at Konar Sandal recovered dozens of illicitly excavated decorated chlorite bowls,
monumental architecture, including evidence for the origin of the “ziggurat” (Vallat
2003 ), seals and sealings, some with Mesopotamian motifs, an important sequence of
pottery, and controversial tablets (Madjidzadeh and Pittman 2008 ). Of special interest,
and of questionable nature and context, is the recovery of four “documents” from
Konar Sandal. These “texts” cannot be readily paralleled with either the Proto-Elamite
signary or the millennia later Linear Elamite texts. A preliminary analysis has been
undertaken by Françoise Desset. It is argued that the “texts” represent a wholly new
type (language?) called “eastern script” by Steinkeller, “kermanite” by Vallat, and
“geometriform” by Desset (franç[email protected]).
Certainly the importance of the kingdom of Marhasi, as indicated in the texts, is
complemented by the distinctive and complex culture(s) recovered by archaeologists
working in southeastern Iran. Yet, as indicated above, the geographical location of
Marhasi remains contested. Textually, Marhasi is the single most documented foreign
country in contact with Mesopotamia. In the Akkadian period, King Rimush claims
that his military defeat of Marhasi removed its “roots ‘ from Elam, implying that
Marhasi and Elam were separate entities. Another text refers to Marhasi as a neighbor
of Meluhha (the Indus Civilization).SHIMASHKI
Piotr Steinkeller ( 1982 ) has convincingly demonstrated that the ethnicon “Su-People”
is an alternative writing for the geographical term “Shimashki,” referred to in the texts
of the Akkadian to Old Babylonian periods. Steinkeller ( 2007 ), in an important review
of Shimashki’s rulers, places the kingdom in the highlands of the north-central Zagros.
In an earlier study, Henrickson ( 1984 ), utilizing evidence of archaeological survey and
excavation, reached the same conclusion. Daniel Potts ( 2008 ), taking both the
archaeological and textual record into consideration, places Shimashki in Central Asia,
specifically identifying it as the Oxus Civilization, c. 2200 – 1700 BC(a.k.a. the Bactrian
Margiana Archaeological Complex [BMAC]). On the other hand, Steinkeller (forth-
coming) identifies the Oxus Civilization as Tukrish, yet another eastern, resource-rich
land, famed for its presence of lapis lazuli and gold.
The Oxus Civilization was discovered and prolifically described by Victor Sarianidi
( 1997 , 2003 , 2004 , 2007 , 2010 ). Its distinctive material culture is found on numerous
sites throughout the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1986 ) and the Indus Civilization (Possehl
2002 ). Its large fortified structures, distinctive seals and sealings, rich metallurgical
tradition, distinctive pottery, and extensive contacts with an outside world, as well as
its unique oases settlements, all attest to its cultural complexity. Indeed, its technological
achievements and aesthetic products compare favorably with Mesopotamia. It lacks but
one attribute: writing. Steinkeller (forthcoming) identifies the Oxus Civilization with
Tukrish, an easternmost land, and one noted for its lapis lazuli and gold. This iden-
tification is troubled by the fact that the texts mentioning Tukrish date to between 1900
and 1400 BC, a time in which the Oxus Civilization has all but disappeared.
In the Ur III period, texts speak of twenty separate Shimashkian lands stretching
from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian and Zagros ranges. Shimashki, as portrayed in
the texts, does not seem to offer an accurate picture of our understanding of the
archaeology of the Oxus Civilization (Michalowski 1986 : 132 ):
–– C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky ––