeologists: researchers had long suspected that a Bronze Age civilization flourished between
Mesopotamia and the Indus River. Now a huge haul of stone vessels has pinpointed it to Jiroft’. Science 302/5647, 973–976.
Lawler, A. 2004. ‘Iran beckons’. Archaeology 57/3, 46–51.
Lawler, A. 2010. ‘The new Bronze Age’. Archaeology 63/1, 53–56.
Lawler, A. 2011. ‘The world in between’. Archaeology 64/6, 24–31.
Lawler, A. 2012. ‘The truth behind the tablets’. Archaeology 65/1, 38–42.
Lazaridis, I., Nadel, D., Rollefson, G., Merrett, D. C., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Fernandes, D., Novak, M., Gamarra, B., Sirak,
K., Connell, S., Stewardson, K., Harney, E., Fu, Q., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Jones, E. R., Roodenberg, S. A., Lengyel, G.,
Bocquentin, F., Gasparian, B., Monge, J. M., Gregg, M., Eshed, V., Mizrahi, A.-S., Meiklejohn, C., Gerritsen, F., Bejenaru, L.,
Blüher, M., Campbell, A., Cavalleri, G., Comas, D., Froguel, P., Gilbert, E., Kerr, S. M., Kovacs, P., Krause, J., McGettigan, D.,
Merrigan, M., Merriwether, D. A., O’Reilly, S., Richards, M. B., Semino, O., Shamoon-Pour, M., Stefanescu, G., Stumvoll, M.,
Tönjes, A., Torroni, A., Wilson, J. F., Yengo, L., Hovhannisyan, N. A., Patterson, N., Pinhasi, R. and Reich, D. 2016. ‘Genomic
insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East’. Nature 536, 419–424.
Lazzari, A. and Vidale, M. 2017. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta: eary discoveries and explorations’, in M. Vidale and A. Lazzari (eds) Lapis Lazuli
Bead Making at Shahr-i Sokhta: Interpreting Craft Production in a Urban Community of the 3rd Millennium BC. Serie Orientale Roma
nuova serie, 6. Roma: ISMEO, 17–60.
Le Breton, L. 1957. ‘The early periods at Susa: Mesopotamian relations’. Iraq 19/2, 79–124.
Le Brun, A. 1971. ‘Recherches stratigraphiques à 1’ Acropole de Suse (1969–1971)’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française
en Iran 1, 163–216.
Le Brun, A. 1978. ‘Suse, chantier ‘Acropole 1’’. Paléorient 4/1, 177–192.
Le Brun, A. and Vallat, F. 1978. ‘L’origin de l’écriture à Suse’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 8, 11–59.
Le Brun, A. 2019. ‘Susa at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet
(eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la
Méditerranée, 101–107.
Le Brun, A. 2021. Suse. Sondage stratigraphique de l’Acropole I couches 21 à 18 (campagnes 1977–1979). Paris: Éditions de Boccard.
Le Mière, M. and Picon, M. 1998. ‘Les débuts de la céramique au Proche-Orient’. Paléorient 24/2, 5–26.
Lees, G. M. and Falcon, N. L. 1952. ‘The geographical history of the Mesopotamian plains’. The Geographical Journal 118, 24–39.
Legrain, L. 1921. Empreintes de cachete élamites. Memoires de la mission archeologique de Perse 16. Paris: MMAI.
Lerner, J. A. 2010. ‘An Achaemenid cylinder seal of a woman enthroned’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achae-
menid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1984. ‘The vegetation at Houmian during the Mousterian’. Iran 22, 30–32.
Leroy, S. A. G., López-Merino, L., Tudryn, A., Chalié, F. and Gasse, F. 2014. ‘Late Pleistocene and Holocene palaeoenvironments
in and around the middle Caspian basin as reconstructed from a deep-sea core’. Quaternary Science Reviews 101, 91–110.
Leroy, S. A. G., Amini, A., Gregg, M. W., Marinova, E., Bendrey, R., Zha, Y., Beni, A. N. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2019. ‘Human
responses to environmental change on the southern coastal plain of the Caspian Sea during the Mesolithic and Neolithic peri-
ods’. Quaternary Science Reviews 218, 343–364.
Levine, L. D. 1972. Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Levine, L. D. 1973. ‘Geographical studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros—I’. Iran 11/1, 1–27.
Levine, L. D. 1974a. ‘Geographical studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros—II’. Iran 12/1, 99–124.
Levine, L. D. 1974b. ‘Archaeological investigations in the Mahidasht, western Iran, 1975’. Paléorient 11/2, 487–490.
Levine, L. D. and McDonald, M. M. 1977. ‘The Neolithic and the Chalcolithic periods in the Mahidasht’. Iran 15, 39–50.
Levine, L. D. and Young, T. C. 1987. ‘A summary of the ceramic assemblages of the central western Zagros from the Middle
Neolithic to the late third millennium B.C.’, in J.-L. Huot (ed.) Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie. Paris: CNRS, 15–53.
Lewis, S. L. and Maslin, M. A. 2018. The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene. London: Penguin.
Lhuillier, J. and Mashkour, M. 2017. ‘Animal exploitation in the oases: an archaeozoological review of Iron Age sites in southern
Central Asia’. Antiquity 91/357, 655–673.
Lincoln, B. 2008. ‘The role of religion in Achaemenid imperialsim’, in N. Brisch (ed.) Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the
Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 4. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 17–32.
562 Bibliography
Lindly, J. M. 2005. The Mousterian of the Zagros: A Regional Perspective. Anthropological Research Papers 56. Tempe: Arizona
State University.
Lippert, A. 1976. ‘Survey of excavations in Iran—1974–75: Kordlar Tepe’. Iran 14, 158–159.
Lippert, A. 1977. ‘Survey of excavations in Iran—1976: Kordlar-Tepe’. Iran 15, 174–177.
Lippert, A. 1979. ‘Die Österreichischen Ausgrabungen am Kordlar-Tepe in Persisch-Westaserbeidschan (1971–1978)’. Archaeologis-
che Mittelungen aus Iran 12, 103–154.
Lister, D. L., Jones, H., Oliveira, H. R., Petrie, C. A., Liu, X., Cockram, J., Kneale, C. J., Kovaleva, O. and Jones, M. K. 2018.
‘Barley heads east: genetic analyses reveal routes of spread through diverse Eurasian landscapes’. PLoS ONE 13/7, e0196652.
Litt, T., Pickarski, N., Heumann, G., Stockheke, M. and Tzedakis, P. C. 2014. ‘A 600.000 year long continental pollen record from
Lake Van, eastern anatolia (Turkey)’. Quaternary Science Reviews 104, 30–41.
Liu, X., Lister, D. L., Zhao, Z., Petrie, C. A., Zeng, X., Jones, P. J., Staff, R. A., Pokharia, A. K., Bates, J. and Singh, R. N. 2017.
‘Journey to the east: diverse routes and variable flowering times for wheat and barley en route to prehistoric China’. PLoS ONE
12/11, e0187405.
Liverani, M. 1979. ‘The ideology of the Assyrian empire’, in M. Liverani and M. T. Larsen (eds) Power and Propaganda. A Symposium
on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 297–318.
Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C. History of the Ancient Near East/
Studies 1. Padova: SARGON.
Liverani, M. 2003. ‘The rise and fall of Media’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria,
Media, Persia. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON, 1–12.
Liverani, M. 2006. Uruk: The First City. London: Equinox.
Liverani, M. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge.
Liverani, M. 2017. Assyria: The Imperial Mission. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Loftus, W. K. 1857. Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana. London: James Nisbet & Co.
van Loon, M. N. 1975. ‘The inscription of Ishpuini and Menua at Qalatgah, Iran’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 34/3, 201–207.
van Loon, M. N. 1989a. ‘Chalcolithic pottery and baked clay objects’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The
Holmes Expeditions to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 75–100.
van Loon, M. N. 1989b. ‘Kamtarlan II’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The Holmes Expeditions to
Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 19–22.
van Loon, M. N. 1989c. ‘Chalcolithic stamp and cylinder seals’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The Holmes
Expeditions to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 121–130.
van Loon, M. N. 1989d. ‘Chigha Sabz’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The Holmes Expeditions to
Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 23–30.
van Loon, M. N. 1989e. ‘Surkh Dum-i-Luri’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The Holmes Expeditions
to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 49–60.
van Loon, M. N. 1989f. ‘Bronze Age cylinder seals’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The Holmes Expe-
ditions to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 211–227.
van Loon, M. N. 1989g. ‘Mir Vali’, in E. F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon and H. H. Curvers (eds) The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan.
Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 31–32.
Lorentz, K. 2008. ‘From life course to longue durée: headshaping as gendered capital’, in D. Bolger (ed.) Gender Through Time in
the Ancient Near East. Rowman Altamira, 281–311.
Lorentz, K. 2010. ‘Ubaid headshaping: negotiations of identity through physical appearance?’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds)
Lorentz, K. 2017. ‘Marking identity through cultural cranial modification within the first sedentary communities (ninth to eighth
millennium BCE) in the Near East: Tepe Abdul Hosein, Iran’. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27/6, 973–983.
Lückge, A., Doose-Rolinski, H., Khan, A. A., Schulz, H. and Von Rad, U. 2001. ‘Monsoonal variability in the northeastern
Arabian Sea during the past 5000 years: geochemical evidence from laminated sediments’. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 167/3–4, 273–286.
Luikart, G., Fernández, H., Mashkour, M., England, P. R. and Taberlet, P. 2006. ‘Origins and diffusion of domestic goats inferred from
DNA markers: example analyses of mtDNA, Y-chromosome and microsatellites’, in M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller and
B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley: University of California Press, 294–305.
Luschey, H. 1968. ‘Studien zu dem Darius-Relief von Bisutun’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 1, 63–94.
Luschey, H. 2013. ‘BISOTUN ii. Archaeology’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/bisotun-ii.
Lyonnet, B. 2000. ‘La Mésopotamie et le Caucase du Nord au IV e et au début du IIIe millénaire av. n. è.: leur rapports et les
problèmes chronologiques de la culture de Majkop. État de la question et nouvelles propositions’, in C. Marro and H. Haupt-
mann (eds) Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica 11. Paris/Istanbul: De Boccard/
Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 299–320.
Lyonnet, B. 2007a. ‘La culture de Maïkop, la Transcaucasie, l’Anatolie orientale et le Proche-Orient: relations et chronologie’,
in B. Lyonnet (ed.) Les cultures du Caucase, VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations: CNRS, 132–161.
Bibliography 563
Lyonnet, B. (ed.) 2007b. Les cultures du Caucase, VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations: CNRS.
Lyonnet, B., Guliyev, F., Helwing, B., Aliyev, T., Hansen, S. and Mirtskhulava, G. 2012. ‘Ancient Kura 2010–2011: the first two
seasons of joint field work in the southern Caucasus’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44, 1–190.
Lyonnet, B. 2014. ‘The Early Bronze Age in Azerbaijan in the light of recent discoveries’. Paléorient 40/2, 115–130.
Lyonnet, B. and Dubova, N. A. (eds) 2021. The World of the Oxus Civilization. London: Routledge.
MacGinnis, J. 2016. ‘The archaeological exploration of the provinces of Assyria’, in J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke, T. Greenfield and A.
Stone (eds) The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 3–20.
MacGinnis, J. 2020. ‘Assyrian exploitation of Iranian territories’, in K.-A. Niknami and A. Hozhabri (eds) Archaeology of Iran in the
Historical Period. Tehran: Springer, 37–54.
MacGinnis, J., Raheem, K. R., Ismael, B. B., Ahmad, M., Cabral, R., Dusting, A., Greenfield, T., Hazell, G., Iasonos, A., Kertai, D.,
Miller, A., Pabeschitz, V., Shepperson, M., Cartwright, C., Čibera, J., Curtis, V., Dyer, J., Koek, E., Giannese, A., Higgs, P.,
Yusuf, A., Morton, K., Pereira-Pardo, L., Proctor, L. and Williams, C. 2020. ‘Excavations at the Darband-i Rania Pass, Kurd-
istan region of Iraq: Report on the 2016 and 2017 seasons’. Iraq 82, 139–178.
Madjidzadeh, Y. 2003. Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
Madjidzadeh, Y. and Pittman, H. 2008. ‘Excavations at Konar Sandal in the region of Jiroft in the Halil Basin: first preliminary
report (2002–2008)’. Iran 46, 69–103.
Maeda, O., Lucas, L., Silva, F., Tanno, K.-I. and Fuller, D. Q. 2016. ‘Narrowing the harvest: increasing sickle investment and the
rise of domesticated cereal agriculture in the Fertile Crescent’. Quaternary Science Reviews 145, 226–237.
Magee, P. and Carter, R. 1991. ‘Agglomeration and regionalism: Southeastern Arabia between 1400 and 1100 BC’. Arabian Archae-
ology and Epigraphy 9, 236–254.
Magee, P. 1997. ‘The Iranian Iron Age and the chronology of settlement in southeastern Arabia’. Iranica Antiqua 32, 91–108.
Magee, P. 2004. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975. Vol. IV: The Iron Age Settlement. American School of Prehistoric Re-
search Bulletin 46. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
Magee, P. 2005a. ‘The chronology and environmental background of Iron Age settlement in southeastern Iran and the question of
the origin of the qanat irrigation system’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 217–231.
Magee, P. 2005b. ‘The production, distribution and function of Iron Age bridge-spouted vessels in Iran and Arabia: results from
recent excavations and geochemical analysis’. Iran 43/1, 93–115.
Magee, P., Petrie, C., Knox, R., Khan, F. and Thomas, K. 2005. ‘The Achaemenid empire in South Asia and recent excavations
in Akra in northwest Pakistan’. American Journal of Archaeology 109, 711–741.
Magee, P. 2008. ‘Deconstructing the destruction of Hasanlu: Archaeology, imperialism and the chronology of the Iranian Iron
Age’. Iranica Antiqua 43, 89–106.
Magee, P. and Petrie, C. A. 2010. ‘West of the Indus–east of the empire: the archaeology of the pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid
periods in Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achae-
menid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, 503–522.
Magee, P. 2013. ‘Iron Age southeastern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 493–500.
Maghsoudi, M., Simpson, I. A., Kourampas, N. and Nashli, H. F. 2014. ‘Archaeological sediments from settlement mounds of the
Sagzabad Cluster, central Iran: human-induced deposition on an arid alluvial plain’. Quaternary International 324, 67–83.
Mahfroozi, A. 2003. ‘Preliminary report on archaeological surveys and soundings in east of Mazandaran’. Archaeological Reports 2,
263–304 (in Persian).
Maier, F. G. 1996. ‘History from the earth: the kingdom of Paphos in the Achaemenid period’. Transeuphratène 12, 121–137.
Majidzadeh, Y. 1976. The Early Prehistoric Cultures of the Central Plateau in Iran: An Archaeological History of Its Development during the
Fifth and Fourth Millennia B.C. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.
Majidzadeh, Y. 1977. ‘Excavation in Tepe Qabrestan. The first two seasons, 1970 and 1971’. Marlik ( Journal of the Institute and De-
partment of Archaeology, Tehran University) 2, 45–61.
Majidzadeh, Y. 1978. ‘Corrections of the internal chronology for the Sialk III period on the basis of the pottery sequence at Tepe
Gabristan’. Iran 16, 93–101.
Majidzadeh, Y. 1979. ‘An early prehistoric coppersmith workshop at Tepe Ghabristan’, Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für
Iranische Kunst und Archäologie: München, 7.–10. September 1976. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Ergänzungsband 6. Berlin:
D. Reimer, 82–92.
Majidzadeh, Y. 1981. ‘Sialk III and the pottery sequence at Tepe Ghabristan: the coherence of the cultures of the central Iranian
plateau’. Iran 19, 141–146.
Majidzadeh, Y. 1992. ‘The Arjan bowl’. Iran 30, 131–144.
Majidzadeh, Y. 2001. ‘Les fouilles d’Ozbaki (Iran). Campagnes 1998–2000’. Paléorient 27/1, 141–145.
Majidzadeh, Y. 2008. Excavation at Tape Ghabrestan. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO).
Majidzadeh, Y. 2010. Excavations at Ancient Site of Ozbeki. Tehran: Publications of the Directorate of Cultural Heritage Organiza-
tion of Tehran Province (in Persian).
Makhortykh, S. V. 2004. ‘The north Black Sea steppes in the Cimmerian epoch’, in E. M. Scott, A. Yu and G. Z. lekseev (eds)
Impact of the Environment on Human Migration in Eurasia. Dordrecht: Springer, 35–44.
564 Bibliography
Makki, M. 2017. ‘Iran: ein Hochland am Persischen Golf ’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste.
Malayeri, M. 2013. ‘Scribal training in Old Babylonian Susa’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological,
Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17,
2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 365–376.
Malbran-Labat, F. 1995. Les inscriptions royales de Suse: Briques de l’époque paléo-élamite à l’Empire néo-élamite. Paris: Éditions de la
Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
Malbran-Labat, F. 2018. ‘Elamite royal inscriptions’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abing-
don: Routledge, 464–480.
Malek Shahmirzadeh, S. 1979. ‘A specialized housebuilder in an Iranian village of the VIth millennium B.C.’. Paléorient 5, 183–192.
Malek Shahmirzadeh, S. 1990. ‘Development of archaeological research in Iran’, in A. Mousavi Garmarudi (ed.) Proceedings of the
1st Symposium of Iranian Studies. Tehran, 373–447 (in Persian).
Malek Shahmirzadeh, S. (ed.) 2003. The Silversmiths of Sialk. Sialk Reconsideration Project Report No. 2. Tehran: Iranian Cultural
Heritage Organisation.
Malek Shahmirzadeh, S. 2004. ‘A short history of archaeological research in Iran’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust
(eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie: Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28
November 2004 bis 29 Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Berbau-Museum, 22–27.
Malek Shahmirzadeh, S. 2006. Sialk: The Oldest Fortified Village of Iran. Final Report. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological
Research.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. 1977. Tepe-Zagheh: A Sixth Millennium B.C. Village in the Qazvin Plain of the Central Iranian Plateau. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. and Nokandeh, J. 2000. Aq Tappeh. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization (in Persian).
Malekzadeh, F. 1977. ‘A preliminary report on the excavation of trench E, Qabrestan third season, 1972’. Marlik 2, 63–66.
Malekzadeh, M. 2004. ‘The stone structure at Vasoon-e Kahak, a possible Median period construction: report on the winter 2003
survey’. Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 18/2, 42–51 (in Persian).
Malekzadeh, M. and Naseri, R. 2005. ‘Ājorhā-ye manqush-e asr-e āhan-e pāyāni-ye Mād-e sharqi, yek tiq-e Mādi-ye digar [Decorated
bricks of the Late Iron Age in eastern Media, another ‘Median blade’] ’. Bāstānshenāsi [Archaeology] 1/1, 82–84 (in Persian).
Malekzadeh, M. and Naseri, R. 2013. ‘Shamshirgah and Sialk: bricks with impressions’. Antiquity Project Gallery 87/335. URL:
http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/malekzadeh335/.
Malekzadeh, M., Saeedyan, S. and Naseri, R. 2014. ‘Zar Bolagh. A Late Iron Age site in central Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 49, 159–191.
Malekzadeh, M., Hasanur, A. and Hashemi, Z. 2017. ‘Fouilles (2005–2006) à Sangtarashan, Luristan, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 52,
61–158.
Malfoy, J.-M. and Menu, M. 1987. ‘La metallurgie du cuivre à Suse aux IVe et IIIe millénaires: analyses en laboratoire’, in F. Tallon
(ed.) Métallurgie susienne I: de la fondation de Suse au XVIIIe avant J.-C. Notes et documents des musées de France, 15. Paris: Ministère
de la Culture et de la Communication : Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 355–373.
Manca, L., Mashkour, M., Shidrang, S., Averbouh, A. and Biglari, F. 2018. ‘Bone, shell tools and ornaments from the Epipalaeo-
lithic site of Ali Tappeh, East of Alborz Range, Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21, 137–157.
Mansouri, M. and Ahmady, H. 2015. ‘Tol-e Sabz: a Neolithic site in the Firuzabad Plain, Fars, Iran’. Antiquity 89, Project Gallery.
URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/mansouri345.
Mansouri, S. and Mansouri, P. 2016. ‘Bar-e Palang: a newly discovered Aceramic Neolithic site in the Western Zagros Mountains,
Iran’. Antiquity 90, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/mansouri352.
Maras, S. 2005. ‘Notes on seals and seal use in western Iran from c. 900–600 BCE’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 133–147.
Maras, S. 2010. ‘A reassessment of brick motifs and brick-building techniques at Achaemenid Susa’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson
(eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 207–219.
Marchesi, G. 2010. ‘The Sumerian King List and the early history of Mesopotamia’, in M. G. Biga and M. Liverani (eds) Ana turri
gimilli: Studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J., da amici e allievi. Rome: Quaderni di Vicino Oriente, 231–248.
Marchesi, G. and Marchetti, N. 2011. Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian civilizations 14. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Marcus, M. I. 1993. ‘Incorporating the body: adornment, gender, and social identity in ancient Iran’. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 3/2, 157–178.
Marcus, M. I. 1996. Emblems of Identity and Prestige: The Seals and Sealings from Hasanlu, Iran: Commentary and Catalog. University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia.
Marean, C. W. and Kim, S. Y. 1998. ‘Mousterian large-mammal remains from Kobeh Cave: behavioral implications for Neander-
thals and early modern humans’. Current Anthropology 39/S1, S79–S114.
Maresca, G. 2018. ‘Between ‘Early’and ‘Late’ Iron Age in south-eastern Iran: notes on the possibility to evaluate the ‘Achaemenid
impact’on the area’. Vicino Orients 22, 197–211.
Marghussian, A. K., Fazeli, H. and Sarpoolaky, H. 2009. ‘Chemical–mineralogical analyses and microstructural studies of prehis-
toric pottery from Rahmatabad, south-west Iran’. Archaeometry 51/5, 733–747.
Marghussian, A. K., Coningham, R. and Fazeli, H. 2017. ‘The evolution of pottery production during the Late Neolithic period
at Sialk on the Kashan plain, central Plateau of Iran’. Archaeometry 59/2, 222–238.
Bibliography 565
Margueron, J.-C. 2009. ‘A propos de la Maison Ronde de Tepe Gawra: approche méthodologique de la restitution architecturale’,
in P. Butterlin (ed.) A propos de Tepe Gawra, le monde proto-urbain de Mésopotamie. Subartu XXIII. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols,
103–120.
Mariotinni, M., Della Ventura, G., Sodo, A. and Vidale, M. 2017. ‘The lapis lazuli industry’, in M. Vidale and A. Lazzari (eds)
Lapis Lazuli Bead Making at Shahr-i Sokhta: Interpreting Craft Production in a Urban Community of the 3rd Millennium BC. Rome:
ISMEO, 159–197.
Marro, C. 2000. ‘Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate: état, enjeux et perspectives de la recherche’, in H. Haupt-
mann and C. Marro (eds) Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica 11. Paris: Pub-
lications de l’Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes, 11–20.
Marro, C. 2007. ‘Upper-Mesopotamia and Transcaucasia in the Late Chalcolithic period (4000–3500 BC)’, in B. Lyonnet (ed.)
Les cultures du Caucase, VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations: CNRS, 77–94.
Marro, C. 2010. ‘Where did Late Chalcolithic chaff-faced ware originate? Cultural dynamics in Anatolia and Transcaucasia at the
dawn of urban civilization (ca 4500–3500 BC)’. Paléorient 36/2, 35–55.
Marro, C. 2011. ‘Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age’, in S. R. Steadman and J. G. McMahon (eds) The Oxford Handbook of
Ancient Anatolia: 10,000–323 B.C.E. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–309.
Marro, C. 2012. ‘Is there a post-Ubaid culture? Reflections on the transition from the Ubaid to the Uruk periods along the Fertile
Crescent and beyond’, in C. Marro (ed.) After the Ubaid: Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civili-
zation (4500–3500 BC). Papers from the Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond, International Workshop Held at Fosseuse,
29th June–1st July 2009. Varia Anatolica 27. Istanbul: Institute Français d’Études Anatoliennes–Georges Dumézil, 13–38.
Marro, C., Bakhshaliyev, V. and Berthon, R. J.-P. 2014. ‘On the genesis of the Kura-Araxes phenomenon: new evidence from
Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan)’. Paléorient 40/2, 131–154.
Marro, C., Bakhshaliyev, V., Berthon, R. J.-P. and Thomalsky, J. 2019. ‘New light on the late prehistory of the south Caucasus:
data from the recent excavation campaigns at Kültepe I in Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan (2012–2018)’. Paléorient 45/1, 81–113.
Marshall, J. L. 2012. Demic Diffusion and the Development of Agriculture on the Central Iranian Plateau. PhD thesis, Durham University.
Marzahn, J. 2008. ‘Koldewey’s Babylon’, in I. L. Finkel and M. J. Seymour (eds) Babylon. Myth and Reality. London: British Mu-
seum Press, 46–53.
Mashkour, M. and Yaghmayi, E. 1998. ‘Faunal remains from Teppeh Hissar (Iran). Results of the 1995 excavation’, in C. Giunchi
(ed.) Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Fori: ABACO, 543–551.
Mashkour, M., Fontugne, M. and Hatte, C. 1999. ‘Investigations on the evolution of subsistence economy in the Qazvin Plain
(Iran) from the Neolithic to the Iron Age’. Antiquity 73/279, 65–76.
Mashkour, M. 2002. ‘Chasse et élevage au nord du plateau central iranien entre le néolithique et l’âge du fer’. Paléorient 28/1, 27–42.
Mashkour, M. 2003. ‘Tracing ancient ‘nomads’: isotopic research on the origins of vertical ‘transhumance’ in the Zagros region’.
Nomadic Peoples 7/2, 36–47.
Mashkour, M. and Abdi, K. 2003. ‘The question of nomadic campsites in archaeology: the case of Tuwah Khoshkeh’, in
H. Buitenhuis, A. M. Choyke, L. Martin, L. Bartosiewicz and M. Mashkour (eds) Archaezoology of the Near East V. Groningen:
ARC-Publicaties, 211–227.
Mashkour, M. 2005. ‘Animal exploitation in the lowland pastures of Gilan (Iran) during the Iron Age. A preliminary archaeo-
zoological study of Jalaliye Kaluraz’, in O. Tadahiko, J. Nokandeh and Y. Kazuya (eds) Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint
Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Fourth Season. Tehran and Tokyo: ICHO-MECC, 96–108.
Mashkour, M. 2006a. ‘Faunal remains from Tol-e Nurabad and Tol-e Spid’, in D. T. Potts and K. Roustaei (eds) The Mamasani
Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the First Two Seasons of the ICAR-University of Sydney Expedition to the Mamasani Dis-
trict, Fars Province, Iran. Selsele Gozaresh-haye bastan shenasi 10. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 135–146.
Mashkour, M. 2006b. ‘Boars and pigs: a view from the Iranian plateau’, in B. Lion and C. Michél (eds) De la domestication au tabou:
le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancient Paris: de Boccard, 155–167.
Mashkour, M., Mohaseb, A. and Debue, K. 2006. ‘Towards a specialized subsistence economy in the Marv Dasht Plain: prelim-
inary zooarchaeological analysis of Tall-e Mushki, Tall-e Jari A and B, and Tall-e Bakun A and B’, in A. Alizadeh (ed.) The
Origins of State Organizations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Bakun. Oriental Institute Publications
128. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in association with the Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism
Organization, 101–105.
Mashkour, M. 2009. ‘Faunal remains from Tol-e Nurabad and Tol-e Spid’, in D. T. Potts, K. Roustaei, C. A. Petrie and L. R. Weeks
(eds) The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the First Two Seasons of ICAR-University of Sydney Expedition to the
Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. BAR International Series 2044. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 135–146.
Mashkour, M., Radu, V., Mohaseb, A., Hashemi, N., Otte, M. and Shidrang, S. 2009. ‘The Upper Paleolithic faunal remains from
Yafteh cave (central Zagros) 2005 campaign. A preliminary study’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Palaeolithic/Le
Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 73–85.
Mashkour, M. 2010. ‘Animal bones’, in S. Pollock, R. Bernbeck and K. Abdi (eds) The 2003 Excavations at Tol-e Baši, Iran: Social
Life in a Neolithic Village. Archäologie in Iran und Turan Bd 10. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 215–229.
Mashkour, M., Chahoud, J. and Mahforouzi, A. 2010. ‘Faunal remains from the Epipaleolithic site of Komishan Cave and its dat-
ing, preliminary results’. Iranian Archaeology 1, 32–38.
566 Bibliography
Mashkour, M. and Mohaseb, A. 2012. ‘Observations on the faunal remains of Tall-e Abu Chizan’, in A. Moghaddam (ed.) Later
Village Period Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana, Iran. BAR International
Series 2347. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Mashkour, M. and Tengberg, M. 2013. ‘Animal–plant interactions on the Iranian plateau and in adjacent areas: using bioarchaeo-
logical methods in the reconstruction of agro-pastoral practices’. Environmental Archaeology 18/3, 189–190.
Mashkour, M., Tengberg, M., Shirazi, Z. and Madjidzadeh, Y. 2013. ‘Bio-archaeological studies at Konar Sandal, Halil Rud basin,
southeastern Iran’. Environmental Archaeology 18/3, 222–246.
Mashkour, M., Vigne, J.-D., Mohaseb, A., Bréhard, S., Bémili, C., Reynolds, W., Daujat, J., Debue, K. and Tsuneki, A. 2014.
‘Neolithisation of eastern Iran: new insights through the study of the faunal remains of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First
Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts),
Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba.
Mashkour, M., Azadeh Mohaseb, F. and Rezvani, H. 2016. ‘Faunal remains from Deh Kheir and Kalāteh Khān: two Neolithic
sites of the Shahroud and Bastan plains (northeast Iran)’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau:
Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 85–100.
Mashkour, M. and Mohaseb, A. 2017. ‘Statistical analysis on bioarchaeological materials: comparison between the subsistence
economies in Tepe Sagzabad and Haftavan Tepe during the Iron Age’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists
3/5, 61–72.
Mashkour, M. and Bon, C. 2019. ‘Tappeh Sialk human and animal osteological collections at the National Museum of Natural
History, Paris’, in J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation:
Special Studies 1. London: Iran Heritage Foundation, 45–55.
Mashkour, M. and Fahimi, H. 2019. ‘Iron Age animal exploitation at the edge of the Dasht-e Kavir, central desert of Iran. The
case of Shamshirgah (Qom-Iran). ’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference
on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism,
191–200.
Mashkour, M., Fathi, H., Davoudi, H. and Kavosh, H. A. 2019. ‘Animals remains from Tappeh Graziani’, in H. A. Kavosh, M. Vidale
and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) Tappeh Graziani, Sistan, Iran: Stratigraphy, Formation Processes and Chronology of a Suburban Site of Shahr-i
Sokhta. (Prehistoric Sīstān 2) Rome: ISMEO, 173–201.
Mashkour, M., Davoudi, H., Shidrang, S., Tengberg, M., Djamali, M., Mylona, P., Orange, M., Khormali, F., Rahmati, M.,
Beizaee Doost, S., Moradi, B., Khazaeli, R., Fathi, H. and Fathi, Z. 2021. ‘The first archaeological campaign at Tappeh Qazānchī,
a new PPN site in the west central Zagros ’. Paper presented at ‘Revisiting the Hilly Flanks’ conference. University of Copenhagen,
21–25 June 2021.
Mason, R. B. and Cooper, L. 1999. ‘Grog, petrology, and Early Transcaucasians at Godin Tepe’. Iran 37/1, 25–31.
Masson, V. M. and Sarianidi, V. I. 1972. Central Asia: Turkmenia Before the Achaemenids. London: Thames and Hudson.
Masson, V. M. 1992. ‘The Bronze Age in Khorasan and Transoxiana’, in A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson (eds) History of Civilizations
of Central Asia. Volume 1 The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 225–246.
Masson, V. M. and Harris, D. R. 1994. ‘New excavations at Jeitun, Turkmenistan: the first five years’, in V. M. Masson (ed.) New
Archaeological Discoveries in Asiatic Russia and Central Asia. St. Petersburg: Institute of History of Material Culture, Russian Academy
of Sciences, 14–16.
Masuda, S. 1974. ‘Tepe Sang-e Caxamaq’. Iran 12, 222–223.
Masuda, S. 1984. ‘The excavation at Tepe Sang-e Caxmaq’. Archiv für Orientforschung 31, 209–212.
Masuda, S., Goto, T., Iwasaki, T., Kamuro, H., Furusato, S., Ikeda, J., Tagaya, A., Minami, M. and Tsuneki, A. 2013. ‘Tappeh
Sang-e Chakhmaq: investigations of a Neolithic site in northeastern Iran’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neo-
lithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 201–240.
Matney, T. 1995. ‘Re-excavating Cheshmeh-Ali’. Expedition 37/2, 26–32.
Matthews, R. 1989. ‘Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1988’. Iraq 51, 225–248.
Matthews, R. 1990. ‘Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1989’. Iraq 52, 25–39.
Matthews, R. 1991. ‘Fragments of officialdom from Fara’. Iraq 53, 1–15.
Matthews, R. 1992. ‘Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28’. Iraq 54, 1–34.
Matthews, R. 1993. Cities, Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen
des Vorderen Orients 2. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Matthews, R. 1997. ‘History of the field: archaeology in Mesopotamia’, in E. M. Meyers (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology
in the Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–60.
Matthews, R. 1998. ‘Image and function in early Ninevite 5 administration’, in J. Braun (ed.) Written on Clay and Stone: Ancient
Near Eastern Studies Presented to Krystyna Szarzyńska on the Occasion of Her 80th Birthday. Warsaw: Agade, 55–63.
Matthews, R. 2000. The Early Prehistory of Mesopotamia. Subartu 5. Turnhout: Brepols.
Matthews, R. 2002a. ‘Zebu: harbingers of doom in Bronze Age western Asia?’. Antiquity 76/292, 438–446.
Matthews, R. 2002b. ‘Seven shrines of Subartu’, in L. al-Gailani-Werr, J. Curtis, H. Martin and A. McMahon (eds) Of Pots and
Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates. London: Nabu Publications, 186–190.
Matthews, R. 2002c. Secrets of the Dark Mound: Jemdet Nasr, 1926–1928. Warminster: Arys and Phillips for the British School of
Archaeology in Iraq.
Matthews, R. 2003a. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches. London: Routledge.
Bibliography 567
Matthews, R. 2003b. ‘A chiefdom on the northern plains. Early third-millennium investigations: the Ninevite 5 period’, in R. Matthews
(ed.) Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Centre, 1994–1996. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archae-
ological Research, 97–191.
Matthews, R. and Fazeli, H. 2004. ‘Copper and complexity: Iran and Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium B.C.’. Iran 42, 61–75.
Matthews, R. 2008. ‘Seals and sealing practices in upper Mesopotamia and Iran in the Ubaid period’, in D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon
and F. J. Kreppner (eds) Fundstellen: Gesammelte Schriften zur Ärchäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 277–282.
Matthews, R. 2009. ‘A dark age, grey ware and elusive empires: Paphlagonia through the Iron Age, 1200–330 BC’, in R. Matthews
and C. Glatz (eds) At Empires’ Edge; Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Anatolia. London: British Institute at An-
kara, 149–171.
Matthews, R., Mohammadifar, Y. and Matthews, W. 2010. ‘Investigating the Early Neolithic of western Iran: the Central Zagros
Archaeological Project (CZAP)’. Antiquity 84, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/matthews323/.
Matthews, R. 2011. ‘A history of the pre-classical archaeology of Turkey’, in S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 34–55.
Matthews, R. 2013. ‘The power of writing: administrative activity at Godin Tepe, Central Zagros, in the later fourth millennium
BC’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium
BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 337–351.
Matthews, R. and Fazeli Nashli, H. (eds) 2013. The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W. and Mohamadifar, Y. (eds) 2013a. The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and
Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W. and Mohammadifar, Y. 2013b. ‘Networks of Neolithic engagement’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews
and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford:
Oxbow, 225–233.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W. and Richardson, A. 2013c. ‘Radiocarbon dating of Sheikh-e Abad and Jani’, in R. Matthews,
W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports
1. Oxford: Oxbow, 61–65.
Matthews, R., Mohammadifar, Y., Matthews, W. and Motarjem, A. 2013d. ‘Investigating the neolithisation of society in the Central
Zagros of Western Iran’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford:
Oxbow, 14–34.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W., Raheem, K. R. and Aziz, K. R. 2016. ‘Current Investigations into the Early Neolithic of the Zagros
foothills of Iraqi Kurdistan’, in K. Kopanias and J. MacGinnis (eds) The Archaeology of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and Adjacent
Regions. Oxford: Archaeopress, 219–228.
Matthews, R. and Matthews, W. 2017. ‘A palace for the king of Ereš? Evidence from the Early Dynastic city of Abu Salabikh,
south Iraq’, in Y. Heffron, A. Stone and M. Worthington (eds) At the Dawn of History. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J.
N. Postgate. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 359–367.
Matthews, R. and Richardson, A. 2018. ‘Cultic resilience and inter-city engagement at the dawn of urban history: protohistoric
Mesopotamia and the ‘city seals’, 3200–2750 BC’. World Archaeology 50/5, 723–747.
Matthews, R. 2019. ‘Key issues in the Neolithic period of Iran and the significance of Tappeh Sialk’, in J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis
and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1. London: Iran Heritage
Foundation, 12–15.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W., Richardson, A., Rasheed, K., Walsh, S., Raeuf, K., Bendrey, R., Whitlam, J., Charles, M., Bogaard, A.,
Iversen, I., Mudd, D. and Elliott, S. 2019. ‘The Early Neolithic of Iraqi Kurdistan: current research at Bestansur, Shahrizor Plain’.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W., Raheem, K. R. and Richardson, A. (eds) 2020. The Early Neolithic of the Eastern Fertile Crescent:
Excavations at Bestansur and Shimshara, Iraqi Kurdistan. CZAP Reports 2. Oxford: Oxbow.
Matthews, R. and Richardson, A. 2020. ‘Uruk and Ur in the city seal impressions 3100–2750 BC: new evidence, new approaches’,
in W. Sommerfeld (ed.) Dealing with Antiquity: Past, Present & Future. RAI Marburg. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 285–293.
Matthews, W. 2013a. ‘Contexts of Neolithic interaction: geography, palaeoclimate and palaeoenvironment of the Central Zagros’,
in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and
Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 13–19.
Matthews, W. 2013b. ‘Investigating Early Neolithic materials, ecology and sedentism: micromorphology and microstratigraphy’,
in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and
Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 67–104.
Matthews, W., Mohammadifar, Y., Motarjem, A., Ilkhani, H., Shillito, L.-M. and Matthews, R. 2013c. ‘Issues in the study of palae-
oclimate and palaeoenvironment in the early Holocene of the Central Zagros, Iran’. International Journal of Archaeology 1/2, 26–33.
Matthews, W. 2018. ‘Creating settled life: micro-histories of community, ritual, and place—the Central Zagros and Çatalhöyük’,
in I. Hodder (ed.) Religion, History, and Place in the Origin of Settled Life. Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 64–98.
Matthews, W., Mohammadifar, Y., Matthews, R. and Motarjem, A. 2019. ‘Microstratigraphic approaches to settlement history:
integrating field and laboratory analyses at the Neolithic site of Jani, western Iran ’, in S. Aryamanesh (ed.) Farr-e Firouz in Honor
of Dr. Firouz Bagherzadeh. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 19–49.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1988. ‘A comment on the finds from Khinaman’. Iranica Antiqua 23, 129.
568 Bibliography
Mayewski, P. A., Rohling, E. E., Curt Stager, J., Karlén, W., Maasch, K. A., Meeker, L. D., Meyerson, E. A., Gasse, F., van
Kreveld, S., Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G., Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R. R. and Steig, E. J. 2004.
‘Holocene climate variability’. Quaternary Research 62/3, 243–255.
Mayyas, A., Stern, B., Gillmore, G., Coningham, R. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2012. ‘Beeswax preserved in a Late Chalcolithic bev-
elled-rim bowl from the Tehran Plain, Iran’. Iran 50, 13–25.
Mazaheri, K. K. 2018. ‘Ubaid ceramic production in the hilly flanks of northwestern Posht-i Kuh (Ilam – west Iran)’. Iraq 80,
167–180.
Maziar, S. 2010. ‘Excavations at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, the Araxes Valley, NW Iran: First preliminary report’. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 47, 165–193.
Maziar, S. 2015. ‘Settlement dynamics of the Kura-Araxes culture: an overview of the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in
the Khoda Afarin Plain, North-Western Iran’. Paléorient 45/1, 25–36.
Maziar, S. and Glascock, M. D. 2017. ‘Communication networks and economical interactions: sourcing obsidian in the Araxes
River basin’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14, 31–37.
Maziar, S. and Zalaghi, A. 2018. ‘Southern riversides of Araxes river through the passage of time, a glance on spatial and time
dispersion of settlements ’. ATHAR 79, 61–74.
Maziar, S. 2019. ‘Iran and the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition, so near and yet so far ’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour,
M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon:
Maziar, S. and Zalaghi, A. 2021. ‘Exploring beyond the river and inside the valleys: settlement development and cultural landscape
of the Araxes river basin through time’. Iran 59/1, 36–56.
Mazurowski, R. F. 1987. ‘Preliminary report on two seasons of survey investigations in the Raffaan microregion’, Researches on the
Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches. Baghdad: The State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, 20–23.
Mazzoni, S. 2011. ‘The ivories of Ziwiye: a reappraisal’, in C. Lippolis and S. de Martino (eds) Un impaziente desiderio di scorrere il
mondo. Studi in onore di Antonio Invernizzi per il suo settantesimo compleanno. Firenze: Le Lettere, 75–84.
McBurney, C. B. M. 1964. ‘Preliminary report on Stone Age reconnaissance in north-eastern Iran’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 30, 382–399.
McBurney, C. B. M. 1968. ‘The cave of Ali Tappeh and the Epipalaeolithic in NE Iran’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34,
385–413.
McCall, B. 2009. The Mamasani Archaeological Survey: Long Term Settlement Patterns in the Mamasani District of the Zagros Mountains,
Fars Province, Iran. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.
McCall, B. 2013a. ‘Bronze Age Fars’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
283–303.
McCall, B. 2013b. ‘Re-assessing Elamite highland boundaries: new evidence for the Middle and Neo-Elamite periods in the
Mamasani Valleys, south-western Iran’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical
and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la
Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 191–206.
McCall, B. 2018. ‘Elamite ceramics’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge,
531–549.
McClure, S. B. 2013. ‘Domesticated animals and biodiversity: early agriculture at the gates of Europe and long-term ecological
consequences’. Anthropocene 4, 57–68.
McCown, D. E. 1942. The Comparative Stratigraphy of Early Iran. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 23. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
McCown, D. E. 1949. ‘The Iranian project’. American Journal of Archaeology 53/1, 54.
McCown, D. E. 1954. ‘The relative stratigraphy and chronology of Iran’, in R. W. Ehrich (ed.) Relative Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 56–68.
McDonald, M. M. 1979. An Examination of Mid-Holocene Settlement Patterns in the Central Zagros Region of Iran. PhD thesis, University
of Toronto.
McGovern, P. E., Fleming, S. J. and Katz, S. H. 2003. The Origins and Ancient History of Wine: Food and Nutrition in History and
Anthropology. Amsterdam: Routledge.
McGovern, P. E. 2007. Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McGovern, P. E. 2009. Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
McMahon, A. 2012. ‘The Akkadian period: empire, environment, and imagination’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archae-
ology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 649–667.
McMahon, A. 2020. ‘Early urbanism in northern Mesopotamia’. Journal of Archaeological Research 28, 289–337.
Meadow, R. H. 1984. ‘Notes on the faunal remains from Mehrgahr, with a focus on cattle (Bos)’, in B. Allchin (ed.) South Asian
Archaeology 1981. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
Meadow, R. H. 1986. ‘The geographical and palaeoenvironmental setting of Tepe Yahya’, in C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and T. W. Beale
(eds) Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975: The Early Periods. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 38. Cambridge:
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 21–38.
Bibliography 569
Meadows, A. R. 2005. ‘The administration of the Achaemenid empire’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World
of Ancient Persia. London: The British Museum, 181–209.
de Mecquenem, R. 1943. ‘Fouilles de Suse, 1933–1939: Archéologique susienne’. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 29, 3–161.
de Mecquenem, R. 1949. Épigraphie Proto-Élamite. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran 31. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
de Mecquenem, R. and Michalon, J. 1953. Recherches à Tchogha Zembil. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran 33. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
de Mecquenem, R. 1980. ‘Les fouilleurs de Suse’. Iranica Antiqua 15, 1–47.
Medvedskaya, I. 1982. Iran: Iron Age I. Oxford: BAR (International Series).
Medvedskaya, I. 1988. ‘Who destroyed Hasanlu IV?’. Iran 26, 1–15.
Medvedskaya, I. 1991. ‘Once more on the destruction of Hasanlu IV problems of dating’. Iranica Antiqua 26, 149–161.
Medvedskaya, I. 1999. ‘Media and its neighbours I. The localization of Ellipi’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 53–70.
Medvedskaya, I. 2002. ‘Were the Assyrians at Ecbatana?’. The International Journal of Kurdish Studies 16/1/2, 45–57.
Medvedskaya, I. 2015. ‘A shield-bearer from Sialk: rectangular shields in the ancient Near East’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 159–170.
Medvedskaya, I. 2017. ‘The ancient Iranian horse bridle: questions of chronology, origins, and development’. Iranica Antiqua 52, 159–165.
Mehrekian, J. 1996. ‘Study on the unknown architecture of the Grey Ware culture in Tepe Ma’mourin’, in B. Ayatolahzadeye
Shirazi (ed.) Proceedings of the History of Architecture and Urbanism in Iran Congress (Bam-Kerman, 1996). Tehran: National Cultural
Heritage Organisation, 345–356 (in Persian).
Mehrjoo, Z., Fattahi, Z., Beheshtian, M., Mohseni, M., Poustchi, H., Ardalani, F., Jalalvand, K., Arzhangi, S., Mohammadi,
Z. and Khoshbakht, S. 2019. ‘Distinct genetic variation and heterogeneity of the Iranian population’. PLoS Genetics 15/9, e1008385.
Mei, J. and Rehren, T. 2009. Metallurgy and Civilisation: Eurasia and Beyond: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Be-
ginnings of the Use of Metals and Alloys (BUMA VI). London: Archetype.
Meier, D. M. P. 2011. ‘Preliminary archaeometallurgical investigations of Bronze Age metal finds from Shahdad and Tepe Yahya’.
Meier, D. M. P. and Vidale, M. 2013. ‘The “man with serpents” revisited. On a figurated pin from the Bronze Age site of Shahdad
(Kerman, Iran)’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 3/1, 1–9.
Meier, D. M. P. 2019. ‘A pyrotechnological installation from the “metallurgical workshop” at Shahdad and its next geographical
and chronological comparisons’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau
Meiklejohn, C., Lambert, P. and Byrne, C. 1980. ‘Demography and pathology of the Ganj Dareh population-Early Neolithic of
Iran’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 52/2, 255–255.
Meiklejohn, C., Agelarakis, A., Akkermans, P. A., Smith, P. E. L. and Solecki, R. 1992. ‘Artificial cranial deformation in the
Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic Near East and its possible origin: evidence from four sites’. Paléorient 18/2 83–97.
Meiklejohn, C., Merrett, D. C., Reich, D. and Pinhasi, R. 2017. ‘Direct dating of human skeletal material from Ganj Dareh, Early
Neolithic of the Iranian Zagros’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12, 165–172.
Meldgaard, J., Mortensen, P. and Thrane, H. (eds) 1963. Excavations at Tepe Guran. Preliminary Report of the Danish Archaeological
Expedition to Iran 1963. Acta Archaeologica 34. Copenhagen, E. Munskgaard.
Meldgaard, J., Mortensen, P. and Thrane, H. 1964. ‘Excavation at Tepeh Guran, Luristan’. Acta Archaeologica 34, 97–133.
Mellaart, J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. London: Thames & Hudson.
de Menocal, P. B. 2001. ‘Cultural responses to climate change during the late Holocene’. Science 292/5517, 667–673.
Merrett, D. C. 2004. Bioarchaeology in Early Neolithic Iran: Assessment of Health Status and Subsistence Strategy. PhD thesis, University
of Manitoba.
Merrett, D. C., Cheung, C., Meiklejohn, C. and Richards, M. P. 2021. ‘Stable isotope analysis of human bone from Ganj Dareh,
Iran, ca. 10,100 calBP’. PLoS ONE 16/3, e0247569.
Meyer, J.-W. 2019. ‘Early urbanisation in Iran. A view from the west: some considerations about the theory of urbanisation ’, in
J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urban-
isation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 13–26.
Meyer, J.-W., Vila, E., Vallet, R. and Mashkour, M. 2019. ‘The urbanisation of the Iranian Plateau and adjacent areas during the
Bronze Age: concluding thoughts’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau
de Meyer, M. 2004. ‘Archaeological research using satellite remote sensing techniques (Corona) in the valleys of Shirwan and
Chardawal (Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan), Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 39, 43–103.
Meyer, M., Fu, Q., Aximu-Petri, A., Glocke, I., Nickel, B., Arsuaga, J.-L., Martínez, I., Gracia, A., de Castro, J. M. B., Carbonell, E.
and Pääbo, S. 2014. ‘A mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos’. Nature 505, 403–406.
Meyers, P. 2000. ‘The casting process of the statue of Queen Napir-Asu in the Louvre’. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary
Series 39, 11–18.
Michalowski, P. 1986. ‘Mental maps and ideology: reflections on Subartu’, in H. R. Weiss (ed.) The Origins of Dry-Farming in Syria
and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. Guildford, CT: Four Quarters, 129–156.
Michalowski, P. 1988. ‘Magan and Meluḫḫa once again’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40/2, 156–164.
Michalowski, P. 1989. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations Series. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
570 Bibliography
Michalowski, P. 2008. ‘Observations on ‘Elamites’ and ‘Elam’ in Ur III times’, in P. Michalowski (ed.) On the Third Dynasty of Ur:
Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Boston: ASOR, 109–125.
Michalowski, P. 2013. ‘Networks of authority and power in Ur III times’, in S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds) From the 21st Century
B.C. to the 21st Century A.D.: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sumerian Studies held in Madrid 22–24 July 2010. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 169–205.
Miglus, P. A. 1999. Städtische Wohnarchitektur in Babylonien und Assyrien. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.
Mildrexler, D. J., Zhao, M. and Running, S. W. 2006. ‘Where are the hottest spots on Earth?’. Eos, Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union 87/43, 461–467.
Miller, N. F. 1977. ‘Preliminary report on the botanical remains from Tepe Jaffarabad, 1969–1974 campaigns’. Cahiers de la Déléga-
tion Archéologique Française en Iran 7, 49–53.
Miller, N. F. 1981. ‘The plant remains’, in H. T. Wright (ed.) An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad.
Miller, N. F. 1982. Economy and Environment of Malyan, a Third Millennium BC Urban Center in Southern Iran. Ph. D. thesis, University
of Michigan.
Miller, N. F. and Smart, T. L. 1984. ‘Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred seeds into
the archaeological record’. Journal of Ethnobiology 4, 15–28.
Miller, N. F. 1985. ‘Paleoethnobotanical evidence for deforestation in ancient Iran: a case study of urban Malyan’. Journal of Eth-
nobiology 5/1, 1–19.
Miller, N. F. 1990. ‘Clearing land for farmland and fuel: archaeobotanical studies of the ancient Near East’. Economy and Settlement in the
Near East: Analysis of Ancient Sites and Materials, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to 7 (Supplement), 71–83.
Miller, N. F. 2003. ‘Archaeobotany in Iran: past and future’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the
of Archaeology, UCLA, 8–15.
Miller, N. F. and Abdi, K. 2003. ‘Introduction’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology
of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archae-
ology, UCLA, 1–8.
Miller, N. F. and Sumner, W. M. 2004. ‘The Banesh-Kaftari interface: the view from Operation H5, Malyan: corrected version’.
Iran 42/1, 77–89.
Miller, N. F. and Kimiaie, M. 2006. ‘Some plant remains from the 2004 excavations of Tall-e Mushki, Tall-e Jari A and B, and
Tall-e Bakun A and B’, in A. Alizadeh (ed.) The Origins of State Organizations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran: Excavations
at Tall-e Bakun. Oriental Institute Publications 128. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in association with
the Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization, 107–118.
Miller, N. F. 2011. ‘An archaeobotanical perspective on environment, plant use, agriculture, and interregional contact in south and
western Iran’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, 1–8.
Miller, N. F. 2013. ‘Agropastoralism and archaeobiology: connecting plants, animals and people in west and central Asia’. Environmental
Minardi, M., Betts, A. V. G. and Khozhaniyazov, G. 2017. ‘Columned halls in ancient Chorasmia’. Iran 55/2, 208–226.
Minc, L. D. 2016. ‘Trace-element analyses of Uruk ceramics: establishing a database to track interregional exchange’. Journal of
Archaeological Science Reports 7, 798–807.
Mionczynski, J. 1992. The Pack Goat. Boulder: Pruett Publishing Company.
Mirghaderi, M. A. and Alibaigi, S. 2018. ‘The toponym “Land of Bel” in the Haladiny inscription’. NABU 2018/3, 106–108.
de Miroschedji, P. 1972a. ‘Un objet culturel (?) d’origine iranienne provenant de Nippur’. Iran 10, 159–161.
de Miroschedji, P. 1972b. ‘Prospections archéologiques dans les vallées de Fasa et Darab (rapport préliminaire)’, in F. Bagherzadeh (ed.)
Proceedings of the 1st Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 1–7.
de Miroschedji, P. 1973. ‘Vases et objets en stéatite susiens du Musée du Louvre’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en
Iran 3, 9–79.
de Miroschedji, P. 1974. ‘Tépé Jalyan, une nécropole du IIIe millénaire Av. J.-C. Au Fars Oriental (Iran)’. Arts Asiatiques 30, 19–64.
de Miroschedji, P. 1981a. ‘Fouilles de chantier Ville Royale II à Suse (1975–1977). I Les niveaux élamites’. Cahiers de la Délégation
Archéologique Française en Iran 12, 9–136.
de Miroschedji, P. 1981b. ‘Observations dans les couches néo-élamites au nord-ouest du tell de la Ville Royale à Suse’. Cahiers de
la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 12, 143–167.
de Miroschedji, P. 1981c. ‘Prospections archéologiques au Khūzestān en 1977’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran
12, 169–192.
de Miroschedji, P. 1982. ‘Notes sur la glyptique de la fin de l’Elam’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 76/1, 51–63.
de Miroschedji, P. 1985. ‘La fin du royaume d’Anšan et de Suse et la naissance de l’empire Perse’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatische Archäologie 75/2, 265–306.
de Miroschedji, P. 1990. ‘La fin de l’Elam: Essai d’analyse et d’interpretation’. Iranica Antiqua 25, 47.
de Miroschedji, P. 2000. ‘La céramique de Khirbet Kerak en Syro-Palestine: état de la question’, in C. Marro and H. Hauptmann
(eds) Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica 11. Paris/Istanbul: De Boccard/In-
stitut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 255–278.
Bibliography 571
de Miroschedji, P. 2003. ‘Susa and the Highlands: major trends in the history of Elamite civilisation’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds)
Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph
48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 17–38.
Misonne, X. 1968. ‘Mammals’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge
Mitchell, T. C. 2000. ‘The Persepolis sculptures in the British Museum’. Iran 38, 49–56.
Mithen, S. J. 2003. After the Ice: A Global Human History, 20,000–5000 BC. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Miyake, Y. 2016. ‘Origins of pottery as technological innovation in Southwest Asia’. Der Anschnitt 31, 115–124.
Miyauchi, Y. 2014. ‘Children at Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2003–2004. ‘Untersuchungen zu den Siedlungsstrukturen in der Peripherie von Coga Zanbil (Dur Untas)’.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35–36, 241–265.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2005. ‘Eine Steininschrift des Amar-Suena aus Tappeh Bormi (Iran)’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vordera-
siatische Archäologie 95/2, 161–171.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2007. Archäologische Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Čoġā Zanbil. Münster: Agenda-Verlag.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2010. ‘Archäologische Untersuchungen in Horriyeh und Dehno, Khuzestan (Iran)’. Iranica Antiqua 45,
259–276.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B., Prechel, D. and Vahidzadeh, R. 2010. Vorbericht der archäologischen Ausgrabungen der Kampagnen 2005–2007 in
Haft Tappen (Iran). Münster: Agenda Verlag.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2011. Die Glyptik aus Haft Tappeh: Interkulturelle Aspekte zur Herstellung und Benutzung von Siegeln in der
Anfangsphase der Mittelelamischen Zeit. Elamica 1. Hildesheim: Franzbecker.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2013. ‘Some chronological aspects of the building structures at Haft Tappeh’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2014. ‘Vorbericht der archäologischen Ausgrabungen der Kampagnen 2012–2013 in Haft Tappeh (Iran)’.
Elamica 4, 67–167.
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2018a. ‘Elamite architecture’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, B. 2018b. ‘Elam in the Middle Elamite period’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite
Moghaddam, A. and Miri, N. 2003. ‘Archaeological research in the Mianab Plain of lowland Susiana, southwestern Iran’. Iran 41, 99–137.
Moghaddam, A. and Miri, N. 2007. ‘Archaeological surveys in the “Eastern Corridor”, southwestern Iran’. Iran 45, 23–55.
Moghaddam, A. 2012a. Later Village Period Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana,
Iran. BAR International Series 2347. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Moghaddam, A. 2012b. ‘Southwestern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester:
Moghaddam, A. 2013. ‘The Later Village (Chalcolithic) period in Khuzestan’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient
Moghaddam, A. and Javanmardzadeh, A. 2013. ‘The Chalcolithic in the central Zagros’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook
of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 93–104.
Moghaddam, A. 2016. ‘A fifth-millennium BC cemetery in the north Persian Gulf: the Zohreh Prehistoric Project’. Antiquity
Project Gallery 90. URL: https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/moghaddam353.
Moghaddam, A. 2018. Zohreh Prehistoric Project. Six Thousand Years Old Cemetery at Tol-e Chega Sofla. Tehran: Research Institute
of Cultural Heritage.
Moghaddam, A. 2020. A Sanctuary at Tol-e Chega Sofla. The Third Season of Excavation (Winter 2019). Tehran: Research Institute of
Cultural Heritage (in Persian).
Moghimi, N. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2015. ‘An archaeological study of the tokens from Tepe Zāgheh, Qazvin Plain, Irān’. Interna-
tional Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 1/2, 28–40.
Moghimi, N. and Davidi, H. 2020. ‘Evidence of administrative technology during the fourth millennium BC in the Qazvin Plain,
Iran (in Persian)’. Journal of Archaeological Studies 12/1, 221–241.
Mohammadi, B. K., Mohammadi, K. H. and Dan, R. 2018. ‘Kal Kharabe: a recently discovered fortress and rock-cut chamber in
the Orumiyeh Basin, Iran. Iranica Antiqua 53: 55–76.’. Iranica Antiqua 53, 55–78.
Mohammadifar, Y. and Motarjem, A. 2008. ‘Settlement continuity in Kurdistan’. Antiquity 82, Project Gallery.
Mohammadifar, Y., Motarjem, A. and Torabzadeh, H. 2009. ‘Tepe Pissa: new investigations at a Kura-Araxes site in central west-
ern Iran’. Antiquity 83/320, Project Gallery.
Mohammadifar, Y., Norouzi, A. and Sharifi, A. 2012. ‘Preliminary report of the 16th season of excavations at Tepe Hegmataneh;
Hamedan’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 2/2, 13–36.
Mohammadifar, Y., Sarraf, M. R. and Motarjem, A. 2015. ‘A preliminary report on four seasons of excavation at Moush Tepe,
Hamedan, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 233–250.
Mohammadkhani, K. 2012. ‘Une nouvelle construction monumentale achéménide à Dahaneh-e Gholaman, Sistan, Iran’. ARTA
2012.001, 1–18.
572 Bibliography
Mohaseb, A. F. and Mashkour, M. 2012. ‘Animal exploitation during the Middle Elamite period based on the faunal remains of
Haft Tappeh (Khuzestan-Iran)’. Elamica 2, 33–54.
Mohaseb, A. F. and Mashkour, M. 2017. ‘Animal exploitation from the Bronze Age to the Early Islamic period in Haftavan Tepe
(Western Azerbaijan--Iran)’. Archaeozoology of the Near East 9, 146–170.
Mollazadeh, K. 2008. ‘The pottery from the Mannean site of Qalaichi, Bukan (NW-Iran)’. Iranica Antiqua 43, 107–125.
Mollazadeh, K. 2015. ‘Study and dating of the Jowšātū fort: the largest Mannean fortress in northwestern Irān? ’. International
Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 1/2, 53–70.
Molleson, T. I. 2000. ‘The people of Abu Hureyra’, in A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman and A. J. Legge (eds) Village on the Euphrates:
From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 301–324.
Momenzadeh, M., Nezafati, N. and Pernicka, E. 2002. ‘First indication of tin at the ancient mining site near Deh Hosein,
West-Central Iran: a possible source for Luristan bronze?’, in H. Kars and E. Burke (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd International Sym-
posium on Archaeometry. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 116–117.
Momenzadeh, M. 2004. ‘Metallic mineral resources of Iran, mined in ancient times’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust
(eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie.Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28.
November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, 8–22.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1967. ‘Some ancient metal belts: their antecedents and relatives’. Iran 5, 83–98.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1969. ‘Prehistoric copper and bronze metallurgy in western Iran (with special reference to Lūristān)’. Iran 7, 131–153.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1971a. ‘Towards a chronology for the “Lūristān Bronzes”’. Iran 9, 113–129.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1971b. Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1972. Excavations in Iran: The British Contribution. Oxford: Organizing Committee of the Sixth International
Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1975. ‘Some elaborately decorated bronze quiver plaques made in Luristan, c. 750–650 B.C’. Iran 13, 19–29.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1982. ‘Archaeology and pre-Achaemenid metalworking in Iran: a fifteen year retrospective’. Iran 20, 81–101.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1985. ‘The Iranian contribution to Achaemenid material culture’. Iran 23, 21–37.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1988. ‘The technique of gold-figure decoration on Achaemenid silver vessels and its antecedents’. Iranica Antiqua
23, 231–251.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1991. ‘The decorated ironwork of the Early Iron Age attributed to Luristan in western Iran’. Iran 29, 1–12.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1993. ‘Iran: a Sumerian El-Dorado?’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Early Mesopotamia and Iran: Contact and Conflict, 3500–1600
B.C. Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin. London: British Museum Press, 31–45.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Material Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1998. ‘Material aspects of Achaemenid polychrome decoration and jewellery’. Iranica Antiqua 33, 155–171.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1999. ‘The hammered bronzework of Iron Age Lurestan (Iran): problems of chronology and iconography.’, in
A. Alizadeh, Y. Majidzadeh and S. M. Shahmirzadi (eds) The Iranian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archaeology Presented to
Ezat O. Negahban. Tehran: Tehran University Press, 146–157.
Moradi, B. and Bakhtiari, F. 2010. ‘A note on recent Paleolithic surveys in the Kuhdasht Region, the Lorestan Province, Iran’.
Journal of Iranian Archaeology 1, 38–41.
Moradi, B., Mashkour, M., Eghbal, H., Azadeh Mohaseb, F., Ghassimi, T., Rahmati, E., Vahdati, A. A., Gratuze, B. and Tengberg, M.
2016. ‘A short account on Kelek Asad Morad, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in Pol-e Dokhtar, Luristan’, in K. Roustaei and
M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Moradi, H. 2019. ‘Urbanism expansion at Shahr-i Sokhta period IV’, in S. M. S. Sajjadi and E. Ascalone (eds) A Collection of Papers
on Shahr-i Sokhta. Tehran: Pishinpajouh, 117–136.
Moradi, H. 2021. ‘Cultural dynamics of the second half of the fourth millennium BC and the roots of early urbanization in south-
eastern Iran (3500–3000 BC)’. Journal of Archaeological Studies 12/4, 211–228.
Moradi, H. in press. ‘Exploration in Square X in the eastern residential part of Shahr-i Sokhta: pottery traditions and cultural
interactions during the formative period (3200–3000 BC)’, in E. Ascalone and S. M. S. Sajjadi (eds) The East Aratta. Excavations
and Researches at Shahr-i Sokhta 1. Tehran: ICAR.
Moreno, E. 2014. ‘Retrospective and prospective perspectives on zoonotic brucellosis’. Frontiers in Microbiology 5/213.
de Morgan, J. 1895. Mission scientifique en Perse. Cartes des rives meridionales de la mer Caspienne, du Kurdistan de Moukhri et de l’Elam.
Paris: Ernest Leroux.
de Morgan, J. 1896. Mission scientifique en Perse. Paris: E. Leroux.
de Morgan, J. 1900. ‘Ruines de Sus’. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 1, 50–54.
de Morgan, J. 1902. La Délégation en Perse du Ministère de l’instruction publique 1897 à 1902. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
de Morgan, J. 1912. ‘Observations sur les couches profondes de l’Acropole de Suse’. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 8, 1–25.
Morrell, P. L. and Clegg, M. T. 2007. ‘Genetic evidence for a second domestication of barley (Hordeum vulgare) east of the Fertile
Crescent’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104/9, 3289–3294.
Morrell, P. L. and Clegg, M. T. 2011. ‘Hordeum’, in C. Kole (ed.) Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources: Cereals. Ber-
lin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 309–319.
Morrison, K. D. 2018. ‘Empires as ecosystem engineers: toward a nonbinary political ecology’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
52, 196–203.
Mortazavi, M. 2006. ‘The Bampur Valley: a new chronological development’. Ancient Asia 1, 53–62.
Bibliography 573
Mortazavi, M. 2007. ‘Mind the gap: continuity and change in Iranian Sistan archaeology’. Near Eastern Archaeology 70/2, 109–110.
Mortazavi, M. 2010. ‘Figurines of Bronze Age Iran’. Newsletter of the Coroplastic Studies Interest Group 4, 11–12.
Mortazavi, M., Kakhki, A. S., Golozar, M. A. and Tal’i, H. 2011a. ‘Preliminary metallurgical investigation of copper-based arti-
facts at Tepe Sagzabad in Qazvin Plain, Iran (1500–800 BC)’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, 49–59.
Mortazavi, M., Mishmast, M. and Good, I. 2011b. ‘Bronze Age textiles: a preliminary analysis of fragments siscovered at Tepe
Dasht, Sistan’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/1, 61–68.
Mortazavi, M., Negari, F. M. and Khosravi, M. 2015. ‘Step over the gap, not in it: a case study of Iranian Sistan archaeology’.
Mortensen, I. 1993. Nomads of Luristan: History, Material Culture, and Pastoralism in Western Iran. The Carlsberg Foundation’s Nomad
Research Project. London: Thames and Hudson.
Mortensen, P. 1963. ‘Early village farming occupation, Tepe Guran, Luristan’. Acta Archaeologica 34, 110–121.
Mortensen, P. 1972. ‘Seasonal camps and early villages in the Zagros’, in P. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds) Man,
Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth, 293–297.
Mortensen, P. 1975a. ‘A survey of prehistoric settlements in northern Luristan’. Acta Archaeologica 45, 1–47.
Mortensen, P. 1975b. ‘Survey and soundings in the Holailan valley, 1974’, Proceedings of the IIIrd Annual Symposium on Archaeological
Research in Iran: 2nd–7th November 1974. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, 1–12.
Mortensen, P. 1976. ‘Chalcolithic settlements in the Holailan valley’, Proceedings of the IVth annual Symposium on Archaeological Re-
search in Iran: 3rd–8th November 1975. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, 42–62.
Mortensen, P. 1993. ‘Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic sites in the Hulailan valley, northern Luristan’, in D. I. Olszewski and
H. L. Dibble (eds) The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. University Museum Symposium Series 5. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania, 159–187.
Mortensen, P. 2011. ‘CERAMICS iii. The Neolithic period in Central and Western Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-iii.
Mortensen, P. 2012. ‘From the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in northern Luristan’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Iranian Archaeology: Western Region. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, 47–54.
Mortensen, P. 2014. Excavations at Tepe Guran: The Neolithic Period. Acta Iranica 55. Leuven: Peeters.
Motamadi, N. 1992. ‘Report on the archaeological excavation of the Kalmakarra Cave’. Mirath-e Farhangi 10–11, 3–15 (in Persian).
Motamedi, N. 1997. ‘Ziwiye: a Mannaean-Median fortress’, in B. A. Shirazi (ed.) Proceedings of Iranian Architecture and City Building
Congress. Tehran: ICHO, 320–357 (in Persian).
Motarjem, A. 2009. Settlement Analysis of Early Bronze Age Sites in the Alvand Basin, Hamadan. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Tehran.
Motarjem, A. and Sharifi, M. 2014. ‘Cultural development of Chalcolithic era in the east of central Zagros based on archaeological
excavations at Tepe Gheshlagh’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 4/1, 49–65.
Motarjem, A. and Sharifi, M. 2019. ‘Iron Age III material from Tappeh Qeshlagh, Talvar, Kurdistan’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati
and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 1. Tehran:
Mousavi, A. 1992. ‘Parsa, a stronghold for Darius a preliminary study of the defence system of Persepolis’. East and West 42/2/4, 203–226.
Mousavi, A. 1996. ‘Early archaeological adventures and methodological problems in Iranian archaeology’. Iranica Antiqua 31, 1–17.
Mousavi, A. 2001. ‘La région de Téhéran à l’aube de l’âge du Fer: reflections et commentaires sur les nécropoles du IIe millénaire
av. J.-C.’. Iranica Antiqua 36, 151–212.
Mousavi, A. 2002. ‘Persepolis in retrospect: histories of discovery and archaeological exploration at the ruins of ancient Parseh’.
Ars Orientalis 32, 209–251.
Mousavi, A. 2005a. ‘Ernst Herzfeld, politics, and antiquities legislation in Iran’, in A. C. Gunter and S. R. Hauser (eds) Ernst Her-
zfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900–1950. Brill: Leiden, 445–475.
Mousavi, A. 2005b. ‘Comments on the Early Iron Age in Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 87–99.
Mousavi, A. 2008. ‘Late Bronze Age in north-eastern Iran: an alternative approach to persisting problems’. Iran 46, 105–120.
Mousavi, A. 2010. ‘Massoud Azarnoush (1945–2008)’. Iranica Antiqua 45, 1–5.
Mousavi, A. 2012. Persepolis: Discovery and Afterlife of a World Wonder. Boston: De Gruyter.
Mousavi, A. 2013a. ‘The central Alborz region in the Iron Age’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford:
Mousavi, A. 2013b. ‘The history of archaeological research in Iran: a brief survey’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of
Mousavi Haji, S. R. and Mehrafarin, R. 2006. ‘Archeological Systematic Investigation of Sistan, Phase 1. Tehran: Research Center of
Iran Cultural Heritage.
Mousavi Haji, S. R. and Mehrafarin, R. 2009. ‘Archeological Systematic Investigation of Sistan, Phase 2. Tehran: Research Center of
Iran Cultural Heritage.
Mozaffari, A. (ed.) 2014. World Heritage in Iran: Perspectives on Pasargadae. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Mucheshi, A. S., Niknami, K., Mashkour, M., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Firouzmandi Shirejini, B. 2011. ‘The relative and absolute
chronology of Tepe Kalanan: a Middle Chalcolithic site in Western Iran ’. Journal of Archaeological Research and Studies, Bu-Ali
Sina University 1/1, 31–56.
Mucheshi, A. S. and Tala’i, H. 2012. ‘Studying, introducing and comparing seals from settlement areas and cemeteries of the Iron
Age I-II in northern region of central Iranian Plateau’. The International Journal of Humanities 19/2, 67–96.
574 Bibliography
Mucheshi, A. S., Azarshab, A. and Ghaffari, Z. 2013. ‘Tepe Sarghal’eh: the evidence of Uruk pottery in Kurdistan province and
its relation with routes of Iran to Mesopotamia ’. Journal of Archaeology, Islamic Azad University 9/18, 37–48.
Mucheshi, A. S. 2014. ‘The Qezel Owzan River Basin during the Chalcolithic Period based on archaeological surveys of Bijar
County’. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 3/5, 25–50 (in Persian).
Mucheshi, A. S. and Jafari, M. J. 2016. ‘A cylindrical seal from Lama Cemetery, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran’.
Antiquity 90/351, Project Gallery.
Mucheshi, A. S. and Soltani, S. K. 2019. ‘Shiran: a submerged Iron Age grave in the Darin Dam, Hawraman, Kurdistan’, in
Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and
Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 215–226.
Mudar, K. M. 1988. ‘The effects of context on bone assemblages: examples from the Uruk Period in southwest Iran’. Paléorient
14/1, 151–168.
Mugavero, L. and Vidale, M. 2003. ‘The use of polychrome containers in the Hilmand Civilization: a female function?’. East and
West 53/1/4, 67–94.
Muradov, R. G. 2021. ‘The architecture of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Culture’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds)
The World of the Oxus Civilization. Abingdon: Routledge, 145–177.
Muscarella, O. W. 1965. ‘Lion bowls from Hasanlu’. Archaeology 18/1, 41–46.
Muscarella, O. W. 1971. ‘An Urartian site in Northwestern Iran’. Expedition 13/3–4, 44–49.
Muscarella, O. W. 1973. ‘The date of the tumuli at Sé Girdan’. Iran 11, 178–180.
Muscarella, O. W. 1974a. ‘Decorated bronze beakers from Iran’. American Journal of Archaeology 78/3, 239–254.
Muscarella, O. W. 1974b. ‘The Iron Age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran’. Metropolitan Museum Journal 9, 35–90.
Muscarella, O. W. 1977. ‘“Ziwiye” and Ziwiye: the forgery of a provenience’. Journal of Field Archaeology 4/2, 197–219.
Muscarella, O. W. 1988. ‘The background to the Luristan bronzes’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia c.1000–
539 B.C. London: Kegan Paul in association with the British Museum, 33–44.
Muscarella, O. W. 1989. ‘Bronzes of Luristan’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
bronzes-of-luristan.
Muscarella, O. W., Caubet, A. and Tallon, F. 1992. ‘Susa in the Achaemenid period’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds)
The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures from the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 215–252.
Muscarella, O. W. 1993. ‘Intercultural Style “weights”’. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7, 143–153.
Muscarella, O. W. 2001. ‘Jiroft and “Jiroft-Aratta” a review article of Yousef Madjidzadeh, “Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civiliza-
tion”’. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 15, 173–198.
Muscarella, O. W. 2003. ‘The chronology and culture of Sé Girdan: Phase III’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 9, 117–131.
Muscarella, O. W. 2006. ‘The excavation of Hasanlu: an archaeological evaluation’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 342, 69–94.
Muscarella, O. W. 2012a ‘JIROFT iii. GENERAL SURVEY OF EXCAVATIONS’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jiroft-iii-general-survey-of-excavations.
Muscarella, O. W. 2012b. ‘The antiquities trade and the destruction of ancient Near Eastern cultures’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion
to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 106–124.
Muscarella, O. W. 2018. ‘Elamite forgeries and the antiquities market’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The
Mutin, B. 2006. ‘La Basket Ware, une production céramique originale de la Protohistoire des confins indo-iraniens’. Paléorient
32/2, 175–193.
Mutin, B. 2012. ‘Cultural dynamics in southern Middle-Asia in the fifth and fourth millennia BC: a reconstruction based on ce-
ramic traditions’. Paléorient 38/1/2, 159–184.
Mutin, B. 2013a. The Proto-Elamite Settlement and Its Neighbors: Tepe Yahya Period IVC. The American School of Prehistoric Re-
search Monograph Series. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Mutin, B. 2013b. ‘Ceramic traditions and interactions on the south-eastern Iranian plateau during the fourth millennium BC’,
in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC.
Oxford: Oxbow, 253–275.
Mutin, B. 2015. ‘Chrono-cultural sequence of the Bampur Valley (south-eastern Iran) during the Chalcolithic period: a reevaluation
of the Stein Collection at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University’. Iran 53, 1–28.
Mutin, B., Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Minc, L. 2016. ‘Investigating ceramic production during the Proto-Elamite period at
Tepe Yahya, southeastern Iran: results of instrumental neutron activation analysis of periods IVC and IVB ceramics’. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 849–862.
Mutin, B. 2017. ‘Ost-Iran und der Osten in der Bronzezeit’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste.
Mutin, B., Minc, L. D., Lamberg Karlovsky, C. C. and Tosi, M. 2017a. ‘Regional and long-distance exchange of an emblematic
‘prestige’ ceramic in the Indo-Iranian Borderlands. Results of Neutron Activation Analysis’. Paléorient 43/1, 141–162.
Mutin, B., Moradi, H., Sarhaddi-Dadian, H., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Soltani, M. 2017b. ‘New discoveries in the Bampur Valley
(south-eastern Iran) and their implications for the understanding of settlement pattern in the Indo-Iranian borderlands during
the Chalcolithic period’. Iran 55/2, 99–119.
Bibliography 575
Mutin, B. and Garazhian, O. 2018. ‘Bam Archaeological Mission: a new archaeological research programme in Kerman Province,
Iran’. Antiquity 92/363, e8.
Mutin, B. and Minc, L. 2019. ‘The formative phase of the Helmand Civilization, Iran and Afghanistan: new data from composi-
tional analysis of ceramics from Shahr-i Sokhta, Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 23, 881–899.
Mutin, B., Garazhian, O. and Shakooie, M. 2020. ‘The Neolithic regional settlement of Darestan, Southern Lut Desert, Iran’.
Archaeological Research in Asia 24, 1–15.
Mutin, B. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2021. ‘The relationship between the Oxus Civilization and the Indo-Iranian border-
lands’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the Oxus Civilization. Abingdon: Routledge, 551–589.
Nadali, D. 2007. ‘Ashurbanipal against Elam: figurative patterns and architectural location of the Elamite wars’. Historiae 4, 57–92.
Naderi, S., Rezaei, H. R., Pompanon, F., Blum, M. G., Negrini, R., Naghash, H. R., Balkiz, O., Mashkour, M., Gaggiotti, O.
E., Ajmone-Marsan, P., Kence, A., Vigne, J. D. and Taberlet, P. 2008. ‘The goat domestication process inferred from large-
scale mitochondrial DNA analysis of wild and domestic individuals’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105/46,
17659–17664.
Nadooshan, F. K., Abedi, A., Glascock, M. D., Eskandari, N. and Khazaee, M. 2013. ‘Provenance of prehistoric obsidian artefacts
from Kul Tepe, northwestern Iran using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis’. Journal of Archaeological Science 40/4, 1956–1965.
Nagel, A. 2013. ‘Color and gilding in Achaemenid architecture and sculpture’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient
Nakamura, T. 2014. ‘Radiocarbon dating of charcoal remains excavated from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Vil-
lage in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba,
University of Tsukuba.
Narasimhan, V. M., Patterson, N., Moorjani, P., Rohland, N., Bernardos, R., Mallick, S., Lazaridis, I., Nakatsuka, N., Olalde, I.
and Lipson, M. 2019. ‘The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia’. Science 365/6457, eaat7487.
Naseri, A. and Malekzadeh, M. 2019. ‘Decorative bricks of the Late Iron Age in eastern Media: some pieces from Sialk’, in
J. Nokandeh, J. Curtis and M. Pic (eds) Tappeh Sialk: The Glory of Ancient Kashan. Iran Heritage Foundation: Special Studies 1.
London: Iran Heritage Foundation, 21–26.
Naseri, P. and Chehri, M. E. 2016. ‘An analytical study on the Bronze Age cultures of Harsin, Kermanshah province (Iran)’. Inter-
Naseri, R., Malekzadeh, M. and Naseri, A. 2016. ‘Gūnespān: a Late Iron Age site in the Median heartland’. Iranica Antiqua 51,
103–139.
Naseri, R. 2019. Preliminary Report of the Third Season of Salvage Excavation at Deh Dumen. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological
Research (in Persian).
Naumann, R. 1977. Die Ruinen von Takht-i Suleiman und Zendan-i Suleiman und Umgebung, Führer zu archäologischen Fundplätzen in
Iran 2. Berlin: Reimer.
Naval Intelligence Division 1945. Persia. Geographical Handbook Series B. R. 525. London: Naval Intelligence Division.
Neely, J. A. and Wright, H. T. 1994. Early Settlement and Irrigation on the Deh Luran Plain: Village and Early State Societies in South-
western Iran. Technical report of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology 26. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology.
Negahban, E. O. 1964. ‘A brief report on the excavation of Marlik Tepe and Pileh Qal’eh’. Iran 2/1, 13–19.
Negahban, E. O. 1965. ‘Notes on some objects from Marlik’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24/4, 309–327.
Negahban, E. O. 1969. ‘Haft Tepe’. Iran 7, 173–177.
Negahban, E. O. 1977. ‘Preliminary report of the Qazvin expedition: excavations at Zagheh, Ghabristan and Sagz abad (1971–1972)’.
Marlik 2, 26–44.
Negahban, E. O. 1979. ‘A brief report on the painted building of Zaghe (late 7th–early 6th millennium BC’. Paléorient 5, 239–250.
Negahban, E. O. 1984. ‘Clay human figurines of Zaghe’. Iranica Antiqua 19, 1–19.
Negahban, E. O. 1991. Excavations at Haft Tepe, Iran. University Museum Monograph 70. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Negahban, E. O. 1996. Marlik: The Complete Excavation Report. University Museum Monograph 87. Philadelphia: University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania.
Negahban, E. O. 1998. ‘Suggestions on the origin and background of the Marlik culture’. Iranica Antiqua 33, 43–56.
Negahban, E. O. 2001. ‘Giyan Tepe’. Encyclopaedia Iranica 11/6–7.
Negahban, E. O. 2002. ‘The Tepe Yahya excavation permit’. Iranica Antiqua 37, 229–232.
Nemati, N. 1977. ‘Range rehabilitation problems of the steppic zone of Iran’. Journal of Range Management 30/5, 339–342.
Neumann, G. 2013. ‘Elams Kulturkontakte mit seinen Nachbarn im Spiegel der Glyptik des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.’, in
K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Pro-
ceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58.
Leiden: Brill, 83–128.
Neumann, J. and Parpola, S. 1987. ‘Climatic change and the eleventh-tenth-century eclipse of Assyria and Babylonia’. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 46/3, 161–182.
Nezafati, N., Pernicka, E. and Momenzadeh, M. 2006. ‘Ancient tin: old question and new answer’. Antiquity 80, Project Gallery.
URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nezafati308/.
576 Bibliography
Nezafati, N., Momenzadeh, M. and Pernicka, E. 2008a. ‘New insights into the ancient mining and metallurgical researches in Iran’,
in Ü. Yalcin and A. G. Paşamehmetoğlu (eds) Ancient Mining in Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean. Ankara: Atilim University,
307–328.
Nezafati, N., Pernicka, E. and Momenzadeh, M. 2008b. ‘Iranian ore deposits and their role in the development of the ancient
cultures’, in Ü. Yalçın (ed.) Anatolian Metal IV. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 77–90.
Nezafati, N., Pernicka, E. and Momenzadeh, M. 2009. ‘Introduction to the Deh Hosein ancient tin-copper mine, western Iran:
evidence from geology, archaeology, geochemistry and lead isotope data’. TÜBA-AR 12, 223–230.
Nezafati, N. and Pernicka, E. 2012. ‘Early silver production in Iran’. Iranian Archaeology 3, 37–45.
Nezafati, N. and Hessari, M. 2016. ‘Archaeometric studies on Neolithic bullet-shaped cores from East Chia Sabz, Seymareh,
Luristan’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 6/1, 11–17.
Nezafati, N. and Hessari, M. 2017. ‘Tappeh Shoghali. A significant early silver production site in north central Iran’. Periodico di
Mineralogia 86, 67–73.
Nezamabadi, M., Mashkour, M. and Kargar, B. 2011. ‘Mannaean faunal remains from Tepe Qalaichi, northwestern Iran (9th -7th
B.C.)’. Journal of Iranian Archaeology 2, 33–40.
Niakan, L. 2016. ‘Ājorband: a neolithic site in the Qazvin Plain’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian
Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 103–115
(in Persian).
Nicholas, I. M. 1987. ‘The function of bevelled-rim bowls : a case study at the TUV mound, Tal-e Malyan, Iran’. Paléorient 13/2,
61–72.
Nicholas, I. M. 1990. The Proto-Elamite Settlement at TUV. University Museum Monograph 69. Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Nickerson, J. L. 1977. ‘Malyan wall paintings’. Expedition 19, 2–6.
Nigro, L. 1998a. ‘The two steles of Sargon: iconology and visual propaganda at the beginning of royal Akkadian relief ’. Iraq 60, 1–18.
Nigro, L. 1998b. ‘Visual role and ideological meaning of the enemies of the royal Akkadian relief ’, in J. Prosecký (ed.) Intellectual
Life in the Ancient Near East. Papers Presented at the 43rd Rencontre Assyriologique International, Prague, July 1–5, 1996. Prague: Ori-
ental Institute, 283–297.
Niknami, K., Moghimi, N. and Davoudi, H. 2020. ‘Evidence of administrative technology during the fourth millennium BC in
the Qazvin Plain, Iran’. Archaeological Studies 12/1, 221–241.
Niknami, K. A., Jayez, M. and Salahshour, N. A. 2009. ‘New Epipalaeolithic-Protoneolithic sites on the Izeh Plain, south-western
Iran’. Antiquity 83, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/jayez321/.
Niknami, K. A., Amirkhiz, A. C. and Glascock, M. D. 2010. ‘Provenance studies of Chalcolithic obsidian artefacts from near Lake
Urmia, northwestern Iran using WDXRF analysis’. Archaeometry 52/1, 19–30.
Niknami, K. A., Ramazani, M. and Niknami, N. 2011. ‘Ali Kosh Lady and her artificially modified head: an appraisal’. Iranian
Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, 17–24.
Niknami, K. A. and Nikzad, M. 2012. ‘New evidence of the Neolithic period in West Central Zagros: the Sarfirouzabad-Mahidasht
Region, Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 453–458.
Niknami, K. A., Nikzad, M. and Alibaigi, S. 2013. ‘Neolithic settlement patterns of the Sarfirouz Plain, Central West Zagros’, in
Niknami, K. A., Mirghaderi, A. A., Alibaigi, S. and Bahramiyan, S. 2016. ‘Middle and Late Bronze Age sites in Sarfirouzabad
Plain, Western Central Zagros, Iran’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 53, 81–112.
Niknami, K. A., Mirghaderi, M. A. and Garavand, M. 2017. ‘Botkhane Cave: new evidence from nomadic and semi-sedentary
communities in the Central Zagros during the Late Chalcolithic period and the Bronze Age: Kuhdasht, Luristan, Iran’. Nomadic
Peoples 21/2, 302–325.
Niknami, K. A., Taheri, M. H. and Sardary, A. 2018. ‘Evidence for an early accounting system found at Tal-e Mash Karim, a
Chalcolithic site in Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 45, 100–107.
Niknami, K. A. and Mirghaderi, M. A. 2019. ‘Farmers, herders or tradesmen? Analysing settlement patterns of the Middle and
Late Bronze Age on the Sarfirouzabad Plain, Kermanshah, Western Iran’. Acta Archaeologica 90/1, 155–177.
Niknami, K. A. and Hozhabri, A. (eds) 2020. Archaeology of Iran in the Historical Period. Tehran: Springer.
Nikzad, M., Sedighian, H. and Ghasemi, E. 2015. ‘New evidence of Palaeolithic activity from South Khorasan, eastern Iran ’.
Antiquity 89, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nikzad347.
Nikzad, M., Moradi, H. and Emadi, H. 2018. ‘Qal’at Surmagh: a Pre-Pottery Neolithic site from Neyriz Plain, eastern Fars, Iran’.
Neo-Lithics 18, 12–16.
Nimchuk, C. L. 2010. ‘Empire encapsulated: the Persepolis Apadana foundation deposits’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The
World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 221–230.
Nishiaki, Y. 2010a. ‘The architecture and pottery developments at the Neolithic settlement of Tall-i Jari B, Marv Dasht, Southwest
Iran’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42, 113–127.
Nishiaki, Y. 2010b. ‘A radiocarbon chronology for the Neolithic settlement of Tall-i Mushki, Marv Dasht Plain, Fars, Iran’. Iran
48, 1–10.
Nishiaki, Y. 2013. ‘A reappraisal of the Pottery Neolithic flaked stone assemblages at Tall-i Jari B, Fars, Southwest Iran. ’, in F.
Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez and M. Molist (eds) Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East, 7th
Conference on PPN Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 349–364.
Bibliography 577
Nishiaki, Y., Kharanaghi, M. H. A. and Abe, M. 2013. ‘The late aceramic Neolithic flaked stone assemblage from Tepe Rahmatabad,
Fars, South-West Iran’. Iran 51/1, 1–15.
Nishiaki, Y., Farhad, G. and Seiji, K. 2015a. ‘Chronological contexts of the earliest pottery Neolithic in the South Caucasus:
radiocarbon dates for Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan’. American Journal of Archaeology 119/3, 279–294.
Nishiaki, Y., Farhad, G., Seiji, K., Valeh, A., Takehiro, M., Shahin, S., Chie, A. and Saiji, A. 2015b. ‘Investigating cultural and
socioeconomic change at the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Caucasus: the 2013 excavations at Hacı Elamx-
anlı Tepe, Azerbaijan’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 374, 1–28.
Nishiaki, Y. 2016. ‘Techno-typological observations on the flaked stone industry of the early neolithic settlement of Ganj Dareh,
West Iran (the Tehran Collection)’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research.
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 189–208.
Nishiaki, Y. 2018. ‘The development of Neolithic lithic industries in Fars, Southwest Iran’, in H. Azizi Kharanaghi, M. Shanipour
and R. Naseri (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Young Archaeologists. Tehran: University of Tehran, 44–59.
Nishiaki, Y. and Darabi, H. 2018. ‘The earliest Neolithic lithic industries of the Central Zagros: new evidence from East Chia
Sabz, Western Iran’. Archaeological Research in Asia 16, 46–57.
Nishiaki, Y., Hosein Taheri, M. and Sardari, A. 2018. ‘Lithic industry of the Early Chalcolithic in the Southwest Zagros’. Ancient
Near Eastern Studies 55, 125–141.
Nishiaki, Y., Maeda, O., Kannari, T., Nagai, M., Healey, E., Guliyev, F. and Campbell, S. 2019. ‘Obsidian provenance analyses
at Göytepe, Azerbaijan: implications for understanding Neolithic socioeconomies in the southern Caucasus’. Archaeometry 61/4,
765–782.
Nishiaki, Y. and Guliyev, F. (eds) 2020. Göytepe: Neolithic Excavations in the Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Nissen, H. J. 1976. ‘The Behbehan plain in the fifth millennium BC’, in M. Y. Kiani (ed.) The Memorial Volume of the VIth In-
ternational Congress of Iranian Art & Archaeology, Oxford, September 11–16th, 1972. Teheran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological
Research, 273–279.
Nissen, H. J. and Zagarell, A. 1976. ‘Expedition to the Zagros Mountains, 1975’’. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on
Archaeology in Iran, Tehran, Iran Centre for Archaeological Research.
Nissen, H. J. 1993. ‘The context of the emergence of writing in Mesopotamia and Iran’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Early Mesopotamia and
Iran: Contact and Conflict 3500–1600 BC. Proceedings of a Seminar in Memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin. London: British Museum
Press, 54–71.
Nissen, H. J., Damerow, P. and Englund, R. K. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of the Economic Administration
in the Ancient Near East. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Nissen, H. J. 2001. ‘Cultural and political networks in the Ancient Near East during the fourth and third millennia B.C.’, in
M. S. Rothman (ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross-cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Sante Fe: School
of American Research Press, 149–179.
Nissen, H. J. 2002. ‘Uruk: key site of the period and key site of the problem’, in J. N. Postgate (ed.) Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking
the Uruk in the Near East. Warminster: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1–16.
Nobari, A. H., Binnandeh, A., Neyestani, J. and Vahdati Nasab, H. 2012a. ‘Excavation at Lavin Tepe in northwest Iran’. Ancient
Near Eastern Studies 49, 95–117.
Nobari, A. H., Rezaei, M. H., Vahdati Nasab, H. and Khademi Nadooshan, F. 2012b. ‘Results from a survey of Chalcolithic
settlements in the plain of Kazeroun, Iran. Antiquity Project Gallery 86(331):’. Antiquity 86/331, Project Gallery.
Nobari, A. H. and Kamrani, Z. 2017. ‘Bronze Age lithics of Iran as seen from Tepe Zarnaq in the North West’. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 54, 103–120.
Nokandeh, J. 2005. ‘Arg-e Dasht, the first Neolithic discovered region in Gilan Province’, in O. Tadahiko, J. Nokandeh and Y. Kazuya
(eds) Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Fourth Season. Tehran and Tokyo: Iranian Cultural Her-
itage Organisation & Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 50–56.
Nokandeh, J., Rekavandi, H. and Abbasi, G. 2005. ‘Preliminary report of Bazgir discovery from the Gorgan plain’, Archaeological
Reports 4. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 113–129.
Nokandeh, J., Omrani, H. and Abbasi, G. A. 2006. ‘Preliminary report of discovery of the Bazgir hoard in Gorgan Plain’, in S.
Etemadi (ed.) Archaeological Reports 4. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 113–129.
Nokandeh, J. 2010a. ‘Archaeological survey in the Mehran plain, south western Iran’, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and
N. Marchetti (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May–10 May 2008,
Università di Roma “La Sapienza”. Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 483–509.
Nokandeh, J. 2010b. Neue Untersuchungen zur Sialk III-Periode im zentraliranischen Hochland: auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse des, Sialk
Reconsideration Project. Berlin: Verlag im Internet GmbH.
Nokandeh, J. (ed.) 2017. A Survey of the History of Iran on the Basis of Iran National Museum Collections. Tehran: Iran National Museum.
Nützel, W. 1975. ‘The formation of the Arabian Gulf from 14,000 B.C.’. Sumer 31, 101–111.
Nylander, C. 1998. ‘Breaking the cup of kingship. An Elamite coup in Nineveh?’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 71–83.
Oates, D. and Oates, J. 1976. The Rise of Civilization. Oxford: Elsevier Phaidon.
Oates, J. 1968. ‘Excavations near Mandali, Iraq’. Iraq 30/1, 1–20.
Oates, J. 1983. ‘Ubaid Mesopotamia reconsidered’, in T. Cuyler Young Jr, P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen (eds) The Hilly Flanks
and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J. Braidwood, November l5, l982. Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 36. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 251–282.
578 Bibliography
Oberlander, T. 1965. The Zagros Streams: A New Interpretation of Transverse Drainage in an Orogenic Zone. Syracuse Geographical
Series 1. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Oberlander, T. M. 1968. ‘Hydrography’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge:
Ohnuma, K. 2008. ‘Lithic assemblages from TB75 and TB130’, in A. Tsuneki and M. Zeidi (eds) Tang-e Bolaghi: The Iran-Japan
Archaeological Project for the Sivand Dam Salvage Area. Al-Shark 4. Tehran; Tsukuba: Iranian Center for Archaeologica Research;
Department of Archaeology, University of Tsukuba, 87–119.
Ohtsu, T., Nokandeh, G. and Kazuya, Y. (eds) 2005. Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Fourth
Season. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization.
Ohtsu, T., Furuse, K., Adachi, T., Karami, M., Nojima, H., Arimatsu, Y. and Wakiyama, K. 2010. ‘Preliminary report of the
Iran Japan joint research study of the Gorgan material in the National Museum of Iran, Tehran’. Annual Report of the Humanities
Research Institute, Chikushi Jogakuen University and Junior College 21, 129–150.
Olson, K. G. 2012. The Figurines of Tureng Tepe: Ceramic Bodies and Social Life at a Bronze Age site in Northeastern Iran. Honours thesis,
the Ohio State University.
Olson, K. G. 2020. ‘Figurines and identity in Bronze Age Iran: an analysis of adornment, context, and use at Tureng Tepe’. Archäol-
ogische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 49, 123–146.
Olson, K. G. and Thornton, C. P. 2021. ‘Tureng Tepe, a Bronze Age centre in northeastern Iran revisited’. Iran 59/1, 4–35.
Olszewski, D. I. 1993. ‘The Late Baradostian occupation at Warwasi rockshelter, Iran’, in D. I. Olszewski and H. L. Dibble (eds)
The Palaeolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 187–206.
Olszewski, D. I. and Dibble, H. L. 1994. ‘The Zagros Aurignacian’. Current Anthropology 35/1, 68–75.
Olszewski, D. I. 2009. ‘Comparing Middle to Upper Paleolithic transitions in the Middle East and Egypt’, in M. Camps and
P. Chauhan (eds) Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. New York: Springer, 315–322.
Olszewski, D. I. 2012. ‘The Zarzian in the context of the Epipaleolithic Middle East’. International Journal of the Humanities 19/3,
1–20.[[Tab]]
Olszewski, D. I. 2017. ‘Assessing patterning in the Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic at Warwasi, Iran’. International Journal of the
Society of Iranian Archaeologists 3/5, 1–12.
Omrani, B., Khatib Shahidi, H. and Abedi, A. 2012. ‘Early Bronze Age, new migrants and the beginning of township in Azer-
baijan, NW Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 47, 1–27.
Orange, M., Abedi, A., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Vosough, B., Ebrahimi, G., Razani, M. and Marro, C. 2021a. ‘Consuming local:
the new obsidian source of Ideloo (northwestern Iran) and first evidence of use by neighbouring prehistoric communities’.
Geoarchaeology 36/2, 1–17.
Orange, M., Le Bourdonnec, F. X., Berthon, R., Mouralis, D., Gratuze, B., Thomalsky, J., Abedi, A. and Marro, C. 2021b ‘Ex-
tending the scale of obsidian studies: towards a high-resolution investigation of obsidian prehistoric circulation patterns in the
Southern Caucasus and North-western Iran’. Archaeometry. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12660.
Ortner, D. J. 1996. ‘Artificial cranial deformation of a human skull from Chogha Mish, Appendix A’, in P. Delougaz and H. J. Kantor
(eds) Chogha Mish I. The First Five Seasons of Excavations 1961–1971 Oriental Institute Publications 101. Chicago: The Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago, 319–322.
Otte, M., Biglari, F., Flas, D., Shidrang, S., Zwyns, N., Mashkour, M., Naderi, R., Mohaseb, A., Hashemi, N., Darvish, J. and
Radu, V. 2007. ‘The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: new research at Yafteh Cave, Lorestan, Iran’. Antiquity 81/311, 82–96.
Otte, M., Biglari, F. and Jaubert, J. 2009. Iran Paleolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Otte, M., Shidrang, S., Zwyns, N. and Flas, D. 2011. ‘New radiocarbon dates for the Zagros Aurignacian from Yafteh cave, Iran’.
Journal of Human Evolution 61/3, 340–346.
Otte, M. 2014. Modes de Contactes et de Déplacements au Paléolithique Eurasiatique. Actes du Colloque International du Commission
de l’UISPP 8. Liège: Université de Liège.
Oudbashi, O., Emami, S. M. and Davami, P. 2012. ‘Bronze in archaeology: a review of archaeometallurgy of bronze in ancient
Iran’, in L. Collini (ed.) Copper Alloys: Early Applications and Current Performance-Enhancing Processes. Rijeka: InTech, 153–178.
Oudbashi, O., Emami, S. M., Malekzadeh, M., Hassanpour, A. and Davami, P. 2013. ‘Archaeometallurgical Studies on the Bronze
Vessels from ‘Sangtarashan’, Luristan, W-Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 48, 147–174.
Oudbashi, O., Naseri, R. and Malekzadeh, M. 2016. ‘Technical studies on the Bronze Age metal artefacts from the graveyard of
Deh Dumen, south-western Iran (third millennium BC)’. Archaeometry 58/6, 947–965.
Oudbashi, O. and Hessari, M. 2017. ‘Iron Age tin bronze metallurgy at Marlik, Northern Iran: an analytical investigation’. Archae-
ological and Anthropological Sciences 9/2, 233–249.
Oudbashi, O. and Hasanpour, A. 2018. ‘Bronze alloy production during the Iron Age of Luristan: a multianalytical study on re-
cently discovered bronze objects’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10/6, 1443–1458.
Oudbashi, O. 2019. ‘The bronze metallurgy in the Iron Age. Tin bronze production tradition during the Iron Age in the Central
Zagros’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western
Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 201–214.
Oudbashi, O., Agha-Aligol, D., Mishmastnehi, M. and Barnoos, V. 2019. ‘The Elamite metalworkers: multianalytical study on
copper objects and ingots from second millennium BC of southwestern Iran’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11/5,
2059–2072.
Bibliography 579
Overlaet, B. 1997. ‘A Report on the 1952 and 1954/55 Soundings at Tall-i Taimuran (Fars), Iran. A file-excavation at the Royal
Museum of Art and History, Brussels’. Iranica Antiqua 32, 1–51.
Overlaet, B. 2003. The Early Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan. Brussels: Ghent University.
Overlaet, B. 2005. ‘The chronology of the Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 1–33.
Overlaet, B. 2006a. ‘Luristan Bronzes I: the field research’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/luristan-bronzes-i-the-field-research-
Overlaet, B. 2006b. ‘Luristan Bronzes ii: Chronology’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
luristan-bronzes-ii-chronology.
Overlaet, B. 2007. ‘Soundings at Tall-i Kamin (Kur river basin), Fars, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 42, 61–103.
Overlaet, B. 2008. ‘Les Bronzes du Luristan de l’Age du Fer’, in N. Engel (ed.) Les Bronzes Du Luristan, Énigmes De l’Iran Ancien,
(IIIe-Ier Millénaire Av. J.C.). Paris: Paris-Musées, 43–53.
Overlaet, B. 2012. ‘Čā le Ğā r (K ā š ā area) and votives, favissae and cave deposits in pre-Islamic and Islamic traditions’. Archäeologische
Overlaet, B. 2013. ‘Luristan during the Iron Age’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Overlaet, B. 2017. ‘In memoriam Ernie Haerinck - biography and bibliography’. Iranica Antiqua 52, vii–xxiii.
Overlaet, B. and Pincé, P. 2018. ‘The “Hill of the Jackal” – the 1951 excavations at Tall-i Shogha, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 53, 1–39.
Özdoğan, M. 2005. ‘The expansion of the Neolithic way of life: what we know and what we do not know’, in C. Lichter (ed.) How
Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium
Cal BC. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 13–27.
Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. and Kuniholm, P. (eds) 2011. The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Istanbul:
Archaeology and Art Publications.
Özfirat, A. 2001. Doğu Anadolu Yayla Kültüleri (M.Ö. II Binyil). Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Palka, J. W. 2021. ‘Not just counters: clay tokens and ritual materiality in the ancient Near East’. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 28/2, 414–445.
Palmisano, A., Lawrence, D., de Gruchy, M. W., Bevan, A. and Shennan, S. 2021. ‘Holocene regional population dynamics and
climatic trends in the Near East: A first comparison using archaeo-demographic proxies’. Quaternary Science Reviews 252, 106739.
Palumbi, G. 2003. ‘Red-Black Pottery: Eastern Anatolian and Transcaucasian relationships around the mid-fourth millennium
BC’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40, 80–134.
Palumbi, G. 2008. The Red and Black: Social and Cultural Interaction Between the Upper Euphrates and Southern Caucasus Communities in
the Fourth and Third Millennium B.C. Studi di Preistoria Orientale 2. Roma: Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.
Palumbi, G. and Chataigner, C. 2014. ‘The Kura-Araxes Culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: between
unity and diversity. A synthesis’. Paléorient 40/2, 247–260.
Palumbi, G. 2019. ‘The expansion of the Kura-Araxes culture in Iran: what role for the Uruk?’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashk-
our, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon:
Panaino, A. 2012. ‘Italy xvi. IsMEO’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/italy-xv-ismeo-2.
Parizi, M. K., Mortazavi, M. and Negari, F. M. 2014. ‘Epipalaeolithic site discovery in southeastern Iran, Rayen’. Iranian Journal
of Archaeological Studies 4/1, 67–75.
Parker, A. G., Goudie, A. S., Stokes, S., White, K., Hodson, M. J., Manning, M. and Kennet, D. 2006. ‘A record of Holocene
climate change from lake geochemical analyses in southeastern Arabia’. Quaternary Research 66/3, 465–476.
Parzinger, H. and Boroff ka, N. 2003. ‘Einführung. Das Zinn der Bronzezeit in Mittelasien I ’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
und Turan 5, 1–14.
Pearce, J. 1999. ‘Investigating ethnicity at Hacınebi: ceramic perspectives in 4th millennium Mesopotamian-Anatolian interac-
tion’. Paléorient 25/1, 35–42.
Peasnall, B. L. 2002a. ‘Iranian Neolithic’, in P. N. Peregrine and M. Ember (eds) Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 8: South and
Southwest Asia. Boston: Springer US, 215–235.
Peasnall, B. L. 2002b. ‘Iranian Chalcolithic’, in P. N. Peregrine and M. Ember (eds) Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 8: South and
Peasnall, B. L. 2002c. ‘Iranian Mesolithic’, in P. N. Peregrine and M. Ember (eds) Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 8: South and
Pecorella, P. E. and Salvini, M. 1984. Tra lo Zagros e l’Urmia: Richerche storiche ed archaeologische nell’Azerbaigiano Iranico. Incunabula
Graeca 78. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. and Belward, A. S. 2016. ‘High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term
changes’. Nature 540, 418–422.
Pelzel, S. M. 1977. ‘Dating the Early Dynastic votive plaques from Susa’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36, 1–15.
Pereira, F. and Amorim, A. 2010. ‘Origin and spread of goat pastoralism’. Encyclopaedia of Life Sciences (online). URL: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0022864.
Perkins, A. L. 1949. The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 25. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
580 Bibliography
Pernicka, E. 2004. ‘Copper and silver in Arisman and Tappeh Sialk and the early metallurgy in Iran’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and
A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie.Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums
Bochum vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 232–239.
Pernicka, E., Momenzadeh, M., Vatandoust, A., Adam, K., Böhme, M., Hezarkhani, Z., Nezafati, N., Schreiner, M. and
Winterholler, B. 2011. ‘Archaeometallurgical research on the western Central Iranian Plateau’, in A. Vatandoust, H. Parzinger
and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau: The First Five Years of Work. Archäologie in
Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 633–687.
Perrot, J. 2003. ‘L’iconographie de Jiroft’. Dossiers d’Archéologie 287, 96–113.
Perrot, J. and Madjidzadeh, Y. 2003. ‘Jiroft. Fabuleuse découverte en Iran’. Dossiers d’Archéologie 287.
Perrot, J. 2012. ‘JIROFT iv. ICONOGRAPHY OF CHLORITE ARTIFACTS’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/jiroft-iv-iconography-of-chlorite-artifacts.
Perrot, J. 2013a. ‘Convention of the Persian antiquities concession’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal
Residence of Achaemenid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 49–52.
Perrot, J. (ed.) 2013b. The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid Persia. London, I. B. Tauris.
Perrot, J. 2013c. ‘The Franco-Iranian programme’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achae-
menid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 97–124.
Peterson, J. 2002. Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of Agriculture. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Peterson, J. 2006. ‘Gender and early farming societies’, in S. M. Nelson (ed.) Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Lanham: AltaMira
Press, 535–570.
Petraglia, M. D. 2005. ‘Hominin responses to Pleistocene environmental change in Arabia and South Asia’. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications 247/1, 305–319.
Petraglia, M. D. 2010. ‘The early paleolithic of the Indian Subcontinent: hominin colonization, dispersals and occupation history’,
in J. G. Fleagle, J. J. Shea, F. E. Grine, A. L. Baden and R. E. Leakey (eds) Out of Africa I: The first hominin colonization of Eurasia.
Dordrecht: Springer, 165–179.
Petrie, C. A., Asgari Chaverdi, A. and Seyedin, M. 2005. ‘From Anshan to Dilmun and Magan: the spatial and temporal distribu-
tion of Kaftari and Kaftari-related ceramic vessels’. Iran 43, 49–86.
Petrie, C. A., Weeks, L. R., Potts, D. T. and Roustaei, K. 2006. ‘Perspectives on the cultural sequence of Mamasani’, in D. T. Potts
and K. Roustaei (eds) The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One. A Report on the First Two Seasons of the ICAR – University of
Sydney Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 169–196.
Petrie, C. A., Sardari, A. and Javanmardzadeh, A. 2007. ‘Developing societies and economies in 4th millennium BC Fars: further
excavations at Tol-e Spid’. Iran 45, 301–309.
Petrie, C. A. 2011. ‘‘Culture’, innovation and interaction across southern Iran from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (6500–3000
BC)’, in B. W. Roberts and M. Vander Linden (eds) Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability and Transmis-
sion. New York: Springer, 151–182.
Petrie, C. A. 2012. ‘Ceramic production’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester:
Petrie, C. A. 2013a. ‘The Chalcolithic in southern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
Petrie, C. A. 2013b. ‘Ancient Iran and its neighbours: the state of play’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local
Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 1–24.
Petrie, C. A. 2013c. ‘Ancient Iran and its neighbours: emerging paradigms and future directions’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran
and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 385–411.
Petrie, C. A., Sardari, A., Ballantyne, R., Berberian, M., Lancelotti, C., Mashkour, M., McCall, B., Potts, D. T. and Weeks, L.
2013. ‘Mamasani in the fourth millennium BC’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-
Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 171–194.
Petrie, C. A. 2014. ‘Iran and Uruk Mesopotamia: chronologies and connections in the 4th millennium BC’, in A. McMahon,
H. E. W. Crawford and J. Oates (eds) Preludes to Urbanism: The Late Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia. McDonald Institute Monographs.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 137–155.
Petrie, C. A., Seyedin, M. and Chaverdi, A. A. 2016. ‘Kaftari and Kaftari-related ceramics in southwest Iran and the Persian Gulf ’.
International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 2/3, 4–12.
Petrie, C. A., Djamali, M. and Jones, M. D. 2018. ‘Physical geography and environment of Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello
and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 99–117.
Petrie, C. A. in press. ‘Radiocarbon dating’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
Petrova, N. Y. 2019. ‘The development of Neolithic pottery technology in Eastern Jazira and the Zagros Mountains’. Documenta
Peyronel, L. 2007. ‘Chronological aspects of cultural interrelations between Syria and the Persian Gulf during the late third and
second millennium BC.’, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and L. Peyronel (eds) Proceedings of the International Colloquium From
Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine. Rome: Bardi, 425–455.
Bibliography 581
Peyronel, L. 2013. ‘Elam and Eshnunna: historical and archaeological interrelations during the Old Babylonian period’, in K. De Graef
and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Con-
gress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 51–70.
Peyronel, L. 2018. ‘The Old Elamite period’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Pfälzner, P. and Soleimani, N. A. 2015. ‘The ICAR–University of Tübingen South-of-Jiroft Archaeological Survey (SOJAS)’.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 47, 105–141.
Pfälzner, P., Soleimani, N. A. and Karami, M. 2019. ‘SOJAS 2015–2018: a résumé of four seasons of archaeological survey south
of Jiroft’. Archaeology Journal of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research 2/2, 107–124.
Philip, G. 2000. ‘Complexity and diversity in the southern Levant during the third millennium BC: the evidence of Khirbet Kerak
Ware’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12, 26–57.
Philip, G. and Millard, A. 2000. ‘Khirbet Kerak ware in the Levant: the implications of radiocarbon chronology and spatial distri-
bution’. Publications de l’Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes 11/1, 279–296.
Pickarski, N. and Litt, T. 2017. ‘A new high-resolution pollen sequence at Lake Van, Turkey: insights into penultimate interglacial–
glacial climate change on vegetation history’. Climate of the Past 13/6, 689–710.
Pigott, V. C. 1989. ‘Archaeo-metallurgical investigations at Bronze Age Tappeh Hesar, 1976’, in R. H. Dyson and S. M. Howard (eds)
Preliminary Reports of the Tappeh Hesar Restudy Project, 1976. Monografi di Mesopotamia 2. Florence: Casa editrice Le Lettere, 25–34.
Pigott, V. C. 1999. ‘The development of metal production on the Iranian Plateau: an archaeometallurgical perspective’, in V. C.
Pigott (ed.) The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World. University Museum Monograph 89. Philadelphia: Museum University
of Pennsylvania, 73–106.
Pigott, V. C. and Lechtman, H. 2003. ‘Chalcolithic copper-based metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: a new look at old evidence
from Tal-i Iblis’, in T. Potts, M. Roaf and D. Stein (eds) Culture Through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S.
Moorey. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 291–312.
Pigott, V. C., Rogers, H. C. and Nash, S. K. 2003. ‘Archaeometallurgical Investigation at Tal-e Malyan: Banesh period finds from
ABC and TUV’, in W. M. Sumner (ed.) Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran.
Malyan Excavation Reports 3. Malyan Excavation Reports 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
and Anthropology, 94–101.
Pigott, V. C. 2008. ‘Le bronze et le fer au Luristan’, in N. Engel (ed.) Les Bronzes du Luristan: Énigmes de l’Iran ancien, IIIe-Ier
millénaire av. J.-C. Paris: Paris musées, 55–65.
Pigott, V. C. 2021. ‘The acquisition of tin in Bronze Age Southwest Asia’, in B. Lyonnet and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the
Oxus Civilisation. Abingdon: Routledge, 827–861.
Piller, C. K. 2003–2004. ‘Zur Mittelbronzezeit im nördlichen Zentraliran – die zentraliranische Graue Ware (Central Grey Ware)
als mögliche Verbindung zwischen Eastern and Western Grey Ware’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35–36, 143–174.
Piller, C. K. 2004. ‘Das Iranische Hochland im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr.: Die Frühgeschichtliche Periode’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta
and A. Vatandoust (eds) Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie.Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums
Bochum vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, 310–327.
Piller, C. K. 2008. Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie der Nekropole von Marlik. Ph.D., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.
Piller, C. K. and Mahfroozi, A. 2009. ‘First preliminary report on the joint Iranian-German excavations at Gohar Tappe,
Māzandarān, Iran’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41, 1–33.
Piller, C. K. 2012a. ‘Neue Erkenntnisse zur Verbreitung der Kura-Araxes-Kultur in Nord- und Zentraliran’, in H. D. Baker,
K. Kaniuth and A. Otto (eds) Stories of Long Ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 397. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 441–458.
Piller, C. K. 2012b. ‘Bewaffnung und Tracht Urartäischer und Nordwestiranischer Krieger des 9. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. ’, in S. Kroll,
C. Gruber and U. Hellwag (eds) Bianili-Urartu. The Proceedings of Results of the Symposium held in Munich, 12–14 October 2007.
Piller, C. K. 2012c. ‘Landscape archaeology south of the Caspian Sea: some new insights’, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds)
Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12–16 April 2010, British Museum and UCL,
London, Vol. 3: Fieldwork and Recent Research. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 119–133.
Pincé, P., Braekmans, D., Abdali, N., De Pauw, E., Amelirad, S. and Vandenabeele, P. 2019. ‘Development of ceramic production
in the Kur River Basin (Fars, Iran) during the Neolithic. A compositional and technological approach using X-ray fluorescence
spectroscopy and thin section petrography’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11/4, 1241–1258.
Pinnock, F. 2006. ‘The raw lapis lazuli in the Royal Palace G of Ebla. New evidence from the annexes of the throne room’, in
M. E. Alberti, E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel (eds) Weights in Context. Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern Mediterranean. Rome:
Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, 347–357.
Piperno, M. 1972. ‘Jahrom, a Middle Palaeolithic site in Fars, Iran’. East and West 22, 183–197.
Piperno, M. 1973. ‘The lithic industry of Tepe Yahya: a preliminary typological analysis’. East and West 23/1–2, 59–74.
Piperno, M. 1974. ‘Upper Palaeolithic caves in southern Iran. Preliminary report’. East and West 24, 9–13.
Piperno, M. 1976. ‘Grave 77 at Shahr-i Sokhta: further evidence of technological specialization in the 3rd millennium B.C.’. East
and West 26, 9–14.
582 Bibliography
Piperno, M. 1977. ‘La necropoli di Shahr-i Sokhta’, in G. Tucci (ed.) La Città Bruciata nel Deserto Salato. Venezia: Erizzo Editrice,
113–148.
Piperno, M. 1979. ‘Socio-economic implications from the graveyard of Shahr-i Sokhta’, in M. Taddei (ed.) South Asian Archaeology
1977. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 123–139.
Piperno, M. and Salvatori, S. 1982. ‘Evidence of western cultural connections from a phase 3 group of graves at Shahr-i Sokhta’,
in H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds) Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 79–82.
Piperno, M. and Salvatori, S. 1983. ‘Recent results and new perspectives from the research at the graveyard of Shahr-i Sokhta,
Sistan, Iran’. Istituto Universitario Orientale Annali 43, 173–201.
Piperno, M. 1986. ‘Aspects of ethnical multiplicity across the Shahr-i Sokhta graveyard’. Oriens antiquus 25, 257–270.
Piperno, M. and Salvatori, S. 2007. The Shahr-i Sokhta Graveyard (Sistan, Iran): Excavation Campaigns 1972–1978. Rome.
Piran, S. 2013. ‘Seal impressions from Susa: re-evaluating some of the findings in Susa available in the National Museum of Iran
and introducing some unpublished samples’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, His-
torical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires
de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 265–281.
Piran, S. 2019. ‘Prestige objects in South East of Iran during the Bronze Age in the National Museum of Iran’, in J.-W. Meyer,
E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Produc-
tion and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 289–300.
Piro, J. J. and Crabtree, P. J. 2017. ‘Zooarchaeological evidence for pastoralism in the Early Transcaucasian Culture’, in M. Mashkour
and M. Beech (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East 9. Oxford: Oxbow, 273–283.
Pittman, H. 1984. Art of the Bronze Age. Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Pittman, H. 1992a. ‘The Late Uruk Period’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern
Treasures from the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 48–57.
Pittman, H. 1992b. ‘Proto-Elamite seals and sealings’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient
Pittman, H. 1993. ‘Pictures of an administration: the Late Uruk scribe at work’, in M. Frangipane (ed.) Between the Rivers and over
the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Roma: Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 235–245.
Pittman, H. 1994. The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style: The Structure and Function of an Image System in the Administration of Protoliterate
Mesopotamia. Berlin: D. Reimer.
Pittman, H. 1997. ‘The administrative function of glyptic art in Proto–Elamite Iran: a survey of the evidence’. Res Orientales 10,
133–161.
Pittman, H. 2001a. ‘Mesopotamian intraregional relations reflected through glyptic evidence in Late Chalcolithic 1–5 Periods’, in
M. S. Rothman (ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross-cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Sante Fe: School of
American Research Press, 403–444.
Pittman, H. 2001b. ‘Glyptic art of period IV’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967–1975: The Third Millennium.
American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Pittman, H. 2002. ‘The “jeweler’s” seal from Susa and art of Awan’, in E. Ehrenberg (ed.) Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the
Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 211–235.
Pittman, H. 2003a. ‘The Proto-Elamite period’, in J. Aruz (ed.) Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B. C. from the Mediter-
ranean to the Indus. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 42–48.
Pittman, H. 2003b. ‘Reconsidering the Trouvaille de la statuette d’or: late Sukkalmah period at Susa’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi
(eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud. Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Ar-
chaeology, 177–191.
Pittman, H. 2003c. ‘Proto-Elamite glyptic art from Operation ABC’, in W. M. Sumner (ed.) Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan:
Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. Malyan Excavation Reports 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Mu-
seum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 107–108.
Pittman, H. 2011. ‘The seals of Godin VI’, in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe,
Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/Mazda Press, 113–115.
Pittman, H. 2012. ‘Glyptic art of Konar Sandal South, observations on the relative and absolute chronology in the third millen-
nium BCE’, in H. Fahimi and M. Mashkour (eds) NÂMVÂRNAME: Papers in Honour Massoud Azarnoush. Tehran: Ganjine-ye
Naghsh-e Jahan, 81–96.
Pittman, H. 2013a. ‘Eastern Iran in the Bronze Age’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford
Pittman, H. 2013b. ‘Imagery in administrative context: Susiana and the west in the fourth millennium BC’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) An-
cient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 293–336.
Pittman, H. 2014. ‘Chogha Maran in the Central Zagros: the glyptic art of the Early Bronze’, in P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski,
R. Koliński, D. Lawecka, A. Soltysiak and Z. Wygnańska (eds) Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East 30 April-4 May 2012, University of Warsaw. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 367–382.
Pittman, H. and Blackman, M. J. 2016. ‘Mobile or stationary? Chemical analysis of clay administrative devices from Tell Brak in
the Late Uruk period’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 877–883.
Bibliography 583
Pittman, H. 2017. ‘Bronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ostiran’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste. Mu-
nich: Hirmer Verlag, 68–89.
Pittman, H. 2018a. ‘Dark soft stone objects’, in M. Lebeau (ed.) Artefacts. ARCANE Interregional II. Turnhout: Brepols, 107–172.
Pittman, H. 2018b. ‘Administrative role of seal imagery in the Early Bronze Age: Mesopotamian and Iranian traders on the pla-
teau’, in G. Jamison, M. Ameri, S. J. Scott and S. K. Costello (eds) Seals and Sealing in the Ancient World: Case Studies from the Near
East, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–35.
Pittman, H. 2018c. ‘Origins of monumental sculpture in Elam: two case studies’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks
(eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 585–601.
Pittman, H. 2019. ‘Bronze Age interaction on the Iranian Plateau. From Kerman to the Oxus through seals’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila,
M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urbanisation, Production and Trade.
Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 267–288.
Pittman, H. in press. ‘Glyptic and other arts’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
de Planhol, X. and Brown, J. A. 1968. ‘Geography of settlement’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The
Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 409–467.
de Planhol, X. 1969. ‘L’évolution du nomadisme en Anatolie et Iran: étude comparée’, in L. Földes (ed.) Viehwirtschaft und Hirten-
kultur: Ethnographische Studien. Budapest: Akademia Kiaio, 69–93.
Pleiner, R. 1967. ‘Preliminary evaluation of the 1966 metallurgical investigation in Iran’, in J. R. Caldwell (ed.) Investigations in
Tal-i-Iblis. Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9 9. Springfield: Illinois State Museum Society 340–405.
Pollard, A. M., Davoudi, H., Mostafapour, I., Valipour, H. R. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2012. ‘A new radiocarbon chronology for the
late Neolithic to Iron Age on the Qazvin plain, Iran’. The International Journal of Humanities 19/3, 1–41.
Pollard, A. M., Fazeli Nashli, H., Davoudi, H., Sarlak, S., Helwing, B. and Saeeidi Anaraki, F. 2013. ‘A new radiocarbon chro-
nology for the north central plateau of Iran from the late Neolithic to the Iron Age’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan
45, 27–50.
Pollock, S. 1983. ‘Style and information: an analysis of Susiana ceramics’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 354–390.
Pollock, S. 1989. ‘Power politics in the Susa A Period’, in E. F. Henrickson and I. Thuesen (eds) Upon This Foundation: The ʿUbaid
Reconsidered. Proceedings from the ʿUbaid Symposium, Elsinore, May 30th–June 1st 1988. CNI publications, 10. Copenhagen: Carsten
Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near East Studies Museum Tusculanum Press, 281–292.
Pollock, S. 2008. ‘Rubbish, routines, and practice: chipped stone blades from Uruk-period Sharafabad, Iran’. Iran 46, 43–68.
Pollock, S. 2010. ‘Practices of daily life in the fifth-millennium B.C. Iran and Mesopotamia’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds)
Pollock, S., Bernbeck, R. and Abdi, K. (eds) 2010. The 2003 Excavations at Tol-e Baši, Iran: Social Life in a Neolithic Village. Archäol-
ogie in Iran und Turan, Bd 10. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.
Pollock, S. and Bernbeck, R. 2011. ‘Excavations at Monjukli Depe, Meana-Chaacha Region, Turkmenistan, 2010’. Archäologische
Pomeroy, E., Mirazón Lahr, M., Crivellaro, F., Farr, L., Reynolds, T., Hunt, C. O. and Barker, G. 2017. ‘Newly discovered Nean-
derthal remains from Shanidar Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan, and their attribution to Shanidar 5’. Journal of Human Evolution 111, 102–118.
Pomeroy, E., Bennett, P., Hunt, C. O., Reynolds, T., Farr, L., Frouin, M., Holman, J., Lane, R., French, C. and Barker, G. 2020.
‘New Neanderthal remains associated with the ‘flower burial’ at Shanidar Cave’. Antiquity 94/373, 11–26.
Ponel, P., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Djamali, M., Lahijani, H., Leydet, M. and Mashkour, M. 2013. ‘Fossil beetles as possible evidence
for transhumance during the middle and late Holocene in the high mountains of Talysch (Talesh) in NW Iran?’. Environmental
Porada, E. 1950. ‘A leonine figure of the Protoliterate period of Mesopotamia’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 70, 223–226.
Porada, E. 1959. ‘The Hasanlu bowl’. Expedition 1/3, 19.
Porada, E. 1969. ‘Iranian art and archaeology: a report of the Fifth International Congress, 1968’. Archaeology 22/1, 54–65.
Porada, E. 1970. ‘More seals of the time of the Sukkalmah’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 84, 171–177.
Possehl, G. L. 2007. ‘The Middle Asian interaction sphere’. Expedition 49/1, 40–42.
Possehl, G. L. 2012. ‘India’s relations with western Empires, 2300–600 BC’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 758–769.
Postgate, J. N. 1989. ‘Mannäer’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7, 340–342.
Postgate, J. N. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.
Postgate, J. N. and Roaf, M. 1997. ‘The Shaikhan relief ’. Al-Rafidan 18, 143–160.
Potratz, J. A. H. 1963. ‘Über ein Corpus Aerum Luristanensium’. Iranica Antiqua 3/2, 124–147.
Potts, D. T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potts, D. T. 2001. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967–1975: The Third Millennium. American School of Prehistoric Research Bul-
letin 45. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
Potts, D. T. 2002. ‘Total prestation in Marhashi-Ur relations’. Iranica Antiqua 37, 343–357.
Potts, D. T. 2003. ‘Tepe Yahya, Tell Abraq and the chronology of the Bampur sequence’. Iranica Antiqua 38, 1–24.
Potts, D. T. 2004a. ‘Exit Aratta: Southeastern Iran and the Land of Marhashi’. Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān 4/1, 1–11.
584 Bibliography
Potts, D. T. 2004b. ‘The numinous and the immanent: some thoughts on Kūrangūn and the Rudkhaneh-e Fahliyān’, in K. von
Folsach, H. Thrane and I. Theusen (eds) From Handaxe to Khan: Essays Presented to Peder Mortensen on the Occasion of His 70th
Birthday. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 143–156.
Potts, D. T. 2005a. ‘Neo-Elamite problems’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 165–177.
Potts, D. T. 2005b. ‘In the beginning: Marhashi and the origins of Magan’s ceramic industry in the third millennium BC’. Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy 16/1, 67–78.
Potts, D. T. 2005c. ‘Cyrus the Great and the kingdom of Anshan’, in V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart (eds) The Birth of the Persian Empire.
London: I. B. Tauris, 7–28.
Potts, D. T., Roustaei, K., Alamdari, K., Alizadeh, K., Chaverdi, A. A., Khosrowzadeh, A., Niakan, L., Petrie, C., Seyedin, M.
and Weeks, L. 2005. ‘Eight thousand years of history in Fars Province, Iran’. Near Eastern Archaeology 68/3, 84–92.
Potts, D. T. and Roustaei, K. (eds) 2006. The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A report on the first two seasons of the
ICAR – University of Sydney Joint Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological
Research.
Potts, D. T., Chaverdi, A. A., Petrie, C. A., Dusting, A., Farhadi, F., McRae, I. K., Shikhi, S., Wong, E. H., Lashkari, A. and
Zadeh, A. J. 2007. ‘The Mamasani Archaeological Project, stage two: excavations at Qaleh Kali (Tappeh Servan/Jinjun [MS
46])’. Iran 45/1, 287–300.
Potts, D. T. 2008. ‘Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): reflections on Šimaški and the geo-political landscape of
Iran and the Central Asia in the Ur III period’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 98, 165–194.
Potts, D. T. 2009. ‘Bevel-rim bowls and bakeries: evidence and explanations from Iran and the Indo-Iranian Borderlands’. Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 61/1, 1–23.
Potts, D. T., Askari Chaverdi, A., Mcrae, I. K., Alamdari, K., Dusting, A., Jaffari, J., Ellicott, T. M., Setoudeh, A., Lashkari, A.,
Amelirad, S. and Yazdani, A. 2009a. ‘Further excavations at Qaleh Kali (MS 46) by the Joint ICAR-University of Sydney
Mamasani Expedition. Results of the 2008 season’. Iranica Antiqua 44, 207–282.
Potts, D. T., Roustaei, K., Petrie, C. A. and Weeks, L. R. (eds) 2009b. The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the
First Two Seasons of the ICAR University of Sydney Joint Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran,. BAR International
Series 20144. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Potts, D. T. 2010a. ‘Elamite temple-building’, in M. J. Boda and J. Novotny (eds) From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on
Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 49–70.
Potts, D. T. 2010b. ‘Nomadismus in Iran von der Frühzeit bis in die Moderne – Eine Untersuchung sowohl aus archäologischer als
auch historischer Sicht’. Eurasia Antiqua 16, 1–18.
Potts, D. T. 2010c. ‘Achaemenid interests in the Persian Gulf ’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia:
History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 523–533.
Potts, D. T. 2011a. ‘Iran’, in T. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 811–825.
Potts, D. T. 2011b. ‘A note on the limits of Anshan’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and Persia. Winona Lake:
Potts, D. T. 2011c. ‘Equus asinus in highland Iran: evidence old and new’, in N. J. Conard, P. Drechsler and A. Morales (eds) Be-
tween Sand and Sea: The Archaeology and Human Ecology of Southwestern Asia. Festschrift in honor of Hans-Peter Uerpmann. Tübinger
Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen: Kerns, 167–176.
Potts, D. T. 2012. ‘Fish and fishing’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: John
Wiley, 220–235.
Potts, D. T. 2013a. ‘In the shadow of Kurangun: cultural developments in the highlands between Khuzestan and Anšan’, in K. De Graef
and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Con-
gress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 129–138.
Potts, D. T. 2013b. ‘Luristan and the Central Zagros in the Bronze Age’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran.
Oxford Handbooks in Classics and Ancient History. New York: Oxford University Press, 203–216.
Potts, D. T. 2014. Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, D. T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press (second edition).
Potts, D. T. 2018. ‘Ælam regio: Elam in western scholarship from the Renaissance to the late 19th century’, in J. Álvarez-Mon,
Potts, D. T. 2020. ‘On cultural boundaries and languages in western Iran: the case of the Zagros Gates’, in K.-A. Niknami and
A. Hozhabri (eds) Archaeology of Iran in the Historical Period. Tehran: Springer, 55–63.
Potts, T. F. 1993. ‘Patterns of trade in third-millennium BC Mesopotamia and Iran’. World Archaeology 24/3, 379–402.
Potts, T. F. 1994. Mesopotamia and the East: An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations ca. 3400–2000 B.C. Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poulmarc’h, M., Pecqueur, L. and Jalilov, B. 2014. ‘An overview of Kura-Araxes funerary practices in the Southern Caucasus’.
Pournelle, J. 2007. ‘KLM to Corona: a bird’s eye view of the cultural ecology and early Mesopotamian urbanization’, in E. Stone
(ed.) Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University
of California, 29–61.
Bibliography 585
Pournelle, J. 2013. ‘Physical geography’, in H. Crawford (ed.) The Sumerian World. London: Routledge, 13–32.
Price, M. D. and Arbuckle, B. S. 2015. ‘Early pig management in the Zagros flanks: reanalysis of the fauna from Neolithic Jarmo,
northern Iraq’. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25/4, 441–453.
Prickett, M. 1986a. Man, Land and Water: Settlement Distribution and the Development of Irrigation Agriculture in the Upper Rud-i Gushk
Drainage, Southeastern Iran. PhD thesis, Harvard University.
Prickett, M. 1986b. ‘Settlement during the early periods’, in T. W. Beale (ed.) Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975: The Early
Periods. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 38. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Prüfer, K., Racimo, F., Patterson, N., Jay, F., Sankararaman, S., Sawyer, S., Heinze, A., Renaud, G., Sudmant, P. H., de Filippo, C.,
Li, H., Mallick, S., Dannemann, M., Fu, Q., Kircher, M., Kuhlwilm, M., Lachmann, M., Meyer, M., Ongyerth, M., Siebauer, M.,
Theunert, C., Tandon, A., Moorjani, P., Pickrell, J., Mullikin, J. C., Vohr, S. H., Green, R. E., Hellmann, I., Johnson, P. L. F.,
Blanche, H., Cann, H., Kitzman, J. O., Shendure, J., Eichler, E. E., Lein, E. S., Bakken, T. E., Golovanova, L. V., Doronichev, V. B.,
Shunkov, M. V., Derevianko, A. P., Viola, B., Slatkin, M., Reich, D., Kelso, J. and Pääbo, S. 2014. ‘The complete genome se-
quence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains’. Nature 505, 43–49.
Pullar, J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Iranian Zagros Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
Pullar, J. 1977. ‘Early cultivation in the Zagros’. Iran 15/1, 15–37.
Pullar, J. 1990. Tepe Abdul Hosein: A Neolithic Site in Western Iran. Excavations 1978. BAR International Series 563. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
Pumpelly, R. 1905. Explorations in Turkestan. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Pumpelly, R. 1908. Explorations in Turkestan, Expedition of 1904: Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau, Origins, Growth, and Influence of
Environment. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Qanbari-Taheri, N., Karimy, A.-H., Holakooei, P. and Kobarfard, F. 2020. ‘Organic residue analysis of Iron Age ceramics from
the archaeological site of Kani-zirin, western Iran’. Archaeometry 62/3, 612–625.
Quammen, D. 2012. Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Quigley, M., Fattahi, M., Sohbati, R. and Schmidt, A. 2011. ‘Palaeoseismicity and pottery: Investigating earthquake and archae-
ological chronologies on the Hajiarab alluvial fan, Iran’. Quaternary International 242/1, 185–195.
Quintana, E. 2018. ‘Elamite religion and ritual’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Quintana-Murci, L., Chaix, R., Wells, R. S., Behar, D. M., Sayar, H., Scozzari, R., Rengo, C., Al-Zahery, N., Semino, O. and
Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. S. 2004. ‘Where west meets east: the complex mtDNA landscape of the southwest and Central Asian
corridor’. The American Journal of Human Genetics 74/5, 827–845.
Radner, K. 2003a. ‘An Assyrian view of the Medes’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?):
Assyria, Media, Persia. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON, 37–64.
Radner, K. 2003b. ‘A Median sanctuary at Bit-Ištar’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?):
Radner, K. 2007. ‘Hired labour in the Assyrian empire’. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 16, 185–226.
Radner, K. 2013. ‘Assyria and the Medes’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 442–456.
Radner, K. 2016. ‘The Peshdar Plain in the Neo-Assyrian period: the border march of the palace herald’, in K. Radner, J. Kreppner
and A. Squitieri (eds) Exploring the Neo-Assyrian Frontier with Western Iran: The 2015 Season at Gird-i Bazar and Qalat-i Dinka. Glad-
beck: PeWe Verlag, 17–22.
Radner, K., Kreppner, F. J. and Squitieri, A. 2019. ‘The Iron Age Dinka settlement complex in the Peshdar Plain. Archaeological
exploration, 2015–2018’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron
Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 243–257.
Rafiei-Alavi, B. 2012. ‘Ein Hinweis auf die Herstellungsmethode eines Dolchtyps aus Haft Tappeh’. Elamica 2, 169–175.
Rafiei-Alavi, B. 2015. Archäologische Untersuchungen der Metallartefakte aus Haft Tappeh. PhD thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität
Frankfurt.
Rafiei-Alavi, B. 2019. ‘The biography of a dagger type. The diachronic transformation of the daggers with the crescent-shaped
guard’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development
Rahbar, M. 1997. ‘Excavations at Bandiyan, Darreh Gaz, Khorasan’, Archaeological Reports of Iran 1. Tehran: Iranian Center for
Archaeological Research, 9–32.
Rahimi Sorkhani, R., Niknami, K. and Eslami, M. 2017. ‘Non-Dalma ceramics in Dalma context: archaeological detection and
analytical explanation. Case study Soha Chai Tepe in Zanjan Province’. Journal of Archaeological Studies 8/2, 53–70.
Rahmstorf, L. 2011. ‘Re-integrating ‘diffusion’: the spread of innovations among the Neolithic and Bronze Age societies of Eu-
rope and the Near East ’, in T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet (eds) Interweaving Worlds. Systemic Interactions in Eurasia,
7th to the 1st Millennia BC. Papers From a Conference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt, 77–86.
Rashidian, E. 2019. ‘In search of cities in Elam. For a geoarchaeological approach to the toponym-hydronym interaction’, in
J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of Urban-
isation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 147–162.
Ratnagar, S. 2004. Trading Encounters. From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
586 Bibliography
Ratté, C. 1992. ‘The pyramid tomb at Sardis’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 42, 135–161.
Rawlinson, H. C. 1839. ‘Notes on a march from Zoháb, at the foot of Zagros, along the mountains to Khúzistán (Susiana), and from
thence through the province of Luristan to Kirmánsháh, in the year 1836’. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 9, 26–116.
Rawlinson, H. C. 1847–1848. ‘The Persian cuneiform inscription at Behistun, decyphered and translated; with a memoir on Per-
sian cuneiform inscriptions in general, and on that of Behistun in particular’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain
and Ireland 10, i–xxxi, 1–265, 268–349.
Razmjou, S. 2005a. ‘In search of the lost Median art’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 271–314.
Razmjou, S. 2005b. ‘Notes on a forgotten Achaemenid site at Farmeshgan, Iran’, in P. Briant and R. Boucharlat (eds) L’archéologie
de l’Empire achéménide, nouvelles recherches. Paris: Persika, 293–312.
Razmjou, S. 2008. ‘Find spots and find circumstances of documents excavated at Persepolis’, in P. Briant, W. F. M. Henkelman
and M. W. Stolper (eds) L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis: état des questions et perspectives de recherches. Paris: de Boccard, 51–58.
Razmjou, S. 2010. ‘Persepolis: a reinterpretation of palaces and their function’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of
Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 231–246.
Razmjou, S. and Roaf, M. 2013. ‘Temples and sacred places in Persepolis’, in M. Roaf and W. Sallaberger (eds) Tempel im Alten
Orient. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 407–425.
Razmjou, S. 2018. ‘Propaganda and symbolism: representations of the Elamites at the time of Ashurbanipal’, in J. Álvarez-Mon,
Reade, J. E. 1976. ‘Sargon’s campaigns of 720, 716, and 715 BC: evidence from the sculptures’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35/2,
95–104.
Reade, J. E. 1977. ‘Shikaft-i Gulgul: its date and symbolism’. Iranica Antiqua 12, 33–44.
Reade, J. E. 1978. ‘Kassites and Assyrians in Iran’. Iran 16, 137–143.
Reade, J. E. 1995. ‘Iran in the Neo-Assyrian period’, in M. Liverani (ed.) Neo-Assyrian Geography. Qaderni di Geografia Storica 5.
Rome: Università di Roma “La Sapienza,”, 31–42.
Reade, J. E. 2002. ‘The early Iranian stone “weights” and an unpublished Sumerian foundation deposit’. Iran 40, 249–255.
Reade, J. E. 2003. ‘Why did the Medes invade Persia?’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?):
Reade, J. E. and Finkel, I. 2014. ‘Between Carchemish and Pasargadae: recent Iranian discoveries at Rabat’, in S. Gaspa, A. Greco,
D. Morandi Bonacossi, S. Ponchia and R. Rollinger (eds) From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 581–596, 806–810.
Redding, R. 1981. ‘The faunal remains’, in H. T. Wright (ed.) An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad.
Redding, R. 2003. ‘First report on faunal remains’, in A. Alizadeh (ed.) Excavations at the Prehistoric Mound of Chogha Bonut, Khuz-
estan, Iran, 120. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 137–147.
Reed, C. A. 1962. ‘Snails on a Persian hillside’. Postilla 66, 1–20.
Rehder, E. 1991. ‘The decorated iron swords from Luristan: their material and manufacture’. Iran 29, 13–19.
Rehren, T., Boscher, L. and Pernicka, E. 2012. ‘Large scale smelting of speiss and arsenical copper at Early Bronze Age Arisman,
Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Science 39/6, 1717–1727.
Reich, D. 2018. Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Reindell, I. and Riederer, J. 1979. ‘Infrarotspektralanalytische Untersuchungen von Farberden aus persischen Ausgrabungen ’.
Berliner Beitraege zur Archaeometrie 3, 123–134.
Reiner, E. 1969. ‘The Elamite language’, in B. Spuler (ed.) Handbuch der Orientalistik: Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Leiden: Brill, 54–118.
Reiner, E. 1973a. ‘Inscription from a royal Elamite tomb’. Archiv für Orientforschung 24, 87–102.
Reiner, E. 1973b. ‘The location of Anšan’. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale 67, 57–62.
Renette, S. 2009. ‘A reassessment of the round buildings in the Hamrin Valley (Central Iraq) during the early 3rd millennium
BC’. Paléorient 35/2, 79–98.
Renette, S. 2013. ‘The trans-Tigridean corridor in the early third millennium BC’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and
Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent Univer-
sity, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 43–50.
Renette, S. 2015. ‘Painted pottery from Al-Hiba: Godin Tepe III chronology and interactions between ancient Lagash and Elam’.
Iran 53, 49–63.
Renette, S. 2018. Along the Mountain Passes: Tracing Indigenous Developments of Social Complexity in the Zagros Region During the Early
Bronze Age (ca. 3500–2000 BCE). Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Renette, S., Khayani, A. and Levine, L. D. 2021. ‘Chogha Maran: a local center of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the
central Zagros’. Iranica Antiqua 56, 1–169.
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E. and Cann, J. R. 1966. ‘Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 32, 30–72.
Rezaei, I. 2019. ‘Some notes on arrangement pattern of the trinity symbols on the rock-cut tomb of Qizkapan’, in Y. Hassanzadeh,
A. A. Vahdati and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions.
Volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, 273–292.
Bibliography 587
Rezaei, M. H., Basafa, H., Khak, P. M. and Azar, M. 2018. ‘Study on Late Bronze Age potteries of Shahrak-e Firouzeh, Ney-
shabur, Iran by XRD and XRF’. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 9, 21–30.
Rezaei, M. H., Ebrahimi, J. Z. and Basafa, H. 2019. ‘The settlement patterns in Roshtkhar Plain, northeastern of Iran’. Iran 57/2,
109–122.
Rezaloo, R. and Khanali, H. 2017. ‘The study of a distinctive Middle-Bronze-Age burial in Khanghah Gilavan cemetery’. The
International Journal of Humanities 24/1, 75–89.
Rezalou, R. and Airmlo, Y. 2014. ‘Horse funeral practices among the Scythian tribes, the case study the cemetary of Khorrama-
bad, Meshgin Shahr (northwestern Iran)’. Journal of Historical Sociology 3, 113–144.
Rezalou, R. and Airmlo, Y. 2015. ‘New archaeological evidence of the historical presence of Scythians in Iran’. Historical Research
( Journal of Faculty of Literatures & Humanities of Isfahan) 88, 17–32.
Rezalou, R. and Ayremlou, Y. 2016. ‘A preliminary report on the first season of excavations at Gilavan cemetery in northwestern
Iran’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 2/4, 45–74.
Rezalou, R. and Airmlo, Y. 2017. ‘Scythian presence in northwestern Iran: case study of Khorramabad cemetery in Meshgin
Shahr’. Archaeological Research of Iran 13, 45–64.
Rezvani, H. 1999. ‘Prehistoric settlement patterns and cultures in Semnan Province’, in A. Alizadeh, Y. Majidzadeh and S. Malek
Shahmirzadeh (eds) The Iranian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archaeology Presented to Ezatollah Negahban. Tehran: Iran Univer-
sity Press, 7–19.
Rezvani, H. and Roustaei, K. 2007. ‘A preliminary report on two seasons of excavations at Kul Tarike cemetery, Kurdestan, Iran’.
Rezvani, H. and Vahdati Nasab, H. 2010. ‘A major Paleolithic open site at Mirak, Semnan Province, Iran’. Antiquity 84, Project
Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/rezvani323/.
Rezvani, H. and Roustaei, K. 2016. ‘Preliminary report on two seasons of excavations at Tappeh Deh Kheir, Bastam Plain, north-
east Iran’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 15–52.
Ricci, A., Anna, M. B., Lawrence, D., Helwing, B. and Aliyev, T. 2018. ‘Human mobility and early sedentism: the Late Neolithic
landscape of southern Azerbaijan’. Antiquity 92, 1445+.
Richardson, A. 2020. ‘Material culture and networks of Bestansur and Shimshara’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews, K. R. Raheem
and R. A. (eds) The Early Neolithic of the Eastern Fertile Crescent: Excavations at Bestansur and Shimshara, Iraqi Kurdistan. CZAP
Reports 2. Oxford: Oxbow, 533–566.
Richter, T., Darabi, H., Alibaigi, S., Arranz-Otaegui, A., Bangsgaard, P., Khosravi, S., Maher, L. A., Mortensen, P., Pedersen,
P. and Yeomans, L. 2021. ‘The formation of early Neolithic communities in the central Zagros: an 11.500 year-old communal
structure at Asiab’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 40, 2–22.
Ridolfi, S., Laurenzi Tabasso, M., Askari Chaverdi, A. and Callieri, P. 2019. ‘The finishing technique of the stone monuments
of Persepolis: further studies and new findings through the use of non-destructive analytical techniques’. Archaeometry 61/2,
272–281.
Riehl, S. 2009. ‘Archaeobotanical evidence for the interrelationship of agricultural decision-making and climate change in the
ancient Near East’. Quaternary International 197/1–2, 93–114.
Riehl, S., Benz, M., Conard, N., Darabi, H., Deckers, K., Nashli, H. and Zeidi-Kulehparcheh, M. 2012. ‘Plant use in three
Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites of the northern and eastern Fertile Crescent: a preliminary report’. Vegetation History and Archaeobot-
any 21, 1–12.
Riehl, S., Zeidi, M. and Conard, N. J. 2013. ‘Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran’. Science
341/6141, 65–67.
Riehl, S., Asouti, E., Karakaya, D., Starkovich, B. M., Zeidi, M. and Conard, N. J. 2015. ‘Resilience at the transition to agricul-
ture: the long-term landscape and resource development at the Aceramic Neolithic tell site of Chogha Golan (Iran)’. BioMed
Research International. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/532481.
Riehl, S. 2016. ‘The role of the local environment in the slow pace of emerging agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. Journal of
Ethnobiology 36/3, 512–534.
Ringer, M. M. 2012. ‘Iranian nationalism and Zoroastrian identity’, in A. Amanat and F. Vejdani (eds) Iran Facing Others: Identity
Boundaries in a Historical Perspective. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 262–277.
Roaf, M. and Stronach, D. 1973. ‘Tepe Nūsh-i Jān, 1970: second interim report’. Iran 11, 129–140.
Roaf, M. 1974. ‘The subject peoples on the base of the statue of Darius’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 4, 73–160.
Roaf, M. 1980. ‘Texts about the sculptures and sculptors at Persepolis’. Iran 18, 65–74.
Roaf, M. 1983. ‘Sculptures and sculptors at Persepolis’. Iran 21, 1–159.
Roaf, M. and Killick, R. 1987. ‘A mysterious affair of styles: the Ninevite 5 pottery of northern Mesopotamia’. Iraq 49, 199–230.
Roaf, M. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Facts on File.
Roaf, M. 2004. ‘Persepolis’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10, 393–412.
Roaf, M. 2008. ‘Medes beyond the borders of modern Iran’. Bāstānpazuhi 3/6, 9–11.
Roaf, M. 2010. ‘The role of the Medes in the architecture of the Achaemenids’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds) The World of
Achaememid Persia: History. Art and Sciety in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 247–253.
Roaf, M. 2012. ‘The Iron Age architecture of Hasanlu: an interim review’, in S. Elliyoun and A. Sadraie (eds) Architecture of
Hasanlu. Collected Papers: Persian Translation. Tehran: Hasanlu Translation Project Publications, 1–12.
588 Bibliography
Roberts, N. and Wright, H. E. 1993. ‘Vegetational, lake-level, and climatic history of the Near East and Southwest Asia’, in H.
E. Wright, J. E. Kutzbach, T. Webb, W. F. Ruddiman, F. A. Street-Perrott and P. J. Bartlein (eds) Global Climates Since the Last
Glacial Maximum. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 194–220.
Roberts, N. 1998. The Holocene. Oxford: Blackwell.
Roberts, N. 2002. ‘Did prehistoric landscape management retard the post-glacial spread of woodland in Southwest Asia?’. Antiquity
76/294, 1002–1010.
Roberts, N. 2013. The Holocene: An Environmental History. Chichester: Wiley.
Robinson, J. 2014. ‘The first hunter-gatherers’, in V. Cummings, P. Jordan and M. Zvelebil (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Ar-
chaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 177–190.
Robinson, S. A., Black, S., Sellwood, B. W. and Valdes, P. J. 2006. ‘A review of palaeoclimates and palaeoenvironments in the
Levant and Eastern Mediterranean from 25,000 to 5000 years BP: setting the environmental background for the evolution of
human civilisation’. Quaternary Science Reviews 25/13–14, 1517–1541.
Roche, C. 2012. ‘Briques élamites du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. conservées aux Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles’.
Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire 83, 17–72.
Roffet-Salque, M., Marciniak, A., Valdes, P. J., Pawłowska, K., Pyzel, J., Czerniak, L., Krüger, M., Roberts, C. N., Pitter, S. and
Evershed, R. P. 2018. ‘Evidence for the impact of the 8.2-kyBP climate event on Near Eastern early farmers’. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 115/35, 8705–8709.
Root, M. C. 1979. The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire. Leiden Brill.
Root, M. C. 1991. ‘From the heart: powerful Persianisms in the art of the western Empire’, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and
A. Kuhrt (eds) Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire. Achaemenid History 8. Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het
Root, M. C. 1999. ‘The cylinder seal from Pasargadae: of wings and wheels, date and fate’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 158–190.
Root, M. C. 2002a. ‘Animals in the art of ancient Iran’, in B. J. Collins (ed.) A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East.
Handbook of Oriental Studies. Leiden: Brill, 169–209.
Root, M. C. 2002b. ‘Medes and Persians: the state of things’. Ars Orientalis 32, 1–16.
Root, M. C. 2008. ‘The legible image: how did seals and sealing matter in Persepolis?’, in P. Briant, W. F. M. Henkelman and
M. W. Stolper (eds) L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis, État des questions et perspectives de recherches. Persika 12. Paris: de Boccard,
87–148.
Root, M. C. 2011. ‘Elam in the imperial imagination: from Nineveh to Persepolis’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds)
Elam and Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 419–474.
Rose, J. I. and Petraglia, M. D. 2009. ‘Tracking the origin and evolution of human populations in Arabia’, in M. D. Petraglia and
J. I. Rose (eds) The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory, and Genetics. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–12.
Rose, J. I. 2010. ‘New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf oasis’. Current Anthropology 51/6, 849–883.
Rosenberg, M. 1985. ‘Report on the 1978 sondage at Eshkaft-e Gavi’. Iran 23, 51–62.
Rosenberg, M. 1990. ‘Stone “walls” and Palaeolithic tools: the MAC064 site’. Iran 28, 83–88.
Rosenberg, M. 2003. ‘The Epipaleolithic in the Marvdasht’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the
of Archaeology, UCLA, 98–108.
Rosenzweig, M. 2016. ‘‘Ordering the chaotic periphery’: the environmental impact of the Assyrian empire on its provinces’, in
J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke, T. Greenfield and A. Stone (eds) The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, 49–58.
Rossi, A. 2010. ‘Elusive identities in pre-Achaemenid Iran: the Medes and the Median language’, in C. Cereti (ed.) Iranian Identities
in the course of history. Proceedings of the Conference held in Rome, 21–24 September 2005. Rome: ISIAO, 289–330.
Rostovtzeff, M. 1920. ‘The Sumerian treasure of Astrabad’. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6/1, 4–27.
Rothman, M. S. 1987. ‘Graph theory and the interpretation of regional survey data’. Paléorient 13/2, 73–91.
Rothman, M. S. 2003a. ‘Style and adaptation along the Turkish-Iranian borderland’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud,
Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48. Los
Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, 207–216.
Rothman, M. S. 2003b. ‘“Ripples in the stream”: Transcaucasia-Anatolia interaction in the Murat/Euphrates Basin at the begin-
ning of the third millennium BC’, in A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson (eds) Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia
and Beyond. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 47. Los Angeles: University of California, 95–110.
Rothman, M. S. 2009. ‘Religion, function and social networks: Tepe Gawra in the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC’, in P.
Butterlin (ed.) A propos de Tepe Gawra, le monde proto-urbain de Mésopotamie. Subartu 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 15–40.
Rothman, M. S. 2011. ‘Migration and resettlement: Godin Period IV’, in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On the High Road:
The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/Mazda Press, 139–208.
Rothman, M. S. and Badler, V. 2011. ‘Contact and development in Godin Period VI’, in H. Gopnik and M. S. Rothman (eds) On
the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum/Mazda Press, 67–137.
Rothman, M. S. 2013. ‘Interpreting the role of Godin Tepe in the “Uruk expansion”’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its
Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 75–91.
Bibliography 589
Rothman, M. S. 2018. ‘Modelling the Kura-Araxes cultural tradition’, in A. Batmaz, G. Bedianashvili, A. Michalewicz and A.
Robinson (eds) Context and Connection: Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. Leuven:
Peeters, 125–146.
Rouse, L. M. and Cerasetti, B. 2018. ‘Mixing metaphors: sedentary-mobile interactions and local-global connections in prehis-
toric Turkmenistan’. Antiquity 92, 674–689.
Roustaei, K. 2004. ‘Tappeh Hesār: a major manufacturing centre at the Central Plateau’, in T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds)
Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie.Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 28. November
2004 bis 29. Mai 2005. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 222–231.
Roustaei, K., Nasab, H. V., Biglari, F., Heydari, S., Clark, G. and Lindly, J. 2004. ‘Recent Paleolithic surveys in Luristan’. Current
Anthropology 45/5, 692–707.
Roustaei, K., Alamdari, A. and Petrie, C. A. 2006. ‘Landscape and environment in Mamasani’, in D. T. Potts and K. Roustaei (eds)
The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One. A Report on the First Two Seasons of the ICAR – University of Sydney Expedition to the
Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 17–30.
Roustaei, K. 2010a. ‘Tepe Hēsar, once again’, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds) Proceedings of the 6th
International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May-10 May 2009, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”. Volume 2.
Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on the Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 613–633.
Roustaei, K. 2010b ‘Discovery of Middle Palaeolithic occupation at high altitude in the Zagros Mountains, Iran ’. Antiquity 84,
Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/roustaei325/.
Roustaei, K. 2012a. ‘Archaeological survey of the Šahroud area, northeast Iran: a landscape approach’. Archäologische Mitteilungen
Roustaei, K. 2012b. ‘Archaeo-metallurgical reconnaissance of ancient mines and slag sites on the northern edge of the Dasht-e
Kavir desert, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 47, 351–398.
Roustaei, K. 2014a. The Neolithisation of the Northeastern Iranian Plateau. PhD thesis, Tarbiat Modares University (in Persian).
Roustaei, K. 2014b. ‘Stratigraphic soundings at Sang-e Chakhmaq Tappehs, Shahroud, Iran; April–June 2009’’. The First Farming
Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba,
University of Tsukuba.
Roustaei, K., Mashkour, M. and Tengberg, M. 2015. ‘Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and the beginning of the Neolithic in north-east
Iran’. Antiquity 89/345, 573–595.
Roustaei, K. 2016a. ‘Kalāteh Khān: a sixth millennium BC site in the Shahroud Plain, northeast Iran’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour
(eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18.
Berlin: ex orients, 53–84.
Roustaei, K. 2016b. ‘An emerging picture of the Neolithic of northeast Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 51, 21–55.
Roustaei, K. and Mashkour, M. (eds) 2016. The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Pro-
duction, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente.
Roustaei, K. and Nokandeh, J. 2017. ‘Neolithic developments in the Gorgan Plain, south-east of the Caspian Sea’. Antiquity 91, Project
Gallery. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/neolithic-developments-in-the-gorgan-plain-southeast-of-the-caspian-sea/
FE7EADA4BA0FC7E6C1A41BAF4CD32801.
Roustaei, K. 2018. ‘Beyond the mounds: insights into a late sixth millennium BCE sherd scatter site in the Shahroud Plain, northeast
Iran’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 55, 143–182.
Roustaei, K. and Gratuze, B. 2020. ‘Eastward expansion of the Neolithic from the Zagros: Obsidian provenience from Sang-e
Chakhmaq, a late 8th-early 7th millennia BCE Neolithic site in northeast Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29, 101969.
Rova, E. 2014. ‘The Kura-Araxes Culture in the Shida Kartli region of Georgia: an overview’. Paléorient 40/2, 47–69.
Rova, E. and Tonussi, M. (eds) 2017. At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology: Recent Research on Caucasia and Anatolia in
the Bronze Age= Proceedings of the Humboldt Kolleg (Venice, 09–12 January 2013). Subartu 38. Turnhout: Brepols.
Rubinson, K. S. 2003. ‘Silver vessels and cylinder sealings: precious reflections of economic exchange in the early second millennium
BC’, in A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson (eds) Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond. Los Angeles: Cotsen
Institute at UCLA, 128–143.
Rubinson, K. S. 2004. ‘Dinkha Tepe, Iran, and so-called Urmia ware’, in A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeolog-
ical Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12. Herent: Peeters, 661–676.
Ryder, M. L. 1983. Sheep and Man. London: Duckworth.
Ryder, M. L. 1987. ‘The evolution of the fleece’. Scientific American 256/1, 112–119.
Ryuji, S. 2006. ‘Excavation at Tappe Jalaliye. 1. Pottery analysis from Tappe Jalaliye’, in O. Tadahiko, J. Nokandeh and Y. Kazuya
(eds) Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Fifth Season. Tehran & Tokyo: ICHO-MECC,
144–148.
Sabori, H. 2014. ‘Rounded potsherds: new evidence from Tepeh Ferizi, Sabzevar plain, north-eastern Iran’. Antiquity Project Gallery
88/339. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/sabori339/.
Sabori, H., Khorasani, M. N. and Bolandi, R. 2017. ‘Human motifs at Neolithic Tepe Baluch, north-east Iran’. Antiquity 91,
Project Gallery. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/human-motifs-at-neolithic-tepe-baluch-northeast-iran/
ABA02A46FDBC721D0B484BA6F7D97843.
590 Bibliography
Safaierad, R., Mohtadi, M., Zolitschka, B., Yokoyama, Y., Vogt, C. and Schefuß, E. 2020. ‘Elevated dust depositions in West Asia linked
to ocean–atmosphere shifts during North Atlantic cold events’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117/31, 18272–18277.
Safoora, K., Marjan, M., Azadeh, M. F., Homa, F. and Hossein, A. K. 2018. ‘Zooarchaeology of the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neo-
lithic site of Qasr-e Ahmad (Iran)’, in C. Çakýrlar, J. Chahoud, R. Berthon and S. P. Birch (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East XII.
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium of the ICAZ Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas Working
Group, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, June 14–15 2015, University of Groningen, the Netherlands: Barkhuis, 27–40.
Saggs, H. W. F. 1984. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.
Sagona, A. G. 1998. ‘Social identity and religious ritual in the Kura-Araxes cultural complex: some observations from Sos Höyük’.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11, 13–25.
Sagona, A. G. 2000. ‘Sos Höyük and the Erzurum region in late prehistory: a provisional chronology for northeast Anatolia’, in
C. Marro and H. Hauptmann (eds) Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica 11.
Paris/Istanbul: De Boccard/Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 329–337.
Sagona, A. G. 2004. ‘Social boundaries and ritual landscapes in the late Prehistoric Trans-Caucasus and Highland Anatolia’, in
A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Sagona, A. G. and Zimansky, P. E. 2009. Ancient Turkey. Routledge World Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Sagona, A. G. 2010. ‘Past and present directions in the archaeology of the Transcaucasus’. TÜBA-AR 13, 143–157.
Sagona, A. G. 2011. ‘Anatolian and the Trans-Caucasus: themes and variations (ca. 6400–1500 BC)’, in S. R. Steadman and
J. G. McMahon (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: 10,000–323 B.C.E. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Sagona, A. G. 2014. ‘Rethinking the Kura-Araxes genesis’. Paléorient 40/2, 23–46.
Sagona, A. G. 2018. The Archaeology of the Caucasus: From Earliest Settlements to the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saisho, D. and Purugganan, M. D. 2007. ‘Molecular phylogeography of domesticated barley traces expansion of agriculture in the
Old World’. Genetics 177/3, 1765–1776.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. 1987. ‘Prehistoric settlements in the Bardsir Plain, South-Eastern Iran’. East and West 37/1–4, 11–130.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. and Wright, H. T. 1990. ‘Archaeological survey in the Qobeira area, province of Kerman, Iran’. Annali Istituto
Orientale di Napoli 50/1, 1–40.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. 2003. ‘Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta first preliminary report on the excavations of the graveyard, 1997–2000’.
Iran 41/1, 21–97.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. 2005. ‘Sistan and Baluchistan Project’. Iran 43/1, 87–91.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. 2006. Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta. Les Fouilles archéologiques à Shahr-i Sokhta, La Necropoli di Shahr-i Sokhta, Aus-
grabungen in Shahr-i Sokhta. Tehran: Shahr-i Sokhta Centre for Archaeological Research, ICHTO.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. and Casanova, M. 2006. ‘Sistan and Baluchistan Project 2005/2006’. Iran 44/1, 347–357.
Sajjadi, S. M. S., Casanova, M., Costantini, L. and Lorentz, K. O. 2008. ‘Sistan and Baluchistan Project: short reports on the tenth
campaign of excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta’. Iran 46, 307–334.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. 2015. ‘Catacomb graves or burial sites of clan chiefs of the 3rd millennium BC Shahr-i Sokhta confederation’.
Mova ta ìstorìâ 383, 4–43.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. and Moradi, H. 2015. ‘Excavation at Buildings Nos. 1 and 20 at Shahr-i Sokhta’. International Journal of the Society
of Iranian Archaeologists 1/1, 35–49.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. and Moradi, H. 2016. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta 2014–2015 excavations. The new results in Areas 1, 20, 26 and 28’. Arche-
ologia Aerea 9, 149–167.
Sajjadi, S. M. S. 2017. ‘New excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta: more graves with lapis lazuli beads, and others with bead making craft
indicators’, in M. Vidale and A. Lazzari (eds) Lapis Lazuli Bead Making at Shahr-i Sokhta: Interpreting Craft Production in a Urban
Community of the 3rd Millennium BC. Rome: ISMEO, 323–337.
Sallaberger, W. and Westenholz, A. 1999. Mesopotamien Akkad-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Freiburg:
Freiburg Universitätverlag.
Sallaberger, W. and Schrakamp, I. 2015. ‘The Gutean period: a problem of 3rd millennium chronology’, in W. Sallaberger and
I. Schrakamp (eds) History and Philology. ARCANE 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 113–130.
Salvatori, S. and Vidale, M. 1982. ‘A brief surface survey of the protohistoric site of Shahdad (Kerman, Iran) preliminary report’.
Rivista di Archaeologia 6, 5–10.
Salvatori, S. and Tosi, M. 1997. ‘Postscriptum. Some reflections on Shahdad and its place in the Bronze Age of Middle Asia’,
in A. Hakemi (ed.) Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran. Roma: Libreria Editrice Herder, 121–138.
Salvatori, S. and Vidale, M. 1997. Shahr-i Sokhta 1975–1978: Central Quarters Excavations. Rome: IsMEO.
Salvatori, S. and Tosi, M. 2005. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta revised sequence’, in C. Jarrige and U. Lefevre (eds) South Asian Archaeology 2001.
Paris: CNRS, 281–292.
Salvatori, S. 2008. ‘Cultural variability in the Bronze Age Oxus civilisation and its relations with the surrounding regions of
Central Asia and Iran’, in S. Salvatori, M. Tosi and B. Cerasetti (eds) The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands:
Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of Research Strategies. BAR International Series 1806. Oxford: BAR, 75–98.
Salvatori, S. 2010. ‘Thinking around grave 3245 in the “royal graveyard” of Gonur (Murghab delta, Turkmenistan)’, in P. M. Kozhin,
M. F. Kosarev and N. A. Dubova (eds) On the Track of Uncovering a Civilization. A Volume in Honor of the 80th Anniversary of Victor
Sarianidi. St Petersburg: Aletheia, 239–252.
Bibliography 591
Salvini, M. 2011. ‘ELAM iv. Linear Elamite’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-iv.
Salvini, M. 2019. ‘The rock niche of the Urartian king Minua at Ain-e Rum in Iranian Azerbaijan’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati
and Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran:
Samadi, H. 1959. ‘Les découvertes fortuites’. Arts Asiatiques 6/3, 175–194.
Samei, S., Alizadeh, K. and Munro, N. D. 2019. ‘Animal husbandry and food provisioning at the Kura-Araxes settlement of Köhne
Shahar in northwestern Iran’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55, 101065.
Samei, S. and Alizadeh, K. 2020. ‘The spatial organization of craft production at the Kura-Araxes settlement of Köhne Shahar in
northwestern Iran: A zooarchaeological approach’. PLoS ONE 15/3, e0229339.
Sami, A. 1956. Pasargadae: The Oldest Capital of Iran. Shiraz: Learned Society of Pars.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1987. The Greek Sources: Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop. Achaemenid His-
tory 8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1988. ‘Was there ever a Median empire?’. Achaemenid History 3, 197–212.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1991. ‘Through travellers’ eyes: the Persian monuments as seen by European visitors’, in H. Sancisi-
Weerdenburg and J. W. Drijvers (eds) Achaemenid History VII: Through Travellers’ Eyes. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1994. ‘The orality of Herodotus’ Medikos Logos or the Median empire revisited’. Continuity and Change.
Achaemenid History 8, 39–55.
Sardari, A. 2013. ‘Northern Fars in the fourth millennium BC: cultural developments during the Lapui phase’, in C. A. Petrie
(ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow,
195–206.
Sardari, A. and Attarpour, S. 2019. ‘From the Proto-Elamite to Shimashki: the third millennium BC at Tappeh Senjar, the Susiana
Plain’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development
Sarfaraz, A. A. 1971. ‘Un pavilion de l’époque de Cyrus le Grand à Borozjan’. Bastan-Shenasi va Honar-e Iran 7–8, 22–25.
Sarhaddi-Dadian, H., Mutin, B. and Moradi, H. 2020. ‘New data on the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods in the south-eastern
greater periphery of the Jazmurian Basin: archaeological survey along the Sarbaz Valley and in adjacent areas in Iranian Baluch-
estan’. Iran 58/1, 3–26.
Sarianidi, V. 1971. ‘Southern Turkmenia and northern Iran: ties and differences in very ancient times’. East and West 21/3–4,
291–310.
Sarianidi, V. 2002. ‘The fortification and palace of Northern Gonur’. Iran 40, 75–87.
Sarianidi, V. I. and Dubova, N. A. 2010. ‘New burials on the site of the “Royal Necropolis” of Gonur Depe’. Arts Asiatiques
65, 5–26.
Sarlak, S. and Malekzadeh, M. 2005. ‘Decorated bricks of the late Iron Age in Eastern Media (mud-brick platform of Qoli Dar-
vish-e Jamkaran and “la Grande Construction” of Sialk’. Zusammenfassung, Bastanshenasi 1/1, 52–66 (in Persian).
Sarlak, S. 2011. Archaeology and History of Qom. Results of the Archaeological Excavations at the Sites of Qoli Darvis and Shad Qoli Khan.
Qom: Chakhes Press (in Persian).
Sarlak, S. 2016. ‘Māi Tappeh and the Neolithic of the Iranian Central Plateau (in Persian)’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds)
The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18.
Berlin: ex oriente, 91–102.
Sarlak, S. and Hessari, M. 2018. ‘The Qom plain at the end of Bronze and the beginning of Iron Age’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological
Studies 8/1, 1–16.
Sarraf, M. R. 1981. Die Keramik von Tell-i Iblis und Ihre zeitliche und räumliche Beziehung zu den anderen iranischen und mesopotamischen
Kulturen. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 7. Berlin: Reimer.
Sarraf, M. R. 2003. ‘Archaeological excavations in Tepe Ekbatana (Hamadan) by the Iranian Archaeological Mission between
1983 and 1999’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia. History of the
Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON, 269–279.
Sasson, J. M. 1995. ‘King Hammurabi of Babylon’, in J. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Anceint Near East. New York: Scribners,
901–915.
Satterwhite, R., Sheridan, K. and Miller, W. M. 2016. ‘Rediscovering deep time: sustainability and the need to re-engage with
multiple dimensions of time in leadership studies’. Journal of Leadership Studies 9, 47–53.
Sauer, E., Rekavandi, H. O., Wilkinson, T. J. and Nokandeh, J. (eds) 2013. Persia’s Imperial Power in Late Antiquity: The Great Wall
of Gorgan and the Frontier Landscapes of Sasanian Iran. Oxford: Oxbow.
Sauvage, M. 2020. Atlas Historique du Proche Orient. Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
Sax, M. and Middleton, A. P. 1989. ‘The use of volcanic tuff as a raw material for Proto-Elamite cylinder seals’. Iran 27, 121–123.
Schacht, R. M. 1987. ‘Early historic cultures’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory
to the Islamic Conquest. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 171–203.
Scharlau, K. 1968. ‘Geomorphology’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge:
de Schauensee, M. 1988. ‘Northwest Iran as a bronzeworking centre: the view from Hasanlu’, in J. Curtis (ed.) Bronzeworking Cen-
tres of Western Asia c. 1000–539 B.C. London: Kegan Paul, 45–62.
592 Bibliography
Scheil, J. V. 1900. Textes élamites-sémitiques. Première série. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 2. Paris: E. Leroux.
Scheil, J. V. 1905. Documents archaïques en écriture proto-élamite. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 6. Paris: E. Leroux.
Scheil, J. V. 1923. Textes de comptabilité proto-élamites. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 17 17. Paris: E. Leroux.
Scheil, J. V. 1935. Texte de comptabilité. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 26. Paris: E. Leroux.
Scheil, V. and Legrain, L. 1913. Textes élamites-sémitiques: Cinquième série. Mémoires de la Mission Archaéologique de Susiane 14.
Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Scheu, A., Powell, A., Bollongino, R., Vigne, J.-D., Tresset, A., Çakırlar, C., Benecke, N. and Burger, J. 2015. ‘The genetic
prehistory of domesticated cattle from their origin to the spread across Europe’. BMC Genetics 16, 1–11. URL: https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12863-015-0203-2.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1981. ‘From tokens to tablets: a re-evaluation of the so-called numerical tablets’. Visible Language 15/4,
321–344.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1992. Before Writing. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1993. ‘Images of Enship’, in M. Frangipane (ed.) Between the Rivers and over the Mountains: Archaeologica
Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Roma: Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 201–219.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 2018. ‘Prehistoric administrative technologies and the ancient Near Eastern redistribution economy: the
case of Greater Susiana’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Routledge, 363–382.
Schmidt, A. and Fazeli, H. 2007. ‘Tepe Ghabristan: a Chalcolithic tell buried in alluvium’. Archaeological Prospection 14, 38–46.
Schmidt, A., Quigley, M., Fattahi, M., Azizi, G., Maghsoudi, M. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2011. ‘Holocene settlement shifts and
palaeoenvironments on the Central Iranian Plateau: Investigating linked systems’. The Holocene 21/4, 583–595.
Schmidt, E. F. 1933. Tepe Hissar Excavations, 1931. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Schmidt, E. F. 1935. ‘The Persian expedition’. Bulletin of the University Museum of Pennsylvania 5/5, 41–49.
Schmidt, E. F. 1936. ‘Rayy research 1935, part I’. Bulletin of the University Museum of Pennsylvania 6/3, 79–87.
Schmidt, E. F. 1937. Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Schmidt, E. F. 1940. Flights Over Ancient Cities of Iran. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schmidt, E. F. 1953. Persepolis I. Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions. Oriental Institute Publications 68. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Schmidt, E. F. 1957. Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and other Discoveries. Oriental Institute Publications 69. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Schmidt, E. F. 1970. Persepolis III: The Royal Tombs and other Monuments. Oriental Institute Publications 70. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Schmidt, E. F. 1989. ‘The second Holmes expedition to Luristan: a summary’, in E. F. Schmidt, A. N. van Loon and H. Curvers
(eds) The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 33–36.
Schmidt, E. F., van Loon, A. N. and Curvers, H. 1989. The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Schmidt, K. 2012. Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia. Berlin: ex oriente.
Schmitt, R. 2002. ‘Grotefend, Georg Friedrich’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/grotefend.
Schmitt, R. 2003. ‘Die Sprache der Meder eine grosse Unbekannte’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds) Continuity
of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON, 23–36.
Schmitt, R. 2013. ‘BISOTUN iii. Darius’s inscriptions’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/
bisotun-iii.
Schoeninger, M. J. 1981. ‘The agricultural «revolution»: its effect on human diet in prehistoric Iran and Israel’. Paléorient 7/1, 73–91.
Schrakamp, I. in press. ‘History and philology’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Western Iran. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
Schwartz, M. 2002. ‘Early evidence of reed boats from southeast Anatolia’. Antiquity 76/293, 617–618.
Schwartz, M. and Hollander, D. 2016. ‘The Uruk expansion as dynamic process: a reconstruction of Middle to Late Uruk ex-
change patterns from bulk stable isotope analyses of bitumen artifacts’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 884–899.
Scott, J. C. 2017. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. E. and Marean, C. W. 2009. ‘Paleolithic hominin remains from Eshkaft-e Gavi (southern Zagros Mountains, Iran): description,
affinities, and evidence for butchery’. Journal of Human Evolution 57/3, 248–259.
Seidl, U. 1997. ‘Izeh’, in E. M. Meyers (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Selz, G. J. 1991. ‘‘Elam und Sumer’: Skizze einer Nachbarschaft nach Inscriftlichen Quellen der vorsargonische Zeit’, in L. De Meyer
and H. Gasche (eds) Mésopotamie et Elam, Actes de la XXXVIeme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, 10–14 Juillet 1989.
Ghent: RUG, 27–43.
Selz, G. J. 2014. ‘Feeding the travellers: on Early Dynastic travel, travel networks and travel provisions in the frame of third mil-
lennium Mesopotamia’, in L. Milano (ed.) Paleonutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East: Towards a Multidisciplinary
Approach. Padua: SARGON, 261–279.
Serjeantson, D. 2009. Birds. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shadmehr, A., Hajizadeh, E., Baghestani, A. and Sajjadi, S. M. S. 2017. ‘Comparing the determined age at death between men and
women based on the human bones excavated from Shahr-i Sokhta archaeological site: a survival approach using life-table and
Kaplan-Meier methods’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 3/5, 55–60.
Bibliography 593
Shahbazi, A. S. 2011. The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis. Tehran: Safiran Publishing Company.
Shakooie, M. and Garazhian, O. 2013. ‘Study of the chipped stone assemblage from systematic surface sampling at the PPN set-
tlement of Tell-e Atashi’, in F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez and M. Molist (eds) Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming
Societies in the Near East, 7th Conference on PPN Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de
la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 341–348.
Sharafi, S., Fouladvand, S., Simpson, I. and Alvarez, J. A. B. 2016. ‘Application of pattern recognition in detection of buried ar-
chaeological sites based on analysing environmental variables, Khorramabad Plain, West Iran’. Journal of Archaeological Science:
Reports 8, 206–215.
Sharifi, A., Pourmand, A., Canuel, E. A., Ferer-Tyler, E., Peterson, L. C., Aichner, B., Feakins, S. J., Daryaee, T., Djamali, M.,
Beni, A. N., Lahijani, H. and Swart, P. K. 2015. ‘Abrupt climate variability since the last deglaciation based on a high-resolution,
multi-proxy peat record from NW Iran: the hand that rocked the Cradle of Civilization?’. Quaternary Science Reviews 123,
215–230.
Sharifi, A. and Motarjem, A. 2018. ‘The process of cultural change in the Chalcolithic period in the highlands of Western Iran at
Tepe Gheshlagh’. Documenta Praehistorica 45, 85–99.
Sharifi, A., Murphy, L. N., Pourmand, A., Clement, A. C., Canuel, E. A., Beni, A. N., Lahijani, H. A., Delanghe, D. and
Ahmady-Birgani, H. 2018. ‘Early-Holocene greening of the Afro-Asian dust belt changed sources of mineral dust in West
Asia’. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 481, 30–40.
Sharifi, M. and Motarjem, A. 2014. ‘Excavation of Rezvan Tepe in northeastern Iran, an iron Age I-II cemetery’. The Silk Road
12, 76–81.
Sharifi, M. 2020. ‘Excavations at Barveh Tepe: new insights into the Early Bronze Age in northwest Iran’. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 79/2, 287–303.
Sharp, M. and Kaercher, K. 2018. ‘Chalcolithic ceramic connections between Mesopotamia and Iran, c.5900–5100 B.C.E.’. Iraq
80, 233–250.
Shearman, D. J., Walker, G. P. L., Booth, B. and Falcon, N. L. 1976. ‘The geological evolution of southern Iran: the report of the
Iranian Makran expedition’. The Geographical Journal 142/3, 393–410.
Sheikhakbari, S., Sarhaddi-Dadian, H., Amirhajloo, S. and Daneshi, A. 2015. ‘Comparative study of pottery industry in Zeh-
Klout historical period in Roudbar-Kerman with its neighbouring cultures based on the new archaeological evidences’. Inter-
national Journal of Archaeology 3/3, 22–32.
Sheikhi, M., Hejebri Nobari, A., Tavoosi, M. and Shabani SamghAbadi, R. 2017. ‘The impact of Neo-Assyrian art on Mannaean
societies of western and north western Iran’. The International Journal of Humanities 24/4, 69–86.
Sherratt, A. G. 1981. ‘Plough and pastoralism: secondary aspects of the productive revolution’, in I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond
(eds) Patterns in the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261–305.
Sherratt, A. G. 1983. ‘The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World’. World Archaeology 15/1, 90–104.
Sherratt, A. G. 1997. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Shidrang, S. 2006. ‘Warkaini: a new Paleolithic site near Kermanshah in West-central Zagros, Iran’. Antiquity 80/310.
Shidrang, S. 2009. ‘A typo-technological study of an Upper Paleolithic collection from Sefid-Ab, Central Iran’, in M. Otte, F. Biglari
and J. Jaubert (eds) Iran Paleolithic. BAR International Series 1968. Oxford: Archaeopress, 47–56.
Shidrang, S. 2014. ‘Middle East Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transitional industries’, in C. Smith (ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology.
New York: Springer, 4894–4906.
Shidrang, S., Moradi-Bistouni, A. and Mashkour, M. 2014. ‘Test excavation at the Paleolithic site of Malaverd Cave, Kermanshah’,
Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on the Iranian Archaeology. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 181–283
(in Persian).
Shidrang, S., Biglari, F., Bordes, J.-G. and Jaubert, J. 2016. ‘Continuity and change in the late Pleistocene lithic industries of the
Central Zagros: a typo-technological analysis of lithic assemblages from Ghar-e Khar cave, Bisotun, Iran’. Archaeology, Ethnology
& Anthropology of Eurasia 44/1, 27–38.
Shidrang, S. 2018. ‘The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Zagros: the appearance and evolution of the Baradostian’,
in Y. Nishiaki and T. Akazawa (eds) The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Singapore: Springer
Singapore, 133–156.
Shidrang, S., Otte, M. and Bordes, J.-G. 2020. ‘Yafteh cave’, in C. Smith (ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York:
Springer, 11389–11396.
Shillito, L.-M. 2013. ‘Molluscs from Sheikh-e Abad and Jani’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The
Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 201–205.
Shillito, L.-M. and Elliott, S. 2013. ‘Phytolith indicators of plant resource use at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews
and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow,
185–200.
Shillito, L.-M., Matthews, W., Bull, I. and Williams, J. 2013. ‘Biomolecular investigationsof faecal biomarkers at Sheikh-e Abad
and Jani’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e
Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 105–116.
Shimabuku, D. M. 1996. ‘The ground stone tools from Chogha Mish’, in P. Delougaz, H. Kantor and A. Alizadeh (eds) Chogha
Mish Volume I: The First Five Seasons of Excavations, 1961–1971. Part 1: Text. Oriental Institute Publications. Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 261–278.
594 Bibliography
Shirazi, R. 2007. ‘Figurines anthropomorphes du Bronze ancien de Shahr-i Sokhta, période II (Séistan, Sud-Est de l’Iran): approche
typologique’. Paléorient 33/2, 147–162.
Shirazi, R. and Shirazi, Z. 2012. ‘Vegetation dynamic of southern Sistan during the Bronze Age: anthracological studies at Shahr-i
Sokhta’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 2/1, 27–38.
Shirazi, R., Norouzi, A. A., Heidary, M. and Khoei, K. A. 2015. ‘New evidence of Chalcolithic nomadic campsites in the highland
Zagros, Iran: Saki Abad’. Antiquity 89, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/shirazi344.
Shirazi, Z. 2019. ‘Vegetal resources of southern Sistan during the third millennium BC, based on the archaeobotanical evidence at
Shahr-i Sokhta’, in S. M. S. Sajjadi and E. Ascalone (eds) A Collection of Papers on Shahr-i Sokhta. Tehran: Pishinpajouh, 285–332
(in Persian).
Shishegar, A. 2008. Discovery of a Tomb Attributed to Members of King Shutur-Nahhunte Dynasty, Son of Indid (or Indattu), Neo-Elamite
Period (c. 585–539 BC). Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (in Persian).
Shishegar, A. 2017. ‘Zwei Neuelamische Prinzessinnen und ihre Königlichen Bestatungen’, in B. Helwing (ed.) Iran: Frühe Kulturen
zwischen Wasser und Wüste. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 202–213.
Shojaee Esfahani, A. and Rafi’i Alavi, B. 2018. ‘A short report of archaeological survey in the eastern part of Zayanderud river
catchment, Kafrud-Varzaneh, summer 2018’, Seventeenth Archaeological Symposium of Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeo-
logical Research, 722–731 (in Persian).
Shumilovskikh, L. S., Hopper, K., Djamali, M., Ponel, P., Demory, F., Rostek, F., Tachikawa, K., Bittmann, F., Golyeva, A.,
Guibal, F., Talon, B., Wang, L.-C., Nezamabadi, M., Bard, E., Lahijani, H., Nokandeh, J., Omrani Rekavandi, H., de Beaulieu, J.-L.,
Sauer, E. and Andrieu-Ponel, V. 2016. ‘Landscape evolution and agro-sylvo-pastoral activities on the Gorgan Plain (NE Iran)
in the last 6000 years’. The Holocene 26/10, 1676–1691.
Sigrist, M. 1992. Drehem. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Sinha, A., Kathayat, G., Weiss, H., Li, H., Cheng, H., Reuter, J., Schneider, A. W., Berkelhammer, M., Adalı, S. F. and Stott, L. D.
2019. ‘Role of climate in the rise and fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire’. Science Advances 5/11, eaax6656.
Sinopoli, C. M. 1994. ‘The archaeology of empires’. Annual Review of Anthropology 23/1, 159–180.
Skjærvø, P. O. 1995. ‘The Avesta as source for the early history of the Iranians’, in G. Erdosy (ed.) The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South
Asia. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 155–176.
Skjærvø, P. O. 2013. ‘Avesta and Zoroastrianism under the Achaemenids and early Sasanians’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook
of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 547–565.
Smith, A. T. 1999. ‘The making of an Urartian landscape in southern Transcaucasia: a study of political architectonics’. American
Journal of Archaeology 103/1, 45–71.
Smith, A. T. 2012. ‘The Caucasus and the Near East’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Smith, A. T. 2015. The Political Machine. Assembling Sovereignty in the Bronze Age Caucasus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, B. D. 2016. ‘Neo-Darwinism, niche construction theory, and the initial domestication of plants and animals’. Evolutionary
Ecology 30, 307–324.
Smith, H. J., Wahlen, M., Mastroianni, D. and Taylor, K. C. 1997. ‘The CO2 concentration of air trapped in GISP2 ice from the
Last Glacial Maximum-Holocene transition’. Geophysical Research Letters 24/1, 1–4.
Smith, M. E. and Montiel, L. 2001. ‘The archaeological study of empires and imperialism in pre-Hispanic central Mexico’. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 20/3, 245–284.
Smith, M. E., Kohler, T. A. and Feinman, G. M. 2018. ‘Studying inequality’s deep past’, in T. A. Kohler and M. E. Smith (eds)
Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences. Amerind Studies in Anthropology. Tucson: The University
of Arizona Press, 3–38.
Smith, P. E. L. 1968. ‘Ganj Dareh Tepe’. Iran 6, 158–160.
Smith, P. E. L. 1972. ‘Ganj Dareh Tepe’. Iran 10, 165–168.
Smith, P. E. L. 1976. ‘Reﬂections on four seasons of work at Tappeh Ganj Dareh’, in F. Bagherzadeh (ed.) Proceedings of the IVth
Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, 11–22.
Smith, P. E. L. and Mortensen, P. 1980. ‘Three new ‘Early Neolithic’ sites in western Iran’. Current Anthropology 21/4, 511–512.
Smith, P. E. L. and Crépeau, R. 1983. ‘Fabrication expérimentale de répliques d’un vase Néolithique du site de Ganj Dareh, Iran:
recherche technologique’. Paléorient 9/2, 55–62.
Smith, P. E. L. 1986. Palaeolithic Archaeology in Iran. The American Institute of Iranian Studies Monographs 1. Philadephia: University
of Pennsylvania, The Unviersity Museum.
Smith, P. E. L. 1990. ‘Architectural innovation and experimentation at Ganj Dareh, Iran’. World Archaeology 21/3, 323–335.
Smith, V. S. M. 1977. An Investigation of Plant Fibers for Basketry. M.A. thesis, North Texas State University.
Snyder, J. A., Wasylik, K., Fritz, S. C. and Wright, H. E. 2001. ‘Diatom-based conductivity reconstruction and palaeoclimatic
interpretation of a 40-ka record from Lake Zeribar, Iran’. The Holocene 11/6, 737–745.
Solecki, R. L. 1981. An Early Village Site at Zawi Chemi Shanidar. Malibu: Undena.
Solecki, R. L. and Solecki, R. S. 1983. ‘Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene cultural traditions in the Zagros and the Levant’, in
T. C. Young, P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen (eds) The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia
Presented to Robert J. Braidwood. Oriental Institute Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
Solecki, R. S. and Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1961. ‘Palaeoclimatology and archaeology in the Near East’. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences 95/1, 729–739.
Bibliography 595
Solecki, R. S. 1971. Shanidar: The First Flower People. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Solecki, R. S., Solecki, R. L. and Agelarakis, A. P. 2004. The Proto-Neolithic Cemetery in Shanidar Cave. College Station: Texas
A&M University Press.
Soleimani, N. A., Shafiee, M., Eskandari, N. and Salehi, H. M. 2016. ‘Khaje Askar: a 4th millennium BC cemetery in Bam,
southeastern Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 51, 57–84.
Soleimani, N. A. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2018. ‘The re-evaluation of Kerman Neolithic chronology based on the excavation of Tepe
Gav Koshi Esfandagheh- Jiroft’. Journal of Research on Archaeometry 4/2, 61–79.
Soleymani, S. and Alibaigi, S. 2018. ‘Qaleh Kurd Cave: a Middle Paleolithic site on the western borders of the Iranian Central
Plateau’. Al-Rafidan 39, 43–54.
Sołtysiak, A. and Mahfroozi, A. 2008. ‘Short fieldwork report: Gohar Tepe (Iran), seasons 2006–2007’. Bioarchaeology of the Near
East 2, 71–77.
Sołtysiak, A. and Mahfroozi, A. 2009. ‘Short fieldwork report: Gohar Tepe (Iran), season 2009’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 3, 47–51.
Sołtysiak, A. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2010. ‘Short fieldwork report: Tepe Sialk (Iran), seasons 2008–2009’. Bioarchaeology of the Near
East 4, 69–73.
Sołtysiak, A., Jafari, M. J. and Rajabi, N. 2010a. ‘Lama and Tol-e-Khosrow (Iran), seasons 2008–2010’. Bioarchaeology of the Near
East 4, 63–69.
Sołtysiak, A., Mahfroozi, A., Ghasemi, S. and Amirkolaee, E. 2010b. ‘Short fieldwork report: Gohar Tepe and three other sites
(Iran), seasons 2009–2010’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 4, 52–57.
Sołtysiak, A. 2013. ‘Report on selected human remains from Lama, southern Zagros, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 48, 77–101.
Sołtysiak, A. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2016. ‘Evidence of Late Neolithic cremation at Tepe Sialk, Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 51, 1–19.
Sołtysiak, A., Hosseinzadeh, J., Javeri, M. and Montazerzohouri, M. 2016a. ‘Human remains from Estark, Iran, 2016’. Bioarchae-
ology of the Near East 10, 75–81.
Sołtysiak, A., Vahdati, A. A. and Biscione, R. 2016b. ‘Human remains from Tepe Chalow, Iran, 2013–2015’. Bioarchaeology of the
Sołtysiak, A. and Darabi, H. 2017. ‘Human remains from Ali Kosh, Iran, 2017’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 11, 76–83.
Sołtysiak, A. and Naseri, R. 2017. ‘Human remains from Deh Dumen, Iran, 2013–2016’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 11, 70–75.
Sołtysiak, A., Azizi, E. and Tawhidi, F. 2018. ‘Human remains from Sanandaj–Zagros, Iran, 2008’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East
12, 81–83.
Sołtysiak, A., Fazeli Nashli, H., Safari, M. and Moradi, G. 2019a. ‘Human remains from Shahne Poshte, Iran, 2019’. Bioarchaeology
of the Near East 13, 85–96.
Sołtysiak, A., Naseri, R. and Najafi, M. 2019b. ‘Human remains from Deh Dumen, Iran, 2019’. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 13,
142–146.
Sorkhabi, O.-A. and Salimi, S. 2019. ‘Guringan: new evidence of Iron Age in the plain of Piranshahr’, in Y. Hassanzadeh,
Soto Riesle, P. 1983. ‘The population of the Konamazan region of Luristan in the Bronze Age and in the Iron period’. East and
West 33, 177–216.
Soudavar, A. 2010. ‘The formation of Achaemenid imperial ideology and its impact on the Avesta’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson
(eds) The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. London: I. B. Tauris, 111–137.
Speth, J. D. 2014. ‘The importance of Iran’s Paleolithic record for unraveling key issues in human evolution’. International Journal of
the Society of Iranian Archaeologists 1, 10–26.
Spooner, B. 1974. ‘City and river in Iran: urbanization and irrigation of the Iranian Plateau’. Iranian Studies 7, 681–713.
Spooner, B. 1988. ‘Baluchistan i. Geography, History and Ethnography’. Encyclopedia Iranica Onlinetion: www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/baluchistan-i.
Spooner, B. 1994. ‘Desert’. Encyclopedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/desert.
Spooner, B. 2011. ‘ĀBYĀRĪ, “irrigation” in Iran’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/abyari-irrigation-
in-iran.
Spycket, A. 1992a. Les figurines de Suse. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 52. Paris: Gabalda.
Spycket, A. 1992b. ‘Terracotta figurines’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern
Treasures in the Louvre Museum. New York: Metropolitan Museum of At, 183–196.
Spycket, A. 1997. ‘Les collaborateurs de Jacques de Morgan’, in N. Chevalier (ed.) Une Mission en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN,
126–131.
Stark, F. 1932. ‘The bronzes of Luristan’. The Geographical Journal 80/6, 498–505.
Starke, F. 1995. Instruction and Training of War Horses. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Staubwasser, M. and Weiss, H. 2006. ‘Holocene climate and cultural evolution in late prehistoric–early historic West Asia’. Quaternary
Research 66/3, 372–387.
Stech, T. and Pigott, V. C. 1986. ‘The metals trade in southwest Asia in the third millennium B.C’. Iraq 48, 39–64.
Steible, H. 1982. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Volumes I and II. Wiesbaden: Freiburger Altorientalische Studien.
Stein, A. 1928. Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia, Kan-su and Eastern Iran. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stein, A. 1934. ‘The Indo-Iranian borderlands: their prehistory in the light of geography and of recent explorations’. The Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 64, 179–202.
596 Bibliography
Stein, A. 1937. Archaeological Reconnaissances in North-Western India and South-Eastern Iran Carried out and Recorded with the Support of
Harvard University and the British Museum. London: Macmillan.
Stein, A. 1938. ‘An archaeological journey in western Iran’. The Geographical Journal 92/4, 313–342.
Stein, A. 1940. Old Routes of Western Iran. London: Macmillan.
Stein, G. 1999. Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Stein, G. 2010. ‘Local identities and interaction spheres: modeling regional variation in the Ubaid horizon’, in R. A. Carter and
G. Philip (eds) Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient
Stein, G. 2020. ‘Leadership strategies and multi-linear development of social complexity in Ubaid Mesopotamia and Susa A south-
western Iran (5500–4000 BCE) ’, in F. B. Restelli, A. Cardarelli, G. M. Di Nocera, L. Manzanilla, L. Mori, G. Palumbi and
H. Pittman (eds) Pathways through Arslantepe. Essays in Honour of Marcella Frangipane. Rome: Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,
173–187.
Steinkeller, P. 1977. ‘Seal practices in the Ur III period’, in M. Gibson and R. D. Biggs (eds) Seals and Sealings in the Ancient Near
East. Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 6. Malibu, CA: Undena, 41–53.
Steinkeller, P. 1982. ‘The question of Marḫaši: a contribution to the historical geography of Iran in the third millennium BC’.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 72/2, 237–265.
Steinkeller, P. 1987. ‘The administrative and economic organization of the Ur III state: the core and the periphery’, in M. Gibson
and R. D. Biggs (eds) The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago,
19–41.
Steinkeller, P. 1989. ‘Marḫaši’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7, 381–382.
Steinkeller, P. 1993. ‘Early political development in Mesopotamia and the origins of he Sargonic Empire’, in M. Liverani (ed.)
Akkad: The First World Empire. Rome/Padua: Herder Editrice e Libreria, 107–129.
Steinkeller, P. 1999. ‘On rulers, priests and sacred marriage: tracing the evolution of early Sumerian kingship’, in K. Watanabe (ed.)
Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life, held at
the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22–24, 1996. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 103–137.
Steinkeller, P. 2006. ‘New light on Marhaši and its contacts with Makkan and Babylonia’. Journal of Magan Studies 1, 1–17.
Steinkeller, P. 2007. ‘New light on Šimaški and its rulers’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 97, 215–232.
Steinkeller, P. 2008. ‘Addenda to “New light on Šimaški and its rulers”’. NABU, 3.
Steinkeller, P. 2013. ‘Puzur-Inšušinak at Susa: a pivotal episode of early Elamite history reconsidered’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier
Steinkeller, P. 2014a. ‘On the dynasty of Šimaški: twenty years (or so) after’, in M. Kozuh, W. Henkelman, C. Jones and C. Woods
(eds) Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
287–296.
Steinkeller, P. 2014b. ‘Marhaši and beyond: the Jiroft civilization in a historical perspective’, in B. Cerasetti, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
and B. Genito (eds) ‘My Life is Like a Summer Rose’. Marizio Tosi e l’archeologia come modo di vivere. Papers in Honour of Maurizio Tosi for
his 70th Birthday. BAR (International Series) 2690. Oxford: Archaeopress, 691–707.
Steinkeller, P. 2018. ‘The birth of Elam in history’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Stepanov, I. S., Weeks, L., Franke, K. A., Overlaet, B., Alard, O., Cable, C. M., Al Aali, Y. Y., Boraik, M., Zein, H. and Grave,
P. 2020. ‘The provenance of early Iron Age ferrous remains from southeastern Arabia’. Journal of Archaeological Science 120. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105192.
Steve, M.-J. and Gasche, H. 1971. L’Acropole de Suse: Nouvelles Fouilles. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 46.
Leiden: Brill.
Steve, M.-J., Gasche, H., de Meyer, L. and Amiet, P. 1980. ‘La Susiane au IIe millénaire: à propos d’une interprétation des fouilles
de Suse’. Iranica Antiqua 15, 49–154.
Steve, M.-J. and Gasche, H. 1990. ‘Le tell de l’Apadana avant les Achéménides: contribution à la topographie de Suse’, in F. Vallat
(ed.) Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran: mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 15–60.
Steve, M.-J., Vallat, F. and Gasche, H. 2002. ‘Suse’. Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 73, 359–511.
Steve, M. J. 1967. Tchoga Zanbil (Dur Untash) III. Textes élamites et accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse
41. Paris: E. Leroux.
Stevens, C. J., Murphy, C., Roberts, R., Lucas, L., Silva, F. and Fuller, D. Q. 2016. ‘Between China and South Asia: a Middle
Asian corridor of crop dispersal and agricultural innovation in the Bronze Age’. The Holocene 26/10, 1541–1555.
Stevens, L. R., Wright, H. E. and Ito, E. 2001. ‘Proposed changes in seasonality of climate during the Lateglacial and Holocene at
Lake Zeribar, Iran’. The Holocene 11/6, 747–755.
Stevens, L. R., Ito, E., Schwalb, A. and Wright, H. E. 2006. ‘Timing of atmospheric precipitation in the Zagros Mountains in-
ferred from a multi-proxy record from Lake Mirabad, Iran’. Quaternary Research 66/3, 494–500.
Stevens, L. R., Ito, E. and Wright, H. E. 2008. ‘Variations in effective moisture at Lake Zeribar, Iran during the last glacial period
and Holocene, inferred from the δ18 values of authigenic calcite’, in K. Wasylikowa and A. Witkowski (eds) The Palaeoecology
of Lake Zeribar and Surrounding Areas, Western Iran, During the Last 48,000 Years. Diatom Monographs 8. Ruggell: Gantner,
283–302.
Bibliography 597
Stiner, M. C. 1993. ‘Small animal exploitation and its relation to hunting, scavenging, and gathering in the Italian Mousterian’,
in G. L. Peterkin, H. Bricker and P. Mellars (eds) Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia.
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 4. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Associa-
tion, 101–119.
Stiner, M. C. 2001. ‘Thirty years on the “Broad Spectrum Revolution” and Palaeolithic demography’. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 13, 6993–6996.
Stöllner, T., Mireskandari, M. and Roustaei, K. 2011. ‘Mining archaeology in Iran – investigations at Vešnāve’, in A. Vatandoust,
H. Parzinger and B. Helwing (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. The First Five Years of Work.
Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 535–608.
Stolper, M. W. 1982. ‘On the dynasty of Šimaški and the early Sukkalmahs’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
72/1, 42–67.
Stolper, M. W. 1984a. Texts from Tall-i Malyan, I: Elamite Administrative Texts (1972–1974). Occasional publications of the Babylo-
nian Fund 6. Philadelphia: Babylonian Fund of the University Museum.
Stolper, M. W. 1984b. ‘Political history of Elam’, in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper (eds) Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archae-
ology. Near Eastern Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1–100.
Stolper, M. W. 1985. ‘Proto-Elamite texts from Tall-i Malyan’. Kadmos 24/2, 1–12.
Stolper, M. W. 1988. ‘Mālamīr. B. Philologisch’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7, 276–281.
Stolper, M. W. 1992a. ‘Proto-Elamite seals and sealings’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient
Stolper, M. W. 1992b. ‘Stele of Adda-hamiti-Inshushinak (the inscriptions)’, in P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal
City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 198–199.
Stolper, M. W. 1992c. ‘Cuneiform texts from Susa’, in J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds) The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treas-
ures from the Louvre,. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 253–260.
Stolper, M. W. 2005. ‘Achaemenid languages and inscriptions’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient
Persia. London: The British Museum, 24–28.
Stolze, F. 1882. Persepolis: die achaemenidischen und sasanidischen Denkmäler und Inschriften von Persepolis, Istakhr, Pasargadae, Shâhpûr.
Berlin: A Asher.
Stordeur, D. and Anderson-Gerfaud, P. 1985. ‘Les omoplates encochées néolithiques de Ganj Dareh (Iran). Étude morphologique
et fonctionnelle’. Cahiers de l’Euphrate 4, 289–313.
Strommenger, E. 1980. Habuba Kabira. Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft am Euphrat in Ha-
buba Kabira – Syrien. Sendschrift der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 12. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern.
Stronach, D. 1963. ‘Excavations at Pasargadae: first preliminary report’. Iran 1, 19–42.
Stronach, D. 1964. ‘Excavations at Pasargadae: second preliminary report’. Iran 2, 21–39.
Stronach, D. 1965. ‘Excavations at Pasargadae: third preliminary report’. Iran 3, 9–40.
Stronach, D. 1969. ‘Excavations at Tepe Nūsh-i Jān, 1967’. Iran 7, 1–20.
Stronach, D. 1972. ‘Yarim Tepe’, in P. R. S. Moorey (ed.) Excavations in Iran: The British Contribution. Oxford: Organising Com-
mittee of the Sixth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, 21–23.
Stronach, D. 1974. ‘Achaemenid Village I at Susa and the Persian migration to Fars’. Iraq 36/1–2, 239–248.
Stronach, D. 1978. Pasargadae: A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Stronach, D., Roaf, M., Stronach, R. and Bökönyi, S. 1978. ‘Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan’. Iran 16, 1–28.
Stronach, D. 1986. ‘Archaeology ii. Median and Achaemenid’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/archeology-ii.
Stronach, D. 1989. ‘The royal garden at Pasargadae: evolution and legacy’, in L. De Meyer and E. Haerinck (eds) Archaeologica iranica
et orientalis: miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe. Gent: Peeters, 476–502.
Stronach, D. 1997. ‘Anshan and Parsa: early Achaemenid history, art and architecture on the Iranian plateau’, in J. Curtis (ed.)
Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism 539–331 BC. London: British museum Press, 35–53.
Stronach, D. 1998. ‘Excavations i. In Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/excavations-i.
Stronach, D. 2001. ‘From Cyrus to Darius: notes on art and architecture in early Achaemenid palaces’, in I. Nielsen (ed.) The Royal
Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Athens: Danish
Institute at Athens, 95–112.
Stronach, D. 2003. ‘Independent Media: archaeological notes from the homeland’, in G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger
(eds) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: SARGON,
233–248.
Stronach, D. 2005a. ‘The Arjan tomb: innovation and acculturation in the last days of Elam’. Iranica Antiqua 40, 179–196.
Stronach, D. 2005b. ‘Ernst Herzfeld and Pasargadae ’, in A. C. Gunter and S. R. Hauser (eds) Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of
Near Eastern Studies, 1900–1950. Leiden: Brill, 103–135.
Stronach, D. and Roaf, M. 2007. Nush-i Jan I: The Major Buildings of the Median Settlement. Leuven: Peeters.
Stronach, D. 2009. ‘Ezat O. Negahban 1926–2009’. Iran 47, xi–xiv.
Stronach, D. 2011. ‘Archaeology ii. Median and Achaemenid’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/archeology-ii.
598 Bibliography
Stronach, D. 2012. ‘GREAT BRITAIN xiv. The British Institute of Persian Studies’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/great-britain-xiv.
Stronach, D. 2013. ‘Cyrus and the kingship of Anshan: further perspectives’. Iran 51, 55–69.
Sudo, H. 2010. ‘The development of wool exploitation in Ubaid-period settlements of north Mesopotamia’, in R. A. Carter and
G. Philip (eds) Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Studies in Ancient
Summers, G. D. 1982. The Architecture, Pottery and Other Material from Yanik Tepe, Haftavan Tepe VIII and Related Sites. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Manchester.
Summers, G. D. 2004. ‘Yanik Tepe and the Early Trans-Caucasian culture: problems and perspectives’, in A. G. Sagona (ed.) A
View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12. Herent:
Peeters, 617–643.
Summers, G. D. and Burney, C. A. 2012. ‘Late Iron Age pottery from northwestern Iran: the evidence from Yanik Tepe’, in A.
Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 7. Leuven: Peeters, 269–315.
Summers, G. D. 2013a. Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran: The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Stratigraphy and Architecture. Leuven: Peeters.
Summers, G. D. 2013b. ‘The Early Bronze Age in northwestern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran.
Summers, G. D. 2014. ‘The Early Trans-Caucasian Culture in Iran: perspectives and problems’. Paléorient 40/2, 155–168.
Summers, G. D. in press. Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran: The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Pottery and Other Material. Leuven: Peeters.
Sumner, W. M. 1972. Cultural Development in the Kur River Basin, Iran: An Archaeological Analysis of Settlement Patterns. Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Pennsylvania.
Sumner, W. M. 1974. ‘Excavations at Tall-i Malyan, 1971–72’. Iran 12, 155–180.
Sumner, W. M. 1976. ‘Excavations at Tal-i Malyan (Anshan) 1974’. Iran 14, 103–115.
Sumner, W. M. 1977. ‘Early settlements in Fars Province, Iran’, in L. D. Levine and T. C. Young (eds) Mountains and Lowlands:
Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu: Undena Publications, 291–305.
Sumner, W. M. 1985. ‘The Proto-Elamite city wall at Tal-e Malyan’. Iran 23, 153–161.
Sumner, W. M. 1986a. ‘Proto-Elamite civilization in Fars’, in U. Finkbeiner and W. Röllig (eds) Ǧamdat Naṣr: Period or Regional
style? Papers Given at a Symposium Held in Tübingen, November 1983. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B,
Geisteswissenschaften 62. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 199–211.
Sumner, W. M. 1986b. ‘Achaemenid settlement in the Persepolis Plain’. American Journal of Archaeology 90, 3–31.
Sumner, W. M. 1988. ‘Prelude to Proto-Elamite Anshan: the Lapui phase’. Iranica Antiqua 23, 23–44.
Sumner, W. M. 1989a. ‘Population and settlement area: an example from Iran’. American Anthropologist 91/3, 631–641.
Sumner, W. M. 1989b. ‘Anshan in the Kaftari phase: patterns of settlement and land use’, in L. de Meyer and E. Haerinck (eds)
Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalia: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe. Leuven: Peeters, 135–161.
Sumner, W. M. 1990. ‘Full-coverage regional archaeological survey in the Near East: an example from Iran’, in S. K. Fish and
S. A. Kowalewski (eds) The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-coverage Survey. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 87–115.
Sumner, W. M. 1994. ‘The evolution of tribal society in the southern Zagros mountains, Iran’, in M. S. Rothman and G. Stein
(eds) Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity. Monographs in World Archaeology
18. Madison: Prehistory Press, 47–65.
Sumner, W. M. 2003. Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. Malyan Excavation
Reports 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Sumner, W. M. 2011. ‘CERAMICS vi. Uruk, Proto-Elamite, and Early Bronze Age in Southern Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica On-
line. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-vi.
Sunderland, E. 1968. ‘Pastoralism, nomadism and the social anthropology of Iran’, in W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Cambridge History of
Iran: Volume 1: The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 611–683.
Sürenhagen, D. 1974–75. ‘Untersuchungen zur Keramikproduktion innerhalb der spät-Urukzeitlichen Siedlung Habuba Kabira-Süd
in Nord Syrien’. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5/6, 43–164.
Sürenhagen, D. 2011. ‘Urban centers and rural sites in the Diyala region during Early Dynastic I and II. Some thoughts on material
culture, stratigraphy, and relative chronology’. in P. A. Miglus and S. Mühl (eds) Between the Cultures: The Central Tigris Region
from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC. Conference at Heidelberg January 22nd–24th 2009. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag,
5–28.
Sutliff, D. J. 2015. ‘On nomadic transhumance at Neolithic Tepe Tula’i, Iran: a re-analysis of findings’. Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports 3, 392–397.
Swiny, S. 1975. ‘Survey in northwest Iran, 1971’. East and West 25, 77–96.
Szymczak, J., Hosseinzadeh, J., Javeri, M. and Sołtysiak, A. 2018. ‘Human remains from Estark I, Iran, 2018’. Bioarchaeology of the
Tadahiko, O., Nokandeh, J. and Kazuya, Y. (eds) 2003. Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, First
Season, 2001. Tehran and Tokyo: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation & Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan.
Tadahiko, O., Nokandeh, J. and Kazuya, Y. (eds) 2004a. Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan,
Third Season. Tehran and Tokyo: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation & Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan.
Tadahiko, O., Nokandeh, J. and Kazuya, Y. (eds) 2004b. Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan,
Second Season, 2002. Tehran and Tokyo: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation & Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan.
Bibliography 599
Tadahiko, O., Nokandeh, J. and Kazuya, Y. (eds) 2005. Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan,
Fourth Season. Tehran and Tokyo: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation & Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan.
Tadahiko, O., Nokandeh, J. and Kazuya, Y. (eds) 2006. Preliminary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan,
Fifth Season. Tehran and Tokyo: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation & Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan.
Tadjvidi, A. 1976. New Information on the Art and Archaeology of the Achaemenid Period Based on Five Years of Excavations at Persepolis,
1968–1972. Tehran: Iranian Ministry of Culture and Arts (in Persian).
Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Tadmor, H., Yamada, S. and Novotny, J. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722
BC), Kings of Assyria. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Tagaya, A. 2014. ‘Human remains from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh
Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Tahan, H. and Naghshineh, A. S. 2016. ‘Exploring the prehistoric and historic sites in Joharin village and its significance in
demonstrating the settlement patterns in the southern district of the Qazvin Plain’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian
Tahmasebi Zave, H. and Iravani Ghadim, F. 2016. ‘Commentary on the similarities between objects of Bactria Margiana Archae-
ological Complex (BMAC) and Shahr-i Sokhta’. Bi-annual of Journal of Restoration Science and Cultural Heritage 23, 18–33.
Tainter, J. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takuro, A. 2005. ‘The Iron Age pottery from Tappe Jalaliye. Layer II, III’, in T. Ohtsu, G. Nokandeh and Y. Kazuya (eds) Prelim-
inary Report of the Iran Japan Joint Archaeological Expedition to Gilan, Fourth Season. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism
Organization, 69–95.
Tal, O. 2005. ‘Some remarks on the coastal plain of Palestine under Achaemenid rule: an archaeological synopsis’, in P. Briant and
R. Boucharlat (eds) L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches. Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par le “Réseau
international d’études et de recherches achéménides”. Persika 6. Paris: de Boccard, 71–93.
Tala’i, H. and Aliyari, A. 2009. ‘Haftavan IV (Iron II) settlement cemetery, NW Iran, Azerbaijan’. Iranica Antiqua 44, 89–112.
Tala’i, H. 1983a. ‘Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I architecture in Sagzabad – Qazvin plain – the central plateau of Iran’. Iranica
Antiqua 16, 51–57.
Tala’i, H. 1983b. ‘A stratigraphical sequence and architectural remain at Ismailabad, the Central Plateau of Iran’. Archäologische
Tala’i, H. 1984. ‘Notes on new pottery evidence from the eastern Urmia basin: Gol Tepe’. Iran 22, 151–156.
Tala’i, H. 1999. ‘Funeral rites at Zagheh: a Neolithic site in the Qazvin plain, Iran’. Documenta Praehistorica 26, 15–20.
Tala’i, H. 2000. ‘A new painted pottery assemblage at Ismailabad; a late Neolithic site in the Central Plateau of Iran’. Documenta
Tala’i, H. 2007. ‘The Iron II (ca. 1200–800 B.C.) pottery assemblage at Haftavan IV – NW-Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 42, 105–123.
Talebian, M. H. 2008. ‘Persia and Greece. The role of cultural interaction in the architecture of Persepolis-Pasargadae’, in S. M.
R. Darbandi and A. Zournatzi (eds) Ancient Greece and Iran. Cross-cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11–13
November 2006). Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, 179–183.
Tallis, N. 2005. ‘Transport and warfare’, in J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds) Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. London: The
British Museum, 210–235.
Tallon, F. 1987. Métallurgie Susienne I: de la fondation de Suse au XVIIIe avant J.-C. Notes et Documents des Musées de France 15.
Paris: Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication – Éditions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
Tallon, F., Hurtel, L. and Drilhon, F. 1989. ‘Un aspect de la métallurgie du cuivre à Suse: la petite statuaire du IIe millénaire avant
J.-C’. Iranica Antiqua 24, 121.
Tanno, K. 2008. ‘Plant remains from TB75’, in A. Tsuneki and M. Zeidi (eds) Tang-e Bolaghi: the Iran-Japan Archaeological Project
for the Sivand Dam Salvage Area. Tehran & Tsukuba: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research & Department of Archaeology,
University of Tsukuba, 151–153.
Tanret, M. and De Graef, K. 2010. ‘The exercise tablets from Chantier B in Susa revisited’. Iranica Antiqua 45, 225–257.
Tavernier, J. 2004. ‘Some thoughts on neo-Elamite chronology’. Achaemenid Research on Texts and Archaeology 3, 1–44.
Tavernier, J. 2011. ‘Iranians in Neo-Elamite texts’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and Persia. Winona Lake:
Tavernier, J. 2013a. ‘Elamite and Old Iranian afterlife concepts’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological,
Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17,
2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 471–489.
Tavernier, J. 2013b. ‘Old Persian’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 638–657.
Tavernier, J. 2017. ‘The use of languages on the various levels of administration in the Achaemenid empire’, in B. Jacobs,
W. F. M. Henkelman and M. W. Stolper (eds) Administration in the Achaemenid Empire. Tracing the Imperial Signature. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 337–411.
Tavernier, J. 2018a. ‘Elamites and Iranians’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
Tavernier, J. 2018b. ‘The Elamite language’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon:
600 Bibliography
Taylor, T. T., Pruvost, M., Posth, C., Rendu, W., Krajcarz, M. T., Abdykanova, A., Brancaleoni, G., Spengler, R., Hermes, T.,
Schiavinato, S., Hodgins, G., Stahl, R., Min, J., Alisharkyz, S., Fedorowicz, S., Orlando, L., Douka, K., Krivoshapkin, A.,
Jeong, C., Wariner, C. and Shnaider, S. 2021. ‘Evidence for early dispersal of domestic sheep into Central Asia’. Nature Human
Behaviour. 5, 1169–1179.
Taylor, W. M. 2014. ‘Archaeology and useful knowledge: Pasargadae and the rationalities of digging ‘real’ places’, in A. Mozaffari
(ed.) World Heritage in Iran: Perspectives on Pasargadae. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 91–114.
Tehrani Moghaddam, A. 1996. ‘Gurestan-e hezarey-e avval qabl az milad-e Poshva’, Proceedings of the First Archaeological Symposium
after the Islamic Revolution, Susa, 1373. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 53–62 (in Persian).
Teissier, B. 1987. ‘Glyptic evidence for a connection between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the fourth and third millennia’.
Iran 25/1, 27–53.
Teller, J. T., Glennie, K. W., Lancaster, N. and Singhvi, A. K. 2000. ‘Calcareous dunes of the United Arab Emirates and Noah’s
Flood: the postglacial reflooding of the Persian (Arabian) Gulf ’. Quaternary International 68–71, 297–308.
Tengberg, M., Potts, D. T. and Francfort, H. P. 2008. ‘The golden leaves of Ur’. Antiquity 82/318, 925–936.
Tengberg, M. 2012a. ‘Archaeobotanical analysis at Tall-e Abu Chizan. Appendix 2’, in A. Moghaddam (ed.) Later Village Period
Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana, Iran. BAR International Series 2347.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Tengberg, M. 2012b. ‘Fruit-growing’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Wiley,
181–200.
Tengberg, M. 2013. ‘Économies végétales et environnements en Asie Centrale du Néolithique à l’époque sassanide: la contribution
des disciplines archéobotaniques’. Cahiers d’Asia Centrale 21/22, 545–558.
Tengberg, M. 2014. ‘First archaeobotanical results from the 2009 soundings at Sang-e Chakhmaq East and West Mounds’’. The
First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Ab-
stracts), Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Tengberg, M. and Azizi Kharanaghi, H. 2016. ‘Results of the archaeobotanical study of Rahmatabad, Fars’, in K. Roustaei and
M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence,
and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 137–148.
Tengberg, M. and David, B. 2016. ‘First results of the archaeobotanical analysis at Kalāteh Khān in the Shahroud Plain, NE Iran’, in
K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 101–106.
Thomalsky, J. 2006. ‘Die Eisenzeitliche Keramik von Zendan-e Suleiman in Iranisch Azarbaijan’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran und Turan 38, 219–289.
Thomalsky, J. 2016. ‘The development of lithic industries in Iran in the light of the processes of neolithisation’, in K. Roustaei and
M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Thomalsky, J. 2019. ‘Complex landscapes and cities during the Iron Age of NW-Iran’, in Y. Hassanzadeh, A. A. Vahdati and
Z. Karimi (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. Volume 2. Tehran:
Thornton, C. P., Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., Liezers, M. and Young, S. M. M. 2002. ‘On pins and needles: tracing the evolution
of copper-base alloying at Tepe Yahya, Iran, via ICP-MS analysis of common-place items’. Journal of Archaeological Science 29/12,
1451–1460.
Thornton, C. P. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2004. ‘A new look at the prehistoric metallurgy of southeastern Iran’. Iran 42, 61–76.
Thornton, C. P. 2009. ‘The emergence of complex metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: escaping the Levantine paradigm’. Journal
of World Prehistory 22/3, 301–327.
Thornton, C. P. 2010. ‘The rise of arsenical copper in southeastern Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 45, 31–50.
Thornton, C. P. and Pigott, V. C. 2011. ‘Blade-type weaponry of Hasanlu Period IVB’, in M. de Schauensee (ed.) Peoples and Crafts
in Period IVB at Hasanlu, Iran. Hasanlu Special Studies 4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, 135–182.
Thornton, C. P. 2012. ‘Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell,
596–606.
Thornton, C. P. 2013a. ‘Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq: a new look’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of
Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 241–255.
Thornton, C. P. 2013b. ‘The Bronze Age in northeastern Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford:
Thornton, C. P., Gürsan-Salzmann, A. and Dyson, R. H. 2013. ‘Tepe Hissar and the fourth millennium BC of north-eastern
Iran’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium
BC. Oxford: Oxbow & BIPS, 131–143.
Thornton, C. P. 2014. ‘A return to the South Hill of Tepe Hissar, Iran’, in C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and B. Genito (eds) ‘My Life
is Like the Summer Rose’: Maurizio Tosi e l’Archeologia come modo di vivere. Papers in Honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday. BAR
International Series 2690. Oxford: Archaeopress, 711–717.
Thrane, H. 1964. ‘Archaeological investigations in western Luristan - preliminary report of the 2nd Danish archaeological expe-
dition to Iran’. Acta Archaeologica 35, 153–169.
Bibliography 601
Thrane, H. 1999. ‘Pots and people—once again. The goblets from the Bronze Age settlement at Tepe Guran, Luristan’. Iranica
Antiqua 34, 21–40.
Thrane, H. 2001. Excavations at Tepe Guran in Luristan: The Bronze Age and Iron Age Periods. Jutland Archaeological Society Publi-
cations 38. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society.
Tilia, A. B. 1972. Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites of Fārs. Vol. 1. Rome: IsMEO.
Tilia, A. B. 1974. ‘Discovery of an Achaemenian palace near Takht-i Rustam to the north of the terrace of Persepolis’. Iran 12,
200–204.
Tilia, A. B. 1978. Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and other sites of Fārs. Vol. 2. Rome: IsMEO.
Timurpor Torabi, P. 2017. An Interpretation of Kurgan in the Northwestern Iran: The Case Study, the Burials of Khodafarin Region. MA
thesis, Marlik University.
Tissot, F. 1994. ‘Délégations Archéologiques Françaises’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/
dlgations-archologiques-franaises.
Tonoike, Y. 2009. Beyond Style: Petrographic Analysis of Dalma Ceramics in Two Regions of Iran. UMI Dissertation Publishing: Yale
University.
Tonoike, Y. 2012. ‘Petrographic analysis of the 6th millennium B.C. Dalma ceramics from northwestern and central Zagros’.
Tonussi, M. 2014. ‘Pierced andirons and vessel supports for fireplaces from the Caucasus to the Near East: a way to optimize the
heat of fire?’, in P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D. Lawecka, A. Soltysiak and Z. Wygnańska (eds) Proceedings of the
8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz Verlag, 31–46.
Tosi, M. 1968. ‘Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta, a Chalcolithic settlement in the Iranian Sīstān. Preliminary report on the first
campaign, October–December 1967’. East and West 18/1/2, 9–66.
Tosi, M. 1969. ‘Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta. Preliminary report on the second campaign, September–December 1968’. East and
West 19, 283–386.
Tosi, M. 1970a. ‘A tomb from Damin and the problem of the Bampur sequence in the third millennium B. C.’. East and West 20, 9–50.
Tosi, M. 1970b. ‘On the route for lapis lazuli’. Illustrated London News/Jan 24, Feb 7, 24–25. 24–25.
Tosi, M. 1972. ‘Survey of excavations in Iran during 1970–71. Shahr-i Sokhta project: Tepe Rud-i Biyaban 2’. Iran 10/1, 175.
Tosi, M. 1973–74. ‘The northeast frontier of the ancient Near East’. Mesopotamia 8–9, 21–76.
Tosi, M. 1974. ‘Bampur: a problem of isolation’. East and West 24, 29–50.
Tosi, M. and Piperno, M. 1975. ‘The graveyard of Ŝahr-e Sokte Iran’. Archaeology 28/3, 186–197.
Tosi, M. 1976. ‘Shahr-i Sokhta’. Iran 14, 167–168.
Tosi, M. (ed.) 1983. Prehistoric Sistan. Rome: IsMEO.
Tosi, M. 1984. ‘The notion of craft specialisation and its representation in the archaeological record of early states in the Turanian
Basin’, in M. Spriggs (ed.) Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 22–52.
Tosi, M. 1987. ‘Development of urban societies in Turan and the Mesopotamian trade with the East: the evidence from Shahr-i
Sokhta’, in H. J. Nissen (ed.) Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien vom 4.
bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.:[25. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Berlin]. Berlin: Reimer, 57–77.
Tosi, M. 1989. ‘The distribution of industrial debris on the surface of Tappeh Hesār as an indication of activity areas’, in R. H. Dyson
Jr and S. M. Howard (eds) Tappeh Hesār: Reports of the Restudy Project, 1976. Monografie di Mesopotamia 2. Firenze: Casa editrice
Le Lettere, 13–24.
Tosi, M. and Bulgarelli, G. M. 1989. ‘The stratigraphic sequence of Squares DF 88/89 on South Hill, Tappeh Hesar’, in R. H. Dyson
Jr and S. M. Howard (eds) Preliminary Reports of the Tappeh Hesar Restudy Project, 1976. Monografi di Mesopotamia 2. Florence:
Casa editrice Le Lettere, 35–53.
Tourovets, A. 1996. ‘La glyptique de Bani Surmah, Pusht-i Kuh-Luristan’. Iranica Antiqua 31, 19–45.
Tourovets, A. 1997. ‘Observations concernant l’existance d’une ancienne voie cérémonielle au Nord-Est du site de Tchoga Zam-
bil’. Iranica Antiqua 32, 71–90.
Tourtet, F. 2013. ‘Distribution, materials and functions of the “wall knobs” in the Near Eastern Late Bronze Age: from south-western
Iran to the Middle Euphrates’, in K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds) Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geograph-
ical Perspectives: Proceedings of the International Congress held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009. Mémoires de la Délégation en
Perse 58. Leiden: Brill, 173–190.
Trinkaus, E. 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press.
Trinkaus, E. and Biglari, F. 2006. ‘Middle Paleolithic human remains from Bisitun Cave, Iran’. Paléorient 32/2, 105–111.
Trinkaus, E., Biglari, F., Mashkour, M., Monchot, H., Reyss, J.-L., Rougier, H., Heydari, S. and Abdi, K. 2008. ‘Late Pleistocene
human remains from Wezmeh Cave, western Iran’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 135/4, 371–378.
Trinkaus, E. 2018. ‘Pleistocene human remains from Iran’, in F. Biglari, S. Shidrang and M. Mashkour (eds) The Pleistocene Archae-
ology of the Iranian Plateau, Iraq and the Caucasus. Tehran: National Museum of Iran, 53–63.
Tsanova, T. 2013. ‘The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Iranian Zagros. A taphonomic approach and techno-economic
comparison of Early Baradostian assemblages from Warwasi and Yafteh (Iran)’. Journal of Human Evolution 65/1, 39–64.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2003. ‘The culture of ancient Georgia in the first millennium BC and Greater Anatolia: diffusion or migra-
tion?’, in A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson (eds) Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond. Los Angeles:
Cotsen Institution of Archaeology, University of California, 229–245.
602 Bibliography
Tsuneki, A., Zeidi, M. and Ohnuma, K. 2007. ‘Proto-Neolithic caves in the Bolaghi Valley, south Iran’. Iran 45, 1–22.
Tsuneki, A. and Zeidi, M. (eds) 2008. Tang-e Bolaghi: the Iran-Japan Archaeological Project for the Sivand Dam Salvage Area. Shark (Tsukuba,
Japan) Tehran & Tsukuba, Iranian Center for Archaeological Research & Department of Archaeology, University of Tsukuba.
Tsuneki, A. 2013. ‘Proto-Neolithic caves and neolithisation in the southern Zagros’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds)
The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 84–96.
Tsuneki, A. 2014a. ‘Pottery and other objects from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan:
Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond, February 10–11, 2014 (Programme and Abstracts), Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Tsuneki, A. 2014b. ‘The site of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq’’. The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e
Tuplin, C. 2004. ‘Medes in Media, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia’. Ancient West and East 3, 223–251.
Turchin, P. 2009. ‘Theory for formation of large empires’. Journal of Global History 4, 191–217.
Turnbull, P. F. and Reed, C. A. 1974. ‘The fauna from the Terminal Pleistocene of Palegawra Cave, a Zarzian occupation site in
northeastern Iraq’. Fieldiana. Anthropology 63/3, 81–146.
Turnbull, P. F. 1975. ‘The mammalian fauna of Warwasi rock shelter, west-central Iran’. Fieldiana. Geology 33/8, 32
Tusa, S. 1977. ‘I sigilli e le loro impronte – seals and seal-impressions’, in G. Tucci (ed.) La Città Bruciata nel Deserto Salato. Venezia:
Erizzo Editrice, 253–261.
Tylecote, R. F. 1970. ‘Early metallurgy in the Near East’. Metals and Materials 4/7, 285–293.
Uchupi, E., Swift, S. A. and Ross, D. A. 1999. ‘Late Quaternary stratigraphy, paleoclimate and neotectonism of the Persian (Arabian)
Gulf region’. Marine Geology 160/1, 1–23.
Uerpmann, H.-P. and Frey, W. 1981. ‘Die Umgebung von Gar-e Kamarband (Belt cave) und Gare‚ Ali Tappe (Beh-Sahr,
Mazandaran, N-Iran) heute und im Spätpleistozän’, in W. Frey and H. P. Uerpmann (eds) Contributions to the Environmental His-
tory of Southwest Asia. Tübingen Atlas des Vorderes Orients 8. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert Verlag, 134–190.
Uerpmann, H.-P. 1987. The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mammals in the Middle East: Fauna and Archaeological Sites in Southwest
Asia and Northeast Africa. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe A, Naturwissenschaften 27. Wiesbaden: L.
Reichert Verlag.
Underhill, P. A., Myres, N. M., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Zhivotovsky, L. A., King, R. J., Lin, A. A., Chow, C.-E. T., Semino,
O. and Battaglia, V. 2010. ‘Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup
R1a’. European Journal of Human Genetics 18/4, 479–484.
Ur, J. 2013. ‘Patterns of settlement in Sumer and Akkad’, in H. Crawford (ed.) The Sumerian World. London: Routledge, 131–155.
Vaezi, A., Ghazban, F., Tavakoli, V., Routh, J., Naderi Beni, A., Bianchi, T. S., Curtis, J. H. and Kylin, H. 2019. ‘A Late
Pleistocene-Holocene multi-proxy record of climate variability in the Jazmurian playa, southeastern Iran’. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 514, 754–767.
Vahdati, A. A. 2007. ‘Marlik and Toul-e Talish: a dating problem’. Iranica Antiqua 42, 125–138.
Vahdati, A. A. 2010. ‘Tepe Pahlavan: a Neolithic-Chalcolithic site in the Jajarm plain, north-eastern Iran’. Iranica Antiqua 45, 7–30.
Vahdati, A. A. 2011. ‘A Preliminary Report on a newly discovered petroglyphic complex near Jorbat, the Plain of Jajarm, north-
eastern Iran’. Paléorient 37/2, 177–187.
Vahdati, A. A. and Francfort, H.-P. 2011. ‘Preliminary report on the soundings at Tappeh Damghani, Sabzevar’. Iranian Journal of
Archaeology and History 24/2, 17–36 (in Persian).
Vahdati, A. A. 2014. ‘A BMAC grave from Bojnord, north-eastern Iran’. Iran 52, 19–27.
Vahdati, A. A. 2016. ‘A preliminary report on the first season of excavation at Jayran Tepe in the plain of Esfarayen northeastern
Iran, 2012’. Iranica Antiqua 51, 85–101.
Vahdati, A. A. 2018. ‘The Early Iron Age in northern Khorāsān’, in J. Lhuillier and N. Boroff ka (eds) A Millennium of History. The
Iron Age in Southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 51–66.
Vahdati, A. A., Biscione, R., La Farina, R., Mashkour, M., Tengberg, M., Fathi, H. and Azadeh Mohaseb, F. 2019. ‘Prelimi-
nary report on the first season of excavations at Tepe Chalow. New GKC (BMAC) finds in the plain of Jajarm, NE Iran. ’,
in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau in the Bronze Age. Development of
Urbanisation, Production and Trade. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient and de la Méditerranée, 179–200.
Vahdati, A. A. and Meier, D. M. P. 2019. ‘Objects of the “Oxus-Civilization” and of the “Jiroft culture” from the Mofahham
Museum (Bojnord, North Khorasan Province)’, in D. Usai, S. Tuzzato and M. Vidale (eds) Tales of the Three Worlds, a Tribute to
Sandro Salvatori. Oxford: Archaeopress, 98–114.
Vahdati, A. A., Biscione, R., Dan, R. and Trémouille, M.-C. 2021. ‘Grave 12 at Chalow: the burial of a lady of the “Greater
Khorasan Civilization”’. Journal of Iran National Museum 1/1, 45–64.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Mollasalehi, H., Saeedpour, M. and Jamshidi, J. 2009. ‘Paleolithic Levalloisian assemblages from Boeen Zahra
in the Qazvin Plain, Iran’. Antiquity 83, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nasab1/.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Hajjami, S. and Mortazavi, M. 2010a ‘Palaeolithic Ladiz revisited: a reassessment of the Ladizian lithic industry,
Baluchestan, Iran’. Antiquity 84, Project Gallery. URL: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nasab324/.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Roustaei, K. and Rezvani, H. 2010b. ‘Delazian (Mirak I): evidence of Paleolithic settlement at the northern
edge of the Iranian Central Desert’, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International
Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May–10 May 2009, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”. Volume 2. Excavations,
Surveys and Restorations: Reports on the Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 733–742.
Vahdati Nasab, H. 2011. ‘Paleolithic archaeology in Iran’. The International Journal of Humanities 18/2, 63–87.
Bibliography 603
Vahdati Nasab, H., Jayez, M., Hojabri Nobari, A., Khademi Nadooshan, F., Ilkhani, H. and Mahfroozi, A. 2011. ‘Preliminary report
of excavation in Komishan Cave, Mazandaran ’. Antiquity 85, Project gallery. URL: www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nasab328.
Vahdati Nasab, H. and Kazzazi, M. 2011. ‘Metric analysis of a female figurine from Tepe Sarab’. Iran 49/1, 1–10.
Vahdati Nasab, H. and Vahidi, M. 2011. ‘Re-evaluation of scrapers reduction model using geometric index of reduction (Mar-
Tarik Middle Paleolithic asemblages)’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/1, 26–34.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Clark, G. A. and Torkamandi, S. 2013a. ‘Late Pleistocene dispersal corridors across the Iranian Plateau: a case
study from Mirak, a Middle Paleolithic site on the northern edge of the Iranian Central desert (Dasht-e Kavir)’. Quaternary
International 300, 267–281.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Jayez, M., Qorbani, H. R., Darabi, H. and Taylor, H. 2013b. ‘Preliminary techno-typological analysis of
chipped stone materials from Sheikh-e Abad’, in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic
of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani. CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 117–129.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Thornton, C. P. and Kouhpar, S. M. M. 2013c. ‘The Late Neolithic site of Rashak III rock shelter, Mazandaran,
Iran’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
272–283.
Vahdati Nasab, H. and Clark, G. A. 2014. ‘The Upper Paleolithic of the Iranian Central Desert: the Delazian site - a case study’. Archäol-
ogische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 46, 1–20.
Vahdati Nasab, H. and Aryamanesh, S. 2016. Archaeology of Iranian Palaeolithic ( from the Beginning to the Dawn of Rural Development).
Tehran: Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism.
Vahdati Nasab, H. and Hashemi, M. 2016. ‘Playas and Middle Paleolithic settlement of the Iranian Central Desert: the discovery
of the Chah-e Jam Middle Paleolithic site’. Quaternary International 408, 140–152.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Roustaei, K., Ghamari Fatideh, M., Shojaeefar, F. and Hashemi Sarvandi, M. 2017. ‘The first evidence for Late
Pleistocene hominin populations on the southern Caspian Sea coast’. Antiquity 91/355, e1.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Berillon, G., Jamet, G., Hashemi, M., Jayez, M., Khaksar, S., Anvari, Z., Guérin, G., Heydari, M., Kharazian,
M. A., Puaud, S., Bonilauri, S., Zeitoun, V., Sévêque, N., Khatooni, J. D. and Khaneghah, A. A. 2019a. ‘The open-air Paleo-
lithic site of Mirak, northern edge of the Iranian Central Desert (Semnan, Iran): evidence of repeated human occupations during
the late Pleistocene’. Comptes Rendus Palevol 18/4, 465–478.
Vahdati Nasab, H., Shirvani, S. and Rigaud, S. 2019b. ‘The northern Iranian Central Plateau at the end of the Pleistocene and
Early Holocene: the emergence of domestication’. Journal of World Prehistory 32/3, 287–310.
Valipour, H. R., Davoudi, H., Sadati, J. H. and Nashli, H. F. 2012. ‘Tepe Khaleseh: archaeological evaluation of a Late Neolithic
site in north-western Iran’. Antiquity 86, Project Gallery.
Valipour, H. R., Davoudi, H., Mostafapour, I. and Gręzak, A. 2013. ‘Tepe Khaleseh, a Late Neolithic site in Zanjan Province’, in
Valipour, H. R., Mostafapour, I., Miri, N., Davoudi, H., Zifar, H., Ghanbari, B. and Karimi, H. 2017. ‘Preliminary report on the
excavation at the Neo-Elamite site of Kalānter 4, northeastern Khuzestan’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeolo-
gists 3/6, 36–55.
Vallat, F. 1971. ‘Les documents épigraphiques de l’Acropole (1969–1971)’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 1,
235–245.
Vallat, F. 1973. ‘Les tablettes Proto-Elamites de l’Acropole (campagne 1972)’. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran
3, 93–105.
Vallat, F. 1981. ‘L’inscription de la stèle d’Untash-Napirisha’. Iranica Antiqua 16, 27.
Vallat, F. 1985. ‘Eléments de géographie élamite (Résumé)’. Paléorient 11/2, 49–54.
Vallat, F. 1991. ‘La géographie de l’Elam d’après quelques textes mésopotamiens’, in L. de Meyer and H. Gasche (eds) Mésopotamie
et Elam. Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 1. Ghent: University of Ghent, 11–21.
Vallat, F. 1993. Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites. Répertoire géographique des textes cuneiformes. Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert.
Vallat, F. 1994. ‘Succession royale en Elam au IIème millénaire’, in H. Gasche, M. Tanret, C. Janssen and A. Degraeve (eds)
Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien offertes en hommages à Léon de Meyer. Ghent: Peeters, 1–4.
Vallat, F. 1996. ‘Le royaume élamite de SAMATI’. NABU 31/1, 21–22.
Vallat, F. 1999a. ‘Le palais élamite de Suse’. Akkadica 112, 34–43.
Vallat, F. 1999b. ‘L’hommage de l’élamite Untash-Napirisha au Cassite Burnaburiash’. Akkadica 114, 109–117.
Vallat, F. 2003. ‘Un fragment de tablette proto-élamite découvert à Ozbaki, au nord-ouest de Téhéran’. Akkadica 124, 229–231.
Vallat, F. 2010. ‘Les principales inscriptions achéménides de Suse’, in J. Perrot (ed.) La palais de Darius à Suse: une résidence royale sur
la route de Persépolis à Babylone. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 300–321.
Vallat, F. 2011a. ‘Darius, l’héritier légitime, et les premiers Achéménides’, in J. Álvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison (eds) Elam and
Persia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 263–284.
Vallat, F. 2011b. ‘Elam, i. The history of Elam’. Encyclopdia Iranica (online edition). URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-i.
Vallois, H. V. 1939. ‘Les ossements humaines de Sialk’, in R. Ghirshman (ed.) Fouilles de Sialk près de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937, Vol.
2. Musée du Louvre Département des Antiquités Orientales Série Archéologique 4–5. Paris: P. Geuthner, 113–192.
Van De Mieroop, M. 2002. ‘In search of prestige: foreign contacts and the rise of an elite in Early Dynastic Babylonia’, in
E. Ehrenberg (ed.) Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 125–137.
604 Bibliography
Van De Mieroop, M. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwells.
Van Soldt, W. H., Pappi, C., Wossink, A., Hess, C. W. and Ahmed, K. M. 2013. ‘Satu Qala: a preliminary report on the seasons
2010–2011’. Anatolica 39, 97–239.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1952. ‘Archeologische opzoekingen in de Marv Dasht vlakte (Irān)’. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 12, 211–220.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1954. ‘Archaelogische navorsingen in de omstreken von Persepolis’. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 13, 394–408.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1959. L’archéologie de l’Irān ancien. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 6. Leiden: Brill.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1963. ‘Les reliefs élamites de Mālamir’. Iranica Antiqua 3, 22–39.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1964. La Nécropole de Khurvin. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut het nabije oosten.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1968. ‘La nécropole de Bani Surmah: Aurore d’une civilisation du Bronze’. Archeologia 24, 52–63.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1970a. ‘Prospections archéologiques dans la région de Badr’. Archeologia 36, 10–21.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1970b. ‘La nécropole de Kalleh Nisar’. Archeologia 32, 64–73.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1973a. ‘Le Luristan à l’âge du Bronze: prospections archéologiques dans le Pusht-i Kuh central’. Archeologia 63,
24–36.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1973b. ‘Excavations in Luristan: Kalleh Nisar’. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 3, 25–56.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1974. ‘Le Lorestān avant l’âge dur Bronze. La nécropole du Hakalan’, in F. Bagherzadeh (ed.) Proceedings of the
IInd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran: 29th October–1st November, 1973. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeo-
logical Research, 66–79.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1979a. ‘La construction des tombes au Pusht-i Kūh, Luristān au 3e millénaire avant J.-C.’. Iranica Antiqua 14,
39–50.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1979b. ‘La nécropole de Mīr Khair au Pusht-i Kūh, Luristān’. Iranica Antiqua 14, 1–37.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1979c. Bibliographie analytique de l’archéologie de l’Irān ancien. Leiden: Brill.
Vanden Berghe, L. and Haerinck, E. 1981. Bibliographie analytique de l’archéologie de l’Iran Ancien. Supplément 1 (1978–1980). Leiden:
Brill.
Vanden Berghe, L. and Haerinck, E. 1984. ‘Prospections et fouilles au Pušt-i Kūh, Luristān’. Archiv für Orientforschung 31, 200–200.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1987. ‘Les pratiques funéraires à l’Âge du Fer III au Pusht-i Kūh, Luristān: les nécropoles ‘genre War Kabūd’’.
Vanden Berghe, L. and Haerinck, E. 1987. Bibliographie analytique de l’archéologie de l’Iran Ancien. Supplément 2 (1981–1985). Leuven:
Peeters.
Vanden Berghe, L. and Tourovets, A. 1992. ‘Prospections archéologiques dans le district de Shīrwān-Chardawal (Pusht-i Kūh,
Luristān)’. Iranica Antiqua 27, 1–73.
Vanden Berghe, L. and Tourovets, A. 1994. ‘La glyptique de Kalleh Nisar, Pusht-i Kuh-Luristan’. Iranica Antiqua 29, 9–45.
Vandiver, P. B. 1986. ‘The production technology of earthenware ceramics, 4900–2800 B.C.’, in T. W. Beale (ed.) Excavations
at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967–1975: The Early Periods. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 38. Cambridge: Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 91–100.
Vanstiphout, H. L. J. 1983. ‘Problems in the ‘matter of Aratta”. Iraq 45, 35–42.
Vargyas, P. 2008. ‘The silver hoard from Nush-i Jan revisited’. Iranica Antiqua 43, 167–183.
Vatandoust, A. 1999. ‘A view on prehistoric Iranian metalworking: elemental analysis and metallographic examinations’. Der
Anschnitt 9, 121–140.
Vatandoust, A., Parzinger, H. and Helwing, B. (eds) 2011. Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau: The First
Five Years of Work. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern.
Veenhof, K. R. 1995. ‘Kanesh: an Assyrian colony in Anatolia’, in J. M. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New
York: Scribner, 859–871.
Veenhof, K. R. 2008. ‘The Old Assyrian period’, in K. R. Veenhof and J. Eidem (eds) Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 5. Fribourg: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13–264.
Vejdani, F. 2012. ‘Preface’, in A. Amanat and F. Vejdani (eds) Iran Facing Others: Identity Boundaries in a Historical Perspective. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan, ix–xiii.
Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Rightmire, G. P., Agusti, J., Ferring, R., Maisuradze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, M.,
de Leon, M. P., Tappen, M., Tvalchrelidze, M. and Zollikofer, C. 2002. ‘A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Geor-
gia’. Science 297/5578, 85–89.
Velayati, R., Mirzaei, S. and Khanali, H. 2017. ‘Explaining the Middle and Late Bronze Age cultures of north-western Iran. Case
study: Urmia Ware and Khabur pottery’. Pazohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 7/13, 25–44 (in Persian).
Venco Ricciardi, R. 1980. ‘Archaeological survey in the Upper Atrek Valley (Khorasan, Iran). Preliminary report’. Mesopotamia
15, 51–72.
Verdugo, M. P., Mullin, V. E., Scheu, A., Mattiangeli, V., Daly, K. G., Delser, P. M., Hare, A. J., Burger, J., Collins, M. J. and
Kehati, R. 2019. ‘Ancient cattle genomics, origins, and rapid turnover in the Fertile Crescent’. Science 365/6449, 173–176.
Vidale, M. 1984. ‘The pear-shaped beaker of Shahr-i Sokhta: evolution of a ceramic morphotype during the 3rd millennium BC’,
in B. Allchin (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1981. Cambridge, 81–97.
Vidale, M. 2003. ‘Archaeological indicators of craft production’, in W. M. Sumner (ed.) Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Ex-
cavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. Malyan Excavation Reports 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum
Bibliography 605
Vidale, M. 2011. ‘A vessel for building another vessel. A technical template of the late 4th millennium BCE in the central-eastern
of the Iranian plateau?’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1/2, 9–16.
Vidale, M., Craig, O., Desset, F., Guida, G., Bianchetti, P., Sidoti, G., Mariottini, M. and Battistella, E. 2012. ‘A chlorite container
found on the surface of Shahdad (Kerman, Iran) and its cosmetic content’. Iran 50, 27–44.
Vidale, M. and Micheli, R. 2012. ‘The function of a chlorite hand-bag of the Halil Rud civilization as inferred from its wear
traces’. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 2/2, 1–11.
Vidale, M. and Desset, F. 2013. ‘Mahtoutabad I (Konar Sandal South, Jiroft): preliminary evidence of occupation of a Halil Rud
site in the early fourth millennium BC’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range
Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 233–251.
Vidale, M. 2015. ‘Searching for mythological themes on the “Jiroft” chlorite artefacts’. Iranica Antiqua 50, 15–59.
Vidale, M. and Frenez, D. 2015. ‘Indus components in the iconography of a white marble cylinder seal from Konar Sandal South
(Kerman, Iran)’. South Asian Studies 31/1, 144–154.
Vidale, M., Salviulo, G., Zorzi, F. and Mocchiutti, I. 2016. ‘Cosmetics and cosmetology at Shahr-i Sokhta’. Iran 54/2, 1–24.
Vidale, M. 2017. ‘New interpretations’, in M. Vidale and A. Lazzari (eds) Lapis Lazuli Working at Shahr-i Sokhta. Interpreting Craft
Production in an Urban Community of the 3rd Millennium BC. Padova & Roma: ISMEO, 303–321.
Vidale, M. 2018a. ‘Great domino games: from Elam, looking eastwards’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The
Vidale, M. 2018b. ‘Irrigation and canals in ancient Iran. Resurrecting Wittfogel?’, in P. Callieri and A. V. Rossi (eds) Civiltà
dell’Iran Passato Presente Futuro. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Roma, 22–23 febbraio 2013. Rome: Scienze e Lettri S.r.l., 27–53.
Vidale, M. 2018c. ‘A “Priest King” at Shahr-i Sokhta?’. Archaeological Research in Asia 15/99, 110–115.
Vidale, M., Fazeli Nashli, H. and Desset, F. 2018. ‘The late prehistory of the northern Iranian Central Plateau (c. 6000–3000 BC):
growth and collapse of decentralised networks’, in H. Meller, D. Gronenborn and R. Risch (eds) Überschuss ohne Staat: Politische
Formen in der Vorgeschichte. 10. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 19. bis 21. Oktober 2017 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmu-
seums Halle 18. Halle: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte; Verlag Beier & Beran, 1–43.
Vidale, M. 2021. ‘Chlorite containers from the Oxus civilisation. Between technical choices and iconographic codes’, in B. Lyon-
net and N. A. Dubova (eds) The World of the Oxus Civilisation. Abingdon: Routledge, 293–332.
Vidali, M. L., Vidali, E. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1976. ‘Prehistoric settlement patterns around Tepe Yahya: a quantitative
analysis’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35/4, 237–250.
Vogelsang, W. J. 1992. The Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire: The Eastern Iranian Evidence. Studies in the History of the
Ancient Near East 3. Leiden: Brill.
Voigt, M. M. 1977. ‘The subsistence economy of a sixth millennium village in the Ushnu-Solduz Valley’, in L. D. Levine
and T. C. Young (eds) Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7.
Malibu: Undena Publications, 307–346.
Voigt, M. M. 1983. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement. Hasanlu Excavation Reports 1. Philadelphia: University Mu-
seum, University of Pennsylvania.
Voigt, M. M. 1987. ‘Relative and absolute chronologies for Iran between 6500 and 3500 cal BC’, in O. Aurenche, J. Evin and
F. Hours (eds) Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000–4,000 BP. BAR International
Series 379. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 615–646.
Voigt, M. M. 1989. ‘Northwest Iran in the fourth millennium B.C.’. Paléorient 15/1, 286–288.
Voigt, M. M. and Dyson, R. H. 1992. ‘The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000–2000 B.C.’, in R. W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old
World archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 122–178.
Voigt, M. M. and Young, T. C. 1999. ‘From Phrygian capital to Achaemenid entrepot’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 191–241.
Voigt, M. M. 2000. ‘Çatal Höyük in context: ritual at early Neolithic sites in central and eastern Turkey’, in I. Kuijt (ed.) Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York: Plenum, 253–293.
Voigt, M. M. 2011. ‘CERAMICS ii. The Neolithic Period in Northwestern Persia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceramics-ii.
Wahida, G. 1981. ‘The re-excavation of Zarzi, 1971’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 19–40.
Wahida, G. 1999. ‘The Zarzian industry of the Zagros Mountains’, in W. Davies and R. Charles (eds) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress
of the Palaeolithic: Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 181–208.
Walker, R. and Jackson, J. 2004. ‘Active tectonics and late Cenozoic strain distribution in central and eastern Iran’. Tectonics 23,
TC5010.
Walker, R. T. and Fattahi, M. 2011. ‘A framework of Holocene and Late Pleistocene environmental change in eastern Iran inferred
from the dating of periods of alluvial fan abandonment, river terracing, and lake deposition’. Quaternary Science Reviews 30/9,
1256–1271.
Walstra, J., Heyvaert, V. M. A. and Verkinderen, P. 2010. ‘Assessing human impact on fan development using satellite images: a
case-study from Lower Khuzestan (SW Iran)’. Geodinamica Acta 23, 267–285.
Wang, X., Wei, H., Khormali, F., Taheri, M., Kehl, M., Frechen, M., Lauer, T. and Chen, F. 2017. ‘Grain-size distribution of
Pleistocene loess deposits in northern Iran and its palaeoclimatic implications’. Quaternary International 429, 41–51.
Ward, W. A. and Sharp Joukowsky, M. 1992. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century BC from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Dubuque:
Kendall/Hunt.
606 Bibliography
Wasilewska, E. 1991. ‘Archaeology of religion: colours as symbolic markers dividing sacred from profane’. Journal of Prehistoric
Religion 5, 36–41.
Wasylikowa, K. 2005. ‘Palaeoecology of Lake Zeribar, Iran, in the Pleniglacial, Lateglacial and Holocene, reconstructed from
plant macrofossils’. The Holocene 15/5, 720–735.
Wasylikowa, K., Witkowski, A., Walanus, A., Hutorowicz, A., Alexandrowicz, S. W. and Langer, J. J. 2006. ‘Palaeolimnology of
Lake Zeribar, Iran, and its climatic implications’. Quaternary Research 66/3, 477–493.
Wasylikowa, K. and Witkowski, A. (eds) 2008. The Palaeoecology of Lake Zeribar and Surrounding Areas, Western Iran, During the Last
48,000 Years. Diatom Monographs 8. Ruggell, Gantner.
Watanabe, C. E. 2008. ‘A compositional analysis of the battle of Til-Tuba’, in H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon and F. J. Kreppner (eds)
Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. I Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 601–612.
Waters, M. W. 2000. A Survey of Neo-Elamite History. State Archives of Assyria Studies. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project.
Waters, M. W. 2004. ‘Cyrus and the Achaemenids’. Iran 42, 91–102.
Waters, M. W. 2006. ‘A Neo-Elamite royal family’. Iranica Antiqua 41, 59–69.
Waters, M. W. 2011. ‘Notes on the Medes and their “empire” from Jer 25: 25 to Hdt 1.134’, in G. Frame (ed.) A Common Cultural
Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L. Eichler. Bethesda MD: CDL Press, 243–253.
Waters, M. W. 2013. ‘Elam, Assyria, and Babylonia in the early first millennium BC’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of
Watkins, C. 2008. ‘Hittite’, in R. D. Woodard (ed.) The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
6–31.
Watkins, T. 2009. ‘From foragers to complex societies in Southwest Asia’, in C. Scarre (ed.) The Human Past: World Prehistory and
the Development of Human Societies. London: Thams and Hudson, 200–233.
Watson, P. J. 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 57. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
Weeks, L. 2003. ‘Prehistoric metallurgy in the UAE: Bronze Age-Iron Age transitions’. Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates:
Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the UAE, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Trident Press.
Weeks, L. 2004. Early Metallurgy of the Persian Gulf: Technology, Trade, and the Bronze Age World. American School of Prehistoric
Research Monograph Series 2. Leiden: Brill.
Weeks, L., Alizadeh, K., Niakan, L., Alamdari, K., Mohsen, Z., Khosrowzadeh, A. and McCall, B. 2006. ‘The Neolithic settle-
ment of highland SW Iran: new evidence from the Mamasani District’. Iran 44, 1–31.
Weeks, L., Alizadeh, A., Niakan, L., Alamdari, K., Khosrowzadeh, A. and Zeidi, M. 2009. ‘Excavations at Tol-e Nurabad’,
in D. T. Potts, K. Roustaei, C. A. Petrie and L. Weeks (eds) The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the First
Two Seasons of the ICAR-University of Sydney Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. Oxford: Archaeopress, 31–88.
Weeks, L., Petrie, C. A. and Potts, D. T. 2010. ‘Ubaid-related-related? The “black-on-buff” ceramic traditions of highland south-
west Iran’, in R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds) Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the
Middle East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 245–276.
Weeks, L. 2012. ‘Metals’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 295–316.
Weeks, L. 2013a. ‘The development and expansion of a Neolithic way of life’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient
Weeks, L. 2013b. ‘Iranian metallurgy of the fourth millennium BC in its wider technological and cultural contexts’, in C. A. Petrie
(ed.) Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow,
277–291.
Weeks, L. 2013c. ‘The neolithisation of Fars, Iran’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Forma-
tion of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 97–107.
Weeks, L. 2016. ‘Iran and the Bronze Age metals trade in the Persian Gulf ’. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Archaeologists
2/3, 13–25.
Weide, A., Riehl, S., Zeidi, M. and Conard, N. J. 2015. ‘Using new morphological criteria to identify domesticated emmer wheat
at the aceramic Neolithic site of Chogha Golan (Iran)’. Journal of Archaeological Science 57, 109–118.
Weide, A., Riehl, S., Zeidi, M. and Conard, N. J. 2017. ‘Reconstructing subsistence practices: taphonomic constraints and the in-
terpretation of wild plant remains at aceramic Neolithic Chogha Golan, Iran’. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26/5, 487–504.
Weiss, H. and Young, T. C. 1975. ‘The merchants of Susa: Godin V and the plateau-lowland relations in the late fourth millennium
B.C.’. Iran 13, 1–17.
Weiss, H. 1977. ‘Periodization, population and early state formation in Khuzistan’, in L. D. Levine and T. C. Young (eds) Moun-
tains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu: Undena Publications,
347–369.
Weiss, H. 2000. ‘Beyond the Younger Dryas: collapse as adaptation to abrupt climate change in ancient west Asia and the eastern
Mediterranean’, in G. Bawden and R. M. Reycraft (eds) Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response. Maxwell
Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 7. Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 63–74.
Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E., Clare, L., Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, O., Kubatzki, C., Rollefson, G., Todorova, H. and
van Andel, T. 2006. ‘Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediter-
ranean’. Quaternary Research 66/3, 401–420.
Bibliography 607
Weninger, B., Clare, L., Rohling, E. J., Bar-Yosef, O., Böhner, U., Budja, M., Bundschuh, M., Feurdean, A., Gebel, H.-G., Jöris, O,
Lindstädter, J., Mayewski, P., Mühlenbruch, T., Reingruber, A., Rollefson, G., Schyle, D., Thissen, L., Todorova, H. and
Zielhofer, C. 2009. ‘The impact of rapid climate change on prehistoric societies during the Holocene in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean’. Documenta Praehistorica 36, 7–59.
Weninger, B. P. 2017. ‘Niche construction and theory of agricultural origins. Case studies in punctuated equilibrium’. Documenta
Wertime, T. A. 1968. ‘A metallurgical expedition through the Persian desert: a team brings traditional metallurgy to bear on
archeology’. Science 159/3818, 927–935.
Whalen, N. M., Davis, W. P. and Pease, D. W. 1989. ‘Early Pleistocene migrations into Saudi Arabia’. Atlal 12, 59–75.
Wheeler Pires-Ferreira, J. 1975. ‘Tepe Tula’i: faunal remains from an early campsite in Khuzistan, Iran’. Paléorient 3, 275–280.
Whitcomb, D. S. 1971. The Proto-Elamite Period at Tall-i Ghazir, Iran. MA thesis, University of Georgia.
Whitfield, S. 2005. ‘STEIN, (Marc) Aurel’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
stein-marc-aurel.
Whitlam, J., Ilkhani, H., Bogaard, A. and Charles, M. 2013. ‘The plant microfossil evidence from Sheikh-e Abad: first impressions’,
in R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds) The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani.
CZAP Reports 1. Oxford: Oxbow, 175–184.
Whitlam, J., Bogaard, A., Matthews, R., Matthews, W., Mohammadifar, Y., Ilkhani, H. and Charles, M. 2018. ‘Pre-agricultural
plant management in the uplands of the central Zagros: the archaeobotanical evidence from Sheikh-e Abad’. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany 27/6, 817–831.
Whitlam, J., Valipour, H. R. and Charles, M. 2020. ‘Cutting the mustard: new insights Into the plant economy of Late Neolithic
Tepe Khaleseh (Iran)’. Iran 58/2, 149–166.
Whitney, J. W. 2006. Geology, Water, and Wind in the Lower Helmand Basin, Southern Afghanistan. Reston, VA: US Geological
Survey.
Wicks, Y. 2015. Bronze ‘Bathtub’ Coffins in the Context of 8th-6th Century Babylonian, Assyrian and Elamite Funerary Practices. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Wicks, Y. 2018. ‘Vessels of note: the bronze “inkwells” of Luristan and Elam’. Iranica Antiqua 53, 125–153.
Wicks, Y., Álvarez-Mon, J., Bridey, F. and Cuny, J. 2018. ‘The mysterious second Achaemenid bronze coffin and the ivory comb
from Susa’. Iranica Antiqua 53, 155–178.
Wicks, Y. and Álvarez-Mon, J. 2019. ‘The portrait of a lady: revisiting Louis Vanden Berghe’s Tombe 1 at Karkhai’, Proceedings of
the International Conference on the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions. volume 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Cul-
tural Heritage and Tourism, 152–174.
Wiesehöfer, J. 1996. Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD. London: I. B. Tauris.
Wiesehöfer, J. 2009. ‘The Achaemenid empire’, in I. Mottis and W. Scheidel (eds) The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from
Assyria to Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 66–98.
Wilkinson, C. K. 1975. Ivories from Ziwiye: And Items of Ceramic and Gold. Monographien der Abegg-Stiftung. Bern: Abegg-Stiftung.
Wilkinson, R. G. and Pickett, K. 2009. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London: Bloomsbury.
Wilkinson, T. C. 2012. Tying the Threads of Eurasia: Trans-Regional Routes and Material Flows in Eastern Anatolia and Western Central
Asia, c. 3000–1500BC Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield.
Wilkinson, T. C. 2014. ‘The Early Transcaucasian phenomenon in structural-systemic perspective: cuisine, craft and economy’.
Wilkinson, T. J. 2012. ‘Introduction to geography, climate, topography, and hydrology’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 1–26.
Wilkinson, T. J., Boucharlat, R., Ertsen, M. W., Gillmore, G., Kennet, D., Magee, P., Rezakhani, K. and De Schacht, T. 2012.
‘From human niche construction to imperial power: long-term trends in ancient Iranian water systems’. Water History 4/2,
155–176.
Wilkinson, T. J., Rekavandi, H. O., Hopper, K., Priestman, S., Roustaei, K. and Galiatsatos, N. 2013. ‘The landscapes of the
Gorgan Wall’, in E. Sauer, H. O. Rekavandi, T. J. Wilkinson and J. Nokandeh (eds) Persia’s Imperial Power in Late Antiquity: The
Great Wall of Gorgan and the Frontier Landscapes of Sasanian Iran. Oxford: Oxbow, 24–132.
Willcox, G. 1990. ‘Charcoal remains from Tepe Abdul Hosein’, in J. Pullar (ed.) Tepe Abdul Hosein: A Neolithic site in Western Iran,
Excavations 1978. Oxford: B.A.R., 223–228.
Willcox, G. 2012. ‘The beginnings of cereal cultivation and domestication in southwest Asia’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to
the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Chichester: Blackwell, 163–180.
Willcox, G. 2013. ‘The roots of cultivation in southwestern Asia’. Science 341/6141, 39–40.
Willcox, G. 2016. ‘Les fruits au Proche-Orient avant la domestication des fruitiers’, in M.-P. Ruas (ed.) Des fruits d’ici et d’ailleurs.
Paris: Omniscience, 41–54.
Winkelmann, S. 1997. ‘Gedanken zur Herkunft und Verbreitung iranischer und mittelasiatischer ‘Gewichte’’. Mitteilungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 129, 188–222.
Winkelmann, S. 2000. ‘Intercultural relations between Iran, the Murghabo-Bactrian archaeological complex (BMAC), northwest
India and Falaika in the field of seals’. East and West 50, 43–95.
Winkelmann, S. 2005. ‘Deciphering the Intercultural Style?’, in H.-J. Weißhaar and U. Franke-Vogt (eds) South Asian Archaeology
2003. Aachen: Linden soft, 185–197.
608 Bibliography
Winter, I. J. 1977. ‘Perspective on the ‘local style’ of Hasanlu IVB: a study in receptivity’, in L. Levine and T. C. Young (eds)
Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Malibu: Undena Publications, 371–386.
Winter, I. J. 1989. ‘The “Hasanlu gold bowl”: thirty years later’. Expedition 31/2, 87.
Winter, I. J. 1999. ‘Tree(s) on the mountain: landscape and territory on the Victory Stele of Naram-Sîn of Agade’, in I. J. Winter
(ed.) On Art in the Ancient Near East Volume II. Leiden: Brill, 109–131.
Witkowski, A., Wasylik, K., Lange-Bertalot, H., Bak, M. and Derwich, K. 2008. ‘Diatom palaeolimnology of Lake Zeribar, Iran,
in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene’, in K. Wasylikowa and A. Witkowski (eds) The Palaeoecology of Lake Zeribar and Surrounding
Areas, Western Iran, During the Last 48,000 Years. Diatom Monographs 8. Ruggell: Gantner, 159–235.
Witzel, M. 2001. ‘Autochthonous Aryans? The evidence from old Indian and Iranian texts’. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7/3, 1–93.
Witzel, M. 2013. ‘Iranian migration’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
423–441.
Wong, E. H. Y. 2008. Ceramic Characterization and Inter-site Relationships in the Northwestern Central Plateau, Iran, in the Late Neolithic
to the Bronze Age. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.
Wong, E. H. Y., Petrie, C. A. and Fazeli Nashli, H. 2010. ‘Cheshmeh-Ali ware: a petrographic and geochemical study of transi-
tional Chalcolithic period ceramic industry on the north central plateau of Iran’. Iran 48, 1–13.
Wood, R. E., Arrizabalaga, A., Camps, M., Fallon, S., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M. J., Jones, R., Maroto, J., de la Rasilla, M., Santamaría, D.,
Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A. and Higham, T. F. G. 2014. ‘The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in northern Iberia:
new insights from L’Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Viña’. Journal of Human Evolution 69, 91–109.
Woodbridge, K. P., Parsons, D. R., Heyvaert, V. M., Walstra, J. and Frostick, L. E. 2016. ‘Characteristics of direct human impacts
on the rivers Karun and Dez in lowland south-west Iran and their interactions with earth surface movements’. Quaternary Inter-
national 392, 315–334.
Woosley, A. I. 1996. ‘Early agriculture at Chogha Mish’, in P. Delougaz, H. Kantor and A. Alizadeh (eds) Chogha Mish Volume I:
The First Five Seasons of Excavations, 1961–1971. Part 1: Text. Oriental Institute Publications. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the
Wrangham, R. W. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. London: Profile.
Wright, G. A. 1969. Obsidian Analyses and Prehistoric Near Eastern Trade: 7500 to 3500 B.C. Museum of Anthropology, University
of Michigan Anthropological Papers, 37. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Wright, H. E. 1980. ‘Climatic change and plant domestication in the Zagros Mountains’. Iran 18, 145–148.
Wright, H. E. and Howe, B. 1951. ‘Preliminary report on soundings at Barda Balka’. Sumer 7, 107–118.
Wright, H. T. and Johnson, G. A. 1975. ‘Population, exchange, and early state formation in southwestern Iran’. American Anthro-
pologist 77/2, 267–289.
Wright, H. T., Neely, J. A., Johnson, G. A. and J., S. 1975. ‘Early fourth millennium developments in southwestern Iran’. Iran 13,
129–147.
Wright, H. T. 1977. Toward an Explanation of the Origin of the State. Explanation of Prehistoric Change. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
Wright, H. T. 1978. ‘The comparative stratigraphy of fourth millennium Khuzistan’. Paléorient 4, 233–234.
Wright, H. T. (ed.) 1979. Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, The
University of Michigan.
Wright, H. T., Miller, N. and Redding, R. W. 1980. ‘Time and process in an Uruk rural center’, in M. T. Barrelet (ed.) L’Archéol-
ogie de l’Iraq du début de l’époque néolithique à 333 avant notre ère: perspectives et limites de l’interprétation anthropologique des documents.
Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. 580. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 265–284.
Wright, H. T. (ed.) 1981. An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthro-
pology, University of Michigan 13. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Wright, H. T. 1984. ‘Pre-state political formations’, in T. K. Earle (ed.) On the Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry
Hoijer, 1982. 6. Malibu: Undena Publications, 43–77.
Wright, H. T. 1985. ‘Excavations of IVth millennium levels on the northern acropolis of Suse, 1978’. National Geographic Research
Reports 21, 725–734.
Wright, H. T. and Johnson, G. A. 1985. ‘Regional perspectives on southwest Iranian state development’. Paléorient 11/2, 25–30.
Wright, H. T. 1987. ‘The Susiana hinterlands during the era of primary state formation’, in F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of Western
Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 141–155.
Wright, H. T., Redding, R. and Pollock, S. M. 1989. ‘Monitoring interannual variability: an example from the period of early
state development in southwestern Iran’, in P. Halstead and J. O’Shea (eds) Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and
Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 106–113.
Wright, H. T. 1998. ‘Uruk states in southwestern Iran’, in G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds) Archaic States. Santa Fe: School of
American Research Press, 173–198.
Wright, H. T., Miller, N., Neely, J. A. and Redding, R. W. 1999. ‘A Late Susiana society in southwestern Iran’, in A. Alizadeh,
Y. Majidzadeh and S. M. Shahmirzadi (eds) The Iranian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archaeology Presented to Ezat O. Negahban.
Tehran: Iran University Press, 64–79.
Wright, H. T. 2001. ‘Cultural action in the Uruk world’, in M. S. Rothman (ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross-cultural
Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press, 123–147.
Bibliography 609
Wright, H. T. and Rupley, E. 2001. ‘Calibrated radiocarbon age determination of Uruk related assemblages’, in M. S. Rothman
(ed.) Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross-cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Sante Fe: School of American Re-
search Press, 85–122.
Wright, H. T. and Carter, E. 2003. ‘Archaeological survey on the western Ram Hormuz plain’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds)
Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph
48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 61–82.
Wright, H. T. and Neely, J. A. (eds) 2010. Elamite and Achaemenid Settlement on the Deh Luran Plain. Towns and Villages of the Early
Empires in Southwestern Iran. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
Wright, H. T. 2013. ‘A bridge between worlds: south-western Iran during the fourth millennium BC’, in C. A. Petrie (ed.) Ancient
Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 51–73.
Wright, K. I. 2000. ‘The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
66, 89–121.
Wu, X. 2014. ‘‘O young man … make known of what kind you are’: warfare, history, and elite ideology of the Achaemenid Persian
empire’. Iranica Antiqua 49, 209–299.
Wulff, H. E. 1966. The Traditional Crafts of Persia. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wulsin, F. 1932. ‘Excavations at Tureng Tepe near Asterabad’. Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 2/1,
2–12.
Yanina, T. A. 2012. ‘Correlation of the Late Pleistocene paleogeographical events of the Caspian Sea and Russian Plain’. Quaternary
International 271, 120–129.
Yelon, A., Saucier, A., Larocque, J. P., Smith, P. E. L. and Vandiver, P. 1992. ‘Thermal analysis of Early Neolithic pottery From
Tepe Ganj Dareh, Iran’. MRS Proceedings 267, 591.
Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Young, R. and Fazeli, H. 2008. ‘Interpreting animal bones in Iran: considering new animal bone assemblages from three sites in
the Qazvin plain within a broader geographical and chronological perspective’. Paléorient 34/2, 153–172.
Young, R. and Fazeli, H. 2013. ‘Women and class in landlord villages of the Tehran plain, Iran’. Historical Archaeology 47/2, 77–99.
Young, R. and Fazeli, H. 2018. ‘Landlord villages of Iran as examples of political economy and materiality’. Post-Mediaeval Archae-
ology 52/1, 34–48.
Young, T. C. 1963. ‘Dalma painted ware’. Expedition 5/2, 38–39.
Young, T. C. 1965. ‘A comparative ceramic chronology for Western Iran, 1500–500 B.C’. Iran 3, 53–85.
Young, T. C. and Smith, P. E. 1966. ‘Research in the prehistory of Central Western Iran’. Science 153/3734, 386–391.
Young, T. C. 1967. ‘The Iranian migration into the Zagros’. Iran 5, 11–34.
Young, T. C. 1968. ‘Survey of excavations in Iran during 1966–67: Godin Tepe’. Iran 6, 160–161.
Young, T. C. 1969. Excavations at Godin Tepe: First First Progress Report. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Young, T. C. and Levine, L. D. 1974. Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report. Occasional paper/Royal Ontario Museum,
Division of Art and Archaeology 26. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Young, T. C. 1977. ‘Population dynamics and philosophical dichotomies’, in L. D. Levine and T. C. Young (eds) Mountains and
Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Malibu: Undena Pyblications, 387–398.
Young, T. C. 1986a. ‘Archaeology i. Pre-Median’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/archeology-i.
Young, T. C. 1986b. ‘Godin Tepe period VI/V and central western Iran at the end of the fourth millennium’, in U. Finkbeiner
and W. Röllig (eds) Ǧamdat Naṣr: Period or Regional style? Papers Given at a Symposium Held in Tübingen, November 1983. Beihefte
zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 62. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 212–228.
Young, T. C. 2002. ‘The Kangavar survey – the Iron Age’. Iranica Antiqua 37, 419–436.
Young, T. C. 2004. ‘The Kangavar survey—Periods VI to IV’, in A. G. Sagona (ed.) A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies
in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12. Herent: Peeters, 645–660.
Yousefi Zoshk, R. and Zeighami, M. 2013. ‘Northeast Iran in the Neolithic: the site of Pookerdvall’, in R. Matthews and H. Fazeli
Nashli (eds) The Neolithisation of Iran: The Formation of New Societies. Oxford: Oxbow, 256–271.
Yousefi Zoshk, R., Beik Mohammadi, K., Zeighami, M., Baghizadeh, S., Golcheh, M., Ahmadpour, H., Miri, J., Ghaderi
Nezhad, M., Nezari, N., Beik Mohammadi, N., Alimadadi, E., Sadeghi, M. and Hamivand, M. 2015. ‘Meymanat Abad Tepe:
an important site in late fourth millennium BC in Iranian central plateau’. Archaeology 4/1, 13–21.
Yousefi Zoshk, R., Sodaei, B., Ahmadpour, H., Zeighami, M., Baghizadeh, S. and Ahmadnejad, F. 2018. ‘Spatial analysis to dis-
tinguish occupation floors at Tepe Meymanatabad, Central Iranian Plateau’. Annals of Archaeology 1/2, 13–20.
Yoyotte, J. 2013. ‘The Egyptian statue of Darius’, in J. Perrot (ed.) The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achae-
menid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 240–279.
Yule, P. 1982. Tepe Hissar. Neolithische und kupferzeitliche Siedlung in Nordostiran. Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden
Archäologie Bd 14. München: C. H. Beck.
Zadok, R. 1976. ‘On the connections between Iran and Babylonia in the sixth century B.C’. Iran 14, 61–78.
Zadok, R. 1987. ‘Peoples from the Iranian plateau in Babylonia during the second millennium B.C.’. Iran 25, 1–26.
Zadok, R. 1991. ‘Elamite onomastics’. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente 8, 225–237.
Zadok, R. 1994. ‘Elamites and other peoples from Iran and the Persian Gulf region in early Mesopotamian sources’. Iran 32, 31–51.
Zadok, R. 2001. ‘On the location of Parsua’. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (NABU) 28, 30–33.
610 Bibliography
Zadok, R. 2002. ‘The ethno-linguistic character of northwestern Iran and Kurdistan in the Neo-Assyrian period’. Iran 40/1,
89–151.
Zadok, R. 2006. ‘MANNEA’. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. URL: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/mannea.
Zadok, R. 2013. ‘Linguistic groups in Iran’, in D. T. Potts (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 407–422.
Zadok, R. 2018a. ‘The peoples of Elam’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World. Abingdon: Rou-
tledge, 146–162.
Zadok, R. 2018b. ‘Elam and Babylonia c. 1400–1100 BC’, in J. Álvarez-Mon, G. P. Basello and Y. Wicks (eds) The Elamite World.
Zagarell, A. 1982. The Prehistory of the Northeast Baḫtiyārī Mountains, Iran: The Rise of a Highland Way of Life. Beihefte zum Tübinger
Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften No. 42. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Zalaghi, A. 2019. ‘An overview of the settlement patterns of Susa III period in the Upper Khuzestan. Archaeological survey in the
western bank of the Karkheh river’, in J.-W. Meyer, E. Vila, M. Mashkour, M. Casanova and R. Vallet (eds) The Iranian Plateau
Zamani Dadaneh, M., Ghasrian, S. M., Colantoni, C. and Skuldbøl, T. B. B. 2019a. ‘The Marivan Plain Archaeological Project:
western Iran and its neighbours in the Chalcolithic period’. Antiquity Project Gallery 93/372.
Zamani Dadaneh, M., Ghasrian, S. M. and Skuldbøl, T. B. B. 2019b. ‘Investigating Late Chalcolithic period settlement on the
Marivan Plain, western Iran. First insights from the Marivan Plain Survey project’. Ash-Sharq 3/1, 33–45.
Zanolli, C., Biglari, F., Mashkour, M., Abdi, K., Monchot, H., Debue, K., Mazurier, A., Bayle, P., Le Luyer, M., Rougier, H.,
Trinkaus, E. and Macchiarelli, R. 2019. ‘A Neanderthal from the Central Western Zagros, Iran. Structural reassessment of the
Wezmeh 1 maxillary premolar’. Journal of Human Evolution 135, 102643.
Zarins, J. 1978. ‘Typological studies in Saudi Arabian archaeology. Steatite vessels in the Riyadh Museum’. Atlal. The Journal of
Saudi Arabian Archaeology 2, 65–93.
Zeder, M. A. 1986. ‘The equid remains from Tal-e Malyan, southern Iran’, in R. H. Meadow and H. P. Uerpmann (eds) Equids in
the Ancient World. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 366–412.
Zeder, M. A. 1991. Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Zeder, M. A. 1999. ‘Animal domestication in the Zagros: a review of past and current research’. Paléorient 25/2, 11–25.
Zeder, M. A. and Hesse, B. 2000. ‘The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago’.
Science 287, 2254–2257.
Zeder, M. A. 2001. ‘A metrical analysis of a collection of modern goats (Capra hircus aegargus and C. h. hircus) from Iran and Iraq:
implications for the study of caprine domestication’. Journal of Archaeological Science 28/1, 61–79.
Zeder, M. A. and Blackman, M. J. 2003. ‘Economy and administration at Banesh Malyan: exploring the potential of faunal and
chemical data for understanding state process’, in N. F. Miller and K. Abdi (eds) Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud: Essays on the Archaeology
of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archae-
ology, University of California, Los Angeles, 121–139.
Zeder, M. A. 2005. ‘A view from the Zagros: new perspectives on livestock domestication in the Fertile Crescent’, in J.-D. Vigne,
J. Peters and D. Helmer (eds) First Steps of Animal Domestication: New zooarchaeological approaches. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of
the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxbow: Oxbow Books, 125–146.
Zeder, M. A. 2006a. ‘A critical examination of markers of initial domestication in goats (Capra hircus)’, in M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley,
E. Emshwiller and B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 181–206.
Zeder, M. A. 2006b. ‘Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals’. Evolutionary Anthropology 15/3, 105–117.
Zeder, M. A., Bradley, D., Emshwiller, E. and Smith, B. (eds) 2006. Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Par-
adigms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zeder, M. A. 2008. ‘Animal domestication in the Zagros: an update and directions for future research’, in E. Vila, L. Gourichon,
A. M. Choyke and H. Buitenhuis (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on the
Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 49. Lyon: Maison
de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
Zeder, M. A. 2011. ‘The origins of agriculture in the Near East’. Current Anthropology 52/S4, S221–235.
Zeder, M. A. 2012. ‘The Broad Spectrum Revolution at 40: resource diversity, intensification, and an alternative to optimal for-
aging explanations’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 241–264.
Zeder, M. A. 2016. ‘Domestication as a model for niche construction theory’. Evolutionary Ecology 30, 325–348.
Zehbari, Z., Mehr Afarin, R. and Musavi Haji, S. R. 2015. ‘Studies on the structural characteristics of Achaemenid pottery from
Dahan-e Gholaman’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 52, 217–259.
Zehbari, Z. 2020. ‘The Borazjan monuments: a synthesis of past and recent works’. ARTA 2020/002, 1–52.
Zeidi, M., McCall, B. and Khosrowzadeh, A. 2006. ‘Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do’, in D. T. Potts
and K. Roustaei (eds) The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the First Two Seasons of the ICAR – University of
Sydney Joint Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, 147–168.
Zeidi, M., McCall, B. and Khosrowzadeh, A. 2009. ‘Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do’, in D. T. Potts,
K. Roustaei, C. A. Petrie and L. Weeks (eds) The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the First Two Seasons of the
Bibliography 611
ICAR-University of Sydney Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran, 2044. Tehran: ICAR & University of Sydney,
147–168.
Zeidi, M., Riehl, S., Napierela, H. and Conard, N. J. 2012. ‘Chogha Golan: a PPN site in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains,
Ilam Province, Iran. Report on the first season of excavation in 2009’, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds) Proceedings of the 7th
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 12 April –16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 259–276.
Zeidi, M. and Conard, N. J. 2013. ‘Chipped stone artifacts from the Aceramic Neolithic site of Chogha Golan, Ilam Province,
Western Iran’, in F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez Estévez and M. Molist (eds) Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming
Societies in the Near East. Papers Presented to the 7th Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent.
Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions, 315–326.
Zeidi, M., Hamzavi, S. and Conard, N. J. 2016. ‘Tang-e Khiareh: a newly discovered Neolithic site in the Kur River basin of Fars
Province, Iran’, in K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour (eds) The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research. Studies in Early Near
Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18. Berlin: ex oriente, 217–226.
van Zeist, W. 1967. ‘Late quaternary vegetation history of western Iran’. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 2/1, 301–311.
van Zeist, W. and Bottema, S. 1977. ‘Palynological investigations in western Iran’. Palaeohistoria 19, 19–85.
van Zeist, W., Smith, P. E. L., Palfenier-Vegeter, R. M., Suwijn, M. and Casparie, W. A. 1984. ‘An archaeobotanical study of Ganj
Dareh’. Palaeohistoria 26, 201–224.
van Zeist, W. 2008a. ‘Late Pleistocene and Holocene vegetation at Zeribar’, in K. Wasylikowa and A. Witkowski (eds) The Pal-
aeoecology of Lake Zeribar and Surrounding Areas, Western Iran, During the Last 48,000 Years. Diatom Monographs 8. Ruggell:
Gantner, 53–104.
van Zeist, W. 2008b. ‘Outline of the vegetation of western Iran’, in K. Wasylikowa and A. Witkowski (eds) The Palaeoecology of
Lake Zeribar and Surrounding Areas, Western Iran, During the Last 48,000 Years. Diatom Monographs 8. Ruggell: Gantner, 23–30.
Zettler, R. L. 1979. ‘On the chronological range of Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid seals’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38,
257–270.
Zettler, R. L. and Horne, L. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Anthropology.
Zeynivand, M. 2017. ‘An Acheulean biface from the Deh Luran Plain, Iran’. Antiquity 91/357, e2.
Zeynivand, M., Bahramiyan, S. and Mazaheri, K. 2018. ‘The Palaeolithic of Seimarreh Valley in the Central Zagros, Iran’. An-
tiquity 92/362, e1.
Zeynivand, M. 2019. ‘A cylinder seal with an Amorite name from Tepe Musiyan, Deh Luran plain’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies
71, 77–83.
Zilhão, J. 2014. ‘The Neanderthals: evolution, palaeoecology, and extinction’, in V. Cummings, P. Jordan and M. Zvelebil (eds)
The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 191–213.
Zimansky, P. 1979. ‘Bones and bullae: an enigma from Bastam, Iran’. Archaeology 32/6, 53–55.
Zimansky, P. 1985. Ecology and Empire: The Structure of the Urartian State. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 41. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Zimansky, P. 1988. ‘MB2/OB5 excavations and the problem of Urartian bone rooms’, in W. Kleiss (ed.) Bastam II: Ausgrabungen in
den urartäischen Anlagen 1977–1978. Berlin: Mann, 107–124.
Zimansky, P. 1990. ‘Urartian geography and Sargon’s eighth campaign’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49/1, 1–21.
Zimansky, P. 1995. ‘Urartian material culture as state assemblage: an anomaly in the archaeology of empire’. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 299/1, 103–115.
Zohary, M. 1963. ‘On the geobotanical structure of Iran’. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel Supplement 11/D, 1–113.
Zohary, M. 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East 1. Geobotanica Selecta 3. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.
Index
Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables and italic page numbers refer to figures.
Abdi, K. 191–192, 232 Bakun period 173

Abdul Hosein 55, 60, 68, 70, 70, 71, 77, 78, 505 Bampur 308–309, 309
Abedi, A. 115 Bani Surmah 270–271, 270–272, 282, 352
Abu Fandowa 374 Baradostian phase 44
Achaemenid empire 468, 468–469, 470, 471, 471–474, Barda Balka 36
473–495, 476–480, 482–492, 494–497 Bard-e Karegar 387
Acropole I (Susa) 141, 150, 161, 162, 166, 189, 190, 193, 193, Bardia 49, 52
194, 195, 200, 202, 204, 210, 212–214, 221, 222, 229, 342 Bard-i Bal 437
Adams, R. McC. 29, 280 Bardsir 295
Agrab Tepe 410 Barlekin Tepe 429
Ahrendjan 99, 99 Barveh Tepe 247
Ain-e Rum 410 Bastam 410, 412, 412–414
Akkadian empire 352, 353–356, 354–356 Batiuk, S. 250, 255
Alborz mountains 6, 7, 16, 16–17, 41, 56, 106, 247, Bawa Yawan 40
326–327, 328, 419 Bayazid Abad 261, 262
Alden, J. 144, 191, 194–195, 197, 198, 204, 208, Bazgir 334
211, 221 Beale, T. W. 215
Algaze, G. 130, 142, 171, 227, 233 Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran (BAMI) 30
Aliabad culture 181 Benati, G. 158
Ali Kosh 55, 79–83, 81, 82, 89, 90 Bendebal 149
Ali Tappeh Cave 51, 52, 62 Biglari, F. 41
Alizadeh, A. 32, 143, 144, 146, 147, 157, 159, 172, Bisotun 250, 461, 469, 471, 478, 478, 479
175, 205, 207 Black, J. 508
Alou 130 Blackman, M. J. 211
Àlvarez-Mon, J. 151, 154, 372, 388 Bogucki, P. I. 126
Ameri, M. 323, 325, 506 Bolger, D. 110
Amiet, P. 171, 190–192, 235 Bølling-Allerød interstadial 45, 52, 57, 500
Anaqizli Tapeh 410 Borazjan 476, 477
Andjireh 267 Braidwood, R. 28–30, 55, 64, 116
Arastu Tepe 247–248 Broad Spectrum Revolution (BSR) 50, 52
Aratta 288 Bronze Age: eastern Iran in 337–339; Khorasan 329, 329;
Arisman 43, 49, 103, 132, 133, 133, 188, 189, 227, 228, 228, north-eastern Iran 326–327, 327, 328, 329, 332–334,
229, 230, 231, 233, 433 333–335, 336, 337, 337; Semnan, Mazandaran and western
Arjan 30, 448, 450–452 Khorasan 329, 330, 331–332
Arsanjan region 40, 51, 62, 85, 94 Bronze Age of Fars 282, 282; cultural geography 282–283,
Artaxerxes I 485, 488 283; interpreting settlement and society 284–285; Kaftari
Aruz, J. 295 settlement 283–284; Late Banesh settlement 283; Qaleh
Asiab 29, 31, 55, 63–67, 67, 71, 76, 79 and Middle Elamite settlement 284
Astarabad treasure 327, 328, 334 Bronze Age of south-eastern Iran 289, 289–290, 290; Dasht-e
Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak 446 Lut 304–307, 305–308; end of the Bronze Age 325–326,
Awan 344, 345–351, 346, 348, 352 326; Halil Rud and Kerman region 291–303, 291–304;
Azarnoush, M. 32 Rud-e Bampur complex and the Jazmurian basin
308–309, 309–311; Shahr-i Sokhta 312, 313–314,
Baba Jan 137, 266, 274, 278, 279, 395, 417, 437, 438, 439, 314–316, 315–325, 318, 320–323, 325
439, 457, 464, 465, 497 Brown, S. C. 467
Baba Jilan 437, 438, 439 Butterlin, P. 171
Babylonia 443
Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) 288, Carlson, E. 384
304, 332–337, 333–335, 337, 363, 395, 396 Carter, S. M. 215
Badler,V. 142 Casanova, M. 286
Bagherzadeh, F. 29, 30 Caspian Mesolithic 52
Baker, H. 496 Caspian region 28, 41, 497
614 Index
Caspian Sea 16–17, 45 Dava Göz 114, 117
central plateau of Iran 42–43, 263–264, Deh Dumen 266, 272, 273, 274, 352
263–264 Deh-e Now 378
cereals 9, 64, 74, 75, 78, 82, 83, 87, 91, 96, 104, 108, 119, 127, Deh Kheir 106, 107, 109
221, 255, 329, 330, 423 Deh Luran plain 20, 29, 36, 55, 79, 80, 83, 91, 93, 136, 139,
Çevik, Ö. 230 145, 147, 149, 154, 157, 172, 230, 264, 266, 268, 271, 342,
Chaff-faced Ware 116, 117, 127 356, 378
Chagha Sefid 55, 81, 83, 90 Deh Pāyeen 274
Chahar Boneh 104, 118, 119 Desset, F. 193, 196
Chahar Roustaei 173 Dinkha II 405
Chah-e Jam lithics 42 Dittmann, R. 192, 193, 204
Chalcolithic 111, 134–135, 500; communities of 111–112, DNA 39, 44, 76, 77, 79, 80, 102, 256, 285, 395, 505
112, 113; Early 135, 135–136, 136; Late 137, 139–141, domestication 68, 73, 75–81, 111–112
139–143, 143; Middle 136–137, 138 Drennan, R. D. 126
Chalcolithic of north-central Iran 127; ceramics 127–133, Dum Gar-e Parchineh 137, 138, 154, 157
128–133; settlement patterns and food procurement 127; Dyson, R. H. 122, 142, 193, 224
societal complexity 134
Chalcolithic of north-western Iran 115–117, 116, 117 Early Bronze Age II–III 270–272, 270–277, 274–277
Chamahzi Mumah 440 Early Bronze Age IV 277–279, 277–279
Chaverdi, A. 173 Early Bronze Age of Iran 188–189, 189, 202, 204, 208, 215,
Chegerdak 309, 311 216, 221, 227, 230, 236, 242, 243, 246, 250, 253, 256, 263,
Cheshmeh Ali 104, 107, 111, 118, 120, 122, 267–274, 277–282, 285, 290, 291, 298, 301, 302, 304, 306,
124–127, 125, 129 309, 312, 329, 330, 338, 500–502, 506
Chigha Sabz 137, 278 Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) 192, 236–238, 237, 285,
Chogha Ahowan 146, 352 501–502, 509; ceramics 255–257; chronology of 238, 239;
Chogha Bonut 29, 32, 55, 60, 79, 80, 82, 83, 90 expansion 257–259, 258; history of 238; North-western
Chogha Do Sar 150 Iran 239–247, 239–246; Qazvin plain, Gilan and western
Chogha Gavaneh 142, 368, 369 Mazandaran 247–248; settlements 250–252, 251; society
Chogha Golan 71–73, 72, 73, 78, 79 and economy 252–255, 254, 255; Zagros region 248,
Chogha Maran 136, 276, 276 248–250, 249
Chogha Mish 29, 90–91, 92, 111, 136, 145–150, 146–148, East Chia Sabz 55, 60, 63, 71, 71,
157, 159–161, 163, 164, 165, 167–169, 168–171, 172, 184, 72, 72, 78
193, 217, 366, 366 eastern highlands 17–18, 18, 43
Chogha Zanbil 378–380, 379–386, 380, 382, 384–386 Ebrahimabad 104, 118, 119
Cifarelli, M. 395 Elam 340–341, 443; Akkadian empire 352, 353–356,
climate 60, 80, 111, 285, 394, 397, 501, 502; change 396–398, 354–356; and Awan 344, 345–351, 346, 348, 352; Grand
397, 398; 8.2ka BP event 60, 61, 92; and environment 20, Viziers of 365–366, 366–371, 368, 372; Khuzestan amd
44, 45, 50, 52, 258, 338, 396, 495, 497, 499; Rapid Climate 341, 341–342, 342; Middle Elamite I archaeology and Haft
Change (RCC) events 500; and society 497–498 Tepe 373–377, 373–378; Middle Elamite II archaeology
climatic optimum 21, 111, 258, 259, 396, 500, 502 and Chogha Zanbil 378–380, 379–386, 382, 384–386;
Coningham, R. 33 Middle Elamite III archaeology 386–388, 387–391; Puzur-
Connor, S. 258 Inshushinak 356–360, 357–361; Southwest Asia 388–392;
Cooper, L. 249, 250, 256 Susa IIIB-C, Susa IV and Susa V 342, 343, 344; Ur III
Crumley, C. L. 126 empire 361–365, 362–365
Cyrus 30, 454, 468, 469, 473, 476, 478, 488; Cyrus Englund, R. K. 196, 198, 218, 219, 220, 231
Cylinder 469, 471 Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic transition 61–63, 62
Eshkaft-e Gavi Cave 48
Dabbagh, M. 506 Eshkaft-e Ghad-e Barm-e Shur 51
Daems, A. 4, 505, 506 Eskandari, N. 338
Dahan-e Gholaman 495 Estark-Joshaqan 263, 430, 432
Dahl, J. 5, 166, 192, 200, 204, 231, 233 ETC see Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC)
Dalma Tappeh 114, 115, 136
Dalma Ware 114, 115, 136 Fabian, L. 2
Damerow, P. 196, 198, 219, 220 Farmeshgan 489
Dandamayev, M. A. 472 Fars 92–97, 92–96; Early Chalcolithic of 173–177, 174–176;
Danti, M. D. 117, 239, 259–261, 395, 396, 403 Late Chalcolithic of 177, 177–178, 178
Darabi, H. 55 Farshad, A. 4
Darband Cave 36, 38 Farukhabad 154, 162, 378
Darius I 472, 474, 478–479, 482–483, 489, 490–492; statue of Fazeli Nashli, H. 33
491 Fertile Crescent 16, 45, 52, 54, 58, 60, 73, 77–80,
Darius II 469, 489 151, 287, 505
Darius III 469, 489, 508 Field, H. 51
Dar Khazineh 157 Fisher, W. B. 3
Darre-ye Bolaghi 175 Flannery, K.V. 147, 149, 160
Dar Tanha 271, 273
Darvazeh Tepe 282 Ganj Dareh 55, 63, 67–71, 68, 69, 76–78, 89, 90, 505
Dasht-e Lut 19, 289, 289, 290, 304–307, 305–308 Ganj Nameh 479, 479
Index 615
Ganj Par 36 human-environment interactions 1, 4, 20, 21, 57–58, 60–61,
Gar Arjeneh 48 499–504
Garm Roud 2 49 Hunter’s Cave 40
Gav Koshi 87, 88, 97 Hyrcanian forest 17, 398
Geoy Tepe 28, 115, 117, 238, 243, 247, 251, 256, 259, 404
Ghabrestan 127, 128, 128, 129, 129, 133, 134, 137, 184 Ilam 437
Ghaf Khaneh 122 imperialism 398–399
Ghal-e Ben 330, 331 Intercultural Style (série ancienne) 288, 291, 299
Ghalekuti 423 International Congress of Young Archaeologists 34
Ghamari 139 Iran Bastan Museum 25, 26, 29–30, 34, 34
Ghar-e Boof Cave 40, 48, 49 Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR) 29, 30,
Ghar-i Kamarband (Belt Cave) 51 32, 33, 112
Ghar-i Khar Cave 40, 47, 50 Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation (ICHO) 30, 32
Ghenil 68 Iranian Revolution 30, 32
Ghirshman, R. 27, 28, 102, 118, 125, 190, 364, 384, 386, 396; Iron Age 393, 394, 502; Achaemenid empire 468, 468–469,
Iran from the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest 3 470, 471, 471–474, 473–495, 476–480, 482–492, 494–497;
Gijlar Tepe 247 climate and society 497–498; climate change 396–398,
Gilviran 274 397, 398; imperial behaviour 398–399; Iron Age I 399,
Glatz, C. 399 400–403, 401, 403; Iron Age II 403–405, 405–410,
Godard, A. 25 409–410; Iron Age III 410, 411–418, 412, 414, 417–419;
Godin II 111, 130, 134, 136, 137, 139, 139–141, 142, 152, Late Bronze Age and 420; Luristan in 434–442, 435, 436,
172, 184, 193, 196, 227, 234, 238, 240, 247, 248, 248, 249, 437–442; media and 454–457, 455–467, 459–461,
249, 250, 251, 254, 256, 258, 259, 267, 267, 269, 271, 274, 463–467; migrations 393–396; Neo-Elamite kingdom
275, 276, 277, 278, 283, 342, 352, 395, 417, 460, 460, 464, 442–444, 443–452, 446, 448, 449, 451–453; Northern and
465, 467, 467, 495, 497, 498 Central and North-Eastern 419, 420, 421–426, 421–433,
Godin III 274–277, 275–277 428–434; South-eastern Iran 453–454, 454
Godin VI:1 139–143, 166, 227, 233, 258; Oval Enclosure 140, Ishbi-Erra, King 363, 364
140–143, 233, 248
Godin VII 137 Jafar Abad 403, 403
Goff, C. 137, 143, 266, 280, 439, 464 Jaffarabad 145, 149, 149, 150
Gohar Tappe 330, 331, 337, 424, 427 Jalaliyeh 423
Great Khorasan Road 19, 85, 109, 130, 222, 234, 286, 362, Jamshid Abad 424
368, 455, 456, 459, 461, 478 Jani 65
gunagi 360, 361 Jayran Tepe 425, 426, 428, 497
Gunespan 464, 464 Jazmurian basin 308–309, 309–311, 495
Jemdet Nasr 167, 168, 190–194, 196, 198, 202, 203, 217, 230,
Haerinck, E. 32, 271, 282 231, 233
Haftavan Tepe 238, 247, 250, 254, 256, 260, 405, 410 Jiroft 291, 296, 304
Haft Tepe 368, 373–377, 373–378 Jowi 149
Haji Bahrami Cave 51, 62 Jubaji 448, 449, 452
Hajjiabad-Varamin 183, 291, 294, 295 J Ware 135
Hajji Firuz Tepe 99, 100, 100, 101, 102
Hakalan 137, 154, 157 Kabnak 375–376, 376
Halil Rud 291–303, 291–304 Kaboli, M. -A. 30, 123, 304
Harris, D. 109 Kafarved-Varzaneh 263, 263, 264
Hasan Ali and Painted Orange Wares 247 Kaftari phase 365
Hasanlu 247, 261, 261, 400, 401, 401, 405–409, 410, 411; Kaftari settlement 283–284
warrior burials 405 Kahrizak 429
Hasanlu IVb 404–405 Kalāntar 448, 448
Hasanlu IVc 401 Kaldar Cave 40, 45, 47
Hazar Merd Cave 39, 39 Kaleh Kub 131
Helix salomonica 50, 78, 90 Kal Kharabe 410
Helmand civilisation 312, 313–325, 314–316, 318, Kalleh Nisar 268, 277
320–323, 325 Kall Karim 137
Helmand river 18, 290, 290, 453 Kalmakarra 441
Helwing, B. 134, 281 Kaluraz 421–422
Henrickson, E. F. 136 Kamtarlan 137, 271, 280
Herodotus 348, 455 Kani Koter 417, 418
Herzfeld, E. 26–28, 30, 266, 473, 480, 485, 487 Kani-zirin 415
Hesse, B. 67–69 Kara Tepe 120
Heydarabad-e Mishkas 441, 459 Karim Shahir 61
Hole, F. 91, 95, 145, 148–150, 154, 157, 160, 266, 279, 280 Karkhai 440
Homo erectus 36, 37, 499 Kashafrud sites 36
Hormangan 61, 95, 95 Kazemabad landlord village 33
horse management 281, 285, 336, 372, 395, 453, 455, 457 Ke Aram Cave 41
Hotu Cave 51, 51, 62 Kelardasht 422, 426
Houmian 40 Kelek Asad Morad 72
616 Index
Kennett, D. J. 145 Marchesi, G. 164
Kennett, J. P. 145 Marchetti, N. 164
Kerman Museum 291 Mar Gurgalan Sarab 50
Kerman region 291, 291–304, 293, 295–304 Marhashi 288
Keshik 311 Marlik 419, 421, 422, 422–425, 424
Keshit 306 Marro, C. 259
Khaje Askar 180 Mar Tarik Cave 41, 41, 42
Khalateh Khan 106, 107, 109 Masjed-e Kabud 405
Khaleseh site 36 Mason, R. B. 249, 250, 256
Khanghah Gilavan 261, 262 Mazandaran 247, 329–330, 330–332
Khinaman 306 Meadows, A. R. 497
Khodafarin 403 Mecquenem, R. de 24, 27, 151, 346, 382
Khorasan 329, 329 Media 454–457, 455–467, 459–461, 463–467
Khorramabad 458 Mehrjoo, Z. 4
Khorvin 429 Meshgin Shahr 457, 458
Khuzestan 144–145, 171–172, 341, 341–342, 342, 489; Mesopotamia, Lower 12, 13, 19, 29, 129, 130, 132–134, 139,
lowlands 12–14, 13 141, 145, 147, 150, 157, 158, 159–164, 166, 168, 171, 172,
KMC Cave 51, 53 184, 190–198, 202, 204, 217, 220, 224, 230–235, 258, 267,
Kobeh Cave 41 267, 270, 275, 280, 281, 286, 288, 289, 291, 298, 299, 302,
Kohl, P. 287 312, 316, 337–339, 341, 342, 348, 352, 362, 363–364, 365,
Kohneh Pasgah 243, 255 478, 508, 509
Kohneh Tepesi 243, 244 Meymanatabad 222
Köhne Shahar 240, 240–241, 252 Meymanatabad Tepe 130, 131, 132
Komishan Cave 52, 62 Michalowski, P. 352, 363
Komishani Tepe 86, 87 Middle Bronze Age (MBA) 259–261
Konar Sandal North 300, 301, 454 Middle Elamite I archaeology 373–377, 373–378
Konar Sandal South 296, 297, 298, 299, 299, 300 Middle Elamite II archaeology 378–380, 379–386, 382,
Kordlar 261, 401 384–386
Kul-e Farah 446, 448 Middle Elamite III archaeology 386–388, 387–391
Kul Tepe 114, 114, 115, 116, 116, 117, 117, 238, 242, 242, Middle Elamite settlement 284
243, 251, 257 Middle-Late Bronze Age 259–261, 260, 261, 262, 263, 280, 502
Kunji Cave 40, 139, 268, 269 Middle Palaeolithic 499–500
Kurangun 371, 372, 372, 446 Milājerd 1–5 433
kurgan 458 Miller, N. F. 10, 109, 213
Kutal-i Gulgul 437 Minc, L. 191
Mirak 42
Laforak/Savadkuh 457 Mir Khair 267, 268, 270
Lamā 274 Miroschedji, P. de 234
Lamberg-Karlovsky, K. 191, 221, 235, 288, 339, 508, 509 M’lefaatian tradition 68
Lapui 177, 181 Mokhtarabad 306
Lasulkan 423 Molleson, T. 110
Late Banesh settlement 283 Morgan, J. de 24, 151, 189, 266
Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) 45 Mortensen, P. 74
Lavin Tepe 114 Motarjem, A. 137
Le Breton, L. 27, 28, 145, 161 Moush Tepe 464
Levallois technique 39, 40–43 Muscarella, O. W. 435
Levine, L. D. 275 Mutin, B. 167, 216
Lincoln, B. 485
Linear Elamite script 306, 356, 357, 359, 360 Nadir Tepe 243, 251
Liverani, M. 399, 490 Najafabad 456
longue durée approach 2, 4, 285, 388 Naqsh-i Rustam 372, 488, 489
Luristan 260, 434–442, 435, 436, 437–442; archaeological Naram-Sin 24, 352, 353, 354, 356, 361, 387
research 266–267; defined 264–266, 265–266; Early Negahban, E. 29, 373
Bronze Age I 267–269, 267–270; Early Bronze Age II–III Neo-Elamite I ceramics and vitreous wares 444
270–272, 270–277, 274–277; Early Bronze Age IV Neo-Elamite II 444
277–279, 277–279; and Lower Mesopotamian Neo-Elamite kingdom 442–444, 443–452, 446, 448, 449,
chronologies 267; problem of 279–282, 281 451–453
Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition 114, 114–115, 115
McBurney, C. B. M. 51 Neolithic of Iran 109–110, 500; central and northern
McCown, D. 190 plateaux 102–105, 103–105; ceramics 89–90;
McMahon, A. 354 Epipalaeolithic to 61–63, 62; human–environment
Madjidzadeh,Y. 295 interactions 57–58, 60, 60–61; north-eastern Iran and
Mahtoutabad 182, 182–183, 183, 214, 291, 292, 293 Turkmenistan 105–109, 106–108; north-western Iran and
Malayerd Cave 40 the Caucasus 99–100, 99–101, 102; research 55–57, 56;
Malbran-Labat, F. 389 sites and research projects 31; south-eastern Iran 97, 97–99,
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. 122, 123 98; terminology and chronology 57, 58, 59; Zagros 63–75,
Malyan 284 63–79, 78; see also Zagros
Mamasani region 55, 96, 173, 230, 282–283, 388, 451, 494 Neolithic Transition 9, 33, 54–57, 89, 158
Index 617
Neumann, J. 397 Proto-Elamite tablets 130, 190–192, 195, 196, 196, 198, 200,
New Archaeology 29 202, 203, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 219, 222, 222, 223, 228,
Nicholas, I. M. 213 231, 235
Ninevite 5 192, 200, 231, 241, 253, 254, 257, 509 Protoliterate 150, 159
nomadism 143–144, 175, 177, 235, 249, 280, 281, Puzur-Inshushinak 356, 357, 357–361, 360
434, 442, 507
north-central Iran 184 Qalaichi 415
north-eastern Iran 184, 326–327, 327, 328, 329, 332–334, Qalatgah 410
333–335, 336–337, 337, 428 Qaleh Asgar 85, 104
Northern and Central and North-Eastern 419, 420, 421–426, Qaleh Bozi 42
421–433, 428–434 Qaleh Kali 494
northern highlands 16, 16–17; and Caspian region 41 Qaleh Khan 109
north-western Iran 184; developed Chalcolithic of 115–117, Qaleh Kurd 42
116, 117; ETC 239–247, 239–246; Middle-Late Bronze Qaleh Kutchek 495
Age 259–261, 260, 261, 262; Neolithic-Chalcolithic Qaleh Mortezagird 429
transition 114, 114–115, 115 Qaleh Rostam 85, 92, 92–93
Nush-i Jan 417, 460, 461, 464, 461–464 Qara Tappeh 426, 429
Qara Tepe 99, 99, 120, 122–123, 127, 429
Orange Ware tradition 424 Qashqa’i 176
Oxus Treasure 495, 495 Qasr-e Ahmad 93
Qazvin plain 247–248
Pahlavan 108–109 Qeytariyeh 429, 430
palaeo-environmental change 21, 43, 258, 258, 284, 329, Qoli Darvish 191, 224, 225–227, 230–233, 248, 263, 430,
336–338, 363, 497, 499–500, 502–504 431, 432–434
Palaeolithic period 35–36, 52–53, 499; and Epipalaeolithic 44,
45, 48, 50, 50–52, 51; Lower 36–38, 37, 38; Middle 39–43, Rabat Tepe 415, 416
41, 42, 44; Upper 43–49, 47–49, 53 radiocarbon dating 29, 33, 40, 46–48, 50, 51, 55–57, 62, 63,
Pal Barik 36 65, 66, 70, 72, 74, 80, 84–87, 86, 90, 93–95, 99, 103, 104,
Palegawra Cave 50 105, 107, 109, 112, 114, 115, 141, 142, 192, 193, 208, 214,
Palumbi, G. 254 227, 229, 238, 243, 259, 301, 312, 337, 396, 433, 454, 500,
Parpola, S. 397 504, 504
Pa Sangar 50 Rahmatabad 74, 74–75, 85, 89, 93, 93, 94, 173, 174, 176
Pasargadae 26, 28, 30, 34, 469, 473, 474, 475, Ram Hormuz plain 205, 207, 205–207
476, 476 Rashidian, E. 391
Perkins, A. L. 28 Rawlinson, H. 266
Perrot, J. 30, 151, 161, 293 Rayy 429
Persepolis 26–28, 469, 476, 479–488, 480, 481 Renette, S. 232, 275
Persepolis Fortification Archive 27, 487, 488 Reza Shah 25, 26, 30, 280, 281
Persepolis Terrace 483, 484, 485, 486 Riemchen brick 193
Persepolis West 480, 483 Root, M. C. 202
Peterson, C. E. 126 Rosenberg, M. 53
Peterson, J. 110 Rosenzweig, M. 399
Petrie, C. A. 120, 173, 188 Rothman, M. S. 142, 249, 257
Pigott,V. C. 224 Rud-e Bampur complex 308–309, 309–311
Pileh Qal’eh 421 Ruwar 417, 417
Piperno, M. 51, 221
Pisdeli Tepe 115 Sabz phase 145
Pish-e Kuh 264 Sagona, A. 258
Pishva 430 Sagzabad 426, 428
Pittman, H. 130, 140, 142, 162, 163, 171, 172, 193, 200–204, Saimarreh river 136, 266, 266, 267, 271
222, 287, 298, 299, 339, 499 Sajjadi, S. M. S. 322
Pollock, S. 160 Saki Abad 175
Pookerdvall 108, 327 Sang-e Chakhmaq West and East 55, 85, 85–86, 86, 89,
Pope, A. U. 26 105–109, 107, 108, 112, 114, 118, 122, 125, 327
Possehl, G. L. 286, 287 Sangtarashan 439, 440, 440, 441
Potts, D. 144, 172, 192, 198, 204, 208, 258, 276, 279, 340, 352, Sar-e Pol-e Zohab 362
360, 363, 365, 391, 395 Sargon II 418, 456
Prickett, M. 179, 214 Sarm 430
priest-king 163–165, 165, 168, 321 Sar Qala 139
Proto-Elamite glyptic 193, 200–202, 220, 221 Sarrez 415, 416
Proto-Elamite horizon 24, 130, 189, 195; characteristics Saruq al-Hadid 438
230–233; chronology 192; cultural phenomenon 189–192, Schacht, R. M. 192
190; end of 233–235, 234; north-central, north-east and Scheil, J. -V. 24, 171, 190, 195
central Iran 222–230, 223–229; Shahr-i Sokhta 221, 222; Schmandt-Besserat, D. 83
Susa IIIA period 192–205, 193, 194, 196–201, 203; Tal-i Schmidt, E. 26, 27, 238
Malyan/Anshan and the Fars region 205–207, 207, 208, Scott, J. 508
210–212, 210–214; Tall-e Geser 205, 205, 206, 207; Tepe sealing 102, 130, 132, 141, 153, 160, 164, 165, 167, 202, 210,
Yahya 214–221, 215, 217–220 211, 213
618 Index
sedentarisation 2, 54, 62, 78, 280, 281 Susa IV 342, 343, 344, 345–348
Sefid-Ab 49 Susa IVA 342, 344, 345–349, 351
Sé Girdan 247 Susa IVB 342, 352, 355, 356
Seh Gabi 136, 137, 139 Susa V 342, 343, 344
Semnan 329–330, 330–332 Susa VA 342, 356, 358, 359
Senjar 191 Susa/Shushan 23, 150, 150, 151, 161, 189, 344, 354, 354,
Shahdad 304–307, 305–308 355, 357, 360, 364, 366, 368, 372, 378, 387, 488
Shahne Poshte 424, 427 Susiana period: Early 145–146, 146; Middle 147–149,
Shahrak Firoze 334, 334 147–149; Late 149–154, 150–153, 155–156, 157
Shahr-i Sokhta 221, 222, 290, 312, 314–316, 318, 320–323,
325, 313–325 Takhcharabad 495
Shahr Yeri stelae 410 Tala’i, H. 99, 123, 124
Shah Savar 372 Tal-e Gap 173
Shamshirgah 430, 431, 432 Tal-e Iblis 98, 111, 178, 180, 180, 181–182, 188, 290, 453
Shanidar Cave 39, 46, 50, 61 Tal-e Jari A and B 96, 173
Sharafabad 378 Tal-e Mash Karim 174
Sharifi, A. 4, 21, 137 Tal-e Mushki 61, 93–95
Sheikh-e Abad 56, 60, 63, 63–65, 65–70, 66, 72, 76–79, 81, Tal-e Nokhodi 282
152, 153 Tal-e Qarib 208
Shekaft-e Salman 387, 390 Tal-e Vakilabad 283
Sherratt, A. 257 Tal-e Zohak 283
Shikaft-e Gulgul 441 Tal-i Iblis 214, 221, 325
Shimashki 288, 363 Tal-i Malyan 177, 191, 205–207, 207–208, 209–212,
Shir-i Shian 122, 125, 326 210–214, 282, 284, 285, 361, 364, 387, 391, 451–452, 507
Shiwatoo 36 Tal-i Malyan area TUV 208–213, 211, 212
Shoghali 127, 128, 191, 222, 223 Tall-e Abu Chizan 149
Shu-ilishu of Isin 364 Tall-e Atashi 87, 89, 98, 98, 99
Sialk, Tepe 27, 27, 98, 102, 103, 111, 118, 120, 122, 125, 126, Tall-e Bakun A 173, 174, 175, 175
127, 129, 129, 130, 142, 154, 188, 190, 191, 227, 228, 314, Tall-e Geser 130, 149, 160, 161, 190, 198, 205, 205, 207, 205,
396, 430, 432, 433, 465, 466 206, 231, 448
Sialk III6–7 style 127, 129 Tall-i Takht 473–474
Sialk IV 190 Tang-e Bolaghi region 51, 62, 74, 75, 85, 94, 473
Sialk VI 430 Tapeh Baluch 109
Sialk South Mound 103, 118, 129, 185, 186, 227 Tapeh Kheibar 457
sit-shamshi (sunrise) 387 Tapeh Pa Qaleh Dehlur 461
Smith, A. T. 252, 257, 399 Tappeh Abu Fanduweh 159, 160
Smith, P. E. L. 35 Tappeh Gheshlagh 464
Sofalin 130, 191, 198, 222 Tappeh Mahtaj 83, 83–84
soft-ware horizon 89 Tappeh Mehr Ali 177, 178
Sonqor-Koliyaie plain 460 Tappeh Ozbaki 118
south-eastern Iran 184, 453–454, 454; Early Chalcolithic Tappeh Qasrdasht 465
of 178–180, 179, 180; Late Chalcolithic of 180–183, Tappeh Senjar 205, 364, 365
181–183 Tappe Rivi 494–495, 494
south-western Iran 144–145, 184; Early Susiana period Tash Tepe 410
145–146, 146; Middle Susiana period 147–149, 147–149; TB130 62
Late Susiana period 149–154, 149–153, 155–157, 157; Tell Abu Sheeja 356
Late Chalcolithic period 157–169, 159–166, 168–171, Tepe Baruj 243
171–172; Khuzestan 171–172 Tepe Chalow 131–132, 335, 336
Spidej 309, 310, 311 Tepe Damghani 127, 329, 329
state formation 144–145, 157–172, 235, 467 Tepe Dasht 318, 320, 321
Stein, A. 291, 312 Tepe Dehno 178, 181
Stein, G. 154 Tepe Dehno East 178
Steinkeller, P. 336 Tepe Ebrahimabad 104
Stronach, D. 473 Tepe Eshgh 334
sukkalmah 365, 366, 368 Tepe Gaz Tavileh 97
Summers, G. D. 250, 252–253 Tepe Ghabristan 428
Sumner, W. 175, 191, 208, 214, 284, 480 Tepe Gheshlagh 136, 136, 137
Surkh Dum-e Laki 441 Tepe Giyan 27, 134, 137, 152, 250, 266, 267, 267, 274, 278,
Surkh Dum-e Luri 271, 278, 278, 279, 279, 439, 440, 440 279, 456
Susa Acropole I levels 14A-B 214 Tepe Golestan 433
Susa I Building 154 Tepe Graziani 318, 320
Susa I cemetery 152, 152 Tepe Guran 74, 77, 89, 90, 90, 91, 266, 278, 437
Susa I sealings 153, 153 Tepeh Ferizi 334
Susa II, Late 159, 161, 162–166, 163, 166–169, 168–171, Tepe Hissar 23, 27, 127, 132, 133, 193, 196, 223, 230, 232,
171, 172, 184, 189, 202, 205, 207, 213, 216, 217, 220, 222 234, 305, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332, 332, 334, 337, 339, 424,
Susa IIIA period 192–205, 193, 194, 196–201, 203 426, 507
Susa IIIB-C 342, 343, 344 Tepe Jalyan 283
Index 619
Tepe Karvansara 137 Ur III empire 205, 342, 361–365, 362–365
Tepe Khaleseh 104, 104, 105, 108 Uruk 139, 158, 161; expansion 139, 143, 158, 186, 187, 257;
Tepe Kopandeh 263 phenomenon 134, 159
Tepe Ma’murin 430 Uruk Pit 160
Tepe Mohammadabad 429
Tepe Mushalan 429 Van De Mieroop, M. 389
Tepe Musiyan 356 Vasun-e Kahak 465
Tepe Ozbaki 222, 429, 464, 465, 465 Vidale, M. 232, 295, 316
Tepe Pahlavan 122 Ville Royale (Susa) 28, 195, 342, 344, 346, 354, 361, 364, 366,
Tepe Pardis 104, 119–121, 121, 125, 137, 429 377, 444, 492
Tepe Sabz 148, 149 Vitali,V. 136
Tepe Sagzabad 129, 395 Voigt, M. 102, 117, 145, 401
Tepe Sarab 84, 84
Tepe Sharafabad 160, 160, 161 War Kabud 440, 442
Tepe Shizar 247 Warwasi Cave 40, 46, 46–47, 50
Tepe Shurabeh 102 Weeks, L. 134, 185–187
Tepe Siahbid 136 Weiss, H. 142
Tepe Sofalin 130, 222 Wezmeh Cave 40
Tepe Taleb Khan 321 Wilkinson, T. 252, 255
Tepe Tula’i 84 Wright, H. 154, 158, 160
Tepe Yahya 29, 97, 97–98, 98, 111, 167, 178–182, writing 2, 5, 22, 159, 166–168, 190, 192, 195–204, 221,
179, 182, 184, 188, 191, 194, 202, 214–221, 215, 222, 227, 231–234, 339, 374, 470, 507–509; numerical
217–220, 232–234, 287, 288, 290, 291, 298, 299, tablets 166
301, 303, 303, 304, 304, 309, 312, 325, 336, 339, 352, 430, Wu, X. 479
453–454, 454, 495, 501
Tepe Yalfan 464 Xong-e Azdhar 372
Thornton, C. P 122, 179, 184, 232, 326, 337, 506–507
Tiglath-Pileser III 456 Yafteh Cave 47, 47–48, 48
Tol-e Ajori 482, 482, 483 Yanik Tepe 100, 100, 238, 240, 243, 245, 246, 247, 249, 251,
Tol-e Bashi 55, 96, 96, 173 252, 256, 259
Tol-e Bormi 378, 448 Yoffee, N. 158, 235
Tol-e Chega Sofla 154, 155–157, 184, 342 Younger Dryas 45, 52, 57, 58, 60–63, 87, 500
Tol-e Gap Kenareh 283 Young, T. C. 30, 142, 250, 252, 275
Tol-e Nurabad 96, 173, 177, 283, 388, 492
Tol-e Pir 173 Zagheh site 29, 118, 120, 120, 122, 123, 123, 124, 125, 127,
Tol-e Spid 95, 177, 283, 284, 388, 494 184; Painted Building 122–124, 124
Toll-e Sangi 75, 75, 85, 89, 95 Zagros 39–41; central 75–79; central and south-central
Tosi, M. 191, 216 90–92, 90–92; ETC 248, 248–250, 249; mountains 14,
Toul-e Talish 422, 425 14–16; Neolithic 63–75, 63–79, 78, 85, 85–89, 86, 87, 88;
Transitional Chalcolithic 117–118; ceramics and architecture south and central 80–85, 81–84; southern Zagros and Fars
120, 120, 121, 122–123, 123, 124; hierarchical/ 92–97, 92–96; Standard
transegalitarian 125–127; mortuary practices 123–125, Ware 90
124–126; settlement patterns and food procurement 118, Zar Bolagh 464, 466
118–119, 119 Zardkhaneh 261, 401, 402–403
Tu Ali Sofla 403, 403 Zarzi Cave 50, 50
Tureng Tepe 330, 330, 332, 333, 494 Zavyeh site 42
Turkmenistan 105–109, 106–108 Zawi Chemi Shanidar 61
Tuwah Khoshkeh 143 Zeder, M. A. 52, 68, 81, 158, 211, 213, 391, 392
Zendan-e Suleiman I 418
UNESCO World Heritage List 34, 150, 312, 378, 473, Zeribar core 45
478–480, 479 Zeribar, Lake 58, 60, 397, 500
Upper Palaeolithic 35–36, 40, 45–49, 52, 53, 77, 500 Zimansky, P. 399
urbanisation 230, 235, 338, 506 Ziwiye 414, 415

اثار بلاد فارس

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

اثار بلاد فارس

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

اثار بلاد فارس

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Archaeology of Iran from the

Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire

The Ancient Central Andes

Prehistoric Britain, 2nd edition

Ancient Southeast Asia

Archaeology of the Southwest, 3rd edition

Archaeology of Pacific Oceania

The Archaeology of Iran from the Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-World-Archaeology/

Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli

ILLUSTRATIONS EDITOR: AMY RICHARDSON

LONDON AND NEW YORK

List of figures xii

2 Placing Iran: land, environment and ecology 6

3 Approaching the past of Iran: a history of archaeological investigation 22

4 Peopling Iran: the Palaeolithic period, 500,000–12,000 BP 35

6 Early social complexity in Iran: the Chalcolithic period, 5200–3200 BC 111

7 Iran’s first state? The Proto-Elamite horizon, 3200–2900 BC 188

10 Elam in the world of Bronze Age Southwest Asia, 2900–1100 BC 340

The archaeology of Iran as a field of study

Characterising Iran: a land of “prismatic diversity”

What is this book about? Scope, themes, issues

Who is this book for?

Introducing Iran: landscapes of contrast and challenge

Figure 2.2 I ran: its provinces and its neighbours.

Figure 2.3 Topographic map of Iran.

Figure 2.4 Cross-sections through Iran: N-S and E-W.

Soil usage Hectares

Region Climate attributes Characteristic vegetation features

The Khuzestan lowlands

Figure 2.7 Major physiographic units of Iran.

The Zagros mountains

The northern highlands

The eastern highlands

Routes of communication: the lay of the land and the sea

Figure 2.12 Major routeways of Iran, ancient and modern.

Climate, environment and human interactions: the challenge of Iran

Approaching the past of Iran: key sources

Difficult birth and infancy of a discipline: 1800–1930

Internationalisation of a discipline: 1931–1958

A golden age of Iranian archaeology: 1959–1979

After the revolution: 1979–2000

Period (approximate) Site Institution Director Fieldwork dates

Palaeolithic Kunji Cave University of Michigan John Speth 1969

Iron Age Pasargadae British Institute of Persian David Stronach 1961–1963

Difficult rebirth of a discipline: 2001–2020

Putting people in the picture

First steps: the Lower Palaeolithic, 500,000–200,000 BP

Figure 4.1 Palaeolithic sites of Iran by period.

The Zagros region

The northern highlands and Caspian region

The central plateau

The eastern highlands

Trends in the Middle Palaeolithic of Iran

The first Iranian revolution: the Upper Palaeolithic and

The Upper Palaeolithic, 45,000–20,000 BP

Figure 4.9 Excavation of Warwasi Cave (photo credit: Frank Hole).

The end of the Palaeolithic in Iran: creating human communities

Iran in the Neolithic Transition

Researching the Iranian Neolithic

Figure 2.2 I ran: its provinces and its neighbours.

Figure 2.3 Topographic map of Iran.

Figure 2.4 Cross-sections through Iran: N-S and E-W.

Figure 2.7 Major physiographic units of Iran.

Figure 2.12 Major routeways of Iran, ancient and modern.

Figure 4.1 Palaeolithic sites of Iran by period.

Figure 4.9 Excavation of Warwasi Cave (photo credit: Frank Hole).

Figure 6.76 Mahtoutabad I, ceramics (image courtesy of Massimo Vidale).