نگاهی به آهن و آهنگری در ایلام باستان براساس شواهد باستان‌شناختی و اسناد مکتوب میخی

موضوع شروع کاربرد آهن در ساخت اشیاء مختلف فلزی، همواره از مباحث مهم در باستان‌شناسی در خاور نزدیک بوده است. پرداختن به این موضوع در ایران برای مناطق مختلف یکسان نبوده و تمدن ایلام باستان از مواردی است که توجه کمتری به خود دیده است؛ این در‌حالی‌ست که براساس داده‌های مادی و منابع میخی، شهر شوش (از مراکز مهم ایلامیان) از دیرباز در ترانزیت فلزات مختلف به میان‌رودان و ساخت مصنوعات فلزی (و به‌ویژه مفرغی) نقشی پررنگ داشته است؛ اما در پژوهش‌های صورت‌گرفته یا این موضوع نادیده انگاشته‌ شده و یا به‌طور مستقل و با لحاظ هر دو دستۀ شواهد مادی و متون میخی پژوهیده نشده است؛ بنابراین در پژوهش حاضر کوشش شده تا با مطالعۀ کتابخانه‌ای مدارک باستان‌شناختی، متون مکتوب میخی و پژوهش‌های صورت‌گرفته دربارۀ هر دو دسته از منابع، به ‌چشم‌اندازی کلی از سیر رواج آهن و ساخت اشیاء آهنی در ایلام باستان و نقش هر دو دستۀ منابع در این‌باره دست‌یابیم. نتیجۀ مطالعات نشان می‌دهد که کاربرد آهن در ایلام در هزارۀ دوم و اوایل هزارۀ اول پیش‌ازمیلاد بسیار محدود بوده است و تنها از آغاز دورۀ ایلام نو ii به‌بعد است که شاهد رواج آن هستیم؛ هم‌چنین پژوهش حاضر خاطرنشان می‌کند که اسناد میخی باوجود برخی محدودیت‌ها، می‌توانند به‌عنوان مکملی برای مواد فرهنگی مورداستفاده قرار گیرند، به‌طوری‌که کهن‌ترین مدرک از شیئی آهنی در ایلام باستان را در اختیارمان می‌نهند؛ در این‌میان متون اداری مربوط به اواخر ایلام‌ نو از شوش (mdp 9) دارای اهمیت ویژه‌ای هستند؛ چراکه در آن‌ها از موضوعاتی چون وجود کارگاه‌های آهنگری و ساخت و تحویل اشیاء مختلف آهنی در شوش و حومه‌اش سخن رفته است. فزون‌بر این، مقایسۀ اطلاعات حاصل از هر دو دستۀ شواهد (منابع مکتوب و داده‌های باستان‌شناختی) دربارۀ آهن، کاستی‌ها و قابلیت‌های هرکدام از منابع مادی و متنی را برای‌مان روشن می‌کند.

a study on the iron and blacksmithing in ancient elam based on archaeological evidence and written cuneiform documents

the beginning of iron using in construction of metal objects has always been one of the important topics in the archeology of ancient near east in late second millennium and the early first millennium b.c. in iran, researching on this issue is not homogeneous for different regions and ancient elam is one of the regions that have received less attention. the city of susa, one of the important centers of elam, has played a prominent role in production of metal artifacts and transit of various metals to mesopotamia, based on the material data and cuneiform sources. however, in various conducted researches, either this issue has been ignored or has not been studied independently with considering both types of material evidence and cuneiform texts; therefore, in present study, an attempt has been made to get a general overview of the progress of iron using and making iron objects in elam and the role of both material and textual sources in this issue by studying archeological records, cuneiform texts and researches conducted on both types of sources. the results of this research show that using iron in elam in second millennium b.c and early first millennium b.c was very limited and it is only from the beginning of the neo elamite ii period that we see its prevalence. the current research also points out that cuneiform documents, despite some limitations, can be used as supplement to cultural materials as they provide us the oldest evidence of an iron object in ancient elam. in the interim, the administrative texts related to the late neo elamite from susa (mdp 9) have special importance because they mention issues such as existence of blacksmith workshops and also the manufacture and delivery of various iron objects in susa and its suburbs. moreover, the comparison of the information obtained from both types of evidence about iron will clarify the shortcomings and capabilities of the material and textual sources.keywords: ancient elam, iron age, elamite language, susa, cuneiforms. introductionthe iron age (late 2nd millennium b.c_middle of first millennium b.c) is one of the most important periods in iranian archeology. the iron age period is associated with various changes and innovations. one of the most important of which is iron smelting and the widespread using of this metal (muscarella, 2006; taheri, 2014: 23-26). in researches about this period, the civilization of elam is usually absent. however, this does not mean that elam is completely removed from iron age of iran, because we have researches in which the archeology of neo elamite and the iron age of iran have been discussed in connection with each other (alvarez-mon, 2013; rafiei alavi, 2018). however, this issue has indirectly caused that the data about using iron in ancient elam not be studied as it should be. for example in the iron (āhan) entry of encyclopedia iranica we do not see mentioning the iron findings of susa (only one possible finding from haft tape is mentioned) (pigott, 1984). also, in new researches about metals and metalworking in elam, the using of iron in ancient elam has been given less attention (towhidi, 2014: 56-66) or only the archaeological aspect and somewhat the assyrian texts are researched (helwing, 2018; bridey, 2018; alvarez-mon, 2020) and researching on iron in local cuneiform sources (especially the documents of the neo elamite period) is neglected. it is noteworthy that in rafiei alavi’s researches (rafiei alavi, 2015, 2019) about the metalwork and metal objects of middle elamite site of haft tape (mid 2nd millennium bc), special attention has been paid to the cuneiform texts of this site; an issue that should be applied to the other periods of elam, especially blacksmithing in the first millennium b.c; because cuneiform documents from elam are considered as great advantages compared to the lack of written documents from other sites of first millennium b.c of iran and they should be considered as a complement in studies conducted about different aspects of elam civilization, such as the topic of current article i.e. iron and blacksmithing (about the complementary role of cuneiform sources in other aspects, see matthews fazeli, 2022: 340). therefore, considering the importance of ancient elam and the importance of the use of iron in ancient period, it is necessary to conduct research on this subject by comparative study of physical documents and cuneiform texts. so our main questions in this paper are:research questions: 1. how was the proceeding of iron using and blacksmithing in ancient elam? 2. what is the role of elamite cuneiform sources in understanding the use of iron in this civilization? 3. what are the similarities and differences between the information obtained from archaeological excavations and the those obtained from written documents about the use of iron in ancient elam? main textby comparing the elamite and mesopotamian cuneiform texts (potts, 2017: 154-155; basello giovinazzo, 2018: 485; steinkeller, 2018: 182, 186; rafiei alavi, 2019: 67) and archaeological data (potts, 2017: 145, 151, 154; bridey, 2018: 550-552; helwing, 2018: 127), it can be said that elam was active in metalworking (especially working with bronze) and the transit of various metals to mesopotamia from 3nd millennium b.c.according to archaeological data, iron using was not common in ancient elam in 2nd millennium b.c. the oldest definite iron object dates back to the end of the 2nd millennium b.c and comes from two sites of tali malian (ancient anshan) (carter, 1996: 16, 34, fig 29:15) and choghazanbil (ancient al untash napirisha) (rafiei alavi, 2018: table 2). however, unlike some sites in the northwest of iran, such as hasanlu, we do not see the widespread using of iron even from the early first millennium bc. and it is only from the neo elamite ii onwards that the making of various ceremonial and practical iron objects becomes common.regarding cuneiform texts, the earliest evidence of an iron object from ancient elam is not the physical remains of an iron object but two cuneiform texts (mdp 22 141; mdp 34 3) from the late old elamite/old babylonian period from susa (biggs et al., 2005: 212). however, we do not see iron in any other text, either administrative or royal, for several centuries until neo elamite ii period. with the beginning of this period, we first encounter the relative use of iron weapons by elamites in ashurbanipal’s inscriptions (ashurbanipal 29, 1; 161, ii 8; ashurbanipal 3, vi 48; 4, vi 50; 6, vii 1’; 7, vi 13’’) and reliefs (fig 1). then we have mdp 9 texts from susa, dated to after the assyrian attacks. in some of them, we observe references to blacksmithing activities, making various martial, ceremonial and practical iron objects and delivering them to different individuals or institutions, and perhaps extracting iron from ore in susa and some other cities (table 1-3). conclusionin response to the first research question, it should be said that the oldest evidence related to iron in ancient elam goes back to the end of the first half of the second millennium bc; however, it is only from the beginning of the neo elamite ii period that we see the prevalence of iron.in response to the second question of the research, it can be said that the cuneiform documents of old elamite period have provided us with the oldest evidence of an iron object in this civilization. the most important texts of the research, mdp 9, from late neo elamite susa contain information about the manufacture and delivery of iron objects in susa; while many of these issues have not been deduced from archaeological excavations. however, it should be noted that due to the some unknown aspects of elamite language, the identity of some of the iron goods mentioned in the texts of mdp 9 is unknown.in response to the third question of the research, it should be noted that written sources and archaeological data about the time of popularization, use and variety of iron objects have both overlaps and differences. therefore, to draw a general conclusion it is necessary to study both types of evidence in parallel to formulate the whole of an issue.