Surkh Dum Metropolitan

Maney Publishing
Surkh Dum at The Metropolitan Museum of Art: a Mini-Report

Author(s): Oscar White Muscarella
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 327-359
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529573 .
Accessed: 10/05/2014 01:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Sat, 10 May 2014 01:57:26 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Background
Following his air reconnaisance trip in 1937 organized
to survey sites for future excavations, Erich Schmidt in the
summer of 1938 began his arduous "epic" overland journey
into Luristan, in western Iran, through the "ragged crests
of the Zagros" in search of the sites plotted by air. After
"weeks of failure" he struck his "archaeological Bon-
anza": the site of Surkh Dum in the Kuh-i Dasht region of
eastern Luristan (FIG. 1).l At the time, Schmidt's Persepolis
1. Erich Schmidt, "The Second Holmes Expedition to Luristan," Bulletin
c)f the American Institute for lranian Art and Archaeology V, 3 (1938) 205.
The name of the site has been published as Surkh Dum, Dum Surkh,
Surkah Dum, Surkh-i Dum, Surkh Dum-i Luri: see Oscar White Muscar-
ella, Unexcavated Objects and Ancient Near Eastern Art: Addenda (Undena
1979) 12, note 8; Helene Kantor, "Embossed Plaques with Animal De-
signs," JNES V (1946) 234, note 3, 235, 237; Peter Calmeyer, Datierbare
Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah (Berlin 1969) 87, 143-145, 150,
expedition staff was on temporary loan to the American
Institute for Iranian Art and Archaeology, the official spon-
sor of the campaign, under the title of the Second Holmes
Expedition to Luristan.2 Work pressure of the ongoing Per-
sepolis excavations (completed in 1939) prevented Schmidt
from writing more than a brief report on his Luristan dis-
coveries (which included other sites besides Surkh Dum);
and because of the great length of time needed to publish
the three Persepolis volumes a task that occupied the re-
maining years of his life Schmidt was never able to publish
159, 169, 188; Pierre Amiet, Les Antiquites du Luristan (Paris 1976) I
wish to thank Trudy S. Kawami for reading my manuscript and for sharing
with me her notes and thoughts on Surkh Dum.
2. The nature of the sponsorship is not made clear in Schmidt's report:
on page 204 it is stated that "the staff of the Persepolis Expedition was
put at the disposition of the American Institute...."
Surkh Dum at The Metropolitan Museum of Art:
a Mini-Report
Oscar White Muscarella
Metropolitan Museum of Art
New York City
With a Contribution by Elizabeth Williams-Forte
ln 1938 Erich Schmidt, taking time out from his major work at Persepolis, exca-
vated for three weeks the site of Surkh Dum in eastern Luristan, in western lran.
Although very little has been published on the finds and architecture, aside from
two brief and summary reports by Schmidt and Maurits van Loon, Surkh Dum is
recognized by lranian archaeologists to be one of the most important sites in
Luristan, and in lran in general. Not only was Surkh Dum a settlement site,
rather than a cemetery which is the typical circumstance in the archaeological
history of Luristan but many hundreds of objects of bronze, ivory, bone, fai-
ence, and terracotta, as well as about 200 cylinder and stamp seals, were re-
covered. To date, only seven of the objects have been published, and nothing has
been published about the two buildings partially uncovered. ln 1943 The Metro-
politan Museum of Art acquired 41 objects excavated at Surkh Dum, only five of
which had previously been published. Because of the importance of the material
for modern knowledge of the art and archaeology of Luristan, an area plundered
since the late 1920s, and the source of countless thousands of unexcavated ob-
jects, the presentation of even a small group of excavated artlfacts from Luristan
is considered to be of great value. The present paper offers a history of our
present knowledge of the site, a tentative discussion of its chronology, and a
catalogue discussion of the Surkh Dum material in The Metropolitan Museum of
Art.
328 Surkh Dum at The Metropolitan Museum of Art: a Mini-ReportlMuscarella
Schmidt also mentioned "small bronze plaques, including
many fragments with scenes in repousse" (italics added).
Concerning the "wands," of which hundreds were found,
it seems that this category included both disc-headed pins
as well as those with heads in the forrn of figures in the
round, and made of bronze, iron, or bone. Many objects
were recovered either enclosed within (Schmidt's figs. 8
and 9), or sticking in the interstices of the walls, while
others were found clustered or scattered in the rooms. And
Schmidt pointedly noted that no horse trappings, one of the
most characteristic artifacts of the Luristan repertory, were
recovered. The above summary is all the first-hand infor-
mation made available in publication concerning the three-
week campaign at Surkh Dum.
In the catalogue of an exhibition of Persian art on view
in New York City in 1940, P. Ackerman4 briefly referred
to the site, mentioning the building and its "various small
rooms," as well as the altar. The catalogue also published
in list forrn a number of objects deriving from Schmidt's
excavations at Surkh Dum on loan to the Exhibition from
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, which
were juxtaposed to other objects listed as being in dealer,
private, and museum collections.5 Some of the objects listed
in the catalogue had not been mentioned in Schmidt's report:
bracelets with animal terminals, rings, axes (one spiked,
one a miniature; see No. 24, below),6 a buckle, an anklet,
an arrow or javelin point, a frog pendant (or pin?), a bronze
vessel, and pincers, all bronze. Only a year later, in an
article co-authored by Ackerman and A. U. Pope,7 the date
of the discovery of Surkh Dum was given as 1937, and,
puzzlingly, the sanctuary was described as a "circular stone
building." Following this erroneous statement, they pub-
lished a number of bronzes that implicitly were attributed
to clandestine finds at Surkh Dum.8 No matter how one
perceives their place of origin, these bronzes did not derive
from Schmidt's excavations. Both the date error and the
4. Phyllis Ackerman, Guide to the Exhibition of Persian Art, 2nd ed.
(New York 1940) 541.
5. Ibid. 130, KK, 532, 534-536, 540, 542-548.
6. Ibid. 547, XX. Both Ackerman, 532, F, and Maurits van Loon in his
review of Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 B.C., Machteld Mellink, ed.
(Istanbul 1964), in BibO XXIV, 1/2 (1967) 24, mention a spiked axe with
a lion-head juncture. This axe is now in the University Museum (SOR
1633) and has a blade and spike formation of the same type as P. R. S.
Moorey, Catalogue of the Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum
(Oxford 1971) 53-55, no. 20: but with the lion's head facing the spikes,
not the blade. Thus, it is not the same form as suggested by Moorey, ibid,
51, nos. 14, 15, and in his Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Adam Collection
(London 1974) 43, nos. 7, 8.
7. "Prehistoric Nature Worship in Western Iran," lLN (March 1, 1941)
292.
8. See Muscarella 1979, op. cit. (in note 1) 13.
Figure 1. Map showing Surkh Dum in northern Luristan in Iran. (The
map is based on a map published by Jorgen Meldgaard in 1963; see
below, note 21.) The insert locates Luristan (framed area) within a
larger geographical region.
the Surkh Dum material in full. All that was given in the
1938 report was a bare listing of some of the types of objects
found and a brief mention of a building, which on the basis
of the plan and the objects recovered "indicate that the
Surkh Dum ruin was a sanctuary, a temple of the first half
of the first millennium B.C.". The few photographs pub-
lished are group shots, and while some show the juxtapo-
sition of the finds, in only one or two instances is it possible
to recognize a specific artifact (below, No. 5).3 With regard
to the building, no plan was furnished; it was simply re-
vealed that it had a brick superstructure over a stone foun-
dation, and that it had a terraced square at the center of the
main room which was considered to be an altar.
The types of objects listed consist of a ram-headed stone
pestle (Schmidt ' s fig . 7, A), bronze mirrors, pins,
"wands", a whetstone, male and female figurines in frit
as well as bronze, and over 200 cylinder and stamp seals.
3. Schmidt's report appeared very shortly after his Luristan campaign was
terminated, and as stated on page 208: "the individual objects have not
yet been photographically recorded. . . ." The excavations at Surkh Dum
were obviously rushed, taking only three weeks time. V. E. Crawford
informs me that Richard Carl Haines, the architect, told him that the finds
appeared in such profusion that excavation had to cease in order to register
the objects; this may explain why some of the objects do not have a SOR
field number painted on them. (SOR derives from Sorkh Dum, which is
a variant spelling of Surkh Dum.) The campaign was also hampered by
the terrain; among other problems, fodder for the donkeys used in transport
had to be imported.
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8, 1981 329
reference to a, this time, "small circular sanctuary" were
repeated some years later, in 1955, by Ackerman.9 Two
years later, however, Ackerrnan more correctly noted that
there were two buildings excavated at Surkh Dum, "a Tem-
ple and a small stone sanctuary," but there was no mention
of their shape.l Within this period at least two other ref-
erences to Surkh Dum were published,ll both giving infor-
mation not previously recorded and likewise not revealing
sources. In 1945 Pope referred to a single "Assyrian" tem-
ple plan to describe the building in which he claimed were
found "fragments of greenish glazed tiles," with griffin and
sphinx designs. And in 1946 M. Bahrami, apparently fol-
lowing Pope in part, also cited one building, described as
having a main hall with six entrances as well as a fire altar,
and which was decorated with glazed wall tiles. He also
published two disc-headed pins known to him from the
antiquities market but which he claimed derived from Surkh
Dum (infra).
It was not until 1967, 29 years after Schmidt's original
publication, that another report on the site was made avail-
able, this one apparently based on Schmidt's field notes.
In his review of Dark Ages and Nomads, M. van Loon
presented a summary of the various types of objects re-
covered from the sanctuary in anticipation of a full account
"shortly to appear. S S 12 of immediate interest is that, whereas
Pope in an editorial aside in Schmidt's 1938 reportl3 claimed
that "no levels could be determined, and consequently there
is no dependable archaeological evidence for dating. . . ,"
Van loon claimed that there were at least "three building
phases" to which he assigned dates (presumably his, not
Schmidt's); this chronology he later modified.l4 Listed by
levels this time, Van Loon discussed some (but not all) of
the objects mentioned by Schmidt, e.g., disc-headed pins,
and added others not specifically mentioned either by
9. Phyllis Ackerman, "The Gemini are Born," Archaeology 8, 1 (1955
26; the date 1937 is repeated.
10. Phyllis Ackerman, "A Luristan Illustration of a Sunrise Ceremony,"
Cincinnati Art Museum Bulletin 5, 2 (1957) 4. Trudy Kawami has shown
me a sketch plan of the site: two buildings were incompletely cleared. The
larger has 17 rooms or areas, the less excavated has five; no circular walls
exist. In the larger building there is a big room, not centered, that has a
central unit, the altar, no doubt.
11. A. U. Pope, Masterpieces of Persian Art (New York 1945) 16; Mehdi
Bahrami, "Some Objects Recently Discovered in Iran," Bulletin of the
lranian lnstitute VI, 1 -4 (1946) 71. The sketch plan mentioned in my note
10 does show six entrances to the large room. Bahrami may have had
access to the same plan in Teheran. We will have to await a final report
to get information about the tiles and to learn if the central unit in the large
room was in fact a fire altar.
12. Van Loon, op. cit. (in note 6) 23-24. Van Loon himself has the
responsibility for the final publication.
13. Schmidt, op. cit. (in note 1) 208, note 3.
14. In BibO 29 (1972) 69, note 22.
Schmidt or Ackerman: a square-framed openwork plaque
(a "wand"?), lobed bronze rings, bone lion pins on an iron
shank, pottery, incised frit vessels, and, surely of some
importance, "dedicatory inscriptions." He also enumerated
the types of pins recovered, straight ones with a variety of
decorated heads, and disc-headed, decorated in repousse.
Van Loon specifically noted that the typical Luristan stand-
ards were non-existent at Surkh Dum; and it is relevant to
mention at this point that neither Schmidt nor Van Loon
mentioned any quivers or large decorated plaques,ls nor
objects of precious materials. With regard to the pottery
cited, it would be rash to reach firm conclusions on the basis
of the brief descriptions given, but mention is made both
of triangles used as decoration and of the absence of red
and grey wares, indications that we are dealing with a post
(or late) Iron II/Iron III context.
To date, the above cited reports and obiter dicta contain
all the basic information from first- and second-hand sources
available about the excavations of Schmidt at Surkh Dum.
Whether all the types of objects recovered have been men-
tioned, or there are still others unreported, will not be kIiown
until a final publication appears (in the meantime, see
below).
Objects Allegedly from Surkh Dum
Up to the present time only six of the many hundreds of
objects excavated at Surkh Dum and mentioned by Schmidt,
Ackerman, and Van Loon have been recorded and published
with photographs:l6 four cylinder seals (Nos. 33-35, 40,
below), a frog-headed pin (No. 11 below), and a glazed
faience vessel (cf. No. 31, below). The objects listed by
Ackerman in the 1940 catalogue of the Persian Exhibition
were not illustrated. Trudy S. Kawami has recently informed
me, however, that yet another object from Surkh Dum has
been published, albeit without a provenience reference, and
it is an important object indeed. In his work on decorated
bronze nipple beakers, Peter Calmeyerl7 published a draw-
ing of a small fragment of one of these beakers in the
Teheran Museum (No. 1124), where it is listed merely as
from Luristan. According to Kawami, who saw the original
drawing in the Oriental Institute in 1974, this fragment was
found in the refuse dump at Surkh Dum and has the field
15. It is not clear what Van Loon means on page 25 by "hammered
bronzes;" and it seems misleading to claim that they "all seem to come
from the top level," inasmuch as he placed the hammered disc-headed
pins in the earlier levels. What is more, his dating of these hammered
bronzes to the 7th century is based on an incorrect, low dating of the nipple
beakers (see below).
16. Muscarella, op. cit. (in note 1) 12.
17. Peter Calmeyer, Reliefbronzen in babylonischem Stil (Munich 1973)
32-33, A24.
number SOR 1712. No doubt the fragment was given to the
Teheran Museum as part of its division of the excavated
finds and presumably the records were lost or misplaced so
that Calmeyer was not informed of the provenience. The
discovery that a decorated nipple beaker was excavated at
Surkh Dum is significant, for, to my knowledge, among the
many scores known to exist, it remains the only one to
derive from a controlled excavation.'8 Furthermore, the
provenience is a site in Iran, which reinforces the generally
held view that the beakers as a group derive from that area. '9
Equally important is the occurrence of a decorated nipple
beaker in a sanctuary, a fact that refutes Calmeyer's sug-
gestion that all the beakers must have derived from tombs,20
and which also neatly demonstrates that excavated material
is the only evidence that can be used to form hypotheses
regarding alleged proveniences and the functional value of
an artifact.
At the same time, a number of objects, all of which
derived from the antiquities market, that is, from clandestine
plundering, have casually been attributed to Surkh Dum by
a number of scholars. In his 1938 report Schmidt mentioned
that digging by local villagers had occurred at Surkh Dum
before he began his campaign and a number of scholars
have either called attention to this fact or have claimed that
after Schmidt left more digging took place.2' Thus, after
1938, when a dealer attributed an object to Surkh Dum it
was found to be convenient to accept the claim, given the
references to the clandestine activity but which informa-
tion, let it be recognized, came from the same dealers.22 It
should also be noted that some scholars were misled by
information from individuals who supposedly were in a
position to know what in fact came out of the site.23 Others
18. Oscar White Muscarella, "Decorated Bronze Beakers from Iran,"
AJA 78 (1974) 243-244; idem, review of Calmeyer 1973, op. cit. (in note
17) in JAOS 97, l (1977) 77.
19. For discussion see Musearella 1974, ibid. 243-245, 248-249; 1977,
ibid. 77.
20. Calmeyer 1973, op. cit. (in note 17) 123, 151, 231, 233, and discussed
in Muscarella 1977, op. cit. (in note 18) 77.
21. Pope 1941, op. cit. (in note 7) 292-293; Bahrami, op. cit. (in note
11) 71; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 19-20; idem, "Some Elaborately
Decorated Bronze Quiver Plaques Made in Luristan, c. 750-650 B.C.,"
Iran XIII (1975) 20; Amiet, op. cit. (in note 1) 1; Roman Ghirshman,
Bichapour II (Paris 1956) 120, note 1; idem, The Arts of Ancient Iran
(New York 1964) 48; Andre Godard, L'Art de l'lran (Paris 1962) 52;
Jorgen Meldgaard, et al., "Excavations at Tepe Guran, Luristan," ActaA
XXXIV (1963) 98, note 5; D. de Clercq-Fobe, Epingles votives duLuristan
(Teheran 1978) Introduction, page 2.
22. More pins seem to have been offered for sale after 1938 than before.
23. See Muscarella 1979, op. cit. (in note 1) 5-6, 13; cf. also statements
by Rene Dussaud, "Anciens Bronzes du Luristan et Cultes iraniens"
Syria XXVI (1949) 213, or Pope apud Schmidt, op. cit. (in note 1)
210-211, note 5.
made what they considered to be intelligent guesses con-
cerning attribution, on the assumption that certain types of
objects, disc-headed pins for example, derive only from
Surkh Dum. We will now examine a few of these misat-
tributed objects.
The well-known bronze quiver plaque in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, with its rich and important evidence of
style and iconography for western Iran,24 was purchased
from A. U. Pope in 1941, two years before he sold the
Museum the material from Surkh Dum to be discussed be-
low. The site of Surkh Dum was not mentioned in the trans-
action and the only information given was that the plaque
came from the Kuh-i Dasht region in Luristan. Of signifi-
cance for the issue of origin is that a year before the purchase
Ackerman, in the aforementioned Persian Exhibition cata-
logue,25 published the plaque, naming as its owner the an-
tiquities dealer R. Rabenou, thus revealing candidly that the
object was available on the art market, and that, conse-
quently, its final ancient resting place cannot be known.26
Yet within a few years, by 1945, Pope published the quiver
as coming from Surkh Dum27 and from this time onward
most scholars who cited the plaque also assigned it to that
site.28 A puzzling exception was Ackerman, who in 1955
repeated her original claim that it was known through the
24. MMA number 41.156; Moorey, 1975 op . cit . (in note 21) 19, note
1, 24-26, pl. I; Edith Porada, "Iranische Kunst," in Der alte Orient, W.
Orthmann, ed. (Propylaen Kunstgeschichte: Berlin 1975) 397-398, no.
317. From what information I have been able to gather, the quiver was
on the market at least by 1939. Stylistically judged, the quiver is definitely
Iranian in manufacture.
25. Ackerman, op. cit. (in note 4) 115: not 199 as in Muscarella 1979,
op. cit. (in note 1) 13, which was a misprint.
26. See Muscarella 1979, op. cit. (in note 1) 13; also Ackerman 1955,
op. cit. (in note 9) 27, and 1957 op. cit. (in note 10) 4. There are no
references to quivers in the Surkh Dum field records: cf. Moorey 1975,
op. cit. (in note 21) 19, note 1, where the Surkh Dum archives are cited
and where the distinct impression is given that the quiver was excavated
by Schmidt. V. E. Crawford told me that Carl Haines claimed that no
works of art were found at Surkh Dum. Presumably it could be argued by
the interested parties that the quiver, and others, were found after Schmidt
left, by the local peasants: but this type of argument involves gratuitous
guessing, not archaeological reasoning, and begs many questions.
27. Pope 1945, op. cit. (in note 11) pl. 15.
28. Dussaud, op. cit. (in note 23) 213, citing Mme. Godard as an authority;
Calmeyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 87, note 289, 290, D, 145, 159; Amiet,
op. cit. (in note 1) 85; Helene Kantor, ''The Shoulder Ornament of Near
Eastern Lions," JNES VI (1947) 258; Edith Porada, "Nomads and Luristan
Bronzes," in Mellink, op. cit. (in note 6) 27, note 61; idem, The Art of
Ancient Iran (New York 1965) 87-89, 236, note 10; in her 1975 paper,
op. cit. (in note 24) she modified her position, omitting the site attribution;
Henrik Thrane, "Archaeological Investigations in Western Luristan,"
ActaA XXXV (1964) 159, note 7 (not 59, as Muscarella 1979, op. cit.
[in note 1] 13); Irene Winter, A Decorated BreastplatefromHasanlu, Iran
(Philadelphia 1980) 18, note 89.
antiquities market.29 At least three scholars further believed
that not only this quiver, but still others, were found in the
Surkh Dum sanctuary, or belonged to a "Surkh Dum
group. 30
Disc-headed pins are perhaps the main type of object
(aside from quivers) most often associated with Surkh Dum,
because indeed many were recovered there. To date, how-
ever, not a single example of those excavated by Schmidt
has been published (now see No. 3, below). What has been
published, on the other hand, are scores of examples, all
of which derived from the antiquities market, and the ma-
jority of which have been casually attributed to Surkh Dum.
Disc-headed pins began to surface during the time of the
earliest appearance of the Luristan bronzes,3' but whether
they were plundered from one or several sites is of course
not known. This latter point notwithstanding, some scholars
in the past have claimed to know the multiple sources. Thus,
Pope, in an editorial comment about the Surkh Dum wands,
stated that "closely related pins have been found at other
sites . . . ," while Amiet believes that disc-headed pins
have been "decouvertes dans des tombes."32 Presumably,
the pins discussed were those known before Schmidt went
to Surkh Dum, for after 1938 only Surkh Dum is mentioned.
And it was Pope again33 who, forgetting or ignoring his
1938 comment about "other sites", began to cite stray disc-
headed pins as coming from Surkh Dum. As with the quiver,
various scholars over the years followed Pope's lead-prob-
ably because of his institution's role in the excavations-
and accepted as received knowledge that any stray disc-
headed pin, including these in the Coiffard and Graeffe
collections, came from one site, from Surkh Dum.34
29. Ackerman 1955, op. cit. (in note 9) 27, 29, fig. 4.
30. Ghirshman 1964, op. cit. (in note 21) 70; Moorey 1975, op. cit. (in
note 21) 19-26; E. D. Phillips, "The People of the Highland," in Vanished
Civilizations, E. Bacon, ed. (New York 1963) 227; Amiet, op. cit. (in
note 1) 85, claims that the David-Weill quiver came from Surkh Dum
"certainement."
31. Viz. A. U. Pope in ILN (September 6, 1931) 390, fig. 16; Andre
Godard, Les Bronzes du Luristan (Paris 1931) pl. XXXIV; Leon Legrain,
Luristan Bronzes in the University Museum (Philadelphia 1934) pl. VI;
Ernst Herzfeld, "Das Ornament nach der Mitte des II. Jahrtausends,"
AMlran VIII (1937) 156- 157, Abb. 118; J. A. H. Potratz, "Scheiben-
kopfnadeln aus Luristan," AfO XV (1941-45) 39, note 5; cf. Ghirshman
1956, op. cit. (in note 21) 120, note 1, and Clercq-Fobe, 1978 op. cit.
(in note 21) Introduction, page 1.
32. Pope apud Schmidt, op. cit. (in note 1) 210, note 5; Amiet, op. cit.
(in note 1) 75.
33. Pope 1945, op. cit. (in note 11) 16, pl. 16A, B.
34. Viz. Kantor 1946, op. cit. (in note 1) 234 and note 3; Bahrami, op.
cit. (in note 11) 71-73, figs. 1, 2 (fig. 1 = Ghirshman 1964, op. cit.
[in note 21] fig. 490, listed as from the Teheran art market); Dussaud, op.
cit. (in note 23) 196-205, figs. 1-7, pl. IX, X; Ghirshman 1956, op. cit.
(in note 21) 120-122; Calmeyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 87, note 288,
Not so incidentally, one of the pins published by Pope3s
is gold: "Several gold pieces of high quality were found
at Surkh Dum, including a disc. . . ." This pin is the very
same one published five years earlier by Ackerman in the
Persian Art Exhibition (pages 134-135), where we are in-
formed that "Kuh-i Dasht excavations (sic), conducted by
commercial diggers, have also yielded a very few pieces
of gold. . . ," the gold disc-headed pin being one of the
finds. But here the pin is listed as being in the possession
of an antiquities dealer, A. Rabenou: an alleged clandestine
find of gold in 1940 becomes in 1945 a find from Surkh
Dum. Moreover, as already noted, no gold was excavated
at Surkh Dum. What is more, the pin is not necessarily
ancient. These issues notwithstanding, some scholars have
readily accepted the gold pin as both genuine and as ex-
cavated from Surkh Dum.36 Still other objects that I regard
as forgeries have been assigned by some scholars, including
Pope, to Surkh Dum, e.g., a bronze ombos, a silver plaque,
and a silver disc-headed pin, all from the notorious Zurvan
group, and a bronze disc and disc-headed pin.37 And a
bronze strip, to my mind of suspicious nature (although I
am not sure whether or not it is genuine), was also published
by Dussaud as "provenant aussi de Surkh Dum,"38 although
nothing like it was mentiond by Schmidt or Van Loon (see
also note 54).
Chronology
Although it is to be understood that pending a final pub-
lication all comments and conclusions are tentative, because
they are based on incomplete inforrnation, a brief note re-
garding the dating of the Surkh Dum finds is relevant. The
discrepancy between Pope's and Van Loon's claims re-
garding, on the one hand, the alleged lack of stratigraphy,
and on the other, the existence of several phases, has already
been mentioned. Inasmuch as Van Loon had access to
145, note 463: but cf. 143, note 458; Amiet, op. cit. (in note 1) 1, 75;
Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note 21) Introduction, p. 2, 115; Louis vanden
Berghe, Archeologie de l'lran Ancien (Leiden 1959) 93, 276, pl. 123 e-
h; Pierre Amandry, "Un Motif 'scythe' en Iran et en Grece," JNES XXIV,
3 (1965) 151, with Surkh Dum in quote marks.
35. Pope 1945, op. cit. (in note 11) 16, pl. 16A.
36. See Muscarella 1979, op. cit. (in note 1) 8, Iranian no. 6.
37. Cited by me as forgeries in "Unexcavated Objects and Ancient Near
Eastern Art," in Mountains and Lowlands, eds. L. D. Levine and T. C.
Young, Jr. (Undena 1977) 171, 172, nos. 1, 2, 5, 173, note 75; see also
Muscarella 1979, op. cit. (in note 1) 3, nos. 3 and 5, also page 6. From
private sources I know that Pope was the vendor of the silver plaque and
that he attributed it to Surkh Dum. I recently examined the pin illustrated
in Dussaud, op. cit. (in note 23) fig. 6, pl. x; cf. Muscarella 1977, ibid.
173, note 75: I have no doubt that it is not ancient.
38. Dussaud, op. cit. (in note 23) 210, fig. 10; Muscarella 1977, op. cit.
(in note 37) 175, no. 56.
Schmidt's records, we must assume his observations to be
correct and that the existence of floor levels and rebuildings
are implied in his statement. Defining these phases, Van
Loon claimed that there was a 10th, a 9th, an 8th, and a
7th century level (four phases?), and that the sanctuary was
in existence from the 10th through the 7th centuries B.C.,
a period of over 300 years.39 Five years later the dates of
some of the levels were revised: the 9th century level is
actually 8th century; the 8th century level is actually late
8th-early 7th century; nothing was said of the old 10th or
7th century levels.40 Nowhere, in either of the two state-
ments on chronology, is an explanation given for the de-
termination of dating, although one may infer that it is based
on art historical analyses of the artifacts.
Actually, an important clue concerning dating exists in
the presence of iron, which Van Loon noted occurs in all
levels, including the earliest. This fact alone surely suggests
that there is no 10th century level at Surkh Dum, for there
is no evidence to date that the presence of iron is documented
anywhere in Iran before the late 9th century s.c.41 It there-
fore follows that the earliest level cannot predate the 9th
century B.C. at the earliest, and may actually not pre-date
the 8th.
Confusing the issue of chronology at Surkh Dum is the
material of presumably earlier periods (i.e., earlier than the
posited late 9th/8th century date for the incipient level)
recovered there: cylinder seals, a spiked axe with a lion's
mask juncture (see note 6), duck-headed pins (see No. 13,
below), and the nipple beaker fragment mentioned above.42
Spiked axes with crescent-shaped blades are generally dated
to the last centuries of the 2nd millennium B.C. on the basis
of related inscribed pieces, none of which, however, has
the zoomorphic juncture,43 and the recent invaluable dis-
coveries of Vanden Berghe at Bard-i Bal and Kutal-i Gulgul
in Luristan have not only furnished additional Luristan lo-
cations for the type (one from the latter site has a zoomorphic
juncture), but also have demonstrated that they continued
to be used until ca. 1,000-900 B.C.44 From these same sites
39. Van Loon 1967, op. cit. (in note 6) 24.
40. Van Loon 1972, op. cit. (in note 14) 69, note 22.
41. R. Pleiner, "The Beginnings of the Iron Age in Ancient Persia,"
Annals of the Naprstek Museum 6 (1969) 34; Louis vanden Berghe, "La
Chronologie de la Civilisation des Bronzes du Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan,"
Proceedings of the Ist Annual Symposium of Archaeological Research in
Iran (Teheran 1973) 4; Vincent Pigott, "The Question of the Presence of
Iron in the Iron I Period in Iran," in Mountains and Lowlands, op. cit.
(in note 37) 218, 223, 226, 231.
42. Schmidt, op. cit. (in note 1) 208, note 3, 210; see also Elizabeth
Williams-Fortes discussion of the seals, infra.
43. Calmeyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 66-70; Moorey 1971, op. cit.
(in note 6) 49-51.
44. Louis vanden Berghe, "Luristan Prospections Archeologiques dans
and from the same time range Vanden Berghe has also
excavated duck-headed pins, animal-headed bracelets, and
a bird pendant, none dissimilar to those from Surkh Dum
(see below, Nos. 13, 19, 23).45 Concerning the dating of
the bronze nipple beakers, it seems almost certain that none
post-date the 9th century, and that as a class they were made
in the 10th-9th centuries s.c.46
Were these objects heirlooms dedicated in the sanctuary
as precious possessions, does their presence indicate an
earlier date for the sanctuary than posited here, or does their
presence simply indicate a relatively longer life for these
objects than hitherto recognized? The answers are not read-
ily available and one falls back on expectations of a final
report, where one will be able to see the corpus of material
as recovered, rather than viewing isolated objects out of
context. While some scholars have followed Van Loon's
high dating for the life of the sanctuary, many have never-
theless tended to support an 8th-7th century date for most
of the objects recovered.47
Objects from Surkh Dum in The Metropolita,n
Museum of Art
In 1943 The Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired by
purchase from A. U. Pope of the American Institute of
Iranian Art and Archaeology a group of 41 objects excavated
by Schmidt at Surkh Dum: 24 bronzes, six bone or ivory
objects, fragments of two faience vessels, and nine cylinder
seals. So far as it is possible to learn from published in-
formation and private communication, the finds from the
site were divided first in Iran with the Iran Bastan Museum,
and the remainder subsequently in the United States among
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, the
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Mrs.
Boyce Thompson, and Pope. It was the latter collection that
eventually came to the Metropolitan Museum, but it is not
la Region de Badr," Archeologia 36 (1970) 10, 13; idem, "Recherches
Archeologiques dans le Pusht-i Kuh Luristan," Bastan Chenasi va
Honar-i Iran 6 (1971) 20-21, 26, figs. 11, 13, 28; idem, "Recherches
Archeologiques dans le Luristan," Iranica Antiqua X (1973) 35, fig. 20,
pls. XVI, XVIII, 1; idem, "La Necropole de Kutal-i Gulgul," Archeologia
65 (1973) 18, 22, 24, 25; for revised dating, see Vanden Berghe 1973,
op. cit. (in note 41) 4; Edith Porada, "Ancient Persian Bronzes,gl Apollo
(February 1979) 142.
45. See here notes 88, 94, 106.
46. Calmeyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 224-228; Muscarella, 1974 op.
cit. (in note 18) 243-249; idem, 1977, op. cit. (in note 18) 77.
47. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 20; idem 1975, op. cit. (in note 21)
19; Pierre Amiet "Un Carquois du Luristan," Syria LI (l974) 244; idem
1976, op. cit. (in note 1) 30, 75, l03. Cf. Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note
21) Introduction, page 1, who dates the site as beginning in the second
half of the 2nd millennium B.C., based on a misunderstanding of Schmidt's
statements and Pope's comments about early seals at Surkh Dum.
known to me whether some pieces in Pope's share were
sold or given to other institutions or individuals, or whether
his whole share arrived intact.48
The objects have been in the Metropolitan Museum for
almost 40 years, during which time only four cylinder seals
and a frog-headed pin have been summarily published. In-
asmuch as many hundreds of objects were excavated at
Surkh Dum, the Museum's collection represents only a frac-
tion of the total. Yet it may be stated without elaboration
that the value for Iranian archaeology in presenting even
this fraction should be obvious. For, given the recognized
significance of the finds from one of the most important
sites in Iran, and one of the few excavated settlements in
Luristan, as well as the attribution to the site of the many
dealer-derived objects mentioned above, a publication is
surely long overdue. With these thoughts in mind, the pres-
ent paper is to be considered not so much a preliminary,
but rather a mini-, report of the Surkh Dum excavations.
In the lists that accompanied the objects sent to the Met-
ropolitan Museum in 1943, the only information supplied
was a Surkh Dum field number for each object, sometimes
a plot number and a "pr99 (presumably a plot record) num-
ber, and rarely a R (room) reference; only some of the
objects have a field number painted on it (see Note 3). In
a few cases a reference to the Persian Art Exhibition Cat-
alogue of 1940 was furnished. But there was no information
regarding stratigraphy, so that until a final publication ap-
pears with full details the incomplete information presented
here remains temporarily without significant [stratigraphic]
meaning.
The aim of the following catalogue is to make available
for study and discussion that group of artifacts existing in
one of the several-repositories of the Surkh Dum COIpUS.
And it will be clear that the catalogue does not impinge
upon the final report, it only anticipates it. The bronzes are
presented first, followed by the bone and ivory objects, the
faience vessel, and, finally, the cylinder seals, which are
described and discussed by Elizabeth Williams-Forte. The
headings contain the Museum and Surkh Dum record num-
bers. For each object a description is given along with a
brief commentary on function, and, where available, par-
allels among both excavated and unexcavated material. The
latter group is of particular importance, for the Surkh Dum
example now anchors them (or some) objectively within
Luristan. Concerning the objects excavated elsewhere in
Luristan, not only is a Luristan provenience reinforced, but
multiple site proveniences are demonstrated; and if the par-
allel piece was excavated outside of Luristan, cultural re-
lations between two distinct areas are documented, again
objectively (e.g., No. 31 and the cylinder seals). In some
instances I refer to the existence of unpublished objects from
Surkh Dum. This information is derived either from notes
in the possession of Trudy S. Kawami, who generously
shared them with me, or from observations made by me in
the Oriental Institute, Chicago, and in the University Mu-
seum, Philadelphia.
Catalogue
Metal Artifacts
No. 1. Plaque. 43.102.11; Surkh Dum 1721. Bronze;
P.H. 9.5cm.
Two stylized leonine creatures face each other in heraldic
position. Their mouths are open and tongues and fangs
protrude; manes are depicted as thick curling tufts. The
upward curling tail, the neck and the thigh on the left figure
are accentuated with punched dots. The paws apparently
originally touched and both creatures seem to be rampant,
standing on rear legs. The border consists of raised dots
framed by narrow bands; the top and part of the right border
are extant.
There is at least one other fragment of a similar plaque
from Surkh Dum, preserving only the eye and mane of a
creature exactly like the present example. I know of only
one parallel to these two plaques, one more complete, and
formerly in the David-Weill collection.49 From this example
we are able to restore our fragments as a rectangle, with
perhaps a dead animal under the creatures, indicating per-
haps that the latter are fighting over their prey. The David-
Weill plaque has subsidiary motifs around the creatures lack-
ing on ours; what is more, those lions are winged and the
49. Pope 1941, op. cit. (in note 7) 293, fig. 7; Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in
note 1) no. 196: which may now be attributed to Luristan with some
security.
48. The Museum's records do not reveal in what capacity Pope functioned
when he sold the objects.
334 Surkh Dum at The Metropolitan Museum of Art: a Mini-ReportZMuscarella
image is thus well established within Iran. A plaque pub-
lished by Godard51 that depicts recumbent birds may have
had a similar use and meaning: votive plaque?
No. 3. Disc-headed pin. 43.102.10; Surkh Dum 858.
Bronze; D. S cm.
necks and bodies are rendered in a more baroque fashion
than ours, indicating a separate workshop. What function
the plaques had is not known, but, inasmuch as there are
no holes along the borders, we may presume that they were
not meant to be attached to leather or another backing. The
creatures are not typical Luristan types and thus add another
dimension to the repertory.
No. 2. Plaque. 43.102.12; Surkh Dum 1269; Plot JH R2.
Bronze; L. S cm.; H. 2.5 cm.
Extant is a human face in repousse high relief, probably
that of a female, with only fragments of the surrounding
background disc; the pin, originally hammered from the
same sheet of metal, is missing. The face is round, the
mouth, thin and lunate shaped, appears to be smiling; her-
ring-bone decorated brows meet over the flat, broad nose;
eyes are almost almond-shaped and have no pupils; the hair,
parted at the middle, consists of incised ovals with a punched
dot.
In Schmidt's report no specific information was given
about the disc-headed pins except the statement that some
pins were found sticking in the walls of the temple. From
the records at the Oriental Institute, however, it is known
that a large number of disc-headed pins with a variety of
decorative scenes depicting floral, animal, and human-like
figures were excavated at Surkh Dum. Van Loon claimed
in 1967 that those pins with human faces occur in the 8th
century level, a date revised in 1972 to the late 8th-early
7th centuries B.C. Two sub-groups of these particular pin
types occur at Surkh Dum (and among the many stray finds),
op. cit. (in note 21) nos. 27, 40, 41. Marlik; Ezat Negahban, Preliminary
Report on Marlik (Teheran 1964) pl. VII A; Elam: Amandry, ibid., pl.
XVII, XXVIII; Pierre Amiet, "Appliques iraniennes," Revue du Louvre
(1977) 64-65, fig. 4.
51. Godard 1962, op. cit. (in note 21) fig. 35.
This small, thin rectangular plaque has no holes for at-
tachment to another object or material and is complete as
is. A recumbent, horned animal in low relief and with no
body decoration faces right. Its legs are tucked under its
body, and its hooves touch. The animal is framed by raised
dots.
Whatever function plaques like this and No. 1 had at
Surkh Dum is as yet unknown, pending the publication of
their original find spots. Recumbent animals with their feet
and hooves in the same position are to be seen on disc-
headed pins and other Iranian objects attributed to Luristan,
as well as from Marlik and on objects from Elam;50 the
50. Luristan: Amandry, op. cit. (in note 34) plate XXVI, 3; Clercq-Fobe,
J1 r * 1 1 A 1 1 ,r 1 n 7nN 7 <nR
ournal oy rlela Arcnaeologyl VOl . 6, 1 Yd1 JD
one where the face occupies almost the whole disc, as the
present example, and those where the face is placed at the
center and is encircled by either geometric or floral motifs,
or by animals or human-like figures.
The human faces have been assumed by some scholars
to represent a deity, while a few scholars see some as deities
and others as human portraits.52 The former opinion seems
to me to be more in context with what we would expect in
ancient Near Eastern art. There is also confusion concerning
whether all the heads are those of females, or some are
females, others males.
Aside from the pins from Surkh Dum, a large number
with a variety of motifs, many formally matched among the
excavated examples, have surfaced on the antiquity market
since the first time Luristan bronzes began to appear about
1930 (see note 31). Parallels for the pin under discussion,
where the human face occupies the whole disc, may be
found in addition to those from Surkh Dum itself among
several stray examples.53 On the basis of the little infor-
mation published by Van Loon about the site of Surkh Dum,
it appears that the disc-headed pins do not pre-date the late
8th century and may actually continue into the 7th century
B .C.
No. 4. Pendant. 43. 102.5; Surkh Dum 419. Bronze; D.
8.8 cm.
This thin, fragmented bronze sheet metal has a rolled
loop at the top indicating that it is a pendant, not a pin. In
repousse is depicted a human-like male figure kneeling on
one knee, in the knielauf position, right. His head, en face,
is bearded, but no mouth is shown; ears are large and pointy;
eyes are simple bulges, and the nose is broad and flat. The
body seems to be nude although no sex is depicted. In each
hand are held palm fronds (?).
I do not know if there are other pendants or disc-headed
pins with a similar scene in the Surkh Dum repertory, but
a number of stray disc-headed pins depict basically the same
figure and motif. On each example there is depicted a hybrid
human-like figure, apparently always male, in the knielauf
position to the left or right, en face, sometimes horned as
a bull or caprid, and sometimes apparently clothed, and
always holding objects in each hand. On at least one ex-
ample the figure holds snakes; on one pin he holds pome-
granates; on another, where the penis is a pomegranate, he
holds an animal and a bird; on two pins he masters two
animals; and on another example he holds unidentifiable
objects.54 A problem exists, of course, with regard to
whether one particular deity or genius, or several, were
represented, especially given the variety of the objects, no
doubt attributes, carried, and the presence or lack of horns.
The usual interpretation is that the figure represents a deity
or genius connected with fertility, especially because of the
presence, in one case significantly, of pomegranates, and
snakes .55
54. A. U. Pope, "Prehistoric Bronzes of a Hitherto Unknown Type
. . . ," ILN (May 6, 1939) 790, fig. 7; Godard 1962, op. cit. (in note
21) figs. 34, 36; Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note 21) no. 50; Peirre Amiet,
"Les Bronzes du Luristan," Rerue du Lourre (1963) 16, fig. 8; idem,
"Notes d'Archeologie iranienne," Revue du Louvre (1969) 328, fig. 5.
Because of the extraordinary variety of forms and motives, and different
workshops involved, it is always a difficult and complex problem to sep-
arate the genuine from the forgeries among the many unexcavated works
of art attributed to Iran. Thus, in Muscarella 1977, op. cit. (in note 37)
173, no. 25 I listed as suspicious a disc-headed pin in Geneva depicting
a kneeling demon holding snakes. After restudying this pin in context with
others depicting kneeling figures I must retain my doubts: note that the
Geneva disc is thick and may not be a pin head (see Bernard Goldman,
"The Asiatic Ancestry of the Greek Gorgon," Berytus XIV [1961] 1-9,
plate I, 1, who thinks it is a mirror). Note the sharp outlines of the demon's
body and the sharp demarcation line of the projecting right leg separating
it from the body, and note the drawing of the feet, features not present on
the Surkh Dum figure, nor on other examples. The head of the demon also
bothers me, especially when seen from the rear. I also do not cite a disc-
headed pin published in Mostra d'Arte Iranica (Rome 1956) plate XVI,
left (Muscarella 1977, ibid., no. 20). Here I am not convinced by the
drawing of the demon's hair, eyes, face in general, and the presence of
the pubic triangle, as well as that of the two animals; it is at least suspicious.
55. Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note 21) 31, 120. Goldman, op. cit. (in note
54) l, 3, 5, 6-9, sees the Geneva demon mentioned in note 54 to be a
bearded female, an adrogynous creature, who is a Great Mother-Lamashtu-
Gorgon figure, an interpretation also held for the other kneeling figures
on the pins. There is indeed a formal parallel between the Geneva demon
52. l)eity: l)ussaud, op. cit. (in note 23) 200; Ghirshman 1956, op. cit.
(in note 21) 196; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 214-215. Deities and
humans: Godard 1962, op. cit. (in note 21) 63-64; Clercq-Fobe, op. cit.
(in note 21) 22, 40.
53. Ghirshman 1956, op. cit. (in note 21) pl. XXIV; Godard 1962, op.
cit. (in note 21) figs. 68-71, 73, 74; Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note 21)
nos. 29-32.
The David-Weill collection56 at one time contained a small
bronze group in the round that may have once surmounted
a pin: a central figure, almost in a knielauf position, en face,
holds at bay two lions. The figure's posture, face, and
apparent lack of clothing are reminiscent of the figure on
our pendant and on the pins and may represent the same
personage.57
Moorey suggested that the origin of the disc-headed pins
may have resulted from an adaptation of circular pendants.
While this cannot be proven, the existence of this pendant
with a motif matched on the pins does not contradict his
hypothesis. Note also a possible disc pendant in Brussels.58
No. 5. Open-work cast pin. 43. 102.1; Surkh Dum 1573;
Plot JI pr 178/45.59 Bronze; L. 14.3 cm.
Cast in one piece, this open-work pin depicts a squatting
female en face, her legs spread and touching the frame.
Small pellet breasts and exposed pudenda identify the figure
as a female. The face and head are corroded but one may
see facial features: small eyes, lips, as well as the horns that
identify her as a deity. Earrings or spiral hair locks exist on
either side of the face, and a grooved area above the face
may represent hair. The female is nude but there is a grooved
rectangular area above the pudenda that may represent a
girdle. Held at bay by her thin, unnaturally curved arms are
two horned animals antelopes/goats stylistically ren-
dered only by their heads and long, thin necks that join in
a continuous curve, and which enclose the deity in a frame;
unidentifiable curved units connect the animal heads to the
deity. A non-descript thin unit joins the frame to the pu-
denda, but it is not clear whether it is a strut or had a more
significant meaning, namely representing the process of
birth.
Open, cast pins depicting either a mistress or master of
animals are one of the most characteristic forms among the
Luristan bronzes. The iconography occurs on many pins but
is not limited to them, for, among other items, it is of course
characteristic of the classic Luristan finials. The specific
iconography of the Surkh Dum pin is primarily the squatting
position of the female mistress of animals with her sex
exposed, and a basic shape where the necks of creatures
curve so that the deity is enclosed within a crescentic frame.
The type has been discussed by Moorey,60 and many stray
examples exist: our Surkh Dum pin is to date the only one
excavated (It is possible that this pin is the very one faintly
visible in situ in Schmidt's report [p. 213, fig. 9]; I do not
know how many, if any, other examples of the type were
found at Surkh Dum).
Each pin of the type under discussion was cast by the
lost-wax process representing an individual modelling, and
variations exist from one example to the next. Thus, while
some females have horns and spiral hair curls as well as the
grooved girdle, others may not; the animals, rendered in the
typical Luristan manner, may be antelopes or lions.61 Some-
times the female is represented standing, but the horns and
spiral hair curls, and sometimes the presence of the grooved
girdle, identify her as the same or a related deity, or essence,
as the squatting female;62 and sometimes the female has no
60. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 204-205.
61. Ghirshman 1964, op . cit . (in note 21) fig . 54, an elaborate example;
Legrain, op. cit. (in note 31) pl. V, 14; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6)
no. 348, a variant with a square frame; Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in note 1)
nos. 178, 180, the former with a mouflon's head over the female, and
exactly matched by a pin in the Khoramabad Museum, Mina Sadegh-
Behnam, Anita Koh, Lorestan Bronzes and Islamic Metalwork (N.D.)
no. 4.
62. L. Speleers, "Nos Nouveaux Bronzes perses," Bulletin des Musees
and the Lamashtu depictions, but if the former is not ancient, the idea
collapses. Moreover, the conclusions regarding the sex and attributions of
the kneeling figure are to my mind not so secure as presented.
56. Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in note 1) no. 186.
57. Cf. a pin formerly in the Bach collection, Bronzes de la Perse (Paris,
Hotel Drouot 12/ 12/ 1973) no . 28, and Godard 1962, op . cit . (in note 21)
fig. 81.
58. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 208; Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note
21) 223, no. 26.
59. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 543, G. She called the
unit joining the pudenda to the frame an "exaggerated Phallus."
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 8, 1981 337
legs represented, or merely a head.63 The variety is large
and pins of the type under discussion are but one type of
a large group reported from Luristan that is clearly related
iconographically: defined by the primary motif, a mistress
or master of animals framed either in a crescent, or within
a square or circular unit.
The squatting female motif is not limited to open-work
pins, for at least two examples are known depicted in relief
on disc-headed pins, in one case where the female is actually
giving birth.64 The squatting position in general, a birthing
position for women, as well as the specific birth scene?
surely supports the interpretation that these pins, open work
or in relief, had a votive value associated with fertility rather
than female sexuality per se. And probably the standing
females, including those with animal heads, likewise were
involved with fertility matters. As for the standing males,
linked with the females iconographically, they, no doubt,
had a different charged function.
Moorey65 has suggested that the open-work pins, some
of which are large and heavy with frames, may have served
as icons rather than as garment pins. He has rightly noted
their stylistic and iconographical relationship with the
finials, which were probably icons. Perhaps he is right in
essentials, especially given their presence in the sanctuary
of Surkh Dum, but it need not follow that they were not
also worn on the body as a charm or protective amulet,
while also functioning as clothing fasteners.
Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire (1932) 102 fig. 27. Other bronzes in the
Brussels Museum's collections are published in the same journal and under
the same title for the years 1932 and 1933: (1932) 56-71, 93-104
115- 119; (1933) 62-69, 86-95. (::f. similar pieces in Moorey 1971, op.
cit. (in note 6) no. 346, and J. A. H. Potratz, Luristanbronzen (Istanbul
1968) no . 101.
63. Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in note 1) no. 178; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in
note 6) no. 347; Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) plo XXXV, 150; H.
Potratz, "Das 'Kampfmotif ' in der Luristankunst," Orientalia 21:1 (1952)
26-28, figs. 21-38, 41, illustrates a number of these pins of different
types and considers them to represent a Luristan moon goddess.
64. Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in note 1) no. 189; Godard 1962, op. cit. (in
note 21) figs. 77, 78: the former pin was once in the Godard collection,
not David-Weill as thought by Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 204.
65. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 200; idem, 1974, op. cit. (in note
6) 124.
No. 6. Pin. 43.102.7; Surkh Dum 1539; Plot JI pr 178/
11.66Bronze, iron;P.H. 3.8cm.;W. 7cm.
A central motif is flanked by the heads and long necks
of two stylized Luristan type felines. The necks are joined
and continuous and half-way enclose the central unit in a
frame, similar in form to some open-work pins (see No. 5).
Seen from the front, it is difficult to recognize what the
central motif represents; seen from the side, it is easily
recognized as a duck's head turned back to recline on its
wings (cf. the bracelet from Bard-i-Bal).67 The shank of the
pin, now missing, was made separately of iron, judging
from the color at the join. A number of examples of this
pin type, some framed with feline, others with antelope,
heads, occur at Surkh Dum.
I know of only two published parallels to our pin.68 Surkh
Dum also yielded many examples of straight pins with the
very same central motif as on ours but lacking the flanking
heads and necks; other examples exist in various collec-
tions.69 These pins are now confirmed as being from Lur-
istan, and the occurrence of iron surely attests to a date not
earlier than the late 9th century B.C., and probably later.
No. 7. Amthropomorphic pin. 43.102.6; Surkh Dum
1207; Plot JI R3 pr 163 .70 Copper; H. 6.4 cm.
The solid cast head of this pin is rendered in a stylized
manner, suggesting as an impression that a large head alone
66. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 544, P, and incorrectly
described.
67. Louis vanden Berghe, ;'La Necropole de Bard-i Bal," Archeologia
43 (1971) 21, fig. 15.
68. Speleers 1932, op. cit. (in note 62) 102, fig. 28, and Hotel Drouot
Catalogue, 5122180, no. 273 bis; cf. L. Speleers, "Antiquites iraniennes,"
Bulletin des Musees Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire (1938) 42, fig. 16: is this
a pastiche?
69. Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) pls. XXXIII, LVI, 119, 125, 205;
F. Basmachi, "The Luristan Bronze Objects in the Iraq Museum," Sumer
XIX (1963) pl. 6; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) no. 317.
70. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 546, NN.
the neck section.71 If this observation is correct then we
have another formal connection between our figurine and
the typical Luristan finial demons.
No. 8. Human-headed pin. 43.102.17; Surkh Dum 44;
Plot JI N.E. Bronze; H. 3.5 cm.
- : :: :::: : ::00 . :00:00;:00::f:000;000000 at000:000 :fX:
: 0 :: : f:00000 ft ::SS0ff;f S0:0:000:00:00 ::000;X:0:: :
,
tt 1
.
: : :
:::: 0
That this is a pin is indicated both by the presence of a
shank, now mostly missing, and because there is another,
more complete example from Surkh Dum (SOR 201) now
in the University Museum, Philadelphia. Our example is
topped by a small, beardless human head with a prominent
nose and thick lips, centered on a curved unit that projects
on either side and which may represent either arms, oth-
erwise not represented, or more probably, wings. On the
Philadelphia example the wings are longer and thinner, and
curve up in a pronounced manner at the tips. At Surkh Dum
there are examples of pins exactly like ours in form except
that instead of the head at the center there is a short, raised
scalloped unit.
Outside of Surkh Dum no other examples of this pin type
with a human head are known. On the other hand, an ex-
ample with the raised central scalloped unit, exists in Brus-
sels.72 And clearly related examples, with a plain small
central unit, exist in the Ashmolean Museum and among
the bronzes claimed without verification for Khurvin;73
another related type, one with a swelling at the central part
71. Viz. Potratz 1968, op. cit. (in note 62) pl. XXXVI, XXXVII, nos.
228-231 (note that on nos. 232, 234, 235, 238, 242, the visible feet may
belong to the heraldic creatures).
72. Speleers 1933, op. cit. (in note 62) 89, fig. 26.
73. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) no. 289; Louis vanden Berghe, La
Necropole de Khurvin (Istanbul 1964) pl. XLIII, no. 316. Note that many
of the objects published as from Khurvin derive from a Teheran private
collection.
is depicted, when in fact a whole figure is sculpted. The
head clearly is meant to predominate and apparently rep-
resents a dominant figure. This interpretation is suggested
by the prominent, sharp nose, thick brows encircling the
eyes, and either a large lantern jaw or a beard clearly offset
from the mouth area; no ears are depicted. A sloping, flat
beret-like cap does not completely cover the hair, for a band
of wavy locks or curls runs across the forehead. The head
joins a tubular section that functions as both neck and body,
albeit that arms are not depicted. At the base of the "body"
are thighs and legs in a squatting position, and the feet grasp
the top of the shank on either side. The impression is that
the figure sits on a pinnacle, holding on by the feet. Breasts
are not indicated, but between the knees is a raised oval
area with a central depression, which suggests that it is a
vulva. If, however, the figure has a beard and not a long
jaw, then we have something else here. Note that laboratory
analysis has determined that the figure is made of copper,
not bronze.
I can find no parallels for this figure, for its position, or
face and hat. It is further unique in that it is at present the
only published example of a figure in the round to have
been excavated in Luristan. The literature is filled with
examples of stray bronze (copper?) figurines claimed to
derive from Luristan, but they are all standing figures and
none has the armless neck-body arrangement as ours. This
latter feature, however, does seem to exist on the demon
figure on the many finials reported from Luristan, and in
one small but significant detail they present another parallel
to our piece: on a few finial examples it seems one is not
certain that the neck-body has feet that grip the base below
of the wings, is also claimed for Khurvin.74 A more devel-
aped type, perhaps also related to our pin in concept, depicts
the torso of a male centered on the wings, or a male torso
centered on ram's horns.75
If the projections on our pin, and the others, are indeed
wings, one would be right to assume that we have a rep-
resentation of a deity, unnamed to be sure, but appropriate
for dedication at a sanctuary.
No. 9. Animal- and demon-headed pin. 43.102.3; Surkh
Dum 209; Plot JI pr 25 97 90.76 Bronze; P.H. 3.5 cm.
Two loops placed on top of the head may represent hair
curls and curved units encircling the face may be horns. An
animal, whose head is now missing, rests on the head of
the demon, its feet touching the sides. Under the grooved
moulding is a hole that once held a separately made pin;
it is no longer possible to know if it was bronze or iron.
To my knowledge, no parallels for this specific pin exist,
but there are at least two examples that in form closely relate
to ours. These pins have what Porada has called "two profile
lion heads (which also combine to form a single frontal
mask)."77 On both these pins the masks, if that is what they
actually are, are surmounted by a mouflon with large, majes-
tic horns. While the legs on the Surkh Dum example are
placed on either side of the central mask, however, on the
other pins they rest directly on top. It may be that our animal
also originally had a head with the same majestic horns.
An exact parallel for the stylized mask with top loops on
our pin exists in relief on a disc pin in Brussels, and in the
round on a handle (?) in the Erlenmeyer collection.78
No. 10. Animal-headed pin. 43.102.8; Surkh Dum
1078.79 Bronze; P.H. 5.7 cm.
The head of this pin consists of a stylized head of a demon
or deity surmounted by a recumbent animal; it is meant to
be viewed from the front only. The face is formed by pellet
eyes encircled by a thick line that is the brows and that
continues to create the nose; no ears or mouth are depicted.
74. Vanden Berghe, ibid., no. 314; see also Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note
31) pl. XXXIII, 129; cf. A. U. Pope, ed., A Survey of Persian Art (Tokyo
1964-65) pl. 59 D; Wolfram Nagel, Altorientalisches Kunsthandwerk
(Berlin 1963) pl. VIII, 18.
75. Ernst Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East (London and New York 1941 )
155, fig. 275, center right; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) no. 342.
76. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 545, X.
77. Porada 1979, op. cit. (in note 44) 142-143, note 17, fig. 9; A. U.
Pope, ''Mute, Yet Eloquent: The Significant Luristan Bronzes....,"
lLN (September 13, 1930) color plate, lower left.
78. Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note 21) 208, no. 19, pl. 19; M. L. and H.
Erlenmeyer, ;;Fruhiranische Stempelsiegel, II," Irunica Antiqua 5 (1965)
8, pl. V, 24, pl. XI; cf. similar heads in J. A. H. Potratz, ';Die Luristan-
bronzen des Museums fur Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg," ZAssyr 17
(1955)pl.I,4.
79. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 545, W.
Cast in the round, the head is in the form of a standing
goat whose feet are drawn together to rest on a plinth. Below
the plinth is a tubular moulding into which a separately
made pin, of unknown material, was originally inserted.
Goats and mouflons in the round were very commonly
depicted on the art of Lllristan; on finials, horse harnesses,
pins, and so forth. With regard to goats on pins, there is
a group that often represents the animal either standing or
recumbent with the head turned toward the viewer, as on
horse cheekpieces;80 our example is distinct in that the goat
faces forward. Characteristic of most examples is the po-
sition of the feet, which are drawn together as if balanced
on a point, a mountain peak.8'
Pins of this type may have been icons rather than, or in
addition to, being used as clothing fasteners and charms.
No. 11. Frog-headed pin. 43.102.4; Surkh Dum 400; Plot
II pr 24.82 Bronze; L. 4.8 cm.; W. 2.5 cm.
A similar pin, complete, ending in a frog's body was at
one time in the David-Weill collection;83 it was made by a
different hand than the one that made ours and has a loop
at the shank's base to hold a chain or cord to facilitate
securing the pin to a garment. In addition, the Boston Mu-
seum of Fine Arts has an amulet in the form of a frog that
was purchased in 1930;84 a frog amulet also is in Baghdad.85
Although apparently rare, the frog is thus attested as a dec-
orative element for pins and amulets in Luristan. Aside from
our Surkh Dum example one or two more were found at
Surkh Dum; no others, either pins or amulets, have been
excavated.
No. 12. Animal-headed pin. 43.102.20; Surkh Dum
1432; Plot JI R3 pr 175/63. Bronze; L. 6.6 cm.
The strange creature seems to be a frog depicted in the
round and as seen from the top. Its eyes bulge, and all four
legs project in the same direction; the body is simply ren-
dered except for the back ridge that connects the legs. The
frog is clearly the head of a pin, the shank of which is cast
with it and part of which is still extant.
80. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 119.
81. Cf. Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) pl. XXXV, 147; Legrain, op.
cit. (in note 31) pl. V, 17; Pope 1964-65, op. cit. (in note 74) pl. 60 F;
Peter Calmeyer, Altiranische Bronzen der Sammlung Brockelschen (Berlin
1964) no. 127, cf. no. 128 for posture. Cf. also goats on plinths discussed
in Oscar White Muscarella, "The Archaeological Evidence for Relations
Between Greece and Iran in the First Millennium B.C.," Journal of the
Ancient Near Eastern Society 9 (1977) 34, note 11, fig. 7; Amiet 1976,
op. cit. (in note 1) no. 198.
82. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 546, 00. The pin is
published by Paul Jacobsthal, Greek Pins (Oxford 1956) 61, no. 257.
The head is formed with two individual units: a rounded
band, decorated in low relief with studs or cast granulations
framed by beaded mouldings, which is joined to the head
of an animal, whose head, horns, and ears are rendered
naturally in the same plane as the shank. Under the head
is a groove running its whole length and with its side arms
grooved at the nose end. This feature, seen in side view,
83. Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in note 1) 73, no. 173.
84. Pope 1964-65, op. cit. (in note 74) pl. 59 C; Muscarella 1979, op.
cit. (in note 1) 12, note 10: see Pope 1930, op. cit. (in note 77) 444, fig.
4.
85. Basmachi, op. cit. (in note 69), pl. 11, bottom right.
could indicate the animal's legs and the swelling behind the
eyes could be its shoulders. Thus we have the forepart of
an animal, not just its head; this feature distinguishes this
pin from the antelope-headed pins, Nos. 14-17. From a
formal point of view, one thinks of course of the zoomorphic
straight-headed pin from Baba Jan,86 where the whole body
of a typical Luristan feline creature forms the head.
No. 13. Duck-headed pin. 43.102.19; Surkh Dum 423;
Plot II pr 24-5 98.00.87 Bronze; L. 20.6 cm.
l w
|
l

i
.
I
S
*.
s.i.
Cast in one piece, the head is in the form of a reclining
duck that is separated from the shank section by a series of
grooves. In addition to this pin and others from Surkh Dum,
the only other site that has yielded this type pin is Kutal-i-
Gulgal, also in Luristan.88 A large number of stray examples
exist, all exactly the same as those from Surkh Dum and
Kutal-i-Gulgal,89 and which now have a confirmed Luristan
provenience.
86. Clare Goff Meade. "Luristan in the First Half of the First Millennium
B.C, ," Iran VI (1968) 128- 129, fig. 12.
87. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. ( in note 4) 537, HH.
88. Vanden Berghe 1973, op. cit. (in note 44: Archeologia 65) 19, 21,
24.
89. Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) pl. XXXIII, 137; Nagel, op. cit.
The presence of the same type of object both at Surkh
Dum and at an excavated cemetery site in Iran is archae-
ologically significant. First of all, aside from gaining knowl-
edge about distribution, it demonstrates that, as in the
present case with regard to pins, the object could have a
votive and perhaps a secular function. And second, it serves
as a warning that all stray objects of a type usually related
to Surkh Dum may not in fact have derived from there;
some of these pins cited above have been known since 1930.
The date of the Kutal-i-Gulgal tomb containing the pins
was originally dated by Vanden Berghe to a time around
1 100- 1000 B.C., but later the date was modified and lowered
by a century, to ca. 1000-900 B.C.: this is still earlier by
a century or more than the time it is suggested the Surkh
Dum sanctuary flourished (supra), and it creates a paradox.
Either the Kultal-i-Gulgal tomb is even later than suggested
(see also No. 19), or the Surkh Dum sanctuary begins earlier
than perceived, or, a third possibility, the pins at the latter
site are heirlooms or long lived. In any event, all that can
be stated at present is that there seems to be a considerable
difference in time between the occurrence of the pins at two
excavated sites.
Four other animal-headed pins (Nos. 14-17) are exactly
the same in all details, differing only in size and horn po-
sitions (indicating that they were made by the lost-wax proc-
ess). All terminate with the head of a horned animal an
antelope? The horns are free from the head and pass between
the upright ears. The pin shanks vary in length and thickness;
No. 17 is bent and No. 16 is broken.
A very large number of antelope-headed pins were ex-
cavated at Surkh Dum and an equally large number of strays
have been recorded from the time of the earliest appearance
of Luristan bronzes on the antiquities market.90 The former
examples thus neatly confirm a Luristan provenience for the
class. Note that No. 17 is specifically mentioned as having
been found in a wall.
(in note 74) pl. LVI, 124; Basmachi, op. cit. (in note 69) pl. 5; Pope
1964-65, op. cit. (in note 74) pl. 60 K; Potratz 1968, op cit. (in note 62)
36, note 4, pl. XXIV, 140; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 193-194,
nos. 314-315; Anton Moortgat, Bronzegerat aus Luristan (Berlin 1932)
pl. VII, 19; W. D. van Wijngaarden, "De Loeristanbronzen in het Rijks-
museum van Oudheden," Oudheidkundige Mededelingen XXXV (1954)
pl. XII, 75, 76.
90. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 193 for references, nos. 312, 313;
see also Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) pl . XXXIII, 123, 132, 133;
Herzfeld 1941, op. cit. (in note 75) 155, fig. 275; Wijngaarden, op. cit.
(in note 89) pl. XII, 77-80; Calmeyer 1964, op. cit. (in note 81) no. 67;
Jean Paul Barbier, Bronzes iraniens (Geneva 1970) no. 41.
01 i
: f I
0 I
0 C
: t
:::0 0
:
:00:0
0:000:0
t:040 :
T;:::00
:?
X
f
:
f t::
:::
:D0
:;
:
F
0
0
: t:
0 00
: 0
: ;
0 V
0
I
No. 14. 43.102.18; Surkh Dum 1203. Bronze; L. 14.5 No. 16. 43.102.22; Surkh Dum 197; Plot II. Bronze; L.
cm. 8.3 cm.
;
No. 15. 43.102.21; Surkh Dum 279; Plot JI pr 19 97.45.
Bronze;L. 13.9cm.
No. 17. 43.102.23; Surkh Dum 1585 or 1685; Plot KH,
in the wall. Bronze; L. 9.2 cm.
No. 18. Pin. 43.102.24; Surkh Dum 578; Plot KI pr 11.9'
Bronze; L. 12 cm.
.
fff;04000000001 k
00: 0 ::;
:::0; iX S::0i::V::::0t: f: f
000000:::uf;: t;X: ;f: 0
: :z : 0 ::S: :0t 0 00:00
f0:;0000:fAti;X;70fEtSt:uSXf t:X ffff::D:; tS);:
:
:faX ; fED: :fX f:d a:
0 : :? ff
The head consists of a double row of small projecting
knobs, apparently meant to form rosettes, set on a grooved
base. Laboratory tests have indicated that the pin is made
of tin bronze.
Van Loon mentions pins at Surkh Dum from the earliest
level; he referred to "studded" pin heads in the 8th-7th
century level,92 which may describe the pin type under dis-
cussion here. Although the publication of pins is extensive,
reflecting both their variety and ubiquity, I could find no
exact parallels to our example, but compare the rosette-like
motif on a silver pin claimed for Ziwiye.93
91. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 543, I.
92. Van Loon 1967, op. cit (in note 6) 24.
93. C. K. Wilkinson, "More Details on Ziwiye," Iraq XXII (1960) pl.
XXX, 5.
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8 1981 343
No. 19. Animal-terminal bracelet. 43.102.2; Surkh Dum
1632. Bronze; D. 8.2 cm.
The terminals on this cast penannular bracelet are in the
form of the forepart of a stylized animal of indistinct species
(lion?); on each back is a loop, probably used to hold a cord
or chain to keep the bracelet from slipping off the wrist; the
arms are round in section and plain.
One of the most characteristic and numerous of the objects
reported from the plundered tombs of Luristan is the bracelet
with zoomorphic terminals, hundreds of which have sur-
faced through the antiquities market. Bracelets of this type
are rare from excavations in Luristan, but it is known now
that they exist not only at Surkh Dum (i.e., the present
example and others reported), but also at Bard-i-Bal,94 so
the Luristan provenience for the class in general is docu-
mented. Moorey9s has discussed the importance of these
objects, both with respect to their earlier occurrence in Iran
at Hasanlu and Marlik, and equally significant, their flour-
ishing continuity in Achaemenian times. Concerning the
latter occurrence, animal-terminal bracelets represent one
of the most clearly documented examples of earlier Iranian
art forms taken over and developed by the Achaemenians.
Aside from the Surkh Dum examples, no other bracelets
like our example with terminals in the form of the whole
or the forepart of an animal (as opposed to the many with
only the animal head) have been excavated, but strays
exist.96
94. Vanden Berghe 1971, op. cit. (in note 67) 21, fig. 15; idem 1973, op.
cit. (in note 44: Iranica Antiqua) pl. XXI, 1, 2.
9S. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 218.
96. Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) pl. XXVIII, 94; Pope 1964-65,
op. cit. (in note 74) pl. 57 C; Ghirshman 1964, op. cit. (in note 21) fig.
94; Louis vanden Berghe, et al., Bronzes Iran-Luristan Caucasus (Paris
1973) pl. XXXVI, center.
No. 20. Lobe-shaped ring. 43.102 .1 3; Surkh Dum
1601.97 Bronze; D. 2.5 cm.
ffff :ff :0 0: 0 0 00402000000X iS::0 3 __ ti S
W:f
No. 21 . Lobe-shaped ring. 43. 102. 14; Surkh Dum 10298
Bronze;D.2.3cm.
Edith Porada99 has made a study of these rings, seeing
them as stylistic indicators for establishing a chronology for
certain Luristan bronzes. She has categorized rings of our
first type as "sheet" rings, those of the second type as
"lobed" rings. She has also perceived a chronological dis-
tinction between the two types, exhibited by the fact that
the engravings on the sheet examples are usually carefully
rendered and often show heraldic animals flanking a stylized
tree. To Porada, the scenes on the lobed rings are usually
cruder in execution and were added after casting. While not
explicit, it seems that she considers those rings cast with
the arms closed to be lobed, and the penannular ones to be
the sheet rings.
Inasmuch, however, as some "lobed" rings have pen-
annular ends and finely executed scenes, and because the
"sheet" rings are all lobed in shape, the division is not so
clear as assumed. It may be that the type and style of the
scenes themselves should be the criteria for the division
among the lobe-shaped seals: the neatly rendered heraldic
animals and tree, all of which seem to have penannular
ends, and the others, some crude others neatly rendered,
with animals or demons not in a heraldic position and usually
in a different style than the first grouping.
The scenes on the "sheet" rings have been compared by
Porada to Elamite and Babylonian art and dated accordingly
to 1200- 1000 B .C.; the " lobed" rings are dated ca.
1000-800 s.c.100 Van Loon, while noting that the relative
sequence suggested by Porada, that sheet rings precede
lobed rings, is supported by the Surkh Dum stratigraphy,
has nevertheless claimed that the former occur there in the
8th century level10l (= 8th-7th centuries B.C.), the latter in
the 7th century B.C. level. Given the fact that early seals
occur at Surkh Dum, it is not impossible that Porada's date
of the sheet rings to the late 2nd millennium B.C. iS correct:
yet one has to accept a 200-400 year difference between
the two ring types, which in shape at least are not so dif-
ferent. How many lobe-shaped rings were excavated at
Surkh Dum is still not revealed, but it would be of value
to know if in fact sheet rings occur only in one level, lobed
rings only in another.
Thus, the issue of dating remains to my mind still un-
resolved, especially with regard to the so-called sheet ex-
amples: we have a situation where style suggests an early
dating and stratigraphy a later one. Porada has also noted
that penannular rings of sheet metal and with lobed faces,
99. Porada 1964, op. cit. (in note 28) 16-19; idem 1965, op. cit. (in note
28) 75-78.
100. In Porada 1964, ibid. 16 the sheet rings are dated + 1100 B.C.; later,
28, "about the twelfth or eleventh century B.C. ;" the lobed ones are dated
on page 17; see 1965, ibid. 76, figs. 47, 48, 78. Cf. Erlenmeyer, op. cit.
(in note 78) 2-5 for a different arrangement and dating, but based on
gratuitous comparisons and to my mind not convincing.
Ring No. 20 was made from a sheet of bronze wider in
front than at the back where the slightly narrower ends
touch. The design, which may have been cast with the sheet,
consists of two different horned animals, one with a curved
horn shown in profile, the other with two horns shown
frontally, flanking a stylized tree; a multi-petalled rosette
or star is behind each animal. In the field is an inscription
in cuneiform which reads Dinger. Mesh, part of a prayer
invoking the gods. The second ring is similar in shape to
the first, although cast closed and with a more pronounced
lobed front. The design, while neat, is executed in eneven
lines and seems to have been added after casting. A bird
facing right is placed above a horned animal striding left
with its head down: on the sealing the positions are reversed.
Along the outside borders is an incised line. Both rings may
have been used as seals.
97. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 547, QQ.
98. Listed in ibid. 547, RR.
some of gold, occur in other areas of the Near East in the
late 2nd millennium B.C.; very distinctly lobed rings of iron
and bronze have also been excavated at Hasanlu of 9th
century B.C. date.l02
vessels, different types of birds and animals, and so forth;
dogs do not seem to be rare. 105 The use of pendants at Surkh
Dum remains uncertain, for we do not know how they were
worn, on the wrist, neck, belt, or whether they could have
functioned as simple decorative elements of secular jewelry,
or only had a charged, apotropaic value.
No. 22. Pendant. 43 .102.1 5; Surkh
L. 2.9cm.;H. 2.2cm.
Dum 617. Bronze;
No. 23. Pendant. 43.102.16; Surkh Dum 1013. Bronze;
L.0.6cm.;H. l.9cm.
This small cast pendant seems to depict a dog. Its raised
tail curves up and forward above a flat rear end; eyes are
small raised pellets and the ears are small; a suspension loop
connects the neck and back.
The number and variety of pendants at Surkh Dum (see
also No. 23) is still not known but few are known elsewhere
from excavations. Aside from a bird pendant from Bard-i-
Bal (see No. 23), pendants in the form of animals, one
perhaps that of a pair of dogs, were excavated at Hasanlu. 103
Dog figurines were fairly common in Mesopotamia, where
they seem to have been associated in many instances with
certain deities.l04 Whether our dog pendant was associated
with a deity or had a simple secular function is not known:
except that it does come from a sanctuary.
While few pendants have been excavated, a large variety
of stray examples are said to have derived from western
Iran, especially Luristan. They are in the form of humans,
The pendant seems to depict a reclining bird, apparently
a duck. It is very simply rendered with no details articulated.
The base is flat and is incised with a cross-hatch design; a
suspension loop connects the neck and back. Only one other
bird pendant has, to my knowledge, been excavated to date,
recovered outside of a tomb at Bard-i-Bal in Luristan.'6
Other examples exist in private collections. 107
105. Speleers 1932, op. cit. (in note 62) 115, fig . 10; Pope 1964-65, op.
cit. (in note 74) pl. 59 J; Godard 1931, op. cit. (in note 31) pl. XXX, L.
106. Vanden Berghe 1973, op. cit. (in note 44: lranica Antiqua) 48, pl.
XXIII, 3.
107. Godard 19318 op. cit. (in note 31) pl. XXX, D. C. A; Basmachi,
op. cit. (in note 69) pl. 11, center; Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6)
231-232, nos. 416-418.
102. Porada 1964, op. cit. (in note 28), 16; for Hasanlu see Aurel Stein,
Old Routes of Western lran (London 1940) 3988 pl. XXV, 2; others,
unpublished, are known from the recent excavations. Cf. similar, but less
pronounced, lobed rings from neighboring Dinkha Tepe, Oscar White
Muscarella, "The Iron Age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran," MMJ 9 (1974) figs.
43, 52, nos. 133, 342, 620.
103. A. Hakemi and M. Rad, The Description and Results of the Scientific
Excavations at Hasanlu (in Persian) (Teheran 1950) fig. opposite p. 72.
104. B. Meissner, "Apotropaische Hunde," Orientalische Literaturzei-
tung XXV, 5 (1922) 201-202; W. Heimpel, "Hund," Reallexikon der
Assyriologie IV (1922-75) 494-497, Betty Schlossman in Ladders to
Heuven, Oscar White Muscarella, ed . (Toronto 1981) 114- 116; Daphne
Achilles, in ibid. 201. For recent discussions see I. Fuhr in B. Hrouda,
lsin-lsvan Bahrlyat I (Munich 1977) 135-145.
No. 24. Miniature axe. 43. 102 .9; Surkh Dum 1500. 108
Bronze; L. 4.8 cm.
lennium axe type is an anomaly. One might assume that it
is an heirloom, or a stray found by locals and dedicated at
the sanctuary, or an indication that some examples of the
type were still being made at a later date; we do not know
which possibility obtained.
Miniature weapons, daggers and axes, while not rare in
the ancient Near East are not common either. 112 The occur-
rence of a miniature axe at a sanctuary indicates that it was
dedicated as a model of a functioning weapon. Note that
another axe of a different type (see note 6) was also ex-
cavated at Surkh Dum.
Ivory, Bone, and Faience Artifacts
No. 25. Plaque. 43.102.31; Surkh Dum 656 (or 666b?).
Ivory; length: 9.5 cm.; height: 3.8 cm.
In miniature size, this axe duplicates full-sized examples
known both from excavations and the antiquities market.
Characteristic of this particular type is both the cut away,
slanted lower part of the socket, and the flange-butt with
a horizontal ridge; the socket and the flange have a thick
outline. Examples of this type have different blade shapes
that define them as chisels, picks, or axes, but the slanting
socket and flange interrelate the group as belonging to the
same class or type. Our example is an axe, the upper edge
horizontal, the lower curving up to the socket.
The type was studied by Maxwell-Hyslop, Deshayes, and
Calmeyer,'09 all of whom isolate the characteristics as well
as give evidence for geographical distribution in the Near
East. Full-sized examples have been excavated at Til Barsip
in north Syria, and in Iran at Susa and Kalleh Nisar in
Luristan. " Other examples have been attributed to Nimrud
and Tepe Giyan, but without verification; and Calmeyer
mentions two from Mari. "' Counting the present example,
three axes of our type have thus been excavated in Iran. All
these examples are dated to the last centuries of the 3rd
millennium B.C.
There is no evidence at Surkh Dum that the site pre-dates
the 1st millennium B.C., SO that the presence of a 3rd mil-
108. Listed in Ackerman 1940, op. cit. (in note 4) 547, XX.
109. K. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, "Western Asiatic Shaft-Hole Axes," Iraq
XI (1949) 99-100, Type 9; Jean Deshayes, Les Outils deBronze de l'lndus
au Danube, I, II (Paris 1960) I, 166, II, 70, Type A5c; Calmeyer 1969,
op. cit. (in note 1) 32-34.
110. Calmeyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 33, fig. 32; Amiet 1976, op. cit.
(in note 1) 9, fig. 5; Louis vanden Berghe "La Necropole de Kalleh
Nisar," Archeologia 32 (1970) 72.
111. Herzfeld 1941, op. cit. (in note 75) 126, fig. 243, c, pl. XXVII;
Calmeyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 34-35.
In fragments when found, parts of all four edges of this
rectangular plaque are preserved. On side A there is no
defined upper border while the lower is a band of vertical
lines; on side B both upper and lower borders consist of
heavy four-petalled rosettes. On both sides the right and left
borders have an irregular but neat guilloche pattern, the
centers and curves of which are drawn with a compass. The
upper edge has two drilled holes, the lower has three.
Side A is decorated with two identical bull men (the horns
are clearly part of their heads), enface and touching hands
standing side by side; each holds a creature at bay with his
outside hand. The bull men have a triangular face with a
rectangular nose, slit mouth, thick round eyes that look
compass drawn with a central dot, and a beard that frames
the whole face; vertical lines between the horns may be hair
and no ears are depicted. They are dressed in a belted, calf-
length one-piece (?), short-sleeved jumper that is fringed
throughout its length and at the lower border; a vertical band
112. Hans Bonnet, Die Waffen der Volker des Alten Orients (Leipzig 1926)
71, fig. 9, from a temple at Assur; Maxwell-Hyslop, op. cit. (in note 109)
119, 120; E. A. Speiser, Excavations at Tepe Gawra (Philadelphia 1935)
pl. XLIX, 3; Nagel, op. cit. (in note 74) nos. 41, 42, 100; Vanden Berghe
1964, op. cit. (in note 73) pls. XLIV, XLV, 332, 335-337; Pierre Amiet,
"Bactraine Proto-historique," Syria LIV (1977) 106-107, fig. 14; Cal-
meyer 1969, op. cit. (in note 1) 27, D is over twice the size as ours and
may not be a true miniature.
runs from the neck to the belt. Feet are visible below the
skirt and seem to point to right and left. The creature on
the viewer's right is an upright lion whose body is outlined
in bordered lines, as are the bull men's dress. The creature
to the left is larger, but because of a break is not readily
identified. He seems to rest on his haunch and his feet and
paws, one with claws pointed up, the other down, touch the
bull men; this creature may be a bear, not a lion. The
decoration, except for the guilloche and eyes of the bull
men, is rendered in a crudely incised manner, especially the
feet and hands of the bull men and the bodies of the
creatures.
Side B is equally rendered in a crude fashion. Here a lion
at the left attacks a horned animal fleeing to the right. One
The plaque, then, is clearly a product of a Luristan atelier
(at least the incised scene, if not the original cutting and
carving of the guilloche: cf. No. 31), and thus documents
ivory working in Luristan in the early centuries of the 1st
millennium B.C.
No. 26. Animal-headed
1254. Bone; L. 5.5 cm.
pin. 43.102.26; Surkh Dum
Represented in the round is a recumbent winged equid,
probably a horse, decorated with incised designs. Its simply
rendered head is small in proportion to its body, and there
is a collar (?) on its neck. The wings are decorated with
both a zig-zag and a vertical pattern. Circles with a central
dot form the eye and are placed on the neck and body; the
same motif with the addition of an outer rayed circle adorns
the thigh. The rear end is flat with a depression containing
a hole that once held a pin. When found, this piece was
encrusted to a black and white veined stone disc, drilled
through its shorter axis. Van Loon refers to the existence
of these pins from the "earliest level," but it is not known
how many were recovered.l'4
In form and typology these pins, with the recumbent
animal made of one material and joined to a pin made of
another, are the same as the many bronze animals, mostly
equids, joined to an iron pin that are reported from Luristan,
and to the well-known Hasanlu pins.ll5 The pin type is
clearly one at home throughout western Iran, but if the pin
was made in Luristan, which seems almost certain, it is
another example of a local school of bone and ivory carvers
in that area. What is more, it speaks to a common knowledge
over a large area of NW and western Iran of objects with
114. Van Loon 1967, op. cit. (in note 6); Schmidt, op. cit. (in note 1)
211 for reference to bone ' iwands.55
115. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 196- 197, nos. 324-327; Porada
1965, op. cit. (in note 28) 166, fig. 67, pl. 29; idem, 1975, op. cit. (in
note 24) 393-394, no. 310.
paw of the lion touches its prey, both of whose front feet
are off the ground, perhaps to show that it is falling. The
body outlines are like those on side A.
The scenes on both sides are complete and the plaque is
an individual unit. Inasmuch as both sides are decorated,
both sides were obviously meant to be viewed, which makes
it difficult to understand how the plaque was used. That it
was set into some type of frame is indicated by the upper
and lower holes.
The en face figures with triangular outlined face are of
course the same as that of the figure on the faience concave
vessel also from Surkh Dum (No. 31). Equally matched on
these two objects from the same site is the crudeness of the
incised rendering of the decoration. And while no exact
parallels to match the two juxtaposed figures functioning
as masters of animals are available, there can be no hesi-
tation in recognizing the Luristan style of the figures. Bull
men (or figures with bull horns) are common there, as is
the enface position and the flaring skirt on other figures.'
113. Godard 1962, op. cit. (in note 21) figs. 34-36, 38, pls. 16, 18, 21,
23; Moorey 1975, op. cit. (in note 21) 21, 24, figs. 1, 5, pls. I, IIb, IVd,
the latter with an outlined face; Clercq-Fobe, op. cit. (in note 21) nos. 50,
56.
Nos. 28-30. Lion figurines. 43.102.28, 29, 30; Surkh
Dum 666d. Ivory; L. 2.5, 2.5, 2.9 cm.
: :
: t
:: : :: : :: ::
::::0::: 0:: : : t::0:: :; :: t;X::::; : :::: : :::
: : 0 :t t; _
::0:f:0;fff:00:::0:00:0::0:0:: :::: ::::EVt
:00:00EV00:d S; :::::0::00
a common form and function, which could hardly be called
fortuitous.
No. 27. Handle (?). 43.102.27; Surkh Dum 824. Ivory
(?); L. 7.6 cm.
This badly corroded and pitted object is pierced at one
end to a depth of about 1.7 cm. One can barely make out
the incised decoration which consists of rows of lines fram-
ing bands of zigzag patterns at each end; a clear space of
about 1.3 cm. separates the decoration.
The hole at one end suggests that the object was a handle.
What it held may only be conjectured, but it was probably
a perishable material, since nothing was found in the hole.
Although No. 30 is slightly longer than the others, all are
the same in all details. Each figurine represents a recumbent
lion with its head resting on its paws. The thighs, head, and
ears are in relief while the mouth is formed by two grooves.
All have flat bases pierced with two holes; No. 30 has the
holes piercing the whole figure. Few distinct stylistic fea-
tures are present.
At Nimrud and Hasanlull6 small recumbent ivory calves
pierced at their bases were used as handles or grips on the
lids of ivory pyxides and it is probable that our three lions
had the same function.
116. Max Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains I (London 1966) 219-220,
figs. 173, 174; Oscar White Muscarella, The Catalogue of Ivories from
Hasanlu, Iran (Philadelphia 1980) 195-196, nos. 242-245.
Journcal of Faeld ArchcaeologylVol. 8, 1981 349
No. 31. Faience vessel(s). 43.102.45a, b, c; Surkh Dum
14. Faience; greatest H. of preserved area: 12.6 cm.; D. of
rim: ca. 10.6 cm.
Only part of this vessel is preserved, including about one-
half of the rim and a section both below and to the viewer's
left of the protome. The upper, rim area is decorated with
a wide border consisting of a central outlined band of guil-
loches-a center enclosed by an S-shaped motif framed
by two bands of vertical lines. Below is the main decorative
scene depicting a central figure flanked by large birds mov-
ing away. The central figure, en face, has a triangular,
outlined face, oval eyes lidded at the bottom only, a rec-
tangular nose and a slit mouth; ears are unnaturally placed
at the top of the head and frame vertical hair lines. No
mustache is indicated but random incisions on the face sug-
gest a beard. Nothing else remains of this figure, but he is
clearly represented in the master-of-animal position. To his
right is a creature identified as a large bird by his beak and
one wing, awkwardly placed before him. The bird has a
crest and feathers at its back rendered by short incisions.
Only the back feathers remain of the bird at left. All these
figures are incised in a crude and cursory manner compared
to the relatively neat rim decoration and protome.
The protome projects from the decorated area of the vessel
and consists of a bearded male wearing a bulbous hat dec-
orated with vertical lines and two small upright horns at the
front center. His face is human with a distinctly large nose
in a straight line from the forehead, a thick-lipped mouth,
human ears, and eyes that appear to be closed, the lids
meeting at the center; if there is meant to be a mustache it
is not evident. Two small legs ending in cloven hooves join
just under the beard. The figure is clearly a demon, a bull
man. Below the protome is an incised curved border (?) and
another incised object that may be the wings of a bird, now
missing. In a few areas one may still see the remains of a
glaze.
The curvature of the vessel as restored may be too flared
as there is very little evidence for a flare on the preserved
part; the restoration is apparently based on comparative
vessels.
Two glazed fragments, one incised with the winged area
of a bird or creature (b), the other a rim fragment (c), came
with the other more complete fragments (a). While (b) might
belong to the vessel its incisions are not noticably different
in execution, (c) clearly does not. Although it has the same
rim decoration pattern and band sizes, the guilloche is not
the same, neither in the size of the central circle nor in the
S-curve pattern: we therefore must consider that fragment
(c) at least represents another similar shaped vessel.
With regard to the technique of manufacture, one has the
impression, based primarily on the difference of quality of
execution, that the vessel was first made, apparently in the
mould, and that the incised decoration below the rim area
was subsequently added.
As fortunate as we are to have this excavated vessel for
study we are equally fortunate to have good parallel pieces
available, all of which have also been excavated, and in
two distinct cultural areas of Iran. First, there is at least one
other example of a decorated concave vessel from Surkh
Dum."7 On this vessel the rim has the same motifs and
arrangement as the present example, while the base has
incised triangles and the main scene depicts a lion griffin
of the same type as ours note the beak albeit more neatly
rendered. No protome is illustrated, so until the final pub-
lication occurs we will not know whether or not one was
originally there but has broken away. Another concave ves-
sel comes from Susa. "8 It has the same rim pattern as ours
but with a herringbone design in the lower band and the
base has slightly oblique lines. The main scene is elaborate
and depicts two well-drawn rampant bulls flanking a stylized
tree; at the rim is a single protome formed of the head and
chest of an animal, either a horse or a bull.
Two other excavated vessels, while of different shape,
are demonstrably of the same class as the concave vessels.
117. Amiet 1976, op. cit. (in note 1) 60, fig. 39 (in Teheran).
118. Pierre Amiet, Elam (Auvers-sur-Oise 1966) 500-501, no. 376; H.
20.5 cm.
At Kharkai in Luristan, Vanden Berghe"9 excavated in a
tomb a square pyxis decorated with rosettes on all sides.
The rim decoration is the same as that on the concave Susa
vessel, except that the guilloche is more elaborate, and the
base is the same as that on the Teheran Surkh Dum concave
vessel. Two protomes, identical female heads, are placed
on opposite sides of the rim; they are pierced for holding
the pegs of the now missing lid. And from Susa again'20
comes a square pyxis like that from Kharkai in shape that
also has two female protome heads like those on the Kharkai
pyxis. Furthermore, the rim is decorated exactly like both
Surkh Dum concave vessels, and the main decoration has
neatly executed sphinxes and lion griffins, the latter being
the same creatures on both Surkh Dum vessels.
One more vessel warrants inclusion in our discussion.
This is a round pyxis from Susa'2' with two pierced lugs
(not protomes, but set in the same position) and a lid, the
same type that must have been associated with the other
square pyxides from Susa and Kharkai. The round pyxis
has a different decorative scheme than hitherto encountered
but the vessel clearly fits into the class under discussion.
Further evidence that this vessel belong to the same class
is demonstrated by an unpublished plain faience vessel from
Surkh Dum in the form of a round pyxis with three lugs for
holding a lid and with the interior divided into three com-
partments. To summarize, we may conclude that the six
vessels brought forth (seven, if fragment (c) is indeed from
another vessel at Surkh Dum), from Surkh Dum and Kharkai
in Luristan and Susa in Elam, are interrelated as one class
and share more or less certain features in common: material,
rim and base design, main scene decoration, protomes or
lugs, and overlapping shapes.
Porada, discussing only the vessels from Susa, as the
others were not available to her, concluded that the faience
vessels are Elamite products, reflecting only in part (basi-
cally the shape of the square pyxides) western influence. 122
That the vessels are indeed Elamite has been neatly dem-
onstrated by Amiet who in 1967 published a series of en-
amelled terracotta knobs associated with wall tiles excavated
at Susa. The knobs were formed as protomes of the foreparts
of bulls, bull men, horses, human heads, and seated mon-
keys. 123 of particular interest for our present purposes is the
knob protome of the complete bull man, which in all details
119. Vanden Berghe 1973, op. cit. (in note 44: Archeologia) 28 and color
plate.
120. Amiet 1966, op. cit. (in note 118) 498-499, no. 375; Porada 1965,
op. cit. (in note 28) 72, fig. 46.
121. Amiet 1966, ibid., 495, no. 372; Porada 1965, ibid., 72, fig. 45.
122. Porada 1965, ibid., 70.
123. Pierre Amiet, ' 'Elements Emailles du Decor architectural Neo-
Elamite," Svria XLIV (1967) 27-46, figs. 2, 3, 5-13, pls. V, VI.
and in style is the same as the protome on the Metropolitan
Museum's Surkh Dum vessel: bulbous hat with horns, long,
full beard with a horizontal base, thick lips, lidded eyes,
and the tucked-in bulls' legs. What is more, the protome
on the Susa concave vessel is formally paralleled by the
knob bull protome, as noted by Amiet, while the female
heads on the Susa and Kharkai square vessels are paralleled
by the human-headed knobs. Dated cogently by Amiet to
the time of Shutruk-Nahunte II, late 8th century B.C., the
Susa knob protomes are from the very same period assigned
to the vessels by Moorey.'24
Inasmuch as all the vessels under review have been ex-
cavated in Luristan and Elam not merely attributed
there we have in hand a firm, not a putative, indication
of cultural exchanges between the two areas: and for this
alone, the value of the vessels is significant. For it is of
interest to note that although several scholars have noted
possible Elamite artistic influences on the art of Luristan,
they have too often discussed unexcavated objects (e.g.,
rein rings, weapons) to support their conclusion; with the
faience vessels we are dealing with excavated material, con-
crete evidence.
The style of the scene decoration of all the vessels but
one, the present example, while at home in Neo-Elamite
art as known at Susa, does not fit into a Luristan background.
At the same time, however, both the motif and execution
of the main scene on the Surkh Dum vessel under review
here are clearly at home in Luristan (cf. No. 25). To resolve
the apparent conundrum it might be suggested that the Surkh
Dum vessel was imported from the south, undecorated,
except for the rim, base, and the protome, and that the
design was subsequently added in Luristan (n.b. that the
aforementioned compartmented vessel from Surkh Dum is
undecorated and may equally be an import). There is a
problem, however, with this suggestion. A laboratory anal-
ysis at the Metropolitan Museum of Art resulted in the
observation that while glaze is not consistently present, ap-
parently because of leaching, it does appear within some
areas of the incised decoration. The occurrence of glaze at
these points is consistent with the suggestion that the design
was executed before firing, that it was an original, not a
secondary, feature of the vessel. If this is indeed the case,
one is then forced to seek other explanations for the presence
of the two separate styles; perhaps an artist or artisan from
Luristan assisted in the making of the vessel in the south;
or the vessel was locally made in Luristan, modelled in all
details, except for the decoration, after the imported pro-
totype. If the glaze was added after the vessel and the in-
cisions were made, the first suggestion could obtain, but
124. Moorey 1975, op. cit. (in note 21) 19, 21, late 8th or early 7th
century B.C.
we do not know and so the other alternatives must be
considered.
Cylinder Seals
by ELIZABETH WILLIAMS-FORTE
No. 32. Akkadian cylinder seal. 43.102.34; Surkh Dum
1124. Shell C?; H. 2.8 cm.; D. 1.45 cm.
This seal shows two groups of battling gods. To the left
appear two deities grasping both a mace and the top of the
other god's crown. The second group of two deities flank
a god with arms held down with palms up. The attacking
gods grasp the central deity's crown while the god to the
right smites him with a mace.
This so-called "Battle of the Gods" is a scene commonly
represented on seals excavated at sites under Akkadian con-
trol in both Mesopotamia anFIran (ca. 2334-2154 B.C.).
Although numerous similar examples occur in Akkadian
levels of Mesopotamian sites, the closest parallel to our seal
comes from the Iranian site of Susa. 125 Both the Surkh Dum
and Susa seals show two deities reaching up to pull a horn
of the other's miter while tugging at a single mace held
between them. In contrast, other Akkadian battles of the
gods, including the seal of Ischpum, Ensi of Susa in the
time of Manistusu (ca. 2269-2255 s.c.),l26 almost always
show the mace suspended in air beneath the gods' arms as
if the weapon had just been dropped by one of the com-
batants. The Susa seal also provides the closest analogy for
the curious horned miters composed of three superimposed
tray-like forms on the present example. These unique sty-
listic features shared by the Surkh Dum and Susa seals may
suggest that they are products of an Akkadian atelier in
125. Mesopotamia: R. M. Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik wahrend
derAkkad-Zeit (Berlin 1965) Abb., 318, 324 (Kish), Abb., 321, 348 (Tell
Asmar). Susa: Pierre Amiet, Glypticue susienne, Memoire de la Delegation
archeologique en Iran XLIII (Paris 1972) 188-192, pl. 146, no. lS50.
126. Amiet 1966, op. cit. (in note 118) no. 157.
seem never to have been used for sealing purposes but are
purely votive objects.
Impressions of seals very similar to the Surkh Dum heir-
loom seals are known from both Iranian'3s and Mesopota-
mianl36 sites. Thus, these seals clearly were not created
originally as votive objects. Perhaps the 1st millennium B.C.
inhabitants of Surkh Dum considered these seals suitable
temple offerings because of their great antiquity. The later
seals (Nos. 36-40) may have been fashioned as votive ob-
jects since no impressions of seals of similar style and icon-
ography are known to me. This implies that they date to
the same period as the Surkh Dum sanctuary (ca. 800-650
B.C.; see above) for which they were intended, as was the
case at Tchoga Zanbil. Indeed, as will be discussed below,
seals Nos. 36-40 do exhibit characteristics of a seemingly
regional, Luristan, origin. Their exact dates, however, are
difficult to determine because of the paucity of comparative
archaeological material from this "dark" age in Iranian
cultural history.
No. 33. Old Babylonian cylinder seal. 137 43.102.35;
Surkh Dum 786. Hematite: H. 2.3 cm.; D. 1.28 cm.
Iran'27 rather than imports from the Mesopotamian heartland
of Akkadian culture.
Although the gods on our seal bear no attributes- and are
thus anonymous, deities associated with vegetation or
flames in similar battles have been identified by Amiet as
divinities personifying aspects of the yearly cycle of
nature . l28
This Akkadian seal's find-spot within the 1st millennium
B.C. sanctuary at Surkh Dum suggests that the seal was a
highly valued heirloom worthy of offering to the god. Of
the nine Surkh Dum seals in The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, certainly four and perhaps even more are "antiques"
saved for many centuries and finally placed within the sanc-
tuary. Pope, Porada, and Van Loon'29 have mentioned other
early seals of Mitannian and Kassite origin among the Surkh
Dum deposits. Precedents for the practice of depositing seals
as votive objects within sanctuaries exists at sites in both
Iran and Mesopotamia, but parallels for the placing of nu-
merous "heirloom" seals within temples are rare.'30 For
example, at the Iranian site of Tchoga Zanbil, over 100
cylinder seals were found deposited in the chapels situated
at the base of the ziggurat. Of the Tchoga Zanbil seals
published by Edith Porada, only one could be considered
an "heirloom" of the age of the present example,'3' for the
remainder of the seals have been dated to the late Middle
Elamite primary occupation of that site (ca. 1300-1100
B.C.). l32
Ghirshman and Porada'33 suggested that the Tchoga Zan-
bil votive seals were made in ateliers connected to the temple
and carved with scenes reinforcing their sacral nature.
Amiet's observation that no impressions of these seals are
known from tablets supports this suggestion.'34 The seals
127. See Amiet 1972, op . cit. (in note 125) 190.
128. Ibid.; also Pierre Amiet, "Pour une interpretation nouvelle du
Repertoire iconographique de la glyptique d'Agade," RAssyr 71 (1977)
107- 116.
129. Pope, apud Schmidt 1938, op. cit. (in note 1) 208, note 3; Porada
1964, op. cit. (in note 28) 17; Van Loon 1967, op. cit. (in note 6) 24.
130. Iran: Edith Porada, "La glyptique," in Tchoga Zanbil IV (Paris
1970) esp. pp. 3-5; Mesopotamia: Henri Frankfort, Stratified Cylinder
Seals from the Diyala Region (Chicago 1955), esp. pp. 7-11; temples:
ibid. 7, Table 1. For a discussion and rejection of the possibility that the
large number of Jamdat Nasr seals discovered in later layers indicate
continued production of this style, see p. 3.
131. Porada 1970, op. cit. (in note 130) 89-91, no. 107 (late Akkadian
to Old Babylonian period). For the only other cylinders older than the
majority of the seals discovered in the chapels see the Mitannian seals,
nos. 110-111, 113.
132. Ibid. 7-105, 127-131.
133. Ibid.; see Roman Ghirshman's quote on p. 4.
134. Pierre Amiet, "Glyptique elamite a propos de nouveaux documents,"
Arts Asiatiques XXVI (1973) 3-65, especially p. 22. Another example of
votive seals for which no impressions are known is cited by Frankfort
1955, op . cit . ( in note 130) 16- 17.
135. For this Akkadian seal, No. 32, see Amiet 1966, op. cit. (in note
118) no. 157; for the Old Babylonian seal No. 33 see Amiet 1972, op.
cit. (in note 125) no. 1692; and for the Middle Elamite seal No. 34 see
ibid, nos. 2026-2027.
136. For No. 32 see Boehmer 1965, op. cit. (in note 125) no. 347 (Nippur);
for No. 33 see Louis Delaporte, Catalogue des Cylindres, Cachets, et
Pierres gravees de Style oriental I (Paris 1920) pl. 12:7 (Tello); for No.
34 see Edith Porada, Seal Impressions of Nuzi MSOR XXIV (New Haven
1947) nos. 613-614; and for No. 35 see Anton Moortgat, "Assyrische
Glyptik des 13 Jahrhunderts, " ZAssyr 47 (NF 13 1941) Abb . 57, 59-60.
137. Previously published by Vaughn Crawford, et al., The Metropolitan
Museum of Art: Guide to the Collection of Ancient Near Eastern Art (New
York 1966) 16, fig. 26.
I. .
nscrlptlon
dUTU-KUs . DI Samas-dajjan( ! ?)
IR i-la-ni servant of the gods
(uninscribed) (translated by Dr. John Huehnergard)
An enthroned figure whose head is obliterated by a chip
in the stone sits holding a cup to the right of this presentation
scene. Before this figure stands a worshipper with hands
clasped and a suppliant goddess with uplifted hands.
This seal bears a standard Old Babylonian presentation
scene and inscription.'38 The scene's date in the Isin-Larsa
or early Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000-1800 B.C.) iS
suggested by the suppliant goddess wearing the necklace
with counterbalance characteristic of this period.'39 There-
fore, this Mesopotamian seal appears to be the only seal of
positively non-Iranian origin among the Surkh Dum seals
in The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
No. 34. Middle Elamite cylinder seal. 140 43.102.39;
Surkh Dum 1317. Serpentine; H. 2.56 cm.; D. 1.15 cm.
and on less securely stratified examples at Susa in Iran.'4'
The typically Elamite characteristics of these scenes such
as the worshipper's vizor-like hair-style, the deity's crown
with outward curving horns, and his animal-headed throne
have been discussed by Edith Porada. 142 All seals with these
stylistic features, including the present example from Lur-
istan, have been dated to the mid-2nd millennium B.C. by
Porada on the basis of one of the Nuzi seal impressions
which bears the inscription of Winnirke, the mother of the
Mitannian ruler Tehiptilla (ca. l5th 14th centuries B.C.). 143
Amiet however, in his discussion of the related Susa ex-
amples cites numerous similarities between this group of
seals and late Old Babylonian examples. He suggests that
Winnirke's seal might have been inscribed after its impor-
tation to Nuzi perhaps from Elam, or, alternately, that seals
of this style were popular over several centuries. 144
Until securely stratified examples of similar seals are
uncovered by controlled excavations, the exact date of these
seals, including the present "heirloom", will remain a point
of discussion. The appearance of two characteristic features
of these scenes on earlier Syrian seals of Middle Bronze
Age date (ca. 1800-1600 B.C.), however, might support the
slightly higher date suggested by Amiet. First, the goddesses
with stream-like lower bodies supporting the god's animal
throne on two of the Susa seals are analogous to those on
several Syrian seals, including a seal impression from Mari
dated to the period of Zimrilim (ca. 1800 B.C.). 145 Moreover,
the crown with outward curving horns considered typical
of Elamite art from at least the early 2nd millennium B.C.,
is distinguished here by a center composed of a series of
piled-up oval forms. Identical headgear is worn by the
weather god on several unprovenanced Syrian seals of prob-
able 1 8th- 1 7th centuries B.C. date. 146
141. Porada 1946, op . cit . (in note 140) 257-259, figs . 1 -3; Amiet 1972,
op. cit. (in note 125) nos. 2022-2027.
142. Porada, ibid., 257-259; idem, "Aspects of Elamite Art and Ar-
chaeology," Expedition 13 (1971) 28-34, esp. pp. 31 -32.
143. Porada 1946, op. cit. (in note 140) 258; for a date ca. 1400/1300
B.C. for this seal now see Porada 1975, op. cit. (in note 24) 386, no. 297e.
144. Amiet 1973, op. cit. (in note 134) 19-20, pl. XII.
145. Susa: Pierre Amiet 1972, op. cit. (in note 125) nos. 2023, 2026.
Mari: idem, "Notes sur le Repertoire iconographique de Mari a l'epoque
du Palais," Syria XXXVII (1960) 215-232, fig. 1; see also idem, 1972,
ibid. 259 where he notes the similarity of the Susa seals' "stream god-
desses" with those on another Susa seal that he classifies as Old Babylonian
(no. 1769). On the probable Syrian origin of this seal see Dominique
Collon's review of Amiet 1972 in AfO XXVI (1978-79) 104-108, esp.
p. 7, no. 1769.
146. Louis Delaporte, Catalogue des Cylindres orientaux et des Cachets
. . . de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris 1920) no. 464; H. H. von der
Osten, Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mr. Edward T. Newell
(Chicago 1934) no. 303; idem, Altorientalische Siegelsteine der Sammlung
A deity sits upon an animal-headed throne and holds a
rod and ring. Before him is a worshipper with an animal
offering. A star is in the field between them. To the left is
a secondary scene divided into two registers: above, a lion
stalks a horned animal; below, a worshipper stands before
a deity who holds a staff. In the field surrounding them are
a bird above a fish, a fly, and a fox (?).
Worship scenes similar to the present example have been
found impressed on tablets at Nuzi in northern Mesopotamia
138. Dr. Huehnergard points out that the empty inscription case is unusual.
139. A. Spycket, "Un Element de la Parure feminine a la Ire Dynastie
babylonienne ," RAssyr XLII (1948) 89-96, especially pages 93-94; idem,
"La Deesee Lama," RAssyr 54 (1960) 73-84.
140. Previously published by Edith Porada, "The Origin of Winnirke's
Cylinder Seal," JNES 5 (1946) 257-259, fig. 4; idem, 1965, op. cit. (in
note 28) 47, fig. 22; idem, 1975, op. cit. (in note 24) 386, no. 297e;
Amiet 1973, op. cit. (in note 134) 19, pl. 12, P.
Connections with the north Mesopotamian, north Syrian
cultural sphere for this group of seals are thus twofold. For
not only were closely analogous seals found impressed on
tablets at Nuzi but specific motifs of the scenes are also
paralleled on artifacts produced in these northerly regions.
Although some mid-2nd millennium B.C. northern, Hurrian
influence in Iran, specifically in Elam, has been adduced
by Labat,'47 the obscure history and chronology ofthis pe-
riod prohibit any definite conclusions concerning the origin
and date of this seal.
No. 35. Middle Assyrian cylinder seal. l48 43.102.37;
Surkh Dum 528. Greyish chalcedony (?); H. 2.72 cm.; D.
1.18 cm.
artifacts from any other region of Mesopotamia as far as I
know. Reversed animals, probably gazelles characterized
by their long lyre-shaped horns, appear on a cup in the
Louvre, which is not from stratified context, but is of prob-
able Iranian origin on the basis of its style and bitumen
material. Dated to the early 2nd millennium B.C. on stylistic
grounds by Amiet, these creatures are held aloft by a bull
man rather than a human hero. i50 Later Neo-Elamite artifacts
including a seal and a stone relief from Susa show similar
horned animals.'5' Thus, whereas no representations of a
gazelle with these distinctive undulating horns appear in
Mesopotamian art, examples are found on Iranian artifacts
of varying date. Therefore, these animals may belong to a
genus of gazelle indigenous to Iran.
In regard to the hero's helmet, similar lobed headgear is
found on only two seals, one a 13th century B.C. seal impres-
sion from Assur, the second a seal in the Foroughi collection.
Through an analysis of specific features of these seals, Edith
Porada concluded that they were the products of Iranian
seal-carvers. '52
Other archaeological evidence as well as historical
sources provide evidence of Assyrian contacts with Iran in
the late 2nd millennium B.C. Tomb 45 at Assur yielded a
typical seal of Tchoga Zanbil's 13th century B.C. Elamite
Elaborate style.'53 Assyrian textual sources record the con-
quest by Tukulti-Ninurta I (ca. 1244-1208 B.C.) of several
cities in the Zagros previously under Elamite control. And
Assur and Elam continuously battled over control of south-
ern Mesopotamia during this period.'54 In view of these
connections, the appearance of Iranian seals at Assur is not
surprising. Curiously, however, no seals of Middle Assyrian
style have been discovered at contemporary Iranian sites
such as Susa or Tchoga Zanbil and in that respect the present
Surkh Dum example is unique.
Later 1st millennium B.C. artifacts excavated in areas
150. Amiet 1966, op. cit. (in note 118) no. 200 A, B.
151. Pierre Amiet, "La Glyptique de la fin d'Elam," Arts Asiatiques
XXVIII (1975) 3-45, no. 62 (Susa), also no. 55; Amiet 1966, op. cit.
(in note 118) no. 432.
152. Porada 1971, op. cit. (in note 142) 28-34, fig. 7 (Assur) and fig.
9 (Foroughi). For a possible example of this knobbed turban see also the
badly effaced seal from Marlik, Ezat Negahban, "The Seals of Marlik
Tepe, " JNES 36 (1977) 81 - 102, esp. p. 92, fig . 8.
153. Porada 1975, op. cit. (in note 24) 386, no. 297g; also see B. Parker,
"Cylinder Seals from Tell al Rimah," Iraq XXXVI (1975) 21-28, esp.
p. 35, no. 48; and idem, "Middle Assyrian Seal Impressions from Tell
al Rimah," Iraq XXXIX (1977) 257-268, esp. p. 260, pl. XXVII, no.
12.
154. J. Munn-Rankin, "AssyrianMilitaryPower 1300-1200B.C.," CAH
II, part 2 chapter XXV (Cambridge 1975) 274-298, esp. pp. 284-285;
Labat 1975, op. cit. (in note 147) 386-387.
On this beautifully carved seal, a hero holds two long-
horned animals each suspended by one rear leg. He wears
a kilt with pendant tassels and a helmet surmounted by a
lobe-like projection. In the field to the right are an eight-
pointed star and a moon crescent.
Similar heroes conquering two animals appear on seal
impressions on tablets excavated at Assur in North Meso-
potamia. Three impressions dated to the reigns of the As-
syrian kings Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I (ca.
1274-1208 B.C.) show a similar hero wearing a kilt with
tassels and holding two horned animals each suspended by
one hind leg. Other impressions of similar date provide
exact parallels for the eight-pointed star and the moon cres-
cent that appear on the Surkh Dum example. 149
The enormous curving horns of the animals, and the
hero's helmet surmounted by a lobe-like projection, how-
ever, are unparalleled on seals produced in Assur, or on
Hans Silvius von Aulock (Uppsala 1957) no. 293. See also the comments
of Amiet 1973, op. cit. (in note 134) 19 and note 1.
147. Rene Labat, "Elam c. 1600-1200 B.C.," CAH II, part 2, chapter
XXIX (Cambridge 1975) 379-416, esp. pp. 380-381.
148. Previously published in Crawford 1966, op. cit. (in note 137) 19,
fig. 30 and Shirley Glubok, The Art of the Lands of the Bible (New York
1963) 45.
149. Moortgat 1941. op. cit. (in note 136) 50-88, esp. pp. 77-79, Abb.
59, 60, 61.
within the sphere of Assyrian influence frequently show a
mixture of typically Assyrian pictorial elements with char-
acteristics of clearly regional inspiration. I55 Cities of the 2nd
millennium B.C., however, like Tell Fakhariyah in the Mid-
dle Assyrian controlled Habur region, appear to have pro-
duced seals of standard 13th century B.C. Assyrian style
with few, if any, indigenous Syrian features.l56 Thus, the
appearance at Surkh Dum of this seal, showing what seem
to be regional Iranian stylistic characteristics grafted onto
the standard Middle Assyrian style and iconography, is un-
precedented. That these Iranian stylistic features are un-
paralleled on artifacts produced in the Elamite region of Iran
may suggest that they are indigenous to Luristan, a possi-
bility that will be confirmed only by future excavations in
the Zagros region known to have been under Middle As-
syrian control.
No . 36. Late Middle Elamite ( ?) cylinder seal .
43.102.36.; Surkh Dum 1461. Unglazed yellowish faience
(?) with apparent metal stain; H. 3.3 cm.; D. 0.92 cm.
13th-12th centuries B.C.) excavated in Elam at the sites of
Tchoga Zanbil and Susa. Although of a less angular, abstract
style than the present example, several Tchoga Zanbil seals
show more than one attendant serving a seated banqueter.
Vessels and animals frequently appear above the table.l57
The ladder-patterned border appears frequently on Susa
and Tchoga Zanbil examples of both Middle and possible
Neo-Elamite date, and, in one instance, frames figures styl-
istically similar to those on the present example. 158 On this
Susa seal from insecure archaeological context, figures are
engraved in an analogous linear style characterized by long,
stick-like limbs. Bodies are defined by the same narrow
triangular skirts ending in a geometric pattern that echoes
the seals vertically hatched border.l59 The curving plumes,
top-knots, or horns that surmount the beak-like profiles of
the attendants on our seal, however, are unparalleled on
contemporary artifacts. Similar profiles and horns, however,
characterize so-called ibex demons on 4th millennium B.C.
stamp seals from sites like Tepe Giyan in Luristan. 160 Such
ibex-headed or masked beings continue in the art of Iran
into the 1st millennium B.C. when they appear on bronzes
of Luristan type.'61 The great popularity of the ibex as a
motif in the Surkh Dum bronzes was commented upon by
Maurits van Loon.l62 Thus, the importance of the ibex at
this site may support the identification of the attendants on
our seal as ibex-headed beings.
These horned individuals serve a bent-kneed figure seem-
ingly suspended in air without the support of a chair. Al-
though the omission of such an essential feature of the
composition is unusual, a similarly floating banqueter ap-
pears on a seal from Tepe Sialk, Necropole B (ca. 9th-7th
centuries B.C.).163 The Tepe Sialk banqueter's legs, however,
157. Porada 1970, op. cit. (in note 130) figs. 74-76, 79-80; Amiet 1972,
op. cit. (in note 125) 265, nos. 2055-2063.
158. For development of opinions concerning the date of the border see
Amiet ibid. 273-274, nos . 2131, 2134, 2091, who dates the border pri-
marily to the Neo-Elamite period; Porada, ibid. 98, no. 117, 50, no. 51,
states that the border might last a very long time on the basis of the Susa
seals like Amiet, ibid. nos. 2131-2134; Amiet 1973, op. cit. (in note 134)
24-25, note 1 redates the seals published in Amiet 1972, nos . 2131 -2134
to Middle Elamite on the basis of the Tchoga Zanbil material.
159. Delaporte 1920, op. cit. (in note 136) pl . 33:4 (Susa) .
160. G. Contenau and R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Tepe Giyan (Paris 1935)
pl. 38:36.
161. R. D. Barnett, "Homme masque ou dieu-ibex," Syria XLIII (1966)
259-276, pls. XXIV, 1, 2, XIX, 1, 2; for early stamp seals see pl. XX,
fig. 1, etc.
163. R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk II (Paris 1939) pl. XXX, 2. For
chronology see Oscar White Muscarella, "Excavations at Agrab Tepe,
Iran," MMJ 8 (1973) 70-71, note 14.
A border of ladder pattern frames the scene. Two long-
skirted attendants reach toward a table before a seated (?)
banqueter. Above the table are a vessel below an animal.
This seal's material, unglazed faience, and scene, a ban-
quet, are characteristic of Middle Elamite seals (ca.
155. For a discussion of Assyrian "influence" see Irene Winter "Per-
spective on the 'Local Style' of Hasanlu," in Mountains and Lowlands,
op. cit. (in note 37) 371-386, and Muscarella 1980, op. cit. (in note 116)
170, 200-202, 210-217, 222.
156. Helene J. Kantor, "The Glyptik," in C. W. McEwan, Soundings at
Tell Fakhariyah (Chicago 1958) 69-85. For possible indigenous Syrian
elements see p. 82, no. LIII and note also Kantor's views concerning the
earliest occurrence of the winged human-headed sphinx in Assyrian art on
illlustration XI. Compare the earlier winged male sphinxes on 18th-17th
century B.C. Syrian seals like E. Williams-Forte, Ancient Near Eastern
Seals. A Selection of Stamp and Cylinder Seals in the Collection of Mrs.
Willliam H. Moore (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1976) no. 3.
are bent in a normal seated position whereas our figure's
limbs are drawn up in a crouching posture. Only monkeys
are shown in such a squatting pose, but the upper bodies
of these simian creatures always are shown in profile and
never frontally as on the present example. Similarly floating
figures with bent but not drawn up legs and with torsos
viewed frontally have been characterized as "goblins" by
Edith Porada. Such creatures appear on a Foroughi collec-
tion seal dated stylistically to Iran in the 10th-9th centuries
B.C. and on a bronze pin of Luristan type.l64
The participants in the banquet on this seal thus may be
typically Iranian hybrid creatures a "goblin" as banqueter
served by horned "ibex-headed demons'' rather than the
human figures that normally appear in such scenes. Here
creatures part-animal, part-human act as human beings,
providing a novel variation on the ancient Iranian theme of
animals assuming human roles.l65 Though no parallels for
this type of mythological banquet exist, the apppearance of
the ibex-headed demon, common in pictorial representations
produced in the mountainous region of Luristan for millen-
nia, alongside the "goblin," known from bronzes of Lur-
istan type, may suggest a regional Luristan origin for this
seal. Until more exact stratigraphic evidence is provided,
this seal's date must lie within the period when such un-
glazed faience seals showing analogous motifs or stylistic
features were produced the late 2nd to the early 1st mil-
lennium B.C.
No . 37. Late Middle Elamite ( ?) cylinder seal .
43. 102.32.; Surkh Dum 131. Chalcedony with iron rust; H.
3.38 cm.; D. 1.34 cm.
On this seal, a pair of crosses, one placed above the other,
appears in the field alongside three figures with stick-like
limbs, beak noses, and horns (?). The first figure to the
right seems to hold a weapon in its upraised hand. With
elbows jutting, the two remaining figures hold a spear with
one hand while placing the other hand on a hip.
The three figures shown in procession on this seal are
unparalleled. No exact analogies appear to exist for these
flat, shallowly engraved figures, arms akimbo, with hands
defined by small drillings. Their beak-like profiles sur-
mounted by a bent form ending in a drilling is similar to,
but less clearly rendered than, the heads of the attendants
on No. 36. The relationship between the figures on the latter
seal and a particularly Iranian ibex-headed demon or masked
being was cited above and may be applicable as well to the
present more crudely carved figures. Whether the figures
on this seal are human beings wearing ibex-horned masks
or composite creatures is impossible to determine, but both
clearly are related to an Iranian cultural tradition involving
the hunt or worship of the ibex. The composite ibex-headed
creature is a manifestation of myth or fable, as may be the
case on No. 36, while the masked individuals perhaps reen-
act the myth through ritual. The latter possibility may be
applicable to the present scene for the absence of animal
prey near the armed figures and their strange gestures may
suggest that they are involved in a ritual, perhaps a dance,
prior to the hunt. 166
A date for our seal in the late 2nd millennium B.C. iS
suggested solely on the basis of the six crosses, motifs most
commonly found on Kassite and post-Kassite artifacts (ca.
1400-1000 B.C.).167
The metal-like accretions on the stone may suggest that
this seal was deposited in the Surkh Dum sanctuary along-
side metal artifacts. Interestingly, the only other Surkh Dum
seal in The Metropolitan Museum of Art that bears similar
metallic stains is the faience seal No. 36, which also shows
ibex-headed creatures. The possible significance of this fact
will be fully understood only after the exact find-spots of
the Surkh Dum material are elucidated in the final report.
166. Barnett 1966, Qp. cit. (in note 161) 259-276 for discussion and mod-
ern ethnographical parallels. See also Porada 1964, op. cit. (in note 28)
15, and Amiet, loc. cit. (in note 165). I neglected to discuss similar
connections for a seal of Proto-Elamite date in Ladders to Heaven, op.
cit. (in note 104) l91, no. 155.
167. Thomas Beran, "Die Babylonische Glyptik der Kassiten-zeit," AfO
XVIII (1958) 255-278, Abb. 5, 12 S 18 S 32.
164. Porada 1965, op. cit. (in note 28) 78, fig. 49 and 235, chapter VI,
note 6 for the pin reference.
165. Pierre Amiet, La Glvptique mesopotamienne archaique (Paris 1961)
42, 158, pls. 37, 38; for animals participating in banquets on earlier seals
see pl. 99, no. 1308 (Ur) and no. 1313 (Tell Asmar).
No. 38. Early Neo-Elamite (?) cylinder seal. 43. 102.40.;
Surkh Dum 103. Burned chlorite (?); H. 2.58 cm.; D. 11.7
cm.
No. 39. Early Neo-Elamite (?) cylinder seal. 43. 102.30;
Surkh Dum 807. Burned chlorite (?); H. 4 cm.; D. 1.13
cm.
A rampant griffin attacks a couchant winged bull on this
seal. In the field surrounding these animals are a fly (?),
a fish, a star, and the lower body of a monkey (?).
Similar griffins with inward curving wings occur on two
seals from Susa and one from Tchoga Zangil dated by Amiet
to the early Neo-Elamite period. 168 A seal from Tepe Sialk,
Necropole B (ca. late 9th-7th centuries B.C.) shows an an-
imal in analogous rampant pose menacing winged horned
animals. And a vase from Sialk dated to the same period
shows griffins that also can be compared to the creatures
on this Surkh Dum seal.'69
As noted by Amiet, creatures having crescent-shaped
wings with feathers indicated on their outer edge are char-
acteristic of artifacts produced in the early centuries of the
1st millennium s c.l70 An unprovenanced quiver dated on
stylistic grounds to ca. 900-700 B.C. in The Metropolitan
Museum of Art shows slender bulls with analogous arched
necks and saber-shaped wings.
The lower body of what may be a monkey on our seal
is an example of a typically Iranian taste, beginning as early
as the Proto-Elamite period (ca. 3200-2900 B.C.), for the
abbreviated rendering of animals. '7' A comparable omission
of specific figural components may be seen in the composite
creature on the Surkh Dum pinhead No.7.
168. Amiet 1972, op. cit. (in note 125) 273, nos. 2126-2127; idem, 1973,
op. cit. (in note 134) pl. XVI, no. 71 (Tchoga Zanbil).
169. Ghirshman 1939, op. cit. (in note 163) pl. XXXI, 3, LXXXV, B,
D.
170. Amiet 1973, op . cit. (in note 134) 26.
171. Porada 1965, op . cit. (in note 28) 51, fig. 30; for Proto-Elamite seals
see Amiet 1961, op. cit. (in note 165) pl. 32:516, pl. 35:550.
An animal flanks a sacred tree on this tall, slender cylinder
seal. Above the animal's head is a Maltese cross and behind
it are a monkey above a bird.
Although iconographically related to late 2nd millennium
B.C post-Kassite artifacts of Mesopotamian and Iranian or-
igin, the scene on this seal is stylistically similar to later 1st
millennium B.C. artifacts produced in Iran. A scene showing
linearly patterned animals alongside a stylized sacred tree
is a tableau datable by its occurrence on a kudurru (a bound-
ary stone) of the reign of Marduk-nadin-ahhe (ca.
1098-1081 s.c.).l72 Moreover, such scenes are common on
contemporary post-Kassite seals excavated in Mesopotamia
and Iran, and on rings like those excavated at Surkh Dum
(No. 20).'73 Also characteristic of the decoration of these
post-Kassite seals is the Maltese cross that appears above
the head of the horned creatures on the present example.'74
Unparalleled on post-Kassite seals or on bronze rings are
several distinguishing features of the sacred tree and the
animal on our seal. Most notable for the tree are the bent
and upward-pointing branches, one with spear-like termi-
nation, and the spikey forms that hang below it. The closest
analogies for these motifs appear on 1st millennium B.C.
artifacts from Iranian and Urartian sites like Tepe Sialk and
Karmir Blur, and on an unprovenanced Iranian cylinder seal
dated to the first half of the 1 st millennium B.C. on stylistic
grounds.'75 On this seal, branches with spikey petals iden-
172. Beran 1958, op. cit. (in note 167) 276.
173. Ibid., 274-278, Abb. 28-32; Amiet 1972, op. cit. (in note 125)
273, nos. 2121-2125; Porada 1964, op. cit. (in note 28) 13-16; idem,
1965, op. cit. (in note 28) 118-120, pl. 33 for a vase fragment from
Hasanlu, 9th century B.C.
174. Beran 1958, op. cit. (in note 167) 276.
175. Ghirshman 1939, op. cit. (in note 163) pl. XXXI, 2; B. B. Piotrov-
tical to those appearing on the present example grow from
the sides of a "tree-deity" with curved denticulated wings
typical of early Neo-Elamite seals.
Rather than winged or non-winged bulls or caprids com-
mon on post-Kassite examples, our seal shows a wingless
composite creature which may be a horned dragon beside
the tree. Instead of hooves, the animal's fore-legs terminate
in curving claws. These are similar to the claws of a feline
creature on a seal in the Foroughi Collection dated by Edith
Porada to the 10th-9th centuries B.C. Its rear legs, however,
end in forks similar to the bird shown directly behind it on
our seal.'76
Curious, too, are the short spikey horns ending in knobs
in combination with the creature's long upturning tail. On
Mesopotamian as well as Iranian examples, only bulls with
one forward curving horn are shown with long uplifted tail;
two horns as on this animal identify caprids having tails
usually short, but occasionally long and hanging down be-
tween the animal's legs.'77
The Surkh Dum creature's extremely long, only slightly
arched neck with spikey forms marking its outer curve also
is unusual. Linear striations frequently decorate the interior
volume of animal's necks on post-Kassite artifacts but never
protrude beyond the neck' s outline . l 78 On our seal, however,
the linear strokes issue from the edge of the neck and thus
may indicate the creature's mane. Analogous short linear
details, some slightly up-curving as on the present example,
decorate the neck of a short horned, leonine-clawed, bird-
footed creature on a seal of probable 1st millennium B.C.
date in the Yale Babylonian Collection. Identified as the
horned dragon of Marduk, two of these creatures with more
elaborate curling manes appear on the seal of the son of
Shutur-Nahunte II, a Neo-Elamite ruler (ca. 7th-6th cen-
turies s.c.).l79 Thus, the short strokes stretching from our
creature' s horn to the base of its neck may represent a similar
mane and identify it as a horned dragon. Moreover, the
curving, rounded forms of our creature's body are more
closely related to these horned dragons than to the linearly
patterned bodies of 2nd millennium B.C. animals.
skii, Urartu (New York 1967) 73, fig. 55; Amiet 1975, op. cit. (in note
151) 3-45, esp. p. 17, pl. IX, no. 71. For trees, birds, and monkeys, see
also Amiet 1972, op. cit. (in note 125) nos. 2121-2122 (Neo-Elamite).
176. Porada 1965, op. cit. (in note 28) 78, fig. 49.
177. For bulls with long tails see Beran 1958, op. cit. (in note 167) Abb.
16, 28, 31; caprids with short tails, Abb. 22-24; caprid with long tail
hanging down, Abb. 30.
178. Ibid. Abb. 28; for later material see Porada 1965, op. cit. (in note
28) pl. 33; also see Madeline Noveck, The Mark of Ancient Man.
(Brooklvn Museum 1975) no. 36.
179. Amiet 1975, op. cit. (in note 151) 18-19, pl. IX, no. 67 (Yale), pl.
VI, no. 34 (Hupan-Kitin).
Horned dragons never appear alongside sacred trees on
2nd millennium B.C. artifacts. Seals of the 1st millennium
B.C., such as the Yale seal and the seal of Hupan-Kitin, the
son of Shutur-Nahunte II discussed above, however, show
the horned dragon rampant alongside a spade, another em-
blem of Marduk. On the latter seal, the spade is shown as
a stylized sacred tree. Since the creature on our seal appears
to be Marduk's animal attribute, the horned dragon, perhaps
the sacred tree with its spade-like branch is in some way
related to that god's triangular emblem.
Thus, this seal finds its closest stylistic analogies in ar-
tifacts from early 1st millennium B.C. Iran. A 1st millennium
B.C. date and Iranian origin may be supported by the seal's
material, which is the same burned chlorite of Nos. 38 and
40, seals of probable early Neo-Elamite date. Because of
the unique nature of the scene, however, and the analogies
mentioned above to post-Kassite artifacts, the possibility
cannot be excluded that this scene represents a previously
unknown regional style of the late 2nd millennium B.C. that
perhaps is indigenous to Luristan.
No. 40. Early Neo-Elamite (?) cylinder seal. 180
43.102.33; Surkh Dum 1299. Burnt chlorite; H. 4.31 cm.;
D. 1.28 cm.
The central scene shows two rampant horned animals
flanking a tree with spikey branches and tendrils. To the left
an archer kneels above a horizontally flying bird with den-
ticulated wings. Above the archer is a star.
This tall, slender seal, published and discussed in depth
by Edith Porada, has been compared to several seals of
different style but similar iconography from Tchoga Zan-
bil. 181 Of faience and late Middle Elamite date (ca.
12th-llth centuries B.C.), the Tchoga Zanbil seals also
180. Previously published in Porada 1964, op. cit. (in note 28) 15, pl.
I, fig. 1.
181. Ibid. 15, text fig. 1; also idem 1970, op. cit. (in note 130) pl. IV,
nos. 35-36.
show kneeling archers alongside enormous horned animals
flanking vegetation. The size differential between man and
beast suggested to Porada that the caprids might be consid-
ered supernatural by the carver of the seal.'82
This seal has been placed chronologically by Porada be-
tween the late Middle Elamite Tchoga Zanbil examples (ca.
1200- lO00 B.C.) and the later 9th century B.C. Neo-Assyrian
linear style seals which more closely parallel the carving
of the present example. Also characteristic of early 1st
millennium B.C. seals of Iranian origin are the multi-rayed
star and the denticulated tree branches and bird wings on
the present example.'83
Conclusion (O.W.M.)
In 1977 and 1979 I presented a list of Luristan objects
that have been excavated both in Iran and elsewhere.'84
Several more excavated pieces may now be added, although,
unfortunately, none has been published with photographs:
a bronze tube with Janus heads at the top and a "screw"
base, from Baba Jan in eastern Luristan;'85 a bronze standard
finial consisting of confronting felines from Xatunban in
the Ilam area of western Luristan, and from the same site
five bronze horse bits, at least one of which is in the form
of winged goats trampling a gazelle.'86 Collectively they
add up to a total of 28 excavated Luristan objects (25 from
182. Ibid. 15.
183. Ibid. 14.
184. Muscarella 1977, op. cit. (in note 37) 192; idem 1979, op. cit. (in
note 1) 13 34. For the sake of convenience I summarize the lists here.
Bronzes: three idol finials or standards (Tutalban, Bard-i-Bal, Samos); two
goat finials (Bard-i-Bal); three whetstone handles (Bard-i-Bal); one zoom-
orphic headed pin (Baba Jan); one bird pendant (Bard-i-Bal); two duck-
headed pins (Kutal-i-Gulgul); one open-work pendant (Crete); one bracelet
with duck terminals (Bard-i-Bal); one bracelet with animal terminals (Bard-
i-Bal); also a pick axe with a human face in relief (War Kabud), and a
spouted vessel with a human face at the base of the spout, either from
Luristan or a neighboring area. In addition, there are three terracotta fig-
urines-(Chekka Sabz) and faience vessels (Surkh Dum, Kankhai).
185. C. Goff, "Baba Jan," Iran VIII (1970) 176; I missed this reference
because no photograph was furnished: from the description the tube seems
to be similar to those illustrated in Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) pls.
37, 38. We thus have two Luristan bronzes from the settlement site of
Baba Jan.
186. Published too late for my 1979 paper: Exposition des denieres
Decouvertes Archaeologiques 1976-1977 (Musee Iran Bastan 1977) 42,
nos. 384, 385; no. 386 mentions '41 des 4 mors en bronze", but it is not
clear if they are plain or decorated with figures. The confronting felines
are apparently like those illustrated in Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6)
pls. 31, 32, but we do not know if they are of the naturalistic or the stylized
type. Note also that a bronze bucket excavated by Louis vanden Berghe,
'iLa Necropole de Chamzhi-Mumah," Archaeologia 108 (1977) 60, 61,
has a scene of a city under siege and a chariot battle, known to me from
a drawing kindly sent to me by the excavator. This bucket may be an
. . .
Assyrlan lmport.
Luristan itself and three from elsewhere),'87 a pathetically
small number when compared to the thousands of objects
claimed to derive from Luristan and given much prominence
in publications for the last 50 years. It is against this back-
ground that the present report should be viewed, for it in-
creases by over 100% the number of excavated Luristan
objects available for study and discussion. Equally impor-
tant, a variety of objects not recognized among the recorded
excavated types may now be included within the bona fide
repertory of Luristan artifacts, e.g., sheet-metal work, an-
thropomorphic-headed pins, pendants, and ivory and bone
material. And, finally, the cylinder seals significantly am-
plify our knowledge concerning the foreign relations of the
Luristan culture, knowledge based not on dealer-derived
material, but rather on the only evidence that can lead to
meaningful archaeological conclusions-excavated objects.
187. When the final publications of Vanden Berghe appear more objects
may be added; I have not counted, except for one example (above) the
weapons excavated by Vanden Berghe. Note also that the objects allegedly
found at Maku in Iranian Azerbaijan can in no archaeological sense be
accepted as excavated objects; cf. Moorey 1971, op. cit. (in note 6) 16,
143-144.
Oscar White Muscarella received his doctorate in
Classical archaeology from the University of
Pennsylvania under Rodney S. Young. He has done field
work in North America, Turkey, and Iran, and now
specializes in Near Eastern archaeology. His published
works are primarily concerned both with the art and
archaeology of Greece, Anatolia, North Syria, and lran
in the Ist millennium B.C., and the problem offorgeries
of ancient Near Eastern art. His most recent publications
include The Catalogue of the Ivories from Hasanlu, Iran,
and the editorship of a catalogue of ancient Near Eastern
art, Ladders to Heaven. Muscarella is at present a
member of the Executive Committees of the
Archaeological lnstitute of America and the Association
for Field Archaeology, and is Senior Research Fellow of
Ancient Near Eastern Art at The Metropolitan Museum of
Art.
Elizabeth Williams-Forte is completing her Ph.D.
dissertation at Columbia University on Syrian Gods
during the Bronze Age: An Iconographic Study. Her
special interests include the art and archaeology of
ancient Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, and lran,
and she has excavated with L. and J. Bordaz at Erbaba,
a neolithic site in Turkey. Williams-Forte has taught at
NYU and Columbia University, and has published several
works, including a catalogue for the Metropolitan
Museum of Art on the Near Eastern stamp and cylinder
seals in the Moore collection.

Surkh Dum Metropolitan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surkh Dum Metropolitan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maney Publishing

Surkh Dum at The Metropolitan Museum of Art: a Mini-Report

You might also like