archaeological surveys in the "eastern corridor", south-western iran

British Institute of Persian Studies

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS IN THE "EASTERN CORRIDOR", SOUTH-WESTERN IRANAuthor(s): Abbas Moghaddam and Negin MiriSource: Iran, Vol. 45 (2007), pp. 23-55Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25651410 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:12:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bips

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25651410?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS IN THE "EASTERN CORRIDOR", SOUTH-WESTERN IRAN

By Abbas Moghaddam and Negin Miri Department of Archaeology, University of Sydney

Abstract

Many areas in south-western Iran are unknown archaeologically. Recent archaeological surveys east of the

Karun River indicate that this area acted as a corridor connecting various cultural zones over a period of some 7000 years. The archaeological evidence of human settlement in this area provides an important record of long term socio-cultural change from the late fifth millennium B.C. to the post-Sasanian Islamic world.

Keywords South-western Iran; Khuzestan; Shushtar; Eastern Corridor; Ram Hormoz.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the present study, lowland south-western Iran is defined as the region extending from the small plain of Mehran in the north-west (near the modern Iran-Iraq border) to the Zohreh valley in the south-east (Fig. 1). This area is bounded on the north by the southernmost

ridges of the Zagros Mountains and on the south by several low anticlinal folds, all of which run in a north

west-south-east direction. The intervening area

includes several plains that were formed through a

combination of tectonic uplift and alluvial processes, and then disected by a number of major river systems (Falcon 1961; Hamzehpour et al 1999).

Malek Shahmirzadi (1997: 406) has emphasised the

geographical similarities of the different plains of lowland south-western Iran, and stressed the need for a holistic approach to the region, which he has called

"Khuziyan", taking the term from the great Persian poet Ferdowsi.1 Such a proposal compels us to document

similarities, differences and changes in both natural and social conditions at a regional level as we attempt to link the archaeological records of plains which are

physically separated from each other (Fig. 1). Previous attempts to elucidate the cultural history of

lowland south-western Iran have concentrated on Mehran (Khaliliyan and Nokandeh n.d.); Deh Luran

(Hole 1969; Neely and Wright 1994; Wright 1981); central Susiana (Adams 1962; Hole 1969; Wright 1969;

Johnson 1973; Schacht 1976; Wenke 1975-76); Mianab (Moghaddam and Miri 2003; Moghaddam 2005, and below); Ram Hormoz plain (Wright and Carter 2003); and Behbahan and Zohreh (Dittman 1984; 1986). As a result of these studies it has become clear that major routes of communication crossed the

region as early as the fifth millennium B.C. and we can

envisage a chain of valleys and plains that connect the inner Zagros to the Mesopotamian plains, the Persian

Gulf and the lands further east (Flannery 1965; Carter

1971; Beale 1973; Nissen 1976; Oates 1978; Dittman

1986; Alden 1987; Wright 1987; Wright and Carter 2003, Carter et al. 2006). It has become clear, however, that there are still some areas in this vast region which have never been surveyed systematically. Furthermore, the results of many of the previous surveys in the region are not yet completely published, e.g. the areas between the Mehran and Deh Luran plains in the north-west, the Deh Luran and Susiana plains, the Shushtar and Ram Hormoz plains, the Ram Hormoz and Behbahan/Zohreh plains and their southern areas towards the Persian Gulf. Thus, following our 2001

survey of the Mianab plain, we decided to expand our

surveys beyond the Gargar River towards Ram

Hormoz, along an "Eastern Corridor" that, culturally and physically, bridged the western (i.e. central

Susiana, Deh Luran and Mehran) and eastern plains (i.e. the Ram Hormoz, Behbahan and Zohreh) of the lowlands of south-western Iran.



24 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

^^^^^^^ N'"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adjacent

Regions_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^ ^

-

Fig. 1. Map showing south-western Iran and sites mentioned in the text. Polygons show the areas previously surveyed. The Eastern Corridor is hatched (after Wright and Carter 2003).

II. BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF THE PROJECT

In the summer of 2001, the Shushtar Archaeological Team from the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR) conducted a salvage survey on the Mianab Plain south of Shushtar (Moghaddam and Miri

2003) (Fig. 1). A second season was carried out in the winter of 2001, when a series of surveys and soundings on the Mianab Plain were undertaken in order to

establish a reliable, stratified record of occupation for the

region (Moghaddam 2002; 2005). Evidence of dramatic

population fluctuations and settlement shifts over the course of seven millennia, of complex irrigation systems,

and of major hydrological infrastructure dating to the

historic periods all suggested the importance of

continuing research in the region. Subsequently it was

decided to undertake a full-coverage survey of the

Eastern Corridor between Mianab and Ram Hormuz, as

relatively little work had ever been conducted in this

region (Wright 1969; Wright and Carter 2003). An initial season of survey in the Eastern Corridor2

showed that the landscape and natural conditions differed from those encountered on the Mianab Plain.

Largely a badland area with thousands of gullies, the area has recently been subject to agricultural development involving fish farming, levelling and pipe

irrigation particularly along the east bank of the Gargar.



ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS IN THE "EASTERN CORRIDOR", SOUTH-WESTERN IRAN 25

Nevertheless, there were good reasons for expanding our survey area to the east. First, the Gargar channel and

irrigation system, a result of human intervention in the

landscape (see below), creates an artificial division in

the eastern Karun basin which, if not overcome, distorts

any understanding of human development in this region. Secondly, agricultural intensification by the Khuzestan

Water and Power Authority Corporation (KWPAC) is

resulting in the construction of new irrigation works that

pose a grave threat to ancient remains of all types. Thus, our seasons of 2003, 2004 and 2005 were dedicated to

the continuation of our previous surveys in an effort to

record all evidence in the Eastern Corridor (Fig. 2).

III. GEOGRAPHICAL PARAMETERS

The Eastern Corridor is an elongated, curving strip of

land with a maximum length of about 60 km. and an

average width of 7 km. (Fig. 2) that is bounded by the foreland of the western Zagros range in the north, the

Kupal anticline in the south, the Gargar River in the west

and the Ram Hormoz plain in the east. This is one of the most highly dynamic and heavily eroded plains in south western Iran. The western part of the plain has been eroded by the Gargar River which runs in a southerly direction. It ultimately joins the Karun River and also receives additional, albeit saline, water during the rainy

months of January, February and March (Fig. 3) from the Darreh Naft and Darreh Haddam rivulets. In addition, thousands of ephemeral streams cross the plain in a

westerly direction, joining the Darreh Naft and Darreh

Haddam, in some cases, flowing directly into the Gargar. This drainage pattern is heavily influenced by the config uration of the Zagros range in the north and the Kupal anticline to the south and has caused severe erosion. In

general, the old alluvial fans in this region are visible as a narrow plain adjacent to the Zagros piedmont, where

y/Z/y 2001 Surveyed Areas "-=7 X^^^^^^^^^^^S^ I ?*| 2002 Survey area ) ̂ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2003-2005 Surveys Areas

tr^N,r/X^^>>^^^^^^^^^^^^ vVvv Surveyed by Wright and Garter ^

Xv^VVvVvv^^ Not Surveyed areas ^

^

0 2.5 5 10 Kilometers ̂ ^^^^ 1 i i i I i i i I

\ j \

' Fzg. 2. Natural resources and the investigated

_I areas to the east of the Karun River.




^ ^ ^ ^ Late Middle Susiana Sites [y/ ^J^/^ l^- - \\ ^ A\v

. three zone -1 /. ' -^\\ XVs - Old Streams \ : ^J^s. \^

r^fc : * Prone Areas \::^:^::^:?rv'v-::^v::^:::/ ^ *

0 2.5 5 10 Kilometers V ?-..- ? r i v / ?? n . ? 7 i .iii \ \ \ Fig. 3. Late Middle Susiana sites located in the

_ /^-^^.. \ *

I Eastern Corridor.

the seasonal rivers emerge. The soils of the plain are

piedmontal, colluvial, saline and alluvial and the

vegetation consists generally of colonised flora in the

unstable alluvial soil along the ephemeral streams. The most visible landmarks in the western corner of the

plain?between Shushtar and Dar Khazineh?are a

series of low, parallel ridges, oriented east-west. A

pipeline running from Molla Sani to Ram Hormoz is the

major source of fresh water for the inhabitants of the

region. Although the average depth of the water table is

only about 10 m., there is no evidence of wells.

Pipe-irrigation based farming with an emphasis upon wheat, barley, oil seed and vegetables, is widespread between the left bank of the Gargar and the Dar

Khazineh area, in the north-west sector of the plain. Settled Bakhtiyari tribesmen engaged in fish farming and

sheep and goat herding occupy almost all of this part of

the plain in new suburbs of Shushtar, and constitute the

main work force for the town. They also rent part of their

land and irrigation facilities to non-local farmers from

Isfahan, Shiraz, Ardabil and elsewhere who grow

vegetables. Rural Arab communities, active in tractor

based dry farming and herding, occupy the rest of the

plain. They also rent their uncultivable land as pasture to

the Bakhtiyari nomads. In contrast to the Bakhtiyari tribes around Shushtar, the Arabs here have close ties to

Ahwaz, Ram Hormoz and the new, extended township of

Molla Sani. Renting land to homestead farmers by the

Arabs, who have received high power pipe-irrigation facilities from the local Water and Authority

Corporation, has become a major income source for the

Arabs in recent years.

111.1. The Dar Khazineh, Abgonji and Naft Sefid Zones

From west to east, the Eastern Corridor is composed of

several alluvial fans of varying size. All are roughly

cone-shaped, with their apex at the point where a

stream emerges from the mountains. Moving from

north-west to south-east, alluvial fans form three wadi

systems, each roughly oriented towards the Karun




River (Fig. 3). These are known locally as Dar

Khazineh, Abgonji and Naft Sefid (respectively marked

by D, A, N on Fig. 3). With a radial extent of about 13 km., the alluvial

fans of the Dar Khazineh zone exhibit a gently sloping incline. Most of these fans have been destroyed by the

later incisions created by the younger Gargar canal.

Lees and Falcon (1952) described this zone, and

emphasised that a build-up of surface level followed by erosion was caused by the rejuvenation of the river

system.

The Abgonji zone is flatter than the Dar Khazineh zone. At the present time the streams here have less

power and sediment supply than those of the Dar Khazineh and Naft Sefid zones, and the fan system seems to be relatively inactive. The distance from the

apex to the base level of the fans is short and the radial extent is about 11 km. Generally, this zone is comprised of larger gravel particles, which mostly occur in the northern deposits. The rock fragments are partially overlain by pebbles and cobbles.

The alluvial fans of the Naft Sefid Zone have their

apex in the Zagros folds to the north, where several

canyons cut deep into the range. The three largest canyons in this zone (from west to east) are Om Saleh, Hasan Shahi and Naft Sefid. The water in the Naft

Sefid, the deepest of the three, is both saline and oily because of the proximity of several oil seeps (Figs 2 and 3).

IV. SURVEY AND FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY

Prior to our study the only available data consisted of a

general description of the region (c.f Hamzepour et al.

1999), and a geological study done over 50 years ago that concentrated on problems of tectonics and alluvial

deposition (Lees and Falcon 1952). Although research in this area had been extremely limited, Alizadeh et al.

(2004: 69) proposed that, "during the Susiana and Protoliterate periods, human settlement in this region [the Eastern Corridor] was dispersed, intermittent and

shifting, due in part to a subsistence economy based on

opportunistic floodwater farming and small-scale sheep and goat herding". We were keen to determine whether this proposition was at all valid by identifying and inves

tigating the natural resources of the Eastern Corridor, which had been precluded by time constraints during our previous visit to the area in 2002. We aimed to

achieve this by recording every single archaeological feature in the survey area utilising a three-phase survey

methodology. The first phase involved a general recon

naissance of the plain from the east side of the Gargar River basin to the west bank of the Kondak stream in the most westerly part of the Ram Hormoz plain (Fig. 2). In

this phase, we tried to identify exploitable natural resources such as arable land, fresh water, available

pastures and minerals. In the second phase, we conducted systematic,

intensive and extensive survey, identifying features on

CORONA satellite images and then, using a GPS,

recording those features on the ground. This approach was particularly fruitful in the flat, less dissected eastern section of the Naft Sefid Zone, where we were able to

record, among other things, an ancient qanat system. We

also conducted extensive surveys in the wider tracts

between the Zagros foothills in the north and the Kupal anticline in the south, to investigate any archaeological features and also document the natural resource

exploitation strategies of the modern inhabitants. In this

way we discovered that the Bakhtiyari nomads

exploited two major zones here during their winter

cycle. For reasons of security, availability of

pastureland, accessibility of fresh water and ease of access to towns for the exchange of goods, nomad

camps were located in the southern Zagros folds and

along the southern slopes of the Kupal anticline (Fig. 2). In contrast to the Deh Luran plain, where springs are abundant (Abi Garm and Ain Qir in the north-west and

north, Ain-e Girzan in the south and the Dwairij and Mehmeh Rivers on both sides of the plain; Neely and

Wright 1994), there is no natural source of perennial water in the Eastern Corridor. However, during the rainy winter, nomads use the deeply incised gullies to gather water. Because of the stony nature of the Zagros foothills, this strategy is highly practical in the area closest to the mountains. At several points in the Zagros foothills we found oil seeps (Fig. 2), another potentially important natural resource in antiquity. This is one of the

most oil-rich areas in Khuzestan, especially the Naft-e Sefid Zone.

The third phase of our investigations, which were conducted in May 2005, was devoted to intensive

survey around the major prehistoric sites of Chogha Chanbar (KS 1638) and Tall-e Abuchizan (KS 1663). The aim of our survey at KS 1638 was to systematical ly collect material from the surface of the site and

adjacent gullies. Although intensive sampling can be




1 2 3

4

5 6

^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Fzg. 4. Zate Middle Susiana, Late Susiana I and Late Susiana II ceramics from various sites.




Catalogue and parallels for ceramics shown in Figure 4.

No. Site Description Dating Reference and Notes

1 KS 1663 Buff ware, fine sand temper Late Middle Susiana Delougaz and Kantor 1996: Family XXVIII

2 KS 1663 Dull orange ware, no visible Late Middle Susiana Delougaz and Kantor 1996: Family inclusion XVIII

3 KS 1656 Buff ware Late Susiana 1 Weiss 1976: fig. 13:20

4 KS 1663 Buff ware, dark greenish brown Late Susiana 1

painting, no visible inclusion

5 KS 1663 Buff ware, some small sand Late Susiana 1 (Bakun BII) Egami and Sono 1962: pl.XXXVIIIB:5 granulates visible on the surface

6 KS 1638 Buff ware, dark greenish brown Late Susiana 1-2

painting, no visible inclusion

7 KS 1650 Buff ware, sand temper, Late Susiana 2 brownish dark green painting,

8 KS 1663 Dull yellow orange, no visible Late Susiana 2 Pottier 1922: pi. 11:2 inclusion

9 KS 1638 Buff ware, black brown painting, Late Susiana 2 no visible inclusion




difficult in such a heavily dissected area, which makes travel by car or on foot problematic at the best of times, erosion also has the occasional benefit of exposing features such as kilns and pits around a site.

V. SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT

VI. Late Middle to Late Susiana Phases (5100-^1000 B.C.)

The cultural sequence in the easternmost region of Khuzestan seems to have begun primarily in the Late

Village Period (Hole 1987c: 33). There appear to be some surface indicators of earlier settlements in the

Ram Hormoz, Behbahan and Zohreh plains: "one sherd" at Tol es-Suwada in Ram Hormoz (RH-3), might be dated to the Early Susiana phase (Wright and Carter 2003: 65), and BZ.35 (Archaic Susiana) and BZ.59

(Early Susiana) in Behbahan, and BZ.93, BZ.71 and BZ.97 (Early Susiana) in the Zohreh plain, appear to

have earlier occupation (Dittmann 1984: 67). However, it is difficult to assess these finds without excavation.

The apparent paucity of human settlement in the Eastern Corridor before this time could be attributed to

several factors. For example, earlier sites may have been

obscured by an active aggradation regime. Intensive

geoarchaeological survey in the Dar Khazineh zone in

2002 showed that around the time of the Late Susiana

phase (Susiana d and e), the base levels of wadi systems to the east of the Gargar River were significantly higher than they are at present (Alizadeh et al. 2004). Moreover, further studies on the sediments have documented

evidence of regular and, in some cases, continuous

aggradation after the Middle Susiana phase (Alizadeh et

al. 2004). Viewed from this perspective, the archaeolog ical contexts at Dar Khazineh, which are buried beneath

2 m. of overburden, become understandable. However, other factors seem to be at work as well.

Geoarchaeological studies carried out in the Dar

Khazineh area have also confirmed that "due to consid

erable variation in wadi catchments and basin morpholo

gies, significant flooding and aggradation probably occurred only under specific conditions" (Alizadeh et al.

2004: 73). Indeed, downcutting by streams would have

exposed earlier occupation horizons that were buried by later depositional activities. The site of Dar Khazineh is

a classic example. Part of the site was deeply buried;

however, clear evidence of archaeological deposits in the

extensively dissected and exposed sections was visible.

Nevertheless, of all the sites recorded between the left bank of the Karun and the western edge of the Ram Hormoz plain, Dar Khazineh is an exception. Apart for one site (KS 1593, where some late Susiana 1 sherds were found in a sounding) all of the prehistoric cultural

deposits (KS 1508, 1580, 1617, 1630, 1638, 1642, 1650, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1648, 1663 and 1649) are

visible at plain level. Furthermore, soundings at the

prehistoric mounds of KS 1508, KS 1593 and KS 1617 in the Mianab Plain (Moghaddam 2005) and Tall-e Abu Chizan (KS 1663) (Moghaddam et al 2007b) in the Eastern Corridor showed that they were all established on virgin soil along the east bank of the Karun River from the Late Middle Susiana phase onwards. No other sites buried by flood deposits like Dar Khazineh have yet been found in this region.

The earliest evidence of settlement in the Eastern Corridor dates to the Late Middle Susiana (LMS or

Susiana c) phase (Fig. 4). The LMS period sites include

Chogha Chanbar (KS 1638) in the west and Tall-e Abu Chizan (KS 1663) in the east. With 2 m. of visible cultural deposits and an area of about 2 ha., Chogha Chanbar lies on relatively stable land on the left bank of the deep Pir Gori wadi (Fig. 3). Intensive surface

sampling showed that LMS sherds were distributed

densely over the central part of the site. This was the case

at Tall-e Abu Chizan as well, which is located on the

alluvial fan of the upper Darreh Naft. Although highly dissected, LMS occupation at Abu Chizan may be

estimated at about 4?5 ha. The qanat system of the Islamic site KS 1666 (see below) caused some damage to Abu Chizan, with over 11 qanat shafts having been excavated just beside the north-eastern, eastern and

southern slopes of the site.

During the Late Susiana phase (LS), the Eastern

Corridor became increasingly settled. Throughout the

first stage (Susiana d/LSl) small sites appeared along the major stream courses (Fig. 5). Chogha Chanbar (KS

1638) and Tall-e Abu Chizan (KS 1663) continued to be inhabited. Intensive surface sampling revealed that the

distribution of LS material differed at each site. At

Chogha Chanbar, for example, LS distribution was

patchy, and was concentrated mostly in the east. At Abu

Chizan, on the other hand, early LS material was found

all over the site along with some evidence of the

following, Terminal Susa A phase. Additionally, ten

new sites covering 12.1 ha. of occupation are known

from the LS stage (Fig. 5). Significantly, eight sites

presented evidence of only the first stage of the LS




^^^^^

^ K- N 1 ^^\\\\\\V

Late Susiana 1 Sites - ̂ / ['/ }' ' : j/J

' / >

. three zone J^Y^:: :L^- \\ \ No\ - Old Streams ?_- -i ( Oi

:J Prone Areas \ %. \ Late Susisana I Sites (2001 Survey) V

?,2,5,,,, Z,0 Kilometers V "v^*\. Fig. 5. Late Susiana I sites located in the Eastern

_^ | Corridor and the Mianah Plain.

TABLE 1. Early Occupation in the Eastern Corridor. LMS=Late Middle Susiana, LSl=Late Susiana I, LS2=Late Susiana II, TSA= Terminal Susa A, Ur=Uruk

KS ID I X I Y I NAME I AREA ILMSI LSI I LS2 I TSA I Ur

KS1626 309788 3532460 DAR KHAZINEH cal x ? KS1630 316704 3521117 CHAM FARAJ E ? x

KS1638 306000 3537572 CHOGHA CHANBAR 215xl95=4.1h x x x x~~

KS1642 318119 3525467 ? 91x67=0.6h x

KS1648 327430 3495690 ABU SAKHAR 113x76=0.8h x

KS1649 314513 3524563 CHAMFARAJ S 58x40=0.2 x

KS1650 333182 3492107 ROGHEYVEH A Now/242x93=2.2h x x ? x~~

KS1655 337065 3490606 SALEMIYEH Now/47x21=0.09h x

KS1656 337255 3491262 ISHAN MOHAMMAD 101x78=0.7 x

KS1657 328891 3493698 EBADAT 224x167=3.7h x x x~~

KS1658 332360 3496733 ALAUNEH 94x96=0.9h x

KS1663 326312 3504819 ABU CHIZAN main mound: 341x175=5.9h/Uruk x x x x x

sector: 160x13 l=2h




if I A I I

/ ^ v

1 I # \

1

3

Fzg. (5. hoes from KS 1638 and KS 1663.

Catalogue and parallels for ceramics shown in Figure 6


1 KS 1638 Limestone Uruk (?) Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 244:A

2 KS 1663 Sandstone Middle Susiana Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 245:Q Surface

3 KS 1663 Grey stone Late Middle Susiana Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 246:G




Late Susiana 2 Sites J^/^ vk \ AV . three zone _- -l

^ \ - Old Streams \; :..^NNw ^ \ r^Ut * Prone Areas ̂ "

? | ^ Kilometers V -~

~"\ ^ /r/g 7 Susiana II sites located in the Eastern

_\,_^_Corridor.

period while two contained both stages of LS and later

Uruk period (Table 1) (Figs 4-9). Settlement in the Dar Khazineh and Ab Gonji Zones

was intermittent and dispersed compared to that of the Naft-e Sefid Zone, in which settlements were clustered

(around the modern villages of Roghayveh and

Salemiyeh) and formed more integrated units. We must

bear in mind, however, that the Dar Khazineh and Ab

Gonji Zones are located on the least stable land with the most active drainage systems, whereas the Naft-e Sefid

Zone is located in an area of higher elevation which is, for

the most part, untouched by agricultural disturbance.

Another point to bear in mind is that is relevant to the site

clustering phenomenon observed in the Naft-e Sefid

Zone, the eastern part of the area, particularly in the north western part of Salemiyeh and south of Roghayveh, is

prone to the pooling of rainwater (as the name

"Roghayveh" indicates). For a short time of the year in

winter this area becomes a lagoon. The area around the

small prehistoric site of KS 1617 in the southern part of

the Mianab Plain is in a similar situation, suggesting that areas with more accessible water resources were

preferred for settlement in the LS period. The dense stands of Tamarix around the south-western edge of KS

1663, the north-eastern edge of KS 1657, the north sector

of KS 1650 and the southern part of KS 1656 also reflect

higher soil moisture in direct proximity to areas of ancient

occupation. The recovery of stone hoes at KS 1638, KS

1626, KS 1630, KS 1656 and KS 1663 (Fig. 6), suggests that their prehistoric inhabitants practiced agriculture. Future studies, especially the excavation of some small

LSI sites in the region, will help us to better understand

the links between soils, water, land-use and occupation in

this part of the Eastern Corridor.

By the end of the LS period, settlement declined

throughout the plain (Fig. 7). Ceramics of the LS2 phase occurred on four sites (KS 1638, 1657, 1663 and 1650)

(Fig. 4) and there may have been some ongoing occupation into the later LS period at Tappe Roghayveh. Finally, it is interesting to note that road works near

Roghayveh village have exposed the stratigraphy of KS

1650, dividing the site into a northern and a southern area. In the northern area we could see a very relatively thin cultural layer (about 30 cm. thick). The rest of the




^ ^^^^ Uruk Sites >_^_-

.C^^^^ ^^^^^^^Xv . three zone \ ^Ns_ \ \ ) \ ^ - Old Streams \ ' ' . / V Oa \ :;':':';-'( *

<f: s Prone Areas \ \?-? Uruk Sites (2001 Survey) \^ \ \

0 2.5 5 10 Kilometers v. a-?. \ *

Fig. 8. Uruk sites located in the Eastern Corridor

'''and tne Mianab Plain.

deposit was a soft, sandy loam. In the southern area, on

the other hand, evidence of cultural deposit was more

substantial, with densely scattered sherds, evidence of

kilns, and burials. Dense stands of Tamarix cover the

northern part of the site but because of salinity no

cultivation occurs there.

V.2. Uruk Period (3900-3300 B.C.)

The plain was only partially occupied in the fourth

millennium B.C. Characteristic sherds of this period were only recorded at four sites (KS 1638, 1657, 1663

and 1650) (Figs 8 and 9). The Uruk material at both

Tall-e Abu Chizan (KS 1663) and Chogha Chanbar (KS

1638) indicates the presence of pottery and lithic

workshops along the watercourses that run beside these

sites. At Chogha Chanbar, there were many over-fired

Uruk sherds and pieces of slag on the south-western

slope of the site, while at Abu Chizan, in addition to

slag, wasters and traces of kilns, core fragments, flakes

and blades were found, mostly in the eastern and

northern or north-eastern sector of the site, where Uruk

pottery was particularly dense. In contrast, only

sporadic sherds were found at KS 1650.

VJ.Susa III-IV(3100-2600 B.C.)

The evidence of occupation during the late fourth and

early third millennia B.C. is not very clear. In the Ab

Gonji and Dar Khazineh zones, only scattered sherds

dating to this period were identified, while a large, extended site of this period is located in the Naft-e Sefid zone (KS 1665). In the Dar Khazineh zone, ceramic

scatters near KS 1638 and south of KS 1626 indicate

occupation during this period (Fig. 10). Judging by a

number of exposed large stone slabs seen there, KS

1665, a site of about 5.4 ha., some 2 km. north of Tall-e

Abu Chizan and a few hundred metres south of the

Zagros foothills (Table 2), was used as a cemetery.

Unfortunately, the site is endangered by highly active




watercourses. We also have some scattered sherds of this period at Tall-e Samirat (KS 1643) (Fig. 11).

V.4. Old (Shimashki, Sukkalmah), Middle and Neo

Elamite Periods (2600-539 B.C.)

Near the small village of Salemiyeh, in the eastern part of the Naft-e Sefid zone, is a cluster of about seven

small sites (KS 1670) with a total area of c. 15 ha.

dating to the late third millennium B.C. (Table 2). Another late third/early second millennium site was

identified south of Roghayveh village in the Naft-e Sefid zone (KS 1651). As in the LSI phase, all of the third millennium occupations in the Naft-e Sefid zone

were sited in close proximity to water sources (Fig. 12). A relative paucity of late third millennium

settlement (Shimashki phase) and some evidence of

slight growth in the number of early second millennium sites (Sukkalmah phase), possibly linked to agricultur al extensification, has been reported for central Khuzestan (Carter 1971: 178, 182-84). By this time

political relationships united the Susiana lowlands with the highlands of Fars (particularly Anshan), which was a trend that developed further during the Middle Elamite period (Potts 1999: 156-57, 178).

During the earlier part of the Old Elamite period, sites in central Khuzestan were established along natural trade routes (Carter 1971: 179). Mesopotamian texts refer to exchange between Mesopotamia and

Elam, with Elamite exports mainly being goods from the mountainous Zagros areas or the Iranian plateau

which were transported to Mesopotamia along a network of natural corridors in Khuzestan in exchange for Mesopotamian agro-pastoral products. The Ram Hormuz plain was evidently connected to Central Khuzestan and Mesopotamia by two main routes, one of which stretched from the Ram Hormuz plain to Ahwaz across what Carter has described as "badlands" while the other followed the "western edge of the inner chain to Band-e Qir or Shushtar" (Carter 1971: 253). Ram Hormoz was itself connected to Fars, the Persian Gulf coast and the Central Plateau by an easterly and

northerly network of routes.

TABLE 2. Later Occupation in the Eastern corridor: PE=Proto Elamite, E=Elamite, A-S-P=Acheamenid-Seleucid-Parthian, S-I Sasanian-Islamic

KSID I X I Y I NAME I AREA I PE I E IA-S-PI S-I

KS1625 307095 3538690 BARD-E KAREGAR 320x253=8h x

KS1627 313417 3532551 North of Dar Khazineh x

KS1629 305406 3535609 NURALIW 181x246=4.46h x

KS1640 305155 3535609 NURALI Now/470x210=11.2h x x x

KS1643 319693 3507871 SAMIRAT 573x455=26.07h x x x ><

KS1646 316087 3523490 CHAM FARAJ E 30 x x x

KS1651 332782 3489017 ZORGANIYEH 154x82=1.2h ><

KS1652 332782 3489017 ROGHEYVEH B 151xl79=2.7h ><

KS1653 332543 3492648 ROGHEYVEH C 127x163-2.07 >< ><

KS1654 330708 3491926 KAR EVAN SARA I 1905xl410-268.6h x

KS1659 335327 3493431 ? 115x92=lh x

KS1660 335989 3495074 MEHEBES 184x69= 1.2h ><

KS1661 321907 3501745 TALL-E HOSNIYEH 549x571=31.3h >< ? KS1662 327316 3495820 TAPPE SHAJIRAT 216x82=1.7 x

KS1664 323048 3505177 ISHAN AL ASVAD 301x241=7.2h ><

KS1665 328010 3506271 ? 338x161=5.4 x

KS1666 325285 3503831 ? 671x760=50.9h x KS1670 338888 3488891 ? 98x83=0.8h x




2

V-1 < 3

4

5

Fzg. P. Late Uruk ceramics from KS 1663.






1 KS 1663 Light brown ware, coarse and Uruk Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 91:K

gritty, some white dots visible on (Similar not identical) surface Wright 1981: fig. 52:i (Similar not

identical) 2 KS 1663 Orange ware, outer surface is Uruk Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 91:F

fairly smoothed Wright 1981: fig. 42:f

3 KS 1663 Buff ware, band rim Uruk Delougaz and Kantor, 1996: pi. 109:E-F

(Similar not identical) Wright 1981: fig. 44:a-d

4 KS 1663 Buff ware, coarse, chaff temper Uruk Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 83:AA

5 KS 1663 Orange ware, coarse Uruk Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pi. 83:P-R




Proto-Elamaite Sites (Susa IV) 3-^"^

^^^\\ Pottery scattered areas i-'

::>:^:-:-.-;--.v.-.\:^:-:; .S^^ ^ \\

. three zone ^?-' ^^w^^^* \ \ ^ \ ? ^> - Old Streams .: ^ \ 7^

^ :::I-- 's Prone Areas ~ <v^0

Proto-Elamite-Susa IV Sites (2001 Survey) : : , ,

o 2.5 5 10 Kilometers ^ Fig. 10. Susa IV sites located in the Eastern 1*"H I Corridor and the Mianab Plain.

Evidence of the Old Elamite period appears to be

lacking in this area (or it might not have been identified

correctly). Nevertheless, the location of our survey area

in relation to other known Old Elamite sites as well as the

pattern of Middle Elamite period sites (discussed below) suggest that this region could have played a connecting role along the corridor linking Mesopotamia, north western and central Khuzestan, the Ram Hormoz area, eastern Fars and probably also to the shores of the

Persian Gulf. An Ur III inscription concerning the

building of a temple for the Elamite god Ruhurater at

Huhnur by the Ur III ruler Amar-Suen, has recently been

discovered at Tall-e Bormi (RH 11, c. 4 km. south-east of Ram Hormoz), identifying the site with Sumerian

Huhnur (Elamite Hunar) (Mofidi Nasrabadi 2005; Potts

n.d.). At the same time, it strengthens the idea that Ram

Hormuz and the archaeological sites near it lay along a

major land route linking Ram Hormuz and Shushtar which can be followed through sites like KS 1543, 1593

and 1614 in the Mianab Plain, KS 1651 to the east of the

GargarandRH 11 (Fig. 12).

In the late second millennium, the plain witnessed the

emergence of solid and densely settled occupation

arranged in a linear pattern. The sites appear to have been

predominantly nucleated towns extending in a line

parallel to the Zagros foothills in the north and the low

sandy hills (Kupal anticline) in the south, with a greater concentration in the southern section of the area (Fig. 12).

Evidence of the concentration of population in

larger settlements in this period in central Khuzestan

(Carter 1971: 190) is complemented by the appearance of large town sites in the Eastern Corridor as well.

Generally speaking, there is an increase in the number

of sites in Khuzestan at this time. Wright and Carter

(2003: 67) have suggested that, because of population increase in the central Susiana plain, settlements

probably expanded onto the Ram Hormoz plain after

about 1700 B.C. and "during the later second

millennium, Middle Elamite settlement expanded to

unprecedented levels". A major middle Elamite settlement in the western

part of the Eastern Corridor was identified at Nur Ali (KS




11/ 1

3

Fzg. 77. Susa IV ceramics from KS 1643 and KS 1665.

Catalogue and parallels for ceramics shown in Figure 11.


1 KS 1643 Buff ware, sand temper, some Susa IV (?) straw air pockets are visible on the

surface, greenish brown painting 2 KS 1665 Light brown to grey fine ware, red Second half of third Carter 1980: fig. 25:5

slip, outer surface is smoothed millennium B.C. (Susa IVA) 3 KS 1665 Buff ware, grit temper, greenish Second half of third Carter 1980: fig. 28:5

brown temper millennium B.C. (Susa IVA)




tl// "4^ Silt/ T' ' I SI

* ' ^^"^^OxXXXXV^

^ Elamaite Sites ^ _(^^^^^ ^^^^\ .three zone V:.-v.-

.\^ - Old Streams V:^v::^:^::^:vV-;;;:: N

f: ;:;^;:'s Prone Areas v:::- : .< Elamaite Sites(Survey 2001)

~

\ ^ Fig. 12. Elamite sites located in the Eastern 0 3 6 12 Kilometers /^\\ _& .___ Corridor and the Mianab Plain.

1640). Most of the western and south-western parts of the site have been washed away by the periodic shifts in the channel of the Gargar while the lateral movement of the Nur Ali wadi has eroded the northern parts of the site. Results of an initial investigation of this site have already been reported (Alizadeh et al 2004). Further north, there is a barely accessible Elamite temple site at Bard-e

Karegar (KS 1625)4 where a vast area of scattered, broken bricks?both plain and inscribed?caught the attention of looters who undertook illegal diggings in recent years. With the permission of the ICAR, we made a sounding in the site (Alizadeh 2003a; Kozuh 2003; Alizadeh et al 2004). One group of inscribed bricks comes from a temple of the Elamite goddess Pinigir built

by the Middle Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte and restored by Shilhak-Inshushinak. Another group of bricks refers to the restoration of a temple of Kamul by Shutruk-Nakhunte (Kozuh 2003). The building activities of both Shutruk-Nahhunte and Shilhak-Inshushinak are

attested at several other sites in Khuzestan and Fars

(Potts 1999: 232-33, 238). The extent of Nur Ali and Bard-e Karegar is unclear. At Nur Ali, the shifting of the

Gargar has changed the configuration of the entire site. At Bard-e Karegar sherds are scattered over an area of at

least 8 ha. but the archaeological deposits seem to be shallow. There are two places in which baked bricks are

densely distributed: a raised area of solid bedrock in the south-central part of the site, and an area in the south eastern part of the site, which is covered by heavy gravels and baked bricks, some of which are inscribed.

In the Ab Gonji Zone, a vast area (about 30 ha.)

densely covered with Middle Elamite sherds was

recorded (KS 1646). The pattern of pottery distribution

suggested that this was in fact a cluster of sites. For the

moment, our understanding of KS 1646 is based only on the surface data and further surveys and excavations will be necessary to arrive at a more accurate under

standing of the nature of this site. Similar sites have been recorded in the Mianab plain (see Moghaddam and Miri 2003, Table 1: KS 1517, KS 1543).




The distribution of Middle Elamite sites in the

Naft-e Sefid Zone suggests a linear pattern along a

corridor extending from Shushtar to Ram Hormoz.

Moving from west to east, the sites are as follows:

1. Tall-e Samirat (KS 1643). Located near the modern

village of Samirat along the Darreh Naft, exposed baked-brick walls, burials, wells, thousands of pits with innumerable chaff-tempered sherds and vast

black, burnt areas cover an area of about c. 26.07 ha.

that stands c. 8 m. high (Figs 13-14) . The southern

slope of the site is heavily washed out by the seasonal

flooding of the Darreh Naft and takes the form of a

geologically young terrace.

2. Tall-e Hosniyeh (KS 1661). With a height of 10 m.

and a total area of c. 31.3 ha., the site is located on the

northern bank of the Darreh Haddam, a few hundred metres south of the Darreh Naft and a few kilometres north-west of the modern village of Kargeh. Like KS

1643, the site is covered with thousands of sherds and baked bricks (Fig. 14). It is interesting that on the eastern slope of the site, as at Samirat, roughly rounded pits with signs of burning totally cover the area. On the northern slope of the site just close to the

centre, several glazed frit sherds beside a massive baked brick wall are also clearly noticeable. In the

south, the down-cutting of the Darreh Haddam has

exposed a section containing thousands of sherds,

chaff-tempered footed goblets and baked bricks. At both Samirat and Hosniyeh, there is evidently a vast catchment area with low mounds and sporadic artefacts scattered around the northern part of the site,

probably representing secondary occupation. 3. Shajirat (KS 1662). The Darreh Haddam has eroded

most of the northern area of occupation. Currently the site covers about 1.7 ha. with its highest point 5 m.

above the young terrace of the Darreh Haddam. The southern and south-western slopes of the site are smooth. The modern Arab inhabitants of the region use the higher parts of the site as a graveyard. Sherd

density on the site is low. 4. KS 1652 and 1653. Together these mounds cover a

total of 4.77 ha. The village cemetery is located on the lower mound (KS 1652).

The linear alignment of these sites strongly suggests the existence of an important transport corridor through this

plain (Fig. 12), linking Ram Hormoz and Central Khuzestan.

Evidence of the Neo-Elamite period is very limited and

it seems, that after the Middle Elamite period, the

settlement pattern of the area changed dramatically In

the Naft-e Sefid Zone, KS 1653 revealed some

evidence of first millennium B.C. occupation, as did Tall-e Hosniyeh (KS 1661) (Figs 12 and 14). The gradual development of the irrigation system in the

neighbouring Mianab plain may have been one of the

key factors in this change. Nevertheless, the long list of

Elamite toponyms in the Assyrian records suggests that

Khuzestan must have had an ample population at this time (Potts 1999: 28).5 Looking at the evidence of Neo Elamite period prosperity in eastern Khuzestan and settlement decline in central Khuzestan, Wright and

Carter (2003: 69-72) have proposed that "pressured on

the west by the Assyrians, on the north by the Medes and on the east by the Persians, the Elamites may well have sought refuge in the Ram Hormoz and Behbahan

valleys". By this time, Elam was no longer "a unified state linking the highlands of Fars and the lowlands of

Khuzestan", and it has been suggested that during this

period the kingdom of Anshan probably became

independent (Potts 1999: 259, 273; Carter 1984: 189).

Separation between the lowland and highland territories of the Elamite kingdom in this period may account for the change in the settlement pattern of Neo Elamite sites in the survey area, in particular, and in other parts of eastern Khuzestan in general. Nevertheless, the linear pattern of sites observed in the Middle Elamite period is still apparent (Fig. 12).

V.5. Achaemenid and Seleucid-Parthian Period

During the Achaemenid period and to some extent later, there was some continued occupation at the earlier, often Elamite settlements, such as Tall-e Hosniyeh (KS 1661) (Fig. 15) (Table 2). As for Achaemenid sites in the neighbouring areas, Tall-e Bormi (RH 11) or ancient Hunar?referred to above as an old Elamite site?is mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian sources and also in the Achaemenid Persepolis fortification texts as a station along the Persepolis-Susa road (PF 10:2 f, PF

11:4, PF 255, 406, 479 f, 734, 924, 970, 1790, 2019, 2026, 2082, 4765; Hallock 1969; Potts n.d.). Furthermore, towards the north-west and in the central

part of the Mianab plain beside the Karun River, there is another potentially important Achaemenid site (KS 1593), whose fine Achaemenid sherds distinguished it




_^^^^^^

4 5

Fzg. 73. tf/a/mte ceramics from KS 1643, KS 1651 andKS 1652.






1 KS 1643 Buff ware, mineral and chaff Middle Elamite (Mid Carter 1981: fig. 89:r (Similar not

temper, wheel made second millennium B. C.) identical) 2 KS 1651 Orange ware, mineral and chaff Middle Elamite (Late Carter 1996: fig. 27:24

temper second millennium B. C.)

3 KS 1652 Buff ware with cream slip, (?) mineral temper, brown painting

4 KS 1643 Orange to brownish red ware Middle Elamite (Late Carter 1996: fig. 21:12 with buff slip on exterior, second millennium B.C.) mineral and chaff temper

5 KS 1643 Orange ware with buff slip, mineral and chaff temper




^^^^^

6

Fig. 14. Elamite ceramics from KS 1643 and KS 1661.



6 KS 1643 Orange ware, mineral and Old Elamite (Kaftari) chaff temper, reddish dark brown painting, black core

7 KS 1661 Greyish white, fragment of Middle Elamite (Late second millennium Carter 1996: fig. 30:6-8 faience disk or tile B. C.)

Neo-Elamite (early first millennium B.C.) Miroschedji 1981: fig. 27:6-7




^ I"" sjfr " I ,i,= - -

" <f \\ \ Kupal J ̂ \\\\\\\\ . >i<* s4?c - ^ ^Ut '' - -4^ Jy^j /^^^ ^^^"^Txvvv

Acheamenid/Seleucid/Parthian Sites ̂ ^^^^^^^

.three zone V ;-:.;.v \v. .. :,. /. :^\\ 1^ N

- Old Streams \^ ^ ) ^> is -EvProne Areas \ < Acheamenid/Seleucid/Parthian Sites (2001 Survey)

^^v^ *to,

0 3 6 12 Kilometers \^ /^\\ | Fig. 15. Achaemenid and Seleucid-Parthian sites in 1 1 11 1 11 1

1_I the Eastern Corridor and the Mianab Plain.

from other, smaller contemporary sites. The site covers

about 3 ha. and is 8 m. high. Its surface collection includes LSI, Elamite, Achaemenid, Seleucid and Sasanian sherds (Moghaddam and Miri 2003; Attai

2005: 476-95). No major Achaemenid site has been

reported from the area north of Shushtar.

Judging by the distribution of Elamite and

Achaemenid sites, it seems probable that there was a

minor, westerly shift in settlement during the

Achaemenid period in contrast to the more north-north

westerly orientation of Elamite sites. Further

suggestions about Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid

settlement patterns in the investigated area must await

comprehensive analysis of the survey ceramics.

One new site in the Naft-e Sefid Zone (Ishan Al

Aswad?KS 1664) is a Seleucid-Parthian/Elymaean site with a cemetery consisting of large stone structures

in the east and an extended black burnt area (pottery kilns?) in the west. This highly dissected site is located on the right bank (north) of the Darreh Naft and covers

over 6 ha. Another low mound (KS 1683) in the Dar

Khazineh Zone, to the north-east of Dar Khazineh (KS 1626), yielded Seleucid-Parthian/Elymaean period sherds (Figs 15 and 16) (Table 2). The low elevation and isolated nature of these sites is characteristic of this

period throughout Susiana (Wenke 1981: 313-14). In

the south, near the Gargar River, sporadic Parthian

sherds have also been recorded but the highly dissected nature of the terrain does not allow us to say much about the site where they were found (Fig. 15).

Significant Seleucid-Parthian sites are known in

neighbouring areas, however. These include Masjed Soleyman and Bard-e Nechandeh (Ghirshman 1976; Bivar and Shaked 1964), Shushtar (Rahbar n.d.), and Izeh and Malamir (Vanden Berghe and Schipmann 1985: pi. 2). The Ram Hormoz survey also identified some Parthian (or early Sasanian?) sites (Wright and Carter 2003: 72). The continuous occupation of the Ram Hormoz area from Elamite to Islamic times and its location along the Achaemenid Royal Road and later




s==r7 1

2

3

4

1 5

76. Seleucid-Parthian ceramics from KS 1664 and Islamic ceramics from KS 1654.






1 KS 1664 Buff ware, mineral temper Seleucid Miroschedji 1987: fig. 19:11 Boucharlat 1987: fig. 58:13 Similar examples have been found in

Mianab Plain KS 1530, KS 1593, and KS 1616

2 KS 1664 Orange ware with buff slip, Post-Achaemenid (?) Miroschedji 1987: fig. 16:4 mineral and chaff temper (Similar not identical)

3 KS 1664 Buff fine ware, mineral temper Seleucid-Parthian (?)

4 KS 1654 Buff ware, molded decoration, Second half of the ninth and Rosen-Ayalon 1972: fig. 195:3 mineral temper early tenth century A.D. Similar examples have also been found

in KS 1622 (Askar Mukarram site), KS 1520, KS 1521, KS 1530, KS, 1554,

KS, 1567 and KS 1577 in the Mianab Plain.

5 KS 1654 Orange ware with buff slip, Abbasid Period Kervran 1977: fig. 29:6 (greenish light mineral temper yellow)

Identical in form and incised lines

type, different in rim form. Similar examples have been found in KS 1622 (Askar Mukarram site) in the Mianab Plain




Sasanian/Early Islamic Sites 1/ f ::y/ / / y^VN \ \v\> ' Prone Areas f \\\ New Streams N

V\\;:;--:;^v:-:^. \\. ^ ^ G Old Gargar \: :.::^:-:::^vA.-:-:v:v-:: J \w S

x oanatsysytems \ / \ Fig. 17'. Sascmicin-Early Islamic sites in the sasaman/Eariy islamic sites(2ooi survey) x "

\^ % Eastern Corridor and the Mianab Plain. The

0 2-s s io Kilometers x^'--- \

* circles show the two large clustered Early-Middle

"_^-w' ^^^-4^ Islamic sites of KS 1666 and KS 1654.

Islamic trade routes, suggests that it was an important area during the Parthian and Sasanian periods as well. This seems to be true of the Eastern Corridor as well,

although the number of sites is not large. The locations of KS 1664 and KS 1683 in a line between Ram Hormoz and Shushtar and evidence from later periods, presented below, strengthen the possibility of the existence of such a path and its continued use over time.

V.6. Sasanian and Early Islamic Period

Evidence from the Sasanian period is limited. Possible Sasanian sherds were collected near Nur Ali and Samirat (KS 1640 and KS 1643) and a few small areas

of occupation have been observed near other large Middle Elamite sites (KS 1652, KS 1653), but because of the problem of differentiating Sasanian from Early Islamic pottery, we cannot consider them confirmed.

Otherwise, material found to the north-east of KS

1643, and east of KS 1629 would be our only direct evidence of Sasanian occupation in this period (Fig. 17) (Table 2).

Sasanian urban, agricultural and industrial develop ments were mostly concentrated in the western parts of Khuzestan where the major watercourses provided the basis for agricultural intensification around Susa (Iran Khurrah Shahbuhr, renamed by Shapur II, A.D.

309-79), Shushtar, Ivan-e Karkhe (Iran Shahr Shahbuhr, founded by Shapur II, A.D. 309-79), Ahwaz (Hormozd Ardashir, founded by Ardashir I, A.D. 224-40) and

Jundishapur (Weh az Andiag Shahbuhr, founded by Shapur I, A.D. 240-70) as well as in western Fars, at

Bishapur (founded by Shapur I) and Arrajan (Weh az Amid Qobad, founded by Qobad I, A.D.

488-96/498-531). The absence of a major watercourse in this part of Khuzestan may help explain the scarcity of large Sasanian sites (Moghaddam 2007a).




^HHHHH^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^HH Fig. Early JB^^ngjn^g^^^^^^njMRMRR^ Islamic site of Karevansara

t^^^^Hjj^H^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B (KS 1654) and its linked

While the Eastern Corridor is located to the north of the main road linking Ctesiphon, the Sasanian capital in

Mesopotamia, and Fars (which passed through Ahwaz

and Ram Hormoz), another road could have connected the Sasanian towns of Shushtar and Ram Hormoz. Shushtar was developed under Shapur I (A.D. 240-70) who settled the captives of his Roman wars in the town

and expanded the textile industry, establishing new

infrastructure and hydraulic projects including the

Shadorvan weir (Tabari 1999: 29-30), Band-e Mizan and Band-e Mahibazan. The foundation of Ram

Hormoz, on the other hand, is attributed to Hormozd I

(A.D. 270-71) (Tabari 1999: 43). It is probable that the Eastern Corridor route was put to good use by Shushtar's textile industry. The importance of Ram

Hormoz along the major Iraq-Khuzestan-Fars trade road is documented by the early Islamic geographers.

Most of these roads passed through Ram Hormoz but




Ibn Hawqal recorded an itinerary between Ram Hormoz and Shushtar via Askar Mukarram as part of the major road from Arrajan to Susa (Ibn Hawqal 1967:

258). Considering the fact that Askar Mukarram was

only founded in the Islamic era, during the Sasanian

period, the main road may well have passed through the Eastern Corridor, just as it did in earlier periods. Although there is no record of this road in the early Islamic geographical texts, the pattern of Sasanian and

early Islamic sites strongly suggests the existence of such a route (Fig. 17), as does the absence of major Islamic sites in the Ab Gonji or Dar Khazineh zones.

In the Islamic period, a major expansion took place across the southern section of the plain (Fig. 17). Islamic sites are more concentrated in the Naft-e Sefid Zone and towards Askar Mukaram. The foundation of Askar Mukarram as a base camp for the capture of Izeh and Ram Hormoz (Baladhuri 1866: 383) may explain why the early and middle Islamic occupations are con

centrated in this part of the plain. It is probable that other smaller, Arab communities also coalesced after the invasion of the Arab Muslims and the establishment of Askar Mukarram.

In the Naft-e Sefid Zone, between the modern

Roghayveh and Shajirat villages and to the south of the modern village of Karevansara, is a cluster of low mounds indicative of an early to Middle Islamic town

(KS 1654). The ruins of a building known as

Karevansara (Caravanserai) are visible at the northern end of Karevansara village. We also recorded a qanat system running south from the foothills near the

massive site of KS 1654 (Fig. 18). Baked bricks,

splashed metallic glazed ware, black-on-blue glaze, sgraffiato and relief-impressed wares similar to Early and Middle Islamic pottery previously discovered at

Askar Mukarram (Moghaddam and Miri 2003;

Soleymani 2005: 302), was abundant on the surface of

these sites (Fig. 16). Other Islamic sites are concentrat

ed mostly to the north-west of KS 1654 and towards

Askar Mukarram, a pattern confirmed by the early Islamic geographical texts. During this period, a route

connecting Ram Hormoz, Askar Mukarram, Shushtar

and Shush (Ibn Hawqal 1938-39: 258) crossed the

southern end of this area. The name of KS 1654, Karevansara (Caravanserai), also indicates its role as a

station on such a road. Satellite imagery also shows

clear traces of a hollow way starting at Salemiyeh Wadi

in the east and heading towards the centre of KS 1654

and the ruins of the old caravanserai (Figs 17-18). The

dissected nature of the western portions of the Ab Gonji and Dar Khazineh Zones precludes us from following the road system from this area to Shushtar. However, the distribution of mounded sites leading to Askar

Mokarram in the south-west is suggestive of a caravan road on this part of the plain. The location of a series of

Early to Middle Islamic sites along the western bank of the Gargar River, from Askar Mukarram in the south to Shushtar in the north, also suggests the possibility of a route between these two major settlements.

KS 1666, another nucleated site cluster associated with qanat irrigation, is marked by a massive concen tration of sherds, stone blocks and stone wall foundations. The southern part of this site is broadly dissected, but several collapsed building walls and

qanat shafts are visible in the sections.

Generally, the Islamic occupations of these nucleated sites, as well as those which developed as enclaves beside the extended Elamite sites, are small and irregular in shape (Table 2), although some of this is

undoubtedly due to erosion and depositional processes.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Increasingly, the archaeological record of south-western Iran has been affected by increased migration from other

parts of the country, especially rural and war-affected

areas, as well as the Bakhtiyari region, and agricultural intensification. In eastern Khuzestan, and particularly in the region defined here as the Eastern Corridor, natural,

geomorphological processes have played an important role as well in altering the archaeological landscape. To some extent, these problems can be mitigated by

carefully designed regional surveys. Nevertheless, low

site visibility, buried deposits and dissected sites must all

be contended with. In this paper, we have drawn a

general picture of settlement development in the Eastern

Corridor. However, it needs to be acknowledged that our

views are preliminary, especially considering the lack of

detailed geomorphological information.

The evidence discussed above suggests that the

Eastern Corridor was first settled during the LMS

phase. This makes sense when we consider fifth

millennium B.C. cultural developments in a wider

context, especially for the later Middle Village Period

(cf. Hole 1987b; 1987c), when several sites show

evidence of expansion and symbiotic relationships between different geographical units emerged due to




socio-economic factors. The distance between the

larger LMS sites, from Chogha Mish in the west to Tol e Geser (Tal-i Ghazir) in the east, is about 4CM5 km.

(e.g. Chogha Mish > Chogha Chanbar > Tall-e

Abuchizan > Tol-e Geser).6 The evidence from the area

between Ram Hormoz and Behbahan is not yet available. However, Tol-e Suze (Tepe Sohz) in the

Behbahan plain and Chogha Sofia in the narrow plain of Zohreh can be also included in the list of larger LMS

sites (cf. Nissen 1976; Dittman 1984). Further south in

the Persian Gulf region, the Bushehr region may also

provide evidence of a similar pattern (see also Oates

1978; Dittman 1984; Wright and Carter 2003; Carter et

al 2006). The Susiana d/LS 1 phase is marked by a remarkable

growth of settlement in the plain (Similar to observa tions in the Susiana Plain, cf. Weiss 1977; Pollock

1983). Based on present evidence, the overall trend of

LSI settlement is towards small, generally single period sites located close to watercourses. For the Susa A/LS2 and later phases, the trend is also similar to that seen in central Susiana and Deh Luran (cf. Kouchoukos

1988; Kouchoukos and Hole 2003). In the Eastern

Corridor, the number of sites dropped sharply at the end of this phase. Nevertheless, occupation at the two

largest sites (KS 1638 and 1663) continued. We have reason to believe that the Eastern Corridor

itself was not a winter pasture ground for mobile pas toralists {contra Alizadeh 1992: 57; 2003b: 5). As

mentioned above, we have observed that the nomad

camps and their pasturelands are located in the Zagros folds and in the southern parts of the Kupal anticline, not in the middle of the plain. Nowadays, the

permanent residents in the middle of the plain use the land for dry-farming and sheep, goat and cattle

breeding, except in some cases where the nomads and the Arab residents have come to a different

arrangement. In our experience, nomad families only enter the plain to cross it (from north to south in autumn and vice versa in spring) on their way to areas south of the Kupal anticline. Even then, the nomads' movement is severely restricted by the local residents.

Stone hoes found at KS 1638, 1626, 1630, 1656 and 1663 are important. KS 1630 and 1656 belong to those sites that were occupied only in the LSI phase, which

was previously thought to be a "dark age" for settled farmers in eastern Khuzestan (Alizadeh 2003a: 5). Contrary to this opinion, the cultural landscape of the LSI phase may have been one of agricultural

homesteads or villages. However, we are still far from an understanding of the nature of those early farming communities. Generally, the evidence of prehistoric settlement patterns confirms a pattern of development similar to what we see in the adjacent regions i.e.

central Susiana, Deh Luran, Ram Hormoz, Behbahan and Zohreh.

Evidence for fourth millennium occupation was

only found on four sites, which were all in locations that had previously been occupied by relatively extended Susiana period communities. The distances

separating each of these four sites (KS 1638, 1657, 1650 and 1663) were considerable. Evidently, fourth

millennium communities in the Eastern Corridor were

engaged in pottery production. Further studies will be

necessary to clarify the nature of these communities and to locate them in the wider context of the so-called "Uruk World" (Rothman 2001).

The Susa III period in the Eastern Corridor is

problematic, consisting of a single-period Susa III site

(a cemetery site?) and several irregular surface scatters. This pattern might support some existing hypotheses about the pattern of land use in this period in south western Iran which has been characterised as increas

ingly transhumant (Wright 1987; Alden 1987). However, we believe it would be premature to accept such a conclusion without reservations.

In the Elamite period a clear linear pattern of settlement emerges in the Eastern Corridor. The number of extensive Middle Elamite sites in the Eastern Corridor is considerable. Of these, Tall-e Samirat is in danger because of the active Darreh Naft

drainage system and needs immediate attention, possibly in the form of a salvage excavation.

The historical periods are poorly represented in the Eastern Corridor and the evidence of the Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid periods is scattered. The lack of substantial occupation in the Eastern Corridor during the Sasanian period may, to some extent, reflect Sasanian

imperial policy that aimed to construct new towns and built massive irrigation infrastructure close to the Karkheh and Karun Rivers by depopulating rural areas

(Adams 1981; Christensen 1993; Wilkinson 2003). The Islamic period is characterised by the

development of qanat irrigation. This resulted in nucleated occupations such as Karevansara (KS 1654) and KS 1666. However, the expansion of low mounds without any meaningful patterning across the southern and south-eastern portions of the plain is a mystery. We




hope that future investigations will explain this

phenomenon and the lack of historical period occupations in the Eastern Corridor.

Our archaeological understanding of south-western Iran needs to be enriched with new evidence from the

whole region, not just the central plains (e.g. Susiana). The data presented in this paper indicates that the well watered plains in south-western Iran, which have been

major areas of population and social change since the

Village Period, were not isolated, and should be studied as part of a region-wide strategy aimed at examining the

cultural, economic and political links across the entire

region from Mehran and Deh Luran in the west to Ram

Hormoz, Behbehan and Zohreh in the east. The survey of the Eastern Corridor?one of the missing pieces in the chain of cultural units in south-western Iran?was a step towards the realisation of this goal, away from studying the major plains of south-western Iran as isolated

entities, towards a more holistic approach to the region.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Iranian Center for

Archaeological Research (ICAR) and the Near Eastern

Archaeology Foundation (NEAF) of the University of

Sydney. We would like to thank, Dr Masoud

Azarnoush, the former director of ICAR, for his help. We are immensely grateful to Professor D.T. Potts of the Near Eastern Archaeology Department of the

University of Sydney for his encouragement, invaluable support, advice and extensive comments on

this paper. The authors also wish to thank Dr Cameron Petrie and the anonymous reviewer for their invaluable

suggestions that helped improve this paper. We are

most grateful to the numerous people those who partic

ipated in the fieldwork especially Messrs Ali Maleki, Shahram Abdolvand, Hamid Reza Gorbani, Yaqup

Zallaghi, and Behruz Khalajpur. Our especial thanks to

our colleagues in the local ICHTO at Shush, Shushtar

and Ahwaz, and in particular to Mr Hoseyn Arastoozadeh, the director of the Shushtar ICHTO.

Notes

1 According to Malek Shahmirzadi (1997: 406), "Khuzestan is a vast cultural zone in south-western Iran

that extended from the Kabir Kouh foothills in Ham

province in the north-west to the Gachsaran area in the

south-east near the Persian Gulf shoreline. It is separated

from Mesopotamia by the Tigris and the Arvandrood Rivers (Shatt al Arab) in the west, and the Iranian central

plateau by the Zagros Mountains in the north". Khuziyan is the term used for Khuzestan in the tenth century epic history book of the poem Shahnameh by Ferdowsi

(Ferdowsi 1357: 381). 2 At the beginning of the third season, since we had

developed many new questions, we had a great desire to share what we had gained with other scholars who were

dealing with the archaeological problems of the region. Thus, the simultaneous difficulties of our colleagues from the University of Chicago in conducting their fieldwork in the Mehran region prompted us to invite them to join us in Shushtar. Overall, this season was short and fruitful. It was

particularly concerned with the evidence of the ancient

irrigation systems, re-examining the initial survey's

evidence, conducting intensive surface survey, and

undertaking geoarchaeological investigations, as well as

soundings at two previously recorded sites (KS 1625 and

1626). All of these efforts took place in the Mianab Plain and small sectors of the area to the west of the Gargar River

(Figure 2)(preliminary results of this season were published by Alizadeh etal, 2004)

3 On our different settlement pattern maps we have used terms such as "Old Streams" and "Old Gargar". Both are

explained in detail in other papers (Moghaddam 2005a;

Moghaddam 2007a). The course of the "Old Karun" has

been deduced from the settlement alignments along the Karun River from the early settlements to the Islamic Period in the Mianab Plain. This phenomenon is clearly illustrated in the settlement distribution maps shown in Moghaddam and Miri 2003 and Moghaddam 2005.

4 Thanks are due to Mr Nejhad Fathi, a keen and enthusiastic schoolteacher in Shushtar, who brought some pieces of

inscribed bricks from this site to our excavation workshop in Salasel Castle in the winter of2001, and asked us to help him prevent the destruction of the site by looters.

5 The area between Ram Hormoz and Behbahan, Tepe Patak

and a place located along the Karkheh River have been

identified respectively with the Neo-Elamite centres of

Madaktu, Hidalu and Awa (Miroschedji 1986: 215, 217; Zadok 1977: 120-21; Potts 1999: 272, 302). There are also

references to Dur Untash, which might be Chogha Zanbil

(Middle Elamite ,4/ Untash Napirishd) (Potts 1999: 284). 6 We thank Dr Abbas Alizadeh for notifying us of his

discovery of Late Middle Susiana sherds around Tol-e

Geser (RH1).




Bibliography

Adams, R.McC. 1962. "Agriculture and Urban Life in Early Southwestern Iran", Science 136: 109-22.

? 1981. Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Alden, J. 1987. "The Susa III Period". In Hole 1987a: 157-70.

Alizadeh, A. 1992. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns and

Cultures in Susiana, Southwestern Iran, Technical Reports

of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, no. 24. Ann Arbor.

2003a. "Letter from the Field, Oriental Institute Returns to

Iran", News & Notes No. 177. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

? 2003b. Excavations at the prehistoric mound of Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran: seasons 1976/77, 1977/78, and

1996. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press.

?, Kouchoukos, N., Wilkinson, T.J., Bauer, A.M. and

Mashkour, M. 2004. "Human-environment interactions on

the Upper Khuzestan Plains, Southwest Iran. Recent inves

tigations", Paleorient 30/1: 69-88.

Attai, M.T 2005. "Gozaresh-e Gomaneh zani Tappe Darugheh

(KS 1593) (Test Excavation in Tappe Darugheh KH

1593)". In Moghaddam 2005: 477-95.

Baladhori, Ahmad b. Yahya. 1866. Liber expugnationis

regionum (Fotuh al-Buldan), M.J. d. Goeje (ed.). Leiden, Brill.

Beale, T.W. 1973. "Early Trade in Highland Iran: A View from a Source Area", World Archaeology 5.2, Trade (Oct. 1973): 133-48.

Bivar, A.D.H. and Shaked, S. 1964. "The Inscriptions at

Shimbar", BSOAS21: 265-90.

Boucharlat, R. 1987. "Les niveaux post-achemenides a Suse,

secteurnord", CADAFI15: 145-311.

Carter, E. 1971. Elam in the Second Millennium B.C.: The

Archaeological Evidence. Ph.D. Dissertation, University Of

Chicago. ? 1980. "Excavations in the Ville Royal I at Susa: The Third

Millenium B.C. Occupation", CADAFI U: 11-134. ? 1981. "Elamite Ceramics". In Wright 1981: 196-222. ? 1984. "Archeology". In Carter and Stolper 1984: 103-320. ? 1996. Excavations at Anshan (Tal-e Malyan): The Middle

Elamite Period, University Museum Monograph 82.

Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. ? and Stolper, M. 1984. Elam: Survey of Political History and

Archeology, University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies 25. Berkley: University of California Press.

Carter, R.A., Challis, K, Priestman, S.M.N, and Tofighian, H.

2006. "The Bushehr Hinterland: Results of the First Season

of the Iranian-British Archeological Survey of Bushehr

Province, November-December 2004", Iran 44: 63-103.

Christensen, P. 1993. The Decline oflranshahr, irrigation and

environments in the history of the Middle East 500 B. C to

1500 A.D. Museum Tusculanum Press: University of

Copenhagen.

Delougaz, P. and H. Kantor. Chogha Mish. The First Five

Seasons of Excavation 1961-1971, ed. A. Alizadeh, Oriental

Institute Publication 101, University of Chicago Press.

Dittman, R. 1984. Eine Randebene des Zagros in der Fruhzeit:

Ergebnisse des Behbehan?Zuhreh surveys, Berliner

Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient Band 3. Berlin: D. Reimer. ? 1986. Betrachtungen zur Fruhzeit des Siidwest-Iran:

regionale Entwicklungen vom 6. bis zum fruhen 3.

vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, Berliner Beitrage zum

Vorderen Orient Band 4. Berlin: D. Reimer.

Egami, N.A. and Sono, T. 1962. Marv Dasht II: The

Excavations at Tall-i Gap 159. Tokyo: The Yamakawa

Publishing Co.

Falcon, N. 1961. "Major earth flexuring in the Zagros Mountains in south west Iran", Quarterly Journal of the

Geological Society of London 117: 357-405.

Ferdowsi, Abu al-Qasem. 1357. Shahnameh. Tehran: Amir

Kabir Publications.

Flannery, K.V. 1965. "The Ecology of Early Food Production in

Mesopotamia", Science (New Series) 147: 1247-56.

Ghirshman, R. 1976. Terrasses sacrees de Bard-e Nechandeh et

Masjid-i Solaiman, MDAF 45.

Hallock, R.T. 1969. Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hamzehpour, B., Paul, D. and Wiesner, E. 1999. "Views on the

structural development of the Zagros simply folded Belt in

Khuzestan Province, Iran", Zeitschrift der Deutschen

Geologischen Gesellschaft 150: 167-88.

Hole, F. 1969. Preliminary Reports of the Rice University Project in Iran 1968-1969. Houston: Rice University, Department of Anthropology (Mimeograph).

? (ed.) 1987a. The Archeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest.

Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. ? 1987b. "Archeology of the Village Period". In Hole 1987a:

29-78. ? 1987c. "Settlement and Society in the Village Period". In

Hole 1987a: 79-105. Ibn Hawqal, Muhammad. 1938-39. Kitab surat al-ard, ed. J.H.

Kramers, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum 2. Brill, Leiden.

Johnson, G. 1973. Local Exchange and Early State

Development in Southwestern Iran, Anthropological Papers




of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, no. 51. Ann Arbor.

Kervran, M. 1977. "Les niveaux islamiques du secture oriental

du tepe de 1'Apadana, II. Le material ceramique", CADAFI 7: 75-161.

Khaliliyan, M.A., andNokandeh, J. n.d. "Baresi va shenasai-ye

shahrestan-e Mehran (Archeological Survey of the Deh

Luran Plain)". Unpublished Report, Document and Archive

Center of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research

(In Persian). Kouchoukos, N. and Hole, F. 2003. "Changing estimates of

Susiana's Prehistoric Settlement". In N. Miller and K.

Abdi (eds), Yeki bud, yeki nabud, Essays on the

Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William Sumner. Los

Angles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of

California: 53-60.

Kozuh, M. 2003. "Inscribed Bricks", in NEWS & NOTES No.

177. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. Lees G.M., and Falcon N.L., 1952. "The Geological history of

the Mesopotamian Plains", The Geographical Journal 1:

24-39.

Malek Shahmirzadi, S. 1997. "Pishnahadi baraye tadvin-e

jadaval-e gahnegari-ye Khuzestan (A Proposal for the

Chronology of the Khuzestan)", in Proceedings of the First

Archeological Symposium after the Islamic Revolution,

Susa, 1373. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization: 395-419 (In Persian).

Miroschedji, P. de. 1981. "Fouilles du chantier Ville Royale II a

Suse (1975-1977) I. Les niveaux elamites", CADAFI 12:

9-136 ? 1986. "La localisation de Madaktu et l'organisation

politique de l'Elam a l'epoque neo-Elamite". In L. De

Meyer, H. Gasche and F. Vallat (eds), Fragmenta Historiae

Elamicae: Melanges offerts a M.J. Steve, Editions

Recherche sur les civilisations. Paris: 209-25. ? 1987. "Fouilles du chantier Ville Royale II a Suse

(1975-1977) II. Niveaux d'epoques achemenide, parthe et

islamique", CADAFI 15: 11-143.

Mofidi Nasrabadi, B. 2005. "Eine Steininschrifl des Amar

Seuna aus Tappe Bormi (Iran)", ZA 95: 161-71.

Moghaddam, A. 2002. "Excavations at Andam-e Abgir-e

Darioun". Unpublished Report, Document and Archive

Center of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research

(In Persian). ?

(ed.) 2005. Baresiha-ye Bastanshenakhti-ye Mianab-e

Shushtar (Archeological Surveys in Mianab Plain, Southwestern Iran). Tehran: Iranian Center for

Archeological Research (In Persian).

? 2005a. "Tosif-e Olguha-ye Esteghrari-ye Dasht-e Mianab

(Description of the Settlement Pattern of the Mianab

Plain)", in Baresiha-ye Bastanshenakhti-ye Mianab-e

Shushtar (Archeological Surveys in Mianab Plain, Southwestern Iran). Tehran: Iranian Center for

Archeological Research: 416-50 (In Persian). ? 2007a. "A note on the Gargar Irrigation System". In K. Abdi

(ed.), Mazdesn Shapur ke chihr az yazdan: Essays in

Memory of A. Shapur Shahbazi. Tehran and Perspolis: Iran

University Press and Parsa-Pasargadae Research

Foundation. ? and Miri, N. 2003. "Archaeological Research in the Mianab

Plain of Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran", Iran 41:

99-137.

?, Tengberg, M., Mashkour, M., Mohaseb, A. Naderi, R.

2007b. "Tall-e Abu Chizan (Tol-e Borchizun), yek markaz-e mantagheii dar sharq-e Karun (Tall-e

Abuchizan, A Regional Center in the Eastern Karun

Basin", Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 42

(December).

Neely, J. 1974. "Sasanian and Early Islamic Water-Control and

Irrigation Systems in the Deh Luran Plain, Iran". In T.E.

Downing and Mc. Gibson (eds), Irrigations Impact on

Society. Tucson: Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 25: 21-42.

? and H. Wright. 1994. Early Settlement and Irrigation on the

Deh Luran Plain, Iran, Technical Report 26. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. Nissen, H. 1976. "The Behbahan Plain in the Fifth Millennium

B.C.". In M.Y. Kiani (ed.), The Memorial Volume of the

Vlth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archeology,

Oxford, September 11-16, 1972. Tehran: Iranian Center for

Archeological Research: 273-280.

Oates, J. 1978. "Ubaid Mesopotamia and its Relation to Gulf

Countries". In B. De Cardi (ed.), Qatar Archeological

Repor: Excavations 1973. Oxford University Press: 39-52.

Pottier, E. 1922. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Fascicule I.

Musee du Louvre (Fasc. 9). Paris

Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and

Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge. ? n.d. "The Persepolis Fortification Texts (PFTs) and the

Royal Road: Another Look at the Fahliyan area".

Rahbar, M. n.d. "Shushtar Excavations Unpublished Report",

Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization Documentation

Center.

Rosen-Ayalon, M. 1972. "Niveaux islamiques de la Ville

Royale", CADAFI 2: 169-201.




Rothman, M.S. (ed.) 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia & its neighbors:

cross-cultural interactions & their consequences in the era

of state formation. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American

Research Press, James Currey.

Schacht, R. 1976. "Some notes on the development of rural

settlements on the Susiana Plain". In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.),

Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on

Archeological Research in Iran. Tehran: Iranian Center for

Archeological Research: 446-62.

Soleymani, Sh. 2005. "Tosif va Tabaghe Bandi-ye Sofalha-ye Eslami (Description and Classification of the Islamic

Potteries)". In Moghaddam 2005: 299-411.

Tabari, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir. 1999. Ta nkh al-rusul

wa 7 muluk (The history of al-Tabari). Vol. V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids, and Yemen. Translated and

annotated by C.E. Bosworth. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Vanden Berghe, L. and Schippmann, K. 1985. Les reliefs

rupestres d'Elyma'ide (Iran) de Tepoqueparthe. Gent.

Weiss, H. 1976. Ceramics for Chronology: discriminant and

cluster analysis of fifth millennium ceramic assemblages from Qabr Sheykhayn, Khuzestan. Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Pennsylvania.

Wenke, R. 1975-76. Imperial Investments and agricultural

development in Parthian and Sasanian Khuzestan: 150 B.C. to A.D. 640", Mesopotamia 9-11: 1-18.

? 1981. "Parthians and the Evolution of Empires in

Southwestern Iran", JAOS 101(3): 303-15.

Wilkinson, T.J. 2003. Archeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Wright, H. 1969. Archeological Survey in the Areas of Ram

Hormoz, Shushtar and Gutwand. Manuscript. On file,

University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

? 1981. An Early Town in the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad. Ann Arbor: Memoirs of the Museum

of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 13. ? 1987. "The Susiana Hinterland during the Era of Primary

State Formation". In Hole 1987a: 141-55. ? and Carter, E. 2003. "Archaeological Survey on the Western

Ram Hormoz Plain". In N. Miller and K. Abdi (eds), Yeki

bud, yeki nabud, Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William Sumner. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of

Archaeology, University of California: 61-82.

Zadok, R. 1977. "On five Biblical names", Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89: 266-68.



archaeological surveys in the "eastern corridor", south-western iran

Documents