The New Chronology of the Bronze Age Settlement of Tepe Hissar, Iran - Ayşe Gursan-Salzmann

Скачать книгу

2, Table 2.2 correlates architectural levels from the Main Mound and the North Flat sequences with Schmidt’s periods and range of dates based on radiocarbon dates using 2009 calibration (for radiocarbon dates see Appendix 4).

      Chapter 3 is the analysis of ceramic assemblages from the 1976 project that generated a revised ceramic chronology for the settlement sequence at Tepe Hissar, covering periods Hissar I–III (see Table 3.4). The “Ceramic Phases” in the second column is based on the analysis of stratified ceramic assemblages and also compared to Schmidt’s ceramic assemblages, largely from burials. Chapters 4 and 5 address the dating of burials excavated by Schmidt (for dated burials, see Tables 4.1 and 4.2) and the analysis of burial practices in social/cultural contexts. The dated burials are grouped in each square (see Tables 4.1a, 4.2a) and plotted horizontally using a GIS measurement method, so that the vertical and horizontal plotting of individual burials and their clusters is no longer “floating” in space and time.

      The Concluding Remarks (Chapter 6) focus on the sociocultural development of the Tepe Hissar settlement. The implications of which are observed through the sequence of the new revised chronology, in light of evidence from the Schmidt and Dyson et al. excavations. Tepe Hissar’s role in the region and its inter-regional cultural/trade interactions during the fourth through the third millennia BC is explored. Lastly, some future research directions are presented.

      NOTES:

      0.1 For background information on the initiation of the Tepe Hissar Project in 1931 and Schmidt’s nearly a decade of researches in Iran, including archival photographs, see Exploring Iran (Gürsan-Salzmann 2007).

      0.2 In the early 1960s, Dyson was at the forefront of archaeological field research in Iran, implementing up-to-date methodology and theory. His first major excavation project at the Iron Age site of Hasanlu in northwestern Iran, Azerbaijan and the second at Tepe Hissar in the northeast became field training ground for several generations of accomplished American and Iranian archaeologists.

      0.3 Based on archaeological faunal and floral evidence, a range of animal figurines, and painted animal motifs on ceramics (Meder 1989:12).

      0.4 The archaeobotanical samples are from Period II, late fourth millennium BC (Costantini 1990:66). Wild grape and olive samples are limited.

      0.5 The faunal analysis was done by Marjan Mashkour, based on the 1995 excavations by Ehsan Yaghmai. The faunal remains studied (Mashkour and Yaghmai 1996) are from the Main Mound and the Red Hill, Period IIIB-C, late third millennium BC. Remains of fish and mollusks were also retrieved.

      0.6 I visited Tepe Hissar in 2007, three decades after the Dyson team had left, rain and wind erosion had completely destroyed the 1976 Main Mound trenches, so I could not compare my photos with those from 1976.

      0.7 Roustaei (2010:614) describes the modern landscape: “the most conspicuous structures are several mudbrick fortresses of middle Islamic period and a small prehistoric mound several hundred meters from the site. In this way, the complex of Tepe Hesar constitutes a terrain [that] measures about 200 ha with several ancient sites.”

      0.8 In May 1931, Wulsin and his wife began excavations at Tureng Tepe, a Bronze Age site in the Gorgan Plain to the north of Tepe Hissar.

      0.9 This law allowed non-French archaeologists to begin excavations in the country.

      0.10 To the best of my knowledge, nearly fifty percent of excavated objects from Schmidt’s excavations are housed in the National Museum of Iran (Tehran), the other half at the Penn Museum (Philadelphia). There are small collections at the American Museum of Natural History (New York) and the Metropolitan Museum of New York. All original expedition records from the 1931–32 and 1976 excavations are kept in the Penn Museum Archives and at the University of Turin. A large collection of skeletal material from the Schmidt expedition is in the Penn Museum, as are the study sherds and some botanical samples from the 1976 restudy project.

      0.11 Erich F. Schmidt 1933, 1937; R. H. Dyson and S. M. Howard, 1989.

      0.12 The preliminary results of the ceramic analysis show transitions from the Late Chalcolithic painted pottery levels to the early grey ware horizon (Hissar IC–IIA) and from the mature grey ware period (Hissar II–III) to the end of the Bronze Age settlement. However, the latter study does not provide a full analysis of the ceramic assemblages; specifically, it lacks “form” criteria and drawings of sherds in the classification that are critical for comparing and dating Schmidt’s typology (which is based largely on complete vessels).

      0.13 To date, no Proto-Elamite tablets have been found at Tepe Hissar, though there are sealings and other bureaucratic devices that “seem to relate to the accounting of local agricultural produce rather than long-distance trade” (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale 1986:208–11).

      1

      Erich F. Schmidt Excavations (1931–32)

      A. Introduction

      This chapter is as much a descriptive synthesis of Erich F. Schmidt’s goals and methodological approach (pp. 1–27) in his two seasons of excavations at Tepe Hissar, as it is a critique of his thought processes in interpreting his data (pp. 28–39) in light of my updated ceramic analysis. As such, I have extracted extensive quotes from his 1937 publication to bring forth the evidence of his architectural levels and to provide a summary of the finds wherein his stratigraphic and chronological framework rest. Additionally, it is hoped that providing Schmidt’s original insights as appropriate in this volume will help to make his, often difficult to locate, published work more accessible to current scholars.

      Schmidt set up his excavation headquarters in the modern town of Damghan in a spacious building that had previously belonged to the gendarmerie. Of the two long seasons of excavation, the first season took place from July until mid-November 1931 and the second lasted from May through November 1932. At the end of the first season, the staff spent the winter months in Tehran (until May 1932) in order to process finds and divide objects among the three museums (Penn Museum, Pennsylvania Museum of Art, and Tehran Museum). In January 1932, two months after the end of the second field season, Schmidt and the rest of the staff departed Tehran by “Camel” (the expedition car) for their respective destinations, braving the snow-covered passes of the Elburz Mountains.

      The Damghan project staff was an international team of seven members in addition to the local Iranian household personnel. While some staff members were replaced after the first season, the original staff included: Schmidt, a German-American archaeologist; Kurt Leitner, an Austrian surveyor; Derwood W. Lockard, an American archaeologist; Erskine L. White, an American architectural assistant; Boris Dubensky, a Russian photographer; Ivan Gerasimoff, a Russian artist; and Stanislas Niedzwiecki, a Polish artist-photographer. Schmidt, as the project director, had multiple roles; in addition to administering funds and reporting to the sponsoring museums, he was in charge of daily supervision of the staff’s work and most of the recording of finds and architecture (Fig. 1.1).

Image

      From the beginning, it was clear to Schmidt that he had a dual mission. While primarily concerned with retrieving accurate archaeological information from Tepe Hissar, he also had to provide spectacular objects for the two sponsoring museums in Philadelphia and for Tehran, in accordance with the 50/50 division clause of the revised Iranian Antiquities Law. Schmidt’s overall objective was to write a cultural history of the Iranian plateau, which meant documenting and explaining reasons for cultural

Скачать книгу