The Bronze Metallurgy in the Iron Age
Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
Omid Oudbashi
Department of Conservation of Cultural and Historical Properties, Art University of Isfahan
o.oudbashi@aui.ac.ir
فلزگری مفرغ در عصر آهن
سنت تولید مفرغ قلعدار در عصر آهن در زاگرس مرکزی
امیدعودباشی
چکیده:بسیاریازپژوهشگرانوباستانشناسانبهمقولۀتوسعۀفلزگریمفرغقل عدار درمنطقۀلرستان در دورانپیشازتاریخپرداختهاند.
مفرغقل عدارنخستینباردراوایلهزارۀسومپ.م(.عصرمفرغقدیم)درغربایراناستفادهشدودرعصرآهن(پایانهزارۀدومواوایلهزارۀ
یکمپ.م).درمنطقۀلرستانرواجکاملیافتکهباناممفرغهایلرستانمشهورند.باوجوداین؛علیرغمانبوهاشیایمفرغیب هدستآمدهاز
حفریاتغیرمجازوکاوشهایباستانشناسی،فقطچندپژوهشتحلیلیوعلمیدربابفلزگریمفرغهایقل عدارعصرآهندرلرستانانجام
شدهاست.اینمقالهنتایجآزمایشگاهیموجودازچندنمونهازاشیایمفرغیلرستانرابهصورتتطبیقیوآماریبررسیکردهاست.این
اشیاشاملمجموعهیافتههایمفرغیبامنشأنامعلوماستکهبهموزههامنتقلشدهونیزاشیایکشفشدهازبرخیمحوطههایعصرآهن
یدهدمفرغهایلرستانازآلیاژهای
لرستانهمچونورکبود،بردبال،سنگتراشان،باباجیالنوچندمحوطه دیگر.نتایجاینبررسینشانم
مفرغدوجزئیبامیزانقلعمتفاوتساختهشدهاند؛هرچنددرترکیببرخیازاشیاآرسنیکوسربنقشمهمیدارند.شایانذکراستکهبر
اساسترکیبشیمیاییبرخیاشیامیتوانگفتدرمفرغهایلرستانهیچرابطهایبیننوعاشیاءوترکیبآلیاژآنهاوجودندارد.روشهاییکه
احتما ًالدرتولیدمفرغقل عداراینمنطقهبکاررفته،شایدروشهایآلیاژسازیغیرکنترلیمانندسمانتهکردن،استحصالتوأمسنگمعدنهای
مسوقلعیااستفادۀمستقیمازسنگمعدنهایمضاعفمسوقلعباشد.
واژگان کلیدی:عصرآهن،لرستان،زاگرسمرکزی،مفرغقل عدار،آلیاژ،آنالیزشیمیایی.
Nevertheless, there are only some scientific
and analytical studies about the metallurgy
of tin Bronze in Luristan during the Iron Age,
despite of large number of Bronze objects discovered from looting as well as archaeological
excavations. In this paper, a comparative and
statistical study is undertaken on the available analytical results of some Bronze objects
from Luristan. These are including the unprovenanced collections in museums as well
as objects excavated from some Iron Age sites
Abstract
The development of metallurgy of tin Bronze
in the Luristan region during the prehistoric
period has been a subject of interest for archaeologists and scientists. Tin Bronze was
firstly used at the early Bronze Age (beginning of the third millennium BC) in western
Iran and was widespread during the Iron Age
(end of second millennium and first half of
the first millennium BC) at the Luristan region, well-known as the Luristan Bronzes.
201
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
such as War Kabud, Bard-i Bal, Sangtarashan,
Baba Jilan and so on. The results show that
the majority of Luristan Bronzes are made
of the variable tin-containing binary Bronze
alloy, although arsenic and lead have important role in the composition of some objects.
Based on the chemical compsoiton of objects,
it is worth noting that there is no correlation
between objects’ typology and alloy composition in the Luristan Bronzes. The probable
methods applied to produce tin Bronze may
be an uncontrolled alloying operation such as
cementation, co-smelting or using Cu-Sn complex ores directly.
Keywords: Iron Age, Luristan, Central Zagros,
Thin Bronze, Alloy, Chemical Analysis.
2005). Nevertheless, the results of some archaeological excavations during the 20th and
21st centuries revealed valuable evidences
about the Luristan Bronzes (Muscarella 1990;
Overlaet 2004). Accordingly, it is worth noting that the Luristan region can be considered
as the most important area in the field of tin
Bronze metallurgy during prehistory of the
Iranian Plateau (Pigott 2004). Nevertheless,
tin Bronze production tradition has not been
studied carefully to understand the archaeometallurgical technology and production of
tin Bronze during the Iron Age of Luristan.
It may be due to the presence of few objects
discovered from the controlled excavations as
well as no possibility to sampling from majority of Luristan Bronzes belonging to the museums because of preventing damage to their
integrity and preservation of their high craftsmanship quality.
The aim of this paper is to review the results of some limited analytical studies undertaken on the Luristan Bronzes to characterize
the tin Bronze production tradition applied by
the ancient metalworkers to manufacture this
individual collection. For this purpose, a statistical and comparative explanation is used
to interpret the available data to show different aspects of tin Bronze alloying during the
Iron Age of Luristan. The results of analysis of
eight Bronze collections from excavated sites
and unprovenanced collections of museums
have been explained here based on the compositional features to show some aspects of
Bronze technology in the Iron Age of Luristan.
Because of some problems in presentation of
analytical data in the published reports, parts
of the analytical data have been used in the
statistical descriptions and some analyses
are withdrawn during the descriptive statistic processes. The sites and collections studied here include analytical studies performed
on Bronze objects of archaeological sites of
War Kabud, Sangtarashan, Baba Jilan, Bard-i
Introduction
The importance of tin Bronze metallurgy in
the Iranian Plateau is due to its long history
and quality of this technology during the prehistoric period. Although, the archaeometallurgical evidences proves that tin Bronze
metallurgy has been widespread in the Iranian Plateau from the late third/early second
millennium BC (Thornton 2009), but it is significant that the early examples of tin Bronze
production and usage has occurred in western
Iran in the beginning and middle of the third
millennium BC (the early and middle Bronze
Age) in the Luristan region (Begemann et al.
2008; Pigott 2004). Furthermore, the application of tin Bronze to manufacture different ritual and religious objects was extended during
the Iron Age in the Luristan region, leading to
occurrence of an extraordinary metal collection, namely the Luristan Bronzes (Oudbashi
et al. 2013; Fleming et al. 2005). This largescale collection includes various types of objects found in the graveyards and sanctuaries
in the Luristan region, western Iran; although
majority of the present objects are un-provenanced, being derived from plundered graves
and illegal diggings (Overlaet 2004; Overlaet
202
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
Fig 1. Map of Iran and Luristan as well as the location of majority of sites that are noted and explained in the paper.
Bal, Kutal-i Gulgul, Godin Tepe as well as two
unprovenanced collections from Ashmolean
Museum and Nation Museum of Iran.
2007: 38; Otte et al. 2007; Roustaei et al. 2004;
Emberling et al. 2002; Vanden Berghe 1973;
Henrickson 1992; Mortensen 1992; Izadpanah 1997). Particularly, Luristan is very important in the history of ancient metallurgy
and metalworking in the Near East. The first
evidence of metal used in the Iranian Plateau
discovered in the Deh Luran Plain which is
located at the southwest border of Luristan
and Khuzestan. It has been found in the Neolithic site, Ali Kosh (ca late 8th/early 7th millennium BC), where one piece of rolled bead
of native copper has been found (Smith 1967;
Thornton 2009). Furthermore, one of the earliest appearances of Bronze in the Near East
is found in the early Bronze Age site of Kalleh
Nisar graveyard (Pusht-i Kuh), dated to late
4th millennium BC (Pigott 2004; Fleming et
al. 2005; Haerinck et al. 2008; Haerinck et al.
2006). Nevertheless, one of the significant archaeological phenomena in Iran is emergence
of a Bronze production tradition in the Luristan region during the Iron Age. The Bronze
artefacts from Luristan Iron Age have named
as Luristan Bronzes and are one of the famous
archaeological collections from prehistory of
ancient Near East.
The Luristan Bronzes are one of the best
known categories of archaeological finds in
Near Eastern art and archaeology (Fleming
et al. 2005; Fleming et al. 2006; Muscarella
The Archaeology of the Luristan Bronzes
In the archaeological context, Luristan is a
highland region located in the central Zagros
mountain chain, western Iran. This ancient
region is bordered in the west by Iraq, and
surrounded by Khuzestan (Ancient Elam),
eastern Zagros Mountain and Kermanshah
region in other directions (Muscarella 1988;
Overlaet 2004: 329). This area is dominated
by three more or less mountain chains, the
Kabir Kuh, Kuh-i Sefid and Kuh-i Garin, which
run parallel from northwest to southeast. The
Kabir Kuh is the highest mountain and splits
Luristan into two areas, namely Pish-i Kuh on
the east and Pusht-i Kuh on the west. Nowadays, the Pish-i Kuh is consisting of the modern Lorestan province and the Pusht-i Kuh is
the modern Ilam province (Overlaet 2004:
330) (Fig. 1).
This area is one of the oldest areas in
human settlement in Iran. There are many
evidences about human activities from the
prehistoric to the Islamic periods such as Paleolithic caves, prehistoric settlements and
industries, historic civilizations and Islamic
monuments in the Luristan region (Young
Jr. et al. 1966: 386; Mortensen 1993; Biglari
203
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
1988; Moorey 1982; Moorey 1969). These
include a series of decorated Bronze artefacts
inclusively specific local style, dating from the
Iron Age of Iranian Plateau, about 1300-650
BC (Overlaet 2004; Overlaet 2005; Overlaet
2006). An enormous number of Bronze artefacts widespread in the museums and private
collections worldwide attributed to this collection, which have been discovered through
large-scale illegal excavations that carried out
by local people in the late 1920s. The cultural
context and provenance of these objects has
long been unreliable and the label of Luristan
Bronzes is often used unreasonable for many
Bronze objects discovered from other regions
or periods (Overlaet 2006; Muscarella 1988:
112; Muscarella 1990: 478; Moorey 1964:
72).
The main characteristic of artefacts from
Luristan Bronzes' style is stylized forms of
human and animals that often have been
combined to produce non-realistic and fantastic features (Fig. 2). Various species such
as birds, horse, ax , snakes, goats and felines
may be observed in Luristan Bronzes as visual components. Vegetal elements are mostly
used in a famous form in ancient Near East
the so-called “tree of life”, as motifs used for
border or filler in/between the principal visual icons. The observed evidence reveals a
chronological progress from simple naturalistic themes to more complicated and fantastic
ones (Overlaet 2004; Muscarella 1990).
Only a few excavation projects in Luristan
have so far yielded examples of these Bronzes:
Most significant were Erich Schmidt’s single
campaign at the sanctuary site of Surkh Dum
in Pish-i Kuh in 1938 (Schmidt et al. 1989)
and Louis Vanden Berghe’s fifteen campaigns,
all of them at graveyards at Pusht-i Kuh, between 1965 and 1979 (Haerinck and Overlaet, 2004). Twenty-five Luristan Bronzes of different forms have been published from Surkh
Dum while significant number of Bronze ob-
jects are reported from Vanden Berghe’s excavations in Pusht-i Kuh (Muscarella 1990,
Fleming et al. 2006). In addition, Iranian archeologists have excavated about a half-dozen
more Bronzes at the cemetery site of Khatunban in Pish-i Kuh (Haerinck et al. 2004). The
only settlement site yet excavated in Luristan,
Baba Jan in Pish-i Kuh, about 60 km north
of Surkh Dum, yielded a Janus-headed tube
and perhaps a zoomorphic pin, although the
provenience of the latter is not certain (Muscarella 1988). Recently, two archaeological
excavations related to the Luristan Bronzes
are undertaken leading to discovery of a large
Bronze collection from the Iron Age sanctuary in Sangtarashan as well as some Bronze
objects from the small Iron Age graveyard at
Baba Jilan, both in Pish-i Kuh (Oudbashi et al.
2013; Hasanpur et al. 2015).
Archaeometallurgy of the Luristan Bronzes
Despite the large amount of objects excavated
in controlled or illegal excavations of the Iron
Age of Luristan region, the analytical studies to reveal the technological aspects of the
Bronze production tradition in the Luristan
are very limited. Nevertheless, the published
results show some aspects of Bronze technology in the Luristan region. One of the earliest
works published in this fields is the results
of analytical study undertaken on some unprovenanced Bronzes from Luristan kept in
the Ashmolean museum of Oxford (Moorey
1964). In this study, 32 different Bronze objects with unknown origin are analyzed by
spectroscopy method. On the other hand,
Vatandoost-Haghighi (1977) analyzed significant number of copper alloy objects from
prehistoric Iran including three objects attributed to Luristan by atomic absorption
spectroscopy (AAS) Method. These two analytical reports can be considered as the earliest experimental works about the Luristan
Bronzes.
204
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
Fig 2. Some Luristan Bronze artefacts from Falak-ol-aflak Museum, Khorramabad. a) animal finial, b) standard, c) decorated tube, d) Spike butted axe, e) horse bit, f) pin, g) whetstone socket, h) spouted vessel, i) round vessel. Photo Courtesy: Falak-ol-aflak Museum Archive.
205
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
Study of the Bronze objects discovered
during Vanden Berghe excavations in Pushti Kuh, was undertaken by specialists in the
last decade (Fleming et al. 2005; Fleming
et al. 2006; Begemann et al. 2008). Among
them, analysis of some objects from Iron Age
graveyards such as War Kabud, Bard-i Bal
and Kutal-i Gulgul presents the technological
features of Bronze technology in the western Luristan (Fleming et al. 2005; Fleming et
al. 2006). Although the results of analysis of
significant number of Bronzes from War Kabud is published in details, but the results of
analysis of Bronze objects from Kutal-i Gulgul
has not been published completely and only
the chemical data of six objects of Bard-i Bal
are reported. All analyses are undertaken by
proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) spectroscopy.
One of the significant analytical studies
on the prehistoric copper metallurgy in western Iran is the work published by L. Frame
(2010) on the metal objects excavated from
Godin Tepe near Kangavar that are dated
from the early Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The
site has been excavated during 1960s-1970s
by T. Cuyler Young, Jr. (Young 1974; Young
1972; Young 1969; Young 1968; Young and
Levine 1974). Totally, 69 objects from this site
are analyzed by electron probe microanalysis
(EPMA), including 9 objects dated to the Iron
Age (Frame 2010).
In recent years, archaeological excavations are developed in the Luristan region
and some interesting results are obtained,
which improved our knowledge about the
Luristan Bronzes. The archaeological site of
Sangtarashan, near Khorramabad, is the most
important sanctuary from the Iron Age of Luristan in which numerous Bronze objects of
the Luristan’s type are discovered. The site
is a simple building made of stone and clay
binder, and many objects belonging to the
Luristan Bronzes tradition are placed dur-
ing the Iron Age. The site has been excavated
from 2006 to 2011 by M. Malekzadeh and A.
Hasanpour (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Malekzadeh et al. 2017). Analytical studies are undertaken on the Sangtarashan Bronze vessels
by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and scanning
electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (totally 39 samples)
analyses (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Oudbashi et
al. 2016a; Oudbashi et al. 2014). On the other
hand, the study of Bronze objects excavated
form Baba Jilan Iron Age graveyard (northern Pish-i Kuh) is another analytical work on
the recent excavated objects of the Luristan
Bronzes tradition (Oudbashi et al. 2018). The
site is looted extensively, before archaeological excavations by A. Hasanpour, but the controlled excavations revealed some Iron Age
graves with different grave goods such as
Bronze and iron objects as well as potteries
and decorative stones (Hasanpur et al. 2015).
Totally, 21 Bronze objects from this site are
analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectroscopy (ICP-MS) method (Oudbashi et
al. 2018).
The Analytical Data
Table 1 presents some information about the
analytical studies performed on the Luristan
Bronzes. It is worth noting that it is possible
to study more analyzed objects from this collection but they have not been published well
or the analytical method were not accurate
for the archaeometallurgical studies or the results are not reported in proper form. Based
on Table 1, it is visible that 224 objects are analyzed from Luristan Bronzes and will be explained in this paper; of course it is important
to note that some objects from Sangtarashan
are analyzed with both SEM-EDS and ICP-OES
(please see Oudbashi et al. 2013; Oudbashi et
al. 2016a). Thus, only the ICP-OES results of
Sangtarashan are considered in the diagrams
206
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
Site/Collection
Place of Collection
Unprovenanced
Ashmolean Museum of Oxford
Unprovenanced
War Kabud
Bard-i Bal
Kutal-i Gulgul
Godin Tepe
Sangtarashan
Baba Jilan
National Museum of Iran
Royal Museums of Art and History,
Brussels
Royal Museums of Art and History,
Brussels
Royal Museums of Art and History,
Brussels
Number of
Objects
Publication
Moorey 1964
VatandoostHaghighi 1977
Fleming et al.
2006
spectroscopy
3
AAS
47
PIXE
32
Fleming et al.
2005
45
Frame 2010
Falak-ol-Aflak Museum, Khorramabad
Oudbashi et al.
2018
Falak-ol-Aflak Museum, Khorramabad
32
Fleming et al.
2005
Royal Ontario Museum
Oudbashi et al.
2013; 2014;
2016a
that will present later in this paper. Also, the
results of analysis of 45 objects from the Iron
Age site of Kutal-i Gulgul have been published briefly by Fleming et al. (2005) and will
only be interpreted briefly too here. Only, six
Bronze objects from Iron Age IIB-III of Bard-i
Bal are discussed in detail. On the other hand,
the site of Godin Tepe is a settlement located
in the northeast of Luristan and is not categorized as a site related to the Luristan Bronzes,
but due to its location in the borders of the
Luristan region as well as presence of some
analyzed objects from the Iron Age, its analytical results are involved in this study for
comparative purposes.
Based on the analytical results, it is visible that the dominant composition used to
produce the Luristan Bronzes is copper-tin
or tin Bronze alloy.1 Among 224 analyzed
objects from Luristan Bronzes, 201 objects
are made of tin Bronze and 23 objects show
different composition such as impure copper
(9), arsenical copper (or arsenical Bronze)
(5), leaded Bronze2 (6), ternary alloys such
as Cu-Sn-Zn and Cu-Zn-Pb (2) and quarterly
alloy including Cu-Zn-Sn-Pb (1). In fact, in ad-
1. The elements with 2 percent and higher are considered as alloying elements in the composition.
2. Tin Bronze alloy with significant amounts of lead.
Analytical
Method
PIXE
PIXE
9
EPMA
21
ICP-MS
38
ICP-OES,
SEM-EDS
Table 1- The characteristics of the metal collections related to the
Luristan Bronzes and
of the analyses undertaken on these collections.
dition to the leaded Bronzes that are made of
tin-copper and lead, the tin Bronze objects
can calculate as 207 objects. Thus, the objects
made of copper-tin alloy are 92.4 percent of
all analyzed objects.
Furthermore, the arsenical copper (or arsenical Bronze) is found as the main alloy in
5 objects from the Ashmolean collection and
Godin Tepe and there is no evidence of using Cu-As alloy in objects found from the Iron
Age site of Luristan region. It is interesting
to note that the composition of objects from
Ashmolean collection is variable and different
compositions are observed in these objects
including Zn-bearing copper alloys such as
Cu-Sn-Zn, Cu-Zn-Pb and Cu-Zn-Sn-Pb. These
types of alloys are not observed in the objects
discovered from controlled excavations of
Iron Age sites of Luristan.
Based on the data available in Table 2
the main copper alloy used in manufacturing
of the Luristan Bronzes is binary copper-tin
alloy and other compositions observed between the Bronze objects can be considered
as occasionally produced objects or forgeries, as noted by P. R. S. Moorey in the case of
high zinc copper alloys observed in the Ashmolean collection (Moorey 1964). Of course,
it is worth noting that the analyzed objects
207
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
Site/Collection
Unprovenanced
Unprovenanced
War Kabud
Tin
Bronze
Arsenical
Copper
Leaded
Bronze
Ternary
Alloy
Quarterly
Alloy
Total
−
25
3
1
2
1
32
2
1
46
−
−
3
−
−
47
−
48
−
−
−
4
26
Godin Tepe
5
2
2
Sangtarashan
−
36
−
2
9
201
5
6
Baba Jilan
Total
44
−
20
−
1
Kutal-i Gulgul
Bard-i Bal
Table 2. Descriptive and comparative statistics showing the
results of analytical studies performed on the Luristan Bronzes.
Impure
Copper
−
−
−
−
−
1
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
26
9
−
−
39
2
1
224
−
−
21
tamia, it has been noted that the specific Cu/
Sn ratios (such as 6:1, 8:1 or 9:1) have been
applied by ancient metalworkers to produce
specific types of objects (such as weapons,
jewelries or vessels) (Potts 1997; Joannes
1997; Helwing 2009). Nevertheless, there is
no evidence of controlled alloying process in
the ancient Iranian Bronzes, and it has been
referred to the use of an uncontrolled (or uncontrollable) method for alloying tin Bronze
such as co-smelting or cementation as well as
using Cu-Sn bearing complex ores (Oudbashi
et al. 2016b; Oudbashi et al. 2017; Oudbashi
et al. 2018).
Fig. 4 shows the correlation between the
alloying elements and additives in the composition of analyzed samples from Luristan
including scatter plots of Sn versus As and Sn
versus Pb. These elements have been the main
alloying elements and additives in the prehistoric copper metallurgy (Thornton 2009).
The diagram of Sn versus As shows that there
is a reverse relationship between tin and arsenic in the composition of Luristan objects,
as arsenic has no important role in the composition of tin Bronze objects while arsenical
copper is identified as the alloy composition
in some samples from Ashmolean collection
and Godin Tepe. Furthermore, scatter plot of
Sn versus Pb states that lead has no important
role in the metallurgy of Luristan Bronzes,
but there are some objects from archaeologi-
from Kutal-i Gulgul are dated to the Iron Age
I (second half of the second millennium BC)
(Fleming et al. 2005) and the objects from Godin Tepe are not among the Luristan Bronzes
tradition, thus it is not very strange to observe
impure copper or arsenical copper in these
collections.
An interesting aspect in the composition
of the Luristan Bronzes is the variable tin
content measured in the objects with similar
typology/function. It has been interpreted
previously in the literature that the Luristan
Bronzes –and other Bronze objects from prehistoric Iran- show no correlation between
the tin content and typology (Oudbashi et
al. 2014; Oudbashi et al. 2017; Oudbashi
et al. 2018). Fig. 3 shows the scatter plot of
Cu versus Sn in the composition of analyzed
copper alloy objects from Luristan. Based on
the diagram, it is visible that there is different ratios of copper and tin in the composition of objects form various collections and
no correlation can be observed. For example,
in 14 samples of Bronze vessels from Sangtarashan, tin content is variable between about
5 to 11 percent showing no correlation between alloy composition and objects’ type.
This phenomenon can also be observable in
other types of objects form different analyzed
Bronze collections such as vessels from War
Kabud or small objects from other collections.
In the cuneiform texts from ancient Mesopo-
208
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
Fig 3. Scatter plot of Cu versus Sn in the composition of analyzed objects from Luristan. The number of objects from each
site/collection is mentioned in the legend.
cal sites beside some unprovenanced objects
with high amounts of Pb. Despite importance
of lead in the copper metallurgy during the
prehistoric period worldwide, there is no evidence of using Pb as an additive to improve
characteristics of copper and tin Bronze in
the prehistoric metallurgy of copper in the
Iranian Plateau. In fact, the analytical studies
of copper alloys from the prehistoric period of
Iran don’t show any significant evidence from
deliberately use of lead as additive to copper
and its alloys.
Therefore, it can be derived from the
scatter plots in Fig. 4 that arsenic and lead
can be considered as impurities came from
the gangue of the ores used to provide me209
tallic copper and/or tin used to produce the
Luristan Bronzes. Based on the results of
analysis of the Bronze Age copper alloys from
Iran, it is visible that the binary tin-Bronze alloy has been the commonplace material used
by the ancient metalworkers in western Iran
from third millennium BC while arsenical copper (or arsenical Bronze) has been used until
second millennium BC in other regions of Iran
showing the long history of Bronze production tradition in western Iran (Oudbashi et al.
2016b; Fleming et al. 2005; Begemann et al.
2008; Thornton 2009; Frame 2010).
Fig. 5 shows scatter plot of important
trace elements in the composition of the analyzed Bronze objects from Luristan (Pernicka
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
Fig 4. a) scatter plot of Sn
versus As in the composition of metal objects from
Luristan, b) scatter plot of
Sn versus Pb in these objects. The number of objects
from each site/collection is
mentioned in the legend.
210
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
Fig 5. Binary diagrams of trace elements in the Luristan
Bronzes, a) scatter plot of As versus Sb in the composition of metal objects from Luristan, b) scatter plot of Ag
versus Ni in these objects. The number of objects from
each site/collection is mentioned in the legend.
2014). Diagram of As versus Sb shows very
interesting aspect of the composition of the
objects as in the objects of same site a good
correlation can be observed. For example,
objects of war Kabud are placed on a similar area in the diagram while many objects
of Baba Jilan or Sangtarashan are in other
areas of the diagram. Of course, some deviations are visible in some objects of same collection/site. Furthermore, scatter plot of Ag
versus Ni shows similar aspect of the previous diagram. Nevertheless, some deviations
are also visible here. Totally, the scatter plots
state that there are similarities (correlations)
between objects of War Kabud, Ashmolean
Museum and Godin Tepe, while Sangtarashan,
Baba Jilan and some objects of Ashmolean
museum show good correlation. Thus, it is obvious that there is good correlation between
unprovenanced and excavated objects showing the probable same origin (ore resources)
used to produce metallic materials for manufacturing Luristan Bronzes. Of course, it is not
possible to characterize the ore deposits used
in production of Luristan Bronzes, but recent
studies on the ore resources in western Iran
revealed that the Deh Hosein copper-tin resource may has been used during the Bronze
Age and the Iron Age to provide raw materials for production of the Bronze objects in the
Luristan region (Nezafati 2006; Nezafati et al.
2006).
According to the analytical studies of the
Luristan Bronzes, following aspects of the
metallurgical technology are visible:
- The main alloy used in manufacturing
of the Luristan Bronzes is binary tin Bronze
alloy with low amounts of impurities such as
arsenic, lead, zinc, nickel, etc. There is no correlation between tin content and object’s typology/function in the Luristan Bronzes.
- In some cases, arsenic and lead have
been determined as main alloying elements,
sometimes beside tin. It may be due to accidentally entering of significant amount of
these elements from the ores used to obtain
metallic materials.
- Presence of zinc (in the shape of ternary or quarterly alloy) in composition of
some unprovenanced objects can be due to
using Zn-bearing ores or because of forgery
to make fake copies of Luristan Bronzes. Nev211
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
ertheless, identification of forgery required
more detailed investigations by different analytical approaches.
- The ore deposits used in the metallurgy of the Luristan Bronzes are unknown,
although some interesting evidences in Deh
Hosein ancient mine are revealed in recent
years. Nevertheless, the chemical composition of Bronze objects of Luristan show the
possibility of using similar ore deposits in
some cases. This needs more detailed studies in field and laboratory to find the probable
ore resources used to obtain copper and tin
during the Iron Age in Luristan region.
are made of binary copper-tin alloy with variable contents of tin. The comparative results
show that there is no correlation between tin
content and typology of objects, contrary to
the ancient texts about technology of Bronze
production from Mesopotamia. On the other
hand, there are only some objects made of
other alloys and compositions such as arsenical copper, impure copper and ternary alloys that show some deviations from the tin
Bronze technology in the Iron Age of Luristan.
The results show that arsenic and lead have
no significant role in the metallurgy of the
Luristan Bronzes. Furthermore, the composition of the Luristan Bronzes is similar based
on their trace elements’ contents, although in
some cases more similarity is visible. Therefore, comparative and statistical analysis of
the available data about the metallurgy of the
Luristan Bronzes reveled some aspects of the
Bronze production tradition in the Iron Age of
western Iran. Identification of other aspects
of Bronze technology during the Iron Age of
Luristan needs to develop field, analytical,
and provenance studies to find more details
about this high craftsmanship technology of
the prehistoric period of Iran.
Conclusion
The Luristan Bronzes are one of the distinctive collections of the prehistory of Iran that,
despite of their importance in the archaeology of the Near East, has not been subjected
to technological studies. The results of limited analytical investigations on the Luristan
Bronzes are reported previously and a comparative study was done in this paper to characterize the Bronze production tradition used
by ancient metalworkers to manufacture the
artistic Bronze objects of Luristan. Based on
the analytical results, the Luristan Bronzes
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Begemann, F., E. Haerinck, B. Overlaet, S. Schmitt-Strecker and F. Tallon
2008
"An Archaeo-Metallurgical Study of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Luristan, Iran", Iranica Antiqua XLIII:
2-66.
Biglari, F.
2007
"The Lower and Middle Paleolithic occupations of Iran: A Brief Review, in Persia: Fragments from Paradise",
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City: 31-9.
Emberling, G., J. Robb, J. D. Speth, and H. T. Wright
2002
"Kunji Cave: Early Bronze Age Burials in Luristan", Iranica Antiqua XXXVII: 47-104.
Fleming, S.J., V.C. Pigott, C.P. Swann, S.K. Nash, E. Haerinck and B. Overlaet
2006
"The Archaeometallurgy of War Kabud, Western Iran", Iranica Antiqua XLI: 31-57.
Fleming, S.J., V. C. Pigott, C. P. Swann and S. K. Nash
2005
"Bronze in Luristan: Preliminary Analytical Evidence from Copper/bronze Artifacts Excavated by the Belgian
Mission in Iran", Iranica Antiqua XL: 35-64.
Frame, L. D.
2010
"Metallurgical investigations at Godin Tepe, Iran, Part I: The metal finds", Journal of Archaeological Science 37:
1700-15.
Haerinck, E. and B. Overlaet
2004
The Chronology of the Push-i Kuh, Luristan, Results of the Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran, From Handaxe
to Khan, Essays Presented to Peder Mortensen on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Aarhus, 119-35.
212
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros
2006
Luristan excavation documents, vol. VI: Bani Surmah: an Early Bronze Age graveyard in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan,
Acta Iranica 43, Peeters, Leuven.
2008
Luristan excavation documents, vol. VII: The Kalleh Nisar Bronze Age graveyard in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan, Acta
Iranica 46, Peeters, Leuven.
Haerinck, E., Z. Jaffar-Mohammadi and B. Overlaet
2004
"Finds from Khatunban B-Badavar valley (Luristan) in the Iran National Museum, Teheran", Iranica Antiqua
39: 105-68.
Hasanpur, A., Z. Hashemi and B. Overlaet
2015
"The Baba Jilan Graveyard near Nurabad, Pish-i Kuh, Luristan", Iranica Antiqua 50: 171-212.
Helwing, B.
2009
"Rethinking the tin mountains: patterns of usage and circulation of tin in greater Iran from the 4th to the 1st
millennium BC", TUBA-AR 12: 209-221.
Henrickson, E.F.
1992
"Ceramics IV- The Chalcolithic Period in the Zagros Highlands", Encyclopedia Iranica V: 278-282.
Izadpanah, H.
1997
Ancient and Cultural monuments of Lorestan, 3 Volumes, Tehran (in Farsi).
Joannes, F.
1997
"Metalle und Metallurgie, A. I. in Mesopotamien", Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8: 96-112.
Malekzadeh, M., A. Hasanpur and Z. Hashemi
2017
"Fouilles (2005-2006) à Sangtarashan, Luristan, Iran", Iranica Antiqua 52: 61-158.
Moorey, P.R.S.
1964
"An Interim Report on some Analyses of Luristan Bronzes”, Archaeometry 7: 72-79.
1969
"Prehistoric Copper and Bronze Metallurgy in Western Iran (With Special Reference to Lūristān)", Iran 7:
131-153.
1982
"Archaeology and Pre-Achaemenid Metalworking in Iran: A Fifteen Year Retrospective", Iran 20: 81-101.
1994
Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries, the archaeological evidence. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Mortensen, P.
1992
"Ceramics III- The Neolithic Period in Central and Western Persia", Encyclopedia Iranica V: 276-278.
1993
"Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic Sites in the Hulailan Valley, Northern Luristan", in D. I. Olszewsky and H. L.
Dibble (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus, Philadelphia: 159–187.
Muscarella, O.W.
1988
Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
1990
"Bronzes of Luristan", In E. Yarshater, ed. Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol. IV, New York, Routledge & Kegan Publications, 478-483.
Nezafati, N.
2006
Au-Sn-W-Cu-mineralization in the Astaneh-Sarband Area, West Central Iran, including a comparison of the ores
with ancient bronze artifacts from western Asia. PhD. Der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.
Nezafati, N., E. Pernicka and M. Momenzadeh
2006
"Ancient Tin: Old Question and a New Answer", Antiquity 80, 308.
Oudbashi, O. and A. Hasanpour
2018
"Bronze alloy production during the Iron Age of Luristan: a multianalytical study on recently discovered
bronze objects", Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10: 1443–1458.
Oudbashi, O. and M. Hessari
2017
"Iron age tin bronze metallurgy at Marlik, northern Iran: an analytical investigation", Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9: 233-249.
Oudbashi, O., A. Hasanpour and M. Malekzadeh
2016a "The Luristan Bronzes in Sangtarashan: Bronze Technology in Western Iran in the First Millennium BC", In: A.
Giumlia-Mair and C. C. Mattusch, ed. Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Izmir,
Autun, Éditions Mergoil: 17-27.
Oudbashi, O., R. Naseri and M. Malekzadeh
2016b "Technical studies on the bronze age metal artefacts from the graveyard of Deh Dumen, southwestern Iran
(third millennium BC)", Archaeometry 58: 947-965.
Oudbashi, O. and P. Davami
2014
"Metallography and Microstructure Interpretation of some Archaeological Tin Bronze Vessels from Iran", Material Characterization 97: 74-82.
213
Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions
Oudbashi, O., S. M. Emami, M. Malekzadeh, A., Hasanpour and P. Davami
2013
"Archaeometallurgical studies on the bronze vessels from Sangtarashan, Luristan, W-Iran", Iranica Antiqua
XLVIII: 147–171.
Overlaet, B.
2004
"Luristan metalwork in the Iron Age", In: T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust, eds. Persiens Antike Pracht.
Bergbau Handwerk Archäologie, Exhibition Catalogue. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum: 328-338.
2005
"The Chronology of the Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan", Iranica Antiqua XL: 1-33.
2006
"Luristan Bronzes: I. The Field Research", In: E. Yarshater, ed. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, Originally Published: November 15, 2006.
Available at http://www.iranica.com/articles/luristan-bronzes-i-the-field-research.
Pernicka, E.
2014
"Provenance determination of archaeological metal objects", In: Roberts B.W., Thornton C.P. (eds) Archaeometallurgy in global perspective, methods and syntheses. Springer, New York, 239–268.
Pigott, V. C.
2004
"On the importance of Iran in the study of prehistoric Copper-Basemetallurgy", In: T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and
A. Vatandoust, eds. Persiens Antike Pracht. Bergbau Handwerk Archäologie, Exhibition Catalogue. Bochum:
Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 24-43.
Potts, D. T.
1997
Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. New York, Cornell University Press.
Roustaei, K., H. Vahdati Nasab, F. Biglari, S. Heydari, G. A. Clark, J. M. Lindly
2004
"Recent Paleolithic Surveys in Luristan", Current Anthropology 45: 692-707.
Schmidt, E.F., M. N. van Loon, H. H. Curvers
1989
The Holmes expeditions to Luristan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 108, 2
Vols.
Smith, C.S.
1967
"The Interpretation of Microstructures of Metallic Artifacts", in Application of Science in the Examination of
Works of Art, Young, W.J. (ed.), September 7-16, 1965, Research Laboratory of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston:
20-52.
Vanden Berghe, L.
1973
"Recherches Archéologiques dans le Luristān", Iranica Antiqua 10: 1-79.
Vatandoost-Haghighi, A.R.
1977
Aspects of prehistoric Iranian copper and bronze technology. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology: London
Young, Jr., T.C.
1968
"The excavations at Godin Tepe: new light on the Archaeology of the Zagros", Archaeologia Viva 1: 156.
1969
Excavations at Godin Tepe: first Progress report. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
1972
"Recent excavations at Godin Tepe", In: Kiyani, M.Y., Tajvidi, A. (Eds.), The Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, 11th-18th April 1968, Tehran, vol. 1. Ministry of Culture and Art,
Tehran, 204–210.
1974
"Excavations at Godin Teppeh – 1973", In Bagherzadeh, F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on
Archaeological Research in Iran. Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran, 80–90.
Young Jr., T.C. and L.D. Levine
1974
Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
Young, Jr., T. C. and P. E. L. Smith
1966
"Research in the Prehistory of Central Western Iran: Recent preliminary excavations promise to document
40,000 years of prehistory in the Zagros Mountains", Science 153 (3734): 386-391.
214
Proceedings of the International Conference on
The Iron Age in Western Iran
and Neighbouring Regions
2-3 Nov. 2019
Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran
Vol. 2
Edited by:
Yousef Hassanzadeh
Ali A. Vahdati
Zahed Karimi
Tehran and Sanandaj
Publisher:
Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism (RICHT)
National Museum of Iran
Kurdistan Province ICHHTO
Kurdistan ICHHTO
National Museum of Iran
2019
RICHT
Kurdistan ICHHTO
National Museum of Iran
RICHT
Proceedings of the international Conference on The Iron Age in Western Iran and
Neighbouring Regions, 2-3 Nov. 2019, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran
Edited by: Yousef Hassanzadeh, Ali A. Vahdati and Zahed Karimi
Cover Photo: Neda Tehrani and Nima Fakoorzadeh
Cover Design: Nina Rezaei
Publishers: RICHT / National Museum of Iran / Kurdistan ICHHTO
ISBN: 978-600-8977-91-9
© RICHT / National Museum of Iran / Kurdistan ICHHTO (2019)
Board of Directors:
Dr. Behrouz Omrani, General Director of RICHT
Mohsen Alavi, General Director of Kurdistan ICHTO
Dr. Jebrael Nokandeh, Genereal Director of National Museum of Iran
Dr. Rohollah Shirazi, Director of ICAR
Policy Council:
Dr. M. H. Talebian, Deputy of Cultural Heritage in Iranian Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts
Dr. Jebrael Nokandeh, Genereal Director of National Museum of Iran
Dr. Rohollah Shirazi, Director of ICAR
Dr. Mohammad Ebrahinm Zarei, Sanandaj Governor and Associate professor in Archaeology, Bu-Ali University, Hamedan
Dr. Bahram Nasrollahizadeh, General Director of Kurdistan Planning and Budget Organization
Mohsen Alavi, General Director of Kurdistan ICHTO
Scientific Editors - in Chief:
Yousef Hassanzadeh, Archaeologist and Head of Research Center, National Museum of Iran
Ali. A. Vahdati, Archaeologist and Research Associate, Northern Khorasan ICHTO
Scientific Comitte:
Dr. Hamid Khatib Shahidi, Professor emeritus of TMU (Tarbiat Modarres University)
Mrs. Simin Lakpour, Retired Member of ICAR
Dr. Siamak Sarlak, Research Deputy of ICAR
Dr. Mehrdad Malekzadeh, Head of Research Center of RICHT
Fr. Sajjad Alibeigi, Assistant Professor, Razi University, Kermanshah
Dr. Amir Saedmoucheshi, Assistant Professor, Payam-e Noor University, Sanandaj
Dr. Kazem Mollazadeh, Associate Professor, Bu-Ali University, Hamedan
Dr. Mostafa Dehpahlavan, Assistant Professor, Tehran University, Tehran
Dr. Fereidoun Biglari, Cultural Deputy, National Museum of Iran, Tehran
Dr. Ali Binandeh, Assistant Professor, Bu-Ali University, Hamedan
Executive Director:
Zahed Karimi, Archaeologist, Kurdistan ICHHTO Province
Table of Contents
More Thoughts on the Destruction of Hasanlu IVB / John Curtis .........................................................
The Iron Age at Hasanlu, Iran: New Perspectives / Megan Cifarelli .....................................................
Ranking and Distribution of the Urartian Fortifications: A General View of the Urartian Territory / Raffaele Biscione and Roberto Dan ...................................................................................................
Recently Discovered Rock-Cut Chambers in Orumiyeh County, Iran / Roberto Dan, Behrouz
Khan Mohammadi, Keomars Hajji Mohammadi ..........................................................................................
The rock niche of the Urartian king Minua at Ain-e Rum in Iranian Azerbeijan / Mirjo Salvini.....
A contribution to the Iron Age Period in West Azerbaijan Province, Iran in Light of new
research: Anaqizli Tapeh / Sandra Heinsch, Golam Shirzadeh, Qmars Hajmohamadi, Ali Darvish-Zadeh, Walter Kuntner .................................................................................................................................
Iron Age in western Iranian Plateau: a Long Debated Question / Bruno Genito, Esmail Hemati Asandaryani, Manuel Castelluccia ...........................................................................................................
Complex landscapes and cities during the Iron Age of NW-Iran / Judith Thomalsky ......................
THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY: Revisiting Louis Vanden Berghe’s Tombe 1 at Karkhai / Yasmina
Wicks and Javier Álvarez-Mon ............................................................................................................................
The arrival of the Persians into Fars / Mohammad T. Atayi and Michael Roaf .................................
Iron Age animal exploitation at the edge of the Dasht-e Kavir, central desert of Iran. The case
of Shamshirgah (Qom-Iran) / Marjan Mashkour and Hamid Fahimi ..................................................
The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron
Age in the Central Zagros / Omid Oudbashi ...................................................................................................
Shiran: A Submerged Iron Age Grave in the Darian Dam, Hawraman, Kurdistan / Amir Saed
Mucheshi and Sara Khalifeh Soltani ..................................................................................................................
The First Iron Age Absolute Date from Kurdistan / Hamid Amanollahi ............................................
The Iron Age Dinka Settlement Complex in the Peshdar Plain, Archaeological Exploration,
2015-2018 / Karen Radner, F. Janoscha Kreppner and Andrea Squitieri ..........................................
The Glazed Brick Façades from Ashur in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin in context of
the North-Western Iranian Glazed Bricks / Helen Gries and Anja Fügert .........................................
Some notes on arrangement pattern of the Trinity Symbols on the Rock–Cut Tomb of Qizqapan / Iraj Rezaie .........................................................................................................................................................
9
21
45
63
80
94
113
137
152
175
191
201
215
227
243
258
273