LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

wall remains in Plots CF39 and CG30 [east of the Burned Building] seem to belong to Level 1.…In Plot CF57 and inside the Burned Building [in Room 2, the south storeroom] we penetrated through the deposit of Hissar III to Stratum II, where we found house sections and burials of that time. (Schmidt 1937:177–178)

      P.4 CG42

      This location is a test square on the edge of the North Flat, west of the Burned Building (Schmidt 1937:106, figs. 16 and 18). “A thin film of Hissar I was covered by a rather thick deposit of Hissar II” (ibid., p. 106), indicating that the Period II occupation in this direction extended beyond the Period I mound. Fragmentary walls of Hissar I did not appear in CF42 “which apparently is situated outside the occupation area of that time” (ibid., p. 37).

      Q. Red Hill

      Q.1 CG79-89-99

      “In plots CG79, CG89, and CG99, building remains of Period II (B) cropped out from below deposits of Hissar III.…All building remains from this area consist of fragments only, oriented, as usual, diagonally to the main directions. There is no need to illustrate or describe these wall fragments” (Schmidt 1937:108). Bricks from the IIB walls measured 50 x 26 x 7.5 cm, 56.5 x 29 x 8.5 cm, 59 x 31 x 8.0 cm, and 60 x 29.5 x 8.5 cm.

      R. Painted Pottery Flat (PPF)

      Information on this location can be found in: DH36 (Schmidt 1937:26, 36); DH34-36, 43-46 (ibid., pp. 23, 26–36, figs. 20, 22–27, 28). Four building levels are shown in a stratigraphic diagram (without scale) of DH34 (ibid., fig. 28)

      Level 1 is not shown in Schmidt 1937: fig. 28, but appears in black on fig. 24 of that volume. A few vertically hatched wall fragments in DH36 (sections 1 and 2 on fig. 24) are assigned to Level 1A, later than Level 1. The walls were constructed of sun-dried bricks laid as headers. Schmidt also notes walls constructed of chineh (packed mud). He dates Level 1 to the transitional I-II phase, Hissar IIA, based on an assemblage of painted wares mixed with early grey ware (Schmidt 1937:26).

      Level 2 is indicated by four courses of a buttressed mudbrick wall in Schmidt (1937: fig. 28), assigned in Schmidt (1937: fig. 26) to Level 2. This buttressed structure (Section 69, Complex IV) is assigned to Period IC, (ibid., p. 26). Four “complexes” (I–IV) are identified, each representing a cluster of rooms: I, Sections 42–48, (ibid., p. 32, fig. 26); II, Sections 49, 50, 52–59 (ibid.). Included in this level are buttressed walls: III, Sections 60–67 and 70; IV, Sections 69 (ibid., p. 33), 71 and 72. Schmidt noted buttressed walls altogether in three sections: 69, 71 and 72.

      Level 3 on the plan (ibid., figs. 23, 27 in black) is represented by “only individual walls and some rooms are well marked below the structures of Level 2.” (ibid., p. 33). n.b. Instead of the expected use of chineh, some walls were constructed with sun-dried bricks (ibid., p. 36). Schmidt tentatively dates this level by buff painted ceramics that are a mixture of IC and IA assemblages, containing geometric and curvilinear designs and ibex, feline, gazelle motifs (ibid,. pls. III–XIII).

      A mixture of IA and IC sherds appeared in Level 3 in addition to fragments of a type not occurring in either sub-phase, but more closely related to IC than IA. Sherds and vessels of this sub-type we called IB [1937:39ff] and we may tentatively attribute Level 3 to this sub-phase [IB] of Hissar I. (Schmidt 1937:33)

      Section 81 of Level 3 has the same appearance as the Chineh-built parts of Level 2. Sooted mud plaster covers the walls. A rectangular doorway with mud plastered Chineh jambs and sill opens through one wall…building fragments of Level 4 in the vicinity of, and below Section 81 are also mud plastered Chine.…Below Section 56 of Level 2 an interrupted single course of bricks [25 cm broad and of unknown length] showed one of these relatively rare instances of the use of such building units, instead of the Chineh type construction more common during the earlier phase of Period I.…Another Level 3 wall, below Section 55 of Level 2, was also constructed of bricks. (ibid., p. 36)

      Level 4 appears in Schmidt (1937:33, figs. 23, 27 in black). n.b. It is the earliest phase of Painted Pottery Flat and is recorded below Level 3. The Level 4 wall fragments are largely of chineh with mud plastering (ibid., p. 33). Schmidt also notes traces of brick contours on the face of a wall. So, use of bricks is documented even in the earliest Level 4, Period IA.

      S. DG69 – South of the Painted Pottery Flat

      Information on this location can be found in Schmidt (1937:37, 39, figs. 30, 31).

      Of Level 1, Schmidt (1937:37) says, “The upper level showed incoherent wall sections only. Slight differences of depth suggested two building phases [ibid., fig. 31]. Wall 1b [center left of fig. 31, Level 1] may have been built during the early phase (IIA) of Period II.…Faint brickmarks appeared on Walls 1a and 1b.”

      “A thick refuse layer separated this wall [1b] from the underlying burials of Hissar IC. In the bottom layer of the excavation of 1931 [below Level 1, marked on fig. 31, cross-section], grey ware was entirely absent. This fact, combined with the occurrence of IC burials in the lower part of the same layer, proves that it had accumulated during Hissar IC” (ibid., p. 39). It is highly probable that the refuse layer had accumulated before Period IC, since the graves were dug into it.

      “A small enclosure (2), [not marked on the plan], only contained the typical IIA mixture of grey and late painted ware” (ibid., p. 39).

      The Level 2 (upper sub-phase) is described by Schmidt:

      During the second season the formerly exposed remains [of Level 1] were removed in order to penetrate to the lower levels, and, finally to the mound base. Below the floor of the [1931] excavation [fig. 31, cross-section]…the rather light colored painted pottery of IC and IB began to be displaced by the grey-on-red ware of Hissar IA. Burials of IC still appeared, imbedded in the earlier refuse, on top of the walls and in the rooms of Level 2, which the sherd contents definitely determined as Hissar IA.…The floors of the [upper sub-phase] Level 2 rooms were about four meters below the surface of the Painted Pottery Flat. The plan shows two sub-levels [upper and lower], but the ceramic situation does not seem to parallel the architectural conditions. There are rather neat, diagonally oriented rooms, regular as a rule, and enclosed by thin walls. These are Chineh walls, as are most of those of the upper level in this plot. Many wall faces were coated with smooth clay layers, which aided in defining the courses, otherwise difficult to trace” (ibid., p. 39)

      It is reasonable to designate the lower sub-phase of Level 2 as [Level 3], since its walls are below those of the upper phase, are thicker, and have a different orientation.

      Level 3 (Level 2, lower sub-phase) consists of a single square room (3) with thick walls and a double-chambered rectangular hearth set against the southwest wall. Part of a second room lies in the south part of the square (ibid., fig. 31 p. 38). This level consists of a single square room (3) and a double-chambered rectangular hearth set against the southwest wall. Ceramically, it also represents the earliest level of Hissar IA, characterized by grey/black painted designs on red ware.

      T. CG Depression

      Of CG25, Schmidt notes, “In Plot CG25 a deep stratified and sloping deposit of black refuse dirt, with thousands of Hissar I potsherds [none illustrated], but rarely any wall remains, showed the typical situation encountered at the margin of a settlement, where its trash is deposited” (1937:23). “In Plot CG25…a very few wall remains occurred; these were covered by stratified masses of black refuse dirt. Here the northern edge of the Hissar I settlement seems to have been struck” (ibid., p. 37).

      U. Chronology

      By the time of the 1937 publication, a number of other sites on the Iranian plateau had yielded relevant comparative data: Tureng Tepe (Gorgan), Cheshmeh Ali (Rayy), Murteza Gerd (Tehran), and Tepe Sialk (Kashan) as shown on Schmidt’s chronology chart (1937: fig. 168). In the chart, the grey ware of Tureng Tepe is correlated with Hissar IC-IIIC; the painted ware of Cheshmeh Ali IA and IB is correlated to Hissar IA and IB; the painted ware of Murteza Gerd IB is correlated to Hissar IB, the grey ware is considered post-Hissar Iron Age; early painted ware at Tepe Sialk [III] is correlated to Hissar IB and IC, the grey ware is considered post-Hissar Iron Age. The key correlation rests on the superimposition of a “Proto-Elamite” stratum [Sialk IV]. The following are Schmidt’s

Скачать книгу