Potters Marks Tepe Yahya

Palorient
CNRS Editions
THE POTTER'S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA
Author(s): Daniel POTTS
Source: Palorient, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1981), pp. 107-122
Published by: Palorient and CNRS Editions
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41489504 .
Accessed: 21/08/2013 13:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Palorient and CNRS Editions are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Palorient.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 216.165.95.77 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:13:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PALORIENT Vol. 7/1 198!
THE POTTER'S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA
l. POTTS
ABSTRACT.
-
This article discusses a
group
of
nearly
400
potter's
marks from the site of
Tepe Yahya
in Kerman
province,
southern Iran.
The
potter's
marks have been
typologically classified, and their distribution
by period
and
phase
is shown in a series of tables. The function of
these
signs
is
only briefly discussed, while
greater
attention is
given
to
correspondences
between the
potter's
marks of the Indo-Iranian
borderlands and both the Proto-Elamite and
Harappan scripts. Hypotheses concerning
the
possibility
of a
relationship
between Proto-Elamite
and
Harappan
are discussed in
light
of these
correspondences.
RESUME.
-
L 'article
porte
sur l'tude d'environ 400
marques
de
potiers provenant
du site de
Tepe Yahya dans la
province
de Kerman, dans
le sud de l'Iran. Les
marques
de
potiers
ont t
rpertories
selon leur
typologie
et une srie de tableaux donne leur
rpartition par priode
et
par phase.
La
fonction
de ces
signes
n'est
que
brivement
voque,
tandis
que
l'on accorde une
plus grande
attention aux
correspondances qui
existent entre les
marques
de
potiers
des
pourtours
indo-iraniens et les critures
proto-lamite
et
harappenne.
A la lumire de ces
correspondances,
on examine la
possibilit
de liens entre la civilisation
proto-lamite
et la civilisation
harappenne.
The site of
Tepe Yahya
has
yielded
a rich
corpus
of
incised
signs
on both
complete
ceramic vessels and,
more
commonly,
on sherds. The
purpose
of this
paper
is to
present
their a)
typological characteristics,
includ-
ing
the
frequency
of occurrence of each
sign-type along
with a
sign
list and
catalogue;
and b) a discussion of
the
spatio-temporal
and culture historical
significance
of
the
corpus. Finally, speculations
on the
relationship
bet-
ween the
potter
s marks of the Indo-Iranian borderlands
and both the Proto-Elamite and
Harappan scripts
will
be raised for future examination.
THE SITE
Tepe Yahya
is located in the southwestern
part
of the
Soghun Valley
in Kerman
province,
c. 220 km south of
the
city
of Kerman,
Iran. The
valley
covers
approxima-
tely
200
sq.
km and sits at an altitude of 1500-1525
m.a.s.l., although
the mountains which
ring
the
valley
can reach twice that
height.
The site is a circular
mound,
c. 19.8 m in
height,
and 187 m in diameter at
the base. It was excavated
during
the course of six
summer seasons (1968-1971, 1973, 1975)
by
the Har-
vard-Iran
Expedition
under the direction of Prof. C.C.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, Peabody Museum, Harvard Uni-
versity
(1 ).
The excavations have revealed a
long stratigraphie
sequence, interrupted by
certain breaks in the
occupa-
tion of the site,
which runs from c. 5000 B.C. to the
first centuries of the Christian
era, when the site came
under
strong
Partho-Sasanian influence. We are concer-
ned here with
periods
IV
through I, i.e. the Bronze and
Iron
Age occupations,
as well as the late, historic
periods
(Achaemenian
through
Partho-Sasanian). Gene-
rally,
we
may equate
the relevant
sub-periods
with the
following
absolute dates (2) :
IVC2-1
-
3 000-2 800 B.C.
IVB6-1
-
2 700-2 200 B.C.
IVA3-1
-
2 200-1 800(?) B.C.
-
Abandonment of the Site
-
III/II
-
1 000-300(?) B.C.
I
-
pre
500 A.D.
THE CORPUS OF POTTER'S MARKS
353
examples
are included in the
catalogue presented
here. Of these,
108 were recovered
during
excavations
in the south
step trench, while another 187 were found
in the north
step
trench. An additional 58 were found in
surface contexts. The
corpus
consists of
signs
incised on
pottery
vessels
just prior
to
firing. Normally, they
occur
on rather coarse, grit-tempered,
handmade bowls, cups,
and
jars,
which are known in a
variety
of
simple shapes
(Fig.
1). These are dominant in
period IVA, although
examples
of incised
potter's
marks also occur in I
VC,
IVB,
and III-I
levels, i.e. both earlier and later than the
period
of their
greatest
florescence. While it seems indis-
putable
that
period
IVA witnessed the
greatest
use of
these incised
signs,
I do not believe tiiat the
examples
from the earlier and later levels are all out context.
Rather,
I think
they
attest to considerable
continuity
in
the tradition of
incising signs
on
pots.
(1)1 would like to
express my
sincere
gratitude
to Prof.
Lamberg-
Karlovsky
for
permitting
me both to
participate
in the excavations of
Tepe Yahya,
and to work on the third millennium material for
my
PhD. dissertation, of which he was the
principal
advisor.
(2) The
lengths
of the individual
sub-periods
and the
question
of
continuity
between them, especially
in the cases of IVC's relation to
IVB, and IVB's relation to IVA, are difficult
problems
which will not
be delved into here. The reader should take note of the different dates
which have
appeared
in various
publications concerned with the site
over the last decade as the results of the excavations have been
analy-
zed and further refined. It must be realized that the dates
given
above
reflect
my
own views and not
necessarily
those of either the director of
the excavations, nor the other members of the team
publishing
diffe-
rent
aspects
of the site.
107
THE POTTER S MARKS OF TEPE YAHYA
In most cases the
sign
is incised on the exterior of the
vessel wall, just
above the base. Less
frequently,
the
sign
may
be found on the base of the vessel,
or on the
exterior of the
upper
third of the vessel wall. For lack of
a better term, these incised
signs
have been
traditionally
referred to as
"potter's marks", although
this
usage
represents
more a matter of verbal convenience than an
a
priori interpretation
of the function of these
signs.
An
answer to the
question
of the
meaning
or function of
FIG. 1.
-
A selection of
pottery types
from
Tepe Yahya bearing
incised
signs.
Drawings
are
by
the author after
originals by
Miss Ann Hechle origi-
nally published by
C.C.
Lamberg-Karlovsky
in Excavations at
Tepe
Yahya, Iran 1967-1969, Progress Report I, Bulletin 27, American
Schools of Prehistoric Research, Peabody
Museum (Cambridge
1970).
Key
: a) coarse grit
buff ware, Period I ; b) red wash on
plain
buff
ware, Period IVB; )
plain red-orange ware, Period IVB; d) red-
slipped
tan ware, Period IVA, phase uncertain; e) red wash on
plain
buff, Period IVA3-1 ; 0
plain
brown ware, Period III; g) plain orange-
buff ware, Period IVA3-2; h)
brown-slipped
tan
grit ware, Period I.
Scale : 1 cm
=
5 cm.
these
signs
is still not in view, and the
problem
will be
largely ignored
in this
presentation
(3).
The
sign
list
(Fig.
5)
presented
here is an
attempt
to
arrange
the 353 individual
signs
recovered into a
typolo-
(3) The distinction between a
corpus
of hand-made vessels
bearing
incised
signs,
and a
corpus
of wheel-made
pottery,
without such
signs,
raises certain
possibilities
of
interpretation.
The hand-made vessels,
perhaps
manufactured at home
by individuals for their families, may
have been fired in communal kilns, of which we have no evidence, and
thus
required
some kind of
distinguishing
mark so that families could
retrieve their own vessels from the kiln after
firing, being
sure that
they
had in their
possession
the
pot
or
pots
which
they
had in fact themsel-
ves made. It
may
be
interesting
in this
regard
to note that when one
breaks down the
corpus showing
the numbers of
signs
and
sign-types
represented
in each of the
sub-periods under consideration, a substan-
tially
smaller number of
signs appears
to have been in use
during any
one
sub-period
than
might
have been, at first
glance, expected.
Gran-
ted, some of these are also
present
in other
sub-periods,
and there is
often no
temporal continuity
between the
sub-periods during
which a
particular sign
is found. But the number of
sign occurrences, which is
never more than 73 in
any
one
sub-period,
and of these never more
than 49 individual
sign-types
in use at
any
one time, would not be
incompatible
with the numbers of families which
may
have been
making
handmade
pots during any one
sub-period
between IVC and
III/ II. We have no
truly
reliable means with which to estimate
popula-
tion at the site
during
the third millennium, but if each
sign-type
represented
one
family's property mark, and the maximum number of
sign-types
in use at one time is 49, then it is at least reasonable, I think,
to
suppose
that the same number of families could have resided simul-
taneously
on the site, Indeed, this
may
be a
very
low estimate of
population,
and the small number of
signs present
in each
sub-period
may
reflect a
relatively
restricted
production
of vessels at home, per-
haps
common among only
the
poorer
families who could not afford (?)
wheel-made
pottery. Alternatively,
it is
always possible
that of those
vessels
belonging
to one
family placed
in a kiln it was
only necessary
to
mark the
uppermost
one of the lot with a
sign.
Still, if this
practice
was
pursued
with
any regularity,
I would not
expect
to find such a
high
number of
unique signs
within the
corpus,
unless families
produced
but an occasional pot
or lot of
pots
for their
own use, relying
instead more
generally upon
the
products
of profes-
sional
potters. Moreover, it is
impossible
to demonstrate that the vessels
in
question,
handmade though they may be, do
represent
in fact the
work of private
individuals as
opposed
to
professional potters.
While I
think it
likely
that the vessels which bear incised
signs
could
easily
have
been made
by non-professional,
household
potters, clearly
this
explana-
tion is
only
one of several which could be
proposed,
and I do not want
to
go
on speculating
about a
hypothesis which, it seems to me, can
neither be confirmed nor
rejected outright
on the basis of the available
evidence.
One clear
objection
to this interpretation
is raised
by
the
implication
that all the
signs
would then
represent family
or individual identities,
expressed
either ideographically
or
syllabically, depending
on what the
true nature of this
marking system
is. However, it seems at least if not
more
likely
that the first three groups
of
signs (see discussion following)
have a numerical significance,
and would not stand for owner's or
maker's marks. Another obvious alternative would be that the
signs
represent
not owner's or maker's marks, but rather
goods
which might
be contained in the fired
pot,
but this alternative is, I think, less likely
than the one
just
discussed.
108
gical
order. As I am not a
philologist
but rather an
archaeologist,
I have
proceeded
in what seemed an
intuitively
sensible fashion in
constructing
this
typology.
The
typology
consists of 148
entries,
some
typologically
affiliated, running
from
sign-type
la
through
76b. This
is not intended to be a
philological study,
and certain
sign groups
should
perhaps
have been
collapsed,
but it
is
hoped that, as
presented,
the
listing
does not mask
any
variations which
may
be of either
typological
or
philological significance.
What is certain is that the
signs
fall into
groups,
some more or less discrete, represented
by
the 148 entries in the
sign-list.
These entries can be
broken down into
twenty sub-groups, roughly
identifia-
ble
by
the dominant formal characteristics of each
sign-
type.
These will be discussed
very briefly
in turn.
Group
1. Linear: la-6
This
group
is
comprised
of
straight
lines
only.
Straight
lines incised on
pots
from
Tepe Yahya
occur
singly,
in
pairs,
and in
groups
of three to six lines.
When there is more than one line
present, they
are
arranged
in
parallel
fashion. On
analogy
with
many
known
writing
or notational
systems,
these
may repre-
sent strokes for
counting
from one to six, or some
higher mutliples thereof, but this cannot be determined
except
within the context of a
complete
numerical or
notational
system,
the
workings
of which are not
appa-
rent within this
corpus.
It is
impossible
to know whe-
ther the orientation of the lines has
any significance.
In
any case, groups
of four and five
parallel
lines were
noted both
parallel
to and at
right angles
to the bases of
sherds on which
they occurred, and for that reason
have been considered as variants of the same
sign
here.
Group
2. Punctate : 7a- 19
Also in some
ways suggestive
of a
system
of numeri-
cal notation are those
signs composed
of
single
or multi-
ple punctations.
In some
cases, a certain number of
punctations
have been
arranged
in various
ways,
as for
example sign
variantss 10a and 10b which are
compo-
sed of four
punctations; sign
variants 1 la
through
1
If,
composed
of five
punctations;
and
sign
variants 16a
through 16c, composed
of ten
punctations.
As with the
simple
linear
group,
it is
impossible
to know whether
these
signs
have numerical
significance.
Group
3. Linear! Punctate : 20-32
This
group
of
signs
is in some
respects among
the
most
interesting,
in that the
arrangement
of between
two and sixteen
punctations, variously arranged
to the
right
or left of a
single
line or
pair
of
parallel lines,
is
highly suggestive
of some kind of notational
system.
What the
respective
values
might
be for a
single line,
or
pair
of lines, remains a
mystery, yet
in
arranging
these
first three
groups
of
signs
while
making up
the
sign
list
I had the distinct
feeling
that there well
might
be a
simple
numerical
system
here which behaved
according
to certain unknown rules. Scholars more familiar than
myself
with
early
notational
systems,
or with
primitive
notational
systems
still in
use, may
see
something
in
these
signs
which I have not been able to draw out.
Group
4 . Globular: 33a-33e
These
signs
are
perhaps
all variants of a
simple
circle
or oval incised on a
pot
with
varying degrees
of care.
Should there be
any significance
in the variations obser-
ved, however,
I felt it wiser to
present
the material as I
found
it, rather than
abstracting
one ideal
sign
from all
the variants noted.
Group
5. Globular / Linear : 34a- 34e
As with
Group 4, there
may
be no
significance
to the
variants listed
here,
but
they
are all
just
dissimilar
enough
to warrant
separation,
in
my opinion.
These
signs
all consist of an oval with a line
running through
it, either
lengthwise
or widthwise.
Sign
34e should be
mentioned
briefly
because it was not found on a sherd
or
pot
from
Tepe Yahya itself, but rather on a
piece
found in a cairn burial (SU 70 43) in the
Soghun Valley
by
Mr William Fitz. It
presumably
dates to
period
II on
the
mound,
as do
many
of the known cairns around the
site.
Group
6. Globular / Punctate :
35-36g
This
group
consists of incised circles which have
from one to
eight
distinct
punctations either in or
around them. One
example, sign 36g,
consisted of a
circle with a mass of
tiny,
random
punctations within it.
Group
7. X-
Shapes
: 37a- 37b
Sign 37a, a
simple
incised
X, is the most common
sign
in the entire
corpus. Thirty-one examples
have
been noted.
Indeed, this
simple sign
is to be found
almost
anywhere
in the world where
potters
marks
have been studied. One
example
of a
wavy variant, sign
37b, was also noted.
109
Group
8.
Cruciform:
37c-37d
Two
examples
were found of crosses incised in out-
line form. One of these
may
date to
period IVC, al-
though
it comes from a
problematic
context.
Group
9.
Cruciform / Punctate : 37e-38c
These
signs
consist of
single-line
crosses adorned
with between two and six
punctations.
The
punctations
all occur in
symmetrical arrangements,
often around
two of the
opposite
distal ends of the cross.
Group
10. Hatched: 39-49
This
group
consists of two or more
parallel
lines
which cross-cut one or more
parallel lines, often for-
ming
a
grid pattern.
Group
11.
Open
: 50a
A
single sign
is listed here, but it is
typologically
affiliated to
Group
12. It is a three-sided, open form,
and
may
be the basic
sign
of which
Group
1 2
represents
the variants.
Group
12.
Open / Punctate : 50b- 5
Of
Variants of
sign 50a, sometimes with
curving
lines or
straight
lines
forming
a
peak, may
have between one
and four distinct
punctations
located both within and
outside the incised
shape.
One variant, sign 50f,
has a
mass of
tiny punctations
made in random fashion.
Group
13. Trilinear : 5 la- 5 Id
Although
orientation
may
be of no
significance,
I
have listed under four
separate headings
a
sign
which
consists of three
parallel
strokes
running perpendicular
to a
straight
ine.
Group
14.
Irregular
Trilinear: 5 2a- 5 2b
Three
parallel
strokes run
diagonally
off of a
straight
line. Whether this
sign
is to be
typologically
related to
the
previous
one
just discussed, or whether it is related
to
signs 60a-60c,
is unclear.
Group
15.
Quadrilinear
: 54
This
sign
is
just
like those of
Group 13, except
that
instead of three
parallel
lines
running perpendicular
to a
straight line,
we find four. This
sign may
have some
affiliation with
signs
51a
through
5 Id.
Group
16. Trident: 54a-58
This is a somewhat mixed
group
of
sign variants,
all
of which show a basic trident
shape
with what
may
be
called "modifiers". These modifiers include a
perpendi-
cular line
running through
the stem of the trident,
a
punctation placed
on either side of the central
prong
of
the trident,
an incised circle on
top
of the tridents
prongs,
or a scatter of
tiny punctations
at the base of the
trident. The
prongs
of the trident
may
be rendered in a
curvilinear or rectilinear fashion. As this is one of the
few
signs
which occurs with other
signs
(see discussion
below), the
impression
is all the more
strong
that we are
dealing
with a basic
sign
form
-
the trident
-
plus
its
modifiers. Whether those modifiers have
syllabic,
nu-
merical, or ideational
significance
is unknown.
Group
17.
Winged:
59a-59d
The
signs
in this
group,
with the
exception
of the last
and most
poorly
formed
example,
consist of a
pair
of
upright parallel
lines cross-cut or attached to one or
more incised lines. The overall
impression
is not dissimi-
lar to that of a bird rendered
schematically
as a stick-
figure.
Group
18.
Vegetal:
60a-61
This is a
group
of
signs
whose variants resemble the
archaic Sumerian and Proto-Elamite
signs
for wheat.
They may
be
compared
with
sign
nos. 1 10 and 1 1 1 in
Falkenstein's Archaische Texte aus Uruk (Berlin 1936),
and with
sign
nos. 76a and 76b in
Meriggi
La scrittura
proto-elamica
(Rome 1971). In one case,
that of
sign
60d,
three
punctations
have been added to the
sign.
In
another instance,
the
rendering
is
very schematic, and
more "dendritic" in
appearance
than the rest of the
known
examples.
Group
19.
V-Shape
: 62a-63b
These
signs
consist of either a
simple V, or a V with
a
straight, dividing
line
through
the middle.
Again,
leaving open
the
question
of orientation,
I have listed all
known variants
separately.
Group
20.
Irregular:
64-76b
This final
category
is
comprised
of all those
unique
signs
which could not be associated
typologically
with
110
the rest of the
signs
in the
corpus.
Several are of
particular interest, including sign 64,
which has a clear
parallel
in the Proto-Elamite
script,
and
sign 70a, which
is not unlike the archaic Sumerian
sign
for
"plow".
Also
of interest is
sign
65 which has a close
Harappan
parallel,
and occurs in the
longest "inscription"
of inci-
sed
signs
found on the
pottery
from
Tepe Yahya. Signs
67 and 76b should also be noted because
they
occur as
"modifiers" with
sign
54b which has
already
been dis-
cussed.
DISTRIBUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Discounting
for the moment those
signs
which come
from surface contexts,
and those to which definite sub-
period designations
could not be made, we are left with
a
corpus
of 241 incised
signs
from
periods
I VC
through
III-I. These show the
following temporal
distribution
(see also Table 6 which
gives
the full breakdown of
sign-types by period, including
their numerical fre-
quency)
:
TABLE 1
Distribution
of
Potter's Marks
Through
Time
at
Tepe Yahya
Period IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVA1 III-I
Number 1 19 18 40 58 72 33
This
temporal
distribution can be refined further if
we consider not the
gross
number of
signs
recorded for
each
sub-period,
but rather the number of
sign-types
represented
in each
sub-period.
It will be remembered
that 148
sign-types
have been
tentatively
defined within
the entire
corpus
of
potter
s marks from
Tepe Yahya.
TABLE 2
Distribution
of Sign-Types Through
Time at
Tepe Yahya
Period IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVA1 III-I
Number 1 14 16 27 45 49 28
Unique signs
amount to
just
over one-third of the
entire
corpus (33.7296), representing
105 out of a total
of 353
complete signs
included in this
study.
This does
not include an additional 20
fragmentary signs. Signifi-
cantly, however, unique sign-types represent
over two-
thirds (105 out of 148) of the total number of entries in
the master
sign-list.
These have been listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Distribution
of Unique Sign-Types
Shown
by
Period .
Sign
IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVAl III-I Uncertain
lb 1
4b 1
5a 1
5b 1
_6
i
7a' I
_7b
1
8b 1
9c 1
lia 1
11c 1
lle I
llf 1
14 1
15 1
16a I
16b 1
16c I
~L7 1
Ti
~21 I
~22b
- - _
"23b 1
"25 I
*26 1
27 I
28 I
29 I
_ _
30b

"

3Tb
32
33b I
33^
- -
_
33e
34a

1

34b 1
34c 1
34d 1
34e 1
_35

1
~
36a 1
36b 1
36c 1
111
TABLE3 (continued)
Isiqn
IVC IVB IVA3-2 1-1 IVA2 IVAl 1 1 1
-
1

Uncertainl
36d 1
36e

1
37b

1
37c 1
37d

1
37e 1

"38a 1

38b 1
38c 1
42b 1
43b 1
~44b 1
45 1
46 1
47

1
48 1
49 1
50a 1
50b I
5
"
__ _
- _
_ _
-
i
51b 1
53 I
54b 1
55 1
56b
'

59a 1
59b 1
59c 1

59d 1

60b 1

60d

1
60e

1
61
1
62b 1
63a

1
63b

1
64
1
65
1
66a

1
66b

1
66c

1
"69
-
*7

1
Tb

1
a 1
71b
1
72
1
"73
1
"74a
74b 1
~Tbi
1

75b
1

76a

1
76b
~
1 I I I
1
The
temporal
distribution of the
unique signs
is
shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Distribution
of Unique Sign-Types Through
Time at
Tepe
Yahya
Period IVC IVB IVA3-2 IVA3-1 IVA2 IVAl III-I
Number 1 6 4 8 20 24 10
In
addition,
22
sign-types
were noted which could
not be
assigned
to a
particular period (4), while an
additional 10
sign-types
could be
assigned by period,
but
because of
problematic context, not to a
specific
sub-
period
(5). It is
impossible
to
say
what
significance,
if
any, may
be attached to the
apparent
increase from
period
IVC
through
the end of
period
IVA in the
number of
unique signs. However, this trend
clearly
parallels
the
general
increase in the number of
potter
s
marks found on the site
through
the end of
period
IVA
as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
A
fairly
small number of
sign-types, numbering only
43 in all, occur more than once in the
corpus.
These
have been shown in Table 5.
They may
be summarized
as follows : 10
signs
occur twice in the
corpus,
8
signs
occur three times,
9
signs
occur four times, 2
signs
occur five times,
4
signs
occur six times,
1
sign
occurs
seven times,
1
sign
occurs nine times, 2
signs
occur ten
times, 1
sign
occurs eleven times, 1
sign
occurs twelve
times,
1
sign
occurs thirteen times,
1
sign
occurs
twenty-four times, and
finally,
one
sign
occurs a total of
thirty-three
times. It is
important
to note that
although
sign-types represented by
more than one
example
amount to
only
43 out of 148 entries in the master
sign
list, they nonetheless account for over two-thirds of the
total of 353
examples
found at the site. Furthermore,
out of 248
examples
which we can
assign
to 43
sign-
types,
there is a
significantly high
occurrence of indivi-
dual
sign-types
in more than one
sub-period, suggesting
some
continuity
in the use of
particular signs.
Let us leave aside the 80
examples
whose
period
or
sub-period
attribution could not
confidently
be determi-
(4) This
category
includes all
examples
with lost or broken identifi-
cation, as well as surface finds.
(5) This
category
includes all examples
from excavated contexts
which could not confidently
be
assigned
to one
particular sub-period,
but which could have fallen into either of two sub-periods.
112
TABLE 5
Distribution
of Sign- Types
which occur more than once
shown
by period.
Signl
Totali IVC IVB
[
IVA3-2 1 IVA3-1 I IVA2 IVAll III-ll Uncertain
10b 2 1 1
lid 2 1 1
13 2 2
23a 2 1 1
36f 2 2
36g 2
]____L
40 2 1 1
44a 2 1 1
56a 2 1 1
57 2 2
62a 2 11
10a 3 1 11
12 3 1 1 1
24 3 1 2
39 3
" ~ ~
1 1 1
41 3
" ~ ~
1

2
54a 3 12
60c 3 1 1 1
4a 4 1 1 2
7a 4 1 1 1 1
_ -
2 I 1
_ - - - - -
_ - - -
2
~43a 4 3
"i 4 1 I I I
_ - - -
2
"58 4 3 1
60a 4 1 I I I
- - - - -
"le 5 1 I 2
~9b 6 2 2 1 1
Tib 6 I 1 4
"52b 6 2 I 3

42a 7 2

4
l_
68 7 2 1 1 3
67 9
~ ~
13 2 3
19 10 2 2

3 1 2
33a 10 1 2
1_
2 2 2
2 12 11 13 1 5
8a 12 1 3 7
3 13 1 3 4 2 3
9d 24 3 1 3 3 4 10
37a I 33 I 1 2 I
7 I 5 3 1 15
ned.
Multiplying
the total number of
sign-types repre-
sented more than once at the site (i.e. 43), by
the total
number of
sub-periods
under consideration (i.e. 7, inclu-
ding IVC, IVB, IVA3-2,
IVA3-1
, IVA2, IVA1,
and III-
I), we find a total 301
potential instances,
which we
shall call
"chronological cells", in which
potters
marks
could occur. In fact, they
occur
only
in 108 of the
chronological
cells. 19
sign-types,
of which we have
two or more
examples,
are
represented
more than once
in a
single sub-period. Thus, for
example, sign la,
which occurs five times in the
collection,
is known from
three
examples dating
to IVA1 . These 19
sign-types just
mentioned occur in 35 different
chronological cells, and
account for 95
examples
in all within our collection.
On the other hand,
29 additional
sign-types
are
known from more than one
example,
but in no case is
the same
sign represented
more than once in
any
indivi-
dual
sub-period,
rather
multiple
occurrences of these
signs
are distributed in
anywhere
from two to seven
sub-periods.
These are not
always chronologically adja-
cent. Thus, for
example, sign
54a is found in sub-
periods
IVA2 and
III-I, but not in IVA1. Whether in
fact the
sign
in such a case was not used in the interve-
ning period
of time, or whether it is
simply
not
repre-
sented in our collection
by chance, we do not know.
Eleven cases were recorded of two or more
signs
found
juxtaposed
on the same sherd or
pot.
The total
number of
signs grouped
in this manner never exceeds
four. These
multi-sign "inscriptions"
are illustrated in
Fig.
2. Of these, surely
the most
interesting
is
Fig. 2:c,
which is made
up
of the
following
four
signs
: 24-65-
24-62a. Two of these
signs,
65 and 62a, are well known
in the
Harappan script,
and are listed as
signs
204 and
184, respectively,
in a recent
corpus
of
Harappan
ins-
criptions
(6). Also of considerable interest are the
groups
illustrated as
Fig. 2:e, f, and
g.
As mentioned above in
discussing Group
16 (Trident: 54a-58),
it
appears
that
we are
dealing
with a root
sign, 54b, and "modifiers"
which include
signs
67 and 76b.
Spatio-Temporal Significance
and Culture Historical
Significance
In
comparison
with other sites in the Indo-Iranian
borderlands on which
potter's
marks have been
found,
the size of the collection from
Tepe Yahya, numbering
some 353
examples,
is
large
but not
uniquely
so. The
(6) KOSKENNIEMI and PARPOLA 1979: 19-20.
113
8
FIG. 2.
-
Multi-sign

inscriptions
on
pottery
from
Tepe Yahya.
excavations of Damb Sadaat in the
Quetta Valley
of
Pakistan, for
example, produced
a total of 362
potter's
marks (7). The work of
Engineer
Ali Hakemi at the
important
site of Shahdad/Xabis to the north of
Tepe
Yahya
on the
edge
of the Dasht-i Lut
yielded
a collec-
tion of 348 (8). However, this is not to
imply
that such
high frequencies
are universal within this
geographic
zone. The site of
Bampur
in Baluchistan, for
example,
yielded very
few (9), and the same is true of Shahr-i
Sokhta in Iranian Sistan(lO). Moreover,
it is
important
to note that even in the cases of the
largest
collections of
potter's
marks from sites which one
might expect
to
show a
high degree
of
similarity,
such as
Tepe Yahya
and Shahdad, very
few
signs
are shared. In addition,
when we turn to
published potters
marks from further
afield, found on sites such as Amri, Bala
Kot, Mundi-
gak,
and various locales in Turkmenia and Bactria,
extremely
few
signs
are shared.
Fig.
3 illustrates the
shared
signs
which I have found in
publications
of
pottery
from various sites in the Indo-Iranian border-
lands, Central Asia, and the Indus
Valley. Note, howe-
ver, that these
span
a considerable
period
of time,
ran-
ging
from the third millennium in Iran, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Turkmenia
through
the first millennium
South Indian
megalithic.
The
potter's
marks of
Tepe Yahya,
and indeed of the
entire Indo-Iranian borderland
region, gain particular
importance
in
light
of recent
arguments concerning
the
genesis
of the
Harappan script.
In
particular,
two
sug-
gestions
have been
put
forward which deserve critical
examination. I would like to close with some
thoughts
on these.
First,
it has been
suggested
that there is a
relationship
between the Proto-Elamite
writing system
and the Ha-
rappan script.
This
suggestion
is not new. It was made
as
early
as 1932
by
G.R. Hunter, who wrote (1 1) :
"That the
languages
are unconnected is
probable,
and
the
phonetic
value of the
signs may
well be different.
But that
they
are unrelated in
origin
seems to be contra-
dicted
by
the number of resemblances that seem to be
too close to be
explained by
coincidence".
In recent
years
W.C. Brice (1 2) has
sought
to investi-
gate
the
possibility
of
uncovering
structural
parallels
in
Proto-Elamite,
Linear A, and what he calls Proto-Indic,
i.e.
Harappan.
More
boldly,
W.A. Fairservis, Jr. (13) has
suggested
that the actual
languages involved, and not
simply
the
scripts, may
be linked, and he has
postulated
the existence of an
Ursprache
which he calls "Plateau
Proto -Dra vidian". This recalls recent efforts
by
D.
McAlpin (14), a
linguist
and Dravidianist, to demons-
trate that "Elamite,
a
major language
of West Asia,
is
cognate
with the Dravidian
language family
of South
Asia",
and further, to
attempt
to reconstruct "Proto-
Elamo-Dravidian".
The second
argument
which I would like to examine
suggests
that the roots of the
Harappan script
are in the
potter's
mark tradition of the Indo-Iranian borderlands
and
pre-Harappan
Indus
Valley.
This
possibility
has
(7) FAIRSERVIS 1958 : 328.
(8) HAKEMI 1976 : 5.
(9) DE CARDI 1970 .
(10) TOSI 1968, 1969.
(11) HUNTER 1932 : 483.
(12) BRICE 1967 : 32-44;
(13) FAIRSERVIS 1976 : Tables 49-56; 1977 : 28-32.
(14) McALPIN 1974: 89-101; 1975: 105.
114
FIG. 3.
-
Comparison
of
potter's
marks
from sites in the Indo-Iranian borderlands,
Central Asia, and the Indian sub-continent.
Key
to the sources of
published potter's
marks used in
compiling fig.
3:1) HAKEMI 1976; 2) V.M. MASSON and V.l. SARIANIDI, Central Asia :
Turkmenia
Before
the Aclwemenids, London : Thames & Hudson; 3) J.-M. CASAL, Fouilles de
Miindigak,
2 vols., Paris : Klincksieck; 4) FAIRSER-
V1S 1958, and for Sistan and the Zhob-Lorelai districts, see W.A. FAIRSERVIS Jr. 1961 , Archaeological
Studies in the Seistan Basin
of
Southwestern
Afghanistan
and Eastern Iran, New York : American Museum of Natural
History,
and W.A. FAIRSERVIS Jr. 1959, Archaeological Surveys in the
Zhoh and Lorelai Districts, West Pakistan, New York : American Museum of Natural
History;
5) V.l. SARIANIDI 1977, Bactrian Centre of
Ancient Art.
Mesopotamia
XII : 97-1 10; 6) J.-M. CASAL 1964, Fouilles d'Aniri, Paris : Publications de la Commission des Fouilles
Archologiques;
7) G. F. DALES 1979, The Balakot
Project
:
Summary
of Four Years of Excavations in Pakistan , South Asian
Archaeology 1977, M. TADDEI,
ed., Naples:
Istituto Universitario Orientale: 241-274; 8) LAL 1962.
been raised
by
a number of scholars (1 5), but
perhaps
most
forcefully argued by
B.B. Lai
(16), who has shown
that
during
the Mature
Harappan period
when the
script
was in use, potter's
marks (which he calls
"graf-
fiti") can be found which are both identical to
signs
in
the
Harappan script,
and to
signs
in the
pre-Harappan
potters
mark tradition.
In
regard
to the
hypothesis
that the Proto-Elamite
and
Harappan scripts
are
related, and in
particular
that
the Proto-Elamite
writing system
is ancestral to the
Mature
Harappan script,
I can see no
way
of
reconciling
this
suggestion
with the
chronological
and culture histo-
rical realities of the area. First, the Proto-Elamite
script
which
developed
in southwestern Iran and was used
between C. 3400-2800 B.C. (17) is
separated by
a
gap
of
several hundred
years, depending
on the
chronology
one
adopts
for the Indus civilization (1 8), from the
period
which witnessed the use of the Mature
Harappan
script, roughly
c. 2500-1800 (?) B.C.
Discounting
the
question
of
geographical
distance
-
a
problem
we
know did not
totally
inhibit relations between the Indus
Valley
and
Mesopotamia during
the later third mille-
nium (19)
-
the two are
simply
not
contemporary.
Nevertheless,
I do not feel that the
typological
simila-
rities between
Harappan
and Proto-Elamite should be
lightly
dismissed.
They
are not
quantitatively great,
in
relation to the number of
signs present
in each of these
scripts,
but neither are
they
all of such a
simple
charac-
ter as to be
meaningless.
While I am inclined to think
there is some
significance
in these
parallels,
I feel
strong-
ly
that
they
should not be taken at face value, given
the
glaring chronological discrepancy
between the dates for
the two
scripts.
Turning
to the second set of
propositions,
I am
inclined to
agree
with Lai and others
regarding
the
contribution of the
potter's
mark tradition to the deve-
lopment
of the
Harappan script.
The
parallels
are
espe-
cially convincing
in
light
of the fact that the
signs
involved occur both in the
pre-Harappan
era and
during
the
Harappan period
at sites where the
script
was in
(15) LAL 1962: 4ff; CASAL 1966: 19; FAIRSERVIS 1971:
279; DALES 1979 : 256.
(16) LAL 1962 : 4-24; 1975 : 173.
(17) VALLAT 1978 : 63-66.
(18) See, e.g.
JACOBSEN 1979: 467-502; DALES 1973: 157-
170.
(19) PARPOLA, PARPOLA and BRUNSWIG 1977: 129-165.
115
use. Once
again,
we are
dealing
with
only
a fraction of
the number of
signs
known in both the
script
and the
potter's
mark tradition when we
point
to
parallels
bet-
ween the two.
Nevertheless, it
appears
that
some,
if
very few, of the
signs
incised on
pottery
in the
pre-
Harappan period
were
incorporated
into the
Harappan
script
when it was
developed,
and in fact,
as Lai has
shown, continued in use after the
Harappan script
cea-
sed to be used.
If the
potter's
mark tradition
provided,
in some sense,
a
symbolic
sub-stratum
upon which,
in
part,
the
Harap-
pan script
was built,
it must nevertheless be
recognized
that this
hypothesis
for the
genesis
of the
script neglects
altogether
the
problem
of how to
explain
the
parallels
between
Harappan
and Proto-Elamite. Thus,
as an
explanation,
I find it
only partially
successful. However,
as I have said above,
I find no culture historical or
chronological justification
for the
suggestion,
as it
pre-
sently stands,
that Proto-Elamite was in some
way
contributory
to
Harappan.
In
attempting
to resolve this
impasse,
let us consider
the
following
observation. Just as
Harappan
and Proto-
Elamite share certain
signs,
and the
potter's
mark tradi-
tion of the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Indus
Valley
shares certain
signs
with
Harappan,
so too does the
potter's
mark
corpus
share certain
signs
with Proto-
Elamite. One
way
in which the
typological parallels
between Proto-Elamite and
Harappan
can be reconciled
with the
hypothesis
that the
potter's
mark tradition,
which occurs before, during,
and after the Mature Ha-
rappan period,
"form(s)
part
and
parcel
of the
signary
available on the
Harappan
seals" (20) is
by postulating
that the Proto-Elamite
script
exerted some influence
upon
the
appearance
of a
potter's
mark tradition in the
Indo-Iranian borderlands, and that this tradition, in
turn, provided
a
partial
basis for the
development
of the
Harappan script.
If there is
any
connection between the
corpus
of Proto-Elamite
signs
used at the
beginning
of
the third millennium and the later
Harappan signary,
I
suggest
it is via the medium of the
potter's
marks in use
throughout
the Indo-Iranian borderlands which absor-
bed certain
signs
of ultimate Proto-Elamite
origin,
some
of which were in time
incorporated
into the
Harappan
script.
This
hypothesis
would
help
solve the following pro-
blems :
1. It would account for the
chronological gap separa-
ting typologically
similar
signs
scripts,
used in the late fourth and
early
third millen-
nium,
and the
Harappan script,
used in the second
half of the third millennium and
early
second millen-
nium, by postulating
an
intermediary "stage"
in the
use of incised
symbols
in the
post-Proto-Elamite/ pre-
Harappan
era.
2. It would account for the attested
parallels
between
Harappan
and Proto-Elamite in the absence of
any
culture
historically possible
connection between the
two cultures.
3. It would account for the attested
parallels
between
potter's
marks of the third millennium in the Indo-
Iranian borderlands,
and the Proto-Elamite
script.
This is,
it must be stressed, an
hypothesis
and no-
thing
more. I am well aware of its dficiences,
as well
as its
arguable implications,
and these should now be
addressed.
No one,
to
my knowledge,
has ever
suggested
that
the Proto-Elamite
script may
have served as a substra-
tum for the later florescence of
potter's
marks in the
Indo-Iranian borderlands. What is the culture historical
basis for such a
suggestion
?
Archaeological
research
conducted in Iran
during
the last decade has
provided
indisputable
evidence of Proto-Elamite
expansion
onto
the eastern Iranian Plateau in Jamdat Nasr/ED I times.
Before this was known, of course,
there was no
justifi-
cation for
expecting any
kind of formal relation between
the Susian
system
of
writing
and the third millennium
potter's
marks of the Indo-Iranian borderlands. Now,
however,
we know
quite definitely
of a Proto-Elamite
occupation
at
Tepe Yahya
c. 3000 B.C. which left exam-
ples
of
typical
Proto-Elamite account tablets, cylinder
seals, cylinder sealings,
and certain classes of ceramics
with
parallels
at Susa(21). We know also that Proto-
Elamite influence extended to Shahr-i Sokhta,
where
Proto-Elamite cylinder sealings
and a
single
tablet have
been found (22). It
may
also have been felt further north
at H issar near
Damghan.
Recent
investigations
there
may
also have
brought
to
light
a Proto-Elamite tablet,
albeit in a
poor
state of
preservation
which makes its
firm identification difficult (23). Proto-Elamite influence,
if indirect,
is also attested
quite clearly
at various sites in
Soviet Central Asia and Bactria,
as Pierre Amiet has
shown (24).
(20) LAL 1975 : 173.
(21) LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1971 : 87 ff; 1978: 114; POTTS
1980 : 425ff.
(22) TUSA 1978 : 255; AMIET and TOSI 1978.
(23) M. TOSI, personal
communication.
(24) AMIET 1977: 89-122; 1979: 202.
116
FIG. 4.
-
Comparison
of
signs
in the
Tepe Yahya potter's
mark
corpus,
the Proto-Elamite script,
and the
Harappan script.
Key
to the Parallels Between
Tepe Yahya
Potter's Marks , Proto-Elamite , and
Harappan
TepeYahya+
la 2 3 4a 9d 34d 37a 38b 42a 48 50a 51b 53 54a 56a
Pr-Elamite+
+
l2 9 19a 169 138d 6 8b 264 7 32 41 41c 36a 36u
Harappan
+ + +
144 145 147
240 260 98 86
Tepe Yahya
60a 60c 60d 60e 62a 63b 64 65 67 68 69 72 74a 76a 76b
Pr-Elamite 76a 76b 42 75 185 98 146 43 253 138e
Harappan
101 100 99 184 315 204 191 224 230
+
Refers to the master
sign-list
of the
Yahya potter's
marks.
+ +
Refers to
sign
numbers in P.
Meriggi,
La scrittura
proto-elamica
(Rome 1971 ).
+ + +
Refers to
sign
numbers in K. Koskenniemi and A.
Parpla, Corpus of
Texts in the Indus
Script
(Helsinki 1979).
Sign
occurs on an Indus seal from Lothal (Lai 1962).
The
possibility
should be considered that formal
pa-
rallels between
potters
marks from sites like
Tepe
Ya-
hya,
and
signs
script
stem not
solely
from the extreme
universality
of
many pictogra-
phic representations,
as shown
through
both
psycholo-
gical experiments
and studies of
historically
unrelated
scripts (25). The known
presence
of Proto-Elamites in
eastern Iran at the
beginning
of the third millennium,
writing
on tablets in
exactly
the same manner as was
then used in Susiana (26), could have left its mark in the
area
by introducing
the
concepts
of
recording
and mar-
king things
with
symbols
for identification, although
these functions were
performed
on tablets and with
cylinder
seals. It is also
possible
that in
introducing
an
illiterate
population
to the notion of
signs (27), some of
these, following
the Proto-Elamite retreat from the re-
gion (28), were taken
up by
local
peoples
for use on
pottery. Many
others used on
pottery admittedly
bear
no
apparent
relation at all with the Proto-Elamite si-
gnary. However, there are
enough parallels
between the
potters
marks and the Proto-Elamite
script
to
suggest
that the resemblance is not
simply
a matter of the
chance "re-invention" of
simple signs by people
who
knew
nothing
of the earlier
system
of
writing.
For the
purpose
of
considering
this
hypothesis
in a
more concrete manner, I have illustrated the
parallels
between the
Tepe Yahya potters
mark
corpus
and the
Proto-Elamite
script
in
Fig.
4. It is
undoubtedly
true that
if such a reconstruction is valid, then the local users of
these
signs easily adapted
them to a
purpose
which was
(25) JOHNSON 1962 : 147-159.
(26) MERIGGI n.d. : 7.
(27) Black-on-red ware beakers, found at
Tepe Yahya
in
periods
VB, VA2, and VAI sometimes had
potter's
marks
painted
on the base.
These were most abundant in
period
VAI. A total of 68
examples
were found in all. There
appears
to be no
continuity
between
period
V
and the
subsequent occupation
of the site, however, and it does not
seem
likely
that the
painted potter's marks are related to the later
incised ones.
(28) LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY 1978: 1 18; AMIET 1977: 200.
117
entirely
different than that for which
they
were first
developed.
Whether there is
any significant
functional
relationship
between
writing
on
clay
in Proto-Elamite
and
marking
a
pot
with a
single sign
of ultimate Proto-
Elamite
inspiration
cannot be determined, as we do not
know what those
signs
on
pots
mean. It is
quite possible
that there is no functional
relationship
at all, and that
the
peoples
of this
region
had their own ideas about
how a
sign might
be used which were
quite
unrelated to
those of a scribe
keeping
administrative records in
Proto-Elamite on
clay
tablets.
There are obvious difficulties with this
theory,
howe-
ver. it could be
argued,
for instance, that
potter
s marks
are too scarce at
Tepe Yahya
between the end of the
Proto-Elamite
occupation
and the
beginning
of
period
IVA, leaving
us with a
gap
of considerable duration in
the use of incised
signs
at the site, and therefore throw-
ing
doubt on the
suggestion
that there could be
any
direct relation between the
script
of c. 3000 B.C. and the
potters
marks of the third millennium. This a
problem,
and it is
compounded by
the fact that
occupational
continuity
between
periods
IVC and IVB is, in
my
opinion,
a
point
which cannot be
satisfactorily
resolved
on the basis of our
present
evidence. Was the entire site
abandoned when the IVC
complex
was deserted,
or was
there never a
complete
break in
occupation,
rather a re-
assertion of the local southeast Iranian
population,
so
overshadowed in the
archaeological
record of
period
IVC
by
the Proto-Elamites ?
We are
severely hampered
in
unravelling
this
pro-
blem
by
the fact that the
only
architecture found in the
southern
step
trench of IVC date all seems related to the
main
building
with its Proto-Elamite artifacts,
while no
architecture at all was found in
comparable
levels in the
northern
step
trench. At Godin
Tepe
several centuries
earlier (Godin Tepe
V) a
foreign enclave, suggested by
Weiss and Young
to be merchants of Susa ,
dwelt
alongside
a native
population
who were attested
through
the recovery
of domestic architecture and local
ceramics,
continuous from the
preceding period
VI hori-
zon (1). At
Tepe Yahya, however,
there is no
compara-
ble
continuity
between the site s
period
V ceramics and
domestic architecture,
and that of the following period
IVC. Still,
this does not tell us whether the Proto-
Elamite
presence
at the site was in the nature of an
isolated
outpost
erected upon
a
long-abandoned
mound,
(29) WEISS and YOUNG 1975 : 2-18.
FIG. 5.
-
Master sign
list of the potter's
marks from Tepe Yahya.
118
or whether the establishment of a Proto-Elamite
pre-
sence soon
brought
in its wake the re-settlement of the
mound
by
locals from the
vicinity.
If such were the
case,
and these
people
continued to inhabit the mound
following
the abandonment of the Proto-Elamite buil-
ding,
then it can be
suggested
that the
requisite
local
population
existed which could have
adopted
for their
own
purposes
some of the
signs
used
by
their former
neighbors
for
record-keeping.
That this should have occurred
immediately
after the
Proto-Elamites ceased to
occupy
the site
may
be
considered
by
some as a sine
qua
non for the
hypothesi-
zed connection between the
script
and the
potters
marks to be held a
possibility
at all. In fact, several
potters
marks out of thousands of unmarked sherds are
found in IVC and IVB levels, although
the
majority
are
from IVB1
through
IVA4. On the other hand, at the
risk of
seeming
to stretch the bounds of
credibility
beyond endurance, it could also be
suggested
that the
influence of the
script may
have been more
immediately
felt on other sites in the borderlands, as
yet unexplored.
In this
way,
the custom of
incising pots
with
signs
could
have become common at
Tepe Yahya
at a
slightly
later
date, and the rare
appearance
of
potter's
marks in
period
IVB, becoming
more common in
period IVA, and stea-
dily increasing
in numbers
through
the final
phase
of
IVA, might
be
explained.
This must remain, however,
at
present
no more than
pure speculation.
Finally,
it should be noted that
many
of the
potter
s
marks which have
parallels
in the
Harappan script,
are
also those which show affinities to the Proto-Elamite
script (fig. 4). Thus, the
question may
be asked, does this
represent
the conscious selection of certain
signs
from
Proto-Elamite
by
the
peoples
of the Indo-Iranian bor-
derlands, and in turn the intentional
incorporation
of
some of the same
signs
in
Harappan
because of the
symbolic
and/or
syllabic
value of these
signs?
That is
an
intriguing possibility,
but as we can read neither
Proto-Elamite nor
Harappan,
and as
signs
with no ob-
vious
representational
value can have had a
variety
of
meanings
in different cultural
contexts, we can do no
more than
point
this out as a
possibility.
I have tried in the
preceding
discussion to reconcile,
both
chronologically
and culture
historically,
two
hypo-
theses
concerning
the
origin
of the Indus
script.
It is an
intriguing linguistic puzzle indeed, and one which de-
serves the attention of scholars with a
deeper
under-
standing
of Proto-Elamite, Harappan,
and the archaeo-
logy
of the Indo-Iranian borderlands than I have to
offer. If this discussion, however obvious its shortco-
mings may be, has served to stimulate further work on
the
problems involved, then it will have more than
served its
purpose.
Daniel POTTS
Institut
fr Vorderasiatische
Alterkumskunde
Freie Universitt Berlin
Bitterstr. 8-12
1 Berlin 33
119
TABLE 6
Complete catalogue of sign-types represented
in the
Tepe
Yahya potter's
mark
corpus , showing
their numerical
frequency
and
temporal
distribution.
S igni
I VC IVB I 1-2 I
1-1[
IVA21 IVAll 1 1 1
-
1
[
Unce r ta i n To ta il
[sign
I IVC
[
IVB
[
I - 2
'
I VA 3- 1
12]
IVAll 1 1 1
-
1 1 Uncertain! Total
Ia 1 1 3 5
37C
1 1
25 i I 37d
~ ~
1 1
2

1 3 1 5 12
37e i 1
2
1 3 4 2 3 13
[38
1
-
"X

112

4 "38b I ! 1
25
1
1_
38c
~ ~
1 1
2 I 1_
21 I I
1
3__
25 I
1
_40
1 1 2
2
1
1_
41 12 3
L___i I I _
*42a 2 1 4 7
7a
'
1
1__
Tib 1
25 1 L_
~43a 3 1 4
8a 13 1 7 12 "43b I
_8b
1 1 *44a 1 1 2
9a 2 1 1 4 44b I
9b 2 2 ~~ I 6 "45 I
~
9c 1 1 46 1
9d 3 1 3 3 4 10 24
"47 1 1
-
10a 1
~
1
~
1
~
3
48
"
1 I
10b 11
249 11
Ha 1 1
50a 1 1
lib 1 1 4 6
50b 1 "
11

1
1_
50c 1
'
1
lid 1 1 2
50d I 1
He 1 1
ITe I 1
llf 1 1
50 f 1 1
1 2
~
" 1 "
51a
"
1 1
13 2 2
5ib 11
^2 ] L_
51c
" ~
1
~
1 1 2 5
15 1 1
51d 11114
i6a 1 1
52a 2 4
1 1
'
2 1 3 6
i6c 1 1
53 l" 1
17 1 1
54a 12 3
18 1 1
I I
_
2 2 3 1 2 0
55 I I
_
I I r~
~a i i
-
21 I
56b 1 1
22a

1 1 2 4 57 2 2
22b 1 1
_58
3 1 4
22c 1
]_
59a 1 1
23a 1 1 2 59b 1 {
23b 1 1 ?9c 1
I
2 4 1 2
3_
59d 1 I
25 11 6 1 1 1 4
26 1 1 " 1 I
2 7

1 60c 1 1 3
28 1 1

29 11 6 I
30a 1 1 61
30b

1 1 62a 1 1 2
31a 1 1 ~62b 1
- _ _ _ - -
__ _ _ __
_ -
T3a 1 2 2 2 2 I 64
- - - -
_ -
_ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ - _ _ -
I 1 ~66c
_ _ _ - - - -
3 9
"34~b 68 2 1 3 7
__ _ _ - _ _
__ _ _ -- _ _
__ _ _
7^
__ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _
7
"36b i 1 72
_ _ - - - -
~36d I 74a 1
_ _ _ - _
36 f 2 2 "75a I
36g
1 1 75b "
37a 2 7 5 3 15
76
37b

J

1 1
76b I
120
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AMIET P.
1977 Bactriane
Protohistorique. Syria 54/1-2:
89-121.
1979
Archaeological discontinuity
and ethnic
duality
in Elam.
Antiquity
53 : 195-204.
AMIET P. and TOSI M.
1978 Excavations in
Square
XDV at Shahr-i
Sokhta : 1975
Campaign.
East and West
28 : 9-31.
BRICE W.C.
1967 The Structure of Linear A, with some
Proto-Elamite and Proto-Indic
Comparisons.
In BRICE
W.C., ed. :
Europa
:
Festschrift
Ernst Grumach. Berlin : 32-44.
DE CARDI .
1970 Excavations at
Bampur,
A Third Millen-
nium Settlement in Persian Baluchistan
1 966.
Anthropological Paper of
the American
Museum
of
Natural
History 51/3. New
York.
CASAL J.-M.
1966 Nindowari
-
A Chalcolithic Site in South
Baluchistan. Pakistan
Archaeology
3 : 10-21 .
DALES G.F.
1973
Archaeological
and Radiocarbon Chronolo-
gies
for Protohistoric South Asia. In HAM-
MOND N.,
ed. : South Asian
Archaeology.
London: 157-170.
1979 The Balakot
Project: Summary
of Four
Years of Excavations in Pakistan. In TAD-
DEI M., ed. : South Asian
Archaeology
1977.
Naples:
241-274.
FAIRSERVIS W.A. Jr.
1958 Excavations in the
Quetta Valley,
West Pa-
kistan.
Anthropological Paper of
the Ameri-
can Museum
of
Natural
History 45/2. New
York.
1971 The Roots
of
Ancient India. New York:
Macmillan.
1976 Excavations at Allahdino I : Seals and In-
scribed Material.
Papers of
the Allahdino
Expedition.
New York.
1 977 Excavations ar Allahdino III : The Graffiti A
Model in the
Decipherment
of the
Harappan
Script'. Papers of
the Allahdino
Expedition.
New York.
HAKEMI A.
1976 Ecriture
pictographique
dcouverte dans les
fouilles
de Shahdad. Thran : Permanent
Bureau of the International
Congress
of Ira-
nian Art and
Archaeology.
HUNTER G.R.
1932
Mohenjo-Daro
-
Indus
Epigraphy.
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
: 466-503.
JACOBSEN J.
1979 South Asian Pre- and
Protohistory.
Annual
Review
of Anthropology
8 : 467-502.
JOHNSON G.B. Jr.
1962 Pictorial
Representation
and the Problem of
Universality. Ethnohistory
9 : 147-159.
KOSKENNIEMI K. and PARPOLA A.
1979
Corpus of
Texts in the Indus
Script.
Hel-
sinki :
Dept.
of Asian and African
Studies,
Univ. of Helsinki.
LAL B.B.
1962 From the
megalithic
to the
Harappan
: tra-
cing
back the
graffiti
on the
pottery.
Ancient
India 16 : 4-24.
1975 The Indus
Script
: Some Observations Based
on
Archaeology.
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asia-
tic
Society
: 173-177.
LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY C.C.
1971 The Proto-Elamite Settlement at
Tepe
Ya-
hya.
Iran IX : 87-95.
1978 The Proto-Elamites on the Iranian Plateau.
Antiquity
52 : 114-120.
McALPIN D.
1974 Toward
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian.
Language
50/1 : 89-101.
1975 Elamite and Dravidian : Further Evidence
of
Relationship. Current
Anthropology
16 :
105-115.
MERIGGI P.
n.d. The Inscribed Tablets. In TOSI M., ed. :
Annali.
Naples.
121
PARPOLA S., PARPOLA A. and BRUNSWIG R.H. Jr.
1977 The Meluhha
Village.
Evidence of Accultu-
ration of
Harappan
Traders in late Third
Millennium
Mesopotamia
? Journal
of
the
Economic and Social
History of
the Orient
XX/2 : 129-165.
POTTS D.T.
1980 Tradition and
Transformation
:
Tepe Yahya
and the Iranian Plateau
During
the Third
Millennium B.C.
Cambridge
:
Dept.
of An-
thropology,
Harvard
University.
TOSI M.
1968 Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta,
a Chalcoli-
thic Settlement in the Iranian Sistan. Preli-
minary Report
on the First
Campaign,
Octo-
ber-December 1967. East and West 18/1-2 :
9-66.
1969 Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta.
Preliminary
Report
on the Second
Campaign, Septem-
ber-December 1968. East and West 19/3-4 :
283-386.
VALLAT F.
1978 Le Matriel
Epigraphique
des Couches 18
14 de
l'Acropole.
Palorient 4 : 193-195.
WEISS H. and YOUNG T.C. Jr.
1975 The Merchants of Susa : Godin V and Pla-
teau-Lowland Relations in the Late Fourth
Millennium B.C. Iran XIII : 2-18.
122

Potters Marks Tepe Yahya

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Potters Marks Tepe Yahya

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Palorient

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi