LITMIR.BIZ

Fig. 1.4 Schmidt’s plots of burials from locations on the Main Mound at Tepe Hissar drawn East-West. Note the lack of correlation between building levels and burials (after Schmidt 1937).

      The excavation and the system of recording the finds, burials, remaining structures etc. at Tepe Hissar were based on a detailed topographical map with half meter contour intervals, on the survey of which I had to start right away. An arbitrary center point was fixed on the mound and concreted. Through this point lines were run north and south, west and east, which were marked every 100 meters with pegs. Through these pegs, lines were run at right angles and again marked every hundred meters with pegs. Thus the whole area of the mound was covered with 100-meter quadrants. Each row of quadrants was then defined with capital letters: A, B, C, D etc.; starting with “A” at the northwest corner of the map and running along the west-east line and also the north-south line. Each quadrant could be divided into 10-meter squares. These squares were defined with numbers starting at each quadrant with 0, 1, 2…to 9 and running west-east and north-south.…Four quadrant corners were cemented to serve as benchmarks. BM1 was given the elevation of 10.0 meters on which the elevation of the contours was based. Each find was given a ‘Field Number’ in numerical order. This field number was preceded by the letter “H” (for Hissar). The 10-meter excavation-squares were marked out on the ground, based on the letters and numbers as stated above. The finds were recorded in relation to the quadrant and the number of the test square in which they were found. (Leitner, July 1990, prepared at the request of Robert H. Dyson Jr., Penn Museum Archives)

      According to the field notes of Schmidt and Leitner, find-spots of objects (given ‘plot record’ [pr] numbers) were recorded horizontally, while the strata in which burials were found were indicated by meter-levels below datum point. Although plot-record designations for at least some objects are in the field register, the find-spot data kept in the surveyor’s notebooks for each excavated square were unfortunately damaged in a flood and are now unreadable. Thus, the exact horizontal distribution of many objects is unknown. Additionally, on the original burial sheets, the location of burials in relation to building remains (walls, floors, etc.) is often incoherent.

      Burials are frequently described as being “slightly below or above” a certain building level, while the building level itself has a depth of 1.0 to 1.5 meters. Thus, burials and objects are literally floating in space, as can be seen in some sections and plans in the 1933 and 1937 publications (Fig. 1.4). This ambiguity in correlating building levels and burials arises partially from the fact that the topographic map of Tepe Hissar was completed after the start of the excavations, so that exact find-spots and measurements in relation to the fixed datum point were not accurate.

      Over Schmidt’s two field seasons at Tepe Hissar, roughly 10,700 square meters were excavated. The distribution of areas tested and excavated from the three periods is uneven, as shown on Schmidt’s topographic maps (1937: figs. 21, 61, 83; see also Fig. 1.5). The Hissar I level, the earliest of the three periods, was reached at various places throughout the mounds, but more extensively uncovered on the Painted Pottery Flat (Schmidt 1937: figs. 22–24). Hissar II remains were excavated more extensively than the preceding period on the Main Mound and the North Flat, as well as on the South Hill, the Twins (southernmost), and Treasure Hill (eastern edge of Tepe Hissar) (ibid., figs. 63, 64). For the later Hissar III level, the test areas were the same as Period II, although plans of Period III buildings were uncovered in only three areas: the Main Mound, the North Flat, and Treasure Hill, where horizontal exposures revealed diagonally-oriented, contiguous rectangular buildings (ibid., figs. 84–86, 102–104, 95, 100–101).

      Schmidt still managed to test and excavate a large portion of the site and established a chronological sequence based primarily on ceramic typology and the associated grave objects. Two major ceramic stages with subdivisions were identified stratigraphically: painted pottery in the lower levels (Periods IA, IB, IC, IIA, and IIB) and grey burnished pottery in the upper levels (Periods IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC). Thus, Periods IIA and IIB were defined by the presence of both painted wares and burnished grey wares. Schmidt encountered, excavated, and recorded a large number of graves, an activity that, for the most part, occupied his full attention and time. In retrospect, had he spent more time recording building remains and the sequence of episodes/phases relating to them, we would have a more complete picture of the development of the settlement, its functional nature, and, most importantly, a clear stratigraphic sequence independent of graves.

      In the 1931 season, as excavation proceeded, Schmidt formulated new research problems. One was the cultural implications of the transition from the painted pottery of the early levels of Hissar I to the grey ware tradition of Hissar II and III. His explanation was based on an invasion theory, with the invaders originating on the Turkoman steppes (Schmidt 1933:325, 367). Another problem was to investigate the circumstances of the end of the Tepe Hissar settlement in Period III. He was almost certain that the end was caused by “catastrophies, epidemics, or the like” (ibid., p. 235). Schmidt changed his mind when he re-dated the “mass burials” (as the cause of the settlement’s end) to Period IIIB instead of IIIC (ibid., pp. 235, 237). As shown in the present study (see Chapter 4), many of those “mass burials” from the Main Mound can be re-dated even earlier to Period II and some to the transitional Period II-III.