Halil Rud basin

The Halil Rud basin, ca. 90 km east of Tepe Yahya, was densely populated during the third millennium BC. About 170 sites dating to this period are recorded in this region, including 70 sites with evidence of metallurgical activities and the major sites of Konar

Sandal South and Konar Sandal North (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008). Because of these discoveries, in addition to the settlements at Tepe Yahya and Shahdad at some point, the Halil Rud basin is considered the center of an important Bronze Age polity, named the Halil Rud (or Jiroft) Civilization and characterized by distinctive chlorite/ steatite and ceramic assemblages, relating to those at Tepe Yahya IVB (“Intercultural Style”/” sérá ancienne” and painted ceramics) (see Pittman 2013a). Most scholars believe that this civilization is Marhashi, the above-mentioned kingdom listed in Mesopotamian texts (Steinkeller 1982, 2014), although Francfort and X. Tremblay (2010) argue that Marhashi designates the Oxus Civilization (on this name theme see also Chapter 2). Shahdad has relationships to the Halil Rud basin, especially through its painted ceramics, although, as noted above, this site appears mostly more recent than Konar Sandal South, based on current available data in Madjidzadeh and Pittman (2008). We also noted above that Tepe Yahya IVA and the Oxus Civilization too are mostly later than the “Intercultural Style” as well as the deposits from Konar Sandal South characterized by typical painted ceramics. We shall, however, await complete publication of the excavations at this site and perhaps new excavation before drawing too definitive conclusions. The “citadel” and surrounding wall uncovered at this site are dated to ca. 2400-2300 BC, but C.P. Thornton (2012: 604) notes that the “latest surface material around the mound corresponds with the earliest material so far identified from [Konar Sandal North],” dating to the early second millennium BC (see pp. 561-562). Additionally, parallels are noted at Shahdad as well as Central Asia, Shahr-i Sokhta, and Bampur to the southeast for a dozen metal compartmented seals from Konar Sandal South (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 95-97, 96 fig. 28),¹³ although one may argue that these seals also are reminiscent of older specimens recorded in Kech-Makran, southwestern Pakistan, and at Bampur (see pp. 568-569). Cylinderseal impressions from this site are also compared to Shahdad’s glyptic. An illustrated example represents a scene with two seated figures facing each other (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 97, 99,97 fig. 29b, right part of the impression), which is not very different from scenes present on an open-worked pin in the Louvre Museum said to be from eastern Iran or Central Asia, a lapis lazuli disk also supposedly from southeastern Iran, and a compartmented seal from Bactria (Amiet 2007a: 173, 222 fig. 89; Aruz and Wallenfels 2003: 332 no. 228; see also Shahdad’s “standard” in Hakemi 1997: 649). Additional seal impressions “can be closely paralleled with seals found at Tepe Yahya and Shahdad, showing the pantheon of southeastern Iran” (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 99, fig. 31a, b, c, d). Most of the (few) cylinder seals found at Gonur Depe are said to come from the Halil Rud basin (Pittman 2014). Lastly, like at Shahdad and in Central Asia, a Linear Elamite inscription (on a baked brick) was found at Konar Sandal South (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 81). The stylistic connections observed in the glyptic may indicate the continuation of an older form of art at Shahdad and in Central Asia, as Amiet argues in general for the “trans-élamite” art that he defines as “archaic” (Amiet 1986: 197, 199). The Linear Elamite inscription, in contrast, represents a solid chronological marker.

Konar Sandal North, the second major site excavated recently in the Halil Rud basin, is thought to be more recent. Provisionally and based on the very few ceramics published so far, Francfort estimates that this site is not older than ca. 1500 BC (Francfort and Tremblay 2010: 99). Certain types of pottery, however, are considered reminiscent of the Oxus assemblage (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 94-95, 95 fig. 27). Also, compartmented seal impressions with close parallels at Shahdad are recorded on jars (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: too fig. 33). Additionally, M. Vidale reports the presence of chlorite/steatite fragments of “série récente” style, the style recorded at Shahdad and in Central Asia, on the surface of this site (Vidale 2015: 19). Thornton confirms the presence of such material in the earliest levels at Konar Sandal North, including chlorite/steatite vessels bearing the typical dot-incircle motif. Interestingly, an imposing stepped mudbrick platform (300 x 300 x? 6.5 m) was built on top of these levels. The ceramic assemblage associated with it has no ready parallels, but the bricks used in the construction compare to those employed in the last phase of the “citadel” at Konar Sandal South, and, overall, both bricks and ceramics point to the early second millennium BC, with the possibility that the two structures were used in the same period (Thornton 2012: 604-605; see also Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008: 88-89). If the date of around 2000 BC for this platform is confirmed, then it could be linked to the similar Bronze Age monumental constructions observed in the broader region at Altyn Tepe, Ulug Depe, and Tureng Tepe as well as Nad-i-Ali (see Francfort 2005a: 281; see also below p. 563).

The Halil Rud basin, more specifically the Jiroft region, is also considered the point of origin of a large amount of Bronze Age ceramic, stone, and metal artifacts seized in Iran around 2001. The origin of these objects is, however, still debated (see Muscarella 2005). Amiet, for instance, suggests that some of them are from Shahdad (Amiet 2007c: 71). While certain doubts remain as to the provenience of these antiquities, Vidale is quite certain of their origin being in the Jiroft region including Mahtoutabad, a looted Bronze Age cemetery located near Konar Sandal South (Vidale 2015: 16-17). The material collected includes many “Intercultural Style” chlorite/steatite objects, which are older than the Oxus Civilization, although a “série récente” vial, stylistically connected to Shahdad and Central Asia, is observed (Francfort and Tremblay 2010: 98). Besides this material, the series of stone vessels, containers, and miniature columns seized (Akbarzadeh and Piran 2013: 50-59) have clear parallels at Shahdad (Hakemi 1997: 608-611) and in Central Asia (e.g., from Togolok: Hiebert 1994a: 156 fig. 9.21, 156 fig. 9.21; Gonur Depe: Rossi Osmida 2007: i67fig. 16,171 figs.26-27;Vidale2.017:44fig.41;UlugDepe: Amiet 1986: 308 fig. 150; “Bactriane”: Amiet 1986: 311 figs. 157-158; additional ones, from private collections, said to be from Central Asia, are illustrated in Vidale 2017: 48-50 figs. 44-46, 59-61 figs. 51-52, although caution should be exercised as to the origin and authenticity of some of this material).

Lastly, accepting the view that the Halil Rud basin was the core of Marhashi, Vidale interprets a scene depicted on a silver goblet from a private collection, purportedly from Central Asia, as a representation of

a ruler of Marhashi wounded and handcuffed in a ceremonial Bactrian procession, demonstrating that [the contacts between the Oxus Civilization and southeastern Iran] were far from peaceful and that military expeditions, at least in form of raids, could cross the Iranian Plateau.

(Vidale 2017: 44, 66-74; again, caution is required as to the origin and authenticity of this material)