The Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, c.3500

1000 BC

Volume I, Part I

K. J. Roach

Doctor of Philosophy, (Near Eastern) Archaeology 2008

The University of Sydney

Table of Contents

Volume I

Part I

Table of Contents page i

Synopsis vi

Acknowledgments vii

List of figures ix

List of tables xi

List of graphs xxi

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Glyptic Studies 8

1.1.1. Seals and Sealings 8

1.1.2. The Function of Cylinder Seals 10

1.1.3. Materials of Seals 17

1.1.4. Seal Production 43

1.1.5. Nature of Study: Art History or Archaeology? 43

1.2. Parameters of the current study 45

1.2.1. Elam 45

1.2.2. Chronology 48

1.3. Summation 51

2. History, Chronology and Archaeology of Elam, c.3500 1000 BC 54

2.1. History and Chronology of Elam 55

2.1.1. Susa II 56

2.1.2. Susa III 57

2.1.3. Susa IV 59

2.1.4. Akkadian and Awan 61

2.1.5. Ur III and Shimashki 66

2.1.6. Sukkalmah 71

2.1.7. Middle Elamite Period 78

2.2. Archaeology 100

2.2.1. Khuzistan 102

2.2.2. Luristan 170

2.2.3. Fars 223

2.3. Summation 242

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I i

3. Construction of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Styles Paradigm, the

Methodology 261

3.1. Provenance and Stratigraphy 264

3.2. Previous Analyses and Classifications, Literature Review 272

3.2.1. Amiet 276

3.2.2. Pittman 283

3.2.3. Porada 286

3.3. Mesopotamian Cross-Reference and Association 287

3.4. Dated Seals 290

3.5. Seriation and Art Historical Progression 302

3.6. The Tehran Sealings 308

3.7. Summation 313

Part II

4. The Elamite Glyptic Styles 316

4.1. Susa II Style (STS) 322

4.2. Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 339

4.3. Classic Proto-Elamite Style (CPE) 352

4.4. Glazed Steatite Style (GS) 364

4.5. Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 375

4.6. Susa III/IV Style (STF) 388

4.7. Susa IV Style (SF) 398

4.8. Late Susa IV Style (LSF) 410

4.9. Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 417

4.10. Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) Style (PEA) 428

4.11. Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 441

4.12. Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) Style (PEU) 456

4.13. Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 472

4.14. Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) Style (PEO) 483

4.15. Early Middle Elamite Style (EME) 492

4.16. Kassite Related Style (KRS) 509

4.17. Late Middle Elamite Style (LME) 519

4.18. Anshanite Style (AS) 533

4.19. Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 538

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ii

4.20. Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 549

4.21. No Image 555

4.22. Miscellaneous Styles 558

4.23. Unclassifiable Designs 560

4.24. Not Illustrated 561

4.25. Summation and Conclusion 562

Part III

5. Summary of Style Distribution across the Elamite Sites 577

5.1. Susa 577

5.2. Chogha Mish 585

5.3. Haft Tepe 590

5.4. Choga Zanbil 594

5.5. Tepe Sharafabad 599

5.6. Deh-i Now 601

5.7. Surkh Dum-i-Luri 602

5.8. Kamtarlan 606

5.9. Chigha Sabz 609

5.10. Bani Surmah 612

5.11. Kalleh Nisar 615

5.12. Godin Tepe 617

5.13. Tepe Djamshidi 621

5.14. Tepe Giyan 622

5.15. Chogha Gavaneh 624

5.16. Tal-i Malyan 625

6. Glyptic Function in Elam 630

6.1. Administrative 633

6.1.1. Non-writing administration 634

6.1.2. Writing administration 657

6.1.3. Summation of Administration Function 671

6.2. Symbolic 682

6.2.1. Votive 683

6.2.2. Funerary 695

6.2.3. Summation of Symbolic Function 697

6.3. Other Functions 698

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iii

6.3.1. Palace Seals 698

6.3.2. Non-Votive Hoards 699

6.4. Unknown Function 700

6.5. Conclusion and Summation 706

7. Elamite and Mesopotamian Contact and Interaction 712

7.1. Dated Seals 713

7.2. Location and Chronology of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style

Influence 736

7.2.1. Direction of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction 739

7.2.2. Location of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction

and Influence 741

7.2.3. Chronology of Elamite-Mesopotamian Seal Style Interaction

and Influence 750

7.2.4. Summation 758

7.3. Conclusion Ethnic Duality, Elamite Cycles and Cylinder Seals 759

8. Conclusion 768

8.1. General Conclusion and Summation 768

8.2. Directions for Future Study 774

Bibliography 776

Appendix A 816

Volume II

Part I

Details of Catalogue page 1

Abbreviations of Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles 1

Abbreviations of Original Classification (Orig. Class.) Styles 2

1. Susa II Style 3

2 Jemdet Nasr Related Style 87

3 Classic Proto-Elamite Style 128

4 Glazed Steatite Style 175

5 Archaic Geometric Designs 216

6 Susa III/IV Style 261

7 Susa IV Style 305

Part II

8 Late Susa IV Style 327

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I iv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I v

9 Akkadian Related Style 330

10 Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) Style 355

11 Ur III Related Style 369

12 Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) Style 390

13 Old Babylonian Related Style 417

14 Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) Style 436

15 Early Middle Elamite Style 445

16 Kassite Related Style 485

17 Late Middle Elamite Style 494

18 Anshanite Style 520

19 Luristan Provincial Style 521

20 Late Geometric Designs 551

21 No Image 564

22 Miscellaneous Styles 568

23 Unclassified Designs 570

24 Not Illustrated 583

Concordance 588

Synopsis

The ancient region of Elam (southwestern Iran) has produced a significant

assemblage of cylinder seals across a considerable chronological span. Unlike the

glyptic material from the related and neighbouring region Mesopotamia, the Elamite

cylinder seals have not previously been studied in detailed reference to one another,

nor has there been an established paradigm of stylistic development articulated. This

study addresses this lacuna by compiling all the published cylinder seals from Elam

(as defined here, thus incorporating the historical provinces of Khuzistan, Luristan

and Fars), from their earliest appearance (c.3500 BC), throughout the era of their

typological dominance (over stamp seals, thus this study departs c.1000 BC). This

compilation is presented in the Elamite Cylinder Seal Catalogue (Volume II), and is

annotated and described through the annunciation of eighteen chronologically defined

developmental styles (with another two non-chronological type classifications and

four miscellaneous groups).

Through the further analysis of this data, including the newly formulated and

articulated styles, several facets and problems of Elamite glyptic material have been

addressed (and thus the reliance upon assumed similarity in type and function with the

Mesopotamian glyptic material is abandoned). These problems particularly pertain to

the function of cylinder seals in Elam and the type and form of the Elamite-

Mesopotamian glyptic interaction. In regards to function, a standard administrative

function can be discerned, though of varying types and forms across the region and

the period of study. Other, non-standard, symbolic glyptic functions can also be

demonstrated in the Corpus, including the apparent proliferation of a form known as

the votive seal, perhaps a specifically Elamite form. The analysis of the style type

(whether Elamite, Mesopotamian Related or Shared Elamite-Mesopotamian), in

association with their relative geographical and chronological distribution, has also

enabled the discussion of the nature of Elamite-Mesopotamian glyptic interaction, and

thereby the constitution of Elamite civilisation (especially in regards to Mesopotamian

cultural impact and influence, and thus the testing of several previously presented

paradigms [Amiet 1979a; 1979b; Miroschedji 2003]).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vi

Acknowledgments

In form and structure, the study here presented was a generally solitary undertaking;

however, this work would not have been achieved without the significant contribution

and support from family, friends and colleagues, to whom I am entirely indebted.

Firstly, thanks must be accorded to my family. To Mum, Dad, Tony, Lisa, Jodie and

Kimberley, thank you for your love and support, for the numerous coffees, patience,

assistance, coffees, understanding, interest, for generally being you and being there,

and of course, for the coffees. Sorry for the absolute dominance and saturation of the

Elamite cylinder seals in the past few years, culminating especially in the recent

Elamite invasion; thanks again for your understanding and patience throughout.

Thanks must also be given to my other family, my brothers and sisters at

Gymea Anglican Church and Soul Revival. Thankyou for your love, prayers, support,

friendship and fellowship, especially (but not solely) your understanding and support

throughout my recent self-imposed exile. I look forward prayerfully to many more

years of fellowship and friendship as we serve our Lord together.

Thank you to my supervisor, Prof. Dan Potts, who indeed initially introduced

me to the Elamites as an undergraduate. Thank you for your support, assistance and

help, for being an extraordinary font of knowledge and information and for your

encouragement.

Much thanks, the appropriate words for which I cannot truly express, must be

accorded to my unfailing and indefatigable reader, Iona Kat McRae. Thank you not

only for your assistance in proofreading and editing (any limitations of which in the

preceding study are, of course, my own), but also for your friendship, assistance,

feedback, enthusiasm, errands and support. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thanks also to my comrade-in-arms, Bernadette McCall, and my other friends

and colleagues in the Near Eastern Archaeology department at the University of

Sydney. To Bernadette in particular (and Di, Negin and Abbas), thank you for being a

support at the coalface, a sounding board and source of advice, a friendly face, and a

welcome and happy diversion when required.

Thank you to the staff and organisation at the Iran Archaeological Museum

(Tehran), for granting me access to the material included here as the Tehran

Sealings, and for welcoming me in my short, but happy, time at your facility. Special

thanks to Shahrokh Razmjou for your help and guidance offered to a bewildered

stranger, and to the staff at the Seals and Coins Department for your help and

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I vii

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I viii

friendly assistance. Partial funding for the study trip to Tehran was provided by a

grant from the Carlyle Greenwell Bequest Fund, for which I am grateful.

Thanks and credit to Luis Siddall, formerly of the University of Sydney, now

of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, for assistance in, and reading

of, ancient texts, including the translation of several seal inscriptions not included in

the Corpus, and the important information regarding the transliteration and

identification of the term , for which I am most indebted to you and your

linguistic skills. Thank you to Fiona and Stephen Francesconi for reconnaissance in

the British Museum. Thanks to Prof. E Haerinck for allowing me access to the

relevant chapters of the Kalleh Nisar volume (Haerinck & Overlaet 2008) prior to its

publication.

Thank you seems a word of little consequence, but all I have to offer. So

thanks, and again I say thanks.

Figures 1.

1.1. Glass cylinder seal page 29

1.2. Faience cylinder seal 29

1.3. General map of Elam 48

2.

2.1. Map of sites yielding Elamite or Elamite-related glyptic material 101

2.2. General plan of Susa 103

2.3. General plan of Chogha Mish 122

2.4. Composite plan of the High Mound of Chogha Mish 125

2.5. Proposed outline of the Sukkalmah Fort of Chogha Mish 128

2.6. Plan of Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 135

2.7. General plan of the excavated (Negahban) remains of Haft Tepe 137

2.8. General plan of Choga Zanbil 151

2.9. Plan of the temenos area of Choga Zanbil 152

2.10. Plan of Tepe Sharafabad excavations 162

2.11. General plan of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri excavations 173

2.12. Sub-set of the Surkh Dum-i-Luri sanctuary area demonstrating

location of wall and floor hoards 174

2.13. General plan of the excavation of Kamtarlan (I and II) 189

2.14. General plan of the excavation of Chigha Sabz 194

2.15. General plan of the Godin V Oval Enclosure 207

2.16. General plan of Tepe Djamshidi 210

2.17. South-North cross section of the Tepe Djamshidi excavations 211

2.18. Sketch map of Tepe Giyan 215

2.19. Plan of the architectural complex of Chogha Gavaneh 220

2.20. General Plan of Tal-i Malyan (Anshan) 224

2.21. Plan of TUV (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level II 227

2.22. Plan of TUV (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IIIA and IIIB 228

2.23. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IVB and IVA 229

2.24. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level IIIB and IIIA 230

2.25. Plan of ABC (Tal-i Malyan) Building Level II 231

2.26. Plan of the Middle Elamite Building of Operation EDD (Tal-i

Malyan) 235

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I ix

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I x

3.

3.1. Various seals illustrating possible re-cutting or remodelling 268

3.2. The PEU (7), so-called Anshanite Style seals/sealings

included in the current study, and an unprovenanced example 282

Tables

1.1. Bibliographic table of Mesopotamian glyptic studies page 3

1.2. Bibliographic table of Iranian/Elamite glyptic studies 4

1.3. Various terms in the primary literature for bitumen-based materials 21

1.4. Bitumen-based seals reassessed as bitumen aggregate 25

1.5. Summation of quartz-based materials 30

1.6. System of nomenclature of natural materials (rocks and minerals) 35 41

1.7. Minerals commonly contained in rock types typical of the Elamite

Cylinder Seal Corpus 42

2.

2.1. The Awanite Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian kings 63 64

2.2. The Shimashki Dynasty and associations with Mesopotamian

kings and inscription and textural references 69 70

2.3. Proposed (tentative) order of succession of the Sukkalmah

Dynasty 72 74

2.4. Comparative table of previous proposed orders of succession

of the Sukkalmah Dynasty 76

2.5. Comparative table of proposed Sukkalmah and Middle

Elamite periodisation 82

2.6. The Middle Elamite I Kidinuid Dynasty 86

2.7. Middle Elamite Dynasties proposed order of succession with

Mesopotamian associations 91 92

2.8. The Middle Elamite II Igihalkid Dynasty 93 94

2.9. The Middle Elamite III Shutrukid Dynasty 96 97

2.10. The Middle Elamite IV Dynasty 99

2.11. General summary of the publications of the Susa glyptic material 115

2.12. Survey of glyptic material from Susa with known provenance 119 121

2.13. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Mish 132 133

2.14. Survey of the glyptic material from Haft Tepe (Kabnak) 147 149

2.15. Survey of the glyptic material from Choga Zanbil 158 160

2.16. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Sharafabad 167

2.17. Survey of the included glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri 182 186

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xi

2.18. Survey of the glyptic material from Surkh Dum-i-Luri not

included in the Corpus due to their non-contemporary or non-

Elamite styles 187

2.19. Survey of the glyptic material from Kamtarlan (I and II) 192

2.20. Survey of the glyptic material from Chigha Sabz 197

2.21. Chigha Sabz cylinder seals not included in the Corpus 197

2.22. Survey of the glyptic material from Bani Surmah 200

2.23. Survey of the glyptic material from Kalleh Nisar 204

2.24. Chronological periodisation of Godin Tepe in reference to the

chronological scheme of this study 206

2.25. Survey of the glyptic material from Godin Tepe 209

2.26. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Djamshidi 212

2.27. Survey of the glyptic material from Tepe Giyan 216

2.28. Survey of the glyptic material from Chogha Gavaneh 223

2.29. Survey of the glyptic material from Tal-i Malyan (Anshan) 241 242

2.30. Elamite and Mesopotamian dynastic interactions 244 255

2.31. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information

for Khuzistan province according to the chronological scheme of

this study 256

2.32. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information

for Luristan province according to the chronological scheme here

presented 257

2.33. Survey of the chronological and archaeological information for

Luristan province (cont.) and Tal-i Malyan (Fars) according

to the chronological scheme of this study 258

2.34. Survey and summary of the chronological scheme here adopted 259 260

3.

3.1. Survey of the previous publications of the glyptic material

included in the Corpus 274

3.2. Amiets stylistic paradigms and the corresponding translations,

additions and alterations here proposed 280

3.3. Survey of the classification system for the Choga Zanbil

material by Porada, according to classification criteria and current

style here proposed 287

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xii

3.4. Sources used for correlative/cross-referential Mesopotamian material 288

3.5. Elamite Dated Seals 293 299

3.6. Dated Seals from the Elamite Corpus naming Mesopotamian kings 300

3.7. Unprovenanced Elamite Dated Seals 301

3.8. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous kings with dated seals 302

3.9. Survey of previously published Tehran Sealings according to

primary publication and current number (Catalogue allocation) 309

3.10. Survey of Tehran Sealings previously unpublished and included

in the Corpus, indicating current stylistic designation 313

4.

4.1. Survey of Susa II Style (STS) sub-group division 323

4.2. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa II Style (STS) 332

4.3. Glyptic materials of the Susa II Style (STS) 334

4.4. Site distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 335

4.5. Province distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 336

4.6. Survey of Jemdet Nasr Related (JNRS) sub-group division 340

4.7. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 345

4.8. Glyptic materials of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 346

4.9. Site distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347

4.10. Province distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347

4.11. Survey of Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style sub-group division 353

4.12. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 357

4.13. Glyptic materials of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 359

4.14. Site distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361

4.15. Province distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361

4.16. Survey of Glazed Steatite (GS) Style sub-group division 367

4.17. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Glazed Steatite(GS) Style 370

4.18. Glyptic materials of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 370

4.19. Site distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372

4.20. Province distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372

4.21. Survey of Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) sub-group division 378

4.22. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382

4.23. Glyptic materials of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382

4.24. Site distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 383

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiii

4.25. Province distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 384

4.26. Survey of Susa III/IV (STF) Style sub-group division 390

4.27. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 392

4.28. Glyptic materials of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 393

4.29. Site distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394

4.30. Province distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394

4.31. Survey of Susa IV (SF) Style sub-group division 400

4.32. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa IV (SF) Style 405

4.33. Glyptic materials of the Susa IV (SF) Style 406

4.34. Site distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407

4.35. Province distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407

4.36. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 412

4.37. Glyptic materials of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413

4.38. Site distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413

4.39. Province distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 414

4.40. Survey of Akkadian Related Style (ARS) sub-group division 418

4.41. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 423

4.42. Glyptic materials of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 424

4.43. Site distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425

4.44. Province distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425

4.45. Survey of Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 430

4.46. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan)

(PEA) Style 433

4.47. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA)

Style 434

4.48. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436

4.49. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA)

Style 436

4.50. Survey of Ur III Related Style (UTRS) sub-group division 442

4.51. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 448

4.52. Glyptic materials of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 449

4.53. Site distribution of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 450

4.54. Survey of UTRS dated seals 452

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xiv

4.55. Survey of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style sub-

groups 456

4.56. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki)

(PEU) Style 464

4.57. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU)

Style 465

4.58. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 466

4.59. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU)

Style 466

4.60. Survey of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) sub-group division 473

4.61. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477

4.62. Glyptic materials of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477

4.63. Site distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 479

4.64. Province distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 480

4.65. Survey of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style

sub-group division 483

4.66. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/

Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 486

4.67. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)

(PEO) Style 487

4.68. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)

(PEO) Style 488

4.69. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/

Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 490

4.70. Survey of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style sub-group division 494

4.71. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 500

4.72. Glyptic materials of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501

4.73. Site distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 502

4.74. Province distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 503

4.75. Survey of EME dated seals 506

4.76. Survey of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) sub-group division 509

4.77. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 513

4.78. Glyptic materials of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514

4.79. Site distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xv

4.80. Province distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515

4.81. Survey of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style sub-group division 520

4.82. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 528

4.83. Glyptic materials of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 529

4.84. Site distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530

4.85. Province distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530

4.86. Survey of the Anshanite Style (AS) sub-group division 534

4.87. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Anshanite Style (AS) 535

4.88. Glyptic materials of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536

4.89. Site distribution of the Anshanite Style (AS) 537

4.90. Survey of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) sub-group division 540

4.91. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 543

4.92. Glyptic materials of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 544

4.93. Site distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 545

4.94. Province distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 546

4.95. Survey of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) sub-group division 549

4.96. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551

4.97. Glyptic materials of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551

4.98. Site distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 552

4.99. Province distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553

4.100. Glyptic materials of the No Image Classification 556

4.101. Site distribution of the No Image Classification 557

4.102. Survey of the Miscellaneous Styles classification 559

4.103. Glyptic materials of the Unclassifiable Designs group 561

4.104. Survey of the Style Proportions of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 562

4.105. Graphical representation of the relative chronology of the Elamite

Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles 563

4.106. Glyptic items according to chronological distribution 566

4.107. The glyptic materials of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 567

4.108. Survey of the seal/sealing types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 568

4.109. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 570

4.110. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 573

4.111. Summary and survey of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles

according to chronological placement, style type and development 574

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvi

5.

5.1. Susa style distribution 578

5.2. Susa glyptic types 579

5.3. Susa glyptic materials 580

5.4. Susa glyptic function 583

5.5. Style distribution of the Susa funerary seals 584

5.6. Style distribution of the Susa temple/votive seals 585

5.7. Chogha Mish style distribution 586

5.8. Chogha Mish glyptic types 587

5.9. Chogha Mish glyptic materials 588

5.10. Chogha Mish glyptic function 589

5.11. Haft Tepe style distribution 590

5.12. Haft Tepe glyptic types 591

5.13. Haft Tepe glyptic materials 592

5.14. Haft Tepe glyptic function 594

5.15. Choga Zanbil style distribution 595

5.16. Choga Zanbil glyptic materials 596

5.17. Choga Zanbil glyptic context 597

5.18. Choga Zanbil glyptic function 597

5.19. Tepe Sharafabad style distribution 599

5.20. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic types 600

5.21. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic materials 601

5.22. Surkh Dum-i-Luri style distribution 603

5.23. Surkh Dum-i-Luri glyptic materials 605

5.24. Kamtarlan style distribution 607

5.25. Kamtarlan glyptic types 608

5.26. Kamtarlan glyptic materials 608

5.27. Kamtarlan glyptic function 609

5.28. Chigha Sabz style distribution 610

5.29. Chigha Sabz glyptic materials 611

5.30. Bani Surmah style distribution 612

5.31. Bani Surmah glyptic materials 614

5.32. Bani Surmah glyptic context 615

5.33. Kalleh Nisar style distribution 616

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xvii

5.34. Kalleh Nisar glyptic materials 616

5.35. Kalleh Nisar glyptic context 617

5.36. Godin Tepe style distribution 617

5.37. Godin Tepe glyptic types 619

5.38. Godin Tepe glyptic materials 620

5.39. Godin Tepe glyptic function 621

5.40. Tepe Giyan style distribution 623

5.41. Tepe Giyan glyptic materials 623

5.42. Tepe Giyan glyptic function 624

5.43. Tal-i Malyan style distribution 625

5.44. Tal-i Malyan style distribution by Operations (Malyan sectors) 626

5.45. Tal-i Malyan glyptic types 627

5.46. Tal-i Malyan glyptic materials 628

5.47. Tal-i Malyan glyptic function 629

6.

6.1. Functional classifications of the Geometric Design (AGD and LGD)

Items 633

6.2. Site distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding

bullae) 637

6.3. Style distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding

bullae) 639

6.4. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated sealings

(excluding bullae) 641

6.5. Site distribution of bullae/bulles 645

6.6. Style distribution of bullae/bulles 646

6.7. Chronological distribution of bullae/bulles 646

6.8. The multiple seal-impressed bullae from Susa and Chogha Mish 650

6.9. Type distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 652

6.10. Site distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 652

6.11. Style distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 655

6.12. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated

administrative sealings 655

6.13. Site distribution of sealed tablets 658

6.14. Style distribution of sealed tablets 660

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xviii

6.15. Chronological distribution of sealed tablets 661

6.16. Site distribution of sealed envelopes 665

6.17. Style distribution of sealed envelopes 666

6.18. Chronological distribution of sealed envelopes 666

6.19. Type distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667

6.20. Site distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667

6.21. Style distribution of the writing associated administrative items 667

6.22. Chronological distribution of the writing associated administrative

items 670

6.23. Survey of the glyptic types of the administrative function items 671

6.24. Survey of the site distribution of the administrative function glyptic

items 674

6.25. Survey of the style distribution of the administrative function glyptic

items 676

6.26. Survey of the chronological distribution of the administrative function

glyptic items 678

6.27. Site distribution of votive seals 685

6.28. Style distribution of the votive seals 688

6.29. Chronological distribution of the votive seals 689

6.30. Heirloom classification of votive seals 692

6.31. Site distribution of the funerary seal 696

6.32. Style distribution of funerary seals 697

6.33. Chronological distribution of funerary seals 697

6.34. Style distribution of palace seals 699

6.35. Site distribution of the unknown function seals 701

6.36. Style distribution of the unknown function seals 701

6.37. Chronological distribution of the unknown function seals 703

6.38. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal

Corpus 709

7.

7.1. Elamite dated seals naming Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronous

Kings 713 714

7.2. Elamite-Mesopotamian synchronised dated seals 717 732

7.3. List of Not Illustrated Mesopotamian dated seals 732

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xix

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xx

7.4. Site distribution of the style classifications 742

7.5. Province (including Susa) distribution of the style classifications 742

7.6. Chronological distribution of the Elamite Corpus items according

to style type classification 750

8.

8.1. Summary and survey of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus Styles

according to chronological placement, style classification and

development 770

Graphs

4.1. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa II Style (STS) page 332

4.2. Glyptic materials of the Susa II Style (STS) 335

4.3. Site distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 336

4.4. Province distribution of the Susa II Style (STS) 337

4.5. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 345

4.6. Glyptic materials of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 346

4.7. Site distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 347

4.8. Province distribution of the Jemdet Nasr Related Style (JNRS) 348

4.9. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 357

4.10. Glyptic materials of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 360

4.11. Site distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 361

4.12. Province distribution of the Classic Proto-Elamite (CPE) Style 362

4.13. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 370

4.14. Glyptic materials of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 371

4.15. Site distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 372

4.16. Province distribution of the Glazed Steatite (GS) Style 373

4.17. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 382

4.18. Glyptic materials of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 383

4.19. Site distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 384

4.20. Province distribution of the Archaic Geometric Designs (AGD) 385

4.21. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 392

4.22. Glyptic materials of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 393

4.23. Site distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 395

4.24. Province distribution of the Susa III/IV (STF) Style 394

4.25. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Susa IV (SF) Style 405

4.26. Glyptic materials of the Susa IV (SF) Style 406

4.27. Site distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 407

4.28. Province distribution of the Susa IV (SF) Style 408

4.29. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 412

4.30. Glyptic materials of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413

4.31. Site distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 413

4.32. Province distribution of the Late Susa IV (LSF) Style 414

4.33. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 423

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxi

4.34. Glyptic materials of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 424

4.35. Site distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 425

4.36. Province distribution of the Akkadian Related Style (ARS) 426

4.37. Seal/Sealing of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 434

4.38. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 435

4.39. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA) Style 436

4.40. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Akkadian/Awan) (PEA)

Style 437

4.41. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 448

4.42. Glyptic Materials of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 449

4.43. Site distribution of the Ur III Related Style (UTRS) 450

4.44. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki)

(PEU) Style 464

4.45. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 465

4.46. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU) Style 467

4.47. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Ur III/Shimashki) (PEU)

Style 466

4.48. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 477

4.49. Glyptic materials of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 478

4.50. Site distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 479

4.51. Province distribution of the Old Babylonian Related Style (OBRS) 480

4.52. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/

Sukkalmah) (PEO) Style 487

4.53. Glyptic materials of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)

(PEO) Style 488

4.54. Site distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/Sukkalmah)

(PEO) Style 489

4.55. Province distribution of the Popular Elamite (Old Babylonian/

Sukkalmah) (PE) Style 490

4.56. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501

4.57. Glyptic materials of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 501

4.58. Site distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 502

4.59. Province distribution of the Early Middle Elamite (EME) Style 503

4.60. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxii

4.61. Glyptic materials of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 514

4.62. Site distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 515

4.63. Province distribution of the Kassite Related Style (KRS) 516

4.64. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 528

4.65. Glyptic materials of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 529

4.66. Site distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 530

4.67. Province distribution of the Late Middle Elamite (LME) Style 531

4.68. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536

4.69. Glyptic materials of the Anshanite Style (AS) 536

4.70. Site distribution of the Anshanite Style (AS) 537

4.71. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 544

4.72. Glyptic materials of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 545

4.73. Site distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 546

4.74. Province distribution of the Luristan Provincial Style (LPS) 547

4.75. Seal/Sealing proportions of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 551

4.76. Glyptic materials of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 552

4.77. Site distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553

4.78. Province distribution of the Late Geometric Designs (LGD) 553

4.79. Glyptic materials of the No Image Classification 557

4.80. Site distribution of the No Image Classification 557

4.81. Survey of the Style Proportions of the Elamite Cylinder Seal

Corpus (miscellaneous classifications excepted) 564

4.82. Glyptic items according to chronological distribution 566

4.83. The glyptic materials of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (with five

or more examples) 569

4.84. Survey of seal/sealing types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 570

4.85. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 571

4.86. Survey of site distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus,

minus the Susa corpus 572

4.87. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus 573

4.88. Survey of province distribution of the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus,

minus the Susa corpus 573

5.

5.1. Susa style distribution 578

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiii

5.2. Susa glyptic types 579

5.3. Susa glyptic materials (with five or more examples) 581

5.4. Susa glyptic function 583

5.5. Chogha Mish style distribution 586

5.6. Chogha Mish glyptic types 587

5.7. Chogha Mish glyptic materials 588

5.8. Chogha Mish glyptic function 589

5.9. Haft Tepe style distribution 591

5.10. Haft Tepe glyptic types 592

5.11. Haft Tepe glyptic materials 593

5.12. Haft Tepe glyptic function 594

5.13. Choga Zanbil style distribution 595

5.14. Choga Zanbil glyptic materials 597

5.15. Choga Zanbil glyptic function 598

5.16. Tepe Sharafabad style distribution 600

5.17. Tepe Sharafabad glyptic types 600

5.18. Surkh Dum-i-Luri style distribution 604

5.19. Surkh Dum-i-Luri glyptic materials with three or more items 606

5.20. Kamtarlan style distribution 607

5.21. Kamtarlan glyptic types 608

5.22. Kamtarlan glyptic materials 608

5.23. Kamtarlan glyptic function 609

5.24. Chigha Sabz style distribution 610

5.25. Chigha Sabz glyptic materials 611

5.26. Bani Surmah style distribution 613

5.27. Bani Surmah glyptic materials 614

5.28. Kalleh Nisar style distribution 616

5.29. Kalleh Nisar glyptic materials 616

5.30. Godin Tepe style distribution 618

5.31. Godin Tepe glyptic types 619

5.32. Godin Tepe glyptic materials 620

5.33. Godin Tepe glyptic function 621

5.34. Tepe Giyan style distribution 623

5.35. Tepe Giyan glyptic materials 624

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxiv

5.36. Tepe Giyan glyptic function 624

5.37. Tal-i Malyan style distribution 626

5.38. Tal-i Malyan glyptic types 627

5.39. Tal-i Malyan glyptic materials 628

5.40. Tal-i Malyan glyptic function 629

6.

6.1. Functional classifications of the Geometric Design (AGD and LGD)

Items 633

6.2. Division of non-writing associated sealings according to classification 636

6.3. Site distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding

bullae) 638

6.4. Style distribution of the non-writing associated sealings (excluding

bullae) 640

6.5. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated sealings

(excluding bullae) 641

6.6. Site distribution of bullae/bulles 646

6.7. Style distribution of bullae/bulles 647

6.8. Chronological distribution of bullae/bulles 648

6.9. Type distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 653

6.10. Site distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 654

6.11. Style distribution of the non-writing associated administrative sealings 656

6.12. Chronological distribution of the non-writing associated

administrative sealings 657

6.13. Site distribution of sealed tablets 659

6.14. Style distribution of sealed tablets 661

6.15. Chronological distribution of sealed tablets 662

6.16. Site distribution of sealed envelopes 666

6.17. Style distribution of sealed envelopes 666

6.18. Chronological distribution of sealed envelopes 666

6.19. Type distribution of the writing associated administrative items 668

6.20. Site distribution of the writing associated administrative items 669

6.21. Style distribution of the writing associated administrative items 669

6.22. Chronological distribution of the writing associated administrative items 670

6.23. Survey of the glyptic types of the administrative function items 672

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxv

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I xxvi

6.24. Survey of the site distribution of the administrative function glyptic

items 675

6.25. Survey of the style distribution of the administrative function glyptic

items 677

6.26. Survey of the chronological distribution of the administrative function

glyptic items 680

6.27. Site distribution of votive seals 686

6.28. Style distribution of votive seals 689

6.29. Chronological distribution of votive seals 690

6.30. Heirloom classification of votive seals 692

6.31. Site distribution of the funerary seals 696

6.32. Style distribution of the funerary seals 697

6.33. Chronological distribution of the funerary seals 697

6.34. Style distribution of palace seals 699

6.35. Site distribution of the unknown function seals 702

6.36. Site distribution of the unknown function seals, excluding Susa 703

6.37. Style distribution of the unknown function seals 704

6.38. Chronological distribution of the unknown function seals 705

6.39. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal

Corpus 710

6.40. Survey of functional classification types of the Elamite Cylinder Seal

Corpus, with division of the functional classes 711

7.

7.1. Site distribution of the style classifications, excluding Susa 743

7.2. Province (including Susa) distribution of the style classifications 744

7.3. Chronological distribution of the Elamite Corpus items according

to style type classification 751

Chapter 1 Introduction

Cylinder seals are described by Moorey as the most distinctive artefact created by

the Sumerians (Moorey 1994: 103). Indeed, cylinder seals are often found in the

excavations of Mesopotamian sites, and other areas of the Ancient Near East, for a

period of close to three millennia, and form a group of diagnostic artefacts within the

material culture of the region. Cylinder seals are generally useful artefacts, as trends,

social movements and changes can be traced in their study (Collon 2005). Much of

our understanding of Mesopotamian iconography, imagery of the gods and mythology

comes from glyptic studies (Black & Green 1992; Collon 2005: 165 171, 178

186), and the images found on seals further provide an insight into common,

quotidian life that is unparalleled elsewhere (Collon 2005: 145 149). Cylinder seals,

through their depictions, provide insights into clothes and fashions, building

techniques and decoration, weaponry and furnishings, agricultural methods and

accoutrements, as well as ritual actions and ceremonies, such as royal hunts, banquets

and worship/presentation scenes (Collon 2005: 145 197).

Furthermore, cylinder seals, particularly those that are inscribed with the name

of a king or known personage, can also provide useful dating mechanisms (though the

use of seals and sealings for dating purposes is extremely precarious and should be

approached with great caution [Matthews 1990: 10; Collon 1990: 24 25; contra

Negahban 1996: 205], as will be further discussed below [Chapter 3.4]). Seals and

sealings also provide information concerning the administration and control

mechanisms of a society, and testify to trade and social contacts both within a single

community and between communities (Collon 1990: 21 30; Gelb 1977; Rathje

1977; Renger 1977). Thus glyptic studies are an important aspect of Ancient Near

Eastern archaeology, for much can not only be garnered from the study of these items,

but their frequent (if not regular) nature makes such a study profitable.

However, either by deliberate design or dearth of information, the majority of

past glyptic studies have tended to focus primarily on Mesopotamian1 materials and

1As will become evident in this study, Mesopotamia is often a source of comparison with the neighbouring region of southwestern Iran under discussion here, in terms of history and chronology, as well as material culture. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus on Mesopotamia as an example and contrast in the realm of glyptic studies. It should be noted that there is also a multiplicity of glyptic studies that deal with Syrian-Levantine (for example: Amiet 1963; Collon 1975; 1982b; 1997: 20 21; 2005: 24, 52 55, 69 70; Matthews 1997; Mazzoni 1984; Schaeffer-Forrer 1983; Amiet 1992b; Otto 2000) and Anatolian (for example: zg 1965; 1968; Teissier 1994; Boehmer & Gterbock 1987; Collon 1997: 20 21; 2005: 57) glyptic material, that for the sake of brevity, will not be detailed here. Their existence should, however, be noted. These corpora do not, however, diminish the current point

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 1

examples (Collon 1997; 2005; Gibson & Briggs 1977; Kelly-Buccelati 1986). Indeed,

as demonstrated by Table 1.1, a plethora of studies have been devoted to the cylinder

seals of Mesopotamia. A major theme of many of these publications is the

construction and annunciation of stylistic paradigms. Further studies have also dealt

with other aspects of Mesopotamian glyptic material, such as function, manufacture

processes and material provenance (Part 5, Table 1.1). While it may not be correct to

say that Mesopotamian cylinder seals are entirely understood, it can be said that much

is known of these items and that their general chronological and stylistic development

is well-established (Parts 1 4, Table 1.1), albeit with a reservation that some of this

construction may be subject to change with ensuing new discoveries.

In stark contrast, and despite the fact that cylinder seals are equally ubiquitous

and characteristic of the ancient civilisations and societies of southwestern Iran

(Elam), relatively few studies have been devoted to the related Iranian/Elamite glyptic

material, as demonstrated by Table 1.2. Most commonly the Iranian/Elamite glyptic

material has been published as part of the general excavation report of a particular site

(see Section 1b of Table 1.2), though in some cases a volume in a series of excavation

reports (thus Susa and Choga Zanbil), or an article study (Shahr-i Sokhta, Bani

Surmah, Marlik and Kalleh Nisar) is devoted to the glyptic material exposed in the

excavations (Section 1a of Table 1.2). Due to this practice, the glyptic material has

generally only been subjected to a rather preliminary study, often not by a recognised

glyptic expert (exceptions to this include Tal-i Malyan [Sumner 2003] and Tepe

Yahya [Potts 2001], as Pittman prepared the glyptic studies for both of these

volumes). The cursory nature of these glyptic material publications, as well as lending

a preliminary quality to any conclusions, also means that most often the material is

discussed in relative isolation from material of other related sites. For example, the

glyptic material of the, at least partially, contemporaneous Middle Elamite sites of

Susa, Choga Zanbil and Haft Tepe has been published with only a cursory indication

of the existence of, and cross-reference to, the others. In other words, unlike the

glyptic material from neighbouring Mesopotamia, a study devoted to the stylistic

developments of the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material of this, or any other period, has

that there is a general dearth of Iranian glyptic studies, but in fact emphasises the point by demonstrating that other, non-core areas of cylinder seal use, such as Syria-Levant and Anatolia have undergone significant glyptic material study, while the same cannot be said of Iranian glyptic material.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 2

not been attempted, and as such the stylistic development for this region is practically

unknown, and in effect unpronounced.

1. Public Collections Bibliothque Nationale Paris (Delaporte 1910) Louvre (Delaporte 1920; 1923) Berlin (Moortgat 1940) Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Buchanan 1966; Moorey & Gurnet 1978) British Museum (Wiseman 1962; Collon 1982a; 1986) Vienna (Bleibtreu 1981) Yale Babylonian Collection (Buchanan 1981) The Hague (Zadoks-Josephus 1952)

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Munn-Rankin 1959) Brussels (Speleers 1917; 1943) Geneva (Vollenweider 1967/1983) Danish National Museum (Ravn 1960, Mller 1992) Fribourg (Keel-Leu 2004) Gulbenkian Museum, Durham (Lambert 1979) University Museum, Philadelphia (Legrain 1951) Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (Gordon 1939)

2. Private Collections Pierpont Morgan Library (Porada 1948) Marcopoli Collection (Teissier1984) Southesk Collection (Carnegie 1908) de Clercq Collection (de Clercq & Mnant 1888/1903) Moore Collection (Eisen 1940; Williams Forte 1976) Birmingham Collections (Lambert, W. 1966) Cugnin Collection (Legrain 1911) Gorelick Collection (Noveck 1975) Newell Collection (von der Osten 1934)

von Aulock Collection (von der Osten 1957) Frederick Lewis Collection (Owen 1975) Cherkasky Collection (Pittman & Aruz 1987) Sissa Collection (van Buren 1959) Anavian Collection (Volk 1979) Haskel Museum (Williams 1928) Guimet Museum (Delaporte 1909) Private New York Collections held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (von Bothmer 1961) Baldwin Brett Collection (von der Osten 1936)

3. Excavated Sites Tepe Gawra (Tobler 1950) Uruk (Brandes 1979; Boehmer 1999) Ur (Woolley 1934; Legrain 1936; 1951; Matthews 1993) Jemdet Nasr (Matthews, R. 1992) Nippur (Matthews, D. 1992)

Tell Fara (Heinrich 1931; Martin 1988) Abu Salabikh (Martin & Matthews 1993) Babylon [and Ashur] (Moortgat 1940) Diyala/Hamrin (Frankfort 1955; al-Gailani Werr 1992)

4. Stylistic/Chronological Studies Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Mesopotamia (Rova 1994) Glazed Steatite Style (Pittman 1994) Archaic Mesopotamia (Amiet 1980a) Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (Garrison 1989; Hansen 1971) Akkadian and Post-Akkadian Mesopotamia (Bernbeck 1996; Boehmer 1965) Ur III Mesopotamia (Franke 1977)

Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (al-Gailani Werr 1988a; Blocher 1988; Colbow 1995) Kassite Mesopotamia (Beran 1957 1958; Matthews 1992) Late 2nd millennium BC Near East (Matthews 1990) General (Ward 1920; Frankfort 1939; Wiseman & Forman 1959; Collon 2005)

5. Scientific Studies, Analyses and General Glyptic Studies Microscopic study, methods of manufacture and engraving (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1978; 1981a; 1981b; 1992; Gwinnett & Gorelick 1979; 1987; Sax, McNabb & Meeks 1998; Sax & Meeks 1994; Sax & Meeks 1995; Sax, Meeks & Collon 2000; Sax & Middleton 1992)

Sealings study (Zettler 1987) Function (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1990) Glyptic Studies (Gibson & Biggs 1977; Kelley-Buccellati [ed.] 1986; Hallo & Winter [eds.] 2001)

Table 1.1. Bibliographic table of Mesopotamian glyptic studies. It should be noted that this bibliography is by no means extensive, but rather offers a sample of the available sources. Only volumes/excavation reports devoted solely to cylinder seals are included in section 2), with the addition of chapters and other partial reports, this section would be much inflated. Similarly, only styles within the chronological constraints of this study (c.3500 1000 BC, detailed below), have been included in section 4), it thus should be noted that more styles outside these parameters exist, and would further demonstrate the propensity for Mesopotamian-focused studies.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 3

1. Excavated Sites 1a. Devoted studies

Susa (Amiet 1972) Shahr-i Sokhta (Amiet 1978) Bani Surmah (Tourovets 1996)

Choga Zanbil (Porada 1970) Kalleh Nisar (vanden Berghe & Tourovets 1994) Marlik (Negahban 1996)

1b. Partial studies Susa (Delaporte 1920; Brker-Klhn 1970) Haft Tepe (Negahban 1991) Tepe Sialk (Amiet 1985) Tal-i Malyan (Nicholas 1990 [TUV]; Carter 1996 [EDD]; Sumner 2003 [ABC]) Tepe Giyan (Contenau & Ghirshman 1935) Chogha Mish (Delougaz & Kantor 1996) Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006; vanden Berghe 1968)

Shahdad (Hakemi 1997) Godin Tepe (Young 1969a; 1986; Young & Levine 1974; Weiss & Young 1975) Tepe Yahya (Potts 2001) Tepe Sharafabad (Schacht 1975) Holmes Expedition to Luristan, including Surkh Dum-i-Luri, Kamtarlan, Chigha Sabz (Schmidt et al. 1989) Kalleh Nisar (vanden Berghe 1973; Haerinck & Overlaet 2008)

2. Stylistic/Chronological Studies Proto-Elamite (Dittmann 1986a; Pittman 1997) Archaic styles (Amiet 1980a)*

Glazed Steatite Style (Pittman 1994)*

3. Functional/Scientific Studies Iranian Plateau (Dyson & Harris 1986) Function of sealing (Ferioli & Fiandra 1979; 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979)

Chemical analysis of clay sealings (Blackman 1985)

Table 1.2 Bibliographic table of Iranian/Elamite glyptic studies, denoted by 1a) Excavated Sites, devoted studies (papers and monographs dedicated solely to glyptic material), 1b) Excavated sites, partial studies, 2) Stylistic/Chronological Studies and 3) Functional/Scientific Studies. Those studies in section 2 marked with an asterix(*) detail shared Mesopotamian/Elamite styles.

The single2 exception to this is Pittmans analysis of the Proto-Elamite

glyptic material (1997), a study that collates all the cylinder seals and sealings of the

Proto-Elamite (Susa III) period from various sites, and expands upon and

annunciates the styles of these seals. This unique study will be discussed in further

detail below (Chapter 3.2), but suffice it to say that the existence of this study does

not preclude the need for the current work, as it is limited to a single period, whereas

the current study aims to discuss the stylistic progression and development of Elamite

cylinder seals across many periods. The other three studies listed in Table 1.2 section

2 (Stylistic/Chronological Studies), also cannot be said to be solely devoted to

Iranian/Elamite styles. Amiets seminal work on the archaic (early) styles of

Mesopotamia does deal with Iranian/Elamite material and styles (1980a: 38 44).

However, the focus of this study is very much on Mesopotamian styles, with the

Iranian/Elamite material an addendum to the main Mesopotamian focus, with little

detail or analysis given (indeed the very title of the study, La glyptique

2Rashads study of the early stamp seals of Iran (1990) should be noted as an exception to this statement, though as it deals specifically with stamp seals, and those from an earlier period than that under discussion here, it is not relevant to this study.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 4

msopotamienne archaque, indicates its Mesopotamian focus). Pittmans (1994)

study of the Glazed Steatite Style also deals with Iranian/Elamite glyptic material,

however the common Mesopotamian-Iranian nature of this style (indeed in this study,

it is one of only two characterised as a Shared Mesopotamian-Elamite Style [see

Chapter 4.4]) means that it too is not devoted to Iranian/Elamite glyptic material.

Thus, the studies of both Amiet and Pittman treat the Iranian/Elamite glyptic material

as an adjunct or appendix of the major work, a smaller, minor part of the

Mesopotamian-focused whole.

Thus, despite the fact that the cylinder seal is as ubiquitous in Iranian/Elamite

excavations, and as useful in the reconstruction of Iranian/Elamite society as those

from neighbouring Mesopotamia, the cylinder seals of Elam have been neglected in

the literature. Apart from the aspiration to fill this obvious gap in the literature, the

definition of an Elamite glyptic style paradigm is also desirable and necessary so as to

test, and in some cases correct, the use (or indeed misuse) that Elamite glyptic styles

have been put, even in the absence of their articulation outlined above.

Cylinder seals are often used as evidence for changing patterns of ethnic,

social or cultural structure of a society, as the appearance of a particular glyptic style,

image-type or depiction method can be shown to demonstrate the introduction of a

people, or probably more correctly the introduction of contact or influence from

another people (such assertions are numerous, and abound in the volumes detailed in

both Tables 1.1 and 1.2). While needing to avoid facile equations of pots with

people (or seals as the case may be), the alteration of a style or depiction type may be

seen as an indication of some change in the society that resulted in this amendment,

be it the advent of external influences or changes in the internal constitution of that

society. Of course for any such discussion to take place an actual understanding of the

developmental pattern of the glyptic material must be available.

Thus, Carters use of the apparent increased appearance of Mesopotamian

glyptic material in the early third millennium BC at Susa as evidence for greater

Mesopotamian cultural influence generally at Susa (Carter 1980: 31) is an example of

employing glyptic material to demonstrate apparent social or cultural change of a

particular society (in this case the Susa society). However, without a thorough study

of the development of the glyptic styles from Susa, and indeed of Elam in general, a

statement such as this must remain unproven and classified as speculative. Indeed, in

order for Carters statement to be authenticated and eventually accepted (or rejected)

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 5

the stylistic developments of the preceding period, as well as the state of glyptic

material in the actual period under discussion must be assessed, and the extent of

Mesopotamian contacts understood. In the current state of research (that is, before this

study) this information is not available.

Similarly, Amiets landmark ethnic duality and alternance thesis (1979a;

1979b), discussed in greater detail below (Chapter 7), states that two separate ethnic

populations existed at Susa; a native/indigenous, highland, Iranian/Elamite group,

and an intrusive, lowland, Mesopotamian plains group that was related to, if not

immigrant from neighbouring Mesopotamia. According to the thesis, in any one

period one of these ethnic groups held sway or was dominant over the other. In the

following period this dominance would alternate, and the other ethnic group would

gain dominance. Thus this theory seeks to characterise an essential duality of Susian

and, by extension, Elamite society. One of the main proofs of this thesis has been

cylinder seals (Amiet 1979a: 198 202; Amiet 1979b). Again, in order to test this

theory, an accurate stylistic paradigm must be established, so that the extent, if any, of

Elamite or Mesopotamian influence on the Susian material, and any discernable

change in the level of this influence can be detailed. However, in the current state of

knowledge, without a thorough, unified, developmental, stylistic paradigm for the

glyptic styles of Elam the use of glyptic material to reconstruct such elements of

society and to discuss relative levels of Mesopotamian influence is flawed.

There has also been a general assumption that what is true for Mesopotamian

glyptic in terms of function and use is true of its Iranian equivalent (Collon 2005 for

example, where examples from each region are variously used to reconstruct function

without reference to any geographic distinction). Again, however, without a thorough

study of Elamite glyptic across several sites, rather than focused on a single site, the

accuracy or otherwise of this statement must be questioned. Indeed, as will be shown

in greater detail below (Chapter 6), in at least some examples, the Elamite function of

seals was quite different from that in Mesopotamia.

Thus, the single primary aim of this work is to fill a void in the glyptic

literature by integrating the disparate excavated Elamite cylinder seals and sealings

into a single study, and through a study of these items, each with reference to the

other, the creation of an inclusive stylistic paradigm for this material, from their

earliest appearance (c.3500 BC) through to a break in Elamite society around 1000

BC (that is the end of Middle Elamite period). The meaning of and definition of the

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 6

borders and parameters of Elam will be outlined in detail below, as will the

chronological justification of these limitations (Chapter 1.2). As a whole this

collection is labelled the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus, often abbreviated here

simply to the Corpus. The major result of this undertaking is the Elamite Cylinder

Seal Corpus Catalogue (Volume II). This catalogue presents all 3597 published

excavated Elamite cylinder seals and sealings from the Susa II period (that is the

period of the earliest manifestation of cylinder seals) through to the end of the Middle

Elamite period. As well as all the published Elamite glyptic material, also included in

this study is a group of unpublished sealings from Susa held in the Tehran Museum,

that will be further discussed below (Chapter 2.2.1.1). Each piece in the catalogue is

listed with a detailed description of their vital statistics and an illustration (where

applicable/available).

The current introductory chapter will continue to provide a general

introduction to glyptic studies (Chapter 1.1), followed by an outline of the geographic

and chronological parameters (Chapter 1.2) of this study. The study will then continue

by discussing in further detail the history and chronology relevant to this study and

the specific details of the sites from which the pertinent glyptic material is sourced

(Chapter 2). The methodology of the style creation (including a literature review of

the previous publications of the material) (Chapter 3) and finally the articulation of

the actual styles created for the Elamite Cylinder Seal Corpus (Chapter 4) and a

discussion of their distribution across the Elamite sites (Chapter 5) completes this

data presentation. Following this, two discussions regarding issues that have arisen

from the preceding study and are of chief pertinence to glyptic studies will be

addressed. The first of these problems is the function of seals and sealings in Elam

(Chapter 6), which, as will be shown, can vary greatly from the mostly administrative

function in Mesopotamia. The second problem and discussion concerns the question

of contact, and the extent to which this question can be addressed using glyptic

material (Chapter 7). In reference to this study, the contact in question is specifically

that between southern Mesopotamia (variously over time Sumer, Akkad and

Babylonia) and Elam, and the existence and extent thereof, especially in regards to

Amiets ethnic duality thesis (and indeed, other more recent studies that have

proposed similar such patterns, for example that of de Miroschedji [2003]).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 7

1.1 Glyptic Studies

This study is devoted to the cylinder seals of Elam from their earliest occurrence

through to the end of the Middle Elamite period, that is c.3500 1000 BC. This

section will provide an introduction to the field of glyptic studies, especially

pertaining to the current subject matter (that is Elamite glyptic studies). This

introduction is not intended to be thorough nor exhaustive, as such a study would be

beyond the introductory nature of this section. For further and more detailed

expositions of current and historic glyptic studies and an extended bibliography, the

interested reader is directed to the works of Collon (1997; 2005), as well as the

bibliographies contained in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Furthermore, Moorey (1994: 75 77,

103 106) provides a useful introduction to the materials and manufacture of

Mesopotamian seals, while various works of Porada (including 1982; 1995) are a

solid basis to the more art historical approach to glyptic studies discussed below

(Chapter 1.1.5). The works of Matthews (1990; 1992) provide a recent and reliable

introduction to modern glyptic studies. Finally, the studies of Ferioli and Fiandra

(1979; 1983; 1994; Fiandra 1979) and Zettler (1987) provide an important

introduction to the more recent use of glyptic material as a source of functional

information rather than purely as pieces of art.

Following a brief outline of the terms employed in glyptic studies (1.1.1), a

discussion of the function of seals and sealings, as is currently generally accepted,

will be given (1.1.2). The study will then focus on the problem of the material from

which a seal was made (1.1.3) and a brief discussion of seal production (1.1.4).

Finally, the discussion will turn to a more general philosophical and methodological

problem of glyptic studies, the nature of this field of investigation and the justification

of the approach adopted in this study (1.1.5).

1.1.1 Seals and Sealings

A seal is here defined as an object, generally made of a rock or mineral (popularly a

stone), but also of ivory, shell, faience, glass, metal, wood, clay and bitumen

compound, that is carved with a design (usually in intaglio) so that when the object is

impressed upon a soft substance (primarily in the Ancient Near East, unfired or wet

clay) an impression in relief of the design is made (Roaf 1990: 72). Thus, for the

purpose of this study, other items used in ancient times to make a distinctive

impression on clay (such as the hem of a garment, and fingernails [Gelb 1977: 111])

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 8

are not defined as a seal, as these are more ad hoc seal replacements or substitutes

rather than actual objects made for the purpose of sealing.

The impression made by the seal is also, rather confusingly, popularly known

as a seal. However, to avoid confusion, scholars generally use the term sealing to

describe the ancient impression made by a seal (Collon 1990: 11). In this study the

term sealing is used as a synonym for, and is interchangeable with, impression or

seal impression. Unless otherwise stated, all impressions referred to here are ancient

impressions, that is, impressions made by a seal in antiquity and preserved in the

archaeological record, as opposed to a modern impression made recently from an

ancient cylinder seal for illustration purposes. To further complicate matters, the term

sealing has also been used in the Tal-i Malyan publications to refer to any piece of

clay used to secure (that is seal) vessels, baskets, doors and so on (Nicholas 1990: 74).

That is, at Malyan, sealings may or may not have been impressed [sic] (Nicholas

1990: 74), in almost direct opposition to the definition adopted here. While the logic

of this definition following the popular meaning of to seal is acknowledged, the

specialist definition outlined above will be adhered to as cylinder seals and their

impressions are the chief subject of this study. When a clay sealing that does not bear

an impression is intended here, the term unimpressed sealing is used. Glyptic is

used to refer to both seals and sealings (Collon 1990: 11) and the study thereof.

Two types of seals were used in the Ancient Near East (including Iran), the

cylinder seal and the stamp seal. The stamp seal was the earliest seal form found in

the area, first appearing perhaps as early as c.7000 BC (Collon 1997: 11), and

gradually becoming generally ubiquitous around 4500 BC (Collon 1997: 11). The

cylinder seal first appeared in Mesopotamia (and southwestern Iran) around 3500 BC,

and came to overwhelmingly dominate stamp seals from around 3000 BC, a primacy

which continued until the beginning of the first millennium BC, when again the stamp

seal replaced the cylinder as the most common type (Collon 1990: 11 14; 2005: 11

16). The present study will focus on cylinder seals only, as stamp seals show less

variation across time, figural scenes and images are rarely represented (and so provide

less insights into society) and because following the rise to primacy of the cylinder

seal relatively few stamps seals were discovered in controlled excavations (Collon

1990: 11 13). Thus, cylinder seals alone are studied in this study, and stamp seals

are not included as they would provide a tangent of limited use.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 9

A cylinder seal, as the name suggests, is a cylindrical shaped seal, with the

design carved along the face of the object. When this seal is rolled over clay, a

continuous, frieze-like impression is created (Roaf 1990: 72). Thus the cylinder seal

can cover a larger area of the sealed object with greater speed than is possible for a

stamp seal (Collon 1997: 13). A cylinder seal is usually perforated lengthways, or has

a boss or link at one end so that the object can be hung (Collon 2005: 108 112).

From the design element of the boss or cap and from the occasional illustration, it is

believed that, at least some, cylinder seals were worn as pieces of jewellery, on a

fibula, brooch or pin, or as a sort of pendant (Collon 2005: 108 112).

1.1.2 The Function of Cylinder Seals

Cylinder seal function can be divided into four distinct, though interrelated, uses;

administrative, amuletic, votive and funerary. These four types will be outlined briefly

below, and as will be discovered, there is no absolute distinction between these types;

any one seal may well have functioned in two or more manners simultaneously or

across the period of its use. It should therefore be noted that the functions of seals

outlined below are not mutually exclusive, nor can it be said that any one function

was more important than another. Indeed, it seems that one function led to, or enabled

another, as will be shown.

As already discussed, and as will be further elucidated below, the nature of

past glyptic studies means that the information contained in this outline of seal

function is sourced primarily from Mesopotamian-based, and focused, sources. Thus

the following is essentially an outline of the function of cylinder seals in

Mesopotamia as our level of knowledge currently stands. However, such a reliance on

Mesopotamian evidence and sources is inappropriate for an accurate study of

Iranian/Elamite types. Thus the following outline is intended to provide an

introduction to the current state of knowledge of seal function, as a basis from which a

more complete analysis of the function of seals in Iran/Elam will be undertaken

following the outline of the Elamite cylinder seals (Chapter 6). This function outline

will thus provide both an introduction generally to the function of cylinder seals, and

a basis from which the Mesopotamian function of seals can be compared and

contrasted with the Iranian/Elamite function.

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 10

1.1.2.1 Administrative Function

Seals were used, most obviously, to seal clay tablets and envelopes and the clay that

secured jars, bales, sacks, boxes, baskets and (store)room doors as a type of lock or

marker (Collon 2005: 113; 1990: 11; Matthews 1990: 11; Potts 1997: 239). The

function of seals beyond the previously generally accepted function as pieces of art, or

as adjuncts or addenda to tablets studied for their apparently primary

philological/historical importance, has more recently become apparent through the

increased archaeological attention to sealings. Seals were used to mark, or seal an

object (Collon 1990: 11; Gelb 1977: 11), though the precise significance of this in

ancient times is not totally understood. It is generally assumed here that the presence

of a seal impression functioned in a manner roughly synonymous to that of a modern

signature or corporate logo/letterhead. In the case of a sealed tablet or envelope the

presence of a seal impression, it is believed, signified the participation in, or witness

to, the transaction by the owner of the seal (Reneger 1977: 79; Gelb 1977: 11;

Rothman 2007: 237). In the other sealing instances, the presence of a sealing

authorised, validated, identified or authenticated the objects, or the transaction or

exchange, that they represented (Potts 1997: 239; Reneger 1977: 75 78; Collon

2005: 113; 1990: 11; Gelb 1977: 11). Seals could also be used to mark or signify

ownership of an object or the contents of a room or vessel (Collon 2005: 113; 1990:

11). Finally, the presence of an individuals sealing on a door lock most likely

signified that the owner of this seal was the one who locked, or closed, the room

(Collon 1990: 25).

Two important preconditions and factors must be assumed in order for seals to

have been a useful and functional part of society. Firstly, the individuals within the

society must have respected seals and the action of sealing. That is, a seal must have

been recognised as a powerful symbol, in much the same way that today a signature,

while only letters in ink, is a powerful symbolic action that binds an individual. Thus

the forging or misuse of a signature is a serious social (criminal) breach. A similar

function, or power, must be attributed to ancient seals (Collon 2005: 5 7, 113

119).

Secondly, an individuals seal must have been recognisable and representative

of, to at least some degree, the individual (Collon 2005: 113 119). In other words,

the seal of person X must be distinguishable, and importantly, recognisably so, from

that of person Y. In some periods and examples, the identity of the seal owner is

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 11

inscribed on the seal, and so identification is assured (at least to the literate) (Collon

2005: 105 107). For many seals though this is not the case, and instead the identity

of the owner (or the institution) is presumably demonstrated by the variation in the

depiction of the scene. Thus the images found on seals must belong to a visual lexicon

whereby they are both recognisable (that is, could be read) and differentiable (that

is, sufficiently dissimilar so as to indicate a distinction one from another).

The use of cylinder seals to seal tablets and envelopes, and storage objects (be

they portable objects such as vessels, bales and baskets or immovable storage areas

such as storerooms) can be described as the main or standard administrative function

of seals. The term administration does not simply mean bookkeeping or finance

documentation, but rather is an encompassing term that describes the means and

methods of regulation of a society, and how this is discernable in the archaeological

record. Thus as well as the more obvious areas of bookkeeping found in economic

and legal texts, administration also covers other areas of the ancient economy and

society and the way these areas were controlled (hence the Malyan defined and

labelled control category that includes seals and sealings [Nicholas 1996: 84 85;

Sumner 2003: 80 82]). Thus a seal, in an administrative context, is used to, in some

way, control or regulate the societys economy, in all its ancient facets (including

taxation, tribute and trade). This is the primary function and definition of a seal,

indeed the eponymous function, though it is not the only, nor always the chief use to

which a seal was put, as will be shown below.

1.1.2.2 Amuletic Function

In a general sense, an amulet is an object, generally worn or carried on an individuals

person, thought to ward off evil or act as a protective charm (Black & Green 1992:

30). The role of a seal as an amulet is testified to by Mesopotamian texts where the

use of a seal is proscribed for exorcistic spells, and by the seals themselves which

often bear spells or prayers on their inscriptions (Gelb 1977: 112; Hallo 1977: 58;

Black & Green 1992: 300; Matthews 1990: 11; Collon 2005: 62; 1997: 20; van Buren

1954: 33, 119, 131). This amuletic function of cylinder seals apparently originally

derived from stamp seals, which, it has been suggested, may themselves have

originally evolved from pure amulets or amuletic beads (Collon 1997: 19; Moorey

1994: 103; Gorelick & Gwinnett 1981a; 1990).

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 12

The role of a seal as an amulet also derived from its role as an identifier of an

individual, that is, its administrative function. This identifying role led a seal to be

seen as an embodiment, or extension, of the owners identity and self (Collon 1990:

21; 1997: 19; Black & Green 1992: 300; Hallo 1987). This function is reminiscent of

the importance of an individuals name in the Ancient Near East, where knowledge of

a name was important beyond simple recognition, and implied knowledge of the

nature and characteristics of the individual (Bottro 1998). Similarly, a cylinder seals

identification with its owners identity, self and person came to lend the cylinder seals

an amuletic, or talisman quality. Alternatively, it could be argued that the amuletic

quality of beads and stamp seals, which themselves, may have evolved into cylinder

seals (Gorelick & Gwinnett 1981a; 1990), gave the very identification quality to

cylinder seals that allowed them the administrative function. Barring entering a

philosophical causality dilemma, little more to this discussion of primacy can be

added here; merely the possibility of each process can be put forth.

The amuletic function of seals was further added by the material from which

the seal was made. Indeed, it has long been recognised that certain stones in the

Ancient Near East embodied, or represented, certain magical qualities or powers that

could be passed on to the bearer of the stone object (Collon 2005: 62, 100; 1997: 19).

Indeed it was this association of stone colour with magical power and qualities that

gave beads and stamp seals their original amuletic function (Collon 2005: 62, 100),

that was then inherited by cylinder seals. The most well known and commonly cited

example of stone-type/colour association with magical power is lapis lazuli, though

other precious and semi-precious stones also held great significance (Collon 2005: 62,

100; 1997: 19). This magical quality of the stones from which a seal was made thus

also contributed to the amuletic function of a seal.

Finally, the scenes depicted on the seal itself, such as worship, cultic and

mythological scenes, including symbols, and in some instances, actual depictions of

the gods, also served to add an amuletic function to many seals (Black & Green 1992:

82; Collon 2005: 119), as did the inclusion of prayers and dedications on some

inscribed seals.

Thus seals had an amuletic function based upon their administrative, identity-

representing function, their material, and the scenes that they bore. It is probable that

all seals had this amuletic function (Collon 2005: 199), to lesser and greater degrees

depending on the material used (a valuable, significant stone or a common, familiar

ECS Corpus, Volume I, Part I 13

example), the scene depicted, the period in which the seal was in use and its age (as

the heirloom quality well known for many seals [Collon 2005: 120 122] may have

decreased its amuletic value with time, as the seal may no longer have been

identifiable with the self of its owner, or, alternatively, its ancient quality may have

increased its specialness and such ties with the past may have given it its amuletic

function). Also, the above defined administrative function of seals had a degree of

amule