LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

(Director, American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology), William M. Krogman, (Western Reserve University School of Medicine), Mrs. William Boyce Thompson (the principal patroness of the Iranian Expedition), and Herzfeld. Schmidt’s correspondence files appear to be arranged alphabetically by the last name of the writer, but the letters are sometimes signed only with a first name. The content of these include Schmidt’s correspondence with colleagues and friends during his association with the Penn Museum. This material is mixed with correspondence and financial records from Alishar Höyük, which Schmidt excavated in the 1920s for the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. These records were kept within the correspondence, so as not to disrupt the original order. The field registers/catalogs and architect’s notebooks were used together to provide information concerning the provenience of objects. A road diary dated February 1931 describes Schmidt and his staff’s visits to sites in the vicinity of Fara and the trip from Baghdad to Damghan.

       B.3.2 Dyson Archives

      While working with the 1976 materials, I had access to field notes, drawings, study sherds, and above all, personal communication with Dyson. Dyson et al.’s field records clarify and supplement Schmidt’s information related to stratigraphy, chronology, architecture, and the overall cultural development at Tepe Hissar. They include field notes, reports, object cards, and a large slide collection. Among those items most relevant to my research were:

      (1) a stratified assemblage of about 5100 sherds, excavated from two deep soundings DF09S and CG90P and from horizontally-exposed architecture¹²;

      (2) architectural information principally from the Main Mound, North Flat, and the South Hill;

      (3) radiocarbon dates based on samples from settlement contexts and published results of flotation samples (Dyson and Lawn 1989; Costantini and Dyson 1990:46–68);

      (4) Susan Howard’s field notes and her unfinished dissertation “The Cultural Chronology of Tepe Hissar: A Reappraisal” (based on her excavations of the Main Mound).

       B. 3.3 Working with Archives

      Two databases were generated from the Schmidt and Dyson assemblages from the Main Mound and the North Flat: (1) pottery and other objects from the Main Mound and the North Flat (as reconstructed and digitized images of 1976 pottery and other objects from settlement levels), (2) burial records from 1931–32 seasons (Fig. 0.8–0.10).

      The process of reconstructing Schmidt’s analysis of the burial stratigraphy was a difficult task in the absence of clear sections from 1931–32. Moreover, information on burial stratigraphy was mainly reconstructed from multiple lines of evidence, examining archival photographs, field notes, and published plans (Schmidt 1937: figs. 84–86). This is in contrast to Schmidt’s method, which was primarily based on meter-depths at which burials were found. An example of the process of reconstruction follows:

      (1) Using the plans and sections, wall heights and depths (where available) were measured and indicated on a new section (a schematic section was reconstructed for each square from the Main Mound).

      (2) Estimated positions of graves in relation to floor levels were marked using the plans, the architect’s notebook (notations for floor levels), and the two generated databases for graves and associated objects (Fig. 0.12).

      (3) Ceramics from the graves were plotted by meter-depths in each square and from the settlement (fill/dump—Schmidt’s designations from his field register) to check their relation to architectural/floor levels.

      (4) The results were compared with the 1976 stratified pottery sequence from the settlement. In some instances, there was a discrepancy between the information given for data in the field register and the corresponding burial sheets or card file entries that were filled out after Schmidt returned from Tepe Hissar. Many of these mistakes are probably copying errors; therefore, I relied on the field registry as the main reference, which also contains categories of information for each data point in separate columns.

      C. Research Questions

      This research is explicitly descriptive and chronological. It presents the available evidence and, within its limitations, four main objectives are explored:

      (1) To establish a ceramic chronology based on combined evidence from occupational levels using 1976 stratified ceramic assemblages.

      (2) To correct Schmidt’s burial sequence employing results of the new ceramic chronology. Schmidt did not generally trace the burials to the strata from which they originated, but rather recreated the burial stratigraphy using overlying or underlying floors or walls.

      (3) To address the “purposes and assumptions lying behind funerary behavior as part the social context” (Shepherd 1999:9). Schmidt’s descriptive/quantitative presentation of burial practices based on burial data is limited insofar as it constitutes only an inventory of the individual’s body orientation, sex, and mortuary gifts. In describing burial ritual, I use a paradigm that leads to an understanding of the funerary behavior as part of the social and cultural contexts. Use of ethnographic analogy, where applicable, is incorporated to reconstruct underlying funerary behavior.

      (4) To address the sociocultural trajectory of the Tepe Hissar settlement and its role in regional and inter-regional connections. Was Tepe Hissar part of the so-called “interaction sphere” of Middle Asia, spanning the early fourth to the beginning of the second millennium BC? This cultural zone covered an extensive area from southern Mesopotamia to the Indus Valley, the Iranian Plateau, Gulf area, and as far as Afghanistan and west Central Asia, in which powerful political and economic systems were established around 3500 BC (Possehl 2007; Ratnagar 2004; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973). At Tepe Hissar, regional/inter-regional “interaction” with Central Asia and Mesopotamia is demonstrated by certain types of material culture, administrative devices (clay counters, blank tablets),¹³ and prestige objects, particularly from burial evidence on the Main Mound and the Treasure Hill, but also in the settlement levels of the Main Mound, the North Flat, and the South Hill. A full account of Tepe Hissar’s participation in the “interaction sphere” is beyond the scope of this monograph.

Fig. 0.8 An example of Schmidt’s original handwritten registry for Tepe Hissar (Courtesy of the Penn Museum).

Fig. 0.9 An example of the database created from Schmidt’s field register.

Fig. 0.10 An example from the Salzmann database for 1931–32 small finds.

Fig. 0.11 An example from the Salzmann database for 1931–32 small finds.

Fig. 0.12 An example from the Salzmann database for 1931–32 burial assemblages.

      In this monograph, the Tepe Hissar ceramics from the 1931–32 and 1976 excavations on the Main Mound and the North Flat are juxtaposed with archaeological and burial data in order to address the topics raised above. In Chapter 1, a summary of Schmidt’s excavations (1931–32) is presented, including his methodology and chronological sequence that changed at the end of the 1932 season. Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of Dyson et al.’s 1976 excavation, primarily focusing on the revised stratigraphy and architecture from the Main Mound and the North Flat. At the end of Скачать книгу