The Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, c

248 Pages·2009·6.47 MB·English

by  Karen Roach

The Elamite Cylinder
Seal Corpus, c.3500
– 1000 BC

Volume I,
Part III

K. J. Roach

Doctor of Philosophy, (Near Eastern) Archaeology
2008
The University of Sydney
Chapter 5 – Summary of Style Distribution across the Elamite Sites
The purpose of this chapter is to detail and outline the specific glyptic style
distribution at each site included in the Corpus. This survey has two main objectives.
The first is the summation and discussion of the Elamite styles from each site, and
thereby the revision and reassessment of the ‘glyptic material’ survey presented for
each site in the initial site survey section (Chapter 2), by detailing the site glyptic
material in the terms of the new Elamite stylistic paradigm here presented. The second
intention is to provide some of the background information and data, be it contextual,
stylistic and chronological, regarding the function of various glyptic items at each site
and across Elam, thereby enabling the following discussion on glyptic function
(Chapter 6). The style distribution (how many styles and in what proportions) of each
site will be presented, and thereby the basic chronological distribution of the glyptic
material, with any necessary discussion where this information strongly contradicts
the established chronological periodisation of a site, will be outlined. The glyptic
material types (seals/sealings) and the specific materials will be presented, as will any
information regarding seal function from provenance (that is, grave or temple context
etc.) or type (sealing type especially). For the most part, this information may be
presented and detailed in graphs, figures and tables.

5.1 Susa
As already mentioned and explained, Susa has contributed by far the most items to the
Corpus. Table and Graph 5.1 illustrate the distribution of the two thousand seven
hundred and fifty-five Susian items across the Elamite styles. As is evidenced, and as
has already been mentioned in regards to the articulation of the styles, the only true
style not represented at Susa is the ‘Anshanite Style’ (AS) (the ‘Not Illustrated’
classification is also not represented at Susa, though this is more a publication
phenomenon, than a question of stylistic distribution). The absence of the AS style at
Susa is indicative, and indeed characteristic, of the style, and aids in its definition as
‘Anshanite’ rather than generally Susian or Elamite. Susa is the only site in the
Corpus that was continuously occupied throughout the entire span of this study (see
Chapter 2 for details). This archaeological reality concurs with the glyptic style
distribution, as all periods are represented in the styles of Susa. A comparison
between Graph 5.1 and summary Graph 4.81 indicates that the Susian glyptic style
proportions generally accord with the total Corpus proportions (the most notable
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 577
exception being the EME style, the total large number of which may be accounted for
by the extraordinary contribution of Haft Tepe to that particular corpus), both as one
may expect from the majority contributing site of Susa, and as indicates the central
role of Susa in the Elamite Corpus.

Style Distribution
STS 375 PEU 156
JNRS 252 OBRS 88
CPE 296 PEO 43
GS 255 EME 46
AGD 283 KRS 13
STF 284 LME 35
SF 109 LPS 44
LSF 20 LGD 34
ARS 145 No Image 21
PEA 75 Miscellaneous 8
UTRS 116 Unclassifiable 57
2755
Table 5.1. Susa style distribution.

380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
STSJNRS CPE GS A G D STF SF LSF ARS PEAUTRS PEUOBRS PEO E M E KRS L M E LPS LNGoD Imaelgleaneous
c
Mis
Graph 5.1. Susa style distribution.

Table and Graph 5.2 indicate the glyptic type (seal/sealing) proportions of the
Susian corpus. The supremacy of seals over sealings (seals accounts for over 57% of
the Susian corpus) again almost exactly replicates the seal/sealing division for the
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 578
entire Corpus (see Graph 4.84), indicating the general dominance of Susa within the
Corpus.

Glyptic Type
Seals 1574
Sealings 1181
Table 5.2. Susa glyptic types.

Seals
Sealings

Graph 5.2. Susa glyptic types.

Table 5.3 lists the material types of the Susian Corpus and Graph 5.3
illustrates the proportions of the significant material type contributors (those with five
or more items). The fact that <undifferentiated sealings> represents the largest single
group of Susian glyptic materials concurs both with the distribution pattern of the
wider Elamite Corpus (Graph 4.83), and with the general age and quality or approach
of the majority Susian publications (that is, before the importance, and indeed the
methods, of sealing type recognition were known). It is anticipated that with further
(physical) study, many of these items may be identified as jar sealings, door lock
sealings and so on, and thereby fill the general void of these items in the Susian
corpus. The significant number of <sealed tablets> at Susa (the second largest group)
also conforms with the general Corpus pattern, and indicates that seals were regularly
used to seal tablets at Susa. The significant number of <bullae> at Susa should also be
noted, and illustrates a glyptic administrative function associated with these items (in
at least the earlier periods) at Susa, a point returned to below (Chapter 6).
The reduced (but still relatively large body) of <faience> seals at Susa in
comparison with the wider Corpus is of note (faience forms the largest seal material
group in the Corpus, while it is only the fourth largest seal group at Susa, after
<limestone>, <bitumen aggregate>, and <glazed steatite>). The general dominance of
<faience> in the Corpus may be attributed to the extraordinarily large faience corpora
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 579
of Choga Zanbil and Surkh Dum-i-Luri (both further detailed below). It is of note that
this ‘artificial’ material is in great dominance at two sites that shared a specific, and
exceptional, votive function only (for the glyptic corpora), as will be returned to
below in the function discussion (Chapter 6). In this regard it is also pertinent to note
the total absence of any <glass> seals at Susa (in light of their significant numbers at
Choga Zanbil, thus indicating that glass may be a specific Choga Zanbil, or votive [or
both] material). The general dominance of <limestone> accords with the overall
material distribution of the Corpus. The material <bitumen aggregate> is the second
largest seal material in the Susian corpus, and as demonstrated by Graph 4.83, the
third largest material in the total Corpus. The significant contribution of the total
<bitumen aggregate> corpus is in fact Susian (Susa contributes nearly 95% of the
total <bitumen aggregate> corpus, or 259/274 items). Thus more (or perhaps, less)
than being a uniquely Elamite material, <bitumen aggregate> may be described as
essentially Susian (this concurs with the above cited <bitumen aggregate> study
[Connan & Deschesne 1996] and the discussion of this still elusive material [Chapter
1]). Aside from these standout materials, the general variability in the Susian material
corpus (indeed, the greatest variability of any of the sites under discussion here)
reflects the great size of the data set, and concurs with what one might expect of such
a large group.

Glyptic Materials
Limestone 303 Aragonite 18 Terra cotta 97
Marble 60 Heulandite 31 Bone 1
Sandstone 4 Hematite 53 Shell 113
Lapis lazuli 22 Serpentine 34 Copper 3
Basalt 8 Schist 50 Bitumen aggregate 259
Steatite 82 Black stone 1 Faience 121
Rock crystal 4 Black rock 2 Glazed steatite 149
Carnelian 2 Brown stone 1 Unknown cylinder 58
Milky quartz 2 Green stone 1 Ball of clay 1
Flint 1 Grey rock 1 Sealed bulla(e) 213
Amethyst 1 Grey stone 7 Sealing(s) 588
Chalcedony 1 Greyish stone 1 Door lock sealing 3
Agate 2 Green volcanic rock 1 Jar sealing 50
Jasper 22 White stone 4 Wall lock sealing 3
Sealed envelope 2
Alabaster/gypsum 45 Clay cylinder 9
Sealed tablet(s) 320
Table 5.3. Susa glyptic materials.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 580
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
LimestoneMLaarpbilse lazuliBasalSttAleaatbitaseJtaesr/pgerypsAuramgoHeniutleandiHteemSaetritpeentineScGrhiesCytl asty ocnyeliTnerdreBair tcuotmtean SahgelglregGaltFUaeainzeekndn cosetwenaS tiectayelliend dberullSae(ael)iJnaSgre( sasl)eeadl itnagblet(s)
Graph 5.3. Susa glyptic materials (with five or more examples).

Several different functional interpretations may be seen in the Susian and
other glyptic corpora, on the basis both of provenance and type. As already outlined
above (Chapter 1), and later returned to in greater detail (Chapter 6), two glyptic
functions may be identified through provenance or archaeological context.
Provenance in a tomb or grave context provides a funerary interpretation for a seal;
provenance in a temple (or other cult installation) allows for a votive function to be
attributed to a seal. It should be noted that neither of these two functions, funerary nor
votive, excludes the possibility that the seal originally held a more traditional
administrative function. The details of this discussion, and the possibility of
discerning such dual (or more) functional seals, will be returned to below (Chapter 6).
In terms of type, a sealing of any type (jar sealing, door lock sealing, bulla, sealed
tablet, pure undifferentiated sealings and so on) provides evidence that the seal used
to make the impression had an administrative function (again, the possibility that seals
so used also had a more ethereal, symbolic function, and a later funerary or votive
depositional function cannot similarly be discounted). Sealings may be further divided
according to participation in a writing-centred (or literate) administrative system (that
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 581
is, seal impressed tablets), or a non-writing administrative (other sealings) usage. In
these reconstructions, it has been assumed that all <undifferentiated sealings> are not
tablets, but other types of sealings, such as jar, door, basket etc., and so have been
associated with the ‘non-writing’ administrative sphere. This is based on the strongly
held belief that sealed tablets are easily, and immediately, recognisable as a form, and
have been listed as such in even the earliest glyptic publications (before much
consideration, if any, was given to other forms of sealings), and even when not so
listed, can be readily discerned and defined from images. It is therefore hypothesised
that almost all tablets within the Corpus have been noted and so listed already. Of
course it is possible that some tablets have been missed, and would be better
recognised in a physical study, though any addition to the number of sealed tablets in
the Corpus is deemed most probably to be slight if not negligible. Thus, all non-tablet
sealings (including the <undifferentiated> category) are subsumed under the ‘non-
writing’ administrative sphere in the function reconstructions presented here. It may
be assumed that most of the seals found within a context other than cultic (the votive
seals) or funerary also had an administrative function. This is however, only
assumption, and cannot in fact be proven, and so such items have not been included in
the following function surveys (except in specific circumstances where a seal was
found in a discreet, clear and obvious administrative context, such as the ‘archive’
seal of Chogha Gavaneh, see below).
Table and Graph 5.4 illustrate the reconstruction of glyptic function for the
Susian corpus as is currently available. The first, and most striking, point of this
reconstruction is the fact that for most of the Susian corpus (over 55%) no function
can be proposed (the <unknown> category). This is due to the general lack of decent
stratigraphic or provenance information for much of the Susian material (especially
those unearthed in the earlier Susa excavations), as has already been detailed
elsewhere, and limitations in some of the publications (that is, provenance
information may be known, but not detailed in the publications). Thus only fourteen
Susian items can be ascribed a ‘funerary’ context, though it seems likely (though
merely hypothetical) that more seals were found in the significant number of tombs
and gravesites excavated over the years at Susa.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 582
Glyptic Function
Non-writing administration 861 Temple/votive 36
Funerary 14
Writing administration 320
Unknown 1524
Table 5.4. Susa glyptic function.

1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Non-writing Writing Temple/Votive Funerary Unknown
administration administration Function

Graph 5.4. Susa glyptic function. Entries coloured purple indicate an administrative
function; those coloured orange a symbolic (non-administrative) function; green indicates
items of ‘unknown’ function.

Table 5.5 further illustrates the style proportions of the fourteen Susa funerary
seals. As is demonstrated, the Susian funerary seals belong to a number of stylistic
groups and periods, with no significant majority. It should be recognised however that
the earliest Susian funerary seals belong to an ‘Akkadian and Awan’ period style
(three ARS items), meaning that no funerary seals are earlier than an ‘Old Elamite’
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 583
period style. The significance of this chronological distribution (if indeed any
significance may be inferred from such a small sample) is unknown.

‘Funerary’ Seals
ARS 3 KRS 1
UTRS 3 LME 2
OBRS 2 LGD 1
PEO 1 Unclassifiable 1
14
Table 5.5. Style distribution of the Susa ‘funerary’ seals.

A group of thirty-six seals from Susa, all published in Delaporte’s presentation
of the Susa seals excavated by de Morgan, were provided with the provenance “1904,
temple de Shoushinak” (Delaporte 1920: 55). It is assumed that this refers to the
<Temple of Inshushinak> on the Acropole (not the Apadana temple of the same
name), excavated by de Morgan and indicated on Figure 2.2. Due to the apparent
cultic designation of this context, these items have been given a votive (or at least
temple) function here, though given the reasonably scant details regarding this area
and the nature of the glyptic deposition, this definition is less concrete than the similar
identifications made for the Choga Zanbil and Surkh Dum-i-Luri temple/votive
deposits. Table 5.6 illustrates the stylistic distribution of these thirty-six items. Two
interesting points may be ascertained from this distribution pattern. The first is the
fact that a wide chronological time frame is represented by these items, from the Susa
III period JNRS style through to the late Middle Elamite LME style. The other
important fact is that many (indeed the vast majority) of these items predate the
Middle Elamite period flourishing of the votive seal function. It has already been
seen, and will be further detailed below, that so-called ‘heirloom’ seals were
deposited in the Surkh Dum sanctuary, and a lesser number, but none the less
significant, amount of ‘old’ seals were deposited at Choga Zanbil. As both these sites
were founded in the Middle Elamite period however, it may be assumed that these
items were antique or ‘heirlooms’, kept by their owners (or successive owners) and
then deposited in the Middle Elamite period (or beyond in the case of Surkh Dum)
with the vast majority of contemporary or ‘modern’ seals. In both the Surkh Dum and
Zanbil instances the old or ‘heirloom’ seals are not evidence of a long, continual
depositional use, but rather indicate already ancient seals deposited simultaneously
with new. On the basis of this evidence (the Surkh Dum and Choga Zanbil material) it
may be inferred that the practice of votive offering or deposition of a seal was
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 584
restricted to a Middle Elamite date. However, the evidence from Susa, as elusive and
ill-formed as it may be, may indicate that the offering of a seal was a practice of
greater antiquity, and practiced at least in the ‘Old Elamite’ period. Unfortunately, the
evidence from the Inshushinak temple at Susa is frustratingly fragmentary, and as
such, whether these seals were true votive offerings or kept in the temple for some
other reason (for instance, as administrative seals for use in the economic realm of the
temple and its personnel), and indeed whether these items were provenanced in a
single contextual unit (stratigraphical chronological) or different levels (and therefore
implying different chronological deposition) is unclear. The possibility for the
antiquity of the ‘votive seal’ function is intriguing however, and will be further
commented on below.

Temple/votive Seals
JNRS 1 PEU 8
ARS 2 OBRS 9
PEA 7 PEO 7
UTRS 1 LME 1
36
Table 5.6. Style distribution of the Susa temple/votive seals.

The overall dominance of administrative functions (both non-writing and
writing associated) concurs with the general, and traditional, functional interpretation
of glyptic material. However, both the existence of funerary and temple/votive items,
and the significant number of unattributable function items should be noted, and will
be further discussed below (Chapter 6).

5.2 Chogha Mish
Chogha Mish contributed one hundred and forty-nine glyptic items to the Corpus.
This may be described as a medium sized group in the wider Corpus, and the fifth
largest of the sixteen contributing sites. Table 5.7 and Graph 5.5 illustrate the style
distribution of Chogha Mish. The stylistic proportions of Chogha Mish generally
concur with the chronological and occupational information from that site. Thus the
vast majority of the Chogha Mish glyptic items belong to the Susa II period STS style,
in accordance with the ‘Protoliterate’ occupation of the site. The small, but not
insignificant number of JNRS Susa III period items may indicate that occupation at
Chogha Mish continued to some (limited) degree into this subsequent period.
ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part III 585