potts, d., 1981, the potter's marks of tepe yahya, in: paleorient, vol. 7, issue 7-1, pp.107-122

8/22/2019 Potts, D., 1981, The Potter's Marks of Tepe Yahya, in: Paleorient, Vol. 7, Issue 7-1, pp.107-122

1/17

Daniel T. Potts

The Potter's Marks of Tepe YahyaIn: Palorient. 1981, Vol. 7 N1. pp. 107-122.

Abstract

This article discusses a group of nearly 400 potter's marks from the site of Tepe Yahya in Kerman province, southern Iran. The

potter's marks have been typologically classified, and their distribution by period and phase is shown in a series of tables. The

function of these signs is only briefly discussed, while greater attention is given to correspondences between the potter's marks of

the Indo-Iranian borderlands and both the Proto-Elamite and Harappan scripts. Hypotheses concerning the possibility of a

relationship between Proto-Elamite and Harappan are discussed in light of these correspondences.

Rsum

L'article porte sur l'tude d'environ 400 marques de potiers provenant du site de Tepe Yahya dans la province de Kerman, dans

le sud de l'Iran. Les marques de potiers ont t rpertories selon leur typologie et une srie de tableaux donne leur rpartition

par priode et par phase. La fonction de ces signes n 'est que brivement voque, tandis que l'on accorde une plus grande

attention aux correspondances qui existent entre les marques de potiers des pourtours indo-iraniens et les critures proto-lamite

et harappenne. A la lumire de ces correspondances, on examine la possibilit de liens entre la civilisation proto-lamite et la

civilisation harappenne.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Potts Daniel T. The Potter's Marks of Tepe Yahya. In: Palorient. 1981, Vol. 7 N1. pp. 107-122.

doi : 10.3406/paleo.1981.4290

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1981_num_7_1_4290
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_paleo_597http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1981.4290http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1981_num_7_1_4290http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1981_num_7_1_4290http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1981.4290http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_paleo_597


2/17

PALEORIENT Vol. 7/1 1981THE POTTER'S MARK S OF TEPE YAHYAD. POTTS

ABSTRACT. - This article discusses a group of nearly 40 0 potter's marks from the site of Tepe Yahya in Kerman province, southern Iran.he potter's marks have been typologically classified, and their distribution by period and phase is shown in a series of tables. Th e function ofhese signs is only briefly discussed, while greater attention is given to correspondences between the potter's marks of the Indo-Iranianorderlands and both the Proto-Elamite and Harappan scripts. Hypotheses concerning the possibility of a relationship between Proto-Elamitend Harappan are discussed in l ight of these correspondences.RSUM. - L 'article porte sur l'tude d'environ 400 marques de potiers provenant du site de Tepe Yahya dans la province de Kerman, dansle sud de l'Iran. Le s marques de potiers on t t rpertories selon leur typologie et une srie de tableaux donne leur rpartition pa r priode etpa r phase. La fonction de ces signes n 'est qu e brivement voque, tandis qu e l'on accorde une plus grande attention aux correspondances qu iexistent entre les marques de potiers des pourtours indo-iraniens et les critures proto-lamite et harappenne. A la lumire de cescorrespondances, on examine la possibilit de liens entre la civilisation proto-lamite et la civilisation harappenne.

The site of Tepe Yahya has yielded a rich corpus ofincised signs on both complete ceramic vessels and,more commonly, on sherds. The purpose of this paperis to present their a) typological characteristics, includinghe frequency of occurrence of each sign-type alongwith a sign list and catalogue; and b) a discussion ofthe spatio-temporal and culture historical significance ofthe corpus. Finally, speculations on the relationship between the potter's marks of the Indo-Iranian borderlandsand both, the Proto-Elamite and Harappan scripts willbe raised fo r future examination.

periods (Achaemenian through Partho-Sasanian). Generally, we may equate the relevant sub-periods with thefollowing absolute dates (2) :IVC2-1 - 3 000-2 800 B.C.IVB6-1 - 2 700-2 200 B.C.IVA3-1 - 2 200-1 800(?) B.C.- Abandonment of the Site -III/II - 1 000-300(?) B.C.I - pre 500 A.D.THE CORPUS OF POTTER'S MARKS

THE SITETepe Yahya is located in the southwestern part of theSoghun Valley in Kerman province, 220 km south ofthe city of Kerman, Iran. The valley covers approximately00 sq. km and sits at an altitude of 1500-1525m.a.s.l., although the mountains which ring the valleycan reach twice that height. The site is a circularmound, 19.8 m in height, and 187 m in diameter atthe base. It was excavated during the course of sixsummer seasons (1968-1971, 1973, 1975) by the Harvard-Iran Expedition under the direction of Prof. C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky, Peabody Museum, Harvard University (1).The excavations have revealed a long stratigraphiesequence, interrupted by certain breaks in the occupationf the site, which runs from 5000 B.C. to thefirst centuries of the Christian era, when the site cameunder strong Partho-Sasanian influence. We are concernedere with periods IV through I, i.e. the Bronze andIron Age occupations, as well as the late, historic

353 examples are included in the catalogue presentedhere. Of these, 108 were recovered during excavationsin the south step trench, while another 187 were foundin the north step trench. An additional 58 were found insurface contexts. The corpus consists of signs incised onpottery vessels just prior to firing. Normally, they occuron rather coarse, grit-tempered, handmade bowls, cups,and jars, which are known in a variety of simple shapes(Fig. 1). These are dominant in period IVA, althoughexamples of incised potter's marks also occur in IVC,IVB, and III-I levels, i.e. both earlier and later than theperiod of their greatest florescence. While it seems indisputab le that period IVA witnessed the greatest use ofthese incised signs, I do not believe that the examplesfrom the earlier and later levels are all out context.Rather, I think they attest to considerable continuity inthe tradition of incising signs on pots.

(1 ) I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Lamberg-Karlovsky for permitting me both to participate in the excavations ofTepe Yahya, and to work on the third millennium material for myPhD. dissertation, of which he was the principal advisor.

(2 ) Th e lengths of the individual sub-periods and the question ofcontinuity between them, especially in the cases of IVC's relation toIVB, and IVB's relation to IVA, are difficult problems which will notbe delved into here. Th e reader should take note of the different dateswhich have appeared in various publications concerned with the siteover the last decade as the results of the excavations have been analyzednd further refined. It must be realized that the dates given abovereflect my ow n views and not necessarily those of either the director ofthe excavations, nor the other members of the team publishing different aspects of the site.

107


3/17

THE POTTER'S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA

In most cases the sign is incised on the exterior of thevessel wall, just above the base. Less frequently, the signmay be found on the base of the vessel, or on theexterior of the upper third of the vessel wall. For lack ofa better term, these incised signs have been traditionallyreferred to as "potter's marks", although this usagerepresents more a matter of verbal convenience than ana priori interpretation of the function of these signs. Ananswer to the question of the meaning or function of

FIG. 1. - A selection of pottery typesfrom Tepe Yahya bearing incised signs.Drawings are by the author after originals by Miss Ann Hechle originally published by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky in Excavations at TepeYahya, Iran 1967-1969, Progress Report I, Bulletin 27, AmericanSchools of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum (Cambridge 1970).Key : a) coarse grit buff ware, Period I; b) red wash on plain buffware, Period IVB; c) plain red-orange ware, Period IVB; d) red-slipped tan ware, Period IVA, phase uncertain; e) red wash on plainbuff . Period IVA3-1 f) plain brown ware, Period HI; g) plain orange-buff ware, Period IVA3-2; h) brown-slipped tan grit ware. Period I.Scale : I cm = 5 cm .

these signs is still not in view, and the problem will belargely ignored in this presentation (3).The sign list (Fig. 5) presented here is an attempt toarrange the 353 individual signs recovered into a typolo-(3 Th e distinction between a corpus of hand-made vessels bearingincised signs, and a corpus of wheel-made pottery, without such signs,raises certain possibilities of interpretation. Th e hand-made vessels,

perhaps manufactured at home by individuals for their families, mayhave been fired in communal kilns, of which we have no evidence, andthus required some kind of distinguishing mark so that families couldretrieve their ow n vessels from the kiln after f iring, being sure that theyhad in their possession the pot or pots which they had in fact themselvesade. It may be interesting in this regard to note that when onebreaks down the corpus showing the numbers of signs and sign-typesrepresented in each of the sub-periods under consideration, a substantiallymaller number of signs appears to have been in us e during anyone sub-period than might have been, at first glance, expected. Granted, om e of these are also present in other sub-periods, and there isoften no temporal continuity between the sub-periods during which aparticular sign is found. But the number of sign occurrences, which isnever more than 73 in any on e sub-period, and of these never morethan 49 individual sign-types in us e at any on e time, would not beincompatible with the numbers of families which may have beenmaking handmade pots during any on e sub-period between IV C andIII/II. We have no truly reliable means with which to estimate populationt the site during the third millennium, but if each sign-typerepresented on e family's property mark, and the maximum number ofsign-types in us e at on e time is 49, then it is at least reasonable, I think,to suppose that the same number of families could have resided simultaneously on the site, Indeed, this may be a very low estimate ofpopulation, and the small number of signs present in each sub-periodmay reflect a relatively restricted production of vessels at home, perhaps common among only the poorer families who could not afford (?)wheel-made pottery. Alternatively, it is always possible that of thosevessels belonging to on e family placed in a kiln it was only necessary tomark the uppermost one of the lo t with a sign.Still, if this practice was pursued with any regularity, I would notexpect to find such a high number of unique signs within the corpus,unless families produced but an occasional pot or lo t of pots fo r theirow n use, relying instead more generally upon the products of professional potters. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate that the vesselsin question, handmade though they may be, do represent in fact thework of private individuals as opposed to professional potters. While Ithink it likely that the vessels which bear incised signs could easily havebeen made by n on-professional, household potters, clearly this explanations only on e of several which could be proposed, and I do not wantto go on speculating about a hypothesis which, it seems to me, canneither be confirmed nor rejected outright on the basis of the availableevidence.On e clear objection to this interpretation is raised by the implicationthat all the signs would then represent family or individual identities,expressed either ideographically or syllabically, depending on what thetrue nature of this marking system is. However, it seems at least if notmore likely that the first three groups of signs (see discussion following)have a numerical significance, and would not stand for owner's ormaker's marks. Another obvious alternative would be that the signsrepresent not owner's or maker's marks, but rather goods which mightbe contained in the fired pot, but this alternative is , I think, less likelythan the one just discussed.108


4/17


gical order. As I am not a philologist but rather anarchaeologist, I have proceeded in what seemed anintuitively sensible fashion in constructing this typology.The typology consists of 148 entries, some typologicallyaffiliated, running from sign-type la through 76b. Thisis not intended to be a philological study, and certainsign groups should perhaps have been collapsed, but itis hoped that, as presented, the listing does not maskany variations which may be of either typological orphilological significance. What is certain is that the signsfall into groups, some more or less discrete, representedby the 148 entries in the sign-list. These entries can bebroken down into twenty sub-groups, roughly identifiabley the dominant formal characteristics of each sign-type. These will be discussed very briefly in turn.Group 1. Linear: la-6This group is comprised of straight lines only.Straight lines incised on pots from Tepe Yahya occursingly, in pairs, and in groups of three to six lines.When there is more than one line present, they arearranged in parallel fashion. On analogy with manyknown writing or notational systems, these may represent strokes for counting from one to six, or somehigher mutliples thereof, but this cannot be determinedexcept within the context of a complete numerical ornotational system, the workings of which are not apparent within this corpus. It is impossible to know whether the orientation of the lines has any significance. Inany case, groups of four and five parallel lines werenoted both parallel to and at right angles to the bases ofsherds on which they occurred, and for that reasonhave been considered as variants of the same sign here.Group 2. Punctate: 7a- 19

Also in some ways suggestive of a system of numericalotation are those signs composed of single or multiple unctations. In some cases, a certain number ofpunctations have been arranged in various ways, as forexample sign variantss 10a and 10b which are composedf four punctations ; sign variants 1 1 a through 1 1 f,composed of five punctations; and sign variants 16athrough 16c, composed often punctations. As with thesimple linear group, it is impossible to know whetherthese signs have numerical significance.Group 3. Linear/ Punctate : 20-32

This group of signs is in some respects among themost interesting, in that the arrangement of between

two and sixteen punctations, variously arranged to theright or left of a single line or pair of parallel lines, ishighly suggestive of some kind of notational system.What the respective values might be for a single line, orpair of lines, remains a mystery, ye t in arranging thesefirst three groups of signs while making up the sign listI had the distinct feeling that there well might be asimple numerical system here which behaved accordingto certain unknown rules. Scholars more familiar thanmyself with early notational systems, or with primitivenotational systems still in use, may see something inthese signs which I have not been able to draw out.Group 4. Globular: 33a-33e

These signs are perhaps all variants of a simple circleor oval incised on a pot with varying degrees of care.Should there be any significance in the variations observed,however, I felt it wiser to present the material as Ifound it, rather than abstracting one ideal sign from allthe variants noted.Group 5. Globular / Linear : 34a- 34e

As with Group 4, there may be no significance to thevariants listed here, but they are al l just dissimilarenough to warrant separation, in my opinion. Thesesigns all consist of an oval with a line running throughit, either lengthwise or widthwise. Sign 34e should bementioned briefly because it was not found on a sherdor pot from Tepe Yahya itself, but rather on a piecefound in a cairn burial (SU 70 43) in the Soghun Valleyby Mr William Fitz. It presumably dates to period II onthe mound, as do many of the known cairns around thesite.Group 6. Globular / Punctate : 35-36g

This group consists of incised circles which havefrom one to eight distinct punctations either in oraround them. One example, sign 36g, consisted of acircle with a mass of tiny, random punctations within it.Group 7. X-Shapes : 37 a- 37b

Sign 37a, a simple incised X, is the most commonsign in the entire corpus. Thirty-one examples havebeen noted. Indeed, this simple sign is to be foundalmost anywhere in the world where potter's markshave been studied. One example of a wavy variant, sign37b, was also noted.109


5/17


Group 8. Cruciform : 37c- 37dTw o examples were found of crosses incised in outline form. One of these may date to period IVC, although it comes from a problematic context.Group 9. Cruciform I Punctate : 37 e- 38c

These signs consist of single-line crosses adornedwith between two and six punctations. The punctationsal l occur in symmetrical arrangements, often aroundtwo of the opposite distal ends of the cross.Group 10. Hatched: 39-49This group consists of two or more parallel lineswhich cross-cut one or more parallel lines, often forming a grid pattern.Group 11. Open: 50aA single sign is listed here, but it is typologicallyaffiliated to Group 12. It is a three-sided, open form,and may be the basic sign of which Group 12 representsthe variants.Group 12. Open /Punctate: 50b- 50f

Variants of sign 50a, sometimes with curving lines orstraight lines forming a peak, may have between oneand four distinct punctations located both within andoutside the incised shape. One variant, sign 50f, has amass of tiny punctations made in random fashion.Group 13. Trilinear : 5 la- 5 Id

Although orientation may be of no significance, Ihave listed under four separate headings a sign whichconsists of three parallel strokes running perpendicularto a straight line.Group 14. Irregular Trilinear : 52a-52b

Three parallel strokes run diagonally off of a straightline. Whether this sign is to be typologically related tothe previous one just discussed, or whether it is relatedto signs 60a-60c, is unclear.

straight line, we find four. This sign may have someaffiliation with signs 51a through 5 Id.Group 16. Trident : 54a-58This is a somewhat mixed group of sign variants, allof which show a basic trident shape with what may becalled "modifiers". These modifiers include a perpendicularine running through the stem of the trident, apunctation placed on either side of the central prong ofthe trident, an incised circle on top of the trident'sprongs, or a scatter of tiny punctations at the base of thetrident. The prongs of the trident may be rendered in acurvilinear or rectilinear fashion. As this is one of thefew signs which occurs with other signs (see discussionbelow), the impression is al l the more strong that we aredealing with a basic sign form - the trident - plus itsmodifiers. Whether those modifiers have syllabic, numerical, or ideational significance is unknown.Group 17. Winged: 59a-59dThe signs in this group, with the exception of the lastand most poorly formed example, consist of a pair ofupright parallel lines cross-cut or attached to one ormore incised lines. The overall impression is not dissimilaro that of a bird rendered schematically as a stick-figure.Group 18. Vegetal: 60a-61This is a group of signs whose variants resemble thearchaic Sumerian and Proto-Elamite signs for wheat.They may be compared with sign nos. 1 10 and 1 1 1 inFalkenstein's A rchaische Texte aus Uruk (Berlin 1936),and with sign nos. 76a and 76b in Meriggi's La scritturaproto-elamica (Rome 1971). In one case, that of sign60d, three punctations have been added to the sign. Inanother instance, the rendering is very schematic, andmore "dendritic" in appearance than the rest of theknown examples.Group 19. V-Shape: 62a-63bThese signs consist of either a simple V, or a V witha straight, dividing line through the middle. Again,leaving open the question of orientation, I have listed al lknown variants separately.

Group 15. Quadrilinear : 54This sign is just like those of Group 1 3 , except thatinstead of three parallel lines running perpendicular to a

Group 20. Irregular: 64 -76bThis final category is comprised of all those uniquesigns which could not be associated typologically with

110


6/17

THE POTTERS MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA

the rest of the signs in the corpus. Several are ofparticular interest, including sign 64, which has a clearparallel in the Proto-Elamite script, and sign 70a, whichis not unlike the archaic Sumerian sign for "plow". Alsoof interest is sign 65 which has a close Harappanparallel, and occurs in the longest "inscription" of incise d signs found on the pottery from Tepe Yahya. Signs67 and 76b should also be noted because they occur as"modifiers" with sign 54b which has already been discussed.DISTRIBUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Discounting fo r the moment those signs which comefrom surface contexts, and those to which definite sub-period designations could not be made, we are left witha corpus of 24 1 incised signs from periods IVC throughIII-I. These show the following temporal distribution(see also Table 6 which gives the full breakdown ofsign-types by period, including their numerical frequency) :TABLE 1Distribution of Potter's Marks Through Timeat Tepe Yahya

PeriodNumber

IVC1

IV B19

IVA3-218

IVA3-140

IVA258

IVA172

III-I33

This temporal distribution can be refined further ifwe consider not the gross number of signs recorded fo reach sub-period, but rather the number of sign-typesrepresented in each sub-period. It will be rememberedthat 1 48 sign-types have been tentatively defined withinthe entire corpus of potter's marks from Tepe Yahya.TABLE 2Distribution of Sign- Types Through Time at Tepe Yahya

PeriodNumber

IVC1

IV B14

IVA3-216

IVA3-127

IVA245

IVA149

III-I28

Unique signs amount to just over one-third of theentire corpus (33.72 96), representing 105 out of a totalof 353 complete signs included in this study. This doesnot include an additional 20 fragmentary signs. Significantly, however, unique sign-types represent over two-thirds (105 out of 148) of the total number of entries inthe master sign-list. These have been listed in Table 3.TABLE 3Distribution of Unique Sign- Types Shown by Period.Signlb4b5a5b67a17b8b9clialielie

llf141516a16b16c17182122b22c23b252627282930a30b31a31b3233b33c33d33e34a34 b34c34 d34e3536a36 b36c

IVC IVB1

1

1

IVA3-2

1

1

IVA3-1

111

11

IVA2

11111111

1111

1

IVA111

11

11111

1

11

III-I

1

1

1

1

Uncertain11

1

11111

111


7/17

THE POTTERS MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA

TABLE3 (continued)Sign36 d36e37b37c37 d37e38a38b38c42b43b44b454647484950a50b50c50 d50e50f51a51b535 4b5556b59a59b59c59 d60b60d6 0e6162b63a63b646566a66b66c6970a70b71a71b727374a74b75a75b76a76b

IV C

1

IV B1

11

IVA3-2

1

1

IVA3-1

1

11

IVA2

1

1111

1

1

IVA11

1111

111

1

11

1

III-I -

1

1

1111

Uncertain111111

1111111

11111

1111

11

The temporal distribution of the unique signs isshown in Table 4.TABLE 4Distribution of Unique Sign-Types Through Time at TepeYahya

Period IVC IV B IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVA1 III-INumber 1 20 24 10In addition, 22 sign-types were noted which couldnot be assigned to a particular period (4), while anadditional 10 sign-types could be assigned by period, butbecause of problematic context, not to a specific sub-period (5). It is impossible to say what significance, ifany, may be attached to the apparent increase fromperiod IV C through the end of period IVA in thenumber of unique signs. However, this trend clearly

parallels the general increase in the number of potter'smarks found on the site through the end of period IVAas shown in Tables 1 and 2.A fairly small number of sign-types, numbering only43 in all, occur more than once in the corpus. Thesehave been shown in Table 5. They may be summarizedas follows : 10 signs occur twice in the corpus, 8 signsoccur three times, 9 signs occur four times, 2 signsoccur five times, 4 signs occur six times, 1 sign occursseven times, 1 sign occurs nine times, 2 signs occur tentimes, 1 sign occurs eleven times, 1 sign occurs twelvetimes, 1 sign occurs thirteen times, 1 sign occurstwenty-four times, and finally, one sign occurs a total ofthirty-three times. It is important to note that althoughsign-types represented by more than one exampleamount to only 43 out of 148 entries in th e master signlist, they nonetheless account fo r over two-thirds of thetotal of 353 examples found at the site. Furthermore,out of 248 examples which we can assign to 43 sign-types, there is a significantly high occurrence of individual ign-types in more than one sub-period, suggestingsome continuity in the use of particular signs.Let us leave aside the 80 examples whose period orsub-period attribution could not confidently be determi-(4 ) This category includes all examples with lost or broken identification, as well as surface finds.(5 ) This category includes all examples from excavated contextswhich could not confidently be assigned to on e particular sub-period,but which could have fallen into either of two sub-periods.

112


8/17


TABLE 5Distribution of Sign- Types which occur more than onceshown by period.Sign10blid1323a36f36 g4044a56a5762a10a1224394154a60c4a7a9a2022a43a51 d52a5860ala51c9blib52b42a68671933a28a39d37a

Total222222222223333333444444444455666779

10101212132433

IVC IVB

1

1

22.

11

32

IVA3-2

11

1

112

1

21

111

IVA3-111

111

11111

112221337

IVA2111121

1111111111

112113435

IVA1121

1112131113112

433231243

III-I

11112

1111311

12121

1

Uncertain12

11212111121211243

3322573

1015

ned. Multiplying the total number of sign-types represented more than once at the site (i.e. 43), by the totalnumber of sub-periods under consideration (i.e. 7, including IVC, IVB, IVA3-2, IVA3-1, IVA2, IVA1, and III-I), we find a total 301 potential instances, which weshall call "chronological cells", in which potter's markscould occur. In fact, they occur only in 108 of thechronological cells. 19 sign-types, of which we havetwo or more examples, are represented more than oncein a single sub-period. Thus, for example, sign la,which occurs five times in the collection, is known fromthree examples dating to IVA1 These 19 sign-types justmentioned occur in 35 different chronological cells, andaccount fo r 95 examples in all within our collection.On the other hand, 29 additional sign-types areknown from more than one example, but in no case isthe same sign represented more than once in any individual sub-period, rather multiple occurrences of thesesigns are distributed in anywhere from two to sevensub-periods. These are not always chronologically adjacent. Thus, for example, sign 54 a is found in sub-periods IVA2 and III-I, but not in IVA1. Whether infact the sign in such a case was not used in the interveningeriod of time, or whether it is simply not represented in our collection by chance, we do not know.Eleven cases were recorded of two or more signsfound juxtaposed on the same sherd or pot. The totalnumber of signs grouped in this manner never exceedsfour. These multi-sign "inscriptions" are illustrated inFig. 2. Of these, surely the most interesting is Fig. 2:c,which is made up of the following four signs : 24-65-24-62a. Tw o of these signs, 65 and 62a, are well knownin the Harappan script, and are listed as signs 204 and184, respectively, in a recent corpus of Harappan inscriptions (6). Also of considerable interest are the groupsillustrated as Fig. 2:e, f, and g. As mentioned above indiscussing Group 16 (Trident: 54a-58), it appears thatwe are dealing with a root sign, 54b, and "modifiers"which include signs 67 and 76b.Spatio-Temporal Significance and Culture HistoricalSignificance

In comparison with other sites in the Indo-Iranianborderlands on which potter's marks have been found,the size of the collection from Tepe Yahya, numberingsome 353 examples, is large but not uniquely so. The(6 ) KOSKENNIEMI and PARPOLA 1979: 19-20.

113


9/17


FIG. 2. - Multi-sign inscriptions :from Tepe Yahya. on pottery

excavations of Damb Sadaat in the Quetta Valley ofPakistan, for example, produced a total of 362 potter'smarks (7). The work of Engineer Ali Hakemi at theimportant site of Shahdad/Xabis to the north of TepeYahya on the edge of the Dasht-i Lut yielded a collection f 348 (8). However, this is not to imply that suchhigh frequencies are universal within this geographiczone. The site of Bampur in Baluchistan, for example,yielded very few (9), and the same is true of Shahr-iSokhta in Iranian Sistan(lO). Moreover, it is importantto note that even in the cases of the largest collections ofpotter's marks from sites which one might expect toshow a high degree of similarity, such as Tepe Yahyaand Shahdad, very few signs are shared. In addition,

when we turn to published potter's marks from furtherafield, found on sites such as Amri, Bla Kot, Mundi-gak, and various locales in Turkmenia and Bactria,extremely fewr signs are shared. Fig. 3 illustrates theshared signs which I have found in publications ofpottery from various sites in the Indo-Iranian borderlands,Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. Note, however, hat these span a considerable period of time, ranging from the third millennium in Iran, Afghanistan,Pakistan and Turkmenia through the first millenniumSouth Indian megalithic.The potter's marks of Tepe Yahya, and indeed of theentire Indo-Iranian borderland region, gain particularimportance in light of recent arguments concerning thegenesis of the Harappan script. In particular, two suggestions have been put forward which deserve criticalexamination. I would like to close with some thoughtson these.

First, it has been suggested that there is a relationshipbetween the Proto-Elamite writing system and the Harappan script. This suggestion is not new. It was madeas early as 1932 by G.R. Hunter, who wrote (1 1) :"That the languages are unconnected is probable, andth e phonetic value of the signs may well be different.But that they are unrelated in origin seems to be contradicted by the number of resemblances that seem to betoo close to be explained by coincidence".In recent years V/.C. rice (12) has sought to investigatehe possibility of uncovering structural parallels inProto-Elamite, Linear A, and what he calls Proto-Indic,i.e. Harappan. More boldly, W.A. Fairservis, Jr. (13) hassuggested that the actual languages involved, and notsimply the scripts, may be linked, and he has postulatedthe existence of an Ursprache which he calls "PlateauProto-Dravidian". This recalls recent efforts byD. McAlpin (14), a linguist and Dravidianist, to demonstratehat "Elamite, a major language of West Asia, iscognate with the Dravidian language family of SouthAsia", and further, to attempt to reconstruct "Proto-Elamo-Dravidian".The second argument which I would like to examinesuggests that the roots of the Harappan script are in thepotter's mark tradition of the Indo-Iranian borderlandsand pre-Harappan Indus Valley. This possibility has(7 ) FAIRSERVIS 1958 : 328.(8 ) HAKEMI 1976 : 5.(9 ) DE CARDI 1970.(10) TOSI 1968, 1969.

(11) HUNTER 1932: 483.(12) BRICE 1967: 32-44;(13) FAIRSERVIS 1976: Tables 49-56: 1977(14) McALPIN 1974: 89-101; 1975: 105. 28-32.

114


10/17


TEPE Shahdad1TurkmeniaMundiqak3Quetta 4SistanZhob-LorelaiBactr iaAmri6Bla Kot7Indian 8ChalcolithicS. IndianMegal i thic

1 1/ I'/ /

1

II W11 HI

f[|| "ft" f" '////

tr

it imi 1 if 3

*!-XXXX

fXIX

+- CX vIX A

X tT7 1> [xi A

i ^

V/f) f

FIG. 3. - Comparison of potter's marksfrom sites in the Indo-Iranian borderlands,Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent.Key to the sources of published potter's marks used in compiling Tig. 3:1) 1 1976; 2) V.M. MASSON and V.I. SARIANIDI, Central Asia :Turkmenia Before the Achaemenids, London : Thames & Hudson ; 3) J.-M. CASAL, Fouilles de Mundigak, 2 vols.. Paris : Klincksieck ; 4) FAIRSER-VIS 1958. and for Sistan and the Zhob-Lorelai districts, see W.A. FAIRSERVIS Jr. 1961 . Archaeological Studies in the Seistan Basin of SouthwesternAfghanistan and Eastern Iran, New York : American Museum of Natural History, and W.A. FAIRSERVIS Jr. 1959, Archaeological Surveys in theZ hob an d Lorelai Districts, West Pakistan, New York : American Museum of Natural History: 5) V.I. SARIANIDI 1977, Bactrian Centre ofAncient Art . Mesopotamia XII : 97-1 10 ; 6) J.-M. CASAL 1964. Fouilles d'Amri, Paris : Publications de la Commission des Fouilles Archologiques;7) G. F. DALES 1979, Th e Balakot Project : Summary of Four Years of Excavations in Pakistan , South Asian Archaeology 1977, M. TADDEI,d.. Naples; Istituto Universitario Orientale: 241-274; 8) LAL 1962.been raised by a number of scholars (15), but perhapsmost forcefully argued by B.B. Lai (16), who has shownthat during the Mature Harappan period when thescript was in use, potter's marks (which he calls "graffiti") an be found which are both identical to signs inthe Harappan script, and to signs in the pre-Harappanpotter's mark tradition.In regard to the hypothesis that the Proto-Elamiteand Harappan scripts are related, and in particular thatthe Proto-Elamite writing system is ancestral to theMature Harappan script, I can see no way of reconcilingthis suggestion with the chronological and culture historical realities of the area. First, the Proto-Elamite scriptwhich developed in southwestern Iran and was usedbetween 3400-2800 B.C. (17) is separated by a gap ofseveral hundred years, depending on the chronologyone adopts fo r the Indus civilization (18), from theperiod which witnessed th e use of the Mature Harappan

(15) LAL 1962: 4ff; CASAL 1966: 19 ; FAIRSERVIS 1971279; DALES 1979: 256.(16) LAL 1962: 4-24; 1975 : 173.(17) V ALLAT 1978 : 63-66.(18) See. e.g. JACOBSEN 1979: 467-502; DALES 1973170.

script, roughly 2500-1800 (?) B.C. Discounting thequestion of geographical distance - a problem weknow did not totally inhibit relations between the IndusValley and Mesopotamia during the later third millenium (19) - the two are simply not contemporary.Nevertheless, I do not feel that the typological similarities between Harappan and Proto-Elamite should belightly dismissed. They are not quantitatively great, inrelation to the number of signs present in each of thesescripts, but neither are they al l of such a simple characters to be meaningless. While I am inclined to thinkthere is some significance in these parallels, I feel stronglyhat they should not be taken at face value, given theglaring chronological discrepancy between the dates fo rthe two scripts.Turning to the second se t of propositions, I aminclined to agree with Lai and others regarding thecontribution of the potter's mark tradition to the development of the Harappan script. The parallels are especially convincing in light of the fact that the signsinvolved occur both in the pre-Harappan era and duringthe Harappan period at sites where the script was in157- (19) PARPOLA, PARPOLA and BRUNSWIG 1977 : 129-165.

115


11/17


use. Once again, we are dealing with only a fraction ofthe number of signs known in both the script and thepotter's mark tradition when we point to parallels between the two. Nevertheless, it appears that some, ifvery few, of the signs incised on pottery in the pre-Harappan period were incorporated into the Harappanscript when it was developed, and in fact, as Lai hasshown, continued in use after the Harappan script ceased to be used.If the potter's mark tradition provided, in some sense,a symbolic sub-stratum upon which, in part, the Harappancript was built, it must nevertheless be recognizedthat this hypothesis fo r the genesis of the script neglectsaltogether the problem of how to explain the parallelsbetween Harappan and Proto-Elamite. Thus, as anexplanation, I find it only partially successful. However,as I have said above, I find no culture historical orchronological justification for the suggestion, as it presently stands, that Proto-Elamite was in some waycontributory to Harappan.In attempting to resolve this impasse, le t us considerthe following observation. Just as Harappan and Proto-Elamite share certain signs, and the potter's mark tradition of the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Indus Valleyshares certain signs with Harappan, so too does thepotter's mark corpus share certain signs with Proto-Elamite. One way in which the typological parallelsbetween Proto-Elamite and Harappan can be reconciledwith the hypothesis that the potter's mark tradition,which occurs before, during, and after the Mature Harappan period, "form(s) part and parcel of the signaryavailable on the Harappan seals" (20) is by postulatingthat the Proto-Elamite script exerted some influenceupon the appearance of a potter's mark tradition in theIndo-Iranian borderlands, and that this tradition, inturn, provided a partial basis for the development of theHarappan script. If there is any connection between thecorpus of Proto-Elamite signs used at the beginning ofthe third millennium and the later Harappan signary, Isuggest it is via the medium of the potter's marks in usethroughout the Indo-Iranian borderlands which absorbed ertain signs of ultimate Proto-Elamite origin, someof which were in time incorporated into the Harappanscript.This hypothesis would help solve the following problems :1. It would account fo r the chronological gap separatingypologically similar signs in the Proto-Elamite

scripts, used in the late fourth and early third millennium, and the Harappan script, used in the secondhalf of the third millennium and early second millennium, by postulating an intermediary "stage" in theuse of incised symbols in the post-Proto-Elamite/pre-Harappan era.2. It would account fo r the attested parallels betweenHarappan and Proto-Elamite in the absence of anyculture historically possible connection between thetwo cultures.3. It would account fo r the attested parallels betweenpotter's marks of the third millennium in the Indo-Iranian borderlands, and the Proto-Elamite script.This is , it must be stressed, an hypothesis and nothing more. I am well aware of its dficiences, as wellas its arguable implications, and these should now beaddressed.No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested thatthe Proto-Elamite script may have served as a substratumor the later florescence of potter's marks in theIndo-Iranian borderlands. What is the culture historicalbasis fo r such a suggestion ? Archaeological researchconducted in Iran during the last decade has providedindisputable evidence of Proto-Elamite expansion ontothe eastern Iranian Plateau in Jamdat Nasr/ED I times.Before this was known, of course, there was no justification fo r expecting any kind of formal relation betweenthe Susian system of writing and the third millenniumpotter's marks of the Indo-Iranian borderlands. Now,however, we know quite definitely of a Proto-Elamiteoccupation at Tepe Yahya 3000 B.C. which left examples f typical Proto-Elamite account tablets, cylinderseals, cylinder sealings, and certain classes of ceramicswith parallels at Susa(21). We know also that Proto-

Elamite influence extended to Shahr-i Sokhta, whereProto-Elamite cylinder sealings and a single tablet havebeen found (22). It may also have been felt further northat Hissar near Damghan. Recent investigations theremay also have brought to light a Proto-Elamite tablet,albeit in a poor state of preservation which makes itsfirm identification difficult (23). Proto-Elamite influence,if indirect, is also attested quite clearly at various sites inSoviet Central Asia and Bactria, as Pierre Amiet hasshown (24).

(20) LAL 1975: 173.(21) LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1971 : 87 ff ; 19781980: 425ff.(22) TUSA 1978 : 255; AMIET and TOSI 1978.(23) M. TOSI, personal communication.(24) AMIET 1977: 89-122; 1979: 202.

114; POTTS

116


12/17


TEPE YAHYAPr-ElamiteHarappanTEPE YAHYAPr-ElamiteHarappan

1 l 0 -f- ft #1 | m + f &1 II lil lili 0 + #

^ f ^

ill M/ //i'i'- ~itiMMIil f 1% ri

X EXxv^v ex

uu ^ 4I N

# dI>

, Tr

b

FIG. 4. - Comparison of signs in the Tepe Yahya potter's mark corpus,he Proto-Elamite script, and the Harappan script.Key to the Parallels Between Tepe Yahya Potter's Marks, Proto-Elamite, and Harappan

Tepe Yahya +Pr-Elamite + +Harappan + + +Tepe YahyaPr-ElamiteHarappan

laI21 4460a76alOl

2914560c76b

31 9a1 4760d1 00

4a60 e99

9d16962a42184

34dI38d63b75315

37a6240641 85

38b8b26065204

42a26 467I9l

4876898224

50a32691 46

5lb4172230

5341c9874a43

54a36a8676a253

56a36u76b138e

Refers to the master sign-list of the Yahya potter's marks.+ + Refers to sign numbers in P. Meriggi. La scrittura proto-elumicu (Rome 1 97 1 ).+ Refers to sign numbers in K. Koskenniemi and A. Parpola, Corpus of Texts in the Indus Script (Helsinki 1979).S Sign occurs on an Indus seal from Lothal (Lai 1962).The possibility should be considered that formal parallels between potter's marks from sites like Tepe Yahya, and signs in the Proto-Elamite script stem notsolely from the extreme universality of many pictogra-

phic representations, as shown through both psychologicalxperiments and studies of historically unrelatedscripts (25). The known presence of Proto-Elamites ineastern Iran at the beginning of the third millennium,writing on tablets in exactly the same manner as wasthen used in Susiana (26), could have left its mark in thearea by introducing the concepts of recording and marking things with symbols for identification, althoughthese functions were performed on tablets and withcylinder seals. It is also possible that in introducing anilliterate population to the notion of signs (27), some of(25) JOHNSON 1962: 147-159.(26) MERIGGI n.d. : 7.(27) Black-on-red ware beakers, found at Tepe Yahya in periodsVB , VA2, nd VA1 sometimes had potter's marks painted on the base.These were most abundant in period VA1. A total of 68 examples

these, following th e Proto-Elamite retreat from the region (28), were taken up by local peoples for use onpottery. Many others used on pottery admittedly bearno apparent relation at all with the Proto-Elamite si-gnary. However, there are enough parallels between thepotter's marks and the Proto-Elamite script to suggestthat the resemblance is not simply a matter of thechance "re-invention" of simple signs by people whoknew nothing of the earlier system of writing.For the purpose of considering this hypothesis in amore concrete manner, I have illustrated the parallelsbetween the Tepe Yahya potter's mark corpus and theProto-Elamite script in Fig. 4. It is undoubtedly true thatif such a reconstruction is valid, then the local users ofthese signs easily adapted them to a purpose which waswere found in all. There appears to be no continuity between period Vand the subsequent occupation of the site, however, and it does notseem likely that the painted potter's marks are related to the laterincised ones.(28) LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1978: 118; AMIET 1977: 200.

117


13/17


entirely different than that for which they were firstdeveloped. Whether there is any significant functionalrelationship between writing on clay in Proto-Elamiteand marking a pot with a single sign of ultimate Proto-Elamite inspiration cannot be determined, as we do notknow what those signs on pots mean. It is quite possiblethat there is no functional relationship at all, and thatthe peoples of this region had their own ideas abouthow a sign might be used which were quite unrelated tothose of a scribe keeping administrative records inProto-Elamite on clay tablets.There are obvious difficulties with this theory, however,t could be argued, fo r instance, that potter's marksare too scarce at Tepe Yahya between the end of theProto-Elamite occupation and the beginning of periodIVA, leaving us with a gap of considerable duration inthe use of incised signs at the site, and therefore throwingoubt on the suggestion that there could be anydirect relation between the script of 3000 B.C. and thepotter's marks of the third millennium. This a problem,and it is compounded by the fact that occupationalcontinuity between periods IVC and IVB is, in myopinion, a point which cannot be satisfactorily resolvedon the basis of our present evidence. Was the entire site

abandoned when the IV C complex was deserted, or wasthere never a complete break in occupation, rather a re -assertion of the local southeast Iranian population, soovershadowed in the archaeological record of periodIVC by the Proto-Elamites ?We are severely hampered in unravelling this problem by the fact that the only architecture found in thesouthern step trench of IVC date all seems related to themain building with its Proto-Elamite artifacts, while noarchitecture at all was found in comparable levels in thenorthern step trench. At Godin Tepe several centuriesearlier (Godin Tepe V) a foreign enclave, suggested byWeiss and Young to be merchants of Susa , dweltalongside a native population who were attestedthrough the recovery of domestic architecture and localceramics, continuous from the preceding period VI horizon 1 ). At Tepe Yahya, however, there is no comparableontinuity between the site's period V ceramics anddomestic architecture, and that of the following periodIVC. Still, this does not tell us whether the Proto-Elamite presence at the site was in the nature of anisolated outpost erected upon a long-abandoned mound,(29) WEISS and YOUNG 1975 : 2-18.

lalb234a4b5a5b67a 7a' 7b J8a

9a 9b9c9d ,10a10b


14/17


or whether the establishment of a Proto-Elamite presence soon brought in its wake the re-settlement of themound by locals from the vicinity. If such were thecase, and these people continued to inhabit the moundfollowing the abandonment of the Proto-Elamite building, then it can be suggested that the requisite localpopulation existed which could have adopted fo r theirow n purposes some of the signs used by their formerneighbors fo r record-keeping.That this should have occurred immediately after theProto-Elamites ceased to occupy the site may beconsidered by some as a sine qu a no n for the hypothesizedonnection between the script and the potter'smarks to be held a possibility at all. In fact, severalpotter's marks out of thousands of unmarked sherds arefound in IV C and IVB levels, although the majority arefrom IVB1 through IVA4. On the other hand, at therisk of seeming to stretch the bounds of credibilitybeyond endurance, it could also be suggested that theinfluence of the script may have been more immediatelyfelt on other sites in the borderlands, as ye t unexplored.In this way, the custom of incising pots with signs couldhave become common at Tepe Yahya at a slightly laterdate, and the rare appearance of potter's marks in periodIVB, becoming more common in period IVA, and steadily increasing in numbers through the final phase ofIVA, might be explained. This must remain, however,at present no more than pure speculation.Finally, it should be noted that many of the potter'smarks which have parallels in the Harappan script, are

also those which show affinities to the Proto-Elamitescript (fig. 4) . Thus, the question may be asked, does thisrepresent the conscious selection of certain signs fromProto-Elamite by the peoples of the Indo-Iranian borderlands, and in turn the intentional incorporation ofsome of the same signs in Harappan because of thesymbolic and/or syllabic value of these signs ? That isan intriguing possibility, but as we can read neitherProto-Elamite nor Harappan, and as signs with no obvious representational value can have had a variety ofmeanings in different cultural contexts, we can do nomore than point this out as a possibility.I have tried in the preceding discussion to reconcile,both chronologically and culture historically, two hypotheses concerning the origin of the Indus script. It is anintriguing linguistic puzzle indeed, and one which deserves the attention of scholars with a deeper understanding of Proto-Elamite, Harappan, and the archaeologyf the Indo-Iranian borderlands than I have tooffer. If this discussion, however obvious its shortcomingsmay be, has served to stimulate further work onthe problems involved, then it will have more thanserved its purpose.

Daniel POTTSInstitut fur VorderasiatischeAlterkumskundeFreie Universit t BerlinBilterstr. 8-12I Berlin 33

119


15/17

TABLE 6Complete catalogue of sign-types represented in the TepeYahya potter's mark corpus, showing their numericalfrequency and temporal distribution.Signlalb234a4b5a5b67a7a '7b8a8b9a9b9c9d10a10blialiblielidliellf1213141516aHb16c17181920212 2a2 2b22c2 3a23b24252627282930a30b31a31 b3233a33b33c33 d33e34a34b34c34 d34e3536a36b36c36 d36e36f36 g37a37 b

IVC IVB11

1

23

1

1

1112

IVA3-211

1

22111

1

1

IVA3-1131

1113111

111211

111

2

7

I VA 21141

13111311111

1112

1

111111

5

I VA 1332211

1

41111

31111111

21

11123

1

1

1

1

111

1

12

1

.1

Uncertain5311171

101412

21212

11]211

151

Total5112134111141112146124321612113211111111041411213111111111110

111111111111111221

Sign37c37 d37e38a38 b38c39404142a42b43a43b44a44b454647484950a50b50c50 d50e50f51a51b51c5 Id5 2a52b5354a54b5556a56 b575859a59b59 c59d60a60b60c60d60e6162a62b6 3a63b64

6566a66b66c67686970a70b71a71b727374a74b75a75b76a76b

IVC IVB |IVA3-2[lVA3-l IVA2

1

2

11

1

1

1

11

1

12

1

1

1

1

111

1

11112

1111

11

1

1

1

IVA1

1143111

111211

1111

311

1

1 1 1 -I

1

1

111121

3

1111121

Uncertain11111211

1111111223

11

1111111331111

11

Total]111"T113237141211111111111111544613112124111141311121111

1111971111111111111120


16/17


BIBLIOGRAPHYAMIET P.19771979

Bactriane Protohistorique. Syria 54/1-2 :89-121.Archaeological discontinuity and ethnicduality in Elam. Antiquity 53 : 195-204.AMIET P. and TOSI M.1978 Excavations in Square XDV at Shahr-iSokhta : 1975 Campaign. East and West28 : 9-31.BRICE W.C.1967 The Structure of Linear A, with someProto-Elamite and Proto-Indic Comparisons.In BRICE W.C, ed. : Europa : FestschriftErnst Grumach. Berlin : 32-44.DE CARDI B.1970 Excavations at Bampur, A Third Millen

nium Settlement in Persian Baluchistan1966. Anthropological Paper of th e AmericanMuseum of Natural History 51/3. NewYork.CASAL J.-M.1966 Nindowari - A Chalcolithic Site in SouthBaluchistan. Pakistan A rchaeology 3 : 10-21.DALES G.F.1973 Archaeological and Radiocarbongies for Protohistoric South Asia. In HAMMOND N., ed. : South Asian Archaeology.

London: 157-170.1979 The Balakot Project: Summary of FourYears of Excavations in Pakistan. In TAD-DEI M., ed. : South Asian Archaeology1977. Naples: 241-274.FAIRSERVIS W.A. Jr.1958 Excavations in the Quetta Valley, Westkistan. Anthropological Paper of th e American useum of Natural History 45/2. NewYork.1971 The Roots of Ancient India. New York:Macmillan.1976 Excavations at Allahdino I : Seals andscribed Material. Papers of th e AllahdinoExpedition. New York.

1977 Excavations ar Allahdino III : The Graffiti 'AModel in the Decipherment of the HarappanScript'. Papers of th e Allahdino Expedition.New York.HAKEMI A.1976 Ecriture pictographique dcouverte dans lesfouilles de Shahdad. Thran : Permanent

Bureau of the International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology.HUNTER G.R.1932 Mohenjo-Daro - Indus Epigraphy. Journalof th e Royal Asiatic Society .- 466-503.JACOBSEN .1979 South Asian Pre- and Protohistory. AnnualReview of Anthropology 8 : 467-502.JOHNSON G.B. Jr.1962 Pictorial Representation and the Problem ofUniversality. Ethnohistory 9 : 147-159.KOSKENNIEMI K. and PARPOLA A.1979 Corpus of Texts in the Indus Script.sinki : Dept. of Asian and African Studies,Univ. of Helsinki.LA L B.B.19621975

From the megalithic to the Harappan : tracing back the graffiti on the pottery. AncientIndia 16 : 4-24.The Indus Script : Some Observations Basedon Archaeology. Journal of the Royal Asiaticociety : 173-177.LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY CC.1971 The Proto-Elamite Settlement at Tepe Ya-hya. Iran IX : 87-95.1978 The Proto-Elamites on the Iranian Plateau.Antiquity 52 : 114-120.McALPIN D.1974 Toward Proto-Elamo-Dravidian. Language50/1 : 89-101.1975 Elamite and Dravidian : Further Evidenceof Relationship. Current Anthropology 16 :105-115.MERIGGI P.n.d. The Inscribed Tablets. In TOSI M., ed. :Annali. Naples.

121


17/17


PARPOLA S., PARPOLA A. and BRUNSWIG R.H. Jr.1977 The Meluhha Village. Evidence ofration of Harappan Traders in late ThirdMillennium Mesopotamia ? Journal of th eEconomic and Social History of th e OrientXX/2 : 129-165.POTTS D.T.1980 Tradition and Transformation : Tepe Yahyaand th e Iranian Plateau During th e ThirdMillennium B.C. Cambridge : Dept. of Anthropology, Harvard University.TOSI M.1968 Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta, a Chalcoli-thic Settlement in the Iranian Sistan.

minary Report on the First Campaign, October-December 1967. East and West 18/1-2 :9-66.1969 Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta. PreliminaryReport on the Second Campaign, September-December 1968. East and West 19/3-4 :283-386.VALLAT .1978 Le Matriel Epigraphique des Couches 18 14 de l'Acropole. Palorient 4 : 193-195.WEISS H. and YOUNG T.C. Jr.1975 The Merchants of Susa : Godin V andteau-Lowland Relations in the Late FourthMillennium B.C. Iran XIII : 2-18.

122

potts, d., 1981, the potter's marks of tepe yahya, in: paleorient, vol. 7, issue 7-1, pp.107-122

Documents