Introduction
The Deh Luran plain is a low plain along the foothills of the Hamrin ridge, i.e., the westernmost ripple of the Zagros Mountains. The Plain links Susa and Mesopotamia by an east-west route along the foothills of Zagros. Given the strategic location of the plain, it functioned as a corridor between Mesopotamia and Elam through the 3rd to the 1st millennia BCE (see Zeynivand Reference Zeynivand2019b). Michalowski and Wright (Reference Michalowski, Wright, Wright and Neely2010: 109) have focused on highlighting the importance of Deh Luran and the town of Arawa/UruaFootnote 1 (written URU×Aki) in the second half of the third millennium BCE, discussing how this area played an important role as a centre of coalition and confrontation both in times of peace – as a commercial centre – and during times of war.
Some 50 years after joint research activities on the Deh Luran plain by Rice University and the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology (Hole, Flannery, and Neely Reference Hole, Flannery and Neely1969; Neely Reference Neely and Hole1969; Hole Reference Hole1977; Wright Reference Wright1981; Neely and Wright Reference Neely and Wright1994; Wright and Neely Reference Neely2011), this area was re-surveyed in 2016 by an expedition from the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research (ICAR) as part of a comprehensive exploration program entitled “the Garmsiri project”. The latter program was sponsored by the ICAR in order to assess the impact of extensive agricultural and irrigation activities on archaeological remains in southwestern Iran, including the Deh Luran plain.
The sad state of the Deh Luran plain and nearby plains as a result of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988 and the ensuing construction and agricultural activities (see Abdi Reference Abdi2001; Zeynivand Reference Zeynivand2016a) is the outcome of irreversible damage to natural and human habitats, irrigation canals and ancient qanat systems. Many archaeological sites can no longer be located. Given the fact that the watercourses were the only variable component on the plain, Neely (Reference Neely and Hole1969: 9–24) carried out an intensive survey of the area and identified several locations in the centre of the plain in order to discern traces of ancient irrigation management in the area. Neely and Wright presented a preliminary reconstruction of the irrigation management scheme on the Deh Luran plain in prehistoric (Neely and Wright Reference Neely and Wright1994) and historical (Wright and Neely Reference Wright and Neely2010; Neely Reference Neely2011) periods, thus demonstrating the potential for further research in the area.
Tappeh Gārān
Tappeh Gārān (locally pronounced Gharrān) is a large mound in Deh Luran plain, about 3 km east of the Dawairij River and 2.8 km north/northwestern of Tappeh Musiyan (Fig. 1). Tappeh Gārān now consists of a major conical mound of some 20 m height and five smaller mounds between 3–6 meters high in the eastern, western, and northern side of the site (Fig. 2), occupying a total area of about 17 ha (Wright and Neely Reference Wright and Neely2010: 58). Tappeh Gārān is as large as Tappeh Musiyan but the colossal height of the main mound dwarfs Tappeh Musiyan in comparison. Surrounding the main mound are a series of rolling hills some 20 m wide, between which there is a depression that could be the remnant of a moat (Jotheri and Zeynivand Reference Jotheri and Zeynivand2021: 22).
Fig. 1. Location of Tappeh Gārān in the Deh Luran Plain and Iran's southwest (Jotheri and Zeynivand Reference Jotheri and Zeynivand2021; Fig. 1)
Fig. 2. Aerial photograph showing of Tappeh Gārān (The view from the North)
Over 50 years ago, James Neely carried out an intensive survey on Tappeh Gārān and its vicinity in order to locate the possible ancient canals before modern agricultural expansions could damage them (Neely Reference Neely and Hole1969). These activities included leveling of the land and digging of irrigation canals that have irrecoverably changed the landscape. Today two small structures, a small room and a sheepfold, are visible on a small hill on the northern side of the site. Additionally, some fox-holes were dug on the northern and eastern marginal sides during the Iran-Iraq War, causing some damage to the site.
The material collected during the 2016 survey confirms that Tappeh Gārān was continuously occupied from the Early Dynastic Period to the late historical period, i.e. the time of the Parthians. Wright and Neely (Reference Wright and Neely2010: 59) estimate that the site was about 1.5 ha during the Early Dynastic period, 1.8 ha during the Sukkalmaḫ phase, 12 ha during the Middle Elamite period, and 17 ha during the Achaemenid period.
The human and natural disturbances to the site include the fox-holes and dense vegetation. The sampling was conducted in a different way on the main mound. The collection indicates that a larger area of the site was occupied in the Middle Elamite period than the area proposed by Wright and Neely. It seems that during the Neo-Elamite period, the site covered more than 12 ha (Wright and Neely Reference Wright and Neely2010: 92; 97). Wright and Neely had already acknowledged that pottery styles of the Neo-Elamite and the Achaemenid periods are not readily distinguishable, specifically on the western edge of the Susiana, including the Deh Luran plain.
It seems that research at Tappeh Gārān, Musiyan, and Patak is particularly important for our understanding of complex issues in different periods of Elamite history, especially on the Deh Luran plain. Researchers have made great efforts to link these sites to the cities of Urua (Carter and Stolper Reference Carter and Stolper1984: 212) in the second half of the third millennium BCE or Madaktu during the Neo-Elamite period (de Miroschedji Reference De Miroschedji, de Meyer, Gasche and Vallat1986). It is worth noting that Tappeh Gārān played an influential role in the plain because of its stratified sequence. Tappeh Gārān was the only occupied site on the plain during the end of the Middle Elamite period. Excavation at this site might therefore provide us with valuable information on the enigmatic Middle-Neo-Elamite transition to the Neo-Elamite period I. This latter period is particularly obscure due to the lack of textual information even at sites as important as Susa.
The Finds
A fragmentary inscribed brick was found during the 2016 survey on Tappeh Gārān (Zeynivand Reference Zeynivand2016b). Another fragmentary brick with an Akkadian inscription was found in a gully on the eastern side of the main mound. The transcription, translation, function, and ultimately, the possible dating of these two finds are discussed below.
In addition, more intensive survey was carried out in conjunction with the first season of “The Deh Luran Archaeological Project (DAP)” in 2019. In this season of surface surveys, we found more than 10 fragments of baked bricks (see Fig. 7b), some of which bear inscriptions, although these are heavily weathered and are not readable (Zeynivand Reference Zeynivand2019a). The general shape of these bricks suggests that they ought to belong to the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur as a large number of similar bricks have been discovered in Mesopotamia which date to this period. The baked bricks seem to all have come from the main mound (Area A) (Fig. 3), suggesting that we are dealing with a monumental building in this area.
Fig. 3. Locations of the inscribed bricks found on the main mound
In 2019, we carried out excavations at Tappeh Gārān, including Operation A1, a step trench on the northwestern top of the High (main) Mound to explore the stratigraphic layers, and Operation J1 to the west of the Main Mound to explore the so-called “moat hypothesis”. We also cleaned one of the fox-holes from the time of the Iran-Iraq War at the lowest part of the main Mound to study the lower and earlier levels of the main Mound. In the two major operations on the main mound, free of the low occupation of the more recent periods (Achaemenid, Seleucid/Parthian), we found a large-scale mass of mud-bricks, presumably part of a massive construction that we mean to further explore in future seasons (Fig. 4). The surface pottery dates this area to the third to first millennium BCE (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4. Massive mud-brick structures in two Operations A1 (a) and A2 (b) (Photograph by. Ramin Yashmi and Mohsen Zeynivand)
Fig. 5. A selection of Early Elamite Ceramics from operation A2
The first incised brick measures 12 × 9 × 3 cm (Fig. 6). It is poorly preserved and broken on all sides. The brick was found on the eastern slope of the main mound of Tappeh Gārān. It was made of straw and sand tempered clay and its porous surface is heavily weathered. The modest but interesting marks on the brick are comparable to construction and irrigation plans from Mesopotamia in the second and third Millennium BCE (cf. Liverani Reference Liverani1996). It seems that geometric intersecting lines on the main surface were depicted in a meaningful pattern. Outline 1, which seems to be the most important one, starts from the left side of the tablet and follows to the lower right side. Outline 2 includes straight lines intersecting in acute angles. The lines might be relevant to the line 1. Outline 3 includes two triangular shapes in the left part of the tablet. Outline 4 includes a few vertical lines crossed by a long diagonal line.
Fig. 6. Brick with incised map of Gārān
The second object is a partly broken inscribed brick (Fig. 7a). It was found close to the first brick on the eastern slope of the main mound. It measures 16 × 8/5 × 3 cm in size. It seems that the object is the smaller part of a larger inscribed brick, which was exposed as a result of the erosion of the main mound. Transcription of the writings is difficult due to the eroded condition of the surface. However, some words could be transcribed and translated. The text is written in Akkadian and on the fourth line, the words of “son?”, “ruler's name?”, “ruler?”, and “his chief” can be identified. A further PN may have been inscribed on the fifth line, but it is hardly discernible:
Beginning broken
1. DU[MU? …]
2. [i]n-[…]
3. LU[GAL? …]
4. be-li 2-[šu]
5. i-⸢x⸣-[…]
Rest broken
Translation:
Son/Daughter of ([…]) (2) [i]n-[…] (3) the ruler of ([…]) (4) his/her chief (5) i-x-[…].
Fig. 7. Inscribed bricks from Tappeh Gārān (Photograph by. Ramin Yashmi and Mohsen Zeynivand)
The Possible Function of the Drawing on the Brick
The Tappeh Gārān inscribed bricks bring up questions as to their possible functions. First, what was the initial intention of the incision of simple straight lines in a complex pattern on a clay brick? Does the historical evidence provide us with a probable clue of its function? Are we looking at something like an economic tablet that shows the economic/ political mechanism of a society or is it just an evidence of an infant's playful game? Setting all the evidence together, we could arrive at a fairly reasonable hypothesis about the function of the object. Its resemblance to Mesopotamian multifunctional maps or plans is the first indication that might lead us to its function. These maps were utilized as the proposed plan of urban facilities, constructions, irrigation management, agricultural activities, etc. (cf. Liverani Reference Liverani1996). The earliest example of a regional map dated to the Old Akkadian period, is generally known as the ‘Gasur Map’ (CDLI no. P213268 = HSS 10/1). The map shows an agricultural estate situated between two rivers in the middle of a mountainous region where the Akkadians had expanded their cultural leverage. The possibility exists that similar plans and maps were drawn (Millard Reference Millard, Harley and Woodward1987: 115). We should note that no examples of geographical maps have yet been found in the area neighboring Mesopotamia, i.e. Elam.
We tried to orient and locate the lines of Brick No. 1 (Fig. 6) according to the actual geographical features of the area surrounding Gārān in the Deh Luran Plain. Interestingly enough, the lines showed similarities with the current geographical features of this place (Fig. 8). First, we needed to locate the main water resources on the drawing. The Dawairij river was chosen as the first indicator due to the fact that it is the major south-flowing river in the Deh Luran plain. It flows from north to the south, through the Deh Luran and Musiyan regions and finally meets the Tigris in the territory of present-day Iraq. This river flows on the eastern side of Tappeh Gārān. We assumed that the first line of Outline 1 was a representative of the Dawairij. Outline 2 includes lines forming a geometric pattern. This too could be considered either as the irrigation canals or borders of agricultural fields. The triangular shapes (Outline 3) might signify the mountains where the rivers flow from. Outline 4 could represent mathematical accounts or the wood-line system,Footnote 2 or perhaps, it is a barrage of wood and reed that raises the water level (Fig. 8). The last option seems to make more sense. These barrages were created when the river's water level was low, and such techniques have been reported both in the Northern Khuzestan plain (Lambton Reference Lambton1953: 216; Graadt van Roggen Reference Graadt van Roggen1905: 168–169) and southern Iraq (Rost Reference Rost2019: 35–36) in contemporary centuries. Study of the Ur III texts provides convincing evidence that the water levels in the ancient Tigris were controlled by devices very similar to the barrages documented for the early twentieth century AD (Rost Reference Rost2019: 36). Thus, the above method is considered a possible option due to the deep bed of the Dawairij River and its lack of water for more than half of the year.
Fig. 8. Drawing of the map outlines (Drawing by. Fereshteh Sharifi)
The river Dawairij rises in the Siah-Kouh region of the Zagros Mountains and passes through the plain (see Fig. 9). Based on the remains of irrigation systems such as the canals and qanats (Wright & Neely Reference Wright and Neely2010: 104), people supplied their needed water in this area during the Elamite Period by such means. Hence, a process of careful planning of irrigation management was needed by people living on the plain.
Fig. 9. Satellite image of the location of Tappeh Gārān toward the Dawairij River, Mountains and Tappeh Musiyan. The lines that are numbered are the ancient channels that James Neely identified (courtesy Google Earth 2018)
To date, four maps inscribed on tablets pertaining to irrigation systems in Mesopotamia have been recorded from Larsa (?), Nippur, Sippar, and Babylon (Wheat Reference Wheat2012: 79–80). The maps share similar lines in common. The canals and rivers represented with the lines in the Mesopotamian maps are also similar to the Gārān map. We also should note that a great majority of maps, specifically the constructional ones, were depicted without lines during the Old Babylonian Period. The Gasur map dating to the Old Akkadian period (Meek Reference Meek1931: 2) also shares common features with the Gārān map. The Gasur map depicts rivers rising in the mountains. However, the styles of depiction of the maps differ in the shape of the mountain.
Water Resources and Water Management on the Deh Luran plain
The lowlands of southwestern Iran referred as “Greater Susiana” cover many smaller plains and river valleys that lie north of the Persian Gulf (Kouchoukos Reference Kouchoukos1998: 80; Moghaddam Reference Moghaddam2012: 1–2). This region extends from the Mehran Plain on the west side to the Zohreh Plain on the east side and shares many similar cultural and natural features. The Deh Luran plain lies within the semi-arid steppe of the Zagros foothills (cf. Hatt's 1959 “Assyrian Steppe”) being a biotic province at an elevation of about 150–300 m asl (Neely Reference Neely2011: 21). The similarity of climatic and environmental conditions of the Deh Luran plain and other parts of Greater Susiana caused human communities to create the first simple water supply canals from the end of the sixth millennium BCE.
The earliest evidence for irrigation farming in the Deh Luran plain is known from botanical samples from Tappeh Sabz (Hole, Flannery and Neely Reference Hole, Flannery and Neely1969) and dates back to the second half of the 6th millennium BCE. The Dawairij, Meimeh, and Ab-i Garm springs are considered to be the principal irrigation arteries on the plain. Despite its bitter and meagre amount of water, the Cheshmeh Ghir is another major source of water on the plain.
Kirkby (Reference Kirkby and Hole1977: 286) points out that climate changes during the 3rd millennium BCE instigated the down-cutting process of the Deh Luran riverbeds. Remnants of dams, built to raise water up to the level of intake canals, have been attested throughout Khuzestan (Graadt van Roggen Reference Graadt van Roggen1905). Kirkby provided evidence for a similar phase of down-cutting river systems in upper Khuzestan after 2000 BC and suggested this was a regional rather than local phenomenon. The requirement of such dams across all rivers in Khuzestan strongly supports Kirkby's case (Heyvaert et al. Reference Heyvaert, Verkinderen, Walstra, De Graef and Tavernier2013). However, Wright and Neely (Reference Wright and Neely2010: 104) suggest that qanats possibly began to be used during the 2nd millennium BCE, in order to access the Dawairij water resource which supplied enough fresh water for agricultural activities. They state that Tappeh Gārān was the only site that supplied its water by qanats and canals from the Dawairij, at the Ab-i Gram spring, and the Ain Qir spring during the Elamite and Achaemenid periods. Inscriptions discovered from the Elamite period in Susa show that several princes built bridges and irrigation canals (see Graadt van Roggen Reference Graadt van Roggen1905).
It seems that the course of the Dawairij River changed during the 4th to 2nd millennium BCE. Tappeh Gārān is located where the Dawairij merges with the Meimeh. If this change in their path occurred as described by Kirkby (Reference Kirkby and Hole1977: 287), it would suggest that environmental change may have been the initial motive for settlement formation at Gārān. Replacement of Musiyan by Gārān, as the major site on the plain in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE was therefore a side-effect of the change in the course of the Dawairij. Durable human settlement like in ancient Mesopotamia was only possible along river channels and canals, and that changes in watercourses would be accompanied by changes in settlement locations (Altaweel et al. Reference Altaweel, Marsh, Jotheri, Haritz, Fleitmann, Rost, Linter, Gibson, Bosomworth, Jacobson, Garazanti, Limonta and Radefe2019). Careful management of Gārān's water resources was therefore necessary in order to satisfy the daily use of inhabitants as well as agricultural consumption. Nevertheless, new studies about palaeo-channels in the region are needed, in the spirit of Jafar Jotheri's (Jotheri Reference Jotheri2016) work in southern Mesopotamia, including relict rivers, canals, and Qanats, through imagery analysis and using AMS dating, among other dating methods.
Conclusion
Cuneiform texts show that during the third millennium B.C., channel cleaning was taking place, and we now find unequivocal evidence of the presence of major excavated canals (Nissen Reference Nissen1988: 96). From the period of Akkad until the middle of the first millennium B.C., in addition to the textual evidence, drawings on clay tablets indicate that a predetermined plan had been devised to manage the construction of temples, houses, land, farms, and so on. Some of the plans are no more than sketches, perhaps school exercises, but others are carefully drawn, with detailed measures of the walls and the measurements of the rooms marked precisely in cubits (Millard Reference Millard, Harley and Woodward1987). Based on the existence of similar geographical features, comparable samples from the neighboring area in Mesopotamia, and the inscribed bricks discovered in our 2019 excavation that are similar to those found in Mesopotamia, we suggest that the drawing on this brick may have been a preliminary ‘map’. One might consider this as comparable to a school tablet due to the blank spaces and line drawings. With regard to the current samples of school tablets, we have not yet witnessed such depictions as scribal school exercises on school tablets. Further archaeological excavations are needed to expose the layers in which these inscriptions and drawings were found. The currently observable remains on this part of the mound's surface show a large structure of the early second and late third Millennium BCE. Brick No. 1 accompanied by the illegible writing of No. 2 near this area might be an indicator of the building's function as a temple or a governmental citadel.
The Akkadian inscribed brick, as well as our interpretation of the irrigation system, underline the importance of Tappeh Gārān as a political and economic centre in the western borders of Elam. The strategic location of Gārān, easy access to the main road from Susa to Mesopotamia, adequate water resources, abundance of mineral materials, including bitumen and a wide variety of stones, and the alluvial sediments suited for agricultural purposes encouraged Elamites to settle in the area and establish a centre here.
Tappeh Gārān is considered a major centre during the Elamite and Achaemenid periods in Deh Luran plain. This centre was established in the time of the glory of Arawa/Urua known from the Mesopotamian inscriptions during the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. Since some researchers contend that Arawa/Urua was located on the Deh Luran plain, this highlights the need for future research at Gārān as well as Musiyan. Gārān, in particular, grew rapidly during the Elamite period and became a large settlement on the plain. The new finds discussed in this paper imply the administrative, political, and economic systems presumably centreed at Tappeh Gārān.
Future archaeological activities at Tappeh Gārān will shed light on social, cultural, political, and economic interactions between the Susiana plain and Mesopotamian polities. Additionally, we need to augment our archaeological knowledge about Deh Luran plain during the Elamite period.
Acknowledgment
The Archaeological survey of Dehluran Plain was carried out by financial support of the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research (ICAR). Our thanks are due to Dr. Hamideh Chubak and Dr. Siamak Sarlak for their encouragement and support. The results presented in this article have benefited from the help of a number of colleagues. Especially, we are indebted to Professor Kamyar Abdi, Professor James Neely, Dr. Abbas Moghaddam and Dr. Abbas Motarjem, for their valuable suggestions and advice. We are equally grateful to Professor Kamyar Abdi and Ms. Faezeh Dadfar for editing the English of the article. We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Gianni Marchesi for reading the inscription.
