Sialk ziggurat
Karen Lofstrom
Iranian nationalists who are determined to annex the Elamite empire for
Iran. (Even though the Elamites didn't speak an Indo-European language or
worship Ahura-Mazda, they were Iranians, dang it!) One of the nationalists
has written an article about the ziggurat in Sialk, Iran, claiming that
it's 7000 years old, the oldest ziggurat in the world, and built by
"proto-Elamites". He "may" be right, but I would at least like to check
his claims. However, I can't find anything useful by googling or through
my online library, Questia. Everything is either OLD (1954 books) or
sourced to Iranian government archaeologists and publicized in Iranian
government press releases.
I don't have access to a major research library with good holdings in
Middle Eastern archaeology (I'm not employed at a university and I live in
Honolulu), but I would like to follow this up if I can. Articles,
excavation reports, anything. Could someone give me some references? Here
or by email.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
===================================================================
"Cry 'havoc,' and let loose the Chihuahuas of inconvenience."
Larry Caldwell
Iran also includes the territory of Persia, Media and Parthia.
Culturally, Elam owed more to the Sumerians and Babylonians. . What do
your Iranian buddies think of the Elamite matrilineal kingship?
The Elamites were certainly one of the earliest civilizations in the
world. 7000 years old might be pushing it a bit, but I would certainly
believe 6000 years.
Cyrus the Great may have been an Elamite, or at least come from an
Elamite noble house, so if Iranians want to claim that Elam was a
precusor to Perisa, they may have a point.
Karen Lofstrom
Caldwell wrote:
Influence on Persia not at all in question, "identification" as
Persian/Iranian much more a matter of semantics and emphasis.
> The Elamites were certainly one of the earliest civilizations in the
> world. 7000 years old might be pushing it a bit, but I would certainly
> believe 6000 years.
Research led me to Potts's book on The Archaeology of Elam, Cambridge
University Press, just ordered, awaited anxiously. This may answer some
general questions. But my *specific* concern is the dating of the Sialk
ziggurat at 7000 years old. It's one thing to say that some proto-Elamites
(which is a loose and sloppy term, IMHO) existed on the Iranian plateau
some 7000 years ago, and another to apply that date to one artifact. I'm
not at all sure that the ziggurat is that old, and need to look at any
relevant excavation reports.
The Wikipedia article on Sialk has now been updated to say that the
ziggurat is 7500 years old, and is the oldest such structure in the world,
based on a news report from an Iranian news agency
<http://www.chn.ir/english/eshownews.asp?no=961>. Since so many OTHER
sites mirror or copy the Wikipedia articles, an error in this one place
propagates throughout cyberspace with the speed of an urban legend.
I find the "oldest in the world" claim somewhat disturbing, probably
dubious, and evidence of a nationalist/chauvinist trend in
Iranian-government sponsored archaeological work. See this article,
<http://www.ajaonline.org/archive/105.1/pdfs/AJA1051.pdf#abdi>.
After reading that article, I better understood why I was having so many
problems dealing with the Iranian nationalists re cultural/historical
issues.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not? I pay taxes. I live free of uranium. -- Bill Bill
Larry Caldwell
(Karen Lofstrom) says...
> The Wikipedia article on Sialk has now been updated to say that the
> ziggurat is 7500 years old, and is the oldest such structure in the world,
> based on a news report from an Iranian news agency
> <http://www.chn.ir/english/eshownews.asp?no=961>. Since so many OTHER
> sites mirror or copy the Wikipedia articles, an error in this one place
> propagates throughout cyberspace with the speed of an urban legend.
Wikipedia is not the most rigorous source in the world. It contains a
lot of misinformation. As a reference, it is not much better than this
newsgroup. Sweeping claims about the age of a mud brick structure need
to take into account the necessity for continual maintenance. Mud brick
is not the most durable substance in the world. When it was abandoned
it was a substantial structure, but if it was started 7000 years ago, it
was just a small mud platform.
Did the archaeologists run a trench through the ziggurat, or just bore
core samples to locate the original center of the structure? You should
ask your Iranian buddies where the center of the structure was, and how
big it was, 7000 years ago. Did they even establish what shape it was?
There are probably several ziggurats there, each one built on the rubble
of the last one. If the site was in use for over 4000 years, there are
probably dozens of successive ziggurats.
Karen Lofstrom
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> Wikipedia is not the most rigorous source in the world. It contains a
> lot of misinformation. As a reference, it is not much better than this
> newsgroup.
As a Wikipedia editor, I'd have to say, "That depends". Some articles are
junk and some have been worked over by so many people, for so long, that
they're GOOD. I wouldn't trust a Wikipedia article myself until after I'd
looked at the discussion page (conflicts between editors are often more
illuminating than the article), the edit history, and the number and genre
of the article's references. Articles with long lists of books and journal
articles appended, plus links to other online resources, tend to be good.
At least they're a starting point for future research, and more useful in
that regard than a simple google.
> Sweeping claims about the age of a mud brick structure need
> to take into account the necessity for continual maintenance ...
All very good points! Thanks!
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLANK CLANK BANG THUMP BOOM