Читать книгу The New Chronology of the Bronze Age Settlement of Tepe Hissar, Iran - Ayşe Gursan-Salzmann - Страница 11

Tepe Hissar, an Introduction

Tepe Hissar was one of the first systematically excavated Bronze Age settlements in the northern Iranian plateau. Two cycles of excavation were undertaken at the site by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (hereafter Penn Museum). In June 1931, the Penn Museum launched its first archaeological expedition to Iran—then Persia—at Tepe Hissar and the monumental Sassanian palace, near the town of Damghan. Erich Schmidt was appointed to direct the project, which lasted until the end of 1932.¹ Almost five decades later, in 1976, another expedition was initiated at Tepe Hissar by the Penn Museum under Robert H. Dyson Jr.,² in collaboration with Maurizio Tosi of the University of Turin, and with the support of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research in Tehran.

Both cycles of excavation resulted in publications (Schmidt 1931, 1937; Dyson and Howard 1989). While Schmidt’s excavations established the historical framework, Dyson and his team presented a stratigraphically clearer sequence for the site with associated radiocarbon dates. Nevertheless, a full study of the ceramic assemblages has not been published to date. In this publication, the new ceramic sequence from the Tepe Hissar settlement is established and linked to the grave assemblages, which should provide ample evidence for the chronology of the site, the nature of the progression and the abandonment of the settlement, and its chronological correlations on the northern Iranian plateau.

A. Site Location and Description

The site of Tepe Hissar (“Castle Hill”) is located on the Iranian Plateau, to the southeast of the Caspian Sea (36° 09’ N, 59° 22’ E), about 1.5 km from the modern city of Damghan (Fig. 0.1). It is situated along the historic east-west trade route between Tehran and Meshed. To its north are the majestic Elburz Mountains that provide the main source of water to the Cheshmeh Ali (Eye of Ali) spring, drained by the Damghan River (Fig. 0.2). To the south are the fringes of the Central Iranian Salt Desert (Dasht-i Kavir).

The site’s favorable location must have facilitated the movement of prehistoric inhabitants and provided them with a wide range of natural resources, as evidenced by geomorphological and ecological studies (Meder 1989:7–12). Thus, in terms of subsistence strategy, the ancient populations of Tepe Hissar were able to exploit resources from the desert (kavir) to the Elburz range³ and, perhaps, from the Caspian coastal zone which is about 100 km over the mountain range. Diet would have been varied, for “natural resources are distributed around the [Damghan] basin. Equidistant from Tappeh Hesar are the high valley to the north, rich in flint, lead, wood, fruit, deer, stag, boar, fish and fowl and the arid periphery of the kavir to the south with its known occurrences of copper, gold, turquoise and semi-arid fauna with herds of gazelles and onagers” (Dyson and Tosi 1989:6).

While the principal sustenance of the ancient population derived from different species of domesticated wheat, barley, and lentils, this was combined with a Mediterranean type diet that included wild grape and olive plant foods (Costantini and Dyson 1990).⁴ The diet was supplemented by meat mostly from caprines and cattle. The exploitation of aquatic resources is attested to by fish bones excavated during 1976. Mashkour’s references to the presence of onager (Equus hemionus) and “some cattle principally kept for traction,” indicate uses of onager in herding and distance travel and cattle in plowing.⁵

Rising six to eight meters above the surrounding plain, Tepe Hissar comprises seven disconnected mounds and flat settlements. As of the mid-1970s (Fig. 0.3), it measured about 600 meters in diameter; roughly 12 hectares of visible mounded occupational remains were partly buried in the alluvial fan of the Damghan River (Meder 1989).

Fig. 0.1 Topographic map of Tepe Hissar and surrounding sites (after Roberts and Thornton, 2014: Fig. 23.1).

Over time, the ancient populations at Tepe Hissar moved around within the settlement complex—possibly for agricultural reasons or for proximity to water resources—leaving behind an abandoned area that subsequently became used as an intramural cemetery until the beginning of another occupation in the same area. Therefore, during each phase of the settlement, part of the mounded area was residential and part of the flat area was burial ground.

In 1976, Dyson and his team attributed the general destruction of the site and its environs to long-term erosion and the result of marginal cultivation, as seen from a 1940s Schmidt aerial photo. They also noted some of the ancient sites shown on Schmidt’s map (1933: pl. LXXVI) were most likely ploughed away by the fields surrounding modern villages. Clearly, since the 1970s, the process of destruction has continued under mechanically ploughed irrigated fields⁶ and with the railway cutting through the site (Dyson and Tosi 1989:6) (Fig. 0.4). Nevertheless, Dyson (pers. comm.) was surprised to find relatively good state of preservation of some of Schmidt’s trenches despite the passing of nearly five decades.

B. Research History

A summary of the research history at Tepe Hissar is a key component of this study as the evidence in reports is limited and scattered. The present summary is an attempt to assemble what is available relating to the depositional stratigraphy as a background to the excavators’ reasoning and interpretive conclusions.

In addition to the two cycles of excavation, a cursory salvage excavation was carried out in 1995 by Ehsan Yaghmai on behalf of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR), but this material remains almost entirely unpublished. More recently, in 2006, Kourosh Roustaei and his Iranian team have surveyed the boundaries of the Tepe Hissar settlement⁷ and investigated the geomorphology of the site and possible continuity of the settlement into the Iron Age.

B.1 The Penn Museum’s Involvement: Erich F. Schmidt Excavations (1931–32)

The earliest mention of the site is found in the notebook of General A. Houtum Schindler (Schindler and Schmeltz 1887), an Austrian who served in the Persian army and wrote about the inhabitants of the region looting the site in search of antiquities. The site was later brought to the attention of the archaeological community by Ernst Herzfeld of the German Archaeological Service in Iran. In 1925, he surveyed the Damghan region, cataloged the looted objects mentioned by Schindler (Herzfeld 1988:44), and recommended the site for exploration to Horace F. Jayne, then the director of the Penn Museum. In 1930, Jayne invited Schmidt, who trained at Columbia University under the renowned anthropologist Franz Boas, to undertake the Damghan Project on behalf of the Penn Museum and the Pennsylvania Museum of Art. Schmidt had come highly recommended to Jayne after his previous field research in Arizona and at the Bronze Age site of Alishar Höyük in central Turkey.

Fig. 0.2 Damghan Plain, ringed by snow-capped Elburz mountains, looking northeast, October 1976.

Fig. 0.3 Aerial view (via Google Earth) of Tepe Hissar with site features marked. The site is surrounded by agricultural fields and the contemporary village.

Fig. 0.4 The Tehran-Meshed Railroad, which cuts through Tepe Hissar.

Fig. 0.5 A view of the modern eroded landscape of Tepe Hissar, as seen from south in 2007.

In Jayne’s mind, the Damghan Project could provide another link in the chain of cultural connections between Mesopotamia and Iran. Further, he hoped that it would produce a wealth of objects for display. Fiske Kimball, then director of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art, was interested in the Sassanian palace near Tepe Hissar because of its many exquisite architectural stuccos (Schmidt 1933:455–56, 1937:327–350). As always, funding the project was a crucial matter, especially during the Great Depression. Despite funding difficulties, $16,000 was raised by both museums from member contributions and, later, additional funds were acquired from private sources over a period of three years. To launch the project required a complex network of communications among museum directors, diplomats, scholars, as well as bureaucrats in Reza Shah’s government. Among the key consultant-scholars—apart from Herzfeld, who had strong influence on Jayne’s decisions—were Frederick Wulsin and Arthur Upham Pope. The latter, a strong advocate of the Tepe Hissar Project, was an art historian, whose connections in Iran would later help establish the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology, headquartered in New York City. Wulsin had been sent to Iran by Jayne to carry out his own excavations under the auspices of the Penn Museum.⁸ Thus, Wulsin played a key role in getting the Tepe Hissar Project started as he was already familiar with the rules and regulations for foreign archaeologists working in Iran. In June of 1931, the Iranian Antiquities Law⁹ was passed. In the same year, Schmidt and his team arrived in Damghan after two months of testing and restudy of the Sumerian site of Fara in southern Mesopotamia. He started excavations at Tepe Hissar on July 19, 1931 (Fig. 0.6).

Fig. 0.6 A photograph from Schmidt’s first day of excavation at Tepe Hissar on July 19, 1931 (Courtesy of the Penn Museum).

The Damghan Project had a full program of excavation at three sites: Tepe Hissar (prehistoric), Damghan town citadel (Late Islamic [Fig. 0.7]), and the nearby Sassanian palace (3rd–7th centuries AD). However, the project’s primary focus was the site of Tepe Hissar.

Fig. 0.7 The late Islamic town citadel at Damghan, excavated as part of Schmidt’s Damghan Project.

B.2 Robert H. Dyson Jr. Excavations (1976)

The second cycle of excavation in 1976 was aimed in part at correcting the stratigraphic and chronological problems from Schmidt’s excavations. In addition, the occupational history of the Main Mound (Buildings 1, 2, and 3), the North Flat (Burned Building complex), the South Hill (industrial workshop), and the Twins were clarified with stratified levels and radiocarbon dates. Additional investigations included geomorphology and ecology (Meder 1989:7–12), archaeometallurgy investigations (Pigott 1989:25–33), and an archaeological survey of the Damghan Plain (Trinkhaus 1989:135–139).

B.3 Archival Research: Re-excavating the Archives of Schmidt and Dyson¹⁰

At Dyson’s suggestion, I started to examine the Tepe Hissar ceramic assemblages in 1994, as a post-doctoral research topic. In 2004, the research topic evolved into a more comprehensive project to reassess Schmidt’s excavations in light of the 1976 campaign, specifically, aimed at generating a comparative ceramic chronology. This required an in-depth analysis of the Schmidt and Dyson et al. excavations, using original archives, three published monographs,¹¹ and other largely unpublished reports. Previously, I had done similar research in a study of the Bronze Age burial groups and ceramics from Wulsin’s excavations at Tureng Tepe, which has chronological parallels with the Tepe Hissar ceramic assemblages (Daher 1968), and a re-assessment of the Bronze Age site of Alaca Höyük in central Turkey (Gürsan-Salzmann 1992), excavated by Hamit Z. Koşay in the 1930s. Hence, my longterm experience in archival research and studies of Bronze Age ceramic assemblages provided a solid background for the Tepe Hissar project.

In the course of analyzing the Tepe Hissar material, I had access to Schmidt’s excavated objects and sherds (50% of the total excavated artifacts) and the 1976 project study sherds, all housed at the Penn Museum. Schmidt’s archival papers and the 1976 project field notes were used to generate detailed relational databases for the Main Mound and the North Flat from both cycles of excavation. These relational databases provided efficient cross-referencing of the records.

B.3.1 Schmidt Archives

The entire corpus of Schmidt’s archives consists of 42 boxes of records grouped into sub-series: field notes, reports from the field, a potsherd catalogue, several boxes of object cards and drawings that were grouped into sub-series, burial sheets, and correspondence between Schmidt, Jayne, and other individuals and institutions involved in the project. The Schmidt archives occupy roughly 25 linear feet of box space and several drawers for large-scale drawings of plans and sections. The photographic collection consists of photos of the excavation and expedition trips. They are referenced in the photographic negative card catalogue, which takes up 10 linear feet. In addition, there are 12 large-sized photo albums containing black-and-white prints of excavation shots, burials, objects, and landscape images taken during Schmidt’s reconnaissance trips. All of these records were indispensable to the research undertaken in this restudy. A list of the contents of the Schmidt archives is as follows: general correspondence, reports and publications, field notes, drawings and plans, burial sheets, indexes and catalogs, and financial records. For the most part, the original order has been maintained.

The general correspondence series includes as major correspondents, Jayne, Schmidt, Pope (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 Chapter 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).