Archaeology Magazine - January 1970 - 35

istic examples at Ur. Is this a mere coincidence or
were the chalices in all cases used and made by the
same people- the Kassites? There are many problems
involved in this reconstruction, and some are problems
of method- is one pottery shape, however characteristic, sufficient to identify a people archaeologicaliy?
Other problems are chronological and historical. The
Guran chalices must date after 1200 and before 800
b.c., relying on the radiocarbon date for the earlier
level. Therefore these "Kassites" obviously cannot be
the ancestors of the Mesòpotamian Kassites, but they
may be remnants of these or may represent the resettlement of Luristan by the Kassites driven from
Mesopotamia. But do similar occurrencesof the «ame
chalice type elsewhere in Iran, as reported by Professor Negahban of Teheran University, also represent the Kassites? Obviously the evidence now available is too slender to provide final solutions.
The later phases at Tepe Guran are of a more local
aspect, with pottery and bronze pots of types reputedly
often found with Luristan bronzes. Apart from one
or two graves excavated by Sir Aurel Stein, the Iron
Age culture which we meet in these later levels was
not known before our excavations, but now is found
everywhere in Luristan. Indeed this culture seems to
represent the period of the densest settlement of the
area, apart from Level III at Tepe Giyan and the
corresponding level of Tepe Guran, both characterized
by pottery painted with geometric patterns. Professor
Vanden Berghe has excavated graves belonging to a
later phase of this Iron Age culture of which Guran
represents the earlier part. This Iron Age culture,
which lasted from about 1200 to 600 b.c., seems to
present a reasonable environment for the Luristan
bronzes and at the same time gives an analogy to the
Amlash bronze complex in northern Iran from the
same Iron Age period.
As far back as written sources are available, the relationship between the population of the Mesopotamian plain and the inhabitants of the mountains
were strained. The rich cities of Babylonia must have
been a perpetual temptation inviting looting and raids
by the more primitive mountain tribes. We may envisage an alliance, at times, between the tribes of
present-day Luristan and the city state of Elam
against the common enemy, Babylonia, but at other
times raids may have been directed toward Elam itself. Military campaigns from Elam against the Kassites, presumably in Luristan, in the late thirteenth
and twelfth centuries b.c. have recently been mentioned as a possible cause for a shift of population
into the mountains.
This antagonism between mountaineers and the
peoples of the plains may stem from the age old con-

flict between nomads and farmers, a conflict mentioned in antiquity. However, if we assume this to be
the case we have already moved one step from our
concept of the basic pattern underlying the Luristan
culture. Ever since the bronzes appeared scholars have
assumed that Luristan had been inhabited by nomads
in the period when the bronzes were made, but we are
not certain of this. The arguments for a nomadic culture based on the bronzes may sound convincing, but
they are scarcelyfirm enough and the degree to which
the culture was nomadic still remains to be estimated.
It is possible that the situation in modern Luristan
has played a major role in the genesis of the nomad
theory. Those familiar with the tribes of Kurdistan
and Luristan may have the impression that these herdsmen with their black tents, sheep and horses have
moved in and out of the hills since the earliest times
- and yet we know almost nothing of the prehistory
of the nomads in Luristan. On the contrary, there is
massive evidence of a settled population with substantial villages.
Did the nomads invade the area only when the
Sassanian Empire collapsed? The Sassanian period
seems to be the last to have left traces of an extensive
settlement. If there were really nomads in the area
prior to the breakdown of the Sassanian government
in the seventh century of our era, they may well have
existed side by side with a settled population as they
do today.
Archaeology and history alike try to describe the
causes for and the course of human evolution. In
order to establish whether some specificevent was the
cause of other events we must know their chronological relationship ; where archaeologicalmaterial is concerned the only way to build a chronology is through
well-documented excavations. What is needed above
all just now in the archaeology of Luristan is a series
of scientificexcavationsof crucial sites combined with
a very extensive survey of surface finds. The most remote and inaccessibleparts of the mountains must be
surveyed before we have a really valid basis for an
estimation of the evolution of the past settlement of
Luristan. It is this estimation which should form the
background for any assessmentof the Luristan bronze
complex.
The author was born in 1934 and educated at Copenhagen and CambridgeUniversities.He has been a member of the CarlsbergFoundationExpeditionto Phoenicia
(1958-1960) and of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Iran where he was Field Director in 1964.
Since 1965, Mr. Thrane has been assistant keeper at
the National Museum, Department of Danish Prehistory. His publicationsinclude works on Bronze Age
problems in Europe and on the Luristan culture.
35

Archaeology Magazine - January 1970

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - January 1970