Читать книгу The New Chronology of the Bronze Age Settlement of Tepe Hissar, Iran - Ayşe Gursan-Salzmann - Страница 12

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).

Fig. 1.1 Schmidt’s excavation staff (1931–32), from left: Derwood W. Lockard, Erskine L. White, Erich F. Schmidt, Kurt Leitner, and their Iraqi guide, standing in front of the Lion Gate on a trip to Babylon.

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 change. As with many archaeologists of this time, Schmidt attributed cultural change to invasion by foreign “ethnic groups.” For example, Schmidt (1937:325) attributed the introduction of “grey wares” (i.e., reduction fired pottery) in his Hissar II period to the immigration of populations from the northern Eurasian steppes.

To accomplish his goals, Schmidt had to learn about Iranian prehistory, which at that time was mostly an archaeological terra incognita. In Iran, previous archaeological investigations were mostly confined to the site of Susa in Elam, although the French excavations at this site were of limited scientific value (Le Breton 1957). The site of Tepe Sialk near Kashan was the only other scientific excavation on the central Iranian plateau, carried out by Roman Ghirshman (1938) between 1933 and 1937. It is also important to mention, however, that two of the early expeditions undertaken during the turn of the century and in the early 1930s paved the path for an interest in Iranian antiquities, specifically, Jacques de Morgan et al.’s Mission Scientifique en Perse (1896) and J. Conteneau and R. Ghirshman’s Fouilles du Tepe-Giyan (1933; see also Conteneau, Ghirshman, and Vallois 1936). Sir Aurel Stein’s classic account of his journeys in Western Iran (1936) was published in 1940.

In the course of nearly two years of excavation at Tepe Hissar and other sites in the region, Schmidt familiarized himself with the topography of Damghan and the surrounding areas. With the help of surveyor Kurt Leitner, he documented single and multi-period prehistoric and historic sites and created a series of archaeological maps (Schmidt 1933: pls. LXXV, LXXVI, opp. p. 326). Schmidt noted that, in the Damghan area, the sites were mostly flat prehistoric ruins and a few small mounds, dated to Islamic and earlier historical periods. These archaeological maps became the basis for later systematic surveys in 1976 when Kathryn Maurer Trinkhaus recorded 166 sites in an area of 450 to 500 square kilometers in the Damghan region, with settlements dating from the fourth millennium BC to the present (Dyson and Howard 1989:135–139).

Fig. 1.2 An example of an intramural burial from the Main Mound, DF18 x13, the occupational level is not clear, the deceased might be on floor level or above it (Courtesy of the Penn Museum).

Prior to excavations at Tepe Hissar, Schmidt surveyed and briefly tested the Islamic levels at the Damghan citadel (Schmidt 1933:329–331, 1937:11–12, figs. 4, 5). At Tepe Hissar itself, the mound of the Sassanian palace complex was drawn, its architectural details recorded, and the stucco ornaments of the columns in the colonnaded hall were restored (Schmidt 1933:455–470). In the course of both seasons, the staff was engaged in testing smaller sites nearby, such as Tepe Muman and Tarikh-Khaneh (both historic sites), as well as Shir-e Shian (a Chalcolithic site preceding Hissar IA; see also Ch. 6, Concluding Remarks). The team also made several long-distance reconnaissance trips to southern Iran and Luristan (Penn Museum Archives, box 21).

B. Research Goals and Methodological Problems

Schmidt’s main research goal was to excavate Tepe Hissar stratigraphically in order to establish a cultural sequence for the site and the region. He planned to “section the main complex from the highest point to the bottom of the culture deposit, at least in one square” (1933:336). However, the excavation of 1,637 intramural burials had greatly disturbed extensive sections of the original stratification, which, in turn, conflicted with the correct recording of the occupational levels (Fig. 1.2). Schmidt made little attempt to trace the burials to the strata from which they originated, but rather recreated the burial stratigraphy using overlying or underlying floors or walls.

Similarly, superimposed construction phases were not clearly defined. Schmidt frequently identified structures as belonging to “somewhere between” different ceramic periods. A clear example of this problem is his description of Hissar III architectural remains (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) on the Main Mound (Schmidt 1937: figs.84, 86; see also Fig. 1.3). In describing phases (“levels”) 1 and 2 of these structures, Schmidt attributed Level 1 to Period IIIC (uppermost level) with incoherent foundations. Of the earlier phase he wrote (Schmidt 1937:155–56): “Level 2 (marked in black) has suffered by the numerous burials of later settlers, and of course, by the subsequent building activities. Most remains of this level belong to Hissar IIIB, but at several spots particularly at the eastern section of the excavation, structures attributed to this level may already have been inhabited during Hissar IIIA.…walls which may belong to the slightly later building phase of level 2…may actually have been built during the occupation of level 1, [and] are marked with heavy vertical lines.”

With such problems, what building phases could he assign to Levels 1 and 2 and to what periods (IIIA, IIIB, IIIC) could he associate Buildings 1, 2 and 3 on the Main Mound? Schmidt eventually assigned them to Hissar IIIB based on the ceramic types in the graves associated with these strata, but he did so without delineating the subphases of construction of each building (for revision of building phases on the Main Mound, see Table 2.1, after Howard 1989a:56–59) and without checking to be sure the graves were, in fact, associated with these levels. This sort of ambiguity has made the Tepe Hissar project difficult to navigate for later scholars and has contributed to the lack of a final publication of this important site.

Similar confusion is encountered when attempting to assign burials to specific chronological or cultural periods (Fig. 1.4). Schmidt based his periodization on his ceramic typology and not necessarily on stratified building phases or objects from building contexts. He argued that Period I burials contained only painted ware, Period III burials contained only burnished grey wares, while Period II burials contained both painted wares and grey wares. Sometimes the same burial was assigned to two different periods (e.g., square DF18 x1), no doubt because the contents of the burial (assigned to the end of Tepe Hissar, his Period IIIC), and the stratigraphic location of the burial (assigned to IIB) did not match up. In fact, his field registry indicates that Schmidt changed the periodization of the graves from the earlier to the later periods only after he returned from the field.

Concerning Schmidt’s recording methods, his speedy recording of a large number of simultaneously excavated areas make his notes often incomplete or unclear. To his credit, he had several crews numbering over 250 people, each working in different areas of the site, so the fact that we have any usable records is remarkable. Not surprisingly, his staff of four field assistants could not supervise each area of excavation. Schmidt himself notes, “The excavation of 1932 had to be extremely flexible in order to cope with the problems. In the South Hill, Stratum II was being cleared while sections of the Main Mound were carried down to the principal occupational level of Stratum III, and a third unit of the crew started to slice the architectural levels of Stratum I in a test square of the past season, in order to penetrate to virgin soil and thereby determine the earliest traces of the settlement history,” (Schmidt’s field report, Tepe Hissar Season 1932: Penn Museum Archives, box 41). Schmidt does not clarify the nature of these problems, however, he may be referring to understanding the stratification of building remains.

Schmidt generally registered objects on the same day that they were excavated. This system of recording proved to be useful for later researchers in that unprovenienced objects could be assigned a context (i.e., square, plot record, depth, level) if they were excavated on the same day as other objects that had been registered. In addition to registering the objects, each ceramic vessel was measured (in centimeters) for rim diameter and height, while each small find was measured for length and width.

Fig. 1.3 Schmidt’s representation of Hissar III architecture with burials and construction phases superimposed. His method of representation obscures stratigraphic definition of each occupational phase, as well as the levels to which the burials belonged.

Although in some cases the field recording was not exemplary, Schmidt’s use of the stratigraphic method was a pioneering effort for 1930s excavations. However, he used meter levels to place objects, graves, and structures into arbitrary ‘levels’. For example, all objects or burials found between five and seven meters below the surface were grouped together, regardless of soil configuration or the presence of architecture or graves. There was no systematic collection of sherds to serve as typological indices of strata. The sedimentary deposits were not “read” as they are today, making a more accurate description of depositional history impossible. The use of “levels” in Schmidt’s terminology meant that finds were recorded in relation to the quadrant and the number of the test square in which they were found. However, their exact position in relation to floors, walls, or other architectural features was not always recorded. In his own words, only “depths of the finds and excavations were measured from the stable ‘naught-naughts,’” (Schmidt 1933:338). Leitner later described the surveying and recording methods as follows:

Fig. 1.4 Schmidt’s plots of burials from locations on the Main Mound at Tepe Hissar drawn East-West. Note the lack of correlation between building levels and burials (after Schmidt 1937).

The excavation and the system of recording the finds, burials, remaining structures etc. at Tepe Hissar were based on a detailed topographical map with half meter contour intervals, on the survey of which I had to start right away. An arbitrary center point was fixed on the mound and concreted. Through this point lines were run north and south, west and east, which were marked every 100 meters with pegs. Through these pegs, lines were run at right angles and again marked every hundred meters with pegs. Thus the whole area of the mound was covered with 100-meter quadrants. Each row of quadrants was then defined with capital letters: A, B, C, D etc.; starting with “A” at the northwest corner of the map and running along the west-east line and also the north-south line. Each quadrant could be divided into 10-meter squares. These squares were defined with numbers starting at each quadrant with 0, 1, 2…to 9 and running west-east and north-south.…Four quadrant corners were cemented to serve as benchmarks. BM1 was given the elevation of 10.0 meters on which the elevation of the contours was based. Each find was given a ‘Field Number’ in numerical order. This field number was preceded by the letter “H” (for Hissar). The 10-meter excavation-squares were marked out on the ground, based on the letters and numbers as stated above. The finds were recorded in relation to the quadrant and the number of the test square in which they were found. (Leitner, July 1990, prepared at the request of Robert H. Dyson Jr., Penn Museum Archives)

According to the field notes of Schmidt and Leitner, find-spots of objects (given ‘plot record’ [pr] numbers) were recorded horizontally, while the strata in which burials were found were indicated by meter-levels below datum point. Although plot-record designations for at least some objects are in the field register, the find-spot data kept in the surveyor’s notebooks for each excavated square were unfortunately damaged in a flood and are now unreadable. Thus, the exact horizontal distribution of many objects is unknown. Additionally, on the original burial sheets, the location of burials in relation to building remains (walls, floors, etc.) is often incoherent.

Burials are frequently described as being “slightly below or above” a certain building level, while the building level itself has a depth of 1.0 to 1.5 meters. Thus, burials and objects are literally floating in space, as can be seen in some sections and plans in the 1933 and 1937 publications (Fig. 1.4). This ambiguity in correlating building levels and burials arises partially from the fact that the topographic map of Tepe Hissar was completed after the start of the excavations, so that exact find-spots and measurements in relation to the fixed datum point were not accurate.

Over Schmidt’s two field seasons at Tepe Hissar, roughly 10,700 square meters were excavated. The distribution of areas tested and excavated from the three periods is uneven, as shown on Schmidt’s topographic maps (1937: figs. 21, 61, 83; see also Fig. 1.5). The Hissar I level, the earliest of the three periods, was reached at various places throughout the mounds, but more extensively uncovered on the Painted Pottery Flat (Schmidt 1937: figs. 22–24). Hissar II remains were excavated more extensively than the preceding period on the Main Mound and the North Flat, as well as on the South Hill, the Twins (southernmost), and Treasure Hill (eastern edge of Tepe Hissar) (ibid., figs. 63, 64). For the later Hissar III level, the test areas were the same as Period II, although plans of Period III buildings were uncovered in only three areas: the Main Mound, the North Flat, and Treasure Hill, where horizontal exposures revealed diagonally-oriented, contiguous rectangular buildings (ibid., figs. 84–86, 102–104, 95, 100–101).

Schmidt still managed to test and excavate a large portion of the site and established a chronological sequence based primarily on ceramic typology and the associated grave objects. Two major ceramic stages with subdivisions were identified stratigraphically: painted pottery in the lower levels (Periods IA, IB, IC, IIA, and IIB) and grey burnished pottery in the upper levels (Periods IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC). Thus, Periods IIA and IIB were defined by the presence of both painted wares and burnished grey wares. Schmidt encountered, excavated, and recorded a large number of graves, an activity that, for the most part, occupied his full attention and time. In retrospect, had he spent more time recording building remains and the sequence of episodes/phases relating to them, we would have a more complete picture of the development of the settlement, its functional nature, and, most importantly, a clear stratigraphic sequence independent of graves.

In the 1931 season, as excavation proceeded, Schmidt formulated new research problems. One was the cultural implications of the transition from the painted pottery of the early levels of Hissar I to the grey ware tradition of Hissar II and III. His explanation was based on an invasion theory, with the invaders originating on the Turkoman steppes (Schmidt 1933:325, 367). Another problem was to investigate the circumstances of the end of the Tepe Hissar settlement in Period III. He was almost certain that the end was caused by “catastrophies, epidemics, or the like” (ibid., p. 235). Schmidt changed his mind when he re-dated the “mass burials” (as the cause of the settlement’s end) to Period IIIB instead of IIIC (ibid., pp. 235, 237). As shown in the present study (see Chapter 4), many of those “mass burials” from the Main Mound can be re-dated even earlier to Period II and some to the transitional Period II-III.

Fig. 1.5 Maps of areas excavated by Schmidt’s team for Periods Hissar I–III. Dark areas mark the plots in which Stratum I, II, III remains were uncovered (after Schmidt 1937: figs. 21, 61, 83).

C. The 1931 Excavation Season

The first season of excavation at Tepe Hissar, undertaken by Schmidt for the Penn Museum and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, began on July 19 and continued until November 6, 1931 and was partially published in 1933. The contents of this report have generally been ignored and were not republished in 1937. A study of the report and relevant archives is useful in that the assumptions and methods of the work were established in 1931 and elaborated in 1932. A comparison of the documentation of 1931 with that of 1932 identifies many of the problems in using the reports.

In the case of Tepe Hissar, Schmidt’s aim was “to illuminate the Dark Age of Persia by means of the prehistoric remains” (Schmidt 1933:323). The remains were expected to include: houses of commoners and rulers, places of worship, works of art, domestic tools and utensils, ornaments and weapons, and human, animal, and floral remains. Such remains collectively “enable the archaeologist to reconstruct a fairly complete picture of the material culture of past people” (ibid.). In stating this aim, Schmidt was drawing on his perspective as an anthropologically-trained archaeologist with the holistic approach to cultural reconstruction he learned from his mentor, Boas.

C. 1 Methods

Schmidt wrote, “we divided the tell into 100 x 100 meter quadrants which were subdivided into 10 x 10 meter squares, or excavation units.…In one square only…we had time to penetrate to the mound base. However, we shall explain below that even such limited excavation plots can furnish a reliable miniature cross-section of extensive deposits.…All test…plots were situated in the main elevation [Main Mound] of the tell.…In the twin plots…we penetrated to the original surface…below the northeast corner.…The objects were recorded according to their depth below the surface or if possible according to their associations with structural remains and with burials. Thus we obtained…a complete series of superimposed remains reaching from the mound surface to the base of the deposits” (Penn Museum Archives: Schmidt correspondence) (Fig. 1.6).

At Tepe Hissar, they began with this system, however, the team was soon overcome by the sheer quantity of burials and associated objects on the mound. With only four people to do the recording, plot notebooks were soon given up and written notes held to a minimum.

Fig. 1.6 Shows Tepe Hissar square DF09 where a trench was dug from the top of the mound to the base of the mound, exposing all occupational levels (after Schmidt 1937: fig.27).

C. 2 Maps, Elevations, and Cross-Sections of 1931 Season

Leitner undertook the major mapping tasks, completing a contour map of the site (Schmidt 1933: pl. LXXVIII) in September 1931, a map of Damghan and its environs (ibid., pl. LXXVI) in October 1931, and a regional archaeological map (ibid., pl. LXXV) in November 1931. The site survey was fixed by the placement of four benchmarks (BM 1–4). Elevations were based on the highest point, BM-1, the elevation of which was arbitrarily set at +10.0 meters, marked as 00, with depths taken down from this line (Schmidt 1937: DF09, fig. 85). A discrepancy may be noted in that the scale used with the mound sections of 1937 (ibid., fig. 19) end at +20 meters which equals the 00 datum. The elevation system allowed the recording of depths of walls and burials below the 00 datum, which, in the absence of depositional stratigraphic recording, was the main recording method. These depths were plotted on “cross-sections” taken across each excavated “plot” (10 m square) along a center west-east line. Each cross-section recorded the actual walls and burials encountered along the section line, plus depths of other walls and burials in the square projected against it. Apparently no north-south cross-sections were drawn as they are absent in both publication and archives. These “cross-sections” are really elevation profiles, and should not be confused with measured, drawn, stratigraphic sections with numbered depositional strata as are currently in general use—a system which post-dates Schmidt by some 20 years (Wheeler 1956).

C. 3 Grid System, Quadrants, Plots (Squares), and Plot Record Numbers of 1931 Season

An east-west, north-south grid system was laid out running through the center of the Main Mound (the highest area), plot DF09. The grid consisted of 100 m square quadrants designated by capital letters of the alphabet running west-to-east (e.g., A–D) and north-to-south (e.g., A–F). Each quadrant was then subdivided into “plots” of 10 square meters, numbered 0–9 west-to-east and north-to-south. Thus, 09 is a “plot” number located by east-west (0) and north-south (9) coordinates within quadrant DF (Schmidt 1933: pl. LXXVIII). At the beginning, before the grid system was in place, Schmidt designated plots being worked by lower case letters of the alphabet (e.g., plot “a,” “b,” etc.). Later the grid coordinates were assigned to these temporary letters in his daily journal: (a=DG10; b=CG60; c=CG61; d=DG96; e=CH95; f=DH05; g=DF19; h=EG06; and i=DF18), a list which also indicates the first squares explored. These plot numbers differ from the “plot record” (pr) numbers that were used to locate artifacts on graphed notebook pages for each 10 meter plot or square in individual “plot books.”

These plot-record numbers (e.g., pr 10) often appear in the field catalogue of artifacts, and occasionally on plans (e.g., pr 25 on Schmidt 1933: fig. A). Unfortunately, over the years, many of these notebooks have badly deteriorated or disappeared, so the record is not complete. Aside from burial sheets, these notebooks gave the only horizontal locations for the artifacts found. In 1931, Schmidt used the terms Main Mound and the Painted Pottery Flat as area designations; in 1932 the terms North Flat, Red Hill, Treasure Hill, South Hill and the Twins were added (1937: fig. 16). These designations were added after the fact, on photographic plate LXXIX (Schmidt 1933), but do not appear in the text. An additional term, CG Depression, is used informally in 1933 for an older trench between the North Flat and the Red Hill in the CG quadrant.

C. 4 Field Catalogue of 1931 Season

In the daily field catalogue, artifacts were recorded sequentially with H-prefixed numbers on the day of recovery. The depth of the object recorded is usually given. In all cases, the burial number is given; from these, depths can be calculated using their placement on cross-sections. Schmidt (1933:338) notes that the plot books also recorded the daily state of the operations. Architectural records also give dates and depths of excavations. Since the field catalogue provides the date of registration for objects recorded on the same day as excavation, artifacts are grouped by date, which, when correlated with dates and depths recorded elsewhere, orders them in vertical clusters. All burials excavated (180 in the top [Building] Level I of the Main Mound; ibid., pp. 392, 439–440, pls. CXLVII, CXLVIII) had individual burial sheets with a drawing of the skeleton and associated remains (ibid., pl. CLII), where artifacts are drawn but not numbered. These burials were not plotted on the excavation plan of the Main Mound in 1931 (ibid., pl. CXII) but were plotted on the DG36 plan from the Painted Pottery Flat (ibid., fig. A), on the CG25 plan between the Main Mound and Red Hill (ibid., fig. B), and on a plot plan for the Main Mound (ibid., pl. CXLVII). Burial plans are not published in 1933 for the other excavated plots (CG60, CG61, DG96, CH95, DH05, EG06) but appear in the final publication of 1937.

The field catalogue also records the type of object, material, dimensions, and occasionally depth and/or “pr” number. While in Philadelphia, Schmidt assigned objects to his major periods in the margins of his notes. Subsequently, a number of these were changed, showing a shift in his thinking based on his stylistic analysis of the burial ceramics largely in the absence of reference to stratigraphic context. This revision obviated opinions recorded in his daily journal at the time of excavation. Ironically, his original opinions correspond more closely with the results of the 1976 restudy.

In addition to objects recorded in this catalogue, Schmidt published two plates of painted pottery sherd drawings from Hissar I (1933: pls. LXXXVIII, LXXXIX) without regular catalogue numbers; each item is identified by an H followed by a letter of the alphabet and a number. In a separate typed list entitled “Potsherd Catalogue Tepe Hissar 1931” (Penn Museum Archives, Box 9), 96 sherds are listed as H a1, a2, etc., using the alphabetical plot designations that indicate excavation squares prior to the adoption of the grid system (see above under Grid System). These two plates are not reproduced in 1937.

C. 5 Plans

Only three plans are provided for squares excavated in 1931 (Schmidt 1933: fig. A: DG36, fig. B: CG25, and pl. CXII: DF07–09, DG00, DF18–19, DG10, and DF29). These plans are somewhat misleading since they plot more than one building level of architecture on the same plan. The plans make it appear as though the architectural remains in different squares lie on the same level (Schmidt 1937: fig. 84), whereas, in the Main Mound plan of 1931, the base of excavation in DF18 and 19, west of Building 2, is over a meter above the floor level of Building 2 in DG00 and DG10 (Schmidt 1933: pl. CXIII). The examination of extant walls in 1976 showed that they were well-built, of regular brick masonry, with standard dimensions. In the case of the first two plans mentioned above, the burials are plotted with the architecture, sometimes directly over walls. The depth relation to the walls is given in an accompanying cross-section.

In the case of the Main Mound DF–DG squares, the architectural plan lacks the burials, which are plotted on a separate plan without reference to walls or depth (ibid., pl. CXLVII). This latter information was subsequently provided (Schmidt 1937: figs. 84, 85). The plans are often obscured by height shadings along the walls and superimposed burial numbers. In addition, plans for most excavated squares were not published in 1933, a fact which makes it difficult to reconcile published photographs with textual description (e.g., CG95 Schmidt 1933: pl. LXXXI, p. 343). Walls on plans sometimes bear sketched-in brick lines that provide the direction of the bricks (usually laid as stretchers), brick size (bricks essentially match text dimensions when sketched), and the number of rows of bricks (two or three rows), which indicates approximate wall widths of 60 or 90 cm. These widths match the wall widths in the cross-sections.

C. 6 Periodization

In 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 half of the millennium.

I. Results of the 1931 Season

During the first season of excavation, in Schmidt’s words, he “attacked” the mound with 200 workmen, following a two-week clearing of the Damghan citadel, which was curtailed as modern buildings occupied the historical settlement. Both Schmidt and Leitner noted that, while the topographic map was being drawn (it was not ready until the middle of the first season), pottery collections from the surfaces of elevated and relatively flat areas were used to select test squares and as chronological guide-fossils.

Schmidt (1933:343) wrote: “Our excavations in the Painted Pottery Flat only sounded the stratum of Hissar I [Plate LXXXI] without uncovering coherent building complexes. This task was deferred until the second season.” He observed that the walls of these early levels were of pisé construction, in contrast to the mudbricks used in the later periods. An undisclosed number of simple pit burials were found, while thousands of painted sherds from Hissar I with elaborate geometric and figurative animal and plant motifs were collected. Schmidt indicates in one of his reports to the museum that the mound was covered with masses of sherds and fragments of other objects suggesting the productiveness of the site.

Regarding the abundance of (mostly clay) animal figurines, Schmidt argued that they had a ‘utilitarian’ purpose: “They were magic images of domesticated beasts and birds, made to increase their number and the wealth of the owner. Others represented game of the steppe and of the hills, to help the hunter’s luck and to protect him against the ferocious species, such as the tigers represented by the alabaster figurines of Stratum III” (Schmidt 1933:357). Clay “stamp seals” with geometric designs of Period I are considered by Schmidt as probably ornaments/buttons as there were no associated seal impressions found. On the other hand, the workers may have missed the balls of clay with impressions during hasty removal of earth. Of significance, however, is one clay “stamp seal” (H20) found in the upper refuse of “Stratum I” [Hissar I], which depicts two human figures, an ibex, and snakes(?) (ibid., p. 357, pl. XCI). Its significance is in the depiction of the human figure as incorporated into the geometric and animal motifs, an unusual stylistic choice for Hissar I period.

Only a small percentage of Period I sherds were registered, most of them painted, and they were sent to the Penn Museum. Fortunately, complete vessels and other objects were carefully recorded in the field register. Only thirteen burials are noted in the first season’s 1933 report.

Schmidt noted that Hissar I material extended from the main complex of mounds to the fringes of the plain and covered a larger area than the later settlements, Hissar II and III. There were three superimposed “strata” recorded at the South Hill, at the North Flat’s eastern extension, and on the Main Mound. Schmidt’s usage of the term “stratum” is meant to connote both a stratigraphic “layer” (with or without architectural remains) and sometimes also a chronological-typological “period.” On the Painted Pottery Flat and in other flat areas, “Stratum II” appears as a “thin top layer over Stratum I” (Schmidt 1933:367), marked by the appearance of grey ware pottery types in larger quantities than in Stratum I, although still with an admixture of earlier painted buff vessels.

Thus, Hissar II was reported to follow directly from Hissar I. Hissar II was mainly explored in test squares; larger exposures had to wait until the second season. As in the case of Stratum I, no complete buildings of “Stratum II” were uncovered. However, there was one technological change in Hissar II: the use of straw-tempered mudbricks in contrast to the pisé walls of “Stratum I.” On the South Hill, in the North Flat’s eastern extension, and on the Main Mound, test squares showed that Stratum II lay directly below Stratum III.

On the eastern extension of the North Flat, 30 burials belonging to Period II were cleared in plot CG25. According to Schmidt, there was a smooth transition from the end of “Stratum II” into “Stratum III.” However, he goes on to say, “there are quite a few pottery vessels and other objects which we cannot attribute to one or the other stratum” (Schmidt 1933:389).

“Stratum II” is marked by a large number of copper objects, including weapons (blades of daggers/knives/spearheads) with mid-ridges that were superior in their craftsmanship to those of “Stratum I.” In addition to personal ornaments (such as copper and silver earrings, bracelets, pins, and weapons), objects suggesting markers of ownership and a differentiated social position of the deceased individuals were found, such as an ornamented macehead (H1200) and copper stamp seals with compartmented/cross designs. (ibid., p. 381, H1176, H320, pl. CVII). One of the most frequently occurring category of grave objects in “Stratum II”, as in Hissar I, was beads³ made of semi-precious and exotic stones (alabaster, carnelian, rock crystal, and the earliest appearance of lapis lazuli), while silver and gold pieces appear as personal ornaments.

Some “stamp seals” with geometric designs, such as those encountered in Hissar I burials, are also found in Stratum II burials, and are, again, most likely ornaments/buttons.

The pottery assemblage of “Stratum II” is marked by the appearance of grey wares in larger quantities than in Hissar I; in fact, a somewhat equal admixture of grey and painted buff vessels was deposited in the graves. Nevertheless, some of the Hissar II pottery forms are distinctly different from those found in Hissar I, including goblets and bowls with long stems and wide splayed bases. Additionally, the painted motifs change between Periods I and II.

Concerning Hissar III, Schmidt (1933:389) wrote, “the archaeological situation suggests that Period II faded into Period III.” The plans of building remains show walls of several structures, which in the 1976 season were found to enclose three large buildings on the Main Mound (Schmidt 1933: pl. CXII, 1937: fig. 86; Howard 1989a: fig. 1).

On the Main Mound, eight contiguous squares of 10-meters each were tested and an intramural “necropolis” of 180 burials was cleared (Schmidt 1933: pl. CXLVII). In the process, two superimposed occupation levels were recorded: Level 1 (earlier), largely destroyed by erosion and anthropogenic agents and Level 2 (later), which showed evidence of burning and had burials from even later periods dug into it. The intramural “necropolis” of Hissar III was placed over and into the abandoned Level 1. These were simple pit burials in which traces of fabric were often found under some of the bodies.

The burials contained a rich assortment of objects that ranged from grey burnished pottery to copper tools, weapons, copper medallion seals (ibid., pl. CXXIX) and personal adornments, as well as animal figurines, “effigy” vessels, and beads of lapis lazuli, crystal and carnelian. Objects made of alabaster and soapstone are among the rich burial finds, most notably elegant vessels, a stemmed plate, a curious “disc” with handle and an accompanying grooved “column,” and a female effigy (ibid., pp. 423–30, pls. CXXXV–CXLI, CLIII, CLIV). Of the 180 burials in this group, Schmidt described four very rich graves in detail, attributing rank and status to the deceased, called by him “warrior 1,” “dancer,” “little girl,” and “priest.” These graves were furnished with metal weapons, agricultural tools and/or domestic utensils, including a group of copper “wands”/symbols, stone and copper seals, a unique “fan”/mirror, small sculptures of animals, and female figurines modeled in copper, silver, and alabaster. Gold and silver ornaments (vessels, diadem/belts, figurines) were found in a few of the graves.

The Hissar III pottery assemblage is largely burnished grey ware, often decorated with pattern burnishing and in rare cases with linear incised patterns. New forms are described as “bottle pitcher,” “canteen,” “stemmed brazier,” and vessels with “bird spout,” “bill spout,” or “long straight spout” (Schmidt 1933: pls. CXIII–CXVII). In addition, there are some “surviving” painted cups and a potstand from types related to Hissar I and II. Some simple and beak-spouted silver and copper bowls recall pottery vessels of similar forms.

Regarding glyptic art, the stamp seals and seal-shaped ornaments with simple geometric motifs that closely resemble the clay seals/ornaments of Hissar I and II. The copper “medallion” seals appear to be specifically associated with the Main Mound burials (ibid., p. 414, pls. CXXIX, CXXX); they are “shaped like a pendant with bilateral sealing pattern” with perforated handles (ibid., p. 414). Two cylinder seals in alabaster/calcite and serpentine with human and animal figures on them (ibid., pl. CXXX H116, H892) were found on the Main Mound in the fill of Building 2 (DG10) and in a rich burial (DF19 x60), respectively.

Schmidt and his staff’s observations during the first season of work established the framework for subsequent research at Tepe Hissar. Among their main accomplishments were a timely publication of a preliminary report, a final topographic map of the site and the Damghan region, soundings to retrieve occupational strata and burials, and general observations of architecture. Above all, they systematically recorded large quantities of objects from several hundred graves. Schmidt devised a preliminary sequence of occupational strata grouped into Periods I, II, III, based on the ceramic typology from graves. He placed painted pottery in the earliest and grey pottery in the later strata, and defined each group by surface color, technique, shape, and decoration. He recognized the breadth of the divisions of his chronological scheme, so he aimed for a more finely-tuned division of his chronology in the second season of excavation.

J. The 1932 Excavation Season

The main objectives of the second season of excavations at Tepe Hissar⁴ were, first, to complete the DF09 area sounding on the Main Mound and second, to open up larger areas of the South Hill, the North Flat, Treasure Hill, and the Painted Pottery Flat to sample the various periods. Schmidt commented (1937:297), “By eliminating in the final report the material obtained during the testing operations and described [in the 1933 report], we gain a much clearer impression of the culture sequences and of the individual culture complexes.” Of course this approach eliminates the need for careful reanalysis of the 1931 data and also eliminates a quantity of unique material.

J.1 Methods

The same excavation methods of were used in 1932 as in the 1931 season.

J.1.1 Maps, Elevations and Cross-Sections

The basic maps made in 1931 were not reproduced in 1937 with the exception of the topographic site plan with superimposed grid (Schmidt 1937: fig. 16). The names of general areas, Main Mound, etc., are now included on the plan. The plan with grid system is reproduced for each period with excavated squares filled in with black: Period I (ibid., fig. 21); Period II (ibid., fig. 61); and Period III (ibid., fig. 83). Cross-sections, as in 1931, continue to be provided in an east-west direction for excavated squares. As in 1931, north-south cross-sections are lacking.

J.1.2 Grid System, Quadrants, “Plots,” Plot Record Numbers, Sections [Rooms/Areas]

The 1931 system continued largely unchanged. Plot record numbers (pr) do not as a rule appear on the plans, although they are often mentioned in the field catalogue. On the other hand, section “S” (i.e., room) numbers are included in the 1937 report: the Painted Pottery Flat, figs. 24–27 (section numbers listed consecutively); the South Hill, fig. 63; the North Flat Level 1, fig. 102, and Level 2 (Burned Building), fig. 91. No such numbers are added to the plan of the Main Mound, fig. 86 (but are preserved in a separate plan in the archives, see below), or on the Treasure Hill plan, fig. 95.

J.1.3 Field Catalogue

The field catalogue from 1931 was carried forward with sequential H numbers ending with H5278.

J.1.4 Plans

Large plans are provided for the major excavated areas as line drawings by the architect: Painted Pottery Flat, (Schmidt 1937: figs. 22 and 23), South Hill (including Building 4) (ibid., fig. 62), Main Mound (including Buildings 1–3) (ibid., fig. 84), the North Flat Level 1 (ibid., fig. 103), Burned Building Level 2 (ibid., fig. 90), and Treasure Hill (ibid., fig. 101). These are the original records from the field. A second set of these plans is provided with Schmidt’s inked-in walls, giving his later interpretation of period and structure. The architectural elements on the plans is obscured by an overload of superimposed burial icons, section (i.e., room), and rarely wall numbers and depth shadings for the walls. The reading of structural plans is made difficult by the inclusion of walls over-riding and underlying the given structures. Furthermore, of great importance but never pointed out, is the fact that although drawn as if on a single excavated level (e.g., the Main Mound, [ibid., fig. 84]), different squares, in fact, lie at different levels (those to the west of Buildings 1 and 2, for example, were 1–2 m higher than the floors of those buildings).

K. Periodization

In 1932, Schmidt (1937: IIA, 106, 299, 303, IIIA, 155, 307) introduced the transitional Periods IIA and IIIA. Their definition is, however, rather vague (Fig. 1.7).

Also, in terms of occupational debris, these two periods are ill-defined. However, these terms are defined ceramically in the 1937 publication:

Thus the group of vessels attributed to Hissar IC may include specimens of Hissar IB and others of the final phase (IIA) of the painted pottery era, overlapping with the beginning of Period I. (Schmidt 1937:48)

Nearly all painted vessels described…were found in graves which also contained the typical grey ware of Hissar II. Consequently, there is no doubt that these vessels belong to the last sub-phase of the painted pottery era, overlapping the beginning of the era of grey ceramics. (ibid., p. 108)

Hissar IB [is] marked by the appearance of the wheel.…The final phase of pottery decoration…is marked by extreme conventionalization of certain Hissar IC patterns, the gazelle design offering the most striking example. Felines disintegrate.…The ibex and the bird seem to have disappeared entirely.…pottery makers turn again to the simple style of decoration used…during Period IA.…At times we could distinguish potsherds only by means of the wheelmarks present on the Hissar II ware [cups and bowls]. (ibid., p. 108)

Fig. 1.7 Correspondence between Schmidt’s defined Levels and Periods.

Vessels and sherds with long-necked gazelles always appear in deposits with an admixture of Hissar II grey ware” (ibid., p. 109); “only such vessels [Hissar IIA grey bowls] are described and pictured as were found associated with painted vessels in the graves.…Bowls with exaggerated tall stems [occur] solely in the grey ware vessels of Hissar II[A]. (ibid., p. 112)

We have little doubt that goblets also occur in the transitional IIA layer, though we have not found specimens definitely attributable to this time. (ibid., p. 114)

However, the very facts that the old chalice form persists and that during the first sub-phase of the new culture period [IIA] painted vessels of the last Hissar I sub-period [IC] rest in the same graves beside the grey pots of the new type, indicate that Hissar I did not end in a destructive catastrophe (ibid., p. 302)

Hissar IIIA is the period of transition from Hissar II to Hissar III…a layer containing material with both Hissar II and III characteristics. In several instances, we are sure, individual objects and even entire graves of Hissar IIB or Hissar IIIB were attributed to this transitional layer, due to find conditions.…The stemmed vessels of Hissar II type…do not show any distinctive features…surviving painted vessels…resemble the surviving vessels of Hissar II more closely than those of Hissar III…the [grey ware] bottle-pitcher appears for the first time…the brazier…occurs during all sub-phases of Hissar III. (ibid., pp. 178, 180)

The technique, the color scheme and the forms of the painted Hissar IIA vessels are identical with the corresponding features of the Hissar IC ware. Partly conventionalized feline patterns occur towards the end of Hissar IC, as well as in IIA…some very distinct features…of Hissar IIA…do not occur in any of the other sub-periods of Hissar I. The most characteristic…pattern is the long-necked gazelle, in certain cases conventionalized beyond recognition.…The disintegration…of the feline pattern is also a typical feature.…The leopard is turning into a headless and tailless decorative element. The designs of some Hissar IIA vessels…resemble…the earliest painted ware of Hissar IA…the color scheme is also identical. On sherds the wheelmarks on the later [IIA] ware sometimes have to decide to which sub-period they should be attributed.…[Grey ware] neckless jars…tall-stemmed bowls or goblets, unstemmed bowls and jars, in addition to…parallel ridges and stipples, suggesting prototypes of metal, are newly introduced features; still, the main ceramic evidence for distinguishing Hissar II and III is the frequency of the stemmed vessel during the first period of grey ware and the absence of stemmed vessels (except for braziers) in Hissar IB and IC. (ibid., pp. 303–304)

The bottle-pitcher…the guide vessel of Hissar IIIB, appears…for the first time. Other new vessel types are the brazier…and the Hissar III painted cup of surviving type.…Cups and goblets of…Hissar II…surviving painted ware are also found as late as Hissar IIIA (ibid., p. 307)

Furthermore, while wheelmarks are usually well pronounced on Hissar II ware, by far the greater part of the Hissar III pottery appears to be made by hand, a puzzling fact. (ibid.)

L. Survey

No survey work at Tepe Hissar is reported for the 1932 season.

M. The 1932 Stratigraphic Sequence

The evidence for the stratigraphic sequence at Tepe Hissar is summarized for 1932 in the 1937 publication (Schmidt 1937: figs. 18 and 19. These cross-sections, north-south and east-west, show the relative depths of the different periods in the various excavated squares. The controlling sequence is in the Main Mound, square DF09, which extends from the surface to below Building 1. The base of the sequence extends a short way, about 1.5 meters, into the top of the earlier painted pottery mound. Slightly less than 2 m above this lies the Period II deposit. At the top is the Period III deposit, about 4 m thick, making a total of about 7.5 m. The projected base of the Period I mound below this column lies a further 2.5 m down, making a sum total of 10 m. At this point, the Period I mound is at its highest, and it is quite possible that its lower core contains an even earlier deposit.

It is notable that no level containing straw-tempered ware was identified, nor was such pottery mentioned at the site, although we now know that it occurs in the period preceding Hissar I at Sang-i Chakhmaq near Shahrud (Dyson 1991). A single sherd of this ware was recovered in 1976 from lot #3 in the deep test on the North Flat in CF57 with sherds of Hissar IC/IIA type (Dyson and Remsen 1989:106), suggesting a possible source lower down.

Period I remains on the cross-section were also reached in the following squares: DF89 (South Hill), CF57 (North Flat), CG25, CG95 (CG Depression), DG96-EH06 (Treasure Hill), and DH43-44 (Painted Pottery Flat).

Period III remains are indicated on the cross-section above Period II levels in: DF79 and DF89 (South Hill), CF42 and CF57 (North Flat), CG95 (CG Depression), CH95-97, DG60, (Treasure Hill), EG06 (Painted Pottery Flat).

Other squares reached these periods as shown on the plans of excavated individual periods:

Period I—DG36, DG96-EG06, DG69, DH21, DH34-36, DH43-46, DH73, EG13 (all from Painted Pottery Flat).

Period II—the same squares as in Period I; DG51, 53, DG60-61, DF78-79-DG70, DF88-89-DG80 (South Hill); CF42, 37, 57 (North Flat); CG25, 95 (CG Depression); CG79-89-99 (Red Hill), CH95-DH05-DH15 (Treasure Hill) (see maps above).

N. South Hill (SH)

The South Hill location includes Building 4 (Sections 15–18), DG60-61 (Schmidt 1937:107, figs. 62, 63) from building Level 2, Period IIB (ibid., p. 106, fig. 63).

It is possible that this structure was actually constructed during the intermediate Hissar II-III phase, namely Hissar IIIA, as some of the vessels found on the floor of Room 15 have definite Hissar II forms…during the transitional phase some stemmed Hissar II pots still occur.…The fireplace (a) is a square elevation with a shallow [round] depression in the center…it is oriented diagonally to the direction of the walls.…The walls and the floors…show the effect of conflagration, but one wall (15b) has no markings of fire and must have been added later, suggesting that the building was at least partly re-used after its destruction. (Schmidt 1937:107)

n.b. Schmidt assigns Building 4 from the South Hill to Period III, however, its stratigraphic position and some of its architectural features are comparable to those of Building 2 on the Main Mound, which dates to Period II in the new chronology.

O. Main Mound Buildings

O.1 Building 1 (Sections 1–7,⁵ Fig. 1.9)

Information on this structure comes from DF09 (Schmidt 1937: 156, figs. 84, 86). Schmidt assigns Building 1 Level 2 to Period IIIB⁶ (ibid., p. 156, fig. 86, no sections marked). “The main livingroom [S1]…apparently the kitchen…is enclosed by mud-plastered walls. The plaster, 15 [cm] in average thickness, consists of many coats, suggesting a rather long occupation of the room. The hearth [d], against the northeast wall] has three rectangular cooking holes; two are on one level, while the third is attached in front of and somewhat below the others [see below]. A doorway at the north corner opens into a narrow room with problematical outlet. A neatly wrought niche, 50 [cm] high, 27 [cm] broad and 19 [cm] deep, is at the side of this doorway. Mud-plastered walls enclose the small divisions of this building” (ibid., p. 155).

The revised archival plan gives the section numbers, which do not occur on figs. 84 and 86 of Schmidt (1937). The plan shows a central room (S1) more or less square that appears to be built against the north wall of Building 2 with no connecting door indicated. This room is about 4 x 4.5 meters square (Schmidt gives no measurements; these must be estimated from the plans). The room is overlain by a curved wall of Building Level 1 (see Schmidt 1933: pl. CXII in DF09 center left and in DF09, figs. 84 and 86). A doorway (1E) leads from Room 1 north to Room 3, a long narrow room about 1 meter wide and 2.5 meters long with no outlet. To the left of this door in Room 1 is a short (70 cm) screen-wall (1D) only 10 cm wide. Against the northeast wall, clearly drawn on the archival plan and on fig. 84, is a raised hearth (1B) with two rectangular openings. In front of these, on the floor, is a third chamber formed by two bricks, one on each side, set against the front of the double hearth. To the left of Room 3 are two sides of a projected Room (2). On the northeast side of Room 3 lies the south end of a space designated as Room 7. South of this room, east of Room 1, is a second room divided on the archival plan into three parts: S4–6. S4 and 6 are separated by a wall about 30 cm wide (ibid.), which appears to abut the main outside walls at either end. It is either a secondary addition or is at a lower level. The wall separating S4 and S5 is similarly unclear. On the plan the southwest wall of Room 1 has a doorway indicated at its north end, probably the main entrance (Schmidt 1937: fig. 84; see also the revised archival plan, Fig. 1.9).

Fig. 1.8 Map of Tepe Hissar’s Main Mound showing the grid system for identifying squares along with locations of burials (after Schmidt 1937: fig.84).

Fig. 1.9 Schmidt’s (1933) revised archival plan of Main Mound Buildings 1 and 2; Building 3, partially excavated (original plan inset).

Unmentioned by Schmidt but documented by a field photograph below (Penn Museum Neg. 83727), is a double row of “crescent-shaped” niches located on the west end of the northwest wall of the main room (S1) (Fig. 1.10). This is the same feature found in Building 3 (see below, Ch. 2).

O.2 Building 2 (Sections 9–12)

Information for this structure can be found in DF09-19-DG00–10 (Schmidt 1937:156, figs. 84, 86) and the revised archival plan (Fig. 1.9). Schmidt assigns Building 2 to Hissar IIIB (ibid., p. 156, fig. 86). “It is difficult to say whether Building 2 formed a separate construction or whether it was combined with one or both of the other buildings” [1 and 3] (ibid., p. 156). Building 3 is too far away beyond intervening structures to be part of Building 2 (see Fig. 2.11). The south wall of Building 1 is continuous and provides no access to Building 2, which is built against it (see Fig. 1.9 and Schmidt 1937: fig. 84).

Fig. 1.10 A field photograph showing a double row of “crescent-shaped” niches located on the west end of the northwest wall of the main room (S1) in Building 1, which Schmidt dated to Hissar IIIB (Courtesy of the Penn Museum, image no. 83727).

The large room [S11]…is supplied with the…rectangular type of fireplace noticed in the main room [S1] of the Burned Building [North Flat] and in a doubtful Hissar IIB-IIIA building [4] on the South Hill.…The hearth…is disoriented in the same manner as the other fireplaces…Screen-walls [11A and 12A] extend from the northern and southern doorways, and a hinge stone [door socket] is in situ at [left of] the southern door. Fragments of mullers were scattered about in the two chambers [S9 and 10] adjoining this room to the northwest. (Schmidt 1937:156)

Room 9 is connected by an opening to the narrow (1 meter wide) passage (S12) separated from the main room (S11) by “screen-wall” 12A. The southwest wall of Room S11 is solid with no openings.

O.3 Building 3

Information on this structure comes from DG00-01-10-11 (Schmidt 1937:156–157, figs. 84, 86). Building Level 2 is assigned to Hissar IIIB (ibid., p. 156, fig. 86). In the revised chronology, Building 3 is dated to Hissar II and transitional Period II-III. “Building 3 was destroyed by a conflagration, as the floor layer of charred debris and the discolored, black and red walls indicate…the rooms…were almost sterile [of objects]” (ibid., p. 156).

The large main room is interesting. The northwest wall (a) is ornamented with crescent-shaped depressions which seem to be filled with a clayey matter [see Dyson and Remsen 1989: fig. 5]. The crescents are 18 [cm] wide by 10 [cm] high, and extend 16 [cm] into the wall. The lowermost of the three rows…is 40 [cm] above the floor. The rectangular platform (90 [cm] square by 15 [cm] high) in the center of the room (b) reminds one of the hearths above described [in Buildings 1 and 2]. However, the central hole is 80 [cm] deep…presumably made to accommodate a central roof support. The original opening was 25 [cm] in diameter. In the western corner of the room (c) marks on the wall suggest the former presence of a storage bin enclosed on two sides by thin walls.

Three mud-plastered terraced fireplaces (d) adjoin the northeast wall. They are 10, 30 and 45 [cm] above the floor respectively. The [south]eastern section (e) of the room is 15 [cm] lower than the rest. A creephole (f), 80 [cm] above the floor, connects the [main] room with a small chamber to the southeast [visible on the fig. 84 plan]. It is the only entrance to this chamber.…A screen-wall (g) is between the creephole and the low section (e) of the main room. (Schmidt 1937:156)

An interesting doorway opens through the southeast wall at the point marked ‘h’. It is a rounded rectangle 95 [cm] high by 80 [cm] wide. The jambs and the sill protrude, while the lintel is flush with the wall.

Another doorway connects the main room in the northeast with a granary subdivided by thin, low walls (25 to 35 [cm] high).…An almost semicircular enclosure adjoins the main room on the south. A mud-brick from the central room to the northwest of the main room measured 54 x 26 x 8.5 [cm]. [This room forms a separate structure, see Ch. 2.] The bricks of all walls appear to be staggered. (ibid., p. 157)

n.b. The plan of Building 3 replicates Buildings 1 and 2 in having a main room surrounded by subsidiary rooms, including a storeroom on the northwest side of the main room. It consists of two features, a rectangular platform in the center of the room (hearth?) and three terraced fireplaces/bins. The building was built in three stages according to Howard and Dyson’s reconstruction: the earliest 3, then 3a, and lastly 3₁. The second building stage (3a) went through a fire and restoration. After burning, the interior walls were plastered. Two main characteristics are its externally buttressed walls and niches on all four exterior walls of room /16/ which are similar to those in Building 1 (see Fig. 1.10 and Fig. 2.11; Dyson and Remsen 1989:80, fig. 5). According to the New Chronology, Building 3 is dated to Period II, phases E-D/D.

P. The North Flat (NF)

The excavations on the North Flat duplicated the sequence for Hissar II and III as found on the Main Mound.

P.1 CF27-28-37-38-47-48

Level 1 is presented in Schmidt (1937:177–178, figs. 102, 103). Note that figs. 102 and 103 only include the southern half of CF27-28—the northern half of CF26-27 and adjacent CF17 must have been removed since the plan of the Burned Building (ibid., fig. 91) covers these squares. Level 1 is assigned to Hissar IIIC, which is characterized by graves with alabaster objects. “In Level 1 we found rather poorly-defined wall remains” (ibid., pp. 177–178). Three small rectangular rooms (S7–9) run west to east with two more rooms (2, 3) running north from Room S9, the only coherent grouping (ibid., p. 177, fig. 102). In a most likely separate structure (Room S1) were found three alabaster “mini-columns”⁷ (H1841–43) and two alabaster discs (H1845, H1846). These finds are noteworthy, as elsewhere these types occur in burials or hoards. They were associated with short-necked grey ware jars (H1848). Recorded brick sizes for adjacent squares are: CF39, Wall 17A, 63/64 x 30 x 11/11.5 cm; and CG30, Wall 21A, 59/60 x 29 x 11 cm (ibid., p. 177).

P.2 CF37-47-57

Level 2 consists of the Burned Building and appears in Schmidt (1937:157–171, figs. 89–94, 102, 103). This structure is fully described by Schmidt since it was well-preserved by fire and contained a rich assortment of objects. The building consisted of a rectangular main room (1) (Fig. 1.11a) with a narrow storage area (4) (Figure 1.11b) entered through a door (1e) on the east side of the room. In the southeast corner a flight of five steps (1b) led upwards to a second level. The upper part (4a) fell on burned debris in Room 4; the fire had also destroyed Room (5), leaving charred human skeletons on the floor (Fig. 1.11c). A stepped structure (1a) with cut-out figures (a) occupied the northeast corner of Room 1 (ibid., fig. 93). A square hearth (1d) set diagonally to the walls lay on the southwest floor. A doorway (3) set back from the western façade led down one step (c) to floor level. The doorway was flanked on both sides by a block of masonry strengthening the entrance, called Gate Passage 3. The southern block (8) was reconstructed as a “tower” (ibid., fig. 94), an effort that ignored the scale of the plan. Another doorway (1f)led out of the main room to an enclosed courtyard (7), called a kitchen, containing a large brick oven block (7a). This courtyard was defined by trench along the inside of its walls (ibid., fig. 89).

Fig. 1.11 Plan and photographs of the Burned Building on the North Flat. (A) CF37 below the floor of the rectangular main room (1), Period IIIB; view toward north (Courtesy of the Penn Museum, image no. PE1942a). (B) CF37–38 narrow storage area (4); view towards south-southwest (Courtesy of the Penn Museum, image no. PE1946). (C) CF27–37 Charred human skeletons on floor of room 5 with room 1 beyond; view towards south (Courtesy of the Penn Museum).

The trench can be seen in Schmidt (1937: fig. 89) along the bottom of the picture where the northern wall is being traced both on the inside and outside. The trench turns south on the right side of the photograph and runs mistakenly into the brick oven block. This error is recorded but not noted on the building plan (ibid., figs. 90, 91). The oven block has a step (a) in front of a square chamber and a square burnt surface on the top. Between the southeast corner of the oven block and a buttress to the left of the door from Room 1 is a low curb enclosing area 5, ending in a posthole. To the right of this, on the courtyard floor, is a pile of collapsed brick (7b). A narrow “creephole” connects the courtyard to a small bin (6) at the north end of storeroom 4. A rectangular storeroom (2) full of pithoi occupied the south end of the building. No entrance to this is shown on the plan. Its floor was “considerably higher than that of Room 1” (ibid., p. 168). At a level 35 cm below the pithoi and the evidence of burning was a brick floor. The south wall is supported by three narrow buttresses. Charred human skeletons were found on the floors of Room 1 and 5 and in 2.

P.3 CF47-48-57

“Level 3” is described in Schmidt (1937:177, figs. 102, 103).

A third level, most probably of Hissar IIIA origin, is visible south and west of the [Burned Building], while most of the 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 assessments of the periodization of Tepe Hissar:

On a layer containing material identical with that of Hissar IC which, in turn, is superimposed upon the earliest Sialk layer identical to Hissar IB.…Thus we know that the entire era of painted pottery (Hissar IC, IB and IA), precedes the Proto-Elamite period and with it the Jamdet Nasr in Mesopotamia; that is we are not far wrong in assuming that Hissar IC ends about 3500 BC, while Hissar IA may actually extend into the fifth millennium. Our conservative estimates of the date of Hissar I as tentatively expressed in the preliminary report [1933] on Tepe Hissar has totally collapsed.…We do not know whether Hissar IC at Sialk was directly followed by the Proto-Elamite occupation and, therefore, we do not know which grey ware phase of Tepe Hissar was contemporaneous with it. For the moment, we assume that it corresponds in time with Hissar IIA and IIB. (Schmidt 1937:321)

It is too early to correlate the sub-phases of Hissar II and III with definite phases of Mesopotamian history.…We could not disregard the striking resemblances between…Early Dynastic Sumer and Hissar IIIC. We are inclined to attribute the end of Hissar III to…the first half of the second millennium BC, but an earlier age may be indicated. (ibid., p. 325)