ELAMortuary

ELAMortuary

Villages to Empire: 4,000 Years of Death and Society in Elam (4500-525 BCE)

Entries description

  • Database ID: unique record identifier applied to each burial. ID composed of a three-character site abbreviation, a unique identifying number, and the suffix -G for burials recorded in groups without individual detail. For sites excavated by more than one archaeologist or team, the burials were sorted according to excavator (earliest first) and then assigned a progressive number. Sites abbreviated as follows:
    • Arj: Arjan (Behbehan plain). A late Neo-Elamite period tomb discovered during road construction on the Marun river near the medieval city of Arrajan. Excavated by F. Towhidi and A.M. Khalilian (1982).
    • Ben: Bendebal (KS-13) (Susiana Plain). A small mound (130 x 115 m) with settlement remains dating to the 5th millennium BCE. Excavated by the Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran under the direction of Roland de Mecquenem (1935) and Genevieve Dollfus (1977).
    • ChG: Chogha Gotvand (KS-172) (Susiana Plain). A mound (ca. 280 m x 90 m) with attested Middle Elamite occupation. Surveyed by the Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran under the direction of Jean Perrot (1972) and excavated by Iranian archaeologist Mehdi Rahbar (1991).
    • ChM: Chogha Mish (Susiana Plain). A site composed of a high mound (ca. 200 x 150 m) and long terrace (400 x 300 m). Occupied from the late 6th to late 4th millennium BCE with 1-2 short breaks, reoccupied in the early 2nd millennium BCE (Sukkalmah period), then abandoned again until the Achaemenid period. Excavated by Pinhaz Delougaz and Helene Kantor of the Chicago Oriental Institute for 11 seasons (during 1961-1978).
    • ChZ: Chogha Zanbil, ancient al-Untash-Napirisha (Susiana Plain). A large area (100 ha) within a defensive wall accommodating a ziggurat, several temples, and a so-called “royal quarter”. Much of the settlement evidence dates to around the site’s establishment in the mid-14th century BCE, but habitation continued until at least the mid-7th century BCE. Excavated by the Délégation Archéologique Française en Perse/Iran under the direction of Roland de Mecquenem (1935-1939) and Roman Ghirshman (1951-1962), and more recently by Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi of Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (1997-2005).
    • DhN: Dehno (KS-120) (Susiana Plain). An irregular trapezoidal-shape mound (average l. 330 m, w. 160-230 m). Occupation seems to date from the 4th millennium BCE until the Islamic era with a size increase in the 2nd millennium BCE. Excavated by Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi of Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (2012 in cooperation with ICHTO, following surveys in 1999 and 2002 with a geomagnetic prospection).
    • HaT: Haft Tappeh, probably ancient Kabnak (KS-98) (Susiana Plain). Composed of 14 mounds (total 1500 x 800 m). Inhabited from at least the early 2nd millennium BCE, but most unearthed features and materials date to around the 15th-14th centuries BCE. Excavated by Iranian archaeologist E. O. Negahban (1965-1978) and Behzad Mofidi-Nasrabadi of Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (2005 onwards).
    • Jaf: Jaffarabad (KS-20) (Susiana Plain). A small mound (40 x 50 m) occupied from the 6th to the 4th millennia with phases of abandonment and reoccupation. Excavated by the Délégation Archéologique Française en Perse under the direction of Roland de Mecquenem (1930, 1934) and Genevieve Dollfus (1969-1974).
    • Jub: Jubaji/Jobji (RH-058) (Ramhormuz Plain). Composed of several small mounds (total exceeding 7.73 ha). Surface sherds and a late Neo-Elamite tomb demonstrate occupation from the Middle Elamite to Achaemenid periods. Surveyed by Abbas Alizadeh of the Chicago Oriental institute with Iranian archaeologists Loghman Ahmadzadeh and Mehdi Omidfar (2005-2008) and tomb excavated by Arman Shishegar after its accidental discovery during canal construction on the ‘Ala River (2007).
    • Sus: Susa (Susiana Plain). A large site (70 ha) composed of four mounds (the Apadana, Acropole, Ville Royale, and Donjon). Continuously settled for over 5,000 years from the late Chalcolithic to the 12th century CE. Excavated by British archaeologist William Kennett Loftus (1851-1852), French archaeologists Marcel and Jane Dieulafoy (1885-1886), successive missions of the Délégation Archéologique Française en Perse/Iran directed by Jacques de Morgan (1897-1912), Roland de Mecquenem (1912-1939), Roman Ghirshman (1946-1967) and Jean Perrot (1968-1979), and more recently by Iranian archaeological teams.
    • TaG: Tall-e Ghazir/Geser (RH-001) (Ram Hormuz Plain). Composed of several mounds (total exceeds 8 ha). Settled during various periods from the Late Middle Susiana to the Safavid era. Three of the mounds—Mounds A and B, and the so-called Fort Mound—were excavated by Donald E. McCown of the Oriental Institute (1948-1949).
    • TaJ: Tappeh Jangal (KS-53) (Susiana Plain). A large mound (originally 500m x 270 m) partly razed by agricultural activities and subjected to illegal excavations. Occupation attested in the Sukkalmah, early Middle Elamite, and probably Sassanid periods. Excavated by Iranian archaeologists Ali Zalaghi and Babak Rafiei-Alavi (2016/2017).
    • Tap: Tappeh 497 (KS-53?) (Susiana Plain). A mound (14 ha) close to (or possibly to be identified with) Tappeh Jangal (KS-53, see abbreviation “TaJ”). Excavated by Iranian archaeologist Saied Ganjavi (1974/75).
    • TaS: Tall-e Samirat (KS-1643) (Susiana Plain). A mound (26.07 ha) near the modern village of Samirat. Occupied between the Susa III and Sasanian or early Islamic periods. Surveyed by Abbas Moghaddam and Negin Miri (2003-2005) and subjected to illegal excavations.
  • Proposed date: suggested date of burial deposit. Where the excavator did not offer a reliable date or any date at all (as for most burials at Susa and earlier-excavated burials from other sites) the data collator has made a preliminary assessment based on any information on the approximate level of the burial and its vertical relationship to other dateable features and finds in the vicinity, and any descriptions, sketches, or photographs of the burial structure, burial container, and grave goods.
  • Site: site name, using the most common spelling(s) in English-language archaeological literature.
  • Field no.: number assigned to burial by the excavator (many burials never assigned numbers)
  • Trench/location: name of trench or any other information on the approximate location of burial in relation to other trenches or features of the site.
  • Level/stratigraphy: stratigraphic level or any other information on the vertical spatial relationship of a burial with other burials, features, or small finds in the vicinity.
  • Square/Locus: horizontal spatial position of the burial (more recent excavations only).
  • MNI: minimum number of individuals detected in the burial space. Where the number is not stated by the excavator, a minimum of 1 is presumed. For group burials (i.e., those with cat. nos. ending in “-G”), a number has not been entered.
  • Age: approximate age of the buried individual/s at death. Earlier excavators typically only specified age for juveniles (“children”), occasionally with further clarification (e.g., “very young child”).
  • Sex/gender: sex of the buried individual/s (results of bio-archaeological analysis) or socially constructed gender (excavator’s comments based on gendered grave goods).
  • Disposal area: function of the area where burial was deposited (e.g., cemetery, residence, abandoned habitation zone). Disposal areas are difficult to interpret, as uses of urban space changed over time and relationships of burials to surrounding features can be difficult to assess because they often do not belong to the layer in which they are found. It is not simple, for example, to distinguish between a subfloor residential burial and a burial disposed in an abandoned residential area. Earlier archaeologists struggled to recognize residential architecture, and hence also residential burials, perceiving any concentrations of burials as “necropolises”. Their interpretations of disposal areas are generally omitted from the database, but comments on the density of burials are included in “Other excavator notes”.
  • Burial type: inhumation method, restricted to the basic categories of “pit”, “sherd” (pit incorporating vessel sherds in various ways), “brick” (pit incorporating bricks in various ways), “vessel”, “vessel (double)”, “coffin”, “tomb”.
  • Construction, container, wrapping: elaborates on “burial type” giving any additional information on the burial structure, container, definition of the burial space including use of other materials (e.g., sherds, bricks, matting), and body wrapping. Most burials are primary inhumations, but a note is included here if a secondary burial is known or suspected.
  • Alignment (orientation): placement of the body, container, or structure with respect to two cardinal points (alignment), and direction of the head (orientation) and face with respect to one cardinal point. Information extracted variously from excavators’ descriptions, sketches, and trench plans.
  • Body position : arrangement of the body (on the side or back) and limbs (varying degrees of flexion or extension) within the burial space. Information extracted variously from excavators’ descriptions, sketches, and in situ photographs.
  • Vessels (pottery): pottery vessels in the burial assemblage.
  • Vessels (silicious): faience or frit vessels in the burial assemblage.
  • Vessels (metal): metal vessels (almost always copper/bronze) in the burial assemblage.
  • Vessels (stone): stone vessels in the burial assemblage.
  • Jewellery: jewellery items in the burial assemblage.
  • Pins: clothing pins in the burial assemblage.
  • Weapons: weapons (functional or nonfunctional, most often copper/bronze) in the burial assemblage.
  • Tools: tools in the burial assemblage.
  • Glyptic: cylindrical and stamp seals in the burial assemblage.
  • Animal remains: skeletal remains of animals likely associated with the burial (e.g., sacrificial offerings, not inclusions already present in the burial fill).
  • Miscellaneous grave goods: items in the burial assemblage that do not belong to one of the other categories.
  • Possible additional grave goods: items whose association with the burial is implied but not explicit, and items in summary lists of finds in two or more burials that must be considered possible grave goods for all of them.
  • Other excavator notes: any additional notes by the excavators on the burials (or directly or indirectly relevant information) that do not belong to any other field.
  • Data source: references for data sources used to compile the entry (full references in bibliography).
  • Data collator notes: any additional commentary on the burials, justifications for dating, and cross references.
  • Site latitude: coordinates for site or mound/trench (Susa only), some coordinates are only approximate.
  • Site longitude: coordinates for site or mound/trench (Susa only), some coordinates are only approximate.
  • General notes:
    • a single hyphen (-) in a field indicates that no information is available.
    • all observations based on the in-situ photographs are the data collator’s own.
    • text in square brackets [] inserted in an excavator’s paraphrased or quoted text are the data collator’s comments (“Data collator notes” field used for more extensive commentary).
    • a question mark in parentheses (?) expresses doubt of the data collator.