Mohammed Heydari

François Desset

Massimo Vidale

A LATE 4 TH -EARLY 3 RD MILLENNIUM BC GRAVE AT SPIDEJ (EASTERN JAZMURIAN, IRANIAN BALUCHISTAN) BY

Keywords: Spidej, Bampur, Jazmurian basin, Baluchistan, Bronze Age

We present here the results of the excavation in 2003 of the most furnished grave found in Spidej (grave 125), in Eastern Jazmurian area (Iranian Baluchistan). Probably

Introduction

The archaeological site of Spidej (N 27°39′14″; E 59°59′26″; 714 m asl; see figs. 1 and 2) is located on the north-eastern fringe of the Jazmurian basin, some 55 km south of Bazman volcano, in the upper part of an alluvial conoid, nearby the junction of the floodplain with the mountain. Due to local volcanic activity, the site is surrounded by many hot springs.

After the report of illegal excavations going on in Spidej in 2001/1380 (probably inspired by the looters who had just started to be active in the Jiroft area at that time), M. Heydari (ICCHTO Sistan-Baluchistan) spent there 3 rescue campaigns in summer 2002/1381 (14 days), in summer 2003/1382 (103 days) and summer 2005/1384 (25 days)1 among the still active plunderers. The conditions were not secure, and the rescue operations had to be carried out faster than one would have wished.

In 2002, a survey was made around the site, in a strip of 40 km in length and 2 km wide, during which 18 sites, mainly prehistoric, were discovered.

The material found on the surface of the site and in the looting pits was also recovered and systematically recorded. Because of its bad preservation, one grave (n° 101), not disturbed, was also excavated in order to get a first insight on the local material culture and dating of the site.

In 2003, 37 other graves were excavated (Graves 102-138), including Grave 125 which is the main topic of this paper. Spidej was also recorded as a national monument (asar melli) while a watching station with a guard was built to protect the site from further destructions that could have been planned at night time. In 2005, the extent of the site was determined through a systematic series of test trenches, while a preliminary topographic map was drawn2 . The archaeological materials collected during these seasons in the site are currently held in the Museums of Zahedan and Chabahar.

Occupation periods at Spidej (see Pl. 2)

Through this rescue work, several occupation periods could be determined in Spidej, including: -a graveyard dating from the late 4 th / early 3 rd millennium BC to the 2 nd half of the 3 rd millennium BC (Graveyard A), as suggested by the abundant ceramics scattered on surface by the looters, and there recovered (see below); Grave 125 belongs to this graveyard and can be ascribed to its earliest occupation, around 3000 BC; -a late 3 rd / early 2 nd millennium BC graveyard (Graveyard B) according to the ceramics found there, distinguished by a peculiar incised decoration and displaying abundant comparisons with Shahdad; -a probable Parthian graveyard (with damb, or dry-stone tumulus structure); -and some Islamic remains, including notably a fortress (qalehye Spidej; Spidej is actually a deformation of sepid dej, "The white fortress") and a contemporaneous graveyard.

Description of graveyards A and B

The destructions caused by previous illegal excavations (at least 200 vertical looting pits as well as horizontal tunnels spoiled the site) had deeply disturbed the site. Moreover, the actual presence of armed looters during the official rescue activity limited the time of the dig and may have prevented the recovery of important details. Only well preserved (non-looted) graves were chosen for excavation, 30 in graveyard A, and 8 in graveyard B (38 all in all, from Grave 101 to 138).

Graveyard A

Graveyard A is located in the northern part of the Spidej basin (Pl. 2). Some graves were actually found from the present surface thanks to the still visible structures used to mark them, aligned cobbles forming squares (with sides of 3,5 to 4,5 m) or circles (3,5 to 4,5 m in diameter). These funerary constructions might have marked the original trampling surface of the cemetery, and are currently exposed by strong erosion, that locally removes one or more later alluvial layers, in some places 1 to 1,5 m thick.

Two types of graves were recorded: simple pit graves and catacomblike ones. Simple pit graves displayed a round or oval pit which, once filled, was covered with 5 to 7 stone slabs. Considering their funerary furniture, these graves were relatively 'poor', often containing only few ceramic vessels. However, being quite visible on surface, these graves had frequently been excavated and looted, disturbing most of the original layout and breaking the vessels.

Catacomb-like graves consisted in a round or oval pit closed with stone slabs, giving access to a chamber, sometimes closed also with slabs. Probably belonging to a more affluent part of the Bronze age society, these graves were more furnished than the simple pits and showed more variety in their assemblages: copper alloy artefacts (circular mirrors, pins, daggers, axes and compartmented stamps seals; on this last type of artefacts, see Heydari, Desset & Vidale 2018: seals n° 1, 2, 8, 12, 28 and 29, presented in this paper as coming from graveyard B), alabaster, chlorite, carnelian and lapis-lazuli beads, marble vessels and well-known but still mysterious small stone columns (three specimens found). These tombs and their goods were usually better preserved, perhaps because their deeper shaft and better construction protected the artefacts from rain infiltration and from the pressure of the closing slabs.

Considering the similarity of their ceramic assemblages, both these types of graves were probably used at the same time. As stated above, they can be preliminary dated between the late 4 th / early 3 rd millennium and the second half of the 3 rd millennium BC. The earliest graves (like 125, see below) were furnished with well fired / clinky fine mineral tempered grey/buff/orange ware, usually decorated with dark grey to black painted geometric patterns. This fine ware comes in few different shapes with many variations including hemispherical bowls (with different sizes), less common bowls with straight walls and small restricted goblets or low beakers with a distinctive, monotonous linear design. The best comparisons for these materials are with the pottery found in the Saidabad graveyard (Bampur 14), excavated by Mehdi Rahbar in 2003 (see below the comparisons section), and published in Persian.

Some graves were probably more recent and, when properly studied, might be ascribed to the second half of the 3 rd millennium BC, because of characteristic ceramic shapes such as the "scorpion bowls" (contemporary with Shahr-i Sokhta Period III and Konar Sandal South settlement), incised grey ware, globular vessels with tubular spout (found also in Shahdad and Mahtoutabad graveyards; see for example [START_REF] Desset | A grave of the Halil Rud valley (Jiroft, Iran, ca. 2400-2200 BC): stratigraphy, taphonomy, funerary practices[END_REF]: vessel n° i), pear-shaped beakers (cf. Shahr-I Sokhta Period II, phases 5A-5B, around 2600-2500 BC), high footed cups (found at the looted cemetery site of Mahtoutabad and recovered in other plundered sites of the Halil basin) and the use of excised, string-shaped decorative patterns below the rim reminding of similar pottery found at Chegerdak (Heydari et al. 2015: fig. 5, n° g). To these elements, we might add some carved (scorpion) chlorite vessel fragments (still unpublished), the small stone columns and a small copper alloy dog which finds precise parallels in Gonur Depe (ca 2200-2000 BC).

In the whole, the fine grey ware still remained the most common funerary furniture of this second phase, nevertheless displaying more frequently animal decorative patterns than in the previous centuries.

Graveyard B

Located in the western part of the Spidej basin, graveyard B is distinguished by stone-built gable roof graves. Eight graves of this kind could be excavated. The ceramics found here differ completely from those of graveyard A and may be ascribed to the late 3 rd / early 2 nd millennium BC. They were usually rougher, with reddish to orange paste. While vessels have almost no painted decorative pattern, they were incised with some interesting (and still unpublished) tree, human, solar or triangular-shaped figures and frequently stamp-sealed (cf. [START_REF] Heydari | Bronze Age glyptics of Eastern Jazmurian, Iran[END_REF] sealings n° 1 to 19, presented in this paper as coming from graveyard A). The closest comparisons available are with Konar Sandal North, Shahdad, Tepe Yahya IVA and Shahr-i Sokhta III-IV. The material recovered here includes also chlorite vessels fragments with geometric designs and some marble vessels. In general, graves from graveyard B were not as rich as in graveyard A. Some of them had also been looted in antiquity. A settlement possibly associated to this graveyard was located 3 km south-eastward, in the Pir Sohran valley, where similar sherds as well as some evidence of stone architecture could be observed.

Grave 125 (Graveyard A): excavation and stratigraphy

We chose to publish Grave 125 because it had not been disturbed by looters, displayed the most abundant funerary furniture of the entire cemetery, with not less than 59 artefacts (52 ceramics, four copper alloy/bronze artefacts, and three stone finds) and document an up to now rather poorly known period, around 3000 BC. The grave is located at 711 m asl, in the north-eastern part of graveyard A, and its coordinates are N 27°39′14″; E 59°59′27″.

The trench where Grave 125 was found measured 2 × 2 m. The first 15 cm (layer 1) were filled with a mix of loose dirt and sherds. From 15 cm to a depth of 80 cm (layer 2, 65 cm thick), the excavators found loose dirt and stones, and no potsherds. At the depth of 80 cm, two large stone slabs were encountered, which closed the pit of a grave. The 3 rd millennium BC surface of the graveyard was probably immediately above. From 80 cm to 185 cm (for a thickness of 105 cm), layer 3 was the filling of a vertical pit, distinguished by a very loose sediment mixed with sand. The vertical shaft, thus cleared, gave access to a lateral chamber (a catacomb-like grave), where, from a depth of ca. 185 to 210 cm (layer 4), the furnishings (59 artefacts) of Grave 125 had been deposited with the dead (see Pl. 3 and Pl. 4). Unfortunately, no bone remains survived in the chamber, perhaps due, as stated above, to the fluctuations of the water table, and the position of the body can be only guessed (see below).

Description and catalogue of the grave assemblage

The 59 artefacts found in the chamber (see Pl. 5 to 22) are currently kept in two Museums3 . In Zahedan part of the assemblage is at present on the general exhibit, in showcases which could not be opened during our study. Thus, although we had good pictures and drawings of almost all the assemblage and as we tried to present each object with standard graphic reproductions and the relative pictures, in the following catalogue are some inconsistencies. For example, of artefacts 125/37 and 125/58 we have no documentation; of 125/7 there is only one picture, while 125/14 lacks a photograph. Part of the assemblage was materially at our disposal: these are the vessels whose colours (paste and pigments) are recorded with the Munsell soil cards. The finds which were not directly accessible are those described, in the following catalogue, with more generic colour descriptions and less technological details.

Catalogue of grave 125 assemblage

The pottery of the grave, concerning the abundant number of bowls is made with fine ceramic pastes free from visible inclusions. The mediumand large sized bowls, at a preliminary visual inspection, seem to have been made with sequences of superimposed coils, fashioned and thinned at the potter's wheel, possibly, at least in some cases, formed with the aid of a flat spatula-like tool. Spatulas frequently left on the outer of the pots rhythmic series of fine, parallel marks. Given the fineness of the pastes, sometimes these marks may be confused with the chattering marks left by potters when they freehand trimmed the base and the lower walls of the vessels. The wide trimming of the base is a reasonably reliable indicator of the use of some kind of wheel.

Restricted beakers and small jars, and probably the smaller hemispherical and truncated cone-like bowls, were thrown directly on the potter's wheel in a single operation. The thicker and larger restricted jars were made with coarser pastes, formed with superimposed coils fashioned on the potter's wheel, than covered with a very fine slip or wash, and painted with dark pigments.

Most of the finer bowls are made in a fine grey ware, and fired in reducing conditions in piles that sometimes included specimens painted in different designs (e.g. fig. 13, 125/20). The control of the reducing atmosphere might have been partial (purposefully or not), because in the whole assemblage one sees a gradual transition from grey to light buff or even slightly reddish shadows.

Black-burnished ware pots are the coarsest ones, made with coils and heavily polished on the outer surfaces.

Comparisons and dating (see Pl. 23)

Ceramic comparisons with Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Yahya / Kerman and the Kech-Makran chronology allow us to date Spidej grave 125 around 3000 BC (between 3200 and 2800 BC). Vessels 125/7, 8, 10 and 11 share the biconical profile, the firing in strongly reduced conditions and a careful polishing of the surface as pots found in the oldest graves and occupation layers of Shahr-i Sokhta and labelled "Black burnished ware". Many tombs, at Shahr-i Sokhta [START_REF] Piperno | The Shahr-i Sokhta Graveyard (Sistan, Iran). Excavation Campaigns 1972-1978[END_REF] 1102/8207 and 8208 (p. 349). In all these contexts, these jars are found with ceramics clearly ascribed to Period I (calibrated radiocarbon dated to 3100-2900 BC). In Grave 1002, a biconical black burnished jar is the sole furnishing (p. 341), and in another case (Grave 2/6398, p. 27) the same type appears together with ceramics datable to Period II, phase 5A, ca. 2600 BC4 . These small biconical grey/black burnished jars were also found in Damin5 and Bampur 14 / Saidabad (see below).

The large lozenge-shaped bead of grey chalcedony, 125/54, is also common in the burials of Shahr-i Sokhta I. See, in Piperno & Salvatori 2007, Grave 710/7576 (p. 245); Grave 747/8509 (p. 315); Grave 748/8514 (p. 316); Grave 754/8555 (p. 325); Grave 750/8561 (where the bead type appears with a black-burnished biconical jar: p. 326-327).

In Kerman province, Tepe Yahya display few but significant similarities with a small subglobular jar, found in IVB.6 context but probably older ('intrusive black on buff ware'; Potts 2001: fig. 3.9, n° i and Mutin 2013: fig. 3.38, n° 1 / Yahya 0905, who includes this ceramic in his Southeastern Iranian Plateau / SEIP group) and which may be compared to our vessels 125/21, 22 and 40. Belonging also to these intrusive black on buff ware found in IVB.6 layers are two hemispherical bowl fragments (Potts 2001: fig. 3.7, n° f and g) displaying exactly the same decorative pattern under the rim as many bowls found in Spidej grave 125.

While the material found in grave 125 might present some general similarities with the 'local' / non Uruk-related painted assemblage found in Mahtoutabad III (Desset et al. 2013: 38-43), in a grave recently excavated by N. Eskandari in Varamin (6 km south-west of Konar Sandal South in Jiroft plain) and dated around the late 4 th / early 3 rd millennium BC (Eskandari, Hessari, Vidale & Desset, ongoing research), some bowls (vessels n° 31, 32 and 52) were identical to Spidej grave 125 hemispherical bowls with their outside painted decoration under the rim and their inside central decoration. Some general features are also shared between Spidej grave 125 and Makran period IIIa, phase 2 ceramics, in the late 4 th millennium BC, such as the fine black painted grey ware hemispherical bowls (Didier & Mutin 2013: fig. 4, n° 6 and 7; to be compared with our 125/49 notably).

In Khurab, Katukan and Damin, Stein excavated some graves showing some similarities6 with Spidej grave 125 assemblage, while the low beakers or goblets 125/1, 4, 9, 12, 23, 28, 32, 33, 38, 46 and 59 are almost identical, for form and decoration, to a type of small vessel found during illegal excavations in graveyards of central Baluchistan, dated to ca. 3100-2800/2700 BC7 .

The best comparison for Spidej grave 125 is nevertheless to be found in the graveyard of Bampur 14 / Saidabad (Rahbar 1382(Rahbar /2003[START_REF] Rahbar | Gozaresh moqadamatiye fasl avval e kavosh e mohavateh 14 Bampur (gourestan), Daneshgah Sistan o Baluchestan, gorouh bastanshenasi ba hamkariye Sazman e Miras Farhangiye keshvar[END_REF][START_REF] Rahbar | Gozaresh moqadamatiye fasl avval e kavosh e mohavateh 14 Bampur (gourestan), Daneshgah Sistan o Baluchestan, gorouh bastanshenasi ba hamkariye Sazman e Miras Farhangiye keshvar[END_REF], located some 7,6 km west / south-west of Bampur archaeological compound and some 67 km south-east of Spidej (27° 9'45.71"N / 60°23'5.03"E). 15 graves were excavated here in 2003, some of them were just simple pits while some displayed circular or square/rectangular built mud bricks or chineh walls.

In several graves, more than 100 artefacts could be found far outnumbering the 59 artefacts found in Spidej grave 125. The funerary furniture included copper alloy artefacts such as knifes (khenjar), vessels or mirrors, stone beads, marble vessels and one stone column. Ceramic vessels were mainly red and grey fine ware with black painted decoration. As in Spidej and on some vessels found in Makran, on some vessels could be observed the negative patterns impressed during the firing, due to the stacking of the ceramics [START_REF] Rahbar | Gozaresh moqadamatiye fasl avval e kavosh e mohavateh 14 Bampur (gourestan), Daneshgah Sistan o Baluchestan, gorouh bastanshenasi ba hamkariye Sazman e Miras Farhangiye keshvar[END_REF](Rahbar /2017: 64): 64).

Rahbar [START_REF] Rahbar | Gozaresh moqadamatiye fasl avval e kavosh e mohavateh 14 Bampur (gourestan), Daneshgah Sistan o Baluchestan, gorouh bastanshenasi ba hamkariye Sazman e Miras Farhangiye keshvar[END_REF](Rahbar /2017: 65): 65), while mentioning the ceramic comparisons between Bampur 14 and Shahr-i Sokhta II/III, stated that the best match was to be found with Spidej and that the Bampur 14 graveyard could be dated from 3000 BC to 2300 BC, which is more or less our estimation for Spidej graveyard A (see above).

Consequently, since Spidej grave 125 assemblage -does not display the well-known tronconical footed beakers characteristics of the early/middle 4 th millennium BC assemblages in South-Eastern Iran and Baluchistan; -does not display the well-known ceramic shapes attested in the 2 nd half of the 3 rd millennium BC usually decorated with vegetal/animal painted patterns (which explains the lack of comparisons with Bampur and Shahdad8 ) such as the canister jars, pear shaped beakers, scorpion bowls, footed cups and globular pots with tubular spout; -may be related to Shahr-i Sokhta I, Tepe Yahya IVC (and Varamin grave) and Kech-Makran IIIa (phase 2); all in all, Spidej grave 125, may be confidently attributed to the late 4 th / early 3 rd millennium BC (3200-2800 BC), around 3000 BC. With the still partially and Persian published Bampur 14 / Saidabad graveyard, this grave and its assemblage are currently our best and most secure documentation for this period in Iranian Baluchistan.

Grave architecture, spatial setting of the objects and rituals of deposition (see Pl. 3 and 24)

The grave's chamber is subrectangular, with a north-west to south-east orientation. The north-western part is void of artefacts, while in the opposed part the objects are densely packed and often superimposed in piles. Due to the contingencies of the dig, the exact location of the vertical access shaft and the entrance to the chamber could not be located, but possibly the access was on the north-western side of the excavated cavity. In fact, it might seem more likely that restricted pots 18, 19, 48 and the largest container, necked jar 47, were deposited first in the rear of the grave chamber, particularly if they contained liquids.

The spatial setting of the 59 artefacts recorded in the grave seems to have followed certain depositional rules (Pl. 24) during the funerary ceremony. In catacomb graves of southern and south-eastern Iran, for example at Shahr-i Sokhta [START_REF] Piperno | The Shahr-i Sokhta Graveyard (Sistan, Iran). Excavation Campaigns 1972-1978[END_REF], bronze artefacts, cosmetic holders and other valuable items are often placed near the head of the dead who was usually deposited facing the entrance, thus it is possible that the body was placed in the gap visible between the main cluster, the cranium resting near the knife 55 and the beads 54 and 55. But this, like for the access, remains a conjecture.

If our hypothesis about the entrance of the chamber and the body location are correct (Pl. 24), then the introduction of the furniture in the grave probably started with a line in the southern part of the grave formed by two couples of larger restricted or painted pots (in red; from west, necked jars 47, the largest vessel of the grave, and 48; then necked jar 19 and pot 18). These vessels are accompanied by three hemispherical bowls (20, 49 and 50; in yellow) and by two more painted beakers, 58 and 59 (in blue).

The metallic and stone artefacts (in grey) were then probably placed near vessel 18, possibly before the deposition of the body.

After the body was introduced in the grave, a new depositional pattern started with several piles of grey-to-buff painted bowls (in green and yellow) placed one inside the other and associated to small bowls (in yellow) and painted beakers (in blue). Along the north-western wall of the chamber, a pile is formed by bowls 13, 5 and 4; a line of four black burnished jars (7, 8, 10 and 11, in dark grey) separates these pots from another group including respectively bowls 15 and 14 and 17 and 16, that might have belonged or not to a single pile. Both groups / piles (13, 5 and 4 vs. 15, 14, 17 and 16) are accompanied by a couple of the slightly restricted painted beakers (in blue) that are the most common ceramic type in the assemblage. The first group also includes a cone-like restricted jar with carinated shoulder (3, in red).

A second large pile is formed by bowls 27, 26 and 25. On top of these were placed the restricted beakers or small subglobular jars 21, 22, 23 plus a small hemispherical bowl, 24 (in yellow). The small bowls 29 and 30 (in yellow) and a larger restricted beaker, 28, were deposited west of this pile. The impression is that painted beakers (in blue) accompanied bowls (in green and yellow) after a complementary role in the rituals of deposition.

This impression is supported by the last pile, where after the first and large bowl 39 was offered, beaker 38 and then bowl 31 were deposited, followed by beakers 32 and 33 and bowl 35, on which were laid beakers and bowls 37 and 36. The position of these latter beakers might have been unstable, and perhaps we have to hypothesize that between these latter and bowl 31 there was some decayed organic material. The pile was finally topped by bowl 34. Bowls and beakers, therefore, seem to have been deposited in couples, or in alternate sequences. At the western end of the chamber, the piled bowls 44, 42 and 43, accompanied by beakers 40 and 46 and by the small hemispherical bowls 41 and 45 seems to re-propose the same pattern.

On the whole, three copper alloy axes and a knife, plus the abundant pottery, witness a costly funeral, perhaps performed by a substantial congress. If the two couples of larger restricted or painted pots (18, 19, 47 and 48) and the metallic and stone artefacts probably deposited before the dead may have played a specific (ritual ?) role during the funerary procedure, perhaps as the private property of the dead or as a display of his/her wealth, the four piles of vessels subsequently placed were probably the remains of his/her relations with the living. They might have represented separate or parallel events, perhaps individuals organized in four groups (families ?) repeatedly placing in the grave the same coupled vessels (simplifying the matter, bowls plus beakers; food offerings / share of a funerary banquet ?), accompanied by peripheral small hemispherical bowls. In this second stage, the single and well delimited row of 4 biconical black-burnished jars (7/8/10/11) is probably far from casual and probably played a specific role. Future excavations should try to determine what their content might have been.

Conclusion

Grave 125 in Spidej graveyard A shed light on a poorly documented period in Iranian Baluchistan, around 3000 BC, with a coherent corpus of 59 artefacts variously related to Kerman, Sistan, Iranian Baluchistan and Pakistani Makran.

As the analysis of the depositional sequence of the furnishing may lead to hypotheses about its function, it should be stressed here that, facing the persistent lack of enough well controlled excavations and well stratified archaeological material, excavations and publications of graves (ensembles clos) well furnished with complete ceramic vessels, documented as far as possible by 14 C dating, seem a rather efficient and low-cost strategy to progress in the basic ceramic typo-chronology of an area. This is a path we will follow in further publications.

Pl. 15. Drawings of small biconical greyware jars, small subglobular jars with hatched painted decoration and slightly restricted beakers with rectilinear painted decoration.

  have this type of vessel: Grave 116/6616 (p. 160), 128 inf./7102 and 7103 (p. 172), Grave 129/7110 (p. 173), Grave 135/7491 (p. 184), Grave 139/7530 (p. 189), Grave 708/7564 (p. 243), Grave

With the help of Reza Ganjali, Mohammad Reza Mollashai, Ahmad Rezasheikhi, Hossein Pourmand and Mehdi Minaei.

See Heydari 2006/1385 for a preliminary report concerning Spidej.

We want to thank here Ms. Atefe Bazzi, Ms. Samira Naroui and Ms. Somaye Dorakzadeh for their collaboration in drawing the ceramics.

On the Black burnished ware found in Shahr-i Sokhta, see alsoSajjadi 2003: fig. 24 and 29. On this type of ceramic in south-eastern Iran and its hypothetical relation with north-eastern Iran, seeMutin 2013: 114.

Tosi 1970: 22 and fig. 9a-d, 41 and 42: pots 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Stein 1937: pl. XV, Dmn.01 (Damin), pl. XVII, n° A.117 (Khurab), pl. XXXII, n° 8 (Katukan) and 10 (Khurab).

See Franke & Cortesi 2015: Cat. 448. The same pattern is also recorded in a similar and contemporaneous small container, but with a sub-cylindrical body: ibid.: 204, Cat. 386.

See de Cardi 1970 and[START_REF] Hakemi | Shahdad, Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran[END_REF]

Pl. 1. General map of the sites mentioned in the text.

Pl. 3. Schematic plan of grave 125. Pl. 4. Picture of the excavation of grave 125.

Pl. 5. Drawings of hemispherical bowls (part 1).

Pl. 6. Pictures of hemispherical bowls (part 1).

Pl. 7. Drawings of hemispherical bowls (part 2).

Pl. 8. Pictures of hemispherical bowls (part 2).

Pl. 9. Drawings of hemispherical bowls (part 3).

Pl. 10. Pictures of hemispherical bowls (part 3).

Pl. 11. Drawings of hemispherical bowls (part 4).

Pl. 12. Pictures of hemispherical bowls (part 4).

Pl. 13. Drawings of small and low hemispherical bowls.

Pl. 14. Pictures of small and low hemispherical bowls.

Pl. 16. Pictures of small biconical greyware jars, small subglobular jars with hatched painted decoration and slightly restricted beakers with rectilinear painted decoration.

Pl. 17. Drawings of various vessels (part 1).

Pl. 18. Pictures of various vessels (part 1).

Pl. 19. Drawings of various vessels (part 2).

Pl. 20. Pictures of various vessels (part 2).

Pl. 21. Drawings of the metallic and stone artefacts.

Pl. 22. Pictures of the metallic and stone artefacts.

Pl. 24. Spatial analysis of the location of the funerary furnishing in grave 125.

Pl. 23. Ceramic typological comparisons between Spidej (grave 125), Bampur 14, Damin, Khurab, Katukan, Tepe Yahya, Shahr-i Sokhta and Central Baluchistan / Makran (?); the vessels are not on the same scale.


Godin Tepe

Desset

An ArchITecTurAL PATTern In LATe fourTh-mILLennIum Bc weSTern IrAn: A new LInk BeTween SuSA, TAL-I

Keywords: Architecture, uruk phenomenon, Proto-elamite phenomenon, Iran, Godin Tepe, Tal-i malyan, Susa

This paper presents a recurrent architectural pattern-unnoticed up to now-observed in late fourth-millennium Bc strata at the Iranian sites of Susa, Tal-i malyan, and Godin Tepe. on the basis of this evidence, the article proposes some considerations for understanding aspects of the period characterised by the so-called "Proto-elamite phenomenon".

I. InTroducTIon

The fourth millennium Bc is an important moment in world history, fascinating because, from many points of view, it presages the origins of our current way of life. In these centuries, cities such as uruk/warka, Tell Brak, and hamoukar appeared in mesopotamia (uruk/ warka reaching 250 ha at the end of the uruk period). writing systems were invented in southern mesopotamia and on the Iranian plateau 1 and what might be called a material proto-globalisation-the "uruk expansion"-was attested from Syria and Turkey to eastern Iran (fig. 1).

Since Algaze presented his concept of an uruk expansion, 2 the responses of the archaeological commu-1

The main current hypothesis considers the Iranian Protoelamite writing (Pe writing) as a "daughter" of the southern mesopotamian proto-cuneiform one. from radiocarbon datings and logical arguments, I recently proposed to view these writings as "contemporaneous sisters" (desset 2012: 63-81; see also Petrie, forthcoming, a and b, who is close to this statement: "It appears increasingly likely that we have evidence for a partially overlapping development of the mesopotamian and Iranian proto-literate scripts"/"Questions are now also being posed about the precise chronological relationship between the uruk and Proto-elamite phenomena, and the possibility that there was some degree of contemporaneous development for the two traditions during the late fourth millennium Bc") [desset's emphases].

2 Algaze 1989. nity can be reduced to two different orders of hypothesis:3 a minimalist one, for which the similarities in material culture assemblages are simply due to general cultural influence from mesopotamia, or the more specific viewpoint, advocated by Algaze and others, proposing that the uruk-related material was transported from mesopotamia northwards and eastwards by shifting human groups through a variety of processes.

At one level this archaeological phenomenon is mainly described in terms of influence from southern mesopotamia over its northern and eastern neighbours, achieved through the foundations of various colonies and outposts with the aim of controlling access to and acquiring raw materials.4 more recent trends in archaeological research, however, emphasise the complexity of the relationships between the proposed southern mesopotamian core and its peripheries, and place emphasis on local developments rather than external influences. 5 for example, the oval enclosure of Godin Tepe (phase VI.1) was initially perceived as an enclave of "Susian traders", 6 a place "occupied by people from lowland mesopotamia" or a "small diaspora community of uruk origin" existing "in larger f. d e S S e T T preexisting centers with the consent of local populations". 8 more recently, however, it has been described as an example of an "independent center with uruk contact", inhabited by "local leaders" influenced by lowland mesopotamia. 9 while such general interpretations help us to conceive this history, this paper is primarily intended to point out a material fact that, since the 190s, seems to have escaped attention: 10 an architectural pattern common to Godin Tepe VI.1 (the oval enclosure), Susa Acr. I.16, and Tal-i malyan ABc IV, ABc III, and TuV II. This link attests that material remains left by human societies, such as ceramics, glyptic, writing, 8 Amiet 1986: 1-3; Algaze 2005: 132; matthews (2013: 34) argues that the use of writing technology in the oval enclosure of Godin Tepe shows "the presence of at least a small group of uruk origin people". 9 rothman and Badler 2011: 113, 119; rothman 2013: 80, 84, 88-90; Petrie 2013b: 39. 10 The plans of the buildings dealt with here were first published in 191 for Susa (Le Brun 191), in 195 for Godin Tepe (weiss and young 195), in 196 for Tal-i malyan ABc IV and III (Sumner 196), and in 1980 and 1990 for Tal-I malyan TuV II (nicholas 1980, 1990).

or architecture, may be independent issues, thus calling into question the archaeological notion of a single coherent and recurrent (urukean/Proto-elamite) material assemblage.

II. The ArchITecTurAL eVIdence

II.1 Godin Tepe

In the western Zagros site of Godin Tepe a famous architectural compound, the oval enclosure (fig. 2), 11 was excavated in 193. Built in the last occupation phase of period VI (phase VI.1), 12 several radiocarbon dates 11 weiss and young 195; young 1986; Amiet 1986: 1; Badler 2002: 82-83; rothman and Badler 2011: 92-99; rothman 2013: 81-84; matthews 2013. 12 The oval enclosure was initially attributed to period V ("uruk"-related type material period), supposedly later than period VI, before excavators realised that the local Godin VI ceramics and the mesopotamian linked ones (Godin V) were contemporaneous (young 1986: 212). A new archaeological sequence was then proposed (young 2004: 648; rothman 2005: 59; rothman and Badler 2011: 82): -VI.3: phase with local material assemblage, prolonging period VII (was it necessary to make a distinction between period VII and phase VI.3 since they are theoretically characterised by a similar assemblage?); -VI.2: "uruk"-related artefacts appeared, while local material was still in use, before the oval enclosure was built (phase identified by Badler 2002 in op. B in the Brick kiln cut); -VI.1: the oval enclosure was built while "uruk"-related and local assemblages were still being used. situate its main occupation to between 3500/3350 and 3100 Bc 13 while, according to Badler, the last occupation floors of the complex are to be dated c. 3000 Bc. 14 13 Voigt and dyson 1992: 2: 134-35; young 199; wright and rupley 2001: 94-96; rothman and Badler 2011: table 4.2; desset 2012: 0: dahl et al. 2013: fig. 18.9; Petrie, forthcoming, b. f. d e S S e T T Partially excavated in an exposure of 550 m 2 , the oval enclosure appears to have had only one entrance, from room 4 (perhaps with a tower above), giving access to an inner courtyard (1) inside which were three very similar main rooms: 6, 18, and 22. 15 rooms 6 and 18 possessed a rectangular hearth built in the middle of a long wall with two doors equidistant on either side of the central hearth (there are also similar hearths in rooms 5, 1, 19, and 20). 16 These main rooms were decorated with several vertical niches 1 while two windows opening on courtyard 1 were set in the southern wall of room 18. charred beams discovered in room 22 indicate that the rooms of the Godin oval were generally covered by flat roofs built of wooden beams, branches, and pisé. Several walls in the oval enclosure are so large (nearby rooms 4, 1, 19, 20, 23) that they were perhaps used to support upper floors or a terrace.

Several construction sub-phases have been distinguished in the oval enclosure (sub-phases VI.1b, then VI.1a). The wall separating rooms 12 and 13 or the walls defining areas , 8, 9, and 11 were built in a second stage. It was also probably the case for room 14, whose construction might be linked to the addition of the partition wall between rooms 15 and 16 (originally, only two rooms with similar sizes gave access to room 18: rooms 1 and 15/16). finally, the doors between rooms 4 and 3, 3 and 2, 10 and 9, and 12 and 13 were all blocked, sealing off rooms 3, 2, 12, and 10.

Inside the complex, an "uruk"-related material assemblage was found, consisting of ceramic vessels, numeral tablets (one also displayed a logogram), and seals/sealings related to Susa Acr. I.1, according to Pittman. 18 Although the oval enclosure monopolised most of the "uruk"-related artefacts dug out in Godin Tepe (bevel-rim bowls [BrBs] and low-sided trays were also found outside this building), it also contained many local ceramics and a huge quantity of clay balls (notably 158 balls in room 18).

This architectural complex was previously mainly compared with mesopotamian examples, such as 15 The dimensions of rooms 6 and 18, as well as of rooms 1 and 15/16, were all characterised by a ratio of length to width of 1.6/1. 16 Two flues were also constructed behind the hearth in room 18.

1 Said to be "probably used as storage shelves" from ethnographic parallels (rothman and Badler 2011: 94; rothman 2013: 82).

18

In rothman and Badler 2011: 114. Amiet, 19 who compared it with Tepe Gawra XIII, forest, who saw the influence of a urukean pattern in the architecture excavated in Arlsan Tepe, Susa (Acr. I.1B), and Godin Tepe (the oval enclosure) 20 or matthews. 21 Several authors nevertheless noticed that the oval enclosure did not completely match these western comparisons. 22

II.2 Susa

In the excavations at Susa between 1968 and 198 under the supervision of J. Perrot, A. Le Brun was in charge of the trench Acropolis I. his excavations established an archaeological sequence including twenty-seven layers spanning the most ancient times of Susa, between the end of the fifth and the beginning of the third millennium Bc (layers 2-14/13), and illustrating the invention of writing from bullae and tokens to Proto-elamite (Pe) tablets. unfortunately, this very precise and meticulously recorded excavation was not documented by any radiocarbon dates, leaving only ceramic comparisons to link these layers to the middle eastern absolute chronology.

In Acropolis I, layers 16 to 14 (Susa III) are characterised by the presence of Pe tablets while the ceramic assemblage is partly modified after the stratigraphic hiatus with layer 1. The main ceramic types are still "uruk"-related ones 23 vessel also appeared in layer 16: "les gobelets à base en moignon/à pied massif" also known as pedestalbased goblet in Tal-i malyan. 24 The most specific glyptic styles are the Piemont/glazed steatite style and a more naturalistic one in which animals appear to be acting like humans.

Although the architectural remains discovered by Le Brun are not fully understood due to the limited excavated surface, levels 16 to 14 probably presented a succession of domestic structures. 25 In layer 16 (fig. 3), the rectangular room 0 (approximate dimensions: L: 5.3 m, w: 2. m; ratio length/width: 1.96) exhibited some features linking it directly to rooms 6 and 18 in the oval enclosure of Godin Tepe, especially a rectangular hearth built in the middle of a long wall with two doors equidistant on either side of the central hearth giving access to two rooms: 08 and 10/11/12. As the two different plans published by Le Brun show (see fig. 3), Le Brun's interpretation of the architectural sequence east of 0, disturbed by 24 nicholas 1990: pl. 13 u-bb ; Sumner 2003: fig. 22 s-ac. 25 Le Brun 191: 189-205; Stève et al. 2002: col. 416. erosion, slightly varied between 191 and 198. nevertheless, it seems these rooms were notably similar to rooms 15, 16, and 1 north of room 18 in the oval enclosure of Godin Tepe, since the Susa rooms were also subjected to several modifications.

II.3 Tal-i Malyan

The ABc and TuV occupations at Tal-i malyan, in the Iranian province of fars, date to the late fourth millennium BC (Middle Banesh period≈3300-3000 BC 26 ). At that time, Tal-i malyan was one of the biggest settlements on the Iranian plateau, with an estimated median occupation size of 50 ha, 2 before a 5 km for-26 See the numerous and coherent middle Banesh radiocarbon dates published in nicholas 1990: table 1; Sumner 2003: 55-56, table 13; Voigt and dyson 1992, 2: 131, 138; wright and rupley 2001: 9; desset 2012: fig. 2; dahl et al. 2013: fig. 18 . 3. Susa, Acropolis I layer 16, c. 3000 BC (from Le Brun 1971: fig. 33; 1978: fig. 35).

f. d e S S e T T tification wall was built at the beginning of the third millennium Bc (Late Banesh), enclosing an area of 200 ha.

Seven main Banesh architectural layers were excavated in Tal-i malyan: ABc V, ABc IV, ABc III, ABc II, TuV III, TuV II (all middle Banesh), and TuV I (Late Banesh). only the layers ABc IV, ABc III, and TuV II will be considered here (fig. 4). 28 In ABc IV and III, the width of the rooms, either square or rectangular, generally did not exceed 3 m, probably due to limitations on the length of the wooden beams used to roof them. rooms 6 (ABc IV) and 63 (ABc III), however, are larger and may have been covered in a different way. They might also have been unroofed courtyards, although their wellpreserved floors and wall coatings argue against such a hypothesis.

Two building sub-phases were identified in the 220 m 2 exposure of ABc IV. The earlier phase (phase IVB) consisted of the south-western corner of a rectangular building (rooms 64, 65, 66, and 6) against which was built (in a later phase-IVA) a double curved wall with stone foundations. The function of the small brick platform in room 64 remains uncertain while area 281, in front of the south-western entrance of the rectangular building, was probably not covered.

The 383 m 2 excavated surface in ABc III showed two main north-south walls running the length of the trench (walls 210 and 33). The western wall (wall 210) delimited two different areas: eastwards, a large building with painted walls where circulation was possible between each room (phase IIIc). To the west of wall 210, the walls defining rooms 269, 20, 21, 228, 229, 230, and 232 were built in a second stage (phase IIIB), while in the final stage (phase IIIA) three of the IIIB walls (walls 225, 226, and 22) were removed. The only access between these western and eastern parts was through a door between rooms 21 and 26. room 26 played an important role in circulation in the eastern building since it probably gave access both to a northern wing (rooms 211, 220, 222, 63, and 33) and a southern one (rooms 268 and 34). The walls and floors of the rooms in this level were covered in red, material were excavated in trenches ABc, TuV, GhI (deep sounding in h5), f26, XX, By8, h1s, TTw1, ee16, and TT-f. contemporary Susa then only reached 14 ha (without Apadana) or 20 ha (with Apadana).

for ABc, see Sumner 194: 160-64; 196: 103-6; 1988: 308-9; 2003; for TuV, see Sumner 196: 106-9; 1988: 309-11; nicholas 1990. yellow, and white coatings while some decorative panels with red, yellow, grey, and black painted geometric and floral patterns on a white background, unique in the art history of the Iranian plateau in such a remote era, were discovered on top of the fill of level III, which was added to prepare the area for the construction of architectural layer ABc II. 29 As at Godin Tepe and Susa, the ABc IV and III buildings included a number of rectangular hearths built in the middle of long walls 30 with two doors equidistant on either side (areas 6 and 63). This principle enables some tentative reconstruction of room dimensions when the location of the hearth is known (see fig. 5, the interpreted plan of ABc III, with reconstructed rooms 211, 268, and 35).

In TuV II, in an excavated area measuring 455 m 2 , two buildings were found near an eastern rectangular area (30), possibly a courtyard. The north-eastern building 31 was probably excavated completely and measured 14 × 10.5 m. Since it was preserved to a very limited elevation and was also disturbed by an intrusive trench, the thresholds were in general not observed, preventing a clear picture of this building's inner circulation. It seems, however, that this building might have been divided into four equal parts by two perpendicular dividing walls. rectangular hearths were built in the middle of a long wall in rooms 69 and 363.

one of the main disadvantages of the building plans revealed in the ABc trench is that, due to their size, these structures were not excavated in their entirety. The north-eastern building of TuV II may be helpful since it seems to be a smaller complete version of this type of structure (fig. 5). Levels IV and III of ABc revealed only the south-western corners of large rectangular buildings, characterised by a square corner room used to enable the circulation between the exterior 32 and two long rectangular rooms, eastwards and northwards (sometimes subsequently divided into smaller square rooms), giving access to probably one of the central areas (either a room or a courtyard) in these buildings, which displayed an significant rectan-29 nickerson 19. 30 Sumner 2003: 40. 31 Labelled "north unit" in nicholas 1990: 30, 34. 32 Sumner (2003: 24), suggested that room 64 in ABc IV might have been a stairwell leading to the building's roof or to a second storey, due to the brickwork structure found in the middle of that room. This structure was probably hampering circulation inside this room. 33 Sumner (2003: 31) convenience, this room will be labelled as a double doors central hearth (ddch) room.

At approximately the same period, a rectangular hearth built in the middle of a wall was found in Tepe yahya IVc2 (the "Proto-elamite" building) in room 6, 35 while several structures from Arisman (Area c, phase 6) have rectangular hearths built against a wall (but not centred; fig. ). 36 rectangular hearths built against long walls of rectangular rooms were also found in earlier contexts on the Iranian plateau, dating from the first half of the fourth millennium Bc, in level 9 of Tepe Ghabristan (rooms 406 and 40) 3 and at Tepe Sialk, phase III.4 (room 12). 38 This pattern reveals an intriguing architectural link between Tal-i malyan, Susa, and Godin Tepe. The similarity between the Tal-i malyan ABc III building and the main structure of the oval enclosure in Godin Tepe (rooms 14, 15, 16, 1, 18, and 19) goes beyond the ddch room pattern and is evident in the whole building, as compared plans may demonstrate more easily than a verbal description (fig. 8). 39 The Susa Acr. I.16 building, unfortunately, is too fragmentary to allow a similar comparison.

III.2 Hypotheses on the function(s) of the DDCH rooms

while a room may be used in different ways during its existence, during different seasons, and even on an hour-by-hour basis in a single day, the functions of a room may be approached generally through an examination of its built-in features and its movable furnish-2.2 m (ratio 1.86); in Susa Acr. I.16, room 0 measured 5.3 × 2. m (ratio 1.96). In these five cases, their length/width ratios reveal two groups. The first one, with a ratio between 1.60 and 1.65 (Godin Tepe rooms 18 and 6 and Tal-i malyan ABc III area 63), the second one with a ratio of c. 1.9 (Tal-i malyan TuV II room 69 and Susa Acr.I 16 room 0). The ratio c. 38 Ghirshman 1938-39, 1: pl. 60. 39 considering that the Tal-i malyan ABc III building was partially excavated, what did its complete plan finally look like? was it more similar to the Tal-i malyan TuV II edifice or to the smaller main structure of the Godin Tepe oval enclosure? ings, to the extent that such content is preserved in the archaeological record. 40 concerning the first class of remains, the ddch rooms are above all characterised by a centrally located hearth, 41 which can be further classified into one of two types (see fig. 9):

-flat hearths, as evident in Godin Tepe room 18, Tal-i malyan ABc IV room 6 (a rectangular hearth with a burned plaster surface replastered twice), and ABc III room 63 (several courses of bricks with a plastered surface, probably higher wing walls and perhaps a roof); -raised-box hearths, 42 weiss and young, 43 describing the Godin Tepe hearths, interpreted the first type of hearth as a heating hearth (in rooms 1, 18, 19, and 20) and the second one as a cooking/baking facility (in rooms 5 and 6), 44 where "the fire was built on top of the raised box and, once the box was thoroughly heated, the ashes then were swept off onto the lower surface and the box top used as a griddle" for baking or cooking. 45 The distinction between these two types/functions of hearth was not always so sharp, however, as shown by the raised-box hearth 22 in TuV III room 225 (see fig. 9/5), which was modified to a flat hearth in a second stage, before a new raised box was built. 46 In practical terms, the functional distinction between these two types of hearth is not so sharp, since a hearth used for cooking food will also heat a room and a fire built for heat and light can also be used for cooking. furthermore, ethno-archaeological studies have shown that sometimes living-room and kitchen functions take place in the same room. 4 nevertheless, the flat heating hearth and raised-box cooking/baking hearth dichotomy implies something about the function of the six ddch rooms identified above. Three of the rooms (Godin Tepe room 18, Tal-i malyan ABc IV room 6, and Tal-i malyan ABc III room 63) had flat (heating) hearths while the other three (Godin Tepe room 6, Susa Acr. I.16 room 0, and Tal-i malyan TuV II, room 69) had raised-box (cooking/baking) hearths. If the primary function of the flat hearths was 4 horne 1980: 23; kramer 1982: 105 and 119. on the other hand, wasilewska (1991) proposed to see in Tal-i malyan ABc IV and III (as well as in ABc II) the different stages of a temple characterised by "ceremonial altars"-not a very convincing hypothesis. to provide heat and light, such hearths would presumably be built in living rooms, in places to eat, sleep, receive guests, entertain, store clothes, and carry out domestic handicraft activity such as carving or weaving. Similarly, if the raised-box hearths were designed for cooking they would be found in kitchens, places primarily intended to store and prepare food. more speculatively, this functional distinction may reflect gender-based divisions in the use of space, such as "the kitchen is the domain of women; the living-room, of men" division observed in the ethnographic studies of traditional Iranian architecture. 48 Besides the built-in features, movable furnishings might help identify the function(s) of a room at the time when it was abandoned. In the rare cases of sudden destruction or hurried abandonment, studies of room contents are obviously relevant; in other situations, such as in Tal-i malyan ABc (V, IV, and III), where buildings were cleaned and levelled before the 48 kramer 1982: 102. construction of a new building, remaining artefacts are seldom immediately representative of the ways that rooms and buildings were used.

In Susa Acr. I.16 room 0, a copper hook and some ceramic vessels were found, 49 although the exact locations of the artefacts and their relationship to occupation surfaces is uncertain since many of them were only documented by the excavation square number where they were found. In Godin Tepe, 50 room 18 contained 158 unfired clay balls (which might have been used as weapons, loom weights, and/or blank tablets and sealings); fourteen beads; two bone tools; two stone spindle whorls; a ground stone quern; two lithic cores; some blades and flakes; some storage (notably for grains, wine and beer); cooking, serving, and eat-49 Le Brun 191: fig. 6 no. 14; fig. 62 no. 12. 50 rothman and Badler 2011: 99-106; rothman 2013: 83-84; see also the artefacts distribution plans in rothman and Badler 2011: figs. 4.22, 4.23, 4.24; rothman 2013: figs. 5.4 and 5.5; matthews 2013: fig. 1.4. Fig. 9. The two different types of hearths; no. 1: Godin Tepe VI room 18 (Weiss and Young 1975: pl. IIa); no. 2: Godin Tepe VI room 19 (Rothman and Badler 2011: fig. 4. 20); no. 3: Susa, Acr. I.16 room 707 (Le Brun 1971: pl. XIX.2); no. 4: Godin Tepe VI room 6 (Weiss and Young 1975: pl. IIb); no. 5: Tal-i Malyan, TUV III room 225 (Nicholas 1990: pl. 7a). A n A r c h I T e c T u r A L PAT T e r n ing vessels; and three numeral tablets, including one with a logographic sign. Inside Godin Tepe room 6, archaeologists found some serving ceramic bowls, a spindle whorl, a grinder, a quern, some lithic tools, and a sickle. In the ABc area at Tal-i malyan, 51 room 6 (ABc IV) contained a chert flake, some animal bones, and a few ceramic sherds, while room 63 (ABc III) yielded some lithics (blades, flakes), some ceramic sherds, a few shells, a fragment of nacre, a lump of slag; and under hearth 53, sixty bitumen beads, two nacre inlays, and a piece of mineral used to produce beads or cylinder seals. finally, in the TuV area, room 69 (TuV II) contained a spindle whorl, some remains of chipping stone activity, some faunal remains, some ceramic storage vessels, and a few ceramic sherds. from these artefacts, we can see these rooms contain a mix of objects relating to food processing (quern and grinder), storage, cooking, serving, and eating (ceramic vessels, faunal remains). There is more limited evidence of handicraft activities (spindle whorls for weaving and chipped stone tools and debitage). At malyan there was some evidence of shell-and nacreworking. A copper hook was found at Susa, a collection of bitumen beads was found beneath a hearth at malyan, and numeral tablets and a huge collection of unfired clay balls were discovered in Godin Tepe room 18.

The majority of these finds seem to be related to day-to-day household activity, but in addition, the evidence of food processing and consumption in combination with the distribution of the two types of hearths are a clue, I suggest, that one of the functions, among others, of these ddch rooms was the reception of guests. The ddch rooms may have been designed as a kind of formal standardised reception room, a bit like the megaron in second-millennium Bc mycenaean palaces or the parlour of a late nineteenthcentury house. on a day-to-day basis, however, these rooms were used for a variety of practical functions, varying according to the sites and the eras. In any event, it seems certain that the ddch rooms represent architectural conceptions and perhaps social practices that were widely shared in late fourth-millennium Bc western Iran.

IV. dIScuSSIon

IV.1 Archaeological implications of the DDCH rooms' architectural pattern on the Godin Tepe Oval enclosure

The existence of this widely shared architectural pattern has many implications, especially on our interpretation of the Godin Tepe oval enclosure, and also on our conception of the urukean and Proto-elamite phenomena in Iran.

At present there is no evidence on the Iranian plateau of any architectural layout comparable to what is observed in mesopotamia, as would have been expected in the case of a true colonisation of these highland territories by lowland populations. 52 Indeed, the only mesopotamian-style tripartite building in all of Iran may be in chogha mish in the late fourth millennium Bc (Protoliterate phase), although even this building is different from the contemporary urukean tripartite structures because of its central courtyard. 53 The buildings inside the Godin Tepe enclosure and at Tal-i malyan do not share the specific features of contemporary mesopotamian architecture. Architecture is always a local production. Buildings, after all, cannot be moved, contrary to furniture (in our case, ceramics, glyptic, tablets, and metal and stone artefacts) for which the certainty of local production remains uncommon. To discover, in several widely separated sites, a series of buildings that share a common architectural pattern, seems more meaningful than the shared presence of stylistically similar artefacts, which may have been produced somewhere else. 54 Similar buildings, separated by hundreds of kilometres (as the crow flies, 645 km between Godin Tepe and Tal-i malyan; 259 km between Susa and Godin Tepe; 464 km between Susa and Tal-i malyan), show a pattern of widely shared technical conceptions and indicate that these sites may even have shared social practices perhaps related to a common cultural identity. The hypothesis that the Godin Tepe enclosure represents a mesopotamian/urukean/Sumerian outpost established on the Iranian plateau (see above, Introduction) thus 52 contrary to habuba kabira and djebel Aruda in Syria, where all the material aspects of the southern mesopotamia way of living (and architecture among others) were fully used; in these contexts, the use of the term "colony" does not seem excessive.

IV.2 Independence of the various artefacts categories

The material aspects of a society's daily life are not necessarily intertwined in a monolithic structure. many, or perhaps even most, may have been adopted or evolved independently, at various speeds and through different processes, and in contexts whose contemporaneity is beyond our present ability to distinguish archaeologically. 55 In the case of ceramics, it appears that "uruk"-related types appeared in various regions of the Iranian plateau around 3500 Bc, sometimes without a clear break from previous traditions. examples of such gradual addition of uruk-related ceramics to a local assemblage occur at Tol-e Spid/Tol-e nurabad/Tal-e kureh (where the distinction between the late Lapui and initial Banesh phases is not easy to see), at Tal-i Iblis (in period IV, however poorly defined), and at Tepe Sialk (where "uruk"-related material is found in late Period III). nor is it certain if, or how many of, these uruk types actually have a western origin, that only a chronological anteriority based on absolute dating may prove. 56 Because of this lack of chrono-55 desset et al. 2013: 51. 56 See wright and rupley 2001 for the dating of the "uruk"related assemblages in southern Iraq. The anteriority of these material complexes west of the Iranian plateau is not supported by the data. The oldest radiocarbon dated assemblages of this type in mesopotamia, and in particular of BrBs (markers of the middle uruk phase) come from the sites of Abu Salabikh and Tell Qraya. Abu Salabikh dates range between c. 3650-3380 Bc and 3950-3660 Bc; while at Tell Qraya between c. 3900-330 Bc, 3940-3380 Bc, and 3950-3380 Bc (all calibrated, 95% probability). The radiocarbon datings of "uruk"-related layers at Tepe Sharafabad, Tol-e Spid, and Tol-e nurabad look contemporaneous with those of Abu Salabikh and Tell Qraya (Voigt and dyson 1992, 2: 129-30; Petrie et al. 2006: 124: weeks et al. 2006: 68; Petrie 2013b: 391).

To consider that all the so-called "uruk"-related ceramic types found on the Iranian plateau did not necessarily originate in mesopotamia may have serious consequences on the historical views expressed so far on this period. This possible paradigm shift was actually initiated by d.T. Potts (2009: 10-12) for the most emblematic "uruk"-related ceramic type, BrBs: "[...] should we in fact consider the possibility that [the BrBs] originated somewhere to the east of mesopotamia? [...] It is time to rethink our approach logical clarity, it is not apparent what meaning should be granted to the appearance of these wares across the Iranian plateau.

while the late fourth millennium Bc in the middle east is characterised by an unparalleled but still largely unknown process of inter-regional standardisation that affected the local ceramics assemblages at different moments and on different scales, the evidence assembled in this paper demonstrates that three western Iranian sites show obvious architectural similarities: Susa (Acr. I.16), Godin Tepe (phase VI.1), and Tal-i malyan (middle Banesh: ABc IV and III, and TuV II). nevertheless, as an example of the disconnection between the various material aspects of human societies stated above, Pe tablets were used in the buildings of Susa and Tal-i malyan, while only numeral and numero-logographic tablets were found in the oval enclosure of Godin Tepe, a pattern illustrating that the ddch architectural scheme was not linked to a specific writing system.

Because the radiocarbon dates from Godin Tepe and Tal-i malyan (almost no radiocarbon dates are available for Susa) are not accurate enough to determine the exact chronological relation between the strata containing the ddch buildings (anteriority/contemporaneity/posteriority) 5 and to explain this discrepancy between the Godin Tepe and the Susa/Tali malyan cases, two options seem worth considering:

-either the numeral/numero-logographic tablets (Godin Tepe) were not contemporaneous (even partially) with the Proto-elamite system (Susa/Tal-i malyan). This would mean that the architectural pattern revealed in this paper (the ddch rooms) was in use over an extended period; -or the numeral/numero-logographic and Prototo BrBs and to stop looking at them as non-indigenous, intrusive elements in the many local ceramic traditions in which they appear". for the time being, however, let us just state that the so-called "urukean" ceramic types found in Iran did not necessarily originate in mesopotamia and that only new radiocarbon dates could help us investigate the matter further. 5 due notably to a plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve between 3350 and 2900 Bc (Petrie 2013b: 388; Petrie, forthcoming, b), characterised as "an area of reversal in the incline of the calibration curve where dates that calibrate between 3350-3200 Bc end up appearing 'younger' than they should be in comparison to dates that calibrate between 3200-3100 Bc, which end up appearing 'older'" (Petrie, forthcoming, a). [I'm assuming 'bc' rather than 'Bc' is a transcription error?] A n A r c h I T e c T u r A L PAT T e r n elamite systems were contemporaneous (at least partially), 58 the Godin Tepe phase VI.1 (the oval enclosure) and Tal-i malyan middle Banesh phase thus belonging approximately to the same period, 59 when such an architectural pattern was notably in use. This latter option seems the most likely.

IV.3 The "Proto-Elamite phenomenon"

The "Proto-elamite" notion was originally created by Scheil 60 to qualify a certain type of tablet with regard to its specifically Susian nature (elam meant Susa in V. Scheil's mind). It is currently used to describe a period, a material horizon 61 /veneer 62 , and eventually a civilisation, 63 or more prudently an archaeological "phenomenon", generally conceived as a close consequence of the "uruk expansion" (concept of "secondary state formation/urbanization/writing development"). It is also believed that, between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third millennium Bc, a powerful political centre might have developed in fars (or in Susiana), surrounded by a series of peripheral outposts (such as Tepe Sialk or Tepe yahya) distinguished in terms of culture and language from the hosting communities, and devoted to intercepting and controlling the flows of strategic base materials. 64 finally, it is commonly accepted that the material expression of this phenomenon includes a specialised writing system and a distinctive glyptic style, with animals acting or performing like humans, and a peculiar ceramic style. 65 This last feature is, however, far from being ascertained. The published information on the discovery 58 As stated in desset 2012: 69-4. for the leapfrogging "semantic inflation" of the "Proto-elamite" notion, see Abdi 2003. 64 Potts d.T. 19: 29-30; Alden 1982: 621-24 ("Proto-elamite polity"); Amiet 1986: 11-19, 210-11 (who mentions a "Proto-elam"); Lamberg-karlovsky 1989: xi-xii; Potts T.f 1994: 64-86 ("a powerful and probably centralized politico-economic administration"); helwing 2004: 45-48; 2005: 50 (the Proto-elamite phenomenon "may represent a historical or political unit"); Quenet 2008: 113 ("nébuleuse proto-élamite centrée plus ou moins sur Anshan"). contexts of the Pe tablets is only available on five (Susa, Tal-i malyan, Tepe yahya, Shahr-i Sokhta, and Tepe Sialk) of the eight sites where these written documents have been found up to now (Susa, Tal-i Ghazir, Tal-i malyan, Tepe yahya, Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Sialk, Tepe ozbaki, and Tepe Sofalin; see fig. 1). Two of these five sites (Tal-i malyan and Shahr-i Sokhta) were not occupied before the levels containing the tablets. 66 The three other sites had a gap of variable duration between the layers with the Pe tablets and the previous horizons (the interruption was long between phases VA and IVc2 at Tepe yahya; probably shorter between levels 1 and 16 in Susa, Acropolis I, and between phases III. and IV.1 in trench 3 at Tepe Sialk South, separated by a thick layer of ash 6 ). To sum up, at present across the second half of the fourth millennium Bc Iranian plateau, there is no published archaeological context showing a continuous stratigraphic sequence in a site where Pe tablets were found, hence the distorted impression of a ceramic change associated with these tablets. There were potentially only evolutions in "uruk"-related and local assemblages (ceramics and glyptics), without any connection with the development of a new script. 68 The so-called "Proto-elamite phenomenon" only 66 This may not be the case in Tal-i malyan, however. Sumner (1988: 308) with reasoning based on the surface ceramics samples, stated that Tal-i malyan was in a way occupied during the Jari, Shamsabad, Bakun, and Lapui periods (sixth to the first half of the fourth millennium Bc), while Alden (2013: 219) recently argued that early Banesh sherds (c. 3400-3300 Bc) were found at least in two different areas of the site.

6 recent excavations at Tepe Sialk might have uncovered archaeological deposits where the gap described is not present.

68

It is generally assumed that the ceramics and the glyptic of phase IV.1 at Tepe Sialk are related to the uruk styles. Glassner (1998) and desset (2012: 16-1), however, showed that part of the tablets from this context are already Proto-elamite. does the stratigraphic association of a Pe tablet with a BrB modify the nature, considered up to now as "urukean", of this peculiar ceramic type? In the absence of a tablet, how can we distinguish an "uruk"-related BrB from a "Proto-elamite" one (Besenval 199: 18-19 writes of "proto-élamite" BrBs at miri Qalat IIIa, probably because of the late dating of the context, c. 3000 Bc, apparently contemporaneous with the "Proto-elamite phenomenon" rather than with the "uruk expansion")? Similar stalemates clearly show the need for a clear distinction between different and independent material aspects of the cultural systems under investigation.

f. d e S S e T T corresponds to the invention and use of a shared administrative technique (Pe writing) in a series of early urban sites on the Iranian plateau between 3300 and 3000 Bc, approximately in the same period when proto-cuneiform writing appeared in southern mesopotamia. Like the latter, the Proto-elamite system used the numerical systems and signs with numeric values of the pre-existing numeral/numerico-logographic tablets. we know that the new writing system was elaborated within communities which, for some still unknown reasons, shared with the west a certain number of so-called "uruk"-related ceramic types, but we still do not know if the new writing had a definite origin, why and how the writing was adopted and used by other early urban communities, and what intellectual links its inventors had with the administrators who invented the proto-cuneiform system in southern mesopotamia.

To consider late fourth-millennium Bc Iran through two very similar phenomena-uruk and Proto-elamite-but distinct because of the writing systems, appears to lead to an impasse. 69 There might not be a break between these phenomena, but rather only one phenomenon characterised by this still unexplained material (ceramics) standardisation, the common use in mesopotamia and Iran of the numeral/numero-logographic tablets giving rise in these two areas at the same time to two writing "sisters" (the proto-cuneiform and Proto-elamite systems) and to which should be added, as this paper has stated, the use of a common architectural pattern in western Iran (at least in Susa, Godin Tepe, and Tal-i malyan), which is clearly distinct from the mesopotamian ones.

Apparently running into each other, these various trajectories of standardisation and the differentiation of the material remains found in excavations are not identical. while we can just think through models based on regularities, reality remains hard to conceive, since it seems it did not obey any rules or any general historical movements, various material aspects sometimes contradicting themselves. It may sound quite defeatist, but a reduction of our claims to comprehension is required in the face of the lack of precision of our tools and the non-representativeness of the excavations and surveys. At least new material facts, such as the architectural pattern presented here, may help us to 69 Such as: "il est évident que la nouvelle écriture [Proto-elamite] exprimait la langue différente d'un peuple différent" (Amiet 1986: 91). catch a glimpse of the seeming complexity of this very fascinating period, leading us towards more restricted, more refined, less systematic, and less brilliant but less inexact statements.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. An archaeological map of late fourth-millennium BC Iran.

14

  Badler 2002: 89, n. 13.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Godin Tepe, the Oval enclosure compound, phase VI.1 (previously period V), second half/end of the fourth millennium BC (from Badler 2002: fig. 5; Rothman and Badler 2011: figs. 4.18 and 4.19).

Fig

  Fig. 3. Susa, Acropolis I layer 16, c. 3000 BC (from Le Brun 1971: fig. 33; 1978: fig. 35).

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Tal-i Malyan, Middle Banesh (late fourth millennium BC) architectural layers ABC IV, ABC III, and TUV II(Sumner 2003: figs. 9 and 12; Nicholas 1990: fig. 15).

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Interpreted plans of ABC IV, ABC III, and TUV II (restitution of ABC III based on the principle of the location of the hearths in the middle of the walls).

  1.63/1.64 in rooms 18 and 6 in Godin Tepe enables us to propose for room 22 a length of c. 6 m from its width (3.65 m). [not entirely clear what this means]

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. The late fourth-millennium BC western Iran architectural pattern: the double doors central hearth (DDCH) room.

  rothman and Badler 2011: 94; rothman 2013: 82. 45 nicholas 1990: 39. 46 nicholas 1990: 40.

Fig. 8 .

 8 Fig. 8. Compared architecture of the Tal-i Malyan ABC III building (left) and the main structure of the Oval enclosure in Godin Tepe VI.1 (right), late fourth millennium BC (the scales are not respected and the plans were "cleaned" from later additions and modifications).

  51for ABc IV room 6, seeSumner 2003: 24-25; for ABc III room 63, see Sumner 2003: 32; for TuV II room 69, see nicholas 1990: 113.

53

  Alizadeh 2008: 43-46, fig. 16. 54Aurenche 1981: 54. f. d e S S e T T appears even weaker because of this architectural link with Iranian sites.

  63

See Petrie 2013a for a clear updated summary on the state of play.

See inter alia,Algaze 2005.

helwing 2005: 52.

weiss and young 195:13-16. young 1986: 218.

 Le Brun 191: 192-93, 199-201; 203-5; 198: 183, 190; dittman 1986: 11.

See forexample carter 1984: 115;[START_REF] Glassner | Les tablettes dites 'urukéennes' de Sialk IV1[END_REF] Amiet 1992: 81; Sumner 2003: 1; helwing 2004: 46, 53; 2013: 9; Quenet 2008: 106.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank John Alden as well as maryam mohammadi, Sepideh maziar, and massimo Vidale for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Thank you also to cameron Petrie for his editing work.


Keywords:

Answer to Cardiotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials -An enigmatic discordance resolved

Joe-Elie SALEM, MD, PhD

Disclosures: None

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are revolutionary anticancer drugs approved in an expanding variety of cancer types. [START_REF] Geraud | Clinical Pharmacology and Interplay of Immune Checkpoint Agents: A Yin-Yang Balance[END_REF] ICI restore the activity of the immune system and primarily of T-cells to destroy neoplastic cells. [START_REF] Geraud | Clinical Pharmacology and Interplay of Immune Checkpoint Agents: A Yin-Yang Balance[END_REF] Currently, approved ICI are monoclonal antibodies blocking CTLA4 (cytotoxic Tlymphocyte associated protein 4) and PD1 (Programmed cell Death protein 1), which are immunecheckpoint brakes expressed on the T-cells. [START_REF] Geraud | Clinical Pharmacology and Interplay of Immune Checkpoint Agents: A Yin-Yang Balance[END_REF] ICI also include anti-PDL1 (PD1 ligand located on cancer cells) normally interacting with PD1 to tone-down T-cells. [START_REF] Geraud | Clinical Pharmacology and Interplay of Immune Checkpoint Agents: A Yin-Yang Balance[END_REF] Though, ICI may induce immune-related adverse events (irAE) with auto-immune reaction targeting potentially any organ and eventually being fatal in ~0.5-1% of ICI treated patients. [START_REF] Wang | Fatal Toxic Effects Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis[END_REF] IrAE, when symptomatic, are generally treated by withholding ICI and start of immunosuppressants including glucocorticoids in the first place. [START_REF] Wang | Fatal Toxic Effects Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis[END_REF] IrAE affecting the cardiovascular system mainly includes myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias and vasculitis. [START_REF] Salem | Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study[END_REF] Myocarditis is fortunately a rare event but is the top life-threatening irAE with fatality rates reaching up to 50% in the first cohorts reported. [START_REF] Salem | Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study[END_REF] Johnson et al. first described two fatal ICI-myocarditis cases with on autopsy, activated T-cells and macrophages leading to heart and peripheral muscles necrosis, providing the main pathophysiological processes of this novel condition. [START_REF] Johnson | Fulminant Myocarditis with Combination Immune Checkpoint Blockade[END_REF] Incidence of myocarditis have been estimated around 0.03% in first clinical trials evaluating ICI monotherapies and up to ~1% in real-life cohorts involving aware medical teams including oncologists and cardiologists. [START_REF] Salem | Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study[END_REF][START_REF] Johnson | Fulminant Myocarditis with Combination Immune Checkpoint Blockade[END_REF] But, with the increased use of ICI and the multiplication of cancer indications, numbers of deadly and glucocorticoids-resistant ICI-myocarditis have exploded, representing an important concern for clinicians and regulatory institutions. [START_REF] Salem | Abatacept for Severe Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Myocarditis[END_REF][START_REF] Moslehi | Increased reporting of fatal immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis[END_REF][START_REF] Amiri-Kordestani | Cardiovascular adverse events in immune checkpoint inhibitor clinical trials: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis[END_REF] Combination of ICI, including an anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1, have been repeatedly shown to be a risk factor for ICI-myocarditis using multiple study designs. [START_REF] Salem | Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study[END_REF][START_REF] Johnson | Fulminant Myocarditis with Combination Immune Checkpoint Blockade[END_REF][START_REF] Wei | A genetic mouse model recapitulates immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis and supports a mechanism-based therapeutic intervention[END_REF] First, an analysis of Bristol-Myers Squibb corporate safety databases as

of April 2016 showed a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis in patients who received combination therapy (an anti-PD1 and an anti-CTLA4; 8/2,974 (0.27%)) than in those who received an anti-PD1 alone (10/17,620 (0.06%); P<0.001). [START_REF] Johnson | Fulminant Myocarditis with Combination Immune Checkpoint Blockade[END_REF] Second, in a query of VigiBase, the WHO pharmacovigilance database, ICImyocarditis was overreported in patients treated with ICI combination therapy versus those treated with monotherapy (Reporting odds-Ratio=4.31[2.86-6.38]). [START_REF] Salem | Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study[END_REF] Thirdly, in an U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of 59 trials (N=21,664), ICI therapy was associated with higher rates of myocarditis, vasculitis, ischemia, arrhythmia, and pericardial disease compared to non-ICI therapy. [START_REF] Amiri-Kordestani | Cardiovascular adverse events in immune checkpoint inhibitor clinical trials: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis[END_REF] When ICI were used in combination (N=1,533), cardiovascular adverse events increased across most categories compared to ICI monotherapy (N=17,072), and particularly myocarditis (0.13% vs. 0.02%; Relative-risk=7.42). [START_REF] Amiri-Kordestani | Cardiovascular adverse events in immune checkpoint inhibitor clinical trials: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis[END_REF] Lastly, in preclinical models, the deleterious interaction between PD1 and CTLA4 was further confirmed. Wei et al identified a dose-dependent genetic and functional interaction between the T cellnegative costimulatory genes Ctla4 and Pdcd1, which manifests as fatal myocarditis in Ctla4 +/-Pdcd1 -/- mice contrasting with absence of this phenotype in Ctla4 +/+ Pdcd1 -/-or Ctla4 +/-Pdcd1 +/-mice. [START_REF] Wei | A genetic mouse model recapitulates immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis and supports a mechanism-based therapeutic intervention[END_REF] In this context, results of the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials by Agostinetto et al, showing no association between ICI monotherapies, or even ICI combination therapies compared to non-ICI controls patients stands out remarkably. [START_REF] Agostinetto | Cardiotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials[END_REF] Herein, we investigated the reason of such discordant findings.

Since ICI-myocarditis are rare events, many ICI trials did not report any such events in either ICI and non-ICI arms and these trials should not have been included in meta-analysis. Indeed, the Cochrane handbook (the well-recognized reference for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, www.training.cochrane.org/handbook) specifically states that for studies with no events in either arm (#section-10-4-4-2), the standard practice in meta-analysis of odds ratios and risk ratios is to exclude such studies. "This is because such studies do not provide any indication of either the direction or magnitude of the relative treatment effect. Whilst it may be clear that events are very rare on both the experimental intervention and the comparator intervention, no information is provided as to which group is likely to have the higher risk, or on whether the risks are of the same or different orders of magnitude (when risks are very low, they are compatible with very large or very small ratios). Whilst one might be tempted to infer that the risk would be lowest in the group with the larger sample size (as the upper limit of the confidence interval would be lower), this is not justified as the sample size allocation was determined by the study investigators and is not a measure of the incidence of the event. Bradburn and colleagues undertook simulation studies which revealed that all risk difference methods yield confidence intervals that are too wide when events are rare, and have associated poor statistical power, which make them unsuitable for meta-analysis of rare events (Bradburn et al 2007). This is especially relevant when outcomes that focus on treatment safety are being studied, as the ability to identify correctly (or attempt to refute) serious adverse events is a key issue in drug development. Furthermore, it is likely that outcomes for which no events occur in either arm may not be mentioned in reports of many randomized trials, precluding their inclusion in a meta-analysis". This recommendation was not respected in the metaanalysis by Agostinetto et al, leading as expected to falsely negative results. [START_REF] Agostinetto | Cardiotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials[END_REF] When reperforming the meta-analysis after removing the trials with no events in ICI and non-ICI arms, and keeping the same events data extracted, [START_REF] Agostinetto | Cardiotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials[END_REF] results are much different and confirm the well-consolidated association between ICI and myocarditis (Risk-ratio~2.3-2.7, with significance depending on type of model used (fixed or random effects models) and possible correction methods for ICI monotherapies vs. non-ICI groups in Figure-1). Lastly, Agostinetto et al. only extracted the adverse events data from publications whereas results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov especially adverse events and serious adverse events are generally more completely reported. [START_REF] Riveros | Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals[END_REF] Therefore, reperforming a more comprehensive meta-analysis with methods adapted to rare events and search of clinical trial registers as ClinicalTrials.gov might be desirable to further assess cardiovascular toxicities spectrum induced by ICI.

Forest-plot for myocarditis events in single immune checkpoint inhibitors group (ICI) versus non-ICI group. Meta-analysis was performed after adding 0.5 cell only to studies with no event in one of the two compared groups (ICI vs. non-ICI) but after excluding the studies with no event in both groups (A); and using the correction proposed by Sweeting applying the reciprocal of the opposite arm size (B).

A B

1000 words 10/10 references 1 Figure

  [START_REF] Geraud | Clinical Pharmacology and Interplay of Immune Checkpoint Agents: A Yin-Yang Balance[END_REF] ; Stephane EDERHY, MD 2 ; Agnès DECHARTRES, MD, PhD[START_REF] Salem | Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study[END_REF]

	Correspondence: Joe-Elie Salem, M.D., Ph.D, Centre d'Investigation Clinique Paris-Est, Hôpital Pitié-
	Salpêtrière, Bâtiment Antonin Gosset, 47-83 Bld de l'hôpital, 75013 Paris, France. Secretariat: +33 1 42
	17 85 31, Fax: +33 1 42 17 85 32; Email: joe-elie.salem@aphp.fr
	1 Sorbonne Université, INSERM, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Department of Pharmacology, CIC-
	1901; Sorbonne Université, INSERM, APHP.Sorbonne UNICO-GRECO Cardio-oncology Program, F-75013
	Paris, France.

2 Sorbonne Université, INSERM, AP-HP, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Department of Cardiology, CIC-1901; APHP.Sorbonne UNICO-GRECO Cardio-oncology Program, F-75013 Paris, France. 3 Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, UMR-S 1136, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Département de Santé Publique, Paris, France 968/