Potters marks Tepe Yahya

Paléorient

CNRS Editions

THE POTTER'S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYAAuthor(s): Daniel POTTSSource: Paléorient, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1981), pp. 107-122Published by: Paléorient and CNRS EditionsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41489504 .

Accessed: 21/08/2013 13:12

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].

.

Paléorient and CNRS Editions are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPaléorient.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.77 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:13:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41489504?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


PALÉORIENT Vol. 7/1 198!

THE POTTER'S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA

lì. POTTS

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.

RESUME. - L 'article porte sur l'étude 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 été répertoriées selon leur typologie et une série de tableaux donne leur répartition par période et par phase. La fonction de ces signes n'est que brièvement évoquée, tandis que l'on accorde une plus grande attention aux correspondances qui existent entre les marques de potiers des pourtours indo-iraniens et les écritures proto-élamite et harappéenne. A la lumière de ces correspondances, on examine la possibilité de liens entre la civilisation proto-élamite et la civilisation harappéenne.

The site of Tepe Yahya has yielded a rich corpus of incised signs on both complete ceramic vessels and, more commonly, on sherds. The purpose of this paper is to present their a) typological characteristics, including the frequency of occurrence of each sign-type along with a sign list and catalogue; and b) a discussion of the spatio-temporal and culture historical significance of the corpus. Finally, speculations on the relationship between the potter s marks of the Indo-Iranian borderlands and both the Proto-Elamite and Harappan scripts will be raised for future examination.

THE SITE

Tepe Yahya is located in the southwestern part of the Soghun Valley in Kerman province, c. 220 km south of the city of Kerman, Iran. The valley covers approxima- tely 200 sq. km and sits at an altitude of 1500-1525 m.a.s.l., although the mountains which ring the valley can reach twice that height. The site is a circular mound, c. 19.8 m in height, and 187 m in diameter at the base. It was excavated during the course of six summer seasons (1968-1971, 1973, 1975) by the Har- vard-Iran Expedition under the direction of Prof. C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Peabody Museum, Harvard Uni- versity (1 ).

The excavations have revealed a long stratigraphie sequence, interrupted by certain breaks in the occupation of the site, which runs from c. 5000 B.C. to the first centuries of the Christian era, when the site came under strong Partho-Sasanian influence. We are concerned here with periods IV through I, i.e. the Bronze and Iron Age occupations, as well as the late, historic

periods (Achaemenian through Partho-Sasanian). Gene- rally, we may equate the relevant sub-periods with the following 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

353 examples are included in the catalogue presented here. Of these, 108 were recovered during excavations in the south step trench, while another 187 were found in the north step trench. An additional 58 were found in surface contexts. The corpus consists of signs incised on pottery vessels just prior to firing. Normally, they occur on 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, although examples of incised potter's marks also occur in I VC, IVB, and III-I levels, i.e. both earlier and later than the period of their greatest florescence. While it seems indisputable that period IVA witnessed the greatest use of these incised signs, I do not believe tiiat the examples from the earlier and later levels are all out context. Rather, I think they attest to considerable continuity in the tradition of incising signs on pots.

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

(2) The lengths of the individual sub-periods and the question of continuity between them, especially in the cases of IVC's relation to IVB, and IVB's relation to IVA, are difficult problems which will not be delved into here. The reader should take note of the different dates which have appeared in various publications concerned with the site over the last decade as the results of the excavations have been analy- zed and further refined. It must be realized that the dates given above reflect my own views and not necessarily those of either the director of the excavations, nor the other members of the team publishing different aspects of the site.

107



THE POTTER S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA

In most cases the sign is incised on the exterior of the vessel wall, just above the base. Less frequently, the sign may be found on the base of the vessel, or on the exterior of the upper third of the vessel wall. For lack of a better term, these incised signs have been traditionally referred to as "potter's marks", although this usage represents more a matter of verbal convenience than an a priori interpretation of the function of these signs. An answer to the question of the meaning or function of

FIG. 1. - A selection of pottery types from Tepe Yahya bearing incised signs.

Drawings are by the author after originals by Miss Ann Hechle origi- nally published by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky in Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1969, Progress Report I, Bulletin 27, American Schools of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum (Cambridge 1970). Key : a) coarse grit buff ware, Period I ; b) red wash on plain buff ware, Period IVB; с) plain red-orange ware, Period IVB; d) red- slipped tan ware, Period IVA, phase uncertain; e) red wash on plain buff, Period IVA3-1 ; 0 plain brown ware, Period III; g) plain orange- buff ware, Period IVA3-2; h) brown-slipped tan grit ware, Period I. Scale : 1 cm = 5 cm.

these signs is still not in view, and the problem will be largely ignored in this presentation (3).

The sign list (Fig. 5) presented here is an attempt to arrange the 353 individual signs recovered into a typolo-

(3) The distinction between a corpus of hand-made vessels bearing incised signs, and a corpus of wheel-made pottery, without such signs, raises certain possibilities of interpretation. The hand-made vessels, perhaps manufactured at home by individuals for their families, may have been fired in communal kilns, of which we have no evidence, and thus required some kind of distinguishing mark so that families could retrieve their own vessels from the kiln after firing, being sure that they had in their possession the pot or pots which they had in fact themsel- ves made. It may be interesting in this regard to note that when one breaks down the corpus showing the numbers of signs and sign-types represented in each of the sub-periods under consideration, a substan- tially smaller number of signs appears to have been in use during any one sub-period than might have been, at first glance, expected. Gran- ted, some of these are also present in other sub-periods, and there is often no temporal continuity between the sub-periods during which a particular sign is found. But the number of sign occurrences, which is never more than 73 in any one sub-period, and of these never more than 49 individual sign-types in use at any one time, would not be incompatible with the numbers of families which may have been making handmade pots during any one sub-period between IVC and III/ II. We have no truly reliable means with which to estimate population at the site during the third millennium, but if each sign-type represented one family's property mark, and the maximum number of sign-types in use at one time is 49, then it is at least reasonable, I think, to suppose that the same number of families could have resided simul- taneously on the site, Indeed, this may be a very low estimate of population, and the small number of signs present in each sub-period may 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 those vessels belonging to one family placed in a kiln it was only necessary to mark the uppermost one of the lot with a sign.

Still, if this practice was pursued with any regularity, I would not expect to find such a high number of unique signs within the corpus, unless families produced but an occasional pot or lot of pots for their own use, relying instead more generally upon the products of professional potters. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate that the vessels in question, handmade though they may be, do represent in fact the work of private individuals as opposed to professional potters. While I think it likely that the vessels which bear incised signs could easily have been made by non-professional, household potters, clearly this explanation is only one of several which could be proposed, and I do not want to go on speculating about a hypothesis which, it seems to me, can neither be confirmed nor rejected outright on the basis of the available evidence.

One clear objection to this interpretation is raised by the implication that all the signs would then represent family or individual identities, expressed either ideographically or syllabically, depending on what the true nature of this marking system is. However, it seems at least if not more likely that the first three groups of signs (see discussion following) have a numerical significance, and would not stand for owner's or maker's marks. Another obvious alternative would be that the signs represent not owner's or maker's marks, but rather goods which might be contained in the fired pot, but this alternative is, I think, less likely than the one just discussed.

108




gical order. As I am not a philologist but rather an archaeologist, I have proceeded in what seemed an intuitively sensible fashion in constructing this typology. The typology consists of 148 entries, some typologically affiliated, running from sign-type la through 76b. This is not intended to be a philological study, and certain sign groups should perhaps have been collapsed, but it is hoped that, as presented, the listing does not mask any variations which may be of either typological or philological significance. What is certain is that the signs fall into groups, some more or less discrete, represented by the 148 entries in the sign-list. These entries can be broken down into twenty sub-groups, roughly identifia- ble by the dominant formal characteristics of each sign- type. These will be discussed very briefly in turn.

Group 1. Linear: la-6

This group is comprised of straight lines only. Straight lines incised on pots from Tepe Yahya occur singly, in pairs, and in groups of three to six lines. When there is more than one line present, they are arranged in parallel fashion. On analogy with many known writing or notational systems, these may represent strokes for counting from one to six, or some higher mutliples thereof, but this cannot be determined except within the context of a complete numerical or notational 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. In any case, groups of four and five parallel lines were noted both parallel to and at right angles to the bases of sherds on which they occurred, and for that reason have been considered as variants of the same sign here.

Group 2. Punctate : 7a- 19

Also in some ways suggestive of a system of numerical notation are those signs composed of single or multiple punctations. In some cases, a certain number of punctations have been arranged in various ways, as for example sign variantss 10a and 10b which are composed of four punctations; sign variants 1 la through 1 If, composed of five punctations; and sign variants 16a through 16c, composed of ten punctations. As with the simple linear group, it is impossible to know whether these signs have numerical significance.

Group 3. Linear! Punctate : 20-32

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

two and sixteen punctations, variously arranged to the right or left of a single line or pair of parallel lines, is highly suggestive of some kind of notational system. What the respective values might be for a single line, or pair of lines, remains a mystery, yet in arranging these first three groups of signs while making up the sign list I had the distinct feeling that there well might be a simple numerical system here which behaved according to certain unknown rules. Scholars more familiar than myself with early notational systems, or with primitive notational systems still in use, may see something in these signs which I have not been able to draw out.

Group 4 . Globular: 33a-33e

These signs are perhaps all variants of a simple circle or oval incised on a pot with varying degrees of care. Should there be any significance in the variations obser- ved, however, I felt it wiser to present the material as I found it, rather than abstracting one ideal sign from all the variants noted.

Group 5. Globular / Linear : 34a- 34e

As with Group 4, there may be no significance to the variants listed here, but they are all just dissimilar enough to warrant separation, in my opinion. These signs all consist of an oval with a line running through it, either lengthwise or widthwise. Sign 34e should be mentioned briefly because it was not found on a sherd or pot from Tepe Yahya itself, but rather on a piece found in a cairn burial (SU 70 43) in the Soghun Valley by Mr William Fitz. It presumably dates to period II on the mound, as do many of the known cairns around the site.

Group 6. Globular / Punctate : 35-36g

This group consists of incised circles which have from one to eight distinct punctations either in or around them. One example, sign 36g, consisted of a circle with a mass of tiny, random punctations within it.

Group 7. X- Shapes : 37a- 37b

Sign 37a, a simple incised X, is the most common sign in the entire corpus. Thirty-one examples have been noted. Indeed, this simple sign is to be found almost anywhere in the world where potters marks have been studied. One example of a wavy variant, sign 37b, was also noted.

109




Group 8. Cruciform: 37c-37d

Two examples were found of crosses incised in out- line form. One of these may date to period IVC, although it comes from a problematic context.

Group 9. Cruciform / Punctate : 37e-38c

These signs consist of single-line crosses adorned with between two and six punctations. The punctations all occur in symmetrical arrangements, often around two of the opposite distal ends of the cross.

Group 10. Hatched: 39-49

This group consists of two or more parallel lines which cross-cut one or more parallel lines, often forming a grid pattern.

Group 11. Open : 50a

A single sign is listed here, but it is typologically affiliated to Group 12. It is a three-sided, open form, and may be the basic sign of which Group 1 2 represents the variants.

Group 12. Open / Punctate : 50b- 5 Of

Variants of sign 50a, sometimes with curving lines or straight lines forming a peak, may have between one and four distinct punctations located both within and outside the incised shape. One variant, sign 50f, has a mass of tiny punctations made in random fashion.

Group 13. Trilinear : 5 la- 5 Id

Although orientation may be of no significance, I have listed under four separate headings a sign which consists of three parallel strokes running perpendicular to a straight ìine.

Group 14. Irregular Trilinear: 5 2a- 5 2b

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

Group 15. Quadrilinear : 54

This sign is just like those of Group 13, except that instead of three parallel lines running perpendicular to a

straight line, we find four. This sign may have some affiliation with signs 51a through 5 Id.

Group 16. Trident: 54a-58 This is a somewhat mixed group of sign variants, all

of which show a basic trident shape with what may be called "modifiers". These modifiers include a perpendicular line running through the stem of the trident, a punctation placed on either side of the central prong of the trident, an incised circle on top of the tridents prongs, or a scatter of tiny punctations at the base of the trident. The prongs of the trident may be rendered in a curvilinear or rectilinear fashion. As this is one of the few signs which occurs with other signs (see discussion below), the impression is all the more strong that we are dealing with a basic sign form - the trident - plus its modifiers. Whether those modifiers have syllabic, numerical, or ideational significance is unknown.

Group 17. Winged: 59a-59d The signs in this group, with the exception of the last

and most poorly formed example, consist of a pair of upright parallel lines cross-cut or attached to one or more incised lines. The overall impression is not dissimilar to that of a bird rendered schematically as a stick- figure.

Group 18. Vegetal: 60a-61 This is a group of signs whose variants resemble the

archaic Sumerian and Proto-Elamite signs for wheat. They may be compared with sign nos. 1 10 and 1 1 1 in Falkenstein's Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Berlin 1936), and with sign nos. 76a and 76b in Meriggiò La scrittura proto-elamica (Rome 1971). In one case, that of sign 60d, three punctations have been added to the sign. In another instance, the rendering is very schematic, and more "dendritic" in appearance than the rest of the known examples.

Group 19. V-Shape : 62a-63b

These signs consist of either a simple V, or a V with a straight, dividing line through the middle. Again, leaving open the question of orientation, I have listed all known variants separately.

Group 20. Irregular: 64-76b

This final category is comprised of all those unique signs which could not be associated typologically with

110




the rest of the signs in the corpus. Several are of particular interest, including sign 64, which has a clear parallel in the Proto-Elamite script, and sign 70a, which is not unlike the archaic Sumerian sign for "plow". Also of interest is sign 65 which has a close Harappan parallel, and occurs in the longest "inscription" of incised signs found on the pottery from Tepe Yahya. Signs 67 and 76b should also be noted because they occur as "modifiers" with sign 54b which has already been discussed.

DISTRIBUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Discounting for the moment those signs which come from surface contexts, and those to which definite sub- period designations could not be made, we are left with a corpus of 241 incised signs from periods I VC through III-I. These show the following temporal distribution (see also Table 6 which gives the full breakdown of sign-types by period, including their numerical frequency) :

TABLE 1 Distribution of Potter's Marks Through Time

at Tepe Yahya

Period IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVA1 III-I

Number 1 19 18 40 58 72 33

This temporal distribution can be refined further if we consider not the gross number of signs recorded for each sub-period, but rather the number of sign-types represented in each sub-period. It will be remembered that 148 sign-types have been tentatively defined within the entire corpus of potter s marks from Tepe Yahya.

TABLE 2 Distribution of Sign-Types Through Time at Tepe Yahya

Period IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVA1 III-I

Number 1 14 16 27 45 49 28

Unique signs amount to just over one-third of the entire corpus (33.7296), representing 105 out of a total of 353 complete signs included in this study. This does not include an additional 20 fragmentary signs. Signifi- cantly, however, unique sign-types represent over two- thirds (105 out of 148) of the total number of entries in the master sign-list. These have been listed in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Distribution of Unique Sign-Types Shown by Period .

Sign IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVAl III-I Uncertain lb 1 4b 1 5a 1 5b 1 _6 i 7a' I _7b 1 8b 1 9c 1 lia 1 11c 1 lle I llf 1 14 1 15 1 16a I 16b 1 16c I ~L7 1 Ti Ï ~21 I ~22b Ï - - _ "23b 1 "25 I *26 1 27 I 28 I 29 I _ _ 30b ï На " ï 3Tb ï 32 ï 33b I 33^ ï - - _ 33e ï 34a 1 34b 1 34c 1 34d 1 34e 1 _35

1 ~ 36a 1 36b 1 36c 1

111




TABLE3 (continued)

Isiqn IVC IVB IVA3-2 1УЛЗ-1 IVA2 IVAl 1 1 1 - 1 ■ Uncertainl 36d 1 36e 1 37b 1 37c 1 37d 1 37e 1 "38a 1 38b 1 38c 1 42b 1 43b 1 ~44b 1 45 1 46 1 47 1 48 1 49 1 50a 1 50b I 5ÕÕ Ï " __ _ - _ _ _ - i 51b 1 53 I 54b 1 55 1 56b ' Ï 59a 1 59b 1 59c 1 59d 1 60b 1 60d 1 60e 1 61 1 62b 1 63a 1 63b 1 64 1 65 1 66a 1 66b 1 66c 1 "69 ЦЦЦ - *7Õã 1 TÕb 1 ña 1 71b 1 72 1 "73 1 "74a Í 74b 1 ~Tbi 1 75b 1 76a 1 76b ~ 1 I I

I 1

The temporal distribution of the unique signs is shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 Distribution of Unique Sign-Types Through Time at Tepe

Yahya

Period IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVAl III-I

Number 1 6 4 8 20 24 10

In addition, 22 sign-types were noted which could not be assigned to a particular period (4), while an additional 10 sign-types could be assigned by period, but because of problematic context, not to a specific sub- period (5). It is impossible to say what significance, if any, may be attached to the apparent increase from period IVC through the end of period IVA in the number of unique signs. However, this trend clearly parallels the general increase in the number of potter s marks found on the site through the end of period IVA as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

A fairly small number of sign-types, numbering only 43 in all, occur more than once in the corpus. These have been shown in Table 5. They may be summarized as follows : 10 signs occur twice in the corpus, 8 signs occur three times, 9 signs occur four times, 2 signs occur five times, 4 signs occur six times, 1 sign occurs seven times, 1 sign occurs nine times, 2 signs occur ten times, 1 sign occurs eleven times, 1 sign occurs twelve times, 1 sign occurs thirteen times, 1 sign occurs twenty-four times, and finally, one sign occurs a total of thirty-three times. It is important to note that although sign-types represented by more than one example amount to only 43 out of 148 entries in the master sign list, they nonetheless account for over two-thirds of the total 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 sign-types in more than one sub-period, suggesting some continuity in the use of particular signs.

Let us leave aside the 80 examples whose period or sub-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 contexts which could not confidently be assigned to one particular sub-period, but which could have fallen into either of two sub-periods.

112




TABLE 5

Distribution of Sign- Types which occur more than once shown by period.

Signl Totali IVC IVB [ IVA3-2 1 IVA3-1 I IVA2 IVAll III-ll Uncertain 10b 2 1 1 lid 2 1 1 13 2 2 23a 2 1 1 36f 2 2 36g 2 ]____L 40 2 1 1 44a 2 1 1 56a 2 1 1 57 2 2 62a 2 11

10a 3 1 11 12 3 1 1 1 24 3 1 2 39 3 " ~ ~ 1 1 1 41 3 " ~ ~ 1

2 54a 3 12 60c 3 1 1 1

4a 4 1 1 2 7a 4 1 1 1 1 _ - 2 I 1 _ - - - - - _ - - - 2 ~43a 4 3 Ï "Šiď 4 1 I I I _ - - - 2 "58 4 3 1 60a 4 1 I I I - - - - - "Šle 5 Ï 1 I 2

~9b 6 2 2 1 1 Tib 6 I 1 4 "52b 6 2 I 3 42a 7 2 4 l_ 68 7 2 1 1 3

67 9 ~ ~ 13 2 3

19 10 2 2 3 1 2 33a 10 1 2 1_ 2 2 2

2 12 11 13 1 5 8a 12 1 3 ï 7

3 13 1 3 4 2 3

9d 24 3 1 3 3 4 10

37a I 33 I 1 2 I 7 I 5 3 1 15

ned. Multiplying the total number of sign-types represented more than once at the site (i.e. 43), by the total number 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 we shall call "chronological cells", in which potters marks could occur. In fact, they occur only in 108 of the chronological cells. 19 sign-types, of which we have two or more examples, are represented more than once in a single sub-period. Thus, for example, sign la, which occurs five times in the collection, is known from three examples dating to IVA1 . These 19 sign-types just mentioned occur in 35 different chronological cells, and account for 95 examples in all within our collection.

On the other hand, 29 additional sign-types are known from more than one example, but in no case is the same sign represented more than once in any individual sub-period, rather multiple occurrences of these signs are distributed in anywhere from two to seven sub-periods. These are not always chronologically adja- cent. Thus, for example, sign 54a is found in sub- periods IVA2 and III-I, but not in IVA1. Whether in fact the sign in such a case was not used in the interve- ning period 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 signs found juxtaposed on the same sherd or pot. The total number of signs grouped in this manner never exceeds four. These multi-sign "inscriptions" are illustrated in Fig. 2. Of these, surely the most interesting is Fig. 2:c, which is made up of the following four signs : 24-65- 24-62a. Two of these signs, 65 and 62a, are well known in the Harappan script, and are listed as signs 204 and 184, respectively, in a recent corpus of Harappan inscriptions (6). Also of considerable interest are the groups illustrated as Fig. 2:e, f, and g. As mentioned above in discussing Group 16 (Trident: 54a-58), it appears that we are dealing with a root sign, 54b, and "modifiers" which include signs 67 and 76b.

Spatio-Temporal Significance and Culture Historical Significance

In comparison with other sites in the Indo-Iranian borderlands on which potter's marks have been found, the size of the collection from Tepe Yahya, numbering some 353 examples, is large but not uniquely so. The

(6) KOSKENNIEMI and PARPOLA 1979: 19-20.

113

8




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

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

when we turn to published potters marks from further afield, found on sites such as Amri, Bala Kot, Mundi- gak, and various locales in Turkmenia and Bactria, extremely few signs are shared. Fig. 3 illustrates the shared signs which I have found in publications of pottery from various sites in the Indo-Iranian borderlands, Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. Note, however, that these span a considerable period of time, ran- ging from the third millennium in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenia through the first millennium South Indian megalithic.

The potter's marks of Tepe Yahya, and indeed of the entire Indo-Iranian borderland region, gain particular importance in light of recent arguments concerning the genesis of the Harappan script. In particular, two sug- gestions have been put forward which deserve critical examination. I would like to close with some thoughts on these.

First, it has been suggested that there is a relationship between the Proto-Elamite writing system and the Ha- rappan script. This suggestion is not new. It was made as early as 1932 by G.R. Hunter, who wrote (1 1) :

"That the languages are unconnected is probable, and the phonetic value of the signs may well be different. But that they are unrelated in origin seems to be contra- dicted by the number of resemblances that seem to be too close to be explained by coincidence".

In recent years W.C. Brice (1 2) has sought to investi- gate the possibility of uncovering structural parallels in Proto-Elamite, Linear A, and what he calls Proto-Indic, i.e. Harappan. More boldly, W.A. Fairservis, Jr. (13) has suggested that the actual languages involved, and not simply the scripts, may be linked, and he has postulated the existence of an Ursprache which he calls "Plateau Proto -Dra vidian". This recalls recent efforts by D. McAlpin (14), a linguist and Dravidianist, to demonstrate that "Elamite, a major language of West Asia, is cognate with the Dravidian language family of South Asia", and further, to attempt to reconstruct "Proto- Elamo-Dravidian".

The second argument which I would like to examine suggests that the roots of the Harappan script are in the potter's mark tradition of the Indo-Iranian borderlands and 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 : 28-32. (14) McALPIN 1974: 89-101; 1975: 105.

114




FIG. 3. - Comparison of potter's marks from 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 fig. 3:1) HAKEMI 1976; 2) V.M. MASSON and V.l. SARIANIDI, Central Asia : Turkmenia Before the Aclwemenids, London : Thames & Hudson; 3) J.-M. CASAL, Fouilles de Miindigak, 2 vols., Paris : Klincksieck; 4) FAIRSER- V1S 1958, and for Sistan and the Zhob-Lorelai districts, see W.A. FAIRSERVIS Jr. 1961 , Archaeological Studies in the Seistan Basin of Southwestern Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, New York : American Museum of Natural History, and W.A. FAIRSERVIS Jr. 1959, Archaeological Surveys in the Zhoh and Lorelai Districts, West Pakistan, New York : American Museum of Natural History; 5) V.l. SARIANIDI 1977, « Bactrian Centre of Ancient Art. »Mesopotamia XII : 97-1 10; 6) J.-M. CASAL 1964, Fouilles d'Aniri, Paris : Publications de la Commission des Fouilles Archéologiques; 7) G. F. DALES 1979, « The Balakot Project : Summary of Four Years of Excavations in Pakistan », South Asian Archaeology 1977, M. TADDEI,

ed., Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale: 241-274; 8) LAL 1962.

been raised by a number of scholars (1 5), but perhaps most forcefully argued by B.B. Lai (16), who has shown that during the Mature Harappan period when the script was in use, potter's marks (which he calls "graffiti") can be found which are both identical to signs in the Harappan script, and to signs in the pre-Harappan potters mark tradition.

In regard to the hypothesis that the Proto-Elamite and Harappan scripts are related, and in particular that the Proto-Elamite writing system is ancestral to the Mature Harappan script, I can see no way of reconciling this suggestion with the chronological and culture historical realities of the area. First, the Proto-Elamite script which developed in southwestern Iran and was used between C. 3400-2800 B.C. (17) is separated by a gap of several hundred years, depending on the chronology one adopts for the Indus civilization (1 8), from the period which witnessed the use of the Mature Harappan

script, roughly c. 2500-1800 (?) B.C. Discounting the question of geographical distance - a problem we know did not totally inhibit relations between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia during the later third mille- nium (19) - the two are simply not contemporary.

Nevertheless, I do not feel that the typological simila- rities between Harappan and Proto-Elamite should be lightly dismissed. They are not quantitatively great, in relation to the number of signs present in each of these scripts, but neither are they all of such a simple charac- ter as to be meaningless. While I am inclined to think there is some significance in these parallels, I feel strong- ly that they should not be taken at face value, given the glaring chronological discrepancy between the dates for the two scripts.

Turning to the second set of propositions, I am inclined to agree with Lai and others regarding the contribution 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 signs involved occur both in the pre-Harappan era and during the Harappan period at sites where the script was in

(15) LAL 1962: 4ff; CASAL 1966: 19; FAIRSERVIS 1971: 279; DALES 1979 : 256.

(16) LAL 1962 : 4-24; 1975 : 173. (17) VALLAT 1978 : 63-66. (18) See, e.g. JACOBSEN 1979: 467-502; DALES 1973: 157-

170. (19) PARPOLA, PARPOLA and BRUNSWIG 1977: 129-165.

115




use. Once again, we are dealing with only a fraction of the number of signs known in both the script and the potter's mark tradition when we point to parallels between the two. Nevertheless, it appears that some, if very few, of the signs incised on pottery in the pre- Harappan period were incorporated into the Harappan script when it was developed, and in fact, as Lai has shown, 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 Harap- pan script was built, it must nevertheless be recognized that this hypothesis for the genesis of the script neglects altogether the problem of how to explain the parallels between Harappan and Proto-Elamite. Thus, as an explanation, I find it only partially successful. However, as I have said above, I find no culture historical or chronological justification for the suggestion, as it pre- sently stands, that Proto-Elamite was in some way contributory to Harappan.

In attempting to resolve this impasse, let us consider the following observation. Just as Harappan and Proto- Elamite share certain signs, and the potter's mark tradition of the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Indus Valley shares certain signs with Harappan, so too does the potter's mark corpus share certain signs with Proto- Elamite. One way in which the typological parallels between Proto-Elamite and Harappan can be reconciled with the hypothesis that the potter's mark tradition, which occurs before, during, and after the Mature Ha- rappan period, "form(s) part and parcel of the signary available on the Harappan seals" (20) is by postulating that the Proto-Elamite script exerted some influence upon the appearance of a potter's mark tradition in the Indo-Iranian borderlands, and that this tradition, in turn, provided a partial basis for the development of the Harappan script. If there is any connection between the corpus of Proto-Elamite signs used at the beginning of the third millennium and the later Harappan signary, I suggest it is via the medium of the potter's marks in use throughout the Indo-Iranian borderlands which absor- bed certain signs of ultimate Proto-Elamite origin, some of which were in time incorporated into the Harappan script.

This hypothesis would help solve the following problems : 1. It would account for the chronological gap separa-

ting typologically similar signs in the Proto-Elamite

scripts, used in the late fourth and early third millennium, and the Harappan script, used in the second half of the third millennium and early second millennium, by postulating an intermediary "stage" in the use of incised symbols in the post-Proto-Elamite/ pre- Harappan era.

2. It would account for the attested parallels between Harappan and Proto-Elamite in the absence of any culture historically possible connection between the two cultures.

3. It would account for the attested parallels between potter'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 no-

thing more. I am well aware of its déficiences, as well as its arguable implications, and these should now be addressed.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Proto-Elamite script may have served as a substra- tum for the later florescence of potter's marks in the Indo-Iranian borderlands. What is the culture historical basis for such a suggestion ? Archaeological research conducted in Iran during the last decade has provided indisputable evidence of Proto-Elamite expansion onto the eastern Iranian Plateau in Jamdat Nasr/ED I times. Before this was known, of course, there was no justification for expecting any kind of formal relation between the Susian system of writing and the third millennium potter's marks of the Indo-Iranian borderlands. Now, however, we know quite definitely of a Proto-Elamite occupation at Tepe Yahya c. 3000 B.C. which left examples of typical Proto-Elamite account tablets, cylinder seals, cylinder sealings, and certain classes of ceramics with parallels at Susa(21). We know also that Proto- Elamite influence extended to Shahr-i Sokhta, where Proto-Elamite cylinder sealings and a single tablet have been found (22). It may also have been felt further north at H issar near Damghan. Recent investigations there may also have brought to light a Proto-Elamite tablet, albeit in a poor state of preservation which makes its firm identification difficult (23). Proto-Elamite influence, if indirect, is also attested quite clearly at various sites in Soviet Central Asia and Bactria, as Pierre Amiet has shown (24).

(20) LAL 1975 : 173.

(21) LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1971 : 87 ff; 1978: 114; POTTS 1980 : 425ff.

(22) TUSA 1978 : 255; AMIET and TOSI 1978. (23) M. TOSI, personal communication. (24) AMIET 1977: 89-122; 1979: 202.

116




FIG. 4. - Comparison of signs in the Tepe Yahya potter's mark corpus, the Proto-Elamite script, and the Harappan script.

Key to the Parallels Between Tepe Yahya Potter's Marks , Proto-Elamite , and Harappan

TepeYahya+ la 2 3 4a 9d 34d 37a 38b 42a 48 50a 51b 53 54a 56a Pr-Elamite+ + l2 9 19a 169 138d 6 8b 264 7 32 41 41c 36a 36u Harappan + + + 144 145 147 § 240 260 98 86 Tepe Yahya 60a 60c 60d 60e 62a 63b 64 65 67 68 69 72 74a 76a 76b Pr-Elamite 76a 76b 42 75 185 98 146 43 253 138e Harappan 101 100 99 184 315 204 191 224 230

+ Refers to the master sign-list of the Yahya potter's marks. + + Refers to sign numbers in P. Meriggi, La scrittura proto-elamica (Rome 1971 ). + + + Refers to sign numbers in K. Koskenniemi and A. Parpóla, Corpus of Texts in the Indus Script (Helsinki 1979). § Sign occurs on an Indus seal from Lothal (Lai 1962).

The possibility should be considered that formal parallels between potters marks from sites like Tepe Ya- hya, and signs in the Proto-Elamite script stem not solely from the extreme universality of many pictogra- phic representations, as shown through both psycholo- gical experiments and studies of historically unrelated scripts (25). The known presence of Proto-Elamites in eastern Iran at the beginning of the third millennium, writing on tablets in exactly the same manner as was then used in Susiana (26), could have left its mark in the area by introducing the concepts of recording and marking things with symbols for identification, although these functions were performed on tablets and with cylinder seals. It is also possible that in introducing an illiterate population to the notion of signs (27), some of

these, following the Proto-Elamite retreat from the region (28), were taken up by local peoples for use on pottery. Many others used on pottery admittedly bear no apparent relation at all with the Proto-Elamite signary. However, there are enough parallels between the potters marks and the Proto-Elamite script to suggest that the resemblance is not simply a matter of the chance "re-invention" of simple signs by people who knew nothing of the earlier system of writing.

For the purpose of considering this hypothesis in a more concrete manner, I have illustrated the parallels between the Tepe Yahya potters mark corpus and the Proto-Elamite script in Fig. 4. It is undoubtedly true that if such a reconstruction is valid, then the local users of these signs easily adapted them to a purpose which was

(25) JOHNSON 1962 : 147-159. (26) MERIGGI n.d. : 7. (27) Black-on-red ware beakers, found at Tepe Yahya in periods

VB, VA2, and VAI sometimes had potter's marks painted on the base. These were most abundant in period VAI. A total of 68 examples

were found in all. There appears to be no continuity between period V and the subsequent occupation of the site, however, and it does not seem likely that the painted potter's marks are related to the later incised ones.

(28) LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1978: 1 18; AMIET 1977: 200.

117




entirely different than that for which they were first developed. Whether there is any significant functional relationship between writing on clay in Proto-Elamite and marking a pot with a single sign of ultimate Proto- Elamite inspiration cannot be determined, as we do not know what those signs on pots mean. It is quite possible that there is no functional relationship at all, and that the peoples of this region had their own ideas about how a sign might be used which were quite unrelated to those of a scribe keeping administrative records in Proto-Elamite on clay tablets.

There are obvious difficulties with this theory, however. it could be argued, for instance, that potter s marks are too scarce at Tepe Yahya between the end of the Proto-Elamite occupation and the beginning of period IVA, leaving us with a gap of considerable duration in the use of incised signs at the site, and therefore throw- ing doubt on the suggestion that there could be any direct relation between the script of c. 3000 B.C. and the potters marks of the third millennium. This a problem, and it is compounded by the fact that occupational continuity between periods IVC and IVB is, in my opinion, a point which cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the basis of our present evidence. Was the entire site

abandoned when the IVC complex was deserted, or was there never a complete break in occupation, rather a re- assertion of the local southeast Iranian population, so overshadowed in the archaeological record of period IVC by the Proto-Elamites ?

We are severely hampered in unravelling this problem by the fact that the only architecture found in the southern step trench of IVC date all seems related to the main building with its Proto-Elamite artifacts, while no architecture at all was found in comparable levels in the northern step trench. At Godin Tepe several centuries earlier (Godin Tepe V) a foreign enclave, suggested by Weiss and Young to be « merchants of Susa », dwelt alongside a native population who were attested through the recovery of domestic architecture and local ceramics, continuous from the preceding period VI hori- zon (1). At Tepe Yahya, however, there is no comparable continuity between the site s period V ceramics and domestic architecture, and that of the following period IVC. Still, this does not tell us whether the Proto- Elamite presence at the site was in the nature of an isolated outpost erected upon a long-abandoned mound,

(29) WEISS and YOUNG 1975 : 2-18.

FIG. 5. - Master sign list of the potter's marks from Tepe Yahya.

118




or whether the establishment of a Proto-Elamite presence soon brought in its wake the re-settlement of the mound by locals from the vicinity. If such were the case, and these people continued to inhabit the mound following the abandonment of the Proto-Elamite building, then it can be suggested that the requisite local population existed which could have adopted for their own purposes some of the signs used by their former neighbors for record-keeping.

That this should have occurred immediately after the Proto-Elamites ceased to occupy the site may be considered by some as a sine qua non for the hypothesi- zed connection between the script and the potters marks to be held a possibility at all. In fact, several potters marks out of thousands of unmarked sherds are found in IVC and IVB levels, although the majority are from IVB1 through IVA4. On the other hand, at the risk of seeming to stretch the bounds of credibility beyond endurance, it could also be suggested that the influence of the script may have been more immediately felt on other sites in the borderlands, as yet unexplored. In this way, the custom of incising pots with signs could have become common at Tepe Yahya at a slightly later date, and the rare appearance of potter's marks in period IVB, becoming more common in period IVA, and stea- dily increasing in numbers through the final phase of IVA, might be explained. This must remain, however, at present no more than pure speculation.

Finally, it should be noted that many of the potter s marks which have parallels in the Harappan script, are

also those which show affinities to the Proto-Elamite script (fig. 4). Thus, the question may be asked, does this represent the conscious selection of certain signs from Proto-Elamite by the peoples of the Indo-Iranian borderlands, and in turn the intentional incorporation of some of the same signs in Harappan because of the symbolic and/or syllabic value of these signs? That is an intriguing possibility, but as we can read neither Proto-Elamite nor Harappan, and as signs with no obvious representational value can have had a variety of meanings in different cultural contexts, we can do no more 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 an intriguing linguistic puzzle indeed, and one which de- serves the attention of scholars with a deeper under- standing of Proto-Elamite, Harappan, and the archaeology of the Indo-Iranian borderlands than I have to offer. If this discussion, however obvious its shortco- mings may be, has served to stimulate further work on the problems involved, then it will have more than served its purpose.

Daniel POTTS Institut für Vorderasiatische

Alterkumskunde Freie Universität Berlin

Bitterstr. 8-12 1 Berlin 33

119



TABLE 6 Complete catalogue of sign-types represented in the Tepe Yahya potter's mark corpus , showing their numerical

frequency and temporal distribution. S igni I VC IVB I 1УЛЗ-2 I 1УЛЗ-1[ IVA21 IVAll 1 1 1 - 1 [ Unce r ta i n To ta il [sign I IVC [ IVB [ I УАЗ- 2 ' I VA 3- 1 1УЛ2] IVAll 1 1 1 - 1 1 Uncertain! Total

Ia 1 1 3 5 37C 1 1 25 i I 37d

~ ~ 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 12 37e i 1 2 1 3 4 2 3 13 [38¡ 1 - "X 112 4 "38b I ! 1

25 1 1_ 38c ~ ~ 1 1 2£ I 1_ 21 I I 1 3__ 25 I 1 _40 1 1 2 2 1 1_ 41 12 3 L___i I I _ *42a 2 1 4 7

7a ' 1 1__ Tib 1 Ï 25 1 L_ ~43a 3 1 4 8a 13 1 7 12 "43b I î _8b 1 1 *44a 1 1 2 9a 2 1 1 4 44b I Î 9b 2 2 Г~~ I 6 "45 I ~ 9c 1 1 46 1 Ï 9d 3 1 3 3 4 10 24 "47 1 1 - 10a 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 3 48

" 1 I

10b 11 249 11 Ha 1 1 50a 1 1 lib 1 1 4 6 50b 1 Г" 11° 1 1_ 50c 1 '

1 lid 1 1 2 50d I 1 He 1 1 ITõe I 1 llf 1 1 50 f 1 1 1 2

~ Г" 1 Г" 51a " 1 1 13 2 2 5ib 11 ^2 ] L_ 51c " ~ 1 ~ 1 1 2 5 15 1 1 51d 11114 i6a 1 1 52a î ï 2 4 ТбБ 1 1 ' 2 1 3 6 i6c 1 1 53 l" 1 17 1 1 54a 12 3 18 1 1 I I _ 2 2 3 1 2 Г0 55 I I _ I I ï Ï r~ ~a i i

-

21 I 56b 1 1 22a 1 1 2 4 57 2 2 22b 1 1 _58 3 1 4 22c 1 ]_ 59a 1 1 23a 1 1 2 59b 1 { 23b 1 1 ?9c 1 I 2 4 1 2 3_ 59d 1 I 25 11 6Õã 1 1 1 ï 4 26 1 1 "бОЬ 1 I 2 7 1 60c 1 1 ï 3 28 1 1 Ш ï ï 29 11 6Õê I î 30a 1 1 61 ï ï 30b 1 1 62a 1 1 2 31a 1 1 ~62b 1 ï - _ _ _ - - __ _ _ __ _ - T3a 1 2 ï 2 2 2 IÕ 64 ï ï - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - Тзё I 1 ~66c ï ï _ _ _ - - - - 3 9 "34~b ï ï 68 2 ï 1 3 7 __ _ _ - _ _ __ _ _ -- _ _ __ _ _ 7^ ï ï __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ 7ТБ ï ï "36b i 1 72 ï ï _ _ - - - - ~36d ï I 74a ï 1 _ _ _ - _ 36 f 2 2 "75a ï I 36g 1 1 75b ï Г" 37a 2 7 5 3 Д 15 76Ü ï ï 37b

J

1 1 76b ï I

120




BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMIET P. 1977 Bactriane Protohistorique. Syria 54/1-2:

89-121. 1979 Archaeological discontinuity and ethnic

duality in Elam. Antiquity 53 : 195-204.

AMIET P. and TOSI M. 1978 Excavations in Square XDV at Shahr-i

Sokhta : 1975 Campaign. East and West 28 : 9-31.

BRICE W.C. 1967 The Structure of Linear A, with some

Proto-Elamite and Proto-Indic Comparisons. In BRICE W.C., ed. : Europa : Festschrift Ernst Grumach. Berlin : 32-44.

DE CARDI В. 1970 Excavations at Bampur, A Third Millen-

nium Settlement in Persian Baluchistan 1 966. Anthropological Paper of the American Museum of Natural History 51/3. New York.

CASAL J.-M. 1966 Nindowari - A Chalcolithic Site in South

Baluchistan. Pakistan Archaeology 3 : 10-21 .

DALES G.F. 1973 Archaeological and Radiocarbon Chronolo-

gies for Protohistoric South Asia. In HAM- MOND N., ed. : South Asian Archaeology. London: 157-170.

1979 The Balakot Project: Summary of Four Years of Excavations in Pakistan. In TAD- DEI M., ed. : South Asian Archaeology 1977. Naples: 241-274.

FAIRSERVIS W.A. Jr. 1958 Excavations in the Quetta Valley, West Pa-

kistan. Anthropological Paper of the Ameri- can Museum of Natural History 45/2. New York.

1971 The Roots of Ancient India. New York: Macmillan.

1976 Excavations at Allahdino I : Seals and In- scribed Material. Papers of the Allahdino Expedition. New York.

1 977 Excavations ar Allahdino III : The Graffiti A Model in the Decipherment of the Harappan Script'. Papers of the Allahdino Expedition. New York.

HAKEMI A. 1976 Ecriture pictographique découverte dans les

fouilles de Shahdad. Téhéran : Permanent Bureau of the International Congress of Ira- nian Art and Archaeology.

HUNTER G.R. 1932 Mohenjo-Daro - Indus Epigraphy. Journal

of the Royal Asiatic Society : 466-503.

JACOBSEN J. 1979 South Asian Pre- and Protohistory. Annual

Review of Anthropology 8 : 467-502.

JOHNSON G.B. Jr. 1962 Pictorial Representation and the Problem of

Universality. Ethnohistory 9 : 147-159.

KOSKENNIEMI K. and PARPOLA A. 1979 Corpus of Texts in the Indus Script. Hel-

sinki : Dept. of Asian and African Studies, Univ. of Helsinki.

LAL B.B. 1962 From the megalithic to the Harappan : tra-

cing back the graffiti on the pottery. Ancient India 16 : 4-24.

1975 The Indus Script : Some Observations Based on Archaeology. Journal of the Royal Asia- tic Society : 173-177.

LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY C.C. 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. Language

50/1 : 89-101. 1975 Elamite and Dravidian : Further Evidence

of Relationship. Current Anthropology 16 : 105-115.

MERIGGI P. n.d. The Inscribed Tablets. In TOSI M., ed. :

Annali. Naples.

121




PARPOLA S., PARPOLA A. and BRUNSWIG R.H. Jr. 1977 The Meluhha Village. Evidence of Accultu-

ration of Harappan Traders in late Third Millennium Mesopotamia ? Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient XX/2 : 129-165.

POTTS D.T. 1980 Tradition and Transformation : Tepe Yahya

and the Iranian Plateau During the Third Millennium B.C. Cambridge : Dept. of An- thropology, Harvard University.

TOSI M. 1968 Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta, a Chalcoli-

thic Settlement in the Iranian Sistan. Preli-

minary Report on the First Campaign, Octo- ber-December 1967. East and West 18/1-2 : 9-66.

1969 Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta. Preliminary Report on the Second Campaign, Septem- ber-December 1968. East and West 19/3-4 : 283-386.

VALLAT F. 1978 Le Matériel Epigraphique des Couches 18 à

14 de l'Acropole. Paléorient 4 : 193-195.

WEISS H. and YOUNG T.C. Jr. 1975 The Merchants of Susa : Godin V and Pla-

teau-Lowland Relations in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C. Iran XIII : 2-18.

122



Potters marks Tepe Yahya

Documents

Transcript of Potters marks Tepe Yahya