France and Elam - Routledge Handbooks

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104On: 11 Feb 2022Access details: subscription numberPublisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Elamite World

Javier Álvarez-Mon, Gian Pietro Basello, Yasmina Wicks

France and Elam

Publication detailshttps://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315658032-4

Nicole ChevalierPublished online on: 29 Jan 2018

How to cite :- Nicole Chevalier. 29 Jan 2018, France and Elam from: The Elamite World RoutledgeAccessed on: 11 Feb 2022https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315658032-4

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032

-4

41

CHAPTER THREE

FRANCE AND ELAM

Nicole Chevalier*

“But Elam, ancient, true Elam, famous rival of Babylon and Nineveh, was still sleep-ing underground and had not yet spoken.”

Father Vincent Scheil 1911

On March 8, 1911, in a lecture on “The excavations and the history of Babylo-nia, Assyria and Elam”, Father Vincent Scheil, the epigraphist of the Délégation

scientifique française en Perse, described the state of knowledge about Elam before the research initiated at Susa in 1897. In a tradition dating back to Paul- Emile Botta, Fulgence Fresnel and Ernest de Sarzec, Scheil stressed that after having “revealed the archives of the old world at Nineveh, at Babylon, at Telloh”, France again, through its excavations at Susa had “the ever growing and most envied honour of resurrecting the history of Elam, starting from its remotest origins”. With these patriotic remarks made to the Comité de l’Asie française – a group of political and economic influ-ence established ten years earlier – Scheil introduced his presentation on the recent progress in the field of Elamite studies since France had obtained the monopoly on excavations in Persia in 1895 (Scheil 1937: 46).

When it began its research, the Délégation was not the first to have been inter-ested in the ancient Elamite city of Susa. During the 19th century, several travellers, mainly English, had visited the ruins, but the few remains they spotted could not yet be identified.1 Subsequently two missions – one supported by Britain and the other by France – undertook research which was mainly concerned with the Achaemenid period. Certainly some Elamite remains were discovered, but they were too modest to reveal much, as evidenced by the huge and thoroughly documented Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité by Georges Perrot and Charles Chipiez, whose volumes on oriental antiquities published between 1884 and 1890 ignore the civilization of Elam: Father Scheil’s “true Elam” remained to be discovered.

For a long time, France did not appear to be in the best position to make Susa and Elam a privileged subject of study. Although the English were able to visit Susiana, Charles Texier in 1838, then architect Pascal Coste and painter Eugène Flandin in 1839–1840 – amongst the rare Frenchmen to visit Persia – were unable to enter this

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032

-4— N i c o l e C h e v a l i e r —

42

region, which was regularly subject to tribal revolts. The meagre data and poor draw-ings obtained by Coste and Flandin from Baron de Bode, counsellor at the Russian embassy, were not published and probably helped to soften their regrets.

However, the two missions, the first from Britain and the second from France, opened the road to the latter for further research in Elam. Explorations between 1850 and 1852 at the location of the Elamite city of Susa by Colonel Williams and William Kennet Loftus did not give the results expected by H.C. Rawlinson, who supervised excavations in Mesopotamia for the Trustees of the British Museum. They were pre-maturely halted in April 1852 when Loftus transferred his efforts to more promising Mesopotamian sites (Loftus 1857: 317–433; Curtis 1993: 15; 1997: 45). However, the success of the mission of Marcel Dieulafoy (1885–1886), magnified by the display of the remains of Persian kings at the Louvre, prompted France to continue research, driven by the fear of seeing Britain, in spite of its earlier lack of interest, asserting a “right of priority” over the site.

THE FIRST FRENCH AT SUSA: THE MISSION OF MARCEL DIEULAFOY AND THE JOURNEY OF

JACQUES DE MORGAN

It was only in the late 19th century during the journey undertaken by Marcel and Jane Dieulafoy through Persia and Mesopotamia (February 1881–April 1882) that France became truly interested in Persia, and Susa in particular. An engineer from the Ponts- et- Chaussées, passionate about the connections between Oriental and West-ern art, Dieulafoy was finally able to visit Susa on 14 January 1882. Immediately he was convinced of its interest and wished to start excavations. On his return to France, his friendship with Louis de Ronchaud, director of the Musées Nationaux, helped further his project. Thanks to the latter and to the Ministry of Education, he obtained funding, modest but sufficient, to be able to carry out the work. It remained for René de Balloy, representative of France in Tehran, to obtain a firman from Nasr ed- Din Shah authorizing research in this insecure region of Khuzestan. The firman was granted on December 7, 1884, not without difficulty. Thus was established the groundwork that enabled French scholars to settle in Susa for the long term.2

When on February 26, 1885, Marcel Dieulafoy (1844–1920), accompanied by Jane and two assistants – Charles Babin, engineer at the Ponts- et- Chaussées and Frédéric Houssaye, a naturalist – arrived at Susa, his main goal was to resurrect the “Achaemenid palaces, where Greece, Egypt and western Asia had brought their trib-ute and their treasures” [Figure 3.1] (J. Dieulafoy 1888: 2). During the first campaign (February 26, 1885–May 13, 1885), after conducting a topographic survey with Babin (M. Dieulafoy 1893, Pl. II)3 and recognising the apadana (audience hall), of which Loftus had made the first plan, Dieulafoy dug several trenches in the Apadana mound and at various points of the Acropole and Ville Royale mounds (M. Dieula-foy 1885a: 57; 1893: 424; 1913: 2–3).4 During the second campaign (December 15, 1885–1886), for reason of lack of funds and especially time, he focused his efforts on the Apadana mound and completed his work in haste. Indeed, the mission became for various reasons a cause of concern for the Persian government, which had requested the end of the excavations since June 1885, saying they could not guarantee the safety of the French archaeologists: the presence of Christians near the tomb of Daniel was

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032

-4— F r a n c e a n d E l a m —

43

provoking irritation in the population. Finally, the Shah reluctantly agreed to one last campaign which was not to exceed four months. Despite the shortened work, when the cruiser Le Sané loaded the latest discoveries, France could be proud of the results. The presentation of the finds, including the frieze of lions, the archers and the monumental bull capital, opened on June 6, 1888 by President Carnot at the Louvre, was the striking proof.

However, even if the results were decisive for the Persian period, by digging trenches that did not exceed four metres in depth Dieulafoy did not succeed in bring-ing Elamite Susa to light; although he did discover some objects older than the Achae-menids. Like Loftus, he brought back terracotta figurines, some dating to the second half of the 2nd millennium (Curtis 1993: 44, Pl. 9; 1997: 43, Figure 26; M. Dieula-foy 1893: 435) and inscribed bricks from Susa and Bandar- Bushehr acquired from Joseph Malcolm, whom he had met during his first trip to Persia (J. Dieulafoy 1887: 515; M. Dieulafoy 1893: 308–309, 311, Figure 193; 1913: 26). Eugène Ledrain and Jules Oppert translated the inscriptions “despite the immense difficulties of decipher-ing the Susian texts” (M. Dieulafoy 1893: 308, n. 1).

Despite this success, the future of the excavations at Susa was uncertain because the Shah opposed the resumption of work that would disturb the local population. Above all, he was offended by the attitude of Dieulafoy, who ignored the terms of the firman concerning the sharing of discoveries. The Direction des Beaux- Arts which

Figure 3.1 Jane and Marcel Dieulafoy, Frédéric Houssaye and Charles Babin at Susa 1885 (after Dieulafoy J. A Suse. Journal de fouilles 1888: 239).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


44

supported the excavations, the French legation in Tehran and Dieulafoy all shared the same concern: that if France agreed to the suspension of work, it did not renounce the rights it believed it had according to the firman that had been obtained. So for almost ten years, the Shah denied not only any request for excavations at Susa but also for requests for excavations in the whole of Persia, as evidenced by the exploration car-ried out by Jacques de Morgan (Morgan 1997: 249–327).

The journey undertaken by Morgan between 1889 and 1891 is a milestone in the history of the discovery of Elam by France. Firstly, it enabled the French legation in Tehran to fully appreciate the interest of Susa and actively engage in negotiations. Secondly, it would reveal a man with vast scientific expertise who could offer an alter-native to Dieulafoy, who was experiencing difficulties with the Shah. Finally, when he visited Susa, Morgan was mainly interested in Elamite remains.

By training, Morgan (1857–1924) was a geologist and an engineer who studied at the École des Mines; his great love was for prehistory; but he was also an ethno- logist, naturalist and numismatist. The diversity of his interests and skills explains his desire to add, when conducting research in Persia, scientists from different disciplines, linking archaeology with all sciences that could help to comprehend the evolution of man. Thus, in those pioneering days he was, as Pierre Amiet (1988: 16; 1997a: 94) put it, “the architect of a global history of the oldest Oriental Antiquity”.

It was during this trip that Morgan, whose beginnings as an oriental archaeologist were recent, became interested in Elam. During his stay in the Caucasus (1887–1889), where he undertook an extensive exploration and study of prehistoric cemeteries, he decided to abandon definitively his engineering career to devote himself to archaeo-logy. On his return to France, he was recognised as “a fervent archaeologist, a skilled excavator, an outstanding draftsman, whose exceptional skills could be happily employed in some special trip” (Chevalier 2009a: 92). It was in this favourable con-text that he obtained funding for a vast exploration in Russia, the Ottoman Empire and northern Persia.

In Russia, as in the Ottoman Empire, Morgan was unable to carry out the pro-gramme decided upon in Paris. Similarly in Persia, where he was to explore the region of Astarabad, Mazandaran and Gilan, he did not obtain permission to carry out excavations. Also, in April 1891, after going in the Mukri region of Kurdistan, which he mapped for the future Mozzafer ed- Din Shah, to Hamadan and the District of Zohab, he decided to remain in Persia. He traversed the regions of Pusht- e Kuh and Lorestan to reach Khuzestan: his goal was Susa. When on September 2, 1891, he reached Dizful, Morgan drew up a geographic, ethnographic and linguistic map of the area. Above all, he had undertaken “the comprehensive study of the countries which formerly were part of Elam and the border regions of the kingdom”. He was able to draw the “archaeological map of Elam”: “I made this map as complete as pos-sible in terms of geography, I have marked all the ancient remains, tepes, tells, ruins, stelae, tombs etc . . . All roads, paths, sources, so I hope through it to determine the position of the cities mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions” (Morgan 1895 card: Pl. 12; 1997: 310; Chevalier 2009a: 98).

Susa, where Morgan stayed for a week, remained to be studied. Impressed by the height of the mound of the Acropole which he estimated to be between 34 and 38 metres above the plain, he imagined the future works: “The mound of the Acropole contains stone tools. At the top I found fragments of Arab pottery; in the intermediate

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


45

levels I encountered debris that I attributed to the Elamite era. Thus, this tell alone contains remains from all ages; we should attack it first to regain the lost history of Elam and not the lower mounds that surround it” (Morgan 1896: 177, Figure 151, 180–181; 1902a: 6). Finally, in the event of the Shah conceding the site, Morgan wrote a report and drafted a plan of the land to acquire for the French legation in Tehran which for five years strived to keep Susa for France.

Scientifically speaking, the mission in Persia, whose results were published between 1894 and 1905, was a success. In the first part of the fourth volume, devoted to “Recherches archéologiques”, Morgan presented a significant “Etude de l’Elam” (Morgan 1896: 173–234). After having defined Elam as consisting of “two distinct parts: Upper Elam, mountainous and almost inaccessible, and Susiana or Lower Elam, formed by alluvial plains, but protected against the Chaldeans by an impass-able swamp”, he addressed the issue of language. In this regard, he acknowledged that little is known and that the few known documents are divided “into two catego-ries, archaic inscriptions on the soft clay of bricks, and the more recent texts engraved on the rocks of Mal- Emir”, and referred to the communication of Jules Oppert on “Les Inscriptions en langue susienne”, made in 1873 to the Congrès des Orientalistes (Oppert 1876: 179–216). Generally, for civilization as for geography, Morgan based his work on the main source then available: the Annales des rois d’Assyrie translated in 1874 by Joachim Ménant. About the “archaeological map” he explains, “I tried to trace on the modern map the various expeditions of Assyria against Elam; relying on texts, I used my knowledge of these regions to deduce the various strategic moves of the Assyrian armies. I do not pretend to have irrevocably fixed the exact position of the cities, but at least I have in this study indicated the progress of expeditions. More detailed research would require surveys in all ancient places, in the many tells that cover both the plain of Susa and the valleys of the mountains of Upper Elam” (Morgan 1895: Pl. 12; 1896: 222).

Another positive point, and not the least, by transmitting maps and a report on the oilfields of Qasr- e- Shirin, Morgan earned the benevolence of the Shah, who gave him the medal of the Grand Officer of the “Lion and Sun”. On this subject Morgan explains: “Receiving this distinction was very pleasant to me; it shows that my stay in Persia will leave a memory that will facilitate the trips of the missionaries who will come after me” (Chevalier 2009a: 97, 100). However, the French still waited four years before being able to return to Susa.

THE FRENCH MONOPOLY OF EXCAVATIONS IN PERSIA (1895)

After the return of Dieulafoy, France did not envisage taking on research in all the sites of Persia: only Susa was of interest. But at Tehran, Balloy became convinced from 1891 onwards that the acquisition of the rights over the entirety of excavations was the ideal solution that would allow the French to exclude competitors and to work when and where they wished. In 1894, in agreement with Paris, he began negotiations with the Persian government. On May 12, 1895, these culminated in the signing of an agreement through which France obtained, through a payment of 50,000 gold francs, the rights over all excavations in Persia. Finally, five years later during his visit to Paris on the occasion of the Exposition universelle, Mozzafer ed- Din Shah – successor of

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


46

Nasr ed- Din – signed, on August 11, 1900, a new agreement that differed among other things on the issue of the sharing of the finds. The 1895 agreement provided for an equal division of discoveries on the principle of the firman of Dieulafoy, with a special status for gold and silver objects that could be bought by France. In the 1900 agreement, the principle of the sharing of objects was to be maintained in all parts of Persia, but those discovered in Susiana were to be entirely assigned to France. It is on this principle that the excavations in Persia functioned until 1927, the date of the ter-mination of the agreement. It is in this very particular context of monopoly that the French Ministry of Education created the Délégation Scientifique Française en Perse in 1897 (Chevalier ed. 1997: 76–79). It only remained to choose the man capable of taking responsibility for such an unparalleled institution.

At this time, two men had proved their worth. Dieulafoy, in bringing back Persian antiquities, was at the origin of the Iranian collection of the Louvre. But by attract-ing the displeasure of Nasr ed- Din Shah, he did not have the support of the French legation. As for Morgan, who had planned to go back to Persia to study the south and east of the country, he was sent to Egypt at the head of the office of Antiquities (1892–1897) where he became renowned for his significant discoveries at Dahshur and Naqadeh, supplemented by the publication of his Recherches sur les origines de l’Egypte (1897), in which he laid the foundation for studies on Egyptian prehistory. However, the publication of the first volumes of his Mission scientifique en Perse (1894–1905) shows that Persia remained at the centre of his concerns. In Paris, his good relations with the Ministry of Education, responsible for implementing the Con-vention, and in Tehran, with the French legation and Mozzafer ed- Din, worked in his favour and helped to have him recalled from Egypt. On April 19, 1897, Morgan was made responsible for directing all archaeological research in Persia under the title of Délégué général. On July 21, 1897, the Parliament voted for him to receive a starting credit of 100,000 francs and a sum of 130,000 francs as an annual work allowance.

After his trip to Persia and his stay in Egypt, Morgan believed that Susa held the key to his research: “In the Nile Valley, I had become convinced that the first civiliza-tions, the origin of the Egyptian empire, proceeded from the Chaldeans and that the plains of Mesopotamia were, therefore, the birthplace of human progress. Susa, by its very remote antiquity, presented itself as a solution to the largest and most important problem of our origins. This city, in my opinion, had belonged to the primitive world that had seen the discovery of writing, the use of metals, the beginnings of art. If the problem of origins is ever to be solved, it is in Chaldea and especially at Susa that we need to look for the elements” (Morgan 1902a: 16). With the agreement of the Min-istry of Education, Morgan decided to engage in Susa the bulk of the financial and human resources of the Délégation in order to conduct their large- scale investigations to reach the most ancient levels. At the end of 1897, the conditions were in place for Elam to become a long- term domain of French research.

The Délégation scientifique française en Perse and Elam (1897–1912)

“It has been said a hundred times and printed that the Délégation en Perse at Susa resumed the work carried out by the Dieulafoy mission. This is a mistake I would not have responded to if it had not, by its frequency, become obsessive. The Dieulafoy

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


47

mission set out to study the Achaemenid period: they focused their efforts on the ruins belonging to that time, leaving untouched the entire area of the Elamite ruins, which is the only object of my works. The palace of Xerxes, Artaxerxes and others, did not affect the choice I made of Susa; it is the history of Elam that I was looking for” (Morgan 1905: 10).

When on December 16, 1897, Morgan arrived at Susa, ten years had passed since the Dieulafoy mission. A small, modestly funded team was replaced by the Déléga-tion which had been provided with significant financial and human resources. Yet very quickly it became obvious that France had neither the financial nor human means to implement a monopoly over the entire Persian territory. Despite his efforts, Morgan never managed to increase his budget, which contributed to the restriction of his main focus to the site of Susa during the 15 years of his leadership.

On the 1st of May 1898, the Délégation moved to the “Château” built to the north of the Acropole to protect the archaeologists against repeated attacks by various tribes [Figure 3.2] (Morgan 1902a: 54–60; Jéquier 1968: 123–124; Chevalier 2009b: 108–113). The research team consisted of assistants that Morgan had met in Egypt, such as Gustave Jéquier (1897–1902), Joseph- Etienne Gautier (1898–1907) and Georges Lampre, accompanied by his wife (1897–1906). From the beginning, Morgan enlisted especially the skills of Father Jean- Vincent Scheil (1897–1940), an eminent Assyri-ologist (André- Salvini 1997) with whom he had already collaborated. In 1891 they published the inscriptions of the stele of Kel- i- Chin, the reliefs of Sheikh Khan and Ser- i- poul, of which Morgan took impressions during his trip to Persia (Morgan 1896: 159–166, 265–274). Later other collaborators appeared, among others, Maurice Pézard (1909–1912), a graduate from the École du Louvre. Above all, in 1903 Roland de Mecquenem, a young mining engineer and paleontologist, joined Morgan and from 1908 regularly replaced him in the field (Amiet 1997b; Spycket 1997).

In the first years, the mission operated on a rhythm of two consecutive years in Persia; two excavation campaigns – limited to winter and spring because of the heat – separated by a summer study trip in cooler countries. The following summer, the team returned to France to rest and eventually to occupy themselves with the finds sent to the Louvre and prepare the publications [Figure 3.3]. Indeed, Morgan had anticipated rapid communi-cation of the work within a series inaugurated in 1900: Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse. Up to 1912, 13 volumes appeared under his leadership. Scheil was an important contributor. Of the 16 volumes which he published in this collection, eight appeared during the Morgan period; publication of the “Textes élamites- sémitiques” and “Textes élamites- anzanites” was alternated. Notably, at the end of 1902, Scheil gave the com-plete copy and translation of the Code of Hammurabi, discovered in December 1901 and January 1902 (Mémoires IV 1902: 11–162; André- Salvini 2003: 8–12).

In 1997, in his presentation of the “Bilan archéologique de la Délégation en Perse”, Pierre Amiet emphasised how delicate this exercise was; it was likely to lead to a judgement of the institution according to criteria that were not those of the time (Amiet 1997a: 94); this remark is especially true due to the fact that in his time Mor-gan was considered a skilled excavator (Lagrange 1913: 126).

December 18, 1897, two days after his arrival at Susa, Morgan started his work based on Babin’s plan, the quality of which he thought well of. First, in order to locate the most ancient levels on the southern slopes of the Acropole, he dug five galleries with the assistance of a well- digger according to a method that had been successfully

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


48

Figure 3.2 Jacques de Morgan in the “Chateau” of Susa (courtesy of photographic archives of the Départment des Antiquités orientales,

Musée du Louvre)..

tested in Egypt. He also opened 14 trenches: two in the Ville Royale in order to study its surface; seven on the Apadana to make checks, judging this research to be “of a very secondary interest”; and finally, five on the Acropole (Mémoires I 1900: 81–110; VIII 1905: 45–51). To clear the rubble, he would use up to 100 Decauville trucks of

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


49

Figure 3.3 Jacques de Morgan and Father Vincent Scheil. “The inventory of the archaeological discoveries from Susa at the Louvre Museum” (After L’Illustration, n° 3075, I

February 1902: 69).

300 litres each on tracks and up to 1200 workers at a time (Mecquenem and Amiet 1980: 6). As emphasised by André Parrot, while aspiring to do scientific work, Mor-gan conceived his excavations as an engineer, according to a method described by him as being “industrial”. Organising a methodical evacuation of the spoil, he divided the 35 metres of the height of the Acropole into seven artificial levels by opening trenches in tiers with a height and width of five metres, which took on a vertiginous appearance (Parrot 1946 I: 172, II: 37–39 Figure 1; Mecquenem and Amiet 1980: 8–9; Mousavi 1996: 7–12). In January 1913, the confusion of the architect Maurice

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


50

Pillet, when at dusk he discovered the tell of the Acropolis, is significant: “I felt as if we walked along high cliffs, or better, high walls [. . .] I was surprised that Susa had retained such imposing remains of its enclosures [. . .] but great was my disappoint-ment, when the next day I realized that these superb ramparts were none other than the fronts of attack and clearings of the site, thus during the night I had taken their vertical and regular faces as city walls” [Figure 3.4] (Chevalier 2009b: 258–259).

The method was radical; but still Morgan never questioned it, even after visiting in 1899 the start of the excavation of Babylon by the Germans and admiring the conduct of their work (Morgan 1902a: 138). Morgan taught his method to his assistants, espe-cially to Mecquenem, who, having arrived at Susa in 1903, put it into practice until the Second World War. Thus Morgan and his collaborators were never able to distinguish and hence reveal the remains of an architecture essentially of mud brick. The conse-quence was poorly classified and badly interpreted documentation, removing part of the scientific value of the work of the Délégation, though quickly made available to scholars through the publication of the Mémoires. Nevertheless, the importance of the discover-ies, as “artistic” as they were epigraphic, allowed the Délégation to rapidly bring Elamite civilisation out of oblivion. Five years after the work began, Morgan gave a first look at “The history of Elam” in Revue archéologique (Morgan 1902b: 149–171).

From the beginning of the excavation of trenches 7, 7α and 15 – under the Par-thian and Achaemenid remains and near the ruins of floors and walls “too dev-astated and too dispersed to give any coherent plan” – was found an exceptional collection of royal monuments, according to some coming from Mesopotamian cit-ies, which had been carried away as booty to Susa by Middle Elamite sovereigns, notably Shutruk- Nahhunte.5 In turn were discovered: the obelisk of Manishtusu, the

Figure 3.4 The Acropole and the “Château” of Susa in 1913(photograph by Maurice Pillet; courtesy of photographic archives of the

Département des Antiquités orientales, Musée du Louvre).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


51

stele of Naram- Sin from the Akkadian period, the Kassite kudurrus; later, during the 1901–1902 campaign, the Code of Hammurabi. The Acropole excavations also helped to reveal many objects that were among the most remarkable of the Elamite civilization; in particular, from the first campaign, a bronze altar, then the relief of the lady spinning, the bronze of the seven warrior gods and fragments of the stele of Untash- Napirisha. In 1903 the statue of Queen Napir- Asu [Figure 3.5] and in 1905 the Sit Shamshi were discovered inside and near the temple of Ninhursag, excavated

Figure 3.5 The statue of Queen Napir- Asu in the “Château” of Susa, January 1903 (courtesy of photographic archives of the

Département des Antiquités orientales, Musée du Louvre).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


52

along with the Inshushinak temple under which was found in 1904 a collection of very diverse valuable objects described as “foundation offerings”. Five years after the start of the excavations the most important discoveries of the Délégation were pre-sented to the public at the Grand Palais des Champs- Elysées in 1902 and the Louvre in 1905 (Morgan 1902a; Morgan 1905).6

The excavations were conducted starting from the summit of the Acropole in order to remove the entire surface. However, anxious to reach the remains of the origins of the site quickly, Morgan led the excavations deeper into the “Grande tranchée”. Thus in 1901 were discovered documents that were written in an archaic script called “Proto- Elamite”. Then, after bypassing a sterile mass of earth whose nature was not elucidated until much later, in 1906–1907 virgin soil was reached, revealing a large prehistoric cemetery which contained particularly fine painted ceramics and various copper objects, which implied a more recent date than that expected by Morgan.

Alongside the Susa excavations, the Délégation conducted surveys in several regions. In the Elamite domain, in his first summer trip in the Bakhtiari mountains, Morgan resumed the program of taking impressions of reliefs and inscriptions that he had started in 1890. Thus, from October 8–14, 1898, he drew and Jéquier took impressions of the Elamite reliefs and inscriptions of Malamir. Known to early travellers (Vanden Berghe 1963: 22–23), these reliefs had already attracted Dieulafoy’s interest. In 1885 he had sent Houssaye and Babin to photograph them (M. Dieulafoy 1885b: 225–227, Pl. XXIV; 1890: 33). In 1901 the Délégation proposed a compre-hensive review of the reliefs and study of the inscriptions by Scheil, which would long remain the main source of knowledge about these reliefs (Mémoires II 1901: 102–132, 133–143). Finally, in 1902–1903 J.-E. Gautier, independently, but under the aegis of the Délégation, carried out a mission in the Deh Luran plain northwest of Susa. In the tepes of Mussian, Ali- abad and Khazineh were discovered a collection of archaic painted shards (Mémoires VIII, 1905: 59–148).

The concentration of efforts at Susa, caused in part by the priority given by Mor-gan to Elamite studies, added fuel to the criticism concerning the overly limited scope of the Délégation. Although Susa was at the origin of diplomatic action of France, the extent of the monopoly meant having to diversify the investigations. In 1908, recog-nizing the importance of the results, the Légation de France, keen to defend an agree-ment increasingly considered controversial by the Persians and foreign scholars who felt they were being ousted, was alarmed by these attacks and denounced the lack of research outside Susiana. Thus Morgan, criticised for his scientific choices, which he justified by the importance of the excavated site, and with insufficient financial resources to allow the expansion of research to other regions without undermining Susa; challenged by some of his collaborators; suspected of irregularities in his finan-cial management; disappointed, perhaps, by an excavation that had become too rou-tine and that he had entrusted from 1908 to Mecquenem; but, above all, exhausted and ill, gave in his resignation on October 12, 1897.

THE MISSION ARCHÉOLOGIQUE DE SUSIANE (1912–1946)

On November 21, 1912, a month and a half after the resignation of Morgan, the Délégation was officially dissolved. From then on, it was in Paris, within the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


53

Commission consultative des fouilles en Perse, created in 1908, that decisions were made on the direction of research. Immediately, the Commission reckoned that inde-pendent missions would give better results. Thus, Henri Viollet’s project on the study of Islamic monuments was authorized, and Charles Fossey was charged with a mis-sion to Hamadan and Rey. Research work at Susa, although financially restricted, was not called into question. In this context, Scheil and Mecquenem were jointly appointed to lead the Mission archéologique de Susiane; Scheil in Paris as scientific director – a position he held until his death in 1940 – and Mecquenem at Susa as director of excavations until 1946.

From now on, the Susa team was smaller; Maurice Pézard departed but made a significant contribution to the Susa excavations by publishing in 1913 with Edmond Pottier, curator at the Louvre, the catalogue of Susiana Antiquities discovered by the Morgan mission (Pézard and Pottier 1913/1926). The same year he obtained permis-sion to excavate at Bandar- Bushehr, ancient Liyan, which he briefly explored with his brother Georges. The results were modest – mainly Middle Elamite bricks and painted ceramics of the “1st and 2nd styles” – but nevertheless published (Mémoires XV 1914). On March 24, 1914, Mecquenem ceased his work: he had to wait six years before returning to Susa for a brief inspection of the site, occupied since 1916 by British troops.

When Mecquenem returned to Susiana in spring 1920, the archaeological situation of France in Iran was in a period of change.7 Contested before the war, the monopoly was becoming difficult to defend and a long negotiation started with Iran. Finally, on October 18, 1927, France renounced the monopoly. In return, the post of Direction générale des antiquités, bibliothèque et musée was assigned to someone from France. Regarding the sharing of objects, the Susa mission would now become subject to new regulations. André Godard, Director of Antiquities from 1928 to 1960, had the task, among others, of establishing these regulations [Figure 3.6] (3 November 1930).

In 1921, the Acropole being virtually inaccessible until the destruction of the bar-racks housing a squadron of Sepoys, the excavations were actively pushed over to the tell of the Apadana [Figure 3.7]8 Until 1926, Mecquenem conducted his work principally in two directions: the completion of the uncovering of the Achaemenid palace – for him, this objective was achieved in 1922 – and the identification of underlying Elamite remains – already begun in the east in 1912 – and which he continued under the pavement of the courtyards. Thus he discovered a set of graves, arranged under the floor of houses, identified by him as an “Elamite necropolis” and the remains of a temple with its moulded brick decoration of the second half of the 2nd millennium. Then from 1927, next to the Acropole, which was still being exca-vated but less intensively than before the war, efforts were focused on the southwest of the Ville Royale – where in the tombs were found large clay heads of the Middle Elamite period – and in the Donjon. Finally, Mecquenem broadened the scope of the mission by carrying out in the 1930s a series of surveys on various prehistoric sites of Susiana: notably with Louis Le Breton. Above all, he helped to broaden the field of Elamite studies by carrying out, from 1935, surveys about 40 kilometres southeast of Susa at the site of Chogha- Zanbil, discovered by geologists of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company after they flew over it in an aeroplane. With Jean Michalon, architect, he thus revealed ancient Dur- Untash: an ephemeral city built by Untash Napirisha (Mémoires XXXIII 1953).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032

-4

Figure 3.6 Yedda and André Godard and Roland de Mecquenem at Susa around 1930 (courtesy of photographic archives of the Département

des Antiquités orientales, Musée du Louvre).

Figure 3.7 Family tomb of the Neo- Elamite period. Excavations to the east of the Achaemenid palace (Susa 1924; courtesy of photographic archives of the Département des

Antiquités orientales, Musée du Louvre).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


55

FRANCE AND ELAM AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR: ROMAN GHIRSHMAN (1946–1967) AND

JEAN PERROT (1967–1979)

The cessation of work caused by the war coincided with changes in the direction of the excavations at Susa. First of all, after the death of Father Scheil (in 1940), Georges Contenau, curator of Department of Oriental Antiquities at the Louvre, suc-ceeded him as Scientific Director (1940–1957). Furthermore, on October 13, 1945, Roman Ghirshman was appointed by the Foreign Ministry’s excavation commission to replace Mecquenem, who would now focus on his publications [Figure 3.8]. In

Figure 3.8 Roman Ghirshman in front of the inscription commemorating the arrival of Jacques de Morgan 70 years earlier, Susa 1967 (courtesy of

Agnès Spycket).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


56

early 1946, Mecquenem went to Susa to perform final checks and hand over his powers to his successor.

When Ghirshman (1895–1979) became head of the excavations, he was already an archaeologist with much experience working at multiple sites, having made his debut at Tello, in Mesopotamia (1930–1931). During the war, he headed the Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (1941–1943). Before that, he had devoted himself to Iran, where he excavated at Tepe Giyan (1931 and 1932) – in collaboration with Contenau – and at Tepe Sialk (1933, 1934 and 1937). Before the war he also explored Bishapur (1935–1936 and 1938–1941). However, he had never worked at Susa. In the 20 years during which he led the Délégation archéologique en Iran, he continued to work at Susa and undertook a complete exploration of Chogha- Zanbil.

On December 4, 1946, resuming work at Susa, Ghirshman attempted to bring some order into the exploration of the site by applying a method, infinitely more reliable, inaugurated at Tepe Giyan and Tepe Sialk. Although personally interested in the most recent periods of the site9 – which explains his work in the Village perse- achéménide, the Ville des Artisans and in the north of the Ville Royale, mostly untouched by his predecessors – Ghirshman nonetheless also greatly contributed to bringing to light to the earliest periods of the history of Susa.10

Even if from the first campaigns various operations took place in the Apadana, they remained limited compared to those undertaken in other parts of the site, includ-ing the north of the Ville Royale with the important stratigraphic project, Chantier A, opened from the month of December 1946, which allowed 15 levels to be identified before reaching the virgin soil. It was only in the last six years of his leadership that the oldest levels of Susa were explored: in the Ville Royale Chantier A, he uncov-ered several levels from the time of the sukkalmahs, then little known (VRA XII to XV), which allowed the recognition of large residences of royal dignitaries. This stratigraphic sequence was continued further south in Chantier B, uncovering three earlier levels, and in the Acropole, where under his leadership Marie- Joseph Steve and Hermann Gasche explored the remains of the 3rd and 4th millennia untouched by Morgan and Mecquenem. Thus the existence of the Haute Terrasse, artificially constructed at the beginning of the 4th millennium, was identified.

In undertaking work at Chogha- Zanbil, Ghirshman uncovered an ensemble of predominantly religious structures. During the nine campaigns (1951–1962), the fol-lowing were uncovered: the ziggurat, dedicated to the gods Inshushinak and Napir-isha; the courts; several shrines with important material; and a royal quarter with one of the palaces housing the royal tombs and many inscriptions. A large Elamite architectural complex was finally revealed (Mémoires XXXIX I 1966; II 1968).

On April 10, 1967, Ghirshman, who had been “for half a century the great master of French archaeology in Iran” (Will 1981: 212), completed his 21st and last cam-paign of excavations at Susa, passing the baton to Jean Perrot [Figure 3.9]. Seventy years earlier, Morgan had arrived at Susa at the head of the Délégation scientifique francaise en Perse: Ghirshman did not fail to commemorate the anniversary.

In 1967, Jean Perrot (1920–2012), a specialist in the late prehistory of the Near East, took over from Ghirshman as the head of the Délégation archéologique française en Iran et de la mission de Suse. At that time, he had already had a distinguished career. Indeed, after prior training in Paris, he left to study at the Ecole biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem. He met René Neuville, Consul General of

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


57

Figure 3.9 Jean Perrot and Pierre Amiet in the “Château” of Susa, 1977 (courtesy of Pierre Amiet).

France and a prehistorian, whose influence was decisive, and in 1952 Perrot founded the Mission archéologique française à Jérusalem.

Until 1979, Perrot led a large team consisting of archaeologists and environmental specialists from several countries, including Iranian trainees delegated by the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, led by Firouz Bagherzadeh.11 His objective was to establish the archaeological sequence of Susiana and Susa from the first villages to medieval times. Work on each period and the publication of results were placed under the responsibility of several archaeologists. For the Elamite period, on the south side of the Acropole, stratigraphic control operations were led by Alain Le Brun and Henry Wright, who concentrated their research on the 4th millennium, as well as Denis Canal, for the High Terrace. Elizabeth Carter worked in the Ville Royale I on the period covering approximately the 2nd millennium, and Pierre de Miroschedji worked in the Ville Royale II for the 1st millennium to clarify the stratigraphy of the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


58

Middle and Neo- Elamite periods. The epigraphic documentation was entrusted to François Vallat.

Finally, as was the case with the first excavations of the Délégation led by Mor-gan, Jean Perrot appeared very anxious to publish early the results of his mission. While in the collection of Mémoires the publication of previous findings was not yet complete, the results of the Perrot Mission appear from 1971 in Cahiers de la Délé-gation archéologiques en Iran (Cahiers de la DAFI). Fifteen volumes of reports were published. Similarly, papers from the two international “Rencontres” in 1977 – at Susa – and in 1985 were published in the journal Paléorient 4, 1978 and 11/2, 1985 and translated into Persian.

ELAM AT THE LOUVRE

In his “Bilan archéologique de la Délégation en Perse”, which gave a synthesis of the archaeological activity of Jacques de Morgan, P. Amiet concluded that “they had in fact garnered much; it was premature to coordinate epigraphic and archaeological documentation into an overall history of a very complex civilization. This history depended too much on the history of Mesopotamia to be already mastered” (Amiet 1997a: 107).

Indeed, it was not until the period after the Second World War and Louis Le Breton that French researchers began a first reflection on the huge stockpile of objects at the Louvre. Mecquenem’s collaborator at Susa (1933–1935), researcher and Chargé de mission at the Department of Oriental Antiquities (1948), Le Breton classified and catalogued thousands of objects from Susa in the Louvre storage rooms. In particular, he took on the large task of organising the Susa ceramics and tried to reconstruct the complex evolution of the primitive civilization of Susiana. Thus, in 1947, after his Ecole du Louvre thesis on “La céramique peinte de Suse II” and having published his “Notes sur la céramique peinte aux environs de Suse et à Suse” (Mémoires XXX 1947: 120–219) in the year of his death, a remarkable synthesis of his research and findings appeared posthumously (Le Breton 1957: 79–124). In many respects, Pierre Amiet, curator at the Department of Oriental Antiquities, resumed the task initiated by Le Breton. Formerly a student of the École Biblique et Archéologique française de Jérusalem, Amiet, who had known Mecquenem and benefited at the Louvre from Contenau’s last courses, became rap-idly interested in the Iranian world, to which he devoted many articles and several reference books. Thus, less than ten years after the disappearance of Le Breton, to whom he had dedicated his first article on Iran and Susian archaic glyptic, Amiet presented a first synthesis of Elam. Knowing perfectly the Susian antiquities from the excavations of Morgan and Mecquenem, preserved not only at the Louvre but also in Tehran, and the recent discoveries made by Ghirshman, he published Elam in 1966. In this synthesis, he considered all of the excavated material and proposed a classification system; as Parrot underlined, he successfully classified “a considerable documentation into a coherent chronological framework, and this in the absence of any architectural context”. It was only a first step. Twenty years later, in Suse, 6000 ans d’histoire, Amiet recognised that this classification had become outdated: on the one hand “subsequent discoveries have often allowed for corrections to be made”; on the other, while he had devoted himself “to highlight Susian originality

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


59

by using a terminology distinct from that of Mesopotamia”, while examining on site the results of the most recent work in 1977, he “discovered the alternating dependence and independence of Susiana in relation to Mesopotamia, highlighting alternating references to the latter and Elam itself” (Amiet 1988: 11).

In 1978, after more than 90 years of research, the French excavations at Susa were terminated. There remained the important task of publishing the excavations and the study of the collections that had built up in the storage rooms of the Louvre until 1968, when the Délégation archéologique française en Iran proposed to the Iranian Minister of Culture the abandonment of the sharing of excavated objects.

ABBREVIATIONS

MÉMOIRES Most of the results of the scientific work of the Délégation scientifique française en Perse and its successors were gathered in a collection of volumes inaugurated by Jacques de Morgan successively entitled:

Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, volumes I to XIII, 1900–1912. Mémoires de la Mission archéologique de Susiane, volume XIV, 1913. Mémoires de la Mission archéologiques de Perse – Mission à Bender-

Bouchir, volume XV, 1914. Mémoires de la Mission archéologiques de Perse – Mission de Susiane,

volumes XVI to XXVIII, 1921–1939. Mémoires de la Mission archéologiques en Iran – Mission de Susiane,

volumes XXIX to XXXVIII. Mémoires de la Délégation archéologiques en Iran – Mission de

Susiane, volumes XXXIX to LII, 1966–1992.

NOTES

* Translated from French by Javier Álvarez-Mon and Yasmina Wicks. 1 Including Colonel John Macdonald Kinneir and Major Monteith (1809), Robert Gordon,

a member of the William Gore Ouseley embassy (1811), Sir Robert Ker Porter (between 1817 and 1820), Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1836), Austen Henry Layard (1840) and Baron de Bode (1841).

2 On the diplomatic and institutional context until 1914, see Chevalier 2002: 118–203; 2010. See also Nasiri- Moghaddam 2004.

3 It was not until 1954 that a new topographic map was made by A. Jullien and Ghirshman. 4 For simplicity, to designate the different areas of the site, we use traditional appellations:

to the west the Acropole; to the north, the Apadana; to the east, the Ville Royale and in the south the Donjon; finally, beyond, further north, the Ville des Artisans.

5 See Mecquenem and Amiet 1980: 6–23. A summary of the findings of the Délégation accompanied by the bibliography was given in Amiet 1997a: 94–109. See Martinez- Sève 1997: 18–29 and Gasche, Steve and Vallat 2003: 392–394.

6 On the site of the major discoveries in the Acropole, see the plan of Suzanne Heim and Françoise Tallon in: Harper, Aruz and Tallon 1992: 124, Figure 41.

7 On the diplomatic and institutional context until 1939: Chevalier 2002: 323–347. 8 On the work of this period, see Mecquenem and Amiet 1980: 23–48; Amiet 1997a:

162–167; Martinez- Sève 1997: 28–68; Gasche, Steve and Vallat 2003: 394–395; Roland de Mecquenem. Susa Archives (1912–1939), online. For a complete bibliography on the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


60

excavations at Susa and the surrounding area, see Steve, Gasche and De Meyer 1980: 107–116.

9 His interest in the Parthian, Sassanid and Hellenistic periods led him to excavate Ivan- e Kerkha, (1950), from 1964, Bard- e Néchandeh and Masjid- i Suleiman, where he worked until 1972. He also uncovered a Christian monastery at Kharg Island (1959–1960).

10 Previously, Mecquenem had conducted a series of limited operations in the Ville des Artisans under the direction of Jamshid M. Unvala. On the Ghirshman excavations, see Steve, Gasche and Meyer 1980. In the appendix, a summary is given for each campaign, with the active sites and excavated levels; Gasche 1997; Gasche, Steve and Vallat 2003: 396–398.

11 For an overview of the works of the Perrot mission, see Perrot 1997; Gasche, Steve and Vallat 2003: 398–403 (specifically the location of major projects launched by Ghirshman and Perrot: pp. 399–400).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

For the Roland de Mecquenem Archives, see: N. Daucé, 2011. Roland de Mecquenem Archives de Suse. Rapports de la Mission (1912–1939). Cote conservation: F/17/17256/Document original conservé aux Archives Nationales, Paris. www.mom.fr/mecquenem/.

Amiet, P. 1966. Elam. Auvers-sur-Oise: Archée.———. 1988. Suse 6000 ans d’histoire. Paris: RMN.———. 1997a. Bilan archéologique de la Délégation en Perse. In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une mis-

sion en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN, 94–109.———. 1997b. La période Roland de Mecquenem (1912–1946). In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une

mission en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN, 162–187.André- Salvini, B. 1997. “Ici commence l’histoire de l’Elam”. L’œuvre du père Jean- Vincent

Scheil. In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une mission en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN, 94–109.———. 2003. Le code de Hammurabi. Collection Solo. Paris: Musée du Louvre édition-

RMN.Chevalier, N. 2002. La recherche archéologique française au Moyen- Orient 1842–1947, Cen-

tre de Recherche d’Archéologie Orientale, Université de Paris I: 14. Paris: ERC.———. 2009a. Le voyage en Perse de Jacques de Morgan (1889–1891). In: Djindjian, F., Lorre,

C. and Touret, L. (ed.) Caucase, Egypte et Perse: Jacques de Morgan (1857–1924) pionnier de l’aventure archéologique. Cahier du Musée d’Archéologie Nationale 1, 89–101.

———. 2009b. Chronique des premières missions archéologiques françaises à Suse d’après les photographies et mémoires de l’architecte Maurice Pillet (1912–1913). Téhéran: IFRI – Paris: Musée du Louvre.

———. 2010. Les découvreurs du palais de Suse. In: Perrot, J. (ed.) Le palais de Darius à Suse. Une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone, Paris: PUPS, 74–115. London- New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd: 2013, 53–91.

Chevalier, N. (ed.) 1997. Une Mission en Perse, 1897–1912. Paris: RMN.Curtis, J. 1993. William Kennet Loftus and His Excavations at Susa. Iranica Antiqua 28: 1–55.———. 1997. Les fouilles de W. K. Loftus à Suse. In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une mission en Perse

1897–1912. Paris: RMN: 36–45.Dieulafoy, J. 1887. La Perse, la Chaldée, la Susiane. Paris: Librairie Hachette.———. 1888. A Suse. Journal de fouilles. Paris: Librairie Hachette.Dieulafoy, M. 1885a. Fouilles de Suse. Campagne de 1884–1885. Rapport de l’ingénieur en

chef des Ponts et Chaussées directeur. Revue Archéologique: troisième Série 6: 48–69.———. 1885b. Mission de Susiane. Note relative à la découverte sur le tombeau de Darius de

sept inscriptions nouvelles. Revue Archéologique: troisième Série 6: 224–227.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


61

———. 1890. L’Acropole de Suse d’après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886 sous les auspices du musée du Louvre, Première partie histoire et géographie. Paris: Hachette.

———. 1893. L’Acropole de Suse d’après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886 sous les auspices du musée du Louvre, ouvrage contenant 386 gravures insérées dans le texte. Paris: Hachette.

———. 1913. Les Antiquités de Suse découvertes et rapportées par la mission Dieulafoy (1884–1886). Musée du Louvre. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Gasche, H. 1997. La période Roman Ghirshman (1946–1967). In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une mission en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN, 168–179.

Gasche, H., Steve, M.J. and Vallat, F. 2003. Suse. Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 73–74: 360–652.

Harper P.O., Aruz, J. and Tallon, F. (ed.) 1992. The Royal City of Susa, New York, Metropoli-tan Museum of Art, édition française par Caubet A. Paris: RMN, 1994.

Jéquier, G. 1968. Jéquier. En Perse. 1897–1902. Journal et lettres de Gustage Jéquier, publiés et annoté par Michel Jéquier. Neuchâtel: Editions de la Baconnière.

Lagrange, père M.-J. 1913. Les fouilles de Suse d’après les travaux de la Délégation en Perse. Revue biblique 126–150.

Le Breton, L. 1957. The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations. Iraq 19: 79–124.Loftus, W.K. 1857. Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana. London: J. Nisbet

and Co.Martinez- Sève, L-A. 1997. Les figurines hellénisantes de Suse, contribution à l’histoire cul-

turelle de Suse aux époques hellénistique et parthe. PhD Diss., Université de Paris I: I.Mecquenem de, R. and Amiet, P. 1980. Les fouilleurs de Suse. Iranica Antiqua 15: 1–48.Ménant, J. 1874. Annales des rois d’Assyrie, traduites et mises en ordre sur le texte assyrien.

Paris: Maisonneuve.Morgan de, J. 1895. Mission scientifique en Perse. Cartes des rives méridionales de la mer

Caspienne, du Kurdistan de Moukhri et de l’Elam. Paris: E. Leroux.———. 1896. Mission scientifique en Perse. Recherches archéologiques, IV, 1re partie. In: Mis-

sion scientifique en Perse, I–IV, 1894–1905. Paris: E. Leroux.———. 1902a. La Délégation en Perse du Ministère de l’Instruction Publique, 1897 à 1902.

Paris: E. Leroux.———. 1902b. L’histoire de l’Elam d’après les matériaux fournis par les fouilles à Suse de 1897

à 1902. Revue archéologique 40: 140–171.———. 1905. Histoire et travaux de la Délégation en Perse du Ministère de l’Instruction Pub-

lique, 1897 à 1905. Paris: E. Leroux.———. 1997. Mémoires de Jacques de Morgan. Souvenirs d’un archéologue, Jaunay A. (ed.).

Paris: L’Harmattan.Mousavi, A. 1996. Early Archaeological Adventures and Methodological Problems in Iranian

Archaeology: The Evidence from Susa. Iranica Antiqua 31: 1–17.Nasiri- Moghaddam, N. 2004. L’archéologie française en Perse et les antiquités nationales

(1884–1914). Paris: Connaissances et savoirs.Oppert, J. 1876. Les inscriptions en langue susienne. Essai d’interprétation, Mémoires du Con-

grès International des Orientalistes. Compte- Rendu de la Première Session – Paris – 1873. Paris, 179–216.

Parrot, A. 1946–1953 Archéologie mésopotamienne. I. Les étapes. II. Technique et problèmes. Paris.

Perrot, G. and Chipiez, C. 1882–1914. Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité. Egypte, Assyrie, Phéni-cie, Judée, Asie Mineure, Perse, Grèce. 10 vols. Paris: Hachette.

Perrot, J. 1997. Les recherches de 1968 à 1979. In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une mission en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN, 180–192.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

14:5

5 11

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7813

1565

8032

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1565

8032


62

Pézard, M. and Pottier, E. 1913/1926. Catalogue des Antiquités de Susiane au musée du Louvre (Mission J. de Morgan). Paris: Musées nationaux.

Scheil, V. 1937. Les fouilles et l’histoire de la Babylonie, de l’Assyrie et de l’Elam, Conférence faite le 8 mars 1911 au Comité de l’Asie Française. In: Au service de Clio. Chalon- sur- Saône, 15–50.

Spycket, A. 1997. Les collaborateurs de Jacques de Morgan. In: Chevalier, N. (ed.) Une mission en Perse 1897–1912. Paris: RMN, 126–131.

Steve, M.-J., Gasche, H. and De Meyer, L. 1980. La Susiane au IIe millénaire: à propos d’une interprétation des fouilles de Suse. Iranica Antiqua 15: 49–154.

Vanden Berghe, L. 1963. Les reliefs élamites de Mālāmir. Iranica Antiqua 10: 22–39.Will, E. 1981. Nécrologie: Roman Ghirshman (1895–1979). Syria 58: 212–214.

France and Elam - Routledge Handbooks

Documents

Transcript of France and Elam - Routledge Handbooks