LITMIR.BIZ

Fig. 1.2 An example of an intramural burial from the Main Mound, DF18 x13, the occupational level is not clear, the deceased might be on floor level or above it (Courtesy of the Penn Museum).

      Prior to excavations at Tepe Hissar, Schmidt surveyed and briefly tested the Islamic levels at the Damghan citadel (Schmidt 1933:329–331, 1937:11–12, figs. 4, 5). At Tepe Hissar itself, the mound of the Sassanian palace complex was drawn, its architectural details recorded, and the stucco ornaments of the columns in the colonnaded hall were restored (Schmidt 1933:455–470). In the course of both seasons, the staff was engaged in testing smaller sites nearby, such as Tepe Muman and Tarikh-Khaneh (both historic sites), as well as Shir-e Shian (a Chalcolithic site preceding Hissar IA; see also Ch. 6, Concluding Remarks). The team also made several long-distance reconnaissance trips to southern Iran and Luristan (Penn Museum Archives, box 21).

      B. Research Goals and Methodological Problems

      Schmidt’s main research goal was to excavate Tepe Hissar stratigraphically in order to establish a cultural sequence for the site and the region. He planned to “section the main complex from the highest point to the bottom of the culture deposit, at least in one square” (1933:336). However, the excavation of 1,637 intramural burials had greatly disturbed extensive sections of the original stratification, which, in turn, conflicted with the correct recording of the occupational levels (Fig. 1.2). Schmidt made little attempt to trace the burials to the strata from which they originated, but rather recreated the burial stratigraphy using overlying or underlying floors or walls.

      Similarly, superimposed construction phases were not clearly defined. Schmidt frequently identified structures as belonging to “somewhere between” different ceramic periods. A clear example of this problem is his description of Hissar III architectural remains (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) on the Main Mound (Schmidt 1937: figs.84, 86; see also Fig. 1.3). In describing phases (“levels”) 1 and 2 of these structures, Schmidt attributed Level 1 to Period IIIC (uppermost level) with incoherent foundations. Of the earlier phase he wrote (Schmidt 1937:155–56): “Level 2 (marked in black) has suffered by the numerous burials of later settlers, and of course, by the subsequent building activities. Most remains of this level belong to Hissar IIIB, but at several spots particularly at the eastern section of the excavation, structures attributed to this level may already have been inhabited during Hissar IIIA.…walls which may belong to the slightly later building phase of level 2…may actually have been built during the occupation of level 1, [and] are marked with heavy vertical lines.”

      With such problems, what building phases could he assign to Levels 1 and 2 and to what periods (IIIA, IIIB, IIIC) could he associate Buildings 1, 2 and 3 on the Main Mound? Schmidt eventually assigned them to Hissar IIIB based on the ceramic types in the graves associated with these strata, but he did so without delineating the subphases of construction of each building (for revision of building phases on the Main Mound, see Table 2.1, after Howard 1989a:56–59) and without checking to be sure the graves were, in fact, associated with these levels. This sort of ambiguity has made the Tepe Hissar project difficult to navigate for later scholars and has contributed to the lack of a final publication of this important site.

      Similar confusion is encountered when attempting to assign burials to specific chronological or cultural periods (Fig. 1.4). Schmidt based his periodization on his ceramic typology and not necessarily on stratified building phases or objects from building contexts. He argued that Period I burials contained only painted ware, Period III burials contained only burnished grey wares, while Period II burials contained both painted wares and grey wares. Sometimes the same burial was assigned to two different periods (e.g., square DF18 x1), no doubt because the contents of the burial (assigned to the end of Tepe Hissar, his Period IIIC), and the stratigraphic location of the burial (assigned to IIB) did not match up. In fact, his field registry indicates that Schmidt changed the periodization of the graves from the earlier to the later periods only after he returned from the field.

      Concerning Schmidt’s recording methods, his speedy recording of a large number of simultaneously excavated areas make his notes often incomplete or unclear. To his credit, he had several crews numbering over 250 people, each working in different areas of the site, so the fact that we have any usable records is remarkable. Not surprisingly, his staff of four field assistants could not supervise each area of excavation. Schmidt himself notes, “The excavation of 1932 had to be extremely flexible in order to cope with the problems. In the South Hill, Stratum II was being cleared while sections of the Main Mound were carried down to the principal occupational level of Stratum III, and a third unit of the crew started to slice the architectural levels of Stratum I in a test square of the past season, in order to penetrate to virgin soil and thereby determine the earliest traces of the settlement history,” (Schmidt’s field report, Tepe Hissar Season 1932: Penn Museum Archives, box 41). Schmidt does not clarify the nature of these problems, however, he may be referring to understanding the stratification of building remains.

      Schmidt generally registered objects on the same day that they were excavated. This system of recording proved to be useful for later researchers in that unprovenienced objects could be assigned a context (i.e., square, plot record, depth, level) if they were excavated on the same day as other objects that had been registered. In addition to registering the objects, each ceramic vessel was measured (in centimeters) for rim diameter and height, while each small find was measured for length and width.