Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:26:26.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

KANI CHARMOU, AN IRON AGE II GRAVEYARD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2024

Sheler (Shelir) Amelirad ,
Abbas Razmpoush  and
Behroz Khanmohamadi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Examining the archaeological findings within the Mannaean kingdom, a significant association with Assyria emerges, highlighting these regions’ interconnectedness. The influence of both Urartian and Assyrian cultures on the Mannaean people becomes evident, indicating a shared cultural heritage or intimate exchanges among these cultures. Notably, the Kani Charmou graveyard in Mannaea serves as a compelling example, revealing a rich assortment of artifacts that parallel those discovered in Ziwiye, a renowned archaeological site in the region. These diverse grave goods unequivocally demonstrate the existence of a robust trade and exchange network between Mannaea and its neighbouring western counterpart, Assyria, and the profound impact of Assyrian culture on Mannaean society. This connection is also evident in religious practices, which show similarities. Through stylistic analysis and the identification of parallels in metal vessels, glazed jars, and a cylinder seal, the proposed dating of the Kani Charmou graveyard aligns with the Iron Age II period.

خلاصة:

خلاصة:

من خلال فحص الاكتشافات الأثرية داخل مملكة معان، يظهر ارتباط كبير مع آشور، مما يسلط الضوء على الترابط بين هذه المناطق . بذلك يصبح تأثير كل من الثقافتين الأورارتية والآشورية على شعب مانايا واضحا، مما يشير إلى التراث الثقافي المشترك أو التبادلات الحميمة بين هذه الثقافات . يتجلى هذا الارتباط بشكل خاص في الممارسات الدينية، التي تظهر أوجه تشابه ملحوظة . ومن الجدير بالذكر أن مقبرة كاني شارمو في المناع هي مثال مقنع، حيث تكشف عن مجموعة غنية من القطع الأثرية التي توازي تلك المكتشفة في الزيوية، وهو موقع أثري مشهور في المنطقة . تثبت هذه البضاعة المتنوعة التي عثر عليها في القبور بشكل لا لبس فيه وجود شبكة تجارة وتبادل قوية بين مانايا ونظيرتها الغربية المجاورة، آشور، والتأثير العميق للثقافة الآشورية على المجتمع المناعي . ومن الملحوظ أنه من خلال التحليل الأسلوبي وتحديد أوجه التشابه في الأوعية المعدنية والجرار الزجاجية والختم الأسطواني، فإن التاريخ المقترح لمقبرة كاني شارمو يتماشى مع فترة العصر الحديدي الثاني .

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 85 , December 2023 , pp. 49 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2024

Introduction

The areas of Saqqez and Divandarreh, in modern western Iran and in the heartland of the ancient Mannaean kingdom, have seen limited excavations, despite the potential to explore the fascinating Mannaean culture. Most of the scarce material in our possession comes from the results of illegal excavations. However, some of these materials offer useful hints on what this culture has to offer, and in some cases, it has been possible to loosely trace the area of provenience. Unfortunately, these pieces of data will never be as informative or precise as what could be learned from a proper excavation.

This paper is based on burial goods recovered from local residents by the police, in the village of Kani Charmou Zaki Baig. The artefacts come from the neighboring Iron Age graveyard with the same name as the village. Kani Charmou Zaki Baig is located in Kurdistan Province, Iran, c. 35 km north of the modern city of Divandarreh. The direct distance from the cemetery to the important sites of Karfto and Ziwiye is 10 and 23 km to the north and northwest, respectively (Fig. 1). The cemetery is located in the hills (Fig. 2) of the eastern folds of the Zagros Mountains, nestled on a slope that descends towards the Zaki Baig River (Fig. 3). This river, once more substantial, has dwindled in size in recent years and only survives as a small stream, flowing through a shallow valley in a north-south direction. On both the eastern and western sides of the river, the landscape is defined by low cliffs. The present-day village of Zaki Baig has developed on one of these cliffs on the west bank, with the cemetery on the east bank of the river. The distance from the village to the cemetery is less than 200 meters (Fig. 4). The area is used by local residents for grazing animals, and there are rock shelters throughout the area, used by local residents for keeping their animals.

Figure 1. Plan with location of the Kani Charmou cemetery and other sites mentioned in the text

Figure 2. General view of Kani Charmou cemetery from the west

Figure 3. Location of Kani Charmou Cemetery (based on a satellite image from Google Earth)

Figure 4. The position of Kani Charmou village (upper left) from the Kani Charmou cemetery

At a distance of c. 150 meters southwest of the cemetery, in the valley base, the remains of a few stone walls that form a rectangular space can be seen. In addition, c. 100 meters to the south of the cemetery, in a relatively large and flat space within the valley, there are the remains of a rectangular structure consisting of four walls, which, although difficult to detect on the ground, is clearly visible on satellite images. The approximate dimensions of this structure are 90×110 meters, and it is orientated north-south. A survey of the cemetery area revealed that the burials consisted of pits covered with large flat stone slabs (Fig. 5). At c. 200 meters to the east of the cemetery, there is a limestone mine where stone extraction operations are currently being carried out for construction purposes. Due to the close distance of this mine to the Kani Charmou cemetery, it is likely to be the source of the cemetery's slab stones.

Figure 5. a) Large stone slab tomb cover in the Kani Charmou cemetery, b) Example of a grave cist or chamber constructed of large regular stones of similar size

Inventory of Finds

This article deals with various groups of small finds from Kani Charmou, confiscated from local residents by the police. Determining whether the objects recovered represent complete grave assemblages, or solely the unsold material, is a challenging task, and the full grave assemblages remain uncertain. However, by comparing the Kani Charmou materials with excavated artifacts from Kul Tarikeh (Rezavani and Rostai Reference Rezvani and Roustaei2007) and Changbar (Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007) graveyards, we can draw some conclusions. The similarities in both quantity and quality between these materials and these known Mannaean grave inventories strongly suggest that the items recovered from Kani Charmou do constitute the entirety of the grave assemblages, despite the uncertainties that come with looting. The similarities also indicate that the assemblages from Kani Charmou provide a comprehensive representation of the grave inventories of common Mannaean people.

The finds constitute a rich typological variety of materials. The artifacts consist of five pottery vessels, four bronze bowls, a dagger, ten bronze pins, six bracelets, a ring, two horse harness pieces, eight studs, two buttons, 73 different beads and two whetstones.

Dagger

The remains of a dagger consist of the hilt and the initial part of the blade stuck in the guard. The fragment is made of two different metals: copper/bronze and iron. The handle is solid, composed of a bronze pommel resting on the knob shaped terminal of a grip made of alternating rings of bronze and iron, ending in a bronze guard (Fig. 6). This object finds parallels at the Iranian sites of HasanluFootnote 1 and ZiwiyeFootnote 2, where similar handles were recovered but in alternating black and white stones, rather than metal rings. Other examples of ring-made hilts, bimetallic or from a single material, have come to light in Iran from Kani KoterFootnote 3, and in Armenia at Mouci-yeriFootnote 4, MakarashenFootnote 5, and Astkhi-blurFootnote 6. Transcaucasia and the Talesh/Talyche region are identified by Thornton and Pigott as the prime sources of comparable sword types.Footnote 7

Figure 6. Bimetallic dagger from Kani Charmou

Within Room 9 at Hasanlu, the skeletal remains of three adult males were discovered alongside the famous Gold Bowl. It is suggested that these individuals were invading forces engaged in looting the upper levels of the Burned Building at Hasanlu. Their demise was likely a result of the collapse of the structure, causing them to fall into Room 9 from a considerable height, estimated to be at least 3 meters. Consequently, these soldiers can be identified as looting enemy combatants rather than local defenders of Hasanlu. Danti provides a comprehensive analysis of the attire, military gear, and associated objects of these slain enemiesFootnote 8. It is noteworthy that the soldiers were well-equipped and prepared for battle, with indications of standardized equipment.

Of particular significance is Skeleton No. 38, who was found carrying the Hasanlu Gold Bowl, housing three additional elite items, including a dagger similar to the one discovered at Kani Charmou. The Hasanlu dagger features an iron blade, mostly deteriorated, a ribbed bone pommel, and a grip crafted from rings of red sandstone and ivory around a bronze core. The presence of this dagger at Hasanlu serves as a valuable example for dating the Kani Charmou cemetery. Dyson's analysis of the stratigraphy within the remaining walls of Room 9 reveals that it corresponds to the terminal Period IVb destruction, which sealed a midden deposit dating to the final phase of the building's use. According to Danti, the maces, helmets, and personal ornaments tentatively suggest that the enemy combatants may have originated from the northwestern Zagros or southern Caucasus regions, potentially including Urartu, during the late ninth century B.C.

Pins

The Kani Charmou collection contained nine pins, varying in thickness and length from 120 to 170 mm (Fig. 7). The pins are characterized by a spherical head, ending in a flat pedunculus. Pin number 1 (Fig. 7:1) has an undulating decorative line running around the lower part of the spherical head. At the upper part of the shaft, immediately under the head, a three-spoke projection is applied, each spoke shorter than the radius of the overlying sphere, so as not to protrude beyond it. Under the projection, five successive horizontal incisions divide the upper shaft into four segments, the first and the fourth each covering one-third of the area, while the central part is equally divided between two shorter segments. Below the fifth incision, a zigzag line runs around the shaft.

Figure 7. Pins from Kani Charmou

Pins 2, 3, and 4 (Fig. 7: 2–4) present similar, but more complex, decoration in the head area, with three studs protruding from each sphere above the undulating line; the three-spoke projections on these pins are longer than the head's radius. The shafts are instead simpler, with that of pin 2 being plain, and those of pins 3 and 4 presenting horizontal lines immediately under the three-spoke projection.

The head of pin 5 is plain, with a four-spoke projection and incised horizontal lines below. Pin 6 is entirely devoid of decorations, with a less defined, slightly angular surface on the top sphere and a three spoke projection. Pin 7 presents a deep wavy-line decoration on the lower part of the spherical head, similar to a flower's petals, with horizontal lines under a four-spoke projection. Pin 8 has two horizontal lines at the base of the spherical head, under which three studs occupy the higher area on the shaft, followed by three more horizontal lines. Only the upper part of pin 9 survives. The head has no incisions but is decorated with four studs. Under it is a four-spoke projection, protruding beyond the head, followed by five horizontal lines.

Hundreds of such pins have been excavated from ZiwiyeFootnote 9, ChangbarFootnote 10 and Kul TarikeFootnote 11, all in Iran, but unfortunately at none of these sites is the position of the pins and the gender of the body associated with them discernable. During his expedition in Mokri Kurdistan, de Morgan, with the help of Saifeddin Khan-e MokriFootnote 12, excavated three tombs close to a village which he erroneously named Khalil-déhlil; the correct name should be Khal Dalil (Kurdish: خال دهليل ), a village in Kani Bazar Rural District, Khalifan District, Mahabad region. One of the excavated tombs contained two bodies, identified as one male and one female. His description of the discovery contradicts the drawings, which he himself drew. Despite the drawing showing one pin on the male body and two on the female, in the description de Morgan claims that all three of the pins were associated with the female skeletonFootnote 13. From 200 excavated tombs at Changbar, 76 such pins were excavated in 43 graves, found in both pairs and single exemplars. An example also has been excavated from section B at Zendan-i SuleimanFootnote 14.

Bracelets

Six bronze bracelets were among the objects from Kani Charmou (Fig. 8). They can be divided into four different categories based on their decoration.

Figure 8. Bracelets/Anklets from Kani Charmou

The first category is a simple cast bronze bracelet (or anklet?)Footnote 15 with open ends (Fig. 8: 1). The second group contains three examples and is characterized by an open hoop shape with zoomorphic terminals (stylized representations of snake heads). One of the examples (Fig. 8: 3) bears additional decoration of diagonally incised lines and flower stems between lines on three sides of the band. It is also heavier than the others. The terminals on both ends of example no. 4 (Fig. 8: 4) are worked into a dragon head shape, with deep cuts.

The third category has a single exemplar, a single wire with a simple pattern of parallel diagonal lines engraved on the surface, and with pierced and flattened club terminals connected with a rivet (Fig. 8: 5). The last category contained only one spiral-shaped bracelet, smaller than the examples from the other groups (Fig. 8: 6). It could have been worn by a child, as the evidence from the Zagros graveyard in Sanandaj shows. The examples from Sanandaj were associated with a child's body in tomb no. 12Footnote 16.

Bracelets similar to the Kani Charmou examples decorated with snakes' heads have a long history in the ancient Near East and are presented in a number of varieties, reflecting different production centers. The earliest examples of such bracelets are from the Caucasus, dating from the Late BronzeFootnote 17 to the Early Iron AgeFootnote 18. Examples are reported from HasanluFootnote 19 (northwestern Iran), DashkesanFootnote 20 and GedabekFootnote 21 (southern Caucasus), Mkhart (Georgia), and TaleshFootnote 22, all dated to the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages.

Such bracelets have also been found in Iron Age II and III contexts at Sarrez (Kurdistan province, Iran)Footnote 23, Munjuglutepe (Azerbaijan)Footnote 24, KalakentFootnote 25 (Azerbaijan), Zhinvali (Georgia)Footnote 26 and Lori Berd (Armenia)Footnote 27. Two examples are reported from Iraq at AshurFootnote 28 and Nimrud, above the Nabu TempleFootnote 29. They also are known from Urartian sites with numerous slight variations of style from Sos HöyükFootnote 30 and in a tomb of a child at the Castle of CavustepeFootnote 31, and at Armavir-Blur,Footnote 32 Bastam,Footnote 33 and Karmir-Blur,Footnote 34 as well as Urartian cemeteries at Van/Altıntepe,Footnote 35 Van/Kalecik,Footnote 36 Iğdır,Footnote 37 and Patnos/Dedeli.Footnote 38 In addition, numerous slight variations of snake head terminal bracelets were discovered from Achaemenid sites of Deve Höyük (Turkey) and Pasargadae (Iran).Footnote 39

Despite the lack of any sure proof about the provenience of this design, it is still safe to assume that its roots go back to Late Bronze and early Iron Ages in the southern Caucasus. In this area, it is possible to find a large number of very simplified versions of snake head bracelets; the third category described above could be a successive evolution of this type, after the Urartian culture absorbed the indigenous traditions.

Ring

One plain hoop bronze ring with slightly overlapping ends was in the Kani Charmou collection (Fig. 9).

Figure 9. Plain hoop bronze ring from Kani Charmou

Horse harness and equipment

Bell: The Kani Charmou assemblage also includes a bronze rectangular bell, with sides tapering toward the top, where there is a semi-circular suspension loop, connected to another, smaller ring. There are two circular openings in the top, each with a low collar; originally a clapper was held in place by a wire, now lost, passing through these holes (Fig. 10). An example from Deve Höyük (Turkey) is the most likely parallel for this objectFootnote 40.

Figure 10. Bronze bell from Kani Charmou

Frontlet: The frontlet from Kani Charmou is a trapezoidal thin bronze sheet with a central ridge, showing signs of corrosion on the edges. Perforations near the edges of both the upper and lower parts can be interpreted as eyelets for the passage of a fabric or leather binding to keep the piece in place as an ornament or armor to protect a horse's forehead (Fig. 11). An exact comparison piece comes from ZiwiyeFootnote 41, and three unprovenanced specimens come from the antiquities marketFootnote 42.

Figure 11. Frontlet from Kani Charmou

Studs

Özgen has provided a basic typology for studs or bronze discs. Apart from their potential use as cymbals, Özgen specified that they served as decorative elements for belts, shields, clothing, armor, and horse harnesses.Footnote 43 The studs found at Kani Charmou (Fig. 12) can be categorized into two groups. The first group comprises a ceramic example with a circular base and a protruding conical center, with an additional circular component attached to the end of the cone. Near the edge of the base, there is a small piercing (Fig. 12: 1).

Figure 12. Ceramic (1) and bronze (2–8) studs from Kani Charmou

The second group comprises seven circular bronze studs, each with a protruding conical center, featuring an additional circular component fixed to the end of the cone. These studs can be flat or rounded on top, and some have a loop at the interior. Some are decorated with parallel incised lines around the upper cone. Such decorative elements were commonly used in horse bridles, headgear, browbands, and neck straps, fixed to leather straps in order to hold them in placeFootnote 44, and served as adornments for chariot side panelsFootnote 45. Interestingly, similar decorative elements have also been found on human bodies and may have been attached to clothing.Footnote 46

Studs with loop fasteners, known as Urartian horse harness bosses, were a cultural commonality and widely used in northwestern and western Iran, as well as in Urartian and Assyrian territoriesFootnote 47 during the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. Comparable examples have been discovered at various Iranian Iron Age sites, including Hasanlu,Footnote 48 Zagros Graveyard,Footnote 49 Baba Jan,Footnote 50 and War Kabud,Footnote 51 as well as Urartian sites such as the Columbarium in Yerevan,Footnote 52 Dizginkale,Footnote 53 and Alişar.Footnote 54 In Assyria, they are predominantly found at Nimrud.Footnote 55

Ceramics

The ceramic assemblage discovered at Kani Charmou (Fig. 13) can be classified into three distinct categories. The first category comprises three examples that fall into two sub-types. The first sub-type consists of a fragmented glazed bottle with everted rim, two vertical lugs, and a button-base, adorned with yellow and white lappet motifs on the shoulder (Fig. 13: 1). The second sub-type consists of two polychrome glazed bottles (Fig. 13: 2a and b) with rolled rims and globular bodies. One of these bottles (a) has a slightly pointed base and a petal pattern at the shoulder, executed in green, yellow, and white glaze with prominent dark outlines. The second bottle (b) has a flattened base and a petal pattern at the shoulder, also created with yellow and white glaze and thick dark outlines.

Figure 13. Kani Charmou glazed pottery vessels

The second category encompasses a single example—a blue glazed bottle with an elongated shape, rolled rim, and round base (Fig. 13: 3). The third category also includes a solitary item, a red fabric jar with a globular shape, flat base, and broken rim (Fig. 13: 4). The neck-shoulder join has two parallel grooved lines.

The glazed ceramics from Kani Charmou exhibit stylistic characteristics reminiscent of the widely recognized ‘Neo-Assyrian’ style, prevalent during the first half of the first millennium B.C., with the most common dating ranging from the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. These glazed vessels are diagnostic artifacts based on their shape, surface treatment, and fabric, further contributing to our understanding of the period.Footnote 56

The first sub-type with lug handles is very rare in both Iran and Mesopotamia. There are two examples of unknown provenience kept in the Sanandaj Museum, which have the same shape and decoration but pointed basesFootnote 57. The only exact comparison example comes from Kani Koter.Footnote 58 The second sub-type of the first category is the most common form of glazed bottles, which display a remarkable similarity in decoration across a wide range of sites. Examples have been recovered from late Neo-Assyrian contexts at Khirbet QasrijFootnote 59, AshurFootnote 60, NimrudFootnote 61, Tell Sheikh Hamad,Footnote 62 Tell Halaf,Footnote 63 Qasr Shemamok (ancient Kilizu)Footnote 64 and Khirbat Khattunya.Footnote 65 Also, in Iran similar glazed bottles have been reported from Ziwiye,Footnote 66 Kul Tarikeh,Footnote 67 Khanileh,Footnote 68 ChangbarFootnote 69 and War Kabud.Footnote 70 PoradaFootnote 71 asserted that the greatest concentration of glazed potteries was found the territory south of Lake Urmia, so this region could be the birth place of this ceramic type. This proposal is also supported by Hassanzadeh.Footnote 72

According to Assyrian historical texts, the Assyrian Empire maintained political and military relations with the regional power of Urartu and the local Mannaean governing bodies during the reign of Sargon II. Recent research conducted by Abbas Razmpoush and Shelir AmeliradFootnote 73 focused on the glazed brick motifs from Qalāichi, in northwest Iran, shedding light on the prevalent motifs and iconography associated with the Mannaean cultural sphere. The Qalāichi brick motifs portray ceremonial purification and devotional practices, symbolized by the lotus and the sacred tree. The presence of these motifs at Qalāichi cannot be solely attributed to artistic inspiration by or the adoption of Assyrian decorative styles. Instead, they signify an emergent Mannaean belief in the divine aspects of this purification ritual and the existence of a related religious belief in the region. “A stylized tree with obvious religious significance already occurs as an art motif in fourth-millennium Mesopotamia, and by the second millennium B.C., it is found everywhere within the orbit of the ancient Near Eastern oikumene. About the middle of the second millennium, a new development in the iconography of the tree becomes noticeable leading to the emergence of the so-called Late Assyrian Tree under Tululti-Ninurta I. With the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, this form of the Tree spreads throughout the entire Near East” (Parpola Reference Parpola1993: 161–163). This spread coincides with the peak of Assyrian–Mannaean contact during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. In addition to brick motifs, these lotus and sacred tree symbols are observed in a diverse range of cultural materials found at Mannaean sites, particularly in burial contexts, during the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. These cultural materials include ceramics, metals, and ivories, demonstrating their widespread distribution throughout the majority of Mannaean settlements and cemeteries.Footnote 74

Razmpoush and Amelirad (unpublished) have assessed glazed pottery, including round and conical miniature jars, large conical jars, and pots, with symbols associated with the lotus and the sacred tree. These forms are found in a wide geographical area, including western Iran, especially in areas attributed to Mannaea. These jars were used in funeral rites and are often found in burial mounds and cemeteries, such as Kani Koter,Footnote 75 Ziwiye,Footnote 76 Kul Tarikeh,Footnote 77 ChangbarFootnote 78 and War Kabud.Footnote 79. Based on an example of a larger version of these jars in a tomb in AssyriaFootnote 80, it is thought that this type of jar was used to store cremated remains. But use for consecrated oil has also been suggestedFootnote 81. In the case of smaller jars, due to the numerous relief images that show these jars on special tables in libation ceremonies, their use as containers for transporting and consuming special drinks in Assyrian rituals can be suggested with some confidence.

Metal vessels

Four metal bowls are included in the collection from Kani Charmou, consisting of two fluted and two simple bowls (Fig. 14). The first fluted bronze bowl has a vertical, slightly curved rim, a compressed spherical body and an omphalos shaped base. The body is embellished with 95 relief grooves radiating outward from near the base. The second example is similar to the first but with different cross-hatched fluting. The third vessel is an intact plain hemispherical bowl with a thick rim and rounded base. The fourth bowl has a compressed hemispherical shape, with a vertical rim and a flat base. A rectangular metal sheet is attached to the vessel's rim with four rivets; the bowl had probably cracked, and the metal sheet was used to fix it.

Figure 14. Metal bowls from Kani Charmou

All examples of this style of bowl from sites in Iran, with fluted or lobed decorations, and with or without an omphalos, have come into light from graves, which emphasises their religious connotations as possible parts of funerary banquets. Exact parallels for the first bowl come from War KabudFootnote 82 and Kani KoterFootnote 83 in Iran and from AshurFootnote 84 in Iraq. In Urartian territory, such bowls were discovered in graves and other religion-associated contexts. Examples came from the Ayanis fortress, associated with remains of the sacred tree, a wooden table, decorated walls, and remains of feastingFootnote 85. Other bowls of this sort came to light from graves at DedeliFootnote 86, AdilcevazFootnote 87, and ÇavuştepeFootnote 88. Comparisons for the second example, with the intricate network pattern, with and without omphalos, are known from Kani Koter,Footnote 89 Zagros Graveyard,Footnote 90 Sarrez,Footnote 91 War Kabud,Footnote 92 Djub-i GauharFootnote 93 and AshurFootnote 94.

Bronze bowls with grooved and petal decoration were widespread in west and northwestern Iran, Mesopotamia and Urartu during the ninth–seventh centuries B.C. For this reason, it is difficult to attribute this style of bowl to a specific geographical area, as ideas and techniques spread over large areas through political and economic networks and were adopted by local workshopsFootnote 95. Local workshops were also often inspired by foreign ideasFootnote 96. Curtis based his hypothesis that these fluted bowl types were Assyrian on two premisesFootnote 97. First, he argued that the same shape occurs in contemporary ceramic vessels, especially from NimrudFootnote 98. Second, bowls of this shape appear frequently in Neo-Assyrian reliefs,Footnote 99 in contexts that associate them with Assyrians. They are usually gadroonedFootnote 100 and appear as utensils at royal banquets or in the context of ritual acts (for example, for royal libations).Footnote 101

Regarding the first premise, it should be noted that it is possible to observe the same shape, in ceramic, at Mala MchaFootnote 102, situated in Iranian Kurdistan, in the area formerly occupied by the Mannaean kingdom; this circumstance makes it impossible to safely locate the origin of the form.

Seal

A clay cylinder seal was among the collection of objects found at Kani Charmou. This seal measures 3.1 cm in height, 1.0 cm in diameter, and has a perforation of 0.4 cm diameter. The design is bordered at the top and bottom by grooves, and the scene features two bird-shaped figures, possibly griffins, depicted in a linear style commonly associated with seals from the Neo-Assyrian period (Fig. 15).

Figure 15. Cylinder seal from Kani Charmou

The seal design shares significant similarities in theme, composition, and individual details with Neo-Assyrian seals found in Sargon's Palace in Khorsabad,Footnote 103 and at Ashur,Footnote 104 Nimrud,Footnote 105 Tell Halaf,Footnote 106 and several sites in the Levant.Footnote 107 These seals have been dated to the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., specifically during the reign of Shalmaneser III.Footnote 108

Similar seals with identical designs have been unearthed in Iran, specifically in Ziwiye,Footnote 109 Changbar,Footnote 110 Qareh Tepe,Footnote 111 Sorkh Dome,Footnote 112 and Gohargoosh TepeFootnote 113. Additionally, the National Museum of Iran houses four unprovenanced specimens in a collection purchased from Qazvin.Footnote 114 Buchanan also mentions the presence of comparable seals dating back to the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. in the Ashmolean Museum.Footnote 115

Beads

Beads represent the most abundant type of grave goods from the Kani Charmou cemetery (fig. 16) and also present the greatest number of different materials, including frit or faience (19), glass (5), carnelian (47), shell (1), and metal (1).

Figure 16. Bead assemblages from Kani Charmou

The faience beads of Kani Charmou fall into three typological groups: two long light blue glazed cylinders with incised linear decoration (Fig. 16: a-b), a light blue glazed four-sided star-shape (Fig. 16: c) and tiny cylindrical beads in both blue and white colours. Glazed star-shaped beads are common across the Mannaean kingdom; comparable beads came to light in KultarikehFootnote 116, Mala MchaFootnote 117 and ChangbarFootnote 118. The glass beads are white and black, with standard cylindrical forms. Carnelian beads have simple shapes: cylinder, barrel and sphere, plus one scaraboid-shaped bead (Fig. 16: d). The metal bead is a cylindrical coil made of a thin, looped copper alloy wire (Fig. 16: e).

Whetstones

There are two perforated whetstones in the collection. They are long and rectangular with rounded edges, made of fine-grained stones, probably sandstone (Fig. 17). In the perforation of one, there is the remains of an iron suspension ring. The second does not have traces of a metal ring, and it is possible that a fabric string was passed through the hole for hanging purposes. These items are fairly common among the finds of Iron Age graves. Examples of such whetstones are reported from Surkh-i DumFootnote 119, Bard-i Bal, Kutal-i GulgulFootnote 120, Sialk BFootnote 121, MarlikFootnote 122, Zubeidi, Tell ImihiyeFootnote 123 and DedeliFootnote 124.

Figure 17. Whetstones from Kani Charmou

Bronze band

Another item of the collection is a fragment of a bronze band, decorated with two rows of repoussé dots at the edges and a wide repoussé rib in the middle (Fig. 18). Considering the curved shape and size of the band, it is plausible that it could have been a part of a bracelet.

Figure 18. Bronze band from Kani Charmou

Buttons

There are two hemispherical flat-based buttons among the Kani Charmou objects. The first example (Fig. 19: 1) is made of ivory and encircled by a row of incised circles with a point in the center. The second one is stone and has a plain surface. Such items were common over a wide area in the first millennium B.C.Footnote 125. In Iran such buttons came to light from HasanluFootnote 126, Haft TepeFootnote 127, Kani KoterFootnote 128 and Bayazid AbadFootnote 129.

Figure 19. Ivory and stone buttons from Kani Charmou

While these objects could possibly function as spindle whorls, there is evidence that suggests they served a dual purpose. Iron Age II burials at Dinkha Tepe provide support for this idea. In some instances, these objects contained what Muscarella referred to as ‘iron/reed pin hooks.’ For example, at HasanluFootnote 130 and Bazayid AbadFootnote 131, we find similar objects alongside hooked iron pins, implying that the bone hemispheres with iron pins fulfilled the same function. Additionally, in Khatunban BFootnote 132, these buttons were found alongside bent bronze nails with rounded caps, which might have been used to fasten them onto a thin, perishable materialFootnote 133.

It is possible that these items served both decorative and functional purposes, such as adorning horse trappings or clothing. Given the ambiguity in distinguishing whether they were primarily spindle whorls or buttons, it is reasonable to categorize them collectively as buttons. This decision is influenced by the fact that objects with dual functions are commonplace in the material culture of the Middle East's Iron Age contexts (Amelirad Reference Amelirad2021).

Conclusion

This report provides an overview of the discoveries at the Kani Charmou cemetery, primarily artifacts recovered from looted graves. The assemblage of burial inventories from Kani Charmou, as well as other contemporary cemeteries in the Mannaea region, exhibits significant similarities with the material cultures of Neo-Assyrian and Urartian cultures. These two cultures not only share similar material types but also display certain iconographic and ideological features.

The material from Kani Charmou probably dates to the Iron Age II period, spanning from the ninth to eighth centuries B.C. While the collection does not encompass all possible Mannaean artifacts, it provides valuable insights into a particular category of items, namely pins. These pins found at Kani Charmou indeed stand out as distinctive of the local context. It is important to note that the remaining items are not characteristic of the local area. This suggests that such items were either produced locally based on imported designs or were acquired through trade from outside sources. The glazed ceramic and metal vessels, which may have served ritual functions, were discovered in funerary contexts and were not intended for everyday use. The abundance of available archaeological data, both from systematic excavations and materials from looted graves held in the Sanandaj Museum, highlights the widespread use of these types of vessels in the Mannaean region. These vessels closely resemble the funerary or ceremonial wares found in Urartu and Assyria, suggesting a potential shared role in rituals and sacred ceremonies associated with feasts and libations. However, the lack of scientific explorations in the Mannaean region leaves room for uncertainty regarding the exact origin of the vessels common across Urartu, Assyria, and Mannaea.

Considering the current state of our study, the available data are insufficient to determine a terminus post quem for the introduction of these vessels. It is also challenging to establish which region, if any, took the lead in their production and dissemination, or whether one group was merely imitating or importing the designs of another. Making any definitive claims in this regard would be unfair at best. Consequently, it is highly probable that future scientific excavations conducted in this district will yield more contextualized information regarding the findings, ultimately helping to address the ambiguities presented by the Kani Sharmou collection.

Footnotes

1 Thornton and Pigott Reference Thornton, Piggot and de Schauensee2011: 159: figs. 6.23, 6.25.

2 Ghirshman Reference Ghirshman1964: 118.

3 Amelirad and Azizi Reference Amelirad and Azizi2021: fig. 24.

4 de Morgan Reference de Schauensee1889: 91.

5 Martirosyan Reference Martirosyan1964: fig. 80: 5

6 Esayan Reference Esayan1976: figs. 122 and 140: 5.

7 Thornton and Pigott Reference Thornton, Piggot and de Schauensee2011: 159.

8 Danti Reference Danti2014: 791–804.

9 Ghirshman Reference Ghirshman1979: pls. II: 8; IV: 4, 9, 10; VI: 7.

10 Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007: passim.

11 Rezvani and Roustaei Reference Rezvani and Roustaei2007: pl. 9: b.

12 Saifuddin, governor of Mokri (Sardar) and ruler of Azerbaijan, the son of the former ruler of Azerbaijan, was a descendant of the Mokri governors and therefore had undeniable power and support over various tribes and nomads (de Morgan Reference de Morgan1896: 6) .

13 de Morgan Reference de Morgan1896: 9, fig. 12.

14 Kleiss Reference Kleiss1971: 66, pl. 58.

15 In order to distinguish bracelets from anklets, Moorey classified rings with diameters greater than 9 cm as anklets (Moorey Reference Moorey1971: 227).

16 Amelirad et al. Reference Amelirad, Overlaet and Haerinck2012: 44, pl. 15: a–b.

17 Cifarelli Reference Cifarelli, Avetisyan, Dan and Grekyan2019: 148.

18 Maxwell-Hyslop Reference Maxwell-Hyslop1971: 204–5; Moorey Reference Moorey1971: 220.

19 Cifarelli Reference Cifarelli, Avetisyan, Dan and Grekyan2019: 148, fig. 4a (examples were excavated in Burial SK111 and temple BBII, and an example was discovered associated with the body of child (SK122) in the collapsed building on the citadel.

20 Kesamanly Reference Kesamanly1999: 159, pl. 15: 2–3.

21 Afsharova Reference Afsharova2007: fig. 19: 2, 3, 4, 6.

22 Schaeffer 1948: 435–439, 500–501, figs 271: 4, 237: 7.

23 Amelirad and Razmpoush Reference Amelirad and Razmpoush2015: fig. 2c.

24 Aslanov, Ibragimov and Kashkay Reference Aslanov, Ibragimov and Kashkay2002: 22, pl. 26.

25 Nagel and Strommenger Reference Nagel and Strommenger1985: Abb. 6, Grave no. 3: 2844a, Abb. 62: grave no. 63: 1: 2651a- 2: 2651b; Abb. 67: grave no. 75: 1: 2664ba- 2: 2664b; Abb. 68: grave no. 79: 1: 2666a- 2: 2666b; Abb. 76: grave no. 96: 2: 2682b; Abb. 88: grave no. 121: 2705a; Taf. 38: grave 94 (s. S. 107b): 2: 2680b; Taf. 39: 2: grave 95 (s. S. 108b): 4: 2681: e; Taf. 44-45: grave 108 (s. S 116a) and grave 109 (s.S. 116a).

26 Chikhladze Reference Chikhladze, Sagona and Abramishvili2008: 462, Fig. 11: 1–6.

27 Devejyan Reference Devejyan1981: pl. 25 no. 10.

28 Curtis Reference Curtis2013: 24.

29 Curtis Reference Curtis2013: 8, 108, pl. LXXXIV: 879–880.

30 Sagona et al. Reference Sagona, Sagona and Ozkorocuklu1995: fig 15: 5.

31 Two dragon head bracelets on a child's skeleton were found in excavations at the Castle of Cavustepe in the Gurpinar district of Turkey's eastern Van province on August 20, 2020. https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/two-dragon-head-bracelets-on-a-childs-skeleton-found-nachrichtenfoto/1228118782.

32 Martirosyan Reference Martirosyan1974: 137, fig. 85.

33 Kroll Reference Kroll and Kleiss1979: 153, Abb. 1/21, 178, Abb.16/9.

34 Piotrovskij Reference Piotrovskij1970: fig. 79.

35 Ayaz Reference Ayaz2006: 20–21.

36 Çavuşoğlu Reference Çavuşoğlu, Işıklı and Can2015: 237, fig. 5/1–12.

37 Barnett Reference Barnett1963: fig. 32:10–11.

38 Öğün Reference Öğün and Akurgal1978a: pl. 31/Abb. 14.

39 Moorey Reference Moorey1980: figs. 11,12; Stronach Reference Stronach1978: fig. 90: 1–2.

40 Moorey Reference Moorey1980: 73, fig. 233.

41 Ghirshman Reference Ghirshman1979: pls. IV: 2–3.

42 Seidl Reference Seidl and Merhav1991: 71, fig. 19.

43 Özgen Reference Özgen1984: 103–109.

44 Valuable insights into the original arrangement of bronze studs in Nimrud were obtained when a collection of these studs was discovered in Room NE50 of Fort Shalmaneser, where the studs were found in their original position on leather straps (Curtis Reference Curtis2013: nos. 778–784, pl. LXXVIII).

45 An ivory plaque from Ziwiye depicted roundel decorations on chariot side panels (Amelirad Reference Amelirad2019: fig. 3). The representation of horses on Assyrian palace reliefs remains a crucial source of evidence for the existence of horse harness roundels. These roundels, made of bronze, are depicted in various forms in the reliefs of different Assyrian kings. For example, the reliefs of Assurnasirpal II (883–859 B.C.) (Layard Reference Layard1853: pl. 23), Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B.C.) (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand Reference Thureau-Dangin and Dunand1936: pl. LIII; Barnett and Falkner Reference Barnett and Falkner1962: pl. LXIV), Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) (Botta and Flandin Reference Botta and Flandin1849a: pl.39; Botta and Flandin Reference Botta and Flandin1849b: pl.100), Sennacherib (704–681 B.C.) (Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner Reference Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner1998: pls. 272 and 282), and Assurbanipal (668–631 B.C.) (Barnett Reference Barnett1976: pls. X and LII) all show examples of roundels. These reliefs serve as significant visual evidence for the presence and use of horse harness roundels in the Assyrian Empire.

46 In Zagros graveyard such studs were associated with the deceased in tomb A12 on her chest (Amelirad et al. Reference Amelirad, Overlaet and Haerinck2012: pl. 18). A bronze plaque from Ҫavuştepe depicts the same kind of decoration used by Urartian horsemen (Bilgiç and Öğün Reference Bilgiç and Öğün1964: pl. XX; Özgen Reference Özgen1984: 107).

47 For a comprehensive overview see Curtis Reference Curtis2013: 94–96.

48 de Schauensee and Dyson Reference de Schauensee, Dyson, Harper and Pittman1983: 63–67; de Schauensee Reference de Morgan1989: 41–42, figs. 7–8. At Hasanlu a pile of bronze studs was found in level 4 (Dyson Reference Dyson, Kiyānī and Tajvīdī1972: p. 3, fig. 11).

49 Amelirad et al. Reference Amelirad, Overlaet and Haerinck2012: pl. 18b.

50 Goff Reference Goff1969: 125, fig. 7.

51 Haerinck and Overlaet Reference Haerinck and Overlaet2004: 54–55, fig. 19, nos. 1–5.

52 Esajan et al. Reference Esajan, Bijou, Amajakjan and Kanecjan1995: pl. 9.1–2, 9.

53 Sevin Reference Sevin1981. This example is unique, as it carries an inscription of Inušpua.

54 Piotrovskij Reference Piotrovskij2011: fig. 6–7.

55 Curtis Reference Curtis2013: nos. 732–751, pl. LXXIV.

56 Doumet-Serhal Reference Doumet-Serhal1994: 99.

57 Hassanzadeh Reference Hassanzadeh, MacGinnis, Wicke and Greenfield2016: fig. 33.8: 37–38.

58 Amelirad Reference Amelirad2019: 58, fig. 4a.

59 Curtis Reference Curtis1989: fig. 45/351.

60 Andrae Reference Andrae1923: pl. 17c–d. 18 a–b; Haller Reference Haller1954: pl. 3as–ay; McDonald Reference McDonald, Curtis and Reade1995: 157, nos. 141–142.

61 Lines Reference Lines1945; Oates Reference Oates1959: 138; Oates and Oates Reference Oates and Oates2001: 242, fig. 153; Hussein 2016: pl. 180b, 194a, b, c, 193e.

62 Kühne Reference Kühne1984: fig. 67: 16.

63 Hrouda Reference Hrouda1962: pl. 56/94.

64 Anastasio Reference Anastasio2010: 194, pl. 59: 3.

65 Curtis Reference Curtis and Alexander1997: fig. 38: 161, pl. XIX.

66 Motamedi Reference Motamedi1997: 158, pl. 55: no. 7; Ghirshman Reference Ghirshman1979: pl. XXII: 5.

67 Rezavani and Rostai Reference Hassanzadeh, Karami, Bahrol'oloomi, Taheri, Tahmasbi, Moradi Bisetouni, Biglari, Fahimi and Alizadeh2007: pl. 12.

68 Hassanzadeh el al. Reference Hassanzadeh, Karami, Bahrol'oloomi, Taheri, Tahmasbi, Moradi Bisetouni, Biglari, Fahimi and Alizadeh2012: 132–3, pl. 8. 23, 8. 24.

69 Changbar cemetery was excavated by Motamedi from 1976 to 1978, and hundreds of graves were discovered, with hundreds of burial goods. Unfortunately, reports of that excavation have never been published. Naghshineh worked on this material in 2009 for his PhD thesis, in which he presented five samples (Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007: 224, fig. 17-2; 258, fig. 51–2; 284, fig. 77–2; 288, fig. 81–2).

70 Haerinck and Overlaet Reference Haerinck and Overlaet2004: fig. 9: A102–4.

71 Porada Reference Porada1962: 134.

72 Hassanzadeh Reference Hassanzadeh, MacGinnis, Wicke and Greenfield2016: 382.

73 Razmpoush and Amelirad, Reference Razmpoush and Ameliradin prep.

74 Some of the oldest glazed vessels known from Hasanlu come from the Iron Age I (Period IVc), early Iron Age II (early Period IVb), and late Iron Age II (burned structure of the second phase) as documented by Danti and Cifarelli (Reference Danti, Cifarelli, MacGinnis, Greenfield and Wicke2016: 363). These researchers highlight the presence of miniature jars with specific functions, such as containers for cosmetic materials, among the glazed vessels from the Iron Age II at Hasanlu. Danti and Cifarelli propose that Assyrian reliefs offer substantiation that these jars were stored on racks. At Hasanlu, the glazed pottery was discovered along with ivories in the same layer and context, ivories that are widely regarded as remnants of adorned racks or shelves. In addition, the similar ornamentation of the glazed pottery and ivories, along with the presence of these two objects in a common cultural context, can indicate a potential function rooted in Assyrian origins. No similar glazed jar examples have been found in early Iron Age deposits in sites surrounding Hasanlu. Unpublished research conducted by Razmpoush regarding geographic distribution highlights that although round and conical polychrome glazed jars are common within the core area of Assyria from the ninth century B.C. onwards, no examples identical to the monochrome glazed round jars found at Hasanlu have been discovered within the core area of Assyria. Moreover, the abundance of these monochrome jars in southwestern Iran, as well as their presence in northern and northwestern Iran, suggests divergent origins and distribution routes for monochrome and polychrome glazed jars. Consequently, it is plausible to consider the origin of monochrome jars to be in western Iran. Conversely, the polychrome examples may have originated outside of Iran, specifically within the core region of Assyria. It is important to note that the polychrome glazed jars from northwestern Iran, including those from the Kani Charmou cemetery, belong to a later period compared to the Hasanlu examples.

75 Amelirad and Azizi Reference Amelirad and Azizi2019: Fig. 4.

76 Motamedi Reference Motamedi1997: 158, pl. 55 no. 7; Ghirshman Reference Ghirshman1979: pl. XXII: 5.

77 Rezavani and Rostai Reference Rezvani and Roustaei2007: pl. 12.

78 Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007: 224, fig. 17-2; 258, fig. 51–2; 284, fig. 77–2; 288, fig. 81–2.

79 Haerinck and Overlaet Reference Haerinck and Overlaet2004: fig. 9; A102–4.

80 Andrae Reference Andrae1923: 16, 21.

81 Andrae, Reference Andrae1923: 16.

82 Haerinck and Overlaet Reference Haerinck and Overlaet2004: fig. 20: 10, B171–12.

83 Amelirad and Azizi Reference Amelirad and Azizi2019: 59, fig. 5.

84 Haller Reference Haller1954: pl. 12h; pl. 22c, d.

85 Batmaz Reference Batmaz2013.

86 Öğün Reference Öğün and Akurgal1978a: 67, pl. 27, Abb. 7; Öğün Reference Öğün, Şahin, Schwertheim and Wagner1978b: 667, Taf. CLXI, Abb. 33; Sciacca Reference Sciacca2005: 59, no. Dd1, fig. 65.

87 Öğün Reference Öğün and Akurgal1978a: 62–63, Taf. 29.9; Öğün Reference Öğün, Şahin, Schwertheim and Wagner1978b: 662–663, Text abb. 7, Taf. CLVI, Abb. 13; Sciacca Reference Sciacca2005: 59, no. Ad1, fig. 64; Hasserodt Reference Hasserodt2009: 468, no. 27.

88 Erzen Reference Erzen1978: 44, res. 27, lev. XXXVIIIc.

89 Amelirad and Azizi Reference Amelirad and Azizi2019: 59, fig. 7.

90 Amelirad et al. Reference Amelirad, Overlaet and Haerinck2012: 41–99, pl. 34.

91 Amelirad and Razmpoush Reference Amelirad and Razmpoush2015: fig. 4: b.

92 Haerinck and Overlaet Reference Haerinck and Overlaet2004: pl. 138: A37- 4.

93 Haerinck and Overlaet Reference Haerinck and Overlaet1999: ill. 15 no. 7, pl. 33, 77b.

94 Haller Reference Haller1954: pl. 22c–e.

95 Curtis Reference Curtis1988; Jiménez Ávila Reference Jiménez Ávila2015; Matthäus Reference Matthäus, Aruz and Seymour2016.

96 E.g., Curtis Reference Curtis2013: 71–72; Hasserodt Reference Hasserodt2009: 317–328; Sciacca Reference Sciacca and Jiménez Ávila2015.

97 Curtis Reference Curtis2013: 69.

98 Oates Reference Oates1959: 132, 142, pl. xxxvii, no. 59.

99 The first type appears in scenes involving libations, such as Ashurnasirpal II's NW Palace at Nimrud, room WI, room B: 19 (Matthiae Reference Matthiae1999: 102; Watanabe Reference Watanabe2002: fig. 9 and 11), Ashurbanipal's N Palace at Nineveh, room S1, (upper story collapsed), room S in situ, and entrance (columns) (Orthmann Reference Orthmann1975: nos. 242 and 243). The second type is depicted in the advance of Assyrian officials and foreign tributaries toward the Assyrian king in Sargon II's palace at Khorsabad: Facade N, slab 21 (Botta and Flandin Reference Botta and Flandin1849a: pl. 37; Albenda Reference Albenda1986: 67, pl. 24); Room 10, slabs 2–7 (Botta and Flandin Reference Botta and Flandin1849b: pls. 124–129; Albenda Reference Albenda1986: 70, pls. 27–30); Facade L, slabs 26, 35 (Botta and Flandin Reference Botta and Flandin1849a: pls. 16, 23; Albenda Reference Albenda1986: 65, pls. 47, 50; Merhav Reference Merhav and Merhav1991: 200, fig. 1.5); Room 6, slabs 2–6 (Botta and Flandin Reference Botta and Flandin1849b: pl. 104; Albenda Reference Albenda1986: 73, pl. 67) and in the hands of the Assyrian king, who is standing/sitting between dignitaries and/or winged genies (Ashurnasirpal II's NW palace at Nimrud: Room B, slabs 19–20 (Meuszyński Reference Meuszyński1981: Taf. 1/3); Room C, slab 7 (Meuszyński Reference Meuszyński1981: Taf. 4/2); Room G, slabs 3, 8, 10, 13, 16, 25, 29 (Meuszyński Reference Meuszyński1981: Taf. 8, 9/3-4; Merhav 1991c: 174, fi g. 10a), Room H, slabs 2, 4, 9, 13, 16, 19, 26, 29, 31, 33 (Meuszyński Reference Meuszyński1981: Taf. 11, 12/1,3-4), and in banquet scenes in the hands of Ashurbanipal's queen at Nineveh, North palace, Room S1, slab C (Barnett Reference Barnett1976: 57, pls. LXIII–LXV).

100 Madhloom Reference Madhloom1970: pl. XXXIV-1; Layard Reference Layard1849: pl. 36 right.

101 Akkadian kappu refers to open (plain and fluted) bowls, which were usually made of metal (bronze, silver, gold) or wood. Kappu were used for libations of water or oil (Oppenheim, Reiner and Biggs Reference Oppenheim, Reiner and Biggs1971: 188–189; Hasserodt Reference Hasserodt2009: 9–10, 12–13).

102 Amelirad et al. Reference Amelirad, Mohajernezhad and Javidkhah2017: fig. 25f.

103 Loud and Altman Reference Loud and Altman1938: 98, nos. 90 and 94.

104 Moortgat Reference Moortgat1940: pl. 84: nos. 714–717; Klengel-Brandt Reference Klengel-Brandt2014: Taf. 51: nos. 270–273.

105 Parker Reference Parker1955: 104, ND.1686.

106 Hrouda Reference Hrouda1962: 36, nos. 44–45.

107 Parker Reference Parker1949: 7, no. 4.

108 Parker Reference Parker1955: 104. Similar representations of winged figures are well known in Mesopotamia; in the Levant and Iran they are infrequent. In Mesopotamia they came to light from Ashur (Moortgat Reference Moortgat1940: nos. 710–713) and Tell al Rimah (Parker: Reference Parker1975: fig.  5). In Iran, such scenes are reported from Sorkh Dome-Lori (Schmidt, van Loon and Curvers Reference Schmidt, Loon and Curvers1989: 416, no. 50), and purchased seals from Qazvin in the National Museum of Iran (Saed Mucheshi and Tala'i Reference Saed Mucheshi and Tala'i2012: nos. 9-10) and Changbar (Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007: pls. 9‒2: 55‒001‒9; 8‒2: 55‒001-1-2, 8; 19‒2: 55-031‒1, 3; 79‒2: 55‒17‒11, 96‒2: 55‒143‒14, 16; 97‒2: 55‒143‒26‒27. An example from the Levant was published by Parker (Reference Parker1949: 38, pl. 25. fig. 171) and examples in the Ashmolean Museum are published by Buchanan (Reference Buchanan1966: 112‒13: figs. 619‒622).

109 Ascalone and Baseri Reference Ascalone, Baseri, Stucky, Kaelin and Mathys2014: 36.

110 Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007: pls. 96‒2: 55‒143‒15; 122‒2: 56‒061‒7.

111 Dehpahlavan and Alinezhad Reference Dehpahlavan and Alinezhad2022: fig. 3, nos. 34‒40.

112 Schmidt and van Loon Reference Schmidt, Loon and Curvers1989: 416, no. 52.

113 Ghobadizadeh et al. Reference Ghobadizadeh, Sabzi and Omidi2023: fig. 2.

114 Saed Mucheshi Reference Saed Mucheshi2015: nos. 5–8.

115 Buchanan Reference Buchanan1966: 113, pl. 41, no. 623.

116 Rezvani and Roustaei Reference Rezvani and Roustaei2007: pl. 19a.

117 Amelirad et al. Reference Amelirad, Mohajernezhad and Javidkhah2017: fig. 28b.

118 Naghshineh Reference Naghshineh2007: pl. 53–2: 55–093–5.

119 Schmidt, van Loon and Curvers Reference Schmidt, Loon and Curvers1989: 352, pl. 217.

120 Overlaet Reference Overlaet2003: 181, fig. 146.

121 Ghirshman Reference Ghirshman1939: 60–61, fig. 7.

122 Negahban Reference Negahban1996: 299–300, pl. 130.

123 Boehmer Reference Boehmer1983: 107–108, figs. 6, 11.

124 Öğün Reference Öğün, Şahin, Schwertheim and Wagner1978b: 667, Taf. CLXIII, Abb. 48.

125 Amelirad and Azizi Reference Amelirad and Azizi2021: 70.

126 Hakemi and Rad Reference Hakemi and Rad1950: fig. 51, 53; Danti and Cifarelli Reference Danti and Cifarelli2015: figs. 15: F1-3; H2 and 23: L4.

127 Negahban Reference Negahban1991: figs. 218–227.

128 Amelirad and Azizi 2018: fig. 23.

129 Amelirad Reference Amelirad2021.

130 Danti and Cifarelli Reference Danti and Cifarelli2015: 32.

131 Amelirad Reference Amelirad2021: 313‒316.

132 Muscarella Reference Muscarella1974: fig. 36: 755; fig. 47 nos. 756–75.

133 Haerinck et al. Reference Haerinck and Overlaet2004: 127: pl. 17–18.

References

Afsharova, I. 2007. The Bronze Art Productions (Wares) of Tribes of Khojaly-Gedabek Culture. Baku: Nurlan.Google Scholar
Albenda, P. 1986. The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria: Monumental Wall Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin, from Original Drawings Made at the Time of Their Discovery in 1843–1844 by Botta and Flandin. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.Google Scholar
Amelirad, S. 2021. Bayazid Abad (Bayazi Awa): Transition of Material Patterns from the Middle Bronze to the Iron Age in North-Western Iran. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Amelirad, S., and Azizi, E.. 2021. “Kani Koter, Iron Age Cemetery from Iranian Kurdistan.” Iran 59 (1): 57–76.10.1080/05786967.2019.1633240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amelirad, S., Overlaet, B. and Haerinck, H.. 2012. “The Iron Age Zagros Graveyard near Sanandaj (Iranian Kurdistan): Preliminary Report on the First Season.” Iranica Antiqua 47: 41–99.Google Scholar
Amelirad, S. and Razmpoush, A.. 2015. “A Newly Discovered Iron Age Site at Sarrez, Iranian Kurdistan”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 52: 207–216.Google Scholar
Amelirad, Sh. 2019. “A Study of Ivory and Bone Plaques from Ziwiye in the Sanandaj Museum.” Iraq 81: 11–21.10.1017/irq.2019.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amelirad, Sh. and Azizi, E.. 2019. “Kani Koter, Iron Age Cemetery from Iranian Kurdistan.” Iran 59 (1): 57–76.10.1080/05786967.2019.1633240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amelirad, Sh., Mohajernezhad, A. R. and Javidkhah, M.. 2017. “A Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavation at Mala Mcha Graveyard Kurdistan, Iran.” Iran 55 (2): 171–207.10.1080/05786967.2017.1355523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anastasio, S. 2010. Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age (Subartu XXIV). Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Andrae, W. 1923. Farbige Keramik aus Assur und ihre Vorstufen in altassyrischen Wandmalereien. Berlin: Scarabaeus-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ascalone, E., and Baseri, Z.. 2014. “New Archaeological Finds from Ziwiye. Preliminary Notes on the Ziwiye Seals Corpus” In Stucky, R., Kaelin, O. and Mathys, H-P.. (eds), Proceedings of the IXth International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Basel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 31–41.Google Scholar
Aslanov, G., Ibragimov, B. and Kashkay, S.. 2002. Ancient Necropolis of Kharaba-Gilan. Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. Baku: Nurlan.Google Scholar
Ayaz, G. 2006. Van/Altıntepe Urartu Nekropolü Takıları. Unpublished Master's thesis, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van.Google Scholar
Barnett, R. D. 1963. “The Urartian Cemetery at Igdry.” Anatolian Studies 13: 153–198.10.2307/3642493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, R. D. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668–627 BC). London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Barnett, R. D. and Falkner, M.. 1962. The Sculptures of Assur-nasir-apli II (883–859 B.C.), Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 B.C.), Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.) from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Barnett, R. D., Bleibtreu, E., and Turner, G.. 1998. Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Batmaz, A. 2013. “A New Ceremonial Practice at Ayanis Fortress: The Urartian Sacred Tree Ritual on the Eastern Shore of Lake Van.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 72: 65–83.10.1086/669099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgiç, E., and Öğün, B. 1964. “Excavations at Kef Kalesi of Adilcevaz, 1964.” Anadolu/ Anatolia 8: 93–124.Google Scholar
Boehmer, R. M. 1983. “Dolche vom Tell Subeide (Hamrin)”. Baghdader Mitteilungen 14: 101–108.Google Scholar
Botta, P. E. and Flandin, E.. 1849a. Monument de Ninive, I: Architecture et Sculpture. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Botta, P. E. and Flandin, E.. 1849b. Monument de Ninive, II. Architecture et Sculpture. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B. 1966. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chikhladze, V. 2008 “The Zhinvali Cemetery” in Sagona, A. and Abramishvili, M., eds. Archaeology in the Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 449–465.Google Scholar
Cifarelli, M. 2019. “Hasanlu, the Southern Caucasus and Early Urartu.” In Avetisyan, P. S., Dan, R. and Grekyan, Y., eds., Over the Mountains and Far Away: Studies in Near Eastern History and Archaeology Presented to Mirjo Salvini on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 144–156.Google Scholar
Curtis, J., ed. 1988. Bronze-Working Centres of Western Asia c. 1000–539 B.C. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Curtis, J. 1989. Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij. Saddam Dam Report 10. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Curtis, J. 2013. An Examination of Late Assyrian Metalwork with Special reference to Nimrud. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Curtis, J. E. 1997. “Assyrian Horse Trappings and Harness.” In Alexander, D., ed., Furusiyya I: The Horse in the Art of the Near East. Riyadh: King Abdulazza Public Library: pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
Çavuşoğlu, R. 2015. “Van Kalecik Nekropolünden Urartu Takıları.” In Işıklı, M. and Can, B., eds. Uluslararası Doğu Anadolu Güney Kafkasya Kültürleri Sempozyumu Bildiriler II. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 229–242.Google Scholar
Danti, M. D. 2014. “The Hasanlu (Iran) Gold Bowl in context: All that Glitters….” Antiquity 88 (341): 791–804.10.1017/S0003598X00050699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Morgan, J. 1889. Mission Scientifique au Caucase I. Paris: Ernest Leroux.Google Scholar
de Morgan, J. 1896. Mission scientifique en Perse: Recherches archéologiques. 1896-97 (Vol. 4). Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Danti, M. and Cifarelli, M.. 2015. “Iron II Warrior Burials at Hasanlu Tepe, Iran.” Iranica Antiqua 50: 61–157.Google Scholar
Danti, M. and Cifarelli, M.. 2016. “Assyrianizing Contexts at Hasanlu IVb? Materiality and Identity in Iron II Northwest Iran”. In MacGinnis, J., Greenfield, T., and Wicke, D., eds., The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: McDonald Institute: pp. 357–369.Google Scholar
Dehpahlavan, M. and Alinezhad, Z.. 2022. “The Cylinder Seals of Qareh Tepe in Sagzabad, Iron Age II and III”. Iran 60(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
de Schauensee, M. 1989. “Horse Gear from Hasanlu.” Expedition 31/2–3: 37–52.Google Scholar
de Schauensee, M. and Dyson, R. Jr. 1983. “Hasanlu Horse Trappings and Assyrian Reliefs.” In Harper, P. and Pittman, H., eds., Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art: pp. 59–77.Google Scholar
Devejyan, S. H. 1981. Lori Berd I. The Results of Excavations of 1969–1973. Yerevan: Izd. Akademii nauk ArmSSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Doumet-Serhal, C. 1994. “La cruche à ‘arête sur le col’: Un fossile directeur de l'expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée aux 9ème et 8ème siècles avant J.-C.” Berytus 41: 99–136.Google Scholar
Dyson, R. 1972. “The Hasanlu Project, 1961-1967”. In Kiyānī, M. Y. and Tajvīdī, A., eds., Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Arts, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
Erzen, A. 1978. Çavuştepe I: MÖ 7.-6. Yüzyıl Urartu mimarlık anıtları ve Ortaçaǧ nekropolü. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi 5 (37).Google Scholar
Esajan, S. A., Bijou, L. N., Amajakjan, S. G. and Kanecjan, A. G.. 1995. “Biajnskaja grobnica v Erevane, 2”. Archeologičeskie pamjatniki Armenii 16. Urartskie pamjatniki III. Yerevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Esayan, S. A. 1976. Early Culture of the Tribes of North-East Armenia. Erevan: Akademija Nauk Armjanskoj SSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Ghirshman, R. 1939. Fouilles de Sialk près de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937, Vol. 2. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Ghirshman, R. 1964. The Arts of Ancient Iran from Its Origins to the Time of Alexander the Great. New York: Golden Press.Google Scholar
Ghirshman, R. 1979. Tombe princière de Ziwiyé et le début de l'art animalier scythe. Paris: Société iranienne pour la conservation du patrimoine national.10.1163/9789004669857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghobadizadeh, H., Sabzi, M. and Omidi, K.. 2023. “Cylindrical Seal of Gohargoosh Tepe, A Neo-Assyrian Style Seal? in Central Zagros. Parseh.” Journal of Archaeological Studies 7 (25): 55–83.Google Scholar
Goff, C. 1969. “Excavations at Bābā Jān, 1967: Second Preliminary Report.” Iran 7: 115–130.10.2307/4299617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B.. 1999. Djub-i Gauhar and Gul Khanan Murdah: Iron Age III Graveyards in the Aivan Plain (Luristan Excavation Documents Vol. III). Acta Iranica, Troisième Série, Textes et Mémoires 36. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Haerinck, E., and Overlaet, B.. 2004. The Iron Age III graveyard at War Kabud, Luristan Pusht-i Kuh. Luristan Excavation Documents V. Acta Iranica 42. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Hakemi, A. and Rad, M.. 1950. “Description and result(s) of the excavations at Hasanlu”. Guzarishayi Bastan-Shinasi 1: 1–103. (in Persian)Google Scholar
Haller, A. 1954. Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur. WVDOG 65. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Hassanzadeh, Y. 2016. “A Survey on an ‘Assyrian’ Glazed Pottery Type in the Zagros Mountains.” In MacGinnis, J., Wicke, D., and Greenfield, T., eds., The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: McDonald Institute: pp. 371–384.Google Scholar
Hassanzadeh, Y., Karami, M., Bahrol'oloomi, F., Taheri, K., Tahmasbi, A., Moradi Bisetouni, A., and Biglari, F.. 2012. “New Evidence of Chalcolithic and Early Historic Occupations from Northwest of the Kermanshah Plain, Central Zagros.” In Fahimi, H. and Alizadeh, K., eds., Namvarnameh: Papers in Honour of Massoud Azarnoush,. Tehran: Iran Negar Press: pp. 125–140. (in Persian)Google Scholar
Hasserodt, M. 2009. Griechische und orientalische Metallphialen des frühen ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Griechenland. Asia Minor Studien 62. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.Google Scholar
Hrouda, B. 1962. Tell Halaf IV: Die Kleinfunde aus historischer Zeit. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jiménez Ávila, J., ed. 2015. Phoenician Bronzes in Mediterranean Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 45. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.Google Scholar
Kesamanly, G. P. 1999. Archaeological Monuments of Bronze-Early Iron Ages of Dashkesan District. Baku: Agridag.Google Scholar
Kleiss, W. 1971. Zendan-i Suleiman: Die Bauwerk. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Klengel-Brandt, E. 2014. Die neuassyrische Glyptik aus Assur. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kroll, S. 1979. “Die Kleinfunde.” In Kleiss, W., ed., Bastam I: Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1972-1975. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, pp. 151–170.Google Scholar
Kühne, H. 1984. “Tall Seh Hamad/Dur-katlimmu 1981-1983; Tall Seh Hamad/Dur-katlimmu 1984.” Archiv fur Orientforschung 31: 166–178.Google Scholar
Layard, A. H. 1849. The Monuments of Nineveh: From Drawings Made on the Spot. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Layard, A. H. 1853. The Monuments of Nineveh. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Lines, J. 1954. “Late Assyrian Pottery from Nimrud.” Iraq 16: 164–167.10.2307/4199588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loud, G. and Altman, C., C. 1938. Khorsabad, the Citadel and the Town, Part II. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Madhloom, T.A. 1970. The Chronology of Neo-Assyrian Art. London: University of London.Google Scholar
Martirosyan, A. A. 1964. Armenia in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Erevan: Akademija Nauk Armjanskoj SSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Martirosyan, A. A. 1974. Argistichinili. Jerewan: Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Matthäus, H. 2016. “Metalwork from the Levant to Iberia during the Early First Millennium B.C.” In Aruz, J. and Seymour, M., eds. Assyria to Iberia: Art and Culture in the Iron Age. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 273–282.Google Scholar
Matthiae, P. 1999. Ninive, glanzvolle Hauptstadt Assyriens. München: Hirmer.Google Scholar
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1971. Western Asiatic Jewellery c. 3000–612 B.C. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
McDonald, H. 1995. “Pottery.” In Curtis, J. and Reade, J. E, eds., Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press, pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
Merhav, R. 1991. “Every day and ceremonial utensils.” In Merhav, R., ed., Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium B.C.E. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, pp. 199–243.Google Scholar
Meuszyński, J. 1981. Die Rekonstruktion der Reliefdarstellungen und ihrer Anordnung im Nordwestpalast von Kalḫu (Nimrūd). Baghdader Forschungen, 2. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Moorey, P. R. S. 1971. Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moorey, P. R. S. 1980. Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Höyük. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Moortgat, A. 1940. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Motamedi, N. 1997. “Excavations at Ziwiye, 1995. Architecture and Ceramics.” Archaeological Reports 1: 143–170 (in Farsi).Google Scholar
Muscarella, O. 1974. “The Iron Age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 9: 35–90.10.2307/1512656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, W. and Strommenger, E.. 1985. Kalakent: Früheisenzeitliche Grabfunde aus dem transkaukasischen Gebiet von Kirovabad/Elisavetopol. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Naghshineh, A. S. 2007. Changbar. Iron Age Graveyard. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran.Google Scholar
Negahban, E. 1991. Excavations at Haft Tepe, Iran. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Negahban, E. 1996. Marlik: The Complete Excavation Report, Vol. 2. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Oates, J. 1959. “Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmanser.” Iraq 21: 130–146.10.2307/4199656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, J. and Oates, D.. 2001. Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.Google Scholar
Öğün, B. 1978a. “Die Urartäischen Gräber in der Gegend von Adilcevaz und Patnos.” In Akurgal, E., ed., Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
Öğün, B. 1978b. “Die urartäischen Bestatt ungsbräuche.” In Şahin, S., Schwertheim, E., and Wagner, J., eds., Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain 66. Leiden: Brill, pp. 639–678.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. L., Reiner, E. and Biggs, R. D., eds. 1971. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 8: K. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Orthmann, W., ed. 1975. Der alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Propyläen Verlag.Google Scholar
Overlaet, B. 2003. The Early Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan. Luristan Excavation Documents IV. Acta Iranica 40, Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Özgen, E. 1984. “The Urartian Chariot Reconsidered: II. Archaeological Evidence 9th – 7th B.C.” Anatolica 11: 91–154.Google Scholar
Parker, B. 1949. “Cylinder Seals from Palestine.” Iraq 11: 1–43.10.2307/4241686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, B. 1955. “Excavations at Nimrud, 1949–1953: Seals and Seal Impressions.” Iraq 17: 93–125.10.2307/4241722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, B. 1975. “Cylinder Seals from Tell al Rimah.” Iraq 37: 21–38.10.2307/4200001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parpola, S. 1993. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52(3): 161‒208.10.1086/373622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrovskij, B. B. 1970. Karmir Blur. Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo Avrora.Google Scholar
Piotrovskij, B. B. 2011. Istorija i kul'tura Urartu. Saint-Petersburg: Filfak SPbGU.Google Scholar
Porada, E. 1962. Ancient Persia. Milan: Saggiatore.Google Scholar
Razmpoush, A. and Amelirad, S., in prep. “Exploring the Iconography of Qalāichi Glazed Bricks and Associated Material Culture of Mannaea: Implications for Content Analysis”.Google Scholar
Rezvani, H., and Roustaei, K. 2007. “A Preliminary Report on two Seasons of Excavations at Kul Tarike Cemetery, Kurdistan, Iran.” Iranica Antiqua 42: 139–184.10.2143/IA.42.0.2017874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saed Mucheshi, A. 2015. “Assyrian-style Seals of the Silk Road and Their Relationship to Ties between Iran and Mesopotamia.” The Silk Road 13: 126–134.Google Scholar
Saed Mucheshi, A., 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.Google Scholar
Sagona, A., Sagona, C. and Ozkorocuklu, H.. 1995. “Excavations at Sos Höyük 1994, first preliminary report”. Anatolian Studies 45: 193–218.10.2307/3642919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, E., Loon, M. Van and Curvers, H.. 1989. The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Sciacca, F. 2005. Patere baccellate in bronzo. Oriente, Grecia, Italia in età orientalizzante. (Studia Archaeologica, 139). Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Sciacca, F. 2015. “Patere baccellate fenicie”. In Jiménez Ávila, J., ed., Phoenician Bronzes in Mediterranean Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 45. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, pp. 91–118.Google Scholar
Seidl, U. 1991. “Horse Trappings”. In Merhav, R., ed., Urartu. A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium B.C.E. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar
Sevin, V. 1981. Menua'nın oğlu Inušpua/Inushpua, the son of Menua. Anadolu Araştırmaları 7: 1–11.Google Scholar
Stronach, D. 1978. Pasargadae: A Report on the Excavations, 1961‒1963. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, C. and Piggot, V.. 2011. “Blade-Type Weaponry of Hasanlu Period IVB.” In de Schauensee, M., ed. Peoples and Crafts in Period IVB at Hasanlu, Iran. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, pp. 135–182.Google Scholar
Thureau-Dangin, F. and Dunand, M.. 1936. Til-Barsib. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique XXIII. Paris: Librarie Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Watanabe, C. E. 2002. Animal symbolism in Mesopotamia. A Contextual Approach. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 1. Wien: Universität Wien Institut für Orientalistik.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Plan with location of the Kani Charmou cemetery and other sites mentioned in the text

Figure 1

Figure 2. General view of Kani Charmou cemetery from the west

Figure 2

Figure 3. Location of Kani Charmou Cemetery (based on a satellite image from Google Earth)

Figure 3

Figure 4. The position of Kani Charmou village (upper left) from the Kani Charmou cemetery

Figure 4

Figure 5. a) Large stone slab tomb cover in the Kani Charmou cemetery, b) Example of a grave cist or chamber constructed of large regular stones of similar size

Figure 5

Figure 6. Bimetallic dagger from Kani Charmou

Figure 6

Figure 7. Pins from Kani Charmou

Figure 7

Figure 8. Bracelets/Anklets from Kani Charmou

Figure 8

Figure 9. Plain hoop bronze ring from Kani Charmou

Figure 9

Figure 10. Bronze bell from Kani Charmou

Figure 10

Figure 11. Frontlet from Kani Charmou

Figure 11

Figure 12. Ceramic (1) and bronze (2–8) studs from Kani Charmou

Figure 12

Figure 13. Kani Charmou glazed pottery vessels

Figure 13

Figure 14. Metal bowls from Kani Charmou

Figure 14

Figure 15. Cylinder seal from Kani Charmou

Figure 15

Figure 16. Bead assemblages from Kani Charmou

Figure 16

Figure 17. Whetstones from Kani Charmou

Figure 17

Figure 18. Bronze band from Kani Charmou

Figure 18

Figure 19. Ivory and stone buttons from Kani Charmou