Política de Inversión de proyectos de desarrollo inmobiliario

The first of three Neo-Elamite bronze “bathtub” burials found in the Zagros piedmonts was discovered in 1982 on the left bank of the Marun River during dam construction near Arjān in Khuzistan province (fig. 12).109

A rescue excavation of the tomb was conducted by F. Towhidi and A. M. Khaliliān from the Office of Historical Remains.110

Shortly afterwards the excavators published a short “Report on the Study of the Objects from the Arjān Tomb, Behbahan” in Persian,111

which was partly reproduced in an English language article by Abbas Alizadeh.112 Further publications of various materials from the tomb have since appeared in a number of journal and book articles.113 The Arjān burial became the most comprehensively published of the bronze coffin burials with the 2010 release of Javier Álvarez-Mon’s The Arjān Tomb. Álvarez-Mon’s work primarily focuses on the objects found within the coffin, placing them in the context of the historical interaction of Assyria and Elam and the emergence of the Persian Empire. This work thoroughly describes the context of the burial,114 and includes a brief, up-to-date discussion of the evidence for the bronze “bathtub” coffins presently available.

The Arjān tomb is a rectangular subterranean chamber, comprising three stone-lined, gypsum-plastered walls, a plastered floor, and a stone slab ceiling coated with bitumen (fig.

107

Pedde 2012, 857. It did, however, decline somewhat in importance from the time of Sargon II when first Khorsabad and then Nineveh took primacy (Oates et al. 2001, 68-9). The site continued to be used after this date, with certain rooms cleared for “squatter” occupation (Oates et al. 2001, 63-5).

108

After this time some of the site was levelled, but there appears only to have been “squatter” occupation of the site (Oates et al. 2001, 63-5, 165). The domestic wing under which the tombs were situated appears not to have been resettled, although according to Hussein et al. (2000, 94) there is some indication that this area was used for burials.

109

Alizadeh 1985, 51; Stronach 2003, 252. The site is approximately 10km north of Behbahan. Arjān is a well- known Sasanian town, but surveys have revealed presence at the site going back to the prehistory (Alizadeh 1985, 51). For further details of the coffin see appendix 3, coffin 6.

110

Alizadeh 1985, 51.

111

Towhidi and Khaliliān 1982.

112

Alizadeh (1985) includes a small section on the tomb chamber and the coffin itself, drawing analogies between the Arjān coffin and the then-available examples from Ur and Zincirli, as well as uncritically including the several other unprovenanced examples said to originate from archaeological sites in northwest Iran.

113

Including S. Mo’taghed’s (1990) analysis of the textile remains and E. Amirlou’s (2004) analysis of the few remaining bone fragments. In-depth analyses of the material have focussed on the bronze “Arjān bowl” (Y. Majidzadeh 1992 and Álvarez-Mon 2004),the lion-headed bronze beaker (Álvarez-Mon 2008) and the inscribed and decorated gold Arjān “ring” (Álvarez-Mon 2011a).

114

13).115 The nature of its eastern wall remains unclear because it was disturbed by the bulldozer during the construction work.116 No construction was noted above or surrounding the tomb and it is not known if the burial was marked on the ground surface, although two large jars lying directly on top of the chamber may have served to mark it in some way (fig. 13).117 The single bronze coffin housed in the chamber contained the skeleton of a 40-50 year old male laid on his side in a flexed position with his head at the round end (fig. 14).118 Also in the coffin were textile fragments (including cotton) and 98 gold bracteates,and a gold ‘ring’ inscribed in Elamite with “Kidin-Hutran, son of Kurluš”, an individual whose identity remains speculative.119 A number of additional metal objects were recovered from the floor of the tomb including a silver jar, bronze bowl and bronze candelabrum bearing the same inscription.120 Fragments of a decorated bronze coffin lid with two handles on top (fig. 15), the only bronze lid known to-date, were found underneath the coffin itself. It had presumably been dislodged during the flooding of the tomb which left the chamber and coffin filled with

115

Alizadeh 1985, 51. Vatandoust (1996, 69) states that the stones used are “limestone”. The stone-lined tomb chamber construction is common in the highlands, while the gypsum plaster appears to imitate vaults in lowland Susa (Alizadeh 1985, 67).

116

Whether the east wall had an entryway was uncertain because of the damage (Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 21-22). Vatandoust (1996, 69) describes this fourth wall as being of mudbrick.

117

According to Vatandoust (1996, 69) the tomb was “surrounded by mud-brick masses”, however, no other author has reported this detail. Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 21) proposed that the two large vessels atop the chamber could have served as grave markers. Some stone tombs in neighbouring Pusht-e Kuh were marked by a circle of stones or one (or more) headstones and it is suggested that others could have been marked by wooden constructions or earth mounds (Overlaet 2003, 6-63). These possibilities may also apply for Arjān.

118

The skeletal remains were unfortunately not recorded and abandoned in the tomb during the excavations. They were later collected for analysis by Mr. E. Amirlou (2004, 8), who suggested that the single remaining clavicula indicated that this was a male. The sex of the interred appeared also to be reinforced by objects found in the coffin, amongst which there is a notable lack of typically ‘female’ goods (see Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 29). Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 29) describes the arrangement of the body as “foetal position”. Alternatively, Alizadeh (1985, 53) describes the skeletal remains as suggesting the “flexed position of the body with the arms crossed and resting on the chest [and] the ring seems to have positioned in the left hand of the deceased at the time of interment”.

119

Mo’taghed 1990, 89-92. The precise original placement and purpose of the textiles is unknown, but because of their small size and delicate and valuable nature Mo’taghed (1990, 136-8) dismisses the interpretation that these were “pillows” (for interpretations of the textiles as pillows see Alizadeh 1985, 52; Vatandoust 1996, 71). Along with the single Nimrud cotton sample these are the oldest cotton remains recovered in these regions and reveal that cotton had been introduced for elite use by this time, possibly from Dilmun where it was certainly being grown by the Persian Empire period (Álvarez-Mon 2010b, 207, fn. 3). A broken hollow silver rod/tube may also have been present in the coffin, although there is some confusion over this fact. According to Alizadeh (1985, 54-5) it had already been removed from the tomb by the time the excavation team arrived and its precise context is unknown, but that “on the basis of its shape and value we assume that it had been placed in the coffin as part of the deceased’s princely regalia.” Carter (1994, 72) and Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 120-21) appear to accept Alizadeh’s interpretation and report simply that it was found in the coffin. Álvarez-Mon interprets this unusual object as a filtering device for drinking wine, or perhaps more likely beer. For the inscription see Vallat 1984; Potts 1999, 303; Stronach 2005, 180; Álvarez-Mon 2010a, 10, 272-3.

120

The remaining objects were all made of bronze: a lamp, jar, lion-headed beaker and thirteen chalices (Alizadeh 1985, 51; Alvarex-Mon 2010a, 121, 167).

a 20-25cm layer of sediment and may also have shifted the coffin into its slightly diagonal alignment within the tomb (fig. 13).121

The lower section of the coffin exhibits a heavy patina as a result of its inundation in water, but has otherwise survived well and offers a good, complete piece for analysis (fig. 14). This example is distinguished from the Ur and Nimrud examples by its handles, which are ribbed with smooth inner sides rather than plain (fig. 15),122 and by its lid, which had a bronze handle fixed on top at either end and registers of lotus and bud motif decoration along the outer edge (figs. 14 and 15).123 The coffin body itself, however, is undecorated. Fragments of decayed rope were still tied around the side-handles of the coffin and may have originally held the lid in place.124

Scholars initially favoured an 8th century date for the burial,125 but this proposition has been quite conclusively disproved. The inscriptions instead provide an approximate date of c.646-525,126 which is further narrowed to the first half of the 6th century by analyses of the grave goods.127 Most recently Álvarez-Mon has dated “the assemblage to c.600 BC, and the engraving of the inscriptions and the act of burial to about a generation later, c.570 BC.”128