LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

1931, the sequence at Tepe Hissar was defined with three periods: I, II, and III. Schmidt points out (1933:364–365) that the most delicate phases of an excavation are those concerned with the top and bottom deposits of a “stratum” (i.e., cultural period), which often contain the clues for the beginning and the end of such periods. At the end of the 1931 season, he speculated that the people of Hissar II came as foreign invaders, while Period II then “faded” into Period III. He thought, on the evidence of mass burials, that Hissar III ended with an epidemic (ibid., p. 365). He recognized the need to deal with the terminology of these transitions, which he did in 1932 (see below).

      C. 7 Terminology

      The overall Tepe Hissar cultural and depositional sequence was divided by Schmidt in 1931 into three prehistoric cultural periods: Hissar I, Hissar II, and Hissar III (1933:355 n5) which he often referred to as Stratum I, II, and III (ibid., pp. 355 n5, 364–367). The use of the term stratum (in lower case) is somewhat confusing when not accompanied by I, II or III since it can refer to a depositional layer as commonly used in present-day reports (e.g., “any prehistoric stratum,” [ibid., p. 364]). Although using only Periods I, II, and III in 1931, Schmidt already indicates the need for additional terminology for transitional periods (provided in 1937 as IIA and IIIA), for the transition between Period I and II and between II, and III.

      Note that the cultural periods are based primarily on the occurrence of painted pottery and “early” or “late” grey ware. Deposits containing painted ware (such as refuse layers, floors, surfaces, occupational or building levels) are grouped together under the term Stratum¹ (or Period) I, II, or III. Since the term Stratum I, II, or III is ceramically defined, it is applied wherever the painted pottery occurs on the site. As a result, excavated squares may contain Stratum I materials in different areas of the site, but this in no way indicates an identical sequence of structures and deposits from area to area. Each square requires its own description and analysis, addressed in Chapter 4 of this study with the reconstruction of sections for each square.

      Regarding recording of architecture, in each excavation square the architectural levels encountered were numbered from the top down: “Level 1,” “Level 2,” etc. These designations are square specific and, thus, account for local stratigraphic variations.

      Schmidt uses a number of terms for actual deposits such as refuse, layer, sub-layer, or occupational level. For architectural remains, he uses terms like building, building complex, floor, wall, and surface. These features are presented on plans, often overlain by burial distributions. The vertical relation of walls is presented in “cross-sections” that plot the heights and sometimes depths of walls against burial depths. Many of these elements are projected onto the cross-section, so that it is necessary to use both plan and section to understand the data plotted. No deposit surfaces or floor levels are traced on them. Also, no north-south cross-sections were drawn. Most walls are unnumbered although occasional sequential numbers within a square occur, e.g., DF09, W-1, W-2. Room areas were confusingly also called “sections” with “S” designations. Although these “S” numbers were assigned in the field (as seen in the archives), they often do not appear on the published plans, even though he refers to them in the text.

      C.8 Survey

      Surface survey of the site showed sherd distributions on a low raised mound with higher areas of mound above (Schmidt 1933: pl. LXXVIII, topographic plan). Burnished grey sherds covered these higher areas while painted pottery occurred over the lower areas and at a twin mound [the Twins] in quadrant FF southwest of the main site. The high areas came to be called the Main Mound, the South Hill, the North Flat, and the East Hill (ibid., p. 453); in 1937 Red Hill and Treasure Hill were added designations. The lower eastern area was designated as the Painted Pottery Flat (Schmidt 1937: fig. 16, 1933: pl. LXXIX). Schmidt states specifically that the extent of occupation of each period was initially indicated by sherd scatter only (Schmidt 1933:343).

      Schmidt’s original intention was to excavate from the highest point to virgin soil in DF09 on the Main Mound. This project was deferred due to the presence of many burials (Schmidt 1933: pls. CXLVII, CXLVIII). The approach to establishing the sequence was, thus, switched to “indirect sectioning by examining those points where the earlier deposit cropped out from below later accumulations” (ibid., p. 336). First, the assumption based on survey that the painted pottery lay below the grey ware was tested by digging square CG95 on the Painted Pottery Flat. The test proved the assumption to be correct (ibid., p. 370, pl. LXXXI). Second, CG25 at the north end of the CG Depression was tested, providing a good sample of “early” grey ware above painted pottery (ibid., p. 368). Finally, the Painted Pottery Flat was also sampled in square DG36 (Schmidt 1933: pl. LXXX, fig. A, 1937: fig.22). The task of uncovering coherent building remains was put off until the following season (Schmidt 1933:343).

      D. The Twins (FF)

      Part of the crew was sent to truncate the higher mound of the Twins (Schmidt 1933:336), but no further mention is made of this operation in the 1933 report. Squares FF76-77-67 are marked on the northern mound as excavation areas. It is stated that these hillocks “are capped with culture refuse containing grey pottery, but the sub-stratum always seems to contain painted ware” (ibid., p. 333). The 1976 excavations confirmed this sequence on the southern mound (see below).

      E. The Main Mound (MM)

      Excavation was initiated on the Main Mound in DG10, then expanded to DF19, areas “which proved to be extremely fertile” (Schmidt 1933:336), yielding an excellent sample of the “late” grey ware that was designated Hissar III. The Main Mound excavation (ibid., pp. 390, 392, pls. CXII, CXLVII, CXLVIII), which covered DF07-08-09-DF18-19-DG00-10-DF29, was carried out with 160 laborers. Architectural remains designated “Level 2” (Building 2) were reached in DF19-DG10 (ibid., pl. CXII). The partial plan shows a door to an outside area. DF09 was taken down to Level 1 while DG10 was lowered to Level 2 (Building 2) (ibid., pl. CXII).

      F. CG Depression: CG25

      Excavation was also undertaken in CG25, a square located at the north end of an old trench separating the North Flat from the Red Hill. This effort produced a large quantity of “early” grey ware, termed Hissar II (ibid., pp. 368, 369). The grey pottery illustrated for Hissar II includes only two goblets (H1149 and H1150 [ibid., pl. XCVIII]) designated as from CG25 x1 (a brick cist tomb [ibid. pl. CXI]). The other vessels are published with H numbers but without plot designations and are absent from the published 1937 field catalogue. Funerary vessels from CG25 (ibid., pls. XCVII, XCVIII, XCIX) include H1660, x3; H1381, x5; H1385, x8; H1517, x8; H1149 and 1150, x11; H1607, x24; H1664, northeast quarter, floor. Three painted jars are also illustrated (ibid., pl. CII): H1154, x15; H1384, x25; and H1153, room 14.

      G. CG Depression: CG95

      Excavations in CG95 located at the south end of the CG Depression, reached Period I (Schmidt 1933:337). In this sounding, the walls of Period I are described as incoherent and lacking any brick lines suggesting that they were of packed mud. The walls, visible down to about 2 meters (as seen in Schmidt 1937: pl. LXXXI) are clearly of good masonry and may be later than Period I(?). Illustrated vessels (Schmidt 1933: pl. XCVIII) are H1604, x14, grey ware, and (ibid., pl. CII) H1654, x1, and H1655, x1, both painted ware.

      H. Chronology

      In 1933, Schmidt estimated the chronology of the sequence by comparison with other areas. He estimated the arrival of the Hissar II culture in the second half of the third millennium BC. Pottery played an important role in his assessment. The pottery types found seemed to relate only to the north at Tureng Tepe (Wulsin and Smith 1932). Because of this, Schmidt theorized that grey ware “drifted south” from Turkmenistan along with the migration of people (Schmidt 1933:367).

      Further, it was believed that the occupation of Tepe Hissar—definitely a Bronze Age site—ended before the Iron Age.² The only definitive clue was the absence of iron in Hissar III (ibid., p. 366). Schmidt estimated that the Iron Age began in the first half of the second millennium BC on the basis of Hittite iron dating from 1500 to 1200 BC in Anatolia (ibid., p. 390). His suggested date for Hissar III was the first half of the second millennium BC (ibid.), based on the presence of Hittite iron in the second

Скачать книгу