Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:04:35.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Early Period at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

L. Le Breton †
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A small piedmont country with resources enough to maintain an active population, Susiana is surrounded by less favoured areas. Isolation is thus ensured, but communication remains possible with Iranian highlands and with Mesopotamian lowlands, with coastal plains and with North-Western foothills. Susa stands on a borderline, at a cross-road, influences streaming through, from, and to it: the story is one of fluctuating orientations, which we shall try to trace through correlations between the early local cultures and those of Mesopotamia.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1957 , pp. 79 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 79 note 1 Acknowledgments are due to Prof. A. Parrot, Conservateur en Chef des Musées Nationaux, Dr. G. Contenau, Directeur des Fouilles Françaises en Iran, Mr. R. de Mecquenem, Directeur des Fouilles de Suse, for permission to reproduce unpublished material from the French excavations at Susa, now in the Louvre. I wish to express my warmest thanks to Mr. de Mecquenem for his unfailing guidance from the time I was his junior assistant in Susa, 1934–35, and his generosity in putting at my disposal field-notes and other records in his possession, and to Mr. Parrot for his kindness in making it possible for me to undertake an exhaustive study of the Iranian antiquities in the Louvre. I am also indebted to the late Prof. H. Frankfort and to Prof. M. E. L. Mallowan for encouragement over the preparation of this article, to Miss T. M. I. Newbould for help over its completion, to Sir L. Woolley, Prof. H. Lenzen, Mr. B. Buchanan, and Mr. P. Amiet for valuable information and advice.

page 79 note 2 In the eleven archaeological volumes of the official publication of the French Mission, best known as Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse (hereafter quoted as Mém.), 1900–1947, also in the twenty odd volumes devoted to epigraphy, in periodicals, Museum publications (Corpus Vasorum, Catalogues, etc.), pamphlets, etc.

page 79 note 3 H. W., and Eliot, T. G., Excavations in Mesopotamia and Western Iran, 1950 (hereafter: E.M.W.I.), p. 15Google Scholar.

page 79 note 4 McCown, D., The Comparative Stratigraphy of Early Iran, S.A.O.C. 23, 1942Google Scholar; Childe, V. G., New Light on the Most Ancient East, 1952Google Scholar; Parrot, A., Archéologie Mésopotamienne II, 1953 (hereafter: A.M. II)Google Scholar.

page 80 note 1 Not to be quoted here in extenso (any more than comparisons), we give only a few representative instances, drawn by preference from published material, as providing familiar terms of reference. Nor will all the material be pigeon-holed, or an explicit account of ways and means be given for every assertion put forward.

page 80 note 2 Subject to basic revision when R. Ghirshman resumes work on the deep levels of Susa.

page 80 note 3 Loftus, W. K., Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana, 1857Google Scholar; M., and Dieulafoy, J., L'Acropole de Suse, 1893Google Scholar.

page 80 note 4 Morgan, J. de, Mission Scientifique en Perse IV, 1896, pp. 180–181Google Scholar; Mem. I, 1900, pp. 81–87, 183–190Google Scholar.

page 80 note 5 Morgan, J. de, La Délégation en Perse du Ministère de l'Instruction Publique, 1902, p. 54 ff.Google Scholar; cf. A.M. II, pp. 37–40Google Scholar.

page 80 note 6 Mém. I-XIX, etc.

page 80 note 7 Mém. XIII, 1912Google Scholar.

page 81 note 1 Frankfort, H., Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East I, 1924Google Scholar; Pottier, E., Revue Archéologique XXIII, 1926Google Scholar; Frankfort, H., A.J. VIII, 1928, pp. 217–235Google Scholar; Archeology, and the Summon Problem, S.A.O.C 4, 1932Google Scholar; Contenau, G. and Ghirshman, R., Fouilles du Tépé Giyan, 1935 (hereafter: Giyan)Google Scholar.

page 81 note 2 Mém. XX, XXV, XXIX, XXX; Revue d'Assyriologie XXI, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, etc; Revue des Arts Asiatiques VI; Antiquity V; L'Anthropologie 40, 45, 48.

page 81 note 3 S.A.O.C. 23, pp. 45–46Google Scholar. The same symbols appear with different content in my dissertation for the Ecole du Louvre, written before I knew of D. McCown's work, and in Compte Rendu de la Première Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 1950, 1951.

page 81 note 4 The Relative Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iran, in Ehrich, R. W., Relative Chronologies in Old World Archeology, 1953, p. 56 ffGoogle Scholar. (hereafter: Rel. Chron.).

page 82 note 1 Mém. VIII, 1905, p. 59 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 82 note 2 Mém. XIII, p. 27 ff., p. 62Google Scholar; Pézard, M. and Pottier, E., Les Antiquités de la Susiane, 1913, pp. 241–244Google Scholar.

page 82 note 3 Studies I, pp. 49–59Google Scholar.

page 82 note 4 Woolley, C. L., J.R.A.S., 01 1928, p. 35 ff.Google Scholar; Genouillac, H. de, Fouilles de Telloh I, 1934 (hereafter: Telloh I), pp. 13–15Google Scholar.

page 82 note 5 Revue Archéologique XXIII, p. 27Google Scholar; Contenau, G., Manuel d'Archéologie Orientate I, 1927 (hereafter: M.A.O.), p. 410Google Scholar; Mecquenem, R. de, Mém. XX, 1928, p. 99 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 82 note 6 Giyan, p. 57 ff.

page 82 note 7 Mém. XXIX, 1943, pp. 144–149Google Scholar; Mém. XXX, 1947, pp. 120–219Google Scholar. The Mussian pottery is all unstratified and it includes a number of types foreign to the Susiana sequence as well as types that fit into it: we shall therefore not discuss it, although it represents an important link in processes of interaction.

page 82 note 8 The succession of a and b, stratigraphically discontinuous, is confirmed by their respective analogies with the earliest stages at Giyan, V A and B (McCown's designations, S.A.O.C. 23, p. 13Google Scholar); the definition of b, c, d, stratigraphically continuous, is only approximate.

page 82 note 9 Revue Archéologique XXXIX, 1952, pp. 1–21Google Scholar; Overdruk uit de Genste Bijdragertot de Kunstgechiedenis XV, I954Google Scholar.

page 84 note 1 Mém. XX, pp. 113–115Google Scholar.

page 84 note 2 Rel. Chron., p. 57.

page 84 note 3 Perkins, A. L., Tie Comparative Archeology of Early Mesopotamia, S.A.O.C. 25, 1952, pp. 1–45Google Scholar; cf. also Mallowan, M. E. L. and Rose, J. Cruikshank, Iraq II, 1935 (Arpachiyah)Google Scholar; Lloyd, S. and Safar, F., J.N.E.S. IV, 1945, pp. 255–284 (Hassuna)Google Scholar; Braidwood, R. et alii, J.N.E.S. XI, 1952, pp. 1–76 (Matarrah), etcGoogle Scholar.

page 86 note 1 Described Mém. XXX, p.130Google Scholar, no sherd being illustrated or graphic reconstruction attempted.

page 86 note 2 For Northern wares illustrated Fig. 5, cf. J.N.E.S. III, Nos. 79, 143, 198, 260, 305 A (Samarra); J.N.E.S. IV, f. 1; 9, f. 2: 8, 11, f. 6: 10, f. 18: 7; J.N.E.S. XI, pl. V: 3, pl. VI: 5, f. 13: 7, 14, f. 14: 8, 9, f. 22: 4, 5; Iraq II, pt. 1, Fig. 71: 8, pl. XIII, pl. XVIII.

page 86 note 3 McCown, D., J.N.E.S. I, 1941, pp. 437–458Google Scholar; S.A.O.C. 23, p. 35Google Scholar; Moortgat, A., die Entstebung der Sumerischen Hochkultur, 1945, p. 43Google Scholar; Frankfort, H., the Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, 1954, p. 202, etcGoogle Scholar.

page 86 note 4 Berghe, L. Vanden, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 12 1952, pp. 212–225Google Scholar.

page 86 note 5 J.N.E.S. XI, p. 4, pp. 52–70.Google Scholar

page 86 note 6 On the lines indicated by Parrot, A., A.M. II, p. 136Google Scholar.

page 86 note 7 S.A.O.C. 23, pp. 33–35Google Scholar; S.A.O.C. 25, pp. 43–45Google Scholar.

page 86 note 8 Lloyd, S. and Safar, F., Sumer IV, 1948, pp. 115–127 (Eridu)Google Scholar.

page 86 note 9 S.A.O.C. 25, p. 74, p. 80Google Scholar; Ziegler, C., die Keramik der Qal'a des Haggi Mohammed, A.D.F.U. V, 1953, pp. 54–57Google Scholar.

page 88 note 1 S.A.O.C. 25, p. 96Google Scholar; A.M. II, p. 210Google Scholar.

page 88 note 2 Kramer, S. N., A.J.A. LII, 1948, pp. 156–164Google Scholar; Rel. Chron., p. 59.

page 88 note 3 For Southern wares illustrated Fig. 5: 28, 43–49, cf. Sumer IV, pl. III: 26 E, 27 E, 34, pl. X: 1; A.D.F.U. V, pl. 15: a, pl. 20: d, pl. 37: 61, 64, 99, 144.

page 88 note 4 For comparisons with Fig. 6, relevant at this point, cf. J.N.E.S. IV, f. 1: 4; Iraq II, pl. II, pl. XVII: a, Fig. 58: 2, Fig. 66: 1, Fig. 78; 14; Tobler, A. J., Excavations at Tepe Gawra II, 1950 (hereafter: Gawra II), pl. LXXI: 20Google Scholar; Sumer IV, pl. III: 24A, B, 25B, D, 27 C, pl. X: 3, 4, 12; A.D.F.U. V, pls. 11–16, pl. 23: a, pl. 28: d, pl. 37: 13, 38, 55, 65, 74, 79, 96, 108, 115, 126, 139.

page 88 note 5 On the basis of Perkins, A. L.'s definition, S.A.O.C. 25, pp. 72–73 and 90–96Google Scholar, I use these terms as corresponding with the change from Eridu VIII to VII and Gawra XV (?) to XIII (?).

page 89 note 1 For comparisons with Fig. 6, relevant at this point, cf. Gawra II, pl. LXIX: a 2, a 7, b 6, b 21, pl. LXXI; a 9, b 4, b 27; pl. LXXIII: b, pl. LXXV: a 7, d, e, pl. LXXVI, b 18, pl. CXLIX: 444, 446; J.N.E.S. IV, pl. XXI: 1; Sir Woolley, Leonard, Ur Excavations, IV, 1956Google Scholar. Pl. 46: 24, 40, 41, 48, pl. 48, pl. 50; A.D.F.U. V, pl. 37: 24; Sumer IV, pl. VII: 2; Parrot, A., Tello, 1948, Fig. 8Google Scholar; J.N.E.S. II, 1943, pl. XIX (Uqair)Google Scholar.

page 89 note 2 For Mesopotamian wares illustrated Fig. 7; 1–7, cf. Sumer III, Fig. 4: 10 (Eridu); Sumer IV, pl. IX: 13; Gawra II, pl. CXXVI, ff.: Iraq, 199; Iraq VIII, pt. 1, Fig. 7: 1 (Mefesh); Iraq II, pt. 1, p. 64Google Scholar: 8, Fig. 65: 1.

page 89 note 3 Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq VIII, pt. 2, pp. 126–129Google Scholar; Sir Woolley, Leonard, A Forgotten Kingdom, 1953, p. 29, Fig. 3: 4Google Scholar.

page 89 note 4 We regard d as definitely connected with South Iran in the pre-Bakun A stage, and Susa A as parallel to Bakun A; cf. the discussion of Bakun A in S.A.O.C. 23, pp. 23–26Google Scholar.

page 89 note 5 We shall not discuss burial customs, textiles, figurines, stone implements, however interesting, because their comparative significance appears uncertain.

page 91 note 1 In the Tranchée Morgan, cf. Fig. 1.

page 91 note 2 Mém. XIII, XX, pp. 100–105, XXV, pp. 183–188, 204, XXIX, pp. 5–9, XXX, pp. 193–210, etc.

page 91 note 3 Mém. XX, pp. 113–115, XXX, pp. 143–146.

page 91 note 4 In the Mussian region, cf. Mém. VIII, and on the upper Kerkha, at Kozagaran, cf. Stein, A., Old Routes in Western Iran, 1940, pp. 198–205, pl. VII: 15, 16Google Scholar.

page 91 note 5 Chiefly over painted pottery, M.A.O. III, p. 1500, stamp-seals and red ware, Mém. XXV, pp. 183, 187 (and f. 18), p. 204Google Scholar; l'Anthropologie 40, 1930, p. 228Google Scholar; “phases” will be discussed below.

page 91 note 6 Mém. XIII, fs. 60–76, f. 111 (pp. 16–17, 22)Google Scholar.

page 91 note 7 U.V.B. IV, 1933, pp. 35–36Google Scholar; cf. S.A.O.C. 25, p. 97 ff.Google Scholar; Parrot, A., A.M. II, p. 212Google Scholar.

page 91 note 8 Gawra II, p. 145 (n. 13)Google Scholar; cf. review by Buchanan, B. in J.C.S. 6, 1952, p. 43, for a discussion of the cultural transitionGoogle Scholar.

page 92 note 1 For Mesopotamian wares illustrated Fig. 7; 26–38, cf. Sumer III, f. 4: 6; Sumer IV, pl. IX: 1; Gawra II, pls. CXXVI ff.: 151, 197, 198, 210, 214, 253, 289, 290, 309, 348; U.E. IV, p. 90, f. 32Google Scholar; A.A.A. XX, pl. LII, 10 (Nineveh)Google Scholar; J.N.E.S. II, pl. XX: 1Google Scholar; U.V.B. IV, pl. 17: D b1, pl. 18, B k (Warka).

page 92 note 2 E.M.W.I., p. 27.

page 93 note 1 S.A.O.C. 23, p. 19 (n. 26), p. 43 (n. 52)Google Scholar; cf. also Perkins, A. L., in Rel. Chron., p. 47Google Scholar.

page 93 note 2 U.V.B. IV, pl. 16: C c′; J.N.E.S. II, pl. XX: 13Google Scholar.

page 93 note 3 Gawra II, pl. CXXXVI, ff.: 243–245, 294–295, 310–311; Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq IX, Pt. 2, p. 192, pl. XLIV (Tell Brak)Google Scholar.

page 93 note 4 Parrot, A., Tello, p. 37, f. 7: i, jGoogle Scholar; Genouillac, H. de, Fouilles de Telloh I, pp. 13–15Google Scholar; Gawra II. pp. 175–191, pls. CVIII, CLXXIGoogle Scholar; Giyan, pp. 47–49, pl. 36.

page 94 note 1 Telloh I, pp. 14, 48Google Scholar; Gawra II, pp. 211–215, pls. XCVIII, CLXXXIVGoogle Scholar; Iraq II, Pt. 1., pl. X: i; Ghirshman, R., Fouillis at Stalk I, 1938 (hereafter: Sialk I), pp. 16, 53–54, etcGoogle Scholar.

page 94 note 2 V. G. Childe, op. cit., p. 137.

page 94 note 3 Telloh I, passim; Rutten, M., Revue d'Assyriologie XLIV, 1950, p. 165, etcGoogle Scholar.

page 95 note 1 Mém. I, pp. 188–189Google Scholar.

page 95 note 2 Mém. VII, pp. 11, 19Google Scholar; Mém. VIII, p. 142Google Scholar (concerning two painted jars, cf. our pl. III: 11, and E.M.W.I., p. 25), etc.

page 95 note 3 Mém XIII, pp. 60–61, etc.Google Scholar; R.A. XXIII, p. 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 95 note 4 Mém. XXIX, pp. 175–180Google Scholar.

page 95 note 5 Studies I, pp. 34–39Google Scholar; S.A.O.C. 4, pp. 65–66Google Scholar.

page 95 note 6 Mém. XX, p. 100–104Google Scholar; cf. H. de Genouillac's attribution of intermediate material (pottery) to Susa A, Telloh I, p. 14Google Scholar.

page 95 note 7 Sialk I, p. 83Google Scholar; A.M. II, p. 296Google Scholar.

page 95 note 8 Mém. XXV, p. 179 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 95 note 9 ib, Figs. 7, 13, 18, 30, 34.

page 95 note 10 S.A.O.C. 23, pp. 43–45Google Scholar.

page 95 note 11 Mém. XXIX, pp. 9–34Google Scholar.

page 95 note 12 S.A.O.C. 25, p. 97 (n. 1)Google Scholar; Lloyd, S. and Delougaz, P., Presargonid Temples in the Diyala Region, O.I.P. LVIII, 1942, p. 8Google Scholar; Lloyd, S., (Uruk Pottery), Sumer IV, pp. 39–51Google Scholar.

page 95 note 13 A.M. II, pp. 276–278Google Scholar.

page 95 note 14 Lenzen, H., Z.A. 49, 1951, pp. 1–20Google Scholar.

page 95 note 15 I am indebted to Prof. A. Falkenstein for drawing my attention to them, and to Dr. D. B. Harden and Dr. O. Gurney for enabling me to examine the impressions from Jemdet Nasr in the Ashmolean Museum, inadequately reproduced by Langdon, S., O.E.C.T. VII, 1928Google Scholar; for similar types, cf. J.N.E.S. II, pl. XXXI, 116Google Scholar and Falkenstein, A., Die Archaisch Texte aus Uruk, A.D.F.U. II, 1936, pl. 71Google Scholar.

page 97 note 1 U.V.B. IV, p. 45, pl. 20AGoogle Scholar; Sumer IV, pp. 39–51Google Scholar; Telloh I, passim; A.A.A. XXIX, p. 81, pl. LXIGoogle Scholar; A.A.A. XX, p. 165 ff.Google Scholar; discussion in O.L.Z. XXXIX, 1936, col. 222–226 (Tello)Google Scholar, S.A.O.C. 25, p. 101 (Warka IV) and p. 103 (Eridu)Google Scholar; Mackay, E., Report on Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq, 1931 (hereafter: Jemdet Nasr)Google Scholar; Delougaz, P., Pottery from the Diyala Region, O.I.P. LXIII, 1952, pp. 34–38, 125–135Google Scholar.

page 97 note 2 A.J.A. 52, 19, p. 54; Rel. Chron. p. 59.

page 97 note 3 With Fig. 33, cf. U.V.B. II, f. 41; with Fig. 34, cf. Iraq IX, Pt. 2, pp. 198–210, pl. LIGoogle Scholar.

page 97 note 4 V. G. Childe, op. cit., p. 146.

page 100 note 1 For pre-Jemdet Nasr occurrences of reserved slip ware, cf. A.A.A. XX, p. 167 (Ninevite IV, Early), and Rel. Chron., p. 59 (Tell i Ghazir)Google Scholar.

page 100 note 2 For comparisons with Fig. 10, cf. U.V.B. IV, pl. 16: C w, pl. 17: D e, p, q; pl. 18: A c, B l, C p, u, v, b′, D k, m u′, pl. 19; A t′, 1″. B t, w, k″, C d, l, a′, e′, D b; Telloh I, pl. III: 5322, pl. 4*, 5671; pl. 21: 2, pl. 22: 1 a; A.A.A. XIX, pl. LXI: 14, 15; A.A.A. XX, pl. LI: 7, pl. LII: 14; Gawra II, pl. CXLVIII: 439; Jemdet Nasr, pl. LXXVI: 3; O.I.P. LXIII, pl. 20: a, b, pl. 22: b, e; Sialk I, pl. LXVIII, S 177, pl. LXIX, S 135, pl. LXXII, S 1760, etc.

page 100 note 3 S.A.O.C. 23, pp. 44–45Google Scholar.

page 100 note 4 For comparisons with Figs. 11–12, cf. U.V.B. IV, pl. 19: B w, C w, D c; c′, pl. 20, A l′, B g; Telloh I pl 17: 3, pl. 18: 1 b, d, pl. 20: 1, pl. 22: 1, pl. 23: 2, pl. 25: 1, 2, pls. IV-VI; Gawra II, pl. CXLVII: 415; A.A.A. XX; pl. LI: 9, pl. LII: 12; Jemdet Nasr, pl. LXIII: 26, pl. LXIV: 14, 22, pl. LXV:, 26, 31, Pl. LXVIII: 28–33; U.E. IV, pl. 26: f; O.I.P. LXIII, pl. 19: d, pl. 22: a, f, pl. 23; d, i, j, pl. 28: c, d, pl. 159: B 546, 223, etc.

page 100 note 5 This does not mean that (as is often assumed) handles were actually replaced by lugs (which served to fasten a lid or cover rather than for suspension).

page 101 note 1 O.I.P. LXIII, pp. 35–36, 126–128Google Scholar.

page 101 note 2 For comparisons with Fig. 13, cf. U.V.B. IV, pl. 19: D a; Teiloh I, pl. 2*: 5190; Sialk I, pl. LXXXVIII; Jemdet Nasr, pl. LXIII: 20, pl. LXVI: 31; O.I.P. LXIII, pl. 19: h.

page 101 note 3 For comparisons with Fig. 14, references above, p. 11 cn. 14, n. 13); cf. also Gawra II, pl. CXL: 312, 314; S.A.O.C. 23, p. 45 (n. 72, on Kozagaran)Google Scholar.

page 101 note 4 O.I.P. LXIII, pp. 128–129, 131–132Google Scholar. For comparisons with pl. III: 1–4, cf. Iraq II, Pl. 2,Fig. 37: 4; Jemdet Nasr, pl. LXIV: 13; A.J.A. XXXIX, 1935, pl. XXX: 5Google Scholar; J.N.E.S. II, pls. XXIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVII; O.I.P. LXIII, pl. 2, pl. 22: d, pl. 27.

page 103 note 1 Discussed in greater detail, R.A.L, 1956, p. 134 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 103 note 2 For designs illustrated f. 16, cf. J.N.E.S. III, f. 271; Iraq II, Pt. 2, Fig. 56: b; Gawra II, pl. CX: 10: Mém. VIII, p. 110: f. 177Google Scholar; Mém. XIII, p. 40: f. 135Google Scholar; Mém. XXX, p. 144: f. 14: 10Google Scholar. For Fig. 17, cf. U.V.B. III, pl. 19: a; Herzfeld, E., Archälogische Mitteilungen aus Iran V, 1933, f. 25: 2506, pl. 1Google Scholar; Gawra II, pl. CLXIII: 82, 83Google Scholar.

page 103 note 3 Barrelet, M.-T., R.A. XLVIII, 1954, p. 16 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 103 note 4 H. Frankfort, Art and Architecture, f. 9; cf. also pl. 3: a, pl. 6. Late analogies account for the low dating proposed by Contenau, G., M.A.O. IV, pp. 2001–2002Google Scholar.

page 103 note 5 For comparisons with Fig. 18, cf. Telloh I, pl. 38: 1: 6; Sialk I, pl. LXXXVI: S 172; Delaporte, L., Catalogue des Cylindres Orientaux du Musée du Louvre, I, 1920, pl. 2, T 32Google Scholar.

page 104 note 1 Falkenstein, A., A.D.F.U. II, pp. 15, 42, 62Google Scholar; Gelb, I., A Study of Writing: the Foundations of Grammatology, 1952, pp. 213, 219Google Scholar; cf. also O.I.C. 20, p. 25: f. 19.

page 104 note 2 Rel. Chron., p. 59; Sialk I, pp. 65–68Google Scholar.

page 105 note 1 Scheil, V., Mém. XVII, 1923, IntroductionGoogle Scholar; we hope to use his summary of the evolution of Proto-Elamite writing as groundwork for a study of the evolution of Proto-Elamite glyptic; but its categorisation has hitherto prevented us from defining the point reached in this double evolution by the end of C, or the date of its end.

page 105 note 2 We believe that the coincidence is connected with the affectation of the excavated areas, temples and dependencies, etc., rather than with the perishable nature of the material of which the first cylinders were made.

page 105 note 3 For the Warka impressions illustrated Fig. 20 (6, 16, 18, only in part), cf. U.V.B. IV, pl. 14: c, g; U.V.B. V, pl. 24: c, pl. 25: d; Heinrich, E., Kleinfunde aus den Archaischen Schichten in Uruk, A.D.F.U. I, 1936, pl. 15: W 15159 dGoogle Scholar; Z.A. 49, pl. 3 ff.: 1, 6, 9, 16, 19, 20; for discussion and analysis of themes, references above, p. 00 (n. 13, n. 14), and cf. U.V.B. V, pp. 48–54Google Scholar.

page 105 note 4 On the same clay bulla as the stamp-seal impression Fig. 18: 2.

page 107 note 1 H. Frankfort, Art and Architecture, pls. 6, 9, etc.

page 107 note 2 When we speak of drillwork as differentiating glyptic styles, we must bear in mind that (like all details, technical or figured) it shows better on seals, unless much worn, than on impressions (especially on tablets, where it is obliterated by handling in the process of writing, and modelling seams to be the rule. But impressions like Pl. XXIV: 3, 6 (cf. the lion, Pl. XXV, 9, were made by cylinders with sharp drillwork or linear engraving. Apparent drillwork is common to the Uruk, Jemdet Nasr and Proto-Elamite styles; only the Jemdet Nasr seal-cutters used it in a more mechanical, less impressionistic manner—probably because their cylinders, like their stamp-seals, were designed as amulets rather than for impression.

page 107 note 3 On the well-known tablet of the cquids, Mém. XVII, No. 105 (cf., here, the second, third and fourth signs on Fig. 19), which can be dated to the beginning of Cc and stands early in the evolution of Proto-Elamite writing.

page 107 note 4 Frankfort, H., Stratified Cylinder-Seals from the Diyala, O.I.P. LXXII, 1955, Nos. 15, 33, 39, 214, 219, 814, 851, etcGoogle Scholar.

page 108 note 1 Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals, 1959, pp. 24–26Google Scholar.

page 108 note 2 R.A. XLIV, 1950, p. 166 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 108 note 3 By Offner, G., R.A. XL, 1945–1946, p. 157 ffGoogle Scholar. and XLI, 1947, p. 110 ff.

page 108 note 4 Cf. our Fig. 24: 1 and O.I.P. LXXII, Nos. 76–78, 80, 81, 199.

page 108 note 5 A.A.A. XX, pls. LXV, LXVI.

page 108 note 6 As implied by Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals, p. 34Google Scholar; O.I.P. LXXII, pp. 17–19Google Scholar.

page 109 note 1 E.M.W.I., p. 27.

page 109 note 2 Although dated Early Dynastic by Perkins, A. L., S.A.O.C. 25, p. 148Google Scholar.

page 109 note 3 For comparisons with Fig. 27, cf. Telloh I, pp. 46, 68 (Tomb XXV), pl. 10: 2–5Google Scholar; Gawra II, pl. XCIV: d, f, pl. XCIX; Sialk I, pls. LXXXIV, XCV.

page 109 note 4 Except perhaps for the fine ibex, described as a weight, Mém. XII, f. 24, which we should like to attribute to C.

page 109 note 5 North-West of the Tranchée Morgan, cf. Fig. 1. That this discovery remained unnoticed is due to categorisation in publication. A brief report, with a few figures, was published by Mecquenem, R. de, sub-joined to an article on the later “Vestiges de Constructions Elamites,” in Recueil de Travaux … XXXIII, 1911Google Scholar. It was omitted when the article was reprinted in Mém. XII, 1911, pp. 65–78Google Scholar, whilst some of the objects were reproduced, without comment, in Mém. XIII, 1912, amongst other “Petits Monuments de l'Epoque Archaïque.”Google Scholar Fig. 32 illustrates all the objects at present identifiable as originating from the deposits.

page 112 note 1 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LXIII, p. 39 (n. 54)Google Scholar.

page 112 note 2 For comparisons with Fig. 28, cf. U.V.B. VIII, pl. 58: 10; A.D.F.U. I, pl. 24: a, d, g; U.E. IV, pls. 66, 67: JN 36, 47, 48, 50, 60; Telloh I, pl. 4: 6, 7, pl. 5; Jemdet Nasr, pl. XVII: 5, 35; Gawra II, pl. LII: c, pl. CLXXX; O.I.C. 19, f. 27, f. 50.

page 112 note 3 For comparisons with Figs. 30–32, cf. U.V.B. III, pl. 18: a; O.I.C. 19, f. 24; O.I.P. LVIII, f. 68; (birds); A.D.F.U. I, pl. 9 (animal amulets); Iraq IX, Pt. 1 & 2, pp. 102, 212, pls. X, LIIGoogle Scholar; V. C. Childe, op. cit., p. 96: f. 54; Evans, A., the Palace of Minos I, p. 118, f. 87 (sitting animals)Google Scholar; O.I.P. LVIII, pl. 26; O.I.P. LX, pl. 1, pls. 33–34, pl. 45 (female figures).

page 112 note 4 V. G. Childe, op. cit., pp. 141–143 (whilst H. W. Eliot, op. cit., p. 26, insists on the “limited size and importance” of the settlement).

page 112 note 5 Falkenstein, A., La Cité-Temple Sumérienne, Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale, 1954Google Scholar.

page 112 note 6 Mém. XII, pp. 65–78Google Scholar; Mém. XXIX, pp. 12, 13, 18–25, 34. f. 27Google Scholar.

page 113 note 1 If we bring a secondary (Cc) and not a major (D) division to coincide with the appearance of painted pottery in significant quantities, it is because of the way in which local evidence has been hitherto preseated and organised, because of the absence of any Cc painted wares from previous discussions over Susa II, and because of correlations with the periods defined for Mesopotamia. Neither division corresponds with wholesale cultural change.

page 113 note 2 Mém. XII, p. 79 ff.Google Scholar; Mém. XIII, p. 43Google Scholar.

page 113 note 3 Mém. I, pp. 84, 188–189Google Scholar.

page 113 note 4 Mém. VIII, p. 77 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 113 note 5 Mém. XIII, p. 60 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 113 note 6 Mém. X, p. 1, pl. I—not to be confused (as by H. W. Eliot, op. cit., p. 24) with any of those brought from Akkad to Susa by Shutruk Nahhunte.Google Scholar

page 113 note 7 Mém. XIII, p. 23Google Scholar.

page 113 note 8 Studies I, pp. 40, 47–50, 66–69Google Scholar; A.J. VIII, pp. 220, 225Google Scholar; S.A.O.C. 4, pp. 65–72Google Scholar.

page 114 note 1 E. Mackay, Jemdet Nasr, etc.

page 114 note 2 R.A. XXI, 1924, p. 114Google Scholar; Mém. XX, p. 106Google Scholar; cf. Contenau, G., M.A.O. II, p. 649Google Scholar.

page 114 note 3 Mém. XXV, pp. 211–218Google Scholar; hence the correlation of Susa II with Puzur Shushinak, last King of Awan, Mém. XXIX, p. 156Google Scholar, and H. W. Eliot's tendency to extend Susa II after ED III—to which phase he had, rightly, attributed the cachette jar (despite confusions with the offrandes de fondation of later temples), op. cit., pp. 23, 26.

page 114 note 4 S.A.O.C. 23, pp. 45–46Google Scholar; M.A.O. IV, pp. 2008, 2038–2040Google Scholar; O.I.P. LXIII, p. 140Google Scholar.

page 114 note 5 Mém. XXIX, pp. 76–126Google Scholar.

page 114 note 6 Mém. XXIX, pp. 122–124 (No. 280), f. 89, and perhaps p. 103 (No. 322)Google Scholar.

page 114 note 7 About + 23 m. South of the Tranchée Morgan, North of Acropolis 2, cf. fig. 1; the find included a painted terracotta jar and its lid, a fragment of glazed on pottery, a lapis-lazuli frog-shaped amulet, gold beads, alabaster vases, numerous metal implements, and six cylinder-seals.

page 115 note 1 Only three instances ate recorded from the Diyala, O.I.P. LXIII, pl. 2: b, pl. 133: b, pl. 136: a (and p. 36). For discussion of relevant scarlet ware types, cf. Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LXIII, pp. 139–141Google Scholar, and of themes, cf. id., pp. 69–72. For comparisons with pl. III: 5–17, cf. O.I.P. LXIII, pls. 9, u, 13, 15, 60–62, 66, 99: g, b, type C 506470; U.E. IV, pl. 263: 194Google Scholar; Piggott, S., Prehistoric India, 1950, pp. 101–104, fs. 6, 7Google Scholar.

page 115 note 2 Cros, G., Heuzey, L., Thureau-Dangin, F., Nouvelles Fouilleis de Tello, 1910, p. 310Google Scholar; fig. 20; U.E. II, p. 387, pl. 186Google Scholar; U.E. IV, pl. 26: b.

page 115 note 3 These bear on specimens generally attributed to Giyan IV, but vaguely stratified or atypical, sherds with eagle, not found in tombs, cf. Giyan, pl. 67, or vases originating from tomb 102, cf. pl. 30—which differs from other Giyan IV tombs and is at a higher level—and similar to our Fig. 35: 15, itself unstratified. We do not believe that lowering the date of Giyan IV should affect the absolute chronology of Susa, as suggested by Schaeffer, C. F. A., Stratigrapbie Comparée et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale, 1948, p. 464Google Scholar.

page 117 note 1 O.I.P. LXIII, pls. 37, 41, 45–47, etc.

page 117 note 2 Ib., pp. 58, 72, pls. 16, 48, 66.

page 117 note 3 For comparison with Fig. 36: 1–9, cf. O.I.P. LXIII, pl. 49: g, pl. 70; U.E. II, pl. 257: 106; with Fig. 36: 10–17, cf. O.I.P. LXIII, pls. 76, 81, 88, 105, 111; cf. also Mackay, E., Report on the Excavation of tie “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia, I, 1925Google Scholar, and A Sumerian Palace and the “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia, II, 1929 (hereafter quoted as Kish), passim.

page 117 note 4 O.I.P. LXIII, p. 30 (n. 23), p. 145 (n. 126), p. 147 (n. 137)Google Scholar.

page 119 note 1 Cf. p. 16, n. 3, above.

page 119 note 2 U.E. II, pls. 104, 105, etc.; U.E. III, pl. 10, ff. 207–223, 349, 384, etcGoogle Scholar.

page 119 note 3 O.I.P. LXXII, p. 11, Table IGoogle Scholar.

page 119 note 4 Mém. XXIX, p. 119 (no. 246), f. 86Google Scholar; cf. U.E. III, pl. 10 ff.: 206, 252, 286, etc.

page 119 note 5 U.E. II, pl. 193 ff.; 16–39, 46, 47, 58, 72, etc.

page 119 note 6 There are no mirrors or celts of Susa A type, as stated by H. W. Eliot, op. cit., p. 31.

page 119 note 7 Gordon, D. H., The Chronology of the Third Culture, Period at Tepe Hissar, Iraq XIII, Pt. I, p. 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 119 note 8 For comparison with Figs. 41–42 (and Fig. 40: 8–41), cf. U.E. II, pp. 306–507, pl. 223 ff.Google Scholar: A. 2–A. 5, U. 9137, S. 5, S. 17–18, pl. 231: 6, pl. 257 ff.: 71, 86, 96, 97, etc., Kish I, pl. XVIII, 17; Kish II, pl. LVIII: 4, 11, pl. LXI: 10, pl. LXII: 1–4, etc.

page 120 note 1 For comparisons with Fig. 42 (and Fig. 40; 4–7), cf. Parrot, A., Mission Archéologique de Mari I, Le Temple d'Ishtar, 1956, pl. LII: 568, 670, 1790Google Scholar; U.E. II, pl. 241 ff.: 4, 5, 15, 54, 60, 79, 90–92; U.E. IV, pl. 34, U. 19.015, U. 19.518, etc.; Kish II, pl. LV; 5, etc.

page 120 note 2 Frankfort, H., Art and Architecture, p. 19, f. 9 (our Fig. 45)Google Scholar; U.E. IV, p. 51, pl. 36; U. 231 (and U.E.T. I, no. 9).

page 120 note 3 H. Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 237–258 (notes 2–8); he emphasizes their Mesopotamian character.

page 120 note 4 For comparisons with Figs. 43–44, cf. O.I.P. XLIV, pls. 92, 105–112; O.I.P. LX, pl. 29, 50, 51, 62–67; Parrot, A., Mari, 1953, pls. 6–56Google Scholar.

page 122 note 1 Mém. XXXI, pp. 1–15Google Scholar.

page 122 note 2 V. G. Childe, op. cit., pp. 145–146; The First Wagons and Carts—from the Tigris to the Severn, P.P.S. 1951, p. 179.

page 122 note 3 I am indebted to Mr. E. Sollberger for this indication, ef. Sollberger, E., Selected Texts from American Collections, J.C.S. 10, 1956, p. 24Google Scholar.