- jiroft review of yousef majidzadeh by muscarella

173

Rudyard Kipling’s poem (from The Elephant’sChild) has been with me for years—and I havepreviously cited it.1 In researching the Jiroftstory it resurfaced in my mind because the epis-temological questions it poses are pertinent tothe following discussion, and thus I (appropri-ately) cite it again here:

I keep six honest serving-men(They taught me all I knew);

Their names are What and Why and WhenAnd How and Where and Who.

I send them over land and sea,I send them east and west;

. . . For they are hungry men,But different folk have different views . . .

Indeed; and it is the different views of the issuesof asking or not asking, and not answering, thequestions raised by the honest serving men thatgenerates this review.

1. Introduction

Archaeologists have learned about a collectionof remarkable unexcavated artifacts that wereconfiscated in Iran and accepted by many to havederived from the Jiroft area in south central Iran.They became aware of these objects from a num-ber of sources: online Iranian news services be-ginning in 2001, Iranian Archaeological NewsBulletin (IANB), Islamic Republic News Agency(IRNA), and the Persian Morning Daily; other on-

line news services; reports in two French ar-chaeological magazines published in April (fig. 1)and October 2003 (2003a, 2003b), the latter fullydedicated to Jiroft with many photographs andarticles by a number of scholars; three articlesby A. Lawler (2003, 2004a, b); and in the UnitedStates public lectures have also commenced. InMay of 2003 I began email discussions on Jiroftwith some scholars in Iran and the U.S.

Madjidzadeh’s book was published in Tehranin June 2003, after the French magazine report in2003a, but before 2003b (I acquired it in April2004).2 Mentioned in some of the sources abovebut not here are brief discussions about exca-vations recently begun by Madjidzadeh in theJiroft area (see 2003b, 65ff.) at Konar Sandal B;unnamed in Lawler 2004a, 40ff. Archaeologicalactivity here, however, is just at the beginningstage of anticipated long-range excavation. Ma-djidzadeh 2003 is a casual, brief discussion ineight pages in English (pp. 5–12, with a Frenchtranslation, pp. 13–19) about the confiscated ma-terial, accompanied by 163 plates of photographs(pp. 11–174) and a catalogue giving shape, mate-rial, and measurements of a selection of the con-fiscated corpus (pp. 175–218; see, for example,additional confiscated vessels in 2003b, 85); itspaper jacket is superbly designed, most attrac-tive. My evaluation and comments of the corpusfollow in the text below, but it is pertinent tonote up front that what we have is a hastily as-sembled catalogue-picture book, not an archaeo-logical report. Vouchsafed are only a few brief,

Jiroft and “Jiroft-Aratta”

A Review Article of Yousef Madjidzadeh,

Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization

O S C A R W H I T E M U S C A R E L L A

Dedicated to my friend and colleague T. Cuyler Young, Jr.

m u s c a r e l l a: Jiroft and “Jiroft-Aratta”

174

inadequate, descriptions of some of the pub-lished objects; and less than a page dedicated tomentioning—but not evaluating—how the ob-jects came into existence in the first place (otherthan to note that confiscation occurred). Utterlymissing is awareness of the total absence of anarchaeological background associated with theconfiscated corpus and a perception of its lim-ited value as data for archaeological and cultural

information. Unspoken, because assumed in thetext, is that all the confiscated artifacts repre-sent the ancient history of Jiroft (area)—a datumpresented also in the scholarship offered in2003a and 2003b. Indeed, although many of theobjects have been published elsewhere (2003b)the photograph record here in one venue is valu-able and important for continuous examinationand research.

Fig. 1. Archéologia, April 2003, cover.

LONG

175


Up to the time of completing this review (Au-gust 2004) no excavated artifacts have been re-ported from Madjidzadeh’s excavation (it is nota cemetery site) that relate or can be comparedto the dissimilar, unexcavated objects publishedin his Catalogue. Therefore, only these latter ob-jects per se are capable of being analyzed—andwhich objects, I argue, must in archaeologicaldiscourse be cited and labeled “Jiroft,” not Jiroft,artifacts. An evaluation of information and as-sertions about “Jiroft” artifacts and the nature oftheir ancient culture explained in the 2003 Cat-alogue and the other published reports forces oneto confront (again!) basic archaeological method-ology, here concerning cultural and historicalinterpretations and evaluations involving un-excavated artifacts known solely from multipleconfiscations, and with no records preserved ofthese acquisitions. Revealed is this, at presentthere is no knowledge of Jiroft (i.e., from excava-tions in the Jiroft area), and very little availableof “Jiroft” except a number of objects. Betweenthe two conceptions there is a profound episte-mological and archaeological difference (but onewould never know this from the “Jiroft” litera-ture: alleged archaeological attempts at conclu-sion-forming procedures have altered very littlein the last fifty years).

2. History of “Jiroft”

Date of the Plunder

Most reports agree that flooding in the Jiroft arearevealed ancient tombs leading to plunder at anumber of cemeteries, but there is no consensusconcerning precisely when the plundering firstbegan: Madjidzadeh in 2003a, 37, gives no dateexcept that of an incident in early 2002; in2003b, 23, a specific date is mentioned for initialplundering “Au début de l’année 2001” a timerepeated in the Catalogue (2003, 6) as February2001; in IRNA online 7/29/03 the date is “mid2001;”in Lawler 2004a, 46, the date is simply2001, but in Lawler 2004b, 50, it was in 2000. In-asmuch as archaeologists and others eventuallyviewed the plundered areas, and photographs ofdestroyed tombs do exist (viz. Lawler 2004a, 44),it is a fact (one of the few in the whole story;see below) that mass plundering occurred at anumber of sites in the southern Kerman province,in the area of Jiroft. A photograph of plunder-

ing in action is even published—but, unfortu-nately, without attribution or date (Madjidzadehin 2003b, 22; Lawler 2004b, 50); and an Iranianscholar informed me in June 2003 that he hadvisited a cemetery site (but he did not say when)in the Jiroft area “while still a couple of hundredof people were still busy with illegal excava-tion . . .” In IRNA online 7/29/03, Abdolali Hes-sam Arefi stated that plundering was still inprogress. For what purports to be a diachronichistory of the initial plundering, the continuingplundering, and the difficulties of local and na-tional police and archaeological authorities overtwo years, we have the article by Hamid-RezaHusseini in the Persian Morning Daily online,9/8/02.

As if the same script writer were involved, thehistory of the discovery and confiscation of the“Jiroft” material uncannily parallels in all formaldetails, including local professional inaction, thediscovery and partial confiscation of the plun-dered Kalmakarra cave material in western Iran:see Henkelman 2003, 214ff. To his credit, Hen-kelman also distinguishes between Kalmakarraand “Kalmakarra objects”; see below.

In the Bonham’s antiquity sale of 9/22/88, atleast nos. 171, and 172, a sculpted snake vesseland another vessel with cut-out rosette decora-tion are neatly paralleled in the Madjidzadeh Cat-alogue: pp. 109 and 115. This may indicate thatplundering in the Jiroft area began much earlierthan reported, at least sporadically, or that theseobjects have a wide geographical distribution.

Dates and Venues of Confiscations

According to Madjidzadeh (in 2003a, 37), con-fiscations occurred in February 2002; in 2003b(p. 25) the date February 2002 is also mentionedas the time the police forces came into the areato protect it, and he gives the names of four townsand cities where confiscations occurred: Bardsir,Jiroft, Bandar Abbas, and Tehran; in the Cata-logue (2003, 6), however, the date February 2001is given as the time police arrested several smug-glers and confiscated artifacts in Jiroft and Bard-sir, and other cities. A 2001 date is supportedby information reported in several online re-ports, although only one confiscation locus wasmentioned, Jiroft. IANB 11/22/01 reports that60 objects had been seized, in 12/13/01 that 120objects had been seized; later, in IRNA 7/29/03,


176

50 objects are reported to have been confiscatedin the previous three months. An Iranian col-league (Ali Vahdati) informs me that 33 objectswere also recently (2004?) confiscated at Qum,south of Teheran. Le Monde online, 10/2/03, re-ports that in 2002 Madjidzadeh saw confiscatedobjects in the Kerman prison (their confisca-tion date is not mentioned), which suggests thatsometime in 2002—at least a year after thetime of the initial plundering—archaeologicalauthorities first became involved. Le Bien Pub-lique online (also 10/2/03) mentioned that cus-toms agents had seized two trucks (“camions”)filled with antiquities; the date and locus of thisseizure were not mentioned, but the report statedthat this seizure led to the discovery of “le site[sic] de Jiroft.” Concerning a one-site identifica-tion, note that almost every archaeologist whodiscussed the “Jiroft” artifacts publicly (lectures)or in emails consistently mentioned them as ifonly one site were involved.

From the above information it seems then thatjust as with the time period of the plundering, theinitial time of the confiscations is not remem-bered. Confiscations certainly began in 2001 andcontinued into 2002 and 2003—and later. Butno information has been presented that indicatesif the confiscations at the four loci mentionedoccurred within days, weeks, or months of eachother. And it seems that it was not until some-time in 2002 that archaeological authorities be-came involved in investigating the plundering—which had been in progress for a year or more.

Who Witnessed and Recorded the Confiscations?

Nothing in the published sources vouchsafesinformation or interest concerning: how the mul-tiple confiscations were accomplished (we haveonly one mention of trucks, but no geography)—i.e., whether by means of fortuitous or accidentalinformation, via informants, voluntary surrender,etc.; which specific objects were confiscated atwhich of the towns and cities mentioned above;and what were the specific venues of the confis-cations (aside from trucks). I raised these matterswith colleagues monitoring the issues both inIran and the U.S., stressing their importance andasking for answers. A scholar/administrator inIran responded that it was “impossible” to an-swer the questions, that the confiscations were

accomplished by “different people belonging tovarious organizations.” No records of the confis-cation process or the nature of the venues werekept. An archaeologist involved in “Jiroft” issueswrote to me (email) vigorously “. . . you are notbeing objective or even rational . . . The informa-tion you demand will NOT be forthcoming! . . .villagers looted a [sic] site, local [sic] authoritiesconfiscated the collection . . .”—it follows thatarchaeological decency demands that all the con-fiscated and published “Jiroft” artifacts be ac-cepted as having been plundered from cemeteriesnear Jiroft: end of discussion.

The lack of basic data specifically indicatesthat no information exists that could enablearchaeologists to comprehend what kinds of in-vestigations and judgments were utilized by au-thorities in Teheran and Bandar Abbas (separatedby over 1,000 km) that compelled the assignmentof all the material confiscated as derived from thefar-away “Jiroft” area. No records seem to existthat inform which specific objects were con-fiscated in the Jiroft area, i.e., adjacent to theplundered areas, and which in each of the two(three with Qum) distant cities—informationthat would reveal the corpus’ modern culturalcontexts, as well as allow analysis concerningwhether objects or clusters of one particular stylewere confiscated in only one or in several of theloci. Confiscated objects are housed in a museumin the town of Jiroft (see Lawler 2004a, 48), butwere they locally confiscated or were they trans-ported there from Bandar Abbas or Teheran? Inthis context consider the following contradic-tory information—a leitmotiv of the problemsdiscussed here: I was informed by a colleague inTeheran that there are no “Jiroft” objects housedin the Iran Bastan Museum and that all are cu-rated in two venues in Jiroft and in the KermanCultural Heritage museum. An archaeologistcolleague, however, informs me that while inTehran he was told there were “at least threevessels in the Iran Bastan Museum,” but he didnot see them.

No archaeologist knows the venues where theconfiscations occurred at each locus—i.e., whetherin private homes, dealers’ shops, bazaars, etc.Indeed, an object recovered in a dealer’s shop inTeheran could have had (but not necessarily, seebelow) a different recent history than one recov-ered in the Jiroft area. Lacking such backgroundprovenance information confuses judgments re-garding possible archaeological provenience and

LONG

177


possible authenticity of a confiscated “Jiroft”artifact.

To date, there exists in print no empirical evi-dence or information about a single “Jiroft” ar-tifact, not even its confiscation history. Thisremains a crucial datum that has to be addressedup front in scholarly research on “Jiroft” andJiroft. Hence, not a single one of the “said to havecome from Jiroft” artifacts can archaeologically[sic] be identified as in fact plundered solely inthe Jiroft region of Iran—not a minor issue here.This should be the starting point of any Jiroft/”Jiroft” discussion, but no scholar, includingMadjidzadeh, has seen fit to confront it.

Quantity Plundered and Confiscated

Madjidzadeh (in 2003a, 37) states that almost1,000 objects were plundered, in 2003b (p. 25)that local authorities claim thousands of arti-facts were plundered in the area, and later (inLawler 2004a, 46) “We guess that 100,000 ob-jects were looted.” IRNA online 7/29/03 claimed“hundreds of thousands” of artifacts had beenplundered. A fair statement on this matter isthat no one knows how many objects have beenplundered.

Speaking to the numbers of objects confis-cated, Madjidzadeh (2003, 6) gave the figure asapproximately 500 items, 300 of which werevessels; later (in 2003b, 25) he informed us thatmore than 2,000 objects had been confiscated.In his Catalogue (2003, 7) he is publishing “alarge number of the objects recovered from theillicit excavations in the region of Jiroft,” whichcomes to about 260 objects. Lawler (2003, 974)records that “many hundreds of vessels” wereconfiscated—how many were plain (a number ofwhich were confiscated, see Madjidzadeh 2003,159, 163), and how many decorated with motifs,is not revealed. We await an inventory of theconfiscated objects.

Named Plundered Sites

In Iranian Archaeological News Agency 11/22/01and 12/13/01 online, objects were said to havebeen “unearthed in the old city of Jiroft . . .”Madjidzadeh 2003a, 37, also named Jiroft aloneas the plundered site. And other scholars—viz.J. Perrot and S. Cleuziou (in 2003b) also refer

to only one site, Jiroft, as have scholars in theU.S. and Tehran in email messages, who men-tion “the site,” “the cemetery,” one cemetery—at Jiroft. Notwithstanding the one-site issue, Ma-djidzadeh (in 2003, 6 and 2003b, 25) names as themost important of the plundered sites, five situ-ated from 29 to 53 km to the south of Jiroft (Jiroftitself is not mentioned here as a plundered site).

Excavated Tombs

Tombs have been excavated by an archaeolo-gist (H. Choubak) at Riganbar (one of the fivenamed plundered sites). Although Madjidzadehpublishes a photograph of one with its burialgoods intact (in 2003b, 25), nothing of its con-tents is mentioned. Ali Vahdati informs me fromTeheran that this tomb was the only Bronze Agetomb excavated, and that the others are Islamic,and he confirmed my suggestion that no deco-rated vessels were recovered here. Worth notingis that Madjidzadeh is engaged in an excavationstrategy of digging only a settlement site, notsearching or excavating the plundered cemeter-ies (Lawler 2004a, 46). Such unilateral actionignores the precious work and model of the greatBelgian archaeologist Louis Vanden Berghe, whospent fifteen years surveying cemeteries in Lur-istan that had been plundered for decades—andthereby recovered hundreds of intact burials. Hismodel should be followed, not ignored—even onetomb excavated with Catalogue material wouldbe a very significant archaeological discovery forJiroft!

From information gathered from local plunder-ers regarding the number of objects recoveredfrom the plundered tombs Madjidzadeh (2003, 6)says, “in many cases a single grave containedup to sixty objects.” And from Lawler (2004a, 46)we are further informed from the same localsources that “each grave contained at least onestone vessel; the largest one contained 30.” Ithink it not unfair to say that these inventoryrecords are hearsay, and may not be cited as his-torical reality.

“Jiroft” Style

There are several different styles, depictions, anda variety of iconographies represented in the con-fiscated corpus—especially articulated on bowls,


178

pedestal footed vessels, beakers, and “weights.”Many of these styles and iconographies have nothitherto been encountered (“strange and differ-ent,” having “many entirely new items” as onearchaeologist—who defends the corpus’ integ-rity—accurately reported to me). Perrot (in 2003b,111) uses the phrase “style de Jiroft,” but stylesin the plural is a more accurate term, given thatfor many “entirely new items” parallels do notexist, except in “Jiroft.” Madjidzadeh (in 2003b,26) reported that clandestine diggers reported tohim that relief decorated vessels were recov-ered, a claim again, which (here parti pris) has noarchaeological value. And no one to my knowl-edge has reported finding a decorated vessel insurveys.

One archaeologist believed at one time (emailmessage to me) that there is a “virtual absenceof the classic intercultural style . . .” but latershifted entirely, claiming that “. . . the vast[sic] majority are indeed of the IS!” Cleuziou(in 2003b, 116f., 122) notes differences between“Jiroft” and Tarut artifacts, but stresses “stylis-tic” parallels (viz. entwined snakes); and Madji-dzadeh (2003, 7) places all the chlorite objectsin the série anciennes, i.e., early InterculturalStyle (IS).3 A good number of the confiscated ob-jects are canonical members of the IS corpus, orreadily relate to them: see Madjidzadeh 2003 forimbricate, whorl, spiral, palm tree, hut, and ani-mal and scorpion patterns: pp. 44, 67–75, 110–11,117–18, 125, 127–29, 142; also the vessels illus-trated in Pittman (in 2003b, middle and bottomof p. 85; also Cleuziou 2003b, 117, fig. 4, and 122).For convenient excavated examples for theseand other motifs in the IS corpus see of courseBurkholder 1971, Kohl 1975 and 2001, Zarins1978, and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988.

According to Madjidzadeh the corpus reveals a“high quality of workmanship,” (2003a, 37, alsoin 2003, 8), but he is also aware (2003, 10) that it“is not always equal,” that (here no doubt reflect-ing the multiple styles and iconographies) thecorpus was “produced in different workshops,and by different stone-cutters, having differentlevels of skill and talent. But, in comparison withthe Mesopotamian reliefs in stone, they appear ingeneral to be of superior skill, talent and capabil-ity.” He does not explain or develop any of theseimportant cultural and aesthetic issues further,give specific examples, or discuss whether thedifferent workshops recognized could be corre-

lated with different confiscation loci. But no onecan dispute his observations on the skill andworkshop issues.

(In a discussion with Philip Kohl an idea oc-curred: stone analyses should be undertaken ofboth Yahya and “Jiroft” stone material to de-termine sources—we know there was one nearYahya. I see no evidence that one can claim thatYahya craftsmen manufactured the latter’s stoneartifacts.)

Chronology

Since most archaeologists involved in “Jiroft”accept that the published corpus derived from(somewhere around) ancient Jiroft, chronologicalranges may be estimated and have indeed beenproposed. Madjidzadeh (2003a, 37, 44; 2003, pp. 7,12) asserted an early date for chlorite vessel pro-duction, 3000 b.c., or late 4th to first half of the3rd millennium b.c.; this chronology is acceptedby Perrot—“il y a 5000 ans,” 3100–2900 b.c. (in2003b, 97, 111). Cleuziou (ibid., 116) raises thequestion whether this early chronology is corrector a later date, Early Dynastic II–III, even intothe Akkadian period, is better, but seems to favorthe later dating; Pittman (ibid., 81, 87) accepts ageneral 3rd millennium date; Lawler (2004b, 50)reports (from an anonymous source) an “around2500 B.C.” date. Recently P. Amiet (2002/2004,95f.) rejected Madjidzadeh’s early dating, arguingfor the late 3rd millennium. He is correct; andone would expect that the genuine IS periodartifacts in the corpus be invoked for chrono-logical determinations, comparing them to exca-vated material from Mesopotamia and Yahya,and that recovered from Tarut.

Madjidzadeh, however, knows (and thereforeneed not explain) that the Mesopotamian arti-facts post-date those from “Jiroft” and Yahya. Butdisinterested analysis indicates that his and Per-rot’s beginning and flourit chronology of “Jiroft”is fundamentally wrong, too high by more than ahalf millennium. Concerning at least the IS ma-terial, the second half of the 3rd millennium b.c.,which includes the late Early Dynastic and atleast part of the Akkadian period, is an accurategeneral chronology. Lamberg-Karlovsky (1988,54) sees IS material continuing into post-Akka-dian times, as does Kohl (1975, 30; idem 2001,215, 220f., 222, 224, 226f.), where it is claimed

179


that at Yahya IS material was made late in thestyle, in Akkadian or even post-Akkadian times.One of the issues here is recovery of IS objectsin post-Early Dynastic, Akkadian contexts: seeMartin in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, no. 233, anIS feline-snake combat scene in Berlin bearing aninscription signed by Rimush, Lugal Kish. Thisobject, albeit not excavated, is quite importantfor establishing the chronological range for thesescenes.

What must be faced unblinkingly here is thatthe early unanchored chronology is generatednot by archaeological reasoning, but by a prioritendentious, self-serving conclusion formationsabout “Jiroft” and “civilization.”

“Jiroft” and Civilization

Quite soon after the appearance of “Jiroft” arti-facts the pitch of interpretative language wasset very high. Madjidzadeh’s Iranian to Meso-potamian relative evaluation is but a minoringredient in the “Jiroft” brew, but in the samepublication, beginning on the first page (2003,5f.), he raised the level of cultural evaluationhigher. The hyperbole of the Catalogue’s title ofcourse warns us to anticipate the instructions:that the confiscated objects “compel us to reviewour current ideas about the origins of the Meso-potamian, and in particular the early SumerianCivilization,” and that the objects “clearly sug-gest that a considerable part of the Sumerian artmay have originated in the southeastern Iran, inthe region of . . . Kerman,” and (ibid., 12; also inLawler 2004a, 43f., 48) that Jiroft (the Kermanarea) is to be recognized as the “Land of Aratta,”that “mysterious civilization . . .” Not unexpect-edly, no specific objects or parallels are presented(compare Cleuziou’s 2003b, 116, 117, and 122,more rational approach regarding specific Meso-potamian and “Jiroft” parallels and differences).There is more. Madjidzadeh (2003, 11), men-tioning but not supplying recognizable icono-graphic parallels, informs us that the SumerianEtana myth originated in Iran and traveled west.Hyperboles easily spawn others. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky in Le Monde (online 10/2/03) assertsthat Jiroft “calls into question our fundamental[sic!] concept of the origins [sic] of the age of theMiddle East;” and in Lawler 2003, 973, shares hisbelief that “From now on, we must speak of be-

fore and after Jiroft,” a conceit echoed by Perrot(in 2003b, 111). This is heavy stuff indeed.

This rhetoric is presented to the archaeologicaland public communities as a given, a perceivedmanifest “fundamental” truth—notwithstandingit is not anchored in empirical archaeological ar-guments or chronological analyses, and it doesnot consider that the results of site excavationslie in the future. For, regardless of what the sig-nificance of the Jiroft area’s culture and chronol-ogy may be, manifestly without the benefit ofexcavations there can be no justification for thepresent rhetoric and hyperbole broadcast.

Accepting as archaeologically reasonable thatthe genuine artifacts confiscated in the Jiroft areamost probably were plundered there, H. Pittman’snuanced assessment is closer to a meaningfulappraisal. She compares the “Jiroft” culture for-mally to that of Mesopotamia and the Indus, butnotes that it is “smaller in scale and less com-plex” (in Lawler 2003, 974), and (in Lawler 2004a,42) rejects Madjidzadeh’s “civilization” claims. Itoo have argued that the ecstatic claims underreview do not reflect reality, that even if all the“Jiroft” material were ancient artifacts, it “is notworld-shaking” (in Lawler 2004a, 48—with myoriginal phrase restored).

3. Ancient and Modern Jiroft

Are all “Jiroft” objects manifestly of ancientmanufacture? When I first encountered the“Jiroft” material in a lecture by H. Pittman inApril 2003 (I heard another in March 2004), asidefrom typical IS present, I was surprised by thevariety of styles, iconographies, and forms otherthan what is known either in Mesopotamia orIran, including the Kerman area. Locally, Yahyashares the typical geometric IS non-represen-tative motifs—the snake-lion and snake-snakecombat, whorl, and scorpion representations (seeKohl 1975 for patterns with locus map, p. 24, andp. 26, nos. 2, 3, 4; Kohl 2001, 222, 226, figs. 9.8,9.13; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, 55ff., figs. 1, 3, 4,pls. IV–X; omit from both articles references toAzerbaijan and Palmyra as excavated sites yield-ing IS objects). My sense, however, was that anumber of objects could not automatically beaccepted as ancient productions merely becausethey had been confiscated in Iran (of which ac-tion little is known). These views were reinforced


180

after further reading, but I readily admit thatwith ongoing study over time I have changed myopinions several times regarding the ages of spe-cific objects.4

Judging from the publications and personal dis-cussions, raising the issue of possible forgeries inthe “Jiroft” corpus is not a popular opinion. Thefervor aroused in some who accept the whole cor-pus as genuine may be understood from emailcomments by an archaeologist with whom I ex-changed views regarding ancient or modern. Ini-tially believing many objects to be “impossible,”my correspondent noted that this position wassoon reversed: “. . . I accept this collection as au-thentic” and “What is in the catalogue [Madji-dzadeh 2003] is genuine,” the corpus in toto isembraced as productions of the 3rd millen-nium b.c. My more hesitant opinion on this mat-ter was dismissed as “based on personal authority. . . . absurd,” as “a voice crying in the wilder-ness,” indeed, as an opinion that “matters little”(in the archaeological community—the ultimatedismissal!). Added was this psychological in-sight: “Your emotions dictate your perceived re-ality . . . [your] objectivity has flown the coop. . . .You have made up your mind . . . This is your . . .desire.” To further differentiate my views fromreality, to objectively (but here not the flownfrom the coop variety) document the authentic-ity of all the “Jiroft” artifacts, a graduate studentin Iran who believes that all the “Jiroft” artifactsare genuine was invoked as an authority; “an-other authority” invoked was an archaeologistwho it was alleged accepts their authenticity“without hesitation.”

There are a few references in print where“Jiroft” forgeries are mentioned. Pittman (inLawler 2003, 974) accepts that the corpus de-rives “from graves” but doesn’t “know if [fakes]were added”—to the corpus subsequent to plun-dering activities. In this same venue I stated amore sanguine view about whether the full cor-pus derived from the plundered graves, and sug-gested that we have to “start at square one,” thatis, examine each object on its own terms (seealso Lawler 2004b, 49, 50). Amiet (2002, 96) in-dicts two objects, one as doubtful (Madjidzadeh2003, 106) and one as an obvious forgery (ibid.,147). And in the Art News January 2004, 9, anunnamed London dealer is quoted that he is“worried about the growing number of fake Ji-roft vases now circulating on the market.” Gasp!

What fakes could this man possibly be talkingabout? What does this dealer know that “authori-ties” do not know?

A concern for forgeries is relevant here giventhat some time had elapsed between the time ofthe initial plunder and confiscation (which I aminformed by Ali Vahdati is still occurring), at dif-ferent and distant loci, and times. Hence, a longrecognized and enduring modern cultural activ-ity demands consideration: forgers begin workimmediately after significant archaeological orplundered or confiscated finds become known,viz. the forgeries that surfaced along with genuinematerial “said to come from” (by dealers, cura-tors, and collectors—and yes, also by archaeolo-gists) Ziwiye, Luristan, Hacilar, Marlik, etc. Themost recent manifestation of this activity is theexistence of forgeries associated with the Kal-makarra cave objects that were also plunderedfrom Iran (Muscarella 2000; see also Henkelman2003, 214f. and n. 120). Henkelman reports thatamong the “Kalmakarra” objects confiscated inIran some “seemed suspicious,” and these are inaddition to those objects smuggled abroad that hecorrectly identifies as forgeries.

To this unending list we now add “Jiroft,”another modern construction of archaeologicalscholarship. That forgeries could have beenmade in Iran, in the Jiroft region itself or else-where, is viable, possible, most certainly not“impossible.” This would explain how “Jiroft”forgeries could have been collected at any of theconfiscation loci in Iran together with genuineancient material—the confiscation occurring be-fore smuggling abroad commenced. “Jiroft” ob-jects surfacing abroad could thus include bothgenuine and forgeries smuggled out together topresent a “found together” corpus—(a topos be-loved by the collecting world of dealers, mu-seum curators, and private collectors). No dealeror smuggler would be stupid enough to smuggleout forgeries and genuine objects in separateshipments. (After this paper was essentially com-pleted, Ali Vahdati informed me [June 2004] thata colleague working in the Jiroft area told himthat the police caught a local smuggler of stonevessels. The prisoner vigorously denied plunder-ing the vessels from a site—no, he was not a thief,he was an artist! From the plunderers he pur-chased plain vessels that were worth very littlemoney, decorated them with motifs that werecopied from “originals,” and sold them at a good

181


price. Vahdati’s source said the copies were quitegood, “one could hardly distinguish [them] fromthe original ones.” I am not surprised, but untilone sees the alleged forgeries and “originals” to-gether I refrain from comment.)

Starting “from square one” means that all theconfiscated, aka unexcavated, objects receive aclose reading, a stylistic examination, questionsasked why are they ancient, and viable answersattempted: put another way, go back to Kipling’shonest serving men’s questions—I cannot stateit better. All the more so when one focuses onthe “Jiroft” style/iconography/workmanship is-sues, which are barely discussed in the litera-ture: because inasmuch as all “Jiroft” objectsare ancient, why waste time? But judging disin-terestedly from known excavated artifacts (akaarchaeological data), a number of the confis-cated carved and unique representations of hu-mans, animals, and flora appear to be crudelyportrayed, stylized in execution, unskillfully andnon-uniformly (even within one scene) executed,especially hands, beards, eyes, feet, noses, etc.Stylistic analyses joined to its modern acquisi-tion history collectively suggest that it is impos-sible to declare that every object in the “Jiroft”published corpus is necessarily an ancient arti-fact—although a good number are indeed an-cient, and are listed below (see “a,” below).

I cannot assert that any given object in thecorpus is absolutely a forgery: not because Idoubt what my eyes and knowledge tell me, orthat I underestimate the skill and knowledge offorgers (the best are guaranteed good pay and life-time jobs), but because I cannot claim to know,to perceive all the possible scenarios in theirancient/modern histories. Hesitancy is formal, anattempt to keep all options open, one of which isthe possible presence of forgeries. An archaeolo-gist experienced in IS and Iranian scholarshipshared this view with me: “I would argue thatit would be almost impossible to decide whethermost [“Jiroft”] objects were genuine or fakes.”Which neatly defines the problem I am articulat-ing here: absent a Jiroft against which to compare“Jiroft,” one is compelled to focus on problematicorphaned objects. If we do not attempt to knowwhich “Jiroft” objects are ancient and whichmodern, how can we begin to discuss Jiroft?

A number of “Jiroft” objects stand out fromthe IS corpus, suggesting (at least) that archaeol-ogists not automatically accept and introduce

them into discourse on ancient artifacts; theseare listed below as what at best are called prob-able forgeries (below, “b”).

In addition, my eyes recognize a number of com-plex and ambitiously made pieces with which Icontinuously wrestle (see below, “c”). They maynot be ancient—but I have changed my mindmore than once with regard to the age of severalof them. Given this unclear view—à mon avisof course—I propose that they be kept in abey-ance, subject to physical and continuous stylisticanalysis. And cited within parentheses, with acaveat. The objects themselves are not numberedand can be identified only by page references inMadjidzadeh’s Catalogue (which I employ here).I have not autopsied a single object from the“Jiroft” corpus, but note that those who acceptedthe corpus objects originally did so also fromphotographs.

In the discussions I list some examples of pos-sible “Jiroft” objects that have surfaced outside ofIran and appearing for sale in auction and dealercatalogues. If I am correct about attribution theyshould be considered as additions to the corpus.A number of objects offered for sale—both an-cient and forgeries—-that may have derived from“Jiroft” are not cited here, as I remain uncertainabout their source.

a. Ancient “Jiroft” Artifacts

The following objects listed in Madjidzadeh’sCatalogue are clearly ancient. A number aremembers of the IS group, with canonical motifs—whorls, imbricates, huts, palm trees, guilloches;triangles, mat weaves on IS vessels—all executedby ancient artisans (for IS parallels see Burkholder1971—objects she herself witnessed as derivingfrom Tarut; de Miroschedi 1973; Kohl 1975; 2001;Jarins 1978; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988). Some ob-jects are sophisticated works; others are relativelyminor, plain and undecorated works. The follow-ing list identifies a corpus that (wherever confis-cated and wherever actually plundered) forms thebase from which one may eventually add moreidentified genuine artifacts: pp. (15–17?), 37–38,39, 40–41, 44, 51–52, 53 (three objects), 57 (?), 60–61, 62–64 (?), 65–66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,75, 76–77, 80–81, 82–83, 86, 87–88 (see “c,” below,no. 11), 89–90, 91, 92–94, 97, 98, 99–100, 103, 104,107, 108, 109, 110, 111, (112–13?), 115, 116, 117,


182

118 (fig. 6, bottom), 119, 120 (some), 121, 122(note the plain, undecorated pedestal base gobletshere), 125, 127, 128, 129, 134, 137, 138, 140, (141?compare p. 120, top), 142 to 146, 148–65, 167–72top, 173, 174 (?). For some of these objects see alsoPittman in 2003b, 78–85.

With regard to pp. 114–15, six vessels decoratedwith rows of scorpions: all examples are veryambitious in execution, and perhaps not what aforger might undertake. They are crowded withscorpions, and none on each vessel is executed inthe same way with regard to claws, tails, “wings,”nor are these units juxtaposed in the same man-ner. The conical vessel on the right of p. 114 andthe bowl on the right of 115 are the best madehere, and seem to be authentic; they relate to thescorpions carved on the weight, p. 127, which isancient; and also to an example excavated atYahya—note the tail pattern (Kohl 1975, 26, no.3; Kohl 2001, 224, fig. 9.11; Lamberg-Karlovsky1988, pl. VIII). Are the other vessels here also an-cient? Probably yes. A scorpion-decorated vesselwas excavated at Nippur (Kohl 1979, fig. 3). Anda number of similarly decorated vessels exist invarious collections; they are not uncommon.

I suggest that a vessel in the Ishiguro collec-tion is not ancient (Muscarella 2000a, 171, no.18-a), but as reported in n. 3 here, a vessel bear-ing a complex decoration that includes scorpions(ibid., no. 18-e) about which I was originally cau-tious I now realize is most probably ancient.

For the three raptor plaques, pp. 130, 131, 132,the only iconographical and formal parallels—almost exact, even to the use and position ofinlays—are the 8th century ad Visi- and Ostro-gothic brooches, which naturally generate doubts(I anticipate articles on the proto-Sumerian Os-trogoths migrating [slowly] from their homeland,“Jiroft/Aratta.” The first two plaques are quiteclose, but all three derive from different hands.The raptors’ heads and beard positions of the firsttwo are close to those of pp. 92–94 (a master-piece: perhaps the same motive occurs on a frag-ment of a vessel from Uruk where two snakes areattacked by two, not one as the authors state,raptors, Lindenmeyer and Martin 1993, 161 andpl. 68, no. 1102). These plaques are probably an-cient, unique, artifacts (otherwise we have areally first-rate forger’s work before us): but forthe record, I shifted them from here to problempieces, section “c,” below, and back, severaltimes. Again, the “Jiroft” problem.

b. Probable Forgeries

1. bowl, pp. 45–46 (fig. 2), Hero mastering bulls:I suggest that the very poor execution and incon-sistencies of the bulls’ heads—eyes, noses, beards,bodies, and the very insecurely and badly plannedand executed wavy water lines over the bulls(compare pp. 53, 125), the position of the leg tuftsjutting from the hooves themselves, and theman’s head condemn this piece. Compare all thedetails of the bulls’ physical forms, and especiallythe flowing water lines above the heads, withthose on a conical vessel recovered from Tarut (re-corded there by G. Burkholder; eventually it wassold to a collector), and an unexcavated but gen-uine vessel in the British Museum (Aruz in Aruzand Wallenfels 2003, nos. 226, 227); the Tarutvessel must have been the model for the “Jiroft”object (see also below, no. 3).

See also the bull depicted in Bonhams 11/7/02,no. 196, a conical vessel most likely from “Jiroft.”The vessel shape is the same as that of pp. 54–56(see below, no. 3), and which P. Kohl informs meis not a classic IS form.

2. pyxis, pp. 47–48 (fig. 3): mermen (not intended)holding something in each hand apparently feed-ing bulls—for which compare those representedon pp. 53 and 125. Also, the uniform gross work-manship, style, and iconography force us to rejectthis piece as an ancient artifact.

3. bowl, pp. 54–56 (fig. 4): an ambitious iconog-raphy—a human beardless head projects abovethe rims of four pithoi—perhaps meant to depictindividuals bathing during the summer’s heat.But the crude and unskilled, as well as inconsis-tent, execution of the heads and misunderstand-ing the tied-up chignon, as well as their differentplacements on the vessels’ rims; the differentneck forms of the depicted vessels; the unevenbody decorations; and the snakes’ body decora-tion and closed-mouthed heads collectively sug-gest a modern creation. Compare the bowl shapeto that of pp. 45–46 above, no. 1.

The IS fragment recorded from Tarut (Zarins1978, pl. 70, no. 49; Burkholder 1971, pl. VII, no.21; Muscarella in Aruz and Wallenfels et al. 2003,no. 224-e) is the model against which the presentexample must be compared, detail for detail: thehuman head with chignon, the open-mouthedsnake behind. The differences are quite manifest.

183


One could posit that “Jiroft” was locally copiedfrom Tarut (but when?). On the Tarut examplethere is a vertical straight line below the humanhead, as opposed to the curved one at “Jiroft.” Itis not certain this line depicts a vessel—but onecannot exclude the possibility. A stone fragmentfrom Uruk depicts a figure identified as a malewith the same chignon form situated to the rightof an unidentifiable motif—not a snake (as Lin-demeyer and Martin 1993, 128, pl. 61, no. 690).These two examples document the IS chignonhairstyle, but was the chignon gendered for menor women? (Lindenmeyer and Martin’s allegedmale parallels are not parallels.)

The “Jiroft” bowl has a neat motif-mate; itwas purchased (of course “in good faith”) by theLouvre (A. Benoit, Revue du Louvre, October2003, 13ff., fig. 1) after being offered for sale inHotel Drouot, Sept 30, 2002, no. 212 (see alsoCultural Heritage News online, 10/29/03). De-picted are two human heads facing each otherwithin a centrally placed vase that is framed bysnakes. The motif is precisely that of pp. 54–56;both remain unique. The Louvre human headshave feminine-appearing faces and a rear chignon,all of which features seem to be correctly exe-cuted—far better, than that of pp. 54–56. Is thelatter ancient?—uncertain, not impossible; it ismuch better executed than the bowl.

The Louvre curator Benoit (ibid., 14) does citethe parallel with pp. 54–56, as does Perrot (inLawler 2003, 975), but in the latter publicationA. Caubet (Benoit’s senior curatorial colleague) is(transparently) indignant, “dismayed by the ac-cusation” that her purchased vessel derived fromthe “Jiroft” plunder—even though aware thatthe only known parallel derives from that cor-pus. In fluent museum-speak both curators dis-simulate, disingenuously disassociating the (ifgenuine, then manifestly plundered) piece theypurchased from the vulgar plundering of Jiroft.Benoit notes a different color of stone, which isnot relevant to stone composition; and Cleuzioucorrectly observes (2003b, 120) that its shapedoes not occur at “Jiroft.”5

Perhaps we will also be instructed that other“Jiroft”-like vessels recently purchased (in goodfaith) by the Louvre most absolutely did not de-rive from the “Jiroft” (or of course, as any curatorknows, from any other) plundering activity (seeA. Benoit, Revue du Louvre, June 2003, 86f., figs.1, 2; Hotel Drouot 2/26/03, no 221); rather—as

everyone in the Louvre knows—they were foundby poor peasants when tilling their gardens.

4. p. 106 (fig. 5): vase with entwined snakes: am-bitious but very crowded and not good work-manship or execution of the heads and ears, andespecially the uncanonical presence together ofboth round and oval body markings. Certainly itremains at least suspicious (as Amiet 2000, 96).Perhaps p. 103, which has a similar scene, is an-cient as here the snake heads are more securelyexecuted.

5. p. 118 (fig. 6): top two conical beakers: bothdecorated with a whorl pattern that displays in-competent workmanship—a lack of understand-ing of the pattern, and insecure execution of eachwhorl. Such qualities I do not find among theancient corpus (viz. de Miroschedi 1977, pl. II-a;Zarins 1978, nos. 114, 308; Lamberg-Karlovsky1988, 78, pl. X-b). P. 117 is a vessel with a su-perbly executed whorl pattern, one matched ex-actly except in size by a vessel offered for saleby the Safani Gallery (Ancient Form, 2004, 11).Two other vessels decorated with whorl patternsare in the “Jiroft” corpus: Pittman in 2003b, 85,lower left and right. Both are not made by thesame hand; I am more comfortable with the lat-ter example.

Some other vessels with overall whorl patternswere offered for sale at Christies, London, 5/15/02, no. 254, and the same venue, 5/13/03, no. 13.The Louvre purchased a very obvious, stupid forg-ery of this motif (P. Amiet in Revue du Louvre 1,1987, 16, no. 7; Muscarella 2000a, 170, no. 9).

6. p. 126, “weight” (fig. 7): an ambitious workdepicting raptor and snakes on one side, floatingscorpion men on the other. No such decoratedweights have been excavated, but the raptormotif is of course well known. Here I see poorworkmanship and inconsistencies and a lack ofuniformity in the execution and positioning ofall details of the depicted figures, which makesme reluctant to accept it without question. Notethe scorpion-men’s thumbs, fingers and arms,ears, eye positions; the whorl constructions andpositions, the tails; also the raptor’s body, talons,beak, and beard (compare also pp. 15–17, 112–13, nos. 3 and 15 in section “c,” below). For ex-cavated raptors flanked by snakes see the ex-amples from Nippur and Tarut (Aruz in Aruz and


184

Fig. 2. Catalogue, pp. 45–46.


185



Fig. 5. Catalogue, p. 106.


186


187





188

Wallenfels 2003, no. 234; Kohl 2001, 223, fig. 9.9;Zarins 1978, pl. 68, no. 159), as well as “Jiroft”(Madjidzadeh 2003, 92–94). For the snakes’ earforms, noses, mouths, compare the British Mu-seum vessel (Aruz in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003,no. 227), and again the Nippur and “Jiroft”vessels. See also Muscarella 1993, 144, no. 1, fig.5-a.

Plain, undecorated weights were also confis-cated and included in the “Jiroft” corpus; theyare not published in Madjidzadeh’s Catalogue(but see Islamic Republic News Agency 7/29/03,3). Further, the Yahya team has revealed thepresence and availability of undecorated weightsin their area (Potts 2001, 115, 142f., figs. 4.41–4.43). Such weights could (would) have attractedforgers (local artists) who embellished them. Forother examples of probable weight forgeries orproblem pieces with the raptor and snake motifsee:

a. a weight offered for sale by Christies, London12/7/1994, no. 181 (Muscarella 2000a, 169, no. 5;see also n. 58). That it is not ancient is manifestby the snakes’ teeth—in what looks actually likefelines’ heads; the legs and talons of the raptor aremisrepresented; and the execution of the snakes’incised body oval decoration are not those of anancient craftsman.

b. for the crude, inexperienced modern arti-san’s weight on sale at Bonhams 4/13/2000, no.300, and again in Bonhams 11/8/01, no. 201, nocomment is necessary if one looks at it for onesecond.

c. the weight decorated on both sides offeredfor sale in Hotel Drouot 2/27/03, no. 30, probablyfrom “Jiroft,” and decorated on both sides—aHero with a tail mastering snakes, on the othera raptor-snake scene; in both cases the snakes’bodies continue onto the handle itself. This is acomplex and very skillfully made work, betterthan that of p. 126 and the Barakat example (“d,”below)—but the snake’s body crossing over theraptor’s body puzzles me, and the Hero has anoval inlay in his hair. Nevertheless, a fragment ofa weight handle from Yahya seems to preservethe body of a snake (it has oval markings), but notin the same manner as the present example (Lam-berg-Karlovsky 1988, fig. 3-F, pl. IV). It may begenuine, but warrants more study.

d. the weight for sale in the Barakat Gallerycatalogue vol. 32 is surely from the “Jiroft” cor-pus, primarily because of the lion-raptor combatmotifs. It has very complex and amazingly am-bitious decorations on both sides, lion-snakecombats and central figures. But a close read-ing of all the details reveals many poor and in-consistent carvings: on the obverse, the centraldouble-headed monster’s hands, shoulders, ears,necks, feet, and his standing on air; the flank-ing snakes’ awkward bodies and positioning,nose markings, mouths, tail, vertical body mark-ings; and the lions’ crudely executed not-uniformclaw structures, mouths, feet, tail terminals—one is sculpted as a unit of the animal’s back:compare Madjidzadeh’s pp. 87–90—models forthis weight? The same execution problems existfor the other side: the lions’ feet, head, and eyes,and tails; the squatting man holds water flowingfrom the addorsed bulls’ heads; his face, body,his leg lacking a foot, and his kilt should becompared to an example from Tarut (Muscarellain Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, no. 224-d), onein the British Museum (Aruz in Aruz and Wal-lenfels 2003, no. 227, fig. 85), one in Japan(ibid., no. 235); and to section “c,” below, no. 2.This ambitious piece generates reservations,and at present cannot automatically be acceptedas ancient.

e. the weight offered for sale in Hotel Drouot,2/23/02, no. 393, seems also to be a member ofthe “Jiroft” corpus, but whether from this area orelsewhere I suggest it is not an ancient artifact:examine the raptor’s body decoration and beak,and the single animal in one talon; the mountainmotif (compare Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, no.226), the isolated and upside-down moon cres-cent (compare ibid., fig. 85). (In the same auctioncatalogue, again whether from “Jiroft” or not,nos. 397 and 398 are also not ancient.)

f, g, h: three weights in private collections areprobably forgeries; they are listed in Muscarella1993, 146, no. 3, p. 149, nos. 7, 10, figs. 7-b, 11,13; idem 2000a, 169, nos. 2, 3, 4, also pp. 484, 485.

7. p. 139, small idol (fig. 8): is there any reasonthat allows one to assert it is ancient? Note themouth open (caught, in surprise?), the uniquehairstyle (“Jiroft” style), and the presence of scor-pions as the figure’s arms.

189


8. disc, p. 172-b: a seemingly meaningless, appar-ently failed attempt to depict something, a hu-man face?

c. Problem Pieces

As noted, there may be more forgeries in “Jiroft”than listed above. A number of objects presentedin this section may in reality belong in section“b,” above—or indeed, perhaps in “a.” This cate-gory exists because I find it difficult to react pos-itively to unparalleled or inconsistently executedstyles and iconographies (merely because theywere confiscated), and think more stylistic andtechnical analysis is required; here too I havechanged my mind on several objects. What is ontrial here—the jury is still out—are the very ob-jects that in fact define the “Jiroft” Style.

1. pp. 11–12, pedestal goblet (fig. 1, lower left):two Heroes master two upside-down lions: I seethe human head positions, their faces, eyes, ears,hair to be frozen, not alive; equally so the legs,feet, clothing. I am uncomfortable with the ar-ticulation of the felines’ rear leg positions, andthey stand on their front legs; also, the scorpionuncharacteristically lacks its sting. I do not knowany specific parallels.

2. pp. 13–14, beaker (fig. 1, right): motif of a Herowith bulls, while another is in the mountainoussky holding water or a rainbow, or a jumpingrope? All is seemingly satisfactory until we com-pare the men’s heads, faces, the nose mouthcurves, hair, clothing, different belts, the articu-lation of their shoulders, forearms and fingers,and the leg and feet of the seated Hero—withexcavated male figures in the same kneeling po-sition: Zarins 1978, pls. 70, 72, no. 546; also Mus-carella in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, no. 224-d;Aruz in ibid., no. 227. The stylistic and detaildifferences are apparent, and probably instruc-tive. The iconography of the lower bulls below amountain motif is closely paralleled to a genu-ine vessel recovered at Tarut (see also above, “b,”no. 1), here lacking the male figure (Aruz in Aruzand Wallenfels 2003, no. 226, for mountain mo-tif and bulls), but the execution skills are quitedifferent—when was the one modeled from theother? I also think the star and crescent are

poorly executed (compare Burkholder 1971, pl.IV, no. 11). And contrast the bulls’ heads, doublepeaks at the top, water pattern, and hump to p. 53in the Catalogue.

Cleuziou (2003b, 122) accepts the authenticityof this vessel, comparing it favorably to the Tarutvessel (above). I tend toward the negative, but re-main indecisive—which is again an example ofthe “Jiroft” problem!

3. pp. 15–17, bowl (fig. 9): Hero mastering scor-pion-men; for the latter compare p. 126 (no. 6 insection “b,” above), and no. 15, below. I find thehuman and scorpion-men’s heads difficult tojudge—but I am more than not compelled to ac-cept it as probably ancient.

4. pp. 18 through 33, a difficult group to workwith given their unexcavated status and stylizedelements: six pedestal goblets with grazing ani-mals and stylized trees. Some of these trees I findtoo stylized, with outlined leaf borders: pp. 21–23(fig. 10), 27–28 (fig. 1, upper left), 30–31 (fig. 11)—although the trees of pp. 18–20 (fig. 12), 24–26,perhaps 32–33, do seem more natural with theirisolated leaves. Compare the similar trees fromMari (Wilson in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, no.231), and the ancient trees of the Catalogue’spp. 40–41. Pp. 18–20 has at least four separateanimals, with their young, in no regular order orposition, depicted eating at trees. Pp. 24–26 hastwo separate levels of different animal groups;the trees are different. Pp. 32–33 seem well exe-cuted. These three vessels warrant more atten-tion; they should be examined and compared tothe others I list here. They seem easier to acceptas ancient, more confidently executed and themotifs seem natural—was one or more the modelfor the others? Note that a number of plain ped-estal vessels were also confiscated (p. 122): howmany of the original were plain and later embel-lished with scenes—copied from which vessel?

There are similarly formed excavated tree rep-resentations in naturalistic depictions from Mari(Aruz in Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, no. 231); seealso naturally executed palm trees on pp. 37–30,118, 127, 128 of the Catalogue; also Muscarellain Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, nos. 225-a, b.

The Barakat Gallery has offered for sale a con-ical vessel with the same basic animal and treedecoration; see also Hotel Drouot 9/30, 2002,no. 213.


190



191





192



193






194



195

m u s c a r e l l a

: Jiroft and “Jiroft-Aratta”

Fig. 20. (above left) Catalogue, p. 123.

Fig. 21. (above right) Catalogue, p. 133.

Fig. 22. (bottom left) Catalogue, p. 136.


196

5. pp. 34–35, pyxis (fig. 13): the Christmas treeball effect—compare a similar motif on pp. 24–26, the positions and executions of the raptors—one trampled by a caprid, others hitting theground—and three different trees, collectivelybother me. But from what I can see of the execu-tion, it looks good: the work is possibly ancient.

6. p. 36 top, conical vessel, with vertical, one-horned animals. Its crudeness bothers me, alsothe two methods of depicting the unicorns’ heads,as well as the straight lines on the horn (a vesselof this form also with a unicorn is in the Califor-nia Museum of Ancient Art); but the execution ofthe tree’s leaves seem correctly executed.

7. pp. 42–43, pyxis: two lions each with a totallyunique head and body-form design. Were theyadded to a damaged ancient vessel to increasevalue? Two conical vessels on pp. 37–39 seemalso unique, but their execution looks fine and Iam not compelled to indict them. Compare theexecutions of the trees on all these vessels, alsothe date tree to pp. 110 and 111. A problem piece.

8. pp. 49–50, pedestal goblet, recumbent ibexesbelow trees: the ibexes’ eyes, tails, horn tips, andthe trees are poorly executed. A companion deco-rated goblet made by a different craftsman is inthe Barbier-Mueller Museum (Amiet in Arts andCulture, fig. 15).

9. pp. 58–59 (fig. 14): back-to-back lions gored bybulls, a young bushy-tailed animal and a raptorrests on the back the bulls, another is betweenthem. The inconsistency of the drawing and ex-ecution of the lions’ underbelly and their claws,and the raptors wings creates doubts.

10. pp. 65–66, conical vessel with a bull-leapingscene (fig. 15): I do not call attention to this piecehere because I doubt that this scene could appearin central Iran, for the motif existed from the Ae-gean to the Indus Valley (see Aruz in Aruz andWallenfels 2003, 409 and fig. 100-c). But again—and of course at the very core of the “Jiroft” prob-lem—I am held by the crudeness of the executionand pose of the figure standing on a bull whileholding a tree at the same time, his slightlyraised right foot, and his bald, speckled head. Ifind, on the other hand, that the leaping figuresituated between the bull’s horns with his footwrapped around the tree not difficult to accept.The bull is tied to the tree, an original and in-triguing scene, worthy of further research. If the

scene is anciently executed—not impossible—then the fact that the human’s contact with thetrees has cultural significance.

11. pp. 78–90, and Pittman 2003b, 85, upper left:there are eight bowls each with feline-snake en-counters. I do not find it difficult to accept asancient the conical vessel on pp. 76–77, but amless certain with the execution on two otherbowls: pp. 78–79 (fig. 16), 84–85, viz. the felines’heads, their aberrant claw constructions, thesnakes’ heads and ears, the form of the oval bodydecorations: compare these with the same formsor scenes on excavated pieces from Yahya, Mari,Nippur, and Tarut (viz. Kohl 1975, 26, no. 2, idem2001, 222, fig. 9.8; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988, 78,fig. 3-G, pl. IV; Muscarella in Aruz and Wallenfels2003, nos. 224-a, 224-e, 234; Aruz in ibid., no. 232and fig. 87; Godarzi in ibid., no. 242-a; Zarins1978, nos. 58, 135, 157, 542, 545; Kohl 1979,fig. 5). Compare also the superb snake and lioncombat scene on a fragment in Berlin, (Martin inAruz and Wallenfels 2003, no. 233), bearing anAkkadian inscription on its rear—Rimush LugalKish (see above). Some of the excavated examplesdepict snake combats or snake and lion combats;on the latter examples note especially the lions’claw construction.

The six vessels on pp. 80–81, 82–83, 86, 87–88, 89–90, and Pittman, above, appear to be an-cient (see section “a,” above; and compare theentwined snake heads of pp. 89–90, 93–94, 99–100 to the Khafajeh vessel cited by Madjidzadeh(2003, p. 10, n. 8; see in addition Kohl 2001, 215,fig. 9.5). The fragment on p. 91 is most probablyancient (are the claws unfinished?).

Representations of the same scene and styleoccur in the antiquities market: Hotel Drouot2/13/02 nos. 399, and 405—purchased by theBarbier-Mueller Museum (Amiet in Arts andCulture, fig. 1) but here the lion bites into thesnake, which to my knowledge is unique (?). Avery bad forgery of the scene is in a Japanesecollection (Ishiguro?): The Ancient Orient Mu-seum, Tokyo 1978, no. 48, Muscarella 2000a,171, no. 17.

12. pp. 95–96, bowl: raptor and snakes (fig. 17);the placement of the serpents across the raptor’swings is I believe unique, but not impossible; andwe should expect to see a beard on the raptor’schin, and is his beak too elongated. But not in-significant, the snake has round, not oval, body

197


patterns, not present on excavated snakes, whichfeature catches our attention.

13. pp. 101–2, bowl: what is the scene? Notethe floating snakes’ heads and an unidentifiableunit—a head, fire? Perhaps genuine, but to bekept in abeyance.

14. p. 105, pedestal goblet (fig. 18): the bodies ofthe entwined combating snakes seem to get lostin the entwining; other examples in the corpusare better executed—-an example from Tarut(Burkholder 1971, pl. VII, no. 20). Also how do weexplain the line that divides the decoration oneach snake’s body? A problem piece to be furtherinvestigated.

15. pp. 112–13: bowl with double row of swim-ming-floating scorpion-men (fig. 19): it is possiblethis is an ancient creation. It seems too ambitiouseven for a sophisticated forger to make—but thereis no consistency in the execution of the heads,faces, and tails. Compare pp. 15–17 and 126, b,no. 7, and no. 3 above. A bowl in the Barbier-Mueller Museum and another offered for sale(Amiet in Arts and Culture, fig. 11; Christie’s,London, 5/15/02, no. 265) have the very sameswimming scorpion-man motif), but all weremade by different craftsmen.

16. p. 120, lower right, vase: the upper row of at-tempted guilloches is very badly executed inform and spacing, and differ in each case, and isnot paralleled from the excavated corpus.

17. pp. 123 (fig. 20), 124: two weights in the formof openwork entwined snakes. Both are entirelydifferent in shape, body decoration, and sculpturalsymmetry; no. 124 seems less finished. Models forthe motif exist: a weight from Soch in Uzbeki-stan, and an example in the Louvre (Muscarella1993, 144, fig. 4, 149, no. 9; Kohl 2001, 227, fig.9.14). Are both the “Jiroft” weights ancient? Or isone ancient and the other a modern copy?

These two snake weights call our attention toa handle offered for sale in Hotel Drouot 6/26/03,no. 113, a handle sculpted in open work that de-picts a male figure sculpted in the round fromhis kilt to his head. No feet are depicted, but be-low the kilt there is an unparalleled unit of threetriangles at the front and a unit of four curvedforms at the rear, so he cannot be said to bekneeling conventionally; he masters two snakes,one of which is connected to him by a strut. Ofinterest is that the male’s eyes seem to depict a

blind person—consciously, or unintended? Per-haps this weight doesn’t belong to the “Jiroft”corpus. It is a complex, unique, well-made ob-ject—but its uniqueness demands more investi-gation before secure acceptance.

18. p. 133, double-headed raptor plaque (fig. 21):aside from not first-rate workmanship and fiveand six claws terminating in different lengths, itis an unparalleled work—why accept it uncondi-tionally?

19. p. 135, scorpion plaque: doubts raise them-selves with regard to this plaque unparalleledelsewhere; and the excellent execution of thewhole, especially the face, confuses me. Why areits “wings,” body and tail forms and their deco-ration different than the other scorpion plaque onp. 136 (fig. 22)? I am not so secure with this scor-pion plaque either but cannot outright condemneither one.

20. p. 147, two odd, seemingly unfinished stonefigurines, one a human, one an animal head (?).Amiet (2002, 96) considered these to be forgeries.He may be correct as they are quite formless, butwho knows. In any event, they can have no ar-chaeological value.

21. p. 166, two resting felines, both said to bemade from lapis lazuli. They are close but not thesame and quite simple, and it is difficult to forma conclusion about their ages. Note the inten-tionally scarred right eye of one lion, and thedifferent front feet constructions, one open, theother closed. The figures on p. 167, however, donot cause concern.

Conclusion

It is argued here that if Madjidzadeh and otherscholars had approached the issues while atten-tive to Kipling’s honest serving men’s questions,all appropriate to archaeological discourse, thisreview might have been of a different nature.

Notes

Acknowledgements: I want to thank Philip Kohl,Jean Evans, and Paul Collins for a close reading of amanuscript of this paper and giving me intelligentinsights and opinions.

1. See Bronze and Iron (New York: MetropolitanMuseum of Art, 1988), p. 9.


198

2. On the book spine and its cover the author’s nameis spelt Madjidzadeh, but in the three pre-text publisherpages it is spelt Majidzadeh. I use the former spellingbecause libraries will use it. Fred Hiebert kindly sentme copies of photographs previous to my acquiring thevolume—as a gift from from Ali Vahdati in Tehran.

3. For a defense of the term Intercultural Style, seeKohl 2001, 209, 215f.

4. I experienced similar views in the past regardingthen strange iconography’s surfacing on the antiqui-ties market that related them to IS objects (viz. snake-lion confrontations), and raised the issue of “whetherthey are ancient or not” (Muscarella 2000a, 171). Insome instances an abeyant cautious view was recom-mended ibid., 171, nos. 16, 18a–f. For the record, of thecomplex no. 16, I am now more at ease; I also believein the antiquity of no. 18-e—primarily because of theexecution of the guilloche/whorls; for no. 18-c, p. 488,the iconography is not an issue, and aside from thesnake’s ears and body line, cannot condemn it; pp.169, 486, no. 7, still puzzles me but I cannot condemnit outright. Nota bene, that changing one’s mind overtime is a correct and necessary activity, it results fromwhat I call the gift of the bazaar, the chaos caused bythe antiquities market.

5. If evidence exists, as Benoit and Caubet claim inthe Louvre and Lawler articles, that it was in a privateEuropean collection since 1968 (which I go on recordas doubting: it was not mentioned in the Hotel Drouotsales catalogue), it should be presented to archaeolo-gists (who do not work for the Louvre) for documen-tation examination.

Bibliography

2003a “Au berceau de la civilisation orientale: Le mystérieux ‘pays d’Aratta?’” Archéologia, April 2003:36–45.

2003b Dossiers de Archéologie,October 2003, Jiroft fabuleuse découverte en Iran (complete issue on Jiroft with articles by archaeologists), coordinated by J. Perrot and Y. Madjidzadeh.

Arts and Cultures Arts and Cultures, no. 4, 2003 (Barbier-Mueller Museum).

Amiet 2002 P. Amiet. Compte rendu of Madjidzadeh 2003. Revue d’as-syriologie et d’rchéologie ori-entale 96 [2004]:95–96.

Aruz and J. Aruz and R. Wallenfels, eds.Wallenfels 2003 Art of the First Cities. Metro-

politan Museum of Art. New York.

Burkholder 1971 G. Burkholder.“Steatite Carvings from South Arabia.” ArtAs 33.4:306–22.

De Miroschedi 1973 P. de Miroschedi. “Vases et objets en steatite susiens du Musee du Louvre.” Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 2:9–77.

Henkelman 2003 W. Henkelmann. “Persians, Medes and Elamites: Accultur-ation in the Neo-Elamite Pe-riod.” In Continuity of Empire: Assyria, Media, Persia, ed. G. B. Lanfranchi et al. Padua.

Lamberg-Karlovsky C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky.1988 “The ‘Intercultural Style’

Carved Vessels.” IA 23:45–95.Kohl 1975 P. Kohl. “Carved Chlorite

Vessels . . .” Expedition 18.1:18–31

Kohl 1979 . “The World Economy of West Asia in the Third Mil-lennium B.C.” In South Asian Archaeology, 55–85. Naples.

Kohl 2001 . “Reflections on the Production of Chlorite at Tepe Yahya: 25 Years Later.” In Potts 2001, 209–30.

Lawler 2003 A. Lawler. “Jiroft Discovery Stuns Archaeologists.” Science, November 7, 2003:973–74.

Lawler 2004a . “Rocking the Cradle.” Smithsonian, May 2004:40–47.

Lawler 2004b . “Iran Beckons.” Ar-chaeology 57.3:46–51.

Lindemeyer and E. Lindemeyer and L. Martin.Martin 1993 Uruk, Kleinfunde III. Mainz

am Rhein.Madjidzadeh 2003 Y. Madjidzadeh. Jiroft: The

Earliest Oriental Civilization. Tehran.

Muscarella 1993 O. W. Muscarella. “Interna-tional Style ‘Weights.’” BAI 7:143–53.

Muscarella 2000a . The Lie Became Great. Groningen.

Muscarella 2000b . “Excavated inthe Bazaar: Ashurbanipal’s Beaker.” SOURCE 20.1:29–37.

Potts 2001 D. Potts. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967–1975: The Third Millennium. Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.

Zarins 1978 J. Zarins. “Steatite Vessels in the Riyadh Museum.” ATLAL 2:65–93.

- jiroft review of yousef majidzadeh by muscarella

Documents

Transcript of - jiroft review of yousef majidzadeh by muscarella